Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[currentchristian]

Hi HanSolo. It is true that people expected a deliverer, a moshiach (Messiah, Christ, Anointed One), yes. But what his name would be was unknown. In the Isaiah passage, he is to be named "Emmanuel" (God with us), not Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus). The name Yeshua was given to Miriam (Mary) by Gabriel, the story goes. No one was looking for a Jesus Christ. And no one called Jesus "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" in his lifetime. He was Jesus of Nazareth. A few did proclaim him to be the Moshiach, but no one ever called him "Jesus Christ" in his lifetime, that I can remember. This is post-resurrection language. So, no, no one was anticipating a "Jesus Christ." They were anticipating a deliverer. And as far as deliverance in this life, from the Romans, Jesus was unwilling (some might say, unable) to deliver that. His deliverance was from another plane, a higher plane, "seated in the heavenly places."

 

These discussions are great. I love 'em. But I just don't see why the story we have is a problem. It can be stripped of all supernatural material, as Thomas Jefferson did in his Bible, but I don't see how we support, historically, a Jesus other than one living in the first three centuries of the first millennium CE who got a lot of people to follow him around listening to him talk and got himself executed for doing what most gadflies and muckrakers do -- getting under the skin of the establishment.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Now ask yourself WHY those theories exist. Is it because people simply just hate this whole stupid evil monster religion so much that they have to come up with something, anything, to say against it...no matter the cost? Or, were some of them, even ONE of them, believers themselves and they took an honest look and said "Hmmm...something seems...I don't know...a bit off to me. I'll just take a quick look around." I'm not going to say which it was or what amount of some combinations you can come up with along the line between the extremes here. But we both know that the theories exist for a reason and it isn't black or white. That last sentence we will most certainly agree upon given your other responses.

 

It's very gray, of course. Some are at war with Christianity and will do whatever they can to undermine it. Some are scholars and what's the best way to make a name for oneself? Come up with a new theory for one's dissertation or book. Some are sincere men and women who sincerely believe these alternate theories. There are many reasons. I find that no matter the spiritual take, everyone eventually has to deal with Jesus. They have to explain him. So there are many theories.

 

Ignoring the Jewish names and all (I'm not in the mood today...sorry ) this is an explanation. However, this is also very much a harmony of the story. Jesus, in no way, was a genius. I'm not sure where you get this. The story of him at age 12? Standard fare for other similar stories. Easily dismissed. His ability to "show down" the Pharisees time after time? Again, standard fare for other Jewish literature of the day (Jewish "wise men" would "show down" the same from other cultures with their prowess in little display ala jesus). These things are not impressive when taken in this broader context. Now, I don't have the link handy (I can find it though in my mountain of links given time...I got it from someone here though, so maybe they can help out more quickly), jesus is shown to be mentally unstable when looked at by a mental professional.

 

I call Jesus a genius because he seemed to be quite smart in dealing with people and his opposition. Certainly an emotional genius with a high EQ and SQ (Emotional and Spiritual Quotients). We don't know about his IQ, but I'd suspect it was quite high. Regarding Jesus' mental instability, his own family thought there might be something amiss in his psyche. Remember that account in the gospels? (Another sign, to me by the way, that the gospels are fairly accurate. No one trying to make a savior of their leader would add that his family thought he was a little nutty.)

 

The story is he did not seek to reform Judaism. He sought to reform the Jews in general. He wanted them to behave differently. Yes, the two are almost indistinguishable back then, but it is an important thing to note. He was explaining (his version of) The Law, and their behavior, and how they didn't match up. Judaism wasn't broken. They were. If they came back into alignment with the true meaning of The Law, then there would be no problems. To reform Judaism would be to rewrite it...which he didn't wish to do in the story. His mission was the same as any other prophet really. To point out that the people had moved away from their god and to get them back on track.

 

He did not come to abolish the Law, if these words from Matthew's account of his life are accurate. He came to "fulfill" it. That's open to a lot of interpretation. It seems to me, from the gospel accounts, Jesus had far more regard for love and humanity than for the 613 "rules to keep to make god happy."

 

Now, as for upsetting the "powers that be, and being put to death. This is the funny part. The stories we have of this happening to the others like him, it's not the Jewish powers that care. It's the Romans. And while, yes, the Romans technically kill off jesus in the story, it's at the urging of the Jewish Temple powers as we all know. The Romans didn't like the insurgents from the Galilean area causing trouble. They killed them. That's the simple truth. The story in the bible is way, way too complicated compared to that reality. If jesus had a following, and was from up North, and was seen as a threat. Pilate would have killed him. No Jews needed. Pilate would have sent troops into the desert and killed jesus, and his followers. All of them. The innocent bystanders as well. All of them. The story as written makes no sense when compared to the other "messiahs" especially if he was the "ultimate" one...the best of the bunch. Plotting to kill him for months and/or years is silly.

I don't think we can really figure all that out, from this distance. For whatever reason, Jesus upset those in control of the Temple and the religious standards of the day. These leaders also feared he would bring Rome down on them. I find it quite easy to imagine the story in the gospels to be accurate. Men will do anything to keep their power and authority.

 

Paul was an opportunist. Let's see. He is a tent maker by trade. He somehow also has the authority, by the temple, to hunt and persecute xians for some reason. Why? Why does the temple hunt xians? They're Jews. They might even be Romans. The Romans rule that territory. They certainly rule many other places the Temple Jews are accused of persecuting xians. They simply had no authority to do anything other than ask the Romans to go after the xians for some offense. The Romans could care less. Jews are Jews to them. That story makes no sense. Paul, on the other hand, hunting Essenes, PRIOR to the Temple being limited by the Romans makes PLENTY of sense. The Essenes being split from the Temple (Rogue Temple Jews...having their own High Priest) would be a direct threat. SAUL's story as a hunter of these people makes sense...until it's "borrowed."

It makes sense to me that there was friction between the followers of the Way and their source religion. I have no problem seeing one religious group killing another. No problem at all. Sadly.

 

Paul was:

1. An opportunist who took advantage of the situation for some strange reason known only to him.

2. An epileptic who thought he saw Jesus and was sincere in all his efforts, but quite wrong.

3. Precisely what Acts says he was.

 

The story that you offered makes sense. I'd hand it to you. If that was what was written. If that what was history said. If that what archaeology supported. If that's what early xians OUTSIDE the bible also reported. However, since these things don't fall in line with your story, I cannot simply give it to you. I wish I could. I could stop talking about it. I could stop reading about it. Other events actually did occur back then and I could read about those, but I am reading trying to figure out what happened around this swirling vortex in the 1st century CE since the story you've offered isn't the one that happened (as simple and popular as it is).

 

Well, maybe it did. Maybe the non-supernatural story is the one. I'm keeping the supernatural story, myself. But Jesus sans miracles and the resurrection is a historically respectable position. Others may be, too. Truth can be stranger than fiction. A straightforward reading of the gospels, Acts and the epistles is much easier for me to get my mind around than a theory that takes scores of "and then this" and "and then that" and "this one did that." I just don't see it.

 

But I respect that you do, mwc. And you always challenge me and I hope I challenge you. That's what the learned do for each other!!

 

-CC in MA

[Ahh!]

http://www.messiahtruth.com/

 

Tackles the whole "Jesus in the Old Testament" thing. There ARE reasons why Jews don't accept Jesus.

 

And be skeptical of the claim of both Christians and Jews that the concept of Messiah is consistent throughout the Bible. It appears briefly in Genesis and seems (as far as I remember) to disappear until the books of the prophets. That's a LONG gap of books and time where the concept isn't mentioned at all.

[currentchristian]

http://www.messiahtruth.com/

 

...

 

Thanks for passing on the link. They've got to get rid of that blue background with yellow font. My eyes are spinning after just five minutes!

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

Hey, CC, are you attacking my faith? You have no respect or tolerance for what I believe?

 

Hi HanSolo. It is true that people expected a deliverer, a moshiach (Messiah, Christ, Anointed One), yes. But what his name would be was unknown. In the Isaiah passage, he is to be named "Emmanuel" (God with us), not Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus). The name Yeshua was given to Miriam (Mary) by Gabriel, the story goes. No one was looking for a Jesus Christ. And no one called Jesus "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" in his lifetime. He was Jesus of Nazareth. A few did proclaim him to be the Moshiach, but no one ever called him "Jesus Christ" in his lifetime, that I can remember.

Hmm.. Christ (Greek) = Messiah (Aramaic). If they called him Messiah, they would in Greek call him Christ. Same meaning, same word, two different languages. Just like Joshua = Jesus.

 

From what I understand (or at least heard from scholars) is that in Septuagint (ancient Greek version, in Kione Greek), the words/names Joshua and Messiah is written Jesus and Christ. So I'm not the one making it up, even though I have no evidence that this is the case. I just go by what I heard Bible scholars said.

 

My speculation is basically that when we talk about Messianic Jews, it would be translated to Greek as Christian Jews (or Christianic if you so want).

 

This is post-resurrection language. So, no, no one was anticipating a "Jesus Christ." They were anticipating a deliverer. And as far as deliverance in this life, from the Romans, Jesus was unwilling (some might say, unable) to deliver that. His deliverance was from another plane, a higher plane, "seated in the heavenly places."

My little speculation is that this historical Jesus did just want they wanted, in a sense. At least tried, but then was executed for doing this. That Jesus did rise up and challenge the Romans and he lost his life over it. He became a legend and suddenly the story changed from that he died a hero's death to a resurrected and even divine being.

 

These discussions are great. I love 'em. But I just don't see why the story we have is a problem. It can be stripped of all supernatural material, as Thomas Jefferson did in his Bible, but I don't see how we support, historically, a Jesus other than one living in the first three centuries of the first millennium CE who got a lot of people to follow him around listening to him talk and got himself executed for doing what most gadflies and muckrakers do -- getting under the skin of the establishment.

Basically I think we are in an agreement with my little hypothesis (btw, it isn't mine, I stole it. Hehe.)

 

What I'm saying that this hero, that tried to stand up against the Romans, died as a martyr, and it got embellished.

 

Maybe that was what Paul got as a revelation? That this killed Jesus was resurrected to the Heavens - in spirit, and did "in fact" (according to his newly found belief) rescue the Jews, but not only from the Romans, but from sin and eternal damnation. (Just an idea)

[Ouroboros]

I call Jesus a genius because he seemed to be quite smart in dealing with people and his opposition. Certainly an emotional genius with a high EQ and SQ (Emotional and Spiritual Quotients). We don't know about his IQ, but I'd suspect it was quite high. Regarding Jesus' mental instability, his own family thought there might be something amiss in his psyche. Remember that account in the gospels? (Another sign, to me by the way, that the gospels are fairly accurate. No one trying to make a savior of their leader would add that his family thought he was a little nutty.)

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree there. The genius was not Jesus, but the people that wrote about him, because they could add and remove to make their "hero" fit what they wanted to be true, and what would "sell" better in the religious marketplace. If Jesus was the high IQ guy, he should have written the books, and if god was behind it, god would have made Jesus' writings stayed with us in history. We really can't be sure if the things that he supposedly said was something that he really said, since the Gospels were written a long time after.

 

Do you have anyone in your life that really astonished you with his/her knowledge and sayings? Can you for certainty remember what they said literally 30 years later? Also remember they were not scholars, and supposedly couldn't write or read, and suddenly 30 years later they could and not only that, they could also recall exactly word-by-word what Jesus had said? C'mon, they know very well today in court that the trustworthiness of testimonies deteriorate over time. Right? Usually one expects to have more evidence than just hearsay.

 

And btw, CC, how can we know what Jesus experience in the desert with Satan is a true story? Did Jesus tell his disciples what happened, or did someone go with him? If Jesus was a charlatan, would his retelling of the Satan challenge be true?

[currentchristian]

Hey, CC, are you attacking my faith? You have no respect or tolerance for what I believe?

If I am, drag me out of here and stone me to death!

 

From what I understand (or at least heard from scholars) is that in Septuagint (ancient Greek version, in Kione Greek), the words/names Joshua and Messiah is written Jesus and Christ. So I'm not the one making it up, even though I have no evidence that this is the case. I just go by what I heard Bible scholars said.

 

My speculation is basically that when we talk about Messianic Jews, it would be translated to Greek as Christian Jews (or Christianic if you so want).

I just don't know enough about the original languages or the Septuagint. I must learn more about that.

 

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you said that the Judeans/Jews were anticipating someone named Joshua Messiah? While they were, some say, looking for a Messiah, a Moshiach, a Christos (Gk), as a title, they did not have the name of the person. No one expected his name to be Joshua or Moe or Curly or Larry or...

 

Mary gave her son the name Joshua (Yeshua, Jesus) because she was told, the story goes, "he will save his people from their sins."

 

My little speculation is that this historical Jesus did just want they wanted, in a sense. At least tried, but then was executed for doing this. That Jesus did rise up and challenge the Romans and he lost his life over it. He became a legend and suddenly the story changed from that he died a hero's death to a resurrected and even divine being. ... What I'm saying that this hero, that tried to stand up against the Romans, died as a martyr, and it got embellished.

I think this is a very respectable position to take for those who do not allow supernatural elements to the story. While I respect the views of those who do not believe in a historical Jesus, I simply cannot see their position as a viable one.

 

Maybe that was what Paul got as a revelation? That this killed Jesus was resurrected to the Heavens - in spirit, and did "in fact" (according to his newly found belief) rescue the Jews, but not only from the Romans, but from sin and eternal damnation. (Just an idea)

Very well could be.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree there. The genius was not Jesus, but the people that wrote about him, because they could add and remove to make their "hero" fit what they wanted to be true, and what would "sell" better in the religious marketplace. If Jesus was the high IQ guy, he should have written the books, and if god was behind it, god would have made Jesus' writings stayed with us in history. We really can't be sure if the things that he supposedly said was something that he really said, since the Gospels were written a long time after.

It is interesting that we have but one account of Jesus writing, in the dirt as the woman caught in adultery is brought before him. (And this account is not in the most ancient manuscripts.)

 

Jesus not writing brings me to a theory: Maybe he did not write down his views because he did not want a "cult of the written word" to spring up? (I guess that happened anyway.)

 

Do you have anyone in your life that really astonished you with his/her knowledge and sayings? Can you for certainty remember what they said literally 30 years later? Also remember they were not scholars, and supposedly couldn't write or read, and suddenly 30 years later they could and not only that, they could also recall exactly word-by-word what Jesus had said? C'mon, they know very well today in court that the trustworthiness of testimonies deteriorate over time. Right? Usually one expects to have more evidence than just hearsay.

He did say, if one believes the quote from the gospels, that the Holy Spirit would bring everything to the remembrance of the disciples. Either the fabricators of the hero myth threw that in there in order to explain how they knew so much -- or he really did say that, there really is a Holy Spirit (Blasphemy Challenge to the contrary) and the Spirit brought to mind the core of Jesus' monologues.

 

And there's always the view that an oral culture is much better at remembering what was said that a written culture. Just the other day I read this: "Specialists' roles vary from one group to another, and the same person may play several of these roles. One common role is that of storyteller. Because the traditions are oral rather than written, these people must memorize long and complex stories and songs so that the group's sacred traditions can be remembered and taught, generation after generation. The orally transmitted epics of the indigenous Ainu of Japan are up to 10,000 'lines' long. Chants of the Yoruba orisa comprise 256 'volumes' of 800 long verses each." (Source: Mary Pat Fisher. Living Religions. 6th Ed., p 48)

 

And btw, CC, how can we know what Jesus experience in the desert with Satan is a true story? Did Jesus tell his disciples what happened, or did someone go with him? If Jesus was a charlatan, would his retelling of the Satan challenge be true?

This account reminds me of a vision quest very common among many indigenous religious groups. From the same book just quoted: "After ritual purification, they are sent alone to a sacred spot to cry to the spirits to help them in their journey...Adults may also make vision quests before undertaking a sacred mission....One is not supposed to ask for a vision for selfish personal reasons. The point of this individual ordeal, which is designed to be physically and emotionally stressful, is to ask how one can help the people and the planet."

 

The account of the temptation in the desert provides details of a purification (John's baptism); the beginning of a sacred mission (the ministry of Jesus) and a physically and emotionally stressful experience (remember the angels came to minister to Jesus when it was concluded).

 

The temptation in the desert could easily have been told by Jesus to his disciples. If you think about it, we have in the gospels maybe 1% of what Jesus said in his entire life. Very little, actually. Who knows what the other 99% of his words were about. Maybe he was telling of these stories, whether their were lies (as some might believe) or truths (as I believe).

 

-CC in MA

[Ouroboros]

If I am, drag me out of here and stone me to death!

We only drag you out and get you stoned.

 

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you said that the Judeans/Jews were anticipating someone named Joshua Messiah? While they were, some say, looking for a Messiah, a Moshiach, a Christos (Gk), as a title, they did not have the name of the person. No one expected his name to be Joshua or Moe or Curly or Larry or...

Right. They expected a person being the Joshua Messiah (anointed savior), and they had several. History say there were a bunch of zealots that tried to rescue the Jews from the Romans. Now these people could be called Messianic Jews, or in Greek: Christianic (Christian) Jews. So Christians already existed in a Jewish form, before any historical Jesus was on the scene. You see what I mean? Jewish Christians where pre-existing to Jesus and the non-Jewish Christians.

 

Mary gave her son the name Joshua (Yeshua, Jesus) because she was told, the story goes, "he will save his people from their sins."

Here's another interesting info I heard. Jesus was a very common name, and so was Mary. Maybe Jesus mom was called Mary or not. Who knows. But superstitious people through the ages have had this notion that their little kids is very special and will save the world.

 

I think this is a very respectable position to take for those who do not allow supernatural elements to the story. While I respect the views of those who do not believe in a historical Jesus, I simply cannot see their position as a viable one.

But do observe that I'm not conceding that this historical character labeled Jesus necessarily even gave any sermon on the mount, or healed people. Those things could be legends added to their hero.

 

Maybe that was what Paul got as a revelation? That this killed Jesus was resurrected to the Heavens - in spirit, and did "in fact" (according to his newly found belief) rescue the Jews, but not only from the Romans, but from sin and eternal damnation. (Just an idea)

Very well could be.

And also understand I don't think one minute that Paul was right, or that Jesus really spiritually rose from the dead and went to heaven. That has to be taken by faith. But what's interesting is that this "spiritual Jesus" idea fits with other theories. There are mythicists that are certain that Paul doesn't talk about Jesus as a physical person, but as a spiritual being only. And the later believers changed the understanding from spiritual/non-physical to physical, but it wasn't Paul's real intention.

[Ouroboros]

It is interesting that we have but one account of Jesus writing, in the dirt as the woman caught in adultery is brought before him. (And this account is not in the most ancient manuscripts.)

It's a very strange passage. I always wondered why even the story teller gives this piece of information? And who was the eyewitness to this story? Was he one of the stoners?

 

Jesus not writing brings me to a theory: Maybe he did not write down his views because he did not want a "cult of the written word" to spring up? (I guess that happened anyway.)

Maybe he didn't write but drew pictures. Artist Jesus.

 

He did say, if one believes the quote from the gospels, that the Holy Spirit would bring everything to the remembrance of the disciples. Either the fabricators of the hero myth threw that in there in order to explain how they knew so much -- or he really did say that, there really is a Holy Spirit (Blasphemy Challenge to the contrary) and the Spirit brought to mind the core of Jesus' monologues.

Well, that is based on belief, and if it even was true, how can one know for sure which one listened exactly word-by-word from the Holy Spirit, and who was a bad listener and just wrote down cool stuff? I mean, I was Christian for 30 years and even if I would have decided to write down what "The Spirit says", I would be in some doubt of it's accuracy.

 

And there's always the view that an oral culture is much better at remembering what was said that a written culture.

Sure. The traditions were different back then, and it's interesting that exactly the same things happened in other religions. Many of the old stories are based on oral tradition, which doesn't make them true. Maybe fairly accurate remembered, but still added to. We've talked about it before on this site, and I think it's very conceivable that when this oral story moved from one city to the next, people that accepted the story amended it with their own little flavor and insertion of their own views and religious ideas. Not big changes, but small ones. Over time this became a larger and more elaborate story than it originally was. Maybe the original story was more like Gospel of Thomas?

 

The temptation in the desert could easily have been told by Jesus to his disciples. If you think about it, we have in the gospels maybe 1% of what Jesus said in his entire life. Very little, actually. Who knows what the other 99% of his words were about. Maybe he was telling of these stories, whether their were lies (as some might believe) or truths (as I believe).

Here's another interesting side to the desert story. When you deprive yourself of food for an extended time and live in isolation like that, it's very easy that the person becomes delusional and see visions. There are also plants in the desert that are hallucinogenic. Now, who can really for sure say this isn't what happened? Maybe it was simply the story from a drug induced hallucination?

[Mythra]

I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask which Jesus is the one who was a genius? Was it the Jesus who said:

 

Blessed are those who mourn,

for they will be comforted.

 

Or

 

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Or

 

If you fast, you will beget a sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do an evil to your spirits.

 

Or

 

Jesus said: If you fast not from the world, you will not find the kingdom; if you keep not the Sabbath as Sabbath, you will not see the Father.

 

Or

 

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

 

Or

 

May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

 

Or

 

Where there are three deities, they are divine. Where there are two or one, I am with that one

 

Or

 

So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

 

Either Jesus is a collection of writings from various people’s imaginations, or he was a complete nut.

[Mythra]

And what about the “genius jesus” teaching method of using parables??

 

From Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God:

 

Jesus says that he speaks in parables because the people, they just don’t understand anything else. But the parables are often foggy and meaningless. And Jesus is snippy when even the disciples don’t get them. He says to them “If you don’t understand this parable, then how can you understand any parable?” and “Are you incapable of understanding?” I kept thinking “Don’t teach in parables, then! It’s not working! Even your staff doesn’t understand them! Why don’t you just say what you mean?”

[Mythra]

Yeah. Jesus was a genius alright.

 

Such a genius that he presented a message from god that was so convoluted and ambiguous that it immediately scattered his followers into a hundred different groups, and like the big bang universe, it just keeps on expanding, with his minions getting further and further apart in their ideas and wacky ways.

 

Sheer genius.

[Dave]

....And btw, CC, how can we know what Jesus experience in the desert with Satan is a true story? Did Jesus tell his disciples what happened, or did someone go with him? If Jesus was a charlatan, would his retelling of the Satan challenge be true?

 

Don't forget there has been at least a dozen other god figures that have claimed similar experiences as this "temptation." It's part of the common theme that runs in many religions; virgin birth, foster father a carpenter, speaking and claiming to be something special as a newborn, having some sort of baptism, preaching against the prevailing rulers, healings and other miracles, a temptation, persecution with a grisly death, and being reborn 3 days later. And all of these gods are older than the christian version.

[Dave]

Jesus not writing brings me to a theory: Maybe he did not write down his views because he did not want a "cult of the written word" to spring up? (I guess that happened anyway.)

 

Just apply Occam's Razor here; the simplest answer is usually the best one. Jesus left no writings because he did not exist.

 

The temptation in the desert could easily have been told by Jesus to his disciples. If you think about it, we have in the gospels maybe 1% of what Jesus said in his entire life.....

 

Yet you believe it without question. The temptation bit is a part of many other religions. It is not new and could have been included in any writing and the people of the time would have been familiar with it.

[Ouroboros]

Don't forget there has been at least a dozen other god figures that have claimed similar experiences as this "temptation." It's part of the common theme that runs in many religions; virgin birth, foster father a carpenter, speaking and claiming to be something special as a newborn, having some sort of baptism, preaching against the prevailing rulers, healings and other miracles, a temptation, persecution with a grisly death, and being reborn 3 days later. And all of these gods are older than the christian version.

Yup. And I wanted to write about that, but too little time. I heard something about that Zeus (I think) was also tempted and lifted to a mountaintop by his adversary (Pan?).

[Dave]

Yup. And I wanted to write about that, but too little time. I heard something about that Zeus (I think) was also tempted and lifted to a mountaintop by his adversary (Pan?).

 

I don't think it was Pan, but there is that war between Zeus and Typhon where Zeus picked up Mt. Aetna and dropped it on Typhon. He's still under there too, once in awhile he tries to get out and makes the mountain shudder and spew lava. True story!

[Ouroboros]

That must've hurt. Maybe the whole "stone"-ing thing started there? Zeus the ultimate stoner. I wonder if they in societies where they stone people to death, do they ever compete in how big rocks they can throw? Like:

 

Bob - Look I got this big rock

 

Don - Cool. Look, I got one with edges.

 

Shudder, awful thought...

 

Once I saw a real stoning on video, and it ain't pretty.

[Vigile]

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree there. The genius was not Jesus, but the people that wrote about him, because they could add and remove to make their "hero" fit what they wanted to be true, and what would "sell" better in the religious marketplace.

 

I'll take that thought and go a step further. What genius are we even talking about? Hell, I've read more inspiring, more enlightened posts from members on this board than I ever read from Matt, Luke, Mark or Jimbo. Seriously. Unless you are reading the sermon on the mount with rose colored, green, mauve and amber speckled glasses, you won't find anything profound that can't also be uncovered by common sense.

[Vigile]

He did say, if one believes the quote from the gospels, that the Holy Spirit would bring everything to the remembrance of the disciples.

 

Ah, you see here, I keep getting drug back into this debate even though I said I would bow out so as not to detract anymore from the OP. But CC, your insistance on spin is just so darn exasperating. You stated the other day that you believe based on evidence even though I had insisted that you believe based on faith, and faith alone. Well, your evidence is in fact the gospel accounts is it not? And here you go making a leap of, now brace yourself, faith that those gospel accounts are accurate because a holy spook assured you.

[Dave]

That must've hurt. Maybe the whole "stone"-ing thing started there? Zeus the ultimate stoner. I wonder if they in societies where they stone people to death, do they ever compete in how big rocks they can throw? Like:

 

Bob - Look I got this big rock

 

Don - Cool. Look, I got one with edges.

 

Shudder, awful thought...

 

Once I saw a real stoning on video, and it ain't pretty.

I think they're supposed to use small rocks to make it last longer.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree there. The genius was not Jesus, but the people that wrote about him, because they could add and remove to make their "hero" fit what they wanted to be true, and what would "sell" better in the religious marketplace.

 

I'll take that thought and go a step further. What genius are we even talking about? Hell, I've read more inspiring, more enlightened posts from members on this board than I ever read from Matt, Luke, Mark or Jimbo. Seriously. Unless you are reading the sermon on the mount with rose colored, green, mauve and amber speckled glasses, you won't find anything profound that can't also be uncovered by common sense.

Put it this way. Is Windows a creation of genius? Not quite, in my opinion. Linux is far better. But why is it so successful? Because of smart marketing and smart business models. And who developed those ideas? Bill Gates and his staff of pretty smart business people.

 

So what I'm saying is that the genius in Christianity isn't the message or the supposed messenger, but the compiler, the people that assembled the stories and created the religion.

[Mythra]

And, lets not forget Jesus' profound teachings that no one finds worthy of putting into practice:

 

"If someone hits you in the face, turn your face the other way, so they can hit you on that side too"

 

"If someone demands your money, give him your ATM card with PIN number also"

 

"Fuck your dead father's funeral. Let the dead bury their own dead. Follow me now or fuck off"

 

"Forget savings accounts. They are a waste of time. Give everything you have to the lady you see there pushing the shopping cart down the street"

 

"if you can't abandon your family, don't bother trying to follow me. You're not worthy of following me."

 

"I'm going away now. But, don't worry. I'm just going to the store for a carton of milk. I'll be right back"

 

Sheer fucking genius.

[currentchristian]

We only drag you out and get you stoned.

Well that hasn't happened to me since before I had my "born again" experience at age 16, but I used to enjoy it. Never more, quote the raven.

Right. They expected a person being the Joshua Messiah (anointed savior), and they had several. History say there were a bunch of zealots that tried to rescue the Jews from the Romans. Now these people could be called Messianic Jews, or in Greek: Christianic (Christian) Jews. So Christians already existed in a Jewish form, before any historical Jesus was on the scene. You see what I mean? Jewish Christians where pre-existing to Jesus and the non-Jewish Christians.

They expected a Messiah or Christ, but I'm not sure about a Joshua. Maybe they did. Hmmm?

 

But do observe that I'm not conceding that this historical character labeled Jesus necessarily even gave any sermon on the mount, or healed people. Those things could be legends added to their hero.

Oh, yes, I got that.

 

And also understand I don't think one minute that Paul was right, or that Jesus really spiritually rose from the dead and went to heaven. That has to be taken by faith. But what's interesting is that this "spiritual Jesus" idea fits with other theories. There are mythicists that are certain that Paul doesn't talk about Jesus as a physical person, but as a spiritual being only. And the later believers changed the understanding from spiritual/non-physical to physical, but it wasn't Paul's real intention.

There seemed to be a tension in first decades after the (for the sake of this conversation) alleged resurrection between those who felt it was spiritual and those who felt it was physical. The orthodox position is that the resurrected Jesus had a physical body that could eat and walk around but also was spiritual and could materialize behind closed doors.

 

I hope that's the kind of body I end up with, too. That would be great!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

It is interesting that we have but one account of Jesus writing, in the dirt as the woman caught in adultery is brought before him. (And this account is not in the most ancient manuscripts.)

It's a very strange passage. I always wondered why even the story teller gives this piece of information? And who was the eyewitness to this story? Was he one of the stoners?

 

I always imagine he was writing down the names of women with whom the men in the crowd ready to stone to death this poor woman had committed the same sin. Or just their hidden sins in general. After writing, he then allows any "without sin" to "cast the first stone." No one is able to.

 

I've also wondered if she was "caught in the very act of adultery," where was the man? "The very act" means a man was somewhere, right?

 

-CC