I’m just saying that your assertion is controversial. Why you don’t simply admit that is unclear.
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s not unclear. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to argue because your cites support what I’ve been saying. Hebrew is a Semitic language, yes. It is an Afro-Asiatic language, yes. But so what? I didn’t say Semitic languages didn’t exist. I didn’t say Afro-Asiatic languages didn’t exist. I said Hebrew didn’t exist and it didn’t. Biblical Hebrew arose from Canaanite around the 11th century BCE.
Right, but the difference between the two events is that it doesn’t make any difference as to whether a person is a Christian or not, if he believes that Jonah survived inside a whale or not. You don’t have to believe that Jonah survived inside a whale in order to be a Christian.
But it does make a huge difference if you believe, or don’t believe, that Jesus came back from the dead. If you don’t believe that Jesus came back from the dead, then you’re not a Christian.
Mercy, no. :eek: To mainstream Christianity, this is one of the basic “requireds”. Because if Mary wasn’t a virgin, then that casts doubt on whether Jesus really was the Holy-Spirit-engendered, incarnated Son of God–he could just have been Joseph’s son, or some other guy’s son that Mary was fooling around with.
No. The Virgin Birth you gotta keep. And AFAIK, most everybody does. Who do you know who doesn’t?
What I am trying to say is that modern “thinkers” sometimes put their view of knowledge into too linear of a format, as though the knowledge was only discovered recently. For instance, if one studies String Theory or Quantum Physics, and then goes back and studies the Sefer Yetzirah, they will find that it too is talking about String Theory and Quantum Physics.
I feel like we don’t give enough credence to the idea that ancient priests/shamans did have quite extensive knowledge. The problem was the transmission to a less educated populace. I’d say that the saturation of education, and the ability for human beings to communicate on mass scales are what has changed, not the amount of knowledge. We change our focal point as time goes by, but not our basic understanding of the laws of physics. For example, whether or not the Earth is the center, the Sun is the Center, we are the Center etc… Those change culturally, but the knowledge of the objective is rather constant, thus the “There’s nothing new under the sun.” statement. Humanity has always known everything. There is a difference between knowledge and understanding however, and at different times we understand different things.
When we cling too rigidly to the idea that this person was a real person in history and did A, B and C, we lose sight of the archetypal nature of the characters in scripture. Moses is the archetype of the lawgiver. He is perhaps a ‘mosaic’ of many different lawgivers in the oral history of the hebrews, who felt that the tradition could be more effectively passed on if they paired down the genealogy a little bit in order to pass on the cultural traditions.
In short it is rather irrelevant whether or not Moses was the character that Charlton Heston played or was a thousand different rabbis. It is the teachings that we have received from this meme that are what is important. We can quibble over historical ideas forever, but it doesn’t change the fact that history is essentially unknowable, and all we have to work with are a framework of loose evidence, such as scriptures, archaeological evidence and other bits that we piece together to form the story that we then, more or less invent to help describe what we think we understand about that particular time.
When historians go back and look at our time, they are not going to find much more about it than we know about Moses. We have so many different people offering up a version of every story, each one slightly different, that our signal is lost in a sea of noise. Then take into account the level of disposability of our records. Hard Drives will crash, Tape Backups will deteriorate, Paper will biodegrade, CDs will melt. Inevitably, it will be the same ‘mosaic’ piecing together of what happened. Historians will never credibly answer the question of whether or not Bush knew about September 11th prior to it’s occurence, unless he or someone close to him comes out and flat out says it.
Evolution is about adaptation. We don’t become “better” humans over time, because “better” is completely subjective to the forces being applied to us at that time. We are currently better adapted to the environment that we live in now than past humans were, but we aren’t objectively “better”. Certainly, we can cure polio, but we’ve made genetically modified corn dangerous to us, so we have a new thing to worry about and solve. Something that the prior generations didn’t even have to worry about.
I disagree that the virgin birth is integral to Christianity. Personally I like the idea that Joseph of Arimathea knocked up Mary. I think that a lot of the dogma that we accept is Roman propaganda intended to keep the populace in line. I think the virgin birth is one of those. The requirement for a virgin birth kind of takes the human aspect out of it, and diminishes the people acting as the hands and feet of god.
I don’t think it is a requirement that Jesus came back from the dead. I think that these particular beliefs are ways for people to justify their belief in Christ by saying “No this guy is the REALLY REALLY messiah, look what he did.”, rather than supporting those other guys who were saying much of the same shit that he was.
I do think that Jesus was a special character, he was one of those illuminated folks that makes a big ripple in the pond that resonates for years to come, but he was still human, and I even feel like the virgin birth and the resurrection as “necessities” diminish the whole package. They may very well have happened, but I think making them requirements is a focus on the trimmings and not the substance. More likely what I would believe is that he was such an enlightened dude, kind of in the Martial Arts master vein, that perhaps he had some technique that allowed him to survive the crucifixion, and it took him three days to recover from his torpor. To me, that is much more compelling.
Too many dogmatic “requirements” get in the way of finding any real and true understanding from these stories that we cling to so fervently. In the end, God is god, and if you try to put a single face to god, then you are practicing idolatry.
Okay, maybe the third time will be a charm. The summary and catergorical declaration that there existed no Hebrew language at the alleged time of Moses is poorly worded at best and wrong at worst, and somewhere in between is controversial. That’s what I’m saying. And the cites I gave you bear out exactly what I’ve said. Let the readers decide for themselves. A fourth time will be merely tedious.
Agreed. But that wasn’t my original question, which was how one decides what one believes from the bible and what one doesn’t believe. You talked about “common sense”, but that’s not really the case. What you actually are saying is that you believe what you feel you MUST believe in order to be a Christian. And of course that is subjective, too.
My bad-- I was thinking about the Immaculate Conception. Sorry, but it’s been a few years since Catholic school for me.
DtC: I think what **Liberal **is saying is that any point you stop calling Hebrew, “Hebrew” is arbitrary. You, I think, are claiming that the Hebrew of the 5th century BC would be significnatly different from the Hebrew (or whatever you want to call it) of the 11th Centruy BC, which is most likely true. But there’s no reason you can’t call both languages “Hebrew”, is there? 500-600 years is not that long in the life of a language. Are we talking about more than that span of time?
Lib, your cites do not back you up. The Hebrew language did not exist at the alleged time of Moses. Other Semitic languages existed but Hebrew hadn’t evolved yet. I really don’t understand what you’re objecting to. It sounds like you want to define all languages ancestral to Hebrew as “Hebrew languages” which is akin to describing Latin and Indo-European as “French” languages.
The OP does not apply specifically to Christianity. You could say those same things about at least the ‘big three’ Western religions and probably others.
A lot can happen in 600 years. Witness the transformation of OE (a.k.a. Anglo-Saxon) under Anglo-Norman occupation to ME. Beowulf originated circa 750 CE, and is first found written down circa 1000. By circa 1350 you’ve got the Canterbury Tales. Circa 1600, you’ve got Romeo and Juliet and the early modern English of the Elizabethan period. Quite a transformative period.
The Exodus (and the supposed time of Moses) is variously dated anywhere from the 15th century to the mid 13th century BCE (the Bible is contradictory on this) and the Isralites supposedly spent 400 years in Egypt before that.
The first emergence of Hebrew as distinct language from Canaanite was c. the 11th century BCE. Before that time the language was Canaanite, not Hebrew.
Depends on the flavor of Christianity you’re talking about.
Certainly it’s possible to believe that God created the Universe, that the Bible is not all literally true, that current accepted scientific theory is basically correct, and that Jesus was the prophecied Messiah.
At least on the surface. (Personally, I don’t see how it’s possible to reconcile all of the above when you consider the full web of implications.)
My point is that this and other threads on the theme of “How can Christians possibly believe this?” are misguided.
After all, Christians by definition are able to believe – based on the words of others, their internal states of experience, and the hopelessly contradictory accounts contained in the Bible – at least that Jesus of Nazareth was sent by God to redeem humankind and was bodily resurrected after death, or even that Jesus was God.
Now, anyone who can believe that can believe pretty much anything if they want to. So why should anyone be surprised if there are groups of Christians out there who believe that the Bible is literal, that Jesus visited the Americas or India, that Haile Selassie was the second coming of Christ, or really anything you care to trot out, much less that evolution and Christianity are compatible.
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
I think you are overestimating people’s ability to believe things.
Well, unfortunately, every mainstream Christian denomination out there would disagree with you: the belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that he rose from the dead, are considered integral to the religion known as Christianity. It’s like believing that Mohammed was a real person is integral to Islam.
Now, yes, certainly, you can make up a religion that doesn’t include these two tenets–but you can’t call it “Christianity”, the way you can make up a religion that says that Mohammed was a folk character like Paul Bunyan, but it wouldn’t be “Islam”.
During the first few hundred years of Christianity, folks spent a lot of time debating just these issues, and the losers in the debate–the ones whose viewpoint did not include virgin birth and resurrection–came to be called “heretics” by the winners.
So your religion, the one that did not include virgin birth and the resurrection, would be termed “heresy” by mainstream Christianity.
Well, yeah, duh. That’s exactly the point of "Christ"ianity, as opposed to "Albert Schweitzer"ianity, or "Mother Teresa"ianity.
Lots of preachers and Good Men have preached “Love your neighbor, etc.”, but Jesus is the only one claiming to be The Messiah.
Well, see, again, if you deny the divinity, the Godhead, of Jesus, then you’re into historical “heresy” territory again. It ain’t “Christianity” if Yeshua of Nazareth ain’t God.
No, making them the requirements is how we distinguish Christianity from all other “Love your neighbor” SoCal Happy Thoughts religions. The substance of "Christ"ianity is “Christ”. “Christ” is a Greek word that means “the anointed one”. “Messiah” is the Hebrew word that also means “the anointed one”. To believe in “The Anointed One” is to believe in all the baggage that goes along with it: why was he anointed, who anointed him, what was the task for which he was anointed. It all goes together, it’s a package deal. It’s the substance, not the trimmings.
“Trimmings” would be things like when we baptize people, should they be sprinkled or dunked; should they be adults or infants; should the leader of the church wear special clothing when he gets up in front, or can he wear street clothes; is it okay to have a piano in church or is singing along with instruments a sin; can the leader of the church get married and have children or not. Those are all “trimmings”, because none of them are central to the belief in “The Anointed One”. You can believe Jesus was the Anointed One without also having to believe that infants have no business being baptized–“infant baptism” is not important, it’s not central, it’s not the “substance” of the religion.
The very basic, rock-bottom, core belief of Christianity is this: that mankind is sinful, and that beings who are sinful cannot have fellowship with God, the Sinless One. Therefore, in order to allow mankind to have fellowship with Him, God enabled a process called “sacrifice”–animals were ritually killed, and the person donating the animal would specify that it was to be in expiation of his sins. So this worked well, but the thing was, you had to keep doing it. You’d do some more sins, so you’d have to go sacrifice some more animals. Eventually God implemented a “Once For All” sacrifice, by incarnating Himself as an actual human being, and allowing Himself to be killed. But you can’t have God stay dead, because then He wouldn’t be God, at least not the Yahweh-type of all-powerful God, which is what we’re dealing with here. So God came back to life, and in doing so, also conquered Death on behalf of his fragile human creations, for whom “Death” had always been the default. But after Jesus rose from the dead, Sin and Death were both dealt with, permanently. You could invoke the name of Jesus when asking God to forgive your sins, and you could not-have-to-die-after-all, because Jesus didn’t stay dead.
So if you take away Jesus-being-actually-dead-and-then-rising-from-the-dead, then you’ve just removed the whole Once-For-All sacrifice, and the whole crucifixion exercise becomes theologically pointless. “A good man preached Love Your Neighbor, TPTB killed him, but he wasn’t really dead after all.” Kind of an anti-climax, theologically speaking.
And you’ve removed the promise of eternal life, which Jesus explicitly stated was part of the package deal–believe in the Anointed One, and your soul lives eternally. Because He lives, so can we.
But not if it’s just that Jesus was Keanu Reeves or something (snerk ), who put himself into a trance state for Friday and Saturday nights, and popped up fine and dandy on Sunday morning.
Not if your “putting a single face to God” is a direct result of the belief that God has deliberately revealed that face to us. Which He has, through the Bible. Christianity and Judaism claim that God has revealed Himself to us, deliberately, that He wants us to “put a face on Him”, He wants us to know Him.
Given what real people actually believe in the real world, I hardly think I’m overestimating humankind’s ability to believe in utter nonsense, much less nonsense lite.
As for the parable you cite, its point (or one point, anyway) is precisely that people will in fact believe what they choose to believe, regardless of the obvious reality staring them in the face. Which is what I’m also saying.
Not so. I know many Christians, including a few clergy, who reject the virgin birth, but firmly believe that Jesus was the prophecied messiah who redeemed humankind by his death and resurrection. The only requirement for being a Christian is to believe that Jesus was the Christ. That’s why they’re called “Christians”. You can reject the literal status of scripture and still believe that Jesus was the Christ. You can believe that stories written after Jesus’ death are not wholly accurate, and still believe that Jesus was the Christ. The doctrine of virgin birth is not a must-have.
That’s exactly the point of "Christ"ianity, as opposed to "Albert Schweitzer"ianity, or "Mother Teresa"ianity.