Metacrock

Koy and Goliath are sure that I'm going to sneak in an argument for the diety of Chrsit by first proving that he's historical. That's why they feel they must resist the historical existence of Jesus. I knew that. Why do they think this, when I've said I'm a liberal about a million times? Because that's meaningless to them. But they are sure I'm going to pull a William Lane Craig on them.

I don't do that. That's not the kind of apologetics I do. I take what I think is a wider view than that. I don't see the material in the Bible as some kind of highschool debate topic. I think all one can do is indicate when misconceptions are standing in the way of really gleaning the spiritual truth, and then allowing the reader to fend for himself/herself. It just so happens that around here most of those misconceptions involve histoircal misunderstandings and silly theories about Jesus not existing.

Be that as it may I'm not going to try and prove the resurrection by first proving that Jesus really lived. Jesus' historicity to me, is more imporant than a 3d rate debate tactic. I just dont think that's the way to do things. Belief happens in the heart, you can't argue someone into believing. But think about it, you hate the fundies, you think McDowell is an idiot, but then if you see someone refusing to argue like him most of you have the impression "you aren't doing it right." So you really respect McDowell and Craig because you can't see any other way to "prove" the Bible.

but why must the bible be "proven?" What if there is another way to approach reliigous faith then by "proving" it as though it's a scientific qeustion (which it isn't)? Koy wants to sugget that I'm not a shcolar because I'm just crouching to spring the McDowell stuff on him, and he lambsts me for a ploy I've not used yet, and really don't intend to. But what I do intend to do most of you might actualy be confussed by, and some will be angered and all will be saying "he just doesn't do it right."

But think about it, why should I have to do it like they do when you think they are so stupid?


So what am I going to do? First, in a nushall, let me sketch out what I think is at the heart of religious belief, and then the functin of apologetics in that belief. remember apologietics has changed over the centuries. IN the begining, with peopl like Justin Martyr it was merely an argument that Christians weren't so bad.


Religious Belief in a Nutshell


All religions aspire to do three things:

1) to deliniate the Human problematic

2) To resolve the problematic with a trnasformative experience

3) To mediate the transformation.


this human problamtic is not necessarliy sin, but that is one example of it It can also be imbalance, or re-birth or whatever. Whatever people find is wrong with being human, the problem at the heart of human experinece. that's what religion aims at solving. Thus, religion is not a scientific question. Proving God with science is not a fair task, because God is not subject matter for science. That's why Biblical scholarship studies texts, artifacts, ancient society, it doenst' study miracles, because miracles aren't on the agenda for scientific study. That doens't mean they don't happen, doens't mean it's stupid to believe in them. But it does mean that you can't prove them with science.

the proof of religious truth is in the heart, it's an existential encoutner it has to be apprehended phenomenolgoically. So the real truth of the Bible is found in this encoutner as one reads the text. It's a personal indiviual thing. The purpuse of the Bible is not to be an apologetics hand book or a source books for proofs, or a rule book for moral living. The purpose is to admnister Grace. that's how one knows one has found the truth of the word, when one recieves Grace, when one has this transformative experince that changes things.

In my view, then, the taks of apologetics is to clear away the clutter so that people can better deal with this existintial reality. One can't seek this transformation while thinking "O that stuff is so stupid because Jesus didn't exist." Im not concerned with provign the resurrection with the evidence that proves Jesus existed. One will have to find the truth of the resurrection thorugh one's own encourter with the power of God in one's life. But the turth of that encounter is shrouded as long as the skeptic is allowed to get away with obfuscations like the alledged non existence of Jesus and so forth. As long as one is worried about how many women were at the tomb, one is not focussed upon the meaning of resurrection for one's own life.

So thats my purpose in apologetics, to clear away the clutter, to clear up misconceptions that stand in the way of understanding th faith, but not to work little puzzells and "prove" amazing things through false logic.




The Question: What is important about historicity?


The historicity of Jesus is important, but the question is, what is important about it? Is it really so important to know that on a certain day Jesus did and said this or that? Or is it important to know that we have a generally accurate perception of the kinds of things Jesus did and the basic core of his teaching available to us? I contend that some historical elements are more important than others. Of course you know I would do things backwards to the way most Christians do them.

I believe the Virgin birth, for example, but I believe more as a Christian ironist and out of respect for the Creeds then as a purely historical fact the absence of which would somehow cause the whole thing to crumble.

The Topos of Historicity



"Topos" is just a fancy Greek term used in A&H circles for "place," or "location." I bring this up because I think what is most important is the understanding of and acceptance of the Tradition itself. I think the tradition is the safe guard of the historicity. This means that rather than some sort of historically empirical proof (of which there is no such thing) that Jesus really gave the sermon on the mount, the important thing is that the tradition loaded those teachings into its understanding of Jesus from an early period and to be a member of the community means to accept that teaching. This is so because this is what works. To accept Jesus, to accept God's grace through the mediation of Christ's atonement is transformative and offers a power for living which resolves the basic human problematic. The proof of that is in actually doing it, actually receiving it, not in historical arguments.


The Magesterium:


This is a fancy word for the teaching authority of the church. Now the community always believed as part of itself understanding and its understanding Jesus, that Christ ordained the Apostles, the Apostles ordained the Bishops, the Bishops ordained the canon and the tradition preserved the deposit of truth in this way. That implies a certain historicity but what is more important than proving the historicity is understanding it. It is not an intellectual topic to be debated, but a living a reality to be experienced. It works, and the proof that it works is in the pudding. Because it works we can be fairly sure that the testimony given is accurate. But we need not be so certain as to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.


What matters is not history but history making aspects. That is, it is not an historical question, Was Jesus the son of God? Did he raise from the dead? These are not things that can be proven historically, they are not part of history because they involve transcendence of the naturalistic framework under which history is assumed. That does not mean that I don't believe them, but it does mean that proving them is less important than living them. Should anyone think this is not sufficiently intellectual to justify the brain power it takes to grasp it, consider the thinkers who have also believed it; Jurgen Moltmann is the theologian who evokes the history making criterion, he is totally brilliant and of interest to secular philosophers at Tubgingen.


The list also includes notables form T. S. Elliot to John Alston. The point is that there is no intellectual shame in an existential encounter with the object of ultimate concern. So that is what really matters, that the teachings bestow Grace, that the church understood itself as the recipient of Christ's teachings (and with no small amount of confirming evidence form history) and it doesn't matter that it isn't "proven" or that the resurrection isn't considered historical. It is history making, history was shaped around that concept and around the churches understanding of itself as the guardian of Jesus' teachings.


The Theological Lodown:


As I have said before, I believe that there is one universal experience of the Divine that stands behind all religions. The individual God figures in reach religion don't matter because they are preceded by this experience which is more basic, and they are created by cultural construct through which this experience must be flitted. But that is what happens when man tries to reach out to God unaided. What happens when God decides to make one clear unmistakable statement that demonstrates exactly who he is and what he wants? Perhaps the best way to do that would be to come and tell us himself. That's what I believe happened with Jesus.


Now that still leaves problems of the ambiguity of language. But what is unambiguous is the actions. Not only are the actions of Jesus reflective of the divine in such enstances as forgiving the woman caught in adultery or in healing the sick and so forth, but they are unmistakable in his atonement on the cross. This is a statement of God's solidarity with humanity. That God would be willing to die for the sins of humanity and to die as one of the lowest in the social order demonstrates that God is on our side and is willing to identify with our lot, which is what solidarity is all about. Now never mind the fact that "it didn't hurt cause he was God" and silly arguments like that. The point is that it is a clear expression of God's willingness to identify with us. The only problem is that we have to return the favor and identify with him. It's still a search that can only concluded in the heart. So we must still make a decision and place our solidarity with God through giving our lives to Christ (Romans 6). But it works both ways and all we need to is examine the case to see that. Once having done that we receive transformation and we resolve the problematic involved in being human and that's what really matters because that is a lived experience and can be seen by anyone, it is not a matter of empirical evidence or of demonstration in an "objective" way. I'm not saying the history doesn't matter, and I do believe the historical stuff form the Gospels.


But what matters more than proving it as history is what it means to accept it as history. It doesn't mean able to prove it (and in fact nothing in history is proven in the way that it is in science--all history is probability in a sense). What matters about accepting the history is understanding what it does for you to accept it. When one finds that this is the case and it does actually mediate transcendence one can find that the claims are at least true. They may or may not be true in a literal historical sense (and I think most of them are) but they are true in a transformative sense. If one is transformed than it would seem to be the point, the whole point involved in why would want to investigate religion in the first place. How to choose a tradition. Now as I have said, it is not a question of which religion is true but of which has the efficacy. That means, all religions mediate transformation to some degree, but some do so better than others. Human sacrifice for example is a less efficacious method, because it involves the necessity of cruelty and murder, and a grace oriented religion is more efficacious because it is more accessible to all. There are two such religions and two only: pure land Buddhism and Christianity. We can compare those two later. But in my view that is the reason to prefer a particular tradition, and to prefer the tradition with which I identify; because it mediates transcendence through Grace, which means one need not be good enough to merit God's favor. That makes it more accessible and in a sense it may make it more transformative. As Jesus said "he who has been foreign much loves much. We can open a new one to do the historical stuff (and don't worry, I will).

Vorkosigan

All religions aspire to do three things:

1) to deliniate the Human problematic

2) To resolve the problematic with a trnasformative experience

3) To mediate the transformation.

Meta, religions are social structures that aspire to power and control; to secure resources, sex, wealth, and devotees in ever larger numbers. You've just delineated the axis of invasion, not the objectives of "religion."

To accept Jesus, to accept God's grace through the mediation of Christ's atonement is transformative and offers a power for living which resolves the basic human problematic. The proof of that is in actually doing it, actually receiving it, not in historical arguments.

If the proof is in the actual doing, then it's no problem, Meta. We look at the brutality, inhumanity, authoritarianism and ethical nihilism of Christian belief and behavior, and we have the proof we need.

It works, and the proof that it works is in the pudding. Because it works we can be fairly sure that the testimony given is accurate

Christianity doesn't "work." It has failed completely in Europe, and in the US, the worst places to live are by and large the most Christian. Christianity is only growing in the Third World and the East, where educational systems and social resources are not rich enough to give people some historical perspective on its mad claims and moral hideousness.

Not only are the actions of Jesus reflective of the divine in such enstances as forgiving the woman caught in adultery

Meta, you know this is a later invention...

That God would be willing to die for the sins of humanity and to die as one of the lowest in the social order demonstrates that God is on our side and is willing to identify with our lot, which is what solidarity is all about. Now never mind the fact that "it didn't hurt cause he was God" and silly arguments like that. The point is that it is a clear expression of God's willingness to identify with us

Meta, this is an obscenity. The Christian obsession with death and pain is one of its most inhuman and evil aspects, an anti-solidarity. There is no solidarity in this death. Solidarity is created by shared social experience in pursuit of a positive and worthwhile goal. It is not created by legends of a man-god who was was executed and then raised himself from the dead. No one has a human connection with that latter figure. Instead, they have an anti-human connection: worship, abasement, intolerance toward and destruction of others who do not believe as they do. Surely an omnipotent being who loved us could find a more constructive and progressive way of "showing solidarity" -- assuming that such a thing was even necessary. After all, gods can simply reveal themselves any time, in any way...

I admire your courage for posting here, but basically this is just rhetoric employed in defense of a brutal, inhuman, unethical and authoritarian belief that history has already dismissed as a failure.

Vorkosigan

Yellum Notnef

Have you ever been to Texas? The people there seem to be totally unaware of what you just said.

Vinnie

I think more conservative forms suffer from some of this. The belief system of fundamentalism is dangerous. People are convinced that a work with innumerable contradictions and idiotic moral commands that comes from thousands of years ago should be used as our primary source of morality. On this basis they run around saying God is opposed to homosexuals and a number of other idiotic things. Blind zeal for an ancient text like this in today's world seems to hinder moral growth. Further, belief in conservative forms of hell are mentally disturbing to me. The zeal for this ancient text prevents one from seeing what is obvious to everyone else. Hell is morally revolting and mentally disturbing.

But in all honesty, most of the more conservative Christians I have met are down to earth and are nice people. They try to be caring, loving, respectful and so forth. They are normal people. But their belief system is clearly faulted and they are misinformed.

While I agree that the belief system is faulted and dangerously so at times, I do not want to give the impression that most of these people are brutal, inhumane, authoritative, and so forth. Of course I don't know but a fraction of a fraction of a tiny percentage of them and I do hear stories of these bizarre things some Christians do. I've seen stories here of children being thrown out or not acceptable because they don't believe anymore. Behavior like that is inhumane, brutal and totally unacceptable. But I don't think all or even most Christian would go that far.

Insertion might be better than invention. Most think it was a free-floating pericope don't they? Metzger even thinks it has the earmark of historicty (TNT). I am not supporting this argument though.

Now you are just ranting inaccurately with this caricature. There is a lot of solidarity in that death and resurrection (whether mythical or historical). That is the whole point of it. Its the telling of a shared social experience in pursuit of a positive and worthwhile goal. The goal it is said was to reconcile sinners to God. The infinite God came down to earth to be one of us, to share in our social experience with the hopes of achieving a worthwhile goal. This view suffers from numerous problems when taken literally but let's not caricature it.

Some Christians are intolerant but not all of them. There is nothing inherently wrong with abasement and worship. The only point you have is the destruction of others line. I see very clearly how a person can understand hell to be "a place where those who aren't like me are destroyed". That is certainly how it looks on the outside. This is exactly why I wrote this on the first stop here section of my webpage:

Notice the double "unimaginable":

"most unimaginably horrendous place created by this most unimaginably loving God."

There is an obvious problem with that. But numerous Christians struggle with hell themselves and some break free.

Getting back to solidarity: Numerous humans (possibly in the billions) experience that figure in their lives. Solidarity, to be concise, is where you find it and many people find it there.

Vinnie

Roland

We are so conditioned to accept Christianity that few of us ever stop to think about what it really is:

THE ONLY RELIGION STILL IN EXISTENCE THAT IS BASED ON THAT MOST BARBARIC OF RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS - A HUMAN SACRIFICE NEEDED TO APPEASE AN ANGRY GOD!

Toto

I have barely had time to skim the beginning of Meta's post, and will have to get back to it later, but the first thing that pops out for me is that the thesis of Freke and Gandy in the Jesus Mysteries book, and for other religious reformers, is that the historical Jesus is "clutter" - it is so obviously a made up story that it stands in the way of modern people seeing the religious truth behind it.

Face it, Meta - you can't prove there was a historical Jesus. You can't even get your facts straight - I notice that you have abandoned your attempt to claim that Acts shows Paul preaching about the 500 who observed the risen Christ on the Hill of Mars, and you still have no evidence that Christians venerated the tomb of Jesus in the second century.

So your claim that there clearly was a historical Jesus is clutter getting in the way of your claim that there is some value to Christianity.

Happy Easter to our Orthodox friends.

Vinnie

That is only one model of atonement theology and it is the absolutely worst, morally unethical and illogical of them all. It should be noted that several scholars have undertaking the task of rethinking penal substitution and they come up with more plausible theories which you and probably most people on this forum and most pew-warmers do not know exist. I didn't for a long while.

There is no official Christian model of atonement either. The church has canonized the doctrine of atonement rather than a specific model. At any rate, Meta subscribes to a solidarity model of atonement theology which I share in numerous parts.

Meta put up two pages on soteriology. You can begin, if interested, here:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...n_others1.html

He dismissed financial transactions.

For my own work I have three articles of relevance:

In the first I highlight ten insurmountable difficulties with the popular, naive forms of penal substitution:

http://www.acfaith.com/penal.html

In the second I laid the doctrine of original sin to rest:

http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html

In the third I offered a discussion of Jesus' sacrificial death in relation to non-Christians and whether belief in Jesus' historical work in this life is necessary for salvation:

http://www.acfaith.com/widerhope.html

Both Meta and myself have stopped to think about what is at the center of Christianity and it is not at all what you listed in caps locks.

Vinnie

Ernest Sparks

Hello, All-But-Doctor H.

Welcome back to the mosh.

Here's hoping you have good control of your temper this ride. Just ignore those slings and arrows. Don't allow the distraction of explosions and counter-rolls to drown the impact of your message. You do have much to offer here.
Don't blow it with the moderators.

Yes, your theology in its full expansion fairly brims, absolutely oozes, with metaphor. One can only wish for somewhat more concision.

Best regards,
ES

people: don't bug him about spelling- OK?

Happy Low Sunday to our Catholics!

Koyaanisqatsi

You mean something like this:
And let's not forget your ending:

Yeah, there's no deity involved in any of that carefully-worded-to-avoid-any-direct-links nonsense.

Well, again you display how much you don't know, since if you'll recall in that thread, I granted you the existence of a Rabbi named Jesus and his collection of wisdom sayings that the mythology of the christian cult was loosely based upon.

And here you've taken it upon yourself to explain that you don't believe in the deity of Jesus at the same time you speak about the "transformative" effects of reading his words and how it "mediates transcendence through Grace."

Your evasions and obfuscation grow ever more transparent, sir, since absent a divinity of Jesus, he would just be yet another teacher like all other teachers throughout history (and a horrible one at that, since he didn't actually teach anything, he just threatened for non-compliance) and therefore no "transcendence through Grace" could be possible or any person on this planet who ever says anything regarding a god or gods would ipso facto mean "transcendance through Grace."

You keep maintaining that the bible is the word of god which is no longer permissable for you to do. Sorry, I have decreed it and since I have been a teacher and certainly speak about god an awful lot, by reading my words you will receive "transcendence through Grace."

It's just as stupid and utterly baseless as what is written in your book.

Vinnie

Whats wrong with Dr. H?

Vinnie