Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Two things to consider -

    1) Jesus is 100% mythological – every single story, event etc ascribed to him is mythos. If you take away all mythology from the Gospels there is nothing left. There are many hero-saviour myths in the ancient world.

    2) Jesus is a Gnostic mythos – the Gnostics were wizards in the ancient world. It was the norm for the ancient mystics to symbolise their knowledge into stories which only the initiated could correctly understand. The author of the Gospel of Mark alludes to this, as does Paul, Clement of Alexandria, and Valentinus. The second century Gnostics said that Jesus did not come in the flesh, that he was a vision – the catholic Christians, the non-initiated who took the mysteries literally, called them antichrist. Ignatius, indeed, writing in 110 AD complained that “most” Christians did not believe the Gospel stories to have literally happened.

    Basically, the Gospels are symbolic stories of the process of enlightenment, Jesus being a symbol of one who becomes Christ (Referring to one who understands the mysteries, Valentinus wrote, “For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ” (Gospel of Philip)). The carnals will take it literally, and either reject it on that basis or believe it and become orthodox or evangelical. The spiritual understand the meaning and power behind the symbol and are transformed.

    Indeed, there are many secret Gospels that have survived that were for the initiated - did you know, for example, that a "Secret Gospel of Mark" has been found, containing missing parts of the Gospel of Mark in the Bible? Or that there is a Gospel of Thomas?

    You obviously didnt read my earlier post.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nrelicbox.html


    I can go one better than missing parts of Marks Gospel. Its called the Pauline gospel.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    You wrote in that earlier post "The only gospel writer who acutally knew Jesus was Paul. Strange how his wrtings were disregarded by the early christians."

    Paul had a mystical vision of Christ in the heavens - he never met a flesh and blood historical Jesus. Paul only writes of a cosmic Christ Jesus being crucified in the heavens, not one on earth.

    Paul never wrote a Gospel.

    Your talking out of your backside.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Ok then, what Gospel did Paul write?
    The Pauline Gospel strangely enough.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Funny, I know quite a lot about early Christian history, and I've never heard a document called "The Pauline Gospel". Does this gospel exist, or is it a figment of your imagination?
    As soon as you said that Jesus was a myth, everything else you say is flawed quite frankly. You have clearly been brainwashed by Gnostic beliefs.

    It certainly does not surprse me that you were banned before.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Great, but I'm still waiting to find out whether this "Pauline Gospel" exists, or whether you've made it up and believe it's been supressed by the Vatican or something, as per conspiracy theory nut.
    I think your well aware of what scriptures i'm talking about. They are often collectively known as the Pauline Gospel. Your argument is on the basis that the scriptures I talk about wernt originally called a gospel. Thats a very weak argument, as bad as telling someone on these forums thatthey had made a typo. The question here is wether Jesus was real or not, and quite clearly he was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    You have said that it's "quite clear" that Jesus existed historically. However you have just assumed that - you have not reflected on this assumption. You are, therefore, what we philosophers call a dogmatist - one who accepts as true a belief without reflecting on it. You have simply believed, in a dogmatic way, a popular assumption and then tried to find reasons to support that assumption.
    basically, you cant find any material to argue against joeyjohns with and are so resorting to critisism of his argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joey_Johns)
    There is achaelogical proof that Jesus was real:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nrelicbox.html
    Doesn't that mean he wasn't born of the virgin mary, If he had a brother that wasn't the son of God?....Unless they adopted?

    Speaking in the present tense... why?

    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Think!
    The whole point of religion is the exact opposite.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Take a look at the picture on this link

    http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pa..._dionysus.html

    There is a picture of Dionysos being crucified. The image on this stone was made about TWO HUNDRED YEARS because Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth.

    Think!
    what's your point? crucifixtion was a routine execution method. it is much easier to simply challenge christianity by asking for evidence for rather than providing evidence against.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Great, but I'm still waiting to find out whether this "Pauline Gospel" exists, or whether you've made it up and believe it's been supressed by the Vatican or something, as per conspiracy theory nut.
    http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-b...hapter_id=1765

    Con-man. Without a doubt. Only today he knocked on the door and tried to sell me a broken washing machine. Real dodgey geezer, that Jesus fella.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Mmmm what's the point? - let's see....Dionysus a divine son of God who incarnates in the womb of a virgin, is crucified, and rises again - and Jesus a divine son of God who incarnates in the womb of a virgin, is crucified, and rises again...mmmmm

    Do you want me to connect the dots for you?
    Was mary crucified?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Mmmm what's the point? - let's see....Dionysus a divine son of God who incarnates in the womb of a virgin, is crucified, and rises again - and Jesus a divine son of God who incarnates in the womb of a virgin, is crucified, and rises again...mmmmm

    Do you want me to connect the dots for you?
    no thanks, but nobing off would be nice. i dont think you're going to unconvert any christians, be more passive, its easier and actually more effective.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Don't you lot believe in miracles..Jesus was a miracle!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Bascially, King, you're trying to change the story to make it seem as if it could have happened historically - ie get rid of virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, and the ascension and replace with normal birth, a bit of walking about, and leave the crucifixion.

    Instead you should take it for what it is - as another hero-savious mythos story common in the ancient world.

    Were there a group of Christians who made up stories about Jesus because they wished to symbolise their knowledge? Yes - the Valentinians, the Sethians etc.

    Did the earliest Christian writings show any knowledge of the stories? No.

    Did the earliest Christian writings place Jesus in a historical context? No.

    If you want we could change the stories of Zeus and Dionysus etc to make them historical people too.
    im afraid gnostic that this is ********. i never did such a thing. i never even implied any possibility of trying to make it historically accurate. all i said was that there was definitely, at some point in history some guy called jesus. stop preaching to me, im on your side idiot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    for example, if i called my son jesus, he would certainly exist, but it would not make him the son of god. well ok, bad example there :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    You claim that there was a chap named Jesus because of the Gospel stories. I'm saying that there is no necessary logical connection between symbolic stories and historical persons.

    In order to posit a historical Jesus you have to re-write the Gospels, ignore 1000 years of pagan culture, ignore the non-catholic christians, and rely only upon your re-worked Jesus story - it's as simple as that.
    gnostic: SHUT UP. i didnt claim that! you are an idiot! stop talking now!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReturnofGnostic)
    Again, resorting to grunts, insults, and threats. Tis the Biblical way.
    no, i have put forward an infalible argument- the fact that i never said any of the stuff you have claimed i did. if you would care to prove yourself i will happily relenquish my pride to you, however until that day i maintain that you are a fool. good day to you.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaft)
    Doesn't that mean he wasn't born of the virgin mary, If he had a brother that wasn't the son of God?....Unless they adopted?
    No, James was Joseph's son but Joseph wasn't Jesus' father (obviously).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.