What obnoxious reasoning. It is the same reasoning that students of comparative religions use to dismiss the legitimacy of religion because they all contain the same themes. Maybe they contain the same themes because those themes are true. Just because religions based entirely on wisdom traditions, lacking the revelation of God, present the same or similar ideas, does not invalidate those ideas, even if they come from God through revelation elsewhere or later on.
"Uhm, these ancient near Eastern traditions have a few Phoenix stories, so the Hebrews were influenced by this, and that's why Christians invented the Jesus story."
There were literally sects among the Jews, like the Sadducees, who denied the very possibility of the resurrection. And Christ didn't exactly have popular support among the intellectual class. Were a bunch of illiterate fishermen supposed to have been influenced by the ancient near East such that they invented some resurrection story?
These modernist "intellectuals" have no sense of what Adamic gnosis might constitute - what Jung called the collective unconsciousness - and how readily this might lead to the same "motifs" or archetypes arising in different traditions. This does not negate the meaning of these motifs or the possibility of their actually being fulfilled; one might argue that the very existence of such a motif in the collective unconscious would suggest a fulfillment.
It's as if you're upset that is showing sympathy to the articles of Christian faith, and so you're pulling out all the atheistic stops to belittle and demean such belief. But attempts such as this just ally you with the unthinking class of those duped by the spirit of this age, which exists for the very purpose of convincing people like you that religion is for fools.
If you're going to challenge these ideas, do so yourself - you, at least, know how to think independent of the false assumptions modernity is wont to make.
I’m entirely not sure how you arrived at this, from what my comment said.
EDIT - CHIRO figured it out - on my device it convinced me this was a reply to my comment, but it’s actually aimed at ARM. Haha
Nigga I be postin dank memes.
Bingo. What should strike us is not that the commonality of this motif makes it common, as in capable of being dismissed for its lack of uniqueness. Rather, we should be struck by the fact that it has appeared everywhere that we have found humans thinking about reality, without any other connections to each other across time or space by way of cultural transmission.
I personally believe something like a progressive revelation is not only possible, but likely. Clement said as much of the Greek philosophers. That all of these various ways of approaching truth, including Plato's philosophy, were the result of providence - in other words, as humans have evolved, their various tendencies and capacities have caused all of them to contribute in some way to this progressing understanding of reality. Whether it is philosophy, theology, or myth, the idea is not to identify archetypes for the sake of psychologizing truth, but for confronting other modes of knowing and where they converge.
To me, this alleviates some of the concern about God 'revealing Himself to the Hebrews'. Not really. It's something closer to the fact that we have all been acting, through our natures as races and peoples, to our various extents, as a matter of God revealing itself in aspect. The tendency is for us to pick out the arrival of the Messiah among the Jews as being all that mattered. Hardly. The things which were occurring to the Greeks proved immeasurably valuable in causing the people of Europe to be receptive to the message of the Messiah - just look at the way the Greek thought coalesced with the Hebraic thought to give us the Church itself, and the way this impacted all of human history. There is a great story playing out here. That the Messiah arose from amidst the Jews shouldn't be that surprising if you consider the global situation for the region of Palestine - it was the nexus for cultural communication in the developing world, where Egypt, Babylon, Greece and the rest of the middle east were connected.
This story is bigger than any of us individually, and we appear to really fall short of the mark when we apply human decision theories to its explanation. "Well, God, if He were God, would have done this." Why? Can you claim to see all of the facets of the bigger picture, of the full story of human history, or its future? There has to be a humility with which we approach these things, where Peace has termed it "approaching with hands folded".
You’re preaching to the choir, as far as I’m concerned. I posted that quick quote-blurb because it seemed to directly relate to what you and were just talking about. I think may think I’m promoting that, or something, to be so indignant about it.
I am almost certain that was attacking the reasoning implicit in the Wiki article, not your quote. Your quote seems to support the position against these sweeping comparative associations, i.e. the 'dying and rising' god being everywhere. Frazer challenged that idea, claiming that the resurrected god motif was characteristic of the ancient near east. Still, that includes the motif in several varied religious systems, but that was the reason for my comment above. I don't think that finding this motif is common to these systems is a knock, but a fact which strengthens the motif.
I'm almost certain was responding to the article, but replied to your comment to do so. I'm sure he'll clear it up when he gets a moment.
what Jung called the collective unconsciousness - and how readily this might lead to the same "motifs" or archetypes arising in different traditions.
Uh, yeah, that's why I said it's what literally believes.
It's as if you're upset that is showing sympathy to the articles of Christian faith
I literally give zero fucks. It's not like I'm trying to get Chiro into atheist heaven by saving his non-soul.
and so you're pulling out all the atheistic stops to belittle and demean such belief.
I don't need help or to try in order to belittle and demean.
which exists for the very purpose of convincing people like you that religion is for fools.
I don't need convincing.
(post is archived)