What, aside from the fact that you folks are approaching the thing wholly bass-ackwards? What is more important? Whether Jesus actually existed? Or, what His words give testimony to? If you can discern that God exists through the testimony of the Jesus myth (as some claim they can), it certainly gives more credence to the possibility that He did exist now doesn't it? Of course if there was no God in the first place -- how would we know, if it was merely based upon someone else's sayso? -- there would be no point to discussing any of this now would there? This is why Jesus tells us, "The kingdom of God is within us."kuroyume0161 said:Court, can we have Iacchus' testimony struck from the records?
Did you have anything 'palpable' to say on the topic, Iacchus?
cedric_owl said:
Well, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be an enormously influential figure for terrifying the establishment. Just being an outspoken agitator during the Passover would be enough.
The Passover was always quite touchy time of the year. Thousands of people flocked into Jerusalem (Josephus claims a million Passover visitors but that is probably largely exaggerated). It was also a time when tensions between the various factions of Jews manifested themselves. I'm not completely certain about this, but I think that there had already been at least two minor revolts that had started on Passover (Judas of Galilee's and another) before Jesus's time. Forty years later the First Jewish War started on Passover.
Moreover, the prefect Pontius Pilatus had already shown that he would respond any provocation from Jews using deadly force as there had been an incident when he ordered legionnaries to attack a group of (unarmed) protestors.
So, the Jewish leaders had a lot to worry during Passovers. Any disturbance might escalate into a conflict with Romans and that would cause hundreds of dead. So, they would have a good reason to get any possible agitator out of way before he could cause any troubles.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
RussDill said:
I followed the link, and ended up reading the Octavius that the link referred to. I think the link author got it wrong.
In the link, the author asserts that a dialog written by an early Christian implied that they would not worship an earthly man. The author of the linked piece then asserts that this particular Christian didn't believe that Jesus was actually on the earth. I think the author is wrong. The way I read that dialog, I think he was among those who denied the divinity of Jesus, like the Arians would do a century later. Many early Christians though of Jesus as a very special prophet, specifically sent by God to deliver His message, as opposed to being God incarnate.
Iacchus said:
It is absolutely relevant to the question of whether or not the words ascribed to Jesus actual constitute testimony. If Jesus did not exist then he did not give any testimony and the words of the gospels, which present Jesus' existence as a fact, are rendered false testimony. The gospels then cease to have any claim to authority and at best then, all that the gospels could contain that would have any bearing on whether or not God exists is pure logic. It has been some years since I read the Gospels but I do not recall any strong logical arguments within. Perhaps you could refresh me?
Yet even if there was an actual figure named Jesus (I believe there was), and His testimony reflected the word of God, how would you know? How did the disciples know who Jesus was? Because He claimed to be the son of God?
While there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews were not allowed to utter God's name, because it was very much a personal matter, and this helped to insure that folks looked inwardly towards God, as opposed to externally. Which, probably gives a good indication how Peter understood.
Well, it sounds to me like you're not supposed to take Jesus' testimony upon anyone's say-so, even Jesus Himself. This is what makes the whole thing spiritual, or else all you have is the history without the mystery.
While there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews were not allowed to utter God's name, because it was very much a personal matter, and this helped to insure that folks looked inwardly towards God, as opposed to externally. Which, probably gives a good indication how Peter understood.
Iacchus said:
You make a good point. Even if we could be certain that a historical Jesus existed this would not help us in the slightest as far as the question of whether or not Jesus Christ, the son of God existed. On the other hand, if we're not supposed to take Jesus' testimony even on the say-so of Jesus himself, what purpose does that testimony serve at all?
I'm not sure that this has any bearing on the spirituality or otherwise of the whole thing. Cannot both fact and fiction have a spiritual dimension?
Well, the message is there, if there is a God within us to receive it. Which, is merely what I think Jesus was trying to do, remind us of this. Somebody has to be there to "prime the pump" in other words.Throg said:
Except how is it possible to measure God, but by metaphor?
Iacchus said:
Intriguing. Is God not within all of us then? Is this related to the idea of an elect or chosen few? If I happen to be one of those within whom God is not, am I irretrievably damned?
That's a beautiful use of words and much as I am loath to ask anyone to subsitute mundane prose for poetry, could I ask you to explain a little?
Yes, if we were all made out of the fabric of God, this would be correct.Throg said:
The only way this can happen is through our own choosing which, is only possible through free will. If not, we would all behave as robots, and there would be no way to differentiate between ourselves and God. Therefore, free will has to be part of the package.
How can you measure that which seems to emanate from someplace other than this world? ... except perhaps through our own personal and private experience.
kuroyume0161
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2001
- Messages
- 1,628
Iacchus said:
That is the clincher, though, isn't it? All "personal and private experience" is subjective. The problem with this is that it is unquantifiable, nonphenomenal, irreplicable. One cannot base facts on subjective experiences (as has been evidenced for millenia). This mode of operation has existed for tens of thousands of years to no avail. That is why objective experience, that which can be related between individuals, is the most crucial and most sought after.
How can you measure that which seems to emanate from someplace other than this world? There is no precise measurement therein. By what criteria do you determine fact from falsehood? Conscious, Sentient, and sceptical minds want to know!
To put it bluntly, when is the individual mind the end-all/be-all of existential determination? It has been shown redundantly that no matter what the individual considers to be factual, there is an underlying reality that surplaces this to an unwarranted degree (*placing inordinate restrictions on the beliefs of the individual by exemplification). In testimony, belief, and citation, it can be shown that objective evidence provides the most stable and trustworthy glimpse of reality that we can afford.
Adieu
The subjective mind is a very tricky thing indeed, for without it, we would not be speaking of that which is the least bit objective. I agree, there's an external (objective) reality that exists without. Yet how would we know, without an internal reality -- or life -- that exists within? Which of the two would you promote? Externalized behavior? Or, that which is genuine and alive?
Iacchus said:
I see no reason to suppose that internal reality and externalised behaviour necessarily conflict. Certainly, there are occasions where are internal beliefs are at odds with external evidence but these, for most people, are the exceptions rather than the rule. Generally speaking, though, where there is a conflict should we not start from the presumption that external evidence is more likely to be correct than internal beliefs since the alternative would seem to be to retreat into a wholly internal world (we are never going to reject internal beliefs where they match the external evidence.)
Well, are these things for me to tell you? Or, are they things for you to find out on your own? About all I can do is allude to the fact that it's there, really.Throg said:
Fact or fiction? A "lie" is just as much an entity as "truth" is. So, aside from the fact these things reside in our minds, where else do they reside? Certainly they must reside somewhere, or how else could we conceive of them?
A couple of miscellaneous notes, things that occurred to me during today's readings (attending an Episcopal service on Easter Sunday).
First, this passage from Acts 10:39 "We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree". Actually, what I heard the priest say was "hanging FROM a tree" and if some translations have it that way, it does seem to confirm that in some versions of the story he died by hanging rather than crucifixion.
Second, there are a couple of imperfections from the resurrection story itself which have always struck me as odd, as not the kinds of things you'd want to include if you were making up a myth from scratch. In a funny way, these imperfections have always made me lean toward the suspicion that there was some actual event or events at the core of this story. First, in John 20, there is a reference to "Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved," and this other disciple is never named. Why not? Why not just choose one of the twelve names?
Second, this business with Mary Magdalene: (John 20:14-15) When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away."
Why wouldn't she recognize him? She sees an empty tomb, she sees a stranger, the stranger presents himself as Jesus and that starts the whole resurrection story. I've always suspected that something along these lines may have taken place, and that somebody not known to Mary rolled back the stone, emptied the tomb, and played this role to carry out the prophesies. What mythological purpose is served by having her not recognize him, by having a guy wearing a different face? I think it was somebody else, somebody very much alive.
First, this passage from Acts 10:39 "We are witnesses to all that he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree". Actually, what I heard the priest say was "hanging FROM a tree" and if some translations have it that way, it does seem to confirm that in some versions of the story he died by hanging rather than crucifixion.
Second, there are a couple of imperfections from the resurrection story itself which have always struck me as odd, as not the kinds of things you'd want to include if you were making up a myth from scratch. In a funny way, these imperfections have always made me lean toward the suspicion that there was some actual event or events at the core of this story. First, in John 20, there is a reference to "Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved," and this other disciple is never named. Why not? Why not just choose one of the twelve names?
Second, this business with Mary Magdalene: (John 20:14-15) When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away."
Why wouldn't she recognize him? She sees an empty tomb, she sees a stranger, the stranger presents himself as Jesus and that starts the whole resurrection story. I've always suspected that something along these lines may have taken place, and that somebody not known to Mary rolled back the stone, emptied the tomb, and played this role to carry out the prophesies. What mythological purpose is served by having her not recognize him, by having a guy wearing a different face? I think it was somebody else, somebody very much alive.
rppa said:
Isn't crucifixion sort of "hanging from a tree"? The cross is either a tree or is made out of a tree, you get nailed/bound to it and you hang there. Given that we're talking translations here I'm not sure those words are enough to conclude that we're not talking about crucifixion.
If you want to make a story convincing you do not make it perfect. A good storyteller includes imperfections because they make his story better, a bad storyteller includes them because he's a bad storyteller.
I have never made it a practice to name all the incidental characters in stories I have written. Sometimes, naming a character, particularly for the first time detracts from the point or the artistic merit of a scene. Of course, some would say I am just to lazy to name all my characters.
Yes, I always found that odd.
That would seem to be the best, if not the only plausible explanation.