Judeo-Christian wackiness

[loki09789]

Riding on a donkey into the holy city, no less?? Oh wait... that's in there, too!! :uhyeah:

To those interested, you really might want to take a read of the Bacchae to see some of the very interesting parallels yourself --- the scenes concerning Dionysus changing water into wine at a wedding, and of his Transfiguration on a mountain are very provocative.



Hrmmm.... very interesting.

Laterz.

I knew there was a reason why my prof. had us read old greek classics side by side with bibilcal text in my "Bible as Lit" course. Once christianity and control of the who, what, when, where, why and how of being christian was in the hands of roman rulers who were going retro because they idealized grecian culture, the 'ideal' christian started to look awefully similar to good roman/grecian citizenship. Jesus and other heroic figures did adopt a very grecian formula in certain regards.

Does any of this mean that I am down on my chosen faith? No. I am stronger in it because many of the kiddie story level of sophistications that most of us never really dig deeper than - but doubt because the stories are too simplistic - are gone.

I think Jesus was a real man, he was messianic and that he did act as a hero. A priest once said that Jesus was the original hippie. I would say, based on my current knowledge, interpretation and faith that he was more of a Ghandi-ish figure.

Part of the reason why the Jewish people, at least in that region, rejected Jesus (according to anthros/historians - some of which are christian btw) is because he didn't fit their messiah as warrior. Jesus satisfied all the items on the Christ checklist (mule ride and such) but he was not a 'second coming of King David' which is what the Jews of the day were looking for.

Jesus shook the tree because he lived and taught the spirit of love over revenge. Jews ready to break out from under the thumb of Rome weren't interested in looking inward at themselves, the Pharasee or anything else. THey wanted a Moses, David kick ash and take names with the blessing of God kind of leader. All that spiritual mumbo jumbo could come later.

 

[heretic888]

Ummm.... no offense, guys, but all this is kinda off-topic. :uhyeah:

 

[CanuckMA]

Part of the reason why the Jewish people, at least in that region, rejected Jesus (according to anthros/historians - some of which are christian btw) is because he didn't fit their messiah as warrior. Jesus satisfied all the items on the Christ checklist (mule ride and such) but he was not a 'second coming of King David' which is what the Jews of the day were looking for.

Jesus shook the tree because he lived and taught the spirit of love over revenge. Jews ready to break out from under the thumb of Rome weren't interested in looking inward at themselves, the Pharasee or anything else. THey wanted a Moses, David kick ash and take names with the blessing of God kind of leader. All that spiritual mumbo jumbo could come later.

No. Jesus did not meet any of the requisites for Messiah. 'Mule ride'? The Jewish Messiah is to be 1) a man 2) of the line of David (through his father) 3) to ubite the Jewish kingdoms ( in these days it pretty much to unite the Jews) 4) who will bring peace and order to the world.

 

[Nightingale]

Ummm.... no offense, guys, but all this is kinda off-topic. :uhyeah:

hehe... and I was just about to get out my topic-bat too!

 

[heretic888]

Once christianity and control of the who, what, when, where, why and how of being christian was in the hands of roman rulers who were going retro because they idealized grecian culture, the 'ideal' christian started to look awefully similar to good roman/grecian citizenship. Jesus and other heroic figures did adopt a very grecian formula in certain regards.

No doubt. Of course, Christianity itself was by and large based on many Pagan ideas --- especially within the Pauline channels. The entire notion of giving up possessions, home, and family to pursue "the Way" absolutely reaks of Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, Cynicism, et al (and is not indicative of traditional Judaism, "honor thy father and mother", at all). Even the term "the Way" comes from Stoic and Cynic circles. The Synoptic obsession with numbers (particularly in the "feeding of the masses" scenes), as well as Jesus' own name (Iesous = 888), is indicative of Pythagoreanism. Furthermore, the oft-seen "Jesus fish" itself is a Pythagorean symbol.

Paul's letters openly flout with Platonic ideas (seeing God "face to face" and "seeing through the mirror darkly"), and the entire "sacrificed martyr" theme and the 30 silver pieces offered as a "betrayal" reminds one distinctively of Socrates' end (as reported by Plato).

The most telling evidence, though, is in art. I have personally seen Grecian vases dating to the 2nd century B.C.E., which figure Dionysus on them. Dionysus is portrayed as young and handsome, with a full mustache and beard, wearing fancy robes, a crown of thorns or weeds, and seems to be tied or strapped to a large tree (I reference Galatians and Corinthians, in which Paul refers to Jesus as "hung on a tree"). At his feet is in altar, showing what appears to be a jar of some liquid (as Dionysus is the God of Wine, I leave you to guess what is being poured) and a pile of loaves of bread.

The symbolic parallels are so obvious that its painful.

I think Jesus was a real man, he was messianic and that he did act as a hero. A priest once said that Jesus was the original hippie. I would say, based on my current knowledge, interpretation and faith that he was more of a Ghandi-ish figure.

If Jesus truly did exist, I would agree. I myself believe Jesus may have been the first great Bodhissatva of the West --- the entire notion of Jesus as "God taking human form" for the express purpose of suffering to save all of humanity is SO amazingly reminiscent of the Bodhissatva Vow (for all you Buddhists) that its mind-boggling.

Jesus shook the tree because he lived and taught the spirit of love over revenge. Jews ready to break out from under the thumb of Rome weren't interested in looking inward at themselves, the Pharasee or anything else. THey wanted a Moses, David kick ash and take names with the blessing of God kind of leader. All that spiritual mumbo jumbo could come later.

If you ask me, that is very telling to many modern day "Christians" as well. Instead of true spiritual development (Boddhi, Gnosis, etc.), everyone is looking for political and social changes --- as if that will make all their personal problems and suffering just "go away". Its harder to look inward.

No. Jesus did not meet any of the requisites for Messiah. 'Mule ride'? The Jewish Messiah is to be 1) a man 2) of the line of David (through his father) 3) to ubite the Jewish kingdoms ( in these days it pretty much to unite the Jews) 4) who will bring peace and order to the world.

I'm inclined to agree with this, as well --- the "Christ" of the original Christians was without doubt primarily based on Hellenistic religious concepts, and not traditional Jewish ones.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

hehe... and I was just about to get out my topic-bat too!

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Paul M. made some good points; I would just like to add a little to them.

From my Catholic perspective, evidence of a Jesus character in other religions only further supports our premises of Jesus. "Catholic" means universal, and this idea can be applied in many different ways. Generally speaking, if it's "true" it's "true." In other words, if the buddhist, the Catholic, and the Agnostic believe that it isn't right to steal, then this is good. If there is a flood story in many other cultures outside of the Bible, then this helps support truth in that story. If there is a "Jesus character" in other religions, then this helps support truth in our "Jesus character" as well.

I hope I explained that right!

Now, that doesn't mean that Catholics don't have a standard, or that we have a "everybody's right" attitude. And certianly, there are Catholics who will go beyond the written doctrine to tell you how right their perspective is, and how wrong everyone else is. And obviously, the Catholic is going to believe in the Catholic perspective over others. It is just that I believe that although through Christ is the only way to heaven, there are many roads to get there, and everyone is on their own journey. As long as our works are "Christ-like" (regardless of what religion you belong to) then we'll get our questions answered in heaven. I am sure that I'll be able to make many corrections on my own beliefs then, provided that I end up there!

No. Jesus did not meet any of the requisites for Messiah. 'Mule ride'? The Jewish Messiah is to be 1) a man 2) of the line of David (through his father) 3) to ubite the Jewish kingdoms ( in these days it pretty much to unite the Jews) 4) who will bring peace and order to the world.

From your modern-Jewish perspective, this seems the most correct to you. However, not everyone would agree, myself included. I just wouldn't be so "matter of fact" about it when there are other perspectives out there.

 

[CanuckMA]

From your modern-Jewish perspective, this seems the most correct to you. However, not everyone would agree, myself included. I just wouldn't be so "matter of fact" about it when there are other perspectives out there.

WADR, when deciding whether a Jew meets the Jewish criterion for the Messiah, other religion's views, especially the religion that is founded on the person being the Messiah, is not relevant. You make statements that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Jews at the tme just did not want to accept it, and I'm just telling you that it wasn't so much a refusal to acept, as much as a lack of credentials.

 

[Cruentus]

WADR, when deciding whether a Jew meets the Jewish criterion for the Messiah, other religion's views, especially the religion that is founded on the person being the Messiah, is not relevant. You make statements that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Jews at the tme just did not want to accept it, and I'm just telling you that it wasn't so much a refusal to acept, as much as a lack of credentials.

I am not disagreeing with you that the ancient Jews felt that Jesus lacked the credentials. I am just saying that it depends on how you look at the credentials. :wink1:

 

[CanuckMA]

I am not disagreeing with you that the ancient Jews felt that Jesus lacked the credentials. I am just saying that it depends on how you look at the credentials. :wink1:

For a Jew to be the Jewish Messiah, there is only ONE way to look at the credentials.

You telling me what the credentials are, is just about as valid as me telling that the current Pope does not have the right credentials for the job.

You want to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, knock yourself out. Just stop trying to tell the Jews that we are wrong.

 

[Nightingale]

Paul M. made some good points; I would just like to add a little to them.

From my Catholic perspective, evidence of a Jesus character in other religions only further supports our premises of Jesus. "Catholic" means universal, and this idea can be applied in many different ways. Generally speaking, if it's "true" it's "true." In other words, if the buddhist, the Catholic, and the Agnostic believe that it isn't right to steal, then this is good. If there is a flood story in many other cultures outside of the Bible, then this helps support truth in that story. If there is a "Jesus character" in other religions, then this helps support truth in our "Jesus character" as well.

I hope I explained that right!

The problem with this is that the stories of Bacchus and Dionysus predate the Jesus stories by 500 years.

 

[rmcrobertson]

In an odd way, it's quite right to say that in Christian theology, the Bacchus (or Balder or whover) story can help confirm the truth of the Gospels. Basically, the idea is that everything in nature--and in human culture--points to the central event of Christ. So, the Bacchus story points forward to the plain revelation of the real thing, just as (for example) the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament points forward to the Crucifixion.

Part of what Christian fundamentalists are kinda sorta doinbg, in fact, is to argue against waht used to be called the "fourfold," interpretation of the Bible--they want the Boble, generally speaking, to be read literally, on a surface level only--and yet at the same time, the Pat Robertson types are always talking about how, for example, Hussein was predicted by Revelations...

 

[Cruentus]

In an odd way, it's quite right to say that in Christian theology, the Bacchus (or Balder or whover) story can help confirm the truth of the Gospels. Basically, the idea is that everything in nature--and in human culture--points to the central event of Christ. So, the Bacchus story points forward to the plain revelation of the real thing, just as (for example) the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament points forward to the Crucifixion.

Yes, that was brilliantly put. This is exactly why it is not a problem for me (and most Catholics/Christians who understand their faith) that Dionysus predates Christ.

Part of what Christian fundamentalists are kinda sorta doinbg, in fact, is to argue against waht used to be called the "fourfold," interpretation of the Bible--they want the Boble, generally speaking, to be read literally, on a surface level only--and yet at the same time, the Pat Robertson types are always talking about how, for example, Hussein was predicted by Revelations...

Heh. That is why I don't agree with taking the bible on a lteral, surface level only!
:uhyeah:

 

[heretic888]

From my Catholic perspective, evidence of a Jesus character in other religions only further supports our premises of Jesus. "Catholic" means universal, and this idea can be applied in many different ways. Generally speaking, if it's "true" it's "true." In other words, if the buddhist, the Catholic, and the Agnostic believe that it isn't right to steal, then this is good. If there is a flood story in many other cultures outside of the Bible, then this helps support truth in that story. If there is a "Jesus character" in other religions, then this helps support truth in our "Jesus character" as well.

You seem here to be supporting the Perennial Philosophy (first coined by Leibniz, and first popularized by Huxley) --- which, if so, would make many of your "Catholic" claims very interesting, to say the very least.

WADR, when deciding whether a Jew meets the Jewish criterion for the Messiah, other religion's views, especially the religion that is founded on the person being the Messiah, is not relevant. You make statements that Jesus was the Messiah, but the Jews at the tme just did not want to accept it, and I'm just telling you that it wasn't so much a refusal to acept, as much as a lack of credentials.

It could be a mess of other things, too.

There is, as far as I know, no Jewish commentary on Jesus dating to within a few centuries of his supposed historical existence (unless you count the likes of Josephus). Thus, any "Jesus was not the Messiah" comments by later Jews could have just been commentaries on the Christian presentation of Jesus (as within the Gospel story), rather than actual historical commentaries.

As such, I still maintain that Jesus most likely did not exist historically. Thusly, it would only make sense that he would not meet the criterion of Messiah-hood.

The problem with this is that the stories of Bacchus and Dionysus predate the Jesus stories by 500 years.

Much more than that, actually --- the Bacchus by Euripides predates the Jesus story by about 500 years, but the actual myths do not. The myths predate the Jesus story by well over a thousand years.

In an odd way, it's quite right to say that in Christian theology, the Bacchus (or Balder or whover) story can help confirm the truth of the Gospels. Basically, the idea is that everything in nature--and in human culture--points to the central event of Christ. So, the Bacchus story points forward to the plain revelation of the real thing, just as (for example) the story of Abraham and Isaac in the Old Testament points forward to the Crucifixion.

Yes, that was brilliantly put. This is exactly why it is not a problem for me (and most Catholics/Christians who understand their faith) that Dionysus predates Christ.

This is, of course, extremely biased and lopsided thinking.

Such arguments were originally created as a less 'extreme' form of the inane Diabolical Mimicry (in which all evidence contrary to the Scriptures, such as evolutionary fossil records, are relegated to deceptions on the part of Satan), but the thinking is the same.

Originally, to combat accusations that the Christ story was based (in part or in whole) on previous Pagan myths, Christian apologetics like Justin Martyr resorted to Diabolical Mimicry: namely, that the Devil -- knowing the exact details of Christ's life on earth to come --- created all these 'Pagan' philosophies, religions, and myths to pre-mimic the Jesus story as closely as possible. This was apparently done for the express purpose of deceiving Christian believers centuries later.

The Christ Prefigurement idea is little different. The notion is to take all existing evidence that supposedly contradicts or questions the Christ story as history (such as the details of the Dyonisian myth), and turn it upon itself. Instead of relying on the much more logical and believable notion that the early Christians based some of their ideas and beliefs on the popular religions of the time, the believer instead turns it around and claims all evidence that seems to disprove the historicity of the Jesus story actually proves it.

This is, of course, a double-standard of nearly unparalled proportions. This would be like using fossil records to 'prove' evolution doesn't actually happen, or using the rotations of the earth around the sun to 'prove' that the earth is really the center of the universe. Namely, what you are doing is taking evidence and claiming it proves the exact opposite of what it claims to prove.

We notice, also, that there is the recurrent ethnocentrism of the idea, as well --- all religions in the world actually point to the truth of our religion. Translation: we're right, everyone else is wrong.

Who is to say that the Jesus story was not also a part of this 'mythical prefigurement' seeking to prove the historicity of a later god-man, like Manes in the 3rd century?? Why is the Christian story so special?? Why is it not that the Christ story is itself not part of the same trend of 'mythical prefigurement'??

The only answer to such questions, of course is "because its our religion". Cultural bias and ethnocentrism at its worst. People probably made similar claims about Osiris' story "prefiguring" Dionysus' story in the 2nd century BCE. And, it was equally dubious then, as well.

So, the double-standard of 'mythical prefigurement' is twofold:
1) It attempts to 'throw out' all evidence questioning the historicty of the Jesus story by turning it against itself.
2) It bases its claims on the special 'rightness' of the Christian religion over the others, with no evidence for this other than cultural ethnocentrism.

This isn't anything 'perennial' or 'catholic' here. This is an attempt to see the faiths, religions, and myths of all other peoples but one's own as actually 'proving' the Christian one. A perennial approach would to say that all religions and faiths point to a universal experience of human spirituality, not that they point to the rightness of a particular culture's historical and religious claims.

Laterz.

 

[someguy]

In the end it all comes down to faith. You either choose to belive or belive in something else or not belive it. My choice s to belive in Christ and God and wait and see about the rest. This of course doesn't mean I wooun't think about it but I also won' say I really know much of anything about anything. Can anybody honestly say the KNOW much about anything. Not think they no or pretty sure they know but tto absolutly 100% KNOW anything?

 

[xianshino]

well said Someguy,
I also believe it comes down to faith.

 

[Cruentus]

Lopsided thinking? Well, not if it's true.

Logical? Believable? That depends. People will believe what their unconscience allows them to believe. There is evidence to support many ideas. There is evidence to support the Christian premise. There is also evidence to support that Jesus was only a mythical figure. Is any of this evidence material? No, not in as much that it proves any perspective beyond reasonable doubt. All you can do is assert your position and move on. However, since we are not dealing with material evidence, one has to understand what is in their own unconscience that allows them to believe one premises over another. When one begins to understand this, then one can try to decifer the "truth" for themselves.

In terms of "rightness" of one belief over another, I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. If I didn't think that my faith was "more right" then buddhism, then I'd be buddhist. I think that this only becomes dangerous when everyone else becomes "wrong" over your belief.

:asian:

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Well, the only thing in this world that I know 100% is that God Loves me and that he's the only person I can trust through thick and thin. He's gotten me this far and I know that he has so much in store for my life. And, yes, it all comes down to that one word: FAITH. To me, Faith is believing in what you can't see, but you choose to do so. AKA blind faith.


A question: Can you see the wind?

 

[Nightingale]

hehe. I work in downtown LA. Yes, you can see the wind. You can also see the air. ick.

However, under most circumstances, you can't see the wind. BUT, you can measure wind, therefore, your comparison doesn't quite work. You can also see the way wind directly influences objects around it, and you can draw a diorect conclusion that the motion of the objects is on account of the wind, because wind is tangible, whereas God is not.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Ah, but you can see the results of the God's power. Just most can't see it because they don't look for it. You can't see the wind but you can see the results because you know where to look and also know about its results, etc. Most people don't look or don't know how to look at The results of God's power. It's a matter of knowing. The wind is simple and easy to find results in because it has no mind and also only one way of expressing itself. God created it and gave it a purpose.


P.S. That sanchin video from here is too freaky....Sounds like darth vader meets the predator...lol