5 massive lies the Bible tells re Jesus

[SHaYap]

~snip / repetitious avoidance

Welcome to the boards starise ~

[Grandpa Greenman]

Thank you, Starise. We are all here hanging for different reasons. It is like an old style coffee house from the 50's. I am here for brain exercise for my wonky brain and rest my weary body. I really don't care what people believe except when it F's up the world. People take religion much too seriously, it should really be a hobby and a social thing. There are some brilliant people hanging here and a lot of dunderheads, but that is world.

Please come back and post some more. Welcome to UM.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

While I find others views on these subjects interesting, I also find the back and forth tiring mentally.

At one point several years ago when I stated my beliefs which I feel are based on as much factual information as I could find, I was asked to prove my views. I spent considerable time attempting to help these individuals see at least how I arrived at my conclusions.

Anything I submitted was either not considered factual by these people or somehow degraded I suspect simply because of my view. So they kill you asking for data only to attack any data I submitted. Of course they have their own ideas on what they think passes scrutiny.

The interesting thing about this is that the things they were taking as factual were from poor sources. IOW their data didn't need to pass the same stringent tests they were placing on my info. This is a no win situation.

Then there are the inferences or just direct comments that I had to be less intelligent to believe the things I believe. If you knew me you would know this simply isn't true. You couldn't hold my job if you weren't intelligent.

Add to this the confusion of re directing the discussion. In some cases I think for some it's more about winning a debate than finding a truth, or appearing popular to others. Then there's the herd mentality. Solidarity can be misguided.

I once allowed myself to be pulled into this trying to show things from my perspective and listen to others. There's no point in it. There are agendas both misguided and true. The result was total frustration. It took me away from productive activities.I let it wear me down. So I drew the line. I won't attempt to reason with an unreasonable person anymore. Objective people, yes. If you don't agree with me but we still respect one another this is all I can hope for. I don't disrespect anyone for their views. The only exception being if their views include personal attack and humiliation ( or attempted humiliation).

I like unexplained things, but frankly these sites tend to typically bring out people that for whatever reason want the dark things in life. I don't have a fetish with the dark but I try to stay informed about it. You may laugh but I can literally feel it sometimes. Like walking into a place where bad things have happened.I much prefer where I'm at. I don't have the need to appear like anything to anyone. I really have little interest in impressing anyone. Think my main motive here is to warn anyone that struggles with certain individuals is a total waste of valuable time.

Do you really think you'll find ultimate truth on some message board? Really? Picking the most interesting debater isn't truth, sticking with your buds isn't truth. Misery loves company.

If there is no truth then anything can be viewed as truth. If there is truth in belief , then nothing anyone says or does or thinks will change that.Truth will still be standing. If there is truth then there is the opposite of truth. We live in a world that uses generalization to make it seem that we can all create our own unique version of the truth. Being true to us isn't the same as reality unless our views align with that.

We can pacify ourselves with a self created fake truth and be content with a lie, at least for awhile. Truth can sometimes look like the loosing side in a debate. How many times have you been convinced you were right about something but you were wrong? I'll admit to it.

If given the choice between a comfortable lie and a difficult truth which would you choose?

We want to go through life as comfortable as possible and this includes many massaging their world view to make it palatable. Are we suckers for comfort ? or are we willing to get into the trenches if necessary.

How much about what we believe dictates our future? Is our belief based on being against something and therefore we go toward the opposite thing? Shouldn't belief be more based on what we think is truth?Running from something usually doesn't assure a good decision because we're looking for whatever life boat happens to be handy.

Then there's the experiential part of belief I hear people talk about. It is easier to believe something if we experience it ourselves. The skeptic will usually over analyze the experience and conclude it wasn't legitimate or it was not what it seemed to be. If they can't explain or rationalize it ( I've started to hate the term " scientific" in some forums) it mustn't be legitimate. In my opinion , just because it doesn't have a scientific explanation doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Science only gets us so far. If the world depended on your test tubes we wouldn't be here.

Greetings and Salutations, starise.

I would agree with your post, pretty much. I also feel, that some of the subsequent replies to this post, are right on the money. I have found, for all it's intents, a particular place, site, or forums, will still will be open and probably attract all sorts of individuals. As is in the real world. I, as a retail employee in various places, have seen that many times.

As some here have said, that gives a wealth of various points of views, that could be seen as informative. ( in which they could and would see yours as just as informative ) There is also those that have no informative, but distracted views too, and yeah, I find that distracting. I guess, I would consider that as an eventuality. *shrugs*

But, ( and I don't know this is from my experience in the many communication courses I took in my attempt in a communication minor in college ) but I feel, that one should base their 'opinions' from that label, and facts, do indeed, need to be supported. Granted, it could be questionable if the facts, sources, and links could be biased. I would think it's still on the poster to make sure to get a good amount of sources to prove their point.

I think in the end, as I have seen pointed out, I think one needs to weed out within their point of views what they find helpful and what not, and just ignore the ones that are not. ( or to a point, I guess ) I too agree, one comes here on their own, and not dragged here involuntarily. One can leave if it gets too 'problematic'

I like your post. I find it close to what I believe and feel. I say, stick around, pull up 'chair' and dive right in. I think you would be a great addition here. I really like to see more of your views, ( even if I disagree with them and I have to end up giving you the virtual 'face slap' in the process! )

Just kidding.....................

.......................... maybe. ;)

[Habitat]

There are some brilliant people hanging here and a lot of dunderheads, but that is world.

The dunderheads presumably don't include your good self ? Everyone has a story, I'd be reluctant to categorise people like that, if only because they may be much younger, less experienced, come from difficult backgrounds, etc. Besides, it gives insight into what people are thinking across the broad spectrum, all the better to understand the way society is.

[Grandpa Greenman]

The dunderheads presumably don't include your good self ? Everyone has a story, I'd be reluctant to categorise people like that, if only because they may be much younger, less experienced, come from difficult backgrounds, etc. Besides, it gives insight into what people are thinking across the broad spectrum, all the better to understand the way society is.

That is for others to judge my dunderheadness. I am sure you could come up with some who would say so. I can be a real a**hole sometimes. I guess it all depends on whether or not one can admit when they are wrong and learn from it.

[Gigmaster]

There is actually very good archeological evidence that the entire New Testament, and the story of Jesus was invented by Roman Emperor Dometian (51 Ad - 96 AD), as a way to quell civil unrest among the Jews. Obviously, it worked well.......

Roman, and other contemporary accounts of Christians being persecuted before around 81 AD appear to have been created after the fact...in other words, manufactured and pre-dated. There is little physical evidence to support most of the events described in the Bible, especially in the New Testament. The Bible contains numerous errors, both chronological and factual, as well as a plethora of contradictions. It is obvious that none of the Books of the Bible were written during the times they describe, and in many cases, were written as much as 100 or more years after the fact. It is obvious that the Bible was compiled from many, many unrelated documents, most of very questionable origin. There are absolutely no mention of Christians before 125 AD and most of those passages referred to un-named groups that actually could have been any of several dozen groups of dissidents that had been active from around 20 AD on. The only named reference to Jesus is from Historian Josephus in 93 AD, and this was just a 3rd-hand account related to him, >70 years after the fact.

I hate to take anything away from anyone, but if you are going to be a reasoning human being, you have to accept verified evidence (or lack of it....) and make the logical conclusions. We have evolved beyond the need for spirits, dragons, and other supernatural powers. We know what makes the sun shine, and what makes the plants grow, and have no need for human sacrifices, or other appeals to magical beings. We have science now.

[Habitat]

It seems implausible to me that people would concoct a story purporting to be about the "son of God", yet leave out the vast majority of his years of life, that seems to me to be a startling omission, unless the sheer uneventfulness of those "lost" years would add nothing, and probably detract from the impact of the story. If it was fiction, I doubt that big gap would exist. Having said that, I don't regard it as a story to be believed in the fine detail. In any event, when I read the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, I realise that even if it is not a reportage of Jesus' words, it is the work of a person of the same genre of humanity. we understand him to belong to.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

If it was fiction, I doubt that big gap would exist.

Maybe the writers got lazy and decided to spare the details.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Thanks for your imput Gigmaster, . I love old stories and it is a common theme in hero stories to have the hero go through great suffering, death and return. To me Jesus's story is another hero story. People love stories of resurrection, because death is the thief of love. We want to believe we will see our loved ones again. As a widower I know this feeling well. I still hang on to it myself, that somehow the Universe recycles and we will meet again one way or another.

[Mr Walker]

Talking about smoking, I am amazed that the reason people smoke is rarely broached in discussions of the habit, it is always just "don't do it ! ". Nicotine is the only known drug that reduces anxiety, without affecting performance of tasks. Other substances cause drowsiness etc.

Nicotine (taken in the form of tobacco smoked or chewed) kills one third of those who do not give it up.

In a sense it is irrelevant why people smoke, although an understanding of any addiction is helpful in overcoming it. It is one of the most powerfully addictive substances known to man Not sure about reducing anxiety. It is a stimulant so that would surprise me. (ok just did the research and it appears to do both)

Apparently this is a unique property of nicotine and its effects gradually alter from stimulant to relaxant as dosage and exposure to it increases. Personally, despite smoking up to 30 cigarettes for over 5 years and being a lesser but regular smoker for 10 years, I never found it to be a relaxant. It always had a stimulatory effect on me, and i used it to increase my abilty to study and stay awake.

[Mr Walker]

I haven't had issues in my state, most know the laws and honor them where I am. I have had to leave due to smoking in other states because they do not have the same laws, and I can't stand in judgment or finger point. I have to work with what is available.

I don't go out much anymore, but when I did I was always the designated driver, I offered to look out for my group of friends.

I cannot dictate to another what they can or cannot do if it is within their legal right and no law has been broken.

Because a person smokes or drinks and I don't doesn't make me better then them.

A smoker isn't less kind or compassionate, or capable of empathy because they smoke.

Some of those statements are absolutely true (I have highlighted them) even though I know you think i disagree with them, but i differ fundamentally that, as one human being, you have no right or duty to educate, inform, or even protect another human being from themselves.

What is right or wrong is not defined by laws, but by inner beliefs, ethics and moralities. I generally obey laws rigidly, but where a law is not enough, or is wrong, I will break it to help someone.

Generally i would limit my intervention to education and strong persuasion, but in extreme cases, where someone's actions were endangering themselves or others i would act to stop them, whether i acted inside the law or not. Better that someone is alive and i am in gaol, than someone is dead and i am free. eg i would physically take someone's keys from them or prevent them driving (in some way or another which might include driving them home myself. ,) if they tried to drive when I knew they were clearly drunk . I would do so even if there was no law prohibiting drink driving .

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Grandpa Greenman]

Talking about smoking, I am amazed that the reason people smoke is rarely broached in discussions of the habit, it is always just "don't do it ! ". Nicotine is the only known drug that reduces anxiety, without affecting performance of tasks. Other substances cause drowsiness etc.

Nicotine is how the tobacco plant combats aphids. I make a tea out of it as bug spray for my plants. I will admit it does reduce anxiety, my late wife used to smoke. I remember sitting in the car one time thinking I was going to jail (for my bad habit) and asking her for a cigarette. She was reluctant to give me one, she didn't want me to get started on them, but I just told her to give me one damn it. Yup, it calmed me down and completely understood why people use them. She was never really ever able to kick them and I believe they greatly reduced her life. The Natives didn't use it like we do, it was use for ceremony and not on a daily thing. Meditation is really best thing to combat anxiety, but most of us, included me, are looking for a quick fix. The question is, is it worth what it does to your health.

Edited March 28, 2016 by GreenmansGod

[AZDZ]

My questions are: what criteria do you use to judge which bits are productive and which to leave alone? And, where does that criteria come from?

See this is where the importance of actually reading the Bible comes into play. Nuggets of Wisdom for everyday living is found throughout. Philippians 4, 8 holds a clue.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 9Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Next, open a Bible to any page, doesn't matter where. Chances are 50% of the content on the two pages you are looking at will be about bad things either happening or being promised to occur and WHY that is so. The other 50% will most likely be a counter to the bad things, a way out of all the trouble posed in the other percentage. (the percentage of good to bad may vary but you get the point, right?)

So, now we go back to the above quoted verse. Which bits do we choose as productive and which bits do we leave alone?

[Hawkins]

Controversial post I know

Show us how today's historians keep records of paranormal activities.

Secular governments and secular historians don't keep records of any gods with any supernatural and paranormal activities, not today not in the past and not in the future.

That's why if you have a set of theology to be passed along humans across a history of more than 2000 years, you have to choose a religion instead of the historians.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Hawkins

[Arbenol]

See this is where the importance of actually reading the Bible comes into play. Nuggets of Wisdom for everyday living is found throughout. Philippians 4, 8 holds a clue.

Next, open a Bible to any page, doesn't matter where. Chances are 50% of the content on the two pages you are looking at will be about bad things either happening or being promised to occur and WHY that is so. The other 50% will most likely be a counter to the bad things, a way out of all the trouble posed in the other percentage. (the percentage of good to bad may vary but you get the point, right?)

So, now we go back to the above quoted verse. Which bits do we choose as productive and which bits do we leave alone?

Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure it really addresses my point. If we go by what we've seen in God as the guide to righteous and morally upstanding behaviour I'm not sure we'd do all that well.

Sure, we'd learn to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour and do unto others.

But we'd also learn domestic abuse, homophobia and the odd bit of genocide.

If we can't rely on God himself to demonstrate what is right, how can we decide for ourselves?

[Space Commander Travis]

Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure it really addresses my point. If we go by what we've seen in God as the guide to righteous and morally upstanding behaviour I'm not sure we'd do all that well.

Sure, we'd learn to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour and do unto others.

But we'd also learn domestic abuse, homophobia and the odd bit of genocide.

If we can't rely on God himself to demonstrate what is right, how can we decide for ourselves?

Quite right. That's why according to modern Christian thinking, as i saw it put recently Jesus, essentially, trumps the Bible when it comes to any conflict or the later, more sophisticated views of God compared with the Old Testament thinking. He came, he said, as you may know he said, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill., " Fulfill meaning, according to modern thinking, that it had been completed and was no longer necessary. What they said (the Prophets certainly) was still of importance, but their prophecies had now been fulfilled.

[Arbenol]

Quite right. That's why according to modern Christian thinking, as i saw it put recently Jesus, essentially, trumps the Bible when it comes to any conflict or the later, more sophisticated views of God compared with the Old Testament thinking. He came, he said, as you may know he said, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill., " Fulfill meaning, according to modern thinking, that it had been completed and was no longer necessary. What they said (the Prophets certainly) was still of importance, but their prophecies had now been fulfilled.

Whilst I think many Christians agree with this, there are plenty that view the OT laws of Moses as continuing to be valid.

Paul, for example, appears to condemn homosexuality - as many Christians continue to do so today. But even that is up for debate depending on how accurate you believe the text has been translated.

I guess my argument is that the Bible is sufficiently ambiguous at times that people can justify conflicting morals. So that when people claim their moral viewpoint is directed by this book, what I feel they mean more is that they use the Bible to post-hoc rationalise and justify.

Can't argue with you about Jesus. Fictional or otherwise, he seemed like a good egg. Shame more people can't aspire to be more like him.

[Mr Walker]

Quite right. That's why according to modern Christian thinking, as i saw it put recently Jesus, essentially, trumps the Bible when it comes to any conflict or the later, more sophisticated views of God compared with the Old Testament thinking. He came, he said, as you may know he said, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill., " Fulfill meaning, according to modern thinking, that it had been completed and was no longer necessary. What they said (the Prophets certainly) was still of importance, but their prophecies had now been fulfilled.

There is a logical inconsistency in that assumption. You assume Christ said " I did not come to abolish the law but my coming does just that"? He meant that his coming was the fulfilment of OT law and prophecy.

He went on to tell us HOW we should view and obey the laws. Ie that the laws were made for us, from a love of us, and we should obey the laws from love of god and love of self and others,, not from duty, legalism, or fear. That instruction would be redundant if Christ meant we no longer needed the laws for our guidance, or did not need to obey them.

Such an instruction turns on ones head, even the laws about homosexuality.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

There is a logical inconsistency in that assumption. You assume Christ said " I did not come to abolish the law but my coming does just that"? He meant that his coming was the fulfilment of OT law and prophecy.

There is no such assumption. You're making a fool of yourself, yet again, by creating a strawman.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Nuclear Wessel

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Nicotine is how the tobacco plant combats aphids. I make a tea out of it as bug spray for my plants. I will admit it does reduce anxiety, my late wife used to smoke. I remember sitting in the car one time thinking I was going to jail (for my bad habit) and asking her for a cigarette. She was reluctant to give me one, she didn't want me to get started on them, but I just told her to give me one damn it. Yup, it calmed me down and completely understood why people use them. She was never really ever able to kick them and I believe they greatly reduced her life. The Natives didn't use it like we do, it was use for ceremony and not on a daily thing. Meditation is really best thing to combat anxiety, but most of us, included me, are looking for a quick fix. The question is, is it worth what it does to your health.

I think that is a good point. I think you make some very good points. And that line of thinking, at the end of your post here is a good question. I guess it would have to boil down to how one considers their life worth. *shrugs*

But there are times, I wonder, how is it George Burns, who I have always thought to smoke and drink quite a lot during his long life, to be able to live at the age of 100. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/comedian-george-burns-dies-at-age-100 and yet there are those who die young without having having such addictions. I don't know, I guess one would have to do their own research on things and feel a certain groundedness with themselves.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Some people beat the odds, I don't know how much he smoked and drank in private. I find cigars don't have as many additives as cigarettes in them either. I sometimes smoke a cigar when fishing to keep the no-see'ms out of my face. You smoke cigarettes all day, most usually puff on one cigar all day. If you end up dieing from them, it is not what I call a quick death, but a slow and painful one.

[Mr Walker]

There is no such assumption. You're making a fool of yourself, yet again, by creating a strawman.

NO i am outlining two well known and very different interpretations of that phrase within Christianity. Indeed some argue that Christ did away with the need for the law.

But a more literal study of his words and contexts illustrates that he clearly said I have NOT come to do away with the laws, because the laws were made for the protection of man and are made from love of man . He went on to tell his followers to obey biblical laws from love of god and fellow man not from fear, or duty, or legalism. So, for example, while it was still wrong to eat pork and could be dangerous to do so regularly , a follower of christ would not offend a host by insisting he could not eat pork for religious reasons even if he normally never ate it.

So it is not i who is shown as foolish but those whose ignorance of this divergence is demonstrated.

You need to check your facts before making personal and abusive comments. It reflects poorly on you.

Maybe OTTO also interpreted the words in this way ( and the first part of his case seemed as if he did,) but it then sounded as if he was arguing that fulfilment brought an end to the NEED for OT laws. It did not.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Mr Walker

[+Nuclear Wessel]

NO i am outlining two well known and very different interpretations of that phrase within Christianity. Indeed some argue that Christ did away with the need for the law.

But a more literal study of his words and contexts illustrates that he clearly said I have NOT come to do away with the laws, because the laws were made for the protection of man and are made from love of man . He went on to tell his followers to obey biblical laws from love of god and fellow man not from fear, or duty, or legalism. So, for example, while it was still wrong to eat pork and could be dangerous to do so regularly , a follower of christ would not offend a host by insisting he could not eat pork for religious reasons even if he normally never ate it.

So it is not i who is shown as foolish but those whose ignorance of this divergence is demonstrated.

You need to check your facts before making personal and abusive comments. It reflects poorly on you.

Maybe OTTO also interpreted the words in this way ( and the first part of his case seemed as if he did,) but it then sounded as if he was arguing that fulfilment brought an end to the NEED for OT laws. It did not.

Walker, you explicitly said "YOU assume" when quoting Otto. There was no such assumption that I could see in his post. You then created an argument against an argument that he did not even make... aka a strawman. This is pretty common for you, and it's foolish.

[Mr Walker]

Walker, you explicitly said "YOU assume" when quoting Otto. There was no such assumption that I could see in his post. You then created an argument against an argument that he did not even make... aka a strawman. This is pretty common for you, and it's foolish.

You can't see the assumtion? That is fair enough, but without the assumption, what is the point of the post ?

a) to confirm the laws still DO apply

or

b.) to say that because Christ fulfilled the law, the laws no longer apply ?

Use the post to explain to me which YOU think was meant. If otto wasn't making argument b. ), then what was the point of the post? To make argument a) ?

I used the word assume to illustrate that, as i read the post, there was an assumption otto was going with argument b.

Only otto can clear this question up.

Once more a poster allows their personal antagonism to colour their judgement of me and hence their post and tone

How about, rather than a personal attack, you instead gave your own interpretation of the passage and whether the laws apply today? You could then, legitimately argue with my own, providing reasons and logic.

There is a third possibilty.

c) that otto was using this case to illustrate how biblical passages can be interpreted in different ways, but there would need to be some reference to this in the post .

He doesn't do this. Rather he opens the post with these words.

Quite right. That's why according to modern Christian thinking, as i saw it put recently Jesus, essentially, trumps the Bible when it comes to any conflict or the later, more sophisticated views of God compared with the Old Testament thinking

In other words, christ's teachings do away with the actual worlds of the old testament and the laws within. The example used was a very poor one, given that christ actually said he did not come to do away with old testament laws but to reinforce them via the love of god, so that love came first and was to be used in obeying and applying the laws.

I empathise with the principle that christ reinterprets the old testament and resets it for a more modern world view. However, in his own words, he did NOT do away with it, for his followers. He followed old testament law, but did so by putting humanity first and the law second . He even said, "The law is made for man, not man for the law"

Edited April 7, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Walker, you explicitly said "YOU assume" when quoting Otto. There was no such assumption that I could see in his post. You then created an argument against an argument that he did not even make... aka a strawman. This is pretty common for you, and it's foolish.

I agree. Reading over Otto's post, there was no way he was making an assumption. I can't see the 'assumption' and I don't know how anyone else can see it as well. In fact, Arbenol's reply to him seemed like an adequate reply to him. He didn't think Otto assumed, and replied about what one sees in the bible.

So, I feel pretty much described what Otto saw. Big difference, I think, then assuming.

When it came to what the bible said, I just know, others who read it, read what it says and repeating it here.