Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[mwc]

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?

As you said, this tale isn't in the oldest manuscripts, and it's actually, as I recall, been in copies of Luke at times. It gets around (like the woman supposedly did ). It's simply made up. A later insertion that doesn't belong in critical texts.

 

A quick reading shows this to be the case. Why bring her to jesus? Why even care what he says? He's simply not that important but the authors want him to be. Bringing the women is merely an opportunity, like so many others, for jesus to "do" something. In this case it's to give his piece of wisdom that everyone is equally "sinful." Beyond that we can see that at the end of the story everyone is gone but then jesus addresses people. How? They suddenly return? He runs outside? The story is inserted is how.

 

But why does jesus write? To show his general disinterest in what's going on. He's going on about his business, so to speak, since this "case" is such a non-issue to his mighty power of reasoning. He's the next Solomon. He could have been tap-dancing for all it matters but writing is a bit "smarter."

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

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

 

Gosh, I don't even remember what I meant when I said "give him a break." Likely I was being offhanded, not necessarily to be taken literally. I don't remember.

 

Alex had an army behind him and was born into privilege and power. Jesus had no earthly army, no earthly privilege and no earthly power. Remember the story goes that he "emptied himself" and "humbled himself" and "became a man."

 

But if being remembered has anything to do with the measure of what one accomplishes in life, Jesus wins by a country mile. But it's really an unimportant issue, I think.

 

-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?

As you said, this tale isn't in the oldest manuscripts, and it's actually, as I recall, been in copies of Luke at times. It gets around (like the woman supposedly did ). It's simply made up. A later insertion that doesn't belong in critical texts.

 

A quick reading shows this to be the case. Why bring her to jesus? Why even care what he says? He's simply not that important but the authors want him to be. Bringing the women is merely an opportunity, like so many others, for jesus to "do" something. In this case it's to give his piece of wisdom that everyone is equally "sinful." Beyond that we can see that at the end of the story everyone is gone but then jesus addresses people. How? They suddenly return? He runs outside? The story is inserted is how.

 

But why does jesus write? To show his general disinterest in what's going on. He's going on about his business, so to speak, since this "case" is such a non-issue to his mighty power of reasoning. He's the next Solomon. He could have been tap-dancing for all it matters but writing is a bit "smarter."

 

mwc

 

It is interesting how everyone has a different take on things.

 

This story for me is about compassion, mercy triumphing over law, and an example of the futility of stoning anyone, literally or figuratively, as we're all in the same boat together, more or less alike in most ways.

 

-CC

[mwc]

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.

It is interesting how everyone has a different take on things.

 

This story for me is about compassion, mercy triumphing over law, and an example of the futility of stoning anyone, literally or figuratively, as we're all in the same boat together, more or less alike in most ways.

It doesn't read that way to me when I read what you said above. I bolded that first part but no matter what it reads as blackmail. He's writing down their "deeds" that he's "magically" privy to and they "walk away" like in a movie. I guess I have a different definition of mercy.

 

I'm saying that he simply points out the irony of sinners stoning sinners. People in glass houses and all. They catch his point and leave. It's not about adultery or stoning. A sin is a sin to him after all. Again, the solution is so "simple" he doesn't even need to "work" at it.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

It doesn't read that way to me when I read what you said above. I bolded that first part but no matter what it reads as blackmail. He's writing down their "deeds" that he's "magically" privy to and they "walk away" like in a movie. I guess I have a different definition of mercy.

 

I'm saying that he simply points out the irony of sinners stoning sinners. People in glass houses and all. They catch his point and leave. It's not about adultery or stoning. A sin is a sin to him after all. Again, the solution is so "simple" he doesn't even need to "work" at it.

 

mwc

 

Revealing to the men determined to stone the woman that they, too, are sinners, is an act of mercy. Helping someone understand truth and get down from their high-horse is an act of compassion and love and kindness and mercy.

 

Everyone sees things differently, though.

 

-CC

[Dave]

.....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.

 

Don't be so quick to rationalize the eschatology of the bible. They actually believed the world, the physical world and not any "spiritual" world, was going to end. It's a running theme throughout the whole NT and was a prevalent idea at the time.

 

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

 

I don't see any of the bible as having any credibility. As I've said several times; why bother with it? It's full of contradictions, full of lies, full of out dated thinking and a mediocre, at best, source of morals. You can get far better teachings from many modern books - and get it all without all that god stuff mucking it up.

[currentchristian]

...

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.

HanSolo, Thought very much of you when I read this last evening from Eusebius's The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (Book 1, Chapter 3). This seems to be what you were saying that I could not get my mind around. Is this what you mean?

 

-CC

 

Chapter 3.

The Name Jesus and also the Name Christ were known from the Beginning, and were honored by the Inspired Prophets.

 

1. It is now the proper place to show that the very name Jesus and also the name Christ were honored by the ancient prophets beloved of God.

 

2. Moses was the first to make known the name of Christ as a name especially august and glorious. When he delivered types and symbols of heavenly things, and mysterious images, in accordance with the oracle which said to him, "Look that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown you in the mount," (Exodus 25:40) he consecrated a man high priest of God, in so far as that was possible, and him he called Christ. And thus to this dignity of the high priesthood, which in his opinion surpassed the most honorable position among men, he attached for the sake of honor and glory the name of Christ.

 

3. He knew so well that in Christ was something divine. And the same one foreseeing, under the influence of the divine Spirit, the name Jesus, dignified it also with a certain distinguished privilege. For the name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among men before the time of Moses, he applied first and only to the one who he knew would receive after his death, again as a type and symbol, the supreme command.

 

4. His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another name, Auses, which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honor, far greater than any kingly diadem. For Jesus himself, the son of Nave, bore a resemblance to our Saviour in the fact that he alone, after Moses and after the completion of the symbolical worship which had been transmitted by him, succeeded to the government of the true and pure religion.

 

5. Thus Moses bestowed the name of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, as a mark of the highest honor, upon the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory; namely, upon the high priest and upon his own successor in the government.

 

6. And the prophets that came after also clearly foretold Christ by name, predicting at the same time the plots which the Jewish people would form against him, and the calling of the nations through him. Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as follows: "The Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, was taken in their destructions; of whom we said, under his shadow we shall live among the nations." (Lamentations 4:20) And David, in perplexity, says, "Why did the nations rage and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ"; to which he adds, in the person of Christ himself, "The Lord said unto me, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession."

 

7. And not only those who were honored with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs. For they also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who rules over all.

 

8. And we have been told also that certain of the prophets themselves became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and heavenly Word, who is the only high priest of all, and the only King of every creature, and the Father's only supreme prophet of prophets.

 

9. And a proof of this is that no one of those who were of old symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.

 

10. None of them at least, however superior in dignity and honor they may have been for many generations among their own people, ever gave to their followers the name of Christians from their own typical name of Christ. Neither was divine honor ever rendered to any one of them by their subjects; nor after their death was the disposition of their followers such that they were ready to die for the one whom they honored. And never did so great a commotion arise among all the nations of the earth in respect to any one of that age; for the mere symbol could not act with such power among them as the truth itself which was exhibited by our Saviour.

 

11. He, although he received no symbols and types of high priesthood from any one, although he was not born of a race of priests, although he was not elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although he was not a prophet like those of old, although he obtained no honor nor pre-eminence among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father with all, if not with the symbols, yet with the truth itself.

 

12. And therefore, although he did not possess like honors with those whom we have mentioned, he is called Christ more than all of them. And as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the whole earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians, committing to his followers no longer types and images, but the uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines of truth.

 

13. And he was not anointed with oil prepared from material substances, but, as befits divinity, with the divine Spirit himself, by participation in the unbegotten deity of the Father. And this is taught also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if in the person of Christ himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore has he anointed me. He has sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim deliverance to captives, and recovery of sight to the blind."

 

14. And not only Isaiah, but also David addresses him, saying, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of equity is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hast hated iniquity. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." Here the Scripture calls him God in the first verse, in the second it honors him with a royal scepter.

 

15. Then a little farther on, after the divine and royal power, it represents him in the third place as having become Christ, being anointed not with oil made of material substances, but with the divine oil of gladness. It thus indicates his especial honor, far superior to and different from that of those who, as types, were of old anointed in a more material way.

 

16. And elsewhere the same writer speaks of him as follows: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"; and, "Out of the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten you. The Lord has sworn and he will not repent. You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec."

 

17. But this Melchizedec is introduced in the Holy Scriptures as a priest of the most high God, not consecrated by any anointing oil, especially prepared, and not even belonging by descent to the priesthood of the Jews. Wherefore after his order, but not after the order of the others, who received symbols and types, was our Saviour proclaimed, with an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.

 

18. History, therefore, does not relate that he was anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor that he belonged to the lineage of priests, but that he came into existence from God himself before the morning star, that is before the organization of the world, and that he obtained an immortal and undecaying priesthood for eternal ages.

 

19. But it is a great and convincing proof of his incorporeal and divine unction that he alone of all those who have ever existed is even to the present day called Christ by all men throughout the world, and is confessed and witnessed to under this name, and is commemorated both by Greeks and Barbarians and even to this day is honored as a King by his followers throughout the world, and is admired as more than a prophet, and is glorified as the true and only high priest of God. And besides all this, as the pre-existent Word of God, called into being before all ages, he has received august honor from the Father, and is worshiped as God.

 

20. But most wonderful of all is the fact that we who have consecrated ourselves to him, honor him not only with our voices and with the sound of words, but also with complete elevation of soul, so that we choose to give testimony unto him rather than to preserve our own lives.

 

21. I have of necessity prefaced my history with these matters in order that no one, judging from the date of his incarnation, may think that our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but recently come into being.

[Ouroboros]

Is this what I mean? Yes and no. (I just have to make it complicated, don't I?)

 

You can see that even Eusebius admits that the name Jesus and Christ was used before Jesus came to the scene. So there we agree. But my disagreement with E. is about how and why. He think it is a proof of prophesy, I think it's a proof of midrash and emulation of ideas. Emulation from the Torah, Homer's work and other influences. All of it came together as the Gospels, but it all started with a Jewish cult that believed that Joshua Messiah (Jesus Christ) would come and save them from the Romans, and it evolved into that someone was thought of being this Joshua (probably a historical person that maybe even led insurgencies, or maybe was just very verbal about the Roman oppression) and later on got made to a legend with supernatural powers, only to convince the Greek audience this "savior" was stronger, faster, better and holier than the Greek heroes and gods.

 

--edit--

 

The more I learn the more I understand how it all came together. The Gospels are more of prose than history. I think the word "myth" is too misused and misunderstood to really be used.

[Ouroboros]

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..."?

That even the Gospel writers recognize that Jesus spoke in allegories and parables is a hint to the reader that the stories in general should not be taken literally. Because it shows that Jesus was, according to the Gospels, promoting mysteries. Mystery religions are made exactly that way, you have a story, but the literal meaning doesn't have any meaning, while the underlying intention of the story is what's important, and you can only understand it by either "revelation" or initiated into it. If Jesus in the story is advertising that he's a leader of a mystery religion, then also his followers in generations after would be a mystery religion. And if these people wrote the Gospels, then the Gospels would be written as allegories.

 

I'm just now listening to a podcast interview of Dennis MacDonald who argue that Mark, Luke and Acts got a lot of influence from Homer's epics. Yet Dennis believe in a historical Jesus, but the Gospels are written in a way to show the Pagans how much more powerful Jesus as god and hero was compared to the Pagan gods and heroes.

 

So the ultimate purpose of the stories are (like you and I NBBTB so many times have talked about) not to divulge a historical or literal meaning, but to give the reader or student of this prose a different kind of understanding. And the reason that we many times fail to understand what the real meaning was behind the stories is because mystery religions rarely would write down the true interpretations; they would only hand the interpretations down verbally to the initiates. Much of this is therefore lost and we can only guess. And when it comes to why the allegories and stories are so hard to interpret it has to do with the time and culture gap we have between us and the people 2000 years ago. For instance when Jesus (supposedly) walked on water, or did certain miracles, the readers would immediately know what kind of stories in their culture it referred to, or emulated.

 

It would be something like me writing a story about Joe Mush, that was a president over a free and prosperous country, and he started a war with Yrak, and mostly everyone would get it. They would understand that my story wasn't a real story per se, but it is reflecting on a real story. It's a rewriting into prose, and with it comes some freedom of the artist to introduce stories and components from other sources. That's it contains material from the Jewish culture, Roman and Greek culture and religion etc. It's basically reinventing the stories in the light of this new god, using the existing and known material.

 

This is how the Gospels can be described: a literary work where the memory of Jesus was shaped through a conscious fiction to show the esteem they had for their "savior".

[Lycorth]

I'm just now listening to a podcast interview of Dennis MacDonald who argue that Mark, Luke and Acts got a lot of influence from Homer's epics. Yet Dennis believe in a historical Jesus, but the Gospels are written in a way to show the Pagans how much more powerful Jesus as god and hero was compared to the Pagan gods and heroes.

 

Reminds me of The Saxon Savior.

 

This is how the Gospels can be described: a literary work where the memory of Jesus was shaped through a conscious fiction to show the esteem they had for their "savior".

 

Nicely put, but to me, it seems more like the "concept of Jebus," given the overall lack of historical evidence for Jebus of Nazareth.

[NotBlinded]

Don't be so quick to rationalize the eschatology of the bible. They actually believed the world, the physical world and not any "spiritual" world, was going to end. It's a running theme throughout the whole NT and was a prevalent idea at the time.

I agree that they were literal minded and that is why I think that what he said was misunderstood based on this literal thinking (by most). To this day there are literal minded people that can't understand what he said in any other context and without this alternate context, it is worthless and lacks any sprituality. It makes sense to me that a group of literalists would not understand therefore creating a theme about the end of the world. He wasn't speaking about the end of the physical world, he was speaking about the end of the consciousness being focused on the world. This would create a "new earth"...not a literal new earth. There are just too many instances where he speaks about this world/earth being worldy things and heaven being here just to skip it and take the literalists word for it.

 

There are many people today that can't understand a damn thing any spiritual speaker/teacher says. It won't make any sense at all until they are able to shift their thinking from what was said to what they meant.

 

I guess I just don't have enough faith that they understood anything he said being in the frame of mind he was speaking against.

 

The parable about the 3 women not keeping their lamp burning therefore missing the groom is about, IMO and others, not being present in consciousness. It's like the Zen master that can smack you on the head because you have let your mind wander, whereas, if you were present you would have seen him coming. No different, but literalists take this to mean the literal end of the world!

 

He even said his own disciples didn't understand what he was saying and I believe this to be true.

 

Put this misunderstanding into a greater field of the same misunderstanding with the power to use it as they see fit and we have what is now called the "Word of God", aka, the bible.

 

So, I don't really care what people thought he said from a literal standpoint. It makes much more sense from another perspective.

 

I don't see any of the bible as having any credibility. As I've said several times; why bother with it? It's full of contradictions, full of lies, full of out dated thinking and a mediocre, at best, source of morals. You can get far better teachings from many modern books - and get it all without all that god stuff mucking it up.

That's fine. I just like to see the same thoughts coming from Jesus as did many other spiritual people of all ages. I like that recurring theme in Buddhaism, Hinduism and others. It's all just a matter of preference .

[Lycorth]

I don't see any of the bible as having any credibility. As I've said several times; why bother with it? It's full of contradictions, full of lies, full of out dated thinking and a mediocre, at best, source of morals. You can get far better teachings from many modern books - and get it all without all that god stuff mucking it up.

 

Damn straight - and most other religious texts (save the other Abrahamic ones) offer more noble spiritualities than the Babble could ever hope to do.

 

The whole book is just an irredeemable waste of time.

[NotBlinded]

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..."?

That even the Gospel writers recognize that Jesus spoke in allegories and parables is a hint to the reader that the stories in general should not be taken literally. Because it shows that Jesus was, according to the Gospels, promoting mysteries. Mystery religions are made exactly that way, you have a story, but the literal meaning doesn't have any meaning, while the underlying intention of the story is what's important, and you can only understand it by either "revelation" or initiated into it. If Jesus in the story is advertising that he's a leader of a mystery religion, then also his followers in generations after would be a mystery religion. And if these people wrote the Gospels, then the Gospels would be written as allegories.

 

I'm just now listening to a podcast interview of Dennis MacDonald who argue that Mark, Luke and Acts got a lot of influence from Homer's epics. Yet Dennis believe in a historical Jesus, but the Gospels are written in a way to show the Pagans how much more powerful Jesus as god and hero was compared to the Pagan gods and heroes.

 

So the ultimate purpose of the stories are (like you and I NBBTB so many times have talked about) not to divulge a historical or literal meaning, but to give the reader or student of this prose a different kind of understanding. And the reason that we many times fail to understand what the real meaning was behind the stories is because mystery religions rarely would write down the true interpretations; they would only hand the interpretations down verbally to the initiates. Much of this is therefore lost and we can only guess. And when it comes to why the allegories and stories are so hard to interpret it has to do with the time and culture gap we have between us and the people 2000 years ago. For instance when Jesus (supposedly) walked on water, or did certain miracles, the readers would immediately know what kind of stories in their culture it referred to, or emulated.

 

It would be something like me writing a story about Joe Mush, that was a president over a free and prosperous country, and he started a war with Yrak, and mostly everyone would get it. They would understand that my story wasn't a real story per se, but it is reflecting on a real story. It's a rewriting into prose, and with it comes some freedom of the artist to introduce stories and components from other sources. That's it contains material from the Jewish culture, Roman and Greek culture and religion etc. It's basically reinventing the stories in the light of this new god, using the existing and known material.

 

This is how the Gospels can be described: a literary work where the memory of Jesus was shaped through a conscious fiction to show the esteem they had for their "savior".

Ohhh...that just so rocked Hans!

 

But this:

 

The more I learn the more I understand how it all came together. The Gospels are more of prose than history. I think the word "myth" is too misused and misunderstood to really be used.

 

Myth comes from the same place inside us as art, poetry and song. Prose is art isn't it?

 

Or, do you mean the common misunderstanding that myths are untruths? I'm thinking this is what you meant because, after all, Star Wars is a wonderful myth.

[NotBlinded]

The whole book is just an irredeemable waste of time.

To you maybe...

 

 

[Ouroboros]

This is how the Gospels can be described: a literary work where the memory of Jesus was shaped through a conscious fiction to show the esteem they had for their "savior".

 

Nicely put, but to me, it seems more like the "concept of Jebus," given the overall lack of historical evidence for Jebus of Nazareth.

I think you missed a point in the description, where it says "fiction". The Gospel is a fiction, but it's based on some followers reverence for a leader they wanted to promote as the new divine guru. They wrote the stories to impress the audience. "My god is better than your god, because your god only walked on water, but mine walked on water while there was storm. Hah! Beat that if you can." kind of thing. It wasn't done in a mischievous way, but more as a promotion, or how they write advertising today. They tell the you good parts, exaggerate the good parts, and forget to tell you the bad parts.

 

I can see that there was a form of historical "Jesus", but not in the shape, form, name or actions of the one portrayed in the Gospels.

 

Just look at the Raelian movement. Rael, the leader, his name isn't really Rael, or even The Holiness Rael, but his real name is Claude Vorilhon. He claims to have me aliens, but it has to be taken by faith. Now, his followers believe what he say wholeheartedly, and I bet in 100 years from now, the stories about him will be something like this: "He even walked on water, and healed people by laying his hands on the sick."

 

So does Claude exists historically? Yes. Does Rael? Well, yeah as a symbolic name on a historical figure. Does he do miracles? No, but followers will claim such in the future. (You wanna bet? )

[Ouroboros]

The more I learn the more I understand how it all came together. The Gospels are more of prose than history. I think the word "myth" is too misused and misunderstood to really be used.

 

Myth comes from the same place inside us as art, poetry and song. Prose is art isn't it?

 

Or, do you mean the common misunderstanding that myths are untruths? I'm thinking this is what you meant because, after all, Star Wars is a wonderful myth.

The last part. Today when we say "gay" we mean homosexual, when really the meaning is "happy". Myth is one of those words that changed it's connotation over the ages and it means to most people "untrue", "unreal", "untrustworthy" etc. Basically, they say "myth = fairytale". And I think that's part of the problem of understanding the Bible.

 

Homer's Iliad is a myth, just as much as the Bible is a myth.

Homer's Iliad is prose, just as much as the Bible is prose.

The only difference is that the Iliad isn't trying to express a religious belief, while the Bible does.

The Iliad is not conveying a message, but just a fabulous story, while the Bible is conveying a message or belief as a fabulous story.

 

The more I understand this, the more interesting the Bible become as a story book. No one claims Harry Potter is real, but the books are quite entertaining to read.

 

Ah, here's an example I was thinking of before. How many re-told versions of Romeo and Juliette do we have today? We even have a martial arts movie version. That's the same thing as re-telling, or reformatting old ancient, famous and popular literature at any time, as much as 2000 years ago. They did the same thing as we do, or more accurately, they did it more than we do, and they were more experts on doing it. The TV back in those days were stories told and re-told and re-formatted and modified into new culture and new situations. It doesn't mean the story is a lie. It only makes a story a story, and sometimes one story is better than another. And sometimes the stories are used in religious environments to tell "morals" or induce "powers" to the followers.

 

I believe that the early pagan Christians believed that if they "lived" and "experienced" Jesus in the sense of becoming him, identify with him in the story, they would become Jesus himself. The idea wasn't that Jesus was a person that you prayed to, but rather a person you'd become, and you would become God, and you would be saved. It's Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism and many other religions in one final solution. That's what I mean how brilliant it was compiled. It doesn't mean that the plumber Joe that happened to be the unlucky person they made to a legend was brilliant, but the people compiling the religion knew how to spin it to make it forceful. Very much like how Microsoft is so successful with they sub-par quality products through brilliant marketing.

 

Still, the stories are fascinating and interesting, but not because of their historical value, and to me it's not of importance for religious experience either, but it's fascinating in the sense of how it ties many cultures and religions and classical stories into one story that was sold to the masses.

 

-edit-

 

Here's an interesting though:

 

Does the TV series Heroes have a message in this fabulous story, or is it just entertainment? Do we know if the script writers maybe is trying to say something like "even with superpowers you can become good or evil and the line between good and evil is very blurry and anyone can at any moment be on either side without really knowing it." It's your choice.

[mwc]

That even the Gospel writers recognize that Jesus spoke in allegories and parables is a hint to the reader that the stories in general should not be taken literally. Because it shows that Jesus was, according to the Gospels, promoting mysteries. Mystery religions are made exactly that way, you have a story, but the literal meaning doesn't have any meaning, while the underlying intention of the story is what's important, and you can only understand it by either "revelation" or initiated into it. If Jesus in the story is advertising that he's a leader of a mystery religion, then also his followers in generations after would be a mystery religion. And if these people wrote the Gospels, then the Gospels would be written as allegories.

I'm not saying that this whole thing wasn't a part of a mystery but in all the reading I've done of the old texts I just cannot see where people weren't taking these things mostly literal. Even when they speak of a "spirit" world or nature they still believe that it is tangible in some fashion. This is far different from the way many of us use these same terms today so we are not on the same page with the ancients even if we agree they were speaking in allegory. They used allegory to describe another plane of reality that they hadn't visited yet. Such as someone in the Sahara desert using allegory to describe a snowy place like South Pole. Two very real items (that perhaps the same person visited). Much different than someone from this dimension trying to use allegory to describe the 38th dimension (maybe it's real but who knows?).

 

So the ultimate purpose of the stories are (like you and I NBBTB so many times have talked about) not to divulge a historical or literal meaning, but to give the reader or student of this prose a different kind of understanding. And the reason that we many times fail to understand what the real meaning was behind the stories is because mystery religions rarely would write down the true interpretations; they would only hand the interpretations down verbally to the initiates. Much of this is therefore lost and we can only guess. And when it comes to why the allegories and stories are so hard to interpret it has to do with the time and culture gap we have between us and the people 2000 years ago. For instance when Jesus (supposedly) walked on water, or did certain miracles, the readers would immediately know what kind of stories in their culture it referred to, or emulated.

I agree with much of this. The "cover story" would appear to be one thing. The gospels. Moby Dick. Whatever. But the underlying meaning, if any, would need to be explained only to those who had been initiated. It seems, depending on the sect, those who had been baptized (perhaps there was more to it).

 

Paul was very much a mystery cult and the mysteries he does reveal in writing are evidence of that. This is why there's so much silence in his letters about anything relevant. I imagine it's because there's really nothing much to say. There was no contemporary man named "Jesus Christ" but some figure culled from the pages of the LXX, who, through some method unknown to us (a midrash of sorts perhaps) they decided he died and was resurrected (likely in the Psalms and Isaiah when it speaks of David/Israel).

 

The thing is that mystery religions rarely wrote down anything beyond pictures and symbols which is why I think that the gospels are not the work of a mystery religion but the work of someone who came a bit later. Someone who moved it out of the mystery phase and into the literal phase. I think that the author of G.Mark had no real knowledge of the mystery and probably learned it during the Roman War. He (they?) thought the stories were real and the "King"/"High Priest" (Jesus Christ) character came to life in writing. The back story came later to weave it all together. Later stories took all this "fulfilled" prophecy out of the days of old and moved it into the immediate past to explain the recent war (and other problems). The end of days needed a savior. Not a figurative one but a literal one. Jesus needed to live and breath...so they made him do it.

 

This is how the Gospels can be described: a literary work where the memory of Jesus was shaped through a conscious fiction to show the esteem they had for their "savior".

This is where I think it's actually funny. Eusebius shows, albeit much later, how people simply did not understand the usage of the name in the LXX. How it had apparently been used as a title. Then when it comes to the moment in time when it makes sense for it to be a title people back away and say "Well, no, that time it was a real guy." Too funny.

 

mwc

[Dave]

I agree that they were literal minded and that is why I think that what he said was misunderstood based on this literal thinking (by most).

 

Since no one has anything he actually said, I don't think it could be misunderstood.

 

To this day there are literal minded people that can't understand what he said in any other context and without this alternate context, it is worthless and lacks any sprituality. .....

 

The "spiritual" argument does not work for me. The word 'spiritual' has too much religious baggage to be of any use for me.

[Dave]

The whole book is just an irredeemable waste of time.

To you maybe...

And to billions of non christians throughout the world.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not saying that this whole thing wasn't a part of a mystery but in all the reading I've done of the old texts I just cannot see where people weren't taking these things mostly literal. Even when they speak of a "spirit" world or nature they still believe that it is tangible in some fashion. This is far different from the way many of us use these same terms today so we are not on the same page with the ancients even if we agree they were speaking in allegory. They used allegory to describe another plane of reality that they hadn't visited yet. Such as someone in the Sahara desert using allegory to describe a snowy place like South Pole. Two very real items (that perhaps the same person visited). Much different than someone from this dimension trying to use allegory to describe the 38th dimension (maybe it's real but who knows?).

Well, literal or mystical, still what you're saying here is that they took it literal as to describe a different plane of reality. In essence, not really literal in the sense of "So and so really for sure walked on water", but more of "our god in the spiritual plane have powers so he even walks on water" - something like that.

 

Paul was very much a mystery cult and the mysteries he does reveal in writing are evidence of that. This is why there's so much The thing is that mystery religions rarely wrote down anything beyond pictures and symbols which is why I think that the gospels are not the work of a mystery religion but the work of someone who came a bit later. Someone who moved it out of the mystery phase and into the literal phase. I think that the author of G.Mark had no real knowledge of the mystery and probably learned it during the Roman War. He (they?) thought the stories were real and the "King"/"High Priest" (Jesus Christ) character came to life in writing. The back story came later to weave it all together. Later stories took all this "fulfilled" prophecy out of the days of old and moved it into the immediate past to explain the recent war (and other problems). The end of days needed a savior. Not a figurative one but a literal one. Jesus needed to live and breath...so they made him do it.

Yes, I know about the Roman influence too and I agree to that too. I think what we have to do is to see the development in multiple steps, and that the final result of the Gospels are several versions or generations of writings (or oral tradition) that went through from a Jewish Messianic movement (Jewish Christians - pre 30), Jewish Messianic movement (post their hero's death), Mystical religion maybe start by Paul or popularized by Paul, Hellenistic influence, Gnostic influence, and then Roman influence after they figured this religion was a perfect fit to wipe out the Jews and maybe even create one and unified religion in the empire.

 

This is how the Gospels can be described: a literary work where the memory of Jesus was shaped through a conscious fiction to show the esteem they had for their "savior".

This is where I think it's actually funny. Eusebius shows, albeit much later, how people simply did not understand the usage of the name in the LXX. How it had apparently been used as a title. Then when it comes to the moment in time when it makes sense for it to be a title people back away and say "Well, no, that time it was a real guy." Too funny.

It is confusing when you start using a title as a name. It would be like calling George Bush The President, and with it mean the one and only president, like the supreme one or such. And later no one ever calls him George Bush, and even forget his name and he's only referred to The President. Later in history it would be easy to mix up all the presidents the last 200 years and create one symbolic President that not only chopped down cherry trees and experimented with kites and lightning, but also led the war of independence and started a war in Iraq. That was all done by one literal and historical figure, The President of USA. (Jesus Christ Joe Blow)

[Ouroboros]

I agree that they were literal minded and that is why I think that what he said was misunderstood based on this literal thinking (by most).

 

Since no one has anything he actually said, I don't think it could be misunderstood.

I think NBBTB means "what he said" in the sense of what the story claims that he said. In a manner of: "for the sake of the argument" expression, and not literally what he really did say for real. But maybe I misunderstand NBBTB here.

 

My opinion is that Jesus never said anything or said something but it was lost. Later followers put words in this legends mouth to fit their faith. That's what I believe the Muslims did with Mohammed too. These Gospel words were not initially intended to be interpreted literally or historically, because the writers knew the stories were made up or heavily embellished, but the stories described the spritual (or religious) ideas instead, not the history. Later the literalists misunderstood these text and took them as historical and maybe at that point some of the more "fluffy" stuff was removed from the stories and more "hard core fundamentalist" material was added, and it's hard for us now to be sure even to know the original stories. Who knows?...

[NotBlinded]

I haven't seen the Heros series. It does sound good though!

 

Here is what Joseph Campbell says the function of myths are:

 

First is the metaphysical function. Myth awakens and supports a sense of awe before the mystery of being. It reconciles consciousness to the preconditions of its own existence. Myth induces a realization that behind the surface phenomenology of the world, there is a transcendent mystery source. Through this vitalizing mystical function, the universe becomes a holy picture.

 

The second is a cosmological dimension deals with the image of the world that is the focus of science. This function shows the shape of the universe, but in such a way that the mystery still comes through. The cosmology should correspond to the actual experience, knowledge, and mentality of the culture. This interpretive function changes radically over time. It presents a map or picture of the order of the cosmos and our relationship to it.

 

Third is the sociological function. Myth supports and validates the specific moral order of the society out of which it arose. Particular life-customs of this social dimension, such as ethical laws and social roles, evolve dramatically. This function, and the rites by which it is rendered, establishes in members of the group concerned a system of sentiments that can be depended upon to link that person spontaneously to its ends.

 

The fourth function of myth is psychological. The myths show how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances. It is this pedagogical function of mythology that carries the individual through the various stages and crises of life, from childhood dependency, to the responsibilities of maturity, to the reflection of old age, and finally, to death. It helps people grasp the unfolding of life with integrity. It initiates individuals into the order of realities in their own psyches, guiding them toward enrichment and realization.

The Center for Story and Symbol

 

Here we can see how religion and myth coincide or to put another way, how myth turned into religion. Religion chooses to call this "mystery force" God and starts defining God/mystery force and trouble arrises.

 

Here is what he says in the interview with Bill Moyers:

 

Tom: Heinrich Zimmer said "The best truths cannot be spoken. . . "

 

Joseph: "And the second best are misunderstood."

 

Tom: Then you added something to that.

 

Joseph: The third best is the usual conversation - science, history, sociology.

 

Tom: Why do people confuse these?

 

Joseph: Because the imagery that has to be used in order to tell what can't be told, symbolic imagery, is then understood or interpreted not symbolically but factually, empirically. It's a natural thing, but that's the whole problem with Western religion. All of the symbols are interpreted as if they were historical references. They're not. And if they are, then so what?

 

Tom: Let's go carefully here. What are you calling a symbol?

 

Joseph: I'm calling a symbol a sign that points past itself to a ground of meaning and being that is one with the consciousness of the beholder. What you're learning in myth is about yourself as part of the being of the world. If it talks not about you, finally, but about something out there, then it's short. There's that wonderful phase I got from Karlfried Graf Durkheim, "transparency to the transcendent." If a deity blocks off transcendency, cuts you short of it by stopping at himself, he turns you into a worshipper and a devotee, and he hasn't opened the mystery of your own being.

 

Tom: You once called that the pathology of theology.

 

Joseph: That's what I would call it.

 

Tom: Walter Huston Clark says the church is like a vaccination against the real thing.

 

Joseph: Jung says religion is a defense against the experience of god. I say our religions are.

 

Tom: What do you do, then, if the experience is not to be found in religion?

 

Joseph: You find it in mysticism and get in touch with mystics who read these symbolic forms symbolically. Mystics are people who are not theologians; theologians are people who interpret the vocabulary of scripture as if it were referring to supernatural facts.

Mythic Reflections

 

It's really easy to see how this can happen because you have people trying to explain that sense of awe in themselves (1) and then they try to incorporate that feeling into their science and try to explain the universe by it (2). Then the structure of their own society (3) is based on these understandings by incorporating certain laws and moral codes based on what one "feels" is right. Then the myth shows how one reacts to life psychologically by living in that society. (4).

 

What occurs when all this is taken as historical (even if parts are as Campbell would say, so what?) facts is that the symbols don't mean anything anymore. It's like still believing in Santa Clause to just get the gifts. The entire message is lost.

 

A warning...stay away from theologians!

 

It really amazes me that all the old religions are now considered myth, but Christianity and others aren't? They are as much myths as all the others are, but people just can't see that beyond the literal crap.

 

So, even if the bible describes certain events, places and people as real, so what? It's just an element of their own society that was written in to further their place in their culture.

 

Campbell has no problem calling a myth a myth, and that includes Christianity.

[NotBlinded]

Since no one has anything he actually said, I don't think it could be misunderstood.

I really don't care who said it, but whoever said it knew what they were saying. All you have to do is compare these sayings with the sayings of other religions...comparative religions or comparative mythology.

 

The "spiritual" argument does not work for me. The word 'spiritual' has too much religious baggage to be of any use for me.

Then you won't understand.

[NotBlinded]

I'm not saying that this whole thing wasn't a part of a mystery but in all the reading I've done of the old texts I just cannot see where people weren't taking these things mostly literal. Even when they speak of a "spirit" world or nature they still believe that it is tangible in some fashion. This is far different from the way many of us use these same terms today so we are not on the same page with the ancients even if we agree they were speaking in allegory. They used allegory to describe another plane of reality that they hadn't visited yet. Such as someone in the Sahara desert using allegory to describe a snowy place like South Pole. Two very real items (that perhaps the same person visited). Much different than someone from this dimension trying to use allegory to describe the 38th dimension (maybe it's real but who knows?).

I think it can be safely assumed that no one had any idea of what the spiritual world looked like. If they thought they did, then they are mistaking the symbol for the referent. I think that if I were talented enough, I could paint a picture of the 38th dimension based on a feeling of awe I had toward it and hopefully inspire a feeling of awe in the observer. I would be very upset if the observer confused my painting with reality.

 

 

The thing is that mystery religions rarely wrote down anything beyond pictures and symbols which is why I think that the gospels are not the work of a mystery religion but the work of someone who came a bit later. Someone who moved it out of the mystery phase and into the literal phase. I think that the author of G.Mark had no real knowledge of the mystery and probably learned it during the Roman War. He (they?) thought the stories were real and the "King"/"High Priest" (Jesus Christ) character came to life in writing. The back story came later to weave it all together. Later stories took all this "fulfilled" prophecy out of the days of old and moved it into the immediate past to explain the recent war (and other problems). The end of days needed a savior. Not a figurative one but a literal one. Jesus needed to live and breath...so they made him do it.

Yes, this is why one must be a cherry-picker!

[NotBlinded]

I agree that they were literal minded and that is why I think that what he said was misunderstood based on this literal thinking (by most).

 

Since no one has anything he actually said, I don't think it could be misunderstood.

I think NBBTB means "what he said" in the sense of what the story claims that he said. In a manner of: "for the sake of the argument" expression, and not literally what he really did say for real. But maybe I misunderstand NBBTB here.

 

My opinion is that Jesus never said anything or said something but it was lost. Later followers put words in this legends mouth to fit their faith. That's what I believe the Muslims did with Mohammed too. These Gospel words were not initially intended to be interpreted literally or historically, because the writers knew the stories were made up or heavily embellished, but the stories described the spritual (or religious) ideas instead, not the history. Later the literalists misunderstood these text and took them as historical and maybe at that point some of the more "fluffy" stuff was removed from the stories and more "hard core fundamentalist" material was added, and it's hard for us now to be sure even to know the original stories. Who knows?...

Yes, thank you Hans. I know it's Han, but I like Hans better. What's in a name?