Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:48 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Barry OGrady" <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jethp317vri183rligbmq548kc5m4pp5ad@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:49:22 GMT, "Suzanne" <shil...@flash.net> wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:4792bca1$0$26048$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Suzanne wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:478a3ff4$0$26019$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Suzanne wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:47892878$0$29163$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Mark T wrote:
"Libertarius" wrote:
===>He *[Jesus] was created in the minds of the Gospel writers and
other
authors who wrote various "Jesus" stories, most of which were not
included in the official Bible produced by the Church.
Based on their imagination, a "Jseus" exists in the minds of
believers who recreate him according to their own ideas of what a
"Jesus" should
be or should have been, anything from a traveling teacher to a
rabbi
or
a prophet or an incarnated god.
In fact none of the different characters described as "Jesus" by
those writers ever existed in reality. -- L.
I disagree. Though much of the later writing is fraudulent (e.g.
John's gospel) I think there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth who
existed in time / space history as a Jewish rabbi. This is based on
my reading of John Dominic Crossan. However Barbara Thirering's
theories cannot be discounted as they consistently work when applied
to the text.
===>There is absolutely zero historical evidence for any "Jesus of
Nazareth", but there are several historically documented characters
out of whom the Gospel Jesuses (no two alike even in the official
Gospels) was patched together.
The closest historical person upon whom the stories may have been
based originally is Judas the Galilean.
A book titled "Judas the Galilea" by Dan Unterbrink is an excellent
exploration of the two characters: Judas the Galilean and Jesus of
Nazareth.
Unterbrink wrote:
"Both men cleansed the Temple in Jerusalem, were involved in a
Barabbas-style prisoner release, were proclaimed Messiah in Galilee,
and both founded new philosophies. The Jewish historian, Josephus,
wrote extensively about the life of Judas the Galilean but did not
mention the cause or date of Judas' death. On the other hand,
Josephus
did not describe a single action of Jesus but did tell of Jesus'
crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Many scholars doubt the
reliability of the "Jesus" passage in Josephus. I believe this
"Jesus"
passage was a substitution for the death of Judas the Galilean.
Judas
the Galilean founded the fourth philosophy (later known as the
Zealots), and was always on the mind of Josephus. Josephus recorded
the crucifixions of two of Judas' sons (45-47 CE), the stoning of
another son, Menahen, who marched on Jerusalem ala Jesus in 66 CE,
and
the suicide of a grandson, Eleazar, at Masada in 73 CE. It is
incomprehensible that Josephus would have forgotten to tell of Judas
the Galilean's death. It is my contention that Jesus was simply a
title for Judas the Galilean, and that the early church tried to
distance Jesus from his true past." -- L.
Libertarius, you will believe this stuff, but you won't
believe the the many writers of the Bible, or the 4
gospels. Their testimony is not enough for you.
===>I trust the reports of a historian such as Josephus.
OK...that's good.
There is nothing historically believable in the stories
of the "many writers" the Church authorities compiled in
their "Bible".
Unlike you, I know the difference between fact and fistion.
Well, let's see. You think the Bible is a myth, for starters.
John 5:43:
"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not:
if another shall come in his own name, him ye will
receive."
===>Those are the words of a fiction writer who explicitely
wrote for religious propaganda purposes, to get credulous
people like you to believe. (John 20:31). -- L.
I don't believe them because of the writer. I believe
them because of the Lord confirming them in my
heart. Of course, you won't understand that either,
since you are trying to run something spiritual
through the carnal mind to test it. That's like trying
to open a can with a potato masher.
Suzanne
===>That is the crazy aspect to your beiefs.
You "conmfirm" them in your deluded mind.
Your "Lord" in your head would not even exist if you had not
submitted yourself to those writers and swallowed their
ideas.
That's not what I told you You are twisting
what I have answered you with. Stop telling your
lies, Libertarius.
Of course, you won't understand that either,
since you are trying to run something spiritual
through the carnal mind to test it.
===>That is pure BS.
No such thing as "spiritual" exists.
You are "carnal. Your brain is "carnal".
Either you use it or you don't.
When you don't, you call it "spiritual", which
means "of air" -- that makes you an airhead.
Very funny.
That's like trying
to open a can with a potato masher.
===>False analogy.
No it's not. It exactly describes what you are
trying to do. It's like you are trying to use
"Word" on your computer if your computer
does not have Word on it. Did you understand
me that time? You are trying to figure out
something spiritual with your carnal mind. It
doesn't work that way.
"Spiritual" is like walking around with blindfolders,
claiming that people who use their eyes are "carnal",
claiming you see better without your eyes.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
No such thing as "spiritual" exists.
Apparently not in your world.
Ridiculous.
You are in denial of the only reality that exists:
the physical world, which you in your weird Gnostic/Pauline
mindset consider somehow inferior, calling it "carnal"
as if there were any other way of seing, thinking or doing
things. -- L.
No, Libertarius, I am not a Gnostic. Paul is not a
Gnostic either. Please stop lying about me.
You are in denial of the only reality that exists.
Barry
Satan has you fooled, Barry.
Suzanne
Libertarius and his kind are strict followers of the philosophy of
Positivism, first formulated by Isidore Marie Auguste François Xavier
Comte (January 17, 1798 - September 5, 1857) in what he considered was
his life's work.
Positivism is a philosophy that states that the only authentic
knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only
come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific
method. It was developed by Auguste Comte (widely regarded as the
first sociologist) in the middle of the 19th century. In the early
20th century, logical positivism--a stricter and more logical version
of Comte's basic thesis--sprang up in Vienna and grew to become one of
the dominant movements in American and British philosophy. The
positivist view is sometimes referred to as a scientist ideology, and
is often shared by technocrats who believe in the necessity of
progress through scientific progress, and by naturalism, who argue
that any method for gaining knowledge should be limited to natural,
physical, and material approaches. As an approach to the philosophy of
science deriving from Enlightenment thinkers like Pierre-Simon Laplace
(and many others), positivism was first systematically theorized by
Comte, who saw the scientific method as replacing metaphysics in the
history of thought, and who observed the circular dependence of theory
and observation in science. Comte was thus one of the leading thinkers
of the social evolutionism thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
Just thought you should know that these people, while seeming
independent, sure of themselves, and rational right down to the rear
flap in their pajamas, they are really just followers of an off-the-
rack, just-add-water, heat-it-'n-eat-it philosophy that someone else
worked out for them.
===>Funny you, as one who refuses to have one independent thought,
is projecting that inability on others.
FYI, I have never been a follower of Comte.
And they probably don't even know who to thank for their "wisdom."
But when understood, Positivism is little more than a rhetorical
device that leads to Solipsism and beyond - right into Nihilism when
taken seriously.
===>That is just plain STUPID.
Natural, physical, and material approaches can never
develop a system of ethics, justice, or morality.
===>False assumption, based on your doctrinal prejudices.
Positivism cannot
justify or explain scientific and philosophical curiosity.
===>That is idiotic!
Curiosity is an inherent property of living organisms without
which there would be no life and no evolution on this planet.
When
applied rigorously, Positivism rules out even the development of
Positivism.
===>More stupidity.
No doubt they see themselves clinging to a rock of certainty, setting
them apart from the rest of us, whom they see tossing (as they think)
in a sea of doubt and superstition.
===>Of course you are.
That is exactly why you are trying to project your predicament
on the rest of us non-believers.
It is a funny personal certainty
in which all kinds engage including Scientologists, wikkans,
Communists, Republicans, and the Salvation Army.
===>Why not include everyone else you disagree with, Dummkopf?
And chiropractors
and homeopaths, too, though their attention is limited to the smaller
questions.
===>Who else do you dislike?
It says: I'm all right and they're all wrong, and every difference
between us just goes to show how much more wrong they are.
===>You are not wrong,
you are just a NITWIT! -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
