• Announcements

    • Senior Lightworker Lucas

      Message from the office   07/13/2017

      There is an important message from the ULC Staff Office in the Admin Announcements & Maintenance forum. More info is on the way regarding new changes. The new area, Interpath Academia & Scholarship is open for creating new topics. We hope these areas will offer productive and insightful discussion. Please be sure to read the updated ULC Online Forum Statements, Rules & Policies, and the introductory post for each area. 
cuchulain

Historical Jesus

231 posts in this topic

It is just once I would like to have a discussion with someone without having dogma shoved into my face. I know they think it is essential but I am sorry I think it is BGS (as the Irish say). Surely the ULC should be for all and not just a continual platform for fundies who debate nothing more than they think they are right and everyone must come around to them. It would be just refreshing to not have to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take an action that you know will produce a particular outcome and you continue to take the action, you should not complain about the result. The key is to ignore and do not engage those who you do not wish to discuss, argue, or debate. The key here is ignore. You, cuchulain, Johnathan H. B. Lobl, and a few others were having a fine discussion until you all began replying to Dan56. If no one responded to Dan56's replies, then this side discussion would be moot. What I do admire about Dan56 is that he states very clearly what he believes. Too many of us here are willing to say what we don't believe but do not seem to be able to articulate what we DO believe. I notice there is so little discussion regarding Paganism. Is it because the Pagans here don't know how to tell us what Paganism is and how it relates to us as we go about our daily lives? How about Buddhist. I saw one here once but never heard of him/her again. Maybe we think that we can find all the answers to these "other" religions with a quick wiki search. Who knows? I know every Christian topic quickly degenerates into Dan56 bashing. I find Dan56 to be very tolerant of our beliefs or disbelief and only think we should give him the same consideration. That's all I am trying to say Pete and I will soon quit saying that because soon I will also learn that this particular action will bring on only the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just once I would like to have a discussion with someone without having dogma shoved into my face. I know they think it is essential but I am sorry I think it is BGS (as the Irish say). Surely the ULC should be for all and not just a continual platform for fundies who debate nothing more than they think they are right and everyone must come around to them. It would be just refreshing to not have to do this.

Pete, the thread is called "Historical Jesus", so isn't it a little absurd not to expect a Christian to offer an opinion? And for the record, I've had 3 (now 4) entries in this thread and you've posted 22 times. I also believe my responses were essentially on topic, I simply responded directly to the two comments below;

" I really do not like it when people turn around and blame the Jews for Jesus' death."

"Dan, just out of curiosity, can you state your secular sources for all that information you just provided?"

While I confess to quoting some of the dogma that you detest, I honestly don't think I quote it as much as you complain about it. You'll notice that I seldom to never post in threads of other religions, but when "Jesus" is the topic, a better question might be; What possible interest would agnostics have in a subject like that?

You need not feel obligated to slam the bible whenever its referred to. Its not my intention to irritate or antagonize anyone. My participation here has been limited, and I haven't hijacked the thread. So as Bro Kaman mentioned, just try to ignore my opinion if it bothers you. I only quote the bible to substantiate what I think and believe, but I'm fully aware that its like quoting a comic book to nonbelievers.

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take an action that you know will produce a particular outcome and you continue to take the action, you should not complain about the result. The key is to ignore and do not engage those who you do not wish to discuss, argue, or debate. The key here is ignore. You, cuchulain, Johnathan H. B. Lobl, and a few others were having a fine discussion until you all began replying to Dan56. If no one responded to Dan56's replies, then this side discussion would be moot. What I do admire about Dan56 is that he states very clearly what he believes. Too many of us here are willing to say what we don't believe but do not seem to be able to articulate what we DO believe. I notice there is so little discussion regarding Paganism. Is it because the Pagans here don't know how to tell us what Paganism is and how it relates to us as we go about our daily lives? How about Buddhist. I saw one here once but never heard of him/her again. Maybe we think that we can find all the answers to these "other" religions with a quick wiki search. Who knows? I know every Christian topic quickly degenerates into Dan56 bashing. I find Dan56 to be very tolerant of our beliefs or disbelief and only think we should give him the same consideration. That's all I am trying to say Pete and I will soon quit saying that because soon I will also learn that this particular action will bring on only the same result.

Well I find it all arrogant. Fundies have in the culture a strong influence. Stronger than any other. So if a person wants to talk about their bad experience and how they have journeyed from it. how is it getting more dogma going to be welcomed. If we want a secular discussion will he respect that - no. If I debate with him I am attacking. If I ignore him then will he go away and leave me - no. He will keep pedalling his incessant dogma. So who is attacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I find it all arrogant. Fundies have in the culture a strong influence. Stronger than any other. So if a person wants to talk about their bad experience and how they have journeyed from it. how is it getting more dogma going to be welcomed. If we want a secular discussion will he respect that - no. If I debate with him I am attacking. If I ignore him then will he go away and leave me - no. He will keep pedalling his incessant dogma. So who is attacking.

So, knowing ahead, who is bothering to read it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He will keep pedalling his incessant dogma.

Okay then, I don't think I was peddling anything, but will bow out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just once I would like to have a discussion with someone without having dogma shoved into my face. I know they think it is essential but I am sorry I think it is BGS (as the Irish say). Surely the ULC should be for all and not just a continual platform for fundies who debate nothing more than they think they are right and everyone must come around to them. It would be just refreshing to not have to do this.

If you want to take it private, I'm here for you.

Jonathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to take it private, I'm here for you.

Jonathan

It is so hard to pick up once the damage has been done. However, the reason the biblical account is not seen as the historical Jesus is because there is no a proved connection between the writers and Jesus and what they say is contradictary. One Gospel says Jesus remained silent throughout the trial and another goes into a full dialoge occurring in the account. There is also simarlarities between other divinities which leaves them in the area of suspicious. The were also other groups who saw things differently and except for the intervention of Rome may be seen as more plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is so hard to pick up once the damage has been done. However, the reason the biblical account is not seen as the historical Jesus is because there is no a proved connection between the writers and Jesus and what they say is contradictary. One Gospel says Jesus remained silent throughout the trial and another goes into a full dialoge occurring in the account. There is also simarlarities between other divinities which leaves them in the area of suspicious. The were also other groups who saw things differently and except for the intervention of Rome may be seen as more plausible.

I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be. The first thing to remember is that the people who wrote the Gospels were not what we now think of as historians.. They were propagandists. They had a story to get out. This does not mean that everything was fiction. We can begin by assuming that there was a historic Jesus. I'll go further. We can even assume that he was a great enlightened spiritual master -- similar to Buddha. We can even assume a following that were in awe of his great wisdom and learning. We don't know these things as a fact, but we can assume them for the sake of argument. What then do we have?

We have the Jewish territories that were under Roman occupation, along with the lands of the Greeks, Egyptians, etc. The Jewish nation was ruled by the Temple authorities, who were themselves answerable to their Roman masters. The Jews were not happy with their Roman over-lords. They were looking for a military leader who would take them to victory in their revolt against Rome. They were not looking for spiritual guidance.

We do not know what Jesus was teaching. This information as recorded in the Gospels is not reliable. We do know that the Romans thought that Jesus was political. They cared nothing about Judaism. The Romans cared about their own temporal power and nothing else. They knew what the Jews wanted in terms of military leadership. Clearly, the Romans thought this is what Jesus was. Hence the sign over his head. "King of the Jews."

This is my understanding of the times. I'll pause here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I find it all arrogant. Fundies have in the culture a strong influence. Stronger than any other. So if a person wants to talk about their bad experience and how they have journeyed from it. how is it getting more dogma going to be welcomed. If we want a secular discussion will he respect that - no. If I debate with him I am attacking. If I ignore him then will he go away and leave me - no. He will keep pedalling his incessant dogma. So who is attacking.

Recently - you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to remember you do not own your religion or your god when you share them with others.

On the other hand, since it is not truly possible to completely share them with others, they will forever remain your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently - you are.

yes thanks for your unbiased opinion.

I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be. The first thing to remember is that the people who wrote the Gospels were not what we now think of as historians.. They were propagandists. They had a story to get out. This does not mean that everything was fiction. We can begin by assuming that there was a historic Jesus. I'll go further. We can even assume that he was a great enlightened spiritual master -- similar to Buddha. We can even assume a following that were in awe of his great wisdom and learning. We don't know these things as a fact, but we can assume them for the sake of argument. What then do we have?

We have the Jewish territories that were under Roman occupation, along with the lands of the Greeks, Egyptians, etc. The Jewish nation was ruled by the Temple authorities, who were themselves answerable to their Roman masters. The Jews were not happy with their Roman over-lords. They were looking for a military leader who would take them to victory in their revolt against Rome. They were not looking for spiritual guidance.

We do not know what Jesus was teaching. This information as recorded in the Gospels is not reliable. We do know that the Romans thought that Jesus was political. They cared nothing about Judaism. The Romans cared about their own temporal power and nothing else. They knew what the Jews wanted in terms of military leadership. Clearly, the Romans thought this is what Jesus was. Hence the sign over his head. "King of the Jews."

This is my understanding of the times. I'll pause here.

A lot of that I agree with but the king of the Jews bit again is assuming that st. John's gospel is correct. It again comes much later than any biblical gospel and again we have no link that can be proved. I am more led to the idea of Jesus trying to unite the fragmented Jews. Coming from Nazareth and going to Jerusalem he must of seen the stark divisions that existed. Sections like the good Samaritan and the women at the well of Samaria are telling (imo). The Samaritans and Judeans did not get along. In fact Judeans would consider themselves unclean if the contacted the other. Any one trying to unite such groups would have been seen as a danger to Rome and dispised by those in the temple.

The divisions came about after the Babylonians had enslaved the Judeans and their spirits were kept high by tales of Jerusalem. When they return things did not live up to the tales and they turned on the Samarians who had escaped the enslavement and became more rigid in their beliefs and the focus of the temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind discussing the topic with all points of view, at all, Dan. I appreciate every point of view, and while at times it may seem like I come down hard on the fundamentalist perspective, I still have a great deal of respect for the people who believe that perspective, and I still have an open mind about things. At least enough so to understand that it is possible something that some fundamentalist says, either you or someone else, might, just might, change my perspective. So far it hasn't, but I like to keep open about possibilities. On top of that, I think the fundamentalist perspective is important to this topic, since I hear most often that there are secular sources for Jesus and the events surrounding his life from Christians who cannot substantiate the claim. I started this topic in an effort to seek substantiation for that claim, and have discovered that those with a mostly educated point of view of the topic(such as Dan) never make the claim in the first place. In essence, I have come to discover that the claim is generally only made by unscrupulous people trying to back their point up with information that doesn't really exist. I can still appreciate the debate with those who have more ethics, such as Dan. He at least admits that his arguments are based on faith, and I can fully respect that. At some point, a person should have faith in something, even logic. I mean, if the bible cannot be used as proof for itself, logically, then by the same token logic cannot be used as proof for itself either, right? I have faith in logic, in the end.

The point? While at times I find Dan to argue in circles, he does so with integrity and belief, not from dissemination, or misdirection. That has been my experience, for the most part at least, and while it may not hold true 100% of the time, I think all of us stray from what we try to present at some time or another. I certainly have, at least. And I certainly have appreciated the information presented in this topic from all perspectives. True, I did ask for secular sources, but since the topic directly broaches fundamentalists claim for secular sources, I can fully accept other perspectives as well. I have an honest curiosity about various religious beliefs, and as I said, an open enough mind that somebody someday might change it. I always seek the truth, and while the truth is hard to find, still I feel it is a moral imperative to continue searching for that truth.

A lot of people search for the truth, and some people feel like they have found it. When a person feels like that, I can understand that emotions can get mixed into the situation, and feelings can get heated in a debate. I don't think of things in quite the same way, most of the time. Like I said, there have been times when I have strayed from what I stick with in terms of integrity, but I honestly try to look at things at face value, and not take them as personal attacks. I think that is an important piece missing from some people's puzzle. If you take the words in the most positive light when you read them, you will draw away a more positive message. If you see everything as an attack, you will take the message as negative every time. Sometimes I feel like I am being attacked, and there are times that my baser instincts kick in and I react instead of respond. One of my many failings that I think most of the people on this forum have seen and pointed out at some time, but I like to hope that at least people understand I am not intentionally being a jerk, and its just a knee jerk reaction, and when I catch myself doing something like that I always try to apologize. I think this thread may be a perfect example of people taking things wrong or getting to emotional about something that should be just a simple discussion of differences, but that is my opinion of the topic.

Anyways, this is turning into a dissertation, so I will simply say thank you to all the participants who have shared their views. Much appreciated, and especially the book recommendations. Thanks all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes thanks for your unbiased opinion.

A lot of that I agree with but the king of the Jews bit again is assuming that st. John's gospel is correct. It again comes much later than any biblical gospel and again we have no link that can be proved. I am more led to the idea of Jesus trying to unite the fragmented Jews. Coming from Nazareth and going to Jerusalem he must of seen the stark divisions that existed. Sections like the good Samaritan and the women at the well of Samaria are telling (imo). The Samaritans and Judeans did not get along. In fact Judeans would consider themselves unclean if the contacted the other. Any one trying to unite such groups would have been seen as a danger to Rome and dispised by those in the temple.

The divisions came about after the Babylonians had enslaved the Judeans and their spirits were kept high by tales of Jerusalem. When they return things did not live up to the tales and they turned on the Samarians who had escaped the enslavement and became more rigid in their beliefs and the focus of the temple.

Perhaps. There is a lot going on here that I'm not at all clear on. I also have small love for the Temple authorities.

I don't know that this is the best place to bring it up. The Temple sacrifices were never canceled. They were put on hold pending the building of the Third Temple. It's not over yet. Of course, there are a few complications.......

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware of this Jonathan. The issue on the Historical Jesus is (imo) as much to do with politics as religion. The is the case today to. Like I say this is why so much is not encouraged to be questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has been occulted, replaced or reinvented?

I heard everything from Jesus was the last in Eqyptian line to rule to he became a Buddist.

I'm seeking to know, in fact or fancy, how did Jesus really perceive and respond ( do not condem you ) or react ( tables, I do not like stinking tables ).

Love 'em all, like Assasin, my instinct is to whatever he said about the homeless.

Value in time spent and people met, a perfect world was told to me to be part of, any specualtors here?

Off break, back to hard working, freight dragging, moving on out, bulk trash day, everything is out the house, almost everything, I feel a reserection coming.

Edited by MGEATUSLANS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware of this Jonathan. The issue on the Historical Jesus is (imo) as much to do with politics as religion. The is the case today to. Like I say this is why so much is not encouraged to be questioned.

Of course. What could be more political than that so called trial? There's a reason the enactments are called "passion play."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also on reflection things like the apostles creed contains little of what Jesus is supposed to have taught and more on the Church

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also on reflection things like the apostles creed contains little of what Jesus is supposed to have taught and more on the Church

Like I say the creed contains little of Jesus' actual teachings. As Barrie Wilson put it in his book on "howJesus became Christian":-

"We revere our teacher, Jesus who taught us to make the Kingdom of God our highest priority and to prepare for its manifestation on earth, through deeds of compassion and caring backed by an inner spirit of generosity and forgiveness.

We follow the example of Jesus who taught us to be sensitive to the needs of others and to respond appropriately.

We believe in the teachings of Jesus who challenged us to live the life of the Torah to its fullest, to embrace correct attitudes as well as right behaviour.

We acknowledge with gratitude the Jesus who gave us the hope that God's rule would eventually be sovereign over all the earth and righteous will truly inherit the earth.

We have confidence in God, creator of the universe, who alone can redeem and who, forgiving us our failings, will resurrect us from the dead to life eternal.

Why none of this? There's a lot missing from the Apostles' Creed- all of Jesus' teachings, in fact. This is truly astounding."

Barrie Wilson.

Reference:- Barrie Wilson, "How Jesus became Christian - The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher into the Son of God", Chapter 8, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

Edited by Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I say the creed contains little of Jesus' actual teachings. As Barrie Wilson put it in his book on "How Jesus Became Christian":-

"We revere our teacher, Jesus who taught us to make the Kingdom of God our highest priority and to prepare for its manifestation on earth, through deeds of compassion and caring backed by an inner spirit of generosity and forgiveness.

We follow the example of Jesus who taught us to be sensitive to the needs of others and to respond appropriately.

We believe in the teachings of Jesus who challenged us to live the life of the Torah to its fullest, to embrace correct attitudes as well as right behavior.

We acknowledge with gratitude the Jesus who gave us the hope that God's rule would eventually be sovereign over all the earth and righteous will truly inherit the earth.

We have confidence in God, creator of the universe, who alone can redeem and who, forgiving us our failings, will resurrect us from the dead to life eternal.

Why none of this? There's a lot missing from the Apostles' Creed- all of Jesus' teachings, in fact. This is truly astounding."

Barrie Wilson.

Reference:- Barrie Wilson, "How Jesus became Christian - The Early Christians and the Transformation of a Jewish Teacher into the Son of God", Chapter 8, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

Excellent observation Pete (and Barrie) The "Apostle's Creed" apparently contains NOTHING that the Apostles themselves did in fact "profess". Rather it is a device constructed by the Church, over an extended period of time, as a vehicle for conveying core tenets of the Church, and undergirding this vehicle with "the authority" of the Apostles.

Edited by Bro. Hex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now