Burning Holy Books

[Evil Goblin]

Lao - you are misinterpreting Matthew and Mark here - "must surely die" does not mean that they must be put to death but that, without the wisdom and knowledge possessed by the older generations, they will not survive the rigours of existence. Knowledge in those days was predominantly passed down the generations - most people were illiterate and there were few written references for them to learn from even if they could read. i.e. the libraries of essential knowledge were in the heads of the older generations.

 

Luke 12.42-48 is a parable and you are wrong to use a literal translation to support your argument. The actual teaching is quite different.

 

Matthew 11.20 is part of a section of eschatological teaching - the woe to various cities who refuse to repent will come at the day of judgement. This is not Jesus cursing the places - merely saying what the consequences will eventually be for them by virtue of their own actions.

 

The whole of the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are widely accepted as being the inventions, for theological purposes, of the respective Evangelists. Their stories differ because each was writing for a different audience. Matthew 1.23 is only one of various passages in the Bible where the one who is to be the Messiah is to be called particular names. e.g. Isaiah says he will be called, inter alia, Counselor, Wonderful, Prince of Peace, etc. There is no need for the Christ to actually be given any of these names for, as it were, everyday use. Jesus was certainly not the Messiah of Jewish tradition, whose Messiah came from the House of David but was, in all respects, a normal human being who would be a great Soldier King and who would defeat all of Israel's enemies in battle. Jesus was seen by his followers (He never himself claimed the title of Messiah) as Messiah as he was the one who would save man (bearing in mind that He was sent only to the Children of Israel, not gentiles), albeit not in the way that the OT prophets had foreseen.

 

The Jehovah of the OT is certainly a pretty rough character with those who are disobedient to him. The truth seems to be that up until around 600/700 BC the Israelites were polytheistic - in good times they worshipped El, the Goddess of Fertility, whilst in times of strife they reverted to their War God, Jehovah - this God seems to have what is required of a War God i.e. violent, aggressive, etc. Only later did they become monotheistic, with a merger of the different Gods into one.

 

I think you may have some way to go before writing your holy book, Lao!

[Evil Goblin]

The devil (or Satan), supposedly, has made many attempts to influence or intervene. With such a manipulative intelligence undertaking such things against humans why does God not eliminate him or neutralise his powers?

A great problem for those who claim God to be all powerful and all good. It was this sort of consideration which led many Gnostic groups to refer to the true God as the Father with the OT God, the Creator, being a botched, evil power of darkness, which is why, on this earth, there is so much misery, cruelty, etc. All tied up with the Gnostic Myth and the notion of presdestination, etc.

[Evil Goblin]

The Gospels can be discounted - historical analysis suggests they were not written by disciples of Jesus (if there were any), they were knocked up by messianic cult members in Turkey decades after the events are supposed to have taken place, by people who were not around at the time, or who had any personal knowledge of Jesus or his life. They're also knocked up from two sources - the authors of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) had been told one version of events, whilst the authors of John seem to have been told a completely different version, and seem to portray a different version of Jesus too. The letters aren't contemporary either.

 

You can't rely on other sources such as Josephus, thanks to a series of "helpful" ancient Christians amending the text when they transcribed it to make it fit in with the gospels (check the Josephus text in its "original" and "christianised" versions), so that any historical source mentioning Jesus has to be treated with skepticism.

 

For me, if he existed, Jesus was probably an unfortunate David Koresh-like leader of a small cult, who was posthumously fitted up as a messiah figure by one of the messianic organisations around at the time, and fanatically aggrandized by people who never knew him, being retro-fitted with divinity, a complex, variable history and a series of miraculous events in much the same way that Kim Il-Sung was in North Korea - and like Kim Il-Sung, requiring a complex process of indoctrination (ideally from early childhood) in order to build a fanatical following that would regard questioning the facts as heresy.

With respect, the Gospels cannot be discounted so easily. Certainly they have to be seen as historical documents written for the purpose of evangelising - accordingly they need careful study. The available evidence is that Mark was written in Rome circa 65AD by John Mark, a disciple of Paul and Peter. According to Eusebius in the late 2nd century John Mark wrote down Peter's memories of the doings and sayings of Jesus (but not necessarily in the right order). Matthew (the Gospel to the Jews) was written in Alexandria circa 70/75AD and Luke (the Gospel to the Gentiles) in Turkey circa 75AD. John is a completely different kettle of fish from the Synoptics, being a full blown theological work - seems to have been written in Syria between 90 and 100 AD. Mark is based on Peter's memories, whilst Matthew and Luke are based on Mark plus other sources, such as Q, which likely go back to pretty well the time of Jesus' life. John is something else entirely.

 

I wouldn't dismiss the (genuine) Pauline epistles and Acts so easily - Romans and 1 Corinthians are dated at 49/50AD, only 15 years or so after Jesus' death and were written, in the case of the Epistles, by Paul who certainly knew the likes of Peter, James, John, etc. and, in the case of Acts, by Luke who was a disciple of Paul.

 

Even if you want to dismiss Josephus entirely (unwise) there are still the Roman sources. Even the most sceptical of Jewish scholars do not doubt Jesus' existence.

 

Jesus was certainly only one of a tradition of Jewish Hassids, known for prophecy and, amongst other things, faith healing. His subsequent pre-eminance is down to Paul, the Great Apostle.

[Lao]

Lao - you are misinterpreting Matthew and Mark here - "must surely die" does not mean that they must be put to death but that, without the wisdom and knowledge possessed by the older generations, they will not survive the rigours of existence. Knowledge in those days was predominantly passed down the generations - most people were illiterate and there were few written references for them to learn from even if they could read. i.e. the libraries of essential knowledge were in the heads of the older generations.

 

Luke 12.42-48 is a parable and you are wrong to use a literal translation to support your argument. The actual teaching is quite different.

 

Matthew 11.20 is part of a section of eschatological teaching - the woe to various cities who refuse to repent will come at the day of judgement. This is not Jesus cursing the places - merely saying what the consequences will eventually be for them by virtue of their own actions.

 

The whole of the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are widely accepted as being the inventions, for theological purposes, of the respective Evangelists. Their stories differ because each was writing for a different audience. Matthew 1.23 is only one of various passages in the Bible where the one who is to be the Messiah is to be called particular names. e.g. Isaiah says he will be called, inter alia, Counselor, Wonderful, Prince of Peace, etc. There is no need for the Christ to actually be given any of these names for, as it were, everyday use. Jesus was certainly not the Messiah of Jewish tradition, whose Messiah came from the House of David but was, in all respects, a normal human being who would be a great Soldier King and who would defeat all of Israel's enemies in battle. Jesus was seen by his followers (He never himself claimed the title of Messiah) as Messiah as he was the one who would save man (bearing in mind that He was sent only to the Children of Israel, not gentiles), albeit not in the way that the OT prophets had foreseen.

 

The Jehovah of the OT is certainly a pretty rough character with those who are disobedient to him. The truth seems to be that up until around 600/700 BC the Israelites were polytheistic - in good times they worshipped El, the Goddess of Fertility, whilst in times of strife they reverted to their War God, Jehovah - this God seems to have what is required of a War God i.e. violent, aggressive, etc. Only later did they become monotheistic, with a merger of the different Gods into one.

 

I think you may have some way to go before writing your holy book, Lao!

 

Were i an omnipotent being and the personal savior to the beings i had created, i would not be so deliberately obtuse when writting the only book that indicates how to get into heaven, nor would i suffer other such books to exist if they might lead people away from the one true holy book.

 

With my previous post i want to weighted in against the so called morality of the bible, the bible is quite horrific in places, but i concede that Christians will tend to be moral and decent people, i just dont beleive that they are only moral because of the bible, in fact i think that the bible has little to do with their conduct. People who group together will settle amicably on a set of rules to live by. Moral behaviour is not the exclusive virtue of bible educated christians, morality can even be found in tribal life, far from the reaches of christianity.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you may have some way to go before writing your holy book, Lao!

On the contrary, what appears to be meant in the Bible clearly needs some careful interpretation. I think a more easily read tome would be a better book.

And you do wonder why God hasn't produced his own Bible rather than have his children try to interpret it or take the word of other children. Doesn't make sense.

[The Bastard]

With respect, the Gospels cannot be discounted so easily. Certainly they have to be seen as historical documents written for the purpose of evangelising - accordingly they need careful study. The available evidence is that Mark was written in Rome circa 65AD by John Mark, a disciple of Paul and Peter. According to Eusebius in the late 2nd century John Mark wrote down Peter's memories of the doings and sayings of Jesus (but not necessarily in the right order). Matthew (the Gospel to the Jews) was written in Alexandria circa 70/75AD and Luke (the Gospel to the Gentiles) in Turkey circa 75AD. John is a completely different kettle of fish from the Synoptics, being a full blown theological work - seems to have been written in Syria between 90 and 100 AD. Mark is based on Peter's memories, whilst Matthew and Luke are based on Mark plus other sources, such as Q, which likely go back to pretty well the time of Jesus' life. John is something else entirely.

 

I wouldn't dismiss the (genuine) Pauline epistles and Acts so easily - Romans and 1 Corinthians are dated at 49/50AD, only 15 years or so after Jesus' death and were written, in the case of the Epistles, by Paul who certainly knew the likes of Peter, James, John, etc. and, in the case of Acts, by Luke who was a disciple of Paul.

 

Even if you want to dismiss Josephus entirely (unwise) there are still the Roman sources. Even the most sceptical of Jewish scholars do not doubt Jesus' existence.

 

Jesus was certainly only one of a tradition of Jewish Hassids, known for prophecy and, amongst other things, faith healing. His subsequent pre-eminance is down to Paul, the Great Apostle.

 

For me, the Gospels can pretty much be discounted because they're not contemporary - they were written in Koine Greek some time after the events, which suggests that they are not eyewitness testimony, but a later compilation of cult/folk myths about someone unknown to the authors.

 

However you stretch them, they're no more authentic than the contemporary retellings of the "miraculous" lives of Kim Il Sung or Mao Tse Tung, that move and restage events to suit particular agendas - the difference is that we have some verifiable sources that differ with the "official" accounts of Kim Il Sung and Mao Tse Tung, whereas with Jesus it's more difficult - but a few things like the census simply aren't recorded as they would have been if they were real, suggesting the Christian version of events is an unreliable fiction that's been engineered to associate Jesus with lots of Old-Testament connections.

 

Romans and Corinthians are similarly non-authentic - by his own admission, the apostle Paul never met Jesus and underwent the apocryphal "conversion on the road to Damascus" - I see him as a figure who saw the possibility that the Jesus cult offered - more than the other messiah-seeking cults, and quickly saw a route to put himself in a position of power. There's even speculation that the letters themselves were put together (maybe wholly) by scribes such as Tertius.

 

If, as you say "His subsequent pre-eminance is down to Paul, the Great Apostle", it fills me with skepticism - Paul is no great authority on the life of Jesus, but he does a grand job of creating a cult for someone he never met. As L. Ron Hubbard is supposed to have said "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion".

 

Josephus has major problems with authenticity. It's been edited and added to by so many Christian sources to reflect an increasing divinity of Jesus that nobody can be sure what the original source actually said. Origen actually commented upon Josephus' lack of Christianity, and contemporary studiers such as Crossan have commented "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish". The further back you go in versions of Josephus, the further it diverges from the Christian version of things, and the best you can say is that it's likely that before the Christians started messing with the text, it may have made a mention of (cult figure) Jesus in passing.

 

There's certainly a lot of doubt regarding Jesus' existence, but for me he doesn't have to have not existed. I suggest that if he was a real person, he was a cult figure in the style of David Koresh, or L. Ron Hubbard, who was massively aggrandized into a mythical divine figure by fanatical cult members after his death, in a similar way to how Kim Il Sung is deified in North Korea. Whatever traces of the real Jesus (Yeshua ?) existed have probably been long suppressed or re-edited to fit in with the cult.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

Even if you want to dismiss Josephus entirely (unwise) there are still the Roman sources. Even the most sceptical of Jewish scholars do not doubt Jesus' existence

Do you mind listing these sources and the dates that these people lived. I really find it incredible that you think it is certain he lived. I think it likely, but I don't see any good evidence for a certainty or almost certainty.

 

Jesus was certainly only one of a tradition of Jewish Hassids, known for prophecy and, amongst other things, faith healing. His subsequent pre-eminance is down to Paul, the Great Apostle.

It always amuses me that when you realise that the Christian God is just a fabrication that just makes the character of Jesus into a ridiculous fraud. Either mad or very bad.

[mæŋksmən]

Evil goblin.

Said

!! Even the most sceptical of Jewish scholars do not doubt Jesus' existence !!

 

Be honest EG those same jews also believe they are gods own children, and would not shed a tear at the demise of the rest of humanity, we just infest the playground that god gave unto his own children.

[jimbms]

OK let us make it simple.

 

 

Jesus is a blood-sucking zombie, God is a megalomaniac psychopath, Moses is a serial wife abuser, Allah is a goat shagger. Mohamed is a junkie rapist, Buddha is a fat dole dossing bastard, Jehovah is a child killer, Krishna is horse molester, Vishnu is a pig blower and Joseph Smith is a serial masturbator.

 

 

Now that about covers them all.

 

 

 

[thesultanofsheight]

Oh well another bunch of religious nutters go to meet their maker

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8011804/Cult-members-go-missing-in-apparent-mass-suicide-bid.html

 

What is it about religion that attracts the vulnerable and the terminally stupid?

[Evil Goblin]

LDV and Lao - FYI I do not believe in the sort of God postulated in the Judaic-Christian-Islamic traditions - neither do I believe that Jesus was anything other than a human being. Some of your comments appear to assume the contrary. My interest is more academic than anything else.

[Evil Goblin]

Bastard - if you read my comments earlier I quite agree that none of the New Testament works can be attributed to people who knew Jesus in his lifetime - the nearest we have is Mark (the reminiscences of Peter) and Paul (from his meetings with Peter, James and the rest of the disciples in Jerusalem in 36AD) and subsequent meetings with Peter et al. Certainly Paul did not have much interest in the Jesus of prior to the crucifixion - for Paul the importance of Christ is in his death and resurrection (incidentally, Paul did not believe in the physical resurrection but in the Jewish concept of a resurrection into a spiritual body - 1 Corinthians 15) - you seem to have a good knowledge of these matters so maybe you are already aware of that.

 

Ref your last sentence on Josephus - I completely agree that what is said about Jesus is dubious - the point is that it is certain that he mentions Jesus as someone who existed, which was the point at issue with LDV.

 

I also agree that it is now very difficult to get at the real historical Jesus, although Geza Vermes and others have made some impressive attempts at getting at what can actually be said of the historical figure. The evidence seems to point to having been a Hassid or Holy Man in the Jewish tradition and that as such he would have had some followers. I do not think it could be called a cult until after Paul set to work on Him.

[Evil Goblin]

Evil goblin.

Said

!! Even the most sceptical of Jewish scholars do not doubt Jesus' existence !!

 

Be honest EG those same jews also believe they are gods own children, and would not shed a tear at the demise of the rest of humanity, we just infest the playground that god gave unto his own children.

I do not think the scholars in question would confirm your comment about their beliefs and attitudes.

[Evil Goblin]

 

Even if you want to dismiss Josephus entirely (unwise) there are still the Roman sources. Even the most sceptical of Jewish scholars do not doubt Jesus' existence

Do you mind listing these sources and the dates that these people lived. I really find it incredible that you think it is certain he lived. I think it likely, but I don't see any good evidence for a certainty or almost certainty.

 

Jesus was certainly only one of a tradition of Jewish Hassids, known for prophecy and, amongst other things, faith healing. His subsequent pre-eminance is down to Paul, the Great Apostle.

It always amuses me that when you realise that the Christian God is just a fabrication that just makes the character of Jesus into a ridiculous fraud. Either mad or very bad.

It is some years since I was into this aspect of Christianity so I will need to trawl my references before giving them. I do recall Tacitus was one of them, but would need to confirm that date.

 

You are wrong to say Jesus was mad or very bad, although he certainly may have been (honestly) deluded about the imminence of the Kingdom and His role in it. I cannot see any justification at all for saying he was bad - what is your justification?

[spook]

I still have to ask, so what? Many civilisations and people have gone through very tough or disastrous times throughout their history. It would appear to be extremely selective to simply hold up the Jews as something unique.

I can think of no civilisation let alone nation that has survived intact in the way that the jew has.

Quote

Everywhere that the Lord had His presence made known, everywhere that Jesus was accepted as the saviour the effect was beneficial to people...

 

I was asking if you could kindly explain the historical instances where the Jewish people turned away from the Lord and thus suffered as a result.

How about when Moses went up into the mountain and came down to find the people had crafted a golden calf? That cost them forty years in the wilderness.

 

And I am also interested in how you think the return or movement back towards the Lord led to them living through better times. Are you saying that they were receiving protection when they were close to the Lord?

After that time they were led to the Promised Land and yes, closeness to The Lord did provide protection and success.

Quote

If you love a thing release it. If it comes back to you it is yours. If it does not it never was. The same principle applies.

 

But if we are talking about love, something which we define and have a shared understanding of, if you DO love something would not let it come to harm.

You certainly would not allow them to get moved from their 'homeland', allow them to be subject to terrible mobs who brought violence against, suffer from marginalisation and verbal abuse, and genocide.

From my understanding of love, I would not call what your God is doing or not doing love. It isn't a loving God.

It is the proving of the presence of love even when at a cost.

I would sugest that releasing a thing would include releasing it into an environment where there would be atractions that might tempt it NOT to return. Only if faced with that and it did return could you be sure it really loved you.

 

I say this because we are expected to believe that God is a being who can see into the future and knows what will occur. If such attributes are accorded to him then one has to wonder what this charade is all about. If he knows that the Jewish people will EVENTUALLY return to him, then from your principle he would be aware of whether they love him back or not.

Where did you get the idea that The Lord was able to forsee the actions of creatures to whom he gave free will?

Quote

The Lord seldom punishes people in this life.

 

Ok, that's your understand. A lot of Christians do disagree. A lot think that the Lord intervenes to punish.

Quote

Those who choose not to be saved will face the hereafter in hell.

Again, that's why he is not loving. You MUST love me or you WILL be tortured in eternity. That's evil.

]

No, that’s establishing the wheat from the tare.

Quote

As a man I find it sad, but it is the will of The Lord and it is not for me to question especially as I am sure it saddens The Lord whenever a sinner rejects the greatest gift of all and usually out of pride, the evil ones greatest lever, the thing that saw him fall because of his own.

 

What do you find sad and why? I would like this to be replied to more than any other question or comment I have made.

 

I find it sad that people refuse the gift of salvation and I am saddened at the terrible price they must pay in the hereafter.

Quote

The evil one on the other had frequently helps people in this life.

The evil one hates The Lord because he was cast down. Yet even the evil one has his place, for now. The evil one is the lime in the furnace of The Lord, the thing that separates the gold from the worthless in the ore.

 

The devil (or Satan), supposedly, has made many attempts to influence or intervene. With such a manipulative intelligence undertaking such things against humans why does God not eliminate him or neutralise his powers? He is supposedly no equal of Gods.

There is only one Lord of Hosts though his house has many mansions.

If you take out the refining agent from the furnace you end up with the same ore that you put into it. The object is to extract the gold.

Quote

LDV, why not go to a church service this Sunday?

 

Why would I? You haven't provided any evidence for why this God exists. I would not attend a Church when I know that such a God does not exist.

 

I sense that you are a troubled soul. I accept that you still have not found The Lord.

 

Or thinking about it maybe you actually have, and fear him and his power. Like a child who covers his head at night in the hope that this will protect him on the basis of what he refuses to see will not see him.

 

LDV (I do wish I knew your Christian name) The Lord does see you. He loves you though possibly not some of what you do. Remember, The Lord loves the sinner but not the sin. You have away to redeem yourself and become saved.

 

What you have discussed in reference to the Jews is very poor evidence in my opinion. You have simply noted that the Jewish people have still survived as a ethnic/religious group after much persecution and troubles. Not enough. Not when such a result could easily be through chance or MAYBE EVEN through the tenacity of this people.

 

The tenacity of the Spartens is, or was legendry, yet they have disappeared, and the probability of survival as an intact nation through chance when a timescale of thousands of years is involved, especially when so many hands were turned against them is absurd.