Jehanne

Mod Note: this is split from here

Did you even read this article:

http://www.jesusseminar.com/Periodic...er/easter.html

Comments, please! Anyone?

Alethias

I read it. I find it interesting and intriguing. I don't have sufficient knowledge or expertise to comment on it's veracity.

I agree with it's claims concerning irreconcilable differences between the gospel accounts of resurrection and ascension and various events inbetween. I think it reasonable to suppose that the gospel accounts are written versions of oral traditions. Remember that the first century christians were still highly influenced by the Jewish roots of Christianity. By the early 1st century there were extensive and highly evolved oral traditions. Oral Traditions revolved around passing on specific interpretations of the passages of the Tanakh from a Rabbi(teacher) to his disciples. These oral interprations are haggadah and were recorded to what extent they were available in the diaspora so they wouldn't be lost.

Much of the New Testament makes more sense to me as a Haggadah, or interpretation of the Old Testament(Tanakh) than it does as an attempt to found a new religion.

I'm far from an expert. I would highly recommend starting a thread in Biblical Criticism & History if you want to explore this in detail.

SoT

Forgran

This is and interesting discussion, but I think that there can be more common ground between people on opposite sides of the spectrum.

A comparative study of the cultural myths proves beyond question that consistent motifs are found in every corner of the globe. For example the Flood story. The Creation story. The Resurrection.

Modern science has disproved the historical fact of these myths. However, in doing so, an internal void of sorts has been created as there are those that cling to the "old religion" and those that cling to the factualized truths of science. Thus, putting the two at odds with one another. I feel that a marriage of the two is more cosistent with the nature of our being.

Criticizing and brutally dismissing religion as a crutch for weak minded people is a mistake equal to those that literally interpret the life supporting qualities of myths and call it religion. As Maya Deren put it the "facts of the mind made manifest in a fiction of matter"... It is in mythology that these "facts of the mind" are symbollically shared within a cultural group and social order. However, when these myths are interpreted as fact (especially apparent in Christianity Judaism and Islam) a breakdown occurs within the culture or individual as the facts of science destroy the "factualness" of something that was never intended to be believed in as such.

We live in a time when the "superstitions" of religion are being proven false in a literal sense, but these beliefs do not disappear because they satiate a very necessary element of our nature. The inward forces of our life require myths as guides to chart the voyage of our inner-self through life in much the same way that the scientific method should guide our outward explorations of the cosmos as a species. As Jung pointed out "a dialogue not a fixture of either poles", that is myth and science should be able to interplay with one another in a meaningful way.

The meaning of truth to the mystic is a completely different thing than the truth of a scientist...and that's fine.

Jehanne

Well, I asked Rev. Muse to read and comment on it three times; so far, no response from him. It's not a terribly long article, and I read it in its entirety within 15 minutes or so. Rev. Muse, your response? What, if anything, do you "find fault" with in Professor Sheehan's work? (The full text of The First Coming is available on the Secular Web site, by the way.)

Jehanne

Four million Americans have claimed to have been abducted by aliens:

http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/2-17-06.mp3

Others have seen ghosts, fairies, lepercons, The Virgin Mary, Saints, angels, etc., etc. Who do we believe? While working at a mental hospital, my mother (an RN) told me about patients who believed that the Sun was communicating with them. Is there such a thing as mental illness? Epilepsy? Schizophrenia? Or, is it all mysticism? And, how can we know the difference?

jjramsey

I don't buy this part of the article:

It seems like, when faced with the historical problems with the NT, the author of the article tries to interpret it in a way that somehow maintains its ultimate "truth," rather than bite the bullet and say that the most natural interpretation of the NT indicates that its writers got it wrong.