Do you believe Jesus really rose from the dead?

For the record, I'm not a Christian and I don't believe Jesus really rose from the dead.

I'd be interested in hearing the perspective of a person who is a Christian but doesn't believe in the resurrection.

It seems to be the point to me, but I've found there many people who call themselves Christians who aren't sure he was even a real person.

Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Jesus even if he never did on the cross and died of old age instead.

Because he'd then be just a guy.

And many know he is a guy but he had great ideas that work. SOme thing he became a kind of god but there are many traditions. I think he was a great spiritual teacher with neat ideas for removing problems. Just me.

There wouldn't be a problem following Jesus' teachings, if Jesus was just a good guy....but Christians worship him because he is purported to be divine.

Is Buddha? Now I don't remember. :crazy: I know he reached Nirvana...did that make him a deity? No, right?

I follow his teachings, except for the one about loving him more than my family. I don't remember the chapter and verse, but it's in his book.

The Christian resurrection myth is just one version of the Demeter-Kore/Isis-Osiris-Horus/etc mythological cycle. It became central part of the orthodox (pistic) dogma only relatively late, and has no soteriological meaning for many heterodox christian traditions, such as Gnostic christianity etc.

-- look to mythology and see the root of many "Judeo/Christian" stories -- like the snake in the garden.

that christianity existed long before there was ever a "Jesus Christ."

Sounds strange to some people, but the version of christianity that exists today is a watered down version borrowed from the ancients.

The only way I can reconcile things for myself is to believe that "Jesus" is actually a principle, not a person. His resurrection is a metaphor. People can die spiritually but no matter how bad it gets, there's always a divine spark inside of us that can awaken us. Invigorate us again.

It's definitely possible to be a christian without believing in the literal truth of the "Jesus" story.

I really don't see that believing the literal story has anything to do with being a "christian". It's living your life in accord with the philosophy that counts for me.

Relying on the literal story allows people to say they are christians, but then murder, pillage, rape, enslave, and bomb the fuck out of people. It allows for the disconnect. They take belief in the literal story to be more important than living the life.

It goes against the wisdom of not having Idols. The literal "Jesus" is, after all, the world's greatest idol.

Literalism corrupted what might have been as profoundly wise a system as Buddhism and turned it into mere idolatry.

PS: If all Christianity became less literal and more mythic, it might stand another millennium. I don't see how it can if it insists on asserting one standard of reality for Christ and one for the rest of humanity.

time is up. Every 2,100 years or so, in accord with the precesion of the equinoxes we move into a different zone of the zodiac. Religious myths always correspond to the zodiac. Thus, when we were in Taurus, the signs were the bull and ox, when in Aries, symbolism talked of rams, Pisces, we talk of fishes, etc.

We are moving into a new period and the symbolism has to change again.
What it will be, I don't have a clue. But change it will.

Jesus, bless his heart, is a corruption. Anything taken literally will eventually become a corruption. That's the way things evolve.

To me, christianity was hijacked by white supremacy in the same way that people complain that Islam has been hijacked by the terrorists.
That's why even today, Jesus is still depicted as white, as recently even as in the Passion movie by Mel Gibson. It's also why we have no conscience about bombing the hell out of Iraq. We would never do that to a white christian nation. Not without sufficient provocation, that is.

It's a sad thing to see. How people can corrupt a religion.

Interestingly, Europe nowadays seems pretty over Jesus for the most part.

Why is Christianity called that instead of "Jesusanity"?

Not trying to rile our peeps, but I think somewhere between Aramaic, Hebrew (yesh`ua) and Greek (Iecous), Christ emerged as Chrsein and later referred to as Jesus the Christ (originally, but to be different).

1 Corinthians 15:17

But then there's Bishop Spong--is that his name?--who argues that Christianity has to change and become more relevant to modernity if it wants to survive the next millennium. And there is a type of gnostic Christian that believes the story is to be understood mythically, not literally.

Since I found what I was looking for.

N. T. Wright's book THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD destroys all Spongite and all Gnostic nonsense with overwhelming historical scholarship.

Don't believe me? Read his book.

as it appears (despite major contradictions) in the gospels, that's good for you. But there's a major obstacle between me and believing the story and that is the ton of faith required to believe it is literally true. If you want to have faith that it is literally true, fine. But at some point you are going to have to deal with the faith obstacle for most people who are not Christian.

The reason orthodox and catholic Christianity was so successful as a religious system in the premodern world is that faith was vastly easier without a system for rationality that permitted itself to be guided more by truth than by what was acceptable to faith. But since the Renaissance reawakened the Roman world's interest in science, it has become more difficult for many, many educated people to permit faith to dictate what it is acceptable to know about the world.

adhere to the highest standards of post-Renaissance critical scholarship.

Read them for yourself.

Antonacci proposes several scientific tests of his theory as to how the Shroud was created, and I give details below as to how to get access to his proposal. But I strongly recommend that you read his book, THE RESURRECTION OF THE SHROUD. It is to THE DA VINCI CODE what Shakespeare is to toilet graffiti.

Wright's historical scholarship is of the weightiest, most unimpeachable kind.

As for Catholic Christianity supposedly being inimical to rationality, that's just a canard.

First, logic and rational argument have been very much integrated into the Catholic tradition for centuries. There's been a huge amount of Catholic philosophers, Catholic scientists (Pascal, Mendel, Lemaitre), and Catholic logicians. Catholic education has been second to none in the Western world and in much of the Third World.

True, St Augustine didn't know about the Big Bang--who did in the 5th or 6th century AD? But even he knew that the Genesis account of creation was not meant to be taken literally.

Galileo? Well, the real truth about that is far different from the popular legend:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=559
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/jun00/thomaslessl.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0006.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2605

But none of that is the present issue, which is the Resurrection of Christ. It would be impossible for me to do justice to the work of Wright on the historical question, and Antonacci's work on the Shroud, whose carbon-dating test has now been thrown into confusion because (incredibly) the scientists didn't test a piece of cloth from the Shroud itself, but from a sewn-on repair patch which nuns had added to the Shroud because of a fire some centuries ago.

Antonacci proposes a theory, suggested by experiments done on other pieces of cloth, that the image was created by a form of particle radiation that could not have been humanly produced prior to the Manhattan Project. That would be the closest I think one could get to scientific proof of the Resurrection. The details are spelled out in his "Proposal" available as a 33 page pdf document at
http://www.resurrectionoftheshroud.com/

But even without the Shroud as physical evidence for the Resurrection, Wright's historical work leaves the honest, unbiased reader with the inescapable conclusion that a) the tomb was empty, and b) the disciples of Jesus had visual experiences causing them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead. His marshalling of the evidence is absolutely outstanding, and explicitly conforms to the highest standards of historical scholarship.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

The conclusion of the latter is worth quoting:


Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was
empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced
was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed
fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing
appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the
historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw
any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the
conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open
to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week
before believing what he had been told. On Matthew's mountain, some
had their doubts.

However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding
phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another,
ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and
world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone
would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical
result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as
naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians'
belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted
without demur.

That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted.
There are many other things to say about Jesus' resurrection. But, as
far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other
explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it
did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one
the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from
the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The
origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into
being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the
strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection
and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that
something happened, two or three days after Jesus' death, for which
the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression
we have.

Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and
often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well,
the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of
them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but
utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian's task is not to
force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of
reasoning historians characteristically employ — inference to the best
explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of
the hypothesis thus generated — points strongly towards the bodily
resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on
the historian alone cannot help. When you're dealing with worldviews,
every community and every person must make their choices in the dark,
even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner.

Yes, ah, sir? Um, how can we be certain of your bible being historically accurate - especially on those things where it is the only source of a certain event? And when it provides multiple accounts of a single event which provide contradictory (not complementary) details of said event, how do we reconcile those to determine what really happened?

Well, that's wrong for a start. Just take "the" New Testament.

"It" is not "one" book, or "one" source.

Beginners' stuff, really, but you have to start somewhere, I suppose, and it may as well be at the beginning.

We don't even know for certain who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Try Raymond Brown's book, INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

So there we are. You haven't established the veracity of the bible, so none of your claims are founded.

And some are right, and some are wrong.

The scholarly consensus is that the NT is definitely a multiplicity of works, by various authors, and if you're going to doubt that, I suggest that you do so in public by submitting your alternative theory to a highly reputable academic journal, and then sit back and wait for the rejection notice.

I'm simply asking you to establish the bible's historical veracity. I consider the bible itself to be one "source" simply because the various parts of it were transcribed, re-transcribed, translated, re-translated, compiled, then re-translated again - each step of the way by people with a particular religious agenda.

So far, you've changed the subject and avoided the question: what proves that the bible is accurate in all it says?

I am not a Biblical fundamentalist.

But there's a bunch of articles here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

You can try reading those, supplemented by;

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament

R. E. Brown Introduction to the New Testament

N. T. Wright The Resurrection of the Son of God

You can also consult Wright's earlier volumes in this series on Christian Origins and the Question of God entitled

The New Testament and the People of God

and

Jesus and the Victory of God

They're all available at www.amazon.com

I offer these suggestions because I know that, as an open-minded ardent seeker after truth who never accepts any idea without thoroughly investigating it for yourself, you're very willing to look at all sides of the question, including the best scholarship on the Christian side.

Of course, if you've already read all these works, then you're already an expert on what you're talking about, and so are able to refute them in detail by publishing books and articles yourself, which I look forward to reading at some future date.

Otherwise you'd be holding me to a higher standard than yourself, and I'm sure you would never do that, right?

Can't you please just answer my question instead of appealing to authority?

students sometimes ask questions which really can't be answered in a few sentences. They require a thorough familiarity with the literature.

Suppose I'm a teacher in high school, and in the course of answering another question I have to make reference to quantum physics, and suppose a student asks me to explain what quantum physics is and how it is justified. I just couldn't do it in a single class, and the student would really need to go and read and study a lot of stuff which is quite difficult material, and even then the student might not grasp it fully.

Even a lot of very well educated people don't grasp it fully. Even some theoretical physicists are deeply puzzled by aspects of it. Etc.

Ok, with Biblical scholarship and questions about the reliability of the Biblical texts, there's no way to give a short answer that fully satisfies a questioner, even if they're open-minded and bright. It takes further study, and it's quite difficult material.

The same goes for any academic discipline, in fact. That's why there's universities and other institutions of higher learning, and stuff.

So, I'm suggesting that if you really want to take a real good look at the evidence, and the arguments, and so forth, you need to read some books.

It's not a crime, and it might even change your thinking about certain things.

But if you're unwilling even to give it a try, then I'm not really sure what the point of discussing these issues with you is.

Now a student may say to a physics teacher, on hearing some of the surprising things about quantum mechanics, or about a surprising thing in string theory (such as there being ten spatial dimensions, etc)---things which don't tally with everyday experience---"Hey Mister, that's a load of bull."

But the student would be wrong. But the teacher couldnt' refute the student right away. He could only advise the student to study further, and think about what he learns from that study.

I'm suggesting that things that you think are a load of bull are not a load of bull, and that you're wrong, and I'm suggesting that you study further and think about what you learn from that study.

My mom and I talked about scholarship a while back, and the unfortunate thing is that there just isn't enough time to study in-depth all the various subjects that interest me (or anyone else). At some point, a person has to decide which subjects to focus on, and the rest get at best passing attention.

If I had as much time as Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged I would take time to read all the texts you have referenced (because this stuff interests me) but since I don't, at some point I have to cease arguing because I have no way of determining the veracity of your arguments.

That is disappointing. :(

Just a bunch of obfuscation and misdirection.

Suggesting that you read some books on the topic you're asking about is obfuscation?

Whatever.

you'd be able to express it in your own words instead of just pointing people to a shelf of books before they can hope to converse on it with an expert such as yourself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The reason orthodox and catholic Christianity was so successful as a religious system in the premodern world is that faith was vastly easier without a system for rationality that permitted itself to be guided more by truth than by what was acceptable to faith. But since the Renaissance reawakened the Roman world's interest in science, it has become more difficult for many, many educated people to permit faith to dictate what it is acceptable to know about the world.

You may wish to have a look at the material presented here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=12965&mesg_id=13240

And may I highly recommend a third book for you to read?

Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
by Stephen M. Barr


From Booklist
*Starred Review* Often invoked as justification for unbelief, modern science here provides the basis for an unusual and provocative affirmation of religious faith. A physicist at the University of Delaware, Barr deploys his scientific expertise to challenge the dogmas of materialism and to assert his belief that nothing explains the order of the galaxies better than divine design. To be sure, Barr recognizes that Darwin's work has swept away the arguments of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theologians, who traced the handiwork of God in birds, flowers, and seashells. But the old argument-from-design re-emerges with new sophistication after Barr presses evolutionary theory for a plausible account of the origin of what quantum physics demands--that is, a conscious observer--and comes away with nothing but skepticism about the skeptics. Barr indeed relishes the irony of a skeptical logic of random chance that forces unbelievers who balk at one unobservable God to accept, on doctrinal faith, a myriad of unobservable worlds on which the matter-motion lottery has not produced the winning ticket of conscious intelligence. The absurdity grows even more palpable among astrophysicists who avoid acknowledging the human-friendly pattern in subatomic and cosmic architecture found in the observable universe only by theorizing the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes in which sovereign randomness has dictated other and more hostile architectures. Neither religiously sectarian nor technically daunting, this is a book that invites the widest range of readers to ponder the deepest kind of questions.

Synopsis
A considerable amount of public debate and media print has been devoted to the "war between science and religion". In his accessible and readable book, Stephen M. Barr demonstrates that what is really at war with religion is not science itself, but a philosophy called scientific materialism. "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith" argues that the great discoveries of modern physics are more compatible with the central teachings of Christianity and Judaism about God, the cosmos and the human soul than with the atheistic viewpoint of scientific materialism. Scientific discoveries from the time of Copernicus to the beginning of the 20th century have led many thoughtful people to the conclusion that the universe has no cause or purpose, that the human race is an accidental by-product of blind material forces, and that
the ultimate reality is matter itself. Barr contends that the revolutionary discoveries of the 20th century run counter to this line of thought. He uses five of these discoveries - the Big Bang theory, unified field theories, anthropic coincidences, Godel's Theorem in mathematics, and quantum theory - to cast serious doubt on the materialist's view of the world and to give greater credence to Judeo-Christian claims about God and the universe. Written in clear language, Barr's rigorous and fair text explains modern physics to general readers without oversimplification. Using the insights of modern physics, he reveals that modern scientific discoveries and religious faith are deeply consonant.

Barr's clear and elegant writing is in the best tradition of science for the non-physicist or non-mathematician and will appeal to anyone interested in science and religion.

About the Author
STEPHEN M. BARR is professor of physics at the Bartol Research Institute, University of Delaware.

I've read a lot of books in the areas of philosophy of religion, and philosophy of science and the science-religion relationship. I think this is the best by some distance.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The terminology in the earliest writings is ambivalent, it can refer to final spiritual enlightment ("Kingdom of Heaven", union with God) or physical resurrection. The picture we get from the Gospel of Thomas speaks for the first interpretation.

The early Christians were a mushroom cult. The biblical story of Jesus rising from the dead after three days in a cave is a metaphor for growing mushrooms, probably the Amanita Muscaria, or Fly Agaric fungus, although there's been scientific work showing that ergot derivatives were being used as sacraments at the time as well.

Anyway, you put the spores in a dark place, and they "rise from the dead" in three days.

If you think I'm nuts, just do a little research. By the way, I'm a Quaker. Cheers

Here's a few leads:

John Allegro

http://csp.org/chrestomathy/end_of.html

http://csp.org/chrestomathy/sacred_mushroom2.html

Wasson, Hofmann, Ruck

http://csp.org/chrestomathy/road_to2.html

James Arthur

http://www.jamesarthur.net/mushroom.html

I read this book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, when I was in high school. I had been raised as a Roman Catholic and early on, I have no idea where it came from, I became a very questioning person. the Vietnam war was on (my bother was over there) and the streets were alive with protest. (By the way, what has happened to that kind of passion?) I have since practiced Catholicism just because I am used to the ritual, some of which is rather beautiful. I believe whole-heartedly in the "message" that Jesus carried, but it's not so different from many other prophets. I DO question the impact of it though when I see the slanderous hypocrisy practiced by "Christians," not many of who practice the Commandments - especially those disgusting conservatives. I view the "resurrection" as the fact that light will always triumph over darkness, though in most cases - look at the life of Christ and what's going on in the US now - it takes a while to shine through.

I'll sometimes pop into a catholic mass just to enjoy the ritual and to chill out for a while.

I agree with your other comments as well.

Cheers

So...are you saying you're more of a "following his teachings" kind of Christian? Kind of similar to a Buddhist...?

I don't know much about Quakers.

I didn't become a Quaker until five years ago after the birth of my first daughter.

I gained a fuller understanding of the entheogenic underpinnings of the world's religions after 35 years of casual research. The internet made a lot of good information easily accessible.

It's tragic how ignorant 99% of people are about the matter.

Quakers are what is known as a genuine mystery religion, as opposed to a cult. The religion was founded by a guy named John Fox in the 1600's. During the years before the Revolutionary War, nearly all of the settlers in New Jersey, and many elsewhere in the colonies were Quakers who came to America to escape religious persecution in England and Scotland.

The Society of Friends (Quakers) is considered to be a Christian religion, however not all Quakers are Christians. I got involved with them because they believe in a philosophy of non-violence and social justice. Cheers

You've essentially conceded that your suggestion might be considered absurd. So you'll have to forgive me; I don't know how to point out that Jesus, who wasn't a mushroom, claimed *he* would rise after three days without sounding like a sarcastic jerk.

ON EDIT: Okay, I see you said Jesus *was* a mushroom after all. Ball's still in your court, though. Like you said, a thankless task.

I'm not trying to preach anything here. I fully understand anyone's skepticism. BTW, Quakers as a group generally don't have any better grasp of the "Jesus is a mushroom" concept than anyone else. So it's not a Quaker thing.

I just like to tell the truth once in a while, because everyone is so mixed up, and people die in wars fought over Christianity. (ALL the world's major religions have an entheogenic underpinning or origin.) This is the kind of thing that could take someone a decade to fully understand, it's so far out and has so many aspects.

Edit: I'll add one more reference, by Huston Smith, the foremost authority on the world's religions for the past 40 years.

http://csp.org/cdp/CDP.html

You'll find there are a lot of kooks involved in entheogens, but you'll also find that many of the world's most respected authorities in the fields of religion, chemistry and mycology have published extensively on this arcane subject.

I'm frankly not sure what else to say.

Cheers. :)

2000 years ago Jesus's body would have been at room temperature after death and within hours would have started decomposing. In a few day's the corpse would have been bloated and rotten and oozing fluids and with all those open wounds, maggots would have started feeding by that time. The higher brain tissue would be rotten pulp so he couldn't have regained consciousness etc..

Of coarse depending on the temperature the rate of decomposition could have varied but would have still been Significant no matter what.

No, that little fairy tale isn't true.

for the reasons explained in these articles:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~howardd/miracles.pdf

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

and other articles at this link:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

the I might believe you, once I verified it.

that if I can't, this proves that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then your argument is logically invalid.

and a few day's later got up and walked around and you call me illogical?

I'm saying your argument is illogical, in the sense of being logically invalid, because it is.

Now, if you persist on relying on it, knowing that it's logically invalid, then yes, that would raise questions as to how logical you are.

But to really see where you're going wrong, you'd need to read the article in the first of the links I gave in the post you were replying to. Because you're assuming that nobody can rise from the dead.

But you see, that's the question at issue.

And you're begging it. That's also a logical fallacy. It's called 'petitio principii'.

Now you might argue that you can't prove a negative---that you can't prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead; but that it's up to me to prove that he did.

Well, that's why I gave you those links. To read.

But if you're asking me to give positive reasons for believing that Jesus did rise from the dead, and I give them, and then you refuse to read them, then that would be another example of illogicality on your part.

And soon you'd be hitting a home run as regards being illogical.

It's illogical to be close-minded---to say dogmatically, "It can't have happened". That's what people would have said about various quantum mechanical events that were predicted, and turned out to be the case. Perhaps the most striking example is that specified by Bell's Theorem, and proven experimentally by Alain Aspect. You might want to google on that.

Then there's this lovely quotation from Brian Greene's excellent book on relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory, entitled THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE:

"But for microscopic particles facing a concrete slab, they can and sometimes do borrow enough energy to do what is impossible from the standpoint of classical physics---momentarily penetrate and tunnel through a region that they do not initially have enough energy to enter. As the objects we study become increasingly complicated, consisting of more and more particle constituents, such quantum tunnelling can still occur, but it becomes very unlikely since all the individual particles must be lucky enough to tunnel together. But the shocking episodes of George's disappearing cigar, of an ice cube passing right through the wall of a glass, and of George and Gracie's passing right through a wall of the bar, can happen." (page 116).

ON EDIT, Mark Antonacci speculates that Jesus could have risen from the dead through a wormhole in the fabric of spacetime. You can read about the scientific character of the wormhole concept at www.resurrectionoftheshroud.com

Click on the Proposal section and you'll be able to download a 33 page
Word document, entitled:

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SHROUD
Tests That Could Prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Samples
Already Removed from the Shroud

In that document you can read more details about his wormhole/resurrection theory.

I have no doubts about that whatsoever. Jesus did not die and wake up a few day's later to walk and talk. It isn't possible.

If you dont believe me, read some medical books, it's pretty basic stuff. The body starts rotting withing a few hours after the heart stops.

You "believe" Jesus <rose> from the dead, because of something you read.

I know someone who got married last October. Her father had died the previous year.

He appeared to her in risen glory just before the wedding began.

When I lived in London, I knew a man who was a very good man. He saw the risen Jesus once, and told me about it.

I met a man at a funeral once. He told me that some years before his father had died. He went back to the cemetery a week or so after his father's funeral. He was suddenly aware of his father being present, and received a mental communication which profoundly moved him.

I know a young math student at UCLA. He had a vision of the Virgin Mary in Argentina in December 2002.

And so on.

In the light of these religious experiences, and in light of the fact that I've also had a couple of profound experiences of God personally, I do tend to believe these individuals, and the witness of the New Testament to the resurrection of Jesus.

So, it's not all just from books.

They can even be induced with a little chemical help, and some people need medication to control them.

It's a cerebral cortex phenomenon. People who experience hallucinations usually have a vivid imagination, because it's connected to that.

When your heart stops beating your cerebral cortex dies within a few minutes from lack of oxygen and you no longer exist.

Once you're dead and gone, someone who knew you might hallucinate a vision of you out of their memory, but it wont be you. That isn't possible because you don't exist any longer, except to people who knew you but those will just be memories.

My experiences didn't involve hallucinations. My visual surroundings didn't change at all.

But even if they had, it wouldn't logically follow that they were caused by a brain abnormality.

My best friend actually has been diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy. He's been a militant atheist for years.

If a small child suddenly believed that 2+2=4 because its mother had dropped it on its head (and not because it had learned and understood some basic arithmetic), it wouldn't follow that 2+2 not=4.

Abnormal brain states are often associated with paranoid delusional beliefs that the subject is being persecuted. But many beliefs that sane persons have to the effect that they are being persecuted are, in fact, well-founded. And even in the case of paranoid people, it may actually be the case that some of them are being persecuted.

Moreover, it is obviously the case that a person having a religious experience must be in some brain-state or other while having it. Their brains do not suddenly dematerialize or vanish while they're having them. So one could always point to the person's brain-state as that which is responsible for the experience. But one could also do this in the case of every non-religious experience as well. In neither case would it follow in the least that the associated experience was non-veridical, simply because it depended causally on some brain-state or other.

Furthermore, let's suppose religious experiences are different from all other kinds of experiences. Then it's likely that the underlying brain-states will also always be different from the brain-states associated with other types of experience. Hence it would always be open to an investigator simply to declare by fiat that the relevant brain-states were 'abnormal', simply because they were different. But even that wouldn't show that the 'abnormality' of the brain-state entails that the experience it gives rise to is non-veridical, any more than the unusualness or uncommonness of any other, non-religiously associated brain-state entailed the non-veridicality of the resulting experience.

Some will say that we can't even count religious experiences as evidence for theism, because lots of people have strange experiences which are later shown to be associated with certain kinds of cognitively non-veridical brain states. But how does this show that all religious experiences are merely the products of cognitively non-veridical brain states? Isn't that another blindingly obvious logical fallacy? "Some experiences of very general type A are the products of brain-states of very general type F. Therefore all experiences of very general type A are products of very general brain-states of very general type F." Yup, a fallacy alright.

"Ah, but it's more reasonable to think that such experiences are non-veridical because thinking that is more conformable to the worldview of scientific materialism." Yet again, the objection is logically invalid, because it begs the question at issue---the question being, whether theism, as against scientific materialism, is the correct worldview.

And please name ANY human experience that does not involve some brain event/process or other. There are none? Fine! Would you then infer that that every human experience was therefore illusory, or non-veridical? Of course not!

Many years ago, hominid brains evolved in such a way as to enable humans to experience watching a bird fly in the sky, the taste of ice cream, the sound of music, the sound of words, the emotion of fear in the face of wild animals seeking to eat us, etc. That fact says PRECISELY NOTHING about the veridicality of those experiences. Why should a qualitatively similar fact concerning brain processes say any more than PRECISELY NOTHING about the veridicality of religious experiences?

Hence this type of argument---all religious experiences are caused by brain-states, therefore all religious experiences must be non-veridical---is, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly IDIOTIC.

It also has a name. It is called the Genetic Fallacy. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

What do you think of the Jesus Seminar?

if it wasn't impossible.

because Jesus was "dead" less than two days - from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.

: )

Though not complete, you have Friday, Saturday and Sunday--three days, the first and last of which Jesus was not dead the entire time.

It's all good regardless. I give him props for rising at all. :D

People assumed that the "Sabbath" talked about was regular Saturday Jewish Sabbath. on edit: And I assume Good Friday ("God's Friday"), like Lent, came from the Catholic Church, which is tradition based as well as scripturally based.

However, John 19:31 specifies that the Sabbath involved was a high day/special Sabbath, due to the Passover. If I recall correctly, the "Last Supper" was the Passover Seder.

He was crucified on Passover (Wednesday?), and the women (?) asked he be brought down because they couldn't attend him on the Sabbath (the special sabbath, I think it has to do with the feast of unleavened bread as well?). I won't bore you with the scriptural references.

This makes a lot of sense if you get into the symbolism of Passover, and Jesus being a symbolic lamb....

He rose on "Easter" late Saturday/early Sunday morning, because when the women went to see him, he wasn't there.

(also, the days of the week are obviously in question. I was assuming Easter "Sunday".)

Not a Christian, but I've been reading the Gospel According to Luke...and I gotta say, to an outsider it sounds like a mighty tall tale.
It seems like for people who grow up with it, the story becomes a part of them. It almost doesn't matter if it was "true" or not.

Compared to the Old Testament (with the big whales and the parting the sea), the gospels have always impressed me as ultra tame.

But, I think Jesus was divine. Maybe that's why.

I'd be interested in seeing if you felt the same after reading Matthew--Matt was writing for the Jews, so he focused on the humanity (and not tall-taleish qualities) of Jesus.

for one. But I'll read Matthew. I've always been curious about the story, but didn't want to hear it through anyone else's "filter".

Thanks for the tip. :thumbsup:

So there are miracles sprinkled here and there--I'm *way* used to seeing them, so I'm sure it'll still be a lot more than you may be comfortable with!

I can see how the "Poof! You're better!" seems very Paul Bunyan....eh, I believe it, what can I say.

sometimes I wish I was raised that way. Life seems so much simpler.

:silly:

See my post below... aww crap, just read them all LOL! I think you're going to get "filter" no matter which you do because they were written at different times, for different people.

You wrote: Matt was writing for the Jews, so he focused on the humanity (and not tall-taleish qualities) of Jesus.

I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Matthew was the Town Drunk of Gospel Writers--he not only included most of the other "tall tales," but put in some whoppers that aren't in any of the other Synoptic Gospels.

Disclaimer: Been an atheist for many years. But for many years before that, was a Southern Baptist.

Anyhow, let's look at Matthew's Miracle Record:

Matthew 2:13-16--A newsflash exclusive to Matthew: King Herod The Great slaughters all male infants two years old and under. Only he didn't, because the noted Jewish historians Philo and Flavius Josephus don't mention it, and they absolutely despised Herod. They accused him of virtually everything except excessive flatulence.

If such a cruel and heartless massacre of babies had occurred...or even been rumored...those two would have certainly written it down.

Then there's the problem of Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, who lived in the neighborhood and was a male under the age of two at the time. Why wasn't he killed?

Matthew 21:19--Ah! One of my favorites, since it makes Jesus look not only childish but pretty stupid. Jesus "withers" a fig tree because it's not bearing fruit out of season. Sounds pretty miraculous to me.

Matthew 8:28-33--Devils cast out of two people and into a herd of Gadarene swine, who commit swinicide by jumping over a cliff. What were all those swine doing in a seriously kosher neighborhood where they were considered "unclean," anyway?

Matthew 9:18--Jesus raises a "ruler's" daughter from the dead. Definitely pegs my tall-tale scale.

Matthew 10:1-8--Like any good CEO, Jesus delegates. He gives the apostles the power to cast out demons, heal the sick, and raise the dead. I'd consider those "miracles."

Matthew 27:52-53--Another Matthew exclusive! After the crucifixion, according to Matthew...but nobody else...the dead bodies of the "saints" are resurrected.

"...and coming out of their graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many."

There were animated corpses walking all over Jerusalem appearing to people?

You'd think at least a couple of other people might have noticed THAT.

There are miracles in Matthew, which I admitted (I meant to, if I didn't)--but Matthew's main concern was proving that Jesus was a Jew (and yeah, the Jewish Messiah). Actually, I'd argue that that's where the Herod baby killing comes into play (as a throwback to Moses). Mattie begins with a genealogy involving Abraham and David leading to Jesus, showing that he is a man, and he is a Jew. (what's weird about that, though, is--doesn't family go through *women* in Judaism?)

There are numerous allusions to fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, he goes into the John/Jesus baptism thing (to make sure everyone knows Jesus is the messiah, not John). Mark had written the first gospel as a sort of quick "there's this guy Jesus, he's the son of God" pamphlet--he had done some work with Barnabas and Paul...in Rome presumably. Matthew drew on that and did a "Hey and he was a Jew!" thing. Hmm, perhaps I should have recommended Mark. READ MARK, WTMUSIC! :)

I did some study of Matthew vs. John in college...Just to make sure I wasn't too far off the mark, I did just google and found a neato table comparison of the gospels, with who the audience was, how many miracles are in each one (the one with the fewest is John, which strikes me as funny.)

http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/glance.asp

Oh, and let me end this obnoxiously long post by just saying that I take a number of things in the bible with a grain of salt--realizing that they were trying to get people excited. I am pretty comfortable with the actual words and actions of Jesus as recorded, and the resurrection (for reasons I'll spare you right now!). Everything else
I think about.

King Herod The Great slaughters all male infants two years old and under. Only he didn't, because the noted Jewish historians Philo and Flavius Josephus don't mention it, and they absolutely despised Herod. They accused him of virtually everything except excessive flatulence.

If such a cruel and heartless massacre of babies had occurred...or even been rumored...those two would have certainly written it down.

Then there's the problem of Jesus' cousin, John the Baptist, who lived in the neighborhood and was a male under the age of two at the time. Why wasn't he killed?

First, Bethlehem at the time of Jesus's birth would have had a population of less than 1,000 people. How many of them would have been male children under the age 2? Not a huge number. A few dozen at most.

Second, from the point of view of people writing about events in the Roman Empire, Bethlehem would have been about as insignificant a village as one could get. Even the Old Testament remarks on its smallness and seeming unimportance (Micah 5:2).

Third, Herod was known to be a monster. If the only bad thing he ever did was slaughtering a dozen or two infants in Bethlehem, then that might have attracted some attention. But if slaughter and torture was his standard and routine MO, then, not merely the massacre of infants in Bethlehem but quite a few other instances of it might have escaped the notice of historians, or not have been thought worthy of special mention. One can easily imagine someone writing a historical summary of Stalin's career not specifically mentioning every bad thing he ever did as a ruler. This would be more true of ancient historians, who were not peer reviewed or subject to modern academic standards of scholarship.

Fourth, Philo was primarily a philosopher, not a historian, who would have been in his teens when the putative Bethlehem massacre took place. Josephus wasn't born until about 40 years after it. Since history was not a formal and organized discipline at that time, and society was largely illiterate, written sources used by Josephus and Philo would have been patchy, not comprehensive. Certainly Herod himself is unlikely to have written down a record of all his atrocities. So the likelihood is that the sources for this event would have been exclusively local and oral. But by the time Josephus was writing (Jewish Antiquities is dated 93AD), all or almost all of the inhabitants of Bethlehem at the time of the putative massacre would have been dead. It's easy to see why, if only, say, 35 infants were killed, that after almost 100 years, this would have been largely forgotten about against the backdrop of Herod's many known other cruelties.

Fifth, Herod killed several of his own sons. So ordering the massacre of children would not have been out of character, and we know that he had an uncontrollable bloodthirsty wrath that was directed against anyone threatening his kingship, and there's some evidence that he may have been going insane in his last years. Matthew was written before Josephus was writing about Herod, so this fact could not have been known to Matthew via Josephus. That actually bolsters the case that Matthew wasn't making it up.

Sixth, the mother of John the Baptist, Elizabeth, lived in "the hill country of Judaea". That's a much wider area than just the immediate environs of Bethlehem.

I think everybody ignores Jesus these days. For example, He says to sell all of your possessions and follow Him, among other things. But, I never see anybody do this...their faith only goes as far as the shopping mall or investment center.

What I find most ironic are people driving up to their christian church in a new luxury car, wearing designer duds, etc. I love all the solid gold crosses (inlaid with diamonds, of course) that women from places like Dallas, Texas wear around their necks.

But getting back to Jesus....there is no scientific proof of a resurrection, so wouldn't a person have to be gullible to truly believe this?

(Between you and me, I think that's kind of perverse. :shrug: )

There is a lot more evidence that the personal witnesses of who Jesus was, are accurate than say the accounts of Ulysses's, Homer, Genghis Klan just for an example.

The original first hand written documents of the time of Jesus are less than 100 years old as compared to the first hand accounts of many ancient writings are literally 1,000 of years old telling us about ancient people.

there is no scientific proof of a resurrection, so wouldn't a person have to be gullible to truly believe this?

Let me recommend that you read two books:

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD, by N. T. Wright

and THE RESURRECTION OF THE SHROUD, by Mark Antonacci.

If doing so doesn't change your mind, then let me know why.

Incidentally, you can read all about the latest carbon-dating news
story at http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#rogers

This is the no.1 Shroud website on the net, with loads of material,
from serious students of the Shroud, on all sides of the question.

Ray Rogers is the guy who has come out with the latest research finding that questions the original carbon-dating test and reveals that it was performed on the wrong piece of cloth, one that was (incredibly) not part of the Shroud cloth, but an added patch.

Rogers is now saying that the Shroud itself is much older than the original test placed it, and he estimates a wide period, in which the time of Jesus would be included, (in roughly the middle of the range).

What is all the more remarkable about this is that Ray Rogers had previously criticized aspects of Antonacci's book some time ago.

Antonacci wrote a response at that time which you can read here:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/antonaci.pdf

That Rogers should now be the one to confirm an older date for the
Shroud (including the possibility that it dates from the time of
Jesus) and to discredit the carbon-14 dating test is kind of mind-blowing in itself.

Antonacci has a proposal for a series of scientific tests of the
Shroud, which you can download from his website,
http://www.resurrectionoftheshroud.com/

Click on the Proposal section and you'll be able to download a 33 page
Word document, entitled:

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SHROUD
Tests That Could Prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Samples
Already Removed from the Shroud

no tax decrees, birth or death decrees, school decrees, or any historical records whatsoever that Jesus even existed much less rose from the dead.

You are just killing me with the naivete. Do you really investigate or do you only read what you want to hear?

No disrespect as you may be a tad bit young. Talk about buying something hook, line and sinker!!? I appologize if you're a youngster, but if not, you got a lot to learn about scholarship.

It's amusing that you think that the consensus among serious historians is to doubt the historical existence of Jesus.

No, the consensus is that Jesus was a real historical person, and the Jesus Myth folks are considered mavericks and fanatics:


I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time. Here are some examples....

....In his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

that Jesus never existed. What I said is that there is no historical proof that he did.

No matter how you slice it, the fact of the matter is, whether Jesus actually existed or rose from the dead is a matter of BELIEF. It can't be proven. And I find your resort to crap like the "shroud" as proof, to be ridiculous.

You seem to only want to read people who have come to the same conclusions that you have. For me on the other hand, I was practicallly raised in the church, in a very super religious atmosphere, I believed every inch of the Bible for years, I had no problem conducting a real investigation and truth be told, it hurt when I found out, but there is absolutely no historical record whatsoever proving that Jesus Christ ever walked the earth. On the other hand, there is absolute proof that people such as Julius Caeser walked this planet.

And if you really investigate, you will find out that christianity existed long before Jesus.

Don't be afraid like so many other people, my family included, to read things that don't support your personal beliefs and conclusions.
Don't be like a horse with blinders on afraid to confront the truth.

It's a matter of faith and belief my friend and to pretend otherwise makes people look a little ... well I won't say it because I know you are very sincere.

But these people you think are scholars are not engaging in scholarship. They are pushing a belief.

It would behoove you to just say you believe so and so. Not present charlatan trickery like shrouds as facts to prove your point.

That is what I meant when I said "you are killing me". You're calling quakery "scholarship" in the attempt to give it credibility.

The serious historians' consensus is that Jesus is a real historical person.

Both in terms of quantity of manuscript attestation and shortness of time interval from authors to earliest extant copies of the texts, the New Testament FAR surpasses ANY other writing from antiquity in its quality of bibliographic attestation.

I actually have the detailed numbers for manuscripts and time intervals comparing the New Testament with the works of Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Sophocles, Thucydides, Euripides, Aristophanes, Lysias, Xenophon, Plato, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Euclid, Epicurus, Polybius, Cicero, Catullus, Lucretius, Sallust, Virgil, Horace, Livy, Propertius, Tibullus, Ovid, Lucan, Seneca the Younger, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Florus, Juvenal, Ptolemy, Appian, and Galen, if anyone wants them.

The New Testament beats them all out of sight. Thus, if one were to say that Jesus never existed, one would have to doubt even more strongly every single other personage mentioned in the literature of antiquity as being historically a real person.

....A second example is the Annals of the famous historian Tacitus, the first six books of which are in a single manuscript dating from the ninth century.

2. How long is the interval of time between the composition of the books of the New Testament and the dates of the earliest of our manuscripts?

The great biblical scholar Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, and second to none in authority for issuing statements about manuscripts, concluded that: "... besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors, and this time the difference is clear again. In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament" (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 4)......

.....Bruce also points out that The History of Thucydides (circa 460-400 BC) comes to us from eight manuscripts, the earliest dating from circa A.D. 900 along with a few papyrus scraps from the beginning of the Christian era.

"The same is true for Herodotus," Bruce says, "Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals" (pp. 16-17).

More here.

You think the Shroud is worthless as evidence. I disagree, and I think you would be compelled to change your mind about if you read Antonacci's book.

before Pontius Pilate or the tax records of anyone in Nazareth from that period or the birth or death certificate for any human being who lived in Roman-occupied Judaea, then I might consider that your argument held water.

Jesus never had a birth certificate. No one did in those days. He never had a driver's license or a high school yearbook picture or any other kind of record that we consider documentation nowadays.

You can't prove that any individual outside the real upper crust existed in those days. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. If Pontius Pilate kept records of the people he ordered crucified, they have not survived.

I am not saying that the lack of records is a proof of existence. I'm saying that you can't use the historical records as proof either way.

Have you ever done any research that required knowledge of premodern history? My research specialty required working with written records of the 10th through 14th centuries in Japan. Due to warfare, earthquakes, and just plain mold and insects, vast quantities of information that SHOULD be there are lost. I could find hints of what had happened, and I could make inferences, but the documents that would have proved my theory right or wrong just weren't there.

Imagine how much worse the problem would be if we're talking about 2000 years ago.

don't exist. There's no historical documentation. That's a fact.

That's my point and you seem to be a bit perturbed that that is the case.

I don't buy the idea bandied about that he was so unknown when he did his thing and it was only later that Jesus became really known. People who went around raising the dead tended to attract notice, no matter whether they were "real upper crust" or not. Simon Magus among others. There is historical documentation for people who were not "upper crust".

Now just because I'm making these points is not to argue that Jesus did not exist. I never said he did not exist, and neither have I said he did exist. I simply don't know, and that fact or non-fact is not significant to me in any way since I subscribe to Jesus' philosophy irrespective of whether he was born of a virgin, or the Son of God, or rose from the dead, or performed miracles. I don't need to believe in those things to know that what he said is true and right and the way we should live and behave. I am a christian because of that, and not because I believe he was divine, or whatever.

And therein lies the rub. Because it's really the teaching and the philosophy that's important. I see the same teachings in the Koran and in Islam, but because one group calls the teaching "Jesus" and the other group calls it "Allah", another calls it "Buddha", and so forth, and they war on each other.

But having said all that. We agree on at least one single point. There really is no historical documentation.

is the fundamental point of difference between Christianity and all other minor and major world religion's,

It was the proof of his claims on being the son of God.

I do believe he did indeed rise from the dead.

from the dead. :wtf:

:)

"Resurrection" is piece of cake for the Taoist magicians... ;)

no big deal for many adept in the esoteric arts & healing ;)

edit to add word

The Jesus story is an amalgam of other god stories popular at the time. It's a nice story, but that's all it is.

by the Church of Rome.

Unless they are zombies. Or unless they are in a Mel Brooks movie with Madeline Khan and Gene Wilder.

In the Bible, the symbology of being raised from the dead meant a return from excommunication, such as in the case of Simon Zelotes (Lazarus.)

Also, Jesus didn't die on the cross. He survived. He died much later on (after having fathered three children: Tamra (sp?) (daughter and first-born), Jesus, Joseph(es) - also known as the Grail Child.


You can read more here:
http://graal.co.uk/

I am not convinced that there ever was a man named Jesus. From a scientific historical perspective, there is simply not much direct evidence supporting Jesus as historical figure.

Unless of course you believe in the bible as an historical text.

As for raising from the dead, I am not familiar with any method of reanimation. The whole story is improbable. :evilgrin:

and he lived around the time the Bible say's (give or take a year).

All the rest was made up by early Christians. People cant walk on water, change water to wine or raise from the dead after several day's of rotting.

There may have been a man named Jesus, a charismatic figure of the time. The folk lore surrounding him was created by early christians and adopted from numerous stories passed down from generations. The obvious violations of natural science demonstrates the myth behind the mortal Jesus.:evilgrin:

The questioner (I, Burt Worm) agrees with you that the evidence for such a historical figure is unconvincing.

rolling over in his grave now, because of what is being done in his name.

Wonder what he'd think of them worshiping his corpse, all bloody, and nailed to a cross? I think he'd be mortified.

There's very little Jesus in Christianity regardless.

Mark Antonacci speculates that Jesus could have risen from the dead through a wormhole in the fabric of spacetime. You can read about the scientific character of the wormhole concept at www.resurrectionoftheshroud.com

Click on the Proposal section and you'll be able to download a 33 page
document, entitled:

THE RESURRECTION OF THE SHROUD
Tests That Could Prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Samples
Already Removed from the Shroud

In that document you can read more details about his wormhole/resurrection theory. It's quite fascinating.

that settles it.

Interesting thread.

Burtworm: I am glad you asked this question in a thread; I am very much interested in seeing the end results of your poll. Have you ever read anything by Joseph Campbell?

Stunster: I am interested in knowing your educational background, if you don't mind.

Stephanie

the name of which I can't remember just now. Something about the hero. I believe Jesus is pure myth, by the way.

Yep!

Jesus, at this point IS pure myth--the problem is that most people are unable to define "myth"--and when you try to talk to folks about Jesus' myth...they see that word as having a negative connotation.

I think Stunster is pretty much going to ignore me; I guess it's not fun to talk to someone who is in college studying the ministry, and married to an atheist, eh.

Oh well...

Bill Moyers interviewed J. Campbell, and the interview is in book form; it's fascinating and fun reading.

Americans choose to be ignorant, even when they read. Sad.

Stephanie

I, too, am an atheist, but I would have no problem with a Christianity that understood myth in the terms I believe you're speaking of. I think it would rejuvenate Christianity and make it broadly relevant again if it dropped the whole historicism/literalism bit. I like what Solomon and you have been saying in this thread.

The idea of Jesus physically rising from the dead is intended to appeal to immature Christians. It's only an idea that appeals to those who are not able to grasp the higher meaning of the gospels.

Years ago, Gandhi explained it this way: "Jesus was a Jew. He was the finest flower of Judaism. You can see that from the four stories of the four apostles. They told the truth about Jesus. Paul was not a Jew, he was a Greek, he had an oratorical mind, a dialectical mind, and he distorted Jesus. Jesus possessed a great force, the love force, but Christianity became disfigured when it went west. It became the religion of kings."

Organized Christianity is immature Christianity. The church prevents many good and religious people from experiencing Christ. It has taken Jesus out of the context of humanity, where he belongs as the Son of Man -- his term -- and created a Christ on a stained glass window.

B-)

is resurrected, so it was no big deal that Jesus was. Any other way to interpret it?

I also believe in his commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." Conservatives have no problem believing he rose from the dead, but they have a hard time admitting that he actually said what's in that bible they thump so much.

I love my God, and I'm tired of watching those people try to destroy him. Sorry, not sure how relevant this is to the thread, just had to vent a bit. I've been arguing with some conservative baptists tonight.

:shrug: