Examining Proof Of Jesus

[NotBlinded]

Anyhow, I appreciate your kind words. If you and NBBTL keep this up I'll get a swelled head (my cat already follows me around the house which I've convinced myself means something more than "I know he's getting me food" or some other cat thing ).

 

mwc

Well mwc, your cat knows you rock.

 

I hope I'm not going too far off topic (I know I am, but I am begging for forgiveness in a round'a'bout way!).

 

I want to address my next little snipet to both you and Amanda (and anyone else that's interested of course) because Amanda asked a very good question yesterday in another thread about what makes one group of people believe that they are one with nature and why the others are completely removed from that concept which causes strife. I couldn't answer her and I was thinking a lot about it.

 

Well call it a coincidence, but I went home and picked up my book by Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell entitled The Power of Myth and I was shocked (actually I cried, but I get like that sometimes!) to find them discussing things that applied here and in the other thread.

 

Campbell states that myths developed around the type of society it was. There was the nomads/travelers and the earth cultivators. (Amanda, you know this and I find it awesome that this answer goes along with your understanding!)

 

This includes a little prior information in order for what I want to say to make sense. They are talking about how myths don't serve people in a world that is boundless (in effect).

 

I'll just type some here (I brought my book to work...sssshhhhh!):

 

MOYERS: But haven't some of the greatest saints borrowed from anywhere they could? They have taken from this and from that, and constructed a new software.

 

CAMPBELL: That is what is called the development of a religion. You can see it in the Bible. In the beginning, God was simply the most powerful god among many. He is just a local tribal god. And then in the sixth century, when the Jews were in Babylon, the notion of a world savior came in, and the biblical divinity moved into a new dimension.

 

You can keep an old tradition going only be renewing it in terms of current circumstances. In the period of the Old Testament, the world was a little three-layer cake, consisting of a few hundred miles around the Near Eastern centers. No one had ever heard of the Aztecs, or even of the Chinese. When the world changes, then the religion has to be transformed.

 

MOYERS: But it seems to me that is in fact what we are doing.

 

CAMPBELL: That is in fact what we had better do. But my notion of the real horror today is what you see in Beirut. There you have the three great Western religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - and because the three of them have three different names for the same biblical god, they can't get on together. They are stuck with their metaphor and don't realize its reference. They haven't allowed the circle that surrounds them to open. It is a closed circle. Each group says, "We are the chosen group, and we have God."

 

Look at Ireland. A group of Protestants was moved to Ireland in the seventeenth century by Cromwell, and it never has opened up to the Catholic majority there. The Catholics and Protestants represents two totally different social systems, two different ideals.

 

MOYERS: Each needs a new myth.

 

CAMPBELL: Each needs its own myth, all the way. Love thine enemy. Open up. Don't judge. All things are Buddha things. It is there in the myth. It is already there.

 

MOYERS: You tell a story about a local jungle native who once said to a missionary, "Your god keeps himself shut ip in a house as if he were old and infirm. Ours is in the forest and in the fields and on the mountains when the rain comes." And I think that is probably true.

 

CAMPBELL: Yes. You see, this is a problem you get in the book of Kings and in Samuel. The various Hebrew kings were sacrificing on the mountaintops. And they did wrong in the sight of Yahweh. The Yahweh cult was a specific movement in the Hebrew community, which finally won. This was a pushing through of a certain temple-bound god against the nature cult, which was celebrated all over the place.

 

And this imperialistic thrust of a certain in-group culture is continued in the West. But it has got to open to the nature of things now. If it can open, all the possibilities are there.

 

SKIPPING A FEW LINES HERE

 

MOYERS: I was about to say that we are creating new myths, but you say no, every myth we tell today has some point of origin in our past experience.

 

CAMPBELL: The main motifs of the myths are the same, and they have always been the same. If you want to find your own mythology, the key is with what society do you associate? Every mythology has grown up in a certain society in a bounded field. Then they come into collision and relationship, and they amalgamate, and you get a more complex mythology.

 

But today there are no boundries. The only mythology that is valid today is the mythology of the planet - and we don't have such a mythology. The closet thing I know to a planetary mythology is Buddhism, which sees all beings as Buddha beings. The only problem is to come to the recognition of that. There is nothing to do. The task is only to know what is, and then to act in relation to the brotherhood of all these things. pp 28-29

 

I'm going to skip around a little to emphasize the reason for a view of nature as one with us vs us against nature.

 

Later on, Campbell goes on to mention the nature-oriented mythology and the sociological mythologies and how they differ:

 

CAMPBELL: Now, the biblical tradition is a socially oriented mythology. Nature is condemned. In the nineteenth centure, scholars thought of mythology and ritual as an attempt to control nature. But that is magic, not mythology or religion. Nature religions are not attempts to control nature but to help you put yourself in accord with it. But when nature is thought of as evil, you don't put yourself in accord with it, you control it, or try to, and hence the tension, the anxiety, the cutting down of forests, the annihilation of native people. And the accent here separates us from nature. pp29

 

MOYERS: I have often wondered, what would a member of a hunting tribe on the North American plains think, gazing up on Michelangelo's creation?

 

CAMPBELL: That is certainly not the god of other traditions. In the other mythologies, one puts oneself in accord with the world, with the mixture of good and evil. But in the religious system of the Near East, you identify with the good and fight against the evil. The biblical traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all speak with derogation of the so-called nature religions.

 

The shift from a nature religion to a sociological religion makes it difficult for us to link back to nature. But actually all of those cultural symbols are perfectly susceptible to interpretation in terms of the psychological and cosmological systems, if you choose to look at them that way.

 

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck to its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. p67

 

 

 

Okay...now a little about Jesus (I'm feeling very guilty for going off topic so much. I never have felt guilty about it before so I don't know why I do now!)

 

 

 

CAMPBELL: A metaphor is an image that suggests something else.

>skip<

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That's literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy. >skip< But if your read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward - not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their refelection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body's dynamic source. pp67 - 68

 

MOYERS: So the story of Jesus ascending to heaven is a message in a bottle from a shore someone has visited before. Note: This is saying "experienced" this inner ascension.

 

CAMPBELL: That's right - Jesus did. Now, according to the normal way of thinking about the Christian religion, we cannot identify with Jesus, we have to imitate Jesus. To say, "I and the Father are one," as Jesus said, is blasphemy for us. However, the Thomas gospel that was dug up in Egypt some 40 years ago, Jesus says, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Now, that is exactly Buddhism. We are all manifestations of Buddha Consciousness, or Christ Consciousness, only we don't know it. >snip< This is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking, but it is the very essence of Christian Gnosticism and of the Thomas gospel. p69

 

 

 

What has this got to do with whether a real Jesus existed or not? Well, it really doesn't matter too much who the person was that this myth speaks about, but I have to think that there was someone within this society that caused this change in their myth. If I take what Campbell says, I can then see how Judaism went to Christianity based on the changing society. It needed to change.

 

Can we honestly say it's just a myth and mean it? Of course it's just a myth, but the myths are applicable to human nature and life and I don't want to miss out on what they have to offer.

[mwc]

Well mwc, your cat knows you rock.

I think cats know I am allergic to them and that is why they like being near me.

 

My net connection is being really flakey again today so I'm going to just try hitting some key points (hopefully before it goes out again).

MOYERS: Each needs a new myth.

 

CAMPBELL: Each needs its own myth, all the way. Love thine enemy. Open up. Don't judge. All things are Buddha things. It is there in the myth. It is already there.

 

MOYERS: You tell a story about a local jungle native who once said to a missionary, "Your god keeps himself shut ip in a house as if he were old and infirm. Ours is in the forest and in the fields and on the mountains when the rain comes." And I think that is probably true.

 

CAMPBELL: Yes. You see, this is a problem you get in the book of Kings and in Samuel. The various Hebrew kings were sacrificing on the mountaintops. And they did wrong in the sight of Yahweh. The Yahweh cult was a specific movement in the Hebrew community, which finally won. This was a pushing through of a certain temple-bound god against the nature cult, which was celebrated all over the place.

 

And this imperialistic thrust of a certain in-group culture is continued in the West. But it has got to open to the nature of things now. If it can open, all the possibilities are there.

I agree with them for the most part. There is evidence that there was more than one YHWH cult trying to gain power early on. Prior to this you can see that Abraham worshipped a "god" on the mountaintop and the other patriarchs simply built alters outdoors with simple stones (usually near "holy" objects like trees). Even in the whole Exodus story where we finally learn a formal name for this god we have holy mountains and the like (the stone alters) which are remnants of nature worship. Later on it's the battle with Asherah (and the famous inscription of YHWH and his Asherah) showing that the YHWH cult also had people worshipping Ishtar or what we might call "Mother Earth."

 

Even the Temple was built on the spot (now the Dome of the Rock) where supposedly YHWH formed Adam before moving him to the garden and Abraham built the alter to sacrifice Isaac (and Mohamed took his famous trip up to heaven). It is a "holy" mountain. A connection back to nature worship.

 

I don't know if "holy" water could be considered the same type of connection but you could almost make the case for it if you tried hard enough. It is just water after all but it is somehow "infused" with special properties at some point though not quite worshipped.

 

The shift from a nature religion to a sociological religion makes it difficult for us to link back to nature. But actually all of those cultural symbols are perfectly susceptible to interpretation in terms of the psychological and cosmological systems, if you choose to look at them that way.

 

Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck to its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. p67

If by true you mean that they somehow relate to the human condition (for lack of a better description) then I can agree with that. If by true you mean that if you were to somehow merge them all together you end up with some "ultimate" religious truth, as if all religions have but a part, then I'd have to disagree.

 

Okay...now a little about Jesus (I'm feeling very guilty for going off topic so much. I never have felt guilty about it before so I don't know why I do now!)

Why? I rarely do.

 

 

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That's literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy. >skip< But if your read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward - not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their refelection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body's dynamic source. pp67 - 68

 

MOYERS: So the story of Jesus ascending to heaven is a message in a bottle from a shore someone has visited before. Note: This is saying "experienced" this inner ascension.

I disagree with these statements. They assume knowledge the ancients did not have. When they say he ascended...they meant it. They literally thought heaven was "right up there." We know it's not so we need it to mean something different. This is our "new" myth.

 

Now, if I missed the context and this is what they were getting at, then I guess I agree after all (as I said I am trying to go through this a bit quickly).

 

CAMPBELL: That's right - Jesus did. Now, according to the normal way of thinking about the Christian religion, we cannot identify with Jesus, we have to imitate Jesus. To say, "I and the Father are one," as Jesus said, is blasphemy for us. However, the Thomas gospel that was dug up in Egypt some 40 years ago, Jesus says, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Now, that is exactly Buddhism. We are all manifestations of Buddha Consciousness, or Christ Consciousness, only we don't know it. >snip< This is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking, but it is the very essence of Christian Gnosticism and of the Thomas gospel. p69

The Gnostic take on things, I think, is a much more appealing view in many ways. The problem with it is that the people didn't want a spiritual resurrection...they wanted a bodily resurrection...and that's what we have (for the most part...we kind of have a mix if you think about it...we go to heaven in spirit then get a body again later...really a step backward in my opinion).

 

What has this got to do with whether a real Jesus existed or not? Well, it really doesn't matter too much who the person was that this myth speaks about, but I have to think that there was someone within this society that caused this change in their myth. If I take what Campbell says, I can then see how Judaism went to Christianity based on the changing society. It needed to change.

 

Can we honestly say it's just a myth and mean it? Of course it's just a myth, but the myths are applicable to human nature and life and I don't want to miss out on what they have to offer.

I actually see things differently than most people. In fact, my theory is something I have yet to see anywhere, but I have to admit I've put little effort into looking.

 

I believe that what we would call xianity (or maybe proto-xianity) started outside Judea with Hellenized Jews. They couldn't or didn't want to go back to Jerusalem for Passover. This made them feel "detached" and, like most people, come to the conclusion that the Temple was no longer needed. After all, the other gods could be worshipped pretty much anywhere so why couldn't their all-powerful god? They sought a solution and came up with the whole proto-xian theologies (essentially Judaism with the Temple...kind of what there is today really).

 

Being good Jews, however, they did go back to Jerusalem and this belief system was made known to those in Jerusalem. It was just one of many belief systems of the day. When the first Roman War happened people holding these beliefs were together with others that had other beliefs and they mixed during those times. After the Temple fell a "new" version came from the ashes. This new version included a messiah figure that (like back when Antiochus IV was ravenging the Jews 100 years earlier and Judah Macabee came around) would come and save the day. When that didn't happen the messiah figure turned into a role model. This new version then spread back out from Judea as the Jews left the area.

 

That's the real basic version of what I think happened. Like most things I think it's a lot more complicated than all that but from the reading I've done it, to me, explains many of the different versions of theologies and time lines. There's also a whole lot of speculation in there as well.

 

The first part explains the Jewish myth. They needed a change. Whether the Romans destroyed the Temple or not it seems the people, moving out into the Empire, needed a decentralized system of worship. Imagine if xians were required to go to a certain location once each year. Lazy as we are we would figure out a proxy system or some work around. I think the same was happening back then. The Romans just helped it along in 70CE.

 

The second part, with regard to the xian aspect of the same myth, is that the people back then believed in the Fates. Even their gods (with few exceptions) could alter Fate. This is why the people liked the Oracles so much. This allowed them to "hedge their bets" a little. They couldn't alter their destiny but they could get just a little insight that could help them out just a little. Now along comes a religion that tells them that they can choose their own destiny. They can choose their own fate. They don't have to be a certain way or act a certain way but they can overcome that and then get a second chance. This is an extremely empowering message...especially for a slave or a woman. No longer were you "locked in" but you affected your life and your next life. This was (mostly) unheard of for the Greeks (Gentiles). I personally think this message was opened up to the Gentiles either for financial reasons (get a quick dollar) and/or to try to get converts to a Jewish type faith to get people to fight Rome in Jerusalem (pre-70CE). It's like the US lowering it's recruitment standards today. Once it was opened up to them, however, the lower classes took to it (once the Jewish aspects, like circumcision, were removed...before that it was slow going).

 

My modem is acting up again so hopefully this message posts. I'll go over the message again later and see if I missed anything.

 

mwc

[garrisonjj]

Hi everyone. I recently posted a video on youtube that questions the validity of people like Josephus. My main point is that they

 

Ive' skimmed through the intellectual discussions and proofs against jesus. Even if he were real, who the fuck cares? Prayers and worship go unanswered, chance and law of averages reign, and prayer self delusion or mind control makes xtians feel. There is nothing to worship or pary to because there are never any fuckin answers.

[Mythra]

As someone who is completely convinced that the gospel story never actually happened, my take on "proof of Jesus" is precisely the same as a fundy's opinion on contradictions in the bible. With the exception that the contradictions in the bible are obvious to anyone who's brain is still intact.

 

Since Jesus never existed, there can be no proof of him. Only what appears to be proof.

 

I'm not sure there is a single writing from antiquity that involves christianity that we can trust as not having been monkeyed with.

[mwc]

As someone who is completely convinced that the gospel story never actually happened, my take on "proof of Jesus" is precisely the same as a fundy's opinion on contradictions in the bible. With the exception that the contradictions in the bible are obvious to anyone who's brain is still intact.

 

Since Jesus never existed, there can be no proof of him. Only what appears to be proof.

 

I'm not sure there is a single writing from antiquity that involves christianity that we can trust as not having been monkeyed with.

I can accept this. It takes you out of the realm of skeptic more into that of cynic on this point though. Not that it really matters.

 

I think when I look at this whole issue that I don't see it the same as others that look at it (if you read the tail end of my last post). I no longer think this was something that came from Judea and grew out of control. It just doesn't read that way to me and so now I'm trying to figure out what did start it and how it did spread. Not so much what it's influences were.

 

I really think that after the proto-xians (whatever they were) the real people who sold this would be the people we call the "presbyters." They pulled the old trick of giving themselves credibility by saying they knew the twelve original apostles who knew the original source (both of these "layers" were invented). The apostles (the non-twelve) and presbyters were the originals on all counts of the xianity we know.

 

When Paul writes of the time jesus appears to the twelve and then a little later to all the apostles I am convinced the twelve are not the same as the apostles mentioned later and the generic apostles are his contemporaries and not the twelve. The twelve are as mythical as jesus. This makes the "twelve" like a mini Sanhedrin, simply a ruling-body, out of all the apostles. This was later written in the gospels that the original twelve were hand-picked by jesus/god himself. This also answers my own question in my thread of the verse in Revelation about the 12 foundations. They are the generic ruling body of the church that is the foundation of the new Judaism (Jerusalem). Although an even number does cause problems for my theory.

 

I'm just curious why people tend to accept the gospels version of things on this particular story? My reading tends to lead me in a bit of a different direction (as anyone can see). I know many of the people researching this are intelligent so that can't be it. I guess they're just used to the status quo?

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

For example, Jesus ascended to heaven. The denotation would seem to be that somebody ascended to the sky. That's literally what is being said. But if that were really the meaning of the message, then we have to throw it away, because there would have been no such place for Jesus literally to go. We know that Jesus could not have ascended to heaven because there is no physical heaven anywhere in the universe. Even ascending at the speed of light, Jesus would still be in the galaxy. >skip< But if your read "Jesus ascended to heaven" in terms of its metaphoric connotation, you see that he has gone inward - not into outer space but into inward space, to the place from which all being comes, into the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within. The images are outward, but their refelection is inward. The point is that we should ascend with him by going inward. It is a metaphor of returning to the source, alpha and omega, of leaving the fixation on the body behind and going to the body's dynamic source. pp67 - 68

 

MOYERS: So the story of Jesus ascending to heaven is a message in a bottle from a shore someone has visited before. Note: This is saying "experienced" this inner ascension.

I disagree with these statements. They assume knowledge the ancients did not have. When they say he ascended...they meant it. They literally thought heaven was "right up there." We know it's not so we need it to mean something different. This is our "new" myth.

 

Now, if I missed the context and this is what they were getting at, then I guess I agree after all (as I said I am trying to go through this a bit quickly).

 

I understand why you would disagree and I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think the ancients did have this knowledge. You say so below too, I think, when you mention the Gnostics.

 

CAMPBELL: That's right - Jesus did. Now, according to the normal way of thinking about the Christian religion, we cannot identify with Jesus, we have to imitate Jesus. To say, "I and the Father are one," as Jesus said, is blasphemy for us. However, the Thomas gospel that was dug up in Egypt some 40 years ago, Jesus says, "He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he." Now, that is exactly Buddhism. We are all manifestations of Buddha Consciousness, or Christ Consciousness, only we don't know it. >snip< This is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking, but it is the very essence of Christian Gnosticism and of the Thomas gospel. p69

The Gnostic take on things, I think, is a much more appealing view in many ways. The problem with it is that the people didn't want a spiritual resurrection...they wanted a bodily resurrection...and that's what we have (for the most part...we kind of have a mix if you think about it...we go to heaven in spirit then get a body again later...really a step backward in my opinion).

I think this is where the religion changed too but I think it went from Gnosticism to the literal understanding. This killed the symbolism. The symbolism of death and ressurection is very old (I'm preaching to the choir here I know. ) When the group that won, the literalists, took these symbols for what they denoted instead of what they connoted, the entire purpose was lost. It would be like someone trying to explain to you what a song means (without words).

 

In my opinion (at this time in my life) I think that one of the purposes of myths are to send the person on a spiritual journey that allows them to look at their life in context of these symbols. They are speaking of a dimension of ourselves that can only be described by metaphor. This allows the spiritual dimension to be combined with the physical dimension of our daily lives while leaving them both in the realm they belong in.

 

What good does it do when the symbols used to 'feel' the spiritual are taken as literal? All this does is to make them more of the physical dimension. Spirituality is left lacking in a person's life. (I'm not saying everyone needs this...disclaimer here!) Everything a person can describe and think they know is of the physical realm. This is why the transcendent is seen as beyond knowing.

 

Ohhhhh....I wanted to add one more thing. Campbell does go on to say that it takes training in order to hear what the metaphors are saying.

 

IMO, that is why there were "Mystery" schools back then. When the literalists found how much power there was in taking it literally, why educate someone on the metaphoric meaning? The first Catholics weren't even allowed to have a bible because of this, IMO. I think now, the original meanings are re-surfacing in light of education and the ability to study metaphors where a secret school isn't demanded. We can take the higher religions and compare them side by side and see that the metaphors are relating to one's life. Today these teachings are available to everyone that wants to learn them. The Kabbalists also have an understanding of inner knowledge. The Sunnis are also like this and the Hindu and Buddhists.

 

It really isn't anything new, IMO.

 

I think it is more likely that the common people didn't have any training or understanding of this knowledge and therefore outnumbered the ones that did. They killed the symbolism. Whether through no fault of their own or by forced compliance, it died.

 

So, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop? The world may never know...

[NotBlinded]

If by true you mean that they somehow relate to the human condition (for lack of a better description) then I can agree with that. If by true you mean that if you were to somehow merge them all together you end up with some "ultimate" religious truth, as if all religions have but a part, then I'd have to disagree.

Oops, I missed this.

 

Yes that they relate to the human condition and a yes and no on the ultimate religious truth (that would matter on what religious is defined as).

 

Not a religious truth as in a God is prescribing it to them, but differently, a truth in the manner of experiencing a realm of ourselves that we just can't describe. Like a dragon represents both the land bound animal and free-flying bird, they are all saying that we are part of two dualities represented in a whole person. So yes and no.

[mwc]

I understand why you would disagree and I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think the ancients did have this knowledge. You say so below too, I think, when you mention the Gnostics.

You're more than welcome to say I'm wrong...you just need to tell me why.

 

In my rush to answer posts today I may be making some disconnected statements (maybe even more than usual).

 

The answer to this particular question lies in the context. The context of the gospels shows that they are clearly speaking of a bodily resurrection. This was the most widely held belief of both the Jews and xians (to our knowledge) in general. So they did believe that he was ascending literally to a physical realm above our own. The writings we have that clearly used Jewish writings like Enoch I as their influence show this line of thinking.

 

I think this is where the religion changed too but I think it went from Gnosticism to the literal understanding. This killed the symbolism. The symbolism of death and ressurection is very old (I'm preaching to the choir here I know. ) When the group that won, the literalists, took these symbols for what they denoted instead of what they connoted, the entire purpose was lost. It would be like someone trying to explain to you what a song means (without words).

Here's where we agree a little more than it might appear at first glance.

 

If you look at my theory where I mention the diasporatic Jews (the voluntary ones from long before the first war in 70CE) likely invented a Judaism without the Temple. This basically means they would need a substitute for the Temple in their daily lives (since the Temple was a daily part of the Jewish world). Hence the "body as a temple" concept since their god dwelt in the Temple they revised it so their god dwelt within them. I guess the question is who had this idea first? I claim it is these diasporatic Jews...what might be proto-xians (or even one or two steps earlier than that).

 

As for the (re)birth concept, you're right, that is as old as life itself I imagine. The Pharisees, like the orthodox xians, thought it was physical. I haven't come across any Jewish writings that indicate any spiritual version. Even when they visit heaven, or these other domains, it seems they always go "bodily" somehow. It's the Greeks, and the Hellenized cultures, that really have a "spirit" world (more than just the spirit of god or things like that...even angels are physical manifestations to these Jews as opposed to spirit beings).

 

So who spawned the Gnostics? Where did they come from? Did they grow from the orthodox movement or was it the other way around? If you believe there was a real, live, flesh and blood jesus, and the gospels are essentially historically accurate...then the Gnostics grew from the orthodox movement. If, on the other hand, the gospels are simply the stories of one movement and are no more or less important than any other text, then they could have developed at roughly the same time...with the orthodox movement "winning." The Gnostic movement could also be the original movement with the orthodox movement misinterpreting their symbolic message for a literal one.

 

The problem I've seen with this last argument is the Gnostic texts are too refined to have come first. This, to me, doesn't mean they didn't (I personally believe that people had no problem "borrowing" and "refining" ideas back then since there were no protections and they wanted their idea to "win"...all's fair when pushing your religion). Since so many texts were destroyed, or just lost to the ages, we can't really know who came first. But the Gnostic sects could have had a reasonably refined idea and it fell into the "wrong" hands. They liked it and "ran" with it. After a few rough drafts along comes someone, we'll call him "Mark" and he cobbles together a pretty good story that fits his groups theology. After others who think like him copy his work and that version gains popularity, the original Gnostic versions are renounced as heresy and eventually destroyed. The rest is, as they say, history.

 

Is this something along the lines of what you were thinking? (Well, knowing you it was probably a lot nicer than how I put it so I'll add a little smiley See? It's nice now. ).

 

In my opinion (at this time in my life) I think that one of the purposes of myths are to send the person on a spiritual journey that allows them to look at their life in context of these symbols. They are speaking of a dimension of ourselves that can only be described by metaphor. This allows the spiritual dimension to be combined with the physical dimension of our daily lives while leaving them both in the realm they belong in.

You've gotten quite deep for a person that has taken a turn to the very rational at this point in his life. I can see what you're saying though. I don't believe in a spirit world but I can believe in a "spirit" as in a "human spirit" that thing within each person that is uniquely them. Yes, it's their brain and can be explained away in purely scientific terms, but at the same time it's more than that. It's the "being" of that person. Obviously since I can't explain it perhaps we're close to being on the same page?

 

Yes, I think myth and legend can be useful tools for explaining the "unexplainable." I think that if used correctly they can allow the story teller to communicate in ways they wouldn't be able to otherwise.

 

What good does it do when the symbols used to 'feel' the spiritual are taken as literal? All this does is to make them more of the physical dimension. Spirituality is left lacking in a person's life. (I'm not saying everyone needs this...disclaimer here!) Everything a person can describe and think they know is of the physical realm. This is why the transcendent is seen as beyond knowing.

Should we believe in the physical Hercules or identify with the struggles? Are his physical trials physical or do they represent a deeper meaning? When is a cigar just a cigar? The problem with most myths is that they are so old that we are left on our own to figure out these questions. What was the author's intent in each passage. Are we reading in too much, too little or just right? Maybe there are many intricate layers in each item or that cigar really is just a cigar.

 

Ohhhhh....I wanted to add one more thing. Campbell does go on to say that it takes training in order to hear what the metaphors are saying.

 

IMO, that is why there were "Mystery" schools back then. When the literalists found how much power there was in taking it literally, why educate someone on the metaphoric meaning? The first Catholics weren't even allowed to have a bible because of this, IMO. I think now, the original meanings are re-surfacing in light of education and the ability to study metaphors where a secret school isn't demanded. We can take the higher religions and compare them side by side and see that the metaphors are relating to one's life. Today these teachings are available to everyone that wants to learn them. The Kabbalists also have an understanding of inner knowledge. The Sunnis are also like this and the Hindu and Buddhists.

 

I think it is more likely that the common people didn't have any training or understanding of this knowledge and therefore outnumbered the ones that did. They killed the symbolism. Whether through no fault of their own or by forced compliance, it died.

Maybe I should have read all this before I started writing what I did above?

 

Yes, it does take training, but the teachers are all long dead. Now the "teachers" are no more educated than anyone else (often less...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) and there's no way they could ever know the "real" answers as they were rarely written down. This is why, for example, you see Paul occasionally share a "mystery" with someone. These are the things only to be shared privately and usually only orally between full members. They were also hidden in paintings and other such items but we have no real idea how to extract the full meaning from these things.

 

We do have quite a few texts from various sects, and these do tell us a lot, but these are most likely not the secrets. These are the high level items. The metaphor. We'd need to go back in time and join that particular sect in order to gain the true meaning of that text. Then we'd need to do this again for each and every sect. Perhaps the meanings would be the same OR they'd differ on the same item(s). We can't answer this question. We really only know what the orthodox church has to say on most items which is unfortunate.

 

So, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop? The world may never know...

I thought that owl said it was 3 (and a bite)?

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

mwc, our thinking is pretty much along the same lines it appears. We are just going in different directions where there is an area where it could go either way.

 

There is one thing though that I just have to correct in your quote here:

 

You've gotten quite deep for a person that has taken a turn to the very rational at this point in her life.

 

[Amanda]

<snip> I think this is where the religion changed too but I think it went from Gnosticism to the literal understanding. This killed the symbolism. The symbolism of death and ressurection is very old (I'm preaching to the choir here I know. ) When the group that won, the literalists, took these symbols for what they denoted instead of what they connoted, the entire purpose was lost. It would be like someone trying to explain to you what a song means (without words).

 

In my opinion (at this time in my life) I think that one of the purposes of myths are to send the person on a spiritual journey that allows them to look at their life in context of these symbols. They are speaking of a dimension of ourselves that can only be described by metaphor. This allows the spiritual dimension to be combined with the physical dimension of our daily lives while leaving them both in the realm they belong in.

 

What good does it do when the symbols used to 'feel' the spiritual are taken as literal? All this does is to make them more of the physical dimension. Spirituality is left lacking in a person's life. (I'm not saying everyone needs this...disclaimer here!) Everything a person can describe and think they know is of the physical realm. This is why the transcendent is seen as beyond knowing.

NBBTB, Thanks for the Joseph Campbell interview! I love what MWC shared with us too! It makes sense about the Hellenized Jews, I think only about 300 years prior to "Jesus" that a new era of reasoning was introduced by Socratese or Plato or someone like that. The myth talks about a character, "Jesus", that challenges people to think about the laws for its intentions, not to just obey words on paper... heal people and get oxen out of ditch on sabboth, etc.

 

IMO, the resurrection got mixed with far eastern influences, and it seems to me a theme of reincarnation is strongly implied. That's how we come back and get a new body! That's how we are raised in the end in our glorified bodies. The mansions (bodies) we are to ultimately have are homes of distinctions of our ultimate purified essence. We are incense on the golden altar, our carnal nature burning off, leaving smoke... pure spirit form, which is a sweet smell to God... blah, blah, blah. It often refers to being in 'diver's places' in the NT, suggests John the Baptist is Elijah reincarnated, amongst other inferences. There clearly was the concept of the resurrection as an inward spiritual awakening also, as what I think it means when often worded 'when the dead of the world shall rise' amongst other references.

 

MWC has shared immense amount of awesome revelations, IMO! Yet I think these teachings were initially intended to encourage someone to ascend into heaven within themselves too. Things like the kingdom of god is within, he that is within you is greater than he in the world, he is the hidden man of the heart, more blah, blah blah...

 

NBBTB, I too think the symbolic language of metaphors needed training... for those with an ear let them hear. The literalist seem to be missing just about everything... and so sad that many base every move of their whole life on that! :ohmy:

 

"Jesus" a real man? Well, his name probably was NOT Jesus, but I think there was a core character that has been elaborated on with history's manipulation to twist and turn these teachings for selfish agendas to what it is today. "Jesus" might very well have taken a similar path as the real St. Nicholas to our modern day Santa Claus.

 

<snip>Should we believe in the physical Hercules or identify with the struggles? Are his physical trials physical or do they represent a deeper meaning? When is a cigar just a cigar? The problem with most myths is that they are so old that we are left on our own to figure out these questions. What was the author's intent in each passage. Are we reading in too much, too little or just right? Maybe there are many intricate layers in each item or that cigar really is just a cigar.

 

I agree, a myth is a representation of ways to deal with certain struggles of those times, and even though there may be great value in it, yet in having to figure it out... it would probably be better to just have another major overhaul in its evolutionary process. Most people don't have the time nor inclination for that, so it stifles its benefits. I think the present Atheist movement (Madeline O'Hare, etc.) can make significant contributions to a process for a present myth, however, I don't think they have all the answers either.

 

Just my $.02.

[chefranden]

In my opinion (at this time in my life) I think that one of the purposes of myths are to send the person on a spiritual journey that allows them to look at their life in context of these symbols. They are speaking of a dimension of ourselves that can only be described by metaphor. This allows the spiritual dimension to be combined with the physical dimension of our daily lives while leaving them both in the realm they belong in.

 

What good does it do when the symbols used to 'feel' the spiritual are taken as literal? All this does is to make them more of the physical dimension. Spirituality is left lacking in a person's life. (I'm not saying everyone needs this...disclaimer here!) Everything a person can describe and think they know is of the physical realm. This is why the transcendent is seen as beyond knowing.

 

Why do you think there is a difference between spiritual and physical? Certainly humans understand the world in terms of metaphor, but how does that indicate a world apart from the physical. Lakeoff and Johnson have made it pretty clear that metaphors are built from physical relationships of a physical body/mind with the physical world i.e. the metaphors don't come from out there in the ether. That means that the abstraction of the metaphor is tied to its literal meaning. A metaphor of rising from the dead needs a literal picture of some sort whether real or pretend. I think that cognitive science is showing that even the pretend version is a physical event of the body/mind. That is to say that none of the "spiritual" stuff happens outside of the physical.

 

Now to put a "spiritual" dimension on already pretend idea seems to me a double pretend. The only practical use for this that I can see is creating fiction. Now, I don't think I'm saying don't pretend, but rather just to know that is what is happening. I'm thinking that the "spiritual" practice of something like Zen is to learn not to be fooled by this pretense, while the "spiritual" practice of the mystery teachers is to make oneself susceptible to this sort of fooling. (This is just a half educated guess on my part. I know a lot about Zen, but little about the mystery religions.) I'm not quite sure of what may be gained by not just dealing directly with the real world, because judging by the damage religion has done mediating the real via the "spiritual", the "spiritual" doesn't seem very practical.

 

Yes, it does take training, but the teachers are all long dead. Now the "teachers" are no more educated than anyone else (often less...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing) and there's no way they could ever know the "real" answers as they were rarely written down. This is why, for example, you see Paul occasionally share a "mystery" with someone. These are the things only to be shared privately and usually only orally between full members. They were also hidden in paintings and other such items but we have no real idea how to extract the full meaning from these things.

 

The first teachers had to make this stuff up too. They were the Edgar Cayces and Matthew Foxes of their time. It wouldn't matter too much if these teachers were con men like L. Ron Hubbard or not. They would gain adherents if they were audacious enough and some of their movements would last. There is nothing special about these ancient teachers.

[NotBlinded]

Why do you think there is a difference between spiritual and physical? Certainly humans understand the world in terms of metaphor, but how does that indicate a world apart from the physical. Lakeoff and Johnson have made it pretty clear that metaphors are built from physical relationships of a physical body/mind with the physical world i.e. the metaphors don't come from out there in the ether. That means that the abstraction of the metaphor is tied to its literal meaning. A metaphor of rising from the dead needs a literal picture of some sort whether real or pretend. I think that cognitive science is showing that even the pretend version is a physical event of the body/mind. That is to say that none of the "spiritual" stuff happens outside of the physical.

 

Now to put a "spiritual" dimension on already pretend idea seems to me a double pretend. The only practical use for this that I can see is creating fiction. Now, I don't think I'm saying don't pretend, but rather just to know that is what is happening. I'm thinking that the "spiritual" practice of something like Zen is to learn not to be fooled by this pretense, while the "spiritual" practice of the mystery teachers is to make oneself susceptible to this sort of fooling. (This is just a half educated guess on my part. I know a lot about Zen, but little about the mystery religions.) I'm not quite sure of what may be gained by not just dealing directly with the real world, because judging by the damage religion has done mediating the real via the "spiritual", the "spiritual" doesn't seem very practical.

Hi ya Chef!

 

I don't seem to be doing a very good job at expressing myself. This happens quite often when dealing with these things. I mean, look at all the literalists there are! (I don't mean you, I'm talking about religious fundamentalists)

 

I'll try harder.

 

When I said this:

What good does it do when the symbols used to 'feel' the spiritual are taken as literal? All this does is to make them more of the physical dimension. Spirituality is left lacking in a person's life. (I'm not saying everyone needs this...disclaimer here!) Everything a person can describe and think they know is of the physical realm. This is why the transcendent is seen as beyond knowing.

I didn't mean to separate the spiritual realm from the physical realm. It is no more apart from it as the convex is apart from the concave. One cannot exist without the other. But, all we know through thought is forms. How can one describe what is formless without making it into a form? This is where an idol is created when one thinks they can understand this formless. Or this is where a literal understanding is mistaken for what it is supposed to inspire in the person. The finger pointing to the moon is mistaken as the moon.

 

I agree here from the link that you posted:

..."Anything we can think or understand is shaped by, made possible by, and limited by our bodies, brains, and our embodied interactions in the world. This is what we have to theorize with."

Yes. Every thought form comes from our mind. Metaphors come from our mind in order to relay something else, real or pretend, I agree. But, the metaphors used to describe a feeling/experience/the unknown are used for connotation, not denotation.

 

I am really not trying to separate the two opposites. I'm trying to bring them together, but each in their own place. The transcendent doesn't mean "out there somewhere", it just means beyond knowing by ordinary experience. When I said "from the physical realm", the literal reading of that led to the conclusion that I put the spiritual realm somewhere else. If I were to talk about the shape of the convex, it doesn't mean that the concave isn't still a part of it.

 

I'm not educated on the mystery schools myself, but I tend to think that many religions (higher) have this at the core. But, when one tries to describe it, it becomes separated and taken as a different dimension apart from its counterpart. This happens because words and thoughts are forms and what the words are trying to convey is not understood and then the words are mistaken for what they are literally saying. Maybe that is why they required years of study so people wouldn't end up like the fundamental literalists? Well...I guess that is history!

 

I see the spiritual as the part of me that is above thought. When I look at the sunset, I'm not having a conversation with myself, and I feel the awesomeness of it.

 

Wasn't there a Zen Master who once had a student ask how to enter Zen and the Master asked the student if he could hear the stream? The student finally said yes and the Master said enter Zen from there. Then the student brought his thoughts back and asked the Master what he would have said if he would have said that he couldn't hear the stream and the Master said, enter Zen from there.

 

I can see how, even here, that it would be able for someone to assume that Zen was a separate realm instead of one that is part of the same realm, but still its opposite. Maybe not so much because of the lack of bastardization, but maybe. The truth, IMO, is in the paradox of complete opposites being one.

 

Zen is within you; "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you". Both Zen and the Kingdom of Heaven are metaphors for the formless energy inside us all. They don't denote a real, physical thing or form, but connote a feeling or experience of the energy of life. A way of life that understands that the formless and the form, or the spiritual and the physical, are intricately related and two parts of who we are.

 

I hope I explained that better chef.

[mwc]

mwc, our thinking is pretty much along the same lines it appears. We are just going in different directions where there is an area where it could go either way.

Possibly so.

 

There is one thing though that I just have to correct in your quote here:

 

You've gotten quite deep for a person that has taken a turn to the very rational at this point in her life.

 

I plead special circumstances as a result of trying to rush my posts as my bad net connection allowed...or something like that.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

I plead special circumstances as a result of trying to rush my posts as my bad net connection allowed...or something like that.

 

mwc

Well, that's okay then.

 

I like you anyway, regardless of your bad connection. ( ) !!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just teasin'!

[mwc]

"Jesus" a real man? Well, his name probably was NOT Jesus, but I think there was a core character that has been elaborated on with history's manipulation to twist and turn these teachings for selfish agendas to what it is today. "Jesus" might very well have taken a similar path as the real St. Nicholas to our modern day Santa Claus.

Then you should look to a man called Hillel (sp?) to start you on your way. He would have been the St. Nick to this Santa in many respects. They like to say that Paul was his student but there is zero evidence of this. It makes a good story because of who Hillel was though.

 

I agree, a myth is a representation of ways to deal with certain struggles of those times, and even though there may be great value in it, yet in having to figure it out... it would probably be better to just have another major overhaul in its evolutionary process. Most people don't have the time nor inclination for that, so it stifles its benefits. I think the present Atheist movement (Madeline O'Hare, etc.) can make significant contributions to a process for a present myth, however, I don't think they have all the answers either.

 

Just my $.02.

I'd agree that the Atheist movement doesn't have all the answers. I'd say the only thing their doing right is knocking these books off of their pedestals and holding them to the same standards as all other books (or theologies). At that point, if people wish to take something more from them, an "inspiration" if you will, then who am I to deny them that? But I think a person can be inspired by other books, movies, paintings, music and so on...so I see no reason to be limited to these so-called "holy" texts. If all these things move your "spirit" (what you might call your emotional self or whatever) then great. If they inspire lots of people or the world to become something "better" (in quotes since that can be a subjective thing) then great...but I think that the by and large the history of the current religions has shown that they have failed to inspire our "spirits" to greatness. Even the ancient religions managed to inspire their adherents to create magnificent monuments.

 

I guess you could compare the human spirit to a muscle. 2000 years ago people stopped exercising it and now it has atrophied. They decided they found the answer and, as a result, they stopped searching for anything else. No new information. Nothing. The people that feel the answer they have is 100% perfect are the least likely to exercise their atrophied "spirit."

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Then you should look to a man called Hillel (sp?) to start you on your way. He would have been the St. Nick to this Santa in many respects. They like to say that Paul was his student but there is zero evidence of this. It makes a good story because of who Hillel was though.

MWC, you must dwell in some great inner circles, as it was difficult to find much information about this person on the net, however, perserverance did find an interesting site here. You're right, it appears there are some similarities, even that he was a wood cutter and that "Jesus" was supposedly a carpenter. Maybe they worked together, maybe they are derivatives of the same person, or something else.

 

A really fascinating guy that is supposedly mixed in with the concept of Jesus is Imhotep, a very interesting article found here that says this about him:

He was later even worshipped by the early Christians as one with Christ. The early Christians, it will be recalled, adapted to their use those pagan forms and persons whose influence through the ages had woven itself so powerfully into tradition that they could not omit them.

Imhotep, who's name means "the one that comes in peace". existed as a mythological figure in the minds of most scholars until the end of the nineteenth century when he was established as a real historical person.

He was the world's first named architect who built Egypt's first pyramid, is often recognized as the world's first doctor, a priest,. scribe, sage, poet, astrologer, and a vizier and chief minister, though this role is unclear, to Djoser (reigned 2630–2611 BC), the second king of Egypt's third dynasty. He may have lived under as many as four kings. An inscription on one of that kings statues gives us Imhotep's titles as the "chancellor of the king of lower Egypt", the "first one under the king", the "administrator of the great mansion", the "hereditary Noble", the "high priest of Heliopolis", the "chief sculptor", and finally the "chief carpenter".

Then there is the Egyptian God, Amen, that I think had a great influence on our perception of "Jesus" as we have it today. After all, in Jesus name we pray, Amen.

 

<snip> I'd agree that the Atheist movement doesn't have all the answers.

I like how they take accountability and responsibility for actions and outcomes in their life. Instead of having faith it will fall into their lap from the sky, they know that it is by their own efforts and participation to a goal that progress is often achieved.

 

<snip> If they inspire lots of people or the world to become something "better" (in quotes since that can be a subjective thing) then great...but I think that the by and large the history of the current religions has shown that they have failed to inspire our "spirits" to greatness.

I agree to a great degree, especially concerning fundamentalism, which may foster dysfuntional choices. However, it is hard to disregard successful movements based on current spiritually motivated principles to achieve awesome results such as Nelson Mandella, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and even, IMO, Mother Tereasa.

[Zetetic]

I don't know a whole lot about this but I heard something once that intrigued me and I thought maybe some of the more knowledgeable people could comment on it (if it's not completely stupid).

 

The idea was that when Paul mentioned giving money to the poor, it was a euphemism for sending money to the church elders in Jerusalem who, because they didn't work, but depended on the contributions of the congregation, were considered "the poor" (I don't remember where I heard it). Could the whole thing have been fueled (if not started) by simple greed? The more converts they get, the more money they get?

[mwc]

MWC, you must dwell in some great inner circles, as it was difficult to find much information about this person on the net, however, perserverance did find an interesting site here. You're right, it appears there are some similarities, even that he was a wood cutter and that "Jesus" was supposedly a carpenter. Maybe they worked together, maybe they are derivatives of the same person, or something else.

Now, prove the existence of Hillel!

 

As you already point out this game could go on for quite some time without any real answers. We just get older and older stories of a "sage" with disciples. However, it seems to me the stories surrounding some figures seem to incorporate not only the stories of others but the fantastic as well which lowers their credibility.

 

But lets say jesus is a real person for a moment. I heard the other day that there was also a Bethlehem in Galilee, not far from present Nazareth, in addition to the one near Jerusalem. Now, this still doesn't mean that they would have had to go anywhere since the census still didn't apply, but a trip from a Nazareth (assuming an early 1st century existence) to a Northern Bethlehem becomes plausible. Now, you want this person to be a descendant of David, so you simply move his birth to the Southern Bethlehem. Ta-Da! Now he's born in the "right" place. Did it happen? We'll never know but it's an interesting idea.

 

A really fascinating guy that is supposedly mixed in with the concept of Jesus is Imhotep, a very interesting article found here that says this about him:

I've seen comparisons like this before. I'm never surprised when I see an Egyptian influence since they heavily influenced many cultures. I wonder if people, just like today, looked to them as an ancient and wise culture (despite their faults), and took their "spiritual" ideas from them? People tend to think the ancients were better "connected" than we are so perhaps the same can be said of our ancients?

 

Also, jesus also has many aspects of the patriarchs (Jacob, Joseph and Joshua all being names of patriarchs and names in the jesus tale) so they might have been influenced by the Egyptians a bit more directly? In fact, a number of the things you mention could be said of Joseph in the OT story.

 

Then there is the Egyptian God, Amen, that I think had a great influence on our perception of "Jesus" as we have it today. After all, in Jesus name we pray, Amen.

Amun, the god of the wind. Later this god got attached to Ra, as in Amun-Ra. Quite a feat for a minor deity. I don't know how it ended up being used by the Jews as the way to "praise" their god at the end of a verse (or however you want to put it) but I just find it funny that they, and xians, to this day invoke the name of an Egyptian wind deity while they supposedly praise their one god. It seems like it would be an insult each time they say the word but what do I know?

 

I like how they take accountability and responsibility for actions and outcomes in their life. Instead of having faith it will fall into their lap from the sky, they know that it is by their own efforts and participation to a goal that progress is often achieved.

Yes, personal accountability is a good thing, but I don't know if this is the sole territory of the atheist. Perhaps more so than that of many xian sects though? I do think that it's something that is more unifying...see the way "the church" is now responding to global warming and the like. Now they're moving on it whereas before they opposed it. In my Baptist School days I was literally taught the earth was something to use up then jesus would come. So the "science" of global warming was junk and made no difference anyway. I believed that despite all the evidence to the contrary up until very recently. I had no "global" conscience...even though I had a strong personal responsibility (no I didn't connect the two mentally). Now I am developing one because I had to come to terms with the *fact* that no one was falling from the sky to fix anything (unless aliens are coming by but I'm not betting on it). I think "the church" sees that now too...but will rewrite it to say something like we're in a caregiver role until jesus returns or something.

 

I agree to a great degree, especially concerning fundamentalism, which may foster dysfuntional choices. However, it is hard to disregard successful movements based on current spiritually motivated principles to achieve awesome results such as Nelson Mandella, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and even, IMO, Mother Tereasa.

I'm going to focus on the last one you mention because I think that people are actually moved by their perception of her and what she did as opposed to the reality. She was, in reality, quite cold and cruel as a result of her personal beliefs and felt that people should really suffer because jesus did. She didn't go to her own clinics but went to good hospitals elsewhere when she needed treatment. She was a money machine. She was almost "an ends justifies the means" sort of person. People think of her as some very loving, caring, "teddy bear" type of person and that couldn't be much farther from the truth.

 

So is perception or reality more important? Because everyone else you listed has their skeletons as well from what I've read. Should we ignore those and simply focus on their "good" aspects?

 

mwc

[mwc]

I don't know a whole lot about this but I heard something once that intrigued me and I thought maybe some of the more knowledgeable people could comment on it (if it's not completely stupid).

 

The idea was that when Paul mentioned giving money to the poor, it was a euphemism for sending money to the church elders in Jerusalem who, because they didn't work, but depended on the contributions of the congregation, were considered "the poor" (I don't remember where I heard it). Could the whole thing have been fueled (if not started) by simple greed? The more converts they get, the more money they get?

Well...first of all I don't think it's stupid at all.

 

Second, I have a low opinion of Paul, so I might be the wrong person to answer this.

 

Paul and Jerusalem didn't get along. The stuff in Acts, in my opinion, was pretty much all made up much later on by the church. It was "glue." Just propaganda. So Paul could care less about Jerusalem or anyone there. Paul was in it for Paul.

 

Having said that the Jews had a long tradition of taking care of the poor. Mainly widows and orphans. The xian church continued this tradition because, well, they were basically just an off-shoot of Judaism. So I do believe that this was something that was done to gain Jewish converts.

 

Beyond that Paul made it no secret that he should also get paid for his wonderful teaching. So I'm sure that he collected money for that as well. I forget where it it is, but I think it's II Corinthians (near the middle) Paul starts defending himself for the usage of money. He says he's not like other preachers and the like. I think this sounds like he's accused of skimming but we'll never know. Anyhow, I think it was for money just like it is today and the charity was for "looks."

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Then there is the Egyptian God, Amen, that I think had a great influence on our perception of "Jesus" as we have it today. After all, in Jesus name we pray, Amen.

Amun, the god of the wind. Later this god got attached to Ra, as in Amun-Ra. Quite a feat for a minor deity. I don't know how it ended up being used by the Jews as the way to "praise" their god at the end of a verse (or however you want to put it) but I just find it funny that they, and xians, to this day invoke the name of an Egyptian wind deity while they supposedly praise their one god. It seems like it would be an insult each time they say the word but what do I know?

MWC, all these mythological beliefs interjected into these scriptures was a surprise to me... however, I had seen where Wicca, Druids, Pagans, Buddhism, and other beliefs were clearly there to me! The resemblances to Solar religions were a surprise, and to go so far as to use Amen's name at the close of each prayer was amazing to find out. There is the association of Amen with the Sun God, called Amen-Ra. Amen does have a close resemblance to the Christian version of God, as this source here says:

 

Of the attributes ascribed to Amen in the Ancient Empire nothing is known, but, if we accept the meaning "hidden" which is usually given to his name, we must conclude that he was the personification of the hidden and unknown creative power which was associated with the primeval abyss, gods in the creation of the world, and all that is in it. The word or root amen, certainly means "what is hidden," "what is not seen," "what cannot be seen," and the like, and this fact is proved by scores of examples which may be collected from texts of all periods. In hymns to Amen we often read that he is "hidden to his children, "and "hidden to gods and men," and it has been stated that these expressions only refer to the "hiding," i.e., "setting" of the sun each evening, and that they are only to be understood in a physical sense, and to mean nothing more than the disappearance of the god Amen from the sight of men at the close of day. Now, not only is the god himself said to be "hidden," but his name also is "hidden," and his form, or similitude, is said to be "unknown;" these statements show that "hidden," when applied to Amen, the great god, has reference to something more than the "sun which has disappeared below the horizon," and that it indicates the god who cannot be seen with the mortal eyes, and who is invisible, as well as inscrutable, to gods as well as men.

What is interesting, it seems as though Paul made the connection between Amen, Jesus, and God, declaring they were all one and the same:

Acts 17:22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions *, I found an altar with this * * inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

 

So is perception or reality more important? Because everyone else you listed has their skeletons as well from what I've read. Should we ignore those and simply focus on their "good" aspects?

Well... everyone has skeletons... and to think an average person could unite a people under a common belief system to rally for a worthy cause is a great thing. I didn't know that about Mother Tereasa, however, I really had not heard of anything major she really contributed, now that you mention it, except that she wanted all people to sense an embrace of love before they died. I knew a MD that worked for her for a year, and had met her when she was going through the streets of India passing out blankets to the homeless on a night that was suppose to get very cold.

 

Also, in the research I've done from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, I find that "Jesus" did not do anything "miraculous". He even said that everything he did, we too can do and even greater things. People just took metaphors and went crazy with them, IMHO.

[Ouroboros]

A little side note, I heard (and you can correct me on this one) that Mother Teresa really didn't do much more than to teach people to embrace their pain, affliction and suffering. She might have raised some money for helping people, but I'm not sure. I think her message was more "accept what you are and where you are and what is happening to you, because it's god's will."

[Amanda]

Hey HanSolo... I'm glad to see you, as it seems you were the one that suggested a relationship of Amen to the Bible in a thread I was participating a long time ago. Pertaining to this thread, the proof of Jesus... I just thought of something interesting, and would like to know your opinion. Amen was an invisible God, and in Jesus name we pray, Amen... would that suggest that Jesus is invisible? As I said that Jesus coming in the flesh did not mean that he came in bodily form, as I researched that and explained it earlier in this thread. However, this equating him with an invisible deity has me feeling a little "earthquake"....

 

What do ya' think?

 

BTW, I heard that Mother Tereasa was quite wealthy and she gave all her money to the church and became a nun. I don't know what that has to do with anything... just thought I'd mention it. She doesn't sound like she was too smart to do something like that though... does she? I wonder if the church capitalized on a vulnerable, wealthy, single lady and solicited her?

[Ouroboros]

That's kind'a funny. The Invisible Jesus Strikes Back, oh, sorry, it wasn't the thread for New Movie Titles. hehe.

 

Actually, the Amen-Ra to Amen is something I heard on a video once, and honestly I don't take it too seriously. There could be a link or maybe just a coincident. For it to have a connection to the Egyptians, I guess the Jews must have used it before the Christians, so it wouldn't then not be related to Jesus. But on the other hand if they did use it, maybe it was a keyword for "hidden" or "secret" or something?

 

Oh, she was wealthy before she started? I wonder what got her started... I don't think the church forced her, but maybe it was a personal tragedy or conflict? Almost like she wanted everyone to suffer like she suffered inside maybe? Maybe she wanted to come to terms with some personal turmoil?

[mwc]

MWC, all these mythological beliefs interjected into these scriptures was a surprise to me... however, I had seen where Wicca, Druids, Pagans, Buddhism, and other beliefs were clearly there to me! The resemblances to Solar religions were a surprise, and to go so far as to use Amen's name at the close of each prayer was amazing to find out. There is the association of Amen with the Sun God, called Amen-Ra. Amen does have a close resemblance to the Christian version of God, as this source here says:

I don't know if Wicca or Druids are so present beyond earth worship and the like but the other influences are there (most likely via Zarathustra (sp?) and what they picked up in Babylon). They rest came from Canaanite influence and their neighbors (in the OT primarily). For the NT their is quite a hodge-podge of things.

 

[snipped quote of Amen]

These things sound like they influenced people like Philo of Alexandria. When he did his midrash over the OT it includes similar thoughts. He likely influenced folks in the entire region.

 

What is interesting, it seems as though Paul made the connection between Amen, Jesus, and God, declaring they were all one and the same:

Acts 17:22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions *, I found an altar with this * * inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

The research I've done showed that there actually was an "unknown god" in Athens. Paul simply usurped it for his own needs. I'd say the Greeks were hedging their bets just in case there was a god they didn't know about. Seems reasonable all things considered.

 

Well... everyone has skeletons... and to think an average person could unite a people under a common belief system to rally for a worthy cause is a great thing. I didn't know that about Mother Tereasa, however, I really had not heard of anything major she really contributed, now that you mention it, except that she wanted all people to sense an embrace of love before they died. I knew a MD that worked for her for a year, and had met her when she was going through the streets of India passing out blankets to the homeless on a night that was suppose to get very cold.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people don't have skeletons. I don't think I'm that naive (although I am sometimes tempted by that extended warranty). I just think people are more likely to follow the perception of someone than the reality of that someone. The cult of personality. She's a very good example. She taught those to simply suffer as jesus suffered but she really did not really seek to treat these people so much as want them to live with their conditions. Then she raised a lot of money to duplicate her efforts based on the perception of what people thought she was doing more than what she was doing.

 

Also, in the research I've done from the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, I find that "Jesus" did not do anything "miraculous". He even said that everything he did, we too can do and even greater things. People just took metaphors and went crazy with them, IMHO.

It all depends what you consider to be a miracle and what you decide is a metaphor. To many (most?) the walking on water is literal. The healing of the blind is literal. But, if read as metaphor, then they are nothing special. However, if read this way then he can also be reduced to nothing more than a character in the same play. So why have a real character metaphorically "open" someone's eyes? I can see it being used that way...he was a great teacher...but it can also be a great teacher was using the story of a jesus opening the eyes as a metaphor. Why take it only half way?

 

mwc

[Amanda]

That's kind'a funny. The Invisible Jesus Strikes Back, oh, sorry, it wasn't the thread for New Movie Titles. hehe.

 

Actually, the Amen-Ra to Amen is something I heard on a video once, and honestly I don't take it too seriously. There could be a link or maybe just a coincident. For it to have a connection to the Egyptians, I guess the Jews must have used it before the Christians, so it wouldn't then not be related to Jesus. But on the other hand if they did use it, maybe it was a keyword for "hidden" or "secret" or something?

 

Oh, she was wealthy before she started? I wonder what got her started... I don't think the church forced her, but maybe it was a personal tragedy or conflict? Almost like she wanted everyone to suffer like she suffered inside maybe? Maybe she wanted to come to terms with some personal turmoil?

 

HanSolo, I guess if the claim that Jesus and God, Amen, were one... well, that would have deified Jesus, however, I really do think the intentions were to bring all of us to thinking we too are gods. I see very much of the responsibility being placed on mankind rather than to wait for the Gods. I think it must have been common to associate someone to a God, as Ceasar claimed to be the son of Apollo.

 

I looked for the story of a wealthy Mother Tereasa before being a nun and found nothing. However, I did find this here:

In 1962, she received the Pandma Shri prize for "extraordinary services." In 1971, Pope John Paul VI honored Mother Teresa by awarding her the first Pope John XXXIII Peace Prize. In 1972, the Government of India presents her with the Jawaharlel Nehru Award for Internationa Understanding. In 1979, she won the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1985, President Reagan presented her the Medal of Freedom, the highest U.S. civilian award, and in 1996, she became only the fourth person in the world to receive an honorary U.S. citizenship. When she received the Nobel Prize she wore her same $1 dress and convinced the committee to cancel a dinner in her honor, using the money instead to "feed 400 poor children for a year in India."

 

I looked for some sites that might have something derrogatory to say about her and found nothing in the first three pages of probably hundreds on her. How does everyone know that she really didn't do anything to help people get better? I knew a doctor, MD, out of medical school that worked with her a year helping people get well, and he never said anything bad about her. He said she was a remarkably humble person, but he is not a Christian... in fact, he is probably an Atheist.