Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[mwc]

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? )

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

 

There were no other "Jesus Christs" beyond the symbolic in all of history, but then, the LAST one is the REAL historic one (meaning we know of no string of "Jesus Christs" ala the Pope...not that there couldn't be I suppose). Quite contrary to how it usually works.

 

This is the opposite of what you show above. The FIRST one is the REAL historic one. The originator of the title and so on. Any who come later get the title but they aren't the originator. The first Pope. The first whatever.

 

So, we have people decide, somehow, that there is a guy 2000 years ago that is the REAL "Jesus Christ?" Based on what? If the title, or whatever, is purely symbolic up until then why the leap into reality? What's the basis for that? Clearly it's not to out-do the other gods because he doesn't. Hercules and Mithra, for example, are still "better" than he is in most every aspect.

 

Why is it that something that is perceived as "imaginary" remains in the realm of the imaginary? That it is simply a story? No more. No less. No archetype...no body at all? A "midrash" of sorts allows for this. It doesn't need anything more than an imagination and a desire to re-interpret the old writings. The LXX had "new" information (the words "Jesus" and "Christ"...combined with the Aramaic people spoke and all the rest that has been touched on here) to allow for this to be done. Again, no body needed.

 

When the mystery religion arrives from the outside world at some point these things come together somehow, get repackaged and re-exported pretty much as the thing we know today...only now the character of Jesus Christ has become real (literally the "word" became flesh...but absolutely NO spiritual meaning hidden here...sorry) along with his merry men (who used to simply symbolize the 12 tribes).

 

So I'll keep asking, why is it, that for only this ONE instance we have to have a warm body?

 

mwc

[Dave]

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.

You could be right. It's hard, for me, to keep all the players and their affiliations straight.

 

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.

I think the writers at the time expected, and at times demanded, that their works be taken literally. The preachers of today are no different. Do you think Phelps want to be taken spiritually?

 

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?...

 

That's one of my main points - there is no historical, or logical, reason to believe the bible is anything more than a collection of stories. It is most certainly not anything anyone should base their life on.

[Dave]

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.

 

It does matter who said what. The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. The NT claims to have the actual words of this god. It does not. That claim soils anything good it might have to say.

 

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.

 

That's right. I will never understand why people cling to that word as if it actually means something.

[Dave]

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

You lost me when you went from the real to the imaginary/spiritual.

 

There were no other "Jesus Christs" beyond the symbolic in all of history....

 

The authors of the NT did not have a "symbolic" jesus, they firmly believed there was a real one, the one they wrote about.

[NotBlinded]

It does matter who said what. The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. The NT claims to have the actual words of this god. It does not. That claim soils anything good it might have to say.

Why? Are you mad because it doesn't? Do you still expect it to?

 

You sound like a child that is told that Santa doesn't exist and then gets mad at the whole meaning of giving. "Well, if Santa isn't real then I don't want anything to do with giving!"

 

So what if it isn't the word of God, nothing is.

 

Sorry, but that is how you sound.

 

That's right. I will never understand why people cling to that word as if it actually means something.

 

I guess you have never experienced a sudden goose-bumping of your skin when looking into the night sky or at a beautiful sunset over calm water that takes your breath away. If not, then you are right...it won't mean anything to you.

[NotBlinded]

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? )

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

 

There were no other "Jesus Christs" beyond the symbolic in all of history, but then, the LAST one is the REAL historic one (meaning we know of no string of "Jesus Christs" ala the Pope...not that there couldn't be I suppose). Quite contrary to how it usually works.

 

This is the opposite of what you show above. The FIRST one is the REAL historic one. The originator of the title and so on. Any who come later get the title but they aren't the originator. The first Pope. The first whatever.

 

So, we have people decide, somehow, that there is a guy 2000 years ago that is the REAL "Jesus Christ?" Based on what? If the title, or whatever, is purely symbolic up until then why the leap into reality? What's the basis for that? Clearly it's not to out-do the other gods because he doesn't. Hercules and Mithra, for example, are still "better" than he is in most every aspect.

 

Why is it that something that is perceived as "imaginary" remains in the realm of the imaginary? That it is simply a story? No more. No less. No archetype...no body at all? A "midrash" of sorts allows for this. It doesn't need anything more than an imagination and a desire to re-interpret the old writings. The LXX had "new" information (the words "Jesus" and "Christ"...combined with the Aramaic people spoke and all the rest that has been touched on here) to allow for this to be done. Again, no body needed.

 

When the mystery religion arrives from the outside world at some point these things come together somehow, get repackaged and re-exported pretty much as the thing we know today...only now the character of Jesus Christ has become real (literally the "word" became flesh...but absolutely NO spiritual meaning hidden here...sorry) along with his merry men (who used to simply symbolize the 12 tribes).

 

So I'll keep asking, why is it, that for only this ONE instance we have to have a warm body?

 

mwc

It's very possible, and probable, that I am missing something.

 

I thought you answered this here:

 

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.

 

Could it be that there was a real person that understood these mystery teachings and had followers? Then, whoever, put this person into the role of Jesus Christ...literally? They embelished him to more than he was? That is how I see it.

[mwc]

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.

Yeah, I kind of messed that up. Let me give you an allegory to explain myself.

 

You can see that their spirit world is physical. It still has all the ramifications of the physical realm. You have a "spirit" body that is just like a physical body with all the sensations of the "real" world. The same senses. Everything is the same. In some cultures it was identical just "elsewhere" while others it was "invisible" to the living. It varied. The point being that we've "evolved" our thinking of the "spirit" world as our understanding of the physical has grown. We think our "spirit senses" would be something "beyond" what we have now in our limited bodies and all that. My use of quotations show that I can't pick the right words to describe what I wish to convey. I could try to use an allegory but I won't (even though I said I would).

 

We know that the Egyptians thought that when you died that certain symbols on the written page would come to life and attack the reader. That the afterlife was almost like a video game in some ways (before they were judged and so forth). This is one reason the Book of the Dead was needed. It helped them overcome these obstacles. It was very real. Not at all an allegory or spiritual even though it was in the "spiritual" plane of existence. Once they were there it was real. As real as this world is.

 

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.

With so many messiahs running around the area of Judea in those days I have a hard time thinking that one group got a foothold where others did not. There's nothing to differentiate them. In fact, this group we're speaking about is among the least impressive. I'd say John the Baptist is much better if I had to pick one I knew. I think the gospel authors knew this too which is why they "borrowed" him and made him subordinate.

 

The Hellenistic influence would have already been there for at least 100 years (since Antiochus IV imposed it and the Jews went for it despite protests to the contrary). The Romans, after the second war, removed the Jews from Jerusalem and built a temple to (I want to say) Apollo on the Temple Mount so it doesn't seem they much cared for the religion. They likely just saw it all as "Judaism" and left it at that. The Gnostics, from what I understand, came from Egypt, where supposedly "Mark" wrote his gospel but isn't it G.John that is the one aimed the most towards the Gnostics?

 

My personal theory is that there was a religion of the diasporized Jews (they wanted/needed something to take the place of centralized Temple worship since they were so far from home) so proto-xianity came about. This migrated into Judea as Jews came and went. You mix this with the things going on in Judea (the messianic movements, the first war, etc.) and you end up with "classic" xianity. Re-export this to the world through the new Jewish diaspora. Conflicts arise when the two versions meet. One is more "spiritual" (proto-xianity) and the other "literal" ("classic"). One becomes "gnostic" and the other "orthodox." They fight and there is a partial "merger" of theologies. The rest is history.

 

Paul was just a mystery religion. He was a diasporized Jew teaching the "spiritual" version. He might have had some early leanings of the "mixed" version but it doesn't seem like it. His ideas changed over time but that's probably because he came into contact with various churches that came into contact with various xians. He altered his beliefs as a result...but not too greatly. Anything too out of line with his ideals was dealt with fairly harshly it seems.

 

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.

I get this. It happens all to often with Caesar. Caesar? Which one?

 

Anyhow, I went into this in my other post.

 

mwc

[Dave]

It does matter who said what. The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. The NT claims to have the actual words of this god. It does not. That claim soils anything good it might have to say.

Why? Are you mad because it doesn't? Do you still expect it to? [/qutoe]

 

Why would you make the inane assumption that I'm "mad" about anything? From what I've experienced on this forum is that when someone starts in with the personal attacks, as you have just done, an adult conversation is no longer possible.

[NotBlinded]

It does matter who said what. The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. The NT claims to have the actual words of this god. It does not. That claim soils anything good it might have to say.

Why? Are you mad because it doesn't? Do you still expect it to?

 

Why would you make the inane assumption that I'm "mad" about anything? From what I've experienced on this forum is that when someone starts in with the personal attacks, as you have just done, an adult conversation is no longer possible.

You know, I can understand your reaction if you had been once a fundamental Christian, but from what I have gathered about you, you never were. If you were, then I apologize.

 

So why the hostility towards everyone else that can find meaning in it, Dave? It doesn't have to be the word of God in order for "other" people to understand what it is. From what I can gather, it is a collection of mythological symbols that went wrong. People took those symbols as real and concocted an entire mess of a religion. People are just stupid that way.

 

You sit there and instigate constantly and then when someone calls you on it, you act all innocent. You state your opinion as fact (see above) and then wonder why people call you on it. What is up with you? You can ignore me all you want because I am indeed having an adult conversation with people that are really trying their best to understand what the bible is and how it came to be. When you decide to grow up yourself, then maybe you can get past these childish games of yours and join us. Of course, you can still join us with the attitude you have, but expect people to react to what you say.

[mwc]

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

You lost me when you went from the real to the imaginary/spiritual.

You're easily lost. Maybe I should type s-l-o-w-e-r?

 

I bet you're real fun to watch a movie with considering you cannot seem to deal with the imaginary.

 

There were no other "Jesus Christs" beyond the symbolic in all of history....

The authors of the NT did not have a "symbolic" jesus, they firmly believed there was a real one, the one they wrote about.

That's quite a statement considering we don't even know who the authors of the books were much less their intent. Many believe the oldest part of the four gospels is the Passion Play in G.Mark. The original author could have been a playwright, in which case, he very likely wouldn't firmly believe what you assert here. Do you have any evidence pointing us to the original author(s) and their intentions or just more naked assertions?

 

Irregardless, had you been bothered to read what CC and Hans had written earlier then you'd see the context as to why I'm discussing symbolic "Jesus Christs." It's not my theory. I'm just trying to understand it a bit better.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

It must be quite a quantum leap.

 

There were no other "Jesus Christs" beyond the symbolic in all of history, but then, the LAST one is the REAL historic one (meaning we know of no string of "Jesus Christs" ala the Pope...not that there couldn't be I suppose). Quite contrary to how it usually works.

 

This is the opposite of what you show above. The FIRST one is the REAL historic one. The originator of the title and so on. Any who come later get the title but they aren't the originator. The first Pope. The first whatever.

I'm not sure what you mean? We see it different you and I, or we agree?

 

My idea is that the Historical Jesus (whatever name he had, and whatever he really did or not) was not necessarily the first one, because Jesus was only a title. If the Messianic Jews existed before this Jesus Doe, they had either a system of "Jesus" leaders already and Jesus Doe was just one really exemplary, or this cult was waiting for someone that they would call Jesus and one day Jesus Doe came along and claimed the title as his own.

 

So, we have people decide, somehow, that there is a guy 2000 years ago that is the REAL "Jesus Christ?" Based on what? If the title, or whatever, is purely symbolic up until then why the leap into reality? What's the basis for that? Clearly it's not to out-do the other gods because he doesn't. Hercules and Mithra, for example, are still "better" than he is in most every aspect.

The way I see it is that the Gospels were written to impress and out-do the other gods. If it really was that successful or not, well, it seems history claims it was pretty successful (not meaning it was true of course).

 

Why is it that something that is perceived as "imaginary" remains in the realm of the imaginary? That it is simply a story? No more. No less. No archetype...no body at all? A "midrash" of sorts allows for this. It doesn't need anything more than an imagination and a desire to re-interpret the old writings. The LXX had "new" information (the words "Jesus" and "Christ"...combined with the Aramaic people spoke and all the rest that has been touched on here) to allow for this to be done. Again, no body needed.

I know. There doesn't have to be any real person Jesus Doe that got made to a legend. The ideas works just as well for a non-existence of any person. But I think these kind of things works similar to how even older religions started, like Buddhism, where Buddha really existed, but much was attached to his name long time afterwards.

 

When the mystery religion arrives from the outside world at some point these things come together somehow, get repackaged and re-exported pretty much as the thing we know today...only now the character of Jesus Christ has become real (literally the "word" became flesh...but absolutely NO spiritual meaning hidden here...sorry) along with his merry men (who used to simply symbolize the 12 tribes).

I think the 12 are the signs of the zodiac. Just like the tribes.

 

So I'll keep asking, why is it, that for only this ONE instance we have to have a warm body?

It doesn't require it, only it gives the possibility for a warm body, and only a mediocre John Doe being the character that got all the attention at that.

[Ouroboros]

You could be right. It's hard, for me, to keep all the players and their affiliations straight.

Yeah, I know, especially when you have a hot discussion going on like this.

 

I think the writers at the time expected, and at times demanded, that their works be taken literally. The preachers of today are no different. Do you think Phelps want to be taken spiritually?

Because of the Gnostic gospels, which are strongly "spiritually" in the understanding of their religion.

 

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?...

 

That's one of my main points - there is no historical, or logical, reason to believe the bible is anything more than a collection of stories. It is most certainly not anything anyone should base their life on.

Sure, they're collection of stories, but they aren't just stories made up on a whim, but had a purpose. I don't buy into the purpose of course, since I don't agree to any deity or son of such, but it's interesting to see how a religion is made from scraps of other religions and cultures and become a virus that survived that long, and it keeps on mutating and adapting to new environments. That's why it's so hard to root out the belief of the supernatural. The mind wants to believe this somehow.

 

I'm not advocating that my ideas or explanations lead to only one conclusion that a real, physical, warm-body Jesus existed or not. But rather that it explains how the Gospels stories got so extremely embellished with supernatural overtones (and yet with some restraint to make it somewhat believable to the people of that time).

[Ouroboros]

There were no other "Jesus Christs" beyond the symbolic in all of history....

 

The authors of the NT did not have a "symbolic" jesus, they firmly believed there was a real one, the one they wrote about.

Did Seth and Sophia exist? For the Gnostic (if I understand it right) it's more about the contemplation of the different deities rather than studying some kind of pseudo-historical depiction. You search for the revelation experience, or epiphany, kind of what meditation does. But you meditate on religious symbols, and you get closer to god. This has nothing to do with if the symbol is real in flesh and physical particles in this world, but more that this symbol exists in the meta-physical world and you connect through the symbol. Kind of like the saints. The believer pray to them for what they represent or are "master" over, but not for how many burgers they managed to eat in their lifetime. Symbol over reality. That's a spiritual view. To read some metamorphosis or transcendence through the contemplation.

 

I'm not sure if Jesus was a real one for the Gospel writers. For Luke it probably was, but John doesn't sound like a story about a real person, but a poetic story about their god hero.

 

What's interesting is that in Mark there are stories that are similar and emulated to the Homeric literature. Like walking on water, the death and the tomb, the legio demons cast out into the pigs etc. There are stories that are similar, but not identical, and in the Iliad the Hero maybe was depicted less favorable, while the Gospel Mark put Jesus in the story but made him "holy" or "righteous". (If I understand it correctly from what I heard in the interview I mentioned before.)

 

When Homer wrote the Iliad, he didn't write it because he thought the people, places and events were real, but he did it to write a story.

 

The Gospel writers stole the ideas from the Iliad (which was common in story writing at that time) and put Jesus in the stories and made him "look good", so the Greeks that new the Iliad would connect with Jesus through the stories.

[Ouroboros]

That's right. I will never understand why people cling to that word as if it actually means something.

 

I guess you have never experienced a sudden goose-bumping of your skin when looking into the night sky or at a beautiful sunset over calm water that takes your breath away. If not, then you are right...it won't mean anything to you.

I get the spiritual feeling when I listen to some music. Some songs just gets to me. When I hear them, nothing else exists and I'm traversed into a different mood. That's spirituality for me. And stories can do the same thing. For some its poetry, and some its art.

[Ouroboros]

With so many messiahs running around the area of Judea in those days I have a hard time thinking that one group got a foothold where others did not. There's nothing to differentiate them. In fact, this group we're speaking about is among the least impressive. I'd say John the Baptist is much better if I had to pick one I knew. I think the gospel authors knew this too which is why they "borrowed" him and made him subordinate.

True. John the Baptist is actually a good candidate, and maybe this was part of unifying all these smaller groups into one following?

 

The Hellenistic influence would have already been there for at least 100 years (since Antiochus IV imposed it and the Jews went for it despite protests to the contrary). The Romans, after the second war, removed the Jews from Jerusalem and built a temple to (I want to say) Apollo on the Temple Mount so it doesn't seem they much cared for the religion. They likely just saw it all as "Judaism" and left it at that. The Gnostics, from what I understand, came from Egypt, where supposedly "Mark" wrote his gospel but isn't it G.John that is the one aimed the most towards the Gnostics?

Hmm... true. So you're saying it's unlikely that Mark could have been a document from a mystery religion then?

 

My personal theory is that there was a religion of the diasporized Jews (they wanted/needed something to take the place of centralized Temple worship since they were so far from home) so proto-xianity came about. This migrated into Judea as Jews came and went. You mix this with the things going on in Judea (the messianic movements, the first war, etc.) and you end up with "classic" xianity. Re-export this to the world through the new Jewish diaspora. Conflicts arise when the two versions meet. One is more "spiritual" (proto-xianity) and the other "literal" ("classic"). One becomes "gnostic" and the other "orthodox." They fight and there is a partial "merger" of theologies. The rest is history.

But the hole you have there is that if literal/classic Christianity was first, then a historical Jesus must have been, or they intentionally lied about it. If it started as a mystery religion a historical Jesus isn't necessary as we talked about before, and the misunderstanding was instead from "spiritual" into "literal".

 

Hehe. Now we're gonna have a fight like this:

 

MWC: No, literal to spiritual

Hans: No way, spiritual to literal

 

 

Paul was just a mystery religion. He was a diasporized Jew teaching the "spiritual" version. He might have had some early leanings of the "mixed" version but it doesn't seem like it. His ideas changed over time but that's probably because he came into contact with various churches that came into contact with various xians. He altered his beliefs as a result...but not too greatly. Anything too out of line with his ideals was dealt with fairly harshly it seems.

Or Paul's letters aren't all his writings...

 

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.

I get this. It happens all to often with Caesar. Caesar? Which one?

 

The salad, but the dressing on the side.

[mwc]

I'm not sure what you mean? We see it different you and I, or we agree?

 

My idea is that the Historical Jesus (whatever name he had, and whatever he really did or not) was not necessarily the first one, because Jesus was only a title. If the Messianic Jews existed before this Jesus Doe, they had either a system of "Jesus" leaders already and Jesus Doe was just one really exemplary, or this cult was waiting for someone that they would call Jesus and one day Jesus Doe came along and claimed the title as his own.

Maybe we agree on what's being said?

 

The problem could just be I'm having a hard time keeping the ideas straight in my head (or which ones belong to who...which is more likely).

 

So you believe that he was just one (possibly last) in the line of "Jesii?" The stories were not specifically about him or they were or were they something else?

 

The way I see it is that the Gospels were written to impress and out-do the other gods. If it really was that successful or not, well, it seems history claims it was pretty successful (not meaning it was true of course).

I don't know if the gospels were as successful as was having the weight of the Roman Empire eventually come down on their side and obliterating everything that didn't agree with their view.

 

I know. There doesn't have to be any real person Jesus Doe that got made to a legend. The ideas works just as well for a non-existence of any person. But I think these kind of things works similar to how even older religions started, like Buddhism, where Buddha really existed, but much was attached to his name long time afterwards.

Hmmm...people debate the Buddha legend as well. I personally doubt he sat under that tree until he became enlightened but I see your point. We don't need Buddha or Confucius or any of these people, really, in order for these movements to exist though. It seems like we would since they carry their name but it really doesn't need to be that way. And, you weren't here for the discussion I had, but if you look at Bishop Theophilus of Antioch, he claims the reason xians are named such are simply because they are anointed and not because of any leader or namesake.

 

I think the 12 are the signs of the zodiac. Just like the tribes.

I used to think that until I read one of the early writings that said there were only 10 (I forget who said that number). Both are special numbers but the 12 in ancient literature could be the zodiac (and probably was) but in the modern writings I think it only related to the tribes themselves.

 

It doesn't require it, only it gives the possibility for a warm body, and only a mediocre John Doe being the character that got all the attention at that.

Which is why I'm surprised that this one instance of jesus seems to stand out from the others. It doesn't seem to warrant it given the amount of evidence that really exists (basically none).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

You lost me when you went from the real to the imaginary/spiritual.

You're easily lost. Maybe I should type s-l-o-w-e-r?

 

I bet you're real fun to watch a movie with considering you cannot seem to deal with the imaginary.

Noooooh! Not slower. I hate slower!

 

How does one handle imaginary numbers (sqrt(-1)) if one doesn't believe in the imaginary or symbols?

[Ouroboros]

Maybe we agree on what's being said?

That depends on what we said... I'm getting confused too.

 

The problem could just be I'm having a hard time keeping the ideas straight in my head (or which ones belong to who...which is more likely).

 

So you believe that he was just one (possibly last) in the line of "Jesii?" The stories were not specifically about him or they were or were they something else?

I'm not saying that one theory is more likely than the other because of some good arguments I have. I only present some hypothetical ideas that might be true. And I'm still trying to put the pieces together myself.

 

Maybe there was a historical Jesus Doe or maybe not.

And maybe it was more a title and some had been before him. (Maybe John the Baptist was a predecessor to Jesus? Or maybe they were the same person, and the authors rewrote history to put John in less divine portrayal and a fictious Jesus as divine.)

There's many different ways too look at it for sure.

 

 

I think the 12 are the signs of the zodiac. Just like the tribes.

I used to think that until I read one of the early writings that said there were only 10 (I forget who said that number). Both are special numbers but the 12 in ancient literature could be the zodiac (and probably was) but in the modern writings I think it only related to the tribes themselves.

The reason why I think the zodiac was part of it, is that in both the tribes and the disciples is that the tribe Judah had the symbol of a Lion (Leo), and the Gospels talk about the (this is from the top of my head) "brothers of thunder", and in the greek mythology the brothers of thunder were the twins (gemini). And then we have Mary the virgin, well it's they Virgo. The astrology symbols are all over the place. Jesus the son of God, it's the sun etc. Adam also the sun, as son of god, and Eve the moon, the counterpart that makes him fall and the winter solstice happens, then he's resurrected again. I suspect the Genesis story had more too it but it was lost in time. I think the Adam and Eve were supposed to be restored in the story, but somehow only the first half of the story was saved.

 

It doesn't require it, only it gives the possibility for a warm body, and only a mediocre John Doe being the character that got all the attention at that.

Which is why I'm surprised that this one instance of jesus seems to stand out from the others. It doesn't seem to warrant it given the amount of evidence that really exists (basically none).

I'm missing your point here. Can you explain a bit more?

[Ouroboros]

That is a cool name! I knew there was a reason I liked to use Hans. Sweedish right. Blonde? Blue eyes? Tan....

Swedish: yes

Blonde: yes

Blue eyes: yes

Tall: yes

Cute accent: yes

Muscles: well, kind'a - working on it

Tan: having a hard time making it stick, but in summertime yes.

[NotBlinded]

How does one handle imaginary numbers (sqrt(-1)) if one doesn't believe in the imaginary or symbols?

There is no such thing as imaginary numbers! What is wrong with you people???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NotBlinded]

That is a cool name! I knew there was a reason I liked to use Hans. Sweedish right. Blonde? Blue eyes? Tan....

Swedish: yes

Blonde: yes

Blue eyes: yes

Tall: yes

Cute accent: yes

Muscles: well, kind'a - working on it

Tan: having a hard time making it stick, but in summertime yes.

Tall?? Oh, double

 

 

 

 

Okay, stop it now.

[Ouroboros]

How does one handle imaginary numbers (sqrt(-1)) if one doesn't believe in the imaginary or symbols?

There is no such thing as imaginary numbers! What is wrong with you people???

What's even more strange is that imaginary numbers actually can be used for real applications (calculations/formulas for real things and science). And the combination of e in power of pi times i is 1 (or was it -1? Don't remember - but one could do some hyper trigs and get the right answer... but don't wanna because I don't remember how to do that either ).

[mwc]

True. John the Baptist is actually a good candidate, and maybe this was part of unifying all these smaller groups into one following?

I don't think that the JtB movement was interested in uniting anyone. I think that it influenced many groups indirectly. There's no way that what's written in the NT about this movement is accurate though. These items are some of the most inaccurate parts written. Josephus does a much better job but it really mucks up the NT time line.

 

Hmm... true. So you're saying it's unlikely that Mark could have been a document from a mystery religion then?

As I recall from the things that I've read that the Passion Play came first. It reads as an analogy of the downfall of Judea plain and simple. So I'd say that it's less about the spiritual relating to how to get right with their god but much more along the lines of the OT prophetic items where it was showing how their god was angry and punishing them. Look at it like this. The Romans are crucifying jesus. He suffers awhile. He dies. He's buried. Someone comes to check on him. The ending is missing. The new ending is that he's arisen. Spread the word he's alive.

 

Okay, you know that basic telling in Mark. Now. Jesus is Judea. The spiritual heart and soul of Israel since it holds the Temple. The Romans "crucify" Judea. They invade and are there for years "punishing" it. It suffers awhile. It dies when the Temple finally falls. It's in ruin. It's "buried." What's next? Who knows? The people rebuild. The "new" ending is that it's coming back to life (people thought the Temple would be rebuilt in 3 years according to some writings). Spread the word...the Temple is rebuilt.

 

As you can see I took a few liberties since I just rattled this off the top of my head but the Passion Play, I think, is directly related to this historical event. I date G.Mark a bit later than most people as a result. I think a number of stories in the gospels are similar. I think that some items relate to historical events and some relate to "spiritual" events. The casting out of the demons into the swine is historical. The opening of the blind mans eyes is likely more spiritual. Since a lot of the little stories seemed to be gathered together and weaved into a greater whole it's hard to tell which is which (and some might fall into more than one category). Even what jesus, and other things, represents I think changes depending on the context. One author, G.Mark, may have written the final book, but many people contributed to the entire thing. He simply decided which of these stories to include and how to weave them together (not to mention any later messing about by others).

 

What all this means is I think, that at its earliest stage, that G.Mark reads more like a political document than a spiritual one (even though these two concepts are very closely related). Look back at some of the things in Daniel and I think you'll see one of his influences. It was about Antiochus IV and a time only about 200 years prior but it's supposed to be far earlier. He just disguised his agenda in "time" itself so if he was caught he could deny it all. His characters could speak the things he couldn't in this other time period and he could remain anonymous at the same time (even to this day).

 

I think that later readers added their own agendas to his work for whatever reason. Just like in the OT they told people to make things right they needed to get right with their god. The "spiritual" side came into play once the political side was pretty much decided. Rome had won. They had crushed Judea and the Jews could either disperse forever or come up with a new type of belief system. This was one that happened to come into the area at that time to fill the void left by the missing Temple. Only now the Temple was destroyed because it was corrupt and displeased its god. It was judged and found guilty...in another time...an earlier time. The story worked and became truth just like any urban legend.

 

But the hole you have there is that if literal/classic Christianity was first, then a historical Jesus must have been, or they intentionally lied about it. If it started as a mystery religion a historical Jesus isn't necessary as we talked about before, and the misunderstanding was instead from "spiritual" into "literal".

 

Hehe. Now we're gonna have a fight like this:

 

MWC: No, literal to spiritual

Hans: No way, spiritual to literal

No. Not yet. See above. There's multiple things going on simultaneously here so we agree.

 

The Jews outside Judea did not have a temple. The needed to worship their god. Just like people today they would come up with a system to avoid having to go on that trip to Jerusalem each year. That system is like a proto-xianity. Something like Rabbinic Judaism is today really. But they did go back to Jerusalem for whatever reason. and this traveled with them. This is how I feel this proto-xianity precedes xianity when we look back in history. It sure beats the idea that Satan copied it beforehand to confuse people...although not quite as creative I'm afraid. Anyhow, Paul, if we believe him, was a mix of Jew and Roman and was likely caught up in all sorts of religions...as were many Jews in his situation. They had a mystery version of Judaism (proto-xianity). He just wrote about it and we have the letters. I think this is why he hated Jerusalem. They taught the "wrong" version of things. Which just meant they taught "real" Judaism instead of the version he knew.

 

Anyhow, the proto-xianity came into Judea. It conflicted with the real Judaism. It likely found a home among some of the outsider communities there. We know of the Essenes but they probably didn't like this bastardization either. It would "change" there. This is where the messiah theme would get added since this was important in the Judean communities. It became more "real" to them. The Temple was there and the "Jewish-ness" was re-added. It became a bit more "end times" and less "spiritual." In other words, it just became more like what we know. They needed a fighter and not a lover but certain aspects would have already existed. This is probably why jesus is so mentally confused sometimes.

 

After the Temple fell the groups then separated again.

 

So I'd say it went from spiritual (proto-xian outside Judea), to a more literal (inside Judea), then back out it split again it the orthodox and gnostic (being very broad in my terms).

 

Or Paul's letters aren't all his writings...

I don't think a lot of these writings were all of any of these people's writings. Paul "borrowed" and was "borrowed." Certainly the beginning of Acts belongs to someone other than the end of Acts (where Saul is renamed Paul is where I think it happens but one writer rewrote it all with two different sources so it's all one "work").

 

The salad.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

MWC, interesting.

 

I will re-listen to the podcast and get more details about the comparison between Mark and the Iliad, and we can look at particular stories instead. I know very little about all this, but as always, I just give my little input to the picture.

 

(Didn't you know? Caesar the Salad was the most powerful and successful conqueror of them all, we even named a dish after him!)

[Dave]

So I guess this is where people lose me in all this. They jump from the "imaginary" to the "real."

You lost me when you went from the real to the imaginary/spiritual.

You're easily lost.

I see you missed my point. You lost me with the personal attacks. Is it too much to ask to have a conversation with out the personal attacks?