Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[uwot]

If you allow that fantastic can refer to miracles or resurrections, then miracles or resurrections are fantastic in whatever sense you allow. The only reason I can think of for arguing that it doesn't follow, is that under those conditions it is tautologous and therefore doesn't need proving.

That too is illogical: the "imagine" in the premise refers to the speaker of the claim, not to me. Of course, the speaker can "imagine" whatever he wishes; but he cannot logically bind me to his premise by "imagining" on my behalf!

I imagine you understand now.

It is a quirk of the English language that you can use 'you' to mean no one in particular. What you, Immanuel Can, understand by fantastic is irrelevent, but even you, Immanuel Can, allow that people don't always mean fantastic literally:

So, to my point about the "fantastic" (which borrows from an earlier post by, I think, Blaggard) was simply to say that I am not inclined to be particularly skeptical to "non-fantastic" claims in the Gospels. The "fantastic" claims, insofar as I am skeptical of such claims in other scriptures, are ones on which I am less keen to defend the Gospel's historicity.

That's fair. After all, if "miracles" were some sort of routine manifestation of existing material laws, then there would be no reason at all to speak of them as any kind of "miracle."

Which again brings us back to:

We need to note hat a positive claim made by the doubter is advanced as the starting point of the debate: i.e., that miracles are "fantastic."


In other words, the debate with the doubter claiming to know something.

I think you are tilting at windmills. Do you have an example of someone making an argument of that nature? Who exactly are you debating with?

The issue is that there is no positive claim necessary to doubt, as you claim.

[ReliStuPhD]

What is certain is that there are a number of texts that have been scrupulously examined over many years and that some people believe to be accounts, albeit slightly differing, of historical events. Some of those events are mundane and aren't worth seriously doubting. There may very well have been a bloke called Jesus; Immanuel Can and yourself, I gather, believe there was. So what?]

Works for me. IIRC, what started this thread (or arose early on) was the contention by some that the Gospels could not be considered historically accurate (with reference to the non-fantastic elements of Jesus life). I argued that they could. Beyond that, I don't really have a dog in the hunt these days.

[uwot]

Works for me. IIRC, what started this thread (or arose early on) was the contention by some that the Gospels could not be considered historically accurate (with reference to the non-fantastic elements of Jesus life). I argued that they could. Beyond that, I don't really have a dog in the hunt these days.

Where did I say this?

[ReliStuPhD]

Where did I say this?

Where did I say you did?

And one thought that just popped up when I fixed a bad edit in my previous response: you said "There may very well have been a bloke called Jesus." That sentence works for so long as we also say "There may very well have been a bloke called Augustus Caesar." I prefer "There were blokes called Jesus and Augustus Caesar."

[Immanuel Can]

The issue is that there is no positive claim necessary to doubt, as you claim.

Actually, I did not make that claim. I did not said that a doubter has to advance a positive claim. But this one *does* advance a positive claim, namely that "miracles are fantastic." By this claim, he rationally takes upon himself the responsibility to show reasons.

That's what we do in philosophy.

[ReliStuPhD]

... advance a positive claim, namely that "miracles are fantastic."

Is too much baggage being placed on the word "fantastic" here? It doesn't mean "impossible," etc, etc, etc. It can simply mean something like "I would expect to read this in a fairy tale, not an historical document." This is not saying "no way this happened." Seems there's little need to prove what amounts to a choice of words. Or maybe I misunderstand the point you two are debating.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh, you're quite free, from my perspective, to nuance that word. No problem there. I could, as I said, only assume what your meaning of "fantastic" might be (unless you specify, as you just have). And I could only assume the referent was "miracle" or "resurrection".

Moreover, my suggestion about it is modest...simply that there is no rational necessity that we must take the pejorative meaning of "fantastic," which is, "associated with [mere] fantasy." The word may mean something as innocuous as "marvelous" "unprecedented" or "surprising." In that case, I'd agree with you entirely.

[ReliStuPhD]

Moreover, my suggestion about it is modest...simply that there is no rational necessity that we must take the pejorative meaning of "fantastic," which is, "associated with [mere] fantasy." The word may mean something as innocuous as "marvelous" "unprecedented" or "surprising." In that case, I'd agree with you entirely.

Right. And if the original use of "fantastic" earlier in the thread was meant pejoratively, it was certainly not my intention to repeat that particular meaning. I assumed "fantastic" to mean your innocuous synonyms, and we all know what "assume" does.

[Immanuel Can]

we all know what "assume" does.

Yeah.

I got the part about "us", when I first heard my grade 9 English teacher say it; but why he was enthused about the idea that we could potentially make him one somehow eluded me.

[sjeff70]

The bible wasn't written as a book by one author. I think we're missing the point of the scriptures. Ever wonder why any church or scholar hasn't been able to discipher much scripture, especially the esoteric ones? Go back to the period where the church and gnostics were in disagreement. Why were the gnostic scriptures left out of the bible?

I think it's interesting how Eastern philosopies have offerered meaning to scriptures, even the esoteric ones. Wasn't Jesus in the East? There are hundreds of books out there by different authors offering bible interpretation but no one likes those because it conflicts with what the church taught them. The church cannot even offer accurate explanation to bible scripture!

We're going about it from the wrong angle. The bible was not meant to be discussed logically. In order to speak in terms of the spirit symbolism, irrationality ('fantastic'), and conflicting statements must be used. It's seen in buddhist scripture all the time. Take a look at some Buddhist tantra (Vajrayana): nothing but fantastic claims and conflicting statements. Completely illogical...what scripture is pointing to is beyond the intellect. We try to use logic where there is none and we can't see the forest for the trees!

[Immanuel Can]

Why were the gnostic scriptures left out of the bible?

I could answer, but this'll do. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/june/7.26.html

Wasn't Jesus in the East?

Geographically? The Middle East. But conceptually, the pattern of thought known as monotheism is nowadays more ordinarily associated with the West, and the East has become associated with various forms of polytheistic or pantheistic mysticism.

Interestingly, this positions Islam as a Western artifact, not an Eastern one. But you can really see the difference if you compare, say, Hinduism/Buddhism and Islam or Judaism -- they're opposite options.

Gnosticism has more in common with the Eastern tradition than with the West.

There are hundreds of books out there by different authors offering bible interpretation but no one likes those because it conflicts with what the church taught them. The church cannot even offer accurate explanation to bible scripture!

Incorrect, but the article above should help you make a start on finding out why you're incorrect.

We're going about it from the wrong angle. The bible was not meant to be discussed logically. In order to speak in terms of the spirit symbolism, irrationality ('fantastic'), and conflicting statements must be used. It's seen in buddhist scripture all the time. Take a look at some Buddhist tantra (Vajrayana): nothing but fantastic claims and conflicting statements. Completely illogical...what scripture is pointing to is beyond the intellect. We try to use logic where there is none and we can't see the forest for the trees!

You're mixing the two traditions, and doing so will merely confuse you, because they are premised on contradictory directions.

Although they contain some minor mystical sects, Jews and Christians are largely rationalists, and as such are resolved on the idea that logic and rationality are part of what it means to "meditate" on the Word of God. They're committed to ideas like propositional truth, Authorial intent as determinative, and exegesis as methodology.

In contrast, the purpose of the Buddhist scriptures is the emptying of the mind. The goal is to learn how NOT to meditate on any particular thing, but to empty the mind of all referents, and so to move beyond the alleged illusion of reality. There is no Authorial intent, no Author in fact, no true propositions concerning reality, and cyphers or mystical narratives instead.

[thedoc]

I think it's interesting how Eastern philosopies have offerered meaning to scriptures, even the esoteric ones. Wasn't Jesus in the East?

I have a book that I read a year or so ago that tries to make the case that Jesus had traveled and studied in areas from Egypt, to India, and southern England in the area of the tin mines. It seems that all these areas and many in between have written records of Jesus' visit, and the case is made of the similarity of the philosophical teachings that were popular in these areas, at the time, and Jesus teachings in the Bible.

[sjeff70]

Why were the gnostic scriptures left out of the bible?

I could answer, but this'll do. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/june/7.26.html

Wasn't Jesus in the East?

Geographically? The Middle East. But conceptually, the pattern of thought known as monotheism is nowadays more ordinarily associated with the West, and the East has become associated with various forms of polytheistic or pantheistic mysticism.

Interestingly, this positions Islam as a Western artifact, not an Eastern one. But you can really see the difference if you compare, say, Hinduism/Buddhism and Islam or Judaism -- they're opposite options.

Gnosticism has more in common with the Eastern tradition than with the West.

There are hundreds of books out there by different authors offering bible interpretation but no one likes those because it conflicts with what the church taught them. The church cannot even offer accurate explanation to bible scripture!

Incorrect, but the article above should help you make a start on finding out why you're incorrect.

We're going about it from the wrong angle. The bible was not meant to be discussed logically. In order to speak in terms of the spirit symbolism, irrationality ('fantastic'), and conflicting statements must be used. It's seen in buddhist scripture all the time. Take a look at some Buddhist tantra (Vajrayana): nothing but fantastic claims and conflicting statements. Completely illogical...what scripture is pointing to is beyond the intellect. We try to use logic where there is none and we can't see the forest for the trees!

You're mixing the two traditions, and doing so will merely confuse you, because they are premised on contradictory directions.

Although they contain some minor mystical sects, Jews and Christians are largely rationalists, and as such are resolved on the idea that logic and rationality are part of what it means to "meditate" on the Word of God. They're committed to ideas like propositional truth, Authorial intent as determinative, and exegesis as methodology.

In contrast, the purpose of the Buddhist scriptures is the emptying of the mind. The goal is to learn how NOT to meditate on any particular thing, but to empty the mind of all referents, and so to move beyond the alleged illusion of reality. There is no Authorial intent, no Author in fact, no true propositions concerning reality, and cyphers or mystical narratives instead.

I wish you good luck.

[sjeff70]

I think it's interesting how Eastern philosopies have offerered meaning to scriptures, even the esoteric ones. Wasn't Jesus in the East?

I have a book that I read a year or so ago that tries to make the case that Jesus had traveled and studied in areas from Egypt, to India, and southern England in the area of the tin mines. It seems that all these areas and many in between have written records of Jesus' visit, and the case is made of the similarity of the philosophical teachings that were popular in these areas, at the time, and Jesus teachings in the Bible.

Yes, I believe he was there... but as you know the scriptures in the bible are known to have been written after he was gone.

[Immanuel Can]

...as you know... are known to have...

Things people say when they hope you won't check...

To paraphrase Apocalypse Now, "I love the smell of bluffing in the morning."