 |
A Better Jesus: a gospel to put a smile on the faces of unbelievers |
An ancient gospel has been unearthed in the sands of Egypt. But instead of telling about Jesus, this gospel was written by Jesus himself! Writing in his old age, having long since abandoned his faith, he’s looking back on his education, his friendships, his love for an amazing woman, and on an unusual couple of years in which, for some reason, crowds of people were hanging on his every word.
He’s not preaching some tired old Yahweh agenda. This is a Jesus who champions the rights of women, who champions the cause of science, who rejects the mantle of messiah, choosing instead to have followers who think for themselves, who are their own messiahs.
You’ll laugh with him, weep with him, love with him – but you won’t feel pressured to worship him. Or anyone else, for that matter. Read this gospel, and you’ll never read those other gospels the same.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Looking forward to reading this...three books in the queue ahead of it :)
Please do not ignore the fact that Jesus and the prophets of old lived at a time when many plagues, diseases, sicknesses, cancers, disorders, epidemics and incurable problems existed in the region for which there were no cures. No treatment, no modern tools, and medicines.
In the bible, they did not have medical treatments. Risky behaving people had to be removed from society, especially if they were a danger to your family, sons and daughters and children and wives. There were risks of infection spreading to the food and water supplies. There were no hospitals, doctors or any antibacterial treatments.
If if the risky behaving people continue on and on to come near Your Family and city, endangering their lives ! You must take action that prevent them from causing disease to Your family and loved ones before the disease spreads to unsuspecting unknowing innocent children and other victims and families. The prophets and wise, godly men – found that best way is to be safe.
Once You catch a virus, Germ, Disease, Infection or anything - You are finished. { Done } Your family and all others who You come into contact with are also doomed to suffer a life of horrible agony, suffering and horrible pain - dying slowly from a plague or disease or virus or symptom. Atheists disregard all of these facts. No cures, nothing but a lifetime of suffering and horrible pain.
Your book could have included more of this information about these and many more facts. There are many, many uneducated people who find it amusing simply because of their lack of education and knowledge about the matter. Who inspired You to make this book?
Which Jesus are we talking about?? There are 4 in the New Testament and at least 2 in the Old Testament.
@Cognostic
Would you care to elaborate or point me to a discussion of this? I've not heard this theory before.
1. In Matthew, we find Jesus as the Sovereign King, the Lord prophesied through the Old Testament prophets. Matthew emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the Messianic Savior and has come to earth to lead His Kingdom.
2. Mark depicts Jesus as the Servant of all, the One sent by God to serve His people and to submit Himself to the Father’s will, even to the death. In this book, we find our King in the form of a servant willing to suffer for the purposes of God.
3. In Luke, Jesus is seen as the Savior for all mankind, and we find His humanness in instances such as the nativity, as well as references to Jesus’ genealogy being traced back to Adam.
4. John presents us with Jesus as I AM: the living, perfectly divine Son of God. He is the Word of God, the Creator who breathed life into the world, and who still works among us through the Holy Spirit.
THESE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT PERSONALITIES obviously written for the religious sects that worshiped them. (See Dr. Richard Carrier's books.) Christians want to tell you that these are insights into his nature. Fact is, they are different interpretations of the jesus myth for different versions of Jesus.
Paul's Jesus is a celestial being, not a historical person, or my have lived in a dim past - the Pauline epistles aside from a few passages which may have been interpolations, make no reference to a historical Jesus who lived in the flesh on Earth.
THE OLD TESTAMENT JESUS:
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/who-is-jesus/christ-was-the-god-of-the-...
Yet, Ehrman also argues that Paul regarded Jesus to be an angel, who was incarnated on earth,[13][v] aligning with a developing insight that shortly after the supposed death of a historical Jesus a "High Christology" or "incarnation Christology" existed, which was also preached by Paul, and even predates him.
The Hebrew name YESHUA
(Greek = Iesus English = Jesus) in the Old Testament.
Richard Carrier goes into this a bit but it is not his main argument. Pottery has been found where Baal, Asherah and Jesus are worshiped at the same time. Richard does talk about a Jesus 100 years before the Christian Jesus. (James, in the Old testament I believe.)
So you have the "Word Yeshua and James all cited as Old testament jesus.
You can find a lot of this stuff in the Mythologist presentations. It is not mainstream. It's just very interesting.
@Cognostic,
Much to think about there. Although raised Christian (Missouri Synod Lutheran), I never studied the bible in the kind of detail to draw those types of inferences. I find it fascinating though and it certainly makes sense with what we know about how the bible was compiled. I'm going to look up Carrier now. Thanks for the post.
Apollonius of Tyana would be the best Jesus
as an athiest I am trying to gather facts to answer this question and I would welcome Your imput.
however i have found that the general Atheists’ knowledge Of God seeks to limit His TRINITY Gods nature, to as single limited Singularity sole Nature.
The three distinct persons that ATHEISTS’ claim as Three God Persons cannot have each their own individual natures ?
But They Do in the Bible - It is the total opposite from what Atheists’ claim is in the bible..
But The Bible shows that this Atheists’ TRINITY is false.
The Father has His own Bride and is a Husband to His Creation as The Old Testament says
And The Son also has His own Creation and Bride.
as The New Testament says.
The Atheists’, therefore, have two or possibly three husbands. And three total CREATOR Persons because each Manifestation or nature of God is seen CREATING in God’s Word. Atheists’ Claim, God The father, God The Son and God The Holy Spirit are all God – While at the Same time, denying that they are the same eXact singular ONLY person. Individual. / Being… … … … . hUSBAND !
In Other words, The Atheists’ Demands that The Father, Son, and Spirit ONLY HAVE ONE SINGLE NATURE. But The Question to Atheists’ is > - Question -{ Why is it that You are unable to use the words DISTINCT and NATURE in any other sentence or idea in the same way that You do in Your Atheists’ Trinity Doctrine ?
For example - How can You say that My Parenthood or Fatherhood, My Spirit and my Body - are all { 1 } One in nature but Yet they are Three Distinct, Separate plural Persons? What can You compare the Trinitardish doctrine to, What Comparison can be given- in order to explain it?
Nothing. ! ......... Another eXample - How is a mountain range, Its peak and its base all different natures but Yet they are Three Distinct, Separate plural mountains The mountain is not called Mountains ( PLURAL ). It is called a - ONE single mountain because it has a base and a peak that defines a single mountain. You see that-. What The Atheists’ DEMANDS - does not make any sense. !
The atheist Theology and Doctrine contradicts itself. The Trinitarian theology and doctrine is a false contradiction and a lie against Gods word. From the very start, You contradict the very fabric of reality. Because, - just by The very word { Distinct - ( Distinct ) - Distinct - is an adjective word = Meaning that if something is ( distinct ) it is recognizably, positively very different in Nature from something else. - - different in Nature . . . . .
IN general we Atheists’ claim that God is * One God - In NATURE OR DIVINITY- Yes - they demand that - in NATURE He is ONE SINGULAR - But yet - He is TRIPLETS - Three Different, Distinct plural PERSONS or PEOPLE ?
A Threesome, Trio - in a Triangle /. Triplet Persons. REMEMBER
The word Distinct ( dis•tinct ) - is an adjective word = Meaning that if something is ( dis•tinct ) it is positively, factually, undoubtedly recognizably different than the other - in NATURE. Meaning it is not the same nature.
it is positively, factually, undoubtedly recognizably different than the other - in NATURE. This is exactly why The Atheists’ are unable to answer the question. Because the universe of the dictionary and of all languages since the beginning of all time prove them to be in contradiction and a lie. Not only contradicting The God Of The Bible But contradicting the reality of the meaning of basic language and words.
.... Why ? They claim that One nature - is present in three distinct plural things. { PERSONS }
But The dictionary says that Distinct ( Distinct ) - Means that the subject is different from the other in THE Nature.
they are PLURAL MULTIPLE NATURES. according to the facts of nature and languages universal usage.
This Atheists’ trinity explanation is not able to be modified or applied for the explaining of anything else on earth and it is not applied in describing any other thought process or anything except for
The Atheists’ Trinity theology. Alone. AND - atheist theology is a two-part Contradicting, self-destructing deceiving statement that completely opposes What it claims to believe. The Fact is - God has many, many, many multiple different plural natures BUT He is ONLY ONE Distinct Person.. WITH many, many multiple different plural natures Trinitarian and atheist Fathers have made mockery of The God Of The Bible. There is no Blessed Trinity. Or a First, Second and Third Persons / People of the Trinity - or Triplet Persons. The Bible never details a God of three persons or three separate beings who are all three persons but one single limited, restricted, controlled SINGULAR { 1 } nature. - ONLY
Because this explanation is a contradiction. The fact is - Gods nature is plural unlimited, boundless and unimaginable untold and uncountable. Gods nature is boundless, immeasurable, incomputable, innumerable, numberless and unreckonable ----- But He is only ONE PERSON- AND ONE GOD. Atheists’ limit God and they lie about Him, diminishing Him to a Pagan Catholic falsery. Claiming that God is only ONE single nature but also three different, distinct plural persons who are all three equal in majesty, equal in awesomeness ---- plural persons, each separately equal in dignities, plural persons, each separately equal in glories, grandeurs, nobilities and plural, separate royalties. The three distinct, different persons share equal majesty. Again - Again - The word ( dis•tinct ) - is an adjective Meaning that if something is ( dis•tinct ) it is recognizably different in nature from something else
Let’ s look at My LAST point HERE, MY LAST POINT IS about Php 2:6 ........... Here is Php 2:6 from the all of the modern English translations that all eXist out there. This is what all of them say in one concise, summarizing sentence. This is the total of them all. These two comparisons of the New Modern Languages are so different from the Original Version of the Ancient Manuscripts. Here is the total sum of All modern versions of Php 2:6 combined all into one. Here Jesus - Who Although from the beginning His being had the very nature God, He did not consider or reckon His treasure and prize of His being sharing an equality with God, something to be used, to cling to and grasp for his own advantage. Rather, He emptied Himself and gave up his divine privilege by assuming the form made of himself as nothing and by taking the humble position in habit and very nature of a servant and slave and a bond-servant, he chose to share His being as it was made into a human mortal man in the form of the child’ s likeness in His external form __
Do any other any atheists out there besides me know what the manuscripts actually say here in Php 2:6.
as an athiest I am trying to gather facts to answer this question and I would welcome Your imput.
@the universal
I get the impression that you are not an atheist just from the way you have said things in that post. Yet your profile says you are an atheist. Am I mis-reading what you wrote?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Nyar Re: Universal (atheist or not?)
Oh, good. I thought I was the only one who picked up on that.
As an atheist, I have studied many books on the religious topic.
My admiration for fellow atheists is their knowledge of what these books such as the Bible actually say and not what is imagined that they say. My goal has been to know what the bible actually says in the original manuscripts and not what later writers and lawyers and kings of the day had to add or subtract in their writings/ translations.
I am among the atheists who wish to understand the original meaning of the original manuscripts in their original context and then therefore expand and explain why or if I disagree with the Bibles message.
I only ask you, why would you continue to follow the majority of athletes who are trying to disagree with the variant writings and scribblings of many, many others who have come along after the bible and have rewritten and changed the Bible message by adding what they personally think the bible says in hundreds of Bible translations and personal doodlings and scrawlings.
What are other topics of religion being discussed by atheists except for the Bible ?
If the triity was in the Bible, why did the original authors not include it therein ?
Being a big atheist myself I want to better understand the message of the so-called god itself as I separate the echoing voices that followed from the original expression.
I feel that unless this objective is achieved then both the religious and the atheist share the same ignorance and deception. I wish to show the religious fool where He / She is even incorrect about the original manuscripts at the very point of origin.
It is not an objective nor ambition that the religious have appreciated as they are very dishonest about the subject. I have found that many other fellow atheists seem more willing to honestly discuss the truth about such matters or at least consider the concept.
I had expected and really hoped that You were knowledgeable enough to discuss it instead of taking a religious stance / type of argument or line of question that only distracts and silences the matter.
@Universal
Ah. Okay. Cool beans, dude. Thanks for clarifying that. Didn't mean any disrespect, but it was difficult to determine exactly what your viewpoint was in that initial post. That being said, I would highly recommend you touch base with Old Man Who Shouts. That guy is an absolute wizard when it comes to ancient texts and such. You two could probably have an incredible conversation on the debate forum. If you started your own thread there, I'm pretty sure he would show up to chat.
I have met that old man and He would often inspire me to look deeper and study.
I do not feel disrespected or anything, I just appreciate the honesty from You and many in the atheist community.
@Universal
Yeah, Old Man is pretty awesome like that. I often wish I had the mental capacity to remember the type of info you and he have in regards to ancients texts and historical records and such. While I do find it very interesting, stuff like that just never sticks with me for some reason. My brain has always been geared more toward the math and science areas. I suppose psychology has always been a major interest, too, but I have very little formal education in it. Most of my learning in that area has been from dealing with it on a day-to-day basis in a variety or uncontrolled setting. Fascinating stuff, nonetheless.