Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.
2. The only people that could have a motive for making up his resurrection were the apostles, most of whom died rather horrible deaths rather than deny that resurrection. While I know that people will die for what they believe in, if the apostles knew that Christ was not risen, why did they die for what they knew to be a lie?
3. His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands and referred to by Paul within 3 years of the event in front of crowds of people. If it didn't happen, why don't we have record of objections to Paul's statements?
4. Jesus was a nobody who appeared on the scene for 3 years and was then killed as a criminal, just like thousands of others were killed by the Romans in the same manner. Yet within a few years of his death, a religion in his name based almost exclusively on his resurrection had spread throughout the Roman empire. What was different about this man to all those others who claimed to be the Messiah?
5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass. The Romans took challenges to their authority about as seriously as any group of people in history. Given that there were people running all over the place saying they had seen the risen Christ, if it wasn't true, why not just torture a few into denial of the fact and kill the movement in its tracks? Pliny the Younger re-counted doing just that a hundred years or so later and was astonished to see how many Christians went to their deaths rather than deny what they also knew to be true.

Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not.

[Slopeshoulder]

That's a pretty fast pile on of false assumptions, reductionisms, smug ad hominems, confessions of ignorance, jumped conclusions and sharks, and outright errors. So without going into the entire history of epistemology, and the frontiers of its expression in religious studies and practice (in informed circles), here's a few comments that may be helpful...

I adhere to a tripartate framework, and have written about it several times in the past:

- knowledge is what any reasonable person would conclude based upon senses, logic, data. "Today we call Tuesday in America" for example. There is certainly room for debate about what instants count as knowledge, but it is debate about facts and therefore verifiable if one agrees on the methodology for doing so.

- beliefs are what we choose to express in propositional truth claims even while our knowledge is incomplete or incompletable. People seem to need to do this. Yes, these can be rational or irrational. But in religion, most propositional truth claims are irrational, and represent a misuse of religious texts and artifacts by simple folk and the leaders who would either dupe or patronize them. For example, "Jesus was a virgin birth." I don't like irrational beliefs masquerading as knowledge in the form of propositional truth claims. Hence my agreement that they are irrational.

- Faith is an orientation one chooses to abide in, without knowledge but also without making propositional truth claims about literal states of affairs. It is affective-expressivist, liminal, performative, grammatical, pragmatic, symbolic, poetic. It's referent is itself and its use and meaning to the person(s) who uses it. It is closer to art and psychology than to math. Faith is not an irrational truth claim, but rather the speech-emotive-performative act of choosing to abide in a linguistic-narrative community, and to mine its resources as navigation points for location, purpose, decision making, insight, enlightenment, courage, and transformation, etc. This take on faith is the appropriate locus for religious framing, expression, commitment, and experience, as well as for the discussion of religion. In this case, the word supra-rational seems to be useful as a descriptor, but there could be a better word. It is intended not to demean reason, but rather to decenter it as and when appropriate. To disallow the supra rational would be both inhumane and intellectually indefensible if one is at all hip to what going on. If I were to say for example that "Jesus saves" I'd mean it like a brushstroke or poem, not a literal formal description of a verifiable historical or extant state of affairs.

But when Paul said that "Jesus saves" he didn't have an existing body of post-modern, post-analytic, fideistic, existentialist theology and philosophy on which to draw. He was a Pharisee zealous for the Law, who for some reason decided it was all about grace through faith in Christ instead. He probably did mean it as a literal formal description of extant spiritual realities.

Actually that is very debatable, and I am suggesting that he did not mean it literally in the sense one might today. My entire argument, if it is to take Paul et. al. seriously and stand in tradition with him (rather than dismiss him) relies on a hermenutic or theory of reading or an opinion regarding his mindset that suggests that Paul was not doing what you say he was doing. If he was. I'd be wrong and he'd be a nut. I say that proper understanding of the ancient mind and a postmodern perspective actually frees Paul to say what he meant to be saying, and for us to hear it. or at least to reappropriate it faithfully to our present mindset and circumstance.
In other words, you are arguing from within modernity and therefore misreading. Your objection, while reasonable on the face of it, is symptomatic of what I have been talking about.
The thinkers I listed above elaborate on this or contribute to it in one way or the other.

While a post-modern existentialist take on Christianity is certainly respectable, what I don't understand is the antipathy towards more conservative approaches; not wholly on the grounds that those literal beliefs are irrational or false, but on the grounds (as above) that they "represent a misuse of religious texts and artifacts."

Well, my objection (and-or antipathy) is that the conservative reading is usually intellectually flagrently offensive, theologically wrong, existentially toxic, and pragmatically harmful. It is also usually associated with ideological dishonesty. BUT, there are intellectually responsible conservative readings that I may disagree with, but they command respect. The radical orthodox and post-liberal narrative theologies come to mind. I hates 'em, but they're not laughable, far from it; they are formidable. I disagree with richard b. hays on a lot, but I studied with him for a year and the guy is about as smart and erudite as they come. Of course, by fundamentalist standards, he's "liberal," but by every other he is conservative.

Also in post 85, post 88; and in post 92 regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, "An artistic expression of the hopes, longings, core values, interpretations and self-made narrative of the ancient hebrews..." As an interpretation which you find credible and meaningful that's fine, but in your replies and smug ad hominems (to use your term) to Postroad, you're implying that the literal 'magic communication' reading is wrong or at least inferior. As far as I can tell that is a propositional truth claim, a belief rather than an aspect of faith, one which comes up quite often in your posts from memory.

I apologize to postroad, I thought he was one of them crooked fundies. I know better now and like how he thinks.
But I wouldn't accept your argument here at all. I'm not saying that one cannot make propositional truth claims in life, merely not about the cosmic and supernaturally unknowable. I'm not preaching epistemic nihilism. I think my opinion is right and better and more informed in this case. I think magical-literal readings are wrong. I also think they are flagrently wrong, a tragic joke that obscured insight and should not be traded in by anyone the least bit educated. Those are fair truth claims to make and defend; scholarship can be brought to bear (as it was above, apparently to no avail). But of course I can't prove it (but what do you think?). But richard b. hays (see above) is educated as hell and he disagrees with me. He thinks jesus physically rose. I think that's LOL-worthy. But he isn't, but he's the exception that proves thje rule in my opinion. Which suggests that when it comes to crass populist half-arguments arond literalisms, implied but unspoken ad hominems are perhaps unavoidable.

I may of course be way off the mark here, but it seems to me that you approach your faith not from the perspective that the literal truth claims which many (if not most) of the foundational Judea-Christian writers probably intended are irrational or false, and it's therefore better to interpret them mytho-poetically; but that the stories are mytho-poetical in nature and to take them literally is to misunderstand or misuse them.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Because I that that is how they were considered by the authors, in a way that our mindset cannot appreciate without work, and scholarship seems to take my side on this. Auerbach's work on Mimesis and scholars of comparative and archetypal myth have been useful here.

To my mind, that latter approach would be not only fallacious but perhaps a rather demeaning or paternalistic approach to much of the origins and history of the very community/culture towards which your faith is drawn!

This is probably because you are 1. thinking from within modernity and confusing this with reality, and 2. unfamiliar with the thinkers who led me to conclude what I have concluded.
So I think what I do actually serves to honor the tradition, to keep it alive and relevant, and to reveal and rescue its message that has been obscured probably since descartes, certainly since voltaire. A shift in consciousness happened, and our ability to think like the ancients departed us, and then when we revisited their myths, especially those which have as their context the theme of a god of history (judaism and chrostianity), an unintened consequence was to find ourselves in the misdirected evidentiary vs. magical debate. Today our myths are entertainment, but to the ancients they were mythic history (albeit not in the modern elightenment notion of history). Trust me, greater minds than ours, and many of them, have been on this topic for centuries. As we exit modernity, were finally in a position to get a little perspective.


Thanks for good comments. Good stuff to discuss.

[Slopeshoulder]

I was raised in a literalistic fundamentalist home and culture.

Got it, that helps.
Time to leave that noiz behind. Sometimes the thing we leave behind still defines terms for us for decades to come. But there's more out there. I'm 51 and stiill trying to quite certain voices from the past.

But apart from that I see many instances in the NT where OT scripture was interpreted literaly. I realise that Judaism as a matter of survival had to spirituals many of the "promises" transitioning from the promise of the land in a physical sense to the resurrection of the dead to a restored physical land to the eventual souls in heaven or hell concept.

But I never got the sense that anyone expected the masses to understand that the history from Adam to the present was to be interpreted as a figurative model of their struggles.

Excellent point. I agree!! Yes. The masses are free to interpret as they like, and literally. You are correct. The alternative would be impratical and horribly elitist.
But here we are not the masses, and I hold us to a higher standard.
And there are two complicating factors:
- first, as I wrote in the post above to mithrae, modernity killed the mythic mind, so modern literalisms fly in the face of reason and also deny myth and claim history (no that they have been separated into two concepts). This can make them dangerous.
- the decline of the priestly/mandarin/elite class has empowered the masses, and bad stuff can follow. For example, if 51% of the masses don't understnad much about religion, yet think they do, and they think homosexuality is a mortal sin, that's bad.

Although I was always certain that persons at the top of the religious hierarchy were well aware that the texts were pious frauds for the benefit of the masses.

I think that's an oversimplification. I think I've elaborated why already.

I do not think that Judaism or Christianity could survive the widespread acceptance of your position.

Judaism seems to be doing so successfully.
But I think you're right about Christianity, alas. And it is an open question, and one I don't have the answer to after 30 years of wishing I did, about how a modern mass believer can have a vital, relevant, living faith without being either merely nominal or toxically ignorant-conservative. I've seen it work VERY well in eductaed, liberal, urban and urbane communities, but it's a minority. I admit this and I don't have the answer. I do know that oprah's filling the void, which ain't so good either.

I mean if their was no actual Adam who fell from favor there would be no need for Christ who did not actually rise from the dead the first member of the new covenant.

Oh, that I disagree with! We're all actual Adams - radically finite, exiled from our selves and our home. Adam is an archetypal myth about the human condition (and I'm not so sure "out of favor," taken literally, goes to the heart of the matter). And if we are all Adam, then Christ is damn well what we need. He's a mythic archetype too - the perfect risen god man, what Adam wishes he were, at peace, tranfigured, full, whole, well, eternal, in and of god. The rise from the dead theme is totally apropos: We all rise from the dead when we "accept" that. Get it?

Great stuff - life giving, divinely transformative. But modern literalisms aren't necessary. Although yes, the modern masses seem to like them. Pity.
That leaves us five choices my friend. Do we:
- trash the whole frickin' thing?
- become pious frauds to patronize or swindle the masses?
- work to make it relevant today?
- wait for or help build something new?
- find a new religion?
I picked three, but four and five are looking appealing.

[Slopeshoulder]

Faith is an orientation one chooses to abide in, without knowledge but also without making propositional truth claims about literal states of affairs. It is affective-expressivist, liminal, performative, grammatical, pragmatic, symbolic, poetic. It's referent is itself and its use and meaning to the person(s) who uses it. It is closer to art and psychology than to math. Faith is not an irrational truth claim, but rather the speech-emotive-performative act of choosing to abide in a linguistic-narrative community, and to mine its resources as navigation points for location, purpose, decision making, insight, enlightenment, courage, and transformation, etc. This take on faith is the appropriate locus for religious framing, expression, commitment, and experience, as well as for the discussion of religion. In this case, the word supra-rational seems to be useful as a descriptor, but there could be a better word. It is intended not to demean reason, but rather to decenter it as and when appropriate. To disallow the supra rational would be both inhumane and intellectually indefensible if one is at all hip to what going on...

As someone who has studied religion to some extent (at least that's what my degree says) and is apparently not at all hip to what is going on, I have to say... I do not in the least understand what you are talking about. Is it possible to explain your position in plain English without six esoteric adjectives in each sentence? Or will your position remain incoherent to me if I do not spend years studying your philosophers?

No disrespect or anything, I obviously don't really have any argument with your positions on religion in general. It is just unfortunate that the effort you put into explaining your position is surely wasted on so many of us.

I too am having trouble grasping what slope is saying, and I think I have mastered some challenging material in my day.

Don't think for a minute that i have mastered it!!!

slope: Is it at all analogous to saying that religion/faith is neither factually true nor false, because it's more like appreciating music or art?If someone believes, as I do, that Aretha Franklin is the greatest singer who has ever lived, I may advocate it as truth, but cannot substantiate it as factual?

In a way, yes. But the crucial caveat is this: to say that or admit it in an evidentiary modern context it to diminish it, make it frivolous. So the issue is that to approach religion/faith IN TERMS OF truth and falsity in the modern verifiable sense is what I think is called a category error. As Wittegenstein helps us to undertand, from descartes to hume to to kant to russell, and the theologians who responded, we've been asking the wrong questions, even meaningless questions. (This 500 year quest was called the foundationalist project, and it's over).
So yeah, it's like loving music or art, but living it too: putting ones self deeply into it, and on the line, and being shaped by it, at a cost, and with greater rewards. We think, we live, we study, and in the end, with kierkegaard, we make a leap to faith. Or with St. Paul and Hans Frei or Stanley Hauerwas, we take on an identity in a community of shared meaning. We can't do more, and less seems flat to us religious folk. Believe me, I love music (fanatically), humor, love, gettin' laid, travel, design, food, the whole bit. But I'm with augustine through boethius through tillich: add religion and it rocks, lose it and it's kinda short of the mark. This thing called redemption seems to be called for. All IMO of course. After all, Dawkins doesn't seem bereft of meaning, but I would.

[Flail]

Slopeshoulder wrote:

Slopeshoulder wrote:

- the decline of the priestly/mandarin/elite class has empowered the masses, and bad stuff can follow. For example, if 51% of the masses don't understnad much about religion, yet think they do, and they think homosexuality is a mortal sin, that's bad.

Agreed. I thought for a moment you were going to compare the masses to the 'Occupy Wall Street' protests wherein the massed majority has no coherent idea as to why they are protesting....but think they do; which is bad....and dangerous; not the protests, protests are fine, but risk evolving into violent upheaval when the ignorant are led around by the nose by those with more sinister purpose. I see the same thing watching Christian TV; you watch and think no one could possibly believe that crap and then the camera pans the live audience and the poor bastards are waving their hands to Jesus and bawling. Oh my...

Although I was always certain that persons at the top of the religious hierarchy were well aware that the texts were pious frauds for the benefit of the masses.

Slopeshoulder wrote:

I think that's an oversimplification. I think I've elaborated why already.

Agreed. Most of the holy men I have had contact with here in the boonies (regardless of whether their degree in Divinity was acquired from a major university or from their plumber's copy machine), are wide-eyed in rapturous love with the living Jesus and will commence to spout and spew accordingly when given the opportunity. They are convinced that the Holy Spirit dwells within them; they await an imminent second coming; they believe themselves anointed; are fully and completely and irrevocably indoctrinated, and can be very persuasive when followers are pitched with emotion.

I do not think that Judaism or Christianity could survive the widespread acceptance of your position.

Slopeshoulder wrote:

Judaism seems to be doing so successfully.
But I think you're right about Christianity, alas. And it is an open question, and one I don't have the answer to after 30 years of wishing I did, about how a modern mass believer can have a vital, relevant, living faith without being either merely nominal or toxically ignorant-conservative. I've seen it work VERY well in eductaed, liberal, urban and urbane communities, but it's a minority. I admit this and I don't have the answer. I do know that oprah's filling the void, which ain't so good either.

I think the problem has been a misinterpretation of the separation clause in the Constitution. More progressive schools, afraid of being sued by the ACLU if they even mention religion, have taken the topic off the table regardless of context. This only plays into the fundamentalist hand. Better would be to require classes in Comparative Religion to HS juniors and seniors taught by instructors trained to discuss the comparative belief details of all major religions; not to promote religion or to endorse any single religion, but to provide students with a context and understanding of the world they are about to enter, giving them talking points to take home to Mr. and Mrs. Bubba. In this way we would eventually evolve into a more pluralistic, metaphorical approach to 'God' rather than raising children as the dunderhead clones of their parent's superstitions; stop the vicious cycle of dogma and indoctrination and replace it with education and insight into the logic and reason behind religious thinking while devaluing the mindless mimicking of ancient, illiterate, fearful and credulous strangers as if our students were merely another breed of sheep... with iPhones, texting and tweeting instead of bleating.

[Mithrae]

If I were to say for example that "Jesus saves" I'd mean it like a brushstroke or poem, not a literal formal description of a verifiable historical or extant state of affairs.

But when Paul said that "Jesus saves" he didn't have an existing body of post-modern, post-analytic, fideistic, existentialist theology and philosophy on which to draw. He was a Pharisee zealous for the Law, who for some reason decided it was all about grace through faith in Christ instead. He probably did mean it as a literal formal description of extant spiritual realities.

Actually that is very debatable, and I am suggesting that he did not mean it literally in the sense one might today. My entire argument, if it is to take Paul et. al. seriously and stand in tradition with him (rather than dismiss him) relies on a hermenutic or theory of reading or an opinion regarding his mindset that suggests that Paul was not doing what you say he was doing. If he was. I'd be wrong and he'd be a nut. I say that proper understanding of the ancient mind and a postmodern perspective actually frees Paul to say what he meant to be saying, and for us to hear it. or at least to reappropriate it faithfully to our present mindset and circumstance.
In other words, you are arguing from within modernity and therefore misreading. Your objection, while reasonable on the face of it, is symptomatic of what I have been talking about.
The thinkers I listed above elaborate on this or contribute to it in one way or the other.

Well I'm a fairly simple man and probably won't end up reading much by those thinkers in the foreseeable future

I'm not really up to speed on what postmodernism is all about (or modernism, for that matter), but over the years I've had many general thoughts about the importance (and problems) of personal and 'meta' narratives, problems with excessive emphasis on objectivity or certainty, the importance of meaning and prevalence of subjectivity. But in some cases I gather that the banner of postmodernity is planted on peaks of silliness, and given the extreme of one or the other I'd go for extreme modernism. But as I say, my knowledge beyond the expert editors of Wikipedia (and Christian apologetics) is all but non-existent.

That said, as far as I know the only way to understand the ancient mind is to read what they wrote, trying to understand their circumstances, perspectives and ultimately their meaning. Obviously there's not too many people who've read more than a fraction of what's available. And of course, those circumstances and perspectives will vary from culture to culture, period to period and indeed person to person. Again I know next to nothing on the subject, but from what I've gathered it seems to me that the likes of Aristotle or Galen would not have been all that far off a 'modernist' mindset.

As for Paul? Like I say, from his own writings it seems to me that originally he figured God's favour came through obedience to the Law; then he decided it came through Christ. Any views contradicting or radically reinterpreting those simple points would want pretty good reasons for doing so. But to call him a nut (though I assume you meant that rather flippantly) if that is indeed the view he held is, as I've said, quite demeaning regardless of whether he was right or wrong. It's the approach of what we might call fundamentalist atheists, that if we can't accept what a religious figure taught they should be more or less consigned to the trash heap, rather than seeking insight from their contexts and perspectives, and perhaps gleaning our own insights or meanings from their work.

While a post-modern existentialist take on Christianity is certainly respectable, what I don't understand is the antipathy towards more conservative approaches; not wholly on the grounds that those literal beliefs are irrational or false, but on the grounds (as above) that they "represent a misuse of religious texts and artifacts."

Well, my objection (and-or antipathy) is that the conservative reading is usually intellectually flagrently offensive, theologically wrong, existentially toxic, and pragmatically harmful. It is also usually associated with ideological dishonesty. BUT, there are intellectually responsible conservative readings that I may disagree with, but they command respect. The radical orthodox and post-liberal narrative theologies come to mind. I hates 'em, but they're not laughable, far from it; they are formidable. I disagree with richard b. hays on a lot, but I studied with him for a year and the guy is about as smart and erudite as they come. Of course, by fundamentalist standards, he's "liberal," but by every other he is conservative.

Also in post 85, post 88; and in post 92 regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, "An artistic expression of the hopes, longings, core values, interpretations and self-made narrative of the ancient hebrews..." As an interpretation which you find credible and meaningful that's fine, but in your replies and smug ad hominems (to use your term) to Postroad, you're implying that the literal 'magic communication' reading is wrong or at least inferior. As far as I can tell that is a propositional truth claim, a belief rather than an aspect of faith, one which comes up quite often in your posts from memory.

I apologize to postroad, I thought he was one of them crooked fundies. I know better now and like how he thinks.
But I wouldn't accept your argument here at all. I'm not saying that one cannot make propositional truth claims in life, merely not about the cosmic and supernaturally unknowable. I'm not preaching epistemic nihilism. I think my opinion is right and better and more informed in this case. I think magical-literal readings are wrong. I also think they are flagrently wrong, a tragic joke that obscured insight and should not be traded in by anyone the least bit educated. Those are fair truth claims to make and defend; scholarship can be brought to bear (as it was above, apparently to no avail). But of course I can't prove it (but what do you think?). But richard b. hays (see above) is educated as hell and he disagrees with me. He thinks jesus physically rose. I think that's LOL-worthy. But he isn't, but he's the exception that proves thje rule in my opinion. Which suggests that when it comes to crass populist half-arguments arond literalisms, implied but unspoken ad hominems are perhaps unavoidable.

My point is that these truth claims, the manner in which you interpret various religious works compared with the way in which conservatives interpret them, are often not nearly as clear-cut as you tend to imply (in my opinion). For example, in the case of Job, the early chapters of Genesis, perhaps even the likes of Jonah, I would say that a 'mythic' rather than literal reading is plausible or even preferable - the authors/audience themselves may not have considered them as factual events. Things like the later chapters of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua and so on are much more of a grey area though; the folk who wrote them down and the people who read them may or may not have believed that Jacob sired their nation, that they stayed in Egypt, that Moses parted the Red Sea, that they conquered the Canaanites... Like the Iliad, it may well be fallacious to count it all as mythic in intent and interpretation (and some elements may in fact have an historical basis).

And of course in other cases, such as Paul, I suspect it's more likely that the authors' intentions were literal (albeit sometimes 'spiritual') rather than mythic or poetic. Judging solely by the comments of yours which I've read and taken note of, of course, it seems to me that your approach is as much of a blanket mytho-poeticism as the blanket literalism which some fundamentalists adopt. Fundamentalists recognise symbolic and metaphoric elements also of course, as you no doubt recognise literal elements; my issue is with the generalisations and lack of acknowledging the grey areas where it's anyone's guess.

Example:

I may of course be way off the mark here, but it seems to me that you approach your faith not from the perspective that the literal truth claims which many (if not most) of the foundational Judea-Christian writers probably intended are irrational or false, and it's therefore better to interpret them mytho-poetically; but that the stories are mytho-poetical in nature and to take them literally is to misunderstand or misuse them.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Because I that that is how they were considered by the authors, in a way that our mindset cannot appreciate without work, and scholarship seems to take my side on this. Auerbach's work on Mimesis and scholars of comparative and archetypal myth have been useful here.

Let me know if I'm off the mark here, but to my mind an important contribution of postmodern thought is the recognition of value in derived meaning (and indeed contrived meaning, qua existentialism). But that shouldn't eclipse the original meaning, or the best we can grasp of it. The parody which I'd read as a teenager in conservative apologetics was of taking your pick of whatever you feel the author had intended. While recognising it (hopefully) as a parody, a blanket statement about foundational Judeo-Christian authors of "that is how they were considered by the authors" seems dangerously close to that parody. Especially when "in a way our mindset cannot appreciate without work" seems the same as saying that on face value, it seems they were not considered that way by the authors.

I also very much question how strongly scholarship supports that view, unless the fields of 'scholarship' are very carefully defined into the 'elite circles' you sometimes mention.

To my mind, that latter approach would be not only fallacious but perhaps a rather demeaning or paternalistic approach to much of the origins and history of the very community/culture towards which your faith is drawn!

This is probably because you are 1. thinking from within modernity and confusing this with reality, and 2. unfamiliar with the thinkers who led me to conclude what I have concluded.
So I think what I do actually serves to honor the tradition, to keep it alive and relevant, and to reveal and rescue its message that has been obscured probably since descartes, certainly since voltaire. A shift in consciousness happened, and our ability to think like the ancients departed us, and then when we revisited their myths, especially those which have as their context the theme of a god of history (judaism and chrostianity), an unintened consequence was to find ourselves in the misdirected evidentiary vs. magical debate. Today our myths are entertainment, but to the ancients they were mythic history (albeit not in the modern elightenment notion of history). Trust me, greater minds than ours, and many of them, have been on this topic for centuries. As we exit modernity, were finally in a position to get a little perspective.

I'm certainly unfamiliar with the thinkers who've lead you to your conclusions, though I've picked up a few concepts along my merry way. One such concept (which again, I don't really understand in any academic sense) is of the dialectic process - thesis, antithesis and synthesis, as I believe Marx commented on. And as I've no doubt implied already in my post (though I hadn't thought of it like that 'til now), in some respects postmodernism comes across as the antithesis to modernism. To be honest I'm not sure what in these comments of yours made me think of that; perhaps the "shift in consciousness" phrase. But while I have no doubt that the thinkers you mention have made important contributions - some of which may well have influenced me in a trickle-down kind of way - ultimately I'm very dubious to what extent we can generalise about the 'ancient mind,' any more than we could validly say that modernists are rational or postmodernists illogical.

Ultimately, in other words, my position is that biblical authors (and indeed the various sections in each author's work) should be studied in their own merits; to try to understand, as best we are able, their mindset, circumstances and intentions. There will be great differences in each person's conclusion on that matter. But in the end, if we're not concluding that some of those authors were way off the mark of what we figure is true, and some of them were making some pretty good points, odds are we're generalising too much and failing to understand a lot of them. And once (or as) we figure out what each author was saying for themselves, we're also free to learn our own lessons from their works or even derive our own meanings from them.

Thanks for good comments. Good stuff to discuss.

Likewise - been curious about your views for a while, but never really had a chance to discuss

-------------------------------------------------

I think the problem has been a misinterpretation of the separation clause in the Constitution. More progressive schools, afraid of being sued by the ACLU if they even mention religion, have taken the topic off the table regardless of context. This only plays into the fundamentalist hand. Better would be to require classes in Comparative Religion to HS juniors and seniors taught by instructors trained to discuss the comparative belief details of all major religions; not to promote religion or to endorse any single religion, but to provide students with a context and understanding of the world they are about to enter, giving them talking points to take home to Mr. and Mrs. Bubba. In this way we would eventually evolve into a more pluralistic, metaphorical approach to 'God' rather than raising children as the dunderhead clones of their parent's superstitions; stop the vicious cycle of dogma and indoctrination and replace it with education and insight into the logic and reason behind religious thinking while devaluing the mindless mimicking of ancient, illiterate, fearful and credulous strangers as if our students were merely a more attractive breed of sheep.

Fortunately we don't have much of the suing problem in Australia. But I've long held the opinion that in earlier school years logic and in later years philosophy should be required subjects alongside maths, science and English/other national language. I'd guess it'd be even more beneficial in political and social contexts than religious (and let's face it, the problem with conservative Christians in the US is largely a political one). The potential problems in training instructors in comparative religion is amply highlighted in any religious discussion forum; but with some decent background knowledge of reasoning, a little exposure to any number of folks' weird and wonderful thoughts and some open debate could be very profitable. I think we could all guess that there'd be atheists out there who'd object to religious classes, even comparative religion, but as an aspect of philosophy alongside politics, social theories and so on, what more could anyone ask?

--------------------------

On a related note, I've been meaning to ask for sources regarding this 'Saoshyant' you've mentioned several times; looking it up just now on Wiki, I think the question becomes even more pertinent.

This was in post 81 to Starboard Tack. Apparently you missed it. Read it thoroughly.

(Encyclopedia Americana, "Zoroastrianism" pp. 813-815)..
"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroastrianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved, in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant (Anointed One). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels, resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."

Saoshyant apparently means 'one who brings benefit' or 'benificent one,' not 'anointed one.' And from what I've gathered that particular interpretation of a universal saviour 'messiah' in deutero-Isaiah is not accepted by Jews; from memory, besides the reference to Cyrus the text doesn't even use the term messiah!

However, these are the documented references to a future saving Saoshyant which I've found referenced in Zoroastrian texts from before the time of Christ:

• 129. Whose name will be the victorious SAOSHYANT and whose name will be Astvat-ereta. He will be SAOSHYANT (the Beneficent One), because he will benefit the whole bodily world; he will be ASTVAT-ERETA (he who makes the bodily creatures rise up), because as a bodily creature and as a living creature he will stand against the destruction of the bodily creatures, to withstand the Drug of the two-footed brood, to withstand the evil done by the faithful
  ~ Yasht 13.129 (link)
  
  
  88. We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda .
  
  89 4. That will cleave unto the victorious Saoshyant and his helpers 5, when he shall restore the world, which will (thenceforth) never grow old and never die, never decaying and never rotting, ever living and ever increasing, and master of its wish, when the dead will rise, when life and immortality will come, and the world will be restored at its wish;
  
  90. When the creation will grow deathless,"the prosperous creation of the Good Spirit,"and the Drug shall perish, though she may rush on every side to kill the holy beings; she and her hundredfold brood shall perish, as it is the will of the Lord.
  
  For its brightness and glory, I will offer it a sacrifice .
  
  91. We sacrifice unto the awful kingly Glory, made by Mazda .
  
  92. When Astvat-ereta 1 shall rise up from Lake Ksava 2, a friend of Ahura Mazda, a son of Vspa-taurvairi 3, knowing the victorious knowledge. . . .
  94. He 2, with the eye of intelligence 3, shall look down upon all the creatures of the Pasis 4, her of the evil seed: he shall look upon the whole living world with the eye of plenty, and his look shall deliver to immortality the whole of the living creatures.
  
  95. And there shall his friends 5 come forward, the friends of Astvat-ereta, who are fiend-smiting, well-thinking, well-speaking, well-doing, following the good law, and whose tongues have never uttered a word of falsehood.
  
  Before them shall Ashma of the wounding spear, who has no Glory, bow and flee; he shall smite the most wicked Drug, her of the evil seed, born of darkness.
  ~ Yasht 19.88-96 (link)

If I've missed anything, let me know.

Obviously the Jewish people already had a concept about some descendant of David who would come and make things great for their nation. It's certainly possible that from a little contact with the Persians that became expanded into some dude who'd come and make everything awesome for everyone.

My question to you is how does this have any bearing on discussion of the historicity of Jesus or the resurrection? Because while I'm not exactly new to claims of Pagan/Christian syncretism, this is the first time I've seen mention of this Saoshyant and I generally don't accept new concepts without a little clarification.

You haven't answered my request for clarification about where the early Christians "were proclaiming that most of the elements of these popular and widely held beliefs had at last been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ." So as far as I can see so far, it seems that Paul, Mark, John, Peter and so on had some kind of message derived from their Jewish roots (which in past centuries may indeed have been influenced somewhat by Persian beliefs) along with their experience and the developments of the growing Christian community. That was a message which they were generally glad to share with non-Jews (raising certain questions about circumcision and the Law in the process), but throughout the NT they seemed fairly consistently in their insistence on leaving behind old pagan beliefs and practices.

That said, is there any evidence for a more developed 'Saoshyant' concept by or before the early 1st century CE, beyond the fairly vague passages from the Yashts quoted above? Wikipedia suggests it wasn't really developed 'til centuries later.

And if so, is there any evidence that this alleged notion was widely spread throughout the Mediterranean world at the time, as you've claimed in your post to Starboard?

And finally, if both of the above are demonstrated, then in what manner do we connect the dots between that and early Christianity? If Jesus' Jewish followers gleaned from their experience a concept of Christ which, against their expressed intentions, kind of matched the Saoshyant expected by the Persians, as Starboard suggests wouldn't that be more like confirmation than refutation?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

However, these are the documented references to a future saving Saoshyant which I've found referenced in Zoroastrian texts from before the time of Christ:

129. Whose name will be the victorious SAOSHYANT and whose name will be Astvat-ereta. He will be SAOSHYANT (the Beneficent One), because he will benefit the whole bodily world; he will be ASTVAT-ERETA (he who makes the bodily creatures rise up), because as a bodily creature and as a living creature he will stand against the destruction of the bodily creatures, to withstand the Drug of the two-footed brood, to withstand the evil done by the faithful
~ Yasht 13.129 (link)

You've referenced a 130 year old work written by James Darmesteter which has fallen out of favor or at least been considerably revised by modern scholars.

"Darmesteter regarded the extant texts as far more recent than commonly believed, placing the earliest in the 1st century BC and the bulk in the 3rd century AD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Darmesteter

Obviously the Jewish people already had a concept about some descendant of David who would come and make things great for their nation.

The "concept" that the Jewish people had in the first century was that surely God would send them another warrior-king to deliver them from the Romans the way He had once sent them a warrior-king to deliver them from the Philistines. And the Jewish people failed, largely, to ever accept Jesus as the Messiah they were waiting for.

You haven't answered my request for clarification about where the early Christians "were proclaiming that most of the elements of these popular and widely held beliefs had at last been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ."

Jesus was the "dying-resurrected savior God, born of a virgin, birth signified by a new star in the sky, adored by three Persian "wise men," and the "light shinning in the darkness;"

[12] "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8).

[Mithrae]

However, these are the documented references to a future saving Saoshyant which I've found referenced in Zoroastrian texts from before the time of Christ:

129. Whose name will be the victorious SAOSHYANT and whose name will be Astvat-ereta. He will be SAOSHYANT (the Beneficent One), because he will benefit the whole bodily world; he will be ASTVAT-ERETA (he who makes the bodily creatures rise up), because as a bodily creature and as a living creature he will stand against the destruction of the bodily creatures, to withstand the Drug of the two-footed brood, to withstand the evil done by the faithful
~ Yasht 13.129 (link)

You've referenced a 130 year old work written by James Darmesteter which has fallen out of favor or at least been considerably revised by modern scholars.

"Darmesteter regarded the extant texts as far more recent than commonly believed, placing the earliest in the 1st century BC and the bulk in the 3rd century AD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Darmesteter

Obviously I haven't shared a view that these were written in the 3rd century CE, or I wouldn't have posted them. I've also acknowledged the possibility that they may have influenced the related Jewish concept (ie, 5th century BCE or earlier). As I requested already, if you know of other pre-Christian Persian or Zoroastrian references to a future saviour Saoshyant which are relevant to the discussion, I'm very interested. Otherwise, unless you're disputing the accuracy of translation, I'm not sure how Darmesteter's views on the date of composition are relevant?

Obviously the Jewish people already had a concept about some descendant of David who would come and make things great for their nation.

The "concept" that the Jewish people had in the first century was that surely God would send them another warrior-king to deliver them from the Romans the way He had once sent them a warrior-king to deliver them from the Philistines. And the Jewish people failed, largely, to ever accept Jesus as the Messiah they were waiting for.

In general I agree with that. However, you seem to be contradicting your source's claim that
"the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved, in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant"
Since I'd already mentioned possible problems with your source's translation of 'Saoshyant' and interpretation of deutero-Isaiah, I take it we're putting that source in the not particularly reliable or take with a grain of salt categories?

You haven't answered my request for clarification about where the early Christians "were proclaiming that most of the elements of these popular and widely held beliefs had at last been fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ."

Jesus was the "dying-resurrected savior God, born of a virgin, birth signified by a new star in the sky, adored by three Persian "wise men," and the "light shinning in the darkness;"

[12] "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." (John 8).

Comments in this very thread - and threads on the first page of this very forum - are questioning whether the NT (and gospels specifically) portray Jesus as God. And you have not answered my previous question regarding parallels with dying-resurrecting deities like Adonis. Off the top of my head (and the middle of my head, to be honest) I can think of some X parallels in the Tanakh; the widow's son raised from death by Elijah, the corpse resurrected when thrown into Elisha's grave, Isaiah 53/54 where the servant who suffers/dies for others' transgressions eventually 'sees the light' from memory, Jonah who's later prayer says he went to Sheol before being returned to the world of the living (or something to that effect). "Dying-resurrected saviour god" is a nice phrase, but you haven't yet shown me that there's any substance to this alleged Pagan-Christian parallel even on the Pagan side, let alone as a non-Jewish element of early Christian thought.

'Born of a virgin' is not found in the two sources which, right from my very first post in this thread, I suggested were the most plausible sources regarding Jesus' life, death and possible resurrection. The star in the sky is found only in the gospel which you have specifically (and repeatedly) discredited as a reliable source. More to the point, besides the vague claims of that video you linked (which as I've said, is a demonstrably unreliable source) I'm not sure I recall (and you haven't mentioned) any Pagan parallels for that star in the sky. There's certainly parallels for a 'virgin birth' - Mithras emerged from a rock for example, and Isis formed Horus from the dismembered parts of Osiris (or something to that effect). A man-god can't have two human parents, that seems pretty obvious. And I acknowledge that if we're very careful about which particular myths about which particular gods we decide to emphasise, some of them have some similarities with the stories found in the least reliable half of our canonical gospels. Even granting that curious methodology of which myths to emphasise, I still maintain that Alexander the Great is the best choice of comparison, since like Jesus he was an historical person elevated to divinity and thus ultimately required a conception myth.

And you're still saying that a light/dark dichotomy is a particularly unusual concept which we need other culture's beliefs to reasonably explain? Really?

[Slopeshoulder]

Better would be to require classes in Comparative Religion to HS juniors and seniors taught by instructors trained to discuss the comparative belief details of all major religions; not to promote religion or to endorse any single religion, but to provide students with a context and understanding of the world they are about to enter, giving them talking points to take home to Mr. and Mrs. Bubba.

I want to single this out because I've been saying this for years. How we cannot have a comparative religious studies survey in HS is beyond me. In a god-besotted, deeply divided, increasingly globalized nation, it is a glaring omission.

[Flail]

Better would be to require classes in Comparative Religion to HS juniors and seniors taught by instructors trained to discuss the comparative belief details of all major religions; not to promote religion or to endorse any single religion, but to provide students with a context and understanding of the world they are about to enter, giving them talking points to take home to Mr. and Mrs. Bubba.

I want to single this out because I've been saying this for years. How we cannot have a comparative religious studies survey in HS is beyond me. In a god-besotted, deeply divided, increasingly globalized nation, it is a glaring omission.

Yes indeed. The strong secularists afraid of the Constitution on one side vs the indoctrinated fundamentalist Christians on the other...check mate...because of these polar extremes our school systems remain stymied; and moderates and liberals alike settle for keeping our children in the dark while Bubba revels in it.


The more we learn of the details and sources for religious beliefs, the less likely we will be to take any of them as literal truths; and the more philosophical and intellectual we will become.
The single best opportunity we have for ridding ourselves of fundamentalist religions and for making the world a safer and more tolerant place resides in our public schools...and not in our Sunday schools.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Otherwise, unless you're disputing the accuracy of translation, I'm not sure how Darmesteter's views on the date of composition are relevant?

I'm not sure that any of this discussion is relevant. It seems to be more of an attempt to disrupt and divert my discussion with Starboard Tack by taking up my time with side issues. If Starboard Tack wishes to make an issue of any of the points you have raised I will be glad to address them.