tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post906129464119337030..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: RomulusRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55622585516532065772018-03-21T02:01:16.028-04:002018-03-21T02:01:16.028-04:00Many of the things I wrote above were written to w...Many of the things I wrote above were written to weaken Carrier's claim that the apparent parallels likely indicates that the story of Jesus in the New Testament is fictitiously made up. Especially since God is the great providential Story Teller and has created the world and human psychology to be conducive to telling HIS story [i.e. His-story/history]. We shouldn't be surprised if humans made in God's image would tell stories, both before and after Christ's first Advent, which have similarities to God's great historical story in Christ. There are only so many ways you can weave a compelling story.<br /><br />See Christopher Booker's book <i>The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories</i><br /><br />or this video: Every Story is the Same<br /><a href="https://youtu.be/LuD2Aa0zFiA" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/LuD2Aa0zFiA</a><br /><br />I don't agree with everything in those materials. I only cite them to point out that you can only go so many ways when telling a story. The same is true with God who is constrained by logic and His providential purposes. Carrier's objections only work if one presupposes a priori that God isn't providentially in control of <b>HIS</b>tory and has no messages and lessons to teach us in the record of Redemptive History written for us in Scripture.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10250445351500611972018-03-21T01:36:12.399-04:002018-03-21T01:36:12.399-04:00typo corrections:
Just as it's natural psycho...typo corrections:<br /><br /><i>Just as it's natural psychologically</i> [TO] <i>think of the number 1000 being "higher"/"greater" than the number 5.</i><br /><br /><i>That's why God spoke from mount Horeb/Sinai, why Elijah was assumed into heaven, why Jesus ascended "up"</i> [INTO]<i> heaven....</i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18491243025471777012018-03-21T01:24:32.235-04:002018-03-21T01:24:32.235-04:00Another great blogpost by Steve.
The following ar...Another great blogpost by Steve.<br /><br />The following are my minor observations:<br /><br /><i>1. The hero is the son of God. </i><br /><br />In the Synoptics the term "Son of God" primarily has to do with Christ's human messiahship. The Davidic kings were considered "sons of God", and so all the more THE Davidic son who would be The Messiah. It's the term "Son of Man" in the Synoptics that connotes divinity because of it's allusion to Dan. 7. It's in the Gospel of John where Jesus is plausibly taught to be the literal offspring of God (depending on how one interprets monogenes and other passages), though that's disputed by some Christians (e.g. those rejecting eternal generation etc.). Even assuming that the NT does teach Jesus is the literal offspring of God, Christ would be the literal, true and original Son of God. The concept of sons of God in paganism may have ultimately been derived from a corrupted retelling of the original revelation of the "sons of God" in the Divine Council that Scripture refers and alludes to. In which case, Christianity is not borrowing from paganism, but rather paganism's references to sons of God/gods reflects a spiritual/heavenly reality revealed to humanity early on, but was corrupted by its retelling and modification generation after generation.<br /><br /><i>6. His resurrection body has on occasion a bright and shining appearance.</i><br /><br />As Steve said, it was the armor that was bright and shiny, and Jesus isn't luminous within, but outside the Gospels. Nevertheless, there's nothing surprising that Romulus was glowing. It was common in stories of supernatural entities for them to be shining. Probably because all cultures and/or individuals in those cultures have encountered both angelic and demonic beings who were bright. So, it's natural when making up stories to have supernatural beings luminous.<br /><br /><i>8. A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending. </i><br /><br />In many cultures high places and mountains were associated with heaven and the gods precisely because they are closer to the sky. The concept of cosmic geography and sacred spaces naturally arises in human cultures precisely because God created creation to be emblematic of spiritual realities. So it's only to be expected culturally and psychologically that God or the gods or their representatives would make proclamations on high places like mountains. So, it's perfectly plausible that the real God spoke to and through Moses and Jesus on mountains, and that people making up supernatural stories would locate divine speeches on mountains as well. Such parallels between real and fictitious stories should be expected IF a God really does exist and gives forth revelations.<br /><br /><i>11. The hero physically ascends to heaven in his new divine body. </i><br /><br />The claimed ascension or assumption of divine/supernatural beings is to be expected (again) on account of creation being emblematic of spiritual realities. Heaven, where God or the gods live, is naturally "up". They are "higher" than us because greater. Just as it's natural psychologically think of the number 1000 being "higher"/"greater" than the number 5. God not only made creation emblematic, but wired us psychologically to think in these metaphorical ways. Moreover, God accommodates us in His dealings with us by revealing Himself accordingly. That's why God spoke from mount Horeb/Sinai, why Elijah was assumed into heaven, why Jesus ascended "up" in heaven, why angels go up and down Jacob's ladder [or possibly ziggurat].<br /><br /><i>18. His followers are initially in sorrow over the hero's death. </i><br /><br />Why would devoted followers of any figure be glad at the death of their leader/hero? Isn't it natural for them to be sorrowful? John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy must be mythical and ahistorical figures because their admirers mourned their deaths too, right? Obviously not. Also, it's not clear in the variant stories that Romulus even died.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com