I meant the other link about desert fathers to give you an alternative view of christianity only, and that you should consider what I said to palerider above and the passages from Isaiah.
Yeah. Far be it for anyone to want actual SOLID evidence. All it would take is something like “And there would be this guy named JEsus who is Gods son yet also God at the same time. He would turn water into booze. Theyd call him the King of the Jews. Theyd put a crown on his head. Hed be crucified”. DONE! Without a doubt a prophecy.
Verse after verse talks of the messiah being a LITERAL king, in the line of David who LITERALLY rules and brings the JEws back to their glory days. Jesus doesnt fullfill this. The rest of the stuff is so vague it could apply to a number of folks throughout history.
What are you talking about? JEsus was a JEW (according to the Gospels themselfves). Isiah, or the authros of the book of ISiah was most certainly a Jew.
Ok. what in fuck did that really have to do with ANYTHING? 3rd,4th and 5th century people have nothing to do with the historical Jesus.
Also your other posts in this thread show that you are woefully ignorant of current JEsus scholarship.
This is what we have: 4 Gospels written LATE. Dozens of rejected “Gnostic gospels” written LATER. 4 or so secular mentionings, 2 of them dubious in terms of the language used, one of them a proven forgery and all of them later than the gospels which means trhey could have been mearly reporting on a phenomenon that was going on. We know there were 2nd century and late first century Christians around. They were aware of them and their mythos and were simply reporting on it. We just have no contemporary evidence for this Jesus cat.
I am not saying the Jewish Elders were not threatened by Jesus, all I am saying is that they had little say compared to Pilate. Jesus threatened the Roman Empire’s stability in that area greatly, thus Pilate made the decision to kill off Jesus, the head of this threathening movement. This would cripple the movement Jesus started and bring stability back to Pilate’s area of rule. This was a critical decision that Pilate needed to make since all this was occurring during passover, and a Jewish uprising–lead by Jesus and his followers–would be a catastophy for the Roman Empire.
[.quote]Nope, I was thinking of the writings found in Nag Hamandi. These were written by first century Christians, some of whom knew Jesus, but were not apostles.
[/quote]
If a forgery, why are they used in academic classes. You may be mistaken. What evidence do you have?
You might want to peruse some the Elaine Pagels writing on this subject as she is considered expert.
By your logic, Moses and Abraham did not exist either. There is zip in Egyptian history discussing Moses. I mean why the hell would they write regarding what they considered to be an unremarkable man with a stutter? How much in our history discusses the many insignificant figures while they lived. Do you believe much will be written regarding Karish and the Branch Dividians? Nope, he is just a footnote compared to Martin Luther King, JFK, FDR, etc.
Actually, in Judaism mythology many rabbis resurrected the dead or healed the ill. This is common in Judaism.
And the Qur’an was not written until years after Mohammed died. Does this mean the man did not exist.
Humans exagerate when relating information. The miracles are probably an exaggeration. Just look at Greek and Roman mythology. Reread Homer’s Illiad and the Odyssey. There probably was sort of Trojan Horse, but not the one Homer describes 300 years after the sacking of Troy. The Sampson and Hercules legends are probably based on a real person, but were overblown in time.
Noos wrote the following:
Jesus is mentioned at least twice in the non-Christian historical record (that I’ve seen).
-
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian mentions Jesus in passing. Josephus wrote twenty-volumes titled Jewish Antiquities around 93 or 94 C.E. He briefly mentions Jesus as the founder of the “tribe of the Christians.” Josephus’ tone is fairly neutral, although scholars I’ve read like John Crossan point out hyperbolic language added by later Christian translators.
-
There is also a scathing account from Cornelius Tacitus, who mentions him in passing when describing the fire that swept Rome in 64 C.E. Tacitus writes: “Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowed styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue” (Annals 15.44).
Regardless, I believe Historical Jesus did exist, but I do not believe him to be the son of God.
No eyewitness accounts were written.
From Wiki
" The 1st or 2nd century date of the lost Greek originals behind the Coptic translations is controverted, but the manuscripts themselves are from the 3rd and 4th centuries."
The earliest dates suggested are LATE first century, which, like the original 4 Gospels, are too late to bee eye witnessed. Keep in mind this is the earliest date, many call for dates starting in the 2nd century.
That they “use in academic classes”? The Fa,vious Testamonium is the exhaustive work of Josephus. IT is not just the secular and atheist historians that say that its a forgery but the Christian theologians as well. It doesnt matter. IT was written late as well and even if genuine would not constitute contemporary proof of JEsus.
What it boils down to is that Josephus was a Jew and we know for a fact he did not accept JEsus as his messiah. In the same works he mentions how his eople are waiting for the MEssiah. Yet in the sort passage on Christi written in Josephus he calls him the Messiah! Something a JEw that goes on to write extensively about the future coming of the JEwish messiah would not have done. Also the passage disrupts the narritive. Its only a short paraghraph and looks out of place. Josephus devoted somethig like 109 pages to a petty theif. His works were huge and detailed. Only a few sentences about Christ though. There are other reason why this passage is regarded as a forgery as well. Google works really well.
Right. Moses and Abraham are not proven historical charecters. As far as Koresh, we have literally tons of materials documenting his existance at least. Barring some huge disaster his existance will at least be proven.
We have much contemporary evidence for Muhammed. Not so for JEsus.
I have already mentioned Tactitus and Jospehus in my previous post. First Jospehus IS a forgery. Tactitus mentioning is dubious and it is not known wether he is speaking of JEsus for sure. Even so the dates of his work are late, not contemporary and in fact we know christians were around then. He was, if anything, reporting on the stories he heard from them.
What I am saying to you is that the tradition of the desert fathers, widely accepted in the 4th and 5th centuries, was lost out of christianity in time. Frowned upon. What I mean is that the desert fathers resembled closer the real way of christ. Which is similiar to the buddhist/daoist way.
The fact that the desert fathers existed in 5th century is because, and this is what I mean to say, they were closer to the time when this way was acceptable to lay christians.
So when I say Christ was not part of organized religion as such, well it is with some difficulty I have to admit that I explain this. The way of the desert fathers, the real way of christ, is not a religion. He was here to change Judaism, he was there to make change.
No. Religion is religion, the way is the way. These people here mentioned were exceptional.
They did not need scriptures to base their decisions on. They were above that. They were born into it, and worked from the inside, that is all. Remember, Christ said, you shall wash the cup on the inside first before you wash the outside.
Judaism was rotten at the core. If you like, heaven sent some enlightened beings to sort it out. Jeshua, which was Jesus real name, and Isaiah , who like all the others, were enlightened .They folowed the way. The path similiar to that of hermes trigmesterus.
Who came many years afore christ. Consider this lineage if you will. Consider please the notion of a secretive path that has always existed since early man. It is here I must take you to before things will make any sense.
If this is your own interpretation, you are off the mark.
Otherwise It is the people you have spoken to before about christianity, whoever they may be, that have led you astray. The bible is a book of much symbolism.
Just because people you have spoke to have an interpretation of a doctrine that entails etenal damnation, christ as king of the world literally, and all other sorts of nonsense, does,nt make it right.
Its your call. Believe something stupid. Dont Believe in it at all.
Or actually follow the way. No difference between a good kung fu , sufism, kabbalism and the way I mention. This way will enrich you same as any other good way. And all ways go to the same place.
This is a science and guide for practical living. Dont be naieve, there was more to christ than some limp and feeble christian is telling you.
Chirst according to the Gospels. which is all we know of him, was a JEw. HE was the ao called “King of the Jews”. HE mingled with Rabbi’s. He was fucking Jewish. Your wannabe esoteric rambleings aside according to the only documents that we have on the guy, he was a jew.
These “Desert Fathers” you put so much stock in…how do you know that they were more on some “true path” or that they knew more of thew “real” JEsus? Sounds like you are just talking out of your ass.
How do you know they were enlighened? All we know of Isah is in the JEwish and Christian scriptures. Thats it. Again your just talking wannabe mystical hooey out of your ass. All we know of Christ is in the gospels. If you want to believe a bunch of hoo-ha about them you can only do it on faith.
It is the interpretaion of MILLIONS of JEws who do NOT believe that Jesus was the messiah. Jews had very stritct messiah requirments and Jsus did not fulfill them. You can interpret almost anything allegorically. One gets os flakey on meanings that things can be interpreted to mean anything.
Who is believing in something stupid? I do notbelieve in organaized religion. Nor do I take on faith that some desert “fathers” where some super gurus.
In one post you talk about how corrupt Judaism is, then you insist that Jesus was not a Jew THEN you say that JEsus was the Jewish messiah! How was he the Jewish Messiah if he wasnt even a JEw?
Your all mixed up with your wannabe mystical horseshit dude. You make my head hurt.
You must have been , or still are one of these mystical hooeys if this is what you expect.
Since you seem to immature to keep a civil tongue, you and I are finished .
Not my fault you are confused and misled, and at the moment have no hope whatsoever in understanding the real nature of christianity. Go on and think what you want if it makes you happy.
I’ve seen popularity, personal belief and general misinterpretation in this thread and I’d just like to throw in some food for thought.
Would a million people believing in a lie be considered more convincing then one person telling the truth? …Of course.
‘Credible’ or ‘uncredible’ text sources, one or a thousand. Does it make a difference? …Yes it does.
We as people have a seemingly great need for knowledge and proof. Two sources make things seem more credible and truthfull then just one. Three sources more credible and truthfull then just two and so on and so fourth.
To me, one source is as good as a thousand. Why? As long as you use your common sense and your own belief’s you will decide for yourself whether something is real or not.
Perhaps Moses, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha were all simply characters of fiction - made up by groups of people who used their combined knowledge and wisdom under the guise of Moses, Jesus, Muhammed or Buddha to inpire and attract followers to their belief’s or cause.
Then again, perhaps they were real. ‘Credible’ or ‘uncredible’ text sources, one or a thousand. Does it make a difference? …Yes it does.
I am afraid though, that unless you were there and saw these people and/or events for youself you can not really speak about them in absolutes. All we can do it extract what we believe to be real and false information from texts and evidence to form our own views and beliefs about them - no ones beliefs anymore ‘true’ then the next man’s - though we may argue them to be all we like, which is always fun.
W.C.
Even better, we can test the validity of what we first of all believe in our hearts and minds. If what you believe is making you happy, this is worth consideration, regardless of what some dull, droning functionalist would say about the apparent genetic reasons for why this happiness has come about.
Right. If beleving in Santa Claus makes you feel good, do so no matter what ones co-workers think.
If I simply just did what feels good Id smoke marijuana everyday.
Problem is that these Jesus freaks try to evangelize everyone under threats of hellfire and legislate based on an archaic and outdated myth book.
Finally, raping young boys may make some feel good. IS this too “worht consideration”?
Well why not? Maybe if you are teaching children that a man flys through the sky dressed in red bringing presents that would be not so good. But santa Claus is the name for St nikolaus of turkey.
His reputation as “santa claus” grew because he embodied the spirit of giving. So why not teach children that “Santa Claus” is alive and well.
Because he is. The spirit of giving is alive and well. You would not be lying to tell them about St nikolaus. And what a remarkable spirit he was. In fact, it woud not be a bad thing to teach them that he floats around in the sky watching them ,as an entity of course.
But children being children do not understand so well finer details. So there is no harm in dressing it up a little for them. But you would not be lying .
There,s no point to us engaging really. You have strong views. If i engage it would mean having to explain the nature of good and evil. Too much hassle for someone who probably would remain unconvinced of my opinion anyway.
Hum, how many eyewitness accounts of your existence will exist 100 or 200 years from now?
[.quote]I have found errors in Wiki before. These are exerpts of what I found:
[/quote]
[.quote]This supports your claim, but again, Jesus was not an upper-class, significant individual in the ancient world, at least, not until later.
[/quote]
Again, this supports your claim.
Again, I do believe that the man existed, just as Moses and Abraham probably existed. There is usually a kernal of truth in all myths and legends.
