Christian faith in TrekLit?

[Christopher]

^Actually "Jesus" is the Latinized form of his name. He would've actually been called Yeshua, or whatever the regional form/pronunciation of that name would've been at the time. His full name would've been Yeshua ben Yosef: "Joshua, son of Joseph." (And "Christ," of course, is the Greek word for "Anointed One," a literal translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah.")

It's worth noting that Yeshua means "God saves/delivers." This could be taken as evidence that Jesus was an invented figure given a name fitting the idea of the Messiah or the Son of God, or it could conversely be taken as evidence that Jesus was divinely born and his parents were instructed by God/angels to give him that name. Or, given that it was a common name at the time, it could've been coincidence that a person born with that name came to be regarded as the Savior. Or it could be that the fact that this particular religious teacher bore that name encouraged people to see him as the Savior. Take your pick.

And we're not here to attack or reject alternative faiths, please. We should keep this discussion open-minded and free of flames, or it'll have to be shut down.

 

[craig keith]

At the end of the day, As long as there is no religion singled out in trek and it just acts on the spiritual side of things then i dont see much of a problem. As Kirk said " What does god need with a starship"

 

[captcalhoun]

to get to the other side.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Again, if the Gospels are fraudulent, historically, than those Christians persecuted under Nero and his sucessors died, to put it bluntly, for a lie.

That's nonsense. It's missing the whole point of the Bible to think that its only meaning resides in the literal, surface interpretation of the words. As I already explained, in that time and culture, the priority (at least in religious writings) was not a literal, exact recording of the facts, but the use of storytelling as allegory and symbolism to convey a deeper spiritual meaning. It's shallow and superficial to see only the surface meaning of the Bible -- that's like reading Aesop's fables and thinking their only message is "animals can talk." Nobody's supposed to assume the talking animals are a literal truth; rather, the truths conveyed by Aesop's fables are in their deeper, allegorical meaning, the very true statements about human nature that the fiction of talking animals is used to symbolize. By the same token, the meaning of Biblical texts is not in their surface assertions, but in the underlying ideas they're intended to convey.

And yet Aesop's fabels were established as fabels. Jesus in the same way, used "parables"--which the Gospels established as parables.

By contrast, I refer again to Luke's introduction. He made the bold, no-nonsense claim that his Gospel was a clear-cut, objective, factual account of Jesus's life.

In fact, it's well-known that the Gospels contradict each other in many of their "factual" details, so of course they can't be treated as literally true. Rather, the author of each Gospel was offering a symbolic account in order to convey his particular interpretation of the meaning of Jesus Christ to the Christian community. One Gospel gave Jesus an origin story that conformed to Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah (for instance, concocting the whole "census in Bethlehem" thing to fit Jesus of Nazareth into the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem)--

With all respect--the census ordered by Augustus cannot be simply dismissed as a concoction. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, again, had set out to disprove the Gospel of Luke--and ended up hailing him as a first-rate historian. In particular, his work "Was Christ Born In Bethlehem?" is of interest. The relevent points to this particular discussion--among points made by others--can be found here.

in order to convey the spiritual message that Jesus was the Messiah. Another gave him a backstory paralleling that of Moses (the slaughter of the innocents, etc.) in order to say that Jesus was the new Moses, the next great leader who would free the Jews from oppression. The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with the Greek concept of Logos, the Word made flesh.

And none of those things contradict one another. The Messiah is the "Anointed One", who would free the Jews from oppression as Moses did--albeit in a far different manner. He was also the Word made flesh--the way to the Truth. I fail to see how those views contradict.

The meaning of the Gospels is spiritual, not historical. It's not about factual details, because that wasn't a priority in that culture. It's about what lies beneath the surface of the words.

Why would one assume that history wasn't a priority in Jewish culture? Is it because of the accounts of supernatural acts?

If not...than what is it?

If so...it seems as if this line of reasoning is as follows:

Major Premise: Any accounts of supernatural events are unfactual and non-historical.

Minor Premise: The Bible contain accounts of supernatural events.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is unfactual and non-historical.

Those who make this claim then try to reconcile it by saying, "It doesn't matter--because they weren't meant to be factual or historical. They're just allegorical." More on that later.

Frankly...while the syllogism is valid, the major premise is not necessarily sound.

So nobody is saying the Gospels are "fraudulent." The Gospels weren't meant to be news reports or history textbooks. They were meant to be sermons, allegorical and metaphorical tracts conveying an inspirational spiritual message to early Christians or potential converts. Their meaning isn't simply in whether their details actually happened as described; their meaning is in the emotions, hopes, and ideals that they inspire in their listeners. They have more in common with songs and poetry than they do with newspapers or documentaries.

Every "sermon", Chris--every controversial work, every work which seeks to persuade...requires credibility. Otherwise, there is nothing to back it up. If the Church wanted to reach potential converts--why "concoct" an unfactual account for the sake of "allegory"? What would be the purpose of not holding history as a high priority?

Again, Luke introduced his Gospel with a series of claims that are, frankly, audacious. He claims to have consulted a variety of sources, and to have carefully examined all the facts--and implies that he'd interviewed countless eyewitness to Jesus's life.

Whatever one may say about "allegory" concerning the other Gospels--Luke's introduction does not allow for such a loophole for him. He did not intend it to.

^Actually "Jesus" is the Latinized form of his name. He would've actually been called Yeshua, or whatever the regional form/pronunciation of that name would've been at the time. His full name would've been Yeshua ben Yosef: "Joshua, son of Joseph." (And "Christ," of course, is the Greek word for "Anointed One," a literal translation of the Hebrew title "Messiah.")

It's worth noting that Yeshua means "God saves/delivers." This could be taken as evidence that Jesus was an invented figure given a name fitting the idea of the Messiah or the Son of God, or it could conversely be taken as evidence that Jesus was divinely born and his parents were instructed to give him that name. Or, given that it was a common name at the time, it could've been coincidence that a person born with that name came to be regarded as the Savior. Or it could be that the fact that this particular religious teacher bore that name encouraged people to see him as the Savior. Take your pick.

And we're not here to attack or reject alternative faiths, please. We should keep this discussion open-minded and free of flames, or it'll have to be shut down.

Thanks, Chris!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Credible and factual aren't the same thing.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Naturally--nonetheless, credibility is an essential element in the determination of fact, and with it, truth.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Remember, the ministry had begun in Jerusalem. One need only consult the tomb, and the fact that it was empty.

Additionally, just because his body went missing does not mean he was a god or even resurrected himself. There's a great rational chasm between "not having a body" and "that man was God". You can jump it in a leap of faith, but that's about it.

Also, as Paul noted when he laid down the challenge, there were over 5000 witnesses to Jesus walking around after his death--and he pointed out that many of them were still alive as of his writing.

Anything could have happened to the body. We have no reason to believe he was stuck in a tomb other than Christian literature produced decades after the fact. He could've been thrown in a ditch and burned for all we know. There are far more pedestrian -- and probable -- explanations than "rose from the grave, walked around for a month, and then rose into space". * Paul can claim as many witnesses as he'd like: you can find a great many books on the library shelves full of people claiming they saw ghosts. It's easy to fool people, especially crowds. Ever hear of the Our Lady of Fatima incident? Thousands claim they witnessed some apparation in the sky, images of Jesus and his mother backed against the sun, constantly changing colors. I don't know your denomination, but I'm betting most Protestants would dismiss that -- just as they would every saint-attributed miracle. Yet those miracles "happen" all the time; it's part of the modern canonization process.




*"Observation: I can't see a thing. Conclusion: Dinosaurs!"
(Carl Sagan, commenting on the tendency of people speculating on extraterrestrial life to make 'great leaps' about Venus before the probes returned their data.)

 

[Rush Limborg]

Remember, the ministry had begun in Jerusalem. One need only consult the tomb, and the fact that it was empty.

Additionally, just because his body went missing does not mean he was a god or even resurrected himself. There's a great rational chasm between "not having a body" and "that man was God". You can jump it in a leap of faith, but that's about it.

Also, as Paul noted when he laid down the challenge, there were over 5000 witnesses to Jesus walking around after his death--and he pointed out that many of them were still alive as of his writing.

Anything could have happened to the body. We have no reason to believe he was stuck in a tomb other than Christian literature produced decades after the fact.

You have the writings of Tacticus, who repeated the claim that "the disciples stole his body" (the "explanation" the Pharisees gave). "Stole" it from where?

He could've been thrown in a ditch and burned for all we know.

Than why did Paul invoke the witnesses? The Roman government could have publicized the truth for all it was worth--thereby destroying the rate of conversions. And yet they didn't.

There are far more pedestrian -- and probable -- explanations than "rose from the grave, walked around for a month, and then rose into space".

Indeed?

Paul can claim as many witnesses as he'd like: you can find a great many books on the library shelves full of people claiming they saw ghosts.

The exact same ghost? In the same spanse of time? People from different walks of life?

It's easy to fool people, especially crowds. Ever hear of the Our Lady of Fatima incident? Thousands claim they witnessed some apparation in the sky, images of Jesus and his mother backed against the sun, constantly changing colors. I don't know your denomination, but I'm betting most Protestants would dismiss that --

Recall "Doubting Thomas", who made the same assumption that it was just an halucination. He demanded the concrete proof of seeing and touching the injuries of Christ, and...

just as they would every saint-attributed miracle.

Not those in Acts, mind you.

 

[Christopher]

Remember, the ministry had begun in Jerusalem. One need only consult the tomb, and the fact that it was empty.

"Fact?" No. Assertion. The only sources for the "empty tomb" are texts written at least a couple of decades after the supposed event. Since they were not written by actual witnesses or participants in the event, they are not primary sources and cannot be considered proof of the event. Secondary sources cannot be used to establish the factual status of an event. The most that the extant writings on the subject can be said to prove on this point is that their writers believed, or at least wished others to believe, that Jesus had been resurrected. If you choose to believe the same, that's your prerogative, but it's a matter of faith, not fact.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Remember, the ministry had begun in Jerusalem. One need only consult the tomb, and the fact that it was empty.

"Fact?" No. Assertion. The only sources for the "empty tomb" are texts written at least a couple of decades after the supposed event. Since they were not written by actual witnesses or participants in the event, they are not primary sources and cannot be considered proof of the event. Secondary sources cannot be used to establish the factual status of an event. The most that the extant writings on the subject can be said to prove on this point is that their writers believed, or at least wished others to believe, that Jesus had been resurrected. If you choose to believe the same, that's your prerogative, but it's a matter of faith, not fact.

John emphasized he was present at the crucifixion--and that he and Peter ran to the tomb upon hearing from the women that it was open, and the body was missing.

And--once again--if these claims were factually incorrect, the movement would have been stifeled by the Sanhedren and/or the Romans, who could easily have provided the truth--and, through the power of their authority, spread the word for all it was worth.

And yet...the ministry somehow proved more convincing--among "Gentiles" even more than Jews--than any claims the authorities made.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Several years ago, I came across a book entitled "The Bible Fraud", which goes into fairly good detail into the archeological record of what can best be determined to have actually happened during Biblical times and how the Bible, as we know it today, came into being.

In short:

1) The actual historical record reads less like "King of Kings" and more like "Life of Brian", which to me seems a bit more realistic.

2) It's nothing short of astounding how much one can alter the history texts when you control the Roman Empire, like the early church did after Constantin converted. Earlier histories can be edited, contradictory ones can be eliminated, records destroyed, those who disagree can be persecuted and killed, etc. The destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria went a long ways towards achieving that goal all by itself.

 

[captcalhoun]

^ which is part of the reason why i never buy the idea the Terran Empire dates back to Troy or Shakespeare just from assertions about differences in The Iliad or Merchant of Venice. if some crackpot dictator like Kim Il-Jung can make up crap about shooting a round of golf all hole-in-ones why can't a dictatorship re-write books to comply with its twisted world views?

 

[Smellincoffee]

You have the writings of Tacticus, who repeated the claim that "the disciples stole his body" (the "explanation" the Pharisees gave). "Stole" it from where?



Than why did Paul invoke the witnesses? The Roman government could have publicized the truth for all it was worth--thereby destroying the rate of conversions. And yet they didn't.

Why would the Romans care? First-century Christians were Jews by another name. They were a small splinter group who didn't splinter off proper until Paul advocated for their moving beyond Hebrew legalism. Contrary to their portrayal in the Bible, the Romans are not stock villains who go around killing people for the "lulz". Roman persecution of Christians tended to pop up in times of crisis (pestilence, barbarian invasions), and then largely because the Christians were refusing to swear allegiance to the Roman state by paying lip service to the idea of the emperor as god. It's sort of how some Christians in America get hot and bothered when politicans don't utter banalities like "God Bless America". Christians in Europe also tended to persecute Jews during times of crisis.

As far as Tacitus goes, I'm not intimately familar with his reputation as a historian. Other historians of the time tend to be colored by a fondness for gossip. Maybe the disicples did steal Jesus' body so it wouldn't dishonored by the 'enemy'. Maybe they wanted to bury him in their own way. But even if Jesus was a first-century Jimmy Hoffa, that doesn't mean he's the son of god who rose from the dead. There's no bridge of reason across that chasm.

Indeed?

Quite. I've offered some of those less far-fetched explanations already. I think it much more likely that Jesus' body was destroyed or hidden than that than he was the son of the Hebrew god who was killed and resurrected himself from the grave before floating off into space. I'd wager you would as well, if we were discussing the ascension of Muhammad instead of that of Jesus.

The exact same ghost? In the same spanse of time? People from different walks of life?

70K people "saw" the Fatima apparition. Reports of alien abductions seem to share the same details as well, and

Recall "Doubting Thomas", who made the same assumption that it was just an halucination. He demanded the concrete proof of seeing and touching the injuries of Christ, and...

The story says that Thomas wanted and received proof. That doesn't mean it happened. In an age of marginal literacy, when accounts are told as stories -- supplemented or exaggerated by the orator -- legends can be passed off as reality.


I'm really not sure what end we're pursuing here. I don't do faith, or projected belief, and I regard "orthodoxy" as a word more profane than all of our sundry 'obscenities'. I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, Buddha, Kim Jong-Il, or Caesar Augustus. I have no reason to -- and a missing body in no way qualifies.

 

[ST-One]

With all respect--the census ordered by Augustus cannot be simply dismissed as a concoction.

Actually, yes, it can be dismissed.
There is no outside source or reference to corroborate what's written in the Bible.
The whole idea of how this census is supposed to have occurred makes no sense.
And, the Roman Emperors couldn't care less how their client kingdoms came up with their tax-money, so long as they did.

 

[JustKate]

There is no outside source or reference to corroborate what's written in the Bible. The whole idea of how this census is supposed to have occurred makes no sense. And, the Roman Emperors couldn't care less how their client kingdoms came up with their tax-money, so long as they did.

Well, now, that's not entirely accurate. There are some outside sources that corroborate some of what's written in the Bible. Not very much of it, but some. The census, for example - there were (or so I've read, but I don't read Latin so I have to take other people's word for this) three empire-wide censuses taken that might be the one mentioned in the New Testament, one each in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Why would the Romans care? First-century Christians were Jews by another name. They were a small splinter group who didn't splinter off proper until Paul advocated for their moving beyond Hebrew legalism. Contrary to their portrayal in the Bible, the Romans are not stock villains who go around killing people for the "lulz".

I'm sorry--but the portrayal in the Bible paints no such picture. In fact, the Gospels have a certain Roman Centurion impress Jesus with his faith--a faith that Jesus notes he hasn't even seen among his own people.

Acts has at least two high-ranking Roman officers who are, to put it mildly, good guys. There is Cornelius, whom Peter ministers to, and the Roman captain who assists Paul in Jerusalem.

Roman persecution of Christians tended to pop up in times of crisis (pestilence, barbarian invasions), and then largely because the Christians were refusing to swear allegiance to the Roman state by paying lip service to the idea of the emperor as god.

Again--the publication of the "truth" would have stopped the rate of conversion.

As it stood, persecution ironically made the Christians more effective--impressing the average citizen with their guts.

Also--remember how the Jewish authorites despised Paul, and the disciples' theology. They, at least, could have published the "truth". And yet...all they could do was the admittedly pathetic idea that the disciples had somehow stolen Jesus's body...while the guards had fallen asleep. (This was the "explanation" Tacticus invoked.)

BTW...a guard falling asleep on the job in those days was to be executed--Jewish or Roman.

Those guards would not have fallen asleep, with that threat on their heads.

 

[Sci]

Why would the Romans care? First-century Christians were Jews by another name. They were a small splinter group who didn't splinter off proper until Paul advocated for their moving beyond Hebrew legalism. Contrary to their portrayal in the Bible, the Romans are not stock villains who go around killing people for the "lulz".

I'm sorry--but the portrayal in the Bible paints no such picture. In fact, the Gospels have a certain Roman Centurion impress Jesus with his faith--a faith that Jesus notes he hasn't even seen among his own people.

And, of course, Pontius Pilate is later depicted as somehow not being as guilty of Jesus's execution as a Jewish mob, even though he was of course the governor and would realistically be responsible for any such executions.

The most logical motive for that is obvious: In an attempt to appeal to Romans to gain Roman converts and/or avoid persecution, the early Christians began adding pro-Roman bits to the Gospels, including depicting Jews as being somehow responsible en masse for the execution of a Jewish sect leader whom the Romans had clearly executed.

Roman persecution of Christians tended to pop up in times of crisis (pestilence, barbarian invasions), and then largely because the Christians were refusing to swear allegiance to the Roman state by paying lip service to the idea of the emperor as god.

Again--the publication of the "truth" would have stopped the rate of conversion.

1. Christianity in its early days was little more than a cult. Who's to say that the rate of conversion was so great as you're implying?

2. When I had a government internship in college, we would get letters from crazy people all the time. We got, for instance, letters from people who were convinced that Barack Obama's goal -- I kid you not -- wanted to re-introduce slavery and enslave white people so as to get revenge for African slavery and Jim Crow. We also got letters from people convinced our boss wanted a sexual relationship with the sender, despite their having never met. The office could easily have disproven their rantings, but never bothered. Wanna know why?

'Cause they were fuckin' crazy and we weren't going to waste our time.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity, is it really so hard to imagine the Romans didn't have the same attitude towards early Christians?

Also: Bruce Bawer, a Christian and author of Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, points out that the most common Roman practice for those executed by crucifixion was to keep the bodies displayed and to allow carrion to eat them until there was nothing or almost nothing left. By the time Christianity picked up steam, who's to say the Romans even had a body left with which to disprove belief in the Resurrection?

 

[Nerys Myk]

^Naturally--nonetheless, credibility is an essential element in the determination of fact, and with it, truth.

True,but if you want to believe something that makes it a lot more credible. And all the facts in the world will not change your mind. The world is fulll of people who are more that willing to accept all sorts of things as true and credible, even if the facts say otherwise.

Obama is Muslim, is one that springs to mind. My wife gets e-mails about this all of the time. (From the same person!!!!) She always points out the errors. Give the facts and still a month or so later, another "Obama is a Muslim" e-mail shows up.

 

[Captain Robert April]

When the Romans conducted a census, they didn't give a rat's ass where you were born, they cared about where you were at the time of the census.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Why would the Romans care? First-century Christians were Jews by another name. They were a small splinter group who didn't splinter off proper until Paul advocated for their moving beyond Hebrew legalism. Contrary to their portrayal in the Bible, the Romans are not stock villains who go around killing people for the "lulz".

I'm sorry--but the portrayal in the Bible paints no such picture. In fact, the Gospels have a certain Roman Centurion impress Jesus with his faith--a faith that Jesus notes he hasn't even seen among his own people.

And, of course, Pontius Pilate is later depicted as somehow not being as guilty of Jesus's execution as a Jewish mob

By whom?

Pontius Pilate is depicted as a conflicted, yet ultimately weak individual who knew full well he was condemning an innocent man to death, but did so anyway because he was afraid of losing his position. That hardly exonerates him.

1. Christianity in its early days was little more than a cult. Who's to say that the rate of conversion was so great as you're implying?

The fact that by 64 AD--a mere 30 or so years after Jesus's death--Nero apparently considered Christianity a sufficent threat to warrant a mass persecution.

2. When I had a government internship in college, we would get letters from crazy people all the time. We got, for instance, letters from people who were convinced that Barack Obama's goal -- I kid you not -- wanted to re-introduce slavery and enslave white people so as to get revenge for African slavery and Jim Crow. We also got letters from people convinced our boss wanted a sexual relationship with the sender, despite their having never met. The office could easily have disproven their rantings, but never bothered.

How influential were those claims on people's opinions on Obama--or your boss?

'Cause they were fuckin' crazy and we weren't going to waste our time.

Sci, is this becoming personal?

I sincerely hope you are not making implications about belivers in a particual faith.

Whether or not you believe in Christianity, is it really so hard to imagine the Romans didn't have the same attitude towards early Christians?

Considering the ruckus raised by the Sanhedren on the whole thing--yes.

Also: Bruce Bawer, a Christian and author of Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity, points out that the most common Roman practice for those executed by crucifixion was to keep the bodies displayed and to allow carrion to eat them until there was nothing or almost nothing left. By the time Christianity picked up steam, who's to say the Romans even had a body left with which to disprove belief in the Resurrection?

Assuming that's true (and this is the first time I've heard the name "Bruce Bawer", BTW--I am currently uncertain as to the credibility of his sources)..."most common" does not mean "only".

Furthermore...they still had the testimonies of those Roman officers overseeing the crucifixion--as well as the power of the government in distributing information.