Did Jesus exist, Part II

Faith and robinrohan,A discussion of Tilich or Calvinism is way off topic for this thread. Maybe you can take it to your great debate thread, or start a new topic.

---

I thought you would like that. God is real but he doesn't "exist" (quote, quote).Now back to the topic, or rather a related topic. One point I wanted to discuss (mentioned in the previous thread of the same name) is whether or not the question of whether Jesus actually lived should be important to a Christian. Looking at it from the outside, I would think it would be of utmost importance, but what do I know? Jar said something to the effect that it doesn't really matter (I think).Your view?

I can't even IMAGINE his not existing, and Christianity would be absolutely meaningless if he didn't. Utmost importance" is almost an understatement. That's the kind of thing a liberal would say and think there's no problem with it, he doesn't need to "exist" OR exist.But I have to leave for a while. Back later.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 03:20 PM

Lyall Watson has written a very interesting book about resurrection and the definition of death called The Romeo Error.It seems that resurrections are well documented. Coming back to life after 3 days is very possible. Now the Mummy movies? No way. But a few days it's possible.lfen

Robin and Faith,This is where Korzbyski's General Semantics becomes important. "A Christian"? and which Christian and when is that? Christianity? Whose, when, and where? There will be different answers depending on which individual or group you are referencing.Also asking important in what way? How important. That will get you different estimates. As Faith pointed out in her post, her response and Jar's to these question are likely to be very different.There is the issues of the religious doctrine and faith. There are on the other hand the issues of the history of Christianity. Whether or not the church doctrine is correct or not doesn't seem to change the lives of believers whether Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu on and on unless they begin to doubt. So if Jesus didn't exit won't change the lives of Christians as they are living it now. Christianity and their lives are happening.On the other hand if an individual Christian comes to question the doctrine of their church then the issue could become very significant.You didn't ask me specifically but I thought I'd toss my view in there.lfen

I have to stay away for a while, but drat it's tempting to answer things.I don't know what Lyell Watson's argument is, but I'd doubt he's making the case that if a person is certifiably dead from massive bleeding hanging on the cross, and then pierced through the heart with a spear, as Jesus was, that he simply stayed alive at some subclinical level for three days. Clues that Jesus was certifiably dead were that they didn't break his knees to speed up the process of dying, as they normally did when it looked as though someone was going to linger half alive into a holiday weekend (it was the Passover). They had pierced him through his side and into his heart to prove him already dead. The separated water and blood that poured out of his side was proof he was definitely dead. And if he hadn't been, the piercing itself would have done the job.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 04:00 PM

If necessary I'll use the qualifiers, Totally Bible-believing Protestant, with affinities to the Church Fathers -- or whatever would make the portrait as clear as you need it to be.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 04:02 PM

Robin,Paul Tillich was on to something. In Buddhism it would go something like this.1. Ultimate Reality exits.
2. Ultimate Reality does not exist.
3. Ultimate Reality both exists and doesn't exist.
4. Ultimate Reality neither exists nor doesn't exist.lfen

I don't know about if Paul was really a pharisee. When discussing evangalistic techniques, Paul wrote"I am a Jew to the Jews, A Greek to the Greeks, a Gentile to the Gentiles".It sounds like he put on what ever hat he needed for the purposes of trying to convert people. Someone who was a pharasiee above all things would not say that.

He was no longer a Pharisee (in a certain sense) when he became a follower of Christ.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-12-2006 04:39 PM

Whatever that means.

I've got an idea. Maybe it means sometimes God exists and sometimes He doesn't. He's in and out, like my arthritic pain. That would explain a lot. If something bad happens to us, that was during one of those periods when He didn't exist. If something good happens to us, that's one of those times when He does exist. Makes sense to me.

quote:

---

If something bad happens to us, that was during one of those periods when He didn't exist. If something good happens to us, that's one of those times when He does exist.

---

Or vice versa.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yes, he belonged to the Pharisees, but remember, Pharisee or Saduccee were far more a political statement than a religious one. But you are absolutely right about Paul being a person who was flexible when he thought it advantageous. He was a master of SPIN and had no problems using anything out there to further his cause.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The Romans sometimes let the bodies the crucified convicted hang as a warning. So it is also theorized that perhaps the body was dragged off by varmits or dogs. Since no corpse was ever found. There is no non source evidence that he was ever buried. So all resurection accounts are taken from circulating traditions some decades after his execution. Although I must admit this possibility is somewhat disturbing as well as distastful, and of course not in keeping with the Gospels. Perhaps Brian can shed some light on this? **edit spelling.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 01-12-2006 06:22 PM