April 4, 2010, 2:10 pm by dc-agape.

It is another Christian Holiday here in the US of A.  I have posted previously about Xtains stealing holidays from other cultures due to cultural pressure.  Easter is no different.  Xtians claim that Easter represents the death and resurrection of their savior, yet three things make that questionable to the non-believer.  These three points are: Easter falls on the Jewish Passover, the date of Easter is calculated on the lunar year, and an interesting mathematical quandary. 

If Jesus was born on a single day in the winter – Dec 25^th – of (most likely) 4 BCE, how is it that his death is randomly chosen each year to land on the lunar date of the Jewish Passover?  As with Xmas, Easter was an attempt to convert Jewish citizen to the new religion.  People could hide their celebration behind a Jewish custom.  People could continue to look outwardly like the Jewish people, yet celebrate an Xtian holiday.  People would not miss their old customs of family and communities while being Xtians.  In other words, Xtians did not have to give anything up to fit into society!  Great Xtian traditions start early…fit into the world, don’t give it up.  Don’t make waves…it might get you killed.  To say the least, imitating other religions holidays is cowardly!  It is hypocritical; Christianity is about giving up the earthy desires and no longer belonging to the world.  Hiding the true meaning of you calibrations behind other religions holidays is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

Using the lunar calendar is perfectly acceptable, except in the fact that both Islam and Judaism both use it as well.  Why follow the old religion (Judaism) if the birth of Jesus was not celebrated based on the lunar calendar? Since we no longer use the Jewish calendar that indicates that the Sabbath is on Saturday, why use the old religions calendar for an important holiday such as Easter?  It seems odd that a new religion, based on ignoring the desires of the world, would choice to hide the most important date in their religion behind another religion’s holiday. 

But here is the best part of Easter:  The mathematical quandary!  You see Good Friday is the day Jesus died on the cross, yet Easter Sunday is the day that he was supposedly resurrected.  Simple enough, right?  Not even close!  What is missing from this mathematical equation is that Jesus was dead for 3 days.  One must remember that the recorded time of Jesus’ death is at the end of Friday.  The recorded resurrection of Jesus is Sunday morning.  This adds up to only 36 hour!  Unless days were 12 hours 2000 years ago this does not equal 3 days.  For 1685 years Xtians have had to do some fantastic mathematical leaps to double the number of days from 1.5 to 3.  That’s right for Jesus to have been dead for 3 days; he would have to have risen from the dead on Tuesday morning (or at least Monday night)! 

Posted in Resurrection, Contradictions, Traditions of Men, Inerrancy - My Ass, Becoming an atheist | Print | 2 Comments »

December 20, 2009, 8:10 am by dc-agape.

The Treatise on the Resurrection

I am changing gears for a number of reasons.   First, I have lingered in the Dead Sea Scrolls for too long.    I had thought that I would post on five additional Scrolls, but they are indeed very dry and very technical with little spiritual importance to modern day Theists.  Secondly, the gotten bored.  For the most important reason is that I have come to a much stronger conclusion that the Pauline doctrines of the New Testament should be questioned.  Both Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi indicate a much stronger understanding and source for the teachings of Jesus.  As a result, I want to go ahead and work on the Nag Hammadi library.    The Treatise on the Resurrection is the next Scroll in this series. 

The scholars who have studied this Treatise can place this document as part of the Valentinian Gnostic doctrine.   The same scholars placed writing of this Treatise near the end of the second century CE.   This was a period of time in the new Christian religion where the concept of the Resurrection had not been firmly established.  Questions still abound as to whether the Resurrection would occur before death, immediately after death, or At the Second Coming (the Judgment Day).   More questions were still related an unresolved about whether the body, the soul, the mind, or a combination of these three would occur during the Resurrection.   This Treatise leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader exactly what the author understands will occur as part of the Resurrection.

The author of the Treatise does add one additional concept that is left out of modern Christianity.  It is certainly not a new one, but it is one that has been forgotten but almost all of today’s denominations.  The author indicates that once the Truth is known about death and the Resurrection one has already been resurrected.  As a result, one should live a life as If they already possess the new resurrected body.  In other words, outwardly the believer should live a life free from the worldly nature of humankind.

This concept is truly appealing to a gay Atheist.  First of all, this Treatise does indicate that predestination elects the believer.  No amount of persuasion is involved in believing in this religion, it is truly based on faith.  Second of all, this Treatise indicates that Christians should be noticeably different from the mortal unbelieving human.  Both these attributes fit what is observed in today’s modern Christian religion.  In other words, the unbeliever cannot be persuaded to have faith, and this faithful should not be identical (in nature) to the unbeliever.  Since neither of these concepts are applied in modern Churches it becomes obvious that the Valentinian faith is more accurate than the Pauline religion.

Posted in Resurrection, Treatise on the Resurrection, The Nag Hammadi, Biblical topics, Readings, Introduction | Print | 2 Comments »