Originally posted by NemesioIf He didn't ascend, then all that means is He didn't ascend.
This is your greatest failing, Darfius.
If He didn't ascend, then all that means is He didn't ascend.
That doesn't invalidate any of His teachings, His Message, or His
ministry.
The clinging to literalism (even though you aren't a literalist, clearly)
is desparation. The miraculous stories are the least important
data in the Bible. ...[text shortened]... need is the most important, for in living a life of living faith is true
salvation.
Nemesio
That doesn't invalidate any of His teachings, His Message, or His
ministry.
I'm not sure the Ascension has all that much theological value, so I'm going to use the Resurrection instead.
If He didn't Resurrect Himself, then He isn't the begotten Son of God. If He isn't the begotten Son of God, then he was just another human being. If he's just another human being, then his death had no salvific value. If his death had no salvific value, then the human race is still in the same condition it was in before Christ came along. What condition is that? Should we still be waiting for another Messiah to come along? Should we reject the notion of original sin altogether? Is God, then, responsible for human suffering? Is such a God even good?
So, Darf is right - without such critical events in Christ's life as the Resurrection (and the Ascension), Christianity collapses. Does that invalidate his teachings? In a sense, no - his teachings still have value in terms of leading us to lead "good" lives.
The message of love for all and especially for those
in need is the most important, for in living a life of living faith is true
salvation.
Salvation - from what? Living faith - in what?
Originally posted by lucifershammer
If He didn't Resurrect Himself, then He isn't the begotten Son of God. If He isn't the begotten Son of God, then he was just another human being. If he's just another human being, then his death had no salvific value. If his death had no salvific value, then the human race is still in the same condition it was in before Christ came along. What condition is that? Should we still be waiting for another Messiah to come along? Should we reject the notion of original sin altogether? Is God, then, responsible for human suffering? Is such a God even good?
You are making the presumption that His death had to have salvific value, that salvation was
something that no one had available to them before Jesus's existence, and, naturally, that such a
salvation didn't exist after Jesus died (presuming He wasn't raised).
If the human race is still in the same condition before, so what? What did 1st-century BCE Jews
say about themselves? That they were damned? If we ignore the entirety of the NT (say, rather
than just ignoring the Resurrection), why should we say that now?
It is only because, in light of the reports of Jesus that have come down, Jesus's followers assert
that damnation occurs in the absence of a belief in the Resurrection. It is circular. Such a belief
-- that all people are damned -- did not exist before Jesus.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]If He didn't Resurrect Himself, then He isn't the begotten Son of God. If He isn't the begotten Son of God, then he was just another human being. If he's just another human being, then his ...[text shortened]... ll people are damned -- did not exist before Jesus.
Nemesio[/b]
You are making the presumption that His death had to have salvific value, that salvation was
something that no one had available to them before Jesus's existence, and, naturally, that such a
salvation didn't exist after Jesus died (presuming He wasn't raised).
If you read the last three questions of that paragraph, you will see that this is precisely what I am asking.
If the human race is still in the same condition before, so what?
Note that the implicit question here (Do people need to be saved) is different from the question raised in the next two paragraphs. I will return to this question at the end of the post.
What did 1st-century BCE Jews
say about themselves? That they were damned? If we ignore the entirety of the NT (say, rather
than just ignoring the Resurrection), why should we say that now?
This is a different question altogether (Did people believe they needed to be saved) from the one raised in the previous paragraph.
Another example - does the assessment of whether a particular person needs medicine or not depend on whether he believes he needs it?
Of course not.
It is only because, in light of the reports of Jesus that have come down, Jesus's followers assert
that damnation occurs in the absence of a belief in the Resurrection. It is circular. Such a belief
-- that all people are damned -- did not exist before Jesus.
As I pointed out, whether the belief existed or not before Jesus is separate from the question of whether or not it is true.
In my post, I said that if Christ's death has no salvific value, then the human condition is the same as it was before His life and death[1]. I think you agree. But what is that condition? What is the condition of existence that man finds himself in? He is mortal, living in a world of pain and suffering. What is salvation? The hope of something better in the life hereafter, a life free of the pain he lives with.
If mankind never needed salvation, then salvation was always available to him. What, then, is the purpose of this painful existence? What was its efficient cause? Why did an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God [2] create such an existence? Is it just a test for the life after? Is it just a perverse game? What does that say about God?
LH
[1] Assuming of course, that no other person's death had a similar salvific value!
[2] I know that atheists and pantheists will have a different viewpoint on this.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI should have been more clear.
...
If Jesus wasn't raised, it means that (some) Christians are wrong:
that salvation isn't predicated on the Cross.
It does NOT mean that people aren't saved, or that they weren't or
won't be.
None of that affects whether Jesus was a really cool guy, or was
'God-touched' or a conduit through which God spoke or anything else.
It also does not entail that, through Christ and Christianity, one can
come to be saved by other means.
All His not being raised means is that (some) Christians are wrong
about what makes for a saved soul. That's it!
Of course, we are talking about a literal Resurrection. There have
been a few authors (and priests!) who think, and believe fervantly,
in a figurative Resurrection, that such an understanding is more
theologically meaningful. Some even hold that a literal understadning
inhibits faith!
It is an interesting topic.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOf course, we are talking about a literal Resurrection. There have
I should have been more clear.
If Jesus wasn't raised, it means that (some) Christians are wrong:
that salvation isn't predicated on the Cross.
It does NOT mean that people aren't saved, or that they weren't or
won't be.
None of that affects whether Jesus was a really cool guy, or was
'God-touched' or a conduit through which God spoke or ...[text shortened]... ven hold that a literal understadning
inhibits faith!
It is an interesting topic.
Nemesio
been a few authors (and priests!) who think, and believe fervantly,
in a figurative Resurrection, that such an understanding is more
theologically meaningful.
"It is hardly surprising ..., that the more the barrier of historical science tends to divide faith and history, the more theology seeks to escape in one way or the other from the dilemma of the simultaneous existence of both."
- Ratzinger. Introduction to Christianity. pp.196-197.
Originally posted by lucifershammerBy my comment, I meant people who deny the literal Resurrection (a previously dead
"It is hardly surprising ..., that the more the barrier of historical science tends to divide faith and history, the more theology seeks to escape in one way or the other from the dilemma of the simultaneous existence of both."
- Ratzinger. Introduction to Christianity. pp.196-197.
body given life again) but embrace a metaphorical Resurrection and are still comfortable
going to Mass/Services on a Sunday-to-Sunday basis.
I rather doubt that Benedict nee Ratzinger would embrace such a view or consider it
to be concordant with Orthodox Catholicism.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOriginally posted by Nemesio
By my comment, I meant people who deny the literal Resurrection (a previously dead
body given life again) but embrace a metaphorical Resurrection and are still comfortable
going to Mass/Services on a Sunday-to-Sunday basis.
I rather do ...[text shortened]... onsider it
to be concordant with Orthodox Catholicism.
Nemesio
By my comment, I meant people who deny the literal Resurrection (a previously dead
body given life again) but embrace a metaphorical Resurrection and are still comfortable
going to Mass/Services on a Sunday-to-Sunday basis.
I wonder whether they realise what they're doing when they say the Creed (in particular, the fifth and twelfth articles).
I rather doubt that Benedict nee Ratzinger would embrace such a view or consider it
to be concordant with Orthodox Catholicism.
No Pope would, without turning heretical.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI assume you mean the Nicene Creed, right?
I wonder whether they realise what they're doing when they say the Creed (in particular, the fifth and twelfth articles).
Is the fifth: Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures...
and the twelfth: And the Life of the world to come...?
I would suspect that, just as they take the Scriptures metaphorically, they would take
the fifth article metaphorically; that is, He rose, but in a figurative sense in the hearts
of people to form the Body of Christ which is His Church. The third day would signify
the awakening of belief in Christ in the hearts of the faithful.
I don't know what the 12th would have to do with this. Did you mean the 11th, the
'Resurrection of the body,' part?
Nemesio
Well there is one twist on the issue: a book called
"Jesus Lived in India" Don't remember the author's name.
His main thesis is JC did not die on the cross or tree or whatever,
and the herbs talked about in the bible which they covered him in,
were in fact Aloe and other healing herbs. They don't put those
kind of herbs on dead people at that time. They put those herbs on
him because he was still alive and they wanted to revive him, which
they did. Then the "miraculous" show three days later.
What happened next is not the ascension (nice if you believe in the
tooth fairy and David Coresh) but Jesus realizing his goose would
REALLY be cooked if the romans found out he didn't kick the bucket
and split, going the silk route to India and in fact there are
monastaries started along the way that should by all rights not be
there because no-one else was around to start them.
JC was the one. His grave is said to be in the Kashmire district
of Pakistan and there are pictures of the grave with crescent markings
on the feet symbolizing the wounds of crucifixtion. Nobody can
get close to the site because you tend to be killed if you show your
head over the top of a rock there. This account makes a LOT of
sense to me. I think thats EXACTLY what actually happened.
Of course the so-called Christians of this era vehemently deny any
such claim, would cut at the very basis of the dogma.
I say so-called because what we know as "Christianity" wasn't started
by Jesus at all but his nuttiness Paul. Jesus never preached
miracles but Paul knew that for a religion to have a chance of
success in Rome, you better show miracles, so, BOING, instant
miracles. What a two thousand year old Knob job.
Originally posted by NemesioActually, I was thinking of the Apostle's Creed (I didn't realise that Western churches still use the Nicene Creed at Mass until very recently) - which is quite explicit about the "resurrection of the body" bit (which is, as you correctly pointed out, the 11th article).
I assume you mean the Nicene Creed, right?
Is the fifth: Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures...
and the twelfth: And the Life of the world to come...?
I would suspect that, just as they take the Scriptures metaphorically, they would take
the fifth article metaphorically; that is, He rose, but in a figurative sense in the hearts
of ...[text shortened]... ave to do with this. Did you mean the 11th, the
'Resurrection of the body,' part?
Nemesio
Originally posted by sonhouseActually, there are two versions of the Jesus in India story. The first states that he was in India between the ages of 19 and 29 and is based on the apparent similarity between Christ's words and Buddhist tenets. The other version is the one you're relating here. Surely it is extremely unlikely that both are simultaneously true!
Well there is one twist on the issue: a book called
"Jesus Lived in India" Don't remember the author's name.
His main thesis is JC did not die on the cross or tree or whatever,
and the herbs talked about in the bible which they covered him in,
were in fact Aloe and other healing herbs. They don't put those
kind of herbs on dead people at that time ...[text shortened]... you better show miracles, so, BOING, instant
miracles. What a two thousand year old Knob job.