Hey all,

I'm sure many of you watched the Jesus and Paul special on ABC last night. Personally, I'm still fuming and trying to cool down before I write ABC letting them know what I think. So, in all my anger, I'm going to tell y'all what I thought. It was a farce.

Personally, I think ABC did an IQ test to all the people who came on that show. Any non-Christian who scored above 140 was in, and any Christian who scored under a 70 or was catholic was in. Why do I believe this? Lemme tell ya.

First, that joke of a baptist preacher. If you saw the show, you know who I'm talking about: The guy who discounted 2/3rds of the bible as non-Jesus speak. In his words: "Well, you have to remember Paul wasn't Jesus, and we need to take what he said with a grain of salt." Spicifically, in context, he was talking about first Corinthians. All the rules Paul told the church in Corinth were meaningless. You can bang whoever you want to whenever you want to. That's what Jesus's message was, and Paul corrupted it

Next: One of the "givens" in the show was that James was the brother of Jesus, but Peter was not. Granted, when Jesus came up on the brothers James and Peter fishing and brought them into his ministry, but they chose to ignore that. Jesus did have a brother named James, but that was not the apostle James. Curious.

They were also saying that Paul, not Jesus, started a revolution by preaching to the gentiles. Ignore the fact that in the gospels Jesus said that since Israel had rejected him, he would deliver his message to the gentiles, but that information was ignored, as well.

Paul cast out all of Judea's rules on his own. Huh. Funny thing, that. Thing is, the first Gentile convert mentioned in the Bible, the centurian who had a sick servant, Jesus simply marveled at what the centurian told him, and said through your faith your servant is healed. Never said through your faith, pending a circumcision and you follow the laws written in numbers, your servant is healed. Never in all the gospels did he ever tell a gentile convert to do that. Never. Looks like Jesus might have started that precident...

Paul cast out the idea of "unclean" things. Granted, Paul did have a vision telling him that all animals were available for eating, but he did not start the precident. The Jews, even today, see blood and dead people as being unclean. A Jewish priest (not rabbi) isn't even allowed in the same room that a dead body is in. But Jesus rose the son of a widow from the dead by touching him. Very unclean. He also had a woman who had been bleeding for 12 years touch the hem of his robe while he was walking down the road. Normally, if a woman did this to a rabbi, there would be dire consequences. In a way, women were unclean back in the day, and bleeding women were, without a doubt, unclean. She was both a woman and bleeding, and she touched him. When he turned around and asked who touched me, she must have been terrified, because that was the end of her life right there. But she was healed, and came to him, cowering and wimpering and said "It was I." He didn't stone her, or anything of the like, he essensially took her under his wing. The same goes for Mary Magdaline(SP?). She was a whore, and was going to be stoned for being unclean. He saved her, and she became one of his most avid followers, going so far as to take Jesus from the cross with His mother.

There were several other things which I'll post in a little bit, but I think this is more than enough to chew on for now.

Study your Bible history a bit more.
Sure Jesus did a few things, but everything that the Church does today is done on their interpretation of Paulian thought.

The early Church took Paul as the basis for their doctrine not Jesus.
Jesus was a preacher but Paul was turned into the politician.

There are questions over the interpretation that was made of Jesus' life. The early Christian sects viewed his message as being gnostic. There are even now questions over wether or not Paul was gnostic too. When you read the Bible and read Pauls words, you are given the impression that he was a literalist. But when you read the Bible and realise that a lot of what was attributed to him was actually added later, edited or just plain fraudulent, it's possible that he was a follower of Gnostic Christianity too.

The definitions of who says what and who did what are always very, very fragile. What we receive are the definitions handed down by a church which clearly chose the wrong path. Look into the pagan origins of Christianity and you will discover that it started out as a gnostic religion. The literalist church managed to corrupt it's message through ignorance.

The Church can't entirely be blamed though. As gnosticism was an ongoing process with at least three stages of learning and as Christianity was forcefully spread far and wide, the message had a hard time getting through. The version of literalist Christianity which we see practiced by the main-stream today could be compared to a religous game of Chinese Whispers.

I didn't see it, but obvously I missed nothing important.

Did they mention Jesus' words in Luke 4:25-27?
I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed--only Naaman the Syrian."

Ok, first I have 2 disclaimers: I'd never even heard of Gnosticism before you mentioned it, and I am about to look into that (at first I thought you misspelled agnostic and started cracking up). Second, I don't believe "a lot of what was attributed to him was actually added later, edited or just plain fradulent."

My problem with the show was the delivery. Obviously they never mentioned the "Gnostic" Christ, as I'd never heard of it until just now. The way they presented the "givens" would make someone who had not researched Christianity believe that that's what we all believe. They debated and showed opposing viewpoints for many things, but the things I mentioned they delivered as though every Christian in the world believed it. If I had watched that show without knowing what I know, and without believing what I believe, I would have believed Christians were pathetic little fools who were completely decieved. THAT was what my problem with the show was. If you're going to broadcast a show like that, covering a religious subject, at least represent accurately the religion you're flaming...

Originally posted by dbates
I didn't see it, but obvously I missed nothing important.

Actually, I think you missed a lot. Already, I've been berated by people with info from that program. By having seen it, I can explain where it was wrong and just how wrong it was. I suppose that's part of the problem with being open about my Christianity...I have a lot of evangelical athiests who love to try to convince me I'm wrong, and they love it even more when the mainstream media gives them information. Sigh. At least it gives me a chance to witness to them!

Did they mention Jesus' words in Luke 4:25-27?
I assure you that there were many widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the sky was shut for three and a half years and there was a severe famine throughout the land. Yet Elijah was not sent to any of them, but to a widow in Zarephath in the region of Sidon. And there were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed--only Naaman the Syrian."

No, of course not!

Leveller, How do you or anyone know they were gnostics....that "they" viewed his message as gnostic...what evidence are you basing your claims upon...more than likely, nonsense that is just as undecipherable as the Bible. Not that gnosticism is a bad thing or even wrong but where's the evidence. And I'm not talking about the Gospel of Thomas or any other long lost gospel bogus document. How about something historical with some substance to it. You talk as your views are fact when they're not. It could be, but you cant prove it.
Personally, I don't care. But to tell someone they need to study bible history just because they haven't arrived at the same conclusion as you is wrong. For one thing, bible History is filled with a big hole because someone took it upon themselves to destroy things and ideas. so how do you study something which is not there. you have absolutely no idea what they said and to say otherwise is absurd. To arrive at an answer requires data; which there doesnt seem to be enough of. In this case, you only have the ability to draw a conclusion. I'm not even sure you can do that
Its always the same old garbage though. You have everybody wanting to tell you what the messiah really meant or who he really was. Yet they cant give any shred of evidence to support their claims. Every year there is a new theory (he had a kid, he had a wife, he went to England, etc)...Geez, does it ever end
Are we getting a new weekly Jesus TV program: If you want Jesus to be married we've got him, If you want him to be gay we've got him too; We've basically got Jesus in all sizes shapes and forms for all of your individual needs. Totally distasteful for a bunch of people that are too proud to admit they don't know anything. They think they know but they don't. If you have an "idea" then test it until substantial evidence supports your theory. Then bring out your idea but to just bring forth random crap on the TV and confuse the daylights out of people is absolutely hideous.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by KSoze]

Originally posted by KSoze
Leveller, How do you or anyone know they were gnostics....that "they" viewed his message as gnostic...what evidence are you basing your claims upon...more than likely, nonsense that is just as undecipherable as the Bible. Not that gnosticism is a bad thing or even wrong but where's the evidence. And I'm not talking about the Gospel of Thomas or any other long lost gospel bogus document. How about something historical with some substance to it. You talk as your views are fact when they're not. It could be, but you cant prove it.
Personally, I don't care. But to tell someone they need to study bible history just because they haven't arrived at the same conclusion as you is wrong. For one thing, bible History is filled with a big hole because someone took it upon themselves to destroy things and ideas. so how do you study something which is not there. you have absolutely no idea what they said and to say otherwise is absurd. To arrive at an answer requires data; which there doesnt seem to be enough of. In this case, you only have the ability to draw a conclusion.
Its always the same old garbage though. You have everybody wanting to tell you what the messiah really meant or who he really was. Yet they cant give any shred of evidence to support their claims. Every year there is a new theory (he had a kid, he had a wife, he went to England, etc)...Geez, does it ever end
Are we getting a new weekly Jesus TV program: If you want Jesus to be married we've got him, If you want him to be gay we've got him too; We've basically got Jesus in all sizes shapes and forms for all of your individual needs. Totally distasteful for a bunch of people that are too proud to admit they don't know anything. They think they know but they don't. If you have an "idea" then test it until substantial evidence supports your theory. Then bring out your idea but to just bring forth random crap on the TV and confuse the daylights out of people is absolutely hideous.

heh, welcome to the new-age christianity, spread through the mainstream media to make people all feel good and ok about what they're doing, even if the Bible tells them it's wrong.

Originally posted by KSoze
Leveller, How do you or anyone know they were gnostics....that "they" viewed his message as gnostic...what evidence are you basing your claims upon...more than likely, nonsense that is just as undecipherable as the Bible.

Don't try to pigeonhole me into a religion just because I wrote about one.

One thing I should have made clear. When I state Bible History, I mean everything surrounding and including the Bible - not just that work itself. This means incorporating other religious works predating the Bible and the physical history of those works.

My views that gnosticism was the original basis of Christianity come after literally thousands of hours of research. Without a doubt, Christianity comes from pagan sources based on gnosticism. You only have to look at the Osiris/Dyonisus cult to see this, but if you want even more evidence, look at early Judaism, Egyptian belief, Zoranaistrism, Buddhism and countless other predating religions. Look at the actual facts that we know about the early days of Christianity - how it was created, how it survived, how it flourished and the figures involved. Then look at the actual words contained in the New Testament.

The main pointer that Christianity was based on these gnostic beliefs is the fact that there is NOTHING in the New Testament that hasn't been done or said before by a gnostic figurehead. The miracles, the words of Jesus, the events surrounding his life - all had been already achieved by earlier religious figures.

Yes, there is a lot of garbage out there. But if you actually push aside the bull# you are left with a clearer picture. Most people won't even entertain the idea of starting to look in the first place though as they come from an inherited line of thought that says "What the Church says MUST be right".

What about near the end where Peter Jennings asked the black man what he thaught about Paul's teachings on homosexuals ,robbers murderers and adulterers. Paul taught to drive them out from among you and not to have any felowship with them. Now to me it sounds like that totaly contradicts Jesus teaching of love and forgiveness. Remember what he said wives are forbidden to speak in church let them ask thier husbands when they get home if they have a comment. That whole idea to me contradicts what Jesus taught. I think the point to the show last night was that Paul added a lot of his own 2 cents in thier as he saw fit according to his own judgement. If you were to enforce wives be silent in church today, how many wives would want to be there sunday morning? Also if you were to drive out every so called immoral person it would do damage. Jesus taught forgiveness unti 70 x 7. I thought some of the music they played was a bit distasteful.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by TgSoe]

Leveller, you're saying all of this stuff as fact. As though there is no way, doing research and knowing all the facts, you could come to any other conclusion. However, there are MILLIONS of theologens who spend their entire lives researching all of the facts...Why are their conclusions different from your own? Why are the "facts" so well hidden from the public that this is the first time I've even heard of Gnostics, much less an arguement that Jesus and company were all Gnostics. It seems really strange that 99% of the people who research theology don't arrive at your "facts".

"If Christianity needed an Anti-christ, they needed to look no further than to Paul."

Originally posted by Illmatic67
"If Christianity needed an Anti-christ, they needed to look no further than to Paul."

Rephrase that - "If Gnostic Christianity needed an Anti-christ, they needed to look no further than to the Church's interpretation of Paul."

Another one tying Jesus to Osiris. Lets examine that.
Osiris mother was a nut (a goddess for those who don’t know the story); not a human virgin. Lets not get into whether or not the NT says Jesus was born of a virgin. There is only one source in which osiris comes back from the dead, in the other sources he doesn’t even come back from the dead. Some say there’s a source giving Dec 25th as the birthdate of Osiris and Horus; I sure haven’t seen it despite the claims. Not that it matters because Jesus wasn’t born on that date. Osiris was murdered by his brother and thrown in a river,
the dude was cut into pieces. where’s the connection. there’s a whole list of things that Osiris “supposibly” did that have nothing to do with Jesus. Osiris coming was announced by three wise men (stars don’t equal wisemen in my opinion). regardless, the NT never
says “three” wisemen. Lets not forget, Osiris was a god of the dead not the living. I could start telling people how the story of winnie the pooh is connected to Jesus Christ and somebody would believe it because they’d want to believe it.
Obtain a copy of the actual literature and citation from the Egyptian records; do a real analysis and compare; then the claims stand a minute chance of being valid. The real deal, not some book telling you this is what it says. the people writing those things all have a hidden agenda, is that not obvious. noone making these claims seems to want to present real evidence. Not
James Churchward, not Freke. Those people do not present data they just simple say this is what it reads, blah, blah. Sorry I can’t take a mans word for it. there’s not even many egyptian religous scholars that mention the Osiris connection. So the only conclusion I can reach is there is no connection.
Now, this Paul stuff you guys are talking about has me intrigued, I will look into this. Paul the imposter seems plausible.

I haven't looked at just one egyptian study, I've looked at what is referred to as the osiris cycle throughout religions, etc. I still don't see any connection.
Bringing in a website that supports your claim doesn't help your case, you haven't given any substantial evidence. Just data that may or may not be right. The actual source of the data isn't even given.
Making statements about someone's view being daft doesn't help you either. Unless your willing to show where that view is in the fault.
"Look at the similarities between Mary and Isis". What similarities, be specific. Then we can discuss this supposed connection. If it only takes one to prove it (according to you) then it should be relatively easy, right?
By the way, telling somebody that water is wet isn't near as effective as actually showing them it is.

[Edited on 7-4-2004 by KSoze]