Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by justamomma

---

Ridiculous... I have every right and even a moral obligation to expose frauds and charlatans. Jesus went into the temple and violently overturned the tables of the con men... All I'm doing is challenging you for evidence. I do find it amusing that you think I have no right to use satire or refute lies because I am a Christian. You are really threatened by the idea it is true aren't you.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by scientist

---

Jordan Maxwell has been exposed as a fraud. He's not taken seriously by any legitimate scholars.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Alora

---

Absolutely proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No serious historian denies it. The Gospel account by Luke has been established as one of the most accurate historical documents period for that time period. Due to colloborating data from other sources etc.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
To Scientist:

Maxwell is a walking canard fest. I've seen one his videos he spreads the same lies about Horus & Jesus - as Zeitgeist. He's a fraud.

perhaps you missed part of my last post, which is odd, since you seem to be addressing me specifically in regards to it. Let me quote myself:

let's abandon Jordan Maxwell right now. Are you also going to launch an attack on the work of Joseph Campbell? I would be very interested in your approach to his work.

Although Joseph Campbell is not associated so much with conspiracy, he has also done lots of work in regards to the similarities of the myth of Christ and other myths.

As for historical record of an actual person called Christ, there are several that I am aware of. What I am NOT aware of is any historical evidence of supernatural claims, miracles, etc.

Originally posted by BigwhammySure I guess are many "serious" liberal scholars that deny the resurrection and ascension.But they dont say he never lived as was asserted.

yes, but I doubt that's out of faith, but rather because serious historians deal with history, and the history of religion, not the validity of the claims made by them (with the exception of theologians).

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Luke is known as extremely accurate as a historical reference due to the details that have been corroborated.

Didn't you just say "point taken on Luke?" Luke also mentions angels. Are you claiming that is historically accurate as well? Please point me in the direction of other historians that claim angels, resurrection and ascension. Why are we backtracking now? I thought we were making progress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The topic is the Zeitgeist challenge. So just scan your check and post when you win. Or put you little heads back in the sand and pretend God isn't watching every move you make.

He is.

And as I already said, Joseph Campbell has done this work for you, free of charge. Are you prepared to dispute his work as well, which the Zeitgeist was also based upon?

You can look for his 6 part series of interviews with Bill Moyer called "Power of Myth" here:

MOYERS: Aren’t you undermining one of the great traditional doctrines of the classic Christian faith – that the burial and the resurrection of Jesus prefigures our own?

CAMPBELL: That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation.

MOYERS: And poetry gets to the unseen reality.

CAMPBELL: That which is beyond even the concept of reality, that which transcends all thought. The myth puts you there all the time, gives you a line to connect with that mystery which you are.

Shakespeare said that art is a mirror held up to nature. And that’s what it is. The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image.

The inner world is the world of your requirements and your energies and your structure and your possibilities that meets the outer world. And the outer world is the field of your incarnation. That’s where you are. You’ve got to keep both going. As Novalis said, "The seat of the soul is there where the inner and outer worlds meet."

MOYERS: In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come. But you say that if you affirm that which you deplore, you are affirming the very world which is our eternity at the moment.

CAMPBELL: Yes, that is what I’m saying, Eternity isn’t some later time. Eternity isn’t even a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now that all thinking in temporal terms cuts off. And if you don’t get it here, you won’t get it anywhere. The problem with heaven is that you will be having such a good time there, you won’t even think of eternity. You’ll just have this unending delight in the beatific vision of God. But the experience of eternity right here and now, in all things, whether thought of as good or as evil, is the function of life.