»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Did Christ have brothers
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Did Christ have brothers |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. and/or sisters? Did his own family not believe him to be the son of God? Where I grew up, the answer to both questions was NO. . |
||
| © Copyright 2008 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi John. Is this simply meant to be provoke response? What difference might it make, one way or the other? Jesus, and I don't think there is much quibble about his historical existence, is either dead or arisen, depending on what one choke down either way. His thoughts linger. Most of them were pretty decent. Did the Buddha have a brother? Did his family regard him as a savant? What difference could it possibly make? As usual, I have a hard time understanding your questions. My problem, not yours. Terminally perplexed, Jimbeaux. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
Yes he did...and they did believe in Him. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“The New Testament is explicit that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Christian tradition--later infallibly affirmed by the Church--acknowledges that she remained a virgin afterwards. The great majority of Christians acknowledges this. Only the Protestant community dissents.” “But we know that James can't be a full brother because Joseph was not Jesus' biological father.” http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp -------------- "Jesus’ family did not honor him and said “he is crazy” “{Referring to himself} Jesus said ... ‘Only in his home town, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor.’ ” (Mark 6:4 NIV) “When his family heard about this, they went to take charge {custody}of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind.’ ” (Mark 3:21 NIV)" http://www.prudentialpublishing.info/jesus_image_before_death.htm . [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (08-20-2008 12:57 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, We also know that Mary was not stoned to death by the locals, which certainly suggests that everybody on the ground at the time disagreed with the position of the church strongly enough to allow Mary to live and the baby to be born—Joshua, I mean, not James. Whatever pieces of doctrinal necessity the church arranged later would have had no effect on the customs of that particular time. And however the church prefers thinking of the situation, nobody apparently gave any thought to James being anything else than Joshua's brother. One possibility I haven't seen mentioned, perhaps from lack of scholarship of plain knowledge on my part is that mary might previously been married to Joseph's brother (if in fact he had one), become pregnant by him, and been unfortunate enough to be widowed at that time. Jewish law would then have obligated Joseph to have married Mary and nobody would have thought twice about it but, of course, the church. I have no idea if the actual historical data would back this up. James might even have been an older brother, were this the case, creating doctrinal problems within the church, but certainly explaining some of the general mysteriousness in general about James. Who really knows about the Historical Jesus? Notions attaching to The Christ, however, would need to be looked at differently, and once could see how hard it might be to keep the two notions simultaneously in proportion and in mind. I don't know that I could do it if I were in a position where I was in fact obligated to do so as a matter of faith rather than, as now, hold the two ideas in mind as speculations. Perhaps you have thoughts on these matters? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, Of course they didn't think it was going to be a virgin birth. Who would except Mary herself and to whom it had been revealed? Even Joseph fell into suspicion on that one, planning to quietly "put her away". Who really knows about the historical Jesus? http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Christian-Origins-Question-Vol/dp/0800626796/ ref=pd_sim_b_1 There's plenty to suggest that historical "ambiguity" about Jesus is overstated. And there's certainly no reason (other than a priori philosophy) to reject the gospels themselves as a true picture. More on that later ... John, The answer to your questions are 1) Yes (half brothers) 2) No and Yes. And, the perpetual virginity is fantastical beyond the original miracle, historically revisionist (if at all, it is more based upon sheer declaration and the idea of papal infallibility), and based more upon a predating pagan ideal of perpetual virginity than anything else. In short, it was superimposed on the Gospel narrative. And it's not a good fit. I'll be back to explain. (no time yet) Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I think there is a difficulty on the part of some to appreciate how important for many the distance between the Son of God and just some guy whose own family thought was a nut case is. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I'm not sure I understand how, in light of the kind of extraordinary life described in the Gospels, you can take a seasonal disapproval or temporary alienation from family to be evidence to the contrary of greatness. In view of all the conspiracy theories about how the Church doctored the original writings to its own political advantage ... how would they have missed glossing this one over? So Jesus' half brothers thought he was losing his mind. Guess it's true then. After all God's Son would never have any enigmatic qualities about him, capable of stirring controversy or misunderstanding. Probably would've just been another mild mannered John Q. Citizen type. Not to mention, they invited him back to the family reunions later. That has to count for something. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "So Jesus' half brothers thought he was losing his mind. " They must not have believed or bought into the virgin birth, wise men or anything else of the sort in all the years before. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m still trying to work out if Jesus existed let alone any siblings.  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, If you don't think Jesus existed, then you put yourself against the belief of virtually all scholarship, Christian or otherwise. Though not historically tenable, you would still be in better company to think that all the "divine" stuff was made up, and that he was a delusional young wanna-be-prophet who tragically ended up prey to the religious and governmental powers of his day. John: quote: Perhaps they didn't ... until some later softening of heart. And we don't know to what degree or how Mary and Joseph emphasized these strange facts in the context of day-to-day family life. I can imagine they were (at the very least) downplayed for pragmatic reasons. At the very least these extraordinary things would indicate that Jesus was destined to be great in Israel, perhaps even the Messiah. Every pious set of parents dreamed of their son being the Messiah. But how would such a distinction sit in the lap of siblings? It's not hard to imagine how such might be met with some degree of skepticism and resentment. These more-or-less dormant feelings might also be further stirred-up when Jesus, in young adulthood, began to practice a pitch of public ministry that caused his own family responsibilities (perceived or otherwise) to recede into the background. Human nature eh? Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I prefer to wait for some credible evidence one way or the other before making up my mind, if virtually all the scholars want to accept his existence without any evidence then I suppose that’s up to them but that doesn’t sound very scholarly if you ask me. The more I think about it though the stranger your claim sounds, what are the percentages of scholars that believe he existed as opposed to the scholars who believe he didn’t? Could it be that some scholars simply haven’t thought to examine the evidence one way or the other? Is it that they’re simply not interested? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, Nobody says you need to believe evidence for the historical Jesus. Or at least I don't. Considering the number of other folks who have pretty clear historicity and for who such claims are made, it seems understandable but not particularly reasonable to say that this is the one you don't believe the historical evidence. Evidence is better that he did exist than that he didn't, same as many of the other messiahs then and since. Simon Bar Kochba was one of the figures widely considered as "the messiah" shortly after the time of the historical Jesus. The Bar Kochba revolt was one of the reasons for the destruction of the second temple in 76 CE. The most recent Messiah of which, I'm aware is the Lubavicher Rebbe, Schneerson, who died maybe 15 years ago. Specifying one whose historicity you might deny seems a touch optimistic. The religion is full of them. To say one in particular isn't real serves little purpose save as a bulwork against the more difficult proposition, the notion of this particular messiah might actually be the Christian Christ. Can't help you there, Grinch. That's where I think you'd actually have a better argument. Joshua was probably a real guy; whether he was the christian savior has been something people have been fighting wars about for a long time. I am respectful of the notion and of the many fine people it inspires. Myself, I think truth comes in a variety of authentic flavors. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I thought the Bar Kochba revolt was the third Jewish-Roman war in 132-135 CE, but history was never my strong subject. quote: If you’re talking about Simon Bar Kochba I have to agree. There is clear physical evidence of his existence, coins for instance with his likeness minted during the revolt, letters and orders from him to Jewish troops and numerous references to him by both Roman and Jewish contemporaries. Evidence for the existence of the Hasdic Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is even stronger, there are photographs and eye witness accounts from people who actually knew him. The existence of Jesus has none of these - there is as much evidence that King Arthur existed as there is that Jesus existed. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Grinch, I don't think you're using the word "evidence" in the way a historian would use the word. I think you must be using it more like "proof" of which historians know nothing. There's more evidence of the kind pertaining to history for Jesus than for many more-or-less ancient persons you probably believe existed without a blink. I think the difference with Jesus, is that the question is burdened with controversy. He was not only a historical figure but (if the record can be even partially trusted) one which strangely made claims upon every individual including those quite beyond his own generation. There's much at risk for those who would mythologize him, in my opinion. How can you explain (against the historical insights of those like N.T. Wright and others of religious and non-religious persuasion) the explosive phenomenon of early Christianity in light of a Monolithic Jewish community and Roman occupation that didn't like disturbance or rising 'Messiahs'. It would have ended like a bad joke right from the start, if it really was one. Oh yeah, I forgot, conspiracy. The centuries later established Church made it all up. Only we are then left with no tenable explanation how they were ever established to begin with ... in view of such opposing (or perhaps patronizing if genuinely unperturbed) forces that knew the truth. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
That’s what Bacon would call an idol of the marketplace. If someone was trying to sell you the idea that some bloke called Bill was the son of god Stephen I’m fairly sure you’d be asking for some sort of proof that he actually existed, in the form of substantial and credible evidence for instance. Historians collect evidence to build such a body of proof, they cross-reference the collected evidence in an attempt to validate it’s credibility, if one piece of evidence contradicts another both are suspect unless corroborating evidence is found. So far I haven’t seen any evidence confirming the existence of Jesus that holds up under scrutiny, apparently you have - care to share it with those less historically minded? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, If you say later on Bar Kochba, later it will be. I have memories of religious school but that was a long time ago. Nevertheless there were many other messiahs during that time, and it still seems unlikely that the evidence for this one being there would be wrong. Evidence for him being the Christ is a different story. Jewish history is rich in messiahs. Stephanos—what's this business about monolithic Judaism of the time of Jesus? You do know that this is not the Jewish memory of that time, don't you? BobK |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Well Grinch, on that it's like Dinesh D'souza once said when debating Christopher Hitchens, "Much like the mosquito in the nudist colony ... I'm trying to decide where to begin." And when it comes to the question of whether Jesus was a historical person (regardless of whether you believe the supernatural claims made of him in the Gospels), we are in a similar situation, since his history is connected to the vast history of what went on all around him, particularly the inception and development of the Church. I suppose that before I were willing to get into particulars, I would like to hear you answer my initial question: How can the dynamic origins of the Christian Church, amid powerful Jewish and Roman adversaries, be explained if Jesus wasn't a charismatic figure ... or (more poignantly) even a person? Since the majority of believing and unbelieving scholars accept the historicity of his person (entire movements, careers, and 'historical quests' have issued under this basic acceptance -- quite in the face of your suggestion that maybe they've just been "not interested"), and that the denial of it is fringe in the world of scholarship, I would say the burden of proof is somewhat yours. But either way, by beginning to answer my question you may launch us into some particulars, which might lead us to some real discussion. Bob, What I meant by "monolithic" was that Jewish Church and State were one and the same (though an occupied State). Departure from the faith (and especially in a way that would influence others and make waves) was punished by at the very least ostracizing if not condemning to death. If you believe any historicity of the New Testament, you accept the adversarial relationship between 1st Century Judaism and Christianity. My proposition to Grinch is this: If the Christians were touting someone who didn't exist in such an environment where everyone knew their specific historical claims were bogus, why did the movement propel with such dynamic force? Or in the negative, why wasn't it simply revealed for what it really was(n't) in the time of its origins? I don't think they could have done it with the real corpse of even a once-very-charismatic leader, much less on a fictive person. More later, Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You can begin anywhere as long as you don’t resort to the weak argument from authority and start “In the beginning..”. quote: The Christian church certainly couldn’t have proliferated without a central and charismatic figure but he need only possess those attributes, he had to be central and charismatic - there’s no necessity for him to have existed. You could make the same argument for chivalry - how did medieval chivalry, which was based on the lives and deeds of King Arthur and the knights of the round table come about if Arthur didn’t exist? Jesus and Arthur don’t need to have existed - all that mattered was that people believed they did, unfortunately people believing that they existed isn’t evidence that they actually did. quote: Twaddle. I’m not the one selling the idea of a living breathing Christ Stephen, you are, which means you’re the one who needs to do the convincing, otherwise I ain’t buying it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: The irony here is that scholarship weighs in against the existence of Arthur much in the same ratio and force that it weighs in for the existence of Jesus. "Chivalry" was not at all dependent or connected to the historical specificity (or reality) of King Arthur. It is a movement more based upon Knighthood and Feudalism in a general sense, (which was historical BTW). In short, you're trying to compare apples and porcupines. The reason a mere fictive invention of Jesus (no matter how touted as 'charismatic') would not have given rise to the Christian Church, is that the Church was making specific historical claims in a detailed narrative which would have been seen for farce quite early and forcefully. Another obvious point you're missing is that Romantic Chivalry is something quite harmonious with British patriotism, and never would be opposed for any reason (hearty promotion in spite of doubtful history would be more the tendency in such a setting). The early Christians were saying that such and such happened surrounding a particular person and that God was choosing a new community which had little to do with descent from Abraham, but upon allegience to this person. Blasphemy is too mild a word. How they did it, and why they risked it, is a question you still haven't begun to answer. quote: Judging from the above quotes of yours, we have a disagreement about what we're even discussing. In discussing whether Jesus was a historical person, why would I refer to an argument from authority such as found in the opening words of Genesis? Also, we weren't presently discussing whether Jesus' claims of divinity were true, but whether he existed. My statement was that if you deny his personal existence, then the burden of proof is yours in light of the consensus of scholarship (whether Christian or not). Just want to make sure you're answering what I actually said. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Grinch, You confound two distinct issues. The question of the historicity of Jesus is the first. Was there an actual Jewish dude name Joshua, who was the son of a carpenter, Joseph and his wife Mary. Was he an itinerant Rebbe who met an ugly end for preaching the material that the New T. quotes him as preaching, though some material may have been gotten distorted for political or doctrinal purposes to some extent at later points. The other question is whether this guy was the Christ, with supernatural connections, the literal and somehow biological son of God with the whole apparatus that comes with that question. I was afraid you had been making this mistake, and you confirmed it when you said quote: For Stephanos to promote an actual historical figure to the position of Christ requires an existential act of faith which he earnestly attempts to support with philosophical argument. He believes it, and many others do as well and their reasons are sufficient to them. You do not, and there is no reason that you should if the existential leap into belief makes not sense to you. On the face of it, that issue is an issue of faith not fact and you have no wish to follow them to a conclusion you feel unwarranted. The issue of the Historicity of Jesus is, I think, a different one. There are loads of messiahs in the Jewish tradition, many of them following a course of martyrdom. The course of the life of Jesus is not particularly different; it's the life of a messiah in the history of a particularly insistent group of religiously forged folks. They'd been fighting about religion with people for a long time, and people with new takes on the religion had pushed the religion one way and another for quite a long time. It was one of the ways these folks changed politically and religiously, and it was an important thing for a young and idealistic Jew to do to affect the situation of his people. To bring another and more modern situation into the discussion, yet one not particularly distant in terms of folkways for that part of the world, the locals—or many of them—thought he was a Freedom Fighter. "Messiah" at that time certainly had that particular meaning tied to it, though Jesus was somewhat coy about it. This was one of the reasons that The Kingdom of God could be thought of as coming soon to a theater near you, because it had this sub-text of armed rebellion. The thought has been altered by politics, doctrine and history over the past 2000 years. For many Christians it is still of vital but transformed meaning, and good for them. The Romans didn't think of the man as a Freedom Fighter but as a Terrorist. They treated him that way. One man's Terrorist can all too easily become another man's freedom fighter and, on rare occasions, messiah. Odd are though, he was actually there for events to crystalize around. Or somebody else with the same name and background coming from the same place who met the same end, if it makes you happier. Whether he was The Christ or not—that's a different discussion. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I would like to offer you a challenge by suggesting that the spiritual questions surrounding Jesus are not so neatly divorced from history. N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas (among others) have pointed out the unlikelihood that some eulogistic sentiment among disciples (who themselves seemed to be expecting a political Messiah, and thus bewildered by the crucifixion) being the impetus of the early Christian movement. Virtually all historians agree that Jesus was put to death under Roman authority. Among Jewish and Roman powers (who didn't like anyone challenging their respective spheres of hegemony) it would have been a simple matter to produce his corpse publicly and thus end what they considered to be a troublesome and subversive movement, the followers of which boldly made historically falsifiable claims, not platonic notions of otherworldly recompense or just some new set of aphorisms. There are many more historical considerations besides ... But I grant you that there is a kind of faith involved one way or another, in the sense that one must decide to believe something in spite of difficulties. It is a thorny story, as most good ones are. But I still must disagree with the sentiment that Christian belief about Jesus involves an existential "leap" while others simply believe what is irreducibly obvious. Just this guy named Josh (as you put it) who preached to a creative bunch who later embellished, as an explanation for what is historically known, invites a very perplexing set of problems. While I don't think you yet appreciate the historical uniqueness of Jesus, as compared to other "messiahs", I appreciate your refusal to opt for non-existence. Those who tend toward a hard-edged-atheism (perhaps the ilk of those who listen to Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, etc ...) seem more likely to adopt this stance than softer agnostics. I also appreciate you helping Grinch to see two distinct questions (though I would perhaps differ in saying that they both share a common field of historical consideration, though the metaphysical questions certainly do carry one much further than that). Thanks for your input, Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-26-2008 12:00 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, No disrespect intended here. If I used "Josh," I should have said Joshua. The step into belief to my mind always involves a leap; in this I find Soren Kierkegaard's essay on the knight of faith versus the knight of infinite resignation helpful and illuminating. In these matters certainly we must look for guidance from within and without, and I find Keirkegaard very moving. From what I remember, it's in Fear and Trembling And The Sickness Unto Death. It seems a different tradition than the one you follow, but a noble one. He too believes in reason, but believes reason can take a man only so far, and in this I follow his thinking more closely than yours. A fairly odd thing for an avowed agnostic to do, no doubt, but there you have it. If anybody had thought that exhuming Jesus would have made much difference, they may well have thought about it. But my understanding is that it was widely put about that the tomb was empty as quickly as the third day, and it was only after that the rumors of sightings of the man, formerly apparently dead and now, apparently, not, were bruited about as evidence of his having risen. There are few things more foolish that trying to open a grave that you already know to be empty to exhume a body that isn't—for one reason or another—there. The authorities at the time may have been rigid and they may have been wrong, but I doubt you can accuse them of being insensitive to the prospect of looking like idiots. It doesn't mean authorities don't actively work at looking like idiots as often as not, but they're almost always touchy about being caught out at it. Historicity, highly likely. Divinity? Some audiences are far easier to convince than others. I'm an extreme hard sell for myself,m though I'm grateful to see other people enjoy the benefits of such a belief as long as they're not fighting with other folks with a different set of beliefs. Apparently there are a large number of people who feel they have a side-deal with God about this Love One Another business; other people are supposed to love them and their belief system. God has told them privately that reciprocity doesn't apply in the other direction. Who knew? Best to you and your lovely family, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: I love Kirkegaard. I haven't read nearly enough of him. So far I've only got "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" on my shelf. I am however familiar with his existential thinking (influenced much by Dostoevsky if my understanding is correct), and actually share a good deal of it. I appreciate Kirkegaard's limitation on the "objective" and his insistence on the subjective element of faith. If he means however that faith literally contradicts reality (rather than that we are currently ill equipped to decipher reality), I would have to disagree. He was willing to follow God, I suspect, even if God were absurd. Tis is a noble sentiment as far as that goes, but the intellectual price tag is too high. My existentialism is more inclined to think it is our faulty estimations which are absurd. The common ground in both of these views, is that commitment is always necessary to decision, not just a bland acceptance of "facts". That's why I also know that reason is limited, and can only take a man "so far". Another difference perhaps with Kirkegaard and myself on this (if there really is a significant difference here) is that I'm sure this applies also to conclusions contrary to faith as well. Atheism is a good example. It takes great "faith" to be one. Of course I think the friendly extraction of Jesus' supernatural claims by the agnostic also requires something of this process. No theory here is problem-free. However, I do want to be kind here since I'm aware that there are many in this category who were taught to ascribe more genuine historical weight to the "Jesus Seminar" scholars than there is, perhaps unaware of the 19th Century philosophical underpinnings that guided their bewildering evisceration of the texts. I am grateful for historians who have come along, much more aware of the presuppositional in relation to deciphering this history, and therefore much more willing to reconsider the case of orthodoxy. And Bob, I appreciate (and agree with) your conviction that Christians should love others, not just those who share their faith. In that much, you are a good exegete. I too only wish this were put into practice more. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
With practice, everybody has trouble. I think Kierkegaard predates Dostoyevski. I believe the concentration upon the absurd probably comes from Heidegger and Sartre and that direction. I believe that most Atheists would be chagrined to think that their faith requires a leap of faith actually to believe in it because they see themselves, mostly, a folks operating from pure reason. It's one of the great weaknesses of Atheist thought, the denial of the great rage that often though certainly not always underlies the position, and how much it depends on God for it's bread and butter existence. I'm unclear how many supernatural claims Joshua did make as opposed to the number that were attributed to him. Most I think were descriptions of man's relationship to God. I never know exactly how to talk about the miracles with convinced believers without sounding offensive, but there are stories about miracles coming from Greek temples of healing as well, and miracles attributed to other gods. It's part of the religious tradition of that time, and it would be more surprising if there weren't miracles recounted than that there are. To my mind. I don't know that I require faith to believe in the supernatural, since I am not sure that the boundary of the natural has been as yet established. I've done a lot of meditating over more than 30 years and have stumbled into some spots that I like to keep for private review. Miracles may well be possible. What rouses my skepticism is that the miracles be used as proof of divinity. Siddhis, if that's how you spell the word, are powers that accrue from spiritual practice. They are common enough in some traditions that there is set advice about them. There is a temptation to indulge but they are a distraction from the process of enlightenment. Avoid them. In fact you can see how they tend to affect the practice of faith in the world today. Word comes of the miraculous this or that—this is without even a decent evaluation of the reality of the miracle in the first place—and masses of people descend and, if the miracle is impressive enough, it becomes a sideshow. A shroud of Turin, for example, may be an enormous distraction from the actual practice of Catholicism by the everyday faithful, who end up following the specter sometimes, while abandoning the substance. It's sad. Somebody saw an outline of the face of Jesus in the window of one of the hospital rooms in Malden Hospital while I was living a few towns over. The parking lot filled with the devout and the media and others. Ambulances couldn't get in as easily. Visitors and patients had trouble gaining access. I tend to find it difficult to believe why one set of miracles should be more important than another in the same way that I have trouble privileging one religion over another, for the most part. Wiccans, fine; Satan worshipers make me twitchy. Call me tragically closed minded. We need to find other ways to deal with the problem of evil. Anyway, thanks for your interesting post. Always a pleasure. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: Sorry Stephen, call me a cynic if you like but I’m not inclined to simply take your word on that, I need evidence, can you supply some precise data or source to corroborate your claims? quote: Here’s an explanation cut from Wikipedia relating to where the burden of proof lies: Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven I didn’t say that I deny his personal existence Stephen, I said “I’m still trying to work out if Jesus existed..”, I’m not making the claim that he did or didn’t exist so why would the burden of proof fall on me? If you claim he existed the burden of proof is yours. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: As to the definition of "burden of proof" you provided, I'm quite sure that to say "Jesus existed" is no bold claim. Since the bulk of scholarship asserts the historical existence of Jesus (notwithstanding your idea about them not being interested enough to explore another theory), I feel no such burden in this area, though I'd be willing to discuss it with anyone I felt was really curious. Email me if you wish. But frankly, the assertion that Jesus didn't even exist is so preposterous (to the degree that by the same criteria we should doubt whether Alexander the Great or Napoleon were real), that I feel that those who confidently express it have an axe to grind. At least by your own words, you should feel no burden of proof either, since you've clarified that you're not really making that claim. If you're interested in exploring this more then wikipedia has a pretty good overview of the nature of the data involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus quote: Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I've been meaning to respond. And because I've wanted to give you the kind of answer I think worthy of your thought (not being facetious here), I've chosen to wait until an opportune time. Now I suppose ... quote: I stand corrected. It looks like at best, I can claim D & K as near contemporaries. But, as for K's absurdity, it cannot be attributed to Heidegger or Sartre who both arrived a little later. quote: Firstly to your statement about being unclear about what was attributed to Jesus, I would ask "why"? The kinds of things that the earliest Christians endured can only be attributed to an exaggerated myth with great difficulty. I suppose I can only suggest a qualitative difference (or at least a substantive difference) between the miracles of Pagan religion and those of the New Testament. Not to take any beauty or imagination from other accounts; what little I have been able to read of "miracles" outside the New Testament have had the literary flavor of myth, as G.K. Chesterton called them "the Day-Dreams". He later wrote that "he who has no sympathy for myths has no sympathy for men". And yet also that "We know the meaning of all the myths ... not the voice of a priest or prophet saying 'These things are', but 'Why cannot these things be'?" (From The Everlasting Man) Along similar lines of thought the philologist C.S. Lewis wrote the following about mythologizing the gospels: "I've been reading romances, visionary literature, legends, myths all my life ... I know what they are like. Not one of them is like this. Of this text (The New Testament Gospels) there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - pretty close up to the facts - or else some unknown writer in the second century suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic realistic narrative." (From Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism) Lewis, like Chesterton, was a lover of mythology, not a debunker of it. In fact much of his pre-conversion attraction to Christianity was due to how it resonated with the power and depth of mythology, how it brushed the human heart-strings in the very same way. The important distinction however, is revealed in a letter in which Lewis summarizes a conversation he had with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson: "The story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened ... The Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things.’". Tolkien in this regard was instrumental in Lewis coming to faith, by helping him look at Christ through the eyes of a lover of myth and literature, and yet as more ... as the very one who may explain why myths have such power to begin with. Perhaps Lewis' own hesitation about faith came from not wanting to be forced to reject the beauty and "truth" of other stories and traditions ... and paradoxically from not really being able to view Christianity as substantially different from their status as artifact. Later he became sure that in becoming a Christian, he need not lose what was beautiful in anything, nor lose his intellectual integrity by having to believe what is historically indefensible. I mention these things, because such have become my own convictions, and also to suggest these thoughts for your consideration as well. quote: I wholeheartedly agree. Even the gospels record a misplaced seeking of the miraculous, alongside a wholesome desire for it. I suppose where the focus really goes, must be the criteria upon which judge such phenomena. The existence of counterfeit currency does not discount (but oddly enough, proves) the value of real money. Of course to not be able to obtain the real thing, or to differentiate between the two is a frustrating feeling. It sounds like to me however, that your sadness reveals that you already know something of this difference. quote: Bob, I don't call you closed minded by making distinction. I simply think you may and should go further, without losing that wonderful ability you have of seeing what is lovely everywhere. to a very enjoyable discourse, Later, Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I enjoy it myself. Thank you; I'm pleased you do as well. "Kierkegaard's Absurdity" makes Kierkegaard himself sound silly. His willingness to point out that belief requires a leap into the unknown is not in retrospect such a shocking concept. Even when you read C.S. Lewis talking about his conversion experience, it's clear that Lewis hadn't suddenly gotten that last little logical connection that he'd been missing, all the gaps were closed and now his rationality was convinced of the truth. Lewis is like many in his conversion experience in this way, like Saul to Paul. Perhaps it was an intercession of Grace, if you're in a Calvinist sort of mood; but a shift took place. I hate using the passive voice here and would not had a better words for it. If this is what you care to call Absurd, then I guess I'd have to think of Kierkegaard as an apostle of the Absurd; but I suspect you'd be willing to call it the Grace of God and a genuine Blessing that something would visit somebody with such a force of revelation. Or, in the case of Lewis, with the force of "of course." As in, O Sure, I guess I realize that there is such a thing as gravity now, I wonder why I was putting up such a fuss about the whole thing before? Of Course! Kierkegaard says some folks have that. He doesn't know how or why, I don't believe, but he says yeah, some folks have that bone deep faith and understanding. Some people have to reason it out, and act as though they had that instinctive understanding that's probably as much a gift as anything else. They keep having to work out the mechanics of faith with every situation and every person the meet; it's all reasoned and not always reasoned out right ( or at least I think that's what he's saying). The folks who do things according to reason can be capable of making incredible sacrifices and statements, they can be marvelous people, but they go through life with a sense of necessity, they aren't necessarily lifted by the joy of the whole thing. If this seems a bit much for an agnostic to say to a faithful and honest christian, I can only say how sorry I am, but I've always enjoyed these pieces of philosophy and theology because there's so much life and truth to them, whether you happen to believe in God or not. Probably much better if you do. With Sartre, Absurdity is a different thing. It's a statement in the face of meaninglessness. A man makes decisions about his or her life because they create meaning in a world of despair and randomness. I think that this sort of Absurdity is something that probably is more difficult for you because it accepts a world in which man is the sole creator of meaning. And each man is the creator of his own meaning within that world. Myself, I find this quite a useful bit of philosophy as well, and very useful indeed in helping troubled folks make meaningful lives for themselves. It think at its best, it's not quite as natural as Kierkegaard, but I can't tell you how wobbly I feel in making a judgement like that. It may simply be false. I'll try to get back to you when I've got a bit more time. I think you may be giving Kierkegaard short shrift. Best you all of you there, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Bob, you are very right about me giving him "short shrift". Kirkegaard is someone of whom I am sure of only two things 1) He was brilliant, and 2) he hasn't been read near enough by the likes of me. My plans are to become less and less sure of number 2. Of what I have read of him however (and admittedly what I have read about him through others) has lead me to think there is a strong image of faith and reason as sheer opposites. Wasn't the idea in "Fear and Trembling" that faith (like Abraham's) begins "precisely where thought stops"? Don't worry I don't think this will prevent me from catching the finer nuances of Soren's thinking and insights. But the faith of Abraham can be explained without pitting reason against faith. As Hebrews 11:19 reads "Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. ". It seems the syllogism itself is not in question here, but that which informs it ... more of an epistemological/ relational issue than a logical one. quote: Yes, that's a good way to describe it. But if it is an epiphany, it is one that is much more reasonable than the mindset of "holding out". In my opinion Lewis came not so much to a realization that was above rationality, as an understanding that he was stealthily rebelling against God, and therefore (ultimately) against reason herself. Consider Lewis' own account of his conversion as shared in "Surprised by Joy": "You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape?" It is his own awareness of personal sin that convinces me that Lewis would call his newer state "reasonable" and his former as "rationalizing". This is consistent with Lewis' own Theistic arguments from reason. Other more-vintage writers have made the same point; Anselem, Augustine and Pascal all said something to the effect of "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand". Faith in this paradigm is not the opposite of reason, but the foundation for it. Reasoning to the contrary of faith may be thought of as sometimes internally consistent, but ultimately disconnected and arbitrary ... dimly lit globules floating in the void. One conclusion I hold (that all of these thinkers I think would agree with) is that faith is the opposite of autonomous reason. And that a purely visceral response of faith, like falling in love, can be as reasonable as anything. And though I'm not a Calvinist, I think it is nothing less than the grace of God that would permit (or help) such a thing to occur. quote: Again, those who seemed to defend divine reason the most seemed the more joyful. Wasn't Kirkegaard's life marked by much melancholy, and didn't Lewis (for example) write much more about joy? I know this is anecdotal and perhaps a simplistic way to think about it, but it is interesting to me. The Faith of Soren seems to have been more of a struggle than any faith I've seen excepting my own.  quote: It may ... but a wobbly bridge is better than no bridge. I would say you're better off with Kirkegaard (whose melancholy was silver-lined) than with Sartre's intractable nausea. Sartre's literary gift for expressing his existential crises is not in question. But I would say that you Bob are not at all helping people create their own meaning any more than teaching them to cook would be helping them to create their own food. Purpose is always (by its nature) purposive- being placed, hid for the finding, or what have you ... not random. The nauseous fetter that Sartre would always have to come to is the conclusion that our creations (in a Godless cosmos) must only have the appearance of purpose, being themselves random. More later, Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Bottom line, a “Messiah” whose own family, at any time, thought was nuts is hard to pray to for salvation. There’s too much grasping at straws about it for a thinking man to accept. Ice it as you will the cake beneath tastes just as bad. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I've got kids who with just a glance at certain foods determine they could never be good, because of a certain preconception about appearance ... only many times to discover later (to their delight) that they were being rash. No offense, but frankly, your response reminds me of this. Or do you want to seriously talk about the general premise that family opposition should always go in favor of the family ... or more particularly that a Messiah should stir no controversy? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think this page says it well enough: "Jesus' brothers and sisters (...) During Jesus' life, His half brothers did not believe in Him as Savior and Messiah (John 7:5). Yet, after His resurrection, James became a prominent believer. In Acts 1:14 James, along with his other brothers and his mother Mary, is among the original members of the Church, the same group that received God's Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). James later became a leader of the Jerusalem congregation. He played a prominent role in the conference of Acts 15 (see verses 13-21). Paul later visited James in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18). In Galatians 2:9 Paul refers to James as a "pillar" of the Church. James also wrote the New Testament epistle that bears his name (James 1:1). Another brother listed above, Judas or Judah (Matthew 13:55), wrote the short epistle of Jude (Jude 1). The fact that these relatives, including half brothers who grew up with Him under the same roof, accepted Jesus as Messiah and personal Savior is also strong testimony to fact that He lived an exemplary and sinless life. And the fact that they became believers after His resurrection is a powerful witness to the reality of that resurrection from the grave." There is nothing I know of that indicates his brothers or sisters thought he was "nuts". But there is evidence that they (or most of them) eventually came to believe in him. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, That's what I meant about him being welcomed back to the family reunions. Though to be fair, the text indicates that he was seriously doubted by his brothers, at some point, to some degree. That's hardly incredible though, and hardly discrediting. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "During Jesus' life, His half brothers did not believe in Him as Savior and Messiah (John 7:5). Yet, after His resurrection, James became a prominent believer. In Acts 1:14 James" We'e all understandably afraid of death, and would try desperately to believe anything in mitigation. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, You've already got your theory that covers both mistrust and trust of the selfsame people, one as shrewd honesty and the other as psychological desperation ... a theory which cannot therefore be said to be based upon their observation. Have you asked yourself whether unbelief can be a form of wish fulfillment as well? If Jesus is for real, our hearts are weighed in the balance and the pretense (and peaceful despair) of fading into nonentity is shaken. Our fear is not only of death but something beyond it. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: For sure. But it is far from supporting John's notion that his family thought he was "nuts"! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Perhaps some of the confusion may come from Mark 3:21: kai akousantes hoi par' autou exelthon kratesai auton elegon gar hoti exeste And having-heard those by him came-out to seize him they said for that he-was-put-out (his friends?) (because) (out of his mind?) (his family?) (his people?) Notice how the literal Greek does not specify "friends" "family" "his people", nor "out of his mind" as many translators try. The verb-form exeste (from existemi: ek "out" + histemi "to stand, to put, to be put") may vary in meaning to "he was put out", "he was put out of place, he was changed" to "he was astounded" "he was not himself" "he was out of his mind". I think vaguer translations such as "those with him" and "he was beside himself" are much better in these kind of examples. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, In context I think Mark 3:31 indicates a good probability that 3:21 was referring to his immediate family, especially in view of how his dismissive response to his brothers and mother seemed to firmly prioritize his ministry (or the Kingdom of God) over familial ties. And how much more natural would this kind of response be if formerly they had attempted to "take charge of him"? And though accusing him of insanity might be too strong for translation ... something like "lost his senses" is probably pretty close to what they were thinking. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-03-2008 12:15 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, I admit I think the text would specify it at that point if it were his own mother and brothers that were trying to hold him and saying he is "beside himself" . His mother and brothers are not mentioned until 3:31 and at that point it says they "came" which sounds as if they eventually arrived, instead of being with him already. Then it also says they are standing without or outside, which would suggest they were outside with the crowd instead of inside the house with Jesus and the Apostles. The reason the text simply says "those by him" is probably because it is referring to those it was just referring to in the earlier lines, the Apostles. The Apostles heard the multitude and then go out. They try to stop him and say he is "beside himself" perhaps because they think he is somewhat blindly going into what looks like a dangerous crowd or because he actually is somewhat overwhelmed and somewhat exhausted and therefore "beside himself". But I would not try to impose a specification into a translation itself instead of just letting the vague "those with him" stand. It is because of people trying to impose a specification according to their beliefs that we have such inconsistent translations:. Many translate it as "friends", others "his people" others "his relatives" others "his family", etc. But, the actual Greek behind the translation only says "hoi par' autou" (those by him). |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, Though I think it is a bit stronger contextually to think it was his family, the characterization would still be accurate if it were his disciples. They often grossly misunderstood him and his intentions, and Peter would later presumptuously rebuke him for predicting his own necessary death. I guess it matters little either way. John assumes it is his family; And I often like to give as much as possible in argument, so that the counter-argument may stand even in a worse-case-scenario. If John's reasoning can be shown faulty with Jesus' own family thinking him out of his mind ... how much more doubtful would it be if the text referred only to his impetuous disciples or even acquaintances? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Very true. It would be like discrediting Homer as a poet, or Einstein as a genius, if by chance family initially doubted them or their craft. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So, at the very least, we're conceding there were no bread and fishes, water to wine, walking on water, or raising the dead events to get the relatives on board. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, If miracles didn't (in many cases) convince the devoutly religious Pharisees, why would relatives be any different? Your points seem to be always made in isolation, since it seems fairly clear they did later "get on board". You can counter that by attributing their acceptance to psychological desperation and thanatophobia. But in that case, you've woven an unassailable, if inconsistent, argument. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, I myself am mostly agnostic. But I don't understand where you base the logic in post #42. I don't mean to say it isn't there or couldn't be there. I simply don't see it. Did you by any chance see that lovely link to THE ONION the other day that I think it was JM posted (JM, was that you?)about the atheist miracle. It was gut bustingly funny. Have a look if you can. I'll see if I can find the link for you. Best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I promised a link to an article in THE ONION that I believe I'd seen posed by JM the other day on the off chance it hadn't been seen by folks here. I mentioned it in a prior post that I can't access at this point. I'm therefore writing this: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin And I'm doing so simply to append the link. Bob K. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I personally think they have Darwin confused with Moses. The white beard makes them virtually indistinguishable. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
