From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:39:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.000134.9595@csus.edu> altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>In article <C09r8y.IG5.1@cs.cmu.edu> drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake) writes:
>>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>
>>>From what I have read in the Bible - Jesus did not say this. He is  
>>>supposed to have said "I am the way". That does not deny others as
>>>also being valid. He was only claiming that his way was valid.  I
>>>would expect, if the people who collated the mythology called the
>>>Bible had meant "only", that they would have written it that way.
>>
>>I am the way.  Not "I am a way."  I am THE way.  Moreso, "I am the way,
>>the truth and the life.  No man cometh to the Father but by me."  They
>>did NOT write: "I am a way, one of many truths and a type of life.  Some
>>men come to the Father by me, but not all."
>
>Of course, this does assume that Jesus' name was "Jesus", had brown hair
>and blue eyes, white skin, and spoke Jamesian English. And that the 
>redactor of the text had access to either an authentic and correct text,
>or to someone who had actually heard Jesus speak those words. And that the
>text had not been edited or otherwise altered in the process of trans-
>mission. And that one's ability to interpret the text was not clouded by
>one's own personal beliefs and assumptions.
>
>Not that his name was Yeshua or Joshua, had (most likely) black hair and
>brown skin, and spoke Aramaic. That no author or redactor of the extant
>texts, which are in Greek, ever met him, nor was likely to even have heard
>him speak, that the Greek texts themselves have been demonstrably modified
>to suit the purposes of the Christian Church, and that it is exceedingly

Speculating on what Jesus/Yeshu may or may not have "really" said is
useless, since we don't know.  The current structure of the xtian
churches is built up on what he is reported to have said, so any appeal
to or argument against xtian dogma is going to have to go back to the
bible, and not what the carpenter/fisherman and part time political
hellraiser named Yeshu may have said, if he even existed in the flesh
at all.

Current xtian dogma is predicated on the standard accepted quotes of
Yeshu, not on what we think he might have said.  Current xtian dogma is
predicated on the bible.  We must address it if we are to address what
is built upon it and exists in the building down the street from us, the
one with the pointy roof and big lower case "t" on the top.

It's obvious and accepted that the texts were altered; that particular
quote, as I posted previous, is almost certainly a later insertion into
the scriptures.  What of it?  This is the text that shaped thought and
politics for millenia; we must address it if we are to address the
politics of the people who follow it.  The fundies who nearly ran the
Repub convention didn't give a shit as to whether or not the bible was
altered; they'd spit at you if you so much as suggested it.  As far as
they are concerned, Jesus (the blond, blue-eyed one) said exactly that.
As such, if we are to challenge their views and their imposing them on
us, we must challenge that statement as it is, not try to educate them
on it.  (Educating them on it might be nice, but I doubt many would
listen.)

Be that as it may, the current system is set up on what IS in the bible,
and we must address THAT.  The history is simply another part of this.

>Pardon me for being so pissy, but it's three weeks of pent up absence-
>from-the-net tension. Good to be back.  :-)

Are you kidding?  I'm the Pissy Queen!  No prob!  

Blessings,
Janis