Finding my path

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Animus27

Well, there's very few writings from Palestine during the time of Jesus. He was a lower class figure executed as a rebel, so it's not surprising he wasn't making the metaphorical newspapers of Judea. There's also the fact that most ancient histories are written decades to hundreds of years after the figures they write about, usually with the agenda of praising, or condemning them, rather than historiography in modern understanding.

I assume you're referring to Josephus as the historian. Josephus tends to exaggerate a bit, but it's almost certain he did refer to Jesus of Nazareth; although the manuscripts we possess have a few odd details coming from Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew that were likely added by Christian scribes. Even so, when you strip away the comments about Jesus being the messiah and references to his divinity, a solid statement concerning him remains that fits well with Josephus' terse mentions of messianic and prophetic figures of 1st century Palestine.

It should be mentioned that pretty much every modern historian, even agnostic and atheist ones, contend that Jesus the Nazorean existed; the evidence for his existence is as solid as nearly any other ancient figure. What isn't historically tenable is that Jesus referred to himself as God, or considered he was starting a new religion. But his existence is almost certainly assured.

I feel that the Christ has been turned into the man Jesus that never was, like Paul's writings, he never knew a man called Jesus, he was a Gnostic and never believed in a personal Christ, Christ is the Pure Consciousness that is within not without. The rest is just all made up to control the people who cannot think for themselves.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by the_crow

You write well :)

Writing well doesn't mean its truth.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

I feel that the Christ has been turned into the man Jesus that never was, like Paul's writings, he never knew a man called Jesus, he was a Gnostic and never believed in a personal Christ, Christ is the Pure Consciousness that is within not without. The rest is just all made up to control the people who cannot think for themselves.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that. Paul himself mentions knowing James the brother of Jesus and Cephas Peter, the closest disciple of Jesus. It is true that Paul never met Jesus, and he didn't feel the need to mention much of Jesus' teachings, either because the churches he was writing to already knew some, or Paul himself wasn't well-versed in Jesus' personal sayings; but Paul did understand Jesus as a man who was vindicated and glorified by the God of the Jews, and his resurrection signaled the immanent judgment and general resurrection, "Christ Jesus is the first fruits of the harvest"

I'd say have it the other way around: The earliest followers of Jesus saw him as a man who had a special relationship with God, but wasn't necessarily God himself. Later Palestinian Jewish Christian groups like the Ebionites retained this Jewish understanding of Jesus being a man adopted into the son-ship of God (being a son of God does not mean the son is actually God, necessarily), either at his baptism or resurrection. It was gentile Christians who turned Jesus into a pre-existent cosmic creator. I would also contend it's problematic to label Paul a gnostic. While it is true that later gnostic Christians used some of Paul's letters (funnily enough the ones likely not written by him) to argue their ideas, Paul himself reaffirms physical resurrection, something the gnostics of the 2nd century usually rejected in part because of their heavy influence from Hellenistic philosophy.

[psychoslice]

Hi Animus, that's what you have been lead to believe, as i said there is no evidence for Jesus the man, never has and never will, there is so much out there that proves Jesus never was, so i am not going to get into it, you find it out for yourself like I have.

[psychoslice]

Find your own inner path, don't follow the paths of dead so called history, don't follow the paths of dead Messiahs, find your own SELF, Realize your true inner Being and you can never go wrong, at least it wont be second-hand hearsay.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

Hi Animus, that's what you have been lead to believe, as i said there is no evidence for Jesus the man, never has and never will, there is so much out there that proves Jesus never was, so i am not going to get into it, you find it out for yourself like I have.

Well, it's also what you've been led to believe, but you don't want to admit it's an opinion, an opinion with little to no evidence when it's actually studied using critical scholarship.

Find your own inner path, don't follow the paths of dead so called history, don't follow the paths of dead Messiahs, find your own SELF, Realize your true inner Being and you can never go wrong, at least it wont be second-hand hearsay.

I can jive with that. But when you talk about historical figures and historical events, you cannot default to solipsism. "It feels right" has no place in historiography.

[the_crow]

"It feels right" isn't quite the same as discovering what works for you.
Besides:
People are always demanding proofs and sources for what others say.
Just the other day I had someone ask me, here, which books I had read to lead me to my 'beliefs'. Revealing that there are those who are unable to imagine discovering anything new, or different, or previously undiscovered.

My own worldview is often likened to that of Plato and Socrates, by those who are familiar with philosophy. Yet I have never read a word by either of them.

No, you cant be wiccan and buddhist, but you can use elements from both religions.
There is at least one big difference in those beliefs - Buddhism says "life is suffering", Wicca says "life is joy and adventure".
I am wiccan

Originally Posted by the_crow

"It feels right" isn't quite the same as discovering what works for you.

Of course, believing Jesus was an alien horse disguised as a human who tried to teach people molecular science may be something that works for you or anyone else. But it's a belief, not a position based off establishing a plausible historical picture. Finding out what works or feels right for oneself is irrelevant when it comes to building a picture of past events and people.

Originally Posted by Teiksma

No, you cant be wiccan and buddhist, but you can use elements from both religions.
There is at least one big difference in those beliefs - Buddhism says "life is suffering", Wicca says "life is joy and adventure".
I am wiccan

Wicca is not a dogmatic religion, though. There's no catechism of Wiccan principles one must abide by in order to be considered such.
And it's not entirely true that Buddhism sees life as suffering. It's attachment and expectations in life that lead to suffering. Life can be joyful for a Buddhist, when various views of how life should be are discarded.

I just told how I feel it.