Some further fact checking is in order, but it's late and I really am not all that concerned about this particular topic right now. Here's a start:
Dionysus
He was not born to a virgin, his mother was a mortal Semele (daughter of Cadmus) and his father was Zeus. We know that Zeus had other male children so Dionysus is also not his "only begotten son" [22]. Similar to the story of Attis, Dionysus died each winter and was resurrected in the spring. Again, this is hardly December, much less the 25th of said month [23].
So both the Classical playwright Euripedes, Robert Graves - who translated numerous Classical Latin and Ancient Greek texts - and most 20th Century historians of the Classical period, are wrong, and your internet blogger is right? I doubt it.
Well, I wrote a bunch of crap and still have it a word document, but really... I can't stand the juvenile tactics of Byrnzie and have grown tired of the personal attacks he likes to make rather than addressing evidence and facts. I present the following link instead:
I have no interest in defending Christianity. I am just interested in rational evaluation of evidence and know that even if two myths are similar, it does nothing to dismiss the existence of a human being named Jesus. Go read up on Osiris and Dionysis and see if you can honestly tell me that they are the same deity. And then you want to tell me that both of these are also Jesus with another name? Absurd, says the atheist with no vested interest. Even the president of Skeptic Magazine thinks it likely that Jesus existed as a man.
Well, I wrote a bunch of crap and still have it a word document, but really... I can't stand the juvenile tactics of Byrnzie and have grown tired of the personal attacks he likes to make rather than addressing evidence and facts. I present the following link instead:
I have no interest in defending Christianity. I am just interested in rational evaluation of evidence and know that even if two myths are similar, it does nothing to dismiss the existence of a human being named Jesus. Go read up on Osiris and Dionysis and see if you can honestly tell me that they are the same deity. And then you want to tell me that both of these are also Jesus with another name? Absurd, says the atheist with no vested interest. Even the president of Skeptic Magazine thinks it likely that Jesus existed as a man.
We got to write something to the people of that web site, as it contains too many contradictions and errors. Which sadly may take away from the better points it try's to make, and in fact does make at times. :ugeek:
Well, I wrote a bunch of crap and still have it a word document, but really... I can't stand the juvenile tactics of Byrnzie and have grown tired of the personal attacks he likes to make rather than addressing evidence and facts. I present the following link instead:
I have no interest in defending Christianity. I am just interested in rational evaluation of evidence and know that even if two myths are similar, it does nothing to dismiss the existence of a human being named Jesus. Go read up on Osiris and Dionysis and see if you can honestly tell me that they are the same deity. And then you want to tell me that both of these are also Jesus with another name? Absurd, says the atheist with no vested interest. Even the president of Skeptic Magazine thinks it likely that Jesus existed as a man.
Firstly, show me the personal attack I made.
Secondly, I never said that Osiris and Dionysus were one and the same. Go back and read rhe original post again.
What about Tacitus, and his mention of Jesus being the Christ & his execution by Pilate. Also Paul in 1 Corintians 2:2 does refer to Jesus being the Christ; '...for I decided to know nothing amoung you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.'
How I choose to feel is how I am...I will not lose my faith, It's an inside job today.
Manchester Aug 17th 2009
Hyde Park June 25th 2010
Manchester June 20th & 21st 2012
Leeds July 14th 2014
So... if god and the devil actually do exist... and the stuff from the bible is true... where are they now? God apparently used to talk to people all the time. He used to smite people on a regular basis, didn't he? Where's the big booming voice from the heavens?
I used to go to church on a regular basis as a kid, and then stopped. Cold turkey. There were far too many flaws and WTF moments for my liking. Science provides concrete answers and examples that don't change and can be seen every day. I'll take those explanations over "A magical guy in the sky did it" any day of the week. Religions all stemmed from the same place - primitive societies trying to figure out why things were the way they were. They didn't have access to the resources we have now, so they made up stories to explain things. I REALLY fell out of love with religion when I saw what it did to people who didn't believe those stories over the years. "Oh, you think the earth revolves around the sun? Heretic! Liar! Blasphemer! Lock him up!"
Atheists and agnostics never committed genocide and never locked up scientists, to the best of my knowledge.
Things in science change all the time, and when they get the Hadron Collider working properly, things will change again.
Maybe you should go to a Jewish Synagogue? A Hindu Temple? A muslim Mosque? All your wtf moments you had, that's a good start, work on them.
The great cop out is to look at the people crying Heretic! Liar! Blasphemer! Lock him up!" and to use that, even an atoms worth of that as a decision against your belief in God or the religions sent down, or made up.
Perhaps a mistake you are making is looking for the big booming voice in the heavens (as you say), rather than looking for the soft whisper in your heart?
Some further fact checking is in order, but it's late and I really am not all that concerned about this particular topic right now. Here's a start:
Dionysus
He was not born to a virgin, his mother was a mortal Semele (daughter of Cadmus) and his father was Zeus. We know that Zeus had other male children so Dionysus is also not his "only begotten son" [22]. Similar to the story of Attis, Dionysus died each winter and was resurrected in the spring. Again, this is hardly December, much less the 25th of said month [23]. He did, however perform miracles, mostly things involving wine, because he was the god of wine -- naturally he could turn water into wine. The titles listed above, such as "King of Kings" and "The Alpha and Omega" are not sourced in the movie, nor can I find any evidence that these titles ever applied to Dionysus, but for good measure, I did find "The Alpha and Omega" referring to god of Christianity [24].
This comes from a site which debunks the movie Zeitgeist step by step. I encourage the original poster to read through some of the claims, since part one of the Zeitgesit movie largely presents the argument which is being forwarded by the original poster. And then that argument gets pretty torn apart. I'm sympathetic to some parts of Zeitgeist, but other parts are just absolutely false. The overall website for the debunking is here:
What about Tacitus, and his mention of Jesus being the Christ & his execution by Pilate. Also Paul in 1 Corintians 2:2 does refer to Jesus being the Christ; '...for I decided to know nothing amoung you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.'
Firstly, Tacitus wrote this in 115 A.D - 80 years after Jesus' supposed death. Secondly, his information was second-hand, and there is no evidence that he aquired this information from any independent sources, but that he simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on ... te_note-32 'Those critical of the passage's authenticity argue that early Christian writers likely would have sought to establish the historicity of Jesus via secular or non-Christian documents, and that their silence with regard to the Annals in this manner may suggest that the passage did not exist in early manuscripts. Furthermore, because the earliest surviving manuscript containing the passage is an 11th century Christian scribal copy, skeptics of the passage's authenticity argue that it may be the result of later Christian editing.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... jesus.html
'The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals after 117 A.D. Their exact date of composition is not known, but we do know that it was at least 70 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. There is one mention of "Christus" in Book XV, Chapter 44, as follows:
"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."(D.R. Dudley's translation)
While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.
McDowell is on even shakier ground when he tries to promote the short mention of "Chrestus" in Suetonius. First, any scholar ought to learn to at least spell the name of the person he is writing about correctly. McDowell spells it incorrectly as "Seutonius." Then he makes the unforgivable and dishonest statement that "Chrestus" is "another spelling of Christus." This is not correct. "Chrestus" means 'The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "The Messiah." Actually, Chrestus was not an uncommon name in ancient Rome. Since Jesus was admittedly not in Rome instigating the Jews, we are almost definitely talking about someone other than Jesus here. I should mention that the entire relevant quotation from Suetonius which is involved here reads as follows: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." The "he" is Claudius. As just mentioned, not even McDowell claims that Jesus was at Rome in 55 AD, when this incident is alleged to have occurred. It is also difficult to see why Jews would be led by Jesus. That is pretty strong evidence that this passage does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all, and so is irrelevant to our discussion of whether Jesus ever lived. We can, however, add the lack of a mention of Jesus in Suetonius to our list of "negative" evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical person. The reference in Suetonius is Life of the Caesars (Claudius 25:4).
I always found it interesting that given all the writers around the supposed time of "Christ", no one wrote about him.
No one
If I were a writer back then and witnessed some of that shit I'd be writing....just sayin
And don't pull out the crap in Josephus' writings because that was written probably 60 years after the supposed time of Christ
apparently there is up to 20 gospels\books more than whats in the bible. its just they didnt fit into peters take on jesus‘s life
4 books in the bible isnt much is it
Byrnzie ...
I wouldn't get too pissy over "christianity" or "jesus".
and i find attempts to "knock" "him" (his teachings) as old \ outdated \ wrong to be simply ignorant.
obviously a *literal* interpretation can be problematic, depending on your bent, but see here, from Clement of Alexandria, for reference to your OP regarding Christ as another representation of "the mysteries". [all emphasis, italics, etc, mine]
"As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." - Clement of Alexandria, Letter to Theodore regarding the "secret gospel" of Mark, circa 200AD.
This is just one of several easily notable examples of early church "fathers" indicating in no uncertain terms their own understanding that Christianity itself was either an extension of the mysteries, or an attempt at "purifying" or "redeeming" them in some way.
In other words, in much the same way that you probably feel Christianity today has gone astray of its message. So to were the "Gospels of Jesus" an attempt at communicating to the thinking & religiously inclined individual the very same dissatisfaction with the then current state of "The Mysteries", themselves. The story is, I believe, an attempt at actually re-explaining "the mysteries" to the masses in "clearer" or "more plain" language. As Clement says, veiling that which need not be told to the those who can not hear anyway.
The complaint of Jesus was that the religious establishment (those intrusted with the Jewish "mysteries") had gone astray of their heirophantic roles, no longer served as true leaders of the people, and were no more than pious dolts who clamored for vanity and pomp.
I'm not sure if anyone on this board really understands what "The Mysteries" were\are ... hell, i'm not sure if ANYone really knows ... they were inviolable secrets for which you could and were put to death for divulging, should you - as an initiate - speak of them to the profane\uninitiated.
For the sake of comparative relgion \ this thread \ understanding what the fuck we're talking about \ and getting just how the Gospel of Jesus is a veritable mimic of "the mysteries" i will explain briefly and in the most plain language possible the most brief and skeletal outline of what I understand "The Mysteries" to be, through having done a stupid (though not scholarly, certainly) amount of independent study.
"The Mysteries", both the Egyptian, and then later, the "Greek" (they were the same, literally just imported and "converted" to the local lexicon) is a systematized belief set put forth by Those Who Claim To Know (ie. "The Initiates") to others who would come forth seeking this knowledge ("knock on the door") claiming that man in his flesh is but the vessel for an immortal soul.
The knowledge of this immortal soul has been hidden from man, in his individualized mortal state of flesh, so that he may descend in to the very lowest state of matter itself, and experience "the world" (or something like this, anyhow) ...
BUT ... MAN CAN REGAIN THIS KNOWLEDGE OF HIS SOUL,
and here i want to emphasize that The Mystery Schools are EMPHATIC that this is not some sort of flowery poetic bullshit language ... rather yet, through systematized study, ritualistic meditation, and eventually through A SERIES (AND THERE ARE ***SEVEN IN TOTAL*** see clement's letter above) OF INITIATIONS regain access to this knowledge of his "inner" states of self. Regain TANGIBLE knowledge of god, of god's plan, and function "OUT OF BODY" in "other worlds", to transcend the physical self and function through his truer self\selfs on other planes of existence. Think of Obi-Wan-Kanobi or Yoda, because actually that is EXACTLY what the star wars trilogy is about. I am actually pretty well convinced that George Lucas was DIRECTLY trying to communicate esoteric "truth" in his films. Whether this was simply by way of a more innocent\naive reading of Jung and Campbell, or if he actually understood that Jung (if not Campbell) was deeply steeped in Esoteric Tradition himself, i do not however know.
I know this sounds like absolute horseshit, but i swear to you this is what is stated emphatically in every branch of Esotericism i have encountered (masonry, rosicrucianism, arcane school, etc).
The first 3 initiations have to do with gaining knowledge and eventually control over
1. the physical body (etheric plane)
2. the emotional body (astral plane)
3. the causal body (mental plane)
At the 3rd Initiation, you DIE AND ARE RESURRECTED, and are shown in REAL TERMS that death is but an illusion ... (this is what the esoteric traditions claim to be the real purpose of the "sarcophagus" in the great pyramid ... to take your 3rd initiation, and be shown the illusion of death in, to lie still for 3 days and die in) ...
there are then, beyond the 3rd initiation four further planes
4. the Budhic
5. the Atmic
6. the Monadic
7 and the seventh plane which is the ultimate oneness with the godhead itself (that's my shitty understanding, anyhow) ...
Well, when you start studying esoteric literature you start to truly see just how much in the Jesus gospels is an attempt at conveying much of the meaning behind this type of thought TO THE MASSES without "saying too much". As well, the story\stories is a massive critique of the existing religio-political power structure that grew up around these original mysteries, held them from the people, held that knowledge OVER the people, and ABUSED the power they had trusted in them, from god, directly. "Jesus" believed that it was come the age for ALL to learn the secrets of the soul and the true way. Whether you take the stories as factual or not, the writer behind those stories were trying to convey this notion to the lay people in as best a way possible FOR THE TIME.
I dunno.
Prolly sounds like a rambling mess to ya'll.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Byrnzie ...
I wouldn't get too pissy over "christianity" or "jesus".
and i find attempts to "knock" "him" (his teachings) as old \ outdated \ wrong to be simply ignorant.
obviously a *literal* interpretation can be problematic, depending on your bent, but see here, from Clement of Alexandria, for reference to your OP regarding Christ as another representation of "the mysteries". [all emphasis, italics, etc, mine]
"As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." - Clement of Alexandria, Letter to Theodore regarding the "secret gospel" of Mark, circa 200AD.
The gnostics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic emphasized an individual connection with 'God', with the higher powers, or the spiritual. The Church Fathers didn't like this, as they preferred all communion with 'God' to be mediated through themselves, and through the Church. Therefore all of the gospels with a mystical, or Gnostic character, where ostracized from the New Testament.
Comments
So both the Classical playwright Euripedes, Robert Graves - who translated numerous Classical Latin and Ancient Greek texts - and most 20th Century historians of the Classical period, are wrong, and your internet blogger is right? I doubt it.
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_ ... ities.html
I have no interest in defending Christianity. I am just interested in rational evaluation of evidence and know that even if two myths are similar, it does nothing to dismiss the existence of a human being named Jesus. Go read up on Osiris and Dionysis and see if you can honestly tell me that they are the same deity. And then you want to tell me that both of these are also Jesus with another name? Absurd, says the atheist with no vested interest. Even the president of Skeptic Magazine thinks it likely that Jesus existed as a man.
We got to write something to the people of that web site, as it contains too many contradictions and errors. Which sadly may take away from the better points it try's to make, and in fact does make at times. :ugeek:
I need to get out more
Firstly, show me the personal attack I made.
Secondly, I never said that Osiris and Dionysus were one and the same. Go back and read rhe original post again.
Manchester Aug 17th 2009
Hyde Park June 25th 2010
Manchester June 20th & 21st 2012
Leeds July 14th 2014
Things in science change all the time, and when they get the Hadron Collider working properly, things will change again.
Maybe you should go to a Jewish Synagogue? A Hindu Temple? A muslim Mosque? All your wtf moments you had, that's a good start, work on them.
The great cop out is to look at the people crying Heretic! Liar! Blasphemer! Lock him up!" and to use that, even an atoms worth of that as a decision against your belief in God or the religions sent down, or made up.
Perhaps a mistake you are making is looking for the big booming voice in the heavens (as you say), rather than looking for the soft whisper in your heart?
so he wasn't born from a virgin mother? However, he and Jesus were conceived by Gods?
That is not similar at all..........
Firstly, Tacitus wrote this in 115 A.D - 80 years after Jesus' supposed death. Secondly, his information was second-hand, and there is no evidence that he aquired this information from any independent sources, but that he simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on ... te_note-32
'Those critical of the passage's authenticity argue that early Christian writers likely would have sought to establish the historicity of Jesus via secular or non-Christian documents, and that their silence with regard to the Annals in this manner may suggest that the passage did not exist in early manuscripts. Furthermore, because the earliest surviving manuscript containing the passage is an 11th century Christian scribal copy, skeptics of the passage's authenticity argue that it may be the result of later Christian editing.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... jesus.html
'The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals after 117 A.D. Their exact date of composition is not known, but we do know that it was at least 70 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. There is one mention of "Christus" in Book XV, Chapter 44, as follows:
"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."(D.R. Dudley's translation)
While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.
McDowell is on even shakier ground when he tries to promote the short mention of "Chrestus" in Suetonius. First, any scholar ought to learn to at least spell the name of the person he is writing about correctly. McDowell spells it incorrectly as "Seutonius." Then he makes the unforgivable and dishonest statement that "Chrestus" is "another spelling of Christus." This is not correct. "Chrestus" means 'The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "The Messiah." Actually, Chrestus was not an uncommon name in ancient Rome. Since Jesus was admittedly not in Rome instigating the Jews, we are almost definitely talking about someone other than Jesus here. I should mention that the entire relevant quotation from Suetonius which is involved here reads as follows: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." The "he" is Claudius. As just mentioned, not even McDowell claims that Jesus was at Rome in 55 AD, when this incident is alleged to have occurred. It is also difficult to see why Jews would be led by Jesus. That is pretty strong evidence that this passage does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all, and so is irrelevant to our discussion of whether Jesus ever lived. We can, however, add the lack of a mention of Jesus in Suetonius to our list of "negative" evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical person. The reference in Suetonius is Life of the Caesars (Claudius 25:4).
I'm pretty sure they worshipped Ahura Mazda, who, interestingly enough, is usually credited as the first monotheistic god.
Zoroastrianism was founded in about the 6th century BC, whereas Atenism was established in the 14th century BC.
So the Persians before the Zoroastrian Persians?
the virgin mary was not conceived from a God.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I've ni idea.
It wasn't "God"?
Somebody has to own up to it....
marys father was joachim, or heli if you prefer.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Jesus' dad was his mothers father?
Carry on
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
jesus's 'dad' was joseph.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The bible would make for a bitchin' comic book. I'm just saying. Could you imagine playing The Bible: The Game? Move over Call of Duty!
What are your thoughts of Buddhism? Got any? Perhaps another poster?
4 books in the bible isnt much is it
Who's He?
I think the word you're looking for is 'facade'. :ugeek:
or just keep typing about it. be safe out there, billy.
Fascinating
I wouldn't get too pissy over "christianity" or "jesus".
and i find attempts to "knock" "him" (his teachings) as old \ outdated \ wrong to be simply ignorant.
obviously a *literal* interpretation can be problematic, depending on your bent, but see here, from Clement of Alexandria, for reference to your OP regarding Christ as another representation of "the mysteries". [all emphasis, italics, etc, mine]
"As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries." - Clement of Alexandria, Letter to Theodore regarding the "secret gospel" of Mark, circa 200AD.
This is just one of several easily notable examples of early church "fathers" indicating in no uncertain terms their own understanding that Christianity itself was either an extension of the mysteries, or an attempt at "purifying" or "redeeming" them in some way.
In other words, in much the same way that you probably feel Christianity today has gone astray of its message. So to were the "Gospels of Jesus" an attempt at communicating to the thinking & religiously inclined individual the very same dissatisfaction with the then current state of "The Mysteries", themselves. The story is, I believe, an attempt at actually re-explaining "the mysteries" to the masses in "clearer" or "more plain" language. As Clement says, veiling that which need not be told to the those who can not hear anyway.
The complaint of Jesus was that the religious establishment (those intrusted with the Jewish "mysteries") had gone astray of their heirophantic roles, no longer served as true leaders of the people, and were no more than pious dolts who clamored for vanity and pomp.
I'm not sure if anyone on this board really understands what "The Mysteries" were\are ... hell, i'm not sure if ANYone really knows ... they were inviolable secrets for which you could and were put to death for divulging, should you - as an initiate - speak of them to the profane\uninitiated.
For the sake of comparative relgion \ this thread \ understanding what the fuck we're talking about \ and getting just how the Gospel of Jesus is a veritable mimic of "the mysteries" i will explain briefly and in the most plain language possible the most brief and skeletal outline of what I understand "The Mysteries" to be, through having done a stupid (though not scholarly, certainly) amount of independent study.
"The Mysteries", both the Egyptian, and then later, the "Greek" (they were the same, literally just imported and "converted" to the local lexicon) is a systematized belief set put forth by Those Who Claim To Know (ie. "The Initiates") to others who would come forth seeking this knowledge ("knock on the door") claiming that man in his flesh is but the vessel for an immortal soul.
The knowledge of this immortal soul has been hidden from man, in his individualized mortal state of flesh, so that he may descend in to the very lowest state of matter itself, and experience "the world" (or something like this, anyhow) ...
BUT ... MAN CAN REGAIN THIS KNOWLEDGE OF HIS SOUL,
and here i want to emphasize that The Mystery Schools are EMPHATIC that this is not some sort of flowery poetic bullshit language ... rather yet, through systematized study, ritualistic meditation, and eventually through A SERIES (AND THERE ARE ***SEVEN IN TOTAL*** see clement's letter above) OF INITIATIONS regain access to this knowledge of his "inner" states of self. Regain TANGIBLE knowledge of god, of god's plan, and function "OUT OF BODY" in "other worlds", to transcend the physical self and function through his truer self\selfs on other planes of existence. Think of Obi-Wan-Kanobi or Yoda, because actually that is EXACTLY what the star wars trilogy is about. I am actually pretty well convinced that George Lucas was DIRECTLY trying to communicate esoteric "truth" in his films. Whether this was simply by way of a more innocent\naive reading of Jung and Campbell, or if he actually understood that Jung (if not Campbell) was deeply steeped in Esoteric Tradition himself, i do not however know.
I know this sounds like absolute horseshit, but i swear to you this is what is stated emphatically in every branch of Esotericism i have encountered (masonry, rosicrucianism, arcane school, etc).
The first 3 initiations have to do with gaining knowledge and eventually control over
1. the physical body (etheric plane)
2. the emotional body (astral plane)
3. the causal body (mental plane)
At the 3rd Initiation, you DIE AND ARE RESURRECTED, and are shown in REAL TERMS that death is but an illusion ... (this is what the esoteric traditions claim to be the real purpose of the "sarcophagus" in the great pyramid ... to take your 3rd initiation, and be shown the illusion of death in, to lie still for 3 days and die in) ...
there are then, beyond the 3rd initiation four further planes
4. the Budhic
5. the Atmic
6. the Monadic
7 and the seventh plane which is the ultimate oneness with the godhead itself (that's my shitty understanding, anyhow) ...
Well, when you start studying esoteric literature you start to truly see just how much in the Jesus gospels is an attempt at conveying much of the meaning behind this type of thought TO THE MASSES without "saying too much". As well, the story\stories is a massive critique of the existing religio-political power structure that grew up around these original mysteries, held them from the people, held that knowledge OVER the people, and ABUSED the power they had trusted in them, from god, directly. "Jesus" believed that it was come the age for ALL to learn the secrets of the soul and the true way. Whether you take the stories as factual or not, the writer behind those stories were trying to convey this notion to the lay people in as best a way possible FOR THE TIME.
I dunno.
Prolly sounds like a rambling mess to ya'll.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This does nothing to explain why the early Church Fathers decided to omit all teachings relating to the Gnostic Gospels - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha
The gnostics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic emphasized an individual connection with 'God', with the higher powers, or the spiritual. The Church Fathers didn't like this, as they preferred all communion with 'God' to be mediated through themselves, and through the Church. Therefore all of the gospels with a mystical, or Gnostic character, where ostracized from the New Testament.