Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 12-11-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldly

A reliable image of Jesus standing between his mother and father would be a show stopper.

I am even unsure of if Paul existed. If Marc and John and the other Espistles are written by anonymous pretending to written by patriachs then why could nto Paul had been written by competing groups? I find it obvious that they competed like nowadays Microsoft and Apple and Linux does.

I'm not sure that Paul existed either, though he may be loosely based on a real person, such as possibly Simon Magus or even Marcion himself, combined with a bit of the OT Saul.

show_no_mercy · 12-11-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldly

A reliable image of Jesus standing between his mother and father would be a show stopper.

I am even unsure of if Paul existed. If Marc and John and the other Espistles are written by anonymous pretending to written by patriachs then why could nto Paul had been written by competing groups? I find it obvious that they competed like nowadays Microsoft and Apple and Linux does.

There is evidence that our current 13 of Paul's epistles were written by two or three different people (or groups). This doesn't even take into account the Paul that was in Marcion's canon (the first Christian to present a "canon" or official Christian books), which no longer exists.

bacht · 12-11-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Modern day usage does seem to have downgraded myth - as in urban legends, urban myths type of use. Well, at least on the one hand - yet, on the other hand, millions of Christians, for instance, still uphold, for example, the incarnation.

Right, this was Joseph Campbell's self-appointed mission, to rescue mythology from insignificance.

The problems start when a metaphor or symbol becomes literal or concrete; thus Isaiah's Suffering Servant starts as a metaphor for Israel and ends up as the baby Jesus.

maryhelena · 12-11-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Modern day usage does seem to have downgraded myth - as in urban legends, urban myths type of use. Well, at least on the one hand - yet, on the other hand, millions of Christians, for instance, still uphold, for example, the incarnation.

Right, this was Joseph Campbell's self-appointed mission, to rescue mythology from insignificance.

The problems start when a metaphor or symbol becomes literal or concrete; thus Isaiah's Suffering Servant starts as a metaphor for Israel and ends up as the baby Jesus.

Yes, and we think that we are the sophisticated ones and those ancients the simplistic ones....:constern01:

aa5874 · 12-11-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Right, this was Joseph Campbell's self-appointed mission, to rescue mythology from insignificance.

The problems start when a metaphor or symbol becomes literal or concrete; thus Isaiah's Suffering Servant starts as a metaphor for Israel and ends up as the baby Jesus.

Yes, and we think that we are the sophisticated ones and those ancients the simplistic ones....:constern01:

But was it not the ancients who wrote Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 16.6, John 1 and Acts 1.9?

Surely some may think that they are sophisticated but we are a little past the Lightning God who perhaps met the ancient Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.

maryhelena · 12-11-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, and we think that we are the sophisticated ones and those ancients the simplistic ones....:constern01:

But was it not the ancients who wrote Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 16.6, John 1 and Acts 1.9?

Surely some may think that they are sophisticated but we are a little past the Lightning God who perhaps met the ancient Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.

aa5874, What I wrote above is obviously a generalization. In any age there had to be people who thought outside the box, people who pushed forward the intellectual worldview of their day. Intellectual evolution is just as much a part of who we are as a species as is our physical evolution. Today, as in the past, there are those who are comfortable with where they are intellectually. Ones intellectual 'furniture' can be as comfortable as an old pair of shoes - and when new shoes can often be painful until they are worn in - discarding those old shoes can often be a last resort when they can no longer be repaired. Thinking the unthinkable is not for the fainthearted in any age.

wordy · 12-12-2009, 12:36 AM

R Joseph Hoffmann has been or still is on the advisory board on religion for the Secular humanists of USA. Paul Kurtz and those that supported him. Center for Inquiry.

Now Hoffmann support a Religious Minimalism. (RM) The creed of RM is very short.

"Be curious!"

I started a thread about it here to not derail this thread.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....99#post6210299

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

12-12-2009, 12:36 AM	#17
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	R Joseph Hoffmann has been or still is on the advisory board on religion for the Secular humanists of USA. Paul Kurtz and those that supported him. Center for Inquiry. Now Hoffmann support a Religious Minimalism. (RM) The creed of RM is very short. "Be curious!" I started a thread about it here to not derail this thread. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....99#post6210299

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.