Some resurrection thoughts by CS Lewis

by bebu 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  SixofNine

  Narkissos, very well said: "why should one decide on indecidable issues?".
• 

  bebu

  in a probable chronological order, you get roughly the following picture:...

  why should one decide on indecidable issues?

  It seems that we do it quite naturally... And as I read many versions of who and what was real/myth--with very little agreement--I wondered if anyone could sort it out. bebu
• 

  Narkissos

  I would make a difference between (1) dogmatically choosing a definite and detailed scenario out of confuse data and (2) assessing the relative plausibility of different types of scenarii. Wherever a network of evidence rather than conclusive proof is implied, it all boils down to probability.

  Everybody acknowledges the traces of literary development in the Gospels, even though all don't interpret them in the same way. In my assessment, this makes a hardline historical scenario (i.e., all the stories and all the versions of every story being relations of actual events) exceedingly unlikely. At the other end of the spectre, the idea that all stories were originally created out of thin air by an imaginative writer, without at least some popular tradition behind, is highly unlikely too. In between there is room for a lot of scenarii with higher rates of probability. Between those it is difficult, and perhaps pointless, to decide absolutely.

  Back to the topic, I just wanted to point out that the physical details in apparition stories appear at the late end of literary development within the NT canon. Later apocryphal literature will become even more detailed (e.g. the first description of resurrection itself in the Gospel of Peter). This imo suggests a trend which needs to be taken into account.
• 

  Terry

  What I mean is, do you see only Jesus as a myth but the disciples as real? Was Jesus real--but the resurrection a hoax? Was Jesus real but the whole crucifixion story a hoax? Were Jesus and disciples myths but Paul real? Or were all of them simply legends? What was the true part (if any), and what was the myth? I'm curious how you decided it, because I've seen people cut it up differently. Or, cut it up one way one week and another way on another week

  Well, quite honestly, if we treat Jesus as any other personage purported to exist in actual time and space we will be dumbfounded to discover how practically nothing at all confirms his reality.

  Jesus live and operated not in a vaccuum. People were literate and all sorts of incidents, especially the extraordinary, were reported, written down and discussed. These people were NON Jews too. These people were NON Christians too.

  What I'm saying is this. Considering the outrageously HUGE claims made about Jesus activity (more miracles than you could write on a scroll and have the Earth contain them!) it is a DEAFENING SILENCE we find about these activities when we turn to secular writers of that period.

  There is no proof, no evidence, no corroboration at all for us to weigh to conclude (outside the hysterical religious tales by jews and neo-christians) there even was a Jesus.

  Be very aware that more was tossed out (Writings about Jesus) as worthless imagination than was included when the Bible canon was finally stitched together by Catholic committee. The very person who wanted to push a Jesus agenda had to rid themselves of these Chri-Fi (christian fiction) writings that proliferated because they were so ridiculous (according to orthodoxy) and purge after purge was begun.

  Secular writers of that age and time don't seem to realize for example that:

  1.Herod had thousands of infants killed to avoid a rival king. (Just think how many reports villifying Herod would reach the Roman prefect! It would be deafening. And yet, nothing.

  2.A man was walking on water, feeding multitudes with less than a handful; wine was being generated from water, blindness and leprosy was being cured and even a dead man called from a tomb----yet NOTHING in the Daily Roman Times Dispatch :) ! Does this not strike you as odd? Passing strange?

  With no corroboration, no proof of any kind what am I to think? Should I just shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I guy I'll go with this guy just because everybody else does."?

  Dedicating my entire life and monitoring all my actions on the basis of a non-historical character is a HUGE STEP. Why wouldn't a sane man be cautious?

  Terry
• 

  Terry

  I suspect you'll agree that it's highly unlikely that it's all fiction, hence such excessive scepticism is not only unwarranted but is also intellectually dishonest (or at very least "intellectually lazy")?

  Is there a statistical model at work here?

  Likely/unlikely.......seems to me it has more to do with proof, evidence and representation of historical corroboration than anything else.

  Digging into history one finds silence on evidence. LARGE CLAIMS are made by the Church, however. Should the size of those claims be viewed as evidence and liklihood (considering the lack of scrupulous honesty on the part of the pious frauds who manned the politcal machinery of the religous councils at the time)?

  In a court on a jury what is the instruction given? View the evidence and don't discuss the case among yourselves until all the evidence is in.

  For the first thousand years or so the "evidence" was shoved down the throats of the hapless jury by the Catholic authority. Upon penalty of torture or death one rendered a "nay" verdict!

  Even after the Protestant Reformation, the Puritan style Utopian communities that engendered what we now call America ruthlessly enforded dogma and orthodoxy on man, woman and child from birth to death. There were NO OTHER pieces of evidence sought, discussed or permitted to be countenanced!

  Bottom line?

  The mother of Christian belief is COERCION and not thoughtful intellect weighing and sifting. We can't even pretend it ever was. The fruits of such heavy-handed orthodoxy caused many a righteous man (who wanted to clarify and purify the messege by getting it in harmony with historical fact) to be BURNED AT THE STAKE, PEELED, FORCED TO HOLD GUNPOWDER WHILE BURNING and this after torture to get him to reneg.

  Women were regularly drowned, hanged or burned on suspicion or accusation to the church.

  I ask you, Little Toe, would you apply the same standard as above
  

  but is also intellectually dishonest (or at very least "intellectually lazy")?

  to the religious believers in authority who wrought these inflictions?

  There is more to religion and Christianity than mere belief. It comes down to where the rubber meets the road. The impact of non-belief on belief never hurts the POWERFUL church or religion headquarters in the same way it harms the skeptic and the inquirer.

  There is no Loyal Opposition because opposition is viewed as heresy and apostacy.

  It is a sneer at skepticism that greets inquiry always by the faithful. Always.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  And as I read many versions of who and what was real/myth--with very little agreement--I wondered if anyone could sort it out. bebu

  Would you say the usual reaction is then, "I guess I'll stick with what I believe because there is no agreement among others."?

  Rather than putting belief on hold until a personal investigation is done, the believers I've met take a "show me" attitude while shaking their head at the very idea of skeptical inquiry.

  T.
• 

  SixofNine

  Secular writers of that age and time don't seem to realize for example that:

  1.Herod had thousands of infants killed to avoid a rival king. (Just think how many reports villifying Herod would reach the Roman prefect! It would be deafening. And yet, nothing.

  2.A man was walking on water, feeding multitudes with less than a handful; wine was being generated from water, blindness and leprosy was being cured and even a dead man called from a tomb----yet NOTHING in the Daily Roman Times Dispatch :) ! Does this not strike you as odd? Passing strange?

  I almost get physically ill reading this, as it brings back an unnerving sense of deja vu. These common sense questions caused me a mountain of cognitive dissonance, reaching back as far as I can remember. I thought when I was young, that of course, if and when I studied history, I'd find references to these events. As time passed, and school and life brought me a layman's knowledge (for some reason I never really went looking for the evidence. hmmm, wonder if I somehow knew it would rock my world?) of world history, it grew increasingly disturbing to contemplate that I was not hearing any references to, not only the events quoted above, but almost any biblical event.

  There was no gunpowder or torture involved in the coercion I experienced, but the infliction of coercion on the modern day believer (and especially the poor Jehovah's Witness kid) stands on the shoulders of the great torturers of the past; a point you made well in your above post, Terry. Cognitive dissonance may work well for some people, but it was torture for me, and it almost killed me. That's why my natural state is disgust for people who insist on pimping mythology as god's message.
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:
  The use of violent means to enforce beliefs is a no-no in my book, anyhow. Do you doubt all the history of the past, that survived through the Dark Ages? Do you have similar suspicion over works recording the early Roman Empire, which was replete with horrors?

  My comments are to meet the "sneer" of scepticism that would throw out everything with broad brush strokes. My point is that you may have come to hate religion and all it stands for (and be particularly adept at castigating Christianity), but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're being all too balanced, either.

  Feel free to use the excuse of "my worldview was affected by a cult", but don't go telling me that the end result of your questioning has to be the right conclusion.

  There are plenty of balanced people in the world, who function more than adequately without resorting to violence of any description, who have some form of religion in their lives.

  Six:
  In particular you should well know that I'm not dogmatic in my statements, and continue to evolve, having shared more than a few threads and beers over several years.

  Is there absolutely no room in your worldview for the possibility that any of the bible is historic, or is it a complete fiction from Genesis to Revelation? Is there absolutely no worth in it (regardless of whether or not it's restating the axioms of previous cultures), or is it merely a mass of pointless stories?

  I find it hard to believe that you could be so bigoted as to find differing viewpoints intolerable. Please prove me right.

  As for cognitive dissonance, been there and done that, too. I don't speak much about that, especially the early periods, but I can attest to its horror. I, also, had to throw out everything that I once held dear and start completely from scratch.

  The only thing that fills me with disgust is intolerance, in the vein of "judge not lest ye be judged" (which has every bit a humanist interpretation as a theist one). Yet even in that disgust I have to guard myself, for once I too stood there...
• 

  Terry

  Do you doubt all the history of the past, that survived through the Dark Ages? Do you have similar suspicion over works recording the early Roman Empire, which was replete with horrors?

  When reading anything (history or Mother Goose) I have to consider who wrote what and why. Hermenuetics, my dear Watson. One also considers tampering fingers at work for later accretions. So, yes. When there is reason to doubt--I doubt.

  But, the evidence we have is the evidence we HAVE.

  If I'm not too blinkered here, I didn't see any heaps of evidentiary counter argument; only a Sancho Panza shoulder shrug.

  I may be the Knight of the Woeful Countenance; but, I'm jousting with the right windmills.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  There are plenty of balanced people in the world, who function more than adequately without resorting to violence of any description, who have some form of religion in their lives.

  Is this the same as saying they have BECOME balanced people who function more than adequately without resorting violence of any description BECAUSE of or IN SPITE OF some form of religion in their lives?

  Wouldn't that be an important consideration?

  T.