Step back and look

There is so little evidence of a man who was god. So much of it can make sense when viewed wit more gnostic understanding. IN the bible Jesus taught in allegories. Jesus himself is the allegory of allegories! It is agreat book. People can live admirable lives by following it.

But there is no basis in fact.

I agree with your point. If you disassociate God from the bible, the real God, that is, the book can be disected and understood a little better.

Originally posted by bigredenquirer
But there is no basis in fact.

Thats your opinion and as we all know, the bible doesn't rely on fact it relies on faith. You either have it or you don't. It's a believe or non-believe situation and of course you can't dissect the bible from a bias point of view without finding a bias answer.

Originally posted by Linux
Thats your opinion and as we all know, the bible doesn't rely on fact it relies on faith. You either have it or you don't.

This is my answer also.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. KJV hebrews 11:6

Originally posted by bigredenquirer
There is so little evidence of a man who was god....

Your logic missed to present in a formal manner a number of obvious points.

First of... You had to step back to see that there is no evidence ?

A common christian will tell you that you don't have to step anywhere to see that. That is, in fact, the first thing that you'll be presented with. Faith.
Do you have it ? Or do you lack it ?

However I have other questions, because obviously, your posting this thread has answerd the first.

What is evidence ? You say that there is none. But can you say with certainty what evidence and infallible proof really are ? While you think about your answer take in mind that what would make You believe is probably different that what was left behind. Remember, if in fact Jesus was God don't you think he would have chosen what evidence to leave behind ?

I find more value in the historical man (Yeshua) and his work in advancing the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d), than I do in the Christology and Theology of the Church.

The development and evolution of said Christology and Theology can be tracked through a critical examination of the historical record. This doesn't mean I want to throw out the baby with the bath water! Far from it! I find examining both to be of value....

What is left in the wake of a critical and historical examination of Yeshua and his teachings and work - as recorded in the gospels and the writings of the apostles - is far more compelling, inspirational, factual, understandable and character building than anything Church doctrine has concocted over the millennia, IMO.

Why? Because it speaks directly to man's struggle - and in Yeshua's case, a particular man's struggle – with actualizing the Kingdom of Heaven in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

For me, the historical man is a champion that I can relate to and follow, but - as Albert Schweitzer noted - this historical man has been buried under the refuse of centuries of Mythology and Christology and Theology that the Church has heaped upon him.

But that's human nature -- to find fantasy and mythology far more appealing than reality and history. Embellishing is what we humans seem to do best - aside from devolving into sectarianism and petty squabbling about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

[edit on 12-6-2005 by smadewell]

Thank you for your input everyone.

First Linux said: "you can't dissect the bible from a bias point of view without finding a bias answer"

I agree wholeheartedly. I do not at all come to the bible from a bias position. I come to it, as far as is possible anyway bearing in mind the conditioning we all have being westerners, as a book. (it may be interesting to consider what a person, who can read, who had never had any contact with humanity or the norms we all accept, would make of the bible if reading it simply as another book on the shelf. Would it even lead this entirely hypothetical but unbiased person to conclude that even the bible claims jesus to be son of god? I'm not sure

Anyway to return to the point

I am with smadewell in appreciating the value of a historical man. I also have found greater belief ina creator God now that I have been able to overcome the smoke-screen of a dying-resurrecting man. Take Jesus (the Roman Catholic Church creation) out of the equation and ther is a wondeerful and very personal path to God

Originally posted by bigredenquirerI am with smadewell in appreciating the value of a historical man. I also have found greater belief in a creator God now that I have been able to overcome the smoke-screen of a dying-resurrecting man. Take Jesus (the Roman Catholic Church creation) out of the equation and there is a wonderful and very personal path to God.

Well, it's not just the RCC's mythos one must get back beyond in questing after the historical man -- as I'm sure you're aware. One must also go back beyond ante-Nicene "Churchanity" and its ecclesiastical struggle against their Gnostic opponents.

Further, the two prong approach in this quest is what I recommend.

First, one must understand WHO the various proto-Gnostic opponents of the Apostle Paul were, while keeping in mind that Paul himself is not always fully informed about where these opponents are coming from (since he's often working on second hand reports about what they're teaching and what trouble they're causing), so his corrective epistles have to be examined critically.

Further, we learn from the rabbinic literature that Gamaliel had disciples who were selected to study the Greek literature in addition to their Jewish studies, so that they might function as emissaries and/or liaisons to the Gentile Powers-That-Were. Doubtless, Paul was one of these disciples. So, despite his command and use of the Greek language, he is still very much a Separatist (Pharisaic) scholar, who is thinking in Hebrew and Aramaic, while attempting to communicate and translate (rather than transliterate) his proto-rabbinic concepts into Greek for the benefit of a Greek speaking Gentile audience and Greek speaking Jews living in the Diaspora.

Secondly, one must place the gospels back into their proper historical, linguistic and cultural context and understand that the Greek texts were (at least in part) based upon an original Hebrew narrative of Yeshua's life and/or an original Hebrew collection of his sayings.

So, the man himself, Yeshua ben Yosef, and his sayings, must be read and understood through the eyes of one familiar with the proto-rabbinic Separatism (Pharisaism) that was current among the people, sages, miracle workers, pious ones, prophets and messianic figures of the Common Era.

In short, one SHOULD NOT discount the miracles Yeshua wrought anymore than SHOULD discount the miracles wrought by others living in that cultural milieu and period, as recorded for us in the rabbinic literature.

Additionally, because his disciples believed in the Resurrection of the Dead ... one SHOULD NOT dismiss their belief that Yeshua died and was resurrected from the dead - not unlike the resurrection of Moses, which was part of the accepted Oral Tradition of that period and which we find recorded for us in the literature of that time. Whatever one's personal doubts on that count ... one SHOULD accept that this was the belief held by Yeshua's immediate disciples, etc.

Still.... The Christology and theology of "Jesus, the god-man" belongs to a later period and is the result of the religous syncretism that influenced Paul's proto-Gnostic opponents, who, sadly, gained a foothold among the early Gentile Believers.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by smadewell]