Holy Ghost, Batman!
ComicStripClub.com
The home of ranting and panting…
-
September 2010 S M T W T F S « Mar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -
Latest Comics
-
Monthly Archives
June 24th, 2009
Holy Bun In The Oven
-
Menu
Categories
CSC Links
First post
Personally, if he keeps this up more than another day or two I’m taking it off my daily read list. My kids are old enough I don’t read fairy tales anymore.
I’m not a religious person at all, but you know what’s funny Tom? If the bible WAS a fairy-tale-comicbook, I would probably read it.
There’s enough sex and violence in it to earn an NC-17 rating which appeals greatly to my inner junkie
You do know that all these people would be Middle-Eastern Jews, right? Not Caucasians.
I agree with tacothesmurf, the format and the story were made for each other. Ironic how a story that detractors claim as a work of fiction is not presented in a format born primarily through fiction.
Sawhowhatnow: Little details like being Middle-Eastern Jews have no bearing in the “truth” of this story… don’t you know. LOL
I’ve seen Jesus been portayed as Black, White, and Middle Eastern. All by true believers. Frankly, part of Jesus’ appeal is he is of the “race” of the believer. Historically accurate? No, but phychologically brilliant.
Damn nice art work Hapajap. Keep it up.
Wow, that “Holy Ghost, Batman” got me, nice Hapa.
Saw, what exactly is your point?
btw Hapa, I absolutely love this comic. It’s beautiful.
DerryJeffersonian: The “Holy Bun in the Oven”, pretty much put holes in the Catholic interpretation of “Immaculate Conception”. It illustrates that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, prior to being married to Joseph and by someone other than Joseph. Not so virtuous, unless…
It has been postulated that in ancient cultures, if a woman became pregnant in a dishonourable manner (via incest, rape, adultery or plain old pre marital sex – basically in any event other than within a consummated marriage) stories where told and spread by the family that the child was a “child of the gods”. In ancient Greece, Zeus was a favorite. Zeus would visit otherwise honourable women in various forms (swan, bull, mirror image of the husband) to sow his seed. Of course, this was not confined to Greece, but was thought to have been practiced throughout the ancient world (Mediterranian and Middle Eastern). In ancient India and further east, folk heros and other characters of high cultural esteem were said to be the father of “love childs”.
Mary’s predicament is a perfect match for such a scenario.
Fairly Obvious has a point Sawhowhatnow.
Before “the Tower of Babel”, all of the peoples of the world were of one race – the children of god. After “the Tower of Babel”, these people were still of one race. They simply spoke different languages and eventually developed different cultures.
You would do well to remember that. (You and everyone else – LOL)
So what difference does it make what “race” Mary, Joseph and the Angel (Gabriel?) are portrayed as? – Oh right, historical accuracy.
Why does Mary look like Mary Katherine Ham? Not that I mind.
Who did Adam and Eve’s children mate with if they were the only people on earth?
I don’t think Abel married anyone……
That’s a question I could never figure out. Only thing I could think of is that Adam kept Eve “barefoot and pregnant” for a long time and incest was rampant (and the only option) for many generations.
Then again, the bible said that God made Adam and Eve first. He could have made more after that. If this occurred within the Garden of Eden, then the serpant was one busy and successful snake. If it occured outside of the Garden, then Adam and Eve messed it up for everyone else.
Did Hapa lose his stockpile of cut/paste images for his shitty comic or something? Was it another pyramid scheme?
And come on people, everyone knows that Joseph and Mary were the whitest whites in the Middle East. If Jesus were some durn darkie it would rock Hapa’s racist world view to it’s malformed core.
Kuni: To reiterate, first, the Immaculate Conception is not an “interpretation” by the Catholics, but rather one of the foundations of their doctrine/Catechism (it’s in their Creed, f’r'crying out loud). Second, remember, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary as being born without original sin and (doctrinally speaking) lived a life without sin and has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. Third, Mary’s (presumably) virginal impregnation/gestation by the Holy Spirit resulting in the Christ child Jesus had to take place prior to her and Joseph consummating their relationship precisely for the reason that it removes any doubt that a human agent was involved. That their community might look askance at them for this situation does not obviate the “fact” of the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the Greatest Story Ever Told and is not in itself evidence of hanky-panky on Mary’s part. Nowadays it has become vogue to regard all this as factual and strictly historical, so then all the selacious speculation occurs. But this attempt to nail down historical/cultural truth and argument avoids the core symbolic meaning of the entire virgin birth scenario. In order to achieve transcendence you read the symbols as signposts to lead you to the “kingdom of heaven on Earth” Once you start talking about all this as “fact”, you lose the meaning entirely and get caught up in silly pedantic discussions with schmucks like me. BTW, you present a nice case, just a little off the mark. Nicely done.
Hap: Love your artwork. Your transitions are a little choppy, but your pacing is nice and snappy. Just out of curiousity, what’s with the six wings? It makes a more impressive angelic figure and a nice change of pace from the standard Dore/classical fare. Interesting palette choice, especially the skin tones. Joseph’s ashy skin seems to imply that he’s in the dark, perhaps a visual cue to reveal this part of his attitude? Hmm. Overall, well done. I like your clean style and your application of the hues is very smooth. Well done.
Studawg: Dude, WTF are you talking about? Unless someone’s forcing you to log into this site, why are you here if you so strongly disagree with Hapa and have such unwarranted vicious comments? Golden Rule, man, do unto others…
The symbolism of the Immaculate Conception is not lost onto me. It was refined with your explanation of the Catholic Creed.
Symbolicly, I have no problems with the entire Jesus narative. It reflects many of the ancient stories of redemption and is contextualized to fit the audience (ancient Mediterranian, and Middle eastern society.)
I push the “factual” perspective because many Christians (Hapajap included I think) believe in the literal interpretation of the Jesus narative. While I have no reason to doubt that there was a historical person identified as Jesus of nazareth,aka Jesua ben Joseph etc., the circumstances of his birth and ressurection are particularly hard to accept as fact unless you believe in his divinity.
In the context of the society into which Jesus was born, while women were not always valued, their virginity and sexual repute was highly valued. This owing to the perception the state of the wife’s sexuality reflects upon the honour of the husband.
Verse 19 of the book of Matthew, illustrates that when Joseph found out the Mary was pregnant by means that would be viewed as dishonourable by his community (remember Christianity does not exist at this point – Joseph and Mary was simply just another family in the community), he decided to keep it secret (”put her away privily”). Obviously he would have to explain away the the pregnancy somehow since he decided not to simply claim the child as his own from the start.
The practice to explain away unintended pregnancies as I outlined it was accepted as perfectly rational at the time. Since Mary was pregnant by someone other than Joseph (This is where Mary’s Immaculate Conception dissipates. In the eyes of their community, Mary would had to have sexual relations outside of marriage to become pregnant and is thus no longer without sin.) and he did not claim that he was the father, there had to be another reason given that would satisfy the community and keep Joseph’s honour intact.
It is also possible that Joseph did claim Jesus to be his at the get go. But if so, then how can the bible backtrack and make claim of Jesus’ divine birth when he was an adult? The community would have grown to know Jesus as Joseph’s biological son. Of course, moving from Nazareth to Jeruselam would provide a degree of anonymity to Jesus and allow for such a transition, but it would weaken if not outright destroy the credibility of Jesus’ divinity.
‘Putting her away’ means leaving her, divorcing her, ’setting her free’. So your entire argument is false. Because he didn’t want to make her a public disgrace (is the specific definition of not making her a ‘public example’), which would have gotten her stoned to death, in those days.
Also, it’s not believing he’s divine that leads me to believe in his resurrection. It’s his historical resurrection that leads me to believe that he’s divine. You have it backward. At least in my case.
You’re simply not going to convince me that all the witnesses to his death and resurrection were ‘duped’ into dying tortured deaths at the hands of the Romans (as well as other Jews) for a lie. They watched him die. They watched him live again. Just like he said he would. That’s evidence of his divinity, and makes his virgin birth all the more believable and likely.
So Joseph, did not want to air out Mary’s “dirty laundry” and have her stoned to death (I can agree with this part.) decided he would rather “set her free”?
While divorce did not entail death by stoning, a divorced woman was practically condemned to spinsterhood and ostracization from the community. The husband’s family would not accept a divorced woman (although they would keep the dowry) and her own family (who had given her away to be married) could not take her back without taking on her dishonour of being divorced.
If your interpretation is correct, Joseph’s one hell of a nice guy.
Unfortunately there’s another problem with your interpretation: ‘Privily” means “in private” or secrecy. Thus Joseph would be divorcing Mary in private. And fronting that they were still a “happy couple” in public. This doesn’t sound like the characterization of “just” Joseph.
You do agree then that “evidence of his [Jesus'] divinity,…makes his virgin birth all the more believable and likely.” If so, then the reverse is also true: Scepticism in Jesus’ divinity makes this “virgin birth” harder to believe. Which is what I’m saying. Which is a reason that I am proposing that influenced Joseph to spread the claim that Mary’s pregnancy was miraculous as opposed to being the result of dishonourable behavior.
BTW, I can’t convince anyone of anything. In order for someone to changed their mind on a given subject, they have to convince themself.
People dying for what they believe in is not unheard of. However, it is not proof of that what they believe in was true.
Jesus not being white matters because Jesus wasn’t white. If you wrote/illustrated a story about Martin Luther King Jr, would you make him Hispanic? Would you portray Ghandi as black? Would you portray George Washington as Asian?
It’s important for historical and artistic integrity. Although, Hapa has proven many time he has no concern for either of those things.
I post here because it’s fun to poke at an idiot neo-con and openly mock him for his idiotic world views.
One person dying for a delusion is one thing. Hundreds, thousands of contemporaries who die for believing something they saw with their own eyes? Not so easy a pill to swallow.
If one is dead set against anything like that being possible because you refuse to believe in the supernatural, or in God specifically, then you believe so out of faith, not out of a reasoned evaluation of the historical record.
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
The next line in Matthew is : 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
So he wasn’t married per se as yet, but betrothed, which meant more than modern ‘engagement’. God told Joseph to chill out, the baby is of God, like Mary was saying, she’s not a whore, she wasn’t raped by a Roman guard. So Joseph took her to wife.
Because Liberals like Studawg are full of hate.
Liberals are full of hate? Hapa, you literally think that Jesus went around beating the shit out of people and blowing them up with magic god powers.
Also you were fired from every job you had because you are a hate-filled ass.
I don’t get where you think I’m drawing these people as ‘white’… My wife is Jewish. Her whole family is Jewish. I know what Jewish looks like. And yes, I know what Jews in Israel look like. They don’t look like Arabs, you know. Please buy a clue.
Listen to you, Saw, you’re just as full of liberal hate as Studawg.
Whether you think I’m full of hate or not does not change the fact that I’m right.
No you’re not. lol. You know squat, kid.
hapajap: I get the feeling that we had this conversation before – and neither was able to budge on the other. So I’m not going to get into whether or not Jesus’ resurrection was historical or symbolic. I also won’t argue with you about people (en masse) being willing to die for something they believe in not making what they believe in factual for the same reason.
Except to say.. Take a look at the extreme Islamic Jihadist that currently have you fearful. Despite condemnation from the international community – including other Muslims – these extremists are willing to plunge the entire world into global war (killing and dying to do so) simply because they believe in a literal interpretation of a book. (thats the extent of what they “witness”.)
I am an athiest not due to faith, but through reasoning. The simplified version is that I believe that humanity and life on Earth itself is simply a product of the right circumstances on a cosmic scale. The universe is so vast that there is enough space for a infinite variety of different environments. The environment on Earth just so happens to be conducive to carbon life forms. Call it a “cosmic accident” if you want. But I prefer to think of it as being a product of the right mix of variables.
If ‘an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters are bound to write the “Great American Novel”‘, then life on Earth just happens to be that novel.
This leads me to one basic conclusion – “We are nothing special.”
And certainly not special enough to warrant the attention of any “cosmic beings”. To believe that there is a God favouring mankind over any other part of the universe is pure narcissism. To believe that there is a God that can “create” the universe, means that he is outside of this universe to begin with. To create himself out of nothing would be to violate all of the Laws of the universe created and all of the Laws of Nature that mankind thinks he understands.
My faith in the benevolence of humanity (ultimately) is built upon observation and hope.
So verse 20 of the Book of Matthew basicly delivers the the killing blow to your argument that Joseph wanting to “divorce” Mary – seeing as how they were merely betrothed and not yet married. IE. they are not eligible to get divorced or have the marital relations that would have gotten Mary pregnant in the first place.
“God told Joseph to chill out, the baby is of God, like Mary was saying, she’s not a whore, she wasn’t raped by a Roman guard. So Joseph took her to wife.” – sure sounds like rationalization to me – especially considering the society in which Joseph lived in.
‘Divorce’ is one of the definitions. It has implications to what he was doing, it isn’t a direct and specific action. You want the whole definition of the Greek used? The point is that ‘putting her away’ did not mean ‘keeping her’. The exact opposite, which made your argument nonsensical.
Problem with your basic assertion, is that a single DNA molecule contains as much specific information as the entire library of congress. An eternity of eternities filled with innumerable monkeys banging away at innumerable typewriters could not come up with that kind of specific, self-correcting, programming.
You would be the first person here to tell us all how the Gospels hadn’t been written in the first few decades after Christ’s resurrection. (which I personally disagree with, but let’s move on with it) IF that were the case, then all those who had been killed for their faith were doing so not based on some book, but on actual witnesses. CONTEMPORARY witnesses.
You cannot conceive a circumstance where people only days, weeks, months, years after the public execution and humiliation of their spiritual leader, would DIE rather than say he hadn’t risen from the dead. PERSONAL EYE WITNESSES. People don’t die for things they know to be a lie. And certainly not people by the hundreds and thousands (ONLY talking about contemporaries of Christ now, not the millions who have died for their faith since then)
My argument is that Joseph – in not wanting to have Mary stoned to death – wished to keep the true nature of Mary’s pregnancy secret (privily). Thus he adopted the story of a Godly conception as a way to explain away the otherwise dishonorable pregnancy.
Your contention is that he preferred to “set her free” – unbetroth her if you will. The social ramifications of such actions are severe even it they don’t cause her death.
DNA – evolved and grew with the complexity of the organism it described. The modern human DNA strands did not magically appeared in it’s current form at the dawn of humanity. Of course, you would have to believe that it did to be able to accept the story of Adam and Eve- but I digress.
Do you fathom how big the universe is? To state that it is simply impossible for the universe, in all of it’s variation, to have one set of circumstances that would eventually lead to life as we know it, is akin to saying it is impossible to win the lottery. The odds of winning the lottery may be 32000000: 1, but if you play 32000000 times you are statisticly bound to win once. The universe is simply big enough to accomodate all of these variables. Consider that there are more than a billion stars in the Milky Way (a typical galaxy) and there are billions of galaxies in the universe. And within this universe there are are only 4 fundamental forces and 104 known element (comprised of 6 meson pairings) the number of possible variations is astronomical, but not infinite.
Have you hear of “Neda”. She is the young Iranian woman who was killed last week by the Iranian militia. Apparently, she was one of the peaceful protester (as opposed to the more violent ones that shared the streets with her) of the Iranian elction results. Her death was captured on video and Youtubed. Her death has galvanized many of her contemporaries to continue to protest despite the persecution and probable death that will result from doing so. (The Iranian authorities have promised to crack down on protester – including the use of the Iranian militia against it own citizens.) She accomplished this without preaching, preforming miracles or being ressurected.
The Viet Cong fought off the vastly superior military might of the French, Americans Chinese and Japanese occupiers to regain control of Vietnam. The Tamil Tigers fought for a homeland (they are regarded as terrorist by many). The Jews in the Polish Ghetto, struggled against the Nazis in the doomed Polish uprising. The American Colonists fought to come out from under British rule.
So yes, I can “conceive a circumstance where people… would DIE rather than” conform to the status quo.
Need I go on?
All those examples that I listed were of peoples who fought and died for their beliefs , knowing full well that they would be persecuted if they did and in some cases knowing that they would be safe if they did not.
Fighting and dying for an Idea – even on a mass scale- is not unique to Christians.
Your fallacy is that the universe is not infinitely OLD. It’s supposedly only 18 billion years old, which is not enough time for creatures to have evolved, if you do the math.
Yes, I’ve heard of Neda. And nobody is going to go to their deaths believing that she has risen from the dead, so the comparison is moot. As are your other examples. The early Christians weren’t fighting for anything. They were merely believing. And that belief was persecuted. And that belief was singular, that Jesus Christ died and rose again.
‘Status quo’ had nothing to do with it.
Actually, Hapajap, I want you to do the math and prove that 18,000,000,000 isn’t enough for life to evolve, and that it makes more sense for everyone to have magiced into existence. If you could work in Yu-Gi-Oh! cards or something equally retarded, that’d be great.
By the way, how did that pyramid scheme work you for you?
Firstly, while Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other local cultures did label unwanted pregnancies as a son of god, the Jews could not on religious grounds. The other cultures also would regularly proclaim people to have ascended to godhood or that they were living gods. The other cultures practiced a very open and inclusive religion where gods could be added at will. The Jewish religion did not allow for that and the Old Testament has repeated instances where they pushed against this. This is due to specific religious beliefs of the Jews.
If you look at Matthew 26:57-68, a claim of being a Son of God in Jewish law carried a death sentence; hardly a convenient way to get out of a marriage.
Mary would not necessarily be stoned as stoning was the punishment for adultery. She wasn’t married. Jewish law has no prescribed punishment for premarital sex, but a promiscuous woman would become an outcast.
Second, adoption was a valid practice in ancient times. Adoption in Judaisim was not always formal. In Jewish Law, the people who raise a child had the full rights of parents. An adopted child would inherit as if they were a birth child (Such as in Genesis where Ephraim and Menashe, who were children of Joseph, but inherited from Jacob due to his adoption of them). There were limitations. A child’s status as a Kohein, Levi was inherited through the birth parents (Joseph wasn’t one anyhow). A child’s status as a Jew was inherited through the mother. This means that Joseph’s lineage is important to trace Jesus as the legal descendant of David.
I think if you look closely, the angel is clearly white. Comparing the angel to Joseph and Mary, they are also clearly of a darker complexion. The hair also matches the sort of hair that would be commonly found in the Middle East. Now, mind you, the Jews in the Middle East have much more mixed ancestry than the ancient Jews, they are still distinct people from the Arabs you will find in Palestine. Remember that while the Arabs and Jews share a similar ancestry, the Jews that returned to Israel from the Diaspora have had some mixing with Europeans while the Arabs in the Middle East had significant intermixing with North African, Turkish, and Central Asian converts, which resulted in a very wide mix of appearances. I grew up on one of the largest Jewish communities in the US, and these two would fit right in.
As for the six wings, Seraphs are described in Isaiah 6:1 as having six wings. Gabriel is never described, but may very well have six. It looks great.
I myself am agnostic, but for goodness sake do more research before we start talking about people drinking baby’s blood.
Finally, I love the artwork. I have been looking forward to an update for a while. I wanted to see more of Imaginaries.
This iteration of this universe is 18 billion years old. There has been speculation that the other side of the Big Bang is the Big Crunch of a previous universe. And Fossil records of various species of animals, prove that creatures can evolve within the last 18 billion years. The Earth itself is thought to be 4.3 billion years old. So unless earthly creatures did not evolve to their current state within that time frame then they must have arrived to Earth from another location that supported life.
Neda’s death galvanized the Iranian protestor’s belief that action needed to be taken against the current Iranian authorities. There are now Iranians willing to express their unwillingness to tolerate that status quo in Iran and face persecution for doing so. This is akin to Jesus’ death and “resurrection” galvanizing the belief in Jesus’ teaching in early Christians.
“The early Christians weren’t fighting for anything. They were merely believing.” – For the past 2000 years the Jews have been persecuted for simply being Jews. They are persecuted for their set of beliefs and nothing more. A mass of people willing to be persecuted and killed simply for their belief. Jews could have avoided such misery simply by renouncing their heritage and beginning anew where they were not known. But they did not.
“And that belief was singular, that Jesus Christ died and rose again. ” –
Remember Horus? Guess how many days after he died was he resurrected and ascended to heaven? 3! Witnesses? – Yes. Thousands… In heaven he became a God.
The Buddhist believed that Buddha died and ascended to heaven as a bodhivistta and eventually an Atman. That he is then reincarnated as the Dalai Lama (same spirit/ soul/person – different earthly vessel).
Hapajap: you have exposed yourself. Your Christian-centric perspective on history has put blinders on you. You can defend it all you want, but the Christian narative is not original. Because it is not original, it resonates with many – allowing some people to convert to Christianity from their original belief set.
I can get Imaginaries up here again, if more people want to see it.
Damn, I missed out on the original Yu Gi Oh! joke.
Imaginaries was very promising. Put it up Hapajap
Tokker, re: “Mary would not necessarily be stoned as stoning was the punishment for adultery.” If according to Jewish law, you could not make a claim of divine conception and Mary did not get pregnant by Joseph, then how would she have gotten pregnant other than rape or adultery?
According to Tokker, “The other cultures also would regularly proclaim people to have ascended to godhood or that they were living gods.” Mary and Joseph’s society was a culturally mixed one. So at the time of Jesus’ death, claims of him assending to heaven is not unique.
Another blow to your “Christianity is unique” argument Hapajap.
Kuniakiraka, the point is not that they wouldn’t claim he is the Son of God, but that that claim in Jewish culture was a very serious one, and not the convenient way to explain an unwanted child. Because SHE WASN’T MARRIED, she could claim that she had premarital sex and not been stoned. Joseph accepted her, which gave her a household. Joseph obviously didn’t initially think it was the Son of God, because he wouldn’t consider this as an option. We never are told if Mary made claims to anyone other than Joseph that it was the Son of God. He only believed after a visit from an angel. He then accepted Mary. The neighbors obviously considered it settled. Also note that the claim that Jesus was the Son of God was not widely stated in his early life. The rumors around his birth were not about a Son of God, but a King.
That’s ascended to godhood, not to heaven. Elijah and Enoch also were claimed to have ascended to heaven. Jesus didn’t ascend to godhood. He was always God.
While the Earth is only 4.3 billion years old, that isn’t as relevant. People have been mixing metals semi-randomly in crucibles for thousands of years. Each crucible may be only a year old. Still, we don’t wonder so much that by adding the right amount of carbon to iron and apply the right sequence of heating and cooling makes martensite steel in a matter of hours.
Our planet may be one of many crucibles where parallel random processes play out over long periods. There may have been “seeding” of amino acids, DNA, maybe even bacteria from comets. There may have been actual transplantation of life forms by an alien intelligence. There may be an intelligence that is supernatural that is responsible for this.
The trouble is that a belief in a supernatural being is not something that can be argued on scientific grounds. The scientific method assumes (and not without justification) that the universe follows set natural laws. The entire concept of a SUPERnatural being is that is that is doesn’t follow these laws. I personally believe in a monotheistic god. I believe this god set laws that govern the action of the universe and which can be discovered and used by scientific means. I also believe that this god is still not limited to these laws and that they may be revoked at his whim.
Basicly, the theists and atheists keep throwing out these facts, such as the age of the universe, thinking that the other side will suddenly see the light. Were you there at the beginning? Were you involved in making the current set of observations? Did you read the papers written on this?
Or are you both just telling me facts you read in a book?
Also, the Dali Llama is the incarnation of Chenresig, not Siddh?rtha Gautama. Siddh?rtha Gautama has not yet been reincarnated. He achieved enlightenment and taught during his lifetime. Other Buddhist followers have achieved enlightenment and taught during reincarnations, depending on the sect you practice. Also, Budda is not a god, nor claims to be. Nirvana is not heaven. These are YOUR Christian-centric beliefs being mapped onto Buddisim.
You would find many similar incarnations in figures such as Mithras. I believe it would be within the rationale of Christian teaching that these legends were spread by diabolic forces to lead the faithful astray. In a similar way, there were many false messiahs in Jewish history who similarly were lead astray. The main difference is that Horus and Mithras are no longer worshipped. The two snakes were eaten by the snake of Moses.
I think I’m going to have fun with you Tokker. – I mean this as a gesture of respect.
First off, I though you posted “I myself am agnostic”. Not that it really matters as you arguments seem more thought out than some other posters on this forum.
I am an Athiest myself (pretty sure you guessed that from my previous summation).
Thank you for the clarification on the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation.
You are correct in that “Budda is not a god, nor claims to be. Nirvana is not heaven.” I did not claim these things. I brought up the Buddha as an illustration that Jesus is not the only figure to have been believed to have been ressurected. (I was going to mention the Greek fellow that returned from the Underworld, but I remember his name and thought the interpretation of “returning from the Underworld” was too open.)
From my understanding, Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment and Nirvana (blissful oblivion) opened itself up for him (metaphoricall speaking). But he rejected his claim on Nirvana so that he would be able to fullful his promise to “return when the path to Enlightenment is overgrown” – ie, be available to help others achieve enlightenment. As such he gain the status of Atman.
Re Mary and Joseph: So Joseph is convinced by an angel that Mary’s pregnancy is a miraculous one by an angel and goes about describing as such to his community? This would invite the severe penalty for such a claim.
Perhaps instead, Joseph accepts the angel’s explanation, adopts Mary’s unborn as his own, presents this to his community as fact and lives with the Secret that Jesus is not his biologically. This would be a satisfactory explanation.
Except that Joseph and Mary, as Jews, are forced to teach Jesus that he is God, but that he can’t reveal himself as such until adulthood or conceal the “truth” from Jesus and thus bear “false witness” against their own GOD. Can you imagine what it would be like to raise your own God? To dicipline Him when necessary?
In a culture that allows for accension into Godhood, it might be bearable, but in a monotheistic one, it would drive you mad.
I only mention Earth’s age as a counterpoint to Hapajap’s claim that ‘the universe is not infinitely OLD. It’s supposedly only 18 billion years old, which is not enough time for creatures to have evolved.’ On the issue of the evolution of life on Earth, I think that we are on the same wavelength.
“The main difference is that Horus and Mithras are no longer worshipped. The two snakes were eaten by the snake of Moses.” – This quote reaffirms the similarity between these figures- That they are all characterised as snakes. Typically, the conquering party envision themselves as something mightier than (or would prey upon) their opponents- in this case, a lion or falcon perhaps.
I believe Dionysus was also mentioned in this particular fellowship, though his story varied more than Horus, Mithras, and Jesus.
Thank you. Orpheus is the Greek you seek.
I was raised Catholic. I turned Agnostic. I heard a lot of these arguments over and over again and it frustrates me because they are the same old arguments with pretty straightforward answers. If I’m going to find any answers I’ll need something better than what I see. As the atheists are taking the active role, I push the opposite. I could ask why Jesus said that within the lifetime of some present he would return.
I agree that likely Joseph and Mary kept the news of the nature of Jesus to themselves. A claim like that would likely get them killed without strong proof, which is not mentioned. The Bible seems to indicate that Jesus was aware of his nature on his own (which is consistent, since he is God). At Cana, he knows his nature better than Mary does. The Gospel of Luke gives a hint to how much fun it was to raise a God when he wanders off and then chastises them when confronted.
My snake analogy was in reference to the magi in Egypt who duplicated Moses’ stick to snake trick, but had an inferior product. Interestingly enough, the place where Joseph and Mary fled after the birth was Egypt, where many of these mystery cults such as Horus or Isis originated.
Hapa, I would love more Imaginaries. It had a very interesting story. I saw issues 1-4 on WOWIO, but the artwork changed significantly after Issue 3. For the worse I might add.
I thought that Mithras was of the Gaelic or Celtic pantheon. Far removed from the Middle Eastern society at the time.
It perplexes me that Mary and Joseph could keep Jesus’ nature to themselves. Could you envision them attending a Sinagogue, giving worship at the altars there – with Jesus by their side. Or Jesus having to worship himself – all to keep his nature a secret? Some will argue that being God, Jesus was wise and mature enough to do so, but at age 4, doing so will make him noticable. Can you imagine Jesus’ bris (with his omniscience) and Bar Mitzvah (I’m a man, but I can’t reveal my true nature…)
Is “push[ing] the opposite’, to atheist, not an act of a theist – defence of the existance of a God? Correct my understanding if I’m wrong, but I thought an agnostic was unsure of the existance of godlike beings, though open to the possibility. Or believes that a godlike being exists, but doesn’t think that that being has any bearing on humanity (simply it doesn’t matter).
Apparently Tokker, you believe that a God like being exists. But it sound like you feel that the godlike being has some influence on humanity and the universe. Are you sure your not a Theist at Large? That is, someone who’s God doesn’t fit any of the currently accepted characterizations.
Agnostis is Greek for “I don’t know”. Many agnostics say, “I don’t know and you can’t either.” I say, “I don’t know, but that doesn’t mean nobody else does.” Deists believe in a God that created the world but doesn’t influence it. I am a theist, meaning I believe there is a God, but I am not sure of his nature. I don’t have anything I would call proof that God exists, but as I haven’t seen proof that he doesn’t, I have chosen to follow my gut and believe.
Mithras was a Persian deity worshiped widlely in mystery cults all around the Roman Empire around the time of Christ. It was especially popular with the Roman military.
It gets even better. Mithras was in fullblown competition to be the official religion of the Roman Empire and came quite close to beating out Christianity as the number one worship. But Constantine had a vision of the Chi Rho sign before a big battle and when he kicked ass and took names against all odds with the sign painted on all his soldiers’ shields, he made Christianity official. But if he hadn’t won that battle…we’d likely be worshipping the savior that sacrifices a bull rather than the one who sacrifices himself (ala Bacchus/Dionysus). Funny how things work out.
Let’s hope Hapajap read your last posts DerryJeffersonian. I posted the same sentiment about Constantine saving Christianity from oblivion by making it a state religion, but Hapajap would have none of it.
It seems to me that there are several “Archtypical” characteristics of the Savior of Man during Christ’s time and all those adopted as being Saviours of Mankind were attributed those characteristic. I wonder what the original person/ persons/ events were?