Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?

[godnotgod]

Oberon said:

"Finally, once more the important point is Jesus' WILLING sacrifice and pain for us (which differs from standard sacrifice) and then his resurrection".

The fact that Jesus is willing IS important, but for a different reason: his "willingness" takes us directly back to the story of Adam and Eve, Original Sin, and the need for a sacrificial host, the "willing" part equating with "obedience" to the will of the Father*, and HIS demand for payment in order to pacify his anger, an anger that translates directly into punishment, punishment that is evident to us as suffering, or so we think. And so, in the simplistic mind of the child, he thinks his suffering is because he is being punished for his disobedience to Authority, (ie "Sin") when, in fact, he suffers because of his Ignorance.

And herein lies the crux of the problem of all mankind: that there are two kinds of people in the world, as Krishnamurti tells us: those who know, and those who don't know.

Ah, if only Adam & Eve had seen the twinkle in God's eye when He sternly commanded them NOT to eat of the Forbidden Fruit (wink, wink), they would immediately have known that, in fact, God actually WANTED them to eat of it. Unfortunately, most of mankind took His words seriously, and obedience to The Law became of utmost importance. These became the orthodox Believers. Those who intuitively understood that the Forbidden Fruit was a symbol for Higher Consciousness and its eating would achieve Divine Union** were the Mystics. The Mystics achieved their goal now, and all lived happily ever after. Story end. But the Believers made a Big Issue of the whole deal, and so we have the long, drawn out history of Suffering Mankind, which can NEVER achieve real happiness in this life, but must wait until after death for some Heaven. Buddhists refer to this extended view as The Long Way Home. Fortunately, we do have a choice, Suffering being an Option.

*Jesus's "willingness" only facilitates the "plan" that God the Father has already set up, that being that He "gave his only begotten Son".....and the rest, as they say, is history.

**Remember that the Serpent told Adam & Eve that God did not want them to eat of the Forbidden Fruit because they would then "see as God sees".

 

[logician]

Even them???

If part of the story is fictitious, it is logical to suppose the whole enchilada is.

 

[godnotgod]

For those of us subscibed to to living on the material plane of existance the idea that experience somehow transcending evidentiary scrutiny is preposterous.

First you spontaneously burn your finger on a hot stove. At that precise moment, there is only "ouch!". It is only afterwards that you analyze your experience. "Oh, I burned my finger". The two occur so quickly that you think they are one experience.

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.

Authentic spiritual experience is actually impersonal. The idea of an "I" who is experiencing the experience is not there. Therefore, the spiritual experience can be validated by others, because the source of the experience is the same; it is universal.

It has been said that two individuals who are meditating at first will have a different view of reality according to their personal view coloring the experience. But after a long period of time, as both meditators drop their personal views, they will both see the same reality.

You are describing the experience of people who are still on the Third Level of Consciousness, that of Waking Sleep, or Identification, in which they believe themselves to be real, when, in fact, they are only characters acting out a script written by others. This illusory character called "I" begins to disappear when the individual makes concerted efforts to awaken.

There is nothing that demands that any external proof of the mystical experience be required, except for arbitrary systems such as science. But science cannot validate an experience that is, by its nature, outside the realm of analysis. It can only validate peripheral evidence, such as the fact that Buddhist monks, after years of meditation, actually have grown thicker cerebral cortexes, or emanate much higher amounts of alpha brain waves than ordinary people do.

 

[godnotgod]

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.

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.

What is different about this being the situation then as it is now? There is still widespread diversity amongst interpretation of both Judaic and Christian scripture. In spite of these variations, the fact remains that the initial set of Laws as handed down directly from Yawheh to Moses as the Ten Commandments are the original general reference around which orthodoxy was formed:

"Orthodox Judaism is characterized by belief that the Torah and its laws are Divine, were transmitted by God to Moses, are eternal, and are unalterable; belief that there is also an oral law in Judaism, which contains the authoritative interpretation of the written Torah's legal sections, and is also Divine by virtue of having been transmitted by God to Moses along with the Oral Law, as embodied in the Talmud, Midrash, and innumerable related texts, all intrinsically and inherently entwined with the written law of the Torah; belief that God has made an exclusive, unbreakable covenant with the Children of Israel to be governed by the Torah....Orthodox Judaism's central belief is that Torah, including the Written Law, was given directly from God to Moses and applies in all times and places."

So, although Orthodox Judaism was not formally developed until after Jesus lived, the principle is that it applied "in all times and places", which would be from the moment the Law was handed to Moses and delivered to the Jews.

Jesus most certainly did violate established Law. He was tried and convicted on the one hand by the Romans for the political crimes of sedition and treason, but it was the Jewish High Priests who demanded his death on the basis that he committed blasphemy directly against God, and blasphemy, as we all know, is against the First Commandment:

"I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me"


or·tho·dox conforming to established doctrine especially in religion.
Merriam-Webster

 

[ellenjanuary]

Depends upon who you ask. I have had Christians try and tell me that god invented Mithras to prepare for the coming of the Christ. Then... I walked away.

 

[Gentoo]

Just like Lucifer --------- I WILL...

I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean... besides, Christian mythology has no effect on me.

 

[godnotgod]

Depends upon who you ask. I have had Christians try and tell me that god invented Mithras to prepare for the coming of the Christ. Then... I walked away.

Ha! :biglaugh: They will say anything to drive a square peg into a round hole. Older Church Fathers such as Tertullian even made the preposterous claim that Satan created Mithraism prior to Christianity just for the express purpose of deceiving Christians!!

 

[Oberon]

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.

Or rather seeing things as they think they really are. You believe your "analysis" of reality is correct. I've met plenty of delusional people in the mental health system. They all believed their view of reality was correct. What they lacked was the ability to show anyone else it was, because nobody heard or saw the things they did. An empirical analysis (such as is present in science) means multiple observers observe and record the same phenomena. "Intuition" is subjective. As such, you can trust your own intuition all you want, but it won't get you far in a debate where an objective reality is concerned. As long as you want to use your own intuition as evidence, there is no point in debating. When you want to intruduce data that is not dependent solely or mainly on your intuitive feelings, get back to me.

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.

At least from your point of view. A schizophrenic may believe that their experience of hallucinations are objective, in that they believe these voices or visions are objectively real and exist outside of their personal experience. However, that is because they are delusional.

Likewise, you may believe that particular spiritual experiences you have had are objective, but as they are not empirically observable they exist only from your frame of reference. They may indeed be a part of objectively reality, but as they are not testable by any method useful for our purposes they are not evidence of anything.

You see what I mean about the system of analysis being limited?

I have never claimed that the methods employed as tools for inquiry in science and history are not limited. They certainly are. They are limited by empiricism, what can be observed and remain constent despite the observer. Reality exists outside of this matrix, but it is untestable.

It does not know simply because it always sets up "self and other", when, in reality, there is no such thing.

At least according to your belief system. Personally, I see myself "self" as an integrated system (an organism) which is seperate by virtue of its integration as a unified whole from other such systems. Additionally, such observations may be substantiated by the observations of others. Interobserver reliability. Buddhist doctrine can make no such claims.

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.

My system of analysis does NOT say that "a certain mystical experience is fantasy." It states that such experience are entirely subjective. As such, you can believe them all you want, but they are no more objectively "real" than recordings of such experiences as are in Paul's letters.

We are talking about the historic Jesus from the viewpoint of the Christian, not of anyone outside the Christian.

I am certainly not, and neither are most who talk about the "historical Jesus." Even conservative christian historians like N.T. Wright and William Lane Craig, who try (and fail) to make historical claims about christian dogma (i.e. the resurrection) distinguish between the "christ" of faith and the Jesus of history. Even those historians who go beyond what historical methodology allows and attempt to make claims about the historicity of the resurrection still distinguish between the Jesus of faith, who is molded to particular demoninational and personal views based on how the NT as a whole is interpreted and/or accepted, and the Jesus of history. Craig and Wright both allow, from a historical point of view, parts of the NT to be ahistorical or unhistorical, even if their personal belief moves them to a personal acceptance of such parts as actually having happened.

"Before Abraham was, I AM"

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

How does Jesus stating he was YHWH according to John make him enlightened? The "I am" statement is a reference to the OT where YHWH states the "I am who am." By putting these words in Jesus' lips, John is merely equating Jesus with YHWH.

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?

The sacrifice of Jesus is and was an essential part of christian dogma. However, it is not the center of it, which is my point. Let's summarize the points I have been making on the resurrection for the sake of clarity:

1. The bathing in the blood of a bull is not at all similar to christian rites. Jesus' body and blood are symbols of his voluntary suffering and sacrifice, whereas the slaughter of a bull is nothing of the sort.
2. Most sacrifices in the ancient world were not for absolution but appeasement. Moreover, they were not voluntary sacrifices of the sort Jesus undertook, and so far the only example you can give of sacrifice for absolution prior to Jesus is Jewish, not pagan.
3. The suffering and death of Jesus is a vital part of christian dogma. However, from Paul's letters in the earliest layer of christian tradition to the modern day easter celebrations, the resurrection has been considered more important and more central than Jesus' death.

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.

Only that is ONE part of the liturgy, which also includes the eating of the body. You select out a part of a unified liturgy because you want to make your point, but in doing so you defeat yourself because you ignore the rest. Also, you ignore the vast bulk of early christian literature which focuses on the resurrection. Heck, take all of christian literature from Paul to Cardinal Ratzinger and you find that the actual death of Jesus pales in comparison (in terms of importance) to his resurrection.

 

[Oberon]

This is why we have things like Buddhism: to briing our minds back to reality, and to dispel delusive thoughts;

Your attempts to make buddhist dogma somehow more "rational" or "real" than christian are not only elitist but rather comical.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Actually got this pdf called "Caesar's Messiah" that states Titus Caesar was the role model for a work of straight fiction. I always thought the best way to fulfill prophecy was with back-story.

 

[Oberon]

If part of the story is fictitious, it is logical to suppose the whole enchilada is.

You really should change your member name. It is not logical at all to suppose that if part of a work is fiction, it all is. That is the opposite of logical.

 

[Oberon]

What is different about this being the situation then as it is now? There is still widespread diversity amongst interpretation of both Judaic and Christian scripture.

The difference is that now judaism has become a religion of jurisprudence and law. The mishnah, talmudim, and a long tradition have estalished a rabbinic legal approach to the law of YHWH.

In Jesus' day, none of this existed. There were no rabbis, and the law changed from town to town. Their was no "established law" only a loose understanding of a relationship between YHWH and his people based on a variety of texts and community traditions.

"Orthodox Judaism is characterized by belief that the Torah and its laws are Divine, were transmitted by God to Moses, are eternal, and are unalterable; belief that there is also an oral law in Judaism, which contains the authoritative interpretation of the written Torah's legal sections, and is also Divine by virtue of having been transmitted by God to Moses along with the Oral Law, as embodied in the Talmud, Midrash, and innumerable related texts, all intrinsically and inherently entwined with the written law of the Torah; belief that God has made an exclusive, unbreakable covenant with the Children of Israel to be governed by the Torah....Orthodox Judaism's central belief is that Torah, including the Written Law, was given directly from God to Moses and applies in all times and places."

Notice the references to the talmud and mishnah. "Orthodox Judaism" is a product of rabbinic judaism, which did not exist during Jesus' day.

Jesus most certainly did violate established Law.

By making messianic claims he made himself dangerous enough to be executed by the romans. That is not the same as violating "established law."

but it was the Jewish High Priests who demanded his death

The jewish priesthood did not represent "established law." They were one group among many in judaism, and their views were probably a minority. However, they were the most connected to the roman authorities.

 

[godnotgod]

Or rather seeing things as they think they really are.

Sir, excuse me, but one either sees things as they are, or not as they are. If one truly sees things as they are, then one is not thinking thoughts, but seeing only. Therefore, one cannot possibly think they see things as they are if one is in a state of non-thinkiing. Enlightenment is not thinking, as you think it to be. You are using your rational mind to try to understand a state of consciousness that is not rationally based . Having said that, that does not mean it is irrational, in the rational sense of the word, simply because rational and irrational are two aspects of a dual view, which the state of enlightenment is not.

You believe your "analysis" of reality is correct.

Belief and analysis are not part of the intuitive path. The intuitive path to higher consciousness is intuitive because it is without thought.

I've met plenty of delusional people in the mental health system. They all believed their view of reality was correct. What they lacked was the ability to show anyone else it was, because nobody heard or saw the things they did. An empirical analysis (such as is present in science) means multiple observers observe and record the same phenomena.

You are defining delusion and sanity in terms of the rational mind and of society. Delusional in terms of higher consciousness simply means not seeing reality as it actually is. Your use of delusional is still within the boundaries of a socially indoctrinated being.

An example of my use of it is as follows:

"Some Buddhists maintain the concept of "another realm". The idea of "another realm" is a substantial, delusional idea."
Shunryu Suzuki

....to be continued

 

[Oberon]

Sir, excuse me, but one either sees things as they are, or not as they are.

The problem is the inability to tell the difference. You are convinced you see things the way they are, despite the fact that tangible evidence says otherwise.

Enlightenment is not thinking, as you think it to be.

I don't think it to be thinking. I don't believe it exists at all.

You are using your rational mind to try to understand a state of consciousness that is not rationally based .

No, I'm not. I'm not trying to obtain enlightenment, because I don't believe in it, at least not in the buddhist sense.

You are defining delusion and sanity in terms of the rational mind and of society.

I'm defining it in terms of connection to reality, as it can be observed through the senses. There are plenty of people who aren't delusional but believe in things that can't be observed. The delusional people are those who observe things that aren't there.

 

[Cobblestones]

You are defining delusion and sanity in terms of the rational mind and of society.

I'm defining it in terms of connection to reality, as it can be observed through the senses. There are plenty of people who aren't delusional but believe in things that can't be observed. The delusional people are those who observe things that aren't there.

Trying to engage in an intelligent debate with one who does not acknowledge the rules to which you subscribe is like trying to play poker with a walrus. It just can't be done.

I'm with you on this one. I have always perceived the mystical realm as one in which anyone can say anything because there is nothing to disprove them and therefore the mystic can look down on all the unenlightened people while the unenlightened realists are doomed to such mundane fates as discovering flight, finding cures to diseases, and developing early warning systems so people can be prepared for natural disasters...

 

[ayani]

short answer :

no, certainly not.

many pre-Christian world views contained stories of saviour or heroes suffering or dying, and coming back to life. some of these stories even name that saviour or hero as a son of the gods, or of God.

so these archetypes and ideas are deeply engrained into the human cultural language. yet none of this negates or disproves that Jesus of Nazareth truly was the Messiah who gave His life for His people and the world, and rose on the third day.

many cultures and peoples have hoped for or imaged something of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, and when He rose. one could say that the hopes and stories of many peoples were fulfilled in real life, in historical time, in and through Jesus. after all, God is God of all peoples, and He didn't send Jesus just for one cultural or linguistic group, or nation.

within historical Christianity and various churches as they developed, certainly a lot of pre-Christian ideas, traditions , and holidays have been incorperated. it's pretty well known that as Christianity spread among peoples who had never heard the Gospel and were very fond of their own gods, that church leads would sometimes "transform" their local gods into "saints" thus allowing the people to still worship their gods in a slightly different form, while going to the local church weekly.

yet the various non-Judaic practices and traditions within various churches doesn't negate the Person of Jesus Himself, or diminish who He is.

 

[twinmama]

Hmmmm... virgin mom...God daddy - foster daddy Seb - mommy got announcement from angel - morning star heralded birth - was born in winter solstice - birth was announced by angels to shephards who wittnessed the birth, later 3 solar dieties wittnessed the born infant - infant has death threat and God tells mother to hide - rite of passage ritual when 12 years old - no data between ages 12 and 30 - baptized at age 30, baptiser later beheaded - had temptations by evil on a high mountain top, resists temptation - had 12 followers - did cool stuff like walked on water, cast out demons, healed sick and blinded, raised dead, key teachings; sermon on the mount, was crusified with 2 thieves, was buried in a tomb and resurrected after 3 days - resurrection announced by women....sound familiar?

Meet Horus and his mother Isis.

And let's not forget zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic religion in recorded history(and still practised btw). It had huge impact to judaism, christianity and Islam.

 

[godnotgod]

The problem is the inability to tell the difference. You are convinced you see things the way they are, despite the fact that tangible evidence says otherwise.

The whole point is that there is indeed a way to tell the difference! If you cannot tell the difference, then you are deluded.

I don't think it to be thinking. I don't believe it exists at all.

That is because you are still attached to thinking and beliefs. As long as you continue to attach yourself in that manner, you will never realize your own enlightenment. As you may recall, the cave dwellers in Plato's Allegory of the Cave refused to believe that the Sun existed, because they had been conditioned to believe as true that reality was represented by the shadows cast on the cave walls.

One does not believe in Enlightenment, nor does one think it into existence.

Belief is merely a model of reality brought about via of the thinking process. It is not reality itself. Accessing reality does not involve belief nor thinking.

You cannot know that television signals exist in a room until you turn the TV set on. Until then, all you can say is that you do not know. It would be foolish to say that one did not believe that they exist, because they, in fact DO exist. It is just that you do not have your TV set turned on. The idea is to learn how to turn on your TV set. Unfortunately, interference gets in the way; interference such as BELIEF and THOUGHT, and all the rest of EGOTISTIC WESTERN MAN'S monkey chatter that goes on in that highly over-rated organ, THE BRAIN , where the hallucination of an "I" persists in persuading 'YOU' that it actually exists, and that the CENTER OF CONSCIOUSNESS is in your HEAD.

COME NOW!

Get over it!

No, I'm not. I'm not trying to obtain enlightenment, because I don't believe in it, at least not in the buddhist sense.

Enlightenment is not Buddhist; it is simply Enlightenment. You cannot obtain it anyway, because you already have it, but you simply do not realize it. That's all. Nor is Enlightenment an object of belief, since it is doctrineless.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Enlightenment is finding that there is nothing to find. Enlightenment is to come to know that there is nowhere to go. Enlightenment is the understanding that this is all, that this is perfect, that this is it. Enlightenment is not an achievement, it is an understanding that there is nothing to achieve, nowhere to go. You are already there -- you have never been away. You cannot be away from where you have always been."[/FONT]
Osho

I'm defining it in terms of connection to reality, as it can be observed through the senses.

Sir, if you are relying on your faulty senses to tell you what reality is, then you are sadly mistaken about the nature of reality. The phenomenal world which the senses detect is completely temporal. It is like the froth on the surface of the sea, or clouds that come and go. Is that reality?

There are plenty of people who aren't delusional but believe in things that can't be observed. The delusional people are those who observe things that aren't there.

I don't see much of a difference.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet, there, in the midst of all the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality."
Shunryu Suzuki

I am not speaking about a state of mind in which one believes something to be real, nor one in which one sees things that are not there. I am speaking of an experience that is beyond doubt. That is what the realization of reality is, and the only way to realize it as such, is to see things as they are, or, as Shunryu Suzuki put it: "...to see things as it is", which emphasizes the fact that True Reality is One.
*****

BABY FISH: "Momma, what is the Sea? All my friends at school keep telling me about the Sea!"

MOMMA FISH: "Well, baby, the Sea is all around you, and inside of you."

BABY FISH: (Looking all around) "Where? I don't see any Sea!

MOMMA FISH: "You were born into it and will die in it."

BABY FISH: *sigh*. Oh, well, I guess it just does not exist. I just don't see any such thing as the Sea. Ho Hum"

 

[godnotgod]

Actually got this pdf called "Caesar's Messiah" that states Titus Caesar was the role model for a work of straight fiction. I always thought the best way to fulfill prophecy was with back-story.

"Prophecy is the contamination of the future with the past"
Alan Watts

 

[godnotgod]

Or rather seeing things as they think they really are. You believe your "analysis" of reality is correct. I've met plenty of delusional people in the mental health system. They all believed their view of reality was correct. What they lacked was the ability to show anyone else it was, because nobody heard or saw the things they did.

All of which is true. However, Higher Consciousness does not involve a personal view; it is about a Universal View. And there is indeed a way of validating that this view is authentic, although it is not the scientific, the analytical, the rational, the objective, the subjective, the logical. Those are tools of the thinking mind. Higher Consciousness exists in the non-thinking world, the world of Silence. As I stated before, and which you continue to mis-interpret, the pathway to Higher Consciousness is via of the intuitive mind; the intuitive mind is not the goal.

Zen, for example, show us exactly how to validate that Higher Consciousness is indeed real, by showing us a method by which it can be realized.

At least from your point of view. A schizophrenic may believe that their experience of hallucinations are objective, in that they believe these voices or visions are objectively real and exist outside of their personal experience. However, that is because they are delusional.

Exactly, but I was not speaking about a delusional state of mind. One can be perfectly sane and see things which others simply do not see, and which are real. One is not necessarily delusional just because others cannot either see those same things nor validate them with their ordinary minds.

At least according to your belief system.

Excuse me? What "belief system" are you referring to?

Personally, I see myself "self" as an integrated system (an organism) which is seperate by virtue of its integration as a unified whole from other such systems.

You have been deluded to believe that you are separate, and that you exist. Neither is true.

Additionally, such observations may be substantiated by the observations of others. Interobserver reliability. Buddhist doctrine can make no such claims.

Sorry! Yes it can, and it does.

My system of analysis does NOT say that "a certain mystical experience is fantasy." It states that such experience are entirely subjective. As such, you can believe them all you want, but they are no more objectively "real" than recordings of such experiences as are in Paul's letters.

Well, then in that case you are clearly wrong! The mystical experience is beyond both subjectivity and objectivity. It illuminates the fact that they are, in actuality, one and the same. You think them to be distinct because you are exercising your discriminating mind. You are still thinking "this" and "that", "self" and "other", the nature of which are purely conceptual and dualistic, and which do not actually exist in reality.

1st Observer: "The flag is moving"
2nd Observer: "The wind is moving"
3rd Observer: "Both flag and wind are moving"
Passerby: "All WRONG! Your MINDS are moving!"
*****

*The Lost Pearl*

The Yellow Emperor went wandering
To the north of the Red Water
To the Kwan Lun mountain. He looked
around
Over the edge of the world. On the way
home
He lost his night-colored pearl.
He sent out Science to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent Analysis to look for his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent out Logic to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
Then he asked Nothingness, and
Nothingness had it!
The Yellow Emperor said:
“Strange, indeed: Nothingness
Who was not sent
Who did no work to find it
Had the night-colored pearl!”


Chuang Tzu