The Three Wise Men were Taoist!

[fiveelementtao]

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/wise-men-ancient-text-differs-bible-tale-magi/story?id=12460820

 

The most interesting part (to me) describes Christ as one of many avatars more like another avatar of Vishnu...instead of the ONLY avatar.

[electric gravity]

edit- i cant believe i took the bait- i know no-thing just move past me.

Edited December 25, 2010 by electric gravity

[Marblehead]

Yes, I became aware of that suggestion not too long ago.

 

It did inspire a few neat thoughts but I never became interested enough to do any research.

[Prince...]

It's an interesting article, but that text is likely bullshit. It is roughly 1700 years old, meaning that particular manuscript was written in 300 C.E. in Syriac, not Aramaic.

 

What it says to me is that some followers of Matthew's gospel likely encountered a community to the north of Judea along the Silk Roads/"Spice Route" who were likely to hear about all sorts of things from travelers. For whatever reason the community was compelled to become Christian, but they kept remnants of other traditions.

 

When you start hearing about different traditions mixed, you have to start asking questions. First of all, Matthew is "The Church's" Gospel, so when you have a narrative text that is spun in a different light, you really have to wonder how it came to be.

 

There are all sorts of tales spun off from characters in the Bible. At that time that type of fiction was really popular. Unfortunately people find it now and consider it to be some lost source that was meant to be hidden from the masses by the evil Catholic church.

[Aaron]

It's an interesting article, but that text is likely bullshit. It is roughly 1700 years old, meaning that particular manuscript was written in 300 C.E. in Syriac, not Aramaic.

 

What it says to me is that some followers of Matthew's gospel likely encountered a community to the north of Judea along the Silk Roads/"Spice Route" who were likely to hear about all sorts of things from travelers. For whatever reason the community was compelled to become Christian, but they kept remnants of other traditions.

 

When you start hearing about different traditions mixed, you have to start asking questions. First of all, Matthew is "The Church's" Gospel, so when you have a narrative text that is spun in a different light, you really have to wonder how it came to be.

 

There are all sorts of tales spun off from characters in the Bible. At that time that type of fiction was really popular. Unfortunately people find it now and consider it to be some lost source that was meant to be hidden from the masses by the evil Catholic church.

 

 

When one looks at these ancient texts one should also keep in mind that the Catholic Church essentially destroyed all texts that they believed were not "inspired from God". This could've very likely have been an agreed upon text, but one that was suppressed and eventually destroyed for the good of the church. There are numerous books from the first few centuries that were popular, but deviated from the approved theology of the Council of Nicea, and that ended up suffering the same fate. In fact it wasn't until recently that people have started questioning the role Judas played in Christ's death.

 

Of course, like Buddha, none of this can really be corroborated as fact, it's merely here say. Yes there was a man named Jesus, yes there was a man named Buddha, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing we know about either man can be deemed as fact. If you like what you hear, then listen, but I always recommend taking it all with a grain of salt.

 

Aaron

Edited December 25, 2010 by Twinner

[fiveelementtao]

It's an interesting article, but that text is likely bullshit. It is roughly 1700 years old, meaning that particular manuscript was written in 300 C.E. in Syriac, not Aramaic.

The text they have is from 300 a.d. but there is no way to determine when the first copy was written.

When I was in seminary I spent alot of time in what is called textual criticism. What I learned is that the entire new testament is completely unprovable from a textual standpoint. Christian "scholars" spend huge amounts of time and energy hopscotching over facts in order to prove their own religious beliefs and disprove those that don't fit into their religious agenda. Need we have a discussion about the council of nicaea and the selection process for books of the bible? hundreds of gospels existed at the time of the canonization process. But only those that fit within the empirical sect of christianity were ultimately accepted. IT had nothing to do with any kind of scientific validity. In any case there is no more proof for the validity of the four gospels than for this. In terms of the science of textual criticism, This text is as legitimate as any other christian text.

[electric gravity]

edit

Edited December 25, 2010 by electric gravity

[Sloppy Zhang]

When I was in seminary I spent alot of time in what is called textual criticism. What I learned is that the entire new testament is completely unprovable from a textual standpoint. Christian "scholars" spend huge amounts of time and energy hopscotching over facts in order to prove their own religious beliefs and disprove those that don't fit into their religious agenda. Need we have a discussion about the council of nicaea and the selection process for books of the bible? hundreds of gospels existed at the time of the canonization process. But only those that fit within the empirical sect of christianity were ultimately accepted. IT had nothing to do with any kind of scientific validity. In any case there is no more proof for the validity of the four gospels than for this. In terms of the science of textual criticism, This text is as legitimate as any other christian text.

 

Pretty much.

 

And texts that spout universality of religion, spiritual experiences, and revelations of a deity don't mesh very well with any plan to create a religion in which everyone must either bow before you or be killed because that's what your divinely inspired texts say.

 

[fiveelementtao]

In the spirit of the season. I think we can all agree on at least the core message of Jesus which was "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

Merry Christmas!

[Vajrahridaya]

Of course, like Buddha, none of this can really be corroborated as fact, it's merely here say. Yes there was a man named Jesus, yes there was a man named Buddha, but in the grand scheme of things, nothing we know about either man can be deemed as fact. If you like what you hear, then listen, but I always recommend taking it all with a grain of salt.

 

Aaron

 

Same with Lau Tzu or any other ancient character.

 

The thing about the Buddha though, is there is attributed to him teachings and practices that lead to the direct realization of what is attributed to him.

 

So, you can actually experience first hand the validity of the words attributed to him, making them in fact your words... in your own way, but with the same gist, fire and inspiration.

 

He's the only one of the ancient "fire starters" that is attributed with 40 years of deep and clear teachings, on wisdom and methods to realizing directly the nature of his wisdom and methods. Not just parables or platitudes, poetry or repeatable sayings, but actual methods for deep and direct realization. 40 years worth from this one man! The Pali Cannon is huge! Also the earliest Mahayana texts are attributed to the same time as when the Pali Cannon was recorded, so... we have that to go on as well. It's actually quite epic, if one takes the time to step out of ones projections and take up the time to read them.

 

This is what gives the Buddha more credence in my book.

 

But... to each their own as their own self (inter-subjectively influenced self) created process dictates.

 

Peace!

Edited December 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

In the spirit of the season. I think we can all agree on at least the core message of Jesus which was "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

Merry Christmas!

 

I do agree! Gotta love what is attributed to that man! I have a preference for the Nag Hammadi Library myself, though it's not big on method (meditation/mantra/mudra/yoga/visualization), it's big on lots of cool sayings and intricate philosophies that can lead to a level of contemplation that is comparable to more in depth traditions of the East.

[Trickster_Crow]

Take into consideration the source...which is abc news(I'm not trying to knock this thread...I'm just saying look a little more into this before making such a claim)...propaganda is not something you should trust completely. Nor any single source for that matter because they can fill you full of shit and you wouldn't know the difference.

Don't just believe anything you are told. However it has been hypothesized before by various sources that JESUS was in fact a taoist.

[Marblehead]

In the spirit of the season. I think we can all agree on at least the core message of Jesus which was "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

Merry Christmas!

 

And I will point out that Chuang Tzu said the very same thing (over 300 years earlier).

[Prince...]

When I was in seminary I spent alot of time in what is called textual criticism. What I learned is that the entire new testament is completely unprovable from a textual standpoint. Christian "scholars" spend huge amounts of time and energy hopscotching over facts in order to prove their own religious beliefs and disprove those that don't fit into their religious agenda. Need we have a discussion about the council of nicaea and the selection process for books of the bible? hundreds of gospels existed at the time of the canonization process. But only those that fit within the empirical sect of christianity were ultimately accepted. IT had nothing to do with any kind of scientific validity. In any case there is no more proof for the validity of the four gospels than for this. In terms of the science of textual criticism, This text is as legitimate as any other christian text.

 

You can have a discussion on the Council of Nicea if you want, but when I was in Seminary, we read writings that showed most of the books in the Christian canon had already been accepted by most Christian communities. Were there other popular books in circulation? Sure there were. Even the author of some of the Pauline epistles cite books that were not preserved.

 

My point is this particular manuscript is about a narrative that is only found in Matthew. So part of that textual criticism involves asking what was the writer of Matthew's source since "The Three Wise Men" does not appear in any of the other Synoptic Gospels.

 

Does this agree with the Matthew narrative? If that's the case, why does Matthew have differences? If the original "Matthew" text contained a narrative that was more close to this one, when was it redacted? Since Matthew was in circulation a long time before 300 C.E. the only conclusion I can draw based on the evidence is that this manuscript was probably written after as creative "inspired" fiction.

 

There are numerous books from the first few centuries that were popular, but deviated from the approved theology of the Council of Nicea, and that ended up suffering the same fate.

The Council of Nicea was not so much about "establishing" an approved theology-- it was really in response to the Arian controversy. The creation of the New Testament Canon and the Nicean creed were all a response to the controversy created by Arius.

 

Everything I see about books being destroyed/concealed/banned seems to forget that the Bible was #1 on the list of banned books. Not everyone in the church is/was evil or had bad intentions. It was to prevent these crazy ass controversies and jacked up interpretations from spreading. The Catholic church no longer does that job and look at how splintered the Christian movement has become. If I don't like the church that I've been attending, I can say,"I went to Seminary, I know the Bible, I don't agree...I'm starting my own church." When someone doesn't like what I teach, they do the same. Someone from that congregation does the same.

 

If you take a tree and keep cutting away from the trunk, eventually all you have left is dust.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there were not Christianities that continue to exist even to this day. With that in mind, I still can't see any of those communities accepting this particular manuscript.

[manitou]

Don't just believe anything you are told. However it has been hypothesized before by various sources that JESUS was in fact a taoist.

 

A taoist, absolutely (if we are to believe the Bible's scenario: let's just say it happened as they say). He took one day at a time, he allowed all the events of his last days to happen without interference! He was in a state of wu-wei when he refused to testify on his own behalf at the trial, when he was just letting things happen. He could see that there would be a betrayal, and yet he let it happen. He knew the disciples would deny him when the cock crowed, but he let that play out. Probably several nights before, (wasn't he in the garden of gethesemene?) he was probably struggling with himself because he could see how this was going to play out. Like, "Father, are you sure about this??"

 

I also have a picture of Jesus on my nightstand with a beaded shamanic feather hanging off the frame, and yet I don't identify as a Christian in any respect. It's not a traditional picture, it's all together different. He looks more like every man. I see him as a shaman. If we are to believe other mentions in the bible about the physical laws he was able to transcend or modify, he had certainly gotten to the place of inner peace or nothingness, this guy was the QiGong master of all times. It's my understanding that his parents were of the Essene branch of Judaism - weren't they the shamanic component of Judaism? If he was brought up in this shamanic tradition, it would explain why the elders of the temple were astounded by his words when he was only 12 years old. He no doubt understood earth magic at this young age, having been exposed to it by the Essenes.

 

I guess this is how I've merged my own background with my present. It seems to work for me. As much as I'd totally love to be able to disregard totally the old Jesus Loves Me This I Know mindset from Sunday school, that damn thing is pretty deeply imprinted in there, after being marched to the Lutheran Church each week during my young formative life. But it merely entails climbing out of the box, not necessarily discarding the box, as the box had many nice things to see.....

 

Bums, on this Christmas day I'd like to say one more time that I'm so glad you're all here. My life would be not as pleasant or fulfilling without you.

[fiveelementtao]

My point is this particular manuscript is about a narrative that is only found in Matthew.

Does this agree with the Matthew narrative? If that's the case, why does Matthew have differences? If the original "Matthew" text contained a narrative that was more close to this one, when was it redacted? Since Matthew was in circulation a long time before 300 C.E. the only conclusion I can draw based on the evidence is that this manuscript was probably written after as creative "inspired" fiction.

 

 

The Council of Nicea was not so much about "establishing" an approved theology-- it was really in response to the Arian controversy. The creation of the New Testament Canon and the Nicean creed were all a response to the controversy created by Arius.

 

Everything I see about books being destroyed/concealed/banned seems to forget that the Bible was #1 on the list of banned books. Not everyone in the church is/was evil or had bad intentions. It was to prevent these crazy ass controversies and jacked up interpretations from spreading. The Catholic church no longer does that job and look at how splintered the Christian movement has become. If I don't like the church that I've been attending, I can say,"I went to Seminary, I know the Bible, I don't agree...I'm starting my own church." When someone doesn't like what I teach, they do the same. Someone from that congregation does the same.

 

If you take a tree and keep cutting away from the trunk, eventually all you have left is dust.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there were not Christianities that continue to exist even to this day. With that in mind, I still can't see any of those communities accepting this particular manuscript.

 

This discussion really is better served in another thread. First, before launching into a debate involving textual criticism, it is important to remember that textual criticism is a "science" invented by imperial christians to lend credibility to it's own version of the bible. Since, the imperial bible was already established before textual criticism was even invented, it is not reliable either since it is already biased in favor of itself.

It is True the Council of Nicaea was not convened to establish the canon. It was established to decide what was going to be considered the "catholic" version of christianity to be officially sponsored by the roman state. so the state sponsored sect led by Eusebius could then wipe out any "unauthorized" sect it did not like, including the arian and gnostic versions. After Constantine lent his stamp of approval on Eusebius and the resulting "verdict" of the state sponsored council, state sponsored imperial christianity launched a major attack upon gnostic, arian and any other sect of christianity which differed from the now imperial catholic version. It is well established that any bishops who disagreed with eusebius had to recant and accpet the catholic version or suffer expulsion. There was no honest debate about anything. Eventually after a couple more emperors, all those involved in other "heretical" sects could be executed for having banned texts.

Everything I see about books being destroyed/concealed/banned seems to forget that the Bible was #1 on the list of banned books.

That is misleading and not relevant to this discussion. Trying to play the victim game in order to hide the victimization of imperial christianity is a typical diverting argument... The christian texts were not in any danger after constantine converted to christianity. When any of the christian texts were in danger ( because there was no bible yet.) would have been before constantine. We are talking about something after constantine.

My point is this particular manuscript is about a narrative that is only found in Matthew.

Once again you are operating from an assumption that says that Matthew is somehow more "valid" than any other christian text. This is again a self referential proof. NONE of the christian texts, including matthew can be proven any more valid than any other. The only proof of it's validity come from Catholic church fathers who were themselves biased and recommended that those who carried unapproved gospels be put to death. I listened to these argument for years. Christianity has made decsions based on the testimony of these same christian church fathers who were the head of the imperial roman "good ole boy club" that decided for itself what version of christian history they liked best. The bottom line is that christianity in all its modern versions are what was left over after a group of men who gained sponsorship of a religion took complete control of said religion.

[Sunya]

Didn't know we had all these seminary boys in town! What do you guys think about the missing years during Jesus's life? Do you think he could've gone over to India?

 

Well maybe I should first ask do you think that Jesus as a person actually existed? If none of the texts can be verified and they are the only proof of his life, then his very existence could be doubted, right? If that's the case, then perhaps by logical necessity he had to have existed because how could such a movement begin without a real figure?

[fiveelementtao]

Didn't know we had all these seminary boys in town! What do you guys think about the missing years during Jesus's life? Do you think he could've gone over to India?

 

Well maybe I should first ask do you think that Jesus as a person actually existed? If none of the texts can be verified and they are the only proof of his life, then his very existence could be doubted, right? If that's the case, then perhaps by logical necessity he had to have existed because how could such a movement begin without a real figure?

 

It is equally possible (IMO) that he could have been a real person or fictional. The problem is that the Jesus story (virgin birth, son of God, Miracles etc..) is almost verbatim identical to numerous other messiahs that were being worshiped in the roman empire during the same period. There is little hard evidence of the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels which were ALL written long after Jesus was dead (or resurrected, depending on one's beliefs). There is no evidence for the editorial accounts of Jesus' life outside of the gospels. So, there is no way to verify any of the editorial details of his life. The argument that the Gospel of Matthew was the most likely candidate because the Church vouched for it is flawed in a couple of ways: It was written long after his death and there is just as much evidence that all of the details were either made up, exaggerated or combined with existing mythology surrounding other messiahs being worshiped at the same time. Not to mention that Rome had a political and military agenda that was best suited to the literal fundementalist version of the gospels. After Rome made Christianity the state religion, it tried to cover up all the other similar messiah religions.

 

For me personally, I have no problem with the idea that an avatar was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected. I certainly have no problems whatsoever about his core teachings of forgiveness, Kindgom of God is within you, We all have direct access to the divine and that we are also children of God. My problem is the stuff about eternal damnation, original sin etc...

One thing that many of the christian gospels that were not included in the bible hold in common is the idea that they do not preach original sin, eternal damnation, or exclusivity of belief. This is why I see the whole modern christian religion as being a construction of men. Before Constantine, the gnostics were set up to become the sect of the mainstream population and gnostic christianity was very similar to eastern mystical ideas. IMO, had Constantine not become emperor and legally sanctioned Eusebius' literal fundamentalist version of christianity, gnostic christianity would most likely become the orthodox christian sect... (Assuming it survived at all). Most likely, (IMO) gnosticism would have been absorbed into existing pagan beliefs just as buddhism in India was absorbed into hindu polytheism and now in India Buddha is seen as one of the ten avatars of Vishnu... I myself view Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu...

 

In terms of Jesus going to India. It is as possible as anything else. He certainly preached things similar to the buddha. Many early christian mudras seen in medieval paintings are identical to Yogic meditative mudras. It is possible he learned meditative techniques in India and taught them to his disciples... But in actuality anything is as plausible as anything else..

Edited December 26, 2010 by fiveelementtao

[Sunya]

Thanks! very interesting

[h.uriahr]

It is equally possible (IMO) that he could have been a real person or fictional. The problem is that the Jesus story (virgin birth, son of God, Miracles etc..) is almost verbatim identical to numerous other messiahs that were being worshiped in the roman empire during the same period. There is little hard evidence of the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels which were ALL written long after Jesus was dead (or resurrected, depending on one's beliefs). There is no evidence for the editorial accounts of Jesus' life outside of the gospels. So, there is no way to verify any of the editorial details of his life. The argument that the Gospel of Matthew was the most likely candidate because the Church vouched for it is flawed in a couple of ways: It was written long after his death and there is just as much evidence that all of the details were either made up, exaggerated or combined with existing mythology surrounding other messiahs being worshiped at the same time. Not to mention that Rome had a political and military agenda that was best suited to the literal fundementalist version of the gospels. After Rome made Christianity the state religion, it tried to cover up all the other similar messiah religions.

 

For me personally, I have no problem with the idea that an avatar was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected. I certainly have no problems whatsoever about his core teachings of forgiveness, Kindgom of God is within you, We all have direct access to the divine and that we are also children of God. My problem is the stuff about eternal damnation, original sin etc...

One thing that many of the christian gospels that were not included in the bible hold in common is the idea that they do not preach original sin, eternal damnation, or exclusivity of belief. This is why I see the whole modern christian religion as being a construction of men. Before Constantine, the gnostics were set up to become the sect of the mainstream population and gnostic christianity was very similar to eastern mystical ideas. IMO, had Constantine not become emperor and legally sanctioned Eusebius' literal fundamentalist version of christianity, gnostic christianity would most likely become the orthodox christian sect... (Assuming it survived at all). Most likely, (IMO) gnosticism would have been absorbed into existing pagan beliefs just as buddhism in India was absorbed into hindu polytheism and now in India Buddha is seen as one of the ten avatars of Vishnu... I myself view Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu...

 

In terms of Jesus going to India. It is as possible as anything else. He certainly preached things similar to the buddha. Many early christian mudras seen in medieval paintings are identical to Yogic meditative mudras. It is possible he learned meditative techniques in India and taught them to his disciples... But in actuality anything is as plausible as anything else..

Edited December 26, 2010 by h.uriahr

[h.uriahr]

The Qu'Ran certainly counts as evidence.

 

I personally believe that the evidence is overwhelming when you add up the number of found texts.

[Prince...]

Do I think Jesus of Nazareth went over to India during the "lost years"? No I do not. The fact is that ALL of Jesus of Nazareth's life is "lost." 3 Gospels say his ministry lasted for 1 year. 1 Gospel makes it appear to have been 3 years. I have known my Taiji teacher for 3 years-- if you asked me to write about his life, I wouldn't be writing very much. Jesus story is not patterned after previous Messiahs-- it is patterned after Moses. The miracles are patterned from Elijah/Elisha.

 

If you want to go there, you'd best connect those prophets to "previous messiahs/avatars."

 

If you want to study the Bible critically, you don't add things that are not written based on your assumptions of what you think happened based on outside material. That will get you an F real fast at my Seminary. When I start adding things, I am very clear to state what I think could have happened. Based on the Jesus presented in the gospels, he was an expert in the Septuagint which would lead me to believe he would have studied with Greek speaking Jewish scholars in Egypt. Of course since all of the Gospels were written in Greek, it really just means that when Jesus of Nazareth quotes "Old Testament" passages, the writer is quoting from the Greek versions.

 

There are differences in passages in the Masoretic(Hebrew) manuscripts and the Septuagint (Greek) versions. At times the word shifts can cause the reader to have a different understanding.

 

Matthew's Gospel is "The Church's Gospel" because it is the only Gospel to mention THE CHURCH (eglesia). No other gospel has the line where Jesus of Nazareth says to Peter "On this rock I will build my church." There is only the exchange between Jesus and Peter where Peter says that Jesus is the Messiah in the other gospels.

 

All of this blabbity blah about the Roman Empire and the Church-- that's one side of the story. How about I persecute your ass for centuries? When the people persecuting you decide to fund your movement, and freely allow you to assemble, you will take whatever you can get. The truth is no heresy dies out completely. The Arian Christians went north and converted the Germanic tribes who later "sacked" Rome. The Nestorians became the Syriac Christians/Church of the East who spread Christianity all the way to China by the 9th century. Even Karen Armstrong writes that after Nicea, most bishops went back to their respective regions and continued to teach what they taught before the council met.

 

This is what happened to all this lost/banned/hidden material-- MOHAMMED (pbuh). Christian learning centers in Africa? The Arabian Christians? The Western Roman Empire? Christianity in the Iberian Peninsula? Dhar-al-Islam.

 

I don't care who agrees or disagrees with any point I make. There is a reason my professors were/are pushing me to get a Ph.D in this field. Whether I agree or disagree, I tell the whole story.

 

(I really hate writing posts this long)

[fiveelementtao]

@ Prince...You came on this thread calling other scriptures "bullshit." And I merely pointed out that I believe your reasons are not objective. And now you are trying to defend the Church. That is not the point. My point is that your argument that the syriac texts are bullshit is coming from biased self-referential viewpoint that is already skewed against anything contrary to accepted church dogma. I'm not trying to prove the syriac texts. I was only pointing out your lack of objectivity in your criticism.

All of this blabbity blah about the Roman Empire and the Church-- that's one side of the story. How about I persecute your ass for centuries?

Why do you want to persecute anyone? I don't understand the point here. The romans persecuted the aryans and gnostics too. or are you saying that any abuses done by the Roman Church are somehow OK, because they were persecuted before constantine? Forgive me, but that is a child's argument... "They did it first."... Jesus taught forgiveness and turning the other cheek, not revenge or religious persecution. If you're saying that centuries of persecution made them fearful, or angry and therefore it is only understandable that they kill and perscute others, then they didn't learn Christ's lessons and are not worthy to interpret his teachings and create any dogma since they can't seem to follow the most basic of his teachings... In any case, it does not take away from the fact that the Roman church became a state sponsored religion backed by the power, wealth and military might of the Roman Empire. To overlook this fact is to overlook a major factor in their motivations for "accepted church dogma."

If you want to study the Bible critically, you don't add things that are not written based on your assumptions of what you think happened based on outside material.

With respect, I disagree. This is why it should not be called "textual critcism". You can't use the bible to prove the bible. That is self-referential and biased. That is not Critical thinking. the definition of critical thinking is: "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do based on objective criteria"

If you want to study church theology from the bible, then, stick with the church fathers and the approved texts. I have no issue with this if one knowingly wants to study the church's dogma and theology. But it cannot be used from a purely critical standpoint. If one wants to study the bible critically, then that means you MUST be willing to view it objectively. That cannot be done from a self-referential perspective.

Jesus story is not patterned after previous Messiahs-- it is patterned after Moses. The miracles are patterned from Elijah/Elisha.

With all respect, my friend. Yes, the Jesus story has many, many similarities with other messiahs that were worshipped in the Roman Empire. This is simply historical fact. Jesus may be based on Moses according to church dogma, but there are many jewish scholars who would diagree with that interpretation. the Mithra story parallels the Matthew version of events in many ways. http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

There were other preachers in the Roman world before Jesus that are attributed with similar miracles and messages. It's in the history. It is fact. This does not necessarily detract from Jesus. As I said, I have no problem with the Jesus story. But it is a historical fact that his story and message is almost identical to many others that preceded him.

I have no need to dissuade you from your faith. But, I do take issue with the knee-jerk orthodox christian tendency to monopolize the spiritual arena especially in light of historical facts. As I have said on this forum numerous times before. It is not an "either/or" scenario. Jesus can be a legitimate object of faith and worship AND the christian church can still be a very flawed human institution. Other religions seem to understand the value and holographic nature of myth. IMO, the christian church shot itself in the foot when it diverted from the power of myth and tried to squish holographic spiritual truths into linear black and white, literal historical fact and then proceeded to kill and torture those who disagreed with them.

Edited December 26, 2010 by fiveelementtao

[fiveelementtao]

Jesus and Mithra

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

With respect, I disagree. This is why it should not be called "textual critcism". You can't use the bible to prove the bible. That is self-referential and biased. That is not Critical thinking. the definition of critical thinking is: "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do based on objective criteria"

If you want to study church theology from the bible, then, stick with the church fathers and the approved texts. I have no issue with this if one knowingly wants to study the church's dogma and theology. But it cannot be used from a purely critical standpoint. If one wants to study the bible critically, then that means you MUST be willing to view it objectively. That cannot be done from a self-referential perspective.

 

I just wanted to point out that I think this is a very important point.

 

I am not an expert, but I've taken my share of comparative literature, and literature criticism courses, and done fairly well. And one important part of research is looking at the surrounding history of a text, comparing other texts that came before its time, or around the same time, which authors of the text in question may have read, been familiar with, heard of, studied, etc etc.

 

Outside material gives you perspective that a contemporary reader might have had, but which you, dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years later, do not. And seeing as how various books might not always present historical facts as a historical fact, or contain various slants, outside material gives you a broader historical/ideological look at the circumstances going on in the book, and gives you tools to analyze the work you're looking at.

 

Basically, outside material has been very, VERY important in every course I've taken. But I'm no professional.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Sloppy Zhang