Maybe Jesus Was Only Talking to the Apostles . . .

So here's the theory/scoop: We already know that Jesus has been wildly misunderstood across the centuries (just look at all the horrid crap that has been done in his name). But what if the misunderstanding was even more radical and fundamental than just about anyone realizes.

There are a few elements to my theory:

1. That Jesus was only here to "save" humanity from hierarchy and dogma that was corrupting spirituality into religion; for ultimately his philosophy was one of simplicity, of treating your fellow man with decency, with not practicing religion as a spectacle but as a truth within your heart.

2. That Jesus, as the leader of a band of outlaws (for that truly is what they were), died not for ALL MANKIND but rather to try and save his followers. I mean, if you set the last supper at a diner and you have something out of a Quentin Tarantino movie: "One of you is going to sell me out, but I'm going to let the pigs take me so that you can escape."

It seems that every quote about Jesus dying for ALL MANKIND comes from a mouth other than the man himself. Jesus pretty much always speaks directly to specific people. People who are alive at the time, and he always says things that could be seen as immediately relevant, and nothing that seems to indicate that he is projecting his words or personal impact into the future.

After all, let's think about the passion for a moment. Was the J.C.'s ordeal horrific? It would certainly seem as such, but was his suffering REALLY sufficient to pay the debt of every sinner down through history? I mean there are people who have raped and tortured dozens of women and children and who have come to embrace Jesus while in prison. Are we supposed to believe that because Jesus willingly suffered through maybe 1/8 of the cruelty that a single lunatic is capable of inflicting on victims that all sinners (who allow Christ into their hearts blah blah blah, I know I know) can be cleansed through his one sacrifice?

Where does Jesus himself ever say anything to that effect? And I mean clearly and directly. Not by taking his uttering of the word "you" to mean "you reading this nearly 2000 years after my sacrifice" but actually lays out the salvation for all eternity bit.

Seems to me that Jesus had hoped that his contribution to the world would be a simplified/clarified view of spirituality that bypassed the corrupting influence of churches and organized religion, that he led a group of outlaws throughout the ancient world promoting this philosophy and undermining the dominant paradigm/power structure along the way. When he got sold out by Judas he opted to die for the "sins" of his brothers in arms. The disciples and apostles then went a wee bit bat feces and built a martyr cult around their fallen leader.

If someone can give me some direct quotes from Jesus that clearly contradict this theory, that would be awesome. It won't change my pagan worldview as I still consider the bible's chain of possession to be highly suspect, but it would at least establish a touch of consistency to the whole Christian Mythos.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

No "maybe" about it.

Jesus had personal relationships with each of the apostles, having to do with their identities in previous lives.

His concern was not that they "escape"; but that they receive the Revelation of the "resurrection".

In other words, that they have direct Knowledge of the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

That Revelation is received in the "heart"; through a breaking of the heart.

The crucifixion provided the necessary context in which the apostles received that Revelation.

This is what is metaphorically described in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 27:52-53.

Michael

You won't get a rebuttal. Most will respond with some bible scripture jarble, because they are too lame to conjure up a thought of their own. It's amazing to me how people can believe in a mythical character that no one in our era has ever seen much less had a beer with? Not to mention, that religion in itself has been the cause of more death, destruction, famine, and plagues than any other topic in history. Case in point, read up on the Dark Ages, or the Crusades.

Its all propaganda designed for one thing......your money! They just hide it under the term "tithe". Yet, history would suggest that J.C. didn't preach sermons in a church with expensive stain glass windows, and fancy pews. He suggested "tithing" with food, clothing etc. I don't think he wanted his " churches" to extort money from his flock?

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt
RobertAntonWeishaupt,

Well now, yes Jesus and His disciples were outlaws to the corrupt Jewish system that had evolved just as true followers must be today. They where "home churching", that's what the book of Acts is about a lot, and we must do the same today as the total of the so called Christianity system is led of the occult and not Yahshua. The first allegiance of the so called churches today is not to Jesus Christ, Yahshua. Yes they even killed the one come to save them because they thought He was the outlaw, but my friend it is the other way around. You should see it all depends on who one is of.
Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. KJV.

That is why True Christianity is hated so much.

Truthiron.

My theory about Judas has always been this, he was Christ's most loyal follower. The one Jesus trusted the most to handle the final order. Christ knew he needed to die to send his message home. That's why Judas and Jesus had that last talk. No one knows what they talked about. Afterwards, Judas seemed in distress.

Imagine a friend of yours comes up to you and tells you he needs you to help him die to galvanize a message to the people. How would you behave after agreeing to help out? What kind of guilt would you carry after your friend was dead?

"The dying for all of mankind's sins" quote I'll agree is a bit sketchy. I always took its meaning to be more along the lines of "Dying because of all mankind's sinning". (IE> If they'd of listened to his message and applied his changes to make religion fit the mold of God is love not war, wealth, and power then he wouldn't have had to die).
The word "for" can mean "an exchange" or "as a result of".

reply to post by Mactire

Wrong.

But the Truth is not for your ears.

Better to focus on the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' rather than speculating about things which are of no immediate and personal relevance to you.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


You've mentioned the revelation of past lives and breaking hearts as a result of the resurrection, and while that may be the case on a spiritual sense, it doesn't change the fact that Christ needed to die as a martyr for his grand message to survive. His message was what was in danger. His life was valueless. His death would resurrect the "word". But dying alone wouldn't have been enough to achieve this. He needed to suffer greatly, and in a public forum.
You can't look at this through the eyes of the bible. The bible has been cut up, edited, and censored for two thousand years. More than 300(+) gospels were purposefully left out of the bible because they contradicted the message that the "Church" wanted to tell. You need to read these gospels and then apply a psychological eye to the story.
The "theatrical version" of the Bible is just that. Theatrics. The blown up, exaggerated, version of the story. You want the truth, read the Gospels directly, then get yourself a book (I'd recommend 'Semantic Antics' a book on words and how they've changed over the years).
So much of the bible is wrong through just a loss in translation.
But in the end, a person's beliefs are just that. You believe what you believe, and I'll know what I know. We'll just keep it at that.

reply to post by Michael Cecil


What exactly is your expertise in the field of theology that you can call people "wrong" on their opinions of the bible? Isn't the Bible full of contradictions and so completely open to interpretaion by its readers and followers?
This openness to interpretation is why there are so many wars and deaths in the name of god in the first place.

reply to post by 10100100010000100000


So true! You hit it on the button! There is so much left for interpretation its almost comical! And yet when one submits evidence like the history of the Dark Ages, or the Crusades, .....I've actually had members of ATS suggest that history books are wrong that the history that is documented is fabricated information? And yet the only responses they are most likely to post is bible scripture!?

Originally posted by Mactire
My theory about Judas has always been this, he was Christ's most loyal follower. The one Jesus trusted the most to handle the final order. Christ knew he needed to die to send his message home. That's why Judas and Jesus had that last talk. No one knows what they talked about. Afterwards, Judas seemed in distress.

Imagine a friend of yours comes up to you and tells you he needs you to help him die to galvanize a message to the people. How would you behave after agreeing to help out? What kind of guilt would you carry after your friend was dead?

"The dying for all of mankind's sins" quote I'll agree is a bit sketchy. I always took its meaning to be more along the lines of "Dying because of all mankind's sinning". (IE> If they'd of listened to his message and applied his changes to make religion fit the mold of God is love not war, wealth, and power then he wouldn't have had to die).
The word "for" can mean "an exchange" or "as a result of".

I don't think I've ever heard it explained quite like that, but it makes sense after reading the Gospel Of Judas, that it would have went down like that. Judas was asked not to tell the others of what was to happen because Jesus knew that they would try and stop him. The gospel was found to be 100% authentic, but it completely contradicts what is told in the bible. I guess the Bible thumpers don't like it when it thumps back.

reply to post by 2Rotten4u


The truly mind boggling part is that people let their entire lives revolve around such contradictions. It's kind of unnerving that there are sooo many Sheople in the world.

reply to post by 10100100010000100000


I was once one of the sheep...but after a long marriage ( since divorced ), and a huge awakening I realized how comical religion is. I was part of the "Christian" Church, and the funny thing is, that every church I attended, the people did the complete opposite of what they preached. For example, the book of Mathew says " thou shall not gossip", but let me tell ya, talk about gossip central! It was crazy! Then you have them preaching that looking at another woman ( or man dependent on what gender you are ) is a sin...but then you go out with them and they are checking out every piece of ass that walks in the joint? Crazy I tell ya! Just crazy!

Its lunacy, and yet people jump on the band wagon not realizing the extortion that is taking place!

reply to post by 2Rotten4u


Hypocrisy and malice are the two sins most hated by God.... allegedly, yet all religions are ripe with both of them. I don't know if they truly believe that Jesus died so that they can continue to sin, and then exonerate those sins every Sunday at mass, or what, but I haven't been able to attend a Church without cringing in my pew since I was a child.
What would be the point of upholding, and living, the moral word of God if you can just have your record wiped clean with a little confession and by accepting Christ as your Savior? Its like "Hey, Padre. I killed me some women and drank too much and beat up on my illegitimate kids. Is that bad?"
to which the Priest responds "You confessed. Do you recognize Christ as the one Son of God?"
"I reckon."
"Then all good, my son. Here eat this old cracker and drink some of this watered down purple stuff."
Its nonsense. God, like the Devil, is in all of us, including Christ.
I've said it before on other threads, but I'll repeat myself here, the Bible is just as much a tool of the Devil as it is a tool of God. Its all in the context, which can easily be manipulated through ones particular standpoint on its "word".

God and the Devil. Two sides of the same Coin.

reply to post by Mactire

The Vision of the "Son of man" (also referred to as the "Vision of Knowledge" and the "Night Journey") and the Revelation of the "resurrection" convey Knowledge rather than belief.

They occur prior to thought and belief, originating not in the consciousness of the "self" or the 'thinker', but in the consciousness Created 'by and in the image of God'.

Michael

Originally posted by 10100100010000100000
This openness to interpretation is why there are so many wars and deaths in the name of god in the first place.

Interpretation is an activity of the consciousness of the 'thinker' and exists in the realm of belief rather than Knowledge.

Interpretation is engaged in by people who have NOT received Revelations.

People who have received Revelations explain the written Revelations rather than interpret them.

Michael

Originally posted by 10100100010000100000
The gospel was found to be 100% authentic, but it completely contradicts what is told in the bible.

The Gospel of Judas is not 100% authentic, no.

There are certain inclusions of questionable provenance. Other passages are spot on explanations of the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision of the "Son of man"; but only when the terminology is properly understood.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil


But in the writings of the Bible, J.C. suggests one lesson over and over again, and that is free will. But you're quoted in saying, " Interpretation is an activity of the consciousness of the 'thinker' and exists in the realm of belief rather than Knowledge. " Wouldn't the knowledge of knowing "Free Will" supersede the need for interpretation as you would suggest?

Originally posted by 2Rotten4u
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

But in the writings of the Bible, J.C. suggests one lesson over and over again, and that is free will.

Free will is a doctrine of secular philosophy.

But you're quoted in saying, " Interpretation is an activity of the consciousness of the 'thinker' and exists in the realm of belief rather than Knowledge. " Wouldn't the knowledge of knowing "Free Will" supersede the need for interpretation as you would suggest?

I don't acknowledge any "need for interpretation".

If a person has not himself or herself received Revelations, the appropriate course of action is to....

KEEP ONE'S MOUTH SHUT...

Rather than merely trying to guess about things of which they have no Knowledge.

Michael

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

~SNIP~

It seems that every quote about Jesus dying for ALL MANKIND comes from a mouth other than the man himself. Jesus pretty much always speaks directly to specific people. People who are alive at the time, and he always says things that could be seen as immediately relevant, and nothing that seems to indicate that he is projecting his words or personal impact into the future.

sure...he was doing what the psychics & healers do today with their clients... he gives them individual
attention & readings meaningful to them personally...

but these personal micro revelations also have a macro validity to them too...


as i understand it... the independent Rabbi (teacher) Jesus with his cult of followers...had an idea that
not just plain Martyrdom was his destiny...

because he had a strong belief in the actualization of a resurrection from the dead by the force
of his will and belief...

this belief in a bodily resurrection was administered to himself much like a
post hypnotic suggestion is played out in real life.



All this was told in secret to his cult of followers, so they could not be accused of being
duped and indoctrinated into his experiment. So, publically they were innocent and naive
of the plan for Jesus to come alive again after 3 days of death...
and to rise again in a new transfigured and 'glorified' body
which was not composed of normal flesh & blood.

a grandoise scheme... and he pulled it off...
Oh, he actually died, but he lived again in the poetic and metaphorical sense,
in the hearts of the remaining 11 'apostles'...and many other followers that believed
upon the Apostles delusion and convincing arguement that the rogue Rabbi
was 'present' just as the modern 'Maitreya' is 'present' and reveals himself to
people in diverse places at the same time...


IMHO,
just another tragic story and a tragic lifetime

reply to post by Michael Cecil


These questionable parts of the Gospel of Judas are only questionable because they contradict what the other Apostles said. What makes you think they were telling the truth? What makes you think they even knew the truth? I watched a show recently where a man claimed he could "knock out a man, without even touching him, using only the power of Qi (chi)". This "Master" demonstrated his awesome technique, by knocking out several of his students in front of an audience. After each student was "knocked out", a team of medical professionals took Blood Pressure readings, checked pulses, and pupils and confirmed that these students were "indeed being knocked out".
The guy who host the show asked the "Master" if he could use his technique on him so that he could feel what its like to be knocked out from several feet away. The "Master" agreed, the Medics prepared for the inevitable knock out, and then it happened. The "Master" did his awesome Qi move, and the Host didn't even blink. Nothing happened.
They later discovered that similar physical weakening happened during revivals when Preachers would touch someone of the head, claiming to "Heal them". These people would blackout for a brief moment and then claim to be better.
People who are subject to certain peoples, ideas, and teachings change their actual brain chemistry to better mesh with those around them. Its called "Herd Mentality". Its the same level of thought that subjects people to cults and ultimately drinking the kool-aid. Its also the same chemistry that makes women who spend a lot of time together actually menstruate together. Its a primal effect.
Does it mean that any of the Apostles actually felt any of the effects that they claimed to feel? Absolutely. At least in their opinion. But its an illusion. That's all. Considering that time does not exist in a linear fashion its impossible to state that anyone has seen a "past" life. This is only exacerbated by the fact that the "past" is traveling away from the present and is being created at the same speed as the "future".
God isn't an ideal. God is an idea. One that revolves around trying to make sense on the nonsensical. Our Origin Organism's revelation, if there is to be one, won't include the disclosure of anything as mundane as past lives, or "knowledge" of the will and truth of God. It'll be an awakening to the illusion that there are no lives. Just like there is no time, and no universe. I received a "revelation" many years ago. It didn't come from Christ or God, but from my own realization that its all faux. So stop your babbling and finish your kool-aid.