Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[currentchristian]

It's not a full explanation, by any means. Just, perhaps, part of one.

 

The problem is, it's a passage and an explanation that violates your own concept and claim of what Jesus is: loving, forgiving, understanding, caring, patient, kind.

 

Your Jesus would have said:

 

"Sure, I understand. Go ahead and bury your dad. I'm terribly sorry for your loss. You can catch up to us in the next town. Go with God, my friend."

 

I wonder why the authors made up this story if it puts their hero Jesus in such a bad light, then?

 

I have learned that sometimes a teacher must be tough, hard as nails, never backing down one inch -- in order to truly teach. I have no arguments with Jesus' pedagogy. None at all. Truly.

 

-CC

[Dave]

Much of this can be understood by the urgency of the moment. If he was the ambassador of heaven, here for just a short time, he didn't have time to coddle and wait around for funerals and setting up trust funds. There was business at hand and a short time in which to conduct it. Give the guy a break.

No way. That isn't even a very good rationalization. Come on... the guy was supposed to be a god, an omniscient, omnipotent, one at that. If I was a god I could have done better.

 

Try. Let's see what you can come up with.

 

They'd at least know my name and birth date.

 

There is no indication biblically that the avatar known as Jesus was omniscient or omnipotent.....

 

Not a very good try. It was supposed to be the god and it could have done better.

 

Doesn't the cognitive dissonance of having to keep up this stuff ever get to you?

[currentchristian]

My point is that even stripped of all supernaturalism, the existence of Jesus seems historically validated.

Only by those that need to believe he existed. Outside of biblical circles, there is no historical "validation" that he existed.

Are you saying.....

 

That line is ALWAYS followed by a strawman argument. Come on, you should know by now that those kind of arguments won't work on me, or anyone else here. How can there be a "validation" for a person that there isn't any evidence that he even existed? The bible is NOT a valid source of information so don't even try that one since even you admit that parts are not true. It's a religious text, not a historical one.

 

I find it interesting that you won't clarify your positions, when asked to do so. Someone here once asked you to try being more verbose. I agree. Your positions are sometimes hard to understand. It might just be that little ole me is so much dumber than big ole you, but whatever the reason it seems to me that you make grossly generalized statements and when asked to clarify begin yelling "STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!" and refuse to clarify your views. I suppose that's the easiest way to avoid admitting to a generalization not supported by the facts?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

They'd at least know my name and birth date.

That's true.

 

Doesn't the cognitive dissonance of having to keep up this stuff ever get to you?

In all honesty, I feel no cognitive dissonance at all. I really don't.

 

-CC

[Dave]

I find it interesting that you won't clarify your positions, when asked to do so.

 

I find it interesting that you continue with these attempts to shift the burden of proof.

 

Someone here once asked you to try being more verbose. I agree. Your positions are sometimes hard to understand.

Then don't come back with strawman arguments, ask for clarification instead. If you come back with a string of logical fallacies I get frustrated and give sarcastic responses.

 

It might just be that little ole me is so much dumber than big ole you, but whatever the reason it seems to me that you make grossly generalized statements and when asked to clarify begin yelling "STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!" and refuse to clarify your views. I suppose that's the easiest way to avoid admitting to a generalization not supported by the facts?

 

Let's see now... you dislike your strawman arguments being called strawman arguments, you dislike generalizations not supported by facts yet that is your main form of argument. Did I get that right? You claim there is sufficient evidence to claim a character in a mythology existed, yet have failed to present any such evidence. Oh, you've piled on the claims, but no evidence. I'm sure there are thousands of scholars out there that would like to see that evidence, so pretend we're from Missouri and show us.

[Dave]

In all honesty, I feel no cognitive dissonance at all. I really don't.

 

To quote a famous character from the future; "Fascinating."

[Ouroboros]

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?

It's just so similar to how some eastern countries handle rape victims and adultery too. The woman is guilty and the man is innocent. It's awful.

[Vigile]

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.

 

I don't know about that. Jesus' teachings are the opposite of our human, survival-of-the-fittest nature. He asks us to love those who hate us; to bless those who curse us; to treat employees fairly; to overturn evil with good not with guns; to love life more than money; to be wary of power and greed and money.

 

Now of course only about two dozen people in history have lived out this vision, but it was profound, especially to a small group under the boot of the Roman Empire.

 

-CC

 

No, lots of people have lived this out, they just end up getting swept under the rug and beaten down by those who ignore this stellar advice. They are called the meek and they have not inherited the earth.

[Vigile]

Probably the most notable example would be Gandhi.

 

Oh, wait. He wasn't a christian.

 

Nevermind.

 

But he did study, extensively, the teachings of Jesus.

 

That's not to say, at all, that one must know about Jesus to be holy. Holiness of character is found in all peoples, without regard to religion or lack thereof.

 

-CC

 

Ghandi studied Thoreau as much or more than Jesus. And HDT was no xian.

 

There have also been, I would note, many would be ghandis in the US. They haven't made much of a dent in their struggles against war and greed.

 

Now note, just because I argue that the methods of the ghandis have not been highly effective, does not mean that I'm a supporter of those who choose a more violent means.

[Shaman]

I too am skeptic about the bible. So what about the gospal according to judas? It was written 200 years after jesus death? so it can not be possible that judas wrote that gospal.. if only the gospal of judas was dated around the time of them 4 authors of the bible, there would be a 5th author to the bible with the same anonymous reference and that the authors of the bible is not who it saids to be the writer in comparison to the gospal of judas. It is then concludes that the bible is a good bed time story. IT is only that men takes it, blow it out of proportion and makes a religion out of it.

 

so according to the bible of judas, the 12 men who were with jesus asked him who he really is but he smiled and laugh...he smiled and laugh when they were eating their last supper meal and the food were a sacrafice to the god of the old testament. So who really is this jesus? Judas know since he talked privately to jesus and that he is not from this world and is not the son of the god of the old testament. Jesus god spirit came to him when he was baptized and it was judas who had to lead jesus to his death to help him void of this godly spirit within himself...so what was jesus last word again before he died?..something like "father, why have you forsaken me" it is as though his godly spirit have left him before he died and judas made it happen...If jesus was alive today, he too will smile and laugh at all the christians for they are praying to the wrong god.

[currentchristian]

I get frustrated and give sarcastic responses.

An important admission. Thank you.

 

... I'm sure there are thousands of scholars out there that would like to see that evidence, so pretend we're from Missouri and show us.

I am from Missouri, originally, and I refer you to the "Did Jesus Exist?" topic and the poll that lists probably two dozen other threads in GTI on the same topic. But none of that will convince you of anything. Not that it should or that I care if you or anyone else is convinced of anything as I believe in absolute liberty to think what one chooses to think.

 

Are we at our twice-weekly impasse again, Dave?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Ghandi studied Thoreau as much or more than Jesus. And HDT was no xian.

 

There have also been, I would note, many would be ghandis in the US. They haven't made much of a dent in their struggles against war and greed.

 

Now note, just because I argue that the methods of the ghandis have not been highly effective, does not mean that I'm a supporter of those who choose a more violent means.

 

Your point brings up a terrific example of cross-pollination.

 

HDT, that great New England observer of human nature and the natural world becomes a teacher to Gandhi, that Mahatma (Great Soul) of India. Gandhi then becomes a teacher of the Georgia-born Martin Luther King. A wonderful circle it is filled by great minds.

 

Now, we need thousands more Thoreaus, Gandhis and Kings in every country on our little planet and we'll get something done!

 

-CC

[Dave]

I get frustrated and give sarcastic responses.

An important admission. Thank you.

It should have been obvious; you give me an argument that is insulting to my intelligence and you expect a friendly reply?

I am from Missouri, originally, and I refer you to the "Did Jesus Exist?" topic and the poll that lists probably two dozen other threads in GTI on the same topic. But none of that will convince you of anything. Not that it should or that I care if you or anyone else is convinced of anything as I believe in absolute liberty to think what one chooses to think.

 

Are we at our twice-weekly impasse again, Dave?

 

You mean you are bailing out because you can't answer the hard questions. I've looked at those threads and you do not have what you claimed. There is no evidence that this jesus ever existed. An amalgamation of several people? Possible, but I doubt it. Made up by Q or some one else as in the style of Joseph Smith? Probably.

[mwc]

About point 1: Who was it then who talked about the Phoenix? Some church father, I know. I thought it was Papias, too?

I'd have to check but I'm not quite feeling up to the task at the moment.

 

About point 2: But Jesus' kingdom was not of this world. There's the rub. Alex's was. And Alex's kingdom no longer exists. Jesus' kingdom does. (If one is a believer, of course.)

Well, you're the one who said that jesus has lots of things to do, a short amount of time to do them and to give him a break. I gave you an example of a human archetype that did one hell of a lot in the same time span as jesus...and he did it several hundred years prior (so we can't say Alex used a better technology or some other "cheat" jesus the man couldn't do).

 

It's not about setting up a physical kingdom but accomplishing goals. Alex did just that. Jesus could have too. In addition, according to the histories that we have, another leader that is a bit more contemporary with jesus, felt so bad when he compared himself to old Alex that he took it upon himself to correct this and, he too, accomplished many great goals and became a mighty leader as a result. Jesus was, supposedly, born into the legacy of this very man. The difference, if we choose to include it, is that one had an eternity to plan and the others didn't (I'll leave it to the reader to figure out who I am speaking of here).

 

So, given all of this, it doesn't matter if it's setting up an empire or stacking blocks upon one another. The point is that, at least two greats came before him and accomplished nearly unimaginable goals...one within the exact same length of time that jesus supposedly lived (imagine that...they lived to the same age...must be coincidence), but I am to give the supposed greater of the two (or three) a break? Surely, you're smoking something on your end because that makes no sense whatsoever. What would make me give a god-man a break but not a simple human?

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

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

This temptation is nothing new CC. This tells me that there is a psychological meaning to them whether they happened or not.

 

As Siddhartha was reaching Enlightenment, a demon-king called Mara sent an army to attack him. When the army reached Siddhartha, the demon-king challenged his generosity, goodness and piety.

 

Siddhartha called upon the Earth as a witness to his virtues. The Earth goddess acknowledged his virtues and the army of the demon-king fled when they realised Siddhartha's great power.

The demon-king then sent his three daughters to dance for Siddhartha. However, he would not be distracted and the women left him alone.

link

 

The demons are of earthly desires and are applicable to everyone. They aren't real live demons that exist apart from yourself. The same with Jesus.

 

It is very possible that both Jesus and Buddha Siddhartha went into the wilderness to overcome desires. This is an everyday occurance for people of the Hindu belief.

 

The point is to "be the Buddha" or "be the Christ", not to follow. This isn't something that we look to as something happening to someone else that was divine. It's a life lesson.

[NotBlinded]

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?”

Because language is limited to what is known. When someone tries to speak about feelings or the unknown, they usually use symbols and metaphors and when they aren't understood as such, then the symbols and metaphors are taken directly as truth instead as referents because of the limitation of language.

 

He spoke, IMO, the only way someone can about the unknown and look what happened. How else can one talk about feelings if they don't start out by saying, "It's like..."?

[currentchristian]

It should have been obvious; you give me an argument that is insulting to my intelligence and you expect a friendly reply?

 

Why, yes, now that you ask.

 

-CC

[NotBlinded]

About point 2: But Jesus' kingdom was not of this world. There's the rub. Alex's was. And Alex's kingdom no longer exists. Jesus' kingdom does. (If one is a believer, of course.)

 

-CC

Jesus' kingdom is in the world but unseen because of wordly desires. The kingdom of heaven is in you, or amongst you. The Gospel of Thomas makes it even more clear. The kingdom isn't out there apart from this world unless you chose not to see it. It's that separation that makes people look at you crazy.

[NotBlinded]

If Jebus existed, he would not have wasted time speaking in riddles and would not have let his religion dissolve into feuding sects. He would guide his church and would make sure everyone had a clear idea of his message. But that is not so.

 

Yeah. Genius. Right

Only if you equate existing with him being a god.

[currentchristian]

mwc, Alex was completely tied to this world. Jesus was not. Their goals were quite different. One stored up treasure on the earth and the other in the heavens.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Because language is limited to what is known. When someone tries to speak about feelings or the unknown, they usually use symbols and metaphors and when they aren't understood as such, then the symbols and metaphors are taken directly as truth instead as referents because of the limitation of language.

 

He spoke, IMO, the only way someone can about the unknown and look what happened. How else can one talk about feelings if they don't start out by saying, "It's like..."?

 

 

Interesting take on it. -CC

[Dave]

Because language is limited to what is known. When someone tries to speak about feelings or the unknown, they usually use symbols and metaphors and when they aren't understood as such, then the symbols and metaphors are taken directly as truth instead as referents because of the limitation of language....

 

Often the meaning of the language used gets diluted over time. Such is with the "parables." They are not so hard to understand if you figure out what the metaphors and symbols of the day were when they were written down.

 

For instance, the parable of the fig tree with no fruit.

 

6. Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

 

8. " 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

 

The fig tree represents Israel. The fig tree has always been special in the bible because of the shape of it's leaves; a circumcised penis and scrotum. God is the owner of the vineyard that wants to cut down the fig tree because not enough people are worshiping it. Jesus is asking to let him "fertilize" or get new converts and if he doesn't have enough by next year the god can then go ahead and destroy Israel thereby ending the world which is what Luke is saying is going to happen real soon anyway.

 

There's no secret language there once one understands what's going on. And once you understand, you can't believe in it any more.

[NotBlinded]

This was my error. It seems that this wasn't speaking about the unknown or feelings, but a metaphor for Isreal instead of something that has a supernatural element.

 

I forgot the cultural element and with that I am also reminded of the times in which these things were written and who put them together.

 

They were in a closed system where outsiders were not of God, so they put their ideas into what they thought God was and what God meant to them. It is part of all mythologies and that is why it is no longer applicable to us. These parts are antiquated and can't be believed as literal truth because we know these things won't happen and the boundries have moved to include the entire world. These are the parts that can be understood in a cultural context, but not in something that will happen. All of the parts where people speak about knowing what God will do has to be dismissed, IMO. There are still parts that do have spiritual value, they just has to be searched out.

 

When taken as a literal occurance, many things that Jesus said will contradict each other. The compilers obviously didn't catch all the contradictions when trying to make Jesus appear as something he wasn't. That is why, I think, that there are still parts in there that make sense on a spiritual level. But when taken on a spiritual level, contradictions won't matter because they are speaking about feelings and experiences, so it doesn't matter how many here or there. They just chose to take a literal path for power thereby rendering it useless and petty.

 

These are parts that I would dismiss as ignorance on anyone's behalf that believes it to be true. Repent or be destroyed?? Literally?? By God??? Bullshit. I can understand it if it meant that it would be self-destruction (which I happen to think the original intent was speaking about people's lives in other instances), but by God? Not.

 

I think they wanted people to think that way and screwed everything up that Jesus (if real/the man) was trying to say. I would think the Gospels that didn't make it would have more credibility.

 

Thanks Dave

[mwc]

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.

Of course. And, so there is, I assume, at least one person who took a look and noticed it didn't quite add up. That being the case, the whole thing really just isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The story harmonization you gave is a familiar one but it really is just a harmonization. It doesn't work when critically analyzed.

 

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.)

I think it's in the (Babylonian?) Talmud where the Jews really just do the same with their opposition over and over again. It seems to be part and parcel of how they dispatch their opponents (at least in the older writings). This is why, after I've read a number of these other items, I can see the way jesus is behaving is nothing special.

 

As for why his own family would consider him "amiss" one needs to consider the entire story. If we consider the entire four gospels as having happened, then we are to believe that both Mary and Joseph were informed, by angels, of his "special" condition. How likely is it that they would then go from that position in early in his life, to that when he is 12 in the temple, to perhaps he is possible not all there mentally? How likely is it that they kept these things absolutely secret considering the events that supposedly surrounded his birth (his cousins father being mute then not, the angels at the birth, and so on)? All the signs and events that happen during the nativity story that are "forgotten" later on just do not add up. It's sloppy story telling. There are mothers out there that have "miracle" babies right now (via science) and will not alter their opinion on their child no matter what they do. Having gone through what Mary and Joseph supposedly did (speaking with angels directly)...no parent would suddenly decide their child was crazy (nor let their other children make the accusation).

 

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."

Actually, it's not as open to interpretation as you might think. Here's just one website that can explain it (the Jewish websites are quite informative but this one spells it out nicely as I recall...I hope I picked the right one...it's loading slow for me. ).

 

The basic gist is that, if jesus was a Rabbi, then he would argue a certain way. That means he would use their terminology. So "destroy" and "fulfill" mean different things to them than to us. To "fulfill" is would basically be to "explain" the Law properly and not to "abolish" or "do away with" the Law. Even jesus states this basic case when he says he doesn't want to change the Law.

 

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.

Rome was already "down" on them. Just really not on Galilee. They still had a Herod there. Jesus was up North. He only came to Jerusalem for Passover each year of his ministry (one to three times depending on the gospel). So why would the Temple rulers care about him at all? He wasn't in their territory except about one week each year (or once total...again depending which gospel story you wish to accept).

 

They were separated by the Samaritan territory and they had their own holy mountain and their own holy rites. So the Judean Jews had "challengers" to their authority right next door without jesus even being in the picture. This is, of course, ignoring the Essenes and their own High Priest. The "other" messiahs. The Romans, who had ultimate authority where the Temple was, and all these other pesky problems that made jesus IN GALILEE a non-issue to anyone in Jerusalem.

 

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.

If Paul was exactly what Acts says he was then there would be NO friction. The "spirit" in Acts would make sure of that. So the Acts hypothesis can be discounted.

 

The epileptic hypothesis makes sense but there are many other types of seizures and brain related illness that can produce a similar type of "vision" or sensation. There's no way to know if this is the case but based on other writings it isn't entirely impossible. As for seeing "Jesus" or A jesus, this isn't unreasonable. We don't know what jesus meant to him really.

 

The "opportunist" hypothesis can be seen in daily events then and now. Not just in religious circles but most anywhere. If there is a way for someone to make money from others then there will be someone to do so. This is certainly not a far fetched idea. To look at it as if Paul is incapable is disingenuous. We don't know Paul. We know what Paul says about Paul and it is uneven at best. Because Paul claims to be doing the work of someone that you personally hold in high esteem does NOT place Paul in that same category by default. Just like the anonymous books you hold dear...they don't get a free pass while other anonymous works do not...yet this is what happens. Not just with you but with many others...believers and not. I'm just coming at all these items from another direction is all.

 

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.

Truth can be stranger than fiction. I agree. Just look at the mess with the whole Iraqi thing. The whole "twisting" (I'm being kind) of fact that happened prior to the events in 2003 and the way the information basically went in a "loop" to show how it was "true" and yet it was all falsified. It all looked real but we now know better (many of us suspected as much then but that's neither here nor there). Reality can be manufactured and if no one ever checked then this administration's reality would have been the reality for all time. Their "cover" story was the "easy" story. It made sense. The real story is very convoluted. It's hard to follow and it's confusing. Why would anyone believe the real story over the cover? The answer is, of course, because that's what REALLY happened.

 

So, you're right, in that my attempts to explain what happened 2000 years ago are a bit more complicated than your version. They aren't as "easy." There just might be a reason for that though.

 

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!!

Well, I do enjoy discussing these things. I expect you to defend your beliefs, and I'd be very surprised if you didn't, and I do learn from all of this. It helps that I enjoy history and archaeology because I think otherwise the religious aspect alone would end up causing me to get quite angry (it used to until I gained the appreciation for the other things...now I can appreciate these discussions on several levels).

 

mwc

[mwc]

mwc, Alex was completely tied to this world. Jesus was not. Their goals were quite different. One stored up treasure on the earth and the other in the heavens.

But you're missing my point. 33 years is 33 years. You wanted to give jesus a break for a time constraint in getting things done. Both Alex and Jesus had the same length of time to do things. One built an empire (a lot of "things") and one rambled around Judea (few "things") in the same 33 years. If one is also an eternal "god" then he fails even more in the planning department as he is now totally unconstrained by time.

 

So Alex does lots of "things" in about 33 years. No giving him a "break." Jesus does few "things" in the same allotment and you want us to give him a "break." I say "sorry" to old jesus. He should have planned better if he couldn't properly complete his tasks in the allotted time.

 

mwc