cosmic_prostitute:
Studying the work of sages is fine, but there is the tendency for one to become attached to them, and value their work over others.
How can you determine value to writings you have never read or studied?
I know for a fact, you have never studied the sage known as Jesus, and yet you form an opinion based on what?
Ah - heresay and assumptive conjecture. It the assumptions I am talking about in this entire thread. I can only hope that others see what is so obvious you would have to hop, skip, and jump to miss it.
Now you are sure I have become attached, as if you have any idea whatsoever what I am supposed to be attached to.
I suggest a translation and read simply two very small books in the NT.
Use 'The Amplified Version' - excellent translation, probably the best that I know of (unless you have studied Greek and Aramaic). Read Matthew (1st book) and John (4th book) in NT - then you will have earned the right to actually know whether it has value.
I think it is necessary to forget the teachers. One needs to develop their own uniqueness and focusing strongly on other sages doesn’t help any.
Then why read anything at all?
In fact; why did you bother to learn to read and write?
Why do you post here?
Bo1: Because you are far superior in understanding than Jesus right?
CP: why are you defending Jesus so strongly? Suppose I was superior to Jesus, would this bother you?
Alright; lets go with your supposition.
Why in the world should I read your post, listen to anything you have to say? For that matter, why should you yourself, listen to what you yourself think or say?
I’m basically suggesting that wisdom should be preserved based on its concise simplicity and considering that the English language has changed drastically since Jesus’s time, I just don’t see the point in holding onto it.
You also said this in above post:
Jesus’s work is written in cryptic ambiguous parables that are riddled with words that can be misused, generalizations and emotion.
Do you know the two sayings that can sum up the entire teachings of Jesus?
They are as encrytped as E=Mc2, do you understand this formula?
It is not his teachings that are in question but how could you know this? That is not really what this is all about though it does appear that way.
Bo1: What is a quality writing you should value?
CP: a psychological/physiological body of work that leaves out words like god, kingdom of heaven, sin, etc and so on. His language is for the dinosaurs.
And should we also exclude words like sandskrit, enlightenment, Buddha, suffering, bliss, eightfold path, Karma, samsara, harmless, emptiness, logic, wisdom, truth, perfection, etc. All of these words predate the dinosaurs.
Do you think Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection and words like these mean the same thing to anybody not in this forum?
It is not the 'words' that helps anyone, it is meaning and understanding.
Bo1: Yup; the outdated English they used is kinda hard to decipher.
CP: Are you able to admit that the language from Jesus’s time is outdated? we don’t want to use words like lord anymore, instead it is substituted with words like emptiness. These words are far superior than the words Jesus used.
If you think I made an assumption that you have never studied or just have barely (if that) surface knowledge of Jesus, ask Diebert or David why I might say that. They also know this fact without doubt.
Yet; just like I said, everyone in the world today is smarter, has more knowledge, and is far superior to Jesus. Everyone knows either, exactly what he meant or there is no value whatsoever in his life.
What massive brainwashing on an epic scale. It is brainwashing that not only Christiandom is guilty of, it is the post-modernists, universities, and self proclaimed gurus of all stripes these days.
Wake up, wipe the sleep out of your eyes and get a grip.
I’m more interested in the intelligent evolution of language rather than preserving the image/life of individuals.
That is because you believe truth is contained in language, it most certainly is not.
Truth is demonstrated by the occurance of reality - that is truth.
You should question your desire to preserve the life of individuals,
Roll eye smiley insert here:
The more we talk, the obvious becomes apparent.
Allow me to retort; Why did you post "You should question"?
The life of the individual is not important, but the teachings can be used as a tool only if they are up to date/relevant and difficult to abuse/misuse.
How many ways are there to teach?
How many tools are there?
What does "up to date mean"?
Could you name anything, anywhere, at anytime that is difficult to abuse/misuse?
Steven Coyle:
Just as numerous Zen practioners have understood that you must eventually "Kill The Buddha" in order to progress spiritually, the same tenet should apply to all serious students of any religious sect. Jesus spoke out against idol worship, but with a religion so saturated in religious symbolism, he naturally became his own antithesis. To metaphorically kill Jesus could confuse the already metaphoric progression of the transconfiguration.
Unless...
Does this mean the Buddhist teachings are a pack of lies from top to bottom, and beyond salvaging?
How do you kill what you do not know?
If you are speaking of taking the training wheels off, I agree.
That is not at all, even close, to what I am addressing.
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 hoplessly deluded".
If you pay attention - the simple name of Jesus brings such an emotional backlash, it is not that difficult to see where the delusion lies. At this point it is hard to see who the true fundamentalist is and not all that difficult to see where the 'blind faith' actually is.
If you pay attention.
Diebert van Rhijn:
No, there is no evidence in any writing by Paul or reasonable analysis of Paul that even implies this. What is written down is a vision and voice Paul encountered that made him change his ways. This is the only reference to a meeting with Jesus and is clearly what is aimed for in all texts you can come up with.
Rather than reading what is plainly written , we must deny what is written to fit into our conjecture?
You say there is "no evidence" - what do you call this then?
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
The reference you write about above is commonly refered to as "the Damascus Road Experience" - that is not at all what Paul just said here, not even close.
You tell me what "seeing" Paul was refering to here? He said he saw him just like Peter, the twelve, and the five hundred. You tell me - did he mean to say they all had "visions"?
The voice is clearly stated to be an inner voice and as such cannot be compared to a physical man-to-man meeting. One could just as well say Paul had a mystical experience, seeing the 'light' and realized he was persecuting('killing') the truth and that all his religious interpretations he learned all of his life were false. If anything at all, Paul was some kind of sage or mystic, perhaps not unlike Appolonius I mentioned before, or some rewrite of him, experiencing direct revelation through wisdom. No need for fancy tales of Jesus the Superman, and you won't find Paul writing about him in that way either. Paul was not concerned with Jesus the Man, his birth, life or the countless miracles based on what we have left from (what is claimed to be) his writing.
No doubt Paul had the mystical experience you described, that does not discount what he wrote above. He said "last of all he was seen of me also" in the context that Cephas and the twelve had "seen him".
Regardless - do you think he meant the other witnesses had all "seen visions"?
As far as Paul writing of Jesus the man, he did so only on a couple of occasions and was concerned primarily with the 'Christ'. You make a good point here.
We do know from his numerous references to Jesus, that is who he was talking about as he uses their names interchangeably.
I'm familiar with it. But these texts are commonly placed in the 2nd century AD or even much later
Nonsense; I can prove, without doubt, there exists a book in the Nag Hammadi that was written about 400 BC.
So much for all those 'experts' - all they are doing is a little prestedigitation on you and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. Those are harsh words Diebert but it is absolute fact that there is a book in the texts dated 400 BC or earlier.
Almost everyone I have ever met that has read scripture(including the 'experts') constantly interjects what is clearly either said or not said. What is truly there and not there. When you can actually see, with clear eyes what is written, what exists, what proof is there and not there, that tells me you just may be someone I should listen to.
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.
Here is the absolute proof - what is the date of the composition of "Republic" by Plato? Those early Christians anticipated this ludicrous 'dating', pure genius.
All the texts were translated from Greek to coptic, thats it, as far as the textual geneology. We can date one more book to the late second early third century "The Concept of Our Great Power" and even that date is real fuzzy wuzzy.
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.
Let me ask myself, should I believe modern day 'experts' or those hundreds that write as eyewitness testimony?
I think I shall take it at face value rather than having to change reality.
in language that completely differs from the Canon.
Really? Have you read John`s texts recently?
I am not hearing anything new, you are just kicking out all the "textbook criticisms" of the mindless so called 'experts'. They figure if you throw enough BS at the subject, well; "sumthin is gonna stick".
Just because it comes from the mouth of someone with a PHD, does not automatically make it true. In fact; lets just say, someone I know about, redated the Dead Sea Scrolls as they all, everyone of the scholors but him were missing the obvious because of their predisposition while reading the DSS "This has got to be all wrong".
Its not really you Diebert, its just that none seem to use just 'common sense' when it comes to Jesus or scripture on both sides of the debate. All of a sudden, everyones brain goes on tilt and ceases to function.
What a powerful sage indeed.
If you want to abandon the canon that is okay but you have to allow for all texts to be taken into consideration as well any informed research connected to it. Otherwise it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
More proof to me you are not paying attention to what I am saying at all. In fact; it shows me once again I am the only one I have ever talked to who can see the facts without emotional attachment.
I listed the books - do you think I am ready to retract the entire Nag Hammadi cause you say so?
If you want to make the case that the original Paul was some enlightened teacher, then it's a different matter and I'd love to discuss it. But we were talking about eye-witnesses of Jesus the Man, from a humanistic or existential viewpoint. Or at least, I was.
We do not know if Paul saw Jesus before the crucifixion so we cannot say. You make a valid point here in that Paul speaks of the Christ alot more than Jesus the man.
Books have been unearthed. That's all.
Okay, if this is the best you got, it is just pointless as it is tying up precious time.
Do you not see what is absolutely, so completely unbelieveable with your above statement?
The assumption you are making is that the bits you pick from it are adding anything to your argument, while you deny any common dating of the documents and probably would dismiss any document that differs with your fixed facts.
The only two books we can come close to dating is the two I mentioned above. Unless of course there has been a breakthrough in the dating in the last month that I am unaware of and that is highy unlikely.
We can date the binders, not the texts themselves, other than knowing the Christian texts were dated after Jesus.
So what assumption am I making? Can you show me another dating?
It must be something other than putting a wet finger in the air.
The authors claimed to be eyewitnesses of many events - I think I will trust them since there are literally thousands, but it takes knowing the facts and seeing clearly before you can know that.
There are over 5000 fragments, books, and texts to establish the canon, now there is the Nag Hammadi. I trust them rather than deluded attachments of post-modern revisionists.
It is overwhelming - he resurrected - deal with it. It is why the date is AD.
About Luke:
Okay fine, the early church fathers said it was Luke but obviously you have more information then they do.
Not every testimony qualifies as relevant or valid indeed. One has to examine all aspects to find its value. One has to look at similar testimonies, competitive views, external (non-involved or non-believer) testimonies and so on to create a clearer picture.
I do not have the time or inclination to keep answering the same questions over and over.
How many does it take? How much proof do you need? 50 confirming books are not enough? That is just delusion. How many testimonies?
THERE IS MORE PROOF FOR JESUS THAN ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND. And all, every eyewitness, testimony, credible evidence, irrefutable books uncovered in 1945 for God`s sake and it is still not enough? 5000 texts of the canon not enough?
There is a literal mountain of evidence - it tells me there will never, ever, be enough to satisfy you - if that is the case, this is a complete waste of time.
The fundies believe he resurrected because they think they believe.
The critics will not admit the truth because they believe they think.
I do not have blind faith, I do not have to, I know the facts and the experience.
Even one well researched non-Christian source known for sure to be from the first century that writes something about Jesus his life or mission or even his disciples. And you can't use Josephus for reasons I'm sure you understand.
Lets see, you reject thousands of testimonies in favour of one? Diebert, again, I am not so much being sarcastic because of you but its like reading a book by Adamson or Pagels when I read your posts.
I am not impressed by their PHD education and whatnot as they can`t seem to reason their way out of a paper bag and the really disapointing thing to me is, you seem to just buy their sales pitch without doing some critical hard thinking for yourself.
I know I am making an assumption there but doggonit, I have heard all these 'objections' that are dispatched with ease with common sense as the nonsense that they are.
Lets see if we cannot clear up the mystery.
1)
Early ministry of Jesus - The Romans on a good weekend, had 70,000 people watching the Circus Maximus. The city of Ephesus had 50,000 whatching their plays.
Jesus drew crouds of at the most, at the peak 15,000 - 20,000.
There is a church where I live, I know the pastor, the membership is about 30,000. His name is Mark Martin, have you ever heard of him? They claim to have seen miracles in their congregation, have you heard of them?
I have shared meals with this pastor, why have you not heard of him? Why no CNN coverage?
Why not and why doesn`t the European Union talk about him? If he really existed he would have been mentioned right? Why doesnt Bush talk about him?
2)
Later Christianity - it is a capitol offense to be a Christian and talk about Jesus and its a puzzle as to why nobody but a believer puts their neck on the line?
Bo1: I gave you a list of books that have just been translated in the last twenty years that have not been seen since the time of the apostles.
Diebert: It's not that dramatic. The books are a mixed bag really, take what you need and discard the rest.
This statement speaks volumes of what you do with the reality of being able to read for yourself.
In other words; if an earthquake happened and the canon itself were unearthed you would wait to find the "Q" document wouldn`t you? If they ever did find the Q document you would be waiting for the R that was the smoking gun.
No matter the evidence - it just will never do will it Diebert?
Example:
After he rose from the dead,his twelve diciples and seven women continued to be his followers and went to Galilee.
-- The Sophia of Jesus Christ
It gives accounts like this in the brand new books over and over and over.
One of the most profound books in the collection is "Thunder; Perfect Mind" I highly recommend this book.
Merely having 'confirming multiple texts' is not a sound base to perform critical research into a religion. It depends on the origin of the texts and who wrote them of course, and when! All the evidence together can lead not to 'fact' but to the situation that one make assign probabilities to historical events that are claimed to have found place. This is how all historians work, and so should you if you want to engage in such activities at all, that is.
Of course - 70 different books, all with the same named eyewitnesses telling the exact same story, with the exact same identical details without any conflicts is just a fluke.
We can assume that they are all wrong and just because we have unearthed more texts that name the same identical eyewitnesses, with more claiming eyewitness events themselves as a vast fundy conspiracy to deceive the modern enlightened ones.
You said it would only take one eyewitness from the 1st century that was a nonbeliever.
You would take the word of one single solitary person over a mountain of proof(many of which did not believe but were convinced because they saw).
A 100% fact it will never become, for getting 'facts' the book of history is too hard to read. One can only hope to be reasonable about it in the end.
And I keep looking and looking for anyone giving simply a "reasonable" explanation. I will have to surrender to the fact that I may very well be the only one - so be it.
Not relevant. Again this is not canonical and with a very much disputed origin and time frame.
So you think "The Letter of Peter to Philip" Has a disputed origin?
This is pointless dude - I told you, look for yourself, its from the Nag Hammadi.
In addition you say because its not canon, it is disputable and then you dispute the canon itself. That is catch 22 and really is absolutly the most flawed logic I have seen in ages.
That is; if it is not canon it is unacceptable.
If it is from the canon it is unacceptable.
Yup - absolutely pointless until you start showing me some common sense.
It reminds me of talking with the 'liberal' experts, they talk in continuous circles and are unable to see it and think I am deluded and "to passionate". The "conservatives" refuse to look at facts and are moved soley by selective memory, they think I am to 'out there'.
Its not that hard Diebert, stop trying to prove it one way or the other and just look at the facts objectively. Thats it - that is all you have to do. If you can manage that you can see clearly.
Analysis of language puts is very far from the time Jesus, Paul and Peter should have lived in.
Here we are again - same thing, you are just not using common sense.
It was written in Greek, these are the coptic translations.
You just believe the 'spin' as fact. I cannot possibly take all this time to answer questions that can be cleared up if you use common sense.
These are not objections in the true sense, they are just throwing baloney around hoping nobody notices. Its a waste of my energy and I am getting to old for this. Beside, I do not have that much time.
But anyway, 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 thereby turning the canonical gospels into a pack of lies. I think you have to be more careful when using these documents to make your point.
More spin that you just believe without checking. That whole line of thought comes from a fragment in "The Gospel Of Philip" that is mostly untranslatable.
And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene.
[... loved] her more than the diciples [... used to] kiss her on her [...].
Thats it - thats the great love affair story with all the facts.
I will use all of these books fearlessly because they all, everyone concur.
If they did not concur I would still use them.
The fact is multiple books from multiple sources naming same identical eyewitnesses with the same exact details is just common sense. Do the crosschecks, look at all the records and it becomes more than just a fancy story, it becomes irrefutable if you use good ole handy dandy logic without emotion.
Lets just concentrate more on external evidence, sources outside the Christian or church Literature, okay? Roman, Jewish and Hellenistic scripts are welcome.
Of course; that way we can choose to believe whatever we want to and make up any fancy that enters the mind.
So you reject the fact that Plato wrote the Republic because it was found in the Nag Hammadi? In fact; you have posted some Plato here at this forum at times, guess you should not do that as it is a spurios source because it was found in the Nag Hammadi amongs - God forbid - Christian texts.
don't consider you deluded if it comes to knowing Christ, Beingof1. You seem to realize more than most. But there appears also something holding you back in your posts, a theological structure of supposed 'facts' that provides possible hiding places for a battered ego. A weird 'split' in your understanding, how can you understand the eternal Christ but put so much value on historical 'play'? Only the sharpest of reasoning can cut through this, and I don't mean mine, but yours.
I appreciate that Diebert and regardless the tone of my post I do respect you and would not spend this much time if I did not truly enjoy your company and believe you have wisdom.
That does not mean I will continue jumping over mouse droppings.
Figures like Abraham, Moses, King David and Salomon are possibly only loosely based on older traditions and myths surrounding these characters.
Did you know they have found stella and monuments to David?
They found three in the 90`s and put the issue to bed Diebert.
Did you know they found King David`s palace last year?
