maryhelena

Really - remember that great song from Camelot......

If ever I would leave you,
How could it be in spring-time?
Knowing how in spring I'm bewitched by you so?
Oh, no! not in spring-time!
Summer, winter or fall!
No, never could I leave you at all!

That's life, Ted, patterns are part of our environment - and without those patterns it would be impossible to gain any knowledge whatsoever.

And that concept was so great that the Jewish people decide to give it the cold shoulder.....:huh:

No, I'm not Jewish - Irish Catholic background - for what it's worth.

Ted, there is a world of difference between a Jewish Messiah figure being crucified - and the Jews using that terrible deed as a means of 'salvation' for the whole world. Or anyone actually - it's a despicable thing to do. Which should be indicating that that is not what the gospel JC story is about.

archibald

The remainder of your post is small beer and can easily be cleared up as crossed wires once we sort this one out.

Right. So I start out by saying 'Maybe I have misinterpeted you, but I also recall (perhaps inaccurately) that you might have previously mentioned subscribing to some sort of 'two merged historical figures' thesis for Jesus.....', and you wait until after I've asked you why you have this position several subsequent times before correcting me. I can only wish you had done it sooner. Having said that, I am not the churlish type and so I apologise for picking you up wrong.

Mind you, I do sort of forgive myself when I review the posts which led me to think it might be the case, even though it wasn't, obviously:

(My underlining)

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305782&page=3

and these next two didn't help, since you appeared, on the face of it to be agreeing something with someone who leans towards MJ:


http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=305782&page=4

What did you actually mean there?

and finally:

maryhelena

archibald - I've really tried to set out my position for you. I don't seem to have had much success. I think perhaps you and I are not able to communicate on this issue - so I'm going to leave it at that. I am not in the habit of repeating myself over and over....If you are interested in my ideas - then, as I said earlier, check out the threads that I have started. I am not, in this thread, setting out my overall theory. This thread is not about my theory - it is about Wells=Doherty. Sure, my contribution to this thread may have involved aspects of my own theory - but this thread is not the place to get side-tracked into a maryhelena theory discussion.

Horatio Parker

We have no problem appreciating the mythic character of other gods, even while we can appreciate the issues or truths they represent. What's so different about Jesus?

The eternal Jesus that is and always has been can be understood only if a real man who was the real Jesus existed and said or did most of the things ascribed to him in the NT? Why?

I tend toward the opposite that the desire for the wisdom and comfort of the message created the man. I find that easier to understand than a once in a millennium event.

TedM

But they didn't. Christianity began among the Jews, and it started with belief in a crucified and risen Messiah. The question is whether Jews gave the cold shoulder to a spiritual crucifixion (why wouldn't that be gruesome and offensive, by the way?) or a physical one--and then we are back to where we began..

I don't understand your last sentence. The gospels buy into the crucifixion for sins idea. As for the salvation--I don't see why you keep saying it is despicable or the relevancy of the comment. Isaiah 53 is all about the death of someone/nation being for the salvation of Israel and then the whole world so the tone was set 600 years prior.

TedM

The difference is that Jesus is widely believed to be historical now. Therefore the avg person is going to have trouble changing their beliefs. The natural reaction will be: "What!? You mean this person so many worship or at least admire and for whom families have been divided and wars fault was all just an evolved creation out of nothing real other than the imagination of some religious extremists? What a crock and waste of lives..." It wouldn't make sense to them because the avg person isn't a religious extremist.

maryhelena

A spiritual/intellectual crucifixion gruesome - different context allows for a different appraisal. Killing flesh and blood is immoral. Killing an idea (for that is all a spiritual context is, an intellectual world - however much ancient people created a very fancy-dress version....) is a great thing to be doing. It moves forward human intellectual evolution and can bring 'salvation' in some form or another. Albeit changing ones mind is perhaps not such an easy thing sometimes - heresy is no more in favor today than it was during the Inquisition.
The gospels tell a story - it's up to us to try and understand that story with logic and a moral compass in hand. Or we can just reject it as too much outdated nonsense not fit for our 21st century world.

TedM

I'm going to give up mary. I have too much trouble trying to connect the dots between my comments and your responses. Sorry.

Ted

Toto

This is a series of non sequiturs. Jesus is widely believed to be historical now, but not because of religious extremists. Surely the religious wars were a waste of lives whether Jesus existed or not. Beliefs can change on a dime.

:huh:

TedM

Paul, Peter, gospel writers, church fathers weren't religious extremists? That's who I am referring to.

It is a matter of opinion. What makes a life 'wasted' or not? The point is that many believe they were not a waste of life if based on a real person who inspired others to uphold a superior view. If the inspiration is shown to be false or misguided, the superiority of the view is at stake--thus the lives may indeed have been for false beliefs and therefore 'wasted'.

Ridiculous. Most everyone is very resistant to changing their beliefs. People live and die according to their beliefs.