Just Starting To Doubt - Question About The Bible

[Dave]

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.

Sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. The writers were part of the society they were writing to. They knew what they wanted to hear and wrote it. It was to be taken literally.

 

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.

Of course they were written for a purpose; to get people to believe what they wrote was literally true. I don't think they were like Smith of the LDS, or Hubbard of Scientology, that wrote to fool people. The authors of the NT actually believed what they were writing was absolutely true.

 

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).

 

I'll come out and say the dude never existed, but the authors sincerely believed he did. Back then, and in some societies now, there is no boundary between the religious/spiritual and the secular/material world. To them it's all one. They would have absolutely no problem in believing any of the miracles or events that were written about. They had an entirely different view of the world than we have now.

[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.

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?

I apologize. I surely missed your point.

 

Lets try again. Could you elaborate on what it is that I said that you're having trouble with? I understand it has to do with the whole real/imaginary/spiritual thing but if you could help me pinpoint it then it would help me know what I need to better explain.

 

mwc

[mwc]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised to see any influence by the Homer or any of the great Greek authors. In their Hellenized culture I would imagine that those stories influenced everything in much the same way that Star Wars heavily influenced Science Fiction (or The Matrix does today) or Shakespeare does even now (in that writers re-use his stories over and over). To see Homer in the plot line really shows the author to be a product of his times OR the researcher finding what he's seeking. I could be a victim of the same. I looked at the general state of things in the 1st century CE and I see someone reflecting those conditions in the writings. The only difference, I think, is that there's a reason someone would be writing about their present day in their writings but little reason to redo Homer just for the sake of redoing Homer (in their own style of course...the Jewish Homer). Times were a bit more pressing then and leisure writing was a luxury afforded by the minority. The added fact that the work is anonymous just makes me think that this person thought what they were saying could get them in trouble. A "poet" or philosopher probably wouldn't think this way. A political "trouble maker" (the Jews in general were seen this way so I'm not sure how to phrase it) might.

 

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

By any chance did his freshness date expire on the Ides of March?

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. The writers were part of the society they were writing to. They knew what they wanted to hear and wrote it. It was to be taken literally.

Well, all I can say is that I disagree on that point. I think that there is a chance they didn't intend it to be taken literally. But that's just my opinion.

[Ouroboros]

I wouldn't be surprised ... might.

It is possible as an explanation too. It's just a little different spin, but just as possible.

 

By any chance did his freshness date expire on the Ides of March?

Yes. That's why this religion stink so much.

 

Rotten salad smells awfully bad!

[currentchristian]

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.

 

Now I get your theory. Thank you for coming at it again and again.

 

-CC

[Dave]

I apologize. I surely missed your point.

 

Lets try again. Could you elaborate on what it is that I said that you're having trouble with?

 

Oh, That's great - I disagree with something so therefore I must be having trouble.

 

What is it the people around here? I politely disagree, without insulting anyone, and all I get back are insults. I don't get it.

 

I understand it has to do with the whole real/imaginary/spiritual thing but if you could help me pinpoint it then it would help me know what I need to better explain.

 

I have no trouble with that what so ever. Just because I don't go in for all that so called "spiritual" stuff doesn't mean I don't understand or have trouble with it. How is that so hard to understand that you, and others, need to get all upset over it?

[currentchristian]

...

 

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!

 

...

I like this a lot. The concept of "being awake" is shared universally in the various wisdom traditions. The story goes that the Buddha was asked if he was a god or an angel or a prophet. He answerd in the negative. What are you, then, they asked. "I am awake." That's powerful. Remember what Paul wrote: "Awake, O sleeper, arise from the dead and Christ will give you light." At the very least, the sleeper and the light are metaphors. Or maybe Jesus does give out flashlights!

 

-CC

[Dave]

Sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. The writers were part of the society they were writing to. They knew what they wanted to hear and wrote it. It was to be taken literally.

Well, all I can say is that I disagree on that point. I think that there is a chance they didn't intend it to be taken literally. But that's just my opinion.

Thank you for disagreeing politely. We don't have to agree. Many people don't agree with me and the world doesn't come to an end and no one died. I just can't understand why so many have to get so prissy about it?

 

Sorry for my little tirade there. I'm just getting tired of people believing that they have to personally attack anyone that disagrees with them. You, and a few others, don't do that and I do appreciate it.

[Ouroboros]

Now I get your theory. Thank you for coming at it again and again.

Oops, I hope you don't feel I was beating a dead horse, that wasn't my purpose. Actually I think in the discourse of this thread some things became a bit clearer for me too.

[currentchristian]

...

 

The whole book is just an irredeemable waste of time.

I have not found this to be my personal experience, but I don't discount that this was indeed your experience.

 

-CC

[Ouroboros]

Thank you for disagreeing politely. We don't have to agree. Many people don't agree with me and the world doesn't come to an end and no one died. I just can't understand why so many have to get so prissy about it?

 

Sorry for my little tirade there. I'm just getting tired of people believing that they have to personally attack anyone that disagrees with them. You, and a few others, don't do that and I do appreciate it.

Thanks for observing that. I wrote a longer answer first to explain why I try my best doing this, but I lost the post somehow...

 

Anyway it basically said that I didn't use to be this "calm", but quite animated, passionate and obsessive in my discussions. I'm a work in progress. Sometimes I does show it's ugly head though, so don't take it for granted.

[currentchristian]

...Today when we say "gay" we mean homosexual, when really the meaning is "happy".

...

 

And some of us are both -- gay and gay.

 

-CC

[Ouroboros]

And some of us are both -- gay and gay.

And some people were named Gay a while back. Maybe one of them could claim to be gay Gay that's gay. Poor fella.

[currentchristian]

...

 

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.

...

mwc

You're a smart cookie, mwc, and your theories are amazingly interesting. But I've never been a fan of "conspiracy theories." Human nature as it is, we just can't cooperate long enough to pull it off. I don't see this possibility 2000 years ago, either. Sure, there may have been some hyperbole, some misunderstood LXX quotes, some unintentional (or even intentional) fidgeting with the facts, etc. But the overall story still rings true to me, as clearly as church bells do. Still, my hat is off to you as someone who knows how to think and theorize!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

...

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)

 

Washington did not chop down a cherry tree. Myth.

 

No president ever experimented with kites and lightening. That was Benjamin Franklin.

 

The other two are good!!!

 

-CC

[Dave]

Thanks for observing that. I wrote a longer answer first to explain why I try my best doing this, but I lost the post somehow...

 

I hate when that happens.

 

Anyway it basically said that I didn't use to be this "calm", but quite animated, passionate and obsessive in my discussions. I'm a work in progress. Sometimes I does show it's ugly head though, so don't take it for granted.

 

Hey, we're only human. I'm trying too. I'm working on not getting dragged into any flame wars that several here have tried to start. It's pretty hard to be more "obsessive" in discussions that I, but with a calm, adult, logical, discussion, I just might change my mind. Passion and animation is great and makes for fun conversations, but so does understanding, or empathy.

[Dave]

...Today when we say "gay" we mean homosexual, when really the meaning is "happy".

...

 

And some of us are both -- gay and gay.

 

-CC

I knew a guy that rode a motorcycle in parades or the Shriners. Nice old guy with a wife that almost force fed us whenever we stopped by. You know the kind; they're almost insulted if they can't feed you. His name...... Gay Plum.

[currentchristian]

...Joseph Campbell...

This is an excellent post. I had to read it twice to "get" about half of it.

 

In addition to understanding the purpose of myth, I think it is important to at least recognize that a person's story can be myth and history.

 

There is Lincoln the myth and Lincoln the man.

 

The myth: Rail-splitter who sought out books by walking long distances, became president, freed the slaves, saved the Union, gave up his life as a savior. That's one thing, and all of these myths are, partly, true.

 

Then there is Lincoln the man. Born in 1808. Died in 1865. Married to Mary Todd. Elected president of the United States. Assassinated.

 

Both are Lincoln. It can be argued that we are inspired more by Lincoln the myth as the myth is about all anyone knows, but Lincoln the man has much to teach us, too.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

...

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

 

Finally, an endorsement of cherry picking. Thank you, notblindedbytheblight!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

...The NT is supposed to represent the word of a god. ...

This is what most Christians will tell you, but I see it otherwise. The NT is composed of four accounts of the life of a man from Nazareth, named Yeshua. It also contains a history of the movement that developed around this man's memory during the first three decades after his departure. And it contains letters written by some of the adherents of this man's techings as they tried to explain what this man's appearance was all about. That's it.

 

As I see it.

 

-CC

[Ouroboros]

Washington did not chop down a cherry tree. Myth.

 

No president ever experimented with kites and lightening. That was Benjamin Franklin.

Well, that's the way to do it. Mix myth and history into one pot, and make stew to fit the one-person-hero or enemy.

 

Just like Satan, Devil, etc, all different nemesis gods that compiled together becomes just one character in christian religion.

[mwc]

I apologize. I surely missed your point.

 

Lets try again. Could you elaborate on what it is that I said that you're having trouble with?

 

Oh, That's great - I disagree with something so therefore I must be having trouble.

 

What is it the people around here? I politely disagree, without insulting anyone, and all I get back are insults. I don't get it.

Well, it could have been when you said:

 

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

 

You didn't disagree with me Dave. You plainly stated you were lost. The word implies that you didn't quite come along the entire trip with me and therefore I offered to get you where I was.

 

How am I to know where it was in this thread where you and I parted? I cannot and so I asked. Did you answer? No. Instead you take this position as if your intelligence has been insulted. Well, maybe it has...but not by me. Perhaps you're a bit insecure about something you know far more about than I? I apologized earlier because I saw my comments may have been uncalled for given the circumstances but not this time.

 

It's clear that the failure was not the inability on my part to convey my thoughts and ideas but your inability to deal with anything beyond your preconceived notions. Sadly, you limit yourself. You see, Dave, I also hold no belief the "supernatural." I do not believe in a "spirit" world. I, however, do not cripple myself by making these items off limits. I freely discuss them especially when the context, such as this thread, supports that I do.

 

So, please do not project your emotions onto me in the future. I apologized and that was that. You were free to accept it but you responded with this message instead. I'm sorry you behave in such a way that you get attacked and then you further feel attacked when you are not actually being attacked but it is not my fault nor my responsibility. Please go elsewhere to get this issue resolved. Even though I am aware of it I won't hesitate to play into your self-destructive behavior in the future.

 

I understand it has to do with the whole real/imaginary/spiritual thing but if you could help me pinpoint it then it would help me know what I need to better explain.

 

I have no trouble with that what so ever. Just because I don't go in for all that so called "spiritual" stuff doesn't mean I don't understand or have trouble with it. How is that so hard to understand that you, and others, need to get all upset over it?

Then go away. You have nothing more to contribute.

 

How much effort does it take to realize that people 2000 years ago DID go in for all this "spiritual" stuff, they believed in magic, gods and all sorts of crazy ideas and if you cannot be bothered to even try to put yourself into their mindset then you are useless in such conversations? Get used to it.

 

Your wishful thinking will never, ever, change any of these facts. You do like facts, right?

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

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.

 

 

Never mind: I have a partner and I bet you're not happy* anyway! (*See previous post!)

 

You three -- mwc, HanSolo, and notblindedbytheblight -- have lost me so now I'm delirioius and making funny.

 

 

-CC

[Ouroboros]

Never mind: I have a partner and I bet you're not happy* anyway! (*See previous post!)

And I'm taken.

 

You three -- mwc, HanSolo, and notblindedbytheblight -- have lost me so now I'm delirioius and making funny.

Good.