Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
I agree. But don't we also have to check to see if the myth also contains spiritual value?
The difference between the two examinations is that we come from two different directions.I dont accept that jesus necessarily claimed to be the son of god.His motives are not of creating a new religion but of educating by openenly preaching a new way.His attitudes and morals are a reflection of other teachings of the time.He in my opinion came to be taught by the those wise men he encountered by his travels.
We are blinded by the obvious myths that where woven around his story and extracting the man from them is almost impossible.I cant believe in the virgin birth, why should god be so removed from man.I cant believe in the miracles, why not give a cure for malaria and save millions instead of one showy act of mercy.These are the stories introduced by pagans to convert their god into a movement that was overtaking their faith.The saviour of man was a revolution of the common man for a better way, just like the demand for democracy and social reform was in more recent times.We always see a revolution for change by well meaning men used by manipulative men to maintain their power or abuse the real cause.I see a socialist in Christ and i see the common mans desires destroyed by greed and the desire for power.Do you honestly believe Christ would admire the Vatican and the trappings of wealth and power.
I regret that it might appear to you that I have overlooked some of the content of your previous posts, it was not so, your posts are long and detailed and need some reflection before responding in the correct manner . . .
I dont accept that jesus necessarily claimed to be the son of god.
His motives are not of creating a new religion but of educating by openenly preaching a new way.
His attitudes and morals are a reflection of other teachings of the time.He in my opinion came to be taught by the those wise men he encountered by his travels.
We are blinded by the obvious myths that where woven around his story and extracting the man from them is almost impossible.
I cant believe in the virgin birth, why should god be so removed from man.I cant believe in the miracles, why not give a cure for malaria and save millions instead of one showy act of mercy.
These are the stories introduced by pagans to convert their god into a movement that was overtaking their faith.
The saviour of man was a revolution of the common man for a better way, just like the demand for democracy and social reform was in more recent times.We always see a revolution for change by well meaning men used by manipulative men to maintain their power or abuse the real cause.
I see a socialist in Christ and i see the common mans desires destroyed by greed and the desire for power.Do you honestly believe Christ would admire the Vatican and the trappings of wealth and power.
The difference between the two examinations is that we come from two different directions.
I cant in honesty dispute your post Thomas.
I'm not denying his ministry,but his gospels are told and retold as if every word or story is a factual account of his life.
The myths are a tool to maintain the faithful as if the truth would destroy the mans message.
I can believe in a man of destiny but not in a god walking in human shoes.
If god needed to send us a message it would be a lot clearer than the confused and partially informed message sent with Jesus.I adore the man and he should be worshipped but as a man of immense influence for the advancement of humanity not because he sits next to god.Thanks xris
I assume that Paul was part of the conspiracy to build the Myth.He definitely had an a revelation.The creed or the existing hierarchy transferred its allegiance to a popular movement and brought with it the trappings of its own god.
I would be interested to know what faith Paul was following before his conversion.
What conspiracy?
He was a Jew.
Here, we do have one problem, namely, that we really just do not have enough external (non-biblical literature, or even non-canonical literature/documentation) material to determine anything about the person. If we were to give fair credit to the writings of Luke (which are well enough attested to as having been written by that particular person, by the sub-apostolic fathers) we would have to at least acquiesce that Paul had been a natural born Jew, had been of the Pharasitic sect, and had learned under one of the greater Jewish religious scholars of the time. Most of his work had actually (as far as can be determined) been in the area of Greek and Ephesis. (sp?...sorry, rushed and my spelling can be bad at times...sorry)
Do you happen to have some source material on your line of thought there, xris? I'd be interested in checking it out some. Thanks ! KJ
He was more than a Jew
and im not the first to believe he corrupted the christian message.He is supposed to have disagreed with Peter over the character of christianity and the last supper, his invention is another pagan feast.If you read between the lines his message is more pronounced than Jesus, he makes more of his position than Christ's.He corrupts the message and takes it to Rome away from its roots and its humble beginings.
His writings spring from earlier non christian texts and his claim to authority is likened to the modern Popes direct contact with god.That for me is a leap of faith too far.Yes i do believe Paul corrupted the message of Christ,he turned it from a simple message of love and hope into a world power, corruptible and vindictive.
Sorry i have no direct source but Paul was also believed to be Gnostic as well as Hellenistic.
The Gnostic's i do believe existed before christ
I assume that Paul was part of the conspiracy to build the Myth.He definitely had an a revelation.The creed or the existing hierarchy transferred its allegiance to a popular movement and brought with it the trappings of its own god. I would be interested to know what faith Paul was following before his conversion.