Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 08-05-2002, 10:38 PM

CARR
(I had written that I had heard that Michael Grant was an atheist)

LAYMAN
Actually I'm glad to hear that. Do you remember where you heard it?

CARR (now)
I thought you said it!

Vorkosigan · 08-05-2002, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
CARR
(I had written that I had heard that Michael Grant was an atheist)

LAYMAN
Actually I'm glad to hear that. Do you remember where you heard it?

CARR (now)
I thought you said it!

The claim was Nomad's originally, as I recall. I have never seen any reason to dispute it. I seem to recall something about it in his intro to that book he wrote on the gospels. Do you have it handy, Layman?

Layman · 08-06-2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


The claim was Nomad's originally, as I recall. I have never seen any reason to dispute it. I seem to recall something about it in his intro to that book he wrote on the gospels. Do you have it handy, Layman?

I'll double-check but I don't remember any explicit claim to him being an atheist in his book.

Bede is the source for my comment. And I think for Nomad's as well.

Another source I had was from a rather knowledgeable skeptic that I talk with over on another board.

Ted Hoffman · 08-08-2002, 12:33 AM

Looks like Bonayard Bill wont be responding. Rodahi and the rest, thanks for your contributions.

Ted Hoffman · 08-08-2002, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by IntenSity:
I dont exactly agree that we should look for deeper meanings in the events narrated in the NT.
True, if we look for deeper meanings, we will come up with deeper meanings, but of what practical use would those meanings have?

Aikido (earlier) By looking at what can be approximated as the authentic speech of Jesus, one can study those short sayings and parables in context and hazard a best scholarly guess as to what Jesus may have been "getting at." Brandon Scott, among many others, has begun a methodological and daunting study of the parables which paint a congruent picture of a first-century Jew who had a vision for his culture ("Y'all come!") and was executed by the ruling government for preaching that vision.

Intensity : Why is what Jesus was getting at important? This is someone who believed insane people were posessed by demons, someone who could curse a tree because it has no fruit.
As far as I am concerned, we might as well also go and pore over Dionysus' sayings and look for esoteric meanings behind them.

Intensity (earlier) : On what basis do we divert from the usual interpretation and jump to a symbolic one?

Aikido (earlier): Simple answer: when it makes contextual sense. Surely Jesus' parable about the sower is not to be taken as an instructive discourse on how to produce various cereal yields in lower Galilee....

Intensity (earlier) Fine, one can say this represents the young church and that other one represents Israel and that other one symbolises the kingdom of God. But that is just senseless palaver that serves to beguile people with NO practical purpose.

Aikido I still feel misunderstood here, IntenSity. What you would term "sensless palaver," I argue, would be immediately and transparently understood by any devout Jew within earshot of Jesus' preaching, as he recycled and retold themes echoed in stories heard from infancy on.

Intensity: I agree with you; their cultural background would place whatever Jesus was saying in context and maybe they would derive deeper meanings from what he said - my question still is - of what practical purpose are those meanings for humanity? Why should we concern ourselves with what Jesus meant (considering we are not Galileans) while its apparent that he was an ill-informed illiiterate peasant who was only concerned about Jews and even referred to Gentiles as dogs?

AikidoWhat was unique about Jesus, I am discovering, is that he would deliberately lampoon or frustrate his listeners' cultural expectations--usually before they knew what was happening. Getting them to confront the contradiction not only upset their collective sense of shared myth, but it obviously (in some cases) "jump-started" a whole new way of seeing and dealing with that shared myth .[/b]

Intensity: That may be true - but of what value is that to us today?

AikidoIn closing, I would submit that the principle of Occam's Razor does not apply to parable and only marginally to allegory. In any case, most of the contemporary scholarship on Jesus' parables shows that he "sets up" clear meanings, exaggerates them and then lets the story overturn the "conventional wisdom" of his audience.

Intensity: I believe I made it clear that whenever Jesus was talking is parables, he made it clear that he was talking in parables and even in some cases, he interpreted the parables. My objection was to seek esoteric meanings behind his deeds/ sayings.

Aikido I agree with some current scholarship that says that the biblical interpretations of Jesus' parables were added by redactors at a later date.
One more clarification in my point of view: what may seem metaphorical and symbolic to our age may be reality itself to an ancient age.... When we read the New Testament we come up against wholly different--but understandable-- categories of perception.

Intensity: you mean, interpreted literally? That would be true, but remember Jesus' ministry was a form of secret "society" or mystery cult - only the initiated ones could grasp the hidden meanings - for the uninitiated, they could make wrong interpretations or even get confused - I bet Jesus liked that too.

Aikido BTW--Thanks for your feedback!

Youre welcome. Thanks to you too.

aikido7 · 08-08-2002, 06:17 PM

Intensity : Why is what Jesus was getting at important? This is someone who believed insane people were posessed by demons, someone who could curse a tree because it has no fruit.
As far as I am concerned, we might as well also go and pore over Dionysus' sayings and look for esoteric meanings behind them.

If Dionysus' birth date was being used as a benchmark for time demarcation in the civilized world, and if right-wing zealots were using their interpretation of Dionysus' "religion" as an excuse to fantasize and devalue our humanity--then I would consider a study of what Dionysus may have been trying to get at important.

Intensity: I agree with you; their cultural background would place whatever Jesus was saying in context and maybe they would derive deeper meanings from what he said - my question still is - of what practical purpose are those meanings for humanity? Why should we concern ourselves with what Jesus meant (considering we are not Galileans) while its apparent that he was an ill-informed illiiterate peasant who was only concerned about Jews and even referred to Gentiles as dogs?

We are dealing with at least three layers in the New Testament: what Jesus acutally said and did, what the disciples and apostles taught and preached about what Jesus said and did and finally, the sequential narratives of the gospels themselves, which have been sifted out from the teachings of the disciples and apostles. Only the final stage has been preserved. The problem is how to get back to the original words and deeds--and that is the aim of biblical scholarship.

Intensity: That may be true - but of what value is that to us today?

Being a Christian does not entail having accurate historical information about Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, taking the gospel accounts "at face value" is not only something most Christians do, but secular humanists and atheists as well. However, as Marcus Borg has observed, being a Christian has to do with having a relationship with "the living Christ," not with having correct beliefs about the historical Jesus.

The historical sense of who Jesus really was, what he really said and did is just as historically relevant for us today as are the lives of Gandhi, Martin Luther King or even Aristotle. And because of the importance placed on Jesus by the Christian church around the world, I would say that his value as an historical figure is perhaps more important in the post-modern world now than in any other time.

Intensity: I believe I made it clear that whenever Jesus was talking is parables, he made it clear that he was talking in parables and even in some cases, he interpreted the parables. My objection was to seek esoteric meanings behind his deeds/ sayings.

A true parable is not interpreted by the speaker but is realized in the relationship between speaker and listener. Some of Jesus' parables were "interpreted" by later gospel writers to conform to their own struggles decades after the crucifixion.

Part of the historical quest is to try and discover the meanings implicit in the parables and what they may have meant to a first-century audience. Using those newly-discovered meanings in a modern context is the duty of the modern church--if there be such a thing.

Intensity: you mean, interpreted literally? That would be true, but remember Jesus' ministry was a form of secret "society" or mystery cult - only the initiated ones could grasp the hidden meanings - for the uninitiated, they could make wrong interpretations or even get confused - I bet Jesus liked that too.

Mainstream biblical scholarship does not see the early Jesus movement as a "secret mystery cult," although during the earliest written gospels the new movement undoubtedly felt itself beseiged and marginalized.

rodahi · 08-10-2002, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:
Looks like Bonayard Bill wont be responding. Rodahi and the rest, thanks for your contributions.

You are quite welcome. I enjoyed the exchange.

Ted Hoffman · 08-12-2002, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aikido7:
If Dionysus' birth date was being used as a benchmark for time demarcation in the civilized world, and if right-wing zealots were using their interpretation of Dionysus' "religion" as an excuse to fantasize and devalue our humanity--then I would consider a study of what Dionysus may have been trying to get at important.

Heh, heh. What I meant was, Jesus is of as much significance as Dionysus.
In any case, Jesus' birth date is NOT being used for time demarcation in the civilized world, BECAUSE nobody knows the date when Jesus was born. Most approximate that He was born on 1 AD - without evidence of course.
from Calendars Through Ages we get the following quote concerning the gregorian calendar and how it came about:

Quote:

In the year numbered 1582 by the roman christian calendar, Pope Gregory XIII issued an edict to reform the calendar in order to correct and reduce the accumulating errors. The new calendar is therefore known as the gregorian calendar, and whilst it is more accurate than the so-called julian calendar previously in use, it is still based on the same fictitious starting year. As a matter of fact, the birthdate of Jesus is only known to an accuracy of "within a certain 10-year period". It is much easier to pinpoint the time of his crucifixion, by using the Jewish religious calendar, and simple methods of comparing and correlating the various other sources of information. Indeed, christian teachings assert that the crucifixion of Christ is the significant event that brought about the christian age.

This too, is of relevance:

Quote:

...a count of years from an initial epoch is the most successful way of maintaining a consistent chronology. Whether this epoch is associated with an historical or legendary event, it must be tied to a sequence of recorded historical events.

This is illustrated by the adoption of the birth of Christ as the initial epoch of the Christian calendar. This epoch was established by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was compiling a table of dates of Easter. An existing table covered the nineteen-year period denoted 228-247, where years were counted from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian. Dionysius continued the table for a nineteen-year period, which he designated Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532-550. Thus, Dionysius' Anno Domini 532 is equivalent to Anno Diocletian 248. In this way a correspondence was established between the new Christian Era and an existing system associated with historical records. What Dionysius did not do is establish an accurate date for the birth of Christ. Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating.

So the idea that we use AD has no bearing on the significance of Jesus compared to Dionysus. Christs name just acquired popularity because of Roman Empire's adoption of christianity. Who later used Jesus birth as the start of christian era (the year of our lord).

We are dealing with at least three layers in the New Testament: what Jesus acutally said and did, what the disciples and apostles taught and preached about what Jesus said and did and finally, the sequential narratives of the gospels themselves, which have been sifted out from the teachings of the disciples and apostles. Only the final stage has been preserved. The problem is how to get back to the original words and deeds--and that is the aim of biblical scholarship.
Okay. And so far, we have no established methodology that can be used to separate fact from fiction right?

Intensity: That may be true - but of what value is that to us today?
Being a Christian does not entail having accurate historical information about Jesus of Nazareth...
Have we been discussing what "being a christian" entails? I dont beleive a christians ability to dedicate his life to a fuzzy history of myths is of relevance here.
By "us" I meant people interested in finding the truth about the existence of a historical Jesus and his relevance on the future of humanity.

The historical sense of who Jesus really was, what he really said and did is just as historically relevant for us today as are the lives of Gandhi, Martin Luther King or even Aristotle. And because of the importance placed on Jesus by the Christian church around the world, I would say that his value as an historical figure is perhaps more important in the post-modern world now than in any other time.
I beg to disagree. The lives of Gandhi, Martin Luther King or even Aristotle are reliably documented and their "works" are known. To parade a mythical figure among historical figures is misleading and wrong. Jesus, even if he existed, is only important to christians.
One dead man, cant be that important to the whole world, in any case even Gandhi and Luther, we learn about them for historical and philosophical purposes - unlike Jesus (religion).
Unless you are talking about Einstein and others - but Jesus?. Please. Someone who beleived insane people were posessed by demons!

Part of the historical quest is to try and discover the meanings implicit in the parables and what they may have meant to a first-century audience. Using those newly-discovered meanings in a modern context is the duty of the modern church--if there be such a thing.
Like I said, we can have all sorts of meanings - but for them to be of importance, you must hold superstitious beliefs like prophecy, existence of God etc.

Mainstream biblical scholarship does not see the early Jesus movement as a "secret mystery cult," although during the earliest written gospels the new movement undoubtedly felt itself beseiged and marginalized
By "Mainstream biblical scolarship", which scholars are you voicing their opinion here?
Care to provide some evidence? Because I know you are wrong on this one.

aikido7 · 08-14-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

If you look in front of Lincoln High School you might notice a large bronze statue of a tall, gaunt man with a beard wearing shirtsleeves and suspenders. Both of his arms are holding an upraised axe, frozen in the act of breaking the chains of a prostrate black man kneeling at his feet. The inscription on the statue reads: ABRAHAM LINCOLN: HE WAS BORN TO FREE THE SLAVES. Down the street is the First Methodist Church with an inscription on its public bulletin board: JESUS CHRIST: HE WAS BORN TO SAVE US FROM SIN. Are we talking fact or fiction? History or myth? False or true?

Dear Intensity--

(Thanks for replying to my posts. Since I have not studied the other posters' arguments and comments in detail, my opinions here may already have been touched on or discussed. My apologies in advance)

Perhaps we can frame our differences on an epistemological canvas. I submit that we all inhabit story (myth) and some stories are more interesting and useful than others. Maybe I can come across better if I pose the question, do we first come up with theories and then look to see if any "facts" fit them or do we first see "facts" and then argue our theories to account for them?

This is not a question we can afford to take lightly anymore, because "what every schoolboy knows" is that we are told theories and the facts which prove them, and these theories let us know just what is and is not fact. This worked fine in the pre-modern age, but now we seem to be "globally forced" to confront and imagine other alternative theories and begin to speculate how different the alternative facts might be then.

Noted mathematician and thinker Albert North Whitehead once said that it was more important in the real world that a theory be interesting than it be true. And if in fact it is true, he said, that only adds to its interest. I need no more justification for my theory that Jesus existed, fully human, than the fact that the story is interesting to me and points a way toward human transcendence. Where you and I may differ is that you see the "truth" in the notion that Jesus was a mythological figure who never existed in "real life." I see the truth as highlighting the relationship between our two stories.

Some notable postwar theologians (Bultman and others?), felt they had finally hit the wall. They maintained that there is nothing historical that can be reasonably known about Jesus so his mythic meaning is the only thing left for scholarship and the Christian community. His words and deeds could be "resurrected" but his body had to remain behind in the first century.

But since about 1980 with computer literacy and interdisciplinary communication on the rise, new paradigms have arisen for biblical scholars. New strides in textual study, archeological finds, DNA analysis, social anthropology and a better knowledge on the formation of faith-based groups has given a jump-start to Jesus scholarship. This has given thinkers a whole new "set of lenses" to look back on heretofore brankrupt New Testament studies. This has provided impetus for scholars to devise and follow tested methodologies for Jesus studies. Separating "fact from fiction" is part of what has been called "the Third Quest" for the historical Jesus. (And there ARE methodologies in doing this and I CAN discuss some of them if need be)

The only reason I brought up what being a Christian entails is to point out that for the most part both mainstream believers and atheists/agnostics mistakenly take the literal text of the Bible at face value.

The lives of Gandhi and Martin Luther King were emeshed in religious faith as much as in history, philosophy and politics (I confess to an ignorance concerning the life and teachings of Aristotle). The "factual history" of both King and Gandhi have been placed within a "mythic story" until recently. Twenty or so years ago a book appeared called "Gandhi's Truth" which humanized (and some claim diminished) his aura. Recently there have been several books and accounts about the "historical" Martin Luther King who cheated on his wife and plagarized some of his writings.

Intensity, my point was and still is that Jesus--IF he existed, or whoever he was, or whenever he was born, or IF he was born--is still the subject of research by scholars the world over in the humanistic and secular framework of the university. And he remains--like it or not--the central figure in a world religion. And I concede my earlier point in comparing Jesus with "Dionysius Exiguus." I think in my own mind I was comparing Jesus with Dionysis, the Greek God of wine and excess.

In context, Jesus was no different from his times: He was a devout Jew who believed with a majority of his fellow countrymen that insanity was the result of demonic posession. I believe that using this argument to imply that he can be dismissed as a credible (historical) figure is grossly spurious. And to mention that "Christs name just acquired popularity because of Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity(my emphasis)" is focusing on a tree instead of the forest. I believe that--like most of history-- it was much more complex than that. Constantine's conversion was important, but so was the development of the codex over the scroll in spreading the message of the new faith. And many, many other factors.

In context, I also believe that Jesus was very different from his times and it is because of his special uniqueness that makes him interesting to me. We all live inside mythic stories, which are the conventional wisdom of our lives as individuals and as part of humanity. Jesus told parables, and the purpose of a (true) parable is to undercut the very mythic reality on which we stand. It calls for a re-orientation and re-valuation of everything we hold dear and true. Because of this, and because he is being studied in a new context, using new lenses, Jesus has become very interesting to me.

(By the way, I have been unable to locate "the Mystery Cult" aspect of Christianity (if it goes by that term) in books I have on hand by Crossan, Brown, Noland, Fredericksen, Sheehan, Hick, Ehrman or Borg. I remember glancing at a book by Barbara Thiering which seemed to stress this aspect. What other books have you found which mention this?)

continuing the conversation....
aikido7

"A very popular error--to have the courage of one's own convictions. Rather, having the courage to ATTACK one's own convictions."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]

lcb · 08-14-2002, 02:41 PM

may i add: there is a power behind the concept of Jesus Christ. A power which has built more medical missionary clinics, hospitals, feeding centers, orphanges, and charitable institutions than any other name. No human being is studied more intensely by atheists and christians alike than Jesus Christ.There is a fixation, a compulsive obsession with the study of Jesus Christ that atheists summarily dismiss in their rhetoric, as they make another pot of coffee and continue to scrutinize and analyze more about Jesus Christ! That quiet, but imperative inner voice of the holy spirit calling out....

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

08-05-2002, 10:38 PM	#191
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	CARR (I had written that I had heard that Michael Grant was an atheist) LAYMAN Actually I'm glad to hear that. Do you remember where you heard it? CARR (now) I thought you said it!

08-08-2002, 12:33 AM	#194
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Looks like Bonayard Bill wont be responding. Rodahi and the rest, thanks for your contributions.

08-08-2002, 12:55 AM	#195
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Originally posted by IntenSity: I dont exactly agree that we should look for deeper meanings in the events narrated in the NT. True, if we look for deeper meanings, we will come up with deeper meanings, but of what practical use would those meanings have? Aikido (earlier) By looking at what can be approximated as the authentic speech of Jesus, one can study those short sayings and parables in context and hazard a best scholarly guess as to what Jesus may have been "getting at." Brandon Scott, among many others, has begun a methodological and daunting study of the parables which paint a congruent picture of a first-century Jew who had a vision for his culture ("Y'all come!") and was executed by the ruling government for preaching that vision. Intensity : Why is what Jesus was getting at important? This is someone who believed insane people were posessed by demons, someone who could curse a tree because it has no fruit. As far as I am concerned, we might as well also go and pore over Dionysus' sayings and look for esoteric meanings behind them. Intensity (earlier) : On what basis do we divert from the usual interpretation and jump to a symbolic one? Aikido (earlier): Simple answer: when it makes contextual sense. Surely Jesus' parable about the sower is not to be taken as an instructive discourse on how to produce various cereal yields in lower Galilee.... Intensity (earlier) Fine, one can say this represents the young church and that other one represents Israel and that other one symbolises the kingdom of God. But that is just senseless palaver that serves to beguile people with NO practical purpose. Aikido I still feel misunderstood here, IntenSity. What you would term "sensless palaver," I argue, would be immediately and transparently understood by any devout Jew within earshot of Jesus' preaching, as he recycled and retold themes echoed in stories heard from infancy on. Intensity: I agree with you; their cultural background would place whatever Jesus was saying in context and maybe they would derive deeper meanings from what he said - my question still is - of what practical purpose are those meanings for humanity? Why should we concern ourselves with what Jesus meant (considering we are not Galileans) while its apparent that he was an ill-informed illiiterate peasant who was only concerned about Jews and even referred to Gentiles as dogs? AikidoWhat was unique about Jesus, I am discovering, is that he would deliberately lampoon or frustrate his listeners' cultural expectations--usually before they knew what was happening. Getting them to confront the contradiction not only upset their collective sense of shared myth, but it obviously (in some cases) "jump-started" a whole new way of seeing and dealing with that shared myth .[/b] Intensity: That may be true - but of what value is that to us today? AikidoIn closing, I would submit that the principle of Occam's Razor does not apply to parable and only marginally to allegory. In any case, most of the contemporary scholarship on Jesus' parables shows that he "sets up" clear meanings, exaggerates them and then lets the story overturn the "conventional wisdom" of his audience. Intensity: I believe I made it clear that whenever Jesus was talking is parables, he made it clear that he was talking in parables and even in some cases, he interpreted the parables. My objection was to seek esoteric meanings behind his deeds/ sayings. Aikido I agree with some current scholarship that says that the biblical interpretations of Jesus' parables were added by redactors at a later date. One more clarification in my point of view: what may seem metaphorical and symbolic to our age may be reality itself to an ancient age.... When we read the New Testament we come up against wholly different--but understandable-- categories of perception. Intensity: you mean, interpreted literally? That would be true, but remember Jesus' ministry was a form of secret "society" or mystery cult - only the initiated ones could grasp the hidden meanings - for the uninitiated, they could make wrong interpretations or even get confused - I bet Jesus liked that too. Aikido BTW--Thanks for your feedback! Youre welcome. Thanks to you too.

08-08-2002, 06:17 PM	#196
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	Intensity : Why is what Jesus was getting at important? This is someone who believed insane people were posessed by demons, someone who could curse a tree because it has no fruit. As far as I am concerned, we might as well also go and pore over Dionysus' sayings and look for esoteric meanings behind them. If Dionysus' birth date was being used as a benchmark for time demarcation in the civilized world, and if right-wing zealots were using their interpretation of Dionysus' "religion" as an excuse to fantasize and devalue our humanity--then I would consider a study of what Dionysus may have been trying to get at important. Intensity: I agree with you; their cultural background would place whatever Jesus was saying in context and maybe they would derive deeper meanings from what he said - my question still is - of what practical purpose are those meanings for humanity? Why should we concern ourselves with what Jesus meant (considering we are not Galileans) while its apparent that he was an ill-informed illiiterate peasant who was only concerned about Jews and even referred to Gentiles as dogs? We are dealing with at least three layers in the New Testament: what Jesus acutally said and did, what the disciples and apostles taught and preached about what Jesus said and did and finally, the sequential narratives of the gospels themselves, which have been sifted out from the teachings of the disciples and apostles. Only the final stage has been preserved. The problem is how to get back to the original words and deeds--and that is the aim of biblical scholarship. Intensity: That may be true - but of what value is that to us today? Being a Christian does not entail having accurate historical information about Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, taking the gospel accounts "at face value" is not only something most Christians do, but secular humanists and atheists as well. However, as Marcus Borg has observed, being a Christian has to do with having a relationship with "the living Christ," not with having correct beliefs about the historical Jesus. The historical sense of who Jesus really was, what he really said and did is just as historically relevant for us today as are the lives of Gandhi, Martin Luther King or even Aristotle. And because of the importance placed on Jesus by the Christian church around the world, I would say that his value as an historical figure is perhaps more important in the post-modern world now than in any other time. Intensity: I believe I made it clear that whenever Jesus was talking is parables, he made it clear that he was talking in parables and even in some cases, he interpreted the parables. My objection was to seek esoteric meanings behind his deeds/ sayings. A true parable is not interpreted by the speaker but is realized in the relationship between speaker and listener. Some of Jesus' parables were "interpreted" by later gospel writers to conform to their own struggles decades after the crucifixion. Part of the historical quest is to try and discover the meanings implicit in the parables and what they may have meant to a first-century audience. Using those newly-discovered meanings in a modern context is the duty of the modern church--if there be such a thing. Intensity: you mean, interpreted literally? That would be true, but remember Jesus' ministry was a form of secret "society" or mystery cult - only the initiated ones could grasp the hidden meanings - for the uninitiated, they could make wrong interpretations or even get confused - I bet Jesus liked that too. Mainstream biblical scholarship does not see the early Jesus movement as a "secret mystery cult," although during the earliest written gospels the new movement undoubtedly felt itself beseiged and marginalized.

08-14-2002, 02:41 PM	#200
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	may i add: there is a power behind the concept of Jesus Christ. A power which has built more medical missionary clinics, hospitals, feeding centers, orphanges, and charitable institutions than any other name. No human being is studied more intensely by atheists and christians alike than Jesus Christ.There is a fixation, a compulsive obsession with the study of Jesus Christ that atheists summarily dismiss in their rhetoric, as they make another pot of coffee and continue to scrutinize and analyze more about Jesus Christ! That quiet, but imperative inner voice of the holy spirit calling out....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.