The purpose of "The Jesus"?

[The Guro]

I was under the impression that this portion of the forum was dedicated to those wanting to discuss the Dudeism of Jesus... first-draft era...

What I seem to be seeing is an aggressive assault and bashing of a belief system and what appears to be some very Undude and even Walter like behavior.

We all come to the Dudeist Way to shed being uptight and learn to take it easy... a Dudeist or Duedist Priest could come from any or even no faith outside of Dudeism... I am not even sure there should be a place or an opportunity in the Dudeism Forum to bash a faith at all.

But I guess that was just like, my opinion man... or maybe it's the whole point of being here.

Abiding,

Christian Dude
PS: some of my biggest fans are Heathens :)

[jgiffin]

I get it. But most frequently this aggression of which you speak is the direct result of society attempting for force a belief in said religion upon those of us who don't believe, see no coherence in belief, and are just a bit perplexed that they can't buy beer on Sunday because a burning bush spoke to a wandering jew on a mountain in the middle east more than 3,200 years ago.

Ah, shit. I did it again.

[The Guro]

Well that's on those people to choose the Dudeway in response to those experiences... I am not here to do those things... and there is no place in Dudeism for it. I want to be able to accomplish the purpose of this section and show those who care to know what First Draft Christianity and The Jesus have to contribute to Dudeism. Because obviously... someone (the Founders) thinks there just might be something:)

It's the baby and the bathwater man... Don't lay on The Jesus what People choose to not (or to) follow in his name:) There is new shit coming to light... I promise.

Abiding in Christ,

Christian Dude (haven't thought of a title beyond that yet...)

[jgiffin]

First Draft Christianity

That would be judaism, yes?

[The Guro]

Is that what Dudeism refers to it as?

Judaism is not Christian... Not first draft... more like Rough Draft/Prelude Christianity

[jgiffin]

Can you expound on this "first draft christianity" concept?

Are you basing it historically? Pre-nicaean? Before the spread of Paul's gospel and the resulting shift from judaism? After the conversion of Constantine? Before the fall of St. Jimmy the Bakker and his buxom eve, Jessica Hahn?

Or is it, rather, just picking and choosing bits and pieces from the new testament that fit a modern sensibility?

I'm not even being sarcastic or condescending here. It's just, since about every one of your posts goes on about this "first draft christianity" stuff, it would be good to get the terms settled.

[RandoRock]

I'm also curious as to what the First Draft of Christianity entails. To me that says old testament but Jesus isn't in the old testament so now I'm just confused. I think a lot of the anger towards the bigger more mainstream religions comes from the fact that each one teaches that there's is the best and there is no room in the world for those that disagree. It's the whole there way or the highway attitude that bothers me.

[The Guro]

The term is as defined in the forum:

"There was a lot that was very Dudeish about Christianity's original, uncompromised first draft."

You are in fact very specifically trying to engage me in a sarcastic and condescending manner... based on the points of references you selected and the suggestion of picking and choosing. It's a loaded comment... in the guise of a question... waiting for a chance to pounce. Very Pharisee like really... I am flattered;)

But the answer is... "It is written"... It interprets itself (that's my highly developed and researched opinion). With an understanding of the languages used, the manners and customs in light of the cultures they represent, the rules of figures of speech and a number of other factors... including being able to see the variations of translations for evidence of when changes, additions, or omissions were made (i.e. The Council of Nicea). I believe that in many cases the "original" can be "dusted off" and when your not sure... just say "Well dude, we just don't know". Critics will love some of it... Some Christians will be shocked. Paul was not responsible for the shift from Judaism... So to settle the terms... which the Dudely Lama established... not me... I would peradventure to say... First Draft is referring to the original teaching of "The Way"pertaining to the teachings of Jesus Christ and referencing him in the context of how they apply to living in a Dudeist manner... nothing more.. nothing less than is alluded to in the information put out in multiple publications and articles from the founders of Dudeism using those same words... "First Draft".

If that wasn't the implication... perhaps a retraction needs to be put out nullifying the invitation to all faiths to abide.

If you want deeper reflection than what is within the scope of Dudeism... wait for my site... where I will be writing from a Christian perspective on abiding vs. a Dudeist referencing Dudeist supporting Biblical references... because this is not the place for a Christian pulpit... This place is about Dudeism and its influences or parallels... in effect, as you put it, "just picking and choosing bits and pieces" that are Dudeism oriented. It just appears that no one really wants to say that there really is a case for it... especially coming from a Christian. Check out my other posts to save me any further efforts making my intents and opinions clear. I think I presented them fairly distinctly.

My question for you is:

Do you have any issue with anyone posting something in this section that actually references Christian and Jesus related material that is in line with Dudeist's Abiding? Or must it remain a place to condemn and mock faith?

RandoRock... Yes you're right partially... JC is referred to in the OT according to some (JC himself) however.

If you don't feel your way is the best... why follow it? Can you respect someone with shallow convictions? The problem is not with someone thinking they are right or that their "Way" is the best (obviously being able to Abide is Best!). It's stressing out over whether someone else agrees or not... You put it out there or make it clear where you come from and walk the talk. If someone wants to know more about your "Why" because they dig yer style (your "How"), Dude... Fine. It will all get sorted out in the end with no need for effort on my part. If it gets your goad what I think is waiting for us and how to get there... Your missing the Dudeway... That shit is outside the scope or concern of Dudeism by itself... so those of with a personal interest in that other stuff choose a "Why" other than our own whim and opinions... yet possibly still in our opinion:)

Keep Abiding!

HEY! WAIT A MINUTE! 594 posts? 66 posts? Shouldn't you guys be telling me about Dudeism and Abiding? Or am I one of the only guys buying the books?

[RandoRock]

Post count doesn't matter, I've read the books and I know what Abiding means to me. The whole point behind Dudeism is that there is no specific way to follow it, other than the Do No Harm aspect, people are pretty much free to abide in a way that brings them happiness. You've found your way in Jesus and I've taken a different path but just because I disagree with you doesn't give me the right to say your wrong. It also doesn't mean that my way of thinking about it is the best way. Best is a relative term, my way is best for me but that doesn't mean it's best for you and realizing that doesn't mean I have shallow convictions. It simply means that I understand the path to happiness isn't linear and everyone's journey will be different. 

   

[The Guro]

I wish there was a "Like" or " I dig your style" button...

[jgiffin]

My question for you is:

Do you have any issue with anyone posting something in this section that actually references Christian and Jesus related material that is in line with Dudeist's Abiding? Or must it remain a place to condemn and mock faith?

Nope. No problem at all.

But I don't golf with bowling balls, either, so any absurdities in such materials are fair game for comment.

[Reverend Al]

I wish there was a "Like" or " I dig your style" button...

[Hominid]

FYI everybody, there is no bible (hence christian) "first draft".  What we have are translations of translations of translations of translations - the original manuscripts do not exist.  Transcribal errors abound...  And  bible thumpers have the nerve to say the whole process was all divinely inspired, hence the current day's bible is the inerrant (read: perfect) Word Of God.  That's why you get translation zealots - King James Version vs. New International Version, vs. Common English Bible... there's literally multiple dozens of them, all with their own little twists of interpretation, all coming from various origins.  Inspired? Perfect?  Lol...

All a very thready premise on which to base a belief system.  No offense to anyone, but it is what it is...

[The Guro]

FYI everybody, there is no bible (hence christian) "first draft".  What we have are translations of translations of translations of translations - the original manuscripts do not exist.  Transcribal errors abound...  And  bible thumpers have the nerve to say the whole process was all divinely inspired, hence the current day's bible is the inerrant (read: perfect) Word Of God.  That's why you get translation zealots - King James Version vs. New International Version, vs. Common English Bible... there's literally multiple dozens of them, all with their own little twists of interpretation, all coming from various origins.  Inspired? Perfect?  Lol...

All a very thready premise on which to base a belief system.  No offense to anyone, but it is what it is...

"Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!"

You need to start having some trust that I am here to "spread the Dude word"... I just happen to have my Dudeway roots in this influence (which is WAY under represented by anyone even close to identifying with it)... way beyond sitting in a pew, plucking a guitar on the stage, or going to ice-cream socials with a bunch of kids.

The divine won't come into this thread... Let?s see if it is what it is?

Let's take a look at some interesting things regarding that book or collection of writings. Which by that very nature implies there was an original at some point that the writers intended to have a certain meaning (which in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic... a meaning has a very specific word unlike our crappy English language...). There is a difference between an extant manuscript, translation, and versions.

The fact that it was copied so many times makes it even easier to verify the accuracy of the text (and if you learn about the standards of the scribes who did the work... you would be pretty secure about their attention to accuracy in most cases and from certain groups... it wasn't pleasant if they messed up). The more copies there are the more comparisons can be made. This is referred by scholars as ?the tenacity of the text.? The Bible more manuscripts in existence today than of any other document from the ancient world.

• 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament
• 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin New Testament.

Then of course there were also other early language translation: Aramaic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavic, Bohairic, and Anglo-Saxon.  24,000+ ancient handwritten manuscripts of the NT to be read and compared and used to establish the original text. Then another 36,000 patristic citations of the Bible in other writings. Coming in second place as most ancient manuscripts available for comparison to establish the "original" is the Iliad by Homer. Just 643 manuscripts of the Iliad are available for us to compare today. Should we bother to read Homer? They were copied over and over and there are so few non-original manuscripts. Can we trust it's what Homer wrote? The Iliad has 764 disputed lines of text, in comparison to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. Can we support ancient history citing Homer, Caesar, Pliny, Herodotus, Livy, Tacitius, Plato, and others? Literary evidence would say it the Bible is more trustworthy than any of them.

What about the Old Testament? There are 10's of thousands of manuscripts to compare. The Hebrews had really uptight rules for their scribes, specific materials allowed for the surface, specific ink, specific sizes for the printed columns, specific spacing for the words. A specific ritual that was to be performed before writing certain things... Not allowed to write from memory and when they were done every line was counted checking for doubled or skipped lines, every letter was counted to check for omissions. If a single error was found on the manuscript, the whole thing was destroyed. There is no historical indication that anyone doubted the veracity of the texts accuracy to earlier copies during those periods (late BC).

The Tao Te Ching was reported to have been written in 6 BC with the oldest excavated text being from the late 4th Century BC. An incredible discovery of thousands of scrolls led to the recovery of 50 partial and complete "Tao Te Ching" manuscripts (according to Wikipedia). Some more versions were recovered dating into the 2nd Century BC... 2 nearly complete copies. Whoohoo!

How much time elapsed between events, records, and copies? Some from the early second and third centuries with as little as 40-60 years after the originals. Let's see some other literature we trust as authentic in comparison...

• Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph)
• Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed)
• Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed)
• Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed)
• Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years)
• Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years)

How about William Shakespeare's 37 plays (written in the 1600's)... nope... not a one. In contrast, with the exception of 11 verses, the entire New Testament can be reconstructed indirectly from outside references dating to the 2nd and 3rd Century AD. Out of the 20,000 lines making up the entire NT, just 40 lines are in question. That is 1/4 of 1% of the text. Homer's Iliad? 764 lines out of 15,600 lines are in question... 5%.

Homer/Iliad, Written: 900 BC, Earliest Copy: 400 BC, Time Span: 500 years, Copies: 643
New Testament, Written: 40-100 AD, Earliest Copy: 125 AD, Time Span: 25 Years, Copies: 24,000+

Are there issues? Yes... and here is usually why:

In transmission: Copying same to same... shit happens.
In translation: Ever watch sub-titles? Of course issues arise
Misunderstanding: not getting the language, understanding the culture/manners and customs/idioms, false assumptions... context... tons of things...

That's where having TONS of copies comes into play for comparison... all this with only a view of it being a piece of literature. So "divinely inspired"... whatever... it's only included in Dudeism as a book and example of early contributions to Dudeism as stated by the Founders... who first established the use of "Uncompromised First Drafts" and as "The philosophical-religious traditions that predate and inform Dudeism". And penned in "The Abide Guide"... It is Written "the Editorial We at the Church of the Latter-Day Dude prefer to strip away all the halos and heavenly choruses surrounding Jesus and Siddhartha. When we do that, it's a whole lot easier to dig the Human Dudes they were posthumously promoted to upper cosmic management". Law number six might apply here.

So just as a book... based on what I just reviewed... I'd say it has some chops. So unless I am some kind of threat to your world view (and even if so... abide) or my "toe slips over the line" Give a Dude a chance "to bring some new shit to light" (although your timely last response did give a great opportunity to do so... there are not many generic unfounded statements against this particular "work of literature" I haven't encountered).

Halle-Dude-Yeah!

[Masked Dude]

Do what you want, dude. But I'm just not one to try to make connections between dudeism and other religions. We've had a couple that did.

If you do, just expect some to ask questions you may not like or poke holes in claims.