Jesus and Christianity

[Beingof1]

Steven Coyle:

I think David was directing your attention to what a rare attainment it is to understand the wisdom of Jesus.

The 15% or so that contains wisdom and the lions share that is "rubbish"?

Bo1: Someone might say; "Jesus was a very great sage and we should study his life". The answer in a nutshell given here is; "you are hopelessly deluded".

Steven: There are variables in the equation.

The quality of the student is just as important as that of the teacher.

I agree; that sentiment should be the reality (where the rubber mets the road) and not the ideal in theory.


AlyOshA:

It seems that your path is to prove the historicity of certain Christian figures, for what reason I do not know, but that is not my path.

The reason is; Jesus and his life and teaching, is a credible light of transcendant truth. It was the words of Jesus himself that he could be truly understood by someone who was enlightened themselves. If a sage cannot mess with your perceptions in a dramtic way and create a paradigm in your mind, this one, more than likely, is not a sage at all.

If we exclude a person, simply for being a Christian (as deluded) that is a tenet of dogmatism. If someone were to say "I am a Hindu" and I were to make the assumption that they experienced delusion and had no wisdom to share - it would be me that was amiss by my blind self contained box.

I would not ever exclude wisdom because of a title, creed, or form. I can learn from all sages and books of wisdom such as the Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Baghavad Gita, or no less the book of Job.

Matthew 21:17-22

17. And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. 18. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21. Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be cast into the sea; and it shall be done. 22. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

If you were to read this scripture in front of one hundred people, you would probably be having ninety-five hands shoot up. It is almost like this scripture could be waved away as having no meaning other than a fanciful tale without merit of any kind.

If you cannot reconcile the physical story you are not able to see the much deeper meaning. That is its purpose with intent. It is like a Zen koan to see where the attention is focused. Are you focused on the probabilities of what is and what is not possible in our experience and the universe?

If you are, you are trapped in the physical and the mind is self restrained. It is stories like this that calls attention to our belief systems and deep containment and attachment to the physical. This is the only time that we see Jesus cursing anything at all.

1- The fig tree is the ego.
2- The fig tree is doubt.
3- The fig tree is resentment.

1- Jesus is creating negative karma.
2- He is cursing the curse itself.
3- The tree will eventually crucify him.

There could be no crucifixion of a flawless being without creating some karma for it to transpire.

It seems that you insist on putting Buddhism through the same scrutiny as Christianity. That is a valid request. I feel that someone’s philosophy or belief system is the foundation of all of that person’s actions and intentions, and therefore it becomes fundamentally important to know what it is you believe, and why you believe it.

The entire point of a belief system is to be transcended. An ideal reality is a creation of the mind and projected into experience. The rush or momentum of reality pushes us beyond all limitaions of all belief systems if we surrender through humility.

Personally, I put my beliefs under constant scrutiny on a regular basis, and what I’m left with is of true substance (if not tailored to me as an individual).

The path of wisdom.

This is one of the blessings of an evolved religion like many Eastern philosophies, Taoism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (to some extent). They are constantly modifying their beliefs because they hold your same sentiments, but this is of a vastly different nature than that of revealed religions like many philosophies born in the Middle East, Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim. The nature of a revealed religion is that someone spoke some words thousands of years ago and those words are set in stone, never to change, and not necessarily intended to be discovered on a personal level. Only Moses can see the burning bush and comment on it.

The great misconception that is the engine driving Monotheism dogma, religion, and ignorance. In fact; it is the reason the sages wisdom of these three religions are buried beneath the foghorn of agenda for power.

It is the very reason the scripture is misunderstood. If you read the Jewish scriptures you can see an evolving understanding from the Hindu type revelation of the ancient "I AM that I AM" culminating in the universal/cosmic Christ who conceived of no God created in man`s image.

Truth is in a constant state of unfolding and it is clearly seen in the scripture. If you really 'get' the teaching of Jesus - you are in a stream of understanding in a constant state of expansion that is infinite.

If you look at the coexistence of Eastern Religions, lets say Taoism and Buddhism as it existed in China prior to the revolution, you will see that they were incredibly compatible and peaceful (they even borrow from each others beliefs). If you observe the coexistence of Middle Eastern religions you will plainly see constant struggle and violence (just as apparent now as it has been forever).

This is an oversimplification; you are assuming the religions are the sole cause of the wars in the Near East into the modern world. You are 'tagging' the wars as all religious in nature and the foundational cause of the hate.

I would ask you, have the Eastern Philosophies expunged war in the Asian nations? Hardly, and it would be just as unfair to say "Buddhism and Lao-Tzu are the cause of thousands of years of conflict".

It would be like saying because Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were atheists, atheism is inherently violent.

So what modern day (liberal) Christians do (and I would guess that you fall into this category, if I am wrong I apologize) is pick and choose the things out of the bible that they like and they base their beliefs on that (essentially a condensed and edited bible). You are using what is available and trying to do what you can with it (but yet you would never consider actually re-writing it).

I am in the process of completing writing the Bible and when I have a question of what the scripture means, I ask myself, "what did I mean when I wrote that?" No need to rewrite, just complete was was unfinished as are all teachings.

So how do you deal with a belief system that is so overwhelmingly powerful, currently and historically violent and destructive, and scientifically and philosophically passé (with the intention to remain that way)? No I’m really asking your opinion because I value it.

No worries, I respond in like kind and that is missed quite often. If there is respect given it is returned.

Because it has absolutely nothing to do with my religion or philosophy.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" - has nothing to do with political power that are inherently corrupt and violent. Systems of power structure whether political, organized religion, or a crusade is designed to ensnare the blind by appealing to their lack of fullfillment by creating a cause that is bigger than the drum daily routine.

The leaders encourage others to fondle their selfish resentment and sensual emotions to derive a "hype" that is literally mass hypnosis. "We and therefore I are morally superior to them" is the image and mantra of the creations of suffering.

And yes I have seen the videos of the Buddhist monks fist fighting but you are not seriously comparing the historical violence of Eastern religions to that of the Middle Eastern Religions are you?

If they are no better at stopping war, how is it superior? That is more or less evasion, follow?



Diebert van Rhijn:

There doesn't exist something like 'reading what is plainly written'. It's always being fitted in with some amount or conjecture. So one has to examine the words and the fitting and the conjecture all at the same time, to get the most accurate idea about what it could be we're looking at.

Did Paul talk with the apostles?

Perhaps they all had mystical experiences but that's not my point. Paul himself qualifies his Damascus experience as a meeting with Jesus, and it's his first as far as the NT scriptures go. So logic will force one to assume he's talking about that experience only. Maybe some scripture can help to make my view more clearly since both are about the Damascus experience and to assume some other meeting yet unnamed seems an 'argument from silence' to me.

He said he had seen the Lord - that is not silence. I do not know what he meant by that statement and you claim you do. That is my whole point.

Act 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation(unveiling, revealing, or to uncover) of Jesus Christ.

Exactly. Did you notice in the last sentence of the quote from Acts there would be future appearings. I clarified the nebulous word revelation in the Galations quote.

Christians still use 'seeing the Light' and "I've met Jesus" to describe conversion experiences. But apart from that I'm neutral on the issue.

Indeed; and I do appreciate the attempt at what we are clearly seeing big D.

You must see that the records of the 4 gospels do state clearly a meal eating, physical fish broiling Jesus however, yes?

You misunderstood me, I meant that the texts in that specific book, not the whole library! The NH contains so many different things, it was probably once part of an extensive library of religious thought, sometimes suggested to be 'Gnostic' which leaves the question open if this was the 'true' Christian thought, its predecessor or a later development or merge.

I can show you a dating that was completely missed by everyone else(including the translators) and I am the only one that I know of (there may be others) that has found it. The amazing thing about this date, it is obvious as you will see.

The Apocryphon of John: 15

I [John], heard these things

It was written by John himself. This is an example of why I do not completely trust these 'experts' as Frederick Wisse just kinda glossed over this statement.

And you aren't? You just make up a year that is convenient to your ideas and uphold it as fact? What kind of swallowing is then expected from the people listening to you?

Back this up, where did I do this?

I did not make a single assumption concerning dating of the texts because I simply believe the authors told the truth?

You seem to assume they are all liars or delusional.

My answer:

The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document, not aggregated to the critic himself.

-- Aristotle

This should be the rule of thumb when people say they are eyewitnesses. It is the rule of thumb except; scripture and Jesus.

Bo1: As long as you believe conjectures, assumptions, and must interject - beyond what is clearly seen, you are trying to change not only the context, facts, and truth but what is actually existing in reality.

Diebert: That is all based on the assumption that your view doesn't need correction anymore. I challenge that view.

So far; none can point out my delusion as I do not deceive myself, why would I say that to you? To deny my reality is to seek external acceptance.

At any rate; challenge away, as long as we are strong enough in our committment to truth to allow the fire of it to burn away all impurity it is most welcome.

You know from experience most either tuck tail and run or must be the child that gets the last word. A puppet no longer amuses me, and I think you know what I mean.

Bo1: So the earliest book dated around 400 BC? The very latest, maybe mid third century? That means we have a spread of 700 years while the Christian texts were obviously composed after Jesus.

Diebert: And why would that be? Some 'Christian' texts might as well pre-date a person called Jesus, depending on the assumptions you take with you.

The assumption that Jesus was the founder of Christianity?

You seem to be hair splitting here, okay; the texts that mention Jesus or his disciples?

And you already know the essence of Christ is not just a Christian concept, so it should not sound unlikely to you that some Christian-ish writings could be BC, or perhaps rewrites from older mystical texts.

I think it is almost without question that some of the texts were pre- Jesus.

Bo1: Let me ask myself, should I believe modern day 'experts' or those hundreds that write as eyewitness testimony?


Diebert: What would Reason say if it was here?

Reason would say: "There is nothing in the story, life, and teachings of Jesus the Christ that could offend or resist one who is on the path of truth and wisdom".

I'm open to many sides of the story, the orthodox, unorthodox modern, critical, conspiracy and 'new age' analysis.

Exactly; I keep looking for 'Dieberts' view, have I seen that one yet?

But so far I find your analysis not very reasonable or logical, even compared to many others I've heard. The direction seems fine but somewhere somehow you seem to got stuck 'on the way', like a broken record.

That I have no problem with not a single solitary text found in the Nag Hammadi and canon concernng the story of Jesus? Is this what you have believed to be 'illogical' and 'unreasonable'?

If that is what you believe, show me a single, solitary discrepency in all of the various texts. If it truly is illogical it cannot hold water. There is an abundance of texts to work with here so shortage of evidence of my so called "analysis not very reasonable or logical".

Are you up for it Diebert? Give me a single example in all of the texts and give evidence of my "broken record". Can`t be that hard if it truly is unfounded, just give an example.

Bo1: All of a sudden, everyones brain goes on tilt and ceases to function.

What a powerful sage indeed.


Diebert: Or what delusional fantastic herdish minds. That observation works many ways, you know.

The observation that because they claimed to be eywitnesses of a sage they were willing to be killed in torturous ways many years later without a single recanting of their testimony of what they had seen?

Who was the true blind ones here Diebert, the killers or the witnesses?

Are you saying Nero was the clear sighted one? By feeding them to lions and ripping their bodies apart? He was dispelling their "delusional fantastic herdish minds" that locked in their minds for decades?

No, but you can't use the entire library to make your point. That way you drown the issue. Be specific in why you choose some document and why you give authority and credibility to its origin in terms of authenticity, relevance and content. Just wiping away the opinion of translators and experts in the field as if they don't exist doesn't seem in itself very helpful.

All referneces to Jesus and his disciples are acceptable to the subject at hand.

I trust their translation work as it seems accurate so far, their dating is almost entirely subjective however and is agenda ridden. I just proved that in the above - twice.

Again you misunderstand. I meant to say again that the NH find in itself doesn't say 'something'. It only means something when you select specific texts and give a credible analysis or translation of it, placing it into context and so on. Those centuries were a melting pot of merging religious thought and there were many competing offshoots. As the NH reflects in my view.

Here is a contextual thought for you, these texts quote, verbatim, the standard text of canon. What are the implications of that?

There was no dogma in early Christianity nor was there a chain of command. They all had one thing in common - the resurrection and the specific names of eyewitnesses and key players(John, Peter, Mary etc.). That was universal in Christianity no matter the book, text, or sect.

The context is - there are no discrepencies in all of the texts anywhere to be found with all the many different books and authors. They all coincide with any facts and events found anywhere in all of the texts. They include names and address with recounting identical detail.
Got it?

There's a lot in the text and context that can help dating. Style, certain uses of words, referrals to historical events and so on. It's not a very exact science though, I'll give you that. Not unimportant though.

It is subject to so much abuse and agenda it cannot be trusted as it is entirly subjective opinion.

Do you believe that no text was edited or falsified over time in any way? And if to a degree, how would you go about your way reading them?

If they all agree, including unearthed texts, there is your falsification. Its built in and is an acid test for 1800 years.

There is no room for error as you now have texts that would expose a conspiracy or redaction concerning the resurrection - common sense.

The only thing that is established is what a certain explosively growing group of believers thought to be true in mostly the second century and beyond. What exactly happened in the first century is very hard to determine. And the Nag Hammadi gives an interesting insight but more in the differing views on God, Christ and Jesus and his apostles, than anything else. In other words: Nag Hammadi shows how unreliable the idea 'eye witness' now has become, since it give credit to the idea there was no unified Christian thought in the early stages at all.

I do not see an objection here at all, could you point out how this has anything to do with Jesus?

I know there was no concensus on what the resurrection means - I hope to God there never is. THAT - IS THE DELUSION.

It is not important that you agree with me on what the resurrection means, that would be dogma and would only put you in chains. It is important for you to discover what it means to you and you alone. That is the meaning and purpose of the resurrection.

You have great faith in the early church fathers! And how did they know? Just because they 'said it'. What reason they had to doubt the origins of the faith they embraced?

Look Diebert; you charged in here claiming there was no reason to believe in a historical Paul, I gave you the proof. You now are discussing what his insights were and cruised right through when I had ever right to gloat ;).

If you doubt the authorship, I really do not care as that to me, is a rabbit trail. I researched it already, knock yourself out.

You tell me who wrote Luke?

You admit then that there's nothing from the first century CE? Nothing at all from an external source about such a great wise man traveling around the country, causing such a stir?

Can you show me any document at all from the first century? And you cannot use Josephus either if you said I could not.

Again, knock yourself out on that one. What no wars? No politics? No news at all huh?

And there are even hardly Christian documents left which are dated with certainty before 100CE. We have some copies, edited and compiled and nobody is sure about their exact origins. What is written and believed 100 years after the supposed facts doesn't seem that relevant. The 'mountain' of evidence becomes then late, mostly Christians writing about their favorite topic: Christ!

Examine some other older religions that left a mountain of documents (the Greek and their gods perhaps) and tell me what you think in that case.

For the church leaders in the mid second century, the four Gospels were baseline authority in their teachings. In about 170 AD, Irenaeus cited 23 of the 27 New Testament books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. The Muratorian fragment, written about the same time, attests to the widespread use of all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. However, other church fathers had already cited those omitted books in various writings defending against Gnostic doctrines. The Codex Barococcio from 206 AD includes 64 of the 66 books of today's Bible. Esther and Revelation were omitted, but they had already been declared as inspired scripture by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and the Muratorian Canon. In 230 AD, Origen declared that all Christians acknowledged as scripture the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation.


5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph)

Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed)

Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed)

Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed)

Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years (until Nag Hammadi)

Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years)

Homer's Iliad, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts.

You are bringing the same ole 'throw enough at it, hope something sticks and that your opponent has not done his homework'.

I guess you did not believe me when I told you I had studied for decades eh?

I do not care about this nonsense anyway, what are your thoughts Diebert, not what you get from 'expert critics'?

I want to hear your thoughts.

Perhaps Jesus his teachings and miracles were not that special either. There were so many miracle workers and 'would be messiahs' in those times and the Roman threat was growing. A feeling of Armageddon was gathering. What a time for Christ to incarnate!

Ah - thoughts from you, how refreshing.

I'm not in need of any evidence. I can find the same truths in everything I examine. Why are you in need? Isn't your experience enough? Why must the tradition exactly fit your understanding? I don't understand your drive to make it 'true' as some literal eye-witness event. I can accept the idea that there was a living Christ 2000 years ago, but I can accept also there were many others, in various degrees over the centuries. I believe the NT version as is currenly used and taught by Christians does more harm than good for the wisdom it should contain. It's time to let it go, let the ark strand.

If you can find truth in everything you examine - why in the world do you make an exception for Jesus?

So, let me get this straight; you can find truth in a billboard sign if you look hard enough but we must do away with the story of Jesus?

Great example of exactly the kind of "brain tilt" I was talking about. Reason, logic, and common sense just went by by.

But I am the one with clouded vision? riiiight.

The reason is clear. If you want to examine a murder mystery, would you believe the ones most suspect of the crime, or some non-involved bystander? And I did specify that it should be not just a person, but some researched figure whose background is known to a degree, so we have context there too. It could be one of the opposing factions to Christ and has to be read that way.

If you examine or research anything, you do not deny the evidence you have - that is just ludicrous.

Diebert, you have got this so backward it is just hard to type with a straight face. Who committed the murder? Jesus?

Why would anyone leave records implicating themselves for a murder?

Once again - logic flies off into the subspace regions and you actually think this is solid reasoning?

Again other than Josephus, do you have a first century source? All that I know of is a Jewish theologian and he only wrote about Talmudic beliefs.

What; nothing happened? Where are any Roman records? Greek? Same holds true for both perspectives.

Yes, so it's from Nag Hammadi. That doesn't say anything about who wrote it, when and with which intention. You have really a very difficult case if all NH documents must be truth, as well the NT, the churchfathers, heretics, all of it. You must make your own selection or perish by irrationality. I can prove that.

An actual argument, I was wondering how long I had to wait.

Go ahead - I state catagorically I believe them all concerning Jesus and the followers - now its on you - thank God - prove it.

Here is your chance to end this.

My point was that the canon has had way more scrutinizing and analysis than Nag Hammadi, which can be drawn upon. The Gnostic ideas in Nag Hammadi are by many not even considered mainstream Christianity, nor part of the core teachings of the apostles or early Church at least. There are good reasons for that but I think it's slightly outside the discussion right now. Perhaps later.

You really are not getting what I am talking about at all - you are not even close.I do not care one iota what "mainstream Christianity" believes. I do not need the teachings of others to make up my mind for me.

No Diebert - this is the very Heart of the matter. Pause at what you just wrote and think about why I might say that.

No, you didn't check Mary's gospel yourself. For example: "Sister, we know that the Savior loved you more than other women" and "Did he prefer her to us?".

Yes I have read the Mary text and you said:

I could 'prove' in the same way by quoting The Gospel of Mary that Jesus had a lover and Mary Magdalene was the superior apostle

You might want to check how many times you have backpeddled in this thread - it tells me you are the one reaching and I am seeing clearly.

Bo1: So you reject the fact that Plato wrote the Republic because it was found in the Nag Hammadi?

Diebert: No, it proves my point that the Nag Hammadi is a mixed bag if it comes to representing Christian thought as e.g. Paul or James taught it.

It proves that you were reaching for the dating of 200 AD for the texts was a red herring and you are changing the original premise of your conjecture.

Once again - Who is seeing clearly and who is posturing for the pony position?

I do not care what you (or anyone else) thinks is maintream Christianity. The apostles themselves did not agree on the 'doctrine'.

That is not the critical question at all - it is not theology that is in question.

[AlyOshA]

There could be no crucifixion of a flawless being without creating some karma for it to transpire.

Very interesting analysis (all in all actually). Thank you.

Preface: My opinion is that when you consider your opinion the best opinion or the truest opinion (or worst yet a factual opinion), you are only indulging your ego and forfeiting the path to finding real substance. So when I argue opinions I am only playing a persona and learning from others reactions to that persona (the same way we act with our acquired personalities/our egos). With this in mind, please consider me a student/teacher and not an opponent.

If they are no better at stopping war, how is it superior? That is more or less evasion, follow?

I do follow and I agree. And I would never use the word superior.
But it is not just about stopping war; it is about dying and killing in the name of your religion. The best example that I can think of for Buddhism is Japan during WWII. But this was an exception for many reasons. I lived in Japan and I can tell you definitively that Japan, as a whole has “no religion”(this is in quotations because I heard it uttered from countless Japanese lips in an array of subjects that didn’t even relate to religion). They were only using this approach (dying/killing for Buddha) during WWII as a technique that they learned from one of the most outwardly religious governments in history – Nazi Germany.

1. Interreligious Respect
During the time of Shakyamuni Buddha, there was once a layman who, originally a devotee of another Indian religion, converted to Buddhism after meeting the Buddha. This layman was uncertain whether or not he could still make offerings to his original teacher. When he learned of the man's confusion, the Buddha told the man he could continue to make offerings to his original teacher just as before. In fact, in the Agama Sutras and Monastic Code preached by the Buddha, the Buddha frequently praises the merit of making offerings not only to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, but also to other religious practitioners such as ascetics and Brahmins. So respecting other religions is a basic criterion for a Buddhist devotee.

Yes, love thy neighbor is a beautiful passage when it exists by itself, but there is plenty of encouragement for acting the opposite when you ascribe to the totality of that book. But now I want to ask you, do you ascribe to all of the words in the bible, as if they are the word of God? Do you believe in the devil, as in a literal figure not an allegorical one? For someone so concerned with historicity yet so quick to acknowledge allegory, how much of the bible do you acknowledge as literal and how much to do excuse as allegory? You consider the fig tree story an allegory right? What about the other miracles Jesus performed?

PS you mentioned the book of Job. As a piece of literature that is one of my favorite books ever written (along with the book of Ecclesiastes), it has brought tears to my eyes on numerous occasions. But what about the ending, when God’s response to Job is just arrogant pride saying how dare you question me when I made this that and the other beautiful things. I think it is the bible’s most accurate portrayal of the relationship between God and the Devil – a friendship.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

1- The fig tree is the ego.
2- The fig tree is doubt.
3- The fig tree is resentment.

To me the fig story expresses the disappointment Jesus often relays of the fruitlessness of Judaism and the generation he lived in. Its message could be used this very day toward Christianity and Islam. Or the Bible. At some point one has to cut down that what has gone sterile, notwithstanding the initial good and wise intentions.

But there's something more interesting to the fig story that is interesting for those with ears to hear.

An almost similar story about problematic fig trees is recounted in Luke 13:6-9. But here it is presented as parable! And here the fig tree is tended for another year (or generation?) in hope for some positive outcome. Doesn't sound like something one does with ego or resentment (which are only elements of Beingof1's own gospel inserted in this story).

Instead of assuming Jesus would tell the same parable one day and act it out in real life the next, it's more likely we've found a trace here of the origins of Jesus his life and walk. Like the gospel of Thomas implies as well; originally there was just spoken or written teachings, made alive using contemporary stories and symbols which were later misinterpreted as dumb materialist stories by most. Same thing is still happening to day, with science, art, books and movies; image is used to show Image. It cannot be helped. And still many create their own 'real' fantasy world from what they see on their 'screens'.

Beingof1, I'll reply to you further this weekend. Don't forget that I don't have to prove something here, it's you defending the statement, presented as fact, that [all] the records and eyewitness accounts [including all uncanonical ones] are as valid as one can find anywhere in history.

I might skip over a couple of things you wrote as to zoom in to show you how your claim is not rational. Please correct the statement above if you feel it's not representing your thought.

[Beingof1]

Steven Coyle,

I respect David and hold him in high regard.

Just wanted to clarify.


AlyOshA:

Very interesting analysis (all in all actually). Thank you.

Namaste

Preface: My opinion is that when you consider your opinion the best opinion or the truest opinion (or worst yet a factual opinion), you are only indulging your ego and forfeiting the path to finding real substance. So when I argue opinions I am only playing a persona and learning from others reactions to that persona (the same way we act with our acquired personalities/our egos). With this in mind, please consider me a student/teacher and not an opponent.

I have no opponent in my mind or heart.

There is only student/teacher in my relationship with others.

I am both at all times in all places.

But it is not just about stopping war; it is about dying and killing in the name of your religion. The best example that I can think of for Buddhism is Japan during WWII.

Look to my post on this page:
viewtopic.php?t=1419&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=375

So respecting other religions is a basic criterion for a Buddhist devotee.

Love(agape/compassion) the Lord thy God in all of your mind, soul(life essence), heart/will, and strength(action).

-- Jesus

Notice it is not this God or that God, that is one of the interjections that are made by almost everyone.

Look closely "Love the Lord thy God" - the only one that is, the one you find in your own mind and heart. There is no other God that you could possibly find.

Yes, love thy neighbor is a beautiful passage when it exists by itself, but there is plenty of encouragement for acting the opposite when you ascribe to the totality of that book.

The great misconception of Christiandom as well as most who use the Mosaic law as a standard of behaviour we are to apply to our lives today.

1) The Jewish scriptures are composed of a 3500 year old state constitution and when compared to Assyrian or Hittite it is quite advanced and humane. An "eye for an eye" was Hammarubi`s code applied by Moses as state laws.

Jesus realized what most of the nation had missed; a criminal could not be put to death under the law of Moses unless there were two or three credible witnesss to the crime. Jesus summed it up in "love thy neighbor as thyself" meaning; refuse to testify and exercise forgiveness and mercy instead.

2) The Jewish scriptures contain a history of the people that conquered through invasion to establish itself.

3) The rest is poetic, music, and mystical writings of personal experiences of wisdom and insight. Mostly akin to Kabbalah type understanding.

In other words; it is ancient laws for an ancient people in a very ruthless environment and has almost no modern application other than the insight that we can use.

But now I want to ask you, do you ascribe to all of the words in the bible, as if they are the word of God?

Who is God?
This is the foundation question, yes?

Do you believe in the devil, as in a literal figure not an allegorical one?

Who is this devil?
Darkness cannot ever be understood as there is nothing to understand. It is the abscence of light and is an appariton or phantom.

For someone so concerned with historicity yet so quick to acknowledge allegory, how much of the bible do you acknowledge as literal and how much to do excuse as allegory? You consider the fig tree story an allegory right? What about the other miracles Jesus performed?

You misunderstand - it was a literal event that is a lesson, it was a allegory that was a literal event.

The greater conundrum is missed, it is not how that is important.
The greatest question is why? When this question is answered the how begins to fall into place over time.

If God himself were to show up and talk with you face to face and you were to be given evidence that it truly was the transcendant.

Do you know the questions most would ask?

What time?
What day?
Had you been drinking or taking any drugs?
How did you know it was really God?
What did you see to prove it was really God?
How do you know you are not deluded?
Do you have any proof?
Did he predict the future?
Did he give you any information we could use?
Etc. etc. etc.

Missing the point by lightyears. Same is true with the "miraculous" of Jesus.

The events are designed to ask the right question, the question in the very center of your being and will, not all the topical, surface, insignifigant.

If you ask someone what they want, more than anything, beyond everything - most do not have a clue, at least in the mind stimulated by emotional highs and lows. That, is what the stories and events are designed to ask - What do you want?

PS you mentioned the book of Job. As a piece of literature that is one of my favorite books ever written (along with the book of Ecclesiastes), it has brought tears to my eyes on numerous occasions. But what about the ending, when God’s response to Job is just arrogant pride saying how dare you question me when I made this that and the other beautiful things. I think it is the bible’s most accurate portrayal of the relationship between God and the Devil – a friendship.

The last chapter of Job is filled with understanding:

Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.
Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

He had only talked of wisdom - now he knows what it is by experience.
The voice of God is Job`s humility surfacing.


Diebert van Rhijn:

To me the fig story expresses the disappointment Jesus often relays of the fruitlessness of Judaism and the generation he lived in. Its message could be used this very day toward Christianity and Islam. Or the Bible. At some point one has to cut down that what has gone sterile, notwithstanding the initial good and wise intentions.

Indeed; this is the Gospel of Diebert.

The point that you have yet to pause and understand is you just accomplished what the life, teachings, and events of the life of Jesus are for.

YOU JUST TRANSCENDED THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS - pause right here and contemplate what I just said.

Did you get it yet?

But there's something more interesting to the fig story that is interesting for those with ears to hear.

An almost similar story about problematic fig trees is recounted in Luke 13:6-9. But here it is presented as parable! And here the fig tree is tended for another year (or generation?) in hope for some positive outcome. Doesn't sound like something one does with ego or resentment (which are only elements of Beingof1's own gospel inserted in this story).

Oh of course it could not mean anything closely resembling what I said cause we gotta prove to BO1 he is full of it.

6. He spake also this parable; a certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8. And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9. And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

You gave some interesting insight here - it is what it means to you, again exactly what it was designed for.

Did you get it yet?

Instead of assuming Jesus would tell the same parable one day and act it out in real life the next, it's more likely we've found a trace here of the origins of Jesus his life and walk. Like the gospel of Thomas implies as well; originally there was just spoken or written teachings, made alive using contemporary stories and symbols which were later misinterpreted as dumb materialist stories by most. Same thing is still happening to day, with science, art, books and movies; image is used to show Image. It cannot be helped. And still many create their own 'real' fantasy world from what they see on their 'screens'.

And here you make conjecture about what happened and what did not happen because you cannot wrap your noodle around what actually did happen and control it and make it serve your purpose.

So if you say "car" today as an example, tomorrow someone will say "Diebert owns a car manufacturer and had taken over Porsche"?

Will your friends and family begin to proclaim "Diebert owns Porsche and its his company now".
"How do you know he owns Porsche"?
"He said the word car yesterday"

Reality is not limited to what you think should and should not be possible - it is infinite and will not fit into your "noodle" and it never will.

Beingof1, I'll reply to you further this weekend. Don't forget that I don't have to prove something here, it's you defending the statement, presented as fact, that [all] the records and eyewitness accounts [including all uncanonical ones] are as valid as one can find anywhere in history.

I said the canon and Nag Hammadi - we can verify these texts and must exclude those found in a very questionable ways.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Beingof1,

Still about your main statement, which I read as:

"All the records and eyewitness accounts, from the whole of the NT canon as well as the whole Nag Hammadi library, are as valid as one can find anywhere in history."

Instead of replying to everything you wrote in your last post I have first a couple of questions for you:

a. What kind of evidence will you accept to change your position on the NT and Nag Hammadi 'infallibility'. What does it take? Not an angel from heaven I suppose, but what kind of written testimony, uncovered by research? I already gave mine.

b. Can you think of any major Christian book or scripture from the first centuries that you reject as falsification and as such 'deceiving'? There must be something you reject and I'd like to know how you came to that position in such case.

c. In what way do you test your own understanding of scripture? Any method or principle? Play it by ear? Any peers? Do you believe yourself to be infallible?

Depending on what you answer I will deal with your questions about 'first century sources' and Nag Hammadi.

[Beingof1]

Diebert van Rhijn,

All fair questions, I appreciate that as you are not making assumptions but is honest probing.

a. What kind of evidence will you accept to change your position on the NT and Nag Hammadi 'infallibility'. What does it take? Not an angel from heaven I suppose, but what kind of written testimony, uncovered by research? I already gave mine.

The word 'infallibility' is yours, I do not claim that word. I already know they were written by humans so infalliblility is not what the issue is.

The proof in the canon and Nag Hammadi (these two sources as they can be verified) could be overturned by a conspiracy(propoganda that details would reveal), lie( a recanting of the testimony), or serious contradiction in the eyewitness accounts of the life and resurrection.

When I say 'serious contradiction' that might need clarifying. Just so you know, I have already taken the Easter test, Trial of Jesus test, and Conflicting Statement test. Cleared up literally 800 - 1000 conjectured contradictions with simple common sense. The contradictions that appear on websites like " 100 Sure Fire Contradictions in the NT". These are almost always a lack of knowledge or deliberate twisting of the text.

What I mean by 'serious contradiction' is a discrepency that cannot be reconciled as the events conflict to make one or the other untrue. Here we can use logic as that would tell the tale.

b. Can you think of any major Christian book or scripture from the first centuries that you reject as falsification and as such 'deceiving'? There must be something you reject and I'd like to know how you came to that position in such case.

It is not about theology as I have none to defend. Are you speaking of the Lost Books of the Bible? Those books were found from very dubious sources such as the black market and one text in a second hand store in England. So no, I do not trust what cannot be verified as authentic.

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

c. In what way do you test your own understanding of scripture?

I ask myself what I meant when I wrote it.

Any method or principle? Play it by ear?

The principle that what Jesus was in essence - I am. I would prefer to experience Christ than to adhore him.

Any peers?

Many, several who are theologians and one writes the textbooks for Bible Colleges. A priest, several mystics, and those who have gone way beyond nominal Christiandom.

I have associates in other religious and philisophical paths.

[/quote]
Do you believe yourself to be infallible?[/quote]

I always tell the truth, no matter what.

[David Quinn]

Beingof1 wrote:

DQ: What matters is whether or not wisdom is being directly expressed in the words in the here and now. The origins of the words are unimportant, unless your only interest is finding somebody to hero-worship.

Bo1: Or dissing heros, that way you can be antihero worshipper.

DQ: Or even better, do away with worshipping people altogether and simply follow the truth.

Bo1: Yes, and this was expressly taught by Jesus, so what is the problem with his teachings again?

You see David, this is the whole issue in a nutshell, you seem to attribute the teachings of Jesus to Christiandom and that; is the blind leading the blind.

I have been doing the opposite. I have been making a sharp distinction between the Christian religion and the Gospels (or at least its wise sections). It is the former which is the pack of lies.

Having said that, there are significant problems with the teachings of Jesus themselves, when viewed as a whole. For example, I don't like the way that Jesus constantly drew attention to himself, even going so far as to stress that no one could come to know God or enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. "I am the way, the truth and the life", was his predominant catch-cry.

Now, of course, one could stretch the imagination if one wanted to, and interpret these kinds of sayings in a somewhat wise way to mean something like, "It is only by abandoning all attachment to the world like I have that you can enter heaven and become wise."

But who interprets it that way?

It is just too easy for people to reach for the cruder conclusion and swoon into total fandom, which was what happened with the subsequent emergence of Christianity.

It would seem that the rampant fan-worship which underlies all Christianity and ruins whatever potential for wisdom Christians might have had was openly encouraged by Jesus himself. These are not the actions of a wise man.

Bo1: What is your opinion of Siddharta?

David: He's in a similar boat to Jesus. There is some wisdom in there, but it is largely buried under an avalanche of mediocrity and herdly dogma shovelled into it by later followers. It takes a good deal of skill and insight to extract the wisdom from all of this.

Bo1: And yet, Christianity is drilled beyond the pale here and rarely does anyone say anything like what you said above - you know that is true.

The main reason for this is that most people on this forum come from a Western Christian background, and thus the task of freeing the mind from the bonds of Christianity is a far more urgent one. Also, Buddhist concepts are very useful in spiritual dialogue and I would rather peopel explore them thoroughly before they attempt to reject Buddhism altogether. Christian concepts are more expendable.

Occasionaly you say something akin to what you said above but the reality is the mantra here is "Christianty" is the problem.

Ignorance is the problem, and Christianity is simply an expression of ignorance in the world. But you're right, it isn't the only one. There are other expressions of ignorance in the world today, such as postmodernism and scientific materialism, which also get a serious work out on this forum.

I dare say that Christianity is slowly losing its signficance in the world, both for good and for evil. It is gradually fading away altogether.

DQ: Buddhism, as a whole, might be a little more intellectual and grounded than Christianity, but the same intense hatred of truth underpins them both.

Bo1: That is besause the Buddha focused on the mind and Jesus focused on the will or heart. They are both speaking from wise transcendant thought, they compliment each other.

It's not so clear-cut. The Buddha stressed the importance of passion, single-mindedness and devotion to Truth. Jesus urged people to stop listening to religious leaders and work out everything for themselves.

BTW - check into Jacob Boehma who is on par mith the Meister Eckhart.

He looks horrible. I don't know what you see in him. To me, his thinking comes straight from the hell realms.

If your teaching were superior to Jesus, you would not be dissing what he said - no sage in the history of mankind has ever done that.

Zen Masters diss each other all the time. Pointing out the flaws of other sages - or more importantly, the flaws in other people's misunderstandings of these sages - is a critical part of teaching the world about Truth.

Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Its not quite what you thought eh? When you understand the flawless wisdom, you understand what he was meaning.

It is not the petty ego bickering about who is the mostest and grandest.

Of course. Even so, Jesus deliberately created the impression in these religious leaders minds that he was superior to Abraham. That was why they threw stones at him. But he didn't do it for petty ego reasons. He did it to overturn people's fixed conceptions. To those religious leaders, the idea of someone being superior to Abraham was just as unthinkable as the idea nowadays that someone could be superior to Jesus.

Here is the whole passage in question:

"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honour my Father and you dishonour me. I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death."

At this they exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

John 8: 49

-

[Beingof1]

David,

Good questions indeed and to the heart of the matter.

BO1: You see David, this is the whole issue in a nutshell, you seem to attribute the teachings of Jesus to Christiandom and that; is the blind leading the blind.

DAVID: I have been doing the opposite. I have been making a sharp distinction between the Christian religion and the Gospels (or at least its wise sections). It is the former which is the pack of lies.

It does not resemble early Christiany at all and has now settled into platitudes and ceremony which does not help anyone. Your above statement I agree with except I cannot find flaw in the teachings of Jesus.

Having said that, there are significant problems with the teachings of Jesus themselves, when viewed as a whole. For example, I don't like the way that Jesus constantly drew attention to himself, even going so far as to stress that no one could come to know God or enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. "I am the way, the truth and the life", was his predominant catch-cry.

Now, of course, one could stretch the imagination if one wanted to, and interpret these kinds of sayings in a somewhat wise way to mean something like, "It is only by abandoning all attachment to the world like I have that you can enter heaven and become wise."

But who interprets it that way?

If Jesus was experiencing truth should he have pointed somewhere else?
Why do you think he should have pointed others away from his life and teachings?

It is just too easy for people to reach for the cruder conclusion and swoon into total fandom, which was what happened with the subsequent emergence of Christianity.

It would seem that the rampant fan-worship which underlies all Christianity and ruins whatever potential for wisdom Christians might have had was openly encouraged by Jesus himself. These are not the actions of a wise man.

And do you yourself understand reality? Should you tell others to not, under any circumstances, read your book or look at your bio?

If another decides to proclaim "David is the center of all truth", should we blaim you for their hero worship?

The same could be said of you and the Buddha as Gautama encouraged others to apply his teachings and look at his life. A wise man encourages others to examine his life and teachings as this leads to understanding.

The main reason for this is that most people on this forum come from a Western Christian background, and thus the task of freeing the mind from the bonds of Christianity is a far more urgent one. Also, Buddhist concepts are very useful in spiritual dialogue and I would rather peopel explore them thoroughly before they attempt to reject Buddhism altogether. Christian concepts are more expendable.

And I would say that your teachings are more expendable than the teachings of Jesus (if you want to take this path).

I could say that Buddhism gives no clear example of overcoming mindless suicidal tendancies of the human race.

Ignorance is the problem, and Christianity is simply an expression of ignorance in the world. But you're right, it isn't the only one. There are other expressions of ignorance in the world today, such as postmodernism and scientific materialism, which also get a serious work out on this forum.

I dare say that Christianity is slowly losing its signficance in the world, both for good and for evil. It is gradually fading away altogether.

And I dare say that the life of Jesus will never go away and will be the catalyst for a paradigm for mindkind. There is new information surfacing from two thousand years ago every year.

1. Ossuary of high priest Joseph Caiaphas, who's mentioned in the Bible as helping interrogate Jesus before the crucifixion. Found in Jerusalem in 1990.

2. Inscription mentioning Pontius Pilate, the Roman official who approved Jesus' crucifixion. Found in 1962 near the Mediterranean Sea.

3. The apostle Peter's house. Found in 1906 – but not confirmed until the 1980s – in Capernaum beneath the remains of a 5th-century church.

4. The Galilee Boat. A 1st-century, 8-by-26-foot fishing boat. Found in the mud of the Sea of Galilee in 1986.

5. The Crucified Man. Remains, including a bone heel pierced by a large nail. Discovered in burial caves near Jerusalem in 1968.

6. The Ossuary of James. The Aramaic letters etched on a side of the discovered ossuary reads:
"Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua," or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"
These bone boxes or "ossuaries" were used in Jerusalem between the 1st century BC and AD 70.

These are the 'hard' archeological finds let alone the multiple texts being unearthed. We keep finding something every year that confirms the life of Jesus.

DQ: Buddhism, as a whole, might be a little more intellectual and grounded than Christianity, but the same intense hatred of truth underpins them both.

Bo1: That is besause the Buddha focused on the mind and Jesus focused on the will or heart. They are both speaking from wise transcendant thought, they compliment each other.

DQ: It's not so clear-cut. The Buddha stressed the importance of passion, single-mindedness and devotion to Truth. Jesus urged people to stop listening to religious leaders and work out everything for themselves.

This is not, by any stretch, all that Jesus taught. Read Matthew 5-7.

I do not understand, first you say that Jesus pointed to his life and teachings and this was not wise and now you say he decided to leave everyone to their own devices.

Which is it? Was he wise to say "listen to me" or not?

BTW - check into Jacob Boehma who is on par mith the Meister Eckhart.

He looks horrible. I don't know what you see in him. To me, his thinking comes straight from the hell realms.

OK

BO1: If your teaching were superior to Jesus, you would not be dissing what he said - no sage in the history of mankind has ever done that.

DQ: Zen Masters diss each other all the time. Pointing out the flaws of other sages - or more importantly, the flaws in other people's misunderstandings of these sages - is a critical part of teaching the world about Truth.

Could you give me an example?

Of course. Even so, Jesus deliberately created the impression in these religious leaders minds that he was superior to Abraham. That was why they threw stones at him. But he didn't do it for petty ego reasons. He did it to overturn people's fixed conceptions. To those religious leaders, the idea of someone being superior to Abraham was just as unthinkable as the idea nowadays that someone could be superior to Jesus.

That is because nothing can take the place of the reality we experience right before our eyes.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Being, the opinion of Mr Reed ( I presume) is not 'fact' or anything objective when it comes to the relevant issues:

3. The apostle Peter's house. Found in 1906 – but not confirmed until the 1980s – in Capernaum beneath the remains of a 5th-century church.

No consensus here. Some noted archaeologists didn't find any early enough 'graffiti' and view the 'house' as a courtyard from 1st century CE, which might have been used by early Christian sects, and remained a place of worship for centuries. But no evidence it was all starting earlier than the second century, a hundred years later than Peter is supposed to have lived (and he might have, but what is the myth and what is the man?)

6. The Ossuary of James. The Aramaic letters etched on a side of the discovered ossuary reads:
"Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua," or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

Bad example, the incription was recently exposed as a fraud.

Oden Golan is the current owner of the ossuary, and was the individual who introduced the Yoash inscription to the world. He was arrested on 2003-JUL-22 by Israeli police on suspicion of forging and dealing in fake antiquities. "In court, police unveiled equipment they said was found in Golan's home, including stencils, stones and partly completed forgeries."

Christ Being, do you know what you're even talking about? Most people are frauds, mostly even without realizing it, and always have been (including the time of 50-200 CE), when money, status or ease of mind can be gained. Deal with it, accept it and keep examining yourself for similar faults, Being....

[Beingof1]

Diebert,
I realize the finds are still in a state of dispute. I do not care as this has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I answered your questions, I do not use these 'hard' finds anyway. I use the texts as these tell us nothing.

Back on topic; will you answer my above post?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert,
I realize the finds are still in a state of dispute. I do not care as this has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

I answered your questions, I do not use these 'hard' finds anyway. I use the texts as these tell us nothing.

Beingof1, it's your own words like 'hard' and 'confirms' which inspire me to write my replies to you. You use these 'finds' every turn you take, and I believe you shouldn't if you want to debate with honesty, or at least should try to list your 'evidence', texts or otherwise, with more caution and evenness.

You say you rather use 'texts' than the listed archaeological finds, and I'd say that I rather use something else like reason, logic, honesty, insight in human psychology and so on. Even these 'texts' tell nothing - the letter being always dead and in this case even buried under 1800 years of politics.

These are the 'hard' archaeological finds let alone the multiple texts being unearthed. We keep finding something every year that confirms the life of Jesus.

Back to your other post then, but I'll be mostly making the same point anyway.

The contradictions that appear on websites like " 100 Sure Fire Contradictions in the NT". These are almost always a lack of knowledge or deliberate twisting of the text.

I agree with you that such sites display just the same ignorance as the 100,000's The Bible is God's Word sites around. So the real struggle is not against pro- or anti-bible tendencies, it's against ignorance.

To be honest I do question the depth of your scriptural knowledge and your own deliberate twisting of texts to 'escape' serious contradictions. However, I don't see any value in debating too many specifics; I want to find the underlying themes where we agree, or disagree, the most strongly.

Those books were found from very dubious sources such as the black market and one text in a second hand store in England. So no, I do not trust what cannot be verified as authentic.

But you had no problem listing the James ossuary, while it had exactly such a dubious source. But I guess in case of texts you mean that it has to be dug up at an 'authentic' place by an 'authentic' archaeologist? Then remains the question: does age makes authentic? What if we're talking about falsifications or misinterpretations stemming from the period 100-300 CE? Heretics were the main problem in the early church. What makes you think the emerging Church authority got the right end of the stick?

Could you give me an example of what you mean?

How do you consider the Gospel of Judas, by content or origin?

D: Any method or principle? Play it by ear?

B: The principle that what Jesus was in essence - I am. I would prefer to experience Christ than to adhore him.

But there are many, many books you can open, and stones you can turn and the same principle will be found there for those who know what to look for. This has nothing to do specifically with the canon or Nag Hamadi though.

I have associates in other religious and philosophical paths.

Could you be a bit more specific? In what way do you consider them peers as far as understanding or validating specific scripture goes?

When talking about evidence, facts or eye-witnesses we have to follow certain principles of reason and logic, which have culminated in scientific tools like as prediction, falsification, demarcation and hypothesizing.

These tools are less important if one wants only to speculate about how to interpret certain texts or describe a personal view of some part in history. It's the assertions made beyond that which should be closely scrutinized, like I'm attempting here.

D: Do you believe yourself to be infallible?

B: I always tell the truth, no matter what.

To be able to distinguish between the false and the truth, the simulation and the real, the shadow and the light in the world as well as the texts we witness and above all in ourselves, every moment again, that is what really matters.

[Bondi]

Hello,

There are significant problems with the teachings of Jesus themselves, when viewed as a whole. For example, I don't like the way that Jesus constantly drew attention to himself, even going so far as to stress that no one could come to know God or enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. "I am the way, the truth and the life", was his predominant catch-cry.

Now, of course, one could stretch the imagination if one wanted to, and interpret these kinds of sayings in a somewhat wise way to mean something like, "It is only by abandoning all attachment to the world like I have that you can enter heaven and become wise."

But who interprets it that way?

You did it, at least.

Only in the first turn we should interprete those words like "he said that he himself is the way etc.". Understanding begins, indeed, with realising those words in first person singular: "I am the way, the truth and the life".

That is, Jesus drew attention not to himself but to the self. So we're in the same boat again: Buddhism is reasoning by dismissing non-self (anatta) -- and not by expressing that behind the illusion there is the self (attan). (I'm not saying that Christianity has any real aid to help someone reaching the goal testified by Christ.) I agree with Beingof1 that one must transcend all the forms to see the essence.

[Beingof1]

Diebert van Rhijn:

Beingof1, it's your own words like 'hard' and 'confirms' which inspire me to write my replies to you. You use these 'finds' every turn you take, and I believe you shouldn't if you want to debate with honesty, or at least should try to list your 'evidence', texts or otherwise, with more caution and evenness.

Diebert dude, you earlier made a statement about the Davidic dynasty and I refered you to his recently found palace. Then you said we should not get off track with our discussion.

I was making a point to David not you, I told you that I already knew these finds were in dispute. The word 'hard' is a technical term, hence the inverted quotes.

I also told you I do not use these as evidence, my point was we keep unearthing more proofs constantly. Can we get back on subject?

You say you rather use 'texts' than the listed archaeological finds, and I'd say that I rather use something else like reason, logic, honesty, insight in human psychology and so on. Even these 'texts' tell nothing - the letter being always dead and in this case even buried under 1800 years of politics.

Right back to the same mantra - how in the world do you say that the Nag Hammadi has 1800 years of politics? They found them in 1945 AD - do the math.

I agree with you that such sites display just the same ignorance as the 100,000's The Bible is God's Word sites around. So the real struggle is not against pro- or anti-bible tendencies, it's against ignorance.

Yup; thats what I said alright.

To be honest I do question the depth of your scriptural knowledge and your own deliberate twisting of texts to 'escape' serious contradictions. However, I don't see any value in debating too many specifics; I want to find the underlying themes where we agree, or disagree, the most strongly.

You quoted something from Matthew - Henry or Faussett or some such expositor or commentary on the parable of the fig tree and take it to mean that I do not understand scripture?

Whatever.

But you had no problem listing the James ossuary, while it had exactly such a dubious source.

And you denied David was king of Isreal, what is your point?

But I guess in case of texts you mean that it has to be dug up at an 'authentic' place by an 'authentic' archaeologist? Then remains the question: does age makes authentic? What if we're talking about falsifications or misinterpretations stemming from the period 100-300 CE? Heretics were the main problem in the early church. What makes you think the emerging Church authority got the right end of the stick?

Age would have to be a consideration when dealing with 2000 year old eyewitness testimony, do you think so?

I do not think any of the above - you really are not even trying to understand. Let me repeat "I do not care what mainstream Christianity believes".

Did you get that?

How do you consider the Gospel of Judas, by content or origin?

Seems authentic, lets include it if you want. I did not read your link as I have already studied the Gospel of Judas.

Will you show me a discrepency or continue to dance all around the tough questions?

I answered all of your 'tough' questions and you just keep avoiding mine, you gonna pony up?

But there are many, many books you can open, and stones you can turn and the same principle will be found there for those who know what to look for. This has nothing to do specifically with the canon or Nag Hamadi though.

And ... so? What does this have to do with Jesus and the credible life he lived?

If you can find truth and answers in many places are you saying there is one big exception, Jesus? Is this your point Diebert?

BO1: I have associates in other religious and philosophical paths.

Diebert: Could you be a bit more specific? In what way do you consider them peers as far as understanding or validating specific scripture goes?

They don`t help when it comes to scripture.

When talking about evidence, facts or eye-witnesses we have to follow certain principles of reason and logic, which have culminated in scientific tools like as prediction, falsification, demarcation and hypothesizing.

I know; and the really funny thing is, it is dropped when it is applied to scripture as per my dating examples above.

A true skeptic demands evidence.
A false skeptic ignores evidence.

So apply the methodology and wonder of wonders, the story of Jesus is not only credible, it becomes irrefutable.

Except through the dubious method of claiming thousands of people conspired or were deluded and then be martyred for a lie.

To be able to distinguish between the false and the truth, the simulation and the real, the shadow and the light in the world as well as the texts we witness and above all in ourselves, every moment again, that is what really matters.

That is what really matters.


Bondi,
Good post.

[brokenhead]

DavidQuinn000 wrote:

There are significant problems with the teachings of Jesus themselves, when viewed as a whole. For example, I don't like the way that Jesus constantly drew attention to himself, even going so far as to stress that no one could come to know God or enter the kingdom of heaven except through him. "I am the way, the truth and the life", was his predominant catch-cry.

Now, of course, one could stretch the imagination if one wanted to, and interpret these kinds of sayings in a somewhat wise way to mean something like, "It is only by abandoning all attachment to the world like I have that you can enter heaven and become wise."

But who interprets it that way?

Pearls before swine?

Jesus was not bragging, nor drawing attention to himself. He consistently drew attention to his "Father, which is in Heaven," as opposed to himself. He even resisted exhortations by friends, followers, and even family to be the Messiah their tradition had predicted would deliver them into freedom. He left no writings. He left no evidence he desired a religion to be started about himself; rather he devoted his work to establish a church about his teachings.
The quote about being the "Way" was merely stating a fact. You can call yourself a follower of anything, but you will be living by these teachings nonetheless if you are, say, a good Buddhist or good Jew.
If one believes, as I do, Jesus was the Creator, it makes sense to assume he was well aware of his true nature by the time he made his public statements. Look again at the New Testament: Jesus' saying "I am the Way" is clearly not a predominant catch-phrase. Rather it is said in the spirit of simple truth. It would have been false humility to say otherwise, just as it was genuine humility to wash the feet of his disciples.
Even if you view him as just a man, it seems impossible to find fault with his sayings or teachings. What is easy to find fault with, and just as easy to confuse with Christ's teachings, is how they are often misquoted, misunderstood, and misapplied. If I owned a handgun, I'd have gone Elvis on my TV every time a Jimmy Swaggart or a Jim Bakker told me what Christ's words mean. Why can't people tell the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness? If Jesus were alive today (another thread, maybe?), I somehow cannot picture him telling his followers: "Get thee down to the abortion clinic and shouteth thee Baby-Killer at the women that are with child!" In my view, it is not taking the Lord's name in vain if you shout "Jesus-fucking-Christ!" when you accidentally hit your thumb with the hammer. Putting up a website called "godhatesfags.com" is.

The Church has ruined Christ's simple message over the centuries, to the point where it's either murdering in his name, or endlessly repeating mummified rituals in his name, neither of which he commanded, suggested, or condoned. Rome ossified the message Jesus taught. If you have an apple, you can eat it and savor its sweetness and benefit from its nutrients, then you can bury the core and, with little work, a new tree will grow that is loaded with more fruit. The Church took that apple and enbalmed it, then spent twenty centuries chopping down every tree in sight, to the point where all we have is that dry, useless apple sitting on an altar while school children are admonished to genuflect to it.

I see little in common between Church dogma and Christ's teachings. I simply cannot fault Jesus in any way, even if I assume he was Son of Man (as he called himself) and not also Son of God.

Once, while living in New York and having a rough spell in my life as the City was battering me on all sides, I sucked it up and said, maybe it's time to give the Church another try, it can't hurt, can it? I went to my first mass in years in a large church on the Upper West Side. The priest, a thickly-bespectacled Irish man, gave his sermon with fiery urging that we not turn from the needs of the poor among us. Towards the end of the mass, a homeless bag-lady with her shopping cart full of possessions came in the back of the packed church near to where I was sitting, and started babbling out loud. Soon you could hear her being muffled and dragged out. After mass, I was out on the front steps, and I saw this same fucking priest standing there with his fists angrily on his hips, watching as the woman was dragged away by police towards two waiting cop cars. He looked like every dried-up, old angry nun I have ever seen, spitting venom into the faces of frightened school-children. That's it! I swore to myself, I tried, I really did, but no way am I going to entrust my soul to a decrepit, dead shell of an institution like the Roman Catholic Church. A couple of years back, I nearly died from a ruptured stomach ulcer, and lying in the hospital bed, I was visited by a priest who wanted to give me last rites. He wouldn't leave when I asked him to and I had to shout "Get away from me! Nurse!!!" The fucking nerve! Here I am in bad shape, and this guy walks in with a vial of oil like it meant something special, and was going to grease my way into salvation. It was the same thing all over again, a stranger telling me he knew more about the state of my relationship with God than I did, an interloper taking advantage of someone at a very low point, insinuating I hadn't done the requisite amount of spritual work to gain an afterlife, and he was there to intercede on my behalf. My outrage knew no bounds and may have even helped me recover more quickly. If you never gave me flowers during my life, don't fucking try to put any on my grave.

I've ranted much longer than I intended, but the point is this. If Jesus speaks in my heart, that's where I try to leave it unless it can make someone else's life better. Otherwise, I'll leave it to him to speak to the hearts of others. You have my solemn word as a (not very young anymore) man that I constantly challenge his teachings, just as I have all my thinking life, just as I believe he would want me to - because he gave my the capacity to think. I have yet to be disheartened by the teachings of Christ, only by the actions and words that men and women take and speak in his name.

[sschaula]

Here I am in bad shape, and this guy walks in with a vial of oil like it meant something special, and was going to grease my way into salvation.

Rofl.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hello Beingof1, here we are continuing the lesson in reading and thinking skills :)

Diebert dude, you earlier made a statement about the Davidic dynasty and I referred you to his recently found palace. Then you said we should not get off track with our discussion.

You forget the essence of that exchange, let me summarize (go back and re-read if needed). I said that many characters are possibly only loosely based on older traditions and myths surrounding these characters..

Then you come up with a palace dug up which is supposed to have been from a Hebrew king, then you claimed it must have been David by parroting the intensely debated opinion of some religious researchers (Did you know they found King David`s palace last year?). But it doesn't change anything to what I wrote. Also 'David' might have functioned more like a Hebrew royal title ('dynasty') so any possible scribbling mentioning such dynasty (the stella and monuments you mistakenly mentioned as evidence for a person called 'David') wouldn't mean much for identification of a King David, who he was and what he exactly believed and did.

I was making a point to David not you, I told you that I already knew these finds were in dispute. The word 'hard' is a technical term, hence the inverted quotes.

I also told you I do not use these as evidence, my point was we keep unearthing more proofs constantly. Can we get back on subject?

You back-paddled after I told you those finds didn't mean much and one was a proven fraud by any standard I know. Your honesty is the subject now, but if you want to stay clear of that topic, I can understand.

Right back to the same mantra - how in the world do you say that the Nag Hammadi has 1800 years of politics? They found them in 1945 AD - do the math.

You read them with eyes that have been shaped by 1800 years of faith. The Nag Hammadi show us an uncensored window into the religious mess of the first centuries CE. What for others is proof for falsification, to me is evidence for insight into the way the gospels were written. Example:

Compare Eugnostos the Blessed and The Sophia of Jesus Christ. Here you can see a demonstration of how Hellenistic and Greek thought translated into 'Jesus literature'. How these documents can be used, as you claim, to prove some authenticity of the gospels is beyond me.

You quoted something from Matthew - Henry or Faussett or some such expositor or commentary on the parable of the fig tree and take it to mean that I do not understand scripture?

No, I just have an outstanding knowledge of the Jewish and Hellenistic background these texts were written against. The interpretation is my own, but possibly shared by a few, since I use logic and reason, combined with knowledge of the symbolism of that day to get there.

And you denied David was king of Israel, what is your point?

What I implied was that David might have been a real king, but not of Israel as identity, which was likely brought into existence many centuries later. There are many reasons to see it as a Hebrew, tribal affair, with other traditions (creation, Noah, Job, Abraham) being merged into the Torah to beef up a more cool history for God's chosen people.

Again, I don't deny anything. I'm not living in a black and white world with 100% proof, claims and denials about historical events.

Let me repeat "I do not care what mainstream Christianity believes".

Sure. But you have in common with the mainstream orthodox Christian that you really find it important to make Jesus and the Jewish history into some historical foolproof affair. I can't help associating you with that since it's such a dominating trait in my view. I see it as steeped in emotional desire, something that blocks out clear thought every time the going gets tough and hard questions have to be asked. That's why I challenge it in you as well in any orthodox Christian claiming to pursue truth.

And ... so? What does this have to do with Jesus and the credible life he lived?

The existence of a Jesus is not what is incredible in itself. Such existence is not even needed for the principle which we were talking about (you wrote "The principle that what Jesus was in essence - I am. I would prefer to experience Christ than to adhore him").

If you can find truth and answers in many places are you saying there is one big exception, Jesus?

I don't find truth and answers in claiming the historical reality of King Arthur, still I value aspects of the stories about the Grail and the knights of the round table. I believe they were originally intended to portray truth but some people took off with it and enhanced the fable into something else, more entertainment orientated.

A true skeptic demands evidence.
A false skeptic ignores evidence.

A true skeptic demands a bit more than that. For example when dealing with a stage magician, way more skill is needed to understand the trick.

Except through the dubious method of claiming thousands of people conspired or were deluded and then be martyred for a lie.

In the present world of many millions of deluded people, how hard is it to believe thousands were deluded long long ago?

[Sapius]

What I fail to understand is why do people focus on a personality rather than sieve out the spark of wisdom in what was said?

What does REALLY matter? WHO said what? Or WHAT was said?

Why can’t we pick it up from there and see what wisdom do the words really hold? Does finding a long lost palace of King David, or whatever, actually authenticate the Truth of what was said?

There may be many words attributed to Jesus (and many other wise people), and how does it matter if HE said it or not? Isn’t it up to us to think over WHAT was said? Or do we have to accept every word just because Jesus said it? Or WHO-ever for that matter.

In my opinion, the Age of Reasoning has not really begun as yet.

[Beingof1]

Diebert van Rhijn:

Hello Beingof1, here we are continuing the lesson in reading and thinking skills :)

LOL - I do appreciate you.

You forget the essence of that exchange, let me summarize (go back and re-read if needed). I said that many characters are possibly only loosely based on older traditions and myths surrounding these characters..

Here is what you said:

Figures like Abraham, Moses, King David and Salomon are possibly only loosely based on older traditions and myths surrounding these characters. I believe it's quite likely they were not the people that Judaism or Islam believes they were. The key will be external evidence from Egyptian, Syrian and Persian historical records when finally sorted out, if any at all.

Imagine the Greek regarding Homer's works in the same literal historical sense as Judaism and Christianity still keep the Torah! The Greek would be seen still crossing the seas in search of monsters to slay. But the Greeks were wise enough to know when it's enough and leave the stage.

But this is still off subject.

BO1: I was making a point to David not you, I told you that I already knew these finds were in dispute. The word 'hard' is a technical term, hence the inverted quotes.

I also told you I do not use these as evidence, my point was we keep unearthing more proofs constantly. Can we get back on subject?


Diebert: You back-paddled after I told you those finds didn't mean much and one was a proven fraud by any standard I know. Your honesty is the subject now, but if you want to stay clear of that topic, I can understand.

I double checked on the ossuary of James and it is indeed a forgery, you are right. I do not want to steer clear of anything. This is skipping off the subject matter.

If you want to go this route, what is your thought on these finds:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

BO1: Right back to the same mantra - how in the world do you say that the Nag Hammadi has 1800 years of politics? They found them in 1945 AD - do the math.


Diebert: You read them with eyes that have been shaped by 1800 years of faith.

So far, you are still not listening to what I say at all. You keep talking to a Bible thumper that is not involved in this discussion.

Compare Eugnostos the Blessed and The Sophia of Jesus Christ. Here you can see a demonstration of how Hellenistic and Greek thought translated into 'Jesus literature'. How these documents can be used, as you claim, to prove some authenticity of the gospels is beyond me.

Simple; they interpreted the experience as what they could relate to.
The Sophia of Jesus Christ (selected):

After he rose from the dead his twelve disciples and seven women...

The Saviour appeared, not in his previous form, but in the invisible spirit. His likeness resembled a great angel of light. But this resmblance cannot be described.

What you see is the disciples and seven women all seeing the same thing. How do you account for that?

Like I said, you cannot fit the transcendant into a box, it does not work that way. There are no parallels, examples, or methods of explanation when an experience defies our preconceived ideas.

Perhaps you were refering to something else in the text?

BO1: You quoted something from Matthew - Henry or Faussett or some such expositor or commentary on the parable of the fig tree and take it to mean that I do not understand scripture?


Diebert: No, I just have an outstanding knowledge of the Jewish and Hellenistic background these texts were written against. The interpretation is my own, but possibly shared by a few, since I use logic and reason, combined with knowledge of the symbolism of that day to get there.

But because I did not use the identical comparisons as you, I do not 'know' what again?

This is the whole point again, stop right here and ponder.

What I implied was that David might have been a real king, but not of Israel as identity, which was likely brought into existence many centuries later. There are many reasons to see it as a Hebrew, tribal affair, with other traditions (creation, Noah, Job, Abraham) being merged into the Torah to beef up a more cool history for God's chosen people.

Of course, it 'must' be something other than what is clearly written, even though there is not a shred of evidence to back that up, because you have a predisposed view.

Again, I don't deny anything. I'm not living in a black and white world with 100% proof, claims and denials about historical events.

You deny what is clearly written without any evidence to overturn the text, why is that?

BO1: Let me repeat "I do not care what mainstream Christianity believes".


Diebert: Sure. But you have in common with the mainstream orthodox Christian that you really find it important to make Jesus and the Jewish history into some historical foolproof affair. I can't help associating you with that since it's such a dominating trait in my view. I see it as steeped in emotional desire, something that blocks out clear thought every time the going gets tough and hard questions have to be asked. That's why I challenge it in you as well in any orthodox Christian claiming to pursue truth.

So far, you have not asked a single question I have not answered. You are still not talking to me, you are talking to a nonexistent Bible thumper. You are just making speaches and are avoiding the issue.

Answer the questions or show a discrepency in the vast multitudes of records. This is where you are evading and accuse me of it. Show where I did not answer one of your questions.

I do not evade, I don`t have to, will this go by you again?

The existence of a Jesus is not what is incredible in itself. Such existence is not even needed for the principle which we were talking about (you wrote "The principle that what Jesus was in essence - I am. I would prefer to experience Christ than to adhore him").

That was in answer to how I interpret scripture, don`t spin it into something more and create a strawman. That is the principle I use to decipher scripture - follow what I am saying?

If we cannot understand this basic principle, all of the sayings of Jesus mean diddly.

BO1: If you can find truth and answers in many places are you saying there is one big exception, Jesus?

Diebert: I don't find truth and answers in claiming the historical reality of King Arthur, still I value aspects of the stories about the Grail and the knights of the round table. I believe they were originally intended to portray truth but some people took off with it and enhanced the fable into something else, more entertainment orientated.

And I make poor comparisons?

You just cannot fathom the idea that this universe is bigger and holds an infinite amount of mystery then you comprehending. The Tao is beyond mortal thought and when this is known it becomes reality of experience.

BO1: A true skeptic demands evidence.
A false skeptic ignores evidence.

Diebert: A true skeptic demands a bit more than that. For example when dealing with a stage magician, way more skill is needed to understand the trick.

Yup; like more evidence, how much is enough? How many texts, how many eyewitnesses, how many more unearthed texts must there be?

Compare the volume of texts to King Arthur or any other person in the history of mankind. You are missing the obvious because of what you want there to be, not what is really there.

In the present world of many millions of deluded people, how hard is it to believe thousands were deluded long long ago?

AND BE TORTURED TO DEATH FOR THEIR DELUSIONS YEARS AFTER THE EVENT? Die when they were old men and still clinging to their 'delusion'?

That is like someone putting a gun to your head and saying "Just admit you are not Superman or Batman and I will not blow your brains out".

Sapius:

What I fail to understand is why do people focus on a personality rather than sieve out the spark of wisdom in what was said?

Well said; you fail to understand. Go back and read the entire thread and you might.

Why can’t we pick it up from there and see what wisdom do the words really hold? Does finding a long lost palace of King David, or whatever, actually authenticate the Truth of what was said?

Not if you start off with the idea that you know it is all lies and fantasy, no. You will be incapable of seeing the wisdom because of the preconceived idea it is all a bunch of nonsense.

I am not saying use blind faith either, as these men may have not been as enlightened as you experince. They did tell the truth and that is extreemly important.

There may be many words attributed to Jesus (and many other wise people), and how does it matter if HE said it or not? Isn’t it up to us to think over WHAT was said? Or do we have to accept every word just because Jesus said it? Or WHO-ever for that matter.

It is not about what he said, it is about what he is and was. There are many ways to teach, one of which is words. A more potent way of teaching is by demonstration and example.

What is possible for you to experience? Could you tell me?

What are the limits you have applied to your own experience? What can you of certainty not experience?

In my opinion, the Age of Reasoning has not really begun as yet.

It will begin when those who always tell the truth are believed.

It is not so much about Jesus as you would suppose, it is about what absolute enlightenment is capable of acheiving. What are you able to experience and how much freedom is there for you to expand out and into?

How much can you accomplish and what limits do you set for yourself to hold you back? How much can you care? How much can you understand?

The Buddha is a flawless example of pure mind/logic - critical to freedom.

Lao-Tzu is a flawless example of soul or what one can be aware of as their life essence - again critical.

Jesus is a flawless example of heart/will and what is our deepest desire.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you want to go this route, what is your thought on these finds:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

Wait a minute: this route is picked by you from the start: making claims about 'valid records and accounts', 'overwhelming proof of the texts' and the word 'ironclad' was used. I follow your route and try to show you how rationality itself would prevent making statements as you did.

About the link: when an article starts with "Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life?", a red flag should go up when witnessing someone writing with a lot of excitement and emotion on the topic. The worst has to be expected (the 'stage magician'). A real sceptic will double his guard here and check every word more thoroughly now.

Lets continue: have you any idea how many coffins and ossuaries have been recovered in that area, and how many contained the very common names of Yeshua, Maria and Joseph? And how nobody claims they are tombs from the divine family? And are you aware how uncertain the dating is of many of these finds? Error margin is often around 100 years at least. And did you know the 'crosses' (even-armed crosses) nor the letter sequences found on the boxes are regarded as Christian symbols in that day and age by many credible experts? I could try to refer you to some documentation if you think this is important for you to examine further.

So far, you are still not listening to what I say at all. You keep talking to a Bible thumper that is not involved in this discussion.

You're certainly not a bible thumper but when I appear to address you as one it's only when you reason like one.

Compare Eugnostos the Blessed and The Sophia of Jesus Christ. Here you can see a demonstration of how Hellenistic and Greek thought translated into 'Jesus literature'. How these documents can be used, as you claim, to prove some authenticity of the gospels is beyond me.

What you see is the disciples and seven women all seeing the same thing. How do you account for that?

Like I said, you cannot fit the transcendent into a box, it does not work that way. There are no parallels, examples, or methods of explanation when an experience defies our preconceived ideas.

Perhaps you were refering to something else in the text?

You are the one making (and bringing up!) boxes. See also what I write at the beginning of this post.

But what I was referring to: why do Eugnostos the Blessed and/or The Sophia of Jesus Christ, contain a language and symbolism so different from the canon? And why are these text so alike, apart from one inserting the name of Jesus and the other using other terms?

But because I did not use the identical comparisons as you, I do not 'know' what again?

This is the whole point again, stop right here and ponder.

You make up a point out of thin air (aka red herring). My point was that I find many of your text interpretations lacking and forcing the matter. My own interpretations are my own but I can give the rationalizations behind them, as well I've nothing to defend of prove with it. This creates clarity, neutrality and proper detachment.

Of course, it 'must' be something other than what is clearly written, even though there is not a shred of evidence to back that up, because you have a predisposed view.

It's clearly written by people excited by their religious thoughts. I don't consider that evidence, one expects feverish believers to write all kinds of things. I'd be disappointed if they won't throw reason out to prove how 'right' they are.

So biblical texts are, unless clearly backed up by non-involved sources, not very useful in establishing the probability of events. Not even when certain historical details match with external sources. Such details are easily obtained by the writers and do not prove trustworthiness (eg the dealer of the 'James ossuary' used an authentic box, but the box doesn't prove anything about the inscription).

Answer the questions or show a discrepency in the vast multitudes of records. This is where you are evading and accuse me of it. Show where I did not answer one of your questions.

There's no need to show discrepancy in texts that are written by the same group of believers and their offspring. Not that there aren't any but I know you well enough to expect you to 'translate' and creatively back-date in such a way that it doesn't look like a discrepancy anymore. You are dug in too deep here.

No, my efforts are to show discrepancies in your thinking, your overall approach and methods.

You just cannot fathom the idea that this universe is bigger and holds an infinite amount of mystery then you comprehending. The Tao is beyond mortal thought and when this is known it becomes reality of experience.

Yeah yeah yeah. Are you saying we cannot solve our dispute with rational thought? Why are we debating then? Why are you bringing up 'evidence' after 'evidence', all 'ironclad' and 'valid' records? But when questioned about this iron cladness, you are now suddenly jumping to 'infinite mystery' and things being beyond 'mortal thought'.

What do you want Beingof1? Christianity has been called 'the religion of the Lie', and you are starting to behave very Christian at this point, I must say.

how much is enough? How many texts, how many eyewitnesses, how many more unearthed texts must there be?

It's not quantity alone, one has to analyse them with enough rationality before calling them valid records to 'prove' something which has ultimately not that much meaning for someone exploring the realities of the present. One's own beliefs make history come alive, nothing else. But not every belief is equally sane.

Compare the volume of texts to King Arthur or any other person in the history of mankind.

If you'd do that, you'll find out how much of every person is shrouded in mystery, myth, rumor, exaggerations, lies. It could as well be all fantasy. But some fantasies are more instructive than others.

In the present world of many millions of deluded people, how hard is it to believe thousands were deluded long long ago?

AND BE TORTURED TO DEATH FOR THEIR DELUSIONS YEARS AFTER THE EVENT? Die when they were old men and still clinging to their 'delusion'?

Welcome to hell, a.ka. the human race. Can you stand the heat? Are you tough enough?

[Beingof1]

Diebert van Rhijn:

BO1: If you want to go this route, what is your thought on these finds:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

Diebert: Wait a minute: this route is picked by you from the start:

Okay Diebert, this is a lie. I mentioned it to David in passing and this you spindle and spindle and spindle on - you are just evading.

making claims about 'valid records and accounts', 'overwhelming proof of the texts' and the word 'ironclad' was used.

Thats right, the texts, period, and what is more, you know it.

I follow your route and try to show you how rationality itself would prevent making statements as you did.

That is not what happened and you know it - you going to stay honest?

I was talking about the texts, if you are going to start being dishonest we are done. There is no amount of reason that can penetrate dishonesty.

I simply asked for your opinion on these finds and now all you want to talk about is what cannot possibly be proven one way or the other.

I repeatedly - over and over said the canon and Nag Hammadi and you know it.

Lets continue: have you any idea how many coffins and ossuaries have been recovered in that area, and how many contained the very common names of Yeshua, Maria and Joseph? And how nobody claims they are tombs from the divine family? And are you aware how uncertain the dating is of many of these finds? Error margin is often around 100 years at least. And did you know the 'crosses' (even-armed crosses) nor the letter sequences found on the boxes are regarded as Christian symbols in that day and age by many credible experts? I could try to refer you to some documentation if you think this is important for you to examine further.

Diebert, I am not going to talk to you at all about archeaological finds. It is subject to endless debate. This conversation could go on for a year and resolve zilch.

Let me repeat - I said over and over and over the canon and Nag Hammadi and now you want to completely jump ship and go to digs.

You are playing games - I do not play the game of "I gotta be right".

You're certainly not a bible thumper but when I appear to address you as one it's only when you reason like one.

You aren`t saying anything, you are just making blanket accusations, diatribes and misdirection with jumping all over a single reference to some coffins and Peters house.

I gave you everything you asked for and answered all your questions, what is up with you?

I gave you the logical method, pointed to the several ways you could prove your point, even provided you with the very material you asked for. On top of all that gave you my premise and conclusion and how it was derived.

Get to the point.

You are the one making (and bringing up!) boxes. See also what I write at the beginning of this post.

I saw it, its just misdirection steering away from the texts, so what?

But what I was referring to: why do Eugnostos the Blessed and/or The Sophia of Jesus Christ, contain a language and symbolism so different from the canon? And why are these text so alike, apart from one inserting the name of Jesus and the other using other terms?

Because they were written by different authors.

They were using other terms because Christianity had spred throughout the world and they used the models such as Sophia being similar with wisdom.

Other than that, I have no idea what you mean here.

BO1: But because I did not use the identical comparisons as you, I do not 'know' what again?

This is the whole point again, stop right here and ponder.


Diebert: You make up a point out of thin air (aka red herring). My point was that I find many of your text interpretations lacking and forcing the matter. My own interpretations are my own but I can give the rationalizations behind them, as well I've nothing to defend of prove with it. This creates clarity, neutrality and proper detachment.

Nice speech and all about how you are wise and I am incapable of seeing it, but I do not see what this has to do with anything we are talking about or how you said I was being - what was it again?

Oh yeah:

But so far I find your analysis not very reasonable or logical, even compared to many others I've heard. The direction seems fine but somewhere somehow you seem to got stuck 'on the way', like a broken record.

What analysis? What reason? What logic?

Balony - I gave you the method, means, texts, opportunity, prediction, falsification, demarcation, hypothesizing and objective and you continue with platitudes about how you are wise and I am somehow "forcing the matter".

Will you ever answer a single question or show a discrepency in the texts?

It's clearly written by people excited by their religious thoughts. I don't consider that evidence, one expects feverish believers to write all kinds of things. I'd be disappointed if they won't throw reason out to prove how 'right' they are.

The irony, if you could only see what you actually just said.

So biblical texts are, unless clearly backed up by non-involved sources, not very useful in establishing the probability of events. Not even when certain historical details match with external sources. Such details are easily obtained by the writers and do not prove trustworthiness (eg the dealer of the 'James ossuary' used an authentic box, but the box doesn't prove anything about the inscription).

The example of the James ossurary proves that someone was trying to get rich by underhanded means, it does not overturn the texts.

So let me get this straight, because the only texts from the first century (no matter there are hundreds) talk about Jesus, they are all worthless because of a con artist in modern times?

You cannot produce but two external texts(one of which mentions Jesus) and I gave you one; that overturns hundreds of others? I guess that is because we all 'know' that those that walk, eat, and live with a sage like Jesus are prone to con games eh?

Yup; he taught em all to lie, cheat, and steal and spred the gospel. He probably said "make up fantastic stories about me so that I could be the grandest and mostest". He taught them well eh?

Yup; his last words probably were - "Go out and spred lies and delusion for the good of all and by the way, I want you all to die for those lies in henious ways - okey dokey."

Yup; brain tilts.

There's no need to show discrepancy in texts that are written by the same group of believers and their offspring. Not that there aren't any but I know you well enough to expect you to 'translate' and creatively back-date in such a way that it doesn't look like a discrepancy anymore. You are dug in too deep here.

Riiight - and we must believe Diebert above and beyond the many thousands who put their lives on the line. 1945 AD and we dig up more texts than the entire New Testament and you just disregard it all. They unearth the Gospel of Judas and that to is disregarded.

I didn`t think you could back up what you said and now we know.

Oh - except for those that are antiJesus - now they will all nod their wooden head oblivious to what just transpired.

No, my efforts are to show discrepancies in your thinking, your overall approach and methods.

Okay - when are you going to start?

Of course we must leave the texts behind because you know what is there.

Let me ask you one question because I think we are done here. Do you think Jesus healed the sick?

Yeah yeah yeah. Are you saying we cannot solve our dispute with rational thought? Why are we debating then? Why are you bringing up 'evidence' after 'evidence', all 'ironclad' and 'valid' records? But when questioned about this iron cladness, you are now suddenly jumping to 'infinite mystery' and things being beyond 'mortal thought'.

You aren`t using rational thought. I gave you the records and now you will not touch those. You disregard all, not some, all records of Jesus and call that rational thought?

I gave you evidence after evidence and you dismiss it all.

So you tell me, what in the world do we have to talk about?

What do you want Beingof1? Christianity has been called 'the religion of the Lie', and you are starting to behave very Christian at this point, I must say.

More speeches about how I cannot fathom because I behave like a Christian.

What does this have to do with evidence, method, records, proof, logic, or rational thought?

It's not quantity alone, one has to analyse them with enough rationality before calling them valid records to 'prove' something which has ultimately not that much meaning for someone exploring the realities of the present. One's own beliefs make history come alive, nothing else. But not every belief is equally sane.

This is pointless and you call me deluded?

So no amount of concuring eyewitness testimony is enough? It is more sane to believe that you could dismiss thousands of others as being deluded, liars, and insane? That makes more sense to you?

They make sure to leave behind depositions that we uncover in 1945 and they all concure with all the other records, testimonies, and events. On top of that, die for their eyewitness testimony and you have the 'logic' to call me insane?

I wonder if you could actually see what you are saying? Can you do that? Are you capable of that?

So far all you have done is point your finger and claim I have a problem. The strange part about that, you never seem to point it out.

BO1: Compare the volume of texts to King Arthur or any other person in the history of mankind.

Diebert: If you'd do that, you'll find out how much of every person is shrouded in mystery, myth, rumor, exaggerations, lies. It could as well be all fantasy. But some fantasies are more instructive than others.

More baloney, not every person in the history of mankind has eyewitness testimony under the penalty of death.

Welcome to hell, a.ka. the human race. Can you stand the heat? Are you tough enough?

Did Jesus heal the sick?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Beingof1,

In my view this discussion starts to drown in muddy waters, about who said what. I propose to skip over our differing interpretations of which 'route' we were talking about and if we were talking archeology or not. We just differ on how to take each others word. Analyzing it won't do good to readability. Okay? We both surely could have phrased things more clear and less ambivalent, I'm sure.

There can be no lie if we both keep communicating clearly and without charged language. So Lets try to return of the topic.

You aren`t saying anything, you are just making blanket accusations, diatribes and misdirection with jumping all over a single reference to some coffins and Peters house.

Yeah, I should perhaps have not commented on Peters house in hindsight. But the fraud on James coffin, I think it was good to correct you on that. And the other coffins you asked me so it's not fair to accuse me of jumping on that.

I gave you everything you asked for and answered all your questions, what is up with you?

In my perspective you haven't answered the most important questions at all. I spend most of my time here rephrasing them so you might come to that.

I gave you the logical method, pointed to the several ways you could prove your point, even provided you with the very material you asked for. On top of all that gave you my premise and conclusion and how it was derived.

No I don't think you did that at all. You're just repeating the initial statement which I challenged, that the amount of texts and cross references between them somehow make it all right.

[Eugnostos the Blessed and The Sophia of Jesus Christ] were written by different authors.

They were using other terms because Christianity had spread throughout the world and they used the models such as Sophia being similar with wisdom.

Okay, but Eugnostos contains so many references, often literal, from eg Plato’s Timaeus, that it's way more reasonable to put Eugnostos first. The same process can be applied for many of these 'Gnostic' texts since they incorporate so many Platonic and Neo-Pythagorean ideas to the bone. What does it mean? Well, if you then see the 'Sophia of Jesus Christ' as a almost word-by -word rewrite of these philosophical ideas, now using the mouth of a 'Jesus', you start to get a better idea of how biblical texts in general have evolved in the first centuries CE.

No absolute proof but there's certainly reasonable and relative context to consider here!

Will you ever answer a single question or show a discrepency in the texts?

Can you ask me a single question, one with focus and relevance?

A unreasonable question would be: "can you show me a discrepancy in the texts?" just after I explained how I cannot see how such purely religious texts are being relevant to deal with the question of historicity.

It's clearly written by people excited by their religious thoughts. I don't consider that evidence, one expects feverish believers to write all kinds of things. I'd be disappointed if they won't throw reason out to prove how 'right' they are.

The irony, if you could only see what you actually just said.

Instead of sneering, could you address the reasoning contained in that? Do you think it's debatable that (classically defined) 'religion' is a form of excitement? Should we discuss the psychology of religiosity? I wouldn't mind.

So biblical texts are, unless clearly backed up by non-involved sources, not very useful in establishing the probability of events. Not even when certain historical details match with external sources. Such details are easily obtained by the writers and do not prove trustworthiness (eg the dealer of the 'James ossuary' used an authentic box, but the box doesn't prove anything about the inscription).

So let me get this straight, because the only texts from the first century (no matter there are hundreds) talk about Jesus, they are all worthless because of a con artist in modern times?

The letters 'eg' mean 'for example'. Another perhaps easier to digest example would be: if a writer mentions Pilatus, or Augustus, or Herodes Antipas... does it prove anything but that the writer used contemporary elements in this writing? Check the Greek heroic tales: most of it happens in real places dealing with some real historical figures. What does that say about Hercules? Or Mount Olympus?

You cannot produce but two external texts(one of which mentions Jesus) and I gave you one; that overturns hundreds of others?

Could you rephrase that?

Riiight - and we must believe Diebert above and beyond the many thousands who put their lives on the line. 1945 AD and we dig up more texts than the entire New Testament and you just disregard it all. They unearth the Gospel of Judas and that to is disregarded.

I never asked you or anyone to believe me. Can you try to phrase your views a bit more carefully?

I never disregarded anything from 'NH', I just don't interpret the texts the same as you do. Actually I know no one else on this planet that interprets them like you do. But I won't hold that against you.

Let me ask you one question because I think we are done here. Do you think Jesus healed the sick?

He might have in a couple of ways. Our mind and body are connected in so many intricate ways. But I see no reason to assume Jesus or any other miracle worker in history suspended a physical law of nature. He only can reveal them in their glory, when the moment is there.

You aren`t using rational thought. I gave you the records and now you will not touch those. You disregard all, not some, all records of Jesus and call that rational thought?

I gave you evidence after evidence and you dismiss it all.

I didn't really ask for 'the record' so your giving of them is irrelevant. What I dismiss if the link you forged between the records you provide and the main conclusion you draw from them (historical literal proof of the man Jesus, his disciples, Paul, and so on).

More baloney, not every person in the history of mankind has eyewitness testimony under the penalty of death.

Many thousands of 'martyrs' blow themselves to pieces these days for a belief but it's really not a credible testimony for their worldview, don't you think? You just made up a new fallacy: argument ad radicalism: if one sacrifices enough: it must be for something true! One would never die for a lie! While such passionate attachment is a form of death already.

[Beingof1]

Diebert,
I will get back to you and post soon.

[Beingof1]

Diebert,
I think I know what you were driving at. It was the Buddhas warning not to trust anything, including holy texts, unless we confirm it for ourselves.

As I have said, I have already done this with the texts concerning Jesus through personal experience and application and they are flawless. He was a master of faith and demonstrated that human consciousness is capable of much more than is commonly believed.

That said; I will not participate on this board unless I am running through something like Tor to shield my signature and assurances I will not be screwed with. It gets old, as soon as I post and leave a signature I have to deal with scans, virus attempts and all kinds of mindless, childish games.

I do not have time for petty ego contests.

I will leave you with a thought from Gautama.

One should practice the aquisition of insight and discuss it with those that have such wisdom.

The truth seeker should invite discussions with students, teachers, associates, distinguished people, those who strive for the summum bonum.

Contests and disputes should be sought out in order to establish and guard the truth; just as one surrounds the seed with thorns and branches to protect it as it grows.

-- The Buddha

Take care my friend, you touched me in ways you may not be aware of.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert,
I think I know what you were driving at. It was the Buddhas warning not to trust anything, including holy texts, unless we confirm it for ourselves.

That's primary. But historical events are only relevant to any Budding Buddha in the light of the eternal, as device - another mirror - and not some literal gnat fishing.

I do not have time for petty ego contests.

The ego always will find itself being challenged and opposed. Do you know why?

That said; I will not participate on this board unless I am running through something like Tor to shield my signature and assurances I will not be screwed with. It gets old, as soon as I post and leave a signature I have to deal with scans, virus attempts and all kinds of mindless, childish games.

Not sure what you're trying to say, it sounds a bit paranoid this way. Perhaps you caught some spyware, that's very common when active on the internet. You could choose a proxyserver for more anonymity or use some good virus and malware scanners. Try for example Spyware Doctor, it does a fair job for spy and adware. And for virus check use Avira (I use it myself) or an online 'house-call' at Trend Micro for a check-up. Good luck

[emma]

Re Christianity, there is much in conflict, all of it doctrine. The point is missed. The gospels are not so important. What is important is understanding the life of Jesus....God came down to love us on equal terms and we crucified him. God knew the future and the lesson of Christianity is in Jesus's actual human, no hocus-pocus/miracles..... life.

They crucified God