The Total Christ

Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” agree that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?” Waterboy said Teilhard is “more of a `scientific’ mystic than a theologian. He is therefore widely misunderstood.” Gifted mystics or spiritual “seers” of all times, places and traditions tend to speak the same language because they have been to the same country.[1] They have at least caught a glimpse of the Promised Land – the Inner Kingdom also known as the “Secret Garden”, the “Garden of Eden”, God’s own “Little Acre”, “Paradise” or “Wonderland.”

Every servant girl in Jerusalem 2000 years ago knew that Jesus came from Nazareth. With all his Army Intelligence, Pontius Pilate would have known no less. But the Roman Governor was inspired to probe more deeply and ask “Where DO you come from?” (John 19:9).

It seems that Saul of Tarsus was in Jerusalam, studying under Gamaliel, but knew nothing of Jesus between the events of the first Christian Palm Sunday and the first Christian Pentecost. Arraigned between the Sanhedrin, Stephen’s face was angelic (Acts 6:15). Finally he said, “I see the heavens thrown open and the Son of Man at the right hand of God!” Rushed out of the city and being stoned to death, Stephen fell to his knees and asked God not to hold that sin against his executioners. Saul became caught up in the Anti-Christian hysteria and was soon on his way to Damascus to bring back to Jerusalem any followers of the Way of Christ that he could find. Reflecting on recent events, the Voice of Conscience suddenly seemed to be saying, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?” He began to sense the real presence of Christ in his followers. He too asked “Where do you come from?” and was led not so much to the “Jesus of History” [recent history] as to the “History of Jesus” which extends from before the beginning [15 billion years ago?] to beyond the end of time. That is the TOTAL Christ.

Dear Roch,

Thank you for this thread - and for arguing your case so beautifully.
It brought a lump to my throat.

We cannot prove everything in the Bible. The New Testament is almost 2,000 years old. The real Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. There are limitations to what one can know through historical inquiry.

People are still in sharp disagreement over events which happened within the lifetime of many of us such as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy or the accidental death of Princess Diana.

How much more so is it going to be difficult to speak conclusively concerning a person who lived 2,000 years ago.

But while the limitations of history do not allow us to speak absolutely, they do not prevent our speaking of possibilites and probabilities.

I cannot prove the virgin birth of Jesus through historical analysis,
but someone else cannot disprove it using the same method.

Again, Thank-You for presenting this subject on this Forum.

Cheers.

Sorry to butt in, but surely science can prove that female mammals cannot give birth if they have not had sex, and surely science can prove that this has been consistent throughout history? I don't know, but I'd imagine.

Not that I can see that it makes any difference. If you could prove it was possible, it wouldn't be a miracle, right? So doesn't it have to be impossible?

Or perhaps this is why I could never be a Christian. No good at theology.

What are you writing Vanilla? Do not you know that religious people can believe anything about their religious? Their right. Unfortunately I can not believe anything non logic, anything that contrary to sciences. But this is mine problem, my personal weakness. I do not have the charisma to believe the extraordinary religious stories. Sorry, that's me!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

What an inspring opening post. *amen*

Each post thus far has expressed doubt, if not total disbelief.

39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Dear Vanilla,

The term "Virgin Conception" has long been one of Christianity's foundational beliefs - along with the inerrancy of the Bible; God's inspiration of the authors of the Bible, the Atonement, Resurrection, and the anticipated second coming of Jesus...

Of course there are no known cases of mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild. (In April 2004, scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture used parthenogenesis successfully to create a fatherless mouse). In theory, artificial human parthenogenesis could be used to reproduce humans, but this is highly unlikely due to ethical concerns.

The use of an electrical or chemical stimulus can produce the beginning of the process of parthenogenesis in the sexual development of viable offspring.

Hans Kung in, "On Being a Christian," tells us - "Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical - biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time."

I think Foxy has created a new word,"inerrancy'?,errancy or inaccuracy.Let those who believe,enjoy their moment,since the abyss of atheism has yet to fill the void in our human psyche.If we can all be expressed as a mathematical equation with a meaningless end,then existence has lost it's reason.We will be no greater than the machines we invent.To be slaves to the survival of the fittest and law of the jungle scenarios,makes life a worthless sham.
Will this be the way the world ends? "Not a bang ,but a whimper"

Dear Arjay,

I didn't invent the word "inerrancy".

"Inerrant" - means - free from error.

Look it up.

Cheers.

Disputing something as 'not historically possible' is bias :)

If Jesus demonstrated anything..it is that He is sovereign over nature.

John the Baptist sent followers to Jesus "Are you he who is to come..or should we look for another?

Jesus replied:

the deaf stay deaf.. the blind still can't see, the lame still stumble around..

well of course that isn't what Jesus said.. he is reported to have said the opposite

"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 23Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."

Is it any wonder that after 3 yrs, he had turned the land upside down ?
Without doubt, if Jesus just had a 'message of repentance and forgiveness' his words would have fallen in increasingly deaf ears.
Jesus did not seek to be popular.. he was truthful about the human condition. People came to him for all the wrong reasons "WOW.. a miracle healer" but his words either turned them away or transformed them.

If the lame can walk. the deaf hear, the blind see.. the dead be raised... is it surprising that His incarnation was via a virgin ?

Not to me.

It's hard to explain why, but you really turn me off Christianity, Boazy. You're like an anti-missionary. You're an atheist-creator.

"Disputing something as 'not historically possible' is bias :)"
I find this statement entirely meaningless. So you're saying *everything* is historically possible. So if I said, it's not historically possible the earth is just a speck in the eye of the flying spaghetti monster, I'm biased?

With over 500 people at once witnessing Christ after His resurrection there is a far chance that in a court of law it could be proved. Most however look for reasons not to believe because they don't want to face up to their own sin. Moral relativism is a convenient way to put ourselves in the place of God. Its such as pity as He has demonstrated His love so much for all humans and wishes for none to perish. As the Scripture so clearly say that the Light came to the world but men loved the darkness more. Jesus Christ is the only person to ever live who never lied. Its a pity a few more don't believe Him.

Boazy: "If Jesus demonstrated anything..it is that He is sovereign over nature...

...If the lame can walk. the deaf hear, the blind see.. the dead be raised... is it surprising that His incarnation was via a virgin ?

Not to me"

Well I guess that's the nub of it.

On the basis of a bunch of fairy tales, fundamentalist Christians are entitled to do anything in the real world that is consistent with their interpretation of those fairy tales. Bugger the environment and those who don't share their beliefs.

Everybody else is obviously not only wrong, but DAMNED TO THE ETERNAL FIRES OF HELL!!

Some very passioned and romantic language used here in faith. I saw a documentary on Cardinal Ratzinger before he was Pope Benedict which was interesting. He had a passion for science. He was discussing his balancing act of always keeping a mind's eye on history and the logic of science in balance.
In a way, I guess Jesus spooked his disciples out as his actions were not human. They were greater than human understanding. This really played with their heads. I can't help but have sympathy for Judas who really wanted to do the right thing and really got spooked out, and Mary Magdalene who has been misunderstood through history. Blessings +TSt+

Dear Vanilla and CJ..

Vanilla first.

Quite notable.. how you reacted to the proclamation of Christ just as the thief on one side of Jesus. "ridicule.. mockery..anger"
As I said.. proclaiming Christ usually has 1 of 2 possible effects.
Revulsion or Rejoicing. I guess you opted for the former there.
You make it an issue of 'me', whereas you should be making it an issue of 'truth or falsehood'. Paul knew of people who proclaimed Christ deliberately to inflict suffering on himself.. yet he rejoiced that Christ (whether for good motives or bad) was being proclaimed.

Now.. regarding 'something is historically impossible' and your point there. Let me expand a bit to make it more meaningful.
IF... we begin the assessment of any phenomena by affirming 'It cannot be' before we look at the evidence, that... is bias. Specifically regarding the resurrection.. the miracles of Christ, it is not our presuppositions which should hold sway but the evidence itself.
If a number of reliable people, who's reliablity has been demonstrated in a cross section of material they wrote testify to something happening, then only bias would reject what they say.

Your spagetti monster thing, would depend entirely on the evidence, character and identifiable motives of the witnesses. Witnesses who's lives are on the line by saying what they say are usually fairly pure.

If you want to see a stark contrast, read in the gospels of the disciples disillusionment after Christs crucifixion, and then read Acts 2 you will notice something.

CJ.. speaking of bias..... "fairy tales" is just that. You reject the evidence, based not on it's own merit, but on the basis of prejudging it by your own decision.

ENVIRONMENT? where did that come from ? not a chance.. lets look after it. As for Hell... a sobering thought indeed. If you end up there, it won't be for lack of someone trying to persuade you of a much happier alternative.

Foxy

IN your second post to this thread you stated: "Hans Kung in, "On Being a Christian," tells us - "Although the virgin birth cannot be understood as a historical - biological event, it can be regarded as a meaningful symbol at least for that time."

I am a long time observer to this forum, and know that you are very reasonable and erudite and also, a Christian. Is the above quote an example of how you maintain your belief in religion in general and Christianity in particular?

For myself, I couldn't manage the mental gymnastics it takes to believe in biblical miracles, the consistent bias against women and the general pettiness of the god of the Abrahamic religions.

As I respect your opinion I would be interested to know exactly what you mean by your belief in Christ? Is it symbolic? OR do you really believe in all the miracles and virgin birth and resurrection that is the foundation for Christian belief?

Kind regards

F

Boazy, I'm sorry that you make Christianity seem icky to me (this isn't a false apology, I really am a bit sorry for both you and I), but there it is. I wasn't trying to express ridicule or mockery (though on other threads I often do of course), I was being honest, and felt quite sad about it really.

Boazy: "IF... we begin the assessment of any phenomena by affirming 'It cannot be' before we look at the evidence, that... is bias. Specifically regarding the resurrection.. the miracles of Christ, it is not our presuppositions which should hold sway but the evidence itself."

Exactly. And the evidence *does not* satisfy me. We certainly have the evidence to disprove the virgin birth. I was just being a stickler for truth re Foxy's post - and her eloquent reply to me is quite enough, so *please* don't post your "evidence" of the historical reliability of the gospels or explain how the adhere to the rules of evidence.

Foxy, you strike me as a John Shelby Strong type Christian. Are you a fan?

My there certainly is a lot of passionate people. It's great to see a reasonable discussion being held on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.

One should realise the first gift God ever gave us is "choice". We have the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in him and follow him. We cannot force others to believe nor can we expect others to have instant faith, whether it be accepting the virgin birth or the miracles of Jesus and heaven forbid, accepting Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus often called himself, the son of man, he came here to serve, not to be served. As Christians, Jesus is our example of how we should be living our own lives. It is not up to us to go out and force people to become Christians. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion so it is hardly surprising when people become negative towards God. The crusades give everyone enough ammunition to throw at Christians and speaking of ammunition, the Vatican owns the largest munitions factory in the world. War is a great money spinner after all.

Jesus said, go forth and preach to all the world. We are to sow the word of God, planting a seed in the hearts of others, from there, it's up to God to grow that seed.

Mankind (and womankind too) has a lot to answer for and God will judge us all whether we believe in him or not, on the day of judgement we shall all stand before the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords to give an account.

Whether you choose to follow God or not does not alter the fact that he still loves you unconditionally, expecting nothing in return. It is a great sorrow to God when a person goes to hell but because he loves us so much, he will not force us to follow him or believe in him.

Freedom is a great gift, but it comes at such a price.

Dear Fractelle and Vanilla,

I've tried to voice my beliefs through quite a few posts on this Forum. So I won't do a whole litany here.

'Well the Bible says it and I believe it and that settles it." This type of faith is often inherited from one's parents. It is sufficient for some people for a whole lifetime, but for others it will not last. Some Christians with such a naive faith are unable to handle a setting where a brief encounter with an aggressive skeptical person - who throws one or two challenges their way - which they can't handle. People with a naive faith often simply walk away from the Church at some point in their adult life.

I regard myself as a Catholic, who follows her conscience, demands meaning and relevance from her Church, and will not permit my God to be reduced to empty ritual and all-absorbing law.

Do I believe in the Virgin Birth? No.
I believe in what - Geza Vermes says in his, "Matthew's Nativity..." "Matthew's Gospel was written in about AD 80-90 for Christians who were not of Jewish provenance - that is, Gentiles who had no knowledge of Isaiahs original Hebrew. For them, the passage announced, unambiguously, the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy - the miraculous birth of a divine being. But the propher himself and readers of his original Hebrew sentence regarded it as a quite specific allusion to the historical circumstances of Isaiah's age - and would have found its mutation in Greek into one of the foundations of Christian doctrine quite baffling."

Dear Vanilla,

I'm not a fan of John Selby - or of any psychologist and spiritual trainer. Some people are motivational freaks, they buy all the books, take all the courses, listen to all the tapes, know all the jargon,
enjoy all the symptoms. I'm not one of them.

Dear Vanilla,

Oooops, I made a blunder, sorry.

Did you mean am I a fan of the liberal - retired Bishop John Shelby Spong? (Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark). Who's for racial equality et cetera...

Yes, I am a fan.

The Christian tradition that “Foxy” is talking about claims that Jesus had no earthly father. His earthly mother or “God-bearer” [Greek “Theo-tokos”] was never “defiled” by the “seed” or semen of any earthly man. Even the “seed” of Zachary was supposedly “decontaminated” before it entered the womb of Anne – Mary’s mother.

Moving on – considering that Jesus had no earthly father but only an earthly mother “undefiled” by human semen – the question nowadays arises – From where did Jesus [a man like every other man – except sinless] get the “Y” chromosomes of his 44-plus-XY genetic configuration from a woman with a 44-plus-XX genetic configuration?

Did the Holy Spirit “circumcise” or “amputate” an arm or a leg off one of Mary’s “X’s” to make a “Y” in a cell modified to act as a sperm able to penetrate one of her “seeds” [“eggs” or “ova”]?

The essential “foundational belief” of Christianity has always been Christ’s victory over dying, death and disintegration. As Paul said, “If Christ be not risen, our preaching is in vain – and so is your faith!” (1 Cor.15:14). Yes – the body of the Nazarene [aged about 33] did die and start disintegrating (Jn.19:34). But a “break-through” occurred in the tomb – a mystery that no one has yet explained [nor will ever explain?]. Jesus burst from the tomb and resumed his ascension from the beginning to the end of time – drawing the basic stuff of all things to himself as he promised (Jn.12:32) and according to the inner plan which God the Father so kindly made from the beginning – that in the course of time He would bring all things together under Christ as Head (Eph.1:9-10). So Jesus is what Teilhard called “The Universal Element”[1] – the universal “reconciling” or integrating element. “Above all,” he said, ‘we seek Christ in his integrity!”[2]

[1] 1919 “The Universal Element” pp.289-302 in “Writings in Time of War” 1968
[2] ibid., p.30

Foxy

Thank you kindly for your considered response to my query.

I am trying to understand why clearly intelligent people like yourself believe in Christ, the resurrection and a paternalistic god (whom I don't find at all loving because of the many contradictions in both the OT and NT).

I guess I have to say that I can no more believe in the bible than I can in the tooth fairy - I am not being facetious; just straight.

If there is some kind of singular intelligence behind the universe, then I don't understand why it would be so involved with a bunch of primates on this tiny planet, 2000 years ago. Involved to the point of killing an offspring that it created (and apparently loved) - how that expiates our collective sins is completely irrational to me. And then there is the whole 'born sinners' bit. Look at any little baby and tell me it is a sinner. Disgusting.

The only religion that comes close to being rational (to me) is Buddhism, although without the supernatural reincarnation part. It offers a good way to live in a contemplative, responsible way.

I started questioning the inconsistencies in the bible when I was ten, moving to agnostic when 12 and then completely atheist at 15. I only really became concerned about the effects of religion on people since 9/11. OK, I know they were extremists, but for extremists to exist they need a place to start, and that is within the mainstream religion. In the case of 9/11 it was Islam, but Christianity has a blemished record also, although not so bloodthirsty in recent history, but just as into controlling people. That is why separation of church and state is essential – look at George Pell, he’s mainstream but I wouldn’t call him moderate.

So just what is meant by “Total Christ” then? Total what? Control? So many intelligent people with so much to say about someone who probably didn't exist.

Dear Vanilla....

I'll try to alter my approach somehow.. to heal the obvious wound you are feeling. There is a verse in scripture..

1 Cor 8:13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

The chapter is about exercising rights.. but notes that using our rights can cause those less robust among us to fall.

Honestly.. it would give me no joy whatsoever if my posts drive you from Christ.

But let me say this.. if for example you came 'to' Christ, without recognizing that Jesus did speak harshly at times to those who were building and maintaining social/religious structures which were abhorrent to God (Pharisess/Scribes/Lawyers/Saducees)...you would find yourself in all manner of conflict with those who spoke forthrightly about important issues and even threats.

So...I'm hoping you have the grace to see that the Christian life is not all a bed of roses, and that sometimes those who hurt us most, are our supposed brothers and sisters.

I guess in my case, my past life experience under Islamic rule is what is coming out far more than it should.

My choice would be to proclaim Christ in all His glory and love.. "I am the good shepherd... I am the bread of life.. he/she who comes to me will never hunger"

I mentioned that verse (Bread of life) to a Muslim chap on the phone the other day.. he totally recognized how beautiful it is.

Let the pain of my rants fade :) let them be replaced with a vision of Jesus more like the one presented by Roch...

Dear Fractelle,

I'm hoping that one day there will be one humanity, struggling to be honest to themselves. One humanity that won't live in suspicion, in tension, in anger, in bitterness, in calumny and righteousness, in narrowness and fear. A humanity that won't hide their weaknesses and exaggerate their strength.

That we will accept our differences and tolerate them.

I respect your beliefs and the uniqueness that is you. And I hope that you will do the same for me.

I struggle to find myself, to love my fellow human beings, and to hope that in this way I am truly loving God.

Thank you for sharing your views with me.

All The Best.

Dear Fractelle,

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I call Christ God, in simple and indefensible faith. Others might find their God in "Church" or "Abraham" or "personal honesty."

That's all I've got to say. I wish you happiness along your chosen path in life. May you find what you're looking for.

Kind Regards,

"Fractelle" asked, "Just what is meant by `Total Christ'?"

Having survived with distinction as a stretcher-bearer in the bloodied mud and muddied blood of the “killing fields” of Flanders during the First World War, Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) rhetorically asked in 1919, “What exactly is the human body?”[1] He concluded that there is, in fact, only ONE BODY. That is the COSMIC BODY of Jesus. For the basic stuff or substance of all things great and small, seen and unseen, everything in the heavens and on earth – was made by God the Father first and foremost for the incarnation of God the Son – through him, in him and for him (Col.1:16{. And WE – having been “chosen” IN Christ before the world was made (Eph.1:4) – are each given an ever-changing PART of the TOTAL body of Christ for the duration of our own earthly lives. After that – when the last atoms of our incarnation return to the cosmic pool of Christ’s incarnation – we shall each find our selves stripped down to nothing but a POINT of infinitesimal size, hoping to be “clothed” in the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God! “Blessed are those who are invited to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb” (Rev.19:9).

After 36 years of further meditation on these matters by March 1955 – a few weeks before he died in New York on Easter Sunday 1955 [10 April] – Teilhard said “There is more in the TOTAL CHRIST than MAN [all mankind] and GOD [Father, Son and Holy Spirit].”[2] There is also the COSMIC body of his incarnation, destined to be completely glorified at the end of time.

Yours in Christ [the Total Christ] – Roch - with Christ within us and all around us - "Le Milieu Divin"!
________________________________________________________________

[1] Teilhard 1919 pp.11-13 in “Science and Christ” Collins 1968
[2] 1955 “The Christic” pp.80-102 in “The Heart of Matter” 1978

Dear Fractelle...

your personal testimony about your progression from 'believer' to Atheist was interesting.

I wonder though if at 10 you would comprehend the things you call 'inconsistencies'. (I sure didn't.. had no clue about the broad biblical themes)

That aside, those other points you made about the big picture.. irrational/collective this and born that..I doubt that there is a person alive who has not struggled with those questions.

No one addresses all that better than Paul in his letter to the Romans. Have you read it lately ?

I'd sure be interested in what you make of the great Apostles work at your current age.

His problem, is also my problem. No matter how 'huge' the questions are, he was faced with the memory of a rather vivid personal encounter with the risen Christ. The encounter in his case, changed him from a 'rabid murderous monster' into a gentle caring person, who would rather deny himself his rights and pleasures, for the sake of making Christ known. That same Christ he sought to destroy.

Why not consider that? There are as many unanswerable questions raised by rejecting Christ as there are by accepting Him.(at the philosophical level) The 9-11th chapters of Romans are the most difficult to accept from your standpoint but they do provide answers to some of your questions.

It all comes back to the man Jesus ..of Nazareth...born without human father, who went about healing, proclaiming the Kingdom of God..even the Muslims believe that much.

Do you consider the reported words of Jesus to be lies, fabrications, and misrepresentations?.. to quote our friend CJ.. "fairy tales"

I find that difficult to accept. The main reason is that if we look closely at those words.. there is 'nothing in it for us' by way of normal human reward. Its about denying our lusts, inviting us to be persecuted, in fact putting off all that is natural to us.

I often roll my eyes when reading how, on the way to Jerusalem and death for Jesus, his disciples still discussed who was the greatest among them.

Dear Foxy

Thank you for your sincere and heart felt replies.

I believe in the universe, it exists, it is all around me and at the end of my life that of which I am made will continue as a part of the universe. I find this truly inspiring.

I wish you all the best that life has to offer.

Love

F

Just a couple of small questions.

The opening post asserts: "Every servant girl in Jerusalem 2000 years ago knew that Jesus came from Nazareth."

This is a fairly categoric assertion, and one for which I have never seen the faintest shred of evidence.

Is there any? Or is it just another one of those little things that we are supposed to take "on faith"?

Similarly, runner uses as a starting position "With over 500 people at once witnessing Christ after His resurrection..."

How come none of these 500 bothered to write down their experience, or even to search out someone who could write and get them to do it?

As far as I am aware, so far, no contemporary accounts of these events has surfaced. If they had, I'm sure they would have made headlines, both then and now.

Just another item to add to the list marked "blind faith required"?

It is only relevant, I guess, in the sense that we atheists are accused endlessly of "making it up as we go".

The same people who level that accusation at us, however, give themselves licence to continuously invent new justifications for their beliefs, at will.

Dear Pericles,

Don't be disheartened. Most modern liberal theologians would never condemn you for your views. And neither do I.
Of course there are limitations to what one can know through historical inquiry. No one can speak in absolutes - and it is a question of "faith," as you pointed out.

I believe what I believe - and I wouldn't dream of denying you the same right.

As George Bernard Shaw told the nun who stood by his death-bed,
"Sister, may all your sons be Bishops!"

(Smile).

Foxy, this is something of a departure from you normal gentle profession of your own personal faith.

>>Dear Pericles, Don't be disheartened. Most modern liberal theologians would never condemn you for your views. And neither do I.<<

That sounds more than a little condescending. In fact, if it were one of the other Christians on this thread, I would not hesitate to describe it as arrogant.

1. I am not "disheartened". Nor is there anything in my post that could be construed in this manner.

2. I have no interest whatsoever in the views of "modern theologians", nor would it concern me for one minute if they were to "condemn" me, whatever that may entail.

What does interest me, however, is the ability of Christians to invent evidence at will.

In what other field of human activity does an individual find it necessary to suspend disbelief to such an extent that they are willing to believe, without a second thought and without the faintest shred of factual support, such blatant inventions such as "Every servant girl in Jerusalem 2000 years ago knew that Jesus came from Nazareth", or that there were "over 500 people at once witnessing Christ after His resurrection"?

It has reached the stage where I am tempted to the view that it is some form of mental deficiency. A sort of colour-blindness of the mind, if you will.

My father could not identify the colour green. No matter how many times my mother explained to him this hat, or that overcoat, were a shade of green, he could only see grey.

In much the same way, it is clearly pointless for me to show the inescapable and inexcusable flaws in the history of Christianity, and the sheer perversity involved in ignoring them.

But I do recall that my mother never stopped pointing out the veridian tinge to my father's newest hat.

>>I believe what I believe - and I wouldn't dream of denying you the same right<<

Nor I you, Foxy. But where, in any post I have ever submitted here, have I even remotely hinted otherwise?

Dear Pericles,

I'm only human for heavens sake - and if I've offended you I apologize. I can't always come up with the right words to express my feelings - and obviously I've failed miserably this time. I didn't mean to be arrogant, condensing, whatever ... But it also sounds to me like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder if you take offense so easily.

What I meant to say to you is - "whatever gets you through the night."
As David Nicholls (Atheist Foundation - President) once said to me.

And because I'm feeling rather fragile at the moment - I possible transferred my feelings onto you (and got slapped for it). My mistake.
It won't happen again.

Welcome back Pericles.

However, Foxy's a very soft target :)

OK, “Pericles” – so I was indulging in a little hyperbole! I admit – I can really vouch for only two servant-girls. While Peter was in the Roman Governor’s courtyard, one servant-girl came and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” Peter denied it. A second servant-girl told the crowd, “This fellow was with Jesus the Nazarene.” Again Peter denied it. Some of the bystanders remarked, “You are one of them for sure. Even your accent gives you away!” Peter vehemently denied it. Then a cock-crow was heard – and Peter suddenly remembered what Jesus had predicted (Mt.26:69-75).

My point was that lots of Jerusalem people knew that Jesus had come from Nazareth. Many had been at Bethany where Jesus had called Lazarus out of the tomb. Crowds welcomed his “triumphal” return to Jerusalem, mounted not on a great warhorse [cf. Job 39:19-25] but on a mother donkey with foal at foot! His actions against the “stock exchange” at the Temple were soon reported to the Sanhedrin (Mark 11:18). Was none of that reported to the Roman Governor? Was Pontius Pilate completely unaware that Jesus of Nazareth had come to town. The Romans ruled mostly by terror. If Pilate had sniffed the least whiff of insurrection from Jesus, he would have been annihilated long before the Last Supper. Most Romans couldn’t care less about the Jews and their religion. They were allowed to kill each other under Jewish Law. Thus – having emptied himself of his divinity or equality with God (Ph.3:3), including omniscience! - Jesus expected to die a Prophet’s Death (Lk.13:33) – by stoning WITHIN the walls of the Holy City. But only the Romans were allowed to execute a person by crucifixion – and that was done OUTSIDE the walls of Jerusalem. So when Jesus was brought to the Governor as a “political agitator” (Luke 23:14), Pilate saw that as a sick joke. But he was moved to probe Jesus more deeply and asked, “Where DO you come from?”(John 19:9)

Roch

Where are you getting your information from?

From which authenticated historical text do you determine the knowledge of serving girls and, incidently, that Christ actually existed?

So far as I know only the NT mentions Jesus and this was composed and collated by men at least 50 years after his supposed death.

OK, Roch, YOU believe in all this, but there is no point quoting from stories that others do not believe in and for which there is no evidence. It is analogous to quoting from Harry Potter to prove the existence of Dumbledore.

My questions to Foxy was whether she saw items like the 'virgin' birth more as a symbol than an actual event. I'm still not too sure. However, she has made clear that her belief gives her comfort, also she does not preach at others who question her. She is also very reasonable, so I respect her for that.

Roch, I politely suggest you use reason instead of fairy stories.

Thank you.

BD stands back while Foxy and Pericles go at it :) the drama unfolds...

Foxy..if you have been around as long as I have and know Perilous as I do..you would realize why I could anticipate P's words back at ya with almost verbatum prediction :)

I note your words also:

FOXY "I believe what I believe - and I wouldn't dream of denying you the same right."

FOXY "BD is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, and religions differing from his own."

Now..Foxy.. forgive me for raising my eyebrows there :) but 'personal attack' is pretty close to 'denying one the right to express views'

In fact. "BD is"..... is addressed as a blanket statement to all the forum.. it is aimed specifically at character assasination..

You could have said "I don't agree with BD's views and thus I choose to ignore them" :) aah..now that would have been acceptable. You could have even said "I find BD's views repulsive".. that too is ok.
but when you go beyond 'views' to 'the person'.. it's called playing the man.

PERICLES sickem boy..sickem!

I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect. But that's another story.

Pericles.. we've had the 'contemporary accounts' debate before so I won't revisit it fully.
I find it curious though, that you don't place much weight on the account of Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally. In some ways, considering the 'balance of probability' .. it takes more 'blind faith' to disbelieve Luke than to believe him.

OH..yes..welcome back by the way. Missed your acidic pen and 'chemically sharpened' double barbed attacks. :)

I leave this post with the Words of the Total Christ....

"I am the Bread of life, he who comes to me will never hunger, he who believes in me will never thirst"

John 6:35

For a full account of the foundational truths on the Christ I suggest a reading of the NT text and note its emphasis. The emphasis is upon character, attitudes, actions, wisdom and aspirations etc. It is these aspects that define the purity of a person and identify him as God, to be admired and followed.

Philo tells how to cherry pick the NT

"...I suggest a reading of the NT text and note its emphasis. The emphasis is upon character, attitudes, actions, wisdom and aspirations etc. It is these aspects that define the purity of a person and identify him as God, to be admired and followed."

And ignore all the bits where women are to be treated as second class citizens, homosexuals are to be treated as vermin....virgin births, walking on water.... cannibalism - 'drink my blood' 'eat my flesh' and other primitive notions.

FRACTELLE asked – “Roch – Where are you getting your information from?” As I said in the “Creator of Heaven and Earth” thread started by Peter Sellick, “Humans are able to be INFORMED not only from the PAST and the PRESENT or world OUTSIDE us, but also from the FUTURE or world WITHIN us” - by way of hearts and minds open [especially in prayer and meditation] to that “double-edged sword” of the WORD and SPIRIT of GOD. In other words – “Man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Dt.8:3; Mt.4:4). Likewise to his disciples Jesus said, “I have food to eat that you don’t know about” (Jn.4:32). So they said, “Lord – teach us to pray!” He replied, “When you pray – withdraw to your private room [the innermost part of your being], shut the door and pray to your Father [your spiritual Father] who is in that secret place. And your Father – who sees all that is done in secret – will reward you!” (Mt.6:6). That is to say – sooner or later we are hopefully able to say to parents, teachers and pastors, “Now I no longer BELIEVE because of what YOU told me. I have heard Him myself [I have sensed his real presence at the very point of my being] and I KNOW – He really IS the Saviour of the World” (Jn.4:42) and my own personal Saviour.

So we need to fear not PHYSICAL death but the “second death” – the second kind of death – SPIRITUAL death. Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), for instance, allowed herself to be killed spiritually when she was only about 19 – and she lived for another 59 years before she died physically!

So it is sad that you opted for “complete atheism” when you were only 15 – for unspiritual people can accept nothing spiritual but see it all as nonsense (1 Cor.2:14). But while thee is life, there is hope. Thus you may have finished with God – but surely God hasn’t finished with you

It's good to be back amongst friends.

Foxy, I'm sorry that you are feeling fragile, I hope you recover quickly. My point was not intended to upset you, but to draw attention to the hypocrisy of atheists constantly being accused of "making it up as we go", while Christians freely indulge in the same activity.

As indeed Roch was gracious enough to admit. Although he did try to pass it off as merely "a little hyperbole".

Boaz, thanks for another classic Boaz-ism.

>>I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect<<

The reason there is no effect, Boaz, is because your approach to each challenge is to i) ignore it completely and change the subject, ii) repeat the item under challenge as if repetition will suddenly make it correct or iii) hide behind a half-dozen biblical quotes that make sense only to you.

Sometimes, a combination of all three.

And you are even kind enough to present an example.

>>we've had the 'contemporary accounts' debate before so I won't revisit it fully<<

The reason you won't revisit it, Boaz, is simply because your arguments hold no weight at all to anyone who has not already made up their mind to accept the infallibility of the sources.

A modern analogy would be to respond to email promising you millions of dollars you have "won" in a lottery that you never entered.

You do so on the basis of a blind faith that no-one would attempt to pull the wool over your eyes in such a manner.

Others ask questions, and find the ground not as firm as it might first appear.

>>Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally<<

J K Rowling also gave some convincing accounts of life amongst "muggles" that may be independently verified. Doesn't give Harry real magical powers though, however detailed the accounts of studying Potions.

But ok, I'm listening. Bring on the external verification.

That's a "challenge", by the way.

Which "receptus ignavorum" will you choose this time?

Foxy.. I saved you from further gnashing from Pericles canines:)

He was going after you, but quickly diverted to his preferred prey.. 'me'.

PERICLES, in the same way that you say I 'just repeat things, after they are refuted'.. I say 'You just keep coming back with the same inaqequate and invalid refutations.. hence the continuance of such debates.

On Christian things, Luke in particular, his detail of the various politcal identities Luk 3:1-3

During the reign of....(nothing the dual High Priesthood of Caiaphas and Annas..if he just needed 'a few names' it's unlikely he'd have gone to this trouble)

which then flows naturally into the account about John.

External Testimony:
Flavius Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

..The Word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the desert......

He went about preaching a baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins.

Now..out of the above..I suggest that the only thing you could or would take issue with is this "The Word of God came to John"

Now..reading that I suspect you might substitute "due to the harsh living conditions of desert life, John had delusions and 'heard voices'".....

But seriously.. would you actually dispute that there was a man named John who went about preaching a Baptism etc ?

There is no reason whatsoever to do so.. given Lukes own opening statement:

ONE Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,

TWO Just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

THREE Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,

FOUR it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

FIVE so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

COMMENT:
We have compelling internal and external evidence for the facts of the account.

It seems the only thing you could reasonably dispute is the miraculous in his account.

Fractelle,

"OK, Roch, YOU believe in all this, but there is no point quoting from stories that others do not believe in and for which there is no evidence. It is analogous to quoting from Harry Potter to prove the existence of Dumbledore."

As a Christian that is the only thing that I anticipate you will say relating to religion that I will agree with. That is, it seems strange to wield scripture to convince people who don't accept it as a source of authority that you are correct. Indeed the Bible itself contains counsel relating to that topic.

Not that Christians in these discussions make the only surprising comments. Atheists hold their own in that regard.

Good luck with your faith journey. It is good to see you in here taking an interest in the religion you lost as a child.

BD

Mjpb understands that to the atheist quotations from the bible does not constitute truth, fact or even a reason for faith (given the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible).

In fact, there is more moral and ethical behaviour and a consistent plot in Harry Potter, than you'll find in either the OT or NT.

And JK Rowling is a lot easier on the eye than a tortured body on a crucifix.

;-)

JR,

If you are going to add things like that in brackets (thus enabling the use of my observation with the annotations as a weapon) I'm going to ask questions.

You say "given the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible". Does that mean that an atheist would become a believer if they lost that perception?

I believe for once this subject could be properly discussed by totally ignoring [not reacting] side issues by unbelievers and their sarcasm. This then would give a proper basis for understanding how believers perceive the Total Christ.

Oh Boaz, how you give yourself airs!

>>Foxy.. I saved you from further gnashing from Pericles canines:)He was going after you, but quickly diverted to his preferred prey.. 'me'<<

Foxy had already excused herself by virtue of her apology.

>>I say 'You just keep coming back with the same inaqequate and invalid refutations.. hence the continuance of such debates<<

I recall you saying on the UNCHR thread that it is up to the claimant to provide proof. All you are doing here is producing the weakest possible prima facie evidence, and then asking me to disprove it. Sorry, but the same rules apply - it is not up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to defend your stated position with proper evidence.

And what exactly have you produced?

That tired old chestnut, the writings of poor old Flavius Josephus, who was not even born at the time of the claimed crucifixion. As an eyewitness therefore, he is a non-starter. As a reporter, his reference to John is almost en passant.

And as a person - honestly Boaz, if you needed an ally, would you trust him? He became a spy for the Romans against his own people, for goodness' sake.

I won't even mention the disputed reference to Jesus - I am sure that you would yourself have long realized that this is a later, political addition. The change in writing style is a dead giveaway.

Boaz, if that's all you've got, well... it really ain't much at all, is it?

Incidentally, I don't know where your translation comes from, but mine says nothing at all about the "Word of God".

>>We have compelling internal and external evidence for the facts of the account.<<

Compelling, Boaz? By what stretch of the imagination is one paragraph compelling?

Especially as it contradicts the Gospels.

Or did you think that no-one would notice that small point?

Good grief Perilous.. talk about mixing up things..



1/ LUKE
a) Contradicts 'the gospels'? err.. Luke IS a Gospel.. and how does it (specially the passage I quoted) contradict the others?
b) Luke 3:3 "The Word of God came to John" which version are you reading ?

2/JOSEPHUS. I made no reference to the 'disputed' reference about Jesus, and the change in style in 'that' reference are not a sign of a later addition. Based on some very scrupulous study of the issue, the disputation is not for the whole passage, but for some elements of it, in particular those elements which are particularly supportive of Christian theology.
Feel free to consult the Arabic version, which looks like
a) It is a dumbed down "Islam friendly" version of the original, or that
b) The Josephus in Latin was a 'smarted up' version of what the possible original the Arabic is based on.

In BOTH cases, you have a reliable external report of the historic reality of Jesus of Nazareth. The apparent theological embellishments are not what you would expect from a pagan writer, but you never know.. eh. Putting them aside you still have a Jesus of history.

PROOF... P, the Human Rights thing is adversarial, I am not charging you with anything..I am making statements and claims about something separate. I say 'compelling', because (contrary to what the Rotten one said, about Rowlings) Luke in particular was 'meant to inform a promonent Roman official about factual events', not entertain people with ghost stories like Harry Potter.

In any court of opinion, it is neccessary to evaluate evidence on the basis of motives. What possible motive would Luke have for fabricating his gospel ? Specially when writing to a Roman Official who (if he found he was being hoodwinked) could have probably arranged a dubious fate for his deceiver.

Your "show me show me, c'mon prove it prove it..c'mon"... attitude smacks wayyyy more of outright bias than open mindedness.

The Total Christ

“mjpb” said, “It seems strange to wield scripture to convince people who don’t accept it as a source of authority.”

I am not trying to convince anyone about anything! I started this thread on “The Total Christ” [22 February] in response to Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” who claimed that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?”

Are they [for Catholics] the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? That was formerly known as “the Holy Office” – formerly known as “the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition." That last-named body issued “Lamentabili Sane” [“Syllabus of the Errors of the Modernists”] on 3 July 1907. That was followed by “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” [“On the Doctrine of the Modernists”] issued by Pope Pius X on 8 September 1907.

Or are the most “mainstream” theologians [for Catholics] the thirty eminent members of the Church’s “International Theological Commission”? The ITC recently re-considered the doctrine of “Original Sin.” Teilhard dared to re-consider that doctrine in 1922 and he was then “silenced” by the “Holy Office” for the remaining 33 years of his life. In fact, he is still officially “silenced” 53 years after his death!

“Beware of the cutters,” said St Paul (Ph.3:3). Beware of those – said Teilhard - who would cut the TOTAL CHRIST down to the Mediterranean dimensions of the Nazarene![1] We need to advance from “the Jesus of History” [the Nazarene] to “the History of Jesus” [the Total Christ] which extends from BEFORE the beginning [15 billion years ago?] to BEYOND the end of time. Even Pontius Pilate began to sense that Jesus came not only from Nazareth! He asked “Where DO you come from?”(John 19:9).

PHILO rightly said [25 February] – “I believe this subject could be properly discussed by totally ignoring side issues by unbelievers.”
___________________________________________________________________

[1] Gabriel Allegra OFM 1971 “My Conversations with Teilhard on the Primacy of Christ – Peking, 1942-45” Franciscan Herald Press

Crikey - they're talking in tongues!

CJ-MORGAN said – “Crikey – they’re talking in tongues!”

It was by faith that Moses held to his purpose, like a man who could SEE the INVISIBLE (Hebrews 11:27).

The true mystics or spiritual “seers” of all times, places and traditions tend to speak the same language – in “tongues of Fire” – because they have been to the same country,[1] They have caught at least a glimpse of the Promised Land – the Inner Kingdom – Paradise.

Like Gerard Manley Hopkins SJ (1844-89), they are “doomed” to “seem the stranger”!

“Yes!” said Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955), “Of this he was certain – even for his brothers in God [better men than he], he would henceforth speak in an incomprehensible tongue – he whom the Lord had drawn to follow the Road of Fire! Even for those he loved the most, his love henceforth would be a burden. For they would sense his compulsion to be forever seeking something [or Someone] beyond themselves!”[2]
_________________________________________________

[1] Evelyn Underhill 1911 “Mysticism – The nature and development of Man’s spiritual consciousness” E.P.Dutton p.80
[2] Teilhard 1919 p.67 in “Hymn of the Universe” 1966; p.74 in “The Heart of Matter” 1978

My Body and I

On 24 February [page 5] “Fractelle” said – “Dear Foxy - Thank you for your sincere and heart felt replies. I believe in the universe. It exists. It is all around me and at the end of my life that of which I am made will continue as a part of the universe. I find this truly inspiring.”

With respect – I ask – What is THAT of which I am made?

On Ash Wednesday – beginning the 40 days of Lent – a priest “branded” my forehead with ashes marking the Sign of the Cross. Quoting Genesis 3:18 from the Hebrew Bible or “Old Testament” he said, “Remember man – you are dust and to dust you shall return!”

Excuse me! My ever-changing body is about two-thirds water and one-third mostly combustible substance, leaving a residue of dust or mineral ash which will be mostly the calcium of my old bones.

But what I recognize and call “I” or “me” or “my self” is not a “matter” of atoms. There is more to the essential “I” than the atoms of my body! Indeed – with dying, death and disintegration all around us, human beings are naturally inclined to cry out from the depths of our own Gethsemanes, “Who will rescue me from this body doomed to death?”(Romans 7:24).

Then a “Voice” [the Voice of Conscience] seems to echo from the depths, inviting us to the heights of cosmic super-vision. There – together with Christ on that Cosmic Mountain – we may say of every “particle” of cosmic matter and “quantum” of radiant energy. “This is my body!” and “This is my blood!”

Yours in Christ [the Total Christ] - Roch

As I say so many times, we are not primary body, we are essentially soul. Though our body may briefly identify us at a glance but it is our soul that makes us eternally identifiable. It is our character, ideas, communications, attitudes, actions, creativity, wisdom etc that identifies who we really are as a person. We are held acountable eternally for these things over which our will has power. This is part of our telling of the true story of the nature of God incarnate - His - story.

It is this divine character that bears the eternal nature of God. God is not a spatial being he is the unseen spirit.

It is only the rebellious and wilful man acting outside of the divine nature that is doomed to self destruction. God does not place wasted lives into garbage, he prefers to demonstrates in Christ dead men can come alive. Man by his unrepentant wilfulness soul places himself into destruction. The graces of the divine are eternal - sacrificial love for the undeserving is divine - Love. While we were the enemies of the divine God loved us and desired our eternal salvation.

Mjpb – apart from being patronising and condescending, you comment that I “lost” my religion when a child; I did not “lose” it, I rejected it as a fairy tale as I had with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy – as children do we learn what is real when given the opportunity. Unfortunately many children are brainwashed into taking religion as a belief into adulthood.

Philo, you complained: “I believe for once this subject could be properly discussed by totally ignoring [not reacting] side issues by unbelievers and their sarcasm.”

Do the words democracy, open forum mean anything to you, and since when did you hold back from sarcasm yourself?

You present and discuss a vengeful god for which there is no evidence. Believers in this god have a direct effect on the lives of non-believers, vis a vis;

Influence in parliament (Exclusive Brethren, Christian Democrats, Family First etc)

Attempt to control women’s fertility, education, independence.

Discriminate against gays.

Discriminate against different religions.

Receive special treatment regards tax breaks, funding for religious schools.

And so on…

If you refuse to be open to scrutiny, resent questions by ‘non-believers’ and react patronisingly and frequently derisively of others, then expect more questions, and yes ridicule.

Religious people have a direct effect on all our lives – whether we want it or not. And in many areas of life we don’t.

We are adults who are responsible for our actions, we don’t require ‘rewards’ to behave civilly, we just do it because that is how social creatures generally behave. It makes good evolutionary sense to cooperate with each other.

It also makes good evolutionary sense to resist those who wish to impose their will on our lives – we are not slaves to an imaginary daddy in the sky. We are free to choose, make our mistakes and live with the consequences.

It appears to me that to be fully pious is to deny your own humanity.

The meaning of life is simple: Live and let live

Only the ignorant can critique the life others using inferior measures and believe they themselves are exempt or the expected standard. Our negative or positive words demonstrate the nature of our aspirations for others. If we truly aspire for a better world we ourselves will be the people we expect others to be. Christ is both the standard, and the aspirant of a better society. Examine the societies who aspire to follow his character and attitudes.

Dear Fractelle,

Your ethos of - "Live and Let Live," seems to me to say it pretty well.

It's a far more meaningful ethic to me, than that taken by some people who feel that - "I'm right" and "Your wrong."

The older I get the more I realize how little I actually know.

I don't live without worry or responsible concern. In fact, I have
never felt so responsible since I discovered that the Church cannot absorb my conscience, nor replace my mind. Life was easier when I knew where everything fits, when I could lose myself in the structure
of a massive organization. There heaven and hell were governed by careful laws. There God's friendship was certain and manageable, and I was satisfied when I kept the Church's rules.

Now I feel certain, but ever in doubt. I don't fear hell because I can't fathom it. I don't seek heaven because it offers no image I can grasp. I only struggle to find myself, to love my fellow human beings, and to hope that in this way I am truly loving God.

Take care.

WHO and WHAT am “I”?

“PHILO” said – “We are not primary body. We are essentially soul.”

In 1919 [89 years ago] Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) rhetorically asked, “What exactly is the human BODY?” He concluded that there is, in fact, only ONE BODY. That is the COSMIC BODY of Christ’s incarnation. For the basic stuff or substance of all creation was made by God the Father first and foremost for the incarnation of God the Son – through him, in him and for him (Colossians 1:16). And we – having been “chosen” IN Christ before the world was made (Ephesians 1:4) – are each given an ever-changing PART of the cosmic body of the TOTAL Christ for the duration of our own earthly lives. After that – when the last atoms of our bodies have been stripped away – we shall find our selves naked [so to speak] , stripped to nothing but a POINT of infinitesimal size – the CENTRE-POINT of one’s own existence. That is “circumcision” in the Christian sense (Colossians 2:11). The essential “I” or “my self” will then be “clothed” in the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God – the Total Christ.

Moving on – What exactly is the HUMAN SOUL?

“Soul” is a word with which to name or label that mystery that I otherwise call “I” or “me” or “my self.”[1]

So I have a BODY and I am told that I have a SOUL. But the questions remain – WHO and WHAT am “I”?

In his NAZI death-cell, waiting to be hanged on 9 April 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer [39] prayed, “Who am I?’ The answer came to his mind – “Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God – I am Thine!”

Viewed from without, the human “I” is a POINT or “pixel” in time and space of infinitesimal size. But we are each larger on the INSIDE than on the OUTSIDE – infinitely and eternally so – made to be filled with the utter fullness of God (Ephesians 3:19).[1]
__________________________________________________________________

[1] Bruno Bettelheim 1983 “Freud and Man’s Soul"

I have to admit, that's a pretty neat variation on the theme "ignore the issue by changing the subject", Boaz.

>>Good grief Perilous.. talk about mixing up things.. Contradicts 'the gospels'? err.. Luke IS a Gospel.. and how does it (specially the passage I quoted) contradict the others?<<

(patiently) You introduced Flavius Josephus as your "compelling external evidence". I merely reminded you that Josephus' account of John the Baptist is at odds with the Gospel provided by Matthew.

But you knew that, didn't you? You were simply playing your old game of obfuscation, claiming this time that I have "mixed up things".

>>In BOTH cases, you have a reliable external report of the historic reality of Jesus of Nazareth.<<

In which "both cases", Boaz? One half- paragraph embellished by later apologists to present a more convincing narrative? Plus one paragraph referring obliquely to a baptizer called John.

Incidentally, you might like to take the opportunity to explain why Luke, uniquely, found it necessary to invent a family relationship between Jesus and John? And why Matthew relates that while in prison, John finds it necessary to ask who Jesus is?

"Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Matthew 11 2-3

Now, call me incurably cynical, but why should someone who had earlier baptised the same person, say that?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John 1 32-33

>>What possible motive would Luke have for fabricating his gospel?<<

Money, perhaps? Fear? - he was after all an informer.. It is not really our job to speculate, simply assess the available facts.

Which are, you must confess, in very short supply.

The real god has no name!

Foxy

If the 'total christ' is a philosophy for courage, compassion and respect for others, then you embody such ideals.

I feel happy and honoured to have exchanged a few words with you. It is good to know that there are people like you in this world.

I will keep a positive thought for you in my heart.

Much love

Well Pericles... the quality of your questions is on the upward path .. I'm enjoying this.

2 issues to respond to.

1/ FIRST John the Baptist.

JOSEPHUS. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm Ch 5

Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people ...thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties,...Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, ...to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

MATTHEW
3Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 4for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her." 5Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.

COMMENT
I don't find even a hint of contradiction here.. I find "Two complementary sources/perspectives of the same event"
IF... the sources were close to identical.. then you would have serious reason to suspect 'fabrication' by later redactors.

2/ SECOND POINT
"Why would John send his disciples to ask if Jesus were he who was to come"

You are not incurably cynical in saying this. (you might be in other ways) A more accurate description of your condition is 'ignorant'.. I'm not insulting you there..I mean you are not aware (it would appear) of the popular image of the coming Messiah in the days of Jesus. John was also a child of his time, and quite likely when he saw Jesus going about doing good etc.... he experienced some internal wonderings about whether Jesus was the "Glorious Son of Man of Daniel's prophecy". Or Isiaah's (9:7)

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom.

"Messianic Expectations" is the key.

Nice try.

>>Well Pericles... the quality of your questions is on the upward path<<

Please don't patronize, especially as your answers remain as evasive as ever.

You quote from Josephus and Matthew, but completely avoid the contradiction that you must know is there.

Which is:

Josephus: "Herod... feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [a]ccordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus... and was there put to death."

Matthew: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison." Matt 14: 6-10

Hardly "Two complementary sources/perspectives of the same event", eh?

On the one hand we have a deliberate Herod, determined to stave off a rebellion with a straightforward execution. On the other, an unwilling Herod, giving in to the wiles of his wife and daughter.

Which is accurate? They cannot both be, so someone is telling stories. If it is Matthew, how much of the rest of his narrative can be accepted at face value? If Josephus is gilding the lily, where does that place his position as the "compelling external evidence" that you claimed in an earlier post?

Your explanation of John's request from prison is equally unconvincing, I'm afraid. How can someone, who has proclaimed and baptized the person he perceives as the Messiah, suddenly turn around and ask "who is that masked man?", when clearly the individual concerned was performing exactly to messianic specifications?

The only credible explanation is that the whole saga was woven together long after the event, by a bunch of guys who wanted a leader-figure for their religious cult.

The Total Christ

We have come a long way since 22 February when I started this thread [page 1] in response to Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” who agreed that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?”

On 25 February I asked [page 8] – “Are they [for Catholics] the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? That was formerly known as “the Holy Office” – formerly known as “the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition." That last-named body issued “Lamentabili Sane” [“Syllabus of the Errors of the Modernists”] on 3 July 1907. That was followed by “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” [“On the Doctrine of the Modernists”] issued by Pope Pius X on 8 September 1907.”

Alternatively, I asked – “Are the most “mainstream” theologians [for Catholics] the 30 eminent members of the Church’s “International Theological Commission”? The ITC recently re-considered the doctrine of “Original Sin.”

Teilhard dared to re-consider that doctrine in 1922 and he was then “silenced” by the “Holy Office” for the remaining 33 years of his life. In fact, he is still officially “silenced” 53 years after his death!

What, if anything, do today’s “mainstream theologians” [Catholics and/or Non-Catholics] have to tell us about “the TOTAL CHRIST”?

What, if anything, does the “TOTAL CHRIST” mean to today’s “mainstream theologians”?

“There is only Christ,” said St Paul. “He is everything and in everything” (Col.3:11).

What did the Apostle to the Gentiles mean by that?

This is some kind of Turing test isn't it?

Bugsy, I think you're on to something here.

Perhaps it's some kind of amalgam of the Turing Test and the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Whatever it is, it's looking more like 'total crap' than 'total Christ'.

Pericles.. I always reserve the right to share credit where credit is due :) and if you questions get better..I don't mind recognizing that.

THINGS YOU MISSED.

1/ Josephus is writing long after the events, from a secular/Roman perspective. I find the two accounts are absolutely 2 versions of the same event, told from the perspective of the writers.

2/ Clearly Matthew saw importance in the events as he saw them.. and those to accounts do not actually contradict each other. As I said.. that they are NOT exactly the same is testimony to the authenticity of them.

3/ I cannot see any point in Matthews alleged 'embellishment'.. no point at all in adding such details. He just told it as it was.

Matthews style is without question 'colorful' and as to his reliability, I don't find reason to question it, specially when we have 3 other gospels to compare with.

Matthew says TWO blind men were healed.. Mark says 'A' blind man was healed.. is this Matthew 'embellishing' ? or it is that Mark was not interested in that detail of 2.. his point was "Jesus healed a blind man miraculously" Do we exclude Matthew or Mark ? then, what about John ? and Luke? they all report many instances of healings.. John most clearly.

A serious student of evidence (such as my buddy Simon Greenleaf) would laugh out of court the suggestion that all of these stories are mere fabrications. Its plainly absurd.

PATRONISATION for CJ and Bugsy :) 'clever, informative and inspiring contributions to this serious topic'...well done boys

Personally, I couldn't give a ha'penny jizz for your internet-assembled philosophies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQiyltvIcEQ

Interesting rebuttal, Boaz. But in case you had forgotten, the position under question is your statement:

>>the account of Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally<<

In support of this, you offered a paragraph from Josephus. However...

>>Josephus is writing long after the events, from a secular/Roman perspective<<

Hardly supportive of your case, I would think.

But the foundation of your belief is that "two versions of the same event must prove that the event took place" plus "the fact they disagree in detail is evidence that they must be independent, therefore reliable"

I hope I have not misrepresented your position - please correct me if I have.

Remember, you claim "detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally". Josephus, in your own words - "they disagree in detail" - clearly fails this test.

Your "buddy" Simon Greenleaf was in your position exactly: a committed Christian, with a history of activity within the church, intellectualizing about how such preposterous stories could be accepted as fact. He, as you, leveraged the "balance of probabilities" argument beyond its reasonable limits, and resorted - as you do - to the "why would they make it up?" argument.

As I have said on many occasions, we have no way to understand the inner motivations of such people. However, there is also a "balance of probabilities" argument that says that if you were intent on starting or fostering a religious movement, writing a set of documents that support your position is exactly what you would do.

But - back to the point.

Instead of presenting "detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally", you offer a paragraph from a document produced, long after the event, by an individual with heavily freighted motivation.

Only you could possibly believe that this represents evidence of any kind, I'm afraid.

And even you, in the clear light of day, have to admit that it is fundamentally circumstantial and extremely unconvincing to anyone not addicted to their beliefs.

Roch,

I didn’t mean you. I meant those who answer atheists with scriptures as if atheists would find that authoritative. I concede that at least one has moved on to arguing based on the historicity of the scripture which makes more sense than just quoting scripture.

While we are at it though, this does seem a surprising forum for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of Teilhard. A secular contributor likens it to speaking in tongues and I can empathise. The failure to understand is not something as esoteric as seers but simply that the general ideas and personalities are foreign to people outside of orthodox Catholicism. I am not trying to censor you in any way but in an orthodox Catholic forum you are more likely to get a fully responsive discussion.

Fractelle,

I am surprised that you consider it appropriate to wield terms like “patronizing” and “condescending” as someone who dismisses the beliefs of many of the world’s population as being analogous to believing in the “tooth fairy”, “easter bunny” or “Santa Claus” (etc).

“The meaning of life is simple: Live and let live”

Is that for you or those who disagree with you only? If you genuinely believe that then why do you single out Christian contribution in the democratic process and consider it offensive particularly given Christians are a majority. You seem to be at the opposite extreme to your alleged value with groups that don’t suit you. Perhaps you mean we should “live and let live but some more entitled to be left to live than others”?

Foxy,

“It's a far more meaningful ethic to me, than that taken by some people who feel that - "I'm right" and "Your wrong."”

Do you mean people who label others beliefs as being like a belief in the tooth fairy or dispute their groups right to contribute to the democratic process or do you mean people who argue it is more meaningful to them for God to know best? If you mean the latter as I presume then what is the difference in substance?

Isn't freedom a wonderful thing Vanilla :) cheers.

I had a look at the vid....I guess if that's your image of 'Church' and the Faith..then it explains a lot.

Hope one day you take the time to get to know the real Lord Himself, leave out the middle man.

TURING TEST.... interesting idea CJ... I'm sure I encountered an 'artificial intelligence' robot on IRC one time. It was trying to be a presence to promote a web site as though it was a chatter.

You and Bugsy should have a good 'bias bath' and shed all that bias which binds you so strongly in the nightmare on OLO street.
Domestos is pretty good for that kinda thing.

Re-dis-covering the Total Christ

On page 7 – “mjpb” said – ”It seems strange to wield scripture to convince people who don't accept it as a source of authority that you are correct. Indeed the Bible itself contains counsel relating to that topic.”

On page 8 – I said, “I am not trying to convince anyone about anything! I started this thread on “The Total Christ” [22 February] in response to Peter Sellick and “Waterboy” who claimed that Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) “does not represent mainstream theology.” I asked “Where is mainstream theology?” and “Who are mainstream theologians?”

On page 12 – “mjpb” said – “Roch - I didn’t mean you. I meant those who answer atheists with scriptures as if atheists would find that authoritative. I concede that at least one has moved on to arguing based on the historicity of the scripture which makes more sense than just quoting scripture. While we are at it though - this does seem a surprising forum for a discussion of the merits or otherwise of Teilhard. A secular contributor likens it to speaking in tongues and I can empathise. The failure to understand is not something as esoteric as seers but simply that the general ideas and personalities are foreign to people outside of orthodox Catholicism. I am not trying to censor you in any way but in an orthodox Catholic forum you are more likely to get a fully responsive discussion.”

“mjpb” – with respect - Whether a person is theist, agnostic, atheist, anti-theist or nihilist, surely he or she has the right in a free society to express - respectfully - his or her opinion about anything in an “On-Line Opinion” forum.

However they may be categorised, members of human groups are still INDIVIDUALS – “often terribly alone”! Reviving the concept of the “Total Christ” – eclipsed after Maximus the Confessor (580-662) – Teilhard was “silenced” within the Catholic Church.

“Immobilists” in Catholic forums still try to SILENCE “prophets” of the “Total Christ”

Domestos? Is that what they use at your old peoples home? I recommend calling Today Tonight. They like your sort.

It rained here today and I had to use the domestos in my car :)

Sorry, but at least it was original.

Boazy: "the nightmare on OLO street"

It has to be Freddy Boaz, no?

OK Boaz, you've had a couple of days, now it is time for the wrap-up.

>>I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect<<

Yep, you certainly got that one right. It clearly doesn't matter how logical the challenge, or how solidly it is based, you can still manage to ignore it completely.

Well done indeed. Another challenge that hasn't had even the slightest effect.

The amazing thing of course is that you are proud of it.

A quick summary is educational.

>>considering the 'balance of probability' .. it takes more 'blind faith' to disbelieve Luke than to believe him... Luke.. who in all respects has demonstrated an attention to detail and accuracy which can in many cases be verified externally<<

And the external evidence you offer?

>>External Testimony: Flavius Josephus mentions John the Baptist and Herod<<

Indeed he did. Unfortunately, it disagrees "in detail and accuracy" with other accounts of the same events.

To which anomaly you respond, rather grandly, as follows:

>>Josephus is writing long after the events, from a secular/Roman perspective. I find the two accounts are absolutely 2 versions of the same event... that they are NOT exactly the same is testimony to the authenticity of them.<<

In effect, as I said before, your claim that "detail and accuracy... can in many cases be verified externally" must fail, precisely because the details do, in fact, differ.

It doesn't help that the single, contradictory paragraph that you rely upon was written not only "long after events", but also by a renegade turncoat, who had a vested interest in staying out of trouble.

No wonder you have now fallen silent on the topic. Since it is clear that no logical proposition is able to have "the slightest effect", all that can be left is bluster.

>>I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect<<

"Yep, you certainly got that one right. It clearly doesn't matter how logical the challenge, or how solidly it is based, you can still manage to ignore it completely."

Oh dearie dearie me. That gave me quite a chuckle, Pericles.

Boazy's dissapearing act when his argument dissolved fascinates me. He did it to me on another thread recently after suggesting that the fact that there's no life on Mars disproves evolution.

Mjpb

Not sure where to start with your complaint; that I was being patronising or condescending, I thought I was using an analogy:

I no more believe in a deity than I do the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus or even that Japanese slaughter whales for scientific reasons.

If you are religious in the formal sense, such as believing in the Abrahamic religions, you take it very seriously indeed. Whereas to the atheist the bible is simply stories. They may have some basis in fact; we know that Japanese kill whales (analogy), but not all of it is true; virgin births. That they may convey some common sense and good ethics is very good, but the bible is no more than story telling, hence the analogies to other fictions. Is that a little clearer?

Telling me that you are ‘sorry’ because I ‘lost’ my religion IS very condescending indeed.

I am not a train wreck, don’t need your sorrow or pity.

I have taken time to consider this reply because I do respect your contribution to OLO (Wouldn’t have bothered with the likes of Boaz or Runner).

You have hit upon the gulf in communication between the religious and the non-religious person.

To the non-religious, religion was invented by men for men (deliberate use of the masculine here) so we don’t mean to be insulting by comparing it to other fiction, but how else do we illustrate our view of formal religion? I guess this is what the religious person simply doesn’t understand.

Now, spirituality is something else again and does not require the dogmatic straight jackets of formal religions. I happen to regard myself as very spiritual – star stuff; a child of the universe. The natural world both inspires and leaves me gasping with awe at the wonder of it all.

You are as free to believe what you want and so am I.

Please, live and let live.

There's more than a touch of Wily E Coyote about our Boaz, don't you think, Vanilla?

>>Boazy's dissapearing act when his argument dissolved fascinates me. He did it to me on another thread recently after suggesting that the fact that there's no life on Mars disproves evolution<<

Every time he opens another package from Acme Christians Corporation, there's another strange device in there that he sets up to stop us Roadrunners in our tracks.

Predictably, he misses his target completely, and is then crushed flat under the weight of his own argument.

But - hey presto - he pops up again, with yet another piece of flummery in the next episode.

I've tried to cure myself of responding to his fumblings, but have never quite managed it. More fool me, I suppose.

But just occasionally it is quite fun to see him disappear in the smoke of his own confusion.

Fractelle,

I felt you are now missing something I value. I apologise if you found that condascending etc. A moment of thoughtlessness can go a long way.

Yes you were using an analogy. You were using more than one analogy and unfortunately they were patronizing and condascending analogies.

There is nothing inherently condascending or non-condascending about using an analogy.

I’m not overjoyed that you don’t see the problem. However it probably demonstrates more about the cultural climate than your own personal malice if you still can’t see why comparing someone’s world view with believing in children's stories could be considered patronizing or derogatory.

Would it break the gulf at all if I noted that if you were to use the same analogy with a group you respected who’s beliefs you rejected you would expect them to find it patronizing and derogatory or is that too hypothetical?

I am fully aware atheists don’t believe in the Bible just like Christians don’t believe in atheist dogma. Thank you anyway for trying to explain that. Thank you also for your addition of the Japanese slaughter of whales analogy to try to help minds meet.

I agree that there is a gulf and your inferences about what facts I am unaware of demonstrates a gulf. From experience any such gulf varies with people and depends on the interaction between the beliefs and attitudes of the individuals communicating. This particular gulf is neither unique nor universal in my experience.

Thank you for taking time.

Please consider the possibility that your assumptions about what all non-religious people believe may not be correct and may not be fair to the religion and religious.

”You are as free to believe what you want and so am I.

Please, live and let live.”

Can I infer that those two sentences are deliberately grouped for their similarity in respect of your understanding of them? If so then I can’t help it being a Christian as freedom of belief is part of the religion.

Roch,

“mjpb – with respect - Whether a person is theist, agnostic, atheist, anti-theist or nihilist, surely he or she has the right in a free society to express - respectfully - his or her opinion about anything in an “On-Line Opinion” forum."

Certainly. Again I didn't want to censor you but thought I might point you to places where discussions had were more fruitful.

“Immobilists in Catholic forums still try to SILENCE “prophets” of the “Total Christ”

Then presumably you have tried being a prophet in the Catholic forums and felt rejected. So much for that idea then. I have no other ideas. You might as well plug away here.