The Whole Jesus Thing

i think this answers some questions i've been having. i'll have to think about it.it's also evident that the followers of jesus thought the kingdom of god would come shortly after the death of jesus. it's one of the possible explanations for the lack of early christian (30-100 ad) texts -- they didn't think they'd need them.

Hi Purpledawn,You quoted Mark 15:34: Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1, perhaps to call attention to it?

There is at least 1 poster over at Yahoo's JesusMysteries group who asserts that Mark wrote the crucifixion as an exegesis on the 22nd Psalm. This is coming from a mythicist position. I believe Doherty suggests the same thing on his Jesus Puzzle site.lfen

Hah, but remember they did RETURN them! Surely that counts for something!They are curious little buggers but only borrow us for little while otherwise we would be completely clueless... oh waitnever mind,lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 11-18-2004 01:51 AM

Another speculation. This from my brother, and I imagine others have thought of this. Jesus was an individual who awakened to the nondual. The Kingdom of Heaven within was an understanding of Nirvana in Samsara and the unity with the Father being a realization of nonduality. He died very young and his teachings were misunderstood and recast in terms more familiar to the Jews, Greeks, and Romans of his day.I can't support this but then I don't think there is enough evidence to convincingly support the mythicist, historicist, or religious views on Jesus. Though I give the nod to the historicist position. Individuals pick the version that suits them.lfen

Is this an argument ad numerum?

Not an argument at all. It's information about the locations of an argument for the purpose of showing there are several ways of viewing the material. It's up to each individual if they find it interesting enough to pursue or not.lfen

My scenerio addresses the possible reality of the event.He was a real man undergoing real trauma. Was he truly making a reference to a familiar song by David or expressing his own anguish of the moment?Sometimes a pencil is just a pencil.Separate the literary devices from possible reality.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

i've gathered something along these lines myself. it's obvious that the jews and greeks and romans misinterpretted what he was saying. i tend to prefer the jewish interpretation to the others.however, this appears to be a gnostic interpretation. maybe it's closer to home, but i think it's still just an interpretation.

This is how I understand it, and I'm still working my way through it. God is love, as the Bible says. But if you were to ask 100 people what love is, I'm sure you would get some pretty interesting answers, not to mention some that were outright contradictions of each other. God's love, i.e. ultimate love from the very source itself, includes justice. Think about it. Didn't we learn in high school chemistry that the equation must absolutely balance in order for it to be a true representation of reality? You cannot simply say, "Let's have a do-over. We didn't really understand that the game was real." But part of the lesson here is that God loves us, you and me, so much that he provided himself as the righteous sacrifice to balance the equation, that being, "The soul that sins, shall die." The bible says that Jesus "was made sin for us". As to Jesus being God, think of it this way, if it helps: suppose you had a friend who desperately needed water. You have water, but your friend is removed from you by a wall with a crack in it, so you can barely see your friend. Now, water can take three forms,right (solid, liquid, and gasseous)? You could try to squirt the water to them, but it would probably only get all over the walls and be wasted. If you converted the water to vapor, and then your friend somehow distilled it (stay with me here), they might get the water they were needing. So God had to take a form that would be seen and heard by us, who have eyes and ears. Take one thing from this: there were people who died horrendous deaths because they witnessed the transforming power of his love, or because they saw him alive, and would not, could not recant. If someone threatened me with being burned alive for Caesar, or Napoleon, or George Washington, I'd sell those guys in a heartbeat. Please respond.

Oh, yeah it's definately speculation I don't think there is any way to tell. The way I understand gnosticism is that it is quite different than nondual so I don't believe I'm offering a gnostic interpretation.
My interpretation is more along the lines of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.I'd like to hear more about the Jewish interpretation though. I don't know anything about that.lfen

One thing you have to realise, the 'version' of psalm 22 that is quoted is a mistranslation from the hebrew. The phrase ""k'ari" does not mean 'pierced', but 'like a lion'. It is translated properly in sections near that, but apparently the early christian translators needed to have
some kind of prophecy to be fullfilled, so they manufactored one.

Well, an exegesis with addition of a mistranslation to boot?
That is a mythicist position that Mark was doing a midrash on the OT to explain Paul's Jesus and used the text of the psalm to contruct the events of the crucifixion. It seems you are adding that they used a mistranslation, or introduced a mistranslation in the midrash?lfen

I think they introduced the mistranslation. There is no reason ot have the word 'pierced' there otherwise, particularly since the word is translated properly in other psalms.

well, i would too. i think it varies, depending on the group, actually. i've heard everything from "fraud and charlatan" to "human prophet and wise man" to "ben'eloyhim" depending on who i've asked.