I admire and respect your serious and well reasoned inquiry.
Back at'cha
But your inquiry presupposes that we do not have any answers to these questions and that we are starting from scratch.
But that happened probably some 100,000 years ago, when the first curious mind looked up into heavens and asked a question. Since then most of that initial question has been answered and the history of questions, answers, and corrections are contained in our mythology and scientific history.
I’m with you about the evolutionary timeline of the curious mind. And, in a sense, if I follow you clearly, I am in fact “starting from scratch”. The scratch line I am starting from is the reported resurrection from the dead of a human under his own agency. I think that, if the Nicene Creed is accurate enough to profess, then Yeshua is some kind of a human evolutionary ‘re-set’ or ‘tipping-point’. That is why I am so captivated with even the possibility of a relationship with him.
We know miracles which occur outside of universal physical constants are impossible. Mathematical regularity is what keeps the universe from falling apart. You are not allowed to break Universal laws, not even God, because if God is the originator of universal law He cannot break his own laws.
To believe different is a paradox and I don’t think that anyone wants to proclaim God is a paradox, even as we may proclaim that “God works in mysterious ways”. That may be so , but he cannot work against his own ways, that makes no sense at all.
I agree that miracles are impossible. What catches my attention is that The 5000 claim that in Yeshua some of what we know is impossible is possible.
Regarding God as a paradox. First, I am finding that I am using the word “God” less these days. I am sort of fasting from it out of love, fear and respect (I’m waxing poetic a bit there - thanks for your indulgence). I think that discourse about “God” should include some clarification of the term for agreement at the outset. Second, just for fun - it puts me in mind of a GK Chesterton quote (I believe he was quoting another poet) something about a paradox being truth standing on its’ head to attract attention.
The Nicene Creed reiterates previous myths. It’s no different than any other dying and rising gods. Descending to the dead or into hell, is not different than the underworld or hades. It’s the same thing.
The Nicene Creed reiterates previous myths. It’s no different than any other dying and rising gods. Descending to the dead or into hell, is not different than the underworld or hades. It’s the same thing.
Thanks for your comment. The similarity to dying and rising gods is clear. Do you feel that the entire Nicene creed is mere myth?
I’ll spend some more time on this, but basically, those blessings are available now, with people you can see and touch now. I don’t know why you would want to relate to ghosts.
Thanks for your time. It is a rare commodity and I appreciate your generosity regarding my journey.
I’m assuming that you’re aware, as a Roman Catholic, I have no interest in relating to ghosts. I am indeed blessed with full, loving, and joyful relationships with an abundance of people in my life. My “cup runneth over” applies in that case. I am humbled and grateful -and lucky. I guess I am just a glutton for beauty.
I checked it out. I read through the introductions and then watched the video on the death and Resurrection and skimmed the course on Matthew. This looks to be a great source for examining the literary features of the texts.
From the video I watched about the resurrection, I could not tell if they thought it actually happened or not. Is that question ever addressed in the material?
Do you feel that the entire Nicene creed is mere myth?
I think the whole of Xianity is a myth and am with Dr. Robert Price concerning J.C. If J.C ever lived he wasn’t a thing like he is portrayed in the Bible. I also see Xianity within the evolution of human religious thinking first there was animism and our views evolved into turning that object of worship, ie the sun, into a humanoid. Cats were once gods and they have never forgotten it. Nothing about the Nicene Creed is real, BUT and here is the take away, you will find universal truisms, like “Do unto others…” as well as not so universal truisms. That is, you’ll find a kernel of truth in every religion. However, I think my favourite one comes from the first sentence of the Tao and I paraphrase: The Tao which can be described is not the true Tao.* In other words, if a human can describe their deity, it’s not a deity at all, but only a human creation. God did not create humans in his image. We created gods in our image or images (as in the early Egyptians) they are most familiar with. So if there was ever a man named Jesus Christ, though I doubt it Christ was his last name because that’s a title), he most certainly died, like all humans do, but while he lived people adored him like one loves President Obama and they did good things for people, but neither are a god and neither did miracles, such as walking on water. Then again, as the lead character said in a British Show, “Oh, I believe he walked on water. I just assumed it was the dead of winter.” I also see the Sun of God going down into the underworld every night, conquering it, and rising in the morning or even around the Winter Solstice the Sun goes to the underworld and rises again. The Xian religion just turned animism to reflect something that looks like them, instead of something of nature.
*For reference/documentation, here is one of many translations of the Tao relating to my paraphrase and not all translations are word for word the same, but I think my paraphrase reflects the jest of all translations: Taoism.net
Oh and one more thing, almost every religion as a miraculous birth story. The Hindus have it, Buddha was given one, that list goes on and on, so the miraculous birth story of Jesus is nothing new either. As for the crucifixion, many a criminal or one accused of being a criminal was crucified at the time. It was standard, but there is also, as I explained before the Southern Crux around the Solstice (back to solar mythology). Heaven and Hell are also human concepts too. A means for those in authority to control people. Scare them to death with something and you can control them- such as the dotard’s minions threatening people with violence. That is the ultimate means of controlling the vulgar.
I think my favourite Episcopal [retired] bishops put it best in this video, but I don’t believe in life after death, except for people’s memories of you: 'Hell' as an invention of the church - YouTube
Thank you for being patient with me if my writing is a bit obtuse.
Not at all. The restatement you made of my POV is accurate. Then you talk about choice. We might have some different ideas. Choice comes after considering all available evidence in context, to the best of your ability. And sometimes, I think this is what you’re saying, you don’t have all the facts. They aren’t available so reason doesn’t get you where you want to be. Seth Andrews tells you that you shouldn’t go past that point. In emergency situations, you have to choose, it’s also what politics are for, when we don’t know what the future holds. I think Seth would accept those qualifiers.
What we’re talking about is; believing in Jesus. One problem we have is the interpretation of the Thomas story. For a long time, Christians didn’t have the gospel of Thomas, but now that we do, we can take a new look at the story in John. According to Thomas’ gospel, you have the powers that Jesus had, they are already in you, you don’t need to believe in Jesus to magically release them, something like that. Look at that verse you quoted again, in that light. It’s saying, Thomas is wrong, he needed evidence, John is right, he believes without evidence. The received narrative is that the gospels can be reconciled and all the stories lead to the one true Jesus. Modern scholars, honest ones, will tell you that you can’t access a clear picture of Jesus from the scripture we have, and the scriptures actually show sects arguing with each other.
So, to summarize a little, cuz I’m going long. The “ghosts” I’m talking about are the 5,000 that you know very little about and have almost no evidence for, plus the one guy that we don’t have a clear historical picture of. And anyway, they are all dead, so none of them are acting in this world. The best they can offer us is ideas about loving your enemy and dealing with oppression, and, most important, about thinking for yourself.
SethWT said : I agree that miracles are impossible. What catches my attention is that The 5000 claim that in Yeshua some of what we know is impossible is possible.
Well, that catches my attention also, but that is not evidence of proof. Claims of miracles are highly suspect because I totally agree with you that miracles are impossible. Moreover there is no proof that 5000 people made this claim. That assertion is of your invention.
This is the story as told by Mark himself, not by any anonymous bystanders.
38 “How many loaves do you have?” he asked. “Go and see.”
When they found out, they said, “Five—and two fish.”
Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40. So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. 42. They all ate and were satisfied, 43. and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44. The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.
You are positing that 5000 people all told this story that they witnessed a miracle contrary to claims by 50,000 physicists that feeding 5000 people with five loafs and two fishes is physically impossible?
You are not free to offer additional interpretations and then claim proof of any truth. That’s how mythology becomes mythology.
Physics itself tells us that would be against all of God’s laws and that what is physically impossible is in fact physically impossible. Oh, and Mark claimed there were left-overs after all 5000 people fed, compounding my personal incredulity.
And why are there several versions of this story which cite different numbers? That alone makes the entire story suspect to begin with except as metaphor.
There has to be a metaphor involved here. How about the metaphor of “Jesus and the five loaves and fishes” offered food for thought to many people?
Now that I could believe, being that we are in agreement that miracles are impossible.
SethWT said : I think that discourse about “God” should include some clarification of the term for agreement at the outset.
I completely agree.
Can you offer some clarification of the term God? Here is usually where the conversation ends not starts.
This is from Wiki;
God
God has been conceived as either personal or impersonal. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, there is an absence of belief in God. In agnosticism, the existence of God is deemed unknown or unknowable. God has also been conceived as the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] Many notable philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God
@Lausten I love the Gospel of Thomas. It was the first “forbidden” Gospel I read and have become a favourite. It lead me to read more of the other texts and eventually other religious literature.
Second, I truly sense a kindred spirit with you regarding my love of myth (and mysticism).
There are deep rivers of mysticism flowing in the veins of Catholicism. I think it is one of the big reasons I found home with the RC Church; I love the dear Lutheran folks who raised me, but it just wasn’t ‘pagan’ enough for me. As I wrote in The 5000:
“There are even arguments that Yeshua and The 5000 never existed at all. If so, I think it would be smart to stand with Smalley and the Secular Humanists. They appear to me, for the most part, to be noble, fun, exciting and adventurous people. I would stand with them and join forces to reduce human suffering, to overcome the challenges of ageing, and the limits of my consciousness and the consciousness of the humans around me. But come to think of it, what is more likely is that I would be a Pagan Humanist (I think I just made that up) because I love mysticism.”
Here is a CS Lewis quote I really like. It is a theme that GK Chesterton wrote about. It really has it’s hooks in me deep. What do you think? Have you encountered the concept of Jesus as the ‘singularity’ where myth and reality intersect?
“Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things’.”
And sometimes, I think this is what you’re saying, you don’t have all the facts. They aren’t available so reason doesn’t get you where you want to be.
I think we are getting closer to understanding. I would clarify that the "relational trust" idea does not lead me to "where I want to be" so much as 'where I must go next', in order to deepen my understanding of, and relationship with, the Truth. It's kind of like when David Smalley talks about how he feels he is not making a choice to believe that there is no God (being a-theistic) but rather that it is simply the state he is left in at the fullest measure of his reasoning.
It is not that I feel I have exhausted all the available facts and so I will believe the testimony of The 5000 because of how much I want to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. Rather, I am convinced that the veracity of the claim is established sufficiently for me to act as if it is true. As I go forward, I am ready to say, at any future moment in time, “I see now that you are a ghost” and end the relationship at that point. My master is the Truth, not my desire for the Truth.
I don’t see how to proceed otherwise. The claim that Yeshua rose bodily from the dead is physically impossible. It seems logical to me that if the impossible is somehow True, I will only be able to experience it via some way that is beyond my physical reasoning abilities. Metaphysical. My physical reasoning (my neural-chemical ‘mind’) has led me to grapple with the metaphysical. It seems to me that the RC Church and the folks who codified the Nicene Creed were very clear that The 5000 made a metaphysical claim. If Seth Andrews is advocating (I understand that you are not speaking for him in any way) that I “plant my flag” and not go beyond what I am able to physically reason, that presents a bit of irony in that it sounds a lot like ‘don’t eat that fruit’. The difference I would point out is that it feels like I am standing, not under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but under the Tree of Life - and Seth Andrews is saying ‘don’t eat or you will surely die’.
That being said (and please let me know candidly if I am being at all comprehensible), this is exactly why I am in this CFI Forum: to shine the light on my ghosts. So I thank you again. I VERY highly respect the arguments, scholarship and evidence presented through modern literary and sociological analysis of the bible. I try to humbly present my perspective with the full acknowledgement that I will never be able to ‘prove’ my perspective. I am a layman and also not a scholar or apologist. I spectate while the titans battle over the facts and I make my choices from seeing how they fare in the arena. I would love to see Bishop Robert Barron and Seth Andrews or David Smalley in a discourse about these topics.
Thank you, SethWT. I think it was also one of the reasons I fell for the Episcopal Church after leaving Fundamngelicalism when I left home at 19 years old. I’ve always been the black sheep of the family. Unlike my relatives, the Episcopal Church allowed me to read whatever I wanted and I did. The more you learn about religion the less likely you will believe it. I often yearned for the veil of mystery to be removed like it had been for many of a priest/minister or whoever studies religion. Be careful what you wish for. It happened for me when reading the Gita and the “I am”'s. I was in a daze for a day or two after that because it blew my mind.
The C. S. Lewis quote is a good quote, but I take it that he said it before he reconverted back to religion. He was a Xian again when he died. That said, I can relate to it in that studying other religion is what helped me overcome the beliefs that were ingrained in me as a child. It took longer than most people. I was in my late 30s when the belief bubble busted, but I never had the belief in hell, unlike many people raised in Evangelicalism. My view of hell was that humans made the own hell right here on earth or others put children in hell on earth. So I was a step ahead in that respect. My issue was a belief in God, with a Big G and I saw heaven as being in another universe. So even though some of the Fundamngelical belief didn’t engrain themselves on my mind, the idea of God and an afterlife in general did.
Now another thing that helped was majoring in Psychology. I learned that a worship service, especially the one that attracted me (Episcopal/Catholic) stimulated neurons in the brain and these neurons gave the feeling of surrealism or whatever you’d like to label it. Humans like this feeling and crave more of it like a drug. Once I learned that, the worship service didn’t affect me in the same manner.
Most Ivy League Biblical Scholars state the resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical.
Listed below are scholars I would recommend researching
Pete Enns
Francesca Stavrakopoulou
John Dominic Crossan (former priest)
Hector Avalos (former evangelical minister)
Joel Baden
Candida Moss
Robert Cargill
Karen Armstrong (former nun)
Bart Ehrman (former minister)
To name just a few…
Something to think about
God
A perfect being, but demands worship.
Is all knowing, then why create this world? He already know’s every possible outcome.
Is all powerful, yet does nothing to help innocent suffering people.
He loves us, gives us free will, but if we do not please him he inflicts horrible torture forever.
The crucifixion of Jesus
A religion around human sacrifice, where God has his own human son killed “for us”. Not only that, but we are supposed to eat his flesh and drink his blood in remembrance of him! Eucharist =cannibalism
Everyone constantly uses a symbol of human sacrifice, in their homes and they wear them as jewelry.
Jesus is supposed to be immortal, how is that a real sacrifice on his part? A three day vacation then off to heaven?!
God inflicted humans with inherit sin, to… have a reason to kill his son “for us”?
If we are recommending authors, I recommend Robert Price, John Shelby Spong, D.M. Murdock, Elaine Pagels, David Fideler, Tom Harper, Earl Doherty, David Fitzgerald, Dan Barker, and although not a religious scholar per se, the late Paul Kurtz has some books worth reading. That’s only just a start of a list of authors and scholars I recommend. I also agree Karen Armstrong is good, but I’m not too keen on Bart Ehrman, but I think that’s a matter of taste. That’s just for Christianity alone. I also have recommendation concerning reading others outside of Christianity and the texts thereof too.
@Blaire Why does your god have to demand worship? Should people be free to worship or not? If he demands it, how is that freewill? If he’s so perfect why are there children born with deafness, blindness or genetic disorders? If he’s so perfect, why do babies and children die? If he’s all powerful, why doesn’t he stop all of this, as well as all the violence in the world? Why doesn’t he stop an adult abusing a child? Is he uncaring? I’d say he exists and doesn’t stop he is uncaring. If he’s all loving why does he inflict pain like an abusive parent if we displease him? That makes it even worse if he does exist and not worth worshiping OR it’s just means for the Church to control people by instilling fear of a non-existent being into people. It’s nothing more than a control mechanism. As for the Crucifixion, sounds like murder-suicide to me, but there again, back in the time that the STORY of Jesus was written, the two authors who wrote about it used that because it was common practice. It was a literary tool that people could relate too and Jesus crucifixion did not actually happen and if Jesus ever existed, was not like he was portrayed in the Bible.
Not everyone wears an instrument of killing around their necks or hangs in their house. Such practices were violently barbaric and such a deity, who I do not believe exists, is not worth worshiping. A real and truly loving god shouldn’t have to threaten anyone to get them to adore him. A parent, who loves their child, doesn’t need to threaten or abuse their child to love them. To be abusive to gain love and the child ends up loving you cause of the abuse has a psychological term. It’s called Stockholm Syndrome.
