Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 03-25-2006, 03:09 AM

In some ways, the gospels become very easy to write once you start with a heavenly Christ (Maybe we should be explicit that we are stating Christ is a supernatural entity.)

What would you expect of this god become man? Logos, I am the Way the Truth and the Life, compassion for the poor, wise sayings.

Add in a few tales about his birth and childhood.

Write tales about how and why the new heaven and earth occurs because of the secrifice of this godman.

Clivedurdle · 03-25-2006, 03:35 AM

It is easy to forget how differently we see the world now.

Until the eighteenth century, the accepted view was that God had made the heavens and the earth, Adam and Eve had brought death into the world, the rainbow was the sign of god's covenant, Moses had gone through the Red Sea and got the ten commandments, Jesus had died and risen again to save us from our sins, there would be a second coming.

Many people still explicitly state and believe this stuff.

Once bits started crumbling, there was no longer any need for this complete model, and it did fall apart.

The central image though is the cross. By questionning - was there a Jesus - we are taking away the last tatty shreds of this belief system. But "those dreadful hammers" had started the process, a logical conclusion is to say goodbye to this historic Jesus, who, if there was one (or 57) , is not needed to explain this religion and its growth.

GakuseiDon · 03-25-2006, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

There will be huge variances in how the ancients perceived things - and how they thought the interactions between the gods and us humans worked out.

Then, can you spell out the ones that are relevant to this issue IYO, and the sources for them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

There are some very significant themes - ancient psychological issues directly related to our consciousness, our awareness of death and loss, of transcendence.

This story - of god and man becoming one - the ultimate unifying of the two worlds, of the creating of a new heaven and earth - is a logical outcome of alchemic thinking.

Experience shows cause and effect all over the place.

Take that a step further and you have the concept of first cause.

Experience shows to all of us that we are mortal and yet we dream immortal thoughts.

Next step, how might this dichotomy be resolved? Religious practices, magic, rituals are a very common way for us to bring the sublime and the ridiculous together.

You seem to be channelling Chili here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I thought Hebrews was very early - pre gospels - and I think seeing an earthly Jesus in there is reading stuff that ain't there!

To the extent that Hebrews is concerned with Jesus after resurrection, you are correct. But since the author of Hebrews mostly describes Jesus after his ascension anyway, it would hardly be any different. It is the time before resurrection that is the key here.

So, what does Hebrews say on this?

Heb 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Heb 5:7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Heb 12:3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls.

According to Hebrews, Jesus came from the tribe of Judah, partook of "flesh and blood", endured hostility from "sinners" (a word that AFAICS seems to have been applied only to people and not to demons) and was crucified "with vehement cries and tears" to God "in the days of his flesh". He will appear a second time to "those who eagerly wait for Him".

Doug Shaver · 03-25-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

For the most part, the gospels are fairly complete upon being written initially.

That seems to be the prevailing assumption, but I have seen no evidence supporting it.

Doug Shaver · 03-25-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

As for how neglected he was in his own time, look at Mozart

Mozart might have been neglected in his own time, but he was not totally ignored.

Neither did he make such an impression that some folks a generation later got it into their heads that he God's own son.

No Robots · 03-25-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Neither did he make such an impression that some folks a generation later got it into their heads that he God's own son.

Some have seen him as such:

Another theory on Amadeus regards the play and the film as an allegory of the Incarnation and Mozart as a Christ figure who suffers for humanity. This Christological interpretation is advocated by John Fulbright (unpubl. ms.: see Robbins). From his point of view, the title Amadeus, which can mean "love of God" or "beloved by God", would suggest that Mozart is a metaphorical son of God. He would thus be a second Christ, an incarnation of God sent to bring humanity salvation through divine music, which symbolises the love of God for his creation. Salieri, in this context, "symbolizes Jesus' human antagonists, as well as the disciples who desert Christ, but are finally redeemed by their own sufferings"

Chris Weimer · 03-25-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That seems to be the prevailing assumption, but I have seen no evidence supporting it.

The burden would actually be on you to show it. Otherwise we must assume they're complete upon being written. And I do take that back - Matthew and Mark show evidence of being complete upon being written, while Luke I have no idea about and John I am suspect of.

Clivedurdle · 03-25-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Christ! NOT JESUS!

Christ appeared to Paul, no problem about second visions!

I am not sure why the areas of alchemy, psychology, visions, myth are being treated as equivalent to "new age" or "off the wall". Have a look at recent works on the evolution of science - Newton is a classic example.

There is a very respectable academic tradition that accepts alchemy as proto science.

Quote:

Then, can you spell out the ones that are relevant to this issue IYO, and the sources for them?

All the stories of the interactions between the gods and humans are relevant in the evolution of this story - which I think we can agree is the most succesful one!

Your quotes from Hebrews betrays your thinking - you are assuming an HJ and reading it in. Assume a heavenly Christ, imagine the gospels do not exist, and see what happens! The truth shall set you free!

BTW, Melchizadeck, Moses, Adam, Noah, (David?, Solomon?) all mythical. Maybe Jews were expert at this - one of the Emperors was shocked to find the Temple empty!

Clivedurdle · 03-25-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Alchemy is an early protoscientific and philosophical discipline combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art. Alchemy has been practiced in ancient Egypt, India, and China, in Classical Greece and Rome, in the Islamic empire, and then in Europe up to the nineteenth century — in a complex network of schools and philosophical systems spanning at least 2500 years.
Western alchemy has always been closely connected with Hermeticism, a philosophical and spiritual system that traces its roots to Hermes Trismegistus, a syncretic Egyptian-Greek deity and legendary alchemist.

These two disciplines influenced the birth of Rosicrucianism, an important esoteric movement of the seventeenth century. In the nineteenth century, as mainstream alchemy evolved into modern chemistry, its mystic and Hermetic aspects became the focus of a modern spiritual alchemy, where material manipulations are viewed as mere symbols of spiritual transformations.

Today, the discipline is of interest mainly to historians of science and philosophy, and for its mystic, esoteric, and artistic aspects. Nevertheless, alchemy was one of the main precursors of modern sciences, and we owe to the ancient alchemists the discovery of many substances and processes that are the mainstay of modern chemical and metallurgical industries.

Alchemy as a proto-science

The common perception of alchemists is that they were pseudo-scientists, crackpots and charlatans, who attempted to turn lead into gold, believed that the universe was composed of the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, and spent most of their time concocting miraculous remedies, poisons, and magic potions.

This picture is rather unfair. Although some alchemists were indeed crackpots and charlatans, many were well-meaning and intelligent scholars, who were simply struggling to make sense of a subject which, as we now know, was far beyond the reach of their tools. These people were basically "proto-scientists", who attempted to explore and investigate the nature of chemical substances and processes. They had to rely on unsystematic experimentation, traditional know-how, rules of thumb — and plenty of speculative thought to fill in the wide gaps in existing knowledge.

Given these conditions, the mystic character of alchemy is quite understandable: to the early alchemist, chemical transformations could only seem like magical phenomena governed by incomprehensible laws, whose potential and limitations he had no way of knowing. Having discovered that a specific procedure could turn an earth-like ore into glistening metal, it was only natural to speculate that some different procedure could turn a metal into another.

Maybe it is time to look seriously at the alchemic roots of xianity. Merging god and man and getting a new heaven and earth out of the reaction is pretty heavy stuff!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

The alchemic rituals are still being carried out in special buildings with specially clothed proto scientists across the planet - their official publications admit as much - wine into blood, death into life....

Maybe alchemy has been defined too narrowly - a new sub -disciplne - xian religious alchemy is needed!

jjramsey · 03-25-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

You claim that you are an atheist. An atheist does not believe in the supernatural. The supernatural Jesus (per Luke Timothy Johnson) is mutually exclusive with the natural, historical Jesus.
Almost all of these conservative scholars (e.g.Stevan Davies and Sanders) believe that Jesus was a man who was capable of supernatural feats.

E.P. Sanders believes Jesus "was a man who was capable of supernatural feats"? From page 143 of his The Historical Figure of Jesus:

Quote:

Although belief in spirits and demons was widespread, ... there were rationalist protests. Cicero (106-43 BCE) put it this way:

For nothing can happen without cause; nothing happens that cannot happen, and when what was capable of happening has happened, it may not be interpreted as a miracle. Consequently there are no miracles ... We therefore draw this conclusion: what was incapable of happening never happened, and what was capable of happening is not a miracle. (De Divinatione 2.28)

This view espoused by Cicero has become dominant in the modern world, and I fully share it [underlining added]

I think Sanders made himself clear.

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

03-25-2006, 03:09 AM	#91
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	In some ways, the gospels become very easy to write once you start with a heavenly Christ (Maybe we should be explicit that we are stating Christ is a supernatural entity.) What would you expect of this god become man? Logos, I am the Way the Truth and the Life, compassion for the poor, wise sayings. Add in a few tales about his birth and childhood. Write tales about how and why the new heaven and earth occurs because of the secrifice of this godman.

03-25-2006, 03:35 AM	#92
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	It is easy to forget how differently we see the world now. Until the eighteenth century, the accepted view was that God had made the heavens and the earth, Adam and Eve had brought death into the world, the rainbow was the sign of god's covenant, Moses had gone through the Red Sea and got the ten commandments, Jesus had died and risen again to save us from our sins, there would be a second coming. Many people still explicitly state and believe this stuff. Once bits started crumbling, there was no longer any need for this complete model, and it did fall apart. The central image though is the cross. By questionning - was there a Jesus - we are taking away the last tatty shreds of this belief system. But "those dreadful hammers" had started the process, a logical conclusion is to say goodbye to this historic Jesus, who, if there was one (or 57) , is not needed to explain this religion and its growth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.