babelfish

kingjames1,

I just wanted to make a quick comment about something you said earlier.

Just because something has been studied and analyzed for centuries by deep-thinking men and women who have come up with some meaningful explanations, doesn't make that thing true.

As Carl Sagan says in "Cosmos":

One example might be the study of astrology, which many people believed in for hundreds of years. Another example might be any other religion - for instance, the ancient Mayans no doubt relied on their own "apologists" to construct elaborate rituals and explanations regarding human sacrifice.

kingjames1

babelfish,

indeed you are correct...I have no argument with your statement that intelligent individuals can think deeply, and still be wrong! I think such was the case with Carl Sagan, for example.

I guess I wanted to underline the point that the mysterious is not synonymous with the ineffable (i.e. unspeakable, unanalyzeable, beyond rationality, that sort of thing). To simply reduce "the mystery of the cross" to "well, its a mystery, therefore we can't think about it" is not only a non-constructive theological maneuver, it is destructive of the (positive) biblical theology of "Christ crucified" (e.g. Romans 3-8; Gal 3-5). Moreover, it is not a sound conclusion from the premises. That we do not understand everything does not imply that we cannot know some things - at least, this is the case from a christian (epistemological) perspective.

My point was only that there has been a constructive theologizing of the cross for over 1,900 years! Mystery does not mean unintelligent silence, neither does it mean irrational capitulation to some ineffable dogma.

J.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

Reply to Gregg

I'm wondering which scholars your leaning on in making such a claim. Most New Testament scholars I've read acknowledge that the early church very much believed in an historical Jesus, even if such scholars dismiss the possibility of us knowning anything about this first-century Galilean preacher (whoops, that's something!)

Which New Testament scholars today believe that Christinaity is rooted in Hellenistic, Gentile philosophy?! Do you mean second century Christianity (ala Justin Martyr, who as an apologist to a Greek world purposely defended Christianity in Hellenistic categories, or later Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, ala the neo-platonism of Augustine)? Nearly every scholar assumes (or concludes) that the pre-Pauline church was very much a Jewish sect (even if it is argued that Hellenistic Judaism was an influential factor, the connections to Hebraic Judaism are rarely denied).

Many are also recognizing Paul's basic Hebraic mindset, as opposed to some supposed Hellenististic mysticism or platonism. Bruce Metztger, perhaps the most well respected NT Greek scholar in America, writes:

"The early Palestinian church was composed of Christians from a Jewish background, whose generally strict monotheism and traditional intolerance of syncretism must have militated against wholesale borrowing from pagan cults. Psychologically, it is quite inconceivable that the Judaizers, who attacked Paul with unmeasured ferocity for what they considered his liberalism concerning the relation of Gentile converts to the Mosaic law, should nevertheless have acquisced in what some have described as Paul's thoroughgoing contamination of the Christian religion (i.e. the supposed hellenization of early Christianity). Furthermore, with regard to Paul himself, scholars are coming once again to acknowledge that the Apostle's prevailing set of mind was rabbinically oriented in molds previously formed at the feet of Gamaliel," the then famous rabbi among the Pharisees.

J.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

Gregg

I'll save you the trouble of a lengthy exchange. Visit lay scholar Earl Doherty's Web site at <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.org" target="_blank">www.jesuspuzzle.org</a> and study it carefully. I pretty much accept all his arguments and conclusions.

Sheep in the big city

kingjames, what you state above makes sense if you assume that some hebrew just made up the bible. But if the Bible is the Word of God (which seems to be the consensus among christians) especially an all-knowing God it is no excuse.
Why would God accept so many things in his message to the people that seemed obvious to a Hebrew living 2000 years ago but seem wrong to (in many cases) the majority of all other people.
Due to the exponential population growth I think that there might even be a majority among people who ever lived for whom it seems stupid to call a whale a fish (or a bat a bird, the earth flat wiht four corners, the sky water over a crystal sphere, the stars within striking distance, epilepsie a demon, eve created from adam's rip, the earth 5000 years old).
Why would God put out his Word in a way that made it much harder to believe for educated people living today than people living 2000 years ago?

Starboy

kingjames1:

How about this argument, when people crawl out of the grave we do not assume that they were resurrected. We assume that they never were dead in the first place. How is it reasonable to accept the fantastic supernatural version of the story over the natural version? Or is this just more Christian claptrap? Only the reality challenged would accept such an explanation. My speculations are much more plausible then the Christian version.

It would be refreshing if there were Christians out there that understood that their religion was just a matter of faith. Nature and facts need not apply.

Starboy

Free Thinkr

Holy shit. In all seriousness the above question sparked a flashback to the movie "Seven." Remember the scene where the killer is riding in the back of the car with the detectives? Wow.

babelfish

I think Sagan, were he alive, would be the first to admit that he may well be wrong. Is this true about any Christian apologists?

Isn't it marvelous, the enormous capacity of the human mind to fantasize and ponder? Our brains have so much time left over, once we've taken care or our basic needs for survival, that we can occupy them with arts, music, science....even apologetics. I think it's wonderful.

Where is the evidence that your version of theologizing (1900 years isn't that long, in the big scheme of things, by the way) is the correct version?