The original Jesus

Ratatosk

Ratatosk

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Peace all,

O' most noble thinkers, I greet thee.

Being a new member on this a-here forum, I thought I'd start off w/ a thread. That's the usual code of conduct, no? [Smiley.]

The synopsis:
The vast majority of information that we have on the central figure in christianity, ie Jesus, stems from the canonical gospels. I guess most (at least many) are familiar w/ the 'synoptic problem' and its' relationship w/ the hypothetical 'Sayings Gospel Q'. For those who're not, in short Q is a theoretical sayings gospel consisting solely of the common information found in the synoptic gospels.
Theory has it that Matthew and Luke used this source (in german 'quelle', hence the name 'Q') alongside Mark when they composed their gospels. When reconstructing 'Q', leaving out all the narratives where the gospels differ, a quite different gospel emerges. And - as an added bonus - a quite different view of Jesus. There are no stories of Immaculate Conception, there are no crucifixion nor resurrection stories, there are only the sayings and the philosophy of a selfless, compassionate being. The 'original Jesus', if you will.
(I hope I'm not being disrespectful w/ the term, it's only for the matter of discourse.) Many scolars agree that the 'supernatural' stories are influenced by other cultures and could very well be later additions. It is also when accounting these stories that the gospels display the biggest discrepancies.


The question:
That said, what I'm interrested in is how does this 'original Jesus' fit in w/ the modern day view of christianity and, perhaps more interestingly, islam?

I hope I'm not being too vague w/ this query, because I feel a discussion could raise some interesting questions.


-JC, Finland.
 
Ratatosk, you've given me an idea for a project of my own here. I have run across references to the "Q" document, but have not read it. Thomas Jefferson, the great American Founding Father, could not have known of "Q", but he did try to recontruct Jesus' original words in what has become known as The Jefferson Bible. I think it would be interesting to compare the two texts.

Certainly, in light of your question, here was an intelligent, rational, creative thinker who had a profound influence not only on the United States but the world, who was deeply interested in penetrating to the essential teachings of Jesus.

My opinion, but I think it perfectly reasonable to follow the teachings of Jesus without necessarily subscribing to every miracle the Gospels attribute to Him. In fact, the miracles only make sense if one is convinced of a transcendent God, who exists appart from nature and intervenes in the debased Creation at opportune moments.
An immanent God, who exists as part of His Creation, and dwells as "the Christ within", would have no need of miracles--He manifests Himself and His powers through the laws of nature inherent in the makeup of the universe.
Okay, I'm quite sure that's an heretical view to many, but it's the way that I can follow Christ.
 
Hi Ratatosk, and welcome to CR. :)

Good questions, too - effectively trying to move beyond the words to the reality of the figure - whatever that may be or not.

If it's of any usefulness, I wrote a short piece on re-evaluating Jesus as a figure originally in the form of an Old Testament prophet:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/articles/jesus_hell.php

Jesus as a figure seems to present a strange looking glass to all, though.
 
Thank you for the hello, Brian.

The thing I had in mind about the original Jesus is a bit difficult to articulate. The Nicene Creed, for instance, only takes into account the supernatural birth and death of Jesus, but totally disregards the life and times of the person, and further, places the church on the same pedestal. When Jesus is given the soapbox, instead of letting the dogmatic church water down his message, it's a rather different figure talking. Jesus seemed to be quite the naturalist, living off of Gods Kingdom. Jesus and his original disciples were a rag tag bunch of wanderers, basically, knocking on doors ('knock and ye shalt be answered') and asking for the daily bread. They forgive those who were in debt to them and they offered the other cheek to those who hit them. Jesus' company entrusted themselves completely into the hands of God, being of His spirit, and thus sons of God. Jesus never did baptise anyone, akin to John, but rather led by example instead of divine threat.

What I'm wondering is how this simple, unassuming man could become the deified Christ, laden with kerygma and doctrine and dogma?

And what place does the original message of Jesus have in todays church, and indeed, society?

And while on the issue of how the christian church has wandered, not astray, but with a different gait than the sandal-less Jesus, what stance does the muslim ummah hold regarding this person?

-JC, Finland.
 
Are you ultimately asking after a Jesus in the tradition of Arius - a wise man, even a political acitivist, with a spiritual agenda - who just so happened to be used as a foundation upon which was later rebuilt a few Greek Mysteries with Jewish mysticism, in a new form, for the new Roman Empire?
 
Err... ...no.

I am not trying to debate the divinity of Jesus, in the traditionally Arian sense of a subservient Jesus or a divided divinity. Nor am I discrediting the Nicean tradition, w/ the church being holy and all. I am only trying to point to the initial message of the nazarean carpenter. I find that his humble words are being all but drowned out by the immense, rumbling noise of doctrinal bombasms and bellowing kerygma. What did the carpenter tell us? That's what I'm trying to hear. How to walk placidly amidst the noise and the haste, kinda.

Disregarding his divinity for a moment, where does this humble man w/ his very selfless praxis fit in the modern day christian church? If one would be cynical, one could say that the church believes in the church. Luckily, we ain't. Cynical, that is.

-JC, Finland.
 
The Synoptics are a covergence of two sources it appears: one is a sayings tradition attributed to Jesus (the "Q"), which, if it was written down as a separate text (and it likely was given the syntactical similarities in the works derived from it) it probably looked quite a bit like the "Gospel of Thomas" a full version of which was discovered in Coptic for the first time at Nag Hammadi last century.

The other source is a "Passion/Resurrection" account that appears to be a historicization of Psalm 22 and a few other odds and ends from messianic prophecy. That might have been an oral tradition but was likely also written. It may have been the "Gospel of Peter" or "GPet" may in turn have been derived from a common oral tradition or another "Passion/Resurrection" account. I highly recommend reading the works (as many as you can) of John Dominic Crossan on this subject. For a basic introduction, start with "Who Killed Jesus?" Crossan gives an outstanding argument for why the Synoptics are derived from GPet. He also advances the thesis that GPet itself was drawn from an earlier source that Crossan calls the "Cross Gospel." That would make TWO long lost sources for the content of the Canonical Gospels - the "Q" and the "Cross Gospel."
 
Ratatosk said:
Err... ...no.

I am not trying to debate the divinity of Jesus, in the traditionally Arian sense of a subservient Jesus or a divided divinity. Nor am I discrediting the Nicean tradition, w/ the church being holy and all. I am only trying to point to the initial message of the nazarean carpenter. I find that his humble words are being all but drowned out by the immense, rumbling noise of doctrinal bombasms and bellowing kerygma. What did the carpenter tell us? That's what I'm trying to hear. How to walk placidly amidst the noise and the haste, kinda.

Disregarding his divinity for a moment, where does this humble man w/ his very selfless praxis fit in the modern day christian church? If one would be cynical, one could say that the church believes in the church. Luckily, we ain't. Cynical, that is.

-JC, Finland.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read anything by Joseph Campbell?
 
Unfortunately I haven't. How do his writings relate, and what title would you recommend?

JC
 
Ratatosk said:
Unfortunately I haven't. How do his writings relate, and what title would you recommend?

JC
Click to expand...
His writings relate to finding "the real Jesus" and what role that process plays in modern life. I would recommend "The Power of Myth", his four part series "The Masks of God" and "Hero With a Thousand Faces."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top