The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[Tuno]

I think the problem is that skeptics like AntiTheist have a vague distrust of the whole thing, so that, if I were to ask him, “What do you make of the empty tomb?”, he would probably deny that there was ever such an event. This is so obviously divorced from any scholarship or history on the issue, that it’s just hard to approach it in any serious way. What we have to do is just patiently dismantle the distrust by showing that it has no explanatory power, that it is inconsistent with what we know about the history. In other words, this kind of vague distrust makes the NT out to be a very weird and anachronistic document, indeed.

In fact, Windfish, though Antitheist appears to you to be deficient in his skepticism, he is somewhat in advance of your own position. Though neither of you have gone experientially, I would guess, into what may be called the superconscious, or the level of awareness where the actual nature of relationship with God may be seen and experienced, Anti is in a better mode to go there. He, at least, has divested himself of symbology that is keeping you in a less comprehensive state of receptivity. He has a cubic centimeter of chance, whereas you are too busy being right to have andy clarity.

But as I have recommended to others, try exerting yourself to the fullest in complying to your own faith. It may be your only way to get past it and the shenanigans of your own mind. Along with Grace and trauma, that method has worked for some. Think of St. Augustine in his last days.

 

[Donald_W]

God to the intellect appears to be “nothing” as God in neither in the intellect nor the senses. This is why intellectual assertions to atheists will never have any useful result. In this instance, religion and atheism are in the same boat, as the both rely on the portion of awareness that is not conducive to direct perception.

That statement is far from the Truth. Once you have been baptize in the Holy Spirit, your mind open up to Heights which are not even explainable in words. No Atheists or even non-atheists can reach such understanding unless it is from God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This is not self-inducing or working oneself up to a fervor pitch, such as some Christian religions do but a most peaceful experience. Even when I hear some very bad sermons, this peace has come upon me and put the correctness in my mind. For instance their was one particular individual who was in charge of the RCIA program that I was going to and he was at mass and giving seven points on a particular reading and it appear in my mind the seven real points which should have been given if the fellow had done some better homework. These seven points was in my mind in a very peaceful way. No loud noise, no bang, no voices in my head(well maybe like Saint Joan of Arc). Now if you observe this from the outside, you may have said that I work myself up to it because it was practically impossible for me to attend any Mass without shedding many, many tears. However, that is were observation conflicts with facts. Christians deals a lot in what is not seen or heard by most. You know what? You have made me so proud to be a CHRISTIAN.

 

[AntiTheist]

OK, but if one has a random [vision?], and one has one of a person a day after his tomb if found empty after he dies a painful (and certain) death, would you not have the slightest thought the latter was actually having a real, supernatural, vision?

The visions we’re talking about are those of mystics influenced by various religious cults.

What you’re talking about here are the original legends upon which these religions are based, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

And the supposed “events” seen by people at this supposed “tomb” are – as my OP demonstrates – probably fairy stories based very loosely on the life and execution of a popular political/moral rabble rouser.

But being an atheist who asserts atheists are morally and intellectually superior

I don’t assert this.

the second part of that assertion can be turned against the assertion Jefferson makes in your quote as much as it can the assertions (on God’s existence) he makes in his letters.

You don’t seem to follow. I’m not here arguing that Jefferson was 100% consistent or 100% right about everything. I agree with one of his quotes, and so I reproduce it in my signature. I freely admit that he may have been wrong about many things and may have – wrongly, in my opinion – contradicted the quote that appears in my signature.

Whether or nor he was actually contradicting himself is a matter outside of the scope of this argument.

 

[AntiTheist]

have you ever asked why some people do not believe some of the things they do not believe?

Yes, of course. For example, I have asked myself why I don’t believe in the Hindu gods or the Zoroastrian gods. And the answer to this question is that I see no good reason or evidence to think that they are real. It’s exactly the same answer I would give to the question of why I don’t believe in any other entity.

In such issues as yours for instance, you are not lacking in intelligence, that is clear, yet in the case of the existence of God, you demand physical proof as though it would be a good thing for God to possess the attributes of man so you could experience Him sense perceptibly.

No, you’re misreading me. I don’t think it’s a “good thing” for things to have physical attributes. I think that things that exist are things that manifest and affect the physical world in detectable ways. That is, in fact, what “exist” means.

If something “exists,” but it does not affect the physical world in any way at all that can be detected by anyone, then for all intents and purposes, it does not exist at all.

For example: if I tell you that I have a pet dragon that is completely intangible and incorporeal and does not affect the world in any way whatsoever that any person can detect…what does it mean when I say that my dragon “exists”? Isn’t my intangible, incorporeal dragon indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist at all?

you deny the existence of God because you claim you do not have physical evidence of His existence, yet you do but refuse to look more deeply into it. You do not hold such stringent requirements to many, many other beliefs you accept also having no physical evidence.

I’m not sure on what basis you make this claim, but I’m willing to give you a try: go on and name something that (you think) I believe without sufficient evidence or reason, and I’ll explain why you’re wrong.

The fact that there are so many variations to the world wide belief in God is not an indication there is no God, but rather evidence there must in fact be a God and man divided by social boundaries and experiential comprehensions has not arrived at a unified recognition of all aspects of that God.

No. You can make up an unfalsifiable story that explains away all the inconsistencies if you want, but that doesn’t mean it must be the conclusion in any way, shape, or form.

At any rate, let’s consider the possibility that all cultures approach the same god in different ways (the blind men and the elephant, right?). Well, some of these cultures come away with the message that cows are sacred; some come away with the message that it’s wrong to have sex unless someone from the tribe speaks some magic words over the union; another culture comes away with the message that blood sacrifice is what their god digs.

In other words: these different cultures are still getting conflicting messages that are mutually exclusive. This tells us something important: it tells us that people can be wrong about this “spiritual experience” stuff.

If it’s possible to be wrong, what makes you think that any of these cultures actually are in contact with a supernatural being?

 

[Tuno]

By my lights this, post #254, is an excellent statement by Antitheist. It speaks very well indeed to the level of awareness required to sustain faith in a variety of myths, though I tend to disagree with AT about the origin of those, as I disagree mostly with the pure “pagan origins” idea as it has been popularized. And yet, as far as I can see, there is more beyond AT’s convincing stance. That is because that while he has accomplished much in the realm of disassociating from the mass consensuses of the standard religious paradigms, he is yet at the threshold of experiencing what can be called, floabt, the superconscious, or transpersonal awareness.

No doubt AT, that you will protest “prove it,” and rightfully so. I can’t, because anything that can be said about that ineffable state is only an intellectual assertion. But here you might have an opportunity that believers, because of the “rightness” dimension of their faith, cannot take advantage of unless they energetically exhaust their paradigm to its logical/illogical end. Few integrate their body and mind to this extent.

Take it or leave it, but I will quote here, as the author says it already very succinctly and I don’t need to re-invent the wheel. These words come after an excellent passage describing the existentialist’s dilemma, who having seen through the lies we tell ourselves to gain comfort in what seems to be a world fraught with futility and madness has yet not moved on:

(witnessing the lesser identification with the body and the mind,)… both body and mind are experiences of an integrated self.

Q: It is beginning to transcend them.

KW: Yes. There is nothing occult or spooky about any of this. We have already seen identity shift from matter to body to mind, each of which involved a decentering or a dis-identifying with the lesser dimension. And by the time of the centaur, (KW’s name for this state or level) consciousness is simply continuing this process and starting to dis-identify with the mind itself, which is precisely why it can witness the mind, see the mind, experience the mind. The mind is no longer merely a subject; it is starting to become an object. An object of… the observing Self, the Witness.

And so the mystical, contemplative, and yogic traditions pick up where the mind leaves off. They pick up with the observing Self as it begins to transcend the mind, as it begins to go transmental or supermental or overmental. Or transrational, transegoic, transpersonal,

The contemplative traditions are based on a series of experiments in awareness: what if you pursue this Witness to its source? What if you inquire within, pushing deeper and deeper into the source of awareness itself? What if you push beyond or behind the mind, into a depth of consciousness that is not confined to the ego of the individual self? What do you find? As a repeatable, reproducible experiment in awareness, what do you find?

“There is a subtle essence that pervades all reality,” begins one of the most famous answers to that question. “It is the reality of all that is, and the foundation of all that is. That essence is the real. And thou, thou art that.”

In other words, this observing Self eventually discloses its own source which is Spirit itself, Emptiness* itself. And that is why the mystics maintain that this observing Self is a ray of the Sun that is the radiant Abyss and ultimate Ground upon which the entire manifest Kosmos depends. Your Self intersects the Self of the Kosomos at large–a supreme identity that outshines the entire manifest world, a supreme identity that undoes the knot of separate self and buries it in splendor.

So from matter to body to mind to Spirit. In each case consciousness or the observing Self sheds an exclusive identity with a lesser and shallower dimension, and opens up to deeper and higher and wider occasions, until it opens up to its own ultimate ground in Spirit itself.

And the stages of transpersonal growth and development are basically the stages of following this observing Self to its ultimate abode, which is pure Spirit or pure Emptyness, the ground path, and fruition of the entire display.

So try the repeatable, reproducible experiment, if your belief and faith, even in atheism, won’t get in the way. And for you Catholics, fear not. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avisa, St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Sienna, and many others all have gone before you. Fear not, you will not be deceived.

*To the mind looking as rational subject/objet intellect at God, the perception is of Emptiness, Void, an Abyss. Yet this is the All containing Space which is the foundation of manifestation and experience.

 

[twb1621]

Why do you presume that God has a “design?” That is your projection. Man can know God, but it is the maturity of Insight, not religion, that informs us finally of the root of morality where it is not and intellectual assertion but a perception of Self.
God to the intellect appears to be “nothing” as God in neither in the intellect nor the senses. This is why intellectual assertions to atheists will never have any useful result. In this instance, religion and atheism are in the same boat, as the both rely on the portion of awareness that is not conducive to direct perception.
That variety is no such thing. It is the evidence of immaturity in Conscious Awareness. The Perennial Philosophy has been consistent and clear since the beginning of history, cropping up in nearly every culture, time, and place regardless of circumstances, even religion or lack of it. This has happened even with instances of proponents not having literature or contact with other proponents. This would indicate a more fundamental Understanding than the contentious assertions of religions or atheisms based on more fleeting considerations, especially texts that are deteriorations of original Revelations gone bad through codification. Want a relationship with God? Too late: it IS. But one thought thought to be “yours” is the wall between Heaven and Earth. One can only go direct, even if it takes years of work. Or a moment of Grace. Religion has little to do with it, save by appearance to those who wish to view it that way.

I really liked your statements on the havoc we are wreaking on the planet. Your perceptions are, imho, very accurate, especially about the medicinal plants. Have you read Sastun by Rosita Arvigo? I came SO close to meeting her when I was in Belize!

It’s not presumption. you hold the opinion that I presume with no basis in my regard actually. The determination of man through physics alone shows design, not unsupported projection. Man can only know God to the degree man can comprehend, we discussed that before I do realize, but man never knows his own individual fulfillment in maturity until he has ended this life and completely entered the next, which means he never knows the degree to his fulfillment of maturity or its limits. I don’t speak of religion in this regard, I speak of faith in God. Religion is a subject in itself and can only lead us way off course in this discussion. Insight without knowledge is nothing more than opinion and is as diverse as thought itself. Faith in the existence of God is supported by the relationship man has maintained with Him throughout the ages. And as you know, man can have a relationship with God. Without that recorded relationship there is for many, no knowledge of God at all, only presuppositions. As far as intellect is concerned, does it not take knowledge and the wisdom to utilize that knowledge in order to determine whether it is proper to be morally conscious and adherent?
Atheists, in order to maintain their position that there is no God, must adhere to double standards. If one is going to insist that God does not exist because one claims there is no sense perceptible physical evidence of His “being” and only that which man has recorded in Scripture considering it fabricated, such a principle invalidates every other reference of support they refer to in all historical subject matter that has no physical evidence as well. In so doing they are selectively utilizing qualifiers (double standards) to only those points they, by unsupported opinion, do not wish to accept. Yes, as atheists, they have an adopted religion or faith against their own principle, in that they believe without evidence there is no God.
Perennial Philosophy does not however, invalidate the existence of God, nor does it render incapable the ability of God to present Himself as He wills to. And I do not disagree as you say that it also, “…the evidence of immaturity in Conscious Awareness”. But it appears you’re offering a position based on the credibility or lack of credibility of religious beliefs and my points are primarily directed to the existence of God and the validity or lack of validity in Atheism based on their criteria. The intellect of man can and has detected the existence of God and regardless of the system of beliefs in most cases, that is evidently reflected and the variety as you referred to is certainly reflective of an immaturity in conscious awareness, regardless if that is not in the intended meaning you offered it. Not that religion is not a subject worthy to discuss, but this is more fundamental in nature. Still, as far as any philosophy is concerned, it in itself is based on the limitations of man’s intellect and ability to utilize it, which is variable and which renders so many variations in conclusions.

I really liked your statements on the havoc we are wreaking on the planet. Your perceptions are, imho, very accurate, especially about the medicinal plants. Have you read Sastun by Rosita Arvigo? I came SO close to meeting her when I was in Belize!
No I haven’t read Sastun*,* Tuno, but I will look into it, thanks for the recommendation and hope all is well.
Peace my brother

 

[Tuno]

Hi Twb,

Yes, I see what you are saying, as it is quite exactly what I used to believe and promulgate. It will serve you well until you don’t need it any more, as what you state as “determination” has to be upon experience of transpersonal states yet categorized as presumption. I’m not sure that you have read post #255 above, but that explains why, as best possible without doing the experiment to fruition yourself. You might also look here for an ancillary view. But what is in #255 is not an opinion or a philosophy, but an experienceable State, consistently reported with its discursive derivatives nearly identical despite time, place, culture, religion, and in many cases absence of communication between its proponents and absence of pertinent literature. Please consider the implications of that phenomenon as you read.

Ultimately, I care not whether you agree or not; it is just a statement of how levels of maturity, beyond the ordinary ones most of us are at, work. Each of us discovers this in our own time, as you will see. Or not. In any case. Love is on the field, and that is the one pertinent Fact, whether we are infants, in middle school or exercising a graduate degree. If nothing else, I hope it is an entertaining story. I just wish I had heard it from within the Church, as it would have saved me years of spiritual angst and seeking. But I was supremely fortunate.

Everyone I know who has read Sastunhas been very moved and impressed by it. I trust you will have a similar experience.

 

[tonyrey]

These ancient cultures were steeped in superstition, and it’s not at all surprising that accounts of a great, charismatic teacher would have supernatural elements attributed to them. The article is proving my point for me here.

In the apocryphal Gospels there are childish stories which are clearly fanciful but it is a different matter when the reported events are an integral part of the teaching and mission of Christ - like the raising of Lazarus which demonstrates His compassion and foreshadows His own resurrection. Renan wrote a life of Jesus without the miracles but to attribute trickery, deception or superstition to a great moral teacher or his followers is itself a fanciful story and a desperate ploy to evade the truth…

 

[Tuno]

In the apocryphal Gospels there are childish stories which are clearly fanciful but it is a different matter when the reported events are an integral part of the teaching and mission of Christ - like the raising of Lazarus which demonstrates His compassion and foreshadows His own resurrection. Renan wrote a life of Jesus without the miracles but to attribute trickery, deception or superstition to a great moral teacher or his followers is itself a fanciful story and a desperate ploy to evade the truth…

Here, then, is something of interest:

About 4-5 thousand years ago there is the story of Horus raising Osiris from the dead. Osiris, “who is not dead, but sleeping in Anu, the place of his repose, awaiting the call that bids him come forth today.” Witnessing the event are the divine sisters, Isis and Nephtys, whose name root meanings translate today as Mary and Martha. Anu, “the place of multiplying bread”, called Heliopolis by the greeks, has its analog in Bethlehem, or “house of bread.” Interestingly, there is no archeological evidence of Bethlehem existing anywhere between 1st century BCE and 1st century CE. Beth-Anu, as the Hebrews called it, then, is Bethany, as where Jesus and the women wept as did Isis and the sisters in the story. Anu, being where the souls repose before awakening, was also known as “the place of weeping.”

Now, similarly to us, the Hebrews and Egyptians used the honorific “the” before name of their gods, as in “the Osiris” or for us, “the Christ.” So when the Hebrews got hold of it, it became “el-Osiris” or “el-Asar” as he was also known. In Hebrew the masculine ending is “-us,” thus we have “el-Alsarus” Over time the ‘e’ is dropped and what so we have? Fascinating, eh? And if I am not mistaken, one of the Isis myths has her impregnated with Horus by divine fire.

 

[Pieman333272]

By my lights this, post #254, is an excellent statement by Antitheist. It speaks very well indeed to the level of awareness required to sustain faith in a variety of myths, though I tend to disagree with AT about the origin of those, as I disagree mostly with the pure “pagan origins” idea as it has been popularized. And yet, as far as I can see, there is more beyond AT’s convincing stance. That is because that while he has accomplished much in the realm of disassociating from the mass consensuses of the standard religious paradigms, he is yet at the threshold of experiencing what can be called, floabt, the superconscious, or transpersonal awareness.

No doubt AT, that you will protest “prove it,” and rightfully so. I can’t, because anything that can be said about that ineffable state is only an intellectual assertion. But here you might have an opportunity that believers, because of the “rightness” dimension of their faith, cannot take advantage of unless they energetically exhaust their paradigm to its logical/illogical end. Few integrate their body and mind to this extent.

Take it or leave it, but I will quote here, as the author says it already very succinctly and I don’t need to re-invent the wheel. These words come after an excellent passage describing the existentialist’s dilemma, who having seen through the lies we tell ourselves to gain comfort in what seems to be a world fraught with futility and madness has yet not moved on:

So try the repeatable, reproducible experiment, if your belief and faith, even in atheism, won’t get in the way. And for you Catholics, fear not. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avisa, St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Sienna, and many others all have gone before you. Fear not, you will not be deceived.

*To the mind looking as rational subject/objet intellect at God, the perception is of Emptiness, Void, an Abyss. Yet this is the All containing Space which is the foundation of manifestation and experience.

Very interesting Tuno. I remember reading about a (Christian, I might add) person’s idea that all people in all religions (not counting atheism) and cultures experience some “Universal Experience”; a different level of consciousness we all share, where we can experience the “Ultimate Reality” which that person attributed to God. It sounds like what you’re talking about, but I may be miles off too. Either way, very interesting stuff.

(Off topic question not meant to be offensive: Would “spiritual (but not religious” describe your views well? Just curious from what I’ve seen you post).

 

[Pieman333272]

Here, then, is something of interest:

About 4-5 thousand years ago there is the story of Horus raising Osiris from the dead. Osiris, “who is not dead, but sleeping in Anu, the place of his repose, awaiting the call that bids him come forth today.” Witnessing the event are the divine sisters, Isis and Nephtys, whose name root meanings translate today as Mary and Martha. Anu, “the place of multiplying bread”, called Heliopolis by the greeks, has its analog in Bethlehem, or “house of bread.” Interestingly, there is no archeological evidence of Bethlehem existing anywhere between 1st century BCE and 1st century CE. Beth-Anu, as the Hebrews called it, then, is Bethany, as where Jesus and the women wept as did Isis and the sisters in the story. Anu, being where the souls repose before awakening, was also known as “the place of weeping.”

Now, similarly to us, the Hebrews and Egyptians used the honorific “the” before name of their gods, as in “the Osiris” or for us, “the Christ.” So when the Hebrews got hold of it, it became “el-Osiris” or “el-Asar” as he was also known. In Hebrew the masculine ending is “-us,” thus we have “el-Alsarus” Over time the ‘e’ is dropped and what so we have? Fascinating, eh? And if I am not mistaken, one of the Isis myths has her impregnated with Horus by divine fire.

Fascinating. He was actually born in a Bethlehem, but just not “Bethlehem of Judea”. He was born in the much smaller, rural area Bethlehem of Galilee. Which makes it possible, nay, probable, he was still born in a manger. Cool, huh? AND, it was only 7 miles from where we attribute Nazareth (see above for archeological evidence for that being correct, btw).

Interesting stuff with that “Egyptian god” stuff. But the Isis part can’t be compared to Mary, fire wasn’t used (if I remember my reading of the Gospels about a year ago correctly), he just came into her as a result of God. And there are too many differences in their stories for Jesus to have been influenced by Egyptian stuff. If you look at the BC versions of the Egyptian Stories (I never use myth to describe anything, just the way I roll), you will see further differences between Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, etc. and Horus’/Osiris’.

 

[Tuno]

Very interesting Tuno. I remember reading about a (Christian, I might add) person’s idea that all people in all religions (not counting atheism) and cultures experience some “Universal Experience”; a different level of consciousness we all share, where we can experience the “Ultimate Reality” which that person attributed to God. It sounds like what you’re talking about, but I may be miles off too. Either way, very interesting stuff.

(Off topic question not meant to be offensive: Would “spiritual (but not religious” describe your views well? Just curious from what I’ve seen you post).

Post #68 here might help.

I would disagree with your Christian friend regarding what is experienceable, or not, by “atheists.” The paradigm might in a sense be predicated on Man being the Image and likeness of God. That applies 1/1 over the human population. And, in fact, the pointed-to State has been achieved in non-religious or non-devotional circumstances, e.g. war, trauma, utter despair, immense stress, etc. It is more predicated, one might say, on passing through/beyond the rational portion of the mind. While in religious contexts this appears to happen a lot, it is yet a very narrow and specific route, excluding most of what folks regard as devotional practice, though in a sincere and great effort those may be included. The other pertinent factor might be the predisposition of the mind on re-assuming its discursive role. This is where the balancing act starts that can lead to the rare instances of complete assimilation of the “normal” mind with that State.

It is not exactly congruent, but a taste of where this goes and some physiological factors might be seen here. It is a case where the rational mind was decommissioned by trauma, leading to a state of awareness that can be achieved without damage in meditation or through self inquiry.

 

[Tuno]

Fascinating. He was actually born in a Bethlehem, but just not “Bethlehem of Judea”. He was born in the much smaller, rural area Bethlehem of Galilee. Which makes it possible, nay, probable, he was still born in a manger. Cool, huh? AND, it was only 7 miles from where we attribute Nazareth (see above for archeological evidence for that being correct, btw).

Interesting stuff with that “Egyptian god” stuff. But the Isis part can’t be compared to Mary, fire wasn’t used (if I remember my reading of the Gospels about a year ago correctly), he just came into her as a result of God. And there are too many differences in their stories for Jesus to have been influenced by Egyptian stuff. If you look at the BC versions of the Egyptian Stories (I never use myth to describe anything, just the way I roll), you will see further differences between Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, etc. and Horus’/Osiris’.

It would be foolish to claim that the Jesus story is an exact plagiarism of an ancient Egyptian text and nothing else. I do not believe that in any case, as it seems to me that though there are similarities, the whole nature of the Gospels is yet different than ordinarily understood, myths and legends notwithstanding, nor tradition. I do think, though, that the the particulars of that story are fascinating, despite their severe synopsization, as I said.

 

[Pieman333272]

Post #68 here might help.

I would disagree with your Christian friend regarding what is experienceable, or not, by “atheists.” The paradigm might in a sense be predicated on Man being the Image and likeness of God. That applies 1/1 over the human population. And, in fact, the pointed-to State has been achieved in non-religious or non-devotional circumstances, e.g. war, trauma, utter despair, immense stress, etc. It is more predicated, one might say, on passing through/beyond the rational portion of the mind. While in religious contexts this appears to happen a lot, it is yet a very narrow and specific route, excluding most of what folks regard as devotional practice, though in a sincere and great effort those may be included. The other pertinent factor might be the predisposition of the mind on re-assuming its discursive role. This is where the balancing act starts that can lead to the rare instances of complete assimilation of the “normal” mind with that State.

It is not exactly congruent, but a taste of where this goes and some physiological factors might be seen here. It is a case where the rational mind was decommissioned by trauma, leading to a state of awareness that can be achieved without damage in meditation or through self inquiry.

Reading what you’re putting out, I find it ironic that Mike Licona, a New Testament Scholar, uses these happenings as evidence for the Supernatural, and how, he says, Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t too far off from the modern day, as we can see through things such as this and NDE’s. What do you think? Does this feeling, does this abandonment of rational thought, contradict or help Christian (any Christian) theology? I feel this does more good than harm to it, myself.

Thanks for clarifying your position, BTW. One question: do you believe in (a) God? It can be this God, a non-Abrahamic god, a creator god, or something else, but I would like to know.

And that Christian wasn’t my friend - I happened to read a blog post by him, he seemed interested in theology and the like. As for atheists achieving this feeling, I feel that is for better rather than for worse.

 

[Tuno]

Reading what you’re putting out, I find it ironic that Mike Licona, a New Testament Scholar, uses these happenings as evidence for the Supernatural, and how, he says, Jesus’ Resurrection isn’t too far off from the modern day, as we can see through things such as this and NDE’s. What do you think? Does this feeling, does this abandonment of rational thought, contradict or help Christian (any Christian) theology? I feel this does more good than harm to it, myself.

Thanks for clarifying your position, BTW. One question: do you believe in (a) God? It can be this God, a non-Abrahamic god, a creator god, or something else, but I would like to know.

And that Christian wasn’t my friend - I happened to read a blog post by him, he seemed interested in theology and the like. As for atheists achieving this feeling, I feel that is for better rather than for worse.

NDE’s have always been with us, as a race. Mine was particularly astonishing. And what does Mr. Licona mean by "Jesus’ Resurrection? something far different than I do, no doubt. And such experiences as of which I speak are definitely not an abandonment of the rational mind. Au contraire, the rational mind is thereby re-assembled, one might say, around the experience of an immovable Truth and is fortified thereby. Does that help Christian theology? Only insofar as it can demonstrate by experience that the symbolic veiling called “teaching” can be rent and the Tabernacle becomes a Living experience beyond a symbol. And that is why God is not a matter of belief. But see for yourself. As you read this, it is just a story told by a stranger. You are your own laboratory, in charge of your life experiment.

 

[tonyrey]

Here, then, is something of interest:

About 4-5 thousand years ago there is the story of Horus raising Osiris from the dead. Osiris, “who is not dead, but sleeping in Anu, the place of his repose, awaiting the call that bids him come forth today.” Witnessing the event are the divine sisters, Isis and Nephtys, whose name root meanings translate today as Mary and Martha. Anu, “the place of multiplying bread”, called Heliopolis by the greeks, has its analog in Bethlehem, or “house of bread.” Interestingly, there is no archeological evidence of Bethlehem existing anywhere between 1st century BCE and 1st century CE. Beth-Anu, as the Hebrews called it, then, is Bethany, as where Jesus and the women wept as did Isis and the sisters in the story. Anu, being where the souls repose before awakening, was also known as “the place of weeping.”

Now, similarly to us, the Hebrews and Egyptians used the honorific “the” before name of their gods, as in “the Osiris” or for us, “the Christ.” So when the Hebrews got hold of it, it became “el-Osiris” or “el-Asar” as he was also known. In Hebrew the masculine ending is “-us,” thus we have “el-Alsarus” Over time the ‘e’ is dropped and what so we have? Fascinating, eh? And if I am not mistaken, one of the Isis myths has her impregnated with Horus by divine fire.

It would be very strange if there were no similarities between some of the events recorded in the Gospels and events in the numerous pagan myths and legends dating back thousands of years. They certainly have no bearing on the truth of the moral and spiritual teaching of Jesus which is inseparable from his life, mission, death and Resurrection…

 

[StrawberryJam]

It would be very strange if there were no similarities between some of the events recorded in the Gospels and events in the numerous pagan myths and legends dating back thousands of years. They certainly have no bearing on the moral and spiritual teaching of Jesus which is inseparable from his life, mission, death and Resurrection…

You are right. It is strange they all seem to have commonality, yet God did not like any of the humans having that commonality until he found partiality in a certain tribe he hand picked out of all of them who all shared a simillar line of thought about him and his workings in the world and the responses to that. How odd indeed!

 

[Windfish]

It would be very strange if there were no similarities between some of the events recorded in the Gospels and events in the numerous pagan myths and legends dating back thousands of years. They certainly have no bearing on the truth of the moral and spiritual teaching of Jesus which is inseparable from his life, mission, death and Resurrection…

Always ask for primary sources when these “similarities” are used in an argument. Most of the time, the primary sources for these similarities occur some three or four centuries after the Gospels, which means they copied Christianity, not the other way around. And this is not surprising, pagan myths do this all the time, with each village or city having their own versions, often contradictory to each other, and often being updated. A popular example for this is Horus, and the similarities have been hopelessly debunked by both Christians and atheists. For more on this:

The Jesus Legend

Shattering the Christ Myth

The Gospels and the Greeks

 

[Pieman333272]

NDE’s have always been with us, as a race. Mine was particularly astonishing. And what does Mr. Licona mean by "Jesus’ Resurrection? something far different than I do, no doubt. And such experiences as of which I speak are definitely not an abandonment of the rational mind. Au contraire, the rational mind is thereby re-assembled, one might say, around the experience of an immovable Truth and is fortified thereby. Does that help Christian theology? Only insofar as it can demonstrate by experience that the symbolic veiling called “teaching” can be rent and the Tabernacle becomes a Living experience beyond a symbol. And that is why God is not a matter of belief. But see for yourself. As you read this, it is just a story told by a stranger. You are your own laboratory, in charge of your life experiment.

Tuno, though a larger percentage of your views I disagree with than those I agree with, I am fascinated by them nonetheless. How about this? I’ll let you hold your views on the resurrection, and you can let me hold mine. Either may or may not be supported by evidence, that, I (we?) will only know after research, if ever.

The experience is by no means contradictory to Christian beliefs! It seems to help it more than hinder it, but that’s my opinion.

To answer your final sentence, I don’t know where my life will lead me, but I know I might be a Priest, I might be a writer, I might be a programmer, and I might be something totally different. But I will always be Catholic. It’s just how I am, where the evidence, I believe, leads.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss, I feel I’ve said all I need to say for now.

 

[Tuno]

It would be very strange if there were no similarities between some of the events recorded in the Gospels and events in the numerous pagan myths and legends dating back thousands of years. They certainly have no bearing on the truth of the moral and spiritual teaching of Jesus which is inseparable from his life, mission, death and Resurrection…

Yes, and what does one suppose the similarities to stem from? And there being similarities such as, and I’m sorry I don’t remember where I read it now, the Egyptians of one town parading a creche through the streets on December 25th, among many others, why are there so many? Even the Ituri pygmies of Congo, who in their long oral history had no contact with Christianity, worship a savior born of a virgin who performed miracles, died ignominiously and rose again. Why are there so many similar stories?

Personally I don’t think it matters, because the process of moving past faith is now quite well understood and widely known, if not appreciated, especially with those who have an investment in the major religions. But those are known to be incomplete in their teachings. So what is the connection between all these stories and that which actually is known by experience to work?