Mr Common Sense
If these Gnostic gospels were buried, have they been found? if so, where (and when)? If not, then how are we expected to rely on some evidence that the existence, let alone content of, cannot be verified?From Dominicus of Byzantium:
"The scrolls do exist, the vatican ordered them destroyed but they were buried instead. They are called the nostic gospels."
Mr Common Sense
Two points. 1) If he was trained as Dalai lama, is that not a job for life (like being Pope)?Originally Posted by Dominicus of Byzantium
2) Once more, the argument for Jesus relies on religion. I personally do not believe in chakra; I believe in what i can see and what can be explained to me. If someone offers me a logical explanation of why chakra must/does exist, I will (unlike many religious people) accept it, if it holds up to rational debate. I am open to offers....
Mr Common Sense
Well, I believe that it does not insult their intelligence. Of those of us who believe the theory of evolution put forward by Darwin, how many have read "Origin of Species" or "The Descent of Man"? I suspect that it is a minority.
Secondly, Christians were not actively sought out except under unusual circumstances. They were arrested if another Christian, or ex-Christian, denounced them; and Emperor Trajan confirmed Pliny in not using single, anonymous sources (making the intelligence more reliable than that the Americans went to war with....) and in giving them three chances to repent, telling them the punishment for not doing so before the second and third chances. To repent, one had to pray to the Roman gods once in front of the governor. Not so harsh, really....
Finally, an independent point. A lot of suffering has been perpetrated in the name of Christ; how does this fit in with the Bible? Much of this evil was worse than any persecution the Romans inflicted; for example the active seeking out of dissidents and scapegoats that were both the witch-hunts and the Inquisition. Just for reference, i do not disagree with religion existing per se; rather I disagree with the existence of the con that is organised religion, used throughout the ages as a tool by the clergy and the rich to either subdue or rally the poor to preserve the status quo or to improve the lot of the church, with the exception of a few clergymen like John Ball (Peasant's Revolt) or Dr Martin Luther King Jr.
Mr Common Sense
A quick note on proof. I find the Design Argument to be entirely at odds with itself; one of its premises is that everythingmust have a designer. it then goes on to say that God is eternal. This does not leave room for God to have a designer. Please explain how this logic is actually, well, logical? because as far as I can see, it would be simpler to say that the universe is eternal, and constantly renenwing itself through multitudinous Big Bang/Big Crash sequences. Why is this not an equally acceptable arguement? Maybe it is, and I shouldn't listen to religious people's instant dismissal that "God is ineffable and the same rules don't have to apply". Given that we do not fully understand the universe, is that not also ineffable? Ah well, maybe someone here can shed light on the matter for me...
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
the arguement about whether jesus existed or not is not based on religion/faith. whether he was god sure, u can argue that. roman historians wrote about him, even jewish historians did, so obviously.... jesus did exist.... but agian not stating he is god or not.
yes they have "found" the gnostic gospels, not that they were lost. just because something is gnostic that does not make it heretical by nature. to be gnostic simply means secret knowledge. the information passed on in the gnostic gospels therefore isn't wrong/right, but more misguided one way or another.
and there are more religous texts outside of the bible to learn from. many more gospels have been written that are not in the bible - more accepted gospels that simply didn't make the cut to the bible, as the bible was written to spread the beliefs/faith in the most easily stated way(hence the gnostic gospels not necessariyl being heretical by being gnostic) to the uneducated.
"Of those of us who believe the theory of evolution put forward by Darwin, how many have read "Origin of Species" or "The Descent of Man"? I suspect that it is a minority."
--Just to quote you.... and then tell you that to believe in God does not mean you cannot believe in evolution as well - And if u think that is not the case, someone help you. I mean, God could have just as easily set things into motion as in turing on a lightswitch. Just started it and allowed things to happen through evolution. Thus the whole creationism(to an extent, obviously not the whole adam and eve part of it) and evolution theories can go hand in hand.
The hardest thing for ur need to see/have things explained to you would be the big bang. As evolutionists need something to start off the evolutionary theory, the big bang is the best option so far. But what was before the big bang? Even if you were to then continue saying the big bang is part of the rubber band effect (where the universe grows bigger, quikly colloapses on itself, then explodes open again... in a continual fashion), what started the rubber band effect then? Thomas Aquinas's (whether u call him a saint or not is imaterial) statement of an uncauseded cause is pretty apparent. Whether you call that uncaused cause God or not is your choice. But something needed to kick evolution in the butt to get it moving to where we are today.
And i hope to whatever is out there... that when u call religion a con... i hope your talking about all of society, where you work, where you live, where you play, whatever you do... all it is is another form of society coming together, doesn't have to be a con... but whatever on that one not getting into it...
if you were to look it up, the d(can't rember the name, only doectism is coming to mind, but thats not it...) concept was/is said to be heretical and wrong... for the exact same reason you pointed out... it doesn't make logical sense.
and i already took in ur big bang theory without even seeing that u were going to write about it
Sulla
What is it with you people and multiple posting. Please DON'T do it if you wish to remain members here. Use the edit function.
Squeakus Maximus & Boskie43 I am reducing your post counts accordingly. If you make a habit of multiposting then you will end up banned.
What's worse is your failure to read my post just above about multi posting.
Under the Patronage of the noble Senatorii Wild Bill Kelso
Brother Of Necrobrit, Scrappy Jenks, eldaran and Oldgamer
Patron of the Senatorii cunobelin & the CivitateLegio XX Valeria Victrix
Praeses
*One* historian might have mentioned him. Josephus was a Romanised Jew, so I'm not sure whether he counts as a Roman historian or a Jewish historian, but in any case he was just one person. And, as someone else mentioned earlier, the references to Jesus don't fit with the rest of the text, so many scholars think they were added centuries later by someone else.
Outside of religious texts that is it. There are no other references to Jesus in any contemporary sources.
Mr Common Sense
To make a quick reply: I do believe that Jesus was a real person. This is readily apparent; he was probably also kind, generous etc. I believe that what we (ie the human race) have in Christianity is simple: An answer. Not an answer that is satisfactory to myself and many others, obviously. It tries to answer all the greatest questions in life with one phrase: "God did it". This does not promote enquiring minds, and is constantly being porved less and less all-answering. Rather, "God caused it to happen" wuld be better... an answer I could accept.
Secondly, an apology. I apologise for even seeming to imply that theists (see? I am not refering to a specific religion) can/do not believe in evolution. I was simply using it as an example of how we (once more, I refer to humanity) will believe something without actually having any real knowledge in that area; for example, I believe in many laws of the universe like gravity without really understanding how it works.
And finally, I do believe religion is a con. Not by anyone, on anyone; rather by the human race, on the human race. because we trick ourselves into believing things on which we have no evidence or knowledge, and therefore cannot really say anything; as someone (I am afraid I am unable to remember who) said, "Whereof you cannot speak, remain silent". he was talking about questioning God; like I have said, closing all debate on the subject. Does this promote rational thought or enquiry?
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Darkness is the light
What is more, the whole Jesus-Story is in no way singular. Almost any ancient society knew this story, like son of God dying as a mortal coming back after 3 days and going to heaven and literally tons of other things. Ancient Egypt (Horus), greece (Dyonisus), India (Krishna) and so on. Kinda funny.
I agree with you on the point that the Jesus story is kind of copied, but then so is all of western monotheistic religion. The first monotheistic religion was made by the Pharoah Akhenaton, who decided that Ra was the only god. After his death, the people went back to the old ways of worshipping, but some cults stuck around. One of these cults was the Hebrew slaves. Because they were a cult with violently different beliefs, they were oppressed by the pharoahs, and by the next century, Moses stood up for the Hebrews against Rameses, and as a result had to flee Egypt while getting captured several times (the exodus), The dead sea could have somehow dropped to a level where people could wade through it but i don't believe that it parted, and by the time they reached the other side, it rose up again (possibly drowning some of the pharoah's men and mayne even the pharoah himself).
"The Moving Finger Writes and having writ moves on nor all thy piety nor wit can lure it back to cancel even half a line nor all thy tears wash out a single word" (Omar Khayyam).
I think that probably my greatest achievement was introducing Ozymandias to these boards.
Mr Common Sense
I'm not sure that the commoness is funny, thinking about it; thanks for drawing it to my attention. I would say that it showed some sort of cross-cultural pollination, planting seeds in fertile or interested minds. It makes a good story, and persuades people to worship. Why not use it, but alter it to our own ends?
I must say, though, that although I slag off christianity and religion, I must say I respect the message apparently presented by Jesus: "Love thy neighbours as thyself" If we all lived by that principle, life would be so much better off... and it seems to have inspired people like Marx (see below for some of his quotes) and Engels in the developement of socialism, a theory I would love the world, or even my own country of Great Britain, to adhere to. So even though I appear to dislike the whole thing, I do not; I just disloike the blind adherence of so many otherwise intelligent people.
In answer to the point of Dominicus of Byzantium, does this actually reinforce your view of your religion? Rather than slightly damage it? Given that you have just rationalized away 'God's miracle'? Well, well, well... I see that intelligence or knowledge are no object to belief.
Last edited by Ozymandias; June 08, 2005 at 03:27 PM.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Chakras is NOT religious (just to make sure you dont think them as religious or something like that) , and it's a living energies inside of us. Please read my previous message with my useful explanation about chakras and how to start using it in basic way for novice.
I'm just making sure that you get to know what they are, and get a good explanations in few pages ago.
Eagle out...
Unless they can be proved scientifically, chakras have about as much evidence as God. Nil.
Just because you, Eagle, happen to believe in them does not mean they exist. As far as I'm concerned, and probably many others, chakras are just another myth.
- I'm not a pacifist, I'm a pansy.
EXCUSE ME?!!!?!?!?!?
MYTH?!?!? That is a PROOF that you have NEVER tried these technqiues before. You have tried them and you just sit on your computer all day, thinking that you can't do it while saying it's a myth.
Let me tell you something, they do NOT need scientist to approve that chakras actually work. I have alot of experience with them, while I'm even have been channeling through my 7 chakras inside my body often. There are number of poeple that have been using chakras, even thought very tiny percent of people have knowledge about unlocking the chakras inside their body and begin to master the flow of it.
Eagle out...
Of course, you could be fooling you're self into this view with no evidence to back it up, thus, faith, as its called. And you could be suffering from the placebo effect, where you are looking for a pattern and thus are creating one you're self to convince you're self of these chakras.
The burden of proof is on YOU and other chakra believers to convince skeptics like ME that they actually exist. Just because YOU FELT that they exist, emotionally and physically, is not any evidence of the phenomona. You need a REAL MEASURABLE effect of these chakras. So, until you give me hard evidence of their existance, its about as mythical as the the cow that jumped over the moon.
- I'm not a pacifist, I'm a pansy.
Ordinarius
lol, sounds like you have been reading the Wheel Of Time booksI have alot of experience with them, while I'm even have been channeling through my 7 chakras inside my body often. There are number of poeple that have been using chakras, even thought very tiny percent of people have knowledge about unlocking the chakras inside their body and begin to master the flow of it.Seriously though, This thread and this section of the forums are geared more towards scientific evidence. Not to sound unkind, but your word is hardly enough to persuade us.
Mr Common Sense
Y'see, this is where I hit a barrier. You believe utterly and completely in something, but offer no PROOf for its existence; rather, you are saying "I have felt it", which realistically means nothing. It is not proof, as the human mind can trick itself into believing it has experienced things which it cannot have. Therefore, simply stating "I have experienced it" is not proof; I would like scientific proof of its existence.
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Tasmanian Devil
Some gnostic texts were found buried at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1949. They were not buried because of any order from 'the Vatican', which is an anachronistic term for the Church hierarchy prior to the modern period.
The Church had been debating over which books were scriptural from the mid-Second Century onwards, though the four canonical gospels - Matthew Mark, Luke and John - emerged as being almost universally accepted as being the earliest and most authoritative very early on. And the Gnostic Gospels were recognised as much later works written under pseudonyms to give their much later theology some respectability.
In the Fourth Century Clement of Alexandria was the first to articulate the canon as we know it today and it was affirmed at the Synod of Hippo at the end of that century. The Catholic Church didn't formally state it until the Council of Trent in the Sixteenth Century however.
So there was no single 'order' regarding the canon, it didn't come from Rome (which was not yet the pre-eminent metropolitain) and it sure as hell didn't come from any 'Vatican'.
There is a kooky idea, which has gained popular currency lately, that the Gnostic Gospels tell 'the real story' and were 'covered up' by 'the Vatican' to 'hide the truth'. This all sounds very exciting, but it's total crap. The Gnostic Gospels were written centuries after the canonical gospels by a loose collection of dualist theologies which attached itself to the earlier strands of Christianity. They have very little to say about Jesus' life, largely because the Gnostics didn't even believe Jesus was a human at all - they consist largely of esoteric, dualist mystic sayings. They were recognised as later, heterodox additions to earlier Christian ideas and rejected as such, not because of any 'cover-up' of 'the real story'. And this was not done by any central authority (because no such thing existed) but by repeated scholarly and theological rejection by a number of influential individual Church figures over several centuries. There was definitely nothing which can be called 'the Vatican', which at that time was a hill and swamp.
Which year would that be? Luke says he was born during the census of Quirinius, which was in 6-7 AD. Matthew says it was before Herod died, which was in 4 BC. We have no idea which year Jesus was born in. The dates often cited are 5 BC, or 8 BC. These are guesses at best.
There is zero evidence that these 'Magi' travelled through India. They appear briefly in one account of Jesus' life - Matthew - and all that's said about them is that they were 'Magi' (ie Persian wise men) and they came from 'the East'. Nothing about them suggests anything to do with India.A group of three holy men travelled West, through India and into Judea.
Matthew's 'infancy narrative' was designed to 'prove' Jesus was a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. This 'star', which is not mentioned anywhere else, is more likely to be figurative and symbolic than literal. Any conjunctions etc which have been hypothesised have been proposed by amateurs who don't really understand this passage in its context. They also don't explain how these astronomical conjunctions could do things like move and hover over a particular house. This story is myth and symbol, not journalism and astronomy.Seeing the star (which was jupiter appearing as the morning star during the coincidental(?) cosmic events of that night) above the stable of Jesus, the holy men found him and gifted him eastern treasures.
It's odd then that he talks, believes, speaks, preaches and lives like an orthodox Jew and is never reported doing or saying anything which is remotely close to Tibetan Buddhism or any Far Eastern philosophy.My theory is that Jesus was trained in Tibet in the art of Chakras
Your 'theory' sounds like fantasy.
If anyone wants to get past the layers of later Christian myth and look at Jesus/Yeshu as a historian would, ie in his historical context, then he has to be looked at as a First Century Jewish peasant. Because that's what he was.
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Gunthigg
"HISTORY VS THE DA VINCI CODE" - Facts vs Hype
"ARMARIUM MAGNUM" - Book Reviews on Ancient and Medieval History, Atheism and Philosophy
Under the patronage of Wilpuri. Proud patron of Ringeck.
Mr Common Sense
Thanks, ThiudareiksGunthigg; I had never come across the gnostic gospels before (I ran a google on the spelling...) and you have told me a lot.
On another issue, Christ as taught Eastern philosophy is a point one of the people I talk to regularly uses. I feel that it simply shifts the emphasis onto Chakras to exist, rather than God; and both are equally unlikely, in my opinion; I have yet to see proof for either, that can be verified scientifically. And no, ineffability is not a good enough response to "Why can't the existence of God(s) be tested?" rather it puts off the question. Why things stuck to the Earth used to be ineffable; now we know its gravity. Why should God be more ineffable than any law of physics?
primus pater cunobelin erat; sum in patronicium imb39, domi wilpuri; Saint-Germain, MasterAdnin, Pnutmaster, Scorch, Blau&Gruen,
Ferrets54, Honeohvovohaestse, et Pallida Mors in patronicum meum sunt
Posting Permissions
