MOJO-JOJO

Here is a very good example of "another possibility" that Gosh McDowell dismisses all too easily. Unfortunately for McDowell, Earl Doherty's hypothesis in "The Jesus Puzzle" has more valid support in terms of both reason and documented history. I'm not saying I think this is the final word regarding Christ, but I DO think it carrys more weight than anything McDowell says.

"The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus' career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.

Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God's inspiration.

Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ's sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ's crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a 'window' onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.

The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.

Christ's features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul's Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.

The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.

All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus' ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.

Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark's Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.

In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark's Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q's details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.

The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God's Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.

Modern critical scholars have been dismantling the story of Jesus, attempting to salvage from it an inspiring sage for a more rational, enlightened future, and letting go the sacrificial divine Savior of an archaic past. Some of them are edging toward the admission that Paul's Christ had nothing to do with an historical man, while positioning their new teaching Jesus as only one element in the Jewish-Hellenistic synthesis which led to Christianity. The sage, however, is an artificial construct, a misreading (then and now) of the broader sectarian expressions of the day. And the links and lines of development between the various strands which scholars have created to make their scenarios hang together are largely unsupported by the evidence. The pieces of the Jesus Puzzle will not fit together except by abandoning any expectation of encountering an historical, human face (Similar to the glorified divine Christ image of medieval Byzantine worship.)

So the question remains, other than "the Bible is true because the Bible says its true", what is the overwhelming evidence in favor of an actual historical Jesus?"

Sojourner553

I agree with everything you said. Indeed,you captured many reasons why I am no longer a believer. (I actually have MORE I could add to your list. Smile)

All YOUR detailed points was captured much more simplistically by Josh McDowell when examining the life of Buddha. That is, to rescue his Trilemma so that it did not pronounce Buddha as a God -- McDowell had to interject a FOURTH principle:


Per McDowell:

"... in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama".
(p277)

Of course, McDowell was too blind to even "think" of applying this possibility to his OWN religion -- Christianity!

Sojourner

MOJO-JOJO

That would be blasphemous!!

Funny how a supposed atheist out to prove that the bible is false, wouldn't have been a little more objective in his reasoning and research before writing ETDAV. But then again, it was all about $$$ for him to begin with.....

(mental note: I need to get that Creation Book written....no support needed other than the H.B. )

Amos

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem here is that Jesus died after Christ was set free under the name of Barabbas and so Christ did not resurrect. Jesus did, which now becomes difficult to trash.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who set christ free?
If christ did not resurrect, then in what sense was he set free? Free from what?
What is the difference between christ and Jesus in terms of identity?
What are your sources of information?


The Jews set Christ free under the name of bar-abbas which means son of the father.
The dual nature of Jesus and Christ. Christ was set free from the oppression of Judaism and the ego identity of Jesus who took upon himself the sins of his world. The sins of his world were the sins of his own world that were incumbent upon him from Joseph the upright Jewish carpenter.

My source? I forgot where I got this but read it anyway.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The water and blood thing was because Jesus was stabbed from the right side through the cavity of the chest to annihilate desire. The blood represents the incarnate desire of the netherworld and the water represents this world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where did Jesus' body go? Why wasn't it left behind?
What does the body, bereft of the incarnate desire, represent?
Why did the incarnate desire of the netherworld have to be annihilated and yet the body (the means and the end for that desire) was resurrected?

Jesus' body? The ego doesn't have a body.
The ego bereft of carnal desire is the bare naked illusion we cater to.
The incarnate desire of the netherworld (our soul) must be annihilated because that is where our inner drives originate from. These include incarnate vices and virtues such as religious concvictions and moral conscience, eg. the Laws are written upon our soul as if in stone.
The resurrection of the ego is needed because reason must prevail. Our ego is our conscious mind
which must be placed subservient to our subconscious mind and this is how that must be done (unless you know of another way). Jesus went into hades (yes that is where the fire burns), to set free the captives of his own subconscious mind (answer the "who am I"). Throught this knowledge and understanding also the paradox sinful yet saved is resolved (the anvil shattered that at one time served for the conviction of sin, ie. knowledge frees).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is similar to the reason why water is added to wine prior to consecration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is it also similar to the reason why urine precedes excrement? (the body fluids and faeces are both lost, just like the blood and water are lost, and the person relieving himself rises up relieved and unburdened, just like Jesus did when he resurrected). The toilet here repsents Barrabas. And the relieved individual represents Jesus. The individual before shitting is Christ.
If not, please explain why your analogy fits.

The water represents the work of human hands or the sweat of our brow (curse upon the ego) here added to the wine which is the lifeblood of Christ. Woman saw that the TOK was good for gaining wisdom, food and beauty (Gen.3:6). Notice how Jesus turned water into wine and the second wine that Jesus made represents the second half of life beginning with purgatory. The miracle was the realization of the water thusly become wine with Mary being the head waitress.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trinity only exist from a human perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The only perspective we have is the human one.

We have available to us hyletic vision, telec vision, lyrical vision and noetic vision. In the humanity (from within the Cave) humans only have hyletic (obscured) vision.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In heaven (or in reality) the trinity does not exist but since we as humans are alienated from our selves (from God), the trinity is a way to explain the relationship between our true self and our ego identity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who is it that went to heaven and told you about the perspective from there? What words did it/he/she use in doing so?
What is the difference between true self and ego identity?

Common sense should tell us all that when all has been made clear the HS is redundant.

The True Identity is the animal man and the ego identity is the persona. Therefore we are one as the animal man (Christ) but not as humans.[b]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trinity is already redundant while in purgatory because the liberation of Mary is from East to West (from Egypt to the vast desert (wilderness)--which is where purgatory begins), and it is from here that she leads us back to Eden if the wise men (Magi) affirm the virgin birth (if the star of Bethlehem is visible to them).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


can we also say the trinity is redundant because of the liberation of the Jews from the Egyptians to Israel(from Eden through the desert--which is where purgatory begins), and it is after Moses had seen the promised land from atop a mountain he had to go down the mountain and the desert-wandering continued before they reached Israel. The dark cloud that led the Israelites is analogous to the star of Bethlehem as the Magi sought christ.
Is that a fitting way of looking at it?
If not, please explain why.

No because the dark cloud is not the star of Betlehem. If there was a dark cloud (was there?) it would have been there because the mountaintop idea of Moses was not a good idea after all (evangelist today have these same big ideas). What Moses did wrong was to "part the waters" and lead them through the bottom of the sea. Instead they should have looked upon their savior (which was not Moses) and "walk on the water" and so into the promised land. This "water walk" is the total reliance on our subconscious mind, as if we were a clossard, poustiniac or hermit for 40 days without second hand manna).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice that Mary is in charge of the Magi in this sense already because they follwed her. Also note that when they arrived at the stable they looked in and saw Mary and Christ with Joseph absent wherefore they entered (Mt.2:10) as compared with the shepherds who saw Joseph and did not enter but admired (Lk.2:16).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the same way, Moses saw the promised land and admired it but did not "enter" it.

That's the problem they should not have entered the desert from where they could see the promised land. Like as in, would it not be hell to be wandering in the desert while in view of the promised land yet not being able to enter until we die because of our prevailing sin nature?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of means that the trinity is not for Christians but only for humans while sinners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This also kind of means that the promised land was not for Moses (who saw it atop a mountain), but the merry-making idol-worshippers at the bottom of Mount sinai - who made it to the promised land.
Is that correct? If not, please explain.

It was not for Moses and his mountiantop experience was a forgery (obviously or he would have gone right on in).

True, heaven cannot be conceived to exist without the world and it is in the world that we color our own heaven. This means that our ego is good, and our sins are good but only for so long. The resurrection of the ego is through which the multiplication benefits (10 fold is it?) of heaven become known on earth.

Ted Hoffman

Amos
When I look at the way you write with total disregard of the questions I have asked you, It becomes clear to me that all you are interested in is grand-standing and empty posturing as you take your far-fetched flights of fancy.

You need to explain why we cannot use my analogies in interpreting the specific verses. If the ego doesnt have a body, what does? The Jews were not responsible for setting up a mechanism for setting christ "free". They only had him crucified. You say he "took upon himself" the sins of the world, I remember he was sweating blood as he beseeched God to "take the cup away" from him. Is that what you mean by taking upon himself? "And my lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?", Judaism was opressing who? Which bare naked illusion do we cater to? Where is the evidence for its illusory nature? Reason prevails with or without the resurrection of the ego - unless you care to provide evidence.
I agree that knowledge frees - from God.
Does the water represent sweat or water?
Mary was the head waitress? We are talking about some alcohol-drinking carousal?
All those visions telec vision, lyrical vision and noetic vision and hyletic vision remain human visions because they originate from human thought and imagination.
Unless you care to explain how we came to conceive them?

At face value, your hermeneutics are riveting and captivating. But on closer inspection, one realizes that you are just spewing baseless parallogisms. You can't quote any sources and you can't answer any questions regarding what you are saying.

I think its plainly irresponsible and flippant and I am sorry I expected more from you.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Judas H. Priest! What the HELL are you babbling about here?! Smoking too much manna from heaven me thinkst.

HelenM

IntenSity

I would be surprised if you found Evidence That Demands A Verdict impressive.

And I imagine that if you read the rebuttals to it by Jeff Lowder you'll find that you're already familiar with some of them. Either from reading these boards or from your own reflections on the viability of what Christians believe.

That's neat that you wrote to the newspaper and that professor is coming to see you. Please keep us posted on how that goes and let us know what he thinks of your rebuttals to the book

Actually my experience with theology professors has not been good; the ones I've had any interactions with clearly thought they knew better than me; they were arrogant and it was annoying. I hope the one you are talking with is nicer than that although I daresay he is unlikely to be open to the possibility that your views have any merit He's probably just trying to convert you

But I shouldn't judge...I don't know, obviously. I might be wrong.

love
Helen

Amos

You reaction is not a surprise to me and would only get worse if I gave you more.

Ted Hoffman

You are right about what would ensue if you gave me more.
I am not surprised either that you are incapable of being amazed.
Being atop Ivory towers or perching aloft magic carpets totally castrate an individuals ability to be surprised.
There is too little oxygen up there.
When you come down, let me know.

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;McDowell is not impressive as a thinker. He's simplistic, fundamentalist, and kind of a hack. But his Evidence books are cramed full of good quotes. You have to just ignore his arguments and read his evidence. Make your own arguments using his evidence.