Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
I agree
Christianity has a long tradition of seeing itself as "unique" though
that really is what is at the heart of this thread.....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
I agree
Christianity has a long tradition of seeing itself as "unique" though
that really is what is at the heart of this thread.....
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
not sure right now....
never mind....
I threw it in as an aside...
I really dont care about historical jesus all that much anyway
Translation: I completely made that up.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
nope....
I wouldnt have said it otherwise....
............
Victory breeds hatred.
The defeated live in pain.
Happily the peaceful live,
giving up victory and defeat.
--Buddha
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Right. You said it, but simply forgot any and all references which would back you up. Or, more likely, you just made it up.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Pirate Jesus sounds awesome.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It matters now more who your daddy is.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
uh huh...
As a solid rock is not shaken by the wind,
even so the wise remain unshaken amidst blame and praise.
--Buddha
Tell you what... Would you like me to go over every single source we have (or might have) for the essenes to show how you were simply fabricating things? I have no problem taking you through philo or josephus, or (if you follow many scholar and consider the qumran documents the products of an essene community) through the dead sea scrolls.
Or you can just admit you don't know what you are talking about.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
No please do
I know how you like to prove you are superior
Please do spend time providing sources
I think it would be rather funny
so yes please go ahead
CITE every source....spend mucho timo doing it
Everyone here knows you can....
:clap Please do it Oberon....prove how superior you are to everyone
I know it will change my life, forever, the simple fact you can post on an internet discussion forum
:clap
Yay Oberon...
Though a fool, through all his life,
associates with a wise man,
he no more understands the Dhamma
than a spoon (tastes) the flavour of soup.
--Buddha
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.
godnotgod
Thou art That
"Satan, my boy, I have been watching you, and must say, you are doing an exemplary job, hand in hand with my other son, Jesus. Why'ncha come up 'fer a spell and join us in a cup of Heavenly Brew? Take Five!":slap:
...all 'beginnings' occur in the Present Moment. Think about this: The Past does not create the Present, as we have been taught; the Present creates the Past.
...which had the Holy Breath behind it.
...the spirit that is God was transformed into flesh...
...not just as the unique historical Jesus, but universally in all men, making the gifts of the Incarnation available to all....and that, folks, is Buddhism.
....the Hindus say: "Tas atvam asi": "Thou art that", or...
"God became man that man might become God"
Athanasian Creed...or how about....
"Ordinary Mind and Buddha Mind are one and the same"
Buddha
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
An important difference between the two should be noted, however. In the case of Jesus, it is extremely important to the Christian that he can prove his historicity. This is because we are dealing with, at its core, a system of belief, and belief always involves a certain amount of uncertainty. Therefore, the more bits and pieces the Christian can gather around his belief system, the more "credible" he thinks it is, and the less metaphysical anxiety he feels.
While there is the story of the historical Buddha, the actual Buddhistic experience has nothing to do with him. He need not have existed at all for one to experience Enlightenment, because YOU are the Buddha.
For Christians, it is all about the idolatrous love for, and submission to, Jesus. The Buddha is not an object of worship.
The original figure of the Jewish mystic Essene that was Yeshua never asked to be worshipped. His sect, that of the Order of Nazorean Essens at Mt. Carmel outside of Nazareth, seems to have been a central pooling place for both the ancient and Eastern religious ideas of the time. Here you will find Hinduism, Buddhism, Kabbalism, Yoga, Manicheism, Gnosticism, etc. all coming together to form the basis for Yeshua's teachings.
See what I mean, here:
The Order of Nazorean Essenes
It was St. Paul who superimposed the Hellenistic messiah over Yeshua, turning him into the modern Jesus.
"Paul was the original preacher of "Jesus Christ". Yeshua was not called "Jesus" nor "Christ" until Paul concluded that Yeshua had been the Messiah predicted in Scripture. Paul also added much of his own beliefs to the story of the Messiah, including many rituals and parts of the Mithraism religion. He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the Messiah theme of Judaism, and the result was the sacrificial nature of Christ that Christianity has."
Paul of Tarsus, Mithraism & Paul's Laws in the New Testament of the Bible
Not really. History is concerned with the plausible, not the supernatural. The fact that Jesus existed is pretty meaningless for christians if he didn't resurrect or wasn't the son of god, and neither can be confirmed by history.
Actually, the current pope, and a number of other leading theologians, and most conservative christians, have deemed the "historical" Jesus meaningless and irrelevant. Ratzinger said that the historical Jesus questers predetermined their results, and in a sense he was correct, as a starting postulate of historical inquiry is that all supernatural events are ahistorical.
The essenes weren't mystics. In none of the primary sources on the essenes are they described as mystics, nor are the dead sea scrolls "mystic" in nature.
There is no indication anywhere that Jesus was an essenes.
All of the above is nonsense.
Find some real sources.
Both statements are incorrect. Jesus was called Jesus and Christ prior to Paul.
Paul added his own beliefs to christianity, or what became christianity. He added NOTHING to the story of Jesus, because he barely touched on it.
,
Which didn't exist.
.
Only the idea of Christ and sacrifice predates Paul, and exists independently from Paul.
You should really try reading things you don't just dig up on the internet.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I disagree. Modern Christians are more intent than ever on uncovering every scrap of 'evidence' to support Jesus's historicity. Why else do we see TV specials wherein whole groups of Christian scholars travel to the Holy Land to revisit old sites and re-enact scenarios of Biblical accounts as a means of reinforcing the belief system?
Judaism successfully existed for a long period without the need for belief in a risen savior.
Well, of course! They are realizing that his historicity cannot be proven, and to insist upon it would only weaken the case for belief, instead of strengthening it.
Well, sir, I tend to believe statements about the Essenes from the Essenes themselves, and yours as coming from a highly conditioned, indoctrinated mentality. That Yeshua was not only an Essene, but a mystic Essene, is indicated by at least one source:
In Mystic Christianity, by Yogi Ramacharaka, we read:
"Jesus came unannounced to, and unrecognized by John.... Although the two were cousins, they had not met since childhood, and John did not at first recognize Jesus. The traditions of the Mystic Orders further state that Jesus then gave to John the various signs of the Mystery Schools to which they both belonged, working from the common signs up until Jesus passed on to degrees to which John had not attained, although he was an eminent high-degree Essene. Whereupon John saw that the man before him was no common applicant for Baptism, but was, instead, a highest-degree Mystic Adept, his superior in rank and unfoldment."
While the New Testament does not include all of the esoteric information above, it does declare that John -- the Qumran Baptist -- DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIS COUSIN JESUS.
The fact that Jesus was not from Qumran DOES NOT MEAN HE WAS NOT AN ESSENE. Often, when orthodox Christian scholars are attempting to prove that Jesus was not an Essene, they point out certain differences between the teachings of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (They often point out that Jesus' doctrine is less strict in some matters than the 'Community Rule' of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls; by doing so, they think they are proving that Jesus was not an Essene.) But they are missing the point: QUMRAN WAS ONLY ONE OF MANY DIVERSE ESSENE COMMUNITIES. Whereas Qumran was a strict monastic commune for celibate men, some other Essene communities -- such as Mount Carmel and the related Nazarene stronghold of Nazareth -- were for entire families and naturally had more relaxed rules. The teachings of Jesus were more a product of the Northern Essene environment of Mount Carmel than Qumran. I quote from Peter Lemesurier's The Armageddon Script:
"Admittedly, Jesus was often considerably more forthcoming (less secretive) than the typical Qumran Essene, but then it should be remembered that he was not a Qumran Essene. Not only was he a 'Carmelite' or 'Nazarene', a product of the Essene movement's necessarily 'ecumenical' headquarters-group, but he was the intended messianic Priest-King, the ultimate 'Interpreter of the Law'.... As such, his rank was superior by far to the rest of the Essene leadership, even to the original Teacher of Righteousness. Consequently, he was free to interpret the Law and the Prophets in his own way and to whom he pleased, as the spirit guided him."
Thus, the differences between the teachings of Jesus and the Qumran Essenes are due to:
Jesus was raised at the more ecumenical, family-oriented Essene community at Mount Carmel; and,
The Dead Sea Scrolls, wonderful as they are, were written by Essenes who were prayerfully preparing for the coming of the Universal Messiah, the Prince of Peace. Obviously, once the Messiah of the Universe came to earth, the words that came out of his mouth were far [more] transcendent of even the best of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Introduction to the Ancient Essenes and the Modern Essene Church of Christ
Perhaps it is YOU that is nonsense!
If you cannot appreciate my sources, then perhaps you should not be responding to what they tell us. Some of these sources are written by scholars with Phd's. What are YOUR credentials such that you make condemnatory statements without reference?
In the ancient Essene manuscripts used by our church, Jesus predicted his enemies would alter his teachings after his crucifixion and his church would become corrupt. He was right. After Jesus was crucified, it was not long before his church was taken over by his enemies, and his true followers were executed as "heretics". Christianity then became a State-run religion, run by corrupt kings via their puppet-popes. They altered the New Testament: they removed all references to the Essenes and eliminated Jesus' teachings on vegetarianism, reincarnation, the feminine aspect of God and much more. That was the "Dark Age"; Jesus predicted all of it. But he also predicted an "Age of Light" in which his ESSENE CHURCH OF CHRIST would return and his true teachings would be distributed. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED! (About twenty years after the crucifixion, Paul -- who had never met Jesus -- split off from the vegetarian Essene Nazarene Christianity and started a competing meat-eating branch of Christianity. The old apostles who had actually known and been trained by Jesus, continued to lead the Essene Nazarene Christian movement and refused to participate in the corrupted version of Christianity founded by Paul; the old Apostles -- including James, Peter, John and Thomas -- declared that Paul was altering the true teachings of Jesus. Because Paul threw out Jesus' doctrine on vegetarianism -- and other lifestyle practices which seemed hard to follow -- and replaced them with an easy (and false) system of salvation based on merely believing in the sacrificial death of Jesus, his worldly version of Christianity grew to be much larger than the Essene Nazarene version. Paul's Christianity -- "Paulianity" -- evolved into the Roman Catholic Church. Up until the fourth century both types of Christian churches existed: vegetarian "Essene Christianity" and meat-eating, "Catholic Paulianity." But then, in the fourth century, the Catholic Church -- having grown into a large State-run religion -- sent their army to exterminate (as heretics) the Essene Nazarenes. Nearly all the Essene Nazarenes were killed and most of their books (which contained the true teachings of Jesus) were burned. From that time on, Essene Nazarene Christianity existed only in small numbers as a hidden, underground religion, while Paulianity spread all over the planet. Mainstream, modern Christianity today -- both Catholic and Protestant -- is based more on the teachings of Paul than Jesus and should be referred to as "Paulanity". Fortunately, the original books of Essene Nazarene Christianity were not all burned; some were hidden and are now in our possession. [It has been suggested by several sources that the original Pe****ta manuscripts were among those that were burned, making it appear that the NT was first written in Greek rather than in Aramaic]
Introduction to the Ancient Essenes and the Modern Essene Church of Christ
,
You are referring to the wrong Mithra.
.
Not so. Paul was immersed as a child in the mystery religions, which did indeed teach the doctrine of a dying and resurrected god-man.
Last edited:
The vast majority of christian scholars involved with historical Jesus research are extrememly "liberal" christians. The vast majority of christian theologicians who take conservative christian doctrine more seriously think the whole project is a waste of time.
So what?
No, they don't care about historicity. The fact that a historical Jesus existed is meaningless. If he didn't resurrect and wasn't the son of god (which historical inquiry can say nothing about) than it really doesn't matter for christianity.
Jesus' historicity CAN be "proven" in as much as the historicity of anyone from ancient history can.
The problem Christian theologians have with such endeavors is that any historical inquiry takes as a starting point that anything religious or supernatural is ahistorical. Which makes historical inquiry pretty useless for christian dogma.
No essene text mentions Jesus or anything mystic. You are quoting modern reinterpretations.
Yes, but anyone can write anything about Jesus. The question is what evidence exists? Have you read the dead sea scrolls, or philo on the essenes, or any primary essenes sources?
A modern source. Who cares what is said if there is no evidence? Your quotation simply gives opnion, without any evidence whatsoever. No primary texts are cited, and with good reason, because there is no evidence from primary texts that the essenes were mystics or that Jesus was one of them.
John was not from Qumran.
True enough. However, the fact that there is no mention anywhere of his being one, and no evidence that he was, and evidence of his doctrine that is contrary to what we know of the essenes, tells against this idea.
Not just christian scholars. Jewish scholars and agnostic scholars have made the same point. Almost no schoolars, christian or otherwise, try to paint Jesus as an essene, because the evidence is all against such a theory. Only people who don't deal with actual evidence, such as most of your sources, hold to such views.
We have only three other sources for the essenes: Philo, Josephus, and Pliny. None of them paint the essenes in the light you are reading them.
Perhaps. But then I do not have to depend on internet sources. In fact, I don't even have to depend on secondary scholarship. I am familiar with our only sources for the essenes, and our sources for the mystery religions. So I can recognize complete b.s. when I see it.
Like what? So far, you have cited virtually no scholars for any opinions you have given. There are virtually no scholars who believe Jesus was an essene, or that the essenes were mystics, or that the pe****ta is not a translation from the greek, or anything else you state. You give websites you find, and quotations from them, not scholarly works. Nor do you provide any primary sources.
For example, we have only the qumran literature (which is debatedly essene), Philo, Josephus, and Pliny for information on the essenes. Yet none of your sources deal with any of these texts.
My credentials are fairly meaingless here, as I don't need them to back up my views. I can cite both scholarship and primary sources, and I am not dependent on various websites I find for my views.
For what it is worth, I have an M.A. in classics and one in biblical studies, and I am working on a dissertation on orality in the Jesus tradition.
This type of statement completely discredits such a source. It is like citing the Book of Mormon on Jesus.
There are NO ancient essene manuscripts which deal with Jesus. In fact, the only possible texts which may have been written by essenes we possess are the dead sea scrolls. None of our other three sources (Pliny, Josephus, and Philo) were themselves essenes.
The hellenistic mithras was the one who died and resurrected. We have no ancient persian sources which tell of a dying and resurrecting mithra. There is no evidence for any mithra who died and resurrected prior to around the beginning of the 2nd century CE (after the gospels were written, and about 50 years after Paul had written his letters).
There is no evidence to support such a view. Paul's only mention of previous religious doctrine is of being a pharisee, who were immersed in jewish law and jewish purity, and disdain for hellenism.
Also, you are clearly not familiar with our sources for the mystery religions. The sources for Attis and Mithras mystery religions (the dying savior gods) date AFTER all the gospels and Paul were written. It didn't exist in jesus' day or in Paul's.
godnotgod
Thou art That
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.
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. 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.
The Resurrection makes no sense without the Sacrifice of the Crucifixion, a sacrifice in which divine blood is shed for the salvation of all men. And it is here that we once again touch upon the pagan origins of the Christian myth. The key here is a sacrificial host whose blood is shed as payment for offense against God, but a host that is absolutely pure and completely acceptable in the eyes of God. No other sacrificial host will do, and if the host is not pure enough, then God's anger will continue to ensue, and what good is a resurrection if God continues to punish you in his anger? All the Resurrection is designed to do is to clinch the idea that the sacrificial host that just died was who he claimed to be, by demonstrating his "victory" over death. Unfortunately, the claim for such an event is flawed. If Jesus wanted to demonstrate his divinity via of a resurrection, he would have made a point of doing it in front of tens of thousands. Instead, an event of such magnitude was confined to a private viewing amongst a few choice individuals, individuals who already believed he was the Messiah. So why would he need to convince them? The myth smacks of having been concocted of whole cloth, but it was necessary to do so in order to sanctify and give meaning to the raw brutality of the Crucifixion.
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.
Last edited: