Jesus: Truth Or Myth?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Fallen Angel said:
Um, pardon me but my post does not specify Luke as one of the eyewitness accounts. Hel-lo!? As for his chronology being wrong, please give your source. Keep in mind too there was more than one Herod.
You didn't, but the 4 synoptic Gospels are the books usually described as the eyewitness accounts among conservative theologians. As for Herod, indeed there were multiple Herods, but Luke -by implications that can reasonably be inferred from his account of Herod's location/attitudes/activities- is pretty specific about which Herod it was that ordered the search for the baby Jesus, and unfortunately that particular Herod was already dead by the time the census was ordered.

Actually I asked my pastor, a Doctor of Theology- a scholar who speaks, reads and writes Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and can read Aramaic - and he says that yes, a Jewish woman of the time could indeed legally and religiously divorce her husband. Sorry, but in this case I believe his education and credentials outweighs yours.

Not necessarily. Where did he study? Who is his alma mater affiliated with? Is his scholarly mindset aligned with traditional theological scholarship, or with conservative theological scholarship? (Some schools are better than others and there is, unfortunately, a huge industry in mail-order ordinations, qualifications and paraphenalia: few of which are worth the price of postage. And even among the supposedly properly-qualified, the standards -principally in conservative theology- are widely condemned as woeful to say the least, and from what I've seen I can understand why.

This might seem an arrogant kind of statement to make, but as I've been fond of saying (usually to managers just before their heads exploded); "Even if all the Angels in Heaven elected you to the post, gave you the salary and benefits package and then voted you a\ whopping great signing bonus, you still wouldn't be God." IOW; don't believe what your told just because your pastor seems to have the qualifications so far as you can tell; he also has an agenda.
My sources for that contention about the Jewish laws of divorce during Jesus' lifetime don't specify their own sources, leaving them buried in their bibliographies, however one of those secondary sources -Tim Callahan in his Secret Origins of The Bible- was reviewed by Rabbi Edward Zerin in the current issue of The Skeptic (Vol. 10, No. 1), and he, the Founding Chair of the Chesky Institute for Judaism, a Rabbi since 1946, makes special mention of Callahan's sedulous attention to historical accuracy and cites no examples of errors regarding ancient and Roman-period Jewish Law in the book. I don't know about you, but I'd expect a Rabbi with a clutch of books on Jewish history to spot a clanger such as the one your Pastor claims I've made.

Interestingly, in the NIV Bible, which I use as one of the best researched Bibles, Mark does not list the name of the locale, only "Jordan countryside". Which manuscripts are you talking about?

The NIV Bible is not a version of the text held in high regard by traditional theological scholars: it's versions of the texts are never mentioned in any of my sources. It seems to be held in even lower regard than the King James. That it omits the name of the place where Christ cast the demons out into the swine, is surprising but explains much about the attitudes of scholars to it. (My NT sources cite from the Revised Standard Version, from the Oxford Annotated Bible and, with a degree of reluctance, from the King James.)

Why not? You're on a Fortean website, for goodness' sake!! Streange things DO happen!

Perhaps, but being a Fortean doesn't mean automatically believing the weirder stuff and discarding the stuff that seems more reasonable!! (And if I'm wrong about that, I'm going to join the James Randi Educational Foundation and let my FT sub lapse!! :D)
This is the gist of the document my pastor referred me to:
"Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now at various schools and museums. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

And that comes from where? I like the circular reasoning in that bit about the Lectionaries supporting the reliability of the scriptures simply by quoting from them. :D

Why do you say they have not. Just because what has been found is not what you think of as evidence, that does not mean there is not validity and support for the scriptures in the digs that have been done.

That wasn't my point FA. In ordinary archeology a document, however well-loved, is not considered reliable until supporting evidence is found -either corroborating text (specifically from a source that has no agenda that might cause it to distort information one way or another), or else archeolgical evidence.

Where Scripture is concerned, however, the rules change: as soon as that document is a part of the NT, the assumption is that the document is correct and the onus falls on critics to provide evidence of error before error is deemed even possible, never mind accepted as reasonable. This means that if you dig and don't find anything, the assumption isn't that the NT is less reliable than was thought, but that it's still reliable and the archeologists got it wrong! And that is bad science, it is bad history and it actually does as much to undermine Xtianity than any number of choir-boy molesting priests, child-raping televangelists or divinely-inspired serial killers!

If you can't pose even reasonable questions against a belief, it becomes dogma, and dogma, to paraphrase someone, is for the empowerment of tyrants and for the obedience of fools. How can anyone trust their Faith if they never question it? Asking questions isn't the same as doubting: it simply shows that you're awake!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Zygon said:
If you can't pose even reasonable questions against a belief, it becomes dogma, and dogma, to paraphrase someone, is for the empowerment of tyrants and for the obedience of fools. How can anyone trust their Faith if they never question it? Asking questions isn't the same as doubting: it simply shows that you're awake!
Zygon, you need to recognize that your questions are of the same flavor as my questions, even if they come from opposite ends of the the spectrum on the subject. You question my beliefs and I question yours - why are your questions good but mine are not? That's the implication of your statement.

I'm asking questions and trust me, I study, question and search for answers, on this subject.

You are not doubting, however. You're making statements that clearly show your own thoughts feeling and beliefs are that the Bible is not the word of God, not a true telling of Jesus and his acts and words, and is not holy. So you have no faith, you are quite literally being a devils advocate. Look up the literal definitions of those two words. That's you. Too bad.

Interestingly, discussing this thread with another board member, I was told I need to remember to pity those who are so unable to admit that they might be wrong, because those tend to be the same people who are never saved, because they can never admit that they are sinners.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Who said anything about holier than thou? I KNOW I'm not. The difference, to me as a Christian (Xthian, whatever) is that I know I sin and am forever are unworthy without intercession. Most people these days even deny the concept of sin, which many think leads to denial of the very concept of wrongdoing, which in turn leads to the sort of "every man for himself and fuck the rest of you" attitude prevalent in our society today. Let's face it, there are right and wrong behaviours, so what does my label (sin) matter?

Tell me, beside the bare fact that we disagree, what exactly do you see as wrong with me believing in God and Jesus? Why do you have a problem with it? What about Christianity bothers you?

Just to forestall a possible wrong path of discussion, please don't say evangelism because I have NOT done that here. I'm willing to discuss it endlessly but I don't believe you can read into my posts anything more than defense of my viewpoint. Wherein is that more wrong than yours or Zygon's defense of your viewpoints?
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
Well...

...since you ask.

You wrote: "... So you have no faith, you are quite literally being a devils advocate. Look up the literal definitions of those two words. That's you. Too bad.

Interestingly, discussing this thread with another board member, I was told I need to remember to pity those who are so unable to admit that they might be wrong, because those tend to be the same people who are never saved, because they can never admit that they are sinners..."

Now, if that's not both holier-than-thou and smug, what is? The statement, please note, is what I'm talking about here. You're serving 'em up hot and juicy. You use twisted logic based on nothing but dogma to condemn poor Zygon as a sinner who can't admit he is, etc.

You know him perhaps not well enough to make this assessment and, by your own professed doctrine, may I remind you that it's hubris and, yes, a venial sin, to dare abrogate the role of judge in these matters? This is reserved solely to your god, by your dogma.

Now for me --

Xtianity is almost pure evil and does nothing but promote intolerance, hatred, and violence, particulary against women and children but also against any and all they label heathen or pagan.

You may believe as you wish, I don't care at all, doesn't bother me as long as you don't bother me. Your right to do as you wish ends at the tip of my nose.

You did ask what is wrong with believing in your choice of gods, and the answer to that is simple: It's exactly as silly as being an atheist to be a theist. Both are extreme views without supporting objective evidence. Only opinion, interpretation, and subjective claims are offered for either position.

The only rational stance is agnosticism because, plainly, no one knows. We probably can't, in fact. Postulate a god. How could anything as literally insignificant as a single being comprehend even the vague outlines of godhood?

In any case, I'm sure we'd model and be fine. lol

If you claim to know, fine. You can never prove it to anyone else, though, as this discussion demonstrates. Therefore belief is subjective and solipsistic

I find claims insufficient. I'd rather have a sandwich and a pint.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Since you feel free to call my beliefs silly (to put it mildy) then I shall tell you that I consider agnosticism fence-sitting of the more irresponsible sort, irresponsible in the sense that you refuse to take responsibility for your actions and say "this is right" or "this is wrong". Not for others - for yourself. You let yourself down, no one else.

And if you think that being a Christian means promoting hatred, you certainly have a poor understanding of Christianity. Please - yes I know the history of it as well as you, however, I'm talking about personal actions and responsibilities. Being a Christian no more makes me a promoter of any past event than being white makes you personally responsible for slavery. However, I am responsible for my own actions now and in the furture, to not use Christianity as an excuse for any hateful act, the same way you are responsible to to not do hateful acts, simply as a decent human being. Personal responsibility. That's key to the whole thing.

Like the arguements about gun control, religions don't commit heinous acts, people commit heinous acts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Oh, and with regard to "heathens" or Pagans, nope, no hatred there either.

I think you mistake disagreement or lack of validation as hatred.

I can know that my friends who are pagan are wrong in their beliefs but also know that they are good people and not have it mar our friendship. "Let he who is without sin amoung you cast the first stone". Tolerance for other's beliefs is a good thing, something I cultivate. And trust me, I'm not an unusual Christian. Perhaps you've simply met some of the wrong sort?
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
Excuse Me?

Uh, whoa. Slow down, here. You say by not choosing to buy into bullshit of either extreme, for which I see no evidence that sways me either way, that I don't take responsibility for my actions. You, the theist, claim to? Seems to me you pass on the savings to this god of yours, and credit / blame the invisible man in the sky for what ever happens or what ever you do.

That is passing the buck, and irresponsible in the manner of a small child blaming his invisible playmate for smashing the TV.

My understanding of the vile corpse-worshipping, death-soaked, necrophiliac, and otherwise necrotic religion of xtianity comes from standing back a step and looking at what it has done and caused, not what it CLAIMS. History is replete with examples of how destructive the desert religions are. In point of fact, I doubt humanity will survive them.

Tolerance of child sex abuse, rape, murder, plunder, adultery, heck, every one of the top ten sins list, and in fact promotion of them is what I see from xtianity's hypocrisy.

Not that I have any solid opinions, of course. LOL
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Fallen Angel said:
You're making statements that clearly show your own thoughts feeling and beliefs are that the Bible is not the word of God, not a true telling of Jesus and his acts and words, and is not holy.
But you don't seem interested in understanding why. (It's not a position I arrived at lightly, you know.) I know why you believe the opposite from me: it's all very comforting, gives shape to your world and helps you make sense of what might otherwise be bewildering or threatening. Meaning and purpose. Fine. I've no problem with you needing that, wanting that, choosing it, it choosing you, or whatever. But I do wish you'd post something that demonstrates to me that you're actually trying to see my POV. (Item: You still haven't addressed my assertion about the normal rules of evidence being thrown out as soon as it is even suggested that scripture might appear to be unsupported by the evidence. Indeed, I almost get the idea that you don't actually understand why I would identify that as a problem.)

So you have no faith, you are quite literally being a devils advocate. Look up the literal definitions of those two words. That's you. Too bad.
Interestingly, discussing this thread with another board member, I was told I need to remember to pity those who are so unable to admit that they might be wrong, because those tend to be the same people who are never saved, because they can never admit that they are sinners.

:no-no: I choose to believe that you mean well, FA, but it appears that you have no idea how insulting and offensive you're being there.

Devil's advocate? Fine by me.
Better to reign in Hell Than to serve in Heaven.


Your Faith in the validity of your beliefs does not give you any right to look down your nose at anyone simply because you can't convince them that they're wrong to disagree with you. How'd you feel if I dismissed your beliefs with a remark about pitying your desperate need to believe in comforting lies? I haven't, you know, and never would: I've attempted to debate you like the reasonable -if admittedly somewhat forcefully expressed- guy that I am. (I realized it was inevitably an exercise in futility, but if I'd ever let that deter me from anything, I'd've given up watching UK Gold's Tom Baker-period Dr. Who reruns weeks ago, and there was always the remote chance that some interesting factoid might emerge amid the misinterpretations, misrepresentations and unsubstantiated assertion and rumour: either something new to me, new to you or new to one or more of those reading the posts.)

No faith! A sinner even! :rofl:

I worried I was perhaps drifting towards arrogance with my suspicious questions about your pastor's credentials, but I now realize that I'm strictly amateur hour when it comes to that particular speck in the eye! :rolleyes:

-------------------------------------------------
Zygon ruminates upon what has transpired. (He can do that: it comes with having 4 stomachs.)

Hmmm. I note that there has been an exchange of posts betwixt FA and FL whilst I cogitated upon my own response (i.e. took a step back and then tried to whittle out all the initial emotional knee-jerking from that response). Crikey.
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FallenAngel
Most people these days even deny the concept of sin, which many think leads to denial of the very concept of wrongdoing, which in turn leads to the sort of "every man for himself and fuck the rest of you" attitude prevalent in our society today. Let's face it, there are right and wrong behaviours, so what does my label (sin) matter?

Those that think denial of the existence of Sin leads inevitably to Sin and to a denial that any act is wrong are, IMO, barking. Our society's ills are more rightly laid at the door of 2 millenia of 'It's the devil's work!' cop-out. It is arguable belief in supernatural evil, and in Sin, is what leads to Sin and wrongdoing: so long as living evil and irrational forces of temptation are accepted as even a mere possibility, weak men and women have all the excuse they need to act as they will and to hell with everyone else. So what if there's a punishment to come? That's in the next life, and they want their fun now. Forgive me, Lord: I was lured by the devil's works!! I'm not responsible! I'm as you made me, and you made me too weak to resist the devil's wiles! ('Sin in haste, repent at leisure' has a double meaning: it is both caution and instruction. Do as you will, you can always pray for forgiveness when your time really starts running out.)

Puzzler: back when my kid sis was irreligious, she was troubled and insecure, but basically sweetness and light, kind and generous and not a bad word against anyone -well hardly anyone. The she was Saved, and found The Lord, joined a Pentecostal church and now she's a racist and a homophobe, and thinks people with Aids should be gassed, and worries (really!!!) that her kids will be possessed by demons if they read a Harry Potter book. This is modern Xtianity?

Meanwhile those who deny that any are automatically sinful, and they who deny the possibility of personified evil know that they are responsible for their actions for good and ill, and that they must face the consequences of their acts in the here and now. Some of these, yes, do remain weak, and do act selfishly and without regard for others. But most don't. Facing up to a world in which there is no redemption except what you claw back by your own efforts, a world where forgiveness and rewards earned are not automatically granted, takes a kind of mental toughness that doesn't sit easily with just giving in to temptation and indulging yourself. You get too aware of the consequences of everything you do. You have to do the best you can right now and right here: there is no life to come. (Some of us aren't even sure that there's a life in the here and now, but that's just a passing mood and it flits on by when we see the starry sky or a baby's smile. Look, it's 4 AM and I'm getting tired so the crusty curmudgeonly atheist pose is getting harder to maintain, right? Now I am for bed.).

-------------------------------------------------
Postscript for FratreLibre: 'poor Zygon'??? Cheeky sod. :)
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,239
Likes
9,013
Points
284
Firstly, a Modly commendation on the nature of the debate on this thread. It shows that it is possible to hold and promote very strong views and beliefs without descending to name-calling or flaming. Restraint in the face of perceived insult or criticism is sensible and mature behaviour - keep up the good work! :)


Personally, I am an agnostic. This refers to my 'belief' in the unknowability of the existence, nature, or motives of any higher power. I have studied the evidence put forward by Christians, and I was at one time a sincere Christian myself, but eventually I came to realise that to be true to myself I had to apply the same standards of analysis to Christian dogma as I applied to other phenomena and events in the world.

One thing I came to resent was the high-jacking by religion of morality. (Most religions are guilty of this, not just Christianity.) An understanding of right and wrong is a human judgement, and is unrelated to a belief in God or gods. I take it as self-evident that it's better all round for people to be kind to their neighbours and refrain from murder, theft, etc.

In my view the law-giving, rule-making God of the 'peoples of the book' is a human invention which embodies the pre-existing understanding of what makes society work. To believe that morality was ordained by God is to put the cart before the horse.

There may well be a higher power in the universe, but nothing I've learned in my life so far convinces me that it has much (if any) interest in humanity.

Maybe there is an afterlife, but if so we know remarkably little about it as yet. (And most of what organised Christianity tells us of it has no basis in their holy book, because most of it is concerned with telling us how to live in this life.) Most of the people on this MB are here because of an interest in such subjects, and a desire to learn more.

Faith in one viewpoint is fine if it makes you happy, but to me much religious debate smacks of the Swiftean arguments of those who propose cracking eggs at the big end as opposed to the small end - it's really irrelevent, and a debate about a human fantasy.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
What is Real

rynner - well-said. It's a debate about what's not real, and so rather Brobdinagian.

As to morality, as I was taught, there is a distinction between that and ethics. Morality attaches to dogma, whereas ethics attach to responsibility and consequences.

"What's right is what you feel good after." -- Hemingway.

Here he is offering a subjective definition of a behavior code. A sociopath might well answer, tartly, "Then I'll do anything I damned well want."

You must have a conscience and sense of responsibility for Hemingway's code to work.

So dogma comes into play to give those who can't properly scale things a set of rules to measure behavior by, according to social mores obtaining at the time of the dogma's writing. This is then called moral behavior.

Ethical behavior would ask what consequences and responsibilites an act would incur, and whether we're willing to live up to them.

Moral behavior asks only if an act conforms with a set of written rules.

It's easy to see that ethics, in this light, takes much more maturity, intelligence, and general education in society's mores. It also places behavior in a context of cause-and-effect.

On the other hand morality can be imposed from without and operate blindly, without much thought. Just following orders, essentially, is the moral stance.

This is why I choose freedom, responsibility, and consequences over blindly folowing a set of rules written for a society no longer pertinent to the world we inhabit.

Living ethically, not necessarily morally, is harder, though, and so rarer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That Mortal ...Christ

A man’s ‘ Temple’, was in those times, regarded as that -area- behind the -Eye-, that taketh of knowledge between the Sight and then the Thought of the materialized mind..

Christ was a Liar!

He was Not the son of a God of the universe.
He was Not a savior of anyone.
He never spoke with a single Creator Father, a father that he said, was communicating with him from a place , that He was from himself in his Perfected self state of Righteousness, a place such as is today thought of as with those ideas belonging of a ‘Heavenly World’ or a ‘Paradisaical sphere’.The Home of the Creator Father of the human races and their world, earth.
He never Rose from the dead.

He was a liar plain and simple!

If my Words offend any of the faithful members of the remains of his cult of liars , than I am sorry for that.

But he was regardless , a ..........Liar!

He walked this earth with 12 young men as his Apostles.
Funny that there are -12- orbits of the Moon about his supposedly created world, and his and his fathers Children of Time and Spaces world.
Don’t You ‘Think?

What would you think of this young person who has for over Two Thousands years been the Center of one of the largest Institutionalized Foundations ever organized on earth; If you Knew , for fact, that the Earth itself, is a place where ...- Imaged-... Beings , all conscious dwelled within the Earth’s atmosphere All of the Time?
That these beings existed for ever and ever and you are One of these on your own biologies decay?

That they created the Earth and are Not unique celestial entities , but are the norm, throughout the cosmos ?

That they Saw this materialized mortal man as nothing but another Imported dreamer of a seemingly “Better World” ?

That this sort of man only helped Blind the Imported from the Truth of Selves Inherent Eternity?

Christ was a fake, as has been many faithful.
This sort of belief system has truthfulness in it, as does most religions.
But only in enough truth to create a dynamic interaction of these ideas, Nothing more.

It’s all about creating a World that is , regardless of the Imported’s Ignorance of these sort of things or ideas, a World of adventure and dynamic -self -Living in Time and Space,....
Period!

This post is more truth than Christ ever told
Regards,
 

Twin_Star

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
811
Likes
13
Points
49
Re: That Mortal ...Christ

morgantina said:
a father that he said, was communicating with him from a place , that He was from himself in his Perfected self state of Righteousness

He walked this earth with 12 young men as his Apostles.
Funny that there are -12- orbits of the Moon
Christ scrupulously avoided any mention that he was the messiah, in fact a lengthy piece i am writing at the moment for this board on this topic explains that much of the "Son of God" honorifics etc that are scattered throughout the NT are placed there by latter scribes eager to advance Christology. I think you may have got confused between Jesus claiming that he's got a ham radio set to the almighty, and the fact that we are constantly (all of us) are in the presence of the "Living God".

My piece is a few days away, but I couldn't let this type of vitriolic bile go uncommented on in the meantime.

Also i think that it has been widely accepted that Jesus took 12 apostles to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, thusly the entireity of the Jewish people, not just the self righteous sects such as the Pharisees / Zealots etc (which he admonished more than the prostitutes, tax collectors lepers and other outcasts he readily associated with).

His teachings explained that you cannot "buy" your way into the Kingdom of Heaven with good deeds, but have to accept its truth as like the faith of a child. This, I would respectfully suggest, is almost diamterically opposed to your concept of him as postulating his "perfected state of righteousness".

I'm not a Christian by a long straight, but I do believe in the concept of DYOR.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: That Mortal ...Christ

morgantina said:
A man’s ‘ Temple’, was in those times, regarded as that -area- behind the -Eye-, that taketh of knowledge between the Sight and then the Thought of the materialized mind..

Christ was a Liar!

He was Not the son of a God of the universe.
He was Not...[/b]and so on until...Imported’s Ignorance of these sort of things or ideas, a World of adventure and dynamic -self -Living in Time and Space,....
Period!

This post is more truth than Christ ever told
Regards,

But we have only the Gospel writers' word for what he said, and that's even assuming he ever existed.
Accusing Jesus of being a liar on the basis of what is said in the gospels is like, if we cast you in the central role, finding yourself in court accused of murder, and discovering everyone treating an accusation made against you by some weirdo on the internet as your confession!! It's nonsensical. Even if Xtianity is all BS (which is my opinion, but that doesn't mean I'm right), that doesn't mean we can blame this guy Jesus for it.

In fact, wouldn't it be more reasonable to blame Paul?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
In fact, wouldn't it be more reasonable to blame Paul?
no, don't blame me! oh, you mean another paul.

it does seem a strange basis for a religion though, to 1. base your teaching on a guy claiming to be the son of god then 2. let a guy who claimed to have met this son of god for the first time after the son of god guy was dead have the biggest influence when kick starting the whole shabang.

at least that paul guy had the right idea about women
just a joke! please don't flame me you XX chromosone type people
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
Which Jesus?

There were two, at least, operating back then. One was a religious zealot and rabble rouser, the other a political type. The latter had royal blood and married another with royal blood, (Mary Magdalene), and thus posed a serious threat to the powers that obtained.

These two were conflated at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. by Emperor Constantine.

It was not Jesus, either one, who was necessarily a liar, but rather that council, where xtianity as we know it today was put together. It was there that Jesus became the one figure we know today, it was there he was given magical powers and divinity, and so on.

So yell at Constantine, if lying outrages you. If not, pass the ketchup, please. I have a crucifiction to fake for the current regime.

Or is it crucial fiction? Political theater in any case, to excuse further looting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not even going to go back to my prior argument, because no matter what I posted, your pre-conceived notions that every Christian looks down their nose at non Christians and that every thing I say is a denounciation of non Christians causes you to read into my posts things that I did not say.

I will address one thing: devil's advocate. I specifically asked you to look up those words because I figured from your prior posts that you'd misunderstand the meaning and intent of that statement. Someone who is an advocate of something or someone :

1. One who pleads the cause of another. Specifically: One who pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court; a counselor.

2. One who defends, vindicates, or espouses any cause by argument; a pleader; as, an advocate of free trade, an advocate of truth.

3. Christ, considered as an intercessor.

If you are specifically and vehemently anti-Christian you are by definition in favor of the opposite: the devil.

I was not insulting you but using logic - if not one then the other - your actions cannot have a null result/effect. Nothing in life does, that's true all the way to the quantum mechanics level of existance. If you see it differently, or deny the existance of either one, how can you be insulted? If there is no devil then my claim that your actions support him has no meaning.

And don't read/argue against supposed intent into my words when I've been quite specific that I'm willing to debate the subject but not you as a person, or me as a person.

(edited for grammatical error to enhance clarity)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: Which Jesus?

FraterLibre said:
There were two, at least, operating back then. One was a religious zealot and rabble rouser, the other a political type. The latter had royal blood and married another with royal blood, (Mary Magdalene), and thus posed a serious threat to the powers that obtained.

These two were conflated at the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. by Emperor Constantine.

It was not Jesus, either one, who was necessarily a liar, but rather that council, where xtianity as we know it today was put together. It was there that Jesus became the one figure we know today, it was there he was given magical powers and divinity, and so on.

So yell at Constantine, if lying outrages you. If not, pass the ketchup, please. I have a crucifiction to fake for the current regime.

Or is it crucial fiction? Political theater in any case, to excuse further looting.
Fratre, this is the second time you posted this and your sole source seems to be one book. Can you please provide other sources? It's an awfully controversial claim to make without sufficient support and seems to be being make simply to be provoking.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
This is Logic?

Dropped Cherubim wrote: If you are specifically and vehemently anti-Christian you are by definition in favor of the opposite: the devil.

If you're not with us you're against us, hm?

Sieg heil to you, too, but uh, that's not logic, that's bigotry. I am vehemently anti-organized religion because I genuinely don't see what good any of it does, and I see endless horrific harm it does.

It's that simple.

I find Satanism ridiculous, laughably so for the most part, and I certainly am not in favor of any devil, especially not the one xtians tend to froth up in their terror of life.

Read The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels, for instance, if you'd like my view on the situation.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Re: One Search, Diverse Views

FraterLibre said:
This is the kind of variety and interesting diversity one can find with even a token look outside the blinkers.
Indeed. I picked one at random, (http://www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/) and
found a number of references and links on that site, and picked at random one of those. The document it linked to was quite an eye opener. Apparently a group of scholars got together, with the purpose of disproving the authenticity of Jesus (nothing like starting out with an open mind, eh?). Their methodology was fascinating too: "The seminar's system of voting has attracted particular media attention. Initially, seminar members dropped colored beads into a hopper to indicate whether they believed an item about Jesus should be accepted as authentic: red for definitely, pink for possibly, gray for unlikely, black for definitely not. The practice became too cumbersome and was discontinued, but the image of scholars "blackballing" Jesus proved irresistible to journalists. " Ooh, that does sound very scientific, doesn't it? Oh and it also says "The Jesus Seminar also often offers judgments on matters that historians usually regard as beyond the reach of history to prove or disprove. For example, it states outright that "Jesus' corpse probably rotted in some unknown grave. "In making such judgments, the group assumes the legitimacy of what may be called a post-enlightenment world view: Whatever our modern view of reality says cannot happen, did not happen--anywhere, anytime. This elevates modern science to the level of religious faith, mistaking one type of truth for the other. It also predetermines the outcomes of the research. " Oh wait, maybe that wasn't the article you meant for me to read?

How about this one:
your link led to a site with an enormous number of articles and links but almost nothing about Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene. Very interesting reading, all of it, but most of those articles support my view not yours. Again, was that what you meant for me to read? If so, many thanks. Oh, there was one page with an article or series of articles about the historical accuracy of the tale of Jesus (the Bible) but everything in it was by one guy, Earl Doherty, who is a prolific writer, has flooded the net with his publications and is a one-note singer with a lot of theory but little documentation to back up his theory. He posits ideas without any sort of support for the idea except more of his own ideas. Where are the scraps of scrolls, the manuscripts, the actual writings from the era? He doesn't seem to mention much of that if any in his articles. Some searches of his name on the net reveal :"Doherty's interaction with opposing points of view is severely limited. Opponents and commentators are as a rule addressed in highly generalized terms, as unfortunately are opinions called upon for support. Even worse, the dreaded "Most/The majority of scholars say...", "Scholarship says...", and "Scholars like X say..." routine, which I personally hoped had died a painful death long ago, here resurfaces with a vengeance. Who this amalgam of "scholars" is, of course, is seldom mentioned, and thus such introductory formula and the data offered behind them have about as much authority as "4 out of 5 dentists recommend" !:rolleyes: That's not very convincing, to put it gently.

I did run searches on "Jesus, married, Magdalene" and there are a lot of articles out there on that but they all seem to agree, it's possible and even likely, given that he was accepted as a rabbi - a married man by definition - but that there is no proof, either way.

Why do you accept, on thin evidence at best, the idea that Jesus was not one man but two, one of whom was married, but deny the facts that are far better supported (the New Testament)?

And why such antagonism? Why is it so important to you, not that I read what you write and understand what you say, but that I agree with you? Can you not have a discussion in which each party listens to one another but neither immediately changes the other's mind? I don't demand that you agree with me, but you seem to feel that unless I change my mind and agree with you that somehow I have not listened to you. I have not demanded that of you, nor accused you of "not listening" if you disagree with me....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
On a more humorous note, Paul Veerhoven, the producer & director of Showgirls is a respected participant in The Jesus Seminar, and apprently one of those who votes on the authenticity or lack thereof of incidents in the bible.

I love it when they bring in the real experts!

:rofl:
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
ABCs of Attitude

A) Because Verhoeven's known to you from another field you presume he has no expertise in another.

B) You mock and scoff like any true believer threatened by not only facts but imagination and alternative viewpoints.

C) I could not possibly care less about what you think, feel, write, or believe.

D) From now on do your own research and, incidentally, stop trolling while you're at it. Any one of your posts could be reported to a moderator. I know, I've been thwacked for far less.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
View from the Cheap Seats

A) Because Verhoeven's known to you from another field you presume he has no expertise in another.
I think you missed the joke. Paul Verhoven, the diretcor of such cinematic tour de force as 'Showgirls' and 'The Long Kiss Goodnight', not to mention 'Robocop' is a Jesus expert? If that isn't at least a gear change let alone funny, then I'm visiting from Earth-2.


B) You mock and scoff like any true believer threatened by not only facts but imagination and alternative viewpoints.
Ok, that seems like a reasonable description of debate to me. Person A holds viewpoint1, Person B, by what means they have at their disposal refutes it. Your point is?

C) I could not possibly care less about what you think, feel, write, or believe.
Self evidently not the case, since you feel the need to point it out. I cordially suggest you remove the burr from your vent, and debate the point not the politics.

D) From now on do your own research and, incidentally, stop trolling while you're at it. Any one of your posts could be reported to a moderator. I know, I've been thwacked for far less.
It seems a tad unsporting to accuse someone of 'trolling' when they have the infinite bad taste to quote one's references in their rebuttal. Would you care to elaborate what constitutes research and what doesn't?

I shall now retire to the shadows with the small bag of rotten tomatos and brickbats that I always take to the theatre. On with the motley, and on with the show...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1) Lighten up...I said I was being humorous. (I know that Verhoven has a PhD and a fascination with Jesus, however expertise in one field does not guarantee expertise in another.)

2) WTF was I mocking and scoffing about? I was joking that the web pages your urls took me to seemed to support my beliefs not yours, so I thought maybe you posted those urls without reading them yourself. What, a little teasing is out of line? gimme a break!!

3) I realize you have no interest in anyone's opinion if it differs from your own - your posts make that clear.

4) If you actually read my posts you'd see I did do my own research. And exactly how was I trolling?

If you only take things as personal attacks, everything I post will read to you as a personal attack. However, my posts were not personal attacks. Too thin a skin is no advantage in a forum of this sort.
 

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,411
Likes
22
Points
69
No need to get upset

Here in the states all you have to do is watch and participate in the "700 club" host Pat Robertson and his son and a whole cast of experts that will answer all your questions on Jesus (the son of God). And its free!! You can donate $ if you want to, and they will help with all your questions and teach folks tolerance. Also, you can get involved in many projects to help with things such as frustration, fear, depression (and maybe spelling!) they have a toll free number you can call and talk to a couserler..now I'm gone .:)
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
don't Forget

And for the chronically needy there is always Robert Schuller's Hour of Power from his Crystal Cathedral, which rivals the Emerald City of Oz for sheer tasteless opulence. If that don't cure ya, y'all's doomed.
 
Top