What did Jesus say?

Lori_7: MW, It seems that you are assuming things that you very well don't know to be true. Just because the gnostic gospels exist doesn't mean that the other gospels are false. New information does not necessarily negate the old information, or replace it...but can add to it...supplement it. It sounds to me as if you are assuming according to what you desire to believe for some reason.
*************
M*W: Lori, as far as my assuming things, 25% of the world's population are assuming that Jesus existed and was their savior. My assumption is that Jesus may have existed, but Paul never knew Jesus. This is a problem for me and others who seek the truth. It's widely recorded that Paul was a liar, thief and murderer. His credibility is seriously lacking, but Christians put him in a place of honor in their christian faith. However, in the gnostic gospels, there seems to be more proof that Jesus actually existed and walked and talked to those who wrote the gnostic gospels. From what I've read, I believe Jesus did, in fact, live during that time, but that he was not a savior. His divinity was established in 325 AD and not before. He could not have been the savior who died on the cross (I question this now more than ever, because it was long after the crucifixion and resurrection that Jesus walked in the flesh with his apostles, according to the gnostic gospels. It makes no difference to me if Jesus lived or was just a myth. I search for the truth, but I don't care what the outcome may be.
*************
Lori: In other words, in order for there to be a discrepancy regarding what you've posted here, you would have to cite in the NT where it says that Jesus was never married or had children, and it doesn't say that.
*************
M*W: Nowhere in the NT states that MM was a prostitute. Paul wrote that. Paul NEVER knew Jesus at all. Never met him, didn't know him, but CLAIMED to know everything about Jesus as if they were close friends. The entire NT was either written or influenced by Paul. Again, Paul's credibility is seriously lacking. Some incidents in the NT that Paul wrote that I can think of right now are:

The wedding at Cana
Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus
Jesus' crucifixion
Jesus' resurrection
Jesus' location from age 12 to age 30
Jesus' relationship with MM
Jesus' divinity
Jesus in the flesh long after the crucifixion
Jesus never spoke anything that Paul quoted in the NT
There were some 25 earlier dying demigod saviors before Jesus

These are just a few of the discrepancies I found in the NT. I have to go right now, but I'll be back in about an hour.
 
Whats with this whole, Jesus married Mary Magdelane crap?! This is an old conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, I guess the 'da vinci code' has brought it to prominence, but it is fiction! No scholars take the idea seriously, perhaps you shoudn't either.
 
patcho: Whats with this whole, Jesus married Mary Magdelane crap?! This is an old conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, I guess the 'da vinci code' has brought it to prominence, but it is fiction! No scholars take the idea seriously, perhaps you shoudn't either.
**************
M*W: Since I've researched MM for the past 14 years, I am confident in what I have learned. Believe what you want, but Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was only a novel, although he discussed some of the research biblical scholars have done and copied their work, and the Da Vinci Code was NOT the first published document regarding Jesus and MM. You would have known this if you had done any kind of research. Obviously, you don't know enough about this subject to even comment. I suggest you address your silly ideas to the other christians on this forum, because you and the other christians are lacking in scientific and archeological knowledge.
 
MW,

Why is it that someone like yourself, who doesn't even believe in God or in the Bible, spends so much time and effort researching it or information related to it...interpretations and supplementations and the like? It seems odd to me.

Love,

Lori
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: Since I've researched MM for the past 14 years, I am confident in what I have learned. Believe what you want, but Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code was only a novel, although he discussed some of the research biblical scholars have done and copied their work, and the Da Vinci Code was NOT the first published document regarding Jesus and MM. You would have known this if you had done any kind of research. Obviously, you don't know enough about this subject to even comment. I suggest you address your silly ideas to the other christians on this forum, because you and the other christians are lacking in scientific and archeological knowledge.
Click to expand...

Hello Medicine Woman,

What has scientific or archeological knowledge got to do with this baloney you spout?

Dave
 
Lori_7 said:
MW,
Why is it that someone like yourself, who doesn't even believe in God or in the Bible, spends so much time and effort researching it or information related to it...interpretations and supplementations and the like? It seems odd to me.
Click to expand...
Not that Medicine Woman needs me to defend her or explain her, but I think she lost her faith because of the research she has done.
 
Material selected for research based upon what intent? Credibility associated with material based upon what intent? Criteria used to select and accept or reject material based upon what intent?

It seems to me, based upon what I've seen and heard here on the forum that there is clearly an underlying intent that drives the selection and acceptance/rejection of an almost infinite variety of research material. And if she lost her faith due to this research then why is it that she had faith in the first place? I know that faith can not be based upon research...faith can only be based upon knowledge.

Love,

Lori
 
Lori_7 said:
I know that faith can not be based upon research...faith can only be based upon knowledge.
Click to expand...
:)
We must be speaking a different language here.
I would say that knowledge can only be based on research. I would also say that faith is not based on knowledge at all, but on something less tangible.

I don't presume to speak for Medicine Woman, but it seems to me that she lost her faith reluctantly, not from any "intent".
 
sideshowbob said:
:)
We must be speaking a different language here.
I would say that knowledge can only be based on research. I would also say that faith is not based on knowledge at all, but on something less tangible.

I don't presume to speak for Medicine Woman, but it seems to me that she lost her faith reluctantly, not from any "intent".
Click to expand...


Knowledge is based upon experience. You can research all you want with no absolute assurance that the information you are receiving is the truth, or is complete, or that you are interpreting and/or understanding it correctly.

And if her faith was based upon research, then it may be a good thing that she lost it. Because how can you truly claim to know something is true and to understand something that you have never experienced? That's not faith, that's blind faith.

Love,

Lori
 
Lori_7 said:
Knowledge is based upon experience. You can research all you want with no absolute assurance that the information you are receiving is the truth, or is complete, or that you are interpreting and/or understanding it correctly.
Click to expand...
The "experience" of studying and weighing the evidence is every bit as valid as a "religious experience" (if that is what you're driving at). If you're looking for "absolute assurance", then no religious person has that either.
To my mind, the experience of tangible things that we can all agree on is more valid than a subjective religious experience.
And if her faith was based upon research, then it may be a good thing that she lost it.
Click to expand...
Again, what I've been saying is: (as I understand it) Medicine Woman did not base her faith on research, but on an "experience" similar to yours. It was only when she began to do some research that she saw how hollow that "experience" was.
 
My experience is not subjective or intangible.

Love,

Lori

ps...I want to read about MW's experience....maybe we should stop talking about her...lol.
 
Lori_7 said:
...I want to read about MW's experience....maybe we should stop talking about her...lol.
Click to expand...
:)
I think you're right. I'll let her speak for herself.

(And thanks for all the love. I'm sure it will come in handy. :) )
 
Lori_7: MW, Why is it that someone like yourself, who doesn't even believe in God or in the Bible, spends so much time and effort researching it or information related to it... interpretations and supplementations and the like? It seems odd to me.
*************
M*W: Leaving christianity, as I did, was a lengthy struggle and not just a single incident. I did not set out to leave my faith as I had no intention of doing so. I was at The Vatican when I started to realize the truths I had been taught seemed to contradict themselves. Then I started to question my beliefs, when all the while I had an ongoing conflict of guilt within my soul for questioning my faith. This was a struggle that I didn't share with anyone. Then things started to become clear to me. The lies of the church made themselves known. I am a sensitive person, and when I was in St. Peter's, my skin started to crawl and I felt entrapped in something very evil while everything around me seemed dark and scary, and everyone around me worshipped blindly! It was from this personal experience that I began to question. I read everything I could on christianity, probably to prove to myself that I was becoming delusional about my faith. I talked to my priests who offered me no answers, but told me that it was a sin to question my faith! I couldn't buy that, and I wanted to know as much as I could find on the subject. I was in total denial. I wanted to prove myself wrong. What I was seeing, and what I was feeling just had to be a lie. It was such a strong feeling, that I just had to pursue it. I lost the guilt I had placed on myself, and I ventured to find the truth -- whatever that truth would be. It was around the mid-90s that I started looking for literature to either confirm or deny my experience with christianity. I didn't care which way the outcome would result, I just wanted to know the truth. I started reading scholarly books on the subject of false christianity, and the truths were as blatant as a slap in the face. I never could understand the point of Jesus dying for mankind, in fact, I had held this belief since I was about seven years old. It never made sense to me, but I went through the motions of going to church, praying, receiving the Eucharist, the whole nine yards, because I wanted to believe. I was an officer in the parish council. I did it all. Since the mid-90s. Leaving christianity is not as simple as one would think. It was such a big part of my life, and in losing my faith in christianity, I grieved for a number of years. The more I researched, the more truth I found all the while hoping to find some kind of reconcilation with the church and to stop the grieving for my loss. It was as if someone close to me had died, and I missed them. From the research I've done since the mid-90s, I have no doubt that what is known as christianity today is a false religion. I know that Jesus wasn't crucified nor did he resurrect. I also know that Jesus was not God anymore than we all are God. Since I've been on sciforums for three years, I have learned a lot. I've seen the otherside, and the otherside bears the truth. There is no god but man-made delusions. However, I do believe in the interconnectedness of humanity with all creation through the magnetism and electricity that connects us all. I cannot call this god anymore. For so many years I thought of this energy as the force of pure positive energy that dwells in all creation, but it is not god. Some people may think of this energy field as the "Holy Spirit," but that's just another name for our energy field. We are here on earth due to random events caused by the Big Bang. There was no god who created us, but we are still evolving. It was after I had been on sciforums that I came to realize that there could be no god, and with this knowledge, I am content to know the truth. With or without religion we are resonsible for our own salvation, but that salvation will only occur here on earth while we are alive.
 
davewhite04: Hello Medicine Woman,

What has scientific or archeological knowledge got to do with this baloney you spout?
*************
M*W: Everything. What may be 'baloney' to you is truth to others. I'd rather know the truth that believe the lie.
 
sideshowbob: Not that Medicine Woman needs me to defend her or explain her, but I think she lost her faith because of the research she has done.
*************
M*W: No, this isn't the case. I found out the truth about christianity long before I did any research. The research that I have been doing confirms that christianity is a lie.

Lori asked why I kept researching this topic even though I've long left christianity. It is because christianity has had such a negative hold on people that it's extremely difficult for them to learn or believe the truth. I want to bring this truth to as many people as I can during my days on earth. To do this requires research.
 
Medicine Woman said:
I found out the truth about christianity long before I did any research. The research that I have been doing confirms that christianity is a lie.
Click to expand...
:) Thanks for the clarification. I understand that your research was a confirmation. I guess I overemphasized the "discovery" aspect of it.

My apologies to Lori for any misunderstanding.
 
Lori_7: Material selected for research based upon what intent? Credibility associated with material based upon what intent? Criteria used to select and accept or reject material based upon what intent?

It seems to me, based upon what I've seen and heard here on the forum that there is clearly an underlying intent that drives the selection and acceptance/rejection of an almost infinite variety of research material. And if she lost her faith due to this research then why is it that she had faith in the first place? I know that faith can not be based upon research...faith can only be based upon knowledge.
*************
M*W: I just replied to sideshowbob about this. I had faith because I WANTED faith. I wanted to belong. I wanted to raise my kids in a religion. When I was a christian, I searched for christian knowledge, believing that all other knowledge was evil. I lost my faith before I ever researched anything. I lost my faith because I experienced the evil within. I tried to prove my feelings to be wrong by researching everything christian. The more I tried to prove to myself that christianity was the one true religion, the more I found it to be a lie. My grieving from the loss of my faith took years. Then I began my search for the truth. I found the truth, and I've confirmed the truth. A truly faithful person would not set out to destroy their faith, but I believe it's better to live in truth than propagate a lie.
 
Lori_7: Knowledge is based upon experience. You can research all you want with no absolute assurance that the information you are receiving is the truth, or is complete, or that you are interpreting and/or understanding it correctly.

And if her faith was based upon research, then it may be a good thing that she lost it. Because how can you truly claim to know something is true and to understand something that you have never experienced? That's not faith, that's blind faith.
*************
M*W: No, my faith was not based upon research, it was based upon blind belief. As long as I didn't know any better, I practiced my faith rigidly and avoided anything that didn't complement my religion. I may have lost my faith, but I have gained wisdom and truth.
 
sideshowbob: The "experience" of studying and weighing the evidence is every bit as valid as a "religious experience" (if that is what you're driving at). If you're looking for "absolute assurance", then no religious person has that either.
To my mind, the experience of tangible things that we can all agree on is more valid than a subjective religious experience.

Again, what I've been saying is: (as I understand it) Medicine Woman did not base her faith on research, but on an "experience" similar to yours. It was only when she began to do some research that she saw how hollow that "experience" was.
*************
M*W: Yes, this is true, and when I found out my faith was 'hollow,' I realized how 'hollow' I was in spirit. There is nothing 'hollow' about the truth.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: Everything. What may be 'baloney' to you is truth to others. I'd rather know the truth that believe the lie.
Click to expand...

Hello Medicine Woman,

Yes, I agree truth is relative to the person. But how does scientific and archeological evidence support your belief?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top