Huon

Of course, catholics are fake christians (when viewed by Luther and Calvin), protestants are fake christians (when viewed by the popes of Rome), and this justifies the wars of religion (~1550-1700). Oh, I was going to forget the Albigenses !

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Thanks for the response. I just do not have time today to answer everything, but here are a few quick responses.

The Bible is a set of books of repression and censorship both inside out and outside in. It is either talking about repression and censorship or actually doing it. For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the fact that the Gods of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were different Gods in competition with each other is repressed and censored by claiming that they all worshiped the same God. By making Issac into the son of Abraham and Jacob into the son of Issac, their differences are repressed. Indivdiuals worshiping a family of Gods becomes a family of worshipers following an individual God

The struggle between the Moses faction (worshippers of a fire God, calling for an attack on Canaan, and Aaron faction (worshippers of the golden calf, desiring to return to Egypt) is also repressed. The tale of the mass murder and repression of the Aaron faction does get told, but hidden within a "breaking of the law" motif which justifies Moses as the policeman enforcing law and order. Again, making Aaron and Moses brothers is part of the historical repression of the struggle between different political factions.

The struggles between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel are repressed by imagining an earlier united kingdom where all people worshiped the same. It portrays the first king of Israel, Jeroboam (who worshipped golden calfs) as a usurper. While the first king of Judah, Rehoboam is deemed the true son of Solomon. This represses the true history of the two kingdoms and retroactively justifies attacks by Judah on Israel.

We get the story of the repression of the various tribes, gods and groups in Israel by foreign forces, but told itself in a manner that represses key points in that repression by the use of myths.

The Christian scriptures aren't any better. The repression of the John Kingdom of God liberation movement by Herod and his Roman backers is repressed by the telling of the myth of Jesus in its place. The history of the actual movements that led to the revolt against Rome and Rome's harsh repression of that movement is repressed in favor of telling myths about the repression of Apostles of Christ.

Struggles between the John and Jesus movement are repressed by making John and Jesus into cousins. Struggles between the Peter and Paul factions are repressed into the myth of a common purpose and a fair distribution of territorial rights. I do not think it much of an exaggeration to see the Bible as all myth, all the time. Like dreams, one of the functions of myth is to repress actual horrors with fictitious horrors when reality gets to hard to take.

As far as John being the Christ is concerned, the most clear statement about it, perhaps comes from the Clementine Recognitions:

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/R...ons/Book-1.htm

However, it is not hard to figure it out from the Christian gospels which provide numerous clues. For example

Notice the the answer does fit the question. The question was not "Who art thou?, but "Are you the Christ?"

Note that the last line is actually two lines which contradict each other:
1) And he confessed, and denied not;
2) but confessed, I am not the Christ.


We may easily guess that this was originally a chiasm, as most of the lines from this section of the text are in chiasmatic form. The original chiasm must have been:

1) And he confessed, and denied not
2) But he confessed not, I am the Christ

In other words, John did not deny that he was the Christ, he confessed it, but it was not a confession, because he really was the Christ.

Among a number of scholars who have taken the position that John and his followers saw him playing the role of the Christ is Alfred Loisy:

(http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../chapter2.html
Loisy, Alfred Firmin, The Birth of the Christian Religion, Translated by L. P. Jacks,From the French La Naissance du Christianisme, 1933. With a Preface by Gilbert Murray, English Edition, 1962, Published in New Hyde Park, N.Y. by University Books, Inc, pg. 64.)

As far as the question if people in the Jewish community would have objected to the name Jesus Christ, that is an excellent question. I believe the name probably has two main meanings:

1) King (Anointed One) Yahweh Saves
2) King Joshua/Yeshua

Joshua was the militant warrior who followed Moses' orders and conquered the land of canaan. The term "Jesus Christ" probably originally referred to both concepts at once in phrases like "slave of Jesus Christ". It meant something like both "My king Yahweh will save me," and I only recognize Joshua as king.

I suspect that the first meaning would have offended Jews who were in favor of a good relationship with Rome and their Gods. It was a militant expression by Jews who had no King but Yahweh (certainly not Caesar). The second expression would have been anti-Samaritan, expression devotion to the militant Joshua as opposed to Moses who would have simply placed his faith in his God. The Samaritans were probably seen as counciling a more patient, obey God, wait and see (Mosaic) approach.

So the term "Jesus Christ" would have offended those pushing for a more peaceful, live and let live, approach towards Roman culture.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

These books do in no manner address the last word in lycanthrope's post.
IMO start with Eusebius the cleric and work up to Constantine the mafia thug.
Here then are a few references for Eusebius in the one article ...

Best wishes,


Pete