Bible research?

[Amethyst Rose]

I'm sure there are people here who are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, so I'm asking for some help.

In a discussion about the true meaning of Christmas with someone (a Christian) on a mailing list, I stated that because we don't have Jesus' personal written statement that he was God, all we have is what others have written and that was heresay. I also stated that I believe others wrote that he said such things in order to gain a greater following in the church.

I understand that someone who believes the Bible is divinely inspired won't agree that it is heresay. However, she stated that there was no support for my theory, but there was tons of support for the bible (and hence, the bible is more true??)

So what I'm wondering is if there is any support for the belief that Jesus was not God, but rather a great spiritual leader who's teachings were turned (and some say corrupted) into a religion. And if there is any support for it, are there any books or links that you know of?

I'd have more time to do the research for myself, but the baby just woke up from his nap. Thanks for you help. :)

[IvyWitch]

Well, the simple answer is even though Jesus himself didn't write the Gospels, they were written by different people at different times in different places and they all have the information. It's not like it's just one person who quoted him as saying he was the son of God, it's quoted, said or implied in almost every gospel.

It really depends on what you believe....there's little information outside the Bible that I know of about Jesus. However there are plenty of people who say that BIble isn't inspired and that he was just a cool guy. To be frank, there isn't a lot of hard evidence either way.

I'm a little out of it myself, so sorry if that doesn't really help.

[charmedkisses1]

We have Jesus' personal statement that he is "the Son of God" he never said he was God. I don't believe.


-xian

[Xentor]

Admin mode

Moved to Theology and Philosophy.

[Verthandi]

I believe it wasn't determined that Yeshua was divine until several centuries after his death, during one of the many conferences the church had. It was also determined at one of them that Mary remained a virgin her entire life (just an FYI ;) ). Anyway, the church decided which books to keep in the Bible and which to not use and subsequently, those not used became heresy. If I'm remembering correctly, there were several books of each of the four Gospels--several Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Each Matthew book was supposed to be used by one sect, each Luke book used by another, etc. The church just cut and pasted and that's why the Gospels sometimes repeat each other and even give different accounts of the same event.

[Valkie]

Ever read the Divinci Code??

Verthandi is right. There were many , many books written... some of them even protraying Jesus as more of a man than the divinity that is in the accepted Bible, that were not included in the church's official version.

You can google "lost books of the bible" for bits of information. There has also been a book published about the whole thing titled *dum dum dum* "The Lost Books of the Bible"

[Emi]

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=29

Interesting site, about all the contradictions in the Bible if the trinity is 'true', it might help. Also you could try the Book of Thomas, I think that there might me some stuff in that.

[IvyWitch]

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=29

Interesting site, about all the contradictions in the Bible if the trinity is 'true', it might help. Also you could try the Book of Thomas, I think that there might me some stuff in that.

The Gospel of Thomas is not considered acceptable canon and is really part of the Gnostic scriptures and there's a lot of questions as to whether or not the gnostics were really Christian anyway, it's more likely that they existed before Christianity and then adapted it to thier system. But that's neither here nor there

As to the site that contains the contradictions, really those are easily refuteable for a Christian. The idea of the trinity is highly complicated and complex and doesn't have to follow all the rules. These things pointed out on the site are not contradictions at all. The idea behind the trinity is that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three seperate beings but also one being. Similar in somes ways to the three aspects of many Goddesses. Really, this is a whole different discussion alltogether and I would really rather not get into it and detract the thread.

[Calyx]

Yes, the Trinity is the commonly held concept that there are three separate entities that are all part of one Divine.
However, and I'd have to go check my bible for this, but I don't believe that Jesus ever calls himself God. Nor does it ever say in the bible that he is God. What it *does* say in numerous places is that he is the SON, of God, which Jesus also says.
John 3:16 is probably the most used example of this where is says that for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, etc.

does this help, or just muddy the waters more?:)

[equinox2]

I'll post some good resources tomorrow.

Charmedkisses makes a good point.

gotta go. baby crying.

Merry Yule!

[charmedkisses1]

Ever read the Divinci Code??

Verthandi is right. There were many , many books written... some of them even protraying Jesus as more of a man than the divinity that is in the accepted Bible, that were not included in the church's official version.

You can google "lost books of the bible" for bits of information. There has also been a book published about the whole thing titled *dum dum dum* "The Lost Books of the Bible"


-.- the davinici code is fiction. and poorly written, at that. though the theories are good, and I agree with some.


Christ declared himself the son of God, that's why he was killed (blasphemy, as well as pissing the Sanhedrin off). The councils of Nicea and Pisa, etc, were to actually argue of the Holy Spirit and such. If Joshua (Jesus) ever declared himself THE GOD, well I've never heard of that.

[AlAskendir]

I'm sure there are people here who are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, so I'm asking for some help.

In a discussion about the true meaning of Christmas with someone (a Christian) on a mailing list, I stated that because we don't have Jesus' personal written statement that he was God, all we have is what others have written and that was heresay. I also stated that I believe others wrote that he said such things in order to gain a greater following in the church.

I understand that someone who believes the Bible is divinely inspired won't agree that it is heresay. However, she stated that there was no support for my theory, but there was tons of support for the bible (and hence, the bible is more true??)

So what I'm wondering is if there is any support for the belief that Jesus was not God, but rather a great spiritual leader who's teachings were turned (and some say corrupted) into a religion. And if there is any support for it, are there any books or links that you know of?

I'd have more time to do the research for myself, but the baby just woke up from his nap. Thanks for you help. :)

Holy Blood, Holy Grail; The Hyram Key; compare the lines of the Pentatuech (first five books of the bible) with the Sumerian record via Sitchen's 12th Planet Series

[Morr]

ok, here goes...

Jesus did *NOT* say he was God. The question of his Divinity was decided in the Council of Nicea in 313ad which was orchastrated by Caesar Constantine because he needed something to unite his Empire which was falling apart. He figured -

One Empire = One Emparor
One Religion = One God

He adopted Christianity (the Orthodox/Catholic movement) because he needed some solid ground to unite the citizens of his people under.

Jesus, though declaring he is the Son Of God, also called his followers and the people who listened to him - "My Brothers, My Sisters, My Mothers" etc. Does that make us as Divine and Holy (and all THAT Jazz...) like Jesus?

Nope.
Jesus may have said that - Yes. But he probably and most likely said that in the VERY SAME context that some Pagans say - "We are all the children of the Goddess/The Earth/The Mother" etc.

The Trinity Concept, The Virgin Birth, The Sacred Heart, The Sacraments, The Dogma = All man made. The Church didnt have an official Dogma untill the Late Middle Ages.
I doubt God is THAT slow & undecided on his own personal Agendas for us little humans.

Through Historical research (and NOT "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or "The Da Vinci Code", etc) it is possible to prove that Jesus was just another Rabbinical leader that led a Jewish Spiritual sect that opposed the larger, more popular Jewish sect - The Pharasees (whom also pretty much ruled the Sanhendin).

Jesus WAS NOT PUT TO DEATH FOR BLASPHAMY! I cant stress that enough. Its historically PROVEN through Roman Army documents that only TRAITORS would be put to death through Crucifixtion. Jesus was a victim of Political circumstances - Nothing more. Anything else is a question of faith.

Also, as an FYI (good for battling Christian Fundies) -

~ The Whole "Massacare of The Innocent" ordered by Harod - Never Happened (absolutely no historical proof for such a massacare ever happening at that time, by that king, in that area).

~ The Passover "Tradition" of which Pontius Pilate talks about, where he lets the Jews choose which prisoner to release - Never Happened (Absolutely no historical proof in any Roman army document).

~ The scene where Pontius Pilate "Washes His Hands" right before ordering Jesus to be put to death - IS ACTUALLY A JEWISH TRADITION DONE IN CASES OF MURDERES - *NOT* A ROMAN THING. Which proves that this scene/gospel (I forget which one at the moment) was written by a Jew and/or for a Jewish audience.

Its a known fact (even talked about in the "Acts Of The Apostles" book) that Paul & James (Jesus' brother) argued between them regarding whether or not they should spread the word of Jesus to the Gentiles too. James - Being the head of the Primitive Jerusalem Church that was all for Jesus' teachings BUT ONLY FOR JEWS and/or Gentiles who were circumsized and accepted into Judaism, followed through with Jesus' teachings. Since Jesus declared that his word should FIRST come to the Jews and only after they have accepted it should it be spread to the Gentiles.
Paul, whom in my opinion had quite a few issues and I dislike him GREATLY, wanted to spread the gospel to the Gentiles. HE was the one who decided Judaism was out and Christianity was in. HE changed the customs and traditions of Jesus' religion & spirituality to fit his marketing of Christianity to the Gentiles (what Gentile in his right mind would agree to be CIRCUMSIZED in order to be accepted to the new religion?). I mean, hell - Paul never met Jesus, never heard his sermons, never was part of his teaching circle. Paul's "epiphany" on his way to Demascus is another question of Faith.
Interestingly enough, if you observe the Physical & Emotional reaction Paul describes in his letters, while talking about Jesus' revelation to him - They are exactly those of a person who went through quite a traumatizing event (blindness, total change of view on the world, becoming SO MUCH MORE religous/turning to another religion and becoming a fanatic, etc). So with regards to that - Something DID happen to Paul. Whether its Jesus freaking him out and bitch slapping him, or just something else - Is again, a question of Faith.

I'm not very familiar with Paul's writings, however they ARE the earliest. The gospels and the gnostic gospels are all later ones, as far as I know. So wouldnt be surprised if Paul was the one who initially started the whole - Jesus is God thing. While the council of Nicea made it "Official" (it was really just looking for a way to shut the Christian Arian movment, which believed that Jesus was the son of God and beneath God, not part of God or Divine completely), I have read that the various Christian movements way before 313ad viewed Jesus as God/Divine.

You also have to understand that if you compare Jesus' story to any other Popular Pagan God of the time, in that area of the world - The stories are so very similar - A Virgin Mother, a Blessed Child of which Prophacies tell about, A wise God that teaches and has many followers, A God that is sacrificed for the good of his own people/land, A god that later (usually after 3 days) is ressurected and taken to the land of the Dead.
So in that sense - Seeing as Paul was writing to the Gentiles, and seeing as it was the Gentiles who mainly picked this religion up and made it so powerful - Its easy to understand how and why the Gentiles of the time - Who were in essence Pagan before accepting Christianity - Would view Jesus as God. It just fit the stories & myths & religions they were already familiar with.
And selling Jesus as God, to these people, makes it a hell of a lot easier to get them to buy & convert.


Well, those were my 2 cents :)

[equinox2]

Amethyst Rose


I stated that because we don't have Jesus' personal written statement that he was God, all we have is what others have written and that was heresay.


Hi-

OK, I don’t have much time and I’ve jotted down some notes about this (which are at work), so this reply will leave a lot of details out. Consider it a place to start your own research, not a list of answers.

First of all, the claim that person has made is so huge that to adequately address it will take pages. So I’ll just cover a few high points. Secondly, I’m going to talk in this letter about how a Christian Fundamentalist will use fallacious argument, twist words, etc. Please understand that this letter could well be to a moderate Christian, etc or anyone who is talking to a fundamentalist. I hope no one takes offense to some little thing in here and says "don’t bash Christians!" or some such. I’m fully aware that many Christians aren’t biblical literalists - this letter isn’t about all Christians.

When discussing things like this, there are two traps to avoid. One is the burden of proof. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim - so when someone says "UFOs exist! - prove me wrong!!", they don’t have to be listened to. It’s up to them to prove their claim, not you. If they have some evidence, but not proof, then the default answer isn’t that they are right, it’s that we don’t know. The other major trap is the "all or nothing" approach to ancient documents. If a document has some things correct, then that doesn’t mean all of it is correct. For instance - both the legends of Hercules and the book "a tale of two cities" accurately describe real cities, and their descriptions have been verified by historians. But that doesn’t mean that every detail in those books are correct. Similarly, the existence of Pilate (from the gospels) has been verified by Roman records, but that doesn’t mean that everything in the gospels is true! So a list of historically correct things from the gospels doesn’t verify that Jesus was God, etc.

With all resources, don’t take anything I’ve written just as is. Check into it from other sources too. Similary, don’t let your friend use any source without proper credentials either.
Some resources:
Read my chap 5 &6 , and these two pages for starters:

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/TJXSUM/tj5xbbibprob.htm
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/TJXSUM/tj6xhinfo.htm

When talking about any part of the New Testament, read about it first at www.earlychristianwritings.com. That site will describe WHY scholars think it was written when, and by whom, etc.

Another resource is Morr - she is educated on this, and isn’t just spouting personal opinion as fact, as many people tend to do when Jesus or the Bible are discussed.

Also, I’d get two classes from the teaching company (classes on tape). These are by an expert in Bible studies, and contain verified information that is the opposite of what you may think today.
Their webpage is www.teach12.com (phone # 1-800-teach12), and you want classes #643 (The Historical Jesus) & #656 (The New Testament).

Some specific answers:

The Bible isn’t literally word for word true. There are many verified historical errors, contradictions (like over which day Jesus was crucified - Mt differs from John). Etc. Even the organization of Conservative Jews has publically admitted this (about the old testament), and if anyone knows the old testament, I would think it would be them. I can give you the reference for that next week - I have notes and such about all this at work, but I’m off for another week.

Most of the New Testament wasn’t written by people who where Jesus’ 12 disciples. In fact, it appears that none of the NT was written by anyone who saw any part of Jesus’ ministry. That includes the gospels. The strongest claim can probably made for 1peter, but even that appears unlikely.

Amethyst Rose


I also stated that I believe others wrote that he said such things in order to gain a greater following in the church.

That appears to be the case, but don’t take my word for it - you’ll find plenty of evidence for that in the resources I’ve listed.

Charmedkisses wrote

We have Jesus' personal statement that he is "the Son of God" he never said he was God. I don't believe.

Son of God in the OT is just a human, like King Solomon, who is called the "son of God" in the book of 1 sam in the bible. In the gospels jesus often claims to be the son of God. It is only in the gospel of John that Jesus claims to be god. He does so there over and over from the very first verse. But the Gosple of John was written long after the fact (over 60 years), and has many obvious inaccuracies. Charmedkisses is right - historians don’t think Jesus actually claimed to be God, but does appear to have claimed to be the son of God.

Ivy worte:

The Gospel of Thomas is not considered acceptable canon and is really part of the Gnostic scriptures and there's a lot of questions as to whether or not the gnostics were really Christian anyway,

the canon was determined by the Roman Catholic church in the 4th century, so it doesn’t matter that they didn’t like the Gospel of Tomas (GoT). Calling the gnostic "not really Christian" is like a Baptist calling a Jehovah’s witness "not really Christian". The Gnostics sincerely followed Jesus as much as anyone else who claims to be a Christian.
Below is a letter I just wrote to a friend who is looking into all this.



Thoughts on what Jesus probably did (the Jesus of History)

Introduction - Can peons like us study the Jesus of History?

Jim - to save time in discussion, I thought I’d write up this one two page summary of what I’ve found in learning about who Jesus probably actually was. In some ways, researching the real person of Jesus is a feasible task for people like us. Ironically, this is because there aren’t good records! For instance, say you wanted to learn about the real person Voltaire. He’s written letters and essays totaling over a million words, and other people have written biographies and such of him totaling many times that amount! You could get the basic facts pretty quick (such as his birthdate, etc,), but you could never approach the understanding that experts have. Compare this to the Hercules of history. We have no surviving account that isn’t clearly a legend, and have no clear idea when or if he was actually born. We’ve both read all the documents believed to be written by Hercules, because there aren’t any! So who is "easier" to learn about? Hercules. It’s just that we end up with a lot of things that no one can know - no certainty. Jesus falls somewhere in between Voltaire and Hercules in difficulty, but is closer to Hercules.

So to make a best guess about aspects of Jesus’ life, we (like any historian or detective) need to look at what information we have. As we know, almost everyone has something to say about Jesus, so we need to filter the information to separate the small amount of useful information from the vast seas of bullshit. Here are some useful filters I use, which I’ve gotten from scholars researching any historical figure:

1. Age - when was the account written? In the ancient world, with no recording devices and a life expectancy in the 20’s, only accounts near to the event have much chance of being accurate.
2. Repetition - how many separate sources say the same thing? Obviously the more the better.
3. Dissimilarity - since people for nearly the last 2000 years have been making up stories about Jesus, so stories that no Christian would want to make up are more likely to be true.
4. Historically Plausible - Does the story fit the circumstances? This is perhaps the guide I rely on most in historical reconstructions, Jesus included.

If these filters are used on the huge mountain of stuff we have about Jesus, the pile gets manageably small in a hurry. You can find the actual text of most of these by going to www.earlychristianwritings.com. Due to age constraints (#1), I’m ignoring anything written after around 150 CE. Anything written after that would be like you or I writing about the US Civil War - what good is that?

Bascially, this all we have:

Non-Christian Information:

We actually have a mention of Jesus by the Historian Josephus written in 93 CE. (Cool!) Josephus was born around 5 - 10 years after Jesus died, so he could have heard some stories. Christian copyists in the Middle Ages appear to have beefed up his mention of Jesus, but he at least mentions Jesus as an itinerant preacher.

The Romans Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius writing in the second century all mention that there exists a group of people who worship Jesus, and that they believe Jesus had been crucified. That wasn’t in doubt.

There are millions of pages of later Roman and other non-Christian information (including the Jewish Talmud which says that Jesus was the bastard child of a Roman Centurion who raped a Jewish girl, or the Muslim Qu’ran, which states that Jesus was saved by God who took Jesus off the cross). I’m ignoring all of them.

Christian Information:

Gospels: (note that we have nothing - not a gospel, letter, or anything anywhere, written by anyone who so much as saw Jesus during his life, as far as we can tell.)

· Thomas (written in parts between 50 and 150 CE) - Expected to have a Christian bias, but hey, it’s at least some information! - Plus, later sections must be sifted and removed.

· Mark (written 65 to 70 CE) - Expected to have a Christian bias, but hey, it’s at least some information!

· Matthew (written 75 to 85 CE) - later, so not as useful are Mark

· Luke (written 75 to 90 CE) - later, so not as useful are Mark

· Q (it could be as old as 50 CE, but we don’t have it) - Some usefulness, as seen through the biases of Matthew & Luke.

· John (written 90-95 CE). Even later and very legendary - limited usefulness.
· Peter (writeen 100-150 CE). - Very late, very limited usefulness.
· Mary (written 100 - 150 CE). Very late, very limited usefulness.
· What about the other Christian books (both within and outside the Bible)? They have a little information, but not much that isn’t already in the gospels. They, like the late and legendary gospels of John, Peter and Mary, can have some use to weakly corroborate other stories, but not much use beyond that. The bible

That’s it. You or I can easily read all of those, and be on decent footing to speculate about Jesus’ life - since no one can be on really solid footing anyway. Many people make up things about Jesus that they would like to be true (their own personal philosphy), but unless it is backed up by evidence, it is speculation.

I think the most important thing about your own decision about what Jesus really said and did (and wanted for a religion) is to look yourself and critically examine the arguments of each view. To do this, a nice summary of the different views proposed is at www.earlychristianwritings.com, click on the "Historical Jesus" black button near the top of the page. This lays out what different people think, and references their books so you can learn more. I also highly recommend the audio course from the teaching company. They can be reached at www.teach12.com, or 1-800-teach12. The course is #643 (The Historical Jesus). Other good ones are #6577 (Early Christian History), #656 (The New Testament), and #6593 (Lost Christianities). They are all by the same person, so be sure to read other views for comparison. I do however agree with his approach - it is much more evidence based than others, IMHO. I did a class on that last one, and so the tapes I gave you of that have a lot of the same information.

Have fun!


I've been amazed by what I've learned. There is a huge gap between scholars and popular opinion. :bangyourh You'll be amazed too. Have a fun day-

[Ben Trismegistus]

Morr and Equinox are a couple of smart cookies. There's a ton of detail there for you to work with. Now I'll provide the over-arching simple part. :)

The "truth" of Christianity is found entirely in circular logic. "The Bible is the Word of God, because it says so in the Bible." That is the only evidence of any sort of literal truth of the Jesus story. Period. There are a couple of off-hand references in a few objective contemporary sources which suggest that there was a dude named Jesus who actually existed, but any sort of theological issues are completely unproveable through any sort of objective means.

I could write a book which said that I am God, and if you tried to argue with me, I could point to the book and say, it says here in the book that I am God, therefore I am. That's the same kind of logic.

This is not to say that Christianity is NOT true. All I'm saying is that belief in Christianity is an article of faith, not fact. What makes Christianity a religion rather than a historical movement is that Christians believe in their theology despite the complete absence of objective fact. That's the whole leap of faith thing -- I've got no logical reason to believe this, but I believe it anyway. That's the entire basis of religion, and Christianity is no exception.

So there.

[Amethyst Rose]

Thanks for all the information you guys that was great! I learned a lot :) I'd love to take a course on just this kind of thing.

However,



What makes Christianity a religion rather than a historical movement is that Christians believe in their theology despite the complete absence of objective fact. That's the whole leap of faith thing -- I've got no logical reason to believe this, but I believe it anyway. That's the entire basis of religion, and Christianity is no exception.



Because of that, I have chosen not to mention any of this to the Christian on my mailing list. In fact, I'm not going to discuss it any further with her, because I get the distinct feeling that she would be greatly insulted by such an attempt. She has admited to be a bible literalist, so there'd really be no point.

Thanks again, for teaching me something! :)

[Ben Trismegistus]

Because of that, I have chosen not to mention any of this to the Christian on my mailing list. In fact, I'm not going to discuss it any further with her, because I get the distinct feeling that she would be greatly insulted by such an attempt. She has admited to be a bible literalist, so there'd really be no point.
Good thinking. It would just be a waste of your time.

[Ceres]

a side note: even tho the bible is a collection of books written by different ppl at different times, its important to remember that like news and gossip today, these stories about jesus would have been circulating widely. so the fact that some writers wrote things that agree with what other writers wrote doesnt prove its true, merely that they heard the same rumours.

[Morr]

a side note: even tho the bible is a collection of books written by different ppl at different times, its important to remember that like news and gossip today, these stories about jesus would have been circulating widely. so the fact that some writers wrote things that agree with what other writers wrote doesnt prove its true, merely that they heard the same rumours.


yup. This is where "Q" comes in.

[Ceres]

yup. This is where "Q" comes in.

"Q" ?

[Morr]

"Q" is what New Testament Scholars call the document/source that is [supposedly] where Matthew & Luke took some stuff in their gospels that are parallel, but that do not appear in Mark.

Mark is the earliest Gospel. And it is evident that both Matthew & Luke, which are later Gospels, have copied/used Mark as one of their sources for their own Gospels. However, there are some parts in these 2 Gospels that dont appear in Mark, yet are shared by Matthew & Luke.

I hope that made sense.

[Verthandi]

Well, those were my 2 cents :)
Two cents? More like two dollars! That was excellent, Morr. I enjoyed reading your response too, equinox!

[AlAskendir]

I could write a book which said that I am God, and if you tried to argue with me, I could point to the book and say, it says here in the book that I am God, therefore I am. That's the same kind of logic.

And if you have yet to look up the classic 'Kissing hank's A$$' by J Huber or Huger, or something, now is a really good time.

[Holly_Blackwell]

It was also determined at one of them that Mary remained a virgin her entire life (just an FYI ;) )

ummmm...what about the verses that mention Christ's brothers???