Page 1 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Jan 2014, 12:11 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
The Romans had no reason to encourage the Jews in the first century, because they hated each other. Jesus was crucified because He claimed to be God incarnate, not a prophet on par with Elijah or Abraham.


Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.

The Romans had every reason to crucify him: As a rebel, it signals to others that they should not rebel against the romans, or your fate will be extremely harsh.
It used to work like this, but in the centuries to follow, the members of the Jesus-movement proved otherwise, in the persecution of Christians, which wasn't a real persecution of christians, but
punishing individuals for not conforming to Roman rules and regulations. They didn't target Christians as a group.

MCalavera wrote:
Not really. Jesus was an apocalypticist, not a Gnostic.


I never claimed Jesus to be a Gnostic.
I said that the ones in MODERN day, who are closest to the original Jesus movement, are the Gnostics, because of their emphasis, not on the gospel of Thomas, but on viewing Jesus as
a prophet or teacher, rather than the son of God.


But how do you know that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God? Because some modern scholars said so? Where is the historical documentation that he did not?
And while there was not constant persecution of the early church, like you see in popular fiction, Christianity was still considered an illegal religion, because they had refused to offer worship to the emperor.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

08 Jan 2014, 12:23 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
It seems like people are only reading the thread title, yet again, people only read the Title not the Content.

If I wrote about how arts influence music, with the thread title "Hitler invaded the USSR", people would debate hitler and soviets, not arts and music.


My first post showed quite clearly that I read the content of your OP.

As for today's Gnostics being the closest to the early Christian movement, I need to know what today's Gnostics generally believe. I do know the ancient Gnostics weren't remotely close to the early Christian movement in terms of beliefs and doctrines.



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

08 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
You can go to the library and read the Post-apostolic Fathers (after St. John until 325, the First Ecumenical Council) and then decide for yourself. I think the evidence from these writings contradicts the judgment of the O.P.


Do you mind quoting some?
And what exactly in my OP do you disagree with? I came with a lot of different statements.

I'd like at least one quote contradicting at least one of my arguments in my OP. If not, you are yet another flamebaiter.


Let me answer your question this way. You write:

"In fact, most of the stuff we know about the New Testament, is from Paul."

Contradicting that argument: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke (and the Book of Acts.), John, the epistles of Peter, John, and James, and the book of Revelation.

Now, you may object: Scholarship from the late 1800s to the 1960s or so are of the opinion that the gospels were compiled centuries after the event and by numerous authors.

However, today (2014), if you go to an SBL conference (Society of Biblical Literature), which I do regularly, you will find that most scholars are finding those former theories to be unsupportable, and are moving toward consensus for very early dates for the Gospels (from <60 A.D. to 90 A.D.). Also, due to arguments of literary form (the Hebrew and Greek predilection for chiastic structure and breaking sections into five parts, one for each book of the Torah), scholars are also beginning to accept that each Gospel was written by a single author.

(If you would like for me to cite which scholars are moving toward such a belief, I would have to do some searching in my notes. I am not a professional scholar.)

Now, St. Paul was not an eyewitness to the Jesus event. He had his own "vision." Therefore, most of our information about "The New Testament" is not from St. Paul.

Once the above is accepted, then we can assess the writings of the Post-Apostolic Fathers. Which is for another time.



Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

08 Jan 2014, 10:19 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.
The documentary and historical evidence says otherwise. Jesus said, I and the Father are one", "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and often used the Exodus reference of "I AM" when proclaiming His divinity.

Quote:
The Romans had every reason to crucify him: As a rebel, it signals to others that they should not rebel against the romans, or your fate will be extremely harsh.
It used to work like this, but in the centuries to follow, the members of the Jesus-movement proved otherwise, in the persecution of Christians, which wasn't a real persecution of christians, but
punishing individuals for not conforming to Roman rules and regulations. They didn't target Christians as a group.
Tell that to the apostles, who could've escaped their punishment and execution by simply denying that Christ is Lord.


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

08 Jan 2014, 10:24 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.
The documentary and historical evidence says otherwise. Jesus said, I and the Father are one", "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and often used the Exodus reference of "I AM" when proclaiming His divinity.


The Gospel by John is very unreliable as evidence.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.
The documentary and historical evidence says otherwise. Jesus said, I and the Father are one", "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and often used the Exodus reference of "I AM" when proclaiming His divinity.


The Gospel by John is very unreliable as evidence.


Why?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

09 Jan 2014, 12:48 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.
The documentary and historical evidence says otherwise. Jesus said, I and the Father are one", "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and often used the Exodus reference of "I AM" when proclaiming His divinity.


The Gospel by John is very unreliable as evidence.


Why?


For one, a lot of the stuff it contains is not backed up by the Synaptic Gospels and it's obvious it was written to promote some later theological developments concerning Jesus and the Gospel (because you don't see this Jesus is God stuff in earlier texts).



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

09 Jan 2014, 1:45 am

With the Pope and Cardinals it sure seems to be a Roman Invention. Was any of that in the Bible? They like to say Peter was the first Pope.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jan 2014, 2:17 am

MCalavera wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
Moviefan2k4 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.
The documentary and historical evidence says otherwise. Jesus said, I and the Father are one", "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and often used the Exodus reference of "I AM" when proclaiming His divinity.


The Gospel by John is very unreliable as evidence.


Why?


For one, a lot of the stuff it contains is not backed up by the Synaptic Gospels and it's obvious it was written to promote some later theological developments concerning Jesus and the Gospel (because you don't see this Jesus is God stuff in earlier texts).


Aw, but John is my favorite Gospel!


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

09 Jan 2014, 11:05 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
With the Pope and Cardinals it sure seems to be a Roman Invention. Was any of that in the Bible? They like to say Peter was the first Pope.

I certainly agree that the RC Church doesn't look like the early Church! I mean, the rich buildings and all that pomp? It's kind of sickening if you ask me. The current pope is trying to tone all that down.

But as for cardinals? It's all about looking into the deep structure of the early Church. Cardinals were originally the presbyters of the parish churches of Rome who would pick the next successor of St. Peter. (And you can read from the Post-Apostolic Fathers that the successor of St. Peter had a particular status as "visible head" of the Church on earth. You know the Scripture passages that support Peter's role, right?)

So then in the Middle Ages (over 1000 years later!) this "cardinal thing" was developed wherein the more important bishops from all over the known world were called to Rome to elect the next pope. Later they got the cool outfits, and so on.

Trust me -- as an RC myself I hate all the pomp of it, and Jesus wouldn't be too keen on it I dare say. I'm glad Pope Francis realized this. But despite all the pomp and circumstance of the current state of things in the RC Church, its essence is almost 2000 years old, so ... what can I say?

You can disagree with this interpretation if you like. I am a Catholic, so I'm probably biased in ways I'm unaware of. Yet I'm just going by what most historians have to say about the development of the cardinalate.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Jan 2014, 1:01 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
With the Pope and Cardinals it sure seems to be a Roman Invention. Was any of that in the Bible? They like to say Peter was the first Pope.


That's what Catholicism claims. But we know from Acts that Jesus' brother, James, had been chosen as the leader of the Apostles in Jerusalem. And Jerusalem was the actual center of the early church, till the Romans leveled the city in 70 A.D. After that, one could make a case for Antioch as the capital of the church. The "Bishop" of Rome was not seen as anything other than the first among equals (other Bishops) till possibly when Pope Leo (?) had negotiated with Attila and the Huns in the 5th century, gaining status for his office.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

09 Jan 2014, 1:36 pm

Moviefan2k4 wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah. It was others who claimed him to be so, probably way after his death.
The documentary and historical evidence says otherwise. Jesus said, I and the Father are one", "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father", and often used the Exodus reference of "I AM" when proclaiming His divinity.


Those statements do not necesarily mean that he claimed to be the son of god any more than any other man is. Even most Christians believe that in some ways they and the lord are one. And plenty of people believe that truly seeing others is a way to see god. Most of the statements that have been used as evidence of Jesus' claim to godhood can be interpreted in other ways, depending on your pre-conceived assumptions.

Although if you want to use the words written by others and attributed to him to bolster your own personal belief, you may also want to consider:
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works." John 14:10
"You call Me Teacher and Lord; and ye say well; for so I Am." John 13:13
"And Jesus said, I Am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Mark 14:62
"Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" Matthew 7:21
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

Some other Jesus quotes to consider:
“I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
"But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." Mark 13:32

Another thing worth considering is in John 17:11 and 17:21-22 Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one as Jesus and God are.

The only verses that I ever found in the Bible that definitively stated that Jesus was god were not spoken by Jesus himself.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

09 Jan 2014, 10:08 pm

What I can never understand is why the bible is used as a source/reference to prove/disprove ..what's in the bible.

:scratch:



JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

09 Jan 2014, 10:50 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
With the Pope and Cardinals it sure seems to be a Roman Invention. Was any of that in the Bible? They like to say Peter was the first Pope.


That's what Catholicism claims. But we know from Acts that Jesus' brother, James, had been chosen as the leader of the Apostles in Jerusalem. And Jerusalem was the actual center of the early church, till the Romans leveled the city in 70 A.D. After that, one could make a case for Antioch as the capital of the church. The "Bishop" of Rome was not seen as anything other than the first among equals (other Bishops) till possibly when Pope Leo (?) had negotiated with Attila and the Huns in the 5th century, gaining status for his office.


I'm familiar with these arguments. Orthodox and Anglican historians usually argue as you say above, whereas Catholic historians have different arguments. It's hard to find an unbiased interpretation! The Acts passage where James speaks last at the Council of Jerusalem is without doubt an important passage for understanding the apostolic and post-apostolic Church. But I think that a reading of the Post-Apostolic Fathers is more helpful. Certainly, by the end of the 4th century (two generations before Pope St. Leo), St. Augustine could state, without any controversy or challenge, "Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia." And by all means, he wasn't the first to make such an assertion.

But at least, Kraichgauer, we both believe in Jesus the Son of God which (it seems) puts us both in the minority on WP! So I'd rather focus on our common faith than our disagreements.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

09 Jan 2014, 11:13 pm

With Genesis I largely agree - the creation story smacks of the Sumerian creation story heavily, the seven day week also began in Babylon. There's also a month of Tammuz. Supposedly also there was no twelve-sign zodiac much before this time, ie. Mazzaloth or what we now think of as our conventional zodiac. Twelve tribes around the Levites, twelve disciples around Jesus (in both cases 12+1 or 13), seems incredibly similar to Mazzaloth wrapped around Earth.

As for the Egyptian flank - arc making was their specialty. Additionally the ten commandments are close permutations of similar pledges found in the Egyptian Papyrus of Ani (ie. Egyptian Scroll of the Dead). The power of sevens - whether it's Pythagoras, the Egyptians, or the Bible, comes from the seven luminaries which are the seven planets of ancient astrology (mercury thru Saturn plus sun and moon). Pythagoras also took a lot of his schooling from Egypt, apparently they were number theologians and when you look at the sacredness of the number ten as the main points of the Pythagorean tetractys you see a very possible connection, much like you see the same thing in the ten sephira of the tree of life. On the Greco-Egyptian tilt we have one of the Ptolemy's to thank for the Septuagint which was for a long time the first ironed-out version of the old testament, called the Septuagint because it was put together and translated by seventy scribes in 1st/2nd century BCE Alexandria under Ptolemy's orders along with a great many other religious and mystic writings from other countries (either he or someone in his court could have been behind the famous Corpus Hermetica).

The Hebrew alphabet is also Canaanite in origin and I'm not sure how many other things within Judaism came from the Canaanites but I'm sure it's not that far fetched that there's several other strong contenders.

Where my understanding would diverge though is that I don't look at this from an atheistic standpoint, that is to say that I see a lot of quote unquote 'pagan mythology' weaving in to create the bible but I also see the other crucifixes including the four fixed corners of the zodiac (ie. lion, eagle, man, bull), the celtic cross, the cross of dionysus, and other solar symbols as part of something that was echoing harder and harder though increasingly intense stories. If I understand correctly the Hindus see Jesus as a very powerful avatar. Per Anthroposophy tradition of the 'fifth gospel' (really a decoder for the other four) you have an explanation that Zarthustra/Zoroaster saw this coming and his teachings sent the Magi out to see... the trippy part of their narrative.... the first of the two Jesus children which happened to be an incarnation of Zarthustra (it's a long story where this goes but if you want to get further details look into Edward Reaugh Smith's 'The Burning Bush').

What I'm getting at - pretty much all of the early cultures believed in a solar deity. You see it strongly with the Egyptians, some claim they got something which was in effect even earlier in Nubia. All of the focus on the birth of a solar deity and really a spiritual/cosmic passion play in more profound terms, ie. all of the dying/sacrificed and reborn god prophecies came to a head with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Where this story edifies Christianity - it tells Christians that the core of their doctrine, ie. the belief that Jesus Christ was something far more than just human - is in fact correct. The downside for mainstream Christians - it agrees with Giordano Bruno more than they'd be comfortable with (ie. Jesus as a world redeemer via transforming the etheric level of the earth and bringing it out of what was considered a 'nadir' point or drop toward further hardening or sclerosis of matter). In that sense, if one believes the Anthroposophic take on it, the blood and water from the side of Christ that spawned the esoteric grail legends of King Arthur and all of that was an event that was something like the creative/redemptive inverse of 20 hydrogen bombs but in a way that's ever increasing, expanding, and gaining ground. In so many ways this works wonderfully as well for Christians who happen to be Revelations amillenialists because it goes right in line with the notion that we're not looking toward some kind of deliberate and planned future breakdown with a seven year tribulation but rather that the 'millenial reign' has been ever since Christ's death and resurrection and continues to get stronger. Where Anthroposophy clearly deviates from most Christian belief though - reincarnation, chakra, karma, and a Great Work over many lives of constant spiritual evolution (which is common to most western and eastern esotericism though).

Do I agree with the Anthroposophic view? I'm not entirely sure, that is to say that in reading the Hermetic Qabalah and Christian Cabalah take on it there seems to be an even better and more immediately connected story albeit a lot of people would hate it because it doesn't read in nearly as neat of a documentary or narrative manner, rather it's more like contemplating a system of processes and balances which span out across time and seem to find agreement among western mystics both occult and traditional. It's closer to looking at an equation with deep implications about the physics of spiritual realities which also works as a key to many religious mysteries in the west. It also makes the case for the hidden goddess of Christianity (ie. the divine feminine of Isis/Sophia whom apparently all seekers dedicated enough meet along their path of which Albertus Magnus and Jakob Boehme are some of the more famous). On that particular topic, Dion Fortune and Garreth Knight are worth checking out.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

10 Jan 2014, 12:11 am

Dantac wrote:
What I can never understand is why the bible is used as a source/reference to prove/disprove ..what's in the bible.

:scratch:


Think about it. If we want to figure out what's in the Bible, then the first thing we should do is check what's in the Bible.