I don't know about Reefton Jack's experiences, but I'll bet there are people out there who, with what they've seen and been through, would shake their heads in amusement at our parlor discussions because none of us really knows what we're talking about.
Posts by hmike
-
36Supernaturalism and reason.
by Narkissos inreading one more time (on the umpteenth thread about the 70 weeks of daniel, into which i'm not going again) the idea that "anti-supercalifragilnaturalistic bias" ruin the unbelievers' (or misbelievers') exegesis of bible texts, and readily admitting to such... bias, i have one very general and simple question which might be worth its own thread.. here it is:.
once you admit such thing as the "supernatural", .
on what grounds can you assess anything.
-
-
-
36
Supernaturalism and reason.
by Narkissos inreading one more time (on the umpteenth thread about the 70 weeks of daniel, into which i'm not going again) the idea that "anti-supercalifragilnaturalistic bias" ruin the unbelievers' (or misbelievers') exegesis of bible texts, and readily admitting to such... bias, i have one very general and simple question which might be worth its own thread.. here it is:.
once you admit such thing as the "supernatural", .
on what grounds can you assess anything.
-
-
hmike
Along the lines of Repunzel above...
What would the supernatural be, really? Maybe it's all part of one big universe, but within that universe are dimensions which we cannot perceive with laws and forces we do not understand. In other words, maybe use of the term "supernatural" isn't appropriate at all—it's all just natural.
Walking on water, calming a storm or causing a fig tree to wither by a command, raising a dead person to life—those may simply involve the use of principles involving control of matter, forces, and cellular regeneration that are totally outside our experience or understanding.
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
hmike
Does that help with the issue or confuse it even further?
Thanks for getting back so quickly. I'm still working on it.
One thing I'm having trouble with is understanding the purpose of the Gospels according to your model. Wasn't part of the intent to bolster the Christian community undergoing persecution by saying, "Jesus didn't stay dead. The Jews and Romans couldn't restain him. He has been vindicated, and you will be too because he will return, vanquish our enemies, and establish his Kingdom, of which you will be a part."
It appears that from earliest times, these accounts were taken literally. We're talking about a very short time span from original events, to the Gospels, to their use in the church.
Some other questions, if you don't mind:
Where did the post-resurrection accounts come from?
How do Isaiah 53 and prophecies of general resurrection, as in Daniel 12:1-4, fit in to your model?
Thank you for your patience. Your model raises a lot of questions.
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
hmike
Narkissos,
Can I go back to your original post?
In Option #2, would you say that the writers of the Gospels
(1) mistakenly believed the oral traditions about Jesus to be true when they wrote them down,
(2) admired Jesus as a good teacher and one who attempted to bring about reform, and believed the resurrection based on a missing body and Paul's claim to have seen the risen Jesus (due to an hallucination during an epileptic seizure or whatever), so they embellished the accounts of the ministry of Jesus (based on myths about god-men) to promote him as Messiah, or
(3) same as (2) above except that were fully aware that Jesus was dead, and did not intend for their writings to be taken literally, but wanted to inspire the church to follow him in doing good, even if it meant death?
Or does it matter at all for what you propose?
-
32
Concerning the "born again" thread
by startingover inpotentialjwconvertwife said:.
well, as you know, i never was a dub.
but i am and have been a born again christian for many years.
-
-
hmike
The bottom line is that, here, religion is really a private matter and people are not expected to pose as "believers" in public space. In such a context a strong religious commitment is rather the exception than the rule, requiring genuine conviction, and the high level of atheism and agnosticism simply reflects the majority's lack of such conviction in the absence of social constraint. Weren't people expected to declare themselves "believers" in America it would not be so different, I suppose.
Part of this, in American Protestant churches, is due to the emphasis pastors and preachers place on Matt. 10:32. Many call out in prayer, "Lord, give us boldness!" Many worship services are geared to bringing the faithful "out of their shell" (as I brought up in the "Worship" thread). Part of it may also be the independent, in-your-face approach in social contact that is more a part of this culture than elsewhere. Finally, it may also be a reaction to the assertiveness of atheists, who were only reacting to their own situation in a "Christian" culture. The theme today seems to be, "Don't let others walk over you!"—resulting in road rage and a host of other ills. I don't know what happened to humility and meekness.
Our church sponsors missionaries in Europe, specifically Switzerland, I think. There is very, very little progress there. Over here, in some quarters, Europe—and I'm sorry, but especially France—is seem as spiritually dead. The concern for some is that America is headed that way, so the push goes on for "revival."
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
hmike
Sweet lullaby. Every believer needlessly disturbed should be fast asleep by now.
I think they've dropped out of this thread. I'm still here though.
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
hmike
Narkissos,
This is very interesting—really—but without anything more convincing, I'm going to stick with treating the Gospels as history, which means regarding Jesus as an actual person who performed great works, who died from crucifixion, who experienced a literal, corporeal resurrection, and passed into that parallel dimension called heaven to his place of honor. I think the texts were written to be historical accounts, and were largely understood that way. The resurrection as a literal event in history served not only as evidence that Jesus was sent by God, but it is the basis for a future hope for Christians, as it gave credence to his claim to be able to restore life to others.
Considering the Gospels were written so close to the time of the events, considering they were placed in known geographical locations, considering they were heard or read by children and grandchildren of those whose names were mentioned in the accounts, considering that these accounts were written for all kinds of people, including fishermen, farmers, merchants, and others who lived down-to-earth lives, then yes, I would have to regard these as accounts of events that actually occurred. I would rather deal with the problems and inconsistencies as textual than regard them to be the result of literary license.
Without a historical basis, Christianity becomes purely subjective. If myths and altered accounts promote faith, I have to ask: faith in whom—someone who doesn't exist? Then you have nothing more than a nice philosophy, which can be of value here alright, but says nothing about a future hope, which is clearly part of the NT message.
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
hmike
Narkissos,
From your background, you know what answer we would give you. I'm waiting with patience and curiosity to find out what you have in mind with this question.
I noticed that you did not specifically rule out his resurrection in #2, which could put that somewhat in the class of Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide, who supports the historical resurrection but interprets its meaning differently than Christianity.
Mike
-
75
The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith
by Narkissos inin the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.
1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.
2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.
-
-
hmike
from a believer's perspective.
2 is the same as 1.
-
44
Paul's belief in Christ - Lets get it STRAIGHT this time!
by lovelylil ini need to vent.
i am sick and tired of people claiming that paul did not believe in the jesus christ of the bible.
there are many articles on the web (someone sent me one today) that claims that paul's writings deny that a historical jesus existed.
-
-
hmike
Hi Lilly,
I'm with you, but realize that in this forum are those who think Paul's revelation on the road to Damascus was a hallucination experienced during an epileptic seizure, or from a concussion received when he was thrown from his horse on the way to Damascus. Others have said his conversion came about because of intense guilt he felt from participating in the stoning of Stephen and persecuting Christians. Also, much of what has been traditionally attributed to Paul in the NT has been called into question. Then there are those who question whether Paul even existed at all as a historical person, as has been done with Peter and even Jesus.
Perhaps the most significant statement Paul makes about his teaching is found in Galatians 1:11-12—
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
When he said it was not something made up by man, he would be including himself. Whatever his background, however he was influenced by the culture, his claim means he did not formulate the gospel himself, or from the teachings of others. We could suggest that his education, training, and cultural background may have made him better-prepared for going out into the Roman Empire than even the Apostles who had stayed with Jesus around Jerusalem.
While the teachings and emphasis of Paul may seem different than the Gospels, all the writings seek to promote faith in Jesus as the Chosen Messiah and Son of God to whom we must ultimately give account. While Paul relies on the resurrection and work of the Holy Spirit in the church as testimony, the Gospels make use of details in the earthly life of Jesus.