"...we would be fools to believe them"? What, you mean even if they passed the tests it would have to be some sort of trick? Hmmm, the words "closed" and "mind" come to mind
</strong>
Or maybe it is "fool"
Lets just say I'd be more rigorous than you would be. There's a difference between being close minded and rigorous. Closed minded is refusing to believe despite the evidence. Rigorous is making sure the test was done correctly.
John Edward is a medium, that is, a person who talks to the dead, with his own show on the Sci-Fi channel and is in syndication now as well.
Well, even though I think there is a bit of an aspersion on the Blue Meanie's intellect lurking in your response there , I have absolutely no problem with scepticism or intellectual rigour. Very healthy. Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.
This John Edward geezer has a show on the Sci-Fi channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?
[quote] Can you show me where you found this evidence. I really am interested. Were they quoting from the Apocrypha? (SP?) <hr></blockquote>
Okay, Noah, as promised , here is my evidence. It is a long (sorry!) quote from ps 333-337 (UK edition) of the 1982 book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln:
[quote] The more one studies the Gospels, the more the contradictions between them become apparent. Indeed they do not even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. According to John?s Gospel, the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the Passover. According to the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew, it occurred on the day after. Nor are the Gospels in accord on the personality and character of Jesus. Each depicts a Jesus who is patently at odds with the figure depicted in the others - a meek, lamblike saviour in Luke, for example, a powerful and majestic sovereign in Matthew who comes ?not to bring peace but a sword?. And there is further disagreement about Jesus? last words on the cross. In Matthew and Mark these words are, ?My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?? In Luke they are, ?Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit?. And in John, they are simply, ?It is finished?.
Given these discrepancies, the Gospels can only be accepted a highly questionable authority, and certainly not as definitive. They do not represent the perfect word of any God; or, if they do, God?s words have been very liberally censored, edited, revised, glossed and rewritten by human hands. The Bible, it must be remembered ? and this applies to both the Old and New Testaments - is only a selection of works, and in many respects, a somewhat arbitrary one. In fact, it could well include far more books and writings than it actually does. Nor is there any question of the missing books having been ?lost?. On the contrary, they were deliberately excluded. In AD 367 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled a list of works to be included in the New Testament. This list was ratified by the Church Council of Hippo in 393 adn again by the Council of Carthage four years later. At these councils a selection was agreed upon. Certain works were assembled to form the New Testament as we know it today, and others were cavalierly ignored. How can such a process of selection possibly be regarded as definitive? How could a conclave of clerics infallibly decide that certain books ?belonged? in the Bible while others did not? Especially when some of these excluded books have a perfectly valid claim to historical veracity?
As it exists today, moreover, the Bible is not only a product of a more or less arbitrary selection process, it has also been subjected to some fairly drastic editing, censorship and revision. In 1958, for example, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered, in monastery near Jerusalem, a letter containing missing fragment of the Gospel of Mark. The missing fragment had not been lost. On the contrary, it had apparently been deliberately suppressed - at the institutioon, if not the express behest, of Bishop Clement of of Alexandria, one of the most venerated of the early Church fathers.
(There follows an account of Clement?s dispute with an heretical Gnostic sect called the Carpocratians, and several long quotes from a letter sent by Clement to someone called Theodore who had been persecuting the sect and had written to the bishop about this. At one point in the letter, Clement quotes the following passage from the Gospel of Mark:
?And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated himself before Jesus and says to him, ?Son of David, have mercy upon me?. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.?
The authors continue...
This episode appears in no existing versions of the Gospel of Mark. In its general outlines, however, it is familiar enough. It is, of course, the raising of Lazarus, described i the Fourth Gospe, ascribed to John. In the version quoted, however, there are some significant variations........it is....likely that the whole episode refers to a typical mystery school initiation - a ritualised and symbolic death and rebirth of the sort so prevalent in the Middle East at the time.
In any case the point is that the episode, and the passage quoted above, do not appear in any modern or accepted version of Mark. Indeed the only references to Lazarus or a Lazarus figure in the New Testament are in the Gospel ascribed to John.......Quite simply the entire Lazarus incident was completely excised from the Gospel of Mark.<hr></blockquote>
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
[quote] It is a long (sorry!) quote from ps 333-337 (UK edition) of the 1982 book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln:<hr></blockquote>
For me, that was a fascinating read, specially as I was raised Christian with the standard simplistic 'sunday-school' drivel being forced down my throat. The extraordinary story of Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars and and the possibility/probability that Jesus may have even survived the crucifixion and had offspring may seem "blasphemous" to some but makes no less sense than the 'official' version. I attended a lecture by Henry Lincoln a few years back, some years after the "Grail" book was published where he expanded on some of the theories raised in the book. There are also legends that Jesus, who, after surviving the crucifixion escaped and travelled throughout Western Europe.
An area totally overlooked by official Christianity is the period, some 20 years or so, from when Jesus was about 12 years old to when he reappeared in his early 30s and started his ministry. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate what he was doing for two-thirds of his life. There are many stories from the Indian subcontinent from that same time period about a person (name "Issa" and similar) from the West who spent years studying spiritual disciplines in Buddhist monasteries. Original Christianity embraced eastern philosphical concepts such as karma and reincarnation, and despite being deliberately erased from the Bible, quite a number of subtle references escaped the censors.
I will be editing this post as I go along. So sorry. The first claim he makes is that they disagreed on the date of the Crucifixion.
[quote]According to John?s Gospel, the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the Passover<hr></blockquote>
Read John 13. That happened before the crucifixion, he washes their feet and then they share the Passover Meal. Sorry, point 1 is wrong already.
Point 2 means nothing. The Disciples were all men and they held onto portions of what Jesus said that meant the most to them. That is why all the Gospels are included, so you get a full picture of Jesus. He is all those things.
Point 3:
[quote]And there is further disagreement about Jesus? last words on the cross. In Matthew and Mark these words are, ?My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?? In Luke they are, ?Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit?. And in John, they are simply, ?It is finished?.<hr></blockquote>
Matthew and Mark both speak of him crying out after "My God My God, why have you forsaken me?" Read Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37. Neither say what his last cry was, but they both say he said something.
In Luke and John the last words were "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and "It Is Finished." The Two phrases are very similar in what they are saying. Not sure, maybe they wrote them in different languages and over they years they were interpreted differently? Same meaning, different words. Point 3 is really shaky.
The last points made have to do with historical thoughts on whether the Bible is complete and if things have been left out or not that compromises the integrity of the scriptures. I am not well enough studied in bilical history to make a good go at the truth of the matter but with this guy seemingly batting 0 I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, he seems to have an agenda that the facts are not backing.
<strong>Read John 13. That happened before the crucifixion, he washes their feet and then they share the Passover Meal. Sorry, point 1 is wrong already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid it's not. The Blue Meanie's source is correct.
According to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus eats a passover meal before his crucifixion.
However, John states that the last supper is eaten before the start of passover.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
For me, that was a fascinating read, specially as I was raised Christian with the standard simplistic 'sunday-school' drivel being forced down my throat. The extraordinary story of Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars and and the possibility/probability that Jesus may have even survived the crucifixion and had offspring may seem "blasphemous" to some but makes no less sense than the 'official' version. [snip]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You should have looked and verified what was said in the post before praising it as a "fascinating read" that was abviously more truthful than the Bible itself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
And Jesus survuving the Crucifixion and raising a family would be blasphemous. If that were indeed the case then man has no chance of redemption when they die. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'm afraid it's not. The Blue Meanie's source is correct.
According to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus eats a passover meal before his crucifixion.
However, John states that the last supper is eaten before the start of passover.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read it closer. It does not say it was the day before the Passover Feast. It says in John 13:1 "It was just before the Passover feast." (I cut that first sentance from the rest of the verse.) They had had the evening meal and the passover feast would happen that night. Try to read it again and see if you still disagree.
<strong>Read it closer. It does not say it was the day before the Passover Feast. It says in John 13:1 "It was just before the Passover feast." (I cut that first sentance from the rest of the verse.) They had had the evening meal and the passover feast would happen that night. Try to read it again and see if you still disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's an age-old argument, perhaps almost as old as the gospels themselves.
The expression "Passover feast", or more commonly "the feast of the Passover" clearly refers to the day of the festival itself, not merely the meal.
Many versions of the text don't include the word "just", but those that do merely highlight the fact that according to John, the last supper took place the evening before Passover - you would not eat "supper" or "the evening meal" before Passover feast, and you would certainly not eat it just before.
Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.</strong>
I'll get a library card and see if it's available. Er, I'll see if it's available at the library, than get a library card.
<strong>This John Edward geezer has a show on the Sci-Fi channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?</strong>
Yes, he's the James Van Praagh of the 2000s. The Sci-Fi channel is a network that shows genre television including horror, fantasy, and just plain weird stuff. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. Even the science fiction shows have nothing to do with science. There is not a science network on TV, probably because people can't handle the tremendous heart palpitating excitement it would cause upon viewing.
It's an age-old argument, perhaps almost as old as the gospels themselves.
The expression "Passover feast", or more commonly "the feast of the Passover" clearly refers to the day of the festival itself, not merely the meal.
Many versions of the text don't include the word "just", but those that do merely highlight the fact that according to John, the last supper took place the evening before Passover - you would not eat "supper" or "the evening meal" before Passover feast, and you would certainly not eat it just before.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, you can disagree all you want. The facts do not seem to back you up though. This game of semantics will not get anywhere though unless you wish to hit the origional texts and once and for all prove me wrong. (now where did I lay that scroll...? ) It has withstood scrutiny through ages of scholars who were not all sure that the bible was right, and now it is coming off like a dog that won't let go of a bone. I won't convince you obviously until I ask John himself and I don't speak or read Hebrew Greek or Aramaic... Shoot!
I've said before that I can't allow myself to believe in something without irrefutable evidence.
That's not to say that I don't believe in the potential.
I believe, given the weight of evidence, there's a good chance there's life elsewhere in the universe. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this isn't so, and certainly no proof.
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence, there are any such things as gods, ghosts, werewolves, and that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.
It's an irony, really, considering the amount written as fact about gods, ghosts, and werewolves.
The trouble I have is that the existing evidence comes from the writings of man, and from that alone. There is no corroboratory evidence in nature.
But I do believe in the potential, if only someone could give me the evidence I need.
... I believe, given the weight of evidence, there's a good chance there's life elsewhere in the universe. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this isn't so, and certainly no proof.
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence... that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't believe he even existed? Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? How about Socrates? I can understand skepticism about things like the virgin birth or the resurrection but even doubting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth seems to me to go quite a bit beyond mere skepticism. And by your standard for allowing yourself to believe in extra-terrestrial life, your position seems to be even more tenuous. Where is the evidence to suggest that Jesus didn't exist? There's certainly no proof.
I just like being argumentative. <hr></blockquote>
I have noticed.
[quote]I've said before that I can't allow myself to believe in something without irrefutable evidence.
That's not to say that I don't believe in the potential.
I believe, given the weight of evidence, there's a good chance there's life elsewhere in the universe. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this isn't so, and certainly no proof.
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence, there are any such things as gods, ghosts, werewolves, and that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.<hr></blockquote>
Interesting. So you believe in Aliens, have you met one? Anyone seen one that can be corroborated? Seen any on other planets? No. Not anymore than have, in your opinion, seen Jesus. Yet you choose to believe in them. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Aliens exist. You Choose to put more weight on the Alien evidence. It is a choice, not an inability to be convinced.
[quote]It's an irony, really, considering the amount written as fact about gods, ghosts, and werewolves.
The trouble I have is that the existing evidence comes from the writings of man, and from that alone. There is no corroboratory evidence in nature.
But I do believe in the potential, if only someone could give me the evidence I need. <hr></blockquote>
Sure lump together Jesus, gods, ghosts, and werewolves. Makes it easier for people to dismiss, and for you too. Show me the corroboratory evidence in nature for life on any other planet. People live and die on earth every day, is that not corroboratory evidence of the same magnitude as aliens? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]Incidentally, there's a nice article that argues your point about John's gospel rather eloquently <a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q060.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>.<hr></blockquote>
Thank you for that link, basically says what I said, only much more thoroughly research. Me, 10 minutes and an open Bible. Him, much more time and thought, likely 10 years of schooling.
<strong>To all who believe. What makes you believe? Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that this questions has been answered many time through many of these threads. If you have a specific question about the assertions made I will be glad to respond though.
<strong>To all who believe. What makes you believe? Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Makes me believe? Sounds to me like an odd way of putting it.
I suppose there are as many different ways to approach this question as there are believers. And of course, there are some people who are more articulate than others. Here's a reading list I came across today - <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/012domqs.asp"; target="_blank">The Books of Faith and Reason</a>. I've read some of these books. And some of these authors have books that aren't listed here that I've also read. They've been very helpful in sorting out some of my answers. (BTW, I'd definitely add Augustine to this list.) Can't say I'm a fan of Joseph Campbell but maybe I'll give him a shot.
<strong>You don't believe he even existed? Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? How about Socrates? I can understand skepticism about things like the virgin birth or the resurrection but even doubting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth seems to me to go quite a bit beyond mere skepticism. And by your standard for allowing yourself to believe in extra-terrestrial life, your position seems to be even more tenuous. Where is the evidence to suggest that Jesus didn't exist? There's certainly no proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the point I was trying to make, albeit in a roundabout way.
We have no proof of alien life. Absolutely none. All we have is theory, created by the minds of humans.
The reports of the existence of Jesus come from one original source. One. One single source was created by man. And that source has been hugely corrupted over time.
I believe Julius Caesar probably existed. Why? Because we have written evidence from a large number of different sources, different races on different continents. We also seem to keep digging up things with his name on them.
Of course, we could be misinterpreting the evidence. Perhaps Caesar never existed? Who knows?
The problem is we are, or rather should be, limited by the extent of our world, and our knowledge of it. That makes it possible to believe that just about anything could exist outside of it. Perhaps gods? Perhaps other life forms.
But Jesus was supposedly in our world - within our extent of knowledge. And yet we have one source. No corroboratory evidence.
If I believe the writings of A. A. Milne, there was a bear called Pooh who once lived in One Hundred Acre Wood. Oh wait, bad example. We have corroboratory evidence that Christopher Robin existed and had a toy bear called Pooh.
It's interesting to see the opinions on Genesis from theists who believe in the theory of evolution. The most common is this: Genesis was written much, much later than many parts of the bible, at a time when people were asking "why?". And within the scope of our knowledge, the story of Adam and Eve seemed a plausible allegory for the creation of the earth. Many agree that the events never occurred. So we have a part of a supposed truth that is now, within our knowledge, presumed false. Do we therefore blindly assume the rest to be truth?
A total lack of knowledge gives us infinite scope for belief. An abundant wealth of knowledge gives us a relative proof.
It would be foolish to believe totally in anything that falls in between.
<strong>Interesting. So you believe in Aliens, have you met one? Anyone seen one that can be corroborated? Seen any on other planets? No. Not anymore than have, in your opinion, seen Jesus. Yet you choose to believe in them. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Aliens exist. You Choose to put more weight on the Alien evidence. It is a choice, not an inability to be convinced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. I believe in the possibility of alien life. Never met one. Nobody's apparently ever seen one, unless you believe the thousands of ludicrous abduction reports.
Read my post above. There is incredibly little evidence that Jesus existed, from remarkably limited sources. And he apparently lived on this planet.
I've never met Jesus. No reports that anyone ever saw him that can be corroborated.
I choose to believe in the possibility of alien life because we have no knowledge in an apparently infinite universe. I choose not to believe in the existence of Jesus because we have little evidence in a very small world.
[quote]<strong>Sure lump together Jesus, gods, ghosts, and werewolves. Makes it easier for people to dismiss, and for you too. Show me the corroboratory evidence in nature for life on any other planet. People live and die on earth every day, is that not corroboratory evidence of the same magnitude as aliens?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not lump them together? There's actually more "evidence" in the writings of men to support the existence of mythical creatures. We have corroboratory evidence from different cultures across different continents that go back to times long before Christianity came into being. Why is it wrong to lump them together? What, you don't believe in werewolves, NoahJ? For the record, neither do I.
I also think Darwin got a lot wrong, but it's the damnedest thing - a lot of his theories of evolution can be observed in nature.
Is it more arrogant to insist that God and Jesus don't exist than it is to believe this single planet contains the only life in this vast universe?
Comments
<strong>[qb]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
"...we would be fools to believe them"? What, you mean even if they passed the tests it would have to be some sort of trick? Hmmm, the words "closed" and "mind" come to mind
Or maybe it is "fool"
Lets just say I'd be more rigorous than you would be. There's a difference between being close minded and rigorous. Closed minded is refusing to believe despite the evidence. Rigorous is making sure the test was done correctly.
John Edward is a medium, that is, a person who talks to the dead, with his own show on the Sci-Fi channel and is in syndication now as well.
[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: THT ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Well, even though I think there is a bit of an aspersion on the Blue Meanie's intellect lurking in your response there
This John Edward geezer has a show on the Sci-Fi channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?
Okay, Noah, as promised , here is my evidence. It is a long (sorry!) quote from ps 333-337 (UK edition) of the 1982 book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln:
[quote] The more one studies the Gospels, the more the contradictions between them become apparent. Indeed they do not even agree on the day of the Crucifixion. According to John?s Gospel, the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the Passover. According to the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew, it occurred on the day after. Nor are the Gospels in accord on the personality and character of Jesus. Each depicts a Jesus who is patently at odds with the figure depicted in the others - a meek, lamblike saviour in Luke, for example, a powerful and majestic sovereign in Matthew who comes ?not to bring peace but a sword?. And there is further disagreement about Jesus? last words on the cross. In Matthew and Mark these words are, ?My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?? In Luke they are, ?Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit?. And in John, they are simply, ?It is finished?.
Given these discrepancies, the Gospels can only be accepted a highly questionable authority, and certainly not as definitive. They do not represent the perfect word of any God; or, if they do, God?s words have been very liberally censored, edited, revised, glossed and rewritten by human hands. The Bible, it must be remembered ? and this applies to both the Old and New Testaments - is only a selection of works, and in many respects, a somewhat arbitrary one. In fact, it could well include far more books and writings than it actually does. Nor is there any question of the missing books having been ?lost?. On the contrary, they were deliberately excluded. In AD 367 Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria compiled a list of works to be included in the New Testament. This list was ratified by the Church Council of Hippo in 393 adn again by the Council of Carthage four years later. At these councils a selection was agreed upon. Certain works were assembled to form the New Testament as we know it today, and others were cavalierly ignored. How can such a process of selection possibly be regarded as definitive? How could a conclave of clerics infallibly decide that certain books ?belonged? in the Bible while others did not? Especially when some of these excluded books have a perfectly valid claim to historical veracity?
As it exists today, moreover, the Bible is not only a product of a more or less arbitrary selection process, it has also been subjected to some fairly drastic editing, censorship and revision. In 1958, for example, Professor Morton Smith of Columbia University discovered, in monastery near Jerusalem, a letter containing missing fragment of the Gospel of Mark. The missing fragment had not been lost. On the contrary, it had apparently been deliberately suppressed - at the institutioon, if not the express behest, of Bishop Clement of of Alexandria, one of the most venerated of the early Church fathers.
(There follows an account of Clement?s dispute with an heretical Gnostic sect called the Carpocratians, and several long quotes from a letter sent by Clement to someone called Theodore who had been persecuting the sect and had written to the bishop about this. At one point in the letter, Clement quotes the following passage from the Gospel of Mark:
?And they came into Bethany, and a certain woman, whose brother had died, was there. And, coming, she prostrated himself before Jesus and says to him, ?Son of David, have mercy upon me?. But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.?
The authors continue...
This episode appears in no existing versions of the Gospel of Mark. In its general outlines, however, it is familiar enough. It is, of course, the raising of Lazarus, described i the Fourth Gospe, ascribed to John. In the version quoted, however, there are some significant variations........it is....likely that the whole episode refers to a typical mystery school initiation - a ritualised and symbolic death and rebirth of the sort so prevalent in the Middle East at the time.
In any case the point is that the episode, and the passage quoted above, do not appear in any modern or accepted version of Mark. Indeed the only references to Lazarus or a Lazarus figure in the New Testament are in the Gospel ascribed to John.......Quite simply the entire Lazarus incident was completely excised from the Gospel of Mark.<hr></blockquote>
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
For me, that was a fascinating read, specially as I was raised Christian with the standard simplistic 'sunday-school' drivel being forced down my throat. The extraordinary story of Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars and and the possibility/probability that Jesus may have even survived the crucifixion and had offspring may seem "blasphemous" to some but makes no less sense than the 'official' version. I attended a lecture by Henry Lincoln a few years back, some years after the "Grail" book was published where he expanded on some of the theories raised in the book. There are also legends that Jesus, who, after surviving the crucifixion escaped and travelled throughout Western Europe.
An area totally overlooked by official Christianity is the period, some 20 years or so, from when Jesus was about 12 years old to when he reappeared in his early 30s and started his ministry. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate what he was doing for two-thirds of his life. There are many stories from the Indian subcontinent from that same time period about a person (name "Issa" and similar) from the West who spent years studying spiritual disciplines in Buddhist monasteries. Original Christianity embraced eastern philosphical concepts such as karma and reincarnation, and despite being deliberately erased from the Bible, quite a number of subtle references escaped the censors.
[quote]According to John?s Gospel, the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the Passover<hr></blockquote>
Read John 13. That happened before the crucifixion, he washes their feet and then they share the Passover Meal. Sorry, point 1 is wrong already.
Point 2 means nothing. The Disciples were all men and they held onto portions of what Jesus said that meant the most to them. That is why all the Gospels are included, so you get a full picture of Jesus. He is all those things.
Point 3:
[quote]And there is further disagreement about Jesus? last words on the cross. In Matthew and Mark these words are, ?My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?? In Luke they are, ?Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit?. And in John, they are simply, ?It is finished?.<hr></blockquote>
Matthew and Mark both speak of him crying out after "My God My God, why have you forsaken me?" Read Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37. Neither say what his last cry was, but they both say he said something.
In Luke and John the last words were "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and "It Is Finished." The Two phrases are very similar in what they are saying. Not sure, maybe they wrote them in different languages and over they years they were interpreted differently? Same meaning, different words. Point 3 is really shaky.
The last points made have to do with historical thoughts on whether the Bible is complete and if things have been left out or not that compromises the integrity of the scriptures. I am not well enough studied in bilical history to make a good go at the truth of the matter but with this guy seemingly batting 0 I put no faith that his assertions are fully truthful, he seems to have an agenda that the facts are not backing.
[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>Read John 13. That happened before the crucifixion, he washes their feet and then they share the Passover Meal. Sorry, point 1 is wrong already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm afraid it's not. The Blue Meanie's source is correct.
According to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus eats a passover meal before his crucifixion.
However, John states that the last supper is eaten before the start of passover.
<strong>
For me, that was a fascinating read, specially as I was raised Christian with the standard simplistic 'sunday-school' drivel being forced down my throat. The extraordinary story of Rennes-le-Chateau, the Cathars and and the possibility/probability that Jesus may have even survived the crucifixion and had offspring may seem "blasphemous" to some but makes no less sense than the 'official' version. [snip]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You should have looked and verified what was said in the post before praising it as a "fascinating read" that was abviously more truthful than the Bible itself. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
And Jesus survuving the Crucifixion and raising a family would be blasphemous. If that were indeed the case then man has no chance of redemption when they die. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
I'm afraid it's not. The Blue Meanie's source is correct.
According to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus eats a passover meal before his crucifixion.
However, John states that the last supper is eaten before the start of passover.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Read it closer. It does not say it was the day before the Passover Feast. It says in John 13:1 "It was just before the Passover feast." (I cut that first sentance from the rest of the verse.) They had had the evening meal and the passover feast would happen that night. Try to read it again and see if you still disagree.
<strong>Read it closer. It does not say it was the day before the Passover Feast. It says in John 13:1 "It was just before the Passover feast." (I cut that first sentance from the rest of the verse.) They had had the evening meal and the passover feast would happen that night. Try to read it again and see if you still disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's an age-old argument, perhaps almost as old as the gospels themselves.
The expression "Passover feast", or more commonly "the feast of the Passover" clearly refers to the day of the festival itself, not merely the meal.
Many versions of the text don't include the word "just", but those that do merely highlight the fact that according to John, the last supper took place the evening before Passover - you would not eat "supper" or "the evening meal" before Passover feast, and you would certainly not eat it just before.
<strong>So 1 out of 4 gospel writers disagree. Maybe John just had a little too much Manischewitz at Passover?
Maybe...
Read "We Don't Die" and see what you think of the tests described before dismissing it out of hand.</strong>
I'll get a library card and see if it's available. Er, I'll see if it's available at the library, than get a library card.
<strong>This John Edward geezer has a show on the Sci-Fi channel?? Hmm, that says a lot, doesn't it?</strong>
Yes, he's the James Van Praagh of the 2000s. The Sci-Fi channel is a network that shows genre television including horror, fantasy, and just plain weird stuff. It has absolutely nothing to do with science. Even the science fiction shows have nothing to do with science. There is not a science network on TV, probably because people can't handle the tremendous heart palpitating excitement it would cause upon viewing.
<strong>
It's an age-old argument, perhaps almost as old as the gospels themselves.
The expression "Passover feast", or more commonly "the feast of the Passover" clearly refers to the day of the festival itself, not merely the meal.
Many versions of the text don't include the word "just", but those that do merely highlight the fact that according to John, the last supper took place the evening before Passover - you would not eat "supper" or "the evening meal" before Passover feast, and you would certainly not eat it just before.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, you can disagree all you want. The facts do not seem to back you up though. This game of semantics will not get anywhere though unless you wish to hit the origional texts and once and for all prove me wrong. (now where did I lay that scroll...?
I've said before that I can't allow myself to believe in something without irrefutable evidence.
That's not to say that I don't believe in the potential.
I believe, given the weight of evidence, there's a good chance there's life elsewhere in the universe. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this isn't so, and certainly no proof.
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence, there are any such things as gods, ghosts, werewolves, and that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.
It's an irony, really, considering the amount written as fact about gods, ghosts, and werewolves.
The trouble I have is that the existing evidence comes from the writings of man, and from that alone. There is no corroboratory evidence in nature.
But I do believe in the potential, if only someone could give me the evidence I need.
Incidentally, there's a nice article that argues your point about John's gospel rather eloquently <a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q060.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>.
<strong>
... I believe, given the weight of evidence, there's a good chance there's life elsewhere in the universe. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this isn't so, and certainly no proof.
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence... that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't believe he even existed? Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? How about Socrates? I can understand skepticism about things like the virgin birth or the resurrection but even doubting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth seems to me to go quite a bit beyond mere skepticism. And by your standard for allowing yourself to believe in extra-terrestrial life, your position seems to be even more tenuous. Where is the evidence to suggest that Jesus didn't exist? There's certainly no proof.
I just like being argumentative.
I have noticed.
[quote]I've said before that I can't allow myself to believe in something without irrefutable evidence.
That's not to say that I don't believe in the potential.
I believe, given the weight of evidence, there's a good chance there's life elsewhere in the universe. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this isn't so, and certainly no proof.
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence, there are any such things as gods, ghosts, werewolves, and that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.<hr></blockquote>
Interesting. So you believe in Aliens, have you met one? Anyone seen one that can be corroborated? Seen any on other planets? No. Not anymore than have, in your opinion, seen Jesus. Yet you choose to believe in them. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Aliens exist. You Choose to put more weight on the Alien evidence. It is a choice, not an inability to be convinced.
[quote]It's an irony, really, considering the amount written as fact about gods, ghosts, and werewolves.
The trouble I have is that the existing evidence comes from the writings of man, and from that alone. There is no corroboratory evidence in nature.
But I do believe in the potential, if only someone could give me the evidence I need.
Sure lump together Jesus, gods, ghosts, and werewolves. Makes it easier for people to dismiss, and for you too. Show me the corroboratory evidence in nature for life on any other planet. People live and die on earth every day, is that not corroboratory evidence of the same magnitude as aliens? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[quote]Incidentally, there's a nice article that argues your point about John's gospel rather eloquently <a href="http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q060.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>.<hr></blockquote>
Thank you for that link, basically says what I said, only much more thoroughly research. Me, 10 minutes and an open Bible. Him, much more time and thought, likely 10 years of schooling.
<strong>To all who believe. What makes you believe? Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that this questions has been answered many time through many of these threads. If you have a specific question about the assertions made I will be glad to respond though.
<strong>To all who believe. What makes you believe? Why?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Makes me believe? Sounds to me like an odd way of putting it.
I suppose there are as many different ways to approach this question as there are believers. And of course, there are some people who are more articulate than others. Here's a reading list I came across today - <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/012domqs.asp"; target="_blank">The Books of Faith and Reason</a>. I've read some of these books. And some of these authors have books that aren't listed here that I've also read. They've been very helpful in sorting out some of my answers. (BTW, I'd definitely add Augustine to this list.) Can't say I'm a fan of Joseph Campbell but maybe I'll give him a shot.
<strong>You don't believe he even existed? Do you believe Julius Caesar existed? How about Socrates? I can understand skepticism about things like the virgin birth or the resurrection but even doubting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth seems to me to go quite a bit beyond mere skepticism. And by your standard for allowing yourself to believe in extra-terrestrial life, your position seems to be even more tenuous. Where is the evidence to suggest that Jesus didn't exist? There's certainly no proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is the point I was trying to make, albeit in a roundabout way.
We have no proof of alien life. Absolutely none. All we have is theory, created by the minds of humans.
The reports of the existence of Jesus come from one original source. One. One single source was created by man. And that source has been hugely corrupted over time.
I believe Julius Caesar probably existed. Why? Because we have written evidence from a large number of different sources, different races on different continents. We also seem to keep digging up things with his name on them.
Of course, we could be misinterpreting the evidence. Perhaps Caesar never existed? Who knows?
The problem is we are, or rather should be, limited by the extent of our world, and our knowledge of it. That makes it possible to believe that just about anything could exist outside of it. Perhaps gods? Perhaps other life forms.
But Jesus was supposedly in our world - within our extent of knowledge. And yet we have one source. No corroboratory evidence.
If I believe the writings of A. A. Milne, there was a bear called Pooh who once lived in One Hundred Acre Wood. Oh wait, bad example. We have corroboratory evidence that Christopher Robin existed and had a toy bear called Pooh.
It's interesting to see the opinions on Genesis from theists who believe in the theory of evolution. The most common is this: Genesis was written much, much later than many parts of the bible, at a time when people were asking "why?". And within the scope of our knowledge, the story of Adam and Eve seemed a plausible allegory for the creation of the earth. Many agree that the events never occurred. So we have a part of a supposed truth that is now, within our knowledge, presumed false. Do we therefore blindly assume the rest to be truth?
A total lack of knowledge gives us infinite scope for belief. An abundant wealth of knowledge gives us a relative proof.
It would be foolish to believe totally in anything that falls in between.
<strong>Interesting. So you believe in Aliens, have you met one? Anyone seen one that can be corroborated? Seen any on other planets? No. Not anymore than have, in your opinion, seen Jesus. Yet you choose to believe in them. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Aliens exist. You Choose to put more weight on the Alien evidence. It is a choice, not an inability to be convinced.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. I believe in the possibility of alien life. Never met one. Nobody's apparently ever seen one, unless you believe the thousands of ludicrous abduction reports.
Read my post above. There is incredibly little evidence that Jesus existed, from remarkably limited sources. And he apparently lived on this planet.
I've never met Jesus. No reports that anyone ever saw him that can be corroborated.
I choose to believe in the possibility of alien life because we have no knowledge in an apparently infinite universe. I choose not to believe in the existence of Jesus because we have little evidence in a very small world.
[quote]<strong>Sure lump together Jesus, gods, ghosts, and werewolves. Makes it easier for people to dismiss, and for you too. Show me the corroboratory evidence in nature for life on any other planet. People live and die on earth every day, is that not corroboratory evidence of the same magnitude as aliens?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not lump them together? There's actually more "evidence" in the writings of men to support the existence of mythical creatures. We have corroboratory evidence from different cultures across different continents that go back to times long before Christianity came into being. Why is it wrong to lump them together? What, you don't believe in werewolves, NoahJ?
I also think Darwin got a lot wrong, but it's the damnedest thing - a lot of his theories of evolution can be observed in nature.
Is it more arrogant to insist that God and Jesus don't exist than it is to believe this single planet contains the only life in this vast universe?