Self-Professed ‘Bible Scholar’ Makes Explosive Allegation About Jesus

laska said:

1.)The NT text itself implies that it is not a new religion but that it began with Adam. Jesus stated Abraham saw His day. Pre-existence of the human spirit and aspects of what Joseph Smith received through revelation can be found implied in the Bible and in other ancient historical sources outside the Bible.
2.)To say it is all modern is not true.
3.)The point remains valid whether you see it or not that if the religions devolved from an original religion
4.) and the gospel of Christ was that religion
5.) that that would explain seeing aspects of it in so many religions.
6.) Just as you can go the other way without proof also that Christianity borrowed from older traditions.

Click to expand...

1.) again what does that TEXT impact? its a teaching thats ORIGIN was not at the start of history or earth.
2.) good thing i said not such thing then, i said its ORIGIN is modern and thats a fact. The orgin of LDS.
3.) no it has no validity what so ever to what i said. NONE it is factually meaningless to what i said.
4.) says what facts?
5.) no it would not since there are earlier origins
6.) never said it was factual only stated the fact there are and have been many religions with the same premise and very similar stories but their dates and origins are majorly off.

Tomorrow i can make the religion of agent J and teach it was the first religion that way so many religions look like it. but it will be pretty shady if my origin is 2013 Pittsburgh.

so again please explain why your reference has an impact to what i actually said.
Maybe you think im claiming something im not, theres nothing you said that changes anything.

also just a question?
wouldn't ALL religions have to start at the beginning? i mean its roots/stories how else would it work? so religions claiming they were the first is common place and normal but it doesnt change the fact that many have similar stories but the dates and origins are severely off.

what do you think you are arguing against?

laska said:

The NT text itself implies that it is not a new religion but that it began with Adam. Jesus stated Abraham saw His day. Pre-existence of the human spirit and aspects of what Joseph Smith received through revelation can be found implied in the Bible and in other ancient historical sources outside the Bible. To say it is all modern is not true. The point remains valid whether you see it or not that if the religions devolved from an original religion, and the gospel of Christ was that religion, that that would explain seeing aspects of it in so many religions. Just as you can go the other way without proof also that Christianity borrowed from older traditions.

Click to expand...

Christianity is not an entity that had an existence of it's own outside of human experience.

sangha said:

Christianity is not an entity that had an existence of it's own outside of human experience.

Click to expand...

Yeah. people can have faith in what they want ...


Get it?

It's not you right to even attempt to argue against faith...

****, I have faith you're an assclown in the flesh but maybe when we die you're the man at the gate.

sangha said:

Christianity is not an entity that had an existence of it's own outside of human experience.

Click to expand...

Yes Christianity had much debate - no need for a 500+ page historical dissent against the Catholic church.... Martin Luther is enough to spawn controversy...

AGENT J said:

1.) again what does that TEXT impact? its a teaching thats ORIGIN was not at the start of history or earth.
2.) good thing i said not such thing then, i said its ORIGIN is modern and thats a fact. The orgin of LDS.
3.) no it has no validity what so ever to what i said. NONE it is factually meaningless to what i said.
4.) says what facts?
5.) no it would not since there are earlier origins
6.) never said it was factual only stated the fact there are and have been many religions with the same premise and very similar stories but their dates and origins are majorly off.

Tomorrow i can make the religion of agent J and teach it was the first religion that way so many religions look like it. but it will be pretty shady if my origin is 2013 Pittsburgh.

so again please explain why your reference has an impact to what i actually said.
Maybe you think im claiming something im not, theres nothing you said that changes anything.

also just a question?
wouldn't ALL religions have to start at the beginning? i mean its roots/stories how else would it work? so religions claiming they were the first is common place and normal but it doesnt change the fact that many have similar stories but the dates and origins are severely off.

what do you think you are arguing against?

Click to expand...

I've tried to decipher what you are saying but i don't get it. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying and my point is not related to it. Here is all I am saying, a lot of people state as fact that the NT writers just borrowed from more ancient traditions in concocting the Jesus story as found in the NT gospels which only undermines the entire religion. They don't seem to realize that if Christianity as found in the NT and taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what it claims, then there should be traces of the Jesus story in other ancient sources as the gospel of Christ on this earth would be approximately four thousand years older than the NT, and predates the traditions that the NT writers supposedly borrowed from. Let me give an example that hopefully makes clear the point I am trying to make. Let's say Latin had become a lost language and we only have the several romance languages that descended from it. Then let's say in 1823 the original Latin language was discovered. Is it proper to call it a modern hoax just because there are traces of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese in it?

laska said:

I've tried to decipher what you are saying but i don't get it. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying and my point is not related to it.

1.)Here is all I am saying, a lot of people state as fact that the NT writers just borrowed from more ancient traditions in concocting the Jesus story as found in the NT gospels which only undermines the entire religion. 2.) They don't seem to realize that if Christianity as found in the NT and taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is what it claims, then there should be traces of the Jesus story in other ancient sources as the gospel of Christ on this earth would be approximately four thousand years older than the NT, and predates the traditions that the NT writers supposedly borrowed from.
3.) Let me give an example that hopefully makes clear the point I am trying to make. Let's say Latin had become a lost language and we only have the several romance languages that descended from it. Then let's say in 1823 the original Latin language was discovered. Is it proper to call it a modern hoax just because there are traces of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese in it?

Click to expand...

1.) well im not saying its a fact that NT borrowed anything but it is a fact that very similar religions existed before its origin.
as far as undermining it thats up to each individual

2.) again you are talking about TEACHINGS and not fact and those teaching do not account for the "traces" because the times are way off, that doesnt explain anything.

3.) your example doesnt work because it does deal with times lines, it doesnt fit. I know what you are trying to say but teachings arent facts and do nothing to explain the dramatically varying timelines.

Deuce said:

You could just as easily be describing Aerosmith.

Click to expand...

"Sweet Emotion" was a sweet tune, bro.

Un biased said:

Still doesn't explain why the romans made a sport of feeding Christians to lions .

Click to expand...

They didn't.

The Romans were known to throw people to the lions with disturbing frequency; there's little evidence that they targeted Christians specifically except for a few random decades in the span of a few hundred years.

While I don't buy into the divinity of Jesus Christ for a second, it's pretty well established that there was a guy calling himself Jesus who the type of rabble-rouser that the Romans didn't particularly care for (with all that alms for the poor and stuff), and yeah, they got rid of him. That said, Christianity certainly wouldn't have become the dominant religion of the Empire, completely displacing the Roman gods, within 300 years if the Romans were just getting the Christians chomped all willy-nilly.

Persecution basically ran from the mid-first century until about 260 A.D., give or take a few years on either side. But as long as you didn't speak out against the Roman Empire, they basically left you alone. The biggest reason the Romans were able to build such a huge empire is that they DIDN'T demand you give up your customs. As they expanded, they assimiliated the Germanic tribes, the Africans, the Greeks, the Middle Eastern folk, and for the most part the Romans were just fine if you kept worshiping whatever deity you wanted to as long as you paid your taxes and served your time in the military. Considering that it was still the first millennium, the Romans were a remarkably inclusive society.

The only time Christianity was really out-and-out banned in the RE was for a couple of decades early in the fourth century, and it was adopted as the state religion less than a century later. Sure, you had your random despots and idiotic emperors who would issue decrees, but the Roman empire was so expansive that the regional governors and officials had true control, and they weren't stupid enough to start offing Christians left and right for no reason. The persecution of Christians in the Roman empire, while real, is WAY overblown.

It's at least encouraging to see that Americans are engaged in the discussion of sky fairies. It's the first step being taken to extinguish it completely over not too many years.

Scientific fact has outgrown Christianity and that will lead to some new form of religion that can coexist with science. Humans will not grow out of needing the crutch that religions provide.

And in fact, it's already progressing along quite nicely in other countries where organized church based religion is being thrown out and replaced with a generic religion of believing there is a god that exists but it is nothing like what the bible imagines. Even some Americans are expressing that sort of belief. Probably now the majority as the numbers of traditional believers who go to church has dwindled to few.

Even the churches are involved in making changes in attempts to reconcile ancient beliefs with today's reality!

Michael66 said:

It's at least encouraging to see that Americans are engaged in the discussion of sky fairies. It's the first step being taken to extinguish it completely over not too many years.

Click to expand...

1)It's not really encouraging seeing someone putting on airs while generalizing about numerous individuals.

2) I really see nothing worse about religion than any other ideology. problems arise when that ideology gets imposed on reality, as opposed to simply informing it

Scientific fact has outgrown Christianity and that will lead to some new form of religion that can coexist with science. Humans will not grow out of needing the crutch that religions provide.

And in fact, it's already progressing along quite nicely in other countries where organized church based religion is being thrown out and replaced with a generic religion of believing there is a god that exists but it is nothing like what the bible imagines. Even some Americans are expressing that sort of belief. Probably now the majority as the numbers of traditional believers who go to church has dwindled to few.

Click to expand...

I think it was Carl Sagan in "demon Haunted world" that remarked the soviets seemed to simply replace their irrational beliefs in a supernatural god with that of ancient astronauts and aliens.

We're fundamentally irrational creatures and that isn't simply going to change if we abandon organized religion. At the end of the day, we will still be a rather violent and base species

Dr. Chuckles said:

1)It's not really encouraging seeing someone putting on airs while generalizing about numerous individuals.

2) I really see nothing worse about religion than any other ideology. problems arise when that ideology gets imposed on reality, as opposed to simply informing it



I think it was Carl Sagan in "demon Haunted world" that remarked the soviets seemed to simply replace their irrational beliefs in a supernatural god with that of ancient astronauts and aliens.

We're fundamentally irrational creatures and that isn't simply going to change if we abandon organized religion. At the end of the day, we will still be a rather violent and base species

Click to expand...

Ancient astronauts and aliens has been tried but has failed to work. It's nothing but more of the supernatural. I think something new needs to be tried but I don't know what it could be specifically. It might find it's roots in Buddhism though it would need a chance of an afterlife. Human frailty demands that in some form of course and is really all that keeps any religion alive. Along with that, great care will have to be taken to not fly in the face of science.

Trouble is, no matter what is dreamed up now probably is going to be compromised by science in a hundred years or so.

Michael66 said:

Ancient astronauts and aliens has been tried but has failed to work. It's nothing but more of the supernatural.

Click to expand...

That was my point. The nature of the irrational may change, but people still tend to be irrational and believe irrational things.

Dr. Chuckles said:

That was my point. The nature of the irrational may change, but people still tend to be irrational and believe irrational things.

Click to expand...

I got your point. I'm saying that the change will have to be away from something that can easily be proven irrational, such as Chrisitanity, toward something that can stand the test of science. A god that offers the prospect of an afterlife will have to be the choice unless humans become capable of rising above the frailty of needing one.

It would still need to be organized some way so some sort of movement would have to capitalize on it. An economic endeavour that offers something in return for money. Nothing but a promise of an afterlife will fill the bill.

Michael66 said:

I got your point. I'm saying that the change will have to be away from something that can easily be proven irrational, such as Chrisitanity, toward something that can stand the test of science. A god that offers the prospect of an afterlife will have to be the choice unless humans become capable of rising above the frailty of needing one.

It would still need to be organized some way so some sort of movement would have to capitalize on it. An economic endeavour that offers something in return for money. Nothing but a promise of an afterlife will fill the bill.

Click to expand...

If you look at the more modern religions this has already happened, with everything from Mormonism, the nation of Islam, and Scientology. All represent attempts to reconcile current scientific knowledge (though often hilarious inexact or simply wrong) with religious belief. Even newer fringe cults like Heaven's gate attempt this

Like old Kierkegaard said, there is only room for god in the unknown

Dr. Chuckles said:

If you look at the more modern religions this has already happened, with everything from Mormonism, the nation of Islam, and Scientology. All represent attempts to reconcile current scientific knowledge (though often hilarious inexact or simply wrong) with religious belief. Even newer fringe cults like Heaven's gate attempt this

Like old Kierkegaard said, there is only room for god in the unknown

Click to expand...

To some extent yes, but they can't model themselves off of Christianity and expect to attract the masses which would go into making a new religion. Mormonism is probably the best example of an attempt that was bound for failure when they asked the sheep to believe that it came out of gazing into a hat. And the tablets? That may have worked back in the days of it's founding but is just too incredible to believe in now.

For a more forward looking attempt you could look at the ID'ers and their failed agenda. They took science and tried to make it work for their religious agenda. They ended up being shot down in flames in a court of law.

It's going to take a complete abandoning of Christianity with all it's sky fairy nonsense and it's lies. That probably won't be possible until the sheep have something else to turn to in order to comfort themselves. It's going to have to involve another life after this one and that's pretty well consistent with them all anyway. And it's especially going to have to be non-specific so it can stand the test of time.

Michael66 said:

To some extent yes, but they can't model themselves off of Christianity and expect to attract the masses which would go into making a new religion. Mormonism is probably the best example of an attempt that was bound for failure when they asked the sheep to believe that it came out of gazing into a hat.

Click to expand...

Such methods of divination were rather common at the time. The same with the seeing stones. After all, we are talking about early 1800's america. hardly a bastion of rationalism.

That may have worked back in the days of it's founding but is just too incredible to believe in now.

Click to expand...

I never said it was believable now. I cited it as an example of a religion trying to incorporate modern scientific concepts. The obvious one from Mormonism is the use of planetary objects

vasuderatorrent said:

What the heck was that? Very funny but also very random.

vasuderatorrent

Click to expand...

It's the Atheistic theory in a nutshell, and it puts in perspective their obnoxious and repetitive bashing of Christianity in relation to science, as if the two have to be diametrically opposed, which they are not.

For anyone interested in properly understanding the early Christian movement, please look into the Gnostic gospels, the dead sea scrolls, and the host of "alternative" Christian literature that was deemed "illegitimate" by the Romans at the Council of Nicaea three centuries after the supposed life of Jesus.

If you consider the Bible as it is currently constituted to be the "infallible word of God", consider that it only came to be so because fallible humans with political motivations threw out much of the other (often quite popular) scripture and forced the citizenry to burn these alternative writings on Jesus.

It is entirely possible the "real" Jesus was quite different from the "approved" Jesus we were allowed to read about.