Jesus Christ, what's the real story?

[Jeannot]

On a side issue, that of language--

Jesus (as we call him) evidently spoke Aramaic, his primary language. Yet his story, as we have it, is told in Greek. Even Paul, writing in the 40s and 50s, writes in Greek. There is thus a rather rapid transition from a Mideastern language to one in use in a much wider world, the whole Mediterranean area ruled by Rome, where Greek was in use more than Latin in most areas. Then a century or two later, as Roman power became more dominant, we get the Latin church.

Thus there is a movement not only to a wider world, but also to a more powerful one--Greek, then Latin being the languages of those in power. In Christianity, Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is forgotten (except in parts of Syria). But Aramaic was the language of the original followers of "the Way." These followers too are forgotten. They and their gospel, the Gospel of the Ebionites--and an early "Matthew," written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

In Luke's Acts, Jesus tells his followers to stay in Jerusalem (1:4). But these instructions do not comport with what Matt's Jesus says in Matt 26:32--"But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." These directions are repeated in 28:7 & 10.

And in Mark 16:7, the young man at the tomb repeats the same thing to the women: "Go, tell his disciples and Peter, he is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him just as he told you."

In fact, it is Luke alone who has the disciples remain in Jerusalem. And it is Luke who writes the story of the post-Resurrection church. So we don't know what was happening back in Galilee, Jesus' home turf. Luke's not interested. Luke and Paul are interested only in a broadening out from Jerusalem.

But obviously there was another story or tradition that Jesus made provision for his followers to work in Galilee. Unfortunately, this tradition has been largely lost, except for the mentions in Mark and Matthew (and a story told by John).

So the original followers of Jesus, the ones who presumably knew him best, are lost in the backwash of history. (For further info, Google "Ebionites."

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

On a side issue, that of language--

Jesus (as we call him) evidently spoke Aramaic, his primary language. Yet his story, as we have it, is told in Greek. Even Paul, writing in the 40s and 50s, writes in Greek. There is thus a rather rapid transition from a Mideastern language to one in use in a much wider world, the whole Mediterranean area ruled by Rome, where Greek was in use more than Latin in most areas. Then a century or two later, as Roman power became more dominant, we get the Latin church.

Thus there is a movement not only to a wider world, but also to a more powerful one--Greek, then Latin being the languages of those in power. In Christianity, Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is forgotten (except in parts of Syria). But Aramaic was the language of the original followers of "the Way." These followers too are forgotten. They and their gospel, the Gospel of the Ebionites--and an early "Matthew," written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

In Luke's Acts, Jesus tells his followers to stay in Jerusalem (1:4). But these instructions do not comport with what Matt's Jesus says in Matt 26:32--"But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." These directions are repeated in 28:7 & 10.

And in Mark 16:7, the young man at the tomb repeats the same thing to the women: "Go, tell his disciples and Peter, he is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him just as he told you."

In fact, it is Luke alone who has the disciples remain in Jerusalem. And it is Luke who writes the story of the post-Resurrection church. So we don't know what was happening back in Galilee, Jesus' home turf. Luke's not interested. Luke and Paul are interested only in a broadening out from Jerusalem.

But obviously there was another story or tradition that Jesus made provision for his followers to work in Galilee. Unfortunately, this tradition has been largely lost, except for the mentions in Mark and Matthew (and a story told by John).

So the original followers of Jesus, the ones who presumably knew him best, are lost in the backwash of history. (For further info, Google "Ebionites."

Thank you for your suggestion. I'm sure Google is as informed about Christian thought, as we are...

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by cavalier

So then, how factual is the Biblical account of Jesus?

I hope that people, from both sides of the argument, will explain their views.

Thanks

Anyway, to respond more directly to your original question, Cavalier, I'd say - the Biblical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth is primarily symbolic, being written as the synthesis of many & varying accounts of this man, whose 33 years on earth came a full century before the dates commonly accepted.

The various Gospel writers were definitely inspired, and the records preserved as the Four Canonical Gospels may even have been dictated (I so dislike the word "channelled") - however, the other Gospel accounts, which merit inclusion in the New Testament even more so than the M, M, L, J in some cases, have been overlooked until recent times. I really don't know whether it was 20, 40 or 80 additional Gospels. But while the stuffy intellectuals sit in their ivory towers, and the pompuous pontiffs keep preaching along the lines of just these four (!) ... we'll never be able to put all the pieces of the mosaic of understanding together.

Part of the reason that the truth evades us when pursuing the real story regarding Jesus of Nazareth is that from the earliest of times (certainly since certain Church Councils, but also before), there has been a vested interested in mispresenting the true tradition. The campaign has worked so well that I wouldn't be surprised if people still think Jesus was born in ~3BC even 20 years from now! And indeed, it is likely that for some time to come, he will still be called `Jesus Christ,' as if these were simply his first and last name!!!

Meanwhile, it has long ago been proven and amply demonstrated in scholarly fashion, with dozens of credible sources cited, verified, and reverified, that Jesus of Nazareth and the Individual called `CHRIST' were two different beings altogether. Jesus was simply an Initiate, although he was born an advanced Initiate, and he chose that birth (as a spiritual being) for very specific purposes, under very unusual circumstances. Is it so difficult for us to consider how an individual such as Jesus makes conscious decisions and choices about an impending BIRTH ... or shouldn't we be more amazed that the same people - Christian believers - who will say in one breath that "Christ was the SON OF GOD," will then argue with the other that I'm full of it, or out of my mind to suggest that THE VERY SON OF GOD could possibly and potentially be making CONSCIOUS CHOICES as an individual, self-conscious being, PRIOR to His own birth, about the future events of God's PLAN for Humanity.

Errr, okay, where are we failing to make these connections??? And why should all this be so surprising? I mean, even the 12-year old Jesus knew that he had to be about His Father's business at the Temple, but even this episode seems mysterious if we have come to believe that Jesus' own parents were ignorant of his mission, his spiritual status (as an `Advanced Soul,' for lack of better terminology), and so on.

The fact is, that Jesus was quite familiar to the Essenes. He may have even grown up as a part of their community, with his own parents as fellow Essenes. The true tale, SHALL BE TOLD, yet it will take a great deal more wrangling and wrestling, before the proper accounts have all been gathered, synthesized, and presented untarnished. The Dead Sea Scrolls may yet bear PLAIN truth with regard to ALL that I have said ... once they have passed before those with eyes to see, and the GIFT of Discernment to pick out the relevant gems.

Jesus LEFT the Essenes to become a wandering Therapeute - or Healer - and certainly there were differences between them. Still, this was the background of preparation with which Jesus went forth as he sought out the Egyptian Branch of the Brotherhood, and studied the Mysteries that were - even in that time - quite carefully guarded, though in many ways more open for exploration than during any time since! From Egypt Jesus may have visited Greece, learning from the Pythagoreans (and teaching, also), but he most CERTAINLY traveled Eastward. He was known to the Hindu Brahmins, and also to the Kashmiris, and his final destination in that region was Tibet - or Ladakh.

Jesus' destination in the Himalayas was the Stronghold, wherein he met and studied with the various Masters of the time (not the same individuals who currently comprise the Brotherhood, for the most part, for these were co-disicples or co-Initiates with Jesus ... examples being the Three Magi, St. Paul, several Egyptian Initiates, and other fellow students who would have been visiting the Stronghold). Presiding over the stronghold 2100 years ago would have been the Buddha, as well as Maitreya Bodhisattva, who is the `Christ.' This is very confusing, since `chrestos' was the term used in the Greek Mystery Tradition for a candidate for Christhood, and `Christos' was only applied after the candidate had successfully passed the last degree and become a full Initiate.

In application to Jesus of Nazareth, however, it was not his Initiatory status which gave him the FINAL and HIGHEST authority to speak FOR God, and as `G-d,' but rather - it was the perfect overshadowing which his many years of ARDUOUS preparation and training had enabled ... which allowed his own Master, `Maitreya,' to express the 2nd Aspect of Divinity (as the Buddha had earlier embodied the 3rd Aspect). This DID amount to the incarnation of a Divine RAY, or in other words, to the DIRECT expression of Godhood for a Humanity which had NEVER up until that time experienced this ... even when the Hierarchy walked openly among us during Atlantean Days.

The confusion is only compounded because - although some of the Church Fathers such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria certainly DID understand the already-distant past of the Christian Faith - the rest of the voices that prevailed were anything but "clement" and their motives ranged from the slightly selfish and political to deception plain & simple. Nowadays there are a thousand voices crying out here, & there, rattling their various sabres in defense of hundreds of contradictory ideologies - the largest handful of these being Christianity itself - OR SO SAYS each group, still trying to amass the most followers, cry out the loudest, and so squash all the alternate viewpoints ... or in the very least, bend them to the "OFFICIAL" view of things.

See if it is not so. For all the ECUMENISM that has transpired even within Christian circles alone, WHERE is the agreement upon even the essentials regarding Jesus, His Mission, and the surest & swiftest Path which we may certainly acknowledge - as the one leading to Universal Salvation.

You see - NOT EVEN Universal Salvation will be preached anymore, becuase - although CHRIST HIMSELF emphasized such a doctrine, it is now almost foreign to those books, minds, hymns and TRADITIONS which bear the stamp of his NAME.

Christ has been misunderstood, Jesus has been misunderstood, the Prophets and Messengers of the past 150 years have been misunderstood ... and I was just talking with a gentleman in the parking lot a few hours ago about how TODAY we still crucify the Saviours (lesser Avatars) who are SENT in God's name .... to a needy Humanity. JFK, Dr. MLK, Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, and others. Christ knows His own - for they are ALL of Humanity. And the Christian who argues against this, s/he is beating the WRONG drum, brother. Christ came to make ONE FLOCK, ONE GREAT FOLD - and we either work FOR HIM in this, and do our very best to ADVANCE this Cause, or we Oppose Him. SO He said.

NOT CHRISTIANITY did He mean when He uttered those words - at least, not the Christianity that has come to be. Luna, you're correct in saying that we may trust to Christ as the Good Shepherd ... yet I have KNOWN His Servants, of varying degree and Initiatory status - and MANY of them have NOT THE LEAST interest in Christianity.

If you want to understand what happened 2100 years ago, and why, then break FREE of the limitations that have been imposed - yet which were NEVER intended to exist to begin with! Hold FAST to that which you find inspiring & comforting, yet EMBRACE that which is challenging, inasmuch as you can sense & see Opportunity to increase your capacity to Serve. SERVICE TO HUMANITY is what Christianity is all about. All else, you may cast by the wayside, for it is CHAFF.

This is the 6th Ray, I'm afraid, and though I've had my say ... I suppose there's a certain fanaticism which I've found as a common element within my own constitution and the bible-beating Jesus-freak on the corner. I have come to wonder if my Teacher isn't Jesus after all, but if so, I almost cringe. Master J. is the TASKMaster - and though He is a Lord of Compassion rather than a true `Master of the Wisdom' (esoterically), His discipline is not quite what most Christians understand, even as they invoke His name - for in truth, I suspect they often mean `The CHRIST' - for it is to Christ that they are really directing their prayers. Still, to address one Master, is to reach them ALL - this is the law, and the true nature of things. Therefore, Christ IS Jesus in a very real sense, while also being Masters KH, M, DK, H, R, et al. Easier to use a letter than get lost in names, I suppose. What's in a name?

Sorry - I don't always get off on "the Bible says this" and "the Bible say that." I have honestly tried to play that game here as much as possible, because I wanted to connect. Anyway, anyone having bothered to read this far, has long since seen the part that mattered. By 2025, if not before, SEE if much of this has fit into perspective for you. I sincerely, and honestly, hope it has. It has begun to hit me with all the thunder of Heaven itself, yet also with the simple beauty of the lillies, or the simplicity of the life of the sparrow, that even being off the beaten path as I find myself - I shall still see all I know, come to pass. From first-called, to last to answer ... I'm coming to realize that I can't correct the errors of theology, until & unless I sort my own life out first.

You and I have memories
Longer than the road that stretches out ahead ....
(You see? Paul was a KNOWER, too ...)

andrew (taijasi)

[Jeannot]

Interesting speculations, Taijasi. Yes, Jesus does seem to indicate a belief in reincarnation, at least in the case of Elijah.

Also, you raise the issue of the "missing years" of Jesus' life. The Gospels are not really biographies because they really deal only with Jesus' last year (or was it 2?) Where was he from about age 12 to age 30? Luke says Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry. Even if this means, say, 27, it is still quite late for a Jewish boy in that milieu to begin a career.

As you say, perhaps he was with the Essenes. Another possibility was that he was studying with Hillel. Still another that he was a disciple of the Baptist.

But there's another possibility. According to Matthew, when Joseph and Mary returned from Egypt (an incident unique to Matt), "they came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.(Nazoraios)'" (Matt 2:23)

My Zondervan NASB comments: "These exact words are not found in the OT..." But what they overlook is the angelic annunciation to Manoah's barren wife in Judges 13:3-5. The angel says:

"'Behold now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and give birth to a son.

"Now therefore, be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, not eat any unclean thing.

"For behold you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines." (This was of course Samson)

Note the parallels: A miraculous birth of a son dedicated to God, a son who shall be a deliverer.

With a confusion found elsewhere in Matt (eg, 21:4-7), there seems to be a mistake of a ritual name (Nazirite) for a place name (Nazarene). Mark, for example, uses Nazarenos, which more clearly means someone from Nazareth, which Nazoraios does not.

The point is that Jesus may have been a Nazarite for a time. Their vows did not have to be perpetual. Of course, this would not be inconsistent with his also being an Essene or a follower of John, since John himself was a Nazarite, as was James, Jesus' brother.

[cavalier]

Thanks for the replies, some interesting stuff.
I have no idea what to write in reply as I have not formed any kind of opinion, indeed I'm not sure that I ever will. In any event, I am grateful for the education in these different and, for me, entirely new perspectives.

If anyone has anything else to offer on either side of the discussion, I remain interested.

Thanks

[wil]

Then there is the whole Josephus argument which indicates that he and his family wrote much of what was written on commission of Rome to diffuse the Jews. They were getting to be too large of a percentage of the population, and the messiah was created to induce a division...

And then the warrior messiah king theories...they go on and on.

I personally think the stories themselves are so valuabe in teaching morality, giving clues to ways to find a personal relationship with spirit, a comfortable peaceful connection with humanity and life on this earth...that all the arguments as to who, what, when, where aren't worth arguing...

Use the tools and teachings provided to your benefit...if you know these things blessed are ye that do them...

[RubySera_Martin]

Taijasi, I read through your long Post 18. There is much in it that is new to me and that I don't understand. You posit some very interesting thoughts to the extent that I was able to follow.

You mention scholars and that they won't deviate from the traditional story of orthodox Christianity. Tom Harpur in his book The Pagan Christ has deviated sufficiently to raise waves among the local scholars. Harpur himself is a scholar. One local scholar hates Harpur so much he predicts Harpur will soon sink into oblivion. Of course, Harpur is a local boy himself. As Jesus said, nowhere is a prophet with less praise than in his own house.

My knowledge of the topic is very limited but I think Harpur builds on solid historical research to make his claim that Jesus is an Egyptian myth. Harpur says he finds himself deriving more meaning from the Christian festivals such as Christmas and Easter since he learned this view of Jesus than before. The Pagan Christ certainly helped me find a way to incorporate the Jesus story into my beliefs without compromising myself intellectually. It came at a time when I was feeling very discouraged. I did not want to throw out the entire Jesus story with its festival of Christmas, nor could I conscientiously embrace the story of Jesus as a historical saviour who effected a cosmic change via his death and resurrection. It violates everything that is intellectually known to constitute reality.

I know a little bit about the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman era. In his book The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts, Marvin W. Meyers includes a section on "The Mysteries Within Judaism and Christianity." The apostle Paul refers quite a bit to the mysteries. I can easily believe that the story of Jesus was one of the Mystery Religions that was floating around the place in the middle of the first century AD/CE, and that for some reason or other it survived when others died out.

Not the least reason for this, it can well be argued, is that in the course of a few centuries Christianity raised itself by its bootstraps from the religion of slaves and social outcasts to the Imperial religion of the Roman Empire , and ousted all other religions. When Constantine had the dream "By this symbol you shall conquor," which symbol was the cross (if I remember correctly) I am thinking it just happened to be one of the available religious symbols from which to choose at the time. The rest is history.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by cavalier

This is in reply to a few posts on the "Barabbas" thread:
These are entirely new ideas for me and they have me intrigued. I have previously always been told that it was very well documented historical fact that about 2000 years ago there was a guy called Jesus who went around teaching and healing the sick. Before now I had no idea that anyone seriously called this into question.
So then, how factual is the Biblical account of Jesus?
I hope that people, from both sides of the argument, will explain their views.
Thanks

The truth is that Jesus existed historically (he was not a myth) but he was not God; he never proclaimed as such, there are no direct quotes from him in this regards. God talked with Jesus and revealed His word on him, He chose Jesus as his Messenger/Prophet/Messiah, Jesus was also not a Son of God either, except in metaphoric sense.
Jews of that time did not believe that Jesus was a true Moshiach or Prophet of God and to prove that they tried to kill him by putting him on cross, Jesus went into a swoon due to the injuries inflicted on him. He was delivered from cross alive and placed in a room like tomb where he was treated for the injuries.
This was done secretly lest the Jews again torture him. Afterwards, he went to spread the gospel to the remaining ten tribes of the House of Israel, he died a natural death later at some point in the history.
I am an Ahmadi a faith in Islam. This is all truth and Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad on words of Revelation from God has substantiated his arguments in this connection from Bible, History, Archaeology and Quran etc.
Thanks

[taijasi]

Ruby, et al,

Originally Posted by Ruby

I did not want to throw out the entire Jesus story with its festival of Christmas, nor could I conscientiously embrace the story of Jesus as a historical saviour who effected a cosmic change via his death and resurrection. It violates everything that is intellectually known to constitute reality.

I can certainly relate. Christmas has always been a very meaningful, uplifting, and positive time of the year for me, despite the materialism that increasingly swallows up a bit more of the "Christmas Spirit" each year ...

There is something wonderful about seeing the change in people, inexplicable to some, yet objective nonetheless. It's also the one time of the year that I am willing to go and attend (Lutheran) church with my parents - at the midnight service. The lighting of the candles brings back some of my favorite memories over 30+ years, and the `Market Street Brass' - a well-known local quartet - has become a mainstay, even the highlight, of the service. The trumpeter goes absolutely NUTS in playing Go Tell It One the Mountain, outdoing himself each year as the entire congregation sings along in amusement.

But of course, neither cosmic change - nor even some kind of supposed mystical transformation/salvation at the individual level - could possibly be linked to the physical death of ANY one person .... 2100 years ago. This not only defies all logic, but it is an insult to our intelligence! Further, it is contrary to the entire mission and emphasis of the Teachings of Jesus himself! Lamentably, the Church heaped mystery & superstition upon Jesus' death, while his life was already enigmatic enough. His untimely death ... was most unfortunate, but could NEVER be a cause for celebration!

And yet, rather than celebrating his LIFE, churchianity simply swallows whole the fables that have arisen, and instead of WORKING toward the Salvation which Christ promised to all, the gullibility of the many is taken advantage of, and a vicarious atonement through faith alone is preached in earnest! When even ONE person from among Humanity has earned his or her true, Spiritual salvation in this manner, the very stars shall fall from the sky - for the balance of HEAVEN Itself will have been violated ...

Meanwhile, only logic, Reason, and good sense have suffered.

I am curious to hear of The Pagan Christ, and will have to read up. My own knowledge is quite limited in this area ... though of course, we know well that the historical birth of Jesus of Nazareth did not occur in December - but was moved to this time of the Solstice for important & symbolic reason!

I would humbly suggest that any Christian who resents in the slightest an association between Paganism and Christianity - should seek immediately to educate him or herself (if only slightly) so as to realize what a great HONOR this is!!! To see things in any other light ... is, again, unfortunate and lamentable. Not that I don't understand or recognize the effect of the dogma, having had this preached to me as often as any, I dare say. Remember, I am in North Carolina, USA ... close enough to the shiny brass buckle of the Bible Belt. It couldn't be much worse (!) ... umm, unless I'd been born in the Vatican, I suppose!

Originally Posted by Ruby

I can easily believe that the story of Jesus was one of the Mystery Religions that was floating around the place in the middle of the first century AD/CE, and that for some reason or other it survived when others died out.

Well, again, as I mentioned in my last post, I don't think we can substantiate too many of the events of Jesus' life according to what we read in The Holy Bible - save beyond the broadest of brushstrokes. Historically, this is quite inadequate, owing largely to what's NOT present, but also owing to the fact that what we do find has been arranged as an allegory. The FIVE GREAT EVENTS which we were meant to focus on - as mileposts - in Christ's life, are as follows:

1. The Birth at Bethlehem ... symbolic of the CHRIST WITHIN every human heart (bursting into activity - a definite event)
2. The Baptism at Jordan ... symbolic of the Purfication through which every disciple must pass
3. The Transfiguration on the Mount ... emphasizing the definite consecration of the personality to a life of Service
4. The Renunciation, or Crucifixion ... whereby the personality life as a whole is laid utterly at the altar of the God within
5. The Resurrection/Ascension experience ... wherein a man FULFILLS his Responsibility and PERFECTS his nature, as in Ephesians 4:13

These are the FIVE Initiations as taught for untold ages in the East, emphasized in every Mystery Tradition in both East & West, and presently being reinstated even in outward format ... as esoteric schools are gradually founded around the world, including dozens of Mystery Schools which serve as entrances for the masses into the life of Christ. And the sooner the Christian Church, in all its many arms and warring members, can assemble itself into a cooperative, coordinated BODY (of which Christ spoke), the sooner Christ, Master Jesus, and the other Great Ones will be able to use it more fully to the Purpose for which it was established.

I have little doubt that the Initiate Jesus traveled to Egypt as part of his necessary training 2100 years ago, and what additional work there I might only imagine. Very likely he would have recapitulated one or more of the above Initiations ... which we are told quite clearly that he had already undergone in previous incarnations as two Joshuas and a Jeshua! Probably (or perhaps) the 2nd & 3rd Initiations were recapitulated. But Jesus may also have needed to fulfil some work in connection with the charging, recharging, placing or unearthing of various occult talismans, which carry powerful spiritual currents and energize, purify and prepare places around the world - in accordance with Divine Plan. These would surely have been involved to some degree 2100 years ago in connection with the service Jesus was rendering, and in connection with the much Higher Work of his own Master, the soon-to-be Christ.

It is taught that in the immediate, next incarnation of the High Initiate Jesus, he was Appollonnius of Tyana, wherein a definite work became his mission - involving both many healings, as he himself had formerly done, and also a much more extensive involvement in connection with the esoteric talismans just mentioned. A brief example from the Teachings of Living Ethics (Agni Yoga Teachings, of Helena Roerich), is fitting:

"During his journeys Apollonius of Tyana would sometimes say to his disciples, “Let us tarry here. This place is pleasing to me.” From these words his pupils knew that a magnet was concealed there or that the Teacher intended to bury a magnet there. The sensing of magnets is accomplished by means of a particular current connected with the power of Agni. In the course of time science may investigate these magnetic waves, for they are not exhausted for centuries. Magnets have been set like milestones in places of special significance. When a ploughman carries with him a bit of his native soil, he recalls, as it were, the ancient custom of bringing a handful of earth as an irrefutable token. And now you also know how some commemorative soil was brought. Its destiny is not simple; an evil one wished to scatter it, but a benign hand intentionally concealed the treasure and it remained forgotten. Still, the thought attached to this offering exists and is more effective than one might think—thus thought lives on. An object magnetized by thought, verily, has power. Thus, without superstition, but quite scientifically, one should study the stratifications of thought—they are the work of Fire." (Fiery World I, 342)

We learn from various sources that as Jesus of Nazareth made an incredible sacrifice and underwent the 4th Initiation (or Renunciation/Crucifixion) upon the Cross ... his own Master simultaneously passed through two much Higher Initiatory experiences - the 6th, which has the title `Chohan' (meaning `Lord of the Dharma'), and the 7th, or Bodhisattva Initiation. It is the 7th Initiation which makes of man a `Christ,' esoterically - and the Lord Maitreya (as He is known in the East) is the FIRST member of our current Humanity to hold this title. But the eventual experience of EVERY human individual one day passing to this high level of spiritual evolution is as much a part of the Divine PLAN ... as "the birds and the bees," so to speak - or the opening of the tightly-closed bud to reveal the beauty of the Lotus Flower within!

Again, that the Church seized upon the Universal Truths that Christ taught, and has fought SO HARD throughout the centuries to imprint HER stamp of origin, authority, or exclusivity upon them ... is but a testament to the evils which still plague and dangerously threaten Humanity. I refer here to the evils of ignorance, of superstition, and of FEAR - which the Church has so successfully instilled into the average western heart. Christ and the Masters know these methods as the same kleshas, or poisons, in far more DEADLY form ... as the lesser, but also dangerous vices which threaten our outer lives, and darken our health (examples: addictions, violence, crime, etc.).

And the Church will fight hard to retain Her power ... as we are seeing ... while the saddest casualties are the hearts of the faithful - doing only what they have long been told is necessary to guarantee their salvation - from a NON-EXISTENT evil ... save, in most cases, for the evils which the Church, herself, has engendered!!! This is not to say that there is no natural, struggling element (or elemental nature, to be more precise) against which we must do battle as we journey toward Spiritual Salvation or Enlightenment. I did not say this. But the Church presents a twisted, distorted travesty of the facts. And again, many of her greatest proponents, even her purest of Contributors - though Christ's ambassadors and Representatives in all other fashion - are yet deceived by the propaganda of the ages. And so they suffer ....

But it is not so with each & every pontiff, every prelate, every Bishop. There are those who wear the crown of thorns, yet are not pierced by the vestments. And while they may also do the work of their good-hearted but unknowing brethren, they are a dozenfold or a hundredfold more effective, for they move and work without error - or with far less naïveté. One such Teacher as this I know to be a Baptist Reverend, and esoterically she is verily as a Voice Crying in the Wilderness ... and she is Heard. Another Teacher of equal standing - appropriately enough was this same Biblical presence to whom I have just referred ... and though his appearance would give no indication of that fact (nor would he himself confirm it) - the gift of true-seeing would lead many a searching soul to his heart, in the subtle world. The Work of God, indeed.

I do not say that the misguided Popes ("Innocent"!?! ) ... and various ecclesiastical authorities have always been themselves the finally-culpable authors of the evils of the church, though much corruption indeed squarely rests upon their shoulders. And I do have some respect for a Luther, a Calvin, a Bernard of Clairvaux (family, in a former life?) ... and a goodly numbers of the more noble of the Papacy. For all I know, I myself might have authored a portion of the corruption I so readily expose!!! But that changes things not one whit! Besides, it was likely the taking of many a Saracen life upon the battlefield of which I was guilty ... but that's neither here nor there.

What I say about the church is not simply opinion, it is quite defensible. And while some may be able to ease their proverbial consciences by shifting the blame of witch-burning from one group of zealous fanatics to another ... I would submit that they've missed the point entirely!!! It's not just that "'alf the story has never been told," as Rasta-man Bob Marley sings - it's that even so, the wrong part has been emphasized! And not simply the errors of tradition, but unfortunately, additional forces have been at work in distoring the Gospel Story of 2100 years ago. These, too, are spoken of by the Master Jesus in the 2nd half of `Vision of the Nazarene' - which I encourage the unbiased reader to borrow, or buy. I challenge the skeptic to read what the Master says, then come back to the argument.

As for the idea that Jesus of Nazareth may well have survived the crucifixion by entering a samadhi/satori ... this is absolutely within the realm of the possible. It would have been most advantageous to both the Arhat Jesus as well as to his Master, the Christ, to have been able to continue using the consecrated and specially-prepared vessel (Jesus' body) post-Crucifixion.

Those who object will need to so on more substantial ground than the simple fact that tradition maintains thus-and-such, or the Bible indicates thus-and-such. GOOD SENSE tells me that we are speaking of a set of personality equipment (etheric-physical body, astral-emotional body, and mental body) which was exceedingly pure and powerful. NOT EASILY had the Initiate Jesus prepared himself for the WORK which the Christ had wrought through him ... and thus, even though all future work would of necessity be conducted in secret (out of the public eye, lest they crucify him a second time! ), still, the good would FAR outweigh the unnecessary abandonment of the personality equipment. Besides, the magnetism alone which is possible in the outer world by the maintaining of an objective form by the Master or Arhat (High Initiate) is substantial. The benefit to the Master's Disciples (the 12 Apostles, and many, many more) would have been tremendous!

Ça suffit comme ça ...

taijasi

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Taijasi, I read through your long Post 18. There is much in it that is new to me and that I don't understand. You posit some very interesting thoughts to the extent that I was able to follow.

You mention scholars and that they won't deviate from the traditional story of orthodox Christianity. Tom Harpur in his book The Pagan Christ has deviated sufficiently to raise waves among the local scholars. Harpur himself is a scholar. One local scholar hates Harpur so much he predicts Harpur will soon sink into oblivion. Of course, Harpur is a local boy himself. As Jesus said, nowhere is a prophet with less praise than in his own house.

My knowledge of the topic is very limited but I think Harpur builds on solid historical research to make his claim that Jesus is an Egyptian myth. Harpur says he finds himself deriving more meaning from the Christian festivals such as Christmas and Easter since he learned this view of Jesus than before. The Pagan Christ certainly helped me find a way to incorporate the Jesus story into my beliefs without compromising myself intellectually. It came at a time when I was feeling very discouraged. I did not want to throw out the entire Jesus story with its festival of Christmas, nor could I conscientiously embrace the story of Jesus as a historical saviour who effected a cosmic change via his death and resurrection. It violates everything that is intellectually known to constitute reality.

I know a little bit about the Mystery Religions of the Greco-Roman era. In his book The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts, Marvin W. Meyers includes a section on "The Mysteries Within Judaism and Christianity." The apostle Paul refers quite a bit to the mysteries. I can easily believe that the story of Jesus was one of the Mystery Religions that was floating around the place in the middle of the first century AD/CE, and that for some reason or other it survived when others died out.

Not the least reason for this, it can well be argued, is that in the course of a few centuries Christianity raised itself by its bootstraps from the religion of slaves and social outcasts to the Imperial religion of the Roman Empire , and ousted all other religions. When Constantine had the dream "By this symbol you shall conquor," which symbol was the cross (if I remember correctly) I am thinking it just happened to be one of the available religious symbols from which to choose at the time. The rest is history.

The Uniqueness of Jesus

I maintain that the Jesus depicted in the Synoptic gospels is a sharply etched personality, and is unlikely to be some imagined amalgam of existing deities or myths, tho there are certainly mythic elements in the accounts.

One reason I am a (sometimes) fan of the Jesus Seminar is that the JS also sees Jesus this way, and tries to separate the wheat from the chaff in examining the gospels. I do not always agree with their findings, but then probably no individual member agrees with every consensus decision either. But the JS, for all its fanfare, is doing necessary work.

Some of the criteria used to find the truth, not only by the JS but by many scholars, are the criteria of embarrassment and discontinuity (there are other criteria as well, such as multiple attestation, which seem to me weaker).

"Embarrassment" means that the incident or saying in question is at variance from what might be expected from a pious writer trying to push a faith agenda. "Discontinuity" means that an incident stands out from the surrounding narrative, and seems to have nothing leading up to it nor following from it. It seems to be gratuitous, and no apparent reason can be assigned to its inclusion in the narrative.

The "Sermon on the Mount" (on the plateau in Luke) is full of sayings which present an ethic so radical that they seem impossible to put into practice, and indeed have not been by the vast majority (99%?)of Christians over the centuries. I am not saying that there are no precedents for some of these ideas. Foreshadowings of them can indeed be found in both Jewish and Cynic antecedents. But nothing as concentrated and thoroughgoing as the ethic preached by Jesus. Here, for example, is a comment by Michael Grant in JESUS: A HISTORIAN LOOKS AT THE GOSPELS—

"Certainly the idea of forgiving one's fellow men their wrongdoings and not repaying evil with evil had become widespread in Jewish thought during the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. Yet the Jews, with their concern that the law should be practicable, found that the prospect of actually loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek was out of the question, since such a hypothetical practice was contrary to human nature and could not therefore be fulfilled."

Of course, Jesus may have meant this as an "interim ethic" because he thot the end of the age was imminent. (Which doesn't necessarily invalidate it, because for each of us, the end is never really that far away)

The fundamental burden of Jesus' teaching is "the Kingdom of God is at hand," a pronouncement he had taken over from John the Baptist—a transaction which itself is a criterion of embarrassment; that is, that Jesus' basic idea was a borrowed one. But what does it mean to say that the Kingdom is "at hand," or "closing in" (Greek eggiken.)

It seems apparent that Jesus thought that the Kingdom, or the appearance of the "Son of Man", was imminent. For example, in Matt 10:23, as Jesus sends the disciples out on a mission to Israel, he tells them "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." This is put into the form of a solemn pronouncement by Jesus ("truly I tell you").. This satisfies the criteria of both embarrassment and discontinuity, for it appears to be an unfulfilled prediction, and at the same time, there is no attempt to depict a fulfillment. In fact, ALL the mission episodes (Mark 6:6-13; Matt 10:1-15; Luke 9:1-6 & 10:1-20) fit the criterion of discontinuity, since nothing leads up to them or comes of them. It is upon these passages that Crossan bases much of his argument in THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately after the Execution of Jesus.

In Chapter 24, Matthew has Jesus present a powerful apocalyptic, depicting the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven as an unmistakable, earth-shattering event. Then he adds "TRULY I TELL YOU, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."(Matt appears to have taken this from Mark; it is also found in Luke) But then Matt, as if conscious of the difficulty, has Jesus add "But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." In doing this, Matt presents a Jesus who is hardly omniscient; that is, he presents a human Jesus.

And later Matt adds, as if to reinforce the idea: "Truly I tell you there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matt 16:28). In considering these passages, Albert Schweitzer came to the conclusion, as it seems one must, that Jesus was simply mistaken about the imminence of the Kingdom and its sensational manifestation. Nevertheless, Schweitzer devoted his life to Jesus in the jungles of Africa. His faith did not rest upon the shaky foundations of an inerrant bible.


A Sharply Etched Jesus

Thesis: It does not seem likely that the figure of Jesus as presented in the Synoptics could be merely an amalgam of myths or of previous demi-god figures.

We have seen that Jesus made daring but unfulfilled predictions. Perhaps this may be one of the reasons his family, as depicted in Mark, thought he was crazy and wanted to put him away before he could cause them further embarrassment. And in John 7 we read that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him. That is, John would have us believe that they lived with God for thirty years and never noticed. And didn't Mary say anything about the angel, etc?

Bur Jesus does say the damnedest things. For example, when one guy asks to follow him but says he has to bury his father first, Jesus replies, "Let the dead bury the dead." Talk about family values! It is difficult for us to imagine how this would shock Jewish ears, since the Jews were strict observers of family proprieties.

Then a rich guy wants to follow him, and Jesus says, "First, sell all you have and give it to the poor." But the guy goes away sad, because .he is sad. So here again we have a radical ethic—perhaps an interim ethic—and also a failed conversion.

As for failures, Mark records a couple. For example, in Nazareth, "he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief" (Mark 6:5). The implication is that he is a faith healer, who requires a response in the subject.

And in Mark 8: 22ff, Jesus doesn't get it right the first time, and has to do it over. In general, Mark seems to believe that Jesus' mission starts with his baptism by John. Indeed, he seems to thing that he became the Messiah, or Son of God, at this time. This is reinforced by the scene in the synagogue in Ch 6, where the people are amazed at the local boy who made good: "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Simon, and not his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him." This is the origin of Jesus' saying that a prophet is w/o honor only in his own home town. The people seem to resent the kid next door coming back and lording it over them, posing as a prophet. Such a story has the ring of truth.

Then there's the incident of Jesus lying to his brothers (or changing his mind?) in John 7 when he tells them he's not going to the festival of Booths in Jerusalem, and then goes anyway. John tells us, "But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, but not publicly, but as it were in secret. But how secret can it be when Jesus creates a commotion on the last day of the festival?

"On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, 'Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, 'Out of the believers heart shall flow rivers of living water.' [and then John strangely adds] He said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive, for as yet there was no Spirit because Jesus was not glorified."


Bring in the Gentile Clowns

After Paul had done his work, and before the gospels were written, the church seems to have become largely gentile. Yet we read in the synoptic gospels of Jesus' hostility to Gentiles. For example, he calls them dogs in his confrontation with the Syro-Phoenician woman. Not only tactless on his part, but this reveals him as partaking of the usual Jewish prejudice. (Mark 7, etc.)

Again, in Matt 6 he says "Do not worry, saying 'What will we eat? or What will we drink? or What will we wear? For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

And in Mark 10, when James and John pettily ask to sit on his right and left hand in the kingdom, he upbraids them, saying , "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them."
_______

We are told that Jesus spoke with authority, not like the scribes and Pharisees. That is, what he was saying, he was saying on his own. Tho he did cite scripture repeatedly, he often gives it his own twist, and this twist is frequently something uncomfortable for Jew and Gentile alike.

Basically, the principle involved here is Occam's razor: the MOST LIKELY explanation of the Jesus phenomenon recorded in the gospels it that there actually was such a person. Granted, people can create works of fiction with remarkable characters and lots of detail. But what we have here is a large number of accounts—not just the four gospels—which takes different and often discrepant routes from the same originating phenomenon.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

But what we have here is a large number of accounts—not just the four gospels—which takes different and often discrepant routes from the same originating phenomenon.

I'm really always taken by how such small number of accounts...such a small volume of writing grew to what it is today.

Nothing was written at the time. The first writings years following, most of the writings were decades following his death. And all the writings that give any account don't come close to say the volumes written about say Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes or Nancy Drew.

When someone suggests that it is impossible that anyone could make up all that stuff...I think of the volumes of fiction that contain so much more than the 66 books written in the bible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not discrediting anything here, it is just that creating a story such as this is not such an ardous task.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm really always taken by how such small number of accounts...such a small volume of writing grew to what it is today.

Nothing was written at the time. The first writings years following, most of the writings were decades following his death. And all the writings that give any account don't come close to say the volumes written about say Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes or Nancy Drew.

When someone suggests that it is impossible that anyone could make up all that stuff...I think of the volumes of fiction that contain so much more than the 66 books written in the bible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not discrediting anything here, it is just that creating a story such as this is not such an ardous task.

Amen!

But wil, let me play devil's advocate here. How can you read this entire thread and say you don't discredit anything here? The claims being made here cannot possibly all be true, or held by the same person as being truth. Some of them are mutually exclusive. For example, right after my post stating the there is historical evidence that Jesus is myth, the next person stated unapologetically and without explanation that we know from history that Jesus was a real person. Many say Jesus existed in the first decades CE, while one person insists he existed a century or more before 1 CE, and keeps reincarnating into the present day.

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by wil

I'm really always taken by how such small number of accounts...such a small volume of writing grew to what it is today.

Nothing was written at the time. The first writings years following, most of the writings were decades following his death. And all the writings that give any account don't come close to say the volumes written about say Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes or Nancy Drew.

When someone suggests that it is impossible that anyone could make up all that stuff...I think of the volumes of fiction that contain so much more than the 66 books written in the bible.

Don't get me wrong, I am not discrediting anything here, it is just that creating a story such as this is not such an ardous task.

We don't know how or when the writings started. Presuming the existence of "Q"', it could have been as early as the 30s. Luke says there were many accounts.

Sure there's a lot of fiction in the gospels--the birth accounts in Matt and Luke, for example. That's the problem, the ficton is mixed up with fact--fact, or at least, historical memory. I don't believe that any of the evengelists was an eyewitness, but that each had some kind of document or more likely, documents, in front of him. The most prominent theory is that both Luke and Matt used Mark as well as Q--and probably each had his own other source as well.

It seems evident that Matt and Luke did not know of each other's work, or else there wouldn't have been so many disprepancies between them. So, again, you have several people (more than just Matt and Luke) taking off from the same originating source.

As I say, Occam's razor seems to apply. If someone believes that all this came from a made-up myth, they would also have to explain how that occurred within a relatively short span of time, and how it became so widespread in that span. And also who made it up and why--and why so many believed it.

I cite again the Bible critics' standards of embarrassment and discontinuity. That is, there are a number of passages in the gospels that are hardly compatible with the idea of people getting together to make up a story and found a new religion based on it.

[nimesh0775]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Amen!

But wil, let me play devil's advocate here. How can you read this entire thread and say you don't discredit anything here? The claims being made here cannot possibly all be true, or held by the same person as being truth. Some of them are mutually exclusive. For example, right after my post stating the there is historical evidence that Jesus is myth, the next person stated unapologetically and without explanation that we know from history that Jesus was a real person. Many say Jesus existed in the first decades CE, while one person insists he existed a century or more before 1 CE, and keeps reincarnating into the present day.

Why is there so much controversy regarding Jesus' existence? The fact is if something is true no matter how much evidence you provide for it, someone can easily just say but what if your evidence is fake or made up? In other words, first we must accept that everything we accept is based on faith. Yes, there are degrees of faith, something may be more reasonable faith than something blind faith - but it is still faith.

For example, I ate a kitkat yesterday. How am I supposed to prove it? I could have recorded me eating it, but then you could say the video is manufactured or the date is wrong etc...i'm sure you get the drift of the point i'm making.

The fact is that we can not know anything for sure, but we put faith in something on the basis of experience and the amount of benefit we get from something being true versus the risk of accepting something to be false.

Jesus existing is a theory from a material perspective and will always be so. But we need to look from a spiritual perspective. We need to read his teachings and apply them in our lives. If they work, i.e. if we develop love for God as a result, then his teachings are successful and true. What more is there to consider? If his teachings give us love for God then there will be no doubt about his existence.

The only problem is when people ask "what if the teachings of Jesus i am reading are simply not his original words?" There is evidence to suggest that Jesus' original teachings have been corrupted over centuries. That is why one needs to get information from a source