Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?

A person is knocked unconscious in a car accident, is freed from the wreckage and given the breath of life by a passerby. They have been saved - despite it being only later that they come to realise that is what occurred. So was it with me: saved by Christ without my knowing it at the time. Any description that follows is from the perspective of my knowing now what was happening then. I didn't and couldn't have known then what was in fact happening.At the point of my salvation I didn't believe in Jesus Christ as my saviour - for why should I? I didn't even believe in Gods existance - for why should I? What I did believe though, what I was fully convinced of, was something that God was attempting to bring me to conviction about. That I didn't know then that it was God who working to convince is neither here nor there. All that mattered was that:a) God was the one who was acting to convince me
b) I was convinced of what he was telling meI was convinced I was a lost cause. No good. Rotten at core (irrespective of what lay on the surface or what I might thin of myself once I buried the conviction again). Not a lost cause wrt to any celestial moral system - just lost according to what I knew my own conscience to inform me of. Turns out my own conscience was one of the tools used by God to convince me.I didn't believe in Gods existance. Any gods existance. But I was convinced that unless God existed then there would be no hope for me to escape the truth about me. God, knowing precisely when I would reach this point (and that I would reach this point) was there to guide me to cry out to him. It wasn't so much in the getting his name right. It was in the content of the cry. "I need you"Or "I surrender" if you prefer the mans rebellion picture instead of the prodigal son one. Last census in Ireland produced a figure of approx 90% of Irish people who identified as Christian. The vast majority of them are not Christians. Brian conflates cultural Christiandom with Christianity. Granted, there is the problem of teasing out what is a Christian. But it's his problem as much as it's mine.I'm not of the opinion that a person need even have heard of Christ or the gospel in order to be saved. Everybody has a conscience and everyone can be convinced by that conscience - where ever and whenever they lived. Perhaps in the States that argument would hold water. But not in secularised Ireland. Brians notion of Ireland as a land of Saints and Scholars, dripping Christianity at every pore is about as authentic as a land of leaping leprauchauns. He uses it as a debate ploy so as to take a stab at Christianity. Not because it reflects reality.If anything, Ireland was rabid Roman Catholic - meaning a Bible was about the furthest book from anyones mind.As to why I headed for the Bible? Despite the secularism and despite the Religionism, there are Christians in Ireland - as there are in probably most countries in the world. Christians spread the good news to those around them and when the light goes on for a person, the Christian is there to pick up the born again pieces.There's much to know - and no time for the wasting. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'll take that as sufficient a retraction from your previously absolutest position. Exactly. You doing any different to me? Christians pointed me in the direction of it. I'd do the same for someone who I saw was born again. Your conflating the mother birthing a child with the nurse smacking it's arse. If saving someone is merely a piece in the mechanism whose role is to bring those who want to be with God to God. And damnation is merely a piece in the mechanism that ensures that those who don't want to be with God won't be ... then you don't have to wonder why anymore.He picked me because I (unbeknownst to myself, consciously, before the fact) wanted him.I see only good in a God who lets beings decide upon their own eternal destination. My knowing or not knowing doesn't alter Jesus being my saviour. Had I been saved but knocked down crossing the road 2 seconds afterwards then Jesus would still be my saviour. After I was saved? I'm pretty certain of the opposite. But assuming you were right, at least I'd be a saved muslim. God is no respector of persons (in the sense: what's in a name) The means whereby I am saved and my knowledge of the means whereby ... are two different things. That someone gives an unconscious man the kiss of life is an altogether different affair to the mans knowing of the who/what/when/where/how of his survival. Conflation Brian - and far too much today for a EvC-er of your calibre. I don't suppose the Old Testament characters knew of Jesus conquering death. Certainly Abrahm was declared righteous on account of something completely other than belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Yet Paul utilises his case as the model of salvation in Romans. That's not quite what I said. I said that the theory (Bible) explains the observations (my experience). That's not to say that there aren't other theories out there (religious and non) that would attempt to explain my observations. How did I know that I needed to be saved from something? Experience told me so. The Bible hung a title on it and elaborated on it. Surely the naming of the source of the bad smell and the mechanics of why it smells as bad as it does is other than the experience of the smell? If you experience a bad smell and find a solution after many years surely you could begin to suspect you are on the right track? There must be some explanation for the world being the way it is. Original sin best explains the universality of man being as man is. In my opinion. To be honest, neither was I. I was saved before I ever got to worrying about being looked after - forever or otherwise. I was just dog tired of being me. Drink, drugs and crime are just some of the ways to have a shitty life. Successaholic, materialaholic, thrillacholic, sexaholic are somewhat less frowned upon by society but just as shitty. They fill the ranks of Christianity in my experience - as bottom of the barrel as the drug/drink addict.The issue before God is those who are poor in spirit - however arrived at. God is only ever found at the bottom of a barrel. I'm not sure that anyone has ever figured out how to figure out that probability. Yours is a figure of speech then - meant to underline your (atheistic?) philosophy only. I'm not sure I understand. I answered a question and a new one pops up - apparently unrelated to the issue I was addressing. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

BUMPEdited by Force, : misunderstood OP.

---

Thanks

I believe because dear old grandpa would never lie, and dear old grandpa taught me about Jesus.Brian says, in toto: How so? Please show the reasoning, tracing the circle.This can't be 'circular reasoning' because it isn't reason at all. It's emotion. The speaker is describing a process of bonding.Child bonds with grandpa, grandpa introduces invisible surrogate, emotions transfer to the surrogate.Many cherished beliefs--political as well as religious--are arrived at in this way. The process is one of emotional conditioning. Lasting bonds of this sort are often made before reason can play much of a role.I believe because a light shone round about me and a being spoke to me and identified himself as Jesus.Brian says: I nowhere mentioned Saul or the Bible. I spoke in the first person.The issue is not whether, or where, Brian may have noticed a story like this before. The issue is how belief came to the speaker.In this case, the speaker credits a mystical experience. Many people credit such experiences for beliefs they hold. (People in many different faiths, let it be said.)Mystical experience cannot be 'circular reasoning' because it is not reasoning at all. Mystical experiences are irrational by nature.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Brian writes to Iano: Culture conditions the explanation. The experience itself is irrational.Note this detail I mentioned earlier:

[Belief] need not be based on reasoning or texts at all. Even where these are in the picture, their roles may be secondary.

The universe is a complex system. Many things go into making up an individual's belief system.The primary role in the individual's life is rarely played by texts or logic. Most often it is played by dear old gramps and the emotional transference he encourages. The bonding usually takes place before the individual is old enough to either read or reason. In other cases a key role is played by a mystical experience. Mystical experiences are sensory and subjective. They are intense experiences of transcendent, dreamlike images that are nearly, or completely, wordless. The content of the experience is unpredictable and often seems to defy orthodoxy as much as affirm it (which is why institutional religions often treat mystics with suspicion).Reason enters after the fact, seeking to explain and justify. An irrational experience comes first, then reason tries to catch up.That's why so many 'logical' arguments made for religion turn out to be rationalizations when tested. They are.But that's also why it's too simplistic to say 'all religious belief is based on circular reasoning.' Belief is based on many things. There are primary influences and secondary factors. For many people religious belief is not based primarily on reasoning of any kind.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

The experience is not reasoning but "I had a mystical experience about a guy named Jesus and so therefore I believe in Jesus" is reasoning. The point Brian is trying to make is that the reason their mystical experience centred around a figure called Jesus is because they had already heard about Jesus.The reason it is circular goes as follows:1: The Bible says it is true.
2: I believe the Bible is true and what it says is true.
3: Therefore: since I believe what the Bible says, and it says that it is true, the Bible is true.Circular reasoning, yes? Now, a simple conversion1: My mystical vision in my mystical experience assured me that it was Jesus.
2: I believe my mystical vision was a true experience {as opposed to hallucination or false memory etc} and that what was said in the vision reflects true things.
3: Therefore, since I believe my mystical experience/vision was true and honest and since the mystical experience/vision assured me that it was Jesus, it was Jesus and Christianity is therefore true.Further Brian is pointing out a circularity within that circularity:1: My culture heavily imprints Christian imagery into many significant life events.
2: I have a mystical experience (ie,. significant life event) centred around Christian imagery.
3: I continue the cultural Christian imagery drive.This isn't circular reasoning, though it is a nice little self-feeding process.

And the point made that the reason could be other than that they simply heard about Jesus already? That it was in fact Jesus - the having heard about him beforehand being neither here nor there? What about the case where:1. The person has an experience/experiences2. The Bible describes those experiences and elaborates upon them in a way that resonates better than any other description one has encountered regarding those observations. Furthermore, the Bible also describes other experiences in predictive fashion which the person subsequently observes.3. The person comes to believe other things that the Bible says which have yet to demonstrate themselves to be so.Which would be a reasoned thing to do. Without that reasoning being circular

Okay.Grandpa never lies.
Grandpa says Jesus is Lord and Saviour
You believe Jesus is Lord and Saviour because Grandpa says so
Grandpa never lies.You are caught in the circle. It's the process of bonding that has led you to believe that grandpa never lies, so whatever you believe to be true that grandpa says is circular if you ONLY take his word for it.If grandpa said the world's largest pyramid is in Egypt, and you believe that the world's largest pyramid is in Egypt based solely on grandpa's say so, then this is circular reasoning. The persecuting bit must have given me a short circuit.If the above happened, and the being identified himself as Jesus, how would you know who Jesus was/is?I need to answer your final point tomorrow, I am busy for the rest of the day.Cheers.Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

What about it? Comes under the cultural self-feeding process I described. What 'resonates' with people is statistically influenced by their culture.

This about it; it wouldn't come under the cultural self-feeding process you described.

I'm not trying to demonstrate that mystical experiences are never experiences about real supernatural entities. I was simply talking about how any given mystical experience is interpreted by the person who had it. That is: How does a person go from 'I had a mystical experience about entity x' to 'Entity X is therefore real' (and also what influences there are on causing.entity x being the subject in the first place)You cannot escape the clear fact that large numbers of people have mystical experiences, and the majority of those interpret it within their cultural framework which usually means 'religion'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Mod,The same could be said about any belief, so... everything you accept is circularly reasoned!?

If not all, then the vast majority of beliefs are involved in the cultural feedback scenario, obviously. How am I saying that everything is circularly reasoned though?

Sorry, I misundertood you. I thought you were saying that the self-feeding process was circular reasoning. I looked back and found this:from Message 21

quote:

---

This isn't circular reasoning, though it is a nice little self-feeding process.

---

My bad.But hey, thanks for comming back. I like reading your posts.

Right. The belief began with the emotional bond.The belief does not arise from a reasoned argument, flawed or otherwise. The 'reasoning'--really just a description of the bonding-and-surrogate process--is assembled post hoc.The example serves to show how the hypothesis 'All religious belief is based on circular reasoning' fails the test of known facts. Religious belief springs from many things. It often has its origins outside 'reasoning' entirely. Belief may spring primarily from an emotional bond or an irrational experience, as I have suggested. It may spring from the involuntary effects of cultural conditioning, as you yourself have suggested.In such cases the individual believes on irrational grounds. The arguments enter after the fact when individuals try to explain why they believe as they do. Flawed logic is par for the course at such moments. One is, after all, trying to rationalize the irrational.(Experienced mystics know better than to bother. They understand that their experience is symbolic rather than rational in nature. So they communicate using paradox and riddles instead. They say things like 'I am in you and you are in me.' A statement like this is poetic, it's evocative, it's intimate, it's numinous--and logically, it's apple sauce.)You are on firmer ground if you submit a hypothesis like 'All arguments for belief in God are ultimately circular.' This gets you out of the business of making grandiose claims about single universal causes for complex real-life phenomena. It places the discussion in the realm of rational argument. This is obviously where you intend to operate, and it's where the hypothesis is demonstrated or disproved in any case.----Post Script (parenthetical)The hypothesis runs into other problems, too. Let's grant the premise that 'all religious belief is based on reasoning,' which it isn't, and move right on to the premise that the reasoning is always fallacious. Let's grant that, too. Now we want to examine the premise that the fatal fallacy is always 'circularity.'You say the grandpa bonding 'argument' sinks because it is circular. But you neglected to mention that it sinks on at least two other fallacies: (1) argument from authority, and (2) ignoring all possibilities, such as the possibility that even honest grandparents can be mistaken.We can as easily submit a hypothesis that 'All belief is based on argument from authority' or 'All belief is based on argument that ignores all possibilities.' Each hypothesis would appear to have as much going for it as your OP, and each would run into the same difficulties.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : seplling!Edited by Archer Opterix, : seplling agina.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.