Did Jesus exist? (Poll)

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's also interesting to see that a few people voted 'likely not exist' even while accepting that there may have been 'someone'

If you are going to accept that as sufficient cause to say someone existed then you have to accept that Citizen Kane (or Rambo, as someone said earlier in the thread) are historical figures. They're not.

Thank-you, Artemus. That's all I'm saying.

Characters in fictional writings are all inspired in some way. I think Rambo is based on Bo Gritz. Rocky Balboa is inspired by an actual boxing match with Ali at which Sylvester Stallone was in the audience. But this does not make either Rambo or Rocky Balboa historical.

Jesus historicists don't seem to understand this, and I think it is merely because they don't know how authors write fiction. Authors must write from experience, to include research.

 

[Artemus]

I voted "I'm sure he didn't exist" even though it improperly assigns the burden of proof because it is closer to my position than "more likely, to some degree". To say that there was a historical Jesus, a good percentage of the following would have to be met:

1. He was named Jesus.
2. He was born to a Mary and Joseph.
3. He was taken to another country in childhood.
4. He returned and started a traveling ministry at some point in adulthood.
5. He had a number of disciples who traveled with him.
6. He taught in parables.
7. He interacted with someone called "John the Baptist" at some point.
8. A crowd ate loaves and fish while he was preaching.
9. He trashed the temple.
10. The Jewish leaders were afraid that he would usurp their power and had him arrested.
11. One of the disciples turned him in.
12. He appeared before Herod.
13. Pilate ordered him crucified.
14. The disciples went and told people that they had known the messiah during his life.

There should be an allowance for legendary development so all (or even most) don't have to be met (the ridiculous story about George Washington and the cherry tree, for example), but there are no contemporary records of any of these events. Saying that there might have been a guy who got himself crucified for preaching things that annoyed the Pharisees so there might have been a historical Jesus is just silly, in my opinion.

 

[Copernicus]

To me it seems plausible that some messianic cult might have grown out of an actual historical execution of a religious zealot, but the legend has accumulated so much baggage that it is hard to say what it means anymore to say that Jesus really existed. Most of what people believe of him is not grounded in historical fact. It seems clear that the orthodox movement cherrypicked some of the circulating stories and doctrines for the express purpose of establishing historicity. They declared those that cast doubt on it apocryphal. However, they didn't have a time machine or access to historical archives that they could rely on for verification. I still find it strange that there is almost nothing in the writings of Paul about the tales of life events that emerged in the Gospel stories.

 

[Shake]

My agnostic side tells me it's intellectually dishonest to claim to be sure of either side in this discussion. That said, you can put me down in the camp of, "I think it's more likely, to some degree or other, that he didn't exist." Was there perhaps some sort of radical Jewish preacher around that time stirring things up a bit? Perhaps. Was that person the Jesus of the Bible as we know it today? Doubtful at best, IMHO.

I'm coming in late to this thread and have not, at this time, gone through the 21 pages which currently exist. I'd like to just briefly address some things from page 1 and my apologies if they've been covered already. Back there, beero said:

From everything I've read, there is no real debate; historians and biblical scholars virtually all agree that there was a historical Jesus.

...the arguments I've seen so far contrary to the historicity of Jesus have been disappointing. They're the same type of arguments you see from climate change denialists, antivaccine advocates, and conspiracy theorists and definitely don't rise to the level of convincing me to ignore the opinions of experts, academics who've spent their careers studying this exact topic.

I can't imagine no one else having also challenged this with names like Dr. Robert M. Price or Dr. Richard Carrier. These links will take you to some of their work, though more recent works by Price are available here, and Carrier has also published more. I found Carrier on YouTube in videos promoting his books where he uses his historical knowledge to dissect the Christ myth, but I also remembered his writings from the Secular Web (from where IIDB came originally, IIRC). Carrier is an academic who's spent time "studying this exact topic," and so I found his conclusion to have some merit. I have intentions of reading his On the Historicity of Jesus at some point, but as I said above, I heard him present on this in a YouTube video which I'm sure could be found rather quickly. The video was lighter on details, I'm sure, but to me presented better arguments than those seen "from climate change denialists," etc.

It's also possible that the Jesus figure is a composite of several vocal figures in history, but the record is pretty quiet. To me, the record is too quiet for him to be even close to whom Christians claim he is. So, I lean towards the mythicist view.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, personally, I have absolutely no doubt that the Jesus described in the Bible never existed.

But I also believe that the story is nonetheless based, very, very loosely based, on a few historical facts and characters, all mixed up with invented stuff.

What I feel sad about is that so many people throughout history thought they had to pretend to believe that story so as to blend in with the crowd and feel they belonged to a community.

Even worse, that so many people really believed the story was true. The Gospel truth.

These are down apparently to 6% in France at least. But I'm not sure that what people nowadays believe instead is much better.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Someone killed Real, Jesus in Phoenix, AZ a couple of days ago!

 

[ruby sparks]

To me it seems plausible that some messianic cult might have grown out of an actual historical execution of a religious zealot, but the legend has accumulated so much baggage that it is hard to say what it means anymore to say that Jesus really existed. Most of what people believe of him is not grounded in historical fact. It seems clear that the orthodox movement cherrypicked some of the circulating stories and doctrines for the express purpose of establishing historicity. They declared those that cast doubt on it apocryphal. However, they didn't have a time machine or access to historical archives that they could rely on for verification. I still find it strange that there is almost nothing in the writings of Paul about the tales of life events that emerged in the Gospel stories.

Just briefly on the part in bold.....

No early christian writer, apologist or church father, as far as I am aware, ever countered, at least in any texts that we have, ahistoricist or mythicist accusations or heresies (Docetists don't really count, based on anything that we know of their beliefs about avatar Jesus), so I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that anything, whatever it was (including interpolations) was done to establish Jesus' existence. It seems to me that his existence was not in doubt. This doesn't mean he existed, nor does it shed much light on the issue either way, because the early apologists (the earliest of whom might be better described as proto-orthodox, since orthodoxy may have arrived gradually) were writing quite a while after events, at least a hundred years in most cases, by which time his existence may have already become taken for granted, whether true or not.

By and large, it was his credentials which were defended (mostly his divine ones or his messianic ones) and, interestingly, on some occasions, the particular suggestion that he was...a bit dodgy, as in having been a common criminal, or, here and there, that he might have been a militant, or involved in agitation or rebellion. Origen responds to this 'distasteful' suggestion from Celsus for example, in the much-cited anti-heretical work, 'Contra Celsum' (248 AD).

I think that the idea that the early church were up to this or that sort of shenanigans to counter ahistorists or mythicists is therefore by and large a product of the more modern scepticism about his existence than anything else, and may have become popular as a result of the recent mini-explosion in the latter. To me, pursuing the idea that he was not who most people think he was is potentially more fruitful.

And among the 'not who most people think he was' possibilities, there are some in which 'the figure that started it all' is potentially so unrecognisable (and possibly deliberately concealed, including by the writers of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, and indeed in the Epistles, and possibly even in interpolations into Josephus) that he is almost as good as ahistorical.

 

[ruby sparks]

My agnostic side tells me it's intellectually dishonest to claim to be sure of either side in this discussion. That said, you can put me down in the camp of, "I think it's more likely, to some degree or other, that he didn't exist." Was there perhaps some sort of radical Jewish preacher around that time stirring things up a bit? Perhaps. Was that person the Jesus of the Bible as we know it today? Doubtful at best, IMHO.

I'm coming in late to this thread and have not, at this time, gone through the 21 pages which currently exist. I'd like to just briefly address some things from page 1 and my apologies if they've been covered already. Back there, beero said:

From everything I've read, there is no real debate; historians and biblical scholars virtually all agree that there was a historical Jesus.

...the arguments I've seen so far contrary to the historicity of Jesus have been disappointing. They're the same type of arguments you see from climate change denialists, antivaccine advocates, and conspiracy theorists and definitely don't rise to the level of convincing me to ignore the opinions of experts, academics who've spent their careers studying this exact topic.

I can't imagine no one else having also challenged this with names like Dr. Robert M. Price or Dr. Richard Carrier. These links will take you to some of their work, though more recent works by Price are available here, and Carrier has also published more. I found Carrier on YouTube in videos promoting his books where he uses his historical knowledge to dissect the Christ myth, but I also remembered his writings from the Secular Web (from where IIDB came originally, IIRC). Carrier is an academic who's spent time "studying this exact topic," and so I found his conclusion to have some merit. I have intentions of reading his On the Historicity of Jesus at some point, but as I said above, I heard him present on this in a YouTube video which I'm sure could be found rather quickly. The video was lighter on details, I'm sure, but to me presented better arguments than those seen "from climate change denialists," etc.

It's also possible that the Jesus figure is a composite of several vocal figures in history, but the record is pretty quiet. To me, the record is too quiet for him to be even close to whom Christians claim he is. So, I lean towards the mythicist view.

If you want my tuppenceworth, read Richard Carrier with a large pile of salt near to hand. His thesis (basically a reworking of Earl Doherty's) is one of the worst 'alternative Jesus' theses ever conceived, and he goes about advancing it in an extremely dubious and biased manner. Personally, I wouldn't trust him, or Earl Doherty, to even sit the right way on a toilet.

 

[ruby sparks]

Before even getting into the fine detail of this or that case for or against his existence, there are a few aspects of the essential/basic/minimal Jesus story (and its context) which are potentially very significant pointers.

1. It was a time of general unrest in the locale, mainly as a result of ongoing and historical Roman oppression, which escalated into Roman occupation (and significantly, taxation of the populace) in 6 AD. The unrest took the form of nationalism and increasing insurgency, culminating in all-out rebellion and war by 66 AD.

2. Galilee in particular (an area separate from Judea and under a different ruler for most of the time in question, even though considered by the Jews as part of Israel) was the hotbed of militancy during that period (6-66 AD).

3. He was supposedly crucified. The Romans tended to reserve this punishment for those who threatened the rule of Roman order (arguably for the most part involving threats from militant insurrectionists) and the Romans didn't tend to get involved in inter-Jewish issues, even when they involved corporal punishments meted out by the Jewish hierarchy.

4. He was supposedly crucified along with robbers ('lestai' in Koine Greek). This word was used extensively by Josephus for 1st century militant insurgents, not common thieves.

5. It was the norm for Jewish militants to combine political aspirations with religious ones, particularly messianic ones. It would arguably have been very unusual indeed for a fringe (non-establishment) preacher not to be political in an anti-establishment or nationalist manner, and there were those of that kind at the time who also incorporated or claimed messiahship.

6. The militants went by various, often overlapping names, including Zealot and Sicarii. One of Jesus' supposed disciples was Simon the Zealot, another was Judas Iscariot (arguably from sicarii). James and John were called 'the sons of thunder' ('benei regresh'). 'Regresh' can, figuratively, mean 'thunder' but more commonly it meant commotion, uproar or tumult.

7. It isn't hard to find examples of an 'odd' militancy and hints of armed resistance in the Jesus accounts, including references to swords, war, etc.

8. As noted in a previous post above, some of the 'heresies' vehemently countered by the early christian apologists included accusations along the above lines.

So if you like alternative Jesus explanations and even conspiracy theories involving deliberate concealment of the deeply unpalatable truth, there is imo one obvious candidate thesis with a lot of inherent explanatory power.

Why 'deeply unpalatable'? The Romans were still ruling the entire region where early christianity was emerging (around the mediterranean in other words) with an iron fist. Anything that smelled of being anti-Roman would have been potentially disastrous, particularly if it had anything to do with Judean nationalism or the scattered remnants of it. Plus, the writers (both the early apologists and also the NT authors) were not the original followers (the prior Jerusalem set that 'Paul' had marked differences and conflicts with) and not Judean Jewish nationalists. Those types had been decimated in the utterly failed war against the Romans. The writers were, as far as we can tell, either Hellenistic diaspora Jews keen to get along with Rome (in order to survive) or they were not even originally Jewish at all. Small wonder that the (what were later to be called) orthodox texts are arguably essentially pro-Roman or at least not very anti-Roman at all (and indeed 'oddly' anti-Jewish in several places).

 

[ruby sparks]

Therefore, imho, Carrier has gone, dogmatically and with resultant bias, down the wrong (and more difficult) route, especially for a historian, partly it seems to me, because he was at the outset so enamoured by Doherty's (imo very ropey) thesis.

Sidenote: Doherty apparently accepted, in 2014, that in extant versions of Ascension of Isaiah (texts which both he and Carrier rely quite heavily on) Jesus is described as having come to earth. Carrier's position is to also posit a supposedly missing earlier version of A of I. Imo, Outer Space Jesus, as a thesis, is unlikely ever to gain wider credibility.

Of course it's possible to blend the two types of thesis. But having given it some thought, I don't think it's easy to mesh them, not least because the combo explanation and twin subsequent agendas (supposedly getting Jesus, on papyrus, to be on earth, and then to whitewash him) would become even more complicated and speculative and possibly contradictory.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Therefore, imho, Carrier has gone, dogmatically and with resultant bias, down the wrong (and more difficult) route, especially for a historian, partly it seems to me, because he was at the outset so enamoured by Doherty's (imo very ropey) thesis.

Sidenote: Doherty apparently accepted, in 2014, that in extant versions of Ascension of Isaiah (texts which both he and Carrier rely quite heavily on) Jesus is described as having come to earth. Carrier's position is to also posit a supposedly missing earlier version of A of I. Imo, Outer Space Jesus, as a thesis, is unlikely ever to gain wider credibility.

Of course it's possible to blend the two types of thesis. But having given it some thought, I don't think it's easy to mesh them, not least because the combo explanation and twin subsequent agendas (supposedly getting Jesus, on papyrus, to be on earth, and then to whitewash him) would become even more complicated and speculative and possibly contradictory.

I think it is possible to blend and mesh them. The key is to understanding Paul's experiences as visionary. And this blending is precisely what has happened with orthodox christianity. The videos previously discussed could not make this more clear.

Aside that we've addressed ad naseum what exactly is meant by "historical." Many folks think it simply means inspired by events or experiences. Okay.

Finally, we needn't be grammar nazis when it comes to interpreting these texts, acting as if copyists were using precise legalese to convey precise meanings. It's best we step back and absorb the big picture. Doing so tells us without any doubt whatsoever that Mark's protagonist is fictional.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Hi ruby sparks.

There is a possibility that a Jesus existed but he would not have been a miracle working Jesus.

Traditionally, even going back to Chrestian days, whom I think the original Gnostic Christians were before Christianity plagiarized our writings, we thought of Jesus as an archetypal good man.

That worked well until Christianity became an idol worshiping cult instead of the saner God seekers and started killing off all those who would not kowtow to their idol.

This is a good link that speaks of this if you have the time to have a look. The second link speaks of the Chrestians and how Christianity plagiarized the oldest known bible.





Regards
DL

 

[ruby sparks]

Hi ruby sparks.

There is a possibility that a Jesus existed but he would not have been a miracle working Jesus.

Traditionally, even going back to Chrestian days, whom I think the original Gnostic Christians were before Christianity plagiarized our writings, we thought of Jesus as an archetypal good man.

That worked well until Christianity became an idol worshiping cult instead of the saner God seekers and started killing off all those who would not kowtow to their idol.

This is a good link that speaks of this if you have the time to have a look. The second link speaks of the Chrestians and how Christianity plagiarized the oldest known bible.





Regards
DL

Hi GCB,

Thanks. I watched those (and also most of the one after the latter, Part 15E, until it digressed). I am mostly already familiar with the nature of the content. Not so familiar with Freke's (attractive) ideas about gnostic spirituality, and in that case the video was thankfully devoid of the spooky background music.

I think I generally understand what you are suggesting.

Specifically regarding 'Chrestians', I might refer you back to my post 446 in this thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...of-Jesus”-now-out/page45&highlight=chrestians

Basically, you can consider me interested but sceptical and currently leaning towards 'Chrestian' (and other related spellings) being translation issues. Feel free to offer me an alternative in more than merely outline form or assertion, though I confess that if it's pretty much speculative or relies on missing evidence and/or an interpretation of only the tiniest pieces of text (perhaps essentially one or two words such as chrestus and chrestianos), I may be difficult to convince.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Hi ruby sparks.

There is a possibility that a Jesus existed but he would not have been a miracle working Jesus.

Traditionally, even going back to Chrestian days, whom I think the original Gnostic Christians were before Christianity plagiarized our writings, we thought of Jesus as an archetypal good man.

That worked well until Christianity became an idol worshiping cult instead of the saner God seekers and started killing off all those who would not kowtow to their idol.

This is a good link that speaks of this if you have the time to have a look. The second link speaks of the Chrestians and how Christianity plagiarized the oldest known bible.





Regards
DL

Hi GCB,

Thanks. I watched those (and also most of the one after the latter, Part 15E, until it digressed). I am mostly already familiar with the nature of the content. Not so familiar with Freke's (attractive) ideas about gnostic spirituality, and in that case the video was thankfully devoid of the spooky background music.

I think I generally understand what you are suggesting.

Specifically regarding 'Chrestians', I might refer you back to my post 446 in this thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...of-Jesus”-now-out/page45&highlight=chrestians

Basically, you can consider me interested but sceptical and currently leaning towards 'Chrestian' (and other related spellings) being translation issues. Feel free to offer me an alternative in more than merely outline form or assertion, though I confess that if it's pretty much speculative or relies on missing evidence and/or an interpretation of only the tiniest pieces of text (perhaps essentially one or two words such as chrestus and chrestianos), I may be difficult to convince.

My speculation is likely un-provable given the lack of primary evidence or written scripts.

Mine is more of a logic and reason position based on what the ancients believed before Christianity became an idol worshiping cult.

I get my views and logic trail mostly from the following scholarship, both modern and ancient.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

As well as ------

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about literal reading.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The fact that the designations of God the Good and Jesus the Good disappeared shows that the Christians were successful in almost killing the notions of a human God the Good and Jesus the Good.

Gnostic Christians and Karaite Jews are still pushing the notion that man is above God, which fit's in nicely with the old Divine Council that the Jews had in the early days, if we remember that Jesus said we are all sons of God which would put us all in that Divine Council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Council#Hebrew

Jesus asked, "have ye forgotten that ye are Gods", and most of us have.

Regards
DL

 

[ruby sparks]

Hi GCB,

You're not really (much) dealing here with the issue of whether Jesus existed on earth because there is really nothing much in the ancient gnostic texts to say anyone believed he didn't, as far as we can tell.

What you are doing is espousing Gnosticism generally, and in particular a gnostic philosophy/religion of compassion. Which I think is lovely, and I say that without cynicism.

But I think it's largely a separate issue from the OP. Nor, imo, does what you're espousing need to be tied to Christianity (even if one version of it was part of or mingled with or arose out of early Christianity) because the core ideas (eg the golden rule, the idea of revealed or esoteric truths and ideas about humans being spechul, possibly in a 'divine' way) are independent of any particular religion.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it is possible to blend and mesh them. The key is to understanding Paul's experiences as visionary. And this blending is precisely what has happened with orthodox christianity. The videos previously discussed could not make this more clear.

I was specifically talking about blending theses that the figure was actually an historical 'terrorist' (with the gospels twisting this and covering it up) with for example, Carrier's thesis, where the figure started off as celestial or visionary only (and not earthly). Now, you could still blend those, because you can blend almost anything. I just meant that the two theses can't easly, imo, be blended.

Aside that we've addressed ad naseum what exactly is meant by "historical." Many folks think it simply means inspired by events or experiences. Okay.

Finally, we needn't be grammar nazis when it comes to interpreting these texts, acting as if copyists were using precise legalese to convey precise meanings. It's best we step back and absorb the big picture. Doing so tells us without any doubt whatsoever that Mark's protagonist is fictional.

If you mean entirely fictional then you are de facto too sure, unfortunately. There is no way to tell the difference between partly and wholly fictional in this case and no reliable way to even tell differences of degree, which is why, when you or anyone else prefers analogies with bigfoot, or superman, or Braveheart or whatever, you are merely and pretty much arbitrarily selecting a particular degree, without having any reliable way of telling if it's close to being the right one.

One of the reasons I feel I can't interact with you is because you seem to have largely made up your mind about the degree of fiction involved, and the reasons for it. In reality, there are a wide range of possibilities which emerge from accepting that the gospels are not history. Imo, no offence intended, your view is too settled, too narrow. Perhaps because you yourself write fiction. I don't know. But you seem to have the equivalent of a magnetic north to which you are drawn to return, even if you briefly deviate from it, which I think you should consider doing more of (deviating I mean) because there are some equally plausible alternative theses and if you could let go of your magnetic north, I think you would find them interesting and fun to explore, without ever having to change your mind about the gospels containing fiction, even a lot of fiction.

Also, and again no offence intended, I'm not sure how much of the 'big picture' you appreciate, in terms of getting into the detail of what sort of 'fiction' we might be specifically dealing with here. I'm not saying that I'm an expert. Nor am I saying that I know anything which allows me to be sure of anything. Maybe I have just delved more for a longer time. I'm not saying that's an indication of wisdom.

To give an example. R G Price makes a big play on the gospel of Mark as an allegory based on OT scriptures. So, he reads of an event (let's say the trashing of the temple by the NT 'Jesus') and he locates a parallel in the OT. Someone else (Richard Carrier for example) finds a parallel for exactly the same incident in the life of Jesus ben Ananias (who he thinks is a 'core' historical component in the stories). Which of them is right? Both of them? Maybe. Who knows? Both is a little bit tricky though. But anyway, the point is, they are different explanations for the gospel 'fiction'.

So, 'it's fiction' doesn't really tell us much. And one question I might ask you is, which of the above parallels is the better, and why, in light of the reasons behind the fictions?

Here's another question. Who is the unnamed gospel figure who runs away naked from the Mount of Olives during Jesus' supposed arrest? I would tend to assume the figure is either fictional or a stand-in. But who, and why is he in the story?

This is the sort of level I'm interested in.

And there is no 'right' answer and many suggestions. My preferred one is that the unnamed figure who ran away from The Mount of Olives during an attempted arrest is a nod and a wink to the (also unnamed) Egyptian Prophet from Josephus. Sadly, even if that's correct, it doesn't tell us what he's doing in the story, because for example, a reference to him could mean several things, for example that The Egyptian Prophet was 'our historical guy' ('Jesus' supposedly spent time in Egypt doncha know, possibly during his formative years, before turning up as an adult in Galilee, where in his hometown he wasn't recognised, and the gospels saying his Egyptian sojurn was as a baby might be suspect) or equally that our guy was wholly made up and something The Egyptian Prophet did was co-opted, or equally that there are just some coincidental parallels between what one 1st C messianic claimant did (our 'Jesus') and another (The Egyptian) since a lot of these guys did 'Jewish messiah type stuff' given that it was what was expected of them and bolstered their credentials.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Hi GCB,

You're not really (much) dealing here with the issue of whether Jesus existed on earth because there is really nothing much in the ancient gnostic texts to say anyone believed he didn't, as far as we can tell.

We know that some of the ancient Jews were called Jesus. Big deal. They, unless you want to go into intellectual dissonance, were not miracle working Jesus' or sons of Yahweh etc.

If the old Gnostic believe him to be real, they would not have dared call Yahweh a vile demiurge. Fear of God and all that.

This link shows our thinking back then.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D[/YOUTUBE]

There is also more evidence coming to light, not proof of course, that Jesus is an archetypal good man.

We find that in the Rome created Jesus as well as in other writings that some scholars say point to that fact.

Here are a couple of links you might want to peruse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-MBDQqeZik

What you are doing is espousing Gnosticism generally, and in particular a gnostic philosophy/religion of compassion. Which I think is lovely, and I say that without cynicism.

Thanks.

But I think it's largely a separate issue from the OP. Nor, imo, does what you're espousing need to be tied to Christianity (even if one version of it was part of or mingled with or arose out of early Christianity) because the core ideas (eg the golden rule, the idea of revealed or esoteric truths and ideas about humans being spechul, possibly in a 'divine' way) are independent of any particular religion.

All true I think.

I chose Gnostic Christianity partly due to my view of the bible.

I see it as a consolidation of many of the older traditions of the day, from Zoroasterism to the ancient myths of Sumer and Egypt. That is why I see the bible as a valuable tool in terms of dithering out what the ancient world believed.

Christianity is only a small bit in the bible and even if I was in some other religion I would likely have read it.

Since perpetually seeking God is a major part of Gnostic Christianity, the bible is a useful tool to initiate discussions and the seeking of better laws and rules, which is basically how we define the word God. That is why we call God, I am, and mean ourselves because we ourselves determine the best rules and laws to live by.

Those are always subjective and individual and we step up to claim and express them as we will.

You likely do the same, without invoking the word God.

Regards
DL

 

[ruby sparks]

We know that some of the ancient Jews were called Jesus. Big deal. They, unless you want to go into intellectual dissonance, were not miracle working Jesus' or sons of Yahweh etc.

If the old Gnostic believe him to be real, they would not have dared call Yahweh a vile demiurge. Fear of God and all that.

This link shows our thinking back then.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D[/YOUTUBE]

There is also more evidence coming to light, not proof of course, that Jesus is an archetypal good man.

We find that in the Rome created Jesus as well as in other writings that some scholars say point to that fact.

Here are a couple of links you might want to peruse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-MBDQqeZik




Thanks.

But I think it's largely a separate issue from the OP. Nor, imo, does what you're espousing need to be tied to Christianity (even if one version of it was part of or mingled with or arose out of early Christianity) because the core ideas (eg the golden rule, the idea of revealed or esoteric truths and ideas about humans being spechul, possibly in a 'divine' way) are independent of any particular religion.

All true I think.

I chose Gnostic Christianity partly due to my view of the bible.

I see it as a consolidation of many of the older traditions of the day, from Zoroasterism to the ancient myths of Sumer and Egypt. That is why I see the bible as a valuable tool in terms of dithering out what the ancient world believed.

Christianity is only a small bit in the bible and even if I was in some other religion I would likely have read it.

Since perpetually seeking God is a major part of Gnostic Christianity, the bible is a useful tool to initiate discussions and the seeking of better laws and rules, which is basically how we define the word God. That is why we call God, I am, and mean ourselves because we ourselves determine the best rules and laws to live by.

Those are always subjective and individual and we step up to claim and express them as we will.

You likely do the same, without invoking the word God.

Regards
DL

Everybody sees in the bible (and in your case its history and context) what they want to see, eh?

That said, if you see a compassionate religion, a compassionate humanity and/or a compassionate, peaceful loving god in there, that's fine by me.

Yes, you are right, I try to look for the same thing, just not in religion.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Everybody sees in the bible (and in your case its history and context) what they want to see, eh?

I read what is written, not what I want to see written.

We all do interpret what we read based on what we know. That is different from inserting what we want to see.

That said, if you see a compassionate religion, a compassionate humanity and/or a compassionate, peaceful loving god in there, that's fine by me.

It should not be because you should then see me as a delusional fool who thinks a genocidal son murdering God id somehow good.

If you left me to believe in that garbage way, you would not be following the Golden rule and, IMO, would not be much of a compassionate man.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Yes, you are right, I try to look for the same thing, just not in religion.

The bible has many good lessons to teach. You just have to read it the way a Gnostic Christian does.

Christianity reversed many of the morals of the story and Gnostic Christians reverse them back so as to learn the real moral of the story.

For instance, to Jews, Genesis and Eden is where mankind was elevated. Christians changed that to a fall.

It was actually our elevation where man became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil. IOW, man developed a moral sense, and only the most stupid Christians will see that as a fall.

As William Blake said of how we read scriptures as compared to Christians.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”

Regards
DL

 

[ruby sparks]

I read what is written, not what I want to see written.

We all do interpret what we read based on what we know. That is different from inserting what we want to see.


It should not be because you should then see me as a delusional fool who thinks a genocidal son murdering God id somehow good.

If you left me to believe in that garbage way, you would not be following the Golden rule and, IMO, would not be much of a compassionate man.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Yes, you are right, I try to look for the same thing, just not in religion.

The bible has many good lessons to teach. You just have to read it the way a Gnostic Christian does.

Christianity reversed many of the morals of the story and Gnostic Christians reverse them back so as to learn the real moral of the story.

For instance, to Jews, Genesis and Eden is where mankind was elevated. Christians changed that to a fall.

It was actually our elevation where man became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil. IOW, man developed a moral sense, and only the most stupid Christians will see that as a fall.

As William Blake said of how we read scriptures as compared to Christians.
“Both read the Bible day and night; but you read black where I read white.”

Regards
DL

Even if I (in my personal opinion) thought you were a delusional fool, which I might, it would be for thinking there's a god in the first place. After that, if you see god as compassionate, good for you. It's your personal take. Just don't necessarily get me started on why I think it's nothing more than your personal take, that your 'real' reading of the 'truth' in the bible is just your preferred interpretation.

As for whether being a delusional fool is something that does not deserve compassion, that's a slightly different matter, imo. I believe in love. Maybe I'm a delusional fool too. But if neither of us is harming anyone and we're both just trying to get through life as best we can, then it's arguably ok. Good luck to us both. May we go in peace, etc.