SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26042)11/19/1998 12:12:00 PM
From: Sam Ferguson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
In comparing the Jesus of Paul with the Jesus whose portrait
is drawn for us in the gospels, we find that they are not the same
persons at all. This is decisive. Paul knows nothing about a
miraculously born savior. He does not mention a single time, in all
his thirteen epistles, that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that his
birth was accompanied with heavenly signs and wonders. He knew
nothing of a Jesus born after the manner of the gospel writers. It
is not imaginable that he knew the facts, but suppressed them, or
that he considered them unimportant, or that he forgot to refer to
them in any of his public utterances. Today, a preacher is expelled
from his denomination if he suppresses or ignores the miraculous
conception of the Son of God; but Paul was guilty of that very
heresy. How explain it? It is quite simple: The virgin-born Jesus
was not yet invented when Paul was preaching Christianity. Neither
he, nor the churches he had organized, had ever heard of such a
person. The virgin-born Jesus was of later origin than the Apostle
Paul.
Let the meaning of this discrepancy between the Jesus of Paul,
that is to say, the earliest portrait of Jesus, and the Jesus of
the four evangelists, be fully grasped by the student, and it
should prove beyond a doubt that in Paul's time the story of Jesus'
birth from the virgin-mother and the Holy Ghost, which has since
become a cardinal dogma of the Christian church, was not yet in
circulation. Jesus had not yet been Hellenized; he was still a
Jewish Messiah whose coming was foretold in the Old Testament, and
who was to be a prophet like unto Moses, without the remotest
suggestion of a supernatural origin.
No proposition in Euclid is safer from contradiction than
that, if Paul knew what the gospels tell about Jesus, he would
have, at least once or twice during his long ministry, given
evidence of his knowledge of it. The conclusion is inevitable that
the gospel Jesus is later than Paul and his churches. Paul stood
nearest to the time of Jesus of those whose writings are supposed
to have come down to us, he is the most representative, and his
epistles are the first literature of the new religion. And yet
there is absolutely not a single hint or suggestion in them of such
a Jesus as is depicted in the gospels. The gospel Jesus was not yet
put together or compiled, when Paul was preaching.
Once more; if we peruse carefully critically the writings of
Paul, the earliest and greatest Christian apostle and missionary,
we find that he is not only ignorant of the gospel stories about
the birth and miracles of Jesus, but he is equally and just as
innocently ignorant of the teachings of Jesus. In the gospels Jesus
is the author of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the
Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Story of Dives, the Good
Samaritan, etc. Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go
throughout the world to convert people to the teachings of Jesus,
as Paul did, without ever quoting a single one of his sayings? Had
Paul known that Jesus had preached a sermon, or formulated a
prayer, or said many inspired things about the here and the
hereafter, he could not have helped quoting, now and then, from the
words of his master. If Christianity could have been established
without a knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, why then, did Jesus
come to teach, and why were his teachings preserved by divine
inspiration? But if a knowledge of these teachings of Jesus is
indispensable to making converts, Paul gives not the least evidence
that he possessed such knowledge.
But the Apostle Paul, judging from his many epistles to the
earliest converts to Christianity which are really his testimony,
supposed to have been sealed by his blood, appears to be quite as
ignorant of a Jesus who went about working miracles, -- opening the
eyes of the blind, giving health to the sick, hearing to the deaf,
and life to the dead, -- as he is of a Jesus born of a virgin woman
and the Holy Ghost. Is not this remarkable? Does it not lend strong
confirmation to the idea that the miracle-working Jesus of the
gospels was not known in Paul's time, that is to say, the earliest
Jesus known to the churches was a person altogether different from
his namesake in the four evangelists. If Paul knew of a miracle-
working Jesus, one who could feed the multitude with a few loaves
and fishes -- who could command the grave to open, who could cast
out devils, and cleanse the land of the foulest disease of leprosy,
who could, and did, perform many other wonderful works to convince
the unbelieving generation of his divinity, -- is it conceivable
that either intentionally or inadvertently he would have never once
referred to them in all his preaching? Is it not almost certain
that, if the earliest Christians knew of the miracles of Jesus,
they would have been greatly surprised at the failure of Paul to
refer to them a single time? And would not Paul have told them of
the promise of Jesus to give power to work even greater miracles
than his own, had he known of such a promise. Could Paul really
have left out of his ministry so essential a chapter from the life
of Jesus, had he been acquainted with it? The miraculous fills up
the greater portion of the four gospels, and if these documents
were dictated by the Holy Ghost, it means that they were too
important to be left out. Why, then, does not Paul speak of them at
all? There is only one reasonable answer: A miracle-working Jesus
was unknown to Paul.

What would we say of a disciple of Tolstoy, for example, who
came to America to make converts to Count Tolstoy and never once
quoted anything that Tolstoy had said? Or what would we think of
the Christian missionaries who go to India, China, Japan and Africa
to preach the gospel, if they never mentioned to the people of
these countries the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the
Prodigal Son, the Lord's Prayer -- nor quoted a single text from
the gospels? Yet Paul, the first missionary, did the very thing
which would be inexplicable in a modern missionary. There is only
one rational explanation for this: The Jesus of Paul was not born
of a virgin; he did not work miracles; and he was not a teacher. It
was after his day that such a Jesus was -- I have to use again a
strong word -- invented.
It has been hinted by certain professional defenders of
Christianity that Paul's specific mission was to introduce
Christianity among the Gentiles, and not to call attention to the
miraculous element in the life of his Master. But this is a very
lame defense. What is Christianity, but the life and teachings of
Jesus? And how can it be introduced among the Gentiles without a
knowledge of the doctrines and works of its founder? Paul gives no
evidence of possessing any knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, how
could he, then, be a missionary of Christianity to the heathen?
There is no other answer which can be given than that the
Christianity of Paul was something radically different from the
Christianity of the later gospel writers, who in all probability
were Greeks and not Jews. Moreover, it is known that Paul was
reprimanded by his fellow-apostles for carrying Christianity to the
Gentiles. What better defense could Paul have given for his conduct
than to have quoted the commandment of Jesus -- "Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature." And he would have
quoted the "divine" text had he been familiar with it. Nay, the
other apostles would not have taken him to task for obeying the
commandment of Jesus had they been familiar with such a
commandment. It all goes to support the proposition that the gospel
Jesus was of a date later than the apostolic times.
That the authorities of the church realize how damaging to the
reality of the gospel Jesus is the inexplicable silence of Paul
concerning him, may be seen in their vain effort to find in a
passage put in Paul's mouth by the unknown author of the book of
Acts, evidence that Paul does quote the sayings of Jesus. The
passage referred to is the following: "It is more blessed to give
than to receive." Paul is made to state that this was a saying of
Jesus. In the first place, this quotation is not in the epistles of
Paul, but in the Acts, of which Paul was not the author; in the
second place, there is no such quotation in the gospels. The
position, then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the
gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles is
unassailable, and certainly fatal to the historicity of the gospel
Jesus.
Again, from Paul himself we learn that he was a zealous
Hebrew, a Pharisee of Pharisees, studying with Gamaliel in
Jerusalem, presumably to become a rabbi. Is it possible that such
a man could remain totally ignorant of a miracle worker an teacher
like Jesus, living in the same city with him? If Jesus really
raised Lazarus from the grave, and entered Jerusalem a the head of
a procession, waving branches and shouting, "hosanna" -- if he was
really crucified in Jerusalem, and ascended from one of its
environs -- is it possible that Paul neither saw Jesus nor heard
anything about these miracles? But if he knew all these things
about Jesus, is it possible that he could go through the world
preaching Christ and never once speak of them? It is more likely
that when Paul was studying in Jerusalem there was no miraculous
Jesus living or teaching in any part of Judea.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26042)11/20/1998 2:21:00 AM
From: Krowbar  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
<< The evil you attribute to the followers of God are actually evils carried out by evil men claiming to be acting for God to justify their actions. >>

No, they were probably inspired by passages such as these, of which there are many in the Bible.

Deuteronomy 10-18

" 10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God."

Isn't it neat how he lumps women, children and cattle together as the spoils of war? Did you notice that there are no Amorites, Canaanites, or Jebusites working at your 7-11?

<< The catholic church persecuted Martin Luther and Calvin when they challenged the power and authority of the catholic church by revealing the truth of the gospel once again. >>

And it was Martin Luther, who despised Jews and called for their eradication, that inspired Hitler to carry out his dream. It is really hard to decide which religion deserves the most admiration.

<< What about Janet Reno and this statement by her? Is this to be tolerated in our free society? >>

Why am I to answer what Janet Reno says? She was appointed by avowed Christian Bill Clinton. Oh, that's right. You probably disqualified him as a Christian.

<< But now we have the same problem again as our government has adopted secular humanism as a state religion and is trying to force that religion on all men. >>

More Rush nonsense. Our government is supposed to be neutral on religion, and the religious wrong are trying to redefine that as Secular Humanism. In reality our congresses are always started with a Christian prayer, aren't they. That is favoring one religion over another, which is something that our wise founding fathers were trying to avoid.

Del







To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (26042)11/20/1998 7:36:00 AM
From: Sam Ferguson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Bob since you never bother with any historical research I'd like to expose some to you.

The roots of Gnosticism reach far into antiquity and, during much of its history , has faced such persecution as to destroy most records about it. Gnosticism transcends the boundaries of secular religion. Elements of it can be found among Quakers and Old Catholics, the Hebrew Kabbalah, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, Baha'i', in Greek philosophy, and even polynesian Huna. Kabbalistic Gnosticism (or a predecessor thereof) was probably brought to Palastine from Ur of the Chaldees by Abraham. Gnosticism even transcends the
long-standing war between science and religion. In fact, it was Gnostic philosophers like Pythagoras, who were primarily responsible for developing the scientific method. On the other extreme, we can see Hebrew messianic movements (a constant process in Judaism) growing consistently out of Kabbalistic Gnosticism. There is no
clear evidence indicating Christianity to be an exception to this rule. In fact, the earliest recorded scism in Christianity was between the Gnostics and Pistics. Several of the Gospels are clearly Gnostic in orientation, including the Gospels of John, Thomas, Philip, and Mary. Then, it was the Pistics who were the heretics, and
they were often hated at that, because it was (and still is) Pistics who would burn Gnostic writings wherever they could find them.
In AD 38, the Church of Antioch was founded by James, Peter and Thomas in Antioch, Asia Minor.
In AD 64, Pistic Christianity began growing by leaps and bounds when Nero began throwing Christians to
the lions in the arena. Roman courts offered Christians an out: they could denounce their religion and go free.
The Pistics refused and died for it. The Gnostics were horrified. They were faced with a veritable Jonestown
horror in their midst. Their friends and neighbors were commiting suicide by walking willingly into the mouths of
lions.
While Gnostics respected honesty, they respected life more, and they knew that the man who would
brandish a sword at them was not interested in honesty, but only in their obedience. They became hated and
scorned by Pistics for refusing to die with them.
Better advertising could not have been bought. No faith, no commitment, could have been more impressive
to the spectators. The arena made converts by the droves, and it was Pistic Christians that they sought out to
learn more about this powerful religion.
In Ad 325, the Roman Catholic Church was created by a pagan emperor named Constantine. It was only superficially a Christian Church. The First Nicean Council was assembled to work out the details. While it was supposed to have been made up of Christian elders from five major Christian centers (Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch), it also included elders of all the major Pagan religions of Rome. Bishops from the cults of Mithras, Tammuz, Oannes (Dagon), Ceres, Janus, Bacchus, Apollo, Osiris, Jupiter, and Constantine's own religion: Sol Invictus, were invited. It was Constantine's wish that all of the Pagan religions, then at odds with each other, creating unneccesary conflicts, be unified into one "Catholic" church. "Catholic" means universal. The proceedings of that council were conducted by Constantine with an iron hand(1), and one of the positions which he insisted upon, and got, was to make Pistis a doctrine of the new church. Gnosticism could not be tolerated, because it encouraged its members to question authority. Pistis was thus
politically expedient, because it forbade questioning.
The institution of the papacy was built on the doctrine of being the successors of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, and the first bishop. History, however, does not show Peter to have been in Rome, or to have ever been a bishop, anywhere(3). The first bishop of Rome was listed as Linus. "Peter of Rome" took the place of the Pet-Roma, the "Book of Stone" which played a major part in initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries. The statue of Jupiter (Jo-Peter) in Rome came to be worshipped as the image of Peter, with the claim that it always had
been the image of Peter(4). An effective unification of all of Rome's religions had to, not only include the major dieties of those religions, but it also had to place them in a position subordinate to the over-god, who was to pull them all together, and to grant him the higher authority. The names of the disciples, then, corresponded to the names of those dieties. Matthew was Mithras, Thomas - Tammuz, Mark - Mars, John - Oannes, Peter - Jupiter, Paul - Apollo. Even the
Virgin Mary was a variation on older myths. The name "Jesus Christ" was actually a contraction on "Hesus" and "Christos".
The use of crosses, as symbols, was almost non-existent before. This was generally regarded as a violation of the second commandment, and the reminder of Christ's suffering was usually deemed inappropriate. A vote was cast to decide whether women had souls. The women won by one vote. Among early Christians, however, it was the women, as much as the men, who had visions and were accepted for that ability(2). The Church of Antioch left the council in disgust. As a consequence, it was persecuted as far away as Malabar, India.
The new church was virtually Christian in name only. Early Christians, and not Gnostics alone, were committed pacifists and anarchists. They refused to enter the military, or any kind of government work. After the Nicean Council, this changed, such that within 60 years almost every soldier and civil servant was a Catholic.
The traditional Christian virtues of love, tolerance and forgiveness were quickly swept under the proverbial carpet.
Constantine never converted. On his deathbed, when he was too delirious to protest, "Saint" Eusebius entered his chambers, sprinkled holy water on him, and declared him baptised. Constantine, ruthless as he was, had put a stop to the persecution of Christians, but his successors began the persecution of Gnostics in earnest. Popes and Catholic emperors, alike, have shown, by its fruits, that this religion is, in fact, the utter depth of evil. Emperors Valens and Valentinian were such ruthless butchers as to make even Caligula look like a sweetheart. They were barely the beginning.
In AD 366, Damasus became pope by the violent removal of his rivals. He hired gangs of thugs to ambush Bishop Ursinus's party in the Basilica. 137 men were left dead, not counting those killed in the
previous street fighting.
In AD 375, Valens had untold thousands slaughtered on basis of name alone, because a magician obtained a prophecy giving the first letters of the name of Valen's successor: Theta-Epsilon-Omega.
Untold thousands were killed on name alone. Anyone whose name began with those letters, whether named Theodore, Theodosius, Theodatus, Theophilus, or Theodora, were sought out and killed. Untold
thousands more were also killed on mere suspicion of occult practice. The heads of those executed were piled high in the town squares. Dispite his efforts, Valens could not stop the fulfillment of the prophecy.
After his death, an official named Theodosius, from an obscure province of Gaul, took power. Theodosius, a Catholic, ordered the continued slaughter of occult practicianers.
In Ad 1095, in the First Crusade, thousands of Jews in the Rhine valley alone, were dragged from their homes and slaughtered by crusaders before they left for the Holy Land. Along the 2,000 miles of their journey, they butchered and plundered. In Jerusalem, they killed almost everyone they could find, including Christians, Jews and even allies. Their war cry was "God wills it!" Raymond of Aguilers proudly wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."
In AD 1139, Pope Innocent II put a ban on longbows. Longbows were the new superweapons, capable of piercing a knight's armor. This ban, of course, did nothing to keep it out of the hands of Muslims. What
it attempted to do was to keep it out of the hands of peasants, to prevent them from defending themselves from abusive lords and barons, who would steal with impunity and casually rape any peasant girl they
desired. The longbow made it possible for peasants to protect their daughters' honor. This, to a philandering papacy, was intolerable.
In AD 1191, Richard the Lion-hearted captured Acre and ordered 3,000 captives, many women and children, taken outside the city and killed.