need help with my next college project

[Dumpy Dooby]

I liked the info about Hercules. I didn't realize that he was once regarded as a historical figure a la Jesus. I think the way that you paralleled that was excellent. Good job man.

[up|dn]

Although I see some mistakes (Nicea didn't have anything to do with collecting scriptures, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are much earlier than the Gnostic texts and aren't Christian writings at all) I think you made some good arguments for people to explore. When I first started questioning my faith, I had many of the same arguments, but I've since had to take a few steps back because the evidence points in a different direction. For the most part, Christianity seems to be a second century creation (which then incorporated the traditions of Rome's pagan religions in the fourth century as it became Rome's state religion). It seems obvious that Christianity has something in common with the pagan Mystery cults, but whether that is how it originated, or if that is a later development is impossible to know.

[up|dn]

Oh, an interesting tidbit about this quote:
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

It was very common for people to change texts in transcription, to add their own views, make corrections where that they felt were needed, etc. For an author to put this into the original, he is basically warning scribes to leave his manuscript alone. We've actually got evidence of these kinds of warnings in other ancient manuscripts, including early english poetry (Chaucer, I believe).

Of course this text is usually taken to mean that people shouldn't add or substract to 'the Bible', but that's nonsense since many of the books of the Bible were written after this was.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by up|dn

Oh, an interesting tidbit about this quote:
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book."

It was very common for people to change texts in transcription, to add their own views, make corrections where that they felt were needed, etc. For an author to put this into the original, he is basically warning scribes to leave his manuscript alone. We've actually got evidence of these kinds of warnings in other ancient manuscripts, including early english poetry (Chaucer, I believe).

Of course this text is usually taken to mean that people shouldn't add or substract to 'the Bible', but that's nonsense since many of the books of the Bible were written after this was.

also the obvious fact that went the bible was "translated" into English a lot of the translations weren't done correctly.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by up|dn

Although I see some mistakes (Nicea didn't have anything to do with collecting scriptures, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are much earlier than the Gnostic texts and aren't Christian writings at all) I think you made some good arguments for people to explore. When I first started questioning my faith, I had many of the same arguments, but I've since had to take a few steps back because the evidence points in a different direction. For the most part, Christianity seems to be a second century creation (which then incorporated the traditions of Rome's pagan religions in the fourth century as it became Rome's state religion). It seems obvious that Christianity has something in common with the pagan Mystery cults, but whether that is how it originated, or if that is a later development is impossible to know.

I really don't know where I stand as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned. Most of the information I got about that was from you, and it was rather convincing. However, it seems a little strange that a group of people would have attributed so many moral teachings to one non-existent guy. Hercules and Mithras might have very similar stories (as do Dionysus, Osiris, and many other savior-gods during that itme), but they don't share the moral teachings or the greater lessons that were taught. The Jesus stuff is very Eastern-esque and largely unique for that area. Because of that, I think he very well may have been a real bloke, though I definitely think it's important to make a distinction between the real one that may have existed and the character in the Bible, as they were probably quite dissimilar.

[up|dn]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I really don't know where I stand as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned. Most of the information I got about that was from you, and it was rather convincing. However, it seems a little strange that a group of people would have attributed so many moral teachings to one non-existent guy. Hercules and Mithras might have very similar stories (as do Dionysus, Osiris, and many other savior-gods during that itme), but they don't share the moral teachings or the greater lessons that were taught. The Jesus stuff is very Eastern-esque and largely unique for that area. Because of that, I think he very well may have been a real bloke, though I definitely think it's important to make a distinction between the real one that may have existed and the character in the Bible, as they were probably quite dissimilar.

There are a couple of plausible theories that might explain Christianity, but they probably make most sense with some sort of a core group within Judaism to start it off. Whether the leader of that group was "Jesus", or if that name was used later (it means "he who saves") to refer to a cosmic saviour is hard to know. It seems to me that Christianity is part 'apocalyptic Judaism' and part 'gnostic redeemer myth'.. the big question is how they came together, and was Jesus historical or historicized after the fact (or both?). The hardest part for me is determining which Bible books are authentic and early. I used to think that at least the core books of Paul's were authentic, but there are plenty of reasons to believe they're all second century creations as well. When you start peeling away what seems like layers, it's like an onion and there's nothing left.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by up|dn

There are a couple of plausible theories that might explain Christianity, but they probably make most sense with some sort of a core group within Judaism to start it off. Whether the leader of that group was "Jesus", or if that name was used later (it means "he who saves") to refer to a cosmic saviour is hard to know. It seems to me that Christianity is part 'apocalyptic Judaism' and part 'gnostic redeemer myth'.. the big question is how they came together, and was Jesus historical or historicized after the fact (or both?). The hardest part for me is determining which Bible books are authentic and early. I used to think that at least the core books of Paul's were authentic, but there are plenty of reasons to believe they're all second century creations as well. When you start peeling away what seems like layers, it's like an onion and there's nothing left.

Interesting. James was considered to be the preacher of the poor, and the Ebionites were the poor ones. So I suspect that those two correlate quite nicely. James is supposed to be the "brother of Jesus." Is it possible that James was the allegorical brother of "he who saves" and not a guy that would have literally been named "Yesua/Ieosus"?

Like you said, though, there seems to be plenty of suitable theories. I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the Ebionites as the first Christians. This is accepted as true amongst Jewish, Catholic, and nonpartisan scholars alike. But where do we go from there?

[up|dn]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Interesting. James was considered to be the preacher of the poor, and the Ebionites were the poor ones. So I suspect that those two correlate quite nicely. James is supposed to be the "brother of Jesus." Is it possible that James was the allegorical brother of "he who saves" and not a guy that would have literally been named "Yesua/Ieosus"?

Like you said, though, there seems to be plenty of suitable theories. I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the Ebionites as the first Christians. This is accepted as true amongst Jewish, Catholic, and nonpartisan scholars alike. But where do we go from there?

What makes this more interesting is that Josephus has quite a bit to say about a Simon and his brother James, sons of Judas the Galilean (the founder of the so-called "fourth philosophy" of Judaism. This Simon character has all the qualifications to be the crucified leader of a group of zealots, and much in common with Jesus of the Gospels. I just read this yesterday, so it's obviously still fresh in my mind, but the hypothesis is here and it fits quite well: http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/RaskinCrucified.pdf

It still doesn't explain Christianity, but if we take Robert Price's assumption, that Pauline Christianity actually comes from Marcion and reflects a more gnostic, non-Jewish redemption myth. In catholicizing the religion and creating the canon, the two groups and ideas were merged somehow.

[BigRob]

I got an 81/100 on it.

I lost some points do to excessive reading and holding the pages.

I actually lost points on not offering a solution or having a call to action.

Let me see....introduction said to educate yourself on your beliefs....conclusion said educate yourself on your beliefs......I've passed out 4 copies of it plus posting it here and numerous questions have been asked about the subject by fellow students. To me, they're educating themselves on their beliefs! I think I won the pursuasive augument!

This stuff is so subjective.....everyone can love it, but if the teacher hates it or disagrees.....

Case in point, I just posted my newest paper in the speakeasy....