I think you are quite right. I think this is why Christianity is not so much a religion about the teachings of Jesus as it is a teaching about Jesus. Jesus' execution raised in a most acute manner the issue of who Jesus was. John's gospel captures this in the words of the couple on the road to Emmaus: "We thought that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel."

If Jesus was not who they had thought he was, then who was he? Was he relevant at all? The Church arises as it answers this question.

First of all, thanks for your kind words.

As far as the above is concerned, we should recall an episode that appears in the gospels whereas Jesus' family appears concerned he may have fallen off the deep end, so we can see whereas the family was not all on-board the Jesus' Express-- at least at first. Now whether they came on-board later, and to what extent they agreed with Jesus' teachings, is not necessarily a "gimme". I think most Christians tend to believe that they did later, but that's not guaranteed either. Traditional Jewish families are very tight-knit, so even if they disagreed with him, that doesn't mean they'd abandon him.






And we've seen this happen before. After Gandhi was martyred, many in the Hindu community began to deify him but, fortunately, Gandhi had stated and written many times he was not a deity (this needs to be qualified somewhat, if you know what I mean).

I think there's quite a bit of what eventually became Christian theology that was developed by those grieving over his death and really missing him. Therefore, the deification of Jesus may well have resulted from their rather natural reaction. I have a very difficult time picturing Jesus walking around saying "I'm God" even to his apostles. To any orthodox Jew, this would be very difficult to swallow.





There is no way we will ever know what Jesus wanted James to do. [/quote]

Good point. Maybe Jesus never thought he'd win James over. Maybe James only agreed with part of Jesus' teachings. And remember what is said about us Jews: 2 Jews = 3 different opinions on everything.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Good questions. But I just want to throw a speed-bump in front of your last point. I tend to more gravitate in the direction that the church(es) attempted to answer these questions. Whether the church(es) answered them correctly is another matter. However, in the final analysis it makes probably little difference because the myths* became the reality.

I feel, however, we can certain answer the question as to whether Jesus was relevant-- yes, and in spades. The fact that there are almost 2 billion Christians worldwide is the proof.

As for the first question, the answer from me is "I'm not sure". If I professed that somehow I really know who the "true Jesus" was, I should be considered to be as arrogant as one can get. How would I know? How could I know? I have some half-baked ideas as you have seen me post before, but "ideas" are not necessarily "facts".



*I use "myth" in the anthropological sense, which does not connote falsehood.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

We've also seen the reverse, when a figure some people believed to be a living deity dies, and some decide he or she wasn't God after all, but was still divinely inspired or speaking for God. I think it's possible the followers of Jesus may have felt that the Son of Man was also the Son of God/God, but some of his close companions might have moved away from that interpretation when he died and specific prophecies were not immediately fulfilled in the literal way they anticipated. Being individuals, they may have had various ideas about what Jesus was, and about what the crucifixion meant. I am guessing Jesus may never have made a definitive statement to them on that matter. Once when people wanted to know who/what He was, He turned the question right back to them.

__________________
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
- Carl Sagan

We're on the same page here, at least in this area. When we read Acts, we can notice that there are discussions and disagreements over the issue of the circumcision of gentile converts and keeping kosher (remember that James catches Peter eating cheeseburgers with gentiles). These are not trivial items but are very much part and parcel with basic Judaism. Apparently, Jesus never got around to discussing these matters with his apostles.

As you mention above, Jesus appears to have used the Socratic method a great deal whereas he'd turn the questions back onto the ones asking the questions (us Jews are notorious for answering a question with another question-- must be a genetic defect of some type). As one who taught for 36 years, the Socratic method is a great way to teach, but it has some drawbacks. One is that it may leave the questioner confused as far as what the teacher actually believes. Another is that the process takes quite a bit of time, and since Jesus' ministry was quite short as it was...

However, I really don't think that Jesus made an attempt to deify himself, and the effort to do as such is far more likely to have occurred after his death imo. And I don't think it's likely just due to Paul as well because if Paul was that far off base, then why would the others tolerate him?

There's also the question about whether Paul and the others may have felt that Jesus was "of God" rather than "God"? There's a difference. And once the gentiles eventually took control of the church after 70 c.e., Jesus as "God" may have taken over the "of God" concept. This would be compatible with Greek and Sumerian beliefs.

Gotta go.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

We're on the same page here, at least in this area. When we read Acts, we can notice that there are discussions and disagreements over the issue of the circumcision of gentile converts and keeping kosher (remember that James catches Peter eating cheeseburgers with gentiles). These are not trivial items but are very much part and parcel with basic Judaism. Apparently, Jesus never got around to discussing these matters with his apostles.

As you mention above, Jesus appears to have used the Socratic method a great deal whereas he'd turn the questions back onto the ones asking the questions (us Jews are notorious for answering a question with another question-- must be a genetic defect of some type). As one who taught for 36 years, the Socratic method is a great way to teach, but it has some drawbacks. One is that it may leave the questioner confused as far as what the teacher actually believes. Another is that the process takes quite a bit of time, and since Jesus' ministry was quite short as it was...

However, I really don't think that Jesus made an attempt to deify himself, and the effort to do as such is far more likely to have occurred after his death imo. And I don't think it's likely just due to Paul as well because if Paul was that far off base, then why would the others tolerate him?

There's also the question about whether Paul and the others may have felt that Jesus was "of God" rather than "God"? There's a difference. And once the gentiles eventually took control of the church after 70 c.e., Jesus as "God" may have taken over the "of God" concept. This would be compatible with Greek and Sumerian beliefs.

Gotta go.

Oops-- sorry for the double post.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Ok, if you believe that the word "christian" was used to define the followers of Jesus(pbuh) and bible, then why do we see this word only used after the arrival of Paul ,why not this word existed before his arrival?

Even Qur'an confirms that the true followers of Jesus(pbuh) and Bible were called "Nazaranes". And according to Qur'an ,those who followed the footsteps of Jesus(pbuh) during his life time and obeyed his command will definitely enter paradise just like the true followers of Moses(pbuh) will.

It is quiet strange that followers of divine religion are taking there names from outside sources instead of searching for there names in its divine sources.

No human being has given us the title "muslim" ,it is only God in the Qur'an that mentions us as "muslims".

I hope it is clear

As far as I know there are multiple sources:

Who were the Nazarenes (Jewish-'Christians') and when did they become Heretics

The Nazarenes used their own variation of the Gospel of Matthew. The Church Father quoted those passages where it differed from the version of Matthew that was to become official in the Gentile-Christain Church. The Gentile Church considered the Nazarenes to be heretics and Judaisers, even though they were the followers of those who had actually known Jesus/Yeshsayahu during his lifetime. By the same token, the Nazarenes had a rather dim view of Paul. 'They declare that he was a Greek....He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daugher of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte [through the Saducee movement, hence his working for the Temple police] and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against cirumcision and against the sabbath and the Law'
- (Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.16-9 as quoted in The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby, p 182)

Nazarenes continued to exist until about 400 [CE] declaring to the last that [Jesus/Yehoshua] was the Messiah, that he would soon return, that he was the Son of [G-d] but not divine himself, that the Jewish law had never been abrogated by him, and that Paul was a deceiver who had perverted [Jesus'/Yehoshua's] message.

- (Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea, (p 818)

Maccoby, in the appendix referenced in the footnote to this last quote, states that "[r]eferences to the Nazarenesa dn their beliefs (human status of Jesus, opposition to Paul) can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Jerome, Irenaeus, Hippolytus and Origen" (Ibid, p 218)



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ebionites

The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3).

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

The source you quoted is literally terrible, largely because of the misreporting of what we do know, and also because the author(s) jump to all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. First of all, let me deal with the above.

The only version of Matthew that we have is the current one, which was written in Koine Greek. There has been a long-standing hypothesis that there was what has been called a "Proto-Matthew" or "Aramaic Matthew" that some theologians think may have been used to help write the synoptics. However, please note that this is only a hypothesis, and we literally know nothing about that supposed book.

However, on the other hand, let there be no doubt that there were groups in existence after Jesus died that did indeed differ with the way the apostolic church was going, and the Ebionites are believed to likely be one of those. However, we know so little about the Ebionites, and even less about the others, that we have to be very careful, especially because the sources, such as Josephus, are not always that credible.

It has been hypothesized that James was one of their leaders, but that's hardly a slam-dunk by any means. And it's very difficult to picture James being both the head of the apostolic church while at the same time being involved with the Ebionites since their views about Jesus appear to be substantially different.

There's also the problem of the term "Nazarene" that the author uses. A "nazar" was a person who took what was normally a temporary oath to not cut his hair, abstain from alcohol, etc. in order to meditate in seclusion, and this commitment was only for about a month, whereas afterward they would return back to normal activity. There's simply no indication that Jesus was a nazar, although some believe that John the Baptist may well have fit the description.

Nor was there a town called "Nazareth" during that time period since that name was adopted later. I've been to Nazareth, and it is a place I do recommend people visit if they're in Israel, but it actually doesn't sit on the historical site when Jesus supposedly lived, which is located just a short distance away.

Also, all that we see from a historical point of view well indicates that Paul was very much involved with the apostolic church, and if the apostles accepted him (albeit rather reluctantly-- at least at first), then what does that tell us? After all, weren't they the selected followers of Jesus, and wasn't his letters that were first used by the church even before the gospels?

Let me recommend an excellent book on the subject entitled "The Jews In the Time of Jesus" by Steven M. Wylen, who uses archaeological and historical data to give us a good picture of what we know and what we don't know about the early church.

And please be careful-- there's lots of snake-oil salesmen with agendas around nowadays.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein