The Writings?

[taijasi]

Of course, then there's a few of us who believe that the Koran is authored by Jesus, via Mohammed as the `scribe.' This is the same kind of situation as St. Paul dictating the Book of Revelation ... via its author, John the Beloved. A better characterization of the true relationship, however, would be that between the Christ and the Initiate Jesus, as the latter was overshadowed by the former.

While this explanation will not fly with most, because frankly, it makes no sense to them ... it is indeed the only one which works, and fits the facts for the rest of us. Facts, as we understand them, yes. And of course, evidence.

This, like so much else, is a matter of Faith ... although I argue that such can be a springboard, an occasional reassurance - even the GLUE at times which holds our belief system together. But as some are fond of arguing, there is ultimately no substitute for direct experience.

Gee, I wonder what Mohammed would say ... or Jesus. Maybe we should ASK them.

 

[enlightenment]

there is ultimately no substitute for direct experience..

Indeed.

Experience and test something, see if it can offer any objective and peer reviewed evidence.

'Experience' is perhaps too vague.

You have to determine what it is you are meant to be experiencing, how you are experiencing it, and why you believe it to be a state caused by the presence of an all seeing, all knowing being, who is personal to everyone, all at the same time.

It is quite possible for humans to create a higher state of euphoria in any number of ways. Some find that meditation works well for them, others find that excercise does the trick, and some use plants and fungi. Then there are those who replicate a euphoria like that through their religion, however, in none of those instances is that itself evidence of anything other than that they are experiencing a state of euphoria.

Just a thought..

 

[wil]

Not really what to make of your little outburst here - but getting kinda used to them.

You appear to suggest that god wouldn't be able to predict future events, by virtue of the fact that he didn't know where Adam and Eve were hiding? Does this then suggest that he is not all powerful at all, and that there are limitations to his powers - seeing into the future being one of those limitations..?

outburst? you seem to make a lot of stuff up that isn't in the script...you know me putting words in your mouth when I clearly didn't, and now an outburst? Funny I thought atheists thought believers were delusional...must be a mirror.

The postage-stamp-sized fragment is ~125, and is part of the trial before Pilate, as found in "John"; in the 3rd century we start to get full gospels.

I didn't recal the particulars....but I got to see it. Was in a Smithsonian exhibit, first 1000 years of the bible, got to see the first complete bible known as well and some coptic stuff...all quite interesting...

Amazing claims require amazing evidence, imo, and a rational god would understand that in 2011, his 'creation' would incline toward the scientific, the logical, and the evidence based

Great stuff...

Actually the pertinent part here and in most posts is the IMO; not the italics. What is correct is nonbelievers require amazing evidence, and no evidence is good enough. To Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...their scripture is more than enough for them....

And enlightenment, I thank you, that little realization, while it may seem minor to you, is actually quite refreshing and exciting for me; as i a have no need to discuss this with anyone again, my comfort level has increased exponentially, thanx.

I know you won't quite appreciate it, but you are a blessing!

 

[Saltmeister]

An answer that Christians don't much like, but which I think has a good chance of being true: he thought the world was imminently coming to an end, and therefore that there was no need to write things down for future generations.

Good point.

Jesus actually foretold of the end of the world, during his lifetime.

He is not the first man to have spoken out with an End of World message, there are literally dozens of more obscure one's, and that's just recent one's. Back in the days of Jesus, prophets were actually pretty common, or at least those claiming to be.

Of course, Jesus was crucified, and the world didn't end, not within his lifetime, as predicted.

As far as the Gospels are concerned, I don't remember anything about Jesus foretelling the end of the world in his lifetime, only that at the very least that the Temple would soon be destroyed. The idea of the world ending in his lifetime (are you kidding me?) would have been absurd if his mission was to be crucified at the hands of the Romans. With all the chaos going on around him his death wouldn't actually have mattered.

The end of the world coming in the lifetime of his disciples makes a lot more sense. But again, there's a difference between Jesus thinking and Jesus foretelling the end of the world would happen in their lifetime. What Jesus gave was a description of what to expect.

If I was to interpret bob_x's words, he didn't actually say anything about anyone's lifetime, only that it was "imminent."

But remember (as you would if you have a commitment in knowing this stuff) that he also said that "he didn't know the day or the hour; only the Father knows." There is no definite timetable. After the resurrection, he tells his disciples to "baptise the nations." From these key points, are we to think Jesus expected the end of the world in the lifetime of his "immediate" followers?

A quick search via Google allowed me to locate an "end of the world" passage in the Gospels.

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

That process is obviously still going.

It doesn't sound like Jesus is saying, "I know it's going to happen in your lifetime!" Spreading the message takes a while, and he doesn't even claim to know when it's going to end!

Even if he was caught red-handed once, what about the occasions when he says something that must happen that couldn't possibly happen in the lifetime of his immediate followers?

 

[enlightenment]

And enlightenment, I thank you, that little realization, while it may seem minor to you, is actually quite refreshing and exciting for me; as i a have no need to discuss this with anyone again, my comfort level has increased exponentially, thanx.

I know you won't quite appreciate it, but you are a blessing!

Don't mention it.

That's why I am here - to educate.

 

[enlightenment]

What is correct is nonbelievers require amazing evidence, and no evidence is good enough.

Incorrect though - there is evidence that would be sufficient (for the claims of many things). It's just no evidence that I have the issue with, and no evidence of any substance is ever offered.

 

[Thomas]

What order of text would be required, I wonder, to be considered beyond dispute?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[enlightenment]

What order of text would be required, I wonder, to be considered beyond dispute?

God bless,

Thomas

Perhaps one that was written on parchment that was aged accurately, yet written with materials that were not of that age, not even of this age, like an ink, but not like any known ink. This would have served the twin purpose of properly ageing the scrolls, yet at the same time, the fact that they are clearly written in a curious unknown substance, that might indicate that a superior knowlege was the author (eg; Jesus, who as the son of god, could presumably have fashioned such a material).

As to the content of what is written...big question.

In his own hand, or rather by his own hand, Jesus could have explained by what process he cured a blind person, and what the process was behind his resurrection. With this, the method could be tested, and were the tests to hold up, we could fairly conclude that this man was perhaps telling the truth.

 

[bob x]

I believe that it was a failure in some prophecies that led to the Jews rejecting him as the Saviour and Messiah, I cannot recall word for word, but I think they essentially had this tick list of what the Messiah must do, and in their eyes, Jesus failed some of those.

Well, when the Messiah comes, the Temple is supposed to be restored to its full splendor, and all the Jews are to be returned to the homeland, where they will become the most respected nation in the world, leading the world into a new age of peace, prosperity, and wisdom.

After Jesus came, the Temple was totally trashed, and the Jews who were in the homeland were scattered to the four winds, to become the most persecuted nation in the world, as the world sank into an age of escalating violence, poverty, and ignorance. Not QUITE what the prophesies led them to expect from a "Messiah"...

I was told that Mohammed and his people were illiterate, and that one day 'god' came down, scooped him up, as he is fond of doing, then educated Mohammed, telling him to go forward and educate his people.

The Arabic script is a sort of "shorthand", a compression of more ordinary alphabets to accommodate their severe shortage of writing materials. Not many Arabs knew how to read and write, but some did (Muhammad not among them).

The end of the world coming in the lifetime of his disciples makes a lot more sense. But again, there's a difference between Jesus thinking and Jesus foretelling the end of the world would happen in their lifetime.

The crucial quotes are "There are some here standing who will not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his glory..." and [addressed to Peter, concerning John] "If I will that he tarry until I return again, what is that to you?"

 

[enlightenment]

Bob - Although I, like you, am an atheist, one thing has struck me, as I have been researching passages in the books of Christianity, Judaism, and the Koran- we must be really careful when people quote from them.

For a start, we have people here like Nick Griffin who has been culpable of taking large chunks of the Koran out of context, in order to add weight to his stance against Muslims, here in Britain. There have even been instances in which I have found plausible yet sensational passages that are atttributed to a given book, and when I look further, they are not really there at all - in other words, passages get added, then used as negative evidence, from what I can see.

More worryingly, if I am finding realistic sounding quotes, there is every chance that we might have Muslims preachers, or fundies from all religions literally making up entire passages to their family and followers, passages that could be total nonsense, yet fit in beautifully with whatever messed up agenda that they had.

Let's face it, if a lot of people are quoted something from the Koran, and the person seems plausible, not many of us bother to counter check what is said, and we might pass that myth along, if it is a myth. Pretty soon, it makes it into the mainstream.

If you type in 'What Jews say about Jesus', one of the top seach results that comes back is this

WHO ARE THE JEWS<BR>WESLEY SWIFT

Now, I am not an expert on theology, but I am betting several pounds that several of the quotes in there are either inaccurate or do not even exist, as claimed.

So you can see the potential that such books have to be used for all manner of purposes, which is why if someone quotes me something sensational from the Koran that sounds violent or wrong, I ensure that I try to establish how valid it is.

 

[wil]

Incorrect though - there is evidence that would be sufficient (for the claims of many things). It's just no evidence that I have the issue with, and no evidence of any substance is ever offered.

It is quite simple....and validates another theory of mine. It is all so simple. For Buddhists, the dharma is enough, for Hindus, the vedas, for Jews, Moses, for Christians Jesus.

For atheists, nothing is enough....currently, but in time, or in some lifetime, something will be.

 

[wil]

Bob - Although I, like you, am an atheist, one thing has struck me, as I have been researching passages in the books of Christianity, Judaism, and the Koran- we must be really careful when people quote from them.

For a start, we have people here like Nick Griffin who has been culpable of taking large chunks of the Koran out of context, in order to add weight to his stance against Muslims, here in Britain. There have even been instances in which I have found plausible yet sensational passages that are atttributed to a given book, and when I look further, they are not really there at all - in other words, passages get added, then used as negative evidence, from what I can see.

More worryingly, if I am finding realistic sounding quotes, there is every chance that we might have Muslims preachers, or fundies from all religions literally making up entire passages to their family and followers, passages that could be total nonsense, yet fit in beautifully with whatever messed up agenda that they had.

Let's face it, if a lot of people are quoted something from the Koran, and the person seems plausible, not many of us bother to counter check what is said, and we might pass that myth along, if it is a myth. Pretty soon, it makes it into the mainstream.

If you type in 'What Jews say about Jesus', one of the top seach results that comes back is this

WHO ARE THE JEWS<BR>WESLEY SWIFT

Now, I am not an expert on theology, but I am betting several pounds that several of the quotes in there are either inaccurate or do not even exist, as claimed.

So you can see the potential that such books have to be used for all manner of purposes, which is why if someone quotes me something sensational from the Koran that sounds violent or wrong, I ensure that I try to establish how valid it is.

amazing eh?

 

[enlightenment]

It is quite simple....and validates another theory of mine. It is all so simple. For Buddhists, the dharma is enough, for Hindus, the vedas, for Jews, Moses, for Christians Jesus.

For atheists, nothing is enough....currently, but in time, or in some lifetime, something will be.

Fatally flawed arguement.

The schizophrenic who believes that they are Napolean, he needs no more evidence than his own assertion.

Doesn't mean to say that he IS Napolean, does it?

 

[wil]

Fatally flawed arguement.

The schizophrenic who believes that they are Napolean, he needs no more evidence than his own assertion.

Doesn't mean to say that he IS Napolean, does it?

Yes, fatally flawed analogy.

 

[enlightenment]

Okay, Wil, have the last word - bed calls...

 

[Saltmeister]

If you type in 'What Jews say about Jesus', one of the top seach results that comes back is this

WHO ARE THE JEWS<BR>WESLEY SWIFT

The address to the page your referenced is "http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/swift/swwhoarejews.html"

If you go to "http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com," the home page seems to indicate that it's a white separatist site.

 

[enlightenment]

The address to the page your referenced is "http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/swift/swwhoarejews.html"

If you go to "http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com," the home page seems to indicate that it's a white separatist site.

Yes, but that is not important.

What IS important is that it serves well my point of manufacturing (possibly?), quotes that are just not there.

There are claims that the Talmud calls the mother of Jesus a 'whore', and says all sort of brtual things about Jesus - I cannot find such things.

Bet it is the same when people quote the Koran.

The problem is - few bother to see whether the quotes exist or not.

 

[peaceandkarma]

I think the earlist records of a Christian movement thats servived to the present day are the Gnostic Gosspels. When the various churches and sects tried to claim the Christian movement for themselves they always saw this teaching the way they wanted to see them and make his teachings fit there ideas. Its like Easter is named after the Anglo Saxon Goddness eoster. By taking over a pagan festival you can convert people to a new religion. Jesus is also a Prophet to Muslims who take a different account of this life than Christians. If you want to get close to the historical Jesus you'll have to read accounts from the earlist serviving records of this teachings. I've seen a few historical programs about the key figures who compiled the New Testament who submitted accounts they liked and omitted what they disliked take Mary Magdalene for instants.