- The existence of divine men* was widely recognized throughout Greco-Roman world. Half gods/ half humans were a generally accepted reality.
*Eg: "Apollonius of Tyana" ca. 15?–ca. 100? CE (quoting from lecture notes) was miraculously born, healed the sick, raised the dead, delivered divine teachings and ascended to live among the gods forever.
Shouldn't this part pretty much be common knowledge?
I kept running into this all through high school.
Hercules was the demi-god representing the Spartan ideals,
Theseus ("his cousin) was the tip-top mortal who represented the Athenian ideals.
The Olympian gods supposedly had all sorts of children, both gods and mortals,
plus monsters and a few demi-gods.
Phaeton's fate was a cautionary tale of being careful what you ask for, and
not to overreach your grasp, etc.
Anybody who thumbed through Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" should know this.
So, if biblical times were full of demigods, half-human/half-divine
who were of miraculous births
who walked on water and raised the dead
who rose from the dead
and ascended to Mt. Olympus...
could it be? That these aspects of the four gospels are less than historical?
If we admit that the four gospels contain significant, legendary, non-historical portions
are we "of all men most miserable"?
I trow not...
we become of all people most intellectually honest.
And many true riches of Christianity are allowed to come into focus.
Good religion doesn't insist that less-than-rational, non-historical stuff
be taken literally.
The world sees such a false witness as signs of soft-headedness.
and who can blame them?
Can't one's witness be to the coherent, rational message of the gospels?
While still loving the legendary portions
and interpreting them as the spirit that authored them probably did
(religiously and non-historically)?
The gospels that I read (legendary miracles included) preach: self-sacrificial love, anti-materialism, tolerance, compassion, inclusiveness, speaking-truth-to-power, and many, many,many other ...
So, if biblical times were full of demigods, half-human/half-divine
who were of miraculous births
who walked on water and raised the dead
who rose from the dead
and ascended to Mt. Olympus...
could it be? That these aspects of the four gospels are less than historical?
It COULD be. It could ALSO be that these aspect of the Synoptic Gospels are historically
accurate. Just because other people lie about their golf game doesn't mean YOU lie about
YOUR golf game.
Then it goes to evidence. The people who wrote these things, reported these things
were willing to put the remainder of their lives in jeopardy, and many of the early
disciples were killed in horrific executions. They went to slow, painful deaths rather
than say "I lied." Personally, I suspect they had supremely strong convictions that
what they reported was all correct- for there is little that a man would sacrifice his
life for- except the salvation OF that life.
If we admit that the four gospels contain significant, legendary, non-historical portions
are we "of all men most miserable"?
I trow not...
we become of all people most intellectually honest.
How did you get from "is it POSSIBLE that wasn't true?"
to "ADMIT it was NOT true?" with no intermediary steps?
Looks like a leap of non-faith.
It's not intellectually honest.
And many true riches of Christianity are allowed to come into focus.
Good religion doesn't insist that less-than-rational, non-historical stuff
be taken literally.
The world sees such a false witness as signs of soft-headedness.
and who can blame them?
A good walk of faith doesn't insist that one call truth a lie, nor insist
that one call lies the truth.
Those who would, they're not intellectually honest,
and poor witnesses to their faith.
Who would want to join them?
And you STILL made another leap. You've decided unilaterally to disbelieve
parts of the Bible, and call them fables.
Then you've decided unilaterally that to skip a process of inquiry to get to that
conclusion (working it out to see if the evidence really, really supports your
leap of non-faith) is "intellectually honest"-when it's the opposite.
Then you decided that those who disagree with you are "soft-headed.
What's next- a non-miraculous snowstorm and a new class you're teaching for pay?
Can't one's witness be to the coherent, rational message of the gospels?
While still loving the legendary portions
and interpreting them as the spirit that authored them probably did
(religiously and non-historically)?
Depends on if there actually ARE 'legendary portions' like you decided all by yourself.
Looks like you've not only declared some Scripture is "legendary" (fiction, lies, myths,
cunningly-devised fables), and that your dissenters are "soft-headed",
but you even worked out exactly how God wants you to read them.
You're a regular one-stop-shop for another(heteros) gospel, aren't you?
The gospels that I read (legendary miracles included) preach: self-sacrificial love, anti-materialism, tolerance, compassion, inclusiveness, speaking-truth-to-power, and many, many,many other ...
great messages for the living of these days,
for
the
living
of
these
days.
If it was all about powerful messages of compassion, tolerance, and so on,
then why adulterate it with cunningly-devised fables?
Hey, if your Christian walk is so scrawny that you've never seen a divine healing,
never gotten divine revelation, never seen a miracle,
that's your business. Those of us who HAVE seen some are a bit harder to convince
that God's people thousands of years ago never saw them.
"Do not pass Go. Do not collect 10% of my income."
Why is it that - of all the endless "holy" writings of the ancient world - the BIBLE should be accepted in toto while all the others can (and of rights I guess SHOULD be)totally disregarded?
Krishna is said to have defeated an evil enemy by striking him with a feather, Yogis are said to be able to levitate at will by focusing their minds, the Daruma - in a show of dedication and humility - clipped off his eyelids so he wouldn't go to sleep while praying - and eventually his legs simply melted away from lack of use, Mithra is said to have been born out of a rock and slayed a bull single-handedly. And the list goes on. A myriad of miraculous things performed by gods and god/men.
But of course, good Christians aren't swayed by such tripe. They only believe the "REAL" miracles.
Krishna is said to have defeated an evil enemy by striking him with a feather, Yogis are said to be able to levitate at will by focusing their minds, the Daruma - in a show of dedication and humility - clipped off his eyelids so he wouldn't go to sleep while praying - and eventually his legs simply melted away from lack of use, Mithra is said to have been born out of a rock and slayed a bull single-handedly. And the list goes on. A myriad of miraculous things performed by gods and god/men.
(snip)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that's true regardless of the source.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that's true regardless of the source.
Agreed (wholeheartedly). So what then is the "extraordinary" proof of 1. Noah's Ark and the litany of remarkable tales outside of the known laws of physics of the Old Testament 2. The virgin birth of Jesus 3. Walking on water 4. Raising the dead 5. Healing the sick, lame, blind, etc. with a mere touch of a hand (or of a garment) 6. Communication with holy entities of all sorts - God Himself, Jesus (His somewhat ill-defined alter ego?), and angels
Isn't religious belief simply a choice rather than any sort of intellectual exercise? Despite protestations to the contrary, it strikes me that "spirituality" is all about emotions and requires little or no reason (in fact, I think reason often gets in the way of traditional religious thought).
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
Shouldn't this part pretty much be common knowledge?
I kept running into this all through high school.
Hercules was the demi-god representing the Spartan ideals,
Theseus ("his cousin) was the tip-top mortal who represented the Athenian ideals.
The Olympian gods supposedly had all sorts of children, both gods and mortals,
plus monsters and a few demi-gods.
Phaeton's fate was a cautionary tale of being careful what you ask for, and
not to overreach your grasp, etc.
Anybody who thumbed through Edith Hamilton's "Mythology" should know this.
A good websearch would show the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
which half?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*snickers*
Actually, you're right- some of them were monsters with some human parts,
and some animal parts.
Most of the time, however, it was more, you know, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump."
They were homogenized beings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm sick of taking bible classes. If the teacher is holding a banjo/ guitar/ fiddle/ or mandolin, I'll go.
If they're holding a bible with a donation plate in front of them, or "teachings for sale",
you can count me out. I've enough tapes here to fill up the local landfill. I don't need more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
So, if biblical times were full of demigods, half-human/half-divine
who were of miraculous births
who walked on water and raised the dead
who rose from the dead
and ascended to Mt. Olympus...
could it be? That these aspects of the four gospels are less than historical?
If we admit that the four gospels contain significant, legendary, non-historical portions
are we "of all men most miserable"?
I trow not...
we become of all people most intellectually honest.
And many true riches of Christianity are allowed to come into focus.
Good religion doesn't insist that less-than-rational, non-historical stuff
be taken literally.
The world sees such a false witness as signs of soft-headedness.
and who can blame them?
Can't one's witness be to the coherent, rational message of the gospels?
While still loving the legendary portions
and interpreting them as the spirit that authored them probably did
(religiously and non-historically)?
The gospels that I read (legendary miracles included) preach: self-sacrificial love, anti-materialism, tolerance, compassion, inclusiveness, speaking-truth-to-power, and many, many,many other ...
great messages for the living of these days,
for
the
living
of
these
days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It COULD be. It could ALSO be that these aspect of the Synoptic Gospels are historically
accurate. Just because other people lie about their golf game doesn't mean YOU lie about
YOUR golf game.
Then it goes to evidence. The people who wrote these things, reported these things
were willing to put the remainder of their lives in jeopardy, and many of the early
disciples were killed in horrific executions. They went to slow, painful deaths rather
than say "I lied." Personally, I suspect they had supremely strong convictions that
what they reported was all correct- for there is little that a man would sacrifice his
life for- except the salvation OF that life.
How did you get from "is it POSSIBLE that wasn't true?"
to "ADMIT it was NOT true?" with no intermediary steps?
Looks like a leap of non-faith.
It's not intellectually honest.
A good walk of faith doesn't insist that one call truth a lie, nor insist
that one call lies the truth.
Those who would, they're not intellectually honest,
and poor witnesses to their faith.
Who would want to join them?
And you STILL made another leap. You've decided unilaterally to disbelieve
parts of the Bible, and call them fables.
Then you've decided unilaterally that to skip a process of inquiry to get to that
conclusion (working it out to see if the evidence really, really supports your
leap of non-faith) is "intellectually honest"-when it's the opposite.
Then you decided that those who disagree with you are "soft-headed.
What's next- a non-miraculous snowstorm and a new class you're teaching for pay?
Depends on if there actually ARE 'legendary portions' like you decided all by yourself.
Looks like you've not only declared some Scripture is "legendary" (fiction, lies, myths,
cunningly-devised fables), and that your dissenters are "soft-headed",
but you even worked out exactly how God wants you to read them.
You're a regular one-stop-shop for another(heteros) gospel, aren't you?
If it was all about powerful messages of compassion, tolerance, and so on,
then why adulterate it with cunningly-devised fables?
Hey, if your Christian walk is so scrawny that you've never seen a divine healing,
never gotten divine revelation, never seen a miracle,
that's your business. Those of us who HAVE seen some are a bit harder to convince
that God's people thousands of years ago never saw them.
"Do not pass Go. Do not collect 10% of my income."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pax
If you define a miracle as a verified breaking of the laws of physics
I've only ever seen one.
Here it is:
How easy it would be to prove to the world that speaking in tongues is a genuine miracle
- if it was.
Just identify one of the "tongues of men" being spoken sufficiently well...
and then verify that
the manifester has had no earthly acquaintance with said language.
Non?
Until then,
Geo. Aar's theory regarding speaking in tongues seems to obey Occam's Razor.
Speech can be disassociated from thought content as any child shows in "jibberish."
I still hold that speaking in tongues can unmiraculously be a legitimate religious practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Why is it that - of all the endless "holy" writings of the ancient world - the BIBLE should be accepted in toto while all the others can (and of rights I guess SHOULD be)totally disregarded?
Krishna is said to have defeated an evil enemy by striking him with a feather, Yogis are said to be able to levitate at will by focusing their minds, the Daruma - in a show of dedication and humility - clipped off his eyelids so he wouldn't go to sleep while praying - and eventually his legs simply melted away from lack of use, Mithra is said to have been born out of a rock and slayed a bull single-handedly. And the list goes on. A myriad of miraculous things performed by gods and god/men.
But of course, good Christians aren't swayed by such tripe. They only believe the "REAL" miracles.
Feh...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Likewise here today, in modern America, concerning "certain politicians".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and that's true regardless of the source.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ah, no, Pax, you don't get to casually redefine what I said so that it matches your theology.
You dismissed all sorts of verses of Scripture on the grounds that they lay out miraculous
events.
I countered that those who've seen miraculous events NOW are less likely to dismiss the
possible claims of miraculous events THEN. What kind did I say?
" Hey, if your Christian walk is so scrawny that you've never seen a divine healing,
never gotten divine revelation, never seen a miracle,
that's your business. Those of us who HAVE seen some are a bit harder to convince
that God's people thousands of years ago never saw them."
So I said
Divine healing
Divine revelation
a miracle
To those who actually want to see what I'm saying, it's not difficult.
However, first you downgraded miraculous accounts in Scripture to
cunningly-devised fables,
then you downgraded MODERN miraculous events I said- including divine healing and revelation-
to
an athlete performing an excellent jump
speaking in tongues/glossalalia, which is largely debated
Looks like your internal filter is set to "scrawny".
First, the Bible accounts are fiction, then the modern miracles don't even exist
beyond "people excelling at physical stunts."
Yeesh, if you rewrite me so radically in one paragraph,
how reliable is your understanding of pages of Scripture?
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Agreed (wholeheartedly). So what then is the "extraordinary" proof of 1. Noah's Ark and the litany of remarkable tales outside of the known laws of physics of the Old Testament 2. The virgin birth of Jesus 3. Walking on water 4. Raising the dead 5. Healing the sick, lame, blind, etc. with a mere touch of a hand (or of a garment) 6. Communication with holy entities of all sorts - God Himself, Jesus (His somewhat ill-defined alter ego?), and angels
Isn't religious belief simply a choice rather than any sort of intellectual exercise? Despite protestations to the contrary, it strikes me that "spirituality" is all about emotions and requires little or no reason (in fact, I think reason often gets in the way of traditional religious thought).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
George,
I'll tell you this much and then I'll step aside. You can choose to disbelieve me,
discard what I say, whatever, but I'm neither inviting a discussion on this nor
accepting an invitation to the same.
When I was a teenager, I had dismissed the Bible categorically as a source of
accurate information, or even relevant information. To even get me to "open the door"
on discussion took a lot more than simply sunny personalities, "manifestations"
and talking a good talk. vpw himself would not have succeeded, and wouldn't have even
held my attention. I saw sufficient proof to warrant paying attention, and have
seen sufficient proof since then to form consistent beliefs and conclusions,
and they've remained intact down the decades.
If you haven't, then it's small wonder you currently have the Bible dismissed categorically
as a source of accurate or relevant information. Extraordinary claims have been made,
and if you haven't seen extraordinary proof, then there's little logical reason to
respect the Bible, let alone believe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.