God is not to Mock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shibolet
  • Start date Start date
The only proofs come to us from Rome, who are the only source of any notion about a literal Jesus.
Er ... really? Got those proofs to hand?

You cannot find anything else on this guy, he is another solar savior, this time attempting to bring the Jews under Rome's control as they were being a nuisance.
LOL! So wrong!!! You really don't get history. Pitch that idea to anyone who knows what he's talking about, and you'll be laughed out of court.

If Jesus ever really lived, you'd expect a little more evidence...
Oh dear ... this is typical of the chasm between popular scepticism and expert opinion. Suffice to say that scholars of every field that touch upon the subject – and I am ignoring theologians – are quite happy to assert that Jesus existed, based on the evidence.

You guys really need to get up to speed on contemporary scholarship.

Indeed, until the Council of Nicea ...
And stop believing everything you read on the web.

Rather, it is more like a principle, an ideal.
Ah, this is another common and popular modern idea. It's attraction is it reduces the idea of Christ to an abstraction, and when you ask what ideal or principle is being put forward, you invariably end up with an image that uncannily reflects the ideology of the person pushing it ... 'the Jesus of our own invention' as I believe someone said.
 
"According to"...

I am telling you what is so in my experience, trying to use your terminology.

"Your experience!" Tell me about it. What experience in the mind of a Moslem could come as a result of soul definition? How could it be any different from Genesis 2:7?
 
1 - Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, the whole thing about being a jealous God.

2 - God killed EVERY human being and every animal except those Noah saved... please read your Bible.

3 - The Bible says God did it...

4 - Luckily, it is unlikely people will think it is the work of God anymore.

5 - I was not there, neither were the guys writing your scripture. I do not think it is useful to pretend I know. For me, it is about knowing what is here now, how this is coming into being. I tell you creation has not stopped, nor destruction. Every moment, every atom is dying and being born. To have any meaning, the creator must have stopped creating.

This is the idea of meditation, venturing into ones own source and seeing how you come into being. Once you know how you have - and you came from nothing! the result of sperm and egg meeting - then you know how all has.

Your problem is no different from the Christian one as a member of the literal interpretation club. The basis of Biblical writings is poetic, prophetic, and allegoric. If you go too literal without any concerned for metaphorical language, you will have only an anthropomorphic idea of God. Wrong idea, that is.
 
Do not misunderstand, again, I do not make myself anything.

Much has happened to me, I am interested in sharing.

The very purpose of sharing is to show it is also true of you.

This requires my knowing I am not special, that you are exactly like me.

Why depend on others when you can know for yourself?

I wish to convey something of the how.

That is all.

If you are a Moslem, you must depend on the Koran though not according to the letter. If I am a Jew, I must depend on the Tanach and if one is a Christian he or she usually depends on the NT.
 
I do not wish to teach some notion.

I want to bring you to the place of knowing.

From there, all is available, I will be wasting my time to say it to you.

You will already have it.

There are so many places of knowing that all become subject to our pre-conceived notions. What is the place of knowing for you could not be the same for me or for others. I have my "the place of knowing" and so have Christians theirs.
 
1 - Further, I suggest you look into the historicity of Jesus.

2 - The only proofs come to us from Rome, who are the only source of any notion about a literal Jesus.

3 - You cannot find anything else on this guy, he is another solar savior, this time attempting to bring the Jews under Rome's control as they were being a nuisance.

4 - If Jesus ever really lived, you'd expect a little more evidence. Some of the people that saw miracles should have written down some accounts. The Jews should have been making more of a fuss during his life.

5 - Instead, we have vague statements about Christi's - which probably weren't what we think of today as Christians, and may not have even been Jews. We have nothing about this man, except what others have said about these groups... strange.

6 - It is entirely reasonable to conclude Jesus is just another myth.

7 - Indeed, until the Council of Nicea, many texts make no attempt to insist Jesus ever actually existed. Even Paul seems to make no attempt to say he was a real man.

8 - Rather, it is more like a principle, an ideal.

1 - The only historicity about Jesus is the NT. There was nothing about Jesus before the NT. The truth is that only after the NT, there has never been a man upon earth whom more books have been written about.

2 - Not true. Much to say about Jesus came out of Paul while in Jerusalem.

3 - Jesus never tried to bring the Jews under the control of Rome. Rather the opposite is true that he was crucified on a political charge of insurrection for being acclaimed by his own disciples to be king of the Jews. Hence his verdict: INRI.

4 - Christians claim that the gospel writers were Jews and they did write in their gospels about Jesus.

5 - True that Jesus never had any thing to do with Christianity and, Paul started to write about him about 30 years after he had been gone. You might be right about that one.

6 - That's for sure as those who believe he was the son of God without an earthly biological father. (Acts 9:20) That's about the Greek myth of the demigod taught in Mat. 1:18 and Luke 1:32.

7 - I think Paul was the "Christ" by proxy as he used Jesus who did not live anymore at his time.

8 - Yea, "Christ" was the metaphorical idea to point to Paul as the one who gave his followers to be called Christians. (Acts 11:26)
 
Thanks but I don't think I need to go to India to learn their Logic. I have here at home. The Logic of Judaism, at least in my opinion, excels all others as Logic is concerned.

Today, you are correct, but in those days, many would go on journeys to gain mystical truths. You seem to ignore the fact that these Greeks I am discussing lived before Christ, there was no internet or any form of the printing press.

I see no logics in Judaism, it just goes on saying that you shouldn't worship this God or that God, it starts renaming older Gods to align with its propaganda. We are expected to simply take the words of these men, no evidence is given at all. It is clear these people have not known much, for they have not even attempted to give methods were encountering the same.

For me, the Old Testament reads as a fanatics attempt to prove something. I am open to any and all offerings you might make as to any logics of the Bible.

However, it is interesting to note that Logic as we know it was a Greek notion, it is strange then that you even apply it to Judaism. In my reading, the Bible makes no attempt to appeal to any form of reason - again, this is a Greek notion.

It seems to me that these systems are directly antithetical of ancient faiths like Judaism, where they ask the reader to actually think, rather than just believing.

For me, the only genuine proof is in encountering these things yourself.

For me, the most telling aspect of the whole Abrahamic line is its utter lack of any attempt to prove in this way. They have simply believed, and have raised these men up to super human levels to make it look impossible to attain to what they knew.

This is manifest foolery, and the philosophers went on showing that this is just part of human nature. The Egyptians and even the Romans actually taught how to achieve the states which these prophets claimed unique to them.

For me, if you can't show me the state, you are just a fanatic believer.

No other branch of religion has been so absent of this than the Abrahamic line.

For me, this is why no other branch has been responsible for the atrocities of this line.

Certainly, something is amiss.
 
1 - The only historicity about Jesus is the NT. There was nothing about Jesus before the NT. The truth is that only after the NT, there has never been a man upon earth whom more books have been written about.

The origins of the NT are questionable enough to make this utterly a non-proof.

2 - Not true. Much to say about Jesus came out of Paul while in Jerusalem.

The documentary I have just posted says much about this Paul character.

3 - Jesus never tried to bring the Jews under the control of Rome. Rather the opposite is true that he was crucified on a political charge of insurrection for being acclaimed by his own disciples to be king of the Jews. Hence his verdict: INRI.

I have not said Jesus did, as I am questioning the very existence of Jesus. I am saying that in claiming Jesus as the Messiah, then placing the Emperor of Rome as the Vicar of Christ, Christianity has been used as propaganda to achieve this.

4 - Christians claim that the gospel writers were Jews and they did write in their gospels about Jesus.

This is probably not true, but even the Church Fathers have not began referencing the Gospels until at least 200 years after the death of Jesus. Whether they were Jewish or not, they certainly were not alive when Jesus lived, so the whole story is based on hearsay. There is no way to authenticate the stories on these grounds alone, they have simply already began glorification of this figure to something more than man. These things are now taken as fact and written down by believers.

5 - True that Jesus never had any thing to do with Christianity and, Paul started to write about him about 30 years after he had been gone. You might be right about that one.

It is interesting that Paul doesn't even attempt to say Jesus existed, further, many suggest he was prior a Mithraic priest, and the son of Jewish and Roman parents. It begins to look a lot like he is simply trying to marry the faiths of his parents when you know this fact... Mithra was a savior God with many of the details of Jesus and his life matching up. Strange then that the Jews were searching for a Savior and this man has been preaching the Savior. I do not find this a coincidence.

6 - That's for sure as those who believe he was the son of God without an earthly biological father. (Acts 9:20) That's about the Greek myth of the demigod taught in Mat. 1:18 and Luke 1:32.

Even this is not authentic or original to Jesus, many Savior Gods were of virgin birth and considered the Son of God. This seems almost a mandatory part of the Savior Gods... the documentary I have posted says why, it is again Solar worship.

7 - I think Paul was the "Christ" by proxy as he used Jesus who did not live anymore at his time.

I have gone even further than this above, although the documentary I posted at least paints a slightly better picture of this figure. It does not mention there that Paul was a Mithraic priest at all, another man who has been researching the historicity of Jesus has made those claims.

8 - Yea, "Christ" was the metaphorical idea to point to Paul as the one who gave his followers to be called Christians. (Acts 11:26)

The documentary I posted also talks about the origins of these Christ myths, Savior myths, etc. I am puzzled though as to why this one won. For me, there are several that are far better and more direct. Further, the philosophical schools which underarched these myths were simply beautiful.

By comparison, Christianity is utterly lacking, what to say of the Jewish texts? Kaballah is of Egyptian origin, yet is brought into Jewish thinking because the Torah is so horribly lacking. The Zohan is written even later attempting to make the Old Testament at least appear spiritual.

Without these sorts of additions, the whole Abrahamic line looks just insane.
 
For me, the whole trouble of Christianity - and the other Abrahamic faiths - is exactly this.

By not making their beliefs a result of genuine insight, without giving man a set of instructions to encounter truth for themselves, they are left to simply believe. Now, belief is purely mental, you have to prove your loyalty, you have to show your allegiance. Anything that creates doubt is utterly dangerous, because you don't know, and so there is no foundation to the beliefs.

This is why all other streams are considerably more accepting of outside influence. They concentrate on the HOW, they give techniques to encounter truth for yourself, directly. Now, when you know for yourself, it is very easy to understand the truths of others. You can see the differences are only superficial, that yes, this is another way of saying this.

You of course have fanatics in every tradition, but these fanatics are again mere believers that don't want any threat to their belief system to be allowed. There are exceptions, Muhammad and Jesus both seem to be examples, no meditator has ever waged war, has ever become violent about any philosophical idea....

Jesus has showed great anger in the Synagogue, Muhammad has waged war. Yet, if you walk the path, you know what has happened. They have had the encounter of oneness, the mystical vision that Zen calls satori, but ego has continued.

As you venture further and further into this world, you simply start dropping stupid beliefs, they are not necessary. Yet, these men of Abraham have continued to propagate the old beliefs, and have killed for it. This is not an enlightened action.

Many Indian Guru's show the same, they make the texts too important, and thus go on doing stupid things. Shankara is an example, debating up and down the country, winning many disciples through these debates. Yet, he has been defeated by an untouchable. Shankara is the first Hindu to say the world is Maya, yet touching this man, he has become angry.

He then went on to include his conclusion that caste systems are stupid, exactly based on maya. Again, Shankara was not a meditator, he was of the Jnani line, and his line interestingly has its roots in Buddhism.

Always, when you cling to texts, you will manifest sheer stupidity, that is the point.

Believing is not the same as knowing, those who know have never had any problem understanding each other. Only those who don't know have become like Moses, utterly insistent on stupid details.
 
Jnana Yoga means roughly the Wisdom of Oneness.

It attempts to use the mind to encounter truth directly, via logic, which is why I have brought it up. Nothing climbs higher as far as logic of God is concerned, the whole tradition is how to best articulate truth towards that encounter - the Abrahamic faith makes no such attempt.

This is understandable, the Abrahamic line is not interested in logic, it is a Bhakti Yoga branch... it is trying to use the heart to encounter oneness. Christ also teaches Karma Yoga, the humility of giving without expectation of returns. Still, it is not a logical approach at all, it is not an attempt to use the mind to come to God. Nothing of the sort, in fact. To call these logical is just embarrassing, honestly.

Both are particular ways, Raja Yoga is another, basically just meditation.

The positional stuff we call Yoga in the west is an off-shoot of Raja, not particularly useful as anything but exercise. It attempts to still the mind by concentrating it on the body... blah
 
This is also a fun documentary in answer to the Catholics.

What is interesting is that it is utterly ignored that the only proofs for Jesus came through Rome, so it is hard to understand the Protestant stance of Biblical truth.

Without Rome, we have no historical Jesus, we have the Gnostic view of Jesus - which again, has parallels to Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, which is interesting...

It is long, but here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lIm05YY00w
 
You believe the Church on similarly shaky grounds.
So your view that there is no truth to any religion stands on what? A few atheistic/agnostic/etc. youtube videos? Am I saying Thomas' version of truth is absolute, no. But at least he puts his faith in something millions of other people over thousands of years have agreed upon as truth. Same with all the Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu(Vedic followers)/Gnostics/Pagans(obviously some independents in this catagory wouldn't count for this argument)/Zooastrals/Sikhs/etc. Your apparent view comes from nothing more than an apparent discourse with religions you have studied. Finding errors or inconsistencies or just things you don't agree with and writing all religions off because of it. And then you come on and say basically noone can be right because only what you say is right. Do I believe I am right in my beliefs? Absolutely yes in the absolute. Does that mean I tell others their beliefs are wrong? Sometimes, but not just to tell them they are wrong, I try to correct their argument. As I just posted in an thread about how (Thomas I believe) was referring to Psalm 110 as talking about Jesus (PBUH). I hope he doesn't take that as me telling him he is wrong, but rather adjusting his argument to include the option that maybe it was talking about David (PBUH) as people long before the NT interpretted it. I did put an argument to add how can he believe something and put my basis for that argument. Maybe instead of saying "I'm right based on this youtube video or someone who I agree on this topic with", you can try explaining why you think something and what you are basing it off of rather than just simply you are wrong and I am right.

I think God is a human ideal to which we all mold ourselves and which is different for each person, because mentally one cannot perceive the same as another person forcing the God people believe in to be different and therefore each person is his own God. - How I might have stated what you have over the past few days. Obviously this is just what I understand you to have understood.
 
lol...my truth is the absolute truth and I'll tell you why you are wrong....

so folks...what part of the video do you agree have merit and which parts are you easily disproving?

conversation or conversion going on here?
 
conversation or conversion going on here?
Actually Wil, I thought BigJoeNobody was making a decent effort to contribute something useful.

I'll put some effort in what I'm offered something more than opinion that clearly indicates a lack of insight re the subject being commented on.

And I have to say, more often than not, I find your non sequiturs as much a hindrance as anything ...
 
So your view that there is no truth to any religion stands on what? A few atheistic/agnostic/etc. youtube videos? Am I saying Thomas' version of truth is absolute, no. But at least he puts his faith in something millions of other people over thousands of years have agreed upon as truth. Same with all the Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu(Vedic followers)/Gnostics/Pagans(obviously some independents in this catagory wouldn't count for this argument)/Zooastrals/Sikhs/etc. Your apparent view comes from nothing more than an apparent discourse with religions you have studied. Finding errors or inconsistencies or just things you don't agree with and writing all religions off because of it. And then you come on and say basically noone can be right because only what you say is right. Do I believe I am right in my beliefs? Absolutely yes in the absolute. Does that mean I tell others their beliefs are wrong? Sometimes, but not just to tell them they are wrong, I try to correct their argument. As I just posted in an thread about how (Thomas I believe) was referring to Psalm 110 as talking about Jesus (PBUH). I hope he doesn't take that as me telling him he is wrong, but rather adjusting his argument to include the option that maybe it was talking about David (PBUH) as people long before the NT interpretted it. I did put an argument to add how can he believe something and put my basis for that argument. Maybe instead of saying "I'm right based on this youtube video or someone who I agree on this topic with", you can try explaining why you think something and what you are basing it off of rather than just simply you are wrong and I am right.

I think God is a human ideal to which we all mold ourselves and which is different for each person, because mentally one cannot perceive the same as another person forcing the God people believe in to be different and therefore each person is his own God. - How I might have stated what you have over the past few days. Obviously this is just what I understand you to have understood.

That isn't what I'm saying.

Religion is a particular expression of union.

We use it to divide.

Stupid.

Words can't unify unless they come from unity.

The tendency is to unify.

Most become partial though.

They have united with part.

Communion is the expression of that meeting point.
 
We concentrate too much on the communication.
What is being communicated?
 
Back
Top