Amanda Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Good luck if you can find a man at the beginning of it all. From all of the studying I've done, I find a collection of "wisdom" sayings, loose borrowing of concepts from the Cynics, the Essenes, Plato, the mystery religions, and Paul's visions and dreams. Hi Mythra! It seems there are references to 'Jesus', from outside Biblical reports. One is from the sacred documents of a sect of the Buddhist, made of Jesus (I believe referenced Isas) while he was alive. Other inferences, suggest he was a very real person to me. It seems, one's persuasion in regards to accepting a resource as true is determined by the cogency of the evidence and the majority status of prior accepted 'truths'. Once the weight shifts in the latter, one's persuasion seems to shift accordingly. I still think there was a genuine man, we now reference as 'Jesus'. However, because of information presented on mythology, much of it from you, I have made room for doubt in regards to many aspects about 'Jesus'. Perhaps myths have been superimposed on him, as in St. Nicholas? If so, wouldn't that make both of us partly correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I find the legacy of Christianity to be different than my take on the legacy of Jesus. I'm not pushing my beliefs on you all, I'm merely stating my opinions. It seems that most disagree with me, though. Perhaps, I should have used a different word. Nevertheless, I used the word 'legacy'.Maybe you should have, since Christianity is the legacy of Jesus... Instead of the legacy of Jesus, you could have said the message of Jesus... but that would still be a problem because... I guess in the end, I pick and choose, and attribute only the good to Jesus. My mistake!Yes... but what was the Message Jesus taught? It isn't what you say it is, since you admit to leaving out part of the message... You can hate him if you like, but he had very good qualities, which is what I focus on.Yes, you do... I, on the other hand, prefer to look at the whole person. That way, I can see what he was really like.Take Hitler, for example... most people say he's an evil man and leave it at that. But he was also a good painter, terrific with animals and, in his own way, a patriot... Did you know that? no, most people don't... but that's because they all focus on the bad. Did you really know what Hitler was like? No, because you focused on the bad. Now... about Jesus... did you know he had a temper? Or that he was a mysoginist? Or that he found it hard to obey the law? Probably not, since you focus on the good. Do you really know what Jesus was like? No, because you ignore part of what he was like. I can overlook his shortcomings. Hell, we all have them. I think the good outwieghs the bad by a landslide, therefore relesing him from the negative aspects of his life. But thats just me . . . I like the man! What you are doing with Jesus is exactly what Christians do with BibleGod... they focus on the good, while ignoring everything bad, and then they can say "God is good". Here's a question for you... The good I do far outweighs the bad I do... does that mean I am released from my negative aspects? Think carefully, since saying yes contradicts reality, while saying no means you hold Jesus to lower standards than me. One thing that I have to mention is that when you overlook a part of someone, you are no longer dealing with that person... just a poor imitation of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I guess in the end, I pick and choose, and attribute only the good to Jesus. My mistake! You can hate him if you like, but he had very good qualities, which is what I focus on. I can overlook his shortcomings. Hell, we all have them. I think the good outwieghs the bad by a landslide, therefore relesing him from the negative aspects of his life. But thats just me . . . I like the man! We're talking about heaven/hell, eternity & all that jazz! Yes, sweep a persons shortcomings out the door & only keep the good ones, that's fabulous. But I for one am hardly going to give that kind of leniancy to one who is supposed to be one & the same with an infallible God. If Jesus was sent to teach & show us the light of God, then simply being an excellent man who gets cranky, mean, & negative just like the rest of us, but does it less than most, is hardly good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I deeply respect your sense of values. Yet, it seems to me... that aknowledging these teachings of Jesus does not necessarily mean that a particular person has interpreted them in these ways you've posted above. Sure, it may be a popular current spin... with which values I also find disgusting. Yet, it may also be a convincing lie perpetuated by those who prostitute its significance for their own agendas. IMO, it can be equated with the commonly perpetrated belief that Hitler was an Atheist. Neither are true. Also, many of other religions, such as Buddhist and Islamic, see these teachings of Jesus differently than you've attributed them, and they respect their own interpretations of these teachings, yet do not refer to themselves as Christians. I understand and agree with your frustrations of the fundamentalist religous right, yet not all people see Jesus as these narrow minded people do. But nobody can even prove that Jesus existed, much less that anything that happened in the Bible is true! It's all fiction. Why waste your life on trying to believe in even part of fiction, particularly fiction that a large group has twisted to hurt people? It's not worth it, IMHO. There are better myths to enjoy. I realize that not all Christians are fundies, but I still don't want to be part of a group that is known largely for its prejudice. I tried the liberal approach, as I said, and found that I still couldn't stomach it. I couldn't lie and pretend to be someone I wasn't. Could it be that something similar has happened to the popularized current projection, in the west, of this man we have come to know as 'Jesus'? I used to think that way, but where's the proof? Where's the scientific evidence that he existed in the first place and wasn't just a literary character? (And please don't say writings, I'm looking for something more than fiction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Hi Mythra! It seems there are references to 'Jesus', from outside Biblical reports. One is from the sacred documents of a sect of the Buddhist, made of Jesus (I believe referenced Isas) while he was alive. Other inferences, suggest he was a very real person to me. Heya Amanda - I got a feeling your source for "Issa" is Nicholas Notovich's "Unknown Life of Christ" (1887), which claims an ancient documentary basis from a Tibetan monastery (in the city of Leh, on the border between India and Tibet) . He claimed that there was a two-part manuscript there entitled "The Life of Saint Issa". Notovich was proven to be a fraud by 1895. After this, Swami Abhedananda went to this same region in 1922 to investigate this legend. He also wrote a book, called "Journey into Kashmir and Tibet", in which he claims to have found scrolls, which he translated, which spoke of an "Issa", whom he understood to be Jesus. After Swami Abhedananda died, a disciple of his, Swami Prajnananda admitted that there were no scrolls. Swami Abhedananda's account turned out to be a close rendering of Nicholas Notovich's, which had previously been proven a phony. So, if you have a buddhist source of an Issa which is concurrent with the lifetime of the supposed Jesus, you should share it. If it were verified, it would shoot down the Jesus Myth idea. But you'd better look pretty hard. It doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I got a feeling your source for "Issa" is Nicholas Notovich's "Unknown Life of Christ" (1887), which claims an ancient documentary basis from a Tibetan monastery (in the city of Leh, on the border between India and Tibet) . He claimed that there was a two-part manuscript there entitled "The Life of Saint Issa". Notovich was proven to be a fraud by 1895. Mythra, yes... this is the evidence of which I was referring. And I'm sure you know that the fraud has NOT been proven, but more politics about it for the Buddhist by the "(fundy) Christians" added to the controversy in a derrogatory manner. As I've said, it seems to depend on one's already established persuasion as to how they accept the veracity of the 'entire' story of the evidence. But, I suppose that seems to make debating much more interesting. If you're interested, which I doubt... as your research seems to be already quite extensive, here are some conflicting sites to your side on this matter... http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 Isn't exhorting a group of ex christians to not throw the baby out with the bath water in regards to christ a bit like appealing to a group of Jews to take a second look at and to forget about the bad parts in Mein Kampf? And Fly you keep telling us that there was more good in christ's teachings than bad. Care to provide a list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 The Bible has been/is used to support hatred of certain people; "Evil doers, homosexuals, witches, etc." and especially NOT in a literalist nation. Hello Serenity Now! I have noticed this to be true... unfortunately. I've been curious as to why it seems that these scriptures have been used, I personally think twisted, to do such harm where other spiritual teachings, other than Islam, does not do so? The Buddhist, Zen, Shinto, Suffis, Shamanism, etc. seem to endure without being the facade for dubious activities. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted December 1, 2005 Share Posted December 1, 2005 I've been curious as to why it seems that these scriptures have been used, I personally think twisted, to do such harm where other spiritual teachings, other than Islam, does not do so? The Buddhist, Zen, Shinto, Suffis, Shamanism, etc. seem to endure without being the facade for dubious activities. Why is that? At a guess? Probably because the base message of the scriptures is about the differences, rather than the simularities between people... One thing that's common all the way through the Tanach, the Bible and the Quran is the way they all draw a line between "us" and "them", and then go on about how much worse "they" are than "us" (admittedly, the Tanach is a minor offender compared to the others) To be honest, I don't think there's anything in the scriptures that shows "them" in a good light... a perfect recipe for intolerence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts