Spirituality
02 Aug 05
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoOriginally posted by orfeo
Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, that is why he was killed. At least, according to the Gospels. Which brings us back to...
If you acknowledge that Socrates and Alexander pose the same problems as Jesus, well I don't really feel the need to try to establish the historical existence of Jesus. Or Shakespeare or Mozart or Abraham Lincoln, for that matter. ...[text shortened]... o the culture(s) it sprang from. Please give me a concrete example of this so-called archetype.
Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, that is why he was killed. At least, according to the Gospels. Which brings us back to...
Actually, wasn't it his "apostles" that heralded him as such? He himself was denying the claim? Neither here nor there, really...as you've pointed out, according to the "gospels".
I would suggest the onus is on you to prove these people DIDN'T exist. What reason have you got for saying there was no such person other than a bare assertion?
Well, yeah...that's kinda why I started the thread, orfeo. I suppose I could have prepared a dissertation, but heck...it's just a forum on a chess site. Kill some time while my opponents mull over my latest blunder. And I ain't got none of them there book smarts or prestidigitous degrees. /sheepish
PS AIt seems to me that anyone who claims that Jesus is a retelling of an archetypal saviour myth knows very little about Christianity, and how shocking its concepts were to the culture(s) it sprang from. Please give me a concrete example of this so-called archetype.
Osiris. Want another?
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CAnd the Christians are accused of being the ignorant ones...
Well, yeah...that's kinda why I started the thread, orfeo. I suppose I could have prepared a dissertation, but heck...it's just a forum on a chess site. Kill some time while my opponents mull over my latest blunder. And I ain't got none of them there book smarts or prestidigitous degrees. /sheepish
03 Aug 05
1 edit
Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said it: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Unless you want to dispute the authenticiy of the Bible, here Jesus is clearly claiming to be the Messiah.
Modern psychology has proven that nobody is willing to die for something that they know is a lie. Many of the apostles were martred to death, still claiming Jesus to be the Christ. They wouldn't die for it if they didn't believe it. So Jesus can clearly not be someone the apostles invented. He clearly claimed to be the Messiah and they believed him to be.
Whether he was the Messiah or not is still debatable and can only be taken on grounds of belief.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm sorry I missed this the other night.
Do you believe that the Gospels are pure fiction or reworkings (with liberal rewriting to suit the early Christians) of traditional accounts concerning a certain charismatic figure about whom very little is known?
The gospels are definitely not pure fiction. My thought is that the central figure is not truly a human, but some other form of being or thing that was anthropomorphized so we could understand better. I'm sure there's a very good reason the 12+1 motif is so prevalent. What do you think?
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by orfeoCertainly not in the judeo-christian, egocentric, selfish "personal savlation" manner. As the original keeper of the underworld, he was responsible for the safe passage of our spirit to the hereafter. Later, he came to be referred to as Life of Ra (Sun), Lord of the Sky, and thus providing "salvation" to us through the life-giving rays of the Sun.
I knew you'd bring up Osiris.
How does Osiris save people, exactly?
His son Horus, born of a virgin (Isis), also bears a remarkable resemblance to Jesus. His birth was annuciated, and heralded by a star in the East. His birth was attended by three "wise men". There's much, much more, but I won't belabour the point. I'm sure all good christians have taken the time to study other religious systems and ideas, just to make sure they've picked the right one. Of course, I might just be a cockeyed optimist.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIs that how you choose to interpret that passage? Maybe you're the cockeyed optimist, after all.
Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said it: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clou ...[text shortened]... want to dispute the authenticiy of the Bible, here Jesus is clearly claiming to be the Messiah.
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CRE: Jesusbot: understood. 😉
I'll admit that "Jesusbot" is my own creation. It's meant to denote one who has accepted an historical Jesus as fact in a true automatonic fashion. It's not meant to be derogatory, although I now fear many will see it that way, given the context of my post.
Having said that, Omnislash, we're not discussing a minor fender-bender at the corner of Judea ...[text shortened]... ay be disputable, but one might appear exceedingly foolish in doing so, given the physical evidence.
Your response to me example of the moon landing well illustrates my point. Even with the massive evidence to support it, it is still debated and under suspect in many circles. Just as you said, despite that one would commonly appear exceedingly foolish disputing it, it is done nonetheless, and not without logic (incomprehensive and inconclusive as it may be).
This is exactly why I dislike making a "case" for my beliefs based upon the criteria of infallable historical reference. Even if I could produce such reference, the messiah theory (if you will) would still be disputed. I did not come to believe as I do about God, etc. based upon historical reference. Rather, I came to my own conclusions based upon first hand observation of the world and a series of existential assumptions based upon said observations.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter the probability, must be the correct answer. Thus I did, again based upon personal observation and existential assumptions. Thusly, for my own purposes, my questions are answered and I feel neither shame nor weakness in my beliefs. If I based my beliefs upon historical reference alone, I would neither hold many of the beliefs I have today nor would I have found anwsers to even the more basic and less assumptive questions I had. My beliefs validate my existence for my own purposes, and that is enough. So long as my adherance to these beliefs produces only positive effects to and from me, their legitimacy is really rather irrelevant.
However, if anyone is pursuing such existential wisdom I can only suggest a similar course towards finding their own personal truth. Maybe that truth will be the same as mine, maybe it will not. It doesn't really matter. Every individual in this world is responsible for their own spiritual well being. While I am always happy to discuss my beliefs and explaine them, their purpose, etc. I quite simply know the fallacy of attempting to validate them by any means other than their own virtue.
A man once contended that the world was not flat when he saw ships dip and disappear on the horizon, an observation suggesting spherical characteristics. Naturally, the man was thought to be mad. Then his theory was proven, and madness became wisdom. Perhaps one day theists like me will be able to prove the existence of God, that Jesus was the messiah, etc. to everyones satisfaction. Untill then I will be happy just to point out how it is interesting to watch the ships sail off and be at peace with my madness.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
04 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CUnfortunately, many (though, perhaps, not all) detractors of Christianity challenge it with standards of proof/evidence that they do not apply to other fields of knowing (e.g. historicity of Jesus vs. Socrates or justification of experience of God vs. consciousness).
Among the many, LH.
04 Aug 05
Wow, David, you really drew out the weeds with this thread (a few are nice weeds though). Kudos. It's amazing how little xtians know of their own religion, especially given the sanctimonious tone of authority that they continually assume. To everyone who is trying to wave away David's questions with comparisons to Socrates and the like, remember that David is not claiming that Socrates or anyone else was a historical figure. Furthermore, he doesn't go to the extreme of claiming that any such figure is alive today and a deity and yadda yadda yadda. These however are the claims of xtians and therefore David's questions are quite pertinent. Do not pacify your frustration with laziness.