On Easter Sunday I watched the first episode of A.D.: The Bible Continues. I’d been seeing posters and billboards for it all over Los Angeles. The slogan “the crucifixion was only the beginning” was too hilarious to resist.
As many of you must know by now, I’m a bit of an amateur scholar of the historical Jesus. I’m a big fan of well-researched books on the subject. I was particularly fond of Zealot by Reza Aslan and I like most of Bart Ehrman’s books on the subject, such as How Jesus Became God.
Although most of what you can find in books like these has been known to scholars for a century or more, it’s only recently that books about the historical research on Jesus have been published for mass audiences. It’s good to see these kinds of books gaining popularity.
But riding on the success of these books, there have been a number of very popular fake historic books on Jesus. The most popular and perhaps the worst of the lot is Killing Jesus, allegedly “written” by Bill O’Reilly. For those of you outside the USA, Bill O’Reilly is a loudmouth conservative fake news guy with a show on late-night TV. O’Reilly does not write the books that are published under his name, but pays real writers to write them for him. Lots of books on the “Eastern Religions” shelf at your local Book Barn are also written in a similar fashion.
I was particularly disappointed when I saw billboards and ads on the sides of busses announcing that National Geographic – of all companies – was making a TV movie based on Killing Jesus. It makes me wonder if I can trust anything in National Geographic. I only read bits and pieces of “O’Reilly’s” Jesus book, but it’s abundantly clear from even the most cursory examination that it’s a poorly researched piece of fundamentalist Christian propaganda that has very little to do with real history. Still, I would’ve watched the movie if I had cable. Maybe I will once it becomes available on DVD or streaming.
But back to A.D., which I did watch. Prior to showing the first episode of the 12-part series, NBC ran an hour-long special about the making of it. I tuned in late, so I missed the beginning. Most of what I did see consisted of long interviews with the husband and wife team behind the series, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey.
They were clearly Bible-believing fundamentalist Christians. So I knew that I couldn’t expect their show to be very historically accurate. They also seem very into the burgeoning “mega-church” phenomenon in the USA. From a business standpoint that makes perfect sense. The folks who attend these massive, high-tech pseudo-churches are obviously going to be their core audience.
But mega-churches are not churches. They’re far too big and impersonal to provide anything more than spectacle and flash. Nothing the least bit “spiritual” is possible in the carnival atmosphere they provide. It’s like the difference between seeing Bruce Springsteen at a bar in Asbury Park, New Jersey in the early 70s when you could still have some kind of real contact with him and seeing him now from half a mile away as a member of an anonymous crowd at the back of some massive stadium. Buddhist centers that grow too damn big will eventually end up the same way. The day is coming when we’ll have our own mega-Buddhist centers. You mark my words, whipper-snappers!
One of the things Burnett and Downey said in their interview really struck me. They were asked about movies like Noah and Exodus and why those films didn’t do as well as their makers hoped. They said that Christians don’t like it when filmmakers change or reinterpret the Bible as the makers of those movies did. Their series, they said, adheres strictly to what is written in Scripture.
Well, not really. A.D. is hardly any truer to Scripture than those other films. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew we get a single line about Pontius Pilate’s wife, who is unnamed in the Gospel, having a dream about Jesus. In Matthew 27:19 it says, “When he (Pilate) was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” In the first episode of A.D. this is expanded into a large subplot concerning Pilate’s wife who is named Claudia in the series. Pilate’s wife did not gain the name Claudia until 1619 from a writer we now know as “pseudo-Dexter,” to differentiate him from the real Dexter, the serial killer who tracks down serial killers.
Furthermore we get a crucifixion scene that follows more or less Mark’s account followed by a resurrection scene that follows Matthew’s account. It’s commonplace these days for fundamentalist Christians to make mash-ups of the Gospels, ignoring their disagreements and simply including whatever parts they happen to like better.
These are just two of the most obvious examples of scriptural embellishment engaged in by these “fundamentalist” producers. Someone who was geekier than me about the story of Jesus could have spotted dozens more.
So what we get in A.D. is no more accurate than anything else we’ve seen on screen, even if you happen to hold the view that the New Testament is historically factual. It’s just more like what folks who go to mega-churches have been told is in the New Testament.
During the program NBC ran a commercial for Focus on the Family with adorable children quoting and embellishing John 3:16. According to Wikipedia, Focus on the Family, “promotes abstinence-only sexual education; adoption by married, opposite-sex parents; creationism; school prayer; and traditional gender roles. It opposes abortion; divorce; gambling; LGBT rights, particularly LGBT adoption and same-sex marriage; pornography; pre-marital sex; and substance abuse.” No comment there.
At the very least A.D. was entertaining. I’ll give it that much. The story of Jesus Christ and his early ministry is a damn good story. I’d have been interested in something more historical and real. But I suppose that’s asking too much from a company like NBC and executive producers like Burnett and Downey.
UPCOMING EVENTS
April 16, 2015 Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA HUMAN LIBRARY EVENT
April 24-26, 2015 Mt. Baldy, CA 3-DAY ZEN & YOGA RETREAT
May 16-17, 2015 Nashville, TN 2-DAY RETREAT AT NASHVILLE ZEN CENTER
July 8-12, 2015 Vancouver, BC Canada 5-DAY RETREAT at HOLLYHOCK RETREAT CENTER
August 14-16, 2015 Munich, Germany 3 DAY ZEN RETREAT
August 19, 2015 Munich, Germany LECTURE
August 24-29, 2015 Felsentor, Switzerland 5-DAY RETREAT AT STIFTUNG FELSENTOR
August 30-September 4, 2015 Holzkirchen, Germany 5-DAY RETREAT AT BENEDIKTUSHOF MONASTERY
September 4, 2015 Hamburg, Germany LECTURE
September 5, 2015 Hamburg, Germany ZEN DAY
September 10-13, 2015 Finland 4-DAY RETREAT
September 16-19, 2015 Hebden Bridge, England 4-DAY RETREAT
ONGOING EVENTS
Every Monday at 8pm I lead zazen at Silverlake Yoga Studio 2 located at 2810 Glendale Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90039. All are welcome!
Every Saturday at 9:30 am I lead zazen at the Veteran’s Memorial Complex located at 4117 Overland Blvd., Culver City, CA 90230. All are welcome!
Registration is now open for our 3-day Zen & Yoga Retreat at Mt. Baldy Zen Center April 24-26, 2015. CLICK HERE for more info!
Plenty more info is available on the Dogen Sangha Los Angeles website, dsla.info
* * *
I truly appreciate your kind donations! Thank you very much!
I’d like to see a show done that enacts the events in Jesus’ life done from the different gospels, that perhaps shows how they each disagree.
Rashomon Jesus. Excellent idea.
My PhD is in early Christianity and Judaism. I use Bart Ehrman’s Intro to NT in my Early Christianity. At a conference in London last summer on Jesus and the Life of Brian Bart commented on the fact that Life of Brian showed crucified individuals left to rot on their crosses. To back this up Bart found no evidence that the Romans allowed anyone to take down the bodies of those they crucified. This doesn’t disprove Jesus’ crucifixion but offers interesting questions about the subsequent “day of the walking dead”! BTW I also teach a course on Zen. It’s much more popular. We use Shut Up and Sit Down and Brad is our absent Zen master.
Thank you!
I’ve heard that Life of Brian is one of the most accurate Jesus movies.
Religious art is problematic. If religion inspires art, it can be sublime. If religion tries to use art to proselytize or tribally identify with, it can be nauseating crap.
Lots of Christian “music” of the last few decades is like the latter, though I think they’re getting clued, aesthetically.
I saw a Jesus movie, just which one now, I can’t say, which had Jesus quoting himself with no coherence, as if it was enough magically to hear the holy words. I’m glad Brad thinks this new one is entertaining, at least. Ideally, it should be transforming . . . Oh, wait . . .
If a work can be identified as religious then it serves religious purpose (meaning) and is therefor “tribally identify”ing. Why is that bad?
Your definitions are too narrow. Religion also has the purpose of “religing” the individual or group to what is greater. Even tribal religion does this.
Even tribal religion… what religion isn’t tribal?
“I’d have been interested in something more historical and real.”
That would probably be impossible.
Thanks for your review. I wouldn’t waste my time though. I already knew Burnett and Downey were serious “bible thumpers.” As for O’Reilly he is just one of many Fundamentalist Christians who work at FOX News. I saw an interview a few weeks ago with a man who represented Atheism and O’Reilly accused him of being a fascist. So according to O’Reilly those who do not believe in any deity are all fascists.
I’ll take Jesus Christ Superstar any day over any of these other acoounts.
My all time favorite!
I’ve got a cassette recording of an old Jack Van Impe rant just excoriating the film and its demonic message. It contains many hilarious clips of Jack furiously reciting lyrics. He’s essentially painting the Jesus of the film as the coming of the Anti-Christ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVr2uks0C8
Brad, Bill O’Reilly writes every word of his books. Every word. He said he does. Do you really want to call this guy a liar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy-Y3HJNU_s
That’s funny! He must’ve been having a bad day.
Somebody must’ve broke the internet. I typed in the letters… HardcoreZen.info … into google, and got this.
Hardcore? Zen? Hmmm?
… no point in letting it get me down, I guess… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
A reprise, if not a reprieve!
~~~~~0~~~~~
There’s some come here for to see me hung, and some to buy my fiddle
But before that I do part with her, I’ll break her through the middle
Sae rantinly, sae wantonly, and sae dauntonly gaed he
He played a tune and he danced around below the gallows tree
He took his fiddle in both of his hands, and he broke it o’er a stone
Saying: “There’s no other hand shall play on thee when I am dead and gone”
Sae rantinly, sae wantonly, and sae dauntonly gaed he
He played a tune and he danced around below the gallows tree
The reprieve was coming o’er the Brig of Banff, to set McPherson free
But they put the clock a quarter before, and they hanged him from a tree
Sae rantinly, sae wantonly, and sae dauntonly gaed he
He played a tune and he danced around below the gallows tree
And according to that same internet, jesus was a buddhis monk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY0Ib3aPG6Y
*buddhist … oh, no, it’s defo busted. Now it says he was a mushroom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtiMw0-akAM
Oh! Alright, I get the point of this post now.
Brad, you are Jesus! Ain’t ya? Ain’t ya?
Rays of the Absolute: The Legacy of Nisargadatta Maharaj
Something to watch while waiting for next week’s episode of ADHD: The Babble Continues.
“It’s in that book you hold up when you scream at gay people”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAvDtPz33w0
I was talking with a couple “energy workers” from The Netherlands once. They were saying that they knew how to astrally-project or leave the body for a while. However, they cautioned that the longest that one could leave their body was for three days, otherwise the connection would be permanently cut, or something like that.
So that made me think of the Jesus story and I mentioned that to them. Their response was that in The Netherlands, a person is not officially declared dead until three days after their heart has stopped beating.
Beautifully executed Fred II
“An angel of the Lord had come down from heaven, rickrolled the stone away, and … Christ rose the third day after his death”
It could be a Bhakti yoga to listen to love songs with “you” understood as referring to the divine. The Bee Gees ‘how deep is your love’ transforms to something rumi might have written.
There are certain artists I’ve always sort of done this with to some degree as it’s seemed appropriate–Van Morrison, Cat Stevens, The Crucifucks. I also like to substitute the word “drugs” for “love.” It’s shocking how well it works in most songs. “All You Need is Drugs,” “keep on pushin’ my drugs over the border,” “I’m All Out of Drugs,” “I Don’t Want to Lose Your Drugs Tonight.” The list is pretty much endless.
Brilliant. “How Deep Is Your Drugs?”
I’m a Crucifucks fan, too, Die KreuZen, Boy Dirt Car…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoZGxJF6RpE
“In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius.”
(“Gospel Fictions”, Randel Helms, pg 9)
If I recall correctly, Ehrman quotes this very text in one of his books about early Christianity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBOgH5f36cQ
Mumbles,
Funny you should provide link to that song. I was once in a bar where two folk musician types were playing mostly classic rock covers on accustic guitars. I requested “All You Need is Drugs” and they actually played it, but they drew the line when I requested “Cinnamon Girl” as “Heroin Girl.”
How about “Lucy in the sky with drugs” or “Girls just want to have drugs” or “Like a virgin on drugs” or “Since you’ve been gone I’ve been on drugs” or “stanin alive on drugs” or “Singin’ in the rain on drugs.”
Interestin’! I picked Killdozer doing Neil Young only because Mark’s (also) a NY fan.
Brad, you say you’re an amateur scholar on “historical Jesus” and have read many books by Bart Ehrman. I bought and read his Misquoting Jesus by your recommendation back in the day when you did that kind of thing and it was pretty informative and good. But have you had a look at what some scholars who oppose Ehrman’s view are writing about Jesus and his supposed historicity? I think Richard Carrier had a lengthy debate with Ehrman when Ehrman’s book came out, and Carrier has written also a book that describes his own take on the matter: http://www.richardcarrier.info/jesus.html
I just ordered Carrier’s latest Jesus book. Before I read this comment (sorry). It sounds interesting. Most people who write stuff denying there was a historical Jesus tend to be loonies with Looney axes to grind who believe all kinds of silly stuff. Yet Carrier knows this and still seems to find reliable evidence (he says) that Jesus didn’t exist.
It’s hard for me to believe that there was never any historical Jesus at all. There are elements of the story that just don’t seem made up. Like, OK, maybe the crucifixion was made up so that they could have a made-up resurrection. But why all this weird stuff of trying to prove he was born in Bethlehem although he was raised in Nazareth? If you were just gonna make a guy up from nothing, why not have him be born and raised in Bethlehem? Why the baptism by John? It doesn’t help establish a fictional Jesus as the Son of God to have him baptized by someone else for sins he supposedly did not have.
Those sorts of details make me believe there is a historical core to the gospel stories. But I haven’t read Carrier yet. Maybe he’ll convince me.
Nazareth is middle of provincial nowhere. Bethlehem is just outside the capital. If I was concocting the story, I would limit the risk of being contradicted by thousands of reliable witnesses.
It’s similar to why ufo stories happen in Roswell and not Central Park. (Although personally I don’t much care if there was a historic Jesus or not)
Similarly the baptism of Jesus ties him to a well attested historical figure, John the Baptist, so it adds a bit of circumstantial probability to the ruse.
Same for Joseph going to Bethlehem for the memorable Roman census etc.
Do tell us, here or in Facebook, what you think of Carrier’s book when you read it! I’ve read some of his blog postings and while his arguments seem sound, to a non-scholar the whole issue becomes a “he said vs he said” thing in the end.
My personal vibe, too, is that there probably was a historical figure behind the whole Jesus thing, but 2000 years of purposeful myth-making makes it pretty difficult if not downright impossible to dig up the truth of the matter.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/
Martin Armstrong has a rather sophisticated AI model of the global economy he’s spent the better part of 25 years developing, taking into account virtually the entire history of the world economy. He spent 10 years in prison for refusing to turn it over to the U.S. government. This model of his, which he calls “Socrates,” points to a collapse in a bubble in government bonds starting in early October, which he literally calls the “2015.75 big bang” that will precipitate a collapse in confidence. It’s as good a guess as any.
In other news: this is 123.98% historically accurate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s5Uz8XSc-Y
Never gonna give drugs up
Awesome. Though I usually substitute the word “Jews” for “you.”
Jesus got nothin’ on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOCWma5vOiQ
She seems somewhat conflicted. But in a good way. Maybe even in a wholly way.
Kathleen Hanna ROCKS!
I once saw Bikini Kill play in the basement of a weird art gallery in St. Paul, MN. At one point, Kathleen Hanna stopped the show to angrily ask “Why are there so many GUYS up front?” She then demanded that all “guys” (she sort of spat the word out in disgust) move to the back and wouldn’t resume until there were only girls up front. I seem to recall that there weren’t that many grrls who actually wanted to be up front, but there were some, and that was enough for the show to resume.
Growing up, I often saw kids self-segregate along ethnic lines in school lunch rooms, and I’ve been in plenty of family gatherings and such where the men and women tend to drift into separate rooms, seemingly uninterested in each other’s conversation. But I believe that’s the only time in my life I’ve ever seen a group of people openly, deliberately and forcefully segragated by unchangeable physical characteristics. And it was at a punk show.
It was a good show though, and it made for interesting conversation afterwards.
Kathleen Hanna Honored With ‘Riot Grrrl Day’ in Boston
Sounds dangerous, someone should stop them.
Janis Ian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwzIqPRJ2hQ
Coffee today, after a three-day fast.
Look what I found; I had the honor to be thrown by this man, once upon a time in Palo Alto:
“Ki Principles by Koichi Tohei
The following collection is meant to help understanding of the unification of mind and body in different situations of the daily life and show some possibilities to practise
4 Basic Principles for the unification of Mind and Body
These Basic principles form the foundation of the Ki-Aikido
Keep One Point
Relax Completely
Keep weight underside
Extend Ki
For each of these four basic principles there are 5 principles to clarify.
5 Principles to keep the One Point
Do not feel the lower abdomen
Do not feel the weight of the body on your feet
Do not feel your breath
Let everything be absorbed in the One Point
Send all the power from the One Point
5 Principles to Relax Completely
Put the power of each portion of the body in its natural place
Relax without loss of power
Keep the greatest position for your body
Keep the strongest position for your body
Do not be aggressive
5 Principles to Keep Weight underside
Keep a comfortable position
Do not feel the weight of your body
Let the Ki expand to its maximum
React at the right moment in the right way
Perceive with clearness
5 Principles to Extend Ki
do not feel the body
Feel the centrifugal force
Have a gentle expression
Keep the calmest possible position
Be free and clear
5 Principles for Health
Know that your life is protected by the universe
Before sleeping change to positive thoughts and then sleep
Be grateful when you eat
Eat mainly vegetables
Don’t be selfish
5 Principles of being popular amoung people
Always extend ki
Do the necessary things others don’t want to do
Don’t make promisses which you might not be able to keep
Always be happy if other people succeed
Arrange everything properly after finishing a task”
(from here)
“Let everything be absorbed in the One Point”–
My rendition: “When I allow what I feel to enter into where I am, then my awareness remains free, and I can relax and keep my wits about me.”
“Put the power of each portion of the body in its natural place”–
My rendition: “When we really live from where we are, we discover that everything and everyone around us is a part of where we are, and that our actions truly belong to where we are.”
“Do not feel the weight of your body”–
My rendition: “an awareness that shifts location freely in the body can come about as a matter of course, as the ability to feel informs the sense of location and the weight of the relaxed body generates stretch and activity in the movement of breath.” Gautama speaks of the saturation of the body with absorption and ease, “with no part left out”; it’s the old walking in the fog metaphor, resulting in the seven-pound cloth shirt (of Chao Chou; case 45), the sense of weight coupled with proprioception (“with no part left out”), informing the sense of location. “With no part left out” is an entirely different horse from “the whole body”, is all I can say.
“Do not feel the body”–
My extraordinary rendition of the suspect, tortured though some may find it:
“Although an emphasis on the sense of place and the contribution to the sense of place of proprioception may be appropriate in the setting up of mindfulness, a return to the senses out of necessity in the movement of breath precludes thought directed and sustained. The abandonment of activity in the body that is occasioned by “making self-surrender the object of thought” will at some point touch on the habitual activity connected with the movement of breath, and at the moment the breath is “cut off” in the surrender of activity, relaxation brings a return to the senses without the application of thought applied and sustained.”
That doesn’t sound much like extending anything, but there’s this:
“The zazen that gets up and walks around resembles sleep-walking, in that action occurs in a state where volition in activity has been surrendered.
Kobun cautioned that “people who are moving around outside” are a part of the practice of zazen. The notion that the things that enter into the practice of zazen are not limited by walls can be startling, yet Gautama’s descriptions of the further meditative states would indicate that the boundary for the things that enter into practice stretches well beyond what is considered the normal range of the senses.
Gautama’s description, which I contend is the extension of ki in the actualization of the fundamental point, as practice makes necessary:
“[One] dwells, having suffused the first quarter [of the world] with friendliness, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; just so above, below, across; [one] dwells having suffused the whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mind of friendliness that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. [One] dwells having suffused the first quarter with a mind of compassion… sympathetic joy… equanimity that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence.”‘
What’dya think, gals and guys, too much coffee?
“…at the moment the breath is “cut off” in the surrender of activity, relaxation brings a return to the senses without the application of thought applied and sustained.”
To continue in no action, just relaxation, at the moment the breath is “cut off” is like this:
“You who sit on the top of a 100 foot pole,
Although you have entered the Way, it is not yet genuine
Take a step from the top of the pole
And the entire world becomes your body”
(Mumonkan (case 46) and the Book of Serenity (case 79))
three-day coffee fast, that is!
Nothing about Yehoshua ben Yousef (or ben Maryam, as it were) gets written down before the third century (with the exception of the Epistles, where Paul rants about his connexions with the house of Caesar and gloats about his converts burning their books of science).
I once heard a Jesuit archeologist mention that there seem to be no trace of Nazareth before the first century; and a great many of the elements present in the Gospels are obviously borrowed from other sources (without even mentioning the Buddhist ones).
So I think that the most probable is that there was a figure who did exist in Palestine at the time, and also that the name was about as current as John Smith in the USA nowadays. But we’ll never be able to know anything serious about the man.
Most of the non-Gospel official “knowledge” about him is directly borrowed from other, more ancient mythologies.
Mythra was born in a cavern at midnight on the night of the 24th of December (the Gospels imply that he was born in March or April).
Some other oriental gods died and came back to life, including Dyonisos/Bacchus.
And so on.
Hell! There are still people who knew personally Einstein or Churchill and that doesn’t keep people from attributing them things they never actually said!
So we can rest assured that, even if THE Jesus of the Gospels had actually been real, we can be sure of nothing about that.
I agree Michel. It’s easy because we are all fictitious characters. One’s opinion is this, another’s is that. You can be called a lot of things, a baby, a son, a brother, a cousin, an uncle, a husband, a father, a teacher, a fool, etc., but who is the sum of all the parts? A personal name?
Anyone chasing after the “real” story, or the “truth” is chasing their own “tale.”
Any biography has the potential to titillate, to entertain. I found this book pretty entertaining, at least for as long as it took to read (it’s fast): http://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/0812981480
“The experts have weighed in and found Aslan’s book Zealot to be, well, basically bad.” (Many informative links in that article.)
It is also important to remember that despite all of their other academic degrees, neither Reza Aslan nor Bart Ehrman are accredited historians. From Wikipedia:
“Aslan holds a BA in religious studies at Santa Clara University, an MTS at Harvard Divinity School, an MFA at the University of Iowa’s Writers’ Workshop, and a PhD in sociology, focusing on the sociology of religion, at the University of California, Santa Barbara.”
“Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible and its original languages at Moody Bible Institute, where he earned the school’s three-year diploma in 1976. He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor’s degree. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.”
Something wrong with that link. Try this one:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4391#more-4391
“…at the moment the breath is “cut off” in the surrender of activity, relaxation brings a return to the senses without the application of thought applied and sustained.”
Mark said:
‘To continue in no action, just relaxation, at the moment the breath is “cut off” is like this:
“You who sit on the top of a 100 foot pole,
Although you have entered the Way, it is not yet genuine
Take a step from the top of the pole
And the entire world becomes your body”
(Mumonkan (case 46) and the Book of Serenity (case 79))’
Good point. How many do you think can relinquish the old sense of self and jump off into the world?
“As a writer everyone agrees he’s top notch.” -(Richard Carrier from G.C.’s link on Aslan)
I didn’t say it wasn’t bullshit, I said it was entertaining.
“Do not feel the lower abdomen
Do not feel the weight of the body on your feet
Do not feel your breath”
(Koichi Tohei, “Principles to keep the One Point”)
“11. To you who wants to strengthen your hara with zazen
“Through zazen you strengthen your hara”
Knowing that this hara isn’t worth a damn is real hara and real zazen.
Some people want to strengthen their hara with zazen so that they will be able to scare the bill-collector away with a roar. But they don’t need zazen for that, they just have to drink sake like real men.
There are books around like “Zen and the Art of Cultivating Your Hara”. This hara culture is just about making yourself numb.
Some try to become thick-skinned through zazen.
Developing real hara means putting aside your personal attitudes.
If it’s even the slightest bit personalized, it isn’t pure, unadulterated zazen. We’ve got to practice genuine, pure zazen, without mixing it with gymnastics or satori or anything. When we bring in our personal ideas — even only a little bit — it’s no longer the buddha-dharma.
In a word, Buddhism is non-self [muga]. Non-self means that “I” am not a separate subject. When “I” am not a separate subject, then I fill the entire universe. That I fill the entire universe is what’s meant by “all things manifest the truth”.
In true dharma there’s nothing to gain. In false dharma there’s something to gain.
The way of buddha means that there is nothing to seek, nothing to find [mushogu-mushotoku]. If there’s something to find, no matter how much we practice, it’s got nothing to do with the buddha-dharma. If there’s nothing to find [mushotoku], that’s the buddha-dharma.”
(“To You”, Kodo Sawaki, here)
“How many do you think can relinquish the old sense of self and jump off into the world?”- I think it helps to be familiar with relaxation in the auto-induction of trance. I used to have a tape cassette with the whole relaxation, parts of the body getting heavier, breathing in- breathing out routine.
How sacrilegious of me. This morning I find I rely on what I’ve learned, in my writing, and yet I also turn around: ‘…at the moment the breath is “cut off” in the surrender of activity, relaxation brings a return to the senses…’ That would be my “pure, unadulterated zazen”. And it’s nothing I actually do, but there is the extension of ki, the “I fill the entire universe”, in the senses that actualizes the fundamental point (“people on the other side of the wall sit zazen; they don’t take the posture”, said Kobun).
Misquoting Kobun, as usual:
“Sitting shikantaza is the place itself, and things. The dynamics of all Buddhas are in it. When you sit, the cushion sits with you. If you wear glasses, the glasses sit with you. Clothing sits with you. House sits with you. People who are moving around outside all sit with you. They don’t take the sitting posture!”
Aikido is bullshit.
The Gospel According to Biff is the book you need to read.
Paul’s letters, and life, seem to me to be the best evidence that an actual person named Jesus lived and died in Palestine. Paul was definitely an actual person, who helped establish the early Christian communities around the Mediterranean. These communities actually existed, beyond any doubt. They grew rapidly during this time, and posed lots of problems for the Romans and Jews alike. One has to ask where they came from so quickly, if not from an actual Jesus who had just lived and died, and from his followers?
It’s important to remember that while Paul never saw Jesus, he joined the Christian community and became a prominent leader of it some 12 years after Jesus’ death. He knew intimately most of Jesus’ disciples, who had been with him while alive. He wasn’t a rube or an idiot, and I think he would have been able to tell if these people had just invented Jesus out of their imaginations and local mythologies. So I think there’s little doubt that Jesus actually lived, and actually died. The details of his life and teachings are certainly up for grabs. The scholars and historians are certainly still arguing about a lot of that. Paul’s letters, for example, fail to mention all sorts of things now commonly accepted as core teachings or “gospel truths”. It’s certainly possible, even likely, that a lot of that stuff came later, and was added onto the historical record. But the fact that Jesus lived does not appear to be in any doubt to Paul, and his are the earliest surviving writings from the Christian era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
The guy Carrier has a good counter argument to what you say there Conrad. I don’t know if he’s right, but check out a couple of his lectures on YouTube. I would have agreed with you on the Paul thing without question before I saw them… now not so sure.
will watch it later and tell you what I think
“In a word, Buddhism is non-self [muga]. Non-self means that “I” am not a separate subject. When “I” am not a separate subject, then I fill the entire universe. That I fill the entire universe is what’s meant by “all things manifest the truth”.
In true dharma there’s nothing to gain. In false dharma there’s something to gain.”
In true dharma I doesn’t fill the whole universe. The whole universe fills I; I is forgotten. There’s nothing to gain because there’s no one to gain it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRxjUfRqA-k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiYNaL81BHc
“Truth can only come to people in the form of a lie – only in this form are they able to accept it; only in this form are they able to digest and assimilate it. Truth undefiled would be, for them, indigestible food” -G.I. Gurdjieff
“Since the very word, Islam, means surrender, it suggests releasing oneself from the preoccupations of the self.”
“In reality the goal is annihilation and non-being.” -Khwaja Ahrar
My take is rather that Christianity is an INVENTION of Shaül of Tarsus…
Actually, a good examination seems to show that efficient religions are started by impostors. Take Smith and the Church of the Latter Saints, take Hubbard and Scientology, take Deshimaru and the AZI. I don’t see why Paul should escape that…
What a coincidence! I was just learning about Mormons this morning.
I didn’t even mention Muhammad of which the Quran and the haddiths say that he was a liar…
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3702
It doesn’t sound like he was very enlightened, disrespecting that fig tree and all.
The real, vigorous examination of the truth of the matter would seem to indicate something else.
“take Deshimaru and the AZI” Why was Deshimaru an impostor, Michel?
Maybe he was so enlightened, he had arguments with bushes that onlookers could not comprehend. Maybe the fig intentionally insulted Our Lord and Savior, and Jesus’ curse was a karmic comeback designed to counterbalance the recalcitrant plant’s misstep and ultimately benefit the personal evolution of a selfish fruit tree.
On the other hand:
One enlightened thought, and you’re a Buddha. One deluded thought, and you’re back to being a deluded being. Evidence of delusion is not, by itself, evidence of non-enlightenment.
Deshimaru
“. His teaching — direct, concrete and rooted in daily life — encouraged disciples to be beyond thinking (hishiryo), without any interest in personal profit (mushotoku), and free to follow the cosmic order “unconsciously, naturally and automatically.”
A Sunday afternoon fig from a barren tree:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5waN3GOxjjo
Well, he was an impostor, I think, based on a series of evidence; but what must be said of him, however, as a caveat, is that despite this, he was a kind man, he used his imposture to give meaning to his life and that of others, and he truly cared for those who came and put themselves in his guidance.
This said, he obviously never truly studied with Sawaki, though the latter was a friend of D’s family, it is more than probable that his claim of having been ordained by Sawaki was pure BS, and more catastrophically, his followers kept on that trail without having the caring for others that D had.
Thanks, Michel
Michel said…”I didn’t even mention Muhammad of which the Quran and the haddiths say that he was a liar…”
Chapters and verse, please?
Haven’t watched the whole video, but I get the gist of it so far. Not really impressed with his argument on “euhemerization,” though I love the word. For one, it’s one of those “just so” stories, where no matter what evidence or accounts one can come up with to counter it, he can always just claim “well, that was made up too”. It starts to sound like a massive conspiracy theory that becomes increasingly implausible.
Not that euhemerization doesn’t occur. Certainly it has. It’s just that usually it takes a long time, or creates a mythic past so long ago that no one can say it never happened. But Paul’s vision of Jesus came just 12 years after Jesus’ alleged crucifixion. It’s within living memory of virtually all adults of his time, the people he would have to have been preaching to all through Israel. If he’d just invented the whole story himself, or been told it by an “angel”, wouldn’t most people say call bullshit and remind everyone that no such person had existed so short a time before? Where did Paul find all these gullible people? How did he recruit so many intelligent and highly-motivated apostles who would conspire with him to pretend Jesus had actually lived so short a time ago?
I’m sorry. It just doesn’t make sense to me. It just goes to show that even atheists are inclined to believe bullshit if it suits their own worldview. I think it’s perfectly plausible that Jesus was just a saint or a holy man or even a delusional crazy, who later got turned into a living Incarnation. But let’s keep in mind that people thought to be living Incarnations of God are legion throughout history. Hinduism has a whole category of “Avatars”, some in modern historical time (such as Ramakrishna) who are well documented. So it’s really not terribly hard to imagine a man named Jesus who either thought he was a Divine Incarnation, or who other people believed was one. Unless one is so determined to deny any reality to Christianity that one can’t even accept that such a guy could ever have lived, but somehow had to be made up.
And let’s keep in mind, that even Joseph Smith, and Mohammed too, didn’t claim that their angels were living men who walked the earth. They could have, just to add more power to the idea, but they didn’t. Why would early Christians have done that, when clearly they didn’t need to?
Restating what I wrote below because I replied to these comments starting with the newest one first…
The Christian religion most likely began with the “revelatory visions” of the Apostles and the exoteric and esoteric meanings that they found in the Old Testament scriptures. Carrier points out that the problem with “revelatory visions” was that an organized church could not control what a “celestial vision of Jesus” said to people. There were many competing heretical groups during the early years of Christianity for exactly that reason. The euhemerising Gospels were most likely written as a deliberate attempt to control what the official church doctrine would be. If there were a limited number of authorized Apostles during a limited historical period, new revelations would carry less or no authority, unless they agreed with the official doctrine, of course.
His cargo cult analogy also sounds interesting at first, until you ask yourself, well, what started Christianity?
It’s important to remember that the origins of the cargo cults were real: giant metal flying machines filled with valuable goods really did land on these remote islands, powered by magical powers no doubt, and really did unload amazing and valuable things, some of which were given to the islanders. So the cargo cult had a real-life origin, even if it evolved into a fanciful religious explanation with a savior figure at the head of it.
But what real-life event could have triggered the myth of Christianity and the invention of Jesus? Carrier doesn’t say, and he doesn’t even think he needs to say. He just assume that primitive people make shit up all the time for no reason. Which they don’t. They have to have a really miraculous thing happen which defies explanation, to make up miraculous religious explanations for it.
Another problem with the cargo cult explanation is the difference between Roman-Helenic-Jewish culture in Jesus’ time and that of the polynesian natives. Simply put, there’s a much more sophisticated culture with a sense of history and rational thought and even theology in Biblical Palestine that isn’t so likely to ignore the recent past and simply make things up out of nowhere. Not unless something really amazing and seemingly miraculous had occurred in the real world.
I also notice he focuses on the lack of surviving written material from early Christianity, except for Paul’s letters and the Gospel of Mark. But what he neglects to mention is the large and growing community of Christians living not just in Jerusalem or Palestine, but all around the Mediterranean. What these people actually believed may not be clear because it wasn’t written down, but that they existed and were practicing a new sect of Judaism that soon evolved into a new religion, is not in question. The growth of Christianity preceded the written record. It didn’t just spring up out of nowhere. It had an origin, and it certainly appears that its origins preceded Paul as well, because there were other Christians who were already spreading the “good news”. So it seems quite unlikely that Paul just made it all up, and somehow got his new made up sect of Judaism to spread so quickly, with so many people believing in this invented figure of Jesus, so shortly after his alleged life was over.
Again, the idea that the figure of Jesus became divinized after his death in a manner that may not have been the case while alive is quite plausible, but the idea that he didn’t live at all and was just invented simply doesn’t seem at all plausible without some sort of powerful real-world spark and much more time for it to develop into a powerful myth.
“His cargo cult analogy also sounds interesting at first, until you ask yourself, well, what started Christianity?”
The “revelatory visions” of the Apostles and the exoteric and esoteric meanings that they found in the Old Testament scriptures.
Carrier points out that the problem with “revelatory visions” was that an organized church could not control what a “celestial vision of Jesus” said to people. There were many competing heretical groups during the early years of Christianity for exactly that reason. The Gospels were most likely written as an attempt to control what the official church doctrine would be. If there were a limited number of authorized Apostles during a limited historical period, new revelations would carry less or no authority, unless they agreed with the official doctrine, of course.
Thanks, Mumbles- I’ve been thinking to Google that song. I’m midway in “Special Deluxe”.
I believe Jesus was an historical figure, because of the Gospel of Thomas. I guess I’ve said it before. His voice is like no other I have found, and yet there are parallels in other of the wisdom literature of the world.
“oh, friend of mine: don’t be denied”-
our most primal need
to be right where we are, as
consciousness takes place
(uh- that’s me, from Dao Bums haiku chain)
when you make
eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand
in the place of a hand, and a foot in the place
of a foot, (and) an image in the place of an image,
then shall you enter [the Kingdom].
(The Gospel According to Thomas, coptic text established and translated by A. Guillaumont, et. al., pg 18-19 log. 22)
Right where, as an image in the place of an image, leaves nothing to be desired? Aw, it’s all perfect anyway- right John? 🙂
So you are saying that you really, really like the Gospel of Thomas, therefore Jesus must have been a real person? That is what is known as the fallacy of non sequitur. Sure, somebody wrote the Gospel of Thomas. It might even contain philosophical truths. But that has no evidentiary value, none at all, regarding the existence of Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUhfmxXZhQk
Also I need to point out a contradiction in Carrier’s own argument. He quote Corinthians 15:1-8 in support of the notion that Paul never mentions Jesus actually preaching or having a ministry, only that his teachings came to Paul through “revelation and scripture”. And yet, if Paul, living in those early days before the Gospels were written, was aware of a written scripture that he himself attributes his own preachings to, how can Carrier say that there was no written record until Mark appears 50 years after Jesus’ death? Clearly, Paul had read scriptural accounts of Jesus’ story, and even Carrier uses that as evidence that Jesus’ story had already become a ‘scriptural myth’.
You can’t have it both ways. If Paul was already reading written accounts of Jesus’ story that were being passed around the Christian community, Christianity had to have existed before Paul. If Paul had read those accounts, from which the later Gospels were written, we can’t say that those later accounts were just based on Paul and later Christian fabrications. They would have had a pre-Gospel written record to refer to in their construction.
Now, it’s certainly true enough that Paul seems to have based a lot of his interpretation of Jesus as a cosmic God on the mystical revelations he experienced from the beginning of his conversion. But that doesn’t mean there was no living Jesus who had preceded these experiences. Paul is quite clear that he was not there to witness Jesus’ life and death, and that his testimony is based on Divine Revelation, and is thus the basis for other Christians who had not been alive in the time of Jesus to practice Christianity on the basis that Christ was fully alive and fully effective. So that was the thrust of Paul’s entire experiential argument: that Jesus had become a cosmic Presence to him, and thus could be experienced by everyone, not just those who had known him in the flesh.
So of course Paul’s story, and even Paul’s Jesus, differs from the Jesus that his apostles told stories about, some of which they apparently had written down, along with his sayings. They hadn’t had mystical visions of Jesus, they had known him in the flesh and told stories of his embodied life. Paul hadn’t, but had met Jesus in Spirit – as would all Christians from that time forth. So the two create a kind of balance to one another. It’s not an example of ‘euheremization’, it’s the result of two different kinds of experience.
“He quote Corinthians 15:1-8 in support of the notion that Paul never mentions Jesus actually preaching or having a ministry, only that his teachings came to Paul through “revelation and scripture”. And yet, if Paul, living in those early days before the Gospels were written, was aware of a written scripture that he himself attributes his own preachings to, how can Carrier say that there was no written record until Mark appears 50 years after Jesus’ death?”
The “scripture” that Paul refers to in his letters is the Old Testament, not the Gospels. Nearly every historian and Biblical scholar agrees that Mark was the earliest Gospel, written between 65-70AD. Paul’s authentic letters were all written between 50-65AD.
“So of course Paul’s story, and even Paul’s Jesus, differs from the Jesus that his apostles told stories about, some of which they apparently had written down, along with his sayings. They hadn’t had mystical visions of Jesus, they had known him in the flesh and told stories of his embodied life.”
We do not have any primary source for what the Apostles experienced other than Paul’s authentic letters. Paul writes almost exclusively about a celestial Jesus except for a few ambiguous references that could be either celestial or terrestrial, even writing about the other Apostles.
In the question and answer period of the video above (at about 1:00:00), Carrier talks about some of the Nag Hammadi documents, one of which was in the process of being written. A collection of sayings of Eugnostos was being rewritten as a narrative story with those same sayings attributed to Jesus. This seems to have been a common practice and could easily explain the canonical Gospels. Whether or not the Gospels include things that the celestial Jesus allegedly said to the Apostles during their “revelatory visions” is impossible to know.
Another example that I thought of is the Tao Te Ching. There is much doubt that Lao Tzu was an historical person and the book attributed to him is most likely a collection of wise sayings and/or the summation of a philosophy developed by several generations of philosophers.
Having finished Carrier’s video, I have to say I’m not very impressed. I suppose anything is possible, but his case is not very strong if one takes a critical view of his work also. He endlessly points to evidence for Jesus’ historical presence in Paul as “ambiguous”, but that’s really, really stretching it. Paul is not ambiguous. And if he were making shit up, why would he be ambiguous at all? When people lie, they tend to do so by making bold, clear statements, not ambiguities. So even that makes no sense.
The one part of the presentation that did give me pause, however, was the material about Philo of Alexandria, a prominent Jewish theologian of the day, supposedly describing a Jewish belief at that time in an archangel named Jesus. I hadn’t heard of that before, so I did some googling, and came up with this:
https://thirdmillennialtemplar.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/richard-carriers-appeal-to-philo-of-alexandrias-christology-call-for-research-project-proposals-at-end/
Looks like a pretty sound and rational refutation of Carrier’s use of that material to cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus.
“Paul is not ambiguous.”
In some instances he apparently is ambiguous.
“And if he were making shit up, why would he be ambiguous at all?”
Maybe Paul did not realize that he was being ambiguous. Maybe he was not “making shit up,” but just reporting his personal experiences of what he believed was a “celestial Jesus” and his interpretations of Old Testament scripture.
“When people lie, they tend to do so by making bold, clear statements, not ambiguities.”
Sometimes, ambiguities are the best lies. Then, the liar can later claim that he did not lie, he was just misunderstood by the listener. Again, I’m neither saying nor implying that Paul was necessarily lying. He was probably just ambiguous in some instances about what he and other Apostles experienced.
btw, in that blog post by a scholar doing a bit of a take-down on Carrier’s argument about Philo, he responds to a comment below by saying:
“My goal, of course, is not to attack Carrier in particular. As a matter of fact, I have been impressed by some of the arguments put forward by Carrier, though I have been even more surprised to find him promoting arguments which, I think, are hopelessly confused and sometimes even logically absurd. Carrier is thus, to me, something of an enigma.”
My view on Carrier is quite similar.
“…I have been impressed by some of the arguments put forward by Carrier, though I have been even more surprised to find him promoting arguments which, I think, are hopelessly confused and sometimes even logically absurd.”
Carrier’s arguments seem much more logical and his evidence seems much more solid to me than the logic and lack of evidence presented by the apologists who disagree with him.
Mumbles:
Quran Surat Al Haqqah
69/44 “And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,”
69/45 “We would have seized him by the right hand;”
69/46 “Then We would have cut from him the aorta.”
And then the Haddith reported by Sahih Bukhari that
“Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713
Here, bear in mind that the woman who tried to poison him had been forcefully wed by him in spite of the period of pourning where she (by muslim law) should have been left alone. That he, personally, had slit the throat of all of her family, husband, father, brothers, and sons and nephews.
Michel said…”I didn’t even mention Muhammad of which the Quran and the haddiths say that he was a liar…”
Neither example states that he was a “liar.” Quite the contrary in the Quranic passage if that translation is accurate: “if” is the word.
Well, the Quran promises him that he’ll get his aorta cut off if he lies about his mission, and he dies feeling that his aorta got cut off. I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to realise some sort of connection…
Well, everyone agrees that the sayings and dialogue in all of the ad-hadith is suspect, otherwise it would’ve been considered canonical. That this so-called conversation between Aisha and Muhammad ever took place is highly questionable. All that was reported by Aisha on this occasion was that his last word was “Allah.” It makes more sense that whoever decided for whatever politically advantageous reasons to make this up were obviously, conveniently aware of the previous statement in al-Qu’ran. Who sits around saying things about their “aorta” hurting, anyway? Ridiculous.