Ask a Pagan

[PRmerger]

I did not intend to imply that anyone who wrote about the resurrection of Christ is, because of that fact alone, rendered a Christian.

No, Portofino. I am not saying that you implied that.

I am saying that this is what logic dictates. Any reasonable observer who wrote, “He rose from the dead!” would, of course, be converted by that very admission, right?

Can you think of any reasonable way an objective person would claim that Christ did indeed rise from the dead yet not believe he is God?

 

[JMJ_coder]

As I’ve noted earlier, the death of martyrs only proves the sincerity of the believer, not the truth of the belief.

Quite true. Now, 11 of the 12 Apostles were martyred - and John was spared not by a lack of effort on the part of the Romans, who among other things tried to cook him in oil.

So, that leads to two possible conclusions. Either Jesus did indeed truly rise from the dead and appeared to the disciples, or the disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Can you think of any reasonable way an objective person would claim that Christ did indeed rise from the dead yet not believe he is God?

I recall hearing Fr. Groeschel talking about the hypothesis that Jesus didn’t think he was divine. According to this hypothesis nothing in the New Testament can be trusted, especially what is quoted as Jesus’ words and that the only thing that can be taken as sure that Jesus said was ‘this is my body…this is my blood’ because it is so outlandish that no one would make something like that up.

Fr. Groeschel said he asked the speaker that given the fact that nothing but the Institution Narrative is reliable tell me how can a sane man look at a piece of bread and a cup of wine and say of those things ‘this is my body…this is my blood’ unless he thought he had divine powers?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Just so, if the bread obviously became flesh, and the wine obviously became blood, there would be no need for faith. But we’re talking here not about faith, but about reasonable historical proof.

And in certain miraculous cases, it has done just that. For example, the Miracle of Lanciano, which even to this day remains whole and intact and science cannot explain many of the observations that have been conducted on this miracle. As one example, there are several globules of blood…taken together or taken separately, they weigh exactly the same. As another, the flesh, which is heart tissue, is preserved to this day without any corruption after 1300+ years.

 

[Portofino]

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

If we’re arguing on a purely historical level – aside from questions of faith – there are two big questions that I would append to the very beginning of the discussion – 1. did the man Jesus really say that? and 2. regardless of whether the man Jesus said it or not, is it true?

Even the answer to question 1. is very difficult to establish; and, again, I don’t find it compelling that it appears in only one of the Gospel accounts.

There is a 3rd question, for those of us – Catholics and Protestants, presumably – who are satisfied with answering “yes” to questions 1 and 2. That 3rd question is, “granting that Jesus said it and that he was speaking the truth (and a non-Christian could say that its non-truth would not make him a liar, but merely someone who was mistaken), what did he mean by it?”

He says, in this passage “the gates of hell will not prevail against my Church” and “whatever you bind and loose on earth, will be bound and loosened in heaven.”

The first – “the gates of hell…” – doesn’t necessarily imply infallibility, to me. As I remember it, in that same passage, Jesus says to Peter “get behind me, Satan!”

Let’s put it this way – I could conceive of a Church that is wrong about some aspects of its Mariology, even if its being wrong in some aspects of its Mariology doesn’t jeopardize folks’ salvation. So, let’s say – and I appreciate this is probably a repugnant possibility, to a believer – that Mary was interred in the earth, just as any other human being. Let’s raise the bar and say, even, that the virgin birth never occurred. This error, as I see it, would put no one’s salvation in jeopardy, even it was an “error in doctrine”, an error in faith.

Not allowing for an error in morals would be more plausible to me, although – even there – I could see the church erring in terms of declaring that certain things are sins, that aren’t sins at all – in other words, erring on the side of caution I could believe all this, and still grant that “Jesus wouldn’t allow the Church to err so grievously, that people’s salvation was jeopardized.”

Overall, I just don’t see that faith can be subtracted from the equation. Reason alone will always open up other logical possibilities.

Note: “Whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven” already has a paradoxical application it, in the case of the selling of indulgences in past centuries. Would God have to honor that indulgence vis-a-vis purgatory, even though it was transacted as a commodity? Most Catholics seem to agree that the sale of indulgences was sinful, but would it have been honored?
PRmerger;10819888:

28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

Catholics have used the argument I am about to propound many times before, and in many guises — human beings have free will. God cannot override the free will of popes, even if it is the freedom to knowingly propagate error. I see a Jesus that would stay with the Church by saying, “no matter what your sins, and no matter what your doctrinal errors, I will help guide you to a more perfect understanding, if that is your will. It may not be perfect, and it may not be instantaneous – in some cases, I could conceive of error being unwittingly propagated for centuries, for example over confusion of the fate of unbaptized infants – but I will help you to understand, even if your understanding falters” [Peter and the disciples often didn’t understand what Jesus was trying to tell them, due to their own limitations in comprehension].

The other citations appear to be in the same vein – Christ will never abandon his Church. Again, I could believe that, and still maintain that neither will Christ override the free will of those in the Church (sin could occur not merely in conduct, but also in false teachings regarding faith and morals) and could also maintain that Christ will not “interfere” with their ability to be honestly mistaken. In the case of the initial mistrust of heliocentrism – and I don’t intend to open that can of worms! – Christ did not appear in a dream and say, “don’t sweat it; the conflict between science and religion is no conflict at all.” The Church ultimately evolved in its understanding of the proper relationship between science and religion, but it did not do so overnight.

 

[Portofino]

No, Portofino. I am not saying that you implied that.

I am saying that this is what logic dictates. Any reasonable observer who wrote, “He rose from the dead!” would, of course, be converted by that very admission, right?

Can you think of any reasonable way an objective person would claim that Christ did indeed rise from the dead yet not believe he is God?

There is one distinction which I had failed to make in a previous post, and that is making a distinction between testifying to Jesus having appeared, in the flesh, after his crucifixion, and testifying to Jesus’ resurrection.

A non-Christian who had seen Jesus after his crucifixion would be more likely to maintain that he “obviously survived his crucifixion.” Theoretically, we could have Jews and Christians both testifying to Jesus having appeared post crucifixion; the former claiming that he never died, the latter that he resurrected.

Regarding your actual point, though – could someone have testified to his resurrection, without becoming a believer – I can point to a Catholic friend of mine who was, at one time, very involved in Tibetan Buddhism. He told me that Hindus and Buddhists – and my excuses, if this information was incorrect, on his part – believe that Jesus did resurrect from the dead, and that anyone who is an advanced spiritual master is capable of resurrection. It was an unusual take on it, but he’s pretty knowledgeable about Eastern religions generally.

Another way that a witness to the resurrection could have rejected Christianity, is to say that this was “obviously” the work of Satan. It might have been a desperate attempt to deny the implications of the resurrection, but – then again – people witnessed Jesus performing miracles, and accused him of being an avatar of Satan; to which he replied, “how can Satan drive out Satan?” But they made the argument, nonetheless; they rejected that his miracle-working was evidence that he was the Son of God.

If what you are meaning to say is that no one in his right mind would have witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, without becoming a believer, I think I am inclined to agree But as we all know, many human beings had the unique and immense privilege of encountering Jesus in the flesh (per the Gospels, at least), and still couldn’t accept that he was God.

 

[joe371]

Again, I could believe that, and still maintain that neither will Christ override the free will of those in the Church
.

Surely God, Who created everything from nothing could ineffably guided His church into all truth, regarding revealed truth, and continue to preserve truth within His church until the end of time, while still respecting free will?

 

[JMJ_coder]

There is one distinction which I had failed to make in a previous post, and that is making a distinction between testifying to Jesus having appeared, in the flesh, after his crucifixion, and testifying to Jesus’ resurrection.

A non-Christian who had seen Jesus after his crucifixion would be more likely to maintain that he “obviously survived his crucifixion.” Theoretically, we could have Jews and Christians both testifying to Jesus having appeared post crucifixion; the former claiming that he never died, the latter that he resurrected.

I think something is lost on people today…and that is that more people in history had personally witnessed public execution than they do today. They knew first hand the gruesome reality that is an execution. And also, the people of that era knew the Roman legions knew how to kill a person.

Jesus was beaten, scourged (in which his flesh was torn from his body), crucified, and had a lance thrust into his heart - to make absolutely certain he was dead. All of this was carried out by the most trained, effective, and efficient killers of the day.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Regarding your actual point, though – could someone have testified to his resurrection, without becoming a believer – I can point to a Catholic friend of mine who was, at one time, very involved in Tibetan Buddhism. He told me that Hindus and Buddhists – and my excuses, if this information was incorrect, on his part – believe that Jesus did resurrect from the dead, and that anyone who is an advanced spiritual master is capable of resurrection. It was an unusual take on it, but he’s pretty knowledgeable about Eastern religions generally.

And do they actually have any of these spiritual masters hanging around who have come back from the dead?

 

[Skadi]

And do they actually have any of these spiritual masters hanging around who have come back from the dead?

People come back from the dead all the time, the only destinction with Jesus’s claim is he was gone 3 days as compaired to about 10 minuets. Also, interestingly enough, the phenomenon of people dying, seeing heaven, and coming back seams to be culturally reletive, because Christians claim to see heaven, Hindus claim to see things ranging from Brahman and the universe to their next incarnation, and so on.

 

[PRmerger]

People come back from the dead all the time, the only destinction with Jesus’s claim is he was gone 3 days as compaired to about 10 minuets.

LOL!

That’s like saying: the only distinction between Shakespeare’s prose and Danielle Steele is a “few words”.

“She wore a dress the same color as her eyes her father brought her from San Francisco.” –Danielle Steel.

 

[Portofino]

And do they actually have any of these spiritual masters hanging around who have come back from the dead?

I found one for you, from “Autobiography of a Yogi.”

Chapter 32
Rama is Raised From the Dead

Sri Yukteswar was expounding the Christian scriptures one sunny morning on the balcony of his Serampore hermitage. Besides a few of Master’s other disciples, I was present with a small group of my Ranchi students.
…
Sri Yukteswar went on to read the marvelous story of Lazarus’ resurrection. At its conclusion Master fell into a long silence, the sacred book open on his knee.
“I too was privileged to behold a similar miracle.” My guru finally spoke with solemn unction. “Lahiri Mahasaya resurrected one of my friends from the dead.”
The young lads at my side smiled with keen interest. There was enough of the boy in me, too, to enjoy not only the philosophy but, in particular, any story I could get Sri Yukteswar to relate about his wondrous experiences with his guru.
“My friend Rama and I were inseparable,” Master began. “Because he was shy and reclusive, he chose to visit our guru Lahiri Mahasaya only during the hours of midnight and dawn, when the crowd of daytime disciples was absent. As Rama’s closest friend, I served as a spiritual vent through which he let out the wealth of his spiritual perceptions. I found inspiration in his ideal companionship.” My guru’s face softened with memories.
“Rama was suddenly put to a severe test,” Sri Yukteswar continued. "He contracted the disease of Asiatic cholera. As our master never objected to the services of physicians at times of serious illness, two specialists were summoned. Amidst the frantic rush of ministering to the stricken man, I was deeply praying to Lahiri Mahasaya for help. I hurried to his home and sobbed out the story.
"‘The doctors are seeing Rama. He will be well.’ My guru smiled jovially.
"I returned with a light heart to my friend’s bedside, only to find him in a dying state.
"‘He cannot last more than one or two hours,’ one of the physicians told me with a gesture of despair. Once more I hastened to Lahiri Mahasaya.
"‘The doctors are conscientious men. I am sure Rama will be well.’ The master dismissed me blithely.
"At Rama’s place I found both doctors gone. One had left me a note: ‘We have done our best, but his case is hopeless.’
"My friend was indeed the picture of a dying man. I did not understand how Lahiri Mahasaya’s words could fail to come true, yet the sight of Rama’s rapidly ebbing life kept suggesting to my mind: ‘All is over now.’ Tossing thus on the seas of faith and apprehensive doubt, I ministered to my friend as best I could. He roused himself to cry out:
"‘Yukteswar, run to Master and tell him I am gone. Ask him to bless my body before its last rites.’ With these words Rama sighed heavily and gave up the ghost.2
"I wept for an hour by his beloved form. Always a lover of quiet, now he had attained the utter stillness of death. Another disciple came in; I asked him to remain in the house until I returned. Half-dazed, I trudged back to my guru.
"‘How is Rama now?’ Lahiri Mahasaya’s face was wreathed in smiles.
"‘Sir, you will soon see how he is,’ I blurted out emotionally. ‘In a few hours you will see his body, before it is carried to the crematory grounds.’ I broke down and moaned openly.
"‘Yukteswar, control yourself. Sit calmly and meditate.’ My guru retired into samadhi. The afternoon and night passed in unbroken silence; I struggled unsuccessfully to regain an inner composure.
"At dawn Lahiri Mahasaya glanced at me consolingly. ‘I see you are still disturbed. Why didn’t you explain yesterday that you expected me to give Rama tangible aid in the form of some medicine?’ The master pointed to a cup-shaped lamp containing crude castor oil. ‘Fill a little bottle from the lamp; put seven drops into Rama’s mouth.’
"‘Sir,’ I remonstrated, ‘he has been dead since yesterday noon. Of what use is the oil now?’
"‘Never mind; just do as I ask.’ Lahiri Mahasaya’s cheerful mood was incomprehensible; I was still in the unassuaged agony of bereavement. Pouring out a small amount of oil, I departed for Rama’s house.
"I found my friend’s body rigid in the death-clasp. Paying no attention to his ghastly condition, I opened his lips with my right finger and managed, with my left hand and the help of the cork, to put the oil drop by drop over his clenched teeth.
"As the seventh drop touched his cold lips, Rama shivered violently. His muscles vibrated from head to foot as he sat up wonderingly.
"‘I saw Lahiri Mahasaya in a blaze of light,’ he cried. ‘He shone like the sun. “Arise; forsake your sleep,” he commanded me. “Come with Yukteswar to see me.”’
"I could scarcely believe my eyes when Rama dressed himself and was strong enough after that fatal sickness to walk to the home of our guru. There he prostrated himself before Lahiri Mahasaya with tears of gratitude.
"The master was beside himself with mirth. His eyes twinkled at me mischievously.
"‘Yukteswar,’ he said, 'surely henceforth you will not fail to carry with you a bottle of castor oil! Whenever you see a corpse, just administer the oil! Why, seven drops of lamp oil must surely foil the power of Yama!'3
…
As Sri Yukteswar finished the awesome story, one of the spellbound listeners ventured a question that, from a child, was doubly understandable.
“Sir,” he said, “why did your guru use castor oil?”
“Child, giving the oil had no meaning except that I expected something material and Lahiri Mahasaya chose the near-by oil as an objective symbol for awakening my greater faith. The master allowed Rama to die, because I had partially doubted. But the divine guru knew that inasmuch as he had said the disciple would be well, the healing must take place, even though he had to cure Rama of death, a disease usually final!”

 

[joe371]

People come back from the dead all the time, the only destinction with Jesus’s claim is he was gone 3 days as compaired to about 10 minuets. Also, interestingly enough, the phenomenon of people dying, seeing heaven, and coming back seams to be culturally reletive, because Christians claim to see heaven, Hindus claim to see things ranging from Brahman and the universe to their next incarnation, and so on.

Can you give me an example of someone dying (dead for 3 days) seeing heaven, and coming back to talk about it?

In my opinion, near-death experiences are interesting and reveal that life continues after death, but should be viewed cautiously and with prudence. I do not believe that they reflect what those in heaven see and feel. That’s just me…

 

[mek42]

Pardon if this has been answered - I only have time to read one 30+ page thread per week, and this wasn’t it this week.

What drew you to join the forum here? There is no judgement in the question, only pure curiosity (pure as in science or math).

 

[Skadi]

Can you give me an example of someone dying (dead for 3 days) seeing heaven, and coming back to talk about it?

In my opinion, near-death experiences are interesting and reveal that life continues after death, but should be viewed cautiously and with prudence. I do not believe that they reflect what those in heaven see and feel. That’s just me…

No one, the body is already in full swing decay by then, but i dont take the story of Jesus’s resurrection as fact.

 

[Skadi]

Pardon if this has been answered - I only have time to read one 30+ page thread per week, and this wasn’t it this week.

What drew you to join the forum here? There is no judgement in the question, only pure curiosity (pure as in science or math).

I enjoy debate and discussion, and know quite a bit about the catholic faith.

You guys are much more tolerable and just plain sane than the evangelicals aswell.

 

[josh987654321]

I enjoy debate and discussion, and know quite a bit about the catholic faith.

You guys are much more tolerable and just plain sane than the evangelicals aswell.

Please read this quote from Matthew 7:16-20 objectively Skadi.

Matthew 7:16-20 You Will Know Them by Their Fruits

16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Please ask yourself, what are the fruits of paganism, what do your beliefs advocate? and than ask what are the fruits of Christianity, what do our beliefs advocate?

What makes you think that pagansim bears good fruit and that Christianity is inadequate?

What is “good” according to you Skadi? your virtues?

Why is “forgiveness” and “mercy” and “love of Agape” (toward friends and foes) not part of your virtues? are these things not good? and if they are good, than why are they not virtuous in pagansim?

What are the fruits of paganism? I know I belong to my faith, I know Jesus Christ as the son of God because of his fruits.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PRmerger]

There is one distinction which I had failed to make in a previous post, and that is making a distinction between testifying to Jesus having appeared, in the flesh, after his crucifixion, and testifying to Jesus’ resurrection.

Why, Portofino, do you assign this criterion?

It seems rather arbitrary to me.

This seems to be your argument: I won’t believe any writings that state that Jesus rose from the dead, because that means that it was not written by a dispassionate observer. But I will believe writing written by people who state they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, because that means it was written by a dispassionate observer.

How do you come to the conclusion that one is biased and the other is not?

Could you not dismiss the writings of those in the latter category with the same rationale that you dismiss the writings of the former?

Incidentally, I also find your argument objecting to the writings detailing the resurrection as circular. “I don’t believe in the Bible because it contains dubious stories, such as the resurrection” and “The resurrection is dubious because the Bible is a book of myths.”

 

[PRmerger]

Regarding your actual point, though – could someone have testified to his resurrection, without becoming a believer – I can point to a Catholic friend of mine who was, at one time, very involved in Tibetan Buddhism. He told me that Hindus and Buddhists – and my excuses, if this information was incorrect, on his part – believe that Jesus did resurrect from the dead, and that anyone who is an advanced spiritual master is capable of resurrection. It was an unusual take on it, but he’s pretty knowledgeable about Eastern religions generally.

Well, then, Portofino. There’s your answer. You were looking for non-Christians who testify that Jesus did indeed resurrect.

And now you have proffered this.

Am I correct in suspecting, though, that even when you say, “I would like some non-Christian verification of the event” and then a non-Christian verification of the event is given, that you will dismiss this non-Christian verification of the event?

 

[mek42]

Please read this quote from Matthew 7:16-20 objectively Skadi.

[bibledrb]Matthew 7:16-20[/bibledrb]

Please ask yourself, what are the fruits of paganism, what do your beliefs advocate? and than ask what are the fruits of Christianity, what do our beliefs advocate?

What makes you think that pagansim bears good fruit and that Christianity is inadequate?

What is “good” according to you Skadi? your virtues?

Why is “forgiveness” and “mercy” and “love of Agape” (toward friends and foes) not part of your virtues? are these things not good? and if they are good, than why are they not virtuous in pagansim?

What are the fruits of paganism? I know I belong to my faith, I know Jesus Christ as the son of God because of his fruits.

Thank you for reading
Josh

By a truly objective reading of that verse, if a Wiccan truly lived by their core tenet, “Insofar as you harm none, do as you will,” then they should be recognized by their good fruits, no?