Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not about putting anything on a pedestal, except truth, wherever it may be found. Some things express truth more fully, perhaps, or certain aspects of truth more forcefully. That might explain why religions get built up around them.
You are much less cynical than I I think religons develop as a means of control or creating and maintaining a cultural identity. I tend to think truth and wisdom are only incidentally, and perhaps accidentally, a part of religion. Religion limits where you are allowed to find truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Whereas, I think ultimately it matters a great deal, but pragmatically, and in the short run, perhaps not so much.
Why? If all of the truth that you attribute to God were to be nothing more than the product of your own mind, conscience, societal conditioning, and culture, would that change your behavior? I honestly doubt that if you knew that there were no God, it would change anything about your life, your values, and how you treat others. Sure, maybe there is some difference that is unknown and unknowable, but by definition it doesn't change anything we experience. Conversely, if the God you describe does exist, then it would be perfectly happy with me following my reason and conscience. Either way, neither of us is living, thinking, loving, or caring in a different way that we would otherwise. It doesn't matter if love for others, decency, kindness and the like is rooted in ones humanity or an expression of the divine spark, as long as we have that love...
You are much less cynical than I I think religons develop as a means of control or creating and maintaining a cultural identity. I tend to think truth and wisdom are only incidentally, and perhaps accidentally, a part of religion. Religion limits where you are allowed to find truth.
You are talking about the end result of religion. I'm talking about it's genesis.
Quote:
Why? If all of the truth that you attribute to God were to be nothing more than the product of your own mind, conscience, societal conditioning, and culture, would that change your behavior? I honestly doubt that if you knew that there were no God, it would change anything about your life, your values, and how you treat others. Sure, maybe there is some difference that is unknown and unknowable, but by definition it doesn't change anything we experience. Conversely, if the God you describe does exist, then it would be perfectly happy with me following my reason and conscience. Either way, neither of us is living, thinking, loving, or caring in a different way that we would otherwise. It doesn't matter if love for others, decency, kindness and the like is rooted in ones humanity or an expression of the divine spark, as long as we have that love...
-NoCapo
Which is why I said that pragmatically and in the short run, perhaps it doesn't matter so much.
I think it's possible to rationally believe in a historic Jesus, it's just that we'd have to throw away all of our notions about him as related by the gospels, which are notoriously unreliable to downright fraudulent fictional concoctions of stories about him. That pretty much leaves us with nothing about the man other than that he was charismatic, attracted a following of devoted cult-like worshippers, railed against the leaders of his day, both religious and political, likely was crucified not by the namby-pamby Pilate we read about in the gospels but by a ruthless, unforgiving governor who wouldn't hesitate to crucify his own mother if he felt she was a threat to the empire. As to his resurrection, that's up in the air and is a matter of faith, not evidence.
That's where we're left in trying to construct the real Jesus and not the fictional hero of the gospels.
I mean, we can applaud the condemnation of religious hypocrisy, we might like
the Golden Rule, but much of the Sermon on the Mount seems to me to encourage an
oppressed people to pin their hopes on a apocalyptic coming kingdom (which was
to have come before they died) instead of either working within the Roman system
or attempting to overthrow it.
I'd like to address the points you made:
Jesus made it clear that his kingdom was not a part of this world (John 18:36)
When the Jews tried to make him King he departed (John 6:15)
The Jews were looking for a Messiah that would bring them out from Roman oppression. Ultimately many rejected Jesus because he did not fulfill their idea of what the Messiah and Kingdom should do for them. However, it is no different today. People have expectations that military might, politics, and violence will change the world. Any beneficial change seems overshadowed by some other problem that crops up or a situation reverts to what it was before. Then as now most people don't get it. Jesus main focus was on the Kingdom of God because that ultimately is what will replace all...Daniel 2:44 and Daniel 7:13,14 and Luke 4:43
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
In addition, Christ encouraged his followers to abandon their families, parents wives and children in the hopes of being rewarded in the coming kingdom(Mark
10:28-30, Matthew 19:29, Luke 18:29). In Luke 12:24-38, he explicitly states
that he will destroy families, and that anyone who will not abandon his family
for him is unworthy.
I can agree that Jesus's ministry, the things he taught, would cause division among households. However rather than paraphrase scripture with words like "destroy families" and "abandon their families" Let scripture interpret scripture to get an understanding of this issue you raise. Family members can become enemies (Micah 7:6). Today families may become divided with some who are avowed atheists and others believing in God, Some believe in the Trinity and others do not. Still others believe in eternal torment and others don't. In the extreme, family members are disowned, ostracized or kicked out for having opposing beliefs. Back then the Jews were dealing with equally divisive issues...Is he the Son of God or a quack, he can't be a man of God because he hangs out with sinners and some say he does not observe the Sabbath. Is he the Christ or a prophet? This is why we read in John 15:17-21 the following, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21“But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me." So yes some would leave their family members because of the hostility and division caused by Jesus's teachings. However, if Jesus is truly the Son of God would a disciple then abandon him for the sake of retaining acceptance by his or her family ( this is what people who are agnostic or atheist or Christians in name only can't understand because it's all BS to them but to Christians and to the disciples of Jesus's day he was real to them (the Son of God) and same for us (at least some of us) today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
He explicitly states he intends to usher in violence not peace.
None of the scriptures you quoted support the idea that he intended to usher in violence. However, Jesus knew that his teachings would not sit well with some but he did not hold back regardless of how the individuals or crowd would react. Besides if that was his intent he would have worked to overthrow the Roman occupiers but as you yourself stated he did not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo Pilate clearly thought he was a threat to the stability of Roman rule in the
region.
Apparently not... particularly when he (Pilate) is quoted as saying, “I find no fault in him" (John 18:38)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapoAt least one of his disciples was a zealot, a revolutionary against the Roman
occupation
What is a disciple? the 12 apostles, the 70 mentioned in Luke, any of the followers of Jesus. He drew all sorts of men and women to him. So the above really is not relevant. Certainly Matthew 26:52 would be relevant and incumbent on all disciples.
It's not about putting anything on a pedestal, except truth, wherever it may be found. Some things express truth more fully, perhaps, or certain aspects of truth more forcefully. That might explain why religions get built up around them.
Whereas, I think ultimately it matters a great deal, but pragmatically, and in the short run, perhaps not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Why? If all of the truth that you attribute to God were to be nothing more than the product of your own mind, conscience, societal conditioning, and culture, would that change your behavior? I honestly doubt that if you knew that there were no God, it would change anything about your life, your values, and how you treat others. Sure, maybe there is some difference that is unknown and unknowable, but by definition it doesn't change anything we experience. Conversely, if the God you describe does exist, then it would be perfectly happy with me following my reason and conscience. Either way, neither of us is living, thinking, loving, or caring in a different way that we would otherwise. It doesn't matter if love for others, decency, kindness and the like is rooted in ones humanity or an expression of the divine spark, as long as we have that love...
-NoCapo
What Pleroo means by ultimately is the fulfillment of our human purpose . . . which you do not believe in. Pragmatically in the short run, you are correct and the outcomes seem to be the same . . . "as long as we have that love..." and that love is agape love.
What Pleroo means by ultimately is the fulfillment of our human purpose . . . which you do not believe in. Pragmatically in the short run, you are correct and the outcomes seem to be the same . . . "as long as we have that love..." and that love is agape love.
I totally agree, although as I see it the "short run" is the entirety of our observable experience. We have only speculation and blind faith to suggest otherwise. But regardless, we can find a common understanding of morality, of values, of what we want from life and for life without resorting to external declarations and imputing our own desires and understanding to a third party. We have to figure life out for ourselves, and pretending that we know the mind of God is just a way of justifying ourselves.
Location: The High Desert of the American Southwest
214 posts, read 230,623 times
Reputation: 364
Lots of good stuff on this thread, gentlemen. It's refreshing to finally hear people actually attempting to apply an objective, agenda-free method in discerning who exactly in history was this person we came to know as Jesus Christ.
And I find myself in total agreement with 90% of what has been said. In my humble opinion, these are the most likely facts about Yeshua of Nazareth.
He was a fully-human, mortal, itinerant preacher whom lived in Roman-occupied Palestine during the first 30 years or so of the 1st century.
He was executed by Roman Authorities, lead by the hand of governor Pontius Pilate for insurrectionism. All that hoo-ha about the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin offering Jesus up for execution and then refuting Pilate's attempts at setting him free is pure anti-Semitic falsehoods. Pilate was ruthless and notorious for having little patience with enemies of the state, which Jesus would surely have been categorized of being after his temple-cleansing episode. During the time Jesus lived in an uber-turbulent time in Palestine, which was replete with self-proclaimed messiahs and rabble rousers of all stripes coming to the forefront ever few months or so. Pilate took great delight in terminating their ministries.
Terminating with extreme prejudice ( to nick a line from Apocalypse Now).
As has been mentioned: many the so-called miracles, deeds and quotes surrounding Jesus' life were simply lifted from the Torah (First five books of the O.T.) in an attempt to portray him as the long-awaited Messiah. And, in all fairness, this method of story-telling was not really just out and out lying, but rather a very common method of Hebrew oral tradition called "Midrash." in which old events were inserted into new narratives so as to more powerfully convey the message being conveyed. This is why the Gospel of Matthew is put first among the four, even though Mark was actually written before. Matt plugged his gospel chock-full of midrashic events in which he tied Jesus with O.T. prophecies.
Ever notice how, as the chronology of the gospels progress, Jesus becomes more and more divine? In Matt and Mark he admonishes his followers not to tell people of his miraculous actions. He also is very self-deprecating, asking those who compliment him "why do you say I'm good?" But, lo and behold, by the time we get to John, he is loudly and arrogantly proclaiming himself as God, the "alpha and the omega" and "the word" and being around since before Creation. Why does he say this?
Simple. He didn't. The words were put into his mouth by the writer of the gospel because he felt urgent need to bolster Jesus' image into God-hood, as the ferocity of the Roman oppression increased. Remember: the Jews temple had just ben razed, along with most of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The Christian movement would have most likely died out before spreading further than the Middle East and Rome had it not been for Emperor Contantine's official sanctioning of it after garnering a military victory at the Battle of Milvan Ridge, where he claimed to have had a vision of a Cross in the sky above the words "Conquer by This!"
An excellent book that very effectively portrays the atmosphere and the zeitgeist of Palestine during Jesus' life is "Zealot" by Resa Azlan. The author's primary theory is that Jesus was NOT the turn-the-other cheek pacifist the Gospels would have us believe, but rather a fiery insurrectionist and political activist who became such a thorn in the side of the powers that be that it was only a matter of time before he had to be disposed of. Azlan also claims that Jesus was not even all that unique, and he tells of several other Jewish "messiahs" who actually had as much written them by secular writers as has been written about Jesus.
Lots of good stuff on this thread, gentlemen. It's refreshing to finally hear people actually attempting to apply an objective, agenda-free method in discerning who exactly in history was this person we came to know as Jesus Christ.
And I find myself in total agreement with 90% of what has been said. In my humble opinion, these are the most likely facts about Yeshua of Nazareth.
He was a fully-human, mortal, itinerant preacher whom lived in Roman-occupied Palestine during the first 30 years or so of the 1st century.
He was executed by Roman Authorities, lead by the hand of governor Pontius Pilate for insurrectionism. All that hoo-ha about the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin offering Jesus up for execution and then refuting Pilate's attempts at setting him free is pure anti-Semitic falsehoods. Pilate was ruthless and notorious for having little patience with enemies of the state, which Jesus would surely have been categorized of being after his temple-cleansing episode. During the time Jesus lived in an uber-turbulent time in Palestine, which was replete with self-proclaimed messiahs and rabble rousers of all stripes coming to the forefront ever few months or so. Pilate took great delight in terminating their ministries.
Terminating with extreme prejudice ( to nick a line from Apocalypse Now).
As has been mentioned: many the so-called miracles, deeds and quotes surrounding Jesus' life were simply lifted from the Torah (First five books of the O.T.) in an attempt to portray him as the long-awaited Messiah. And, in all fairness, this method of story-telling was not really just out and out lying, but rather a very common method of Hebrew oral tradition called "Midrash." in which old events were inserted into new narratives so as to more powerfully convey the message being conveyed. This is why the Gospel of Matthew is put first among the four, even though Mark was actually written before. Matt plugged his gospel chock-full of midrashic events in which he tied Jesus with O.T. prophecies.
Ever notice how, as the chronology of the gospels progress, Jesus becomes more and more divine? In Matt and Mark he admonishes his followers not to tell people of his miraculous actions. He also is very self-deprecating, asking those who compliment him "why do you say I'm good?" But, lo and behold, by the time we get to John, he is loudly and arrogantly proclaiming himself as God, the "alpha and the omega" and "the word" and being around since before Creation. Why does he say this?
Simple. He didn't. The words were put into his mouth by the writer of the gospel because he felt urgent need to bolster Jesus' image into God-hood, as the ferocity of the Roman oppression increased. Remember: the Jews temple had just ben razed, along with most of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The Christian movement would have most likely died out before spreading further than the Middle East and Rome had it not been for Emperor Contantine's official sanctioning of it after garnering a military victory at the Battle of Milvan Ridge, where he claimed to have had a vision of a Cross in the sky above the words "Conquer by This!"
An excellent book that very effectively portrays the atmosphere and the zeitgeist of Palestine during Jesus' life is "Zealot" by Resa Azlan. The author's primary theory is that Jesus was NOT the turn-the-other cheek pacifist the Gospels would have us believe, but rather a fiery insurrectionist and political activist who became such a thorn in the side of the powers that be that it was only a matter of time before he had to be disposed of. Azlan also claims that Jesus was not even all that unique, and he tells of several other Jewish "messiahs" who actually had as much written them by secular writers as has been written about Jesus.
This is an excellent analysis, Hombre. I wouldn't have changed a word, except that I am convinced the reason Jesus turns more and more divine as the gospels progress from earliest (Mark) to latest (John) is because the Early Christians were not winning the numbers of converts they wanted because the pagan gods were all gods who became men born of a virgin, were killed and then arose. This chillingly lines up exactly with the story of Jesus except that all these similar gods appeared 500-1000 years before Jesus, making him just the last in a line of god/men born of a virgin, etc. The early church leaders, recognizing that Mark had just not done a good enough job writing a convincing portrait of Jesus to sway potential pagan converts, turned to other members with good imaginations and Greek writing skills and told them to concoct a similar portrait of Jesus.
This is an excellent analysis, Hombre. I wouldn't have changed a word, except that I am convinced the reason Jesus turns more and more divine as the gospels progress from earliest (Mark) to latest (John) is because the Early Christians were not winning the numbers of converts they wanted because the pagan gods were all gods who became men born of a virgin, were killed and then arose. This chillingly lines up exactly with the story of Jesus except that all these similar gods appeared 500-1000 years before Jesus, making him just the last in a line of god/men born of a virgin, etc. The early church leaders, recognizing that Mark had just not done a good enough job writing a convincing portrait of Jesus to sway potential pagan converts, turned to other members with good imaginations and Greek writing skills and told them to concoct a similar portrait of Jesus.
Why does it have to be a conspiracy to perpetrate fraud, Thrill? Why can't it just be a natural evolution of the same theme with a more sophisticated manifestation. If God is guiding the evolution of our understanding . . . it is natural that it would evolve with closer and closer accuracy to what we are supposed to understand within each cultural context and tradition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think religons develop as a means of control or creating and maintaining a cultural identity. I tend to think truth and wisdom are only incidentally, and perhaps accidentally, a part of religion. Religion limits where you are allowed to find truth.
