Maybe all the time actually.
I can't figure out why some things become such a huge deal before legitmacy is proved.
Maybe I am missing something. And I know my bias comes out in these types of things, but nothing has appeared with these types of news stories to make me regret showing bias. Actually, there's been nothing, ever, at all to make me re-think my bias in these situations. That, as the media purports will happen, has my faith been shaken and rocked to its core. Everytime these things prove to be fakes, frauds, or were completely misinterpretted.
James Ossuary (Or "Loss Tomb of Jesus)? - Fake
Gospel of Judas? - Grossly embrassing for National Geographic
Tomb of Jesus? - That was the same thing as the James Ossuary, and yet, it made it's way back to the forefront under a different name and had the backing of "famous" people like James Tabor and James Cameron. Books, TV shows, etc., etc., etc. Big oops on that one
So why keep going?
So, why is Dan Brown-esque hysteria allowed to happen?
So, what am I missing with the newest discovery that, get this, goes from having no evidence at all to almost no evidence at all that Messianic resurection was an option.
There are elements in the Jesus story -- and in other stories in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) -- that have analogues in other traditions. If this new discovery proves to be exactly what some think it is, so what? How does that falsify the resurrection of Jesus? It certainly makes it easier to believe that the Jesus cultists, so to speak, made it all up. But couldn't you say the same thing about the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible -- that Jesus's followers, knowing about the prophecies as part of the Jewish tradition, adapted the story of their Lord's life and death and resurrection to fit those prophecies? I mean, if you're determined to disbelieve, there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve. And if,like me, you're determined to believe, material evidence doesn't much matter, does it? Especially when that material evidence continues to fall short time and time again.
My reaction to this latest news is, "Ho hum." But maybe I fail to grasp its true significance. What say you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Is Dr. James Tabor really all that famous?!
I'm with you. Big whoop on this issue. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other artifacts from earlier cultures that were adopted by Christianity. This is the beauty of history. We're blinded by the illusion of time.
Let's say My grandpa predicts something about his future son. Let's say his son is born and the detailed prediction comes true. Let's say my grandpa's son's son knows the legend of the prediction coming true and writes about it. And then my grandpa's son's son's son is born. His name is Parker.
Parker finds a piece of paper about a prediction coming true and believes. There is evidence.
Now let's erase that whole story and change it. Let's say that my grandfather made no such prediction. Let's say his son would also not know of a prediction that didn't exist. Let's say that my grandpa's son's son writes a story about a prediction. Let's say my grandpa's son's son's son (Parker) finds my story and believes. There is evidence.
History is written after-the fact, and it is very easy to think that something is much older than it is. How can we know if a prediction is really a postdiction? You see what I mean?
The other issue I'd really like to express is that language is tricky. We can take a general statement and give it specific meaning. We *have* to do this to a certain degree.
"In three days I will rise again."
What does that mean? It means that I will be taking an elevator up to the second floor in three days.
The human way to do things is to give specific meanings to general ideas. It's a fault of language.
"The Suffering Servant..." is Jesus Christ, right?
But if you think about it, this might be one of the most general statements ever. What servant isn't suffering? If I write about a suffering servant, but then I say he was meant to be king and would be crucified, I'm getting more specific. In a hundred years, someone might mistake my specific interpretation for the original meaning to the point that they are indistinguishable. My added nonsense has become a part of the fact.
That's history. That's what happens. It's just like that whispering game children play: telephone.
Sorry -- that's just what happens, and that's why this giant stone, although an important artifact to the study of ancient cultures, means nothing to doctrine. It's a sliver in the pile of wood chips.
Yeah, no big deal, I agree. Although a lot of this stuff reminds me of a movie I saw once. I think it was called The Body or something like that. Pretty good movie.
Gary - what are the chances you can condense what it is you said?
Because I can't figure it out.
Actually, I think part of what you are saying is that history re-told is never as it truly happen. Between human bias, slant, storytelling edits (adding and taking away), and the failure of language, an exact replica of history is unavailable.
Which is definitely something that can happen, but I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you are saying in regards to:
A - Jesus and his Resurrection
B - The artifact being found
Sure, Brian, I'll see if I can rephrase what I said (if I can figure it out -- ha ha ha).
History is written after it happens. I know there are so-called prophecies or things written before they happened. So let's look at that first.
If I make a general, obscure statement such as "...the stones will haunt the people of the great city of Ninya..." then depending on who you are, this prediction could mean a million different things. The more time that goes by, the greater the chances that my prediction will mean something to someone -- and the greater the chances it will mean something *in common* to many many people. For example, if a bunch of meteors hit NY, people will say, "of course Ninya was code for New York." If it hails in Alaska and wipes out a kid or two in that famous little village with the sign "Chi'an, Gu Ninya," well then my prophecy is true.
General predictions -- and especially obscure predictions become true a hundred thousand times throughout history. The only problem is they come true in different ways for different cultures or people. They are not prophetic sayings at all. The entire book of Revelation is a prime example of such error -- giving meaning where there is none. Who's the next predicted Antichrist, Brian? Who.
So, as condensed as this isn't, I can now talk about history. History is tweaked to fit the many original perceptions of what happened. This is done in an attempt to make everything as consistent as possible. The problem is that stories are often inconsistent, and so facts are drastically changed (or removed altogether) to make the whole of the "story" flow. When a story is passed on down through the cultures, all of the changing, editing, modifying, additions, subtractions, and defacing are forgotten. What we deem history is not history in the sense of what happened. It's the result of what people wanted a perception to say. It's like third-person stuff... except in most cases we're talking about hundredth-person perspectives.
What does this have to do with Jesus? Nothing. It has everything to do with what people said about Jesus and then changed, edited, deleted, added, molded, and twisted to fit into a bigger picture. It was on purpose -- not that deceit was any intentional part of the equation -- but I have no doubt that there were moments of, "Ah ha! This must mean that, so I'll just reword it to sound more like that." When this happens over and over, we get a new story with new characters and no history.
Make sense?
I don't think all of recorded history is a lie. I think big parts of it are fabricated, though. I'll believe any WWII veteran who tells me his stories or writes books about war.
I won't necessarily believe someone who writes about someone else who wrote about someone else. If the original wasn't worth preserving, why is edition two or three? I'll tell you why. The editions have been embellished and are more interesting -- and less historic.
Why do you make me say so much?
done preachin'.
I thought that was what you were saying and in a masked way and me totally making wild, unbased, outrageous claims, I can't help but think you are talking about the Bible.
As far as the book of Revelation goes I'll leave it to the "professionals" and the "radicals" and the "amateurs" to decide all that for me. In the meantime I just try and make sure I am living a life worth living, avoiding any number combination of DCLXVI, keeping my eyes open for Gog and Magog and making sure I know when the domination of abomination is going to happen.
I think you are as open-minded about the subject as you can be, and I really appreciate that.
Leaving Revelation to the professionals, radicals, and amateurs is a great starting point as long as you're not adopting their views as your own *just because* they claim to have some sort of logic for their claims.
You said you're making sure you're living a life with living and avoiding superstitious number combinations. And that's why I think you're wise.
You can keep your eyes open for Gog and Magog, but as your letting those signs come to you, please consider that Gog and Magog *could* mean something that has already occurred -- something that had a different meaning when it did occur or was supposed to occur. I'll recommend to you "A History of the End of the World" by Jonathan Kirsch. The guy goes to great lengths to show a possible context of John's writing -- his grudges and possible propaganda for writing while exiled to the Isle of Patmos.
There is also a widely held view that the abomination of desolation already occurred in a context that has nothing to do with an end-of-the world antichrist.
Here's my take. It is possible that we wipe ourselves out in a nuclear war. It bothers me that if we think Armageddon is supposed to happen, that humans will align themselves for it to happen. It's the same thing as suicide bombers who are willing to do almost unthinkable things because of duty and the associate rewards in the afterlife. Now since we're outside of that particular dogma, we see what a tragic loss it is for them and for those they impact (no pun intended). I can't help but see Revelation as the exact same kind of thing. These world events aren't going to just happen on "God's Timetable," and you're not just going to "see the signs." In order for world events to occur, people and groups must first believe that they will happen, and then they will make them happen that way.
That's a scary thought.
Post a Comment