Could Abraham be from the Vedas?

[Ishtar]

Oh, Arch wouldn't like you!

There you go again, Min, tickling my fancy about ol' Arch. I really think you should bring him back on as I could do with a challenge here!

[Ishtar]

If he ever existed!

Or Krishna etc etc etc!

Sure - although actually if you look at the record, there was a small local king called Krishna, but I doubt that he was blue and would wrestle with dragons!

So my view on that it is a metaphorical teaching story that had as its hero a real character. I think the storytellers would often do that - use real backdrops and characters to set their stories against.

[Minimalist]

Oh, Arch wouldn't like you!

There you go again, Min, tickling my fancy about ol' Arch. I really think you should bring him back on as I could do with a challenge here!

You can visit here

http://www.koreabridge.com/forums/index ... topic=5017


for a sampling. He manages to piss off other christians. In fact, he was banned from a Christian Forum for telling the others that they were going to hell because they didn't believe exactly what Arch says. Apparently, they take that stuff seriously.

Anyway, it seems far better to give you a link to go check him out than it does to bring him back here. For one thing, Michelle would kill both of us!

[Minimalist]

If he ever existed!

Or Krishna etc etc etc!

Sure - although actually if you look at the record, there was a small local king called Krishna, but I doubt that he was blue and would wrestle with dragons!

So my view on that it is a metaphorical teaching story that had as its hero a real character. I think the storytellers would often do that - use real backdrops and characters to set their stories against.

Hmm....there were scads of kings named Mithradates (Given by Mithras) and most of the Egyptian pharaohs managed to work in the name of some god or other into their titles. I see no reason why ole Krishna couldn't have usurped a name for himself.

[Digit]

You can visit here

And after admission to the asylum if it allows computer use keep in contact!

[Minimalist]

I won't join that board because it is pre-modded. Posts are not put up until a moderator reviews them.

Too restrictive for my tastes although I do help out some of the boys from Koko's....which is not restricted at all and from which Arch also got banned.

http://captporridge.com/bb/index.php

"Koko" is a little hard to explain.

[Ishtar]

Hmm....there were scads of kings named Mithradates (Given by Mithras) and most of the Egyptian pharaohs managed to work in the name of some god or other into their titles. I see no reason why ole Krishna couldn't have usurped a name for himself.

True!

[kbs2244]

Min:

The Christian form of “Anointing” is Baptism.
That is what John the Baptist did to make Jesus the “Christ” or the “Messiah.” The anointed of God.
(Two different words in two different languages, but the same meaning.)

Until Jesus came to him John was baptizing for his followers to show “repentance from past sins.” But they remained Jews.

After Jesus baptism, the act changed to show a “dedication to a new way of life.” Those baptized after Jesus were showing that they were followers of “the Christ.” or “the Messiah.”

They were, in effect, renouncing the older Judaic religion and taking on a new religion that called Jesus the “Savior” that all the old Hebrew, but pre-Judaic, Prophets had foretold would come.

(If you want to read a great legal, logical, pre Paul, argument in favor of Jesus replacing the Judaic religion, read Stephen’s defense speech before the religious Judaic High Court. He was accused of “Teaching against the Traditions of Moses.“ In effect, he was accused of preaching for a change in the Status Quo. His defense speech is a list of the changes in the Status Quo that the Jew went through in their history. They killed him anyway.)

It is interesting to note that, in his day, Jesus was not the only one to be considered the “Savior.” The book of Daniel gave a pretty good timetable as to when to expect the Saviors appearance. It was well read and a lot of people were looking for this “Savior” because of the political situation in Jerusalem. The time was ripe for all kinds of rabble rousers to call themselves the “Savior” from Roman rule. Those guys took advantage of Daniels prophesy, which pointed to that time, to their own advantage.
Hence, all the revolts against the Romans at that time period.

But years later, when the Greek term “Christian” (follower of the Christ) was coined, somewhere outside Judea, everybody knew it referred to Jesus. In spite of the rather generic base of the word.

BTW, you are correct. That board is way out there.

[Ishtar]

Yeah... I see what you mean about Arch. But why is he posting on a Korean board? Is it the only one that will have him?

I like the Koko board. It has a good feeling about it.

[Minimalist]

Arch lives and works in Korea. He is Canadian by birth.

After he got bounced from here I was minding my own business on a place called Jesusneverexisted.com when Deicide showed up and recruited me to come bash fundies in Korea. As luck would have it, Arch was one of those fundies!

Small world, huh?

Koko's is great fun. They are a strange group.

[Minimalist]

Hence, all the revolts against the Romans at that time period.

One of the things which started me down the road to rejecting all religion was a college Roman History class. The authors of the text, Boak and Sinnigen (I still have the book) discussed the Pax Romana at length and pointed out that during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Judaea was not only prosperous but fairly peaceful. There was a revolt upon the death of Herod but the target were the sons of Herod who broke up the country to rule as tetrarchs. That revolt was suppressed by the legions from Syria under Quinctillius Varus. Ten years later the Judaeans petitioned Augustus for the removal of the Tetrarch Achelaus and to become a praefecture of the Roman Empire. Augustus agreed, Archelaus was booted out on his royal butt, and the Romans appointed a Praefect to govern the country. To be sure when the Romans moved to administer the new praefecture by having the Governor of Syria, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, conduct a census there were some small scale protests/riots but these seem to have been put down by local forces and there is no indication that Quirinius had to campaign in the area. To be sure, Josephus treats this revolt as significant because, he says, from it arose the Zealots who later were to cause the whole country to be destroyed in 70. Nonetheless, at the time Josephus has little to say other than that most of the Jews understood that taxation by the Romans would follow the taxation which had been imposed by the Herodians.

Anyway, Josephus continues his drumbeat of uprisings but most of these seem to have occured in the 25 years preceeding the Great Revolt.

The simple facts seem to be that for the end of Augustus' reign and most of Tiberius' the praefect sat at his headquarters in the delightful seaside town of Caesaria while the Sanhedrin handled Jerusalem with a great deal of internal autonomy. Both Augustus and Tiberius gave the Jews an exemption from worshipping Roman gods. Reading the account in the text, and I consulted ancient sources for confirmation, it became fairly apparent that quite probably the one time in their recent history that the Jews did not need "a deliverer" was in the early part of the first century. They were doing pretty well. At earlier times in their history they had thrived under the Assyrian as well as Persian empires, so this was nothing new.

All of this changed when Caligula came to power but all Christian sources agree that Jesus was already dead by then. . The text made the point that the first, anti-semitic violence took place in Alexandria during the reign of Caligula and started out as a protest by Alexandrian Greeks against what they felt was special treatment being afforded the Jews. Caligula ordered a statue of himself built in the temple, an order which the praefect, a very astute fellow named Petronius, delayed implementing and then the crisis passed when Caligula was assassinated.
Caligula had also appointed Herod Agrippa as king and restored Judaea to Herodian rule. It was all downhill from there, however.

But, like I said, Jesus wasn't alive for any of this. It seemed, even if I couldn't express the words at that time, as if the gospel accounts were an anachronism. They were describing a series of events that had not happened when they claimed they must have.

BTW, John the Baptist is most assuredly mentioned in Josephus' history. The main Jesus "reference" is almost assuredly a later Christian forgery and the secondary reference is somewhat oblique, at best.

Curious, eh?

[/i]

[Forum Monk]

The simple facts seem to be that for the end of Augustus' reign and most of Tiberius' the praefect sat at his headquarters in the delightful seaside town of Caesaria while the Sanhedrin handled Jerusalem with a great deal of internal autonomy. Both Augustus and Tiberius gave the Jews an exemption from worshipping Roman gods. Reading the account in the text, and I consulted ancient sources for confirmation, it became fairly apparent that quite probably the one time in their recent history that the Jews did not need "a deliverer" was in the early part of the first century. They were doing pretty well. At earlier times in their history they had thrived under the Assyrian as well as Persian empires, so this was nothing new.

This seems a bit misleading to me Min. First of all, a cold reading of historical texts can not possibly give one a very good idea about the passions which motivated the jews. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize they were proud and probably felt in many ways superior to others due to their status as the "chosen people". Autonomy was the only option for them and they rebelled under every oppressive regime from the Babylonians, to the Persians, to the Greeks. Certainly their attitudes were not favorable to Roman rule. I think it in correct to say they thrived under Babylonian or Persian rule. They survived in exile with practically no political or religious freedom whatsoever.

The autonomy they may have enjoyed was wiped out upon the death of Herod in 6 bce and they fell under direct roman rule up until 66ce although they may have found some respite under Aggrippa. Its true they had a fair degree of religious freedom (which was the jurisdiction of the Sanhedren) because Rome recognized the unique religious drive in these people and were not inclined to push them into needless revolt against Roman religious requirements. They had no real politcal freedom during this period. This period was marked frequent riots, disturbances, revolts and troubles. Josephus reports them but Josephus never viewed these rebels in a good light. Probably because it was this attitude which ultimately led to the annihalation of his beloved homeland.

I think KB is correct in much of his analysis that a certain expectation of the messiah was brooding in the hearts of the zealots, but in general the concept of the messiah was not fully agreed by all of the various sects and schools of rabbinical thought at that time (nor is it now).

As for the Jospehus reference to Jesus, many universities and professors of religious studies agree with your comments to a degree. It may be that the christians did enhance the text in order to add some kind of importance to Jesus' standing at the time, but most generally agree that Josephus DID mention Jesus, his following, condemnation, the tribe of Christians who came later. But the statements he was the Christ and resurrected and was a fulfilment to prohesy were likely added by a redacter.

[Minimalist]

This seems a bit misleading to me Min. First of all, a cold reading of historical texts can not possibly give one a very good idea about the passions which motivated the jews. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize they were proud and probably felt in many ways superior to others due to their status as the "chosen people". Autonomy was the only option for them and they rebelled under every oppressive regime from the Babylonians, to the Persians, to the Greeks. Certainly their attitudes were not favorable to Roman rule. I think it in correct to say they thrived under Babylonian or Persian rule. They survived in exile with practically no political or religious freedom whatsoever.

A cold reading of historical texts is about all we have but once the Babylonians overran Jerusalem the periods of their autonomy were notoriously short. The Persians did permit a group to return and re-build the temple but it was as a part of the Persian Empire; they were not autonomous. That remained in effect for virtually 200 years until Alexander the Great came rolling through. They switched allegiance as no one was likely to resist with the example of Tyre fresh in everyone's minds. After Alexander's death the region was fought over by the Seleucids and Ptolomies and it was not until 160-ish that the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids finally broke out. There was a brief period of success until the arrival of Pompey the Great, when the city was taken. Repeated dynastic quarrels culminated in a Parthian invasion which was finally defeated by Herod the Great who the Romans had declared 'King' but not actually bothered to assist regaining his throne....Antony and Octavian were busy with more important matters....at the time.

It must have been hard to look back on the prior 500 years of history and convince oneself that they had been "chosen" for much of anything.

The autonomy they may have enjoyed was wiped out upon the death of Herod in 6 bce and they fell under direct roman rule up until 66ce although they may have found some respite under Aggrippa. Its true they had a fair degree of religious freedom (which was the jurisdiction of the Sanhedren) because Rome recognized the unique religious drive in these people and were not inclined to push them into needless revolt against Roman religious requirements. They had no real politcal freedom during this period. This period was marked frequent riots, disturbances, revolts and troubles. Josephus reports them but Josephus never viewed these rebels in a good light. Probably because it was this attitude which ultimately led to the annihalation of his beloved homeland.

Herod the Great had no autonomy. He was the Romans' man and for reasons which you touch on above the Romans seemed content to have Judaea ruled by surrogates. But Herod, who was an Arab, not a Jew, even though he converted, was never popular for a number of reasons. I suspect that Herod was acceptable to the Romans because a) he was willing to play the role they assigned him and b) he had no standing with the people. In any event, the major military problem in the region was Parthia and the Romans seemed to prefer maintaining the army in Syria where it could cover the primary threat. The early praefects, Coponius, Gratus, Pilate, et al, had minor military forces at their disposal and certainly not the legions.

I do disagree about the ultimate period of discontent. The Romans did much to bring that on themselves. Beginning with Caligula and then the restoration of the Herods to rule over all of Palestine under Claudius to Nero's ordered violation of the temple treasure Roman policy after Tiberius was one of (seemingly) deliberate provocation.

I agree about Josephus. He was a pharisee and one of the ruling class which was itself looked upon as being in bed with the Romans....which they were. Rebels were anathema to Josephus and his general description of them meeting violent ends was "they deserved it."

I think KB is correct in much of his analysis that a certain expectation of the messiah was brooding in the hearts of the zealots, but in general the concept of the messiah was not fully agreed by all of the various sects and schools of rabbinical thought at that time (nor is it now).

By the time the final break was reached in 66 there must have been a fairly significant crowd which was hoping for divine intercession because they simply cannot have thought that they would have had any other hope for victory. Obviously, that didn't work out. Even though he commanded an army against the Romans, Josephus was all too willing to go over to the Romans. He spent the rest of his life as a flunkey for the Flavian Dynasty. One suspects he was not the only pharisee who felt that way.

As for the Jospehus reference to Jesus, many universities and professors of religious studies agree with your comments to a degree. It may be that the christians did enhance the text in order to add some kind of importance to Jesus' standing at the time, but most generally agree that Josephus DID mention Jesus, his following, condemnation, the tribe of Christians who came later. But the statements he was the Christ and resurrected and was a fulfilment to prohesy were likely added by a redacter.

Two hundred years ago the TF was universally regarded as a complete forgery. Some scholars have been looking for a middle ground (obviously few maintain that it is authentic) but I'll tell you the trouble I have with that theory. In order for a watered down version to be present in the original one must believe that Origen, a Christian writer of the Second Century, was the stupidest bastard who ever lived. In Contra Celsus, Origen seeks to refute a pagan writer and he specifically refers to Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18 which contains the TF. He makes no mention of it. Not at all. Now, either it wasn't there when Origen's copy was written OR what it said did not give Origen any hint that it was talking about HIS Jesus. Josephus spoke of many people named Jesus ( I think I read the number 22 mentioned one time.) But if in that paragraph he described the actions of some bandit named Jesus who led a revolt (which would be consistent with the other passages on either side of it) he said nothing which triggered Origen's suspicion that he was talking about a man who later came to be known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Statistically, there could have been lots of people named Yeshua ben Yosef, they were both exceedingly common names. Josephus would have had to give something in his narrative which suggested to Origen that THIS was the guy. He did not.

[kbs2244]

Oh boy;
Roman/Jewish history!
Lots of opinions and ways to look at things, and everybody has something to back up their point of view.
But there are some basics:
The Jews always thought they were “special.” (A lot still do.)
Even though they had paid tribute to somebody ever since their return form Babylon, thay still had this idea they were the “chosen people,” and the current situation, what ever it was, was just temporary.
Due to their strategic location, this attitude was put up with by their various “overlords.” It was a “Just pay the taxes and go about your business” type arrangement for centuries.
The Romans were just the latest in a long line that took this approach. They knew the Jews were a volatile bunch, but they were valuable. Because of this the Romans gave them liberties they didn’t give any other provinces.
In truth the Romans were pretty easygoing conquers. They let the locals keep doing what they had always done, but just layered a Roman presence on top of the old ways.
But that wasn’t good enough for the Jews. Driven by their millennia old pride and the promise of relief foretold in Daniel they were a real sore spot for the Romans.
The revolts of Jesus time were just too much. They were endangering the whole concept of the “Pax Romana” and the heavy hand came down.
This point in time and location is a real case of “History making men” vs. “Men making History.” No matter who the players were, the time and circumstances were such that the events and eventual outcome were pretty well determined in advance.
(Did I just say that Daniels prophesy was fulfilled?)

[Ishtar]

Blimey Min! I've never seen you so loquacious. I'm going to start calling you Max!

But I just want to say - maybe we’re approaching this from the wrong angle. Maybe we’re trying to tie down a mouse with a thick rope. Instead of approaching it through the physical evidence we have left to us in terms of books (the gospels), reports (Josephus etc) and such like, perhaps we should look instead at mythology through the ages.

You have to ask yourself: why is it that that same story (the dying and resurrecting Godman) was told over and over again in so many cultures? Why are there so many similarities between the Jesus story and so many others, including Mithras? Could it be that this story, like the others, was not to be taken literally but told for another purpose? These other similar stories were initiation stories, told to adepts who underwent metaphysical transformation over a period of days (the best known one taking place in the Eleusian fields in Greece; that’s the Greeks - the same guys who translated so much of the Bible from the original Hebrew).

The main problem you run into with this whole issue is that those who are Christians today cannot accept that Jesus didn't exist as a historical character because they feel him everyday in their lives. So, they say, “how can you tell us that this guy never existed when I know him so intimately and he has helped me so much. In fact, he has become the heart of my life and so to ask me to accept that he is a fictional character would be like asking me to rip my own heart out.”

But the fact the Jesus never lived historically does not have to impact on that spiritual relationship. Imho, the reason we think like that – that we have to believe in a literal Jesus in order to believe in the one that we are having a relationship with today - is because the church, during the first few hundred years of its existence, turned a Gnostic, mystical teaching story into a literal one.

The church also said that no-one could get to God except through Jesus (aka them). They took the power away from man to commune with his own gods. Now when someone comes along and says that they do commune with the gods/spirits, they are accused of blasphemy – and, until recently, the church’s weapon of excommunication which was a pretty serious punishment when the whole of your society was run by the church. But those days are now gone.

My experience is that man can and does commune with his own benevolent gods/spirits and they will come to us in any form that is acceptable to us. I personally work with two extremely powerful spirits from Indian mythology, but I don’t believe that this means that they ever existed on earth. They are archetypes that exist in the collective consciousness upon which I can draw, and because of the nature of the work I’m doing at the moment, they are most appropriate archetypes for me to work with. But there are also many shamans who work with the Jesus spirit, the same spirit that Christians feel come into them when they pray. Looking back on my life, I can see that I was working with the Jesus spirit from the age of about seven until my teens – when the Church pissed me off and I had to leave, a victim of the same old paradigm, that Jesus is the church and the church is Jesus, and I was too young then to tell the difference.

The biggest mistake we make is not to realise that ‘thoughts are things’. Every thought we have has an impact somewhere, in the same way that an arrow hits its target.

So if we are praying to (directing our thoughts towards) a particular god/spirit/archetype, that god/spirit/archetype will manifest in our lives and will help us.

It says in the Bible that God created man in his own image. So what is God if he is not a Creator? This means we create too. We create our own gods.