My take on the true story of Jesus... if he existed.

a reply to: Answer

Because you took my "if he did exist" statement and ran with it, posting a bunch of crap I've seen before and beating a dead horse into the ground like you do in most other threads. You find a point that you want to nitpick and you won't let it go.

You want to try and pretend I ran with it, but it was quite clear what I thought you meant and you continued along as though that was your position. Once I met the burden of proof you change your definition of "if he did exist." Every other Jesus?? What other Jesus do you know of in the first century that was widely known? That is a claim burden of proof is yours go ahead take it away.

By "if he did exist", I was referring to a spiritual leader as depicted and embellished by the Bible which is still unproven.

Ok now your claim is the the man Jesus(who existed) was embellished in the Gospels. Show your evidence of embellishment. You reject the supernatural claims on a philosophical bias not a historical basis.

I knew you'd find something in my lazily quoted source to pick apart but I'm done putting forth any real effort to respond to you. Eat my shorts.

Your quoted a bunch of smoke..you don't want to put forth effort because cognitive dissonance is setting in...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Show your evidence of embellishment. You reject the supernatural claims on a philosophical bias not a historical basis.

It's common sense. Only a simpleton believes that the supernatural portions of the Bible are factual.

If we weed through all that crap, we just might discover the true message of Jesus and his nature as a normal human being with some pretty cool ideas.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you back to the last 3 words in my previous response to you.

a reply to: Answer

It's common sense. Only a simpleton believes that the supernatural portions of the Bible are factual.

And you prove my point. You reject these solely on your philosophical bias.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Answer

It's common sense. Only a simpleton believes that the supernatural portions of the Bible are factual.

And you prove my point. You reject these solely on your philosophical bias.

Or common sense...

a reply to: Answer

Common sense is not a valid argument. You and I obviously don't agree, and their are many people much smarter than both you and I that would disagree with your take. So why don't you quit trying to avoid your burden of proof and step up to the plate, or simply say I don't know.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Answer

Common sense is not a valid argument. You and I obviously don't agree, and their are many people much smarter than both you and I that would disagree with your take. So why don't you quit trying to avoid your burden of proof and step up to the plate, or simply say I don't know.

There are many more people much smarter than both you and I who understand that the supernatural nonsense in the Bible is just that... nonsense.

It's no different than Thor shooting lightening bolts and Paul Bunyan riding a big blue ox named Babe.

You love using the term "burden of proof" in incorrect ways. Did you just recently learn what it means and now you think it's the end-all, be-all term to toss around in any debate?

Since you seem to be fond of such terms, you should look into "appeal to ignorance."

"appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. This would be you... over and over and over.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

You are the one making fantastical claims i.e. "the Biblical account of a supernatural divine Jesus are true" therefore your burden of proof that you love so much is on you. We both know that it's pointless to throw out such a term since proving the unknowable is impossible. That's exactly why you enjoy using such terms because you think they allow you some sort of victory when everyone else can see just how silly you look.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Every other Jesus?? What other Jesus do you know of in the first century that was widely known?

Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:
"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

SOURCE

a reply to: windword

Thanks for the info can I have the source?

Easy brothers! Don't let the blood boil your veins.

No wrong, be it in the world, the bible or any other book or worldly-action(be they thought, will, intention or physical action of the body) is to be justified. Truthfully.

Jesus was man as us, but he found and was embraced by that which is first; undescribable, unfathomable, unmeasurable. God of gods and forces yet that does not describe him/it/her, supreme of all supreme and that does yet not even describe him. The very thought of thinking about him/it/her(above all gender, as that does not describe him) is not comprehendable.

Trying to think about God(just a word) in his full splendor does not compute for us. As soon as we think we can it slips from us. He is not god of the bible, the quran, the buddha's, the hindu's nor any other religion, yet he is. For he is not partaken, he is the god of us all whoever we may be. He understands us better than we understand ourselves or him for that matter, afterall, it is the ultimate supreme.

Us humans, being so human try to humanize all that is not human. Or rather, us Lights, being so closed minded in our habits try to rationalize all that we deem beyond us.

It is true that we are to be one, but not with evil. For the nature of evil is not one. That's why there are two roads.

So from now on, imagine that there is something so incomprehensible and so perfect yet base it on no book nor man's words and do not make it complete in that instance, rather build towards it your whole life and do what you know to be true, good and best in each circumstance in mind, thought, will, intention, action, most compassionable and loving. Always hope for the best and believe that what ever is behind this force of good to guide you and thank for it, and thank it for guiding others.

Approach every matter with naivety of a child and acknowledge that behind every stone there is a whole new world. Practice makes champion. Have no fear, even though your heart fears. Follow every good teaching and habit you can, acknowledge your misjudgement be that a case and change your ways. Never anger, rather understand that everyone is like you, always clothe and lace-up yourself in other's shoes.

This is the truth, the way and the life. And more is. The road is tough at the beginning and steep it is, but soon it shall smoothen and halt and ye shall be lambs on a mountain.

This was on the way of living life. Cornerstoned in what Jesus is supposed to have said; Love thy God with all thy mind, heart and body. Another is like this; Love thy neighbor as thyself.

On the world; The world is as a 2d tree if you will. Running from down to up to left and right and down again in the merry go-round. I won't go into this much but you know the secret of Light and it's lower states (color), electricity and sound and their law and how they are all interconnected and how you can convert their ratios to and fro and how they have constants imprinted in the veil(mainframe) of the universe dedicated to them and to guide them and you will begin to see. + - yang yin white black male female etc. and how everything is a shadow (if you will) from that which was first. Though it wants us to practice that which is good.

Jesus took himself this lifestyle and completely mastered it. It is a dedication and truly I tell you it's an abomination in the eyes of society. But doesn't society need to change?

May peace be with you all.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sorry, edited into my post.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: bb23108

I disagree. The Church is often referenced as the Bride of Christ. Cross reference John 17:21 with Mark 10:

6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Now its quite obvious when two people are married they don't literally become one being, but rather are joined in spiritual unity. The same idea is true for the relationship between a person and Christ. Once one accepts him, the Holy Spirit indwells within that person and they become one with Christ and the Father. You definitions seem to lead towards believing that you can become God.

I am speaking of what Jesus taught relative to our relationship to God; and you just said in your last paragraph above - "... and they become one with Christ and the Father."

How is that any different from non-dualism in which it is recognized that there is no separation from the Divine? Just like Jesus says in John: 17:21

"so that they may all be one. Just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me."

It is not a matter of anyone somehow becoming God - it is recognizing more and more that we are actually never separate from God. That is clearly what the quote above is speaking to.

When Jesus gave his second commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself - that is again telling people that we are not inherently separate - that we are all one in the Divine. How else could you actually love one's neighbor as oneself unless you are not truly separate from your neighbor?

The Divine is indivisible, right? So why would we think that the Divine is elsewhere? We are already in communion with the all-inclusive indivisible Divine, but we don't tend to recognize this for various reasons. That is what Jesus, as spiritual master, came to help people with - to be reborn into this understanding that is summarized in John 17:21.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest


Perhaps rather than chasing our tails in a debate, you should ask God for the truth.

Interestingly, that's exactly what I did when I was younger and I was led away from established Christian beliefs and religion in general.

Since then, I've learned to do my own spiritual investigation and that is why I relate differently to the (supposed) teachings of Jesus than Bible-literalists.

There are answers to be had by asking the right questions but I'm fairly certain they aren't coming from a murderous, jealous, attention-whoring man in the clouds.

Then this is where the line is drawn between the two of us. Like you, I started off in the Church and left it. I wanted to be independent from God's plan, and even questioned how valid the Christian world view was.

After years of searching, it was my lack of purpose that brought me back to God.

It turns out that I did need God's plan after all.

I love it when people tell me, "I used to be a Christian, I know what I turned away from." Well, guess what, I used to be a Christian too, and I came back to it.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

After years of searching, it was my lack of purpose that brought me back to God.

It turns out that I did need God's plan after all.

I love it when people tell me, "I used to be a Christian, I know what I turned away from." Well, guess what, I used to be a Christian too, and I came back to it.

But....
why?

If you've really explored all religions and dogmas, and compared them....why on Earth would you come back to the Jesus myth? I mean, I totally understand "his" [universal] message of looking after others....of being humble and connected to the Earth....of being aware that this is a temporary existence.....

But modern "Christianity" is more about bombing others, and forcing others to comply, and cutting others off from food and shelter, and rights, and so forth and so on.

How are you okay with that???

a reply to: Seede

So it is empty rhetoric that only means things if you pretend it does. Gotcha.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

But modern "Christianity" is more about bombing others, and forcing others to comply, and cutting others off from food and shelter, and rights, and so forth and so on.

Do you believe all stereotypes you hear about? I'll admit, modern American Christians have largely left Jesus' plan for life, but you cant blame the bible for that.

I returned to Christianity, because the God of Christianity was the only one to answer my questions and prayers. Jesus' yoke is easy. He loves me and died for my sins, not because of what I can do to honor Him, but because His love is unconditional.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Do you believe all stereotypes you hear about?

Nope! I actually have an acutely aware sensibility to that sort of thing.

I'll admit, modern American Christians have largely left Jesus' plan for life, but you cant blame the bible for that.

Blame the Bible?

No. Nono - I blame "American Christians" for bastardizing, cherry-picking, and corrupting the thing. Aside, of course, from the fact that it is an 'anthology' of bronze-age mythology that some guys decided to include in their "Book".

It's lame. And wrong.
And needs to be shelved in libraries alongside other "mythological literature."

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you blame every individual American Christian?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I blame anyone who says they are "followers of Christ" but then turn around and say that Capitalism is the answer: that there is no compulsion to look after others.

The figure "Jesus"' was a socialist. He is recorded as admonishing 'capitalism' and encouraging people to let go of material gains and to instead look after their fellow men/women who are suffering and left wanting.
Can you show me where this is wrong?

This understanding, I mean?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Im not really politically charged anymore. And Jesus accepted financial donations from the poor, so you cant say He was purely anticapitalist.

There is a danger in making broad generalization the way you do, especially when you're politically motivated. Historically, it opens the door to marginalization and genocide. You do see the danger in that way of thinking dont you? Jesus didnt hold grudges against His enemies, but instead forgave them.

a reply to: Answer

I agree that much is lost with the tragedy of information over the centuries. This might be a link worth looking into further

www.facebook.com...[/url]