Christ's actions and choices are not tricky at all. Jesus most likely could have wiped out the earth. However he's intent was revealed while he hung on the cross. "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
This is about some circular reasoning called 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' that ignores Jesus testimony altogether. You're saying that Jesus testimony was clear as he hung upon the cross. Clearly the 3XL is a bogus argument.Quahom said:
Jesus himself would not verbally say that he was the Christ the Son of God and often told people to keep it a secret when they found out. He sent out disciples preaching the kingdom was at hand, but wouldn't directly call himself Christ. Even John the Baptist's disciples couldn't get a straight claim from him (Luke 7:22) but had to make up their minds for themselves. You know all this already. By all means change the topic.Quahom said:
Dream, by your own admission, you recognize that Jesus told others who he was...
Isn't that what they tried to do to Jeremiah when he called for the evil-doers to repent, and warned about the destruction of the Temple? In Jeremiah's case, Ahikam son of Shaphan stood up for Jeremiah.(Jeremiah 26) Jesus did the same in calling the evil-doers to repent and warning about the destruction of the Temple. (Matt 23 & 24) In Jesus's case, Pilate would not stand up to the crowd who had been persuaded by the priests to rally for the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. (Matt 27)
Why do I feel like I'm in standing in the sea as it draws back to crash overhead? There's this...sucking sound....like hearing a whoosh just before I get smacked.Quahom1 said:
Probably there were scholars who saw the parallel but who did not have the final word on whether or not to listen to Jesus. (There are lots of theories about it.) The chapter you mentioned in Jeremiah talks about how the prophet has to be accepted by the leader who is reigning at the time, and the city lives or dies by the decision of that leader. Jer 26:17 Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spake to all the assembly of the people, saying,....
No lol, no surf and turf.
Juantoo3, Now is when historical facts are coming to light and we have no choice but to assimilate them. Don't give up on your research! Although it is unnecessary for Christians to argue over doctrines it is a necessity to have an answer for those who ask what happened. Historical digging is not a hobby. It is a fight for the sake of the future, and forgetfulness buries living generations to hide ghosts. You know -- history repeating itself when we forget it, etc.Juantoo3 said:
the reason there is a debate, has been a debate for 2000 years and will continue to be a debate is there is no first hand writings, ie eyewitness testimony, there is no writings of Jesus, as learned as the books claim he was he left us nothing. What we are left with are contradictory third, fourth and n+1 handwritings and interpretations...hence the discussion.
There is nothing written that we are aware of...that doesn't mean nothing exists.
Of course, even given that, "what" he is/was still essentially is sort of a Christian koan then. Earl
Perhaps. However, you know which category of the thread title those of us who contemplate koans are usually labeled with....What I now conjecture was that Jesus was neither of those 3 per se. Rather, he was a "doorway" to God. Perhaps he was someone who could literally induce in another a truly "mind-blowing" transformation of consciousness and heart which transported them out of their conventional ego-bound views of reality to what may be considered a more direct experience of Divine reality. Perhpas having that ability he represented a threat to the then entrenched religious authority structure which worked in consort with Roman occupation to maintain the socio-political order of the day. Perhaps that religious structure was threatened by someone who preached and supported others to have a direct personal connection to their Divine nature which may have both undermined the standard religious interpetations of that structure as well as the personal power of those leading that structure. Perhaps he truly was a bridge, doorway, "Way" to God in that sense. Perhaps he still is.
Huh? Not following you there Seattle.
earl
**slaps earl acrossed the face with a fish**Huh? Not following you there Seattle.
Given my earlier frame of reference, how I look at this eucharistic notion is that "to eat his flesh and drink his blood" was to fully allow oneself to be engulfed by the essence that was Jesus-in a sense letting his influence into one's being and in doing so one's mind-heart limitations are truly emptied out revealing our true Divine home and destiny which had always been there awaiting us but to which we are typically blind. Earl
