9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

...insulting to God as well? So, your concept of God assigns 'him' an ego that can be bruised? As the Hindu’s say, "Beyond names and forms. No tongue has soiled it, no word has reached it."

I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm trying to help you become aware of the baggage you've picked up from your culture. We all have some. Soul-searching means becoming aware of it.

The scholarship of comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism can help you see beyond the borders of your culture, your gender, your era, and your psychological disposition.



👣

originally posted by: BlueMule

...insulting to God as well? So, your concept of God assigns 'him' an ego that can be bruised? As the Hindu’s say, "Beyond names and forms. No tongue has soiled it, no word has reached it."

That's my ego to be fair, maybe that'll piss him off. Hinduism seems like a good religion, I've known many Hindus in my time and they've always been really nice.

I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm trying to help you become aware of the baggage you've picked up from your culture. We all have some. Soul-searching means becoming aware of it.

It's just the picking on trivial things which gets me, I see it too much around here. But...you are helping me at the same time, I'm learning and I appreciate this.

The scholarship of comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism can help you see beyond the borders of your culture, your gender, your era, and your psychological disposition.

The trouble is with this is that I'll probably end up with conflicting ideas and I'm confused enough as it is. I know that I'll never be able to perfectly define a religion or find absolute harmony so there's little point in me going on a never-ending journey into transcendence. Funny thing is, I wasn't even religious 6 months ago but things started happening.

originally posted by: chuck258
You are citing a Left Wing Liberal news source that has a history of posting Anti Christian stories and expect us to believe what they think about Jesus is more true than hundreds of years of study of Christianity?


The article also doesn't give one sliver of solid proof, it cites an unconfirmed gospel, guesses his height because other men of the time were shorter (I guess Abraham Lincoln and George Washington must have been no more than 5'6 by that definition), tries to claim he wasn't put up on a cross even though they checked his hands for the wounds, etc.

Find a site that isn't left wing and obviously Anti Christian that offers solid proof instead of guesses from Progressives. This whole story is unreliable.

Forgive me for being presumptuous, but it sounds like you can't refute the article, so you are attacking the source instead.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
Funny thing is, I wasn't even religious 6 months ago but things started happening.

Then I suggest you forget everything you think you know and pick up a book like this.

www.amazon.com...

👣

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: ~Lucidity

#3

The word "cross" in the New Testament comes from the Greek word stauros. The study of word origins shows that stauros simply means "stake" or "pole."

IF this is true every single cross with Jesus on it that has ever been made and venerated, is essentially idolatry, as this cross is imported from pagan ideology and never happened.

Hmmmm, I wonder who was responsible for that ?

Starred. The cross that most revere is more likely a representation of Tammuz than Christ. Christianity IS paganism.

If Christianity were pagan, it would be a huge step up.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
a reply to: BlueMule

Why are you being all semantic about things? You're just looking for something to pick on.

English does not use a neuter and as such I must be selective with regards to grammatical gender. I don't think I have ever seen God, in either Christianity or Islam, being referred to in the feminine sense.

Of course you haven't. The Abrahamic religions are patriarchal. The question is why you would buy into that.

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio
originally posted by: BlueMule

...insulting to God as well? So, your concept of God assigns 'him' an ego that can be bruised? As the Hindu’s say, "Beyond names and forms. No tongue has soiled it, no word has reached it."

That's my ego to be fair, maybe that'll piss him off. Hinduism seems like a good religion, I've known many Hindus in my time and they've always been really nice.

I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm trying to help you become aware of the baggage you've picked up from your culture. We all have some. Soul-searching means becoming aware of it.

It's just the picking on trivial things which gets me, I see it too much around here. But...you are helping me at the same time, I'm learning and I appreciate this.

The scholarship of comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism can help you see beyond the borders of your culture, your gender, your era, and your psychological disposition.

The trouble is with this is that I'll probably end up with conflicting ideas and I'm confused enough as it is. I know that I'll never be able to perfectly define a religion or find absolute harmony so there's little point in me going on a never-ending journey into transcendence. Funny thing is, I wasn't even religious 6 months ago but things started happening.

How is the notion that the deity is male trivial? And don't tell me the Abrahamic deity is genderless as presented by the three Abrahamic religions.

Maybe conflicting ideas are a good thing because that will force you to think for yourself. Ever consider that?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Ok I'm back so, no one really replied, but I have two things that have to be answered, when did the letter J come into play? two figures that have to be filled in historically without a J, it's ESUS and Osephus the other choice would be Serapis, a made up God or ESUS of Nazareth, there technically was not and could not be a Jesus... a figure of another name, yes but lets look at the letter J for all it is worth, then wisdom shall truly begin to explain the lie.

a reply to: Tangerine

God is often referred to by masculine pronouns, not necessarily implying that the speaker believes God to be male.

I do not regard God as having a gender, I don't need to explain this.

Are you saying that God in Judaism is the same as in Christianity and Islam?

I have always been a free-thinker and always will be.
 

a reply to: VigiliaProcuratio

Are you saying that God in Judaism is the same as in Christianity and Islam?

The "People of the Book" - yes - it's all the same "God". Just in Judaism and Islam there is no 'trinity.'
It's just "God." A 'father figure.'

Regardless of disbelief....
God asked for Isaac's death. Abram obliged. The beginning of the ultimate DEBT.
So... pay day came on day..... and it was Jesus who dealt the mighty hand of God.
Settled....

Now... believe and he shall believe in you.
Sin too was a given factor for this death... as Abram was in sin too.

Cleanse the mind and the body and be well with Jesus........... he endured it for all of us.

a reply to: Tangerine

Bart Erhman says there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus ever lived. Is that fairly compelling for you?

Not quite what he said. He believes the gospel authors themselves are evidence. Gospel of Mark and Paul's writings were affiliated with eye witness testimony. That is indirectly 'contemporaneous documentation'. They got their info from people who were there. Then there are the non-religous outside sources. That's his viewpoint. I never said mine was wholly dependent on his.

To answer your question though; no that's not compelling enough for me.

Again. I feel the need to bring it up. I am not arguing for anything more than a 'historical Jesus'. I am not arguing for the mythological Jesus that religions worship.

Either way. This is rather inconsequential.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Tangerine

Bart Erhman says there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus ever lived. Is that fairly compelling for you?

Not quite what he said. He believes the gospel authors themselves are evidence. Gospel of Mark and Paul's writings were affiliated with eye witness testimony. That is indirectly 'contemporaneous documentation'. Then there are the non-religous outside sources. That's his viewpoint. I never said mine was wholly dependent on his.

To answer your question though; no that's not compelling enough for me.

This is what Ehrman said, "... there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true. Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources."

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living. His writings are absolutely not contemporaneous documentation of Jesus living.

Which eyewitness to Jesus living wrote the Gospel of Mark?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Tangerine

Bart Erhman says there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus ever lived. Is that fairly compelling for you?

Not quite what he said. He believes the gospel authors themselves are evidence. Gospel of Mark and Paul's writings were affiliated with eye witness testimony. That is indirectly 'contemporaneous documentation'. They got their info from people who were there. Then there are the non-religous outside sources. That's his viewpoint. I never said mine was wholly dependent on his.

What reason do we have, apart from Christian bias, to conclude that any of the gospels were written in the 1st century? One or more of them might have been, but is there any reason to be sure they weren't written much later (2nd century)?

a reply to: Tangerine

This is what Ehrman said, "... there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed

Right. I wouldn't argue. Just as there isn't physical proof for many historical figures we believe existed.

There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true.

I read this earlier as a rebuttal to you. I bring it up again. It is understood that Socrates didn't write anything directly. Did he exist? Why? Because others talked about him?

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

I never claimed Paul did! Paul claimed he met with James and Peter. I said indirect affiliation with eye-witness testimony. This is canonical. So if you dismiss that then pray tell what sources do you draw upon yourself to say what Paul said?

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What reason do we have, apart from Christian bias, to conclude that any of the gospels were written in the 1st century?

Well whatever bias I posses it's not Christian. Or any religion. I am a passionate antitheist.

As I understood it the first gospel was thought to be written before 100 AD.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

What reason do we have, apart from Christian bias, to conclude that any of the gospels were written in the 1st century?

Well whatever bias I posses it's not Christian. Or any religion. I am a passionate antitheist.

As I understood it the first gospel was thought to be written before 100 AD.

I understand you're not religious. Though the consensus of "academics" that apply "probable" dates to such things, most certainly are overwhelmingly Christian (they often double as clergy). Just wondering if you had any thoughts on why it would necessarily have been written so early?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy


I read this earlier as a rebuttal to you. I bring it up again. It is understood that Socrates didn't write anything directly. Did he exist? Why? Because others talked about him?

I wouldn't necessarily argue if you wanted to believe that. Though what we know of Socrates comes from people who were either contemporaries or students. We know a lot more about the life of Socrates (things that we would expect from from a real historical person, from people who knew him) than we do of Jesus (we know really nothing of Jesus at all this way). Even the events of the gospels are so extremely unlikely they are probably myth. We have basically nothing about Jesus that would really indicate anyone knew him personally.

We also have contemporary mention of Socrates in plays that were written during his life time.

There really is no comparison.

I don't think it's possible to have any doubts about Socrates, yet still see Jesus as even having the possibility of being a historical figure.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

We also have contemporary mention of Socrates in plays that were written during his life time.

There really is no comparison.

I don't get it, man.

Never mind the mythical overlay, why is the mention of Jesus in those gospels, and the non-religious sources, vacuous?

Are these historical figures truly being held under similar scrutiny? I invoke any historical figure here per Tangerine's post and his appeal to anthropological evidence to substantiate said existence.

Also which plays do you refer to?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Tangerine

This is what Ehrman said, "... there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed

Right. I wouldn't argue. Just as there isn't physical proof for many historical figures we believe existed.

There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true.

I read this earlier as a rebuttal to you. I bring it up again. It is understood that Socrates didn't write anything directly. Did he exist? Why? Because others talked about him?

Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

I never claimed Paul did! Paul claimed he met with James and Peter. I said indirect affiliation with eye-witness testimony. This is canonical. So if you dismiss that then pray tell what sources do you draw upon yourself to say what Paul said?

"...just as there isn't physical proof for many historical figures we believe existed." Believe is the key word. I can claim I met with Frodo's brother. Where's the proof? Indirect affiliation with eye-witness testimony? LMAO. First-hand contemporaneous documentation is the only thing that proves that someone actually lived. I'm afraid I don't understand your question about Paul but suffice it to say that neither Paul nor anyone else who could have witnessed Jesus living wrote that they had.