“The work of God”?
- Thread starter city2
- Start date
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
THere's nothing 'snide' about the post ban, merely trying to inject a little humour into our lives.
Your output in this thread is rather prodigious to say the least and i know (cos you tell us) that you like to look at all sides of the subject. Also, the post i replied to did include a rather long list of reading material for you to peruse.
Enlighten up.
But you don’t think the Gospels are a force for good so how are we ever going to agree?
The resurrection and the hundreds that saw the Risen Christ.
Nebuchadnezzar
Well-Known Member
Another good read is around the theory that Jesus is actually a magic mushroom. As is Father Christmas.
Ever noticed how a lot of early pictures of Jesus show him with mushrooms?
The Mushroom in Christian Art by John A. Rush: 9781556439605 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
In The Mushroom in Christian Art, author John A. Rush uses an artistic motif to define the nature of Christian art, establish the identity of Jesus, and expose the motive for his murder. Covering Christian...www.penguinrandomhouse.com
Going further into the importance of psychedelic mushrooms and the opening of the mind, unlocking parts of the brain we don’t use day-to-day:
You can see why some believe that’s what may be being worshipped when it comes to deities. I don’t particularly subscribe to this theory, but it is interesting and holds as much weight for me as him being a miraculous son of the sky god.
That final book, not particularly looking at religion though, is brilliant!
They don't call them "Flesh of the Gods" for nothing!
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
You talk about gospels. How do you account for the congress of men, that decided which writings should be included in the book? There were many that didn't make the final cut. How could these men decide which ones God wanted included and more importantly, why did he have so many others dictated by himself, when he knew they wouldn't be included? He does know everything and what will happen. So, take a stab at that without highlighting it was written by men, from their own heads about God, that other men then had a meeting and decided some of them weren't really God after all?
Well from a purely material point of view the canon, as it’s called, was decided upon from which sources the Gospels came from and a level of consistency to the story.
People often falsely presume the Bible was constructed bit by bit and first it had Mark, then Matthew, then Luke etc. When in reality, these books were written completely separately, sometimes using each other and similar sources of course, but they weren’t written with the Bible already being constructed.
So it’s a matter of sources and consistency.
To give you an example, the infancy of Thomas Gospel, about Jesus as a child, isn’t backed up in any other writings. It’s completely on its own and written in the 2nd century, without any previous acknowledgement to it.
Whereas the canon Gospels were being preached in churches before they were compiled, as I said in a previous post, Paul refers to scripture in the 50’s and that’s where, people expect, the sources came from and there were the main four that held consistency, despite some contradictions, from these sources.
Regarding the religious perspective, you wouldn’t agree and would scoff at that reason so I am not going to both adding that, as it’s not a reason you would accept.