Posts by hmike

27

C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".

by gaiagirl in

jw
friends

author c.s.

lewis once wrote that one of three situations exist: .

1) jesus was the son of god .

hmike

Lewis proceeds from the assumption that the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus said—it's just a question of whether what he said was true or not. That is no longer a "given."
The Gospels are accurate in the essentials.

What I mean is that in discussing the accuracy of the Gospels, there may be no concession by others that there is any real history here at all. It's like someone in an ancient culture discussing the nature of God. Virtually all cultures had some kind of god, gods, or religion, so you could start with the idea of a creator god and work from there because they would concede the existence of a creator god as a "given." Without a concept of a god or creation, you have to pick some other common ground as a starting point.

Just the responses to this thread should illustrate that.

27

C.S. Lewis and his "trilemma".

by gaiagirl in

jw
friends

author c.s.

lewis once wrote that one of three situations exist: .

1) jesus was the son of god .

hmike

Lewis wrote at a time when, even though the miracles of Jesus were disputed by skeptics, his historical existence and words were generally accepted. In other words, Lewis proceeds from the assumption that the Gospels are an accurate record of what Jesus said—it's just a question of whether what he said was true or not. That is no longer a "given." Now, the words, and even the existence of Jesus, are in dispute which presents other options. Increasingly less is taken for granted, and the apologist has to go further back for a starting point.

40

My Visits To Church

by serotonin_wraith in

why would an atheist go to church?

to seek out a god?.

no more than a historian seeks out ra or hathor by researching egyptian religions.. those religions are dead now.

hmike

We don't need to read 'Love thy neighbour and God will be pleased' in order to go and help Africans build wells. We can do it for the sake of helping our fellow humans.

I wonder, "Would we?"

It would be interesting to see what would have happened in history, and what the world would be like if Christianity were totally absent. We'd lose the bad, but we'd also lose the good. What if the positive influences of Christianity were removed from the non-Christian world? Even if beneficial things aren't the direct result of Christianity, it still has influenced the consciousness of Western society.

Many of us know where we'd be without faith, and we wouldn't be helping our fellow humans.

40

My Visits To Church

by serotonin_wraith in

why would an atheist go to church?

to seek out a god?.

no more than a historian seeks out ra or hathor by researching egyptian religions.. those religions are dead now.

hmike

Hey Serotonin and Burn,

I'm getting way off the original topic here, but you both have been discussing perspectives on life and death, and since you are both "here" and represent different perspectives, this might be a good time to ask about something I've wondered...

In the New Testament, and especially the books of Luke and Matthew, we see the future Kingdom of God as the equalizer for this life.

• Jesus says to his disciples, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20), and also, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort" (6:24).

• Jesus tells the story of the rich man, who lived in luxury, and went to torment when he died, and Lazarus, who lived in utter poverty, but went to Paradise when he died. Abraham says to the rich man, "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony." (Luke 16:19-31)

There are many other statements, all saying to the Israelites something like, "For those who are poor, disadvantaged, miserable, enslaved, and abused in this life, great things await in the coming Kingdom. But if you're insulated from misery, well-fed and living in luxury and comfort in this life, that's your only good time because in the future, you'll be left out of the Kingdom in misery and torment." So to those who are wealthy, Jesus advises them to voluntarily adopt the perspective of the poor, or maybe even literally become poor if that's what it takes. The idea is that this life is relatively short and conditions are temporary—the everlasting future is more important—better to have it rough now and wonderful later than the other way around.

In the society of this time, the message that there was a new world coming was "good news" to the poor and outcast. Good times were ahead. This was something to look forward to—something that made the misery and trouble of this life tolerable, and even something to embrace. That was the appeal of the gospel of the Kingdom, and it was welcomed by people in this kind of life situation. On the other hand, in Luke's book, Jesus says it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (18:24). The indication seems to be that the appeal of wealth and comfort is a hindrance, even a barrier, to entering the Kingdom.

Now look at the life most of us in the industrialized countries have. We have food, housing, entertainment, heating and air conditioning, running water, sanitation, 40-hour work weeks, medicines and health care, government aid, etc. Even on the lower end of the economic scale, we live better, longer, and more comfortably than the best did back then. We are far more than wealthy by standards of that time.

This leads to my questions regarding perspectives on life and death:

Does living in these privileged conditions dull the appeal of the gospel for a better future?

Are we like the wealthy of the time of Jesus, enjoying a heaven on earth?

Are those with a good, satisfying life now simply not interested in a good future life?

Is the prospect of creating a world without hunger, homelessness, crime, and a world with love, peace, and unconditional acceptance, and high quality of life for long lifespans replacing the gospel of the Kingdom? (In other words, does this gospel simply represent a need or dream which can be realized by people without God?)

It seems to me that in our relatively affluent society, churches are placing more emphasis on what faith can do now, in this life, than what it can bring in the future.

Anyone who wants can answer this.

Serotonin, I hope you don't mind. We'll eventually get your thread back on track.

75

The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in 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

This is a good thread to bookmark. There's much more to say on the this topic in general, and maybe new members or ones here who missed it will have something to add later. I expect to have more questions and comments later.

40

My Visits To Church

by serotonin_wraith in

why would an atheist go to church?

to seek out a god?.

no more than a historian seeks out ra or hathor by researching egyptian religions.. those religions are dead now.

hmike

Will you keep us updated on your investigation?

40

My Visits To Church

by serotonin_wraith in

why would an atheist go to church?

to seek out a god?.

no more than a historian seeks out ra or hathor by researching egyptian religions.. those religions are dead now.

hmike

So, I went to a baptist one. I was even offered a bunch of DVDs and a booklet on creationism from the pastor, but when I looked at them, pointed out the mistakes and offered a whole lot of proof for evolution, no one could give me an answer. So much for that.

I'm surprised any church would focus on creationism as a point of introduction, and if they do, they should be able to back it up. I'd say you picked a poor representative. This doesn't support any point you would be trying to make in favor of atheism against Christianity, if that's part of your objective, any more than a particular atheist losing a debate to a particular Christian proves Christianity.

You will meet Christians who think all atheists are simply ignorant, and I'm glad you will dispel that myth. Meanwhile, there are plenty of rational, educated Christians out there who know that is not true, and who would be willing and able to discuss the issues with you. I hope you meet some.

BTW, "close-mindedness" isn't confined to Christians.

75

The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in 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

Leaving aside my option n1 which would leave no "events" to be remembered by anybody (hence no "witness" objection to the Gospel stories), what do you think are the chances of Palestinian followers of a very different (e.g., nationalistic) Jesus (my option n2), most of which would have been washed out with the Roman-Jewish war, of coming across Greek stories circulated in the diaspora about their hero? And what about the chances of their eventual objections being heard and received in mostly Gentile Christian churches, with a socially established relationship with Christ as their Saviour?
Be it Paul's original point or not, his argument in 2 Corinthians 5:16 would easily dismiss any suggestion of "another Jesus," even on "historical" grounds: "Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we know (him) no longer in that way."
Whether they were linked with a "historical" Jesus or not as they claimed to, the tragic fate of 2nd-century "Jewish Christians," rejected by both Pharisee-led Judaism and by the "great Christian church," shows how little hypothetical "witnesses" (let alone their descendents) would have actually weighed.

Narkissos,

You have a premise for a novel here, which could become a mini-series or movie.

75

The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in 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

If there were "original events," that is (as per my option n2 against n1). By usual reckoning that means between 40 and 80 years, not that "very short" imo

After 40 years, some ot those around at the time when these events would have taken place would still be alive. Even after 80 years, the children and grandchildren would be around. Even the time of the earliest church fathers is not too far removed. It seems strange that embellishments and fabrications would be so readily accepted as literal historical events among direct descendents of those who would have been present in the historical settings.

Isaiah 53 doesn't imply resurrection but (in some sense) vicarious suffering. In diverse forms it underlies the basic Gospel scenario and its culmination in crucifixion.

The implication comes from vs. 10-11:

ISA 53:10

Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

ISA 53:11 After the suffering of his soul,

he will see the light of life and be satisfied;

by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

36

Supernaturalism and reason.

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

reading 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

I do believe that most who resort to the "supernatural" as an explanation for certain Bible texts (either for dramatic "miracles" understood as "historical" or long-term "predictions" of historical details before the fact) would never think of it should they find a similar text out of their Bible... they would, too, use their supernatural-free "reason" and reach its abhorred "naturalistic" conclusions (i.e., that the text is a fiction, or that it was written after the fact). Check about any Evangelical introduction to the apocrypha (not to mention the middle-ages stories of the Virgin and saints) and you'll see what I mean...

Reason and conventionality would be the general way to understand things, but I wouldn't automatically rule out the unexplained, unusual, or "supernatural." Each case would have to be evaluated on its own merit