| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"rj" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2004 09:46:28 AM |
| Object: |
Gnostic gospels |
If one takes the time to read the gnostic gospels, one really gets a
different view on who Jesus' buddies were, what they thought and what they
were like. The biggest problem is that much of it is fragmentary and
without a frame of reference, it makes what is left pure gibberish. One
can speculate what the topic was, but it is tough. The remaining parts
that can be read in context are certainly damning of certain individuals.
One of the people that actually seemed to have their head screwed on
straight was Mary. Peter was sort of a jerk.
It really is a pity that the 4 "true" gospels have been altered to suit a
political agenda and altered to the extend that scarcely a single phrase
can be trusted to be true.
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
1) Jesus was not a god nor the son of god or anything close. He was a man
with an idea and the idea caught on. Religion for the common man was his
idea. It gave 'Joe 6 pack' something to think and talk about.
2) Jesus was married.
3) Peter was a sexist, jealous jerk at times.
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
5) Every one of the apostles were ordinary people that liked 'a bit of
salty language and a cup of joe' so to speak. Nothing special at all.
r
.
|
|
| User: "Solomon \You Dirty Mother\ Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 07:25:39 AM |
|
|
"rj" <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D0636E8CEAAmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
If one takes the time to read the gnostic gospels, one really gets a
different view on who Jesus' buddies were, what they thought and what they
they didnt "think" anything; they werent real.
were like. The biggest problem is that much of it is fragmentary and
without a frame of reference, it makes what is left pure gibberish. One
can speculate what the topic was, but it is tough. The remaining parts
that can be read in context are certainly damning of certain individuals.
"certain individuals" werent real.
One of the people that actually seemed to have their head screwed on
straight was Mary. Peter was sort of a jerk.
neither peter nor mary were real.
It really is a pity that the 4 "true" gospels have been altered to suit a
political agenda and altered to the extend that scarcely a single phrase
can be trusted to be true.
the four "true" gospels *are* a political agenda, like most religions; you
have been paying attention.
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
ah, wouldn't it be nice if stephen king would publish that 20 or so other
works of fiction he didnt feel were good enough for the public...
1) Jesus was not a god nor the son of god or anything close. He was a man
i'll drink to that!
with an idea and the idea caught on. Religion for the common man was his
idea. It gave 'Joe 6 pack' something to think and talk about.
but.. jesus isn't real.
2) Jesus was married.
hard to do.. jesus wasn't real.
3) Peter was a sexist, jealous jerk at times.
that he was.. but he wasn't real either.
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
"some, if not all of the 'miracles' never happened" is quite sufficient.
5) Every one of the apostles were ordinary people that liked 'a bit of
salty language and a cup of joe' so to speak. Nothing special at all.
not quite.. unlike "the apostles", ordinary people are real.
--
Brought to you, courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill, LLC
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
31 Dec 2004 10:17:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:28 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
If one takes the time to read the gnostic gospels, one really gets a
different view on who Jesus' buddies were, what they thought and what they
were like. The biggest problem is that much of it is fragmentary and
without a frame of reference, it makes what is left pure gibberish. One
can speculate what the topic was, but it is tough. The remaining parts
that can be read in context are certainly damning of certain individuals.
One of the people that actually seemed to have their head screwed on
straight was Mary. Peter was sort of a jerk.
It really is a pity that the 4 "true" gospels have been altered to suit a
political agenda and altered to the extend that scarcely a single phrase
can be trusted to be true.
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
1) Jesus was not a god nor the son of god or anything close. He was a man
with an idea and the idea caught on. Religion for the common man was his
idea. It gave 'Joe 6 pack' something to think and talk about.
2) Jesus was married.
3) Peter was a sexist, jealous jerk at times.
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
5) Every one of the apostles were ordinary people that liked 'a bit of
salty language and a cup of joe' so to speak. Nothing special at all.
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
31 Dec 2004 10:42:21 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:28 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
If one takes the time to read the gnostic gospels, one really gets a
different view on who Jesus' buddies were, what they thought and what
they were like. The biggest problem is that much of it is fragmentary
and without a frame of reference, it makes what is left pure gibberish.
One can speculate what the topic was, but it is tough. The remaining
parts that can be read in context are certainly damning of certain
individuals. One of the people that actually seemed to have their head
screwed on straight was Mary. Peter was sort of a jerk.
It really is a pity that the 4 "true" gospels have been altered to suit
a political agenda and altered to the extend that scarcely a single
phrase can be trusted to be true.
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
1) Jesus was not a god nor the son of god or anything close. He was a
man with an idea and the idea caught on. Religion for the common man
was his idea. It gave 'Joe 6 pack' something to think and talk about.
2) Jesus was married.
3) Peter was a sexist, jealous jerk at times.
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
5) Every one of the apostles were ordinary people that liked 'a bit of
salty language and a cup of joe' so to speak. Nothing special at all.
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived, had a few
rather different ideas which really ***** the establishment, and was
killed because he really ***** the wrong people. I believe that the
truth of the matter is that the rest has been edited to further a
political agenda and has nothing to do with fact. The biggest problem in
researching facts regarding Jesus is that so much myth and fable has been
generated, documents destroyed, etc. there is no way to come up with
anything factual.
One cannot rely on history for history is written by the victors. The
victors tell a completely one sided version of what happened.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
31 Dec 2004 03:23:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:21 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 04:15:42 PM |
|
|
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
Al Klein wrote:
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named Yeshua
had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Good thing you added "at the time".
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 04:55:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:15:42 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com>
said in alt.atheism:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
Al Klein wrote:
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named Yeshua
had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Good thing you added "at the time".
Looks as if I typed too fast for you to get any meaning out of it.
Should I repeat it slower for you?
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 05:05:07 PM |
|
|
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
Al Klein wrote:
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named Yeshua
had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Good thing you added "at the time".
Al Klein wrote:
Looks as if I typed too fast for you to get any meaning out of it. Should I
repeat it slower for you?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Your writings are out-of-sync at any speed.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
02 Jan 2005 07:50:28 AM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BDFC96D2.447D4%chenault@mindspring.com...
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a
rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
Al Klein wrote:
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua
had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Good thing you added "at the time".
Al Klein wrote:
Looks as if I typed too fast for you to get any meaning out of it. Should
I
repeat it slower for you?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Your writings are out-of-sync at any speed.
And you're never condescending.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 09:07:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:05:07 GMT, georgann <chenault@mindspring.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
Al Klein wrote:
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named Yeshua
had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Good thing you added "at the time".
Al Klein wrote:
Looks as if I typed too fast for you to get any meaning out of it. Should I
repeat it slower for you?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Your writings are out-of-sync at any speed.
Just what I thought - inconceivability-itis.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
03 Jan 2005 12:00:58 AM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:BDFC8B3D.44730%chenault@mindspring.com:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a
rather bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
Al Klein wrote:
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Good thing you added "at the time".
....since "at the time" is what was under discussion.
There is also exactly no evidence that Yeshua ben Mirriam had any influence
afterwards, either. Plenty that the adherents of the various
sects/religions collectively misnamed "Christianity" did, but their
existance is not under question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
31 Dec 2004 08:38:57 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:sogbt0hdr7eqll2oj8mrvrbevk7bnrhugh@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:21 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
Still, it would have been interesting to know the truth.
rj
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon \You Dirty Mother\ Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 07:28:16 AM |
|
|
"rj" <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D0D20EFA87Emc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:sogbt0hdr7eqll2oj8mrvrbevk7bnrhugh@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:21 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a
rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
Still, it would have been interesting to know the truth.
rj
you want the truth? here's some truth, provided you can handle it:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
(i almost typed http://www.jeebusneverexisted.com/)
--
Brought to you, courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill, LLC
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 10:34:40 AM |
|
|
"Solomon \"You Dirty Mother\" Kozanski" <nospam@gospamyourself.com> wrote
in news:10td992t4sgg2fc@corp.supernews.com:
"rj" <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D0D20EFA87Emc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:sogbt0hdr7eqll2oj8mrvrbevk7bnrhugh@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:21 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a
rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
Still, it would have been interesting to know the truth.
rj
you want the truth? here's some truth, provided you can handle it:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
(i almost typed http://www.jeebusneverexisted.com/)
--
Brought to you, courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill, LLC
I did go throught the web pages briefly and it seems the author does a few
things that don't make sense. I maintain that the gospels of the bible
were creatively edited or in other words, they are nearly all ***** to
put it bluntly. Stuff edited by people trying to further their political
agenda. While it is possible that the Jesus of the bible never existed, I
doubt that is true. What I maintain is that he wasn't a god. He wasn't a
prophet either. He was likely a fairly ordinary guy with some
extraordinary ideas. One of those, "why didn't I think of that" people.
Someone with excellent reasoning ability. I feel the gnostic gospels are
a somewhat gilded look at the man, but certainly a lot less gilded than
the current bible BS. I think that the gilding to so thick and heavy with
the current bible, that almost none of the original facts are left. Once
one starts editing a document for content, where does one stop? They stop
when it nears lucridity or until one cannot add any more gilding so to
speak. I suppose it is possible that I am the only one that finds this
interesting, but in a quest to ascertain the truth one must at least
attempt. My preliminary hypothesis is as follows:
1) Jesus did exist
2) The 4 biblical gospels are nearly 100% B.S.
3) The miracles were not really miracles but the application of good
observational skills.
4) Jesus wanted to create a new church or religion. One based on love and
understanding of ones fellow man instead of money.
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
Is it possible that I am wrong? Certainly. Am I open to the idea that he
was a myth? Sure.
Anyway, I appreciate the links and will be running out to the bookstore
later to pick up a couple of books.
r
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 04:16:18 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:34:40 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
While it is possible that the Jesus of the bible never existed, I
doubt that is true. What I maintain is that he wasn't a god. He wasn't a
prophet either. He was likely a fairly ordinary guy with some
extraordinary ideas.
"The Jesus of the bible" is a god; a man who performed miracles. Any
other Jesus is not the biblical one. (There's absolutely no doubt
that there were many named Yeshua at that time in that place - even
many who claimed to be the messiah. Of the one described in the NT
there's not a trace of contemporary extra-biblical mention.)
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
No conspiracy needed - see "Dianetics". One man.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
Ask L. Ron Hubbard. Ask John Smith. Ask Jim Jones.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
05 Jan 2005 01:42:17 PM |
|
|
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Plus, if as some people believe, that the temple was actually
destroyed before any of the gospels were written, then it would have
been impossible for animal sacrifices to continue since there was no
temple to conduct the sacrifices in, so people were left with no way
to get rid of their sins.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
05 Jan 2005 02:12:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:42:17 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Most of the animal sacrifices were of food animals: sheep or goats.
Plus, if as some people believe, that the temple was actually
destroyed before any of the gospels were written, then it would have
been impossible for animal sacrifices to continue since there was no
temple to conduct the sacrifices in, so people were left with no way
to get rid of their sins.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
05 Jan 2005 05:27:23 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Most of the animal sacrifices were of food animals: sheep or goats.
Yeah, so?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
05 Jan 2005 05:34:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:27:23 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Most of the animal sacrifices were of food animals: sheep or goats.
Yeah, so?
So they ate them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
06 Jan 2005 07:42:27 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Most of the animal sacrifices were of food animals: sheep or goats.
Yeah, so?
So they ate them.
Nonetheless, the priests still had to butcher the animals, fling some
blood around, and deal with the horrible stench of the temple
stockyard. Ever visited or driven by a stockyard before and taken
a good whiff of the air?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
06 Jan 2005 08:11:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:42:27 GMT, Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
If I find out along the way that he didn't really exist but that it was
all a conspiracy, then so be it. But as with any conspiracy, with the
addition of every person to it, the chances of failure doubles so a
conspiracy warrants being discounted.
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Most of the animal sacrifices were of food animals: sheep or goats.
Yeah, so?
So they ate them.
Nonetheless, the priests still had to butcher the animals, fling some
blood around, and deal with the horrible stench of the temple
stockyard. Ever visited or driven by a stockyard before and taken
a good whiff of the air?
[Still pulls a face, blocks nose and shudders when reminded of feed
lot on I-5 halfway between LA and the Bay Area]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
06 Jan 2005 09:10:25 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote:
rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Why create a myth? I have not heard any compelling reasons thus far.
To get rid of animal sacrifices. The priests were sick of them in the
first place, and they needed a way to get rid of them without ruining
their credibility. They couldn't very well just say that they're sick
of them and stop the practice without replacing it with something
else or coming up with some story about why they were ending them.
Most of the animal sacrifices were of food animals: sheep or goats.
Yeah, so?
So they ate them.
Nonetheless, the priests still had to butcher the animals, fling some
blood around, and deal with the horrible stench of the temple
stockyard. Ever visited or driven by a stockyard before and taken
a good whiff of the air?
[Still pulls a face, blocks nose and shudders when reminded of feed
lot on I-5 halfway between LA and the Bay Area]
My family used to live near the Kansas City stockyards, and we drove
by them every once in a while on our way to other places in the area.
Hoo boy, what a horrible smell!
I used to believe that the incense the priests burned was to get them
high or stoned, and that part may still be true, but it seems that
another major reason for burning incense was to cover up the
stomach-turning stench of the stockyards.
Inventing some god-man messiah who was a "perfect lamb sacrifice or
scapegoat," either by necessity because the temple was destroyed, or
because the priests were sick and tired of the stench, both make sense
to me as reasons to invent some myth or story to get rid of the
problem.
Accepting coins instead of actual livestock was a lot easier and
cleaner and the priests could then use the coins to buy their
preferred choice of meats or whatever else they desired.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 04:32:29 PM |
|
|
rj wrote:
"Solomon \"You Dirty Mother\" Kozanski" <nospam@gospamyourself.com>
wrote
attempt. My preliminary hypothesis is as follows:
1) Jesus did exist
Crap. Paul made up every detail out of whole cloth. Jewish rabbis
often do this sort of thing. The guy never met the "christ" he
preached about, but he went around giving all sorts of intimate details
about his life. That spells liar in my book.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Invid Fan" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
04 Jan 2005 12:40:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1104618749.153894.17040@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, jwk
<jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
rj wrote:
"Solomon \"You Dirty Mother\" Kozanski" <nospam@gospamyourself.com>
wrote
attempt. My preliminary hypothesis is as follows:
1) Jesus did exist
Crap. Paul made up every detail out of whole cloth. Jewish rabbis
often do this sort of thing. The guy never met the "christ" he
preached about, but he went around giving all sorts of intimate details
about his life. That spells liar in my book.
Paul mentions meeting Jesus's brother. Now, the Jesus he's preaching
about doesn't seem to fit a person who actually has a normal, human
brother walking around. In other words, if he was making everything up
he wouldn't have included that "fact". Thus I think there was an actual
Jesus. Not that it matters, as we have no idea what any such person
actually said about anything.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total *****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
05 Jan 2005 12:47:56 PM |
|
|
Invid Fan wrote:
In article <1104618749.153894.17040@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jwk
<jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
rj wrote:
"Solomon \"You Dirty Mother\" Kozanski"
<nospam@gospamyourself.com>
wrote
attempt. My preliminary hypothesis is as follows:
1) Jesus did exist
Crap. Paul made up every detail out of whole cloth. Jewish rabbis
often do this sort of thing. The guy never met the "christ" he
preached about, but he went around giving all sorts of intimate
details
about his life. That spells liar in my book.
Paul mentions meeting Jesus's brother. Now, the Jesus he's preaching
about doesn't seem to fit a person who actually has a normal, human
brother walking around. In other words, if he was making everything
up
he wouldn't have included that "fact".
Unless he was LYING.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 07:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:38:57 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:sogbt0hdr7eqll2oj8mrvrbevk7bnrhugh@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:42:21 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story and a rather
bad one at that. I think it is fair to say that Jesus lived
See #6, above. There's *NO* contemporary evidence that anyone named
Yeshua had any influence whatsoever on life in the area at the time.
Still, it would have been interesting to know the truth.
That is the truth.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
31 Dec 2004 02:11:07 PM |
|
|
rj wrote:
Al Klein <CellPhones@optonline.com> wrote in
news:rruat0d6s55jj79k73r333ade8mdd32plj@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:28 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
6) The whole thing has as much basis in fact as Star Wars.
Well, the current bible in it's currect form is a fairy story
are you saying if someone changes the "current form" it wont still be a
fairy story?
researching facts regarding Jesus is that so much myth and fable has
been
generated, documents destroyed, etc. there is no way to come up with
anything factual.
here is the jesus story in a nutshell...crazy insane kid grows up to be
a crazy insane adult, all this takes place in the middle east where
most people grow up to be crazy and insane, crazy insane people hunt
the poor crazy insane Jesus guy down, torture and butcher him simply
because they dont like what he says, crazy insane jesus claims to be
gods son while other crazy and insane people murder him, Jesus crazy
and insane followers go crazy and insane over his murder and over two
thousand years and generations of crazy insane people later they still
cant get over it, meanwhile we have much more of the same crazy and
insane culture of crazy insane people killing one another for much of
the same reasons that existed over 2 thousand years ago. crazy and
insane isnt it?
One cannot rely on history for history is written by the victors. The
victors tell a completely one sided version of what happened.
rj
who cares what happened,
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 07:20:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:28 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
If one takes the time to read the gnostic gospels, one really gets a
different view on who Jesus' buddies were, what they thought and what they
were like. The biggest problem is that much of it is fragmentary and
without a frame of reference, it makes what is left pure gibberish. One
can speculate what the topic was, but it is tough. The remaining parts
that can be read in context are certainly damning of certain individuals.
One of the people that actually seemed to have their head screwed on
straight was Mary. Peter was sort of a jerk.
It really is a pity that the 4 "true" gospels have been altered to suit a
political agenda and altered to the extend that scarcely a single phrase
can be trusted to be true.
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
1) Jesus was not a god nor the son of god or anything close. He was a man
with an idea and the idea caught on. Religion for the common man was his
idea. It gave 'Joe 6 pack' something to think and talk about.
2) Jesus was married.
3) Peter was a sexist, jealous jerk at times.
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
5) Every one of the apostles were ordinary people that liked 'a bit of
salty language and a cup of joe' so to speak. Nothing special at all.
As it is, the 'gospels' show 'Jesus' for a psychopath with delusions
of adequacy. The Bible aka "The Pathetic Delusion."
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 02:33:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:28 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
Look up the "Gospel of Thomas"
(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html). It may well predate the
canonical gospels of the New Testament, in which case we see a gradual
progression through Thomas, Mark, Mathew and Luke during which Jesus' life
becomes ever more detailed and ever more fantastic as the story is retold year
after year.
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
01 Jan 2005 10:43:50 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:grnct0t1b1aqjmv9rtn3p8gjnft0o0uvck@4ax.com:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:46:28 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if the original manuscripts of all the gospels were
available? I believe that the following would be supported:
4) Some, if not all of the "miracles" never happened the way it is
currently portrayed.
Look up the "Gospel of Thomas"
(http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html). It may well predate
the canonical gospels of the New Testament, in which case we see a
gradual progression through Thomas, Mark, Mathew and Luke during which
Jesus' life becomes ever more detailed and ever more fantastic as the
story is retold year after year.
---------
Exactly my feeling about the issue. But getting to the truth is going to
be difficult at best.
As with most things in life, I feel that somewhere between "Jesus was God"
and "Jesus never existed" lies the truth.
r
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Gnostic gospels |
02 Jan 2005 12:30:14 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:43:50 GMT, rj <rj@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
As with most things in life, I feel that somewhere between "Jesus was God"
and "Jesus never existed" lies the truth.
Depending on your definition of "Jesus".
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
