Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 158
  1. #16
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,562
    Christians should be relieved if Jesus did not exist as it would mean that he did not suffer on the cross - though being simulaneously god he probably was laughing it off upstairs - having his fingers crossed behind his back
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #17
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Dowden View Post
    Of course he was 'historical' figure. So was Pilate, Herod, Julius Caesar, the 12 apostles, Mary and Joseph, etc.

    The 'Jesus myth theory' has never been popular because it just isn't credible. The evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming. Today there are millions and millions of followers of Christ. In the early years of Christendom hundreds and thousands of people were martyred by the Romans. Today they are still being martyred. The idea that all these people gave up their lives for an imaginary person is impossibly far-fetched.
    Christians killed more Christians than Rome ever did but you seem to have forgotten that part of your history.

    As a Gnostic Christian, I have always though Jesus a myth of an archetypal good man. I am now starting to believe that a Jesus did live but he is not the miracle working scapegoat that Christianity has made a fool of by saying that he condemned us just to turn around and stupidly die to reverse his own judgement.

    Here is the latest on what may have helped sell the Jesus myth. I know I waste my time with those who are idol worshipers like you but others may enjoy thinking.



    (Ed. religious views split to new thread. Read the rest of the post here)

    Regards
    DL
    Last edited by Rincewind; 21-03-2015 at 09:38 AM. Reason: post split to new thread

  3. #18
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Hi GB. The existence of "lost gospels" are not surprising. By the end of the first century there were many splinter groups within the Christians which each having their own favoured gospel and tradition. The early church tradition of revelation meant that new theology was being generated all the time and at some point the church had to decide what was in and what was out. Of course since the church decided not only what was canonical but which texts they would preserve and which texts they would not we have very little information on these early cults actually believed. But we can occasional piece together things mentioned in criticisms and the like as well as the occasional luck archaeological discover.

    So a lost and independent gospel would be evidence for historicity if it agreed to the gospels we have. Of course if it diverges from the gospels we have it adds weight to the idea that the gospels are moralising fiction which no basis in history.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #19
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Hi GB. The existence of "lost gospels" are not surprising. By the end of the first century there were many splinter groups within the Christians which each having their own favoured gospel and tradition. The early church tradition of revelation meant that new theology was being generated all the time and at some point the church had to decide what was in and what was out. Of course since the church decided not only what was canonical but which texts they would preserve and which texts they would not we have very little information on these early cults actually believed. But we can occasional piece together things mentioned in criticisms and the like as well as the occasional luck archaeological discover.

    So a lost and independent gospel would be evidence for historicity if it agreed to the gospels we have. Of course if it diverges from the gospels we have it adds weight to the idea that the gospels are moralising fiction which no basis in history.
    All we have was basically written by Jews regardless of the stated author as we know that all the gospels were from anonymous authors.

    Christianity arose out of the Jewish temple at the time you have stated. They popped out to churches only at about the year 80 when they actually split from Jewry.

    Knowing this, please listen to what this scholar says at about the 14 min. marc on although I recommend the whole interview.

    You will see that in that day, both Jews and Gnostic Christians were definitely not literalists and we did what Jesus recommended and that was to seek God. We did so by doing all kinds of changes to our scripture to enhance that seeking.

    You will note that the offshoots of those early years, Christianity and Islam, have become idol worshipers whioch has caused them to become homophobic and misogynous and thus immoral religions.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

    Regards
    DL

  5. #20
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop View Post
    All we have was basically written by Jews regardless of the stated author as we know that all the gospels were from anonymous authors.
    Jews and Gentiles but that doesn't make much difference. The canonical gospels all tend to have a Gentile flavour because part of their message was about growing the cult beyond the Jews. In fact after the Jewish war Christianity would have had other reasons to distance themselves from Judaism and further the crucifixion stories go as far as they can are absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews which again would be politically advantageous in the year immediately following the Jewish war.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  6. #21
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Jews and Gentiles but that doesn't make much difference. The canonical gospels all tend to have a Gentile flavour because part of their message was about growing the cult beyond the Jews. In fact after the Jewish war Christianity would have had other reasons to distance themselves from Judaism and further the crucifixion stories go as far as they can are absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews which again would be politically advantageous in the year immediately following the Jewish war.
    If by Gentile flavor you mean Rome's flavor then I agree.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

    If you begin with that link and then think of Constantine's manipulation of the Trinity belief and implementation, then denying government manipulation of the Christian religion becomes impossible.

    Regards
    DL

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Jews and Gentiles but that doesn't make much difference. The canonical gospels all tend to have a Gentile flavour because part of their message was about growing the cult beyond the Jews. In fact after the Jewish war Christianity would have had other reasons to distance themselves from Judaism and further the crucifixion stories go as far as they can are absolving the Romans and blaming the Jews which again would be politically advantageous in the year immediately following the Jewish war.
    More nonsense. The Gospels all point to Pilate as a gutless wimp who sentenced a man he knew to be innocent to a literally excruciating death, and even gratuitously added a flesh-tearing flogging without even being pressured to. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds say that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate".

    The Gnostic Gospels excluded themselves from the canon because they were far later and contradicted the genuine 1st-century ones. E.g. that imbecile GB claimed that Christianity is misogynistic, but his own Gospel of Thomas says (v. 144):

    Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  8. #23
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    More nonsense. The Gospels all point to Pilate as a gutless wimp who sentenced a man he knew to be innocent to a literally excruciating death, and even gratuitously added a flesh-tearing flogging without even being pressured to. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds say that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate".
    When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves." And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

    It is interesting to see that this is absent in Mark (although Mark is still written as a Roman apology) but part of the embellishing added by the author of Matthew.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."
    This didn't stop him from ordering a gratuitous flogging, although the flogging was often lethal in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"
    Not an inspired comment, so is not binding on anyone, least of all today. Not everything recorded in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    It is interesting to see that this is absent in Mark (although Mark is still written as a Roman apology) but part of the embellishing added by the author of Matthew.
    Atheopaths are prone to use arguments from silence.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  10. #25
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    This didn't stop him from ordering a gratuitous flogging, although the flogging was often lethal in itself.
    What percentage of the time was the flogging lethal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Not an inspired comment, so is not binding on anyone, least of all today. Not everything recorded in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible.
    Everything in the bible is there for some reason. Someone saw fit to put it down. In the case of Matthew adding the hand washing it is clearly Roman appeasement. The Christians don;t want to be tarred with the brush of the Jewish rebellion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Atheopaths are prone to use arguments from silence.
    Since it is widely acknowledged Matthew cribbed from Mark the additional things Matthew saw fit to include he got from somewhere. I suspect he just saw the opportunity to appease the Romans even more than Mark. It could have come from another (now lost) document but that would be just as speculative.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,880
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Not an inspired comment, so is not binding on anyone, least of all today. Not everything recorded in the Bible is endorsed by the Bible.
    I thought you believed that the whole Bible is divinely inspired, as in the AIG Statement of Faith:
    The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

    If the Bible is the written word of God, then the statement that Rincewind was referring to ('And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"') must have been put there by God for some reason.

  12. #27
    CC Candidate Master Gnostic Bishop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    More nonsense. The Gospels all point to Pilate as a gutless wimp who sentenced a man he knew to be innocent to a literally excruciating death, and even gratuitously added a flesh-tearing flogging without even being pressured to. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds say that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate".

    The Gnostic Gospels excluded themselves from the canon because they were far later and contradicted the genuine 1st-century ones. E.g. that imbecile GB claimed that Christianity is misogynistic, but his own Gospel of Thomas says (v. 144):

    Simon Peter says to them: "Let Mary go out from our midst, for women are not worthy of life!" Jesus says: "See, I will draw her so as to make her male so that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who has become male will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
    "Male and Female into a Single One"

    The main interest of Saying 22, however, lies in what follows the disciples' question. Jesus replies: "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom]."

    The theme of two-in-oneness appears repeatedly in Gnostic literature. Three variations on it come from the Acts of Judas Thomas. In addition to Mygdonia's words, already quoted, we might remember that her husband Karish dreams of the eagle that snatches up two partridges and two doves. The following morning he is puzzled when he puts his left shoe on his right foot. In Thomas's long prayer before his martyrdom, he recites his efforts to carry out his mission, and says: "The inside I have made outside, and the outside [inside], and thy whole fullness has been fulfilled in me."

    What most forget is that the ancient Jews thought God to be androgynous. Gnostic Christian Jesus was a believer in that view.

    ====================

    Jesus is talking about the feminine and the masculine aspects that exist in all persons. The feminine represents the emotional aspects of humanity, and the masculine represents the logical aspects of humanity. When humans demonstrate dominant masculine aspects at the expense of their feminine, they can suppress their emotions to such an extent as to be without conscience. Also, when humans demonstrate feminine aspects as the expense of their masculine aspects, they can suppress their ability to effectively reason and instead act upon emotion.

    Jesus is telling you to find balance, harmony in your masculine and feminine existence. From there you will understand things from a more complete perspective. Then, with a greater balance within your internal self, you then make your external self behave as one with your internal self. When you can see things with your mind's eye more clearly, it replaces the physical eye. When your hands react according to your internal balance, then they have been replaced.

    It's a simple matter of acknowledging the entire entity- masculine and feminine- that represents the totality of what is you.

    The above was the best explanation that I have found.

    As Universalists, Gnostic Christians know that we all end in heaven. We are not misogynous or homophobic because of that belie. You have to also remember that Jesus was talking to Jews who thought of women as chattel or property.

    Regards
    DL

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I thought you believed that the whole Bible is divinely inspired, as in the AIG Statement of Faith:
    I don't work for AiG. However, I do believe that, but evidently you fail to understand what it means. It includes just what I said. Since the Bible reports ‘And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"’, it is factually true that they said that. But since those people were not Jesus, apostles, or prophets, the Bible is not affirming that what they said was right, just that they said it. The Bible also records the statement "There is no God", but it is not endorsing that, because it is said by the fool. And it records "Curse God and die" by Mrs Job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    If the Bible is the written word of God, then the statement that Rincewind was referring to ('And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"') must have been put there by God for some reason.
    Because they said it, and the Bible was reporting accurate history.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  14. #29
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    What percentage of the time was the flogging lethal?
    Go and see Mel Gibson's Passion. It was an accurate depiction of Roman flogging.

    [Rest of the above Christ-myth loony's speculation about Matthew's motivation snipped.]
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  15. #30
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Go and see Mel Gibson's Passion. It was an accurate depiction of Roman flogging.
    I haven't seen it but from what I have heard it isn't particularly accurate and Jesus doesn't die in the flogging stage so that fails to answer the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    [Rest of the above Christ-myth loony's speculation about Matthew's motivation snipped.]
    Translation: Jono has no answers for the obvious Roman apologetics in the gospels. Pilate is seen as believing Jesus was innocent and executes Jesus at the vociferous insistence of the "rebellious" Jewish mob.

    I'd also point out that the Roman apologetics is independent of the question of whether Jesus was historical or mythical. So on this basis Jono's blindness to the bias in the NT has nothing to do with his supposed objection to the Christ-myth theory.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. historical consistency sf. 2010 chess goals
    By Santa in forum Ratings Arena
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27-11-2011, 07:51 PM
  2. Who do you say that Jesus is?
    By EGOR in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 21-09-2007, 03:57 PM
  3. Historical Reference Question: Smyslov v Polugaevsky
    By Phil Bourke in forum Chess Training
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14-12-2005, 07:01 PM
  4. Sex Better Than Jesus
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-07-2005, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •