The Conspiracy of the 'other' Gospel

Originally posted by BostonBill99
Wrong!

Lazarus was a believer….

Oh, you so correct, Lazarus et al, safe for Josephus’ account we are told were true believers.

But then you have to believe that the gospel accounts are factual. And you have to accept a third hand account of others. There is a reason why the courts of today do not accept here-say as evidence. As for Josephus, it is unlikely he wrote those words. Here was a man who spent a great deal of time detailing the backgrounds of the men and women who graced the pages of his books, and much effort explaining the Pharisees; Sadducees; Essenes and robber sects of Judaism. Here he was a Jew, a priest from the Hyrcanus line no less who spared no effort to tell the world in his writings that they were God’s favoured people, and lo and behold he would insert some passage claiming Jesus to be the “Christ” without so much as a word as to this man’s background, his teachings, his sect, and what exactly made him- “the Christ.” He even afforded John the Baptist greater detail than he did your Jesus. In other words, Josephus cannot be credited for that little piece of nonsense, especially when in this world today there are exactly two ancient copies of his works extant, and the other is totally lacking that obviously intrusive detail about Jesus. Of course though, the Jesus of Nazareth tale and the times certainly does fit with Josephus’ account of a warrior seditionist named Jesus and his band of merry men, including the likes of a John; Simon: and even a Judas betrayer, who delighted in plundering, murdering and burning the very same villages your Christus was walking so calmly through.

Sorry...I don't buy your diatribe

Of course you do, otherwise you have to open your eyes and discard the fables you embrace.

[edit on 9/25/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by queenannie38

What exactly is circular about it, save for your assertion that it is?Because it's going nowhere and there is no obvious objective related to the intended topic of this thread--other than what seems very much like your desire to take an off-shoot comment between me and another poster and run with it--into an oblivion of babble which already hurts my head.It seems the point then is well served, you should not be making any comments off-shoot or otherwise in support of your argument, when you are ill-prepared to defend them.

As to the rest of your post, I'm going to decline particpating in the muddle--call it what you like--I know what it is.

Indeed.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
It seems the point then is well served, you should not be making any comments off-shoot or otherwise in support of your argument, when you are ill-prepared to defend them.

The comment I made was not even of the sort of nature that is defensible nor was there any reason for you to ask that I defend it--especially since it was not a point directly pertaining to the subject at hand, or made in reply to a post you made. I don't know what your point with the whole thing was, other than either 1) to produce a situation which left you feeling superior in your ideations at the end of the day or 2) to merely disrupt. Either way, my reluctance to engage in such diversion is perfectly valid--and due to recognition of something that is pointless and insincere in the way of discussion.

As far as making off-shoot comments--I don't see any prohibition on something like that in a thread I started--it didn't lead to any derailment of the topic; except for your seizing upon it.

You see it as 'ill-prepared' but I see it as keeping the thread somewhat on track. The points you would have us discuss have nothing to do with the thread topic--I'm not so inattentive that I can't see your methods for what they are.

There is not a single one of you that knows exactly what jesus did or what he said, the new testament was mostly misinterpreted to suit the occupying force which is christianity, How about we stop speculating what he might have said and realise we are opinions and nothing more.
My opinion is that Jesus did preach a lot of things but I only listen to what I think makes sense, for example the ten commandnents.
Purgatory was created byt he church so the rich few could bribe the church to get access to heaven so where is the holy truth in that.
We need to listen to our own intuition more rather than a 2000 year old book

Hi Jagzz:

Of course, you are technically correct about our scant knowledge of the details of the life of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean whom most English speaking "Christians" have a habit of calling "Jeeezuzz" (from the Greek Iesous which morphed into Latin as Iesus), in that as Rudolf Bultmann said 100 years ago, "we can KNOW NOTHING of the historical Iesous..." --

i.e. no one was around in those days with a Video camera recording his every burp on film, and at any rate, the gospels were not meant to be history in the modern positivistic sense (which would be anachronistic to expect any way---positivism (writing "facts and limiting interpretation to a minimum) is a comparatively late development in writing an event in history "as it really happened" and is an idea from the 19th century, despite attempts by Turko-Greeks like Herodotus and others of his mindset in antiquity who did make (at least) an attempt to get at the "historical truth" (whatever that is) of some of the things/events they were writing about by comparing as many of the different legends and stories they could lay their hands on and interviewing eyewitnesses whenever possible, and trying to sift thorugh them and make value judgements..

But even "that rotten Jewish Benedict-Arnold-Turncoat Josephus" who turned on his own people to save his own skin during the 1st failed Jewish revolt of AD 66-72 is hardly a paradigm of historical writing if you read him really closely in his Greek (or his amanuensis who was helping polish up his Greek style in Rome under the Flavians), and most of his "factual" assertions about Jewish History before his own time, especially the farther he reaches back in time, is basically midrashic legend which he takes at face value, and much of it does not match the archaelogical record very closely--although admittedly we are grateful to him for telling us so much about his own experiences in the Failed Jewish War against Rome in which he actually fought and knew much of it first hand etc.).

But the 4 so-called canonical "gospels" don't even pretend to be history in any modern positivistic sense: they had a clear agenda: And the fourth gospel spits it right out into the open for all to hear/see: "these things were written SO THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE THAT IESOUS IS THE CHRISTOS and BY BELIEVING YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME..."---this is NOT how "modern history" (whatever that is) tends to be written, but is clearly what we would call today...."propaganda tracts" with definite ulterior motives behind the "final shape of the material we are reading".

Which is precisely what they are....

But I would further refine them to be defined as "Semi-Carefully Crafted Midrashic 1st/2nd century CE Messianic Propaganda Tracts" which tried at all costs (even to the point of historical impossibility/absurdity, as in the Watch-the- Daviddic-Rebbe-Steal- the- Donkey-and-Sit-on-Her Story taken from Zech 9:9 in Matthew where Ieosus rides into town on no less than TWO animals because of a grammatical error in the Greek Septuaginta and/or Aramaic Targum paraphrase he was using to build his story erroneously translated out of the paleo-Hebrew) to link their hero (R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean) to the so called Messianic prophecies of old, e.g. Numbers 24 ("a star shall rise from Jacob, a Sceptre from Israel..." and "Bethlehem Ephrata, you are not the smallest among the clans of Judah, for out of you shall arise a ruler of my People Israel..." found in Micah chapter 6 etc.) which careful "midrashic handling" on the part of the "Jesus people" gave rise to the Star of Bethlehem story in the gospel of "Matthew" etc.

But I personally feel that if we can detect the bias in the gospel material, and compare much of what is placed into the mouth of "Ieosus" in the so called Apocryphal gospels (e.g. the Greek text fragments of the Gospel of Thomas etc.) we might be able to piece together some facts about the man here and there, but we are talking about, as C.K. Barret said, trying to re-construct the Pig from the Sausage...which is a little touch and go at times.

I tend to want to start from the Titilus on the Gibbet ("Iesous the Nazir, King of the Judaeans") and work backwards from there to see if there is anything to be gleaned at all about this man who was crucified as a seditionist on the 100th anniversary of the Roman Invasion of Palestine by General Pompey in BC 63, after a period of exactly 100 years of so-called Self Rule following the Maccabean Revolt of BC 163.

But the fact that the "gospels" (like the Bible as a whole), is not history but more midrashic bias and politically motivated self serving documents are very well known to modern serious scholarship, but is a fact very carefully kept from the masses of believers in order to keep all that lovely tax free money flowing into the church's various bank accounts, all the way down from the apex of the corrupt Vatican monstrosity to nefarious scum like Reverend (!) Jerry Falwell and people who live off the fear and gross textual ignorance of the common masses of believers who wouldn't know a hitpael from an aorist.

Originally posted by jagzz
My opinion is that Jesus did preach a lot of things but I only listen to what I think makes sense, for example the ten commandnents.

From Exodus or from Deuteronomy?

Do you think that the 10th commandment makes sense as well, including the part about not coveting slaves and concubines?

Reasons why many do not get anything out of the bible, therefore deeming it any number of things (such as nonsense, propaganda, or fairy-tales):

• Failure to recognize its true purpose as an allegorical instruction manual for spiritual concepts not explainable except by material metaphors and representations.
  
• The urge to use it as a history book, or to seek to verify it against man's interpretation of history, before seeking just to learn from it apart from our concept of 'reality'.
  
• The misuse of it as a tool to promote one of a myriad of human-based agendas, both religious and skeptical in nature.
  
• Association of it with those religious factions which have used it in a totally abusive manner, to their own advantage over the centuries--many claiming a name that they do not understand, thus causing many to believe that the nonsense they believe it says is actually what it says.
  
• Those who try to make it conform to man's idea of morality and justice, misunderstanding the ideas of 'laws' as 'principles' not 'ordinances.'
  

If you don't think the bible is useful--then leave it alone. Because it never will be as long as you approach it with unhealthy skepticism. Unhealthy skepticism is not much difference than blind and illogical faith. Both seek the agenda over the discovery and therefore the words are taken in accordance to the disposition of the heart. If you feel certain you already know more than what can be gained from reading it, then why waste your time therein? Don't expect to make others who value it adopt and share the scorn with which you regard it.

If you do think it is useful--but don't have a firm grasp on it, yet, then read it without prejudice or the ideas already established in your mind that have come from places other than its pages. Divorce yourself from everyone's opinion, even your own, and just read it. Don't try to make it fit what you believe or don't believe, believe nothing and just read it. And please remember it was not originally written in the King's English or in any English, for that matter. If you feel it is your duty to try to persuade those who scorn the bible that their regard for it is unreasonable or even 'wrong,' you're doing more harm than good, for both yourself and them. Your time is better applied in serious study, because only in doing that will you ever reach the point where you can represent it in its true light to others, without judgment or pushiness. If defending it makes you resort to calling other people names or judging them beyond your right to do so, then you have no call defending it until you truly understand what it is you seek to defend.


This was an unpaid service announcement from your thread hostess and is in no way meant to represent the views and opinions of ATS.

Have a nice day.

Hi Queenie:

Couldn't what you've written about the Bible be just as easily applied to Mein Kampf (1922)? (i.e. re-read it and try and interpret the racism more "allegorically, rather than literally" so that it would no longer be seen as a genocidal document, or a book with an agenda that is "literally based on erroneous superstitions" or misconceptions of modern anthropology, etc.)?

Just curious if you've ever thought it that way or not...

Queenie: I would very much like to hear your opinion on if the Apocryphal texts should be considered when referencing the bible. Do you feel that there is just as much validity in The Gospel of Thomas and the other uncovered texts as there is in our current version of the bible? Would you lend them MORE credence or less?

I would also love to hear your take on the Gnostics and their view on Christ and his teachings as your studious manner over the allegorical teachings does tend to bring to mind the path of enlightenment most Gnostics ascribed to.

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Queenie:

Couldn't what you've written about the Bible be just as easily applied to Mein Kampf (1922)?

Certainly it could be applied.
Would it make sense?
No.

Just curious if you've ever thought it that way or not...

No. Not because I'm not open-minded; but because I have a bit more literary discernment than that. (and discernment in general)

I guess it would be amiss of me to not have considered it--in the case of perhaps being an aspiring socialist despot with a charismatic style and methamphetamine habit. But, alas, I do not fit that description.

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Queenie: I would very much like to hear your opinion on if the Apocryphal texts should be considered when referencing the bible. Do you feel that there is just as much validity in The Gospel of Thomas and the other uncovered texts as there is in our current version of the bible?

In some of them there certainly is--and I evaluate them not based on whether they meet some kind of historical timetable or other such qualification, but rather if they fit in with the underlying real message in the bible. It is a whole work, on its own (the bible) as far as presenting a lesson, but much of that remains shrouded in mystery unless one is willing to venture outside man's canon to investigate.

There is just as much to potential mislead a person within the canon as there is without. But the world is full of literature and art created over the centuries in the quest of 'truth' and since man is a dualistic creature in his present reality, there is of course value and fluff in everything in the human body of work.

Would you lend them MORE credence or less?

The ones I personally value, I value equally with the other scripture I value, and those that I haven't found pertinent to the 'big picture' are just basically not in the running. So it's about an equal estimation.

I do feel that nearly everything discovered in Qumran and in Nag Hammadi is valuable instruction--and there is a lot of apocrypha outside of those two distinctions that varies in its relevance, from my perspective. I find that there are some things written by authors who did not understand the basic premise and purpose of the scriptures and it shows in their writings--they seem like science fiction, in a sense, to me. Just ideas and unconnected borrowed metaphors that may have seemed convincing to the writer but really are just a bunch of strung together, often disjointed concepts.

I would also love to hear your take on the Gnostics and their view on Christ and his teachings as your studious manner over the allegorical teachings does tend to bring to mind the path of enlightenment most Gnostics ascribed to.

I relate to many of the ancient gnostic texts--and to what I perceive that they might have held fast to as far as spiritual knowledge. I don't, however, believe in the demiurge--at one point it seemed like a valid possibility, but I had a hard time resolving it within my larger view and so I left it alone for a while. In time I came to understand that the ideas of the demiurge as the OT God are a result of an incomplete understanding of the resolution of duality.

I think the later ancient gnostics got stuck in their certain phase of dualism and never progressed to the 'overcoming' part--instead fell victim to the age-old delusion of material existence which is the bane of all religions, at one point or another. It's a good step in the process to understand the 'good' as spiritual and the 'evil' as material, as they did--but that is not a stopping point. Until one gets past the idea of anything being 'truly' evil and irreconciliable with the whole (and the same with the 'good' side, too) they are still more hylic than pneumatic, being stuck in the middle as psychics.

I think the true pneumatics, mystics, came along in the first couple of centuries, but then 'died out' for many centuries. The later group of gnosticism aspired toward being pneumatic (which is impossible to do, anyway) and likely considered themselves as such, simply because the world population has been largely hylic except for brief spans of our history; but at those times, just like at any time, the number of true mystics in the world is scant.

You speak of a good and evil which I am familiar with, or rather, you speak of the concepts that I myself ascribe to. I feel much religion is tied to keeping their influence in the now, stuck as well in the material as most souls are.

The Cycle of Fear and suspicion must end, as should the cycle of the "Chosen people". All that has spirit is part of the One.

In my philosophy, there is an existential duality of a Creator being and an Unmaker. The later arose out of the instant of creation as the void that existed before given urge and drive. That which was naught seeks to return all to void and nothing.

Initially, creation was a non-entropic existence... of which most people have a hard time wrapping their mind around, especially the idea of there being no time but events happening simultaneously. Many of these concepts are very hard to reconcile if you are attached to modal forms of thought, especially causation.

The ensuing universe from the inception of the Unmaker created the entropic universe we all know now. The Unmaker isn't evil, it only wishes to return to non-existence. Just like the Creator is not good, it only wishes to preserve existence.

Of course, my own philosophies are more polished and complex than this, but much of it is personal. This is the overhead view "What happened in the beginning".

Any comment?

Originally posted by queenannie38
But what is the truth, according to the Bible?


I see several contradictions between the Gospel found in the bible and the one being spread by the majority of christendom:

You and I are knocking heads once again on this issue. What you are preaching is dangerous. To tell someone that they will be saved even if they reject Christ will lead to death eternally for that person.

www.gotquestions.org...

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by queenannie38
But what is the truth, according to the Bible?


I see several contradictions between the Gospel found in the bible and the one being spread by the majority of christendom:

You and I are knocking heads once again on this issue. What you are preaching is dangerous. To tell someone that they will be saved even if they reject Christ will lead to death eternally for that person.

www.gotquestions.org...

Unless it doesn't of course. The problem is that neither of you can adequately demonstrate your positions, as they rest on faith. The best you can hope for is a more persuasive emotional plea.

"This is dangerous people will go to hell" is not a very effective emotional plea for someone who doesn't believe in hell.

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by queenannie38
But what is the truth, according to the Bible?


I see several contradictions between the Gospel found in the bible and the one being spread by the majority of christendom:

You and I are knocking heads once again on this issue. What you are preaching is dangerous. To tell someone that they will be saved even if they reject Christ will lead to death eternally for that person.

www.gotquestions.org...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what she is preaching at all. As far as I'm aware, queenannie38 is saying that noone will reject Christ. Those that have not accepted him as savour during their time on earth will accept him and repent after they have died.


For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:3-6)

This seems to support her position. As far as I'm concerned she has done a better job of rebutting your position (quoting scripture) than the other way round.

If the bible says what you think it says you should have no trouble countering her view, something not even the link you provided did adequately.

Hi Simon:

Can you even read the Greek of the NT? The paleo Hebrew of the OT? Aramaic?

Just curious is all.

Originally posted by dbrandt
You and I are knocking heads once again on this issue.

If we're knocking heads, it's because you're doing the butting. I'm just standing where I always stand.

What you are preaching is dangerous.

To what ? Attachments to complacency? To the fallacy of a God who plays favorites and loves us in a fashion more flawed than our earthly fathers do?

What I'm 'preaching' is Love. That's threatening to the premise of human judgment being viable.

To tell someone that they will be saved even if they reject Christ will lead to death eternally for that person.

Now when have I ever said that rejecting Christ gets a person through that narrow gate?

To tell someone that God isn't powerful enough to perform just exactly what He promised to Abraham on Mt. Moriah--that's dangerous. That represents God as less than omnipotent and perfectly wise and just. He made a promise and He's kept it.

Tell ye, and bring them near;
yea, let them take counsel together:
who hath declared this from ancient time?
who hath told it from that time?
have not I the LORD?
and there is no God else beside me;
a just God and a Saviour;
there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,
That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
--Isaiah 45:21-23 KJV

Just one question, Dbrandt:

Do you not believe God can do anything?

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart:
the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever:
the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
--Psalms 19:7-9 KJV

I checked out your link, DBrandt--

(all following quotes from gotquestions.org
© Copyright 2002-2005 Got Questions Ministries.
Quoted in accordance with the fair use law for copyrighted material. )


#1

For some it is their over-emphasis on the love and compassion of Christ that lead them to believe that God will have mercy on every living soul.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
--Mark 12:30-31 KJV

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
--Luke 6:35-36 KJV

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
--Luke 6:46 KJV

First of all, the proof that unredeemed men will dwell forever in hell. Jesus’ own words confirm that the time spent in heaven for the redeemed will last as long as the unredeemed in hell. Matthew 25:46

Matthew 25:46 is speaking of hypocrites--blasphemers and users of God's Holy Name. Nothing was said of 'redemption' in this verse--that concept was not yet 'out of the bag' at the time of Matthew 25.

How does one avoid this "unquenchable fire"?

One doesn't--for it is God who is both eternal and fire.

People choose to reject the message because they do not want to face up to their sin, and admit that they need the Lord to save them.

People reject the message because it is a nonsensical pile of contradictions--kind of like having a daisy and pulling off petal after petal: 'God loves me, He loves me not.' Why seek a God who is no better than we, ourselves, are? Christianity presents a God that is less than perfect, biased, fickle, and inconsistent. You wouldn't want to work for someone like that--why look for a God who fits the same description?

Other 'answers' I found on this site:

#2

Question: “What sort of New Year’s Resolution should a Christian make?”

Answer: The practice of making a New Year’s Resolution goes back over 3000 years to the ancient Babylonians. There is just something about the start of a New Year that gives us the feeling of a fresh start and a new beginning. In reality, there is no difference between December 31st and January 1st. Nothing mystical occurs at midnight on December 31st. The Bible does not speak for or against the concept of a New Year’s Resolution.

Wrong.

Matthew 6:34
James 4:13-16, 5:12

And what is the first line of this 'christian' reply?

The practice of making a New Year’s Resolution goes back over 3000 years to the ancient Babylonians.

Babylon? Where does Babylon set the example for the 'church?'

#3
This is a good page--but it seems to fall into the Luke 6:46 category.

#4

Question: "What are the origins of Easter?"

That was answered accurately--then it says:

The goddess Eastres' earthly symbol was the rabbit, which was also known as a symbol of fertility. Originally, there were some very pagan (and sometimes utterly evil) practices that went along with the celebration. In our day, Easter is almost a completely commercialized holiday, with all the focus on Easter eggs, the Easter bunny, etc.

Because of the commercialization and pagan origins of Easter, many churches are starting to refer to it as Resurrection Day. This is a positive development.

How is that a positive development?
Because all the dirt still fits neatly under the rug?


#5

Question: "Does God love everyone or just Christians?"

This one is especially creative.

God loves everyone unconditionally in that He shows mercy to everyone. God conditionally loves only those who place their faith in His Son for salvation (John 3:36). Only those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will experience God’s love for eternity.

That's not scriptural at all. It is hogwash.

#6

Question: "Did God create evil?"

Your webmaster says:

When a bad relationship exists between two good things we call that evil, but it does not become a "thing" that required God to create it.
God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.God did not create evil, but He allows evil.Ultimately, there is not an answer to these questions that we can fully comprehend. God did not create evil, but He allowed it.

The bible says:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
--Isaiah 45:7 KJV



[edit on 9/27/2005 by queenannie38]

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi Simon:

Can you even read the Greek of the NT? The paleo Hebrew of the OT? Aramaic?

Just curious is all.

I am Greek, Greek is my mother tongue and I was taught Ancient Greek from the age of 5-17, it's second nature to me. I always read the NT in Ancient Greek. As far as Hebrew goes, I can read a bit, but I'm far from proficient. Can't read Aramaic for love nor money.

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
I am Greek, Greek is my mother tongue and I was taught Ancient Greek from the age of 5-17, it's second nature to me. I always read the NT in Ancient Greek. As far as Hebrew goes, I can read a bit, but I'm far from proficient. Can't read Aramaic for love nor money.

At last, a bona fide 'expert.'

Hip hip hooray for Simon_the_byron!