The Dishonest Church and the Dishonest Christians----Jesus: The Man and the Myths

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
The Christians toss in a lot of overstatement on what is known about Jesus and what was embellished as the Jesus story long after he departed the Disciples, or the Apostles.

It appears the Seminary professionals know problems exist, but to keep the followers happy with the fairy tale they have a dual personality, one on the pulpit and another academic version off the pulpit.

What happens is this causes a lot of problems with the followers buying into the smoke of the embellished Jesus stories and failing to adhere to respecting the laws of nature. Such makes a mythical Jesus that most of the Christians attempt to float off on others as truth. Such causes huge divisions and gets Christians called Infidels and Crazy.

In the following, One gets a little peak into the issue of the academics know there are problems and story drifts and story is embellished. They even speak to the issues of the "Dishonest Church," and as Jesus more truthfully couched as just Jesus: The MAN. This makes more sense with what occured historically as it holds to the natural laws.

Excerpts:




www.truthdig.com...

Jesus: The Man, the Myth
A Dig led by The Rev. Madison Shockley

The truth about Jesus is that he never intended to start a church or a new religion. He did not understand himself to be the divine Son of God; rather, he saw himself as the “Son of [hu]Man[ity]” or an “average Joe.” Not only did he not start a church, he joined the reform movement of John the Baptizer (aka John the Baptist), who was a popular and charismatic Jewish prophet.

------

The current quest began in the 1970s. The ethos of the early “questers” has now permeated most mainstream seminary curricula. Several generations of ministers have been trained in the historical-critical method that interprets the Christian texts from a literary and historical perspective and ignores the doctrines of the Church. This methodology constitutes the basic tools for those excavating Jesus from under the layers of faith, fantasy and fact that have covered him over the years. These historically trained ministers have carried on the traditional faith in their pulpits despite their new perspective, producing a phenomenon that Jack Good describes in his book “The Dishonest Church.” In academic gatherings they pursue the truth with passion, but in the local church they teach Sunday school lessons from generations past.

--------

But Jesus’ story proved quite malleable in the hands of the skilled editors who would later tell his story. Initially, a wide variety of such remembrances, interpretations and extrapolations emerged from the early Christian communities that had known the historical Jesus. This group—its members generally were known as “the disciples”—was soon distilled into an authoritative clique that the early church came to revere as “the Apostles.” Paul is the only apostle from whom we have authentic written product. However, he, by his own admission, was a lesser apostle because he never knew the historical Jesus but rather was commissioned as an apostle (“as one untimely born”) by the “risen” Jesus.

----

Liberal Christians will continue to ignore the more miraculous elements of the Bible and of Jesus’ story but maintain their embrace of the Israelite prophetic tradition and the social justice implications of Jesus’ teaching and preaching. The real battle will be between the fundamentalist Christians on the right and the progressive Christians on the left.




I am sure discussions such as this are going to challenge the illusions that the Christians have been programmed into believing, but the reality is many of the miracles are violations of natural laws and all the words are those of men with their own personal objectives in writing the various accounts.

edit on 6-9-2012 by MagnumOpus because: The Dishonest Church exposed and the Dishonest Christians of the Political Church exposed.




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I read the blog, hoping to have my illusions shattered by some evidence. The only thing coming close was the lack of documents written about Jesus while he was alive. That is not unusual. As you probably know, Jesus was written about around 20 years after His death. Mohammad was written about for at least 70 years after his death.

If you were to write a thread denying the historicity of Mohammad, you'd be able to find more evidence for denying him than there is for denying Jesus.

I'm afraid the blog was only assertions and opinions with very little to back those up.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
excellent post/thread! s&f 4 U !

i've been 'preaching' this story for years to any one who will listen! (and to a bunch who didn't want to listen!!!
)

the story is quite simple when you break it down to a believable level.

jesus wasn't a poor carpenter. bible historians seem to think his family had some kind of 'social position',as he was friends with joseph amerithea a wealthy tin merchant,who could afford his own tomb (where jesus was later laid)
jesus was of the zealot branch of Judaism,and was tired of his country men backsliding,and bowing to roman occupation. he wanted rome out,his people to get back to the true law of moses.
he was influential,and charismatic in a time when revolution against rome could (and did!!) explode at any time.
rome was very aware of this,so in order to quell the people,they 'got rid' of john the baptist,and next jesus.
crucifiction was mainly used on political prisoners.
the whole deal about rome letting the jews pick a prisoner to go free,and they picked barrabas,is simply not true!
there is no record of this ever happening on any occasion during the roman occupation.
its a shame that modern,intelligent people still follow 'this myth we have in christ"! (pope leo X)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I believe there is an ultimate creator, but I also believe that the bible tells us much more about the nature of man than the nature of God. Sometimes I ask myself though, was my development in belief of a single God manipulated by centuries of men who really had no clue what they were talking about...Unfortunately I have a feeling this is likely the case. I mean without the Abrahamic religions, what are the odds that the majority of the world today would be believing in an individual creator, instead of a pantheon of Gods like the Greeks or Romans, or other societies of past times?

I do not think that logic will dispel anyone with a strong belief in the Christian faith from realizing that what they believe is not supported by historical evidence, and that actually what this evidence supports is somewhat of an opposite belief. The issue of Jesus' divinity is problematic only for Christians, as the Jews have always maintained him to be only a "prophet," which may be wrong as well depending on how you analyze the word prophet. In my opinion Muslims have never had much ground to stand on as far as their messiah Muhammed, because so much time had passed from the creation of the Jewish religion, much more so than Christianity.

Anyway, with religion ingrained the way it is today, I do not see the majority coming to an agreement anytime soon. I highly expect things to continue on in a similar manner regarding the different religions, with Christians still believing Jesus was diving, while the Jews maintaining he was not, and the Muslims still wanting to kill the other two groups because they aren't Islamic. That's how I see it anyway, which is backed up to an extent by the historical record.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
You know if somebody started telling storys about Obama performing miracle healing people and calling himself God, then published on book on the whole story, would you believe it?
Would you pass on the story, wouldnt it eventually die. Means nothing except to those who were there.

Now same thing, some 2 thousand years ago. Cept then people believed it and gave up their lives for the message. People passed on the message and gave up everything for it. A man called himself God and performed miracles. Well it gets boring and hard to believe doesnt it.
That message should die, but hasnt...Why not?
But it still exists and gets stronger, beyond human logic it grows.
Why?
Its not just a message, there is a Holy Spirit behind it
The message, is important as well. It goes like this. Love God, love each other. Thats it, no more.

If it was as you claim it would be dead. Two maybe three generations you wont even be a memory.
Insignificant, yet Christianity based on that message grows and grows.
The church is dishounest as are Christians. Jesus though, well He speaks for himself, with the Holy Spirit of course.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
I am sure discussions such as this are going to challenge the illusions that the Christians have been programmed into believing, but the reality is many of the miracles are violations of natural laws and all the words are those of men with their own personal objectives in writing the various accounts.


Haha!


Do you really think most Christians believe Jesus??

They can't even obey what Jesus teaches. You can't profess to be a follower and a believer if you don't do the things Jesus commanded.

Jesus told a lot of absolutely horrible things about money and it is to be absolutely hated, absolutely treat it as if it had no value.

And Christian will throw Old Testament verses in your face if you point this out to profess their love for money, rather than God!! If they love Old Testament so much, why don't we throw in animal sacrifice, or stoning sinners to death, or marrying multiple wives???

Most Christians love money, their possessions, their family more than God! They rebel against the teachings of Jesus.

With the bulk of Christianity today, their distribution among the richest countries. If all of them would truly follow Jesus, there would be no one starving in the world today!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I used to be part of the mainstream Christianity (pentecostal/evangelical) for over 2 decades. Absolutely glad I was able to come out of it. Many denominations are preaching essentially the same things! They have one Bible, and believe it to be infallible and everything in it is good.

Now I just follow Jesus
edit on 6-9-2012 by ahnggk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
While the above claims will, and should, trigger skepticism, one needs to remember that as Christianity describes its origins, it was not only supernatural but also historically illogical. Christianity, a movement that encouraged pacifism and obedience to Rome, claims to have emerged from a nation engaged in a century-long struggle with Rome.

An analogy to Christianity's purported origins might be a cult established by Polish Jews during World War II that set up its headquarters in Berlin and encouraged its members to pay taxes to the Third Reich.


When one looks at the form of early {Flavian} Christianity, one sees not Judea, but Rome.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

... but the reality is many of the miracles are violations of natural laws ...


No they aren't. Brush up on your parapsychology.

Introduction to Parapsychology

Extraordinary Knowing

Entangled Minds



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

... but the reality is many of the miracles are violations of natural laws ...



Originally posted by BlueMule
No they aren't. Brush up on your parapsychology.


The authors of the Gospels constructed Jesus from the lives of several prophets in the Jewish canon. Thus, since Elijah and Elisha had raised children from the dead, Jesus would do the same. Whenever possible, Jesus' miracles would be greater than the ones they were based upon. For example, Elisha satisfied a hundred men with twenty loaves and had bread to spare.

Since the NT is fictional, typological literature, who really cares about the so-called miracles of a transparently comic book character?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightBreeze

The authors of the Gospels constructed Jesus from the lives of several prophets in the Jewish canon. Thus, since Elijah and Elisha had raised children from the dead, Jesus would do the same. Whenever possible, Jesus' miracles would be greater than the ones they were based upon. For example, Elisha satisfied a hundred men with twenty loaves and had bread to spare.

Since the NT is fictional, typological literature, who really cares about the so-called miracles of a transparently comic book character?


Even if all that is true its completely irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 

Christianity was created to be an alternative to the type of rebellious Judaism that swept across Judea in the first century C.E. It is important to try to identify the individuals who were converting to the militaristic Judaism and for whom Christianity was to be an alternative. We are fortunate that Josephus has actually provided a description of these individuals so that we can learn who they were.

How the fact that the NT is irrelevant in terms of Jesus' miracles is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightBreeze
 


Just take a closer look at the sci-fi/comic book mythos, which you compare to the NT.

Mutants and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 

Even if all that is true its completely irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightBreeze
reply to post by BlueMule
 

Even if all that is true its completely irrelevant.



Well, I guess we've reached the point where keeping up with my argument would take too much homework? Its easier to just throw my posts back at me now?


Send me a PM if you read the book I linked you to. Same goes for you, OP.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 

No need for the U2U.

Verne, Wells, Lovecraft, Keel, Dick, Vallee, Morrison, and others offer sophisticated views that suffice for me. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


You've wandered into the realm of "The Quest for the Historical Jesus", which is nothing new -- it originated in 19th century Germany and was demonstrated to be a fraud back then, but has recently been resurrected (har har) by the "Jesus Seminar". From your article:


The scholarship of the Jesus Seminar of the Westar Institute, a gathering of more than 200 professionally trained specialists, is at the forefront of this current quest for the historical Jesus.


What's wrong with the quest for the historical Jesus? It's a "quest" with an existing expectation -- that Christ wasn't divine, and that there were no supernatural events associated with him. Why? Well, originally, it was prompted by 19th Century Liberal Theology, which was a reaction to (or a surrender to, if you will,) Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. In order to reconcile their faith and their reason, they jettisoned anything in their faith that wasn't compatible with their reason, and the quest for the historical Jesus set out to prove that.

It didn't, of course, and was quickly out of favour, even among Liberal Theologians. Its current incarnation, the Jesus Seminar, demonstrates the exact same mentality, though -- they define the "truth" of Christianity as that which rejects the supernatural, miracles, resurrection and so forth. The result, of course, is a "Christianity" that is not Christianity at all, which makes one wonder what the point of it might be.

If you don't want to believe that Christ was divine or did supernatural things, just don't believe it. You don't need some "scholar" to declare it for you, since their basis is the exact same one as yours, and the fact that they are a scholar doesn't make it any more truthful.
edit on 6-9-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
I read the blog, hoping to have my illusions shattered by some evidence. The only thing coming close was the lack of documents written about Jesus while he was alive. That is not unusual. As you probably know, Jesus was written about around 20 years after His death. Mohammad was written about for at least 70 years after his death.

If you were to write a thread denying the historicity of Mohammad, you'd be able to find more evidence for denying him than there is for denying Jesus.


Mormon scriptures were written while the dude was still alive. Does that make it even more authentic than Christianity?



Originally posted by charles1952
I'm afraid the blog was only assertions and opinions with very little to back those up.


If you didn't use the word "blog", I would have thought you were describing the bible.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
Mormon scriptures were written while the dude was still alive. Does that make it even more authentic than Christianity?


Where does the Book of Mormon state that it is about the person of Joseph Smith?

Have you even read it? It is about supposed ancient events, and to say it was "written while the dude was still alive" is idiotic -- of course Smith was still alive when he wrote it!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 





They can't even obey what Jesus teaches. You can't profess to be a follower and a believer if you don't do the things Jesus commanded.


You can't either, you just failed...again. Pot meet kettle. Now you know what his grace is for. Take the board out of your eye before attending to the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightBreeze
 



The authors of the Gospels constructed Jesus from the lives of several prophets in the Jewish canon. Thus, since Elijah and Elisha had raised children from the dead, Jesus would do the same. Whenever possible, Jesus' miracles would be greater than the ones they were based upon. For example, Elisha satisfied a hundred men with twenty loaves and had bread to spare.

Since the NT is fictional, typological literature, who really cares about the so-called miracles of a transparently comic book character?


Lolwut? Yeshua was not fabricated, you are aware the tombs of His Apostles were discovered, with his Aramaic (Yeshua) name carved into their ossuaries (second burial boxes) and crosses eteched into them yes?

Meet archeaological evidence:



Simcha Jacobovici also discovered the actual tomb Yeshua was laid in and it's not "the Holy Sepulchre" where Rome says it is either, except Israeli Antiquities wouldn't let him investigate more than sending robots in. There's actually quite a bit of archeaological evidence surrounding Yeshua.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join