It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus literalist. What would change your mind?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Jesus literalist. What would change your mind?

Many books on Jesus and Christianity have come out of late questioning the historicity and source of both Jesus and the gospels. Most of these come down on the negative side of Jesus being real or of scripture coming from the apostles.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

All who believe in Jesus and scripture must read the Bible literally, to some extent.
After all, what other book give Jesus historicity or literal existence? None.
There is not one historical secular document that I know of that indicates that some miracle working Jesus ever existed.

The Bible begins with a talking serpent and other miracles that defy nature and physics.. This should be warning enough, for anyone who can think independently that the Bible should not be read literally. Alas, this clear message is lost on some believers .

Most scholars know that the Bible is myth and can be read in a variety of ways. As allegory, myth or literal. They choose not to read it literally as that would mean that they would have to believe in fantasy miracles and magic. Most will not take that leap of faith.

The Catholic pope and most mainstream Abraham protestant religions say not to read the Bible literally but as stated above, they must read some of it literally to believe that Jesus actually existed. They do not seem to follow their own advise.

As a follower of a real historic Jesus, do you recognize that you are a literalist?
How deeply do you believe in fantasy, miracles and magic?
As an adult, do you see your fantastic beliefs as those of a healthy mind?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

What would it take for you to change your mind about fantasy, miracles and magic being real? These are required for you to believe in a real historic Jesus.

Keeping Jesus divine in our minds may discourage some in trying to follow his lead.

Is there something that would change your mind or start you seeing Jesus as an archetypal good man that we are to emulate?


Regards
DL




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Sadly I'm afraid nothing would change their minds short of God slapping them in the face with a trout and telling them it's all just a dream.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The New Testament is an eyewitness account of His followers, who believed because of what they saw. That is why Jesus is considered the Son of God.

so they have to be taken literally.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I wonder OP, the Apostles that followed Jesus were waiting on one particular thing when He died... His resurrection. Tell me, since the Apostles are real, they either made everything up, or Jesus was just a regular guy and died.. if that was the case, why did the Apostles continue to spread the Word of God after Jesus died?

Especially Paul, he's a great example.. If they realized He was fake, why didn't they admit they were wrong, or out of shame, kill themselves?

Why would they go through persecution, hate, and ultimately, to their death, to spread the Good News of the Word of God, if they realized Jesus was fake?

No, it wouldn't make sense.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


The interesting thing about Paul is that he leaves out vital aspects of the story of Jesus that are found in the gospels, e.g. the virgin birth. His books were written before the gospels by decades and are all we have about the early spread of christianity, that I know of.

The similarities between the story of Jesus and earlier pagan religions should tell you something as well. People were willing to die for those religions too. I would say that many who were martyred did not die for christianity alone but in defiance of the roman empire. Even if they did die for christianity alone that does not make it true. Religion does funny things to peoples minds, e.g. buddhist setting themselves on fire in protest

We also do not have accounts of the apostles so we can't really say if they were real or not. Yes we have the gospels, but it seems to me that Paul was spreading christianity, the story was put together by him or another person, and we end up with the gospels.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Just to state the obvious, Jesus wasnt around ever. That Name is phony and made up, only 400 years old. Its like saying Albert Einstein was Isaac Newton. They are totally different people and to say Jesus did this and that is total heresy. First you should find out who the real Name was of the Messiah, who was Hebrew and call Him by that. Which is Yahuwshuwah.

The real thing behind this is to quit babling about unimportant things like, did he or didnt he do it. There is not point in arguing that, if you would read Scripture it says "My children will hear My call" or to that extent. I should have the verse with me but I will repost when I can. You cannot change a persons beliefs they have already chosen where they are going, thus it is written in the Book of Life since the Foundations of the world, thats in Revelations also.

You cant change people to believe what you want, did the Messiah Yahuwshuwah try and "Prove" to the people? No, He ministered, talked to those who asked, preached to those who wanted to hear and moved on. "He who has an ear let him hear". That is quoted so many times, it makes you wonder what it means.

It means you dont bother with those who dont want to hear, only work with those who want the truth. Humans or man cant change a person, only the Heavenly Father Yahuwah can do that. So quit messing around with people who reject the truth, they are never gonna accept it, no matter how much facts or evidence you give them. Believe me I know.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 
You may take some Old Testament stories such as the Garden of Eden as allegorical but there is no indication in the New Testament that any of its historical accounts could be taken in any way but strictly literal.
If you have any argument otherwise I would like to hear it, but I doubt you do.


edit on 23-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


OP I'm not sure anything would ever change their minds. Only critical thinking and valuing rationality. There was a thread on cognitive dissonance that I read the other day about how the religious hear facts but push them to the back of their mind in order to cling to their religion. If I remember correctly they were even denying that they ever experience cognitive dissonance.

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason"
-Benjamin Franklin

That quote always comes to mind when they refuse to face reality.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Honestly there is no evidence other than the bible itself that the new testament is an actual historical account. It is mythology and most scholars view it that way. Everything points to it being allegorical. Paul writing the first books, the gospels not being written until decades later, the gospels are often contradictory, the similarity to pagan religions, etc.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
The New Testament is an eyewitness account of His followers, who believed because of what they saw. That is why Jesus is considered the Son of God.

so they have to be taken literally.


Do you have evidence that they actually witnessed what is written in the gospels? Surely some one else would of wrote of such an event. The Roman soldiers? Any other witnesses? Why were the gospels not written until 70 A.D.? That alone should make you question whether the disciple wrote them themselves.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 

Everything points to it being allegorical.
Based on a lack of other outside evidence, I suppose one could take that position by elimination, but what I mean is, how would you argue that it is meant to be taken in any way but literally, from internal evidence, inside the New Testament. That would exclude the Book of revelation because it is a figurative explanation about possible future events.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well you take it allegorically because there is zero evidence other than the bible itself that any of it happened. The irreconcilable contradictions and the fact that so much of it is taken from other pagan religions They used the gospels to convey the message of the new religion. The absurdity of some of the events in the new testament as well as the apocrypha should show that the author meant it to be allegorical. Or he possibly believed it was fact himself because the story was passed down to him. It can't be taken any other way but allegorical since the events did not take place. If you can show me some evidence that the events happened I would be glad to see it. The bible is not evidence.

You have to have some way to substantiate that what was written is truth or it is not literal history. It is fairly easy to come to the conclusion that the gospels are not an eyewitness accounts by four disciples of Jesus. They are never even represented as eyewitness accounts. It's a story that was passed down and spread throughout the region.
edit on 23-6-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)


The bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of god so if any error is found, which there are many, the whole thing comes into question. And why would it make sense to take the old testament allegorically but not the new?
edit on 23-6-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 
Br'er Rabbit would be an example of absurdity, because animals obviously do not carry on conversations with other species of animal. So that is internal evidence that it was written to be taken allegorically and not literally.
The New Testament does not have such obvious clues to it being meant to be not taken literally, except as I mentioned earlier, the Book of Revelation. Lack of outside evidence that the history in the New Testament is accurate, it would not seem to me, is persuasive to make me think it was not to be taken as actual history.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


Even if you prove the immaculate conception, all the healing miracles, the fish and wine, the ressurection; you still couldn't prove that he was therefore divine; or that his ethical and moral teaching was thereby the best.

Obviously his very existence his highly debated. But i think that is besides the point, in the same way that Socrates' existence cannot be proved, but Socrates doesn't insist upon any truth, he doesn't claim to reveal any wisdom regarding the supernatural.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


This is the most ignorant thread that I have seen here in a long time. If you were unbiased you would learn so much, but alas, you choose to believe that Jesus doesn't exist because of your very limited experience. Perhaps if you actally searched for the truth instead of merely seeking to validate your beliefs. You have a lot to learn and I don't have time to spoon feed you. What I learned I learned through experience, not through youtube.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by megabytz
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well you take it allegorically because there is zero evidence other than the bible itself that any of it happened. The irreconcilable contradictions and the fact that so much of it is taken from other pagan religions They used the gospels to convey the message of the new religion. The absurdity of some of the events in the new testament as well as the apocrypha should show that the author meant it to be allegorical. Or he possibly believed it was fact himself because the story was passed down to him. It can't be taken any other way but allegorical since the events did not take place. If you can show me some evidence that the events happened I would be glad to see it. The bible is not evidence.

You have to have some way to substantiate that what was written is truth or it is not literal history. It is fairly easy to come to the conclusion that the gospels are not an eyewitness accounts by four disciples of Jesus. They are never even represented as eyewitness accounts. It's a story that was passed down and spread throughout the region.
edit on 23-6-2011 by megabytz because: (no reason given)



What absurdity? it's completely normal to me, the NT. The Church took nothing away from pagan beliefs, as they condemned them throughout history. Since the NT is a continuation of the Oldtestament, it began before every pagan religion on the face of the earth. Satan knew how God would come into the World and he knew what we would believ, so he created similiar pagan beliefs in the minds of idol souls to indicate this.

Problem is they fizzled out. While the proof is in the spreading of the Church throughout the World as prophecied.

We use the calendar has our system for living starting with AD/BC. If the Gospel is false, then they did a damn good job of making this Church spread throughout the World and create countless saints, some of which bleed in their hands and worked countless miracles.

Obviously I don't believe we got to this point by chance and because a couple of dudes got together and said: let's make a false story about guy who would be God. Well create a Church and eventually die for him.

Yea let's die for a lie we made up.

It's absurd.

anyways hears an interesting link.

later op!

carm.org...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So a man walking on water, a man rising from the dead, multiple people rising from their graves, turning water into wine, feeding 4000 people with five loaves and two fish, god being led by god to be tempted by the devil, evil spirits being cast into pigs, etc. I think you get my point. This is not absurdity? Some books were left out because of there utter absurdity.

When you have an actual historical account of an event it is substantiated by various other pieces of evidence. We don't have this for the new testament. You think we would since it was supposed to be such an important event. All we have is the gospels themselves. So how do we determine if they are a true history? By determining the reliability of the authors, what language the accounts were written in, are they even presented as an accurate history, what is the time line relative to the supposed events and the time of writing, etc. None of it adds up. Everything is out of place in the gospels and it is obvious folklore.

Are the accounts of Zues, Mythra, Odin, and Dionysus literal history? Do we have a logical reason to believe the accounts in the new testament but not these?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by megabytz
 

This is not absurdity?

No.
I could tell you stories in my life, that I am witness to, that I know happened, which you would find equally absurd.
Other people may feel the same way as I, since I do not think I am alone in this appreciation of the miraculous.
So your examples do hot raise themselves above the threshold of the absurd to me, and I am sure a lot of other people.
To think that every person in the world would find these things automatically absurd, is itself absurd, to me.
I think you need to come up with a more persuasive argument for the intentional allegorical reading of the historical parts of the New Testament.


edit on 23-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JesusisTruthh
 





What absurdity?


Really? See my above post. This is not reality and those were just quick examples from the top of my head. There are plenty more.



The Church took nothing away from pagan beliefs, as they condemned them throughout history. Since the NT is a continuation of the Oldtestament, it began before every pagan religion on the face of the earth.


Seriously? You think Judaism is the worlds first religion. I'm sorry but that is just false. Pagan religions where around 30,000 years ago. People worshipped the earth in the paleolithic age. Hinduism dates as far back as 1,500 B.C.E.



Satan knew how God would come into the World and he knew what we would believ, so he created similiar pagan beliefs in the minds of idol souls to indicate this.


huh? Satan created all the pagan gods and made them similar to Jesus in order to deceive mankind. Well isn't that convenient. Now you don't have to face reality or deal with the dissonance in your mind. This is the type of inane comment that made me leave the church. It also shows you will never listen to reason anyway. Is reason from satan as well? See this thread Cognitive Dissonance



We use the calendar has our system for living starting with AD/BC. If the Gospel is false, then they did a damn good job of making this Church spread throughout the World and create countless saints, some of which bleed in their hands and worked countless miracles.


How does this prove the bible as truth? The calender is not proof of Jesus. And of course it uses AD/BC it was introduced by a pope. Christianity spread just like any other religion. Can you show me one piece of objective evidence of any miracle or of stigmata being a miracle from god.



Obviously I don't believe we got to this point by chance and because a couple of dudes got together and said: let's make a false story about guy who would be God. Well create a Church and eventually die for him.


No one said a couple "dudes" got together and made up a story. It is a little more complicated than that. And who says that any supposed original follower of Christ died for their belief? People died for their religion long before christianity and they still do today.

Why not provide a link that doesn't use the bible as proof of the bible. I already have a headache without trying to follow your circular logic.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Of course they are not absurd to you. You are a christian. I was a christian once as well and would profess that they weren't absurd but knew in my mind they were not grounded in reality. Are the miracles from all the other gods in history absurd? Or are they plausible in your mind as well? If not, then why are Jesus' miracles so plausible? If they are, then is Jesus really god?




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join