(February 27, 2012 at 10:17 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Abra, ah I see. So, as long as one doesn't just look at the text, and as long as one does not assume that he said what he is supposed to have said...then Jesus is salvageable. What was that you said at the start about creating jesus? Wow Abra...just wow.

What "makes sense to you" and what "makes sense" don't appear to be universally equivalent.

Well, what do you think the New Testament is?

It's a creation of Jesus as "The Christ" via rumors.

Rumors that the Jews themselves didn't even buy into and it was based on their religion to begin with!

So why should anyone just settle for the Christian rumors?

What are you doing?

In a very real sense you are rejecting the fables as nothing more than fiction whilst simultaneously demanding that they must be accepted verbatim.

That's pretty weird I think.

Clear the New Testament rumors are not entirely based on fiction. I mean, it's perfectly clear that they are a take-off based on the Torah. They are trying to claim that some guy is "The Christ".

So if they are based on that, then why should it be so hard to imagine that there may have been a real person involved that gave rise to these rumors?

After all, if there was no actual event that sparked these rumors, then how do you explain that they became so well accepted?

If they just popped up out of the blue as a work of pure fiction the people of the times would have said, "What they hell are you talking about? We don't remember any rumors about any guy being crucified on charges of blaspheme?"

The people at that period in time must have had some rumors floating around about a real person so that when they heard these stories they would think to themselves, "Oh yeah, I heard stories about that guy".

There had to have been an event that started rumors.

You don't just write up a totally fictional story, dump it onto a culture and have them accept it like that without at least having some sort of an event that people can identify with.

Even in Greek mythology there were actual events associated with the stories of their Gods. For example the Athenians sent out a large navy to go into battle. There was a huge storm that destroyed the bulk of the navy before they could even make it to the war zone. An angry Posiden was said to have caused the storm and destroyed the ships.

Well, there probably were ships that were destroyed in an abnormally nasty storm. But did any gods have anything to do with it? Probably not.

It's the same way with Jesus. Did some guy reject the immoral teachings of the Torah, call the Pharisees hypocrites, and eventually end up being crucified for blaspheme? Probably so.

Does this mean that he was a demigod? Probably not.

~~~~~

Based on your views, what are you going to do if the Christians someday find proof that Jesus actually existed? Are you going to then suddenly become a believer that he was "The Christ" just because some guy existed?

That wouldn't automatically make the rumors true verbatim.

The Christians could find proof that some guy existed and was indeed nailed to a pole on charges of blaspheme. But that wouldn't change my views about Christianity in the slightest. I expect that such an event actually happened. That wouldn't even remotely be close to proving that Jesus was "The Christ". All it would do is prove that some guy got himself nailed to a pole and that event sparked a bunch of rumors that became that eventually became the New Testament.

But trust me, if the Christians found proof that some guy had been nailed to a pole on charges of blaspheme they'd be running around proclaiming to have rock solid "proof" that Jesus was "The Christ".

It simply doesn't follow. That wouldn't be anywhere near proof that the outrageous claims of the rumors that followed that even were true verbatim.

"Clear the New Testament rumors are not entirely based on fiction. I mean, it's perfectly clear that they are a take-off based on the Torah."

Which is similarly, fiction. Again, what makes sense to you vs what makes sense.

(February 27, 2012 at 4:06 am)tackattack Wrote: @Abra- Jesus didn't spit in the face of the God of Abraham according to the Bible, he "spit in the face" of the Pharisitical teachings of the time. As far as the throne of David, check out Acts 2:25-36 if you're interested.

The book of Acts is not impressive tackattack. All the book of Acts amounts to is some of the earliest apologetics for the original gospels of Mark and John.

The author is just trying to justify the claims that Jesus was the messiah by pretending that his supposed rise from death and ascent into heaven represents him being handed the "Throne of David".

In short it's nothing other than totally absurd superstitious nonsense.

In fact, much of the New Testament is nothing more than early apologetic arguments for the original four rumor gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. And those four original Gospels are just repeats of the same rumors. In fact, most scholars believe that Matthew and Luke are just repeating Mark's tales.

So there's really only two gospels Mark, and John. The whole rest of the New Testament is basically just commentary on those original rumors. And then of course 75% is Paul's ramblings claiming to have seen Jesus in a vision. Personally I don't buy into anything that Paul wrote. He was just reacting to the whole rumor. (Not unlike a lot of modern day proselytizers)

I can't tell you how many Christian lunatics I've met live who claim to be in two-way contact with Jesus and even with God the Father.

Well, duh? If modern day humans are so easily deluded into thinking they are in direct contact with Jesus when it's pretty easy for me to believe that Paul could have been the same time of religious zealot in his day. Just another kook who is so desperate to believe in Jesus he went off the deep end proclaiming to have actually been contacted by the deity.

After all Paul (i.e. Saul) was a deeply troubled and desperate man. He had been the cause of persecution of many Christians. He had extreme reason to fear eternal damnation and a deep need for repentance. He probably just had a nervous breakdown is all. And then became a religious freak just like we see around us today.

Just look at how freaky these fables and rumors can make people. Jim Jones? David Koresh? Others? These freaky stories can easily cause people who are mentally unstable to go off the deep end and believe all sorts of things.

So no. The gibberish in Acts about Jesus being raised up to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God is nonsense. That was made up precisely as an apologetic argument to the Jews who instantly pointed out that these rumors are clearly false because of the fact that Jesus never became the king of the Jews and thus he could not have been the messiah.

That observation no doubt came up immediately. At the very moment that these rumors stared.

So the fact that these lame apologetic arguments became part of the "New Testament" early on, should not surprise anyone. In fact, there's a whole history of how these biblical tails unfolded. The stories and texts that ended up in the Christian Bible were created simultaneous alongside debates that the Christians were having with the Jews.

Here's a course on that very topic if you're interested:

Fall of the Pagans and the Origins of Medieval Christianity

This course describes how the New Testament cannon evolved over the centuries as the Christians and Jews slugged it out over whether or not it makes sense to believe that Jesus was the messiah.

The Jews kept objecting, and the Christians kept apologizing and that's how the New Testament evolved to become the collection of papers that it is today.

So no, I'm not impressed by what's written in acts.

Those arguments and apologetics started immediately as soon as the rumor that Jesus was the "messiah" were first made. The Jews objected instantly, and the Christians started making their excuses right at that time.

In fact, you can be certain that even Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were fully aware that even they had to justify their rumors to the Jews.

Look at the extremes they went to. They even had to stoop to proclaiming that God himself spoke from a cloud to verify the truth of their rumors.

They were extremely determined not to take no for an answer.

Not unlike religious zealots we meet today.

---

(February 27, 2012 at 11:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: Again, what makes sense to you vs what makes sense.

That sentence itself doesn't even make any sense.

What makes sense to me vs what makes sense to someone else.

Evidently you seem to think that whatever makes sense to you must represent 'absolute sense' somehow.

Hey, I'm not denying that these things "could possibly be" totally fictional rumors. But clearly they are rumors about the Torah. They rely on preexisting God-myths.

I just take it one step further and feel that its reasonable to assume that they may have also been sparked by some social event.

The idea that some guy spoke out against the immoral practices taught by the Torah is not an outrageous idea, IMHO.

The idea, that he instead sought to replace those immoral teaching with teachings that, appear to me, to be in perfect harmony with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism which was at its peak at that very moment in history, is not an outrageous idea, IMHO.

The idea that he would risk being crucified for blaspheme for having spoken out against the Torah and against the Pharisees who oversee the Torah is again not an outrageous idea.

In fact, in Arab countries today you can be sentenced to death for blaspheme against the Koran. It's the same fundamental religion and hasn't changed much over the millennium.

So the idea that some guy spoke out against the immoral practices of the Torah, butted heads with the Pharisees, and was eventually excused on charges of blaspheme is not unreasonable at all.

And had such an event taken place it would have sparked rumors for sure.

It would be like seeing the Dalai Lama being crucified today by the Taliban. It would be cause of huge social controversy.

And that may have been precisely what it was like. This Jesus fellow who was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva (and perhaps you don't understand the concept of a Bodhisattva?). Would have naturally been going around preaching spiritual wisdom to anyone who is willing to listen.

He would have taken on disciples and trained them in his wisdom and even request that they too vow to become Bodhisattvas (i.e. to go out and teach spiritual wisdom to others). This was a huge thing in Mahayana Buddhism at that time. The concept of becoming a Bodhisattva was extremely important in Mahayana Buddhism.

So it makes perfect sense that Jesus as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva would have acted and behaved almost exactly like the rumors of Jesus. Although, he wouldn't have been claiming to be "The Christ". But if the New Testament is rumors trying to make out that this guy was "The Christ" then you can't expect to push those rumors onto the actual person of Jesus.

Somewhere along the way you've got to recognize that not everything that was written about this man was true. Most of it would be superstitious rumors. (i.e. the virgin birth, a God speaking from a cloud verifying the Jesus is his Son, the resurrection of not only Jesus but of a whole bunch of saints at the same time)

The stories are riddled with superstitious nonsense. But they still could have been sparked by a real person who was crucified.

That is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

It's a damn more reasonable hypothesis than the Christians are trying to sell.

Surely you've got to give me that much.

In my hypothesis Jesus is just another moral man like the rest of us.

But this theory explains where many of this rumors came from.

"I and the Father are one"
"Ye are also Gods"
"Don't be stoning people to death like that stupid Torah Teaches"
"Don't be seeking to get even with people like that stupid Torah Teaches"
"Don't be fooled by the Pharisees, they are hypocrites"

All of these things sound like what a Mahayana Buddhist might teach people. And these types of things are all being attributed to "Jesus".

So it's reasonable to believe that the "Jesus rumors" were sparked by a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

For you to say this makes no sense is unreasonable.

(February 27, 2012 at 11:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Clear the New Testament rumors are not entirely based on fiction. I mean, it's perfectly clear that they are a take-off based on the Torah."

Which is similarly, fiction. Again, what makes sense to you vs what makes sense.

I think you are being unkind.

As a self-taught genius, Abra not only knows all about about science,but is also a brilliant biblical scholar and historian.Is there no end to this man's talents?

OK,I admit it. I'm green with envy,I'm so ashamed I'll probably kill myself.


Heavens to Murgatroyd! You'll never guess what; a small flying pig just landed on the overhead fan in the kitchen and took a shit.

I agree, the jesus narrative was sparked off by a social event. Roman occupation. They invented themselves a deliverer, but unfortunately for them cultural exchange had left some groups with "not quite jewish" beliefs. Revisions had to be made.

(February 27, 2012 at 6:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I agree, the jesus narrative was sparked off by a social event. Roman occupation. They invented themselves a deliverer, but unfortunately for them cultural exchange had left some groups with "not quite jewish" beliefs. Revisions had to be made.

They invented themselves a deliverer who ends up getting nailed to a pole by Roman soldiers?

And Padraic thinks I'm a genius?

I think that honor should go to you Rhythm.

An imaginary made-up deliverer from Roman occupation who ends up at the end of the made-up story being beaten and nailed to a pole by the Romans.

I confess I would have never thought of that.

That makes so much sense!

You're a pure genius Rhythm!

I can only sit here awe-struck with admiration of your genius.

I can't believe that I didn't think of that myself. Now that you've revealed the truth it seems so obvious in hindsight. I feel like a complete fool to have imagined that the rumors might have been sparked by an actual person.

That was part of his plan Abra, washed us clean dontcha know. He's returning any day to set up his Kingdom. Maybe we should see if the romans you're referring to had anything to say about all of this.

You're essentially trotting out the "embarrassing details" apologist bullshit, if you hadn't realized that yet.

:asks the romans: -gets crickets-

I can see why you help wiccans smuggle christ in, you needed to smuggle him into buddhism. I asked you a bunch of questions about that once, about the effect your childhood faith may have had on your current beliefs.

(February 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That was part of his plan Abra, washed us clean dontcha know. He's returning any day to set up his Kingdom. Maybe we should see if the romans you're referring to had anything to say about all of this.

You're essentially trotting out the "embarrassing details" apologist bullshit, if you hadn't realized that yet.

:asks the romans: -gets crickets-

I can see why you help wiccans smuggle christ in, you needed to smuggle him into buddhism. I asked you a bunch of questions about that once, about the effect your childhood faith may have had on your current beliefs.

I don't even have "beliefs" as you think of them.

In fact, 100% of the nonsense that you push onto me is created by your very own misconceptions.

I have no need to "save" Jesus. In fact, when I first left Christianity I didn't even give it a second thought. It really wasn't until much later in my life when I was studying the history of Buddhism that it became apparent to me that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. Everything just fit together and that seemed to be the most likely explanation. I'm convinced not that this is indeed the most likely secular explanation for how those rumors got started.

It has nothing to do with my 'desire' to believe it. I couldn't care less.

In fact, even if Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist, that doesn't automatically mean that he was necessarily sane. He might have started off as a Bodhisattva with good intentions, and as more and more people started thinking that he was claiming to be God and actually believing him that might have gone to his head, and he might have ended up falling into those delusions himself. Who knows?

That's totally unimportant to me. I have no need to defend someone who lived 2000 years ago.

Just the same, these stories make for a good psychic archetype. Psychic archetypes have psychological value even in a purely secular world. It's always good to have your heroes and legends to look up to. Whether they are real people or fictitious characters are totally irrelevant.

So yes, I totally approve of and support anyone who can make a positive spiritual archetypes out of anyone including Jesus. So if an ex-Christian wants to bring Jesus into "Wicca" more power to them! But of course, it wouldn't make any sense to try to maintain his status as "The Christ", if a person is going to do that they may as well stick with Christianity because that's the whole thesis of Christianity. What's the point in leaving Christianity at all if you're going to continue to hold up that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of a jealous God?

But yes, I support any positive use of Jesus as a psychic or spiritual archetype. And that can be done from a purely secular perspective though you may not be able to understand that.

I support anything that positive and constructive.

Of course, Christianity is not positive nor is it constructive. Christianity holds Jesus up as "The Christ" and uses him to exclude people from spirituality. They use him for destructive purposes to renounce people as 'non-believers' etc.


Christianity is not a positive religion at all for anyone who isn't a member and supporter of the cult. It's an extremely divisive religion that uses Jesus as an excuse to exclude people from divine love, if they refuse to join and support the cult.

So it's just a hateful exclusionary religion that uses Jesus as a hate hammer. I have absolutely no respect for the religion whatsoever and the sooner it dies, the better off humanity will be.

"Belief" is just another thing you'd like to argue your own special definition for I take it.

(February 27, 2012 at 10:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Belief" is just another thing you'd like to argue your own special definition for I take it.

If "belief" means that I think I know something that I can't truly know, then I have no "beliefs".

On the other hand, if knowing facts counts as "beliefs" then I have a lot of beliefs.

But if you think that I "believe" that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist that's your own delusion. I merely suspect that this is the most likely explanation based on everything I know about the Bible, History, and the values and traditions of Mahayana Buddhism.

It would be my best "guess". It's where I would place my money if I had to bet on it based on the current knowledge I have. Is that a "belief"?

You tell me.