Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that.
I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or concern (I'm thinking another word might be appropriate here, but unfortunately it is against the rules to write it out) to address our points. That being said, if you would like to return to the topic of whether Jesus rose from the dead, and whether the evidence is adequate to reach that conclusion, feel free.
If you'd rather talk about how much better you are than we because we've exhausted your unlimited supply of patience (a fruit of the spirit -- and yet you ran out of it), then be advised it will be handled accordingly.
Can we get a viewer's digest summary for anyone who doesn't have time to sit through the video?
I'll try. Btw, I am usually put off by hour long videos. But I sat through this whole thing. First, Aslan's talk only lasts the first 35 or so minutes. The rest is Q and A.
Second, he is Iranian by birth, family moved to Bay Area CA when he was a child. His father atheist, his mother Muslim. As a teen, he became a fundamentalist Christian. While in college he converted back to Islam. But he's well-studied on the history of both religions and says he loves both. Listening to him, I have to believe that claim.
He has intimately studied the four (optic) Gospels as well as Gnostic and other Gospel records. He has a lot to say about how the four harmonize and contradict. He holds a bachelor's degree, two master's and a PhD. His manner is unpretentious and unassuming. Easy to listen to. VERY well spoken.
Bottom line is that there are only three things we know about Jesus from historical records NOT scripture. (I'll have to go back into the video to get the details)
He says that that the Christ of Faith is malleable and can be whatever one wants him to be... because that Christ is different from culture to culture throughout the world.
1. Jesus was a Jew who preached Judaism to other Jews.
2. He was a messianic figure (one of many at the time) who preached an apocalyptic message focused on what he called the Kingdom of God.
3. He was arrested and executed by the Romans under Pilate.
I'm not sure how much of the second point can be gleaned from "history" given that he excludes Christian sources when he said that. Nonetheless, I think he's probably right.
I would add that Jesus probably really was from Nazareth (two gospel writers go to great, unrealistic, mutually exclusive pains to explain why someone from Nazareth was born in Bethlehem).
Okay, so I forced myself to watch pretty much the whole thing. I do take issue with quite a bit of this guys perspective and interpretation. Becoming a Christian through a denominational, trinitarian organization (for a start) would not have gotten him off to exactly a 'well informed and logical start', would it ?! Then going on to a Jesuit university I suspect would have made him doubt even more in exactly WHO Jesus was. He said "the immediate world of Jesus environment shaped who he was". That's a logical deduction if one believes Jesus Christ was 'merely a man'. The Bible states that Jesus was the Son of God. Born of Mary, partaker of the flesh by way of Mary's egg AND a 'perfect seed' implanted that carried perfect genes, dna, pure blood etc...(so deduct from that what we will about his appearance. Whatever a perfect man would look like!) I do not really believe western nations for the most part have ever really believed he was blonde hair and blue eyed lol. My real question is, what would drive a human being like William Wallace, Joan of Arc, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther etc...to risk life and limb ? It could only be their driven belief in their cause. Jesus happened to believe (or associate himself as the one prophesied about throughout the old testament, rightly or wrongly) Those that got caught up in his 'movement' also. Many (allegedly) saw many, many signs, miracles, wonders occur, culminating in his crucifixion (and subsequent resurrection). The outpouring of the holy spirit 50 days later with the occurence of mass ' free vocalizaion' :), glossalia. I have no reason to doubt pretty much anything in the entire Bible. Moses existed, Joshua existed, the queen of Sheba existed. The Caananites existed, King David, Caesar, Pontius Pilate, John, Luke, Nero. Good, bad, indiffern't. Love, hate, evil. Jehovah, Elohim, El Shaddai, satan. Egypt, papyrus, dead sea scrolls...Jesus of Nazareth
The first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. They weren't written until the Babylonian exile.
Check the authors? Is that a joke?
Matthew didn't write Matthew. Whoever wrote Mark knew nothing about Palestinian geography. Luke flat out lied about the circumstances of Jesus' birth. And John tells stories so astonishing that it's inconceivable the other gospel writers would have ignored them.
Check the authors? As if we have the slightest idea who wrote the Torah and the gospels! [Actuallyt they do have an idea who wrote the Torah... it just wasn't Moses].
You can't argue with statements of faith, but assertions of fact are subject to challenge. The Biblical story of Exodus is uncorroborated by history. If Moses existed, he would have left a gaping wound on Egyptian history -- one they would have had no choice but to document. Egypt would no more have forgotten Moses than the USA would forget Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
What does Egyptian history say about Moses? Not a damn word.
What about the Pharoah Moses defied? Well, we don't know who that is because the Israelite priest who concocted the story didn't have the wherewithal to name the Pharoah! He might as well have set the story in Atlantis.
A real history would have named the Pharoah.
So there was this Hebrew terrorist who led a slave revolt and in one night every firstborn in Egypt, including livestock, died.
In one night.
And Egypt didn't notice.
No record of this nightmarish terror in all of Egyptian history.
Sorry: the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when and where evidence would be expected. You can't say this empire-crippling incident happened and then shrug when the empire's histories make no mention of it.
"The individual has to find the myth that has to do with the conduct of his life. There are a number of services that myths serve. The basic one is opening the world to the dimension of mystery. If you lose that, you don't have a mythology to realize the mystery that underlies all forms. But then there comes the cosmological aspect of myth. Seeing that mystery as manifest through all things. The universe becomes, as it were, a holy picture..."
One reads it, listens to someone speak or read it, or watches it on video. But until the person imagines what s/he has read or heard, the person doesn't have a basis on which to understand it.
I'm fine. I simply decline to entertain attempts to derail conversations by introducing ethereal, abstract definitions to terms no one has any trouble understanding.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Raf
Ok, TLC.
Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that.
I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or concern (I'm thinking another word might be appropriate here, but unfortunately it is against the rules to write it out) to address our points. That being said, if you would like to return to the topic of whether Jesus rose from the dead, and whether the evidence is adequate to reach that conclusion, feel free.
If you'd rather talk about how much better you are than we because we've exhausted your unlimited supply of patience (a fruit of the spirit -- and yet you ran out of it), then be advised it will be handled accordingly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
This guy has an intriguing perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can we get a viewer's digest summary for anyone who doesn't have time to sit through the video?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'll try. Btw, I am usually put off by hour long videos. But I sat through this whole thing. First, Aslan's talk only lasts the first 35 or so minutes. The rest is Q and A.
Second, he is Iranian by birth, family moved to Bay Area CA when he was a child. His father atheist, his mother Muslim. As a teen, he became a fundamentalist Christian. While in college he converted back to Islam. But he's well-studied on the history of both religions and says he loves both. Listening to him, I have to believe that claim.
He has intimately studied the four (optic) Gospels as well as Gnostic and other Gospel records. He has a lot to say about how the four harmonize and contradict. He holds a bachelor's degree, two master's and a PhD. His manner is unpretentious and unassuming. Easy to listen to. VERY well spoken.
Bottom line is that there are only three things we know about Jesus from historical records NOT scripture. (I'll have to go back into the video to get the details)
He says that that the Christ of Faith is malleable and can be whatever one wants him to be... because that Christ is different from culture to culture throughout the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The three things
1. Jesus was a Jew who preached Judaism to other Jews.
2. He was a messianic figure (one of many at the time) who preached an apocalyptic message focused on what he called the Kingdom of God.
3. He was arrested and executed by the Romans under Pilate.
I'm not sure how much of the second point can be gleaned from "history" given that he excludes Christian sources when he said that. Nonetheless, I think he's probably right.
I would add that Jesus probably really was from Nazareth (two gospel writers go to great, unrealistic, mutually exclusive pains to explain why someone from Nazareth was born in Bethlehem).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Okay, so I forced myself to watch pretty much the whole thing. I do take issue with quite a bit of this guys perspective and interpretation. Becoming a Christian through a denominational, trinitarian organization (for a start) would not have gotten him off to exactly a 'well informed and logical start', would it ?! Then going on to a Jesuit university I suspect would have made him doubt even more in exactly WHO Jesus was. He said "the immediate world of Jesus environment shaped who he was". That's a logical deduction if one believes Jesus Christ was 'merely a man'. The Bible states that Jesus was the Son of God. Born of Mary, partaker of the flesh by way of Mary's egg AND a 'perfect seed' implanted that carried perfect genes, dna, pure blood etc...(so deduct from that what we will about his appearance. Whatever a perfect man would look like!) I do not really believe western nations for the most part have ever really believed he was blonde hair and blue eyed lol. My real question is, what would drive a human being like William Wallace, Joan of Arc, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther etc...to risk life and limb ? It could only be their driven belief in their cause. Jesus happened to believe (or associate himself as the one prophesied about throughout the old testament, rightly or wrongly) Those that got caught up in his 'movement' also. Many (allegedly) saw many, many signs, miracles, wonders occur, culminating in his crucifixion (and subsequent resurrection). The outpouring of the holy spirit 50 days later with the occurence of mass ' free vocalizaion' :), glossalia. I have no reason to doubt pretty much anything in the entire Bible. Moses existed, Joshua existed, the queen of Sheba existed. The Caananites existed, King David, Caesar, Pontius Pilate, John, Luke, Nero. Good, bad, indiffern't. Love, hate, evil. Jehovah, Elohim, El Shaddai, satan. Egypt, papyrus, dead sea scrolls...Jesus of Nazareth
Edited by AllanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Perseus existed. Hercules existed. Because I said so and I have a book that says they did.
Sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The free vocalization line was funny though. Well played
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
check the authors
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
lol.
Um... you haven't been paying attention.
The first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses. They weren't written until the Babylonian exile.
Check the authors? Is that a joke?
Matthew didn't write Matthew. Whoever wrote Mark knew nothing about Palestinian geography. Luke flat out lied about the circumstances of Jesus' birth. And John tells stories so astonishing that it's inconceivable the other gospel writers would have ignored them.
Check the authors? As if we have the slightest idea who wrote the Torah and the gospels! [Actuallyt they do have an idea who wrote the Torah... it just wasn't Moses].
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You can't argue with statements of faith, but assertions of fact are subject to challenge. The Biblical story of Exodus is uncorroborated by history. If Moses existed, he would have left a gaping wound on Egyptian history -- one they would have had no choice but to document. Egypt would no more have forgotten Moses than the USA would forget Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
What does Egyptian history say about Moses? Not a damn word.
What about the Pharoah Moses defied? Well, we don't know who that is because the Israelite priest who concocted the story didn't have the wherewithal to name the Pharoah! He might as well have set the story in Atlantis.
A real history would have named the Pharoah.
So there was this Hebrew terrorist who led a slave revolt and in one night every firstborn in Egypt, including livestock, died.
In one night.
And Egypt didn't notice.
No record of this nightmarish terror in all of Egyptian history.
Sorry: the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence when and where evidence would be expected. You can't say this empire-crippling incident happened and then shrug when the empire's histories make no mention of it.
Moses is no more real than Paul Bunyan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh come on Raf. You can't tell me that Moses wasn't real. He was photographed/filmed in real time!
Let my people go, damn it!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Fortunately, though, history did preserve the memory of King Tut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here and now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Campbell with Bill Moyers. Under 10 minutes.
"The individual has to find the myth that has to do with the conduct of his life. There are a number of services that myths serve. The basic one is opening the world to the dimension of mystery. If you lose that, you don't have a mythology to realize the mystery that underlies all forms. But then there comes the cosmological aspect of myth. Seeing that mystery as manifest through all things. The universe becomes, as it were, a holy picture..."
And that's just in the first minute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
History is mostly imagination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Is it ?? In what way ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
One reads it, listens to someone speak or read it, or watches it on video. But until the person imagines what s/he has read or heard, the person doesn't have a basis on which to understand it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
That's almost starting to sound like Shirley Maclean ! "you only exist because I imagine you to be"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've learned to stop paying attention once the conversation starts going in that "words mean what I want them to vegetable" direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I may not have been clear. Putting your Shirley "quote" in perspective, "you only exist IN MY MIND
becauseWHEN I imagine you to be."Does that help clarify?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
you having a bad week Raf ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm fine. I simply decline to entertain attempts to derail conversations by introducing ethereal, abstract definitions to terms no one has any trouble understanding.
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.