Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tercel · 01-25-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
It seems to me that this statement attributes cosmic significance to the life and death of Jesus, as the one who acts as the mediator between God and man. As I suggested, the idea that a God-man was necessary to deal with Original Sin was developed by St. Anselm (Cur Deus Homo?). Such a theology makes it very important for Jesus to be real and for Jesus to be both human and divine.

Yes it does. But you're getting it backwards. I don't magically know theology and then say "well in order to fit my theology the facts must have been like this:...". Rather I work out what the likely facts are and then say "well if the facts are like that, then it would logically follow that theology must be like this:..."

If in fact there was a historical Jesus - and I am convinced that is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Then my theology, if it is to be true, must account for that. Given the reasonable idea that God would not have become a physical human unless it was really necessary, then given the assumption that Jesus was really God and really a human, my theology -in order to be consistent- has got to include the belief that a physical incarnation really was necessary.
If there was no historical Jesus, then my theology would be rather simpler as I wouldn't have to bother about having a reason why Jesus had to be a physical human.

The historical Jesus, is a handicap to easy theology not a bonus. As Doherty points out: The idea of God himself becoming a physical human is rather absurd. But of course, Doherty conveniently forgets that this works against his thesis as it shows that it is a priori more likely for non-historicism to develop as a more palatable alternative to historicism than for the reverse to occur.
But because I am convinced the historical Jesus is indeed a fact, it's no easy theology for me.

Quote:

In this matter, I think it would be reasonable to say something like, "I know that there are some counter-arguments, but my examination of the material available persuades me that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of this conclusion." But when a person says that the chance of a historical Jesus is "virtually nil," or when a person says that those who doubt the historical existence of Jesus are all "wackos," some motivation beyond the commitment to reason is evident.

That's true. I get very annoyed at any extended reading of arguments I consider illogical or incorrect: and I've been reading too many Jesus-myth arguments lately. So my emotional upset at the idiocy of people who spout logically incorrect arguments is doubtless affecting my objectivity in stateing the conclusion.

Peter Kirby · 01-25-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
Yes it does. But you're getting it backwards. I don't magically know theology and then say "well in order to fit my theology the facts must have been like this:...". Rather I work out what the likely facts are and then say "well if the facts are like that, then it would logically follow that theology must be like this:..."

If in fact there was a historical Jesus - and I am convinced that is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Then my theology, if it is to be true, must account for that. Given the reasonable idea that God would not have become a physical human unless it was really necessary, then given the assumption that Jesus was really God and really a human, my theology -in order to be consistent- has got to include the belief that a physical incarnation really was necessary.
If there was no historical Jesus, then my theology would be rather simpler as I wouldn't have to bother about having a reason why Jesus had to be a physical human.

The historical Jesus, is a handicap to easy theology not a bonus. As Doherty points out: The idea of God himself becoming a physical human is rather absurd. But of course, Doherty conveniently forgets that this works against his thesis as it shows that it is a priori more likely for non-historicism to develop as a more palatable alternative to historicism than for the reverse to occur.
But because I am convinced the historical Jesus is indeed a fact, it's no easy theology for me.

Please explain how you go from there being a historical Jesus to Jesus being divine.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 01-26-2003, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
That's true. I get very annoyed at any extended reading of arguments I consider illogical or incorrect: and I've been reading too many Jesus-myth arguments lately. So my emotional upset at the idiocy of people who spout logically incorrect arguments is doubtless affecting my objectivity in stateing the conclusion.

Tercel, I assume you are going to post some of this project you are writing up here? I'd very much like to read it. I understand your frustration; I experience it quite a bit reading illogical and/or circular historicist arguments. When will you be finished? As soon as I finish this consulting report I am working on, I plan to finally get around to supplying my long-promised piece on historical methodology, using the absolutely awful section in Thiessen and Merz The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide as the framework for response. Maybe we can do a companion piece of some kind or other.

Vorkosigan

aikido7 · 01-28-2003, 05:48 PM

If Jesus is "the Lamb of God," does that then mean that Mary had a little lamb?

Tercel · 01-28-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Please explain how you go from there being a historical Jesus to Jesus being divine.

I don't really get the question here. I don't see the historicalness of Jesus or otherwise as being at all related to the question of the divinity of Jesus: All four combinations of divinity and historicalness are, in theory, possible. I do not "go from" one to the other: They are independent and entirely distinct questions.

Tercel · 01-28-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I assume you are going to post some of this project you are writing up here?

Maybe if you're good.

Quote:

I'd very much like to read it.

So would I.

I can't really think why you would though. I don't imagine it will contain anything stunning.

Quote:

I understand your frustration; I experience it quite a bit reading illogical and/or circular historicist arguments.

Yeah, okay, I did derserve that.

Quote:

When will you be finished?

At current rate of progress: never.

I had a week free in which I was able to spend a good portion of several days working on it, but I'm working full time at the moment and I've got about enough time outside that in which I have internet access to answer email. When I get back to Uni in a few weeks I'll have free time again.

Quote:

As soon as I finish this consulting report I am working on, I plan to finally get around to supplying my long-promised piece on historical methodology, using the absolutely awful section in Thiessen and Merz The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide as the framework for response.

Yeah I know the fun of long promised pieces. You know I've actually started drafting a rough rough copy of a piece on the existence of God that I've been promising myself for the past year or more.

Give me another two years and you might even get to read it.

Peter Kirby · 01-28-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel
I don't really get the question here. I don't see the historicalness of Jesus or otherwise as being at all related to the question of the divinity of Jesus: All four combinations of divinity and historicalness are, in theory, possible. I do not "go from" one to the other: They are independent and entirely distinct questions.

Hi Tercel,

I would explain why I got the impression that you thought Jesus being historical leads to Jesus being divine, but I am not interested in arguing what you meant to say when you are the one who said it. I am interested to hear how you justify to yourself the belief that Jesus is divine.

best,
Peter Kirby

InFlames · 01-28-2003, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Hi Tercel,

I would explain why I got the impression that you thought Jesus being historical leads to Jesus being divine, but I am not interested in arguing what you meant to say when you are the one who said it. I am interested to hear how you justify to yourself the belief that Jesus is divine.

best,
Peter Kirby

I would also like to hear

Ganymede · 01-29-2003, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel

Because God's a proven fact. ::

Proven?? Now this I have to hear

NightWatchman · 01-30-2003, 05:11 AM

THE BIBLE AS SYMBOL

Our first order of business in this quest is to see if we can justify considering the Bible as symbolic rather then literal. We must use the Bible itself.

1.2Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. So here is the Bible itself telling us not to take it literally.

2. Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: Remember that as we showed the definition of a myth, it included the term allegory. Here again the Bible tells us it is symbolic.

3. Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: The Bible is saying that all of Jesus statements were symbolic.

4. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: Here the fact that this is all consciousness is made clear. It says to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Where is the Kingdom of God ? . (Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.) The statement concludes by saying that "unto them that are without". Outside of the meditative state. Outside of the inner realm of consciousness where exists the Kingdom of God..

5. Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: Here the Bible states that GOD speaks in parables . And what are dark sayings of old. Obviously they are symbolic statements.

6. Finally the Book of Proverbs describes wisdom. It explains how one becomes wise. Proverbs 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

Thus we have substantial evidence throughout the Bible to suggest that it is a symbolic book and should not be taken literally. With this evidence, we can then proceed to look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as a symbolic story.

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

01-28-2003, 05:48 PM	#24
aikido7 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Here Posts: 234	If Jesus is "the Lamb of God," does that then mean that Mary had a little lamb?

01-30-2003, 05:11 AM	#30
NightWatchman Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California Posts: 97	THE BIBLE AS SYMBOL Our first order of business in this quest is to see if we can justify considering the Bible as symbolic rather then literal. We must use the Bible itself. 1.2Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. So here is the Bible itself telling us not to take it literally. 2. Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: Remember that as we showed the definition of a myth, it included the term allegory. Here again the Bible tells us it is symbolic. 3. Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: The Bible is saying that all of Jesus statements were symbolic. 4. Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: Here the fact that this is all consciousness is made clear. It says to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Where is the Kingdom of God ? . (Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.) The statement concludes by saying that "unto them that are without". Outside of the meditative state. Outside of the inner realm of consciousness where exists the Kingdom of God.. 5. Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: Here the Bible states that GOD speaks in parables . And what are dark sayings of old. Obviously they are symbolic statements. 6. Finally the Book of Proverbs describes wisdom. It explains how one becomes wise. Proverbs 1:6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. Thus we have substantial evidence throughout the Bible to suggest that it is a symbolic book and should not be taken literally. With this evidence, we can then proceed to look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as a symbolic story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.