Calling all Christians, Calling all Christians

Originally posted by shihulud

Can you honestly say that you know that what the Bible states about God and Jesus to be the truth?

Might seem inconspicuous at first but think about it.

Just because you reach one conclusion that fits what you need at the time, does not mean you've interpretted the meaning of what was meant in the only possible context.

Just because you conclude logically and through deductive reasoning an answer you know is absolutely indisputable fact, know it is not the only logical conclusion and absolutely indisputable answer. But, can you reach 2 indisputable answers that are in contradiction to eachother?

When you have 2 indisputable facts that when you add them together are impossible . .... . . you are at the edge of the box.

statements have numerous meanings.

"She told me only what I needed to hear" Matrix trilogy.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Just because you reach one conclusion that fits what you need at the time, does not mean you've interpretted the meaning of what was meant in the only possible context.

I know that there is more than one possible context to the Biblical and the divine but that doesn't mean christianity is the truth

Just because you conclude logically and through deductive reasoning an answer you know is absolutely indisputable fact, know it is not the only logical conclusion and absolutely indisputable answer. But, can you reach 2 indisputable answers that are in contradiction to eachother?

Yes I think logically and through deductive reasoning but I dont know for indisputable fact my beliefs are correct. Through my reasoning and such I conclude that christianity (religion as a whole in fact) in its current form to be improbable.

When you have 2 indisputable facts that when you add them together are impossible . .... . . you are at the edge of the box.

statements have numerous meanings.

And what would these facts be? And yes statements can have many meanings, some people would do well to remember this!


G

Only Four Possibilities
As we face the claims of Christ, there are only four possibilities. He was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or the Truth. If we say He is not the Truth, we are automatically affirming one of the other three alternatives, whether we realize it or not.

(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God--that He knew He was not God, but deliberately deceived His hearers to lend authority to His teaching. Few, if any, seriously hold this position. Even those who deny His deity affirm that He was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of His teaching--His identity--He was a deliberate liar.

(2) A kinder, though no less shocking possibility, is that He was sincere but self-deceived. We have a name for a person today who thinks he is God. That name is lunatic, and it certainly would apply to Christ if He were deceived on this all-important issue. But as we look at the life of Christ, we see no evidence of the abnormality and imbalance we find in a deranged person. Rather, we find the greatest composure under pressure.

(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend--that what actually happened was that His enthusiastic followers, in the third and fourth centuries, put words into His mouth He would have been shocked to hear. Were He to return, He would immediately repudiate them.

The legend theory has been significantly refuted by many discoveries of modern archeology. These have conclusively shown that the four biographies of Christ were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. Some time ago Dr. William F. Albright, world-famous archaeologist now retired from Johns Hopkins University, said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70. For a mere legend about Christ, in the form of the Gospel, to have gained the circulation and to have had the impact it had, without one shred of basis in fact, is incredible.

For this to have happened would be as fantastic as for someone in our own time to write a biography of the late John F. Kennedy and in it say he claimed to be God, to forgive people's sins, and to have risen from the dead. Such a story is so wild it would never get off the ground because there are still too many people around who knew Kennedy. The legend theory does not hold water in the light of the early date of the Gospel manuscripts.

(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth. From one point of view, however, claims don't mean much. Talk is cheap. Anyone can make claims. There have been others who have claimed to be God. I could claim to be God, and you could claim to be God, but the question all of us must answer is, "What credentials do we bring to substantiate our claim?" In my case it wouldn't take you five minutes to disprove my claim. It probably wouldn't take too much more to dispose of yours. But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" ( John 10:38).

Jesus could very well have been God on earth. We have had others that were Gods on earth.

The Age of Gemini

The Age of Gemini (c.6000 — c.4000) corresponded to the flourishing period of early Hinduism. It was under this sign that Rama, the seventh incarnation of Vishnu was manifested by the birth of the two pair of brothers: Rama and Lakshmana on the one hand, Satrughna and Bharata on the other. Rama Himself had twin sons: Lav and Kush (in harmony with the name of the constellation where the Sun was at that time.) Lav went to Russia from this we get the name of Slav. The other son, Kush went to China, hence we get the name Kushan. These two divine principles were also incarnated as Buddha and Mahavira, then as Adi Shankaracharya and Gnyaneshwara. In other Avatars they were Hassan and Hussein the sons of Fatima and Hazrat Ali . . . Rama incarnated during the Treta Yuga when the fourth chakra (Adi Anahathh) was opened in Virata. Anahathh is an important centre of the human being since it is here (on the left side, at the heart level) where the individual Spirit or the Self resides. "For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be" Jesus said (Luke 12:34.)

Then..

The Age of Taurus

The Age of Taurus (c.4000 — c.2000 B.C.). The aeon governing this age was Krishna, the eight Avatar, the Lord of the cows (Govinda.) The age stayed under the sign of the bull (Apis, or sacred bull Mnevis of Helipolis, identified to Ra), of the holy cow (Hathor in Egypt, surahbhi or Kamadhenu in India or may be worshipped in many spiritual cultures), or the golden calf in the polytheistic beliefs (see Exodus 32:4), preceding the Judaic monotheism. Krishna was said to have lived at the end of Dvapara Yuga (Encyclopaedia Universalis, Paris 1968, vol. 9, p.711) considered by some to have ended in the year 3102 B.C. (Zimmer, quoted work.) According to tradition, Krishna lived in the fourth millennium B.C. (La grande encyclopedie, H. Lamirault et Co., Paris, vol. 21, p.647.) During his time the fifth chakra (Adi Vishuddhi) of the Cosmic Being was enlightened.

Then..

The Age of Aries

The Age of Aries (c.2000 — 1 B.C.) was characterized by the establishment of the monotheistic Judaism through great spiritual personalities like Abraham (19th century B.C.) and Moses (13th century B.C.). Generally, this period was dominated by the manifestation of the universal principle of the spiritual master (Adi Guru Dattatreya.) Indeed, before the Christian era, Zarathustra incarnated (7th or 6th or even 10th century according to some opinions), Confucius and Lao-Tse (6th century), Socrates (5th century), alongside with the two great Jewish prophets (see chapt. X.) The symbol of the ram (or the Passover lamb) appeared as an object of sacrifice instead of worship, as a reaction against the belief of the previous age. That could be illustrated by the cult of Mithra who stabbed the mythological bull.

after those was the age of Jesus..

The Age of Pisces

The Age of Pisces (A.D. 1 — c.2000) during which Christianity appeared and spread out. The fish was known to have been the secret sign used by the early Christians to identify each other. The Greek word Ichtus (=fish) was made up of the following phrase capitals (acrostic): Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter (=Jesus Christ Son of God, the Saviour.) In Hinduism it was also the symbol of the Saviour (Vishnu's first incarnation in the shape of a fish saved Manu from the flood) . . .

Similar to Mahavishnu, Jesus represented the ninth Avatar, who opened the Agnya chakra within the Cosmic Being. The reflection of this chakra at the microcosmic human level is situated in the centre of the forehead where the left channel (Ida nadi) and the right channel (Pingala nadi) form a subtle crossing. From an anatomical point of view, this is the place of:

*

the chiasma opticalis (optical nerve crossing), corresponding to the anterior aspect of the chakra (front Agnya);

*

the decussatio pyramidum (crossing of the motor nuclei fibres of the spinal nerves for the upper limb and upper trunk and for the lower limb and lower trunk respectively), corresponding to the posterior aspect of the chakra (back Agnya.)

The three channels cross at the Agnya which represents the most narrow way for the Kundalini to pass through. It is the "narrow gate" that Jesus said about: "Strive with earnestness to enter through the narrow door, for many, I say, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24.) "Enter through the narrow gate" (Matthew 7:13.) Jesus revealed Himself as the Master of the Agnya chakra: "I am the door; if any one enter in by Me, he shall be saved" (John 10.9.) He will be saved because he will be able to reach the end, of the spiritual ascent, Sahasrara (the Kingdom of Heavens the synthesis of all chakras, where the individual Spirit joins with the Universal Spirit — God.)

I am sure Jesus was God on earth, the problem that gets in my way is the way the bible was mis-represnting Jesus. This whole free ticket to heaven through Jesus smells of mans control on man. Sure doent seem God like...

Originally posted by just me 2
Only Four Possibilities
(1) One possibility is that Jesus lied when He said He was God...
(2) ...He was sincere but self-deceived.
(3) The third alternative is that all of the talk about His claiming to be God is a legend--
(4) The only other alternative is that Jesus spoke the truth.

5) Jesus never even existed
6) Jesus was a 1st century preacher who was attributed aspects of pre-existing myths just like characters such as Prophet Yahweh or Maryatra (spelling?)
7) The character existed long before the 1st century and was given a name common to the first century. One theory floating around is that Tutankh-amen was the prototype for the Jesus myth (note the phonetic similarity between the ancient Egyptian pronunciation 'amoun' and the Hebrew word 'amen'). If you examine the treasures recovered from his tomb and compare them to the descriptions of the temple treasures of ancient Israel, there are striking similarities.

I suspect there are other possibilities. One thing to consider when talking about when the various texts were written is that there is documented evidence of significantly varying versions of some of them well before the first extant copies were penned, which does prove versions existed fairly early (late first to early 2nd century for most), but it also proves there was not concensus among the earliest Christians on basic facts surrounding Jesus.

A case in point is the book of Matthew. There was a competing version floating around that was written in Aramaic rather than Greek. It ommitted the first 2 chapters altogether, and was said to have differed significantly in the remaining chapters. These facts were recorded by early church fathers who were trying to prove the subscribers were heretics. What they failed to realize, is that they were documenting the existence of their competition which the church would later try to conceal.

There were competing Christian sects in the earliest records of Christianity that varied dramatically on basic doctrines such as Jesus' sacrifice for sin, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. Such basic doctrinal differences are impossible if these people actually knew Jesus. Somone, if not everyone, was deceived in the earliest records of Christianity.

By the 4th century, Rome had taken over the church and went on a killing and burning spree to wipe out evidence that demonstrated Jesus was not a physical human. Fortunately, some of the evidence was hidden from the rampage and has been recovered.

This information is from this website:
everystudent.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">everystudent.com...

Is the Bible historically true? Are the Gospels accurate about Jesus?
How can we know if the Gospel biographies on Jesus' life are accurate?

When historians try to determine if a biography is reliable, they ask, "Do other numerous sources report the same details about this person?"
Here is how this works.

Imagine collecting biographies on former president John F. Kennedy. You find many describing his family, his presidency, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and each of these biographies report many similar facts. But what if you came across one biography reporting that JFK lived ten years as a priest in South Africa? None of your other sources mentioned anything about a former career as a priest, or living ten years in South Africa. Obviously, the credibility of this biography is out the window.

There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. The Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were previously mentioned as credible sources, two of them having been Jesus' closest followers. The other New Testament authors were considered trustworthy as well: James and Jude (half-brothers of Jesus, who initially did not believe in him), Peter (one of the 12 apostles), and Paul (whom Jesus made an apostle after his death and resurrection). The church knew about these men and their association with Jesus. Moreover, what they wrote was consistent with what people had heard and seen themselves regarding Jesus, and had passed on to their children.
When other books were written and appeared hundreds of years later (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, though Peter had long since died), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as phonies, as forgeries.

Another example is the Gospel of Thomas (which Mohammed references in the Quran). The Gospel of Thomas was written around 140 A.D., long after Thomas had died. Though it bore some similarities to the New Testament's authentic Gospel of Matthew, it also contained wildly different messages. The descriptions of Jesus did not fit anything the early church knew to be true of Him.

As books like the Gospel of Thomas were written and circulated among the early church, it was not difficult for people to discern the forgeries. False writings like these and the gnostic gospels countered the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained numerous historical and geographical errors.

Eventually an official list of New Testament books became necessary for the following reasons: 1) As Christians were being martyred books were being destroyed (so, which ones to protect?); 2) in translating the books into Syriac and Old Latin, a listing of authoritative books was important; 3) false books and false teachings were always challenging the church and leadership needed to be clear. In A.D. 367, Athanasius formerly listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list.

just me 2, do you agree that if you catch an author making false statements about facts that are central to their argument, that it is proper to remove trust in the remainder of what they are saying?

While it's true that the Gospel of Thomas may have been written as late as ~140 CE, it may also have been written as early as ~50 CE. Whoever wrote that article didn't give you the whole truth. This ommision proves the author is simply uninformed enough to be making such arguments, or is trying to deceive.

Someone interested in truth who has done the most basic level of research would not fail to mention the possible earlier date.

The following site, Early Christian Writings, lists a large number of early christian writings with scholarly accepted ranges of dates for them. But even if we conclude that the original Gospel of Mark was written no later than 85CE, we can not make strong affirmation about the content of that writing. It could have been significantly altered between that writing and the earliest extant copy ~100 years later.

A little secret the author of that site failed to mention is that there are widely varying versions of early copies and fragments of these writings. They were not simply dutifully copied word for word as apologists would have you believe, but were edited and redacted along the way.

The earliest extant copies of any of the New Testament books are nearly 200 years after the "facts". No-one knows what earlier versions may have contained, nor do they know who wrote the Gospels. The names assigned to the Gospels are simply church tradition.

Originally posted by just me 2
...said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70.

But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" ( John 10:38).

Firstly it must be said that the Gospel of Mark was written after CE 70 because it mentions the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem although it most certainly takes from an earlier source (Q????). Also remember that Mark was NOT a disciple and never even met Jesus.
Secondly Nazareth did not exist at that time and the claim that Jesus performed miracles is not a basis for truth as many others at the same time also performed so called miracles of the same calibre as jesus - (check Josephus)
There is a possiblity also that these stories were created for symbolic use and Jesus never existed, after all there is nothing from the suppossed resurrection to the writing of these early manuscripts. I mean if Jesus was this 'Son of God' you would think that there would be a lot more information
on him and his life.



G

Originally posted by shihulud
And what would these facts be? And yes statements can have many meanings, some people would do well to remember this!

I'm not sure you've given me the authority to tell you what your accepted truths are. (being synical).

What I was inferring to is 2 things you personally accept as true. When you accept 2 bits of information that you feel are real, but when you plug them into an equation you find they both do not match together.

How is it we tend to accept at face value 2 facts as facts that cannot be true when added together.

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by just me 2
...said that there was no reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written later than A.D. 70.

But when it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, it's not so simple. He had the credentials to back up His claim. He said, "Even though you do not believe Me, believe the evidence of the miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father" ( John 10:38).

Firstly it must be said that the Gospel of Mark was written after CE 70 because it mentions the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem although it most certainly takes from an earlier source (Q????). Also remember that Mark was NOT a disciple and never even met Jesus.
Secondly Nazareth did not exist at that time and the claim that Jesus performed miracles is not a basis for truth as many others at the same time also performed so called miracles of the same calibre as jesus - (check Josephus)
There is a possiblity also that these stories were created for symbolic use and Jesus never existed, after all there is nothing from the suppossed resurrection to the writing of these early manuscripts. I mean if Jesus was this 'Son of God' you would think that there would be a lot more information
on him and his life.

I checked out that website from "spammy" and they even admit that their own opinions are a HYPOTHESIS! Even THEY (the scholars that they are) don't know for sure!

Originally posted by just me 2
I checked out that website from "spammy" and they even admit that their own opinions are a HYPOTHESIS! Even THEY (the scholars that they are) don't know for sure!

Praise Thor I think we've had a breakthrough!

(Pssst, anyone who fails to mention to you they are uncertain about these things is lying.)

Praise Thor I think we've had a breakthrough!

What I meant was that the author of that article about the "Q" was only hypothesizing about the authors of the Gospels copying info from each other.


I, (and all true Christians, I would assume) KNOW that the Holy Bible is the Word of God Almighty Himself! Not all of todays translations are that accurate, but I do know that the King James Version is the closest representative that has been tranlated from the original languages.