Discussion in 'Theology' started by lunamoth, Feb 22, 2009.
ah, my thinking exactly...however man needs more, so man invented more??
Unity's teaching is that the Ressurection was a historical event then? I admit that surprises me. Or maybe you are referring to the Christian roots of Unity?
Like Thomas above, I find this a strange position to take, that you could accept a supernatural event but don't think it took place, but instead the disciples made it up, or it was written into the Gospels because the evangelists did not trust people to believe without a miraculous act.
If the whole message of the Gospels is love and faith, wouldn't it be rather evil to then base the whole religion on a lie? Why trust any of it then?
Again, this is even stranger! Now Jesus himself is complicit in the lie! Why would we then trust anything he said? Why bother at all with Christianity? You could go to Hillel Rabbi tradition and do just as well without the subterfuge.
On this we can heartily agree.
I won't go further with this because the point of the thread is not to debate this, but of course I invite you to respond to my comments if you wish.
I'll round out with one theologian's response to the liberal theologian Bultmann with respect to the historicity of Jesus ending on the cross, rather than with the resurrection:
John Macquarrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note, I took this quote from my course text, not from the wiki link.
I have admit I am partial to Borg (and not just because he's a Piskey ). I really liked his The Heart of Christianity and found it a helpful and even inspiring bridge on my way back to Christianity. 'Course, bridges lead both ways and I can see how people could equally use him on their way out. That said, I like Wright better because he holds up all that I like in Borg's work plus a much more profound theology.
I think that there is a sound application of the term 'myth,' to the Gospel story, and it is not the one proposed by Strauss (i.e., made up to make a point and steeped in epic characters and grand gestures). But, the idea of myth as a story that tells us about our relationship with God and our place in the cosmos, I think that does apply. In this case a myth based in historical event.
Unity has a wide variety of preachers and teachers. Fillmore had his ideas and but more than anything else they expect the students of the teachings be able to make up their own mind. Christians without creed or dogma, exploring the bible in all its glory.
As for the drug experimentation, as I read and understand what was being discussed was this was a spiritual practice...and if one could use this to get out of the line of fire...that would be wrong? If that was the case would Jesus know what was to be written decades later about it?
Is it within the realm of possiblity? I'd say yes, do I think the gospel writers lied? No. I think they wrote exactly what was being reported, the stories that were being told. And when one read the other...he wrote a more upto date version, with the latest stories and additions and corrections from his perspective, for his readers...and the next the same.
So when you and your sibling disagree about the circumstances surrounding an event 20 years ago...is one of you lying intentionally, is one of you making stuff up? No our memory is an interesting thing, and I don't believe it is all just living on a lie...it is a story to me. And I don't need to judge its 'truth' or 'fact' in order to benifit from it.
Thank you for the explanation wil. I have another question but I will move it out of this forum.
The nice thing about NT Wright is that so much of his stuff is available online.
From: Early Traditions and the Origin of Christianity by N.T. Wright
A lot of Unity members and preachers were/have been so turned off by religion, the bible and Jesus that they rarely speak of it and are quite interfaith. The organization as a whole however and for certain my preacher is very bible based Christianity....a link to a quote from Fillmore on resurection.
The Twelve Powers of Man 1930 - Google Book Search
That is your assumption, not mine.
I don't think either Christ or His disciples were liars or charlatans.
To me a Christian is one who accepts the word in good faith; frankly I think anything else is just hedging one's bets.
This is essentially the line Baigent and crew took in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Not sure I buy into it. From there they suggested a Kingship in Europe as the exile for Jesus and his wife Mary Magdelane, becoming the Merovingian dynasty...it is a very seductive line of reasoning, except I was not able to find any corroberating evidence, not even anecdotal evidence. I have yet to find anything regarding this "Merovingian" dynasty. Last I checked (a couple of years ago) there wasn't even a wiki.
This seems the proper point to mention consideration of Thomas Jefferson's view of the matter...except I haven't gone so far as to flesh it out just yet...
I suspect some of our Jewish friends might disagree with this assessment.
I have noticed in vague terms over the years, and Crossan pointed specifically in his lecture to specific instances surrounding use of various terms such as "Son of G-d," to things either taught by Jesus or assigned to him by his followers that are distinctly Pagan in origin.
As much as it pains me to say, one of those Pagan mythical similarities is that of the hero resurrecting from the dead.
I want to believe.
The factual veracity is really tough to find.
Do you fall in the same camp as wil then? You think it could have happened but you need better proof that it did?
What about faith?
I'm only vaguely familiar with the 'resurrected' pagan god-men. I think that these sons of god were supposed to be part god and part human, and when they rose was it to eternal life in God, or was it back to life as we know it, ending in death eventually?
'easter' has always been a chthonic/fertility festival before any 'written' religion and wasnt there a shrine to Tammuz who rose after 3 days [associated with innanna a sumerian goddess] near Bethlehem? "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15. All is one and one is all, the rest is detail
I don't know.
This is the one point that really befuddles me. I can see the story of the loaves and the fishes, for example, as allegory, and not come away any the worse for wear. But the resurrection seems to me *the* pivotal and deciding point that seals the deal, the Divine stamp of approval, that sets Christianity apart and validates it.
Without the resurrection, so what if Jesus died for "us?" I don't mean this as sarcastic as it may accidentally come across, but martyrs have died for their causes for as long as history has been written...what makes Jesus *any* different without a resurrection?
Thomas struck a very good point, in that if there was a conspiracy to fake Jesus' death, it really does defeat the purpose and bases the entire faith on a falsehood...quite in opposition to everything it purports to stand for.
I'm afraid I don't understand the question, what about it? The more important point to me is what about truth?
I mean no sarcasm here either, my comment is sincere. I suppose faith to me requires a bit more than wisdom stories. My own personal faith is qualified and validated by my own personal experiences. Perhaps the easiest for me to explain is that my faith is not blind, there are confirmations sufficient for me, although perhaps not sufficient for others in a broader context.
I'm certainly no authority, and I do need to spend a little more time fleshing this aspect out. In my understanding as it stands: for example Zeus was born a mortal and elevated to "godhood." I don't know that Zeus is attributed with going into Hades and returning, but I do recall vaguely at least one of the Pagan hero pantheon did...which evokes a resurrection scenario less directly (unless one considers the Creed[?] that claims Jesus spent three days in Hell preaching to the lost). And Crossan pointed directly to the use of terminology such as "Son of G-d" as applied to the Roman Emperor specifically, in a bid to secure heredity from the Pantheon. I think it was Octavian / Augustus he pointed to as his example, illustrating with an image from a ruin in Turkey, with the Latin inscription clearly visible calling Octavian the Son of G-d. I forget which specific god Octavian claimed descent from...various Emperors claimed descent from Venus / Diana, for example, other Mars / Aries...and in so doing each was a Son of G-d. The term had a specific relevence in early AD Roman occupied Palestine that would not be taken lightly by the ruling authority. In effect, *if* the term was being applied to Jesus during his lifetime, it is no wonder he was viewed by the Roman authority as an insurgent trouble maker...he was being directly associated as co-equal with the Roman Emperor! The underlying suggestion is mutiny or subversion of the ruling government. This is directly from Crossan's lecture with little embellishment on my part.
Well, I think the title Son of God is exactly related to this, the point being that not the Ceasar but Jesus is the annointed one. Yeah, it is political and it is half of the equation of why he was in hot water.
This is all so interesting to me. I don't have this struggle, whether it occurred or doesn't stop me from seeing the potential of a resurection inside of me, of Christ being born in me. You indicate the fishes...there are those that argue till they are blue it is literal, well if literal how many did he feed, why two accounts that are both literal but differ? Faked, a story, real, made up, the value is there without the argument...I have faith in an essence we call the Christ that others may call Krishna or others call meditation, or others find another way to what some call G!d. I believe it is thru him, but I don't need to argue what 'him' is.
Oh how great life is. Love the contemplation here. It is so great when it can go on cleanly, discussing, without someone coming in and saying "No, you are wrong, I am right, listen to me!!"
(returning to hereitics corner...)
It is pivotal.
I think that is the point in the Maquarrie quote I have above. If it ended on the cross, where is the victory over sin and death?
Religions have launched without their prophets being resurrected, pretty much all of them in fact. A resurrection does not validate a religion, but Christ's resurrection explains Christianity.
What keeps you from accepting the resurrection by faith? Are you worried about being wrong? Doubt is part of faith, the shadow of faith...if you have absolute truth you don't need faith.
And, I think , we can never have a shot at truth without faith first.
I know you are sincere. I don't think though that you can find proof or hard evidence for the resurrection. You can find an explanation consistent with the religion. After that it is trust.
This part of the conversation is probably going outside the Theology board intent, which is why I separated it. My bad though...I started us on this tangent!
Perhaps you'll pop up to my thread in Christianity about the supernatural if you wish to follow up this part of the conversation.
Thank you, nativeastral, but if we're going to play this particular game, let us at least maintain proper context:
BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.
Thank you BTW, I have been trying to remember this passage for another reason...
But the gist...and context...is a prophecy, a foretelling of things to come. Rather, what is being suggested as past tense, had not yet happened when written...but since has happened. Prophecy fulfilled.
There is a great deal of association between Cush, Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz, and their direct counterparts across virtually all of the Mediterranean Pagan mythic pantheon and then some, with direct connection into Babylon. Yes, during the Babylonian exile there was some influence that did rub off onto Judaism, and no doubt in my mind this is some of what Ezekiel is referring to.
However, Judaism to this day still observes Passover. It is Christianity that adopted the Pagan practice of Easter / Oester / Ashtar and all the accompanying trappings. For that we have no further to look than Constantine's documented anti-Semitism and the Council at Nicea...Easter was *not* an early Christian observance.
Ummm...celebrating Christ's resurrection was not part of early Christian observance?
Separate names with a comma.