Kevin's Watch

Iolanthe wrote:If the whole thing is founded on a myth, it sure has lasted a long time - almost 2000 years and still going strong.

Depends which myth you mean. I'm not, for example, necessarily contesting the fact of his existence, nor the fact that people have based their religious beliefs around him. That last certainly is clear.

--A

Lots of good info here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Lots of good info here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You found me out, HLT Should have posted that link myself.

Avatar wrote:Depends which myth you mean. I'm not, for example, necessarily contesting the fact of his existence, nor the fact that people have based their religious beliefs around him. That last certainly is clear.

Myth was really the wrong word to use, wasn't it? Having accepted that Jesus was a historical figure, the rest is really up to you. I'm no evangelist, and perhaps that argument belongs elsewhere on this forum.

Avatar wrote:
Also, I'm not sure I would consider somewhere around 60 years later "in the time of..." especially in that particular era. That's maybe 2 generations of hearsay.

--A

Good point; still, Matthew, Mark, and John were written by eyewitnesses (people who knew Jesus personally and saw his execution, met with him after his resurrection, and saw his ascension); as were the letters of Peter, James (Jesus' half-brother), and most likely Jude. It would be like reading a book about the Korean War written by someone who was actually there, and had been on the lecture circuit ever since telling about what happened-- and having Truth among their highest values.

Luke was written by a physician who compiled the Book of Luke and Acts from reports; many say most of it came from Peter. Luke and Acts are actually thought to be an affidavit of sorts, written by Luke for Paul's defense at his trial in Rome, so it was carefully researched and written using high-quality grammar and vocabulary for the Greek of the time.

Even so, IIRC, the earliest gospel was still only written about 30 years after his death. *shrug*

I think I've always found Kin's argument that he was a Jewish freedom fighter (that's terrorist to the Romans) opposing Roman hegemony and such to be fairly compelling. If I can remember where it was or find it, I'll post a link.

His "idealisation" almost certainly only came later.

--A

Avatar wrote:His "idealisation" almost certainly only came later.

Like Siddhartha Gautama. He went from a hindu reformer to a figure of worship.

Ananda wrote:

Avatar wrote:His "idealisation" almost certainly only came later.

Like Siddhartha Gautama. He went from a hindu reformer to a figure of worship.

It is tough to say what the 'historic Jesus' was, if he was anything. All references to him come after the fact, and some are suspect (there are many that believe that the reference in Josephus was added by Christians later. My view is that he did mention Jesus as being crucified and being the instigator of the Christian movement, but the whole part of him being the Messiah of mankind is very unlike him and could be a] added by Christians afterwards b]translated/transcribed poorly from him giving a brief description of Christian theology).

It's always fun to speculate just how close to the records we have the historic Jesus was , though we will never know. It seems that he was some sort of unorthodox teacher and he made someone uneasy, was crucified, and his body was lost.

Didn't the ethiopian branch of early christianity teach that jesus said that he is *a* son of 'god' as you are and everyone (and presumably everything) is? And then they were wiped out and the mythos of the virgin birth, literal son of 'god' and so were all tacked on. the former is more exactly in line with the teachings of Krishna.

Ananda wrote:Didn't the ethiopian branch of early christianity teach that jesus said that he is *a* son of 'god' as you are and everyone (and presumably everything) is? And then they were wiped out and the mythos of the virgin birth, literal son of 'god' and so were all tacked on. the former is more exactly in line with the teachings of Krishna.

More complicated than that. To be a 'son of God' to early Jews (and therefore, Jewish Christians) meant to be a King. Then you have gnostic teachings which sprouted up pretty early (where they thought the God the Jews were worshiping was a sort of demiurge that distracted from the true God. There's a lot of this in the Gospel of John, where Jesus talks about 'revealing the Father' to the world. That's right, a gnostic gospel may have slipped into the canon ).

Ananda wrote:Didn't the ethiopian branch of early christianity teach that jesus said that he is *a* son of 'god' as you are and everyone (and presumably everything) is? And then they were wiped out and the mythos of the virgin birth, literal son of 'god' and so were all tacked on. the former is more exactly in line with the teachings of Krishna.

In Psalms 82:6 was wrote:I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Ananda wrote:Didn't the ethiopian branch of early christianity teach that jesus said that he is *a* son of 'god' as you are and everyone (and presumably everything) is? And then they were wiped out and the mythos of the virgin birth, literal son of 'god' and so were all tacked on. the former is more exactly in line with the teachings of Krishna.

In Psalms 82:6 was wrote:I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

--A

From what I understand, the word they used for gods is more closely translated as Divinely appointed Judges... It was a plea for justice or a criticism of the Judges who were not being impartial.

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.

They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.

There is a lot of subtext in this book. When I read greek tragedy and so I have a greek mythology dictionary or three to refer to. Is there something like that for the bible as well that someone could suggest? Would come in handy for reading bits again so I get more background.

Ananda wrote:There is a lot of subtext in this book. When I read greek tragedy and so I have a greek mythology dictionary or three to refer to. Is there something like that for the bible as well that someone could suggest? Would come in handy for reading bits again so I get more background.

I do not know of any that is effective as such. Since the bible is viewed as inerrant word of god, any dictionary like that carries some bias. So you have interpretations like what Soulbiter has (which I think strikes close to the truth) or what Avatar said.

I try not to interpret it. I only quote what it says right there. That it means different things to different people is inevitable.

That Psalm is also used as the underpinning for John 10:34, where Jesus says that everybody is a god and a child of god.

--A

The interpretations are why I dont like the hare krishna version of the gita. I was thinking along the line of something that tells me who Niobe is when I read a reference to her as an example from greek myths.

Niobe is the captain and pilot of the Logos. She's a superb pilot. Also, she and Morpheus were an item, and it seems are again.

Fist and Faith wrote:Niobe is the captain and pilot of the Logos. She's a superb pilot. Also, she and Morpheus were an item, and it seems are again.

Which book of the Bible would that be from?

The Book of Matrix.

That's what I thought.