if jesus and god were fabrications
- Thread starter fahrenheit 451
- Start date
Red Devil: I understand a full bottle of Glenfiddich has the same effect! 
Your terminology is incorrect. would not believe the things I believe about it etc as you simply do NOT KNOW
*************
M*W: Ya know, RD, we've had some looney tunes on this forum before, but c20 out-stupids them all! Some people can hide their ignornance, but c20 parades it around like the idiot he is. He has no shame! I think he has completed his ungodly mission here. I vote to get rid of him. Who needs christians? (I don't).
Your terminology is incorrect. would not believe the things I believe about it etc as you simply do NOT KNOW
*************
M*W: Ya know, RD, we've had some looney tunes on this forum before, but c20 out-stupids them all! Some people can hide their ignornance, but c20 parades it around like the idiot he is. He has no shame! I think he has completed his ungodly mission here. I vote to get rid of him. Who needs christians? (I don't).
David F.: Not knowing is not proof of falsehood. This thread seems strange anyway. How can God or Jesus be proved to be false? It is impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. You can only prove that something is true.
*************
M*W: If Mary Magdalene says there's a Jesus, I believe her, but I don't believe anything Paul has said.
*************
M*W: If Mary Magdalene says there's a Jesus, I believe her, but I don't believe anything Paul has said.
David F.: OK, fair enough. Do you believe anything the other apostles wrote?
*************
M*W: Thus far, I've only purchsed the Gospel of MM to read, so I have it as a reference. Peter is quoted in this gospel as is Andrew (and possibly Philip -- I haven't gotten that far):
MM: "Then Andrew began to speak, and said to his brothers: 'Tell me, what do you think of these things she has been telling us?' As for me, I do not believe that the Teacher would speak like this. These ideas are too different from those we have known."
MM: "And Peter added: "How is it possible that the Teacher talked in this manner, with a woman, about secrets of which we ourselves are ignorant? Must we change our customs, and listen to this woman? Did he really choose her, and prefer her to us?"
(Mary 17:9-20)
"Then Mary wept, and answered him: "My brother Peter, what can you be thinking? Do you believe tht this is just my own imgintion, tht I invented this vision [of The Teacher]? Or do you believe tht I would lie about our Teacher?"
"At this, Levi spoke up: "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered, and now we see you repudiating a woman, just as our adversaries do. Yet if the Teacher held her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Teacher knew her very well, for he loved her more than us. Therefore let us atone, and become fully human (Anthropos] (Body, Mind and Spirit = Trinity), so that the Teacher can take root in us. Let us grow as he demanded of us, and walk forth to spread the gospel, without trying to lay down any rules and laws other than those he witnessed."
"When Levi had sid these words, they all went forth to spread the gospel." (Mary 19:1-3)
[Side Note] The Teacher never preaches any sort of belief system other than to 'be in harmony' with your Mind, Body and Spirit.' The Teacher preaches about being in balance and in harmony with yourself.
Excerpted from the Gospel of Thomas:
"Simon Peter said to him [Thomas], "Let Mary leave us, for women are not fit for the Life."
Jesus answered: "See, I have been guiding her so as to make her into a (complete) human [Anthropos] (Body, Mind, Spirit). She, too, will become a living breath, like you. Any woman who becomes a human will enter the Kingdom of God."
(Thomas 114)
[Side Note] According to the Gospel of Mary, it is precisely the 'nous,' meaning human higher mind or spirit, that receives the Pneuma or 'spirit of god.' The 'nous' is in between the Psyche (soul) and the Soma (body). With the Psyche and Soma connecting with the Spirit, one becomes 'fully human.'
This is what I've read thus far. If I come upon any other figures that may have walked with Jesus in his day, I will add those later.
*************
M*W: Thus far, I've only purchsed the Gospel of MM to read, so I have it as a reference. Peter is quoted in this gospel as is Andrew (and possibly Philip -- I haven't gotten that far):
MM: "Then Andrew began to speak, and said to his brothers: 'Tell me, what do you think of these things she has been telling us?' As for me, I do not believe that the Teacher would speak like this. These ideas are too different from those we have known."
MM: "And Peter added: "How is it possible that the Teacher talked in this manner, with a woman, about secrets of which we ourselves are ignorant? Must we change our customs, and listen to this woman? Did he really choose her, and prefer her to us?"
(Mary 17:9-20)
"Then Mary wept, and answered him: "My brother Peter, what can you be thinking? Do you believe tht this is just my own imgintion, tht I invented this vision [of The Teacher]? Or do you believe tht I would lie about our Teacher?"
"At this, Levi spoke up: "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered, and now we see you repudiating a woman, just as our adversaries do. Yet if the Teacher held her worthy, who are you to reject her? Surely the Teacher knew her very well, for he loved her more than us. Therefore let us atone, and become fully human (Anthropos] (Body, Mind and Spirit = Trinity), so that the Teacher can take root in us. Let us grow as he demanded of us, and walk forth to spread the gospel, without trying to lay down any rules and laws other than those he witnessed."
"When Levi had sid these words, they all went forth to spread the gospel." (Mary 19:1-3)
[Side Note] The Teacher never preaches any sort of belief system other than to 'be in harmony' with your Mind, Body and Spirit.' The Teacher preaches about being in balance and in harmony with yourself.
Excerpted from the Gospel of Thomas:
"Simon Peter said to him [Thomas], "Let Mary leave us, for women are not fit for the Life."
Jesus answered: "See, I have been guiding her so as to make her into a (complete) human [Anthropos] (Body, Mind, Spirit). She, too, will become a living breath, like you. Any woman who becomes a human will enter the Kingdom of God."
(Thomas 114)
[Side Note] According to the Gospel of Mary, it is precisely the 'nous,' meaning human higher mind or spirit, that receives the Pneuma or 'spirit of god.' The 'nous' is in between the Psyche (soul) and the Soma (body). With the Psyche and Soma connecting with the Spirit, one becomes 'fully human.'
This is what I've read thus far. If I come upon any other figures that may have walked with Jesus in his day, I will add those later.
David F.: So... does this mean you reject all of the NT but accept/believe the writings of MM?
*************
M*W: If MM did, in fact, write the Gospel of John and Revelations, then I would grant credibility to both The Gospel of John and Revelations, because they lived in Jesus' day and knew him.
I don't, however, believe anything in the NT written by Paul which includes the Epistles and the first three gospels, since they were influenced by Paul. I also don't believe there were any fulfillments to the prophecies of the OT, because it was Paul who created the fulfillments according to the OT. I need to do further study on the Gnostic Gospels that were suppressed by Paul and his followers.
*************
M*W: If MM did, in fact, write the Gospel of John and Revelations, then I would grant credibility to both The Gospel of John and Revelations, because they lived in Jesus' day and knew him.
I don't, however, believe anything in the NT written by Paul which includes the Epistles and the first three gospels, since they were influenced by Paul. I also don't believe there were any fulfillments to the prophecies of the OT, because it was Paul who created the fulfillments according to the OT. I need to do further study on the Gnostic Gospels that were suppressed by Paul and his followers.
The author of John and Revelations claims to be John. If MM wrote them, then she starts out by lieing so I'm not sure how credible that would make her. Actually, if anyone but John wrote them, they would be lieing making the rest of the material in the books unbelievable.
What evidence is there that John did not write these books?
What evidence is there that Paul influenced Matthew or Mark (Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, but only after he wrote the book of Luke and half the book of Acts).
What evidence is there that John did not write these books?
What evidence is there that Paul influenced Matthew or Mark (Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, but only after he wrote the book of Luke and half the book of Acts).
David F.: The author of John and Revelations claims to be John.
*************
M*W: Yes, historically, tht is what we believed. I will have to look through my library to see if I can find the citations.
*************
David F.: If MM wrote them, then she starts out by lieing so I'm not sure how credible that would make her.
*************
M*W: I'm sure you know how they treated women at this time. Even Peter humiliated her and didn't believe her when she spoke of Jesus. He confronted Jesus about it, and Jesus pulled him aside and told him that she would become the leader of his ministry. I don't believe I've read anything where Jesus was to have made Peter the head of his ministry. Those words were by Paul, "Get the behind me, Satan."
*************
David F.: Actually, if anyone but John wrote them, they would be lieing making the rest of the material in the books unbelievable.
*************
M*W: Unfortunately, this is true. MM had a close relationship with John the Baptist, and some scholars have the notion that Mary used his name, so Jesus' words would be read. Interestingly, the early church fathers included the Gospel of John and Revelations, so MM was clever to write under John's name. For all we know, MM's gospels and the other gnostic gospels my be the only truth we have.
*************
David F.: What evidence is there that John did not write these books?
*************
M*W: I'm checking. I've read it somewhere. I'll get back to you with it.
*************
David F.: What evidence is there that Paul influenced Matthew or Mark (Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, but only after he wrote the book of Luke and half the book of Acts).
*************
M*W: Again, I've read this somewhere recently, and I'll do some looking. I've got so many books I've purchased, and it's a struggle to go through them, but I will get back to you with some scholarly evidence.
*************
M*W: Yes, historically, tht is what we believed. I will have to look through my library to see if I can find the citations.
*************
David F.: If MM wrote them, then she starts out by lieing so I'm not sure how credible that would make her.
*************
M*W: I'm sure you know how they treated women at this time. Even Peter humiliated her and didn't believe her when she spoke of Jesus. He confronted Jesus about it, and Jesus pulled him aside and told him that she would become the leader of his ministry. I don't believe I've read anything where Jesus was to have made Peter the head of his ministry. Those words were by Paul, "Get the behind me, Satan."
*************
David F.: Actually, if anyone but John wrote them, they would be lieing making the rest of the material in the books unbelievable.
*************
M*W: Unfortunately, this is true. MM had a close relationship with John the Baptist, and some scholars have the notion that Mary used his name, so Jesus' words would be read. Interestingly, the early church fathers included the Gospel of John and Revelations, so MM was clever to write under John's name. For all we know, MM's gospels and the other gnostic gospels my be the only truth we have.
*************
David F.: What evidence is there that John did not write these books?
*************
M*W: I'm checking. I've read it somewhere. I'll get back to you with it.
*************
David F.: What evidence is there that Paul influenced Matthew or Mark (Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, but only after he wrote the book of Luke and half the book of Acts).
*************
M*W: Again, I've read this somewhere recently, and I'll do some looking. I've got so many books I've purchased, and it's a struggle to go through them, but I will get back to you with some scholarly evidence.
to control your mind and take your money!c20H25N3o said:
www.objectivethought.com/atheism/carlin.html
two very good replies q25, I've always liked carlin and his cutting remarks.
does'nt it just wind you up when thay say " you say prove there is a god , but you prove there is'nt one first", it's so frigging lame, the onus has and will always be on the one make the assertion.
does'nt it just wind you up when thay say " you say prove there is a god , but you prove there is'nt one first", it's so frigging lame, the onus has and will always be on the one make the assertion.
Typical male chauvenism. (sp). According to many theorists Mary was the rightful successor to Jesus when he died she was to take over his organistation, note, I say organisation, not CHURCH! Jesus was real enough, I don't doubt that but a religious geezer, a god, hardly. Just another left wing radical who wanted Judeah for the Jews and not for Rome. Naturally everything gets twisted in the telling plus the deliberate rewriting of the original bible 400 years after his death.
Oh ye faithful (insert suckers), believe me, cause I am bloody right whether you like it or not. The Pope 400AD
Jesus didn't come to tell about MM. He came to tell about Our Father. He died for telling you about His Father. God raised Him up again obviously. We Christians live by the Holy Spirit. He is our Helper. We do not belong to the world because we belong to Him. The Spirit of God teaches us much. We rejoice in Him that came to tell us the good news. In His ressurection we have hope because God is good to have raised Jesus. How could death keep Him?
peace
c20
peace
c20
c20H25N3o said:
Dream on sonny boy , dream on. Whilst I respect anyone their belief I cannot but wonder about why people have such blind faith in superstition and what amounts to historical "heresay" - those brave enough to question will be rewarded with the truth, my son! The bible is a complete tissue of lies, truly.
Red Devil: Typical male chauvenism. According to many theorists Mary was the rightful successor to Jesus when he died she was to take over his organistation, note, I say organisation, not CHURCH!
*************
M*W: Yes, this is true. I see Jesus' mission like an enlightened philosophy or attitude, but Jesus did not intend on changing any laws of the Torah.
*************
RD: Jesus was real enough, I don't doubt that but a religious geezer, a god, hardly. Just another left wing radical who wanted Judeah for the Jews and not for Rome. Naturally everything gets twisted in the telling plus the deliberate rewriting of the original bible 400 years after his death.
*************
M*W: That's proof right there that christianity is false. Jesus didn't teach christianity nor did he found it! Peter was jealous of Mary, and you're right, Mary was the chosen one to carry Jesus' message. It was Paul who wrote, "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church," said Jesus through Paul. I believe that MM carried more than Jesus' message -- I believe she carried his children.
*************
RD: Oh ye faithful (insert suckers), believe me, cause I am bloody right whether you like it or not. The Pope 400AD
*************
M*W: The RCC teaches that the Catholic Church was conceived on the Day of Pentecost, but that doesn't add up mathematically. Jesus didn't become the dying demigod savior until about 400AD, and that's about when they decided to create the trinity.
In the Gospel of MM, Jesus was supposed to have said that we need to become "fully human" -- that is to attain balance between our Body-Mind-Soul -- this was the 'nous' -- the Spirit. Strangely, what Jesus taught was sort of a trinity concept. I wonder why the RCC changed that enlightened view to believing that this dying demigod savior was crucified, died and was buried, and on the third day rose again??? That would mean the RCC is the Antichrist, because Paul was the one who wanted Peter to lead it -- yet, Peter was crucified upside down, knowing full well that Jesus wasn't crucified nor resurrected! What a tangled web we weave!!
*************
M*W: Yes, this is true. I see Jesus' mission like an enlightened philosophy or attitude, but Jesus did not intend on changing any laws of the Torah.
*************
RD: Jesus was real enough, I don't doubt that but a religious geezer, a god, hardly. Just another left wing radical who wanted Judeah for the Jews and not for Rome. Naturally everything gets twisted in the telling plus the deliberate rewriting of the original bible 400 years after his death.
*************
M*W: That's proof right there that christianity is false. Jesus didn't teach christianity nor did he found it! Peter was jealous of Mary, and you're right, Mary was the chosen one to carry Jesus' message. It was Paul who wrote, "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church," said Jesus through Paul. I believe that MM carried more than Jesus' message -- I believe she carried his children.
*************
RD: Oh ye faithful (insert suckers), believe me, cause I am bloody right whether you like it or not. The Pope 400AD
*************
M*W: The RCC teaches that the Catholic Church was conceived on the Day of Pentecost, but that doesn't add up mathematically. Jesus didn't become the dying demigod savior until about 400AD, and that's about when they decided to create the trinity.
In the Gospel of MM, Jesus was supposed to have said that we need to become "fully human" -- that is to attain balance between our Body-Mind-Soul -- this was the 'nous' -- the Spirit. Strangely, what Jesus taught was sort of a trinity concept. I wonder why the RCC changed that enlightened view to believing that this dying demigod savior was crucified, died and was buried, and on the third day rose again??? That would mean the RCC is the Antichrist, because Paul was the one who wanted Peter to lead it -- yet, Peter was crucified upside down, knowing full well that Jesus wasn't crucified nor resurrected! What a tangled web we weave!!
Any church keen to hold onto the power it craves, and the wealth that goes with it, will do anything to maintain that hold on gullible people. I seem to recall a little known fact that the whole dogma of the Catholic Church is based on the arrival of JC again on the year 2000 - er, anyone know which train he got? Its 4 years late and counting!!!!
C20,
Why couldn’t the father have done that himself?
So he isn’t dead then so his apparent death wasn’t particularly important then, right? So why make a fuss about it?
The only good reason for making an issue of death is that it is a permanent loss – in this case nothing was lost and therefore there is no worthwhile issue. The sacrifice of a loved son by a god only has real impact if that son were lost forever – now that would be a sacrifice. As it is your god appears to have not given up or lost anything.
Isn’t that slavery? Why would that ever be considered a good thing?
For example?
According to the Christian myth God screwed up his original design and now has to have his son killed to correct his mistake – in the meantime we have had to suffer for his mess. It could be seen as good news that he is finally getting his act together, but it is also an admission that he was incompetent in the beginning.
Why is it good? He is meant to be omniscient so this would be his intention from the beginning, right? So if death couldn’t keep him then doesn’t that show that death is not in the least a big issue, so again why make a fuss about killing a god that can’t be killed?
Death is irrelevant to a god who has the power of creation and life and death.
Christianity makes no sense.
Why couldn’t the father have done that himself?
So he isn’t dead then so his apparent death wasn’t particularly important then, right? So why make a fuss about it?
The only good reason for making an issue of death is that it is a permanent loss – in this case nothing was lost and therefore there is no worthwhile issue. The sacrifice of a loved son by a god only has real impact if that son were lost forever – now that would be a sacrifice. As it is your god appears to have not given up or lost anything.
Isn’t that slavery? Why would that ever be considered a good thing?
For example?
According to the Christian myth God screwed up his original design and now has to have his son killed to correct his mistake – in the meantime we have had to suffer for his mess. It could be seen as good news that he is finally getting his act together, but it is also an admission that he was incompetent in the beginning.
Why is it good? He is meant to be omniscient so this would be his intention from the beginning, right? So if death couldn’t keep him then doesn’t that show that death is not in the least a big issue, so again why make a fuss about killing a god that can’t be killed?
Death is irrelevant to a god who has the power of creation and life and death.
Christianity makes no sense.