You say that you applaud Christianity because it contains core philosophical truths such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Love each other, as I have loved you."

The Gnostic Christians who were most assuredly the original Christians employed the same and many other "core truths"; however, they did not credit these to Jesus!

The Gnostic Christians did not invent a "Sermon on the mount" to relate truths from "The Sentences of Sextus": They had copies of The Sentences of Sextus. Likewise, they did not credit Jesus with the composition of the "Golden Rule": None of them knew where it came from, it existed among the ancient Egyptians, yet who knows where it came from?

The greatest flaw in Christianity is the allegation we are all sinners. The greatest flaw in Judaism is that we are subservient to a jealous deity.

The greatest flaw in Islam is that they take a good person who desired to write a better philosophy for living and make him into a divinity!

Best Rasmus

Seeking truth is O.K . But who can be sure if you and all are not eye witnesses! Everything is a matter of faith - subjective

It may not be ideal to call anything false when we are not eye witnesses

Yes, I have the right to call things false when the evidence abundantly demonstrates it is false. I do not have to be an eyewitness, I can read material written in the original format by those present at the time.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam impede the quality of life for everyone with their theory about the deity we failed since we allegedly are sinners. This is a false view of our inherent nature demoralizing the nature of "man"!

Best Rasmus

I am quite willing to have an open honest discussion: Yet an open honest discussion entails looking at facts! Christianity has done far more evil than it has done good. The cult does not credit the sources of the decent material of their so called scriptures. Christianity is guilty of slaughtering innumerable people and what Hitler attempted to do to the Jews Christians did to countless other peoples.
For example, the Kathars of Europe, which was a belief system which held no Gods as responsible for our actions. These people believed that the message of Jesus was that life didn't end at physical death but we went on. They furthermore stated that Jesus came back in spiritual form after physical death to warn humanity of the evil Gods of the physical universe including the Hebrew deity. Millions of Kathars were slaughtered all over Europe until they were finally wiped out in the seventeenth century.

Yes, I will discuss with you, but the branding of humanity as "sinners" is a crime against humanity which debases and demoralizes us all.

Best RG

Best Rasmus

Religion:

for Individuals: a quest for greater understanding of the Universe or Life and one's place in it all and what it all means.

for Groups: a sense of belonging that almost always has the unfortunate result of creating InGroup versus OutGroup divisions: i.e. THEY believe that when THEY die they get to cavort with a thousand virgins for eternity. WE believe WE shall sprout wings and learn to play the harp. THEY are savages. WE are beautiful.

for the Powerful: always a mechanism of social control by the few over the many.
ie: WE are beautiful, THEY are savages, WE need to destroy THEM before THEY destroy US.

-SenseChange

A closed mind is a terrible waste: If God really gave us any commandments , keeping an open mind and thinking independent of preconceptions would most assuredly have been one of them!

Best RG.

Dennis Dale; Anybody who has a point of view other than mine is not closed minded: Anyone who state that he does not want to have a discussion with someone who knows that the Jesus portrayed in the Bible isn't an historical figure is closed minded.

Best RG

... but I'm with Dennis here. I am uncomfortable with your perceptions and the way you employ them in argument.

I understand from The Complete Gospels, for instance, that Gnosticism was not an original movement of Christianity, assuming we take Paul's ministry in the 50s CE as "Christian" rather than Messianistic Jewish (which seems safe enough given Paul's outreach to Gentiles and rejection of the supremacy of "The Law"), but was a movement within it that began with a fusion of Christians and pagan Gnostics in the last decades of the 1st century CE and was most successful in the second century, before it was overtaken by other Christian threads. The Jesus Seminar scholars interpret the Gospel of Thomas as a pre-Gnostic document that had been rewritten in the context of its use by Gnostics.

It is my understanding that historical evidence for the person of Jeshua of Nazareth is extremely limited outside of the Gospels - which are admittedly propaganda. This, to me, only proves that the Romans who wrote the histories had many more important things to do than record the squabbles in a miserable third-rate province on the other side of the Mediterranean. We forget that books were hard to write and disseminate, had limited audiences (only small percentages of the populations having sufficient wealth to afford either to learn to read themselves or to hire and have trained someone to read for them), and were easily destroyed in things like revolts and sackings.

My own interpretation is that God, in the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic heritage, is a metaphor for ethical conduct. That wars and atrocities have occurred between groups ostensibly following similar religious and ethical principles is horrid, but, sadly, it makes sense to me. To explain would require a long discourse on the science of animal behavior and the application of that science, by the likes of Konrad Lorenz, to humanity. And this comment is already way too long.

But I'm afraid Dennis is closer to the getting the bottom line right than are you.

FACT, n. Proves me right. FACTION: They agree with me.

FALSEHOOD, n. A fact in someone else's faction.

    - The New Millenium Devil's Dictionary

*   *   *   *

"What is the use of getting old? You learn something of men and things but never until too late to use it." - William H. Seward

O Ceallaigh's Bloggerparty Blog

If Jesus had lived and half the miracles he allegedly performed were based on a true story there is no doubt they would have been included! Imagine also if you will that someone had actually been resurrected after death; don't you think it would have been mentioned? Well, nothing is. We know of a lot of falsified material which allegedly support Jesus but nothing authentic.

Oh and Paul whom you mention; there is no material which is considered authentic by Paul which supports a physical resurrection. In fact, there is nothing in the authentic material of Paul which would dispute the possibility he was Gnostic.

Best RG

You are right in that the Gnostics did not originate with Jesus; they predated Jesus.

It is easy to understand why the Romans would not mention Jesus, but the Israelites?

The Dead Sea Scrolls date to as late as 68 AD, established not only because of carbon dating but by the people mentioned. These scrolls mention many a "reformer" and self proclaimed messenger but there is no mention of any person who would fit the Biblical description of Jesus.

I do not underestimate the efficiency of the demolition of the Roman Legions. I was not talking about them but of the scrolls found by the Dead Sea.

The material found near Jerusalem in these caves was not touched by the Romans. This material was deposited according to experts on three separate occasions, each of which could have been the impending destruction of Jerusalem. The first two were in the first century BC and the last one was in 68 AD.

A majority of experts now agree that the deposits in the caves did not come from Qumran but were deposited by the ancient rabbinical forces of Jerusalem in order to ensure that they did not loose their scriptures!

In "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg Jr, Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich it is stated: "For one thing, all scholars agree that none of the Biblical texts (such as Genesis or Isaiah) was actually composed at Qumran".

These are the manuscripts of the Israelites until the latest of their messiah’s; Shimon Bar Kokhba went to his final defeat at Masada in 135 CE. (The texts from Masada are included in "The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible". The short of it is that none of these texts mention anyone which in any form resembles the character of "Jesus".

The only ancient texts who mention a person which fits nearly all descriptions of Jesus are the texts regarding "Appolinus of Tyana"!
As mentioned before, had half the material from the Bible been correct there is no doubt Jesus would have been mentioned, far less significant personalities are!

As to Paul and his waiting for a return of Jesus, he does not wait for a "physical" return; hence he differs from today's beliefs.

Theologian and Professor Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels" state that the view of a "Physically Risen" Jesus originated in the second century. (There is far more material on these subjects than the books mentioned).

Assuming and second guessing is nothing but "wishful thinking". How can Christians be considered "Responsible people of integrity" when they insist on one interpretation when all evidence indicate they are wrong?

Best RG

Begging your pardon, but had you proceeded like this rather than in a manner that opened you to the charge of "just another 'he said, she said', there might have been more room for the discussion you said you wanted.

I can only spend a couple of minutes now ...

The material found near Jerusalem in these caves was not touched by the Romans.

Did you mean "from Jerusalem?". And yes, as I understand it (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today; I acknowledge that this book is a popular synopsis and now 15 years old), texts came to the Qumran caves precisely so they could be preserved, from the Romans and other forces. The Romans didn't touch the caves because they were too busy obliterating the Qumran compound. And unlike Bar Kochba(Kokhba), the Essenes did not themselves occupy the caves. Even during the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans didn't waste time, energy or men assaulting the caves. They merely sealed them off and starved out the occupants.

all scholars agree that none of the Biblical texts .. was actually composed at Qumran

I understand this to be correct. The Qumran Essenes were copyists and (parochial) interpreters. The texts they created were for the governance and theological guidance of their own community.

far less significant personalities are!

I think that depends on what one considers "significant". Acts 5:34-37 has the Pharisaic Councilman Gamaliel speak of two additional failed revolutionaries, one of whom, Theudas, is otherwise lost to history (unless Luke garbled him with the Theudas recorded by Josephus as active around 44 CE, after Gamaliel's speech in Acts).

However, at one level, this is all quibbling. There may or may not have been a historical Jesus. I think we both agree that the miraculous resurrected GodHead Jesus presented the New Testament did not exist. Now - what about Voltaire? Si Dieu n'existait, il faudrait l'inventer. For me, the early Christian Gnostic documents like The Dialogue of the Savior and The Gospel of Mary (both in The Complete Gospels) are opaque to the point of absurdity. In comparison, Jesus's yoke is indeed light. Moreover, to the student of the science of human and animal behavior, the dense philosophy is unnecessary. To say more would require a separate blog. No, a series of blogs. Which would attract such a profoundly negative score on reddit that the blog police would come gunning for my Internet connection.

I can only, for now, recommend to you On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz, and leave the rest for later.

*   *   *   *

"What is the use of getting old? You learn something of men and things but never until too late to use it." - William H. Seward

O Ceallaigh's Felloffatruck Publications

Thanks O Ceallaigh, yet my statement still stands: Teaching the Bible and Christian dogma as if it is an absolute truth is a crime against humanity!

Best Rasmus

But you would seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the means. My greatest hurdle on the path to enlightenment is a tendancy to agree.

A tie is like kissing your sister. Or so the saying goes. I'm actually thinking sister kissing would be worse. Maybe not in Alabama?

There is no questioning the fact that there are many very good people who follow the Christian, Judaic and Muslim faiths. This does not prove anything regarding these cults, what it does prove is my statement that people are inherently good!

Without proper spiritual and moral guidance a majority of the human race are still good, (give yourselves a pat on the back) what great heights of spiritual and moral lives might we not ascribe to if we had a proper guidance?

Instead of sinners who disappointed some deity we might aspire to ethical and moral conduct which is has only been lurking in the back of the minds of the greatest optimists!

Best RG