The beauty of the Jesus Narrative

#52
#52
volinbham said:
I wonder if this is necessarily true - obviously "better" needs some defining but in the more abstract I wonder if the non-uniform moral code of humans actually moves the human race forward. (slight nod to the Matrix)
Click to expand...

If you are speaking of 'moving forward' in terms of technological innovation, it seems as though there would be good evidence on your side. After all, if everyone lives by separate moral codes, then there is friction. Friction leads to strife; strife to warfare. Man has shown himself quite innovative in his ability to create fresh methods to kill his brother en masse. These innovations have usually been adapted after military contests to reduce toil and create more leisure.

This introduces two sets of questions. The first, does toil make man unhappy? Does leisure make man happy? The second, have these wars been responsible for killing innovative geniuses that might have brought about greater technological advances without war? Has the consistent need for 'security' led to allocating resources away from certain non-military innovative ventures?

I will posit that Man would be happy if all men made the personal choice to adhere to the deontological moral code as expressed by Kant's categorical imperatives.
 
#53
#53
therealUT said:
You brought up anger, not I. As much as you want to run in circles, I will not chase.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did broach the response. Using a term like "myth" in referring to the birth of Christ and saying things like "God dies" is incindiery rhetoric to those of us that are believers and is most likely intended to stir the pot. The fact that Jesus was born, lived a life, and was crucified is historical fact. If you don't believe He was the human embodiment of God, that's certainly your prerogative. You'll have to excuse my skepticism of your OP intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#54
#54
distrovol said:
Actually, you did broach the response. Using a term like "myth" in referring to the birth of Christ and saying things like "God dies" is incindiery rhetoric to those of us that are believers and is most likely intended to stir the pot. The fact that Jesus was born, lived a life, and was crucified is historical fact. If you don't believe He was the human embodiment of God, that's certainly your prerogative. You'll have to excuse my skepticism of your OP intentions.
Click to expand...

Do not blame me because you attach certain a connotation to the term 'myth'. Also, if Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man, then, when Jesus is crucified, God dies. This is actually what makes the Christian myth unique in comparison to other religious myths.

And, for the record, whether or not Jesus really lived has not been firmly established as an historical fact.
 
#55
#55
Perhaps not firmly enough for you. As you said, unless Jesus reveals himself to you there is nothing that is going to convince you otherwise, so trying to do so is a fools errand. Again, your choice of words in your OP was not to stimulate constructive discourse, but rather to elicit a particular response. Saying that Jesus didn't even exist is out on the lunetic fringe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#56
#56
distrovol said:
Perhaps not firmly enough for you. As you said, unless Jesus reveals himself to you there is nothing that is going to convince you otherwise, so trying to do so is a fools errand. Again, your choice of words in your OP was not to stimulate constructive discourse, but rather to elicit a particular response. Saying that Jesus didn't even exist is out on the lunetic fringe.
Click to expand...

I've seen both sides of this argued on VN recently. Does anyone have any links or other data, aside from the Bible, to support the "Jesus was an actual person" argument?

Honest question.

EDIT: Apologies for not keeping up in the Christmas Tree thread. Question retracted....Danl
 
Last edited:
#57
#57
distrovol said:
Perhaps not firmly enough for you. As you said, unless Jesus reveals himself to you there is nothing that is going to convince you otherwise, so trying to do so is a fools errand. Again, your choice of words in your OP was not to stimulate constructive discourse, but rather to elicit a particular response. Saying that Jesus didn't even exist is out on the lunetic fringe.
Click to expand...


I am not responsible for your feelings; I use words as they are defined. What would you prefer a non-Christian refer to the New Testament story as? I certainly will not refer to it as the word of God and I will no more consider it scripture than I consider the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Upanishads 'scripture'.

Saying that Jesus does not exist is nowhere near the lunatic fringe; it simply does not align with Christianity.
 
#58
#58
Like most things in antiquity, we have to take historical record as the truth. We were not there, after all. Jesus of Nazerath was a real live man that was historically recorded both during and after his lifetime. Are we to believe the movement of Christianity got to where it is today by a handfull of people that just made this man's existance up? You would probably prefer to answer yes, thus reinforcing your implications that those who follow Christ have been duped their whole lives by a belief you don't share.
 
#59
#59
distrovol said:
Like most things in antiquity, we have to take historical record as the truth. We were not there, after all. Jesus of Nazerath was a real live man that was historically recorded both during and after his lifetime. Are we to believe the movement of Christianity got to where it is today by a handfull of people that just made this man's existance up? You would probably prefer to answer yes, thus reinforcing your implications that those who follow Christ have been duped their whole lives by a belief you don't share.
Click to expand...

Can you refer to anything that was written regarding Jesus during his lifetime?

If he lived and did all thse amazing things, how is it that the majority of those in Jerusalem and Palestine rejected Christianity and it only initially bloomed a thousand miles away in Greece, Italy, and Ethiopa.
 
#60
#60
There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness - those forces are miracle, mystery, and authority.

Brothers Karamazov
Click to expand...

Now at the time of the revolution in question, there already was among the people who ruled over the Jews and had spread in their very homeland (among the Romans) a learned public from whom the history of the political events of the time has been transmitted to us through an unbroken series of writers, and this people, though little concerned with the religious faiths of their non-Roman subjects, was not at all unreceptive to public miracles allegedly occurring among them; yet its writers made no mention, neither of the miracles nor of the equally public revolution which these caused (with respect to religion) among that people subjected to them, though they were contemporary witnesses. Only later, after more than one generation, did they institute research into the nature - but not the history of the origin - of this change in faith which had hitherto remained unrecognized by them (and had occurred not without public commotion), in an effort to find it in their own annals. Hence, from its origin until the time when Christianity developed a learned public of its own, its history is obscure.

Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason
Immanuel Kant
Click to expand...

The essence of that supreme mind, his attributes, the manner of his existence, the very nature of his duration; these and every particular which regards so divine a being are mysterious to men. Finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence, and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections which eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. They are covered in a deep cloud from human curiosity; it is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these sacred obscurities; and, next to the impiety of denying his existence, is the temerity of prying into his nature and essence, decrees and attributes.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
David Hume
Click to expand...

.
 
#61
#61
Jesus, whether he existed or was a character, had much to say about social justice and charity. When all the supernatural son of God stuff comes up is when I digress.

I may be atheist, but like with other patriarchs, useful teachings attributed to them can still be accepted and practiced.
 
#62
#62
Not in regard to books of the Bible written during His lifetime. Recorded history is not limited exclusively to the bible.
 
#64
#64
therealUT said:
Could you please clarify these two statements?
Click to expand...

Perhaps refering to Josephus,Roman historian who mentions Jesus brieflu in his writing. I think his history was written around the time that the gospel Mark was written, 60-70 A.D.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#65
#65
OldandStillaVol said:
Perhaps refering to Josephus,Roman historian who mentions Jesus brieflu in his writing. I think his history was written around the time that the gospel Mark was written, 60-70 A.D.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

1. I have yet to hear anyone argue that Josephus wrote anything regarding Jesus while Jesus was still alive (considering that Josephus was said to be born in 37 AD, it makes it quite unlikely that he did write anything in or before 33 AD). Distro clearly states that Jesus was mentioned in historical texts during His supposed lifetime.

2. Josephus's statements regarding Jesus are apocryphal at best, and, more than likely, spurious.
 
#66
#66
OldandStillaVol said:
Perhaps refering to Josephus,Roman historian who mentions Jesus brieflu in his writing. I think his history was written around the time that the gospel Mark was written, 60-70 A.D.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time with this guy, enjoy the nice day instead
 
#67
#67
therealUT said:
If you are speaking of 'moving forward' in terms of technological innovation, it seems as though there would be good evidence on your side. After all, if everyone lives by separate moral codes, then there is friction. Friction leads to strife; strife to warfare. Man has shown himself quite innovative in his ability to create fresh methods to kill his brother en masse. These innovations have usually been adapted after military contests to reduce toil and create more leisure.

This introduces two sets of questions. The first, does toil make man unhappy? Does leisure make man happy? The second, have these wars been responsible for killing innovative geniuses that might have brought about greater technological advances without war? Has the consistent need for 'security' led to allocating resources away from certain non-military innovative ventures?

I will posit that Man would be happy if all men made the personal choice to adhere to the deontological moral code as expressed by Kant's categorical imperatives.
Click to expand...

A couple points for consideration:

1) the last paragraph implies that the choice (at least for some) would be against their nature (I know there is "no human nature"). For some at least, such a choice would create internal conflict and thus not lead to happiness for that/those man/men.

2) warfare aside, it would seem that mild forms of greed, envy, etc. are also motivators to improve one's lot - the seed of innovation.
 
#68
#68
volinbham said:
A couple points for consideration:

1) the last paragraph implies that the choice (at least for some) would be against their nature (I know there is "no human nature"). For some at least, such a choice would create internal conflict and thus not lead to happiness for that/those man/men.
Click to expand...

One must harness, as in Plato's Phaedrus their desiridative part by allocating more power to their rational part. Of course, no one has ever claimed this would be easy; however, once mastered, one would be more content according to Plato, Kant, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc.

volinbham said:
2) warfare aside, it would seem that mild forms of greed, envy, etc. are also motivators to improve one's lot - the seed of innovation.
Click to expand...

Are we speaking of materially improving one's lot?

First, I am not convinced that all great innovators gave the world certain innovations due to their own selfish desires (I am not claiming that some or even most did not, though). Second, I am not convinced that luxury, leisure, and/or material wealth leads to a higher state of happiness; I am also not convinced that buying/procuring the 'love' of another with material wealth leads to a higher state of happiness.

I would also disagree with you if you are implying that a selfish motive to improve one's own lot is the seed of innovation. I would tend to think that necessity is the seed of innovation. Persons dying in the Nile Valley from disease (cholera, I believe) led to the invention of beer; this 'growth' was out of the necessity to sustain life for all.
 
#69
#69
therealUT said:
One must harness, as in Plato's Phaedrus their desiridative part by allocating more power to their rational part. Of course, no one has ever claimed this would be easy; however, once mastered, one would be more content according to Plato, Kant, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc.

Nice in theory :)



Are we speaking of materially improving one's lot?

Yes/no - maybe not directly but even medical cures materially improve one's lot.

First, I am not convinced that all great innovators gave the world certain innovations due to their own selfish desires (I am not claiming that some or even most did not, though).

Agreed - not all but likely some


Second, I am not convinced that luxury, leisure, and/or material wealth leads to a higher state of happiness; I am also not convinced that buying/procuring the 'love' of another with material wealth leads to a higher state of happiness.

Agreed. I would argue it's hard to separate though. If one family member strives to provide for his/her family and gets rewards (intrinsic and not necessarily perceived as selfish) while the family returns the gifts in love and devotion it may not seem like buying love but is the effect different?

I would also disagree with you if you are implying that a selfish motive to improve one's own lot is the seed of innovation. I would tend to think that necessity is the seed of innovation. Persons dying in the Nile Valley from disease (cholera, I believe) led to the invention of beer; this 'growth' was out of the necessity to sustain life for all.
Click to expand...

Let's say that if necessity is the mother of invention then a motivation to improve one's lot is a powerful form of fuel...

I just see it as far too much an article of faith to assume that if all mankind put aside any/most selfish desires and instead became Christ-like that the entire world would be a happier and better place.

I believe the tension between good and evil, yin and yang, etc. is a critical spice of life. That said, more good and less evil might help.
 
#70
#70
I have little to no faith that mankind will ever put aside most of their selfish desires; so, it, unfortunately, does not matter anyway.

:zeitung_lesen:
 
#71
#71
I posted this before but it fits here - some lyrics from a Smokin Dave and the Premo Dopes song (all I can remember)

I'm responsible for what I do
then again so are you

I'm an extistentialist...
Human nature's got me pissed.

Jean Paul Sartre was my martyr
Don't put Descarte before de horse
Everyone's looking for some Kant
Be sure to eat everything on your Plato

--- Smoking Dave and the Premo Dopes "Existentialist"
Click to expand...
 
#73
#73
therealUT said:
Jesus also asserts that individuals would not be forgiven for denying God. I take this as an admonition to understand that there is a higher being and that I am not It (basically, an admonish against Solipsism). I do not take it to be commanding individuals to pay ritual worship to said God.

In fact, the way to get to said God is through Jesus, through Jesus's message: treat others as ends, not means; put yourself in harm's way in order to accommodate the needs and personhood of others; etc. I do not take this as a 'you must worship me, Jesus, as an idol, a God, etc. to receive salvation'.
Click to expand...

Jesus said that people could deny Him, meaning Jesus, and be forgiven. Jesus was a MAN. Yes, He was God, but in the flesh. You could deny the Earthly God (Jesus) but not God Himself. Deny the man, not the Spirit.
 
#75
#75
superdave1984 said:
Jesus said that people could deny Him, meaning Jesus, and be forgiven. Jesus was a MAN. Yes, He was God, but in the flesh. You could deny the Earthly God (Jesus) but not God Himself. Deny the man, not the Spirit.
Click to expand...

If one denies Jesus Christ, would that not make them an anti- Christ?

IMO, if one does deny God, that person cannot be forgiven as long as he does deny God. A person that does not believe in God will not ask God for forgiveness , thus God cannot forgive. I also believe that same person can have a revelation or some type of change and start believing in God and ask God for forgiveness then God will grant that person forgiveness.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top