And so the we're slowly getting the picture of what you assert as "obvious truth".
Quote:
LOL.
Although I think I made myself very clear, it's interesting that you would press me. Especially considering I didn't press you on your evasive non-answers.
The ONLY things you were clear on what that you felt the Jews who witnessed and/or who were involved with the crucixion were totally powerless and had to do whatever the Romans said. Which by implication means you don't think the Jews wanted Christ to be killed (at least that's how all your previous posts read). You never really told your version of the story. So "LOL" yourself. It should be obvious I'm not the only one questioning your assertions... have a look around.
Quote:
I don't believe Jesus was at all sympathetic or even neutral towards the Roman authorities. Any such depiction implied in the Gospels would be an obvious falsehood.
You believe this because? Your evidence of "obvious falsehood" is in which texts / historical documents? While I agree not much attention was given (in the Bible passages I'm aware of, anyway) to what Jesus thought of the Romans, I would like to see the historical grounding for your bold statements.
Quote:
Moreover, I believe Jesus was at the vanguard of a fermenting nationalist rebellion that wanted to oust the Romans from Judea.
Because? You see clear evidence of Jesus leading this specific rebellion where, exactly? This is something completely new to me, please give more details so I can understand.
Quote:
I also don't believe Jesus made any claims to being divine or having divine powers.
Because? What readings are you privvy to that lead you to believe Jesus made no such claims and had no such powers? That he was just "an average Joe" basically?
Quote:
Jesus was a popular Rabbi among the common folk because he was antithetical to the thieving murderous Roman beasts and their cronies in Jerusalem. And that was why he was crucified.
He was a Rabbi... in the official sense? Or do you mean they just looked up to him as a teacher and in that sense he was a Rabbi?
"Thieving murderous Roman beasts"?
Wow. I know the Romans did many cruel things during the reign of their Empire, but your language screams "agenda". 2000 years later and you speak of them as if they killed someone you know. Your first "contributions" to this thread consisted of little more than bad-mouthing me and my postings... as if I was attempting some clever ploy to dupe people... and you give us all this? Ballsy. I'll leave it at that.
I will allow that a big part of why Jesus was crucified (most likely) had to do with his stance against Jewish authorities, but I have no reason to believe those authorities were also a "minority" among Jewish leaders of the time. Of course, I am willing to have light shed on this if there is proof to the contrary.
Quote:
Jesus could never have been a threat to the Jewish religious authorities, because they too, like everyone else, naturally wanted the Roman occupiers out of the country.
This is getting comical. Have you ever taken a formal logical class?
So, because Jesus himself was not in favor of Roman rule and abuse, and because the Jewish high priests did not favor Roman rule either, in your view, Jesus was therefore no threat (political or otherwise) to any Jewish religious or political leaders? He was living in a vacuum I guess? Nothing he said or did could have *possibly* thrown an ill light on the other Rabbis or Jewish leaders in his area? Just an utter impossibility in your mind? A direct, if-then, cause-effect type relationship... all because they had the common belief of not wanting Roman rule?
Your lack of critical thinking is pretty obvious at this point. I think now you're not so much trolling as you are misguided by your own convinctions.
Quote:
Common sense also dictates that should Jesus have made any heretical claims (being the son of God, being born a virgin birth, etc.), he would have met his death by stoning (Jewish punishment), and not by crucifixion (Roman punishment).
Ah, interesting point. But I thought the Jewish community was completely "powerless" in this time according to your earlier posts. Wouldn't the ability to have Jesus tried for high religious crimes and then stoned, be a sign there was some autonomy in the Jewish community?? Could they have done such a thing without Roman permission? Just asking.
Again, I would love to see the evidence that makes such claims as these "common sense". I am confident though, that you will not show us any and will instead just keep telling us that it's "obvious".
My final take before I disengage from this thread (until I see the movie).
As Kirkland said, all you're doing is throwing out conspiracy theories. You're proposing very unusual interpretations of the situation and saying "well you'd have to be CRAZY not to believe my version..." Unfortunately for you, that doesn't qualify as proof in anyone else's mind. Such theories need to be grounded in some sort of respected, historical text (wouldn't matter to me if the author was Jewish or not... only that the work be regarded as a thorough and thoughtful one). It's pointless for you to claim such intricate theories as being "self evident".
What *is* self-evident are the kinds of things I was originally saying (i.e. the makeup of the local population during Jesus' time, the nature of crucifixion, the tendancy for people in modern society to not say what they mean when dealing with sensitive topics in the media... out of a desire for "political correctness" basically). And yet you refuted all those notions for some reason.
I'm not even saying the Bible hasn't been tampered with, because I believe it has been altered many times over the centuries... even changing a few words here or there can make a big difference when you look at a work over the course of centuries and not decades. Look how many changes have been made to a popular work like the Lord of the Rings in less than 100 years. We're talking about a span of time 20x that. So of course (all religious texts, not just Christian ones) are going to get their words massaged during that time. Due to social pressures, due to political greed, and for all sorts of other reasons based on "the human condition".
I doubt very much though, that one day, a bunch of people got together and said "let's retell this story and make it the "official version", so no one really knows what we did to all the Jews! Bwaahahahahaaaa!" Of course, that's just my way of thinking. I could be wrong.
As always, I remain ever-open to "the enlightenment" of your sources.
It wasn't "invented." It naturally evolved out of the Christological theology that formed the early foundation of the religion and which continues to do so today.
Your conspiracy nonsense is childish and tiresome. Do you have any actual "evidence" to provide, or are you just going to continue to spout off, arguing from silence, which is no argument at all?
It wasn't "invented." It naturally evolved out of the Christological theology that formed the early foundation of the religion and which continues to do so today.
I'd just like to point out that if Truth 'evolves', it is no longer Truth.
So either the original theology was not Truth, and it was found later by admittedly flawed humankind, or Jesus' original teaching *were* Truth, and flawed humankind lost their way.
Which makes more sense to you?
Frank777: So what, exactly, made one disciple's gospel (Mark) more appropriate for the church's needs than another (Thomas)? Smacks of political maneuvering to me on the part of the deciding bodies.
My belief is that all of Christianity can be boiled down to one creed: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as you do yourself.
That's it. That's the core. If you follow that, you adhere to Jesus' teachings. If you don't, no amount of going to church, wearing a cross, or thumping a Bible is going to change the state of your soul.
The rest is smoke and mirrors and unfortunate layers of extraneous gunk that provide people with justification for all sorts of atrocities 'in the name of God'. And much of that has been mistranslated, purposefully altered and/or forgotten, or outright ignored to prove one or another political point. Which is fine, as long as one doesn't think it has any truth to it... because in the end *it doesn't matter*. Only the core creed does.
The ONLY things you were clear on what that you felt the Jews who witnessed and/or who were involved with the crucixion were totally powerless and had to do whatever the Romans said.
Which is effectively the case. Palestine was an occupied province of the Roman Empire, and the facts surrounding Jesus' death cannot be attributed to any form of execution open to the Jewish authorities. Had Jesus been executed by Jews, he would have been stoned.
Jesus was executed for crimes against the Empire, not religious heresy.
Quote:
Because? You see clear evidence of Jesus leading this specific rebellion where, exactly? This is something completely new to me, please give more details so I can understand.
Jesus probably did not lead any sort of rebellion, but at that time the Zealot movement was strong, and many Zealots supported Jesus ? at least, until it became clear that he was not seeking temporal enthronement. Judas Iscariot was a Zealot, and it was when he realized that Jesus' "Kingdom" was metaphorical/spiritual that he turned against his rabbi.
Since Jesus was a popular leader of a Messianic movement, and the Romans associated Messianic movements with rebellion, he would have been considered an enemy of the state. After his ruckus in Jerusalem, the Romans would have been eager to wash their hands of him.
Quote:
He was a Rabbi... in the official sense? Or do you mean they just looked up to him as a teacher and in that sense he was a Rabbi?
Anyone who was a teacher and leader such as Jesus would have been considered a Rabbi. Particularly given the Pharisetical nature of Jesus' teachings.
[B]I'd just like to point out that if Truth 'evolves', it is no longer Truth.
Nonsense. Truth evolves as we come to understand it better. The earliest Christians had in their theology everything they needed to ascertain the idea of the Trinity, except for hundreds of years of debating and considering the topic.
To demand that any Truth be passed down in complete and final form from the first generation of believers to the last and never grow or expand one iota (heh, ironic choice of words) would be asinine.
Quote:
My belief is that all of Christianity can be boiled down to one creed: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as you do yourself.
That's one of Jesus' teachings, but it is not the core of Jesus' teachings, which are about faith and salvation. The Golden Rule is not the core of Jesus' philosophy, instead it is the only way to effectively act upon Jesus' philosophy, which is to love God and love your fellow man.
Quote:
And much of that has been mistranslated, purposefully altered and/or forgotten, or outright ignored to prove one or another political point.
All of you would do better focusing on something pertinent
perhaps Buddha's sutras and their transformations over time . . . or your navel . . . .
You see in this excercise the same kind of devolution into useless minutea that mired Western thought for far too long . . . and kept us in a spiritual 'black iron prison' . . . .
Wake up!
Besides, the reviews are out: Gobson's movie sucks
It would appear that this thread has been handed over to those that would cause only argument, and reduce it to namecalling. If anyone wishes to discuss this topic in an intelligent and tasteful manner, I welcome your thoughts in my thread on MacNN of the same name.
Telling someone to "BITE YOU", does not go a long way to winning an argument. If you want to disagree with the movie, or what it is based on, then just go to the ADL page and find numerous hate-filled suggestions to promote the idea that this movie is Anti-Semitic. It is the whole reason this organization exists, and if Anti-Semitism disappeared tomorrow, then they would have no reasons for existing. They are Anti-Catholic I would submit, and further more would have the BIBLE tossed into everyone's fireplace and burned. Just my oppinion, but by looking at their website, it isn't a difficult thing to conclude.
And, yet the movie has yet to be seen by the general public.
[B]The Gospels claim to be written by specific authors - in many cases this cannot be true on a reading of the text (as with Moses describing his own death in the OT).
Therefore, we may assume one of two things:
1) they are not true (that is Mark was not written by Mark say and that claims to be eyewitness reports are therefore false)
2) they were written by the claimed authors but were later tampered with.
What does this matter? And it's probably a mixture of both. Moses didn't write the Pentatuech, everyone knows that. But Mark probably did write "Mark," though he wasn't writing his own theology, but transcribing that of Peter, as witnessed by the testimony of the Early Church Fathers.
Quote:
Timothy 2 is allegedly written by Paul in Rome at the end of his life. 'Paul' says he has left Trophimus 'sick at Miletus' but in Acts (an earlier work), 'Paul' claims Trophimus accompanied him from Miletus to Jerusalem. Clearly these cannot be both correct nor is it likely that the same person wrote both if they were describing personal experiences.
Who ever said that books of the Bible don't contradict each other? Not I. In this case, as in all cases where Acts, which was a persuasive piece of narrative written by the author of Luke as apologetics to the Roman Empire, contradicts statements in "first person" letters from Paul, the Pauline source is considered superior.
Quote:
The Biblical scholar T C Skeat examined the Codex Sinaiticus in 1938. By UV light he found the opening verses of the famous 'consider the lillies' speech from Matthew had been written over an earlier text that had been erased.
There could be many explanations for this. It doesn't mean that the Biblical text was changed for some doctrinal reason, nor does it prove that anything else was altered.
Quote:
That's the Sermon on the Mount and that's undeniable evidence of tampering with the words of Jesus and making him say something he never said. It may not be important textually but the point is that we have evidence it was done at least once.....
Perhaps. But only perhaps.
And anyway, there's little reason to think that most of the words attributed to Jesus are anything other than narrative devices used by Scriptural authors to prove their own points. Why assume Jesus said much, if anything, of what is ascribed to him in the text?
Not all Christians believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. As a Christian, I can say that I don't believe that. I believe that the Bible is a combination of historical fact mixed with stories that pre-date the birth of Christ. There is a lot of evidence to support my belief and I will supply some if asked.
I also believe that the writers of the Gospels decided to include/exclude things in the effort to lead readers down certain paths. To me this means that truth can be found in the Gospels, but that it is not obvious to any one person. You must remember that we live almost 2000 years after the fact. We don't know for certain who wrote the Gospels, what their level of education was, what their background was. We can be fairly certain of some things, such as Mark and Matthew being Jewish and writing for a Jewish audience, but to know the exact words as spoken by Jesus and their exact meaning? That's ludicrous to assume we can know that as nobody recorded (on paper, stone, etc.) exactly what Jesus said and when he said it. What we have in the Gospels is a result of an oral tradition and none of it is first hand.
Yesterday I met someone who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, i.e. without error. It amazes me that a college educated person in today's day and age can believe that. She explained discrepancies in the Gospels as merely 'forgotten information', such as 'Oh yeah, I forgot that it snowed last Monday'. Clearly the virgin birth and ascention are key to Catholic beliefs, yet the Gospel of Mark makes no mention of them. It is possible that Mark just didn't want to write about them, but it is more likely (due to the significance of those events) that they just didn't happen. If Mark was divinely inspired how could he have missed those important events in his Gospel and if all Gospel writers were divinely inspired, why are there significant discrepancies between them? Who is to say that the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip were not divinely inspired?
if Jesus wanted his actions and words to be recorded and serve as a guiding light why didn't he make sure such was done during his lifetime and under his supervision, so as to ensure the accuracy of his message?
The answer is a simple one: because he had no intention whatsoever of founding a new religion and saw himself entirely in a Jewish (ie Messianic) context.
ie: he was dellusional
and a question: if Speaking in toungues is divinely inspired . . . why can't god make any sense?
Some people have said it but some people say anything. You're right - that is irrelevant.
The contradictions on the other hand, are not. The Church claims the Gospels are divinely inspired - I put it to you that contradictions in an alleged divine document are indications of a human hand far more than a divine one.
The Church says the Gospels are inspired, but written by human hands. They are not inerrant on all matters, and are filtered through the fallible lens of human memory.
Don't confuse the textured, respectable position of historical branches like Catholicism or Orthodoxy with the absurd, absolutist, "it's all inerrant" nonsense of fundamentalist "churches."
.. all you're doing is throwing out conspiracy theories.
.. Again, I would love to see the evidence that makes such claims as these "common sense".
All I'm suggesting is that we use a little common sense when we examine the Jesus story as it in the Gospels today. People have emotional motives for their actions. I pointed out the obvious emotional motives as to why the Jesus story, wasn't as we have it today - and why the spin on the story cannot be accurate.
Place yourself in the shoes of Jesus - an ancient Israeli living under the brutal occupation of Rome. You see the sovereignty of your country usurped by a foreign Governor and a puppet regime subservient to him. You see the currency and thereby economy of your country undermined by the currency of Rome. You see your economy and country side raped and pillaged to serve the imperial designs of Rome. You see your culture and religion undermined by Hellenistic/Roman constructions. You see your language and ethnicity undermined by the infusion of foreigners. You see your people murdered left and right in the most vicious and brutal of methods. In short, you see your dignity, your identity, forcibly undermined under the murderous imperial boot of Rome. How do you think Jesus would have felt about this? Do you really believe anyone in the country was sympathetic towards the Romans?
All I'm suggesting is that we use a little common sense when we examine the Jesus story as it in the Gospels today. People have emotional motives for their actions. I pointed out the obvious emotional motives as to why the Jesus story, wasn't as we have it today - and why the spin on the story cannot be accurate.
Place yourself in the shoes of Jesus - an ancient Israeli living under the brutal occupation of Rome. You see the sovereignty of your country usurped by a foreign Governor and a puppet regime subservient to him. You see the currency and thereby economy of your country undermined by the currency of Rome. You see your economy and country side raped and pillaged to serve the imperial designs of Rome. You see your culture and religion undermined by Hellenistic/Roman constructions. You see your language and ethnicity undermined by the infusion of foreigners. You see your people murdered left and right in the most vicious and brutal of methods. In short, you see your dignity, your identity, forcibly undermined under the murderous imperial boot of Rome. How do you think Jesus would have felt about this? Do you really believe anyone in the country was sympathetic towards the Romans?
we're talking religion here . . .you can't be common sensical!
Comments
LOL.
Although I think I made myself very clear, it's interesting that you would press me. Especially considering I didn't press you on your evasive non-answers.
The ONLY things you were clear on what that you felt the Jews who witnessed and/or who were involved with the crucixion were totally powerless and had to do whatever the Romans said. Which by implication means you don't think the Jews wanted Christ to be killed (at least that's how all your previous posts read). You never really told your version of the story. So "LOL" yourself. It should be obvious I'm not the only one questioning your assertions... have a look around.
I don't believe Jesus was at all sympathetic or even neutral towards the Roman authorities. Any such depiction implied in the Gospels would be an obvious falsehood.
You believe this because? Your evidence of "obvious falsehood" is in which texts / historical documents? While I agree not much attention was given (in the Bible passages I'm aware of, anyway) to what Jesus thought of the Romans, I would like to see the historical grounding for your bold statements.
Moreover, I believe Jesus was at the vanguard of a fermenting nationalist rebellion that wanted to oust the Romans from Judea.
Because? You see clear evidence of Jesus leading this specific rebellion where, exactly? This is something completely new to me, please give more details so I can understand.
I also don't believe Jesus made any claims to being divine or having divine powers.
Because? What readings are you privvy to that lead you to believe Jesus made no such claims and had no such powers? That he was just "an average Joe" basically?
Jesus was a popular Rabbi among the common folk because he was antithetical to the thieving murderous Roman beasts and their cronies in Jerusalem. And that was why he was crucified.
He was a Rabbi... in the official sense? Or do you mean they just looked up to him as a teacher and in that sense he was a Rabbi?
"Thieving murderous Roman beasts"?
Wow. I know the Romans did many cruel things during the reign of their Empire, but your language screams "agenda". 2000 years later and you speak of them as if they killed someone you know. Your first "contributions" to this thread consisted of little more than bad-mouthing me and my postings... as if I was attempting some clever ploy to dupe people... and you give us all this? Ballsy. I'll leave it at that.
I will allow that a big part of why Jesus was crucified (most likely) had to do with his stance against Jewish authorities, but I have no reason to believe those authorities were also a "minority" among Jewish leaders of the time. Of course, I am willing to have light shed on this if there is proof to the contrary.
Jesus could never have been a threat to the Jewish religious authorities, because they too, like everyone else, naturally wanted the Roman occupiers out of the country.
This is getting comical. Have you ever taken a formal logical class?
So, because Jesus himself was not in favor of Roman rule and abuse, and because the Jewish high priests did not favor Roman rule either, in your view, Jesus was therefore no threat (political or otherwise) to any Jewish religious or political leaders? He was living in a vacuum I guess? Nothing he said or did could have *possibly* thrown an ill light on the other Rabbis or Jewish leaders in his area? Just an utter impossibility in your mind? A direct, if-then, cause-effect type relationship... all because they had the common belief of not wanting Roman rule?
Your lack of critical thinking is pretty obvious at this point. I think now you're not so much trolling as you are misguided by your own convinctions.
Common sense also dictates that should Jesus have made any heretical claims (being the son of God, being born a virgin birth, etc.), he would have met his death by stoning (Jewish punishment), and not by crucifixion (Roman punishment).
Ah, interesting point. But I thought the Jewish community was completely "powerless" in this time according to your earlier posts. Wouldn't the ability to have Jesus tried for high religious crimes and then stoned, be a sign there was some autonomy in the Jewish community?? Could they have done such a thing without Roman permission? Just asking.
Again, I would love to see the evidence that makes such claims as these "common sense". I am confident though, that you will not show us any and will instead just keep telling us that it's "obvious".
My final take before I disengage from this thread (until I see the movie).
As Kirkland said, all you're doing is throwing out conspiracy theories. You're proposing very unusual interpretations of the situation and saying "well you'd have to be CRAZY not to believe my version..." Unfortunately for you, that doesn't qualify as proof in anyone else's mind. Such theories need to be grounded in some sort of respected, historical text (wouldn't matter to me if the author was Jewish or not... only that the work be regarded as a thorough and thoughtful one). It's pointless for you to claim such intricate theories as being "self evident".
What *is* self-evident are the kinds of things I was originally saying (i.e. the makeup of the local population during Jesus' time, the nature of crucifixion, the tendancy for people in modern society to not say what they mean when dealing with sensitive topics in the media... out of a desire for "political correctness" basically). And yet you refuted all those notions for some reason.
I'm not even saying the Bible hasn't been tampered with, because I believe it has been altered many times over the centuries... even changing a few words here or there can make a big difference when you look at a work over the course of centuries and not decades. Look how many changes have been made to a popular work like the Lord of the Rings in less than 100 years. We're talking about a span of time 20x that. So of course (all religious texts, not just Christian ones) are going to get their words massaged during that time. Due to social pressures, due to political greed, and for all sorts of other reasons based on "the human condition".
I doubt very much though, that one day, a bunch of people got together and said "let's retell this story and make it the "official version", so no one really knows what we did to all the Jews! Bwaahahahahaaaa!" Of course, that's just my way of thinking. I could be wrong.
As always, I remain ever-open to "the enlightenment" of your sources.
Cheers,
Moogs
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
So why was it invented?
It wasn't "invented." It naturally evolved out of the Christological theology that formed the early foundation of the religion and which continues to do so today.
Your conspiracy nonsense is childish and tiresome. Do you have any actual "evidence" to provide, or are you just going to continue to spout off, arguing from silence, which is no argument at all?
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
It wasn't "invented." It naturally evolved out of the Christological theology that formed the early foundation of the religion and which continues to do so today.
I'd just like to point out that if Truth 'evolves', it is no longer Truth.
So either the original theology was not Truth, and it was found later by admittedly flawed humankind, or Jesus' original teaching *were* Truth, and flawed humankind lost their way.
Which makes more sense to you?
Frank777: So what, exactly, made one disciple's gospel (Mark) more appropriate for the church's needs than another (Thomas)? Smacks of political maneuvering to me on the part of the deciding bodies.
My belief is that all of Christianity can be boiled down to one creed: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as you do yourself.
That's it. That's the core. If you follow that, you adhere to Jesus' teachings. If you don't, no amount of going to church, wearing a cross, or thumping a Bible is going to change the state of your soul.
The rest is smoke and mirrors and unfortunate layers of extraneous gunk that provide people with justification for all sorts of atrocities 'in the name of God'. And much of that has been mistranslated, purposefully altered and/or forgotten, or outright ignored to prove one or another political point. Which is fine, as long as one doesn't think it has any truth to it... because in the end *it doesn't matter*. Only the core creed does.
Have fun guys. I'm outta this one.
Originally posted by Moogs
The ONLY things you were clear on what that you felt the Jews who witnessed and/or who were involved with the crucixion were totally powerless and had to do whatever the Romans said.
Which is effectively the case. Palestine was an occupied province of the Roman Empire, and the facts surrounding Jesus' death cannot be attributed to any form of execution open to the Jewish authorities. Had Jesus been executed by Jews, he would have been stoned.
Jesus was executed for crimes against the Empire, not religious heresy.
Because? You see clear evidence of Jesus leading this specific rebellion where, exactly? This is something completely new to me, please give more details so I can understand.
Jesus probably did not lead any sort of rebellion, but at that time the Zealot movement was strong, and many Zealots supported Jesus ? at least, until it became clear that he was not seeking temporal enthronement. Judas Iscariot was a Zealot, and it was when he realized that Jesus' "Kingdom" was metaphorical/spiritual that he turned against his rabbi.
Since Jesus was a popular leader of a Messianic movement, and the Romans associated Messianic movements with rebellion, he would have been considered an enemy of the state. After his ruckus in Jerusalem, the Romans would have been eager to wash their hands of him.
He was a Rabbi... in the official sense? Or do you mean they just looked up to him as a teacher and in that sense he was a Rabbi?
Anyone who was a teacher and leader such as Jesus would have been considered a Rabbi. Particularly given the Pharisetical nature of Jesus' teachings.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]I'd just like to point out that if Truth 'evolves', it is no longer Truth.
Nonsense. Truth evolves as we come to understand it better. The earliest Christians had in their theology everything they needed to ascertain the idea of the Trinity, except for hundreds of years of debating and considering the topic.
To demand that any Truth be passed down in complete and final form from the first generation of believers to the last and never grow or expand one iota (heh, ironic choice of words) would be asinine.
My belief is that all of Christianity can be boiled down to one creed: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, love your neighbor as you do yourself.
That's one of Jesus' teachings, but it is not the core of Jesus' teachings, which are about faith and salvation. The Golden Rule is not the core of Jesus' philosophy, instead it is the only way to effectively act upon Jesus' philosophy, which is to love God and love your fellow man.
And much of that has been mistranslated, purposefully altered and/or forgotten, or outright ignored to prove one or another political point.
Prove it.
Kirk
perhaps Buddha's sutras and their transformations over time . . . or your navel . . . .
You see in this excercise the same kind of devolution into useless minutea that mired Western thought for far too long . . . and kept us in a spiritual 'black iron prison' . . . .
Wake up!
Besides, the reviews are out: Gobson's movie sucks
Bite me.
Kirk
Telling someone to "BITE YOU", does not go a long way to winning an argument. If you want to disagree with the movie, or what it is based on, then just go to the ADL page and find numerous hate-filled suggestions to promote the idea that this movie is Anti-Semitic. It is the whole reason this organization exists, and if Anti-Semitism disappeared tomorrow, then they would have no reasons for existing. They are Anti-Catholic I would submit, and further more would have the BIBLE tossed into everyone's fireplace and burned. Just my oppinion, but by looking at their website, it isn't a difficult thing to conclude.
And, yet the movie has yet to be seen by the general public.
Go back to MacNN!
Originally posted by segovius
[B]The Gospels claim to be written by specific authors - in many cases this cannot be true on a reading of the text (as with Moses describing his own death in the OT).
Therefore, we may assume one of two things:
1) they are not true (that is Mark was not written by Mark say and that claims to be eyewitness reports are therefore false)
2) they were written by the claimed authors but were later tampered with.
What does this matter? And it's probably a mixture of both. Moses didn't write the Pentatuech, everyone knows that. But Mark probably did write "Mark," though he wasn't writing his own theology, but transcribing that of Peter, as witnessed by the testimony of the Early Church Fathers.
Timothy 2 is allegedly written by Paul in Rome at the end of his life. 'Paul' says he has left Trophimus 'sick at Miletus' but in Acts (an earlier work), 'Paul' claims Trophimus accompanied him from Miletus to Jerusalem. Clearly these cannot be both correct nor is it likely that the same person wrote both if they were describing personal experiences.
Who ever said that books of the Bible don't contradict each other? Not I. In this case, as in all cases where Acts, which was a persuasive piece of narrative written by the author of Luke as apologetics to the Roman Empire, contradicts statements in "first person" letters from Paul, the Pauline source is considered superior.
The Biblical scholar T C Skeat examined the Codex Sinaiticus in 1938. By UV light he found the opening verses of the famous 'consider the lillies' speech from Matthew had been written over an earlier text that had been erased.
There could be many explanations for this. It doesn't mean that the Biblical text was changed for some doctrinal reason, nor does it prove that anything else was altered.
That's the Sermon on the Mount and that's undeniable evidence of tampering with the words of Jesus and making him say something he never said. It may not be important textually but the point is that we have evidence it was done at least once.....
Perhaps. But only perhaps.
And anyway, there's little reason to think that most of the words attributed to Jesus are anything other than narrative devices used by Scriptural authors to prove their own points. Why assume Jesus said much, if anything, of what is ascribed to him in the text?
Kirk
I also believe that the writers of the Gospels decided to include/exclude things in the effort to lead readers down certain paths. To me this means that truth can be found in the Gospels, but that it is not obvious to any one person. You must remember that we live almost 2000 years after the fact. We don't know for certain who wrote the Gospels, what their level of education was, what their background was. We can be fairly certain of some things, such as Mark and Matthew being Jewish and writing for a Jewish audience, but to know the exact words as spoken by Jesus and their exact meaning? That's ludicrous to assume we can know that as nobody recorded (on paper, stone, etc.) exactly what Jesus said and when he said it. What we have in the Gospels is a result of an oral tradition and none of it is first hand.
Yesterday I met someone who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, i.e. without error. It amazes me that a college educated person in today's day and age can believe that. She explained discrepancies in the Gospels as merely 'forgotten information', such as 'Oh yeah, I forgot that it snowed last Monday'. Clearly the virgin birth and ascention are key to Catholic beliefs, yet the Gospel of Mark makes no mention of them. It is possible that Mark just didn't want to write about them, but it is more likely (due to the significance of those events) that they just didn't happen. If Mark was divinely inspired how could he have missed those important events in his Gospel and if all Gospel writers were divinely inspired, why are there significant discrepancies between them? Who is to say that the Gospels of Thomas and Phillip were not divinely inspired?
if Jesus wanted his actions and words to be recorded and serve as a guiding light why didn't he make sure such was done during his lifetime and under his supervision, so as to ensure the accuracy of his message?
Originally posted by segovius
The answer is a simple one: because he had no intention whatsoever of founding a new religion and saw himself entirely in a Jewish (ie Messianic) context.
ie: he was dellusional
and a question: if Speaking in toungues is divinely inspired . . . why can't god make any sense?
Originally posted by segovius
Some people have said it but some people say anything. You're right - that is irrelevant.
The contradictions on the other hand, are not. The Church claims the Gospels are divinely inspired - I put it to you that contradictions in an alleged divine document are indications of a human hand far more than a divine one.
The Church says the Gospels are inspired, but written by human hands. They are not inerrant on all matters, and are filtered through the fallible lens of human memory.
Don't confuse the textured, respectable position of historical branches like Catholicism or Orthodoxy with the absurd, absolutist, "it's all inerrant" nonsense of fundamentalist "churches."
Kirk
Originally posted by Moogs
.. all you're doing is throwing out conspiracy theories.
.. Again, I would love to see the evidence that makes such claims as these "common sense".
All I'm suggesting is that we use a little common sense when we examine the Jesus story as it in the Gospels today. People have emotional motives for their actions. I pointed out the obvious emotional motives as to why the Jesus story, wasn't as we have it today - and why the spin on the story cannot be accurate.
Place yourself in the shoes of Jesus - an ancient Israeli living under the brutal occupation of Rome. You see the sovereignty of your country usurped by a foreign Governor and a puppet regime subservient to him. You see the currency and thereby economy of your country undermined by the currency of Rome. You see your economy and country side raped and pillaged to serve the imperial designs of Rome. You see your culture and religion undermined by Hellenistic/Roman constructions. You see your language and ethnicity undermined by the infusion of foreigners. You see your people murdered left and right in the most vicious and brutal of methods. In short, you see your dignity, your identity, forcibly undermined under the murderous imperial boot of Rome. How do you think Jesus would have felt about this? Do you really believe anyone in the country was sympathetic towards the Romans?
Originally posted by JewelsVernz
All I'm suggesting is that we use a little common sense when we examine the Jesus story as it in the Gospels today. People have emotional motives for their actions. I pointed out the obvious emotional motives as to why the Jesus story, wasn't as we have it today - and why the spin on the story cannot be accurate.
Place yourself in the shoes of Jesus - an ancient Israeli living under the brutal occupation of Rome. You see the sovereignty of your country usurped by a foreign Governor and a puppet regime subservient to him. You see the currency and thereby economy of your country undermined by the currency of Rome. You see your economy and country side raped and pillaged to serve the imperial designs of Rome. You see your culture and religion undermined by Hellenistic/Roman constructions. You see your language and ethnicity undermined by the infusion of foreigners. You see your people murdered left and right in the most vicious and brutal of methods. In short, you see your dignity, your identity, forcibly undermined under the murderous imperial boot of Rome. How do you think Jesus would have felt about this? Do you really believe anyone in the country was sympathetic towards the Romans?
we're talking religion here . . .you can't be common sensical!