Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-14-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Revelation
Chapter 7
1
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, 2 holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree.
2
Then I saw another angel come up from the East, 3 holding the seal of the living God. He cried out in a loud voice to the four angels who were given power to damage the land and the sea,
3
"Do not damage the land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God."
4
I heard the number of those who had been marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand marked 4 from every tribe of the Israelites:
5
twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Judah, 5 twelve thousand from the tribe of Reuben, twelve thousand from the tribe of Gad,
6
twelve thousand from the tribe of Asher, twelve thousand from the tribe of Naphtali, twelve thousand from the tribe of Manasseh,
7
twelve thousand from the tribe of Simeon, twelve thousand from the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand from the tribe of Issachar,
8
twelve thousand from the tribe of Zebulun, twelve thousand from the tribe of Joseph, and twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Benjamin.
9
After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches 6 in their hands.
10
They cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation comes from 7 our God, who is seated on the throne, and from the Lamb."
11
All the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God,
12
and exclaimed: "Amen. Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen."
13
Then one of the elders spoke up and said to me, "Who are these wearing white robes, and where did they come from?"
14
I said to him, "My lord, you are the one who knows." He said to me, "These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress; 8 they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15
"For this reason they stand before God's throne and worship him day and night in his temple. The one who sits on the throne will shelter them.
16
They will not hunger or thirst anymore, nor will the sun or any heat strike them.
17
For the Lamb who is in the center of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water, 9 and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."

But this would seem to be a shape shifting beastie with these references to Lamb!

Clivedurdle · 07-15-2006, 07:04 AM

I know all the arguments about Christology and development of mythical aspects, but let us look carefully at the assumptions here.

What is wrong with stating Jesus is and always has been a mythical beastie who at various points has been interpreted as more historical or more mythical - I assume that everyone is agreed that the resurrected Christ is a classic supernatural being - or is he still partly human?

If anyone argues that the resurrected Christ is fully god and man I think we are reasonable to conclude we are discussing a classic mystical beastie post resurrection.

Why would anything be different about the pre resurrection Jesus?

Doctrine is quite clear that Jesus' dad is the Holy Spirit. Therefore a classical mythical beastie.

Why does anyone assume any historicity about Jesus at all, when even the classic doctrines state hybrid!

Are people arguing in favour of a historical Jesus making three mistakes compounded?

Ignoring the obvious set of creatures Jesus belongs in
Assuming an HJ actually is xian doctrine - rereading the creeds it is not!
Assuming a founder is required.

Clivedurdle · 07-16-2006, 11:25 AM

I am attempting to have a serious thread here, believe it or not!

Let us build up a picture of this fascinating religion from the evidence we have.

The writings of someone called Paul strongly suggest a Christ in the heavens, with a few odd comments to humanise it.

The name is in fact very interesting.

The Lord Jesus Christ.

Compare that with The Angel Gabriel.

What do we have - First a rank, Lord (or God), or Angel, then a name, and the important one has a further title - Messiah.

Let's look at the other main set of documents - the Gospels. What do they consist of?

John starts with a philosophy discussion, basically arguing how this super angel or son of god - remenber sons of god are mentioned in Genesis and have relations with women - is very important.

In the Gospels, there are various ethical and morality points, none of which are original, various healing miracles and big beginning and end miracles.

Has anyone asked if the gospels are stories about an angel? If someone had deliberately decided to construct such a story, what elements would it contain and how does that compare to the gospels?

The dating of them - at least thirty years after this alleged guy, the fact that everyone when writing things out felt free to add their own comments to explain things as they thought better....

Please everyone, hharrumph loudly, shout rubbish and balderdash, and then calmly sit down and think about this.

Are we looking at the construction of a super angel story, that in fact was accepted as such until probably the nineteenth century when the historical Jesus was invented?

Remember, there is no fraud here - everyone believed in gods and angels!

Clivedurdle · 07-16-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Genesis 19 WEB

1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them. He bowed himself with his face to the earth,

2 and he said, "See now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, stay all night, wash your feet, and you can rise up early, and go on your way." They said, "No, but we will stay in the street all night."

3 He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

Angels have always been able to talk and eat and wash and sleep - just like Jesus!

Clivedurdle · 07-16-2006, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Genesis 6 WEB

1 It happened, when men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them,

2 that God's sons saw that men's daughters were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives of all that they chose.

3 Yahweh said, "My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; yet will his days be one hundred twenty years."

4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God's sons came in to men's daughters. They bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

What exactly are the differences between this and the stories about Jesus's birth?

Clivedurdle · 07-16-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

(Mark 9:2-4,7-8) "[One day] Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them. And Elijah appeared to them with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus....And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!' Suddenly, when they had looked around, they saw no one anymore, but only Jesus."

Maybe this will get a response!

Is part of the problem around what is a prophet, an apostle and an angel? In the above quote, what did the writer think Moses and Elijah were? Resurrected humans who had been "transfigured"? But this is another type of mytical beastie! We have here a direct description of Jesus as identical to Moses and Elijah!

The author is stating Jesus is a mythical beast - humans do not transfigure - angels can!

Is part of the resistance to the concept of Jesus as a classic super angel because we are all so conditioned in the West to think of saints, and favourite grandmas and children and pets actually being in heaven? People do believe they can pray to saints, but what is a saint? Is a saint not also a special kind of mythical beast, as is our grandma in heaven?

We are so conditioned to think these imaginary friends are real, we put them in a class of real out of habit, and only rarely ask do they belong there?

I think this has clearly happened to Jesus. A common or garden mythical beast, because we are so conditioned to think of the angelic hosts including our favourite dog and parents, can easily slip from an imaginary to a real category. Repeat mistake a billion billion times and it is difficult to spot, leading to entire academic traditions being based on a fundamental misunderstanding!

But this as happened before, changes from geocentric and aristotelian thinking being previous examples!

Jesus, welcome to the angelic hosts, where you belong!

mountainman · 07-16-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What exactly are the differences between this and the stories about Jesus's birth?

Genesis is your typical primitive natural philosophy creation myth
which was probably first passed down (the generations) via the
oral tradition, and then popularised in the Roman Empire from the
time of Philo, after it was committed to writing AND translated to
the greek.

The fabrication of the NT is a fiction of men composed by wickedness
out of the whole cloth in the fourth century, and succeeded in
overcoming all other of this new technology literature by
a number of mechanisms, initiated by the supreme imperial mafia
thug Constantine and implemented under his jurisdiction by means
of summoning the key patrician level administrators and land holders
of the eastern empire (which Constantine had just acquired)
to attend the Council of Nicaea 325 CE.

The power structure notarised by their signatures to the OATH of
Nicaea made each of these attendees Bishops overnight, and they
were immediately all important people, harmonised by Constantine.
Over the next 12 years this power structure consolidated itself
under Constantine, and then following his death, after a brief problem
with the emperor Julian, self-perpetuated itself as the Byzantine
power structure that would burn its opposition out of the land.

Stories and fables are one thing. Literature however, in those days,
was a new and big technology, and could influence evolution of
ideas and philosophies, whereas before, literature was only available
by means of the performing bard, story-teller, musician, etc.

Pete Brown

Toto · 07-18-2006, 03:20 PM

The "Jesus was a gay hippie" diversion was split off again to here.

Clivedurdle · 07-19-2006, 12:21 PM

But there is still stuff I posted missing!

Clivedurdle · 07-19-2006, 12:35 PM

Partial reconstruction!

Quote:

reality, hyperreality (1)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines reality foremost as "the quality of being real or having an actual existence" and supplements this with a definition of real as "having objective existence," and finally to exist as having "place in the domain of reality." These conventional definitions of reality represent a larger problem in the attempt to locate the real on the most basic level, for they are wholly circular, a set of signifiers reflecting back at each other lacking the grounding necessary to render meaning. This problem is not unique to the word ‘reality,’ indeed almost all words and signs are only able to refer back towards the internal exchange of other signs in order to produce a theoretical anchor. The slippage of reality, its elusiveness encountered even in a basic search for a definition, is an element of the hyperreal – a condition in which the distinction between the ‘real’ and the imaginary implodes.

There is no static definition of hyperreality, and the interpretations employed by theorists vary on some of the most essential terms. That said, this article will attempt to extrapolate a common understanding of the hyperreal based on the work of several theorists. A general understanding of hyperreality is important for it is an issue at the crux of several critical debates within the study of media including semiotics, objects and space, the spectacle, performativity, the examination of mass media, Platonism, resistance, and the structure of reality.

The concept most fundamental to hyperreality is the simulation and the simulacrum (see Simulation/Simulacra, (2)]. The simulation is characterized by a blending of ‘reality’ and representation, where there is no clear indication of where the former stops and the latter begins. The simulacrum is often defined as a copy with no original, or as Gilles Deleuze (1990) describes it, "the simulacrum is an image without resemblance" (p. 257). Jean Baudrillard (1994) maps the transformation from representation to simulacrum in four ‘successive phases of the image’ in which the last is that "it has no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum" (SS p.6). (see mimesis, representation) Deleuze, Baudrillard, and several other theorists trace the proliferation and succession of simulacra to the rise of hyperreality and the advent of a world that is either partially, or entirely simulated.

......

The system of monetary exchange is an example of the hyperreal that should help to prevent any definitional confusion. Traditional explanations of the history of money will return to earlier societies in which people traded goods and tools that presumably had similar amounts of labor invested within their production/acquisition. At some point, a common good was substituted as a ground for exchange, and then later pecuniary units were produced in order to simulate the common exchange. At first the monetary units had inherent value in that they were made of precious metals, but they were eventually replaced with worthless paper units, and many contemporary economies are now substituting these papers for credit information stored in computer databanks. During the process of countless successive copies the essential reality of exchange has long since been lost, with commodities now completely disconnected from their use value, their production cost, and even their function. Moreover, the foundational lie of exchange has long since been forgotten over the weight of countless simulacra: that there was never any trade grounded in reality, that symbolic exchange is precisely and only that which can only refer to other signs for meaning and definition.

The next important intersection between the theory of hyperreality and media studies is performativity.

Deleuze helps to connect hyperreality to another strain of media theory originating in one of the oldest known media theorists, Plato. Suspicion of media technologies is not a uniquely modern phenomenon, indeed Plato advanced a critique of the written word through the dialog of Socrates in the Phaedrus (quite similar to that of Baudrillard in CPS). Plato, in his Allegory of the Cave, purports the existence of truth in ideal forms, accessible not in reality but through the philosopher’s ideas and intellectual pursuit of the forms. Plato presents a clear understanding of simulations in the Caves; although he concedes that any artistic reproduction of ideal forms would constitute representation, he is clear that it entails the copy of an original, true form. Deleuze argues that Plato contrasts these legitimate copies to fearful simulacra, "Plato divides in two the domain of images-idols: on one hand there are copies-icons, on the other there are simulacra-phantasms" (p. 256). It is thus that Deleuze is able to claim that with the arrival of hyperreality Platonism has been reversed, for any original truth or ideal forms that provided the anchor for representation have since been permanently lost in the reproduction of simulacra and the construction of a hyperreality without any connection to the real.

http://www.chicagoschoolmediatheory....perreality.htm

I also discussed Jacob wrestling with God. From memory, this famous story describes our existential struggle between our two selves - our mortal animal that will die, and our consciousness of ourself. We are all always, and all humans always have been, wrestling with god.

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewW...abview=display

I am sorry, Jesus is clearly a human invention of a superangel/god variety. These aspects are not accretions on a basic historical person but are the basis of this mytrhical beast!

What if we look at the gospels - they were written at least one possibly four generations after he was alleged to have lived - as classic expositions of the life of a god?

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

07-15-2006, 07:04 AM	#12
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I know all the arguments about Christology and development of mythical aspects, but let us look carefully at the assumptions here. What is wrong with stating Jesus is and always has been a mythical beastie who at various points has been interpreted as more historical or more mythical - I assume that everyone is agreed that the resurrected Christ is a classic supernatural being - or is he still partly human? If anyone argues that the resurrected Christ is fully god and man I think we are reasonable to conclude we are discussing a classic mystical beastie post resurrection. Why would anything be different about the pre resurrection Jesus? Doctrine is quite clear that Jesus' dad is the Holy Spirit. Therefore a classical mythical beastie. Why does anyone assume any historicity about Jesus at all, when even the classic doctrines state hybrid! Are people arguing in favour of a historical Jesus making three mistakes compounded? Ignoring the obvious set of creatures Jesus belongs in Assuming an HJ actually is xian doctrine - rereading the creeds it is not! Assuming a founder is required.

07-16-2006, 11:25 AM	#13
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I am attempting to have a serious thread here, believe it or not! Let us build up a picture of this fascinating religion from the evidence we have. The writings of someone called Paul strongly suggest a Christ in the heavens, with a few odd comments to humanise it. The name is in fact very interesting. The Lord Jesus Christ. Compare that with The Angel Gabriel. What do we have - First a rank, Lord (or God), or Angel, then a name, and the important one has a further title - Messiah. Let's look at the other main set of documents - the Gospels. What do they consist of? John starts with a philosophy discussion, basically arguing how this super angel or son of god - remenber sons of god are mentioned in Genesis and have relations with women - is very important. In the Gospels, there are various ethical and morality points, none of which are original, various healing miracles and big beginning and end miracles. Has anyone asked if the gospels are stories about an angel? If someone had deliberately decided to construct such a story, what elements would it contain and how does that compare to the gospels? The dating of them - at least thirty years after this alleged guy, the fact that everyone when writing things out felt free to add their own comments to explain things as they thought better.... Please everyone, hharrumph loudly, shout rubbish and balderdash, and then calmly sit down and think about this. Are we looking at the construction of a super angel story, that in fact was accepted as such until probably the nineteenth century when the historical Jesus was invented? Remember, there is no fraud here - everyone believed in gods and angels!

07-18-2006, 03:20 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The "Jesus was a gay hippie" diversion was split off again to here.

07-19-2006, 12:21 PM	#19
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But there is still stuff I posted missing!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.