Of course Jesus lived! I was thinking about something during this and another discussion about Christianity came up on the board. Had you noticed that AFTER Jesus came back from Egypt/Kemet that he was able to perform all of these miracles? I just now thought about this. Why is that? Can anyone answer?

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Of course Jesus lived!

...You say that like it's a no brainer.

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Of course Jesus lived! I was thinking about something during this and another discussion about Christianity came up on the board. Had you noticed that AFTER Jesus came back from Egypt/Kemet that he was able to perform all of these miracles? I just now thought about this. Why is that? Can anyone answer?

That's the no brainer right there. Remember the Israelites didn't even have a religion/the ten commandments until they Exodussed from Egypt... hhhmmm...

The question: Man or Myth? My Answer: Myth. Unless of course you consider Orisis [sp]. He's the closest any religion will get to supposedly that fellow they call Jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by Kocolicious:
The question: Man or Myth? My Answer: Myth. Unless of course you consider Orisis [sp]. He's the closest any religion will get to supposedly that fellow they call Jesus.

But Ausar/Osiris is mainly 'myth' too. He may have been a deified ancestor... but to take him 'literally' kills the message/point(s) of the storie(s)...just like the literalization of Jesus does.

If Jesus is myth, then the bridge between Man and God is a myth as well. Jesus exemplifies a mutual dependance between man and God, and He is the metaphysical faculty that completes the order that we are to be living in. Man can contribute nothing to this world metaphysically without first being connected to his/her orgin.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
If Jesus is myth, then the bridge between Man and God is a myth as well. Jesus exemplifies a mutual dependance between man and God, and He is the metaphysical faculty that completes the order that we are to be living in. Man can contribute nothing to this world metaphysically without first being connected to his/her orgin.

You are misinterpreting what is being said. Jesus REPRESENTS(via the myth) MANY things... But literalization of a 'myth' destroys what it originaly symbolizes.

quote:

But Ausar/Osiris is mainly 'myth' too. He may have been a deified ancestor... but to take him 'literally' kills the message/point(s) of the storie(s)...just like the literalization of Jesus does.


Egu

I meant in terms of "believable conjecture"...cuz unless we were there...Jesus...Orisis [sp] including some issues of accurate history are ALL what many of us are comfortable in calling "myths." For me to make it clear, if I am going to believe the fables in regards to religion, spirituality or ethereal approach, I will probably have to move closer to believing Orisis and the Isis story cuz it makes MORE SENSE. Than the walking on water, splitting of the sea and the coming back from the dead scenrio...it JUST wasn't believable back then as well as not believable/realistic in today's world. Cuz in my perspective spreading civilized and humane behavior across the Africa is believable and realistic and a lot more acceptable than waiting to be saved by a fairy tale white messiah....just doesn't work for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
If Jesus is myth, then the bridge between Man and God is a myth as well. Jesus exemplifies a mutual dependance between man and God, and He is the metaphysical faculty that completes the order that we are to be living in. Man can contribute nothing to this world metaphysically without first being connected to his/her orgin.

You are misinterpreting what is being said. Jesus REPRESENTS(via the myth) MANY things... But literalization of a 'myth' destroys what it originaly symbolizes.

AMEN Sister! Hallelujah! Sophia help her!!! Preach, preach!!!!

[A myth would suggest that he never actually walked, or physically existed. Is that what's being suggested here?

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
[A myth would suggest that he never actually walked, or physically existed. Is that what's being suggested here?

Not necessarily. We can attach all sorts of meaning, significance, and extra-biographical detail to actual human beings. George Washington (and that cherry tree) or 2Pac (he still walks among us) for example.

Oh, I see.

So what your saying is that Jesus may have existed, but some of the things that he may or may not have done, were probably over-dramatized through folklore, in order to create a religion.

And there does not even have to be the deliberate intention to deceive. Human beings hate mystery. We fill in gaps and create reality in the absence of facts. Think about all the speculation (and legends) surrounding the assassination of JFK or the events of 9-11. Myth making happens every day. If this is true even today how much more would it have been true in the first century AD where the Gospels were written (at least) 30 years after fact by people who were not even eyewitnesses?

Turning water into wine, feeding five-thousand with one fish, healing the blind... etc. These can all be speculated upon as myths without deteriorating the Doctrine, and the spiritual system itself. But the topic hasn't alluded to those types of myth questions. This topic has alluded to the actual death/resurrection of Christ as being myth. This contradicts the doctrine and foundation of Christianity.

For God so loved the world...

No esoteric form thinking is substantial enough to back this statement as myth, with a valid explanation.

So let's erase that statement from the Bible.

What are we left with?

---------------------------------

Essentially what I'm saying is HE can't be both man and myth. If one chooses to believe He is a myth, then they reject the Bible... no biggie, we are all entitled. If one believes that he was both, then they are seriously confused.

Usually "myths" are understood by it's practitioners.

For instance, someone mentioned Ausar/Osiris.

The Kamitians understood, lived, and breathed the symbolism that is in the stories of their ancient mystic relationship to the cosmic. The symbols were used as explanations of metaphysical thought, and also as a vehicle in which they could incorporate that mystery into their daily lives.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
Usually "myths" are understood by it's practitioners.

For instance, someone mentioned Ausar/Osiris.

The Kamitians understood, lived, and breathed the symbolism that is in the stories of their ancient mystic relationship to the cosmic. The symbols were used as explanations of metaphysical thought, and also as a vehicle in which they could incorporate that mystery into their daily lives.

How is this different from Jesus?

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
Turning water into wine, feeding five-thousand with one fish, healing the blind... etc. These can all be speculated upon as myths without deteriorating the Doctrine, and the spiritual system itself. But the topic hasn't alluded to those types of myth questions. This topic has alluded to the actual death/resurrection of Christ as being myth. This contradicts the doctrine and foundation of Christianity.

How so?

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
But the topic hasn't alluded to those types of myth questions. This topic has alluded to the actual death/resurrection of Christ as being myth. This contradicts the doctrine and foundation of Christianity.

For God so loved the world...

No esoteric form thinking is substantial enough to back this statement as myth, with a valid explanation.

So let's erase that statement from the Bible.

What are we left with?

Read the book "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas" by Elaine Pagels. She contends that John (and the verse that you have quoted) was written in part as a polemical rebuttal of Thomas.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Usually "myths" are understood by it's practitioners.

For instance, someone mentioned Ausar/Osiris.

The Kamitians understood, lived, and breathed the symbolism that is in the stories of their ancient mystic relationship to the cosmic. The symbols were used as explanations of metaphysical thought, and also as a vehicle in which they could incorporate that mystery into their daily lives.

How is this different from Jesus?

The sacrifice would have no metaphorical premise. For God pretended to love the world so much that He pretended to give His only begotten son? There is a spiritual integrity that is expected in the Christian God. Especially when the fine line between symbolism and idolatry is not tread upon at all in the Christian tradition.


The symbolism of Ausar would've been looked at as idolatry (as a matter of fact it was looked upon as idolatry). The Semetic culture couldn't grasp that form of mysticism. Because that is not how their spiritual conversation took place. There was a completely different spiritual language.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Turning water into wine, feeding five-thousand with one fish, healing the blind... etc. These can all be speculated upon as myths without deteriorating the Doctrine, and the spiritual system itself. But the topic hasn't alluded to those types of myth questions. This topic has alluded to the actual death/resurrection of Christ as being myth. This contradicts the doctrine and foundation of Christianity.


How so?

Without a real sacrifice, there is no real connection to the Christian Divine.

Can I just backtrack here for a moment. I'd like to go into this myth issue. But before I do that, I just would like to say that I believe Jesus existed as well as many other saviors as documented in their particular cultures and religions.
Speaking upon myth, myths are stories that have multiple meanings on various levels. When we discuss myth we have to keep in mind that its not necessarily based only on physical truths. I don't think that we really look deep enough when it comes to myths. What messages are being conveyed to us to guide our lives and our conduct as human beings. This goes for all spiritual 'myths'. That's just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
Turning water into wine, feeding five-thousand with one fish, healing the blind... etc. These can all be speculated upon as myths without deteriorating the Doctrine, and the spiritual system itself. But the topic hasn't alluded to those types of myth questions. This topic has alluded to the actual death/resurrection of Christ as being myth. This contradicts the doctrine and foundation of Christianity.


How so?

Without a real sacrifice, there is no real connection to the Christian Divine.

What is the basis of this assertion?

Note, there have been various teachings within the tradition of the church dealing with the meaning of Jesus Christ life, death, burial, and resurrection. Although I may be in error, it appears to me that like many Protestants, you hold to a belief in substitutionary atonement, that Christ had to day to pay a debt for us. But this is just one view in the history of the church.

There is the moral influence teaching of Peter Abelard. Here, Jesus life and death reveals to us the nature of God as love. Such a life is meant to be compelling, is meant to inform us that the God of the universe really does love us. Moreover, Jesus, in living as a person for others, should be our model for what it means to be children of God. A contemporary version of this can be found in work of womanist theologians such as Delores Williams.

There is also a contemporary interpretation of the classic atonement doctrine of Christus Victor. [Preacher mode on]
The lesson or doctrine of the resurrection is the message of hope to those who are oppressed, marginalized, and disinherited. It communicates to us that the forces of oppression and subjugation will ultimately be overcome....that sin, death, and the grave do not have the last word. The last word is the Divine yes, to life, to freedom, to liberation.
[Preacher mode off]

So I submit, that the resurrection need not be interpreted literally to be meaningful.

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Can I just backtrack here for a moment. I'd like to go into this myth issue. But before I do that, I just would like to say that I believe Jesus existed as well as many other saviors as documented in their particular cultures and religions.
Speaking upon myth, myths are stories that have multiple meanings on various levels. When we discuss myth we have to keep in mind that its not necessarily based only on physical truths. I don't think that we really look deep enough when it comes to myths. What messages are being conveyed to us to guide our lives and our conduct as human beings. This goes for all spiritual 'myths'. That's just my opinion.

You know, I watched a History Channel program on whether or not there really was a Jesus ... and basically, they said what you've just said here!

Their assertion was that a 'man' named Jesus did exist, but not during time that is written about in the Bible ... it was much, much earlier. And though it is questionable as to whether he performed "miracles" (they said it's possible that this person was a medicine man of some sort and may have known/done things that were miracle-like to the people of that time), it would appear as those he was just passed down as myth which was incorporated into religion at a later time!

quote:

What is the basis of this assertion?

Note, there have been various teachings within the tradition of the church dealing with the meaning of Jesus Christ life, death, burial, and resurrection. Although I may be in error, it appears to me that like many Protestants, you hold to a belief in substitutionary atonement, that Christ had to day to pay a debt for us. But this is just one view in the history of the church.

There is the moral influence teaching of Peter Abelard. Here, Jesus life and death reveals to us the nature of God as love. Such a life is meant to be compelling, is meant to inform us that the God of the universe really does love us. Moreover, Jesus, in living as a person for others, should be our model for what it means to be children of God. A contemporary version of this can be found in work of womanist theologians such as Delores Williams.

There is also a contemporary interpretation of the classic atonement doctrine of Christus Victor. [Preacher mode on]
The lesson or doctrine of the resurrection is the message of hope to those who are oppressed, marginalized, and disinherited. It communicates to us that the forces of oppression and subjugation will ultimately be overcome....that sin, death, and the grave do not have the last word. The last word is the Divine yes, to life, to freedom, to liberation.
[Preacher mode off]

So I submit, that the resurrection need not be interpreted literally to be meaningful.

There is an element of sacrificial love that I feel is being ignored here. Jesus' life isn't evidence of the deep sacrifice that is mentioned in John 3:16.

I submit that there is a fine line between a myth and a flat out lie. Like I've stated, the Kamitians weren't duped, or swindled, they knew/understood the meaning. behind the stories. What you are suggesting is that Christians are living a lie. If you don't believe me, pull one to the side and try to convince him/her that Jesus is a myth; that His sacrifice was metaphorical. They will appear clueless to you, and you will appear clueless to them.

Find me a point in time were Jesus was UNDESTOOD as being a metaphorical figure. Then, and only then, will I not have a premise for my assertion.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:

What is the basis of this assertion?

Note, there have been various teachings within the tradition of the church dealing with the meaning of Jesus Christ life, death, burial, and resurrection. Although I may be in error, it appears to me that like many Protestants, you hold to a belief in substitutionary atonement, that Christ had to day to pay a debt for us. But this is just one view in the history of the church.

There is the moral influence teaching of Peter Abelard. Here, Jesus life and death reveals to us the nature of God as love. Such a life is meant to be compelling, is meant to inform us that the God of the universe really does love us. Moreover, Jesus, in living as a person for others, should be our model for what it means to be children of God. A contemporary version of this can be found in work of womanist theologians such as Delores Williams.

There is also a contemporary interpretation of the classic atonement doctrine of Christus Victor. [Preacher mode on]
The lesson or doctrine of the resurrection is the message of hope to those who are oppressed, marginalized, and disinherited. It communicates to us that the forces of oppression and subjugation will ultimately be overcome....that sin, death, and the grave do not have the last word. The last word is the Divine yes, to life, to freedom, to liberation.
[Preacher mode off]

So I submit, that the resurrection need not be interpreted literally to be meaningful.

There is an element of sacrificial love that I feel is being ignored here. Jesus' life isn't evidence of the deep sacrifice that is mentioned in John 3:16.

I do not see this at all. Would you perhaps expound on your particular interpretation of atonement? Is it the substitutionary model that I referred to above?

quote:

I submit that there is a fine line between a myth and a flat out lie.

I would then humbly submit that you do not understand how people are using the term myth in relation to religious traditions. Myth is the antithesis of a lie. Myths are about fundamentally about truth. I realize that this is difficult for us moderns to comprehend sense we have come to equate empirical or historical facticity with truth. Yet, at the same time we admit to learning important things about what it means to be a human being from literature, music, poetry, art, etc. Myth, legends, and sagas function in a vein much more similar to the latter than the former.

quote:

Like I've stated, the Kamitians weren't duped, or swindled, they knew/understood the meaning. behind the stories.

This is your assertion, but I would contend that in many respects this itself is a faith claim. You do not have direct access to the world of the Kamitians. You are a product of a very different historical, cultural, social context that is removed from their reality by millennia. What you may have access to is only a remnant of culture found in certain artifacts?

quote:

What you are suggesting is that Christians are living a lie. If you don't believe me, pull one to the side and try to convince him/her that Jesus is a myth; that His sacrifice was metaphorical. They will appear clueless to you, and you will appear clueless to them.

This may be the case for many Christians, but it is by no means ubiquitous. I have been apart of large communities of Christian who would find what I have said consistent with their understanding of what it is to be a Christian. Moreover, even those who do not believe something comparable to what I have expressed, I would never refer to them simply living a lie. They are living the truth as best they know it, as consistent with their experience, as consistent with their stage of spiritual/psychological/cognitive development.

quote:

quote:

Like I've stated, the Kamitians weren't duped, or swindled, they knew/understood the meaning. behind the stories.

This is your assertion, but I would contend that in many respects this itself is a faith claim. You do not have direct access to the world of the Kamitians. You are a product of a very different historical, cultural, social context that is removed from their reality by millennia. What you may have access to is only a remnant of culture found in certain artifacts?

I can give you a modern example of understood symbolism. How about the symbol of the dragon in Asian culture? This is a mythical/mystical figure. The symbols are everywhere, and from an outsiders POV it would appear that they worship the dragon as a God. Even today however, outsiders know that this is an absurd assumption/assertion. It has been made clear what the dragon represents. I have yet to see an esoterical interpretation of the symbol of Jesus representing something to that affect. So one could extrapolate that modern understanding and apply it to ancient times.

Either way, just as Jesus representing someone who actually walked on water may appear absurd to some, Jesus being a symbol/myth is also absurd to the practitioners of His doctrine.

BTW Kresge,

I fully understand your plea and appreciate you being patient with someoneone with common understanding.


I have a question for you.

Do you feel like the modern understanding of Jesus does a disservice to the religion itself?

If so, why?

Heru,

Do you believe that jesus the christ existed physically back then as you physically exist today, as you are reading this post? Yes or no?

Also,

I'm just curious, does your understanding of Christ change how you worship?

quote:

Heru,

Do you believe that jesus the christ existed physically back then as you physically exist do today, as you are reading this post? Yes or no?

Yes

That is the most forthright answer I've ever witnessed coming from you. My hat is off to you, HeruStar.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
Turning water into wine, feeding five-thousand with one fish, healing the blind... etc. These can all be speculated upon as myths without deteriorating the Doctrine, and the spiritual system itself. But the topic hasn't alluded to those types of myth questions. This topic has alluded to the actual death/resurrection of Christ as being myth. This contradicts the doctrine and foundation of Christianity.

For God so loved the world...



No esoteric form thinking is substantial enough to back this statement as myth, with a valid explanation.

So let's erase that statement from the Bible.

What are we left with?

---------------------------------

Essentially what I'm saying is HE can't be both man and myth. If one chooses to believe He is a myth, then they reject the Bible... no biggie, we are all entitled. If one believes that he was both, then they are seriously confused.

Actually according to the New Testament, Jesus fed 5000 with two fish and five loaves of bread.

Good observation, but I think the moral of the story is that, that's typically not enough food to feed that many people. Five hundred fish, and five hundred loaves of bread, probably couldn't feed five thousand.

An interesting thing to note about that particular story is that, there is another story where Jesus asked some fishermen to cast out their nets, and when they pulled there nets back in, they were bursting with fish.

Why feed five thousand with two fish and give two fishermen five thousand fish <--exaggerated emphasis is mine.

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:
Heru,

Do you believe that jesus the christ existed physically back then as you physically exist today, as you are reading this post? Yes or no?

My thought is...Does this really matter?

I think that the only reason this matters is because people are focussing on the literal, because they were taught/told to do so.

IMO, when folks harp on the idea of Jesus actually existing(or not), it is as silly as people harping on the idea that the tortoise and the hare of Aesop existed(or not)... They are missing the 'point'(s) on many levels.

quote:

IMO, when folks harp on the idea of Jesus actually existing(or not), it is as silly as people harping on the idea that the tortoise and the hare of Aesop existed(or not)... They are missing the 'point'(s) on many levels.

I'd like to think that I'm not missing the point on any level. But if someone cares to enlignten me on a point I'm missing, I think this is just as good a time as any to share it.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:

IMO, when folks harp on the idea of Jesus actually existing(or not), it is as silly as people harping on the idea that the tortoise and the hare of Aesop existed(or not)... They are missing the 'point'(s) on many levels.

I'd like to think that I'm not missing the point on any level. But if someone cares to enlignten me on a point I'm missing, I think this is just as good a time as any to share it.

The words 'folks' and 'they' are plural words Heru. I'm sure you know many X-tians...You know, all the literalists... the MAJORITY of practicing X-tians... that don't even know other 'points' exist.

I know 'you' know other points/meaning/symbolisms ect., You have to from reading this site alone, let alone your supplimental material(MDW NTR)... Hence your name... But quit acting like the organized religion itself teaches other aspects to the masses.

How many do you know that deal with these aspect(s)?

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/96970854/m...211036524#1211036524

Also, I find it odd that someone(or people) who know the other many things that Jesus' life symbolizes would choose to focus on the literal and rarely if ever discuss the 'others'. Very odd indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:

IMO, when folks harp on the idea of Jesus actually existing(or not), it is as silly as people harping on the idea that the tortoise and the hare of Aesop existed(or not)... They are missing the 'point'(s) on many levels.

I'd like to think that I'm not missing the point on any level. But if someone cares to enlignten me on a point I'm missing, I think this is just as good a time as any to share it.

Perhaps this might help. Lets take anyone of the parables found in the gospels, say the "Parable of the Prodigal Son".

There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ˜Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.' And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to [1] one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.

17 "But when he came to himself, he said, ˜How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."' 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ˜Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' [2] 22 But the father said to his servants, [3] ˜Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to celebrate.

25 "Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ˜Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.' 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ˜Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!' 31 And he said to him, ˜Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.'"

Now is the tale as presented true or is it a lie? Does this depend on the historical facticity of the story, i.e., Jesus actually knew this man, this family? Also notice, while we as moderns might want to know the answer to such a question, or even elements like, the name of the man, the name of the family, where did they live, how many years ago did this happen, where was the boys' mother, was she dead or alive, ..... we have no indication that the disciples are concerned with such matters. They do not seem to matter to them.

The story, however, is powerful, provocative, and compelling, particularly as a model for the love of God. Traditionally, a Near Eastern patriarch, even today, almost never runs. It is not dignified. Moreover, he would not take back a son who had insulted him and disgraced the family to such an extent. But this father does this. Moreover, it appears as if he has been looking for an longing for his son to return. And when he does, apologies be damned. My child is back, lets party. That is real love, God's love.

Ancient peoples knew how to deal with myth. It was the way they conveyed their most powerful truths and knowledge about the world. IMHO, this is something that science and history can not duplicate. They provide extremely useful narratives with insights about the world, but in many respects, they can be rather anemic or then. As I have said many times, they are most beneficial when dealing with things that you can cut, measure, weigh, or dissect, but they fail when dealing with things that make life meaningful such as love, compassion, justice, mercy, beauty, etc.

It's a parable. It is understood as nonfiction, not a biography.

The parable is a non-fiction story within the biographical story of Jesus' existence.

I almost assumed you were going to demonstrate Jesus as being the prodigal son. Because of the context of the discussion, this part stood out...

quote:

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.'

But then I read your statement and understood it as an example of God's love.

However, this doesn't address for me, the pure sacrificial love.