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

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jan 2014, 5:01 pm

From what I understand about the Essenes, they had taught a very legalistic formula of rituals and morals to live a clean life. Very different from Christ, who was critical of the Pharisees and religious leaders of his day with their legalistic obedience to the law, saying in fact, "My yoke is light," in comparison.


_________________
-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)

11 Jan 2014, 8:50 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
From what I understand about the Essenes, they had taught a very legalistic formula of rituals and morals to live a clean life. Very different from Christ, who was critical of the Pharisees and religious leaders of his day with their legalistic obedience to the law, saying in fact, "My yoke is light," in comparison.


A big part of the Essenes philosophy was to be peaceful in nature (especially toward those hostile toward them) , an aversion to carrying weapons (although some references suggest that they were permitted weapons for self defense), communal living and communal ownership, a focus on the good of humanity, and a belief that their souls would be returned to them after death. They believed that the
Jewish testaments were fiction and that had received a different message from god. One of their large populations was also from Nazareth, as was Jesus. I feel that many of the teachings of Christ as described in the New Testament (and some of the Gnostic gospels) were at least heavily influenced by them.


_________________
"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


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

11 Jan 2014, 8:59 pm

Additional thing was that the Essenes did not do animal sacrifice - didn't necessarily criticize the Sadducees or Pharisees on it but went out of their way on all levels to do no harm. Lots of funny dots like that and what sonofghandi said above connect.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Jan 2014, 1:44 pm

MCalavera wrote:
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.


What I mean is that it makes no sense to use the bible as a reference to prove or disprove events. Aka The Flood or Moses opening the sea or the crucifixion and what not... unless there is mention of such events from an independent 3rd party verifiable source then all you're doing is wasting your time.

If there was writing left behind by the egyptians of the era about plagues and a whole army being drowned after some rabble rouser opened the sea to let his people through and it is carbon dated to match the time period then that would be a verifiable 3rd party independent source.

A lot of the stories in the bible have been traced to much earlier civilizations. The story is the same but the characters and setting different. Much like Avatar was to Ferngully. ;)



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Jan 2014, 1:56 pm

Here's another one to wrench up coherency even more. Jesus as a devotee of the Canaanite El? I swear it never stops.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-hermet ... -el-koussa



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Jan 2014, 4:00 pm

Dantac wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
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.


What I mean is that it makes no sense to use the bible as a reference to prove or disprove events. Aka The Flood or Moses opening the sea or the crucifixion and what not... unless there is mention of such events from an independent 3rd party verifiable source then all you're doing is wasting your time.

If there was writing left behind by the egyptians of the era about plagues and a whole army being drowned after some rabble rouser opened the sea to let his people through and it is carbon dated to match the time period then that would be a verifiable 3rd party independent source.

A lot of the stories in the bible have been traced to much earlier civilizations. The story is the same but the characters and setting different. Much like Avatar was to Ferngully. ;)


The Old Testament, yes. Not the Gospel stories. In fact, assuming the historical Jesus answers certain questions much better than assuming a mythicist one. Why have a mythicist Jesus from Nazareth instead of just mentioning Bethlehem without all the unnecessary complications? Why have him be baptized by John the Baptist when he's supposed to be the great Messiah? Why have him be crucified rather than have him ascend to heaven directly (without having to be crucified in the first place)?

Mark and Q and Paul's Epistles and others are independent witnesses of Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, why wasn't he treated as such initially according to the evidence at the time?



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jan 2014, 10:59 pm

MCalavera wrote:
The Old Testament, yes. Not the Gospel stories. In fact, assuming the historical Jesus answers certain questions much better than assuming a mythicist one. Why have a mythicist Jesus from Nazareth instead of just mentioning Bethlehem without all the unnecessary complications? Why have him be baptized by John the Baptist when he's supposed to be the great Messiah? Why have him be crucified rather than have him ascend to heaven directly (without having to be crucified in the first place)?


There is no third party verifiable source as to what he answered or how he answered it..the only source is the bible itself which was written hundred+ years after by people that grew up and lived in a completely different civilization and over the next thousand years edited and re-edited as it was translated back and forth different languages.

Complications = tribulations = part of the hero mythos (if you're familiar with Campbell's works).
Baptism and crucifixion are also part of the hero mythos story... the sacrifice and the holy/spiritual ritual that sends the hero on his way.

The hero that comes from a mystic background (heavenly birth), is 'one of us' common people during his youth and lives modestly/poverty just like we do then grows up to do amazing things, undergoes a mystical ritual as part of his process and in the end dies for his people in some way or another. This a hero story you will find used in almost every culture as 'the' story of why they can identify themselves with each other (group ID).

If you think about it, the above sequence is practically identical to the one the crazy Kims use in North Korea.

MCalavera wrote:
Mark and Q and Paul's Epistles and others are independent witnesses of Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, why wasn't he treated as such initially according to the evidence at the time?


Independent... says who? I know of no other document besides the bible or church associated texts (again, made century+ later) that mentions them.

For all purposes, when the bible was compiled jesus WAS a myth. It had been hundred or so years since the alleged events of his life happened. Christianity as a whole at the time was a mess of independent sects that in the eyes of Rome were a danger because they were becoming more numerous and harder to control. Constantine used the religion as a political tool to cement his power base... why would there be an inquiry on such a convenient myth?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if there was a Roman tablet from the same time period describing the events of Jesus' life in non-religious ways (a comment on a letter... a report within local government, etc) ... I dunno saying something like 'today this guy was put up on the cross for claiming to be the son of god..' then that would be a verifiable independent document. But this... nonsense (I can't find a better word sorry) of using the bible itself as proof of the events makes no sense to me.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

13 Jan 2014, 11:54 pm

Dantac wrote:
There is no third party verifiable source as to what he answered or how he answered it..the only source is the bible itself which was written hundred+ years after by people that grew up and lived in a completely different civilization and over the next thousand years edited and re-edited as it was translated back and forth different languages.


I don't know of any serious Bible scholar that agrees with you here. Most (if not all) believe most of the works in the New Testament were written within a few decades after Jesus' purported life and death. Not a century or so.

Quote:
Complications = tribulations = part of the hero mythos (if you're familiar with Campbell's works).


Campbell was not a Bible scholar. And you didn't answer my question about Nazareth.

Quote:
Baptism and crucifixion are also part of the hero mythos story... the sacrifice and the holy/spiritual ritual that sends the hero on his way.


Except that Jesus was believed by the early Christians to have been too great to be baptized by a humble man like John the Baptist.

This is why the author of Matthew had to rationalize why Jesus was baptized by a supposedly lesser man.

So you understand the weight of the argument I'm giving, baptism carries with it the purpose of repentance.

As for the crucifixion, remember that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah by the early Christians. If he was a fictional character, then why even bother having a Messiah fail at all in saving the people from oppression? Why not, say, come up with a more optimistic account about how Jesus (upon being surrounded by his enemies) made them all collapse in a miraculous fashion, and then after preaching to his followers for the last time, ascend to heaven, promising them all eventual salvation.

Why go through all the trouble of having a made up Messiah be crucified? The Messiah was not meant to be sacrificed.

Quote:
The hero that comes from a mystic background (heavenly birth), is 'one of us' common people during his youth and lives modestly/poverty just like we do then grows up to do amazing things, undergoes a mystical ritual as part of his process and in the end dies for his people in some way or another. This a hero story you will find used in almost every culture as 'the' story of why they can identify themselves with each other (group ID).


The problem is that you're not considering the context here at all, and you're uncritically generalizing some selective aspects of certain myths and legends to the story of Jesus without justification.

And this doesn't even answer why it had to be Nazareth and not Bethlehem (as prophesied in the Old Testament). Bethlehem was also a lowly place.

By the way, I've read enough myths to know that not every hero goes through the processes you allude to. What you're doing is selecting a few myths and projecting their story elements onto all others.

Quote:
MCalavera wrote:
Mark and Q and Paul's Epistles and others are independent witnesses of Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, why wasn't he treated as such initially according to the evidence at the time?


Independent... says who? I know of no other document besides the bible or church associated texts (again, made century+ later) that mentions them.


Then explain why there is a theology difference between, say, the Pauline Epistles and Mark.

Also, the century+ claim is false. And the rest of the post rests on such a false claim. So it is all wrong as a result.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jan 2014, 1:16 am

Dantac wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The Old Testament, yes. Not the Gospel stories. In fact, assuming the historical Jesus answers certain questions much better than assuming a mythicist one. Why have a mythicist Jesus from Nazareth instead of just mentioning Bethlehem without all the unnecessary complications? Why have him be baptized by John the Baptist when he's supposed to be the great Messiah? Why have him be crucified rather than have him ascend to heaven directly (without having to be crucified in the first place)?


There is no third party verifiable source as to what he answered or how he answered it..the only source is the bible itself which was written hundred+ years after by people that grew up and lived in a completely different civilization and over the next thousand years edited and re-edited as it was translated back and forth different languages.

Complications = tribulations = part of the hero mythos (if you're familiar with Campbell's works).
Baptism and crucifixion are also part of the hero mythos story... the sacrifice and the holy/spiritual ritual that sends the hero on his way.

The hero that comes from a mystic background (heavenly birth), is 'one of us' common people during his youth and lives modestly/poverty just like we do then grows up to do amazing things, undergoes a mystical ritual as part of his process and in the end dies for his people in some way or another. This a hero story you will find used in almost every culture as 'the' story of why they can identify themselves with each other (group ID).

If you think about it, the above sequence is practically identical to the one the crazy Kims use in North Korea.

MCalavera wrote:
Mark and Q and Paul's Epistles and others are independent witnesses of Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, why wasn't he treated as such initially according to the evidence at the time?


Independent... says who? I know of no other document besides the bible or church associated texts (again, made century+ later) that mentions them.

For all purposes, when the bible was compiled jesus WAS a myth. It had been hundred or so years since the alleged events of his life happened. Christianity as a whole at the time was a mess of independent sects that in the eyes of Rome were a danger because they were becoming more numerous and harder to control. Constantine used the religion as a political tool to cement his power base... why would there be an inquiry on such a convenient myth?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if there was a Roman tablet from the same time period describing the events of Jesus' life in non-religious ways (a comment on a letter... a report within local government, etc) ... I dunno saying something like 'today this guy was put up on the cross for claiming to be the son of god..' then that would be a verifiable independent document. But this... nonsense (I can't find a better word sorry) of using the bible itself as proof of the events makes no sense to me.


I know there are arguments by scholars about the exact age of the Gospels, but the fact remains, the letters by Paul, John, Jude, etc. were written only a few decades after Christ's death.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer