Topic awaiting preservation: Jesus Requires Genesis (Page 1 of 4)

I was taught in school that Genisis was designed to be taken as a story passed down generation to generation.

But I have recently been told that if Genisis in not true this makes the rest of the bible crumble.

How do you who have faith think on this? Are there examples to support this?

Dan @ Code Town

It certainly wouldn't make it crumble.

There are many people who view it this way.

Obviously there is no one single way to look at it - if you are a personal who beleives in a literal interpretation of the bible, then obviously the account of genesis will be of more importance to you than if you beleive in the message over the details...

Of course, to those who believe in a literal interpretation, no amount of factual evidence will convince them that genesis could be anything but absolute fact...so there's no danger of anything crumbling anyway

Actually, belief in Genesis disproves Jesus as a messiah, and vice versa.

This has been previously discussed.

Of course, as mentioned, there are those who really don't care if something makes sense or not - they will believe irregardless.

What about the idea of savation? If we look at biological evolution, why there would be a salvation in first place? Salvation from what? Original Sin? what sin?

It always puzzled me people who are christians and accept biological evolution...

So if we remove the idea of original sin and damnation, why would there be a salvation in first place?

Plus as Shaman suggests, according to the Jews (the writters and bearers of OT) simply show that Jesus doesnt fit on the idea of messiah.

*shrugs*



(Edited by Ruski on 08-10-2005 18:04)

So it is the same old, same old.

I just need to keep my mouth shut, and not discuss any of this stuff in the real world.

Dan @ Code Town

I think there's a lot of room with which to interpret genesis, we've got 30 some odd verses describing a creation that's since had thousands of books written about it. It wasn't meant to be a science lesson or an intensely technical description. Genesis doesn't have to be taken purely literally either, many other books in the bible are poetic or prophetic in nature. Believing a 7-day creation, etc., isn't necessary in order to believe in God.

WS, planning to do some more looking on the Jewish prophecy mentioned in the other thread, interesting stuff. I did miss the Genesis/disproving Christ dicussion though, can you point me towards the specific posts?

Ruski, i'm sort of following you, though belief in evolution per se doesn't disprove Genesis IMO. There's an interesting take on this in The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder that i need to re-read in order to do it justice dealing with the language used in Genesis where God deals with Adam, etc.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Replace the Genesis with any other culture's story of creation and you have exactly the same answer. As you mentioned allot of stories are simply poetic. It's sad that majority do not realize that myth is nothing more than work of art, and work of art can be manipulate in any way imaginable to fit personal interpretation to deliver self satisfaction. The search for hero will never cease as long as mankind exist, there will always be an ideal hero or heroes for humans to look upon and Jesus Christ is no exception.=)

Take your pick, there are better yarns that Genesis but they are just myths.

http://www.pantheon.org/

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

irregardless.

---

That word always makes me take people seriously. </sarcasm>

Ruski, the "proof" for Jesus has been and will be debated for years to come, loads of evidence on both sides and no one is ever going to agree. I could say it's sad that you can't see the value in the historic aspects of christianity and accept that there might be something beyond yourself too, that as long as mankind exists there will always be those who can't look outside themselves for something greater

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

It seems, as always, it is the extremists on either end that cause all the problems.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

WS, planning to do some more looking on the Jewish prophecy mentioned in the other thread, interesting stuff. I did miss the Genesis/disproving Christ dicussion though, can you point me towards the specific posts?

---

Well Fig, I may go dig it up - but here is the lowdown;

The Old Testament is supposed to contain God's Word, given to the Jews, right? Well, God also gives the rules by which a Messiah is to be recognized, as well. These Rules come from the same sources as the Old Testament.

So it doesn't really matter how one goes about trying to decifer or understand Genesis, or other parts of the Old Testament - if one tends to lend the Old Testament credence, then Jesus cannot be the Messiah - he just doesn't meet the necessary criteria as given by God Himself to the Jewish People - His Chosen People, I might add. This is one of the main points of Jewish religion against Jesus.

On the other hand, if one doesn't tend to take the Old Testament seriously - then there is no Original Sin, etc, and the Ten Commandmants are also null and void - and the Old Testament does not really contain God's Word in it.

That then leaves the New Testament - and without the Old Testament to back it up, pretty much stands there...naked.

I wonder why Saul, a pharisee, would believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah if the Old Testament Law that Saul revered disproves that assertation...

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Oh yeah, nutshell version of Jesus and Genesis that I have heard:
Original sin entered in through Adam
Original sin exited through Jesus
That is why people need to know about Adam, because if they don't believe they are sinners, then they don't believe they need Jesus to go to Heaven.
Also why Jesus is called the "last Adam."

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Man WS, that is about the most succinct summary one could come up with.

Of course Gid finally made a point too; if we don't believe we are sinners...we aren't.

That is what po's the xian, being guilty all the while the rest of us are not. ROTFLMFAO!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Gid, according to God's Word to the Jewish people this

quote:

---

Original sin entered in through Adam
Original sin exited through Jesus

---

Is not possible. There is no solution to this quandry. Either Jesus is the Messiah, and the Old Testament is therefore suspect (that makes all of it suspect) OR the Old Testament is not suspect - and therefore, the Word of God, therefore, Jesus is not the Messiah.

You can't just "pick and choose", here.

Or are you suggesting that God lied to the Jews?

God is a liar?

quote:

---

I wonder why Saul, a pharisee, would believe that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah if the Old Testament Law that Saul revered disproves that assertation...

---

Because he fell off his ass and hit his head - that is when he became a believer.

No Fig you didn?t get my point...I acknowledge historical existence of man who influence Christianity, the point I was making that stories upon which your faith is based are nothing more than exaggerations, legends, and part of grand Judeo-Roman literature, like any other exaggerations through history in poetries. Take a myth of Troy...we know for the fact that there was city of Troy and it most likely was involved in war conflicts...but please, immortal Achilles? Gods of Olympus? Surely no one takes them out side of concept of art.

I absolutely understand mankind?s desire to look for something more out of life, I cant blame him for that, that's his nature...but, it really doesn?t validate your religion being true as you think it is.

Once again, OT and NT are nothing more than works of art. Art is always based on reality, but it never is an objective history.

The idea of Jesus Christ is a patter repeated throughout history for mankind?s quest on finding a hero, almost all the heroes fallow the same stages to become a cultural hero.

Joseph Campbell wonderfully researched mythologies through the world and found it evident?

Example on stages of Hero?s Journey?http://www.am-psychotherapists-new-york-city.com/Joseph-Campbell.html

There are great documentaries and books with him, one of the most famous is ?the Power of Myth?

I know it?s pointless to tell you all this, not that I care you to change your mind. But exploration of reality becomes important at some point, at least to me?

*shrugs*

Well, I still stand by my argument that the OT and NT can be taken together. The "rules" of the Messiah were given to the Hebrews by God in a prophetic manner. They are subject to human interpretation. The Jewish say they interpret it right, Christians say we interpreted right. We have the NT, what do they have? Nothing. Besides the fact that they are still waiting. And claiming a Messiah every once in a while, only to have them die on them. At least we are consistant with what we believe.

I, personally, don't have a problem with reconciling the Old and New testaments, anyway.

You all are forgetting that a large amount of Jews believed that Jesus was Messiah. Many fell away when he made it obvious that he was not about an open war rebellion with Rome. Even the apostles deserted him when he died. But something happened to change their mind. Or else Jesus would have died in their minds just like every other Messiah they think they have found before and since then. Anyone who wants to believe that it was all made up a century after the fact, you've got that right. But personally, I can't believe it. Why put so much into something you don't even believe yourself? Just to start a religion? For a belief in a "hero" who was nothing like a hero, and is depicted nothing like a hero, but a passive martyr at first glance?

For any of you who may be sitting on the fence--read "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phillip Yancey. It will at least show you what a truly remarkable and understated person Jesus was, even if you still can't believe that he was the Son of God.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

You all are forgetting that a large amount of Jews believed that Jesus was Messiah.

---

Unfactual. Where is your evidence?

More telling than anything, is the total lack of information dealing with the childhood of Jesus (which one would expect to be very unusual, being that he was the "son of god").

Instead, nothing.

I think this is because he lead a relatively normal childhood - including anything else would of course have been rebuked by those who knew him as a child way back then. Of course, we all know, that Jesus couldn't of lead a normal childhood, because he is supposed to be without sin, right?

quote:

---

The Jewish say they interpret it right, Christians say we interpreted right.

---

It is not subject to interpretation - it specifically (just as the Ten Commandmants does) lays down the rules governing who is and is not a messiah. I always find this to be pretty funny, that the xians must always "bend things around to fit". The Jews don't have to.

In this, the Jews are much more consistant than the xians could ever dream of being. The Jews have also proved that they can keep information in a factual form closer to the original much better than the xians can.

quote:

---

The "rules" of the Messiah were given to the Hebrews by God in a prophetic manner. They are subject to human interpretation.

---

About as subject to human interpretation as the Ten Commandments are. They are pretty well defined rules, actually, just as the Ten Commandments are.

You know, I find it very funny, that all the other information given to the Hebrews by God in a prophetic manner is accepted by xians (the Old Testament) - just not this [ONE area - I wonder why that is? Because xians have no choice, otherwise Jesus is not the Messiah? Ok, I know there are groups that do not use the Old Testament - but mainstream xianity does.

quote:

---

We have the NT, what do they have? Nothing.

---

Uhhh...the Old Testament? And a range of other materials.

Bd, you are really going off the deep end here, with your "assertions", that are readily shown as inaccurate, in the extreme. Especially this

quote:

---

At least we are consistant with what we believe.

---

That is so unsubstantiated, it isn't even funny. If anything, the xians vary wildly in what and how they believe. From Cathloics, to Protestants, Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, and Jehovah's Witnesses (sorry about leaving out many others, these are just examples).

The Jews are consistant in what they believe, and have been for almost as long as they document their history as a People, since Moses.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-11-2005 09:09)

quote:

---

But something happened to change their mind. Or else Jesus would have died in their minds just like every other Messiah they think they have found before and since then.

---

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the "sinner". If you were a Jewish prostitute and suddenly somebody told you they had a way for you to not be constantly unclean, what would you do? Maybe if you were a leper? a tax collector? The fact is, Jesus appealed to those that weren't reaping the benefits of the current institution. Christianity feeds on the fact that there are people that are ashamed of themselves and want an easy way to get rid of the burden.

quote:

---

It will at least show you what a truly remarkable and understated person Jesus was...

---

Understated? Are we talking about the son of God or my Mexican friend? This is a man who's teachings have influenced the progression of western civilazation for hundreds of years. One benefit we have from christianity is current society. Cultures would never have evolved into feudal monarchies and capitalism, if it had not been for religions that told people it was okay to be on the bottom wrung because you have the promise of heaven. Turn the other cheek, obey the rulers put over you, do not judge. Wait, is that in the Bible or did I get side-tracked into the Patriot Act?

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

quote:

---

At least we are consistant with what we believe.

---

Yeah...once you guys got past the first 500 years or so, things started to get at least somewhat consistent....
Of course it can easily be argued that things are hardly consistent even today.

So, you're saying the jews are inconsistent in their beliefs? I can't make sense of this idea...

quote:

---

We have the NT, what do they have? Nothing.

---

What????
I can't really respond to this one becuase I have no idea what the hell yo are trying to say...

quote:

---

You all are forgetting that a large amount of Jews believed that Jesus was Messiah.

---

No, there was a *very* small number of jews who felt this way.
The bulk of the christian movement eventually came from pagan converts, not jews.

quote:

---

Why put so much into something you don't even believe yourself?

---

To sustain the energy of a movement. To keep something that have already devoted yourself to going.
And, as has been demonstrated over an over - belief does not need to be based on fact. Who says they didn't 'believe' it just because they knew it wasn't true?

no time to continue this morning...perhaps later...

A lot of Jews thought that Jesus at first could be the Messiah--

Very probable to be fact because of the very way they still behave when someone comes along claiming to be Messiah. I wasn't there 2000 years ago. But the Jews have followed right along by any one person who they think may finally be the one, even to this day. Why should it be different with Jesus. Jesus was talking about a Kingdom, making all these claims and promises. You don't go around in a country that is occupied by foreigners, where the oppressed are expecting a King to show up any day, and make claims about a Kingdom and NOT have people think you may be the Messiah. You either have to be a lunatic, or truly believe what you are saying. And if you believe what you are saying, then you better be ready to kick some foreign butt to keep other people believing it. Jesus claimed it, and then said "no fighting". So he either was a COMPLETE lunatic, or was really the Messiah. By all accounts, he was judged to be a complete lunatic by most in the end, when he started talking about "eating my body and drinking my blood", or at the least a fraud and/or disappointment by even his closest friends. I can imagine that if I had lived back in that time, and had seen and heard Jesus as portrayed in the Gosples--I would have thought him the craziest person on earth and forgot about him. But the very fact that he carries on, well, it says something. Crazy people start cults all the time--Charles Manson, Jim Jones, that guy from Wacco, and many others. But they never get big like Christianity has, and they end up dissintegrating. I can't look at the teachings of Jesus and see a lunatic. I see very wise words. And most of the world, even non-believers, believe that he was wise.

quote:

---

About as subject to human interpretation as the Ten Commandments are.

---

The Ten Commandments are interpreted by many people, in many ways. Even though they are cut and dried. You've got die hard Christians getting nasty to other people over abortion--I don't even need to say HOW nasty--because "thou shalt not kill" when over half of those people have probably divorced and remarried, or had extramarrital affairs even though it is clear as day "thou shalt not commit adultery".

That's a little different from the interpretation of the prophecies, but on the same line of thought none the less. But the prophecies are NOT so cut and dried like the Ten Commandments, they are more like a riddle spread out through the different books of the Old Testament. And I can't help but to think that Christians are doing the exact same thing with Revelation today--getting a preset idea of what is going to happen, only for it to turn out that it happens in a completely different way. How, I can't really say. But didn't I say in another post that the Revelation reads like a revolution, and I'd probably be quick to jump behind it? Well, Jesus was NOT about a physical revolution at all the first time, who's to say he's going to change his tactics? But it does read that way. <shrug>

Consistancy--

Yeah, there are many denominations of Christianity. But every single one still believes that Jesus was the Messiah. When Church became entertwined with State by Constantine is when the beginning of all the division started. And the Jewish have had their time of denominations. There were four different denominations of the Jews in Jesus's time. The Pharisees, the Sadducsees (sp?) the Essenese (Sp?) and the Zealots. And there are still differing "denominations" of the Jews today. And different denominations of Islam for all that matter. Core teachings have remained consistant in all the religions in all their denominations though. We just don't chase around Messiahs anymore. Not anyway near the scale that the Jews do.

quote:

---

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the "sinner"

---

If that were the case, then everybody would have followed him. Because we all do things we know are wrong. But he only appealed to those with a conscious. And of them he asked a very hard and burdensome thing--be perfect. That's not the easy way out. And more than a fair share of people have been driven insane trying to live up to it litterally. Or project their guilt onto other people because they can't live up to it literally. And he knew we could not live up to it. That is where forgiveness comes in--but it's not a free ride by any means. Anyone who thinks that missed the idea by a mile.

quote:

---

One benefit we have from christianity is current society. Cultures would never have evolved into feudal monarchies and capitalism, if it had not been for religions that told people it was okay to be on the bottom wrung because you have the promise of heaven. Turn the other cheek, obey the rulers put over you, do not judge. Wait, is that in the Bible or did I get side-tracked into the Patriot Act?

---

That's not the fault of the teachings of Jesus. Oppression was around a long time before he ever walked the face of the earth. He LIVED during a time of oppression. "Turn the other cheek"? Let's see. History shows us that it was the NON VIOLENT means of Martin Luther King Jr. that finally put the first civil rights into the law books. NOT the violent means of Malcolm X--they only serve to fuel the fire of racism and hate. Yes, the non violent demonstrators had to go through much persecution, and many, even MLK Jr. himself, died for the cause.... and that's a sad fact that grieves me to my bone, but non violence against violence is what finally got it done. Granted, there are times when you have to fight for your freedom....the trick is being able to discern when is the right time and the just reasons. You can't do that if you only hate and have no empathy or respect. You become tunnel visioned and extremist. People like that are the ones that bomb abortion clinics or burn crosses on people's lawn.

quote:

---

To sustain the energy of a movement. To keep something that have already devoted yourself to going.
And, as has been demonstrated over an over - belief does not need to be based on fact. Who says they didn't 'believe' it just because they knew it wasn't true?

---

Sorry, you may see how that could be. But it doesn't wash with me. I know I wouldn't carry on with something to the death if I didn't believe in it. I would wash my hands of it and move on. People who try to carry on with something they don't really believe don't get very far in their endeavor, because they don't put the passion behind it that it takes to carry it forward past their death. If I had been one of the original apostles, and I didn't believe after Jesus died, I would have just went back to my previous beliefs, still looking for the Messiah. So I have to ask myself why they didn't just do that. It's not like choosing between pro-life and legal abortion. There was no Christianity to "choose" back then. They made a radical decision to start a completely new and off the wall route to take. You don't do that without 100% belief.

And the belief that somebody rose from the dead?? There had to be either mass hysteria to get as big a following, with each having a die hard passion, to where it is still growing 1900 years later, or it really happened. So take your pick. As hard as it is to wrap my mind around it, I personally believe it happened. And yeah, part of it comes from the fact that I WANT to believe. Exactly WHY I want to believe it, I can't tell you. I don't have a real reason to WANT to believe it. I just do. But I can tell you this....If my daughter died tomorrow, I would WANT to believe she will come back to me in three days time with all my heart. But I would still never believe it unless I actually saw her. (And I wouldn't try to make up a story 70 years later or whatever to try and convince myself and others that she did. I certainly wouldn't make up a story that I heard from somebody else that someone died and came back to life who I never even knew in person myself. Why would I care?) And if I said I actually saw her, just me by myself, I would be stuck in the mental hospital so fast by my family it would make my head spin. If not, noone would listen to me anyway. So that's why I believe it happened and it works for me. Again, I realize not all feel that way, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. Just telling you why I believe it to be real. I can't see any reason why Christianity would've came about unless something extraordinary really and truly happened.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

Why should it be different with Jesus. Jesus was talking about a Kingdom, making all these claims and promises. You don't go around in a country that is occupied by foreigners, where the oppressed are expecting a King to show up any day, and make claims about a Kingdom and NOT have people think you may be the Messiah.

---

This is very skewed.

For starters, there were people all over the place claiming to be prophets and/or the messiah.

Just because Jesus made hese claims does not in any way mean the jews thought he was the messiah.

And do you have some examples of how the jewish community as a whole follows along with someone claiming to be the messiah? I have never seen/heard/read anything of the sort....

quote:

---

When Church became entertwined with State by Constantine is when the beginning of all the division started

---

This is as wrong as any statement has ever been!
I am rather shocked to even read it, frankly.

Constantine did a tremendous amount of work to solidify and conslidate the christian view.
The time of the most variation, disagreement and dissent was *before* the time of constantine. There has never been, since that time, the wide scope of variation of christian view, not even *close*.

It wasn't until the 4th century that there emerged any sort of agreement on christian views - including whether or not jesus was actually divine at all, and especially as to the actual nature of such a divinity among those who beleived he was divine.
What we see today as christianity did not emerge with any clarity until at least the late 2nd century, and even then was still only one of many *very* diverse views of jesus - what he was, how to live by his word, what his words actually were, and so on.


Again, short on time...will try to get more in later.

I also want to say this. As far as myth goes...stories like Orsiris and Isis, and all the Greek and Roman myths of Zeus sleeping with mortals and creating demi-gods....all these things were floating around before written history began. And all the panthons, from the Greek and Roman, to the Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian pantheons, can be said to have orally transferred from one basic story somewhere lost in pre-history as man spread out through the world. They are all very similar, and with study, can be said to be traced back in such a mannor as I am saying. I have read it myself. Even Christianity and Judaism has these aspects of angels coming down and breeding with humans. Much of this has been removed from the religion over time though, although you can see traces of it in the bible.....just enough to say it can mean one thing or another.

And like Jesus, many of those old religions have stories of someone coming back to life. But Jesus is the only one who emerged after written history began. He was not an oral "legend" that finally got written down. We know this as fact becasue there is thousands of years of history written down in the old testament of the same culture and same religion before he ever appears. And Jesus caused the split of Christians from Judaism at a marked time in history. So, even though the story of Jesus is similar to other myth, it is entirely unique in that aspect. The Jewish people did not conceive of a Messiah that dies. Period. They would not just "make it up after the fact" for no reason...I can't see it happening that way anyway.

Just my observation of things.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Sorry for the double post, but evidently DL and I were typing at the same time....

quote:

---

And do you have some examples of how the jewish community as a whole follows along with someone claiming to be the messiah? I have never seen/heard/read anything of the sort....

---

Well, WS gave two examples of it in the other thread. I can't remember their names now, and don't feel like looking back through the posts. John the Baptist can be said to have thought for a time to be the Messiah....but he denied it himself from the start. Phillip Yancey in that book I mentioned tells of a more recent Jewish Rabbi that made headlines of sorts as being the Messiah. He was a 91 year old man.

But here. Go here and scroll down to the section marked "Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants" It can tell you much better than I of the many messiah claimants and the Jewish reactions to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

As for Constantine--what he did was legalize Christianity. And at the time, it seemed like the best thing to happen. The state started funding what the people had previously had to do out of their own pockets and under persecution. I have no doubt that his intentions were nothing but good. But isn't that what led to why we had the Revolutionary war--to escape and have religious freedom (as well as freedom period) from England? Because the persecuted had now become the persecuters as well as the persecuted? Isn't that what a lot of christians are trying to do today? To "legalize" our views?? And are making a giant mess of it? Causing all these problems and craziness?

A belief and way of life, no matter how much one may believe it to be fact, CANNOT and must not be legalized to force that view on others. It only leads to trouble.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-11-2005 21:26)

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-11-2005 21:32)

quote:

---

"Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants" It can tell you much better than I of the many messiah claimants and the Jewish reactions to them

---

I am well aware of many other 'claimants' to the title of messiah.
Unless I've missed, I still don't see anything there that gives any indication of the jewish community running off to accept them as messiah....

And from what we know of history, this is not what happened with Jesus either.

quote:

---

As for Constantine--what he did was legalize Christianity.

---

This is incorrect. What Constantine did was to make the persecution of christians illegal.

The rest of that paragraph I can't understand, so I can't respond to it.

The fact remains that there were at least dozens, if not hundreds of variations of view that were all claming to be the true christianity. That all claimed to have the 'real' jesus, the 'real' story.

These views range from some minor differences, to some differences that were so bizarre that we would simply shake our heads in wonder at them today.
It was widely held by many groups that Jesus and God were *not* one being, that Jesus was a kind of 'demigod' - which is the way he is protrayed at many points in the NT (and we don't see the idea of the trinity laid out unitl a couple centuries later, either). It was also widely held by other groups that Jesus was not divine at all - that he was simply a prophet.
It was held by many that the way into heaven was to understand the secret messages in Jesus' words, and that only those with this special knowledge would make it beyond this mortal life.
In what we often refer to as the 'proto-orthodox' group, we still don't see the idea of Jesus actually being a divine being emerge until the very end of the first century, beginning of the second, when the gospel of John was written.

We see a lot of important figures in the proto-orthodox group who, in the process of shaping the orthodox view, developed dogma that was later deemed heretical by the same exact group of people. Why? Beacause over the course of 300 years, they shaped and developed what their view actually was, and as things progressed, earlier versions that disagreed must obviously be wrong, and therefore heretical.

The proto-orthodox being the group that Constantine fell in with, also became the dominant group. Christians essentially owe their faith to the emperor who lead the way in singling out and clarifying a single view out of many. And it, of course, was the view that was the most pallatable, the most accessible, the easiest to get people to go along with, the most attractive. Nowhere in this list of adjectives is 'the most accurate' or 'the most truthful' of course. Truth has nothing to do with it...

.

As for your comments on myth - these also seem very well off the mark, and I would be very curious as to where you get this idea that all mythological figures other than jesus were conceived before written history?
This is simply not true. There are many important figures that very obviously emrerged after the dawn of written history, from the greeks, the persians, the assyrians, and many many many more.

Obviously, some, like those of the judeao-christian myths, were oral traditions first. But clearly nowhere near all...

Not going to get into the theological side of this debate, but I just wanted to quickly address this:

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

And all the panthons, from the Greek and Roman, to the Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian pantheons, can be said to have orally transferred from one basic story somewhere lost in pre-history as man spread out through the world. They are all very similar, and with study, can be said to be traced back in such a mannor as I am saying. I have read it myself.

---

As a student of oral literature (currently studying for my Ph.D.), I have to agree with DL that our remarks are are off the mark. I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree, and I'm not sure you have a sufficient understanding of mythology. There are indeed archetypes in mythology, like the hero archetype, for example. But the idea that these all stem from one protomyth that is now lost to us has been discredited for decades. I believe a more plausible explanation is that these myths express themes that are common to humanity. Take certain inventions, for example. Gutenberg was said to have invented the printing press, but movable type had been used in Korea long before he printed his Bible (the environment in Korea at the time, however, was not as conducive to the spread of printing as the European environment, making Gutenberg's invention ultimately far more significant in terms of world history--but this is beside the point). Does this mean that Gutenberg stole the idea from Korea? Most people would find this claim absurd, as indeed it is. Instead, it is more likely that two cultures stumbled upon the same idea independently. Insisting that inventions such as this had to have come from a single source is just as silly as insisting on protomyths. I'm not sure where you read this yourself, but you might want to update your reading material (Oh, and if your source is Joseph Campbell, be careful of quoting or relying on him around academics, as this will generally get you torn apart).

quote:

---

Belladonna said:

And like Jesus, many of those old religions have stories of someone coming back to life. But Jesus is the only one who emerged after written history began. He was not an oral "legend" that finally got written down. We know this as fact becasue there is thousands of years of history written down in the old testament of the same culture and same religion before he ever appears. And Jesus caused the split of Christians from Judaism at a marked time in history. So, even though the story of Jesus is similar to other myth, it is entirely unique in that aspect. The Jewish people did not conceive of a Messiah that dies. Period. They would not just "make it up after the fact" for no reason...I can't see it happening that way anyway.

---

I don't mean to be insulting here, but this statement shows the limits of your knowledge of mythology. How can you claim that the Jesus story is the only one that has been written down and not derived from an oral legend? Even if this were the case, how can you say that a story that was written down decades after it happened remained completely free of the influence of mythic archetypes? You are also ignoring the fact that the advent of written literature did not mean the sudden end of oral literature. Just because a story happened after the advent of written literature doesn't mean that it didn't start out as oral literature. Do you think that no one spoke of Jesus or told stories of his life from the time of his death until the time the gospels were written? It is a very common phenomenon for stories of a real person to be continuously elaborated on after said person's death, to the point that the figure becomes legendary.

Case in point: Beomil, the tutelary (guardian) deity of Daegwallyeong Ridge in eastern Korea. Beomil was an actual historical figure who lived during the Unified Silla period--he was born in 810 and died in 889. He was a Buddhist monk who was given the title of Royal Preceptor (the highest title awarded to a monk, which basically involved him tutoring the king) and founded several temples. Many years after his death, though, legends began circulating that the woman who would become his mother had gone to the well one day and discovered the sun in her dipper gourd. She poured the water out and dipped again, only to find the sun still there. She drank the water anyway and became pregnant. Since she was not married, when the child was born her family forced her to abandon it beneath a rock on the hill behind their village (I have been to this very hill and seen this very rock, by the way, so it must be true!). The child, however, did not die, but was protected and fed by cranes who came down from the heavens. When the mother went back to the rock later, she saw the cranes protecting the child and realized that he was no ordinary being. So she took him home and sent him to the capital to study, and the rest, as they say, is history. After his death it was believed that his spirit became the guardian deity of the region.

This is just one of countless examples. I could go on, of course, but I think I've proven my point.

Mind you, I am not making a judgment on your beliefs. I just think that making unfounded statements like this undermines your argument. You are trying to argue on secular grounds that the story of Jesus is somehow different from other hero myths. It's not at all--you just can't win that argument. It's hard for people with any knowledge of this field (that is, mythology and oral literature in general) to take you seriously. I don't mean this as an insult, I'm just not sure you are aware of how damaging your statements are to your overall argument.

[Edit: Oh, and this is totally unrelated, but I can't resist. Ever since I first read the thread title I've been imagining a program called Jesus that requires a plugin named Genesis. I'm a hopeless geek, aren't I.]

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

(Edited by Suho1004 on 08-12-2005 08:20)

Sorry, Double tap
_______________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

(Edited by Raeubu on 08-12-2005 13:25)

In a previous post I said,

quote:

---

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the "sinner"

---

Belladonna's response was,

quote:

---

If that were the case, then everybody would have followed him. Because we all do things we know are wrong. But he only appealed to those with a conscious. And of them he asked a very hard and burdensome thing--be perfect. That's not the easy way out. And more than a fair share of people have been driven insane trying to live up to it litterally...

---

You can have a conscious and know when you do wrong without feeling like you are a sinner. When I said sinner, I was refering to what was considered sin based on the religion. If two single, consenting adults decide to sleep together, why is it a sin? By saying that it says so in the Bible, means a person will comply with this as long as they believe the Bible. The individuals I was talking about were surrounded by a culture that labeled them as sinners and unclean. The only way to overcome this was to follow certain rituals, and to cease commiting the sin. However, any individual can believe the teachings of Jesus, and whether they decide to stop sinning or not, they still get the solace that no matter how "perfect" someone else practices the religion, both individuals are the same amount of unclean. Once the mindset is in place that you are a sinner, you have abandoned yourself to a mindset that you are in a debt that can't be paid back, because it is just who you are.

This explains why, in America, so many individuals of African descent convert to islam as opposed to christianity. I understend that it was abused by those in power, but it doesn't justify the fact that christianity was being used to convince black people that it was just their lot in life to be viewed as subordinate to white people. The Bible was also used to say that black people were the descendents of Ham who were cursed to be slaves in Genesis 9:18-29.

Which kind of leads me to my next topic:

quote:

---

NOT the violent means of Malcolm X--they only serve to fuel the fire of racism and hate...

---

I myself was raised in a white, christian household, and I know that I was raised to think that Malcolm X was a racist, Islamic extremist. Based off of your comment, I'm betting you have not read the book. If you had, you would know that Malcolm X never commited any violent hate crime nor instigated it. He simply said a black person has the right to carry a weapon in order to defend themselves if the attacked is based on their race. I guess an out-spoken individual with differing views isn't allowed to use the second ammendment. After traveling to Mecca, he even began to say that all people are equal and that it is the (white) american society that causes the persecution, not an automatic product of skin color, which I am in total agreement with. He is a great example of somebody who allowed himself to listen and change and forgive. By the way, he was assassinated for his cause too...by real racist muslim extremists.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

First of all, I'm still waiting for factual proof that "lots of Jews" followed and believed that Jesus was the Messiah (especially considering that there is no factual evidence that Jesus really existed!)

Second, I'm still waiting for a conclusive proof, of any kind (based on logic and reason, instead of "because I think so") that xians are more consistent in their beliefs than the Jews.

I can, of course, prove my point that it is the opposite, by using an argument based on logic and reason.

All I have heard to this point, is that all xians believe in Jesus (duh, or they wouldn't be called xians) - well, all those that follow the Jewish religion, believe in the same God, and all the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

And that a hell of a lot longer, and under more extreme circumstances, than the xians can even begin to imagine. Those of Jewish faith stick to that which was given them by God - irregardless of what some sect might think to the contrary, and has managed to not only exist alongside it, but has managed to thrive alongside it.

I don't see Jews springing from their faith in Masses over to xianity.



I also want to commend Master Suho for a well-written, and well-thought out post.

You really should drop into this part of the Asylum more often - your talent with words is refreshing.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-12-2005 11:46)

While I appreciate the thought, WS, you know me: just flitting in and out and leaving behind the odd pile of droppings every now and then.

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

It took me some searching but I found this in reference to the Jewish in Roman Palestine:http://www.orthohelp.com/geneal/popul.HTM

quote:

---

Jews in Roman Empire:
25% of Roman population in Eastern Mediterranean
10% of entire Roman Empire
48 C.E. Roman census: 7 million Jews (mostly in Judea, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Babylon, Iran, Yemen and Ethiopia) for an estimated total of 8 million world wide.

---

As far as the many jewish converts, the beginning of Acts has the total of followers at about 120. Acts 1:15Let's say that the jewish population was 7 million. If those 120 grew to 7000 jewish converts, that would be about .1% of the total population, you can judge the size of the number as large or small however you want to spin it. I myself doubt the number got that high, as the missionaries quickly started accepting gentiles and traveling to other lands. Of course, we know that there were many converts to christianity, but I don't think a large amount were jewish.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

Allow me to echo the kudo's to Suho for an excellent, reasoned and rational post.

Sadly, reason and rationality fly out the window or perhaps more fittingly, are not allowed in the window, by those blinkered by their "faith".

Thus is anticipate, with no enthusiasm whatsoever, a suitably spun response by BD.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

[Double post edited - WebShaman]

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-12-2005 16:39)

As for Constantine, i actually do question his motives unfortunately. His sudden conversion seems ideally politically timed, he did however do quite a bit to unify Christianity in the roman world. Anyone interested in a great quick review on the history of this time should check out 'Christianity: The First Thousand Years' on A&E (or you can order the DVD from them), really well-done historical look at Christianity and the factors influencing it.

WS, interesting stuff on the Jewish/Xian views on the messiah. I want to do some more reading on the Jewish interpretations as I'm not all that familiar with them. If I get a better grasp on it i'll post some thoughts at that point.

Ruski, I do follow you, I just don't necessarily agree with you. I rarely attempt to really engage you in these discussions because of your constant condescending attitude towards me or anyone else who is Xian and our "grasp of reality". I don't necessarily agree with WS, DL, or others, but I'm more than happy to engage in discussions with them to learn more about what they believe and their thoughts on my beliefs. Contrary to your perception I am quite a rational, analytical person and not the mindless sheep that you allude to.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig, I would like to apologize if I seem to be rather offensive. I am sorry but I am not yet good enough with writing down clearly how I want to sound.

I do not wish to attack your beliefs in anyway, simply because no where you have demonstrated any sort of obsessive fanaticism like majority had on this boards, sorry. Please take your time, I am still getting used to it. I just don?t like when subjective religious interpretations get in a way of historical discussion, because it blurs the line between the two and creates uncomfortable feelings.

I have seen Christianity: The First Thousand Years' and Second Thousands Years as well, very informative.

As for Constantine, there was some stuff on History channel where they said that he was still a pagan for most of the life and he though it was Apollo and not Judeo-Christian deity that convinced him in whatever "miraculous" vision he had, the evidence was provided that a coin with Apollo's image was released after his conquest or something along those lines. He only converted to Christianity at his deathbed, so it is fair to assume he led most of his life as a pagan. DL pointed out that he simply made chrsitians to be free of persecution, I guess his favor for christianity was that Greco-Roman religion and deities were poor in value compared with Judeo-Christianity, times were changing, Empire was collapsing, strong unification of the Roman Empire was required.

The fact that his mother was a christian played a rather significant part in his conversion, I am sure

Keep in mind though, that he did not merely end the persecution, he was responsible for convening the first council of Nicea, and played a big role in getting the bishops to iron out the details.

DL--I see your point. And I actually agree with a lot of what you said about even the differing views of Jesus early on. I am going to risk being "stoned" and say that I do not claim to fully understand the idea of a "trinity" myself. To me it's just a word to try and express an idea that can't really be fully expressed. I myself like the idea of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" all wrapped up as one--but I can't say I comprehend what that could mean or how it could be. But, I have no problem believing there are things in this world that nobody will ever be able to truly understand....so the jump is not hard for me.

Getting back to the differing beliefs in eary Christiandom....I can see how these would come about. Especially the demi-god one...the idea of demi-gods have come down from prehistory. You can go back to the first written records in history and there are always half human/half god beings. The only thing I can do for MYSELF and MY personal belief, is to try and strip away all the things that other people and the Church have placed on top of the gosples. All the rules and regulations make it very hard to be a Christian. My mother in law, for example, shuns me because I refuse to give up Metallica, Led Zepplin, and AC/DC, refuse to give up Stephen King and my preferrence for reading about occultish things, and because I prefer comfortable jeans and tee-shirts instead of preppy clothes, and prefer to have a beer with my pizza rather than iced tea. She says I haven't really "accepted Jesus", I'm a fraud. Never mind anything else in my life. Never mind that I treat all people I meet with respect and kindness, no matter if they are sitting on a harley, sitting in the gutter, or sitting in a church pew. Never mind that I always have a smile on my face and don't talk about people behind their backs anything that I wouldn't dare say to their face. Never mind the relationship I have with my daughter. Never mind that I genuinely try to understand people instead of judging them. She can't understand all that. She can't understand why I have friends from "other" walks of life. But that's her and HER beliefs. I accept her and love her just the way she is.

I am not perfect by any means--I can be hateful and spiteful, saying some of the cruelest, most selfish things when my anger is aroused. This is one of the things I am now working on improving. Only one of the many, mind you LOL.

Anyway, all that is just small scale example of the bigger things that have been interpreted and placed on Jesus and/or the Bible by organized religion. I'm just trying to strip it all away and get back to the principles. I am not trying to convince anybody that Jesus was the Son of God....I believe he was, but I came to that conclusion on my own by what I have searched into. Not just because someone said it or wrote it. And not because it has been "ingrained" into me. It most assuredly was not.

As far as certain aspects of religion being passed down one from another....take the Greek Zeus for example. "Zeus" did not become a word until the "Greeks" came up with him. But the very first people who settled in Greece, were not "Greeks". They came from somewhere else, and brought whoever their god was with them--who became "Zeus" over time. And that happened before written history started. Or, at least the whole process started before written history. I've read all of Zecharia Sitchins books--and I can't agree with his whole "alien theory", but the man did trace the history of religions very well, and how they could have all been passed down (even judaism)--getting changed here and there and bit by bit on the way. He points out the very similarites of the different dieties of different cultures by names that I can't even remember now and shows how they can all be traced down from prehistory by the patterns of prehistoric immigrations of people. That's the only thing of importance that I took away from reading all his books. You can't get back all the way to the "original" belief, because it is lost in prehistory. But....it is MY belief that the God of the bible is the closest one for reasons I have stated on another thread. The Jews had already written down all there beliefs that had been passed down through pre-history and written history in the Tanakh. All of it. And there are hints of hybrid half-angelic half-human beings from Genesis. But these were not seen in the same light as the demi-gods of Greek and Roman mythologies, or even the more ancient demi-gods. If you go back to the oldest written Greed records, or even further back to the oldest Sumerian written records....their demi gods are already written about.

Suho--I have never heard of Beomil before. Very interesting, and I'll have to look him up. But from what you said, I still see vast differences in his story and Jesus' story. For one, he was a born a Buddhist and died a Buddhist. And it doesn't seem from what you said that he really during his life had a radically different teaching from what Buddhism was in his day that founded a whole new belief system out of another, so radical that it caused a major split that still exists today between the groups. I'll have to research more to be sure about that, just going by what you did post. As far as mythology--I have an interest in it, but only as a hobby. I never have "studied" it formally. But patterns in history and things and people come very natural to me, and anyone who knows me personally can tell you that I have an uncanny knack for seeing how something now will affect things way later down the road. Nobody ever believes me til it happens though. LOL. (Not that I can "fortune tell" by any means--I just have this ability to see farther then present circumstances, and do it well by factoring in human nature. I don't miss the forest for the trees.) And this applies to why things are the way they are now--because something in the past grew to it. So for all your (and any body else's) experties, I have to disagree with you. Man's prehistory is much longer than his written history. And I cannot look at the all the Gods and demi-gods of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Akkadians, the Sumerians, and on down the line, without seeing very distinct, and at times uncanny, similarities to each other. Especially when laid side-by-side with the immigrations patterns believed to have happened in pre-history, and knowing that human nature causes those with different beliefs to be one of the main reasons people group together and move to a different territory. Not the only reason, but a large reason.

It is like dragons. Every culture in the world has dragons way back to their known beginnings. And they all have differences, but they all have very certain and distinct similarities too. I can understand two separate cultures coming up with the idea of printing near about the same time, totally independant of one another. It is an obvious "next step" to spoken language. To write them down. It is also another obvious "next step" to print them and speed up the writing process. But when it comes to a whole pantheon of Gods and demi-gods, or something as distinct as a dragon and all the trappings of a dragon--I find it hard to believe that these ideas came up independantly and totally separate from each other when there are so many similarities. And I'm not talking about "archtype" hero stories. I'm talking about personal attributes of each God or Godess, what aspect of human nature and physical nature they represented. How they behaved individually. That kind of thing. "Some" independantly, I could see. "one" independantly, I could see. And that is where the differences that do exist come in. But not as many similarities as there were. That would be like me and you sitting down independantly and writting the same novel about the same characters with the same outcome and story line and only minor differences in details. More than a novel--a whole soap opera.

History and science (and even religion to a point) both agree that there is a certain area of the world where man as we know it first began and spread out from, overtaking any other being that may have looked like him (such as neanderthals) that stood in his path, or assimilated them in one way or another. Our patterns today are still the same in a lot of ways. If one is like me, and believes there is a God, and other heavenly beings, it is not impossible to believe that in the beginning this God and other heavenly beings may have had a direct connection and accessibilty to this world. And that the happenings of these interactions so affected that first group of man as we know it, that it left an impression that spread. Changing as it went because God had since removed his physical presence from the world and soon became only known by oral histories. Which much much later got written down. And even later still got chopped up and pieces that seem to not fit a certain mold removed. It makes logical since to me, because I believe in God. Any who doesn't believe in God will find that idea difficult to believe or just hogwash and backward reasoning, trying to make my beliefs fit into reality.

Jesus is the exception in my eyes. He is nowhere in the tanakh, which record Jewish belief from the beginning of man as they know it. Promises of a Messiah are, but he is not there himself as a man. He popped up at a dated time in history, and died at a dated time in history. He is nothing like any of the "archtype" stories of heros. His views were radical for the time he lived in. He was nothing like what the Jews thought a Messiah should be by their own prophecy. He was rejected and crucified, thought to be crazy by a lot of people. Even his own apostles, his closest friends, did not understand him or agree with him. By all accounts--he should have been forgotten after he died. But instead, he inspired a whole new idea of the long established, ancient Jewish belief system that is recorded in its entirety in the Tanakh. It is totally ILLOGICAL to me that his memory should have lived on past his death. It defies everything I understand and know about human nature. If I wanted to create a legend and hero to found a religion, Jesus as he was in the Gosples is NOT what I or anybody else would write him to portray. He would have been a lot more aggressive, a lot more in tune with the teachings of the day, a lot more loved by the people, and died a martyr by hate by a small group, rather than fear of a two distinct large groups, to portray triumph, not defeat. He would have had specific, outlined teachings and rules--not the seemingly backward, hard to live up to, ideals that are written in the Gosples. But that is if I were "making it up". If I were writing the Gosples as they were written to portray Jesus, I wouldn't have written them at all. If I were Peter, and lived with the Jesus of the Gosples and something miraculous didn't happen to change my mind, I would have went back to fishing and the whole thing would have died right there. I guess maybe Muhammad is the closest thing to Jesus I can come up with, and I'm not even sure about that because I really haven't looked too much into Islam. But as far as I know, I don't even think he was portrayed as radically different and hated as Jesus was.

That's just my take on it. I don't see, looking at all the other "heros" in mythology, how any of them are quite like Jesus. I do, however, appreciate you not trodding on my beliefs and discussing this with me. That means a lot.

Reaubu--First, where does it say in the bible that two single consenting adults cannot have sex or it is a sin? Anybody....please point that out to me. I see lots of things said about adulterous relationships, but I don't see anything that points to any other sex up to the point where Jesus dies on the cross. Point it out to me and I will tear it down. Sex is not a sin. It can be overindulged, and over used by people who don't LOVE or TRULY CARE about the other person involved, causing emotional pain and all sorts of other nasty consequences, but sex is NOT the sin. The sin is in the heart of the offender who is old enough to understand the consequences of his actions. As far as teenagers, it is up to the parent to ensure they start instilling values in them so they don't hurt other people and become over indulgent. This begins in childhood with other things that have nothing to do with sex, and later include teaching about sex itself and its repercussions.

My point being, that people see what they want to see and don't really THINK about what they think. Not you Reaubu, I know you used that as an example, but just RELIGIOUS people in general.

Anyway, I understand what you are saying. If you read what Jesus taught though, and really understand it, it strips away all the ritual and harsh, confounded rules and brings it back to basics. He doesn't really change anything of importance from the old testament. Most of his teachings can be found spread out in the Old Testament somewhere, between all the rules and regulations, rituals, and thundering punishments of God, and the prophecies.

ONE of the most profound statements he made, that people overlook, is the statement that the "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". I have NEVER heard a preacher preach on this statement and it's implications. People don't want to hear it because it tears down their safety net of rules and regulations. The original Commandment, heard by all of Isreal standing by the mountain, was simply "remember the sabbath to keep it holy". Keeping it holy can mean different things to different people. And under the extreme conditions they were in under the time of exodus, small arguments could lead to bigger finger pointing on bigger issues, and become deadly. So you end up with all these rules to define for everybody exactly what the Ten Commandments meant to say, and rules that should make it easier to follow them. "What God MEANT to say was"....Insert your idea. God said what he meant the first time. Keep it holy. Whatever keeping it holy means to you, just remember on that day all the things I have done for you. Praise me. Because I know you get real busy with life and trying to survive. Set some time aside for Me on the Sabbath. That's what I get out of it anyway. Nothing about work, nothing about healing or picking a piece of corn off the stalk. Nothing that says I can't cook if I don't have leftovers to eat. But people made rules for it anyway. So Jesus took it back to the original. And we STILL put rules on it. The laws against opening your business on Sunday in my hometown have only been lifted not too long ago. It's human nature not to let other people just be on issues like this.

As far as consistancy, I see your point WebShaman, and have to concede. I shouldn't have used the word "consitancy" to say what I was trying to say in the first place.

As far as the Jews converting today and the number of Jews that believed in Jesus as the Messiah in Acts-- of course. Because they had already decided He was not the Messiah--just like they always conclude someone isn't the Messiah after they die and didn't fulfill what they think of as the mold for the Messiah. It was the belief of the few Jews after His death that spurred it on. And, by all accounts, I cannot see that happening unless something happened after the death of Jesus to make those few change their mind. Simply because of the very same attitude they have of other "Messiahs". No other potential "Messiah" has sprung up a religion--through the Jews OR the Gentiles. WebShaman, your very own arguments show how staunch the Jewish are about the whole Messiah thing. By all accounts, Peter and Saul and the rest of the few Jews who preached so passionately to the Gentiles about Jesus should not have done so. Especially Saul. The idea should have died on the cross with Jesus. Or at least not long after. The fact that those few Jewish apostles even reached out to the Gentiles so passionately helps show how much credence they put into Jesus. By everything that I can gather, Jews of that day considered it sacrilidge to bring a gentile into the religion. Or preach to the Gentiles. Even the apostles were insulted when Jesus mentioned the Gentiles. They still to this day, many of them, will disown a son or daughter for not marrying a Jew. Some of them seem to be lightening their attitudes though in a lot of ways.

So anyway. See it how you want. I'll still see it my way. And that is that Jesus Christ should not have made it any where near this far unless he was really who he said he was. Especially when you add in human nature and the flavor of times they lived in back then. His memory should have died after everybody who knew him personally died.

Anyway, I have to go for now

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...