I believe in Jesus, but not in God.

[astrocat5]

Jesus said, 'I am the truth, the light and the way.'

I think God is a part of the old Jewish religion, and does not apply. Jesus never said he was the son of God - others said that about him. Jesus called himself 'The Son of Man,' just to let us know. His prayer, The Our Father that he taught us, is not a prayer to God, but to Our Heavenly Father.

There was a time when everybody in the world turned against God. This is in the bible, I'm not making it up. That's right, everybody in the world turned against God - except for one man, Noah. Now you remember. I thought you would.

Anyway, God killed eveybody in the world except for Noah (and his family.) Then, everybody in the world believed in God.

 

I just think this is not a good way to get people around to your point-of-view. If I killed everybody in the world, what would that make me? A megalo-maniac at least, a crazy for sure. But God gets away scott-free. You really have to wonder - I know I do.

 

I don't believe in a devil, either. He's Organised Religion's puppet, and they wave this puppet in our faces saying, 'whoo, look how scary I am.' They'll tell you the world is Beautiful but you're Evil, and that's why you have a hard time.

As a Gnostic, I'll tell you, 'The world is Evil and you're Beautiful.

 

'Cause that's what we believe. We just have Jesus. The world is corrupt. Everything you don't have in this world - you have in the next, and vice-versa. When you die you come to these Pearly Gates, and everybody's pushing and shoving trying to get thru'.

 

And inside it sounds like there's a heck of a party going on in there. But it's just speakers rigged, and just inside the gates is a cliff edge, but you can't turn around. Me and this kid on crutches get ejected from the crowd (I'm not one for crowds) and we go along the wall 'till we come to a really narrow gate with a guy (or his girlfriend) sitting there and they invite us in. Now I remember - Jesus always said, 'Enter by the narrow gate,' and that's what we do. Except you don't make your choices then - you make them here, in your day to day life. You don't have to have babies, you know. There are already too many people - not enough fish, land, houses...

[iNow]

This is in the bible, I'm not making it up.

Have you ever paused to think for a moment that most likely the people who wrote the bible were the ones who made it up?

[astrocat5]

Have you ever paused to think for a moment that most likely the people who wrote the bible were the ones who made it up?

Hi Now, this 'flood' thing, the deluve, as it's sometimes called - is pretty common in many religions. But you're right, it was probably fiction. I guess you don't believe in unicorns either?

It's just that God is a jealous God and also vengeful. Jesus said, 'You cannot know the Father, but I and the Father are the same.'

I don't think Jesus was the jealous kind, nor do I see him as being vengeful. Interesting to talk with you, 'iNow.'

[JustinW]

I don't think Jesus was the jealous kind, nor do I see him as being vengeful.

Some claim that He was as a child. That He would play mean tricks on those that He disliked and in one story actually pushed a boy to his death. I've read a little of the gnostic writings. I particularly liked the phrase "if you have ears you had better listen". I use it every now and then with my kids. Some of it drove me a little crazy with the whole read between the lines expectations. They claim that those who know TRUTH will never taste death, but yet they never tell you what the truth is. Edited February 9, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

I don't think Jesus was the jealous kind, nor do I see him as being vengeful.

It depends on who you ask and what you look at. For example, one source here takes a few things to show why maybe Jesus wasn't such a fantastic dude, and how he advocated murder, death, and other cruelties:

 

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm

[astrocat5]

Some claim that He was as a child. That He would play mean tricks on those that He disliked and in one story actually pushed a boy to his death. I've read a little of the gnostic writings. I particularly liked the phrase "if you have ears you had better listen". I use it every now and then with my kids. Some of it drove me a little crazy with the whole read between the lines expectations. They claim that those who know TRUTH will never taste death, but yet they never tell you what the truth is.

Fascinating. So you have read the Gnostic Gospels? Me too. They had a conference once,somewhere and decided that the Gospels of Mathew Mark etc. were the most reliable. I kind of agree with this, so they are really the only Gospels I stick to as real.

That bit about the truth - I think the Truth is kind of dangerous, as so many people believe differently. Nice to hear from you, Justin W.

 

It depends on who you ask and what you look at. For example, one source here takes a few things to show why maybe Jesus wasn't such a fantastic dude, and how he advocated murder, death, and other cruelties:

 

http://www.evilbible...ld_jesus_do.htm

Where did you get this about Jesus advocating murder? I'm interested. Is this out of the Gnostic Gospels too? I think God is a jealous God, 'Thou shalt put no other God before me etc.' and vengeful - I mean look what he did to Pharoe's Army in the Red Sea?

He drowned them. That's vengeful, in my opinion. How about you?

Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies, a completely different style.

2 different styles - two different people.

 

What do you think?

[iNow]

Your question is answered in the link I shared... The one you quoted when replying.

[JustinW]

Fascinating. So you have read the Gnostic Gospels?

Yes I've read a little on the gospels of philip and thomas. It's hard to come to an understanding when things are written in parables. The Nag Hammadi library has some of these translated gospels. It is supposedly the closest thing to the words spoken by Jesus. They must have had a different understanding of language back in those days because I can't even come close to understanding the meaning of half of it.

[DrRocket]

Have you ever paused to think for a moment that most likely the people who wrote the bible were the ones who made it up?

 

If that is supposed to mean that the people who wrote the books in the Bible were the people who wrote the books in the bible, then one must agree.

 

If that is supposed to mean that the people who selected the books for inclusion in the Bible were the people who wrote the Books of the Bible then that is historically incorrect, as the authors were long dead by that time.

[iNow]

Everything you just shared is true and valid, but I chose the verb "wrote," not "selected" for good reason.

[A Tripolation]

It depends on who you ask and what you look at. For example, one source here takes a few things to show why maybe Jesus wasn't such a fantastic dude, and how he advocated murder, death, and other cruelties:

 

http://www.evilbible.com/what_would_jesus_do.htm

 

I know this is off topic, but I'm tired of people bringing this up. Almost all of these verses are out of context and aren't properly interpreted. I'm not one to scream "That's out of context", but it really is in this situation.

 

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

 

Yes. The pharisees told him he was disrespecting an ancient law. He then pointed out that they disrespected ancient laws as well. In what world does that mean that he supports that? It just means he was showing them the extent of their hypocrisy.

[iNow]

What about all of the other references shown? Surely, you're not going to argue that each of them is not being "properly interpreted," are you?

 

FWIW... Much like you get frustrated about the evilbible site, I get frustrated when people reply, "Yeah yeah... but that's not how MY faith interprets it," or "that is the CORRECT way to view those words."

[afungusamongus]

Believing in Jesus but not in God makes little sense. He was after all God Incarnate. Sure you can hold to some sort of naturalistic explanation for him, but that is hardly what he taught. Leaves me with the question if you believe in him why would you not trust in the things he said?

 

Are we to believe the man who gave us some of the most sublime moral teachings in history would lie about who he was?

[iNow]

Believing in Jesus but not in God makes little sense. He was after all God Incarnate.

Can you prove this somehow using evidence, not a book written by bronze aged goat herders in the desert and circular reasoning or faith?

 

Are we to believe the man who gave us some of the most sublime moral teachings in history would lie about who he was?

Sure, why not? Maybe he thought he was telling the truth, but was deluded. It's entirely possible he was not actively lying, but simultaneously not speaking truths.

[afungusamongus]

Can you prove this somehow using evidence, not a book written by bronze aged goat herders in the desert and circular reasoning or faith?

 

Is the historical accounts of Jesus evidence enough for you? Why exactly is the bible not evidence. It is a concise account of Jesus by the people who witnessed his life and knew him personally. Last time I checked eye witness accounts hold up pretty well in court. Would you doubt the authenticity of a Biography of Napoleon written by Josephine de Beauharnais?

 

It is quite unfair to burden Jesus of Nazareth with a hyper skepticism that you would not have for any other historical figure.

[ydoaPs]

Is the historical accounts of Jesus evidence enough for you?

 

What historical account?

 

Ok, let's go with the obviously biased sources we have that were written by non-eyewitnesses generations after the fact. The author of Matthew places the birth of Jesus at the latest 6BC and the author of Luke places the birth of Jesus at the earliest 6AD. This is a gap of 12 years minimum and the events used to place Luke's 6AD are a direct result of the events used to place Matthew's 6BC. When was Jesus born?

 

Oh, how about the sky turning black and the giant earthquake that supposedly happened when he died? It's odd that none of the historians or astrologers of the time noted that one, isn't it? What about the earthquake and the rising of the dead that the gospels say happened during the resurrection? 'tis a tad bit suspicious.

 

It is a concise account of Jesus by the people who witnessed his life and knew him personally.

 

No, it's not. It's actually not even close to being that.

[PeterJ]

For what it's worth I'm with the OP. A gnostic interpretation of the teachings of Jesus would not require us to believe in God. Or, at least, the God of the NT would be nothing like the god of the OT. I also am an atheist who believe Jesus (fictional or otherwise - who cares?) knew what he was talking about, or at least the wrrters of the books that survived the purge that have come down to us as the Nag Hammadi library. The western Church failed in its attempt to wipe out the gnostic interpretation and its practices in favour of the Roman heresy but it was a close run thing. It is incredible that I was fifty years old before I even heard of the Gospel of Mary, but the news was always bound to get out.

 

There is a passage in the library that suggests that one day the teachings will be properly understood, and that with that undertanding will come a great healing. Nice thought.

Edited February 16, 2012 by PeterJ

[iNow]

Is the historical accounts of Jesus evidence enough for you?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that there may have been a guy named Jesus who said some good stuff a few thousand years ago. That's a far cry, however, from him being a magical sky pixie or ethereal god.

 

 

Why exactly is the bible not evidence.

For the same reason that Harry Potter books are not evidence of magic or wizards or witches.

 

It is a concise account of Jesus by the people who witnessed his life and knew him personally. Last time I checked eye witness accounts hold up pretty well in court. Would you doubt the authenticity of a Biography of Napoleon written by Josephine de Beauharnais?

This would be a false comparison. Your logic is broken.

 

It is quite unfair to burden Jesus of Nazareth with a hyper skepticism that you would not have for any other historical figure.

Rubbish. There is a difference between accepting the possible existence of a historical figure and accepting that this figure was a deity or god. Let's please try to avoid moving the goal posts, shall we?

[Klaynos]

Eye witnesses are notoriously untrustworthy.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/05/unreliable_eyewitness_testimon.php

 

And that's before you consider whether anyone contributing my have any reason to make stuff up.

[arrowden]

I believe that Jesus existed, but that's not to say I believe in him (or everything that was written about him). I believe in "God" (Our Father) like I believe in "Mother Nature."

[ydoaPs]

Eye witnesses are notoriously untrustworthy.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/05/unreliable_eyewitness_testimon.php

 

And that's before you consider whether anyone contributing my have any reason to make stuff up.

 

And there's the bit where there's zero eyewitness testimony in the gospels.

[iNow]

See! Your own argument is refuted. There are no eyewitnesses, so you can't say it's invalid due to being based on eyewitness testimony... Therefore, it MUST be true! Check... and... mate you atheist heathens!

[astrocat5]

Yes I've read a little on the gospels of philip and thomas. It's hard to come to an understanding when things are written in parables. The Nag Hammadi library has some of these translated gospels. It is supposedly the closest thing to the words spoken by Jesus. They must have had a different understanding of language back in those days because I can't even come close to understanding the meaning of half of it.

You're not alone. Many of these gnostic gospels have been interfered with. That's why they had a 'synod' long ago and decided that the present four gospel writers were the most original. Thanks for telling me about the Nag Hammadi Library - I didn't know about it. Nice to chat w. you, Justin W.

 

And there's the bit where there's zero eyewitness testimony in the gospels.

And yet it'sthe eye-witness account that interests not just the Police, but the courts too. Perhaps I'm replying to the wrong post, here.

 

And there's the bit where there's zero eyewitness testimony in the gospels.

I'ts rreally Faith alone that makes one believe in the gospels. I like the stories, however - they do seem pretty real to me.

 

See! Your own argument is refuted. There are no eyewitnesses, so you can't say it's invalid due to being based on eyewitness testimony... Therefore, it MUST be true! Check... and... mate you atheist heathens!

I don't know what's true or not. Well, some things I know are true... There is a shortage of eye-witnesses in the gospels. It comes down to faith - whether you believe or not. But I know there's no God.

[seriously disabled]

Jesus is dead so no Jesus being God can't be true (obviously).

 

Also if Jesus really was God then he would not have allowed some people to stick nails in his body and cause him to feel so much pain.

 

But as they say, let men believe as they will.

Edited February 25, 2012 by seriously disabled

[astrocat5]

Believing in Jesus but not in God makes little sense. He was after all God Incarnate. Sure you can hold to some sort of naturalistic explanation for him, but that is hardly what he taught. Leaves me with the question if you believe in him why would you not trust in the things he said?

 

Are we to believe the man who gave us some of the most sublime moral teachings in history would lie about who he was?

Jesus never said he was the son of god.

 

He said he was the son of man, just so this wouldn't happen. The prayer he gave us is a prayer to our Heavenly Father, who's name is too holy for us to know. 'You cannot know the father,' Jesus told people. 'He's too high above you.'

 

Then he said that he and the Father were the same. Jesus was certainly not 'God-Incarnate,' as you say. God is a jealous, vengeful god in case you don't know. Jesus was none of these.

 

Of course I believe in Jesus and the things he said. If you want to know Jesus, get his father straight first.

 

Jesus is dead so no Jesus being God can't be true (obviously).

 

Also if Jesus really was God then he would not have allowed some people to stick nails in his body and cause him to feel so much pain.

 

But as they say, let men believe as they will.

Jesus is dead? So how come billions believe in him?

 

He knew beforehand he was going to be crucified - when the time came he said to his father - not my will but thy will. It's the best way, it seems, to get to heaven - the supreme sacrifice - your own life.

 

See! Your own argument is refuted. There are no eyewitnesses, so you can't say it's invalid due to being based on eyewitness testimony... Therefore, it MUST be true! Check... and... mate you atheist heathens!

The Gospels were written some time after his death. That's why there are no eye-witnesses. It MUST be true? I think it's more a matter of faith - you believe or you don't. If you don't believe in Jesus, he won't believe in you...

 

It's like life - a two way street.