Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why am I a Christian?


rhuntermt

Recommended Posts

Gee, a guy gets busy for a few days, returns here and finds the world has changed. Just when I was beginning to learn how to get around here! Not only has this thread disappeared, but I'm not even sure that this is the right section to resurrect it (ironic action, that). There were good posts that I hoped to re-read and respond to, including one that I had to break off in the middle of - are those archived somewhere, and is it worth reproducing them here? The latter is best answered by those who posted the messages to which I have not responded, and which in most cases I most likely have not even read.

 

The discussion was tacking toward this question:

 

Did Paul and possibly other NT writers mean for their readers to understand Christ as myth only, or were they intent on conveying eternal/spiritual truths that were partially revealed in real space/time by Jesus of Nazareth? Most specifically, did Jesus of Nazareth resurrect from death?

 

I had cited as evidence - not proof by any stretch - that the Biblical record indicates that certain of Jesus' followers were profoundly changed from being fearful, dissapointed followers of a rabbi whom they had hoped to be Israel's Messiah, to being bold evangels of the message that God's kingdom had come, could be seen with "spiritual eyes" and would be fully experienced post-mortem through resurrection (of all).

 

I had further asserted that simply discounting the claim of a literal resurrection of Jesus on the presupposition that the entire Bible is myth is illogical given extra-Biblical evidence of the historicity of many of its claims. The teaching of post-mortem resurrection is admittedly a fantastic claim, and so is dissimilar from a claim such as so and so being governor at some particular time. Nevertheless, the authors seemed to take pains to present this fantastic claim within a fabric of verifiable history.

 

The thread also incorporated some discussion of sin, which some here deny exists and assert is mistaken for reality better understood as mistakes. Accepting this latter description for the moment, mistakes are still characteristic of a state of imperfection. The Biblical record holds that imperfection and mortality are necessarily intertwined, as are their opposites (perfection and immortality). The latter thereby becomes another way of introducting the fantastic claim of resurrection.

 

Picking up from there, I'll throw some possibly related information on the dialogue wall to see if any of it sticks. I recently heard a physiciist observe that all mass may be understood as a condensation of energy, a tremendous amount of energy, actually, given the relationship Einstein expressed through E-mcc. Th physicist gave the example of the pen in his hand containing energy equivalent to that of an atom bomb. We haven't the knowledge or power to access that energy, unfortunately, so we are willing to pay $2.80 at tht pump and continue to derive energy from other organisms directly and indirectly from the sun, a vast but still finite source of what we ultimately need to live. [Yesterday I attended the internment of a friend's father who at the age of 86 starved to death not because he could not eat or digest food, but because his body could no longer process the energy provided to do what his body needed to do, e.g., replace old cells with new ones.

 

Which leads to this question: in what sense may the claim of resurrection may be understood as a recondensation of the energy that is you, and what kind of knowledge/power would be requried to accomplish such a thing? Is it knowledge and power that must or probably does not exist (as folks here claim), or is it more likely that with which we are not yet familiar?

 

One other peculiar bit popped into the news this week concerning the fascinating realm where energy and matter disappear into each other. Some of you may be familiar with "strange actions at a distance" the mysterious phenomenon where action on one of two photons generated from a common source causes changes in the second photon. It matters not whether the photons are across the room from each oher or across the country: the impact from measuring just one of the photons produces an identical change in its "twin". This is "merely" nature, but it's cause remains inacessbile to us. The more scientific among us want to work it out, or at least see it worked out.

 

The Biblical assertion is that one being was endowed with knowledge and power to both be perfect/immortal, and to reproduce pefection and immortality from imperfect mortality. Rather than merely stopping with pointing out the irrational assertions that Christian tradition makes out of this being and the scripture that primarily reveals this being to us, ExChristians might be uniquely positioned to work this matter out. As the scripture exhorts: "work ourt your salvation with fear and trembling." When this salvation is understood as resurrection to perfect immortality, then what insights might be available from quantum physics to so "work (it) out"? [bTW, if you read Paul's other uses of the phrase "fear and trembling" you might gather the impression I did, i.e., that he means controlled excitement. That is, although eager anticipation of the result makes it difficult to remain on-task pre-result, the result is sooner and better attained with such discipline.]

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

RH, the topic you were looking for might be in a different place, or just be pushed down in the list. It's sorted by latest responses, so it might be on a separate page.

 

Secondly, the site has changed just a little bit. Instead of "Debate with Christians" there are two sections now:

The Lion's Den and Colosseum

 

The Lion's Den is for wild discussions, and almost "no-rules". Expect hot and emotional responses.

 

The Colosseum is for discussions too, but expects people to behave. More serious debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

This used to be called "Debating with Christians."

 

All the same posts are still here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had cited as evidence - not proof by any stretch - that the Biblical record indicates that certain of Jesus' followers were profoundly changed from being fearful, dissapointed followers of a rabbi whom they had hoped to be Israel's Messiah, to being bold evangels of the message that God's kingdom had come, could be seen with "spiritual eyes" and would be fully experienced post-mortem through resurrection (of all).

Rob

 

Key words here being "the biblical record indicates".. As in the book of Acts, I presume?

 

Let's see. What else does the biblical record indicate in the book of Acts?

1. Ananias and Saphira struck dead 'cause they stiffed God.

2. Peter raises the dead. (Dorcas)

3. Phillip gets teleported.

4. Paul raises the dead. (Eutychus)

5. An earthquake loosens the chains in a Phillipian prison.

 

Just cause it comes in a genuine leather binder, don't mean it's genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just cause it comes in a genuine leather binder, don't mean it's genuine.

 

Mythra:

 

As I recall, you are keen on fantastic claims being backed by fantastic evidence. So, the gospels and Acts record Jesus and the apostles providing fantastic evidence to back fantastic claims (that Jesus was Messiah, in particular). And where exactly does that get them, two thousand years later? Seems a classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. ;-)

 

Rob

 

P.S. Ok, ok: you prefer a continuing stream of evidence, with worldwide distribution, better yet. Precisely what the gospels indicate Jesus said people would want. Ah, but that was just clever writing by politically motivated church leaders centuries later, right? Perhaps, but then they sure did a lousy job of fixing it all up. If it was a movie script, we'd all walk out before intermission (if they had those anymore). Yours is one possible explanation: none of it, or very little of it, is real. Another is that is actual history, no harm/no foul for not believing it now, but everybody will eventually be convinced and gain from the knowledge. Similar to, say, the earth not being flat. Space being curved. Matter being comprised of subatomic particles as condensations of tremendous energy. And that's all just looking in the rearview mirror - unknown wonders lay ahead. Or do you doubt that as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" There is no doubt that the accounts in Acts (as well as in the gospels) are fantastic. But I sure as hell would not refer to the book of Acts as evidence of any kind, let alone extraordinary evidence..

 

There isn't a shred of real evidence that anything in the book of Acts is factual, other than the historical references which were obtained from the writings of Flavius Josephus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul N Tobin writes about Acts here

 

A Christian might think that The Acts of the Apostles, which purports to be a historical account of the development of the early Church, provides complete information about this period of Christianity. However a closer analysis shows that this is not case.

 

First we note that although Christian tradition claims to know the author as Luke, the companion of Paul, the evidence shows otherwise. Indeed the author of the two volume Luke-Acts is unknown to us . [Or course, for ease of reference we will continue to refer to the anonymous author of Acts as "Luke"-but always remembering that this is merely a shorthand for "the anonymous author of the two volume work known to us as the Gospel according to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles"]

 

Furthermore, critical historical research over the past two hundred years have shown that our "Luke" cannot be considered a very reliable historian. In the twentieth century, with the advent of new methodologies of historical and literary research, scholars made another startling discovery: that the speeches in Acts are unhistorical and are essentially the literary invention of the author. Scholars have also noted that the picture of Paul as presented in Acts is not completely compatible with what we can derive from the genuine Pauline epistles.

 

While it is certainly not to be doubted that Acts contained some historical data, care and skepticism must be applied when using the information derived from it.

 

Best historical examination I found is Paul Tobin's Central Thesis.

 

A site worth every moment spent on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.