View Full Version : Jesus: The Myth "gospels" of Mark Mathew, Luke, and John
The "gospel" of Mark was written 1st.
Calling all Jasons!
I was born Catholic, I read the childrens bible before I was 9 years old.
after this I read the new testament and used it daily for a period of time. When I read the old testament front to back, I discovered some discrepancies, and thus began my journey unto the discovery of truth, and love.
I have spent the last 24 hours researching Jesus and christian lore.
Although I know much about christian culture and history (now debunked mythology) I did discover some new and useful information.
Before I begin, I would like to know if Jason (or anyone else) is still interested in debating?
Z
I'm willing to discuss :D
lets roll :P we gonna talk about Constantine and how he was the high priest of Mithra?
Hi Pron, are you Catholic, or another Christian sect?
and are U willing to debate?
Z
I'm Christian Z. And a critical realist. Let's roll :D
Well lets begin to discuss Dogma.
Why is it that Religion is the only area that people tolerate Dogma completely uncritically?
To deny that the hollucost happened, or to assert that u know u are in diolague with extra terestrials is pretty much synonomus with craziness in our culture.
It is so because we challenge people when they believe things strongly without evidence, or in contradiction to a mountain of evidence.
except on faith.
Why?
is it that faith is not important?
Z
Divine Intervention
08-06-2008, 23:58
i wonder what Z took to be tripping like this atm.
because people have generally **** lives and want something to "make it" better or they want to believe that in the next life it will be better because "they" beleived
i wonder what Z took to be tripping like this atm.
Nothing at all.
I am just really angry about this.
Look:
i was raised to believe that symbolic messages, lore and Myths were REAL.
I was LIED TO by people that loved me and that I love.
I was a child, and I was LIED to for YEARS! about something VERY important: the spiritual realm.
After I realized some things and began searching for truth and Love, I began to study things like philosophy and psychology in school.
I wanted to find out why human beings would do this type of thing.
My entire family is catholic. after many years of discussion and fighting and accepting each others opinions, My mother and father began to see the light in my views, and do some studying for themsleves.
They stopped sending my baby sister to church, they stopped throwing their money away to the church.
now they realize that the church robbed them and all of us of our finance and our very spirit.
We are all still spiritual, but my immediate family has been through a lot over the past 10years,
and It upsets me to think that there are other children and families out there that might be suffering because of the church.
Do no fear god. you will not burn in a lake of fire if you deny the existance of the holy spirit.
Z
I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT.
I am NOT afraid.
Z
yes i always wonder why people denie the changes of slavery in this world, but take it in the spiritual.
ive said alot worse then that before Z lol
I am waiting for someone to address my question about Dogma.
Z
Z, I will be glad to "discuss" this with you as a non practicing Catholic and give youmy views,. However I would prefer to do so in a non combative debate, where I will not judge your beliefs and I ask that you not judge mine. I have been raisedCatholic, I was baptized, married and will probebly be buried Catholic. Do I believe uncatagorically in all thierr teachings, no, but I choose to foolw what I was raised in, so we can discuss. but, not to night, I am going for a drink. I will reply upon my return.
Z, I will be glad to "discuss" this with you as a non practicing Catholic and give youmy views,. However I would prefer to do so in a non combative debate, where I will not judge your beliefs and I ask that you not judge mine. I have been raisedCatholic, I was baptized, married and will probebly be buried Catholic. Do I believe uncatagorically in all thierr teachings, no, but I choose to foolw what I was raised in, so we can discuss. but, not to night, I am going for a drink. I will reply upon my return.
Sounds good.
Its a sensitive subject for me, as like I said I have been Lied to.
1ST please address my question about Dogma, and why it is that no one questions religious dogma, but all other dogmas are questioned?
(sorry for my aggression, it just pushes my buttons when people try to tell me how to live, tell me I am going to burn in hell and such, when I live a good life, and I do not hurt people)
Z
Well lets begin to discuss Dogma.
Why is it that Religion is the only area that people tolerate Dogma completely uncritically?
To deny that the hollucost happened, or to assert that u know u are in diolague with extra terestrials is pretty much synonomus with craziness in our culture.
It is so because we challenge people when they believe things strongly without evidence, or in contradiction to a mountain of evidence.
except on faith.
Why?
is it that faith is not important?
Z
Sorry Z--if you see my post in the other thread, you might understand why it took so long to reply lol.
Let me ask you this, do you believe that to be Christian is to believe in Dogma uncritically? I really don't. In fact, I question everything that is put in front of me, and I believe I become a stronger Christian because of it. It is too bad that people can't get past the dogma stage of Christianity because there is a wellspring of things to learn outside of it. Unfortunately, many people only see religion for what they can get out of it, and are too afraid to challenge it for fear of losing what they get out of it.
It seems that you attribute Faith to not having evidence. I would disagree with this statement. Many times I have to have faith without evidence. Faith in some things in the Bible sure. However, I need no more evidence then the way that God has acted within my own life for me to believe. That may not be a good enough answer for someone that doesn't understand what I've been through, and I understand that. However, I think that the only way to have evidence for faith is to experience God.
Let me know what you think.
Edit: It should be noted that questioning Dogma isn't for everyone Z. Sometimes, something that is good for one person, is not good for another, and recognizing that people are in different places when it comes to their faith and religion is a step in the right direction when talking about what people need to do to bring themselves closer to God. Sometimes, it's good for a person to not question, but just believe, follow, and serve.
Sorry Z--if you see my post in the other thread, you might understand why it took so long to reply lol.
Let me ask you this, do you believe that to be Christian is to believe in Dogma uncritically? I really don't. In fact, I question everything that is put in front of me, and I believe I become a stronger Christian because of it. It is too bad that people can't get past the dogma stage of Christianity because there is a wellspring of things to learn outside of it. Unfortunately, many people only see religion for what they can get out of it, and are too afraid to challenge it for fear of losing what they get out of it.
It seems that you attribute Faith to not having evidence. I would disagree with this statement. Many times I have to have faith without evidence. Faith in some things in the Bible sure. However, I need no more evidence then the way that God has acted within my own life for me to believe. That may not be a good enough answer for someone that doesn't understand what I've been through, and I understand that. However, I think that the only way to have evidence for faith is to experience God.
Let me know what you think.
I have yet to check the other thread.
This is why religion is a personal thing:
concerning faith; any sort of evidence that can be seen or held in fact and studied in reality, then eliminates the element of faith.
if something is there in front of you: like you see an apple on the table.
the apple is there. U do not need faith to know it is there, everyone can agree that it is there, even if u are blind u can touch it and realize it is there.
if things happen in a persons life that lead him/or her to have faith that god exists, then this is something personal, as what you experience, only you truly can comprehend as you do.
Faith by definition is to believe in something without evidence based in reality, that is factual evidence. (one might have evidence based on feelings, dreams, personal ocurances, but this is not factual evidence)
Pron I do think that we are on the same level here in some ways.
To answer your question... what does it mean to be christian... well see I have nothing against a person that would call themselves christian... What bothers me is the bible... the dogma.
I was taught (by the church) that to be christian is to have faith in god, the holy spirit, and the son of god.
If I was to deny the existence of the holy spirit I would go to Hell when I died, for eternity.
They actually attempted to get me to believe this. that If i simply thought that maybe the spirit in my was not holy, and that it was my parents who gave me life and vitality, that I would be damded.
and so to be Catholic i was suppose to believe in the bible, and so forth.
so in the catholic religion where I come from, Ontario Canada (and according to the bible) yes, one must follow the doctrine of the bible to be a christian.
u see to deny the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin.
when we begin to think about it... we have no more evidence that the holy spirit exists than we do that unicorns exist.
But now we have just broken the biggest rule, the greatest crime in fudamentalist christianity:
TO THINK!
fun·da·men·tal·ism
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
This is classic christian doctrine, perhaps not the way you see it Pron, but this is how it is taught in the bible.
Concerning religious dogma once again:
If you are trying to get a medical degree, and you have all kinds of ideas about human health that can not be substantiated by evidence, and you talk about your own strong convictions, educe any reasons for them; not only will you not get your degree, you are essentially laughed out of the room.
Is this wrong for people to laugh at you about this?
no
because peoples Lives depend on it.
Now i did my best to answer your question, could you please address my original question concerning why it is that religious dogma is not questioned, while all else is?
Z
im going to get involved into this debate but wanted to state this, i was a Christian, i too beleive the stories i was told i too questioned the logic of this religion and other around but alot of it was just bull,so i became a Athiest and now am a Muslim
I have yet to check the other thread.
Check the other thread. I spent a lot of time on it:P.
This is why religion is a personal thing:
Religion is not a personal thing. Faith is a personal thing, and religion is a shared community understanding of Faith.
concerning faith; any sort of evidence that can be seen or held in fact and studied in reality, then eliminates the element of faith.
if something is there in front of you: like you see an apple on the table.
the apple is there. U do not need faith to know it is there, everyone can agree that it is there, even if u are blind u can touch it and realize it is there.
if things happen in a persons life that lead him/or her to have faith that god exists, then this is something personal, as what you experience, only you truly can comprehend as you do.
Faith by definition is to believe in something without evidence based in reality, that is factual evidence. (one might have evidence based on feelings, dreams, personal ocurances, but this is not factual evidence)
Pron I do think that we are on the same level here in some ways.
Agreed. Although, I can have faith in someone else's view of God. IE--if someone understands God in a way I don't understand God, I can have faith in that person's understanding, and attribute it to my own faith. Here is where Faith becomes more than just a personal thing; it becomes a religion.
To answer your question... what does it mean to be christian... well see I have nothing against a person that would call themselves christian... What bothers me is the bible... the dogma.
There were Christians for 300 years before there was ever a Bible as we know it or the Dogma as we know it.
I was taught (by the church) that to be christian is to have faith in god, the holy spirit, and the son of god.
If I was to deny the existence of the holy spirit I would go to Hell when I died, for eternity.
They actually attempted to get me to believe this. that If i simply thought that maybe the spirit in my was not holy, and that it was my parents who gave me life and vitality, that I would be damded.
and so to be Catholic i was suppose to believe in the bible, and so forth.
so in the catholic religion where I come from, Ontario Canada (and according to the bible) yes, one must follow the doctrine of the bible to be a christian.
A few flaws in either your reasoning here, or more likely the people that gave you this reasoning.
1. To be a Christian means you believe that Jesus was the Incarnation of God in this world. IE--the Son of God. As a Christian, you would believe that Jesus is then the way to receive salvation. Upon believing these things, you would receive the Holy spirit who begins a renewal process within you that makes you a) more Christ-like in this life, and b) Ultimate Renewal after this life has ended.
2. Mark 3: 28-29. Jesus speaking. "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
Within the context of this passage, which might take about 20 mins to explain, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to believe that Christ is not who He says He is.
Say what you want about the Holy Spirit, I can't give you logical arguments to prove that the HS exists. One day we'll both know for sure though ya?
u see to deny the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin.
See above point #2.
when we begin to think about it... we have no more evidence that the holy spirit exists than we do that unicorns exist.
Agreed. But just because I don't have evidence, doesn't mean there isn't evidence out there. There wasn't evidence atoms existed until we had an electron microscope to see them.
But now we have just broken the biggest rule, the greatest crime in fudamentalist christianity:
TO THINK!
fun·da·men·tal·ism
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
yea--I really am not a fundamentalist, or fundie as I call them. They really kill the whole being a Christian thing for me. However, there is a place for them. Realize the keywords in your definition: A movement, not The movement.
This is classic christian doctrine, perhaps not the way you see it Pron, but this is how it is taught in the bible.
It's not really classical Christian Doctrine, as it originated in the 20th Century.
And it's not how it's taught in the Bible, it's how it's taught in some churches. I believe that if people are stressing this fundamentalism over aspects of Jesus' ministry, they're missing out on the big idea of being a Christian.
Concerning religious dogma once again:
If you are trying to get a medical degree, and you have all kinds of ideas about human health that can not be substantiated by evidence, and you talk about your own strong convictions, educe any reasons for them; not only will you not get your degree, you are essentially laughed out of the room.
Is this wrong for people to laugh at you about this?
no
because peoples Lives depend on it.
Agreed. However, it's not an exact parallel. In Religion, you're dealing with an Infinite Mystery in this thing known as God. God is Love. But what kind of Love? How much Love is this God of Love? Can you define it for me or show me evidence of the amount of Love God is?
For me, the whole evidence argument is tough to argue against. Of course I'm going to have a tough time proving God, because God is a mystery even to me! But I have seen bits and pieces of God. Some in the Bible. Some in my own life. Some in the lives of others. Some in Church. Some in Dogma. The reality is, there will be no compelling argument intellectually that will satisfy anybody looking for an intellectual answer. Unless they're completely ignorant on many issues--but then how intellectual are they?
The only thing I can say is, I do believe a day will come when we'll have all the evidence we need. That's all I can rest on. For your analogy, it's the day when that person's intuition about medical things is proven. I suppose you could look at every inventor within the past 2000 years of medicine, and they would say there was a time when they were laughed out of the room. Cure polio? Ha. A vaccine? Ha. Mold cures people's sickness? HA. I do believe time will tell on this one.
Now i did my best to answer your question, could you please address my original question concerning why it is that religious dogma is not questioned, while all else is?
Z
I think the best answer to this question is that there are people that question Dogma, and it's an ok thing to do. The biggest problem is when people start defending their dogma over being a Christian. When they defend their Dogma, they start defending their religion and stop defending their faith. I think you're stereotyping Christians here, and it's an unfair question to ask :D.
I question my religious Dogma. I'm a Christian. I think people are too afraid to question their own Dogma, because they're afraid that they'll lose the God they've come to know and that's a scary thing. I have no idea why churches encourage being afraid. When I become a pastor, I will encourage those that can handle this change to question their Dogma, and I will try to bring people to an understanding that questioning does not equal blasphemy. That's my best answer to your question.
Religion is not a personal thing. Faith is a personal thing, and religion is a shared community understanding of Faith.
Now u see this is where the problem begins.
The distinction between faith and religion.
If you assume that one persons faith can be shared and one persons ideals can be spread.
But no 2 people live the same life, and so no to dogmas can be perfect for 2 people. we should all live by our own experiences.
When ideologies are spread as a religion, things can get ugly.
Look at the inquisition, look at how GWBush sent americans to kill and be killed and destroy in Iraq because "he spoke to god"
massing peoples minds blindly creates problems.
People follow leaders in the name of religion.
God does not give us our rights, we give us our rights as humans.
we are god. life is god.
I must sleep.
good arguments, but I am disturbed by the way people are still taking these words literally, ignoring the destruction and suffering organized religion has caused.
Religion is not a bad thing. but when u organize minds... and pepope stop thinking freely, constantly...
The human mind and will is powerful. each of us should maintain our individual thoughts and judgments. when we rely on a book or other people to tell us what is right, it can confuse.
Goodnight for now.
Z
im going to get involved into this debate but wanted to state this, i was a Christian, i too beleive the stories i was told i too questioned the logic of this religion and other around but alot of it was just bull,so i became a Athiest and now am a Muslim
I do not understand how one person can switch a religion... I mean i understand the concept...
But it just seems ludacris to me...
it seems shallow?
sorry if that is offensive... but why don't u just love and be good?
Z
Now u see this is where the problem begins.
The distinction between faith and religion.
If you assume that one persons faith can be shared and one persons ideals can be spread.
But no 2 people live the same life, and so no to dogmas can be perfect for 2 people. we should all live by our own experiences.
Agreed. No two people have the same experience of God. But two people can combine their experience of God and find a fuller God-image by looking at the differences and similarities of the God they've each met. Religion can still be a good thing when done right.
When ideologies are spread as a religion, things can get ugly.
True in some cases.
What about "feed the poor", "defend the fatherless and the widow", or "love your neighbor as yourself"? Are these not ideaologies that are good to spread? Just because some people corrupt others, doesn't mean that all religion is corrupt. It just means that people have to be wary of corruption and prevent it.
Look at the inquisition
Again--this was a man made thing, and I firmly believe was not what God intended.
look at how GWBush sent americans to kill and be killed and destroy in Iraq because "he spoke to god"
I voted for Gore :(
GWBush was not a religious leader. He's not a pastor, priest, or anything else for that matter. He was not acting like an emperor or pope was during the middle ages.
And he's still stupid. He also never said "God spoke back".
massing peoples minds blindly creates problems.
This is still true outside of religion. It's true whenever someone leads anyone else. It's a risk people take by following, and that's why people need to realize a good leader when they see one.
People follow leaders in the name of religion.
True. All the more reason that the Bible tells us that leaders will be judged more harshly than others.
God does not give us our rights, we give us our rights as humans.
we are god. life is god.
I disagree.
I must sleep.
I agree
good arguments, but I am disturbed by the way people are still taking these words literally, ignoring the destruction and suffering organized religion has caused.
Haven't governments created destruction and suffering? Should we throw those out too?
Religion is not a bad thing. but when u organize minds... and pepope stop thinking freely, constantly...
This can happen anytime someone leads someone else, whether in Religion or civic duties. It happens in our game here at NW! It's part of our corrupt world.
The human mind and will is powerful. each of us should maintain our individual thoughts and judgments. when we rely on a book or other people to tell us what is right, it can confuse.
Someone taught you how to think critically. It wasn't something you were born innately with. It had to be developed. Think about whose influenced your opinions.
I believe the world would be a better place if we could all do this. Utopian even. Too bad that's not around right now :(
Goodnight for now.
Z
Gnight!
Now u see this is where the problem begins.
The distinction between faith and religion.
If you assume that one persons faith can be shared and one persons ideals can be spread.
But no 2 people live the same life, and so no to dogmas can be perfect for 2 people. we should all live by our own experiences.
When ideologies are spread as a religion, things can get ugly.
Look at the inquisition, look at how GWBush sent americans to kill and be killed and destroy in Iraq because "he spoke to god"
massing peoples minds blindly creates problems.
People follow leaders in the name of religion.
God does not give us our rights, we give us our rights as humans.
we are god. life is god.
I must sleep.
good arguments, but I am disturbed by the way people are still taking these words literally, ignoring the destruction and suffering organized religion has caused.
Religion is not a bad thing. but when u organize minds... and pepope stop thinking freely, constantly...
The human mind and will is powerful. each of us should maintain our individual thoughts and judgments. when we rely on a book or other people to tell us what is right, it can confuse.
Goodnight for now.
Z
I will have a lot to say on this, but not tonight, have had a few. But I quoted this post so I could remember. you make some logical arguements, but as a young man, oyu should see things as logically as you do, question what you believe. As you get a little older, you will lose some of the cynicism, that is so pervalent in todays youth. That is not a cut on you but, we will talk tomorrow
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 09:46
Well lets begin to discuss Dogma.
Why is it that Religion is the only area that people tolerate Dogma completely uncritically?
To deny that the hollucost happened, or to assert that u know u are in diolague with extra terestrials is pretty much synonomus with craziness in our culture.
It is so because we challenge people when they believe things strongly without evidence, or in contradiction to a mountain of evidence.
except on faith.
Why?
is it that faith is not important?
Z
I was asleep when you started this thread, and i don't have internet at my house right now (I just moved and they can't come hook it up until Monday - so my absences are explained)
This may surprise you Z, but I agree with you on this point. Nothing should be believed without good evidence and reasons for the belief. This is what I was trying to bring out in the last thread - even materialism/naturalism/atheism shouldn't be believed unless there are good reasons for thinking that it is true. You could produce nothing in the other thread. It is FAR easier to attack then to defend and every single "defense" you had was attacking Xianity. The point of the last thread was that Atheists/Materialists are just as guilty of blindly accepting beliefs and world views without questioning them. Which is why a lot of people cannot back up their beliefs no matter what they believe- because they didn't come to their beliefs on the basis of reasons and evidence.
Xianity is no different. It should NOT be believed if there is no evidence to support it. I believe that it is true because there IS evidence that it is the most rational thing to believe. If Jesus was never alive - no one should be a Christian. If Jesus didn't die - no one should be a Christian. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead - no one should be a Christian.
I completely disagree with you on the nature of faith. Christianity is a historical religion - based on historical facts. If it turns out that the historical facts didn't happen, Christianity MUST be abandoned as a tenable/true religion. Christianity is not a set of moral codes/good thoughts/valid philiosphy. Christianity IS the death/burial/and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
The "gospel" of Mark was written 1st.
I have spent the last 24 hours researching Jesus and christian lore.
Clearly 24 hours of studying makes you more of an expert than people who have devoted their entire lives to the subject.
Clearly 24 hours of studying makes you more of an expert than people who have devoted their entire lives to the subject.
LOL
I am interested as to weather this was meant in sarcasim?
hahaha, sadly, i think it was not.
(am i wrong?)
Z
Jesus told me to say it, does that count for anything?
I was asleep when you started this thread, and i don't have internet at my house right now (I just moved and they can't come hook it up until Monday - so my absences are explained)
This may surprise you Z, but I agree with you on this point. Nothing should be believed without good evidence and reasons for the belief. This is what I was trying to bring out in the last thread - even materialism/naturalism/atheism shouldn't be believed unless there are good reasons for thinking that it is true. You could produce nothing in the other thread. It is FAR easier to attack then to defend and every single "defense" you had was attacking Xianity. The point of the last thread was that Atheists/Materialists are just as guilty of blindly accepting beliefs and world views without questioning them. Which is why a lot of people cannot back up their beliefs no matter what they believe- because they didn't come to their beliefs on the basis of reasons and evidence.
Xianity is no different. It should NOT be believed if there is no evidence to support it. I believe that it is true because there IS evidence that it is the most rational thing to believe. If Jesus was never alive - no one should be a Christian. If Jesus didn't die - no one should be a Christian. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead - no one should be a Christian.
I completely disagree with you on the nature of faith. Christianity is a historical religion - based on historical facts. If it turns out that the historical facts didn't happen, Christianity MUST be abandoned as a tenable/true religion. Christianity is not a set of moral codes/good thoughts/valid philiosphy. Christianity IS the death/burial/and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
I am disturbed by your selfishness, and the individualism created by christian faith.
Z
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 14:00
I am disturbed by your selfishness, and the individualism created by christian faith.
Z
You're going to have to explain.
Xianity is no different. It should NOT be believed if there is no evidence to support it. I believe that it is true because there IS evidence that it is the most rational thing to believe. If Jesus was never alive - no one should be a Christian. If Jesus didn't die - no one should be a Christian. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead - no one should be a Christian.
I completely disagree with you on the nature of faith. Christianity is a historical religion - based on historical facts. If it turns out that the historical facts didn't happen, Christianity MUST be abandoned as a tenable/true religion. Christianity is not a set of moral codes/good thoughts/valid philiosphy. Christianity IS the death/burial/and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
hmm their is no historical proof Jesus lived. And when its forced down peoples throats for hundreds of years and if you don't follow it, they would kill you... makes it easy for it to have survived for ages. But we are watching the fall of the Christian Empire.. and the Fall of the Muslim empire since the two will take each other out. Their is no proof he raised form the dead, every person that "seen" Jesus had a reason to lie about it. IE. trying to start a new religion. And also up until Constantine Jesus was only considered a prophet. and it is why after He was MADE God that the first Heretics to be killed where Christians that did not accept him as God .
As for pron when he said that pagans have their share, well as in killing for religious reasons we do not. The Romans killed Christians not because they were Christians, but because they where running around preaching to everyone, starting riots, and causing all types of problems. Rome had a status quo and anyone that ****ed it up got hurt. Back then you could find a temple to an Roman God next to a temple to a Greek and Egyptian God and they wouldn't be killing each other, but seeing each other as brothers.
also Christianity rose during the FALL of the Roman Empire. When **** was getting ****ed up and people where having hard times. Think about it, your living in some dirt hut, cant feed yourself or your family, and some dude comes and says look, you don't have to worry about this ****ty life you got, just believe in this dude and it will all be good in the next... Doesn't take a genius to figure out why they converted. And once Christianity became the official religion and others where banned, they had no choice. Though many left to live in the country *where pagan comes from, Country folk* and a lot of others practiced in secrecy. Still today their is many who don't practice their true religion openly for free of prosecution.
You're going to have to explain.
Why do I have to explain?
U don't explain much
I am not claiming to be better than you.
We are all equal, we are all children of life and love.
Pron offers some good points, and seems rational. But I feel that even he is blinded slightly.
I was glad to hear that Pron would teach people to question dogma and think freely.
I do not understand what personal experience Pron has had that allows him his faith... I am interested to know, and I would not criticize.
Z
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 15:05
Why do I have to explain?
Because I don't see the connection at all between my post and how it is individualist.
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 15:15
hmm their is no historical proof Jesus lived. And when its forced down peoples throats for hundreds of years and if you don't follow it, they would kill you... makes it easy for it to have survived for ages. But we are watching the fall of the Christian Empire.. and the Fall of the Muslim empire since the two will take each other out. Their is no proof he raised form the dead, every person that "seen" Jesus had a reason to lie about it. IE. trying to start a new religion. And also up until Constantine Jesus was only considered a prophet. and it is why after He was MADE God that the first Heretics to be killed where Christians that did not accept him as God .
As for pron when he said that pagans have their share, well as in killing for religious reasons we do not. The Romans killed Christians not because they were Christians, but because they where running around preaching to everyone, starting riots, and causing all types of problems. Rome had a status quo and anyone that ****ed it up got hurt. Back then you could find a temple to an Roman God next to a temple to a Greek and Egyptian God and they wouldn't be killing each other, but seeing each other as brothers.
also Christianity rose during the FALL of the Roman Empire. When **** was getting ****ed up and people where having hard times. Think about it, your living in some dirt hut, cant feed yourself or your family, and some dude comes and says look, you don't have to worry about this ****ty life you got, just believe in this dude and it will all be good in the next... Doesn't take a genius to figure out why they converted. And once Christianity became the official religion and others where banned, they had no choice. Though many left to live in the country *where pagan comes from, Country folk* and a lot of others practiced in secrecy. Still today their is many who don't practice their true religion openly for free of prosecution.
Wow, that's some bad history.
What sort of proof do you want that Jesus actually lived? We have a detailed written eyewitness report that is the highest quality of antique literature that exists. The New Testament has more manuscripts than any other ancient book. It has earlier manuscripts than any other ancient book. If you deny that historical textual accuracy of the bible - you must deny any other historical record we have from the time.
No one was trying to start a new religion. They were all Jews- who wanted to stay Jews. The early Christians saw this as the fullfillment of the Jewish religion - not a new religion.
They had no motives that can be discovered besides accurately recording history. They were almost all killed/tortured/hated for their beliefs. Doesn't sound like the power/fame/influence motives that most people claim. They honestly believed what they were writing was true. Who is more likely to know - they who were there, or us - displaced 2000 years.
In fact - all the evidence that does exists points to the fact that the gospels are historically accurate and there is no evidence that they should be doubted to be historical.
he Romans killed Christians not because they were Christians, but because they where running around preaching to everyone, starting riots, and causing all types of problems.
What is your source for this? The Christians were not the ones causing the riots. The people were causing riots in response to Christian preaching. It was not the Christians rioting- it was the romans. They were not causing the problems - they were the reasons everyone else was causing problems - there is a very large difference. And becuase of that the excuse that Christianity spread around Rome because of the lure of a good life is silly. "Does your life suck? Become a Christian and get beaten, tarred and feather, fed to lions, lose your family, friends.. etc. etc." Doesn't sound very tempting to me. There has to be more too it.
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 15:18
U don't explain much
In the other thread - I was trying to get information, not give information. In this thread - I've answered the questions you've asked. Though oddly, even though the title is "Jesus: The Myth "gospels" of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John the only thing you have mentioned about the gospels is "Mark was written first".... Yup.
If it turns out that the historical facts didn't happen, Christianity MUST be abandoned as a tenable/true religion. Christianity is not a set of moral codes/good thoughts/valid philiosphy. Christianity IS the death/burial/and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
it is impossible to prove this true or false.
(the historical facts concerning jesus)
The way christianity forces prayer, and ignorance of reality, creates individualism.
how can one be accountable to reality and community while they are consumed with individual salvation...
Z
We have a detailed written eyewitness reports that is the highest quality of antique literature that exist about:
Magic
Horus
Zeus
Sun gods
Aliens
Yeshua of Nazareth a.k.a. Jesus Christ
Charles Manson a.k.a. Jesus Christ
Z
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 15:28
it is impossible to prove this true or false.
(the historical facts concerning jesus)
It is just as possible as any other historical event of the day. We have detailed eyewitness accounts claiming to be historical. You have to get valid reasons as to why they should not be considered to be historical. Documents should always get the benefit of the doubt.
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 15:30
We have a detailed written eyewitness reports that is the highest quality of antique literature that exist about:
Magic
Horus
Zeus
Sun gods
Aliens
Z
They are not of the same quality - plus it is clear that they are written to be Myth. The Gospels are clearly not written to be myth. They are either false, or history. They cannot be considered myth - the style of the literature does not allow it.
They are not of the same quality - plus it is clear that they are written to be Myth. The Gospels are clearly not written to be myth. They are either false, or history. They cannot be considered myth - the style of the literature does not allow it.
The style of literature does not allow itÉ LOL
They were written to be deceptive myths.
Z
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 15:39
They were written to be deceptive myths.
Why do you say that? What reasons do you have?
After Jesus died:
Paul (Saul) after seeing a vision of the lord, began to spread the word of jesus.
Paul wrote lots of letters. about christianity, in fact he wrote about 80k words about it.
but...
If Jesus was a human, who recently had lived... Paul was unaware.
he had never heard of Mary, John the baptist, Joseph, he mentions nothing about any miracles, he never mentions any trials, or any of the suposed recent history of jesus.
Z
Would this make a good jesus bumber sticker?
Forgiving hookers is cheaper than paying them.
Would this make a good jesus bumber sticker?
Forgiving hookers is cheaper than paying them.
It seems accurate...
lol
But i think jesus paid all the hookers he used.
Z
jasonlfunk
08-07-2008, 18:28
After Jesus died:
Paul (Saul) after seeing a vision of the lord, began to spread the word of jesus.
Paul wrote lots of letters. about christianity, in fact he wrote about 80k words about it.
but...
If Jesus was a human, who recently had lived... Paul was unaware.
he had never heard of Mary, John the baptist, Joseph, he mentions nothing about any miracles, he never mentions any trials, or any of the suposed recent history of jesus.
Z
Why do you say that he never heard of Mary, Josephy, John, etc? Just because he does not metion them in his letters (the ones that we have - he probably wrote lots more) doesn't mean he didn't know about them. The purposes of his letters were not to inform the churches about history - but to preach Jesus Christ as the Messiah, rebute and correct, and to encourage.
He does talk about some history- but only that central to his teaching.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Do you have other reasons for thinking that the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are unhistorical and were written in order to decieve the masses?
my history is wrong? i have studied the roman republic and the roman empire on my own. Read any of the literature writing by non-Christians then. BTW we do not know who wrote the books in the new testament. even the Catholics dont know for sure. And just because i write something and say i seen it, doesn't make it true. The whole argument you have, is this is true because this book says so, which wasn't even put together until 300 years after Christ. then it was only kept by priest and scribes, as a christian then, you didnt have a bible, that came around with the printing press.
Every thing i posted is true, i am sorry if you cant see through the lies and propaganda. Why don't you read some books on the rise and fall of the roman empire. maybe even try to find one that isn't bias towards Christianity. Remember this the conquer writes history, not the loser. So when we have had information controlled by the church for 1500+ years at least can u honestly tell me that they didn't twist anything?
And Z has a point, according to how you see things, Hercules was a real man, which i do believe he prob was. Prob did a few great things and legends rose around him after the years, getting bigger and bigger. which is the same for Christ. He wasn't **** until people made him ****. And where is his journal and his writings, if he was this great person, he would of kept some.
Can you honestly tell me your God exist? I can tell you my Gods do, i have done rituals where everything went still and then you are over come by a force of great love that engulfs the whole area. I don't believe my **** because of some whack *** reason. I know of my Gods because of the things i have experienced personally. i spent 2 years out of the 3 i was in prison studying religion and finding my way. that's a hell of a lot different then going to church on Sunday and reading a **** book of lies
it is impossible to prove this true or false.
(the historical facts concerning jesus)
The way christianity forces prayer, and ignorance of reality, creates individualism.
how can one be accountable to reality and community while they are consumed with individual salvation...
Z
Not all that true. Christianity shouldn't be an individual religion. It has become that, but it shouldn't be that. When Jesus says, "Where two or more of you are gathered, I am there" he was not saying that this is an individual religion, but rather a religion of common believers in him.
And Z has a point, according to how you see things, Hercules was a real man, which i do believe he prob was. Prob did a few great things and legends rose around him after the years, getting bigger and bigger. which is the same for Christ. He wasn't **** until people made him ****. And where is his journal and his writings, if he was this great person, he would of kept some.
Not true. Studies have shown it takes about 100 years or so in ancient times for a legend to develop. The earliest Gospel manuscript is 30 years after Christ died. And how do you keep a journal in those days when they didn't have basic schooling? And do you think the Nazareans were educated? They were the lower class people of Israel. You should really know your Jewish history if you're going to expound upon them.
If Jesus was a human, who recently had lived... Paul was unaware.
he had never heard of Mary, John the baptist, Joseph, he mentions nothing about any miracles, he never mentions any trials, or any of the suposed recent history of jesus.
Not true. Saul/Paul did know about Jesus and the stories about Him. How else would Saul/Paul have known who to kill in the temple grounds and wherever else they preached the name of Jesus?
hmm their is no historical proof Jesus lived. And when its forced down peoples throats for hundreds of years and if you don't follow it, they would kill you
There is historical evidence. You just don't believe it.
As to it being forced down people's throats, and as you know so much about the Roman empire, how many hundreds of years did it take for Christianity to come to a position of power where they could force it down people's throats with threats of violence?
Their is no proof he raised form the dead, every person that "seen" Jesus had a reason to lie about it. IE. trying to start a new religion.
And I suppose that all these people that wanted to start a new religion were doing it for power? Again, you know your history so well, what happened to these people that "conjured up this new religion"? How powerful did they become? And when their lives were on the line, and all they had to do was renounce their faith and save their lives, what did they do?
I'm pretty sure all greedy people that I know won't die to some lie they've created.
As for pron when he said that pagans have their share, well as in killing for religious reasons we do not.
LOL. So you're saying no pagan religions have ever killed someone in the name of their religion? Astounding argument. Anyone believe that?
The Romans killed Christians not because they were Christians,
Actually they did. According to Pliny, a 1st century Roman magistrate, has this to say in his letters to his provinces:
"Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted when it comes to those that have come before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening Capital Punishment. If they persist, I sentence them to death."
That's from a non-christian source. A roman magistrate persecuting Christians. Please get your facts straight before making statements.
Pron offers some good points, and seems rational. But I feel that even he is blinded slightly.
I am blinded, but not by ignorance, only by my ability to understand things that are beyond me. I have humility in this. I don't believe you do.
I do not understand what personal experience Pron has had that allows him his faith... I am interested to know, and I would not criticize.
Maybe someday. This story is quite close to my heart, and not meant for a public forum.
The way christianity forces prayer, and ignorance of reality, creates individualism
Read the New Testament. Nowhere does it say we should leave the reality of this world. In fact, it discourages it and tells us to stay within this world and live with the people in it.
Some people have taken Christianity and warped it, but that doesn't mean that what they've created is true christianity.
Really people--please start replying to my posts. All of you are replying to Jason's posts, but only Z and SmarT have replied once each. I thought this was a discussion, but you all seem intent on attacking Jason, and leave me in the dark.
And I don't think it's because I'm not saying enough :P
Mrmcjoey15
08-08-2008, 01:26
Nothing at all.
I am just really angry about this.
Look:
i was raised to believe that symbolic messages, lore and Myths were REAL.
I was LIED TO by people that loved me and that I love.
I was a child, and I was LIED to for YEARS! about something VERY important: the spiritual realm.
....
They stopped sending my baby sister to church, they stopped throwing their money away to the church.
now they realize that the church robbed them and all of us of our finance and our very spirit.
Z
All you say here is true i was born catholic and raised catholic so i can see where your coming from and what your saying.
The main idea i get about what you said here is that the catholic chuch robed you of you and your familys money which i beilve too be very true now do i belive that god dosent exisit no but i do belive that the church is using the figure of god as a prophet.
To me it all goes back to the beggining of the church oh so long ago and how priests would pay the pope or cardinals to get to be priests because back in the day they made a **** load of money some prists were even priets of many different city-states most of wich were no where close to each other cardinals would pay the pope to be the cardinal of a highly populated or rich part of europe its all about the money for the church.
@ -Z- (about what you said about having detiald Textual evidance about Zuse and other greek gods)
What you say there is a total false yes we have wirtten books about what story tellers have said in the past but you have to remember that the storys of the greek gods were all passed by mouth and story tellers would go from town to town telling storys so what goes from a little rain 5 citys laters its a raging storm the bible was writtten in other languages in text not passed on mouth to mouth.
People follow leaders in the name of religion.
God does not give us our rights, we give us our rights as humans.
we are god. life is god.
you make good points but answer this who or what made us humans?
The human mind and will is powerful. each of us should maintain our individual thoughts and judgments. when we rely on a book or other people to tell us what is right, it can confuse.
The thing is that as a Chatholic i dont belive that the bible or any priest Directly tells us what we should do but guide us to find the truth through the words of the bible or a priest. Second the Human mind is powerfull and you saying that each of us should mantain individual thoughts and judgsments makes no sense to me this game couldnt exist if people could only think there own way and not listen to any one els. I belive that the mind is ment to co-mingle with the thoughs of another it brings people together i dont know Z if your married but what i belive is that finding a partner in life is brought about by sharing thoughs and Jugment and seeing if they match now im not saying that you and your significant other can have different jugments of people/ things but that you respect or see the intelligence in there Jugments.
jasonlfunk
08-09-2008, 14:55
Z, were you actually going to provide evidence and reasons for calling the Gospels myth in this thread?
http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/christianity.htm
Another difficult aspect of early christian history for the Roman historian is the evaluation of persecutions. We know that emperors on occasion instituted policies of suppression and persecution - Nero and Diocletion among the most famous (and the first and last to do so). We also know that the individuals who suffered in these persecutions, such as Perpetua and Agatha, suffered horribly. However, the evidence suggests that the routine policy of the Roman elite and imperial bureacracy was not persecution for the first two centuries of Christianity. In fact, to characterize the Roman response to Christianity far overstates the matter. By and large, members of the Roman elite ignored Christianity. If notice of Christianity was forced upon them, they tolerated it if they could. Because early Christian communities varied so greatly throughout the empire, moreover, it would have been impossible for Rome to craft a uniform policy on Christians. Pliny the Younger's effort to accomodate Christians, was, in fact, far more typical. [Admittedly, his efforts consisted of "change your mind or I'll kill you - but he gave alleged Christians numerous opportunities to change their minds.] Because the Roman state religion lacked an orthodox theology and a cohesive organizational structure, it was the norm for Romans to tolerate an extraordinary range of religious beliefs and practices. From the Roman point of view, the ideal was to find a way to get Christians to be good Romans. It was an impossible goal because part of being a good Roman involved participation in the imperial emperor cult and in the general Roman community of sacrifice to the "pagan" gods.
In fact, there is a considerable body of evidence that suggests that the leadership of the early Christian communities understood martyrdom as a means of rallying the community and gaining popular support outside the community. There is nothing particularly edifyng, however strongly you are committed to a pagan belief system, in watching someone be publicly tortured. Some accounts of Christian persecution and martyrdom suggests that Christians themselves forced the Roman state to take notice of their status as Christians. Because the imperial emperor cult was integral to Romanitas under the principate, it was inherently oppressive to those who identified as Christians. Even where Emperors and governors took a most liberal view on emperor cult, however, (forget the emperor, just join the community in a sacrifice), Christianity and traditional Roman religious beliefs could not be anything but opposed. Thus, from their point of view, the Roman state was always oppressing the Christians. In practice, a Roman governor could be very tolerant and quite lax in scrutinizing attendance at provincial ceremonies in honor of a deified emperor. This laissez-faire policy, however, might be irrelevant to a committed Christian. We have accounts of Christians who virtually assaulted Roman governors with their assertions of Christian identity. Governors, after a certain point ,had to respond to these Christians who were essentially confessing themselves to be traitors (people who would not sacrifice to the emperor). Moreover, Christian identity could become a contested local political issue in a variety of ways. One might, for example, charge that an enemy was a christian, not because he was particuarly concerned with religious matters, but because the charge would serve him politically in an election or lawsuit. The charge itself might ignite a larger local controversy than the originator could have anticipated or controlled.
Reading accounts of the early Christian martyrs, moreover, might lead one to conclude that communities of Christians were in constant conflict with an oppressive Roman regime. In fact, by and large, most christian communities lived at peace with their pagan neighbors for decades on end. There are letters from some early Christians complaining of the very fact and accusing their brethern of "selling out." It was not until the middle of the third century, C.E., that we find an effort from Rome to create a uniform policy on Christians. The Emperor Decius, for example, required all inhabitants of the Empire to offer a sacrifice to the gods (note, not himself) and to declare that they had always sacrificed to the gods. Local magistrates were ordered to give certificates to citizens who performed the sacrifice and passed the test.
The development of a Roman "anti-Christian" policy [and the term "policy" here also overstates the fact - not all emperors between Decius and Diocletian attempted to suppress Christianity] can be attributed to a number of factors. First, it indicates the success Christians had in establishing themselves as a viable community with a distinct social and religious identity, and one with values completely in contradiction with traditional Roman religious thinking. Second, by the third century, C.E., the early Christians had begun to develop very strong internal systems of organization. Major cities had bishops and hierarchies of religious authority. Bishops from cities met in councils to determine heterdox belief and practice and condmened 'heretical' christians more vigorously than Romans condemned Christians in general. Romans percieved the strength of the Christian hierarchy and the rigor of its own internal control as a threat as real as the (far less structured) authority of Bacchic priests two centuries before. The persecutions of later emperors was aimed at the hierarchy of the early Christian church far more than it was at ordinary Christian congregant. In fact, the Emperor Decius was quoted as saying he feared the election of a new bishop of Rome more than he feared a rival claimant to his throne.
* From the pagan point of view, the end began with Constantine. Constantine grew up in the court of Diocletian (the last persecuting emperor) in the eastern part of the Roman empire. His father played a very prominent role in the western part of the empire. Constantine was a candidate to rule over either part of the empire but passed over in the machinations of court politics. He then joined his father, who was living in France. The two led a successful military campaign in Britain in 306 C.E., at the end of which, Constantine's soldiers proclaimed him emperor. For the next six years, both halves of the Roman empire were embroiled in a confusing (there were now two emperors, so twice as many ways to conspire and betray) civil war. In 312, Constantine defeated opposing forces outside the city of Rome at the battle of the Milvian Bridge. According to Eusebius (who knew Constantine), shortly before the battle, the emperor had a dream or vision in which the Christian god showed a cross to him and said "In this sign, conquer!" The previous eastern emperor, Galerius, had officially ended Christian persecutions (now Romans simply asked Christians to pray to their god that the empire would flourish). Upon his victory in the west, Constantine officially embraced a pro-Christian policy. He defeated the eastern emperor in 324 C.E.. and converted to Christianity on his death bed.
* Constantine's Edict of Milan (313 C.E.) announced a policy of toleration and restored property seized from Christians during the persecutions of previous emperors. Constantine himself donated vast sums of money for the building of Christian churches. The Emperor's involvement in the Christian community included more than mere patronage (as significant as his patronage was). First, Constantine played an active role in deciding theological disputes (which now seemed to flourish within the Christian community). These decisions continued what for Romans seemed the natural intermingling of religious and political authority. Second, Constantine issued edicts banning superstitio. These edicts seemed to have been directed mostly against Jews, and not the traditional pagan cults. Constantine, in fact, remained pontifex maximus, continued to consult haruspices and appointed new priests to Roman priesthoods.
* Not all the emperors after Constantine were Christian. One, Julian (361-3), was, in fact, famously pagan and took upon himself the effort to suppress Christianity and restore traditional pagan religion. Subsequent Emperors were Christian, and by Gratian (382 CE), the Emperor (and state fisc) ceased to provide financial support to traditional priesthoods. By 391 CE, the Emperor Theodosius forbade all pagan sacrifice and closed all pagan temples. Involvement in pagan (or traditional) Roman religion became an act of resistance to the Emperor and many from the old Roman senatorial elite embraced paganism precisely in the way Romans had embraced Christianity 300 years before as a way of claiming an identity in opposition to that imposed by the dominant social and political hierarchy. The 'resistance' of the Roman pagans, however, was doomed to failure.
Nearly all the peoples around the Mediterranean had at some point adopted the Pagan mysteries and adapted them to their own national taste. At some point in the first few centuries BCE a group of Jews had done likewise and produced a Jewish version of the Mysteries. Jewish initiates adapted the myths of Osiris-Dionysus to produce the story of a Jewish dying and resurrecting godman, Jesus the Messiah. In time this myth came to be interpreted as historical fact and Literalist Christianity was the product. -- Jesus and the Lost Goddess, p. 123
The striking parallels with Pagan myth have long been apparent to scholars, though Jesus as a mythic figure is currently out of academic favor. These parallels were obvious in classical times as well. Dogmatic Christians -- termed Literalists in these books because they interpreted the Christian stories literally as historical fact -- explained similarities with older Pagan myths and figures either as plagiarisms by the Devil "before the fact" or as the historical fulfillment of events present in other cultures only as myths -- rationales which have been advanced under one or another form down the centuries.
To support its thesis, The Jesus Mysteries details how little evidence there is for the historical existence of Jesus or the biblical Apostles to be found in non-Christian sources: Pagan and Jewish historians of the time, and Jewish scriptures. As archeologist John Romer remarks in Testament, our knowledge of earliest Christianity
is founded solely upon the Book of Acts and later church tradition. There is no mention at all of this period of Christian history in any other literature. We know only what later churches wanted to tell us. And this is also true of the beginnings of the Gospels. We are left with the evidence that can be gleaned from the Four Gospels themselves and a large number of conflicting statements made in the writings of the early church fathers. -- p. 188
Freke and Gandy make clear that the New Testament Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are not reliable historical reports, let alone independent eye-witness accounts. Though the relationship in time and of dependence among early Christian writings, canonical and non-canonical, is still very much debated, many biblical scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written as a theological document later than the other canonical gospels, and that Matthew and Luke are based on Mark, the last usually dated around 70 AD, though Freke and Gandy feel it is probably later. Nor is Mark, the first biographical treatment of Christian material, an actual chronicle: careful analysis has shown that it represents a joining together of many preexisting vignettes and wisdom sayings, organized to correspond to various Old Testament texts and episodes such as the Exodus. It does not include the birth or genealogy of Jesus and originally did not continue past the women finding the empty tomb and an implied resurrection. In the early version no resurrected Christ appears to the Apostles or anyone else.
The existence, then, of a historical teacher remains moot. Even Paul, at 50 AD the earliest contributor to the New Testament, does not mention a historical Jesus or quote any of his sayings or teachings found in the Gospels. His emphasis is on the dying and resurrecting godman Christ, and its birth in each individual. The "good news" he has for his followers is not that Jesus walked the earth and died for them, but that "Christ is in you." Noteworthy are the translations/interpretations of his words used by Freke and Gandy, which reveal unexpected layers of inner meaning. In the early centuries AD groups all over Asia and the Mediterranean considered Paul the preeminent Gnostic teacher (his anti-Gnostic pastoral letters are widely believed to be later forgeries, as are the canonical letters of the other apostles). The authors do not class Paul as a Gnostic, however, since they feel that at the time he lived there was as yet no distinction between Gnostic and Literalist; the Inner and Outer Christian Mysteries were still coexisting peacefully. The struggle in Paul's time was between those who wished to keep Christianity an exclusively Jewish sect and those who wished it to be a cosmopolitan movement including gentiles.
http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Chrihistsbd.htm
cohesive organizational structure
what a perfect way to describe chrisianity.
Thanks Smart.
interesting read.
Z
jasonlfunk
08-14-2008, 23:21
Smart, have read either of the books mentioned? If so- could you provide some examples of the actual evidence presented in the book.
It was a nice book review, and as a review it was a very board overview - lots of conculsions with little substance (not that it is bad - that is what is what a book review is supposed to be.)
I think the most telling parts and the parts that make me most skeptical of the validity of their claims are these:
"The striking parallels with Pagan myth have long been apparent to scholars, though Jesus as a mythic figure is currently out of academic favor."
The authors think that Jesus was completely made up - that he never existed at all. As the paper mentions - this view is very rare in contemporary scholarship. It's much more popular to keep the core Jesus and remove all the fluff (those besides naturalist presuppositions - there is very little reason to do so.)
As a different review that I found said - the authors dismiss Jesus as historical yet retain Paul as historical when there seems to be more evidence that Jesus lived than Paul.
Their contention that the authors of the gospels/acts were writing Myth. As I said in the other thread - it is very clear that the authors had no indication of writing myth. They were either writing lies in order to deceive people, or history as they believed it to have happened. You cannot read the bible and come away with the idea that the authors expected their readers to know the events didn't happen.
I don't know for sure what the point was supposed to be for the first post. I have no problem agreeing with nearly all of it. I assume since this piece was bolded: "Bishops from cities met in councils to determine heterdox belief and practice and condmened 'heretical' christians more vigorously than Romans condemned Christians in general." You had thought it was particularly interesting. I don't have a problem with this either - in fact I admit it was happened. But what do you expect? People disagreed on what was true - so the church fathers (the majority) got together to discuss what was the official stance on the issue of the church. What they thought was true? And they determined that the minority who were rising up and saying things were wrong. I am far more willing to accept the beliefs of the majority of Christians 1700 years ago (just a few generations from the apostles) than the beliefs for a few people who claimed to be "enlightened".
There was a reason that Gnosticism was labeled as heresy back then - and there is a lot of doubt in my mind that a few guys 2000 years later would be able to find evidence that the church fathers did not know when it was happening.
i havnt actually read them books themselves, i have read others like them though. especially on pagan myths and such since i am pagan. the virgin birth has been around since before christ, death and resurrection has been around before christ, savior gods have been around before christ, a 3 fold god has been around before christ, (father, son, and holy spirit)
In an Egyptian temple, one dedicated to Hathor, at Denderah, one of the chambers was called "The Hall of the Child in his Cradle"; and in a painting which was once on the walls of that temple, and is now in Paris, we can see represented the Holy Virgin Mother with her Divine Child in her arms. The temple and the painting are undoubtedly pre-Christian.
Horus was said to be the parthenogenetic child of the Virgin Mother, Isis. In the catacombs of Rome black statues of this Egyptian divine Mother and Infant still survive from the early Christian worship of the Virgin and Child to which they were converted. In these the Virgin Mary is represented as a black regress, and often with the face veiled in the true Isis fashion. When Christianity absorbed the pagan myths and rites it adopted also the pagan statues, and renamed them as saints, or even as apostles.
And these were not the only pre-Christian statuettes and engravings of divine mothers and children. On very ancient Athenian coins such figures were stamped. Among the oldest relics of Carthage, of Cyprus, and of Assyria figures of a divine mother and her babe-god are found. Such figures were known under a great variety of names to the followers of various sects; the mothers as Venus, Juno, Mother-Earth, Fortune, etc., and the children as Hercules, Dionysos, Jove, Wealth, etc. In India similar figures are not uncommon, many of them representing Devaki with the babe Krishna at her breast, others representing various less well-known Indian divinities
Another Egyptian god, Ra (the Sun), was said to have been born of a virgin mother, Net (or Neith), and to have had no father.
Attis, the Phrygian god, was said to be the son of the virgin Nana, who conceived him by putting in her bosom a ripe almond or pomegranate.
hmm this sounds familiar
Dionysos, the Grecian God, was said in one version of the myth concerning him to be the son of Zeus out of the virgin goddess Persephone, and in another version to be the miraculously begotten son of Zeus out of the mortal woman Semele. He, according to this story, was taken from his mother's womb before the full period of gestation had expired, and completed his embryonic life in Zeus's thigh. Dionysos was thus half human and half divine, born of a woman and also of a god.
His myth, which was current long before the Christian era, is a remarkable example of the kind of story which could be, and was, invented about a man-god. He was said to have been persecuted by Pentheus, :King of Thebes, the home of his mother; to have been rejected in his own country; and, when bound, to have asserted that his father, God, would set him free whenever he chose to appeal to him. He disappears from earth, but re-appears as a light shining more brightly than the sun, and speaks to his trembling disciples; and he subsequently visits Hades. The story of his birth is alluded to, and the story of his persecution related, in "The Bacchae," which Euripides wrote about 410 B.C., when the myth was already very old and very well known.
death and resurrection
The sun god died and lived again, on an annual basis. The sun god also died every evening and arose again every morning, according to the perceptions of ancient peoples. The demise of the solar disk and its reappearance each day must have had a tremendous impact in the unconscious realms of the human psyche. This daily reminder of the death and resurrection of the powerful sun etched the resurrection archetype in the collective unconscious of the human race.
Many rituals and beliefs of Mithraism seemed so closely related to the Christian one that it becomes impossible to deny its influence on nascent Christianity. The Mithraists had a special day dedicated to their god. It was the first day of the week, which they appropriately called Sun-day, the "day of our Lord". [4] Mithra was the God of the upper and nether world and it is he who will judge men's deeds. [5] The Jewish thinker, Philo had already identified the Logos with the Sun, it was therefore natural and inevitable that the early Christians should identify Jesus with such a symbol. Sunday became established as the Lord's Day for the Christians as well. [6] From this observance of Sunday, the myth eventually evolved to connect the rising of Jesus with that day. It is worth noting that the Mithraist ritual involve the liturgical representation of the death, burial (also in a rock tomb!) and resurrection of the god Mithra. [7]
Other contemporary mystery religions no doubt contributed to the evolution of Christian mythology. The Syrian cult of Adonis also had a large following during the time of early Christianity. Adonis, which means The Lord (Hebrew: Adonai), was represented in the liturgy as dying and then rising again on the third day. And in this liturgy it was the women who mourned his death and who found him risen on the third day. [8]
The Egyptian cult of Osiris had a similar belief; for it was Osiris who was dead and rose again on the third day. [9]
4. Craveri, The Life of Jesus: p411
Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p42
5. Ibid: p42
6. Guignebert, Jesus: p532
7. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity: p42
8. Ibid: p39
the basic pre-christian 3 fold divinity, was Father, Son, and Sage and Maiden, Mother and Crone.
and if u read reviews on books by people that are opposed to what the author says.. of course there not going to be good. Like when people talk bad about Joseph Cambell, (maybe have spelled his last name wrong) i think its funny, especially when they haven't read any of his work
jasonlfunk
08-15-2008, 10:54
and if u read reviews on books by people that are opposed to what the author says.. of course there not going to be good. Like when people talk bad about Joseph Cambell, (maybe have spelled his last name wrong) i think its funny, especially when they haven't read any of his work
Except most of the negative reviews I read said something like "I liked their other books but this one sucked." That sort of idea.
Where did your previous post - the one on pagan myths - come from?
Here is what C.S. Lewis says about that idea:
"God sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. He also selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was — that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.
Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips. "
Mere Christianity - CS Lewis
who is christian himself and looks down on paganism. idk rem the sites, i only looked it up online cuz i am to lazy to research it in my own books that basically say the same ****. go to any library and get a book on, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Aztec, any of the ancient cultures and you will find myths just like Christ's.
jasonlfunk
08-15-2008, 17:17
who is christian himself and looks down on paganism.
Who was this in reference to?
idk rem the sites, i only looked it up online cuz i am to lazy to research it in my own books that basically say the same ****. go to any library and get a book on, Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Aztec, any of the ancient cultures and you will find myths just like Christ's.
I am not dismissing your information - I was just curious on the source.
Even if all of these myths do exist and predate Christ- it does not mean that this one is myth too. Lewis' explanation completely explains the facts too. Whether Jesus actually lived,died, and rose again has to be determined by history- not a mythological cultural survey.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.