The Gospel Story

[Mythra]

Whether you subscribe to the mythicist theory, or you think that there was some person, Yeshu ben Pandira - or the Teacher of Righteousness - or some other Jesus Rabbi who underlies the gospel - I think most of us agree that the gospel story did not actually happen as told in the New Testament.

 

If you could somehow transport yourself back in time to the year 31 CE - you could search from Galilee to Jerusalem and never find this Jesus and his twelve disciples. You'd find no one who ever heard of him. No one who had seen these marvelous miraculous works. Of this I am sure.

 

Christians will say that no one wrote about Jesus during his day - because he was just an obscure travelling preacher. Just a blip on the radar screen. This is not consistent with what the Bible says.

 

Sorry for being so lengthy here, but there are A LOT of verses in the gospels which speak about Jesus' fame. (just skim - you'll get the point)

 

Matt. 4:23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. 24News about him spread all over Syria , and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them. 25Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[f] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.

 

Matt. 9:33 And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."

 

Matt 9:35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.

 

Matt 21:They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

 

Matt 26:4 and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. "But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people."

 

Mark 1:45 Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.

 

Mark 3:7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the lake, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. When they heard all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon.

 

Mark 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known.

 

Mark 6:55 They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. And wherever he went—into villages, towns or countryside—they placed the sick in the marketplaces. They begged him to let them touch even the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

 

Mark 7:36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. People were overwhelmed with amazement. "He has done everything well," they said. "He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."

 

Mark 10:1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

 

Luke 4:36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, "What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!" And the news about him spread throughout the surrounding area.

 

Luke 5:15 Yet the news about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear him and to be healed of their sicknesses.

 

Luke 8:4 While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town

 

Luke 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on.

 

Luke 9:13 They answered, "We have only five loaves of bread and two fish—unless we go and buy food for all this crowd." (About five thousand men were there.)

 

Luke 11:29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah

 

Luke 12:1 Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another

 

Luke 23:8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle

 

Luke 24:18 Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?" "What things?" he asked. "About Jesus of Nazareth,"

 

John 6:10 Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them.

 

John 12:9 Meanwhile a large crowd of Jews found out that Jesus was there and came, not only because of him but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

 

 

Okay - so that's the account of Jesus' fame given to us by the men who wrote the story. Now, for a few facts.

 

The following people lived in the general region and wrote during Jesus' day - yet NOT ONE WORD is written by them concerning Jesus.

 

Philo Judaeus.

Justus of Tiberias.

Seneca.

Pliny the Elder

The Essenes at Qumran

 

There are, of course, many more - but some of them are a stretch. Of the ones I've listed - it's inconceivable that they wouldn't have recorded a single word about these events - had they happened.

 

The gospel STORY: Jesus' fame was spread throughout the entire region. Thousands and thousands of people followed him. Dead raised. Blind given sight. Demons cast out. Deaf given hearing. Paralytics walking.

 

There is NO way these events actually took place, and the first person to write about it (the author of Mark) was some 40 to 50 years later.

 

Think about it.

[Taphophilia]

You would think there would be one bit of historical evidence that proved Jesus existed.

 

You got me started reading about the Old Testament with the Ugarit thread. The stories in the OT are from an older civilizations and the words from other types of linguistics were not translated correctly into Hebrew or were translated incorrectly into another culture then the scribes translated the wrong word or they didn't have a Hebrew for it and had to come up with something close that changed the meaning. Many of the OT stories were hand me downs from other much older cultures.

 

I wonder, if someone or many people existed in a different time and/or place that was adopted and adapted into the culture and where the Jesus myth could have come from. I think it had to come from somewhere and was obviously changed.

 

I really hate the war in Iraq, not only for the obvious reasons, but also because I think how much of our history is being and has been lost forever?

 

Taph

[Eponymic]

Think about it.

 

Right on!

 

And you can't just justify it by saying that it was passed on word of mouth because there would be a lot more recorded information from a variety of sources that would have eventually gotten a hold of this story.

[NotBlinded]

The gospel STORY: Jesus' fame was spread throughout the entire region. Thousands and thousands of people followed him. Dead raised. Blind given sight. Demons cast out. Deaf given hearing. Paralytics walking.

 

There is NO way these events actually took place, and the first person to write about it (the author of Mark) was some 40 to 50 years later.

 

Think about it.

I agree that if these things actually happened, people would write about it. But, what if the dead being raised meant living life more fully with spiritual knowledge and the blind given sight meant that fundamental thinking people became suddenly 'aware' and that demons being cast out meant that removing doubt and material thinking from the mind. And of course with all these things happening, the deaf could now hear what this person was saying. I don't know about you, but there are a couple of christians on this board that I would call 'deaf'. I don't know about the paralytics walking...maybe it was self-induced paralysis to begin with?

 

Anyway......a person like this probably wouldn't make such an impact as someone that is performing things that go against the laws of nature. What if his teaching was trying to get people to live in accordance with the laws of nature (gnostic)? Maybe??

 

I don't know whether he lived or not, but if he didn't then whoever wrote his words used the name Jesus or was given the name Jesus. It really doesn't matter, to me anyway.

[dibby]

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the sky turned black, there was an earthquake and the dead popped out of their graves, people would have writtn about it.

[Antlerman]

I agree that if these things actually happened, people would write about it. But, what if the dead being raised meant living life more fully with spiritual knowledge and the blind given sight meant that fundamental thinking people became suddenly 'aware' and that demons being cast out meant that removing doubt and material thinking from the mind. And of course with all these things happening, the deaf could now hear what this person was saying. I don't know about you, but there are a couple of christians on this board that I would call 'deaf'. I don't know about the paralytics walking...maybe it was self-induced paralysis to begin with?

 

Anyway......a person like this probably wouldn't make such an impact as someone that is performing things that go against the laws of nature.

One thing that can be said with strong confidence based on what Mythra pointed out from those verses, that if a real preacher existed, those accounts of his fame and reputations are grossly overstated. Whether or not the stories of the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, walking on water, et al, are symbolic imagery for spiritual awareness, not all of the NT is that sort of talk.

 

The story of being afraid to take him into custody because they feared his popularity and that the crowds may riot (Mythra is dead on in saying someone of this fame would not have escaped the attention of those contemporary historians who were meticulous in details of the day), I can't see any sort of language there that is meant as spiritual metaphor. Rather, my view on it is that that aspect of the "narrative" are purely a literary vehicle of tall tales and super-deeds of the hero figure of the story, "Jesus", the great spiritual teacher.

 

The other gospel accounts merely slavishly copy Marks basic Homer's Odyssey like hero's tale and add their own embellishments to the basic saga. Sure the core is spiritual teaching using parables, metaphors, etc, but the "historical" aspects of it are pure fiction that serve as a framework for the "gospel" (i.e., love your neighbor as yourself, etc).

 

All that said, whether there was some real history man behind the Jesus' Odyssey story (my new name for the Gospels), is almost moot. There is nothing that supports it as any sort of historical reality. It is a hero's tale in it's "historically set" literary fabric, but it's also a collection of spiritual sayings at it best, and should be viewed as nothing more, or less than that. We shouldn't try to read the story of the crowds rioting as some sort of spiritual metaphor. It's simply a literary vehicle.

[NotBlinded]

I agree that if these things actually happened, people would write about it. But, what if the dead being raised meant living life more fully with spiritual knowledge and the blind given sight meant that fundamental thinking people became suddenly 'aware' and that demons being cast out meant that removing doubt and material thinking from the mind. And of course with all these things happening, the deaf could now hear what this person was saying. I don't know about you, but there are a couple of christians on this board that I would call 'deaf'. I don't know about the paralytics walking...maybe it was self-induced paralysis to begin with?

 

Anyway......a person like this probably wouldn't make such an impact as someone that is performing things that go against the laws of nature.

One thing that can be said with strong confidence based on what Mythra pointed out from those verses, that if a real preacher existed, those accounts of his fame and reputations are grossly overstated. Whether or not the stories of the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, walking on water, et al, are symbolic imagery for spiritual awareness, not all of the NT is that sort of talk.

 

The story of being afraid to take him into custody because they feared his popularity and that the crowds may riot (Mythra is dead on in saying someone of this fame would not have escaped the attention of those contemporary historians who were meticulous in details of the day), I can't see any sort of language there that is meant as spiritual metaphor. Rather, my view on it is that that aspect of the "narrative" are purely a literary vehicle of tall tales and super-deeds of the hero figure of the story, "Jesus", the great spiritual teacher.

 

The other gospel accounts merely slavishly copy Marks basic Homer's Odyssey like hero's tale and add their own embellishments to the basic saga. Sure the core is spiritual teaching using parables, metaphors, etc, but the "historical" aspects of it are pure fiction that serve as a framework for the "gospel" (i.e., love your neighbor as yourself, etc).

 

All that said, whether there was some real history man behind the Jesus' Odyssey story (my new name for the Gospels), is almost moot. There is nothing that supports it as any sort of historical reality. It is a hero's tale in it's "historically set" literary fabric, but it's also a collection of spiritual sayings at it best, and should be viewed as nothing more, or less than that. We shouldn't try to read the story of the crowds rioting as some sort of spiritual metaphor. It's simply a literary vehicle.

I sense something...hold on, let me get my crystal ball...something is coming to me...what...long, pink ears....cute, little black nose....furry.........wait!.......Antlerman thinks I am a fluffy bunny and can only see one side! Yes? No? (throws the damn thing across the room).

 

Hi there Antlerman!

 

You did notice that I said I agreed with Myrtha didn't you? By the way...I agree with you too. Never once did I say the entire NT is all that 'sort of talk'. It doesn't matter to me whether he lived or not, but someone wrote spiritual mataphors and philosophical insights. All that other talk is just what it is...other talk. It is not strictly true or not true, absolutely. I was speaking about the possibility of 'someone' preaching spiritual messages not being so much noticed as someone that was doing miracles. Maybe they didn't write about him because he was just teaching people how to live a good life. All that miracle stuff (that goes against the laws of nature) was probably added later due to misunderstandings of these teachings...whoever was teaching them. I don't know. Someone may have got ahold of some of his (whoever) teachings and read them literally (like many people) and thought...wow, if he did these things then people from everywhere must have bowed down before him. Hence, a myth was born. See, I do agree with you. Goosh...some people.

 

Now...where the heck did my crystal ball go??? I have to find it.............

[Mythra]

what if the dead being raised meant living life more fully with spiritual knowledge and the blind given sight meant that fundamental thinking people became suddenly 'aware' and that demons being cast out meant that removing doubt and material thinking from the mind.

 

Go ahead and try and allegorize the entire Bible. You're going to find a whole lot of places where you cannot make that type of interpretation fit - and the whole method becomes so strained that it crumbles from its own weight.

 

You could be right, of course. Perhaps. Maybe the story is only an allegory. Spiritual symbolism. Maybe God is a metaphor for something else. Maybe we're not really here, but dreaming about an existence from another complete reality. Maybe we'll exist eternally as some kind of manifestation of an ethereal energy source. If any of this is true, we have no way of verifying it or supporting the ideas. So, it becomes nothing more than pie-in-the-sky conjecture.

 

Don't know about any of that stuff. But my mind tells me that 'taint so.

[NotBlinded]

what if the dead being raised meant living life more fully with spiritual knowledge and the blind given sight meant that fundamental thinking people became suddenly 'aware' and that demons being cast out meant that removing doubt and material thinking from the mind.

 

Go ahead and try and allegorize the entire Bible. You're going to find a whole lot of places where you cannot make that type of interpretation fit - and the whole method becomes so strained that it crumbles from its own weight.

 

You could be right, of course. Perhaps. Maybe the story is only an allegory. Spiritual symbolism. Maybe God is a metaphor for something else. Maybe we're not really here, but dreaming about an existence from another complete reality. Maybe we'll exist eternally as some kind of manifestation of an ethereal energy source. If any of this is true, we have no way of verifying it or supporting the ideas. So, it becomes nothing more than pie-in-the-sky conjecture.

 

Don't know about any of that stuff. But my mind tells me that 'taint so.

Damn...I'm glad your mind tells you that's not so because that is not what I said at all. Jezzzzz, it's either all for or all against with you guys isn't it?

[Mythra]

Sorry NBBB.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was firing directly at you.

 

I'm not that familiar with your particular beliefs.

 

But, I am pretty familiar with much of the New Age interpretations of the Bible and the world, and I find most of it to be - incomprehensible and a violation of all things observable by any of our five senses; and I am a person who does not possess a sixth. (with no desire to)

[NotBlinded]

Sorry NBBB.

 

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was firing directly at you.

 

I'm not that familiar with your particular beliefs.

 

But, I am pretty familiar with much of the New Age interpretations of the Bible and the world, and I find most of it to be - incomprehensible and a violation of all things observable by any of our senses.

That's okay Mythra...I understand where you are coming from. There are groups out there that turn the entire bible into an allegory and I have read alot from them (Theosophy being one, although not New Age). There are many, many things that I don't agree with them on because I feel the truth is never at the extremes...it is usually in the middle somewhere. I think it is a mixture of allegory (metaphor), myth, misunderstandings and political input just like what would happen in reality. Yet, there are many things from this 'New Age' thinking that I do agree with because it makes sense to me and it is there amongst ancient teachings also...continents apart. It is something that is testable in my own life. So, I was surprised when I found out it was called New Age because some of the same understandings are old.

 

I'll tell ya what though...it's hard being in the middle!

[NotBlinded]

You could be right, of course. Perhaps. Maybe the story is only an allegory. Spiritual symbolism.

I just wanted to add a little something else. I just wanted to say that even if what you said above is true doesn't mean that what you said below is true.

 

It could be that they thought what was below is true and they used what is above as the way to communicate it. It doesn't make their belief true, just the method of communication.

 

Maybe God is a metaphor for something else. Maybe we're not really here, but dreaming about an existence from another complete reality. Maybe we'll exist eternally as some kind of manifestation of an ethereal energy source.

[Heimdall]

Since all of this happened pre-TV (Heck, even pre-Radio) and the average man-on-the-street was illiterate; anything spectacular would attract attention. Even in Rome, the need for "entertainment" was paramount. Let's face it, life is usually quite boring even with the entertainment options that we have today. Can you imagine what it would be like with no TV, no radio, no computers, no movies, CDs, DVDs, magazines, books, or even lights that didn't involve smoky flickering tapers, torches or fires! People went crazy for any entertainment, I mean they were entralled by such simple things as acrobats, jugglers, dancers, etc. When someone suddenly appeared to have great magical powers, the word was passed around - Empire wide - within weeks, months at the most. This fame is why we know of such men as "the Egyptian" and Apollonius. If there had been a magic prophet walking around Galilee and Judea, performing such marvelous miracles, he would have been giving a command performance in front of the Emperor just as fast as they could get him to Rome! The trip from Rome to Judea took only about a month by sailing ship, so information passed between Rome and it's provinces much faster than Christ Cultists seem to think. Alexandria was only a week travel, and not a very odous trip to boot. Any one that seemed to promise entertainment and wonderment was a welcome guest in any town, hamlet or city in the Empire and his "fame" would have preceded him. - Heimdall

[jrmarlin]

I would have to agree with Heimdall here. I would think that had Jesus been a traveling minstral aka magician on the move, then people would have been more aware of his existence. But as you all have said, we were not around then and the writings are sparse. Who knows if he was or was not there... Heimdall's timing on another thread certainly leaves one skeptical as to the whole entire thing being a farce from the beginning.

[All Gods Fail]

Excellent points, everyone. Much of the NT reeks of self-promotion.

 

It was also the reason that the gospels appeared many years later - if they had actually been written closer to the time these alleged events occurred, too many folks would call bullshit on them.

 

"Hey, I've lived in Galilee my whole life and I never heard about this! Walking on water? WTF you talking about, Matthew?"

[Antlerman]

I agree that if these things actually happened, people would write about it. But, what if the dead being raised meant living life more fully with spiritual knowledge and the blind given sight meant that fundamental thinking people became suddenly 'aware' and that demons being cast out meant that removing doubt and material thinking from the mind. And of course with all these things happening, the deaf could now hear what this person was saying. I don't know about you, but there are a couple of christians on this board that I would call 'deaf'. I don't know about the paralytics walking...maybe it was self-induced paralysis to begin with?

 

Anyway......a person like this probably wouldn't make such an impact as someone that is performing things that go against the laws of nature.

I sense something...hold on, let me get my crystal ball...something is coming to me...what...long, pink ears....cute, little black nose....furry.........wait!.......Antlerman thinks I am a fluffy bunny and can only see one side! Yes? No? (throws the damn thing across the room).

You know... please don't assume what my thoughts are then get angry at me for them.

 

Even so, if I challenge things I hear, that is what this forum is about. I don't have to agree with someone always in order to respect or like them. I really don’t want to have to feel like I need to put on special gloves in order to not upset someone by challenging them. I’m challenging you for your feedback in order for me to test and better understanding where you’re coming from though what I’m hearing. If I didn’t care enough to want to know, I wouldn’t bother. If I get slapped every time I do, then it would be unlikely that I would continue to bring up my thoughts anymore.

 

I appreciate that you do recognize there are times when clearly things are meant as allegory or metaphor, and other times when there just embellishment to give a certain flare to the story line. I reacted skeptically to what you said above about the dead being raised, possibly being some sort of metaphorical message about spiritual rebirth. I really don't see that, and add to it there have been plenty of conversations elsewhere on this board where I have heard an overly metaphorical, metaphysical reading of the Bible as literature. You may or may not be doing this all the time, and I simply wanted to underscore the care that needs to be taken.

 

So you understand I really do not care for New Age stuff for this reason: Even though some of the principles or concepts they are teaching are "ancient" wisdom, New Age is co-opting it and exploiting it in ways that in my view are loose and careless, trendy, lacking real substance behind the fluff. It is far, far from a true ancient discipline that has earned its keep. It's pop religion for the masses. So even if they have a few ancient "truths" in it, it’s not theirs. As a whole, it's just sugar that poses as steak. I can smell pseudo-scholarship a mile away, and I revile against it, as I feel it does a disservice to humanity through its core artificiality.

 

You yourself may feel that way too, and I’m just trying to clarify and have a dialog with you about these things as they do pertain to the subject. I do not disrespect you at all.

 

P.S. I am far from and either one or the other extreem, but I cannot comprimise that what I respect be worthy of it, even if I agree with it or not.

[Kryten]

Excellent post Mythra! Very compelling argument.

 

Reminds me of the evangelist who said that if he went back in time to Jerusalem around 32-33AD and couldn't find any evidence that Jesus existed, he would STILL believe!

[NotBlinded]

You know... please don't assume what my thoughts are then get angry at me for them.

 

Even so, if I challenge things I hear, that is what this forum is about. I don't have to agree with someone always in order to respect or like them. I really don’t want to have to feel like I need to put on special gloves in order to not upset someone by challenging them. I’m challenging you for your feedback in order for me to test and better understanding where you’re coming from though what I’m hearing. If I didn’t care enough to want to know, I wouldn’t bother. If I get slapped every time I do, then it would be unlikely that I would continue to bring up my thoughts anymore.

Antlerman,

 

I reacted the way I did because I have been accused of holding a 'New Age' belief. You replied to me that not all the NT is that sort of talk like I thought it was. Maybe I did just assume that you thought that is what I thought. I have said numerous times that I didn't even realize that this 'New Age' cult existed. I have found my understanding from the ancient teachings and certain spritual teachers of today. They have referenced over and over the ancient teachings in their books and there remains a lot of stuff that I don't agree with. The test and result is my own life.

 

I love what you post, Anterman you know that. I don't mind you challenging me, but I do mind being accused of being something that I really don't know a whole lot about. Why must I be in a group? My understandings come from investigating many different philosophies, religions and so forth. When something makes sense to me, I accept it only after investigating it. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you but I don't think I would put you into a group such as a fundamental ex-christian because I see you reading everything literally because I know you don't. I don't think you would appreciate it if I did. I am just asking for the same respect. There are points in your earlier posts to me that has given me the impression that you have categorized me. I saw you assuming that you knew what my thoughts were.

 

I appreciate that you do recognize there are times when clearly things are meant as allegory or metaphor, and other times when there just embellishment to give a certain flare to the story line. I reacted skeptically to what you said above about the dead being raised, possibly being some sort of metaphorical message about spiritual rebirth. I really don't see that, and add to it there have been plenty of conversations elsewhere on this board where I have heard an overly metaphorical, metaphysical reading of the Bible as literature. You may or may not be doing this all the time, and I simply wanted to underscore the care that needs to be taken.

We can't say for sure what 'the dead being raised' means and I usually say "maybe" when I speak about it. I understand you reacting skeptically, and that is fine, is just when you pushed it to where that it can't possibly mean that. How can you say that it is overly metahorical when it is not known for sure what was meant? It could have been a complete misunderstanding of the Gnostic's belief when the bible was written, plus other factors. From what I understand, the Gnostics were the first. I don't know. I am just saying that there are more possibities than just the literal interpretation either for or against and I think you know that also. I just don't like getting accused of being 'pop', 'fluffy', 'New Age' or anything like that when I offer a different perspective.

 

So you understand I really do not care for New Age stuff for this reason: Even though some of the principles or concepts they are teaching are "ancient" wisdom, New Age is co-opting it and exploiting it in ways that in my view are loose and careless, trendy, lacking real substance behind the fluff. It is far, far from a true ancient discipline that has earned its keep. It's pop religion for the masses. So even if they have a few ancient "truths" in it, it’s not theirs. As a whole, it's just sugar that poses as steak. I can smell pseudo-scholarship a mile away, and I revile against it, as I feel it does a disservice to humanity through its core artificiality.

That is nice to know...really. Like I said, I didn't even know a thing about them. I'll have to look into it some more. I am a good example of some of those anceint 'truths' being common with them I guess because when you go against this New Age stuff, it is usually directed at me...but not always.

 

There were mystery schools around back then (from what I understand), so why it is such a reach to think that maybe Jesus, or the character of Jesus, could be related to this mystery understanding. I don't know, but it is worth consideration for me. I can't reject it as 100% non-sense and I can't accept it as 100% truth. It just makes sense to me because certain aspects of this is found in many religions. This aspect is what I find to be true. I am not saying that their beliefs are true but this common element of materalism (notice I didn't say ego ) and "true self" is common. They just have different myths in order to say the same thing. The myth is the non-sense, but the message at its core is something that can be put into use in everyday life. It's more of a philosophy when the myth is torn away.

 

So, what harm can there be and why do I need to be careful when I see allegories? These understandings reveal a philosophy that I can live by. The philosophy itself makes no reference to there being any kind of controlling god or a god that has to be pleased. That is the myth. The only thing that is left is the understanding that we are all one and this philosophy points to that in many different ways...from Adam and Eve to Revelations to Hinduism to Buddhism to Quetzalcoatl, and I guess, New Age.

 

You yourself may feel that way too, and I’m just trying to clarify and have a dialog with you about these things as they do pertain to the subject. I do not disrespect you at all.

Maybe I am a little defensive and reacted as such.

 

I am far from and either one or the other extreem, but I cannot comprimise that what I respect be worthy of it, even if I agree with it or not.

Nor can I.

 

 

Please don't feel like you have to put on special gloves...just take the boxing gloves off!

[NotBlinded]

Antlerman,

 

I apologize for that long post. I am still a very defensive person. This is something I am working on. Although better than I was, I still have a long way to go.

 

I guess you could say that I am very skeptical, even of skepticism.

[Open_Minded]

So, what harm can there be and why do I need to be careful when I see allegories? These understandings reveal a philosophy that I can live by. The philosophy itself makes no reference to there being any kind of controlling god or a god that has to be pleased. That is the myth. The only thing that is left is the understanding that we are all one and this philosophy points to that in many different ways...from Adam and Eve to Revelations to Hinduism to Buddhism to Quetzalcoatl, and I guess, New Age.

 

Hello Folks, just jumping in quick before I leave town.

 

NotBlinded what may be happening here - and I'm not sure - haven't read the whole thread - but there is a distinct difference between reading something as an allegory and assuming that it was an allegory in the eyes of the author.

 

I also read much of the Bible as allegory - but I would say the overwhelming majority of NT scholars would caution extreme care in stating that a specific story was intended as allegory when it was written.

 

There is NO harm in reading something as an allegory. But given the literalist culture we live in today, it is very important to take extreme care when talking about the the way the Bible was written and the intent of the original authors. It is so easy to twist and turn the Bible into something it isn't - we see literalist do that all the time. That's why Biblical scholarship is so important - it holds all of us to a standard.

 

NotBlinded you know ILWYT ... I'm not suggesting for one moment that you stop searching or learning or reading the Bible the way that you read it. ILWYT because I have my own history with metaphysics and such - you connect with my thinking because I've also studied the things you are studying. It's all so fascinating. But, life has taught me to balance all of it with Biblical scholarship.

 

Please do not think I'm taking sides here - I am not. Antlerman and NotBlinded you both mean much to me. So - I'm just going to throw a possibility out there - get in my car for a 5 hour trip and assume you guys don't need me to clarify.

[NotBlinded]

So, what harm can there be and why do I need to be careful when I see allegories? These understandings reveal a philosophy that I can live by. The philosophy itself makes no reference to there being any kind of controlling god or a god that has to be pleased. That is the myth. The only thing that is left is the understanding that we are all one and this philosophy points to that in many different ways...from Adam and Eve to Revelations to Hinduism to Buddhism to Quetzalcoatl, and I guess, New Age.

 

Hello Folks, just jumping in quick before I leave town.

 

NotBlinded what may be happening here - and I'm not sure - haven't read the whole thread - but there is a distinct difference between reading something as an allegory and assuming that it was an allegory in the eyes of the author.

O_M,

 

I understand that and made references to it.

 

All that miracle stuff (that goes against the laws of nature) was probably added later due to misunderstandings of these teachings...whoever was teaching them. I don't know. Someone may have got ahold of some of his (whoever) teachings and read them literally (like many people) and thought...wow, if he did these things then people from everywhere must have bowed down before him. Hence, a myth was born. See, I do agree with you.

 

I think it is a mixture of allegory (metaphor), myth, misunderstandings and political input just like what would happen in reality.

 

It could have been a complete misunderstanding of the Gnostic's belief when the bible was written, plus other factors.

 

What I am saying is that the authors may have misunderstood an allegory thereby rendering it literal. I am trying to get to the heart of the message. I am not saying the entire thing is an allegory. I don't know if the authors saw it that way. Even if they did understand it to be so, no power could be gained from that. That is possibly why they destroyed most of the Gnostic texts and deemed them heretical. I think this messed up what Jesus was trying to preach or what the character of Jesus represented. I am just trying to get to the underlying message. Many times it has to be taken out of context because of the intent of the author. I don't have much faith that the authors fully knew what they were writing. There may have been some that did and some that didn't, hence voting on it. There were many different sects back then also from what I understand and a controlling force stepped in and put it all together into what we have now. I am more interested in what the sects believed in, although much will never be known because of the controlling force and their destructive ways.

 

There are many authors today that write about things that they don't understand. I think this happened (plus other factors such as prexisting myths). It isn't the word of god, IMO. I don't have to trust the authors of the bible anymore than I have to trust the authors of any other book, but I can find meaning in what they wrote and use my own judgement. What someone writes about a myth doesn't make it the truth. It's just their opinion on the myth. I think we all can agree that Chrisitanity isn't original so those symbols had meaning before Christianity. The bible, to me, is a mixed up tale of myth, philosophical truths, misunderstandings of teachings, the use of other myths, intelligent spiritual insight through metaphor and allegory, and other things.

 

I guess my communication skills just suck.

[Open_Minded]

I guess my communication skills just suck.

 

NotBlinded ... your communication skills don't suck. As I wrote in my post - I was just popping in quick before leaving on a long trip and I hadn't read the whole thread. It's my reading skills that suck.

 

My only suggestion NotBlinded would be to take a step back from all the hoopla about the Gnostic texts. Like everything else - the scholarship around those documents will sort itself out in the long run. But - as exciting as those texts are in pointing to a diverse early Christianity - there is still much study to be done. At this point you will not find the same consensus around the Gnostic texts that you will find around the canonized gospels. And this is simply because the Gnostic texts are relatively new to the overall picture.

 

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

 

Beyond that I will add some thoughts. These thoughts are for the general discussion and not meant to be directed at anyone in particular.

 

In my own experience with interfaith/interspiritual dialog I have learned what a struggle language can be at times. The very same words can mean different things to different people. Throw into the mix, personal bias and religious overtones - and well you all know. You see it happen all the time on this board.

 

As a result - I've learned to really take certain things seriously. Biblical scholarship being one. It is very difficult to maintain center ground in discussions about the Bible if there isn't a standard that all parties involved can agree on. Don't get me wrong, scholarship is NOT the end all and be all of looking at the Bible and religion in general. To me it is a starting point for any discussion about the Bible - A starting point. But, it is a necessary starting point.

 

Biblical scholarship is not perfect. Any scholar will tell you that. But it is what we have for a starting point in these types of discussions. As a result - my bias will be to wonder about what scholarly consensus is on a certain topic and then proceed from there.

 

The OP was about historical accuracy of the gospel story. I think most biblical scholars would caution against reading any of the gospels as a historical document.

 

Then the question becomes what are we left with - what do we do with that information? If the gospel is not a historical document then what does that mean?

1. What does it mean for those who still find value in the Bible - how can they read it?
   
2. What does it mean for literalist Christians?
   
3. What does it mean for Christianity as a whole?
   
4. What does it mean for those who are not Christian - but have had to live in a literalist culture?
   

Humanity is at a crossroads. We are going to have to learn to live with each other - because we have now reached a point where we are quite capable of bringing on the end of the world, as we know it.

 

On a personal level - I think the best thing that could happen to all literalists is to be forced to deal with the falacy of their beliefs. All literalists - not just Christian literalists.

 

Just my thoughts.