Jesus is not God....part 2

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Operacast

Now that really intrigues me. Could you please describe some of your study of the pre-Christian religions that facilitated these new perspectives?

Many thanks,

Operacast

Greetings Operacast,

A lot of research in the past has come to the conclusion that Christianity is a Solar Myth. There was even a book in German that had Zodiac signs on sections of the Gospel of Mark showing how there are three revolutions in that account.

You can read more here:


Christianity as Mystical Fact by Rudolf Steiner

I have a book entitled "Pagan Christs" and when I put that term into Google it came up with over 5000 hits.

There are many correspondences given in Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled and Secret Doctrine.
Pagan Christs:
Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

So you can come to one of two conclusions - that Christianity has just borrowed from past Solar Myths or that the Christ event was a fulfillment of past Mysteries played out on the stage of human history.

Mithras and Christ:
Similarities between Mithra and Christ

There are many past religious themes that deal with death and resurrection. There is one I remember where a human figure is taken to the water (sea or lake) and left in there for three days and then taken out. I think they put grass seeds in it which then spring into life.

Vishvakarma- the Divine Architect from the Rig Veda has a crown of thorns....

I really could go on and on here, for there are reams of information.

-Br.Bruce

[Ahanu]

Matthew is writing about Jesus' teaching to follow Him. (pre-resurrection)

The book of Titus deals with following Jesus.
(post-resurrection)

The part you point out in John deals with the resurrection. (during )

Thanks. That verse along with some other versus from Matthew seem to support the view that Jesus is not God (Matthew 26: 39;24: 36;17: 5).

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, mens_sana!

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Do you know the terms "exegesis" and "eisegesis"?

No, it is not a term I am familiar with, therefore...

Eisegesis (from the Greek εἰσηγεῖσθαι; 'to lead in') is the process of interpretation of an existing text in such a way as to introduce one's own ideas. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.

Eisegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which continues:

While exegesis attempts to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists - the so-called "Sitz im Leben" or life setting - eisegetes often neglect this aspect of biblical study.

Exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians, but most scholars agree about the importance of determining the authorial intentions. Still, to determine the author's intent can often be difficult, especially for books which were written anonymously.

If I may call attention to the point above, "exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians." By these terms, one could potentially say the same of your own view, could they not? All interpretations, including those most noble efforts towards exegesis, are still tainted by the potential tint of the interpreter's viewpoint. And if that particular interpreter is a stooge beholding to one or other political power? Then even claims of exegesis will not make it so.

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Yes, some Christian scholars consider Ha-Adam to be a type of Messiah. However, the Jews do not — and they are the ones that wrote the book, all the way from Genesis to Chronicles (Hebrew Bible order).

I understand the Old Testament is a Jewish text, but are you rightly qualified to speak of Jewish points of view? Are you a practising Jew?

Originally Posted by mens_sana

When the Christian scholars find the Ha-Adam type, they are using eisegesis. Which practice do you think comes closer to the intention of the author?

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps not. Such is the struggle with prophecy and fulfillment.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Xavier!

Originally Posted by Xavier Breath

By my count, there are now at least 246 angels dancing on the head of this pin...

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Thanks. That verse along with some other versus from Matthew seem to support the view that Jesus is not God (Matthew 26: 39;24: 36;17: 5).

Greetings Ahanu,
Matthew 17:5 has been altered. I have posted some of the historical facts on that.

For an understanding of the Logos from the Hindu perspective I recommend:

Philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita by T. Subba Row

We will not truly understand the Christian Mystery in full until the end of the Earth ages. Obviously then, we need ongoing revelation (and we do!- Thank God!).

Christians now and in the past have used the prologue of St. John (up to "full of Grace and Truth") as a meditation, to arrive at great personal revelations. There is a living Spiritual Truth there.

Indeed, even Muslims, Buddhists and others will meet the Christ Being (some will not know Him by that name however).



Some beautiful poetry from T.L. Harris:-

Greater or lesser he appears by turns,
As men are great or small;
His Image in refulgent Helios burns,
And in the dewdrop’s ball;
The tide-waves of the constellations toss
About His great white Throne;
Yet as a Child He met the Planet’s loss,
And bore its griefs alone.

In Christ,
Br.Bruce

[mens_sana]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, mens_sana!

No, it is not a term I am familiar with, therefore...

Eisegesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

which continues:

If I may call attention to the point above, "exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians." By these terms, one could potentially say the same of your own view, could they not? All interpretations, including those most noble efforts towards exegesis, are still tainted by the potential tint of the interpreter's viewpoint. And if that particular interpreter is a stooge beholding to one or other political power? Then even claims of exegesis will not make it so.

I understand the Old Testament is a Jewish text, but are you rightly qualified to speak of Jewish points of view? Are you a practising Jew?

Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps not. Such is the struggle with prophecy and fulfillment.

Hello Juantoo,


The debate over what constitutes eisegesis is a debate among theologians. It is not a debate among the text guys. The theologian points out that the Gospel of John speaks of a pre-existent Logos, with the logical conclusion that that Logos must have been present “in the beginning.” That's eisegesis. The text guy says, “Yes, the Logos is right there in John, but there is no Logos in the text of Genesis.” He says this because the exegete deals solely with the text, with what the author actually wrote.

If you pull up a passage and say “this is what the text says, but this is what the author meant to say,” you are most likely practicing eisegesis, because you are putting words in the author's mouth. And basically, when you put your words in the author's mouth, you are disrespecting that author.

Do I have to be a practicing Jew to speak of Jewish points of view? No — unless I was trying to deal with the jots and tittles. There I would be lost. However, just to reassure you, on the handy reference shelf behind me, I keep the Oxford University Press Jewish Study Bible, Ziony Zevit's The Religions of Ancient Israel, Viktor Tcherikover's Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Elias Bickerman's The Jews in the Greek Age, Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible, and Amy-Jill Levine's dvd introduction to The Old Testament. And a long time ago, I took two graduate level courses in Hebrew Bible. The Friedman book is a good one to start out with. You're welcome to google any of the authors; they're all legit.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, mens_sana!

Originally Posted by mens_sana

The debate over what constitutes eisegesis is a debate among theologians. It is not a debate among the text guys. The theologian points out that the Gospel of John speaks of a pre-existent Logos, with the logical conclusion that that Logos must have been present “in the beginning.” That's eisegesis. The text guy says, “Yes, the Logos is right there in John, but there is no Logos in the text of Genesis.” He says this because the exegete deals solely with the text, with what the author actually wrote.

I cannot disagree with you, but I do feel the need to express what I feel could be a determining factor. What bearing does this reductionism have on your faith walk and / or moral code? It is fun, even illuminating, to dissect the linguistic structure of the scriptures. But if the end result is the destruction of the moral lessons and the innate values therein, what purpose is served? Truth? Truth is a widely variable value.

This makes me wonder how you personally interpret the writings of Mark Twain, or Rudyard Kipling, or Lewis Carroll, or Jonathan Swift, or Dante Allighieri? Should the morality myths by these men be taken at face value *only* as well?

Originally Posted by mens_sana

If you pull up a passage and say “this is what the text says, but this is what the author meant to say,” you are most likely practicing eisegesis, because you are putting words in the author's mouth. And basically, when you put your words in the author's mouth, you are disrespecting that author.

On a level I can agree with you, were someone to indicate that the word baseball meant rutabega or some such. But I must disagree when considering prophetic implications, poetic license, and intrinsic themes. The text can and even should be viewed in a microscopic manner, but after that it should also be viewed in a macroscopic manner. That is what makes the Jewish and Christian scriptures such gems and treasures, as I am sure it is with other sacred scriptures. Sacred scriptures are rich with multiple levels and layers of meaning, but one must trranscend the literal and reductionist points of view to fully appreciate the deeper levels of meaning.

Is the Greek "word" Logos (pun intended) to be found in the Hebrew book of Genesis? No. But that is a reductionist point of view. Is the essence of what the Greek word "Logos" in its extended and very rich and pregnant meaning present in the creation saga in Genesis? As the Androgynous spirit / dove hovered over the nest of waters bringing forth the creation of life, I would think there is a great poetic similarity. But that is me looking through poetic eyes, not reductionist eyes.

If you must label that "eisegesis," so be it, but I think it remains to be seen whether or not it is disrespecting the intentions of the authors of both Genesis and John. Linguistics encompasses far more than the structure of ink blots on a page. Literature, sacred and otherwise, is seldom completely academically literal. (Not to say that makes any such untrue, for truth is in the eye of the beholder)

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Do I have to be a practicing Jew to speak of Jewish points of view? No — unless I was trying to deal with the jots and tittles. There I would be lost. However, just to reassure you, on the handy reference shelf behind me, I keep the Oxford University Press Jewish Study Bible, Ziony Zevit's The Religions of Ancient Israel, Viktor Tcherikover's Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, Elias Bickerman's The Jews in the Greek Age, Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible, and Amy-Jill Levine's dvd introduction to The Old Testament. And a long time ago, I took two graduate level courses in Hebrew Bible. The Friedman book is a good one to start out with. You're welcome to google any of the authors; they're all legit.

Cool, at least you are not pulling things out of the air. I have come to rely on our regular Jewish members here to enlighten me to Jewish points of view, and through them I find there is a wide range of views within the Jewish praxis.

I think you will find these two guys here seem to be in agreement with me about the "spirit of intent" behind the words, even if not in my specific point of view. I think you will find they are both definitely of the opinion that the value of the Holy Texts are not in the ink blots on the page, but rather the lessons those words convey. Sometimes those words simply must be interpreted through meditation and practical application in order to be of any spiritual and moral value.

If I may direct you to the indepth thread begun by Bananabrain (our regular "Orthodox" Jewish contributor) about the shortcomings of redaction theory and reductionism:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ponse-369.html

Enjoy!

PS, as to whether or not Ha-Adam in Genesis serves as a "type" for Messiah, I will allow them to say rather than speak for them. Messiah, as I am certain you are aware, has a bit different meaning in Judaism than in Christianity. That does not negate the "type" as a method of instruction.

[mens_sana]

Hello Juantoo,


Please feel free to disagree. But let's get one thing out of the way first. The DH/RT is not anti-semitic. That Bananabrain thinks it is in some way, because Wellhausen was, does not mean that the theory is. There were 600 years of scholarly investigation prior to Wellhausen and the DH has been around for more than 100 years now. In that 100 years no one has been able to come up with a better idea that explains how the Pentateuch was put together — and plenty have tried. If the theory itself was anti-semitic, Tcherikover, Bickerman, Zevit, Levine and Friedman would have been happy to tell us so.


The overarching question is, “Do you feel free to read concepts and interpretations developed centuries and millennia after the texts were written back into those texts — and say that these later concepts and interpretations are what the author meant to say, despite the fact, the very solid fact that the author did NOT say them?” Considering that you think those ancient authors had something important to say to you, do you think telling THEM they said THIS, when those words and ideas aren't in their text, is respecting their intent?


As a theologian or a believer in ________ (fill in the blank), you can say “I think this interpretation of the text is correct,” but you do not have the right to say, “This interpretation is what the writer said.”


The Friedman book, Who Wrote the Bible, is a very good, easy-reading, even entertaining introduction to the Pentateuch. And the author is an observant Jew.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

We will not truly understand the Christian Mystery in full until the end of the Earth ages. Obviously then, we need ongoing revelation (and we do!- Thank God!).

In Christ,
Br.Bruce

we are now living in the time of the end , the start of the last days started in 1914 inline with bible prophecy and chronology .


the end does not mean the end of the planet, it means the end of human rulerships and goverments . READ DANIEL 2;44.

and now in 2008 we are well along in the time of the end ,and an ongoing revealing and uncovering of the book of revelation is happening, and has been happening for many years since 1914 .


and it has all been happening to Gods people , and the understanding is abundant indeed .

yes ,we have been living in the time of the end since 1914, when Jesus was given kingship in the heavenly kingdom goverment. Daniel 7;13-14

and things are moving along nicely especially when it comes to Gods people .


yes ,Jesus has a channel that he is feeding lots of understanding to . that channel is out there , it is spoken of in MATTHEW 24;45-47

Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. 47 Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings.MATTHEW 24;45-47



Jesus arrived in kingdom power in 1914 , and he is now a reigning king in the heavenly kingdom Daniel 2;44 Daniel 7;13-14

and after being given great aurthority, he saw who the faithful ones were and he has given then all his belongings.



and the revealing in this time of the end is abundant indeed .


Daniel 12;4 And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant.”


All of that sincere roving around the bible has brought many things to light, and it is all happening for the channel Jesus is feeding .

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by mens_sana

The DH/RT is not anti-semitic. That Bananabrain thinks it is in some way, because Wellhausen was, does not mean that the theory is.

mens_sana, if you read what i *actually* said, you'll find i said this:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i never said the *theory* was anti-semitic. i said that the people who first started it, back in the day, were - and that is a matter of public record. i don't accuse people of anti-semitism for disagreeing with me. but the aim of wellhausen and his friends was to reduce jewish reverence for Torah and thus allow more easy conversion to the more 'modern' christianity by showing that the OT was redacted just like the NT and was therefore no more directly the 'word of G!D'.

in other words, i think the theory is academically neutral, it is the intent behind applying it that can vary *widely*, from such "friendly" intent as louis jacobs and friedman to avowedly unfriendly, such as wellhausen. i care far more about what people use the DH/RT *for*. and, while we're on the subject of friedman/"WWTB", i feel it only fair to inform you that it was that very book which destroyed my faith in the DH/RT, which i had been brought up to assume was true. it was like hearing someone describe a vermeer in terms of where the artist bought his paint. but i digress:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

There were 600 years of scholarly investigation prior to Wellhausen and the DH has been around for more than 100 years now.

that would depend on how you define "scholarly". if you mean "disinterested", i cannot concur, unless you can show me how people in the christian world in the C13th were prepared to draw conclusions which negated the Divine aspect of the text. and if you don't mean disinterested, then it would be ridiculous for you to ignore the investigation that has been made (into the "OT" at any rate) by jewish scholars for 2000 years at the very least.

The overarching question is, “Do you feel free to read concepts and interpretations developed centuries and millennia after the texts were written back into those texts — and say that these later concepts and interpretations are what the author meant to say, despite the fact, the very solid fact that the author did NOT say them?”

actually, in some cases, yes, i do, based upon a long-standing jewish interpretative tradition referred to as "the Torah speaks in the language of humans". if you analyse the logic and understand how the Torah puts together an argument, what it says, how it says it and what it pointedly *omits*, the Torah is, for example, against slavery. now, at the time that it was given, it would have been inconceivable to speak in such terms, just as much as it would have been inconceivable for the Torah to give opinions on the use of the internet. but what the sages did was use the Torah's own opinions to prove to their satisfaction (which is pretty stringent, i can tell you) that slavery was to be, as far as possible, made impossible, much like the multifarious death penalties. for a more straightforward example, the Torah gives an explicit procedure for divorce and none for marriage. are we to assume there isn't a procedure? therefore, we have to read a procedure in, based on whatever relevant internal criteria we have. it is this process that gives us the Oral Law.

in conclusion, i'd like to say this. people are of course completely free to believe the DH/RT if it works for them. it is not for me to say; it's a theory after all. i, personally, believe it misses the point, reducing art to chemistry and music to maths, love to gene theory. civilisation is emergent. so is faith, in my experience. however, in terms of particular interpretations, i believe that it is entirely arbitrary to ignore and dismiss traditional jewish methods whilst giving a free ride and presumptive favour to "scholarly" methods which have far less of a track record from my PoV.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[mens_sana]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

mens_sana, if you read what i *actually* said, you'll find i said this

Yes, BB, I know what you said. What it amounts to is that you're trying to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

wellhausen's own well-documented antisemitism and conversionist agenda taints this set of ideas at source...

You don't like the DH because it approaches the Pentateuch as if it were a historical document, one capable of literary and historical analysis. You want a document that has a special status exempting it from such a study. So what do you do? You speak with forkéd tongue, claiming in one post that Wellhausen's antisemitism “taints” the DH at its source, despite a prior 600 years of scholarly study (which doesn't have to be “disinterested”), a fair amount of which was done by Jews. However, because you know very well that the DH is not antisemitic, that such an accusation won't stand up, you deny it in the next post. Shame on you.

The Oral Torah is a marvelous instrument. It has allowed a Bronze Age document to become relevant to the 21st century and every century since its inception and it allowed the Pharisees to transform a Judaism that was rudderless after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and the founding of Aeolia Capitolina in 135. However, that the Oral Torah preceeded the written Torah is a theological position, a statement of faith, not text.

I doubt that the general reader here knows much about the Oral Torah, so let me tell a little story that illustrates how it works. Many centuries ago, a gathering of rabbis were arguing an explication of a minute bit of Law, with citations from every book of the Torah, examples from the Prophets, and years of rabbinical precedents. As these thing so, so did this convocation — for weeks — for everyone knows that where even just two rabbis get together, there will be three opinions (who needs a minyan for a discussion?). Finally the argument was settled to everyone's satisfaction, a new point in the Oral Law had been agreed upon. The convocation was about to break up. Suddenly, out of the heavens a crash of lightning and a mighty voice, “THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT !” thundered the Lord G-d of Hosts. The president of the convocation bowed toward Mt Zion and responded, “The Law is the Law.”

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by mens_sana

You don't like the DH because it approaches the Pentateuch as if it were a historical document, one capable of literary and historical analysis.

that's not quite right. obviously it is *capable* of that - i find some of the analysis extremely interesting and absorbing. it just hasn't altered my opinion (so far - and i've been studying it some time) as to the origin and unique qualities of the document.

You want a document that has a special status exempting it from such a study.

that's not my point at all. let those who are interested in it and gain value from it go right ahead. my point in the other thread is that the traditional sources of interpretation should not be arrogantly dismissed out of hand, without regard to the insight that it brings and giving (imo) unwarranted credence to the lofty dispassion of academic discipline, about which i am somewhat sceptical. if you read my entire argument, what i am saying is that, in line with the greater humility shown by anthropologists such as mary douglas, traditional understanding is not merely to be sneered at as primitive and unsophisticated, as many who use the DH are prone to do from their eurocentric, blinkered ivory towers. and i say that as someone with two postgrad degrees and ample experience of the ways academics behave, as well as with respect for those that deserve it.

You speak with forkéd tongue, claiming in one post that Wellhausen's antisemitism “taints” the DH at its source, despite a prior 600 years of scholarly study (which doesn't have to be “disinterested”), a fair amount of which was done by Jews. However, because you know very well that the DH is not antisemitic, that such an accusation won't stand up, you deny it in the next post. Shame on you.

i think i should probably clarify that statement, because i wrote it four-and-a-half years ago (have i been here that long?) and was moreover quite angry at the time. of course not all DH/RT thinking is tainted by anti-semitism, despite its highly tendential antecedents in both C19 germany and C18 france but there is very little of it that is *not* tainted by scholarly, eurocentric arrogance, as i said:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

what i object to is not the theory, but the patronising assumption that we're all just kidding ourselves and that they must be right because they're academics. that's the trouble with the academic arrogance that accompanies the language of so-called "objective proof" - even in *western* philosophy, this idea was discredited long ago.

moreover, i even qualified it at the time:

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i never said the *theory* was anti-semitic. i said that the people who first started it, back in the day, were - and that is a matter of public record. i don't accuse people of anti-semitism for disagreeing with me. but the aim of wellhausen and his friends was to reduce jewish reverence for Torah and thus allow more easy conversion to the more 'modern' christianity by showing that the OT was redacted just like the NT and was therefore no more directly the 'word of G!D'.

and i certainly continue to stand by both comments, even having learned a great deal more about the subject since.

so perhaps we could dispense with the implicit accusation of intellectual dishonesty, because i am not one to shelter behind "questions that mustn't be asked" - i believe a belief system must be able to stand up to a good kicking, otherwise it simply doesn't deserve respect.

Originally Posted by mens_sana

The Oral Torah is a marvelous instrument. It has allowed a Bronze Age document to become relevant to the 21st century and every century since its inception

hang on a minute. now the Written Torah is a "bronze age" document? i thought the DH said nothing of the sort? now who's having their cake and eating it? at any rate, however, i am glad that you at least recognise how the Torah "speaking in the language of humans" works in practice.

Originally Posted by mens_sana

However, that the Oral Torah preceeded the written Torah is a theological position, a statement of faith, not text.

i don't believe so. i believe it is logical to conclude that a text which mentions divorce procedure without mentioning marriage procedure, in which, moreover, much marriage takes place, implies a existing, pre-revelatory framework of procedure at least if not law. this was what led the sages to conclude that the Oral Torah at least in part pre-dated the Revelation at sinai.

Many centuries ago, a gathering of rabbis were arguing an explication of a minute bit of Law, with citations from every book of the Torah, examples from the Prophets, and years of rabbinical precedents. As these thing so, so did this convocation — for weeks — for everyone knows that where even just two rabbis get together, there will be three opinions (who needs a minyan for a discussion?). Finally the argument was settled to everyone's satisfaction, a new point in the Oral Law had been agreed upon. The convocation was about to break up. Suddenly, out of the heavens a crash of lightning and a mighty voice, “THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT !” thundered the Lord G-d of Hosts. The president of the convocation bowed toward Mt Zion and responded, “The Law is the Law.”

are you misquoting the "oven of achnai" incident (which shows precisely how G!D would be *overruled* in such a situation) or are you perhaps referring to another Talmudic episode that i'm not familiar with? if so, i'd like to know where it's from, because i'll want to know how the sages reconcile it with the oven argument (see BT bava metzia 59b)

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dor]

The fact that people can not grasp the elementary fact of who Jesus is to this day baffles me.

I have a book entitled "Pagan Christs" and when I put that term into Google it came up with over 5000 hits.

So what when I goggle my name I get 709000.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dor

The fact that people can not grasp the elementary fact of who Jesus is to this day baffles me.

So what when I goggle my name I get 709000.

Gee, I only get three...

[mee]

Originally Posted by Dor

The fact that people can not grasp the elementary fact of who Jesus is to this day baffles me.

.

yet the bible is available for all to see.

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—MATTHEW 16:16.


Jesus asked his disciples who they believed he was. Did Simon Peter reply: “You are God”? No. Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-17.
Religious writers, believing God is a Trinity, speak of “God the Son.” However, John the Baptist did not call Jesus “God the Son” but “the Son of God.” Jesus’ disciples did not say, “You are God the Son,” but, “You are really God’s Son.” There is a great difference between these statements.—John 1:34; Matthew 14:33.