Guest guest Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Hi DB, This first, I agree with, there is much compilation, soooo much compilation. , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > Hi prainbow ... > > Much of the new testament is, I agree, a compilation, a pastiche > covering many historical periods and many writers with various axes > to grind and agendas to advance. And it reads that way, too. I am > not interested in the epistles or the revelations. I am simple > interested in scraps of original tradition that are preserved in the > four gospels. > > I understand that virgin births, crucifixions and resurrections were > all in the mythological air in those days. I am aware of the > scholarship that can trace them, one by one, back to tribal, pre- > Christian, and pagan traditions. I know that the early Church > fathers consciously cobbled the "Christianity" together using > elements of classical philosophy, pagan ritual, Greek mystery > religion (probably the source of the Tantric parallels I mentioned > the other day), and all kind of other mismatched sources. The > resulting Jesus was,as you suggest, most certainly a fictional > character. This next I do not agree with: > But all you have to do is read the Sermon on the Mount and a few of > the parables, and you know there's a real, single, human voice back > there. An intelligent, compassionate, enlightened voice as real as > Buddha or Ramakrishna or any great spiritual teacher. Who was it? A > preternaturally intelligent, spiritually gifted reform rabbi, circa > 4 AD, named Yeshua, probably illegitimate, scoffed at as an uppity > carpenter-turned-preacher in his hometown, and a thorn in the side > of the Roman occupiers, the Jewish priesthood, and the various > underground rebel movements that tried to put his crowd-wowing > oratory to work for them? Who knows? My gut tells me, probably yeah. I don't think I hear a "single, human voice" in this. First the Gnostic gospels differ so in tone especially from the traditional gospels...and other non canonical sources also differ. Second, we are aware of a burgeoning messianic movement throughout that time. From what I understand you couldn't throw a stone in Jerusalem in those days without hitting another "prophet." There were many rebellious young people interested in the reform of the Judaic monotheistic tradition, and I cannot help but believe that more than one of them was quite gifted in speech and as happens these days among the poetic radicals, they enrich and influence each other. > Any huge mass (and the early Church quickly expanded to became the > world's first inconceivably vast and powerful multinational > corporation) needs an organizing principle, a center of gravity if > you will. It cannot appear out of thin air. It cannot be entirely > knit together from miscellaneous bits. Maybe 99% of the edifice that > became "Christianity" was begged, borrowed and stolen from a million > diverse sources -- that much can be (and has been) well documented. > > But it's the gravitational pull of that one powerful voice at the > center that held it all together -- like the pulsing, hyperdense > neutron star at the center of a black hole, which creates a massive, > all-devouring warp in time-space (essentially what the Chirch > became, no?), and is then swallowed up by it. Even though the > physical substance of the star disappears in the new entity its > existence made possible, the massive gravity field remains as > eternal proof that it was once there. And to this above, it is my perception that there was no mass gravitational pull into a coherent Christianity until late the 2nd or into the 3rd century of the common era. Even then it was apparently criticized by Roman politicians as being evidence of the dangers of urban living, much as the Krishnas were decried here 10 to 20 years ago. And also, the push towards the power of a universalist monotheist tradition has existed since the Zoroastrians began...through the radical monotheism of the sun God of the Egyptians, Aten. I do agree that there is a terrible power there, all for one and one for all, that somehow embodies a strong human desire. I just don't see a "single" historical figure behind it. And since the evidence is scarce, it then becomes to some extend a matter of faith. I believe that faith is not just about what is credible mentally but what is credible spiritually to the individual. That's what makes me a Goddess worshipping pagan. It makes the most sense to my soul. It is the path on which I can do and be the most good and therefore it is the path that I take as my journey of the soul. > Anyway, that's the way it seems to me. > > DB And I always find your input interesting. Blessings, prainbow Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Hi DB, This first, I agree with, there is much compilation, soooo much compilation. , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > Hi prainbow ... > > Much of the new testament is, I agree, a compilation, a pastiche > covering many historical periods and many writers with various axes > to grind and agendas to advance. And it reads that way, too. I am > not interested in the epistles or the revelations. I am simple > interested in scraps of original tradition that are preserved in the > four gospels. > > I understand that virgin births, crucifixions and resurrections were > all in the mythological air in those days. I am aware of the > scholarship that can trace them, one by one, back to tribal, pre- > Christian, and pagan traditions. I know that the early Church > fathers consciously cobbled the "Christianity" together using > elements of classical philosophy, pagan ritual, Greek mystery > religion (probably the source of the Tantric parallels I mentioned > the other day), and all kind of other mismatched sources. The > resulting Jesus was,as you suggest, most certainly a fictional > character. This next I do not agree with: > But all you have to do is read the Sermon on the Mount and a few of > the parables, and you know there's a real, single, human voice back > there. An intelligent, compassionate, enlightened voice as real as > Buddha or Ramakrishna or any great spiritual teacher. Who was it? A > preternaturally intelligent, spiritually gifted reform rabbi, circa > 4 AD, named Yeshua, probably illegitimate, scoffed at as an uppity > carpenter-turned-preacher in his hometown, and a thorn in the side > of the Roman occupiers, the Jewish priesthood, and the various > underground rebel movements that tried to put his crowd-wowing > oratory to work for them? Who knows? My gut tells me, probably yeah. I don't think I hear a "single, human voice" in this. First the Gnostic gospels differ so in tone especially from the traditional gospels...and other non canonical sources also differ. Second, we are aware of a burgeoning messianic movement throughout that time. From what I understand you couldn't throw a stone in Jerusalem in those days without hitting another "prophet." There were many rebellious young people interested in the reform of the Judaic monotheistic tradition, and I cannot help but believe that more than one of them was quite gifted in speech and as happens these days among the poetic radicals, they enrich and influence each other. > Any huge mass (and the early Church quickly expanded to became the > world's first inconceivably vast and powerful multinational > corporation) needs an organizing principle, a center of gravity if > you will. It cannot appear out of thin air. It cannot be entirely > knit together from miscellaneous bits. Maybe 99% of the edifice that > became "Christianity" was begged, borrowed and stolen from a million > diverse sources -- that much can be (and has been) well documented. > > But it's the gravitational pull of that one powerful voice at the > center that held it all together -- like the pulsing, hyperdense > neutron star at the center of a black hole, which creates a massive, > all-devouring warp in time-space (essentially what the Chirch > became, no?), and is then swallowed up by it. Even though the > physical substance of the star disappears in the new entity its > existence made possible, the massive gravity field remains as > eternal proof that it was once there. And to this above, it is my perception that there was no mass gravitational pull into a coherent Christianity until late the 2nd or into the 3rd century of the common era. Even then it was apparently criticized by Roman politicians as being evidence of the dangers of urban living, much as the Krishnas were decried here 10 to 20 years ago. And also, the push towards the power of a universalist monotheist tradition has existed since the Zoroastrians began...through the radical monotheism of the sun God of the Egyptians, Aten. I do agree that there is a terrible power there, all for one and one for all, that somehow embodies a strong human desire. I just don't see a "single" historical figure behind it. And since the evidence is scarce, it then becomes to some extend a matter of faith. I believe that faith is not just about what is credible mentally but what is credible spiritually to the individual. That's what makes me a Goddess worshipping pagan. It makes the most sense to my soul. It is the path on which I can do and be the most good and therefore it is the path that I take as my journey of the soul. > Anyway, that's the way it seems to me. > > DB And I always find your input interesting. Blessings, prainbow Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 17, 2005 Dear Prainbow ... Thanks for all of your thoughts on this. *** I don't think I hear a "single, human voice" in this. First the Gnostic gospels differ so in tone especially from the traditional gospels...and other non canonical sources also differ. *** I think it's a matter of interpretation; even the translation. Look at my and msbauju's differing translations of the same passage from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Two different "voices," same words. That makes it difficult to judge -- there will never be a standard "King James Version" of the Gnostic gospels of Thomas and Mary, etc ... since they were only rediscovered 50 years ago, after spending 1,800 years or so under the sands of Egypt. Translations aside, far from being different voices, many Gnostic passages retell (yet again) familiar parables and passages from the canonical Gospels, or provide heretofore missing excerpts between passages, in addition to the (more widely discussed) materials that are completely new. These facts tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the idea of a single source voice, i.e an historical Jesus. *** Second, we are aware of a burgeoning messianic movement throughout that time. From what I understand you couldn't throw a stone in Jerusalem in those days without hitting another "prophet." *** Yeah, I believe this is true. But it's a circular argument that spins in either direction. If you *want* to believe there was no single, historical Jesus, this argument can work to that end. If you *want* to believe that there *was* an historical Jesus, the fact that there were many other prophets really does nothing to dent the single voice theory. It can' be proven either way -- hell, there's a serious, sizeable school of scholars who believe there was no single historical Shakespeare. You present them with evidence of Willim's birth, marriage, tax payments, etc., and they say, "Yes but a commoner could never write like that." They say a group of established aristocratic poets wrote these things, which were collected under the single "Shakespeare" moniker as a kind of brand name to increase coinsumer interest, since Shakespeare was a famous, well-known actor as well as a (supposed) playwright. These are not crackpots; they are serious scholars. They're espousing a heterodox, minority position, but it's not indefesnsible. They might be right. It will never be proven; there is not enough evidence left. With Jesus, there is even less. So neither your belief or mine can be disproven. *** it is my perception that there was no mass gravitational pull into a coherent Christianity until late the 2nd or into the 3rd century of the common era. *** Right; as soon as Christians stopped being lion and gladiator fodder, and started gaining civil rights, public offices, social respectability etc. Nothing like suppression to strengthen an underground movement. As soon as the repression was removed, the Christian movement took off like a rocket. It had been kept alive by a passionate, underground oral tradition (Crossan *does* document this period). Again, this evidence does not support the "no historical Jesus" position -- unless you want it to. *** I just don't see a "single" historical figure behind it. And since the evidence is scarce, it then becomes to some extend a matter of faith. *** Ah-ha! And there we have the crux of the matter. *** I believe that faith is not just about what is credible mentally but what is credible spiritually to the individual. That's what makes me a Goddess worshipping pagan. It makes the most sense to my soul. It is the path on which I can do and be the most good and therefore it is the path that I take as my journey of the soul. *** And my arguments and belief system work best for my soul. Which is the only "proof" that really matters at this late date. Meaning that we are in agreement, once again. ;-) Your "input" is always appreciated as well, Paulie! :-)) DB Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 17, 2005 DB, Okay, I'm with you in terms of understanding your perspective.....right up to and stopping at Shakespeare. The massive amount of information available on Shakespeare, the fact that it was all written in English, and written by the author and not by an interpreter.... Well you really cannot in my mind compare the two. While there is evidence of a Christian movement, I maintain that there is no actual direct evidence of a human Jesus. I was recently in Phoenix where I saw an article that said that the local Knights of Columbus were sponsoring a local showing of a tour of some "relics" including a nail that had been formed from shavings from one of the original nails from the cross of the crucifixion of Jesus. I just felt so depressed. There is overwhelming evidence that fraud regarding evidence of the human existence of Jesus has been perpetrated and profitable for hundreds of years. The really depressing part is that these items bring foward such an intense emotional reaction and a sense of self justification in the people drawn to these items that the repercussions for those of us who are the frequent targets of the dominant paradigm is frightening and seemingly inevitable. I have found that there is no reasoning with a person who is convinced that they have just seen evidence of the historical Jesus. Not just about the item in question or about the existence of this historical person but about important legal and social questions. For those who believe...there is no reason not to have all of the U.S. students praying to Jesus at the start of the school day. This whole thing is sooooo incredibly overwhelming and depressing that I cannot believe that I cannot escape it even here. pr , "Devi Bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > Dear Prainbow ... > > Thanks for all of your thoughts on this. > *** I don't think I hear a "single, human voice" in this. First the > Gnostic gospels differ so in tone especially from the traditional > gospels...and other non canonical sources also differ. *** > > I think it's a matter of interpretation; even the translation. Look > at my and msbauju's differing translations of the same passage from > the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. Two different "voices," same words. > That makes it difficult to judge -- there will never be a > standard "King James Version" of the Gnostic gospels of Thomas and > Mary, etc ... since they were only rediscovered 50 years ago, after > spending 1,800 years or so under the sands of Egypt. Translations > aside, far from being different voices, many Gnostic passages retell > (yet again) familiar parables and passages from the canonical > Gospels, or provide heretofore missing excerpts between passages, in > addition to the (more widely discussed) materials that are completely > new. These facts tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the idea of a > single source voice, i.e an historical Jesus. > > *** Second, we are aware of a burgeoning messianic movement > throughout that time. From what I understand you couldn't throw a > stone in Jerusalem in those days without hitting another "prophet." > *** > > Yeah, I believe this is true. But it's a circular argument that spins > in either direction. If you *want* to believe there was no single, > historical Jesus, this argument can work to that end. If you *want* > to believe that there *was* an historical Jesus, the fact that there > were many other prophets really does nothing to dent the single voice > theory. It can' be proven either way -- hell, there's a serious, > sizeable school of scholars who believe there was no single > historical Shakespeare. You present them with evidence of Willim's > birth, marriage, tax payments, etc., and they say, "Yes but a > commoner could never write like that." They say a group of > established aristocratic poets wrote these things, which were > collected under the single "Shakespeare" moniker as a kind of brand > name to increase coinsumer interest, since Shakespeare was a famous, > well-known actor as well as a (supposed) playwright. > > These are not crackpots; they are serious scholars. They're espousing > a heterodox, minority position, but it's not indefesnsible. They > might be right. It will never be proven; there is not enough evidence > left. With Jesus, there is even less. So neither your belief or mine > can be disproven. > > *** it is my perception that there was no mass gravitational pull > into a coherent Christianity until late the 2nd or into the 3rd > century of the common era. *** > > Right; as soon as Christians stopped being lion and gladiator fodder, > and started gaining civil rights, public offices, social > respectability etc. Nothing like suppression to strengthen an > underground movement. As soon as the repression was removed, the > Christian movement took off like a rocket. It had been kept alive by > a passionate, underground oral tradition (Crossan *does* document > this period). Again, this evidence does not support the "no > historical Jesus" position -- unless you want it to. > > *** I just don't see a "single" historical figure behind it. And > since the evidence is scarce, it then becomes to some extend a matter > of faith. *** > > Ah-ha! And there we have the crux of the matter. > > *** I believe that faith is not just about what is credible mentally > but what is credible spiritually to the individual. That's what makes > me a Goddess worshipping pagan. It makes the most sense to my soul. > It is the path on which I can do and be the most good and therefore > it is the path that I take as my journey of the soul. *** > > And my arguments and belief system work best for my soul. Which is > the only "proof" that really matters at this late date. Meaning that > we are in agreement, once again. ;-) > > Your "input" is always appreciated as well, Paulie! :-)) > > DB Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 18, 2005 >You're right that Crossan (I'm more familiar with his work than that >of Mack) is silent on the divine feminine; but I wonder how much of >this is due to a scholarly disinterest in Goddess studies, and how >much is due to the fact that there simply isn't much there to find. In the case of Yeshua's teachings, doesn't look like there is anything to find re Goddess. but in the larger picture of Judaic Wisdom traditions and the development of Christianity, there is abundant material, as you note for the Gnostics. Asphodel Long (In A Chariot Drawn by Lions) and others have elaborated all this. The Shekhinah, Ruach ha Qodesh as female, often imaged as a bird with beating wings. Ruha d'Qudsha in Mandean Aramaic, who is being demonized as Earth Goddess and mother of the zodiac spirits in this time frame. All this relating to origin of Holy Spirit as dove, which also resonates with late pagan Semitic images of Atargatis and Tanit. I haven't read Schussler-Fiorenza's book on "Jesus-Wisdom" yet but my sense from other writings of hers is that she stretches pretty hard to make it look more female-inclusive (on the divine level) than it really was. And in fact Jesus ends up supplanting the female image of Wisdom (for mainstream Christians) that had been traditional in Judaism. In Kabbalah, too, Khokhmah gets masculinized, considered too dynamic to be female. Crossan seems to have a blind spot when it comes to women: rarely has much to say about them, other than the conventional. >Have you read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of >the Original Christians" by Timothy Frere and Peter Gandy? No, but I'm skeptical. >But that doesn't take his teachings so far outside the Abrahamic >traditions that they suddenly become Goddess- or woman-friendly. Agreed! Although I would concede that defense of women being assailed for whoredom or adultery is more woman-friendly than the norm of the day. But the Mary - Martha story doesn't strike me that way at all... Max -- Max Dashu Suppressed Histories Archives Global Women's History http://www.suppressedhistories.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
