More to the point, about me

[Frank 013]

Penelope
I have never heard this before

Well, it's not something you will hear in church, but if you look hard enough the information is out there.

Penelope
and other than saying of the Jewish writings denigrating what we know about Jesus, 'Well, they would wouldn't they?

I am not sure I understand you here, I was commenting on the fact that much of what Jesus says in the gospels is in fact just Old Testament and other Jewish material regurgitated.

It is true that the early Christians were at odds with the Jews, but no more than with each other.

Early Christianity had no central beliefs, some sects believed that Jesus was entirely spiritual, some believed he was a man with divine knowledge, others believed he was both divine and man simultaneously. These sects fought against each other as feverishly as they did against other religions. In at least one case genocide was implemented to wipe out an entire competing sect man women and child.

Not very Christian of them... or was it?

Penelope
However, how can we know.....it is certainly true that the Gospels do not correspond.....telling the same stories....different facts.

Many of the gospels are copies of one another (Starting with Mark) with different elements added and changed as the story was rewritten. This has been well established by historians both secular and biblical.

Penelope
But there is something compulsive about the Gospels' disparity....why would they record different facts about the same story. Surely they would have altered them to correspond...but they don't.

It is possible that they knew then, just as we do now that when different people tell the same story the tale is different depending largely on point of view and attitudes of the story teller. These differences would be left in because it was known that they would in fact add to the credibility.

What is not normally addressed is how the apostles knew what Jesus was thinking, or how they recorded parts of the story when they were not present.

But this is not really important because it is clear that the first story written was Mark and that all of the others are dependant on it, sometimes copied word for word, making it nearly impossible for the later narratives to be anything but elaborated copies.

Penelope
I do realize that all that about a virgin birth is hard to swallow and actually they said this about Buddha that he was born of a virgin....centuries earlier. What does that matter though?

It matters that it was common of savior myths of that time period, and shows the Hellenistic influence of the Greek occupation from earlier history.

Penelope
Surely what matters is the teaching of the man.... but what fascinates me is that Jesus is reputed to have said, 'Lo I am with you always even to the end of time.

Well he wasn't just talking to his disciples was he? He said, 'Peace I give unto you, my peace I give you, not as the World gives....let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid....... these sayings are what make me want to study more about Jesus.......I really have no axe to grind....I have nothing to convert anyone to......because I don't know....but I find the recorded words of this man compulsive.......and I can't see how they can be used for manipulation.

If that was all that he had said then there would be little to criticize. The lessons from the Bible are many and the character of Jesus teaches in many ways... through parable, action and speech.

Parable are meant to be interpreted and each parable in the bible can have multiple meanings.

The actions of Jesus are equaly obscure, true in the stories he heals the sick, but only at his whim, he even threatened not to heal certain people, he also toppled tables in the Jewish shrine calling the bankers vipers, Jesus killed a Fig tree out of spite because it held no fruit out of season.

Jesus advises a morning man...

But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury the dead.
-Matthew 8:22

This does not seem very understanding or compassionate to me, but maybe that is because I am not a Christian and I have no preset notion of Jesus' character.

Through speech Jesus gives many obscure, false and nonsensical statements.

Family values...

For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.
-Matthew 10:35-36

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
-Luke 14:26

Apparently Jesus was not a fan of family, but was a fan of hate.

I could use the following Jesus quote to support abortion...

The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
-Matthew 26:24

In the red letter edition of the King James Bible Jesus has this to say towards the killing of children:

And I will kill her children with death...
-Revelation 2:23

This was a punishment for the mother, to kill her innocent children.

Apparently Jesus approved of the beating of slaves

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
-Luke 12:47

Here Jesus advises drinking poison...

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...
-Mark 16:17-18

Jesus also advises...

Ignoring future plans.

Encourage people to persecute you.

Give away anything you own to every man who asks, and if he steals it, don't try to get it back.

Sell everything you have and give it to the poor.

If someone hits you, invite them to hit you again.

Don't ever marry a divorced woman because you'll commit adultery.

Don't even look at a women in a sexual way because that also constitutes adultery.

And don't think about your life, what to eat, the health of your body or about the clothes you wear.

If a person were to actually follow the teachings of Jesus they would live a short miserable life of un-education, poverty, poor health and persecution.

I know this is not the Jesus taught about in church, but it is the Jesus of the gospels.

Penelope
If we really examine what Jesus said, there is nothing manipulative at all.

I am not saying that the quotes attributed to Jesus are manipulative, except for in the way that they encourage people to be content with less, which was a huge difference from the religions of Rome at that time, which encouraged self-determination, competition, self worth and the value of rising within ones station.

I am saying that the teachings of Jesus are obscure and contradictory allowing manipulation by the authorities of the religion.

After all in the above passages I can support hatred of family, abortion, violence, spiteful revenge, name calling and even slavery, all using direct quotes from Jesus or examples from his actions in scripture.

Penelope
In fact he removed all the rules. As soon as he died, what did we do?

Starting making up rules again.....and arguing.....I am thinking here about the Epistles of St. Paul.....

First of all nothing was changed by the existence or alleged existence of Jesus. People still fight, argue, make up rules etc. This was true before the gospels, it was true during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and it was and still is true after his alleged death.

If anything Christianity is just one more subject to argue and kill each other over.

Later

[Frank 013]

Penelope
I do realize that all that about a virgin birth is hard to swallow.

I think that this statement deserves its own response.

It isn't just hard to swallow, and it's not just the virgin birth that defies believability. From a historical standpoint both Jesus' birth and death are impossible as written in the gospels.

Far too many people have been taught a biblical version of history, this version is plainly false, but is maintained (mostly by the church) because it allows for the events in scripture to take place.

The birth:

There is no record written or archeological of Herod ever hunting for baby saviors. There is no record of Rome taking a census at that time. The Romans did not take their census in the manner described in the story. For a Roman census the man of the house was supposed to remain in his residence and wait for the census takers to arrive. Even if (for some unknown reason) the Romans changed it this one time and Joseph was required to travel, he would not have needed to bring his heavily pregnant wife along.

The death:

This is even less believable from a historic standpoint.

I'll start with the simple stuff...

Whoever wrote the story of Jesus' crucifixion had little to no knowledge of the Roman procedure. Nails were not driven into the palms of the hands (this will not support the weight of the body) the nails were driven between the wrist bones.

People were not regularly tortured before a crucifixion. Crucifixion was torture enough and torturing someone beforehand would just reduce the time it took to die on the cross, which would negate the whole point of the crucifixion as would stabbing the victim while on the cross.

Romans did not carry spears; they carried a weapon called a Pilum that would more accurately be described as a javelin.

Pilate was not a fair and just friend to the Jewish people, he (as recorded by historians of his time) was a prejudice Jew hater and it is unlikely that he would have ruled in favor of any Jew that was brought before him.

The Trial

Jesus' trial as written is as impossible as his resurrection, the gospel gives an account that was not just unlikely but illegal by Jewish law.

Here are rules of the Sanhedrin that were in place at the time according to the Jewish Mishnah:

1) No criminal session was allowed at night.
2) No Sanhedrin trial could be heard at any place other than the Temple precincts.
3) No capital crime could be tried in a one-day sitting.
4) No criminal trial could be held on the eve of a Sabbath or festival.
5) No one could be found guilty on his own confession.
6) No blasphemy charge could be sustained unless the accused pronounced the name of God in front of witnesses.
7) The Sanhedrin were allowed to execute people on their own and did not need the Romans to do so for them.

The trial of Jesus according to the Gospels violated all of these rules.

Finally how were the details of this trial recorded, none of Jesus' disciples were there?

These are just a few of the facts that diverge from the church's version of history, but they clearly show that much of the Jesus story is plainly false.

Later

[Chris OConnor]

This has to be one of the most fascinating discussions we've had on the forums in a long time. I hope people scan the scrolling "Recent Topics" box in the right sidebar and notice this thread!

Frank, as you well know I'm an agnostic atheist. So we're naturally on the same page about the majority of this stuff. But your level-headed academic approach deserves kudos, or at least some karma, which I have assigned happily. I've always found it curious that the average atheist knows more about the Bible than the average theist. Something tells me that if most believers were to genuinely care about uncovering the truth and were to openly and honestly read and consider ALL of the words in both the OT and NT we'd have a hell of a lot less believers today.

[Frank 013]

Chris
Something tells me that if most believers were to genuinely care about uncovering the truth and were to openly and honestly read and consider ALL of the words in both the OT and NT we'd have a hell of a lot less believers today.

I can't recall who said it, but some smart guy once said something along the lines of "The fastest path to atheism is the reading of the Bible"

Apparently we both agree.

Later

[Robert Tulip]

This has to be one of the most fascinating discussions we've had on the forums in a long time. I hope people scan the scrolling "Recent Topics" box in the right sidebar and notice this thread! Frank, as you well know I'm an agnostic atheist. So we're naturally on the same page about the majority of this stuff. But your level-headed academic approach deserves kudos, or at least some karma, which I have assigned happily. I've always found it curious that the average atheist knows more about the Bible than the average theist. Something tells me that if most believers were to genuinely care about uncovering the truth and were to openly and honestly read and consider ALL of the words in both the OT and NT we'd have a hell of a lot less believers today.

Yes Chris, Frank has put together a strong case against Christianity. I am amazed he has such knowledge although he sees the story as such a crock. It illustrates that conventional faith is laughably out of date, as it is so very simple to drive holes as big as a truck through. However, IMHO, the sayings of Jesus pull together much better than Frank gives credit for. As I have commented here previously, the Jesus Seminar is a very loaded group. It is sad that the main real debate in Christianity is between them (represented by such thinkers as Marcus Borg and Jack Spong) and fundamentalism. Iit seems difficult to find space for a scientific evangelism, which Christianity really needs if it is to be redeemed. My concern with the Jesus Seminar's assessment of the veracity of the gospels is that they apply methods of modern science to judge the reliabability of the sayings, whereas the key to theology is the ability to integrate ideas into a coherent cosmology. The Jesus Seminar on the whole rejects the gospel of John because its ideas are so metaphysical. If they were real theologians, rather than stalking horses for secular liberalism, they would be more open to exploring how John, especially the 'I am' statements, fits within an integrated world view. Augustine was coherent, but his theology was built on sand rather than rock because he accepted false ideas such as the virgin birth and heaven. Conventional faith, staying true to the likes of Augustine and Calvin, is stuck in a spot where it has to defend the indefensible, with natural consequences for its credibility. My view is that once we sweep away those miracles which lack any possible scientific basis, we are still left with a rather miraculous energy in the person of Christ. My personal view, which I have not yet found anyone much interested in, is that this miraculous energy in Christ is well explained by the hypothesis that Jesus was leader of an esoteric school in which the precession of the equinox was the central theme.

[Penelope]

Thank you so much Frank - I have read your posts and will print them off and read them again.

I haven't much to add, because,some of your arguments, I have come across before. A Buddhist Monk wrote a book about Christianity which mentioned the fact that if the wise men from the East had travelled to visit the newly born Jesus in the Manger, Jesus would have been about four years old by the time they got there. So, I thought - the Magi were symbolic. I also knew that there was no census at the time of Jesus' 'reputed ' birth. I also knew that there was no record of Herod's massacre of the infants.

I suppose I keep searching the scriptures (New Testament) because I want it to be true that this wonderful man walked among us and left his spirit to enable us to cope with life's problems. Whether that spirit is a real potent power, or whether it is just a sweet influence. I have sometimes imagined I felt it......

Now as for the Old Testament.....I agree entirely......if you really read that (and I have heard chapters read unquestioningly in church) the God of the Old Testament often seems demonic to me. All those animals and birds demanded as sacrifices.......sounds like satanic ritual....not a Godly seeking of enlightenment. The demand that Saul, among others wiped out a whole tribe of hundreds of people.....God is reputed to have demanded that not one woman or child be left alive. And, Saul got 'told off' because he let one of the leaders live. (Phew!!!)

Frank said:-

But this is not really important because it is clear that the first story written was Mark and that all of the others are dependant on it, sometimes copied word for word, making it nearly impossible for the later narratives to be anything but elaborated copies.


I would just like to disagree with you on this one. The gospels are not very much alike. Certainly the Gospel of John is nothing like the other three.

I do believe in the power of prayer.....because from experience I have found it to work. I don't mean like Aladin's Lamp - I don't pray for material things. But throughout most of my life I have prayed for enlightenment, joy, peace, understanding, courage - courage being the main item on the list in my case because I am a coward by nature.

Of course the answers to my prayers and meditations could come from the Buddha influence as much as from the Jesus influence......or as I have said before.....it could just be the chemicals in my brain!

[Penelope]

Robert Tulip said:

[/i]My view is that once we sweep away those miracles which lack any possible scientific basis, we are still left with a rather miraculous energy in the person of Christ. My personal view, which I have not yet found anyone much interested in, is that this miraculous energy in Christ is well explained by the hypothesis that Jesus was leader of an esoteric school in which the precession of the equinox was the central theme.

Yes Robert, I have often thought that we cannot prove, and we never saw the actual miracles of Jesus - but it is the biggest miracle of all that there are all these millions of people still seeking this 'man'. A Carpenter's son, who only preached his word for three years and who died in ignominy at a comparatively young age. That is astounding.


Please can you tell me what 'the precession of the equinox' means? I have heard about the Essenes and their relationship to the Dead Sea Scrolls.......I have read some of the Scrolls which seem to indicate Jesus as being much more of a mystic than he is portrayed in the New Testament.

I am pleased that Frank uses the King James Version to quote from - if we are going to continue this discussion, can we use this Orthodox version - so we are all reading from the same hymn sheet so to speak?

[Penelope]

Frank - I am going to try to respond to your criticisms of the words attributed to Jesus - point by point. God help me! (That is a prayer, not a profanity). It will have to be in a series of posts....one at a time. Because I want to give them all due consideration.

If I am boring you.....well you don't have to read it.....but I have prayed about these dilemmas over the past hundred years or so. When I pray, God always sends an angel or two to help me. This time he has sent you and Robert Tulip.

Here goes:-

Frank said:-

Quote:
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury the dead.
-Matthew 8:22


This does not seem very understanding or compassionate to me, but maybe that is because I am not a Christian and I have no preset notion of Jesus' character.

Through speech Jesus gives many obscure, false and nonsensical statements.



The only time I found the above statement meant something to me was on the death of Princess Diana......oddly enough.

My husband and I (now I sound like The Queen don't I) went into town on the morning that Princess Di's funeral was taking place. There was no one there. It was a ghost town - on a Saturday morning too.

People were heartbroken.....crying.....why? Well, I know she was very young and beautiful but Mother Theresa died around the same time and no one seemed so terribly bothered about that. It was quite scarey because it was definitely hysteria.......morphic resonance...

My husband and I looked at one another and both felt like something out of a Sci-fi movie......'We've only got 24hours to save the earth, Flash', is what I said to him.

I prayed about it......because I had been accused of being a funny sort of Christian....because I did not feel so emotional as the rest.......and that line of scripture came to me.......'Follow 'thou' me. Let the dead bury their dead. Now, I wasn't feeling chosen, or clever or anything - it was just that I know that Jesus several times said, 'Follow 'thou' me'. 'You' - follow me. Never mind what the others are doing.....I can deal with them....but 'You' mind your own business and follow me. I think I had come to terms long ago, with the idea of death.....maybe others had come to terms with different things.....but that is where I was at the time.

You have misquoted Frank - He said, Let the dead bury 'their' dead. Not 'the' dead. I think that is a whole different statement. If you don't believe in death then the death of some one dear to you does not mean the same thing. I have for many years been convinced that birth is not the beginning of us and death is not the end of us. As 'souls' that is. It does not mean I do not miss my people when they go. It is just that I believe in the immortality of the soul.

There is a lot of evidence in the scriptures of the New Testament, that the early Christians believed in reincarnation. When they said that John the Baptist was Elijah the prophet returned to earth....Jesus didn't contradict them....in fact he said, 'So he is!!'.

[Frank 013]

RT
My view is that once we sweep away those miracles which lack any possible scientific basis, we are still left with a rather miraculous energy in the person of Christ. My personal view, which I have not yet found anyone much interested in, is that this miraculous energy in Christ is well explained by the hypothesis that Jesus was leader of an esoteric school in which the precession of the equinox was the central theme.

Just so you are aware, before I accept any theory based off of Jesus' existence you will first need to prove Jesus existed as a person. Since this has been tried time and time again throughout history and no evidence has been found I suspect that you have quite a hill to climb.

That being said, I do appreciate your drive to correct the many errors in scripture, I just do not think that it is possible to separate the needle from the haystack in this situation.

Later

[Frank 013]

Penelope
I would just like to disagree with you on this one. The gospels are not very much alike.

You should look at the passages below; basically, much of the text of Mark, Matthew, and Luke is similar, in some cases word for word identical, the only reasonable explanation can be that there has been extensive copying of the texts, and because they were all written at different times it is clear that the newer manuscripts were copied from the older ones.

Here is an example of what I am talking about...

Mark 11:
28 "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?"

29 Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

30 John's baptism