Who is Jesus Christ to you?

If you have got some I'd be more than willing to take a look at it.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Greetings all,Hi John

quote:

---

John: He almost certainly would have been Jewish by descent, at least through Mary, and that would have made him officially Jewish by Jewish law.

---

Actually, this is not correct.Ancient Jews did not trace descent thrugh the mother - this is a modern idea - the human egg was only discovered in the 19th century.Iasion

Greetings sagg et al,Lord Liar, Lunatic

quote:

---

sagg: Jesus was one of three things: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.

---

I do not agree.
That is just modern Christian mythology, not based on any evidence - its just a nice pithy quote that has been repeated so many times that some people actually believe it.He COULD also have been:
* a minor Gallilean teacher
* the Teacher of Righteousness of the DSS
* a myth
* a spiritual being of some sortMartyrs

quote:

---

However, we know from extra-biblical sources that all of the 12 diciples[sic] except John died extremely painful deaths for their beliefs.

---

No we don't.
There is NO hard evidence for any early Christian being martyred for their beliefs - this myth dates no earlier than the (probably forged) writings of Ignatius in the early-mid 2nd century.If YOU claim there is early extra-biblical evidence that ANY of the disciples were martyred (let alone ALL of them except John) - please produce it.In fact there is little evidence that the 12 disciples even existed at all - most of them were toally unknown to any Christian writer until the Gospel myths arose in the early-mid 2nd century. The 12 disciples are most likely types of the Zodiac.

quote:

---

saqq: Many had to watch their families killed before them first. Yet, none of them took back their testimonies or changed their convictions.

---

No they didn't.
There is no real evidence for any of that - merely later Christian legends.Furthermore,
there are MANY people who choose to die for their beliefs :* the Heaven's gate cult died for their beliefs - do you therfore believe their wacky views?* suicide bombers die every day (horrible, fiery deaths) for their beliefs - do you therefore agree with their violent beliefs?Modern Christian beliefs arose in 2nd centuryIn fact, the vast majority of Christian belief is NOT supported by any early Christian evidence - some interesting examples :No early Christian writer EVEN ONCE MENTIONS the following -* Joseph and Mary, Bethlehem or Nazareth
* the birth stories
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* Pilate, Herod, Lazarus, Nicodemus
* miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the temple
* the trumphal entry
* the passion of Jesus
* the Sermon on the Mount
* the transfiguration
* the trial of Jesus
* the twelve disciples
* Calvary, 2 thieves
* the empty tomb !!
* etc...
until early-mid 2nd century when the Gospel myths arise.You can see an overview of this astonishing fact here :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipThe most amazing part of this is Paul - he wrote about 1/4 of the NT but mentions NOTHING about the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth - merely some vague spiritual (somewhat Gnostic even) references to resurrection, rising, and crucifixion - which seem to have occurred in the higher dimensions.Paul even goes to Jerusalem and makes NO mention that the cruficixion and major Gospel events allegedly happened there! He explicitly considers himself just as much an apostle as e.g. James and he emphasises that he got his knowledge about Jesus from NO MAN.The clearest explanation is that Paul and the early Christians believed in Iesous Christos as some sort of spiritual being - at best.In fact, some Christians even describe a Christianity WITHOUT a Jesus Christ -Minucius Felix wrote "Octavius" in mid 2nd century (probably) and explicitly denies that Christians believe in a crucifixion or the incarnation.

quote:

---

Minucius Felix : "he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

---

His words are very obtuse (which is probably why this "smoking gun" survived the Christian censors), but he argues that the crucifixion and the incarnation are NOT Christian views at all. And he is not just disagreeing that Christ was a criminal - its clear from the context that he is totally dismissing the whole idea of a crucifixion along with other horrible accusations against Christianity.Athenagoras of Athens wrote a detailed esoteric Christian treatise "On The Resurrection Of The Dead" arguing that resurrection is possible (in a non-fleshly body), but without once mentioning the resurrection of Jesus, or even using the words Jesus or Christ !
He also composed "In Defense of the Christians" - no Jesus nor Christ is mentioned even ONCE, but the Logos is directly equated with the Son of God.Gospels unknown until mid 2nd centuryEarly Christianity was a mixed bag of various groups and people and beliefs, but the Gospels only finally arose in early-mid 2nd century, but were still fluid till mid-late 2nd century :* Papias (c.130?) makes vague references to Gospels not yet quite like ours
* Aristides c.125 refers to the "Gospels, a short time preached"
* Marcion c.142 published the first UN-NAMED Gospel
* Justin c.150 quotes Gospel-like material (NOT yet named, merely called the "memoirs of the Apostles")
* Tatian (POSSIBLY) c.172 wrote the diaTessaron (harmony of FOUR) - numbering the Gospels before they were named.
* Finally Irenaeus c.185 is the VERY FIRST to quote and name our FOUR modern Gospels.A detailed Chronology can be found here :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipThe evidence of the early years of Christianity best supports the view that the Gospel stories of Jesus were only grafted onto Christian beliefs in mid 2nd century.In short -
Jesus Christ was a Myth.Iasion[This message has been edited by Iasion, 05-22-2003]

Greetings drummmachine et al,

quote:

---

drummmachine: Jesus Christ is the King of the Jews.

---

Pardon?
The ancient Jews did NOT consider Jesus their King.
Modern Jews do NOT think Jesus was their King.
Why do you claim he was?

quote:

---

All the disciples and writers of the New Testament were Jews except Luke.

---

The author of G.Mark was probably NOT a Jew -* he makes mistakes about regional geography
* he makes mistakes about Jewish customs
* he includes LatinismsG.Mark was probably written in Rome by a Roman who had never even been to Jerusalem.
The other Gospels copied from G.Mark, showing they also had no first-hand information.Further evidence that Jesus was a myth, added late to Christianity.Iasion

Hi Iasion,Hope you are well,Could you expand on what you mean by 'myth' in the sentence 'Further evidence that Jesus was a myth, added late to Christianity'.I agree with the statement at face value, but people sometimes have a different idea of what the word 'myth' means, so I wouldn't like to presume that what I think of as being a 'myth' is the same as anyone elses.If you could just give me your definition of 'myth' then I am sure we can have a good discussion on how the importance of Jesus has been blown out of all proportion.Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 05-25-2003]

Greetings Brian,Thanks for your reply.Here, I meant Mythical Jesus in specific distinction to a Historical Jesus - the JM-ers and the HJ-ers being the poles of the current debate. This is the rather loose informal sense of "myth" : not literally true.Specifically, I argue that there was no historical person Jesus as Nazareth, and that the original Christians had no idea of a physical person Jesus of Nazareth.However, its true that "myth" has a more subtle meaning - a story which carries truth, not literally, but allegorically or in some deeper way (my own crude definition).I think Jesus fits this category as well, perhaps explaining his popularity.I think Christianity crystalized with Paul (out of the matrix of the milieu - neo-Platonism, the mysteries, early Kabalah, the Hermetica) who tried to explain some deep spiritual concept with his "Iesous Christos".Paul was perhaps somewhat like a Blavatsky or Gurdjieff or Robert Monroe - a spiritual seeker of the day. Paul said he had an out-of-body experience and made it to the third heaven to hear unspeakable spiritual secrets. This seems to have struck a chord with seekers of the day - e.g. the Gnostics revered Paul as their founder (as well as the later anti-Gnostic orthodox Christians).In Paul's day, the neo-Platonic world-view seems to have captured the imagination of spiritual seekers - from back in Cicero's Dream of Scipio, through to Plutarch's Vision of Aradeus, the concept of multiple layers of existence can be seen.Also, there seem to be multiple BODIES, or components to human beings that are non-physical - the "pneuma" or "soma pneumatikon" or "augoeides" or "astroeides" (how can I do Greek here?, {font doesn't seem to work). Proclus and Porphyry have much to say about this - I think Paul was a pioneer of the same school.So, I think Paul's Iesous Christos is a Myth of the very highest sort, and meant something perhaps like this :* the CROSS is our BODY
* Iesous Christos is our SOUL
* crucifixion is our LIFE down on the PHYSICAL plane
* when we die - its not the end, we go back HOME to heavenLater, the Gospel stories arise, and Christians come to see Jesus of Nazareth as a real person .. and the rest is history, as they say Iasion

I'm not too clear on anything that has to do with the bible.I'm an evolutionist,so I was wondereing if we actually have Christ's skeleton and could actually say "Yep that's Jesus."???Because if we don't I don't think he even existed.But I'm terribly uninformed about this issue.

quote:

---

Ancient Jews did not trace descent thrugh the mother - this is a modern idea - the human egg was only discovered in the 19th century.

---

Irrelevant. "It is a wise man who knows his father", as they say, although few are in doubt as to the identity of their mother.Lost of societies followed descent through the female line. Lots more also CHANGED to descent through the male line, IMO. This is visible in the rather confused narratives about legitmiate descent in many cultural mythologies.It is, however, not necessary to scientifically identify the egg in order to construct matrilinear descent. After all, the English claim to the French throne through the hundred years war was premised on matrilineal descent and in opposition to the Salic Law that had explicitly removed the legitimacy of matrilineal inheritence.

Interesting discussion. Iasion, unfortunately your link to the table did not work, could you check it as I appreciate seeing it. Thanks.I personally lean toward a historical but non-magical Jesus. I think he was a military leader at the head of a would-be rebellion; that Jesus was, in modern parlance, a terrorist.

Hi All,My personal beliefs are that there probably was an historical Jesus, more on the lines of Joshua ben Pantera. A teacher and rebel of the Essene Movements, and the stories got built up around facts of his life.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Originally posted by contracyle:

quote:

---

I think he was a military leader at the head of a would-be rebellion ...

---

My thoughts exactly. You might find this useful -
http://www.sun-day-school.us/oddtheology0103.htmdb

Greetings contracycle,Thanks for your reply :-)

quote:

---

Lost[sic] of societies followed descent through the female line.

---

Perhaps they did - what ancient examples can you cite?My point was that the ancient Jews did NOT trace descent through the mother (but I could be wrong).Are you arguing that they did?
If so, what evidence can you adduce?Iasion

Greetings again,

quote:

---

unfortunately your link to the table did not work, could you check it as I appreciate seeing it.

---

Hmmm? .. the link worked when I just tested it...Here is the entry page:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipFrom there, enter the main page and click on
"An updated visual TABLE..."which should take you to the page here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voipThis page shows that the Gospel stories of Jesus of Nazareth were totally unknown to the early Christians.Iasion

quote:

---

My point was that the ancient Jews did NOT trace descent through the mother (but I could be wrong).

---

You are wrong, kinda. Whether one is born a Jew or not depends upon whether the mother is a Jew. So 'Jew-ness' is passed along the female line. Everything else is figured along male lines-- property, ancestry, etc...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

What is your evidence for such a matrilineal tradition before Ezra? So, for example, one site writes:

quote:

---

Who is a Jew?

• Maternal (Jewishness passes from mother to child). This is the view prevalent among modern-day orthodox religious Jews of most varieties. Most allow for the possibility of conversion, but such instances are relatively rare, and the conversion is not always recognized by other religious sects or by the secular majority. Many historians think that this law started with Ezra in order to reduce the number of Jewish men (returnees from Babylon, the vast majority of whom were men) marrying Samaritan women. Prior to that, Jewish transmission was tribal and paternal. Some feel the practice was continued during the Diaspora in order to ensure that the blood line was not broken, as one could always be certain of a baby's mother, but not its father. In both cases, blood was the central consideration, not faith.

- see Who is a Jew

---

I also find it interesting that the Karaites apparently reject this tradition.Finally, I found the following of worth:

quote:

---

Those interested in legal cultures and in the interaction between Roman law and local customs will find the discussion of the emergence of the so-called matrilineal principle fascinating. Clearly, and in spite of numerous strictures, marriage across the boundaries of faith did take place. What, then, was the status of the offspring? Here it is useful to remember that 'mixed' marriage in the ancient world was a varied and intricate concept. Like the Romans, the Jews had their own categories of acceptable and unacceptable spouses (Sivan, 'Why not marry a barbarian? In Mathisen and Eadem, Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, 1996). Disqualified partners became parents who engendered children with problematic status. Cohen detects the influence of Roman law on the formation of the matrilineal principle that made mothers, rather than fathers, the bearers of legitimate Jews. Yet, in Roman law a valid marriage between free born and equal citizens bequeathed the paternal rather than the maternal status to the children. I am certainly in agreement about the influence of Roman law on rabbinic legal culture and on the importance of examining the relations between Jewish and Roman law (Sivan, 'Revealing the Concealed: Roman and Rabbinic Opinions on the Crime of Adultery in Late Antiquity', ZSS.RA). But the adoption of the matrilineal principle may owe its naissance to rabbinic archaism or even antiquarianism rather than to classical Roman law.

​

- see Review of Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Hellenistic Culture and Society 31

---

In either event, perhaps 'you are wrong, kinda'.