The Bible

Right and wrong are personal opinions and do not necessarily correlate with legal and illegal.
Hypocrites have excuses for everything.

Evading taxes is not the same as stealing, Taking something is not the same as not giving.
If you don't pay taxes when you use the NHS you are stealing. If you buy a Mercedes car with the money you should have paid in taxes and someone dies because the NHS doesn't have enough resources you are not following Jesus.

ne of your problems is the fact that you are looking at Christianity through your eyes and views and not through the eyes of people who profess to be Christian. Being a Christian means different things to different people.
Yes hypocrisy.
 
That's interesting; what particular ones do you have in mind?
Try the Nag Hamadi Scrolls which contain the gospels of Thomas, the Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of truth which were all mentioned in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Iranaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria. These were as contemporary as the gospels of the Bible, and in the case of Thomas possibly before the others, but they didn't find favour with Iraneus who essentially constructed the Bible as we know it. He was also a very opiniated and inflexible person who wanted those who differed either expelled or even destroyed.

One way of also finding out likely ideas of the time is to trace out the 'heresies'. The 'heresies' were simply branches of Christianity or religious/spiritual groupings that differed from the supposed orthodoxy of Rome. They claimed a Christian tradition that stemmed not from Rome but from Palestine either via Alexandria or via the Middle East.
Look at Manichaenism, Catharism, Bogomils, and Arianism all of which claim original sources and ideas which include gnosticism, rebirth, an initiated elite, and the concept of a mortal non-divine Jesus who was merely an inspired teacher.

With reference to an initiated elite the idea that Jesus had a body of secret teachings for those who were more advanced in his teachings seems to be confirmed by Clement in a letter talking about Mark when he came to Alexandria. "Thus he composed a more spiritual gospelfor the use of those who were being perfected. nevertheless he did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teachings of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added others, and, moreover brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by the seven veils. Thus in sum he prearranged matters, neither grudgingly or incautiously, in my opinion, and dying he left his composition to the Church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."
So we have an admission that there is/were secret teachings on a higher level not for the ordinary person, only for the 'higher' student. This was ommitted fromthe Bible as has been sections from mark's gospel which didn't conform to the idea Rome wanted to put across.

Hope this gives food for thought and investigation.
 
At least you do 27, in Italy it's only 18 hours and 3 months holidays. Plus pension after 14 years of work until the 90s. If t eachers were honest they would accept raising their working hours. Notice that the reform was proposed by the government when Italy was going bankrupt and millions of others were losing their jobs. And teachers didn't even accept a raise from 18 to 24 hours to help the country's economy? Tell me if that isn't selfishness. They condemned their students to unemployment to suit their own interests..
I think you have an extreme view of this, mine isn't as harsh. Let's leave it there rather than running round in circles.

But please note those hours only refer to direct classroom time, a teacher's job involves (or should) a lot more than that.
OK the Italian hours look a bit light.


If Jesus isn't Christian nobody is.


In this case he wasn't god and this religion has no point..
As HB said the Moonies follow the Rev Moon, he isn't one just their leader. Ditto.

If JC isn't God, which wasn't a universal view of his original followers, in fact the first to promote the idea was Paul who never actually met him, then the religion needs certainly a revision.

The Roman counsellor didn't find anything illegal with Jesus. It was the Jewish religious authorities who wanted to get rid of a man who could make them lose power inside the autonomy they had. They wanted to kill him and used the Roman occupation to execute him. They sentenced him to death and the Roman made the execution as they made a deal.


Romans and the Jewish religious authorities made a deal. Jesus was giving troubles to the Jews who made deals with the Romans. So the Romans followed their request as part of the deal. Romans didn't care about Jesus, they put him where they had a spot. Any place was good..
The Sanhedrin had the power and the authority to condemn and carry out sentence. the version you give is the Roman Catholic version, which is disputed.
We can make analisys only on what is written..
Shows your lack of grounding in history, the above is not true.
Also you then are using disputed texts to base an opinion when there is other evidence that can be taken into account, see post to Taffd, therefore the conclusion you draw is questionable for that reason.


If Hawking says so it's not a religious point. If a man of the time when nobody knew what energy or gravity are claims to be the beginning and the end, he means he's a god..
No it doesn't. Try reading a bit of Plato to see that people of the age could have quite sophisticated concepts that seem before their time. Other belief systems have concepts that show energy was understood in some ways. But for this you need to study comparative spiritual thought. If you have only concentrated on the Abrahamic religions you will have missed this.

In this case this religion has no point. If you don't believe Jesus resurrected and that he made miracles then Jesus has nothing special. It's not a religion..
I think you need to define what you understand by religion. Not all spiritual thought or practice is religion.

Anytime. Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus resurrected, something that only god can do. If you don't believe it you're not Christian because there would be nothing exceptional in Jesus.
As stated, in the First Century that was not a universally accepted view of Jesus. Some branches of Christianity denied the Resurrection right into medieval times until crushed or driven undergound by Rome. You are putting forward a Roman Catholic definition which came later.
That is a historical fact, not a Dwarf opinion.
 
Try the Nag Hamadi Scrolls which contain the gospels of Thomas, the Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel of truth which were all mentioned in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Iranaeus of Lyon and Origen of Alexandria. These were as contemporary as the gospels of the Bible, and in the case of Thomas possibly before the others, but they didn't find favour with Iraneus who essentially constructed the Bible as we know it. He was also a very opiniated and inflexible person who wanted those who differed either expelled or even destroyed.

One way of also finding out likely ideas of the time is to trace out the 'heresies'. The 'heresies' were simply branches of Christianity or religious/spiritual groupings that differed from the supposed orthodoxy of Rome. They claimed a Christian tradition that stemmed not from Rome but from Palestine either via Alexandria or via the Middle East.
Look at Manichaenism, Catharism, Bogomils, and Arianism all of which claim original sources and ideas which include gnosticism, rebirth, an initiated elite, and the concept of a mortal non-divine Jesus who was merely an inspired teacher.

With reference to an initiated elite the idea that Jesus had a body of secret teachings for those who were more advanced in his teachings seems to be confirmed by Clement in a letter talking about Mark when he came to Alexandria. "Thus he composed a more spiritual gospelfor the use of those who were being perfected. nevertheless he did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teachings of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added others, and, moreover brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by the seven veils. Thus in sum he prearranged matters, neither grudgingly or incautiously, in my opinion, and dying he left his composition to the Church in Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries."
So we have an admission that there is/were secret teachings on a higher level not for the ordinary person, only for the 'higher' student. This was ommitted fromthe Bible as has been sections from mark's gospel which didn't conform to the idea Rome wanted to put across.

Hope this gives food for thought and investigation.
Thanks. I once had a book called the lost Christianities that probably mentioned a lot of what you've said. It certainly explained heresies. The problem with me and books though, is that after a short while, I've no memory of reading them.

Great for a Pratchett book, not so good for an academic tome.
 
Jesus (if he existed) was a terrorist and the Romans knew how to deal with terrorists properly in them daysand the reason he "resurected" was that he wasn't actually dead when they chucked him in the tomb...3 days later he wakes up thinks where the **** am I and wanders off out, turns up in front of his mates who thought he karked it and it is living proof he was resurected. Same as his birth was an excuse by his mum because she had been putting it about a bit with the local garrison and got knocked up.

The whole thing is a load of bollocks, and people who think that they are not being taken for a ******* ride and just contributing to a bunch of peadophile hypocrites who are richer than most of the UK businesses, don't pay tax and are morally corrupt. Xtians, Muslims ******* hate them all.
 
I think you have an extreme view of this, mine isn't as harsh. Let's leave it there rather than running round in circles.
Have you ever heard a teacher admitting his subject is useless? I heard teachers saying ancient Greek is useful to cure cancers. Bypassing the ridicolous arguments he used for this claim, if I notice dishonesty by teachers my opinion of them has to be this one. Also another evidence, I'm sure you know headmasters are nominated by the people they know and not for what they know.
But please note those hours only refer to direct classroom time, a teacher's job involves (or should) a lot more than that.
After doing 3 hours in the morning, the activity that I witnessed teachers doing is giving private lessons at high charge and evading taxes. If a student asks for the receipt to pay taxes the answer is 'for what the government gives us, it's not worth to pay taxes, you can look for another one who pays taxes if you find one'. Tell me if there is a sign of honesty in them.

s HB said the Moonies follow the Rev Moon, he isn't one just their leader. Ditto.

If JC isn't God, which wasn't a universal view of his original followers, in fact the first to promote the idea was Paul who never actually met him, then the religion needs certainly a revision.
Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus Christ resurrected. If you believe it you are Christian. Jesus himself must believe it as he claims to have resurrected and to come back at the end of times. Without this belief Christianity disappears.

The Sanhedrin had the power and the authority to condemn and carry out sentence. the version you give is the Roman Catholic version, which is disputed.
It's the Bible's version

Shows your lack of grounding in history, the above is not true.
Also you then are using disputed texts to base an opinion when there is other evidence that can be taken into account, see post to Taffd, therefore the conclusion you draw is questionable for that reason.
On what text should we base opinions then? It's a 2000 years old story with supernatural beliefs and metaphors. Nobody can say what actually were the facts. The bible says Jesus resurrected and that he told his followers to spread his word. It means Jesus was Christian himself according to the bible. If the bible is false then Jesus wasn't Christian or maybe not even a real person. Jesus is Christian if you take the bible for granted.


No it doesn't. Try reading a bit of Plato to see that people of the age could have quite sophisticated concepts that seem before their time. Other belief systems have concepts that show energy was understood in some ways. But for this you need to study comparative spiritual thought. If you have only concentrated on the Abrahamic religions you will have missed this.
The bible says on multiple occasions that Jesus is god. If one doesn't believe the bible it's one opinion (that I agree on) but the bible says so. Christianity has Jesus as a god not as a common man.

I think you need to define what you understand by religion. Not all spiritual thought or practice is religion.
Without the belief that Jesus resurrected Christianity would disappear. It's all based on this (fake) claim. If a text undisputedly written by Jesus is found where he writes that he won't resurrect and that his followers were told to stage his resurrection, Christians would quit their religion. Only the ones who don't accept the text as true would still be Christians, the others would turn to atheism or another religion.

As stated, in the First Century that was not a universally accepted view of Jesus. Some branches of Christianity denied the Resurrection right into medieval times until crushed or driven undergound by Rome. You are putting forward a Roman Catholic definition which came later.
That is a historical fact, not a Dwarf opinion.
There are endless branches of Christianity. Even the ones who claim some Jesus' sons went to North America or something. Without resurrection what would be the point of Christianity? If Jesus is a normal man there is nothing to pray to him or to follow his words.
 
Jesus (if he existed) was a terrorist and the Romans knew how to deal with terrorists properly in them daysand the reason he "resurected" was that he wasn't actually dead when they chucked him in the tomb...3 days later he wakes up thinks where the **** am I and wanders off out, turns up in front of his mates who thought he karked it and it is living proof he was resurected.
I think he was dead and never resurrected. His followers stole his body and hid it to claim he resurrected. I think this is the most probable sequence of facts.
 
I think he was dead and never resurrected. His followers stole his body and hid it to claim he resurrected. I think this is the most probable sequence of facts.
Regardless, it is still bollocks.
 
Have you ever heard a teacher admitting his subject is useless? I heard teachers saying ancient Greek is useful to cure cancers. Bypassing the ridicolous arguments he used for this claim, if I notice dishonesty by teachers my opinion of them has to be this one. Also another evidence, I'm sure you know headmasters are nominated by the people they know and not for what they know.

After doing 3 hours in the morning, the activity that I witnessed teachers doing is giving private lessons at high charge and evading taxes. If a student asks for the receipt to pay taxes the answer is 'for what the government gives us, it's not worth to pay taxes, you can look for another one who pays taxes if you find one'. Tell me if there is a sign of honesty in them..
If you want to discuss teachers honesty start a thread, apart from possibly being christian and therefore hypocrites in your argument, it has little bearing on the Bible except to say that human nature is as it is. I am a teacher and non-christian and I know more than one in the same position who are hard-working and responsible and think of the kids. If you have had bad experiences I am sorry but not all of us are the same. You also meet duff soldiers who go through the same system as the rest, does that make all soldiers feckless and hypocrites for being unprofessional, skivers or corrupt? Time to drop this.
Ancient Greek to cure cancer? That's weird.

Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus Christ resurrected. If you believe it you are Christian. Jesus himself must believe it as he claims to have resurrected and to come back at the end of times. Without this belief Christianity disappears.


It's the Bible's version


On what text should we base opinions then? It's a 2000 years old story with supernatural beliefs and metaphors. Nobody can say what actually were the facts. The bible says Jesus resurrected and that he told his followers to spread his word. It means Jesus was Christian himself according to the bible. If the bible is false then Jesus wasn't Christian or maybe not even a real person. Jesus is Christian if you take the bible for granted.



The bible says on multiple occasions that Jesus is god. If one doesn't believe the bible it's one opinion (that I agree on) but the bible says so. Christianity has Jesus as a god not as a common man.


Without the belief that Jesus resurrected Christianity would disappear. It's all based on this (fake) claim. If a text undisputedly written by Jesus is found where he writes that he won't resurrect and that his followers were told to stage his resurrection, Christians would quit their religion. Only the ones who don't accept the text as true would still be Christians, the others would turn to atheism or another religion.


There are endless branches of Christianity. Even the ones who claim some Jesus' sons went to North America or something. Without resurrection what would be the point of Christianity? If Jesus is a normal man there is nothing to pray to him or to follow his words.
Your record is stuck. (Showing my age here.) I will try to keep it simple.
Yes the Bible says that Jesus was resurrected and a Son of God and to be a christian you have to believe that along with other things. I understand that.

What I said was that the Bible is only one version of who JC was and what he said. Other versions do not claim he was God or divine in any way, so there is doubt as to whether he claimed that he was. The version that won is the one that had political, economic and military might behind it and imposed it on Christendom, the victors write history. But is it an authentic version of his deeds, words and ideas? As a historian by discipline I really doubt it because the Bible has been edited and altered to fit a picture decided well after the event.

To look at the accuracy of the Bible one only needs to look at the versions of his family. Matthew says he was he was from an well-placed family descended from David via Solomon, Luke that he was from less well off folk. From this we get the story of the carpenter based on the translation from Greek and chosen to fit a story. The original term was 'ho tekon' a rendition of the semitic 'naggar' a word which could be applied to a trade craftsman but more likely defines a scholar or teacher. In fact the term 'Master Craftsman' is still a term used in Freemasonary.
So the Bible has been cherry-picked to form the story kids are taught which conforms to what the Roman version of Christianity thought it should be.

Studying other sources it is evident that the Roman version was not what everyone thought in the First Century, and in fact it may well be true that in Palestine it was not current at all.

So if you are basing your argument on one version of what JC was supposed to have said, the winning version, then fine. Does it mean that if the Bible is not correct in everything that Christianity has no point? No, but the basis for the given belief is undermined and it needs to be looked at.
In this we agree.
 
How can Jesus be Jewish if he believes Jews are not the chosen people?
Jesus was Jewish.

And to answer both you and Dwarf, a person can believe anything or not about Jesus. If he makes up his own version of what happened or what was said, it matters not.

If he claims to be a follower of Jesus, he is a self-professed Christian. You cannot impose your concept of Christianity to gainsay him. You cannot deny his Christianity.

And just as there were and are a plethora of versions of Christianity, so the were and are, a plethora of versions of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew who had a different idea of how Judaism should be.

Jesus was not a follower of Jesus. He was a Jew. People who followed his version of how things should be, his teachings, and who considered him Christ, became known as Christians, as they were his followers.
 
Xtians, Muslims ******* hate them all.
Just because people hate us doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing what we do. But I do agree we shouldn't be acting in our own interest, but in the interest of others.
Oh, and even if you hate me, keeps up the good work with the photography. I won't reciprocate the hate.
 
Jesus was Jewish.

And to answer both you and Dwarf, a person can believe anything or not about Jesus. If he makes up his own version of what happened or what was said, it matters not.

If he claims to be a follower of Jesus, he is a self-professed Christian. You cannot impose your concept of Christianity to gainsay him. You cannot deny his Christianity.

And just as there were and are a plethora of versions of Christianity, so the were and are, a plethora of versions of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew who had a different idea of how Judaism should be.

Jesus was not a follower of Jesus. He was a Jew. People who followed his version of how things should be, his teachings, and who considered him Christ, became known as Christians, as they were his followers.
Agreed. There are different ways to look at what Jesus may or may not have said. That's what I'm trying to get over. But we simply don't know what was his version, herein lies the problem.
 
If you want to discuss teachers honesty start a thread, apart from possibly being christian and therefore hypocrites in your argument, it has little bearing on the Bible except to say that human nature is as it is. I am a teacher and non-christian and I know more than one in the same position who are hard-working and responsible and think of the kids. If you have had bad experiences I am sorry but not all of us are the same. You also meet duff soldiers who go through the same system as the rest, does that make all soldiers feckless and hypocrites for being unprofessional, skivers or corrupt? Time to drop this.
In Christian countries most teachers are Christians. What if they went on strike with a 97% rate to keep unjust privileges at the expense of others? What if they all went on pension at 45 after 14 years of work at the expense of others including students? Isn't this evidence that they only care about themselves at the expense of students?

Other versions do not claim he was God or divine in any way, so there is doubt as to whether he claimed that he was.
In this case no religion can be made out of Jesus. You need a god to have a religion

But is it an authentic version of his deeds, words and ideas? As a historian by discipline I really doubt it because the Bible has been edited and altered to fit a picture decided well after the event.
Perhaps Jesus didn't say any of the quotes of the Bible but then noone is Christian. Christians of today take the Bible for granted, if the Bible is correct Jesus and his followers were the first Christians. You can't be Christian today and think that Jesus wasn't Christians himself.

So if you are basing your argument on one version of what JC was supposed to have said, the winning version, then fine. Does it mean that if the Bible is not correct in everything that Christianity has no point? No, but the basis for the given belief is undermined and it needs to be looked at.
If Jesus didn't resurrect and didn't claim to be god Christianity would have no point.
 
Jesus was Jewish.
Jesus was Christian according to the Bible. He claimed to be god, to have resurrected and told people to spread his words. It's a new religion, it can't be the same old Jewish one. All according to the Bible obviously.

And to answer both you and Dwarf, a person can believe anything or not about Jesus. If he makes up his own version of what happened or what was said, it matters not.

If he claims to be a follower of Jesus, he is a self-professed Christian. You cannot impose your concept of Christianity to gainsay him. You cannot deny his Christianity.
Obviously everyone can believe what they want however to have a religion you need a god. If you don't believe Jesus is god you can't be Christian as a religion. You may be a supporter of his political and social message but it wouldn't be your religion. So you would be Jewish, atheist or even Muslim and support the social message of Jesus. Not a religion.

And just as there were and are a plethora of versions of Christianity, so the were and are, a plethora of versions of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew who had a different idea of how Judaism should be.
Claiming to be god is a religion. It can't be a different idea.

Jesus was not a follower of Jesus. He was a Jew. People who followed his version of how things should be, his teachings, and who considered him Christ, became known as Christians, as they were his followers.
Whoever believes Jesus is god is Christian by religion. Jesus must have believed it himself to make sense. He was Christian because he believed in Jesus Christ and told people to spread his message. It's the definition of religion.
 

Similar threads