Jesus Was An Arab

arq

vomikus39 wrote:

Good question. I believe that there is a higher power that has no influence on what takes place in our lives, or what happens in our world. I do not believe that God or a God created the universe, the world, us and everything around us. I tend to believe that religion is a myth that has caused so many so much pain. However, for those who live a morally good life because of their faith and beliefs, well then to me thats what god or God or whoever is for. If there is a god or not, if their are people who lives good lives because of their belief in one, then I am all for it. My God or god, doesnt matter, wants us to live a moral life, treat each other with respect and love, not the way things are today. Sorry if my answer is vague, it is a tough question. Let's say that when I say god, it is not in reference to any religion, like I have said before, I am a deist.

You remind me of Martin Gardner, a great man. Very well put!

Cosmo

Byrnzie wrote:

Writings written some 50 years after the event by a group of people with a vested interest in promoting their own peculiar religious beliefs.

...
You have to remember... Jesus, at the time of His death... was a marginal figure with a marginal following in a minor territory of the Roman Empire. His legend grew by stories told and re-told by His followers.
And remember the group Jesus hung with... lepers and whores. Not the rich who were able to pay the temple priests of the time. Probably not the most learned of the tribe back then. The earliest sect of Christianity was a sect of Judaism.
As Christianity grew... the name of Jesus became more prominent.
...
Does this prove Jesus existed? No. Just as the lack of documentation does not mean He didn't exist.
...
'Someone' is at the source of Christianity. Those early Jews/followers of Christ got their inspiration from someone.

vomikus39

arq wrote:

Believers confuse faith with fact, it's very mature of you to put it on those words

Thank you for the kind words. That right there is my problem with all faiths. Most believers forget that it is a faith, which to me is a belief in something that you don't know to be true. Like a father having faith that his son will have a great little league game or something, he doesn't know the outcome until it is over. No one knows for sure if there is a god or if Jesus existed, I agree that there isn't much evidence of his physical existence. I guess I am agnostic in a lot of ways. I like to believe that there is something better after this life here, that's my belief, not a fact. The catholic church amongst so many other faiths force it upon you, and as we all very well know, will kill you if you don't believe. Plus I like to say I am logical and sensical, that right there would make religion all wrong.

vomikus39

You remind me of Martin Gardner, a great man. Very well put!

Thx u again, very kind of you. Embarrassed to say it but I do not know who he is. I will Wiki him now.

arq

vomikus39 wrote:

You remind me of Martin Gardner, a great man. Very well put!

Thx u again, very kind of you. Embarrassed to say it but I do not know who he is. I will Wiki him now.

Well he was a mathematician and an skeptic but he was a deist, a VERY honorable deist.

Cosmo

vomikus39 wrote:

Thank you for the kind words. That right there is my problem with all faiths. Most believers forget that it is a faith, which to me is a belief in something that you don't know to be true. Like a father having faith that his son will have a great little league game or something, he doesn't know the outcome until it is over. No one knows for sure if there is a god or if Jesus existed, I agree that there isn't much evidence of his physical existence. I guess I am agnostic in a lot of ways. I like to believe that there is something better after this life here, that's my belief, not a fact. The catholic church amongst so many other faiths force it upon you, and as we all very well know, will kill you if you don't believe. Plus I like to say I am logical and sensical, that right there would make religion all wrong.

...
I agree with what you say. I hear from religious folks that they know the 'Truth'. When the truth is... they don't know. They may BELEIVE and/or have FAITH in something such as God, Jesus or Heaven... but, they don't know it as the Truth. People can truely believe in something... doesn't mean it's true.
I also believe in a God or something that is much greater than our miniscule existance on this tiny blur pebble, rocketing through space... difference being, I KNOW I don't know. And I will probably never know in this plane of existance.
The only truth I know for sure... I am going to die. So, until that day comes... I'm going to enjoy this life.

vomikus39

...
I agree with what you say. I hear from religious folks that they know the 'Truth'. When the truth is... they don't know. They may BELEIVE and/or have FAITH in something such as God, Jesus or Heaven... but, they don't know it as the Truth. People can truely believe in something... doesn't mean it's true.
I also believe in a God or something that is much greater than our miniscule existance on this tiny blur pebble, rocketing through space... difference being, I KNOW I don't know. And I will probably never know in this plane of existance.
The only truth I know for sure... I am going to die. So, until that day comes... I'm going to enjoy this life.[/quote]


Well said!! "I know I was born and I know I will die..." Truth is we are all agnostics, but religion is not going anywhere.

vomikus39

I should also point out that I don't need to know if Jesus existed or not in order to believe in a higher force. Not Muhammed or Allah, Jesus, Moses, or anyone. I do believe Jesus existed, but that has nothing to do with my faith and spiritual belief. I just relate to him more cause I was raised catholic, thats all.

Byrnzie

vomikus39 wrote:

What do you mean by 'God'?

Good question. I believe that there is a higher power that has no influence on what takes place in our lives, or what happens in our world. I do not believe that God or a God created the universe, the world, us and everything around us. I tend to believe that religion is a myth that has caused so many so much pain. However, for those who live a morally good life because of their faith and beliefs, well then to me thats what god or God or whoever is for. If there is a god or not, if their are people who live good lives because of their belief in one, then I am all for it. My God or god, doesnt matter, wants us to live a moral life, treat each other with respect and love, not the way things are today. Sorry if my answer is vague, it is a tough question. Let's say that when I say god, it is not in reference to any religion, like I have said before, I am a deist.[/quote]

I can respect that position.

Although Deists believe that 'God' created the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
'Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things.'

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

'Someone' is at the source of Christianity. Those early Jews/followers of Christ got their inspiration from someone.

As I pointed out above. I believe the character of Jesus is based on someone having lived approx 1500 years earlier within the 18th Dynasty of Egypt.

Byrnzie

I can relate to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

The Gospel According to Thomas, commonly shortened to the Gospel of Thomas, is a well preserved early Christian, non-canonical sayings-gospel discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945, in one of a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library..

'In the Thomas gospel, Jesus is presented as a spiritual guide whose words (when properly understood) bring eternal life (Saying 1). Readers of these sayings are advised to continue seeking until they find what will enable them to become rulers of their own lives (Saying 2) and thus to know themselves (Saying 3) and their legacy of being the children of "the living Father" (Saying 3). These goals are presented in the image of "entering the Kingdom" by the methodology of insight that goes beyond duality. (Saying 22). The Gospel of Thomas shows little or no concern for orthodox religious concepts and doctrines.

The Gospel of Thomas emphasizes direct and unmediated experience. In Thomas saying 108, Jesus says, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become as I am; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." Furthermore, salvation is personal and found through spiritual (psychological) introspection. In Thomas saying 70, Jesus says, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you." As such, this form of salvation is idiosyncratic and without literal explanation unless read from a psychological perspective related to Self vs. ego. In Thomas saying 3, Jesus says,

...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.

In the other four gospels, Jesus is frequently called upon to explain the meanings of parables or the correct procedure for prayer. In Thomas saying 6, his disciples ask him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give alms? What diet should we observe?" For reasons unknown, Jesus' answer is found in saying 14, wherein he advises against fasting, praying, and the giving of alms (all contrary to Christian practice of the time), but takes a Pauline[dubious – discuss] position that what goes into the mouth will not defile a person, but what comes out of the mouth will. This is just one example in Thomas in which the hearer's attention is directed away from objectified judgements of the world to knowing oneself in direct and straighforward manner, which is sometimes called being "as a child" or "a little one" through the unification of dualistic thinking and modes of objectification. (For example, Sayings 22 and 37) To portray the breaking down of the dualistic perspective Jesus uses the image of fire which consumes all. (See Sayings 10 and 82).

The teaching of salvation (i.e., entering the Kingdom of Heaven) that is found in The Gospel of Thomas is neither that of "works" nor of "grace" as the dichotomy is found in the canonical gospels, but what might be called a third way, that of insight. The overriding concern of The Gospel of Thomas is to find the light within in order to be a light unto the world. (See for example, Sayings 24, 26)

In contrast to the Gospel of John, where Jesus is likened to a (divine and beloved) Lord as in ruler, the Thomas gospel portrays Jesus as more the ubiquitous vehicle of spiritual inspiration and enlightenment, as in saying 77:

I am the light that shines over all things. I am everything. From me all came forth, and to me all return. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift a stone, and you will find me there.


From The Gospel of Thomas:


Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."


Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I
have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is
dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth

Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them
all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and
unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am
there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."


The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be."

Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that
you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the
end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning;
he will know the end and will not experience death."


Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become
like Me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden
will become revealed to him."

Jesus said, "I took my place in the midst of the world, and
I appeared to them in the flesh. I found all of them intoxicated;
I found none of them thirsty. And My soul became afflicted for
the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do
not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too
they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are
intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will
repent."


Jesus said, "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you
will find the Kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will
return."


Jesus [said], "He who seeks will find, and [he who knocks]
will be let in."

yosi

From the wiki article on the "historicity of Jesus":

"The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."

...

The article notes towards the end that there is a minority opinion among scholars that holds that there was no actual historical Jesus, and that Jesus is nothing more than a mythical figure. It goes on, however to state that:

"The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[103] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[104] For this reason, many eminent scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[105] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[106] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[107]"

While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

'The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."


While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.

The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.

There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.

vomikus39

I can respect that position.

Although Deists believe that 'God' created the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
'Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things.'[/quote]

Much like my poitical views, I may not hold every aspect of deism as absolute. I believe in the big bang and everything that happened after it, I cannot bring myself to believe that a "being" was floating in space and creating our universe with the snap of his fingers. Where I do connect with deism is in the idea that we do not need biblical text, churches, priest, etc.. to have a relationship with God. I believe that God does not intervene with our world, I do not believe in miracles and revelations. I believe in coincidence and circumstance. I believe this because I cannot say with a reasonable mind that God does not care about Haiti and their suffering, but he cares about the Mets winning a game. I guess maybe the more I write the more I sound atheist. Let's go with agnostic, cause I really just don't know. Like everyone else.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

'The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."


While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.

The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.

There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.

As I said, there are scholars who agree with you, but they are a distinct minority. As for evidence, you can't simply take the work of the majority of the scholarly community, see that they don't agree with you, and simply state that the evidence they cite "doesn't count." That's just a bullshit way to argue. These guys aren't a bunch of facile idiots who read the Bible and take it as truth. They are approaching these texts using the most current methods of critical textual analysis, about which you clearly don't seem to know the first thing. The New Testament and the statements of Church fathers are most certainly historical sources, just as any ancient text or recorded statement is an historical source. Clearly these sources have to be approached critically, but to simply say "Wait. Stop. It's the Bible. That doesn't count," isn't an argument. It's an evasion.

yosi

By the way, the title you gave this thread is "Jesus was an Arab," which implies that there WAS an historical Jesus. So either you're just so all over the map that you're incapable of intellectual consistency, or you're just trying to say something provocative to start a fight, in which case you're being kind of a dick.

catefrances

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

'The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds."


While it is possible that the scholarly mainstream is completely wrong on this subject I'm inclined to think that scholars who have devoted their lives to studying this subject probably know more about it than anyone on this board. If the consensus opinion of the relevant scholarly community is that there was, in fact, an historical Jesus, that's enough for me.

The New Testament isn't an historical source. Neither are statements from the early Church Fathers. And brief references produced decades and centuries after the supposed event also do not count.

There may well be scholars who have spent their lives studying the subject and who believe in the existence of the Biblical Jesus, but they have still failed to produce any evidence to support their claims. There are also planty of scholars who have spent their lives studying this subject who reject the historicity of of the Biblical Jesus.

As I said, there are scholars who agree with you, but they are a distinct minority. As for evidence, you can't simply take the work of the majority of the scholarly community, see that they don't agree with you, and simply state that the evidence they cite "doesn't count." That's just a bullshit way to argue. These guys aren't a bunch of facile idiots who read the Bible and take it as truth. They are approaching these texts using the most current methods of critical textual analysis, about which you clearly don't seem to know the first thing. The New Testament and the statements of Church fathers are most certainly historical sources, just as any ancient text or recorded statement is an historical source. Clearly these sources have to be approached critically, but to simply say "Wait. Stop. It's the Bible. That doesn't count," isn't an argument. It's an evasion.

so does that mean i can use homers the iliad as proof that the greek gods existed?? or that achilles was indeed only half mortal???

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

By the way, the title you gave this thread is "Jesus was an Arab," which implies that there WAS an historical Jesus. So either you're just so all over the map that you're incapable of intellectual consistency, or you're just trying to say something provocative to start a fight, in which case you're being kind of a dick.

Or you could simply read beyond the thread title, even if only as far as my initial post - if that isn't asking too much? - to see my clarifications.

Still, on the bright side, as least you managed to throw yet another personal insult my way. You seem to have a habit of that when things don't go your way.

chadwick

I heard that Jesus is an Inuit/Eskimo who rides a harley.
He moved to Florida many years ago.
Jesus says Alaska is to fucking cold.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

are egyptians even considered arab? i guess they are, but for some reason i thought they had their own thing.