The Gospels

[Mythra]

I found one of the places I read it. Price - Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

 

"A major collision between the gospel tradition and archaeology concerns the existence of synagogues and Pharisees in pre 70 CE Galilee. Historical logic implies that there would not have been any, since Pharisees fled to Galilee only after the fall of Jerusalem. Sure enough, there is virtually no archaeological evidence for synagogue buildings in Galilee in Jesus' day, and this is a major blow to gospel historicity, since Jesus is depicted as constantly "entering" synagogues or meeting halls."

[MQTA]

Sounds like another Universalist. Everyone will be saved, even the unbeliever?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, everyone is ALREADY saved, ever since that point in time. Believing it or not is secondary.

 

Everything else is just detail

[DanInPA]

Here is a very good article on the gospels by Robert Ingersoll

 

How To Be Saved

 

Very thorough examination of just what the gospels say.

 

Enjoy.

[MQTA]

Here is a very good article on the gospels by Robert Ingersoll

 

How To Be Saved

 

Very thorough examination of just what the gospels say.

 

Enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great stuff

 

Now, I beg of you all to forget just for a few moments that you are Methodists or Baptists or Catholics or Presbyterians, and let us for an hour or two remember only that we are men and women. And allow me to say "man" and "woman" are the highest titles that can be bestowed upon humanity.

 

 

Do not imagine for a moment that I think people who disagree with me are bad people. I admit, and I cheerfully admit, that a very large proportion of mankind, and a very large majority, a vast number are reasonably honest. I believe that most Christians believe what they teach; that most ministers are endeavoring to make this world better. I do not pretend to be better than they are. It is an intellectual question. It is a question, first, of intellectual liberty, and after that, a question to be settled at the bar of human reason. I do not pretend to be better than they are. Probably I am a good deal worse than many of them, but that is not the question. The question is: Bad as I am, have I the right to think? And I think I have for two reasons:

 

First, I cannot help it. And secondly, I like it.

 

The whole question is right at a point. If I have not a right to express my thoughts, who has?

 

"Oh," they say, "we will allow you to think, we will not burn you."

 

"All right; why won't you burn me?"

 

"Because we think a decent man will allow others to think and to express his thought."

 

"Then the reason you do not persecute me for my thought is that you believe it would be infamous in you?"

 

"Yes."

 

"And yet you worship a God who will, as you declare, punish me forever?"

 

Surely an infinite God ought to be as just as man. Surely no God can have the right to punish his children for being honest. He should not reward hypocrisy with heaven, and punish candor with eternal pain.

 

The next question then is: Can I commit a sin against God by thinking? If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker? For one, I am convinced, not only that I have the right to think, but that it is my duty to express my honest thoughts. Whatever the gods may say we must be true to ourselves.

[MQTA]

Here is a very good article on the gospels by Robert Ingersoll

 

How To Be Saved

 

Very thorough examination of just what the gospels say.

 

Enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is very well written. Has a few typos, but otherwise a great find.

 

 

 

We have, I say, a Christian system, and that system is founded upon what they are pleased to call the "New Testament." Who wrote the New Testament? I do not know. Who does know? Nobody. We have found many manuscripts containing portions of the New Testament. Some of these manuscripts leave out five or six books -- many of them. Others more; others less. No two of these manuscripts agree. Nobody knows who wrote these manuscripts. They are all written in Greek. The disciples of Christ, so far as we know, knew only Hebrew. Nobody ever saw, so far as we know, one of the original Hebrew manuscripts.

 

Nobody ever saw anybody who had seen anybody who had heard of anybody that had ever seen anybody that had ever seen one of the original Hebrew manuscripts. No doubt the clergy of your city have told you these facts thousands of times, and they will be obliged to me for having repeated them once more. These manuscripts are written in what are called capital Greek letters. They are called Uncial manuscripts, and the New Testament was not divided into chapters and verses, even, until the year of grace 1551. In the original the manuscripts and gospels are signed by nobody. The epistles are addressed to nobody; and they are signed by the same person. All the addresses, all the pretended ear-marks showing to whom they were written, and by whom they were written, are simply interpolations, and everybody who has studied the subject knows it.

 

It is further admitted that even these manuscripts have not been properly translated, and they have a syndicate now making a new translation; and I suppose that I can not tell weather I really believe the New Testament or not until I see that new translation.

 

You must remember, also, one other thing. Christ never wrote a solitary word of the New Testament -- not one word. There is an account that he once stooped and wrote something in the sand, but that has not been preserved. He never told anybody to write a word. He never said: "Matthew, remember this. Mark, do not forget to put that down. Luke, be sure that in your gospel you have this. John, do not forget it." Not one word. And it has always seemed to me that a being coming from another world, with a message of infinite importance to mankind, should at least have verified that message by his own signature. Is it not wonderful that not one word was written by Christ? Is it not strange that he gave no orders to have his words preserved -- words upon which hung the salvation of a world?

[Razor]

Hey, whatever.  Beats the shit outta being condemned to hell.

 

Unfortunately, universalism isn't what the bible says.

 

Plus, I don't want to go to heaven.  I got my heart set on annihilation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unfortunately you will get what you want, but that is your choice.

It is not a choice I would have for myself

 

I would not mind betting when it came to the Crunch you would chicken out anyway.

 

The Flame that is being prepared now is not a Flame people will burn in forever like the Hell preachers proclaim.

 

It is for those who do not want to be forgiven, they go pffft like the insects you see get barbequed on the insect light.

They cease to be ever again, unfortunate but also mentioned in the Bible.

 

Peace

 

Oh and if you truly read the scriptures you will know that the spilt blood of the only son of the living God, could be settled by no less than the Salvation of all men who really want that for themselves.

 

If you do not want that after being confronted with the future truth of the matter, be assured I will not be joining you.

[Mythra]

Unfortunately you will get what you want, but that is your choice.

It is not a choice I would have for myself

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We all end up the same, dude. Regardless of your superstition.

[Mythra]

So much for the dude being a Universalist.

 

Insect light, huh?

[Mythra]

ps: Instead of preaching, why don't you address one single thing that has been brought up in this thread?

 

We point out specific items that show that the gospels aren't legitimate, then you quote em to tell us of our eternal destiny.

 

Give me a freakin break.

[Mythra]

Well the Scriptures do actualy say, that Gods Love will overwhelm all men, and that God will draw all men to himself.

Like I said before it doesnt matter what you believe now, you will NEVER be condemned for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Either you have a split personality disorder, or you don't know what the fuck you believe.

[MQTA]

Here is a very good article on the gospels by Robert Ingersoll

 

How To Be Saved

 

Very thorough examination of just what the gospels say.

 

Enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just finished reading it. Excellent! Worth the time spent reading.

 

I had rather think of those I have loved, and lost, as having returned to earth, as having become a part of the elemental wealth of the world -- I would rather think of them as unconscious dust, I would rather dream of them as gurgling in the streams, floating in the clouds, bursting in the foam of light upon the shores of worlds, I would rather think of them as the lost visions of a forgotten night, than to have even the faintest fear that their naked souls have been clutched by an orthodox god. I will leave my dead where nature leaves them. Whatever flower of hope springs up in my heart I will cherish, I will give it breath of sighs and rain of tears. But I can not believe that there is any being in this universe who has created a human soul for eternal pain. I would rather that every god would destroy himself; I would rather that we all should go to eternal chaos, to black and starless night, than that just one soul should suffer eternal agony.

 

I have made up my mind that if there is a God, he will be merciful to the merciful.

 

Upon that rock I stand. --

 

That he will not torture the forgiving. --

 

Upon that rock I stand. --

 

That every man should be true to himself, and that there is no world, no star, in which honesty is a crime.

 

Upon that rock I stand. --

 

The honest man, the good woman, the happy child, have nothing to fear, either in this world or the world to come.

 

Upon that rock I stand.

[white_raven23]

Either you have a split personality disorder, or you don't know what the fuck you believe.

 

Two faced christian. Typical. Amusing how quick he switched track though. Bet he never even noticed it. Just supports my notion than religion is a socially condoned behavioral disorder.

[All Gods Fail]

If you do not want that after being confronted with the future truth of the matter, be assured I will not be joining you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thank "Bob" for that - eternity with that pretentious twit droning on in my ear? No thanks.

Why do xtians always have to write in that tiresome, pseudo-King James style, anyway?

[Razor]

Thank "Bob" for that - eternity with that pretentious twit droning on in my ear? No thanks.

Why do xtians always have to write in that tiresome, pseudo-King James style, anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You need to read the whole Bible people, if you do you will learn that not everybody wants to be forgiven.

 

Those that do not want to be forgiven, go to the flame, I could not imagine anybody being filled with that much pride, but unfortunately I guess there will be.

I guess its just a matter of weather they go fizzel or pop as they are consumed and cease to be ever again.

 

How is that my fault, I would not wish that on anybody.

 

Peace

[chohan]

It is for those who do not want to be forgiven, they go pffft like the insects you see get barbequed on the insect light.

 

I don't think this is universalism... sounds more like the ORKIN doctrine.

 

I'm reminded of 'Bug's Life' But it's sooo beautiful...

 

If you do not want that after being confronted with the future truth of the matter, be assured I will not be joining you.

 

Razor shouldn't you be away feeding off the crumbs that fall from the master's table like an obedient little goy dog?

Be assured I will not be joining you.

 

cheers,

cho

[Mythra]

I don't think this is universalism... sounds more like the ORKIN doctrine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Man, oh, man is that funny.

 

We've had Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, and Intellegent Designists

 

Now we've got an ORKINist.

 

 

Good one.

[Mythra]

You need to read the whole Bible people, if you do you will learn that not everybody wants to be forgiven.

Those that do not want to be forgiven, go to the flame, I could not imagine anybody being filled with that much pride, but unfortunately I guess there will be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want to play the pretend game that the bible is straight from the mouth of god, I'd advise you go to the christian forums. It won't work here.

 

Now, since you insist on telling us what is going to happen to us when we die, let me tell you what's going to happen to you when you die.

 

You will be licking your chops getting all ready to see Jesus. the angels, the streets paved with gold, the wonderful mansion prepared for you. As the neurons in your brain slow down, you slowly lose consciousness. Just like going under anesthesia. Except you don't wake up from it.

 

That's it, dude. No streets paved with gold. No bug zappers.

[MQTA]

   

 

Man, oh, man is that funny.

 

We've had Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, and Intellegent Designists

 

Now we've got an ORKINist.

 

 

 

Good one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

do they say Na No Na No?

[Antlerman]

Greetings people,

Many Christians ask the same questions you do, the Bible is full of references about not to lean on your own understanding of the scriptures.

Right at the end of Revelations you will see God himself will one day reveal the mystery of God to all.

Man will never be able to fathom it.

 

<snip>

 

What a wonderful self-justifying belief system that offer shoddy proofs, when they are not even necessary according to what you are saying Razor. Why does the Bible give the resurrection as "evidence" of Christ's divinity, then you say that we should abandon our own understanding? And on and on these proofs of God are listed in the Bible, such as “these signs shall follow…” What’s the point of proofs when we’re supposed to shut off our brain as you suggest?

 

Razor - Occam’s Razor: What is more likely? That the Bible is so confusing and contradictive, that it is evidence of divine wisdom that we can only be rewarded by if we shut off our brains as you cite from scripture for us to do? Or is it contradictory and confusing because in reality it is a collection of different writings from many different people with many different ways of looking at things, crafted, modified and politicized in its canonization?

 

Ever actually study the history of the Holy Bible, my friend? Every actually study the whole Bible itself from cover to cover? Please be honest with us. Do you know how the scripture you have in your version of the Bible came into being? Do you think it was overseen by divine providence? Are you aware that it is more a matter of politics of who favored which writing based on the favored doctrine and who held sway? There is a vast amount of information available from real scholars that is easy accessible to you. Study my friend and learn.

 

Everything you say is based on belief that that book is divine. That book is not divine, but a collection of cultural mythologies written by human beings for reasons that is far removed from our culture today. Therefore everything you say to us regarding a truth of God that you base on it is meaningless. It’s “authoritativeness” in evangelical circles is tantamount to Bible worship, defended endlessly through circular reasoning, and intellectual cop outs such as "lean not to your own understanding."

 

If God created you, then he created your mind and your rationality for a reason. Why is it only wrong to use your mind God gave you, when it threatens something that someone doesn’t want you to analyze too much? That sound exactly like a con job. You’re being duped, my friend.

[All Gods Fail]

You need to read the whole Bible people, if you do you will learn that not everybody wants to be forgiven.

 

Those that do not want to be forgiven, go to the flame, I could not imagine anybody being filled with that much pride, but unfortunately I guess there will be.

I guess its just a matter of weather they go fizzel or pop as they are consumed and cease to be ever again.

 

How is that my fault, I would not wish that on anybody.

 

Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I did read the whole bible - many times. I still study it. The more I study it, the more I'm convinced it's crap.

 

It's really hard, Razor, to intimidate people with something they don't have any faith in. Believe me, if I thought there really was a biblegod and he was ready to torture me for all eternity after I die, I'd be on my knees begging for forgiveness (which I once did, btw).

 

It took a long time before I got up off my knees and started thinking for myself. Which is why I can laugh at your dire warning of hell. You might as well be threatening me with Santa Claus.

 

I only hope you will actually start studying the bible, and it's checkered history. I would also, again, consider reading up on sleep paralysis if I were you. I'm telling you, it might put you in a new frame of mind about your frightening experience. If your conversion wasn't based on a 'real' demonic encounter but instead was a deluxe nightmare...ah, who am I kidding? You'll never consider that. It's too advanced for someone in your frame of mind.

[Wade]

You need to read the whole Bible people

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typical Xtian statement....

 

 

You need to read this website.

 

Even a casual look around and you would know that alot in here have and know it quite well.

 

 

You have no desire to listen....just to preach

 

You really do need to realise .....WE HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE

[Ouroboros]

I read the Bible many times over during my xian years. When I deconverted, I stopped. But when I joined this site, I started to read a bit again! But now I read a lot of philosophical, scientific and bible critical literature as well. You get more open to read opposing views when you're open minded.

 

Razor, you need to read more Non-Christian, and even Anti-Christian literature. How else can you know what the other side thinks and say?

 

You don't have the whole truth, you only have the truth of your own opinion, and that is not enough. You need to know your "enemy" as well as yourself.

 

Art of War, by Sun Tzu

Section III, Attack by Stratagem

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy

and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a

hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,

for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will

succumb in every battle.

[Mythra]

I think the dude is probably disapointed that we won't engage in bible verse ping-pong with him. If he wants to play that game, he'll have to do it with someone who believes in the bible.

 

Hey TAP - Razor tells us to just believe and PARTY ON, and heaven is assured. What do you think of that?

 

 

 

What can I say. I love to stir the shit.

[Mythra]

I wonder how well educated christians are concerning the four gospels, and how they came to be the recognized as canonical. After all, there were many more to choose from. There is the Signs Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, the Sophia (wisdom) of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of the Savior, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Truth, and the Gospel of Phillip.

 

So, how did we come to only recognize Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Who decided that they were the only authoritative word of God?

 

Ans.: Irenaeus. Around 180 C.E.

 

And, here is the logic he used to determine what God's revelation to mankind would be:

 

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

 

In the same chapter, he introduced an author for each one of the four. Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John.

 

Quote taken from "Against Heresies" III, 11, 8.

 

So there you have it. Irenaeus is the one who tells us what is direct from the mouth of God, and what isn't.

[Antlerman]

speaking of.  I have read in a couple of places now that there were no Pharisees in Galilee until they fled the fall of Jerusalem in 68 - 70.  If this is true, this is a  BIG booboo in the gospels.  Anybody know anything more about this?

From what I have heard from scholars, the Pharisees at the supposed time of Jesus were really not much of a political power though they did exist. But by the time Matthew wrote his Gospel, they were dominant in the area of where he was writing from, and hence why there they receive such a central position in the viscous attacks he attributes to Jesus. It was Matthew's politics.

 

It all makes clearer sense when you view it in terms of human mythology and politics, rather than trying to force these peculiarities into some sort of divine waffle iron, doesn't it? I love history. It's too bad our friend Razor blinds himself to the real world outside the Great Holy Book of Human Mythology.