RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

StrangerThan -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 7:58:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

Or..... I could read the four written while he was standing there
If you mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they were all written 20+ years after he died, so hardly "while he was standing there".


And one hell of a lot closer than those taking issue with it, including.. thee, or is it thy or hell, just you.

Here's the deal. Don't want to believe anything? Then don't. I'm not out here preaching. I could care less what anyone believes. When you walk out on stage and start proclaiming facts that have less factual matter associated with them than those who were there however, then yeah, I'm prone to say you sound as if you're full of shit.

What will really suck is if Q turns out to be written by one of the above, won't it? Grin.

Honestly too, I could care less if the spanish man talks out his ass all day long. It is the presumptive nature of  how he chooses to impart that passing of gas that has me here in the first place.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people got to stand up in front of everyone else and posit truth based upon a loose collection of theories, that in many cases, is nothing more than guesswork at best, and attack literature at worst.







yourdarkdesire -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 8:05:07 AM)

I barely managed to get thru the OP - this guy is just annoying



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 8:33:35 AM)

quote:

When you walk out on stage and start proclaiming facts that have less factual matter associated with them than those who were there however
There is no actual evidence that the gospels were written by anybody who was actually there, so they can only be considered hearsay at best.

quote:

What will really suck is if Q turns out to be written by one of the above, won't it? Grin.
No, maybe to you, I would find that very interesting and intriguing personally.

quote:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people got to stand up in front of everyone else and posit truth based upon a loose collection of theories, that in many cases, is nothing more than guesswork at best, and attack literature at worst.
You mean theists, like you for example.
quote:

Not once did he address the issue of homosexuality.

quote:

What he did do was lay out a framework for

quote:

Jesus himself could have walked away from a lot of people and situations damned by religion and law. He did not.
No actual proof he existed, let alone what  he actually did or said.
quote:

What does make sense to me is that in looking at a historical document,
Which historical document would that be?

These instances, in addition to the ones in this thread that I have pointed out, would seem to indicate that you have very little problem with positing truth based on a loose collection of theories, that really are nothing more than guesswork, as long as you are the one doing it.



Edwynn -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 10:29:56 AM)



Hey, even "history" as promulgated by academia isn't the final word, and from my exposure to that department, they find that aspect of it to provide a good measure of job security for post docs and textbook authors, along with some good professors being constantly harassed to come up with "new product." Actually not much worse than math departments in that regard. Help increase the publishing numbers and/or be a grant magnet, or be gone; the mantra of the modern Uni.

I think it might have been Thomas as the one who actually was there at the time, and if so, we should not consider it any great surprise if we hear far less from his accounts, gradually edited out in the succession of reversions. Maybe something in those accounts that did not fit in with what was desired.

You know, like "news reports," "journalism" (especially with the comical pertinent-details-missing and ill hidden redirection-of-focus "analysis"), "bi-partisan think tanks," etc.


"Truth" is manufactured, always has been.








SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 10:46:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

I suggest whomever is speaking with HeatherMcLeather to read some book on historical-critical exegetics before he embassasses himself any more. Sorry if the words are translated badly ("exégesis histórico-crítica" in Spanish).



StrangerThan -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 10:51:04 AM)

quote:

These instances, in addition to the ones in this thread that I have pointed out, would seem to indicate that you have very little problem with positing truth based on a loose collection of theories, that really are nothing more than guesswork, as long as you are the one doing it.
quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

When you walk out on stage and start proclaiming facts that have less factual matter associated with them than those who were there however
There is no actual evidence that the gospels were written by anybody who was actually there, so they can only be considered hearsay at best.

quote:

What will really suck is if Q turns out to be written by one of the above, won't it? Grin.
No, maybe to you, I would find that very interesting and intriguing personally.

quote:

It never ceases to amaze me how many people got to stand up in front of everyone else and posit truth based upon a loose collection of theories, that in many cases, is nothing more than guesswork at best, and attack literature at worst.
You mean theists, like you for example.
quote:

Not once did he address the issue of homosexuality.

quote:

What he did do was lay out a framework for

quote:

Jesus himself could have walked away from a lot of people and situations damned by religion and law. He did not.
No actual proof he existed, let alone what  he actually did or said.
quote:

What does make sense to me is that in looking at a historical document,
Which historical document would that be?

These instances, in addition to the ones in this thread that I have pointed out, would seem to indicate that you have very little problem with positing truth based on a loose collection of theories, that really are nothing more than guesswork, as long as you are the one doing it.



There is plenty of proof. You just dispute it. You dispute the gospels, Roman generals and politicians, people who simply wrote letters, the Babylonians, the chroniclers and historians of the time - you know, the people you'd offer up as proof if they had written something else.

What you want is to attack a system of belief while standing on another, when I could give a shit less what you believe. The OP stammered out on stage with a boat load of this is what the way it was, citing crap that occurred well after in most cases. He can believe what he wishes. As can you. What neither of you can do however, establish your point with greater certainty than those who were there.

So ramble on. What you have is an opinion, and so do I. They do not meet or agree.

Then again, I wasn't the one who stepped out on the stage to proclaim a long list of this is TRUTH.









HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 10:51:12 AM)

quote:

I think it might have been Thomas as the one who actually was there at the time,
Very unlikely, at least 30+ years after the event.
quote:

Maybe something in those accounts that did not fit in with what was desired.
Why speculate, read it and decide for yourself. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm



StrangerThan -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 10:53:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

I suggest whomever is speaking with HeatherMcLeather to read some book on historical-critical exegetics before he embassasses himself any more. Sorry if the words are translated badly ("exégesis histórico-crítica" in Spanish).



So spake the man from hiding.




Edwynn -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 11:02:38 AM)



I suggest that the author of the prior post (as thus directed in the "reply to" below right) broaden his experience of historical exegesis to include something outside of theology or philosophy.

History, economic history, biographies, a look at historical recording of accounting and cosmological data, etc. much of which exists long before and long after occurrence of events comprising the quite narrow focus as presented in the OP and the prior post.   

An investigation into other 'understanding' of the universe beyond Western view, such as in the Orient or Africa or pre-Columbian South or North America might expand awareness too, though I realize that's probably asking a bit much.






HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 11:08:27 AM)

quote:

There is plenty of proof. You just dispute it. You dispute the gospels, Roman generals and politicians, people who simply wrote letters, the Babylonians, the chroniclers and historians of the time - you know, the people you'd offer up as proof if they had written something else.
No, there is no proof, there is some peripheral corroborating evidence, and some circumstantial supporting evidence, but no actual hard proof.

quote:

What you want is to attack a system of belief while standing on another, when I could give a shit less what you believe.
I'm not attacking anything, nor am I standing on any system of belief, I honestly don't care one way or another. The existence or non-existence of any form of god or goddess and what they are like and all the rest is completely irrelevant, it makes no difference. Religion is just another aspect of a culture.

quote:

Then again, I wasn't the one who stepped out on the stage to proclaim a long list of this is TRUTH.
Well except that you did, which was my point. You proclaim all sorts of things as TRUTH without any factual basis to back it up, yet when he does the same from the opposite angle you deride him. If it's OK for you to do it then it is for him to, if it's not OK for him to do it, then it's not for you either.



Edwynn -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 11:31:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

I think it might have been Thomas as the one who actually was there at the time,
Very unlikely, at least 30+ years after the event.
quote:

Maybe something in those accounts that did not fit in with what was desired.
Why speculate, read it and decide for yourself. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm




Hey sorry, it was a long time ago. Unlike you and the OP, I lost interest in the affair long ago, and I'm not considering the subject with any great endeavor, nor that interested in recalling correctly what has his historically been recalled somewhat imperfectly to begin with.

But you overlook the fact that your claim of a 30 years discrepancy between the accounts that you believe in and the accounts that others believe in  (as alluded to by the link to your current cult du jour, which you apparently rely upon as your cult de jure) from events occurring over 2,000 years ago is not actually helping your cause here, from any logical or heuristic standpoint.












SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 11:44:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
No, there is no proof, there is some peripheral corroborating evidence, and some circumstantial supporting evidence, but no actual hard proof.

Not even that, the testimonium flaviarium is a forge.
The ones who belive that Jesus existed (only that he *existed*) are already using circumstancial reasonings and no hard proof.
I am one of them. I think that he existed. But I do not consider it hard-prooved.
Not to speak about the obviously forged deeds (many of them copies from previous mythologies).



manofyourdreams -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 11:44:58 AM)

    having read the bible four plus times from cover to cover, there was a time when I would have  jumped in here head first .but with knowledge recently acquired i will say.Since the ancient mystery school of babylon , which was later to become the freemasons,the skull and bones ( and many other fraternities), the bohemian club( where most world leaders meet for two weeks each summer),   hijacked the christianity of its time at the councel of nicea in 322( or 325 or 331, other dates which have been attributed to the council) , and totaly ransacked what jesus  had intended for us .Including, excluding many ancient texts from the canon, and I am sure altering many of the texts THEY DECIDED TO CONSIDER HOLY CANON!
it is has come to be known  that it  was individual  freemasons, who came to early america and started the major churches   such as the jehovah witnesses, mormons,most of the other religions as well as the more modern scientology . it was L Ron Hubbard who said " ...if you want to be rich , forget about writing books, just start a religion.. "  
  have you wondered ,like myself, why two persons running for the president of the united states would both be members of the same fraternity ? ie skull and bones, John Kerry , George Bush .
Today the freemasons are the largest, tightest trade union in the world, period. thier ancient occult signs adorn the logo's of most of the  large corporations.
music videos  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DikoLMfnEgE and  hollywood movies   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBKDZhu-EZw&feature=relatedlso contain a large portion of occult  signs and symbols that can be traced back to ancient babylon.
they have  instigated, then backed both  sides of all the major wars since time immemorial  http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/andtruthfreebook/truthfree.htm#contents, and they own most , if not all, of our  major polititions .
  men join the masons unwittingly, and take a blood oath, to have their throats slit from ear to ear , and thier tongue ripped out,if they ever divulge the innerworkings of the fraternity , long before they are made privy to the real workings of the devilish cult. 

at this time it seems quite absurd to join in this timeless arguement of what jesus  had intended for the world !I will say if he was a jew, he would have , and did ,uphold all the commands of ancient judea! http://www.letthetruthbeknown.com/index.htm



manofyourdreams -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 11:52:37 AM)

 First ,my  post was to the thread and not heather specificly, I would also assert here that the ancient mystery schools of the day  most assuredly hijacked judea, I am not sure exactly when ,as i am getting ready to reread the scritputes with this new knowledge in mind . but it was most likly when the isrealies were  held captive in ancient egypt .



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 12:07:57 PM)

quote:

the accounts that you believe in
What would those be, Ed?



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 12:12:08 PM)

Freemasons? Are you sure it wasn't the Knights Templar? Or the Elders of Zion? Or maybe the agents of the <GASP!!> Kaiser? Ooooh that wicked Willy!



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 12:17:36 PM)

As jew agent of the communits international, controlled by the Dwarves of Zurich which are allied with the nazi aliens of Niburu who live in the void core of the Earth, I would have to protest against the continous activities of the freemasons branch of the Illuminati Templar Order, but my alliegance to the Opus Dei - section of the Mossad forces me to remain silent about these subjects.



Edwynn -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 12:33:35 PM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

the accounts that you believe in



What would those be, Ed?



quote:

I think it might have been Thomas as the one who actually was there at the time,


"Very unlikely, at least 30+ years after the event."


quote:

Maybe something in those accounts that did not fit in with what was desired.



"Why speculate, read it and decide for yourself. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm"




Those beliefs.







Edwynn -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 12:37:08 PM)



~FR~


When the comprehension skills are at such bottom as to need explication for what someone is herself saying, it might be time to take a step back here.






HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Jesus "Christ" today and then. (10/3/2011 2:35:18 PM)

Ah yes, your language issues, I'm sorry, I forgot about those, please forgive me.

The first:
quote:

"Very unlikely, at least 30+ years after the event."
This isn't a question of belief or not, it is a statement of fact. The fact being stated is that the generally accepted earliest date for the gospel of Thomas  is around 60 CE <so about 30 years after the date ascribed to Jesus' death>.  Now, since I have no reason to dispute this date, and don't know what research or assumptions its based on, I don't dispute it, nor do I believe it. I accept it. There is quite a substantial difference between accepting and believing.

And the second:
quote:

"Why speculate, read it and decide for yourself. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm"
This also has nothing to do with belief, you speculated about the contents of Thomas, so I suggested you read it for yourself and see, and provided you with a link to site that contains several different translations of Thomas.

So the first was a statement of fact <the earliest generally accepted date of authorship>, and the second was a suggestion. In no way, outside of your mind, could either be considered an "account I believe in" as neither is an account, nor something to believe or not to believe.

When the comprehension skills are at such bottom as to need explication for what is and is not an account or a statement of belief, it might be time to take a step back there.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625