Who was Jesus?
12.08.06 (10:54 pm) [edit]
I was struck by the fact that everyone has their own "version" of Jesus. OK, all the bible thumpers that are chuckling because they know Jesus personally via the bible can stop chuckling: it isn't everyone "else" that has their own version, but everyone that thinks about Jesus.
Without going it long details, we all read about what the various words in the various gospels "really" mean and we naviagate these words putting together a picture that makes sense to us. The picture that makes sense to us is in part formed by us and our own interpreting and translating of these words into our own mind. The Jesus that sits in our own hearts is the one that makes sense in our own minds. I am completely "OK" with this. I think it can be no other way actually. As long as we are honest with ourselves about it. If I think Jesus was "of" the destitute poor, not a "carpenter" but a "laborer", a rabble rouser: I certainly would have my reasons and noone could really argue with them. If some else thought he was more middle class or of a skilled labor class, literate and educated in a manner the poorest could not expect to be: well, I know that would be reasonable. Where we'd go very wrong would be if we were to consider either of these two different impressions as "wrong" or "right".
Anyway, even all these words we are disecting come to us from copies of copies of copies of gospels that probably were not first hand accounts. It shouldn't be surprising nor disappointing considering the times we are talking about and the means available to those earliest Christians.
But here is something to think about: what language did Jesus speak? Well, if he was a Galilean: that was considered the most Hellenized area, and it was not uncommon for large populations of Jews to have forgotten their language and speak Greek exclusively.
Here is something that surprised me: what was his name? It seems to me his name was most likely "Joshua", and the hellenized version of Joshua was altered to create a "numeralogically perfect" name, which we then translate into Jesus. When we're told of the power in the name "Jesus" are we being told of the man's name or of the numeralogical perfection of the alteration? Might it be decidely "un-Christian" to suppose any name has "power"?
There is no real shock here.
We can not conceive of another person in our minds in their own entirety, but only as our own image of that person. The moment we gain an image of someone in our mind, we are contemplating what we perceive as their own circumstance against the background of our own experiences and our own lives. Even as remote their lives may be from ours, the contextualizing of their life within our experience is there. The better we get to know someone, the closer we may get to "them" as opposed to our first impressions; but there will always be a difference between our peception and their reality. This can only be even more so when we're talking about a historical figure, and it really is of no significance if that historical figure is a diety that enters our heart (or if the historical figure wasn't a historical figure in anyone's opinion).
Without going it long details, we all read about what the various words in the various gospels "really" mean and we naviagate these words putting together a picture that makes sense to us. The picture that makes sense to us is in part formed by us and our own interpreting and translating of these words into our own mind. The Jesus that sits in our own hearts is the one that makes sense in our own minds. I am completely "OK" with this. I think it can be no other way actually. As long as we are honest with ourselves about it. If I think Jesus was "of" the destitute poor, not a "carpenter" but a "laborer", a rabble rouser: I certainly would have my reasons and noone could really argue with them. If some else thought he was more middle class or of a skilled labor class, literate and educated in a manner the poorest could not expect to be: well, I know that would be reasonable. Where we'd go very wrong would be if we were to consider either of these two different impressions as "wrong" or "right".
Anyway, even all these words we are disecting come to us from copies of copies of copies of gospels that probably were not first hand accounts. It shouldn't be surprising nor disappointing considering the times we are talking about and the means available to those earliest Christians.
But here is something to think about: what language did Jesus speak? Well, if he was a Galilean: that was considered the most Hellenized area, and it was not uncommon for large populations of Jews to have forgotten their language and speak Greek exclusively.
Here is something that surprised me: what was his name? It seems to me his name was most likely "Joshua", and the hellenized version of Joshua was altered to create a "numeralogically perfect" name, which we then translate into Jesus. When we're told of the power in the name "Jesus" are we being told of the man's name or of the numeralogical perfection of the alteration? Might it be decidely "un-Christian" to suppose any name has "power"?
I think it doesn't matter how we conceive of Jesus, so long as we are honest with ourselves about it. If we know that "God's law" is written on all our hearts, and that it is up to us to detangle ourselves-- from our own disfunctions and our own problems and the culture we are in-- in order to see straight through to that "law" as it is written on our hearts. So long as we take that stuff seriously I think we're on the right track.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.08.06 (7:59 pm)
Aaak! Where is the "edit" function so I can fix the spelling? "Buy"???? I was struck "BUY" the fact. I don't have that kind of money anyway.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.08.06 (7:59 pm)
Oh, and the paragraph spacing? I will try to fix that.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.08.06 (10:11 pm)
OK, I think I fixed the paragraph spacing and the more glaring spelling/grammar errors.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.09.06 (8:09 pm)
Reply to: carmencc
Hey Carmen, you make two points. First, you ask how can it be that I'm being honest with myself if while I'm talking about Jesus I'm really suspecting his name was Joshua. Well, "rose by any other name ..." seems to fit nicely. Also, there are all sorts of names being twisted up in translations so I have no problem with not getting caught up in a name and looking to the person. If we were formally introduced at a dinner party or something, I should work at getting the pronounciation down: till then I'm OK.
That is an excellent point about Yay-Zeus, but remember that it isn't really contradicting what I'm saying. I'm saying that the greek spelling was tweaked to yeild a "numerologically perfect" number. I'd not be surprised at all if they also chose a name that sounded like Zeus to them. The two are not mutually exclusive at all. I can cite sources about the numerology if you'd like. Do you think that both you and I could be refering to credible sources, and that the name could have been tweaked in both ways, or are you hiding a Phds in theology and classical civ that I should know about? I'll admit that you may also be right, but don't assume I'm wrong about what I'm saying.
As for being honest, does a name tweaked to sound like Zeus sit better with you than you think a "numerologically perfect" number should sit with me? Is one more honest that the other?
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 12.09.06 (9:18 pm)
I do not believe, this side of heaven, that we can completely flesh out a full conceptualization of the historical Jesus. We have at least five incomplete pictures Him in the scriptures:
(1) The Book of Mark, also contained within Matthew & Luke
(2) A source common to Matthew & Luke, but not contained in Mark
(3) Luke's unique material
(4) Matthew's unique material
(5) John, very different from the other gospels
As we read these accounts, our imaginations color in between the lines.
Yet I believe we have enough of a picture of Jesus to know whether we trust what the scriptures claim concerning Him. What I think we need to do is understand that Jesus Christ goes beyond being but a historical figure; He is deity, to be worshiped and served. And within that worship there is great latitude: liberal, conservative, social, personal, literalism, figurativism, etc.
Good post; makes me think, which is always I believe a good thing.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.10.06 (10:42 pm)
Reply to: carmencc
I think you're going way beyond the scope of what I wrote; which if fine but your attacking positions I don't think I expressed and really don't hold.
As for Constantine: he would stand out as one of the most evil bastards in all of history, if there weren't so very many to give him competition. His "gift" to the western world, and the "middle-eastern" for that matter, is something we'll have to work very hard to undue.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.10.06 (11:05 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I'm sure you know there is also a lot we can learn just by trying to understand the cultures in the region and economic and political realities, and teh religious ideas that were floating around too. Then, seeing which of those seem to be refered to or implied in these writings would be useful. Considering which religious texts were in common use might also be useful, but eventually we stop getting a picture of one individual historic figure and instead start getting a much broader picture within which a lot may not apply. Eventually "we" get in the way-- but better "we" than the guy in the front of the church getting in the way for us.
For what it's worth, I don't hold the orthodox tradition to be any more authentic than the gnostic traditions. I'm not saying I buy into the amazingly complex fantasies weaved by a lot of Gnostics. I just think that at the start, the ideas that became called gnostic were probably right there.
I think it is important, for me anyway, to not separate the person from the God. Life matters, that which was taught mattered-- if anything based on how much no one understood even as he taght them, the teaching was unfinished--, the killing unjustified, but the path clear. We are not given the example of a God through which to live our live but a man. If we are to live as God wants and if we are to grow to know eternal union with God, then we must live as men and as the best men we can serving compassion and seeking wisedom after the example set by one man if we are lucky enough to know of such an example.
posted by: mimi (reply)
post date: 12.11.06 (9:33 am)
I believe, for what it's worth, that Jesus presents himself to each in a way that is acceptable and understandable and believable...therefore, to me, he is a he in human form, speaking english...to someone in, say, the outbacks of australia, he may be dark skinned and speak aboringine (sp)... that's my thoughts on this issue.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.11.06 (1:41 pm)
Reply to: carmencc
Well, you are attacking positions I don't support. And you may have gathered one thing or another but you definately rounded up the usual suspects along anything you gathered from my writing.
As for our speaking about the "One true God" here, well, I do bring that up at the end I guess as I do say that if we're following what is truely in our heart and work on our own disfunctions then we're on the right path-- or something along those lines. I do think there is a lot to be gaind from relflecting on and think about what we can know about Jesus even if his name may have been Joshua or even if there is no single historical figure to whom we can trace all that has been written about him. I think it stops mattering if it is hyperbole, fiction, mytholgizing, or a synthesis of a wide range of sources and charaters. At this point, or in this context, I'm not talking about "one true God", but I do think the exercise of thinking and researching can lead to finding God. I think it has for me.
I am 100% with you that "God has given us the fit of reason to be able to discern what is Devine truth": right on! At least some of us anyway :^)
But even if one second of using reason leads one of us to find devine truth, there are so many aspects and ramifications that it has on our life and our surroundings that all the same hard work and learning has to be done anyway-- or so I think. I think we must journey some distance to gain a wide range and great depth of compassion, I don't want to say "suffer" or "suffer and then emerge", but their is something of what I'm saying in the concept of suffering.
Let's seek what is in common and see if the rest can be worked out. By that I mean I would expect a spiritually enlightened person to seek common ground first or to find that which is true and useful. Finding the first point of dischord or difference doesn't lead to greater understand, only division. I believe the ultimate goal is union. To that end I think we agree a lot more than these comments would have it appear.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.11.06 (1:46 pm)
Reply to: mimi
Right on! The worst thing though, is when some people have been turned off by certan elements of organized religion so that they can't get past those.
I have a problem learning about Islam, I'm real suspect of a whole lot of it from the "prophet" to the manner in which the sayings were collected to the baggage that got attatched to the religion from outside it's own book. On on level I feel a sense of loss, but I have no interest in seeking anything that might be found there. I liked researching all kinds of religious and spiritual and philisophical ideas, but I can't get myself to even look there too deeply.
posted by: mimi (reply)
post date: 12.11.06 (3:15 pm)
Reply to: musicalhair
i just figure we are all on the same journey, just sometimes, different paths...
i also believe that i am open to hearing what anyone wants to share, and if it is interesting to me, i may listen...if not, then let's just walk away friends...i don't have to believe anything i choose not to..this is still a free country, right? : ) and should ANYONE try to force feed me, that just shuts down my listening powers anyway.
i love a good blog subject that derives interesting comments and feedback...good job, new friend.
xoxo
posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 12.11.06 (6:35 pm)
Reply to: musicalhair
I'm supportive of this effort to understand and know the Jesus of history, within the context of his life 2000 years ago. But, for me, the Resurrection means that presence and history is ongoing. As John teaches us, the Word (Eternal God) became flesh (Jesus of Nazareth). But that Word continues, without beginning and without end. I guess I could go on and on, but I'll relegate such to another place. I do appreciate what I perceive to be an earnest approach to knowing Jesus. I believe He reveals Himself to those who truly seek Him.
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.13.06 (10:35 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
I'm with you on the "presence and history is ongoing", I just don't want to get to far away from what he was doing and teaching. I'd rather draw my inferences conclusions deductions and inductions from the source as best as possible and not from anything that got added or "grandfathered" in or anything else.
As I concrete example, I want to pull Constantine's influence out of my understanding of "The Way". As a less concrete example I want to understand the relationship with Platonism and Pythagorianism (??? I'm not sure if that is the right word, and I don't have time to look it up) which seems to me to be equally valid places to connect Christianity to a historical context as does Judaism. I also don't want to look at Judaism as a single coherent thread, because it shows influence from all sorts of places and cultures and religions, from earliest Mesopotamia to Egypt to Zoroasterism and the Greeks even. I thnk the flow of ideas was a lot more open or at least more complex than some would have us believe.
I feel we have to attack the problem this way, because those that present themselves as the caretakers of the Christian faith seem to have taken it way off course. I pick the four major gospels plus Thomas as starting points, and I like the Gospel of Phillip mainly because I dont' see a problem with it when I read it even if it was popular with Gnostics. Gnosticism seems to be all over the earliest Christianity, predating and perhaps even "informing" the concept of the trinity.
This is way longer than it should be, but that sort of gives a frame of reference of where I'm trying to go with this.
later,
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.13.06 (10:36 am)
Reply to: mimi
right on sister mimi, right on! (I grew up in the 70's and sometimes it shows)
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.13.06 (11:03 am)
Reply to: carmencc
In an attempt to be brief, I do think we can gain a lot by reflecting on and thinking about myths. I am not convinced Jesus or Joshua from the time of the Roman occupation was purely a mythical figure. Pulling a real person from everything that has come since then is maybe not possible but maybe still a worthwhile exercise.
I don't think I said anything about believing myths.
I am deeply concerned about those that put up "the Bible" as the word of God on many many levels. When they say "Word of God" they mean Law. Law is a social construct and as we know it is never the law but the enforcement and interpretation that matters. We almost can not cite or refer to an law without either trying to enforce it or denounce it or change it or use it to assess judgement or prosecute with it, a law is a way to divide and not a passive thing at all. When we cite a law, we divide and judge and prosecute or we protest it. So, I find the "word of God" a useless concept especially when looking around at other people or in a social context. I'l reserve "law" or "word of God" or "God's will" for myself as an internal thing.
On another level, I find the idea that the Bible is the "word of God" to defy logic. The bible as we have it didn't exist but for a small fraction of time in our human history, it seems shockingly petty and small minded and to imply an amazing lack of foresight on the part of God to set up "salvation" in such a way that requires all sorts of machinations for those that came before Christ and those that come after, let alone those that never heard of Christ or couldn't read the bible or were introduced to Christ and the Bible people that do more harm than good. If I can gloss over all of that, then I still can't get past the fact that we have differing versions of each book (Mark in particular gets longer and longer as time went on), and differing lists of books called "scared" and differing translations of each. I can't say anyone that never saw nor heard of any of these books is "damned". In the bible itself we have Jesus forgiving sins right there on the spot and calling people blessed, and if I'm reading it right he's placing them in the "Kindom of Heaven", and I can't say any of them know what is in Leviticus nor in any of the letters of Paul (the real ones or the fake ones), so why should anyone else be required to read or know them?
Finally on the "word of God", I know fully that anyone placing their faith in a book if sorely lost. No book is scared. A book may be useful for an individual or not, and whole sections of any book are most certainly useless.
Compassion, Union, selflessness: I could imagine that these are the closest we'll get to sacred words, but hardly do they make a book.
I think we agree too, so stop obsessively looking for disagreement. A good trick is to turn off what ever it is that looks for difference and disagreement and instead seek sources of agreement and consensus to talk about. Peace and harmony come from seeking agreement, not disagreement. No negotiation has ever succeeded that focused on the differences. Agreement and mutually attainable goals are always the source of success.
later,
posted by: mimi (reply)
post date: 12.13.06 (11:35 am)
Reply to: musicalhair
me, too! lol! xoxox
posted by: musicalhair (reply)
post date: 12.13.06 (6:49 pm)
Reply to: carmencc
Hey man, I may "err" greatly, but I think I observe pretty accurately. I'm sure you could review this entire thread find plenty to agree about, and "let go" for the time being until the actually cause a problem and differences. A percieved difference is not always an actual one, and I think this thread bears it out.
I think we both know you will find plenty of false prophets, and I hope I ain't one of them. I don't think I'm propheting, just sharing some ideas in bad-essay form.
I'm not seeking harmony with the Jerry Falwells or benny hinn's of the world, nor the Bill O'Riellys or the Ian Paiselys. You and I ought to seek harmony, and we'll kick their asses together a whole lot better!
