Jesus-Neither Literal Son of God nor God
- Thread starter inhumility
- Start date
The Jeffersonian Gospels are still in print today and available. Thomas Jefferson, Christian, founding father of the US, Author of the Declaration, Instrumental in the Constitution, 3rd President of the United States, part and parcel of In God we Trust...
He took out virgin birth, resurection, only begotten son....just the stuff we are discussing...
He took out virgin birth, resurection, only begotten son....just the stuff we are discussing...
Hi Wil -
Why? Because of his incredulity, I wonder?
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;" (1 John 1:1)
John, in his epistle, expresses that what the apostles spoke of was not myth, not metaphor, but an actual, physical reality.
+++
John, here and elsewhere, uses the word 'arche' which translates as 'beginning' but in much more than a temporal sense. It also translates as 'Cause' or 'Principle' ... couple this with Word, the translation of 'logos', which again has a far wider scope than the Latin 'verbum' from which the English 'word' stems, and you have quite a profound metaphysical statement - that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of the Principle of Being.
We are beings, according to that principle, but we are not the 'principle of being' as such, which alone is Jesus Christ - Son of the Father, or the Arche (Principle) of the Arche Anarchos (Principle without Principle).
Non-Christian (and not a few Christian) denominations insist that Christ is 'according to the principle' which makes him like us, as I am like you (but he's just better at it, you might say) .... but Scripture would seem to be adamant that Christ is not a saint, an avatar, a sage, a prophet, a teacher ... all of whom 'embody' the spirit of life to a greater or lesser degree ... but rather that Christ is the Incarnation of the Logos itself ...
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
(Colossians 1:15-17)
In short, to quote another American President, one should "either **** or get off the pot" - either accept revelation or deny it, but don't try and rewrite it - that's basically dishonest.
Thomas
Why? Because of his incredulity, I wonder?
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;" (1 John 1:1)
John, in his epistle, expresses that what the apostles spoke of was not myth, not metaphor, but an actual, physical reality.
+++
John, here and elsewhere, uses the word 'arche' which translates as 'beginning' but in much more than a temporal sense. It also translates as 'Cause' or 'Principle' ... couple this with Word, the translation of 'logos', which again has a far wider scope than the Latin 'verbum' from which the English 'word' stems, and you have quite a profound metaphysical statement - that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of the Principle of Being.
We are beings, according to that principle, but we are not the 'principle of being' as such, which alone is Jesus Christ - Son of the Father, or the Arche (Principle) of the Arche Anarchos (Principle without Principle).
Non-Christian (and not a few Christian) denominations insist that Christ is 'according to the principle' which makes him like us, as I am like you (but he's just better at it, you might say) .... but Scripture would seem to be adamant that Christ is not a saint, an avatar, a sage, a prophet, a teacher ... all of whom 'embody' the spirit of life to a greater or lesser degree ... but rather that Christ is the Incarnation of the Logos itself ...
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
(Colossians 1:15-17)
In short, to quote another American President, one should "either **** or get off the pot" - either accept revelation or deny it, but don't try and rewrite it - that's basically dishonest.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Thomas said:
Without a doubt, Christ is not divided. Only his followers (of whatever faith or tradition), sometimes amongst themselves, and sometimes - within themselves!seattlegal said:
I maintain, that Christianity could have existed without Jesus of Nazareth, since it did exist prior to his appearance as such. I don't actually like to imagine what this world might be like had Jesus not chosen to appear, but my own understanding/belief is that the path of approach to God has always existed, just as it always will. Truth is One, paths are many.
I will not eat the man, but I do have interest - in digesting his message. It remains useless, while not applied. And a man, nailed to a cross, may give me much to reflect upon ... but its greatest lesson, for me - is Renunciation. Would we be willing to give whatever is required ... if asked? Careful how you answer. The requirements for discipleship, last time I checked, are not to be taken lightly!
Death - is not what's asked. Death to self, however, is! ... sighhhh. Now that's tough. andrew
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Hmmm, this is where not all agree. Church Dogma certainly has a lot to say about it, but the Mystics, I find ... tend to agree with the notion of Elder among Brethren, which I believe is also a Biblical Teaching. Look it up!Thomas said:
By the way, whose scripture is "adamant" about all that? I think I can show otherwise. Incarnate Logos adds weight to each of those roles and titles. It does not change them. Also, Avatara is an incarnation of the Divine. Eastern concept, with Universal import. Truly Universal. Irrespective of tradition. From the Sanskrit: avatarati - He descends.
And the idea that via Christed Jesus, the Logos was incarnate - I buy that. But so is the Logos incarnate in every human heart. Again, degree of perfection. That, too, is Biblical. Oh, unless you toss Paul out the window. Many do, but if I'm to take Corinthians seriously, then I'll look a the rest of Paul, too.
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:13) - [no doubt that could craftily be rendered 6 ways from Sunday, I'm sure ... but I'll take the 7th!]
[/FONT]
I salute the Divinity in you, [/FONT]
andrew
lunamoth
Episcopalian
taijasi said:
lunamoth
M
MagnetMan
Guest
wil said:
Man after my own heart.
From my understanding the Gospel of John is pretty much determined not to be written by the apostle...(due to the style differences) and it is questioned whether he even supervised the writing (as it is dated around 100 AD) I read other notes questioning his faculties in his elder years...
As for Thomas Jefferson and his removing of items he thought were contradictory to Christianity...I had read he removed those items which were obviously copied from previous religions yet added for affect and mystery...
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Taijasi said:
lol ... okay, okay, at least a caveat is in order ...lunamoth said:
lunamoth
Christianity as usually practiced and believed ... certainly holds Jesus of Nazareth - and faith in such, as central, and no distinction is made between the Nazarene, and the Christ.
But let's not forget, that the very use of these terms - chrestos, and Christos - long predated the Christian Era. They were imported from the Mystery Traditions, which taught that the spiritual neophyte, or candidate for Initiation, was chrestos. The chrest is worthy, and good, but as yet still possesses an unregenerated nature. Christos, simply means Annointed (kind of like Buddha simply means Awakened), and signified that the candidate had passed the last degree and become a full initiate. The Divine had become Incarnate.
It has been pointed out by some ... that what we know as Christianity is a syncretism of borrowings from Neoplatonism, neo-Pythogoreanism, Greek Gnosticism, and Hebrew religion. The word Christos was commonly used in the Greek translation of the Bible as a title of the Jewish Kings, those who had been anointed for reigning -- a symbolic rite taken originally from the Mysteries. In marked constrast, St. Paul's use of the word shows that he understood its true mystical meaning, but spoke with precaution in his public epistles or writings.
And the Hebrew Messiah, from mashiah, is the same as `Christos' - Annointed.
sighhh ... but I've said nothing here that everyone doesn't already know, correct?
andrew
M
MagnetMan
Guest
wil said:
You seem to have alot of information here, but the history you describe seems to be soiled with all sorts of personal and selfish interest. We have a scripture, "there is a way that seems right to man, but in the end it leads to death." Certainly, a wise man would choose otherwise. Secular history and the Bible (66 books) proves that Jesus not only lived, but was a prophet, a man and God. Read the book of John, if you doubt. He performed miracles and raised the dead and was raised from the dead himself.
The real people who gamble are those who here the word, but immediately forget what they heard and never ask God to reveal himself to them so that they can differential truth from untruth. A wise person will seek truth until he finds it and like a precious stone sell all he has to purchase it!
The real people who gamble are those who here the word, but immediately forget what they heard and never ask God to reveal himself to them so that they can differential truth from untruth. A wise person will seek truth until he finds it and like a precious stone sell all he has to purchase it!
inhumility
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Hi!
The scriptures of all Revealed Religions are, be they Noah-ides, Jews Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc whoever and wherever there are people claiming they are or they had in the past received God’s word, all included provide the sum total of the revealed stock of guidance provided by God to man- a common treasure for the whole humanity as against the atheism or not-believing who have received non. Scriptures are Word of God, if they contain the words of God in the original language in which it were revealed, rather than meanings in the form of translations or different versions or interpretations of somebody or are written observations of a scribe/disciple /apostle or comments of simply a reader/writer .Science is the ACT of God depicted in the whole universe, not what the scientists say (scientists so often talk of theories, that are not yet science, strictly speaking, unless these are considered as Scientific Laws. The Scientific Laws are not creation of the scientists, they just discover with experiments what has already been created by God, they only verify with their experiments and close observations what already exists and created by God.
The source of Word of God and Act of God is the same i.e. one God-the Supreme Creator, the All–Knowing and All-Wise, therefore there cannot be logically any contradiction in both.
If there is prima facie a contradiction or difference, a gap in the two, then this has to be investigated truthfully and logically, the fault if any is of the humans involved. Either the Word of God has been wrongly interpreted/translated or interpolated by the humans or yet a Law of Science is in the process of making/not yet fully discovered. This would require reconciliation of the two with facts and one with the fault would be amended/updated accordingly .The religious people ,being human beings, are also prone to err, get carried away into superstitions , myths ,unreal mysticism due to their becoming over zealous or sometimes under pressure, the same is true of the scientific people ( not the scientists).
The faithful believes and has to believe the truth whichever and wherever and wherefrom the truth has emerged , with continuous search instead of the blind faith which is yet another form of not- believing that causes believing in myths and fiction rather the facts. This is the system from God.
Evolution of human thought and progress of scientific knowledge in every branch of knowledge provides us ground to evolve our centuries old religious concepts, while every thing else is progressing , adapting to the new realities which surface due to new knowledge and technology, on the basis of undisputed facts brought by history , archaeology or sciences etc. The old concepts of clergy, theologians were mostly based on their limited knowledge of that time, which needs to be updated and not to be followed blindly as the new but real facts have emerged. Why to believe in the religious establishment when it is proved wrong.
The original post is not intended to provoke any controversy or to weaken faith of the Christians or it is not an attempt unnecessarily to convert them to some other faith. This is intended to make Christians a better Christians which fact is also evidenced by splitting of Christianity into some two thousands sects.
After all there is some discrepancy somewhere. This is every individual’s own duty to do this exercise himself; others can only help, which is the true intention.
I learn that the original post has been moved from Christianity Board. I don’t have any complaint in this regard. However, I would like to point out that this would convert Interfaith-Dialogue or Comparative Religions Forum to a sort of monologue forum, one faith religious forum. Since no conflicting debate is intended, as I abhor such debates. One enjoys and one’s knowledge gets improved by wisdom of the learned fellow human beings who think otherwise. With their wise and free comments other side of the concept is presented which provides one rich food of thought and rather than creating confusion one improves ones’ thoughts and beliefs which is only possible when we cross-examine our concepts with the opposing concepts. It is a positive exercise, there is no compulsion, and it develops free, logical and rational thinking, after all every body has finally to decide for himself. It would have been more appropriate if the original post had been displayed on both the Boards to make most use of wise people of both the boards.
When one cannot reconcile science and religion one normally does not share or discuss such thoughts with others especially with the clergy, the so called religious people, imbued with extra zeal that normally happen to be very narrow minded and close hearted, not to speak of the opposing views, one even does not discuss within the same faith people. By and by such silent people sometimes become atheists. Most of the people (be Christians or for that matter of any other religion) seldom go to the Churches (or synagogues or mosques or temples), which shows that inwardly they have become dormant in their faith or nearing or turned atheists or not-believing. These peoples have to be “awakened” in the faith by providing them the amended facts, the God sent reality without man–woven myths, which is only possible be reconciling Word of God with Act of God or vice versa, in the light of and updating with the new undoubted facts which are common treasure of man, or searching the true word of God from the existing scriptures, also a common Treasure of man. All believers of any religion have to make concerted efforts for revival of their faith to salvage growing silent atheists or dormant believers of the faith. The question is not of converting of a Christian to any other faith more important issue is of reclaiming the present Christian to the true Christian, Jew to a true Jew, Muslim to the true Islamic faith, Sikh to the true Sikhism etc, all bowing to the true will of God. To me, these are the natural allies-being believers in one God and must be loved. Inter-faith dialogue or study of the Comparative Religions is logically done to bridge this gap a man made gap between the Word of God ( the scripture) and Act ff God (pure laws of science ). The decision again rests with the individual.
The scriptures of all Revealed Religions are, be they Noah-ides, Jews Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc whoever and wherever there are people claiming they are or they had in the past received God’s word, all included provide the sum total of the revealed stock of guidance provided by God to man- a common treasure for the whole humanity as against the atheism or not-believing who have received non. Scriptures are Word of God, if they contain the words of God in the original language in which it were revealed, rather than meanings in the form of translations or different versions or interpretations of somebody or are written observations of a scribe/disciple /apostle or comments of simply a reader/writer .Science is the ACT of God depicted in the whole universe, not what the scientists say (scientists so often talk of theories, that are not yet science, strictly speaking, unless these are considered as Scientific Laws. The Scientific Laws are not creation of the scientists, they just discover with experiments what has already been created by God, they only verify with their experiments and close observations what already exists and created by God.
The source of Word of God and Act of God is the same i.e. one God-the Supreme Creator, the All–Knowing and All-Wise, therefore there cannot be logically any contradiction in both.
If there is prima facie a contradiction or difference, a gap in the two, then this has to be investigated truthfully and logically, the fault if any is of the humans involved. Either the Word of God has been wrongly interpreted/translated or interpolated by the humans or yet a Law of Science is in the process of making/not yet fully discovered. This would require reconciliation of the two with facts and one with the fault would be amended/updated accordingly .The religious people ,being human beings, are also prone to err, get carried away into superstitions , myths ,unreal mysticism due to their becoming over zealous or sometimes under pressure, the same is true of the scientific people ( not the scientists).
The faithful believes and has to believe the truth whichever and wherever and wherefrom the truth has emerged , with continuous search instead of the blind faith which is yet another form of not- believing that causes believing in myths and fiction rather the facts. This is the system from God.
Evolution of human thought and progress of scientific knowledge in every branch of knowledge provides us ground to evolve our centuries old religious concepts, while every thing else is progressing , adapting to the new realities which surface due to new knowledge and technology, on the basis of undisputed facts brought by history , archaeology or sciences etc. The old concepts of clergy, theologians were mostly based on their limited knowledge of that time, which needs to be updated and not to be followed blindly as the new but real facts have emerged. Why to believe in the religious establishment when it is proved wrong.
The original post is not intended to provoke any controversy or to weaken faith of the Christians or it is not an attempt unnecessarily to convert them to some other faith. This is intended to make Christians a better Christians which fact is also evidenced by splitting of Christianity into some two thousands sects.
After all there is some discrepancy somewhere. This is every individual’s own duty to do this exercise himself; others can only help, which is the true intention.
I learn that the original post has been moved from Christianity Board. I don’t have any complaint in this regard. However, I would like to point out that this would convert Interfaith-Dialogue or Comparative Religions Forum to a sort of monologue forum, one faith religious forum. Since no conflicting debate is intended, as I abhor such debates. One enjoys and one’s knowledge gets improved by wisdom of the learned fellow human beings who think otherwise. With their wise and free comments other side of the concept is presented which provides one rich food of thought and rather than creating confusion one improves ones’ thoughts and beliefs which is only possible when we cross-examine our concepts with the opposing concepts. It is a positive exercise, there is no compulsion, and it develops free, logical and rational thinking, after all every body has finally to decide for himself. It would have been more appropriate if the original post had been displayed on both the Boards to make most use of wise people of both the boards.
When one cannot reconcile science and religion one normally does not share or discuss such thoughts with others especially with the clergy, the so called religious people, imbued with extra zeal that normally happen to be very narrow minded and close hearted, not to speak of the opposing views, one even does not discuss within the same faith people. By and by such silent people sometimes become atheists. Most of the people (be Christians or for that matter of any other religion) seldom go to the Churches (or synagogues or mosques or temples), which shows that inwardly they have become dormant in their faith or nearing or turned atheists or not-believing. These peoples have to be “awakened” in the faith by providing them the amended facts, the God sent reality without man–woven myths, which is only possible be reconciling Word of God with Act of God or vice versa, in the light of and updating with the new undoubted facts which are common treasure of man, or searching the true word of God from the existing scriptures, also a common Treasure of man. All believers of any religion have to make concerted efforts for revival of their faith to salvage growing silent atheists or dormant believers of the faith. The question is not of converting of a Christian to any other faith more important issue is of reclaiming the present Christian to the true Christian, Jew to a true Jew, Muslim to the true Islamic faith, Sikh to the true Sikhism etc, all bowing to the true will of God. To me, these are the natural allies-being believers in one God and must be loved. Inter-faith dialogue or study of the Comparative Religions is logically done to bridge this gap a man made gap between the Word of God ( the scripture) and Act ff God (pure laws of science ). The decision again rests with the individual.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
You statements ring true, inhumility. That fairly represents what the CR board is all about, although I respect the opinion of athiests/agnostics if their disbelief is genuine and well thought out. You cannot make someone believe in God when such is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively prove. My hope in this forum concerns those who are dormant in their beliefs will be enlightened to possibilities and areas to be explored in search of the truth, whatever that may be. Moreover that their lives will be enhanced because of a renewed hope in the things unseen.
M
MagnetMan
Guest
Dondi said:
Amen Brother!
Or, as the shamans of Africa say Siavuma!
inhumility
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Hi!Dondi said:
Thank you Dondi
I also respect the atheists,if it is their confimed belief.God has given choice to man,as per the scheme of things of life,to believe or not to believe that cannot be denied to man by man.Thanks again.
inhumility
Active Member
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
Hi!
I thank every body who has contributed his view point in the above thread , now it is one’s own prerogative to change ones’ mind/faith in face of all these arguments presented or maintains one’s view as one held before, no compulsion; one has the right to have whatever faith one wants myth or fact.
I would however have to reflect that so far little has been written on the scientific basis of parenthood of Jesus’ birth or otherwise (the main thrust of the thread ) i.e., the chromosomes DNA-RNA factor as pointed in the original post. There might be many scientists especially in the field of genetics or acquaintances / friends of the members. If possible they could shed more light on the issue purely y on the scientific aspect of the issue, leaving aside for the time being the aspect of the so called spiritual or the metaphysical aspect.
We should presently firmly establish for ourselves analyzing the scientific aspect and then, there seems to be no harm, in having a firm/confirmed/reaffirmed faith and be confident to declare that SCIENTIFICALLY at least “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God”.
We should take sides unequivocally and with certainty. This is essential to be done by the faithful as faith increased with every layer of certainty and gets demolished when in DOUBTS. One is sort of blind-folded if one maintains faith in doubts. Blind faith cannot sustain against the tornado of doubts; it is only CERTAINTY which would withstand. Blind faith cannot live on the CROSS of doubts, but CERTAINTY would certainly live and would not die on CROSS as Jesus did not die on cross, it was certainty of his faith & his character that did not waiver and which yet survived at the hands of the then Jewish clergy/theologians . Against all the odds his faith together with his self had survived. Though badly injured, he went into a coma, the thread of his life but hanged between life and death, yet he was truthful in his BODY and SOUL – so he survived. His words were true- he must have been informed by God— and so he had himself hinted quite a number of times meaning thereby that he would survive and would not be killed by hands of Jews, and would go after the incident to spread his gospel among the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel . Why to love CROSS? - A symbol of torture to the truthful Jesus? Has anyone ever loved the sword which badly injured one and made one nearing death position? Or has any body ever loved the bow or the arrow that pierces through his body?
No! Never!
Let the CROSS be broken or hated rather than to love it. Why should we make crosses? Do we intend to nail down Jesus on the cross again? No need to be in doubt that for the last 2000 years we had been blindly believing that Jesus died on cross. It is only a myth blown out of proportion like a child’s balloon, enough to be blown! It requires a small prick of a pin to puncture it, and lo it collapses.
Jesus himself prophesized that (1) the adulterous generation of Jews of that time would be shown the sign of Jonah. Jesus prophesized that (2) a prophet is not respected in his own town/peoples meaning that he would sometime go to the far off lands to spread the gospel and in those far off lands people would listen to him and would accept him in large numbers and he would be highly respected there.
(3) He prayed to God, most fervently he prayed, he implored and beseeched God that he should be spared from the cup of death, even the hard stones would get melted with the agony with which he prayed, such was his imploring ,read the paragraphs of the incident of crucifixion again- with moans and pains he prayed to the Lord. Was he a condemned person? Would his prayers have been lost in the void? No, never, he was a pious man and a perfect man. The prayers of such perfect men are always approved by the kind God. His prayers were certainly accepted, heard and he survived.
(4)Who spoke on the cross the words,” Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”? Among other things this showed that Jesus was not willing to get crucified. Was he then coerced to death- on cross by God, All-kind God? What a kindness and what a justice!!!? What his enemies could not dot to him, don’t do that to him. Don’t side with his enemies. As he survived, let Jesus’ faith – the true Christianity- (the soul of faith) survive.
Enough for the time being .Body language of Jesus as also his words and prayers speak voluminously, for sure that he did not want to be crucified/killed helplessly on cross.
LET JESUS BE SURVIVED AS HE WISHED- NO DEATH ON CROSS-bY HANDS OF THE JEWS.
inhumility
e-mailaarsurrey@yahoo.com
I thank every body who has contributed his view point in the above thread , now it is one’s own prerogative to change ones’ mind/faith in face of all these arguments presented or maintains one’s view as one held before, no compulsion; one has the right to have whatever faith one wants myth or fact.
I would however have to reflect that so far little has been written on the scientific basis of parenthood of Jesus’ birth or otherwise (the main thrust of the thread ) i.e., the chromosomes DNA-RNA factor as pointed in the original post. There might be many scientists especially in the field of genetics or acquaintances / friends of the members. If possible they could shed more light on the issue purely y on the scientific aspect of the issue, leaving aside for the time being the aspect of the so called spiritual or the metaphysical aspect.
We should presently firmly establish for ourselves analyzing the scientific aspect and then, there seems to be no harm, in having a firm/confirmed/reaffirmed faith and be confident to declare that SCIENTIFICALLY at least “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God”.
We should take sides unequivocally and with certainty. This is essential to be done by the faithful as faith increased with every layer of certainty and gets demolished when in DOUBTS. One is sort of blind-folded if one maintains faith in doubts. Blind faith cannot sustain against the tornado of doubts; it is only CERTAINTY which would withstand. Blind faith cannot live on the CROSS of doubts, but CERTAINTY would certainly live and would not die on CROSS as Jesus did not die on cross, it was certainty of his faith & his character that did not waiver and which yet survived at the hands of the then Jewish clergy/theologians . Against all the odds his faith together with his self had survived. Though badly injured, he went into a coma, the thread of his life but hanged between life and death, yet he was truthful in his BODY and SOUL – so he survived. His words were true- he must have been informed by God— and so he had himself hinted quite a number of times meaning thereby that he would survive and would not be killed by hands of Jews, and would go after the incident to spread his gospel among the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel . Why to love CROSS? - A symbol of torture to the truthful Jesus? Has anyone ever loved the sword which badly injured one and made one nearing death position? Or has any body ever loved the bow or the arrow that pierces through his body?
No! Never!
Let the CROSS be broken or hated rather than to love it. Why should we make crosses? Do we intend to nail down Jesus on the cross again? No need to be in doubt that for the last 2000 years we had been blindly believing that Jesus died on cross. It is only a myth blown out of proportion like a child’s balloon, enough to be blown! It requires a small prick of a pin to puncture it, and lo it collapses.
Jesus himself prophesized that (1) the adulterous generation of Jews of that time would be shown the sign of Jonah. Jesus prophesized that (2) a prophet is not respected in his own town/peoples meaning that he would sometime go to the far off lands to spread the gospel and in those far off lands people would listen to him and would accept him in large numbers and he would be highly respected there.
(3) He prayed to God, most fervently he prayed, he implored and beseeched God that he should be spared from the cup of death, even the hard stones would get melted with the agony with which he prayed, such was his imploring ,read the paragraphs of the incident of crucifixion again- with moans and pains he prayed to the Lord. Was he a condemned person? Would his prayers have been lost in the void? No, never, he was a pious man and a perfect man. The prayers of such perfect men are always approved by the kind God. His prayers were certainly accepted, heard and he survived.
(4)Who spoke on the cross the words,” Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”? Among other things this showed that Jesus was not willing to get crucified. Was he then coerced to death- on cross by God, All-kind God? What a kindness and what a justice!!!? What his enemies could not dot to him, don’t do that to him. Don’t side with his enemies. As he survived, let Jesus’ faith – the true Christianity- (the soul of faith) survive.
Enough for the time being .Body language of Jesus as also his words and prayers speak voluminously, for sure that he did not want to be crucified/killed helplessly on cross.
LET JESUS BE SURVIVED AS HE WISHED- NO DEATH ON CROSS-bY HANDS OF THE JEWS.
inhumility
aarsurrey@yahoo.com
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 0
I remain unconvinced one way or the other as to whether or not Jesus was even an actual historical person. I've read a lot about it but I still honestly just don't know. I am a follower of the philosophy of Christ. His historicity and manner of death aren't vitally important to me. I consider myself an honorary member of all religions and a world citizen.
Chris
Chris
We should presently firmly establish for ourselves analyzing the scientific aspect and then, there seems to be no harm, in having a firm/confirmed/reaffirmed faith and be confident to declare that SCIENTIFICALLY at least “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God”.
Steady ... dangerous ground ... you are asking us to affirm, confirm and reaffirm that “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God” on the SCIENTIFIC basis that lack of evidence is proof positive that something cannot be the case.
I think you will find that no scientist will accept that as a proof.
And as for the rest of your post, it would read better if the scientific evidence was there to support your hypothesis.
Thomas
Steady ... dangerous ground ... you are asking us to affirm, confirm and reaffirm that “Jesus neither Was Literal Son of God nor God” on the SCIENTIFIC basis that lack of evidence is proof positive that something cannot be the case.
I think you will find that no scientist will accept that as a proof.
And as for the rest of your post, it would read better if the scientific evidence was there to support your hypothesis.
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
All evidence that I have studied tells me ... that
A) Yes, there was an actual historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to at least 72BC, if not longer (there are good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular whre there is no priesthood or church agenda to maintain the status quo).
and
B) Jesus of Nazareth remains unquestionably, the least understood figure in recent history.
Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" were in fact two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30 was "the Christ"). So between them, which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...
If Jesus after age 30 was essentially - "the Christ," then we can at least gloss over the fact, to some, or notion, to others, that there was a distinction ... though the issue is an important one. Son of God? What would it take, for a reasonable person ... to face this issue from an unbiased viewpoint, and consider evidence that every human being is in fact, a Son of God? Relativism? Is that what we're left with?
Then hooray! Yes, I would welcome such a refreshing look ... at our human nature. Relatively speaking, we stand on a higher rung of the Ladder than a fish, or an ant. Yet to God the Father, I suspect we do seem largely - as ants. Think about that, next time you feel inclined to step on one, or squash a spider, kill a fly, smash a bee. As George Harrison said:
What upsets some of the people around here (and elsewhere), is that they cannot quite understand that the error has often been one of omission rather than of commission. And when someone boldly steps up to suggest what might have been omitted (sometimes intentionally, which is actually the committing of a sin, while other times, an innocent enought mistake) ... we find that they are banned from the CR forums, or that they are hounded and taken to issue at every call. One learns quickly to choose one's words wisely, but then one finds ... that it is often not truth which (wo)men wish to hear, but what feels good, sounds good, and is familiar.
And yes, sometimes we can speak truth in such a way that is disturbing to few, yet more often, it is upsetting to several, to say the least. And sometimes it is anathema to those who are either committed to maintaining the status quo, for one reason or another ... or it is heresy, to those who cannot accept any viewpoint contrary to their own. Not in making peace, or finding common ground, are such souls interested, but only in holding their own. And thus, even if I say, let us meet on friendly territory, I am met with suspicion, fear, pre-judgement and consternation. After all, what if we are proven wrong (though that is not the point, or intent), or what if we find ourself to be in error? What then? What will happen to our house of cards? If the very foundation crumbles, then what is left?
Says theology, Hell! Or even worse, the fear of the unknown, and perhaps nothing frightens us more - than that! What, then, does it matter - what others - might happen to know, think, feel, or believe about Jesus of Nazareth, or the Buddha, or anyone else who has been so sorely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and martyred by this world? The consensus is already in. And we know how things really stand, now don't we?
Sol Invictus ... (now, and always)
The Apostate
A) Yes, there was an actual historical personage, Jesus of Nazareth, living from about 105BC to at least 72BC, if not longer (there are good indications that he survived until the age of 80, but these are most popular whre there is no priesthood or church agenda to maintain the status quo).
and
B) Jesus of Nazareth remains unquestionably, the least understood figure in recent history.
Further, I think there is ample evidence to indicate that Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" were in fact two distinct beings ("separate" is a poor word choice here, since for all intents & purposes, Jesus after age 30 was "the Christ"). So between them, which was the Son of God? One, both, neither? Hmmm ...
If Jesus after age 30 was essentially - "the Christ," then we can at least gloss over the fact, to some, or notion, to others, that there was a distinction ... though the issue is an important one. Son of God? What would it take, for a reasonable person ... to face this issue from an unbiased viewpoint, and consider evidence that every human being is in fact, a Son of God? Relativism? Is that what we're left with?
Then hooray! Yes, I would welcome such a refreshing look ... at our human nature.
Relatively speaking, we stand on a higher rung of the Ladder than a fish, or an ant. Yet to God the Father, I suspect we do seem largely - as ants. Think about that, next time you feel inclined to step on one, or squash a spider, kill a fly, smash a bee. As George Harrison said:"It's easier to tell a lie than it is to tell the truth
It's easier to kill a fly than it is to turn it loose" -- See Yourself
The wise man can see, or in the very least knows, that the Divine dwells within every form of life. The skeptic will argue - that all is form, and thus, that there is no god. We do not all have to be mystics, to recognize intuitively that the mystic is aware of something that the materialist is not. Nor does it take a genius to figure out ... that there's something wrong with the picture - which we've all been taught in Sunday School. I knew that when I was in Sunday School.It's easier to kill a fly than it is to turn it loose" -- See Yourself
What upsets some of the people around here (and elsewhere), is that they cannot quite understand that the error has often been one of omission rather than of commission. And when someone boldly steps up to suggest what might have been omitted (sometimes intentionally, which is actually the committing of a sin, while other times, an innocent enought mistake) ... we find that they are banned from the CR forums, or that they are hounded and taken to issue at every call. One learns quickly to choose one's words wisely, but then one finds ... that it is often not truth which (wo)men wish to hear, but what feels good, sounds good, and is familiar.
And yes, sometimes we can speak truth in such a way that is disturbing to few, yet more often, it is upsetting to several, to say the least. And sometimes it is anathema to those who are either committed to maintaining the status quo, for one reason or another ... or it is heresy, to those who cannot accept any viewpoint contrary to their own. Not in making peace, or finding common ground, are such souls interested, but only in holding their own. And thus, even if I say, let us meet on friendly territory, I am met with suspicion, fear, pre-judgement and consternation. After all, what if we are proven wrong (though that is not the point, or intent), or what if we find ourself to be in error? What then? What will happen to our house of cards? If the very foundation crumbles, then what is left?
Says theology, Hell! Or even worse, the fear of the unknown, and perhaps nothing frightens us more - than that! What, then, does it matter - what others - might happen to know, think, feel, or believe about Jesus of Nazareth, or the Buddha, or anyone else who has been so sorely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and martyred by this world? The consensus is already in. And we know how things really stand, now don't we?
Sol Invictus ... (now, and always)
The Apostate