The bible

PostmodernProphet said:
exactly.....that is the lie I am referring to.....
Click to expand...

I know that "truth" and "honesty" are NOT your thing, but would you mind showing us where the authorship of the Gospels was attributed to the nominal authors at the time of writing?

If you can't then you cannot decree it a lie. That means you are bearing false witness.
 
Into the Night said:
Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
Click to expand...

OemNaX6.jpg
 
Cypress said:
All the non Jewish ones.

For your next degree, you might consider going to a real seminary or divinity school.

Far from turning me into a rabid atheist, the genuine scholars of religion I learn from have given me a deeper and more nuanced appreciation of the role of Judeo-Christianity in western historical, philosophical, and moral development.

You do not have to literally accept that an Aramaic speaking pleasant fisherman wrote the Gospel of John in sophisticated Hellenistic Greek to have an appreciation for the pivotal role, both good and bad, religion played in Western civilization. And you don't need to convince yourself of the historical accuracy of the Jewish prophets to appreciate the moral wisdom in the prophetic writings.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should realize that an atheist is not a credible source of knowledge about the beliefs they deny.......
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I know that "truth" and "honesty" are NOT your thing, but would you mind showing us where the authorship of the Gospels was attributed to the nominal authors at the time of writing?

If you can't then you cannot decree it a lie. That means you are bearing false witness.
Click to expand...

its not t0o late for you to read this thread.......when you're done and you can convince me you are not just ignoring the answer feel free to ask again.......
 
Frank Apisa said:
The Jesus Project just about destroyed the Gospel of John. There is almost nothing in that Gospel that the Project supposes to actually be the words of Jesus.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the Jesus project is.

I would be surprised if the Gospel of John, the Analects, or the Dao de Jing accurately record the quotes of Jesus, Confucius, or Laozi.

People in antiquity didn't think about history and accuracy the way we do.

I think its enough to say that whatever embellishments and misrepresentations there were, they attempted to capture something of the essence of these great sages.

The fact that multiple independent sources link Jesus to concepts of social justice, universal love, charity, and compassion seems to me to be a fairly good representation of at least something of the essence of the historical Jesus.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
its not t0o late for you to read this thread.......when you're done and you can convince me you are not just ignoring the answer feel free to ask again.......
Click to expand...

So you can't show me where you explained it? Got it.

Is this another of your lies? Or are you just lazy?

Either way I still know more about this than you do and I'm not a slave to some exegetical acrobatics necessary to square the circle. So I'll simply assume you don't know what you're talking about (as per usual).

"Masters of Theology". HILARIOUS!
 
Cypress said:
I would be surprised if the Gospel of John, the Analects, or the Dao de Jing accurately record the quotes of Jesus, Confucius, or Laozi.
Click to expand...

The cool thing is: It doesn't really matter if they are. The ideas are nice regardless of the sources. The religious NEED it to be one particular way or their faith is called into question. This is why they will fight tooth and nail without any evidence on their side and they will follow whatever exegetical rabbit holes they need to square the circle.

It's actually kind of a shame and leads to SO MANY Christians slavishly focusing on the words without understanding the concepts. So you get Christians on here telling people to "fuck off" when they are unable to convert someone to their sect. Or you get Christians lying for God. Etc.

People in antiquity didn't think about history and accuracy the way we do.
Click to expand...

DEFINITELY.

I think its enough to say that whatever embellishments and misrepresentations there were, they attempted to capture something of the essence of these great sages.
Click to expand...

Or just made them up from whole cloth. Doesn't make the teachings any less valuable.

The fact that multiple independent sources link Jesus to concepts of social justice, universal love, charity, and compassion seems to me to be a fairly good representation of at least something of the essence of the historical Jesus.
Click to expand...

That's assuming there was an actual historical Jesus. But again, even if Jesus never existed or was just some random dude wandering around Judea at some point, the message is great (the soteriology piece is perhaps overly limited, but the social justice, equity and love for one another are far more important overall and still quite valuable)
 
Perry Phimosis said:
The cool thing is: It doesn't really matter if they are. The ideas are nice regardless of the sources. The religious NEED it to be one particular way or their faith is called into question. This is why they will fight tooth and nail without any evidence on their side and they will follow whatever exegetical rabbit holes they need to square the circle.

It's actually kind of a shame and leads to SO MANY Christians slavishly focusing on the words without understanding the concepts. So you get Christians on here telling people to "fuck off" when they are unable to convert someone to their sect. Or you get Christians lying for God. Etc.



DEFINITELY.



Or just made them up from whole cloth. Doesn't make the teachings any less valuable.



That's assuming there was an actual historical Jesus. But again, even if Jesus never existed or was just some random dude wandering around Judea at some point, the message is great (the soteriology piece is perhaps overly limited, but the social justice, equity and love for one another are far more important overall and still quite valuable)
Click to expand...

Good post.

I think Laozi was probably legendary.
Zarathustra= probably legendary.

I think it is likely Jesus and Confucius were real people but not widely known during their lifetimes. Confucius was a teacher with a small following of students who kept memory of him alive through several generations of oral tradition. Jesus was a Jewish mystic with a small ministry of a couple dozen people at most, but an oral tradition about him continued for a few decades until we begin to see the epistles of Paul and the gospel of Mark.

I think it would be the archeological discovery of the century if the lost Gospel of Q ever shows up, because that would put us very close to the contemporaries of Jesus.
 
Cypress said:
I don't know what the Jesus project is.

I would be surprised if the Gospel of John, the Analects, or the Dao de Jing accurately record the quotes of Jesus, Confucius, or Laozi.

People in antiquity didn't think about history and accuracy the way we do.

I think its enough to say that whatever embellishments and misrepresentations there were, they attempted to capture something of the essence of these great sages.

The fact that multiple independent sources link Jesus to concepts of social justice, universal love, charity, and compassion seems to me to be a fairly good representation of at least something of the essence of the historical Jesus.
Click to expand...

I probably should have used The Jesus Seminar rather than The Jesus Project, although both were projects that wanted to investigate the reality of the existence of Jesus...and to determine what passages quoting Jesus probably did not accurately quote him.

John was found to be the least reliable...although, as you mentioned, the essence of what Jesus preached was furthered. (If Jesus was a single individual who lived.)

You are absolutely correct that the teachings of Jesus in the Bible indicate a dedication to social justice, universal love, charity, and compassion. I only wish the more vocal proponents of today's Christianity were more dedicated to those features.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
So you can't show me where you explained it? Got it.

Is this another of your lies? Or are you just lazy?

Either way I still know more about this than you do and I'm not a slave to some exegetical acrobatics necessary to square the circle. So I'll simply assume you don't know what you're talking about (as per usual).

"Masters of Theology". HILARIOUS!
Click to expand...

its not my fault that you're too lazy to read the thread......or is it just that's above your head?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
its not my fault that you're too lazy to read the thread......or is it just that's above your head?.......
Click to expand...

Just as a note there's >500 posts on this thread. I'm not going to read the entire thread looking for what I know isn't there. Since I think you are inherently dishonest and not to be trusted I don't believe anything like this actually in the thread and since you don't care enough about the topic to simply point to the post # I'll assume I'm right and you are, as per usual, lying.

How many lies before Jesus gives you a free toaster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top