I decided to start this thread since the discussion exists on this forum but continues on many threads.

So my last reply was for berserk.
source:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm


Quote:

Robert M Price 4 writes: "In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven." He asserts that there are a number of historical and mythical figures whose life stories contain these elements, including Jesus. But just as we do not regard Hercules as a historical figure, a case can be made that Jesus was also a mythical character. Some theologians and historians believe that many of the details of Jesus' life were "borrowed" from a competing, contemporary religion, Mithraism. Mithra was a fictional character who was worshipped as a Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, and the Messiah. A religion in his name was founded in the 6th century BCE. 5 Mithraism one of the most popular of religions in the Roman Empire, particularly among its soldiers and civil servants. It was Christianity's leading rival. 19 Mithra was also believed to have been born of a virgin. Like Jesus, their births were celebrated yearly on DEC-25. Mithra was also visited by shepherds and by Magi. He traveled through the countryside, taught, and performed miracles with his 12 disciples. He cast out devils, returned sight to the blind, healed the lame, etc. Symbols associated with Mithra were a Lion and a Lamb. He held a last supper, was killed, buried in a rock tomb. He rose again after three days later, at the time of the spring equinox, circa MAR-21. He later ascended into heaven. Mithraism celebrated the anniversary of his resurrection, similar to the Christian Easter. They held services on Sunday. Rituals included a Eucharist and six other sacraments that corresponded to the rituals of the Catholic church. Some individuals who are skeptical about stories of Jesus' life suspect that Christianity may have appropriated many details of Mithraism in order to make their religion more acceptable to Pagans. St. Augustine even stated that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same God as he did. 19 Other early Christians believed that Satan invented Mithraism and that he made Mithra's life and the practices of the religion identical to what Christianity would become centuries later. They felt that Satan's purpose was to confuse believers.

For Mithra being born of a virgin, actually he was born out of the rock from what I discovered but the "earth mother" was considered virgin... far fetched but.. anyway

I also discovered many other possible pagan roots but the website has an ugly background. Interesting nonetheless. I shall investigate the claims !

http://www.abcpsychic.com/JesusComparison.html

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS:
A SAMPLE EYEWITNESS CONNECTION

The narration of resurrection appearances that can most impressively be connected with eyewitness testimony is Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7:

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on  to me--that Christ died for our sins just as the Scriptures said.  He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, as the Scriptures said.  He was seen by Peter, and then by the twelve apostles,.  After that he as seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive; though some have died by now.  Then he was seen by [Jesus' brother] James and later by all the apostles.   Last of all, I saw him too, long after the others, as though I had been born at the wrong time."  

Paul received this list of resurrection appearances after making two trips to Jerusalem during which he conversed extensively with eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.  On his first trip, he conversed with Peter and Jesus' brother James, but with none of the other apostles (Galatians 1:18-19).  Fourteen years later, he met with all the leaders together with the entire Jerusalem church to ensure he knew all the vital information about Jesus (Galatians 2:1-2; cp. Acts 15).  

The Gospels provide independent support for most, but not all, of Christ's Easter appearances to His disciples.   The Risen Lord's apearance to Peter is also mentioned in passing in Luke 24:34, but is not described in detail.  The first appearance to the twelve apostles is graphically depicted in both Luke and John.  The second appearance to the Twelve is described in Matthew and John.  But there is no explicit mention in our Gospels of either the mass appearance to over 500 followers or the private appearance to James.

Paul does not tell us where this mass appearance occurred, but it could not have taken place in a church building or a private home.  There were no first century churches as distinct archtectural structures.  The early church met in house churches.  No home was large enough to accomodate over 500 believers.  So this Easter appearance must have occurred outdoors.  But where?  Our best guess is that it occurred during a prayer vigil at the empty tomb.  On Paul's second trip to Jerusalem, he would have met many of these eyewitnesses.  He is able to report that some of them have passed away in the intervening years.  But he exults in the fact that most of them are still alive to confirm their miraculous encounter with Christ.  

The significance of the Risen Lord's private appearance to His brother James is twofold:
(1) It provides the best explanation for the conversion of Jesus' previously hostile brothers.  During His public ministry, His brothers did not believe in Him and were skeptical of His messianic claims and wonder-working reputation.  They were never around to witness His healings (John 7:3-5).  On one occasion, His family thought He had gone mad because He was conducting a long teaching session with no break for meals.  So they tried to physically restrain Hiim (Mark 3:20-21).  But by the last of the resurrection appearances, all His brothers have embraced the fledgling Christian community.  We find them with their mother Mary in a group of 120 Christians in the upper room of a house church (Acts 1:14-15).  Jesus' family is participating in a Christian prayer vigil that lasts several days and culminates in the spectacular outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2).  The best explanation of the transformation of Jesus' brothers from hostile cynics to devout believers is the compelling news of their brother James's private encounter with the Risen Christ.  

James was not a follower of Jesus for most of His public ministry.  So why did the Jerusalem church ultimately agree to let him outrank even Peter as the supreme leader of the Jerusalem church?  Jesus' private appearance to James must have been an important element of the church's decision.

Paul's vison of the Risen Jesus on the Damascus road blinds him; so he is only able to regain his sight after Ananias lays hands on him and prays for his recovery (Acts 9).  Only the impact of Paul's resurrection vision can explain his transformation from a confident and convinced Pharisee who helps violently persecute and kill Christians to Christendom's greatest apostle.  Paul is originally a thug who takes care of the coats of the vigilantes who stone Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 7:58; 8:1; 9:1-2).  Yet it can be argued that, without Paul's apostolic career, Christianity might never have become a world religion.  So Paul's list of resurrection appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 has evidential value at several levels.

In my next planned post, I will share some other ways the Gospels themselves can be connected with eyewitness testimony.  Then in still another post,  I will expose the methodological flaws in Robert Price's claim that Christianity was heavily influenced by Mithraism.   This will give me a chance to discuss proper methodology for identifying the cultural and religious background of Jesus and the early church, a methodology that is well known to believing and unbelieving academics alike, but is lost in much of New Age pseudo-scholarship.  

Don

Well I don't trust the bible as a source since if jesus is fake, the bible is fake.

Also for me the miracles of Jesus are much like the miracles of hercules -> added later but I don't know enough yet to say it as a fact  :'(

IF you do have info about the other religions that could have had an influence on christianism or NOT (because the other side is also interesting, please share it I can't wait...

*sigh*

Back to studying for my final test...  :-/

ps: I find your hability to work with the bible astounding.  Kudos to you !   ;D

Hi Raphael,

I kind of like the explanation on this site.

The Gnostics were an early Christian sect
with a different perspective on Jesus.

http://gnosis.org/lectures.html

After listening to the RealAudio lectures
I felt a resonance with their beliefs as
opposed to the Romanized ones.

- C K Yap

I've been pointed out to Acharya S. I haven't read her book but her claims are very interesting.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/

since I am open minded and wish to be unbiaised I started to see what other scholars thought of her and I came across a very interesting debate. I don't have the time to read it until tonight but for those of you who are interested it is interesting. (I read a small part of it)

http://www.risenjesus.com/index.html

Okay the source looks like the guy is a complete christian lunatic BUT the way he argues with deadly accuracy. And I like debates so there  :P .

(go to "ressources", then "articles", then "a refutation to Acharya blahblahblah)

Keep the knowledge coming !
;D

And, her answer to that with also deadly accuracy...

http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm


Quote:

Another reader sensibly is amazed at the venom with which my critics attack me. A good question: Why are they so nasty? I did not attack them, personally or otherwise. I merely discuss the mythological origins of Christianity as well as its bloody history. Yet, these fanatic defenders of the faith invariably spew venom, nastiness and viciousness at me personally. There seems to be something inherent in Christianity and other religions that create fanaticism that makes human beings utterly unpleasant, hostile, angry, arrogant and conceited. Such ideologies are therefore extremely deleterious to the human mind and create neverending hostilities and atrocities upon this planet. Hopefully, humanity will grow out of this ugly stage of valuing mythological constructs more than living, breathing human beings

http://www.truthbeknown.com/firesponse.htm


Quote:

Dear Free Inquiry: When I described Robert Price's review of my book, "The Christ Conspiracy," an acquaintance's immediate response was "professional jealousy." Be that as it may, a mythicist attacking another will only perpetuate the deleterious hoax that I and so many others have worked so hard to bring to light – and risked our necks doing so, I might add. Which reminds me that I am disgusted that Price and FI felt the need to expose personal and private information about me. Like many others, I choose to remain anonymous for safety's sake, which should have been obvious, considering the contentiousness of the material and the fact that, not all that long ago, people were killed or jailed for questioning in this manner.

 Hi all,

 I find no contradiction in believing in both the mythical Christ, and the literal or historical Yeshua who became the Christ.

 Nor do i believe Yesh was the first to perform things such as miralces, which in my mind is just the combination of being able to consciously manipulate M Band energy and having the base of Love vibration permeating the very thoughts, acts, will, etc. of a person.  Just taking the biblical example again (though many, in many areas, especially Eastern, were reported to have performed miracles), Elisha (successor to Elijah) of the Old Testament, supposedly did some pretty amazing things himself, like raising a heavy anchor out of the water ala Yoda style, performing miraculous healings, etc.  

 I believe Buddha was a Christ, Krishna, and some of the others who fit the mold of the mythological Christ figures--some of which bear a striking resemblance to Yeshua's life and teachings.  Whereas some were reportedly Virgin born for example, Yesh was Virgin born of a mother who was virgin born (who was his "Twin soul in the earth).  

 But, in my belief system things get a little more subtle and "gray"...  I very much agree with the Cayce readings (which undeniably have been verified in many, many fields) which say time and time again that the Disc who projected the Yeshua personality, is the same disc which has influenced either directly or indirectly every major belief system (i.e. religion) which espouses the Oneness of Creation.

 So, in a way, I look at Yeshua as the culmination or the crowning Teacher of all the World Teachers (Buddha, Krishna, etc) who came before.  And to tell the truth, he has wonderful sense of humor and i get the sense he would find all this debate about his "authenticity" rather funny.    He pulled some practical jokes on me in a dream before.

 Or to look at it from a Monroe perspective...  I would not say it is completely unplausible that "the most evolved and mature person currently living in your space/time" person that Monroe met, He/She, is our buddy Yeshua.  Monroe not being religious, it would make sense that he didn't come out right and say, hey this 1800 year old person is "Jesus" (maybe he was even told not to?) but he did seem to leave clues if one carefully reads that part of his book.  He makes some pretty odd references to He/She which seem to indicate that He/She is someone known about, though Monroe (not having been religious) didn't think people really believed in.  

  I know some here would very much disagree with this interpretation because of their own prejudices.  They can't seem to separate the dogmatic and now twisted religion,  from the man/soul who has tried to be nothing but helpful in virtually all of his incarations in the Earth and in other systems/dimensions.

 Interesting factoid:  The Great Pyramid, by all accounts is a mathematical representation of the Earth.  Virtually all the major measurments indicate that it was created to stand as a symbol of the earth, and interestingly one of the more significant measurements if directed from the Great Pyramid angle, goes exactly right through Bethletham where Yeshua was supposedly born.  This event or timing is also indicated very strongly in the time-line of the Great Pyramid.  Interesting coinky dink if true, eh?

 In Bruce's books (specifically his 4th), he indicates that some Discs/Souls (don't matter what'ya call em) were created specifically by Consciousness to act as Retreivers, and as such, it seems they were given a pretty big wallop of Love energy as their base or basic vibrational pattern.  To me, Yesh is just one of these souls.   And throughout his "soul history" he has done a pretty damn good job, and he deserves mucho kudos and respect for it, but not any worship as religions teach.

THE GOSPELS AS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

So Jesus' resurrection appearances can be linked with the eyewitnesses through Paul's verification of them via direct contact with eyewitnesses.  But what about the 4 Gospels themselves?  

Outside the New Testament, our most important connection to the eyewitnesses of Jesus is Papias (60-130 AD), bishop of Hierapolis in what is now Turkey.  Papias knew apostles and those discipled by them.  He learned from them that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome and that, after Nero executed Peter, Mark shaped Peter's teaching materials into a Gospel.  So when you read Mark, you are essentially reading eyewitness testimony.  When Mark was young, the first church met in his mother's house in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12).  

According to Papias, Mark's Gospel was criticized for its erroneous order of events.  This charge may indirectly support the content of Mark's stories because the charge seems to have been levelled by those who were in a position to know the original sequence of Jesus' life story.  Mark cannot be faulted for such errors.  He was copying Peter's catechetical materials which were designed for teaching, not for a sequentially flawless biography.  

Papias also learned that the apostle Matthew collected Jesus' sayings.  It seems that Matthew composed the most comprehensive sayings source which modern scholars label Q (from the German "Quelle" which means "source").  We no longer have Q, but Q is used in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark and John.  Most of Jesus' sayings in Matthew are derived from Q.  Papias says that Matthew composed a sayings collection, not a Gospel!   The Gospel bears Matthew's name because of confusion over this point.  We don't know the identity of the final editor of Matthew.

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas was discovered in the Nag Hammadi library.  It is not really a Gospel, but a sayings collection.  It consists of 114 sayings of Jesus and represents the oral tradition of Jesus' sayings that was circulated east of the Jordan River.  Q (now lost) represents the version of oral tradition that was circulated west of the Jordan.   The Gospel of Thomas contains what appear to be a handful of new authentic sayings of Jesus.  

Don't be fooled by books like "The Da Vinci Code."
There is a scholarly consensus that, except for the Gospel of Thomas,  there is very little authentic material in the apocryphal Gospels (Gnostic or otherwise) outside the New Testament.   Ironically the authentic Jesus material (no more than ten items) that is available from outside the Bible never seems to make it into public discourse.  

Some have made the claim that since Q is just a
sayings collection Jesus never performed any miracles.  But Q is just a Wisdom collection and this literary genre does not even allow the inclusion of miracle stories.  We don't scold poetry anthologies for omitting discussions of quantum mechanics!  Before there were Gospels, there were separate collections of sayings, miracle stories, and controversy stories as well as separate birth, Passion, and Resurrection narratives.  In general, the integration of these sources caused the original sequence of events to be lost.  The Matthew and Luke both use the Gospel of Mark and Q as sources for their Gospels.  

Luke the physician was Paul's travel companion.  Luke composed both the Gospel that bears his name and the Book of Acts.  His Gospel begins with his claim that he has researched "eyewitness" testimony (1:1-2).  When did he do this?  In his Book of Acts he informs us that he travelled with Paul to Jerusalem and consulted with Jesus' brother James and the other apostles who are referred to as "the elders" (21:17-18).

In the Gospel miracle traditions, additional evidence for eyewitness testimony can be detected in embarrassing details that seem unlikely to be invented.  For example, in the healing of the blind man from Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), the blind man still has blurry vision after Jesus lays hands on him: "I see people, but they look like walking trees."  The man needs a second session with Jesus to complete the cure.  Obviously, this man was not blind from birth.  If this were a legend, the legend would surely portray God's Son as doing the job right the first time.  Matthew and Luke are apparently so offended by this initial failure that they both omit the story.  Who cares as long as the guy eventually gets his miracle?   More striking is Mark's admission that in Jesus' home town, He "COULD DO NO miracles there" because of their mocking skepticism.  Matthew changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to soften the obvious implication that Jesus tried and failed to do miracles there (13:58); and as the commentaries explain, a later scribe adds an awkward "except" clause to Mark to minimize the damage.  In my view, the willingness of Mark (or rather his source, Peter) to  admit that Jesus bombed in his home town demonstrates the integrity of the tradition and makes the other miracle stories more credible.  

I have my own theory about the Gospel of John which would take too long to defend here.  But let me sum up my thesis.  The traditional view is that the Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John the son of Zebedee in Ephesus in what is now Western Turkey.  I think I can show that the primary source was instead Jesus' brother James.  This source is codenamed  "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and this phrase is a technical designation of James ("Jacob" in Aramaic).  The Gospel's frequent hints about this disciples identity yield a consistent pattern of details that point to Jesus' brother instead of John.

In my view, the source's name is suppressed in this Gospel's traditions because of his clash with the authorities at the time of Jesus' arrest.  If the authorities were looking for a chance to kill the apostles, then surely Jesus' own brother would be their primary target. His brother James was the supreme leader of the Jerusalem church, ranking even above Peter.  In any case, James is stoned to death in 62 AD by order of the high priest Annas.

In its original form, the Fourth Gospel was written around the 50s AD well within the range of eyewitness corroboration.   But it was revised once or twice by an editor named John as late as the 90s AD.  This John was likely a minor disciple of Jesus, not John the son of Zebedee, one of the 12.

The evidence for the Gospel's locale points to Pella rather than Ephesus.  Pella is a city 15 miles south of the Sea of Galilee and just east of the Jordan River.  When the Roman legions closed in on Jerusalem in the 60s AD, the church there received a prophetic oracle urging them to flee to Pella.  So if the Fourth Gospel was written in Pella, it was written in the city that contained that surviving eyewitnesses of Jesus, including members of His family.   Pella has just recently been excavated and I view it as the world's most promising archaeological site.

Don

Something I was just talking to my daughters about yesterday, the mythic Jesus.   Read David Icke's, the Biggest Secret, there is a chapter dedicated to this.  Supposedly there have been many SUN gods in many cultyres all possesing the some story. Joseph Campbell, the Myth expert, also believed Jesus to be another sun God myth.  There is more then just one story, the Bible is just one book.   aloha

I'm comfortable with the theory that Jesus, being a descendant of David, had a legitimate claim to the throne of Israel and that the mission he chose was to re-establish a Jewish kingdom with himself as king. He wasn't the first or the last to make the attempt.

I think if Jesus made any claim about being a savior, it was in the context of freeing the Jews from Roman occupation and nothing more. Mainly political, nominally religious and certainly not divine.

That's just my opinion and I respect everyone else's.

Raphael,

Sorry, we seem to have prematurely abandoned your thread.  So far, your responders illustrate a major problem with the New Age movement--an unwillingness to develop their positions through interactions with the widely acknowledged experts from other academic disciplines.

I will begin by responding to your interest in Acharya S.  Her name should alert the reader to why she is universally dismissed by modern critical scholarlyship, Christian and non- Christian alike.  Her pretentious pseudonym means "guru".  Her real name is D. Murdock.  Her book, "The Christ Conspiracy," has received no attention in scholarly circles, except for a negative review from an atheist, Robert Price.  Her thesis is that first and second century Masons conspired to invent the story of Jesus to serve as a one-world religion based on a collage of motifs from other traditions.  To survive, her thesis depends on 4 ludicrous assumptions: (1) the pervasive influence of ancient astrology on this conspiracy; (2) the role of Jewish and pagan Masons in conspiring to invent the Jesus tradition, (3) the late date of the Gospels (after 150 AD), and (4) the many parallels she cites between Christianity and other traditions.  She is badly misguided on all 4 counts.  In future posts, I will focus my attention on (3) and (4).  For now I'll just offer these cursory comments on (1) and (2).

(1) An expert on Freemasonry, Jack Harris, dismisses all her central claims about Freemasonry.  Most importantly, Freemasonry began in 1117 AD--far too late to have shaped early Christianity!  (2) Murdoch claims that the Christian myth "took the form of a play, with a cast of characters, including the 12 divisions of the sky called the signs or constellations of the zodiac.  The symbols that typified 12 celestial sections of 300 each represent aspects of earthly life.  Based on this, the mythical Jesus recognized the coming of the Age of Pisces, symbolized by the Christian fish.  

Noel Swerdlow is an astronomy professor at the Unversity of Chicago and an expert in the history of astronomy.  He points out that the ancient "Christ conspirators" could not have recognized the 12 celestian sections in order to incorporate them into a Christian myth and usher in the Age of Pisces as Mordoch claims.  The division into the celestial sections did not occur until a meeting of the Internatiional Astronomical Union in the 20th century!  In fact, the meaning of the Christian fish symbol is not in dispute; it is a well-attested acronym.  The word for "fish" in Greek is "ichthus" and  "Ich" stands for "Jesus Christ" (Greek: "Iesou Christos"); "thu" stands for "son of God" ("theou `uious"); and "s" stands for "Savior." ("Soter").
My next posts will focus on (3) and (4), which are no doubt of greater interest to our readers.

Don

(3) Acharya's thesis depends on her assumption that the Gospels were not written until after 150 AD--a claim that would be summarily dismissed by every major non-Christian New Testament scholar.
(a) She claims that the eminent church father,  Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD), doesn't know our 4 Gospels.  Wrong!   True, Justin never mentions our 4 Gospels by name.  But he refers to them 14 times and refers to them as "memoirs" of the apostles.  In all these citations, Justin either quotes from a Gospel or relates one of their stories.  

The Didache was written in the 50s AD and revised around 95 AD.  It contains several saying of Jesus quoted by Matthew.  Clement (95 AD) and Polycarp (110 AD), who knew an apostle, show some evidence of an acquaintance with Matthew.  And Mark is a Gospel used by both Matthew and Luke.  Mark's traditional dating from 64-70 AD is well founded.  2 Clement (120-140 AD) uses numerous sayings from Matthew, Luke, and a few from Mark.
Read my posts in reply #2 and #8 to Raphael's thread to see how I connect our Gospels and Paul with eyewitness  testimony.  

(b) Acharya alleges that all of Paul's letters are forgeries.  Wrong!  There is a universal scholarly consensus that Paul wrote 7 epistles from 48-55 AD: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Romans, and Philemon.
However, there is a scholarly consensus that his other 6 letters were composed by authors from Paul's churches not long after his death and made copious references to his actual teachings.   Conservative scholars would argue that Paul wrote these 6 letters as well.  

(c) Acharya wrongly claims that no New Testament manuscript can be dated prior to the 4th century.  She is totally ignorant of the textual tradition.    P46 and P66 can be dated around 200 AD.  The P52 papyrus dates around 125 AD.  P75 dates between 175 and 225 AD.  In fact, we have 7 New Testament manuscripts which predate the 4th century.   And this does not include the many quotations of Jesus' sayings by first and 2nd century Christian writers outside the New Testament.  Acharya's ignorance is inexcusable.

(d) As I've argued elsewhere, Acharya can point to one Greek quotation about Jesus in a first century Jewish historian, Josephus, that has been reworked by a Christian hand.  But Josephus' 2nd reference to Jesus is not challenged by modern scholarship.  Even the disputed passage can be found in its authentic wording in the Arabic translaton of Josephus.  And Jesus' crucifixion is alluded to by 2 other non-Christian first century historians and 2 early 2nd century historians (Tacitus and Suetonus).    

Don

Sadly I can't respond to you all as much as I would like to... I returned to my parents house for summer and they don't have internet  :o so I have to go at my mom's job to have internet and .. well... I wont do that everyday ...

anywho !

I read a LOT this week. I read the Da Vinci code (lol I can hear you grind your teeth) and yes it made me very curious. So I read the guide to the book and with it I learned so much about christian history.

It's wearid that at school they teach you bout the bible but never about the history of the religion.

I was impressed at ho unorganized christianity was for the first couple of centuries with all of its sects. I invite everyone to learn about religious history ! Quite fascinating.

Also from what you are saying Acharya claims stuff that is much more wacky than I thought.

After all my readings (which are not enough), I can picture early christianity as being many sexts thinking about god (especially the gnostics, not the literalists) and taking ideas from other traditions to help them think about life. So I truly believe there was a Jesus and a truly important Magdalene but no miracles. From what I can see the miracles and symbols and metaphores from other religions.

But the man was truly ahead of his time with his ideas.

Back to my books  ;D

THE ACADEMIC PARALLELOMANIA OF ACHARYA S.

Acharya S. tries to reduce Jesus to a myth by citing parallels between Jesus and figures like Buddha, Krishna, and Mithra.  Her attempt fails on 3 counts:
(1) Even if the parallels were legitimate, they are irrelevant because there is not a shred of evidence that the mythic lives of these pagan figures were known to first century Palestinian Jews.
(2) Even if Jews were familiar with these pagan myths, no plausible explanation can be offered as to why parochial Jews would respect these myths enough to formulate lies and steal details to invent the life of Jesus.  
(3) In any case, her alleged list of parallels is largely bogus, the result of incredibly sloppy research.

There is no evidence for Mithraism in Rome prior to 80 AD.  So Roman Mithraism was not even present in Palestine in Jesus' day.  Almost all of Acharya S's parallels between Mithraism and Christianity involve Roman, not Iranian Mithraism.  The First International Congress on Mithraic Studies in the early 1970s stressed the lack of evidence for continuity between Roman Mithraism and its pre-Christian Iranian counterpart.  There is simply no connection between the two cults, except for the name "Mithra", some terminology, and some astrological lore that was widely imported into the Roman empire from Babylon anyway.  The only evidence of Christian "borrowing" from Mithraism is some 3rd and 4th century Christian art that polemically mimics a Mithraic theme.  But this mimicry involves no ideological exchange and is well beyond the formative phase of basic Christianity.  

Here are just 12 of Acharya's bogus parallels between Jesus and Mithra:
1. [Acharya:] Mithra was born of a virgin on Dec. 25 in a cave.
Reply: Neither the New Testament nor the early church associate Dec. 25 with the date of Christ's birth.  Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a hole behind, not a cave.  

2. [Acharya:] Mithra was a travelling teacher.
There is no evidence that Mithra was a teacher.

3. [Acharya:] Mithra had 12 companions or disciples.
Reply: This claim is based on a misunderstanding of a post-Christian Mithraic carving of 12 figures.  Modern Mithraic scholars have demonstrated that these 12 figures are not disciples, but zodiac symbols.  So no borrowing is involved.  Even if there were, Mithraism would have borrowed from Christianity, not vice versa.

4. [Acharya:] As the "great bull of the sun", Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
Reply: Mithra sacrificed the bull, not himself.  There is no evidence in Mithraic temples or inscriptions that the bull symbolizes Mithra himself.

3 of Acharya S's points can be considered together:
5. Mithra was buried  in a tomb and rose again after 3 days.  
6. His resurrection was annually celebrated.
7. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the lamb and the lion.
Reply: There is no evidence that Mithra was buried or even that he died.  In different ways, both Mithra and Christ were tangentially identified with lion, but there is no evidence Mithra was identified with the lamb or called "the Good Shepherd."

8. [Acharya:] Mithra was viewed as "the Way, the Truth, and the Light" and "the Logos", "Redeemer", "Savior", and "Messiah."
Reply: There is not a shred of evidence for the application of any of these titles to Mithra.  The status of mediator was assigned to both Mithra and Christ.  But Mithra is not, like Jesus, a mediator between God and humanity, but a mediator between Zoroaster's good and evil gods.  So this parallel is irrelevant.  

9. [Acharya:] Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, hundreds of years prior to Christ's appearance.
Reply: This is true for post-Christian Roman Mithraism, but there is no evidence that it is true for pre-Christian Iranian Mithraism.  Borrowing is unlikely, but if present, Roman Mithraism borrowed from Christianity.

10. [Acharya:] Mithra had his main festival on what would later become Easter.  
Reply: There was a a Mithraic festival at the Spring equinox, but it was one of just four, one for each season.  Therefore, this parallel is insignificant.

11. [Acharya:] Mithraic religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper", at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body or drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him shall not be saved."
Reply: The source of this saying is a medieval text and the speaker is Zarathustra, not Mithra.  Even if Mithra were the speaker, the medieval date shows that Mithraism would be borrowing from Christianity.

12. [Acharya:] Mithra's annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolic atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration.
Reply: There is no evidence that Mithra's "sacrifice" was annual, nor does Mithraism use terms like "Passover" and "atonement".

Acharya's parallels with Krishna and Buddha will be treated more briefly.  Hindu scholars, Edwin Bryant and Benjamin Walker, are my sources for critiquing Acharya's parallels with Hindu gods.  An example of her sloppy research is her claim that, like Jesus, Krishna and the avatar Vithoba were allegedly both crucified.   But in fact no Indian gods are portrayed as executed by this distinctly Roman method of execution.  Instead, Krishna was accidentally killed when a hunter's arrow penetrated his heel.  

Of Acharya's 24 comparisons between Jesus and Krishna, 14 are wrong and the 15th is partially wrong.  The 9 similarities are found in the Bhagavata Purana and the Harivamsa which were written centuries after the composition of our Gospels.  It is uncertain whether there is any relationship of dependence between the Gospels and these Krishna tales.  But if there is, the Hindus have borrowed from Christianity, not vice versa!  

Of Acharya's 18 alleged parallels between Jesus and the Buddha, none are correct, though "a few..have some semblance of correctness, but are badly distorted (So Chun-fan Yu, a Buddhist scholar)."    

Jesus (Greek for Jesuah) was reckoned to be a very minor Jewish local, not even mentioned by Jewish historians of that time, who were interested in the religious field.
As to him being the exclusive 'son' of God - utter baloney.
This scam was cooked up much later.

[url=www. jesusneverexisted.com]www. jesusneverexisted.com[/url]

As to the 'christ' myth, the new testament states Jesus was the son of Joseph - both descending from the house of David.

'Christ' was a hybrid as a result of a supernatural impregnation of a virgin -  impossible! A complete invention by manipulative, unscrupulous  and devious theologians.

The alleged resulting 'god', therefore was not and could not be any relation to Joseph or his son.

www.cfpf.org.uk/

[hiorta:] "As to the "Christ" myth, the New Testament states Jesus was the son of Joseph, both descending from the house of David."
________________________________________
I'm afraid not.  In Jesus' day, Palestinian Jews did not have names like Moshe Finkelstein.  Male names took the form of A the son of B.  B could be the stepfather or the presumed father from the standpoint of the casual outside observer.   In the Gospels, Jesus is thrice designated the son of Joseph, once by a disciple who has just met Jesus (John 1:45) and twice by hostile outsiders (John 6:42; Luke 4:22).  One cannot expect skeptical outsiders to embrace Christ's virgin birth.  They knew that Jesus was raised by Joseph and Mary; so it was natural for them to assume that he was Joseph's son.  Even with a virgin birth, Jesus would legally be Joseph's son.  In the Gospels, this identification is always made at a distance, and so, is irrelevant to the question of the virgin birth.

All the New Testament admits is, in Luke's words, "Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:22).' That's how he introduces Jesus' or rather Joseph's genealogy.  All genealogies were patriarchal; so the female lineage could not be traced.  

More relevant is the slanderous perspective of skeptical Jews who were closer to Jesus' family situation.  Resentful skeptics in Jesus' hometown dismiss him as "the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)," a slur that implies His illegitimacy.  In an angry exchange with Jesus, His Jewish opponents snap: "At least WE were not born out of wedlock (John 8:41)!"   Again, the emphatic "we" implies that Jesus is illegitimate.   Eventually, this charge gets more specific.  Rabbi Eliezer (70 AD) transmits the slanderous legend that Jesus is the illicit son of a Roman soldier named Panthera and a spinner named Mary.  Skeptic and believer alike agree on 2 points: (1) Jesus was born too soon.   (2) Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus.   In Jesus' time, if your were deemed illegitimate, you could not marry a Jewish girl.  In my view, this explains why Jesus resists the pressures of His culture to marry.

At this point, the issue depends on how one assesses Mary's character.  I see her as a very conservative and moral girl in a sexually conservative culture that prohibits pre-marital sex.  I believe in the virgin birth.  But, of course, proof in such an area is impossible.  Or is it?  Read on.

No modern scholar takes the Panthera charge seriously.  Jewish woman wanted nothing to do with their Roman oppressors.  I have my own theory about the origin of this tradition.  In Hebrew rabbinic tradition, Greek nouns are sometimes confused as proper names.  If translated back to Greek, "Jesus the son of Panthera" could originally have meant "Jesus the son of the levir or husband's brother."  Why is this significant?  

By Jewish law, if a husband dies childless, his widow is obliged to marry her husband's brother for the purpose of having a child, which would then be credited to the dead husband.  This tradition is called levirate marriage and a son in such a marriage is called the son of a levir.   John Chrysostom, a 4th century bishop of Antioch preserves a Jewish Christian tradition that Joseph died prematurely without natural children.  So Mary contracted a levirate marriage with Joseph's brother Clopas.  Five facts support this tradition:

(1) It seems unlikely that such a bizarre tradition would have been invented in an era that accepted the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary.  John Chrysostom lives just down the road from the Jewish Christian community at Aleppo, which might trace its lineage back to the original Jerusalem church and  where surviving members of Jesus' family may well have lived.  We can trace Jesus' family dynasty down to Conon in the year 400  AD.  

(2) Joseph figures in no story of the adult Jesus' life.  He seems to have died before Jesus begins His ministry.  (3) John Chrysostom's translation of John 19:25 is probably correct:

"At the cross of Jesus stood his mother and his mother's sister, namely Mary the wife of Clopas (his mother!) and Mary Magdalene (Jesus' aunt!)."  The major obstacle to this translation is its apparent implication that two sisters would both be called Mary.  But this problem is solved once it is realized that Mary Magdalene's is a compound name and that she is known by Magdalene.

(4) Early Christian tradition confronts us with the mystery that Jesus' brothers are also called His cousins.  Why?  If a widowed Mary marries Clopas, then Clopas's sons legally become Jesus' brothers as well.  (5) One of Jesus' brothers is named Joseph (Matthew 13:55).  Except for high priests, Jewish fathers almost never gave their son's their own name!  Jesus' brother Joseph is probably his original cousin.

What would follow from the tradition that the widow Mary marries Joseph's brother Clopas?  Such a marriage would be illegal, indeed incestuous, if Joseph were the natural father of Jesus or any of His 4 "brothers" listed in Matthew 13:55.  But such a marriage would be required by Pentateuchal law if Joseph died without a natural child.  CLOPAS WOULD NOT HAVE MARRIED MARY IF HE KNEW THAT JESUS WERE ILLEGITIMATELY BORN! Is this proof of the virgin birth?   Hardly. I've had to oversimplify a complex issue here.   But IMHO it's as close to proof as wer're ever going to get for such a bizarre doctrine.

Don

"[Hiorta:] Jesus (Greek for Jesuah)":  Not quite.  Try "Jesus (Greek for "Yeshua")."  To continue. . .

"[Hiorta:] Jesus [Greek for Jesuah) was reckoned to be a very minor Jewish local not even mentioned
by Jewish historians of the time in the religious field."
________________________________________
   
Evidently you have swallowed the discredited line perpetuated by New Agers like Acharya S, whom I've just critiqued on this thread.  You obviously haven't followed my dialogue with Raphael on this particular issue.  So I guess I need to repeat my earlier response to him.

Josephus was born a few years after Jesus' death.  The Greek version of his fullest allusion to Jesus seems too sympathetic for a Pharisee like Josephus and has apparently been revised by a later Christian hand.  But the Arabic version of this allusion reflects Josephus's style and lacks the pro-Christian bias of the Greek version.  It seems to preserve the original wording.  It reads:

"At that time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and he was known to be virtuous.  And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.  Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.  And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.  THEY REPORTED that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive.  Accordingly, he was PERHAPS the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders (Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3)."

Note that Josephus is positive, tentative, yet ultimately neutral about Jesus.

Modern scholarship accepts the other allusion to Jesus in Josephus as beyond dispute:

"He [the high priest Annas] assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them JAMES, THE BROTHER OF JESUS, THE SO-CALLED CHRIST, and some of his companions, and when he had levelled an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1)."

It is wrong to claim that no other ancient non-Christian historian referred to Jesus.  Two non-Christian first century historians bear independent witness to the awesome events described in Matthew 27, but interpret the bizarre phenomenon as a 3-hour solar eclipse:

"From noon on, darkness came over the whole land, until 3 in the afternoon...At that moment [Jesus' death], the curtain of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.  The earth shook and the rocks were split (Matthew 27:45, 51)."

Both Thalles (52 AD) and Phlegon (also first century) were freedmen of Tiberius, the emperor at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.  Both of their histories are now lost, but are quoted by the Christian historian Julius Africanus in 220 AD.  Julius takes issue with their interpretation of the darkness as a 3-hour solar eclipse from noon till 3 PM during Jesus' crucifixion.  Others apparently dismissed this event as a mass 3-hour hallucination.  Julius Africanus feel strongly that they are underestimating the supernatural character of what actually happened that day in Jerusalem:

"On the whole world there passed a most fearful darkness, and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.  This darkness, THALLES, IN THE THIRD BOOK OF HIS HISTORY, calls, as appears to me without reason, a solar eclipse.  For the Hebrews celebrated the Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior falls on the day before the Passover; but a solar eclipse takes place only when the moon comes under the sun...But let opinion pass and carry the majority with it, and let the portent of the world be deemed a solar eclipse,
like others, a portent only to the eye (i.e. a hallucination).  PHLEGON RECORDS THAT, in the time of Tiberias Caesar, at full moon, there was a full solar eclipse from noon to 3 PM--manifestly that one of which we speak.  But what has an eclipse in common with an earthquake, the rending of rocks, and the resurrection of the dead, and so great a perturbation throughout the universe?  Surely no such event as this is recorded for a long time (18:1).
A Roman inscription in Greek from the time of Emperor Claudius (40 AD) has been found near Jesus' home town, Nazareth.  The inscription warns the residents against grave robbing and apparently reflects the Roman belief that Jesus' disciples stole His body and then claimed He had risen from the dead.  We know that the earliest Jewish reaction to the empty tomb was that Jesus' disciples must have stolen His corpse.  This Roman inscription proves that the Romans too had no idea what happened to His body.  So the two most likely options are that Jesus either rose bodily from the dead (my belief) or that His disciples stole His body and then sealed their testimony with their blood for the lie that God raised Jesus from the dead.

In the early 2nd century, two other Roman historians, Tacitus (115 AD) and Suetonius (120 AD) refer to Christ.  Suetonius refers to Christ as "Chrestus" and Tacitus refers to Christians as "Chrestians," but it is clear that Christ is intended.  "Chrestus" is a common name in Latin, whereas "Christus" is unprecedented.  So the spelling is altered to make it more familiar to Romans.  Tacitus refers to Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate (Annals 15:44).  Lucian, another 2nd century pagan dismisses Jesus as 'that crucified idiot."  Such non-Christian allusions to Jesus from the first two centuries could be multiplied.

Don

From: Acharya S <acharya_s@...>
Date: Sat May 7, 2005  10:32 am
Subject: Fwd: Comment and question  acharya_s
Offline
Send Email  

Hi there -

Some "Berserker" is obsessively trashing my work on the board:

http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-afterlife-knowledge/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=a\
fterlife_knowledge;action=display;num=1114608160

If any of you kind listers would like to go there and straighten thisguy out, please do so. I don't have the time or inclination to spend on him. The first thing you could point out is that it seems he hasn't
read "Suns of God," which addresses practically all of these shallow criticisms. Another thing is that he spends a great deal of time denigrating me with ad hominems, rather than addressing the facts I
bring up, which is a sign of intellectual weakness. He also has to fall back on the "nobody believes her" argument, which is like "everyone believes Jesus was a real person." A non-argument. His
claim that the first century Palestinian Jews could not know about all these characters is ridiculously ignorant of the vast intercourse of the time between cultures. Gee, there was this HUGE library collected at Alexandria, with books from around the known world. Alexander had thoroughly opened up the lines of communication to India three centuries previously. Also, I don't address the "Palestinian" Jews so much as the Alexandrian Jews and others of the Diaspora (does this know-it-all know about the Diaspora?) Are you trying to tell me that
Jews of Alexandria--who made up about 50% of the population of that city--never went into the library there or attended the university?

It's ridiculous. The other of this smart aleck's arguments can be as easily refuted.

Regardless of the anal nitpicking, the fact will remain that Jesus Christ appears nowhere in the contemporary historical record, despite the repeated claim in the New Testament that he was widely famed. The fact will also remain that much of the gospel story was already in existence long before the Christian era, in bits and pieces, before it was amalgamated into the Christ myth. Also, the sayings that supposedly distinguish a "real guy" were in existence--and can be found in pre-Christian texts--long before Jesus supposedly lived. There is nothing new under this sun (god). Jesus Christ is a mythical character. You can rail against me until the veins pop out of your neck, but nothing will change that fact.......

From my previous BCC to you, perhaps you can tell that I can readily demolish this persons  "arguments," which are shallow indeed. Talk about sloppy research! He seems to have gone nowhere further than encyclopedias for his "expertise!"

Do feel free to join my discussion groups, as in the "to" line of the message I bcc'ed to you. In any event, I would heartily recommend that you read "Suns of God," which handily deals with and refutes all of these infantile criticisms. Naturally, I haven't heard from the likes of Price and Licona--perhaps they have eggs on their faces, but I doubt
it, because their egos and arrogance are too big.

My pen name is not "pretentious." I took it mainly because WESTERN WOMEN could never be called "Acharya," as that is a spiritual title reserved for the pious Hindu priests. This angry, ranting berserker cannot understand humor, obviously. Nor does he realize that his reaction to my pseudonym is precisely when I took it.

Again, Suns of God shows that this fool's hostile ranting is completely erroneous

http://www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm  Not only is there an outstanding quote by a REAL SCHOLAR, Barbara Walker, who makes Robert Price look like a peon, but there are some pertinent excerpts.

One of the world's leading mythologists, a bestselling author, Barbara Walker, had the following to say about Suns of God:


I received your Suns of God… What a magnificent work! I do wish you had a major publisher who would promote it as The Da Vinci Code was promoted, to convince the world about the true fishiness of Christian mythology. But of course Dan Brown threw in some action-suspense-murder stuff, which is apparently what sells books these days, and his scholarship was nowhere near the quality of yours.
You deserve to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves--indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of your conclusions and the volume of your evidence.

Seldom have I read a book that so delighted me, and had me nodding in agreement on every page. It is truly wonderful. It gives me hope that some day, maybe, the civilized world may grow out of its superstitious adolescence.

Heartfelt wishes and hopes for your success.

Barbara Walker
Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Women's Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects
The Crone: Woman of Age, Wisdom, and Power, Restoring the Goddess: Equal Rites for Modern Women

Dora,

No, I'm not angry at D. Murdoch, but yes, it is pompous for anyone pretending ty be a scholar to nickname herself (himself) "Acharya" [= Guru).  I was critiquing "The Christ Conspiracy" and holding her responsibile for what she says there.  As for her endorsement by Barbara Walker, I'd be embarrassed by that.  When I was reactivating the women's studies program at the college where I taught for 12 years, I promptly bought Walker's Encyclopedia, thinking it might be helpful.  It was absolutely worthless, its scholarship being even more appalling than Acharya's.  Fortunately, I had a host of competent feminist historians to fill that void.

There is no evidence that "much of the Gospel story was already in existence long before the Christian era," only Acharya's highly forced and usually bogus parallels from other traditions.  Indeed, as I have shown, Gospel tradition can be linked in various ways with eyewitness testimony.
And I just refuted in detail Acharya's claim that "Jesus Christ appears nowhere in the contemporary historical record."  

There was no "vast intercourse at the time between cultures," no evidence that Palestinian Jews studied at Alexandria's library, and no evidence that this library contained books on Krishna and the Buddha.  I'm familiar with all the Palestinian literature from Jesus' day and the literature from Diaspora Judaism.  If Acharya disagrees, let her provide documentation from Palestine.  She will not be able to do this.

And Dora, you could have issued me a challenge to confront Acharya directly and all these distortions of my positions developed over many threads would not have been necessary.  All this started when you couldn't respond to my historical critiques of Seth and Elias.  So you spammed my "Channeling Agendas" thread with irrelevant reams of pasted material from Acharya.  I haven't read "Sun of God" but now may well do and post on Acharya's site just to save more unwary New Age seekers from being duped.  First, I'd have to examine my true motives to see if I were responding for egotistic reasons.  

Don

Quote:

No, I'm not angry at D. Murdoch, but yes, it is pompous for anyone pretending ty be a scholar to nickname herself (himself) "Acharya" [= Guru).

I'm sure that Acharya spent sleepless nights worry if the pompous battle-frenzied Norse warrior mad or not... :D

And regarding who holding responsible who, I'm sure that if she want too she can stand up in any
"court" about her  historical data, so as her  education, character and any defaming allegations..

Dora,

There's a big difference between submitting your name as an author and creating a silly User Name like mine on a medium (a website) that invites such nicknames.  Besides, there is nothing pretentious about "Berserk".  It makes me sound like an idiot.  But "Acharya" [= "Guru] is pompous.  Perhaps you would have liked me better when I posted as "Deadworm."  I picked "Deadworm" for a chess site after trying several other User Names and finding them all taken. Then lo and hehold, I noticed that "Deadworm" was available!  But after a few months I began to realize why and changed it to "Berserk."  Actually, come to think of it, not much of an improvement.  Oh well!  Sigh!   :-/

Don  

OK All...Go to www.exchristian.net...Why? Because this site with all its Forums, Articles, and other Info by those who have left the Christian Tradition(and have the same or more theological college education, including ex-clergy, evangelical preachers, etc, wrote  their concerns and points)and.....So to you and I , reading these  posts (here on Bruce's Forum) and feeling somewhat awed ...because of our lack of knowledge of the Christian Tradition...will now know a lot more of the arguement from others as knowledgeable as those who write on this site(Bruce's) in their Christian bent.....Love Jordon...

Jordon,

Not only have I visited and read extensively from that site.  I've even performed a retrieval of sorts from it. :-/  It's not a site composed by agnostic academic experts in the field of biblical studies.  It's mainly a site for bitterly disillusioned ex-Christians.  As such, it has a decidedly negative tone.  If you're determined to attack Christianity read agnostic or atheistic scholars who are respected in this field.  Read something like "Jesus the Magician" by Morton Smith.  At least he's a recognized scholar.

Don

Don..So you have performed retrievals from that site??!!..Your words(What do you mean?) ...Now, who is on the defensive??  All I ask is those to read all the site including archives, forums, articles...It's a huge site..and you have there...Wait for it!!!....University or/and College educated past students and clergy, professors, priests etc....So it's a sounding board for 'whoever do not agree with your doctrines' you may say ..a short reply you wrote me....Email the webmaster and see all the constant attacks he has to put up with..and guess who from??I dunno!!...This site is a college of knowledge..not of attack..but of love and tolerance...Now we here on our  Bruce's forum have(information) somewhere to present a case from those who have studied, been there, etc...and presented their research for all to see and read...A pathetic reply to me from you ....short and biased....seeing them as you see them(read your reply to me) ....OK Guys It will take you a very long time to read all in this site...But as Bruce has implied in his books....'It's the perceiver, who determins the result of his perceptions(my words..But he/ you knows what  I mean).....Love Jordon..ps..what happened to you on this website.?? to justify such a egoistic response.....Met you match there?? OH..You said that retreivals you did were not real in the past?? Am I correct?....Again, Love and tolerance..Jordon

wrote on May 9^th, 2005 at 10:15pm:

It's mainly a site for bitterly disillusioned ex-Christians.

This is exactly what that site is NOT. I know quite a few posters who are "exchristian" and they are neither disillusioned nor bitter. They simply, from theire years and years in christianity, can now look outside and see the myths and fallicies that that religion has attempted to program with.

And has for debating, there are many knowledgable people there who love debating various themes. Whether you agree or not, I suggest for anyone on either side to take up some of their challanges. It may be eye opening.

Thank you for this Chris. I wasn't planning to visit the site but now I believe I will. It's amazing to me how everything is in the eye of the beholder. ;-)

Love, Mairlyn ;-)

Was Jesus real?  Like, who cares? We have many among us who can talk the talk, from either angle! but who can walk the walk? Who has the love that fixes everything ? Seems to me like neither side does ....

Raphael!

Long time no talk... Very Interesting Question you got going here... I mean it.

Just a few respectful questions I would sincerely appreciate an answer to, if you wouldn't mind. You have clearly demonstrated to me that you are one of the very few people on this site I can carry on a rational discussion with and enjoy fun bantering, humor and wit without you falling apart.
And definitely take that as a compliment...

For what it's worth, you've earn my respect to this point. That's why I feel I can ask you some deeper spiritual questions to discuss. -Ready?

1) If Jesus is real... meaning, he really is God's son, everything the Bible says about him is true and he seeks your friendship & trust to spend eternity with you... would you accept his free offer?
Would you accept that you were created with a real purpose? That life has substantial meaning?
- Many would not...

2) If Jesus is not real... meaning, there's nothing in history, the bible or in nature to create a strong probability of God's existence... thus his son's existence... what then? What is there to wake up for except a life filled with no hope, no purpose or meaning?

3) Have you ever read the works of C.S. Lewis? He was a former "enthusiastic" atheist who became an even more passionate Christian after something happened in his life that changed it forever. It was his practical, refreshing, post-atheistic insights on Christianity that made me rethink religion... and get to the root of all this... and who/what God and Christ are.

I look forward to hearing your replies... you have many of CS Lewis styles and attitudes. Thought that might interest you to know. Have a great weekend!

JD Howes

If I'm not mistaken, we're using the word "real" in the historical sense, as in did the Jesus in the Bible actually exist? For example, I have no problem with the idea that he did exist, but I don't believe he was any more divine than you or I.

We're not discussing the existence of the Christian God despite your rather transparent attempt to steer the discussion in that direction with your questions. We've already had that talk ad nauseum.

wrote on Apr 28^th, 2005 at 9:53am:

And, her answer to that with also deadly accuracy... http://www.truthbeknown.com/licona.htm [/b] http://www.truthbeknown.com/firesponse.htm

Absolutely i agree with the religious fanatic quote. religion is a man made concept and therefore riddled with hypocrisy.  as i may have said before, in my opinion the human animal will generally think and do what suits it... i remember vaguely at the end of the bible it saying that this is the word of god, and anyone changing it etc will get the plagues from this book upon them ( or words to that effect) Yet we see all the time  the " churches" reperceiving the content of the bible to try to modernise the church to suit the 21st century... gay priests etc.... Now before i get called a homophobic, my best friend is gay so its not that at all, but what i mean is that it clearly says at 3 points in the bible i believe that its not allowed... wrongly in my opinion but nonetheless The church either follows the bible to its word , or it doesn't , and if it doesn't then surely this is  " blasphemy" And once again in my eyes shows the church up for what it is.... FALSE.   its also very poignant i think to look in the Vatican and see its riches , top to bottom its adorned in riches whilst others starve to death in Africa...i also recall in the bible that Jesus went into a Jewish temple and smashed and wrecked it due to it being full of riches  .. " It is easier for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle , than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven"
I sometimes think that humans who are religious figures  like the pope have forgotten who they are worshipping, themselves maybe ?

Hey Wolf,

The topic of this thread is "Was Jesus Real?"  So kindly season your penchant for bluster and stick to the subject at hand.  None of us dispute the fact that the church is a man-made institution and therefore subject to hypocrisy.  So what?  To use your logic, let's close down hospitals.  I mean, they allow ghastly illnesses in there!  Their not very healthy!  Churches are oases for the spiritually sick.  

By the way, your comment about the Christian Bible warning people about adding or subtracting from it is ignorant see Revelation 22:18-19).  There was no canonical Bible when the Book of Revelation was written.  The quote you cite was merely addressing those who would tamper with the prophecies in the Book of Revelation.

Don  

Why thank you berserk, what a lovely spirit you are

I in particular like your "penchant" for getting personal in your criticisms.

I am not an intellect and i don't profess to be, i am raw and go with my instincts, and will write how i feel, so forgive me if i don't have all the fancy words and quotes you have, what i say and do comes from my soul, and is not said to in some way try to get one over on somebody by proving my intellect is greater than theirs. my soul does not need its ego feeding .

Caseys_wolf,

Welcome to the board-Don't mind Don-you'll get used to him.  He's got quite a following here-believe it or not. And he sure can get everyone going. In fact I just got the chance to go through Dora's rebuttals from March which were in reaction to Don's "teachings"-they were great stuff and tied together alot of information that I had gathered piece meal over the past 30 years.

Love, Jean

Dear Jean,

If you imagine that Dora's spamming of my "Channeling Agendas" thread with reams of quotes from Acharya S is "great stuff", then please read my refutation of Acharya on p. 1 (replies 2, 8, and directly 11,12, and 14) of this thread.  I think I have decisively refuted her.  If you disagree, please explain why in detail.

Don

Hey there, Berserk. :)
I want your answer to a couple of questions.
#1. Why did Jesus say he'd be returning soon? And why did he say he'd come back within the lifetimes of some people present at his crucifixion?
#2. If Revelation is true, why does it describe 21st-century events? What possible meaning would the 21st century have for 1st-century Roman imperial subjects? I mean, why write a book in the 1st century A.D. and then not have its prophecies come true for 2000 years? (2000 years is a LONG time... it's one-fifth of the way back to the Ice Age, when mammoths and saber-toothed tigers were bounding about.) I mean... why would Jesus take a practical ETERNITY (in human terms) to return, when he said he'd be coming back SOON??? Please explain this.

What are you talking about????

You spamming this board for at least 5 years with your bible quotes up to the ear,  and you think  the longwinded posts quotes, refferences from books and bible  will  put you in the  "very highly knowledgeable"  and oh sooo  intellectual spotlight..



Quote:

I think I have decisively refuted her

NO YOU DID NOT you posted what is fit to your awareness, and beliefs.

BTW  Her public e mail address is acharya_s@yahoo.com

I'm sure as  she did, and could and will  answer  to  "qualified experts," certainly  she don't have problem answering  like you.

I would like to read her answer with great pleasure.  

Don

Ok ok calm down now Don.  Excuse the interruption, it’s just that Caseys_wolf and I wandered into the wrong room. We thought it was the informal dicussion group but it turned out to be the lecture hall.  You see Casey’s kind of new here and I was trying to let him know it was the wrong room without making a big fuss.  Anyhow, just proceed with your agenda and excuse the interruption.  You gotta mellow out guy and remember we all love ya  :-* just the way you are.

Jean

Brendan,

You pose two excellent questions, but I wish to spare you a long lecture.  So I'll ask you to clarify your question about Revelation directly addressing the 21st century.  Where do you find that Revelation does that?  I doubt that it does.  

For example, the number of "the Beast" (666--Revelation 13:18) refers in Hebrew to Emperor Nero, not to some 21st century Anti-Christ.   In both Greek and Hebrew each letter of the alphabet also stands for a number.  If you add up the numerical value of "Emperor Nero" in Hebrew, the total is 666.  At the time Revelation was written, Nero had been forced from Rome and had fled eastward.  He ultimately seems to have committed suicide, but this was not widely known.  Rumors were rampant that he would miraculously rise up and return to Rome.  So paranoid were people that 3 Nero impostors emerged.  Cbristians feared Nero would return and finish them off.  This rumor lurks behind the image in Revelation 13:3 that the Beast would recover from his mortal wound and return to power.  

This prophecy meant that new Neros would arise to afflict Christians with renewed persecution.  That prophecy was fulfilled in the next 2 centuries.  Does it also have a 21st century fulfillment?  Possibly, but I doubt it.

As for Jesus coming soon, the scholarly consensus is that He never said that.  I could discuss a blizzard of texts here that give the opposite impression, and then, I could explain how this misunderstanding arose.  But first, can you identify any specific texts you'd like me to discuss?  I don't intend my counter-questions to short-circuit our discussion.  Still, if you are unable to come up with specific texts, I guess I'll just have to crack open the lecture I gave my college students on this complex subject and discuss at length several of these 2nd coming texts.  Let me know your wishes.

Berserk

Dora,

I finally got a chance to go through your Replies to Roger posts and the Elias material.  I really enjoy some of the newer research on these issues. I think I caught all of the Acharya S info.

Thanks again, Jean :-*

Brendan,

I hope it's okay to add my 2cents worth here. According to Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century scientist and mystic, the Book of Revelation was not to be taken literally.  

It is said in Matthew 13:34,35 that Jesus taught ONLY in parables. Parables are simple stories that may not be literally true (e.g., Aesop's Fable) but have deep and profound meaning – thus spiritual truth. The Bible is similar - the parables within it are simple - Noah's ark for instance, but underneath those literal words are deep spiritual meaning that pertain to our spiritual growth and development.

The Book of Revelation is rich in symbolism. If one looks carefully though, even in the literal sense, it is evident that this prophecy has nothing to do with the material world - it's about spiritual realities regarding the Christian Churches and about our spiritual progression.
I reference the first chapter of Revelation - verse 4. John is addressing the 7 churches - not the temporal world. The 7 churches represent 7 types of people, each of which have their own special qualities and abilities and also their own special weaknesses and faults.

And then in verse 10 of Revelation, chapter 1, John writes, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day…” John’s vision was in the Spiritual World – not in our physical world. Thus, the fantastic things he saw were cloaked in the language of pure symbolism and pertain to spiritual realities.

The book of Revelation – the Second Coming is not about the destruction of the physical world as many Christians have taught for centuries; it’s about the reality of our spirits and God’s unconditional and everlasting Love for each one of us.

The Second Coming of Jesus is not a literal one; it is one of wisdom and love flowing from God into the Heavens and into our world that reveal more spiritual realities to us than ever before in mankind’s history – regardless of a person’s faith or religion.

http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/sermon_detail.cfm?sermonID=3681

http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/sermon_detail.cfm?sermonID=3357

With Peace and Blessings to All,
JudyE

Something interesting on that Swedenborg link:
It says that at death, our life goes on as it has
(or seems to say that) but it's a transition from
earthly to spiritual life.
So if you die at 93 years of age, will you continue
on as an old geezer? If you die in prison, will you
still be in a prison on the "other side"? If you die
in, say, a war, will you "pick yourself up" and
continue shooting, not knowing you're dead?
What is meant by this?

Brendan,

We remain the same as we are INWARDLY (spiritually) - not our outer appearance or circumstances. Swedenborg wrote that our outer appearance is that of young adults. Of course, we develop and grow spiritually throughout all eternity, but when we cross over, we are very much the same as we are in terms of personality, likes and dislikes.

All who cross over are welcomed by angels of the highest Heaven who help with their transition.

If you are interested in more information, there's a search capability at the links I provided above. I also have a Swedenborg/Afterlife Information page indexed by subject matter.

http://www.egogahan.com/Spiritual%20Issues/Swedenborg.htm

Swedenborg wrote that good people of all faiths or religions find their place in Heaven.

http://www.egogahan.com/Spiritual%20Issues/GoldenRule.htm

With Peace and Blessings to All,
Judy

Hi, Judy,

I don`t disagree with what you say, ".... but when we cross over, we are very much the same as we are in terms of personality, likes and dislikes....", which got me to thinking, how has the spirituality of people who have suffered in later life from Alzheimer`s Disease or senile dementia, etc., etc., changed?

When they pass over do they retain their personality as at the time of their death, or do they revert to a much earlier "understanding" personality?
Are they stuck at a particular focus level until retrieved because of their mindset of not knowing?

Just some thoughts.

Best wishes to all,
roger :)      

Hi Rog, not that I'm an expert on dementia but just conjecturing here that the condition of losing your memory brain cells upstairs is another way of letting go of one system of reality, albeit a slow one, in exchange for another system, that of the return to our natural state. some oldsters even begin to appear childlike, which is natural, as a condition of youthful appearance  is normal on the other side, age must be just an experience then, and essentially means little other than the amassing of life experiences. there are rest areas on the other side just as there are here and I'm conjecturing the "getting younger" process continues with loving assistance and memory at some point is recovered of the life just lived.  I've not had to go through the bitter experience of having a loved one fail to recognize me. it must be excruciatingly painful. I think scientists are working on ways here to keep the brain cells from dying off so fast but we are as yet in our infancy for curing disease here. the young ones coming in want to work on this. love, alysia

Hi Roger,

Firstly, if you have a loved one that is suffering from Alzheimer`s Disease or senile dementia, I am very sorry. It must be so difficult to watch a loved one deteriorate mentally. My father-in-law has a form of dementia where he has absolutely no short-term memory; but has retained his long term memory. While it is difficult trying to carry on a converstation with him, it's nothing compared tot he pain that others must experience when their loved one doesn't even recognize them.

Swedenborg wrote that on the other side, we are freed from any kind of physical defect - whether that's the physical body or the brain. The mind is independent of the brain.

From my understanding of Swedenborg's writings,  when we are born, we have two bodies - the physical one which encases the spiritual body. The spiritual body looks very similar to our physical body - free from defects. When our life in this world ceases, we merely "discard" our physical body and are immediately in the Spiritual World.

Sometimes, transitions are gradual. If the person didn't know about the other side, the angels help with a gentle and gradual transition. According to Swedenborg, they take every care to replicate our earth-home so that when we "come to" we are not overwhelmed. Swedenborg wrote that it was a gradual 3 day (even though acknowledging that time and space do not exist in the spiritual world the way it does in our world) awakening.

Dave Sonmor wrote the following quotation in his article: "The Adoramus: Our Faith in the Glorified Lord":
************************
"There is no great change in us when we die and enter into the spiritual world. We are basically the same character and personality which we develop and become while we are here in this world.

Some people confuse this teaching with the idea that we are only what we are at the moment of death, but that is not so. You might say we are a composite of all we have been during our lifetime some of it good and some of it bad, some of it loving and some of it hateful. But somewhere in our complex life we always have a prevailing love, a dominant will, that is present, which underlies all that we think and do."

http://www.egogahan.com/Dave/Adoramus.htm

And Brian Kingslake wrote this in his book, "Inner Light : Swedenborg Explores the Spiritual Dimension":
****************************
"The second state [of death - after the initial crossing over and could be likened to a life review] can produce some surprises. [There may be] many who, while on earth, appeared to be good and wise and were respected by everybody are now seen to have been motivated by self-love or love of the world. All their respectability now falls away, and they plunge into unrestrained selfishness or acquisitiveness. Another person may have been a drunk or wastrel on earth, scorned by "good" people; or perhaps even a criminal - who knows? Yet in their heart they may have longed for better things; in which case, their good ruling love will now take over, and their disreputable exterior will fall away, leaving them sweet and angelic, as they always wanted to be."

*********************

With Peace and Blessings to All,
JudyE

of course Jesus was real. we're the ones who aren't real. I didn't join in here before because it's such a silly topic liner to me and I don't even claim to be a Christian and distain religion even. not religion per se but what has become of the essence of the bible messages. I'm not intellectual and not into debating as it goes on and on and is draining.
I will go to my grave believing Jesus performed miracles of healing, that he did say we would do greater things than he did, and we do healings every day but people who perform healings do not flaunt their abilities to the media or they would just get strung up along with Jesus, just like if an alien came here people would take him into the lab and dissect the poor buzzard for his efforts to communicate. no point in trying to help us then by sharing their technology and/or their views of how the cosmos came into being.
back to Jesus...lol. he could be an alien you know, surely he was far in advance of us soul wise. and of course there were other teachers and messiahs. comes a time everyone becomes a messiah when u look into their face u draw it out of them. it is there. back to Jesus...it's about love, it's about faith, it's about believing for he said your faith has made you whole. you touch his robe and you're healed, explain that. he said I felt some virtue flow...your faith has made you whole. imagine being sick one moment and feeling like a piece of sh..t and the next minute you're chipper and fit as a fiddle all because you believed he had the power to heal  and he turns around and says, no, it was your faith that did it and all you can say is "huh?"
what kind of love is this? do u think he was grinning or stern? he was grinning. I don't know why I think about this story all the time. maybe I went back in my mind and observed it. it's just always been there and I always cry when I conjure it up and I'm not here to draw attention to me. I'm basically only saying what he said, we WILL do the things, the even greater things he said we would, and when we start doing them we will surely not be talking about them on a board. we be walking our talk. he did not want worship of him, he did not want us to feel that only he could do miracles because he was closer to God. but we went off thinking he was the only son of god and we were sh..heads.
we're all gods and goddesses in the end, it is through love and forgiveness and grace (unmerited favor, thanks Harvey) that we can perform miracles on each other, and of course, whatever you believe is what your perceptions will show to you as reality. you can have utmost faith in this to happen. for our brains are no more than an efficient computer cranking out what it thinks you want it to crank out. get off this computer you guys and go have yourself a day! believe in miracles for they happen. love, alysia images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/bigjumping.gif

Alysia,

I liked much of your last post, but of course believe that Jesus was absolutely unique.  I want to comment on your image of a grinning Jesus.
One of my favorite Jesus movies is the old Spanish movie directed by Bunuel called "The Milky Way."  In one scene two overly grim pilgrims are having a dull converation about Jesus in a cafe.  The waiter can't take it anymore and barges in with the question, "Do you think Jesus ever laughed?"  Then the scene switches to a man running though a farmer's field.  The man is laughing his head off.  He turns out to be Jesus on his way to invite His to disciples the wedding feast at Cana, where He has a rollicking good time before turning the water into wine.

One of my favorite lecture topics is Jesus' personality as opposed to His character, teaching, and example.  If you retrovert the Gospels' Greek back into the original Aramaic, you uncover a large group of witty puns that are lost in translation.  Often people take Jesus literally in spots where He was going for laughs.  One of His favorite teaching ploys was His use of Semitic hyperbole to grab His audience's attention and make His points more memorable.  Preachers often err in taken His witty exaggerations as deadly literal teaching.  

Don

wrote on May 17^th, 2005 at 11:02am:

I want to comment on your image of a grinning Jesus. One of my favorite Jesus movies is the old Spanish movie directed by Bunuel called "The Milky Way."  In one scene two overly grim pilgrims are having a dull converation about Jesus in a cafe.  The waiter can't take it anymore and barges in with the question, "Do you think Jesus ever laughed?"  Then the scene switches to a man running though a farmer's field.  The man is laughing his head off.  He turns out to be Jesus on his way to invite His to disciples the wedding feast at Cana, where He has a rollicking good time before turning the water into wine. One of my favorite lecture topics is Jesus' personality as opposed to His character, teaching, and example.  If you retrovert the Gospels' Greek back into the original Aramaic, you uncover a large group of witty puns that are lost in translation.  Often people take Jesus literally in spots where He was going for laughs.  One of His favorite teaching ploys was His use of Semitic hyperbole to grab His audience's attention and make His points more memorable.  Preachers often err in taken His witty exaggerations as deadly literal teaching.   Don

 Man, i think you are on to something!   I have always thought that Yesh was a bit of a jokester, with a definite sense of humor...

 I've always liked a certain Cayce reading which talked about how Yeshua even laughed and joked on the way to Calvary...and that this more than some other things, infuriated them to no end.  Ha, in your face Pharisees! ;D

Yes, Yeshua has a wonderful sense of humor as do all the higher beings.

Love, Light and Laughter,
Mairlyn ;-)

those witty puns in the Aramaic portion would be totally interesting to read. I would be interested in some of those puns if you get ahold of them Don.

Why do have such a problem talking to people who bring the opposing view? Wow... talk about closed minded thinking. Come on... Don always tries to provide a firm intellectual, logical and factual basis for his beliefs. OR IS THAT THE PROBLEM?

And if he stands up for himself, you guys accuse him of all sorts of nastiness. Christians are NOT doormats, punching bags or targets... we're human beings like you!

Just what is that poor guy supposed to do... stand there and allow himself to be viciously attacked and not defend his faith? You wouldn't respect him if he did that... heck, you don't respect him for standing up for his faith... that's more than you folks do. At least he KNOWS what he believes and doesn't need to copy & paste reams of someone else's copyrighted materials on this board... which I believe is a violation of board usage... unless you are the author.

Grow up... YOU GUYS ARE ALL TALK... ALL BLUSTER... and have nothing of real value to share spiritually until you can learn to share it with respect and with maturity at this physical level.

JD Howes


wrote on May 15^th, 2005 at 7:20pm:

What are you talking about???? You spamming this board for at least 5 years with your bible quotes up to the ear,  and you think  the longwinded posts quotes, refferences from books and bible  will  put you in the  "very highly knowledgeable"  and oh sooo  intellectual spotlight.. NO YOU DID NOT you posted what is fit to your awareness, and beliefs. BTW  Her public e mail address is acharya_s@yahoo.com I'm sure as  she did, and could and will  answer  to  "qualified experts," certainly  she don't have problem answering  like you. I would like to read her answer with great pleasure.

I can just see Jesus sitting at the table during the Last Supper, his disciples around him. Everyone's eating, chatting with each other in small groups.

Jesus: "Wait! Wait! I got one...okay, a priest, a rabbi and a goat farmer walk into a bar..."

Hi, All,

Judy, thank you for your reply. I don`t know anyone with Alzheimer`s or senile dementia, fortunately, but just wished to pose my query. I found your piece by Dave Sonmor most interesting and can resonate with that.
Also, I `ve not read any Swedenborg books yet. Are his books like Bruce`s?

J.D. I find ALL the postings on this board most interesting, yours included. I have my own particular beliefs, am very spiritual, but wouldn`t dream of getting into heated discussion with someone who, for example, knows the bible inside out, whereas I don`t. Not a level playing field by my book! No doubt we all have our specialist fields in which we could excel in a "discussion".
I have my own views on the accuracy of the  bible, but, in saying that, would also add that I believe Jesus was real.

Dan, absolutely loved your short post! Really made me laugh as I pictured the scene in my mind.

Best wishes to all,
roger :)

Is everything except Bush/Reaganoid Literalist Christianity BLUSTER?
Is everything except Bush/Reaganoid Literalist Christianity IMMATURITY?
Is this what you mean to say?
And did you read those essays I posted on your
now-defunct "Dealing with Afterlife" thread yet?
*****************
Will you read them in a box?
Will you read them with a fox?
Will you read them here or there?
Will you read them ANYWHERE?
Or are you here to preach and spam?
Tell me, TELL ME, J.D. man...
(My apologies to the good Dr.!)
*****************
And how 'bout them quantum physics, Big Guy?
Why do they favor Bush/Reaganoid Literalist
Christianity, but not the views espoused by
most of the people here?
You're the OPEN-MINDED GENIUS here, after all. So fill us in!!!
And please spare us the victim act, about how we
"viciously attack Christians." You threw the first punch, Big Guy.
*Deal with it.*

B-man :P

Brendan,

Since you have not narrowed down your  question to me about the Second Coming, I will guess what you meant and soon reply.  I have challenged you to read many books and posts about the truth of Christianity and the reality of modern miracles and you have apparently declined or at least refused to engage me.  I'm OK with that since I'm not entitled to impose obligations on any posters.  What I do object to is your incessant demands that JD adopt your reading regimen, something you yourself refuse to do for me.  That is sheer hypocrisy.  

Berserk

Make a neat, concise list, Don.
I like things nice and linear...
AND I'll try to do my best.
But I am a busy guy and this
site isn't my only virtual hang-out.
So you can't accuse me of
hypocrisy, my friend.
By the way, I'd appreciate it if I could find the material you recommend (strictly for my edification)
on the Web (and for FREE, if you please... just like the FEW BRIEF essays I indicated for our fundie friend.) I don't
have time to go rummaging through the city
library, and I refuse to spend ONE red cent to fatten some evangelist's wallet by BUYING his book(s)!!!
Also, the "Second Coming" question referred to whether "Jesus" was going to "Rapture the Saints" and then destroy the world at "Armageddon" as per Tim Lahaye's abominable "Left Behind" series and current, Bush/Reaganoid fundamentalist dogma. Nothing more, nothing less.

B-man

P.S. I can guarantee whatever it is, it won't make
me join "Operation Rescue", support Bush's war in Iraq, or become a corporate-welfare
Republican. And I refuse to put an "In case of Rapture, this car will be UNMANNED" bumper sticker on my car. And I won't start getting my news from the Fox Network... Sorry, but true.

Brendan,

The issues arising from your question to me are far too complex for me to deal with adequately here.  But I will make just 3 points to give you a taste of my reaction to attempts to establish a timetable for Christ's Second Coming.

(1) Q is the earliest collection of Jesus' sayings.  Q (now lost) was apparently composed by Matthew and is used by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke only.  Luke generally preserves the more original wording of Q.  Consider these two versions of the same Q tradition:

"Truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes (Matthew 10:23)."

Some have imagined that Jesus is promising to come again before the completion of the mission to Israel.  This interpretation can be ruled out on the basis of the original Q wording preserved in Luke10:1:

"After this the Lord appointed 70 others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to EVERY TOWN AND PLACE WHERE HE HIMSELF WAS ABOUT TO COME."

In Q Jesus simply sends out an advance party to make arrangements for his future "coming" on a teaching mission.   How could Jesus later commission His disciples to "make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:16-20)" if they aren't even able to reach all the towns of Israel before the Second Coming?  Jesus initially insists that His disciples confine their mission to Israel (10:5-6).  But Jewish hostility apparently prompts Jesus to change His mind and give up on the Jews.  So the Gentiles replace the Jews as the targets of the disciples' mission (21:43).

(2) As already noted, Mark was Peter's interpreter at Rome and Mark's Gospel presents Peter's memoirs.   The apostle Matthew composed the Gospel's major sayings of Jesus source, but not the final Gospel.  Matthew copies Mark and changes it in such a way as to create the misunderstanding that Jesus promises to come again within the lifetime of His followers.  Capitals are used to highlight Matthew's changes of his Marcan source:

"Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death BEFORE THEY SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM (Matthew 16:28)."

"Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME WITH POWER (Mark 9:1).

Matthew changes Jesus' promise about the manifestation of the kingdom "with power" into a prediction of the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus).
Mark implies that Jesus' promise was fulfilled "six days later" when Moses and Elijah return from the dead and converse with a transfigured Jesus on a mountain in the presence of disciples (9:2-9).  Scholars are divided as to what Matthew meant by this new coming of the Son of Man.  Conjectures range from the Transfiguration and Jesus' resurrection to the Second Coming.   If there is an error here, it is not Jesus' mistake.  

(3) Consider these two anti-apocalyptic sayings of Jesus, sayings that discourage any attempt to identify a timetable for the Second Coming:

(a) "Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he replied, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, `Look, here it is!' or `There it is!'  For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among (or "inside") you (Lk 17:20-21).'"

It is the Pharisees, not Jesus, who have an apocalyptic view of the coming of God's kingdom. Jesus teaches that the kingdom is a spiritual realm which we enter at death (Luke 23:40-43), but from which we can already channel divine power into our lives in the present (Matthew 12:28).  

Notice the anti-apocalyptic response Jesus gives to His disciples' question at His ascension:

"They asked him, `Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?'  He said to them, `It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority (Acts 1:6-7)."

How then do I explain the apparent contradiction between this anti-apocalyptic perspective and texts like Mark 13 and Matthew 24?  Jesus predicts signs leading up the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD.  Matthew and Mark attach references to Christ's Second Coming to this discussion and this creates the false impression that Jesus contradicted His insistence elsewhere that it was fruitless to seek the eschatological timetable for His Second Coming.  

Brendan, the issue is far more complicated than my responses here.  But at least you get some idea of why I'm not enthusiastic about the writings of people like Tim LaHaye.

Don

O.K., Don...
If Q is lost, how can one have any reliable knowledge about what it did (or didn't) have
to say?

*******************************
In Q Jesus simply sends out an advance party to make arrangements for his future "coming" on a teaching mission.   How could Jesus later commission His disciples to "make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:16-20)" if they aren't even able to reach all the towns of Israel before the Second Coming?  Jesus initially insists that His disciples confine their mission to Israel (10:5-6).  But Jewish hostility apparently prompts Jesus to change His mind and give up on the Jews.  So the Gentiles replace the Jews as the targets of the disciples' mission (21:43).
*******************************
ME: Assuming that Jesus (as God become flesh) was OMNISCIENT (Or that the Jesus thing was all God's idea anyhow, and how could God be surprised?)
Why did God (Jesus) "change his mind" (THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS "PERFECT", RIGHT? HOW COULD HE MAKE A "BAD" FIRST CHOICE) about the Jews, and "give up on them"? I mean, since God presumably knew the Jews weren't gonna buy, why didn't Jesus start among the gentiles in the first place??? Or do you admit a LIMITED (in power, knowledge, or both) "Yahweh"?

*******************************
I'm not enthusiastic about the writings of people like Tim LaHaye.
*******************************
ME: That's because you don't have a lump of greasy white fat between your ears... you have a GOOD BRAIN, which is why I'm bothering to respond to you in the first place.

Looking forward to your answers to the above questions...

B-man

A SUGGESTED READING REGIMEN:

Brendan,

I'm grateful that you've offered to read my posts from Bruce's site that contain some of my favorite and most compelling paranormal experiences.  These experiences have had a more potent impact on my faith than the historical arguments and expositions I have offered in other posts.  

I'd love to have you (or anyone) read the paranormal experiences posted in my 3 threads listed below.  I supply the current page numbers of each thread, but these threads move down; so you may have to search for them.  Then I give the reply numbers (e.g. R1), together with the page within the thread itself.  I suggest that you read the specified posts in the order given so as to better follow the development of the discussion.

1. "Lilac Cologne" [p. 15]:
R4 (p. 1): Simultaneous coordinated NDEs experienced in the family of my Dad's friend
R5 (p. 1): Roger's questions here established my agenda for threads #2-4 below.

2. "OBE and Phasing Evidence for an Afterlife" [p. 8]
R6 (p. 1): "What are the most evidential OBEs dying NDes?

3. "God and Destiny: Roger's Questions" [p. 7]
R3 (p. 1): E, Stanley Jones's premonition that His plane woud crash
R8 (p. 1): The miraculous healing recently experienced by my Dad's pastor
R9 (p. 1): 3 Miracles at Allens Hill UMC Church:
(My direct involvement in these increased their impact on my faith.  Leonard's encounter with his dead son is  the most spectacular miracle I've ever encountered.)
R14 (p. 1): Dates with Destiny:
(Though these 2 experiences may not be as evidentially potent as the above 3, they had a greater impact on my faith than any miracles I've ever experienced.)
R16 (p. 2): Problematic healings
R21-22 (p. 2): Divine providence associated with the Oklahoma City bombing
R23 (p. 2): The best modern example of synchronicity and divine providence known to me
R27 (p. 2): Angelic Intervention: My own experience and that of my Dad's acquaintance

4. "Channeling Agendas: A Reply to Roger [p. 3 (bottom) or by now p. 4]
R5 (p. 1): Conversion of 2 mediums to Christianity
R16 (p. 2): Exorcisms performed by my family
R45 (p. 4): Freud and Jung encounter the demonic or negative human discarnates
R56 (p. 4): The deceptive revelations of famous mediums

THREE HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BOOKS:
(1) Malachi Martin, "Hostage to the Devil"
Psychiatrist Scott Peck vouches for the exorcisms Martin reports.  Peck's own 2 books on possession are more scientifically sophisticated, but for sheer credibility and raw impact, nothing compare to Martin's chilling accounts.  You will probably believe in the power of Christ after reading this book.

(2) Howard Storm, "My Descent into Death"
What makes this book so compelling for me is the role of angels after Storm's NDE in saving him from certain death and in guiding his spiritual journey.  In one case, Thomas Merton returns from the dead, gives Storm a book of his poetry, and is seen by Storm's pastor as well as by Storm.

(3) David Fontana, "Is There an Afterlife?  A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence"
A book by a parapsychologist, not by a Christian, but IMHO the most convincing book of its kind ever written.

Berserk

P.S. Brendan, I will soon reply to your most recent 2 questions about Q and Jesus' limitations.

Don, as a human being, I'll cop to the fact that
I am more of a creature of emotion than of
logic.
But emotions are real things too, and are what
make life worthwhile.
Now... I don't believe that ANYTHING you, or anyone
else could say, would make me convert on grounds
of cold logic.
But suppose I DID read something that convinced
me Christianity is real?
The rest of my life would be a morass of depression
and I'd probably end up a Prozac android.
Why?
Because I'm over 30, man, and I can see 40 coming in the not-too-distant future. and then OLD AGE. My GOOD TIMES ARE JUST ABOUT OVER, in THIS life. Even now, I've got some gray at the temples, and am beginning to develop a trick knee. I had the misfortune of being born a couple hundred years before the aging process gets conquered by science. (Kind of disgusts me, that in view of humanity's 2-million year history on this planet, I missed it by a single "pubic hair"! I'm a simple man, with simple tastes... I like to get a bit pied sometimes, and I like young, beautiful women. I'm "aging out" of being able to have these pleasures..!)
If Christianity is true... then NO REINCARNATION, I "go somewhere and stay put."
I want to have a second (or third, or 5-thousandth!) go at YOUNG MANHOOD! The one I had was a disappointment, for a number of reasons.
Christianity? Then (AT BEST), all I have to look forward to is the AGING PROCESS, followed by GOOGOLPLEXES OF YEARS as a CELIBATE, GESTALT ENTITY... so CHANGED from what I CURRENTLY AM, there would be NO CONTINUITY of "me"... I'd be stuck FOREVER as an ANT in an... ANTPILE!!!
Yuck. Yuck! YUCCCCCK!!!
I'd rather mechanistic materialism be true than Christianity. Let Atheism be true instead; let me just die and rot. At least I won't be aware it's happening.
The ideas on this forum (especially reincarnation) are what led me to believe that maybe spirituality ain't all bad...
J.D. Howes called Christian "Heaven" "eternity's ultimate vacation spot" - hey, what's a trip to the Bahamas worth, if all you'd do there is hang out in a CHURCH? Give me the beach and some babes, and no "SEX-FREE ZONES" (or beer-free zones, or ANYTHING-FREE zones, PLEASE!!!)
That's what Christian Heaven is... a CHURCH MEETING/MONASTERY. There is nothing there to appeal to a normal human being (*especially a male.*) It's sole selling point is that you're not in "Hell" (A COWARD'S belief if there ever was one... tell me, is motivation through FEAR OF VIOLENCE "God's" way???
Then... F**K GOD (f**k "Yahweh", the BRUTAL GOD OF WAR!!!) That's ALL I have to say. He's no
better than some scumbag gangbanger or mob goon, in my estimation!!! I wouldn't worship "Blue Fly the Killer Pimp", so why shoud I worship a "Killer God"?
The Christian god is a... BULLY.
I believe with all my heart, that the only GOOD bully is a DEAD bully...
So I prefer to believe, "God is Dead" as far as Christianity is concerned.
Now, all this was just an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE, Don. I've been studying religion all my life, and so far I've found NOTHING to make me suspect Christianity is true, logically speaking. And I'll indulge you by reading as much of your suggested literature as I can, although I won't make you any guarantees, as Christian writers tend to BORE me into the middle of next Wednesday, what with their endless "interpretations"(?) of foggy, ancient scriptures. But I would be willing to bet the potency of my peter that I WON'T be convinced by any of your stuff, logically speaking.
And then there's the EMOTIONAL resistance I have to it, which I have elaborated above...
Sorry if the above was a bit... shall we say, RAW, Don, but I believe in being HONEST to a fault, when speaking of spirituality. The above is what I TRULY FEEL. So don't tell me "Satan" inspired me to write this post. (He's the "Father of Lies", remember???)

Thanks for Reading,

B-man

Quote:

Because I'm over 30, man, and I can see 40 coming in the not-too-distant future. and then OLD AGE. My GOOD TIMES ARE JUST ABOUT OVER, in THIS life. Even now, I've got some gray at the temples, and am beginning to develop a trick knee. I had the misfortune of being born a couple hundred years before the aging process gets conquered by science. (Kind of disgusts me, that in view of humanity's 2-million year history on this planet, I missed it by a single "pubic hair"! I'm a simple man, with simple tastes... I like to get a bit pied sometimes, and I like young, beautiful women. I'm "aging out" of being able to have these pleasures..!)

Talk about being stuck in a belief system........................  You have soooooooo much to learn.

Peace, Mairlyn

Brendan,

I think "raw" communication is best.  Most of us gravitate towards our ultimate worldview, driven by emotional-experiential factors more than by logical factors.  I don't want you to read my specified posts with the idea that I hope to sledge-
hammer you with searing logic.   Instead, I hope that by reading about modern experiences of the supernatural, your consciousness will be more open to having your  own encounters with God's empowering presence.

Your own experience is ultimately everything.  For example, my formerly agnostic buddy, Roger, (late of this site) has read Howard Storm and engaged me in vigorous offsite interrogation about that book.  He now seems to be coming around to believing in a loving personal God and the power of prayer in establishing intimate communion with that God.  I've always believed that the worst thing I could do with someone like Roger is to press for some kind of commitment.  It is almost impossible to simply choose to embrace a new belief system.  Rather, it gradually dawns on someone that certain new beliefs now make more sense.  We must all be left to grow at our own pace and gain insights that ring true in our experience.

After reading about Storm's angelic encounters, Roger seems to now realize that when he was a young boy, an angel (perhaps a discarnate human) saved him from being murdered by a sexual predator.  He was in the Ontario wilderness with a buddy (age 8 or 9).  There was never any traffic on the deserted nearby road.  One day a man drove up and approached young Roger, saying something about playing doctor.  He put Roger down, mounted his back, put a vice lock on his neck from behind, and proceeded to drag him to a more wooded area in front of his helpless little friend.  Then out of nowhere a woman showed up, asked if anything was wrong, and spooked the predator into flight.  The woman then vanished.  Neither Roger nor his pal saw her go "poof," but both were perplexed by the question of why neither of them saw her leave the area.  Besides, how likely is it that an unarmed woman would stop, survey the situation, and dare to intervene in this courageous way?  Roger now thinks that she was a guardian angel, perhaps a discarnate human.  If you read my miracle accounts you will read about another even more dramatic angelic encounter that resembles Roger's experience.

As for your depressing stereotype of heavenly existence, you don't seem to have read my thread, "A Fresh Look at Heaven," where I try to address concerns like yours.  Please read that too and then confront me with any residual complaints.  I can't help you expand your horizons if you refuse to read my best thinking on these issues.

Berserk.

Hi Roger,

You wrote:  "Judy, thank you for your reply. I don’t know anyone with Alzheimer’s or senile dementia, fortunately, but just wished to pose my query. I found your piece by Dave Sonmor most interesting and can resonate with that.  

"Also, I’ve not read any Swedenborg books yet. Are his books like Bruce’s?"

Well… much different. To me, it’s the difference between being in a darkened room and having the light switched on. That’s about my best analogy for it. Swedenborg wrote 35 theological volumes (that is in addition to the approximately 25 volumes of scientific works that he published previously). Of his scientific works, I’ve only glossed over the Principia and was astounded to see his work on vibrations as the building blocks of the universe; reminds me of the scientific discussion on string theory today. At any rate, I don’t recommend his scientific works even though he was astoundingly ahead of his time; it’s not much interest to me.

I mention his scientific background/credentials as his style of writing his theological works is influenced greatly by his unique training as a world-renowned scientist of his day.
http://newearth.org/frontier/esedu.html
http://newearth.org/frontier/espub.html
http://newearth.org/frontier/esserv.html
http://newearth.org/frontier/esstudy.html
http://newearth.org/frontier/esphil.html

His theological books cover a wide variety of experience and subject matter. Since he claimed that he had experienced daily the other side of life in a full, conscious state for the last 27 years of his life, his books cover more in-depth than any Near Death Experience. I suspect that this is why Dr. Kenneth Ring, Psychology Professor, author and founder of the International Association for Near Death Studies proclaimed, “"People who have had near-death experiences peek through the door of the afterlife, but Swedenborg explored the whole house."

http://www.leewoof.org/leewoof/lectures-lee/death-rebirth.htm

But Swedenborg wrote far more than just about the other side of life – he also wrote extensive Biblical interpretations. And let me tell you, they are far different than any other Christian theologian has ever written! Swedenborg wrote always of a loving God – not angry, not vengeful like has been traditionally taught. He saw that God has provided the means for salvation for people of every religion – through the Golden Rule. http://www.egogahan.com/Spiritual%20Issues/GoldenRule.htm

He saw the Bible as an extensive allegory of mankind’s spiritual development. Just as other allegory, he postulated that the Bible is not always literally true but underneath those literal words are deep spiritual truths that have relevant meaning for our life today. Indeed, the words of Jesus seem to affirm this:  “Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: ‘I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.” [Matthew 13:34-35)

And marvelously woven in between the chapters of his Biblical interpretations were what he called “Memorable Relations” – conversations, observations and experiences with those on the other side. He wrote of meeting Aristotle and Plato (both in Heaven according to Swedenborg).

“Heaven and Hell” is Swedenborg’s most famous book and is pretty much solely his observations and observations of the Spiritual World. It was published after his 12 volume set on the interpretation of Genesis and Exodus. In the beginning, Swedenborg only signed his books, “a servant of the Lord God Jesus Christ” without his name. Later on, people began to figure it out, especially after three notable and public displays of mediumship/psychic phenomena, which Swedenborg always discounted as anything to be amazed about.

http://newearth.org/frontier/esfire.html

http://newearth.org/frontier/esmart.html

http://newearth.org/frontier/esqueen.html

You will find his writings to be rational; some have complained that they are too rational. He explains things – and will often times take 10-20 pages or even more to explain the why behind something. I attribute this to his scientific curiosity and training and I found it to be very helpful to me.  One Swedenborgian scholar has written that Swedenborg wrote to be understood; not necessarily believed. Indeed, a theme throughout Swedenborg’s writings is that doubt can be a good thing – to take time to ponder things deeply before accepting them. Another one of his themes is that God has given mankind the most wonderful gift – spiritual free will and self-determination.

I also highly recommend Swedenborg's  “Divine Love and Wisdom” and “Divine Providence” – deeply philosophical books that have been so helpful to me.

If I can be of help in providing reading material, please let me know. You will find a wonderful library of reading material at Lee Woofenden’s website:

http://www.leewoof.org
There’s an onsite search engine and index arranged by subject matter. I also recommend “Our Daily Bread” – which also has an online search capability:
http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/index.cfm

You will find all articles on both websites very much in the spirit of Dave Sonmor’s that you liked. Our Daily Bread also has other articles by Dave – search by author. I also have additional ones of Dave’s published at these links:

The Lord from Eternity:  http://www.egogahan.com/Dave/LordfromEternity.htm

Angels of Heaven:  http://www.egogahan.com/Spiritual%20Issues/AngelsofHeaven.html

The Law of God is Love:
http://www.egogahan.com/Dave/TheLawofGod_isLove.htm

With Peace and Blessings to All,
JudyE

HI Don,

"But at least you get some idea of why I'm not enthusiastic about the writings of people like Tim LaHaye. "

I so agree with you - books like his are doing a disservice. God does not want our fear... what quality is love that comes to a person out of fear of being in eternal torment?


http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/sermon_detail.cfm?sermonID=3360


Keep up the good work, Don.

With Peace and Blessings to All,
JudyE

Brendan,

Oh, c'mon and get real. Not all Christians believe that Heaven is boring stuff. You'll find some Christians do believe in marriage in Heaven - and sure, that includes sex.

Soulmates:
http://www.egogahan.com/Soulmates.html

Marriage as the Conjugial Metaphysic of the Divine:
http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/sermon_detail.cfm?sermonID=2521

Death and Beyond:
http://www.egogahan.com/Spiritual%20Issues/Death.htm

And oh yes, Brendan... forget about the multiple babes in Heaven... as any man would tell you (if they are honest, that is), it's really hell to be involved with more than one woman at a time. Really...  ;)

With Peace and Blessings to All,
JudyE

Hi Brendan,

Quote:
My GOOD TIMES ARE JUST ABOUT OVER, in THIS life. Even now, I've got some gray at the temples, and am beginning to develop a trick knee.

I really wouldn't count on your good times being even  nearly over, Brendan.  And I have absolutely NO doubt that you will not "rage, rage against the dying of the light" when you go.  

You'll make so much noise they'll shine a big giant spotlight on you over there and say come on in you big prodigal, you!

love, blink

Hi Brendan,

A site by an atheist on whether God judges them:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/mail/judge.htm

- C K Yap

Roger P.

I just wanted to share an experience that seems relevant to your question (reply #43) about the postmortem fate of Altheimer's Disease victims.  I received a call from Linda, whose husband (Russ, a friend of mine) was in charge of mall security for the city of Rochester, NY.  Russ was in Florida maintaining a week-long death vigil over his mother who was in the last stages of Altheimer's.  Russ and his Mom had had a falling out years before and Russ was eager to seek reconciliation before she died.  But for several days now his Mom was a complete vegetable. Russ was in despair and  Linda asked for my prayers.  

As I thought of praying for Russ's mother, I felt totally inadequate.  I knew that dying people sometimes become more lucid just before dying, but not in the case of the last stage of Altheimer's.
I also knew that Pentecostal Christians often have unusually potent faith.  So despite my theological differences with them, I sought out a Pentecostal prayer group of about 8 people.

These prayer warriors knew neither me nor Russ.  iI asked them to follow these instructions: I would sit on a chair in the middle of the living room and they would gather around and lay hands on me as a proxy for Russ's Mom.  Though somewhat puzzled at this unorthodox request, they gladly agreed.  As they laid hands on me, the power of God fell and the tears flowed freely as we all experienced God's love in intense waves.  I felt a powerful energy flowing through me.

The next day I called Linda and this is what she told me: That morning, Russ had entered his Mom's room and, for 45 minutes, she had suddenly became totally lucid and rational.  The tears flowed as Mother and son poured out their hearts to each other and experienced a profound reconciliation.  Then, after 45 minutes, it was as if someone clicked a switch.  She reentered her vegetative state and died shortly thereafter.  What I take from this is that God can easily reverse the damage caused by Altheimer's both here and in the Afterlife.  I agree that Paradise contains Healing Centers to help such sick souls fully recover their mental health.

Berserk

***********
And oh yes, Brendan... forget about the multiple babes in Heaven... as any man would tell you (if they are honest, that is), it's really hell to be involved with more than one woman at a time. Really...  ;)
***********
Maybe that will be the HELL I end up going to..! :D
Because I DON'T think I'm bound for "Heaven" in
any case...

Hi,

Judy, thank you for your further detailed reply. There is much material there to explore, which I look forward to very much.

Beserk, as blink says - what an amazing story, for which I also thank you for posting. You have answered my query totally and I have no doubts now in my own mind.

Best wishes, roger :)

Just backing Don up here that the story he told is true about the prayer circle and what happened. I get confirmation on true or false stories posted here by a vibrational process and I know when two or more are gathered (or one sometimes!) there is power. it works even better if you're praying for someone else instead of yourself. love, and thanks for sharing that story Don. alysia

Brendan,

You wrote:  "Maybe that will be the HELL I end up going to..!  
Because I DON'T think I'm bound for "Heaven" in
any case... "

oh.... you just don't get it, do you?

One day, you will meet a special someone.. and then you will not want multiple babes. Then you will remember this conversation.   :)


"Sound reason tells us that everyone is predistined to heaven and no one to hell. We are all born human, which means that we have the image of God within us. The image of God within us is our ability to discern what is true and to do what is good. Our ability to discern what is true comes from divine wisdom and our abilitry to do what is good comes from divine love. This ability is the image of God; it is enduring with everyone who is whole and is never erased. It is why we can become civic, moral individuals; and if we can become civic and moral individuals, we can become spiritual individuals, since civic and moral life is receptive of spiritual." (Divine Providence [322.1], Emanuel Swedenborg)

With Peace and Blessings to All,
JudyE

Hi all,
My own two cents:-

I went and looked at www.jesusneverexisted.com.  Except for the stuff about "Jesus" apparently having been a title shared by a lot of different contemporary people, there wasn't really anything there that I haven't seen before.  The "pagan Christ" stuff is very, very old and doesn't really prove anything to my mind.  So the concept of an avatar has existed in other religions...so what?  That in itself still doesn't necessarily disprove the idea that Jesus was one.

Also, the amount of very visible raw attitude radiating from www.jesusneverexisted.com was in itself enough to cause me to take it with a metric ton of salt.  Such sites are typically created by individuals who have experienced abuse at the hands of Christians, left Christianity themselves, and then made the erroneous assumption that Christianity itself was to blame for their abuse...and so feel that they are offering a service to others if they can discredit other Christians' faith.  The truth is, there are a *lot* of people out there who follow what David Wilcock would call the service-to-self polarity (what the rest of us call evil, if that doesn't make sense) who also call themselves Christians...and they do an enormous amount of harm.  George W Bush is only the most well-known of such wolves in sheeps' clothing...but he is by no means the only one.  The thing to realise is that Christianity as a belief system is NOT in itself to blame for the actions of these individuals.  Jesus himself had serious problems with such people...Read about his dealings with the Pharisees if you want to know about it.

The bottom line is that most people's objections to Christianity generally don't have anything to do with Christ at all...whether he existed or otherwise.  They tend to have a lot more to do with the cognitive dissonance and disenchantment that thinking people of various faiths experience because of the above described false Christians.

I personally choose to believe in the existence of Christ myself...but unlike JD and a few of the other people who've been here, I openly couldn't care less whether other people do or not...In fact, if people really don't want to, I'd actually urge them NOT to...because Christianity includes far too many people who don't really want to be there/believe for the wrong reasons already, and all they serve to do is give the rest of us a bad name.

Dora, I have sensed quite a large amount of emotional pain in you since I first started posting here.  Because I don't know anything about you, I cannot and therefore will not speculate as to that pain's cause...but I do genuinely hope that none of it has been caused by bad experiences with Christians.  If it has been, I do deeply sympathise.  It has been probably three years since I last attended church in any form, and I still wrestle with large amounts of guilt and fear at times.  There have been times recently where I have asked others for intercessory prayer due to events occurring in my life, because I have difficulty believing that I have sufficient moral/spiritual legitimacy to attempt said prayer myself.  I'm laying myself bare here...and JD (if not others) will probably pounce and triumphantly declare that my sense of guilt arises from subconscious knowledge of the fact that I genuinely *am* a benighted heretic...but if that happens, there is nothing I can do to prevent it.  For what it's worth, I believe that every person has the right to believe whatever they want to believe.  Even JD, although he might try his hardest to convert you, would not, I suspect, disagree with that assertion.  People will disagree with you...and a lot of those people might just happen to be Christians...it doesn't necessarily mean they're right at all.

If anyone out there is going to evaluate Christianity, my only request is that you base your evaluation on the Biblical record of Christ himself...and NOT on his self-claimed followers and their behaviour...because 98% of the time, you will find that supposedly orthodox Christians' view of Christ (and behaviour) has absolutely nothing in common with what is recorded about him.

I can't speak for anyone else, but Jesus to me, more than anything else, acts as a mirror.  I will never forget once reading one woman's Near Death Experience, (I can't remember who's now...it was years ago) and the woman said she encountered Jesus on the threshold between life and death.  She said what he asked her was, "What have you done with your life to show me?"

To me, this is primarily what Jesus does.  He serves not only as an example, but as someone who asks us to look at ourselves...to attempt to honestly evaluate what kind of person we are...and the longer I live, the more I grow inclined to believe that he does that more to aid *our* development than because he has any interest in destroying us.

Do I believe in the miracles and the Resurrection?  Yes, I do.  I believe Jesus' purpose in earthly existence was to show us what was possible, to liberate people in a number of different ways, and to fundamentally change the nature of reality to lead to a greater degree of freedom and positivity overall.

Am I going to try and forcibly shove my beliefs down anyone else's throat?  No, I'm not...because the most fundamental freedom is the freedom to choose.  Freedom to choose our beliefs, freedom to choose our actions, freedom to define ourselves as we see fit.  I believe we have been granted these freedoms by our Creator...I don't believe it was Jesus' intent to violate them, and I don't believe Christians should try to either.

wrote on May 22^nd, 2005 at 11:12pm:

Do I believe in the miracles and the Resurrection?  Yes, I do.  I believe Jesus' purpose in earthly existence was to show us what was possible, to liberate people in a number of different ways, and to fundamentally change the nature of reality to lead to a greater degree of freedom and positivity overall.

Then why in the world did he only show his "resurrected" self to a handful of disciples? That's the part that I've never understood. If Jesus died and somehow magically arose from the dead, apparently the first and only person in the history of mankind to do so, why hide it from the rest of the world? Why make the rest of mankind for the rest of time take it as a matter of faith that it actually happened? And do you actually believe some guy was wandering around the Middle East performing miracles and only a small group of people noticed it enough to make a permanent record of it?

Geez...if God's going to go through all the trouble to send "his son" to Earth to live and die and then resurrect, wouldn't he want the entire planet to know about it? Instead, he chooses a small group of one Jewish sect to reveal his "secrets" to and hopes they can convince the rest of the world? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

>Then why in the world did he only show his
>"resurrected" self to a
>handful of disciples? That's the
>part that I've never understood.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I wasn't aware that only a few people seeing it was deliberate.

>And do you actually believe
>some guy was wandering
>around the Middle East performing
>miracles and only
>a small group of people noticed
>it enough to make a
>permanent record of it?

Yes, I think it's at least possible.  There are any number of possible reasons why it wouldn't have been more widely recorded back then.  For starters, it's possible that many of the people hearing about it didn't believe it was going on.  For another thing, just because we don't have more records of it doesn't mean more weren't made.  There have been a number of antique repositories of writing which have been destroyed at various points in history...Not only that, you've also got things like the Vatican vaults.  There were a number of Gospels that weren't canonised, i.e., they weren't allowed by the early Catholics into the Bible because they didn't go along with what the early Church *wanted* people to believe.  Given that, I think it's entirely possible that there could have been any number of other records of Christ's existence/life which have been lost or destroyed.  Don't forget incidents like the Nazi book burnings as well...There's no guarantee to my mind that we still have copies of everything they tried to get rid of.

>Instead, he chooses a small group of one Jewish
>sect to reveal his "secrets" to and hopes they can
>convince the rest of the world? Sorry, but I don't
>buy it.

No, there were other sects.  I'm assuming you've heard of the Gnostics?  They're only one example...and even immediately after Christ's lifetime they were branded as heretics, and attempts were made to prevent promotion of/belief in their material.  I'm also sure Don would be able to tell you of any number of other underground/offshoot groups that existed during the recognised church's early history as well.  Part of the problem is that we probably don't entirely know what the early church's criteria was for acceptance of different doctrinal elements.  That's something Don could possibly help us with as well.

I reckon quite a number of people are like blind men
feeling different parts of the elephant. One gets hold
of the tail and claims it to be a serpent, while another
hugs the leg and claims it to be a tree while the third
feeling the belly of the animal realizes he is blind and
cannot fully comprehend what he feels.

Yet to all of them it is very real indeed for they each
have a piece of the truth that is undeniable.

- C K Yap ( Choppy )

Quote:

Dora, I have sensed quite a large amount of emotional pain in you since I first started posting here.  Because I don't know anything about you, I cannot and therefore will not speculate as to that pain's cause...but I do genuinely hope that none of it has been caused by bad experiences with Christians.

Petrus you darn right you have NO idea about me!

Emotional pain???? I have no idea where you get that ridicilious  idea  ;D and I would appreciate that you not project your lack of understanding, and your own inner trauma toward me.

Not that it is matter but FYI not now, not before, and not in the future I care -even though I educated myself about Christianity, and all  other religion as well since I was 16 years old and absolutely nothing and no amount of biblical quotes will convince me about something that illogical, dogmatic, meaningless,  "higher being" ANY KIND... who is outside of me , controlling me, and limiting my self-knowledge and choices.

I do not believe ANY organize religion what ever it is been called, BUT...

I don't care what other people believe either

Jesus is real for you? OF COURSE IT IS

If you believe in it...thats your belief system if it is works for you fine... it is true for you  but not for me.

I believe that I  have choose my experiences, just as all other individuals choose their experiences. I do not hold the ‘better way.’ I hold the different way.I'm  are no more enlightened than any other individual in this  planet. I  merely incorporate different information.

In my understanding  true spirituality is merely the acceptance of self, incorporating all of myself without judgment and recognizing that all of my choices and all of my experiences, regardless of how I  creating them, are purposefully executed, I have chosen each experience purposefully and I have chosen each line of probabilities to be experiencing what  I  creating. I'm  not creating mistakes. I  not create accidents. Therefore, each experience has been purposefully executed, and all of these experiences are elements of my spirituality, and all of my  manifestations are elements of my  spirituality. Therefore, it is not an action. It is ME!

The real reality is the reality that each individually create. That IS real. And it is, in every moment, in every expression – if  I  choose to participate and to continue participating in this physical dimension – influenced by beliefs. Every moment, every action, every choice is filtered through beliefs.

I  have choose  to  manifest in this physical dimension. It has been a choice. No entity, no force, no element of consciousness greater than my self has thrust me  into this physical reality. I have chosen

Freedom is simply choice and the knowing of it. In actuality, freedom is merely the knowing of the expression of choice in any and every situation
And this freedom give me more self-awareness, more self-trust and more harmony  withou any"aid" or god figure from outside that you may   have in this life time period.

Quote:
...people are like blind men feeling different parts of the elephant. One gets hold of the tail and claims it to be a serpent, while another hugs the leg and claims it to be a tree while the third feeling the belly of the animal realizes he is blind and cannot fully comprehend what he feels.

Yet to all of them it is very real indeed for they each
have a piece of the truth that is undeniable.

Chen-Quang,

I've always loved that story about the blind men and the elephant.  Thanks for the reminder.

love, blink

Re: blind men
Here's the whole story for anyone interested:

John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me `tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Sorry, Chen-Kwang.

Didn't mean to spell your name wrong!

love, blink

Some great questions have recently been posed on this thread that I'd like to address.  I don't want anyone to think that I've abandoned this site just yet.   This week I need to travel a long way to help a friend cope with a death in the family.  I will also be playing a large role in performing the funeral in another minister's church; and that involves some sticky politicking.  I just want to do what this gal has asked me to do and ensure that her late mother is properly celebrated with the assurance that she  is in a much better place now.  I'll post again here next week.

Don  

Hi All,
         Here goes my two cents........ I think Jesus was real; a real man who taught a mystical path to enlightenment. Unfortunately, most people of his time, and ever since, have turned the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus; yet another 'vicarious atonement via sacrifice of a god-man' by those too lazy and ignorant to think and act for themselves. The cool thing is, it still makes sense allegorically, if you have 'ears to hear'.

                                        wayne

Brendan,

Glad to see you being as colorful as usual... as couple things...

1) Emotions are part of being human, they are okay if used in balance with reason... and vice-versa. I understand where you are coming from.

2) Sex is a wonderful creation from God. It has many wonderful benefits; healing wonders and providing a sense of initimacy, completeness and just plain fun... but it also has a dark side too.

Because you live within time, anything get boring, familiar and lose it's edge. So, we move on to something (or someone) else. Being a Biology student, you know our bodies can only handle so many foreign bacteria, germs... and so forth before our immune system collapses. Multiple sex partners may sound fun... but that way lies danger.

I can attest that if you work at your sex life within the confines of marriage, you can beat anything swinging couples "think" they have over married couples. Within marriage you create your own heaven (with thoughtfulness) and hell (with selfishness)... in that cool union God created.

3) Heaven is so much more than eternal church... that's like saying the devil wears little red tights and carries a pitchfork. God's world is "Love" incarnated...or living love. You say you'll miss sex, right? People won't miss sex as much "itself" as for all the fun, excitement, love, security and stimulation sex provides. God's not dumb... he made us... he understands our needs for this old body. But upon death, we receive a "NEW" body that never dies, has heightened senses and can do more than these broken down physical bodies will ever do. You will be a young man... forever.

4) I'm 41 Brendan... I'm already were you fear to be...age wise. And you know what? It's not bad... take heart my friend. Do you ever watch the "Red Green" show on PBS? It's hilarious... Red Green's famous quote for getting old is... - "we're all in this together."

5) In Jim Carrey's movie "Bruce Almighty" many things you expressed here are mentioned in the movie. Have you seen it? Personally, I liked the way they handled the anger, frustration and Bruce's hatred towards God... and God's understanding response.

I grew up being taught the hateful, spiteful, mean God you believe in Brendan. I can relate to what you are say... every bit of it.

But I also discovered religion LIED about God's nature being cruel. I had to get kicked out of several churches to learn just how merciful, caring and kind God is... IT'S RELIGIOUS HUMANS WHO ARE CRUEL... not God. Put aside your anger and give him a chance to stand on his own two feet before you... don't judge him based on dumb Christians and Non-Christians who don't know which end is up half the time.

THEN WRESTLE WITH GOD FOR THE ANSWERS YOU SEEK... He likes to wrestle with his kids. He's a big boy... there's nothing you can say that will hurt him. And in spite of all your anger, Brendan, you possess more faith in God than most people I know. How can I tell? Easy, you're disappointed & angry with God. We only get disappointed and angry about things we care about. And the things we care about we invest in emotionally because we... believe in them.

Good Luck Searching...

Author JD Howes
www.jdhowes.com



wrote on May 21^st, 2005 at 2:26am:

Don, as a human being, I'll cop to the fact that I am more of a creature of emotion than of logic. But emotions are real things too, and are what make life worthwhile. Now... I don't believe that ANYTHING you, or anyone else could say, would make me convert on grounds of cold logic. But suppose I DID read something that convinced me Christianity is real? The rest of my life would be a morass of depression and I'd probably end up a Prozac android. Why? Because I'm over 30, man, and I can see 40 coming in the not-too-distant future. and then OLD AGE. My GOOD TIMES ARE JUST ABOUT OVER, in THIS life. Even now, I've got some gray at the temples, and am beginning to develop a trick knee. I had the misfortune of being born a couple hundred years before the aging process gets conquered by science. (Kind of disgusts me, that in view of humanity's 2-million year history on this planet, I missed it by a single "pubic hair"! I'm a simple man, with simple tastes... I like to get a bit pied sometimes, and I like young, beautiful women. I'm "aging out" of being able to have these pleasures..!) If Christianity is true... then NO REINCARNATION, I "go somewhere and stay put." I want to have a second (or third, or 5-thousandth!) go at YOUNG MANHOOD! The one I had was a disappointment, for a number of reasons. Christianity? Then (AT BEST), all I have to look forward to is the AGING PROCESS, followed by GOOGOLPLEXES OF YEARS as a CELIBATE, GESTALT ENTITY... so CHANGED from what I CURRENTLY AM, there would be NO CONTINUITY of "me"... I'd be stuck FOREVER as an ANT in an... ANTPILE!!! Yuck. Yuck! YUCCCCCK!!! I'd rather mechanistic materialism be true than Christianity. Let Atheism be true instead; let me just die and rot. At least I won't be aware it's happening. The ideas on this forum (especially reincarnation) are what led me to believe that maybe spirituality ain't all bad... J.D. Howes called Christian "Heaven" "eternity's ultimate vacation spot" - hey, what's a trip to the Bahamas worth, if all you'd do there is hang out in a CHURCH? Give me the beach and some babes, and no "SEX-FREE ZONES" (or beer-free zones, or ANYTHING-FREE zones, PLEASE!!!) That's what Christian Heaven is... a CHURCH MEETING/MONASTERY. There is nothing there to appeal to a normal human being (*especially a male.*) It's sole selling point is that you're not in "Hell" (A COWARD'S belief if there ever was one... tell me, is motivation through FEAR OF VIOLENCE "God's" way??? Then... F**K GOD (f**k "Yahweh", the BRUTAL GOD OF WAR!!!) That's ALL I have to say. He's no better than some scumbag gangbanger or mob goon, in my estimation!!! I wouldn't worship "Blue Fly the Killer Pimp", so why shoud I worship a "Killer God"? The Christian god is a... BULLY. I believe with all my heart, that the only GOOD bully is a DEAD bully... So I prefer to believe, "God is Dead" as far as Christianity is concerned. Now, all this was just an INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE, Don. I've been studying religion all my life, and so far I've found NOTHING to make me suspect Christianity is true, logically speaking. And I'll indulge you by reading as much of your suggested literature as I can, although I won't make you any guarantees, as Christian writers tend to BORE me into the middle of next Wednesday, what with their endless "interpretations"(?) of foggy, ancient scriptures. But I would be willing to bet the potency of my peter that I WON'T be convinced by any of your stuff, logically speaking. And then there's the EMOTIONAL resistance I have to it, which I have elaborated above... Sorry if the above was a bit... shall we say, RAW, Don, but I believe in being HONEST to a fault, when speaking of spirituality. The above is what I TRULY FEEL. So don't tell me "Satan" inspired me to write this post. (He's the "Father of Lies", remember???) Thanks for Reading, B-man

HERE... HERE... AGREED!

Growing up there was an old slogan to encourage kids to read... the program was called "Reading is Fundamental."

And we all know how much this site just loves "Fundamentalists" - right?  ;D

Brendan can demand all he wants... I enjoy reading so-called "evidence" anti-Christian sites claim to have. I like getting into the heads of so-called "intellectualists" who wouldn't understand a miracle if it bit them on the nose. The proof I don't fear such sites is the fact I keep showing up here!  :D

And most of these so-called "Facts" comprise of ignorant research, a poor understanding of history and spite filled commentary. I kind of find it funny because these guys are truly frustrated over the LACK of "REAL" evidence to destroy Christianity or the Bible. So, all that's left is posturing, bluster, hate and frustration... but these are not facts... just more hot air.  

Writing On...

Author JD Howes
www.jdhowes.com



wrote on May 18^th, 2005 at 7:19pm:

Brendan, Since you have not narrowed down your  question to me about the Second Coming, I will guess what you meant and soon reply.  I have challenged you to read many books and posts about the truth of Christianity and the reality of modern miracles and you have apparently declined or at least refused to engage me.  I'm OK with that since I'm not entitled to impose obligations on any posters.  What I do object to is your incessant demands that JD adopt your reading regimen, something you yourself refuse to do for me.  That is sheer hypocrisy.   Berserk

Presumably germs, V.D., yada yada DON'T EXIST
in the "next world" (assuming there IS a "next
world.")
So multiple honeys + B-man = NO PROBLEM, right?
Ditto for anything I'd want to eat, drink or smoke,
chew, snort or inject... righto? DISEASE would be IMPOSSIBLE, right?
So why is it necessary for the afterlife to resemble
a 4th-century A.D. hermitage, or Trappist monastery? Why
should earthly "moral restrictions" prevail in heaven? What good is "purity/virginity" if there
is no danger of unwanted pregnancy or V.D.?
What's up with churchy "moral proscriptions" chasing after us into the afterlife???
C'mon, you can answer this...
ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!
J.D., Old Peanut...
You said I'd get to be a YOUNG MAN FOREVER in your heaven..?
With NO SEX??? What good is youth then? I might  
as well be an UGLY, doddering old geezer in your Heaven, hobbling around on a cane, drooling down my shirt-front and mumbling to myself... *BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAWHAWHAW!!!!!!!!!!!*
YOUTH ONLY HAS MEANING IN THIS EARTHLY LIFE, MR. HOWES!!! C'MON, YOU'RE NOT COMPLETELY CLUELESS... YOU'RE NOT, ARE YOU???
Truly, you adhere to an insane interpretation of a questionable (at best) religion, Mr. Howes. At least you're not alone... FAR FROM IT. And THAT'S what worries me.
I wouldn't mind Christianity (or Christians) one little bit, if it weren't for the fact that your Bush/Reaganoid interpretation of Christianity is DESTROYING this nation... not because of you, Mr. Howes, I'm not accusing you... I'm accusing the ignorant hillbilly masses who think like you. I weep for the future of AMERICA, the greatest nation that ever was OR EVER WILL BE!!!
Chew on that for a while.
Good day, Mr. Howes...

B-man

P.S. I hereby give up on trying to encouraging you
to read those essays. Just like the stodgy old cardinal who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, you refuse to read something which you KNOW IN YOU HEART might shake your "rock-solid faith." Doesn't surprise me one bit. It would have literally SHOCKED me if you had deigned to read them... 'nuff said. I wasn't kidding myself when I suggested them. Unlike somebody ELSE I've gotten to know recently...

Hi, JD,

Nice to see you back. Thought you had abandoned us all!

JD, in your quote #84 above you say, " Sex is a wonderful creation from God. It has many wonderful benefits; healing wonders and providing a sense of initimacy, completeness and just plain fun... but it also has a dark side too."

Now, since obviously you are a deeply religious man I am most surprised you made no mention of the primary reason God gave us sex - for the procreation of children.
This comes at the forefront of our church marriage service (Christian) in the U.K. when it is stated that marriage is for the procreation of children. I have yet to hear a vicar say marriage (sex) is for fun, intimacy, etc., during a wedding. I imagine, however, it would raise a few smiles and laughs if they did.

As a young lad many years ago, I sang in a choir at numerous weddings and funerals too. Oddly, I preferred singing at funerals - we got paid more!

best wishes, roger :)  

Jesus Christ is God i beleive> If you read the old testiment he was sctually there in the beggining when the world was created.I think all of these other religions are false and here to trick people.He is no myth and he is real> And he will return just as he said he would.

I'm new here,and I have to say that I am a bit surprised that the question Was Jesus Real was asked. Of course He was real.  If you read an encyclopedia,World Book Britannica, it will mention about a man named Jesus Christ who lived and died and rose again. That is not just a fact of the bible, that is a historical fact.  The devil {Satan} is very real, and he has done everything he could to try to get people to disbelieve the resurrection of the Son of God Jesus Christ.  I highly doubt that his disciples would be willing to endure beatings, being jailed, getting beheaded, getting roasted in an oven etc. if the resurrection was a hoax, and christianity would not have lasted this long { 2000 years} on a hoax.

Besides, there are far too many biblical prophecies, that have been fulfilled, way too many to be a coincidence for the bible to be a work of fiction, and that is another reason why the resurrection of Jesus Christ did indeed happen. Jewish historian Josephas wasn't a follow of Jesus Christ,yet he believed in the resurrection and wrote books on it. Unless someone wants to doubt that the apostles ever really existed {they did} you have to ask yourself, what happened to those men who were willing to give up everything and suffer for the cause of Christ if Christ never really existed?

How about Saul of Tarsus who was out to destroy christianity and was on the road to Damascus to kill more christians when all of a sudden a light shined all about him from heaven and he heared the voice of the Lord say, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?  Saul was converted that very instant when he found out it was the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ who Saul had hated. The greatest conversion in history took place that day to a real historical figure who the Lord used to write almost half of the New Testament. Saul became known as the Apostle Paul. Yes Jesus rose from the dead or there would have been no Apostle Paul and no New Testament.

Anybody who does not believe that Jesus ever existed, I would ask you,  when you write out a check and date it or when you sign an important piece of paper and then date it, why wouldn't you just put the day of the week and day of the month and forget the year? For example, it has been 2005 years ago that Jesus died and rose again, and then 2006 and then 2007 and so on until He returns, but since you don't believe that the year represents the year of our Lord, remember that the next time you date a check or important paper.

Jesus was without a shadow of a doubt real and He indeed died and rose from the dead and He is indeed coming back one day, and He has done a lot for me and my family, and He also told us what happens when a person dies, and the afterlife is either heaven or hell, because Jesus the Son of the only true and living God who died and rose again said so.

I think scholars, including those who are religious, have made a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. One can aknowledge the historical existence of Jesus without accepting him as God or anything other than a human being, if that is what one chooses.

I think there is little historical doubt, from what I've read (and I've read quite a bit), that there was in fact a historical Jesus.

Whether he was/is the Christ of faith or something else is another question.


Christians, understandably, find it difficult, even immoral, to make this distinction because to them he is both. But it becomes very diffucult to discuss the meaning of his existence if parties involved in a discussion cannot even agree if the person even existed.

I think it would help if Christians would allow that this distinction is necessary for non-Christians and appreciate that as a starting point for discussion.

I think it would also help if non-Christians would aknowledge that accepting the historical existence of Jesus does not mean agreeing with Christians.

All i have to say is well said xmmx . And it is the same Jesus but each person is entitled to view him as they want

JESUS' LIMITATIONS: A THREAT TO FAITH?

Many Christians imagine that the earthly Jesus was omnipotent and omniscient.  The New Testament decisively refutes this claim.  Prior to Jesus' baptism by John, Jesus is merely a humble carpenter from Nazareth.  His step-father Joseph apparently dies before Jesus' adult ministry.  Joseph figures in no story of the adult Jesus' ministry.  And at the cross, Jesus entrusts the care of His mother to the Beloved Disciple (John 19:25-27).  This would not happen if Joseph were alive to take care of his own wife!  Early Christian tradition rightly insists that Joseph is dead by then.  

Why dorsn't Jesus heal His earthly Dad and allow him to witness His ministry?  In my view, because He can't!  There is no credible evidence that Jesus performs any miracles prior to His receiving the Holy Spirit at His baptism.  After that, of course, He becomes an incredible healer.  Obviously the Holy Spirit makes the difference.  But why does Jesus need to receive the Holy Spirit if is walking around with a divine nature that makes Him omnipotent?  

The earthly Jesus is not omnipotent.  In His first messianic visit to Nazareth, He encounters venemous skepticism.  As a result, "HE COULD DO NO miracle there... (Mark 6:5)."  The plain sense of the Greek verb ("dynamai") is that He tried and failed.  Most commentators agree that a later scribe adds the awkward qualifying "except" clause, "except He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them."  The awkwardness of the contradiction "could do no" and "except, etc." gives away the later scribal gloss.  The scholarly consensus agrees that Matthew and Luke both employ Mark as one of their sources.  In copying Mark, Matthew seems to take offense at the implication of Jesus' temporary powerlessness and cleans up the problem by changing "could do no" to "did not do many."  Thus Matthew removes the embarrassing implication of apparent failure at Nazareth.  

In Mark 8:22-26 it takes Jesus two prayer sessions to heal the blind man at Bethsaida.  If He were omnipotent, He could do the job right the first time.  Who cares as long as He ultimately heals the guy?  Well, both Matthew and Luke care; they both take offense and omit the story from their Gospels.  Frankly, these embarrassing texts inspire rather than depress me.  They imply a willingness to tell how it really was, including apparent failures, and this adds credibility to the rest of the miracle stories.  

Our Gospels contain only one story about Jesus' life between His infancy and His baptism by John--the story of a precocious 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple during a Passover visit (Luke 2:41-52).  On the long walk home to Nazareth, Jesus deserts the crowd of villagers and remains in the Temple area to question the priests.  But like many absent-minded 12-year-olds, He fails to notify His parents.  When a distraught Mary tracks Him down, she gently reprimands Him for His inconsiderateness and Jesus replies, "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"  Luke appreciates Mary's anguish and concludes the story by saying, "And Jesus increased in wisdom...and in divine and human favor (2:52)."  How can Jesus increase in wisdom and divine favor unless there was a prior phase in which He was less wise and less in divine favor?  Hebrews 5:8 insists, "Though He was the Son, He learned obedience from the things he suffered."  Why would the author say this unless there was a period in wihch Jesus was disobedient or at least non-obedient?  

Why would Jesus feel the need for John's baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4) unless He felt the need to repent?  John's protest (Matthew 3:14-15) does not really answer this question.  Jesus' baptism is not merely cosmetic; it fulfills  "all righteousness."  Jesus' sense that He needs to repent is implied in His response to the rich young ruler: "Why do you call me good?  No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:17)."  The context shows that Jesus is not fishing for the ruler's affirmation of His divinity.  Rather, He is distinguishing Himself from God and implying that in the highest sense no one, not even He, is truly "good"!  Of course, what He means is that He is not God the Father.  

I am not denying the doctrine of the sinlessness of Christ.  The maturation of a child must not be equated with sin.  All of us, including Jesus, have to learn by trial and error.  Sin (Greek: "harmartia") is a  condition that separates us from God.  As long as Jesus remained one with the Father, He could make mistakes without being in a condition of sin.  Thus, the same Hebrews that implies this disobedient or nonobedient phase also portrays jesus as "one who was tested in every respect just as we are, yet without sin (4:15)."  

The bottom line is this: Jesus could not serve as our example if He did not share our limitations.  Thus, Hebrews characterizes Jesus' ministry as a whole, not just Gethsemane, this way: "In the days of His flesh He offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the One who was able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His godly reverence (5:7)."  Notice that He was heard because of His reverence, not because He was God's Son.  The "loud cries and tears" imply insecurity in the same way as Jesus' plea, "Father, everything is possible for you.  Please remove this cup from me (Mark 14:36)!"  We often forget this plea and prefer His ultimate compliance: "Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done."  We also tend to ignore the profound doubt implied by Jesus' anguished cry from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Mark 15:34-citing a psalm)."  The earthly Jesus was hardly omniscient.  For example, He admits ignorance as to exactly when He might come back again after His death (Mark 13:32).  These examples could be multiplied.

So how can Jesus' limitations be reconciled with His divinity?  The New Testament answer can be found in one of the earliest Christian hymns, a hymn that Paul quotes in Philippians 2:6-11.  The hymn begins, "who, though He was in the form of God (Gree: "morphe")..."  When it is used metaphorically, "morphe" means "same essential substance."  So literally the hymn begins, "who, though He was of the same essential substance as God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to cling to."  In other words, He  was willing to set aside His divine prerogatives to become human.  The hymn proceeds, "but He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant."  Emptied Himself of what?  Obviously of His divine nature (or better) His divine prerogatives.

So in a sense the earthly Jesus was exactly what God would be if God were merely human.  What does this do to the divinity of Christ?  The Philippian hymn concludes, "Therefore, God highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."  The name above all names is "Lord", the name of divinity.  Jesus was restored to His divinity by His resurrection just as He preexisted as God.  With this difference: prior to His birth, the Second Person of the Trinity was not human, but rather the "Word of God" (Greek: "logos"--John 1:1,14). Here "logos" means "the rational self-expression of God" as opposed to God in His unknowability.  The Bible routinely qualifies its anthropomorphic imagery of God with the caveat that ultimately the reality of God transcends all personal categories.  But he anthropomorphic imagery serves as a tool that allows us to experience an intimate bonding with God.

Don      

What you dont understand is Jesus is God emauel God in the flesh.God with us > But he was born of a carpenter. Yes he humbled hiself it was all planned though exactly that way.He was 100% human to to live out what he was supposed to do.

:D I like what u've written Don. doing my own take, has nothing to do with you, so don't think that. ;D

quote:The hymn proceeds, "but He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant."  Emptied Himself of what?  Obviously of His divine nature (or better) His divine prerogatives.
_______

awhile back I asked u in private do u think we humans can entertain angels unaware? I never really got a response from you but thought you were not ignoring the question, just considering it and of course I don't expect answers from anyone really. here in this post I get somewhat of an answer I can ponder, so thanks, but I want to do a take on it from my pov. when the hymn said he emtied himself taking the form of a servant, perhaps he emtied himself of ego aspirations, such as eat, drink and be merry aspirations. it was known he said to give away all that u own to the poor and follow him. not many can do that. we like our stuff. eventually have to give it up though. yet to say to be emptied of divine perogatives, perhaps we can liken this analogy to either duality (satan versus God) or we can look at the veil of forgetfulness the spiritualists first spoke of, as Monroe encountered with beings who were diving back into Earth had their memories erased for a new experience to undertake. I've no doubt Jesus was a human just like us. for most of us being in the flesh causes most of us to be attending always to fleshly concerns, the care and feeding of the vehicle, the survival of the organism. this leads to the acquistion of "stuff." to rememer divine perogatives, from whence we came, from whence we go is to make this world of items to pale by contrast. Jesus became a carpenter, but all the while he built things, he was building his perogatives, to say he was remembering himself, from whence he did come and his intentions here. are we not all builders of some item? back to my thought of angels we see not. I believe there is an angel inside of every man. in the old days some thought drifted about that there was good in every man. I believe the word good has its roots in the word God. I don't think others see their good inside of them so they need to be reminded it's there. we cannot be separated from the stuff we are made out of; God stuff. we can only enter a movie theater and become involved in the movie, but the movie ends and we return home. all movies end on temporary Earth spaceship. when I meet negative circumstances in those I encounter I ask to see their angel as I know it must be there. sooner or later the angel comes aknockin.' always in disguise, always grinning coyly to be discovered. love, alysia http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/disguised.gif

Donald, believe it or not, I was happy to see you posting again.

Love, Marilyn  ;D

Shawn, pf course, I understand Matthew 1:23 (citing Isaiah 7:14): "And He will be called Emanuel (meaning God is with us.)."  The question is what this means.  According to the Philippian hymn, it means that Jesus embodies what God would be like if He were merely human and no longer divine.  In that sense, Jesus IS divine.  The New Testament teaches that Jesus is restored to His divine prerogatives by His resurrection, prerogatives He exercised in His preexistent, pre-human phase.  

Jesus' earthly limitations are a function of His full humanity.  Without these limitations, He cuuld not legitimately serve as our example.  His admitted limitations in knowledge do not deprive us of the miinimal teaching we need, but do imply an ongoing need to develop our spiritual gifts and perhaps to even master astral exploration.  Jesus revealed the truth, but His truth was limited by His knowledge and therefore by the interpretive limitations of His culture.  From a Christian perspective, mastery of astral projection would be an extension of the gift of prophecy.

The problem with various views of biblical inspiration is not their correctness or incorrectness, but but the fact that they bypass the real issue--that biblical revelation is incomplete,  sufficiently incomplete to require fresh insight, revelation, and spiritual exploration.   That is why books like Howard Storm's "My Descent into Death" are important.  Jesus' NDE revelations to Storm confirm subtle aspects of His earthly teachiing, and yet, break important new ground as well.  

Alysia, it is important to speculate on the meaning of the phrase "He emptied Himself" (Philippians 2:7).  The phrasing of this sentence requires that "emptied" be understood in terms of the preliminary qualifying clause, "Though He was of the same essential substance as God." This contrast seems to imply that Christ emptied Himself either of this divine "substance" or nature or, at least, of its divine prerogatives.  But of course, you are entitled to your own interpretation.

The mystery of Christ's incarnation is related to the question of human destiny.  Christian baptism means that we "put on Christ" like a garment, and so, in some sense become mini-Christs.  By His incarnation, Christ incorporates humanity into divinity.  This fusion becomes permanent through His resurrection.  In a sense, Jesus creates an analogy between His own divinity and our status as "gods" (John 10:34-36).  This analogy implicitly interprets the sense in which humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27).  Thus, the analogy presupposes our ultimately destiny "to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1;4)."

The real danger in interpreting these mysteries is not metaphysical but moral or spiritual.  Our cultivation of pure unconditional love requires a humility that is inevitably undermined by the premature deification of humanity.  For example, ego remains ensconced on the throne of our hearts if we deem it just as valid to pray to our higher self as to pray to God.  Egolessness oir true humility requires a love that gives credit to God as wholly other and takes no credit for personal achievements that are best celebrated as divine gifts of grace.  As the Bible often reminds us: "God resists the proud, but givss grace to the humble (e.g. 1 Peter 5:5)."

Don

Don, I tend to agree with you, but I think prayer and meditation need to be defined and understood before we can get a good discussion up. I think I'll go start a new thread as we're going into a new topic now. hope to see u there! http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/bouncer.gif

Beserk i think that verse means Jesus humbled himself
prety much. Intersting view on things though. Whehter or not he wants us to astral project i dont know, about that for it can leave on open to demonic influence.

Good to see you posting again Don.  

I finally got through your previous posts from a couple months or so ago.  I can certainly see how the miracles you described would have an impact on faith.  It's experiences like this that seems to make me want to dig deeper and look for a greater understanding.

Thank you for posting "JESUS' LIMITATIONS: A THREAT TO FAITH?"  You have a wonderful discernment of scripture and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts regarding the miracles of Jesus and his disciples if you have the time to share these.

Love, Kathy :-)