[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Speaking as a "bleeding heart liberal chicken," I regard pretty much everything about Krishna and Rama as purely mythological. As for the historical Muhammad, I think the Sunni/Shite debate has that pretty well covered.

A historical Buddha thread would rock, though...

The correct response is, they are all characters in fictive propaganda.

[lpkmckenna]

Really? How about Paul, did he really exist? How about Judas Maccabee, did he really exist?

So if Buddha didn't begin Buddhism, who did? I'd be interested to know who invented it. Here's a list of famous Buddhists. You let me know, k?

I'd be interested in your "theory" of how you know whether a historical figure existed or not. Or do you just discount anyone whose life becomes semi-mythologized?

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And for those who aren't such bleeding heart liberal chickens, how about showing some real guts and start a Muhammed or Krishna/Rama myth thread? They're all myths too with very little basis in fact and mostly stories conjured up at much later dates.

Personally, I wouldn't start up discussions about religions I'm not familiar with and don't deal with on a daily basis because they really have no impact on my life, other than through the threat of extremists bent on perpetrating acts of terror. I'm surrounded by Christianity on a daily basis among friends and family, and I participate in online fora because I'm so pissed off by it. I would be happy to discuss the Joseph Smith / Mormonism foolishness, though. Now, talk are some funny beliefs!

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

...He restrained Himself into being a loving, just and merciful diety.

Someone hasn't been reading their Bible.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

Someone hasn't been reading their Bible.

Why? What does the Bible have to do it? You can see it everyday, He sees to it that we have a sun that shines everyday on believers and unbelievers alike, air that we can breathe, rain so that we can drink and work the land with, plants, seeds and animals... if He weren't so merciful He would take it all away, actually we wouldn't have deserved it better.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

Can't argue with that logic.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Can't argue with that logic.

Most people take everything on this planet for granted, that they can think, talk, that they live, love, relationships, offspring, that they can eat and drink, that they can sleep and wakeup...

Taliesin

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Most people take everything on this planet for granted, that they can think, talk, that they live, love, relationships, offspring, that they can eat and drink, that they can sleep and wakeup...

Taliesin

And they also think that they can feel these sensations and do these things because of some mythical "He" that put them here on this planet in the middle of nowhere. Utter nonsense.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Really? How about Paul, did he really exist?

It is likely he existed as he is the lying twit who created the godman variant of the Jewish messiah.

How about Judas Maccabee, did he really exist?

Too hard to ascertain.

So if Buddha didn't begin Buddhism, who did? I'd be interested to know who invented it.

Variants of Buddhist-like theology go back hundreds of years prior to the formation fo the Siddharta Gautama origin story/myth and cover much of the ancient developed world. The one that is most famous is simply an Indian version, heavily influenced by Greeks visiting the region. The same influence and some exact same parables are also apparent in New Testament gospels written by Greek scribes.

Or do you just discount anyone whose life becomes semi-mythologized?

If a story, such as the Exodus or the dynasty that the Buddha was born into, clashes with historical and archaeological evidence, and reads more like a backdrop/origin story for a new religion, then it is very highly likely a myth.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And they also think that they can feel these sensations and do these things because of some mythical "He" that put them here on this planet in the middle of nowhere. Utter nonsense.

BRussell: Impossible!
--erik--: Can't argue with that logic!
OldManMac: Utter nonsense!

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And they also think that they can feel these sensations and do these things because of some mythical "He" that put them here on this planet in the middle of nowhere. Utter nonsense.

... but there must've been some genesis event right? Some inception? Why is the notion of a deity utter nonsense? Naturalism? The god of BOYA? How are you so confident?

Is a mythical "He" somehow more reprehensible than a mythical "What"?

[ebuddy]

I think the question that begs to be asked is;

- How is it this Jesus myth gained so much traction? IMO;
It is the notion of OT prophecy fulfillment that gave His existence this much weight.
His consistency of message to death.
The uniqueness of this message and the notion of God in flesh among us.
The faithful dedication of His witnesses and disciples to death.
The calling to spread the Word given by Him.

One thing is for sure, few would argue the impact this myth has enjoyed among mankind.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How is it this Jesus myth gained so much traction?

I think someone owes Constantine a debt of gratitude.
Edit: (Before I get myself in trouble) That wasn't aimed at you personally.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... but there must've been some genesis event right? Some inception? Why is the notion of a deity utter nonsense? Naturalism? The god of BOYA? How are you so confident?

Is a mythical "He" somehow more reprehensible than a mythical "What"?

No, not necessarily. There are any number of religions as well as scientific theories in which the universe is infinite with no discernible beginning or end.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

In creating everything, God showed His omnipotence, He restrains Himself though in order to make the free will for us possible, and He restrained Himself into being a loving, just and merciful diety.

Taliesin

No, in creating everything of which we're aware (operating on the assumptions that He exists and that He did so, of course), He demonstrated merely that He's capable of creating those things. We have no way of knowing that He would be capable of creating other things that He didn't already create, nor do we know that He created the universe out of free will and not as some mindless automaton. Even if the Bible is the literal word of God, that doesn't mean it's a reliable source of information, as there's no proof that God isn't simply another level of being existing in an überverse created by some ÜberGod.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the question that begs to be asked is;

- How is it this Jesus myth gained so much traction? IMO;
It is the notion of OT prophecy fulfillment that gave His existence this much weight.
His consistency of message to death.
The uniqueness of this message and the notion of God in flesh among us.
The faithful dedication of His witnesses and disciples to death.
The calling to spread the Word given by Him.

One thing is for sure, few would argue the impact this myth has enjoyed among mankind.

Christians were the first real religious salesmen. There were no missionaries of Aphrodite or Judaism, but Christianity has this idea of conversion built into its core. It's no accident that another religion built around the same idea of gaining converts, Islam, is number two.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It is likely he existed as he is the lying twit who created the godman variant of the Jewish messiah.

I don't think Paul believed or advocated Jesus as God. That begins with the Gospel of John, written about 40 years after Paul's death.

Variants of Buddhist-like theology go back hundreds of years prior to the formation fo the Siddharta Gautama origin story/myth and cover much of the ancient developed world.

Uh, no. Gautama's central teachings (anatta, nibbana, etc) have no historical precedent. The mythic elements of Buddha's life are lifted, but not his teachings.

The one that is most famous is simply an Indian version, heavily influenced by Greeks visiting the region.

Doubtful. Before Alexander the Great, Indian and Greek contact was limited. Could you be more specific?

The same influence and some exact same parables are also apparent in New Testament gospels written by Greek scribes.

There are intriguing similarities between Gotama's teachings and Jesus' teachings, but I wouldn't place the connection thru Greek scribes. Too many of Jesus' sayings reflect the social background of Judaism. For instance, Jesus' exhortations against oaths, divorce, and purity codes are indications of Jewish social issues that Greeks would know nothing about.

If a story, such as the Exodus or the dynasty that the Buddha was born into, clashes with historical and archaeological evidence, and reads more like a backdrop/origin story for a new religion, then it is very highly likely a myth.

Ok, but I didn't ask about the mythic background of Buddha. I know that's all suspect. I'm talking specifically about Buddhist thought. If Buddha wasn't the originator, who was?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

How is it this Jesus myth gained so much traction?

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I think someone owes Constantine a debt of gratitude.

The real answer is Paul. Paul's theology gave "spiritual equality" to Gentiles and Jews. Many Gentiles (the theosebeis or "God-fearers") who were attracted to Judaism's monotheism and morality simply couldn't stomach Jewish cultural norms like circumcision or food codes. Paul's theology gave Greeks exactly what they wanted out of Judaism without the cultural baggage.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Paul was the first real religious salesman.

Fixinated.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Many Gentiles (the theosebeis or "God-fearers") who were attracted to Judaism's monotheism and morality simply couldn't stomach Jewish cultural norms like circumcision or food codes.

"I've got to cut what off?!?"

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't think Paul believed or advocated Jesus as God. That begins with the Gospel of John, written about 40 years after Paul's death.

It is almost universally recognised by scholars and critics that the equation of a Jewish messiah with a pantheistic all pervading force was begat by Paul and whatever political force that was behind him and the texts that became official before and after the Council of Nicea. The Jewish messiah was never supposed to be anything like that. He was supposed to be nothing more than a blueblood who became king, kicked out foreigners, recreated the ancient Israelite empire (which has no archaeological support for anyway) and then die an old man like everyone else.

Uh, no. Gautama's central teachings (anatta, nibbana, etc) have no historical precedent. The mythic elements of Buddha's life are lifted, but not his teachings.

There are plenty examples of the same teachings in older Greek schools of thought and the Teachings texts of the Egyptians, which were philosophical and spiritual musings by priests and kings that date over a millenia before the earliest evidence of Buddhism in India or Nepal.

Doubtful. Before Alexander the Great, Indian and Greek contact was limited. Could you be more specific?

Indian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian and Egyptian contacts were established through trade going back to the earliest recorded times. They were the ancient equivalent of today's "West" or "developed world". Evidence for it is not just linguistic and religious, it is there in stones and metals that were traded between them. There's no reason to treat them as separate civilizations.

There are intriguing similarities between Gotama's teachings and Jesus' teachings, but I wouldn't place the connection thru Greek scribes.

You would have to. Not only did Greek scribes write three of the four gospels, but even more of the unofficial gospels dumped by the Council of Nicea. Jesus was also Misrim, an Egypt reared Jew, who could have come into contact with Alexandrian schools of thought. Egypt had the largest schools of Buddhism in the world at the time due to Emperor Ashoka's contacts with the Greeks and Egyptians.

One must also bear in mind that the Indo-Greeks held a large swathe of northern India and Bactria and were responsible for nearly all early Buddhist art in South Asia.

If Buddha wasn't the originator, who was?

No one in particular can take credit for pacifist teachings (although there is violence and condemnation to hellfire in Buddhism). One man in particular who could be the very earliest originator of what became known as Buddhism in India much later, was the Egyptian king Amenhotep III. His father Tuthmosis IV had conquered much of Western Asia up to the Euphrates river to secure Egypt's frontiers and international trade. Amenhotep III was the first of his dynasty to declare a policy of no warfare and only pacifist dialogue. He reinforced his ties with other states by marrying every king or tribal leader's daughters. The Solomon myth comes directly from Amenhotep III, but there is one major difference. Amenhotep III also created a new pacifist religion based on himself. He had huge statues of himself made in a pacifist pose, full stomached (his son the famous heretic Akhenaten copied some elements of this style) and with a smiling face - just like the classical image of the Buddha that came about over a millennia later. Prior to Amenhotep III all Egyptian pharaohs were presented as strong, athletic and firm rulers. Ancestors of the Greeks and Indians would have been exposed to Amenhotep III and his new image/cult because he was the wealthiest ruler in the world at the time. There were also a substantial amount of Cretians/Minoans and Mycenian immigrants in Egypt at the time too due to the eruption of Santorini and collapse of Minoan civilisation.

I could go on for hours but that is enough for you to go and start a learning curve with.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

There are plenty examples of the same teachings in older Greek schools of thought and the Teachings texts of the Egyptians, which were philosophical and spiritual musings by priests and kings that date over a millenia before the earliest evidence of Buddhism in India or Nepal.

Purely out of academic curiosity, can you provide evidence of any pre-Gotama doctrine of anatta, especially one that coexists with a belief in rebirth? I'll admit that I have very little knowledge of ancient, non-mainstream religions, but I've never heard of anything equivalent to Buddhism (although according to Buddhism, there would have been such religions previously, but they necessarily would have died out prior to Siddartha Gotama becoming the Buddha).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Iecreated the ancient Israelite empire (which has no archaeological support for anyway)

I agree with a lot of what you wrote previous to that parenthetical. Are you entirely sure about that? You think there's no evidence that King David existed? You ever look at findings like the ones detailed in this article? King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says (NY Times). Have you been to Israel to research the archaeological findings for yourself? If you were at all informed, I doubt you'd be making statements like that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

No one in particular can take credit for pacifist teachings (although there is violence and condemnation to hellfire in Buddhism). One man in particular who could be the very earliest originator of what became known as Buddhism in India much later, was the Egyptian king Amenhotep III. His father Tuthmosis IV had conquered much of Western Asia up to the Euphrates river to secure Egypt's frontiers and international trade. Amenhotep III was the first of his dynasty to declare a policy of no warfare and only pacifist dialogue.

Nobody asked about pacifism. There are some sayings of the Buddha that encourage something like pacifism (though not exactly the same), but that's a very small portion of the Buddha's teachings. Nonviolence isn't even given its own step in the Eightfold Path — it's lumped in with things like theft and promiscuous sex as not being "right action." LPK asked specifically about ideas such as anatta and nibbana. Do you really think Buddhism == pacifism?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

It is almost universally recognised by scholars and critics that the equation of a Jewish messiah with a pantheistic all pervading force was begat by Paul and whatever political force that was behind him and the texts that became official before and after the Council of Nicea.

Sigh. Why are you squeezing all these historically separated concepts into one sentence? Paul was not a pantheist. Paul's political contacts were the Herodians, who had no interest in pantheism, but might have supported non-political messianic ideas if it suited them. (And that's a big if.) The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with establishing Jesus as God, which was already church doctrine by at least 200 CE. And nothing whatsoever is "universally recognised by scholars and critics," least of all the origins of Christianity.

The Jewish messiah was never supposed to be anything like that. He was supposed to be nothing more than a blueblood who became king, kicked out foreigners, recreated the ancient Israelite empire (which has no archaeological support for anyway) and then die an old man like everyone else.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do establish that some Jews were expecting a "cosmic Messiah," along with several other messianic theories (like two messiahs, one priestly and one kingly). The second Temple period of Judaism included a wide diversity of messianic opinions, from anti-messianic Sadducees to a few radical cosmic-Messiah Qumranites.

Paul's letters indicate several common Qumranite code words like "Damascus" (which was not the real Damascus but probably code for the Qumran community). And the three year sojourn "in the Arabian desert" between his revelation and returning to Jerusalem is matched by the three year study/initiation into the Qumran order. The Gospel of John also contains Qumranite codewords.

Paul ascribed to Jesus a "priestly messiah" role while the later Johanine writers considered Jesus a "cosmic messiah." Both ideas originated from within the Qumranite community over their active period of about 300 years. Neither are pagan ideas in origin, but were certainly misunderstood by ethnic Greeks in later history.

There are plenty examples of the same teachings in older Greek schools of thought and the Teachings texts of the Egyptians, which were philosophical and spiritual musings by priests and kings that date over a millenia before the earliest evidence of Buddhism in India or Nepal.

Rubbish. The only Greek thinkers before Gotama were Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, and Xenophanes, and none of them proposed ideas remotely similar to anatta, nibbana, etc. You could stretch the ideas of Heraclitus to resemble Buddhism, but Gotama and Heraclitus were contemporaries, so they couldn't influence each other.

But feel free to put your money where your mouth is by providing some examples.

Indian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian and Egyptian contacts were established through trade going back to the earliest recorded times. They were the ancient equivalent of today's "West" or "developed world". Evidence for it is not just linguistic and religious, it is there in stones and metals that were traded between them. There's no reason to treat them as separate civilizations.

I don't deny any of that. But I asked for specific ideas that were shared that were embodied in Buddha's teaching.

You would have to. Not only did Greek scribes write three of the four gospels, but even more of the unofficial gospels dumped by the Council of Nicea.

You need to abandon that ahistorical crap. Nicea didn't discuss the canon, they discussed Arius, whose Trinitarian views were slightly different from the norm.

Also, we don't know the ethnicity of the Gospel writers with any certainty. All four could have been Hellenized Jews like Paul, or all of them could have been Greeks. (My own view: Mark and John were Jews, Matthew and Luke were not.)

Jesus was also Misrim, an Egypt reared Jew, who could have come into contact with Alexandrian schools of thought. Egypt had the largest schools of Buddhism in the world at the time due to Emperor Ashoka's contacts with the Greeks and Egyptians.

If you're talking about the Theraputae, yeah that's possible. But if the Theraputae were Jewish Buddhists of a sort, they likely syncretized Buddhism directly, not thru the Greeks or Egyptians, since Alexandria had direct trading links with India. The Jews of Alexandrian had their own trading ports in India.

I don't know about this "Egypt had the largest schools of Buddhism in the world at the time" claim. Got a reference?

One must also bear in mind that the Indo-Greeks held a large swathe of northern India and Bactria and were responsible for nearly all early Buddhist art in South Asia.

Yes, but the Jews were hostile to these people. The Seleucid empire, the descendants of the Indo-Greek empire, were conquerors of the Jews. They would not have adopted the beliefs of their oppressors.

Also, Buddhism adopted Greek artistic styles almost 200 years after Buddha. Buddhism itself is not the result of Greco-Buddhism, but rather Greco-Buddhism is the result of Greeks adopting Buddhism. You have cause-and-effect backwards.

No one in particular can take credit for pacifist teachings (although there is violence and condemnation to hellfire in Buddhism). One man in particular who could be the very earliest originator of what became known as Buddhism in India much later, was the Egyptian king Amenhotep III. His father Tuthmosis IV had conquered much of Western Asia up to the Euphrates river to secure Egypt's frontiers and international trade. Amenhotep III was the first of his dynasty to declare a policy of no warfare and only pacifist dialogue. He reinforced his ties with other states by marrying every king or tribal leader's daughters. The Solomon myth comes directly from Amenhotep III, but there is one major difference. Amenhotep III also created a new pacifist religion based on himself. He had huge statues of himself made in a pacifist pose, full stomached (his son the famous heretic Akhenaten copied some elements of this style) and with a smiling face - just like the classical image of the Buddha that came about over a millennia later. Prior to Amenhotep III all Egyptian pharaohs were presented as strong, athletic and firm rulers. Ancestors of the Greeks and Indians would have been exposed to Amenhotep III and his new image/cult because he was the wealthiest ruler in the world at the time. There were also a substantial amount of Cretians/Minoans and Mycenian immigrants in Egypt at the time too due to the eruption of Santorini and collapse of Minoan civilisation.

Whoa, now you're telling me Buddhism's doctrine of pacifism originates in Egypt? You've lost your mind.

I could go on for hours but that is enough for you to go and start a learning curve with.

You've haven't said anything I haven't heard before. But your interpretation of that data is absurd. The essence of Buddhist teaching comes from Gotama, not from Greece or Egypt or Antarctica, and you haven't provided a single example suggesting otherwise.

[ebuddy]

To lpk;

Why would Paul find it necessary to give Greeks a way out of Judaism without the cultural baggage? What did he have to gain?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why would Paul find it necessary to give Greeks a way out of Judaism without the cultural baggage? What did he have to gain?

I don't know. I think Paul was sincere in his beliefs, but at the same time he seems to have regarded some Jewish practices as superstitious. For instance, the issue of eating food offered to idols in 1 Cor:

8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 8:2 But if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he doesn’t yet know as he ought to know. 8:3 But if anyone loves God, the same is known by him. 8:4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 8:5 For though there are things that are called “gods,” whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many “gods” and many “lords;” 8:6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him. 8:7 However, that knowledge isn’t in all men. But some, with consciousness of the idol until now, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8:8 But food will not commend us to God. For neither, if we don’t eat, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. 8:9 But be careful that by no means does this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak. 8:10 For if a man sees you who have knowledge sitting in an idol’s temple, won’t his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 8:11 And through your knowledge, he who is weak perishes, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 8:12 Thus, sinning against the brothers, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 8:13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no meat forevermore, that I don’t cause my brother to stumble.

Paul rejects any concerns about eating such food, as Jesus taught (or as he interprets Jesus' teaching), but for the sake of the feelings of Jewish Christians ("the brothers"), he recommends abstaining in their presence.

Regardless, Paul suffered the lash in the synagogue a few times for this kind of talk/behavior, so he feels very certain of his position. Clearly, he didn't think he had anything worldly to gain.

In What Paul Meant, Gary Wills mentions a scholar named Dieter Gregori, who claims that "Paul was trying to bring on an eschatological showdown, in which the Jews would be forced to accept the Messiah" thru the evidence of massive Gentile conversion to Jesus.

Ultimately, I think Paul was bringing Gentiles to YHWH thru Jesus, because that's what he thought the Messianic Age was all about. He felt he was doing his part as a Jew.

[BRussell]

I want to subscribe to lpkmckenna's newsletter.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote previous to that parenthetical. Are you entirely sure about that? You think there's no evidence that King David existed? You ever look at findings like the ones detailed in this article? King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says (NY Times). Have you been to Israel to research the archaeological findings for yourself? If you were at all informed, I doubt you'd be making statements like that.

JERUSALEM, Aug. 4 - An Israeli archaeologist says she has uncovered in East Jerusalem what may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David. Her work has been sponsored by a conservative Israeli research institute and financed by an American Jewish investment banker who would like to prove that Jerusalem was indeed the capital of the Jewish kingdom described in the Bible.

Yeah. No agenda there at all.


http://www.bib-arch.org/BAR/article....=4&ArticleID=7

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the question that begs to be asked is;

- How is it this Jesus myth gained so much traction? IMO;
It is the notion of OT prophecy fulfillment that gave His existence this much weight.
His consistency of message to death.
The uniqueness of this message and the notion of God in flesh among us.
The faithful dedication of His witnesses and disciples to death.
The calling to spread the Word given by Him.

One thing is for sure, few would argue the impact this myth has enjoyed among mankind.

Answer: because people are afraid of dying.

if you scare people about their afterlife -- even if they never thought of it -- and then give them a god to worship instead of the other ones, then they too can live on after death.

then , of course, we have Constantine who fell to the myth... sigh.. imagine no dark ages..!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the question that begs to be asked is;

- How is it this Jesus myth gained so much traction? IMO;
It is the notion of OT prophecy fulfillment that gave His existence this much weight.
His consistency of message to death.
The uniqueness of this message and the notion of God in flesh among us.
The faithful dedication of His witnesses and disciples to death.
The calling to spread the Word given by Him.

One thing is for sure, few would argue the impact this myth has enjoyed among mankind.

Of course few can argue the impact of the myth, but all that shows is that there are a lot of gullible people in the world. You're born into the world innocent, and then from an early age you're brainwashed into believing that some deity is going to save your soul, because your parents were brainwashed into the same beliefs, and you're told that you'd better stay on the straight and narrow, or you're going to go to hell, thanks to a god who loves you! Then, if you question the dichotomy, you're told that "it's god's way, and we shouldn't question that." We are presumptuous enough to say that we know god has a plan, but we can't discern what that plan is, because we can't be presumptuous enough to think we know, yet we're presumptuous enough to know he has one. If you told someone today that your god was Zeus, you would be universally castigated and laughed off the planet; yet you tell someone that you worship a Jewish carpenter, and people tell you how great that is. Absurd!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I don't know. I think Paul was sincere in his beliefs, but at the same time he seems to have regarded some Jewish practices as superstitious. For instance, the issue of eating food offered to idols in 1 Cor:

Paul rejects any concerns about eating such food, as Jesus taught (or as he interprets Jesus' teaching), but for the sake of the feelings of Jewish Christians ("the brothers"), he recommends abstaining in their presence.

First of all; your respect for history is why I appreciate your posts. Secondly, you having started with "I don't know" is even more admirable. Seriously.

I would say the ideal that Paul regarded some Jewish practices as superstitious is arguable. He went much further than simply abstaining from conflict with Law, but actively participated in its rites. This shows a disproportional degree of respect for fallacy IMO.

Regardless, Paul suffered the lash in the synagogue a few times for this kind of talk/behavior, so he feels very certain of his position. Clearly, he didn't think he had anything worldly to gain.

Very fair.

In What Paul Meant, Gary Wills mentions a scholar named Dieter Gregori, who claims that "Paul was trying to bring on an eschatological showdown, in which the Jews would be forced to accept the Messiah" thru the evidence of massive Gentile conversion to Jesus.

There's no reason to suggest that Paul was being any more disrespectful than Hillel for relaxing Law in favor of conversion. Why would Paul feel his mission was somehow more unique or had more potential? I'd be more inclined to believe not that Judaism peeved him, but the establishment in general. This is not in any way in conflict or subject to a stretch of interpreting the message of weightier matters.

Ultimately, I think Paul was bringing Gentiles to YHWH thru Jesus, because that's what he thought the Messianic Age was all about. He felt he was doing his part as a Jew.

I see this differently. It makes more sense to me that He believed the Messianic figure was what the Age was all about. There was no reason to compartmentalize this ideal into anything other than simply a Jew who believed in Jesus the Christ. IMO, his level of dedication to both Jewish tradition and to the story of Jesus is intriguing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Of course few can argue the impact of the myth, but all that shows is that there are a lot of gullible people in the world. You're born into the world innocent, and then from an early age you're brainwashed into believing that some deity is going to save your soul, because your parents were brainwashed into the same beliefs, and you're told that you'd better stay on the straight and narrow, or you're going to go to hell, thanks to a god who loves you! Then, if you question the dichotomy, you're told that "it's god's way, and we shouldn't question that." We are presumptuous enough to say that we know god has a plan, but we can't discern what that plan is, because we can't be presumptuous enough to think we know, yet we're presumptuous enough to know he has one. If you told someone today that your god was Zeus, you would be universally castigated and laughed off the planet; yet you tell someone that you worship a Jewish carpenter, and people tell you how great that is. Absurd!

I followed along until this last bit. I honestly don't know why this is necessary.

The fact that a Jewish carpenter could wield so much influence means more to me than you perhaps. None the less, there's several places where you're not being logical IMO;

- You're not really born into the world innocent. You're born into the world needy. You're born into the world self-serving. You learn deceit and manipulation at a very young age and with very little exposure to the externalities that teach it.

- Brainwashing is bargaining with children and it doesn't work. The kid is sometimes good and sometimes bad regardless of what myth you're feeding them be it Santa or otherwise. In December this is referred to as the "dog and pony" show. It is no different with Christianity unfortunately. Kids tell their folks they're going to the 10:30am Mass while hanging down the hill at the creek smoking cigarettes and climbing the sewer pipe. It is not until later in life (long after they've given up belief in Santa Claus) that they come back to Christianity in a more real way and generally find the true faith that has them practicing frequently.

- Nowhere does it say you better stay on the straight and narrow or you're going to hell. You're simplifying this to the extent that I'm left wondering if you're truly ignorant or just disingenuous.

- I've not once heard any Christian nor my parents state that I should not question the dichotomy between a loving God and judgment or travesty. IMO, neither does Scripture. Proverbs 25:2; It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Sometimes the answer is simply "I don't know", other times there are more detailed explanations, but again I've not encountered the "God hates questions" response.

Originally Posted by OldManMac

We are presumptuous enough to say that we know god has a plan, but we can't discern what that plan is, because we can't be presumptuous enough to think we know, yet we're presumptuous enough to know he has one.

Interesting you should use the word "discern". Scripturally, discernment is a gift. A great many Christians feel exactly as you state above and it leads them to pray specifically for that gift. Often, this manifests in great feats of philanthropy, leadership, and accomplishment. Other times it should be judged by its fruits (or lack thereof). Unfortunately, too many Christians have not pursued this gift while passively claiming belief.

- There are many excuses to laugh one off the planet and I find what they believe is generally at the bottom of the list.

Originally Posted by OldManMac

you tell someone that you worship a Jewish carpenter, and people tell you how great that is. Absurd!

You may come to find out that absurdity is this degree of certainty in anything. Some more introspect might be in order.

[lpkmckenna]

I just cracked open Harpur's The Pagan Christ and have been reading it for about an hour. It's worse than I could have imagined. In no particular order:

He refers to Zoroaster as a god. Several times.
He refers to Gandy and Freke as serious scholars.
He gives Thor, Hercules, and Hermes as examples of died-and-reborn gods.
He claims that Zoroaster was "hung from a tree."
He claims the Hermetic Books of Egypt are "among the most ancient books in the world."
He claims Yeshua (Jesus' Aramaic name) is based on a supposed variant of Horus, Iusa, even though Yeshua is a well-established Jewish name.

And he does all this with virtually no references. Oh, he has references to insignificant things, but never footnotes any of his controversial points. Ever.

He's a quote from Harpur: "All myths [...] were formulated to support and supplement this central play, acting out this one truth - that we are embodied souls or spirits destined, through the love of God, for eternity." Someone call the Buddhists, 'cause they're gonna be pissed about getting left out!

EDITED: Oh gawd, I just hit another ridiculous zinger. Referencing Alvin Kuhn, he says: "the cross symbolizes spirit plunged into matter. As we have seen, the technical term for this is incarnation." How do I get a job shoving bullsh!t for a living?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Dead Sea Scrolls do establish that some Jews were expecting a "cosmic Messiah," along with several other messianic theories (like two messiahs, one priestly and one kingly).

...

Paul ascribed to Jesus a "priestly messiah" role while the later Johanine writers considered Jesus a "cosmic messiah." .

You could view Jesus as the priestly messiah and Muhammad as the kingly messiah.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I agree with a lot of what you wrote previous to that parenthetical. Are you entirely sure about that? You think there's no evidence that King David existed? You ever look at findings like the ones detailed in this article? King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says (NY Times). Have you been to Israel to research the archaeological findings for yourself? If you were at all informed, I doubt you'd be making statements like that.

Right there in the article it is contested by other archeologists, including israeli ones, what building was found.

I would very much welcome a finding of David's and Solomon's palaces in Jerusalem, that would be utterly fascinating. What I find disgusting is that people are trying to instrumentalise and abuse the millenia-old buildings of prophets/kings to deny and rob people of rights and property today, all the time forgetting that the prophets and messengers of God since Adam offer an inheritance for jews, christians and muslims alike.

Taliesin

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sigh....

Rubbish....

But feel free to put your money where your mouth is by providing some examples....

You need to abandon that ahistorical crap....

You've lost your mind....

Your interpretation of that data is absurd.....

You see, reading your responses, in what could be a good discussion, is a bit like being spat in the eye. You are condescending, rude and arrogant, therefore hard to respond to in a civil manner without feeling agitated. But then if that was your intention hat's off too you. I'll leave you to believe as you wish.

I don't know about this "Egypt had the largest schools of Buddhism in the world at the time" claim. Got a reference?

And if you didn't know that or needed a reference for it, every response from you has become void.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You see, reading your responses, in what could be a good discussion, is a bit like being spat in the eye. You are condescending, rude and arrogant, therefore hard to respond to in a civil manner without feeling agitated. But then if that was your intention hat's off too you. I'll leave you to believe as you wish.

Honestly, you came across as a bit arrogant yourself. I've spent (and LPK seems to have as well) some time studying this stuff and you come in here presuming to teach us completely contradictory information without citing a single source or even concrete facts — and top it off with snide jabs like "that is enough for you to go and start a learning curve with." That isn't showing a lot of respect. Maybe if you showed more interest in having a good discussion, you'd find one.

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And if you didn't know that or needed a reference for it, every response from you has become void.

Uh…you equated pacifists with Buddhists. I think that trumps any lack of knowledge on Buddhism's specific geographical loci. (Also, it doesn't seem to be common knowledge.)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

You could view Jesus as the priestly messiah and Muhammad as the kingly messiah.

Ok, but Muhammad didn't claim to be the messiah. (But you know that already. )

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ok, but Muhammad didn't claim to be the messiah. (But you know that already. )

Muhammad himself didn't claim anything, but the Quran and his life pretty much did so. Messiah means nothing other than being the anointed one. Anointed by God to bring a message of salvation, to lead people out of oppression... and all these can be atrributed to Muhammad in a very practical way.

Actually the Quran implicitly makes the case that every big prophet is a messiah in his time and place, like for example Noah, Moses, Jesus and others.

The reason why the Quran makes no overtly explicit statements in that regard, is the intent to prevent a worship and divinication of the prophets and instead to direct the focus on the message, the faith and God.

Taliesin

[selowitch]

If you ask me, whether or not Jesus existed is the wrong question. To me, the "historical Jesus" is most likely a composite of several Jewish rebels martyred by the Romans. But the only really important question for a Christian is whether Jesus exists in your heart and in your faith. From my personal perspective (I happen to be Jewish), Jesus is important to me as a political and spiritual hero but not as the Son of God. That and two dollars will get you on the New York subway.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

If you ask me, whether or not Jesus existed is the wrong question. To me, the "historical Jesus" is most likely a composite of several Jewish rebels martyred by the Romans.

Ok, but who authored all those idiosyncratic phrases and parables?

BTW, i finished The Pagan Christ yesterday. I don't recommend it, unless you are having trouble sleeping.

I just discovered this guy today, but haven't decided if he's credible. His myth-versus-legend paradigm is unusual, since it would view Gilgamesh or Heracles as legends, not myths.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Ok, but who authored all those idiosyncratic phrases and parables

This is very much outside my expertise; however, to hazard a guess, I think the Disciples (or their schools), the Church Fathers, the Gnostics, and the various Jewish sectarian groups all played their part. Christianity can be thought of as a fusion of late-Antique Jewish thought with classical Hellenism, and the New Testament is of course the primary source text for it.

[lpkmckenna]

I just finished a book called How Jesus Became Christian. It wasn't on my reading list, but someone bought it for me. I don't recommend it. Besides being dull and repetitive:

1. He never discusses Letter to the Romans. Seriously.
2. He never discusses the influence of the Gospel of John on Christianity. Moreover, he blames the Jesus-as-God theory on Paul, not John's author.
3. He treats the Gospel of Matthew as an example of Jewish Christianity. Moreover, he collectively groups James the Just, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Ebionites as elements of "the historical Jesus movement."

Oh, and he mentions Grandy, Freke, and Harpur as serious scholars.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

This is very much outside my expertise; however, to hazard a guess, I think the Disciples (or their schools), the Church Fathers, the Gnostics, and the various Jewish sectarian groups all played their part. Christianity can be thought of as a fusion of late-Antique Jewish thought with classical Hellenism, and the New Testament is of course the primary source text for it.

If any of the Church Fathers wrote any parts of the NT, it would have been noticed by now. The similarities of writing style would have given them away. The Gnostic writings are too late, and are clearly influenced by NT writings, not the other way. It's impossible to imagine the Sadducces, Essenes, or Zealots as writing the NT, since Jesus' own words castigate them mercilessly. The influence of the Pharisees is possible, but why didn't any Pharisees take credit for them?

[Chuckit]

Gnostic writings are too late, but gnosticism (at least in a broader sense) is barely younger than Christianity itself. We know there were gnostics around the turn of the second century, so it doesn't seem completely implausible to me that there was some proto-gnostic tradition that had its hands in the beginning of Christianity.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Really? How about Paul, did he really exist? How about Judas Maccabee, did he really exist?

So if Buddha didn't begin Buddhism, who did? I'd be interested to know who invented it. Here's a list of famous Buddhists. You let me know, k?

I'd be interested in your "theory" of how you know whether a historical figure existed or not. Or do you just discount anyone whose life becomes semi-mythologized?

I think his point is that there's almost no historical corroboration for the lives of either Buddha or Jesus. (And in Jesus's case, by "almost no" I mean "none.")

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I think his point is that there's almost no historical corroboration for the lives of either Buddha or Jesus. (And in Jesus's case, by "almost no" I mean "none.")

i respectfully disagree.

i think it's safe to say there was a historical jesus among many other people named jesus and acclaimed they knew the workings of god.

there was a guy named jesus minus all the walking on water, turning water to wine etc... who preached of the coming of god's kingdom.

as for buddha, he never said he was a god and was said to have back pains in his old age