Jesus--Fact or Fiction??

[Baruch]

I hope you realize that the 'Elements' I am posting are from Richard Carrier?

As for Jesus trying to do anything; it would be difficult for a fictitious person to do that.  All the 'quotes' from Jesus are simply somebody else using 'him' as a mouthpiece.  It would be like me spouting philosophy through the mouth of Bugs Bunny.  It's all fiction.

You wascally wabbit, you! - Elmer

[Baruch]

Element 12:
From as early as we can ascertain, Christians believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through baptism (Rom 6.3-10), which symbolized their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God', hence they became the brothers of the Lord, the son of God.  Thus Jesus was only 'the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom 8.29).

Just like Hindus skinny dipping in the Ganges.  Christianity has many fathers and mothers.

[Baruch]

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

Yes.  Actually a hero with over 7 billion faces.  I am democratic that way.  Joseph Campbell is a son (gender inclusive) of G-d, and so am I, so are you.  As Alan Watts says.  But the Church etc can't stand that.  The atheists of course can't stand that.  Neither the Sanhedrin nor Constantine can stand that.  Monotheists can't stand that G-d wears a polytheist face, and that the demigods are us.  I don't know about you, but I had satori almost 6 years ago.  So I get this.  Now the problem is, what to do with it ;-)

[Baruch]

Element 13:
Like all mystery cults, Christianity had secret doctrines that initiates were sworn never to reveal, and that would be talked about and written about publicly only in symbols, myths and allegories to disguise their true meaning.

Clement of Alexandria mentions this in the context of early Gentile Christianity in Alexandria Egypt, in the late 2nd century CE.  The Jesus of the Gospels, and Paul of the Epistles, alludes to this.  But once the fight started over control of the congregations, and gnostics were the enemy, and eventually the losers ... then all gnosticism had to bw written out of or ignored in the canonical Christian foundation myth.  Paul was a Kabbalist, a gnostic.  So were the other disciples (see Gospel of Mary).  They originally produced anecdotal spiritual guides like the Gospel of Thomas and organizational guides like the Didache.  And no, we don't know the secrets.  Too many people died, meditation was too hard, and the officials of the churches suppressed it.  Same as Kabbalah was suppressed in the synagogue, and Sufism in the mosque.

[Baruch]

Oh, I dunno.  There may or may not have been a historical Jeshua bar-Joseph.  I think most of us here will agree if there was, he was not divine, of course.  I just don't think it's of much relevance since even if it were demonstrated that he did physically exist, that has no bearing on the merit of the claim of divinity.  If mere existence were enough, then we would be forced to consider the Roman emperors who were deified to be legitimate and real gods since we have evidence for their historicity.

If you take the POV of ancient people, you would agree that the Emperors were gods, sometimes during, but often after their deaths.  You can't judge the past based on episodes of Start Trek NG (though the one were Data gets caught up in an alien myth, and Picard has to explain Gilgamesh, are good).

[Baruch]

I don't know if I would use the word disguise.

I see it more as Jesus trying to make the message meaningful to all, regardless of their religious tradition. He was trying to take it out of the context of a specific tradition because it is quite hard to have someone leave the comfort of their own tribal traditions.

It was that or use force the way Christianity and Islam did to grow their religions instead of good moral arguments.

Regards
DL

In a class driven society, where almost every person is illiterate ... the literate were like gods.  Words were magical.  Julius Caesar could dictate, to male secretaries, two government communiques at the same time.  He was one of the few people in Rome who could read silently (most people had to read out-loud like a 2nd grader) ... and that is how most people heard books ... someone read it to them, same as preschool children today by their parents.

Of course governments can't tolerate something that is good for the sheeple.  If religion was ineffective, government would ignore it.  But it is very effective, particularly in per-modern times.

[Baruch]

The word church already has as a part of it's definition as a place of fellowship, which is what you are highlighting, and that fact is likely why atheists are using the term.

It is also easier than to try to have people recognize some new unknown word. There is a term for that but my English is too poor to recall what doing that is.

Regards
DL

Modern readers are able to read, but as ignorant as ancient peasants.  You would have to explain what "ekklesia" means in that context.  It isn't Church as we know it now.

[Cavebear]

That's not really the point I was trying to make.  My point is that even if the existence of Jeshua bar-Joseph were as well-attested as the existence of any of the Caesars, it would have absolutely no bearing on the claims of divinity attached to him or on the mythology based thereon.  The historicity of Siddhārtha Gautama and Muḥammad ibn Ê¿Abdullāh don't mean that Buddhist and Islamic mythology is true, after all.

I think it not unlikely that the biblical Jesus is probably based on at least one preacher active at that time, and may be an amalgamation of several.  Whether there was an actual, physical Jeshua bar-Joseph at the core of it, I don't know and I'm not much fussed either way.

Personally, I think the amalgamation theory is most likely, since that provides a reasonable basis for why 'Jesus' says and does contradictory or mutually-exclusive things, depending on which account one reads.

My apologies.  You are completely correct.  Had there been such a person, the divinity claims would still be unlikely.  I should have emphasized the divinity claims. 

And I do know.  There is not a proven Jesus "son of god" ...

[Cavebear]

Shh ... don't tell the Europeans or the Americans.  They both think they are superior to the other.  To really get into it, you have to think in terms of 1000s of miles and 1000s of years.  And prior to writing, the people of old can't tell us much, unfortunately.

And apparently, you can'y either.  No one thinks in terms of "1000s of miles and 1000s of years".

[Greatest I am]

I hope you realize that the 'Elements' I am posting are from Richard Carrier?

As for Jesus trying to do anything; it would be difficult for a fictitious person to do that.  All the 'quotes' from Jesus are simply somebody else using 'him' as a mouthpiece.  It would be like me spouting philosophy through the mouth of Bugs Bunny.  It's all fiction.

True, but that does not take away why the scribes and others use parables and stories.

Note how this story/parable has a worthy message for all who say their ideologies, religion or political parties are the best of the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

'Jesus' never taught anything--he is a fiction.

A statement you cannot prove.

Regards
DL

[Cavebear]

True, but that does not take away why the scribes and others use parables and stories.

Note how this story/parable has a worthy message for all who say their ideologies, religion or political parties are the best of the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdLPe7XjdKc

Regards
DL

I have neither stars nor not...  LOL!  Good reference though.

[Cavebear]

A statement you cannot prove.

Regards
DL

The proof resides on those who claim his existence.

[Greatest I am]

The problem with 'church' as a term is that while it may have a technical secular secondary or tertiary meaning, if you say 'church' to 100 English-speakers, I'd lay money that all 100 of them would assume 'place of religious activity'.

The other problem with using the term is that it would only encourage those who try to claim that atheism is 'just another religion' -- they would latch on to that word with glee.

I don't mind a neologism -- I think that's the word you were looking for -- to be applied to an atheist meeting place, although the more I think about it, the more I like the term 'symposium'.  While today it's come to mean an academic conference, it was in classical Greece basically hanging out after dinner, drinking wine, with or without entertainment.

And really, that would be a lovely way to spend a Sunday afternoon: drop down to the local atheist symposium for coffee and conversation with like-minded people and a lecture, a formal debate, a poetry slam, a jam session, the showing of a documentary, or whatever.

I hear you, but not being an atheist, I see no other reason than what I stated for atheist leaders and thinkers to have decided to call their gathering places churches.

Perhaps the hope, and I pra, so to speak, that it is because they hope to be popular enough to take over all the churches presently staffed by perpetually lying priests, preachers and imams.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Yes.  Actually a hero with over 7 billion faces.  I am democratic that way.  Joseph Campbell is a son (gender inclusive) of G-d, and so am I, so are you.  As Alan Watts says.  But the Church etc can't stand that.  The atheists of course can't stand that.  Neither the Sanhedrin nor Constantine can stand that.  Monotheists can't stand that G-d wears a polytheist face, and that the demigods are us.  I don't know about you, but I had satori almost 6 years ago.  So I get this.  Now the problem is, what to do with it ;-)

I can only recommend my poor method.

https://vimeo.com/41160615

Seriously though, if I had your I Q and linguistic skills and eloquence instead of my uneducated prose, I would be writing a book.

If you ever move to God's country where I am, I would hire you as a ghost writer. 

My kingdom for such skills.

Regards
DL