cole grey: MW, Just wanted to be clear... you believe that the story in the bible AND the story you represent above as what "really happened" to judas and jesus, are myths? So one myth says, the raven brought a branch to begin the creation of land, and another says God spoke, and why does it matter which you apprehend, as long as you find something that speaks to you in the symbols? How can you argue about which "myth" of jesus is more "true"? ************* M*W: If you read my last words of that post, I clearly stated that there is no point in arguing this, because EVERYTHING written about Jesus was a myth, and all that does is put the argument to the test of WHICH myth is the credible myth. In the greater scheme of things, it really doesn't matter which myth is the more credible one. All the bible stories are myths. For the past 20 years, I have believed that Jesus lived, but he didn't die on the cross. Recently, after spending these past 20 years researching the living Jesus, I have concluded that he was just a myth.
MW said: The fact of the matter is the GGs are a lot more truthful than the Bible. Woody says: I noticed the GGs have their own dedicated section on the occult forum. Hmmm ...they must fit right in with witchcraft, satanism, and magic rituals, wouldn't you say? MW said: The GGs told a much different story than what the early church fathers fabricated and forged in the Bible. Woody: Yes indeed the GGs even tell a vastly different story within themselves, how many variations are there about 50 to 100? So which one of them is true? They are about as far apart as Buddhism and Islam. MW: The leader of this small band of Jewish terrorists, Simon Zelotes, led an unsuccessful revolt against Pontius Pilate and was executed by Herod. Woody: The insurrectionist was Barrabus, and Jesus was his scapegoat as allowed to Jewish passover tradition. You are familiar with Jewish passover tradition? MW said: With the secretive help of Simon the Cyrene, Judas arrived with the Roman soldiers. Woody: Simon the Cyrene was the unfortunate chap that the Roman soldiers pulled out of a crowd of bystanders to carry the cross to Golgatha. MW said: Judas returned with 30 pieces of silver to give to the priests (not the Roman soldiers). Woody: Yes, that was the deal the priests made with Judas, but you will never hear a jew admit it. MW said: Then the three were quickly taken down from their crucifi, and all were still alive. Jesus was given an antidote to the snake venom, Simon the Cyrene's broken legs were attended to, and Judas was thrown over a cliff to his death, and thus, ends the story of Judas. Woody: The Romans were experts at execution by crucifiction. The purpose of the leg breaking is to make the victims unable to breath so they will suffocate quickly. You need to study the anatomy of crucifiction. The cause of death is suffocation. The Romans were experts at this process, hence the spear in the side for Jesus -- any would-be fakers came down from the cross with a spearhole in the heart. Nobody came down alive. This is an execution. MW: Jesus was lifeless but in a coma due to having been given a sponge wet with vinegar and snake venom which rendered him unconscious. Woody: If he was in a coma he was unable to breath while on the cross. Study the physics of crucifiction -- In order to breath you must remove tension from the arms, Tension on the arms fights against the diaprahm which eventually ruptures during crucifiction. In order to breath you must stand up straight and relieve the tension on the arms. Breathing is just about impossible when a person's legs are broken or if they are dangling unconcious. Your Gnostic Gospel account of the crucification disagrees with modern medical science and human physiology. Find a medical doctor that agrees with your account.
Interesting guesswork, but not stated in the bible - and as such without credence. Further to which, who of those two was there to see it? Was Matthew there on one day and Mark on the other day? Did they set up some alternate rota, whereby Matthew sat there waiting for visitors on day one and Mark sat there waiting for visitors on day two? John 14 might be consistent, but John 10 isn't. What are you trying to say, that jesus was god, but just a little lower than god? That my friend is a contradiction. Apparently? C'mon let's be honest: you're just making it up. This many people? You mean the four or so that wrote about him, (that was accepted as true)? Ye of little faith. We're not talking a person, we're talking god. How difficult is dying temporarily? Flick of a finger.. So you are openly admitting that both statements are inaccurate? Thank you. John and Luke were both there as god was being killed. Unfortunately both their ears suffered from a temporary hearing issue at different intervals, and they never considered sitting down together afterwards and comparing notes. It's an interesting theory you have there. Either way you are happily promoting the fact that both accounts are inaccurate. Well, by that same token: "perhaps" it's all made up. No offence man but "perhaps" just doesn't cut it. I agree fully: Both texts are inaccurate. Not supported by the text if you read it. Again it's mere guesswork on your part. I'm sorry, did Judas not commit suicide? If he did manage to kill himself I would ask as to how he did it wrong. Is there a guidebook on how to kill oneself? You're wrong, as shown by the text. I would expect a much better excuse from a religious man. And there was uh..uh.. uh.. urr.. well urrr... What you're now telling me is that you're happy to admit the text is inaccurate? That's all I asked for, and I thank you. If there was one man/angel outside and one inside, the text could say: "and as they got to the tomb they saw one man/angel outside and one man/angel inside, so there were 2 men not sitting on the right side, not standing next to one of the people but one inside and one outside". Seriously, that wasn't that hard. Instead you show without doubt that the text is inaccurate. Cool, we're back to "perhaps" again. Wouldn't it be so much better if someone had have actually been there to provide the "facts" and not the "perhaps"? Hey, perhaps there was a thousand angels.. who would know? Hmmmm... Isn't it bizarre to think that someone who knows someone well, (we would assume), doesn't even recognise them 3 days later? "Perhaps" it was similar to the film 50 first dates. "Perhaps" she suffered from some serious brain ailment that meant she couldn't remember anything after 10 minutes. "Perhaps" jesus put a fake pair of glasses and a fake nose on? Oh these "perhaps" are sickening. If only someone had have been there to write what really happened. Still, you can't blame the writers.. The event wasn't that important after all, and not like it would have an impact on the rest of humanity's future. If only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could have prophesised and foretold about this forum and at least sat down together and got their story straight for our benefit. Such a shame. Shit, and to think that Matthew and Mark hadn't even picked up on that part. Oh woe to the world, such is trusting in piss poor reporters. Well, at least you paid attention to your 3rd grade history teacher instead of the words of some ancient halfwit who obviously didn't know the slightest thing about reporting the facts. Well, why not? What is an hour of pain in an infinity of lifetime? How sweet. Who cares about details? Who cares how many people were killed in the tsunami? Who cares when it happened? You're right, nobody does. But that isn't the point or purpose of reporting an event that the world would look upon as factual. Ok, so the Mirror says 10,000 people died and the sun says 100,000 people died.. It's irrelavant right? Of course not when questioning real events. The details are of utmost importance. If they were both standing right there and one says it was at the third hour and one says it was at the ninth hour - there is a distinct problem. But we're not talking some silly human killing tsunami here, we're talking a personal visit from the one and only god. If they can't even agree on the basics then what hope is there? The answer is none, and you eagerly agree with me. You have openly admitted, (although not verbalised), that all of the accounts are inaccurate. That each specific story is missing details, making up details that the writer wasn't sure of, and so on. There is the problem for someone who actually wants to know these things - no matter how insignificant you consider them. Did jesus die in the third hour? "Perhaps", the sixth? "perhaps", the ninth? "perhaps". We're left with very little. Basically god died for us sometime on some date that nobody knows - not even the people that were supposedly there. What use is that to me? Nada. And c'mon, that's all you have. A guy who was equal to, but lesser than god died for us sometime once upon a time because he came to bring peace, but came not to bring peace - but a sword, who was a white ancient Hebrew speaking male who claims thou shalt not kill while giving orders to kill your own son if he's bad, while telling you working on saturday is evil while telling you working on saturday is ok etc etc and so on. What we end up with is the most garbled account in history. If this occured in the local newspaper you would dismiss it instantly and log onto CNN instead. The fact is that details do matter - especially when they don't agree with each other. But tell me Woody, how bad would my lack of attention been if I had have spread it worldwide? If I had have in one sentence said it takes 50,000 years and in another sentence said it takes 3 million? Hell yes, you would be busting my chops right here, right now. You are already busting my chops, and so you must see the importance of these details. There is such a vast difference between third hour and ninth hour, that no half competent "witness" could make the error, nor colaborate with the other 'witnesses' the very next day, or indeed realise the impact that such error would have on the entire future of humanity that is to come, (unless they thought the world was going to end very shortly). What will I do? Not a lot. I provide my cases in a very logical and systematic manner. If it is not sufficient for the "all loving" god, then there's little I can do or worry about. However, you're asking me to either spend an eternity with a bunch of religious nitwits or spent an eternity with a bunch of people who share a lot of personality similarities. There simply is no contest. I'd happily spend my time with Twain and Einstein than the paedophile priest Ted anyday of the week - no matter where that is.
Woody: MW said: The fact of the matter is the GGs are a lot more truthful than the Bible. Woody says: I noticed the GGs have their own dedicated section on the occult forum. Hmmm ...they must fit right in with witchcraft, satanism, and magic rituals, wouldn't you say? ************* M*W: I have found nothing in the GGs referring to witchcraft, satanism, and magic rituals. Jesus, however, was said to have been a "miracle worker" and "magician," but I cannot remember where I read this. I don't dabble into or read about the occult. It's just another religion which christianity was based upon. ************* Woody: Yes indeed the GGs even tell a vastly different story within themselves, how many variations are there about 50 to 100? So which one of them is true? They are about as far apart as Buddhism and Islam. ************* M*W: They are also about as far apart as biblical christianity. ************* Woody: The insurrectionist was Barrabus, and Jesus was his scapegoat as allowed to Jewish passover tradition. You are familiar with Jewish passover tradition? ************* M*W: Barabbas meant "son of the father," another name for Jesus. ************* Woody: Yes, that was the deal the priests made with Judas, but you will never hear a jew admit it. ************* M*W: Of course not. It was the price of a Hebrew slave. ************* Woody: The Romans were experts at execution by crucifiction. The purpose of the leg breaking is to make the victims unable to breath so they will suffocate quickly. You need to study the anatomy of crucifiction. The cause of death is suffocation. The Romans were experts at this process, hence the spear in the side for Jesus -- any would-be fakers came down from the cross with a spearhole in the heart. Nobody came down alive. This is an execution. ************* M*W: I'm well aware of the death process by crucifixion. ************* Woody: If he was in a coma he was unable to breath while on the cross. Study the physics of crucifiction -- In order to breath you must take tension off of the arms, Tension on the arms fights against the diaprahm which eventually ruptures during crucifiction. In order to breath you must stand up straight and relieve the tension on the arms. This is not possible when a person's legs are broken or if they are dangling unconcious. ************* M*W: The myth goes that he was only on the crucifix for 3 hours and his legs weren't broken. ************* Woody: Your Gnostic Gospel account of the crucification disagrees with modern medical science and human physiology. Find a medical doctor that agrees with your account. ************* M*W: I did not say this was a GG account of the crucifixion. I don't believe the GGs describe a crucifixion at all! Finding a doctor won't really be necessary. I am on faculty as academic clinician teaching medical students, interns, residents, fellows, and faculty peers, in various areas of medical science.
S/L said: The fact is that details do matter - especially when they don't agree with each other. Woody says: Why don't you be honest with yourself: if the bible details all agreed with each other to your satisfaction, and the God of the bible met all your requirements, would you really believe in it? I don't think you would because that is not like you. This whole argument is a red herring to the real issue: you do not believe in the supernatural -- PERIOD. So what's the point in arguing about it? If you were an agnostic, I would say you were objective. However you state your case as an atheist -- you only make an allowance for things we can sense with the five senses or think about with the human brain. Do you really think that is all there is to this universe? The universe doesn't give a rat's ass about your thinking and feeling. It got along fine for billions of years without it.
M*W: I did not say this was a GG account of the crucifixion. I don't believe the GGs describe a crucifixion at all! Finding a doctor won't really be necessary. I am on faculty as academic clinician teaching medical students, interns, residents, fellows, and faculty peers, in various areas of medical science. Woody: Good then you understand how quickly someone can suffocate. I heard about a guy in an easter play that almost died on the cross. It's that dangerous. An unconcious person wouldn't have a chance.
Alas, I cannot answer that. If the bible details were all fluent and complimented each other then my great great grandmother most likely would have accepted it, which means my great grandparents would have, as would my parents - and then by default I most likely would have done also. Of course the way my 'system' works, I cannot just dismiss the realities as easy as many other people can. If someone says "leprechaun" to me, I do not just say "where?". Instead, being the logical and systematic kind of person, I will enquire over the details of the sighting. Do not take it personally, I would ask the same from you if you spoke of god or UFO's. It is in my nature to do so, (as given to me by god). However, being realistic: If there was less of a problem with the text, there would be less people questioning it. I personally might still question it, but you would at least have another 50 million recruits to call your own. But against all of this we have the fact that the biblical accounts do not agree with each other. In the case of modern reporting I need only phone the local newspaper and ask. In the case of the bible there simply is nobody to ask, and anybody I do ask cannot speak a word of truth given that they were not there to see or witness any of it. In this instance I have nobody to rely on other than the people who claim to have been there, and claim to have seen it all happen. As a result one has to raise an eyebrow when even they cannot agree on the very basics, let alone the in-depth details. I might not 'believe' in god if they did agree, (I have a nature that prefers to 'know' than agree), but I simply have no choice considering the fact that even the people that claim to be there cannot agree. There's very little point in arguing about it, but discussing it will at least teach us both about the realities of the matter. Do you know what "belief" implies? I'll tell you.. It implies that you 'know' absolutely nothing concerning it, but that you guess on the details to make an image of something you like merely for the sake of it. I do not have faith that my daughter is real. I do not 'believe' that my daughter is real. I "know that my daughter is real. This is what separates us. I work on what is real, you make it up. Evolution is a fact, gravity is a fact, my daughter is a fact. What do you have? "Oh, I think my god is real. I "believe" this being is real". You simply cannot compare it to reality. You know it and I know it. Show me a leprechaun and I will bold-faced tell you that I "know" leprechauns exist. Thousands of years down the line and you have nothing better than: "I want to believe". It's ridiculous. Ah, so you are more comfortable with a position of "I don't know", instead of making a definite? As such, would you not be in a better position to say you don't know as opposed to clinging on through faith? You must agree, otherwise your statement is meaningless. Translation error!! It's annoying, isn't it? One would typically call a disbeliever who recognises that the universe might be governed by a higher being, (be that a specific god or a giant Mickey Mouse), as a weak atheist. Personally though, you're pretty much right. I see no valid reason for it given that all life can be explained in a way that requires no head honcho. It's a matter of luck. Ok, the people of Jupiter disagree - wait! what people of Jupiter? Oopsie, there is none. Guess they weren't so lucky. I'm sorry, what else do we have other than our senses and brain? Do I think we have the answers to everything in the universe? No. Does that mean there's a big invisible guy barking down orders? No. You're right my friend, the only sane position is that of what you would call agnostic, (weak atheist). However, we must also understand that which we do know. We do know that man has the habit of making things up. As such leprechauns, gods and el chupacabra live in the world of the make believe until such time where evidence can show otherwise. And so no, we don't know everything. I will not sit here happily and say that there was a big bang, and that started us all off and so on. These things remain simply as "I'm not sure", or "I don't know".. but there are certain things we can instantly dismiss. gods are one of them. If I'm wrong, sue me... but the same stance must be taken on things such as this - else everything is meaningless... gods, leprechauns, floating invisible bananas.. it means nothing. I know that, and it does little to promote your god. Still, we could say the universe cares more about me than the inhabitants of Jupiter.. right? The thing is, as an atheist, I'm not bothered in the slightest. I'm just proud my ancestors made it this far. Sure, and the same after it. No return by jesus dictating the end of the world. This small little rock will just continue. We wont start over, we'll just float around as atoms. - but she will still be here, a big ball of inanimate rock doing not a whole hell of a lot. Jupiter will do the same without creatures walking on it because of it's unlucky position in the solar system until such time when the sun gives in to the law of physics. By then nobody will give a shit, because we'll all be dead or all be on another planet that also has the luck of being in a handy, life providing position. P.S Anyway, lets get back to the biblical contradictions and your agreement that the gospels are inaccurate....
S/L said: P.S Anyway, lets get back to the biblical contradictions and your agreement that the gospels are inaccurate.... Woody says: I appreciate your honest self-assessment. You demand facts. Thomas was the same way, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't have a problem with the parts of the bible that are hard to understand. Before I was a christian I just admitted I didn't understand how certain things in the bible could be compatible. Life consists of incompatible facts to live with for example: How do I make a decision that has negative results no matter what choice I make? How do I decide when the information is conflicting? How do I decide when my conscience says one thing but my common sense says another? The bible is no different. Either I decide to trust it, or I decide otherwise. I can not understand all of it. Neither can anyone else. That is one of the things that keeps it interesting and alive. I can never put down a bible and say there is nothing more to learn about it.
And so I too will go to heaven, or does my rational assessment doom me to the fiery pits of hell even though "there's nothing wrong with it", simply because I just didn't give in to popular opinion? From what I have seen of your replies, you didn't even know they were there. None of which is even closely similar to something as simple as two people not being able to agree on a number under 3. Unless you think they were absolute fucking retards, there is no call to state that one man who was there could only count one person whereas the other person who was there managed to count two. In either case you still agree that the biblical accounts are inaccurate. I notice you keep avoiding this. Kindly answer it this time. Are the biblical accounts accurate or inaccurate? And how would you, as a sane man, base such a decision? On what you 'want' to be true, or what is 'shown' to be true? You make it sound like "decision" is easy. It should never be that easy. Just like me, you can see the inconsistencies that are there. Instead of questioning, you just avoid them. That is truly weak. Now try that over 50 different religious texts. A sane man would be in no position to say: "this is true/this is the right one". You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Dictated by god for our benefit, (in an ancient language that has spawned hundreds of different versions), and nobody seemingly understands it, (even the religious "believers" who claim to have personal relationships with god). Something can be called into question here. Does god really want to get a message across or is he just being an asshole for the sake of it? "Perhaps" god doesn't know how to dictate laws and rules to humans - such is the language barrier. C'mon Woody, you're making your god look like an incompetent or a dickhead. You choose.
SnakeLord: C'mon Woody, you're making your god look like an incompetent or a dickhead. You choose. ************* M*W: Now, Snake, was that fair? You know as well as I do that we are all guilty of anthropomorphizing our chosen gods to our own self-image.
Woody said: I don't have a problem with the parts of the bible that are hard to understand. S/L said: From what I have seen of your replies, you didn't even know they were there. Woody says: You didn't hit the weaker spots that have stretched my faith until I understood them. S/L said: None of which is even closely similar to something as simple as two people not being able to agree on a number under 3. Woody says: Have you ever heard two eyewitness accounts that agree exactly to the finest detail? These were written 30 or more years after the fact, even. They all agree that Jesus is the Christ, and He came to die for our sins -- this is the only thing that really matters out of it all. MW said: The fact of the matter is the GGs are a lot more truthful than the Bible. Woody says: Yet you dismiss all of it as a myth. A half-truth is no truth at all. Why do you start out advocating the gnostic gospels and then throw them in the trash after you are done? What kind of a lie detector do you use when you read a verse in the gnostic gospels? Why haven't we all been blessed with this omniscient ability like you have?
Woody: MW said: The fact of the matter is the GGs are a lot more truthful than the Bible. Woody says: Yet you dismiss all of it as a myth. A half-truth is no truth at all. Why do you start out advocating the gnostic gospels and then throw them in the trash after you are done? ************* M*W: After 20 years of solid research trying to prove Jesus's existence, I spent thousands of dollars on reference materials only to come to the recent conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God was totally based on myth; therefore, Jesus, too, was a myth. However, I did say that the GGs were "more credible" than the bible stories. There's really no confusion in the GGs. They are very straight-forward and logical, which led me to believe that Jesus did really live as did Mary Magdalen and the other characters of his day. ************* Woody: What kind of a lie detector do you use when you read a verse in the gnostic gospels? Why haven't we all been blessed with this omniscient ability like you have? ************* M*W: The "lie detector" is found in one's ability for discernment. The GGs made more sense and Jesus seemed to be a real person. The bible does not portray him as anything more than a myth. You haven't been blessed with this omniscient ability because you don't read anything BUT the bible, so all you know are the lies. A myth isn't truth, but the mythos of one character can be more credible than than the next. It's about what your perception accepts about that character. If I'm incorrect about my conclusion that the characterizations of Jesus are all myth, I beg you to prove me wrong using extra-biblical references by archeologists and and other well-known historians. Omniscience comes from reading pros and cons of a subject. If you can prove to me that Jesus existed, you will be unable to do it with bible scripture.
MW: only to come to the recent conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God was totally based on myth. Woody: How recently did you come to this confusion? MW: There's really no confusion in the GGs. Woody: Which sect? Egyptian, Greek, etc. etc. Is this the form of Gnosticism you believe in: Gnostic Gospels ref 1 Woody: an excerpt from the summary: Gnosticism, broadly construed, recognizes two deities: the Demiurge-flawed and wicked creator of a flawed and wicked material world-who is often equated with the God of the Old Testament; and the "good God," the Father of Jesus, who sent his Son to show humans the way of salvation from the corrupt material world. Salvation, under Gnosticism, does not require forgiveness of sins or necessarily entail any type of physical sacrament; it instead consists primarily of acquiring secret knowledge, or gnosis. Woody: So Jesus is the Son of God according to the gnostic gospels, right? Reference 2 Another sect: One group of gnostic sources claims to have received a secret tradition from Jesus through James and through Mary Magdalene. Members of this group prayed to both the divine Father and Mother: 'From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, humanity, of the mighty name ..." Another sect: Followers of Valentinus prayed to her for protection as the Mother, and as the mystical, eternal Silence'.'For example, Marcus the magician invokes her as Grace (in Greek, the feminine term charts): 'May She who is before all things, the incomprehensible and indescribable Grace, fill you within, and increase in you her own knowledge." In his secret celebration of the mass, Marcus teaches that the wine symbolizes her blood. As the cup of wine is offered, he prays that 'Grace may flow" into all who drink of it. A prophet and visionary, Marcus calls himself the 'u'omb and recipient of Silence"O (as she is of the Father). The visions he received of the divine being appeared, he reports, in female form. Another sect: Another gnostic writing, called the Great Announcement, quoted by Hippolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies, explains the origin of the universe as follows: From the power of Silence appeared 'a great power, the Mnd of the Universe, which manages all things, and is a male ... the other ... a great Intelligence ... is a female which produces all things." Following the gender of the Greek words for mind' (nous masculine) and 'intelligence' (epinoia feminine), this author explains that these powers, joined in union, 'are discovered to be duality ... This is Mind in Intelligence, and these are separable from one another, and yet are one, found in a state of duality.' This means, the gnostic teacher explains, that "there is in everyone [divine power] existing in a latent condition ... This is one power divided above and below; generating itself, making itself grow, seeking itself, finding itself, being mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, spouse of itself, daughter of itself, son of itself mother, father, unity, being a source of the entire circle of existence." Another excerpt claims virgin birth one of your favorite subjects that you agree on: If some gnostic sources suggest that the Spirit constitutes the matemal element of the Trinity, the Gospel of Philip makes an equally radical suggestion about the doctrine that later developed as the virgin birth. Here again, the Spirit is both Mother and Virgin, Another excerpt: The poet Valentinus uses this theme to tell a famous myth about Wisdom: Desiring to conceive by herself, apart from her masculine counterpart, she succeeded, and became the 'great creative power from whom all things originate', often called Eve, 'Mother of all living'. But since her desire violated the harmonious union of opposites intrinsic in the nature of created being, what she produced was aborted and defective;l from this, says Valentinus, originated the terror and grief that mar human existence. 'To shape and manage her creation, Wisdom brought forth the demiurge, the creator-God of Israel, as her agent.1' Woody: OK, MW, I now am totally confused. Jesus is the son of God right? Jesus was born of a virgin, right? Then there was a bad God that created the earth, right, or was he good, or was he even God, or was he God for a while and then lost it, or was he a good god turned bad, or, or, or, was God bisexual even? I'm getting a bad headache. M*W: The "lie detector" is found in one's ability for discernment. The GGs made more sense and Jesus seemed to be a real person. Woody: Confusion is the spiritual lie detector test. God is not the author of confusion. Here is one of my sources: Christianity vs. Gnosticism Historical accuracy was certainly no incidental item to Luke in the writing of his Gospel: "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:1-4, NIV). The text affirms that Luke was after nothing less than historical certainty, presented in orderly fashion and based on firsthand testimony.
Fair enough. But then MW says... Why? If the story is a myth, why is this a problem. Is the GG myth "better" because it is less like a myth? That is what you seem to be saying. Well, I think as long as you put both GG and biblical perspectives in the same "myth" category, and realize that you choose your favorite based on your preference with no significance but a relativistic one between them, you are being sensible at least. However, when you argue that one myth is more credible than another, in (non-relativistic) "reality", you might as well say, "I like that story better", or even, "this lie is more credible than that lie".
Cole, You're getting the gist too. The argument is like a circle that leads to nowhere. Which lie is less of a lie, when they are all lies? It's like asking which woman is less pregnant than the other. Can one woman be a little bit pregnant and the other a whole lot pregnant? In the end, does it really make a difference?
Maybe neither woman is pregnant... one could be lying; the other merely fat. I say that half-jokingly, but the joke is relevant since, while both the Canonical and the Gnostic Gospels (as well as the other Apocrypha and early Christian writings that exist) are good sources of information for the anthropological examination of religion and human beliefs, they have no basis in fact when used to support the metaphysical or supernatural. Some or all of the people involved may have existed and some of the writings may even reflect actual events, but there is little evidence to demonstrate that the writings aren't largely the written perpetuation of myth and legend.
Woody: How recently did you come to this confusion? ************* M*W: Actually, it was last week as I was poring through some of my reference material. ************* Woody: Which sect? Egyptian, Greek, etc. etc. ************* M*W: I haven't come near to reading them. The only one I've read thus far is The Gospel of Mary Magdalene and Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels. ************* Woody: Is this the form of Gnosticism you believe in: Gnostic Gospels ref 1 ************* M*W: I've never said I believed them, but what I've read appears more truthful than the bible. Of course, I believe nothing in the bible, so of course to me the GGs would definitely be more credible. ************* Woody: So Jesus is the Son of God according to the gnostic gospels, right? ************* M*W: I have not read that. ************* Woody: One group of gnostic sources claims to have received a secret tradition from Jesus through James and through Mary Magdalene. Members of this group prayed to both the divine Father and Mother: 'From Thee, Father, and through Thee, Mother, the two immortal names, Parents of the divine being, and thou, dweller in heaven, humanity, of the mighty name ..." ************* M*W: I have read this, and when I still believed that Jesus existed, it made sense to me. I totally reject the bible for it's portrayal of MM. ************* Woody: Another sect: Followers of Valentinus prayed to her for protection as the Mother, and as the mystical, eternal Silence'.'For example, Marcus the magician invokes her as Grace (in Greek, the feminine term charts): 'May She who is before all things, the incomprehensible and indescribable Grace, fill you within, and increase in you her own knowledge." In his secret celebration of the mass, Marcus teaches that the wine symbolizes her blood. As the cup of wine is offered, he prays that 'Grace may flow" into all who drink of it. A prophet and visionary, Marcus calls himself the 'u'omb and recipient of Silence"O (as she is of the Father). The visions he received of the divine being appeared, he reports, in female form. ************* M*W: Haven't read this one. ************* Woody: Another sect: Another gnostic writing, called the Great Announcement, quoted by Hippolytus in his Refutation of All Heresies, explains the origin of the universe as follows: From the power of Silence appeared 'a great power, the Mnd of the Universe, which manages all things, and is a male ... the other ... a great Intelligence ... is a female which produces all things." Following the gender of the Greek words for mind' (nous masculine) and 'intelligence' (epinoia feminine), this author explains that these powers, joined in union, 'are discovered to be duality ... This is Mind in Intelligence, and these are separable from one another, and yet are one, found in a state of duality.' This means, the gnostic teacher explains, that "there is in everyone [divine power] existing in a latent condition ... This is one power divided above and below; generating itself, making itself grow, seeking itself, finding itself, being mother of itself, father of itself, sister of itself, spouse of itself, daughter of itself, son of itself mother, father, unity, being a source of the entire circle of existence." ************* M*W: Haven't read this one either. ************* Woody: Another excerpt claims virgin birth one of your favorite subjects that you agree on: If some gnostic sources suggest that the Spirit constitutes the matemal element of the Trinity, the Gospel of Philip makes an equally radical suggestion about the doctrine that later developed as the virgin birth. Here again, the Spirit is both Mother and Virgin, Another excerpt: The poet Valentinus uses this theme to tell a famous myth about Wisdom: Desiring to conceive by herself, apart from her masculine counterpart, she succeeded, and became the 'great creative power from whom all things originate', often called Eve, 'Mother of all living'. But since her desire violated the harmonious union of opposites intrinsic in the nature of created being, what she produced was aborted and defective;l from this, says Valentinus, originated the terror and grief that mar human existence. 'To shape and manage her creation, Wisdom brought forth the demiurge, the creator-God of Israel, as her agent.1' ************* M*W: Haven't read this one either. ************* Woody: OK, MW, I now am totally confused. Jesus is the son of God right? ************* M*W: No, I don't believe that. ************* Woody: Jesus was born of a virgin, right? ************* M*W: "Virgin" means "young woman." A "young woman" could certainly become pregnant, but she had sex to get that way. ************* Woody: Then there was a bad God that created the earth, right, or was he good, or was he even God, or was he God for a while and then lost it, or was he a good god turned bad, or, or, or, was God bisexual even? I'm getting a bad headache. ************* M*W: The universe created itself through the normal energy it contained. There is no such thing as "god." ************* Woody: Confusion is the spiritual lie detector test. God is not the author of confusion. ************* M*W: Then why are you confused? ************* Woody: Here is one of my sources: Christianity vs. Gnosticism ************* M*W: I was starting to read the GGs when it became as clear as day to me that the whole God/Jesus thing was a myth. I will admit that I am quite disappointed that MM was also a myth. She was the only character in the GGs that kept my belief in the historic Jesus alive. Oh, well.
Woody: Confusion is the spiritual lie detector test. God is not the author of confusion. M*W: Then why are you confused? Woody: I am confused because God is not the author of the Gnostic Gospels. The Bible on the otherhand, does not confuse me. The Bible says God is not the author of confusion. Lies confuse people. Also, people get confused when they would rather believe a lie than believe the truth. A lack of understanding can confuse people as well. But I don't see how the GGs can be credible when they say God is about everything from a man to a woman to a bysexual. ------------------------------------------------------------ M*W: I was starting to read the GGs when it became as clear as day to me that the whole God/Jesus thing was a myth. I will admit that I am quite disappointed that MM was also a myth. She was the only character in the GGs that kept my belief in the historic Jesus alive. Oh, well. Woody: It doesn't look like you lost anything. Like I said before, you're ready to trash the whole thing anyway.
**Poof** So much for the Glorious Gnostic Gospels. All this clamor about how great they are and now it's "oh well." This really sounds fickle. MW, I see what the GGs did for your faith, yeah boy do I see! So does everyone else, and you have no better defense than "oh well" after recommending them in so many posts. It's a big waste of time, and it does nothing for your credibility. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
thats rich, coming from a man who has none. M*W has more credibility in her little finger. only the religious are immoral, hypocritical, and delusional. so how they could possibly think anything they could say was credible is beyond me. you are one of the worst culprits, and you have the audacity to stand there, and try to belittle M*W, give me a break.
