My unanswered questions about Christ

[joepistole]

One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.

[Medicine*Woman]

One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.
*************
M*W: You have made some very good points. I also find it suspicious that if Jesus existed, and considering how intelligent and gifted he was supposed to be, it seems that he would have left some writing of his own. Yet, he didn't.

You hit the nail on the head when you stated "the apostles didn't write down their messages." That is also suspiciously lacking in substance, but the apostles were fictional characters as well.

It is very likely that the Romans were responsible for penning the books of the NT. Theory is that Flavius Josephus might have been the author of the parody of the dying demigod savior. In any event, the whole theme of Jesus's life and works is just another fictional interpretation of sun-god worship.

For further information, I recommend:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, by J. Atwill(2005).

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity, by F. Carotta(2005).

Josephus: The Complete Works, translated by W. Whitson (1998).

Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth, by B.L. Mack (1989).

[Donnal]

wow i wouldnt know havent a clue on that religeous stuff
seems very hard to ahmm adjust to new religeons and all that stuff they believe in
whos to judge whos the messiah anyway

but i have my own strange doubts best kept to myself i reckon

[BlueMoose]

*************
M*W:
It is very likely that the Romans were responsible for penning the books of the NT. Theory is that Flavius Josephus might have been the author of the parody of the dying demigod savior. In any event, the whole theme of Jesus's life and works is just another fictional interpretation of sun-god worship.



-Does this fit in parody like writings :)

"The so-called "mystery of Barabbas" refers to some puzzling similarities between the released prisoner and Jesus himself. The most striking similarity concerns their names. Some ancient Syriac copies of Matthew, and a few other ancient sources, call the freed prisoner "Jesus bar Abbas". The name Barabbas can be obtained from this by dropping the name "Jesus" and changing "bar Abbas" to "Barabbas". Furthermore, the phrase "bar Abbas" can be translated as "son of the Father", which could possibly be applied to Jesus himself, since he sometimes used the word "Abba" (father) in referring to God."

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/barabbas.html

[John99]

What would he write? To see something in writing does not make it true and what would the benefit be.

He seems to have done a lot of talking but to leave anything profound on a piece of paper is very dangerous.

At this level communication is done without physically speaking- that is more direct than reading words. I read reports that Jesus wrote on the ground and i would think he erased what he wrote because the written word can have at least two meanings but only one is right.

Again i cant see him writing, i dont think he saw the point of it and most writers are full of shit. Unless we are talking about fiction and technical writings.

TBH, i am not sure but i dont belive initially that the bible was even encouraged to be read. There are reasons for this but i cannot get into them at this time. I have one more obvious response but since it is obvious i wont bring that up either.

[spidergoat]

I think John99 is correct. Jesus probably didn't believe in writing because it could be used against him, also that kind of thing leads to religion and other sins.

[John99]

Thanks. I am sure he knew that people would write about him anyway and they have not stopped.

[BlueMoose]

You mean like ten commandments ? ;) Or writings by followers of Lao-Tse and Kunfutse ?
In this point I´m ready to grasp a concept of Joshua, somekind of prophet of something, but God in living flesh to be resurrected, like Horus, Mithra and Krishna ? That far I wouldnt go from what I have studied.

[John99]

Hitler (The TYRANT) loved to write.

[BlueMoose]

You do love it somewhat yourself too, apparently ;)

[lightgigantic]

One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.

2000 years ago was a different age - literacy only became more socially widespread with the printing press of the mid 1800's

its only in the last 200 years that the written word has taken the gauntlet of education, and even then, many "lifeskills" are learnt outside of the written medium even today

[Cyperium]

One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.It's said that a collection of "Jesus words" predated the gospels, and that the gospels was based on them. However that collection is lost. There is a chance that Jesus wanted others to write it down, because it will be slightly different for each person and thus offering several perspectives of His life. Also it's better that others witness what He did and writes it down, than He being the witness of His work for it being more trustworthy in the eyes of others.

The teachings from Paul is to the members of the early church of that time, also with some directions as to how the church should function, in the teachings we get Pauls perspective on Jesus and Jesus teachings. Paul also had a strong connection with God, which can be understood by the way he writes, and thus is a reliable christian. Even though his statements regarding if woman can preach in churches has been very criticised by people today, but it was a letter that he sent to the people in the establishment of the church, and that was the law of that time. He does recognize that some will not agree to such things regarding woman, but explains that they have no other order.

[flameofanor5]

Also, Jesus did not come down to preach, He came to save.

[joepistole]

It's said that a collection of "Jesus words" predated the gospels, and that the gospels was based on them. However that collection is lost. There is a chance that Jesus wanted others to write it down, because it will be slightly different for each person and thus offering several perspectives of His life. Also it's better that others witness what He did and writes it down, than He being the witness of His work for it being more trustworthy in the eyes of others.

The teachings from Paul is to the members of the early church of that time, also with some directions as to how the church should function, in the teachings we get Pauls perspective on Jesus and Jesus teachings. Paul also had a strong connection with God, which can be understood by the way he writes, and thus is a reliable christian. Even though his statements regarding if woman can preach in churches has been very criticised by people today, but it was a letter that he sent to the people in the establishment of the church, and that was the law of that time. He does recognize that some will not agree to such things regarding woman, but explains that they have no other order.

Thanks Cyperium, but there seems to have been a lot of confusion about how to construct the church and the core beliefs of the church shortly after the death of Christ. You have several different sects that were later judged to be heritical. There was even debate about the divinity of Christ. I believe the concept of the Holy Trinity was created and agreed upon at the first Council of Nicea which was more than three hundred years after the death of Christ. It just seems to me a somewhat messy begining...with heritics popping very quickly after the death of Christ...seems like it could have been avoided with better organization...not that I could do any better than God. He needs no lectures from me about organization! I have enough trouble getting out of bed in the morning, and he created the world in six days. But it is just a curious observation on my part.

[Medicine*Woman]

-Does this fit in parody like writings :)

"The so-called "mystery of Barabbas" refers to some puzzling similarities between the released prisoner and Jesus himself. The most striking similarity concerns their names. Some ancient Syriac copies of Matthew, and a few other ancient sources, call the freed prisoner "Jesus bar Abbas". The name Barabbas can be obtained from this by dropping the name "Jesus" and changing "bar Abbas" to "Barabbas". Furthermore, the phrase "bar Abbas" can be translated as "son of the Father", which could possibly be applied to Jesus himself, since he sometimes used the word "Abba" (father) in referring to God."

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/barabbas.html
*************
M*W: Entirely, but IMO I believe this, too, is myth. However, it makes for interesting writing.

[BlueMoose]

There was even debate about the divinity of Christ. I believe the concept of the Holy Trinity was created and agreed upon at the first Council of Nicea which was more than three hundred years after the death of Christ. .

-The "other" Holy Trinity

Brahma
http://www.webindia123.com/religion/image/brahma2.jpg

Vishnu
http://www.webindia123.com/religion/image/visnu1.jpg

Shiva
http://www.webindia123.com/religion/image/shiva.jpg

http://www.webindia123.com/religion/hinduism/gods/trinity.htm

[BlueMoose]

*************
M*W: Entirely, but IMO I believe this, too, is myth. However, it makes for interesting writing.
-Yes, good penning indeed, the NT I mean ;)

http://www.metahistory.org/images/meta_AztecSavior.jpg

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/IC_GFNJE.GIF

[lightgigantic]

-The "other" Holy Trinity
apart from the number three, what do they have in common with each other?

[Myles]

apart from the number three, what do they have in common with each other?

They are deities. Now you can explain how to divide 1 by 3 and get 1. Simple arithmetic.

[BlueMoose]

apart from the number three, what do they have in common with each other?

Shiva (destructor), sunset (Seth) / Vishnu (balancer) - the path sun travels, the sky / Brahma(birth giver) - sun rise.?.
Jesus ~ Sun.
The Father ~ Sun / The Holy Spirit ~ Sun Light / The Son ~ Sun rising again.
Something like that, altered trinity from other religion ?

[Cyperium]

Thanks Cyperium, but there seems to have been a lot of confusion about how to construct the church and the core beliefs of the church shortly after the death of Christ. You have several different sects that were later judged to be heritical. There was even debate about the divinity of Christ. I believe the concept of the Holy Trinity was created and agreed upon at the first Council of Nicea which was more than three hundred years after the death of Christ. It just seems to me a somewhat messy begining...with heritics popping very quickly after the death of Christ...seems like it could have been avoided with better organization...not that I could do any better than God. He needs no lectures from me about organization! I have enough trouble getting out of bed in the morning, and he created the world in six days. But it is just a curious observation on my part.All three parts of the trinity is spoken of in the gospels, that Jesus and God is one and that God has holy spirit, it is the same holy spirit for Jesus and God.

So it is not made up, but conveniently called the Trinity, Jesus said that He and the Father (God) will be one, and we will be one in Jesus, thus a part of God, and we will know God as much as God knows us.

Jesus did warn us about the false teachings that will come, we have done as best we can I think, and I believe that the Bible is trustworthy.

[lightgigantic]

Shiva (destructor), sunset (Seth) / Vishnu (balancer) - the path sun travels, the sky / Brahma(birth giver) - sun rise.?.
Jesus ~ Sun.
The Father ~ Sun / The Holy Spirit ~ Sun Light / The Son ~ Sun rising again.
Something like that, altered trinity from other religion ?
It's not clear why Vishnu is the path of the sun or brahma is the sun rise or why siva is the sunset, much less why jesus/father/holy spirit are too.
In short, it still doesn't make sense, length ways or breadth ways.
:confused:

[lightgigantic]

They are deities. Now you can explain how to divide 1 by 3 and get 1. Simple arithmetic.
easy
John is Tom's father
John is Jane's husband
John is Greg's son

John is

father
husband
and son


;)

[Myles]

easy
John is Tom's father
John is Jane's husband
John is Greg's son

John is

father
husband
and son


;)

Rubbish. John ths son was on earth, John the father was in heaven, no one knows where jonh no. 3 was. Do your sums !

[lightgigantic]

Rubbish. John ths son was on earth, John the father was in heaven, no one knows where jonh no. 3 was. Do your sums !

so in other words you have issues of geography as opposed to identity?
:D

[A. Moron]

easy
John is Tom's father
John is Jane's husband
John is Greg's son

John is

father
husband
and son


;)

How can John, Tom's Father, know something that John, Janes's husband, doesn't know? (such as, when someone will return to the earth)

[lightgigantic]

How can John, Tom's Father, know something that John, Janes's husband, doesn't know? (such as, when someone will return to the earth)
the analogy was a response to the question "Now you can explain how to divide 1 by 3 and get 1. Simple arithmetic."

If you have a slightly different question, it may require a slightly different analogy.

[A. Moron]

the analogy was a response to the question "Now you can explain how to divide 1 by 3 and get 1. Simple arithmetic."

If you have a slightly different question, it may require a slightly different analogy.

What would the analogy be for the question I posed above?

[lightgigantic]

What would the analogy be for the question I posed above?

I couldn't understand the question - maybe you could state it again without necessarily trying to tie it into an already existing analogy

[A. Moron]

You are arguing that the trinity is one person (I think).

It just seems more plausible that Jesus is actually a different "person" than "God," with maybe even a different personality. If Jesus really did have free will, and if really could have sinned, then he must have been his own spiritual person, created by God and separate from God (first born?). Just like we are all separate, individual, spiritual units which can all go against God (like the angels can), then so was Jesus.

Plus, not even Jesus knows everything God knows.

So the new question is:

How can one person be three individual people?

I guess this is the point where Christianity and Hinduism veer off from one another in terms of angels and humans who have passed on retaining their individuality.

[lightgigantic]

You are arguing that the trinity is one person (I think).

It just seems more plausible that Jesus is actually a different "person" than "God," with maybe even a different personality. If Jesus really did have free will, and if really could have sinned, then he must have been his own spiritual person, created by God and separate from God (first born?). Just like we are all separate, individual, spiritual units which can all go against God (like the angels can), then so was Jesus.

Plus, not even Jesus knows everything God knows.
sure I would agree with all this

So the new question is:

How can one person be three individual people?
they can't
but three people can operate out the authority of one person
eg

the king
the king's son
the king's ambassador

(if the king no longer holds the chips, being the son or the ambassador is not so significant)

I guess this is the point where Christianity and Hinduism veer off from one another in terms of angels and humans who have passed on retaining their individuality.
Hinduism also carries the same individualistic terms.

[PsychoticEpisode]

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.

We're not bad enough yet. Damn Peaceniks!

[A. Moron]

Hinduism also carries the same individualistic terms.

Does it? I thought (I can't say I'm an expert by any means so I could be wrong) that in Hinduism an individual person/spirit/soul's ulimate goal is to achieve nirvana (or is that Buddhism?) where they are no longer an individual.

In Christianity, the ultimate state a person can achieve is to go to heaven with their retained individuality and serve God as a free individual spirit for eternity in heaven and even after Jesus returns.

So, to my knowledge, in Christianity one retains indivduality and accountability at their highest possible point of existence, and in Hinduism one doesn't retain their individuality at the highest point. That might be Buddhism though. What's the Hinduism belief again?

[lightgigantic]

Does it? I thought (I can't say I'm an expert by any means so I could be wrong) that in Hinduism an individual person/spirit/soul's ulimate goal is to achieve nirvana (or is that Buddhism?) where they are no longer an individual.

In Christianity, the ultimate state a person can achieve is to go to heaven with their retained individuality and serve God as a free individual spirit for eternity in heaven and even after Jesus returns.

So, to my knowledge, in Christianity one retains indivduality and accountability at their highest possible point of existence, and in Hinduism one doesn't retain their individuality at the highest point. That might be Buddhism though. What's the Hinduism belief again?
Hinduism casts a broad net
actually the name Hindu was a coined by muslims, who referred to everyone living over the (H)Sindu river as a (H)Sindu - kind of like referencing jews, christians and muslims as Jordanists (Jordan river)
Vedic (in reference to the vedas) is a more accurate word
some of the schools of vedic thought are very much similar to buddhism (advaita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita)), declaring that ultimately on emerges into a state of undifferentiated oneness, while others are more dualistic (Vaishnava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaishnava)), having ultimate distinctions between god and his potencies, even at the point of liberation/salvation.

[A. Moron]

Hinduism casts a broad net
actually the name Hindu was a coined by muslims, who referred to everyone living over the (H)Sindu river as a (H)Sindu - kind of like referencing jews, christians and muslims as Jordanists (Jordan river)
Vedic (in reference to the vedas) is a more accurate word
some of the schools of vedic thought are very much similar to buddhism advaita, declaring that ultimately on emerges into a state of undifferentiated oneness, while others are more dualistic Vaishnava, having ultimate distinctions between god and his potencies, even at the point of liberation/salvation.

So Vaishnava's believe everyone retains their individuality. Interesting, thanks for the clarification. I just read on the other thread that you are a follower of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[lightgigantic]

So Vaishnava's believe everyone retains their individuality. Interesting, thanks for the clarification. I'm guessing you are of the Vaishnava way of thought?
yes
;)

[Saquist]

One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write.



That is a fair question and perhaps an easy question to answer.

Most of the writtings, if not all occured after Jesus death as an account to those that will come after. Jesus' work was not to leave an account but to teach and guide the Jews toward God. He constantly refered to them as "thrown about like sheep without a sheppard."

1) Organization
Jesus taught them and organized them to preach and teach beyond the Jewish borders. The Jews previous convenant with God made them ill equiped with dealing with the pagan nations. The Old Covenant's purpose was to safeguard true religion, shield against external influence and invasion. The New Covenant would transform the Jews to accept an external rule or headship of the nations such as Rome who would desolate and disperse them throughout out the world.

2) God's High Priest
As God's High Priest he righted the decades of decadent behavior that had become prelevant after Judea and Israel split into seperate kingdoms. He lived only three years after his baptism and scriptures show only at his baptism was he made fully aware of who he was and the task he would fulfill. In other words he bore witness to truth.

3) To be Tested and Perfected.
The phrase no taxation without representation comes to mind. God saw fit to install a propper represenative as ruler over the Earth. In accordance with this Jesus lived a human life, suffering all that we as imperfect humans suffer. Knowing what trials we endure thus makes him the perfect judge.

4)The Ransom Sacrifice.
Considering the time that Jesus took with counciling, organizing and teaching, and from what we can tell knowing when a how he would die, it's no wonder the responsibility of recording the events were delegated to his apostles. The varied perpectives give us a well rounded insight of his brief ministry on Earth.




It is Jesus' actions of teaching which was one of his most important duties. The apostle's accounts differ from perspective as any two accounts of any two witnesses would. One person would notice details another did not. Luke, a physican noticed certain things that the others didn't.

I hope that's satisfactory.

[Myles]

That is a fair question and perhaps an easy question to answer.

Most of the writtings, if not all occured after Jesus death as an account to those that will come after. Jesus' work was not to leave an account but to teach and guide the Jews toward God. He constantly refered to them as "thrown about like sheep without a sheppard."

1) Organization
Jesus taught them and organized them to preach and teach beyond the Jewish borders. The Jews previous convenant with God made them ill equiped with dealing with the pagan nations. The Old Covenant's purpose was to safeguard true religion, shield against external influence and invasion. The New Covenant would transform the Jews to accept an external rule or headship of the nations such as Rome who would desolate and disperse them throughout out the world.

2) God's High Priest
As God's High Priest he righted the decades of decadent behavior that had become prelevant after Judea and Israel split into seperate kingdoms. He lived only three years after his baptism and scriptures show only at his baptism was he made fully aware of who he was and the task he would fulfill. In other words he bore witness to truth.

3) To be Tested and Perfected.
The phrase no taxation without representation comes to mind. God saw fit to install a propper represenative as ruler over the Earth. In accordance with this Jesus lived a human life, suffering all that we as imperfect humans suffer. Knowing what trials we endure thus makes him the perfect judge.

4)The Ransom Sacrifice.
Considering the time that Jesus took with counciling, organizing and teaching, and from what we can tell knowing when a how he would die, it's no wonder the responsibility of recording the events were delegated to his apostles. The varied perpectives give us a well rounded insight of his brief ministry on Earth.




It is Jesus' actions of teaching which was one of his most important duties. The apostle's accounts differ from perspective as any two accounts of any two witnesses would. One person would notice details another did not. Luke, a physican noticed certain things that the others didn't.

I hope that's satisfactory.


Why complicate matters. Jesus was illiterate. Carpenters' sons got no education in those days. I think that's a more satisfactory answer. Never overlook the obvious.

[BlueMoose]

It's not clear why Vishnu is the path of the sun or brahma is the sun rise or why siva is the sunset, much less why jesus/father/holy spirit are too.
In short, it still doesn't make sense, length ways or breadth ways.
:confused:
-Yes I know, Lets say what God is exactly, but wait...my perception of things
cant be same as yours or this "debate" is absurdy (since we would agree on God)
-The God is everything there is and everything there isnt (omnipotent) including me and you, right ?
-Its about perpection of things, The God are same to us, our of perception what The God is makes all the confusion, in our native religion/mythology there is trinity of God too, but wait, there is many Gods in our religion, but hey, what if they are just reflections of the One The God like in Hinduism ?
-Tapio is our God of the Forest, it reflects Gods will in that form, Ilmatar was
(Brahma) was our Creator Mother, The East Wind (Holy Spirit/Vishnu?) did impregnate Her and then came Wäinämöinen (Horus/Jesus?), He played hes kannel (Finnish Sither) made out of the jaw bones of pike the fish (piscies?) so beautifully that he could sing/play you to death and had all the wisdom in the world (Venus/Lucifer/Angel of Light/The Duality?) and there was pole that hold the sky on its place (every star in sky did cycle the North Star = The Pole Star) and there was Sampo, the machine that blacksmith Ilmarinen (ilma=air) had made, which did give all the needs (The Sun in the sky/air) ~ The Sampo, the three first letters when announced sounds the same and that doesnt happen often, Finnish language may be the most complex language in the world and very different from others when announcing letters.

[-Maybe you do not agree me on the matter ?]
[-Ehkä olet eri mieltä asiasta ?]
[-two same sentences]
[-Ehkä olet(=you are, olit=you were, on=is)
eri (different, ~ erilainen, eriävä,eroava) mieltä (mieli=mind, mielelle=to mind, mielestä=from mind and so on...) asiasta (asia=thing/matter, asioista=from things, asioihin=to things)
Finnish language has a 15 case :D]

The Sampo/The Sun is the provider of welth and was robbed by Louhi~Pohjan Akka~The Hostess of the North) whom seeing to be the evil dark north (underworld, hell) but then Wäinämöinen did go to Dark North and did take The Sampo back ~ winter solstice and Suns death and resurrection.
-In the spring when planting seeds to there was custom to sing Sampo poetry, praising The Sun and the wonder of birth in nature.
-And here we are again, astrology/astronomy as an allegory.
-If I will take Kalevala as the Holy Word it wouldnt differ none from the case that I would choose The Bible and The Jesus Christ, why not to choose Wäinämöinen whom taked back the Sampo from the darkness ?
-Its the same altered story anyway. I think I will resign from my Christian Chruch and study my Kalevala :) But, uh, then I would burn in hell like pagans does, oh shaaaaait.
-Oh the irony, why is my Religion called a myth and a paganism ? At least it doesnt offer just The Sun to be a God LOL
-In our tale the world is born from broken bird egg. hmmmmm, well, why not.
-Understanding the nature of The God is hard, I would guess impossible,
but understanding religions is easy, its the same big soup everybody putting their own spices in but if only they could eat it at peace LOL

-Did this make any sense ?

[Why?]

Where are George Bush's writings? Barrack Obama's writings? Leaders seem to preach and not write. Jesus' form of communication was speaking - not writing. Plus, the illiterate masses he was speaking to weren't reading the newspapers - let alone Jesus pamphlets. Let's use some common sense here, people.

[Why?]

Jesus, unlike Patton, did not say "I will return". Jesus' return is supposed to mark the end of days - something that shouldn't be taken literally here on Earth. Besides, who cares about the end of time when you will die before it even happens assuming Jesus meant something so literal?

[BlueMoose]

Where are George Bush's writings?
:roflmao:
-Where are the Horuses writings, or Krishnas, or Mithras, or.... ;)

Let's use some common sense here, people.

-Amen :D

[BlueMoose]

Jesus, unlike Patton, did not say "I will return". Jesus' return is supposed to mark the end of days - something that shouldn't be taken literally here on Earth. Besides, who cares about the end of time when you will die before it even happens assuming Jesus meant something so literal?
-End of the days ~ End of the Age of Piscies
-Thats a good question in perverted way, why do Christians believe that there will be apocalypse, indeed, hmmmm... Fear ~ Control ?

[Why?]

The apocalypse comes from the very very dubious book of Revelations written by John of Patmos. John was drugged out his mind when he wrote this nonsense.

[BlueMoose]

Why it is attached to The Holy Book called The Bible ?

[Why?]

The Catholic Church added it in the early days for reasons I am not aware. However, the Church has distanced itself from Revelations and does not teach that it is to be taken literally. Reading Revelations makes it clear to most people that the stories are symbolic and cryptic, e.g. "the prostitute" refers to Rome. To take Revelations literally is to fundamentally overlook the symbolism the author obviously intended.

[BlueMoose]

How does the validity of Revelations differ from other "gospels" in the bible ?
How one can know which gospels has a validity and which ones dont ?

[Why?]

The Letters from the Apostles would seem to have the most validity, assuming that the Apostle actually wrote them. Unfortunately, the Letters are rather short and not narratives, exactly what you would expect from a letter. The four Gospels contradict themselves in places and also contain some dubious claims - which is to be expected from authors who were not Apostles and writing decades after the events. However, the Gospels contain the most detail, and therefore, naturally become the most relied upon. Unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is Jesus apparently did not write anything down. We are left with later second hand interpretations of what he said mixed in with fictious stories devised to be attractive to certain groups targeted for conversion. The writings of Christianity are in sad shape, but that's all we've got.

[BlueMoose]

The Letters from the Apostles would seem to have the most validity, assuming that the Apostle actually wrote them. Unfortunately, the Letters are rather short and not narratives, exactly what you would expect from a letter. The four Gospels contradict themselves in places and also contain some dubious claims - which is to be expected from authors who were not Apostles and writing decades after the events. However, the Gospels contain the most detail, and therefore, naturally become the most relied upon. Unfortunately, the simple fact of the matter is Jesus apparently did not write anything down. We are left with later second hand interpretations of what he said mixed in with fictious stories devised to be attractive to certain groups targeted for conversion. The writings of Christianity are in sad shape, but that's all we got.
-So its deep faith required when believing man-god Jesus.
-Oh the irony, if one come to conclusion that Jesus ~ The Annointed One ~ The Christ is The Sun, he wouldnt only believe it but feel and see it every day, no faith required :D

[Why?]

You cannot believe that Jesus is the son of God without deep faith. There are no miracles being worked by Jesus on this Earth anymore - at least not by a corporeal being named Jesus who is 2000 years old. However, it doesn't take any faith whatsoever to believe that Jesus was a real person. The Church exists, it's documents from early Christianity exist, certainly Christians were martyred in ancient Rome - clearly the evidence points to the existence of a real Jesus. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus in his Jewish histories. M*W's nonsense that Jesus worship is really sun worship defies common sense in light of the historical organization built around the man Jesus.

[BlueMoose]

You cannot believe that Jesus is the son of God without deep faith. There are no miracles being worked by Jesus on this Earth anymore - at least not by a corporeal being named Jesus who is 2000 years old. However, it doesn't take any faith whatsoever to believe that Jesus was a real person. The Church exists, it's documents from early Christianity exist, certainly Christians were martyred in ancient Rome - clearly the evidence points to the existence of a real Jesus. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus in his Jewish histories. M*W's nonsense that Jesus worship is really sun worship defies common sense in light of the historical organization built around the man Jesus.
-Every point of the reasoning that you wrote applies to my Religion and Kalevala too :D except the underline ones, because M*W is right on that one, and the irony that Kalevala isnt our religion... because of the...hmmmm, Christianity. Where is my holy book Kalevala :cool:
-Wanna word twister ?
kalavale ~ expression and compound word used when somebody is magnifying something, like adding lenght to the fish (piscies lol) when telling someone about it, it has it roots in that one I guess because...
kala=fish vale=lie.
Change a two letters and you get... Kalevala. :cool:
And thats not all, vala=oath

[Why?]

No doubt mankind has worshipped the Sun. Mankind has also worshipped other men, e.g. Roman Emperors. Why should the worship of Jesus refer to the Sun and not to an actual man? Seems absurd to believe Jesus is a really the Sun in light of the clear evidence of his historical existence. Give me your best argument - why should Jesus refer to the sun and not to a man?

[BlueMoose]

You got it backwards.
Every miracle and quality is derived from the Sun and then imposed to, in this case Jesus.
Wäinämöinen in Kalevala was pretty mighty guy too, born from Ilmatar, The Mother God.
Sampo was the Sun.
Your best argument is the Bible which does have same validity as my Book Kalevala, which by the way is comdened to be paganism ~ heretics ~ hell, not very nice thing, by your book :( And this while your holy book has the part of Revelations which by your claims has no validity.
So, if I may rest my case, Kalevala ~ Bible ~ Story. Strip the part of the story that isnt relating astronomy/astrology/sun and you can do it to my book Kalevala too, and what is there left ? Psalms ~ Poems and stuff.
I ask you, what is God, and if you tell me that Jesus I will tell you that, no it was Ilmatar, then, who is right ?
It should be the Way of the God and the Nature of the God pounding our heads rather than this "pointless"[sarcasm] debate.

[Why?]

Any similarity between sun worship and worship of the historical Jesus is pure coincidence. If Jesus meant that God was the sun, he certainly would have said so. Jesus never claimed God was the sun.

[(Q)]

Any similarity between sun worship and worship of the historical Jesus is pure coincidence. If Jesus meant that God was the sun, he certainly would have said so. Jesus never claimed God was the sun.

And he never claimed to be the son of god, or a god himself.

[joepistole]

Mythras was a Sun diety. And the similarities between Christ and Mythras are astounding. Constentine was a high priest of the cult. And was also he man responsible for consolidating the Christian religion. He called together the Christian Bishops to compile the Christian Cannon. And it is very interesting to see how the two religions merged. Now there is a Christian explanation for every pagan practice adopted, but frankly those reasons are not very substancial.
For example, Christmas the birth of Christ is celebrated on the day Mythras was reported to be born. Let's look at the cross, the cross was not a symbol associated with Christ until the time of Constintine. The cross and orb are Mythric symbols of God. Previously Christ was associated with the sign of the fish. The Sabath was moved from Saturday to Sunday. Sunday is the day devoted to the worship of Mythras.

However Mithras was not a religion for everyone. It was limited to males. So it would make sense to merge the 2 religions. Christianity made no such limitations. Mithraism could not survive as a male only religion.

[Vega]

Jesus in his early teens travelled to the east and brought back eastern philosophy, there is ancient Tibetan or Indian record of a child named" Issa" arriving and studying in one of the monastries at precisely that time.

[BlueMoose]

Why?
-Any similarity between sun worship and worship of the historical Jesus is pure coincidence. If Jesus meant that God was the sun, he certainly would have said so. Jesus never claimed God was the sun.

-And your source is...The Bible. ? .
-Just analyze the passages in The Bible about God, they apply to sun near 100%.
-If Jesus did exist he was just a teacher, not a man-god.
-Its in my book too, or do I really believe that some blacksmith could provide machine like Sampo ?

" In Finnish mythology, the Sampo was a magical artifact constructed by Ilmarinen that brought good fortune to its holder; nobody knows exactly what it was supposed to be. When the Sampo was stolen, it is said that Ilmarinen's homeland fell upon hard times and sent an expedition to retrieve it, but in the ensuing battle it was smashed and lost at sea.

The Sampo has been interpreted in many ways: a world pillar or world tree, a compass or astrolabe, a chest containing a treasure, a Byzantine coin die, a decorated Vendel period shield, a Christian relic, etc. In the Kalevala, compiler Lönnrot interpreted it to be a quern or mill of some sort that made flour, salt, and gold out of thin air. The world pillar theory, originally developed by historian of religions Uno Harva and linguistic E. N. Setälä in the early 20th century, is the most widely accepted one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampo

-The Sun does that very nicely, it created us too, with other King Stars like constellation of Virgo ~ Mary ;)
-World Pillar is the North Star, maybe the sun is better, well, closer to us anyway.

[John99]

Mythras was a Sun diety. And the similarities between Christ and Mythras are astounding. Constentine was a high priest of the cult. And was also he man responsible for consolidating the Christian religion. He called together the Christian Bishops to compile the Christian Cannon. And it is very interesting to see how the two religions merged. Now there is a Christian explanation for every pagan practice adopted, but frankly those reasons are not very substancial.
For example, Christmas the birth of Christ is celebrated on the day Mythras was reported to be born. Let's look at the cross, the cross was not a symbol associated with Christ until the time of Constintine. The cross and orb are Mythric symbols of God. Previously Christ was associated with the sign of the fish. The Sabath was moved from Saturday to Sunday. Sunday is the day devoted to the worship of Mythras.

However Mithras was not a religion for everyone. It was limited to males. So it would make sense to merge the 2 religions. Christianity made no such limitations. Mithraism could not survive as a male only religion.

His name was ContAntine and he was known as "Constantine the maculo".

Although Constantine was one of the greatest influences in promoting the Christian faith, he is also credited with infiltrating it with pagan practices, and bringing idols into the church. While Christianity was growing in popularity, sun worship or Mithraism remained strong in the empire. Sun worshipers were converted to Christianity because of their surface similarities, practices, and analogies such as “the sun of righteousness” which were later implemented into the church.

[joepistole]

The cross we use today as a Christian symbol is not the type of cross that was used for Roman crucifixions. The Romans use a cross like the “T” as it was a much more efficient form compared to the traditional “+” cross used in Christian symbols and in Mythriac traditions.

[BlueMoose]

Any similarity between sun worship and worship of the historical Jesus is pure coincidence. If Jesus meant that God was the sun, he certainly would have said so. Jesus never claimed God was the sun.
-No coincidences in politics.
-Jesus was trying to teach The Way of The God. If he did exist that is.
-And that is not what is happening in the world today is my brave guess.
-Christians are forced to accept that Jesus was killed and resurrected in the cross (the Southern Cross stars) because of our sins (the winter solstice allegory) and was a man-god rather than a teacher, why ?
-Why not just teach the Way of the Jesus rather than worshipping him as God ?

[BlueMoose]

A hint. Why Caesars in Rome did that too ? You know, the place near the Vatican ;) :D

[Medicine*Woman]

Jesus, unlike Patton, did not say "I will return".
*************
M*W: Patton didn't say that either. It was McArthur who said he "would return."

[Medicine*Woman]

-End of the days ~ End of the Age of Piscies
-Thats a good question in perverted way, why do Christians believe that there will be apocalypse, indeed, hmmmm... Fear ~ Control ?
*************
M*W: Why is this so hard for some folks to understand?

Hammer + Nail = Hit

[Vega]

Jesus walks into a hotel with some nails! asks the manager if he could put him up for the night!!!....just had to say it sorry!!..hehe

[Medicine*Woman]

How does the validity of Revelations differ from other "gospels" in the bible ?
How one can know which gospels has a validity and which ones dont ?
*************
M*W: I was going to answer Why?'s post, but decided to post it here. Astro-theologically speaking, could the "prostitute" represent the Constellation of Virgo? I would need to reread Revelation, but I really don't want to, so I'm asking you.

[joepistole]

*************
M*W: Why is this so hard for some folks to understand?

Hammer + Nail = Hit

I guess it depends on how good the carpenter is...it might be a miss.

[BlueMoose]

-Because astrology is bullshit :D ;) LOL
-Gotta go to read my daily horoscope now...;)

[Medicine*Woman]

-So its deep faith required when believing man-god Jesus.
-Oh the irony, if one come to conclusion that Jesus ~ The Annointed One ~ The Christ is The Sun, he wouldnt only believe it but feel and see it every day, no faith required :D
*************
M*W: I just had a thought. I've always been curious about the word "anointed" and what it meant. If one stays out in the sunlight long enough, one starts to sweat the natural oils that come out of the pores. Could that be the symbolism of being "anointed?"

[Medicine*Woman]

You cannot believe that Jesus is the son of God without deep faith. There are no miracles being worked by Jesus on this Earth anymore - at least not by a corporeal being named Jesus who is 2000 years old. However, it doesn't take any faith whatsoever to believe that Jesus was a real person. The Church exists, it's documents from early Christianity exist, certainly Christians were martyred in ancient Rome - clearly the evidence points to the existence of a real Jesus. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus in his Jewish histories. M*W's nonsense that Jesus worship is really sun worship defies common sense in light of the historical organization built around the man Jesus.
*************
M*W: I realize you're probably not catholic, but if you study catholicism, you'll find the many symbols of sun worship. Besides, what makes you so sure the RCC wasn't based on sun worship?

[BlueMoose]

*************
M*W: I was going to answer Why?'s post, but decided to post it here. Astro-theologically speaking, could the "prostitute" represent the Constellation of Virgo? I would need to reread Revelation, but I really don't want to, so I'm asking you.
-Yes, I have been reading that too. I have just starting to study if our Mother God Ilmatar in Kalevala is constellation Virgo ~ I got a strong feeling...

[Leo Volont]

One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings? Why did he not ensure that his words were written down? In the New Testament it speaks of him reading scripture, so I take it he could write. One of his apostles was a tax collector. I assume to be a tax collector one had to know how to read and write. Why did not the apostles write down their messages? Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified. So how are we to know which is right and which is wrong? It seams to me that someone bearing such an important message should leave some more information, not a criticism, just an observation. There is not even a direct reference to writing by Christ or his apostles. Why does so much of the teaching come from the apostles and not Christ, more specifically Paul who never even met Christ in life?

And why is it that Christians of all ages have thought that Christ was just about to return any day, and yet it has been more that two thousand years.

Damn! Are you kidding?

Why why why didn't Jesus do this and that?

He was killed!

Read the Parables. The lesson of the Parables is that no matter what God does, Man has the Free Will to phuque everything up.

Jesus was supported by so few people in the Ruling Class in Jerusalem that God probably figured the Messianic Mission was a totally lost cause.

Since God had had His chance, then it was handed over to Lucifer who sent his own son, Paul, who came out with the Doctrine that said that "Christians could sin all they wanted just as long as they believed that Murdering Jesus was a good thing." So Christians every Spring celebrate the Murder of Jesus and their Dispensation to Sin all they want.

[BlueMoose]

*************
M*W: I just had a thought. I've always been curious about the word "anointed" and what it meant. If one stays out in the sunlight long enough, one starts to sweat the natural oils that come out of the pores. Could that be the symbolism of being "anointed?"
-From my memory it just meant like "the named one" ~ Christ.
-I havent check out its roots but that is what is my understanding of it.

Gotta take a break, I´m hungry :) CYA Later

[Medicine*Woman]

No doubt mankind has worshipped the Sun. Mankind has also worshipped other men, e.g. Roman Emperors. Why should the worship of Jesus refer to the Sun and not to an actual man? Seems absurd to believe Jesus is a really the Sun in light of the clear evidence of his historical existence. Give me your best argument - why should Jesus refer to the sun and not to a man?
*************
M*W: The name "Jesus" was given to the sun of god. The worship of a fictional man named Jesus was written that way symbolically. No mortal man would do to call him the sun of god. After all, he was here on Earth. Gods tend to reside in the heavens or on tops of mountains so as to be elevated higher up than mortals.

The Roman Emperors believed themselves to be gods, but let's face it, that is based on ego worship. Yeah, the Romans worshipped them, but what else could they do or die?

Do you have proof of Jesus's historical existence? No modern day scholars (including some christian ones) believe that Jesus was a myth. Christian scholars are coming around and teaching christianity based on this myth, the myth of the trinity, and the myth of the virgin birth. Other christian scholars are now saying that even the crucifixion, resurrection and the ascencion were also myths. They are having to refit their sermons to reach a more rational congregations.

You do ask some pertinent questions, and of all the christians on this forum, I think you are the one on the right track.

[BlueMoose]

Damn! Are you kidding?
"Christians could sin all they wanted just as long as they believed that Murdering Jesus was a good thing." So Christians every Spring celebrate the Murder of Jesus and their Dispensation to Sin all they want.
-Just remember the ten ave maria :D

[Medicine*Woman]

Any similarity between sun worship and worship of the historical Jesus is pure coincidence. If Jesus meant that God was the sun, he certainly would have said so. Jesus never claimed God was the sun.
*************
M*W: When you read the bible with an understanding of astro-theology, it becomes very clear.

[John99]

Thats right.
:crazy:

[John99]

M*W broke the code...she broke the code....woooo......

[Enmos]

Why?,

Jesus is part of the story, right.. So why would he say God is the sun, when the whole story is an allegory ?

[Medicine*Woman]

His name was ContAntine and he was known as "Constantine the maculo".
*************
M*W: That's a new one. Any references?

[Medicine*Woman]

The cross we use today as a Christian symbol is not the type of cross that was used for Roman crucifixions. The Romans use a cross like the “T” as it was a much more efficient form compared to the traditional “+” cross used in Christian symbols and in Mythriac traditions.
*************
M*W: A "+" (cross) superimposed onto an orb "O" (sun) symbolizes the equinoxes. The catholic church took on this sign but called it the crucifix. The pope to this day carries what is called the "monstrance," which is a scepter of the blazing sun.

[Medicine*Woman]

-No coincidences in politics.
-Jesus was trying to teach The Way of The God. If he did exist that is.
-And that is not what is happening in the world today is my brave guess.
-Christians are forced to accept that Jesus was killed and resurrected in the cross (the Southern Cross stars) because of our sins (the winter solstice allegro) and was a man-god rather than a teacher, why ?
-Why not just teach the Way of the Jesus rather than worshipping him as God ?
*************
M*W: I might add that, as you know, The Way (i.e. the way of the cross) is the zodiac. Symbolically, the sun brings to us (Earth) the Way of the Cross, or the myths of the 12 major constellations.

[John99]

*************
M*W: I might add that, as you know, The Way (i.e. the way of the cross) is the zodiac. Symbolically, the sun brings to us (Earth) the Way of the Cross, or the myths of the 12 major constellations.

Whats that mean?

[Myles]

Where are George Bush's writings? Barrack Obama's writings? Leaders seem to preach and not write. Jesus' form of communication was speaking - not writing. Plus, the illiterate masses he was speaking to weren't reading the newspapers - let alone Jesus pamphlets. Let's use some common sense here, people.

There were people who could read and write in those days, surprise, surprise. So Jesus could have ensured that his message was not corrupted if he had written it and passed it on the his disciples. Illiterate people could have heard the word if others read it to them.

Without realizing it you have put your finger on something important. Why do Christians base their beliefs on the Bible, parts of which were contemporary with Jesus if, as you say, the masses were illiterate. Could not the select few have got it wrong ? What prevented Jesus writing/ dictating his message ? How do you know that what was passed on verbally was accurate ? Have you heard of Chinese whispers ?

Lastly, what prevented Jesus speaking AND writing; they are not mutually exclusive activities. What does your common sense tell you ?

[John99]

I already gave an answer in post number five.

[BlueMoose]

*************
M*W: I might add that, as you know, The Way (i.e. the way of the cross) is the zodiac. Symbolically, the sun brings to us (Earth) the Way of the Cross, or the myths of the 12 major constellations.
-Yes, or the 12 disciples, or 12 tribes of Is-Ra-El. Numbers and astrology, uuuh, spooky... ;) But what will happen when we enter in Age of Aquarius ?

Enjoy !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3I1y3jHgxA&feature=related

Hippies knew about these things, remember Lennon, Imagine if there is no heaven, religion...Hippies were trying to reform humanity as entering to the Age of Aquarius, and look what happened to John...
http://barryboobis.com/images/3-475-Imagine.jpg
-The next Anointed One ~ Christ ? :cool:

[John99]

Run to the Sun - Sun Worhipper - LMFAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Dg2FL1y7o&feature=related

[BlueMoose]

Whats that mean?

-The Great Year, The cycle of the sun within 12 constellations of stars
"A Great year (also known as a Platonic year or Equinoctial cycle) is the time required for one complete cycle of the precession of the equinoxes, about 25800 years, at the current rate (actual length is 25,765 years)."

-The Age, The Great Year divided to 12 zodiac signs, like fishes...
"An astrological age is a time period in astrology which is believed by some to parallel major changes in the Earth's inhabitants' development. It roughly corresponds to the time taken for the vernal equinox to move through one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. The Ages in astrology, however, do not correspond to the actual constellation boundaries where the vernal equinox may be occurring in a given time."

-The sun travels trough these signs and we are now in changing period of the Ages. Piscies -> Aquarius.

source - wikipedia

[John99]

So you believe in Astrology too?

[BlueMoose]

So you believe in Astrology too?

Define astrology, you are on a thin ice you know it, dont you.
Modern day astrology ~ Rubbish day to day horoscopes.
Ancient astrology ~ astronomy.
-Do I believe that objects does move at the sky, yes.?.
-Do I believe them to be Gods, no.

[SnakeLord]

Plus, the illiterate masses he was speaking to weren't reading the newspapers - let alone Jesus pamphlets. Let's use some common sense here, people.

So wait... you regard "common sense" as being jesus could not write because people weren't reading, but someone else could write what he was saying even though people weren't reading?

Common sense indeed :bugeye:

[Medicine*Woman]

Run to the Sun - Sun Worhipper - LMFAO

*************
M*W: You're a Roman Catholic, so that means you're a sun worshipper, too. You just can't see it. We're all LOFAO too!

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:

"Men are most apt to believe what they least understand." ~ Michel Eyquem Montaigne

*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comments (ABCs) of the Day:

"Use the good thoughts of wise people." ~ Leo Tolstoy, 1828-1910 Russian Writer

[Medicine*Woman]

So you believe in Astrology too?
*************
M*W: Just to be clear, belief in astrology is just as much a myth as are other religions.

[geeser]

Hitler (The TYRANT) loved to write.so did other Christians like, Torguemada, the Borgias, etc...


and to the OP dont bother scratching your head wondering, you may as well wonder whether Winnie the Pooh eats "hunny"( spelling deliberate ) there are no records of a person called jesus, it is all fictional.

some light reading, and well worth it.

the jesus myth
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654
with thanks to Iasion

[John99]

*************
M*W: You're a Roman Catholic, so that means you're a sun worshipper, too. You just can't see it. We're all LOFAO too!



You dont know the first thing about me - do you? I believe whatever i want and dont have to ask anyones permission - Personally my beliefs are not easily defined and cross over into many different systems - Weather Christian, Muslim, Atheist etc. i would SAY IT. The fact is i am not a religious person and think about it only on here....cause its funnnnnn.:D


*************
M*W: Just to be clear, belief in astrology is just as much a myth as are other religions.

so did other Christians like, Torguemada, the Borgias, etc...


and to the OP dont bother scratching your head wondering, you may as well wonder whether Winnie the Pooh eats "hunny"( spelling deliberate ) there are no records of a person called jesus, it is all fictional.

some light reading, and well worth it.

the jesus myth
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44410
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64654
with thanks to Iasion

Last night i read some compelling information that Hitler, Stalin etc. were Atheists and not only wrote a lot but read a lot, Charles Darwin was a favorite.

In hitlers case it makes sense, why was he measuring heads?

Edit: That being said i am not saying that was behind their motivations. Obviously they were individuals who distorted many things, there is good and bad across the board.

That is what i read and they presented a very good case. Linking to discussions in the forum your posting in as proof is not such a good idea because most would see it as biased.

[geeser]

Last night i read some compelling information that Hitler, Stalin etc. were Atheists and not only wrote a lot but read a lot, Charles Darwin was a favorite. That is what i read and they presented a very good case. then you need to read other sources, Hitler was a lutherian christian. Linking to discussions in the forum your posting in as proof is not such a good idea because most would see it as biased.only you could think that.
Not so, when the threads, linked too, also link too alternate sources. If you had read them you would have noticed.

Iasion, threads are well thought out, well sourced, and extremely informative.

[John99]

then you need to read other sources, Hitler was a lutherian christian. not so, only you could think that, when the threads, linked too, also link too alternate sources. If you had read them you would have noticed.


Actually being raised in a faith often means little as adults, look at you and M*W. Both raised with faith and both now despise it. You know these people were master manipulators? They brought manipulation to a whole new level, usually they can say and do anything with no remorse.

At t his point in history we should learn to be open and honest, there is and has been far too much deception.

[geeser]

Actually being raised in a faith often means little as adults, look at you and M*W. Both raised with faith and both now despise it. You know these people were master manipulators? They brought manipulation to a whole new level, usually they can say and do anything with no remorse.

At this point in history we should learn to be open and honest, there is and has been far too much deception.
then what your saying is this one man, hypnotized every person in germany, all his generals, all the politicians, he gave all is soldiers a religious insignia. with "Gott mit uns"( god with us ) written on it, yes he was a crafty, sly, conniving, tee-totaling, religiously moral christian.

[John99]

then what your saying is this one man, hypnotized every person in germany, all his generals, all the politicians, he gave all is soldiers a religious insignia. with "Gott mit uns"( god with us ) written on it, yes he was a crafty, sly, conniving, tee-totaling, religiously moral christian.

YES. But i dont think he was a Christian at all or that had zero factor. Hitler wanted a master race, this is well documented. Christianity is inclusive and believes GOD created all, of course it is not 100% perfect.. Also, hitler killed not only Jews in concentration camps so how does the typical conspiracy theory fit in???

Either way i am not blaming one element here, his views were skewed. He probably had many influences that he distorted.

[Myles]

I already gave an answer in post number five.

That's an answer ? You are simply papering over the cracks. Your answer is typical of those given by believers. How do you know he might have written in sand and then erased it ? The fact that such an argument suits your purpose does not make it true.

Why didn't Jesus write anything ? A straightforward question.

Possible answers.

He chose not to because it was not God's will that he do so

He did but someone stole his writings and destroyed them

After his apostles had read what he wrote an angel took his writings to a celestial library

He hid them and one day they will be found, etc.,etc., etc.

Why is any of those answers less believable than yours ?


Have you no respect for the truth. Why not simply say that you don't know.

[geeser]

YES. But i dont think he was a Christian at all or that had zero factor. Hitler wanted a master race, this is well documented. Christianity is inclusive and believes GOD created all, of course it is not 100% perfect.. well we can see where Hitler got his stance on ethnic cleaning. Most of the Old Testament contains passages of genocidal intent and ethnic cleansing ordered by God such as 1 SAMUEL 15.19
Also, hitler killed not only Jews in concentration camps so how does the typical conspiracy theory fit in???yes he killed off the old and infirm, cripples, blind, deaf, dumb. however the only real race he had the hot's for was The persecutions and expulsions of Jews in Germany, Austria and other Nazi-controlled areas prior to the initiation of mass genocide in which 6 million Jews were killedthese were the killers of jesus, read "Mein Kempf", he was following Gods plan. Even his name was changed to Hitler from "Schicklgruber" his mothers maiden name, he adopted his step-fathers "Hiedler" it was changed to Hitler and kept because it had the meaning "Shepherd"

Either way i am not blaming one element here, his views were skewed. He probably had many influences that he distorted.agreed, he had many influences, but whether he distorted them is unfounded.

[Medicine*Woman]

Actually being raised in a faith often means little as adults, look at you and M*W. Both raised with faith and both now despise it. You know these people were master manipulators? They brought manipulation to a whole new level, usually they can say and do anything with no remorse.

At t his point in history we should learn to be open and honest, there is and has been far too much deception.
*************
M*W: John, you are right about us not knowing who you really are. The same goes for the rest of us. The Internet is a wonderful venue for being whomever/whatever one wants to be. You don't know me either. If you had been reading my several years worth of posts, you would know that I was not raised in any religion. I chose to convert to catholicism as a young adult, and I chose atheism as a more mature one. All my life I was intrigued by religion and what made people believe. That hasn't changed.

Why is it that you think we are master manipulators? There is no one on this forum who is trying to manipulate you to become an atheist. I've said a gazillion times, that just can't be done. Atheism is something that a mature mind chooses to embrace. From what we do know about you, whoever you are, is that you are shallow and immature and certainly not ready to leave the comfort of your own delusion.

[John99]

Geeser, our views on Hitler's motivations are different but i think we can agree on that they really were not rational. The decisions he made if looked at purely from a strategic view were outrageous. Be that as it may, you should read up more on it with an unbiased perspective and you will see what i have alluded to.

M*W, you misunderstood me. I said that Hitler and Stalin were master manipulators.

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W, you misunderstood me. I said that Hitler and Stalin were master manipulators.
*************
M*W: Yes, they were the masters of manipulation. Hitler was a christian, and as I understand it, Stalin didn't have the concept of a god. However, I don't believe he considered himself to be an atheist. Communism was his god.

[BlueMoose]

Geeser, our views on Hitler's motivations are different but i think we can agree on that they really were not rational. The decisions he made if looked at purely from a strategic view were outrageous. Be that as it may, you should read up more on it with an unbiased perspective and you will see what i have alluded to.

M*W, you misunderstood me. I said that Hitler and Stalin were master manipulators.

Stalin By Edvard Radzinsky
The First In-Depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives
-Must read book if studying Stalin.
-Stalin was just a little vicious terrorist raised by Lenin to be hes back yard dog, but huh, he took the hole system eventually.

-Hitler perverted race plans origins from Thule Society.
"he planning of the Second World War started when Adolf Hitler joined a secret society called the Thule Society in 1919. It was in this group that he found the perverted beliefs that were later to lead him in his control of the German government.

In the Thule Society: "... the sun played a prime role... as a sacred symbol of the Aryans, in contrast to... the moon, revered by the Semitic peoples. The Fuhrer saw in the Jewish people, with their black hair and swarthy complexions, the dark side of the human species, whilst the blond and blue-eyed Aryans constituted the light side of humanity. ... Hitler undertook to extirpate from the material world its impure elements."1

Adolf Hitler PictureIn addition to sun (or light) worship, the Thule Society also practiced Satan worship: "The inner core within the Thule Society were all Satanists who practiced Black Magic."2

The Society was not a working-man's group as it included amongst its members: "judges, police-chiefs, barristers, lawyers, university professors and lecturers, aristocratic families, leading industrialists, surgeons, physicians, scientists, as well as a host of rich and influential bourgeois.... "3

The membership of the Thule Society also became the foundation of the Nazi Party: "... the Committee and the forty original members of the New German Workers' Party were all drawn from the most powerful occult society in Germany—the Thule Society."
http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-2/adolf-hitler.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/graphics/munich_thule_sm.jpg

-Notice that The Swastika is one with The Sun pressing The Moon down.
-And here we go again, astronomy~astrology~religion~politics...

[Saquist]

Why complicate matters. Jesus was illiterate. Carpenters' sons got no education in those days. I think that's a more satisfactory answer. Never overlook the obvious.

Perhaps that's more a testiment to your own limits than that of Jesus.
He was described in attendence at the temple listening to the reading of the scrolls as a child and as an adult reading from the scrolls. And he's is known for quoting scripture aswell.

I realize it's your undying aim to alienate reason by means of a thinly veiled insults but I sense there is no retort you would not give. This is indeed why you've declined conversation in the past. Should it not be like wise for the present and future?

You refuse correction so why do you seek it? Begin Act One of the Angry Atheist I presume.

[Myles]

Perhaps that's more a testiment to your own limits than that of Jesus.
He was described in attendence at the temple listening to the reading of the scrolls as a child and as an adult reading from the scrolls. And he's is known for quoting scripture aswell.

I realize it's your undying aim to alienate reason by means of a thinly veiled insults but I sense there is no retort you would not give. This is indeed why you've declined conversation in the past. Should it not be like wise for the present and future?

You refuse correction so why do you seek it? Begin Act One of the Angry Atheist I presume.


Are you serious ? So he listened and he read but never got around to writing. Wouldn't it have been better had he done so, then all the arguments about what he meant could have been avoided. Information passed on verbally gets corrupted or don;t you know that.

Your ad hom is a nice try but it falls down when you talk of my alienating reason. If reason and religion were bedfellows, we would not be having this exchange. So, again, what reason can you give for Jesus not having written his message and saved everyone a lot of trouble ?

"you refuse correction" = you refuse to accept my mumbo jumbo

[joepistole]

Below is a link to a site listing Christian heresies. Please note, how many first century hersies there are. It seems to me like a lot of heresy so soon after the death and resurection of Christ. Could that not have been prevented with some documentation and organization at the time of Christ? One would think God would want his message to get out clearly so it could be well understood...no heresies.


http://www.religion-cults.com/heresies/first.htm

[John99]

*************
M*W: Yes, they were the masters of manipulation. Hitler was a christian, and as I understand it, Stalin didn't have the concept of a god. However, I don't believe he considered himself to be an atheist. Communism was his god.

Hitler was not influenced by Christianity but by something else. Survival of the fittest, where did he get this from?

Saying that Communism was Stalins god is not based on fact. He did not believe in god, this is no secret.

[great]

-The "other" Holy Trinity

Brahma


Vishnu


Shiva


I've never seen this photos before. They are interesting.

[John99]

Blue Moose just finds similarities in things that were around thousands of years ago. He takes snippets of information and tries to solve a puzzle, i can do the same and come up with hundreds of theories - it is fantasy, not fact.

[BlueMoose]

(1.)Blue Moose just finds similarities in things that were around thousands of years ago.
(2.) He takes snippets of information and tries to solve a puzzle, i can do the same and come up with hundreds of theories -
(3.)it is fantasy, not fact.

1. Yes, and more I study more I find similarities, why ?
Maybe because the one and only common thing that ancients were able to
observe in different continents was the sky. ? .
2. Is there any other way to study something.!?!. How can I know everything at once, but oh, wait....if The God will tell me I guess ?
Why dont you do the same ? I find very it very meaningful.
3. Yes, this is the tricky part...
...observe the unknowing (!) ~ define what is it (!) ~ metaphor ~ write it ~ heroic story ~ readers = as many ("thruth") interpretations as readers...
-It a fantasy based on REAL events in the sky. And oh the irony again,
in a way I believe that those tales are true but thats because I know what they are based on, and those who dont...are actually the ones fantasizing :cool:
-And the funniest part is that there is nothing weird to believe that The Sun and all the other stuff in the space is what created us, that is if you know science.
-I guess this planet would be a pretty boring place without The Sun... :D

[John99]

Nice hobby you have there.

[Why?]

There were people who could read and write in those days, surprise, surprise. So Jesus could have ensured that his message was not corrupted if he had written it and passed it on the his disciples. Illiterate people could have heard the word if others read it to them.

Without realizing it you have put your finger on something important. Why do Christians base their beliefs on the Bible, parts of which were contemporary with Jesus if, as you say, the masses were illiterate. Could not the select few have got it wrong ? What prevented Jesus writing/ dictating his message ? How do you know that what was passed on verbally was accurate ? Have you heard of Chinese whispers ?

Lastly, what prevented Jesus speaking AND writing; they are not mutually exclusive activities. What does your common sense tell you ?

Of course, Jesus could have written things down. But, that is not the way of leaders. Common sense tells me that leaders, especially biblical style prophets didn't write things down themselves. Jesus' audience was mostly illiterate. You can't communicate with the illiterate by writings. Makes perfect sense to me why Jesus didn't write anything down.

[Why?]

So wait... you regard "common sense" as being jesus could not write because people weren't reading, but someone else could write what he was saying even though people weren't reading?

Common sense indeed :bugeye:

Jesus could write. The Gospels and Letters were meant to be read in front of the illiterate church goers. Obviously, without Jesus the priest would have to rely on writings to read Jesus' words to the illiterate church goers.

[Why?]

Why?
-Any similarity between sun worship and worship of the historical Jesus is pure coincidence. If Jesus meant that God was the sun, he certainly would have said so. Jesus never claimed God was the sun.

-And your source is...The Bible. ? .
-Just analyze the passages in The Bible about God, they apply to sun near 100%.
-If Jesus did exist he was just a teacher, not a man-god.
-Its in my book too, or do I really believe that some blacksmith could provide machine like Sampo ?

" In Finnish mythology, the Sampo was a magical artifact constructed by Ilmarinen that brought good fortune to its holder; nobody knows exactly what it was supposed to be. When the Sampo was stolen, it is said that Ilmarinen's homeland fell upon hard times and sent an expedition to retrieve it, but in the ensuing battle it was smashed and lost at sea.

The Sampo has been interpreted in many ways: a world pillar or world tree, a compass or astrolabe, a chest containing a treasure, a Byzantine coin die, a decorated Vendel period shield, a Christian relic, etc. In the Kalevala, compiler Lönnrot interpreted it to be a quern or mill of some sort that made flour, salt, and gold out of thin air. The world pillar theory, originally developed by historian of religions Uno Harva and linguistic E. N. Setälä in the early 20th century, is the most widely accepted one."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampo

-The Sun does that very nicely, it created us too, with other King Stars like constellation of Virgo ~ Mary ;)
-World Pillar is the North Star, maybe the sun is better, well, closer to us anyway.

Jesus said their are many rooms in my Father's house. Now, the Sun doesn't have any rooms, does it?

[Why?]

*************
M*W: I realize you're probably not catholic, but if you study catholicism, you'll find the many symbols of sun worship. Besides, what makes you so sure the RCC wasn't based on sun worship?

I am Catholic. Although the RCC may have appealed to pagans through the pagan's sun worship, there is absolutely no evidence in the Gospels or the Letters that Jesus worshipped the sun. First of all, Jesus was a Jew. Jews certainly did not worship the sun. After all, how could the sun possibly fit in the Ark of the Covenant and remain the in the Holy of Holies? If Jesus did worship the sun, he would have been thrown out of the Temple - and he never was until shortly before his death. Second, Jesus never refers to the sun as a God. Jesus said there were many rooms in his Father's house. Obviously, the sun doesn't have any rooms.

[joepistole]

Why, I think you maybe be forgetting the mystery religions of the time and that Jesus himself stated that somethings were kept secret.

[SnakeLord]

Jesus could write

You'd only know that if he had have written anything, which he didn't.. Oh well.

Obviously, without Jesus the priest would have to rely on writings to read Jesus' words to the illiterate church goers.

Eh? jesus didn't write anything because if he did the priest would have to rely on writing to read jesus words to illiterate church goers?

You make no sense.

[Why?]

Why, I think you maybe be forgetting the mystery religions of the time and that Jesus himself stated that somethings were kept secret.

O.K. I'll bite. What secret? The messianic secret? Some secrecy nonsense from the Gnostic gospels? And if it is a secret, than how do you know it involved sun worship?

[Why?]

You'd only know that if he had have written anything, which he didn't.. Oh well.



Eh? jesus didn't write anything because if he did the priest would have to rely on writing to read jesus words to illiterate church goers?

You make no sense.

Jesus could read. He read scripture in the synagogue. Obviously, a man who can read can write. The Gospels also mention Jesus writing something in the sand. Case closed, Jesus could write.
However, Jesus' followers mostly could not write. Ergo, Jesus used speech to communicate with them - not writing. Does this mean Jesus never wrote a single thing? Hardly likely. Jesus I am sure wrote many things, e.g. grocery lists? But, did Jesus write any of his teachings down? Perhaps. But, they are lost to antiquity.
The other point I am making is that there in no inconsistency between the fact that Jesus didn't write anything down and the fact that later persons wrote his words down. Obviously, if Jesus is dead, he isn't going to be preaching anymore to his followers. The leaders of the early church, especially in places far from Jerusalem need written documents to be read to the illiterate followers.

[Myles]

Of course, Jesus could have written things down. But, that is not the way of leaders. Common sense tells me that leaders, especially biblical style prophets didn't write things down themselves. Jesus' audience was mostly illiterate. You can't communicate with the illiterate by writings. Makes perfect sense to me why Jesus didn't write anything down.

How do you know that what you are saying is true ? Is it not a questrion of attempting to fill a gap with an explanation of your own devising ?

So why was the OT written ? Were people more literate in those times ?

Jesus could have written his teachings and passed them on to his apostles for reading to the iliterate but, more importantly, to ensure that his teaching did not become corrupt with the passage of time. As it is . we have hundreds of "Christian" sects whose differences are based on interpretations of the Bible. Surely god could have done a better job.

[Myles]

Hitler was not influenced by Christianity but by something else. Survival of the fittest, where did he get this from?

Saying that Communism was Stalins god is not based on fact. He did not believe in god, this is no secret.

Hitler was influenced by Nietsche and a corrupt version of Darwin. From Nietsche he got the idea of the Uebermensch; hence all the talk of the master race. That , alone, is enough to account for his outrages.

Darwin's idea of the survival of the fittest has been misunderstood by people who used it to justify their own ends. The idea became current that the strong could exploit the weak because the strong were the fitter. Hitler was not alone in thinking this.

Darwin said that if an environment changes, some organisms will be better able to adapt than others, i.e. they are fitter in this sense. You can see this process at work today where species unable to adapt are going extinct.

This does not mean that if I am stronger than the guy next door I should kill him. Such an interpretation suits those who favour creationism. They have no knowledge of evolutionary theory because they refuse to read anything on the subject. We are looking at the certainty of the ignorant who have no need to inform themselves beyond reading scripture.

[Bill Seper]

"One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings?"

Because it would be so perfect that there would no longer be any doubt about the existence of God, thus faith would be rendered useless.

"Why did not the apostles write down their messages?"

John did. There's also a few chapters that have been found claiming to be by Peter. Of course it's up for debate whether or not it really was by Peter.

"Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified."

None of them were written more than 50 years after Jesus died except possibly for John. They aren't in perfect harmony, that's for sure. But they're actually pretty darn close when you consider that decades had passed by the time they were written. I think the results would be the same for any four people writing about something they had witnessed over a period of a few years if they didn't write it down until decades later.

[Myles]

[QUOTE=Bill Seper;1711418]"One of the questions that lurk deep within my mind is, if Jesus was the messiah who came to restore the Word of God, why did he not leave writings?"

Because it would be so perfect that there would no longer be any doubt about the existence of God, thus faith would be rendered useless.
"Why did not the apostles write down their messages?"

John did. There's also a few chapters that have been found claiming to be by Peter. Of course it's up for debate whether or not it really was by Peter.

"Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified."

None of them were written more than 50 years after Jesus died except possibly for John. They aren't in perfect harmony, that's for sure. But they're actually pretty darn close when you consider that decades had passed by the time they were written. I think the results would be the same for any four people writing about something they had witnessed over a period of a few years if they didn't write it down until decades later

What logic ! Talk about putting the cart before the horse. " Faith would have been rendered useless" What was he hoping to prove ? If god wanted to make himself known to mankind, he could have made it a lot easier, which goes to show that he is not as bright as some make him out to be.
Try knowledge would have made faith redundant and there would be nothing to argue about

[audible]

None of them were written more than 50 years after Jesus died except possibly for John. They aren't in perfect harmony, that's for sure. But they're actually pretty darn close when you consider that decades had passed by the time they were written. I think the results would be the same for any four people writing about something they had witnessed over a period of a few years if they didn't write it down until decades later.
with thanks to Iasion

Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eyewitnesses - but I will also address Mark and Luke.

First of all, I should say that none of the four canonical Gospels names its own author, none of them claim to be eywitness accounts or even to have spoken to eyewitness of Jesus. All are written in the third person and none of the authors tell us anything about themselves. All of the traditional ascriptions of authorship come from 2nd century tradition.


G.Mark

The first gospel written is Mark. Mark is not by tradition an eyewitness account but 2nd century tradition casts him as a secretary of the Apostle Peter who haphazardly wrote down everything Peter said in no particular order.

The basis for this tradition stems from a single claim by Papias who said (c. 130 CE) that he got the information from John the Presbyter (not to be confused with John the Apostle). That's it. That's the entire case for Mark as a secretary of Peter.

Now let's examine the credibility of this claim.

First, Mark does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness.

Secondly, the author is extremely hostile to Peter. Mark is a decidedly Pauline, anti-Jewish and anti-Petrine diatribe. Mark is very hostile to the apostles in general and to Peter in particular. He takes every opportunity to depict the apostles as being dense and not getting Jesus' true message (reflecting the tension between Pauline communities and the Jerusalem cult in the last half of the first century). More to the point (and this is important) Mark does not give Peter any redemption after his betrayal. Mark does not grant Peter and appearance from Jesus. Mark's Peter denies Jesus, runs away and that's it. Now why would a Petrine memoir not include a Petrine witness of the resurrection? Wouldn't that be the most important part? How does it make any sense to exclude it?

Thirdly, the book is quote obviously a literary construction and is manifestly not a transcription of oral anecdotes. The literary structure of Mark, both in its chiastic forms and its use of the Hebrew Bible as a allusory template or "hypertext" preclude the possibility of transcribed oral tradition. GMark is a carefully constructed literary work.

It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic, the language of Peter and the language he would have dictated his memoirs in.

Fourth, Mark makes a number of errors regarding Palestininan geography and Jewish laws and customs which show that his information could not have been collected from a Palestinian Jew. Mark's passion, in particular, is so riddled with factual. historical and legal inaccuracies that it cannot be historical and cannot have come from an eyewitness. (I will address the specific errors in the section devoted to that subject)

Fifth, the book could not have been written during the lifetime of Peter. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which means that Peter was dead (at least by Christian tradition) when the book was written.

To summarize, the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine.

In 130 CE some guy said he heard from another guy that the author was a secretary of Peter's.


G.Matthew

Let's move on to Matthew. The Gospel of Matthew, by tradition, is attributed to the apostle of that name. Like Mark, this authorship tradition stems from Papias (it was also claimed by Irenaeus but he was probably parroting Papias). Papias clamed that, "Matthew composed the sayings [of Jesus] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1.

If such a Logia ever existed, it is not Canonical Matthew. GMatt is not a sayings gospel for one thing and was not written in Hebrew for another. Furthermore, GMatt is largely dependent on Mark and (most probably)another written sayings tradition (in Greek, not Hebrew) called Q. Matt's dependence on Mark also puts its date somewhere around 80 CE (if not later) which is pushing the envelope for the plausibility of the author being a contemporary of Jesus. It's not impossible, of course, but this is an era when people generally didn't live much past forty or fifty years of age.

The bigger obstacle for apostolic authorship is that fact that Matthew copies so extensively from secondary sources. An eyewitness should not be expected to copy verbatim from a non-eyewitness.

There is also the fact that GMatt contains some of the more demonstrable fictions and signs of OT cannibalism but more on those aspects in their proper sections.

It also bears repeating that the author Matthew never claims to have been an apostle or a witness, never states his name and never claims to have known any other witnesses.

To sum up for Matthew:

Papias claims that an apostle named Matthew compiled a sayings Gospel in Hebrew.

The Canonical Gospel of Matthew is written in literary Greek and is not a sayings gospel. The author never claims to have been an apostle or an eyewitness. It relies heavily on secondary Greek sources as well as the Septuagint. Once again, an eyewitness would not rely on the accounts of non-witnesses to recount events that he had supposedly seen for himself. It was written at least 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. The author includes demonstrable fictions which can clearly be shown to have been derived from the Septuagint.

Papias' Logia, if it existed, has never been found.



G.Luke

The traditional author of Luke-Acts is supposedly a physician and travelling companion of Paul named Luke. Neither Luke nor Paul is a witness of Jesus even by tradition so I suppose I could stop right there but I think I'll take the time to point out that even the tradition which does exist is dubious. First of all, the author of Luke-Acts never claims to have known Paul. The earliest known claim for this tradition comes from Irenaeus in the late 2nd century who probably based his conclusion on the "we passages" from Acts as well as a stray mention of someone named Luke in Philemon (the name turns up in a couple of the non-authentic Pauline letters as well but the authentic corpus onle mentions the name once in passing).

There is no reason whatever to suppose that the Luke mentioned by Paul has aything to do with either GLuke or Acts.

The "we" passages in Acts are those passages during which the narrative voice changes from third person to first person plural. This is the source of the supposition that the author of Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul's but Vernon Robbins has shown that this was merely a Greek literary device for describing sea voyages.

Furthermore, Luke knew Josephus, which puts that gospel into the mid 90's CE at a bare minimum and probably later. This means that Paul had been dead 30 years before Luke-Acts was written. It is highly unlikely, then, that the book was written by a companion of Paul and there is absolutely no reason to connect the "Luke" who is so casually mentioned by Paul in one letter to the composition of Luke-Acts.

Furthermore, Luke is dependent on both Mark and Q which (contrary to some Christian folklore) means that Luke had no access to first hand accounts from other witneses.

There are also historical inaccuracies in Luke as well as contradictions with other Gospels which I will get to in time.

So, to sum up Luke, it is an anonymous gospel whose author makes no claim to first hand knowledge and no claim to knowledge even of Paul. It was written more than a half century after the crucifixion, is dependent on secondary sources and contains numerous historical errors and contradictions with the other gospels.

The fable of a physician named Luke who travelled with Paul comes from a claim made 150 years after the crucifixion and is corroborated by nothing in the text itself.


G.John

By tradition, the GJohn is written by the apostle of that name and is also identified as the mysterious "Beloved Disciple" mentioned within the text. This tradition, like Luke, stems from a late 2nd century claim by Irenaeus (who is known to have confused John the Apostle with another John, called 'the Presbyter" and may have been doing so again).

As with the other canonical Gospels, the author of GJohn does not identify himself or claim to be a witness (The seeming self-identification in 21:24 is a later redaction to the book, not part of the orginal manuscript and did not name the author "John" in any case. It is also not really a first person singular assertion, ("I wrote this") but a first person plural avowel that "we know" these were the words of a disciple (without naming the disciple).

Looking at the text of GJohn, we can see that any claim to the book as an eyewitness account does not hold water. First of all there is the very late date (c. 100 CE if not later) which puts it at the absolute edge of any plausible lifespan for a contemporary of Jesus. It also shows a heavy Hellenistic influence, both in its literary style and its theology. How does an illiterate Palestinian fisherman suddenly become proficient in stylized literary Greek and become aware of Alexandrian Jewish-Greek concepts like the Logos?

GJohn is also arguably the most anti-Jewish work. It goes beyond being just a polemic against the Pharisees or the priests and becomes a full on indictment of all Jewish people. Kind of weird since the author (like Jesus) was allegedly a Jew.

GJohn contains some of the longest, most otherwordly and most implausible speeches for Jesus. The length of the discourses in itself mitigates against their historicity simply by virtue of the implausibilty of those speeches surviving verbatim for 70 or more years in the memory of this fisherman (and nowhere else. These discourses are found nowhere else in early Christian literature). They do not have the short and sweet anecdotal quality of the Q pericopes which are easy to remember and transmit through oral tradition.

GJohn also shows layered authorship. It is not the contiguous work of a single author but the result of multiple redactions by multiple hands.

What is really the nail in the coffin, though, is that GJohn anachronistically retrojects the expulsion of Christians from Jewish synagogues (an event which occurred c. 85-95 CE) to within the life of Jesus. An eyewitness could not have made this mistake.

To sum up for John, it is an early 2nd century book which is heavily Hellenistic in its language and theology. It is markedly anti-Jewish, it contains speeches for Jesus which are not only incompatible with the character of Jesus as he is presented in the synoptics (not to mention that it simply strains all credulity that a 1st century Jewish audience would tolerate a guy claiming he was God) but simply cannot be credibly defended as authentic transcriptions of speeches remembered verbatim for 70 years by an illiterate Palestinian fisherman (and by nobody else) and then translated into Greek by that same fisherman. It contains contradictions with the synoptics which I will get to in time. It shows muliple hands of authorship and it contains an anachronism so glaring that it is a fatal blow to any consideration of eyewitness testimony.

Its traditional authorship stems from a single unreliable claim by Irenaeus (a guy who couldn't keep his "Johns" straight) around 180 CE.


Conclusion

None of the Gospels were written by any eye-witness to any historical Jesus.


with thanks to Iasion

[BlueMoose]

Nice hobby you have there.
Yes, thank you, among many other hobbies ;)

Jesus said their are many rooms in my Father's house. Now, the Sun doesn't have any rooms, does it?

-Sun moving trough 12 house of The Great Year, The Zodiac signs ~ The Houses, were have been in this already. ? .

I am Catholic. Although the RCC may have appealed to pagans through the pagan's sun worship, there is absolutely no evidence in the Gospels or the Letters that Jesus worshipped the sun. First of all, Jesus was a Jew. Jews certainly did not worship the sun. After all, how could the sun possibly fit in the Ark of the Covenant and remain the in the Holy of Holies? If Jesus did worship the sun, he would have been thrown out of the Temple - and he never was until shortly before his death. Second, Jesus never refers to the sun as a God. Jesus said there were many rooms in his Father's house. Obviously, the sun doesn't have any rooms.

-So, what was it that Jews worshipped then, The God, right ? Now tell me what is The God ?
-Lets say there was a new prophet in that era, he tried to reform religion (agree?) the natural cause is conflict with those whom wanted to remain status quo, so he was killed. Then hes followers wrote down something, and one after other after other, than we suddenly have a manuscript to astronomy, how did that happen ? I´m halfway to you here now admitting that there could be in that time some prophet, but lets face it, its the same old story about sun dying and then resurrecting from death/darkness.
What If the Romans wanted to put more power to that Messiah of The Jews by giving him the exact qualites of other Sun Gods ?
What then, if thats the case, isnt Christianity a fraud.
If not then the other case is that he is coming back all the time, Horus, Krishna, Mithra and so on, and if that is the case I could worship Horus too. ?
Or my native Kalevala, its the same story too.


"Instead we only have conflicting documents written more than 100 years after Christ was crucified."

None of them were written more than 50 years after Jesus died except possibly for John. They aren't in perfect harmony, that's for sure. But they're actually pretty darn close when you consider that decades had passed by the time they were written. I think the results would be the same for any four people writing about something they had witnessed over a period of a few years if they didn't write it down until decades later.

-That applies my Kalevala too, damn, where is my Kalevala ! :cool:

[Saquist]

Are you serious ? So he listened and he read but never got around to writing. Wouldn't it have been better had he done so, then all the arguments about what he meant could have been avoided. Information passed on verbally gets corrupted or don;t you know that.

Nonsense. If you can read you can write.
Further the Jews and Arabs were masters of verbal tradition, unparaleled dare I say by any other cultures. Yet it's irrelevent. The accounts of Jesus are from not his perspective not his own. And they're fairly synonomous.



Your ad hom is a nice try but it falls down when you talk of my alienating reason. If reason and religion were bedfellows, we would not be having this exchange. So, again, what reason can you give for Jesus not having written his message and saved everyone a lot of trouble ?



"you refuse correction" = you refuse to accept my mumbo jumbo

That was weak.
Am I perplexed by this? Not at all. Reading comprehension has died in scientific circles in favor of interpretation.

[Bill Seper]

The gospel of John is almost undoubtedly written by the Apostle John, something that probably 75% of all scholars agree upon. The two main clues (and incredibly obvious to anyone having actually read it) are: 1) The gospel never once refers to the name "John" (nobody refers to themselves in the first person unless they're a Hollywood socialite); 2) His statements about "the disciple Jesus loved" which appear three times in John tell us all we need to know about the author. It's shown over and over in all the gospels that Peter, James, and John were the three most intimate with Christ. In John 21 it tells us that some of the disciples were out fishing and they were, "Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together." There were only two sons of Zebedee--John and James. So John was definitely there. Then it says in verse 7, "Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped