So Who Is The Real Father Of Jesus?

[mwc]

Strictly speaking, isn't it pretty much a fact that the father of the child is the one who impregnates the mother? I'm not a scientist but I'd say that this is universally true. So wouldn't that make the father of jesus the holy spirit and not jehovah? Triune or not they are presented as distinct entities who just share some of the god traits (they aren't all omniscient or omnipresent after all) so being the son of the HS is not the same as being the son of jehovah. If that's the case then jesus is the son of himself and no one claims that (maybe if you push them on it but it will be a temporary change just to shut you up then it's back to their true beliefs).

 

Maybe the HS didn't want him and he and jehovah agreed to this arrangement that is in the bible? It explains a lot. HS knocks up Mary. He's not ready for a kid and leaves (he did at least briefly stop by when jesus got baptized although it's clear jesus did not recognize him) and jehovah as the surragate is cold and aloof. Hell, he let his "adopted" son die on a cross and ignored his pleas for help...after all why bother to help since the little bastard isn't his. Sadly, baby jesus was unaware of the true situation (not being omniscient screwed him more that once) and appealed to the wrong father every single time.

 

So I say that jesus is the son of the holy spirit and not jehovah by the very definition of things.

 

mwc

[white_raven23]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit. THere are so many elements of the gospels that clearly derive from the Greek Gods tales and myths, that if the Greek influence were more pronounced, that is very close to how the story would actually read.

[Amanda]

Strictly speaking, isn't it pretty much a fact that the father of the child is the one who impregnates the mother? I'm not a scientist but I'd say that this is universally true. So wouldn't that make the father of jesus the holy spirit and not jehovah? Triune or not they are presented as distinct entities who just share some of the god traits (they aren't all omniscient or omnipresent after all) so being the son of the HS is not the same as being the son of jehovah. If that's the case then jesus is the son of himself and no one claims that (maybe if you push them on it but it will be a temporary change just to shut you up then it's back to their true beliefs).

Hi MWC! This is an interesting topic. Entering this site, I thought it was possible for Jesus to have been born of a virgin. I had heard of daughters coming from virgin births, and it was said that a son's birth would be very rare. Where did I hear all these things!

 

Actually, it seems it was quite common for some to claim that they were the son of a God. It seems Ceasar claimed to be the son of Apollo! Now I think the reference to the virgin birth is clearly a myth superimposed on this character Jesus (which I think really existed, for now anyway).

 

What seems to be amazing about these claims of Jesus in those days is how revolutionarily rebellious he was! It was considered so taboo to hardly even mention the name of God and when one wrote it, had to use a new quill for only that word! This character of Jesus to claim to be the son of God, and that we ALL are the adopted sons and daughters of God, was just a really daring thing to do! It brought a wonderful equality to ALL. Not a well received idea by those in self elitist positions. The statement in the NT that we too are gods is probably the initial introduction of Atheism, which I believe is part of the NT teachings... to be accoutable, responsible, and that all things must be done through us. Hence, he who overcomes will get the Tree of Life, judgement to victory, IMHO.

 

Maybe the HS didn't want him and he and jehovah agreed to this arrangement that is in the bible? It explains a lot. HS knocks up Mary. He's not ready for a kid and leaves (he did at least briefly stop by when jesus got baptized although it's clear jesus did not recognize him) and jehovah as the surragate is cold and aloof. Hell, he let his "adopted" son die on a cross and ignored his pleas for help...after all why bother to help since the little bastard isn't his. Sadly, baby jesus was unaware of the true situation (not being omniscient screwed him more that once) and appealed to the wrong father every single time.

 

So I say that jesus is the son of the holy spirit and not jehovah by the very definition of things.

 

Perhaps the HS is just our altruistic nature, and to be a creation of that... may be a good thing. Maybe attaining and residing in this self actualized position is to be in heaven? It seems to all fit in with the famous secular Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory found here.

 

.... just a thought...

[mwc]

Hi MWC! This is an interesting topic. Entering this site, I thought it was possible for Jesus to have been born of a virgin. I had heard of daughters coming from virgin births, and it was said that a son's birth would be very rare. Where did I hear all these things!

 

Actually, it seems it was quite common for some to claim that they were the son of a God. It seems Ceasar claimed to be the son of Apollo! Now I think the reference to the virgin birth is clearly a myth superimposed on this character Jesus (which I think really existed, for now anyway).

An extraordinary person requires an extraordinary birth of mythical proportions is all any of this adds up to. Does it really affect history if neither Julius Caeser or jesus (or any of the rest of that day) weren't virgin births? Not really in my opinion. Does it affect history if either of these people never even really existed? It mucks up things a bit with Julius Ceaser because of the outside support for his existance but a bunch of stuff happened and it was attributed to him which is really what is important (although if this is true then it would be nice to know who was in charge when he was supposed to have been). Same with jesus only more so. A bunch of stuff is attributed to him, although with little to no real evidence (pointing directly to an real jesus but obviously something happened and this jesus got the credit but if a Fred, real or imagined, had got the credit it really wouldn't be a big deal). A mythical jesus does screw up the commonly held doctrine though (it's funny how this is exaclty what Paul, and many others, taught but no one today believes he taught). It's also odd how you don't see virgin births or anything to this day (blood and DNA tests really cut down on this phenomenon).

 

To me a real person named jesus that did all the things in the bible is just not believable when you take into account all the other similar accounts and the lack of accuracy of the surrounding events. Was there a jesus model (one or more people combined into a mythical character)? This is more plausable. There were many jesus-like people that are known to have existed prior to and contemporary with that time period. It wouldn't take much to take the "best" of them and form one really great guy that "did" all those things.

 

What seems to be amazing about these claims of Jesus in those days is how revolutionarily rebellious he was! It was considered so taboo to hardly even mention the name of God and when one wrote it, had to use a new quill for only that word! This character of Jesus to claim to be the son of God, and that we ALL are the adopted sons and daughters of God, was just a really daring thing to do! It brought a wonderful equality to ALL. Not a well received idea by those in self elitist positions. The statement in the NT that we too are gods is probably the initial introduction of Atheism, which I believe is part of the NT teachings... to be accoutable, responsible, and that all things must be done through us. Hence, he who overcomes will get the Tree of Life, judgement to victory, IMHO.

I've done some reading on a number of Jewish sites and they seem to counter the taboo of mentioning god in the manner of talking about yourself, and other jews, as the "son of god." You couldn't toss it around like it is today of course but if I were to say "I, mwc, is the son of god" it would not cause a stir unless I were to elaborate on it (such as I am the only son and I am essentially better than everyone and so on). Like today there is a difference between informal oral speech and proper written speech. Depending on what books you read in the NT also shows a different "version" of jesus which just adds to his mythical "existance" (especially when compared to, say, the other Greek religious traditions in the area at the time that reveals jesus as more Greek in origin that Jewish).

 

Perhaps the HS is just our altruistic nature, and to be a creation of that... may be a good thing. Maybe attaining and residing in this self actualized position is to be in heaven? It seems to all fit in with the famous secular Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory found here.

 

.... just a thought...

Taken this way you can just say that "god" is simply a state or being, like love, but can never be attained by anyone. Jesus would represent the "best" any human can ever hope to achieve. He is the enlightened Buddha character but instead of becoming enlightened from within the HS enters us to represent that enlightenment. There are many ways to try to interpret these things. However these views did not win out which is why most everyone here rejects them and finds them difficult to talk about since we had the harsh reality of fundamentalism. Like many eastern religions you way promotes inner peace whereas the "right" way promotes inner turmoil. You must be saved as opposed to "saving" yourself and all that (I know you've read a lot on this site about similar things).

 

mwc

[Amanda]

An extraordinary person requires an extraordinary birth of mythical proportions is all any of this adds up to.

MWC, I agree, it probably is similar as St. Nicholas is to Santa Claus. I still say the original story of St. Nicholas is more endearing than the current mythological rendering.

A mythical jesus does screw up the commonly held doctrine though (it's funny how this is exaclty what Paul, and many others, taught but no one today believes he taught).

What did Paul teach that no one believes today?

I've done some reading on a number of Jewish sites and they seem to counter the taboo of mentioning god in the manner of talking about yourself, and other jews, as the "son of god." You couldn't toss it around like it is today of course but if I were to say "I, mwc, is the son of god" it would not cause a stir unless I were to elaborate on it (such as I am the only son and I am essentially better than everyone and so on). Like today there is a difference between informal oral speech and proper written speech. Depending on what books you read in the NT also shows a different "version" of jesus which just adds to his mythical "existance" (especially when compared to, say, the other Greek religious traditions in the area at the time that reveals jesus as more Greek in origin that Jewish).

I don't see Jesus saying he was better than anyone. He claimed we ALL are the same. It seems his claim that everyone can do what he did and even greater things... says to me, these occurrences were NOT miracles we think of as magic.

 

As far as his teachings in the NT, I find EVERYTHING in there, from Wicca to Atheism is promoted. Him being a mythological character would make me feel better about him not really being this great social revolutionist, who carried his wonderful principles through an imposed agonizing crucifiction and ultimate betrayal by ALL those whom he had worked so hard.

 

Of course there is the mention of him being raised Jewish, yet I also see a lot of Plato's concepts in his teachings. There is a lot of Buddhist influence also, and many call him a Buddhist. One thing that hinders me from thinking he is totally mythological is... why would someone come up with such revolutionary concepts, even if they are a conglomeration of many others, present them in a new way, and give credit to a fictitious character? That would seem to me, to be like Einstien giving recognition of the Theory of Relativity to the Easter Bunny.

 

It's a shame that these teachings have runaway from the original manuscript from which the KJV was written. People clearly have put more spin and more spin on it till it seems it has spun completely the opposite direction. This concept of a burning pit of fire in another dimension that people get thrown into is the worst of all of it, IMO, FWIW.

Perhaps the HS is just our altruistic nature, and to be a creation of that... may be a good thing. Maybe attaining and residing in this self actualized position is to be in heaven? It seems to all fit in with the famous secular Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory found here.

 

.... just a thought...

Taken this way you can just say that "god" is simply a state or being, like love, but can never be attained by anyone. Jesus would represent the "best" any human can ever hope to achieve. He is the enlightened Buddha character but instead of becoming enlightened from within the HS enters us to represent that enlightenment. There are many ways to try to interpret these things. However these views did not win out which is why most everyone here rejects them and finds them difficult to talk about since we had the harsh reality of fundamentalism. Like many eastern religions you way promotes inner peace whereas the "right" way promotes inner turmoil. You must be saved as opposed to "saving" yourself and all that (I know you've read a lot on this site about similar things).

 

mwc

Yes MWC, I've come to see how devastating fundamentalism has become because of visiting this site. I have a good friend that I can now see where it is ruining her life, however she refuses to even consider testing her beliefs! Brainwashing in this manner seems to have crossed over into a disorder for her. I never recognized it to the degree I do now. I think this site is so wonderful in those regards. It is my impression.... many here are how early Christianity is portrayed... fighting the religous right and trying to bring rational thinking. I know that is probably a touchy analogy, even though I consider it a compliment to all here... so I won't go there.

 

Why don't you think we can ultimately attain and sustain that level of self actualization? I think many people are there now. So you think the enlightened Buddha character is not attainable? If you've ever read anything about the current Dali Lama, he is quite light-hearted. Once I read his list of 20 good things to consider to make one's life more fulfilling... and the last one was something like to cook with wreckless abandonment!

[chefranden]

There is another tabboo that may be being overlooked. Let's face it. It just wouldn't be polite to mention "The Penis of God" in the bible. The Holy Spirit is probably a euphnism for "The Penis of God." The bible does mention other body parts of God like Face, Hand, and Butt, but it would be tough to talk about God's Dick especially at Christmas time in church in mixed company, so God supplied a substitute. This must be more evidence of his love.

 

Then again couples often have cute little names for such things. Maybe Mary used her's for His when she had to explain things.

 

This gives us a whole other meaning to "Thy rod and Thy staff comfort me."

[mwc]

What did Paul teach that no one believes today?

If you read Paul's writings (including all those attributed to him) you'll find that jesus did not have an earthly existence. As time wore on this began to change and the writings reflect a more ambiguous position that hints that jesus might have possibly been an actual man but it's really nowhere near as clear as it should be. If I honestly thought that a god had appeared to me and was giving me some secret messages you can be sure that I'd document the hell out of it (read my posts...they're long and I'm not getting some special message and I still elaborate on minutia more than the bible authors elaborate on the supposed son of god). If you listent to xians today their excuse is that Paul was writing to people who already knew the story so there's no reason to repeat it. If that's the case why do xians name drop like crazy to this day? I'm fully aware of the gospel stories and yet they keep pushing them at everyone. If one of them thinks jesus actually spoke with them, well, you don't hear the end of it...and yet Paul brushed it off at the very time in history that he should have played it up ("You know jesus? Well, *I* Paul met him and this is what he said. " or "Remeber when jesus did this or that before he was crucified?") not once or twice but in just about every letter since associating himself to this god-man jesus would be the greatest endorsement of all. Why is Paul, and the other authors, acting so differently than other authors throughout history? He only mentions the appearance of jesus almost as an aside and then referes primarily to god. This shows that a jesus wasn't too important at all to Paul and it was the "father" that was the focus of his efforts. Why? Because jesus only existed in visions and no one really believes this today.

 

I don't see Jesus saying he was better than anyone. He claimed we ALL are the same. It seems his claim that everyone can do what he did and even greater things... says to me, these occurrences were NOT miracles we think of as magic.

He does and doesn't say this. At some points he is a humble everyman and in other places he is arrogant (like letting the woman perfume his feet as opposed to giving to the poor or when he describes how his enemies will be brought before him and killed).

 

As far as his teachings in the NT, I find EVERYTHING in there, from Wicca to Atheism is promoted. Him being a mythological character would make me feel better about him not really being this great social revolutionist, who carried his wonderful principles through an imposed agonizing crucifiction and ultimate betrayal by ALL those whom he had worked so hard.

It's this inconsistency that should set off alarms. God is the same...always. Now there's inconsistancies and who's in the thick of it? Jesus, who's supposed to be god too. This is a problem that haunts the whole religion to this day (and turns, usually, normal people into zombies for christ to maintain their world view). The crucifixion is, if jesus is god, really nothing and undermines the story. It's not a sacrifice since neither god nor jesus truly lost anything (I've read all the apologetics and it's amazing how the word sacrifice means something different in the crucifixion context). I don't have the link but there's a Jewish rabbo that fits the mold for the jesus prototype. From what I could dig up he's the only Jew crucified as "King of the Jews." Well, technically he wasn't crucified since he paid to "escape" and an alternate was provided to take the sentence in his name. I believe his name was Judas (which is probably, if this story is accurate, why the one who betrayed jesus was Judas since they needed to discredit the original so that people would take to the replacement that was jesus).

 

Of course there is the mention of him being raised Jewish, yet I also see a lot of Plato's concepts in his teachings. There is a lot of Buddhist influence also, and many call him a Buddhist. One thing that hinders me from thinking he is totally mythological is... why would someone come up with such revolutionary concepts, even if they are a conglomeration of many others, present them in a new way, and give credit to a fictitious character? That would seem to me, to be like Einstien giving recognition of the Theory of Relativity to the Easter Bunny.

I don't see a problem with this. Israel had a lot of trade and armies goind through it. The ideas mixed together and their unique blend was normal for their area. It happens with cultures all the time, even today (examples are the "American" influences on other countries, such as Japan, which upsets the traditionalists and cries go out to return to their old ways and values before our influence became so dominant).

 

To help answer your question as to why attribute things to a mythical being you'd have to answer whether or not, say, Hercules was real. He did lots of things, in both the "real" natural world we live in and in the mythical realms. Was he real, based on someone or just made up to be the hero the story needed to get its points across? It's common to make someone up so you can use them as the device to deliver your message. Television and movies do this today. In these many are set in real places and many "heroic" deeds are done and yet those people don't exist. It wouldn't be unheard of for a charismatic hero to be used to deliver a message. Have you ever seen the Showime show Jermiah? It's no longer on the air and it's only two seasons but it touches on this subject pretty hard (at the end of the second season when they were rushing to get the story done before the series was cancelled). I don't know if it's on DVD or anything but if you can try to watch it.

 

As for Einstein attributing his theory to the Easter Bunny, well, this isn't quite accurate. If his theory was found anonymously then they would try to figure out who the real author was. If they (meaning the scientific community) couldn't they would provide it an altername name (either the most likely candidate or perhaps the person who found or maybe just leave it anonymous).

 

It's a shame that these teachings have runaway from the original manuscript from which the KJV was written. People clearly have put more spin and more spin on it till it seems it has spun completely the opposite direction. This concept of a burning pit of fire in another dimension that people get thrown into is the worst of all of it, IMO, FWIW.

The KJV came from the majority texts which are nowhere near the oldest or most accurate texts. They do serve their purpose though. Things would be slightly different if they had the minority texts and used them to translate from (most modern translations do this but the KJV has become embedded as "perfect" which is why the newer, more accurate, versions are mostly ignored). I feel that if the KJV used the minority texts then it would be the defacto version and the slightly different world it describes would be accepted and a KJV view would be rejected. Hell, like heaven, moved to another dimension when we figured out that the interior of the earth doesn't have some huge torture area and the heavens are mostly empty (and there's no sign of god floating around out there).

 

Perhaps the HS is just our altruistic nature, and to be a creation of that... may be a good thing. Maybe attaining and residing in this self actualized position is to be in heaven? It seems to all fit in with the famous secular Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory found here.

 

.... just a thought...

Something more to put on my "to read" list.

 

Yes MWC, I've come to see how devastating fundamentalism has become because of visiting this site. I have a good friend that I can now see where it is ruining her life, however she refuses to even consider testing her beliefs! Brainwashing in this manner seems to have crossed over into a disorder for her. I never recognized it to the degree I do now. I think this site is so wonderful in those regards. It is my impression.... many here are how early Christianity is portrayed... fighting the religous right and trying to bring rational thinking. I know that is probably a touchy analogy, even though I consider it a compliment to all here... so I won't go there.

Here's what I'll say. I don't care if there's a god or not. If there is god though it should be something that we can deal with in a logical way. To have xians say that god is so far beyond us that you could never figure him out and then they have a book that basically all figured out (in their minds at least) is dishonest. I should be able to apply the logic and reason I use everyday in all situations to god and have him make sense in that framework. Bible god does not. Every other god does not. If I have to make special exceptions then god fails. If one day a god does have the ability to pass muster I will definately jump in and look long and hard at it. If, without "help" (meaning brainwashing) I can find no logical fault with this god I might actually worship it but in my mind if I have to worship it then it's not worth worshipping (if you know what I mean).

 

Why don't you think we can ultimately attain and sustain that level of self actualization? I think many people are there now. So you think the enlightened Buddha character is not attainable? If you've ever read anything about the current Dali Lama, he is quite light-hearted. Once I read his list of 20 good things to consider to make one's life more fulfilling... and the last one was something like to cook with wreckless abandonment!

I have no problems with this view. Like I said above if the evidence leads to this conclusion then this is the direction I will go. The simply act of being here and gathering evidence has exposed me to more things in less than a year than my entire life prior to this. That's a sad statement. So far I've not seen any evidence of enlightenment. It would be interesting to see providing it can be studied and is shown to be reproducable (no one has taken the Amazing Randy's million dollars which adds more weight to the "no one has truly done this" side of things). I do think that change only comes from within. I do think that there is something that might be called an "inner light" that requires introspection to bring out. I don't think an external source can provide any lasting change (which is why most xians get pegged as "backsliders" at some point). I think it also shows a weakness of character to "change" for some imaginary third party than yourself or those you love and want to make their lives better. So if the evidence points to enlightentment then that is where I will investigate and if it leads elsewhere then I will go there. I got bit my xianity so anything that I might "buy" into will have to pass some pretty high standards to even be considered by me.

 

mwc

 

 

What did Paul teach that no one believes today?

If you read Paul's writings (including all those attributed to him) you'll find that jesus did not have an earthly existence. As time wore on this began to change and the writings reflect a more ambiguous position that hints that jesus might have possibly been an actual man but it's really nowhere near as clear as it should be. If I honestly thought that a god had appeared to me and was giving me some secret messages you can be sure that I'd document the hell out of it (read my posts...they're long and I'm not getting some special message and I still elaborate on minutia more than the bible authors elaborate on the supposed son of god). If you listent to xians today their excuse is that Paul was writing to people who already knew the story so there's no reason to repeat it. If that's the case why do xians name drop like crazy to this day? I'm fully aware of the gospel stories and yet they keep pushing them at everyone. If one of them thinks jesus actually spoke with them, well, you don't hear the end of it...and yet Paul brushed it off at the very time in history that he should have played it up ("You know jesus? Well, *I* Paul met him and this is what he said. " or "Remeber when jesus did this or that before he was crucified?") not once or twice but in just about every letter since associating himself to this god-man jesus would be the greatest endorsement of all. Why is Paul, and the other authors, acting so differently than other authors throughout history? He only mentions the appearance of jesus almost as an aside and then referes primarily to god. This shows that a jesus wasn't too important at all to Paul and it was the "father" that was the focus of his efforts. Why? Because jesus only existed in visions and no one really believes this today.

 

I don't see Jesus saying he was better than anyone. He claimed we ALL are the same. It seems his claim that everyone can do what he did and even greater things... says to me, these occurrences were NOT miracles we think of as magic.

He does and doesn't say this. At some points he is a humble everyman and in other places he is arrogant (like letting the woman perfume his feet as opposed to giving to the poor or when he describes how his enemies will be brought before him and killed).

 

As far as his teachings in the NT, I find EVERYTHING in there, from Wicca to Atheism is promoted. Him being a mythological character would make me feel better about him not really being this great social revolutionist, who carried his wonderful principles through an imposed agonizing crucifiction and ultimate betrayal by ALL those whom he had worked so hard.

It's this inconsistency that should set off alarms. God is the same...always. Now there's inconsistancies and who's in the thick of it? Jesus, who's supposed to be god too. This is a problem that haunts the whole religion to this day (and turns, usually, normal people into zombies for christ to maintain their world view). The crucifixion is, if jesus is god, really nothing and undermines the story. It's not a sacrifice since neither god nor jesus truly lost anything (I've read all the apologetics and it's amazing how the word sacrifice means something different in the crucifixion context). I don't have the link but there's a Jewish rabbo that fits the mold for the jesus prototype. From what I could dig up he's the only Jew crucified as "King of the Jews." Well, technically he wasn't crucified since he paid to "escape" and an alternate was provided to take the sentence in his name. I believe his name was Judas (which is probably, if this story is accurate, why the one who betrayed jesus was Judas since they needed to discredit the original so that people would take to the replacement that was jesus).

 

Of course there is the mention of him being raised Jewish, yet I also see a lot of Plato's concepts in his teachings. There is a lot of Buddhist influence also, and many call him a Buddhist. One thing that hinders me from thinking he is totally mythological is... why would someone come up with such revolutionary concepts, even if they are a conglomeration of many others, present them in a new way, and give credit to a fictitious character? That would seem to me, to be like Einstien giving recognition of the Theory of Relativity to the Easter Bunny.

I don't see a problem with this. Israel had a lot of trade and armies goind through it. The ideas mixed together and their unique blend was normal for their area. It happens with cultures all the time, even today (examples are the "American" influences on other countries, such as Japan, which upsets the traditionalists and cries go out to return to their old ways and values before our influence became so dominant).

 

To help answer your question as to why attribute things to a mythical being you'd have to answer whether or not, say, Hercules was real. He did lots of things, in both the "real" natural world we live in and in the mythical realms. Was he real, based on someone or just made up to be the hero the story needed to get its points across? It's common to make someone up so you can use them as the device to deliver your message. Television and movies do this today. In these many are set in real places and many "heroic" deeds are done and yet those people don't exist. It wouldn't be unheard of for a charismatic hero to be used to deliver a message. Have you ever seen the Showime show Jermiah? It's no longer on the air and it's only two seasons but it touches on this subject pretty hard (at the end of the second season when they were rushing to get the story done before the series was cancelled). I don't know if it's on DVD or anything but if you can try to watch it.

 

As for Einstein attributing his theory to the Easter Bunny, well, this isn't quite accurate. If his theory was found anonymously then they would try to figure out who the real author was. If they (meaning the scientific community) couldn't they would provide it an altername name (either the most likely candidate or perhaps the person who found or maybe just leave it anonymous).

 

It's a shame that these teachings have runaway from the original manuscript from which the KJV was written. People clearly have put more spin and more spin on it till it seems it has spun completely the opposite direction. This concept of a burning pit of fire in another dimension that people get thrown into is the worst of all of it, IMO, FWIW.

The KJV came from the majority texts which are nowhere near the oldest or most accurate texts. They do serve their purpose though. Things would be slightly different if they had the minority texts and used them to translate from (most modern translations do this but the KJV has become embedded as "perfect" which is why the newer, more accurate, versions are mostly ignored). I feel that if the KJV used the minority texts then it would be the defacto version and the slightly different world it describes would be accepted and a KJV view would be rejected. Hell, like heaven, moved to another dimension when we figured out that the interior of the earth doesn't have some huge torture area and the heavens are mostly empty (and there's no sign of god floating around out there).

 

Perhaps the HS is just our altruistic nature, and to be a creation of that... may be a good thing. Maybe attaining and residing in this self actualized position is to be in heaven? It seems to all fit in with the famous secular Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs theory found here.

 

.... just a thought...

Something more to put on my "to read" list.

 

Yes MWC, I've come to see how devastating fundamentalism has become because of visiting this site. I have a good friend that I can now see where it is ruining her life, however she refuses to even consider testing her beliefs! Brainwashing in this manner seems to have crossed over into a disorder for her. I never recognized it to the degree I do now. I think this site is so wonderful in those regards. It is my impression.... many here are how early Christianity is portrayed... fighting the religous right and trying to bring rational thinking. I know that is probably a touchy analogy, even though I consider it a compliment to all here... so I won't go there.

Here's what I'll say. I don't care if there's a god or not. If there is god though it should be something that we can deal with in a logical way. To have xians say that god is so far beyond us that you could never figure him out and then they have a book that basically all figured out (in their minds at least) is dishonest. I should be able to apply the logic and reason I use everyday in all situations to god and have him make sense in that framework. Bible god does not. Every other god does not. If I have to make special exceptions then god fails. If one day a god does have the ability to pass muster I will definately jump in and look long and hard at it. If, without "help" (meaning brainwashing) I can find no logical fault with this god I might actually worship it but in my mind if I have to worship it then it's not worth worshipping (if you know what I mean).

 

Why don't you think we can ultimately attain and sustain that level of self actualization? I think many people are there now. So you think the enlightened Buddha character is not attainable? If you've ever read anything about the current Dali Lama, he is quite light-hearted. Once I read his list of 20 good things to consider to make one's life more fulfilling... and the last one was something like to cook with wreckless abandonment!

I have no problems with this view. Like I said above if the evidence leads to this conclusion then this is the direction I will go. The simply act of being here and gathering evidence has exposed me to more things in less than a year than my entire life prior to this. That's a sad statement. So far I've not seen any evidence of enlightenment. It would be interesting to see providing it can be studied and is shown to be reproducable (no one has taken the Amazing Randy's million dollars which adds more weight to the "no one has truly done this" side of things). I do think that change only comes from within. I do think that there is something that might be called an "inner light" that requires introspection to bring out. I don't think an external source can provide any lasting change (which is why most xians get pegged as "backsliders" at some point). I think it also shows a weakness of character to "change" for some imaginary third party than yourself or those you love and want to make their lives better. So if the evidence points to enlightentment then that is where I will investigate and if it leads elsewhere then I will go there. I got bit my xianity so anything that I might "buy" into will have to pass some pretty high standards to even be considered by me.

 

mwc

[Amanda]

If you read Paul's writings (including all those attributed to him) you'll find that jesus did not have an earthly existence.

MWC... Paul never met Jesus, only even considered these teachings of Jesus after his death... and I assumed he had a sudden revelation one day about it. It was Paul's initial mission to kill these followers of Jesus who would dare oppose the religous right. It seems to me, the religous right today does these same things the religous right did then. I see nothing has changed.

At some points he is a humble everyman and in other places he is arrogant (like letting the woman perfume his feet as opposed to giving to the poor or when he describes how his enemies will be brought before him and killed).

What is wrong with accepting 'some' nice things for ourselves? Annointing his feet is just a metaphor for the appreciations of these foundations on which he stands, IMHO. I don't think he says he will kill his enemies, I know he says they will be put under his feet... also a metaphor that these enemies will also become the foundation to these principles he stands on too. Might I add that I do NOT interpret these teachings any where near a fundamentalist approach. Although, coming onto this site, I discovered some beliefs I had were really crazy! And I thought I had used a critical approach too!

It's this inconsistency that should set off alarms. God is the same...always. Now there's inconsistancies and who's in the thick of it? Jesus, who's supposed to be god too. This is a problem that haunts the whole religion to this day (and turns, usually, normal people into zombies for christ to maintain their world view). The crucifixion is, if jesus is god, really nothing and undermines the story. It's not a sacrifice since neither god nor jesus truly lost anything (I've read all the apologetics and it's amazing how the word sacrifice means something different in the crucifixion context).

First, it is my understanding that God is within us, we too are gods. God acts through us. (First Atheist movement?) That is why I previously noted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It seems to fit anthropological studies and the Bible's rendering. It just says that once our basic physical needs are met, air, water, food... we then seek the next level. This is security, shelter from harms way. A basic level of that, sends us to the next level... which is socialization. Following attaining a basic level of that... is the next level of self esteen, and the last level is self actualization. This last level is where we start to have benevolent characteristic, and listen to our hearts real desires for our life in regards to being of service to the 'whole'. We only stopped being nomadic about 8,000 years ago when a wheat mutated and made it possible to sow crops. This also allowed domestication of animals, and with an abundant food source, we became stable... eventually allowing us to reach this self actualization level. These new ideas emerging were probably thought of as God speaking to us, and maybe this is the real 'God' within us. People at this level seem to have inner peace, joy, and love.

 

The crucifiction just shows the extent to which we can adhere to certain principles to sustain inner peace, no matter what is going on around us. Enlightenment, IMO, is knowing the way and mindset to always have true inner peace, and away from fear and hatred. (The latter seems to be what fundamentalism supports) These principles 'saves' us from the 'hell' in our minds, and we can live in 'heaven' right here on earth. It is these principles that save us 'emotionally', that support and enhance our will to thrive.

Well, technically he wasn't crucified since he paid to "escape" and an alternate was provided to take the sentence in his name. I believe his name was Judas (which is probably, if this story is accurate, why the one who betrayed jesus was Judas since they needed to discredit the original so that people would take to the replacement that was jesus).

Wow, that's an interesting new concept for me! I heard that Barabus also had a name Jesus. Are you sure it was Judas and not Barabus? As I understood the story, Barabus and Jesus were really on the same side, it's just that Barabus wanted to attack the religous right (and perhaps opposed the government too), and Jesus wanted to do it more peacefully.

 

I hope one day we could really 'know' these answers... however, we will probably be left with speculation. Yet, I do think there are some wonderful messages, much like the teachings of Buddha... however, I find them easier to understand. The eastern philosophies seem much deeper to me, and harder for me to grasp... yet I like them very much.

To help answer your question as to why attribute things to a mythical being you'd have to answer whether or not, say, Hercules was real. He did lots of things, in both the "real" natural world we live in and in the mythical realms. Was he real, based on someone or just made up to be the hero the story needed to get its points across?

However, Hercules did not have a set of teachings, put together in a unique way so that inspiration transformed societies in a positive way. If we could prove that Buddha was a myth, that would greatly influence me to consider even more the totally mythological existence of Jesus. Still, these messages stand on their own anyway, IMO.

The KJV came from the majority texts which are nowhere near the oldest or most accurate texts. They do serve their purpose though. Things would be slightly different if they had the minority texts and used them to translate from (most modern translations do this but the KJV has become embedded as "perfect" which is why the newer, more accurate, versions are mostly ignored).

MWC, which newer version would you suggest is the most accurate? Seminary taught me to go through and study these texts of KJV, using the Concordance and researching each word's evolution. I would argue many outcomes in the KJV.

I feel that if the KJV used the minority texts then it would be the defacto version and the slightly different world it describes would be accepted and a KJV view would be rejected. Hell, like heaven, moved to another dimension when we figured out that the interior of the earth doesn't have some huge torture area and the heavens are mostly empty (and there's no sign of god floating around out there).

This is the problem with a fundamental view. I have become curious as to why it seems many Moslems, Jews, and 'Christians' have taken to this fundamental approach... while it seems the far eastern philosophies never did this. Nor did Wiccas, however... I wonder if Shawmanism might have done this too?

Here's what I'll say. I don't care if there's a god or not. If there is god though it should be something that we can deal with in a logical way. To have xians say that god is so far beyond us that you could never figure him out and then they have a book that basically all figured out (in their minds at least) is dishonest. I should be able to apply the logic and reason I use everyday in all situations to god and have him make sense in that framework. Bible god does not. Every other god does not. If I have to make special exceptions then god fails. If one day a god does have the ability to pass muster I will definately jump in and look long and hard at it. If, without "help" (meaning brainwashing) I can find no logical fault with this god I might actually worship it but in my mind if I have to worship it then it's not worth worshipping (if you know what I mean).

I can agree with you on most of this here. The only thing is that I think the Bible God is just this level of altruistic thinking we have now attained, and it seems we have labeled that God in the OT and NT. It seems the OT may have gotten carried away and had become too 'religous' to the point they told you how to wash your hands and how to live every detail of your life (much like the religous right of today). It seems Jesus, following Plato by about 300 years, was trying to encourage 'reasoning' (introduced by Plato, I think) in inductive and deductive reasoning.

I do think that change only comes from within. I do think that there is something that might be called an "inner light" that requires introspection to bring out. I don't think an external source can provide any lasting change (which is why most xians get pegged as "backsliders" at some point). I think it also shows a weakness of character to "change" for some imaginary third party than yourself or those you love and want to make their lives better. So if the evidence points to enlightentment then that is where I will investigate and if it leads elsewhere then I will go there. I got bit my xianity so anything that I might "buy" into will have to pass some pretty high standards to even be considered by me.

Transformation only happens with the renewing of our mind. I agree with you above... as this is the way it should be. I think that magic can only happen in the movies. :wink:

[notasheep]

Strictly speaking, isn't it pretty much a fact that the father of the child is the one who impregnates the mother? I'm not a scientist but I'd say that this is universally true.

So I say that jesus is the son of the holy spirit and not jehovah by the very definition of things.

 

Hey, I never thought of that!

And it got me thinking:

Whether it was God "the Father", or the Holy Ghost, was it fornication? Or was there a marriage nobody mentioned? Was Jesus illegitimate? Was Mary cheating on God when she hooked up with Joseph?

My mind is officially boggled.

[jrmarlin]

One theory is that Jesus is actually the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier that raped Mary. Now, granted it is one theory but it seems to be more plausible than any other.

[mwc]

MWC... Paul never met Jesus, only even considered these teachings of Jesus after his death... and I assumed he had a sudden revelation one day about it. It was Paul's initial mission to kill these followers of Jesus who would dare oppose the religous right. It seems to me, the religous right today does these same things the religous right did then. I see nothing has changed.

I see no reason to accept anything about Paul at face value. He had an agenda and the "persecution" angle fits this agenda nicely. "I used to do X but I've seen the light and now I do Y." It still happens to this day. So maybe Paul did all this and maybe he didn't but Paul's overall attitude (Paul thinking he was that much better than everyone) sort of supports the story was just to bolster his position in the community. Either way, it must have been awkward killing people before jesus actually came on the scene (if he started immediately after the "death" then it would have been pretty easy to kill off the rather low number of xians at that time). I find no fault with the Pharisees as they did as they were supposed to do. Argue about and uphold the law. There's all this talk of how they corrupted it and yet I've seen to real evidence that they did. I do see evidence that they were too lax if anything (since there were many times they should have just killed off jesus, his disciples and plenty of other people and did not...and it wasn't because jesus was particularly clever in dealing with them since he wasn't. "Let he who is without sin..." sounds clever but gods laws doesn't care about that but only that the women was stoned. If this was a problem for jesus he should have talked to uncle/step-dad god). Besides, the Pharisees had little influence when jesus was supposedly around. The Saducees controlled things until after the fall of the temple in 70AD and shows that the story wasn't written until then since that detail is universally wrong in the gospels.

 

What is wrong with accepting 'some' nice things for ourselves? Annointing his feet is just a metaphor for the appreciations of these foundations on which he stands, IMHO. I don't think he says he will kill his enemies, I know he says they will be put under his feet... also a metaphor that these enemies will also become the foundation to these principles he stands on too. Might I add that I do NOT interpret these teachings any where near a fundamentalist approach. Although, coming onto this site, I discovered some beliefs I had were really crazy! And I thought I had used a critical approach too!

Well, as an allegory, I suppose nothing is wrong with it but it undermines the entire moral issue. Jesus did not have to have this done. However, as you said he deserves a little indulgence now and then and so do we. However, that oil could have, according to the story, been sold and taken care of the poor (I forget how long...I want to say a year). So couldn't jesus have ordered that be done and a little bit of that money (say 10%) taken out so jesus could get annointed with cheaper perfume or perhaps just have his feet washed with water? Since he is going to paradise his indulgence seems a little cold towards those he claims to be helping. When things get tight for me I know that I scale back my indulgences to work within those limits and not take from someone else (like my wife...I am happy when she is happy so for me to be that selfish doesn't compute in my mind...I suppose it could happen but it would have to be a once in a lifetime dream come true for me and even then she'd have to be onboard). So I feel jesus was selfish all things considered (he could have at least worked a miracle afterward so the money that could have come from the oil could have come from somewhere else and nobody was left out.

 

As far as allegory goes I was thinking just today that jesus is really analogous (in the crucifixion scene) to Israel. If I recall correctly a Judas led a revolt against the Romans that essentially sealed Israel's fate for the invasion. So Judas was a "betrayer" to jesus (idealized Israel). Jesus was then destroyed by the Romans (Israel was destroyed). Jesus asks god why he has forsaken him (why would god allow the temple and Israel to be destroyed). Jesus dies and ascends to the right hand of god and judges all people (Israel "dies' from the invasion, and will rise at some point, back into god's good graces when they will, as the chosen people, judge over all others). The Pharisees represent the old ways (which is essentially provocing Rome) and jesus is the new ways that, had everyone acted like him it would have saved Israel preemtively.

 

The virgin birth and god-man stuff work in here but I haven't really thought much about it this. Israel was the "son" born of god (the Sons of God...his chosen ones by birthright). This gives Israel the unique place of being actually "born" of god making them divine as a result. I haven't thought much more on this though and it needs a little (a lot) of tuning but since you like allegories I thought I'd mention it.

 

First, it is my understanding that God is within us, we too are gods. God acts through us. (First Atheist movement?) That is why I previously noted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It seems to fit anthropological studies and the Bible's rendering. It just says that once our basic physical needs are met, air, water, food... we then seek the next level. This is security, shelter from harms way. A basic level of that, sends us to the next level... which is socialization. Following attaining a basic level of that... is the next level of self esteen, and the last level is self actualization. This last level is where we start to have benevolent characteristic, and listen to our hearts real desires for our life in regards to being of service to the 'whole'. We only stopped being nomadic about 8,000 years ago when a wheat mutated and made it possible to sow crops. This also allowed domestication of animals, and with an abundant food source, we became stable... eventually allowing us to reach this self actualization level. These new ideas emerging were probably thought of as God speaking to us, and maybe this is the real 'God' within us. People at this level seem to have inner peace, joy, and love.

And since this is your belief I guess I can't see the attachment to jesus, or the bible, for that matter. I would imagine something less dependant on writings (ancient or otherwise) and simply a focus on releasing the inner light. Does this have to be a god at all? What if you're exactly right but there is no "god" involved but something like just "figuring it out" one day on your own? You are your own path to ascension and whatever might lie there. If you think, like others do, that ancients had special insight that we no longer possess that's one thing but all evidence shows that they did not have this and were controlled by superstition. Could shedding oneself of all superstition be a part of the process to achieve your goal. Not to return to the older ways (in any aspect) but to rid yourself of them altogether so that you're not held back by their superstition and flawed views of existance itself? I have no idea myself but it seems that if the ability to ascend (become enlightened or whatever it might be called) would depend on throwing off all things that would tie you to the past and present so that you could someone "see" the future with clear eyes instead of clouded with that old clutter. I'm not phrasing things very well since I don't know the vocabulary for your belief system but I think I kind of get the basics across.

 

The crucifiction just shows the extent to which we can adhere to certain principles to sustain inner peace, no matter what is going on around us. Enlightenment, IMO, is knowing the way and mindset to always have true inner peace, and away from fear and hatred. (The latter seems to be what fundamentalism supports) These principles 'saves' us from the 'hell' in our minds, and we can live in 'heaven' right here on earth. It is these principles that save us 'emotionally', that support and enhance our will to thrive.

You got my take on this crucifion thing about so I won't say it again here.

 

However I don't know if inner peace would really be required to ascend. It seems to be the claim but I don't really see why. It seems related to the idea that "turmoil" would cloud the process enough so that it could never happen. What if all that's needed is just clarity. Like the Gnostic aspects of the matrix. Simply being able to see the world for what it was set Neo free. What if this was the real deal. People chase after inner peace to become enlightened but what if after becoming enlightened is when you achieve inner peace since you can now see everything exacly how it is including yourself? So inner peace is not on the path to enlightenment but enlighenment is on the path to inner peace?

 

Wow, that's an interesting new concept for me! I heard that Barabus also had a name Jesus. Are you sure it was Judas and not Barabus? As I understood the story, Barabus and Jesus were really on the same side, it's just that Barabus wanted to attack the religous right (and perhaps opposed the government too), and Jesus wanted to do it more peacefully.

There were plenty of Judas', just like jesus', back then so I could very well be mistaken about this particular person (whatever his name was the basic elements of the story are there...I'll see if I can track down where I read this again). I'm pretty confident that the leader of the revolt I mentioned early was Judas though.

 

I hope one day we could really 'know' these answers... however, we will probably be left with speculation. Yet, I do think there are some wonderful messages, much like the teachings of Buddha... however, I find them easier to understand. The eastern philosophies seem much deeper to me, and harder for me to grasp... yet I like them very much.

Yeah, the little I have read of the eastern philosophies get really intense and kind of hurt my head after awhile.

 

If you only want to pick and choose the "good" parts of the bible then I suppose it does have some good (although not unique) things to say. It also takes a number of things and states them more concisely. This, I would have to concede, is good. However, it is far outweighed by the bad when taken altogether and if taken literally it is quite rotten no matter how you slice it.

 

However, Hercules did not have a set of teachings, put together in a unique way so that inspiration transformed societies in a positive way. If we could prove that Buddha was a myth, that would greatly influence me to consider even more the totally mythological existence of Jesus. Still, these messages stand on their own anyway, IMO.

Hercules wasn't intended to "enlighten" in the sense that we use it at least. He did serve a purpose to explain the workings of a part of their religion and to provide a great hero for the Greeks (and later the Romans). He showed that at least one guy could "ascend" and be with the gods. This is the same story of jesus really. Both were part god and endured some bad things to eventually overcome then and go be with their father in the realm of the gods. However the Greeks seemed to prefer action heroes whereas the story of jesus was a "sensitive" hero. Same story though.

 

MWC, which newer version would you suggest is the most accurate? Seminary taught me to go through and study these texts of KJV, using the Concordance and researching each word's evolution. I would argue many outcomes in the KJV.

This is a hard question to answer. I've heard the latest version of the Greek Orthodox bible is quite good but I don't read Greek (and I don't know how the English translations are). I've also heard the New Revised Standard Version is quite faithful to the "originals." Personally, I use many versions. I'm used to the KJV so I use it a lot. When things get hard to read I'll switch to something else that is easier to read (it doesn't matter what at this point). Once I get the basic feel for the passage I'll then go through with something like the Strong's concordance or some other lexicon and pick things apart (if need be of course). Then if things get really in depth I'll use a program like Davar and look at the Hebrew (this is a very slow process for me so I don't use it unless I really want to know all I can for some reason...usually after someone challenges me with "the original Hebrew really said/meant this or that" and I need to show they're parroting someone else and never really checked it themselves).

 

This is the problem with a fundamental view. I have become curious as to why it seems many Moslems, Jews, and 'Christians' have taken to this fundamental approach... while it seems the far eastern philosophies never did this. Nor did Wiccas, however... I wonder if Shawmanism might have done this too?

There really is no fundamental Muslims. By definition Muslims are all supposed to be what we call fundamental. The do have "radical" Muslims which is used more for terrorists and they have "liberal" Muslims which are an overwhelming minority and not really acknowledged by mainstream Muslims. The Jews I've interacted with a far less fundamental than I expected. The orthodox Jews are quite extreme but most Jews I've encountered are pretty lax compared to Muslims and xians. This could just be my experience though. Xians are the most annoying bunch of fundies I've come across personally (big surprise there I imagine). The thing is this flavor of xian loves to say that they're like the original xians and all the "real" xians since day one. They don't even care to admit that their movement only came around in the 1800's and that most xians, especially the originals, were nothing like them (if these two groups ever met I could imagine a huge battle breaking out...heck, assuming jesus was real and all, I'm sure the fundies wouldn't take kindly to the first century version at all but want the destroyer version from Revelation).

 

I can agree with you on most of this here. The only thing is that I think the Bible God is just this level of altruistic thinking we have now attained, and it seems we have labeled that God in the OT and NT. It seems the OT may have gotten carried away and had become too 'religous' to the point they told you how to wash your hands and how to live every detail of your life (much like the religous right of today). It seems Jesus, following Plato by about 300 years, was trying to encourage 'reasoning' (introduced by Plato, I think) in inductive and deductive reasoning.

I think that I shared this before. That god isn't tangible but something more like love. It's a state of being. You fall in love. You achieve god (or something like that). Almost like Nirvana I guess. I have no idea if this would include "magical" powers or not (I'd say not) but you'd become whatever the fully optimised human would be. You'd see everything for what it is and could deal with it in the best way (although this doesn't mean perfect) possible instead of tons of trial and error. It might mean more than that or it could mean less but like all things of this nature no one has done it and really shared it with anyone so that they could reproduce it themselves and so on. If this ever happens then I'll take a more serious look as opposed to giving my uninformed opinion (unless that's the path to enlightment/inner peace then I guess I should continue ).

 

[i went over the quote limit so Amanda is in bold here]

---

Transformation only happens with the renewing of our mind. I agree with you above... as this is the way it should be. I think that magic can only happen in the movies. :wink:

---

 

But what about the flying Buddhas (or were they sieks)? That was pretty magical. I'd say the only magic would maybe lie in the area of healing since studies show that you can effect your own health to a small extent (so instead of, let's say, 5% effect now and maybe a 30% effect later...you're not doing any miracles but you are upping your odds...biofeedback is being tested in this area now which is what brought it to mind).

 

mwc

[mwc]

And it got me thinking:

Whether it was God "the Father", or the Holy Ghost, was it fornication? Or was there a marriage nobody mentioned? Was Jesus illegitimate? Was Mary cheating on God when she hooked up with Joseph?

My mind is officially boggled.

I would say that Mary was essentially raped. She seemed quite happy that she was but that doesn't change too much really. According to god's rules the rapist would then be killed since Mary was engaged. I don't recall reading anything like that so I'm guessing god let himself off without even a warning. If Mary hadn't been married then god would have had to paid her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her with no ability to ever divorce her. He didn't do that either though so I don't know what to say now.

 

Jesus would have been a bastard, yes.

 

I'm not sure the specifics on adultery but I'd say Mary did not cheat. God did not marry her and basically had nothing more to do with her. She was disgraced but was fortunate that Joseph would have her. Sadly these situations in those days often led to the man abusing his wife and her bastard son and treating them essentially as slaves (or worse, punching bags) since what kind of man was he that he couldn't get a proper woman?

 

I hope my answers help unboggle you a little bit (there's enough stuff in that book to keep you boggled for a very long time to come).

 

mwc

 

 

 

One theory is that Jesus is actually the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier that raped Mary. Now, granted it is one theory but it seems to be more plausible than any other.

I've heard this theory. It's only plausable if you think that Mary and jesus were real. I don't and so to me this is one way to try to put a reasonable face on things to keep jesus a real person but not divine.

 

mwc

[RHEMtron]

One theory is that Jesus is actually the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier that raped Mary. Now, granted it is one theory but it seems to be more plausible than any other.

I've heard this theory. It's only plausable if you think that Mary and jesus were real. I don't and so to me this is one way to try to put a reasonable face on things to keep jesus a real person but not divine.

 

mwc

 

 

the story is of jesus ben pantera. you can look it up.

 

the first of the gospels to be written was mark. there are two ideas to why mark begins so suddenly, (why there are no stories of jesus' birth or childhood). the first is that the myth of his birth was not known, or created yet. this is evident in the letters attributed to paul, which were written before any of the gospels. paul never mentions the birth in his letters (he never actually mentions any myths, or teachings found in any of the gospels at all. again, this makes sense the gospels were written after and so he was ignorant to the myths). the second idea is that the author of mark knew the story of the roman soldier, and decided not to include it for obvious reasons.

[Amanda]

I see no reason to accept anything about Paul at face value.

MWC, I see no reason to take ANYTHING at face value... unless one is putting very little value on it anyway! Let the message stand on its own reasoning.

 

... I was taught a different way of reading the 'book' than its surface value. However, it is not the only way to get these same principles.... and it seems many here have gotten these same ones as I and even more... just fine without this 'book'.

 

Well, as an allegory, I suppose nothing is wrong with it but it undermines the entire moral issue. Jesus did not have to have this done. However, as you said he deserves a little indulgence now and then and so do we. However, that oil could have, according to the story, been sold and taken care of the poor (I forget how long...I want to say a year).

 

I think like you too... however, I look for a deeper meaning... so I went and found the story at John 12:1-7 found here with access to the concordance. It's interesting that this ointment is called Spikenard, and its definition is just having the power of persuading, skilful in producing belief, trusting, faithful, that can be relied upon and that definition can be found here. Judas said this ointment could have been sold and the money used to feed the poor, yet Judas also confesses he would be an embezzler of this money too. Additionally, this kind of ointment was for burial, and this lady, Mary, had saved it just for the burial of Jesus... and this all happened 6 days before passover. Jesus said to let her use it now, for she is saying she is against the day of his death.

 

BTW, reading parts like this do make me wonder just how much is allegorical... because how could this Mary know Jesus was about to die... or was it pure coincidence? AND the virgin birth... I now think it was a myth superimposed on Jesus... if Jesus was real, which I still tend to think so, just as St. Nicholas/Santa Claus was a real person too. It now seems apparent to me that there were some myths laced into these stories...

 

As far as allegory goes I was thinking just today that jesus is really analogous (in the crucifixion scene) to Israel.

 

That is very interesting. A professor from one of these Ivy League colleges says there is a technique to find hidden historical facts... kind of like how you've done, though I don't have a clue how it IS done, called the pay-sha (sp?) method. I've been told there are many levels in which to decipher the Bible. BTW, fundamentalism is NOT listed as one of these ways to get an accurate meaning... from the cryptic style or not.

 

But what about the flying Buddhas (or were they sieks)? That was pretty magical. I'd say the only magic would maybe lie in the area of healing since studies show that you can effect your own health to a small extent (so instead of, let's say, 5% effect now and maybe a 30% effect later...you're not doing any miracles but you are upping your odds...biofeedback is being tested in this area now which is what brought it to mind).

 

I have studied quite a bit on the power of the mind... visual imagery, hypnosis, subliminal messages, subliminal beliefs and impacts on our lives.. and I think this area is quite amazing! Our belief system AND how we suppress trauma and unknowingly allow its effect on our life... seems to be issues that were really addressed in the majority of these healings in the NT. Hence, you're sins are forgiven, you are healed... etc. IMO, this method can still be highly effective today. I don't think they were magically miraculous... because 'Jesus' said that we could do everything he did, and even greater things. AND it also says that many of the attempts by 'Jesus' to heal others were not successful. I think the western world is missing a lot in its overlooking of subliminal suggestions, retrieving suppressed issues and resolving them, and the benefits of meditation in relieving stress and anxiety to enhance and support healing. Also, if people gather to 'pray' and bring their collective attention to a significant matter.... maybe 'brainstorming' will bring more suggestions for help.

 

Of course, I'd rather just fly away with a handsome Buddha or Siek, than to bother with all that stuff!

[mwc]

the story is of jesus ben pantera. you can look it up.

Ahh, yes, that's the name I've been thinking of. Thanks.

 

the first of the gospels to be written was mark. there are two ideas to why mark begins so suddenly, (why there are no stories of jesus' birth or childhood). the first is that the myth of his birth was not known, or created yet. this is evident in the letters attributed to paul, which were written before any of the gospels. paul never mentions the birth in his letters (he never actually mentions any myths, or teachings found in any of the gospels at all. again, this makes sense the gospels were written after and so he was ignorant to the myths). the second idea is that the author of mark knew the story of the roman soldier, and decided not to include it for obvious reasons.

I think the first is the more likely candidate. There's just nothing to support the biblical jesus. That jesus never lived. There could be a chance that somone was the template for this biblical version (which is why I think the "twins" theory has come about as biblical jesus acts like more than one person showing a composite of some sort).

 

mwc

[mwc]

[... I was taught a different way of reading the 'book' than its surface value. However, it is not the only way to get these same principles.... and it seems many here have gotten these same ones as I and even more... just fine without this 'book'.

You were luckier than most it would appear.

 

I think like you too... however, I look for a deeper meaning... so I went and found the story at John 12:1-7 found here with access to the concordance. It's interesting that this ointment is called Spikenard, and its definition is just having the power of persuading, skilful in producing belief, trusting, faithful, that can be relied upon and that definition can be found here.

You can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spikenard for it's probable origin. It also mentions some uses for the oil "Nard oil is used as a perfume, an incense, a sedative, and an herbal medicine said to fight insomnia, flatulence, birth difficulties, and other minor ailments." What this has to do with death I currently do not know (maybe jesus was gassy and she wanted him to stop so everyone could enjoy dinner? ).

 

Judas said this ointment could have been sold and the money used to feed the poor, yet Judas also confesses he would be an embezzler of this money too.

Judas says no such thing. The author says that Judas stole from their money box. He also goes quite heavy on the whole betrayal thing. Basically he's just villifying Judas to set up the "betrayal" component of the story. This also make the "real" Judas (if my interpretation is right) out to be a bad guy that would steal from Israel rather than be concerned about its impending death.

 

Additionally, this kind of ointment was for burial, and this lady, Mary, had saved it just for the burial of Jesus... and this all happened 6 days before passover. Jesus said to let her use it now, for she is saying she is against the day of his death.

The story doesn't state which Mary this is so I looked around and saw many guesses. It's just not clear that it was the Mary that travelled with jesus or someone else (a lot of people call her Mary of Bethany or Lazerus's sister or sister-in-law). If this Mary is not familiar with jesus' plans I find it strange she's been putting this oil aside for his death. Either way jesus says to let her hang onto it since the poor will always be around but he won't so she'll need it for his burial later to (surprisingly the disciples never utter a word about this upcoming death, but it's no real surprise since even though jesus mentioned it quite a few times they were too stupid to understand each and everytime). The point I'm making is the attitude of "the poor will always be around but I won't so screw them" (paraphrasing). That's cold and arrogant and not at all the proper tone for the super loving and compassionate jesus to say.

 

 

[Amanda in bold -- I thought I got to quote more than just 4 things?]

BTW, reading parts like this do make me wonder just how much is allegorical... because how could this Mary know Jesus was about to die... or was it pure coincidence? AND the virgin birth... I now think it was a myth superimposed on Jesus... if Jesus was real, which I still tend to think so, just as St. Nicholas/Santa Claus was a real person too. It now seems apparent to me that there were some myths laced into these stories...

Oops. I should have read a little further before writing what I did above.

 

The authors of these stories know more than they should know (such as Matthew knowing what went on, in detail with Herod or the soldiers guarding the tomb). It's hand waved away with things like "rumors get around" and all that stuff but why? Look how many years it's taken to really get the dirt on Bush and Co. and that's in the modern age without threat of death and all that. Besides the authors go into too much detail for "rumors" or "leaks" to be the answer especially how their supposed eye witness testimony is so screwed up in many places by comparison. This all points to this is simply a story (it wasn't uncommon at all for "historians" and others to simply put words in the mouths of those they were writing about if they weren't around for the event, which could also be made up, when it actually took place).

 

[Amanda in bold]

That is very interesting. A professor from one of these Ivy League colleges says there is a technique to find hidden historical facts... kind of like how you've done, though I don't have a clue how it IS done, called the pay-sha (sp?) method. I've been told there are many levels in which to decipher the Bible. BTW, fundamentalism is NOT listed as one of these ways to get an accurate meaning... from the cryptic style or not.

 

I usually just think these things up on the spot and if they sound reasonable then I start to research it more deeply. In this case I was making a point to my wife about this whole mess and stumbled across it. Now when I get some spare time I'll try to flesh it out to see if it holds for more of the story. If it does maybe I'll post something so others can pick it apart.

 

[Amanda in bold]

I have studied quite a bit on the power of the mind... visual imagery, hypnosis, subliminal messages, subliminal beliefs and impacts on our lives.. and I think this area is quite amazing! Our belief system AND how we suppress trauma and unknowingly allow its effect on our life... seems to be issues that were really addressed in the majority of these healings in the NT. Hence, you're sins are forgiven, you are healed... etc. IMO, this method can still be highly effective today. I don't think they were magically miraculous... because 'Jesus' said that we could do everything he did, and even greater things. AND it also says that many of the attempts by 'Jesus' to heal others were not successful. I think the western world is missing a lot in its overlooking of subliminal suggestions, retrieving suppressed issues and resolving them, and the benefits of meditation in relieving stress and anxiety to enhance and support healing. Also, if people gather to 'pray' and bring their collective attention to a significant matter.... maybe 'brainstorming' will bring more suggestions for help.

 

Well, many of these things are being studied today. Look at the prayer research, even though it's rather bad news at the moment, it's showing that the medical community is at least taking a look at these things. They're are skeptical, and rightly so, which means it will take some time but if there's something to it I'm sure it will be integrated into other therapies.

 

I have seen the power of a positive mind help in healing. I think that this is what is mistaken as a result of prayer. People expect prayer to do it all (some magic being "out there" will fix me which is also why I think many xians are fairly miserable since they expect something "out there" to give them everything they're missing inside and it just doesn't happen that way) and they waste away since they're sort of dead inside already. Others pray and the positive "hope" aspect kicks in and that positive attitude combined with their desire to be cured helps their recovery (sort of a laughter is the best medicine kind of thing). This is something that I'm sure must have taken place throughout history as a miracle cure. If any sort of "jesus" of the day did this I'm sure this was the placebo that helped many overcome their illness and then the stories were embellished to fit their ancient world view. Either way the positive feeling can only go so far (you're not going to beat those 20 knife wounds by watching a funny movie).

 

The notable thing about what you said about jesus is that he did have less than 100% success. Odd for those looking for an infallible deity to follow.

 

[Amanda in bold]

Of course, I'd rather just fly away with a handsome Buddha or Siek, than to bother with all that stuff!

 

Oh my!

 

mwc