News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Jesus--Fact or Fiction??

Started by Mike Cl, October 04, 2017, 11:15:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Greatest I am

I am a Gnostic Christian and we have always considered Jesus to be an archetypal good man.

That is why Christian tried to kill us all off and burn our scriptures the moment they were bought by Constantine.

This link speaks of that if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 10:11:45 AM
Element 10:
Christianity began as a Jewish messianic cult preaching a spiritually victorious messiah.  This means that (a) sometime in the early first century at least one of the many diverse sects of Jews came to believe and preach that (b) a certain Jesus was an eschatological Christ, (c) despite his having been crucified and buried by the powers that be (whether temporal or supernatural), (d) because he had afterward appeared to certain favored people and convinced them he was this Christ and (e) had to die in atonement for all sins but (F) had risen from the dead to sit at the right hand of God in order to being the work (through the sect he was thus founding) of preparing for God's kingdom until (g) the time when this Christ would descend from heaven to complete his mission of destroying God's enemies, resurrecting the dead, and establishing an eternal paradise .  (h) At this time Jesus was already believed  to be a preexistent being but (i) was not believed to be identical to God, but to be his appointed emissary and subordinate, not God himself but given God's authority, being God's 'son' in the same sense as angels and kings traditionally were.

None of this should be controversial.  Some scholars might challenge the notion that the earliest Jesus cult regarded the death of Jesus to be an atonement sacrifice, but the fact of the matter is ur earliest Christian documents widely attest this was a standard, fundamental, and pervasive Christian belief, and affords no evidence of any prior version of Christianity.

Correct again, but technically there was no Christianity as we know it, before 135 CE at the earliest, 325 CE at the latest.  Later Christians wanted to paint themselves in to a falsified foundation myth created by Constantine's propagandists (see Eusebius of Caesarea).  But the original people were Jewish Messianic, not Christian.  And Christianoi would have originally referred to Messianic Hellenistic Jews, like Paul.  All proper Jews knew that the messiah wouldn't be Hellenistic, but properly Semitic ;-)  Messianic Semitic Jews, the majority of Messianic Jews, were wiped out by 135 CE.

The earlier ancestor of Constantine Christianity, was the Pauline Church (appropriately bowdlerized).  That mission was directed at Gentiles, not Jews, and became dominant only long after 135 CE.  Paul originated in the Jewish Gnostic movement ... aka Kabbalah ... but closer to Philo of Alexandria, since he was Hellenistic ... not like the Semitic messianics at Qumran.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 10, 2017, 12:44:13 PM
I am a Gnostic Christian and we have always considered Jesus to be an archetypal good man.

That is why Christian tried to kill us all off and burn our scriptures the moment they were bought by Constantine.

This link speaks of that if you have the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL
I have read The Jesus Mysteries, of which Freke is one of the co-authors.  It is a quick and easy read; a great introduction book. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2017, 01:09:22 PM
Correct again, but technically there was no Christianity as we know it, before 135 CE at the earliest, 325 CE at the latest.  Later Christians wanted to paint themselves in to a falsified foundation myth created by Constantine's propagandists (see Eusebius of Caesarea).  But the original people were Jewish Messianic, not Christian.  And Christianoi would have originally referred to Messianic Hellenistic Jews, like Paul.  All proper Jews knew that the messiah wouldn't be Hellenistic, but properly Semitic ;-)  Messianic Semitic Jews, the majority of Messianic Jews, were wiped out by 135 CE.

The earlier ancestor of Constantine Christianity, was the Pauline Church (appropriately bowdlerized).  That mission was directed at Gentiles, not Jews, and became dominant only long after 135 CE.  Paul originated in the Jewish Gnostic movement ... aka Kabbalah ... but closer to Philo of Alexandria, since he was Hellenistic ... not like the Semitic messianics at Qumran.
I agree that Christianity was not 'Christianity' until 135 or later.  But there  were versions around before then.  What we see today are the victors in a very vicious and long fight.  And I am also posting all the 'elements' Carrier listed.  These are the 'facts' that he will deal with in the rest of his book.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Greatest I am

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 01:50:08 PM
I have read The Jesus Mysteries, of which Freke is one of the co-authors.  It is a quick and easy read; a great introduction book. 

I agree completely.

What do you think of the conclusions that Gnostic Christianity teaches that are spoken of in this link.

I do not like to just drop a link so let me quote you the punch line. Nothing supernatural, but all internal to you using meditation and an archetypal good man called Jesus as a simple guide or mantra.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

#65
Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2017, 01:09:22 PM


Your pupil again.

In that link just above, he quote Jesus saying Is it not written in your law, ye are God.

I do not know and could not find where in the Jewish law this is written. I do not doubt that it is but I cannot find it in my Jewish bible.

Do they mean just the Psalms and is it exact to the Torah and you will note that in this Jewish bible, psalm 82 uses a capital G at the beginning of the verse and I thought that Jews did not use capitals and went by context.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2682.htm

I promise that this is it for my wish list.

Regards
DL

Mike Cl

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 10, 2017, 02:30:26 PM
I agree completely.

What do you think of the conclusions that Gnostic Christianity teaches that are spoken of in this link.

I do not like to just drop a link so let me quote you the punch line. Nothing supernatural, but all internal to you using meditation and an archetypal good man called Jesus as a simple guide or mantra.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL
Greatest, I do not believe in anything unnatural or supernatural.  All that is, is natural.  Therefore, there is no Jesus--except in a fictional way.  All religion is based upon a fiction or fictions.  The bible is simply a compilation of fictional works and carries no more weight than any other fictional work.  Bibles abound; and they all have only one thing in common--none agree with the others.  In another post you indicated that I had mixed up belief and faith.  No, you have those two mixed up.  A believer does not need proof or evidence nor use critical thinking or reasoning.  A person of faith is even more blind than that.  They are simply degrees of one another.  An atheist (or this one at least) does not 'believe', but bases an opinion on facts and evidence and critical thinking. Atheist agree on only one thing--there are not god(s).  Period.  There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism.

Unity, as taught by Charles Fillmore, comes the closet to anything I may 'believe' in.  Google him--he is kind of a gnostic.  Anyway, he talks of the 'christ consciousness'  and using 'affirmations' to tap into that 'christ'.  I take that as a means of controlling your mind to reach positive goals.  Nothing supernatural there.  He uses religious terms for that was the most fertile group of minds he could touch.  Developing personal goals and using positive methods to reach them is what he is really about.  But Gnostic I am not.  Most have a 'knowing' of themselves that they probably have not tapped into.  But it does not take a real or fictitious jesus or any other fictitious god to get into touch with one's 'self'.  It takes time and effort--time to figure out what one wants and then how to achieve it.  And practice.  And thought.  Not easy, but it can be done. 

I rambled a bit--but I am not impressed by a christian with a 'knowing' from jesus in any form; it is still fiction based. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#67
GIA - "if therefore thine eye be single" ... or metaphorically the third eye of Shiva ;-)  I don't think he was thinking of the Cyclops.

Psalm 82:6 ... but we have argued before about the Psalms not being in the Torah, but in the Kethuvim.

Lately I have taken to calling myself a demigod ... because that is what the son of a god would be, like Heracles.  Heracles was a screw up himself, from a misbehaving king of the gods (Zeus).  The Greco-Roman view of deity is much more reasonable than the self contradicting virtue signaling of the Abrahamic god.

Quote
אֲ‍ֽנִי־אָ֭מַרְתִּי אֱלֹ×"ִ֣ים אַתֶּÖ'ם וּ×'Ö°× ÖµÖ–×™ עֶלְיֹ֣ון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃

What does the Hebrew say, not the f-ed up King James version?

It mentions "I (am)", "elohim" and "el-yon" ... as potential divine connections to each other.  The Johannine theology would include the "I (am)".  In Hebrew "to be" is implied.  The putative narrator is King David.  Jesus is the new King David, and the new Adam as well.  As the "demi-urgos" he is the demigod, a kind of arch-angel as Logos, who is the means thru which Creation occurs.  What is "elohim", what is "el-yon"?

The Bible interpreters make the Bible say what they want it to say.  "elohim" is clearly plural.  "el-yon" is clearly singular.  If we equate these, what is the author talking about?  IMHO ... the "elohim" is the collective microcosm aka humanity.  That is the image of "el-yon" which is "G-d Most High" aka the macrocosm.  Basically a humanistic "net of Indra" ... Indra being the Hindu god closest to Zeus ;-)  There are times when Jesus refers to himself as a fire starter ... and this is associated with world construction at a forge ... like you would expect if Agni in Hinduism, or Hephaestus in Greece.  This works out very ironically, since Vulcan is the Roman equivalent of Hephaestus.  Hephaestus was parthenogenic from Hera ... and rejected by her.  A pagan hearing the Christian story wouldn't have missed that implication.  And today, we view Vulcans as logical ... aka Logos.  But in Genesis, the metalworkers are descendants of Cain, the first murderer.  And then there is the connection between Bacchus and Jesus ... and Bacchus being the father of theater as well.  Passion plays anyone?  And Bacchus in his ME form as a dying-rising god, aka Ba'al.  There are layers upon layers.  Who was Ba'al's father?  El.  They even called Jesus ... Ba'al Zebub.  But were they calling his followers mere bugs?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Element 11:
The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.  This is also beyond any reasonable doubt, yet frequently denied in the field of Jesus research.................

Christianity also conforms to four universal trends distinctive of the Hellenistic mystery religions, and is therefore unmistakably a product of these same cultural trends:
--1.--Syncretism of a local or national system of religious ideas with distinctly Hellenistic ideas (and the ideas of other nations and localities whose diffusion was facilitated by Hellenism;
--2--a monotheistic trend, with every mystery religion evolving from polytheism (many competing gods) to henotheism (one supreme god reigning over subordinate deities), marking a trajectory toward monotheism (only one god);
--3--a shift to individualism, placing the religious focus on the eternal salvation of the individual rather than the welfare of the community as a whole;
--4--and cosmopolitanism, with membership being open and spanning all environments, provinces, races and social classes (and often genders).

That all four features were universal to all the known mystery religions has been abundantly demonstrated in current scholarship, as has the enormous popularity of these new religions, and the rise of these features and their popularity centuries before Christianity.  Christianity fits exactly within this trend and in that respect looks exactly like every other mystery religion developed during this period--indeed, it is a relative latecomer.  It is thus an expected phenomenon of its time and evinces an unmistakable transformation of the very different Jewish religion into something more palatially identical to popular pagan religious movements arising from every other 'foreign' culture under the Roman Empire.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#69
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 08:18:31 PM
Element 11:
The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.  This is also beyond any reasonable doubt, yet frequently denied in the field of Jesus research.................

Christianity also conforms to four universal trends distinctive of the Hellenistic mystery religions, and is therefore unmistakably a product of these same cultural trends:
--1.--Syncretism of a local or national system of religious ideas with distinctly Hellenistic ideas (and the ideas of other nations and localities whose diffusion was facilitated by Hellenism;
--2--a monotheistic trend, with every mystery religion evolving from polytheism (many competing gods) to henotheism (one supreme god reigning over subordinate deities), marking a trajectory toward monotheism (only one god);
--3--a shift to individualism, placing the religious focus on the eternal salvation of the individual rather than the welfare of the community as a whole;
--4--and cosmopolitanism, with membership being open and spanning all environments, provinces, races and social classes (and often genders).

That all four features were universal to all the known mystery religions has been abundantly demonstrated in current scholarship, as has the enormous popularity of these new religions, and the rise of these features and their popularity centuries before Christianity.  Christianity fits exactly within this trend and in that respect looks exactly like every other mystery religion developed during this period--indeed, it is a relative latecomer.  It is thus an expected phenomenon of its time and evinces an unmistakable transformation of the very different Jewish religion into something more palatially identical to popular pagan religious movements arising from every other 'foreign' culture under the Roman Empire.

Correct again.  Hence potentially much more popular than Pharisee/Sadducee Judaism.  Paul wasn't necessarily correct, but he was very bright ... the procurator Festus at his trial in Caesarea said so ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 09, 2017, 09:50:45 AM
Element 8:
a) Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from god about the coming messiah, both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.  The Christians were thus not engaging in novel activity when they did the same.  b) Since countless Jews were already doing this, and had been for a century or more, we must conclude the Jews who would become the first Christians had already been doing it long before they became Christians.

Indeed this was a fad of the time, evident throughout the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmuds and Jewish literature elsewhere.  The whole pesher genre is devoted to this activity. 

.......................And it is because of this that countless different sects and interpretations of God's plan arose, with Christianity among them.

The early christians thought of themselves as jews receiving the long-awaited messiah.  There was nothing unusual about them then.  They just had the new idea among jews of being evangical.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on October 11, 2017, 04:41:46 AM
The early christians thought of themselves as jews receiving the long-awaited messiah.  There was nothing unusual about them then.  They just had the new idea among jews of being evangical.

Correct, when the NT talks of Pharisees seeking converts ... that was converting other Jews to their puritanical sect.  They still do that.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Greatest I am

Quote from: Mike Cl on October 10, 2017, 05:26:40 PM
Greatest, I do not believe in anything unnatural or supernatural.  All that is, is natural.  Therefore, there is no Jesus--except in a fictional way.  All religion is based upon a fiction or fictions.  The bible is simply a compilation of fictional works and carries no more weight than any other fictional work.  Bibles abound; and they all have only one thing in common--none agree with the others.  In another post you indicated that I had mixed up belief and faith.  No, you have those two mixed up.  A believer does not need proof or evidence nor use critical thinking or reasoning.  A person of faith is even more blind than that.  They are simply degrees of one another.  An atheist (or this one at least) does not 'believe', but bases an opinion on facts and evidence and critical thinking. Atheist agree on only one thing--there are not god(s).  Period.  There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism.

Unity, as taught by Charles Fillmore, comes the closet to anything I may 'believe' in.  Google him--he is kind of a gnostic.  Anyway, he talks of the 'christ consciousness'  and using 'affirmations' to tap into that 'christ'.  I take that as a means of controlling your mind to reach positive goals.  Nothing supernatural there.  He uses religious terms for that was the most fertile group of minds he could touch.  Developing personal goals and using positive methods to reach them is what he is really about.  But Gnostic I am not.  Most have a 'knowing' of themselves that they probably have not tapped into.  But it does not take a real or fictitious jesus or any other fictitious god to get into touch with one's 'self'.  It takes time and effort--time to figure out what one wants and then how to achieve it.  And practice.  And thought.  Not easy, but it can be done. 

I rambled a bit--but I am not impressed by a christian with a 'knowing' from jesus in any form; it is still fiction based. 

I agree that it is all fiction. We are on that same page. All Gnostic Christians do is use that fiction as a mantra to access our right hemisphere of the brain.

"There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism."

Ok.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/atheist-churches-for-real.515762/

You seem on the right mental path and I think the only issue is that I promote the non-supernatural Jesus myth as a mantra, while that seems to make you think it a mistake.

I will look up Charles Fillmore as we seem to advocate the same thing. I think targeting Christians is a good idea as they need enlightenment more than you or I.

Regards
DL


Greatest I am

Quote from: Baruch on October 10, 2017, 08:07:14 PM
GIA - "if therefore thine eye be single" ... or metaphorically the third eye of Shiva ;-)  I don't think he was thinking of the Cyclops.

Psalm 82:6 ... but we have argued before about the Psalms not being in the Torah, but in the Kethuvim.

Me be absent minded professor type. That is why I seek the gist of things.

I have reached the conclusion that all the myths and traditions show that we are all trying to be a hero of 1,000 faces as taught by some mythesists. We all wish to have that ideology that catches fire in the world and elevates ourselves to God like status.

I wonder if you, with your detail memory, have reached the same basic conclusion?

Regards
DL




Mike Cl

Quote from: Greatest I am on October 11, 2017, 08:33:54 AM
I agree that it is all fiction. We are on that same page. All Gnostic Christians do is use that fiction as a mantra to access our right hemisphere of the brain.

"There is no church of atheism; no ideology of atheism; no religion of atheism."

Ok.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/atheist-churches-for-real.515762/

You seem on the right mental path and I think the only issue is that I promote the non-supernatural Jesus myth as a mantra, while that seems to make you think it a mistake.

I will look up Charles Fillmore as we seem to advocate the same thing. I think targeting Christians is a good idea as they need enlightenment more than you or I.

Regards
DL
This is a new one on me.  I'll have to look into it in more detail.  At first glance, it seems to fit the Barnum and Bailey saying--a sucker is born every minute.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?