1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Christianity Became Pagan

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by godnotgod, Oct 12, 2012.

  1. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Godnotgod:
    They're free to believe what they wish. I can only answer for my own belief -- which does not include substitutionary atonement.

    Godnotgod:
    Becoming Incarnate isn't enough of a sacrifice?
     
  2. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Godnotgod:
    Blood represents life. Wine also represents life and Divine favor. It was Jesus' life -- Incarnation -- not his death that are efficacious in the New Covenant. His death is important in that it "seals the deal" that he is, indeed, fully human. But atonement? Nah.

    Godnotgod:
    the Mithaic meal was in no way "Eucharistic." It lacks entirely the same theological thrust.
     
  3. Astounded

    Astounded Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +4

    1)Jesus had to wait until He was 30 to be a Jewish teacher with authority. There's no sense in "preaching" before that.
    2) Jesus effectively killed Himself. He knew what He was going to do well in advance.
    3) Jews don't eat symbols or emblems of the sacrifice. They eat the sacrifice. Thus, the bread is the Body and the wine is the Blood.
    4) Jesus mentions being forsaken as that is the first time He is separated from the Father due to the effects of taking on the sin of the world.
    5) The Incarnation was sufficient for redemption/atonement. Any abasement of the divine (Incarnation) redeems. I believe that is the theology of Pope Leo X. Jesus could have died from old age and mankind would have been redeemed.
    6) Jesus is carrying out His "yoke/interpretation" of the Law on the cross. Love God. Love Neighbor. Only as God could He do this.
     
  4. Astounded

    Astounded Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +4
    "Jesus had no intention of founding a new religion. He regarded himself as the Messiah in the normal Jewish sense of the term, i.e. a human leader who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders, set up an independent Jewish state, and inaugurate an era of peace, justice and prosperity (known as 'the kingdom of God,) for the whole world. Jesus believed himself to be the figure prophesied in the Hebrew Bible who would do all these things. He was not a militarist and did not build up an army to fight the Romans, since he believed that God would perform a great miracle to break the power of Rome. This miracle would take place on the Mount of Olives, as prophesied in the book of Zechariah. When this miracle did not occur, his mission had failed. He had no intention of being crucified in order to save mankind from eternal damnation by his sacrifice. He never regarded himself as a divine being, and would have regarded such an idea as pagan and idolatrous, an infringement of the first of the Ten Commandments."


    Now there's a confused writer.


    Unless Jesus was divine, how does He have the gall to replace God with Himself at the Last Supper todah? Command the apostles to do the todah in memory of Him and not God? The object of thanks in the todah is God, not a mere man. If Jesus was a mere man, then what He was doing at the Last Supper would be pagan and idolatrous.
     
  5. Awoon

    Awoon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,377
    Ratings:
    +373
    My friend how are you?
     
  6. Astounded

    Astounded Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +4
    Still alive and appraising. Up to my rear end in refi's and equity loan appraisals.

    How have you been?
     
  7. Awoon

    Awoon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    5,377
    Ratings:
    +373
    I sent you a private message. Hows your Mom? I talked to Lynda no damged from the storm. Did you and your family have any damage?
     
  8. Astounded

    Astounded Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +4
    Mom died in May.

    I sent you a private message also.
     
  9. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,227
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    But he did preach before that. The elders in the temple were astounded at his knowledge when he taught them in the temple at age 12....

    ....or so goes the myth....

    Jesus did not belong to the Jewish orthodoxy, but to a mystical Jewish sect known as the Nazarenes. Jesus (Yeshu) was a mystic first and foremost, and that kind of knowledge allowed him to understand the Jewish scriptures.

    But preaching is not the issue here; it is the fact that there is total silence from age 12 to age 30, not only from him, but from anyone about him. That he was the Messiah was no secret, and being the Messiah, there would have been scrupulous and impeccable records of his every move. Instead, we have zilch.

    The Jesus story is a myth. That of Yeshu the Aramaic-speaking mystic of the sect of the Essene-Nazarenes is not.
     
    #89 godnotgod, Nov 2, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
  10. Astounded

    Astounded Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    216
    Ratings:
    +4
    Not really. Are there scrupulous records of any of the other people who claimed to be the messiah?

    You need to be 30 to be a Jewish teacher with authority. Jesus was confirmed as a Jewish teacher with authority by John the Baptist, the Father and the Holy Spirit when He was "baptized" in the Jordan. He begins preaching after that.
     
  11. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    godnotgod:
    No, he didn't preach. He listened to the elders and asked them questions. So goes the story.

    Godnotgod:
    There is wide speculation that Jesus was a Pharisee. There is also some that he was an Essene. At any rate, he was a rabbi.

    Godnotgod:
    So? We don't have a problem with the mythical nature of the gospels.
     
  12. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,227
    Religion:
    Ludditism

    "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani"

    This is a quote in Aramaic -- meaning "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" -- attributed in the New Testament to Jesus as he was crucified. In English translation, these words also comprise the beginning of the Twenty-Second Psalm.
    Matthew 27:46 - ηλι ηλι λαμα σαβαχθανι (/eli eli lama sabachthani/, later Aramaic "E-lee e-lee l-maa saa-baach-taa-nee?") Matthew 27:46 (Lamsa translation)- ηλι ηλι λαμανα σαβαχθανι (/eli eli lamana sabachthani/, later Aramaic "E-lee e-lee l-maa-naa saa-baach-taa-nee?") The late Aramaic Bible researcher George Lamsa claimed that the traditional "forsaken" interpretation is a mistake in the Aramaic scribing that was transferred to later transcriptions. Lamsa claimed that "the correct translation from Aramaic should be "Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani" or "My God, my God, for this [purpose] I was spared!" or "...for such a purpose have you kept me!") According to Lamsa's translation, that rather than a "loss of faith" Christ meant, to say "so this is my destiny."


    Rocco Errico writes about the Aramaic spoken in the recent The Passion of the Christ film: "The Aramaic text does not say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" [Jesus'] words were not a question but a declaration: "My God, my God, for this I was spared! [or "This was my destiny]"..."Interestingly, the recent TV movie Judas portrayed these words correctly."


    Among most Christians the former interpretation is still believed to be correct, and the newer Lamsa interpretation, largely unknown to most Christians, and may be considered unusual and even heretical.


    Why hast thou forsaken me
     
  13. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,227
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    You are twisting the story to fit your teeth, to portray the young Jesus as someone who listens and asks questions because he does not know, as being on a level of subservience. He already knows. That is why he is listening and asking questions. He then uses the answers to instruct. The following passages then tell us he is revealing knowledge to the temple elders that is astonishing to them:


    Luke 2:46-47
    46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.


    Typically, answers that Jesus returned were not what others expected to hear because they were coming from him as a living source; not something from the dead past. Jesus usually points to himself as that which is to be sought out. He points to the scriptures as being about HIM. These types of responses are more evidence of Jesus's (Yeshu's) mystical views as his own, while using orthodoxy to support them:
    John 5:39

    39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.




    Most Christians absolutely do.
     
  14. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Godnotgod
    No, I'm not doing that. You said that he was "preaching" at age twelve and implied this text as your proof. The text, though, says nothing about a sermon. A question and answer session is not a sermon. So, who's twisting meaning here?

    Godnotgod:
    At this point, though, you're not debating with "most Christians."
     
  15. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    31,507
    Ratings:
    +3,616
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Lamsa has a lot of good insights. But I don't think you can definitively push your theory here that Jesus didn't know what was going to happen to him, using only this snippet of a passage. Even if Lamsa is correct, "For this I was sent" does not necessarily indicate a statement of sudden inspiration. It does indicate a statement of purpose that is congruent with many other passages in which Jesus explicitly says that he must die and rise.

    Either way, this one expression from the cross does not indicate substitutionary atonement.
     
  16. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,227
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    Yes, you're still twisting. The passage in question states that he was listening and asking questions, which you seem to be locked onto, but then goes on to say:

    "Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers."


    Understanding and answers are not listening and questions.
    Perhaps it was not preaching perse, but it was definitely instruction. Bible Gateway commentary agrees with this view, here:

    Luke 2 Commentary - The Twelve-Year-Old Jesus Goes to the Temple - BibleGateway.com


    Sorry, but the topic is meant to address general Christian doctrine as accepted by most Christians; I am discussing it within that context.
     
  17. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,227
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    No, not a statement of sudden inspiration, but sudden realization.

    He is referring to 'this', which is his immediate situation, that of the humiliating experience of crucifixion, as if to say: "So it has come to this?", reflecting the irony of his fate.

    Show me where this statement is a reflection of his 'purpose' in dying and rising.


    No, that is not what I am saying. Jesus was crucified for religious blasphemy and sedition/treason:


    "There were political reasons for dealing with Jesus. There had been a dozen uprisings in Palestine in the previous 100 years, most of them subdued by Roman force. Another Messianic rebellion under Jesus would only shatter the precarious balance of authority, break Rome's patience, and might lead to direct occupation by Roman legions.

    Religiously, Jesus was a dangerous item. The people were hailing the Teacher from Galilee as something more than a man, and Jesus was not

    denying or blunting this blasphemous adulation. Personally, the Pharisees had been bested by Jesus in public debate, being called vipers, whitewashed tombs, and devourers of widow's houses. Humiliated, they would be only too happy to conspire with the scribes, elders, and chief priests.

    There would be economic motives for opposing Jesus as well. Upon seeing the commercialization of the Temple, Jesus would drive the dealers and animals out, as well as turn over the tables of the moneychangers causing a major disruption in business. There were to be many reasons for dealing with Jesus.
    "

    ...not to mention that Yeshu and his Nazarenes rejected the sale of animals for the purpose of blood sacrifice.

    Why was Jesus Arrested?



    The doctrine of atonement was added later, further indicating that he did not have prior knowledge of his crucifixion, let alone a blood sacrifice for the purpose of sin redemption.

    Yeshu was a Nazarene. He was also a vegetarian. His sect did not believe in blood sacrifice, virgin births, nor bodily resurrection. Those doctrines were infused into his teachings from Rome to have greater mass appeal as a means of converting tens of thousands of pagans, who already had the promise of eternal life in their religions, eg; 'Mithraism'.

    The Nazarenes were influenced by Eastern teachings, where the life-force is the breath. They would never have incorporated blood sacrifice as one of their practices.


     
  18. Jordan St. Francis

    Jordan St. Francis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +102
    Why do you think Jesus was a vegetarian?
     
  19. godnotgod

    godnotgod Thou art That

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,056
    Ratings:
    +1,227
    Religion:
    Ludditism
    A clue: Do you think he overturned the tables of the moneychangers merely because they were profiting from their transactions? They were selling animals for sacrificial purposes.


    [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]The Jewish Christians are virtually alone among early Christians in understanding why Jesus died. Jewish Christianity describes Jesus as if this attack on the temple was part of a deliberate plan. Jesus has come to abolish the temple sacrifices (Recognitions 1.54) — thus explaining perfectly both his own motivations and the motivations of those who sought to destroy him and his movement.


    Vegetarianism was abandoned because of the popularity of the letters of Paul among early Christians. The early leadership of the church (James, Peter, and John) was Jewish, but they quickly got into a divisive battle with Paul (Galatians 1-2 and Romans 14). In the second century, the teachings of Paul became increasingly popular among Christians. The Jewish Christians detested Paul, considering him an apostate. But by the second century Jewish Christians were already in the minority and eventually Paul’s letters were accepted as part of the New Testament, masking the fact that in his day Paul was a highly controversial figure. Since Paul said vegetarianism was optional, the church followed his stand on this issue. Later editors of the New Testament further distorted and confused Jesus’ views on animals.


    Jesus believed in simple living and nonviolence, and felt that this was part of the law of God. Jesus was undoubtedly vegetarian, since this was the original teaching of Jewish Christianity. Jesus did not bring a new theology, but rather a radical understanding of the law. For Jesus, the law commands nonviolence; we are not to shed blood, whether the blood of humans in warfare or the blood of animals in meat consumption or animal sacrifice. Jesus risked and gave his life to disrupt the wicked and bloody animal sacrifices in the temple. But the religion of Jesus has been lost from modern Christianity.


    http://www.compassionatespirit.com/was_jesus_a_vegetarian.htm



    [/FONT]
     
    #99 godnotgod, Nov 7, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2012
  20. Jordan St. Francis

    Jordan St. Francis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,028
    Ratings:
    +102
    So his overturning of the tables in the Temple was an example of vegetarian rage? That Jesus was against animal sacrifice, the incident in the Temple by no means proves. Even if he were against ritual animal sacrifice to God, it wouldn't establish that he abstained from meat during ordinary meals.

    Are you aware that the Gospels record Jesus eating the Passover?
     
Loading...