DS Forums

 
 

Getting to Heaven


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 08:51
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
And yet it's not clear that the early Christians thought that Jesus was born divine or to fulfill prophecy. It seems they may have had the idea of 'exaltation,' that God elevated Jesus' status in his lifetime.

It's not clear that Jesus thought he was the son of God. In some quotes he shows God as superior. He calls himself the son of Man.

I don't think the NT is a bad book just because we can't be certain of events in early history. There is the same problem of writing about any event. Let's say photos of 9/11 were destroyed, and all the journalism about it. A historian would set out to re-construct 9/11 based on people who knew eyewitnesses. It wouldn't be perfect, no. But we would have some reasonable version of 9/11.
You've tried the 9/11 analogy and it simply does not work. It's baffling as to why you think it does. Talk about 'false comparisons' (or metaphors as you called them)!!
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 08:53
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
No, I'm a realist. "Positive thinking", mood making and specialness isn't really my thing. Also I don't think we should confuse the idea of faith with blind faith.

Both grandiosity and being humble have the same source which is the human ego. By being more special or less special we separate ourselves out from each other and God. Specialness applied to anyone or anything is a quality of ego mind and egoistic thinking. Clearly, we can't live as humans without ego since to be human is to have an ego, but it can be countered in thought and action. Work on the ego and its eventual demise is not going to be a great concern to anyone with a spiritual intent and kind of goes with the territory.
Sorry, you're going to have explain, because that just sounded like new-age buzzword jargon.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:43
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,273
Sorry, you're going to have explain, because that just sounded like new-age buzzword jargon.
Your imagination. Deal with it.
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:13
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
Your imagination. Deal with it.
Speaking of new age buzzwords, this 'Jesus did not exist' stuff is new age mumbo jumbo.

That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 13:33
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Speaking of new age buzzwords, this 'Jesus did not exist' stuff is new age mumbo jumbo.

That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus.
Specific people did.

But never mind, bolly. Maybe try and articulate an answer to my question that you're so desperate to avoid for no other reason than it discredits your point.

LOL!

Next you'll be insisting that Shakespeare's "Richard II" is factually accurate. It isn't. But why let minor details get in the way of belief, huh?
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:14
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
o Wise One, i cave in to your obviously superior learning.
I get lucky once in a while - I am not as widely read as you - but there are a few areas I dive deep. We're cool I hope.

Yes, Luke and Matthew must have read Mark, but I prefer what Bart Ehrman points out about the idea that all the Gospel accounts go back to Mark.

He says that nothing could be further from the truth.

Huge portions of their Gospels are independent of Mark. Mark and Luke had quite different portrayals of the crucified Jesus. The Gospel of John is independent of the others, the maverick Gospel.

There is no reason to think Luke was lying when referring to earlier writings he read.

There are other reasons for thinking there was a Q. And that it was made up of the sayings of Jesus, primarily.

Goodacre and Ehrman are apparently friends though, and write positively about each other even where they disagree.
Let's not rehearse all the contrasting arguments - there would not be enough interest on this forum. My purpose was just to establish that the existence of Q is not a done deal.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:40
belly button
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365

Let's not rehearse all the contrasting arguments - there would not be enough interest on this forum. My purpose was just to establish that the existence of Q is not a done deal.
I've had to look up Q source and unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't all Christians have to believe such a source existed. Isn't the only other option that they made the gospels up from imagination ?
belly button is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:51
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209

Let's not rehearse all the contrasting arguments - there would not be enough interest on this forum. My purpose was just to establish that the existence of Q is not a done deal.
That's why I said probably. And why I prefer Ehrman's conclusion, that is well documented as to how Luke differs from Mark, how John differs from the other gospels, and the likelihood that Luke did read from earlier works.

So not a done deal that everything can be traced back to Mark.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 14:54
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
I've had to look up Q source and unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't all Christians have to believe such a source existed. Isn't the only other option that they made the gospels up from imagination ?
It's not only Christians who think Q existed. The scholar I quoted is an agnostic atheist.

Anyway, many Christians would probably accept the oral tradition from which Jesus' reputation arose. Only those who want to delve more deeply into it, would care about the earlier writings.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:10
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
I've had to look up Q source and unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, wouldn't all Christians have to believe such a source existed. Isn't the only other option that they made the gospels up from imagination ?
Ordinarily Q is not used to indicate prior oral tradition.

It is normally used specifically in the context of the Synoptic accounts and to explain that material common to Matthew and Luke that is missing from Mark.

In a similar way, material unique to Matthew is called the 'M' tradition and that unique to Luke 'L'.

So it has a pretty specific meaning in synoptic scholarship. It is used as a possible explanation for a specific perceived problem - not as a coverall for anything and everything that may have predated the synoptics.

Now, it is true that many scholastic theories assumed that there were not other widely available accounts in the early period. But then along came the Gospel of Thomas.

If Q were to have existed, it is normally assumed to be a collection of sayings without narrative - a bit like Thomas. But Thomas is not 'Q' and Thomas hasn't decided the issue, though there are definitely parallel teachings in Thomas and the Synoptics.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:17
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
Jesus was a physician coming from a lower class family? Not likely at that time. But he may have been very astute and using methods that we have yet to discover on science.
Even today, some people are able to pick up skills with very little effort, so the idea that a man named Jesus was a quick study in medicine isn't all that shocking a possibility to me.

A miracle is when god makes the impossible, possible. When god brakes to laws of nature.
A better question would be why someone/something (God) would create the ability for things to happen that need his interference to fix them in the first place. Seems kind of counterproductive.

But, if you believe in god, then you must believe god created those laws. Why would any intelligent deity create a univerese whos laws inhibit the operation of that same deity???
We have rules here in the UK that are broken all the time. How many DVLA workers occasionally jump red lights or drive over the speed limit? How many people within the entertainment industry download (illegally) music, tv series and films?

There's also the ''jesus the magician'' theory, that he was a conjurer, similar to simon magus mentioned in Acts, but it's not really plausible .........
So, you're suggesting that Jesus and Merlin were the same person? Hmm..

I'm more inclined to believe the theory that Jesus is/was an alien. Makes more sense to me, and yes, I am being totally sincere with that statement.

u object to god, not because he exists, but, because some of his rules are slightly inconvenient ?
The rules are God aren't a mere inconvenience, they're a complete and utter mess; they're too vague for starters, and open to all sorts of interpretation.

I agree that it's not plausible if you look at how Jesus' personality is portrayed. If he did not really heal anyone, and was just using magic tricks, they he was just a prankster and out for his own ego.
You're suggesting that Jesus was actually the Norse God Loki? I'm down with that!

Yet that wasn't his personality throughout the gospels. His personality comes across as genuine and humble (does not credit himself). He seemed very sincere about the coming of the kingdom. Whether right or not about that.
Except if Jesus was a prankster, he'd want people to believe him to be genuine and humble, would he not?

That was not what people thought in the years after Jesus.
...or so we're led to believe!!
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:23
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
=Flash525;85050053]Even today, some people are able to pick up skills with very little effort, so the idea that a man named Jesus was a quick study in medicine isn't all that shocking a possibility to me.
So you think physicians in the time of Jesus had a way to cure blindness?

A better question would be why someone/something (God) would create the ability for things to happen that need his interference to fix them in the first place. Seems kind of counterproductive.
Free will

So, you're suggesting that Jesus and Merlin were the same person? Hmm..

Quite the opposite, as I see it. That his presentation was genuine from all accounts.

I'm more inclined to believe the theory that Jesus is/was an alien. Makes more sense to me, and yes, I am being totally sincere with that statement.
Like a time traveler.

The rules are God aren't a mere inconvenience, they're a complete and utter mess; they're too vague for starters, and open to all sorts of interpretation.
Seemed to help organize society.

You're suggesting that Jesus was actually the Norse God Loki? I'm down with that!
The opposite again. The idea that he was a configuration based on another God is junk history.

Except if Jesus was a prankster, he'd want people to believe him to be genuine and humble, would he not?
Nothing about him that comes across as a prankster. When people are pranksters, their behavior ultimately betrays them by contradicting their words.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:26
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Yeah droogiefret, we're fine, just my ill advised attempt at sarcasm. I'll try again. Happy Christmas, ho ho ho ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:32
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Answering flash 525, the rules ARE impossible to follow, given that human nature is supposedly ''fallen'', that's why ''salvation'' is required for EVERYONE, the standard theory as explained by st paul in Romans ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:34
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Jesus The Prankster. A bit too Ken Kesey for me ............
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:44
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
As i understand it, the idea of jesus as ''2nd person in divine trinity'' was a theological development, after his crucifiction (& resurrection?), worked out after the events ........ Peter's outburst recorded in the gospels having been followed by a warning ''shush'' from jesus .......
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:50
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Interestingly, after some of the stuff above, c.s. Lewis' ''sci fi'' novel, That Hideous Strength, has Merlin the magician resurrected in 1940s academic Oxford ........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 15:52
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
You get a choice in the matter. Just like proxy baptised ancestors of Mormons are given a choice to enter a Kingdom of God via a private door of Joseph Smith.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:08
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
@spiney2, you know you can edit your posts, don't you? Save consecutive comments. Merely making you aware if you weren't already...

So you think physicians in the time of Jesus had a way to cure blindness?
But we don't know that Jesus actually cured a blind person, do we? We have a story about that having happened, but for all we know, the blind man (if he even existed) merely had something (dirt?) in his eye.

Then what's the point of intervention? That's going against free will. Furthermore, it isn't free will where illness is concerned. People don't choose to become ill.

Quite the opposite, as I see it. That his presentation was genuine from all accounts.
Well I suppose historically Jesus came before Merlin, so yeah, I'll grant you that!

Like a time traveler.
No, like an alien, from outer space. Except in this instance, E.T. didn't want to phone home.

Seemed to help organize society.
Societies had formed long before Jesus came around. Doesn't look like he was needed. Societies have formed (without religion) since too.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:08
belly button
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365
Ordinarily Q is not used to indicate prior oral tradition.

It is normally used specifically in the context of the Synoptic accounts and to explain that material common to Matthew and Luke that is missing from Mark.

In a similar way, material unique to Matthew is called the 'M' tradition and that unique to Luke 'L'.

So it has a pretty specific meaning in synoptic scholarship. It is used as a possible explanation for a specific perceived problem - not as a coverall for anything and everything that may have predated the synoptics.

Now, it is true that many scholastic theories assumed that there were not other widely available accounts in the early period. But then along came the Gospel of Thomas.

If Q were to have existed, it is normally assumed to be a collection of sayings without narrative - a bit like Thomas. But Thomas is not 'Q' and Thomas hasn't decided the issue, though there are definitely parallel teachings in Thomas and the Synoptics.
Thanks for that.

I didn't realise it was such a mystery, I presumed everyone thought it was because they all knew each other and that St Paul was the lynch pin.
belly button is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 16:28
fastzombie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,464
So you don't think it's possible that people being healed by Jesus due to their belief in healing, could be biology?
Wouldn't there have to be some biological component to healing anyway? The view is that mind is a secondary quality of matter, and as matter is paramount this secondary quality should not have any way of altering or affecting the latter. I think that line's become very fuzzy in light of what we know now.
fastzombie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:00
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
Thanks for that.

I didn't realise it was such a mystery, I presumed everyone thought it was because they all knew each other and that St Paul was the lynch pin.
St Paul is a whole other ball game!!

Anyway - I would recommend Mark Goodacre's 'The Synoptic Problem - A way through the maze'. It's pretty accessible and covers all the ground. (Bolly will recommend something else!!)

edit: You can dip into Mark's companion site here
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 18:39
belly button
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Is there life on Mars
Posts: 5,365
St Paul is a whole other ball game!!

Anyway - I would recommend Mark Goodacre's 'The Synoptic Problem - A way through the maze'. It's pretty accessible and covers all the ground. (Bolly will recommend something else!!)

edit: You can dip into Mark's companion site here

I will try and skim read it when I get chance as the impact of the gospels on humans has been so profound that even as an atheist I feel I should have more knowledge of Christianity.
Before your post, I hadn't even heard the term 'Synoptic Gospels'.

I might get distracted by things of a more scientific bent, but I'll try
belly button is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:20
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
Wouldn't there have to be some biological component to healing anyway? The view is that mind is a secondary quality of matter, and as matter is paramount this secondary quality should not have any way of altering or affecting the latter. I think that line's become very fuzzy in light of what we know now.
I think that maybe in 2120 we will know a bit about healing via the mind.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:22
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
@spiney2, you know you can edit your posts, don't you? Save consecutive comments. Merely making you aware if you weren't already...

But we don't know that Jesus actually cured a blind person, do we? We have a story about that having happened, but for all we know, the blind man (if he even existed) merely had something (dirt?) in his eye.

Then what's the point of intervention? That's going against free will. Furthermore, it isn't free will where illness is concerned. People don't choose to become ill.

Well I suppose historically Jesus came before Merlin, so yeah, I'll grant you that!

No, like an alien, from outer space. Except in this instance, E.T. didn't want to phone home.

Societies had formed long before Jesus came around. Doesn't look like he was needed. Societies have formed (without religion) since too.
No we don't know that Jesus healed a blind person, only his reputation for healing

Jesus never forced anyone to follow him.

Looked to me like Jesus was needed.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:34.