Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Who or what was Jesus Christ to you?

A physical man and the Son of God
5
14%
A physical man, but a great teacher
4
11%
A physical man, and unworthy of following
1
3%
A myth to be appreciated and studied
12
33%
A myth that should be ignored
3
8%
Other
11
31%
 
Total votes : 36

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby divideandconquer » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:56 am

Jesus Christ is either the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. I don't think there is any in-between.

His exclusive claims to be the Son of God, His teachings on the Kingdom, the miracles He performed, and His death and resurrection distinguish Him from all leaders that preceded Him as well as the ones to follow. You either believe this or you must believe He's a crackpot, right? I mean, anyone who goes around preaching that he's God, the savior, better be prepared to prove it. Apparently, He did just that because we're still discussing Him 2,000 years later.

Undoubtedly, He is the single, most influential person of all time. He's the most respected and worshiped as well as the most hated and criticized, bar none. More secular or non-Christian historians have written about Him than any other single person in human history. There are more historical evidences of His existence than any other historical figure of ancient times, yet, at the same time, there are more challenges. Today, most secular schools ban the mention of His name, despite this historical evidence.

Here's the problem, in my humble opinion, that which is sacred cannot be explained by that which is secular. You can't separate the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history because it will never make sense, hence, the reason schools do not teach about Jesus and the reason secular society can't seem to fit Him in.
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby liminalOyster » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:57 am

Novem5er » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:49 pm wrote:There are parts of Christianity that mesh very well with Buddhism (my religious-philosophy of choice), but other parts of it are in direct contrast when they start tying things back to the Old Testament.


This is why I feel Thomas Merton was so beautiful. His expositions on original sin as a positive statement of innate human light were almost gnostic (though no archons here.)

“The doctrine of original sin, properly understood is optimistic. It does not teach that man is by nature evil, but that evil in him is unnatural, a disorder, a sin.”


He claimed that original sin referred to an un-natural and inauthentic relation to the world/reality and taught Catholic doctrine as a form of zen.

‘Buddhism and Biblical Christianity agree in their view of man's present condition. Both are aware that man is somehow not in his right relation to the world and to the things in it … they see that man bears in himself a mysterious tendency to falsify that relation. This falsification is what Buddhists call Avidya, usually translated [as] "ignorance"… Christianity attributes this view of man and of reality to "original sin".

‘The story of the Fall tells us in mythical language that "original sin" is not simply a stigma arbitrarily making good pleasures seem guilty, but a basic inauthenticity, a kind of predisposition to bad faith in our understanding of ourselves and the world.’

-- Thomas Merton, "Nirvana" Zen and the Birds of Appetite (1968)


That essay is one of the pieces of writing that has had the most impact on me in my life.

Image

I've never dug into the similar-to-Oscar Romero style CIA assassination speculation - died from electrocution in a bathtub while attending an interfaith conference in Bangkok - which stem from his influence on the peace involvement, but there's little doubt the Catholics saw his openness to Eastern thought as a threat, and still do. Among other things, independent of the threat of Buddhism/Taoism, I suspect that socio-politically his decoupling of original sin from shame was a deep threat to the psychological servitude on which the church depends.

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of approaches such as Merton’s. In fact he predicted that Buddhism, with its "autoerotic" type of spirituality, would replace Marxism as the principle antagonist of the Catholic faith, for the very non-dualist ideas it espouses deny the Christian belief in a Creator who is separate from His creation. The transcendence that Zen Buddhism offers is one of non-distinction, a state free from, as Benedict notes, the imposition of religious obligations. In the end, to turn to the ideas of Zen is to turn away from any need for a personal savior. We save ourselves in Buddhism, but only Christ saves in Christianity.

-- Catholic Answers Magazine: Can You Trust Thomas Merton?


Just thinking about it now, I suppose Christ might indicate/remind us of/refer to an innate human goodness that arrives on earth pure/good before winding itself into an inauthentic relation to the world (I've always read original sin via Merton as a close analogue of Ego in the Mahayana.).

At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will. This little point of nothingness and of absolute poverty is the pure glory of God in us. It is so to speak His name written in us, as our poverty, as our indigence, as our dependence, as our sonship. It is like a pure diamond, blazing with the invisible light of heaven. It is in everybody, and if we could see it we would see these billions of points of light coming together in the face and blaze of a sun that would make all the darkness and cruelty of life vanish completely ... I have no program for this seeing. It is only given. But the gate of heaven is every- where.”

-- Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (1966)


I like to imagine that in a kinder parallel universe somewhere he's the pope.

See also:

What’s so Bad About Original Sin?
Last edited by liminalOyster on Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby PufPuf93 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:34 pm

Other.

I was raised without religion but in a Christian American culture (Christmas and Easter with Christian iconography, practicing Episcopal grandmother). My immediate family never went to church nor talked of Jesus or any other spirituality. My younger sister became a conservative born-again Christian, her husband was for 25 years the chief of police of Fortuna, California, the most conservative and second largest small city of Humboldt county. He was a Promise Keeper leader and introduced a pastor ride along program and is also extremely corrupt. My father did not trust him and I made a mistake to trust either of them. I have not seen nor spoken to either in 20 years. I went to a Catholic school for 2nd grade in a San Francisco area suburb. Elsewhere at RI, I mentioned that I attended a boarding school owned and managed by the Episcopal church. There was chapel every morning and a required religious studies course but the environment was twisted. I was close to and influenced by the seminarians that were dorm residents / supervisors.

I went occasionally to synagogue with my best friend from grades 1 to 6, he was later the best man for my first marriage while we attended Cal together. After med school and his internship, he nearly died from a medical problem and in the aftermath married a conservative Christian nurse,became a born-again Christian, and moved to Iowa and then and ever since Alabama. That ended our friendship for all intents and purposes and destroyed his relations with his own family (by his choice mostly, he refused to visit the evil state of California and I was the one that told his parents that they were grandparents. They saw their only grandchild once.) My first wife was a practicing reformed Jew and we were university sweethearts at Cal. Her parents forbid her to see my after my first visit to her home so she moved in with me and her parent's cut her off financially and did not allow her to visit. We married 5 quarters before graduation which was their condition for her to have visitation with her family. They wanted me to convert but we ended up have a very large civil wedding. I was never accepted by her parents and this contributed to the marriage failure after 8 years. My maternal grandfather was born Jewish but I do not know if he knew this fact. He was born in Oakland CA in 1887 to married teen parents and his mother ran away to southern California while he was a baby so he never knew his father. He met a 39 year old half brother when he was age 52. I have a 1939 Oakland Tribune with a cover photo of them meeting for the first time that was given to me by that half brother's wife inn the 1970s who also told me of and gave me clues to research the family history. They were early Dutch Jewish settlers of Manhattan and Staten Island and my Jewish great great grandparents came to Oakland in 1856 from New York City.

I have a number of Christian related books in my past reading and retain most in my library.

Have read regarding the historical Jesus and Jewish Messiah / Mysticism most of the popular books by Elaine Pagels and Gershom Scholem.

I also highly recommend James the Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman.

Have read / skimmed the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Pistis Sophia and books about these ancient collections

I had a late 19th century edition of History of the Jewish Wars by Josephus that I skimmed but never read that I gave as a gift to a then neighbor that was the local Assembly of God minister. I have a late 19th century English edition of The Book of Enoch

I have a King James Bible that belonged to my great grandmother that had been rebound into a deerskin cover. This Bible I have read cover to cover and what I still refer to if I have reason to read Christian scripture.

I had a Strong's Concordance and a Schofield Bible that I gave to my 2nd exe wife, a practicing life long tongue speaking born again Christian with a large family that were once all Southern Baptists. She was prone to practicing Bible roulette in her decision-making. One Christmas I gave her a framed print of Salvador Dali's The Sacrament of the Last Supper. I purchased the print at age 19 at the National Gallery in Washington DC and it had sat in a card board tube for over 20 years until my gift. I introduced her to the Strong's and Schofield that she initially distrusted (Satan?). She would meet on Wednesdays and sometimes Sundays with her some of her sisters and nieces and other women for Bible study. I often helped her prepare for when she led the studies. Edit to add: She could get cranky and I would cast out - and describe- demons from her back and frequently reduce her to laugher and tears. She had 4 daughters from a prior marriage, the three oldest had young children. The young ones would deliberately get her riled and come get me for the fun of demon casting. She did not want the divorce but I thought it was best for various reasons. She got mad at me when I saw other women after the divorce and moved to Texas with one of her daughters. I probably made a mistake.

Image

I have enjoyed various (pseudo?)history books such as Bloodlines of the Holy Grail, Hiram's Key, Uriel's Machine, The Second Messiah, God's Heretics, and a number of other books of the genre.

Not many people know that I was baptized age 18 (1971, senior in high school on the Hupa Reservation) by Reverend James Durkin at Gospel Outreach's Lighthouse Ranch commune. I will let RI in on the secret that I spoke in tongues there too; this I never have ever told anyone ever before now, even my Christian exe. I went to Lighthouse Ranch because, while I Eastered in Tucson, my girlfriend was converted at a revival held at the Tish Tang campground on the Hupa Reservation by Gospel Outreach. My life was somewhat unsettled, that girl friend was my port in the storm at the time, and the Gospel Outreach services and Durkin reminded me of Grateful Dead shows, a similar mystic energy and community but without chemical enhancement. My involvement ended not that long afterwards when we went our separate ways. This brief period is the only that I would consider myself a "Believer". Gospel Outreach is interesting because of the connection with Rios Montt (which is down played or denied by the Gospel Outreach that remains). Like most institutions Gospel Outreach had its dark side, sexual as well as political.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014428551

http://goalumni.homestead.com/Lighthouse.html

I was raised in and currently reside within the boundaries of a Federally recognized Cultural Zone, one of the active Karuk pichi 'avich / World Renewal / White Deerskin Dance ritual areas. Odd in that I posted a photo just yesterday (edit: in the image only thread) prior to this thread being started. I used to own part of the ritual site which I sold and gifted to the Karuk Tribe. Prior to that I cooperated with the Tribe and was sued by my siblings with that cooperation the initial issue and ultimately bought their interests in the property. My later sale and idealistic gifts to the Tribe have turned out very bad for me.

So I obviously do not accept the Nicene Creed. I have some critical opinions regarding the Abrahamic religions. Who or whatever the historical Jesus was, Jesus has been marketed now for 2000 years to meet the agenda of various men. Jesus is no more the Son of God than any other human, whatever God may or may not be.

I find some solace in Lao Tzu.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby brekin » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:06 pm

Marvin Harris, the anthropologist with a kind of ecological-socioeconmic lens, had some interesting takes on Jesus that these bloggers summarize quite well. His book “Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture” is a must read to understanding real world concerns that produced religious systems. It is possible that Jesus was more of a bandit-robin hood type figure, a messiah (liberator/savior of the people) whose teachings were the best compromise between competing ideologies for a oppressed people. Kind of like a Malcolm X who started as an extremist but then tempered his message which was more compatible with the ruling powers.

The idea of the messiah – the anointed one who’ll save us from our bad choices – Harris defines as being an extension of what he calls “cargo cults“: the belief of undeveloped cultures that the goods brought by imperialist colonizers are a sort of “salvation.” The most dedicated practitioners of messiah cultism were, of course, the Hebrew and Christian cultures of the period of Roman occupation of Palestine. The interesting – for Harris, especially – and noteworthy characteristic of Jewish messianic belief is that their messiahs are military in nature – in other words, the traditional ecology of their homeland must be restored by war (see the Tsembaga mentioned above) – since Roman (and other, earlier, we should note) conquest has changed that ecology (and hence restored it from, for example, Egyptian or Babylonian conquest). In fact, Harris argues that the rise of Jesus Christ as a “prince of peace” – a new kind of messiah – coincides with the destruction of Jerusalem and the final decimation of Jewish resistance to Roman domination.

In a similar way, Harris argues that the offering of scapegoats as focuses for cultural anger – and Harris offers the most well known example, the witch – by dominant cultural forces (since the rise of witch persecution came in the Middle Ages, these would be hereditary nobility and the now dominant and, in its own way, imperialistic Catholic Church) which allowed both of these ruling classes to escape punishment for their lack of concern for the plight of “those who work” (I use this term because of its suggestion of the “three orders” of society as discussed by Georges Duby, among others). If the problems and struggles of a culture where one group did all labor to support the other two groups could be explained away as the result of “bad magic” which could be fixed by burning alive or otherwise committing genocide on the old, the mentally disturbed, ethnic “outsiders,” or women, then everyone could live together happily – except for those murdered for the sake of defusing societal discontent, of course.

Harris ends his book (published in 1974) with a few choice barbs aimed at what was then known as the “counter-culture” (what we now think of most often as the New Age movement). His point that time spent rehabilitating witchcraft and/or expecting a “harmonic convergence” or some other sort of “cosmic salvation” could be better spent addressing world culture’s real economic and social inequities is well taken. One wishes only that he’d updated his work to address issues such as fundamentalist religion’s rise and other – as Marshall McLuhan termed them – “rear view” cultural movements.

https://newsoutherngentleman.wordpress. ... oos-oh-my/

First, Harris tackles the Messiah complex by showing that Jews around the time of Jesus waged near-constant guerrilla warfare against their Roman rulers and oppressors. Perhaps half a million people died, in probably hundreds of Jewish uprisings, all led by religious insurgents called Messiahs. Whether Jesus was one of these revolutionary warriors is disputed, but Harris argues that the concept of the “peaceful messiah” only gained prominence later during Roman backlash, as a way to distinguish between the “harmless” Christians and the rebellious Jews. Finally, when Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, its emphasis shifted once more to be compatible with evangelizing the largest military on Earth as it colonized the Mediterranean and killed insurgents.

Christianity would come full circle and provide the ideological backing for revolutionary movements against the dominant social order of Europe during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. At the time feudalism was in crisis and huge peasant movements like the Anabaptists, led by messiah-like zealots, were gaining large followings against their noble and clergy overlords. These Christian messiahs called for breaking up large land estates and providing for the poor masses, who were suffering from unnecessary poverty and disease. The threatened defenders of Church and State needed to cook up some kind of distraction that would divide the population, while authorizing to executions of revolutionary leaders (who were mostly female).

Witchcraft fit the bill nicely. With the Pope’s approval, the accusation, torture, and execution of hundreds of thousands of “witches” effectively disrupted the enormous peasant movements and brought legitimacy to the forces of law and order. Harris explains, “The clergy and nobility emerged as the great protectors of mankind against an enemy who was omnipresent but difficult to detect. Here at last was a reason to pay tithes and obey the tax collector.”

If this crackdown on an invented evil parallels the spectre of “terrorism” today and the war on anti-American Islamist movements, then perhaps Marvin Harris’ effort to explain the seemingly insoluble mysteries of distant cultures can also come full circle to help us make sense of our own society. If Washington is the new Rome, then who are the new messiahs? Or, in a secular sense, who are the people concerned for the poor majority that suffers unnecessarily in our own time?

https://newsoutherngentleman.wordpress. ... oos-oh-my/

It is often illuminating to read some Jesus and then some Socrates. The latter seems so much more advanced even though he dies 400 years before Christ's appearance. Socrates is like, let's break this down and try to discover the truth because neither of us know shit, but think we do. Whereas Jesus is like, I am the shit, this is the shit you will believe, and now a magic trick to show I am the shit. One is committed to finding the truth, the other just in disseminating it and building a base of followers. (A binary path we see replicated thousands of years later on RI.) Also of interest Socrates is sacrificed by the state like Jesus to keep order, but Socrates, a true philosopher knows how to accept death, whereas Jesus accepts it, because he will rise again (which isn't really accepting it because it isn't a real sacrifice, as Jesus gets to go to heaven, a place better than earth.)

Of course, Jesus said enough that was complementary and contradictory enough that he can fit almost any paradigm if people choose to emphasize certain things over others. I tend to think Jesus sayings, Christianity, is a early software with a trojan worm in its source code where its exclusivity, chosenness, sabotages the better inclusiveness and brotherhood and subsequent patches and upgrades have just made it more compatible with whatever the zeitgheist happens to be. Cue Bad Religion's American Jesus:



A rather stark example is, yup, Robocop. Savior/protector of the people who is sacrificed, is resurrected from the dead and carries out the law unquestioningly.

EXCLUSIVE: Paul Verhoeven Calls RoboCop 'The American Jesus,' Is Unexcited By Remake Plans

Paul Verhoeven has Jesus Christ on the brain lately. Of course he does: he wrote a book about the religious figure, "Jesus of Nazareth." The filmmaker paid a visit to the newsroom last week to chat with MTV's Josh Horowitz about the book, and he discussed some surprising parallel's between the Biblical story of Christ and his classic 1987 film, "RoboCop." "The point of 'RoboCop,' of course, is it is a Christ story," Verhoeven said. "It is about a guy that gets crucified after 50 minutes, then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes and then is like the super-cop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end."

It's actually not such a far-fetched idea when you think about it. RoboCop (Peter Weller) is a sort of resurrected human who was horribly abused before his death. I don't know if I'd characterize him as the son of God, and he metes out justice with a bit more prejudice than the real Jesus might have... but that's also part of the director's message.Back to the water-walking in the final scene. "It was [shot in] an abandoned steel factory in Pittsburgh and there was water there. I put something just underneath the water so [Weller] could walk over the water and say this wonderful line... 'I am not arresting you anymore.' Meaning, 'I'm going to shoot you.' And that is of course the American Jesus."

http://www.mtv.com/news/2436200/paul-ve ... ke-update/

Image

As Technology is a current religion, most of our Christ figures become Christ like through technology bringing them back from the dead, giving them extraordinary powers and going on to save all mankind. Or at least the civilizations with the most advance technology (religion).

Image
Image
Image

In many ways, Jesus, and many other major religious figures are against the natural order, the way of all life in the universe (as far as we can tell I guess currently). They are not part of "the plan" but against "the plan". I tend to agree with Bergson that the universe is a machine for making gods, its just that there can be a lot of malfunctions and bugs to work out.
I think Gauis Baltar is probably the most reasonable contemporary Christ like figure, himself being a Judas type who actually sacrifices billions of people unknowingly in his creation, but then tries to bring peace.



Because I mean, as Sam Kinison noted, Jesus is basically a zombie.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32sf ... -jesus_fun
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby slomo » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:00 pm

Archetype of transcendence of the black iron prison.

May or may not have been a historical figure (or based on one), but since it's impossible to know the factual truth about anything that happened even last week outside the realm of ones direct experience, I find this issue quite irrelevant.
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby Sweet Tooth » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:04 pm

>Archetype of transcendence of the black iron prison.

Yup.

>May or may not have been a historical figure (or based on one),
>but since it's impossible to know the factual truth about anything
>that happened even last week outside the realm of ones direct
>experience, I find this issue quite irrelevant.

I know, right?! Ever read DeLillo's Libra - his Lee Harvey Oswald novel? One of the themes is the ultimate unknowability of history, and how documents are... well, the map is not the territory, I think, is the popular idiom.

XO
Sweet Tooth
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:33 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby brekin » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:28 pm

The issue irrelevant?

This person (fictional/historical/archetypal or not) has created, for good or ill, a large part of the reality you are wandering around in right now.

Image
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby minime » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:40 pm

On the outside looking out. Not very rigorous.
Last edited by minime on Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby PufPuf93 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:42 pm

divideandconquer » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:56 am wrote:Jesus Christ is either the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. I don't think there is any in-between.

His exclusive claims to be the Son of God, His teachings on the Kingdom, the miracles He performed, and His death and resurrection distinguish Him from all leaders that preceded Him as well as the ones to follow. You either believe this or you must believe He's a crackpot, right? I mean, anyone who goes around preaching that he's God, the savior, better be prepared to prove it. Apparently, He did just that because we're still discussing Him 2,000 years later.

Undoubtedly, He is the single, most influential person of all time. He's the most respected and worshiped as well as the most hated and criticized, bar none. More secular or non-Christian historians have written about Him than any other single person in human history. There are more historical evidences of His existence than any other historical figure of ancient times, yet, at the same time, there are more challenges. Today, most secular schools ban the mention of His name, despite this historical evidence.

Here's the problem, in my humble opinion, that which is sacred cannot be explained by that which is secular. You can't separate the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history because it will never make sense, hence, the reason schools do not teach about Jesus and the reason secular society can't seem to fit Him in.


I do not think one can have such a binary choice regards Jesus except for some individuals on a personal level that have a fixed concept of Jesus (and possibly voices in their head - said in good humor please).

Just because Jesus is still discussed 2000 years after his alleged life may well have little connection with what Jesus did in life or taught. The past 2000 years have had many accounts and interpretations of the life and purpose of Jesus.

It is not remotely close to true that there is more historical evidence of the existence of Jesus than any other historical figure of ancient times. There is very little if any direct evidence of Jesus. Josephus mentions Jesus once and that may have been edited in later. Jesus is not a figure in contemporaneous written histories.

Jesus is mostly not in schools in the USA because of the separation of church and state.

Most non-religious / non-Christians have a problem with Christians and their actions more so than hating on Jesus. Many atrocities of history can be placed at the feet of those that claim to be Christians.

I tend to distrust Christians in proportion to the degree of their fixed dogma.

Christians vary greatly in how rigid they interpret Jesus and live their faith.

I have stated elsewhere at RI that perhaps humankind needs a new religion and implied that such a religion would entail a better relation between other life and the environment of Planet Earth.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby Harvey » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:53 pm

PufPuf93 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:42 pm wrote:I have stated elsewhere at RI that perhaps humankind needs a new religion and implied that such a religion would entail a better relation between other life and the environment of Planet Earth.


We already have innumerable iterations, look around, they didn't work. If God is the word and words can lie then...

Bottom Line, Brad Pitt and David Beckham are Christ as much as anyone today. Who do you actually defer to? That, I would argue through a complex process, is a straight line to God. Develop better heroes and heroines.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4219
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby minime » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:41 pm

Go out there and be a star.


:)

Hello?
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby PufPuf93 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:02 pm

Harvey » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:53 pm wrote:
PufPuf93 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:42 pm wrote:I have stated elsewhere at RI that perhaps humankind needs a new religion and implied that such a religion would entail a better relation between other life and the environment of Planet Earth.


We already have innumerable iterations, look around, they didn't work. If God is the word and words can lie then...

Bottom Line, Brad Pitt and David Beckham are Christ as much as anyone today. Who do you actually defer to? That, I would argue through a complex process, is a straight line to God. Develop better heroes and heroines.


I searched and cannot find the post but was not actually suggesting a new religion.

I stated something to the effect that I was not a religious person but the problems faced were such that would indicate a need for a new religion.

I agree with what you just posted.

We lack good examples to mirror (or they are destroyed prior to or in the process of becoming public figures).
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby dada » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:12 pm

My vote in the poll would be, 'Doesn't matter.'

I have no particular beef with Jesus, or any of the major religious or spiritual brand names. No masters for me, though. It's all goddesses and cats, all the way down.

Love, sex and death are where I'm at religiously at the moment, I guess. And I put my faith in my imagination.

Recently I've been reading things in unorthodox ways. I think you can get more out of them if you don't read them in the 'standard' mind frame that you're 'supposed to read them. So for example I'll do Marxist analysis on spiritual texts, or read Marx, and other works on economics like alchemical tracts. Stuff like that.

I remember reading Jesus' parables, and stories about him, and trying to see him as speaking tongue-in-cheek. We don't usually think of Jesus as having a sense of humor. I think he might have, had he existed.

Here's a good book. Alan Watts' Myth and Ritual in Christianity. pdf online. Amazing what you can find nowadays:

http://www.bookyards.com/en/book/details/15833/Myth-And-Ritual-In-Christianity#

I like his reading of Christianity. Here's an excerpt.

"The very insistence on the one historical incarnation as a unique step in a course of temporal events leading to the future Kingdom of God reveals the psychology of Western culture most clearly. It shows a mentality for which the present, real world is, in itself, joyless and barren, without value. The present can have value only in terms of meaning if, like a word, it points to something beyond itself. This "beyond" which past and present events "mean" is the future. Thus the Western intellectual, as well as the literate common man, finds his life meaningless except in terms of a promising future. But the future is a "tomorrow which never comes", and for this reason Western culture has a "frantic" character. It is a desperate rush in pursuit of an ever/receding "meaning", because the promising future is precisely the famous carrot which the clever rider dangles before his donkey's nose from the end of his whip.

Tragically enough, this frantic search for God, for the ideal life, in the future renders the course of history anything but a series of unique steps towards a goal. Its real result is to make history repeat itself faster and more furiously, confusing "progress" with increased agitation. But the Western disillusion with past and present events excluding the Incarnation is based on a sound intuition. We said that it seeks for the meaning of events, as if they were words: and, indeed, this is exactly what they are. In so far as we are aware of life as history only, as a series of facts, the life that we know is an abstraction without real value or joy. This will include our specious "present", which is not the true present but a memory of the immediate past the so/called nunc fluens as distinct from the nunc stant, the present which is always flying away as distinct from that which is eternal. Our plight is that in failing to be aware of the true present we look for the meaning of events in the future, and it disappoints us perpetually because it is as abstract as the past. This is the folly of "laying up treasure upon earth", that is to say, in time, and of "being anxious for the morrow", for the Kingdom of Heaven is not future, within time, but now, above time.

(St. Paul's "redeeming the time" is often understood to mean that, through Christ, the course of time is redeemed so that it leads to God, and not just on and on. This is not quite the sense of the passage in Ephesians 5: 14-16, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See, then, that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil." Arising from the dead is ceasing to identify the Self, with the past as a result of which time "leads to" or "ends in" Christ, not in the future, but now. C Lynn White, "Christian Myth and Christian History," in Journal af the History of Ideas, iii. z (New York, 1942), p. 145 an excellent discussion of this whole problem of "the course of time" in Christian thought.)

When, therefore, man awakens to the true present he finds his true Self, that wherein the reality of his life actually consists, as distinct from the "old man", the self that was and is not. He is then "no longer I, but Christ", and this "Christening" of mankind is the clear sense of the whole symbolism of the Incarnation, apart from which it is difficult to see how there can be any meaning in the important conception of Christ as the Second Adam. "For as in Adam all die, even as in Christ shall all be made alive."

Fun, right? Here's another brief excerpt:

"The importance of the "harrowing of Hell" is that the power of the Incarnation is retroactive or, to put it in another way, timeless. The coming of Christ is not a truly historical event, a step in a temporal process which is effective only for those who follow. It is equally effective for those who came before, and thus the Descent into Hades is a feature of the Christ story which particularly suggests the timeless and mythological character of the whole. From another point of view, the descent into the depths is almost invariably one of the great tasks of "the Hero with a Thousand Faces", of the Christ in his many forms. Hades or Hell may here be understood as the Valley of the Shadow, the experience of impotence and despair in which "I" die and Christ comes to life. The descent is likewise a figure of the descent of consciousness into the unconscious, of the necessity of knowing one's very depths. For so long as the unconscious remains unexplored it is possible to retain the naive feeling of the insularity and separateness of the conscious ego. Its actions are still taken to be free and spontaneous movements of the "will", and it can congratulate itself upon having motivations which are purely "good", unaware of the dark and hidden forces of conditioning which actually guide them.

Down in Hades the work of Christ is to bring Adam through the jaws of the dragon into Paradise. It will be remembered that when Adam was expelled from the Paradise Garden, the way back was guarded by a Cherub with a flaming sword which "turned every way". The gnashing jaws of the dragon and the whirling sword are forms of the important mythological motif which also appears as Symplegades, the Clashing Rocks, the task of the hero being to leap through before he is cut or crushed. But this "Active Door" opens and shuts with such incredible rapidity or suddenness that the hero has to get through in "no time at all". His only chance is to leap without hesitation, for the slightest wavering or indecision will be his undoing. Obviously, the Active Door is the same as the "needle's eye" and the "strait and narrow gate", through which one can enter into heaven only on the condition of having become nothing and nobody. Adam can pass through the Jaws of Hades into Paradise because now that he has been "crucified with Christ" who took upon himself the flesh of Adam, he is no more Adam but Christ. He goes forth into Paradise of Christ, as the New Adam. The reason is that Christ is the only one who can pass through the Active Door, being the Real Man who has no past and does not exist in time. Living entirely in the eternal Moment, it is no problem for him to move between the jaws of past and future where all others are trapped.

In many of the myths of the Active Door, the hero gets through at the cost of leaving something behind. A European folk/story tells of the Hare who wrests the Herb of Immortality from the Guardian Dog, leaving, however, his tail in the Dog's jaws. In the Christian version, the one left behind is Lucifer. Obviously, the Hare's tail is his past, that which is behind him, being the only thing which Time the Devourer can actually devour. Similarly, Lucifer is the "dead man" the ego abstracted from memory. So long as the mind is identified with it the gate of heaven is closed. Past and future clash together in a present which is exasperatingly brief, giving the sense that we have "no time*' for anything* But when it is seen that the true Self is not the self we remember, the tail is "docked" and the Hare is "through".

In the Old Testament the analogous situation is Moses passage of the Red Sea, where the waters roll back to let "Israel" go through but rush together to trap "Egypt" in the flood. Very properly, then, Christ's passage through Death and Hades is likened by the Church to the Crossing of the Red Sea, for in the "harrowing of Hell" the jaws of the dragon yawn wide to give passage to those that are **in Christ", but close again upon Lucifer and his hosts. Beyond the rolling waters, the perilous gates or jaws of Hell, past and future, good and evil, life and death, and the whole gamut of opposites wherein man as ego is inescapably trapped, there lies the Risen Life always open to him who leaps without hesitation, who moves with the Moment and does not linger in the past."


"the descent of consciousness into the unconscious." And now, back to lucid dreaming.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby tapitsbo » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:54 pm

One thing that jumps out at me is how the figure of Christ is explicitly Eastern and Western, that is if he is either.

It might sound pedantic to say this, but it's true as far as I can see. Regardless of whether his origins are eastern, western, both, or neither, there's this:

Since its inception, Christianity has always been a missionary religion and is still expanding to new geographical areas till today. As early as the first century A.D. Christianity spread outside Palestine to different people groups and cultures. While Apostle Paul and other missionaries were converting the Greeks, Romans etc in the west, there was equally a great movement of Christianity to the east- Edessa, Persia, Arabia, Central Asia, China and India. In the Eastward movement of Christianity, Apostle Thomas was the central figure. A number of places in the East can associate their Christian origin with the Apostle Thomas and his companions. Just as Apostle Paul is a great Apostle to the West so is Apostle Thomas to the East.
11
The Acts of the Apostles records the presence of different racial groups in the day of the Pentecost in Jerusalem, and further gave a hint of a possible conversion from among these groups, and in all possibility spread their newfound faith in their respective countries. The gospel spread beyond the territories of the Roman Empire as Christian missionaries found their way eastward to Mesopotamia, Persia, Media, Bactria, Parthia, Armenia, India, Egypt and North Africa etc. Early records have shown that as early as A.D. 180 Christians were spread throughout the provinces of the Roman Empire and in Mesopotamia. Antioch became a stronghold of Hellenistic Christianity since the time of the apostles themselves. It continued to be a prominent Christian centre for many more centuries. Furthermore, Edessa, which lies in the east of Antioch, too became the most important Christian centre and the chief nucleus of Syriac speaking Christians of Syria. Christianity is believed to have spread throughout Egypt from Alexandria, its chief city.
12
It is believed that North Africa, which produces some of the most important Church Fathers in the history of Christianity in the later centuries, too received Christianity from the East, with whom the region had traditional commercial contacts.
13
Like the other countries of the East, other Asian countries like Persia, India, Arabia and China too attributed their Christian root to the apostolic mission of Apostle Thomas.


Plus Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, for example.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jesus Christ: a Rigorous Discussion (or not)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:47 pm

I am no scholar of the authenticity of the historical Jesus, but considering the fact that we have not even one decent portrait photograph of Homer, only a handful of emails from Chaucer, and just a single piece of authenticated film footage of Shaxper, why don’t we just take the words attributed to Jesus as thoughts worth thinking about and discussing, whoever exactly Jesus were, or was, or am, or ain’t.

“But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” [1 John 3:17 KJV]


Verily, verily.


Image
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests