9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.

Does that mean you place no credence in ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?






Are your saying that you place no credence in these ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?

Are you saying that you don't attribute any veracity in the ancient texts or Abrahamic religions that espouse the
these scripts?
How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

Your own topic is semantics. My point is that it doesn't matter what it says in the Bible. It's full of absurd claims. Debating myths as though they were literal is absurd. Now do you understand that?

Are you saying that you place no veracity in ancient religious texts or the Abraham religions espousing them?

Veracity in what regard? Be specific. Does the Bible prove that God exists and that Jesus lived? No. Absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that the creation story is factual? No, absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that Moses lived? No. Does it prove the Exodus story, no.

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
Here's a bigger lie about Jesus. He was not Jewish.

The word Jew or any reference to Jesus being king of jews was nowhere in the bible until translations in the eighteenth century. Many believe that Jewish elite had the translation edited to tie the Jewish people to the Christian messiah. But believe what you will. The truth is that only after eighteenth century translations did Jesus being Jewish manifest.

And if you think about it, the word Jew was originally meant to describe people from Judea (all people from judea). And we all know Jesus was from

I didn't learn this fact from this link but it lays out the idea decently.

AAC

If you can't prove that Jesus actually lived, and you can't, you certainly can't prove whether or not he was Jewish.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.



Can I assume from your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible?

Does that mean you place no credence in ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?






Are your saying that you place no credence in these ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?

Are you saying that you don't attribute any veracity in the ancient texts or Abrahamic religions that espouse the
these scripts?
How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

Your own topic is semantics. My point is that it doesn't matter what it says in the Bible. It's full of absurd claims. Debating myths as though they were literal is absurd. Now do you understand that?

Are you saying that you place no veracity in ancient religious texts or the Abraham religions espousing them?

Veracity in what regard? Be specific. Does the Bible prove that God exists and that Jesus lived? No. Absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that the creation story is factual? No, absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that Moses lived? No. Does it prove the Exodus story, no.

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.



Can I assume from your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible?

Does that mean you place no credence in ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?






Are your saying that you place no credence in these ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?

Are you saying that you don't attribute any veracity in the ancient texts or Abrahamic religions that espouse the
these scripts?
How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

Your own topic is semantics. My point is that it doesn't matter what it says in the Bible. It's full of absurd claims. Debating myths as though they were literal is absurd. Now do you understand that?

Are you saying that you place no veracity in ancient religious texts or the Abraham religions espousing them?

Veracity in what regard? Be specific. Does the Bible prove that God exists and that Jesus lived? No. Absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that the creation story is factual? No, absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that Moses lived? No. Does it prove the Exodus story, no.

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

In what regard? Be specific and I'll reply.

a reply to: Gianfar

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

Well.....
you weren't asking me, but since your question is out here in public, I think I'll answer.

For my part: Correct! I place no credence in what is 'written' (published) in the bible.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

I think its obvious that there is more than one creator, and generations of overseers.



Can I assume from your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible?

Does that mean you place no credence in ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?






Are your saying that you place no credence in these ancient texts or the Abrahamic religions that espouse them?

Are you saying that you don't attribute any veracity in the ancient texts or Abrahamic religions that espouse the
these scripts?
How is it obvious?

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

So what? How is that relevant? It also says that bats are birds.

Again, a semantical response. For whom are the 'municipalities' and 'powers' reserved? If there's one god, why would he divide the universe and assign such authorities if there are no others to administrate? What role would Jesus play? I would kindly appreciate having you address the issue at hand.

Your own topic is semantics. My point is that it doesn't matter what it says in the Bible. It's full of absurd claims. Debating myths as though they were literal is absurd. Now do you understand that?

Are you saying that you place no veracity in ancient religious texts or the Abraham religions espousing them?

Veracity in what regard? Be specific. Does the Bible prove that God exists and that Jesus lived? No. Absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that the creation story is factual? No, absolutely not. Does the Bible prove that Moses lived? No. Does it prove the Exodus story, no.

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

In what regard? Be specific and I'll reply.

You're afraid to answer my question.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gianfar

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

Well.....
you weren't asking me, but since your question is out here in public, I think I'll answer.

For my part: Correct! I place no credence in what is 'written' (published) in the bible.

What I would like to know about, is the significance of publicly stating your disbelief, assuming that the bible has no value and thus no effect on your world view.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gianfar

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

Well.....
you weren't asking me, but since your question is out here in public, I think I'll answer.

For my part: Correct! I place no credence in what is 'written' (published) in the bible.

What I would like to know about, is the significance of publicly stating your disbelief, assuming that the bible has no value and thus no effect on your world view.

Obviously, I'm stating that those who claim that the Bible proves it's claims have their heads wedged up their butts. Of course, you could simply cite testable evidence proving that God exists and cite contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. Can you do that?

a reply to: Gianfar

What I would like to know about, is the significance of publicly stating your disbelief, assuming that the bible has no value and thus no effect on your world view.

Wait. I can read this in a variety of ways......but, I'll try to answer it.

The significance of publicly stating my disbelief is that many hundreds of thousands of people have been brainwashed by religious leaders......and I want to relay to people who have been indoctrinated into such thinking that they don't have to buy into it unless they want to. I want the world to wake up and get with it.


The Bible has value only (in my educated opinion) as an anthropological and sociological relic - which, in this day and age should be relegated to just that: an antiquated curiosity/bit of literature that has no bearing on modern life. It contains nothing that isn't found amongst countless other "religious" texts, and it is patently ridiculous to think it is 'true' or contains any kind of valid 'historical' facts.

Hope I've answered your query - if you have further questions about my stance, please let me know.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gianfar

Can I assume by your statement that you place no credence in what is written in the bible

Well.....
you weren't asking me, but since your question is out here in public, I think I'll answer.

For my part: Correct! I place no credence in what is 'written' (published) in the bible.

What I would like to know about, is the significance of publicly stating your disbelief, assuming that the bible has no value and thus no effect on your world view.

Obviously, I'm stating that those who claim that the Bible proves it's claims have their heads wedged up their butts. Of course, you could simply cite testable evidence proving that God exists and cite contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. Can you do that?

Of course not, nor would I hope to. Records are merely historical artifacts, fragmented, ambiguous fragments of a reality lost in time. One thing that historical records have in common, is that they always possess some facts in truth that can be verified through other sources. That's why people tend to place credence in them. That doesn't mean that anything beyond verification is historically accurate.

I think that most people who place credence in the bible are also feeding upon intellectual revelations of self evident truths, universal truths with which they can identify.

It appears that people who are willing to investigate such ambiguous records do not require material evidence or corroborating secular records to benefit from adopting and implementing an uplifting esoteric philosophy.

Does it really matter if Jesus was a real person if millions of people could find peace of mind in his world view? Its simply a matter of belief. There's really no science to discuss.

I often wonder why skeptics feel they must challenge those who have no similar set of requirements.

a reply to: Gianfar

Does it really matter if Jesus was a real person if millions of people could find peace of mind in his world view?

Again, I'm not sure to whom you are replying. But, in my opinion: NO - it doesn't matter whether he existed or not, if people find peace of mind. If it provides strength that is otherwise lacking in their outlook on life, well - that's wonderful. It's fine.

But that doesn't mean it's true.

Actually, I see it as a kind of cop-out coping mechanism crutch. Which is fine - we all need ways to cope.

Its simply a matter of belief. There's really no science to discuss.

Actually, there is science to discuss.

The stories in the Bible are outlandish. They have been spurring disagreement since they were compiled. If one looks at modern knowledge, one can easily see that it is a collection of fables.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gianfar

What I would like to know about, is the significance of publicly stating your disbelief, assuming that the bible has no value and thus no effect on your world view.

Wait. I can read this in a variety of ways......but, I'll try to answer it.

The significance of publicly stating my disbelief is that many hundreds of thousands of people have been brainwashed by religious leaders......and I want to relay to people who have been indoctrinated into such thinking that they don't have to buy into it unless they want to. I want the world to wake up and get with it.


The Bible has value only (in my educated opinion) as an anthropological and sociological relic - which, in this day and age should be relegated to just that: an antiquated curiosity/bit of literature that has no bearing on modern life. It contains nothing that isn't found amongst countless other "religious" texts, and it is patently ridiculous to think it is 'true' or contains any kind of valid 'historical' facts.

Hope I've answered your query - if you have further questions about my stance, please let me know.

I would agree that the bible is in fact a philosophical precedent for a common code of social behavior and carries no further value. So from what you said here, I respect your personal development on an individual level, rather than intellectual acquiescence to esoteric dogma. I would agree in part, that people are brainwashed.

Where we differ in our view is that I see the brainwashing issue as the result of a conscious indulgence, rather than the art of deceptive and charismatic leaders (unless I misread you). In other words, the average person operates within a pathology of intellectual indolence. If this is a pathology of genetics, the human race will eventually blunder into extinction. If it is by choice, as I propose, there is some hope and still some time to reconfigure the culture.

Interestingly, the bible states that the human race is full of people so preoccupied with compulsion, that they are incompetent, incapable of self governance, eternally dependent upon the perfected being, god.

If the fundamental premise of the bible is that human beings are incapable of self governance, intellectual reasoning, moral decisiveness, this is the preordained failure of humanity, and the premise for manipulation. They say, 'God will make us whole, he will perfect us. nothing is in our power'! This belief system requires people to sacrifice their intellectual evolution for peace of mind. Not a fair trade off when we need every brain on the planet for solutions.

As the world turns, we see serious earthly developments leading toward global conflict, not the result of corruption and immorality, but the consequence of self deprecating apathy and ignorance of the masses - even in the light of impending destiny.

I had this discussion with a relative. Out of frustration he said, "I only care about my children? I said, "I hope your children have a future".

Here's my point, knowing that there are literally billions of people in their respective Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Islam and Christianity, I cringe knowing the futility of their plight. In fact all earthly religions fall within the passive faith based philosophies which instill acceptance of powerlessness over individual self-improvement, progress, evolution.

In my opinion, there's no way to effect a “C change” without reversing the negative psycho-spiritual abyss of religion. This of course would mean either a fundamental reconfiguration of religious foundations to adopt the evolution of the human mind or the outright destruction of religion. It would also mean a revolution in the premise of humanity and its basis for economics. Especially when we see how the potential of mankind is harvested to maintain elitism and collectivism essentially. It is not only religion that people submit to, but an equally subversive system of political-economics.

I have always dreamed of some visionary effort to reshape human culture, but have as yet to define it or have yet had the opportunity to confer with other like minded people. But I would would certainly be open minded to it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gianfar

Does it really matter if Jesus was a real person if millions of people could find peace of mind in his world view?

Again, I'm not sure to whom you are replying. But, in my opinion: NO - it doesn't matter whether he existed or not, if people find peace of mind. If it provides strength that is otherwise lacking in their outlook on life, well - that's wonderful. It's fine.

But that doesn't mean it's true.

Actually, I see it as a kind of cop-out coping mechanism crutch. Which is fine - we all need ways to cope.

Its simply a matter of belief. There's really no science to discuss.

Actually, there is science to discuss.

The stories in the Bible are outlandish. They have been spurring disagreement since they were compiled. If one looks at modern knowledge, one can easily see that it is a collection of fables.

As I've stated before, there's no question of science for believers. Believers and thinkers have opposing premises. I would say from experience that believers are potentially moire of a threat to humanity than are thinkers, although in some cases it rather seems the opposite when we see how the educated class operates in high office and on Wall Street.

I agree regarding the outlandish nature of the stories. They promote a mystical connection with the universe, and for all it's worth, it seems that there are a huge number of intellectually lazy people who prefer to find comfort in magic, then to grow up and evolve, as human beings were meant to.

As for discussion, I have found it frustrating and rarely waste my time trying to reason with people who do not or cannot operate from the faculties of reason and logic.

Just a thought.

originally posted by: Gianfar


The statement, 'love thy neighbor as thyself ', is not merely the command and proverb of Jesus but also confers the duality of relationships preconditioned by personality, the alter-ego. In effect, people do love others as they love themselves. The state of one's Self Esteem is the foundation upon which relationships are defined.

I do agree with what you say, in essence. To love others as you love yourself is not always good advice. For some, very poor advice.

Somewhat cherry picking anyway as it overlooks the other part, which really is very relevant.

1st...though shalt love the magical, invisible Leprechaun in the sky with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength.

If you're buying into this it just means you are somewhat gullible and the second part "love thy neighbour as thyself" a bit empty. They will ultimately, in the end, always run second place to the imaginary friend and his will .

Perhaps this is why the practical translation would be..."love thy neighbour as thyself, unless they are gay, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, pro science, or even Christian - if they have a slightly different interpretation of the nonsense. Basically for those who disagree or won't submit, a little torture is advised. Now go, conquer and subdue..."

There is nothing this mythical character is supposed to have said, that is any more than common sense (even for 1st century illiterates). There are far better delusions/belief systems, some of them far morere refined than this primitive nonsense.

It's a shame jesus wasn't familiar with the Roman poet Horace, or many other such poets and philosophers. "Love thy neighbour as thyself" could work beautifully in his some of his Ode's. Such as the one where he admonishes against giving in to superstition, or worrying about what "the gods" might have arranged. Made famous by the phrase "carpe diem" (which has been somewhat misinterpreted as "seize the day").

Ironically written before jesus was supposedly born, by a follower of "Epicurus", in a culture that (despite the revisionist history of Christians) was largely tolerant of belief systems (until they became Christian). There are so many wonderful ideas and philosophies in the ancient world (both eastern and western), it's a tragedy that we ended up with Christianity and that we have had to suffer such primitive and simplistic nonsense for so long.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well said. Perhaps you could read my other posts. Save me the effort of rehashing.

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well said. Perhaps you could read my other posts. Save me the effort of rehashing.

Yes, I have done. You express your points well, some of them are very good and very understandable (whether people agree or otherwise).

One thing I often wonder. If there is some ultimate force in our universe, why people don't seek their own intimate, private relationship with it? Rather than relying on middle men, long dead prophets, marketers in souls, books with ridiculous claims or the rules and simplistic faux philosophy. If there is something, surely this is possible. In fact one of the things that keeps me from being a true atheist is such a possibility (though not concerning religious gods), yet also makes me doubtful because if so, surely it should happen de facto for all?

Possibly why I see other systems (such as those without a domineering sky fairy figure) as more thoughtful. One of the best sentiments I have heard from one group is "when we are alone, we are rarely in good company". Which expresses the need to improve oneself without worrying too much about the faults of others. With much (seemingly helpful) Buddhist and alternate philosophy and psychology. Strange then to see them turn gays away and look down on other beliefs as evil because, in the end, they have a dogma containing god's rules. A brainwashing cult (which all religions seem to be, in varying amounts).

This is possibly the thing I object to most. The notion of divine will and supposed rules derived from such a thing, especially those claiming to be intermediaries, which is (certainly historically) open to such abuse and corruption. For this reason, if jesus did exist (which I find doubtful), he was just another delusional prophet. A 1st century John Frum, only difference is that Frum was more likely to have been a historical person.

a reply to: Gianfar

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

The ancient texts of the Bible are perfectly useless as historical sources, still less as scientific ones. That is because they do not distinguish between fact and fiction, but jumble the two up indiscriminately.

Your prinicipalities (or 'municipalities', heh heh) and powers are simply sky-god equivalents of the earthly hierarchies under which people lived in those times. Anthropomorphism and anthropocentricsm gave us the Genesis myth and the entire cosmology of Judaeo-Christian tradition, including particularly, Kabbalism, in which the multiple levels of the Byzantine bureacracy are faithfully reflected in the Sephirot.

a reply to: Gianfar

The statement, 'love thy neighbor as thyself ', is not merely the command and proverb of Jesus but also confers the duality of relationships preconditioned by personality, the alter-ego. In effect, people do love others as they love themselves. The state of one's Self Esteem is the foundation upon which relationships are defined.

Intellectual-sounding but ultimately meaningless psychobabble.

You'll have to find another mark for that line of goods, mate.

a reply to: Gianfar

You're afraid to answer my question.

Don't flatter yourself.