You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
History channel killing Christianity
- Thread starter psychosanta
- Start date
Quote from ratboy88:
RAMTHA ALERT RAMTHA ALERT RAMTHA ALERT !!!
Yeah, but in this instance, id like to side with the crazy christians.
As you know, i regard the bible as basically rubbish, due to the astonishing absence of jesus teachings or direct words, its clear the concept was co-opted out of mysticism, ignorance, and quite possibly, desperation at the state of mankind at the time.
The bible itself, is everything jesus supposedly spoke against, so perhaps there are no surprises there, but quite frankly, salman rushdie is closer to jesus than most of the god-botherers out there.
And on that basis, ramtha/fake jesus is likely as not closer to the christian spirit than many.
After all, history channel has no business delving outside archeological evidence-not when the bible itself, displays so little in concert with jesus words.
Though to be fair, it is history channel, not "archeology channel".
he was not even white........................................................
he was darkskin.
now ya crackers can take your digitalis.
he was darkskin.
now ya crackers can take your digitalis.
Quote from jem:
I particularly love the way they try and pit James against Paul.
By the way if someone really learns their teachings - Paul and James and the Gospels are all easily reconcilable.
Paul was a 'paulitician' who ingratiated himself into the auspices of certain of the apostles for street cred. And why not? James was seen by many as my heir apparent. He was, after all, a blood brother. Paul, the artist formerly known as Saul, was keen to win over the suspicions of James and the Jerusalem sect by endorsing the thinking in Leviticus chapter 20. And this slant can be seen in Romans chapter 1. He continues his tirade in chapter 2.
Among the apostles, James was most conservative. And because he was conservative, three of his former associates took it upon themselves to record "Words of the Master", an accurate record of many of my sayings based on first hand accounts. And this was because they did not entirely trust James to carry on my message, unadulterated by other concepts. And one of these three was Stephen, whom Saul condemned to death, before he changed his name to the Apostle Paul.
So are Paul and James easily reconcilable? Yes, for a good politician.
Can either of these be reconciled with Stephen and "The Words of the Master?" History suggests they were not on the same page. Many years after the influence of Paul upon the regional mind, three new gospels were composed to reflect Pauline thinking. They are called "synoptic" because they are suspiciously alike. It turns out they all copied from Stephen's "Words of the Master", editing to taste. After it was cannibalized, it was trashed. It was made to disappear from the pages of history, along with the "sayings" gospel of Thomas.
[Edit] It's important to understand that there was not full agreement among the apostles and the earliest associates. Sects began almost immediately. There was a strong trend to make a bridge between my teachings and the old scriptures. There were intense debates over circumcision, for example. The mere fact that they were debating this means they were still very confused about what I had actually taught.
Jesus
The History Channel is entertainment, little more.
It airs "documentaries" on Bigfoot, UFOs, and other pseudo-science. More fiction than non-fiction, the network exists to make money by entertaining cable subscribers. It is not out to tell the truth or to teach.
It airs "documentaries" on Bigfoot, UFOs, and other pseudo-science. More fiction than non-fiction, the network exists to make money by entertaining cable subscribers. It is not out to tell the truth or to teach.