Can One Be a Christian if Jesus Didn't Rise
I want to start this discussion purely to listen to others' thoughts on the matter; I am not a Christian and have no strong preexisting beliefs on the matter.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul seems to state in strong words that if Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead after 3 days in the tomb, the foundation of Christianity is a farce; your faith is in vain. I am curious if legitimate philosophical discourse has been made on this matter. I specifically am interested in two questions: 1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity?
Here is the verse I am referring to,
> "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14
In 1 Corinthians, Paul seems to state in strong words that if Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead after 3 days in the tomb, the foundation of Christianity is a farce; your faith is in vain. I am curious if legitimate philosophical discourse has been made on this matter. I specifically am interested in two questions: 1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity?
Here is the verse I am referring to,
> "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14
Comments (124)
There could be a mystic interpretation of this quote which shatters the otherwise dull Christian rote literalist dogma.
Meister Eckhart might've referred to the virgin birth as something that happens inside of us. When
"Christ resurrects", it might happen somewhere other than just a literal tomb and a historical body 2000+ years ago.
[quote=Wikipedia: Meister Eckhart]In Eckhart's vision, God is primarily fecund. Out of overabundance of love the fertile God gives birth to the Son, the Word in all of us. Clearly,[d] this is rooted in the Neoplatonic notion of "ebullience; boiling over" of the One that cannot hold back its abundance of Being. Eckhart had imagined the creation not as a "compulsory" overflowing (a metaphor based on a common hydrodynamic picture), but as the free act of will of the triune nature of Deity (refer Trinitarianism). [/quote]
From its beginning there have been Christians on both sides of this. A couple of things muddy the waters. Resurrection was a common Jewish belief before Jesus. Who would be resurrected and whether it was a physical or spiritual resurrection divided groups of believers.
Quoting Brenner T
The question here is whether one can be a Christian if one is not a follower of Paul's teachings. Again the answer is yes.
Yes. There are Christians who are not even certain that the Jesus of the New Testament even lived. Perhaps the Jesus story was based on some radical teacher after whom a mythology was built. They see the narrative and tradition as providing lessons and a way of life through allegory. Belief is complex.
Quoting Brenner T
First, in 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul is not making a primarily epistemic point. This is the lynchpin of his argument:
Quoting 1 Corinthians 15:17-18, RSV
We could put it this way:
Christianity historically requires the belief that Jesus conquered sin and death, and that we therefore are (or will be) saved from sin and death (by Jesus). But maybe by "belief in Christianity" one means something entirely different, like, "Trying to be a nice person." Certainly you can try to be a nice person even if you do not believe that Jesus was raised; you just can't hold that Jesus conquered sin and death.
-
Note particularly the claim, "...your faith is futile." Suppose your island is on fire and you are forced to flee. There is a man selling boats. He tells you that the boat he is selling is a sturdy vessel, capable of navigating on the sea and easily able to reach the mainland. You believe him; you have faith; you buy the boat from him. You take the boat and complete the first nautical mile of your journey, and your companion says, "If this boat is not seaworthy, our faith is futile. Our faith is in vain." That's what St. Paul means. "If Jesus has not been raised then the guy who sold you this boat was a liar, and you were a fool to believe him."
Brilliant stuff here, lol.
This comment does not directly answer the original post's question:
It seems that, if you accept the historicity of Jesus, and accounts given of the apostles such as the martyrdom of Peter, and if you also deny that Jesus rose after suffering a brutal execution at the hands of the Romans, then Peter would have to be just the least intelligent person imaginable to continue to preach about Jesus.
So either early Christians like Peter were all complete idiots, or he was an individual of heroic virtue. But where would such heroics originate? In other words, if someone considers as though they were Peter, why bother preaching if none of it is true?
I guess? Christianity today is about belief in Jesus's rising. Even if it never happened, the Nicean Creed still exists and Christians (by definition) believe in it.
But there's tension with the idea that the Nicean creed defines Christianity because Jesus's earliest followers seemed more concerned with living a certain way and having a certain worldview than commitment to dogmas about supernatural events in the past. So today you get people who clearly don't seem to care about what Jesus had to say but will insist on the reality of his resurrection and this group is apparently more "Christian" than those who actually followed Jesus in his day when there was no resurrection to believe in but heard his teachings straight from his mouth.
What do you mean by "a belief in Christianity"?
Despite an "allegorical" reading you do acknowledge that the Bible describes real events. Surely you don't deny the babylonian exile? Or that Israel fought the Assyrians in the 8th century BC? So how far back before it becomes "allegory?"
:up:
An anecdote. Many years ago, there was a minor flap in the media because some archaeologist claimed to have found the physical remnants of Jesus in an ossuary. There was an enormous hue and cry about it. We were discussing it around the dinner table. One of my very near relatives, no longer with us, was opining that it didn't really undermine Jesus' core message of love for all, tolerance, etc etc. There was some agreement from others present. I became quite insistent that, no, if Jesus didn't physically ascend, then it completely changes the nature of the Christian faith. I said that you couldn't reject that belief and remain meaningfully Christian. At which point I had a cup of tea thrown over me. But I still maintain that belief.
It is evident that your own knowledge of Christianity is far less extensive than you seem to give yourself credit for. From its beginnings Christianity has always been diverse and pluralistic. One does not need to be a Christian to read about the history of Christianity.
You rely on Paul, but Paul himself admits the fissure between his teachings and that of Jesus' direct disciples. Pauline Christianity does not represent the beliefs and practices of all Christians, then, now, or in the long period between.
You might reasonably say that your own beliefs are based on the resurrection, or even that the beliefs of many Christians is based on the resurrection, but in the face of the evidence to the contrary it is not reasonable to claim that this must hold true for all Christians.
The OP is about Paul's words, which is why I commented on Paul. Did you read the OP?
You are not a Christian, you have no formal theological training, you constantly display ignorance in this area, and you are outright hostile towards professing Christians. I hope the OP finds a more serious opinion.
Yes, I think that's right. I think even those who tend to oppose Christianity like Hitchens or Dawkins are right to take this line on the resurrection. It is a keystone to the religion.
Theologically, the resurrection has been central to Christianity from the very beginning. But nowadays the inquiry is epistemic. We say, "If Jesus rose, then Christianity is true," and then we go on to try to decide whether Jesus rose. The theological and historical/apologetical questions are interrelated, but also rather different, and I don't see how the facticity of the resurrection is to be definitively adjudicated. You can make arguments for or against it, but it will never be proved or disproved by historical methods. From this perspective of the credibility of Christianity, it is but one part of the whole. So if the OP is "not sure if Jesus actually rose," he is not disbarred from Christianity when considered as an inquirer, and yet he is at best in via ("on the way") towards the fullness of Christian belief.
One book which tries to line up two different perspectives is The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, co-authored by N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg.
Quoting Wayfarer
I have personally witnessed this approach lead to disillusionment, for good reason. It is a "religion" without substance. The mere emulation or appreciation of a historical figure is not religion. To take that route is to try to make substantial something which is inherently insubstantial.
No doubt, there are people who call themselves "Christians" who have deflated the faith into some sort of allegorical/philosophical/cultural complex of sorts. This was a "thing" in early 20th century Anglican intellectual circles for instance (C.S. Lewis has a bit of fun with this trend in "The Great Divorce.") There are certainly people who embrace such positions today. Jordan Peterson seems to be suggesting something like this, although I haven't paid too much attention to him. People advocating "cultural Christianity," (e.g. Elon Musk now, lol) seem to be in the vein.
But such "Christians" certainly can't affirm the Nicene or Apostles' Creed, nor any of the Ecumenical Councils. And they clearly fall outside even the broadest definitions of Christianity that most Christians themselves would recognize.
There are similar issues with any popular lable of course.
It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it. See Judges through Kings. If you only focus on the New Testament I get how you can leave with the "New York City and Spiderman" analogy. Although even the NT contains some valuable historical information, although of a much more condensed date range. The New Testament, IMHO, is a completely different animal than the Old.
Yes.
Quoting Wayfarer
Interesting. :up:
Quoting Wayfarer
I was talking to an elderly friend recently and they told me that the whole class cheated on the "Confirmation test" in their Episcopal church. It was a funny story, but it is good that you were more serious about the whole thing. :grin: I considered declining Confirmation as well, but I was more or less made to go through with it.
No question. Most scriptures from world religions are fascinating documents which contain historic and cultural narratives.
But my point is not about atheism - it is about theologians and Christians who are non-literalists.
I think it is a good quesion to ask such believers - which bits matter and which bits do not and how did you determine why?
The Spiderman comment is a simple distillation of the idea that even if a book contains valuable information about history and culture, this does not mean the entire book is true. This is actually a quip I first heard from a Jesuit Priest.
Well, I suppose it's sort of like asking: "can I be a 'Marxist' while rejecting dialectical materialism and the workers' ownership of the means of production, and while embracing neoliberal economic policies, voting for Donald Trump, and idolizing Reagan and Thatcher?"
I mean, sure, you can call yourself a Marxist, but you shouldn't be surprised if 99+% of Marxist and all the mainline Marxist authorities/institutions in the world reject your claim to be a Marxist.
Yes, and I am curious whether the OP is thinking along such lines.
Definitely maybe. I've sort of thought of the neo-cons as Marxists who gave up on class struggle -- where there's nothing primitive about primitive accumulation.
But it'd be an odd duck who committed to such notions rather than cynically used them.
I was sent to an Anglican school, but father was very unsympathetic to religion so left it up to me. Although to be honest, part of it was that it seemed to require a lot more homework. Also, this was happening at around that time:
which seemed a good deal more interesting than Sunday School :-)
They do it different, but at least for the Mormans who really believe in the theology it's hard for me to separate them from Christianity because of the belief that Christ was risen from the dead and he conquers death and sin, as @Leontiskos said.
But, also, while I have my two cents I'd prefer to leave this adjudication to thems who want to be Christian.
Generally, a person can identify as whatever they please. Certainly schools of thought, ways of life, and religions hold doctrines that one must adhere to or accept to be considered a true follower or not "hypocritical." "Problem", per se, is that, like most things, different people agree and disagree on different things, hence, in this case, why certain religions have unique denominations, often a result of what was- in many cases, at first- a small splinter group or movement. Christianity is no exception. Protestants believe one thing, Baptists believe another, Catholics, another still- to the point others have stark disagreements where one views the other as "simply wrong". I believe a few "popular" disagreements are works-based salvation vs. faith-based salvation, per-tribulation Rapture vs. post, etc. One who believes one thing and not the other generally views the other person as "lost" or, again, "just wrong" or even not a true whatever the title or group happens to be.
Whether or not Christ was raised from the dead (physically, hence the purported visual apparition allegedly witnessed by followers) seems to me like an incredibly minor detail based on the underlying context of Abrahamic faith (which again different followers hold different beliefs as far as what the purported Messiah is, signifies, and functionally "does") If I'm not mistaken, Jewish prophecy states the Messiah would be a military leader who would ensure them a victory against their enemies. Christianity states Messiah (literally messenger), as exactly that, a messenger who gave men a heavenly decree that the Old Testament is no more, and those who follow the god of Abraham have new (more lax) laws to follow, as well as, well, to put it casually, something of an "update" that mortals are now allowed in Heaven provided they meet certain conditions. This, if I'm not mistaken, is a change from the way it was before as Heaven was previously reserved only for angels and divine beings (and possibly those who God "likes", I guess, not sure- but based on the doctrines of the faith an all-powerful god can in fact do anything, so, yeah.) If I'm also not mistaken, Jews generally believe Jesus was not the prophecized Messiah and was either A.) a liar and/or B.) just some guy trying to make everyone feel better. Which means they await the true Messiah who, as they believe, has yet to come.
To your point, you are a Christian if you believe in Christianity, the idea Jesus existed and, presumably, was the son of God, and/or by extension (though again depending on belief the two are not mutually-exclusive), the foretold king/prophecized Messiah foretold in Jewish texts. You could be a "bad" or "untrue" or "lost" Christian, I suppose, why not? To answer your question one asks the opposite: what is a non-Christian? Typical answer being someone who "doesn't believe in the Bible" or that Jesus existed and performed all or most of the purported doings and activities alleged, whose word is the Truth, believes such, and strives to live as Christ (rather, God via Christ) commanded or stated one should. (You can believe in all of the above, but reject the idea, and live in willful opposition to the alleged new ("Christ's") commandments, that would make one a non-Christian).
Basically, Jews and Christians ultimately believe in the same Messiah, one just believes the other is wrong. Christians believing the ancient scripture was fulfilled and as a result anything commanded or proclaimed by Jesus is divine and eternal law, Jews believing said prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and nothing has changed from when God purportedly gave Moses the Ten Commandments to before the day Jesus was born to now (and naturally as a result Christians are misled, at worst damning themselves and those around them or at best wasting their time). Kind of the same as what they believe of them.
To put it casually: was it the real slim shady or not? Therein lies the only divide between Judaism and Christianity.
Personally, I believe in a compassionate, all-knowing God. Which means God obviously knows that people are pretty dumb. If you're a good person, and there's a Heaven mortals are allowed to reside in, you'll probably end up there. If not, mankind is pretty boned any way you slice it.
(The reason I call this non-philosophy is because the ultimate goal of your question is a result of what a purported text or school of thought ultimately resolves to. It's an explicit yes or no, 1 or 0 binary based on explicit, static information [whether the information is true or false is not the issue] and nothing more. Meaning, logically, the answer remains the same whether or not you are a devout Christian or an atheist who views this as a discussion on par with what Santa Claus' favorite cookie is.)
Fair enough.
And I hesitate to correct a former Mormon, but I think it is spelled Mormon, not Morman. In any case, your break is now complete. :razz:
Sure, and who are the enemies, according to the Christians? Sin and death (and the powers connected to them). Without the resurrection Christ is not a victor. Christians retain much more of the militaristic approach than is commonly thought. It's just that the enemy is not human.
I did. Did you? Did you miss the two questions raised?
Quoting Brenner T
These questions are not limited to the teachings of Paul on resurrection.
Quoting Leontiskos
Please point out the mistakes in my response to the OP.
One does not need formal theological training to know that Christianity has never been monolithic. This is a matter of historical fact, not theology. The Church Fathers would not have needed to establish a "universal" Church with official doctrines if if was. They would not have had to destroy what they regarded as heretical teaching or felt it necessary to attempt to discredit and silence those "heretical" teachers.
Did your formal theological training include the different beliefs in resurrection? What is Paul referring to when he says Jesus rose in accordance with scripture? We find in Judaism both the idea of bodily resurrection, spiritual resurrection, and even resurrection in different bodies.
The question of resurrection for Paul is complicated by Paul's "vision". To see someone in a vision is not to see him in person. His claim that:
(1 Corinthians, 13)
is one use of the term body that is problematic.
In 1 Corinthian Paul distinguishes between the natural body and the spiritual body:
(15:42-44)
The life of the spiritual body, s?ma pneumatikos, comes with the death of the physical body. Whatever Paul meant by resurrection it is not necessarily the same as what others might take it to mean.
There is no mention of resurrection in the Gospel of Thomas. Since many of the early gospels were lost or destroyed we cannot say with certainty that he was alone. John's criticism of Thomas suggests that Thomas' teaching were widely known and accepted.
Elaine Pagels points out that the Gnostic Gospels contain different interpretations of Jesus rising including the idea that the resurrection was not a physical event but a symbol of how Christ's spirit could be felt in the present.
None of this is about what the truth of the resurrection might be but rather about different beliefs about what it was. If, as some believe it was symbolic rather than an historical event, then it is clear that actually physically arising from the dead is not a necessary belief held by all Christians.
I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text?
I initially picked up a Bible with very low expectations. At times it was certainly a brutal retelling of history and certain rules surely reflected earlier times, but I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth.
That's exactly the quesion you would need to ask them. When Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians tell us their scriptures are divinely inspired, what do they mean? Which religion is correct about this claim and how do we demonstrate it? We can guess the range of answers possible.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I see no real problem with this. We find this amongst followers of most religions. I guess where it matters is if violent interference with others is the product of revealed wisdom.
I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance.
This seems to be the best answer; you do not resort to a redefinition of Christianity in any sense.
That is very interesting. I have two questions around this belief structure. Do these thinkers have a different conception of what God the Father is like? And how do they imagine Christian salvation working? Does it still work through faith in Jesus?
There are various miracles which don't involve the dead coming back to life, but which are not explainable--turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons, restoring sight to the blind, and so on. There are various supernatural events in the Gospels, like the temptation of Christ, or the transfiguration.
If one can believe in the other supernatural pieces of Jesus' story, then Jesus' resurrection shouldn't present any problems.
I don't know how many supernatural strands in the life of Jesus St. Paul was aware of--after all, he had never met Jesus (except Jesus' ghost on the road to Damascus), and the Gospels hadn't even been written yet when Paul was busy founding Christianity. The death and alleged resurrection of Jesus seemed to be the part of Jesus' story that Paul had, and could have had, access to.
So, for Paul accepting the resurrection was an all-or-nothing choice.
I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't remember Jesus taking St. Paul's approach with the Disciples -- a group who disappointed Jesus on a number of occasions -- they would miss the big point of the daily lesson, fall asleep, or something else--slice off an ear, say, or "Jesus who?"
Question: By whose power was Jesus resurrected--his own, or God's? Just wondering. Somebody here probably knows. Assuming that the Gospels are not the gospel truth (they were, after all, edited) were Jesus' statements about the resurrection back written into the Gospels to conform to what was later believed?
I'm not immersed in their specific theologies but generally they hold a 'ground of being' style god (to use Tillich's famous phrase). The non-literal believers tend not to see god as any kind of anthropomorphism or 'father'. Salvation holds little significance. There is no requirement to be saved.
Spong is probably the most readable and accessible and anathema for many traditionalists.
It is significant that one of the first Patriarchs of the Christian faith, Origen, was extremely critical of what is now called 'biblical literalism' (while acknowledging that my knowledge of his highly recondite and voluminous teachings is minimal. ) Origen saw scripture as embodying three levels of meaning, which he associated with the body, soul, and spirit. The "literal" or "bodily" meaning corresponded to the text's immediate, surface-level meaningits narrative, historical, or instructional content. While he recognized the importance of this level, he regarded it as only the entry point into a richer understanding.
Moving deeper, Origen proposed a "moral" or "soul-level" interpretation, where the text speaks directly to the reader's personal ethical development and inner life. At this level, scripture reveals insights meant to guide individuals toward moral transformation and closer alignment with divine virtues. Finally, he emphasized a "spiritual" or "allegorical" level, which he considered the highest form of interpretation. This level seeks to unveil the hidden, mystical, and theological meanings of scripture, pointing beyond individual ethical concerns to universal, transcendent truths about God and the souls relationship with the divine.
Origen criticized a purely literal reading of scripture, arguing that such an approach risked misunderstanding the true nature of God and the spiritual truths contained in the texts. Literalism, he contended, could result in absurdities or even portray God in ways incompatible with divine goodness and wisdom. He saw literalism as a failure to grasp the inspired, multidimensional character of scripture, which he believed was written in a way that intentionally concealed its full meaning to encourage deeper contemplation and insight.
And this in the second century AD!
I think modern fundamentalism, of which Biblical creationism is an example, has done the faith no favours in this respect. But then, it is important to know that Darwin's books were never placed on the Index of Prohibited Books of the Catholic Church nor were formally criticized by any of the mainstream Christian denominations outside the USA. Biblical creationism which claims that evolutionary theory contradicts the meaning of Scripture is largely of 20th century American origin. But then, we live in extremely confusing times, in many ways. Back in the paleo- and neolithic times, paleontologists can grade different epochs of prehistory by the kinds of chipped stone tools they find, which changed only slightly over thousands of years. Now, everything is changing [s]about every 10 minutes[/s] very rapidly, all the time. So allowance has to be made for that.
What do you like about that parable? Margaret Thatcher's comment on it sticks in my mind.
:up:
I'm glad you're taking due care when it comes to redefinitions of Christianity.
Many would like to redefine Christianity away from Paul. But Paul's theology of the resurrection naturally matches that of the gospels. To take two examples at random regarding Jesus' power and victory over sin & death:
-
The very word "gospel" (evangelion/??????????) signified a military victory. Indeed, the "good news of Jesus Christ" was the good news (gospel) of his victory over sin and death. This is the core of Peter's sermons in Acts, "You crucified and killed [him,] But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24). This "good news" is precisely what got the Apostles in so much trouble after Jesus' resurrection (e.g. Acts 5:27-32). It is also what changed them from fearful people in hiding, into confident preachers, culminating at Pentecost (cf. Luke 24:36-49).
Do you understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew or one who "updated" the law? Did Jesus follow the commandments or did he add/delete existing ones?
It's hard to say in generality. Did you have a specific verse or issue in mind? I certainly don't think Jesus strays far from the Law. The Sermon on the Mount is key here, for this is the New Moses going up the Mountain to give the New Law. This sermon begins in Matthew 5, and I am especially thinking of v. 17 as beginning the teaching on the Law. The verses before that look like a sort of prelude.
It looks to me like Jesus took the seed or sapling of the Law and nourished it into a life-giving tree. He is developing it.
From an anthropological view there is the case of people attending church on special occasions, celebrating the Christian holidays with its imagery and meaning, follow the scriptures as an ethical guide because of the deep truths contained in the text, and for all that don't believe the text is literal.
I'd be inclined to call people who observe the various rights and rituals of any religion by that name, anthropologically, because it's hard to make a distinction between the two "from the outside" -- it appears to be an internal debate of some kind.
It would seem that Paul was not one of them.
(1 Corinthians 15:42-44)
The physical or natural body, including the physical body of Jesus, is perishable. It is not what is resurrected. Jesus, according to Paul, is of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans, 1:3-4) That is, he was human in his physical body. That body is perishable and so is not what is resurrected.
Can you just decide to believe something? I've always been puzzled by people who convert because they marry someone of faith or something of the sort, seemingly just deciding they are going to be such and such now and are therefore going to start believing a very arbitrary set of truth claims.
For me, to try to believe it and to say I do would be to lie. I believe the earth is round because I'm convinced by the evidence, not because I decided to. And the evidence for resurrection is extremely weak. And resurrection violates everything else in our experience. I have a hard time believing that very many people really believe that it actually happened as a literal historical fact. Many want to believe it and say they do, sure. Many identify tribally as Christian and affirm the things that one affirms as part of a cultural practice. But do they really believe, like really really? I tend to think people would behave radically differently if they were to really take this stuff seriously.
I don't see how I could possibly come to really believe it. And I feel that to say the creed or something, for me, would be in bad faith, would be a lie. And especially with sacred things, I feel it is wrong to lie.
I suspect that most people who recite the creed don't really believe what they are saying, that they aren't even very conscious of what they are saying. It seems more like they are programming themselves to try to conform to some orthodoxy. It seems to be more about affirming group membership and conformity than actual belief.
I often hear religious people say something like, "We believe X, Y, and Z." This is really fascinating to me. I puzzle over what that means. I would never say that. I would only ever say, "I believe..." I had a friend who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. Prior to that, when we would discuss things, he would say, "I think" or "I believe," but after conversion, he started saying, "We believe X." I felt like I was no longer talking to my friend, but rather to a memeplex or something. Part of his agency and personhood had been relinquished.
I've had several friends and relatives become new converts to a religion and frankly, it feels kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, like each is less a human individual than they used to be, like my friend is gone, having been replaced by a set of doctrines and the authority of some religious leader or guru. You can't just hang out and have a conversation anymore. They are no longer free to think and consider things. Now they are just protectors and spreaders of the memeplex, and to question their belief is to attack the very foundation of their being. This is not a person in possession of an idea, but rather an idea in possession of a person. I find it rather disturbing.
That might seem reductive, but the concept of doctrine is pretty reductive, and it behooves me to avoid hte ridiculousness of sectarianism and just make a call, from my view.
I agree as well. People can certainly believe what they choose (thats the nature of belief), but it seems to me the most important difference between Christianity and all of the other major religions (Jewish, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and others) is that for Christians, the one God became a man, died, and rose again. Without these three facts believed as a part of human history, Christianity offers nothing more (and maybe even less) than some of the others. If you dont believe Jesus, who is God actually became a man, died, and rose again, then much of the New Testament is either lying or foolishness; and why listen to liars and fools when you could look to Buddha or to Hinduism for more depth, more honesty and more practical application?
The other important difference between Christianity and some of the other religions has to do with the resurrection, and that is our need for grace from God to be saved. Christians believe we cant save ourselves. Whereas Hinduism and Buddhism place it all in our hands (or place the task of removing our hands from the picture, losing ones self as up to us alone) and dont speak of grace from God. So if you dont believe in the resurrection, the proof of salvation and biggest out-pouring of grace, you may still believe in the need for grace and salvation, but youd probably be better off pulling in some wisdom from the Indian, Tibetan region, and/or Buddhist histories that arent waiting around for grace and claim to have already connected with the other side of the shore line on their own.
(1:1-4)
(1:14-15)
The good news is that the kingdom of God is near. It is the beginning of a new beginning. Those who heard the good news did not know that Jesus would be crucified. That could have nothing to do with the good news according to Mark.
In addition, according to Mark, forgiveness of sin came with repentance:
(1:4)
Forgiveness of sin is not part of the good news and does not require the death of Jesus.
Absolutely. A belief is rational if it is arrived at through sound reasoning; it needn't be true.
[Quote]2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity?[/quote]
Maybe. Being "unsure" has varying degrees of doubt. Having a bit of doubt wouldn't preclude believing in traditional Christianity.
One could also embrace an untraditional view of Christianity, denying Paul's opinion, while embracing the supposed teachings of Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels. A "Resurrection" could be viewed as figurative- didactic fiction.
Meister Eckhart, German Catholic (1260-1328), might as well compare to the Yogi or a Buddhist given the strangeness of his poetic mysticism around 'birth of the Son' in the soul. Emptying oneself of everything, that the grace/Word of God may manifest, sounds eerily similar in practice to these other meditative traditions.
[quote=Meister Eckhart, Sermon One]"The second point is, what must a man contribute by his own
actions, in order to procure and deserve the occurrence and the con
summation of this birth in himself? Is it better to do something toward
this, to imagine and think about God ? - or should he keep still and
silent in peace and quiet and let God speak and work in him, merely
waiting for God to act? Now I say, as I said before, that these words
and this act are only for the good and perfected people, who have so
absorbed and assimilated the essence of all virtues that these virtues
emanate from them naturally, without their seeking; and above all
there must dwell in them the worthy life and lofty teachings of our
Lord Jesus Christ. They must know that the very best and noblest
attainment in this life is to be silent and let God work and speak
within. When the powers have been completely withdrawn from all
their works and images, then the Word is spoken. Therefore he said,
'In the midst of the silence the secret word was spoken unto me.'
And so, the more completely you are able to draw in your powers
to a unity and forget all those things and their images which you
have absorbed, and the further you can get from creatures and their
images, the nearer you are to this and the readier to receive it. If only
you could suddenly be unaware of all things,10 then you could pass
into an oblivion of your own body as St. Paul did, when he said,
"Whether in the body I cannot tell, or out of the body I cannot tell;
God knows it" (2 Cor. 1 2 :2). In this case the spirit had so entirely ab
sorbed the powers that it had forgotten the body: memory no longer
functioned, nor understanding, nor the senses, nor the powers that
should function so as to govern and grace the body; vital warmth
and body-heat were suspended, so that the body did not waste dur
ing the three days when he neither ate nor drank. Thus too Moses
fared, when he fasted for forty days on the mountain and was none
the worse for it, for on the last day he was as strong as on the first.
In this way a man should flee his senses, turn his powers inward and
sink into an oblivion of all things and himself. Concerning this a
master1 1 addressed the soul thus: 'Withdraw from the unrest of ex
ternal activities, then flee away and hide from the turmoil of inward
thoughts, for they but create discord.' And so, if God is to speak
His Word in the soul, she must be at rest and at peace, and then
He will speak His Word, and Himself, in the soul - no image, but
Himself!"[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_(title)
I agree with that and have grown very interested in Buddhism these past few years. Not my will, but thine be done. We cannot become filled with God until we are emptied of ourselves.
Good stuff!
My point here is that, from what I can tell, the Yogic and Buddhist traditions do not make appeal to anyone or anything else to help the individual become empty. Assistance with obtaining enlightenment might actually be seen as a hindrance to enlightenment.
So I agree I must be empty to receive God or enlightenment fully, but, because of the impossibility of the resurrection that nevertheless actually occurred, I think we are shown that I will never find salvation/ enlightenment myself unless it calls me toward it, unless it raises me from the dead, and this reaching out is grace. This reaching out to me is God acting, not me acting, and this grace is essential before I can give my self up. The final step taken to achieve enlightenment is not taken by me; it is when the last bit of myself is taken by God, or taken by ultimate reality for the Buddhist. I have to serve myself over to God or ultimate reality, but it is not up to me whether what I serve will be taken. Salvation, total self-denial and union with reality/God, enlightenment, is unattainable by our own hand, our own self. We who would deny ourselves completely, affirm ourselves as deniers just as instantaneously. I deny myself, therefore, I am still a self.
So any moment of final enlightenment must be a gift, something we could not have made of our selves. We cant be self-made empty selves. We can participate in making of our salvation, but we cant complete it alone.
The resurrection as an actual historical event (an impossible physics that nevertheless stood in the light of day), means to me I need the supernatural to overcome the natural - I cant raise myself from the dead without grace, just like I cant achieve enlightenment without grace.
So belief in the actual resurrection may not be essential to a belief in the need for grace, but it is maybe the clearest sign that we must seek grace, let God do the final, ultimate work.
And I dont know for sure if Buddhism and Hinduism truly deny grace. Its just my current sense of them. In any event, my point is that, for Christians, the resurrection and proclamation that we all can be raised from the dead, makes clear that we must need God before we might be saved (or enlightened). So if someone says they are a Christian but doesnt think the resurrection actually occurred, they might not understand what grace is and that there is no salvation without it.
I posted this above. It gives clear textual support for what you are saying.
The dying for your sins is an after the fact attempt to make the incomprehensible comprehensive. How could the dead Messiah accomplish what was promised? By making his death part of the plan all along.
I just sometimes wonder whether Christians envision a Jesus who e.g. kept kosher and wore tzitzit.
That's not an accurate statement of the matter. It's extremely complex, because it's hard to say if even the Jewish beliefs of the Torah were completely "in force" until around the time of the Maccabees (160s BCE).. But AT LEAST since the Maccabees, the Torah was "in force" in Judea and presumably for Jews around the Mediterranean/Babylonia. That being said, the idea of the "Messiah" was a largely evolving concept but seemed to have certain characteristics that coalesced around a theme, starting with most "earthly" and ending in the more speculative/heavenly:
Earthly (more definite/less speculative)
1) Restore the Davidic dynasty by being crowned King of Israel. The 1st Temple under the Davidic dynasty was destroyed by Babylonians and when Persia let Jews go back to Judea, they only let them become a province under a governorship, not an independent kingdom. This Messiah was seen as someone who would restore legitimacy and rightful rule over the Land of Israel in a purified manner. My guess, historically-speaking, is that this concept gained major traction as an opposition belief to all "so-called" rulers that ruled since Persians (Maccabees were only priests, and often ruthless to other Jews who opposed them, Herod was clearly a Roman puppet, etc.).
2) Ingathering of Jews across the Diaspora.. Supposedly the Lost Sheep of Israel and all those descended from the 12 tribes would be gathered in (not just Judhites/Levites/Benjaminites but Northern Israelite tribes as well).
3) Temple would be purified by right priestly practices and families from Aaron (Zadokite lineage). Post 70 CE this means the re-building of the Temple in Jerusalem.
4) The other nations will recognize the Jewish Kingdom and king as representing a way of life, a sort of spiritual awakening of sorts, in recognition of Judaic belief system. There will be an eternal era of peace.
More spiritual/speculative
5) A general resurrection of the dead would occur for the righteous.
6) Angels and God will be known and present in some sense
7) There may be a great battle before the last days before the eternal peace where the "wolf will lie down with the lamb". Presumably this battle would be led by the Messiah or at least encouraged by him. In some cases this would include angels to help the righteous Israelites battle the enemy forces.
Paul really seemed to change the Jewish notion of Messiah outlined above to more than a man that has great power, but a part of the godhead and whose death and resurrection abrogated the need to follow commandments in the Torah. That would be a major difference, as the original conception would not only still follow the Torah but presumably put it in place as THE law of the land (of the Jews) in its correct form (for example, presumably the Dead Sea Scroll sect was apocalyptic and thought their way of following the Torah was closest to the correct form to be applied- The Sons of Light versus the Sons of Darkness (both gentiles and Jews who did not follow Torah in their very strict manner).
On the broader question as to who should qualify as Christian, there is no certain answer since Christianity maintains beliefs and practices that often (as Bishop John Shelby Spong points out) support violence and bigotry and are antithetical to Christian teaching. Christianity is not monolithic or consistent or reasonable. Like most human enterprises.
Of course this reading tends to infuriate doctrinal Christians as Hindu teachers are by definition not 'saved', not having 'kissed the ring', but there were always a few maverick Christians who managed to straddle both cultures. One was Venerable Bede Griffith who lived most of his adult life in a Christian~Hindu Ashram and whom I saw at one of his last public lectures, in Sydney in the early 1990's. One might also mention Somerset Maugham's The Razor's Edge which made quite an impression in the 1950's and which he wrote after a pilgrimage to Ramana's Southern Indian hermitage (subject of an atrocious film starring Bill Murray in 1984). Another influential book from that period was Alduous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy.
Then there was the entire Zen-Christian subculture which was inaugurated by Thomas Merton (one of my mother's favourites, as his autobiography Seven Story Mountain was very popular in the 60's). There was thereafter an entire cadre of Catholic Zen teachers who blended elements of Zen Buddhist liturgy and practice with their own (Hugo Enomiya-Lassalle, Ama Samy, Reuben Habito, William Johnston among others.) Raimon Panikkar is another name worth knowing, a Jesuit of Spanish and Indian descent, who divided his time between India and Europe.
Salutations to all of these wisdom teachers. :pray:
In any case, the universalist theme always made perfect sense to me, as it situated Jesus in a broader context, as an epitome of a kind of higher consciousness which described in many cultures outside the Middle Eastern. It is of course open to all kinds of criticisms and I wouldn't die on a hill defending it, but it makes sense from an anthropological perspective, aside from anything else.
-----
(Perusing the Wikipedia on Panikkar 'He earned a third doctorate in theology at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome in 1961, in which he compared St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophy with the 8th-century Hindu philosopher ?di ?a?kara's interpretation of the Brahma Sutras.[3] Just the kind of thing that interests me.)
I claim to be Christian. Never read the bible.
Answers the OP?
I claim to be an astronomer. I don;'t know what a tensor equation is. Answers the OP?
I claim to be an adherent Buddhist, but I compete in Jiu jitsu, having broken several limbs and am somewhat proud of that fact. Answers the OP?
Self identification must be the weakest defence for someone meeting a criteria which others must share.
I see why you might argue this but I disagree with aspects of your approach. I'm also not making that argument and I said many not 'all'.
If you say you are an astronomer or a doctor (something highly technical and measurable) then self-identification alone is clearly inadequate. Not all identities are built on the same foundational footing.
But the issue with a religious belief is that there is no clear way to identify what's valid and what's not. Who wants to get into the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' here?
Besides, the people I referred to were theologians and Christian thinkers, not just some dead shit who likes the sound of a particular word.
I hear you when you say only those who believe JC was a real person who was resurrected after execution can call themselves Christians. I just don't agree with you.
I disagree with this, but it is fact-specific to any particular claim so probably not worth following up in this context. Appreciate it :)
Quoting Tom Storm
Are you entirely sure these are mutually exclusive? hehe.
I personally love the teachings of Jesus and find them to be applicable in life, and this does not directly depend on what happened 2000 years ago. So, I could say that I try to follow Jesus, even if I don't have strong faith about the supernatural aspects.
"Christ" has a specific religious meaning. I think it means something like "savior". So, if you don't believe that Jesus saved you from something, then it makes no sense to call one's self a "Christian".
What do you think this means? As has been said several times in this thread by different posters, there has never been an agreed upon belief in what resurrection means. This is what Paul said:
Quoting Fooloso4
The physical or natural body, including the physical body of Jesus, is perishable. It is not what is resurrected. Jesus, according to Paul, is of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans, 1:3-4) That is, his physical body is human. That body is perishable and so is not what is resurrected.
Contrary to what some self-appointed gate-keepers here claim, the "good news" has nothing to do with resurrection.
Quoting Fooloso4
The immaculate conception is a (relatively quite recent) Catholic doctrine that stems from their particular understanding of Original Sin. So, while "most Christians," might tend to affirm it, because Catholics are still a majority of all Christians, there would be a great many who don't. And, at any rate, for most of Catholic history it was not an explicit doctrine. People, even people who went to Catholic school, also seem to often misunderstand it at any rate, sometimes even taking it to mean that Mary also lacked a human father (it's actually about her being conceived without Original Sin as inherited guilt, which the Orthodox deny, leaving them with no need to posit such a conception).
As for Mary's perpetual virginity, the Gospels are ambiguous on this, and the Church Fathers, reading them in their native language, did not think the text indicated in undeniable terms that Mary gave birth to more children. That Jesus tells his disciple John to take his mother on as an adopted mother and to care for her is often taken to indicate that she did not have other children to take on this responsibility. It's possible that Joseph had children from a prior marriage (nothing is said about this), and also the term for "brother" is used frequently in the NT for people who do not share a biological relationship.
As an aside, I had a few people, particularly middle aged Christians, talk up Peterson to me in glowing terms. I picked up his book and was quickly disappointed. It just seemed like fairly generic self-help literature framed in standard materialist termsnot explicitly reductionist, but certainly leaning that way. Far from being a "voice of wisdom for young men," the book seemed to be telling young men exactly what they do not need to hear.
For instance, he opens with a narrative about lobsters. Male lobsters who are big and strong have more "feel good chemicals," in their nervous systems. With more feel good chemicals, lobsters act more assertive and aggressive. By doing this they get to consume more resources and have more sexual partners. Therefore, we should act to boost our feel good chemical levels, that we might consume more and sleep with more women. Such wisdom...
Leaving aside the number of wealthy celebrities who end up in misery, commiting suicide or engaging in suicidal drug abuse, this seems to leave off anything like the classical connection between the virtues and happiness, or development of the virtues and real freedom. You don't see anything like Boethius, who finds himself to be more free in prison, having lived for justice, or Socrates who points out that the mob can do "nothing bad to a good man."
It's particularly sad because I think our culture could certainly benefit from a modern Boethius or C.S. Lewis. There is certainly an interest in "tradition," particularly amongst young men, but unfortunately this tends to manifest as little more than watching films like 300, and reading garbage like "Bronze Age Mindset."
If the general consensus does not take Mark into consideration then the general consensus as you rely on it needs revision. I think that part of the general consensus is to put more weight on the Gospels than on the consensus.
If Jesus did keep kosher, then presumably statements like Matt.15:11 are early Christian beliefs retrojected back to Jesus. After all, why would Peter need his revelation in Acts where all foods are declared clean if Jesus had originally taught it? I initially took a more historical-critical approach to the gospels but apparently this approach has to an extent fallen out of favor in modern academic Christian scholarship.
2 Maccabees recounts an old Jewish man choosing death rather than eating pork during the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Hard to imagine he choose death over a tradition which had just now become "in force" in the 160s BC.
And then of course there was the martyrdom of the seven sons and Hannah.
I enjoy Peterson and see him as a force for good, but I don't agree with him on everything, and I often find his delivery unhelpful. I grant that he is a bit materialistic, and especially Jungian.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I saw you say that in a different thread. I think you are misreading it. Peterson is not promoting sexual promiscuity or machismo. He explicitly opposes figures like Andrew Tate. See, for example, this clip (as well as the longer interview of which it is a part).
I didn't find that book overly interesting, either, but what he is doing at the beginning is trying to establish the primordial nature of dominance hierarchies (which he will later relabel as "competence hierarchies"). The idea is that hierarchical competence generates self-confidence and health (which at that lobster-level is seen primarily through serotonin). A large part of his point is that, pace Feminism, hierarchical orderings have been around as long as lobsters, and are not going away anytime soon. I see Peterson as correcting important cultural errors, but at a relatively superficial level. "Make your bed, do the right thing, be an effective communicator, do not fall into feminist traps, etc."
But I find the whole topic of "Christianism" interesting (a term that some use for cultural Christianity). Roger Scruton, Jordan Peterson, and even Richard Dawkins to a minor extent hold up Christian culture as an important value, yet without professing Christianity.
Edit: In general, I like the thrust and intention of everything Peterson does, and for everything he does, I think someone else does it much better than him. Nevertheless, he is reaching an audience that these others can never reach.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Actually recent scholarship from Christiaan Kappes has shown that the NT is explicit that they are not Jesus' siblings. There have always been very good arguments for that position (even apart from tradition), but Kappes co-authored a book in which he shows that the syngeneusin of texts like Mark 6:4 literally means "relatives of some other womb" (link). In any case, the Magisterial Reformers are all in agreement that Mary was ever-virgin (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli).
There were so many problems with 's post that I just ignored it. I didn't expect that someone claiming that Mary was born of Elizabeth would be persuasively misleading. :grin:
The answer is simple. Paul on his own authority, and over the objections of Jesus' disciples declared it so. Paul gives an account of this.
That's a good example. The ritual washing of Second Temple Judaism is not mandated by the Torah, and it is likely that the Pharisees held to an especially strict version of that ritual. Jesus is taking the extra-Biblical ritual regarding ritual cleanliness and placing it into the proper key. He is resituating a development. This is a classic case of the way that Jesus will reject certain interpretations or ways of developing the Law.
You asked if he disobeys the Law. Along these lines, he sort of does disobey the law with the "talitha cumi" of Mark 5. Hebrews are not allowed to touch a corpse on pain of uncleanness. The uncleanness would "spread" from the corpse to the one who touched it, making them unclean and subject to ritual cleansing. But Jesus does touch the corpse (here and elsewhere). Has he broken the Law? Sort of. But the text is showing us that Jesus is a wellspring of life and purity, and hence "reverses" the flow of death and uncleanness. In modern terms it would be like when we are not supposed to touch someone with Covid-19, and Jesus touches them anyway; nevertheless, instead of Jesus getting sick, the person he touches gets well. His life and power is "infectious" and overwhelms death. This is another manifestation of his conquering of death.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Hand-washing and kosher are two different things.
Yes. But when Jesus says "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person" he would seem to be saying that even if e.g. a Jew were to eat pig or shellfish he would not be defiled in clear contradiction to the Levitical laws. Then again maybe my analysis is superficial/I'm misinterpreting him.
EDIT: Apparently a Jew breaking dietary laws does not render him ritually impure, but it is breaking a law and leaves one spiritually defiled. It is different than physical ritual impurity.
The main issue for me is the food laws, not so much the hand washing. The Talmud does distinguish between Torah law and rabbinic law. Ritual handwashing is of the latter category.
Quoting Leontiskos
Entering a state of ritual impurity is not the same thing as breaking the law. We will all be in states of ritual impurity at one point or another. Sometimes it's beyond our control/just nature taking its course.
Do you consider Peter's revelation a lie/a Pauline invention then?
First off, historians don't take everything in religious texts at face value :roll:. Secondly, not eating pork and following (or even knowing about!) every tittle of the Torah that we know of today, isn't the same thing. It was probably quite true that there was a "traditionalist" camp as represented by the priest Onias III and the Maccabees, but what "tradition" meant, was probably not the full and complete Pentateuch as we know it (though retroactively, this can be imputed back into the history as if it was THIS which was the traditional- the whole kit-and-kaboodle, not just various oral traditions that have been around since at least Ezra or prior to the First Temple period).
Also, if I was to give some credence to the "conservative view", one can say that it wasn't that there was NO group that did not "know about" Torah, but that it was during the Maccabees that it became THE dominant form of Judaism (no longer Henotheistic like First Temple period, no longer heterodox, and with a formal written understanding of the ancestral "Law").
I do not consider it a lie. I think the gospels are a combination of stories that were in circulation, changing somewhat in the telling, and inspiration, understood as the indwelling of spirit. Rather than doctrine or dogma inspiration it is a report or witnessing of what is present or experienced. As such, it can vary widely.
For the Church Fathers who wanted to establish the teaching of the one true church this was intolerable. Others might regard it as the genius of Christianity in accord with Paul. But Paul was at odds with Jesus and the disciples who regarded themselves as observant Jews.
Thank you for pointing out my error. Oh, God forbid! I confused St. Anne and St. Elizabeth. Mea culpa maxima culpa!!! The shame.
Being ambivalent at best, and ever prone to error, I should leave theological topics alone.
If we acknowledge that Antiochus IV engaged in a repressive Hellenization program and that the Jews violently resisted it is it crazy to think that there were martyrs? Or did it only start in Roman times? Do you believe there were martyrs then or is that also not historical?
Quoting schopenhauer1
My concern is more whether they kept the basic elements. Whatever exact form it took, I do believe Jews were willing to die to preserve their ancestral customs at this point in the mid 2nd century BC.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'd figure by this point the Torah was quite stabilized. It had already been translated into Greek a century earlier.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Maybe. Most of the First Temple era kings and Israelites come out looking pretty bad except Josiah and Hezekiah. It's hard to get solid info about the life of the average Israelite from this era. But yes, Judaism as we know it really forms in the 2nd temple period.
It isnt crazy, but it isnt unreasonable to believe (and with good reason) that ancient writers embellished history to make a point or a point of view starker, etc., in their stories. Ancient authors had a propensity to make history fit a particular perspective, to embellish, redact, or write idealized versions of events, and so on. They werent bound by any reporters oath or similar obligation. Even Josephus likely had a point of view, probably hid things, and made events appear a certain way for various personal or stylistic reasons tailored to his audience.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure, that's what I was saying. I see nothing ahistorical about this statement. There were ancestral customs, people wanted to defend it. Yep.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The legend holds that the Septuagint was commissioned around 260 BCE by Ptolemy II Philadelphus for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. The stabilization of the text doesnt contradict my earlier point that it was a small cadre of elites or priests who curated this stricter interpretation and compendium of Hebrew history and mythology. While some of these writings likely date back to Ezras timeand perhaps even to the reigns of Kings Josiah or Hezekiahthey hadnt been widely popularized or fully implemented until the Maccabees' victory.
Its during the Hasmonean period that we see much stronger evidence of the Torahs laws being regarded as authoritative and holy for the broader population, not just for a small priestly elite. Yonatan Adler, among other recent historians, delves into this subject, and I can provide sources if you'd like.
For a concise overview, this video: (https://www.youtube.com/live/vD5VmGkqfAg?si=rDm6acqkXqMIo_ss) is worth watching. However, I want to stress something Adler doesn't emphasize enough: while he suggests that the widespread influence of the Biblical writings didnt emerge until the Hellenistic period, he doesnt claim that the writings themselves didnt exist earlier. His argument is more about their limited reach and impact on the general Judean population until the Hasmonean/Maccabean dynasty expanded their influence.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The writings intentionally chosen by the scribes that compiled the Hebrew Scriptures reflect the worldview of the "Yahweh Only!" group, which was quite small (even then probably more henotheistic until Second Isaiah, which more prominently put forth a monotheistic vision). This group, during the Babylonian Exile, compiled and redacted various writings to fit their view of idealized history. It's like watching Fox News and saying, THIS is the only objective news. Clearly, they have a spin!
Thanks for this. I suppose this might explain why the Greek Fathers tended to write off Mary having had other children.
Sure, brutes have their hierarchies. Man can form his hierarchies much as the beasts do, or he can order them according to proper authority, in accordance with what is "truly good for the whole." We need authority and social structures, and we need those structures to be engineered in line with a realistic picture of human nature, while nonetheless enabling us to transcend that nature, what we already are ("the given") for what is "truly best." This is the idea of authority in Plato for instance, why he elevates the authority of reason (only logos can unify a person, just as it is [I]the[/I] Logos who resurrects St. Paul from a death of personhood and autonomy, lost to a "civil war in the soul" in Romans 7). I think a similar notion can be found in St. Augustine, Aristotle, St. Thomas, or even Kierkegaard and Hegel.
I suppose what bothers me is the general tendency of naturalistic explanations of human hierarchies to lose sight of the role of the transcedent in human freedom. A naturalistic understanding of manman as the rational/political [I]animal[/I]need not supplant the role of the transcedent, but it often does without careful attention.
The "competence hierarchy" sort of captures this, but not really. And anyhow I think historically, it's hardly chiefly feminism that has allowed for incompetence at the top. This has been a pernicious problem throughout human history, Marcus Aurelius elevating his incompetent son to the purple and ending the era of the "Five Good Emperors," for instance, or Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero taking Octavian's place through inheritance and sheer inertia. Or there is Tsar Nicholas II or Hitler's disastrous interventions in military affairs, and the great multitudes of men with good names who have "failed upwards" through history. The current state of the Russian military is another example.
At any rate, the dominant form of feminism (and much "anti-racism") seems to be largely comfortable with current hierarchies and disparities, so long as more diversity is seen at the top.
However, I will add that much criticism of Peterson, "how dare anyone assert that hard work and discipline might be good," is entirely off base.
IDK, it seems very much in the mold of the "post-modernism" advocates of "cultural Christianity" tend to rail against. Its focus on instrumentalism (a sort of outgrowth of the Protestant "prosperity gospel" perhaps?) seems to put it further outside the realm of Christian belief than belief in the "God of the philosophers" of antiquity (seemingly returning to some degree). I don't see how a family hewing to "Christianity as principles for success in modern life," wouldn't want to have Saint Francis committed to a psychiatric institution, or how Saint Augustine giving up his promising career and dispensing with all his family's wealth wouldn't be seen as "taking things a bit too far." The definition of human flourishing that makes Boethius or St. Maximus torture/mutilation and death (or most of the Apostles') "worthwhile" and even "choiceworthy" needs to be dramatically different.
Now, Charles Taylor does paint a more sympathetic picture of people who might consider themselves to be "cultural Christians," as those who admire and sometimes desire to pursue spiritual goals, but find themselves too drawn in and busy with the world. So I suppose my objection is more to the narrower range of cases where "Christianity" is advanced as a sort of set of principles for temporal success, as generally defined by secular culture.
Most Christians believe that most Christians are mistaken*. So what?
* There are thousands of Christian denominations in the world. The largest of them - Catholic - accounts for less than half of the total number of members.
Yes, and I always think Peterson would benefit from reading Plato. He is something like a wayward Platonist, and his open-mindedness often causes him to embrace anti-Platonic ideas which are contrary to his basic disposition, ideas which he then slowly ends up expelling. This failure to take Platonism seriously is most clearly present in his conversations with John Vervaeke. But from Peterson's perspective, he is more Platonic and spiritual than most of his natural interlocutors, so it presents a blind spot. I really hope he sits down with D. C. Schindler someday.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Not incompetence at the top, but a subversion of hierarchy qua hierarchy. For many feminists, hierarchy = patriarchy = bad.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Peterson is a fighter, but he's not a dogmatist, and his posture will differ considerably depending on who he is talking with.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Granted, but the Christianists exist, and in fairly large numbers. Even mainline Protestants and Anglicans often tend in that direction. They therefore present an odd tertium quid between secularism and Christianity that must be reckoned with.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
As I understand it, Peterson's most recent book (Those Who Wrestle with God) is effectively an attack on morality as a set of hypothetical imperatives, or a liberal value-neutral political philosophy, but from a psychological angle. That's a good and standard example of the way that "Christianism" need not be secularism redux. These thinkers end up offering partial repudiations of the secular status quo. But the fact that their thought has so much of modernity mixed up in it is largely what makes it potent to the modern ear. In a related vein is a very good recent piece in First Things, "The End of the Age of Hitler." I thought about posting it in Baden's thread on methodological naturalism given that it is a kind of moral parallel to the fact that a metaphysical vacuum is ineluctably filled.
Okay, but the context here is handwashing:
Quoting Matthew 15:1-2
(Note too that the Pharisees recognize that what is at stake is the "tradition of the elders." Jesus' response begins by distinguishing the commandment of God from the tradition of the elders.)
The pericope that concerns you even ends, "These are what defile a man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man" (Matthew 15:20).
So this is at best a preliminary set-up for a change to kosher, not a direct attack on kosher. It is explicitly about tradition and handwashing.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure, but it's not beyond his control here, is it? And the implication of the text is that no ritual impurity has affected Jesus.
(That is, I don't think you can say that it is not against the Law to touch a dead body, even if the Law does not mandate that no one is ever permitted to touch a dead body, or that there is no recourse for someone who does. It's perfectly easy to argue that the way Jesus touches the dead body is contrary to the Law. At stake here are spirit/letter distinctions.)
Yes, a good question. Fooloso is not aware of Peter's revelation, nor does he know where it takes place (he says it is in the gospels). Yet he continues to hold forth.
Unfortunately, you lack to courage to address me and my questions to you directly. Instead you make broadside attacks against me lacking in substance. Or else you choose not to respond at all, as is the case with regard to what the "good news" means in Mark. I understand. Addressing it means undermining your claim about the connection between the good news and [correction: resurrection].
The Apocalypse of Peter or Revelation of Peter is a non-canonical gospel. It was included in the Muratorian Canon but not in the present canon. In early Christianity there was no official canon. It was not until 367 that Athanasius of Alexandria compiled what is now the official canon.
Quoting Fooloso4
We're talking about Acts, darling.
Well thank you for mustering enough courage to address this point. Is it expecting too much of you to address what Mark says about the good news.
Just so I am clear, are you referring to Acts where Peter says:
(10:36)
The same good news about which you said?
Quoting Leontiskos
The term gospel does not refer exclusively the written documents. As I said:
Quoting Fooloso4
This is about as close to a "historical" debate on Jesus as you're going to get from the writings of the New Testament, as they "loosely" reflect the debates that may have taken place among the various sects of Second Temple Judaism. There's a lot happening, so it's hard to summarize everything, but one can view the cross-section of these debates as something like this:
The Pharisees upheld an oral tradition of ancestral law. Traditionally, this oral law was seen as supplemental or secondary to the written Torah, serving as judgments made by elders, scribes, and prophets to clarify and apply the written laws. However, a compelling theory proposed by Michael Satlow (in How the Bible Became Holy) suggests that the Pharisaic tradition was originally exclusively oral and did not include a written Law.
According to this theory, it was the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, who prioritized the written law. During the Hellenistic period, when Pharisaic-backed priests and Sadducean (Zadokite) priests competed for influence, the Sadducees insisted on a written version of the Law to serve as a definitive reference. This practice of preserving Torah scrolls in the Temple later influenced synagogues, which adopted the tradition of keeping copies of the Torah. While the Pharisees were familiar with the written text, their primary emphasis remained on the oral tradition, which they considered paramount.
It wasn't until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE that the written Torah and oral traditions were formally integrated into Rabbinic Judaism. This development unified the Pharisaic and Sadducean approaches, making both the written Torah and oral traditions authoritative and essential. This view challenges the traditional belief that Rabbinic Judaism is a direct continuation of Pharisaic Judaism with little input from Sadducean practices.
The Pharisees themselves were divided into two schools of thought:
Hillelites: Advocated for a more lenient and inclusive interpretation of the Law.
Shammaites: Held to a stricter and more rigid interpretation.
Two key points emerge:
Jesus criticism of Pharisaic practices could reflect a stance against their oral traditions (e.g., emphasizing purity laws as extra-written and invalid).
Alternatively, Jesus might align more with Hillelite Pharisaic views, opposing stricter Shammaite interpretations, particularly regarding purity laws. However, this interpretation may not be fully captured in later writings such as the Gospel of Mark.
Alright I will do you one better. According to both Torah law and rabbinic law, a seminal emission places one in a state of ritual impurity. Yet Jewish men are required to procreate. Thus, one can knowingly and voluntarily enter into a state of impurity yet it be a good, obligatory act.
Quoting Leontiskos
Then we're in agreement here. :up:
Quoting Leontiskos
The same idea does appear elsewhere. Most notably in Thomas:
"When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what
they will set before you, and heal the sick among them. For what goes into your mouth
will not defile you, but that which issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile
you." (Thomas 14)
We can say that Thomas is non-canonical, ok, but there's also Luke 10.
"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you."
Presumably this is ok because foreign food will not defile. So maybe we say this idea was retrojected back to Jesus or we bite the bullet and say that Jesus breaks from the Torah here.
Yes ancient writers embellish but that shouldn't lead us to conclude that everything is lies and exaggeration. I'm more sure about some things and less sure about others and I'd say it's plausible that martyrdom occured in this era, do you disagree? I'm not saying it necessarily went exactly as described like someone was writing as the event was transpiring but when I consider the facts it would seem to make martyrdom plausible.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Adler is credible. :up:
Quoting schopenhauer1
The Deuteronomist is certainly a very significant part of the Bible, but at the end of the day we all choose our "spins" in life. We all have our own outlook and I maintain that some are better than others and the Bible does a better job at "spin" (nestling in its own unique worldview/s) better than any other book that I have come across.
If the Sermon on the Mount is accepted as an accurate reflection of Jesus' teaching then he does not break from the Torah:
(Matthew 5:17-20)
Paul, however, says that "the believers" the followers of "the way" are not under the Law. The dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples colors much of the NT. In Acts, for example, we find:
(Acts 15:8-11)
The issue here is circumcision (brit milah, the covenant of Abraham. It is not simply a custom or tradition of the elders to be accepted or rejected, as the Law is sometimes treated in the Gospels. It is a fundamental part of the Law.
According to Acts:
But according to the Sermon it is Jesus who says to keep the Law of Moses.
You mentioned Matthew earlier, but might you be thinking about Mark 7:18-19?
"And He *said to them, Are you so lacking in understanding as well? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated? (Thereby He declared all foods clean.)"
This is the stronger formulation, with the parenthetical, which as far as I know shows up in the early texts as such (or the ancient equivalent).
But in many cases outside the NT the spirit of the law seems elevated above the letter, and so Jesus is not unique in this. And this goes along with the claim of misunderstanding the Scriptures at John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me." The spiritual interpretation gives life, the fleshly profits nothing (John 6). And or course in that Gospel Jesus also refers to himself as the temple itself, and at any rate it kicks off by introducing Jesus as the Divine Word through which "everything that has been created was created," so here is a claim to proper authority, "before Abraham was, I am."
But if you want a particularly strong violation of kosher dietary principles, look no further than: "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."
Yet the Prophets are full of distinctions such as "the circumcision of the heart," as opposed to mere fleshly circumcision and the elevation of justice over ritual.
E.g. Amos 5
I hate, I reject your festivals,
Nor do I delight in your festive assemblies.
Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fattened oxen.
Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
But let justice roll out like waters,
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Or Psalm 51 (and plenty of others)
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
Or Hosea 6:6 "I desire mercy not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."
Or the opening of Isaiah:
Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
"The multitude of your sacrifices
what are they to me? says the Lord.
I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
When you come to appear before me,
who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts?
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations
I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
I am not listening.
Your hands are full of blood!
Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.
At any rate, Paul for his part sees Christ as fulfillment. The Gentiles are grafted onto the vine of Israel, rather than one vine replacing another.
And God directly demands that Ezekiel to cook his bread over human feces(4:9), which the prophet at least seems to think constitute a violation of the same dietary restrictions that forbid eating carion (Leviticus 22).
Sure. I think my last post addresses this topic, which is nuanced. commented on the different viewpoints at some length.
We could clear away the nuance with a simple question: is Jesus thought to have performed the requisite ritual cleansing after raising the girl from the dead? Your answers seem to indicate that you would hold that he did.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
:up:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is a more interesting verse. Your argument is worthwhile, and possible. The commentaries I looked at see it as ambiguous with regard to kosher. It could be that, but there are alternative interpretations, namely the avoidance of being fussy when receiving hospitality, and ignoring the additional food laws imposed by the "traditions of the elders."
For myself, I wouldn't want to place such a substantive conclusion on such small shoulders. I would want more evidence.
Are you still playing christianity if there is no ressurection?
If not, but you are still playing, why does the modification matter? Because you have no 'right' to modify the rules and still call it christianity? Under what authority but its own?
Is the essence of Christianity the salvation of the individual or the strict adherence to its rules?
If it's the former, then what if one rejected the resurrection and yet was saved?
Since we cant truly establish the ressurection outside of the claims of the game, hence, we question it;
Unless we can establish the necessity of belief in the ressurection outside of the claims, we ought to be open to questioning it.
I think if it's open for question, let me play christianity without the ressurection if playing that way is effective. There's nothing stopping me.
If the players association determines that only the classical version can be called christianity, let them. It's not trade marked.
Yes I can be a Christian and reject or find irelevant, the ressurection--as a historical fact.
And lest this seem offensive with the reference to 'playing,' I think one can not only play without need of the ressurection (ultimately a self-based 'goal,' providing us with the hope of the same, as if the goal in football were not actually the points, but by calling it a 'slice', the promise of a slice of pizza at the after party), but can play just as passionately and with all of one's might, garnering all of the same benefits both psycho-spiritual and socio-political.
What I find perplexing is that we all know this: scriptures are riddled with contradictions; and yet we toil, even the least fanatical and fundamentalist among us, at proving, at determining, etc., as if there is any word ever spoken or inscribed that we can say with unconditional certainty can withstand time as an eternal truth.
Not Descartes, and certainly not St. Paul, though both can still be venerated for their contributions, followed to edifying, even so called spiritually beneficial degrees.
Addendum: Its not fair Paul gets his stamped "must read as eternally true," and poor Descartes doesnt.
Perhaps the law of Moses is not about personal salvation or adherence to its rules. The social and political aspect of Deuteronomy should not be overlooked:
(1:8)
(1:15-17)
The law is for the people, for the nation, not for an individual.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says that he has come to fulfill the Law. Fulfilling the Law is not simply obedience to it. It is something to be accomplished. (5:18)
There is in the sermon no promise of personal salvation, but rather to be part of the kingdom of heaven. Here too there is a political or social dimension.
Fair enough. Then if the essence of Christianity is strict adherence to its rules, I suppose any claim to membership requires acceptance of the ressurection.
I suppose also that nothing in that precludes me from, like members, acting as though I were a Christian, just from claiming to be one; and from that small matter of my own ressurection, if membership is in fact the exclusive means.
In the end, I think the strings attached end up twisting and strangling the thing being promoted. But that is admittedly me
There is no mention of resurrection in the sermon. There is no mention of resurrection in Mark when the good news is announced. Then again, the term 'Christian' does not appear either.
Quoting ENOAH
Despite the efforts of the Church Fathers and the self-appointed gatekeepers in this thread, there is no single, coherent, agreed upon concept 'Christian' or teaching regarding Christianity. Odd as it may sound, Jesus was not a Christian. There is much in Christianity that I think he would not have approved of. The religion is the invention of Paul for the Gentiles and developed in ways that I think Paul would not have approved of through the influence of paganism.
When we back up and stop 'playing', that's probably the healthier of starting points if we're willing to think in terms of assessing not just the principles of the founder, but those principles within the context of its postmortem promoters; i.e., those, like Paul who I suspect, really brought us, 'no Christianity without the ressurection; no salvation without Christ.
Now that's what I'm talking about. Or how Origen supposedly castrated himself to become a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven. "If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away" but God forbid someone make good on that teaching. I agree though, if one is using Christianity primarily as an instrument to gain material success they're missing the point (to be fair I didn't really get this sense from Peterson).
I wasn't raised Christian, but I did get the sense from reading the gospels that the true Christian should be willing to give his life at the drop of a dime if need be. He may not have very long to live, but while he does live he will burn bright. It's a different way of living.
The Origen story is probably a smear by opponents. In his commentary on Matthew he considers an extremely literal interpretation of this advice to be idiotic.
He was, however, tortured to death and never renounced his faith, and the story about him as a teenager wanting to run out to join his father in martyrdom, only to be stopped by his mother hiding his clothes, is generally thought to be genuine.
If it wasn't for some of his more Platonist speculations and the Origenst Crises that came after his death he'd almost certainly be a saint, and likely a doctor of the church. It's hard to thing of a non-saint who has more influence on theology (and we'd have another probable universalist as a doctor).
We'll never know but even if he didn't then he didn't transgress morally.
Quoting Leontiskos
If J told his followers to go out among the gentiles/the nations and eat what they serve you then I cannot view that as anything other than permission to break Torah law regarding diet.
If he told his disciples to go out among the Jews and preach then I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt given that Jews largely kept kosher.
But as @Count Timothy von Icarus notes by gJohn we have J instructing his followers to dine on his blood and flesh -- clearly prohibited by the Torah.
Can you say some more about that?
Scholars see other possibilities, some of which I already gave:
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure, but this goes back to my point about an elevation of the core of the Law. It is also tied up with his divinity. If he isn't divine, then when he says this he is breaking the Law tout court.
I don't buy this. If I tell you "Leo, go out into the world, preach the gospel, and eat what your guests serve you" it's only a matter of time before your guests serve you e.g. pork or shellfish or any number of other foods prohibited by the Torah. It's not about extra ancestral traditions. It's just the text.
I looked up this phrase, which I had only hazy recollection of. From the Wikipedia entry:
A literal 'sky father', then. Origen's writings are voluminous and take some background to understand, but it seems to me he was on the right side of the argument.
There are two distinct crises, occurring centuries after Origen is dead. The first takes place around 400, during sort of the Patristic golden age and involves a lot of famous characters. The second a century later IIRC. Saint Jerome for instance starts off endorsing Origen and universalism, but ends up attacking some Origenist positions. St. John Chrysostom gets removed from being Archbishop of Constantinople and exiled to Anatolia, in part because he was protecting Origenist monks (although really more because of his clashed with the Empress and her camp). St. Augustine is largely absent from this one because Origenism is mainly popular in the Levant and Egypt, not so much out in Latin western Africa where he is.
The problem with Origen centers around his more Platonist speculations. It would be inaccurate to call them Neoplatonic, because Origen is an older contemporary and potential inspiration for Plotinus, but rather "late middle Platonism." But Neoplatonism might rightly be thought of as in a sense repaganizing Jewish and Christian (including Gnostic) advances in Platonism.
It's worth pointing out that Origen was a critic of the Gnostics, as was Clement, although there is also a lot of overlap because much of Gnosticism became orthodoxy. Pagels argues that John is a "gnostic gospel," which might be a bit much, but there is something to the idea.
I think this probably a gross oversimplification given the characters involved. The main objection I've seen brough up is to the preexistence of human souls and the idea of the Fall as a "fall into corporeality" chiefly. So, the issues at play are the goodness of creation (no doubt corrupted and ruled over by the corrupt archons and demons), and the idea that humans, having achieved the beatific vision and beholding the perfection of God, can decide that something else looks more appealing. I am most familiar with St. Maximus' rebuttal's of these arguments, but the Cappadocians take them up too. The problem is that, if man can achieve theosis and beatification and then fall once, what stops him from doing it again? This also seems to introduce an element of arbitrariness into perfected freedom that is at odds with much classical philosophy.
The other thing is that the views on creation and the fall also tend to make the body a "prison" of sorts, whereas the resurrection of Revelations (less accepted in Origen's time) involves the resurrection of the body. Then, in some places, Origen seems to play around with reincarnation, another "no-go" for otherwise sympathetic voices.
But the issue wasn't so much Origen's speculations, as much later partisans pushing them further and trying to transform them into doctrine and dogma.
I had the idea that she thought the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi was gnostic and that John represented what was to become orthodoxy (in Beyond Belief). Do I recall incorrectly?
Something can be rational and untrue, and something can be irrational and true, in general. Rationality's goal is (often) truth, but it doesn't have direct access to the truth and is non synonymous with it. But belief in Christianity is not usually based in rationality anyway.
Quoting BT
Rationality has nothing to do with it. If you don't believe that happened, you're not a literal christian - you might be a different kind of christian.
I get that Jesus is often not to be taken extremely literally. Yet one can be a "eunuch for the kingdom of heaven." Paul possibly considers himself as something along those lines. If one's urges are driving one to destruction, perhaps sterilizing oneself can be justified according to the gospels.
Fair enough. In the synoptics I can more easily understand Jesus as a law-abiding Jew, but by the time we get to gJohn I have difficult time maintaining that conception. The prohibition against drinking blood is a big one for me.
Circumcision is part of fulfilling the covenant and I don't recall the prophets ever disparaging it. What they do disparage is the idea that Israel can sin egregiously and then offer some atonement sacrifices to placate God. So the message of the prophets is largely the importance of good deeds (i.e. covenental faithfulness) over sacrifice.
In Hosea 6:6 many Christian translations translate "chesed" as "mercy" and mercy can work, but the word is more strongly tied to covenantal faithfulness/acts of loving-kindness within the covenant.
So really the quote is more along the lines of "I desire [covenantal] faithfulness, not sacrifice" or "I desire acts of loving-kindness, not sacrifice." And you will see this in translations that are more familiar with the Hebrew.
Yes, well John 6 is a different case. That is clearly going against the letter of the law.
The more interesting aspect is the correct understanding of the parables/teachings and their practical applicability, if any. I suppose one must read through the Church fathers to shed some light on this.
Also interesting on this point is that many Christians maintain this prohibition, for it is reiterated in Acts 15:29. That is, John 6 is not seen as a reversal of the Hebrew law against consuming blood.
...Does Jesus not instruct his disciples to consume his flesh and blood?