Ian Thompson
Member
If you were following Jesus the Christ, then, what would you call yourself?I think I know what you mean.:)
If you were following Jesus the Christ, then, what would you call yourself?I think I know what you mean.:)
. Although I can't say I have heard the arguments by those mentioned by Alex, I will take the time to analyse them.
That's a non-question. My point was that Jesus wasn't following himself. However, that's my view. Others way see things as they see fit. This isn't a case of trying to propose that there is only one right way of looking at things. Exactly the opposite one might say.If you were following Jesus the Christ, then, what would you call yourself?
You argue "Jesus was not a Christian, and for me that's sufficient reason to not want to be part of it."That's a non-question. My point was that Jesus wasn't following himself. However, that's my view. Others way see things as they see fit. This isn't a case of trying to propose that there is only one right way of looking at things. Exactly the opposite one might say.
If you were following Jesus the Christ, then, what would you call yourself?
Thank you Michael, your reply expresses things pretty well, certainly more clearly than I would have put it.This is how I took Typoz's statement that "Jesus was not a Christian";
I don't think the podcast discussed this as a project - just as an abstract what-if sort of question.With all due respect for Alex, this is simply a dumb avenue to travel down. Christianity is not going away. Beyond that "should it be saved?" is like asking " is chocolate the best flavor ice-cream?" Why not ask "is vanilla the best?" Or in this case "Should Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Wicca, Materialism or whatever be saved?"
have you guys listened to the podcast... not a requirement... it just is a different conversation for those who have.
Mark's dialogs with Rupert might also be relevant to the conversation.
If I might expand on this. I don't think this involves studying ancient texts in microscopic detail in order to uncover the answers. To do that would be backward-looking. Instead I propose that we may find current answers, today from various sources, not least of which is direct inner knowledge. One of the most painful and disruptive experiences of my life took place when I tried to use logic, and advice from other well-meaning and trusted people to find a way forward. All along my own intuition including dreams was giving more accurate and useful direction. This said with the benefit of years of hindsight. But I know nowadays that when in doubt, to trust my own intuition.If there's a real Christianity, it consists in modelling one's life and views on those of Yeshua, insofar as one could ever know and understand those.
If I might expand on this. I don't think this involves studying ancient texts in microscopic detail in order to uncover the answers. To do that would be backward-looking. Instead I propose that we may find current answers, today from various sources, not least of which is direct inner knowledge. One of the most painful and disruptive experiences of my life took place when I tried to use logic, and advice from other well-meaning and trusted people to find a way forward. All along my own intuition including dreams was giving more accurate and useful direction. This said with the benefit of years of hindsight. But I know nowadays that when in doubt, to trust my own intuition.
Of course, I was not claiming any unique personal discovery. Only that we need to look to today, not yesterday.Maybe your intuition has led you to this discovery independently of Christianity: but somehow I doubt that. I think it likely that the story, which you're aware of, has had some part to play in shaping your responses to others.
Perhaps. But the rest of your post reinforces my point. If one doesn't resonate with Christianity - don't be a Christian. As I mentioned before, everything said in the interview and now all the comments you made can be applied to any religion or viewpoint. It's a subtle "I don't like that so no one should do it" approach. And given the fact that there are so many different versions of Christianity it becomes an exercise in the ridiculous.I don't think the podcast discussed this as a project - just as an abstract what-if sort of question.
Listening to the podcast, I tended to side with Alex - who is obviously frustrated with Christianity - though Mark's views didn't seem so very different.
[]
I think we hammered away at a lot of these questions in the original thread. to recap... I may not be totally on board with all of the Atwill's theories, but the literary parallels he shows between the gospels and Josephus' War of the Jews are stunning. This alone is a total game changer for Bible believers. If you want to continue the discussion in the original thread I will try to follow along.Can someone help me get up to speed on this subject ...
What was the supposed motivation for the Romans to create a new religion?
Did they just fake the gospels or the entire new testament?
Were the books supposedly created by one versatile author capable of different styles or by different authors?
Was Jesus in on the conspiracy or is he a completely fictitious character?
Did they just put the books out in book stores or did they have con men pretending to be evangelists and start fake churches throughout the known world with con men pretending to be teachers?
Is the line of conspirators still in control in Rome, in the Vatican?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic just trying to figure out what the practical implications of theory are.
Thanks