Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 06-26-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Exactly, it is the story of Jesus, not Jesus himself, that saves

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life--Rom. 5:10.

Recounted in a gospel, that is, a biography. It's Jesus' role in the narrative that saves us, not Jesus qua Jesus. If Jesus died on the cross and nobody knew about, we wouldn't have the gospel, and nobody would be saved, according to Paul. It is through the confrontation with the narrative of Jesus that Paul says we are saved. If Jesus had died in secret, nobody would be saved.

Gamera · 06-26-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Exactly, it is the story of Jesus, not Jesus himself, that saves

That's an interesting tack, one that accords with the purpose of myth in general. For me it then follows that (a) the existence of a Jesus is not really important, (b) nor is the existence of a god, and (c) other stories, about other people/circumstances, with or without (another) god can be equally saving.

Gerard Stafleu

As a Christian, I have no problem with this. The gospel is the center of Christianity, or at least it was at the beginning. And the gospel is a narrative.

I mean, honestly, if somebody beleives God can save us by sending his incarnate Son, then why can't God say us through a story about his incarnate Son. One isn't more miraculous then the next, and for reasons I could go into the latter accords with the existential essence of Christainity more than the former.

Having said that, I think the historicity of Jesus is well established

No Robots · 06-26-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

If Jesus had died in secret, nobody would be saved.

If Christ had not lived, there would be no Gospel, and hence no salvation therefrom. It is Christ as real model and leader that makes him valuable. He is the source of the power of which the Gospels and the Epistles are the conduits. We know him through the Gospels, but it truly is him that we know. But all this is, I fear, will make little impression on you. As Brunner puts it:

Spirit remains to them eternally a mystery and, in the same way, lives like those of Christ and Spinoza remain an impenetrable mystery to their spiritless contemplation. As long as they themselves belong to the superstition of the time in which an Esprital e.g., Christ has lived, they pull downwards his life into that superstition and, in the meantime, they fail to see the uniqueness of His life, which is by far more miraculous than all their miracles, more than had He been the Virgin's son. And when afterwards the time comes for the transition to a new superstition, then they simply make Him as sophisticated as they are themselves, as are their philologists, so that He vanishes in their insipid platitude; and the miracle of His life is henceforth overshadowed by their madness.--Spinoza contra Kant

gurugeorge · 06-26-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

If Jesus had died in secret, nobody would be saved.

If Christ had not lived, there would be no Gospel, and hence no salvation therefrom. It is Christ as real model and leader that makes him valuable. He is the source of the power of which the Gospels and the Epistles are the conduits. We know him through the Gospels, but it truly is him that we know. But all this is, I fear, will make little impression on you. As Brunner puts it:

Spirit remains to them eternally a mystery and, in the same way, lives like those of Christ and Spinoza remain an impenetrable mystery to their spiritless contemplation. As long as they themselves belong to the superstition of the time in which an Esprital e.g., Christ has lived, they pull downwards his life into that superstition and, in the meantime, they fail to see the uniqueness of His life, which is by far more miraculous than all their miracles, more than had He been the Virgin's son. And when afterwards the time comes for the transition to a new superstition, then they simply make Him as sophisticated as they are themselves, as are their philologists, so that He vanishes in their insipid platitude; and the miracle of His life is henceforth overshadowed by their madness.--Spinoza contra Kant

Hehe, Christians, eh? Always arguing amongst themselves! Maybe the only function of the historical Jesus is to give them something seemingly concrete to unite them against "outsiders"? (Hmmm ... )

No Robots · 06-26-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Hehe, Christians, eh?

lolxians!

Quote:

Always arguing amongst themselves!

Think ye that I have come to give peace in the earth? Nay, I say to you, but rather division.--Lk 12:51

Quote:

Maybe the only function of the historical Jesus is to give them something seemingly concrete to unite them against "outsiders"? (Hmmm ... )

As we have seen, Christians are divided amongst themselves even on this question of historicity. I feel a greater affinity for a mythicist who cares whether Christ existed than for a Christian who doesn't. It's like the end of River's Edge when Hopper's character kills the boy not for murdering the girl but for not having loved her.

Gamera · 06-26-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

If Christ had not lived, there would be no Gospel

,

That's the issue that people are arguing here. It's no good to just state it as a conclusion.

Quote:

and hence no salvation therefrom. It is Christ as real model and leader that makes him valuable. He is the source of the power of which the Gospels and the Epistles are the conduits. We know him through the Gospels, but it truly is him that we know. But all this is, I fear, will make little impression on you. As Brunner puts it:

Spirit remains to them eternally a mystery and, in the same way, lives like those of Christ and Spinoza remain an impenetrable mystery to their spiritless contemplation. As long as they themselves belong to the superstition of the time in which an Esprital e.g., Christ has lived, they pull downwards his life into that superstition and, in the meantime, they fail to see the uniqueness of His life, which is by far more miraculous than all their miracles, more than had He been the Virgin's son. And when afterwards the time comes for the transition to a new superstition, then they simply make Him as sophisticated as they are themselves, as are their philologists, so that He vanishes in their insipid platitude; and the miracle of His life is henceforth overshadowed by their madness.--Spinoza contra Kant

No Robots, I'm not depreciating your faith and if it works for you fine. I'm just convinced that that's not how the gospel works. We have a narrative. Paul says accepting that narrative saves. It's that simple.

And that complex, since it begs the question of what the narrative means, what it means to accept it, and what it means to be saved, questions that are at the heart of what it means to be a Christian. You seem to want to ignore those question by drawing upon a post-Pauline doctrinal Christiology which reduces faith to the intellectual acceptance to certain truth claims about God. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I am insistent that it has nothing to do with the texts that we have before us.

Gamera · 06-26-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

If Christ had not lived, there would be no Gospel, and hence no salvation therefrom. It is Christ as real model and leader that makes him valuable. He is the source of the power of which the Gospels and the Epistles are the conduits. We know him through the Gospels, but it truly is him that we know. But all this is, I fear, will make little impression on you. As Brunner puts it:

Spirit remains to them eternally a mystery and, in the same way, lives like those of Christ and Spinoza remain an impenetrable mystery to their spiritless contemplation. As long as they themselves belong to the superstition of the time in which an Esprital e.g., Christ has lived, they pull downwards his life into that superstition and, in the meantime, they fail to see the uniqueness of His life, which is by far more miraculous than all their miracles, more than had He been the Virgin's son. And when afterwards the time comes for the transition to a new superstition, then they simply make Him as sophisticated as they are themselves, as are their philologists, so that He vanishes in their insipid platitude; and the miracle of His life is henceforth overshadowed by their madness.--Spinoza contra Kant

Hehe, Christians, eh? Always arguing amongst themselves! Maybe the only function of the historical Jesus is to give them something seemingly concrete to unite them against "outsiders"? (Hmmm ... )

What's wrong with arguing about the meaning of these texts? That's what being a Christian is ultimately about -- engaging the gospel (a narrative) seriously.

No Robots · 06-26-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No Robots, I'm not depreciating your faith and if it works for you fine.

I have no "faith". I have these texts which attest to the real existence of this man of signal importance. Your position is like saying, "Hey, we have Herodotus, so who cares if anything he describes actually happened." You are just playing a sophistic game.

Quote:

You seem to want to ignore those question by drawing upon a post-Pauline doctrinal Christiology which reduces faith to the intellectual acceptance to certain truth claims about God.

Who said anything about god? I'm an atheist for crying out loud. I am talking about the claims found throughout the NT regarding the man, Christ.

Quote:

I am insistent that it has nothing to do with the texts that we have before us.

And as I have repeatedly demonstrated, the texts speak of nothing but the real existence of the man, Christ.

No Robots · 06-26-2007, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What's wrong with arguing about the meaning of these texts? That's what being a Christian is ultimately about -- engaging the gospel (a narrative) seriously.

The narrative is about the man, Christ. To deny this is to refuse to engage the narrative seriously.

Gamera · 06-27-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What's wrong with arguing about the meaning of these texts? That's what being a Christian is ultimately about -- engaging the gospel (a narrative) seriously.

The narrative is about the man, Christ. To deny this is to refuse to engage the narrative seriously.

But all we have is the narrative, and Paul tells us that's all we need.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.