Alternatives to the crucifixion story

[jamesfernandesuk]

Portals are well organized and more often than not really help people get jobs. Most of them have a basic sign up procedure where the candidate can upload the resume and fill out all the important details about their educational backgrounds, skills and work experience.

 

[quinnsong]

Do it.

LOL, Marquis you like hornets nests?

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Perhaps Marquis understands that hornets do not attack the non-existent.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Perhaps Marquis understands that hornets do not attack the non-existent.

Arne: Gnats do. Note:

I have deleted your useless message

It would be trivial matter for me to prove you yourself do not exist.

rcscwc: it would be a trivial matter for anyone reading this to prove that I never said such a thing, certainly not in this thread.



:shrug::shrug::shrug:

 

[Aqueous Id]

Isn't "oiled" just an odd, extremely old-fashioned way of saying "anointed?" The English word "messiah" is just Latin messias, which is just a borrowing of Hebrew mashiach, which means "the one anointed (with oil)."

Yes I failed to say that I arbitrarily picked an English word other than the transliteration "Christ" used in substitution of the meaning of the extant Greek word. Same with Baptist.

You bring up the interesting point that the extant texts did not preserved either the Hebrew or Aramaic for "messiah", but instead opted for the newly coined word Χριστός, which was adopted in English as "Christ". The reason I said "oiled" is because I'm not sure that Χριστός meant "anointed" until the Gentile initiates into Christianity were told the backstory of the mashiach. That is, if the local Hellenized culture where Christianity was spreading did not have a preconception of the "anointing" of a king from the "holy oil" (whatever that might mean to them) then this Χριστός would have been a foreign concept to them. A similar issue comes up with the "bather", which might better be translated "dipper". If the remote culture being converted had no such ritual, even though they were Hellenized (and therefore some or most of them spoke Greek) then the concept of a "baptist" would have been foreign to them. There are other words in the New Testament that raise similar questions. "Logos" is commonly translated "Word" although this probably loses the original meaning. The presence of "Logos" in John:1 is more likely borrowed from the Stoic word "reason".

I think Cyrus of Persia was first called mashiach, and this was to recognize him as the king sent by God to liberate the Jews captive in Babylon. Alexander would have been the next great king to influence the Jewish people but he was a conqueror. Evidently the legend of a mashiach grew up around the idea that someday God would come through. He would give them a king who would restore the nation of Israel, even to make them a world power. But that never happened. When Christianity sprang up, that was the tack it took. It absorbed the genetic memory of a mashiach, but changed it from the premise of a kingdom on Earth to a kingdom of heaven. Since that was how the legend of Jesus took root, away from the many other versions which did not survive, this is what present day Christians believe, without acknowledging the facts leading up the creation of the legend, its ideas and its characters.

 

[The Marquis]

LOL, Marquis you like hornets nests?

What hornets nest?
He's going to come up with a bunch of arguments telling me I don't exist, but... oh my. I'm still here!
Should we all panic now, or wait until we're actually argued out of existence? It's a matter of practicality, you see. Our affairs should be in order. When I'm forummed out of existence, I want to know that my home goes to the person I love the most.

... which would be me.
I'm not quite sure how I should arrange this.

 

[wellwisher]

The crucifixion of Jesus was done between two thieves. The two thieves represented knowledge of good (thief) and evil (thief) and law. Christ in the middle, symbolizes faith. Faith places one in a state of suspension and torture between the internal/external polarization created by law.

Tim. I 1:8-10, But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law was not made for a righteous man, but rather for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men....

This is subtle so let me try to explain it with an example. The law, not to murder, is not really necessary for most people. Most people have enough empathy to avoid murder, all on their own. This law was designed for those who have no conscience. Although most can see this distinction in personality, the law is applied to all, as though we are all inevitable killers, and need to be told this in advance.

The two thieves are two type of people under law. The good (thief) person who really does not need to be told to do good, is still treated as a potential criminal. The other thief is one the law was designed for, who will do this if not checked. The righteous person under faith is in the middle, not under law, but trying to follow their faith, follows the intent of the law but without the need of law.

The middle or neutral place of faith, is in a state of suspension and even torture, since the self righteous and the caretakers of the law, will expect conformity by all, even if the law is not needed by him/her due to their good nature. God becoming man, places God, who is above human law, under law, as though even God is the same as a criminal. The irony was needed to bring lack of common sense to light.

The death of Christ's human body symbolically ends this state of suspension since death releases one from law. After the death penally, the criminal is no longer obligated to any more laws. The resurrection symbolically neutralizes the impact of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The death penalty removed obligation to law, which extrapolates to the new of resurrected life. Law and knowledge of good and evil no longer apply. Sin being forgiven provides an out for the good person since they are no long obliged to remain the good thief. They can now live by faith.

In the analogy of the law for murder, if this was lifted, most people would still not murder. There was never any need for them to be under that law. It is often the evil minded, who create these laws, who project outward and assume all people think like themselves. This is why lawyers, who are not considered the most honest profession (stereo-type) are the ones in charge of making the law.

A good litmus test of righteous versus less than righteous leadership, is those who create the most laws tend to have the most criminal in their hearts. From a position of power over others, this inner darkness will project onto culture. They need these laws to protect everyone, from what they project they would do to others. The more criminal and oppressive the leadership the harsher the laws will become. Jesus created an escape from the laws of man (manmade laws).

Romans 14:14, I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

......realizing the fact that law was not made for a righteous man

The bible compromises and says if you need this law, then by all means accept it to help control you impulses. But if this is not needed in you heart, since you are a good person, ignore this law since that law was not made for you but for the criminal in heart. The children of the promise will live by faith and satisfy the law but without law.

 

[Yazata]

Like Jesus, Siddhartha Guatama (Buddha) is not a historical person.

I certainly disagree with that, and I think that the vast majority of scholars agree with me.

The question isn't so much whether the Buddha (or Jesus for that matter, though I'm less interested in Jesus) was an historical person. There's little or no reason to doubt that they were that I can see. The question is how much we can know today of their original teaching and message, given that it's coming to us through the lens of subsequent tradition and interpretation.

You are assuming that the legend is based in some actual person. There's no evidence to support that. Otherwise we would say the character was a historical person. Neither Jesus nor Buddha fit that description, since there is nothing but legendary material purporting to attest to their existence.

We know where the Buddha was born, we know his clan, we know some of the major events in his life and where they occurred, we know the places where he spoke many of his discourses and while it's hard to piece together a chronological itinerary, we certainly know the area that he traveled. (It was quite large actually, most of what is now northern Bihar and the eastern end of Uttar Pradesh. Ancient Magadha. And he traveled around it on foot.) We know some of the major personages that he interacted with and the existence of some of them has been verified by other sources. We know where he died and archaeologists have recently discovered that an identifiably Buddhist monumental structure seems to have been built there very early, probably not long after his death.

No one knows if Plato was a student of Socrates, or whether Plato created the fictional character called Socrates to emulate some other teacher, or perhaps himself. In any case it's not correct to say Plato believed in Socrates or not, since Socrates does not profess to be a god, or to work magic.

He believed in the existence of Socrates. Socrates was well known in Athens and was a public figure. He is actually one of the better-attested ancient Athenians. Plato isn't the only one who wrote about him. Socrates features in several of Aristophanes' satiric plays. (These are caricatures, but there's probably some grain of truth to them. They attest to Socrates' fame, since comedians don't start to make fun of you until you're well known.) The very famous historian/general Xenophon writes about having known Socrates in his 'Memorabilia'. Socrates had other philosophy students besides Plato, and we know that some of those students went on to found their own 'Socratic' philosophical schools. So historians of philosophy can trace several different lines of intellectual descent, leading from Socrates to later Hellenistic philosophical tendencies.

The problem with Socrates is that he never wrote anything, as far as is known. So all we know about his thought is what others say about it. Xenophon says a little about it, but Xenophon wasn't a philosopher and may not have really understood it. Socrates' other philosophical students may have written their own accounts of Socrates' thinking, but unfortunately those writings haven't survived. So we are basically dependent on Plato for a detailed account of what Socrates thought, and it's often hard to separate Socrates' thinking from Plato's own.

 

[wellwisher]

One point that is being overlooked, by the skeptics, is the impact of these men and how their impact has lingered over the centuries. In modern times, a fraud can make the headlines and gain their 5 minutes of fame, but the skeptics will be hell bend on exposing the fraud. It will be gone in a short time. How do these supposedly mythological characters, according to the atheists, start out so small, with competition hell bent on eliminating them, (persecution of the Christians), yet they still linger 2000 years and continue to grow?

When President Obama first appeared on the scene, his handlers tried to portray him as like a new Messiah, with Greek columns and booming stadium voice. They used the atheist assumptions that this is all about fraud and marketing. They used far better marketing tools and mass media, than Jesus or Buddha. This New Messiah image quickly spread, but it did not last more than a few years. It peaked early and decayed gradually because the critics, in a peaceful way were able to counter it. Then did not have to round up the liberals in detainment camps. What was the difference between this and Jesus or Buddha, who still linger even now?

It has to do with how deep in the psyche their impact is. The deepest parts of the psyche are far more conservative, such that these types of inductions can linger. The surface parts of the mind, will not linger, but are more in flux and change; faddish. In that sense, Jesus and Buddha were part of human evolution, in that they impacted the brain at levels very deep within the psyche (explains the blind devotion like an instinct), that are still beyond human control. If the handler of President Obama, could reach these same levels, they would have used this. But this is not man-made, like the surface, but is considered divine in origin. Arguments on the surface will not eliminate faith. One needs to use command lines that are designed to work in the core regions of the brain, where the firmware and instinct reside.

 

[origin]

One point that is being overlooked, by the skeptics, is the impact of these men and how their impact has lingered over the centuries. In modern times, a fraud can make the headlines and gain their 5 minutes of fame, but the skeptics will be hell bend on exposing the fraud. It will be gone in a short time. How do these supposedly mythological characters, according to the atheists, start out so small, with competition hell bent on eliminating them, (persecution of the Christians), yet they still linger 2000 years and continue to grow?

So since the impact of Muhammad has lingered over the centuries your stance is that the Muslim religion is just as believable and viable as Christianity. How open minded of you.

When President Obama first appeared on the scene, his handlers tried to portray him as like a new Messiah, with Greek columns and booming stadium voice. They used the atheist assumptions that this is all about fraud and marketing. They used far better marketing tools and mass media, than Jesus or Buddha. This New Messiah image quickly spread, but it did not last more than a few years. It peaked early and decayed gradually because the critics, in a peaceful way were able to counter it. Then did not have to round up the liberals in detainment camps. What was the difference between this and Jesus or Buddha, who still linger even now?

Holy crap! Even for you that is really freaking weird. Where in the name of all that is holy did you come up with that insanity????

It has to do with how deep in the psyche their impact is. The deepest parts of the psyche are far more conservative, such that these types of inductions can linger. The surface parts of the mind, will not linger, but are more in flux and change; faddish. In that sense, Jesus and Buddha were part of human evolution, in that they impacted the brain at levels very deep within the psyche (explains the blind devotion like an instinct), that are still beyond human control. If the handler of President Obama, could reach these same levels, they would have used this. But this is not man-made, like the surface, but is considered divine in origin. Arguments on the surface will not eliminate faith, except those who are only on the surface.

Did you forget to take your meds today? I mean this is really bizarre stuff you are rambling about...

 

[wellwisher]

When President Obama first appeared on the scene, his handlers tried to portray him as like a new Messiah, with Greek columns and booming stadium voice.

Holy crap! Even for you that is really freaking weird. Where in the name of all that is holy did you come up with that insanity????

All you need to do google, Obama's Greek Temple. The goal of his handlers, during the campaign,was to use Greek symbolism for an unconscious impact on the audience. It works via an overlay confusion. ABC News (Barbara Walters show) may have been the one's who started the Messiah parallel, to help the handlers. You can Gogogle that if you like.

But like I said, the appeal was shorted lived since even Origin forgot about it. It did not reach the deeper parts of the brain but had the excitement novelty of a fad. The core regions of the brain include the limbic system which is connected to emotional valence and firmware. These don't change much with time. The handlers only needed this to last for a year until the election then, it did not matter if it faded. Religion is in it for the long haul.

Christianity had the advantage of having merged with Rome in the 4th century AD. This gave Christianity a connection to a secular super power status, which lingered all the way through the British Empire and the founding of the USA. USA originally forms from England, France and Spain, all of which were part of the original Holy Roman Empire, but which had separated over the centuries, due to secular influences. The merged secularism of Rome is often confused with the teachings Christianity, using the misinformation of propaganda.

Holy crap! Even for you that is really freaking weird. Where in the name of all that is holy did you come up with that insanity????

Another way to look at this is to consider small children.

During early childhood (ages 2–6), children gain some sense of being separate and independent from their parents. According to Erikson, the task of preschoolers is to develop autonomy, or self‐direction, (ages 1–3), as well as initiative, or enterprise (ages 3–6).

The smallest children act and react based on what is innate to their little human brain, before they are conditioned to culture by school. Small children, if given choice of a fairly tale or nonfiction data, will choose the fairy tale, since this comes natural and easy to them. Before culture clouds the mind, with conditioning, myth is the natural choice of small child autonomy. Much of the mythological symbolism of religion, caters to the small child and the inner child and not the adult. It caters to what underlies the foundations of the human personality; firmware, and not to the more transient nature of cultural differentiation.

Atheism comes in after the personality is formed, not before as do the myths of religion. Atheism is more at the propaganda stage, where adults can be manipulated with other types of appeal, like Greek Columns and the fairy tales of rhetoric.

 

[Randwolf]

It works via an overlay confusion.

Is that supposed to be a technical term?

ABC News (Barbara Walters show) may have been the one's who started the Messiah parallel, to help the handlers. You can Gogogle that if you like.

Really wellwisher? When did Barbara mention Obama and messiah together? When, as in what date? (Hint: I can google...)

It did not reach the deeper parts of the brain but had the excitement novelty of a fad. The core regions of the brain include the limbic system which is connected to emotional valence and firmware.

Apparently it reached your "firmware" since you seem to remember.

Christianity had the advantage of having merged with Rome in the 4th century AD. This gave Christianity a connection to a secular super power status

What on Earth would make you think pre-christian Rome was secular? Once again, you have proven your unwillingness to even google the simplest facts prior to posting your nonsense assertions. Will you never learn that someone will call you on your BS - every time?

The religion of Ancient Rome was polytheistic in origin, in line with religious traditions in wider Iron Age Europe. From an early time, however, the Roman Republic was strongly influenced by Hellenistic Greece, and much of the recorded religion of pre-Christian Rome is a syncretism of indigenous with Hellenistic religion.

The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety (pietas) in maintaining good relations with the gods.​

Wiki - Emphasis mine

Does that sound "secular" to you wellwisher?

...which lingered all the way through the British Empire and the founding of the USA. USA originally forms from England, France and Spain, all of which were part of the original Holy Roman Empire, but which had separated over the centuries, due to secular influences. The merged secularism of Rome is often confused with the teachings Christianity, using the misinformation of propaganda.

Not sure even where to start with that nonsense. So much BS, so little time...

Another way to look at this is to consider small children.

How apropos, I often consider small children when reading your posts.

The smallest children act and react based on what is innate to their little human brain, before they are conditioned to culture by school. Small children, if given choice of a fairly tale or nonfiction data, will choose the fairy tale, since this comes natural and easy to them.

Because... They don't know any better? I suppose that would be a good thing if it held true for adults as well, right? Oh wait, that is a recurring theme of yours isn't it? The world would be so much better off if we all just continued to believe in fairy tales - AKA the Bible...

Before culture clouds [clears] the mind, with conditioning [knowledge], myth is the natural choice of small child autonomy.

Fixed.

Much of the mythological symbolism of religion, caters to the small child and the inner child and not the adult.

Amen, brother. Something we can agree upon...

Atheism comes in after the personality is formed, not before as do the myths of religion. Atheism is more at the propaganda stage, where adults can be manipulated with other types of appeal, like Greek Columns and the fairy tales of rhetoric.

So, let me see if I understand... The "fairy tales of rhetoric" and "propaganda" can manipulate and appeal to adults after their personalities are formed but the "myths of religion" can not? Did I interpret that right? Really?

 

[wellwisher]

So, let me see if I understand... The "fairy tales of rhetoric" and "propaganda" can manipulate and appeal to adults after their personalities are formed but the "myths of religion" can not? Did I interpret that right? Really?

Children are not born with prejudice. This is not innate in the natural firmware. This is learned/taught externally, as the children get older. The atheist creed is not part of the natural firmware, but is based on propaganda that is taught later in life. When did you become an atheist? A child loves stories.

If you compare the learning potential of a small child, the human brain learns the fastest as a child. The turbo brain of the child prefers mythology because this is a dense form of language (symbolism) that uses a faster brain speed. The brain slows, as the child grows. This has to do with symbolism appealing to the right brain which is more spatial or 3-D. This side of the brain has the 3-D speed needed for the natural firmware connections of the child. As the child learns the linear dogma of culture, this develops the left brain, which is more differential (prejudice is toward a specific group).

The value of the mythology is it not only appeals to the natural child's high speed learning and firmware, but once learned, it is very easy to remember. The manger story of baby Jesus is easy to remember and can last a lifetime for easy transmission to the next generation of children. As one matures, this childhood symbolism is expanded upon, like popping corn, and takes on deeper and deeper meaning. The crucifixion is a story, but the interpretation gets deep. This expansion and differentiation is appealing to the left brain of the adult, but it nevertheless rooted in the right brain memory pegs of their inner child.

Atheism cuts off its nose to spite its face. The religious myths it allows are programmed with a hostile association. These will forever be part of the negativity that drives atheism, via the right brain. But it will never be expanded upon for deeper meaning. There is a certain pathology that makes them what to persecute the innocent who do them no direct wrong.

 

[Soalaynof]

I began meditating as a child before I knew what it was, so did Michael But, I did not develop a formal meditation practice until I was 20, but I made good progress at the time So, I am disinclined to believe a child or a teenager could become enlightened, but there is no reason why children and adolescents could not take up a contemplative life
chuika pw] тур

 

[Dywyddyr]

The atheist creed

There is no "atheist creed"

but is based on propaganda that is taught later in life.

Propaganda?
Multiple biases evident here.

The turbo brain of the child prefers mythology because this is a dense form of language (symbolism) that uses a faster brain speed.

So what you're saying here is that children acquire religion - and become theists - because they're fed propaganda mythology.
And that theism/ religion per se isn't "part of the natural firmware".

As the child learns the linear dogma of culture, this develops the left brain, which is more differential (prejudice is toward a specific group).

Got it.
Religion teaches children prejudice.

Atheism cuts off its nose to spite its face.

Unsupported nonsense.

The religious myths it allows are programmed with a hostile association. These will forever be part of the negativity that drives atheism, via the right brain. But it will never be expanded upon for deeper meaning. There is a certain pathology that makes them what to persecute the innocent who do them no direct wrong.

Utter crap.

And you're still pushing the (debunked) left-brain/ right-brain myth.
I guess some people prefer mythology to reality.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I began meditating as a child before I knew what it was, so did Michael But, I did not develop a formal meditation practice until I was 20, but I made good progress at the time So, I am disinclined to believe a child or a teenager could become enlightened, but there is no reason why children and adolescents could not take up a contemplative life
chuika pw] тур

I was tempted to ask if you meant meditation as an alternative to crucifixion . . .

 

[Medicine*Woman]

the jewish reports (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.) report that he was executed like a common criminal (two criminals executed along with him). i suspect that the roman authorities had little reason to believe he was a "high profile political prisoner" or that his execution would arouse sympathy from the masses. apparently, it did not, as the masses sought the release of a high profile criminal (barabbas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas ), not jesus. accordingly, the roman authorities released barrabas, not the little-known nazarite.

*************
M*W: I have a question. It is my understanding that the Romans crushed Jerusalem in 70 AD or so, and the Jews scattered about. My question is in regard to the Book of Mark. I think it's odd that the NT was penned and compiled at the same time or a bit later following the destruction of Jerusalem. I would like to know how these two events (Book of Mark/destruction of Jerusalem) coincided at about 70 AD.

Regarding Barabbas: It is my understanding that Bar Abbas means "Son of God." How can it be that Barabbas was taken in the place of Jesus, the presumed son of God?

That paragraph in Josephus's work mentioning Jesus is considered to be a later forgery by a faction trying to prove the existence of Jesus. I think there is a lot more to be understood when these biblical stories are interpreted astro-theologically.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It is my understanding that Bar Abbas means "Son of God."

Not exactly. Aramaic bar abba means "son [of the] father." It's also asserted that in context, "son" means "Jesus," so bar abba means "Jesus, [son] [of the] father." Barabbas is merely the Romanization of the Greek phonetic transcription of the original Aramaic. (I'm not finding the actual Greek version and I'm not going to put in the effort to spell it out one letter at a time from a foreign alphabet. Sorry. )

That paragraph in Josephus's work mentioning Jesus is considered to be a later forgery by a faction trying to prove the existence of Jesus. I think there is a lot more to be understood when these biblical stories are interpreted astro-theologically.

The whole volume of Josephus's work is by no means accepted as authentic by the entire community of historians. Considering that the Romans were compulsive recordkeepers, and considering that a great many of the various events in Jesus's life were rather remarkable (to put it mildly), it is just a tiny bit odd that only one scribe wrote of them, and that this scribe was a Jew who had ingratiated himself to the Roman community and was allowed to be a free man with a profession.

 

[Hapsburg]

Does that sound more likely than coming back from the dead?

It sounds just as silly. More likely is that the historical personage upon which the legendary Jesus is based was dead. Just straight up, died on the cross. And the "rose from the dead" stuff are legends his followers conceived and believed. Why even believe that he was walking around after his death, faked death or not, when that requires a much more convoluted set of events? When it's much more parsimonious to conclude that he died and people made up stories later.

 

[wellwisher]

Not exactly. Aramaic bar abba means "son [of the] father." It's also asserted that in context, "son" means "Jesus," so bar abba means "Jesus, [son] [of the] father." Barabbas is merely the Romanization of the Greek phonetic transcription of the original Aramaic. (I'm not finding the actual Greek version and I'm not going to put in the effort to spell it out one letter at a time from a foreign alphabet. Sorry. )The whole volume of Josephus's work is by no means accepted as authentic by the entire community of historians. Considering that the Romans were compulsive recordkeepers, and considering that a great many of the various events in Jesus's life were rather remarkable (to put it mildly), it is just a tiny bit odd that only one scribe wrote of them, and that this scribe was a Jew who had ingratiated himself to the Roman community and was allowed to be a free man with a profession.

Hillary Clinton and the head of the IRS had thousands of emails lost. These were lost so certain things have no proof of ever happening. The rise of Christianity was not good for the Roman empire, in the early days; they had lost emails. Book burning is a good way to urge the past. This was done by Hitler and Stalin so the past did not exist, so one could draw a straight logical line. This allows revisionist history to begin where needed. This is not new and is often needed to avoid blame.