How 'bout if we wear gloves while trimming the roses and keeping our feet covered to avoid squishing doggie poo between our toes?

So it is not true that either my mother died some eleven years ago or that she didn't? My belief that she either did or didn't is merely a manifestation of the bifurcation of my consciousness? Since this kind of bifurcation is not inherent in reality, is it equally true that she dead and that she is still alive? Or perhaps you mean that it doesn't matter whether she died or not, since there is profound spiritual and metaphorical meaning in the idea that she is still alive?
Let's try this on a more contemporary event: "The Holocaust happened. To me that is a historical and mystical fact. It had nothing to do with whether anyone was actually killed."

Please don't misunderstand. I am neither denying nor belittling the Holocaust. I am saying that the thinking that you manifest here denies and disparages the importance of the question of whether significant historical events like the Holocaust really occurred. If the terminology that you are using were to become widespead, it would be difficult even to express the difference between believing that something really happened and believing that it is a deeply meaningful myth or metaphor.

Essentially you are denying the truth of the basic doctrines of Christianity, but dressing your denial in language that obscures this central fact. You want to think of yourself as a Christian while rejecting Christianity. I, on the other hand, am a little more honest about this. I also find deep meaning in the Resurrection as metaphor (as I do in the Exodus as a myth). I also find deep spiritual meaning in Le Morte Darthur and King Lear, but I would never think of suggesting that the events depicted therein were "historical facts" on this account. Nor would I dream of calling the Resurrection a "historical fact" unless I believed that it had actually happened. (That's what "historical fact" means.) And I would never dream of calling myself a Christian given that I do not believe that the Resurrection really happened.

As it happens, quite a few people believe that the Resurrection actually happened. I disagree. It's completely wrong-headed to dismiss this as a non-issue because you find deep significance in the Resurrection. The question of whether it really happened is important precisely because of its deep spiritual significance.

As Paul so aptly put it (1 Cor 15:13-14):

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Originally posted by aikido7: "Either/Or" thinking says more about the bifurcation of consciousness than it does about any bifurcation inherent in reality...

bd-from-kg:
So it is not true that either my mother died some eleven years ago or that she didn't? My belief that she either did or didn't is merely a manifestation of the bifurcation of my consciousness? Since this kind of bifurcation is not inherent in reality, is it equally true that she dead and that she is still alive? Or perhaps you mean that it doesn't matter whether she died or not, since there is profound spiritual and metaphorical meaning in the idea that she is still alive?

You misunderstand AND I did not communicate clearly. The quotation from my post should be taken in context of the resurrection of Jesus. Other individual deaths (such as that of your mother), however, definitely have some bearing on the historical fact of the resurrection experience--namely, that the presence (however defined) and the power of Jesus was available to his close followers after his death. Everything from grief hallucinations and dreams to feelings of closeness to departed loved ones and acquaintances is all part of the mix here, with a heavy overlay of first-century Jewish and Roman cultural myths and social attitudes.

bg-from-kg:
Let's try this on a more contemporary event: "The Holocaust happened. To me that is a historical and mystical fact. It had nothing to do with whether anyone was actually killed."... Essentially you are denying the truth of the basic doctrines of Christianity, but dressing your denial in language that obscures this central fact... Nor would I dream of calling the Resurrection a "historical fact" unless I believed that it had actually happened. (That's what "historical fact" means.) And I would never dream of calling myself a Christian given that I do not believe that the Resurrection really happened(aikido7's own editing of bd-from-kg's original post).


The Holocaust was not the resurrection.

I make a distinction between denying the (obvious) truth and attempting to come to grips with the (essential) truth (of the resurrection). To do this I have to be mindful of not pouring 19th century fantasy back into the ancient world. As I posted before, it is my belief the resurrection had nothing to do with the body of Jesus. An Egyptian peasant digging in his field might uncover a jar full of texts tomorrow that proves me wrong, but as I see the canonical texts now, I stand by my belief.

Resurrection is not resusitation.

As far as metaphor goes--it's ALL metaphor. If you say "I don't believe in America anymore," you are not talking about the land mass between Canada and Mexico. You are talking about America as the land of the free, the home of the brave or whatever. If you say "I don't believe in the resurrection anymore," what are you talking about? Jesus as the "first fruit" of the general resurrection? A glow in the dark savior? You may be talking with the post-Enlightenment rational mind which narrows the first-century view to our 21st century one-dimensional fantasy comfort zone.

Whether the feeling of Jesus present after his death generated the eclipse, the empty tomb or the appearances traditions OR the fact of an eclipse, an empty tomb or the appearance traditions generated the feeling of Jesus still present after death is really (or should be) a question of faith, not facts.

Like the pre-Enlightenment native American storyteller said, "I don't know if this story happened or not, I just know it is true..."



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited May 18, 2001).]

Lance

Let's bring this thread back on track a little bit. I notice that a lot of Christians have run like hell from it as we've got a classic catch-22 going here. (If you're an inerrant Christian, don't bother. We'll deal with you later.... )

To recap, Bede stuck his foot firmly in it with:

As for Lance, I don't believe in the dead men, earthquakes or darkness. The information on the eclipse came with a We do have to be critical about the Gospels but not stupid. Treat them like other ancient sources. No more and no less.

Now...here are the verses from Matthew:

27:45 Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land. 27:46 At about three o'clock Jesus shouted with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" 27:47 When some of the bystanders heard it, they said, "This man is calling for Elijah." 27:48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge, filled it with sour wine, put it on a stick, and gave it to him to drink. 27:49 But the rest said, "Leave him alone! Let's see if Elijah will come to save him." 27:50 Then Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and gave up his spirit. 27:51 Just then the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks were split apart. 27:52 And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised. 27:53 (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.) 27:54 Now when the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and what took place, they were extremely terrified and said, "Truly this one was God's Son!" 27:55 Many women who had followed Jesus from Galilee and given him support were also there, watching from a distance. 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

So the facts supposedly here in Matthew. We have a 3 hour period of darkness, which basically rules out any eclipse as its too long. We have an Earthquake massive enough to split rocks, we have the temple curtain torn (why wasn't this saved as a relic??), and we have the bodies of many saints being raised after his resurrection...

I'd also point out that his dying statement sounds more like a man who realizes his dream has screwed up, rather than the son of god who knows he's coming back in 3 days, more powerful and glorious than he is at present.

The argument Bede has put forth is that this is legendary embelishment. I agree totally and completely with this as there is no historical record anywhere of the above incidents. Not only that, they are wildly mythical. In how many other stories as old and older have we seen these themes?

Now...lets look at the resurrection itself.

28:1 Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 28:2 Suddenly there was a severe earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descending from heaven came and rolled away the stone, and sat on it. 28:3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 28:4 The guards were shaken and became like dead men because they were so afraid of him. 28:5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 28:6 He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. Come and see the place where he was lying. 28:7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, `He has been raised from the dead. He is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there.' Listen, I have told you." 28:8 So they left the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 28:9 But Jesus met them, saying, "Greetings!" They11 came to him, held on to his feet and worshiped him. 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They will see me there."

Okay people, WHERE is the difference? Both fragments appear to me to have legendary embelishment.

I'd ask these questions:

1. Do you believe there is legendary embelishment here in either fragment?

2. If you believe in the resurrection and disbelieve the hyperbole, I'd like to know your basis for that. If "faith" is the answer, that's fine. At least we know. If its not, I'd like at least a little on the basis for that.

3. How do we deal with texts like this where they contain fiction along with the fact?

Just my own view is that while the ancient texts do contain some historical information, they are so filled with embelishment that it is very difficult to extract fact for all the fiction.

Lance

My my...the silence here is deafening!

Originally posted by Lance:

I'd ask these questions:

1. Do you believe there is legendary embelishment here in either fragment?

I would say no--as we moderns understand the term "legendary embellishment." That is yet another example of putting post-19th century notions back into the ancient world.

2. If you believe in the resurrection and disbelieve the hyperbole, I'd like to know your basis for that. If "faith" is the answer, that's fine. At least we know. If its not, I'd like at least a little on the basis for that.

Read my previous post, Lance. If any part of it is unclear, specify what and I will try to answer based on my beliefs and the information I have.

3. How do we deal with texts like this where they contain fiction along with the fact?

Carefully! There are accepted criteria for making judgements as to what is history and what is overlay. One needs to lay out one's method and evaluate the texts along with the method. Biblical scholars do this all the time. But it ain't easy.

"The past is another country; they do things differently there."



[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited May 18, 2001).]