Something Else I Didn't Know...Duh

[Winstonm]

It seems to me that Jesus was a real person, after all there are many independent sources, esp. Roman ones, that refer to him.

 

Gerben, I certainly do not think yours an unreasonable belief; however, I also am now reasobably convinced that there is certainly reason to question that assumption.

After all, up until Catholicism there were numerous "types" of Chritianity and not all believed in a literal Jesus, such as the different groups listed together as gnostics.

 

I do not think it silly to believe, but I equally believe it is right to question.

[pigpenz]

the main historian at that time was some named Josephus (spelling not sure) but in his recocrds there was never any mention of Jesus.

 

Having grown up a catholic

1. The council of Lycea officially names Jesus , God in about 400AD...people couldnt deal with him being son of god and god. Arian heresy

2. Jesus was a jew. Supposedly a rabbi, IMHO he never intended to start a religion. Paul was the main person for recruiting people into christianity which at the beginning was a subsect of judaism. People like it cause as adults they didnt need to be circumsribed.

 

books:

When Jesus became God

The passover plot

[Winstonm]

1. The council of Lycea officially names Jesus , God in about 400AD...

 

If I understand the history correctly, there were many different "christian" sects who held different beliefs until Constantine (?) made a specific sect the official Roman religion (hence outlawing any others and quashing those whose beliefs were different than the official version - and thus also eliminating any other manuscripts that differed from the "official" version.)

[mike777]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Winstonm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mike, very interesting and a good find. While reading it, though, I had the thought that all this really would show is that the myth of resurrection in 3 days had been part of Jewish mythology, so to have this included in the Jesus story would make as strong a case for a Jesus myth as it would for a Jesus reality.

[mike777]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mike, very interesting and a good find. While reading it, though, I had the thought that all this really would show is that the myth of resurrection in 3 days had been part of Jewish mythology, so to have this included in the Jesus story would make as strong a case for a Jesus myth as it would for a Jesus reality.

Winston are you suggesting that there is some connection between the story of Jesus and the Jewish religious history and teachings?

[Winstonm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mike, very interesting and a good find. While reading it, though, I had the thought that all this really would show is that the myth of resurrection in 3 days had been part of Jewish mythology, so to have this included in the Jesus story would make as strong a case for a Jesus myth as it would for a Jesus reality.

Winston are you suggesting that there is some connection between the story of Jesus and the Jewish religious history and teachings?

I am commenting on the NYT story, Mike, in that IF the tablet found does indeed show that a resurrection story had been part of Jewish mythology then it would make as much sense for it to be incorporated in Christianity whether Jesus was real or a myth.

 

 

Pagans had resurrection stories - see the pagan gods Inanna and Zalmoxis for resurrection themes. In fact, Inanna was trapped in the "Netherworld" as a corpse for 3 days.

[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me that the early "christian" (as in illuminated or touched by god's light) theosophy included reincarnation more than resurrection. It was one of the main tenets that Constantine got rid of during the first reformation...

 

Tell the same story, over and over, and punish disbelief and reward belief....sounds like your classic mind control/brainwashing techniques....Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack...right....right...right?

[kenberg]

I thas been suggested that some posters are incapable of understanding the review. That certainly applies to me.

 

Here is the beginning of the reviews sectin on The Sublunar Incarnation Theory

 

Central to Doherty's thesis is his reinterpretation of the nature of the Incarnation as held by the earliest Christians (including Paul and some other epistle authors), such as by rereading the strange yet oft-repeated reference to kata sarka, "according to the flesh" (as usually translated). Doherty does confuse readers, I think, when he denies the Incarnation here and there, equating that word with the earthly sojourn. However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth. So though you might get the opposite impression from Doherty 's rhetoric (and he needs to reword several passages to remove the confusion), his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

 

To start with the obvious, what is the sublunar sphere of heaven?

Why was blood necessary for atonement?

What law was he fulfilling?

Is the reviewer saying (he appears to be) saying) that Doherty is saying that there actually was a flesh and blood Jesus but he lived in the sublunar sphere of heaven rather than on earth? Adter all, the reviewer asserts: "However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth."

Doherty used standard historical methods for deciding whether Jesus existed on earth or in the sublunar sphere of heaven?

 

Every once in a while I get stuck talking with an astrology freak. They sound just like this.

 

 

No, I cannot understand the review. I confess, I cannot.

[Winstonm]

I thas been suggested that some posters are incapable of understanding the review. That certainly applies to me.

 

Here is the beginning of the reviews sectin on The  Sublunar Incarnation Theory

 

Central to Doherty's thesis is his reinterpretation of the nature of the Incarnation as held by the earliest Christians (including Paul and some other epistle authors), such as by rereading the strange yet oft-repeated reference to kata sarka, "according to the flesh" (as usually translated). Doherty does confuse readers, I think, when he  denies the Incarnation here and there, equating that word with the earthly sojourn. However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth. So though you might get the opposite impression from Doherty 's rhetoric (and he needs to reword several passages to remove the confusion), his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

 

To start with the obvious, what is the sublunar sphere of heaven?

Why was blood necessary for atonement?

What law was he fulfilling?

Is the reviewer saying (he appears to be) saying) that Doherty is saying that  there actually was a flesh and blood Jesus but he lived in the sublunar sphere of heaven rather than on earth? Adter all, the reviewer asserts: "However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth."

Doherty used standard historical methods for deciding whether Jesus existed on earth or in the sublunar sphere of heaven?

 

Every once in a while I get stuck talking with an astrology freak. They sound just like this.

 

 

No, I cannot understand the review. I confess, I cannot.

Maybe this from Carrier will help, Ken: (emphasis added)

 

As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

 

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant.

 

Or in other words, Jesus was not a historic necessity according to Doherty's thesis that Christianity began as mysticism (myth, as it was also known).

[luke warm]

well i guess we're left with which authorities to believe... everybody has to make a choice on their own

[Winstonm]

well i guess we're left with which authorities to believe... everybody has to make a choice on their own

Jimmy, that was the thrust of the thread all along - not a bashing of beliefs but (to me, at least) an enlightenment on the fact that there is a debate at all, and the arguments used to frame the debate, i.e., the Argument From Silence and the Argument for Best Explanation.

 

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

[kenberg]

Winston,

 

I am, as you know, very skeptical of many religious claims. But the attitude that makes me skeptical of religious claims also leads me to regard the posted review as nonsense. I find it incomprehensible. While I am always willing to at least entertain the possibility that this is due to my own limitations, I don't think this is the case here. I once read some Kant. Very difficult, but with effort I could understand. Here, I seriously doubt things would become clearer if I worked harder at the text. There seems to be nothing to build on.

 

But tell me. You read this review and it all makes sense to you? People differ.

 

Ken

[Winstonm]

Winston,

 

I am, as you know, very skeptical of many religious claims. But the attitude that makes me skeptical of religious claims also leads me to regard the posted review as nonsense. I find it incomprehensible. While I am always willing to at least entertain the possibility that this is due to my own limitations, I don't think this is the case here. I once read some Kant. Very difficult, but with effort I could understand. Here, I seriously doubt things would become clearer if I worked harder at the text. There seems to be nothing to build on.

 

But tell me. You read this review and it all makes sense to you? People differ.

 

Ken

Only in a general sense.

[NickRW]

I still don't see the point of this really.

 

I can prove to you who my grandparents were because I can get birth certs and so on. And I can also do this for my great grandparents. But for the generation before and beyond all I can do is consult sketchy church records and say, in all probability, such and such a record was indicative of the previous generation's marriage because the name seems in the right sort of place at the right sort of time. But it isn't proof and again, in all probability, my genealogy contains one or more errors of assumption somewhere. But, unless space aliens artificially inseminated one of my great great grandmothers or something weird like that, I definitely know that the generation did actually exist.

 

But does any of that matter anyway. I exist now.

 

So there isn't proof that Jesus existed. Uh. What is anyone going to do about it. Does it really matter. Quite possibly, indeed perhaps quite likely, he did - but nobody can prove it. End of argument. There is no proof. That is all anyone can usefully say.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? :rolleyes:

 

There is still time..... B)

 

still friends tho'.... ;)

[barmar]

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]

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.