Tomb Of Jesus

[NotBlinded]

Okay...I found a site that answered my questions.

 

The element of shame in Jewish dishonorable burial is most vividly evident in the specific differences between burial in shame and burial with honor. Honorable burial emphasized precisely what shameful burial left out: the family tomb, and mourning. Burial by family groups in subterranean chambers was the consistent pattern, not just among Israelites and Jews but throughout the ancient near east. The practice of secondary burial (i.e. the reburial of bones after the flesh of the body has decayed) was especially prevalent, going back as far as the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1500 BCE), when circular underground chambers were used and the bones of family members were typically gathered into a pile on one side of the tomb. [16] Similar practices persisted through the Late Bronze Age (c.

 

-----------------------

 

15. For the sociology and anthropology of death ritual, see P. Metcalf and R. Huntington, Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual (2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); M. Bloch and J. Pary (eds.), Death and the Regeneration of Life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982); R. Chapman, I. Kinnes, and K. Randsborg (eds.), The Archaeology of Death (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

 

16. S. Campbell and A. Green (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

 

p. 442

 

1500-1200 BCE). [17] Later, during Iron Age II (esp. c. 800-700 BCE), benches were carved around the walls of the burial chamber, about waist-high. [18] Bodies were laid on these benches, and when decomposition of the flesh was complete, the bones were moved into repositories beneath the benches. Over time, these repositories came to hold the bones of family members long dead, so that the bones of the deceased rested with those of the forebears. The recurrent biblical idiom, "to be gathered to one's people/fathers" (Gen. 25:8 etc.), vividly depicts this ancient Israelite burial practice. It also gives voice to the Israelite preference for burial in a family tomb.

 

Secondary burial in family tombs was still being practiced at the time of Jesus. True, the "bench" tomb had been replaced by the "loculus" tomb, in which bodies were placed not on benches but in loculus niches (i.e. deep narrow slots carved into the wall of the tomb). Repositories had also been replaced by "ossuaries" (i.e. limestone boxes), but the basic ancient pattern still held true: bones of family members were reburied together in the underground tombs. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that secondary burial in loculus tombs was by far the dominant burial practice among first-century Jews in and around Jerusalem, and inscriptions show that most of these tombs were used by family groups. In the "Goliath" tomb from Jericho, inscriptions enabled the excavators to reconstruct three generations of the family tree. [19] The famous "Caiaphas" tomb demonstrates that the family of the High Priest followed these customs: in that loculus tomb there were 16 ossuaries, one of which was inscribed with the name "Joseph Caiaphas." [20] Secondary burial is discussed at length in the Mishnah and Talmudim, and the tractate Semahot is almost entirely devoted to the topic. Here too there is a strong emphasis on ties of kinship and family: Semahot 12.9, for example, holds a son responsible for the reburial of his father's

 

---------------------

 

17. R. Gonen, Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan (ASOR Dissertation Series 7; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992).

 

18. E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).

 

19. R. Hachlili, "The Goliath Family in Jericho: Funerary Inscriptions from a First Century AD Jewish Monumental Tomb," BASOR 235 (1979) 31-65; idem and P. Smith, "The Genealogy of the Goliath Family," BASOR 235 (1979) 67-70.

 

20. Z. Greenhut, "The Caiphas Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem," Atiqot 21 (1992) 63-71.

 

p. 443

 

bones. Archaeological corroboration of the rabbinic sources is found in the second and third-century catacombs at Beth She'arim, where secondary burial is frequent and where inscriptions show that individual burial chambers were purchased and used by family groups.

Where No One Had Yet Been Laid

 

It appears that secondary burial dates way back in time and from this, I can understand why Jesus would be buried in this manner. Especially if he wasn't crucified and lived on to have a family and be buried in an honorable way. Or, if he was crucified and survived.

 

This wasn't just a tradition invented due to the belief in physical resurrection that I can see...yet. Yes, they did start separating the bones to each individual, but how did you reach the understanding that it was because of the belief in physical resurrection if all the Jews did this?

 

Ohhh...also, I have a book at home about how it is possible that Jesus survived the crucifixion and nursed back to health. You know, how they annioted his body with oils and stuff. He could have been taken away from the tomb. A legend could have then been built around this "empty tomb". It would have surely been kept a secret if he was still alive when he was supposed to have been killed. Pilate knew the burial customs of same-day burial before sunset and may have let him down before he died if he had thought he was innocent. It seems that they did have a practice of leaving their bodies up for long periods of time in order to show the people what happens when they break the law. But, maybe Pilot did have compassion.

 

Many things could have happened in "reality", but with every ounce of my being, I cannot believe that he physcially got up and walked away. There has to be an explanation that is congruent with reality.

 

I didn't finish the book yet.

[mwc]

Can you point me in a direction to study that? When I google burial procedures of first century Judea, all I get is religious sites and talking about James' box. Do I need to go to some of the early historians?

I believe I read all this in some books but I'm sure it's online as well. It would probably be in more recent things as opposed to older research though. I try to read ebooks anymore since I can make the text larger so I imagine I read it there. But I really don't recall where I read it as it has been awhile. I'll see what I can come up with for you.

 

Was this type of burial something they did starting in the first century or does it go back even further? How did the gnostics bury their dead? Did the Jews believe in physical resurrection? That is why I asked how old is this tradition of ossuaries due to the belief in physical resurrection. This is interesting and I would like to know more. Sorry about all the questions, but you've peaked my interest!

I believe the practice dates back to about the 2nd century BCE. It started with the bone pits and evolved into the boxes. These were for people that had money though. Most people had to go without and buried people in caves or in the ground. This would also show that this Jesus had some cash or a good donation behind him (or had worked on this grave for some time himself since it meant something...still it would take money).

 

I'm not sure how the gnostic sect would have buried their dead. I drew my conclusion based on their beliefs that the flesh was basically corrupt. Considering this it seems reasonable that they wouldn't spend a lot of time or money on it. A simple in ground burial would be the most likely (I don't think cremation was a consideration for the Jews at the time). Since they would NOT want to have their spirit put back into their corrupt body, or any body for that matter, I wouldn't think they'd care too much what would happen to it after they died.

 

This site has a little info but it's mainly pictures of tombs in the area from that time.

 

A notable quote from the page is "They attest to the prevalent practice of collecting the bones of the deceased for secondary burial, a custom based on the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead. Following are descriptions of some of the more important tombs."

 

mwc

[Amethyst]

I think a literal hell could be powerful to this cult's brainwashing of securing their fold. Maybe this tomb can challenge that? If this does get the statistical edge of being the real thing, hopefully it has the same effect on all recovering fundamentalists as on here. Although, I would consider everyone here NOT in the recovering phase anymore. Thanks for sharing your strengths.

 

Amethyst, do you really think your fundy beliefs were ALL for nothing? I see so many here who were fundies, now being such great people at heart. I can't help but think that it contributed something positive along the way. Sure, its best to escape the helpless mentality it fosters, yet didn't it have some teachings that benefited you as well?

 

Yes, they were all for nothing. I basically grew up hating myself and feeling guilty every time I even remotely enjoyed life, be it reading a book, watching a movie, or whatever. I wish I could get back those early years and enjoy them. The process of recovering my self-esteem has taken years. The only positive thing is that I am free now.

[mwc]

Please bear with me while I try to work out the implications of this because it just doesn't make much sense in my mind as to why he would be burried in this manner.

 

If they believed in physical resurrection at end times, then what was said about Jesus resurrecting immediately was incorrect. Would that mean that he thought that he would also resurrect at this time?

Well, I can see why you might be confused. You're trying to resolve all these different beliefs into a coherent whole. They can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that G.Mark had a different, and unknown, ending. The resurrection is just the ending it has now. The other stories seem to be based on G.Mark. So perhaps G.Mark got its ending before they copied it or they came up with their ending and G.Mark was given a new ending to make it come in-line with them. We don't know.

 

Next, not everyone believed in any resurrection although plenty did. So when the stories were written they needed to say that their guy did the impossible/improbable and that was that their god raised him from the dead. He was the first. The archetype for resurrection. Now you sign up and you'll get it too because it works. Take just a quick peek at Scientology and you'll see that L. Ron Hubbard is the first to do the things on their list. Sign up with them and you'll do those things too because LRH proved they can be done. It works because one person has blazed the trail.

 

What I'm trying to get at, I think, is that why would he himself be buried in such a manner other than the resurrection belief? Was it an earlier tradition? Were there laws that had to be followed concerning burials regardless of beliefs?

 

In any case, if this proves real, then there are some wrong assumptions made about what he said somewhere. Why would he himself be buried this way if he thought he was to go to the father immediately?

 

If he was just a regular guy, then I could understand him choosing to be buried in a traditional way.

 

Why would he chose this manner of burial is my main question.

 

Maybe you can help ease my confusion mwc...

Barring much of the "stuff" that has been heaped onto this story over the past 2000 years let's just say that I'm going to buy into the basic premise. It's more than obvious that this is NOT the story of a god-man but the story of a man of god. A prophet. But this one is special because he gets, eventually, tied up with everything else. King (messiah), prophet, and priest. These are the symbols that are given by the wise men. He repeatedly speaks like a prophet and does the tricks of a prophet. Almost the entire story is that of a prophet with just a little mix of some of the other mixed in to throw us all off (others tossed in their agenda...also note that I'm painting using very broad strokes here). So if he lived and thought he really was a prophet...notice that I don't think he thinks he's the messiah but I think he's ushering in a new age...and perhaps that he does teach that he will become the messiah somehow in the future...then he, as a regular guy Jewish prophet would simply be buried as the Pharisee he seemed to be.

 

Now, when he was physically resurrected he might have thought that in that form he was going to be the messiah. Essentially what people think today in a way. He was a prophet his first go around. He died. When the father is ready (in 3 days) he would be resurrected and in that form he would be the messiah that his "former" self predicted. His "new" self then does the messiah stuff and makes sure the kingdom is all setup on earth forever. When this didn't happen they (meaning his followers) sent him to heaven instead.

 

The problem is that the bones would be moved into the bone boxes after the body decomposes after about a year. Someone has to do this and it would be a relative or a follower. The "deception" to go on that long for such a public figure would be nearly impossible. His grave would have had to be hidden which seems unlikely if he had offspring that were also buried there not to mention a wife (or close companion) since the grave would need tending.

 

Anyhow, this is all purely speculation on my part. I'm just trying to find a way to have the story in the gospels (to some extent) and have a real tomb find like they describe as well. It just doesn't line up logically. Perhaps the show will shed some light on this (but based on what I've read so far I wouldn't count on it)?

 

mwc

[mwc]

It appears that secondary burial dates way back in time and from this, I can understand why Jesus would be buried in this manner. Especially if he wasn't crucified and lived on to have a family and be buried in an honorable way. Or, if he was crucified and survived.

According your article it seems the tradition is quite a bit older than I thought. It seems the bone boxes came into being more recently though as they took over the common bone pits.

 

But, yes, if he decided to not be buried with his family or the story of his family was untrue then this burial makes perfect sense for someone with the means to do so.

 

This wasn't just a tradition invented due to the belief in physical resurrection that I can see...yet. Yes, they did start separating the bones to each individual, but how did you reach the understanding that it was because of the belief in physical resurrection if all the Jews did this?

The separating of the bones is related to the resurrection.

 

I found another site here:

The use of ossuaries was common in the Jerusalem area from the second half of the first century BCE until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The prevalence of this custom is often associated with the development of Jewish belief in personal resurrection of the dead, which made it necessary to separate the bones of each person.

I suppose there could be another reason for spending money on an elaborate box and then taking the time to place a persons bones into said box but I can't think of any especially when the communal bone pit in the tomb had been just fine for, apparently, a thousand years.

 

Ohhh...also, I have a book at home about how it is possible that Jesus survived the crucifixion and nursed back to health. You know, how they annioted his body with oils and stuff. He could have been taken away from the tomb. A legend could have then been built around this "empty tomb". It would have surely been kept a secret if he was still alive when he was supposed to have been killed. Pilate knew the burial customs of same-day burial before sunset and may have let him down before he died if he had thought he was innocent. It seems that they did have a practice of leaving their bodies up for long periods of time in order to show the people what happens when they break the law. But, maybe Pilot did have compassion.

I suppose the idea that he survived is based on the story of another person who survived and told his story (or did he actually write it himself?). There were also "love stories" based on dying and resurrecting people in those days too. It could have been based on that but I doubt it. There comes a point where we have much more information available to us then they had available to them. There's also information they had that we never will. It goes both ways.

 

As far as what Pilate did or did not know we can't say for certain. He seemed like he wanted to be sensitive to the traditions of those he governed but he likely didn't go out of his way to learn what those traditions were. He probably had "people" for that. Josephus certainly doesn't know a compassionate Pilate and few signs would point to one. If Pilate wanted a Jesus dead he would kill him. Pilate seems the type that would respect the Roman law, which is why when the gospel story has him send jesus to Herod since he was from Galilee it rings true, but since the offense was in Judea and jesus made no appeal he likely wouldn't bother.

 

Many things could have happened in "reality", but with every ounce of my being, I cannot believe that he physcially got up and walked away. There has to be an explanation that is congruent with reality.

No jesus?

 

mwc

[Mythra]

Well, ain't this just a peach. I now have something in common with dyed in the wool fundy christians.

 

Both of us think this earth-shattering "find" is bullshit, because it violates what we think is true.

 

Fundies think this can't be Jesus, because they know he floated up into the sky in bodily form. (and ended up god knows where)

 

And I think it's bullshit too. Just like I would if someone claimed they had found the bones of Sherlock Holmes.

 

Me and the fundies. Hand in hand.

 

Ain't that somethin.

[Amanda]

Are you saying that they thought that Jesus wouldn't be resurrected until the end times also? I may not be getting your connection.

NBBTB, I know this wasn't directed to me, but I would like to introduce an idea I think the NT meant. "Jesus" was not coming back (resurrecting) as a person. There is a couple of verses that explicitly says if a person claims that someone now is the Christ, don't believe them. That is because Jesus is NOT resurrecting as a person, but as ONE body of people, a corporate body. Some will be the eyes, some the hands, some the ears, etc. His ideas he presented, that he gathered from other great sages, of how to live one's life, would be the common vine and we would be the leaves. He would come in the clouds, tiny droplets (us) filleld with living water (his teachings) till each body thirsted no more. Collectively we, the water droplets, make a cloud. It was all metaphorically speaking. It was common then, when someone's teachings came to a town, they would say that person came. "Jesus" will come back, meaning his teachings will resurrect in and through a corporate body of people, IMO. That's also why I think that just because we have perhaps found the tomb of Jesus, and even if we cloned him, this would NOT fulfill prophecy of him coming back.

I have no doubt that many people believed in a physical resurrection. I just believe that this was based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus was teaching. Most of the bible is based on this same misunderstanding. The Council chose this one belief to use when they sat down at the table.

Well, IMO, the resurrection can be two different ways. One, to be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace. So, someone who was carnally minded, that has now become spiritually minded, has resurrected from the dead. The other bodily resurrection the bible illudes to, IMO, is ever so controversial, is that people are something along the lines of reincarnated. We keep coming back till we are pure as crystal, having nothing opposing the light of God. Here on earth is where 'hell' can be, the fire that purifies us, that burns off our selfish carnal nature till we are pure spirit form. The mansions, bodies that are houses of distinctions, await us in the end. There are references to John the Baptist being Elijah, "divers places", the ladder with angels (messengers of God) ascending and decending, and lots more. Ecclesiastes 1:5-11 is where I first started to get the idea through metaphors, but passed it off... nah, can't be! Yet, the more I studied these teachings, the more it makes sense, especially after you get use to the metaphorical implications. Also, it speaks of us being on a wheel, think about it... going up and coming down on our progressive journey.

 

Just my $.02 and another iron thrown into the fire of debates.

[Amanda]

And I think it's bullshit too. Just like I would if someone claimed they had found the bones of Sherlock Holmes.

 

Mythra, I'm sure you're right to a certain extent... and maybe 100%.

 

However, I relate what you're saying to claim finding the tomb of Santa Claus, when in actuality it may have just been St. Nicholas. Or maybe even having a claim to have found Sherlock Holmes, when actually it was the author of Sherlock Holmes. I'm curious to know if you could find it possible to be open minded to just that much? As much as you've studied ancient myths, you've open my eyes to some (thanks ), I'm sure you see a ton of it spun into "Jesus", yet couldn't there be a core person at the root of this?

[mwc]

NBBTB, I know this wasn't directed to me, but I would like to introduce an idea I think the NT meant. "Jesus" was not coming back (resurrecting) as a person. There is a couple of verses that explicitly says if a person claims that someone now is the Christ, don't believe them.

Well, this wasn't to me but I figured it didn't really matter. We're all pals.

 

One of the big problems I have with this type of interpretation, and I've been trying to say it all along in a few threads, is that the NT, the gospels and each book of the gospel perhaps, isn't written as a single effort that we know of.

 

Let me explain. The NT is obviously a collection of books and letters. The gospel of Luke says right at the start that he collected what people did prior and he organized it. People that study the gospels say they're organized into pericopes (I believe that's the word) or simply little story sections. So G.Mark would be made of little stories that were collected and organized just as the NT is a collection of books.

 

Going further, if we believe the church fathers, such as Papias, that say that G.Mark was originally just a loose collection of out of order material then it stands to reason that the thing we have today is not the G.Mark of then. The G.Mark of then was simply a collection of stories without rhyme nor reason. Someone weaved them into a narrative later with the correct time line and so on.

 

However, we know that G.Matthew based roughly 80% of his gospel on G.Mark nearly word for word. It could have went the other way but from what I've read people find that unlikely. G.Luke followed suit. And finally G.John which did his own thing for the most part.

 

The whole thing is rather complicated but the point is that if G.Mark, the original, was simply a loose collection of out of order tales, then which tales were in that collection? What narrative was added to put it all together? When was it all done? Was it all done in one sitting or was it a work in progress for some time?

 

The last question is the big one for our particular conversion since it allows "new" ideas to creep into the theology. Where once you have a religion that believes in a physical resurrection you can now have one that believes in a more spiritual one (a combination or even a purely spiritual one). An evolution can occur because this document is "living." Once it get locked down out of necessity (people asking why the variations and so on) then it simply is what it is. Then new books, like G.John, would need to come in or new systems like the Gnostics beliefs would need to try to take the place of what is and they would develop their own texts.

 

Does any of this make sense? It's something that I find increasingly confusing when I look at some of these issues because I do think that the ideas in the gospels changed as time went on and trying to talk about them as a whole, as if they were that way from day one, is what causes a lot of confusion (and contradiction). The people who were in charge of the text at one people believed "X" and later it was "Y." The theology evolved or just changed for some reason but it had to be reflected in the text somehow. Jesus or no jesus really no longer mattered.

 

Ecclesiastes 1:5-11 is where I first started to get the idea through metaphors, but passed it off... nah, can't be! Yet, the more I studied these teachings, the more it makes sense, especially after you get use to the metaphorical implications. Also, it speaks of us being on a wheel, think about it... going up and coming down on our progressive journey.

The other problem I have with reading things metaphorically is simply showing that the people back then wrote it the same way. Two thousand and three thousand years ago that someone sat down and wrote a metaphor. That each person wrote a metaphor and it was included in this collection. This is almost as bad as people looking at a verse and telling me that it points to the coming of Jesus when it clearly doesn't. They can tell me the author didn't need to know they were telling me of his coming and you can tell me the author didn't need to know they were using metaphor, but they really were, but I won't believe you.

 

This isn't to say that metaphor doesn't exist, and quite heavily, in the bible. I'm not that stupid. It's just that I can't believe that the metaphor for "I'm going to kill you" is hiding "I love you so much" within it. Can't it mean what it says? Can't it be a metaphor for something different? It seems to ignore the world these people lived in and seems instead to place them in a world we'd like them to live in instead. To have understanding we can't allocate to them but can give to peoples thousands of miles away for instance. To see nothing of these ideas reflected anywhere beyond these texts shows a lack of credibility for the theory because when we turn to the writings of the church fathers, who wrote at roughly the same time as the gospel writers, we see none of these teachings in what they write. Not even a hint. The writings of the Gnostics in the area of Egypt where they developed show a leaning simply toward their own flavor of Jewish mysticism as opposed to any other brand of religion.

 

Anyhow, I've gone on a bit too much. I really wanted to try to track down where it is, back then and not today, where it is I should be looking to see where all this metaphor lies. The very little research I've started to do on the topic seems that people are seeing what they want to see and so I wanted to turn to those who have looked a little deeper than I have and see if they can send a few pointers my way so I can connect these dots (I pointed out a few of my issues obviously).

 

mwc

[Mythra]

I'm sure you see a ton of it spun into "Jesus", yet couldn't there be a core person at the root of this?

 

Well, sure there could be, Amanda. I just think it's pretty unlikely, based on what I know.

 

And, I have an incredibly miniscule personal investment in this now. So, if it turned out that Jesus had been a real guy, I'd probably shrug my shoulders and get on with my life.

 

Now, if they examine this DNA that remains in Jesus' tomb, and find out that it inexplicably has chromosomes that no scientist has ever seen before, then we might be doing some rapid soul-searching.

[Amanda]

<snip> The whole thing is rather complicated but the point is that if G.Mark, the original, was simply a loose collection of out of order tales, then which tales were in that collection? What narrative was added to put it all together? When was it all done? Was it all done in one sitting or was it a work in progress for some time?

MWC, I'm glad you joined in on these comments. I had read those posts between you and NBBTB, and I am not knowledgeable in these regards as you are. My intentions are not debating your resources and reasoning from your perspecitive, since I think you may be a scholar in those areas. However, in studying these biblical perspectives, I see little contradiction, especially in regards to the idea of the body of christ coming back or being resurrected in a corporate body. IMO, it is a main theme throughout and the thrust of the whole bible, especially consolidated in the NT.

 

Hence, the concept of universal salvation. Why would Jesus/God throw away any part of their self? Now this is where I see an obvious myth at work, throughout the OT and the NT, but a beautiful one. I see a very strong correlation between "christ," the anointed one, being the beginning, the end, and also everyone in between. (I would go so far as to say everything in between, yet realize that complicates things too much. ) IMO, a main underlying theme throughout the whole bible is the resurrection of the morning star, obviously a mythological way of explaining the one body, and reviving the oneness back to God. The NT does seem to suggest another way of conceiving this idea, "the Word," which IMO, has more significant ramifications, and much more sophisticated implications.

 

<snip> The other problem I have with reading things metaphorically is simply showing that the people back then wrote it the same way. Two thousand and three thousand years ago that someone sat down and wrote a metaphor. That each person wrote a metaphor and it was included in this collection. This is almost as bad as people looking at a verse and telling me that it points to the coming of Jesus when it clearly doesn't. They can tell me the author didn't need to know they were telling me of his coming and you can tell me the author didn't need to know they were using metaphor, but they really were, but I won't believe you.

MWC, you're right, the people back then did not write the same way as us. I think writing only started about 3000 BC and was initially only for inventory purposes. They were not nearly as articulate as us, and IMO metaphors were able to relay the meaning they intended more. I think this could even apply today in many ways. Also, I think it was a clever way of expanding one's mind and in the process of understandng the metaphor, an epiphany takes place... an enlightening, an internal transformation happens that is different than if they just tell you the meat of the matter directly.

 

Also, if you look at the resources allowing us to evaluate the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, you might find their choice of words for these popular translations are inappropriate. It doesn't make sense unless you recognize the whole concept of one word and examine how its meaning evolved. Like I said, they weren't as articulate as us at the time these renderings were written, and even when the KJV translation took place. Such as one verse says that Jesus came to take away the peace so that we may have real peace. However, on closer examination, what they were referring, IMO, is that Jesus came to take away the complacency so that we may have real peace. Can you see how they might confuse complacency with peace, not having the articulation we have today? Some place it says to hate your family, however, with closer inspection and understanding the context it is delivered, it clearly means to denounce these ways of their family so that he could start fresh in teaching them better coping skills, obviously needed since they were hungry and homeless. BTW, he had invited them to his house and gave them dinner too. Of course, all this is my opinion of the story we have today is told, yet if you used the same method as I, I think we'd both come to very similar conclusions. BTW, I did not come up with this method, it was taught to me.

[Amanda]

Now, if they examine this DNA that remains in Jesus' tomb, and find out that it inexplicably has chromosomes that no scientist has ever seen before, then we might be doing some rapid soul-searching.

 

[NotBlinded]

According your article it seems the tradition is quite a bit older than I thought. It seems the bone boxes came into being more recently though as they took over the common bone pits.

 

But, yes, if he decided to not be buried with his family or the story of his family was untrue then this burial makes perfect sense for someone with the means to do so.

 

This wasn't just a tradition invented due to the belief in physical resurrection that I can see...yet. Yes, they did start separating the bones to each individual, but how did you reach the understanding that it was because of the belief in physical resurrection if all the Jews did this?

The separating of the bones is related to the resurrection.

 

I found another site here:

The use of ossuaries was common in the Jerusalem area from the second half of the first century BCE until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. The prevalence of this custom is often associated with the development of Jewish belief in personal resurrection of the dead, which made it necessary to separate the bones of each person.

I suppose there could be another reason for spending money on an elaborate box and then taking the time to place a persons bones into said box but I can't think of any especially when the communal bone pit in the tomb had been just fine for, apparently, a thousand years.

Now I know why you called him a Pharisee! It seems this non-biblical belief of physical resurrection was associated with them. Ahhh....what a little information will do to mass confusion in my head! Of course, this throws another wrench into the "little" find of this tomb doesn't it?

No jesus?

 

mwc

Know peace?

 

Know Jesus, No peace?

 

I just can't help myself sometimes. If the fundies had any idea what their bumper sticker meant, it probably wouldn't bother me so much. But of course, they think it's possible to know a dead guy personally instead of paying attention to what he said (or someone said).

 

I used to think that Jesus didn't exist, then I have a hard time seeing a legend built completely out of nothing. A regular guy that drew a lot of attention would have much gossip told, IMO.

 

Thanks for all your info mwc! I really do appreciate being shown another direction to investigate!

[NotBlinded]

Are you saying that they thought that Jesus wouldn't be resurrected until the end times also? I may not be getting your connection.

NBBTB, I know this wasn't directed to me, but I would like to introduce an idea I think the NT meant. "Jesus" was not coming back (resurrecting) as a person. There is a couple of verses that explicitly says if a person claims that someone now is the Christ, don't believe them. That is because Jesus is NOT resurrecting as a person, but as ONE body of people, a corporate body. Some will be the eyes, some the hands, some the ears, etc. His ideas he presented, that he gathered from other great sages, of how to live one's life, would be the common vine and we would be the leaves. He would come in the clouds, tiny droplets (us) filleld with living water (his teachings) till each body thirsted no more. Collectively we, the water droplets, make a cloud. It was all metaphorically speaking. It was common then, when someone's teachings came to a town, they would say that person came. "Jesus" will come back, meaning his teachings will resurrect in and through a corporate body of people, IMO. That's also why I think that just because we have perhaps found the tomb of Jesus, and even if we cloned him, this would NOT fulfill prophecy of him coming back.

I couldn't agree more Amanda. But, I think there are many cases in the narratives that do show misunderstanding of these messages. I don't think it is a book that was put together in complete understanding. I believe it is a myth. Not in the untrue understanding, but the understanding of historical, metaphysical, psychological and cosmological truths of the people that wrote it. Metaphors are the only way to speak of at least two of those categories.

 

I just also believe that not everyone understood these things and projected their misunderstanding into the narrative parts. This makes it even harder to get to core of the teachings. I think there were many, many people that didn't understand a thing Jesus said on a spiritual level even when he was talking to their face. Only a few people today understand the spiritual speakers of today. If I would have listened to them just 5 years ago, I would have thought they were crazy, or that they were talking about something supernatural. It's caused by having to use language to talk about what can't be known. It's hard for people to go beyond the words.

 

I do agree with you though and believe that is exactly what was meant when the second coming of Christ is mentioned. I just don't think that many church leaders did. Or, if they did, they weren't going to promote that understanding because, what control could they gain by that? I think it's a combination of the lack of understanding and the willingness to promote something that wasn't true. They took what was said and made sure not many people understood what was really meant. They wouldn't have to really change the words too much because the words themselves can be interpreted that way especially if one is leading you towards a literal understanding. It takes some guidance and openness to be able to see behind the words, and they weren't helping at all with a spiritual understanding. It's still there though and probably why the early Catholics weren't allowed to even own a bible. If they weren't guided to the literal understanding, they might just be able to see beyond the words and realize they didn't need the church any longer.

 

 

I have no doubt that many people believed in a physical resurrection. I just believe that this was based on a misunderstanding of what Jesus was teaching. Most of the bible is based on this same misunderstanding. The Council chose this one belief to use when they sat down at the table.

Well, IMO, the resurrection can be two different ways. One, to be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace. So, someone who was carnally minded, that has now become spiritually minded, has resurrected from the dead. The other bodily resurrection the bible illudes to, IMO, is ever so controversial, is that people are something along the lines of reincarnated. We keep coming back till we are pure as crystal, having nothing opposing the light of God. Here on earth is where 'hell' can be, the fire that purifies us, that burns off our selfish carnal nature till we are pure spirit form. The mansions, bodies that are houses of distinctions, await us in the end. There are references to John the Baptist being Elijah, "divers places", the ladder with angels (messengers of God) ascending and decending, and lots more. Ecclesiastes 1:5-11 is where I first started to get the idea through metaphors, but passed it off... nah, can't be! Yet, the more I studied these teachings, the more it makes sense, especially after you get use to the metaphorical implications. Also, it speaks of us being on a wheel, think about it... going up and coming down on our progressive journey.

 

Just my $.02 and another iron thrown into the fire of debates.

I live my life by those $.02 Amanda. I'm with ya!

[NotBlinded]

This isn't to say that metaphor doesn't exist, and quite heavily, in the bible. I'm not that stupid. It's just that I can't believe that the metaphor for "I'm going to kill you" is hiding "I love you so much" within it. Can't it mean what it says? Can't it be a metaphor for something different? It seems to ignore the world these people lived in and seems instead to place them in a world we'd like them to live in instead. To have understanding we can't allocate to them but can give to peoples thousands of miles away for instance. To see nothing of these ideas reflected anywhere beyond these texts shows a lack of credibility for the theory because when we turn to the writings of the church fathers, who wrote at roughly the same time as the gospel writers, we see none of these teachings in what they write. Not even a hint. The writings of the Gnostics in the area of Egypt where they developed show a leaning simply toward their own flavor of Jewish mysticism as opposed to any other brand of religion.

 

Anyhow, I've gone on a bit too much. I really wanted to try to track down where it is, back then and not today, where it is I should be looking to see where all this metaphor lies. The very little research I've started to do on the topic seems that people are seeing what they want to see and so I wanted to turn to those who have looked a little deeper than I have and see if they can send a few pointers my way so I can connect these dots (I pointed out a few of my issues obviously).

 

mwc

Of course I would suggest Campbell, but that's just me.

 

Maybe you could look at what it has in common with the sayings of Buddha and Hinduism?

 

Wiki has some good info: here

 

From there:

 

Buddha and the Sacrifice:

This Purusa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; (Rig Veda Purusha Sukta)

 

Buddha is known as the MAHA PURUSHA. This Purusha is a human sacrifice or Purushamedha, from which all creation comes forth. "Maha -Purusha" in the Pali canon, the Digha Nikaya, in the discourse titled "Sutra of the Marks" (Pali: Lakkhana Sutta).Griffith (1899)

 

:"man, the noblest victim, being actually or symbolically sacrificed ... and men and women of various tribes, figures, complexions, characters, and professions being attached to the sacrificial stakes in place of the tame and wild animals enumerated in Book XXIV [VS 24]. These nominal victims were afterwards released uninjured, and, so far as the text of the White Yajurveda goes, the whole ceremony was merely emblematical."

 

The ceremony evokes the mythical sacrifice of Purusha, the "Cosmic Man", and the officiating Brahman recites the Purusha sukta to the assembled human victims (RV 10.90 = AVS 5.19.6 = VS 31.1–16).

 

From the body of the Purusha all things come forth.

 

In this human sacrifice, the Purusha is tied to a stake and symbolically killed.

 

Jesus and the Sacrifice:

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1)

 

“Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1)

 

12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. (1cor 12:12)

 

Both are very symbolic and speaks with metaphors. They both point to the same thing though.

 

And the Jesus Never Existed site has good comparisons also: here

 

From there:

 

Influence of Buddhism on the Christians – Q?

Close, striking parallels exist between early Buddhist texts and what Bible scholars postulate as the 'Q' material – ('Q' is shorthand for Quelle, the German for 'source'). The earliest translations of Buddhist texts into Greek date back to the time of king Asoka (3rd century BC).

 

It seems highly probable that the core of the body of Q material was made up of aphorisms, sayings originally ascribed to the Buddha but later attributed to Jesus. To these sayings were added mini-stories and micro-scenes to produce what became the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

 

And another site: here

 

The Evil One spent six difficult years, constantly following the Bohdisattva, always looking for, seeking, an opportunity to get the better of him, but he never succeeded. When he did get a chance, he had to leave frustrated and wrathful (Lalitavistara XVIII).

 

And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season (Luke 4:13).

 

This isn't a literal devil or evil one being spoke of here, but the human tendency towards temptation of the self (small self).

 

 

Hinduism also compares. Check out the similarities between Krishna and Jesus.

 

Both of these figures also claim to hold the entirety of the religion on themselves. Jesus tells his disciples, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:6-7). This is a bold statement asserts Jesus’s importance to God and to the way to salvation. He is both God’s gatekeeper and God himself. He is not unlike a Hindu avatar in this respect. Swami Akhilananda describes avatars as those who represent the full potential of humanity. They are fully human, but at the same time, the divine part of their being is not affected by the human part. They are always aware of their purpose, and they must spread the news of who they really are so that man might realize some good from their presence (42-43).

From here

 

Bolding is mine.

[Amanda]

Yes, they were all for nothing. I basically grew up hating myself and feeling guilty every time I even remotely enjoyed life, be it reading a book, watching a movie, or whatever. I wish I could get back those early years and enjoy them. The process of recovering my self-esteem has taken years. The only positive thing is that I am free now.

 

Wow, I can't believe I missed this! Amethyst, I am so surprised at this! You seem to me, you are so strong and assertive! I get apprehensive when I see you've responded to my post... like, I tell myself to pay attention Amanda... this is going to be deep! :ohmy: You're always respectful, yet I see no signs of you ever having had self esteem problems, nor lack of having had read a ton of books! Maybe you have more than compensated? Maybe you can just relax now?

 

Yeah... I was telling someone else, I could never be self disciplined enough to be a fundy. My more youthful days, I use to ask God to show me why something was wrong or to take away the desire, and if that didn't happen... I figured he'd just have to understand. I never judged other people, as I've always knew I had enough problems of my own.

 

Could a person who was sincerely into fundamentalism, especially in their late teens/early twenties, get a sense of great accomplishments in self discipline? I suppose fundies didn't learn the hard way as much as I did. I came to a point where I felt like I had wasted some of my life attending a few more parties than I feel I should have.

[mwc]

MWC, I'm glad you joined in on these comments. I had read those posts between you and NBBTB, and I am not knowledgeable in these regards as you are. My intentions are not debating your resources and reasoning from your perspecitive, since I think you may be a scholar in those areas. However, in studying these biblical perspectives, I see little contradiction, especially in regards to the idea of the body of christ coming back or being resurrected in a corporate body. IMO, it is a main theme throughout and the thrust of the whole bible, especially consolidated in the NT.

I appreciate the kind words but I'm surely not a scholar...but I play one on the internet.

 

I guess it's things like "body of christ" and things like that which start tripping me up. They don't align with the original Jewish intent of the word. The LXX made these words and concepts available in the Greek. You've mentioned the translations into the KJV, well, it's the same here. It's close, but not quite right. So people read these things and developed ideas that weren't quite right. Christ is to simply annoint. All the kings and high priests that ever ruled in Israel were "Christs." This makes them messiahs as well since it's roughly the same word when translated.

 

But the intent of the word could be *almost* like a ceremony (I'm not saying this is what was done...this is for comparison) where one is touched with the sword on each shoulder (like a knighting ceremony) to say "You are now a king" or whatever. It was symbolic in that manner but there is no indication in the bible or elsewhere that I'm aware that it had any meaning beyond that as the ceremony I just created with the sword is just what it reads like.

 

So when you have a body of "christ" you have what? The body of a misused word? The body of anointed people? Kings? High priests? Jews? Messiahs? What? It's a translation error. A misunderstanding...but we're trying to apply a deep meaning to this word. One that really doesn't apply if we just go back and look at what the word meant before the translation occurred. If we jump forward slightly and ask the church fathers what this meant they say it was the church, of course. So not long after this thing got off the ground the "body of christ" was the church proper. A metaphor to be certain but not the one you were looking for.

 

Hence, the concept of universal salvation. Why would Jesus/God throw away any part of their self?

I'm not going to look it up but to paraphrase "If your eye offends you...pluck it out."

 

The NT does seem to suggest another way of conceiving this idea, "the Word," which IMO, has more significant ramifications, and much more sophisticated implications.

To many this means the Torah incarnate as they modified the Greek Logos idea. This would make jesus a walking Mishnah.

 

MWC, you're right, the people back then did not write the same way as us. I think writing only started about 3000 BC and was initially only for inventory purposes. They were not nearly as articulate as us, and IMO metaphors were able to relay the meaning they intended more. I think this could even apply today in many ways. Also, I think it was a clever way of expanding one's mind and in the process of understandng the metaphor, an epiphany takes place... an enlightening, an internal transformation happens that is different than if they just tell you the meat of the matter directly.

I'll disagree with how sophisticated the writing was. The original writing used pictures, obviously, so it was a little more open to "interpretation" but other than that they wrote stories (fiction) and other things. The Egyptians had a version of Cinderella and things like that for entertainment purposes.

 

But they also had "deep" writings as well. Here's some from Egyptian "Proverbs" that are suspected to be the oldest such writings in the world:

 

- If you search for the laws of harmony, you will find knowledge.

- The body is the house of God. That is why it is said, "Man know thyself."

- True teaching is not an accumulation of knowledge; it is an awaking of consciousness which goes through successive stages.

- People bring about their own undoing through their tongues.

- If one tries to navigate unknown waters one runs the risk of shipwreck.

- Love is one thing, knowledge is another.

- True sages are those who give what they have, without meanness and without secret!

Those are just a (very) few. They sound very "Eastern" and very "NT" but they're very ancient Egyptian. The Egyptians were a very dynamic culture and they're often overlooked in favor of other cultures but texts like this show that they had these same "deep" thoughts and ideas long before most others (these were at the Temple of Karnak which was constructed around 1500-1600 BCE).

 

As far as other stories they had then how about some from a bit further back that had a testy snake?:

Aset learns the Secret Name of Ra

 

This story comes from two papyri dated to the 19th Dynasty, one, the Turin Magical Papyrus from Lower Egypt, which contains the more complete text, and the other, the Chester Beatty text, found near Thebes at Deir el-Medina. The story tells of Isis using her great Magic skills to poison the God Ra, Lord of all, in order to attain from Him the Secret Name which was known to no man or god before. The text served as an incantation and remedy against snake and scorpion bite, as seen in the instructions included at the end:

 

The spell of the divine god, Ra, [Atum],who came into being by himself, who made heaven, earth, water, the breath of life, fire, gods, men, small and large cattle, creeping things, birds and fishes, the king of men and gods at one time, abounding in names, unknown to that god and unknown to this god.

 

Aset/Isis was clever. Her heart was more cunning than a million men; She was wiser than a million gods; more discerning than a million of the Akh. Only one thing She did not know in heaven and earth. Aset purposed in her heart to learn the one thing She still lacked, the name of the august god, Ra

 

Ra entered every day at the head of His entourage, taking His place on the throne of the two horizons. Though divine, old age caused him to drool. He spat here and there, leaving his spittle fallen upon the soil. Isis took it and the earth it moistened, and kneaded it with Her hand. She built the mud into an august snake with a sharp tongue. Then she left it at the crossroads past which the great god used to go throughout the Two Lands.

 

Now, Ra the great god appeared with the gods in His entourage accompanying Him, so that He might stroll as on every day. At the crossroads as He walked, the snake bit Him. It then came forth from Him and vanished among the grass. When the divine god could gain His voice, the noise of His mighty crying reached the heavens. The Entourage of His Ennead said: “What is it? What is it?” But He could not find His voice to answer about it. His lips were trembling, and His body shuddered. The poison took possession of his flesh as the Nile takes possession of the land after it.

 

When the great god had composed His heart, He cried out to His Companions: "Come to me, all you gods who came into being in my body, who came forth from me, that I may make known to you what has happened. Something painful has stabbed me. My heart does not recognize it, my eyes have not seen it, my hand did not make it, and I do not recognize it in all that I have made. I have not tasted a pain like unto it, and there is nothing more painful than it.

 

I am abounding in names and abounding in forms. My forms exist as every god; I am called Atum and Heru-of-Praise. My father and my mother told me my name, but it was hidden in my body before I was born, in order that the power of a male of female magician might not be made to play against me. While I was going out of doors to see what I had made, and to stroll in the Two Lands which I have created, something has stung me---I know not what. It is not really fire; it is not really water. My heart is on fire, my body is trembling, and my body is beginning to chill.

 

Let the children of the gods be brought to me, the beneficent of speech, who know their magic spells, whose wisdom reaches the heavens."

 

So the children of the gods came, every one of them having his mourning, but Aset came with Her skill, Her speech having the breath of life, Her utterances expelling pain, and Her words reviving him whose throat was constricted. She said, "What is it, what is it, my divine father? What—a snake stabbed weakness into you? One of your children lifted up his head against you? Then I shall cast it down with effective magic. I shall make it retreat at the sight of your rays."

 

The holy god opened his mouth: "It is that I was going along the way, strolling in the Two Lands and the foreign countries, for my heart desired to see what I had created, when I was bitten a snake, without seeing it. It is not really fire; it is not really water; but I am colder than water, I am hotter than fire. My entire body is sweating, while I am shivering. My eye is not steadfast, and I cannot see. The heavens are beating upon my face as at the time of summer."

 

Then Aset said, "Tell me your name, my divine father, for a person lives whose name one recites (Heka)."

 

And Ra replied, "I am he who made heaven and earth, who knotted together the mountains, and created what is thereon. I am he who made the waters, so that the Heavenly Cow might come into being. I am he who made the bull for the cow, so that sexual pleasures might come into being. I am he who made the heaven and the mysteries of the two horizons, so that the soul of the gods might be placed therein. I am he who opened his eyes. So that light might come into being, who closed his eyes, so that darkness might come into being, in conformance with whose command the Nile flows, but whose name the gods have not learned. I am he who made the hours, so that days might come into being. I am he who opened the year and created the river. I am he who made the living fire, in order to bring into being the work of the palace. I am Khepri in the morning, Re at noon, and Atum who is in the evening."

 

But the poison was not checked in its course, and the great god did not recover.

 

Then Isis said to Ra: "Your name is not really among these which you have told me. If you tell me it, the poison will come forth, for a person whose name is pronounced, lives."

 

The poison burned with a burning. It was more powerful than flame or fire.

 

Then the majesty of Ra said: "Let your ears be given to me, daughter Aset/Isis, that my name may come forth from my body into your body. The most divine among the gods concealed it, so that my place might be wide in the Barque of Millions of Years. If there should take place a first time of its issuing from my heart, tell it to your son Heru, after you threaten him with an oath of the god, and have placed the god in his eyes."

 

The great god then divulged his name to Aset, the Great of Magic.

 

Isis then spoke this Healing spell and cast out the poison from Ra's body and majesty: "Come forth from Ra! Come forth from the burning god at my spell! It is I who acts; it is I who sends the message. Come upon the ground, O mighty poison! Behold, the great god has divulged his name, and Ra is living, the poison is dead, through the speech of Aset the Great, the Mistress of the Gods, who knows Ra by his name."

 

Words to be spoken over an image of Atum-Ra and of Horus-of-Praise, over a figure of Isis, and an image of Horus, painted on the hand of the one afflicted by the bite, and licked off, or, written on strips of linen and placed at the throat of him who was bitten, or may be added into beer and drunk by the one bitten. It is what kills the poison-really effective, a million times.

 

Source: Ancient Egyptian Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. by James Pritchard

The fact that Egypt controlled Canaan prior to the formation of Israel/Judea would allow for all these stories, or variations of them, to enter into their collective world. But does it mean that there was any higher purpose to them once the Jews wrote them into their holy book other than they took another cultures stories and made them their own?

 

If you want to search for the higher truth shouldn't you go back to these older texts? The original stories? Not the "borrowed" versions from a thousand or more years later?

 

Also, if you look at the resources allowing us to evaluate the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, you might find their choice of words for these popular translations are inappropriate. It doesn't make sense unless you recognize the whole concept of one word and examine how its meaning evolved. Like I said, they weren't as articulate as us at the time these renderings were written, and even when the KJV translation took place. Such as one verse says that Jesus came to take away the peace so that we may have real peace.

But this makes perfect sense if you stop trying to read it as if there was someone following around jesus with a pad and paper or some sort of recording device noting his every word. It makes perfect sense if you have a number of stories floating about and someone simply collected those stories, without caring about their content, and writing them down without rhyme nor reason. "You have a 'jesus' story? Alright, lets get that on parchment." Later on someone tried to organize them but which stories do you pick? The most popular is the most likely solution which is why you have so many people with the same names. People didn't know who did what and when since it was likely one of these "Well, I heard it was John that did <whatever>." And someone else would say "No, no. It wasn't John it was James. John did something else." It was probably a mess. So whoever wrote it down cleaned it up as best they could but it was pretty much left as-is.

 

So to have jesus say one thing and then say the opposite makes perfect sense because the stories that got around would have had him doing just that. The author wrote it down without caring that their was a contradiction. It was a "big picture" issue. He just wanted it all written down in some reasonable fashion. It seems that the early xians really didn't care too much about jesus anyhow. They rarely quote him or mention him for that matter. It's like he didn't even exist in the first draft. Bishop Theophilus (sp?) of Antioch simply calls him something like the "voice" of the gospel and this is a hundred years later while he names all the OT figures by name. Kind of sad for a xian Bishop.

 

However, on closer examination, what they were referring, IMO, is that Jesus came to take away the complacency so that we may have real peace. Can you see how they might confuse complacency with peace, not having the articulation we have today? Some place it says to hate your family, however, with closer inspection and understanding the context it is delivered, it clearly means to denounce these ways of their family so that he could start fresh in teaching them better coping skills, obviously needed since they were hungry and homeless. BTW, he had invited them to his house and gave them dinner too. Of course, all this is my opinion of the story we have today is told, yet if you used the same method as I, I think we'd both come to very similar conclusions. BTW, I did not come up with this method, it was taught to me.

The problem with the word game is that Greek is a fairly precise language like most modern languages. Yes, you can get ambiguity today, and you could then as well but how is it that it seems that only in the controversial sections of the text do we run into these things? Why not in the "good" parts?

 

Why couldn't he mean what he says when it comes to telling your family off but when it comes to going to heaven he simply means that a really nice bath is like being in heaven (and that's why he was so into baptism)? Why couldn't he have been a total jerk that wanted to be alone so he could get some "quiet" time (heaven on earth)? That was his entire message. Finally he just said "I'm outta here" and offed himself because he couldn't take these people he resented so badly? He was just a crank and he really wanted us all dead. People tried to sugar coat it later for some reason (they were superstitious and they believed the evil old goat was coming back like he said he would so they played nice like people did in that Twilight Zone with that kid that could put people in the corn field for thinking bad thoughts) and they missed a few spots.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Now I know why you called him a Pharisee! It seems this non-biblical belief of physical resurrection was associated with them. Ahhh....what a little information will do to mass confusion in my head! Of course, this throws another wrench into the "little" find of this tomb doesn't it?

You mean we're on the same page as far as this one thing goes?

 

When I started lurking on some of the Jewish boards and all I was really surprised to discover that early xians and Pharisees were nearly identical...at least in what we think they each believed. Then to find out that Pharisees would debate in the manner ascribed to jesus made me realize that jesus was really just a Pharisee (or a variation thereof). Then to discover further that their was essentially a religious civil war in the late 60's CE when all these texts were being written and WHAM the light came on that this was all propaganda.

 

Know Jesus, No peace?

Almost seems that way doesn't it?

 

I just can't help myself sometimes. If the fundies had any idea what their bumper sticker meant, it probably wouldn't bother me so much. But of course, they think it's possible to know a dead guy personally instead of paying attention to what he said (or someone said).

Not only that I think they simply need to focus on "what is" instead of "what was" or what they think was or might be. It seems a waste. I know I squandered years and years of my life because "god" would guide me (so I had no direction) and give me purpose with my special skill (I believed "god" gave everyone a special skill) and so on. Now it's just a game of catch up. I never really acted on anything because I believed "god" would make things happen if that was his plan. I might have well just partied and had a good time if I was going to waste time like that. That's hindsight for you though.

 

I used to think that Jesus didn't exist, then I have a hard time seeing a legend built completely out of nothing. A regular guy that drew a lot of attention would have much gossip told, IMO.

I can see it both ways but someone who was even a fraction of "great" that the gospels report would have left something more behind. Josephus mentions people that had just a couple hundred followers but the jesus he mentions is so out of line with his normal way of writing of these people it's just not believable. Someone like the jesus we know would warrant a different write up.

 

mwc

 

P.S. Thanks for the sources in your next post. I'll check them out first chance.

[NotBlinded]

Not only that I think they simply need to focus on "what is" instead of "what was" or what they think was or might be. It seems a waste. I know I squandered years and years of my life because "god" would guide me (so I had no direction) and give me purpose with my special skill (I believed "god" gave everyone a special skill) and so on. Now it's just a game of catch up. I never really acted on anything because I believed "god" would make things happen if that was his plan. I might have well just partied and had a good time if I was going to waste time like that. That's hindsight for you though.

Indeed! I was never really into it too much, but I accepted it as reality. I thought it was just, well, was. We stopped going to chruch all the time when I was 6, but it was lived out through by mom and grandparents and I worked in a church from the age of 12 ntil I was 24. Hmmm...I guess I was more into that I realized! It really didn't stop my partying though, I just felt guilty aferwards and caused myself more suffering.

 

I can see it both ways but someone who was even a fraction of "great" that the gospels report would have left something more behind. Josephus mentions people that had just a couple hundred followers but the jesus he mentions is so out of line with his normal way of writing of these people it's just not believable. Someone like the jesus we know would warrant a different write up.

Yeah...it's really hard to tell.

 

P.S. Thanks for the sources in your next post. I'll check them out first chance.

I know it's probably not what your looking for, so I trying to find something somewhere that shows the use of metaphor by ancient writers. I've looked at the Advent site and they have the church fathers on there and there are some mention of metaphor, but there is so much to read!

[Jubilant]

Thought I'd clarify that when I said that the "Muslims would be right" I didn't mean their religion...only that Jesus was a man.

[Amanda]

So when you have a body of "christ" you have what? The body of a misused word? The body of anointed people? Kings? High priests? Jews? Messiahs? What?

MWC, I think a body of people is the intention of resurrecting the Christ physically. Here are a few verses to illustrate my point of a corporate body:

 

Ro 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

 

There's lots more, yet I didn't think you wanted to hear more blah, blah, blah...

Hence, the concept of universal salvation. Why would Jesus/God throw away any part of their self?

I'm not going to look it up but to paraphrase "If your eye offends you...pluck it out."

Hmmmm... no, I don't think this is throwing away any part of your self in the spiritual sense. I think you have a tendency to see it from a literalist's point of view. What is being said here, is if those sweet young adolescent girls look hot and sexy to some old man, to the point of he is wanting to spend the rest of his life molesting them, then perhaps he better get these offensive ways to change, or he'd be better off plucking his eye out. That's motivation to understand the magnitude of offenses unto others.

 

Mt 5:29

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

definition of eye found here:

the eye

metaph. the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing

 

But they also had "deep" writings as well. Here's some from Egyptian "Proverbs" that are suspected to be the oldest such writings in the world:

Thanks, those were wonderful! I know that these biblical teachings are not necessarily original. I had at one time thought that Jesus must have traveled all over and brought these teachings together. However, now I don't know that as these teachings spread, others added theirs into the mix. Yet, there is a major emphasis on 'reconciliation' and to have all these spiritual teachings from other places added is the main mission that was intended. I love Buddhism and Suffis too, as well as Shaman, Wicca... now Egyptian... I guess I love them all.

 

Mythra has shown me real well there are other myths spun into these teachings too.

 

If you want to search for the higher truth shouldn't you go back to these older texts? The original stories? Not the "borrowed" versions from a thousand or more years later?

I'll take them where ever I can get 'em. Please feel free to feed me more! NBBTB is probably tired of me lapping up all the kuel spiritual teachings/higher truths she offers.

 

But this makes perfect sense if you stop trying to read it as if there was someone following around jesus with a pad and paper or some sort of recording device noting his every word. It makes perfect sense if you have a number of stories floating about and someone simply collected those stories, without caring about their content, and writing them down without rhyme nor reason.

It seems to me that paper and ink weren't all that convenient back then... no machines to make the paper and ink pens, and worse yet... no 7-11 or such on every corner. People who were literate had to have the resources to allow this, and paper was not used to make paper airplanes and such. It seems that if someone took the time to write things, it had to be meaningful to them anyway. Heck, while I was in class, I only wrote what I thought was meaningful... well, maybe what I thought the teacher will think is meaningful, but that's a different story. These resources to them would seem to be more precious, and they would not expend them so easily in things they considered frivolous.

Bishop Theophilus (sp?) of Antioch simply calls him something like the "voice" of the gospel and this is a hundred years later while he names all the OT figures by name. Kind of sad for a xian Bishop.

I see this too in many instances of the Bible, especially after people on here kept insisting Jesus was a myth. I could see these mythological aspects, yet I tried to be true to myself, and still feel there is an authentic person at the core of this all. It has also become of little concern if there is a core person or not, because in the way I see these messages, they speak for themselves regardless.

 

Do I think it necessary to push that aspect here? No. Are there many wonderful ways to get these same messages that would be immensely more refreshing for most people on this site? Obviously yes. Can some people have a difficult time separating their fundamentalist style to approaching these teachings to one of more metaphorical interpretations? Probably, but why should they? I just think it healthy for people to understand that NOT all people who read these teachings and find them beneficial are fundamentalist... and to not assume they follow popular endoctorination. The dilimma I have is that the people here are more alligned with my understandings of these teachings than any other place I've been. I love it here, I feel I grow here in many ways, and would never want to change anyone! I've found when people think just like me, then it's boring.

 

The problem with the word game is that Greek is a fairly precise language like most modern languages. Yes, you can get ambiguity today, and you could then as well but how is it that it seems that only in the controversial sections of the text do we run into these things? Why not in the "good" parts?

The Greek language is far from being precise as our language. Even the English language at the time of the KJV was quite different. Here is an example of the Greek language's ambiguity:

 

The meaning of 'death'here is:

the death of the body

that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended

with the implied idea of future misery in hell

the power of death

since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin

metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,

the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell

the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell

in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell

 

I'm sure going through the bible and deciphering through a lot of this stuff is never on the list of fun things you want to do on your weekend, is it?

 

[Mythra]

I haven't read this thread really closely, so somebody clue me in if this is a re-run.

 

Okay - so I'm reading about this tomb thing today - and I read that biblical scholars dispute that this is genuine because it appears to be the tomb of a fairly affluent Jerusalem family. And we know that Jesus' family was poor.

 

And, I think - whoa. Wait a goddamn minute here. In Matthew we have this:

 

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

 

Now, it says they opened their treasures. Not that they reached in and grabbed their pocket change. So, this was evidently a fairly substantial gift. Did Joseph have a gambling problem or something? Where did these riches go to - that scholars can say that Jesus' family was poor?

 

What information are these scholars working from? Do they have a bunch of information about Jesus that the average lay reader doesn't have access to?

 

Somebody explain this to me. Cause it isn't adding up.

[mwc]

MWC, I think a body of people is the intention of resurrecting the Christ physically. Here are a few verses to illustrate my point of a corporate body:

 

Ro 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

 

There's lots more, yet I didn't think you wanted to hear more blah, blah, blah...

But now you've jumped into yet another context which is that of Paul's. The synoptics are one thing, G.John another and Paul another. This is part of the problem I'm talking about.

 

If we mix all the colors together we're just going to get some yucky brown mess. It's never going to quite make sense (and in 2000 years it hasn't).

 

We think Paul predates G.Mark but that's only because his theology is so underdeveloped when compared to the gospels. I'm think Paul might be later than we credit but I've no evidence so I can't do anything more than make an assertion.

 

Mt 5:29

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

definition of eye found here:

the eye

metaph. the eyes of the mind, the faculty of knowing

Well, if we're going for metaphor, I can definitely see it (no pun intended). The spiritual body of "christ" will be purged of the things that make it impure for the sake of the whole. If this doesn't happen the entire spiritual body will suffer and not enter into the "kingdom." So, better that some die off spiritually, than no one "moves on."

 

Thanks, those were wonderful! I know that these biblical teachings are not necessarily original. I had at one time thought that Jesus must have traveled all over and brought these teachings together. However, now I don't know that as these teachings spread, others added theirs into the mix. Yet, there is a major emphasis on 'reconciliation' and to have all these spiritual teachings from other places added is the main mission that was intended. I love Buddhism and Suffis too, as well as Shaman, Wicca... now Egyptian... I guess I love them all.

I'm glad you liked them but the point was that any jesus wouldn't have had to move two steps in any direction to find them. Egypt ruled the land at one point and so their influence never entirely went away. If he wanted to see them he could have simply went down to Egypt, to the Temple of Karnak, and not on some wild goose chase into India. Given the two choices Egypt is by far the more logical destination for him to go.

 

I'll take them where ever I can get 'em. Please feel free to feed me more! NBBTB is probably tired of me lapping up all the kuel spiritual teachings/higher truths she offers.

I think you missed my point here.

 

The reason I posted the story of Isis and Ra was to show that if this is the story that influenced the later story then it does no good to look at the later story and try to read it as a metaphor. We now have the document that influenced it. We know where it came from a thousand years earlier. It can no longer be said the snake is now this thing when we can look and say the snake is really that thing.

 

So when we look at the OT and the rules were laid out for the Temple and sacrifice and they were spelled out in excruciating detail, and a temple was built (three of them...two+Herod's) and those rules were followed, with few exceptions, from day one. Can we now look back and say to the guys who built the Temple and wrote those rules "What you really meant was...?" Because that's what happened. It happened 2000 years ago, once the temple fell, and it's happening now. I just can't justify it.

 

The dilimma I have is that the people here are more alligned with my understandings of these teachings than any other place I've been. I love it here, I feel I grow here in many ways, and would never want to change anyone! I've found when people think just like me, then it's boring.

People on here have no need to be attached to any one way of seeing this story anymore (for the most part). I don't have to agree with what you say in order to want to see things how you see them. It intrigues me and I do find this way of viewing the text better than simply saying "turn or burn." So I enjoy the discussion.

 

The Greek language is far from being precise as our language. Even the English language at the time of the KJV was quite different. Here is an example of the Greek language's ambiguity:

 

The meaning of 'death'here is:

Oh yeah? From dictionary.com:

 

death –noun

1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism. Compare brain death.

2. an instance of this: a death in the family; letters published after his death.

3. the state of being dead: to lie still in death.

4. extinction; destruction: It will mean the death of our hopes.

5. manner of dying: a hero's death.

6. (usually initial capital letter) the agent of death personified, usually represented as a man or a skeleton carrying a scythe. Compare Grim Reaper.

7. Also called spiritual death. loss or absence of spiritual life.

8. Christian Science. the false belief that life comes to an end.

9. bloodshed or murder: Hitler was responsible for the death of millions.

10. a cause or occasion of death: You'll be the death of me yet!

11. Archaic. pestilence; plague. Compare Black Death.

—Idioms

12. at death's door, in serious danger of death; gravely ill: Two survivors of the crash are still at death's door.

13. be death on, Informal.

a. to be excessively strict about: That publisher is death on sloppily typed manuscripts.

b. to be snobbish about or toward.

c. to be able to cope with easily and successfully: The third baseman is death on pop flies.

14. do to death,

a. to kill, esp. to murder.

b. to repeat too often, to the point of becoming monotonous and boring: That theme has been done to death.

15. in at the death,

a. Fox Hunting. present at the kill.

b. present at the climax or conclusion of a situation.

16. put to death, to kill; execute.

17. to death, to an extreme degree; thoroughly: sick to death of the heat.

 

The problem with all languages is context. Not all these apply in every situation. Also, Strong's Concordance is biased so hopefully you take that into account.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I haven't read this thread really closely, so somebody clue me in if this is a re-run.

 

Okay - so I'm reading about this tomb thing today - and I read that biblical scholars dispute that this is genuine because it appears to be the tomb of a fairly affluent Jerusalem family. And we know that Jesus' family was poor.

 

And, I think - whoa. Wait a goddamn minute here. In Matthew we have this:

 

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

 

Now, it says they opened their treasures. Not that they reached in and grabbed their pocket change. So, this was evidently a fairly substantial gift. Did Joseph have a gambling problem or something? Where did these riches go to - that scholars can say that Jesus' family was poor?

 

What information are these scholars working from? Do they have a bunch of information about Jesus that the average lay reader doesn't have access to?

 

Somebody explain this to me. Cause it isn't adding up.

Doesn't your bible have the verse where Joseph won the Lotto? Maybe it's just the critical texts?

 

Taken on their own these gifts present a rather large problem if you harmonize the nativity story. If true then many of the time lines have Mary offering a too small offering at the Temple as she would have had enough money to give more than the birds. Each of these gifts also represent a king, a prophet and a high priest by the way (I don't know if it's in that order) each of the things jesus was supposed to also be.

 

That aside, the story I've heard is that when they had to run off to Egypt they burned through all this cash supporting themselves down there. Apparently carpenters can't get work there or something so he used up all the money before he went back to Nazareth.

 

Of course then he must have kept the money since he built this nice tomb, way away from his home, in Jerusalem, and then not buried himself there. Sure it was gifts for jesus but I'm sure that mattered back then considering jesus was just Joseph's property too.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Okay - so I'm reading about this tomb thing today - and I read that biblical scholars dispute that this is genuine because it appears to be the tomb of a fairly affluent Jerusalem family. And we know that Jesus' family was poor.

Hey Mythra, I just erased everything I just wrote you, because I think I stumbled onto the possible answer to your question.

 

First, I just thought "Jesus" was not with vast wealth, yet the story seems to implicate that he trusted that all his needs would be met. He did receive generous gifts, as you mentioned in your post. Also, his clothing was supposedly of very fine quality, and that is why they cast lots for it, to not rip it to share it. Additionally, when Jesus was crucified at Calgary, he was given the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea.

 

Mt 27:57

When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

Mr 15:43

Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also * * waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

15:44

And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.

15:45

And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.

15:46

And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

Joh 19:38

And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

 

Ding ding ding ding... this latter portion started setting off bells and red flags in my head. Could this tomb donated to Jesus at this time he was crucified be the same tomb which they have recently found of Jesus?

 

Researching the crucifiction, I'm not so sure that Jesus rose from that literally! The tomb may have never been literally empty after his death!

 

Do you know if Jesus was crucified near Jerusalem?

 

I'm too tired to research more specifically now. Just thought I'd share that much with you.