|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Existence of Jesus Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
For the average pagan and Jew, the bulk of the workings of the universe went on in the vast unseen spiritual realm (the "genuine" part of the universe) which began at the lowest level of the "air" and extended ever upward through the various layers of heaven. Here a savior god like Mithras could slay a bull, Attis could be castrated, and Christ could be hung on a tree by "the god of that world," meaning Satan (see the Ascension of Isaiah 9:14). The plainest interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews 9:11-14 is that Christ's sacrifice took place in a non-earthly setting and a spiritual time; 8:4 virtually tells us that he had never been on earth. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:44-49 and elsewhere can speak of Christ as "man" (anthropos), but he is the ideal, heavenly man (a widespread type of idea in the ancient world, including Philo: see Supplementary Article No. 8: Christ as "Man"), whose spiritual "body" provides the prototype for the heavenly body Christians will receive at their resurrection. For minds like Paul's, such higher world counterparts had as real an existence as the flesh and blood human beings around them on earth. It is in much the same sense that Paul, in Romans 1 and Galatians 4, declares Christ to have been "of David's stock," born under the Law. The source of such statements is scripture, not historical tradition. The sacred writings were seen as providing a picture of the spiritual world, the realities in heaven. Since the spiritual Christ was now identified with the Messiah, all scriptural passages presumed to be about the Messiah had to be applied to him, even if understood in a mythical or Platonic sense. Several references predicted that the Messiah would be descended from David: thus Romans 1:3 (and elsewhere). Note that 1:2 points unequivocally to scripture as the source of this doctrine. (As does 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 for the source of Jesus' death and resurrection.) Isaiah 7:14, to give another example, supposedly spoke of the Messiah as born of a young woman, and so Paul in Galatians 4:4 tells us that Christ was "born of woman". (Note that he never gives the name of Mary, or anything about this "woman." Nor does he identify the time or place of this "birth".) The mysteries may not have had the same range of sacred writings to supply their own details, but the savior god myths contained equally human-like elements which were understood entirely in a mythical setting. Dionysos too had been born in a cave of a woman. Earl Doherty AgeOfReason
The mythicist argument is not that Paul never said those things. The argument is about what he was talking about. The resurrection did not take place on earth in recent times in Jerusalem. That is an idea that was developed later, perhaps by the author of the Gospel of Mark. What the early chuch left of early writings is not an acurrate picture of the way people thought in the days of Paul. At this time there is not enough evidence to establish a historical vs. a mythical Jesus, but the mythicist have some strong arguments. Of course if you are a believer in the story Church authorities have been conveying then this argument is one you must resist and attack as an apologist. That is not the same sort of reasoned criticism a scholar would make. Apologists use the emotional rhetoric of persuassion and ridicule. Perhaps this is very effective for the average church goer but I find it boring, empty and meaningless. Earl Doherty's study of the NT is in depth and he has some interesting perceptions. I don't think he has proved his case but given the evidence, propaganda and wishful thinking aside, not enough is known to establish the historicity of Jesus. And yes, Christians, and believers in other mythical Truths have died for these truths. It's something some humans do. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4817 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
Careful with this logic. With your reasoning we can just as easily say that the heaven's gate people didn't meet their God, nor did they have any rational explination for their belief, yet they died for it. Isn't this proof that the apostles didn't need proof to die for their belief either?
Brad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3472 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings again,
quote: Thank you :-)It is easy to be mis-understood or to accidentally give offense. quote: Well, that's a fair comment - certain absences do form a large part of my case.
quote: Hmmm..Perhaps calling it a "Torah observant cult" is a bit strong, considering we know very little about it. Splits from Judaism were hardly un-common in those times - the early Jerusalem cult could have been a sect that had re-interpreted the Torah to suit their new beliefs, wherever they may have sprung (middle-platonism, Philo, Kabalah, Hermeticism ?) In other words, we don't know the state of the Jerusalem cult, so I don't think there is much of an argument to be made from that. To give a specific answer - I do not know why it happened. But consider some other examples -Why did Mohamed claim the Angel spoke to him? Why did Joseph Smith claim an angel spoke to him? (It's interesting - both accounts apparently refer to being "pressed" by a spiritual being - an experience sometimes reported by modern observers who claim to have encountered spiritual beings.) Why did the Hermetic writings claim to cite a higher being? Have you read he Ascension of Isaiah?Or the Vision of Arideus? (from Plutarch's On the Dealy of Divine Justice.) Or the Golden Ass? These are exmples of contemporary writings which are rooted in experiences of spiritual beings. We can see modern examples in the founding of the Golden Dawn - the various splits, the belief in meeting tha "masters"; or Theosophy - the various founders vying for favour with their "masters" People believe they experience spiritual beings and form new cults as a result. Some specific reasons that I think this model fits better than a historical Jesus :* no contemporary evidence * similarity with other pagan God-men stories * the clear dependance of the Gospels on the OT * the total lack of any specific evidence that any Christian ever met Jesus * the spiritual wordings in Paul, and lack of earthly references * Paul's usage of initiatory language (we speak wisdom among the telioi) * Paul's mention of travelling to the 3rd heaven * the many early Christians who denied an earthly Jesus (e.g. in John, Polycarp, Basilides, Bardesanes, Marcion, many Gnostics, Minucius.) quote: Ummm..Yes, it's POSSIBLE Jesus existed. No, I don't believe that he did. quote: In Paul's description of his visit to Jerusalem, his actions and comments simply do not allow for a historical Jesus -* Paul totally fails to mention the Gospel events and places even when he visits Jerusalem - without even mentioing e.g. Calvary - but a believing Christian would be expected to visit the sites etc. * Paul dismisses the pillars of the Church - he is as much an apostle as them - this could not be true if they had met an earthly Jesus. quote: Hmm .. not quite sure what you mean there... I don't think Jesus Christ matches those figures very well.
quote: Whoops, I exaggerated your statement - sorry.
quote: Well, firstly, I take the view that Christianity started with much variation in views which merged, rather than a Big Bang model. Ebionites and Judaizers would be some of the variant threads within the cult, I don't see why this would mean a historical Jesus. As for Q - well, what signs of a historical Jesus are in there exactly?
quote: This a fair and valid criticism of my work. It is true that I did not come to the mythical Jesus view based on what we know of the Jerusalem cult - I formed this view based on the totality of other evidence. The early Jerusalem church is a not something I know much about - I wonder if anyone does. In that sense, my comments are high in speculation I guess. I have appreciated your knowledgable comments and questions, perhaps you would like to expound your ideas a bit more? How do you see the early Jerusalem cult? What do you think Paul believed about Jesus? How about the origins and dating of the Gospels? Why do so many 2nd century Christians not know, or even deny an earthly Jesus? Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1269 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
There was a guy named Paul that believed in a man named Jesus?
note:Topic title existance (sic) listen to phil collins and nas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
claims are not always true. lots of people are willing to die for their faith, no matter the religion or the veracity of it. That's true but you guys are misreading Codetrainer's point. The point has been made here that Paul and Peter and the early church did not believe in a literal man Jesus that was crucified, buried and rose again. Now, the fact they were willing to die for their belief in a literal Jesus and his resurrection does not by itself prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it does prove they believed he rose from the dead. As far as considering whether their faith is correct, one would have to start considering other factors, such as why did they beleive it. Were they deluded by a charismatic preacher that told them it was true, like the Heaven's Gate people? No. They claimed to have direct personal experience with Jesus, something most believers claim although not to have witnessed his resurrected body as they claimed. But it's clear the religion is based on direct personal experience and testimony of that, and that the early apostles all believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. Now, we could get into this, and some atheists have even come to faith reasoning on why would they accept Jesus as Resurrected if it did not happen, the empty tomb, etc,... As far as this thread topic, I think it's safe to say they believed Jesus rose from the dead and were willing to be martyred for that belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i was making a slight ot comment. however.
The point has been made here that Paul and Peter and the early church did not believe in a literal man Jesus that was crucified, buried and rose again. that wouldn't really suprise me, if it were true. there was actually a whole subset of the church who didn't believe in a literal jesus.
Now, the fact they were willing to die for their belief in a literal Jesus and his resurrection does not by itself prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but it does prove they believed he rose from the dead. not neccessarily. that subset of believers that didn't believe in the literal jesus, the gnostics, also died for their faith. my point is that faith is a very strong thing, and really has nothing to do with the particulars of the belief.
Were they deluded by a charismatic preacher that told them it was true, like the Heaven's Gate people? No. They claimed to have direct personal experience with Jesus, something most believers claim although not to have witnessed his resurrected body as they claimed. But it's clear the religion is based on direct personal experience and testimony of that, and that the early apostles all believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. faith, to me, is not really valuable without doubt. if i can't doubt it, there's no reason for it to be special that i believe. similar to your point, lots of buddhists have direct personal experiences with the buddha. heck, you can even get photos of him.
see? a real, tangible person that people can interact with. he's even given a lecture at my college. real personal experience is completely meaningless. even if jesus was real, he could still be lying, insane, a demon, or any number of other possibilities. people of other religions, ESPECIALLY cults like heaven's gate, all make the same claims christian do. except we don't claim our leader still walks around and lecture at colleges. you have to remember also that we're only being told that someone, somewhere, at sometime had something like proof. maybe we're being deluded by some charismatic preacher, like luke for instance? how does a gospel testimony differ from the hypothetical heaven's gate testimony, if both only say they saw something?
As far as this thread topic, I think it's safe to say they believed Jesus rose from the dead and were willing to be martyred for that belief. some, certainly. i've even heard suggestions that martyrdom was encouraged, like in some modern fanatical muslim circles. my point is that they truly believe SOMETHING, anything really. the specifics of it don't matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well arachno, people have spiritual experiences and interpret them differently or even disbelieve they happened after awhile. I tend think there will always be the opportunity to doubt, to reject the believing perspective because to believe contains an element of risk since perhaps one is wrong about what they think occurred.
Doubt too is risky. For myself, I really have come too far with Jesus to doubt He exists. I can doubt I am hearing the right thing, that I understand His message, the Bible, etc,....but truth must be built upon truth, and for me, Jesus has proven Himself as real beyond all reasonable doubt. And that's the thing about these discussions. The implication is that faith or beliefs can be arrived at exclusively via objective analysis, and unfortunately, there is probably no such thing as pure objective analysis in the human heart, and if there is, it is subject to the presuppositions one starts with. For me, with or without the Bible, nor any other Christians, nor any academic study at all, I would and could still preach Jesus Christ born, crucified and resurrected. I was not taught these things from people, nor learned them from academic study but received them in an experience you would probably call highly subjective or something, but which was, imo, an experience of a more solid reality, the reality I would argue. Let me add that perhaps everything boils down to subjective experience first, and then the objective analysis. Life consists of subjective experience. We base our objectivity then upon subjective experience first, not the other way around. So we have different starting points due to differing experiences, and perhaps that makes convincing someone via reason alone insufficient. They must partake of the experiential knowledge of Christ somehow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
to believe contains an element of risk... Doubt too is risky. seem to me that doubt is the risker of the two. if it's all a sham, christianity is not a loss. but if christianity is right, doubt will land your ass in hell. there's a lot of "just in case" believers, i think. and i think that's part of how a lot of people are converted: fear of "what if it's true?" the story of my conversion had nothing to do with jesus or heaven or hell, it had to do with abraham i think. but i'd be lying if i said that didn't play a role.
So we have different starting points due to differing experiences you assume alot. i've been just about every type of christian there is, short of a yec. i also spent alot of time trying to justify old-earth creationism and match with with evolution/geology/cosmology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, indulge me a bit then....
What sort of experiences did you have with the Holy Spirit, recognizing that maybe you are not sure, perhaps, if it was the Holy Spirit or something else? In other words, what was your personal experience with what you felt was God at the time, and how have you come to think of it now? Imo, I think like Paul, that if Christ is not risen, we are of all men most miserable, but trying to explain that gets into a lot of esoteric areas concerning the Cross and spiritual warfare. I will say this about myself, at personal risk here on this board, in an effort to encourage you to disclose some of your personal history. Many of my ideas on reality, such as a non-static past, stemmed from direct experience and spiritual experimentation, mostly nearly 20 years ago as a young man. But the discoveries and their implications were so astounding that I generally learned not to discuss them with people, and despite knowing their veracity, it was quite a shock to my world. Along with these revelations and discoveries were things like understanding there were such things as spiritual forces and beings, and not all good, and that was very unnerving considering I was not raised to consider anything like that to be anything other than a myth. But what I found incredibly intriguing is how quantum physics and physics research began to explain my perceptions and experience of reality. It was amazing. Even side issues, such as one day thinking about how prime numbers were a key to understanding "superpositional math" (that was the phrase in my head that I felt like the Holy Spirit was discussing with me) that involved QM effects, well to learn that my idea which stemmed direct from God, imo, or some sort of communal ESP maybe, that there were a ton of folks working on that issue was very exciting as far the science. But that was more of a thought, or inspiration, and perhaps not even from God or correct, though I think it is. The experiences referred to earlier in the post were of a qualitatively different nature. This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 02:07 AM This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 02:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What sort of experiences did you have with the Holy Spirit, recognizing that maybe you are not sure, perhaps, if it was the Holy Spirit or something else? i hope you don't take this as dodging, or as a joke. but there are just some things i don't really discuss. and the inner workings of my faith i've never really shared with anyone, even the religious people i've been close to.
quote: But the discoveries and their implications were so astounding that I generally learned not to discuss them with people, and despite knowing their veracity, it was quite a shock to my world. well, i have a rather interesting belief regarding the future evolution of the human race, and our relationship to god. it's not one well recieved by most believers. or rather, it takes way too much debate to get across what i mean. but as for actual experiences, i couldn't even find a framework with which to convey my relationship with my god to another, even if i wanted to. sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
That's sort of too bad if you cannot think of even how to relate your religious experience with God on a personal level.
But if you do not wish to discuss it, that's fine, and I mean that sincerely. At the same time, to post of how you used to think along similar lines or some such sort of violates that to a degree, but it is still understandable. Imo, one's subjective experience of God or lack thereof, or failure to recognize something was indeed God, probably has a whole lot to do with their faith, and their presuppositions, and thus affects their suppossed objective analysis in this area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4336 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Why couldn’t the Apostles be martyred, assuming they were, and not have a believe in the resurrection or some other specific Christian Doctrine? Even if your base argument is correct, why would it prove so specific a doctrine as resurrection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Well, this gets back to why would Christ crucified be a stumbling block to the Jews and Gentiles in the way Paul presents it, and others?
If he were able to spin this as simply an esoteric mystery religion, it's hard to see how the pagans would have been offended. If this were a gnostic thing with really more than one god, since Christ is rejected by the false god of material, then it is doubtful the pagans would have minded. Basically, all the evidence we have suggests that they really believed in the Resurrection and were killed for that beleif. They deny Jesus' rose from the dead, and present him as an enlightened Rabbi, and they basically would have been fine, for the most part, and not faced such intense persecution. Moreover, it's really a strain to place the New Testament date of writing outside of the first century. Basically, the scoffers want to remove all of the evidence we have, and then deduce from mere imagination what could have been, if we discount, without good reason I might add, the New Testament as historically being written by early Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Does anyone recall the discussion where someone was trying to prove that the disciples all died horrible deaths but stuck to their belief in the ressurection?
If I recall correctly, that member was unable to prove a single martyrdom of any disciple. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
quote:And I yours. Thank you for your extensive comments. I'll not be able to adequately respond for a week or two (long trip, grandkids, Bar Mitzvah, etc.) and I didn't want you to think that I had overlooked or ignored your post. For now, let me just say that I see little in 'Q' or Acts to suggest anything other than Torah observant Jews. Put somewhat differently, I see little of Paul in 'Q'. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024