Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 ...Its the same group who divides the bible into "dispensations"..stating that this part is for the Jew, that part is for the Apostles and this latter part is for us today. Its all neatly divided and makes the argument that gifts and signs were only for the Apostles..which explains why we don't see them functioning today. In my view, it takes great acrobatics to come to those conclusions and totally negates what Jesus said..making it a whole different "gospel", if you know what I mean. Yeah, it's a funny thing. Which verse that goes to which category is based on observations of reality, and not so-called revelations from God. Like this "Hmm. No one survived our test to pick up snakes or drink poison, so we'll put that verse in 'for the apostles'. Okay, next thing..." Hmm..brings me to another thought. Paul was an interloper, in my view. He took over (this is on the assumption that these "acts" actually took place )..he told the followers to reject anyone who brought a gospel different from the one HE brought..which makes me wonder why the original 11 would allow this? Could it be because Paul was a Pharisee..and could still have made "trouble" for them? Very true. My personal opinion is that the other 11 (or 12) were the leaders (elders) of a Gnostic church, and they didn't believe in a physical Jesus, but only a spiritually revealed Logos. Paul made up "the real Jesus" theology, and later his followers had to write a story to fit his teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadouKen24 Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 Very true. My personal opinion is that the other 11 (or 12) were the leaders (elders) of a Gnostic church, and they didn't believe in a physical Jesus, but only a spiritually revealed Logos. Paul made up "the real Jesus" theology, and later his followers had to write a story to fit his teachings. Could be. I dunno if that's true, though. Gnosticism has a ton in common with Hellenistic thought. Would there have been enough of a Greek influence in Israel itself? I dunno. Could be, but I think a real Jesus makes more sense. I highly doubt this real Jesus the Apostles taught would be anything like the (also heavily influenced by Hellenism) Pauline Jesus, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Could be. I dunno if that's true, though. Gnosticism has a ton in common with Hellenistic thought. Would there have been enough of a Greek influence in Israel itself? The Hellenistic philosophy had influence on the Jewish religion at the time. Philo is the most famous one. And his Hellenistic view were to some extent incorporated into the early Church after 100 CE. The Gnostics had a strong influence on the Church, and it's the Gnostic Church that Paul is talking about when he mentions the "false teachers." I dunno. Could be, but I think a real Jesus makes more sense.I highly doubt this real Jesus the Apostles taught would be anything like the (also heavily influenced by Hellenism) Pauline Jesus, though. I think there was a teacher, with another name, that had good and strong teachings in the Gnostic Church, and his teachings was later adopted into the mythical Jesus. IMO. I think Paul was persecuting the Jewish Gnostics, because they were heretics to the old Jewish faith. When he had his "vision", he had a epiphany how he could use the new philosophical religion for his own use. He then went away for many years, without conferring with any of the "original" apostles, came back, and started preaching his own gospel, still without synchronizing it with the early "disciples". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomalie Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I couldnt imagine myself converting back but I think some of the beliefs are still latently there. I still pray and draw inspiration from the parts of the Bible I think are good but I dont think I could convert back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aexapo Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I'm wondering how many here have left the Christian faith for whatever reason, but still believe Jesus MIGHT have been the son of God/God itself/whatever..And if somehow someone proves that Jesus did exist would you then reconsider going back to being a Christian? Even knowing ALL of the contradictions in the text and the obvious flaws? Do you think you could overlook them if someone proved Jesus was here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't leave because of A reason -- I left because of reason. My eyes were opened to the fact that Christianity is a delusion -- much like the one that "everybody" believed 514 years ago, the one that said the world was flat, and had four corners. Mass delusion is not only possible, it's curable -- but the cure often takes a while to trickle down and innoculate everyone. Not being convinced that Jesus actually lived (though I accept that its altogether possible that legend created a god-belief out of a simple Jewish philosopher), it's hard to hold out hope that "he" might have been a God. Since I don't believe in Gods, it makes that kind of hard to do as well. So, to shake it down, I don't believe in things based on other mass delusions that I also don't believe in. But, that's just me. If there is a Jesus-God, proving that He/She/It exists would require something other than Christianity or the Bible, both of which are so riddled with duplicity that they cancel themselves and each other out to the power of infinity. Basically, it would require something new. And, the only real reason people can believe in Jesus-God is because of the following: 1) Christian tradition (believe because your parents did, and their parents did) 2) the Bible (words in a book) 3) anecdotal claims (heresay) None of these things can be the proof of anything -- and an intelligent God would know this. If an almightly creator really wanted us to believe in him, he would be more credibly perceivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aexapo Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Anyway, forget about Jesus. If God did exist, and the current Christian rules applied, I would voluntarily burn in hell for the rest of eternity with a smile on my face. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ha! It reminds me of a post I made a while ago. Basically, I said that I am proof the Bible is a lie, because if there is a Great Judgement with King Jesus and the Book of Life, my knee will neither bow nor confess that Jesus Christ is Lord -- which, will make that scripture a false prophecy, ergo making the whole Bible a lie . . . so, I guess if God is literal, he would have to disappear at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MQTA Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 To me, the two most sick parts of christianity are: A god who has planed for his own son to die on a cross. A god who send non believers to hell. If I should believe in a god, it would be far more easy for me if that god did not have a son who came to rescue us. Actually, when I first found out, that Jesus of the gospels wasn't more real than Donald Duck, I thought that praying to him would be praying to a false god. So out fo respect for the real god (that I still did belive in for a while), I left Jesus out of my faith. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, at least in the NT you get to live your life, then go to hell. in the OT, the people in neighboring towns were consistently getting their heads chopped off, as well as other body parts. Judges is full of blood and guts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I didn't leave because of A reason -- I left because of reason. My eyes were opened to the fact that Christianity is a delusion -- much like the one that "everybody" believed 514 years ago, the one that said the world was flat, and had four corners. Mass delusion is not only possible, it's curable -- but the cure often takes a while to trickle down and innoculate everyone. Same here. I suspect that in a few hundred years, the world will consist of three major schools of thought: agnostic, atheist, and deist/theistic but without a belief system. Oh, there will probably still be followers of Buddhism and other such philosophies that don't require you to give up logical thought entirely...but I predict that the Judeo-Christian religions will eventually fade away into the history books as popular cults of their day. Any other fringe cultists will simply be considered nutcases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdwardAbbey Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I'm wondering how many here have left the Christian faith for whatever reason, but still believe Jesus MIGHT have been the son of God/God itself/whatever..And if somehow someone proves that Jesus did exist would you then reconsider going back to being a Christian? Even knowing ALL of the contradictions in the text and the obvious flaws? Do you think you could overlook them if someone proved Jesus was here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you gotta be kidding right? No way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 And if somehow someone proves that Jesus did exist would you then reconsider going back to being a Christian? No, because they'd still have to prove he was god. In fact, I hope they find his body some day. It would debunk the entire fricking myth. Maybe the Knights Templar are guarding it or something. Dang, that would make a great conspiracy story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Proving Jesus existed means little. All it means is they proved a man existed, nothing more. In 2000 years someone may prove that the leader of the Hal-bop comet cult existed. Doesn't make him worthy of worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts