How Is This Three Days?

[NotBlinded]

The Sufi mystic I pointed you at also happens to be an expert in 1st Century Aramaic and the culture of the the Palestine region of the time. In The Hidden Gospel you get a pretty good over view of what could and couldn't be communicated in the language. However, if you don't like me using mystics for their expertise, there's not much I can do. In fact, it's not my problem.

 

As to inconsistency. *shrug* Your problem not mine.

 

BTW I think you were referring to the Lamsa bible at one stage... I actually quite like the translation, since it contains the far more accurate (and Gnostic) "Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani" in Matt 27... but that's me cherry picking.

Cool book list...

 

Yeah well, just trying to figure you out is all.

 

I love mystics, I was just wondering why you would like them. Oh well...no problems and I apologize, I got a little snippy.

[NotBlinded]

Then "jesus" comes along and he's the all in one explanation of all the important rituals of the temple, but without the temple. Much of the "stuff" he "did" was added after the fact which muddies the waters but by and large he was simply a way to explain away the temple rituals sans the temple. He's a play that you can act out with your friends (and people do). Each portion of this play means something connected back to the Law (that was deemed important) and if you watched the play, without knowing the meanings, you would think that the xians were killing and eating this person at some point...among other horrible deeds. No wonder they were often accused of this over and over. I imagine this play happened many places (although there was no "Pilate" or specific names like that until much later..."Pilate" would have been a high priest anyhow in order for the story to work). Oh well...another thought for another day. I've already side-tracked myself once again.

 

mwc

Ohhh...now that is something to ponder. I've never heard it put that way before. I'm going to have to pay closer attention to this when I read again.

[Grandpa Harley]

So did I. So Pax.

 

As to liking mystics, just because one is a mystic doesn't make them a bad scholar in their field. Douglas-Klotz isn't a bad Aramaic scholar, and unlike some who criticise him, he does communicate very well to the interested layman. He also illustrates (although that isn't his point) that what we were taught as Christianity couldn't have been what was on Jesus mind... just the fevered imaginations of the Hellenised. For Christians to nay say Pagans is bollocks, since the religion owes more to Northern Mediterranean Pagan philosophy than it does to Semitic/North African/Arab philosophy.

[Grandpa Harley]

Then "jesus" comes along and he's the all in one explanation of all the important rituals of the temple, but without the temple. Much of the "stuff" he "did" was added after the fact which muddies the waters but by and large he was simply a way to explain away the temple rituals sans the temple. He's a play that you can act out with your friends (and people do). Each portion of this play means something connected back to the Law (that was deemed important) and if you watched the play, without knowing the meanings, you would think that the xians were killing and eating this person at some point...among other horrible deeds. No wonder they were often accused of this over and over. I imagine this play happened many places (although there was no "Pilate" or specific names like that until much later..."Pilate" would have been a high priest anyhow in order for the story to work). Oh well...another thought for another day. I've already side-tracked myself once again.

 

mwc

Ohhh...now that is something to ponder. I've never heard it put that way before. I'm going to have to pay closer attention to this when I read again.

If you watch 'The God Who Wasn't There' you get a pretty good overview of Apocalyptic Messianic cults, all with more or less the same story spread from Jeremiah's time to AD70 when the 'end' came for the Jews.

[mwc]

Ohhh...now that is something to ponder. I've never heard it put that way before. I'm going to have to pay closer attention to this when I read again.

I've gotten so used to the harmonized versions myself that even though I've known this for some time I tend to fall back on the tried and true familiar versions that I've known my whole life instead of the stories that are actually written in the texts. My memory can't always be trusted when it comes to the most familiar of the stories. This ruins what I think were the new rituals the xians were trying to establish way back when.

 

Since I mentioned Pilate in my last message, here's one that I've even argued against on this site but I've recently changed my mind. Jesus as scapegoat. It's in there...but horribly messed up. Jesus and Barabbas are in front of Pilate. You know the story. The scene is now set. Two goats and a priest. One goat is released (Barabbas) and one is selected as the offering to YHWH. The priest the becomes ritually pure (the washing of the hands) and the sacrifice begins (jesus heads off to be killed). The problem is that the goat that is set free, never to be seen again (Barabbas) is the scapegoat. He's the one that is to have the sins of all the people placed upon him and the other goat is supposed to remain totally pure and without blemish. The ritual is messed up in its reenactment (none of the requirements are met for the ritual by any of the "players") but since this is just that, a new interpretation of the old ritual, this is a minor or non-issue (but a major, show stopping, issue if you're expecting someone to believe that YHWH is accepting this as a literal substitute for the scapegoat sacrifice as defined, by him, in the OT).

 

Perhaps later authors (or the original author) when they decided to also use jesus and his scourging during the whole passion play for all sorts of other reasons messed up the original intent or the overlap of the story lines just got to be too much to manage? Who knows? The point is, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is the symbolism since we all know a Roman like Pilate could never be the priest at such a holy Jewish event.

 

mwc

[mwc]

If you watch 'The God Who Wasn't There' you get a pretty good overview of Apocalyptic Messianic cults, all with more or less the same story spread from Jeremiah's time to AD70 when the 'end' came for the Jews.

I've been meaning to watch this but I haven't made the time. I guess I'll have to try to set aside a couple of hours this week and hopefully learn some things.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

Don't set your hopes too high. It's very patchy. I'm pretty good at spotting versions of the Bible, and he uses referfence that don't scan, even with the most sceptical viewing.

[NotBlinded]

Ohhh...now that is something to ponder. I've never heard it put that way before. I'm going to have to pay closer attention to this when I read again.

I've gotten so used to the harmonized versions myself that even though I've known this for some time I tend to fall back on the tried and true familiar versions that I've known my whole life instead of the stories that are actually written in the texts. My memory can't always be trusted when it comes to the most familiar of the stories. This ruins what I think were the new rituals the xians were trying to establish way back when.

 

Since I mentioned Pilate in my last message, here's one that I've even argued against on this site but I've recently changed my mind. Jesus as scapegoat. It's in there...but horribly messed up. Jesus and Barabbas are in front of Pilate. You know the story. The scene is now set. Two goats and a priest. One goat is released (Barabbas) and one is selected as the offering to YHWH. The priest the becomes ritually pure (the washing of the hands) and the sacrifice begins (jesus heads off to be killed). The problem is that the goat that is set free, never to be seen again (Barabbas) is the scapegoat. He's the one that is to have the sins of all the people placed upon him and the other goat is supposed to remain totally pure and without blemish. The ritual is messed up in its reenactment (none of the requirements are met for the ritual by any of the "players") but since this is just that, a new interpretation of the old ritual, this is a minor or non-issue (but a major, show stopping, issue if you're expecting someone to believe that YHWH is accepting this as a literal substitute for the scapegoat sacrifice as defined, by him, in the OT).

 

Perhaps later authors (or the original author) when they decided to also use jesus and his scourging during the whole passion play for all sorts of other reasons messed up the original intent or the overlap of the story lines just got to be too much to manage? Who knows? The point is, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is the symbolism since we all know a Roman like Pilate could never be the priest at such a holy Jewish event.

 

mwc

Okay...I had to go googleing.

 

Two goats were brought before the priest and one was sacrificed in order to symbolize that their sins against god were deserving of death and since they believed that life was in the blood, this symbolized the loss of life itself. The other goat was touched on the head while the priest confessed the sins of the people and they would set the goat free in the desert to remove the disorder and alienation to the people brought about by sin.

 

It seems the symbology was not to appease God (pagan), but to symbolized the loss of life caused by crossing God's boundries so it was an inner appeasement of oneself through ritual.

 

Ohhh...Wiki mentions that Bar-Abba and Jesus may have been the same person. But Origen would edit out Jesus from Jesus Bar-Abba because he didn't want Jesus to be seen as a sinner. This then divided the one person Bar, son of, and Abba, meaning father in Aramaic. So, Jesus Bar-Abbas would be Jesus, son of the Father.

 

By having two criminals, this would shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews and editing/changing history to reflect the ritual of the OT in order to have Jesus fulfulling this scarifice, by way of Paul, in order to appease Roman sentiment, if the story happened. Barabbas (as another person) could be completely fictional. And we know that he couldn't be seen as the actual "terrorist" that Jesus Barabbas was because he wouldn't be without blemish. Cut, slice and add on... Jeeze Louise...they did work their asses off on the finished version didn't they?

 

But, if this is correct:

 

It has also been suggested that Barabbas was an allegory for humanity. In this theory, the freeing of Barabbas represents the redemption of humanity from the original sin of Adam, "Son of the Father," through the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. If this is correct, it might suggest that the appellation "Jesus Barabbas" was simply an error made by a scribe who was ignorant of the actual allegorical significance of the narrative.

Wiki., under Barabbas

 

Barabbas would have been the scapegoat for all of humanity in an allegorical sense.

 

I tend to think that it was made, or attempted to make, fit with the allegory itself. Using real occurances and twisting them to fit. I'm not sure how many of these early writers actually believed that the creation story is an allegory. Man...I wish I knew. That would answer so many questions. I'm sure there were many that took it literally, probably more than the ones that understood it as allegory. It just seems to be that way still. So, there were probably many writers that were ignorant of the allegorical significance. Hell, even Origen may have known the allegorical significance when he was removing "Jesus" from Jesus Barabbas. Or, he actually believed in a literal Adam and was trying to make Jesus fit into the prophetic nature of the OT. One version has a quite a bit more conspiracy than the other, but who knows what Paul would have done? There of course was a conspiracy in the Church to make one religion, so it's possible and probably probable. Oh, if I only had a time machine.

 

That is interesting stuff mwc. I just love your posts.

[Grandpa Harley]

Maybe it's also a clue to Jesus the man not being crucified... Jesus and Bar-Abbas (son of the father) being separated...

[mwc]

Okay...I had to go googleing.

 

Two goats were brought before the priest and one was sacrificed in order to symbolize that their sins against god were deserving of death and since they believed that life was in the blood, this symbolized the loss of life itself. The other goat was touched on the head while the priest confessed the sins of the people and they would set the goat free in the desert to remove the disorder and alienation to the people brought about by sin.

 

It seems the symbology was not to appease God (pagan), but to symbolized the loss of life caused by crossing God's boundries so it was an inner appeasement of oneself through ritual.

Right. This is the basics of the ceremony. I'll ignore the specific symbology for now.

 

For some reason we've decided that the people back then had superhuman memories ("the oral tradition") but how much more likely is it that they simply put the important things they wanted to remember into stories, plays, songs, etc., just as we do to remember them? They then used key words to remind themselves what those symbols meant? So a "god" of wheat harvest or planting or something of that nature (more likely a simple calendar reminder related to wheat with a bit of superstition mixed in) was named something to do with wheat (the mighty Wheaties). In the ceremony they would use wheat to then represent that god. As time went on the connection was lost and the superstition kicked into high gear and they simply worshiped a god of wheat and sacrificed wheat to that god. Now "Wheaties" the placeholder "god" in the story that was about something else, in this superstitious tangent later generations managed to head off onto became the the real live God of wheat and demanded strict obedience to his Wheatley ways. If you failed to comply he would see to it that his priests (not him personally) would make your life quite miserable. If your crops failed that was supposedly him but it would be his priests that would make sure everyone knew you're the one that caused it (and paid the price to "fix" the problem).

 

So why not jesus? We know what his name means but maybe it meant something else entirely to the people then? I don't mean literally but they chose it for a reason and it's not a reason we're aware of today. Just like they saw him as part of the scapegoat ceremony even though he couldn't participate. The name simply was a placeholder for something else (some speculate a title...I have too but it may be even some more than that?) for when they heard/read/saw the story? It was others that simply turned it into a name (since jesus and christ were already proper words at the time).

 

By having two criminals, this would shift the blame from the Romans to the Jews and editing/changing history to reflect the ritual of the OT in order to have Jesus fulfulling this scarifice, by way of Paul, in order to appease Roman sentiment, if the story happened. Barabbas (as another person) could be completely fictional. And we know that he couldn't be seen as the actual "terrorist" that Jesus Barabbas was because he wouldn't be without blemish. Cut, slice and add on... Jeeze Louise...they did work their asses off on the finished version didn't they?

...

But, if this is correct:

...

Barabbas would have been the scapegoat for all of humanity in an allegorical sense.

Lots of points here...

 

First of all Paul was a different kind of xian. He was "merged" in later. This is why the whole of the theologies just don't work together. Personally, I tend to look at G.Mark and G.Luke the most anymore. I got tired of trying to make my way through the maze (minefield?) of the xian theology. I also love to read what the church fathers wrote since it tells me what the xians of those days were thinking about their religion which is so much more enlightening than the actual formal works (to me at least). I also dislike Paul.

 

Second, Barabbas would have had to had been entirely fictional. To do what he was accused of doing (riots and possibly even murder) under Pilate would have gotten him killed. No question. Here's how the story would have went had it been a real custom "Do you want Jesus of Nazareth or Fred, the other basically innocent guy we caught?" There's no way he would have offered the least offensive person in custody against the most offensive. But the metaphor REQUIRED it and so it happened. This is why NO ONE in 2000 years can find one solitary shred of evidence for that custom (a custom contrary to Pilate's known nature). Allegories don't leave evidence (just ask Moses).

 

And third. Yes, many people have worked their collective asses off on these texts to try to make them work and they're "good enough." Nearly 2000 years (or 1600 years depending on when you start your count).

 

Lastly, Barabbas would have likely been the scapegoat for just Israel. This section of the story really seems to be just allegory for Israel (with jesus starring as Israel being punished and so on). The Law was also just for Israel too. Everything was just for Israel. It would have been later additions that tried to open it up to everyone (even the jesus character says he's there to explain the Law to the Jews and he's there just for the Jews...he's a Jew for the Jews). That last bit alone should clue people into what's going on in the stories. He's a device being used to explain the Law. If the Law is about to be abolished then who cares? We certainly don't. But they would.

 

So what if "jesus and the 12 apostles" wasn't anything more than a traveling road show of actors (not named jesus, peter, james, etc. as those are just the characters they played) that put on a set of morality plays in the country side of Israel/Judea and people missed the point? When the "oral tradition" made its rounds the 13 unknown actors doing historical allegory about the Law (and perhaps some politically related work too) instead became a literal prophet/god/angel and his 12 apostles doing amazing miracles? The myth grew around the oral legend?

 

Anyhow, back on to Barabbas. What if, by the time this was written, the person that wrote it wanted the two jesus' to be represented as one being and used the same first name to show this? The two were one "essence? So the people of the crowd had to choose an "earthly" jesus or a "heavenly" jesus. This would be a more "spiritual" take on the whole scene. There was really only one jesus standing before them and they had to decide which "path" they wanted. They chose the "earthly" selves and not their "heavenly" selves (which they destroyed by rejecting). There are lots of ways to interpret this stuff. Since we don't know who wrote it it's so hard to know what they wanted to say.

 

I tend to think that it was made, or attempted to make, fit with the allegory itself. Using real occurances and twisting them to fit. I'm not sure how many of these early writers actually believed that the creation story is an allegory. Man...I wish I knew. That would answer so many questions. I'm sure there were many that took it literally, probably more than the ones that understood it as allegory. It just seems to be that way still. So, there were probably many writers that were ignorant of the allegorical significance. Hell, even Origen may have known the allegorical significance when he was removing "Jesus" from Jesus Barabbas. Or, he actually believed in a literal Adam and was trying to make Jesus fit into the prophetic nature of the OT. One version has a quite a bit more conspiracy than the other, but who knows what Paul would have done? There of course was a conspiracy in the Church to make one religion, so it's possible and probably probable. Oh, if I only had a time machine.

I should have saved some of what I said above for here since you said some of the same. When dealing with these anonymous authors it's frustrating because we have to really guess at their intent and more often than not we just assign out own to them. In the case of Genesis I have to lean toward the idea that the biblical author was simply looking for a good creation story and not an allegory (now the people before him probably started as allegory...with the gods there to explain the story...as the two were usually very intertwined).

 

All signs point to Genesis being written (stolen) after the return from Babylon so I think they just wanted some stories like that to call their own...but it's easier to "borrow" what's already written than write your own...which is why much of what "Moses" wrote seems to come from others. The meanings all came from others too which is probably why the Jews seemed to take them so literally...they stole the stories but didn't understand the "deeper" metaphor involved (how could they?). The sad thing is that we've recovered these older stories, and we have an idea now how these ideas formed, but these literal thoughts are so ingrained in peoples minds that they reject the older texts and believe the younger copies instead.

 

That is interesting stuff mwc. I just love your posts.

Thanks.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

Second, Barabbas would have had to had been entirely fictional. To do what he was accused of doing (riots and possibly even murder) under Pilate would have gotten him killed. No question. Here's how the story would have went had it been a real custom "Do you want Jesus of Nazareth or Fred, the other basically innocent guy we caught?" There's no way he would have offered the least offensive person in custody against the most offensive. But the metaphor REQUIRED it and so it happened. This is why NO ONE in 2000 years can find one solitary shred of evidence for that custom (a custom contrary to Pilate's known nature). Allegories don't leave evidence (just ask Moses).

 

Anyhow, back on to Barabbas. What if, by the time this was written, the person that wrote it wanted the two jesus' to be represented as one being and used the same first name to show this? The two were one "essence? So the people of the crowd had to choose an "earthly" jesus or a "heavenly" jesus. This would be a more "spiritual" take on the whole scene. There was really only one jesus standing before them and they had to decide which "path" they wanted. They chose the "earthly" selves and not their "heavenly" selves (which they destroyed by rejecting). There are lots of ways to interpret this stuff. Since we don't know who wrote it it's so hard to know what they wanted to say.

MWC, you and NBBTB are discussing an interesting issue. Barrabas' first name is Jesus also. Considering the choices of Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of the Father, that they wanted to let Jesus, the son of the Father go, makes more sense. Barabbas was suppose to be a robber, and it is said of Jesus, that he thought it not robbery to be equal to God. (correlation? maybe he was accused of this?) Mark gospels call for a crucifiction of the King of the Jews... the king being the lord of the land, of the carnal nature.

 

However, I do think it is a myth built around an actual occurrence because we now think we have found the actual tomb of Jesus. And there were the persecutions against the Christian movements. Maybe he was a great sage or revolutionist that died, and people had to make sense of it, mystery cults discovering the "real meaning" of it all. Perhaps Jesus initiated liberating ideas like Buddha, and people didn't want an innocent man's execution to be for nothing.

 

Especially now, that I've read someone credible on here say they could find no custom of letting one go of those to be crucified, I'm inclined to think there may have been only one Jesus. Perhaps it is to relate to us all in that we sacrifice that part of us that is lord to the land, to free our creation from a higher calling. I think it's more intricate than this. Maybe this is what people did back then when there was no TV or computers?

[mwc]

Mark gospels call for a crucifiction of the King of the Jews... the king being the lord of the land, of the carnal nature.

I think I see where you're trying to go with this but the problem I'm having is that Mark's text really isn't that sophisticated. Maybe in G.John or even G.Matthew but G.Mark is really just not up to task (IMO). He just seems to be retelling the Law (along with some other political statements...but who knows what bits were added and when? All we can do is speculate on much of this).

 

However, I do think it is a myth built around an actual occurrence because we now think we have found the actual tomb of Jesus. And there were the persecutions against the Christian movements. Maybe he was a great sage or revolutionist that died, and people had to make sense of it, mystery cults discovering the "real meaning" of it all. Perhaps Jesus initiated liberating ideas like Buddha, and people didn't want an innocent man's execution to be for nothing.

<Sigh> All we know is there was a tomb with some common names in it. Really nothing more. Also, during the supposed time of any jesus there would have been zero xian persecutions (not counting jesus himself) going on. After that there are recorded zero unquestioned accounts of xian persecutions and among those accounts the primary persecutions were occurring in Rome (or should I say, not in Judea). In Judea the only persecutions we know of are from Saul against the "church" sanctioned by the temple for some reason known only to Saul. The temple was "attacking" the Essenes during this time to our knowledge, and not some xian "church." Saul knew something we don't (which is possible) or he made it up (which is possible) or his text was altered/forged (which is possible).

 

The problem with this story is the timing is all off. Revolutionaries did exist in the early 1st century, but persecutions and the "church" and all that came with it didn't exist until much later. People didn't rally around one man to the extent the bible would have us believe. A few hundred here. A few hundred there. When things came to an end they moved on (if they weren't hunted down and killed with their leader). Even in the 2nd war with a well known "messiah" on our hands, when it ended, it ended. He failed and people didn't "try to make sense of it." He was denounced as a fraud and that was that. It's the rules of the "messiah" game. The gospels are telling us that, for some reason, Jews made an exception for this one guy who failed like all the rest. The story doesn't add up. For one, if "the Jews" thought a messiah had come, and was coming right back, then why did they think this new guy in the 2nd war was also "the messiah" but not the same as that other guy? There's no comparison's in any texts that I've ever read (not that I've read them all mind you). It's ignored as far as I know. It seems comparing the two would be important (especially since they're almost exactly 100 years apart). The Jews didn't know and didn't care and didn't convert. The Pagan Gentiles did convert because the story appealed to them and sounded convincing (and with all those Jews they heard about that turned onto this teaching it must be true). So show me the masses of Jews turned xians? You can't. No one can. This is in spite of the thousands and thousands and thousands of people that just wanted on the jesus bandwagon, following him around night and day, and "threatened" the "powers that be" so much that they plotted to kill this man for weeks/months/years until they were finally allowed to actually make jesus the first martyr for the new xian church (and he got to ascend to heaven as a result of his loyalty...Praise Allah).

 

Especially now, that I've read someone credible on here say they could find no custom of letting one go of those to be crucified, I'm inclined to think there may have been only one Jesus. Perhaps it is to relate to us all in that we sacrifice that part of us that is lord to the land, to free our creation from a higher calling. I think it's more intricate than this. Maybe this is what people did back then when there was no TV or computers?

Here's the deal. These aren't the histories of a preacher named jesus from Nazareth. These are the stories of a man of god (a prophet) sent to his countrymen to explain to them the Law. Over time he acquired a name, a home town, parents, and on and on...until he obtained godhood. I think part of the original story is still mostly to be found in G.Mark but as you read you'll see it gets more and more sophisticated. More details are added on as time passes. He becomes more "real." Obviously, people wanted to know more and more about this man so the people telling the stories added more and more to them. The ideas that preceded the "legend" (meaning the scapegoat concept or whatever) got lost in the shuffle. The metaphor became secondary (if that) to the "life" of jesus. Ironically, once he came to life he started "teaching" via parables. So the metaphor (or parable) that was jesus sprang to life and started teaching using parables himself. And now it seems people are starting to see the entire story of jesus and his life (including the parables) as one larger metaphor.

 

It seems to me if we'd just deconstruct the whole thing and see it for what it is, rather than continuing to build on it, then it would lose all its power, and we'd be done with it.

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

To throw this into the mix... Paul was a Christian (of sorts) Jesus (after Douglas-Klotz) couldn't be a Christian in any sense recognisable by even a liberal modern Christian.

[mwc]

However, I do think it is a myth built around an actual occurrence because we now think we have found the actual tomb of Jesus.

It probably deserves its own topic but I'll put it here for you.

 

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack

 

mwc

[Amanda]

<Sigh> All we know is there was a tomb with some common names in it. Really nothing more.

MWC, although these names may have been common, except Merriamne (sp?), the conservative statistics pertaining to a cluster of names designated to this tomb to NOT be "the Jesus" is 1 out of 600. Statistically speaking it has a probability of a 99.8% chance of being the tomb of Jesus. Of course, being it is authentic and NOT a hoax.

Also, during the supposed time of any jesus there would have been zero xian persecutions (not counting jesus himself) going on. After that there are recorded zero unquestioned accounts of xian persecutions and among those accounts the primary persecutions were occurring in Rome (or should I say, not in Judea). In Judea the only persecutions we know of are from Saul against the "church" sanctioned by the temple for some reason known only to Saul.

So, why doesn't the persecution of Jesus himself, these occurring in Rome, and that led by Saul count?

The problem with this story is the timing is all off. Revolutionaries did exist in the early 1st century, but persecutions and the "church" and all that came with it didn't exist until much later. People didn't rally around one man to the extent the bible would have us believe. A few hundred here. A few hundred there.

I agree. There can't be a persecution against something before it was created.

It's the rules of the "messiah" game.

A messiah can be anyone to anyone who chooses them to be so. If someone has a credible message that greatly enhances their vitality to live, that may be their messiah. The message should speak for itself to the individual, that's all. It wasn't that Jesus himself was lord of their lives, but his message, his teachings. IMO, it has spun out of control by twists and turns that it is no longer recognizeable to the initial movement.

Here's the deal. These aren't the histories of a preacher named jesus from Nazareth. These are the stories of a man of god (a prophet) sent to his countrymen to explain to them the Law.

IMO it was more revolutionary than that. It seems to encourage interpreting the intent of the law instead of obedience to the rigid literal presentation of the law. This transformed obedience to the law to a desire to fill the law, going from obedience to avoid punishment to deire to fulfill it because it is the best thing to do. Additionally these teachings take the journey to know/please a God from out in the sky somewhere, to the exploration to find the "true God" within us all. This encouraged a self empowerment in that God has to move through us from out of us and inside us is where this God/Christ nature is found in ALL of us. IMO, it is very similar to Madeline O'Hare's thrust of how to live one's life. Ye too are gods.

It seems to me if we'd just deconstruct the whole thing and see it for what it is, rather than continuing to build on it, then it would lose all its power, and we'd be done with it.

It seems to me if we deconstruct this whole thing and see it for what it is, we'd find basically the same group of people we find on this site right here. People in search for reality and a better way to live their life through reason.

 

To throw this into the mix... Paul was a Christian (of sorts) Jesus (after Douglas-Klotz) couldn't be a Christian in any sense recognisable by even a liberal modern Christian.

Grandpa Harley, I've been inclined to think he would have been more Buddhist, although surely not totally. What kind of perception do you have of the "Jesus" of those days?

 

MWC, I've just seen your new post to me. I will have to read it and respond later. Thanks for sharing the tomb site with me.

[Amanda]

However, I do think it is a myth built around an actual occurrence because we now think we have found the actual tomb of Jesus.

It probably deserves its own topic but I'll put it here for you.

 

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack

 

mwc

MWC, it's interesting how this article disclaims things without giving their means of doing so. They claim that the statistics are reversed and there is a probability that out of 600 tombs 599 of them could all have the same names... purely coincidentally. I'm curious to know how many other tombs found there had that very same cluster of names. However, the article seemed to support the impossibility of this being the tomb of Jesus by the veracity attributed to the NT, with their ultimate claim in that article being:

According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.

So, that does it! It just couldn't be the tomb of Jesus after all... could it?

 

I've said from the very beginning... this claim of Jesus' tomb, even if it is true, has no chance of being validated. The people who believe Jesus is a myth are inclined to depose it. Then even the Christians themselves are going to denounce it too, for obvious reasons. Christians are their own worst enemy in these regards, and they will never let the dust settle to reveal what may very well be the truth. You know how Christian's are. How could the vast Christian population ever admit Jesus actually died, end of story?

[NotBlinded]

I don't know what to say to your post mwc...dang-it. I couldn't find a thing to argue with.

 

Is it you or is it me?

[Grandpa Harley]

I don't know what to say to your post mwc...dang-it. I couldn't find a thing to argue with.

 

Is it you or is it me?

 

Based on comment...

 

could it be a sign of the End of Days?

[NotBlinded]

I don't know what to say to your post mwc...dang-it. I couldn't find a thing to argue with.

 

Is it you or is it me?

 

Based on comment...

 

could it be a sign of the End of Days?

Oh no...a false peace falls right before the plagues are released! AArrrggghhh!!!

[Grandpa Harley]

To throw this into the mix... Paul was a Christian (of sorts) Jesus (after Douglas-Klotz) couldn't be a Christian in any sense recognisable by even a liberal modern Christian.

Grandpa Harley, I've been inclined to think he would have been more Buddhist, although surely not totally. What kind of perception do you have of the "Jesus" of those days?

 

Pretty typical Aramaic 'Prophet'. Maybe he'd encountered Buddhist missionaries, that are known to have been in the area. To be honest, there is little in in message that isn't in some (actually most) strains of mystic(Gnostic) Judaism of (Sufi) Islam

 

Of course, that is factoring in the flexibility of the Aramaic language.

[mwc]

MWC, although these names may have been common, except Merriamne (sp?),

Actually, that name was in common use as well during that time period.

 

Here's just a quick bit from Wikipedia:

Mariamne is a name frequently used in the Herodian royal house. In Greek it is spelled Μαριάμη (Mariame) by Josephus; in some editions of his work the second m is doubled (Mariamme). In later copies of those editions the spelling was dissimilated to its now most common form, Mariamne. In Hebrew, Mariamne is known as מִרְיָם, (Miriam), as in the traditional, Biblical name (see Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron); Mariamne is the Hellenized version of the Hebrew, as Koine Greek was a common language in the late Hasmonean era in Judea (together with Aramaic,) where both Mariamnes lived.

 

For Gnostic readers Mariamne is also recognized as Mary Magdelene. François Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University has suggested based on his study of the Acts of Philip (which describes the apostle Philip as the brother of "Mariamne" or "Mariamme") that Mariamene, or Mariamne, was the actual name of Mary Magdalene. Since Mary or Mariam was a common name in 1st century Israel, many women would share that name.

So Josephus apparently used this form of the name (according to this article...I haven't personally checked) and so it's only reasonable to assume that, in cases other than trying to connect the name specifically to a Mary Magdelene, the usage of the name was fairly common (or at least not uncommon). The documentary made it sound as if the name was almost unheard of in this form and so we had an extraordinary case. This was not true and misleading.

 

So, why doesn't the persecution of Jesus himself, these occurring in Rome, and that led by Saul count?

...

I agree. There can't be a persecution against something before it was created.

You answer your question/objection. Xians and persecutions seem to just happen when/where they wanted/needed them to happen. Later on this did change but I am talking about this earliest period.

 

A messiah can be anyone to anyone who chooses them to be so. If someone has a credible message that greatly enhances their vitality to live, that may be their messiah. The message should speak for itself to the individual, that's all. It wasn't that Jesus himself was lord of their lives, but his message, his teachings. IMO, it has spun out of control by twists and turns that it is no longer recognizeable to the initial movement.

You wouldn't last long if you suddenly found yourself transported back into an ancient Jewish community in Judea. He would have had to had been anointed by a true prophet using the oil designated back in Exodus. Thus the John the Baptist connection in the story. JtB was made to be the son of a priest so that he could, by a technicality, "anoint" our boy via this new system known as "baptism" instead of the old system that required a priest/prophet/temple/sacred oil. It's yet another replacement metaphor. Then "god" speaks about "his son" just as he did about King David so long ago. The new system is officially "blessed." The problem is...no Jews were buying in. This was just another redo of the old temple bound Law system.

 

This is like pulling the sword from the stone in order to be king. It had to be done. Close enough didn't count. Pulling a sword from a pile of leaves (symbolic "rock") wouldn't count. Because people liked you a lot might make you a king but it wouldn't count (especially once someone pulled the sword from the stone). That's simply how it was to work. People ran around declaring they were "messiah" plenty. Most were killed by the Romans pretty quickly (along with all their followers). There was no law against it really...mostly they were just a bother. If memory serves "The Egyptian" was the most successful although he wasn't technically a messiah but more a Moses. The point is that jesus of the gospels didn't pull the sword from the stone. He didn't follow the Jews rules on becoming the messiah. He (and his followers and many people today) want to say that you can pull a sword from a pile of leaves and it's the symbolic meaning that matters. In this case it is not. The sword is still firmly in the stone waiting to be pulled out.

 

IMO it was more revolutionary than that. It seems to encourage interpreting the intent of the law instead of obedience to the rigid literal presentation of the law. This transformed obedience to the law to a desire to fill the law, going from obedience to avoid punishment to deire to fulfill it because it is the best thing to do. Additionally these teachings take the journey to know/please a God from out in the sky somewhere, to the exploration to find the "true God" within us all. This encouraged a self empowerment in that God has to move through us from out of us and inside us is where this God/Christ nature is found in ALL of us. IMO, it is very similar to Madeline O'Hare's thrust of how to live one's life. Ye too are gods.

And you are basing all this on?

 

Should I go ahead and guess? The bible and various sources stating that jesus was a radical? Compared to?

 

I'm going to lump a number of things into one quote block since they're related:

Josephus, Jewish War 2.119

For among Judeans there are three forms of philosophy.

Now Pharisees are one sect, Sadducees another,

but in fact the third, called Essenes, seems to be the most reverential discipline.

 

-----

 

Josephus, Antiquities 12.297-298

For now I wish only to explain that the Pharisees transmit to the people some rules in line with the fathers, which were not written in the laws of Moses. And because of this, the line of the Sadducees reject these things. They say that it is necessary to hold those rules that have been written but it is not (necessary) to observe what is (only) from the fathers' tradition. And, as a consequence, controversies and great disagreements have occurred between them.

 

The Sadducees persuade only the well-to-do and have no popular following. But the Pharisees have the masses as allies.

 

-----

 

Josephus, Antiquities 18.12-15

The Pharisees live thriftily, giving in to no luxury. For they follow what the Word [or "Reason", Greek: logos] in its authority determines and transmits as good. They believe that to keep what (God) wished to counsel is worth fighting for.

 

Out of respect, they defer to those advanced in years. Nor are they so bold as to stand in opposition to what (the elders) have proposed.

 

While claiming that everything is affected by destiny, they do not deprive human will of power in these things. For it occurred to God to make a combination and to admit to his counsel the will of men---with its virtue and its vice. Their belief is that there is an undying power in souls and that, under the ground, there is an accounting to reward and punish those who were righteous or unrighteous in (this) life. Eternal punishment is offered to the latter, but re-creation in a new life to the former.

 

Because of these ideas, (the Pharisees) are the most persuasive among the citizens. And all the sacrifice and prayer offered to God happens to be according to their exegesis (of scripture). In this way, those who live in the cities have witnessed to their virtue in devoting themselves to all the best in their words and way of life.

 

-----

 

Josephus, Jewish War 2.164-166

Now the Sadducees, the second party, deny destiny altogether and place God beyond doing or seeing anything bad. They say that good and bad are dependent on human choice; and one may allow each of these according to one's own decision.

 

They deny the soul's permanence as well as rewards and punishments in the underworld.

 

Now the Pharisees love one another and practice consensus in their community. But the Sadducees behave rather aggressively even towards each other. And they are as harsh in debates among themselves as with others.

Now how is it that the Pharisees were so unpopular and legalistic that jesus would have been considered a radical? The Pharisees preceded any jesus by a great many years. If anything, he was just like them, minus the believing he was a god/prophet/king line of thought. The Pharisees even believed in the Logos. They were xians minus jesus. Can you see why this religion simply didn't sell in Judea? Can you see why the Pharisees wouldn't really care about any jesus and his merry band running around the country? They weren't a threat because they were the same.

 

Now, perhaps you have some information that I'm not privy to. I'd love to see it because the more research that I have done the less distinct the persona and teachings of jesus become.

 

It seems to me if we deconstruct this whole thing and see it for what it is, we'd find basically the same group of people we find on this site right here. People in search for reality and a better way to live their life through reason.

Perhaps. I'm not going to say whether or not that's good or bad at this point but developing our own myths/legends relating to our current circumstances instead of trying to find (or apply) meaning in a myth that was trying to do a rework of a myth that was a rework of a myth (and so on) seems a much better use of our resources if we're committed to doing such things.

 

mwc

[mwc]

it's interesting how this article disclaims things without giving their means of doing so.

The article is simply reporting the new positions of the scholars involved with the production. It's not surprising that it doesn't attempt to provide any more than a report.

 

So, that does it! It just couldn't be the tomb of Jesus after all... could it?

 

I've said from the very beginning... this claim of Jesus' tomb, even if it is true, has no chance of being validated. The people who believe Jesus is a myth are inclined to depose it. Then even the Christians themselves are going to denounce it too, for obvious reasons. Christians are their own worst enemy in these regards, and they will never let the dust settle to reveal what may very well be the truth. You know how Christian's are. How could the vast Christian population ever admit Jesus actually died, end of story?

The summation using the xian doctrine is also not surprising as this is the Jewish Post. I have to assume that the author is assuming that not all Jews are familiar with the xian doctrine and to provide it would be helpful to their reader.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I don't know what to say to your post mwc...dang-it. I couldn't find a thing to argue with.

 

Is it you or is it me?

Must be you 'cuz my arguments aren't getting any better.

 

...or GH is right and we should look for those four horsemen...

 

mwc

[Grandpa Harley]

That's it! I'm stocking up on tinned goods now!

[NotBlinded]

I don't know what to say to your post mwc...dang-it. I couldn't find a thing to argue with.

 

Is it you or is it me?

Must be you 'cuz my arguments aren't getting any better.

 

...or GH is right and we should look for those four horsemen...

 

mwc

 

Now here is something to aruge!

 

nuhuuuhhh...it's you because my arugments aren't getting any better either!