Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[godnotgod]

No essene text mentions Jesus or anything mystic.

The question is what evidence exists?

.....there is no evidence from primary texts that the essenes were mystics or that Jesus was one of them.

Sometimes the evidence comes via of intuitive understanding and insight, and that is where direct spiritual experience has it over mere scholarship.

We know that Jesus and his followers were antagonistic to the orthodoxy. If they did not see spirituality the same way that the established order did, then how do you suppose they DID see it? What frame of mind did they nurture to allow them to see and think differently?

 

[Oberon]

Yes, and that has always been the problem with a system of thought based upon a set of beliefs about the supernatural, rather than it's direct experience: the moment you CAN prove it exists, via of science, logic, analysis, and reason, it is no longer what you claim it to be. It is dead.

This makes no sense to me. Both direct and indirect experience of the supernatural are outside the realm of science (and history). Direct experience can be written off as delusional in the same way that a record of direct experience (like the NT record of the experience of Jesus' resurrection) can be written of as delusional.

You claim that the centerpiece of Christian thought is The Resurrection, and that historicity is meaningless in its regard, but The Resurrection is meaningless unless it was real, and real means historical.

No, real does not mean historical. History is a reconstruction of what was. This reconstruction is not what actually happened (whether it was a year ago or four thousand years ago), but a reconstruction of what actually happened. The resurrection may or may not be "real," but it certainly isn't historical. No supernatural event CAN be said to be historical because the first tenet in historical reconstruction is that the laws of nature and science existed in Jesus' day, before, and after, as the do now, and will continue to.

While the supernatural itself is ahistorical, as you state, what Christians are claiming, is that there really was an actual historical event called The Resurrection, in which Jesus not only rose from the dead, but that his physical body ascended into the heavens. Without such historicity, The Resurrection is rendered a myth.

Again you are equating "real" with "historical." In a sense of course you are right, in that if it actually happened it is historical and real.

However, as far as history is concerned, whether or not a supernatural event occured is not a matter which historical reconstructions can deal with. The resurrection of Jesus could be "historical" in that it might have happened, but as far as the discipline of history is concerned we cannot ever confirm this.

The Resurrection makes no sense without the Sacrifice of the Crucifixion

The resurrection makes no sense without Jesus' birth either. Jesus' birth, life, and death are all necessary for the resurrection to make sense. This doesn't change the fact that the resurrection is the important part.

And it is here that we once again touch upon the pagan origins of the Christian myth.

So far, your only example of a pre-christian sacrifice for the absolution of sin is from Judaism, not paganism.

What Christianity has done, is to equate belief with truth, so that when a Christian states that he believes in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, for him it is a historical fact.

Fine. But the "historical Jesus" is a product of the reconstruction via the tenets of the discipline of history, and therefore all supernatural events are considered ahistorical. Which means the "historical Jesus" (in as far as the quest for the historical Jesus is concerned) has largely been ignored or marginalized by christian theologians. The "historical Jesus" does not matter, only the Christ of faith does. The faith of christians may lead them to believe that the son of God died and was resurrected, but that isn't a matter of history. History is meaningless as far as christian faith is concerned, as all the most important aspects are outside of historical inquiry.

Sometimes the evidence comes via of intuitive understanding and insight

That isn't evidence.

and that is where direct spiritual experience has it over mere scholarship.

Hardly. "Mere scholarship" deals with actual evidence. "Spiritual experience" gets you anywhere and everywhere.

We know that Jesus and his followers were antagonistic to the orthodoxy

No, because there was no "orthodoxy." Some of Jesus' actions were politically dangerous enough to get him killed.

If they did not see spirituality the same way that the established order did, then how do you suppose they DID see it?

There was no "established order." The judaism of Jesus' day was quite diverse. The vast majority of Jesus' actions and teachings would not have gotten him in any trouble. What almost certainly DID get him in trouble was his actions in the temple (disturbing a major and universal symbol in 1st century judaism, and the base of the priestly elite) and messianic claims, which were politically dangerous both to the judaic elite (who were more or less patsies to the romans) and the roman authorities.

 

[godnotgod]

This makes no sense to me. Both direct and indirect experience of the supernatural are outside the realm of science (and history). Direct experience can be written off as delusional in the same way that a record of direct experience (like the NT record of the experience of Jesus' resurrection) can be written of as delusional.

Nope. Authentic spiritual experiences do occur. When they do, it puts one in a position of being able to see what is delusional and what is not. That position is called Enlightenment, and what that means is that one simply sees things as they are. Because the authentic spiritual experience is outside the realm of science and history, it cannot be proven to have occurred by such methods. That is why the Buddha tells us to go and see for ourselves, and why Zen calls itself a "finger pointing to the moon". Because science and history cling to their methodology (that of reason, logic, and analysis), they are incapable of understanding such experiences, and write off both authentic and delusional ones as delusional.

No, real does not mean historical. History is a reconstruction of what was. This reconstruction is not what actually happened (whether it was a year ago or four thousand years ago), but a reconstruction of what actually happened. The resurrection may or may not be "real," but it certainly isn't historical. No supernatural event CAN be said to be historical because the first tenet in historical reconstruction is that the laws of nature and science existed in Jesus' day, before, and after, as the do now, and will continue to.

We are speaking of the historicity of the Resurrection from the point of view of the Christian, not the historian. From the Christian point of view, the Resurrection actually occurred at a particular time and place. The discrepancy between what the historian sees and what the Christian apologist sees has resulted in several formal debates about the "historicity" of The Resurrection between the two.

Again you are equating "real" with "historical." In a sense of course you are right, in that if it actually happened it is historical and real.

See above.

However, as far as history is concerned, whether or not a supernatural event occured is not a matter which historical reconstructions can deal with. The resurrection of Jesus could be "historical" in that it might have happened, but as far as the discipline of history is concerned we cannot ever confirm this.

See above.

The resurrection makes no sense without Jesus' birth either. Jesus' birth, life, and death are all necessary for the resurrection to make sense. This doesn't change the fact that the resurrection is the important part.

You previously stated that it's importance is due to the idea that it re-established the spiritual realm, but it surely did not. It was the blood sacrifice,of Jesus, the Lamb of God, as payment for the Original Sin of Adam & Eve, which was the key that re-opened the Gates of Paradise. Every Christian knows this. The Resurrection had no power to do this.

So far, your only example of a pre-christian sacrifice for the absolution of sin is from Judaism, not paganism.

Perhaps I should use the word "tribal man" instead of "pagan". There exists the mentality of tribal man with its supersitious beliefs and rituals, as compared to higher, transcendent man, who is non-tribal. Tribal man thinks that the blood holds within it magic power to to redeem sin. Higher man does not; he looks to the breath which is the key to higher consciousness. Tribal man never attains higher consciousness, as his mind is still rooted in fear and superstition. Judaism is just an elaboration of tribal beliefs and rituals. So is Catholicism. One might call their mumbo jumbo 'White Magic'.

Fine. But the "historical Jesus" is a product of the reconstruction via the tenets of the discipline of history, and therefore all supernatural events are considered ahistorical. Which means the "historical Jesus" (in as far as the quest for the historical Jesus is concerned) has largely been ignored or marginalized by christian theologians. The "historical Jesus" does not matter, only the Christ of faith does. The faith of christians may lead them to believe that the son of God died and was resurrected, but that isn't a matter of history. History is meaningless as far as christian faith is concerned, as all the most important aspects are outside of historical inquiry.

Little information as real evidence exists to substantiate The Resurrection as a historical event, but you will notice that the Christian uses every scrap he can lay his hands on in an attempt to demonstrate the it was an actual event. Of course, his faith that it did occur is primary, with whatever he finds in scripture to support it as secondary, though important as well. He will cite St. Paul's reference to the "500 eyewitnesses" and the words of the women at the tomb to support his claim.

"...Christian dogma combines a mythological story which is for the most part Hebrew, and a group of metaphysical "concepts" which are Greek, and then proceeds to treat both as statements of fact--as information about objective realities inhabiting (a) the world of history, and (b) the "supernatural" world existing parallel to the historical, but on a higher plane. In other words, it talks about mythology and metaphysic in the language of science. The resulting confusion has been so vast, and has so muddled Western thought, that all our current terms, our very language, so partake of the confusion that they can hardly straighten it out."
Myth and Ritual in Christianity, by Alan Watts

That isn't evidence.

It is if you are seeing correctly.

Hardly. "Mere scholarship" deals with actual evidence. "Spiritual experience" gets you anywhere and everywhere.

Delusive ideas and religious beliefs do, but real spiritual experience cannot do this. I am not speaking about religious beliefs, either. On the contrary, "scholarship" can be a victim of its own methodology. The spiritual experience has no doctrine or methodology. It is the direct experience of True Reality itself. The scholarly approach is but one level of understanding of the larger view that is Universal Mind. In the end, it must be abandoned in order to reach the other shore, as it becomes an obstacle itself. Reason, logic, analysis, etc, are abandoned in lieu of the intuitive approach, which leads one to the larger view.

No, because there was no "orthodoxy." Some of Jesus' actions were politically dangerous enough to get him killed.

Yes, killed by those who held a more orthodox viewpoint, political on the Roman side, and religious on the Jewish side.

There was no "established order." The judaism of Jesus' day was quite diverse. The vast majority of Jesus' actions and teachings would not have gotten him in any trouble. What almost certainly DID get him in trouble was his actions in the temple (disturbing a major and universal symbol in 1st century judaism, and the base of the priestly elite) and messianic claims, which were politically dangerous both to the judaic elite (who were more or less patsies to the romans) and the roman authorities.

Yes, but Jesus's views were apparently not within the acceptable (ie; 'orthodox') circle of those divergent views. His view must have been of a different origin. What was their origin?

 

[logician]

Prove that a man Jesus exised that remotely resembled the one of the NT.

 

[Oberon]

Prove that a man Jesus exised that remotely resembled the one of the NT.

1. It is impossible to "prove" anything in history. Proof belongs to the realm of logic and math.
2. You aren't interested in actually learning about or understanding the evidence which supports a historical Jesus, or what the most probable reconstruction of Jesus looks like. If you were, you wouldn't have surrounded yourself with unreliable sources in order to get the picture of the historical Jesus you wanted in the first place.

 

[Oberon]

Nope. Authentic spiritual experiences do occur.

If by "spiritual" you mean some connection with some divine power or anything outside the realm of science then there is no more evidence that such experiences are real than that Jesus resurrected. Indirect records of religious experiences are just as unscientific and ahistorical as direct religious experiences. Plenty of people have claimed to have directly experienced Jesus and/or the holy spirit and so come to believe in christianity. Such experiences do not validate the NT or anything else simply because they are direct, nor do they offer something more substantive than faith in an ancient religious and ahistorical text.

Because science and history cling to their methodology (that of reason, logic, and analysis), they are incapable of understanding such experiences, and write off both authentic and delusional ones as delusional.

No. Good scientists and good historians will simply admit that such experiences are outside of the realm of historical or scientific analysis. They may or may not be authentic or delusional, but the point is the methadology employed to reconstruct historical realities or to understand the world we live in must deal with actual, tangible evidence in ways that supernatural experiences do not allow for.

We are speaking of the historicity of the Resurrection from the point of view of the Christian, not the historian. From the Christian point of view, the Resurrection actually occurred at a particular time and place. The discrepancy between what the historian sees and what the Christian apologist sees has resulted in several formal debates about the "historicity" of The Resurrection between the two.

Most christian apologists and theologians agree that there is no such thing as the "historicity" of the resurrection. They understand that historical inquiry will not be able to confirm (or deny) the important parts of their religions.

Those who do use the term "historical" to speak of Jesus' resurrection have thrown the discipline of history out the window anyway, and so any talk of a historical Jesus becomes pretty meaningless, as their historical Jesus is obtained by faith in the texts.

You previously stated that it's importance is due to the idea that it re-established the spiritual realm, but it surely did not.

Why do you think easter is more important than good friday for christians?

Jesus' resurrection was not just a confirmation of his status (as in someway divine). As the resurrected Christ he conquered death for humanity and became the annointed one of the heavenly realm.

It was the blood sacrifice,of Jesus, the Lamb of God, as payment for the Original Sin of Adam & Eve, which was the key that re-opened the Gates of Paradise. Every Christian knows this.

First of all, there is almost no tenet which "every christian" shares. More importantly, the sacrifice of Jesus is nothing if he did not resurrect. Additionally, the idea that it was a "blood sacrifice" is somewhat of a distortion of mainstream christian belief. The suffering and death of Jesus was necessary (according to christian faith) in order to allow for the absolution of humanity. However, "blood sacrifice" in other religions, even when it had to do with absolution, was very different. A blood sacrifice simply meant killing an animal or human. What was important about Jesus was not simply his death but his suffering for the sake of humanity, and that he did this voluntarily.

Perhaps I should use the word "tribal man" instead of "pagan". There exists the mentality of tribal man with its supersitious beliefs and rituals, as compared to higher, transcendent man, who is non-tribal.

How elitist and condescending of you.

Little information as real evidence exists to substantiate The Resurrection as a historical event

The amount of information is irrelevant. As it is, we have more attestation for the historical Jesus than for just about anyone from ancient history. But it wouldn't matter if we had one gospel and no letters of Paul or if we had 300 eyewitness accounts. Either way, the resurrection could not be substantiated except through faith.

but you will notice that the Christian uses every scrap he can lay his hands on in an attempt to demonstrate the it was an actual event.

In general, I don't notice that at all. Most christian apologists and theologians understand that it doesn't matter if we had more or less attestation for Jesus' resurrection, it would still be a matter of faith.

He will cite St. Paul's reference to the "500 eyewitnesses" and the words of the women at the tomb to support his claim.

Once someone uses faith in a text as proof the supernatural, the person is no longer using history as a tool for understanding the past.

It is if you are seeing correctly.

No, it isn't. The whole point of evidence is that it is not entirely subjective. Intuition, if not eventually backed up by objective evidence, is useless as far as history is concerned.

Reason, logic, analysis, etc, are abandoned in lieu of the intuitive approach, which leads one to the larger view.

Or any view. The nice thing about reason and logic is that they aren't entirely subjective. Yes, history and science have their limits. But using "intuition" to reconstruct and ancient sect like the essenes without reading any primary texts won't get you very far. I've heard people talk about channeling spirits of antlantis. This is hardly evidence.

Yes, killed by those who held a more orthodox viewpoint, political on the Roman side, and religious on the Jewish side.

Religion and politics wasn't a seperate thing for Jews or Romans. The romans had a state cult and the temple was the seat of both political and religious authority for the jews. And again, there was no orthodox viewpoint.

Yes, but Jesus's views were apparently not within the acceptable (ie; 'orthodox') circle of those divergent views. His view must have been of a different origin. What was their origin?

There was no orthodoxy in Jesus' day, and most of Jesus' views were completely acceptable, in that he was not so divergent in most of his teachings as to be outside the norm (which was a wide spectrum anyway). What got Jesus killed was not his teachings but his political actions.

 

[godnotgod]

If by "spiritual" you mean some connection with some divine power or anything outside the realm of science then there is no more evidence that such experiences are real than that Jesus resurrected. Indirect records of religious experiences are just as unscientific and ahistorical as direct religious experiences. Plenty of people have claimed to have directly experienced Jesus and/or the holy spirit and so come to believe in christianity. Such experiences do not validate the NT or anything else simply because they are direct, nor do they offer something more substantive than faith in an ancient religious and ahistorical text.

All I am saying is that there is a way to know the true nature of reality without scientific evidence or analysis of any kind. Science can only give you the facts, but not the substance, and it is the substance which tells you what the facts mean. But yes, there is definitely a difference between an experience with true reality and a delusion. The delusion still seems real to the deluded, but to the enlightened, the difference is apparent.

No. Good scientists and good historians will simply admit that such experiences are outside of the realm of historical or scientific analysis. They may or may not be authentic or delusional, but the point is the methadology employed to reconstruct historical realities or to understand the world we live in must deal with actual, tangible evidence in ways that supernatural experiences do not allow for.

That is part of the problem: the point of departure itself determines the way we see the outcome. The method is merely a tool which gets you to a certain point. After that, it can go no further, as it is limited by its own parameters. That is the rational mind. The spiritual experience is beyond the rational mind, and to get there, the intuitive mind must be put into play. It is this intuitive mind that is the pathway for the mystic. Please don't confuse the mystical experience with that of belief. Belief is still within the realm of the thinking mind. When I say that Yeshua was a mystic, I mean that he did not speak from a position of belief, of doctrine, but from a living source that dwells within the present moment.

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

This is outside of history, of time. It is spoken from the eternal that is the present moment. It is spoken not as a result of the thinking, analytical mind, but of the mind which is completely in touch with the source.

Most christian apologists and theologians agree that there is no such thing as the "historicity" of the resurrection. They understand that historical inquiry will not be able to confirm (or deny) the important parts of their religions.

Those who do use the term "historical" to speak of Jesus' resurrection have thrown the discipline of history out the window anyway, and so any talk of a historical Jesus becomes pretty meaningless, as their historical Jesus is obtained by faith in the texts.

Well of course, but "faith in the texts" means that they accept unconditionally those accounts and testimonies which point to the resurrection, as if they were historically real. For the Christian, there really was a Jesus who was crucified and rose again on the third day. (Buddhism does not have this issue, because the experience of Buddhistic enlightenment occurs always in this Present Moment, which is outside of time and therefore of history.)

If the historicity of The Resurrection is so unimportant to Christian apologists, why has William Lane Craig, one of the most prominent of current Christian apologists, spent so much time on the subject? If you are not familiar with either Craig or the historian Richard Carrier both of which have chosen to make an issue of this topic, here is an mp3 audio link to one of their debates:

Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig Debate MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Unfortunately, the audio is terribly flawed. I will search for a better copy or transcript, but until I find one, will leave this one posted here. If anyone finds a better source, please post. Thanks.

I know there must be a transcript of this debate somewhere on the internet as well. In addition, Craig has also debated others on this very topic, as I understand it.

Why do you think easter is more important than good friday for christians?

Because it is a celebration of the sacrifice of the Crucifixion, which freed them from Original Sin.

Jesus' resurrection was not just a confirmation of his status (as in someway divine). As the resurrected Christ he conquered death for humanity and became the anointed one of the heavenly realm.

...because he shed his blood at the Cross to save mankind. What is it Christians are always shouting at us?

"Jesus died for your sins!", not...

"Jesus rose from the dead for you!"

First of all, there is almost no tenet which "every christian" shares. More importantly, the sacrifice of Jesus is nothing if he did not resurrect. Additionally, the idea that it was a "blood sacrifice" is somewhat of a distortion of mainstream christian belief. The suffering and death of Jesus was necessary (according to christian faith) in order to allow for the absolution of humanity. However, "blood sacrifice" in other religions, even when it had to do with absolution, was very different. A blood sacrifice simply meant killing an animal or human. What was important about Jesus was not simply his death but his suffering for the sake of humanity, and that he did this voluntarily.

We are going round in circles. The words of Jesus are unmistakeably clear:

"For this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sin."
Matt. 26:28

It is specifically the shedding of blood that addresses directly the issue of Original Sin which keeps mankind in spiritual bondage, and which frees him. Of this there is no question. Why do you deny it?

How elitist and condescending of you.

"Higher Man" is neither elitist nor condescending. That is why it is called Higher Man. Higher Man is not about man's Ego, as you imply, but about his Authentic Self.

The amount of information is irrelevant. As it is, we have more attestation for the historical Jesus than for just about anyone from ancient history. But it wouldn't matter if we had one gospel and no letters of Paul or if we had 300 eyewitness accounts. Either way, the resurrection could not be substantiated except through faith.

But it cannot be substantiated via of Faith, simply because it cannot be repeated. Faith only reinforces the belief system which includes the theme of the Resurrection.

In general, I don't notice that at all. Most christian apologists and theologians understand that it doesn't matter if we had more or less attestation for Jesus' resurrection, it would still be a matter of faith.

...and all that simply means is that, from the Christian point of view, belief equates with truth, whether it is actually true or not.

There was no orthodoxy in Jesus' day, and most of Jesus' views were completely acceptable, in that he was not so divergent in most of his teachings as to be outside the norm (which was a wide spectrum anyway). What got Jesus killed was not his teachings but his political actions.

Was it not the Jewish high priests who demanded his death due to his blasphemy of established Jewish Law?

 

[Oberon]

All I am saying is that there is a way to know the true nature of reality without scientific evidence or analysis of any kind.

Like how one can intuitively map the brain or the human genome, or model an atom.

After that, it can go no further, as it is limited by its own parameters.

Yes, limited by the interobserver reliability.

The spiritual experience is beyond the rational mind,

So is the mind of a schizophrenic. Spiritual experiences may or may not be real, but they are entirely subjective.

Please don't confuse the mystical experience with that of belief.

I don't. However, religious belief and mystical experience are similar in that both are without tangible evidence. To an outsider like myself, your mystical experiences are every bit as much a fantasy as christian dogma. I believe that both may be real, or neither, but the evidence for each is nonexistant.

Well of course, but "faith in the texts" means that they accept unconditionally those accounts and testimonies which point to the resurrection, as if they were historically real.

The point is that "historically real" when based of belief or faith is no longer a matter of history. The historical Jesus is and has always been a matter of the discipline of history, and is reconstructed from historical methodology. The christ of faith is not.

(Buddhism does not have this issue,

Just plenty of different ones.

If the historicity of The Resurrection is so unimportant to Christian apologists, why has William Lane Craig, one of the most prominent of current Christian apologists, spent so much time on the subject? If you are not familiar with either Craig or the historian Richard Carrier both of which have chosen to make an issue of this topic, here is an mp3 audio link to one of their debates:

I have met and heard William Lane Craig, and if there is any worse historian out there dealing with the historical Jesus it is the classicist Richard Carrier.

There are some more orthodox christians who do deal with history and Jesus. N. T. Wright and J. D. G. Dunn are two exceptional historians. Craig is not.

Both Craig and Wright (with Wright in his third volume on the historical Jesus) step beyond the boundaries of history when discussing the resurrection. But they are in a minority amoung christian theologians.

Because it is a celebration of the sacrifice of the Crucifixion, which freed them from Original Sin.

No, it isn't. That's Good Friday. Good Friday was the day that Jesus died, and it is hardly celebrated, especially when compared with Easter, the day of Jesus' resurrection.

...because he shed his blood at the Cross to save mankind. What is it Christians are always shouting at us?

You keep harping on this shedding of blood. But none of the passion narratives make a big point of the shedding of blood, nor do the vast majority of early christian texts.

"Jesus died for your sins!", not...

"Jesus rose from the dead for you!"

One can hardly distill two millenia of christian theology and philosophy into a soundbyte without losing just about everything. If those people believed that Jesus had died but not risen, they wouldn't be shouting about his death. From Paul's point that all of christian faith is meaningless without the resurrection, to the modern day, The resurrection of Jesus has been seen as paramount in christian faith (hence the importance of easter over good friday).

We are going round in circles. The words of Jesus are unmistakeably clear:

"For this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sin."
Matt. 26:28

We are going around in circles because you keep leaving things out. First Jesus offers his body, than blood. He doesn't focus on the blood more than the body, nor do his disciples bath in it. Hardly a parallel to washing in the blood a bull. More importantly, this is one small part of christian dogma, and an even smaller portion of the NT. Through most of christian literature, the focus is on Jesus' resurrection, not his death.

It is specifically the shedding of blood that addresses directly the issue of Original Sin which keeps mankind in spiritual bondage, and which frees him. Of this there is no question. Why do you deny it?

There is no mention of original sin, which wasn't a doctrine then. Moreover, it is the body and blood which are important. Finally, once more the important point is Jesus' WILLING sacrifice and pain for us (which differs from standard sacrifice) and then his resurrection.

"Higher Man" is neither elitist nor condescending. That is why it is called Higher Man. Higher Man is not about man's Ego, as you imply, but about his Authentic Self.

Stating that another system of belief, whether christian or tribal, is inferior to your own is certainly elitist and condescending.

There exists the mentality of tribal man with its supersitious beliefs and rituals, as compared to higher, transcendent man, who is non-tribal.

Faith only reinforces the belief system which includes the theme of the Resurrection.

The same is true for any mystical experience. Plenty of christians state they feel gods presence of the power of the holy spirit in the NT or whatever. Your attempts to raise your particular beliefs to a different plane baseless. Mystical experience have no more evidence or basis in fact than records of such experience as recorded in the NT or Koran or wherever.

 

[Oberon]

Was it not the Jewish high priests who demanded his death due to his blasphemy of established Jewish Law?

No. There was no "established Jewish Law." The interpretation of the law differed from village to village and from person to person and from group to group. To quote myself from an earlier post:What was “the Law” in and around 1st century Judaism? The simplest answer is no doubt the tôrâ (תֹּורָה/תֹּרָ&#1492, formed from the Semitic root yrh, whence comes the English “Torah.” Of course, saying that the Law was the tôrâ is more or less to say that the Law was the Law, as of course this is what tôrâ meant. However, the range of tôrâ in the Jewish scriptures is wider than simply “law.” The semantic range covered “instruction” or “teaching” as well as “directive” or “law” (see Isa. 1:10; 2:3, Jer 6:19; 26:4-5; Mic 4:2). Furthermore, Yahweh was not the only one who could issue tôrâ. For example, in the Book of Proverbs we see tôrâ being issued as the instructions of the wise (see Prov. 13:14).

However, the most important sense of tôrâ was no doubt the tôrâ issued by Yahweh himself, a divine law or set of laws (tôrôt in the pl.), the tôrâ Yahweh, at the center of which was of course the tôrâ mōšeh, the represented in the five books of Moses.

Yet tôrâ from Yahweh was not limited to the tôrâ mōšeh, but rather came down to the Jews around Jesus’ day via a long tradition of sapiential, prophetic, priestly, and judicial literature passed down not only in written form but also orally, some of which was unique from town to town and village to village.

It is also important to not that there was not any fixed canon of Jewish texts around Jesus’ time, nor were the texts themselves fixed. For example, a debate between Hillel and Shammai is recorded in the later rabbinic literature (mYad. 3.5, mEduy. 5.3) over whether or not Ecclesiastes was really one of the “holy books.” The LXX does not always agree with the Masoretic texts, and some of the documents recovered at Qumran reveal alternate readings even in Hebrew versions of scriptures (e.g. notably for my purposes, Deut. 24-1, or on a related issue the variant reading of the Qumran Mal. 2:16).

So while the Jews around the time of Jesus certainly respected and knew the Tanakh, their interpretation of the Tanakh not only differed but was filtered through a variety of other texts and oral traditions. At this point it would perhaps be good to give an example of how a simple passage in the Tanakh could mean so much more to Jews of Jesus day.

One of the biggest issues for Jews even before rabbinic Judaism was exactly what constituted “work” (mělā’kâ) which was forbidden to be undertaken during the Sabbath. Long before Jesus’ time, apparently the question of whether fighting was considered work was not even discussed, as can be seen from 2 Kings 11, where all types of activity including an armed revolt takes place during the Sabbath.

However, during the Maccabean revolt, certain pious Jews began to question whether or not fighting was indeed forbidden by tôrâ. The book of Jubilees, for example, is very adamant that fighting on the Sabbath is indeed forbidden by God. On the other hand, 1 Macc. 2:27-28 records just how disastrous this could be. As a result, Mattathias decided that only attacking was forbidden, but not self-defense. Although the author of Jubilees vehemently opposed this position, by Jesus day we can see that is was taken for granted. Josephus, despite being aware of the origins of the interpretation of what constituted acceptable “fighting,” nonetheless specifically states that it was the Law/ho nomos, not an interpretation of the Law by Matthias, and that the Law forbids any Jew from attacking an opponent on the Sabbath. From the time of Matthias’ hǎlākâ to Josephus’ day, Matthias’ ruling had ceased to be thought of as interpretation and had become to be thought of as tôrâ itself.

We can see, then, that any adequate understanding of how Jews of Jesus’ day interpreted tôrâ cannot be gathered simply from reading the Tanakh. Rather, a number of sources become important to understand how tôrâ was understood by Jesus and his contemporaries, ranging from pagan literature, to Jewish literature (like Josephus and Philo), to Jewish works like Jubilees and Maccabees, to (most importantly in understanding Jesus) the gospels themselves.


Jesus didn't violate any "established law." And the high priest did not represent a unified Jewish nation. The Sadducess, the priests, were one part of the dynamic that was judaism of the first century.

 

[Breathe]

Prove that a man Jesus exised that remotely resembled the one of the NT.

Out of interest, what would that be? One who resurrected the dead and walked on water and stuff, or..?

 

[logician]

Out of interest, what would that be? One who resurrected the dead and walked on water and stuff, or..?

Well, it goes w/p waying nobody like that existed. No, show hard proof there was a man w/o the miracles that existed that fit the NT stories.

 

[Breathe]

Well, it goes w/p waying nobody like that existed.

No, show hard proof there was a man w/o the miracles that existed that fit the NT stories.

That there was a man named Yeshua, who said interesting things, and was disliked by many of the religious peers in his timezone? Is that what you're asking?

 

[logician]

That there was a man named Yeshua, who said interesting things, and was disliked by many of the religious peers in his timezone? Is that what you're asking?

There may have been a number of Jesus's running around Jerusalem caliming to be god or the Messiah, yet how can one prove that the NT is actually written about any of them? There's little to go on.

 

[Breathe]

There may have been a number of Jesus's running around Jerusalem caliming to be god or the Messiah, yet how can one prove that the NT is actually written about any of them?

One can't.
(I don't believe Jesus would have ran around doing that, though. ) - Most likely, these are later additions. I don't actually see these verses where Jesus claimed to be God though, and I doubt Jesus' followers would have followed such a man.

There's little to go on.

Well, to be fair - there's little to go on from history in general really.

 

[logician]

One can't.
(I don't believe Jesus would have ran around doing that, though. ) - Most likely, these are later additions. I don't actually see these verses where Jesus claimed to be God though, and I doubt Jesus' followers would have followed such a man.

What followers? They are just as fictitious as Jesus the man.

 

[Breathe]

What followers? They are just as fictitious as Jesus the man.

Even them???

 

[Azariyah]

Please read .........

http://www.nccicharlotte.com/pdf/Origins-Pagan-Holidays.pdf

And ......

http://www.nccicharlotte.com/pdf/Paganism-Continues.pdf

then get back to me.

Super informative.

 

[godnotgod]

All I am saying is that there is a way to know the true nature of reality without scientific evidence or analysis of any kind.

Like how one can intuitively map the brain or the human genome, or model an atom.

Oh, joy! So of what use is all this intellectual minutiae when one lacks the understanding as to its nature? In fact, of what use is any knowledge of the universe if you do not first understand yourself?

Yes, limited by the interobserver reliability.

No. I am saying that a system of analysis, such as science, is limited, and can go no further, because it is bound by its own parameters. Only a mind which is observing with no such parameters is capable of seeing things as they truly are.

So is the mind of a schizophrenic. Spiritual experiences may or may not be real, but they are entirely subjective.

That is not so. You are only saying that from a conceptual position, and of thinking that there is always an experiencer involved. Authentic spiritual experience gets the "I" completely out of the way. There is no "I" that is observing anything; there is only pure observation itself. There is only pure experience, without an experienc-er.

I don't. However, religious belief and mystical experience are similar in that both are without tangible evidence. To an outsider like myself, your mystical experiences are every bit as much a fantasy as christian dogma. I believe that both may be real, or neither, but the evidence for each is nonexistant.

You see what I mean about the system of analysis being limited? It does not know simply because it always sets up "self and other", when, in reality, there is no such thing. In addition, there is no reason to believe that such systems are the standard by which reality is to be judged. Just because your system of analysis says that a certain mystical experience is fantasy because no evidence exists to satisfy the system is nonsense. Having said that, an authentic mystical experience will show you exactly what is delusional and what is not. Religious dogma cannot be compared to an authentic spiritual experience, because the spiritual experience contains zero dogma, for one thing.

The point is that "historically real" when based of belief or faith is no longer a matter of history. The historical Jesus is and has always been a matter of the discipline of history, and is reconstructed from historical methodology. The christ of faith is not.

We are talking about the historic Jesus from the viewpoint of the Christian, not of anyone outside the Christian. For him, the Christ of Faith and the Historical Jesus are one and the same. Period end.

Just plenty of different ones.

That is another topic. The point, however, is that the Buddhistic experience is not dependent upon anything historical at all. In fact, it occurs exactly outside of history, in this Present Moment, where there is no time, where there is no history:

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

You see? Even Jesus was not too far from being Enlightened, lucky man!

I have met and heard William Lane Craig, and if there is any worse historian out there dealing with the historical Jesus it is the classicist Richard Carrier.

I agree with you, but that is besides the point, which is that they are held in the popular view as being prominent, especially Craig, who is a bag of hot pedantic air.

No, it isn't. That's Good Friday. Good Friday was the day that Jesus died, and it is hardly celebrated, especially when compared with Easter, the day of Jesus' resurrection.

OK, so let us take away the Crucifixion, shall we, and the story is that of a man who professed his godmanship, dies a happy, peaceful death, and then resurrects. So what? How do we get those Pearly Gates open again without a SACRIFICE? We still have an ANGRY GOD on our hands. What will appease him? The resurrection? What will wash away the ORIGINAL SIN of Adam and Eve, which has now infected the entire human race?

You keep harping on this shedding of blood. But none of the passion narratives make a big point of the shedding of blood, nor do the vast majority of early christian texts.

Only one statement is required:

"For this is the blood of the new Covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sin"

This says it all.



(continued)

 

[godnotgod]

(continued from above)

One can hardly distill two millenia of christian theology and philosophy into a soundbyte without losing just about everything. If those people believed that Jesus had died but not risen, they wouldn't be shouting about his death. From Paul's point that all of christian faith is meaningless without the resurrection, to the modern day, The resurrection of Jesus has been seen as paramount in christian faith (hence the importance of easter over good friday).

It does seem to overshadow the Crucifixion, does'nt it? It is an affirmation of the power of Jesus over death itself. If it had all ended with the Crucifixion, we would have had a vast divide between the few faithful who believed in Jesus and who he was, against those who felt they were left with nothing but doubt. But this is exactly where the problem lies, because a truly spiritual person requires no "resurrection" from the dead to convince. Such a requirement suggests a mind not yet mature; one which actually lacks real faith, rather than being filled with it. You see, the requirement for the resurrection is not a matter of faith but of belief. As Alan Watts tells us:

"Belief clings; Faith lets go"

The Christian refuses to let go, so he needs a surrogate device, and that device is the resurrection, which, when we think about it more deeply (but not too deeply!), we find that the rationale for its existence falls apart. It becomes an exaggeration of reality, a complete misunderstanding as to the nature of life and death, and the fact that, in reality, there really is no such thing as life and death. The spiritually enlightened mind realizes that these are but concepts, relative values that work together, and so to suggest that one has a "victory" over the other is ridiculous. No authentic spiritually enlightened person would ever think of nurturing the idea that there is victory of life over death, simply because the idea makes no sense at all. A mind in perfect balance sees that life and death are inextricalby intertwined, and interdependent one upon the other. The "Resurrection" is a Spectacle for the insecure and those who need to have their lower centers of Sensation, Power, and Security stimulated.

It is far more exciting to have Yeshua die a natural death.

This is why we have things like Buddhism: to briing our minds back to reality, and to dispel delusive thoughts; thoughts such as the idea of there being "another realm" into which some "Jesus" resurrected after "death".

Ordinary reality in the Here and Now is so much more exciting!

We are going around in circles because you keep leaving things out. First Jesus offers his body, than blood. He doesn't focus on the blood more than the body, nor do his disciples bath in it. Hardly a parallel to washing in the blood a bull. More importantly, this is one small part of christian dogma, and an even smaller portion of the NT. Through most of christian literature, the focus is on Jesus' resurrection, not his death.

You know, if you symbolically wash yourself in the "blood of Jesus" as a means of cleansing, and I actually wash myself in the blood of a bull for the same reason; and if you symbolically eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus for the purpose of gaining the magical power contained therein, and I also actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of a bull for the exact same reason, then the two practices are executed to achieve the same ends. It is the IDEA behind them that is important. Both are performed with the same intent, and to achieve the exact same results. So although they are not exactly alike specifically, they are in the same classification, and therefore, can be exchanged on the idealogical level, and that ideaology is pagan in origin.

The fact that Jesus offers his flesh first is of no consequence. After all, standard protocol tell us that one needs drink to wash down what went before, would'nt you say?

There is no mention of original sin, which wasn't a doctrine then. Moreover, it is the body and blood which are important. Finally, once more the important point is Jesus' WILLING sacrifice and pain for us (which differs from standard sacrifice) and then his resurrection.

When Jesus says that his blood will be shed "for many for the remission of sin", he is talking about Original Sin, since it was Original Sin that tainted all of mankind since Adam and Eve. The fact that blood is being shed FOR them means that it is for their benefit, and that benefit is the re-opening of the Pearly Gates.

Stating that another system of belief, whether christian or tribal, is inferior to your own is certainly elitist and condescending.

I never said any such thing. I used the term "Higher Man". Higher Man has no system of beliefs: he lives outside of all beliefs. He lives in True Reality. In other words, Higher Man is Awakened. Tribal man is still attached to his beliefs, those beliefs being based upon superstion and fear, rather than reality. This is why the nurturing of correct vision is so important. Once one learns to see correctly FIRST, then it becomes easier to see what is causing his suffering. After all, the whole point of any spiritual journey is to get to higher ground, and that ground is about greater happiness.

The same is true for any mystical experience. Plenty of christians state they feel gods presence of the power of the holy spirit in the NT or whatever. Your attempts to raise your particular beliefs to a different plane baseless. Mystical experience have no more evidence or basis in fact than records of such experience as recorded in the NT or Koran or wherever.

Mystical experiences are not based upon belief; they transcend belief.

Yeshua was a mystic, as evinced by his statements. He never espoused any beliefs; he only stated the reality of spiritual life as it exists. A mystic is one who accesses the divine source directly, and a realized mystic is one who reflects that divine source from one moment to the next. When a mystic speaks, he is telling the living truth, as it unfolds in the Present Moment, where there is no history, where there is no memory of things past. That is exactly why Yeshua told his followers that they were mistaken to think they would find eternal life within the scriptures, which are traces of the spiritual experience; they are not the spiritual experience itself.

He knew they were putting the cart ahead of the horse.

There are authentic ways of knowing that are beyond science, reason, logic, and analysis. For one thing, these systems are divisive. They do not apprehend reality as a whole, just as it occurs.

Once dissected, a moth cannot be made to fly. It is dead.

Kiss the joy as she flies!

 

[dead1]

For those of us subscibed to to living on the material plane of existance the idea that experience somehow transcending evidentiary scrutiny is preposterous. though the idea that an experience need not have an experiencer( I left my house with the television on and did not witness the final episode of Gilligan's Island) does not preclude evidence that the experience is either true (Gilligan's Island came on at 6:00 PM while I was out of the house)or not(It is Friday and Gilligan's Island did not air today) or invalid. Evidence for a proposition either can or can not be obtained. If a personal mystical experience does not lend creed to observational evidence then the experience itself is invalid. I don't say this to be harsh but just because an individual experience may be important to that individual, external proof is required that others may share in it's importance.