NationStates Jolt Archive

Which Jesus? I can't give an answer until I know who you're talking about.

Which Jesus? I can't give an answer until I know who you're talking about.

The one that was in the shape of one of those highly-resistant (at first) orifice fillers. I think there was a few links about it.

The one that was in the shape of one of those highly-resistant (at first) orifice fillers. I think there was a few links about it.

Oh, that one. He's the one who did his mother.

Oh, that one. He's the one who did his mother.

Sheesh, who didn't? :rolleyes:
Her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
...
I forgot why there was a salamander involved. o.9

...
You make the mistake of only assuming I was speaking of books accepted by Rome. Such books were accepted becuase they shared common themes. Ones that did not, were not considered "Canon", such as Thomas, wich is thought to be the earliest one.

I didn’t make a mistake, I was pointing out that those books (the canon books) were 'accepted' and referenced by the early Christians in writings and letters to each other long before other gospels were ever circulated. Other gospels, like the (sayings) Gospel of Thomas, were never even mentioned in any writings at all until centuries later, not decades. The first time anyone clearly mentions the (sayings) Gospel of Thomas isn't until the 3rd century (that I know of).

As to being, 'thought to be the earliest one,' I have to disagree. I think only the very most secularist would regard the evidence for the Gospel of Thomas to be an evidence that points to an early writing.

Here:
It should come as no surprise to us that the GThom Jesus has been given so much attention by the academic community of the Jesus Seminar and their ideological cousins. Behind this attention lies a desire to find a Jesus with no eschatology, no demands upon our person, and no outrageous claims to be the Son of Living God - as indeed is frankly admitted by Harold Bloom in his commentary at the end of Meyer's work. Appeals are made to the idea of seeing Christianity in "a fresh light" [Camer.FECy, 392]- is the traditional view somehow "stale"? Not at all: This is no more than a matter of saying, "Gosh, there's no way the traditional view can be TRUE! Let's look for a better way!" The view of GThom held by these scholars reflects "a simplistic tendency to regard extracanonical witnesses as the key to true Christianity as contrasting with a narrow-minded censorship represented by the New Testament." [Stant.GT?,78]

How appropriate, then, are the words of Grant and Freedman here, applied to the original author of GThom, but hauntingly fitting to the modern work of Koester, Patterson and Cameron, to Davies, and to the Jesus Seminar. GThom, Grant and Freedman write, is "probably our earliest significant witness to the early perversion of Christianity by those who wanted to create Jesus in their own image." And: "Ultimately (GThom) testifies not to what Jesus said but to what men wished he had said." How different, then, are the tactics and purposes of the Jesus Seminar and the GThom proponents? "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Eccl. 1:9)
Link (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thomasgospel.html)

They summarize my point with their conclusion, additionally they explain a reason and view against an early writing for GThomas, in the link if you should care to read it.

No, it is not a given. Thats the terrible truth of these books, is that thier origins are indeed, unknown. The authors, and the dates of creation, are unknown. Intelligent people would take this into consideration when deciding if indeed, they contain "the word of GOD."

The authors may not have signed their works, this is true. How do you know who wrote the Declaration of Independence? John Hancock signed it first and largest, but we all know he didn’t write it. Why? Because of tradition and other writings. In the same way the canon gospels are assigned, other writings and traditions put names on the canon gospels.

As to dating though, we know much more than you seem to think we know. The dating isn’t nearly as late as you seem to think (from your earlier posts and now with thinking GThomas is the oldest Gospel statement). The canon gospels are some of the earliest (outside of Paul’s writings) writings in Christian writings. Even Luke and John are early compared to Gnostic gospels, and Mark and Matthew are earlier still. Regardless that some want to say about the Gospel of Thomas being early, it seems like hopeful wishing on their part more than actual evidence determined.

Here’s another rebuttal to an early writing of GThomas.
Conclusion. The evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas does not even compare with that for the New Testament. The New Testament dates from the first century; the Gospel of Thomas, the second. The New Testament is verified by many lines of evidence, including self-references, early canonical lists, thousands of citations by the early Fathers, and the well-established dates for the Synoptic Gospels.
link (http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0102.pdf) (.pdf warning)


I'm not going to pretend that you can't find someone that says GThomas was an early writing, I'm saying that I've found those arguments to be lacking. But really, I'm not even anti-GThomas, myself, it just seems particularly Gnostic and a late comer to the scene.

I'm not going to pretend that you can't find someone that says GThomas was an early writing, I'm saying that I've found those arguments to be lacking. But really, I'm not even anti-GThomas, myself, it just seems particularly Gnostic and a late comer to the scene.

So, what your implying, is that the fact that it does not support Jesus' divinity, in your mind disqualies it as being written around 40 a.d, as many scholars believe?

I think your own beliefs cloud your judgement.

I wont bother to engage in a "Is not!, Is too!" debate with you, they never go anywhere.
But what I will suggest is that it may be against your nature as a believer to accept that such a book may in fact, be altogether more accurate as Jesus true nature, rather than one put forth by the very institution that depended on his divinity to remain a credible ruling institution.

Let me ask you this, instead...

What IF, He wasnt divine, there were no real miracles, he didnt actually ressurect, and was no more "The Messiah" than you or I?

Would it make the majority of what he said any less accurate?

Would it change the way he told you to live?

Is the real importance of his story wether or not he truly was the son of god, and that he truly sacrificed himself to guarantee entry into Heaven after one's death, or is it how to live one's life the right way, while on earth, in accordance with your creators desire?

Thing is ...
if humans can't seem to get "god" right, why the fuck does anyone think they'll get its "son" right?

Thing is ...
if humans can't seem to get "god" right, why the fuck does anyone think they'll get its "son" right?Bingo!
The whole "Son of God" thing is just an extension of man's perverse, delusional and arrogant assumptions on the nature of God. Earth is such an infinitely small and insignificant part of the vastness of the cosmos. Life on it is relatively early in playing out it's program (and already has rebooted at least a couple of times). Yet mankinds religions have only the narrow vision to assign human concepts, conventions and concerns to their version of "God", with mankind and it's affairs as his principle concern. Look outward from this insignificant rock were doing laps around this minor star on. The Universe is so vast and magnificant, do you really believe humankind has the capacity to even begin to understand the true nature of any unifying force or plan for it all? And do you really believe that our affairs are significant in it?

Religion has always been and continues to be a pacifier for the masses, a way to calm fear of the unknown and at the same time exercise power and control. In all it's guises it 'answers' the great questions of the unknown and soothes our fear of death.

I personally don't need such reasurance and 'faith'. I'm perfectly content to look out at the infinity of the cosmos and admit it is beyond my comprehension. I still live my life as best I can, probably more morally and compasionate than the majority of those who claim to be among the 'faithful'.

Jesus was nice idea.

Too bad religion got ahold of it.

Jesus is an overrated and overused thing in myths and philosophy. All Christians have for his proof is a book. Wow. A book. Just... wow. Anyone else see any problems with that?

Citation Needed.


Ok great, and u have what to go by???? Can u explain any better where u came from, where you're going to and what the heck u are doing here in the meantime??:headbang:

Ok great, and u have what to go by???? Can u explain any better where u came from, where you're going to and what the heck u are doing here in the meantime??:headbang:All the great religions have manipulated and controled the masses by purporting to have the answers to these questions. Most of the worst atrocities known to mankind have also been commited by these same religions. Corruption, lies, war and death fill the history of religion. All because they offer an answer to those questions you list.

Doesn't it make you wonder if an answer to those questions (especially one that depends solely on faith) is really neccesary or worth it?

So, what your implying, is that the fact that it does not support Jesus' divinity, in your mind disqualies it as being written around 40 a.d, as many scholars believe?

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there is no evidence, no reference, no referral to, no quote of, the GThomas in any source before the 3rd century, if it was an early writing it should be quoted or mentioned somewhere. But it is not, the first time it might have been mentioned is a hundred and ninety years after it was supposedly written early. But it is written about, negatively, by the 4th century. Besides, how do you gauge that the GThomas does not support Jesus’ divinity? It was dismissed then because it was thought to have not been written by an apostle, not because it couldn’t be determined to support divinity.

I think your own beliefs cloud your judgement.

And I think the same of your opinion.

I wont bother to engage in a "Is not!, Is too!" debate with you, they never go anywhere.
But what I will suggest is that it may be against your nature as a believer to accept that such a book may in fact, be altogether more accurate as Jesus true nature, rather than one put forth by the very institution that depended on his divinity to remain a credible ruling institution.

Let me ask you this, instead...

What IF, He wasnt divine, there were no real miracles, he didnt actually ressurect, and was no more "The Messiah" than you or I?

Would it make the majority of what he said any less accurate?

Would it change the way he told you to live?

It is against my ‘nature’ to assume the book is an early writing without some reason to think so.

IF he isn’t part of the divinity, then what he said is by default less accurate. Because he did say he was the Messiah and that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one goes to the Father except through him. If that’s not true, then he was lying, thus not accurate.

Would it change the way he told us to live? Yes, it would change the way He told us to live, because He told us to follow him and to trust in him that his burden was light and that he would carry it for us…

If the gospels depended on each other to be written the way they are, like Mark was read by Matthew and Luke before Mathew and Luke wrote their Gospels, it shows that Mark is older. How come nobody used the Gospel of Thomas (sayings) when they were writing a story gospel? Supposedly they used “Q” but there is no GThomas to be found, another reason to think it is a late, and likely Gnostic, writing.

Jesus is...I wanna know.

...out of plastic (http://www.kpho.com/news/14502043/detail.html). But that's nothing new.

...out of plastic (http://www.kpho.com/news/14502043/detail.html). But that’s nothing new.
I think the four weirdos at the top of that page should stir up more debate than a talking Jesus doll. Their faces are so unsettling.

I think the four weirdos at the top of that page should stir up more debate than a talking Jesus doll. Their faces are so unsettling.Good Christian faces....

so i just finished a book entitled "unchristian" and it was an interesting read. it shares things about both sides of the argument. but it also stands on one side...i will not spoil it.

the thing i really liked about the book was what it had to say, christians are so...judgmental and that is something that they shouldn't be, it talks about christian being raised to believe whatever their parents did, which is wrong.

anyway i do encourage everyone to read it. it doesn't take long, not matter how fast or slow you read.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that there is no evidence, no reference, no referral to, no quote of, the GThomas in any source before the 3rd century,
[
You mean like when Hippolytus and Origen (ca. 233) refer to a "Gospel of Thomas" among the heterodox apocryphal gospels?





Besides, how do you gauge that the GThomas does not support Jesus’ divinity? It was dismissed then because it was thought to have not been written by an apostle, not because it couldn’t be determined to support divinity.

Becuase it makes no mention miracles, ressurection, or "messiah"?






It is against my ‘nature’ to assume the book is an early writing without some reason to think so.

I just took a quick glance at the wiki entry on it, and I think everything you need to know is on it.
Theres every bit of evidence to suggest it very well could be as early as 40. a.d, and quite a bit to suggest as late as 200. ad.
In any case much earlier than the 4th century as you give it creedence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas


IF he isn’t part of the divinity, then what he said is by default less accurate. Because he did say he was the Messiah and that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one goes to the Father except through him. If that’s not true, then he was lying, thus not accurate.

Would it change the way he told us to live? Yes, it would change the way He told us to live, because He told us to follow him and to trust in him that his burden was light and that he would carry it for us…

Sadly, this tells me much about you.
I suspect you put more faith in the dogma of divinity and transubstantiation, rather than the peace message.



If the gospels depended on each other to be written the way they are, like Mark was read by Matthew and Luke before Mathew and Luke wrote their Gospels, it shows that Mark is older. How come nobody used the Gospel of Thomas (sayings) when they were writing a story gospel? Supposedly they used “Q” but there is no GThomas to be found, another reason to think it is a late, and likely Gnostic, writing.

Actually, there are several passages in Thomas that are very similar in all four Canon books. Its not a stretch to assume that it was borrowed from.

Bingo!
The whole "Son of God" thing is just an extension of man's perverse, delusional and arrogant assumptions on the nature of God. Earth is such an infinitely small and insignificant part of the vastness of the cosmos. Life on it is relatively early in playing out it's program (and already has rebooted at least a couple of times). Yet mankinds religions have only the narrow vision to assign human concepts, conventions and concerns to their version of "God", with mankind and it's affairs as his principle concern. Look outward from this insignificant rock were doing laps around this minor star on. The Universe is so vast and magnificant, do you really believe humankind has the capacity to even begin to understand the true nature of any unifying force or plan for it all? And do you really believe that our affairs are significant in it?

Religion has always been and continues to be a pacifier for the masses, a way to calm fear of the unknown and at the same time exercise power and control. In all it's guises it 'answers' the great questions of the unknown and soothes our fear of death.

I personally don't need such reasurance and 'faith'. I'm perfectly content to look out at the infinity of the cosmos and admit it is beyond my comprehension. I still live my life as best I can, probably more morally and compasionate than the majority of those who claim to be among the 'faithful'.

Jesus was nice idea.

Too bad religion got ahold of it.

Verily, you honour me. *bows*
That's exactly what i'm talking about. Thank you. :)

[
You mean like when Hippolytus and Origen (ca. 233) refer to a "Gospel of Thomas" among the heterodox apocryphal gospels?

Yes, exactly right. That is the 3rd Century comments I refered to, approximately 190 years after an early writing of GThomas would have been IF it was really written in 43AD, why would it take so long for anyone to notice that the GThomas existed and mention it?

Additionally, we don't know if those particular mentionings of Thomas actually meant the Gospel of Thomas (sayings), or if it they are about the Infancy Gospels of Thomas, The Apocalypse of Thomas or The Acts of Thomas (all Gnostic writings of a late date). Why that reference would need to be specifically the Sayings GThomas I don't know, and why the GThomas would be an early writing, when all the other Thomas writings are late writings is very problematic for the early dating of GThomas IMO.


Becuase it makes no mention miracles, ressurection, or "messiah"?

The lack of mentioning it is not evidence of it not being true, silence is not disproof in it's own part. GThomas doesn't really mention anything about Jesus the individual, it doesn't try to.


I just took a quick glance at the wiki entry on it, and I think everything you need to know is on it.
Theres every bit of evidence to suggest it very well could be as early as 40. a.d, and quite a bit to suggest as late as 200. ad.
In any case much earlier than the 4th century as you give it creedence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

You misunderstand what I said about the 4th Century. I said the 4th century was the first external reference to the work that we have that is not questionable. The 3rd century references to it are about a Thomas work, and it might be the Sayings GThomas, but they might not be. But the 4th century saying IS about the Sayings GThomas.

Sadly, this tells me much about you.
I suspect you put more faith in the dogma of divinity and transubstantiation, rather than the peace message.

And I suspect that you are one of the people that misguidedly try to reinvent Jesus into some sort of 1960's hippie flower child. But which peace message did you have in mind, one of these?

Matthew 10:34
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Luke 12
49 "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

John 2
15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade."

I don’t think there is any consensus that Jesus was a peacenik…

Actually, there are several passages in Thomas that are very similar in all four Canon books. Its not a stretch to assume that it was borrowed from.

It is a stretch, even the early dating GThomas advocates suggest that the GThomas sayings rose independent of the canon Gospels. The GThomas sayings may contain some authentic extra-biblical tradition (which I agree it might), even if it was written in the mid-second century that seems far more likely a dating for it.

49 "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

LOL.

...Son-in-law against father-in-law, father-in-law against son-in-law, and son-in-law against mother-in-law, against uncle and aunt, aunt against grandmother, mother against neighbour, child against cat, lolcat against lolcat, and grandfathers against their veteran buddies, and firey pillars of salt from the heavens shall rain down upon the second cousins twice-removed, for their confusing and questionable state of relation is a plague to be damned."

LOL.

...Son-in-law against father-in-law, father-in-law against son-in-law, and son-in-law against mother-in-law, against uncle and aunt, aunt against grandmother, mother against neighbour, child against cat, lolcat against lolcat, and grandfathers against their veteran buddies, and firey pillars of salt from the heavens shall rain down upon the second cousins twice-removed, for their confusing and questionable state of relation is a plague to be damned."

I like your version better.

Jesus was a proto-Marxist.

Jesus was a proto-Marxist.

or rather a proto-socialist. as was every revealer of organized belief.

presupposing of course, that we're talking about THAT jesus. the one with a religeon named after him.

=^^=
.../\...

There are many people you could choose to follow. Political leaders, religious leaders, media figures, the CEO of your company. But of all these leaders, how many would lay down their lives for you?

So my answer? Jesus is the good shepherd, who cares for his sheep. How do we know? Because he laid down his life for them.

There are many people you could choose to follow. Political leaders, religious leaders, media figures, the CEO of your company. But of all these leaders, how many would lay down their lives for you?

So my answer? Jesus is the good shepherd, who cares for his sheep. How do we know? Because he laid down his life for them.

King Kong died for your sins too. And he's way bigger than Jesus, so that's a whole lot more death. So really, King Kong died for your sins and then some, so you can sin more than normal and it'll still be covered.

There are many people you could choose to follow. Political leaders, religious leaders, media figures, the CEO of your company. But of all these leaders, how many would lay down their lives for you?


So if I worship Paddy Pearse and Bobby Sands, I'm in the clear? That'd be deadly........

Jesus is gay. No girlfriend, surrounded by male apostles.

He is gay or doesn't exist.

King Kong died for your sins too. And he's way bigger than Jesus, so that's a whole lot more death. So really, King Kong died for your sins and then some, so you can sin more than normal and it'll still be covered.

And like Bobby Sands, he was an urban Gorilla......!!!!!! Truly our faiths are but a hairs breadth apart!!!!!

So if I worship Paddy Pearse and Bobby Sands, I'm in the clear? That'd be deadly........
Our Bobby, who art in Heaven
...eh....Bobby be thy name
Jesus is gay. No girlfriend, surrounded by male apostles.
Noted historian Dan Brown disagrees.

He is gay or doesn't exist.

Can't it be both? I mean, Dumbledore is gay and he doesn't exist.

And like Bobby Sands, he was an urban Gorilla......!!!!!! Truly our faiths are but a hairs breadth apart!!!!!

I can easily believe that King Kong was related to Bobby Sands in some way.

Not coming back so all you God botherers are fucked. Bobby Sands was scum and deserved to die.

I can easily believe that King Kong was related to Bobby Sands in some way.

Well, both were locked away for a bit, and died gallantly in the face of the foe.....The hair on Kongs arse marked him out as Irish quite clearly....

Not coming back so all you God botherers are fucked. Bobby Sands was scum and deserved to die.

The troll is strong with this one.

Not coming back so all you God botherers are fucked. Bobby Sands was scum and deserved to die.


O NOES!!!!!1111!!!1.

Maybe we should set up a 'beginners board' for Trolls.....You left out the sniper smiley, btw.

Actually, the sniper would be quite apt, if ye think about it....

Our Bobby, who art in Heaven
...eh....Bobby be thy name

Noted historian Dan Brown disagrees.



Dan Brown is not a historian but an author of thriller fiction.

O NOES!!!!!1111!!!1.

Maybe we should set up a 'beginners board' for Trolls.....You left out the sniper smiley, btw.

Actually, the sniper would be quite apt, if ye think about it....

Well he's starting small, trolling an existing thread before he makes one of his own. And he seems to have done at least a little research into who Bobby Sands is(other than a personal Lord and saviour ;)).

Dan Brown is not a historian but an author of thriller fiction.

Pffft, foolishness. Have you seen his documentary, The Da Vinci Code?

Well he's starting small, trolling an existing thread before he makes one of his own. And he seems to have done at least a little research into who Bobby Sands is(other than a personal Lord and saviour ;)).

I think he was just guessing. He knows naught of the Holy Blanket, nor the Block that was H.

Pffft, foolishness. Have you seen his documentary, The Da Vinci Code?

Yes, it was a dull movie. And the book wasn't better.

Dan Brown is gay as well!

I think he was just guessing. He knows naught of the Holy Blanket, nor the Block that was H.

Well, clearly his Sands education has been lacking, otherwise he'd be agreeing with you.

Yes, it was a dull movie. And the book wasn't better.

Dan Brown is gay as well!

Holy Blown Sterotypes Batman!!!!!!!!
But is it not so that all of TeH GaYz are flamboyant and full of joie de vivre?

Pffft, foolishness. Have you seen his documentary, The Da Vinci Code?

*nods approvingly*

The Da Vinci Code has been analysed by professional truthologists and has been objectively determined to contain more truth than any other book in the history of the world. FACT.

*nods approvingly*

The Da Vinci Code has been analysed by professional truthologists and has been objectively determined to contain more truth than any other book in the history of the world. FACT.

I'm sorry, RLI, but I cannot conscientiously concur.

In the well regarded peer-reviewed journal of truthology, "The New Hampshire Journal of Truthology and Aftermarket Plumbing Catalog", the Da Vinci Code was found to include an irregular and dubious ratio of verbs to nouns.

In fact, I think a more rigorous and thorough examination of the literature would reveal that the most truthologically sound book on Jesus was "How the Messiah Gave Me Herpes and Then Cured My Herpes" by Mary "Lollipop" Magdalene.

Its written first hand and is illustrated with many fine black and white diagrams.

Jesus is...one of those poor guys who peaked in his thirties.

Jesus... probably didn't exist. A man's whose birth was announced by a celestial event, and which roamed throughout his lifetime performing miracle after miracle, is mentioned solely in second and third hand sources, translated and rewritten to the point in which the truth can never be known. Historians of the time of Jesus neer actually even name him.

So my answer? Jesus is the good shepherd, who cares for his sheep. How do we know? Because he laid down his life for them.
That was a trick, as obviously evidenced with the whole rising back up again a few days later.
Suckers.

Jesus is a bad movie.

I didn't like it that my sister betrayed the death of the main personage at the end of the movie.

Jesus is a bad movie.

I didn't like it that my sister betrayed the death of the main personage at the end of the movie.
"JESUS DIES"
"OMG spoiler tag"

"JESUS DIES"
"OMG spoiler tag"

He comes back

He comes back

Oh no! Jesus is a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101?

Oh no! Jesus is a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101?

Jesus needs your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle.

Jesus needs your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle.

Jesus is searching for Sarah Connor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFrufPxjwX0

:)

I'm sure someone's already said this by now, but I'd have to think that it'd be obvious anyway.

Chuck Norris is Jesus. Mozilla Firefox even corrects misspellings of his name correctly. does it do that to any other word? nope.

Apparently back from the dead.

Holy gravedig Batman!

I'm sure someone's already said this by now, but I'd have to think that it'd be obvious anyway.

Chuck Norris is Jesus. Mozilla Firefox even corrects misspellings of his name correctly. does it do that to any other word? nope.

No see I don't believe anyone said that because it is dumb and the stupid chuck norris phase is OUT!... it was dumb when it happened and Jack Bauer would kick his ass anyway.