Antlerman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Ahh yes, Magritte's, 'This is not a pipe'. The surrealists. But do you mean mythicism, or mysticism? In mysticism, it's this world that becomes surreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Combo: Mysthicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Combo: Mysthicism. This is not a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Combo: Mysthicism. This is not a It's not a snowman holding a snow globe in a snowstorm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Combo: Mysthicism. This is not a It's not a snowman holding a snow globe in a snowstorm... It is nt snowperson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Keep going. You two will get it. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 There is no it. It's just an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2012 Seems the Pope has gone public recently with a few admissions to partial myth: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/ Pope admits donkeys and cattle in nativity scene are a 'myth' Thursday, 22 November 2012 01:30 Acharya S Contributing Writers - Acharya S/D.M. Murdock As are the rest of this cast of characters. Sounds like the pope took a swig of truth serum recently. He has also admitted the dating of 0 AD/CE does not represent the "real" year of Christ's birth. What is the world coming to? Next he'll be calling Christ the "Sun of Righteousness." (Mal 4:2) Nativity donkeys and cattle are a myth, says Pope With just over a month to go before Christmas, the Pope has declared that the presence of animals like cattle and donkeys in traditional Nativity scenes is based on little more than a myth.... Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.... "The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice." Basically, the pope has just admitted Jesus wasn't born in 0 AD/CE and the nativity scene is fake. That's two mythicist premises down - many more to go! One must ask, of course, why the pope needs to cite scholarly consensus when raising the issue of Jesus's alleged birth date - has not God, the Holy Spirit or Jesus himself informed the pope, who is supposed to be the direct pipeline for the Trinity in Unity? Funny stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 What would be notable is if he said what it said in the Bible itself was likely a latter embellishment and had no real basis in history. Admitting there were no animals in the Nativity is like saying there is no Santa Clause, Christmas trees, or flying reindeer in the Bible either. Hardly faith shaking to believers everywhere. But then again, I'm sure some will see the Pope as the Antichrist now for denying them their little wooden donkeys next to baby Jesus. Can you imagine if he said it's likely Mary wasn't a virgin? Now that would be huge! Try to imagine the world the next day following that from the Pope! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2012 ^ Having been raised Adventist on the doctrine that the anti-Christ will be a future Pope, yeah, I'm sure there would be SDA's speculating about that very thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 A lot of discussion has transpired since I was last here (I have not yet read it all), so I'm not sure if I should reply or not. But, oh well.... But no, actually truth is not always a matter of facts. With that, I could not disagree more. You're usually pretty enlightening, but that statement, as it is worded, is nonsense. In Yoda's voice, so certain are you? Truth IS ALWAYS a matter of the facts. Except of course when you step outside that understanding. Take a look through these major theories of truth, and we'll pick this up once you've processed these. I can add more, but I'll let you expand your understanding with this for now: http://en.wikipedia....eories_of_truth Maybe I'm not so unenlightened? Sorry if my point wasn't clear, but it seems that you're talking about something completely different from what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about what is perceived as truth or accepted as truth by society, nor am I talking about abstract concepts. I'm talking about actual truth of events in history. If it is a fact that Jesus existed, then it is true that Jesus existed. If it is a fact that Jesus did not exist, then it is not true that he existed. The cold, hard reality of it is that truth=fact. We may never really know the truth due to not ever being able to know all of the facts, but what actually is true and factual is not determined by what we think is true or factual. What really is true IS ALWAYS what is factual. And that's a matter of fact, man. Enough about that. I really don't see any point in me being involved in this discussion any further. The rest of y'all carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted December 6, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 6, 2012 Neil Godfrey just posted another interesting blog about Ehrman: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/bart-ehrmans-unture-claims-about-the-nazareth-arguments-2/#more-33273 Unture claim #4 Frank Zindler . . . tries to deconstruct on a fairly simple level the geographical places associated with Jesus, especially Nazareth. (p. 191) Ehrman has a fairly difficult to fathom idea of what constitutes a “fairly simple” argument for the nonhistoricity of certain gospel place-names. Bringing all the following to bear upon such a discussion (as Zindler does) is apparently considered a “fairly simple” treatment in Ehrman’s eyes: citing the absence of archaeological evidence for places, the absence of any contemporary evidence for the existence of certain places, a critical examination of the literature on the Greek words that have sometimes been popularly accepted as evidence of similar sounding names, a comparison of the ancient geographical descriptions of certain places that some scholars have associated with biblical place-names and a demonstration that the biblical settings do not match the external descriptions or geography, a demonstration that the biblical names are evidently puns on some activity Jesus performed in those places, scholarly discussions about the origins of some of the place-names as can be traced through the manuscript evidence Not only Nazareth, but Capernaum, Bethphage, Bethany, Bethabara, Magdala, Aenon, Gethsemane, Golgotha, Calvary are all as fictitious as the Land of Oz’s “Emerald City”. They are, for most part, theological puns . . . Nazareth is given no more than four and a half pages in Zindler’s fourteen page article. Zindler also addresses the evidence that Capernaum, Bethphage, Bethany, Bethabara, Magdala, Aenon are all as fictitious as the Land of Oz’s “Emerald City”, and refers further to Gethsemane, Golgotha, Calvary in the same context. They are, for most part, puns appropriate to the particular miracles or other events that took place there. (I have myself posted the evidence for some of this on my blog.) The evidence that does exist testifies that not one of them was known to anyone within generations of the time the Gospels were written. That is interesting with respect to mythology as symbolic spiritual teaching more so than an historical guide to be taken literally as if the historical context makes or breaks the spiritual teaching. This sort of thing merely teases up to the surface what the original intentions of the authors might have been. This is yet another reason I prefer to take the whole story as mythological until proven otherwise. There's nothing wrong with the whole thing being mythological and the hero a composite of many things tossed in together and idealized, like these psuedo-historical locations that were likely given to concrete locations after the fact, like Kokomo bars in the Keys or something to that effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Seems the Pope has gone public recently with a few admissions to partial myth: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/ Pope admits donkeys and cattle in nativity scene are a 'myth' Thursday, 22 November 2012 01:30 Acharya S Contributing Writers- Acharya S/D.M. Murdock As are the rest of this cast of characters. Sounds like the pope took a swig of truth serum recently. He has also admitted the dating of 0 AD/CE does not represent the "real" year of Christ's birth. What is the world coming to? Next he'll be calling Christ the "Sun of Righteousness." (Mal 4:2) Nativity donkeys and cattle are a myth, says Pope With just over a month to go before Christmas, the Pope has declared that the presence of animals like cattle and donkeys in traditional Nativity scenes is based on little more than a myth.... Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.... "The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice." Basically, the pope has just admitted Jesus wasn't born in 0 AD/CE and the nativity scene is fake. That's two mythicist premises down - many more to go! One must ask, of course, why the pope needs to cite scholarly consensus when raising the issue of Jesus's alleged birth date - has not God, the Holy Spirit or Jesus himself informed the pope, who is supposed to be the direct pipeline for the Trinity in Unity? Funny stuff. Funny. The person who wrote the comments doesn't understand how Catholicism works, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts