R
rayne100
Guest
Different culture have different beliefs
- Status
D
dessert
Guest
Do you believe that Jesus the Christ existed at one time on this earth? Dessert
R
rayne100
Guest
Not sure who you are asking, but I do.
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
There are a functionally infinite number of divine persons. The Hindus use the phrase ‘33 million gods’ to refer to the vast diversity of divine manifestation, but even that is just poetry.
Let me say this plainly. I believe that no being is in charge of the universe - not my gods, not yours. Gods are beings of great wisdom, love and power, but none are omnipotent.
Montalban keeps asking this - let me say again - polytheists don’t have a ‘supreme being’! Zeus was not The Supreme Being in Greek Paganism, nor is Odin in Viking religion - there simply is no such being, and thus there is no conflict in the existence of multiple pantheons of Gods.
Ian
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
Personally, I remain undecided about whether there was a wonder-working rabbi named Joshua (Jesus in greek) in Gallilee or Judea of the early 1st century, on who’s deeds the gospel stories are loosely based. I think that’s fairly likely, but it’s also fairly likely that the whole tale was invented by early ‘christians’ as a way to create a reformed, cosmopolitan Judaism or monotheism that could be accessible to Romans. Maybe time will provide more evidence, one way or the other. It makes little difference to me.
I don’t believe in the spiritual existence of ‘the Christ’. I see no spiritual need for a redeemer, or for a deity to provide me a ticket to the happy afterlife. These ideas did have some currency among pre-christian Pagans, but they aren’t really part of my own spirituality. So I don’t think “Jesus the Christ” has any functional existence, except as a part of christian mythology.
Ian
K
KarenNC
Guest
I would say that it’s more likely that he did rather than did not based on simple human nature. It’s much easier for me to see that something can be built around a charismatic leader that then grows over time, even sometimes extremely quickly, than that “the whole tale was invented.” The latter is not impossible, I just think it is less likely.
As to “the Christ,” well, since this term is considered synonymous with the Hebrew term “Messiah” and he doesn’t/didn’t meet the criteria according to the Jews (whose criteria it is, so they should know), then no, on that part.
Dr. James Tabor, a noted scholar on first century Christianity, has a very informative website on the Roman and Jewish cultures that existed around the first century C.E. if anyone is interested. religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html
H
Hastrman
Guest
Except that the majority of Jews did think he met the criteria, that’s why most of them became Christians–the Jewish population dropped from a million to a few tens of thousands by the end of the first century, and there was no plague or war of sufficient scale to explain it.
K
KarenNC
Guest
I haven’t seen any statistics on that cited before. Interesting–would you share the source? Does it say that they all became Christians or is that a presumption based on the drop in population? How was the population measured? Was the decrease steady or all at once? Equally spread across all areas or concentrated in one area?
The only info I have seen referencing the number of Christians at the end of the first century C.E. is Rodney Stark in his book “The Rise of Christianity.” I haven’t read the whole thing, but he puts an estimate of somewhat over 7000 Christians in 100 CE, with 217,795 by 200 CE (chapter 1, p. 6, can be seen online at Amazon.com). Given that many of those converts were known to be Gentile rather than Jewish, where did the many hundreds of thousands of Jews you imply became Christian go?
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Actually, the Jews had several conflicting ideas of what the Messiah would be. Many of the first converts to Christianity were Jews. Jesus clearly met the criteria according to some Jews and not to others. The Apostle Paul was a very knowledgeable Jew, so far as that goes, and ultimately he felt that Jesus met the Jewish criteria. In all honesty, anyone claiming to be a Messiah would have been accused by a great number of the Jews of not meeting the criteria, because the Jews simply didn’t agree on those criteria; some Jews only believed in Torah (the first five books of the Old Testamen) at the time and thus didn’t even believe in any Messiah at all.
So the fact that many Jews didn’t see Jesus as fitting the Criteria of the Christ is no mark against His legitimacy as such, since there was no central Jewish agreement on what those criteria were, and there were seemingly Jews of all classes (no matter how few - the point here isn’t numbers but variety) who were convinced. Unless you think those Jews were just ignorant or less devout than their fellow skeptical Jews, then clearly the “Jesus didn’t meet the Jewish criteria” argument isn’t a good grounds to claim He wasn’t the Christ, especially since there were no “official” or remotely universal Jewish criteria from which to make the argument in the first place.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Absolutely and no doubt whatsoever
Further more, believe He was exactly who He said He was, the Son of God
M
Montalban
Guest
Irrelevant.
Let me make this clear, I never claimed that you believe in such in the sense of the Christian God is in charge. Whether Zeus works through a committee of the good graces of the other gods though, he’s still the supreme god in the Greco-Roman pantheon.
And he was able to destroy his own father god.
Within the context of Greek paganism Zeus is the supreme god, you are quite wrong about this. His relationship to the other gods is that he is the superior god, king of heaven/Olympia. He divided the realms up with his brothers so that one has the underworld, on the sea, and he has the heavens.
Greek pagans ascribe this attribute to him and give him other attributes.
Such a pantheon may attribute a ‘goddess of the harvest’ attribute to one god, and this is in direct conflict with another pantheon which has a different being in charge of harvests.
Every aspect of life has its pagan god responsible and these are in conflict with other pantheons that have a different god in charge of these things - each have different attributes.
M
Montalban
Guest
This is an insufficient answer. Society “A” may believe that one god looks after the harvest. They ascribe a set of attributes to that god (i.e. maybe the god is a female, and daughter of the king of the gods). Society” B” has their own god in charge of the harvest with different attributes (maybe a male god, son of the god of the earth).
Therefore the problem remains are these mutually exclusive. Or does the harvest god of Society “A” only look after the harvests of that society?
Or are you arguing that the truth about the god is relevant only to the society that believes in him/her?
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
Within the context of Greek paganism Zeus is the supreme god, you are quite wrong about this. His relationship to the other gods is that he is the superior god, king of heaven/Olympia.
He is the King of the Gods - he is not the Supreme Being. He is subject to fate, and law, and to the will of other gods. His will is not absolute, and he is not all knowing. There is no such thing as such a being in polytheism.
He divided the realms up with his brothers so that one has the underworld, on the sea, and he has the heavens.
Yes, that’s right - he rules one third of the cosmos, along with his brothers.
Such a pantheon may attribute a ‘goddess of the harvest’ attribute to one god, and this is in direct conflict with another pantheon which has a different being in charge of harvests.
Why wouldn’t the Greek god be over Greek harvests, and the Gaulish Harvest God be over Gaulish harvests? That’s certainly one of the ways the ancients viewed it - though philosophers among the ancients also discussed whether the Gods were the same persons from people to people, manifesting in different local ways.
Every aspect of life has its pagan god responsible and these are in conflict with other pantheons that have a different god in charge of these things - each have different attributes
The ancients saw no conflict - when they went to a engibor’s country they often worshipped their neighbor’s deities, and sometimes applied their hometown names to the neighbor’s gods. Since none of those Gods are considered omnipotent, etc, it’s just not a problem.
Ian
He is the King of the Gods - he is not the Supreme Being. He is subject to fate, and law, and to the will of other gods. His will is not absolute, and he is not all knowing. There is no such thing as such a being in polytheism.
He divided the realms up with his brothers so that one has the underworld, on the sea, and he has the heavens.
Yes, that’s right - he rules one third of the cosmos, along with his brothers.
Such a pantheon may attribute a ‘goddess of the harvest’ attribute to one god, and this is in direct conflict with another pantheon which has a different being in charge of harvests.
Why wouldn’t the Greek god be over Greek harvests, and the Gaulish Harvest God be over Gaulish harvests? That’s certainly one of the ways the ancients viewed it - though philosophers among the ancients also discussed whether the Gods were the same persons from people to people, manifesting in different local ways.
Every aspect of life has its pagan god responsible and these are in conflict with other pantheons that have a different god in charge of these things - each have different attributes
The ancients saw no conflict - when they went to a engibor’s country they often worshipped their neighbor’s deities, and sometimes applied their hometown names to the neighbor’s gods. Since none of those Gods are considered omnipotent, etc, it’s just not a problem.
Ian
M
Montalban
Guest
Where did I use the term “Supreme Being”? You’ve used it in response to me…
AndMontalban:
The thing is, ancient Paganism didn’t have the idea of a ‘supreme being’ in the way that monotheism proposes.
I’ve gone back through this thread to find if I used the term. And I’ve kept noting my position has been misrepresented and so it has. You keep telling me that there’s no “Supreme Being” in paganinsm, and I never have made that point (at least as far as I’m aware). Though on another thread you might find a quote that helps, but for me it’s always be ‘supreme in the context of the pantheon’ and it was one of my objections to paganism on that thread that the gods are subject to the universe… and thus are not ‘supreme’ (in the sense that God is supreme). But I’m extremely patient and would like to get through this.
Within the context of the Greco-Roman pantheon Zeus is the supreme god.
And that’s the point. He rules the cosmos. The Norse will say someone else does. SO (and this is getting really boring having to ask) how do you reconcile the multiple claims?
So the gods are only gods over those who worship them? Before you said that Zeus ruled the cosmos, but his pantheon has no place over Gaulish harvests?
And although they tried this, they couldn’t reconcile all the gods. There were too many differences between the attributes of them. Some are similar and were adopted into the pantheon
The Romans accused the Celts of worshipping ‘strange gods’ (obviously different to their own)
In one sense It’s irrelevant here what they thought. I’m asking you how you reconcile it. However you’re still wrong because the Greeks had concepts of false gods. And there’s mythology about those who turn away from worshipping the gods.
Socrates (rightly or wrongly) was charged with false worship.
One of the reasons paganism failed was because of the illogical nature of believing in all at once; which is why monotheistic faiths kept popping up.
K
KarenNC
Guest
**Actually, the Jews had several conflicting ideas of what the Messiah would be. **
Could you point me toward some material on those conflicting beliefs? I would like to read more about them. Websites or books would be fine, either way. We have a number of reference books on Judaism already. Thanks.
**Many of the first converts to Christianity were Jews. Jesus clearly met the criteria according to some Jews and not to others. The Apostle Paul was a very knowledgeable Jew, so far as that goes, and ultimately he felt that Jesus met the Jewish criteria. **
Yes, they did. Yes, Paul was. Knowledgeable Christians have converted to Islam, as well, believing that religion to be a superior one. That doesn’t say to me that therefore all Christians must necessarily be wrong about Jesus simply because knowledgeable members of their religion thought so.
In all honesty, anyone claiming to be a Messiah would have been accused by a great number of the Jews of not meeting the criteria, because the Jews simply didn’t agree on those criteria; some Jews only believed in Torah (the first five books of the Old Testamen) at the time and thus didn’t even believe in any Messiah at all.
Yes, and those claiming to be the Messiah (or whose followers have so claimed) have indeed been accused just so. There have been many over the centuries. I see Jesus as another one of the failed Messiahs.
I am not clear on how the argument that some Jews did not believe in any Messiah bolsters the argument that Jesus was the Messiah.
** there were seemingly Jews of all classes (no matter how few - the point here isn’t numbers but variety) who were convinced. **
Why is variety more important?
** Unless you think those Jews were just ignorant or less devout than their fellow skeptical Jews, then clearly the “Jesus didn’t meet the Jewish criteria” argument isn’t a good grounds to claim He wasn’t the Christ, especially since there were no “official” or remotely universal Jewish criteria from which to make the argument in the first place.**
If there was no agreement on what “the” Messiah was, how does one then argue that because Jews of a variety of classes were convinced that he was such mean that Jesus was “the” Messiah? By whose criteria then was he the Messiah?
Could you point me toward some material on those conflicting beliefs? I would like to read more about them. Websites or books would be fine, either way. We have a number of reference books on Judaism already. Thanks.
**Many of the first converts to Christianity were Jews. Jesus clearly met the criteria according to some Jews and not to others. The Apostle Paul was a very knowledgeable Jew, so far as that goes, and ultimately he felt that Jesus met the Jewish criteria. **
Yes, they did. Yes, Paul was. Knowledgeable Christians have converted to Islam, as well, believing that religion to be a superior one. That doesn’t say to me that therefore all Christians must necessarily be wrong about Jesus simply because knowledgeable members of their religion thought so.
In all honesty, anyone claiming to be a Messiah would have been accused by a great number of the Jews of not meeting the criteria, because the Jews simply didn’t agree on those criteria; some Jews only believed in Torah (the first five books of the Old Testamen) at the time and thus didn’t even believe in any Messiah at all.
Yes, and those claiming to be the Messiah (or whose followers have so claimed) have indeed been accused just so. There have been many over the centuries. I see Jesus as another one of the failed Messiahs.
I am not clear on how the argument that some Jews did not believe in any Messiah bolsters the argument that Jesus was the Messiah.
** there were seemingly Jews of all classes (no matter how few - the point here isn’t numbers but variety) who were convinced. **
Why is variety more important?
** Unless you think those Jews were just ignorant or less devout than their fellow skeptical Jews, then clearly the “Jesus didn’t meet the Jewish criteria” argument isn’t a good grounds to claim He wasn’t the Christ, especially since there were no “official” or remotely universal Jewish criteria from which to make the argument in the first place.**
If there was no agreement on what “the” Messiah was, how does one then argue that because Jews of a variety of classes were convinced that he was such mean that Jesus was “the” Messiah? By whose criteria then was he the Messiah?
K
KindredSoul
Guest
I think you missed the whole point of that post, actually, and this paragraph makes that whole debate somewhat irrelevant: I wasn’t using any of that to bolster the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. There are much better arguments for that, which are for another topic or thread. My point was that you can’t use the fact that many Jews didn’t believe He matched the criteria of the Messiah to prove that He wasn’t either, and you cited that as though it were a clever reason to believe such. It’s not a good or clever reason at all; the whole subject of what some Jews thought and others didn’t really doesn’t work as an impressive proof either for or against the Messiah-ship of Jesus. That was the point of my post.**Actually, the Jews had several conflicting ideas of what the Messiah would be. **
Could you point me toward some material on those conflicting beliefs? I would like to read more about them. Websites or books would be fine, either way. We have a number of reference books on Judaism already. Thanks.
I learned it in a College class, and to my memory it was supported by the textbooks we had. I don’t remember what those textbooks were, but I can find out for you. Either way, rest assured, the professor in that class, though Christian, is also very open minded and likes to tell all sides of a story fairly. She’s not one to distort facts for the sake of making her own position more believable. If you met her you’d laugh in the very face of anyone who thought she would.
**Many of the first converts to Christianity were Jews. Jesus clearly met the criteria according to some Jews and not to others. The Apostle Paul was a very knowledgeable Jew, so far as that goes, and ultimately he felt that Jesus met the Jewish criteria. **
Yes, they did. Yes, Paul was. Knowledgeable Christians have converted to Islam, as well, believing that religion to be a superior one. That doesn’t say to me that therefore all Christians must necessarily be wrong about Jesus simply because knowledgeable members of their religion thought so.
A Jewish convert to Christianity must have had an understanding of the Messiah that allowed his conversion. It proves that such an understanding is possible withinJudaism, though it leads to automatic conversion. In other words, the convert believes that a proper understanding of Judaism itself leads to Christianity. A Christian convert to Islam has rejected Christianity altogether; it’s not that he thinks Christians have a flawed understanding of Christianity, but he thinks Christianity itself has a flawed understanding of God and Jesus, which is somewhat different. You can’t prove Islam from Christianity (no Muslim even tries, but rather tries to prove that Christianity is flawed), but you can make a case for Christianity from Judaism (as all the early Christian converts from Judaism did, whether to your satisfaction or not).
In all honesty, anyone claiming to be a Messiah would have been accused by a great number of the Jews of not meeting the criteria, because the Jews simply didn’t agree on those criteria; some Jews only believed in Torah (the first five books of the Old Testamen) at the time and thus didn’t even believe in any Messiah at all.
Yes, and those claiming to be the Messiah (or whose followers have so claimed) have indeed been accused just so. There have been many over the centuries. I see Jesus as another one of the failed Messiahs.
I am not clear on how the argument that some Jews did not believe in any Messiah bolsters the argument that Jesus was the Messiah.
See my final paragraph below.
** there were seemingly Jews of all classes (no matter how few - the point here isn’t numbers but variety) who were** convinced.
Why is variety more important?
Because it shows that it was possible for a Jew of any education level, including those who knew Judaism very well, to interpret the criteria for the Messiah in such a way as for Jesus to fit. Numbers aren’t necessary for that.
** Unless you think those Jews were just ignorant or less devout than their fellow skeptical Jews, then clearly the “Jesus didn’t meet the Jewish criteria” argument isn’t a good grounds to claim He wasn’t the Christ, especially since there were no “official” or remotely universal Jewish criteria from which to make the argument in the first place.**
If there was no agreement on what “the” Messiah was, how does one then argue that because Jews of a variety of classes were convinced that he was such mean that Jesus was “the” Messiah? By whose criteria then was he the Messiah?
Obviously by the criteria of those who converted to Christianity
D
dessert
Guest
I guess I was just asking anyone but also if any of the neopagans were open to the fact that He existed in history.
R
reborn_pagan
Guest
Okay karenNC has answerd your question over and over, and for this one…come on its as simple as black and white. Diffrent society, Diffrent belief.
This can be used in christianity also. Catholics think its okay to wear makeup, Mormons don’t…diffrent culture of the same relgion with diffrent beilfes on what is right and wrong.
D
dessert
Guest
Thank You for your answer but what were pre-christian pagans?
I have a bible dictionary that states
ZEUS Greek name for the ruler of the gods, corresponding to the Roman name, Jupiter (Acts 14; 12) NIV ) Jupiter in KJV
Followers of Zeus believed that Zeus controlled the weather. Much to Barnabas’ dismay, he was called Zeus after a man was healed. Paul and Barnabas used this as an opportunity to teach about the true God (Acts 14; 8-18).
So you don’t believe that your god controls anything? Is this correct?
Do you believe that the bible is history at all?
Sorry so many questions but I am trying to understand what you do believe about historical things as it seems most is mythology to you. dessert
D
dessert
Guest
Then can I ask you do you believe that the dead sea scrolls exist and are written accounts of the events of the bible times?
So does this last statement say you believe as the Jews and believe they are right and you are waiting for the messiah? Just wondering. dessert
- Status