| BookTalk.org News |
| • Thank you for supporting BookTalk.org with your generous donation, Grim! |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| BookTalk.org Store |
All store merchandise is sold with no markup. BookTalk.org doesn't earn a profit. These items are sold for fun and to promote our community.
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Dissident Heart 
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1703
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 16 in 16 Posts
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
Frank,
I stated you don't share their belief in what the scripture means, but you do share their approach: literal interpretations with zero tolerance for revision or novelty. Why that is the best and appropriate way to approach the text, for them, is an issue of divine revelation: God said it, it must be true, no questions asked. Why you consider it the best approach, I don't really understand.
The fundamentalist, and yourself, are wrong when they make claims about how scriptures have always been approached: the history of Biblical interpretation has been an evolving, complicated, and like most human experience, a multidimensional process...with contemporary biblical fundamentalism as simply one stage among a wide diversity of approaches. You share their opinion that the Bible has always been read a particular way, their way, the fundamentalist way, and any alternative is a deliberate attempt to aovid the truth about the text. You come to a fundamentally different conclusion about the text than the biblical fundamentalist: but you share a common set of assumptions about how it should be read. That is far more interesting than my so-called need for fundamentalist atheists
Frank: If the wisdom was there in the first place changes and reinterpretations would not be necessary would they?
Why wouldn't they? Why expect the interpretation to exhaust the fullness of the wisdom...capture its every nuance, subtlety, angle and dimension...reach a final and conclusive meaning that will forever satisfy any reader in any time or any place...achieve the definitive point for each narrative, story, parable, prayer, psalm, miracle, tragedy, terror in the text...be able to tell all persons in all circumstances everywhere: this is precisely and exactly and totally what this individual text means, as well as what the purpose, value and meaning of the total compendium of verses and books that make up the entire Bible....I think wisdom would require a much different approach...something more appropriate to the realities of human frailty and incompleteness...something more attuned to the truth of human ignorance, folly and prejudice...an approach that sees the possibility of malice and evil in human action, even in interpreting texts- especially in interpreting holy, sacred texts....as well as the intelligence to see the shifting, developing, changing and evolving world around them...providing different settings and languages and symbols with which to read their scriptures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1300
Thanks
Given: 30
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
DH
I stated you don't share their belief in what the scripture means, but you do share their approach: literal interpretations with zero tolerance for revision or novelty. Why that is the best and appropriate way to approach the text, for them, is an issue of divine revelation: God said it, it must be true, no questions asked. Why you consider it the best approach, I don't really understand. |
I do not share those beliefs or approach the text the way that you claim; I do however look to the probable intent of the authors, taking into account their culture, their lack of scientific knowledge and comparable mythologies, as well as their behavior and other historical material.
I am making no claim as to how to approach the material as a spiritual guide, because I see no value there, but I am quick to mention errors in probable intent when you make a claim.
You may interpret each passage as you wish, but when you make the claim that your modern meaning was the original intent of the author and it is clearly or most probably false, I will call you on it.
Generally you make no counter claim; you simply begin with the straw man arguments and the “Frank is an extremist” attacks.
| Quote: |
DH
The fundamentalist, and yourself, are wrong when they make claims about how scriptures have always been approached: |
Again, I never claimed that “scriptures have always been approached” this way, but it is clear that the ancients wrote many of those stories as face value and in order to keep them relevant people have been altering and twisting the message throughout the ages to conform to local and advancing science, morality and ethics.
It is not my fault that the original intent of the writers most probably does fall closer to the fundamentalist’s interpretation.
This recognition does not make me a fundamentalist however, but it does show that the original writers were bigoted, irrational, sexist, suppositious and unjust, and that without a new interpretation the bible is lacking in ethics and morality and the overall message is very different than the one you claim.
| Quote: |
DH
You share their opinion that the Bible has always been read a particular way, their way, the fundamentalist way, and any alternative is a deliberate attempt to avoid the truth about the text. |
Dude you need to stop putting words into my mouth…
I never claimed any such thing, most of my claims discuss the original intent of the writings plain and simple… not how they were interpreted or misinterpreted over the millennia.
But don’t get discouraged you are really destroying that straw man! 
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1703
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 16 in 16 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:16 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Frank: I do however look to the probable intent of the authors, taking into account their culture, their lack of scientific knowledge and comparable mythologies, as well as their behavior and other historical material.
You don't know the probable intent of the authors, nor the vagaries of their ancient cultures, and your grasp of comparative mythology is limited by the aformentioned ignorances...and by "their behavior" I assume you mean- well, I don't know what you mean: the behavior of the authors, or the communities from which they arose, or the hundreds of millions of interpretors who read their work...all of which, as already stated, you don't know...as for other historical material, I suppose this is material not subject to ideological manipulation, political propaganda, personal vendetta, literary imagination...or is it just the facts?
But, really, none of this addresses the fact that you do approach the text in literal non-revisionist ways.
Frank: You may interpret each passage as you wish, but when you make the claim that your modern meaning was the original intent of the author and it is clearly or most probably false, I will call you on it.
I've never made that claim, but you do.
Frank: Again, I never claimed that “scriptures have always been approached” this way, but it is clear that the ancients wrote many of those stories as face value and in order to keep them relevant people have been altering and twisting the message throughout the ages to conform to local and advancing science, morality and ethics.
I don't think it is clear at all what the ancients had in mind...but, since I have spent a good deal of time within one of the traditions...reading the scriptures, listening to the scriptures, discussing and debating and sharing the scriptures...practicing the prayers of the psalms...singing the wide varities of hymns that carry many biblical verses and themes...engaging in multiple ritual ceremonies and holiday celebrations according to calendars that are largely shaped by biblical and religious traditions...studying various theologians from across the denominations offering a wide spectrum of interpretations...and studying many of the methods of historical and textual criticism used by the vast majority of universities and seminaries.....I think my approach to Scripture is sound and imaginative and reflects much that is good about this long and complex mix of traditions that take the Bible seriously. And I am able to live with the distance between the original intent and where I am today.
Frank: It is not my fault that the original intent of the writers most probably does fall closer to the fundamentalist’s interpretation.
It's not a matter of fault, but it is a matter of choice...a rather poor choice in my opinion. And it is a choice that places you squarely in the camp of the biblical fundamentalists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Tulip
Masters
Usergroups: None
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 453
Thanks
Given: 17
Received: 7 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| It is not my fault that the original intent of the writers most probably does fall closer to the fundamentalist’s interpretation. |
I was more sympathetic to Frank's opinion about this until I recently read The Pagan Christ, as recently discussed at the What Purpose Do Myths Serve? thread. This book presents a compelling argument that, for example, the Gospel story of Lazarus is a re-telling of the Egyptian myth of Osiris. That suggests to me that ‘the original intent of the writers’ was actually vastly more sophisticated than the degraded idiot babble of contemporary fundamentalism.
| jaywalker wrote: |
| Tulip-I'm sorry but Atheists don't 'Have a method''. They are NOT a society nor do they band together nor have a Common belief. They just don't have a God in their lives. This is the reason I'm against the use of this and other Greek words-they need constant re-definition. |
The comment of mine which you are criticising here is that “scientists and atheists have a method which is non-fundamentalist in essence, in that it is based on enquiry and evidence.” I was suggesting we can generalise about the diverse strands of humane atheist thought to say they generally have a commitment to enquiry and evidence. We could also generalise that all atheists believe the world exists. Of course, now that I think about it, Stalin and Pol Pot were exceptions, in that they were atheists who did not have a method based on evidence. Can you suggest other exceptions?? I don’t see what you are getting at in suggesting that we can’t generalise at all – after all that is a main goal of philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1300
Thanks
Given: 30
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:09 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
RT
I was more sympathetic to Frank's opinion about this until I recently read The Pagan Christ, as recently discussed at the What Purpose Do Myths Serve? thread. This book presents a compelling argument that, for example, the Gospel story of Lazarus is a re-telling of the Egyptian myth of Osiris. |
What portion of the myth are you referring to? The Old Testament is clearly a fable based in a tradition of blood, sacrifice and ancient morality, which features a largely sadistic god of petty jealousy, and hate.
The Jesus story is really a combination of stories obviously written by several different writers in different time periods and probably different regions.
There is an element of the Egyptian Osiris and Hours in that fable as well as a strong Greek and Persian (mythra) influence as seen by the virgin birth story and the crucifixion story.
At any rate, when I refer to original intent I am usually referring to specific topics within the story itself.
Take for example the crucifixion story…
DH wants to believe that it is a story that not only puts humans on trial for our sins but god for his sins as well…
| Quote: |
DH
This is how I make sense of the Cross of Jesus. In my eyes, Jesus did not die for the sins of men, entirely; but also for the sins of God. On the Cross, God discovers what it means to suffer as humans suffer; and takes responsibility for the divinely destructive side of Creation. |
This is flatly contradicted by both the wording in scripture as well as in the art of the times.
This particular story was not in the earlier writings and added later (possibly much later), and is clearly a symbolic account of the ancient tradition of blood sacrifice.
| Quote: |
Agnus Dei is a Latin term meaning Lamb of God, and was originally used to refer to Jesus Christ in his role of the perfect sacrificial offering that atones for the sins of humanity in Christian theology, harkening back to ancient Jewish Temple sacrifices.
In ecclesiastical art, an Agnus Dei is a visual representation of Jesus as a lamb holding a cross. The cross normally rests on the lamb's shoulder and is held in its right foreleg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnus_Dei |
Granted DH’s account is a better one for a modern impression, but it is not supported by the scripture nor is it the ancient’s original accepted interpretation.
| Quote: |
RT
That suggests to me that ‘the original intent of the writers’ was actually vastly more sophisticated than the degraded idiot babble of contemporary fundamentalism. |
You believe this because the Osiris myth is so very sophisticated?
Copying from other older religions is suddenly a noble act?
It seems more to me to be a desperate move made by unimaginative people.
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1300
Thanks
Given: 30
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
DH
You don't know the probable intent of the authors, |
To some degree you are correct, no one does, no one even knows who wrote any of that material.
What we do know is what and how ancient people worshiped in some of their other religions and how the earliest Christians worshiped and what inspired them.
We have a good understanding of their view of the universe and the earth as well as how they approached ideas such as heaven and hell, blood sacrifice and war.
A probable intent can be established from a combination of reading the scripture and a knowledge of the culture that produced it.
| Quote: |
DH
nor the vagaries of their ancient cultures, and your grasp of comparative mythology is limited by the aforementioned ignorances...and by "their behavior" I assume you mean- well, I don't know what you mean: |
By their behavior I mean how they worshiped, what they accepted as divine, what they practiced in their other related religions what the earliest Christian and Judaism traditions were…
I also look at the many scriptures that the church left out of its cannon, how they differ from the current beliefs and what their place was in the ancients version of the Christian religion.
Did you know that some early sects of Christianity actually drank semen?
There appears to be archaeological evidence that Gnostic Christians did engage in ritual sex; they regarded semen as a sacred fluid and consecrated their status with it.
Jesus himself, they said, was the first teacher of these practices. He took Mary (probably Magdalene) to a mountain, took a woman out of his side and had sex with her, then drank his own sperm saying: "Thus we ought to do, that we may live." The sect even claimed that when Jesus at the Last Supper spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he was referring to this practice.
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/gnostic.htm
I’m sure that the church will not be telling the flock this little gem, but without it a true understanding of the earliest Christian practices and beliefs is incomplete.
| Quote: |
DH
as for other historical material, I suppose this is material not subject to ideological manipulation, political propaganda, personal vendetta, literary imagination...or is it just the facts? |
I admit that some historic material may be subject to some of what you claim but it pales in comparison to the outright and blatant manipulation of historic events by the church.
| Quote: |
DH
But, really, none of this addresses the fact that you do approach the text in literal non-revisionist ways. |
Well if a historic interpretation is a fundamentalist interpretation call me a fundamentalist!
That will be my new definition for the term fundamentalist… to me it now means to have a historical view and understanding of mythical fables. 
And by the word revisionist you mean?
The re-examining of long-established practices, views, or beliefs
Or did you make up a different meaning without telling us?
Why is a revision necessary if the wisdom of the bible is so apparent, universal and true?
If the modern messages are not apparent how do you know the face value reading was not the intent?
| Quote: |
Frank: You may interpret each passage as you wish, but when you make the claim that your modern meaning was the original intent of the author and it is clearly or most probably false, I will call you on it.
DH
I've never made that claim, but you do. |
I am pretty sure that I never said that modern interpretations, ethics, and morality were the intent of those stories.
And I suppose your posts in the green bible and religious ecological threads is not you actually trying to make the claim that eco responsibility is actually supported by scripture?
A modern idea was the actual intent of a series of unconnected stories that were written in a time when people believed that the wilderness was a dangerous and wild place and the only way to survive was to have dominion over it... Rigght.
It seemed to both Geo and myself that your intent was to show how the bible was written to support an eco friendly world view and you never denied it when confronted with that accusation, at least not until the very end.
| Quote: |
DH
I don't think it is clear at all what the ancients had in mind... |
Then why do you believe so strongly that it was the modern wisdom that you attribute to it?
| Quote: |
DH
but, since I have spent a good deal of time within one of the traditions...reading the scriptures, listening to the scriptures, discussing and debating and sharing the scriptures... Blah… blah… blah… |
All of this is through the darkly tainted lens of church interpretation and history. The church’s version of events differs greatly from what is found by archeological studies and is not a valid starting point for the truth of the events, or a understanding of the people or cultures of those times.
For example… The church’s version of the Roman civilization is way off and demonized, yet in our previous conversations you made it clear that you think of the church version as accurate.
| Quote: |
DH
It's not a matter of fault, but it is a matter of choice...a rather poor choice in my opinion. And it is a choice that places you squarely in the camp of the biblical fundamentalists. |
Your beliefs may be a matter of choice (they seem to be anyway) but mine are not… mine are directed by the evidence at hand… and to date you have not shown me a single reason to reconsider my stance.
You insist that I am wrong and you compare me to fundamentalists, (a tired attempt to insult me or get me angry) but you have yet to actually support any of your claims with evidence.
But feel free to try again…
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Tulip
Masters
Usergroups: None
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 453
Thanks
Given: 17
Received: 7 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 7:40 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| RT I was more sympathetic to Frank's opinion about this until I recently read The Pagan Christ, as recently discussed at the What Purpose Do Myths Serve? thread. This book presents a compelling argument that, for example, the Gospel story of Lazarus is a re-telling of the Egyptian myth of Osiris. |
What portion of the myth are you referring to? The Old Testament is clearly a fable based in a tradition of blood, sacrifice and ancient morality, which features a largely sadistic god of petty jealousy, and hate. The Jesus story is really a combination of stories obviously written by several different writers in different time periods and probably different regions. There is an element of the Egyptian Osiris and Hours in that fable as well as a strong Greek and Persian (mythra) influence as seen by the virgin birth story and the crucifixion story. At any rate, when I refer to original intent I am usually referring to specific topics within the story itself. Take for example the crucifixion story… |
Hi Frank, I am glad that this thread has been resurrected, as it is such an interesting topic. The way I look at it, Jesus Christ was the sublime genius of the mystery religions. He cobbled together a series of stories, in cahoots with his friends, that he calculated would best serve to establish a messianic religion. In my view, the extreme level of repression around these ideas was sufficient to render him invisible to the broader world at the time he lived, and to destroy any records other than the fragments we have in the Bible and the apocrypha. Remember, those Romans who you think were so great had a nasty habit of crucifying anyone who suggested organising things differently. People did not want to know that a messianic message was possible. However, when that message was told directly to people, it was so compelling they were willing to give their lives for it. The cumulative impact, mediated through the foul mutations that arose as the Roman Empire co-opted Christian faith for its own purposes, was sufficient to create the wide thin faith we see today, highly unlike the narrow deep faith of Christ. The point is, when you combine Horus, Mithras, Amos, Hercules, Isaiah and the rest, it is possible to build a story about how an imaginary messiah would look, and this is what the Gospels give us. As Tom Harpur says, this mythic re-reading only adds to the meaning, as we know the literal story is untrue. The Gospels had to be written in code in order to make them acceptable to a broad range of popular opinion, and it is hardly surprising that the keys to the code have been hidden and lost. This is the great challenge of theology – unlocking the messianic secret of the Bible. This has to start by junking conventional approaches which promote ideas we now know to be false.
| Quote: |
| DH wants to believe that it is a story that not only puts humans on trial for our sins but god for his sins as well… DH “This is how I make sense of the Cross of Jesus. In my eyes, Jesus did not die for the sins of men, entirely; but also for the sins of God. On the Cross, God discovers what it means to suffer as humans suffer; and takes responsibility for the divinely destructive side of Creation.“ |
If we conceive of God as unified cosmic principle, it makes no sense to say that God sins. Sin is a function of loss of connection to cosmic principle, through human arrogation of power to create meaning. The cosmos/God is without sin by definition, except in so far as humans are part of the cosmos and so when we sin we demonstrate the divided nature of God.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| RT That suggests to me that ‘the original intent of the writers’ was actually vastly more sophisticated than the degraded idiot babble of contemporary fundamentalism. |
You believe this because the Osiris myth is so very sophisticated? Copying from other older religions is suddenly a noble act? It seems more to me to be a desperate move made by unimaginative people. Later |
Well, I like Osiris, especially compared to Seth/Satan. The amazing story behind the pyramids is evidence of very high civilisation, and Osiris was at the centre of it. Modern architecture has not replicated some of the amazing feats of accuracy of the pyramids, so implying the ideas of their builders led to an unimaginative use in the Gospels is a fairly cheap shot.
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| RT DH's comments on nihilism present quite a challenge to atheism. The assumption central to much atheism, that there is no intrinsic meaning and purpose in life, leads to inability to formulate a coherent theory of values. |
First of all this is not an assumption central to atheism, I for instance believe that I am free to determine the meaning of my own life and strive to work to that end. I do not need a god or religion to tell me what my interests and talents are, or that applying myself to careers that require those talents is a good idea. Nor do I need religion or god to understand that murder, theft, adultery, etc.. is bad, my capacity to empathize tells me this. |
The meaning of your life is something bigger than what you determine it to be, unless you have total self knowledge with fore and hindsight. My view is that there is a collective meaning which we can uncover through dialogue, and that ‘meaning’ created in isolation is unreliable. In fact, autonomous generation of meaning is what Paul called idolatry when he slagged off the Romans for worshipping the creature rather than the creator. (Rom 1.19). If we view God as the transformative goal for what our planet could become, then the individualism of defining your own meaning becomes problematic.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| RT Arguing that values are merely subjective is well down the slippery slope of nihilism, in my opinion. |
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that values are subjective, most intelligent and well read atheists (at least the ones I know) agree that morality and ethics are a combination of our species social nature and the trials and errors of society building. Religions have played a part here, both positive and negative, but the source is not inherently religious. Later |
So the challenge is to articulate objective values. You are admitting here that intelligent people do not determine the meaning of their own life. The Sermon on the Mount is a pretty good place to start. The Dhammapada is okay too.
| Frank 013 wrote: |
| ..The church’s version of events differs greatly from what is found by archeological studies and is not a valid starting point for the truth of the events, or a understanding of the people or cultures of those times. For example… The church’s version of the Roman civilization is way off and demonized, yet in our previous conversations you (DH) made it clear that you think of the church version as accurate. |
I basically agree with the Christian critique of Rome, in that the aggressive greedy expansionism of the Empire based on military superiority led to widespread destruction of valuable traditions – they made a desert and called it peace. However, this is ambiguous (as per Christ’s line about rendering to Caesar) in that the Romans were successful because they were highly evolved. The primitive Christian communism described in the acts of the apostles worked more as a resentful reaction to a flourishing successful empire than as a useful organising principle in itself. There are parallels between Rome and the USA today – as Leonard Cohen said in his song Democracy – the USA is the cradle of the best and of the worst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank 013
Embodiment of Reason
BookTalk.org Moderator
Usergroups: None
Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 1300
Thanks
Given: 30
Received: 16 in 15 Posts
Gender:
Location: NY
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:25 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
RT
The way I look at it, Jesus Christ was the sublime genius of the mystery religions. He cobbled together a series of stories, in cahoots with his friends, that he calculated would best serve to establish a messianic religion. In my view, the extreme level of repression around these ideas was sufficient to render him invisible to the broader world at the time he lived, and to destroy any records other than the fragments we have in the Bible and the apocrypha. |
The “extreme level of repression” that you mention was not real… I will elaborate further down.
| Quote: |
RT
Remember, those Romans who you think were so great had a nasty habit of crucifying anyone who suggested organizing things differently. |
Not actually, that is another church propagated myth… the Romans had a very open culture when it came to religion, in fact many of the founding religions that made Christianity were openly practiced in Rome at that time, including many of the Egyptian gods, Mithra and the Hellenistic pantheon.
A person’s religious belief did not concern the Romans unless it was being used to propagate dissent.
When they did crucify people they often times recorded the event… no such record exists for Jesus even though many others from that region and time were recorded.
No independent historians from that local and time bothered to record his existence either.
This is very strange because we have many records from a variety of historians from that time and area but not one mentions Jesus.
Some of the local historians include…
| Quote: |
Justus of Tiberias- Jewish historian who lived in Galilee during the 1st century and wrote two preserved works, a history of the Jewish War of 66-70 and a chronicle of the Jewish people from Moses to the death of Agrippa II in 100 CE, covering the period in which Jesus supposedly lived. (Justus may have lived slightly after the supposed death of Jesus)
Philo of Alexandria- Jewish historian, philosopher, theologian, and community leader who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE in Alexandria Egypt, but reported on events throughout the Mediterranean world. He specifically wrote about conflicts between Pontius Pilate and Jews during Pilate's governorship of Judea.
Pliny the Elder- Roman historian and philosopher who lived from 23-79 CE. He traveled throughout the Roman Empire, though mostly in the northern regions. Most of his works, over 200 manuscripts, are preserved.
Seneca the Younger- Roman philosopher and statesman who lived from 3 BCE to 65 CE. He traveled throughout the Roman Empire and was the private tutor of Nero. His brother Gallio heard charges brought by Jews against the apostle Paul, but he dismissed the charges. Many of the works of Seneca survive, including over 100 letters on morality.
Valerius Maximus- Roman writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, who traveled to various places in the Roman Empire, including eastern portions of the empire. He wrote a popular series of books on memorable sayings and deeds collected from throughout the empire in 30 CE.
Velleius Paterculus- Roman military officer and historian who lived from 20 BCE to 31 CE. He served in the military in the eastern portions of the empire and wrote a surviving work, Compendium of Roman History, which covers history up through 14 CE. His Compendium of Roman History actually spends a lot of time discussing non-Romans as well.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#8 |
This is but a tiny sampling of the people who should have at least heard of Jesus yet not one mentions him in their writings.
Furthermore the idea that the Christian ideas were being condemned at that time is false as shown by the writings of Philo…
| Quote: |
Philo, was a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea
Of all the potential witnesses to the life of Jesus, Philo of Alexandria deserves special attention. Some of the reasons that Philo deserves special attention include:
-Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
-Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
-Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
-Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
-Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
-Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
-Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient
literature
-Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
-Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known
of him
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#8 |
Many of the tenants of Christianity are present in Philo’s writings… so please explain to me why is it that the “extreme level of repression” left those works untouched?
| Quote: |
RT
Well, I like Osiris, especially compared to Seth/Satan. The amazing story behind the pyramids is evidence of very high civilization, and Osiris was at the centre of it. Modern architecture has not replicated some of the amazing feats of accuracy of the pyramids, so implying the ideas of their builders led to an unimaginative use in the Gospels is a fairly cheap shot. |
Architectural genius sheds no light on a culture’s religious or spiritual enlightenment.
Osiris… judge of the dead, god of fertility and the flooding of the river Nile… is this the Genius of Egyptian spiritual enlightenment that you speak of?
| Quote: |
RT
If we conceive of God as unified cosmic principle, it makes no sense to say that God sins. Sin is a function of loss of connection to cosmic principle, through human arrogation of power to create meaning. The cosmos/God is without sin by definition, except in so far as humans are part of the cosmos and so when we sin we demonstrate the divided nature of God. |
You will have to take that one up with DH…
| Quote: |
RT
The meaning of your life is something bigger than what you determine it to be |
Really… who says?
And then prove it.
I give my life meaning for myself, I do not need or want it dictated to me.
| Quote: |
RT
If we view God as the transformative goal for what our planet could become, then the individualism of defining your own meaning becomes problematic. |
What if we don’t share that view?
| Quote: |
RT
So the challenge is to articulate objective values. You are admitting here that intelligent people do not determine the meaning of their own life. |
Please explain how you reached this conclusion…
Just because we have to work within a select series of social rules and emotions does not mean I cannot determine for myself what inspires me, what gives me motivation and satisfaction. Moreover I can judge for myself what contribution I will give to my society, who to love, and what my future plans will be.
| Quote: |
RT
I basically agree with the Christian critique of Rome, in that the aggressive greedy expansionism of the Empire |
The fact that you call the roman civilization an empire is very telling here; for about half of its existence it was actually a republic.
Not until Augustus Caesar did the republic officially become an empire… and during Augustus’ reign the whole of the empire was actually very prosperous.
Much of its imperial rule (arguably the worst days of the empire) was under Christian management.
| Quote: |
RT
based on military superiority led to widespread destruction of valuable traditions – they made a desert and called it peace. |
If you actually read the history you would find that under roman rule (at least during the republic and very early empire) that most conquered civilizations flourished from the architecture, laws, modernization of technology, medicine, trade and commerce Rome brought to them.
Rome was not perfect; but it was a far cry more civilized than most other places in the western world at that time.
A fact that is missed by most church versions of history…
Later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Tulip
Masters
Usergroups: None
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 453
Thanks
Given: 17
Received: 7 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Good morning again Frank, and many thanks for your response. Trying to keep all of this ‘on topic’, the issue as I see it is whether there are unexamined premises within some atheist thought which function in an ideological way, just as the unexamined premises of religion do. Of course you are right that simplistic Christianity is risible, but the relevance here is that mockery of falsehood does not in itself constitute a positive view. There is the risk that atheists see their negative destruction of false faiths as somehow constituting a basis for a world view, whereas I would say that by looking at how faith can defend itself against the atheist attack, without resort to obsolete strategies, we can all learn something. I will look at Price's Jesus Myth and get back to you about it, and about your other comments. Like Harpur, my view is that this material helps us to better understand what is meant by the messianic idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1703
Thanks
Given: 6
Received: 16 in 16 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
RT: If we conceive of God as unified cosmic principle, it makes no sense to say that God sins. Sin is a function of loss of connection to cosmic principle, through human arrogation of power to create meaning. The cosmos/God is without sin by definition, except in so far as humans are part of the cosmos and so when we sin we demonstrate the divided nature of God.
What is the relationship between God as cosmic unified principle and the divided nature of God?
I think the very best of Biblical theology conveys a God who is quite distinct from an impersonal principle, and instead portrays a God who is intimately involved and deeply personal...a God who loves and grieves and yearns and longs and mourns. The Biblical God is relational, seeking covenant and communion: reaching out, seeking, pursuing and offering a promise with a commitment. One crucial term in this process is Shalom...which is not merely peace, but more of a wholistic network of right relationships...where justice and mercy are in proper accord and righteousness is established within kinship relationships and outward to all creation. I think the God of Shalom is a God who grows in relationship- not a static principle that holds the cosmos together. It is a God that works with and struggles alongside and suffers as well: it is a God that comes to realize the divine role in sin, and as an act of solidarity and empathy, staying true to the demands of justice: becomes fully human in order to share in the responsibility. Shalom requires that all parties take part in the costs of righteousness: these are deeds of justice and mercy, being held accountable and willing to do what is necessary to heal the wounded individuals and community as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
