The Original Teachings of Jesus
Faith and Philosophy
| February 29, 2008
| Tim
I'm always amused that people are constantly finding "the original teachings of Jesus." (Paul, of course, corrupted them.) A few thoughts...
1. How do you know that? Such people will quote one phrase from Jesus or the bible to support their views, but when you point to another which refutes them, they'll say that someone changed that verse or inserted it. Well then, how can they know the "true" teachings of Jesus? Do they have a version of the New Testament which was written before all the forgeries?
Frequently, hilarious as it may sound, the answer seems to be: If a teaching agrees with their view, then Jesus really said it, and if it didn't, well, then it's a fake. Of course, this boils down to saying: "I am Jesus" (since his true teachings are whatever I believe) but nobody notices that enough to have a good laugh.
And indeed, this precisely what "The Jesus Seminar" did -- they got together and discovered the "true" original words of Jesus the way all reputable scientists find truth: by voting. (We could use some advances in physics -- maybe they could get together and vote on that next time?) And yet the media constantly endorses these people as if they were serious scholars.
2. Why don't they all agree? Lots of people agree that Paul corrupted Christianity. (They can tell because they know the original belief!) But somehow, they never agree. Was Jesus an anti-Roman revolutionary? An Eastern mystic? A faithful Jew who was just misunderstood? An alien being? A drug-taking hippie? An "evolved" human? One of the "divine" masters?
These people are in conflict with mainstream Christianity, but their beliefs are in even more violent disagreement with each others'.
3. How come it's always Jesus? I mean, everybody wants Jesus, but nobody wants Christianity. It's cool that Jesus is such a rock-star, and it's kind of funny to watch people try to steal the mascot without having anything to do with the movement which carries his ideas forward.
When does anyone ever say they've discovered the "TRUE" teachings of Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, Ghandi, or even, say, Mao? Never in history have people tried so hard to claim that they love a leader and everything he stood for, but can't stand any of the people who actually try to sit down and study and live by what that philosopher said, as best as we know it.
How is Christianity different than any other religion? There's an example.
When does anyone ever say they've discovered the "TRUE" teachings of Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, Ghandi, or even, say, Mao?
There's been at least a little mining Mao's Little Red Book for
business secrets
I imagine there's less allure for a person to subvert any paradigm if it's not dominant in that particular culture.
Ah, yes, Mao. The Ultimate Capitalist (TM). ;-)
I imagine there's less allure for a person to subvert any paradigm if it's not dominant in that particular culture.
I would imagine that too, but I don't seem to see it happening. Not familiar with any Muslims-flavored groups who are, for example, trying to sell or promote an image of Mohammad which is drastically at odds with the established or recorded image. Any examples?
Honestly, Tim, I have only a superficial knowledge of the history of Islamic scholarship. The only conflicts that I'm aware of seem to be essentially doctrinal in nature. Whether Mohamed married a six year old and had sex with her when she was nine. link
for instance. But those, and the conflicts separating Sunnis and Shi'ites are among actual followers. I don't imagine such conflicts fulfill your criteria.
If we're going to go with, say, Moses, I'd look for whether some people have used the oral tradition to try and subvert the written tradition.
There have also been some attempts to connect Abraham with the Egyptian pharoh Akenaten.
According to wikipedia; Freud argued (unconvincingly) that Moses was an intellectual decendant of Akenaten and
some other scholars seem to have followed the notion.
You've also posted about numerous attempts to redefine the founding fathers as atheists, for instance.
King George was attacked as a tyrant during the American revolution even though it was British parliment who was actually imposing the taxes that the colonists were opposed to.
In fairness to Freud, I haven't read his book myself.
Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, Ghandi, or even, say, Mao?
Also, all of those people were very historical political figures while they were alive (with the possible exception of Moses) so it's hard to go too far with the interesting stories.
You might say that Lao Tsu was essentially ahistorical. But then, Taoism isn't really about Lao Tsu in the same way that Christianity is about Jesus.
Thinking back, I have heard people try to give non-prophetic explanations for Islam. The argument was that the Kabah allowed for peace among Middle Easter tribes which gave rise to trade, prosperity and class divisions. The upset to the traditional tribal mode of organization was a sort of motive force for the rise of the Islamic faith. That would seem to be close to what you're talking about, since it gives an essentially non-theistic explanation for the rise and spread of Islam.
I could find sources for this, if that would be helpful.
The previously cited description had described Islam as resulting from a local cult rather than being related to Judaism and Chrisitanity. Sorry for omitting that. Without it, the example doesn't make much sense.
The assertion, true or not, seems not uncommon.
In Arabia, the sun god was viewed as a female goddess and the moon as the male god. As has been pointed out by many scholars such as Alfred Guilluame, the moon god was called by various names, one of which was Allah! (Islam, p. 7).
The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god, in addition to other titles that could be given to him.
Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun goddess. Together they produced three goddesses who were called "the daughters of Allah." These three goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
The daughters of Allah, along with Allah and the sun goddess were viewed as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the pantheon of Arabian deities.
"Along with Allah, however, they worshipped a host of lesser gods and "daughters of Al-lah" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, I:61)".link
Ryan, I hope it won't be taken as flattery, but you're truly a gem: you're so willing to engage earnestly on just about any topic. It's so refreshing -- thank you.
I have only a superficial knowledge of the history of Islamic scholarship. The only conflicts that I'm aware of seem to be essentially doctrinal in nature...
Dittos, and dittos.
If we're going to go with, say, Moses, I'd look for whether some people have used the oral tradition to try and subvert the written tradition.
I've seen quite a few attempts to rework the Hebrew Bible a bit too, so I'll readily admit to a similar (though much more dilute) phenomenon. Nobody claims Moses was really, say, a Mystic, but certainly there are people who claim the pillar of fire was a spaceship, or that Moses was actually an awful guy who falsified much of what he wrote, etc. Not nearly as much, but once in a while.
And yes, Moses and Monotheism fits what my thesis is above: a knowing of the "true" teachings and story which differs completely from the original.
In Moses and Monotheism, Freud contradicts the Biblical story of Moses with his own retelling of events claiming that Moses only led his close followers into freedom and that they subsequently killed Moses in rebellion either to his strong faith or to circumcision. Freud explains that years after the murder of Moses, the rebels formed a religion which promoted Moses as the Saviour of the Israelites. Freud said that the guilt from the murder of Moses is inherited through the generations; this guilt then drives the Jews to religion to make them feel better. Most historians since the 1960's reject the legitimacy of Psychohistory including Freud's theories. [Wikipedia]
Yeah, but it was fun at the time. ;-)
Also, all of those people were very historical political figures while they were alive (with the possible exception of Moses) so it's hard to go too far with the interesting stories.
First, I'd point out that Jesus *was* a historical figure. As best I know, very few reputable voices in the academic community seriously claim non-existence. The debate is more around who he was, exactly, not whether he existed at all.
(Usually, when you meet a "Jesus didn't exist"-er, it's a pretty strong sign you're speaking to a total amateur. It's not the strongest avenue of attack.) It's quite unusual to argue such a well-documented person didn't even exist.
Personally, the strongest argument I have for at least the existence of Jesus (and Moses, for that matter) is the simple argument of the rock in the pond: You come up to a pond and see a series of concentric ripples emanating from a wide circle. The rational assumption is that at least SOMETHING happened in the center.
The existence of early church is an established, non-controversial fact. Clearly, there were a group of people more than willing to die for someone named Jesus. I can see arguing he was a fraud, misunderstood, etc. But I can't see arguing they were wrong as to whether they'd even met said person!
(And likewise with Moses. Glorified? Sure, I can see the argument. But non-existence? No, sorry. You can't introduce a figure like that later and not have people notice the disconnect.)
Regarding Buddha, trying to argue against my own thesis, I'd point out that there were many, many legends created about him. BUT, as far as I know, they were usually to glorify him and strengthen Buddhism, not to undermine it.
(Similarly, all sorts of hilarious "infancy gospels" were written in the middle ages about Jesus. But they weren't written to turn him into a member of a different religion.)
BTW, even Mohammad offered an alternative version of the Jesus story!
That would seem to be close to what you're talking about, since it gives an essentially not-necessarily-theistic explanation for the rise and spread of Islam.
Sorry, but I disagree on this point. I myself can give a non-theistic explanation for the rise of Christianity. (And I even believe it.) I'm not talking about people who 'debunk' a religion, by saying perhaps it wasn't ordained by God, or was exaggerated, or whatever.
Good heavens, since I don't believe in Islam or Mormonism, I'd have to give a similar explanation for each. But I'm not claiming to know the "REAL" story of the Joseph Smith or Mohammad's beliefs. While I don't believe that Mohammad actually spoke for God (else I'd be a Muslim!) I certainly don't believe his beliefs (nor even words, most likely) were anything else than were recorded! Likewise, I don't believe Joe Smith spoke for God, but I don't claim he was really secretly, say, a Presbyterian or Zoroastrian!
I'm talking about people who are trying NOT to simply saying they strongly suspect the whole thing was a misunderstanding, or was non-miraculous or whatever, but people who are trying to conscript one religion's main figure as actually endorsing pretty much the opposite of everything recorded or generally attributed to him.
Hope that clarifies.
Just as a tangent, there's really very little doubt that Allah merely the name of a of polytheistic god previous to Mohammad. The Qu'ran itself apparently confirms this, indirectly.
Ever hear of the "Satanic Verses"? (Wikipedia article here, more critical explanations here and here.) The basic gist is that Mohammad also at one point implied that a goddess (who was the traditional consort of Allah in the pantheon) was also venerable, but later retracted his utterance saying Satan had misled him. (Which, in fact, is recorded in the Qur'an/Koran!) Thus confirming that Allah, was, in fact, connectable in even Mohammad's mind (otherwise, he could not have been thusly deceived) with another deity of formerly-similar stature.
Thanks Tim, and likewise! It's good to be able to discuss these types of issues with someone as precise as yourself without worrying about stepping on toes.
First, I'd point out that Jesus *was* a historical figure
I should have been more careful with the use of the word 'historical.' By "very historical political figures while they were alive " I meant to say that G. Sidartha was recognized as royalty all his life and openly taught many disciples during that time, that Mao led a country while he was alive, that Ghandi was a Brahman and held political power during his lifetime, that Mohammad led armies thousands strong and fought battles and saw widespread conversions while he lived. It was obvious well before the time of their deaths that they had secured some firm place in history as political figures and that the mass of their followers to some degree who they were.
In contrast, most of Jesus's teachings were delivered in secret to his disciples while he was alive and those outside his circle didn't seem to have a crystal clear idea just who he claimed to be or, so far as I can see, what he did with his childhood and where he came from.
That doesn't excuse trying to subvert the ethical system Jesus was setting up, of course, since he seems to have made that quite public. And I have no doubt that people do that. But is it enough to simply subvert the ethical system that someone else has set up?
If so, I'd point to MLK among others mentioned.
King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."link
I could understand the argument that compensation for past wrongs had already been made by the government as effectively as things like slavery and denial of protection under the law can be compensated for. A person cannot really be "made whole" with any amount of money after such tragedies. It would not be a fair legal standard to say that a man whose leg was cut off had to be paid until it grew back. That kind of result would not be achieved with money. But people frequently shortcut such arguments and jump straight to "MLK was against affirmative action" and quote him talking about people judged by the content of their character. So far as I can see, this misrepresents him.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.
In light of your clarification, going back...
Also, all of those people were very historical political figures while they were alive (with the possible exception of Moses) so it's hard to go too far with the interesting stories.
I still don't see much of a distinction. Jesus was at least well-enough understood that his earliest followers could reject certain things as being against the grain of what he taught.
Similarly, Mohammad didn't write anything down during his lifetime, and there was a battle afterwards over precisely what he meant. (Ali, I believed, first compiled the Koran after Mohammad's death.) So it wasn't crystal clear, though I have no doubt they had a general rough idea.
Likewise, "[c]ontrary to popular belief, the Buddha never wrote any of his teachings down. What records we have of his words derive solely from the remembrances of his disciples" [1] -- and there was apparently considerable dispute over what he believed and taught. (Probably moreso than in the previous cases, considering that philosophical consistency isn't a strong feature of Eastern religious teachings, and Gautama probably spoke or even lived many seeming contradictions.)
That doesn't excuse trying to subvert the ethical system Jesus was setting up, of course...
And yet: Muslim disputes are over fine-grained interpretations, and who inherits the leadership. Later Buddhist tales tended to strengthen the main thrust, as best we understand them, of Buddha's teachings.
Yet only with Christianity (and Judaism, though to a lesser extent) do we have people coming afterwards from "outside" -- starting before 200, and continuing today -- who have divergent but radically different interpretations of who Jesus was, and what he was saying -- and claiming to be the "true heirs" to the faith.
You speak of "the ethical system" of Jesus, as though the gospels and other records were divided into two neat parts (a'la Jefferson) -- the miracles versus, say, the ethical teachings. But they're simply not neatly separable. Or worse, to the extent they can be separated, the miracles actually have dominance.
For example, the new testament records numerous (sometimes-unresolved) unresolved disputes over ethical laws: Must we keep a sabbath? Can we eat food sacrificed to idols? What should we do regarding marriage and divorce, concerning unbelievers?
Even among Jesus's top disciples, many of these remained unresolved: James ate only Kosher, Paul ate anything set before him, if it didn't hurt someone's conscience. Peter ate only with Jews, Paul and Timothy ate with gentiles. James focused on obedience to law as a sign of faith, Paul sounded more cavlier about it. Gaging the original teachings by the followers' understanding, we'd have to conclude that on many of these points, Jesus left an ambiguous record.
Yet on the more "miraculous" teachings -- that Jesus was the son of God, that sins were forgiven by his death, that he was resurrected, that his father was the god of the Jews -- there was apparently utter unanimity among those who knew him most closely. We don't see any hint of disagreement on these point. In fact, the belief seems to be that without Jesus being identified as the unique son of God, who performed miracles, the other teachings have no basis nor authority.
Instead, the main conflict seems to be from those on the outside, and is NOT primarily focused on broad ethical issues: Marcion, for example, tried to separate Jesus from his Jewishness, and his "Father" from the God of the Jews (which would make no sense at all of the origins of the sect!). Gnostics sometimes made Jesus into a kind of supernatural being with no corporeal form. Even today, New Agers and others pose a radically different image of Christ/Jesus.
Yet I don't suspect most of these would have disagreed nearly as much with the ethical teachings -- not many are out there trying to undermine, say, "do unto others", or the belief that we should serve God, not money, or show mercy.
Yet the idea of showing mercy is based on the idea that God has shown mercy to us by forgiving our sins. That makes no sense outside a Jewish or Christian context, where there's such notions as divine "sin", "punishment", and "forgiveness", and a final judgment. The Gnostics wouldn't have agreed (the problem was illusion, alleviated by Gnosis -- so Jesus came to speak the secret words). Mohammad didn't agree that a sacrifice was needed to forgive sin -- so his Jesus doesn't die on a cross. New Agers frequently don't even believe in sin -- so Jesus is an outmoded avatar of a coming incarnation. So the New Age Jesus died because he failed, or just as an example or karmic choice.
(What some people think their own misdeeds, it seems, dictates how they rework the traditional image of Jesus.)
Again, I don't see anyone doing this to Buddha or Mohammad, who came to teach or relay divine words. Outsiders merely disagree, and don't claim to be the ultimate member or follower, while saying his teachings and role represents something radically other than the traditionally-understood meaning.
In fact, the belief seems to be that without Jesus being identified as the unique son of God, who performed miracles, the other teachings have no basis nor authority.
Why? There seemed to be quite a few people who followed Jesus and listened to him during his lifetime who did not believe him to be the unique son of God. Or are you referring to the C.S. Lewis trilemma here?
I've always thought it odd that Jesus is held to be "The only begotten son of God" when he based his authority, in part, in being of the line of David (in some form or other) who was also called a "begotten son of God." So far as I understand it, to be a Son of God was to have the Divinely established right to rule, no? But the Romans were much more literal about their assertions of divine paternity than Jews had traditionally been.
Back on topic, let me see if I'm clear on your criteria here;
It is not sufficient simply for a group to write hagiography or deify, say, Buddah (or Castro) or falsely demonize an individual such as Vlad the Impaler.(the basis for Dracula) they must try to ... apropriate him by misrepresenting him without making him significantly lower or higher? Is that about right? That seems to be a difficult middle ground to walk.
The individual would have to be well enough known to be widely recorded and worthy of extensive commentary.
The individual would have to evade the historical record enough to invite tremendous speculation.
Yet the individual must have some kind of record considered orthodox (who lables themselves 'unorthodox?') which had a far greater historical claim to validity than the alternative theories. Basically, we need a bunch of people who are glaringly wrong. I'm not sure what else would suffice. So we would exclude flimsy speculation on the reality behind various myths since those are not sufficiently orthodox to begin with (which would exclude quite a wide swath of history).
Lets see;
King Arthur was dubbed "Lord of Battles" and fought alongside and led the "Kings of the Britons" he was popularly redubbed "King of the Britons" for instance.
But there's no evidence that he held such a title.
# Arthur was not a king, he was a Dux Bellorum (a Roman title meaning "Lord of Battles")
# He fought with the kings of Britain against the Saxons
link
It is not sufficient to demonstratably re-write someone's ethical system, such as with MLK on affirmative action and depict him as a conservative (he doesn't seem to have been, so far as I can see) or to misstate their guiding beliefs such as with the founding fathers being called atheists.
Hopefully I can just ignore the 'insider believer vs outsider believer' distinction since it takes us a little too close to assuming a side is correct before we prove it. If an outsider-believer was correct then they would be an insider-believer. And if there are a number of believers with different factual views, then some of them have to be outsider believers.
That excludes quite a few people, I suppose.
Well, lets see; There are numerous people who argue that William Shakespeare didn't write his own works, and many different alternative authors are put forward. They cannot all be correct, and none of them are orthodox. Would that count?
Tim: In fact, the belief seems to be that without Jesus being identified as the unique son of God, who performed miracles, the other teachings have no basis nor authority.
Ryan: Why? There seemed to be quite a few people who followed Jesus and listened to him during his lifetime who did not believe him to be the unique son of God. Or are you referring to the C.S. Lewis trilemma here?
No, I'm referring to the leaders of the early church, many of whom died rather than recant, not Jesus's ethical teachings, but rather the unique status (only son of God) and miracles attributed to him. For example, Paul wrote:
"For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins... If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." (1 Cor 15:16-19)
For example, the opening of the gospel of Luke, in which miracles and the resurrection play a central role, begins with Luke writing he had done a careful investigation, because it was important to know (for his own sake, and for those he was writing to) whether these things really transpired or not. (And you could say similar things about the author of John.)
You don't need to take such an approach when you perceive the ethical teachings as core. Aesop's fables -- which involve talking animals -- or stories set in a far-away imaginary land are sufficient to convey ethical truths.
Which followers who lived during his lifetime didn't think he was the son of God? Can you name any or cite any examples? Certainly, as the story unfolds and he first appears, many aren't quite sure what to make of him. But as events progress, and he says more about his own situation, they'd have to come down on one side or the other.
The problem here is that, by all accounts, Jesus apparently claimed to be God. Keep in mind he was also Jewish. Though I didn't intend to be going into "trilemma" territory, you're right in that your proposition takes us there.
A Jew, or "god-fearing" (Jewish-oriented) gentile would be left with the question of what to do with Jesus's claims of godhood. If he was wrong, you'd have to conclude what he was saying was at least seriously blaphemeous -- and that wouldn't precisely make you a "follower", would it?
And if a follower thought such a claim was right, then it's not fitting into the category you're proposing.
You'd have to take the "fourth way" out some propose* which is to assert Jesus was merely "lore."
(* This route is not a rebuttal to Lewis's "trilemma", which is a response to Lewis's contemporaries' view of the Jesus of the bible. That's clear from the context of his times, and how he introduces the question. Elsewhere, Lewis deals separately with the question of whether the bible itself is adequate evidence of what happened.)
But, if so, what have we? A follower who lived in the lifetime of a person who never lived? That doesn't make sense as a claim.
Or perhaps we're claiming that nobody in Jesus's lifetime actually thought he made those claims, and they were simply blown out of proportion by some afterwards. That's a bit problematic, as it's portrayed as the main charge against him in his trial. One then has to substitute some other reason for the officials to be angry at him, and find something else for him to have done which would legally warrant the death sentence.
But even if so, the next question becomes: "Which followers, specifically? And where's the evidence?" -- and we're back to the claim of us really knowing the true original story, which is in conflict with the received one today. (See article title.)
Yet all the evidence we have says otherwise: that the people we'd have to conclude were most likely to have known the fellow (Jesus) suffered (or at least risked, in John's case) a rather cruel death to defend their perception that Jesus had made claims of being God incarnate.
I'm not trying to be defensive here: my inability to get around that simple historical fact is part of the reason I am a Christian today, rather than the many other beliefs I've considered during my short life.
It is not sufficient simply for a group to write hagiography or deify, say, Buddah (or Castro) or falsely demonize an individual such as Vlad the Impaler.(the basis for Dracula) they must try to ... apropriate him by misrepresenting him without making him significantly lower or higher? Is that about right? That seems to be a difficult middle ground to walk.
Forgive me, I'm not seeing why this is so hard.
It's not about making someone "higher" or "lower". (What's "higher" or "lower" is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, anyway.)
It's about replacing one set of myths with another which are fundamentally different. What I'm speaking of here is "hijacking".
To try again:
I'm not talking about dismissing a possible historical figure, or some of the accumulated stuff about their life, as mythology.
The myth about George Washington and the cherry tree, for example, is typical. Likewise, the Buddha thought for thousands of years under a tree. Likewise, the medieval stories had the infant Jesus turning noisy peers into bears. Historical figures always accumulate these sort of myths in later generations, so I'm not at all saying there's anything unique about that situation.
However, note that the myths in this category generally FORWARD whatever goals are associated with the person in question: George Washington's good character, for example, or the Buddha's profound and important enlightenment.
And those who dismiss the myths aren't replacing them with new ones: they're simply trying to get back the original person, as best as our most reliable historical evidence can indicate.
Likewise with possibly imaginary persons, like Beowulf or King Arthur.
No, what's odd here is trying to replace one set of purported myths with ANOTHER, even less-well-historically attested, and having a completely different purpose and thrust.
I can't give you other examples, because I can't think of any.
People say, "Well, Mohammad never heard from God." But they don't try to claim he was really a Christian, Jew, or Zoroastrian. People might say: "Well the story about Buddha is fictional or exaggerated", but they don't claim he was really, theologically, a Mormon or Jehovah's witness.
But when people attack the Jesus myth, it's frequently with a claim he really promoted or embraced their own religious outlook. To a certain secularist, Jesus was really some kind of leftist paramilitary rebel again Rome (i.e. the USA, in their minds). Yet there's no actual evidence he led an armed rebellion. To a New Ager, Jesus is an ascended soul. But there's no evidence Jesus believed in reincarnation or countless other beliefs necessary to align his belief system with one which would allow for the New Agers' concept of "ascended souls". To Mohammad, Jesus was a prophet who foretold Mohammad's arrival. Yet there was no evidence available to Mohammad (much less today) that Jesus's followers were looking for another prophet, or had hidden lots of evidence he had predicted one.
There's nothing unusual about claiming some historical figure didn't exist.
There's nothing unusual about adding myths which exaggerate whatever view or role was attributed to the person.
There's nothing unusual about debunking such myths, and attempting to just deal with the subset of more reliable evidence.
It's completely unusual to try to replace one set of myths about a historical figure with another, which match the historical evidence even less well, and tell a completely different or even opposite story. That's very odd indeed.
---
Your example of Vlad the Impaler is closest, but still far short. To locals, he was a hero, but to our sensibilities, he was a rather nasty guy. That difference (so far) is attributable to different value systems and our feelings about impaling one's enemies.
The further distance is accounted for by a Victorian writer (Bram) picking out Vlad for a popular Gothic horror novel, in which Vlad becomes a undying monster.
But that's not an example of a case where (a) Bram was trying to replace a historical figure with an OPPOSITE vision (Vlad was already a nasty blood-drinker, in British eyes), and (b) nobody, aside from some rather disturbed teenagers (in bodies of varying age) takes the Dracula myths as anything but fiction. Bram (the origin-point of the Dracula myth) certainly wasn't trying for anything else.
But the Jesus remythologizers are utterly serious about their work.
And no, Shakespeare is not such an example either. He didn't have any important teachings, and nobody's really trying to say he believed oppositely. That's just a question about authorship of some documents, with legitimate points on both sides.
To draw a parallel, you'd have to have some group of people claiming Shakespeare was really, for example, someone who studied in Japan or China and favored Eastern dramatic forms while actually HATING iambic pentameter. It was his later followers, you see, who corrupted his original kabuki-style puppet-oriented plays and corrupted them by replacing them with English poetry.
(My spirit-guide told me the true stories about Shakespeare's sojourns in the orient: Turns out his name was really a corruption of the Tibetan "Shukas Puer", he studied in Tibet under the Lamas, and his plays were actually originally put down as sand mandalas. (Hamlet was actually about a royal from the Ch'in dynasty -- did you know that?) But his first followers misunderstood his brilliance, and accidentally corrupted his art by turning it into English plays. (Which are, unaccountably, also brilliant, considering they're corruptions of the alleged original genius.))
I've always thought it odd that Jesus is held to be "The only begotten son of God" when he based his authority, in part, in being of the line of David (in some form or other) who was also called a "begotten son of God." So far as I understand it, to be a Son of God was to have the Divinely established right to rule, no? But the Romans were much more literal about their assertions of divine paternity than Jews had traditionally been.
Outside of their royalty, Romans had very little invested, as best I can see in genetic lineages. Your claim looks upside-down to me.
Yes, Roman rulers made claims of divine paternity. And I don't, quite frankly, think many people took them all that seriously.
Second, claiming to be an heir of David is not a claim to divine paternity. David was a human being, not a god.
Third, I find it hard buy the idea that ANYONE on earth, other than perhaps European royalty, were ever more "literal" about paternity claims than ancient Jews, who seemed obsessed with the question. (Indeed, even today, Israelis are busy running DNA tests on Africans and accepting Chinese Jews [touching story, please read] on precisely that basis!)
I've always thought it odd that Jesus is held to be "The only begotten son of God" when he based his authority, in part, in being of the line of David..."
The claim doesn't come from a misunderstanding of a single simple phrase, written in English.
One example, among many:
"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep...."
"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away..." [John 10, excerpts]
To modern ears, this sounds like, perhaps, an agrarian parable about livestock. And on one level, it is. But the Psalms also say: "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture." (Psalm 100) This was attributed to David (if I recall correctly), and he himself only claimed to be one of God's sheep, among the others in Israel. And other Jews after David understood this: The people of Israel are God's sheep; they do not belong to another.
But here is Jesus, claiming to be the good shepherd who is the rightful owner of the sheep. He is claiming, thus, to be God. "The Lord is my shepherd?" (Psalm 22) He is claiming to be their shepherd, their owner. And the crowd gets this, with some of them believing, but others saying: "He is demon-possessed and raving mad" -- a reasonable response, given the claim he just made.
For example, Luke (among others) record the story of Jesus having healed a man with some kind of paralysis.
Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" [Luke 5:18-21]
Again, the Pharisees are quite right: I can forgive you if you personally have done something to me, but I can't forgive you of sins that had nothing to do with me. Such a claim is rightly understood to be a claim of being God, the final judge of sin.
Likewise again:
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered. [Matthew 26:63-66]
Jesus wasn't merely here claiming to be a powerful leader, or a prophet, or the rightful heir to Herod's throne. All sorts of people had claimed that through the ages, and none of those claims would have been necessarily "blasphemy". Nor do they seem to be perturbed necessarily about Jesus claiming to be the Messiah. It is the bit which follows that claim which they take as "blasphemy", which seems to them to imply he is saying something about his spiritual status that a normal human being -- or even a royal -- ought not claim.
The nature of this claim also shows up in John 3:16, which is translated from the Greek as:
"For God so loved the worth that he gave his only-begotten son..."
The word "only-begotten" there is "mono-genetic", it doesn't mean one son of many. It refers to a situation where a parent has only one child; a single offspring of the same kind.
The gospels are rife with these sort explicit and implicit claims of godhood, to the extent that many remaining parts of the story would make little sense without them.
(For example, as I mentioned, what then did Jesus do which deserved death? People would have to invent something else which made as much or more sense.)
Second, claiming to be an heir of David is not a claim to divine paternity.
Of course. My point was;
1. David was said to be a "Begotten Son of God" (begotten in adulthood)
2. Fulfillment of the prophecies rested, in part, on Jesus's link to David, and the apostles
and Jesus seemed to work hard to affirm this link rather than deny David's status in any way that I'm aware of.
3. Jesus was said to be the "Only begotten son of God" which seems to conflict with the assertion that David was a "begotten son of God."
Third, I find it hard buy the idea that ANYONE on earth, other than perhaps European royalty, were ever more "literal" about paternity claims than ancient Jews
Human paternity, yes. My point was; David was said to be a "begotten Son of God"
but that did not literally imply anything about his physical conception, as far as I'm aware. The notion that a "Begotten Son of God" was formed from a literally divine union seems extra-Judeic, as far as I can tell.
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
My understanding was that the words were closer to "You have said it." (#444, from a site sympathetic to your interpretation.)
Alright then. A major revision of a major religion. How about the Nation of Islam's appropriation of Islam and related obsession with UFO myths?
link
(I also remember, according to Alex Haley's biography of Malcom X, Malcom X preaching, early on in his preaching career, that Islam did not believe in an afterlife.)
I don't know about the NOI's specific views on the Muslim prophet Mohammed's life, but it's pretty clear they've appropriated the faith and its teachings, at the very least, while claiming to believe in the prophet himself.
Elijah Muhammad taught his followers about a Mother Plane or Wheel, a UFO that was seen and described in the visions of the prophet Ezekiel in the Book of Ezekiel, in the Hebrew Bible.
link
Interesting story on Chinese Jews. I knew there had been a community in Shanghai but heard they all left when Mao came to power. I wonder if they were from the silk road. There were a lot of Chinese Muslim resturants even in Nanjing when I taught there, with employees who looked half-Mediterranian.
Alright then. A major revision of a major religion
Well, more precisely, a radical hijacking of the original founder and beliefs. The minor shift in meaning you're doing here makes a huge difference.
Almost all new religions are revisions, in some way or another, of previous ones. Christianity split from Judaism, Islam claimed to have been the fulfillment of Jesus's prophecies and Jewish scriptures. Buddhism arose as an answer to the problems of Hinduism.
Each of these is arguably a serious revision of past beliefs, but not all are as arguably hijackings of previous beliefs.
Buddhism was not, for example -- it didn't pretend Hinduism was anything other than it was. As I understand it, it simply tried to answer a problem arising in Hinduism with an idea we'd term enlightenment.
Islam is, because it claims that Jesus wasn't God incarnate, didn't die for sins, and prophesied Mohammad's ultimate coming. It claimed that the Jews and Christians had changed their own scriptures, and are thus actually apostate from their own belief system.
To a lesser degree, it can be argued that Christianity has a similar relationship with Judaism -- in that it believes a fulfillment of previous beliefs and prophecies.
But it doesn't accuse Jews of altering scriptures, it doesn't claim Moses taught something different than he widely was understood to have taught, doesn't generally teach a theology which is the precise oppose of traditional Jewish theology*, etc. (And yes, it could be argued that Christians departed from Torah, but so, subsequently, have modern Jews, perhaps even moreso, theologically**.)
(* Obviously, one could argue about the Christian concept of the Messiah being God as being a violation of such teachings, but I'd point out that the Messiah, in scripture IS described with godlike titles, such as "Almighty God" and "Everlasting Father".)
(** Some secular yet traditionally Jewish friends of mine have, over a number of years, kindly invited me to seder, as described here. I remember being a bit weirded out, when a number of them protested unbelief in the various elements ("I don't believe this stuff! Why are we doing this?"), that *I*, the crypto-gentile among them (my friend said her relatives thought I was a nice Jewish boy, not a goy) actually believed more of the disputed teachings than they did. That was a bit of a mind-blower.)
Switching sides, I might suggest the Isis and Mithras cults of Rome, which had little to do with the original deities from which the names were borrowed. (To the considerable confusion of our contemporaries, in the later case.)
But in this case, the target audience were foreigners would would not be familiar with the original traditions -- a bit like the way Masonic lodges used scymtars, stars, moons, the Fez, and the word "Tripoli" to convey a foreign air to bored midwestern American men who wanted to become a "Grand" this-or-that of the Nth level.
How about the Nation of Islam's appropriation of Islam and related obsession with UFO myths?
There! Now you're getting closer! Thank you! You're right: most "cults" appropriate some popular religious belief stream and change it a bit (or a lot, in the case of the UFOs!). One might also point to Sufi Islam, and perhaps also the Hari Krishnas and Hinduism.
From the cited article:
NOI holds that Fard Muhammad (as he became known) was the incarnated form of Allah. Of course, to “real” Islam, this is the most base of all heresies: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad [not Fard Muhammad] is his prophet!”
Of course, we're only getting closer here. They're borrowing the name "Islam", not (at least there, nor here) claiming Mohammad actually believed something completely different, and would be horrified by his followers' beliefs.
(Sounds like Wallace Fard Mohammad didn't know too much about Islam, but figured it sounded cool.)
In contrast, just to pick but one example, consider 'A Course in Miracles', dictated by Jesus Christ himself.
Some consider the philosophy of the Course to be monistic. It uses terminology and theological elements also found in traditional Christianity, except that it redefines them. However, scholar, editor and long time teacher of ACIM, Kenneth Wapnick... characterizes the metaphysics of the Course as nondualism and states “the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles is non-dualistic, as it expresses one pre-separation state: God. In fact, the Course can be said to represent what we may call a perfect or pure nondualism. This form of non-dualism holds not only that God is truth, and all else illusory, but that God is in no way involved in the illusory and unreal world of perception.” ... It is monistic in its position that ultimate reality consists of nothing more than God's love. ACIM asserts that the world is an effect of projection in the mind, which is thus causally responsible for everything that appears to us as the physical world.
Those ideas are "Eastern", but also appear in a religious stream called "New Thought". (In JudeoChristian belief, God created things which are not God.) Like the recent "Conversations with God", this 'God' is rather unhappy about traditional Christianity's existence.
And there's a push to move it into the churches:
Father Benedict Groeschel, who studied under Thetford and worked with Schucman, arranged an introduction of Wapnick to Schucman and Thetford in November 1972... Wapnick subsequently became a teacher of the Course... In 1972, Wapnick abandoned his Jewish faith and sought to convert to Catholicism so he could become a monk.
Again, the operative word here is "hijacking" -- not merely a spin-off, but a usurpation going directly at the founder.
Bailey wrote of "the return of the Christ", but her concept had little in common with that of mainstream Christian churches... She stated that no one particular group can claim Him — that the New Age Christ belongs to whole world, and not to Christians alone, or to any nation or group. (Bailey, p 109) Bailey was highly critical of mainstream Christianity; she wrote that much of the Church's teaching about Christ's return is directly opposed to His own intentions... [Wikipedia]
Her channeled material also instructed followers to try to teach said doctrines in mainstream churches whenever possible.
To draw a parallel, it's as if NOI founders claimed to have received the real Koran which had been corrupted by Mohammad (or Ali), and then were busy trying to become Islamic Imams so that mainstream Islam could be changed into NOI. (And claiming mainstream Muslims were actually apostate to their own follower's teachings.)
Onto other tangents...
1. David was said to be a "Begotten Son of God" (begotten in adulthood)
Where?
2. Fulfillment of the prophecies rested, in part, on Jesus's link to David...
No disagreement at all.
3. Jesus was said to be the "Only begotten son of God" which seems to conflict with the assertion that David was a "begotten son of God."
This rests on #1, which I await.
Certainly the word "begotten" or "begat" was used before Jesus. (Well, no kidding: lineages couldn't have existed otherwise.) The use in John 3:16, however, is an exclusive usage -- talking about an "only-begotten".
That also doesn't preclude the idea that people can be figuratively children of God (indeed, the entire premise of Christianity is that people can become children of God), it's simply a way of saying that Jesus was a "son of God" in a way in which others aren't, weren't, and won't be.
Don't let the shorthand confuse you about the expanded meaning it was meant to summarize. Christians believe Jesus was God incarnate -- the primordial force which brought the universe into being animating a human body in order to communicate with us on a human level.
[Jesus:] "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. [John 14]
Philip asks Jesus to show him God ["The Father"], and Jesus responds: "Don't you know me?" That's what only-begotten means. It's not a concept which humans beings had expressed much previous to that point, so it's understandable that those who believed in it would be grasping for simpler, familiar analogies and terms.
(Keep in mind, Jesus also taught most other theological points using livestock, primitive wine-making and storage paraphernalia, plots of land, and chunks of food.)
In Christian theology people can become "children" of God (who must, being children must be, at least in some sense, "begotten"), but that doesn't imply that Jesus, being God-animating-a-body, isn't somehow utterly different also.
Here's a passage from the beginning of the gospel of John, which alludes to both ideas, including the sense you mention of becoming a child of God (including as an adult):
In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us... [John 1]
So you have people who can become children in one sense (indeed, literally "born" (or begotten, if you prefer) of God), but on the other hand, a being who is/is-with God before the universe -- who animates a human body to communicate with us, and demonstrate how we should relate to God. If God animated a human body, and needed to demonstrate proper role between God and man, how would he do it? The body would have to, in some sense, model the role of a being dependent upon God (a child, if you will). But in another sense, it would also be God, basically operating and speaking though a kind of hand-puppet we could relate to.
(Kind of like the Wizard of Oz in reverse: Oz amplified his voice and power to intimidate people; in this case, God tones it down to approach them on a human level, frequently unknown; to walk among them as a homeless man. To teach, but also see who was interested in God not so much for the flashy bits, and the power, but interested in being "friends with God" -- demonstrating God's character and personality. Like a wealthy prince who wants to find true love by going as a beggar, and discovering who loves him for who he is. In a way, the gospels are a kind of romance.)
So the word "begotten" or even "son" is indeed a bit (as we'd say in Computer Science) "overloaded" here, between the two meanings being expressed.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
My understanding was that the words were closer to "You have said it."
I agree, and have also heard that previously. (The phrase was a colloquialism.) Is there a distinction here you're drawing?
20"I have (AN)found David My servant;
With My holy (AO)oil I have anointed him,
21With whom (AP)My hand will be established;
My arm also will (AQ)strengthen him.
22"The enemy will not [d]deceive him,
Nor the (AR)son of wickedness afflict him.
23"But I shall (AS)crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
24"My (AT)faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his (AU)horn will be exalted.
25"I shall also set his hand (AV)on the sea
And his right hand on the rivers.
26"He will cry to Me, 'You are (AW)my Father,
My God, and the (AX)rock of my salvation.'
27"I also shall make him My (AY)firstborn,
The (AZ)highest of the kings of the earth.
28"My (BA)lovingkindness I will keep for him forever,
And My (BB)covenant shall be confirmed to him.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psa%2089:%201-28;Isaiah%202:5;Micah%207:8;&version=49;">link
So the word "begotten" or even "son" is indeed a bit (as we'd say in Computer Science) "overloaded" here, between the two meanings being expressed.
In this case, three meanings; there are literal begotten sons which we all understand plainly, there's David who had divine authority, and there's Jesus.
I have no problems with metaphores, of course, to convey things to people more vividly. And I can understand some words or phrases being 'overloaded' with meaning based on a particular context (As Stephen Pinker says, we know the difference between "young women looking for husbands" and "husbands looking for young women.") What's confusing is when a phrase is supposed to be overloaded in the same context.
In the sense that Jesus "was the only person of the same substance with God" I can certainly understand the Christian claim. But Christians use "only begotten son" to mean the former.
I guess "most begotten Son" to mean the person with the most divine authority just doesn't have the same ring?
Perhaps there's something I'm missing since I just look at the English translations.
(David speaking): “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.” [Psa 2: 7]
link
link
This is a better cite for the previous post. It's interpretations were a bit odd.
"David who had divine authority" -> divinely granted authority
Sorry for dropping off in the middle of what I was saying. But I needed to get some work done. All the best to you.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Life Skills 101: Reason |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Racism and Collectivism »
|
When does anyone ever say they've discovered the "TRUE" teachings of Mohammad, Moses, Buddha, Ghandi, or even, say, Mao?
There's been at least a little mining Mao's Little Red Book for
business secrets
I imagine there's less allure for a person to subvert any paradigm if it's not dominant in that particular culture.
Posted by: Ryan w. on February 29, 2008 08:50 PM