| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Weatherwax" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:17:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ojm60l50ct4ieinpr7sqo7h2bf0rco8os@4ax.com...
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in
alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief. It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions upon
gentile converts.
--
Wax
..
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
24 Jun 2004 03:37:54 PM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cbf4ca$g7b$03$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cb9tp3$nth$04$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote
news:cb6osc$nqi$07$1@news.t-online.com...
Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself a carved image
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is on earth under it, or that is in the water
below.
I could never figure out why this did not apply to
images of Jesus. Some people consider this to be
a continuation of the first commandment
Christians distinguish between the OT and NT. Maybe
The Ten Commandments are not valid for them?
Nine of the Ten Commandments are mentioned in the
New Testament.
I can not remember which one is left out.
I have not read the thick book for a long time now - cannot
remember too much of it...
Exodus 20:17
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male
servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his
donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Coveting your neighbor' house is what makes
capitalism work.
Where I ask myself: What should one do with two
houses?
I don't covet my neighbor's house. Mine is paid for, and his
isn't.
Then - perhaps ... he covets your's?
Then I have caused my neighbor to sin. Does that make me a
sinner?
Oprah Winfry claims that she has never coveted her
neighbor's wife, and says that is the only commandment
she has never broken. I have never coveted my
neighbor's ox or donkey, but one neighbor does have
a girlfriend I covet (would that count?)
If she is his "property"...
He says she is.
Oh, oh. Sounds like slavery...
It seems to be voluntary servitude.
The expressions "male servant" and "female servant"
means slaves. It is odd that these "Commandments"
which are supposed to be our moral authority,
acknowledges the existence of slaves, but does
not speak out against slavery.
Ancient life wasn't easy. Too many wars and casualties
The losers weren't really lucky if they survived. Staying
alive meant loss of any possession and slavery.
The Bible condones all forms of slavery, whether the slave
was obtained through warfare, born a slave, or became a
slave through the inability to pay a dept.
It was usual everywhere in the known world as the Bible was
written, why should it be an exception? For that, you would
have to go some miles south-east, where the Bhudda lived...
No need to go that far. The Essenes were strongly opposed to
slavery. They refused to own any.
Good stuff for "Pastor Frank" and HIS philistine NGs. I see
the "love" drop from the carcass of a youngster cursing its
parents - does "love" leave a big red puddle on the floor?
Even Jesus agreed that the child who curses his father should
be put to death:
Matthew 15:4
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'
and 'Whoever insults his father or mother must be
put to death.'
His credo was based on the OT and he was a Rabbi - he
could not preach heresies. No one would have "purchased"
his message, if so.
That is true.
Paul of Tarsus discarded the Old Testament and based Christianity
upon Greek teachings.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
25 Jun 2004 05:20:55 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
Exodus 20:17
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male
servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his
donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Coveting your neighbor' house is what makes
capitalism work.
Where I ask myself: What should one do with two
houses?
I don't covet my neighbor's house. Mine is paid for, and his
isn't.
Then - perhaps ... he covets your's?
Then I have caused my neighbor to sin. Does that make me a
sinner?
I wouldn't care about that - you will get absolution
for sure... ;)
Oprah Winfry claims that she has never coveted her
neighbor's wife, and says that is the only commandment
she has never broken. I have never coveted my
neighbor's ox or donkey, but one neighbor does have
a girlfriend I covet (would that count?)
If she is his "property"...
He says she is.
Oh, oh. Sounds like slavery...
It seems to be voluntary servitude.
Depends on the ethical values, I guess.
The expressions "male servant" and "female servant"
means slaves. It is odd that these "Commandments"
which are supposed to be our moral authority,
acknowledges the existence of slaves, but does
not speak out against slavery.
Ancient life wasn't easy. Too many wars and casualties
The losers weren't really lucky if they survived. Staying
alive meant loss of any possession and slavery.
The Bible condones all forms of slavery, whether the slave
was obtained through warfare, born a slave, or became a
slave through the inability to pay a dept.
It was usual everywhere in the known world as the Bible was
written, why should it be an exception? For that, you would
have to go some miles south-east, where the Bhudda lived...
No need to go that far. The Essenes were strongly opposed to
slavery. They refused to own any.
Then I ask myself, why do some people say "Jesus was
an Essenian"? (Or is that Essene? It's difficult for
me to translate these special terms...)
Good stuff for "Pastor Frank" and HIS philistine NGs. I see
the "love" drop from the carcass of a youngster cursing its
parents - does "love" leave a big red puddle on the floor?
Even Jesus agreed that the child who curses his father should
be put to death:
Matthew 15:4
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'
and 'Whoever insults his father or mother must be
put to death.'
His credo was based on the OT and he was a Rabbi - he
could not preach heresies. No one would have "purchased"
his message, if so.
That is true.
Paul of Tarsus discarded the Old Testament and based Christianity
upon Greek teachings.
Officials of the churches will battle this statement
by all means.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
26 Jun 2004 03:24:44 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
Exodus 20:17
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male
servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his
donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Coveting your neighbor' house is what makes
capitalism work.
Where I ask myself: What should one do with two
houses?
I don't covet my neighbor's house. Mine is paid for, and his
isn't.
Then - perhaps ... he covets your's?
Then I have caused my neighbor to sin. Does that make me a
sinner?
I wouldn't care about that - you will get absolution
for sure... ;)
Oprah Winfry claims that she has never coveted her
neighbor's wife, and says that is the only commandment
she has never broken. I have never coveted my
neighbor's ox or donkey, but one neighbor does have
a girlfriend I covet (would that count?)
If she is his "property"...
He says she is.
Oh, oh. Sounds like slavery...
It seems to be voluntary servitude.
Depends on the ethical values, I guess.
The expressions "male servant" and "female servant"
means slaves. It is odd that these "Commandments"
which are supposed to be our moral authority,
acknowledges the existence of slaves, but does
not speak out against slavery.
Ancient life wasn't easy. Too many wars and casualties
The losers weren't really lucky if they survived. Staying
alive meant loss of any possession and slavery.
The Bible condones all forms of slavery, whether the slave
was obtained through warfare, born a slave, or became a
slave through the inability to pay a dept.
It was usual everywhere in the known world as the Bible was
written, why should it be an exception? For that, you would
have to go some miles south-east, where the Bhudda lived...
No need to go that far. The Essenes were strongly opposed to
slavery. They refused to own any.
Then I ask myself, why do some people say "Jesus was
an Essenian"? (Or is that Essene? It's difficult for
me to translate these special terms...)
Good stuff for "Pastor Frank" and HIS philistine NGs. I see
the "love" drop from the carcass of a youngster cursing its
parents - does "love" leave a big red puddle on the floor?
Even Jesus agreed that the child who curses his father should
be put to death:
Matthew 15:4
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'
and 'Whoever insults his father or mother must be
put to death.'
His credo was based on the OT and he was a Rabbi - he
could not preach heresies. No one would have "purchased"
his message, if so.
That is true.
Paul of Tarsus discarded the Old Testament and based Christianity
upon Greek teachings.
Officials of the churches will battle this statement
by all means.
===>He was never a "rabbi", either.
Nor even a Pharisee.
After all, he was in the service of the Sadducees (High Priest, etc.).
He picked up some of the doctrines of the Pharisees
(e.g. angels, resurrection, spirits, Holy Spirit, end-time, Judgment
Day,
etc.) only later, as more compatible with his Zoroastrian-based
Mithraistic
"Christos Cult". It is no coincidence, nor even surprising, that
Christianity
kept on borrowing more and more from the mystery religions as it was
growing even after Saul/Paul was gone (died or disappeared in Spain or
whatever), never available to be questioned about his great deception.
One of his disciples wrote in the name of "Peter" that the believers
must not lose faith; the resurrection, etc. will come sooner or later,
but they must see things from a divine perspective, after all, with
"God"
one day is like a thousand of our YEARS! ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
27 Jun 2004 11:19:27 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
His credo was based on the OT and he was a Rabbi - he
could not preach heresies. No one would have "purchased"
his message, if so.
That is true.
Paul of Tarsus discarded the Old Testament and based Christianity
upon Greek teachings.
Officials of the churches will battle this statement
by all means.
===>He was never a "rabbi", either.
I'm not sure, if Rabbi was a title like "priest" or "bishop"
we have nowadays or if it was a term for scribes in general.
Maybe you have some more info about it?
I've been reading a lot of texts by now, some of them stated
he was a Rabbi. At least - he had a higher education and was
familiar with the scriptures. AFAIK those "in the know" were
called Rabbis - the story of the 12 year old Jesus debatting
with the Pharisees implies he was a "privileged person", the
Pharisees did not discuss religious matters with everyone.
Nor even a Pharisee.
After all, he was in the service of the Sadducees (High Priest, etc.).
He picked up some of the doctrines of the Pharisees
(e.g. angels, resurrection, spirits, Holy Spirit, end-time, Judgment
Day,
etc.) only later, as more compatible with his Zoroastrian-based
Mithraistic
"Christos Cult". It is no coincidence, nor even surprising, that
Christianity
kept on borrowing more and more from the mystery religions as it was
growing even after Saul/Paul was gone (died or disappeared in Spain or
whatever), never available to be questioned about his great deception.
One of his disciples wrote in the name of "Peter" that the believers
must not lose faith; the resurrection, etc. will come sooner or later,
but they must see things from a divine perspective, after all, with
"God"
one day is like a thousand of our YEARS! ;-) -- L.
His "message" was influenced by most of the "main streams" -
the best way to reach all of them. He also fulfilled many of
the "prophecies" of the Jewish scriptures to get more atten-
tion. The circumstances matched the prophecies, so it was an
easy exercise to stage the foretold events.
The "resurrection" was controversial, many different stories
were told until the Nicean Council fixed the official credo.
Most "heresies" are based on a different point of view about
the God-like status of Jesus and the resurrection story...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
28 Jun 2004 02:01:06 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
His credo was based on the OT and he was a Rabbi - he
could not preach heresies. No one would have "purchased"
his message, if so.
That is true.
Paul of Tarsus discarded the Old Testament and based Christianity
upon Greek teachings.
Officials of the churches will battle this statement
by all means.
===>He was never a "rabbi", either.
I'm not sure, if Rabbi was a title like "priest" or "bishop"
we have nowadays or if it was a term for scribes in general.
Maybe you have some more info about it?
===>If we are still talking about Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
read THE MYTHMAKER by
Hyam Maccoby. -- L.
[SNIPALOT]
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
28 Jun 2004 06:03:20 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
His credo was based on the OT and he was a Rabbi - he
could not preach heresies. No one would have "purchased"
his message, if so.
That is true.
Paul of Tarsus discarded the Old Testament and based Christianity
upon Greek teachings.
Officials of the churches will battle this statement
by all means.
===>He was never a "rabbi", either.
I'm not sure, if Rabbi was a title like "priest" or "bishop"
we have nowadays or if it was a term for scribes in general.
Maybe you have some more info about it?
===>If we are still talking about Saul/Paul of Tarsus,
read THE MYTHMAKER by
Hyam Maccoby. -- L.
Reading some German texts now, I could come to the conclusion
Jesus never existed. Nevertheless - the _scientific Jesus_ is
treated as an (once) existing person.
This Jesus was a "terrorist" like Yassir Arafat is today - he
fought the Roman Empire in a Roman province called Palestine.
Exactly that was the reason why he was nailed to the cross. A
nice fact besides - neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem existed in
Jesus times. Both were build much later - for the pilgrims...
The term "Rabbi Yoshua" is mentioned on this page, too:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm>
It's a nice site, the links are worth a click.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
28 Jun 2004 06:28:23 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Reading some German texts now, I could come to the conclusion
Jesus never existed. Nevertheless - the _scientific Jesus_ is
treated as an (once) existing person.
This Jesus was a "terrorist" like Yassir Arafat is today - he
fought the Roman Empire in a Roman province called Palestine.
Exactly that was the reason why he was nailed to the cross.
===>If there was such a person,
this would be closest to the truth. I tend to think there was.
That is why Sheepherder keeps repeating that I see Jesus as
a failed revolutionary. Actually, he would have been a leader
of the Zealots and a wannabe Messiah a la king Cyrus.
(Not the Pauline "Christos" savior god, though). -- L.
A
nice fact besides - neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem existed in
Jesus times. Both were build much later - for the pilgrims...
The term "Rabbi Yoshua" is mentioned on this page, too:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm>
It's a nice site, the links are worth a click.
===>Yes, Maccoby seems to think Jesus did start out as a
Pharisaic rabbi, until he chose to act in the capacity of
what he considered to be the "Messiah", using certain
formulaic statements from the prophets, e.g. Zechariah 14
"And on that day there will no longer be traders
in the Temple of the LORD Almighty."
Zechariah 9:9
"Behold, your King comes to you;
He is uncompromisingly just and having salvation triumphant and
victorious, riding on a donkey..." etc. -- L.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 11:37:48 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Reading some German texts now, I could come to the conclusion
Jesus never existed. Nevertheless - the _scientific Jesus_ is
treated as an (once) existing person.
This Jesus was a "terrorist" like Yassir Arafat is today - he
fought the Roman Empire in a Roman province called Palestine.
Exactly that was the reason why he was nailed to the cross.
===>If there was such a person,
this would be closest to the truth. I tend to think there was.
That is why Sheepherder keeps repeating that I see Jesus as
a failed revolutionary. Actually, he would have been a leader
of the Zealots and a wannabe Messiah a la king Cyrus.
(Not the Pauline "Christos" savior god, though). -- L.
A
nice fact besides - neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem existed in
Jesus times. Both were build much later - for the pilgrims...
The term "Rabbi Yoshua" is mentioned on this page, too:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm>
It's a nice site, the links are worth a click.
===>Yes, Maccoby seems to think Jesus did start out as a
Pharisaic rabbi, until he chose to act in the capacity of
what he considered to be the "Messiah", using certain
formulaic statements from the prophets, e.g. Zechariah 14
"And on that day there will no longer be traders
in the Temple of the LORD Almighty."
Zechariah 9:9
"Behold, your King comes to you;
He is uncompromisingly just and having salvation triumphant and
victorious, riding on a donkey..." etc. -- L.
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 03:14:09 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Reading some German texts now, I could come to the conclusion
Jesus never existed. Nevertheless - the _scientific Jesus_ is
treated as an (once) existing person.
This Jesus was a "terrorist" like Yassir Arafat is today - he
fought the Roman Empire in a Roman province called Palestine.
Exactly that was the reason why he was nailed to the cross.
===>If there was such a person,
this would be closest to the truth. I tend to think there was.
That is why Sheepherder keeps repeating that I see Jesus as
a failed revolutionary. Actually, he would have been a leader
of the Zealots and a wannabe Messiah a la king Cyrus.
(Not the Pauline "Christos" savior god, though). -- L.
A
nice fact besides - neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem existed in
Jesus times. Both were build much later - for the pilgrims...
The term "Rabbi Yoshua" is mentioned on this page, too:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm>
It's a nice site, the links are worth a click.
===>Yes, Maccoby seems to think Jesus did start out as a
Pharisaic rabbi, until he chose to act in the capacity of
what he considered to be the "Messiah", using certain
formulaic statements from the prophets, e.g. Zechariah 14
"And on that day there will no longer be traders
in the Temple of the LORD Almighty."
Zechariah 9:9
"Behold, your King comes to you;
He is uncompromisingly just and having salvation triumphant and
victorious, riding on a donkey..." etc. -- L.
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
===>Quite likely the man actually believed that he could force
the "hand of God" by following prophet-prescribed actions and
provoking a clash between himself and the Romans. Zechariah
says that YHWH himself would land on the Mount f Olives and
fight against the enemy as he did in the "olden days" (with Moses and
Joshua). -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 06:25:01 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Reading some German texts now, I could come to the conclusion
Jesus never existed. Nevertheless - the _scientific Jesus_ is
treated as an (once) existing person.
This Jesus was a "terrorist" like Yassir Arafat is today - he
fought the Roman Empire in a Roman province called Palestine.
Exactly that was the reason why he was nailed to the cross.
===>If there was such a person,
this would be closest to the truth. I tend to think there was.
That is why Sheepherder keeps repeating that I see Jesus as
a failed revolutionary. Actually, he would have been a leader
of the Zealots and a wannabe Messiah a la king Cyrus.
(Not the Pauline "Christos" savior god, though). -- L.
A
nice fact besides - neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem existed in
Jesus times. Both were build much later - for the pilgrims...
The term "Rabbi Yoshua" is mentioned on this page, too:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm>
It's a nice site, the links are worth a click.
===>Yes, Maccoby seems to think Jesus did start out as a
Pharisaic rabbi, until he chose to act in the capacity of
what he considered to be the "Messiah", using certain
formulaic statements from the prophets, e.g. Zechariah 14
"And on that day there will no longer be traders
in the Temple of the LORD Almighty."
Zechariah 9:9
"Behold, your King comes to you;
He is uncompromisingly just and having salvation triumphant and
victorious, riding on a donkey..." etc. -- L.
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
===>Quite likely the man actually believed that he could force
the "hand of God" by following prophet-prescribed actions and
provoking a clash between himself and the Romans. Zechariah
says that YHWH himself would land on the Mount f Olives and
fight against the enemy as he did in the "olden days" (with Moses and
Joshua). -- L.
Ancient people had weird ideas, no doubt. I think, Jesus
had detailed plans for the Jewish people. He wasn't just
another weirdo - probably very smart and calculating...
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jul 2004 01:18:06 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
[SNIPALOT]
Reading some German texts now, I could come to the conclusion
Jesus never existed. Nevertheless - the _scientific Jesus_ is
treated as an (once) existing person.
This Jesus was a "terrorist" like Yassir Arafat is today - he
fought the Roman Empire in a Roman province called Palestine.
Exactly that was the reason why he was nailed to the cross.
===>If there was such a person,
this would be closest to the truth. I tend to think there was.
That is why Sheepherder keeps repeating that I see Jesus as
a failed revolutionary. Actually, he would have been a leader
of the Zealots and a wannabe Messiah a la king Cyrus.
(Not the Pauline "Christos" savior god, though). -- L.
A
nice fact besides - neither Nazareth nor Bethlehem existed in
Jesus times. Both were build much later - for the pilgrims...
The term "Rabbi Yoshua" is mentioned on this page, too:
<http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm>
It's a nice site, the links are worth a click.
===>Yes, Maccoby seems to think Jesus did start out as a
Pharisaic rabbi, until he chose to act in the capacity of
what he considered to be the "Messiah", using certain
formulaic statements from the prophets, e.g. Zechariah 14
"And on that day there will no longer be traders
in the Temple of the LORD Almighty."
Zechariah 9:9
"Behold, your King comes to you;
He is uncompromisingly just and having salvation triumphant and
victorious, riding on a donkey..." etc. -- L.
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
===>Quite likely the man actually believed that he could force
the "hand of God" by following prophet-prescribed actions and
provoking a clash between himself and the Romans. Zechariah
says that YHWH himself would land on the Mount f Olives and
fight against the enemy as he did in the "olden days" (with Moses and
Joshua). -- L.
Ancient people had weird ideas, no doubt. I think, Jesus
had detailed plans for the Jewish people. He wasn't just
another weirdo - probably very smart and calculating...
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
===>I just gave a talk on Zarathustra as
the originator of all Near-Eastern religions: Zoroasrianism,
Zurvanism, Judaism, Mithraism, Manicheism, Bogumilism,
Islam, etc., etc.
Read IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA by Paul Kriwaczek.
Very interesting! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
02 Jul 2004 02:14:07 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
<cleaning up...>
bv_schornak wrote:
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
===>I just gave a talk on Zarathustra as
the originator of all Near-Eastern religions: Zoroasrianism,
Zurvanism, Judaism, Mithraism, Manicheism, Bogumilism,
Islam, etc., etc.
Read IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA by Paul Kriwaczek.
Very interesting! -- L.
I think the Catharists were influenced by Zarathustra, too.
They thought of two Gods - the God of the Bible (a material
God = Rex Mundi = evil itself) and the good God (a "spirit"
with no material manifestation).
One more link about the "Rabbi status" of Jesus:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html>
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
02 Jul 2004 07:14:32 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
<cleaning up...>
bv_schornak wrote:
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
===>I just gave a talk on Zarathustra as
the originator of all Near-Eastern religions: Zoroasrianism,
Zurvanism, Judaism, Mithraism, Manicheism, Bogumilism,
Islam, etc., etc.
Read IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA by Paul Kriwaczek.
Very interesting! -- L.
I think the Catharists were influenced by Zarathustra, too.
===>Of course. I neglected to mention them. They were closely
related to the BOGUMILS.
They thought of two Gods - the God of the Bible (a material
God = Rex Mundi = evil itself) and the good God (a "spirit"
with no material manifestation).
===>Correct.
One more link about the "Rabbi status" of Jesus:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html>
===>A good article.
Hyam Maccoby treats this very well in his books, showing that Jesus
probably started out as a Pharisaic rabbi, before he took on the role of
"messiah". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Jul 2004 05:39:06 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
<cleaning up...>
bv_schornak wrote:
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
===>I just gave a talk on Zarathustra as
the originator of all Near-Eastern religions: Zoroasrianism,
Zurvanism, Judaism, Mithraism, Manicheism, Bogumilism,
Islam, etc., etc.
Read IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA by Paul Kriwaczek.
Very interesting! -- L.
I think the Catharists were influenced by Zarathustra, too.
===>Of course. I neglected to mention them. They were closely
related to the BOGUMILS.
I heard about, yes. It was the most developed culture
in an Europe filled with Barbarians. Their wealth and
prosperity was a thorn in the eye of the RCC, so they
terminated this threat with the usual brutality.
"Kill them all! God will know who is a believer..."
"We didn't care about age, gender or profession..."
[RCC officials about the crusades in the Languedoc. A
funny pope: He who ordered the crusades took the name
"Innocent"...]
They thought of two Gods - the God of the Bible (a material
God = Rex Mundi = evil itself) and the good God (a "spirit"
with no material manifestation).
===>Correct.
One more link about the "Rabbi status" of Jesus:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html>
===>A good article.
Hyam Maccoby treats this very well in his books, showing that Jesus
probably started out as a Pharisaic rabbi, before he took on the role of
"messiah". -- L.
If you read the Dead Sea Scrolls - he probably was in
touch with the sect of the Essenes, as well. A lot of
his words are influenced by their beliefs. Palestine,
as a part of the Near-East was a melting pot of ideas
and religious movements. Buddhists came to Alexandria
and there must have been an exchange in the other di-
rection. The results (religion) only was depending on
a people's mentality. Many different streams occured,
some survived until today.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Jul 2004 03:17:01 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
<cleaning up...>
bv_schornak wrote:
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
===>I just gave a talk on Zarathustra as
the originator of all Near-Eastern religions: Zoroasrianism,
Zurvanism, Judaism, Mithraism, Manicheism, Bogumilism,
Islam, etc., etc.
Read IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA by Paul Kriwaczek.
Very interesting! -- L.
I think the Catharists were influenced by Zarathustra, too.
===>Of course. I neglected to mention them. They were closely
related to the BOGUMILS.
I heard about, yes. It was the most developed culture
in an Europe filled with Barbarians. Their wealth and
prosperity was a thorn in the eye of the RCC, so they
terminated this threat with the usual brutality.
"Kill them all! God will know who is a believer..."
"We didn't care about age, gender or profession..."
[RCC officials about the crusades in the Languedoc. A
funny pope: He who ordered the crusades took the name
"Innocent"...]
They thought of two Gods - the God of the Bible (a material
God = Rex Mundi = evil itself) and the good God (a "spirit"
with no material manifestation).
===>Correct.
One more link about the "Rabbi status" of Jesus:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html>
===>A good article.
Hyam Maccoby treats this very well in his books, showing that Jesus
probably started out as a Pharisaic rabbi, before he took on the role of
"messiah". -- L.
If you read the Dead Sea Scrolls - he probably was in
touch with the sect of the Essenes, as well. A lot of
his words are influenced by their beliefs.
===>The Essenes are never mentioned in the Bible, but
more than likely the Jesus people (Nazoreans) were their
more militant offshoot.
JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS is a good analysis of
the connections.
Palestine,
as a part of the Near-East was a melting pot of ideas
and religious movements. Buddhists came to Alexandria
and there must have been an exchange in the other di-
rection. The results (religion) only was depending on
a people's mentality. Many different streams occured,
some survived until today.
===>Exactly.
Some people still think of themselves as "Ebionites",
a name the Qumran people and the Jamesians
in Jerusalem used for themselves (The Poor). -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
04 Jul 2004 06:38:23 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
<cleaning up...>
bv_schornak wrote:
I am reading some texts about Mithras (Zoroaster) at the
moment, it's like an ancient version of the Bible. Small
amounts of Mithras' worshippers still exist - maybe they
are the only _real_ Christians?
===>I just gave a talk on Zarathustra as
the originator of all Near-Eastern religions: Zoroasrianism,
Zurvanism, Judaism, Mithraism, Manicheism, Bogumilism,
Islam, etc., etc.
Read IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA by Paul Kriwaczek.
Very interesting! -- L.
I think the Catharists were influenced by Zarathustra, too.
===>Of course. I neglected to mention them. They were closely
related to the BOGUMILS.
I heard about, yes. It was the most developed culture
in an Europe filled with Barbarians. Their wealth and
prosperity was a thorn in the eye of the RCC, so they
terminated this threat with the usual brutality.
"Kill them all! God will know who is a believer..."
"We didn't care about age, gender or profession..."
[RCC officials about the crusades in the Languedoc. A
funny pope: He who ordered the crusades took the name
"Innocent"...]
They thought of two Gods - the God of the Bible (a material
God = Rex Mundi = evil itself) and the good God (a "spirit"
with no material manifestation).
===>Correct.
One more link about the "Rabbi status" of Jesus:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/rabbi.html>
===>A good article.
Hyam Maccoby treats this very well in his books, showing that Jesus
probably started out as a Pharisaic rabbi, before he took on the role of
"messiah". -- L.
If you read the Dead Sea Scrolls - he probably was in
touch with the sect of the Essenes, as well. A lot of
his words are influenced by their beliefs.
===>The Essenes are never mentioned in the Bible, but
more than likely the Jesus people (Nazoreans) were their
more militant offshoot.
JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS is a good analysis of
the connections.
Reading a little further. The Essenes existed long before
Jesus' times (250 B.C. and up). Nazoreans (or Sadducees?)
were one part of this movement. With Jesus' teachings (he
probably was a Rabbi; at least, he preached to follow the
Torah) the Ebionites came up. In his later days (for sure
after his "death" (see my reply to Albert)) his followers
split up in two parts. The followers of his "family" (the
core around several brothers, Matthew, etc.) didn't leave
Jerusalem, the remaining parts left and went to Rome. The
branch in Rome was "apostate", they turned Jesus' message
into something new - convenient for the survival in Rome.
Writings of Origenes and Ireneus mention this splitting -
but they (of course!) didn't mention the facts. Maybe the
evidence for the splitting was destroyed by early leaders
of the Roman Branch? Wouldn't have been too difficult for
them - the Romans did the work during the Jewish revolts.
Palestine,
as a part of the Near-East was a melting pot of ideas
and religious movements. Buddhists came to Alexandria
and there must have been an exchange in the other di-
rection. The results (religion) only was depending on
a people's mentality. Many different streams occured,
some survived until today.
===>Exactly.
Some people still think of themselves as "Ebionites",
a name the Qumran people and the Jamesians
in Jerusalem used for themselves (The Poor). -- L.
Yes. And they were strictly following the Torah. That is:
The Jewish religion, modified in some parts. Followers of
"Gentile" origin were accepted if they "converted" to the
Jewish credo, only.
Still doing some research...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
05 Jul 2004 03:47:18 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
< CLIP >
===>Exactly.
Some people still think of themselves as "Ebionites",
a name the Qumran people and the Jamesians
in Jerusalem used for themselves (The Poor). -- L.
Paul himself refers to the Jerusalem assembly as "the Poor"
(Romans 15:26, Galatians 2:10.) However, in this case the term
literally applied.
The Essene communities referred to themselves as "the poor"
because no member of their group owned property. Everything was
owned in common. But they did have property, and they supported
themselves by farming the land and sharing the produce.
In Acts we find the members of the Jerusalem assembly trying to
imitate the Essenes, but they sell all their belongings and share
the money with each other (Acts 4:32-37.) However, by selling
the land, they sold their source of income. Once the money was
gone, they had to depend on getting more converts.
The story of Ananias and Saphhira is obviously invented to
discourage members from holding back their property (Acts
5:1-11.) Other more shortages arose, and members began
complaining that they were not getting their full share. A
select group of "deacons" were elected to see to the
distribution of food (Acts 6:1-6.)
The problem grew so great that in Acts 11:27 we find a group of
"prophets"(?) from Jerusalem going to Antioch and asking for
money. According to the story, the prophet Agabus said that a
severe famine was about to come about over the entire world,
therefore the believers in Antioch had to send relief to the
community in Jerusalem.
The story is hardly logical. Telling the believers in Antioch
that a famine was coming would only have caused them to hold on
to whatever money they had in anticipation of their own need.
The plain fact is that the Jerusalem assembly was begging for
food.
Paul was elected to carry the money to Jerusalem. This was
Paul's second visit to Jerusalem since his conversion. According
to Acts, this happened in the time of Claudius (41-54 c.e.)
There was a famine from 45-48 c.e., but Paul's second visit had
to be at a later time because Paul states that it was fourteen
years after his first visit, and Paul's first visit was three
years after his conversion (Acts 9:26-30, 11:30, Galatians 1:18,
2:1.) Thus, if the second visit was in 45 c.e., then his
conversion would have had to have been in 31 c.e. which is prior
to most estimates for the death of Jesus.
In Roman's, written between 54-58 c.e. Paul is still collecting
money "for the poor". By that time the collection could have had
nothing to do with the famine. The fact is that the followers in
Jerusalem had sold everything they own, spent the money, and were
starving. Selling their property may have gotten the followers
through the famine, but it could not get them through normal
times.
Most scholars hold that Paul's visit in Galatians 2:1 was the
occasion of the "Jerusalem Council" (Acts 15,) and that Paul
merely forgot about his earlier visit in Acts 11:30 where he
brought the relief money. On the other hand, I regard the
"Jerusalem Council" passage to be a composite of other meetings,
and not a record of a separate visit by Paul.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 Jun 2004 11:43:38 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
bv_schornak wrote:
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
===>Quite likely the man actually believed that he could
force the "hand of God" by following prophet-prescribed
actions and provoking a clash between himself and the
Romans. Zechariah says that YHWH himself would land
on the Mount f Olives and fight against the enemy as he
did in the "olden days" (with Moses and Joshua). -- L.
Therefore, following the last supper, Jesus led his disciples to
the Mount of Olives and prayed for the Day of the Lord.
However, YHWH did not land on the Mount of Olives with his army.
Instead, Jesus was arrested, tried and executed.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jul 2004 01:35:02 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
bv_schornak wrote:
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
===>Quite likely the man actually believed that he could
force the "hand of God" by following prophet-prescribed
actions and provoking a clash between himself and the
Romans. Zechariah says that YHWH himself would land
on the Mount f Olives and fight against the enemy as he
did in the "olden days" (with Moses and Joshua). -- L.
Therefore, following the last supper, Jesus led his disciples to
the Mount of Olives and prayed for the Day of the Lord.
However, YHWH did not land on the Mount of Olives with his army.
Instead, Jesus was arrested, tried and executed.
===So, with his last words he questioned why "God" had
forsaken him, when he did everything according to script. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jul 2004 09:03:43 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libetarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
bv_schornak wrote:
That's what the naked core of the biblical texts suggests.
It was a spectacle, cleverly staged for some years.
===>Quite likely the man actually believed that he could
force the "hand of God" by following prophet-prescribed
actions and provoking a clash between himself and the
Romans. Zechariah says that YHWH himself would land
on the Mount f Olives and fight against the enemy as he
did in the "olden days" (with Moses and Joshua). -- L.
Therefore, following the last supper, Jesus led his disciples to
the Mount of Olives and prayed for the Day of the Lord.
However, YHWH did not land on the Mount of Olives with his army.
Instead, Jesus was arrested, tried and executed.
Today they would launch a missile from a helicopter
to get rid of him...
Hm, "YHWH did not _land_ ..." - reminds me of those
stories telling "Jesus was an alien"... ;)
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Your Name Here=Harvey" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
23 Jun 2004 06:25:51 PM |
|
|
In article <g3jCc.20521$OB3.7906@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
weatherwax@worldnet.net says...
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cb9tp3$nth$04$1@news.t-online.com...
Weatherwax wrote:
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:cb6osc$nqi$07$1@news.t-online.com...
The Ten Commandments were handed over by HIM
(an awful Gothic/Metal band, BTW), they say. The
other laws were derived from Hammurabi's laws. Since
they couldn't admit the true origin, they said God was
responsible for those laws.
Reading them - not too much of "Pastor Frank's" "love"
there (except we assume that death penalty is "love").
Not too much of democracy or natural rights either.
Exodus 20:3
You shall have no other gods before me.
The very first Commandment is in direct opposition to
the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
Quetzalcoatl and Anubis could be your second and third Gods
and you still would follow HIS (nice jeans!) credo?
Exodus 20:4
You shall not make for yourself a carved image
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is on earth under it, or that is in the water
below.
I could never figure out why this did not apply to images of
Jesus. Some people consider this to be a continuation of the
first commandment
Christians distinguish between the OT and NT. Maybe
The Ten Commandments are not valid for them?
Nine of the Ten Commandments are mentioned in the New Testament.
I can not remember which one is left out.
Exodus 20
20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them,
for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third
and fourth generations to those who hate me, 20:6
but showing faithful love to thousands belonging to
those who love me and to those who keep my
commandments.
These verses are normally ommitted in a list of the Ten
Commandments. They reveal the Biblical meaning of
"Freedom of Religion", i.e. you have none. Punishing
the children to the third and fourth generations is unjust
by even the Bible's standard.
Good bye to Quetzalcoatl and Anubis. How could
these people survive the hatred of a "jealous God"?
Exodus 20:7 You shall not take the name of the Lord
your God in vain.
One of my high school English teachers explained that
this only applies profanity. That is expressions like
"*****", "Go to hell", or "Jesus H. Christ". We
were not allowed to use such words in our essays.
However, expressions such as "***** you", "up your *****"
and "bull *****" are obsceneties, not profanities, and he
permitted us to use them.
"Rules are there to be broken!" said the Anarch(r)ist...
Exodus 20:8
Remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it.
Christians just can't the Sabbath straight.
They worship Sunday, the day of Sol Invictus (Constantine's
God). They also worship the most holy day of Sol Invictus -
the winter solstice (25th of December).
Exodus 20:12
Honor your father and your mother, that your days
may be long in the land the LORD your God is giving
to you.
The Bible even includes a death sentence upon children
who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9 "If anyone curses
his father and mother he must be put to death.")
Exodus 20
20:13 You shall not kill.
20:14 You shall not commit adultery.
20:15 You shall not steal.
20:16 You shall not give false testimony against
your neighbor.
There is nothing unusual about these commandments.
Similar rules exists in every religion.
These are "mundane" laws (not bound to a religion).
Exodus 20:17
You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You
shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male
servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his
donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Coveting your neighbor' house is what makes
capitalism work.
Where I ask myself: What should one do with two houses?
I don't covet my neighbor's house. Mine is paid for, and his
isn't.
Oprah Winfry claims that she has never coveted her
neighbor's wife, and says that is the only commandment
she has never broken. I have never coveted my neighbor's
ox or donkey, but one neighbor does have a girlfriend I
covet (would that count?)
If she is his "property"...
He says she is.
The expressions "male servant" and "female servant"
means slaves. It is odd that these "Commandments"
which are supposed to be our moral authority,
acknowledges the existence of slaves, but does
not speak out against slavery.
Ancient life wasn't easy. Too many wars and casualties. The
losers weren't really lucky if they survived. Staying alive
meant loss of any possession and slavery.
The Bible condones all forms of slavery, whether the slave was
obtained through warfare, born a slave, or became a slave through
the inability to pay a dept.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
--
Good stuff for "Pastor Frank" and HIS philistine NGs. I see
the "love" drop from the carcass of a youngster cursing its
parents - does "love" leave a big red puddle on the floor?
Even Jesus agreed that the child who curses his father should be
put to death:
If that is indeed the case,
Matthew 15:4
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'
and 'Whoever insults his father or mother must be
put to death.'
--
Wax
then that may indeed explain why this world is so hell bent on
self destruction - as anyone would have insulted each other, at
some time or another.
I don't believe in such a god - a war mongering, destructive and
murderous god, that is forever punishing mankind, etc.
And who ever believes in such a god, is indeed a fool.
I would guess.
Harvey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "-Hector-" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
20 Jun 2004 01:35:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:37 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
<<recused for prior posting>>
Listenin' to Audio Adrenalin,
Hector
Why do we have to _justify_ our natural right of being
free from suppression and influence of anyone?
Because we will always have those that will make a case for
the necessity of rigid leadership. "The Old Oligarch" is a good read,
too, and may provide some insight into this mindset.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
Hankering for candid yams,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
20 Jun 2004 03:45:32 PM |
|
|
-Hector- wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:37 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
<<recused for prior posting>>
Why do we have to _justify_ our natural right of being
free from suppression and influence of anyone?
Because we will always have those that will make a case for
the necessity of rigid leadership. "The Old Oligarch" is a good read,
too, and may provide some insight into this mindset.
Ok, makes sense. Oligarchy is "rulership of the community" in
its basic form?
Hankering for candid yams,
Hector
:)
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "-Hector-" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
20 Jun 2004 03:29:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:45:32 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:37 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
<<recused for prior posting>>
Why do we have to _justify_ our natural right of being
free from suppression and influence of anyone?
Because we will always have those that will make a case for
the necessity of rigid leadership. "The Old Oligarch" is a good read,
too, and may provide some insight into this mindset.
Ok, makes sense. Oligarchy is "rulership of the community" in
its basic form?
It's been years since I've read the piece and I inaccurately
remembered it to be more voluminous than it is. I 'googled' for it
and I am inserting the link to it here. You are right, though -
Oligarchy is rule by the elite, if I do not remember the definition
incorrectly.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/424pol-athens.html
Enjoy,
Hector
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
21 Jun 2004 11:44:06 AM |
|
|
-Hector- wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:45:32 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:37 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
<<recused for prior posting>>
Why do we have to _justify_ our natural right of being
free from suppression and influence of anyone?
Because we will always have those that will make a case for
the necessity of rigid leadership. "The Old Oligarch" is a good read,
too, and may provide some insight into this mindset.
Ok, makes sense. Oligarchy is "rulership of the community" in
its basic form?
It's been years since I've read the piece and I inaccurately
remembered it to be more voluminous than it is. I 'googled' for it
and I am inserting the link to it here. You are right, though -
Oligarchy is rule by the elite, if I do not remember the definition
incorrectly.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/424pol-athens.html
Thanks for the link. Oligarchy is a kind of dictatorship -
as you said. I mismatched it with direct democracy - where
decisions are made by all people.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
21 Jun 2004 11:07:17 AM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 21:45:32 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:44:37 +0100, bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de>
wrote:
<<recused for prior posting>>
Why do we have to _justify_ our natural right of being
free from suppression and influence of anyone?
Because we will always have those that will make a case for
the necessity of rigid leadership. "The Old Oligarch" is a good read,
too, and may provide some insight into this mindset.
Ok, makes sense. Oligarchy is "rulership of the community" in
its basic form?
It's been years since I've read the piece and I inaccurately
remembered it to be more voluminous than it is. I 'googled' for it
and I am inserting the link to it here. You are right, though -
Oligarchy is rule by the elite, if I do not remember the definition
incorrectly.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/424pol-athens.html
Thanks for the link. Oligarchy is a kind of dictatorship -
as you said. I mismatched it with direct democracy - where
decisions are made by all people.
===>Without strong laws (e.g. Bill of Rights) to restrain government
and protect minorities and individuals from a majority influenced by
demagogic wolves, democracy can be a very dangerous thing,
as illustrated e.g. in Nazi Germany.
And then the question is, who will enforce those laws? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Was Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
21 Jun 2004 03:08:44 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in >
bv_schornak wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote:
-Hector- wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote:
<<recused for prior posting>>
Why do we have to _justify_ our natural right of being
free from suppression and influence of anyone?
Because we will always have those that will make
a case for the necessity of rigid leadership. "The
Old Oligarch" is a good read, too, and may provide
some insight into this mindset.
Ok, makes sense. Oligarchy is "rulership of the
community" in its basic form?
It's been years since I've read the piece and I
inaccurately remembered it to be more voluminous
than it is. I 'googled' for it and I am inserting the link
to it here. You are right, though - Oligarchy is rule
by the elite, if I do not remember the definition
incorrectly.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/424pol-athens.html
Thanks for the link. Oligarchy is a kind of dictatorship -
as you said. I mismatched it with direct democracy - where
decisions are made by all people.
===>Without strong | | | | | | |
