GunnerJ

Well, if your Christology allows for honest mistake, then fine. I have little interest in quibbling over the properties of a man whom I consider an historical non-entity.

How so?

It doesn't seem to be a big logical leap to assume that if you're speaking to someone who believes "x," and you mention "x" without criticism, that the person you are speaking to will assume you believe about "x" the way you do. Especially if you use the truth of "x" to make a point.

Um... Tercel? You there? Right. Did you, by any chance, actually read my above post? This is the exact same point I made.

In your example, if you were giving this sermon in Ancient Greece, then it would make perfect sense for your audience to think you actually believe in the historacity of the Odessey: they do to. This is completely divorced from the issue of whether you actually do believe it; I'm talking about the impression you give.

I see... from "honest mistake" to "self-serving (or self-saving?) manipulation." Hmmm... You know, it's odd, Jesus supposedly said a lot of unpopular things, (i.e., claiming to be the Messiah, and getting nearly tossed down a hill for it) and wasn't all that concerned with his reputation when he said them. He seemed, according to the Gospels, to be more concerned with telling the truth. Certainly the end we are told Jesus came to shows what little regaurd he had for his reputation when he preached...

Odd, that, don't you think?

Wow. Such a powerful deconstruction of the Christ Myth position I have never seen. I take my hat off to you.

ansarthemystic

Sorry, off topic here, but I couldn't resist!

There are no sects in Islam. Westerners choose to classify as such, but there is one Islam, and it allows differences of opinion as long as essential doctrines and articles of faith aren't bypassed. As far as muslims saying that we are the chosen people like jews and christians do...wrong. We believe god chooses for ALL humans to be muslims....individuals CHOOSE to accept that or not...thanks for reading...back to the topic it's interesting!

peace and blessings

Tercel

Agreed.
I would suggest it would have been unhelpful to Jesus' purpose for him to have attcked the factualness of the OT.
I would also point out that we are at the mercy of the Gospel writers to some extent in that they determine what we know about what Jesus said, and we cannot assume that Jesus said only what he is recorded as saying (ie he might have mentioned the non-literalness of the OT but it wasn't recorded) nor can we necessarily assume that all the subtle implications we draw from his words are valid. (ie the Gospel writers wrote what they believed Jesus said which fit with their own agenda and style and there is translation as well (Jesus' Aramaic -> Greek -> English), so we cannot assume that extremely subtle implications that we derive from the text about what Jesus "really meant" are valid)

Yes.
I do not see how you can be at once suggesting to me that Jesus' statement might/should be treated as an endorsement of the story's truth and at the same time defending that argument against Nogo.

Oh, ironically, the Sunday sermon was about Lord of the Rings. I was listening very carefully and not once did the preacher state Lord of the Rings was not fact. In fact, as far as I could determine, a person who knew nothing whatsoever about Lord of the Rings would have come away believing it was accepted fact.

I'm merely presenting various possibilities, not arguing for any particular one.

I could quite easily run to 10,000 words, (in fact I'd say I'd struggle to cover all the pertinent point in such a short work) on why the Christ Myth position is wrong. But 1) I don't have time, and 2) Repeating arguments for the 1000th time gets kinda boring, and 3) I doubt you're interested in hearing it.
You're quite happy believing the Christ-myth without having to answer arguments against it, and I'm quite happy rolling my eyes in the direction on anyone who believes it since I'm perfectly secure in my belief and don't feel any need to defend it just because it's being challenged.
If you really want refutations (which I doubt), I'm happy to give you various relevant links and point you in the direction of some of the BC&A archives.

Vorkosigan

I could quite easily run to 10,000 words, (in fact I'd say I'd struggle to cover all the pertinent point in such a short work) on why the Christ Myth position is wrong. But 1) I don't have time, and 2) Repeating arguments for the 1000th time gets kinda boring, and 3) I doubt you're interested in hearing it.

you left out:

• "...and (4) I've never been able to raise a single effective argument against it."

Vorkosigan

Stephen T-B

ansarthemystic - I’m puzzled by your comment: “We believe god chooses for ALL humans to be muslims....individuals CHOOSE to accept that or not.”

Does this mean that if I choose not to be a Muslim I shan’t go to Paradise?
If so, how is that different from someone choosing not to believe in Christ’s divinity not going to heaven?
(Thank you for putting me right about the Shia and Sunni positions. I have noticed, however, that Shia and Sunni Muslims don’t always treat each other with the respect due to those who are destined for Paradise.)

Cappy

Here is one babtists idea on the subject this thread was started on.

HIM: As for coveting, adultery, et al--let me ask you something: What's the difference between law and grace?

My response: Good question, I have no answer. Anyone else care to try?


HIM: Short answer to law and grace: Law is what you do when you believe you can somehow work your way into heaven, or nirvana, or purgatory, or whatever you want to call it. Many believe that following the ten commandments, and the hundreds of other little laws, somehow make you perfect and able to pass through the gates.

Grace is when you realize that someone has already paid the price for the entrance ticket, and all you have to do is accept it.

So no matter what you do in life, rape, murder, and steal, all you have to do is accept jesus as lord and you in like flynn. Sounds to easy. Well, actually it would be very hard for me to accept a god or jesus as my lord, so I guess I'm f*cked!lol

Bible Humper

Hello Tercel,

I have to agree with your friend, how can the omniscient Yahweh's avatar not know this? It seems possible to imagine that all of Yahweh's mental powers weren't possible for a human incarnation with a human brain, but at the very least he should have had the absolute maximum of human potential.

Jesus should have been able to teach relativity if he wanted to, the "lowly" Einstein was able to!

I guess you could say that Jesus wasn't designed for that, but regarding religious matters he should have certainly been infallible!

GunnerJ

It would be more honest, then, to never mention it, thus avoiding the problem of people thinking he took the Flood myth seriously.

Well, that's fine then. By intorducing such a great degree of uncertainty you do escape my conundrum. But I wonder how you can have any degree of certainty about some of the more astounding things that the Gospel writters said about Jesus. We are, after all, at their mercy if we wnat to discuss whether or not any ressurection occured; maybe they left quite a bit out of that tale.

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll try to outline my position again: Assuming such a character as Jesus actually existed as portrayed in the Gospels, we cannot be certain as to whether or not he actually believed in the Flood myth when he made a reference to it. But the crowd he spoke to certainly did, and thus, we would assume that they took his mention of it seriously, even if that was not the intent.

Tercel, you are yet again ignoring an important part of my argument. I have outlined this in my above reply to your "sermon on the Odessey," and I will reiterate it again: While no one may have gone away from the sermon thinking that the pastor (or whatever) took LotR as historical fact, if they lived in a culture where LotR was accepted as historical, they would probably assume your pastor did, as well, even if he doesn't.

Then you're not attached enough to this possiblity to mind if I discount it for the above-stated reasons, right?

While you are the authority on the first two points, you are unambiguously wrong on the third. I would be interested in any evidence you have for the existence of an historical personage like the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels.

No doubt you are happy in your arogant stance towards my veiwpoint, and I trust how secure you are in your belief, although I never had any intention of "challenging" it. However, you should not presume to speak for me. If there are good arguments against the Christ myth position (that is, if there is credible evidence for Jesus' existance), then I could not be happy not being informed of it.

By all means. If only you applied more of this doubt you have to other areas.

NOGO2

The Bible had been written and translated into Greek before the birth of Jesus. The Gospel writers ofter reference the Septuagint.

How can you make such a statement?

GunnerJ

"The Bible" Refers to both the "old" and "new" testaments. Do you claim that the Pauline epistles, the book of Acts, and John's Revelation were all written and translated into Greek before the (supposed) birth of Jesus? Or did you eman the Old Testament had been written?

Further, that comment was in jest and hinges on a quibbling over terms (whether the Jews of the time accepted "the Bible" or the books of the OT as literal) and thus is not even important enough to form a full discussion over it. Why bother?

[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>