Jacques Vallee interview and Jesus of Nazareth

[Ezechiel]

Not part of the "frozen few" but I hope to never, ever live in world without faith or mystery. I would hate to be a "meatbot."

Same here ! I have to admit having faith in science and can't wait to uncover the mysteries of this universe

 

[Kim323]

Ufology, I enjoyed reading your post above. Please reference my posts in the Thomas Fusco thread began by Angelo, and in the Are There Forum Rules thread, for my comments on Jewish history and the Old Testament, and above all, on the sanctity of history as a field, that is, that it must be seriously read and read about. Also, my post above regarding Ezechiel's post and the same plea.

Your post about the Essenes, well, I just don't see any sort of evidence, as you say, that Jesus is a "composite character composed of facets of religious doctrine that survived the Roman conquest of the Essenes." Wow, where do I start. The Essenes were one of many and many again, of Jewish groups, and as you no doubt know, there are descriptions by Josephus and I think it was Philo and others, who described their beiefs and communalism, etc. But there were also groups within the Essenes themselves, differing on marriage, etc. And their conquest by the Romans? Well, it was many more than just the Essenes who fought against the Romans, and some think the Zealots were also Essenes. It's a complicated bag here, and you can't just reach in and pull stuff out willy nilly and use it as argument thrown out pell mell to maintain that Jesus was a out of whole cloth and thin air "created composite." So, just who did this "composite creation?" I assume, too, that you were when you mentioned conquest of the Essenes alluding to the Jewish War that culminated in the destruction of the temple in AD 70. The Jews were very tenacious fighters, as their war against the Hellenistic king Antiochus (of several of his dynasty of the same name who ruled the Seleucid empire after Alexander the Great), and caused no end of grief to the emperor Hadrian in the AD 130s, who had to have legions imported from far away parts of the empire to deal with the rebellion. Read Anthony R. Birley's biography Hadrian, The Restless Emperor. He's also written about Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus. Very scholarly and a delight to read, too.

Now to the Jesus didn't exist "school of scholars" (my quotes here). There is no such school. You enter waters that appeal to those who again throw out pell mell anything and everything because at heart is not scholarly endeavor but a desire to crush, why, I'm not sure, that's best left to the psychologists. There are outside the Bible sources that attest to Jesus's existence and his practice of sorcery and startling deeds. These sources are often hostile to the early Christians. Anyway, you can read a lot of this on the famous Did Jesus Exist thread the last few weeks, so I won't repeat myself. You are also wetting your feet in interesting waters with the created composite perspective by bringing up that whole Christianity as myth, it was created as a conspiracy by many, many people over centuries, cultures, distances, languages, and on and on through the church fathers to the council at Nicea which created a new god, Jesus, at the behest of Constantine. Oh, my! Or the Murdock lady (Acharya S. as she for some reason names herself), that whole camp of mythicists who've been dealt with long ago. I have a link to Mike Licona's essays you can read. And then there's Bart Ehrman's recent article about his new book, and the new book itself, of course.

No, I think Jesus as a created composite is, well, not showing a proper adherence to the historical method, shall I say euphemistically.

Again, this is written somewhat tongue in cheek as is my reply to Ezechiel's post above, the one with his comments about population control and his inclusion of a picture by Gustave Dore of a fighting scene of the Crusades. Dore would chuckle if he knew his work was being used to advocate that the Crusades were waged for population control way back before it became a more modern concern. And that "if Jesus was so smart he would have prevented the Crusades" is priceless. Again, tongue in cheek with Ezechiel, too! Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

Not part of the "frozen few" but I hope to never, ever live in world without faith or mystery. I would hate to be a "meatbot."

I have absolutely no clue what you mean when you say things like that Steve.

You seem to be implying that unless someone believes in the supernatural that they don't see mystery in the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

[Ezechiel]

Again, this is written somewhat tongue in cheek as is my reply to Ezechiel's post above, the one with his comments about population control and his inclusion of a picture by Gustave Dore of a fighting scene of the Crusades. Dore would chuckle if he knew his work was being used to advocate that the Crusades were waged for population control way back before it became a more modern concern. And that "if Jesus was so smart he would have prevented the Crusades" is priceless. Again, tongue in cheek with Ezechiel, too! Kim

I'm not sure you catch my drift. As a prophet of peace and love with a planetary conscience, surely he would have understood multi-culturalism. The respect of thy brother with competing views ?

The resulting conflicts that ensued (and that are still raging) are a testament that he obviously did not.

Your reflexions are priceless... tongue in cheek of course

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Absolutely, learning about the limits of the physical world through trial and error is an essential part of the human experience. Some experiences are obviously potentially fatal and require extensive preparation or training to master.

Imposing a moral framework guided by a supreme being instead of civil rules established through human experience is another ball game altogether. This is where secularity (much hated by fundamentalists of all creeds) kicks in and crashes into the religion collective and allows (in certain states) marriage between homosexuals for example.

Replacing guidance from a supreme being with much more progressive and self-adjusting secular values is the challenge of our kids. I'm not expecting the Santorum collective to change any time soon

Secularity is essential in government. We're in total agreement there

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Bastian's Elementargedanken in a particularly popular cultural manifestation?

The themes of life, death, and renewal seem to spring from our biology itself, being written as it were by the organism's life processes themselves seeking expression through the unconscious mind.

And what about the themes of transcendence? Where do those come from?

 

[red_pill_junkie]

World consciousness concerning this situation is improving rapidly and adjustments are in the works. Don't forget that your grandfather was a slave to his farm.
Apple's Chinese iPhone plants employ forced interns, claim campaigners | Technology | The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/01/apple-iphone-china-factories-forced-interns

Oh really? tell that to all the people working for pennies at the Maquiladoras located close to the American border here in Mexico.

Nope, during the roman empire Constantine 1 replaced the Imperial cult (polytheism) with christianity:
Emperor Constantine I was exposed to Christianity by his mother, Helena, but he was over 42 when he finally declared himself a Christian.[7] Writing to Christians, Constantine made clear that he believed his successes were owed to the protection of that High God alone.[8]

https://www.theparacast.com/forum/#cite_note-Peter_Brown_2003_p._60-7

Surely we can agree that the Eastern Roman Empire was no longer the Classic Greek culture that enjoyed its apogee many years before Christ was even born? After Alexander they were replaced as a super-power by the Romans.

But if we're talking about Constantine, don't blame his mother --blame the vision he had before the battle of the Milvian bridge

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I'm not sure you catch my drift. As a prophet of peace and love with a planetary conscience, surely he would have understood multi-culturalism. The respect of thy brother with competing views ?

The resulting conflicts that ensued (and that are still raging) are a testament that he obviously did not.

Your reflexions are priceless... tongue in cheek of course

I think a good example of multiculturalism was his respect for the hated kittim, the Roman conquerers that were seen by many as an affront to Yehova by the most radical of Jewish groups.

The region of Galilee surrounding the yam of Tiberias was indeed a place where numerous cultures co-existed in harmony --Greeks, Phoenicians, Persians, Bedouins, Romans, etc-- and since this is the environment where Jesus spent his early years and began his ministry, you could say that he indeed carried a pre-existent multi-culturalist attitude

 

[Kim323]

Red pill, enjoying your posts. And yours, too Ezechiel. May I address your last post?

First of all, you are exhibiting a lack of what is pretty much universally accepted about Jesus by hardnosed historians, scholars, and people who are both. As I've said on other threads, hardnosed scholars have applied real rigorous standards to the Gospels, written by different evangelists and drawing upon huge streams of oral tradition that can be and have been analyzed by scholars. They have come up with some startling conclusions on even the accounts of Jesus's miracles, exorcisms, and healings, one by one as related in the Gospels. I recommend E.P. Sanders, John P. Meier, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Grant H. Twelftree, to name just a few. Even John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, members of The Jesus Seminar, have acknowledged Jesus's deeds as, well, read them all yourself.

Now to address your points, and really, the points you made in your other post I responded to about Christianity being a conspiracy to enact population control, and "if Jesus was so smart, he would have prevented the Crusades," really, now, you haven't buttressed those, and these points in your very last post are more of the same, and they are, too, priceless. Let's look at history and what scholars think.

You say, "as a prophet.............with a planetary conscience" [or do you mean consciousness, hard to tell], and then, "he would have understood multi-culturalism." Redpill is correct in pointing out the very real "multiculturalism" [again, your word] of the area in which the Jews and Jesus lived. Very true. A mixture of well, everything Greek/Hellenic/ Hellenistic (after Alexander), Roman, Jewish, and on and on and on. A welter of religions, languages, cultures, etc. It is quite possible that Jesus spoke some Latin, some street Greek, of course his native language Aramaic. That he MAY have spoken some Latin, some Greek, is PURE CONJECTURE on my part, mentioned by scholars themselves, but they also qualify it. However,

and this I cannot stress enough, and it is a consensus, and that is: Jesus WAS A JEW. His ministry was devoted almost exclusively TO THE JEWS. That was JESUS, he was JEWISH, and excuse the capitals, but really! That fact does not diminish anything about him. The Gospels have the stories of Jesus healing the centurion's servant and of, for instance, his healing of the Greek (Syro-Phoenician) woman's daughter, but he was sometimes, cringingly so, dismissive of those not Jewish, which, by the way, is a scholarly tool of studying the Gospels, but I won't get into that.

What is this, really, Ezechiel, with the "planetary conscience" stuff, the "multiculturalism" stuff? These are such modern concepts, even, and really casts some real, shall we say, ahem, dubiousness (euphemistically put!), on your statements, which you very clearly maintain as, well, what, fact, history, scholarship, substantiated by anything, etc., etc.

Finally, a final point: this whole, well again, what, "scholarly" thing(s) you maintain: this is an old, old saw, the well, "if Jesus was so smart," the son of God, starter of this horrible thing called Christianity, responsible for so much horror, etc., and on and on and on, is a, ahem, again euphemistically, a faulty premise, a fallacy from the get-go, BUT he should have forseen all this if he was who he is said to have been. I won't get deeper into that, but, really, Ezechiel.

Again, tongue in cheek, but these assertions made so off the cuff, based on, well, what, must be addressed. Kim

 

[Ezechiel]

However, and this I cannot stress enough, and it is a consensus, and that is: Jesus WAS A JEW. His ministry was devoted almost exclusively TO THE JEWS. That was JESUS, he was JEWISH, and excuse the capitals, but really! That fact does not diminish anything about him. The Gospels have the stories of Jesus healing the centurion's servant and of, for instance, his healing of the Greek (Syro-Phoenician) woman's daughter, but he was sometimes, cringingly so, dismissive of those not Jewish, which, by the way, is a scholarly tool of studying the Gospels, but I won't get into that.

What is this, really, Ezechiel, with the "planetary conscience" stuff, the "multiculturalism" stuff? These are such modern concepts, even, and really casts some real, shall we say, ahem, dubiousness (euphemistically put!), on your statements, which you very clearly maintain as, well, what, fact, history, scholarship, substantiated by anything, etc., etc.

Not an ordinary Jew. The 'king of the Jews'.... alias the son of God creator of the universe, the holiest of the holies to boot. With these kind of creditials linked to a specific religion 'Judaism' ... its not too hard to imagine that ethnic cleansing jobs would be made easier to justify under a banner of moral supremacy. All competing religions were immediately tagged as BS and its members seen as conversion material.


Proselytizing in the Military Likely to Continue Under Obama | The Public Record

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the U.S. military where, for the past several years, in apparent violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, chaplains have openly proselytized to thousands of active-duty soldiers and, in some cases, have tried to convert Iraqis and Afghans to Christianity.

'Spread my kind words' quickly became 'convert or die', 'pay or lose your soul'... etc.

Point is, this Jesus guy (should he not be a fabrication of the Council of Nicaea), mostly his reps, trashed countless cultures all over the globe in the name of a judgemental god. Being the son of an all knowing god, you would think he would have been aware of the consequence of his agenda... that's what I mean by planetary conscience. As a citizen of the universe, he would not have targetted Judaism as his base to bulldoze everything incompatible around it. Here's a modern god warrior for ya lol:

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ezechiel - you are spot on in making the distinction that the corruption of the message is a human thing. In my mind the message is human-made anyway....I think an all-powerful God, who really wanted to give instructions to mankind would make sure of a few things:
1. That all humans have an equal chance to hear those instructions.
2. That it is made clear what the original words are in all languages so it can never be tweaked by humans.

Just those 2 reasons are more than enough for me not to have any faith in the religious books because any god who would be so careless as to allow to happen what has undoubtedly happened, is not worthy of respect, let alone worship.

bentupper - It's always good to hear from guys willing to share beliefs but not to push them and to admit you are on a search for a truth (not necessarily the truth, cos there might not be such a thing). I have plenty respect for anyone's search for meaning in life as long as they realise it may be different for us all and no-one can know an ultimate truth that trumps another's.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Ezechiel - you are spot on in making the distinction that the corruption of the message is a human thing. In my mind the message is human-made anyway....I think an all-powerful God, who really wanted to give instructions to mankind would make sure of a few things:
1. That all humans have an equal chance to hear those instructions.
2. That it is made clear what the original words are in all languages so it can never be tweaked by humans.

Imagine you're sitting in a pub, and then you notice a beautiful woman across the other end of the bar looking at you. She's smiling in giving all the casual non-verbal signals that she finds you attractive, inviting you to make a move.

Now imagine the same good-looking woman moving determinately to where you are. She rips her blouse and bra, pulls you over and shouts "You! Me! right now! get to it!"

Which of those scenarios you find more appealing?

IMHO I suspect --see what I did there?-- that it's the same with God

PS: And if you answer #2... srsly dude, get some help

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ezechiel - you may be interested to know that when I was in basic training for the Navy, on a sunday it is compulsory to attend church. Now, the smart people quickly realised it was the single time in the week that you got a chance to relax without having to be somewhere, having to get your uniform spotless, running about etc. Even though I am not religious at all I quickly treasured those sunday mornings, only cos of the break though.

Some guys did not hold back to the chaplains that they were unhappy at being forced to attend but the chaplains countered that- in my country - our navy is called the 'Royal Navy' and as such we represented the Crown, who's monarch is the head of the Anglican (English) church. Phew!

I suppose I wasn't too happy about being made to go but I thought 'why spend the energy moaning when I have little enough spare these months anyway?'

I don't know what happens in other countries armed forces but I can imagine the UK doing it to a lesser extent than the US.

@Kim - Always worth reading your posts for the theological scholar's point of view but I must insist please, can you provide me an answer that is accepted by most religious (Christian) scholars? My question is, If Jesus was a Jew (no argument) and came to save mankind etc, no Jewish or Christian message could have reached all the way round the world. Why would God send his son only to give his message round the Middle East? It seems like favouritism on God's part. Surely it would be a worldwide thing to set out to do? What about all the people who did not even have the chance to hear the word of God for centuries upon centuries? Why were they left out?

Kim, I respect your opinion as a teacher and Christian and I've always found no answer to my question above. Is there a consensus view from Bible scholars on this question?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

RedPill - I don't like slags. Nuff said?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Imagine you're sitting in a pub, and then you notice a beautiful woman across the other end of the bar looking at you. She's smiling in giving all the casual non-verbal signals that she finds you attractive, inviting you to make a move.

Now imagine the same good-looking woman moving determinately to where you are. She rips her blouse and bra, pulls you over and shouts "You! Me! right now! get to it!"

Which of those scenarios you find more appealing?

IMHO I suspect --see what I did there?-- that it's the same with God

PS: And if you answer #2... srsly dude, get some help

Redpill, yes, I did see what you did there. You said you suspect, not that you know. Can I have my lollypop now?

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Redpill, yes, I did see what you did there. You said you suspect, not that you know. Can I have my lollypop now?

Sorry, those are delivered at the end of the tunnel of light

 

[Kim323]

Hi, Goggsmackay. First of all, Goggsmackay, and I appreciate the title, but I am no scholar. I don't have any advanced degrees in theology or New Testament or Biblical studies. I do have degrees, but not in those fields, but in history, anthropology, and education. Teacher, yes. Christian, yes. But, I hate to preface or explain that I'm a Christian with the observations that I am very liberal socially but I will do so, and I do not find some of the views of socially conservative Christians palatable, though I do find that doctrinally, theologically, I agree with them on many points. I would label myself a scholar in the sense of the word being used as a real bulldog on history and religion, and studying the history of religion, Christianity, and of mankind. So fascinating it's an addiction. I am a hardnosed rationalist and I will continue to maintain that hardnosed, dispassionate scholars have addressed Jesus's existence (a given) and even one by one his exorcisms, miracles, and healings. I've talked about that on other threads. I'll try to answer your question, Goggsmackay. But first, quickly, I want to address Ezechiel again.

Ezechiel, the trouble is that you don't substantiate, you really don't even state any premises that on the face of them are not fallacies, or rather, you subscribe to such opinions, and that is all they are, that are not historically accurate, to say the least. You throw out opinions, accuse Jesus of PERSONALLY doing this and that, of not having the divine foresight to prevent the Crusades, etc. You attribute to Jesus your idea thus: "it's not too hard to imagine that ethnic cleansing jobs would be made easier........" You say, "............this Jesus guy (should he not be a fabrication of the Council of Nicaea) trashed countless cultures all over the globe in the name of a judgemental god," and "Being the son.............., you would think he would have been aware of the consequences of his agenda."

Now, if you can really not see the utter foolishness of all this, loaded with more than a degree of derision, I cannot help you, not that you asked for my help! And, I am not saying you are a fool, I maintain that unreservedly. I'm just saying that you are very sloppy historically. I have confronted the Council of Nicaea stuff here and elsewhere, and yet you insert it in again, not that that isn't your right, of course, but again, no substantiation. What you present is just a bunch of rank conspiracy stuff, and there's more personal psychology behind it in your posts than there is substantiation.

Googsmackay, I know your posts are presented from the heart, indeed. I have striven mightily on these topics to remain on topic. If I answer your question, Why did God choose to deliver his message through one man, Jesus, to just the Jews, and thereby deny others the message? If I didn't paraphrase that right, I apologize. A great question, and that cannot be answered historically. Any answer, and I DO have an answer, would be an opinion, because I don't presume to know the mind of God. I've addressed my definition of God on the two other threads as they relate to the Jews and their history, and their history as related in the Old Testament. See the Fusco thread started by Angelo, and the Forum Rules thread. To continue with my very inadequate answer to you,

this would be my opinion, and I have tried to remain on topic and to uphold history as a scholarly endeavor which decidedly DOES NOT subscribe to Constantine created Jesus at Nicaea. I will only say that, HISTORICALLY, factually, Christianity spread awfully fast in the huge area that was the Roman Empire. Paul wrote letters in the AD forties and fifties containing information structurally as regards church organization and theologically in a way that clearly assumes that far flung churches established that quickly after Jesus would know a whole heck of a lot. Also, speaking of Jesus's message and what he did, the gospels are full of things that can be traced to large streams of oral tradition. Also, the PERSECUTION of Christians, the feeding of them to the lions (one of those images everyone possesses to the exclusion of any other scholarly research, had to say that!), is far, far exaggerated. Yes, certain emperors, and believe me I can name them specifically and tell about their lives, did make it difficult for Christians, and there were formal persecutions, edicts proclaimed, etc., but the persecution was very erratic, because anyone familiar with Roman history knows the frequency with which emperors came and went, especially in the AD 200s. But the persecution alone testifies to the fact of the quick growth of the movement, not only among the poorer strata, but among the upper classes, and among women. So, historically, we can see that Christianity spread like wildfire essentially, and over huge, huge distances.

Anything more would be my opinion as to the WHY of your question. The only remote point on the why I'd say is precisely in opposition to Ezechiel's charges, which are helter skelter, pell mell, shotgun blast, now he's here, now his point's there approach, and say that I think it is PRECISELY that Jesus did not come down in a blaze of fire and thunder, bring lightening bolts down from the sky, and yell and scream and proclaim you WILL do this, etc., etc., is precisely the point. Keep in mind that Christianity's spread through the empire, as I've described above, WAS NOT, I repeat NOT (Ezechiel!) due to military conquest or the you will do this stuff he maintains, but it was a message that on many levels resonated deeply and personally to people. Kim

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Ok, I have faith you will supply said lollypop at end of said tunnel of light!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@Kim - thanks for your reply as always. The immediate above post is out of sync and is a response to redpilljunkie.

I appreciate the difference in academic consensus and personal opinion.
The reason I asked my specific question is that back in the day, a reformed drug addict who had been converted to 'Christianity' of a kind, the strong kind, maintained to me that unless one is actually reborn, in the sense of a born-again-christian, then you would not enter the kingdom of heaven etc.
So, even though I do not ascribe that particular thinking to your good self, and even though yes there is no doubt that Christianity spread quickly, historically speaking, 2000 years on and it is suspected that there remain peoples in the world, as yet untouched by the outside world.

Now, these people, all this time later, have still not heard the word of God according to the Bible.
I cannot reconcile the message with the lack of delivery. It should be for all man but it was not. It was in a specific region and then left to the devices of those who chose to spread that word or not and where they travelled to. The God who is all-powerful would not make such an omission in my mind.

I do realise of course Kim that you have never professed to have all the answers and in that spirit my question was simply a request for your opinion as it is obvious you have given a lot of time in your life to the study of these things.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Anything more would be my opinion as to the WHY of your question. The only remote point on the why I'd say is precisely in opposition to Ezechiel's charges, which are helter skelter, pell mell, shotgun blast, now he's here, now his point's there approach, and say that I think it is PRECISELY that Jesus did not come down in a blaze of fire and thunder, bring lightening bolts down from the sky, and yell and scream and proclaim you WILL do this, etc., etc., is precisely the point. Keep in mind that Christianity's spread through the empire, as I've described above, WAS NOT, I repeat NOT (Ezechiel!) due to military conquest or the you will do this stuff he maintains, but it was a message that on many levels resonated deeply and personally to people. Kim

(emphasis mine)