Why (or why not) be Christian? Part 2

[Mustardseed86]

Continuing from this thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/5018897-why-or-why-not-be-christian

Anyone welcome to join. 🙂

But symbolically that’s what it says based on contemporary Greek thought.

Based on the contemporary Greek symbolism that’s basically it.

So if, as I understand, you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, or, by your above account don’t believe in a symbolic interpretation, why do you think the various gospels were written?

Ok...and? All Jesus's miracles had symbolism. It was the fact they were also physically real that gave them power. The Word made Flesh. The symbol and the reality. That's why Jesus isn't either just a visionary, or someone doing 'magic tricks'.

It depends, I was just trying to ascertain why atheists thought the Bible had been written if they reject both a literal and symbolic reading. Why do they think all of a sudden all these people started writing these books. I mean one thing we know for certain, and presumably even an atheist can’t argue with is starting from the second half of the 1st century texts were suddenly being written about a man and God setting out the man’s teachings. What do they think was going on?

For example if the miracle of walking on water was having the confidence to weather the storms, keeping your eye on the divine will enable you to rise above your emotions not be consumed by them

I can rise above my emotions perfectly well and I don't get consumed by them.

I do not believe in any god, so I don't see how your 'faith' would provide any benefits to my life?

I was just trying to ascertain why atheists thought the Bible had been written if they reject both a literal and symbolic reading.

Probably for the same reason JK Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books..?

And just like some of you do with the Bible, others might choose to life as if HP were true and still be a sane, functioning adult. Suppose you gathered weekly with like-minded friends to read portions aloud and discuss how the plot elements apply to your current struggles in life. The recurring themes are courage, defending your friends, seeking good in your enemies, fighting bigotry

They weren’t physically real - you can’t walk on water!

But what you believe or not is completely Ireland to the question isn’t it. As fiction aimed at an average 12 year old wasn’t really big business back in 70AD why do you think all these gospels were written?

They were written for the same reason the Egyptians produced millions of texts and illustrations about the doings of Atun, Anubis, Bastet, Hathor, Horus, Isis, Set, Thoth and all their supernatural pals, with endless tales of their in-person interactions with Egypt's human leaders. They were always performing miracles with help from the gods.

The same reason the Romans wrote long & detailed explanations about their gods, produced a vast body of art depicting their deeds, and celebrated their interventions on behalf of Roman people. They had hundreds of superhumans, gifted humans and god-human hybrids, who performed amazing miracles.

These are no different in nature or principle from Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion.

Cultures create mythologies to bind their people together, to inspire them, and to give a sense of order to their world. Back then - as you well know - religion was understood as a unifying fact, the answer to questions about how the world works. It incorporated science, medicine and philosophy. When ancient civilisations developed scientific analysis, they included the 'facts' of their religions because it seemed obvious to them.

Your apostles were a sales force, if you like, travelling around with the message "Your religion's out of date, switch to ours!" Clearly they needed consistent stories to reinforce their message, so a newly-founded Christian cult in Cyprus would be working off the same foundation as one in Spain.

I'm not saying they were deliberately lying, btw. Believers in any religion genuinely do believe their mythologies are facts of life. I'm saying they all work the same; none is essentially better than another.

Yes! That's a perfect modern-day analogy.

The gospels weren’t an eye witness record but written as a form of preaching.

After multiple threads I think you probably know my answer to that! 😄

And what were they preaching?

I think it’s well known that the story line of Harry Potter follows that of the biblical story.

In fact JK Rowling very cleverly interweaves Western Esoteric principles into what is basically a retelling of the biblical arch.,

And lots of people meet as you describe (although I’ve never met and such Harry Potter group snd I’ve met a very diverse crowd).

But it’s not a great analogy. society around the 1st century AD was very different there was no mass market books. No one has ever died for reading Harry Potter.

it’s an Ill conceived and uneducated analogy.

As you know I’m not an orthodox (with a small o) Christian. I totally agree with what you’re saying regarding the different religions - as a perennialist I see the value in all of those mythologies you mentioned and others. I particularly like the Norse Mythology with the concept of Ragnarok. I’m just as likely to invoke Ma’at or Horus as Arch Angel Raphael.

So I don’t disagree with the things you say. The difference for me is that they all have an underlying foundation of being an expression of the primordial divine force. I believe that they are expressions of our divine selves and they operate through allegory and symbolism.

Hi Garlicking, in reference to your comment above:

“Your apostles were a sales force, if you like, travelling around with the message "Your religion's out of date, switch to ours!" Clearly they needed consistent stories to reinforce their message, so a newly-founded Christian cult in Cyprus would be working off the same foundation as one in Spain.
**
I'm not saying they were deliberately lying, btw. Believers in any religion genuinely do believe their mythologies are facts of life. I'm saying they all work the same; none is essentially better than another.”

Can I please ask then, what happened to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus?

What happened to this man who was a Jew and Pharisee who was entirely opposed to Christ and his followers. He worked with the Romans to actively hunt down followers of Christ, shut down their meetings and persecute and stone them.

There is too much historical evidence to deny Saul existed (the apostle Paul)

Also to add re:
“I'm not saying they were deliberately lying, btw. Believers in any religion genuinely do believe their mythologies are facts of life. I'm saying they all work the same; none is essentially better than another.”

There is a big difference in religions that believe their mythologies as facts and the bible , which provides eye witness accounts to the events of Jesus’s life, death and resurrection. Simply put the gospel writers wrote down the things Jesus said (his teachings) and what he did (his acts, the people he encountered and his miracles).

The other big factor here is that the disciples had absolutely everything to lose by professing faith in Jesus. They risked imprisonment, torture and death and most of them were in fact martyred.

People may die for something they believe in and that does not prove it is true. However for a person to willingly die for something they KNOW to be a lie just doesn’t happen.

From ‘Cold Case Christianity’ https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-commitment-of-the-apostles-confirms-the-truth-of-the-resurrection/
it explains further:

“Many of us, as committed Christians, would rather die than reject our Savior. Around the world today, Christians are executed regularly because they refuse to deny their allegiance to Jesus or the truth claims of Christianity. But their deaths, while heartbreaking and compelling, have no evidential value. Many people are willing to die for what they don’t know is a lie. Martyrdom doesn’t confirm the truth, especially when the martyrs don’t have first-hand access to the claim for which they’re dying. But this wasn’t the case for the disciples of Jesus. They were in a unique position: they knew if the claims about Jesus were true. They were present for the life, ministry, death and alleged resurrection of Jesus.

If the claims about Jesus were a lie, the disciples would have known it (in fact they would have been the source of the lie). That’s why their commitment to their testimony was (and is) so compelling. Unlike the rest of us, their willingness to die for their claims has tremendous evidential value. In fact, the commitment of the apostles confirms the truth of the resurrection.
The traditions related to the deaths of the apostles are well known. According to local and regional histories, all of the disciples died for their claims related to the Resurrection:

Andrew was crucified in Patras, Greece.
Bartholomew (aka Nathanael) was flayed to death with a whip in Armenia.
James the Just was thrown from the temple and then beaten to death in Jerusalem.
James the Greater was beheaded in Jerusalem.
John died in exile on the island of Patmos.
Luke was hanged in Greece.
Mark was dragged by horse until he died in Alexandria, Egypt.
Matthew was killed by a sword in Ethiopia.
Matthias was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem.
Peter was crucified upside down in Rome.
Philip was crucified in Phrygia.
Thomas was stabbed to death with a spear in India.

Our willingness (as non-witnesses later in history) to die for what we believe has no evidential value, but the willingness of the first disciples to die for what they saw with their own eyes is a critical piece of evidence in the case for Christianity. The early tradition of the Church related to these deaths is bolstered by the lack of any ancient record of apostolic denial, especially given there exist other ancient accounts of public persecution and denials by early Christians. The commitment of the disciples to their claims is compelling. Unlike the rest of us, their willingness to die for what they witnessed has tremendous evidential value. The commitment of the apostles confirms the truth of the resurrection.”

Yes, Paul/Saul existed. I don't know what happened when he experienced his 'revelation'. Jerusalem to Damascus is about 270km, more than a week's walk or four days by horse (no idea about travelling times of donkeys or camels!) It would've been a tough trip, passing through regions where neither Romans nor Jews were popular. He and his party were probably tired, pissed off, and may not have eaten or slept well en route.

When I've imagined being in his party, I tend to think of him in a state of moral conflict: he may have been sympathising more and more with the Christians, trying and failing to square it with his successful career. If he went over to the other side, he'd lose everything he had worked for and put himself at risk of execution by his own soldiers.

He was travelling with those soldiers, but were any of them also sympathetic to Christians? Some may well have been: it was the cult of the day, spreading like wildfire - hence the urgent suppression campaign. I imagine Paul's party passing that long, dusty journey under tension, discussing the new faith cautiously while never daring to openly question their mission.

Two days out from Damascus, the desert sun rises once more and ... he has a panic attack? A seizure? A massive tantrum? Or maybe just passes out from fatigue. Any such thing is possible; we don't know his state of health at the time, only that he was engaged in a physically and emotionally taxing project. Perhaps he had dysentery and collapsed in a poonami (they wouldn't tell us that!)

People didn't have "stress-related" illness in those days and their understanding of medicine was 99% superstition. Everything that happened was an act of god. When the boss dramatically collapses, then comes round ranting about God's will and saying he "can't see", it's a guarantee that [a] this is the work of a great power, and [b] everyone feels that something mystical has happened to them personally.

I suspect his blindness was metaphorical. His inability to "see a way forward" may have led him to become literally unable to see, or he might just have said it so much that the others took it that way.

When Ananais got to him in Damascus, Paul's party hadn't eaten for three days. They were weak and would have been extremely susceptible to this kindly prophet turning up with food and drink. For Paul, without a doubt, it was the assurance he needed; he could see his way clearly.

A 2012 paper in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences suggested that Paul’s conversion experience might be understood as involving psychogenic events. This occurring in the overall context of Paul’s other auditory and visual experiences that the authors propose may have been caused by mood disorder associated psychotic spectrum symptoms.

@Jellyfishnchips I can hear your faith in your post. I don't share it, so I don't think those witnesses really saw what they thought they did. It would be wrong to assert that only Christianity claims eye witnesses, and that only Christian witnesses were martyred. All the religions had eye witnesses. All had martyrs. I can't be bothered to search for adherents of other religions being murdered for having witnessed, but they exist in droves. One of Buddha's disciples was.

@Garlicking, I love your imaginative and very vivid description of Paul! I read it and feel great compassion. Thing is it increases my faith even if that was not your intention. The physical and spiritual for me is so intertwined and interrelated that I suspect I don't really see the separation that you appear to. Don't compartmentalise in the same way. So if Paul's vision was physical caused by fatigue, or dysentery and/or mental anguish on one level I don't see why it should preclude a spiritual experience either.

I think this is a fair analysis of what happened to Paul. I have often wondered whether he was suffering from ptsd having witnessed the death of many (at his bequest). This can cause hallucinations.

The blindness caused be seeing the light, lasting 3 days before he opened his eyes and saw the world anew) 3 is often linked to change of a spiritual kind - see time between crucifixion and redirection (essentially the same process).

Thanks for your post on Paul @Garlicking . That's very interesting. A minor point, but it doesn't say that Paul's party hadn't eaten for three days. They would more than likely have taken enough food for the journey. We're told that Paul didn't eat for three days which presumably was a measure of how profoundly he was affected by what he saw/experienced.

Like @heyhohello I don't see a contradiction necessarily between a 'naturalistic' explanation and a divine explanation for Paul's experience and conversion, although I would say that the Bible isn't generally all that delicate about physical health problems - look at poor Job scratching his skin with bits of broken pottery, or the woman who had been bleeding for years. Admittedly I can't find any poonami verses anywhere! 😄 But it's clear that Paul had a profound and transformative vision, whatever explanation you prefer.

I thought it might be good to quote Tom Holland's book Dominion here. He is a secular historian as you possibly know and AFAIK not a Christian himself. Here is what he says about Paul, which I really like:

If Paul did not stint, in a province adorned with monuments to Caesar, in hammering home the full horror and humiliation of Jesus’ death, then it was because, without the crucifixion, he would have had no gospel to proclaim. Christ, by making himself nothing, by taking on the very nature of a slave, had plumbed the depths to which only the lowest, the poorest, the most persecuted and abused of mortals were confined. If Paul could not leave the sheer wonder of this alone, if he risked everything to proclaim it to strangers likely to find it disgusting, or lunatic, or both, then that was because he had been brought by his vision of the risen Jesus to gaze directly into what it meant for him, and for all the world. That Christ – whose participation in the divine sovereignty over space and time he seems never to have doubted – had become human, and suffered death on the ultimate instrument of torture, was precisely the measure of Paul’s understanding of God: that He was love. The world stood transformed as a result. Such was the gospel. Paul, in proclaiming it, offered himself as the surest measure of its truth. He was nothing, worse than nothing, a man who had persecuted Christ’s followers, foolish and despised; and yet he had been forgiven and saved. ‘I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.’

@Garlicking

Because, as I have said earlier, in the thread preceding this, if I recall correctly, the spiritual, once manifested into the physical then becomes a physical phenomenon. What is then physical can be observed as physical. Which results is the close interaction and interrelationship between the physical and the spiritual. What you get is coincidence and serendipity. It's like the imagery in literature where landscapes reflect what happens to the characters. It can be like in Macbeth where the portent is reflected in the landscape being changed as it was utilised in warfare.

And I think the reason I don't have the mental separation between the physical and the spiritual is because, as a Christian, I believe in the Creator God. As Creator He knows how the physical all works, intimately.