Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 11-10-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

There is only one single world of myth inhabited by different names reading from different scripts.

The ancients were unified by their belief in the existence of a world of myth and in the power of that world of myth over us all. The ancients shared that one world of myth, in the same manner as contemporaries share the same one world of myth today.

There is one and only one omniscient and omnipotent world of myth together with many distinct ‘world of myth’. Each world of myth is unique and omnipotent and omniscient, but there is only one ‘multiternity’ world of myth.

Religious people tell me in triumph that the belief in god is as old as human history. They say that revelation is progressive; Mohamed is the last prophet and he has perfected religion, as an example.

The evidence is the existence of gods and everything associated with it from time immemorial which is visible as another one not yet perfect understanding of the same one god and one divine world order.

There is only one world of myth to inspire all.

That is approximately what Doherty believes myths to have been in the ancient times. It fits universalist ideology, but it needs to follow from the evidence, not just wishful thinking, and it seemingly does not follow from the evidence.

Religious people tell me in triumph that the belief in god is as old as human history. They say that revelation is progressive; Mohamed is the last prophet and he has perfected religion, as an example.

The evidence is the existence of gods and everything associated with it from time immemorial, which is visible as another one not yet perfect understanding of the same one god and one divine world order.

TedM · 11-10-2012, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thought Criminal

I'm quite skeptical of there being such a historical origin, but even if we were to generously grant it, we wouldn't be granting much of anything, really.

Yes and no. Spiritually it wouldn't make much difference IMO since it would all come down to belief in things that didn't happen, if it is all myth. But I think either origin would be fascinating on its own merits: A fully mythical Jesus is fascinating from the standpoint of process and human ingenuity--how did it all come about? A Jesus with a historical basis is fascinating for the same reason but in addition the person himself becomes intriguing--what exactly was it about that person that enabled the creation of a world religion that has lasted so long? Was he a dynamic figure or a small character that happened to fit nicely into a storyline that was very powerful.

Thought Criminal · 11-10-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thought Criminal

I'm quite skeptical of there being such a historical origin, but even if we were to generously grant it, we wouldn't be granting much of anything, really.

Yes and no. Spiritually it wouldn't make much difference IMO since it would all come down to belief in things that didn't happen, if it is all myth. But I think either origin would be fascinating on its own merits: A fully mythical Jesus is fascinating from the standpoint of process and human ingenuity--how did it all come about? A Jesus with a historical basis is fascinating for the same reason but in addition the person himself becomes intriguing--what exactly was it about that person that enabled the creation of a world religion that has lasted so long?

I'm not denying that the issue is interesting on a scholarly and perhaps even personal basis. I'm just saying that the bottom line -- none of this ever happened -- doesn't change. The Bible remains fiction, even if it's historical fiction.

aa5874 · 11-10-2012, 07:29 AM

Again, the very Christians of antiquity were the same Greeks and Romans who believed in a World of Myth.

Examine the words of Justin. The Jesus story was similar to those in the Greek World of Myth.

First Apology XXI

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter:

Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all;

AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven;

and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb;

and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils;

and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae;

and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars...

The NT Canon is just simply one of the many compilation of Mythological Fables in the Greek/Roman "World of Myth".

Clivedurdle · 11-10-2012, 07:33 AM

Quote:

The Gnostic Paul is a book by Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of religion at Princeton University. In the work, Pagels considers each of the non-pastoral Pauline Epistles, and questions about their authorship.

The core of the book examines how the Pauline epistles were read by 2nd century Valentinian gnostics and demonstrates that Paul could be considered a proto-gnostic as well as a proto-Catholic.

Her treatment involves reading the Pauline corpus as being dual layered between a Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity and a Psychic, exoteric Christianity.

Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity
Psychic, exoteric Christianity

"Greeks"
"Jews"

The religion of Heresy
The Orthodox religion

Early Paul
Peter, The Church Fathers and their forged later Paul

The Truth, wisdom, enlightenment
The Lie, error, darkness, foolishness

The initiated, adults
The uninitiated, children

A secret mystery is revealed to some apostles, but not to other apostles
No secret mystery; all apostles have authority through simple ordinary seeing of miraculous resurrection

The sacrament of apolytrosis (apo- can mean after-, post-, and separate redemption) in addition to common eucharist
The common eucharist, only

Redemption
Salvation, baptism

Spiritual freedom from moral codes—but metaphysical determinism/fatedness, predestined election
Spiritual enslavement to morality—with delusion of free will and choosing faith oneself

Reject idea of responsible moral agency and idea of our culpability of sin/guilt
Belief in responsible moral agency and our culpability for sin/guilt

The apple was a gift of gnosis
The apple was bad

All blame is placed on the Ground, not us
All blame is placed on us

No death on the Cross (it was mythic and could be seen as a pseudo-death)
Jesus died on the Cross

Sacrifice is mythic, mental, conceptual, a mental experience
Sacrifice is bodily, bloody, magically effective, physical

No bodily resurrection
Bodily resurrection

Mythic Christ
Supernaturalist Jesus

Belief in higher and lower Christians (with a principled respect for the lower)
Disbelief in higher level of Christianity—to obtain unity and harmony of the Church

No point in moral-reward heaven or moral-punishment hell
Moral-reward heaven and moral-punishment hell exist, for the responsible agent/soul

We are spirits, controlled by God
We are souls, controlled by ourselves

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

Being a bear of little brain, (quote from mythological source, or did Winnie exist?) would someone kindly explain what I am misunderstanding about world or worlds of myth?

And many many more already mentioned, like New Jerusalem, New Heaven and Earth, glass darkly.

Priesthood, priesthood of all believers.

Are we not looking at an early version of Hegelian thinking? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis? God, Man, Christ?

ApostateAbe · 11-10-2012, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

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

Being a bear of little brain, (quote from mythological source, or did Winnie exist?) would someone kindly explain what I am misunderstanding about world or worlds of myth?

And many many more already mentioned, like New Jerusalem, New Heaven and Earth, glass darkly.

Priesthood, priesthood of all believers.

Are we not looking at an early version of Hegelian thinking? Thesis, antithesis, synthesis? God, Man, Christ?

If you want to make sense of Earl Doherty's "World of Myth," then I would suggest looking at the writings of Earl Doherty. It is a theory exclusive to Earl Doherty. If you want to make sense of ancient myths, then I think you would have to examine the ancient myths directly. The next best thing is to read analyses of the ancient evidence from reputable non-ideological scholars, including neither Earl Doherty nor Elaine Pagels. I would suggest textbooks on the subject used in state-accredited colleges, such as Bart Ehrman's A Brief Introduction to the New Testament or The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Ideological thinkers tend to connect ancient thinking with modern thinking, but ancient beliefs are relevant only to their own times and places, and you can make sense of them only in the ancient contexts. It is certainly no shame to source mythological sources to make a case for what ancient mythology was. That is really the only way to do it.

Toto · 11-10-2012, 08:07 AM

Why is Ehrman an authority on ancient mythological thinking but Elaine Pagels is not? What is Elaine Pagel's ideology? Are you confusing her with someone else?

Elaine_Pagels

Quote:

... Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. ... She was graduated from Stanford University (B.A. 1964, M.A. 1965). After briefly studying dance at Martha Graham's studio, she began studying for her Ph.D. in religion at Harvard University as a student of Helmut Koester and part of a team studying the Nag Hammadi library manuscripts ...

In 2012, Pagels received Princeton University's Howard T. Behrman Award for Distinguished Achievement in the Humanities for, as one nominator wrote, "her ability to show readers that the ancient texts she studies are concerned with the great questions of human existence though they may discuss them in mythological or theological language very different from our own." ...

Horatio Parker · 11-10-2012, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Horatio Parker - you're saying you are "not sure" about something without actually locating what it is that you disagree with, and end up repeating essentially the same thing.

This:

Quote:

In the beginning Christ Crucified is "real" to them, but is not occuring at a time certain in the observable world.

I think they believed that reality in the upper world had an earthly component. All earthly occurrences are reflections of the eternal, and eternal occurrences are reflected on Earth. If Christ as a spiritual being exists in the upper world, then he also existed in the lower, in time and space. I suspect that, for them, acceptance of the spiritual Christ constituted proof of the earthly.

As I understand Doherty's theories, this is not a conflict, since Jesus had existed as a man before his cosmic struggle with the demons.

That the ancients had a view more like our own, that they could dispense with the need for particular earthly instantiations of the upper world, is appealing. But I've seen no direct evidence for it. If you know of any, please direct me.

ApostateAbe · 11-10-2012, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why is Ehrman an authority on ancient mythological thinking but Elaine Pagels is not? What is Elaine Pagel's ideology? Are you confusing her with someone else?

Elaine_Pagels

Quote:

... Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. ... She was graduated from Stanford University (B.A. 1964, M.A. 1965). After briefly studying dance at Martha Graham's studio, she began studying for her Ph.D. in religion at Harvard University as a student of Helmut Koester and part of a team studying the Nag Hammadi library manuscripts ...

In 2012, Pagels received Princeton University's Howard T. Behrman Award for Distinguished Achievement in the Humanities for, as one nominator wrote, "her ability to show readers that the ancient texts she studies are concerned with the great questions of human existence though they may discuss them in mythological or theological language very different from our own." ...

Elaine Pagels is an ideological author who writes for an ideological audience. That doesn't make her scholarship especially bad. That makes it normal. I generally recommend textbooks used in state-accredited colleges, not just for this subject but for any subject, and of course Elaine Pagels doesn't write academic textbooks. She writes popular books.

Toto · 11-10-2012, 08:33 AM

What is Pagels' ideology? How do you define ideological? Why is Bart Ehrman not ideological? Why is a university curriculum in North Carolina more reliable than Harvard or Princeton?

Are you just throwing that label around without reason?

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

11-10-2012, 08:33 AM	#50
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What is Pagels' ideology? How do you define ideological? Why is Bart Ehrman not ideological? Why is a university curriculum in North Carolina more reliable than Harvard or Princeton? Are you just throwing that label around without reason?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.