Posts Tagged ‘Jesus and Mary’

Jesus:Real or myth?

June 8, 2014

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3797848-post839.html

Topic of the Thread : Jesus:Real or myth?

Paarsurrey wrote:

The spine or core of the Pauline Christianity that presents the mythical Jesus is that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross.

I quote from Paul:

1 Corinthians 15:13-14

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

And Jesus did not die on the cross to start with; so there is no question of any resurrection from the dead.
This breaks the spine of the Pauline theology.
Pauline Theology has got nothing to do with Jesus and Mary and their good teachings.

For the evidence from history in this connection please view the following documentaries:

Regards

Baseless “original sin”: invention of sinful Paul, sinful scribes and sinful Church

April 19, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/easter-in-ten-words/comment-page-1/#comment-14249

PAARSURREY says:
April 19, 2014 at 10:46 am
@INSPIREDBYTHEDIVINE1 :April 19, 2014 at 8:52 am
” ‘God sacrificed himself, to himself, to save humanity from himself.
Because that makes perfect sense’
This baseless creed has been invented by sinful Paul and sinful Church.”
This is fascinating. I’d forgotten that Islam doesn’t favor Paul. Christians do though. Thus, right here in John’s backyard, we have not one, but two omnipotent religious experts on the origins of existence. However, the two experts are members of two very different all-knowing religions. Paul is not vile to a Christians. To Christians he is a Saint and the true spreader of Christianity. But to Muslims, he is vile and evil. He spread untrue ideas about Jesus around. Two vastly different views from two totally infallible faiths. Is Paul a Saint and wonderful, or is he a vile idiot who spread a baseless creed about the Holy Trinity. Both can not be right. Calling Paul baseless and vile means the Holy Trinity is made up bullshit and Jesus isn’t God and did not rise from the dead on Easter. Saying Paul’s a Saint and his creed correct, is saying Jesus is God; did rise from the dead, and, along with two other gods, is part of a trilogy of gods that, in reality, are just one god. SOM’s infallible faith and Paarsurey’s infallible faith can not both be right. Only one can be right on this. Is, or isn’t Jesus the one true God? Let me repeat, is Jesus or isn’t Jesus God? Is Paul a vile idiot, or a Saint in Christ’s Church, the Church of the one true God. Things get so bloody complicated when people simply can’t say, “I don’t know. I might be wrong,etc.” I do not know nor pretend to know, how the universe came to be. It’s existence is proof it exists, not proof magical fairies made it. I do not have faith gods do not exist, BTW. They might, and I’m open to meeting them when they show up, but as of today, I’ve seen no evidence for believing they have. SOM, your brain hasn’t just been washed, it’s been bleached, salted, and fried. Your views are fundamentally sophomoric and reflective of an insipid indoctrination into an antiquated and dying belief system. Your rhetoric is redundantly circular, your reasoning laden with confirmation biases and your lack of wit tedious, boring, and insulting to the intelligence. Thus, whenever I respond to it, I do so with the all the respect I feel it deserves. I’ve said my last bit on this matter as I’ve grown quite bored of it. Paul: vile creed maker and vile man or Saint? Jesus, prophet, or God?” Unquote

I don’t bash sinful Paul. I only defend Jesus and Mary and their teachings. I have mentioned core teachings of Jesus from the Bible (Matthew 22:36-40); there is no place in Jesus’ core teachings of the baseless creeds invented by sinful Paul, sinful scribes and the sinful Church.

I have qualified Paul, scribes and Church with the word “sinful”; because they collaborated to invent the creed of “original sin” out of thin air and made all humanity sinful by birth for nothing. They say that everybody is sinful except Jesus; and everybody does not exclude Paul, scribes and the Church. I have only highlighted what this baseless creed is.

All humans whatever their religion or no religion are born innocent; when they attain maturity and are confirmed of what is good and what is evil in their conscience; then they become virtuous or sinful as per their concepts and deeds.
If a sin is committed one could ask forgiveness from the One-True-God; He may forgive.

Jesus said he was Son of Man or Son of Adam; if Adam would have been a sinful person and Jesus would have believed that and of the original sin; he would have not ascribed any son-ship to Adam. Paul invented this creed on his own collaborated by the scribes of Bible and Church.

Paul, scribes and the Church have nothing to do with Jesus and Mary and their teachings and deeds.

Regards

Christians should accept core teachings of Jesus

March 10, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey comments on the blog “Is there a God?” for your valuable opinion, even if you differ.

“Is there a God?”
“Welcome to atheists (and others)”

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/about/welcome-to-atheists-and-others/#comment-8800

paarsurrey
MAR 10, 2014 @ 22:38:22

@unkleE:MAR 08, 2014 @ 23:33:33
“Do I take it from your answer that you don’t accept what the scholars say about history and Jesus?” Unquote

Hi unkleE

I think it is a strange question.

History is not 100% truthful, as you know; there are always scholars differing with other scholars of history.

If the Christians don’t accept what they believe to be Jesus’ (their god or son of god) words expressing his own core teachings where he quoted and referred to OT, Moses, and prophets; how they think others would accept what lesser scholars have written about history and Jesus?

Moreover history is not written only in Europe that Jesus never visited; history is also written in other countries where Jesus and Mary and other disciples of Jesus actually visited. Will that be acceptable to you? Please.

To believe in history or scholars of history is not a prime article of faith or a pillar of faith of Islam:

Articles of Faith

• Unity of God
• His Angels
• His Books
• His Prophets
• The Last Day
• Divine Decree

Five Pillars of Islam

• Kalima
• Prayer
• Fasting
• Zakaat
• Hajj

http://www.alislam.org/

Is believing in history or scholars of history the prime tenet of Christianity?

I don’t think so

Thanks and regards

Who were these eyewitnesses?

July 25, 2013

Paarsurrey says:
There were no eye-witnesses of the event of the Crucifixion from the sinful scribes of the four gospel writers.;none for the resurrection of Jesus. I agree with you here.

I contributed following post on this topic.

 

 

    1. “But then Mark originally didn’t feature the resurrection either. ”

      Resurrection was later added to the creeds of Christianity by Church; instead of finding where Jesus and Mary had secretly moved from Judea; they preferred to invent resurrection of Jesus. Jesus and Mary journeyed to India; later some of the other disciples also joined them.

            • Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:
              Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (later in the transmission-process) composed the “Longer Ending” as a conclusion to what was interpreted to be a too-abrupt account.
              • Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death or sudden departure from Rome), whereupon another person finished the work (still in the production-stage, before it was released for church-use) by attaching material from a short Marcan composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.
              • Mark wrote an ending which was accidentally lost (perhaps as the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or as the outermost page of a codex which became detached from the other pages), and someone in the 100′s composed the “Longer Ending” as a sort of patch, relying on parallel-passages from the other canonical Gospels.
              • Verses 16:9–20 were written by Mark and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. (Possibly a scribe regarded John 21 as a better sequel to Mark’s account, and considered the “Longer Ending” superfluous.)
              • Mark wrote an ending, but it was suppressed and replaced with verses 16:9–20, which are a pastiche of parallel passages from the other canonical Gospels.
              James H. Charlesworth, repeating Metzger’s descriptions of some of the external evidence, has pointed out that the Syriac Sinaiticus manuscript (from the 400′s), Codex Vaticanus (c. 325), and Codex Bobbiensis (c. 430) are all early witnesses that exclude the Marcan appendix. In addition to these, over 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix. The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version. One Armenian manuscript, Matenadaran 2374 (formerly known as Etchmiadsin 229), made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, “By Ariston the Elder/Priest.” Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the 1st century CE.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

  • “I am sure that only those people with biscuits for brains still consider this eyewitness claim to be true and even less so that the names tagged on to them were real people.”

    Now this is clearly a ridicule; not appropriate for a humanist; men/women equipped with reason should not do it, in my opinion.

  1. “The fallacious claim that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses is one of those things that has a habit of popping up every now and then and begins knocking. “Hello, Ark..you might like to think about this…””

    It is absolutely correct that the Gospels were not written by eyewitness; “Matthew”- an anonymous writer of Gospel of Bible, mentions very clearly that all disciples had run away from the scene of the Crucifixion in fear; they abandoned him crying/praying in agony on the Cross to Yahweh whom he used to address as God-the-Father who heard his supplications/prayers and Jesus was delivered from the Cross in near-dead position, nevertheless alive as he had prophesied to show the Sign of Jonah.

  2. [Arkenaten

    July 24th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
    “Be my guest. You may know stuff that I have missed and I am never one to shy away from learning something new, believe me.”]

    Thanks for inviting me as a guest. I will thankfully write here in your blog.

    Regads

One could defend Jesus’ concepts rationally: not of Paul’s

April 11, 2013

Jesus was relegated to the position of non-entity in Christianity as well as in Bible, when Paul usurped the position and introduced a new religion that had nothing to do with what Jesus and Mary believed. Modern “Christianity” is a misnomer; it only presents what Paul and scribes believed.

It was Paul, not Christ, who was the author of the modern Christianity. The person who invented Christianity, must have invented/created the Bible also. It was Paul who was at the helm of affairs of Christianity as well as the Bible. Jesus was an innocent straightforward person; he was not interested and involved in any struggle for power; this was indeed against the Character and psychology of Jesus. So Jesus was not responsible for the contradictions in the statements of the gospel writers; it was Paul.

Jesus of Bible was neither a god of the Christians nor the author of their Bible; it was Paul. Paul was the wolf in sheep’s clothing of which Jesus had warned before he went on self exile from Judea to India.

We can defend the concept of Jesus and Mary very rationally and for that we don’t have to bet or wager or to take chances as put forward by Pascal. We can do it on sure knowledge :

[12:109] Say, ‘This is my way: I call unto Allah on sure knowledge, I and those who follow me. And Holy is Allah; and I am not of those who associate gods with God.’

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=12&verse=108

“One more little question; did Joseph Smith believe that Jesus was God?”Ah, this little question is a really big question

June 7, 2009

Markparker1 says:

“One more little question; did Joseph Smith believe that Jesus was God?”

Ah, this little question is a really big question.

Firstly we do not believe in the Trinity as adopted by Christian sects around the 4th century after Christ.

Paarsurrey says:

Well, Jesus was an upright person; he neither believed in Trinity nor in Duality. Jesus’ belief was as simple as of Moses, Abraham, Noah and Jonah; as they were with the same Message from God Allah YHWH.

It becomes clealr to me that Joseph Smith was neither visited by God Allah YHWH nor by Jesus. The conclusion drwan by the Mormons are neither depicted in the text of the first vision of Joseph Smith, nor are in confirmity with the context of the beliefs of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jonah and Jesus and other Prophest of the Old Testament.

Paul and Joseph Smith seem to be the same complicated persons; had got nothing to do with Jesus or God Allah YHWH; hence their destiny was similar; they were killed in terms of Deuteronmy; as they were never legitimately appointed by by God Allah YHWH in the first place.

I don’t mind if somebody wants to covert me to his faith; this is his right, which he should establish rightly.

One of our friends, Maaark, who is also an ex-LDS person has aloso commented in this connection, you may if you like reply his understandings in the matter.

I love Jesus and Mary as depicted in Quran; not the ones described by Paul or Joseph Smith.

Please don’t mind; you are a friend. I don’t have anything against you or the Mormon Christians, we are just discussing the things in search of truth and comparing our notes. I respect your faith and you have a right to defend your faith; which please continue doing boldly. There is no intention to malign the Mormon Christians, a good people.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Friend jasgang says to paarsurrey “you are not willing to look any further than your nose”

May 17, 2009

Jasgang says:

God is not God by any name. The Quran is the only place that you will find your god, because you are not willing to look any further than your nose, or your god. There is a God so much greater than your god. Our God doesn’t hate anyone, even those who turn away from Him. The Bible says that nothing shall separate us from the love of God. You can choose your own god, but in choosing the wrong god, you will be damned, not rewarded with 72 virgins, but God will still love you. I don’t understand the spirituality of the 72 virgins thing, we have had our desires in this life, to multiply and replenish the earth, in heaven there will be no more sex or need for replenishing, the kingdom will be complete with those who were obedient to the end. Those who loved God with all their heart, mind, soul, and body. If your desire is to learn the truth I am willing to confer with you. However, I have no interest in the Quran or the Muslim faith.

Paarsurrey says:

Hi friend jasgang

May be you are right to say to me “you are not willing to look any further than your nose”. How correct you are?

It is only for this that we are discussing things in this blog; to benefit from one another’s experience. I will be thankful if you help me to see beyond my nose.

Perhaps, I use spectacles to see far away from my nose. It is a bifocal lenses and I can see things quite normally. Maybe you happen to be an eye specialist; but I think you told me that you are a priest. Didn’t you?

Please don’t mind if I help you to see beyond the myths; right into the reality. I think it would be OK for me if you believe in the real Jesus; not the unreal one Paul saw in a made up fairy tale.

What is this 72 virgins thing, you referred to?

If you think it is mentioned in Quran; please quote the verse from Quran; its text and the usual context which consist on five preceding and five following verses.

Quran is the spectacles with which you could see beyond the horizons of time and space; please don’t feel shy to look beyond your nose; I won’t mind, my friend.

I love Jesus and Mary as I love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim


%d bloggers like this: