FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2013, 11:55 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post

So mine or anyone's revelations are as good as anything from the Protestant churches, and the Protestant churches would concur?
I don't know what you mean by revelation, but I think that generally Protestantism holds the Bible as the only revelation.
If Jesus appears to me say in a dream and tells me something like "never put cream in your coffee" or "the Devil is in the churches".
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 12:08 PM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Spin, do you know what the point is that I've been trying to make?
If you think my point is undermined because I'm using epistemological categories where they dont apply (the term "historical" to ancient Christians), fair enough, then say so. But I'm not sure at all you understand what I'm trying say.

In making my point, it really is quite irrelevant whether we use the modern term "historical" or we say "perceived to have been part of the mundane world"... In this case they both mean the same thing. If a person in the ancient world had eaten a muffin, he would consider that muffin to have been "historical", by which I mean having existed.

My point is pretty clear:
Christians believe the figure of Jesus Christ to have existed at some point in time. Otherwise they are not Christians, but something else.
If you understand the discourse behind Earl Doherty's efforts, you will be aware that he is presenting the notion that the earliest believers in the religion that became christianity did nor believe that Jesus participated in this mundane world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Whether there de facto was a HJ or not is wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not assuming here there was or there wasn't.
spin is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 12:11 PM   #43
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
I don't know what you mean by revelation, but I think that generally Protestantism holds the Bible as the only revelation.
If Jesus appears to me say in a dream and tells me something like "never put cream in your coffee" or "the Devil is in the churches".
Hm, I don't think the churches as such can 'concur' on such matters. There is still the matter of the creeds. I think most protestant churches confess to certain creeds typically the Chalcedonian. In some way then they do claim a sort of authority in salvific matters. So you would go and tell the priest of the dreams and see what he says, and anything that doesn't contradict the creeds goes, I guess, and I don't see how the cream-in-cofee-prohibition part does! But the Devil-in-the-churches part might...
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 12:23 PM   #44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Spin, do you know what the point is that I've been trying to make?
If you think my point is undermined because I'm using epistemological categories where they dont apply (the term "historical" to ancient Christians), fair enough, then say so. But I'm not sure at all you understand what I'm trying say.

In making my point, it really is quite irrelevant whether we use the modern term "historical" or we say "perceived to have been part of the mundane world"... In this case they both mean the same thing. If a person in the ancient world had eaten a muffin, he would consider that muffin to have been "historical", by which I mean having existed.

My point is pretty clear:
Christians believe the figure of Jesus Christ to have existed at some point in time. Otherwise they are not Christians, but something else.
If you understand the discourse behind Earl Doherty's efforts, you will be aware that he is presenting the notion that the earliest believers in the religion that became christianity did nor believe that Jesus participated in this mundane world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Whether there de facto was a HJ or not is wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not assuming here there was or there wasn't.
I'm not really familiar with Earl Doherty's efforts, but it sounds interesting. I'm very interested in Christian origins.
My point here though is pertaining to Christianity, not the religion it may have been before it became Christianity.
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 12:54 PM   #45
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Primary residence in New York State
Posts: 231
Default

Quote:
her answer was that
1. she didn't care if Jesus existed.
2. Jesus exists in our culture, and that's enough.
Well, Santa Claus also exists in our culture, but only children believe in him.

What does this say about adults in our culture?
Onias is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 01:38 PM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Spin, do you know what the point is that I've been trying to make?
If you think my point is undermined because I'm using epistemological categories where they dont apply (the term "historical" to ancient Christians), fair enough, then say so. But I'm not sure at all you understand what I'm trying say.

In making my point, it really is quite irrelevant whether we use the modern term "historical" or we say "perceived to have been part of the mundane world"... In this case they both mean the same thing. If a person in the ancient world had eaten a muffin, he would consider that muffin to have been "historical", by which I mean having existed.

My point is pretty clear:
Christians believe the figure of Jesus Christ to have existed at some point in time. Otherwise they are not Christians, but something else.
If you understand the discourse behind Earl Doherty's efforts, you will be aware that he is presenting the notion that the earliest believers in the religion that became christianity did nor believe that Jesus participated in this mundane world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Whether there de facto was a HJ or not is wholly irrelevant to my point. I'm not assuming here there was or there wasn't.
I'm not really familiar with Earl Doherty's efforts, but it sounds interesting. I'm very interested in Christian origins.
My point here though is pertaining to Christianity, not the religion it may have been before it became Christianity.
You're avoiding the basic problem. First you decide a posteriori what christianity is, then you exclude options on that basis. It seems to me that your notion of christianity is some derivative of normative christianity after it had gained orthodoxy. That doesn't say much other than you accept that normative christianity as the only one and retroject it to the beginning of christianity.
spin is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 03:36 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post

If Jesus appears to me say in a dream and tells me something like "never put cream in your coffee" or "the Devil is in the churches".
Hm, I don't think the churches as such can 'concur' on such matters. There is still the matter of the creeds. I think most protestant churches confess to certain creeds typically the Chalcedonian. In some way then they do claim a sort of authority in salvific matters. So you would go and tell the priest of the dreams and see what he says, and anything that doesn't contradict the creeds goes, I guess, and I don't see how the cream-in-cofee-prohibition part does! But the Devil-in-the-churches part might...
Priest of the Dreams, interesting title.
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 05-24-2013, 04:39 PM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
...If you're asking me I'd say that if there were no HJ then thats the big question. How did a myth become "historical"?
And if there were a HJ your question is not applicable.
I really do not know how it becomes so difficult to understand that people of antiquity believed Myths did actually exist.

The OT is bolted to the NT and is filled with Jewish Mythology and the authors admitted that their accounts of Jesus is based on the very OT.

The very Romans who accepted that Jesus was a Transfiguring Sea water walker, God the Creator, born of a Holy Ghost are the very people who accepted Apollo as a God.

How did Apollo become historical?

How did Romulus become historical?

How did the Holy Ghost become historical?

How did the feeding of the 5000 become an historical account?

How did the cursing of the fig tree become an historical account?

How did the resurrection become an historical event?

How did the Ascension become an historical event?

How did the Angel Gabriel become historical?

How did Joseph Smith Bible become historical?

It is rather easy to understand that people accept Mythology as history. It is known that there are BILLIONS of people who believe Myth Gods will forgive their Sins and Give them eternal life.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-25-2013, 12:22 AM   #49
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
I'm not really familiar with Earl Doherty's efforts, but it sounds interesting. I'm very interested in Christian origins.
My point here though is pertaining to Christianity, not the religion it may have been before it became Christianity.
You're avoiding the basic problem. First you decide a posteriori what christianity is, then you exclude options on that basis. It seems to me that your notion of christianity is some derivative of normative christianity after it had gained orthodoxy. That doesn't say much other than you accept that normative christianity as the only one and retroject it to the beginning of christianity.
Firstly, I think the context of my posts in this thread makes it clear that I'm talking about Christianity as it is today, not as it might have been once. That is: If you remove the HJ (something which can most likely never be done) you pull out the rug from underneath Christianity, and this is exactly what atheists sometimes seems to be trying to do, imo. In this context I assume you agree on my definition of "Christian" as we're talking about what Christinity "is", i.e. present day Christianity.

Secondly, a present day Christian is of course someone who believes that the risen Jesus Christ is his/her Lord and Savior. But has there ever been anyone you would call "Christians" who did not hold this belief? If you think there was, try to point me in that direction.
But you must understand by now that this has nothing to do with what I've been trying to say in this thread.
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-25-2013, 01:10 AM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
I'm not really familiar with Earl Doherty's efforts, but it sounds interesting. I'm very interested in Christian origins.
My point here though is pertaining to Christianity, not the religion it may have been before it became Christianity.
You're avoiding the basic problem. First you decide a posteriori what christianity is, then you exclude options on that basis. It seems to me that your notion of christianity is some derivative of normative christianity after it had gained orthodoxy. That doesn't say much other than you accept that normative christianity as the only one and retroject it to the beginning of christianity.
Firstly, I think the context of my posts in this thread makes it clear that I'm talking about Christianity as it is today, not as it might have been once. That is: If you remove the HJ (something which can most likely never be done) you pull out the rug from underneath Christianity, and this is exactly what atheists sometimes seems to be trying to do, imo. In this context I assume you agree on my definition of "Christian" as we're talking about what Christinity "is", i.e. present day Christianity.

Secondly, a present day Christian is of course someone who believes that the risen Jesus Christ is his/her Lord and Savior. But has there ever been anyone you would call "Christians" who did not hold this belief? If you think there was, try to point me in that direction.
But you must understand by now that this has nothing to do with what I've been trying to say in this thread.
What christianity is today has very little to do with BC&H. If you want to talk about modern christianity per se, then this is not the forum for it. We are supposed to be looking at the biblical text in its historical context of production and early development. Forgive me if I assumed that you were making statements that were relevant to this forum.
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.