sacked priest believes in god, but thinks jesus is a fable

[Don in the North]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...-1226102771979

SACKED Catholic priest Peter Kennedy says he hasn't given up on God and prayer, but no longer believes in Jesus. Father Kennedy, dismissed by the church for unorthodox practices, says he now considers Jesus "a fable".
The rebel priest made headlines in 2009 when he formed a congregation in exile.
He was earlier sacked by the church for unorthodox practices such as allowing women to preach the homily and blessing same-sex relationships.
Fr Kennedy says he still believes in God, just not a God who intervenes in the affairs of humans.
"It's true I've given up on that sort of a God, that sort of a 'being' that sits up there in heaven somewhere and intervenes in human affairs," he said today.
"If you believe in a God that intervenes into human history why didn't God intervene in the massacre in Norway? Whatever God is, God is not that sort of God, obviously.


"That's what I'm trying to say."
Fr Kennedy said he still believed in prayer, but not asking things of God.
"For me prayer is just standing in wonder and awe at the mystery of life, the beauty of life, the goodness of people."
Praying in church was not about talking directly to God, he said.
"It (public prayer) is about informing the community of people within the community and outside the community who are in need, it's not about informing God.
"God already knows all that, that's God."
But he said he had not believed in Jesus for some time, calling the son of God a "fable" and a "metaphor".
"There is no corroborating evidence for the existence of a person called Jesus," he said.
"The Gospels must not ever be taken literally. Scripture scholars tell us that.
"There's been 'dying, rising God-men' around for centuries before Christianity. All Christianity did was to take on those pagan, then Jewish, mysteries.
"He's a parable, he's a metaphor in a sense."
Fr Kennedy is still highly critical of the Catholic Church, but says he does not hold a grudge against retiring Brisbane Archbishop John Bathersby.
"John Bathersby is a very decent human being ... his theology and my theology are different," he said.
"I did publicly talk about that I held no grudges against John whatsoever.
"I mean in the beginning I was angry because of what I perceived as an injustice to the community. Now he doesn't see it that way and that's fine.
"But with our new bishop the people will not be consulted ... even though they (the Church) said yesterday that the laity will be consulted, they won't be consulted.
"I mean two or three good Catholics might be consulted but it means nothing.
"We live in a very clerical church and the people have no say in the election of their bishops. And they have no say in the dismissal of their bishops."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...#ixzz1THIOMNT6

i find this interesting that a priest has gone turncoat. i dont ever remember reading anything like it before, ive read about sacked priests and excommunicated paedophiles, but never a priest that said
"jesus was a fable"

[Jingo Eugene]

Attention hog trying to get attention alert?

[mw2xboxplayer]

I find it hard to agree with this former priest's perspective that a man named Jesus never existed at all. The formation of such a drastic and powerful movement such as Christianity without the alleged central figure ever actually existing seems unrealistic.

Attention hog trying to get attention alert?

The man's actions do not appear conceited or self-serving in any way. I don't think he holds these beliefs solely to grab media attention.

[Ancient Aliens]

I find it hard to agree with this former priest's perspective that a man named Jesus never existed at all. The formation of such a drastic and powerful movement such as Christianity without the alleged central figure ever actually existing seems unrealistic.

Still, there is no proof of Jesus of Nazareth's existence. As I've said before, the mythology surrounding Jesus is similar in nature to Arthurian legend: unverifiable.

I don't think the priest is being an attention whore either, this seems to be a simple case of stating ones beliefs and being reprimanded for them.

[XIII]

Still, there is no proof of Jesus of Nazareth's existence. As I've said before, the mythology surrounding Jesus is similar in nature to Arthurian legend: unverifiable.

What? That Jesus of Nazareth existed is an indisputable historical fact. Even secular historians accept that.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

What? That Jesus of Nazareth existed is an indisputable historical fact. Even secular historians accept that.

But did the very same Jesus that is worshiped exist? One can say that Jesus did exist, and mean that the magical-powers didn't.

[Dominicvs]

Still, there is no proof of Jesus of Nazareth's existence. As I've said before, the mythology surrounding Jesus is similar in nature to Arthurian legend: unverifiable.

I don't think the priest is being an attention whore either, this seems to be a simple case of stating ones beliefs and being reprimanded for them.

Incorrect, most historians agree on Jesus' existence, and he had numerous references from Christianity and Islam. King Arthur only relates to one book/fable, Jesus is referred to by different people over a 100 year block of texts from numerous books (which make up the new testiment). There is non-religious modern archaeological evidence of him as well.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I find it hard to agree with this former priest's perspective that a man named Jesus never existed at all. The formation of such a drastic and powerful movement such as Christianity without the alleged central figure ever actually existing seems unrealistic.

Uh Mithras, Zeus, Jupiter, Sol Invictus. Cults have arisen many times without a proven central figure.

[Col. Tartleton]

Yeah I mean it's likely Arthur was based on someone and we have some ideas as to who, but no evidence, Jesus is the same thing. Josephus mentions someone who might be Jesus but that's basically hearsay. Good example.

I mean the idea of legit history didn't really start until the 1700s IMO.

The only thing surprising about this is the mans tenacity. He went through the years and suffering of becoming a priest just to realize years down the drain later that it's probably just BS. So instead of riding the stock down he sells at a loss and gets out.

There's evidence there was a Rabbi named Yeshua who was executed. That's about all there is to it. There's no such thing as an indisputable historical fact. History and courtrooms function on evidence. Most of history is little better than legends. They would not hold up in court.

He wasn't biblical Jesus, he was a Shaman dispensing powerful hallucinogenic herbal cures to the sick, gaining a cult following, and then getting executed by the government.

[XIII]

Yeah I mean it's likely Arthur was based on someone and we have some ideas as to who, but no evidence, Jesus is the same thing. Josephus mentions someone who might be Jesus but that's basically hearsay. Good example.

I mean the idea of legit history didn't really start until the 1700s IMO.

Eh, no. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, for example, is eye-witness testimony. Definitely not hearsay.

[Tankbuster]

Priest gone Jesus Mythicist.
I'm sure the tabloids are going to have fun with this one.

Eh, no. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, for example, is eye-witness testimony. Definitely not hearsay.

Eye-witness testimony of Jesus' brother James, certainly.

[Himster]

Eh, no. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, for example, is eye-witness testimony. Definitely not hearsay.

Paul claiming that a person magically appeared in front of him on the road to Damascus......and that's indisputible historical evidence?

[Helm]

Paul claiming that a person magically appeared in front of him on the road to Damascus......and that's indisputible historical evidence?

Its historical evidence of a man having a vision which he took to be real, but may not have been. Much like Mohammed I suppose.

[XIII]

Its historical evidence of a man having a vision which he took to be real, but may not have been. Much like Mohammed I suppose.

This. You can explain Paul's vision as a hallucination or as somebody else pretending to be Jesus, but you cannot reasonably deny that it occurred (on historical grounds).

and paul wasnt one bit biased was he?

Well, no, since, during that time, he was a pharisee who was persecuting Christians. If anything, he would be biased against Christianity, not for it.

Eye-witness testimony of Jesus' brother James, certainly.

That too.

But did the very same Jesus that is worshiped exist? One can say that Jesus did exist, and mean that the magical-powers didn't.

True but what I was disputing was AA's contention that Jesus did not exist at all.

[Ancient Aliens]

Show me a pre-Christian Mithraic text making those claims.

Show me these parallels.

Show me a pre-Christian Egyptian text making those claims.

Show me a pre-Christian Greek text making those claims.

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

This is a widely accepted historical theory, I don't really understand peoples incredulousness towards the topic. All gods and religious figures can be compared and traced back to previous, older deities, all the way back to the first primordial sun god and fertility godess.

Skepticism is never wrong, particularly when a semi-mythological figure is involved.

What? That Jesus of Nazareth existed is an indisputable historical fact. Even secular historians accept that.

Show me unbiased proof of his existence. The keyword here is unbiased.

Eh, no. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, for example, is eye-witness testimony. Definitely not hearsay.

Again, an unbiased source please. In the first epistle he had already "recieved his vision from Jesus" (in otherwords, at the point of writting the epistle, he was biased).

[Don in the North]

and paul wasnt one bit biased was he?

[Helm]

He's probably on the right track to some extent, though I'm sure a historical Jesus did exist, it would have been based on someone.

[Portuguese Rebel]

These positions are nothing new. What is new is it's a catholic priest having them.
The evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus is slim to none. I personally believe that there was such a character, only that his actions in life began to be transformed by hearsay into glorification. Most of the supposedly first witnesses testimonies conflict with one another at some points and very important omissions are made from one another.

This is specially true whenever the subject is to prove that Jesus was the messiah the jews were waiting. On that subject the apostoles basically invented stuff up.
Then there is the question of the catholic rites borrowing from pagan cults already in place. From calendar dates to liturgic practices. I bet that if the first century Jesus bloke came around and witnessed a catholic mass he would be horrified.

[Helm]

When training to be a priest they learn a lot about the history of Christianity and the founding of the Church so I wouldn't be surprised if most of them understand that it isn't 100% literal history. Not that they're meant to tell anyone this.

A former Christian Reverend converted to Islam after learning all this. With Islam that's all meant to be 100% the genuine history. It may well be but it doesn't mean its 100% true.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Vizsla]

That priest is right. Good thing he got kicked out of mother church, hopefully he won’t waste the rest of his life on this nonsense.

The evidence, the gospels, was all written decades after the events described, John 200 years after. Would you believe an allegedly firsthand witness account of the Napoleonic era written now?!

A lot of the ‘divine’ characteristics of Jesus appear to have been culled from other popular mythologies that were circulating at the time, examples below taken from here. This makes the veracity of other claims made about him doubtful.

Mithras:

Mithras was believed to be the son of the sun, sent to the earth to rescue humankind. Two centuries before the appearance of Jesus, the myth of Mithras held that Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds. Mithras sacrificed himself and the last day had a supper with twelve of his followers. At that supper Mithras invited his followers to eat his body and drink his blood. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. Mithras' festival coincided with the Christian Easter. This legend dates from at least one century before Jesus.

Socrates:

Jesus' attitude often resembles the legendary greek philospher Socrates (eg, the way he refuses to respond to Pilate).

Osiris:

The Egyptian god Osiris was also born on the 25th of December, died on a friday and resurrected after spending three days in the underworld.

Dionysus:

The Roman god Dionysus was hailed as `The Saviour of Mankind' and `The Son of God'. Dionysus was born (on December 25) when Zeus visited Persephone. Therefore, his father is God and his mother is a mortal virgin. Announced by a star, he is born in a cowshed and visited by three Magis. He turns water into wine and raises people from the dead. He is followed by twelve apostles. Dionysus' resurrection was a popular myth throughout the Roman empire, although his name was different in each country. The rituals in honor of Dionysus included a meal of bread and wine, symbolizing his body and blood. An amulet of the 3rd century has been found that depicts a crucified man (unmistakably Jesus) but bears the inscription "Orpheus Bacchus", which was yet another name for Dionysus. The 5th century Egyptian poet Nonnus wrote two long epic poems in Greek, one on the conquest of the world by Dionysus, and the other a verse paraphrase of one of the Christian gospels. Unfortunately, we know little of the Dionysus' faith because in 396 a mob of fanatical Christians destroyed the sanctuary of Eleusis, likely to have been the largest religious center in the world. We only know that the rituals were very popular and lasted several days.
The early Christians revered Dionysus's birthday as Jesus's birthday (Christmas) and the three-day Spring festival of Dionysus roughly coincides with Easter. Jews had their own version of this festival (the "therapeutae") since at least the year 10 (it is reported by Philo of Alexandria), which is 23 years before the crucifixion of Jesus (Armenians still celebrate the birthday of Jesus on january 6).