Page 4 of 4
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 20:28
by RobF
...Him lying there. He looked so f**king vunerable didn't he...
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 20:29
by Erudite
markfiend wrote:Hardly written in tablets of stone either. I'm not as well-up on the Old Testament, but of the various copies of New Testament scripts that come down to us now:
No two copies of any one book of the bible from before about 1000AD have exactly the same words, so the "unalterable word of God" is susceptible to change by mere copying errors
The earliest surviving copy of any book of the NT is no earlier than a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy... etc. It's hard to be sure but IIRC 6th or 7th generation is about the size of it.
Books back then were propagated by something very much like our weeding; except of course each had to be copied out by hand.
There's reason to believe that a lot of "copying errors" are in fact deliberate interpolations; frequently in all innocence, a scribe would put a marginal note explaining the meaning of an obscure word in the original Koine Greek, and the next scribe would take this up into the body of the text...
None of the Gospels actually claims an author; the "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John" attributions are a later Christian tradition. (IIRC Eusebius, the early Church father (c260-c341) has the first mention of the Gospels by these names) None of the Gospels claims to be eye-witness testimony (indeed as "Mark's" Gospel has clear references to the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem in it, it can't be earlier than 72(?)AD, and GMark is commonly believed to be the earliest of the four)
The earliest Christian writings, peculiarly enough, are near the end of the Bible, and come from someone who never even claimed to have met Jesus; St. Paul. If any one person has a claim to have started Christianity, I think the church as we have it now owes more to Paul's teachings than those of Jesus himself. (If we can even discern any genuine information about Him from the New Testament, which is debatable...)
Where the feck am I going with all this? I dunno. Warbling on again. Does anyone actually read my posts? Or is it a case of "Oh bl**dy hell, Mark's off on one again"?
Yes, I do read posts such as this one.
Basically, it should be kept in mind that Jesus was in fact an ultra orthodox Jew and that he wanted nothing to do with Saul/Paul.
What we call Christianity is in fact Paulianity, a Roman mystery cult.
As for the Pope - the business of apostolic succession through Peter in extremely dubious at best.
Jesus' brother James was head of the Jerusalem Church, which after his murder came to an end when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the romans after a Jewish uprising.
History, as Henry ford so aptly remarked in bunk!
What, can anybody tell me, gives any of the ministers/priests/rabbis of monotheistic religions the right to decide how a person's relationship with God should be defined?
I am a heretic and proud of it! I have rejected the teachings of organised religion on the grounds that on a warm summer's day I only have to open my eyes and I can see God writ upon the landscape.
Sorry, I appear to have gone off on one there.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 20:59
by canon docre
Erudite wrote:
I am a heretic and proud of it! I have rejected the teachings of organised religion on the grounds that on a warm summer's day I only have to open my eyes and I can see God writ upon the landscape.
And what particularly makes you a heretic?
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 21:02
by Erudite
canon docre wrote:Erudite wrote:
I am a heretic and proud of it! I have rejected the teachings of organised religion on the grounds that on a warm summer's day I only have to open my eyes and I can see God writ upon the landscape.
And what particularly makes you a heretic?
Views that differ from the doctrines of the Church such as the above. The Inquisition used to put people to the torture for far less!
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 21:22
by canon docre
Erudite wrote:canon docre wrote:Erudite wrote:
I am a heretic and proud of it! I have rejected the teachings of organised religion on the grounds that on a warm summer's day I only have to open my eyes and I can see God writ upon the landscape.
And what particularly makes you a heretic?
Views the differ from the doctrines of the Church such as the above. The Inquisition used to put people to the torture for far less!
Isnt the word "heretic" a little bit exaggerated? No one gets burned for enjoying nature nowadays.
Maybe the term "heathen" would fit better to your set of beliefs? Or are you agitating against the church in any form officially? If so, I would consider joining.
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 21:24
by emilystrange
'heartland is the new heaven'
sloganz r ems
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 23:49
by taylor
>>I am a heretic and proud of it! I have rejected the teachings of organised religion on the grounds that on a warm summer's day I only have to open my eyes and I can see God writ upon the landscape. >>
burn to heretics !!!
to impale the heretics with the Christian church is my hobby
Posted: 04 Apr 2005, 23:56
by James Blast
heretics are the new heathens
sloganz r Blast!
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 00:06
by Brideoffrankenstein
James Blast wrote:heathens
"...but I hope of course, not an unenlightened one"
sloganz r chris
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 01:29
by Delilah
RobF wrote:...Him lying there. He looked so f**king vunerable didn't he...
Yes... But at least He no longer suffers... It is quite strange - have read somewhere that Polish people griev after Him like they'd have lost their own Father and I do feel the same... I'm not religious and generally - have been against the Catholic Church for a long time (sorry, if I offended anybody in here), but He was a very brave, wise man and I'm sad He's gone. All my Polish friends living in the UK felt strange on Saturday night, it is difficult for everybody... Because in a way we lost our spiritual leader. And I know it sounds strange coming out from non-religious and anti-church person.
However, He asked everybody to be happy for Him, so will have to change my attitude soon... He's going to be remembered as one of the greatest Polish people, always cheerful and smiling, with funny sense of humour. And yes, He was a conservative, but He was only a man and men make mistakes...
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 08:43
by canon docre
Delilah wrote:
Because in a way we lost our spiritual leader. And I know it sounds strange coming out from non-religious and anti-church person.
Yes, put together, that sounds very strange indeed.
Delilah wrote:
He's going to be remembered as one of the greatest Polish people, always cheerful and smiling, with funny sense of humour.
Is that already enough to be considered a GREAT POLE?
Delilah wrote:
And yes, He was a conservative, but He was only a man and men make mistakes...
Not even men should get away with this lame excuse.
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 10:08
by markfiend
Erudite wrote:Yes, I do read posts such as this one.
Thanks
Erudite wrote:Basically, it should be kept in mind that Jesus was in fact an ultra orthodox Jew and that he wanted nothing to do with Saul/Paul.
What we call Christianity is in fact Paulianity, a Roman mystery cult.
As for the Pope - the business of apostolic succession through Peter in extremely dubious at best.
Jesus' brother James was head of the Jerusalem Church, which after his murder came to an end when the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the romans after a Jewish uprising.
The thing is that there's no extra-biblical support for
any of this apart from...
Erudite wrote:What we call Christianity is in fact Paulianity, a Roman mystery cult.
...and...
Erudite wrote:the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the romans after a Jewish uprising.
I believe the crucifiction to be an invention of Paul's. And if you read the
genuine Pauline lettters (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon) it seems to me (and many others who have studied this in far more depth than me) that the crucifixion is carried out in a spiritual realm by angelic/demonic beings called Archons. The symbolism is indeed suggestive of a Roman mystery cult. (what we know now of Mithras and Osiris mystery cults have very similar structures.)
Mark's gospel was then constructed to give a "life story" to the crucified god, and then somehow this crucifixion story came to be added onto the "Sayings" (The "Gospel of Thomas" and/or the hypothetical "Q" sayings-gospel which appears to be the common non-Mark source for Matthew and Luke (Which may or may not be the teachings of a single man.) The two documents have many sayings in common.)
Erudite wrote:History, as Henry ford so aptly remarked in bunk!
Indeed.
Erudite wrote:What, can anybody tell me, gives any of the ministers/priests/rabbis of monotheistic religions the right to decide how a person's relationship with God should be defined?
I am a heretic and proud of it! I have rejected the teachings of organised religion on the grounds that on a warm summer's day I only have to open my eyes and I can see God writ upon the landscape.
Sorry, I appear to have gone off on one there.
If I
were inclined to any conception of God it would be a God who just set off the Big Bang and then sat back to watch. And if we are "in His image" then it makes it all the more impressive that with a few carefully-chosen laws of physics, right at the start, He managed to predetermine the whole 14 billion year history of the universe just to produce us
If there is any genuine "Word of God" then it must be His own creation, not something written and copied and changed by people?
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 12:06
by Delilah
canon docre wrote:
Delilah wrote:
He's going to be remembered as one of the greatest Polish people, always cheerful and smiling, with funny sense of humour.
Is that already enough to be considered a GREAT POLE?
no, there was obviously more to it. Above all, he really contributed to the fact that we are no longer behind the Iron Curtain. Thanks God.
Not even men should get away with this lame excuse.
He's gone now... Maybe the next Pope will change that Catholic church conservative approach? Don't think so somehow...
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 16:11
by Andrew S
Delilah wrote:Maybe the next Pope will change that Catholic church conservative approach? Don't think so somehow...
I heard somewhere that the JP1 intended to and look how long he lasted. Probably just another unfounded conspiracy theory but I sometimes wonder.
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 16:43
by emilystrange
i read a good kid's poem today about god making the perfect world, then putting it down somewhere.. apparently that was the 5th attempt, and we're the 30th.
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 21:57
by eastmidswhizzkid
john paul this...john paul that...has everyone forgotten about george and ringo?couldnt they be the next pope?(i know george is dead but his mate zippy says he'll stand in)
Posted: 05 Apr 2005, 22:48
by boudicca
