[kenberg]

I agree a lot but not completely with Nick's comments.

I believe Caesar, Cleopatra and Euclid existed. Adam and Eve I take to be a fable. Where in the existence continuum does Jesus fit in?

Is it important? Well, not so much to me but to some, I think the answer is "Very".

From reading the Wikepedia (stimulated by this thread) I see that there is debate about the historical reality of Moses (not so surprising to me) and even about the reality of the exodus (more surprising to me). Is this important and to whom?


My understanding of the Jewish religion is that it is more resilient in coping with such issues. If a Jew becomes convinced Moses was not a historical figure I suspect he still goes to Synagogue the next day. Christians, at least many of them, invest more heavily in the literal accuracy of their texts.

If I found out tomorrow that Cleopatra is historical fiction my life would continue unchanged. Same thing if I found that Jesus is a myth, but then I am not a religious person.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Jul 6 2008, 11:08 AM, said:

If I found out tomorrow that Cleopatra is historical fiction my life would continue unchanged. Same thing if I found that Jesus is a myth, but then I am not a religious person.

I am not a religious person, but I live in a religious society. My personal beliefs would not change if it is proven that Jesus is a myth, but I expect society would change and this would affect my life.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Jul 5 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

To start with the obvious, what is the sublunar sphere of heaven?
Why was blood necessary for atonement?
What law was he fulfilling?

Hi Ken

It is the animal realm. This has to do with our animus and more specifically with the akachic annals and the conversion of instinct into reactive memory. Your soul if you prefer.

Blood is the symbol of life and to represent the consecration of the giving of life requires the appropriate symbol.

The law of return. (errr What goes around, comes around? Karma. Destiny. Evolution.) Re-incarnation is the rebound of karmic inadequacy.

[kenberg]

The sublunar sphere of heaven is the animal realm? Cows and horses? That's why dogs howl at the moon?

Clearly I shouldn't be in this discussion. It's not just that I don't understand but rather that I can't imagine understanding this.

I'm sorry, obviously I am in the wrong pew and I won't keep beating on this, but I do find it very weird.

At the astrology party a few weeks back I excused myself and took a walk in the countryside. Here I will go play some hands.

I hope we are still friends,
Ken

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 10:08 PM, said:

The only difference is that I don't see it so much as a choice but as an acceptance of the better argument.

i take this to mean that the argument from silence is the 'better argument' to you, better than the many references to Jesus' existence found in various writings... fwiw, the afs can be and is used quite a lot, but it's still fallacious

it seems to me that the argument to the best explanation you use is based almost entirely on the fallacious afs... finally, and not to be too critical, the review leaves a lot to be desired, and if it is an accurate representation of the book then that also seems to leave a lot to be desired

there were various posts pointing to several 'christians' as having said that the historical Jesus is not necessary to christianity... that is absolutely false... he either lived, died, and was resurrected or christianity is a lie... there is no middle ground... "if Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain (it avails you nothing)"

[Gerben42]

Quote

I am not a religious person, but I live in a religious society. My personal beliefs would not change if it is proven that Jesus is a myth, but I expect society would change and this would affect my life.

How would it change? There is many evidence that if you prove something, that does nada changing people's beliefs and convictions. People who go to church will continue to go to church.

Even if we would suddenly find life on Mars, there would be someone who would somehow "fix" any problems with their religious story and life would go on unchanged.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Jul 6 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

The sublunar sphere of heaven is the animal realm? Cows and horses? That's why dogs howl at the moon?

Clearly I shouldn't be in this discussion. It's not just that I don't understand but rather that I can't imagine understanding this.

I'm sorry, obviously I am in the wrong pew and I won't keep beating on this, but I do find it very weird.

At the astrology party a few weeks back I excused myself and took a walk in the countryside. Here I will go play some hands.

I hope we are still friends,
Ken

Have you been neglecting your education again?

There is still time.....

still friends tho'....

[barmar]

kenberg, on Jul 6 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

From reading the Wikepedia (stimulated by this thread) I see that there is debate about the historical reality of Moses (not so surprising to me) and even about the reality of the exodus (more surprising to me). Is this important and to whom?


My understanding of the Jewish religion is that it is more resilient in coping with such issues. If a Jew becomes convinced Moses was not a historical figure I suspect he still goes to Synagogue the next day. Christians, at least many of them, invest more heavily in the literal accuracy of their texts.

I read that there's no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved by Egyptians a few months ago. But I still celebrated Passover with my family, out of tradition. I didn't bring this up (although I told my mother that I've been an atheist for a while), but it sure felt hypocritical reciting all that stuff during the seder.

[Al_U_Card]

It is the content and not the form that counts. You love your family and wish them well and going along with what makes it easier for them is not a bad thing.

[Gerben42]

Quote

I read that there's no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved by Egyptians a few months ago. But I still celebrated Passover with my family, out of tradition. I didn't bring this up (although I told my mother that I've been an atheist for a while), but it sure felt hypocritical reciting all that stuff during the seder.

The Egyptians probably didn't make much of a distinction who they enslaved 3000+ years ago. After all, slavery was just a fact of life back then, and Egypt a superpower.

Anyway I am glad I've never been put in your position. I attended church twice for certain family celebrations (my grandmother is Catholic), but I was just a passive observer and didn't participate in the rituals. I think perhaps a short talk with a selected family member about your feelings might help.

[luke warm]

while it's true that not much can be determined yet about this story, i think it's interesting nonetheless

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE (Winstonm @ Jul 5 2008, 10:08 PM)
The only difference is that I don't see it so much as a choice but as an acceptance of the better argument. 


i take this to mean that the argument from silence is the 'better argument' to you, better than the many references to Jesus' existence found in various writings... fwiw, the afs can be and is used quite a lot, but it's still fallacious

Actually, I have no position as I have not read the book so I don't know if I believe his argument from best explanation is valid - as for the argument from silence, I put it at 50-50.

Quote

it seems to me that the argument to the best explanation you use is based almost entirely on the fallacious afs... finally, and not to be too critical, the review leaves a lot to be desired, and if it is an accurate representation of the book then that also seems to leave a lot to be desired

Perhaps - but I think the important point is to be able to look at any controversy with an open mind and not try to defend a position. It is the truth that will make you free, remember, not a belief in a fallacy.

Quote

there were various posts pointing to several 'christians' as having said that the historical Jesus is not necessary to christianity... that is absolutely false... he either lived, died, and was resurrected or christianity is a lie... there is no middle ground... "if Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain (it avails you nothing)"

This is strong comment that doesn't apply to all who call themselves christians - to wit, here is an interview by Valerie Terico of Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions and mythology. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He has taught at Seattle University for the past fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is a Presbyterian minister.

Quote

Tarico: No rudeness intended, but how can you call yourself a Christian? Rev. Mark Driscoll, at Mars Hill megachurch in Seattle told his congregation: “If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, there is no reason for us to be here.”

Nugent: Well, many Christian theologians see the crucifixion and resurrection as a spiritual story about hope beyond despair, redemption and new life, but they are not the ones who get the media attention. I consider myself to be a Christian in a spiritual sense, not in a doctrinal sense. This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century orthodoxy was established Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy -- many different forms of belief.

If the resurrection of Christ didn't literally happen, or if there is no life beyond this one, that has no bearing for me on whether life now is worth living. Nor is Christianity for me the only true religion. I think Judaism, Islam, and other faith traditions are just as true and holy as Christianity. From my vantage, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, what is strange to me is how people like our president who think it's ok to practice torture can sincerely call themselves Christians. Like the bumper sticker says, “Who would Jesus waterboard?” If Christ’s torture and crucifixion mean anything, I think they mean that we should put an end to such practices in human affairs. Right-wing evangelical Christianity is really the opposite of what Christ was about. The intolerant and arrogant form of Christianity is in a real sense, to me, the religion of the Antichrist.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 7 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

This is strong comment that doesn't apply to all who call themselves christians - to wit, here is an interview by Valerie Terico of Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions and mythology. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He has taught at Seattle University for the past fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is a Presbyterian minister.

with respects to the good doctor, i'll stick with the apostle paul

[Al_U_Card]

Oh yeah, good ol' Paul of Tarsus....I was channeling him just the other day.....he said to say "Hi"...

[nige1]

luke warm, on Jul 4 2008, 09:34 PM, said:

'Christ' means 'Messiah'

Online Etymological Dictionary said:

Christ    O.E. crist, from L. Christus, from Gk. khristos "the anointed" (translation of Heb. mashiah, see messiah), from khriein "to rub, anoint," title given to Jesus of Nazareth. The L. term drove out O.E. hæland "healer" as the preferred descriptive term for Jesus. A title, treated as a proper name in O.E., but not regularly capitalized until 17c. Pronunciation with long -i- is result of Ir. missionary work in England, 7c.-8c. The Ch- form, regular since c.1500, was rare before. Christmas is O.E. Cristes mæsse and retains original vowel sound; Father Christmas first attested in a carol attributed to Richard Smart, Rector of Plymtree (Devon) from 1435-77. Christmas tree first attested 1835 in Amer.Eng., from Ger. Weihnachtsbaum. Christmas cards first designed 1843, popular by 1860s.

It's hard to prove historical claims, even about recent events. David Irving is a brilliant historian who denied the Holocaust and advanced many plausible arguments in support of his theories. Nevertheless, I believe the Holocaust was an historical event. It's harder to establish facts about events that allegedly occurred thousands of years ago. Notwithstanding such reservations, the balance of evidence for a historical Jesus convinces me (and many non-Christians).

[Gerben42]

Quote

David Irving is a brilliant historian who denied the Holocaust

If that is the case, brilliant is not the right word. Delusional or crazy come to mind, and possibly dangerous.

[luke warm]

Gerben42, on Jul 9 2008, 02:17 AM, said:

Quote

David Irving is a brilliant historian who denied the Holocaust

If that is the case, brilliant is not the right word. Delusional or crazy come to mind, and possibly dangerous.

i think if the WC has proved anything it's that being brilliant and being wrong are not mutually exclusive

[HeavyDluxe]

Never mind...