9 things you think you know about Jesus that are probably wrong

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

There is no doubt that there is something underlying existence. The problem is that human being's try and define it via their own prejudices and petty mindedness. Any religion that tells you that a God commands you to do anything should be immediately consigned to the dust bin. People tend to fight against any type of authority and making God some sort of external authority figure only leads to hate.

originally posted by: Gianfar

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Gianfar

The ancient texts of the bible also say that there are two sources of light in the sky, the sun and the moon.

That's largely a semantical response. Please address why the holy scriptures state emphatically that the universe is divided into 'municipalities' and 'powers'. For whom are these municipalities and powers divided?

I don't know. Ask the goat herders who wrote the nonsense. I was just pointing out that there are a lot of incorrect statements in the bible, therefore what makes your point about municipalities and powers a correct one?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Gianfar

The ancient texts of the bible mention how the universe is divided into, 'principalities' and 'powers'.

The ancient texts of the Bible are perfectly useless as historical sources, still less as scientific ones. That is because they do not distinguish between fact and fiction, but jumble the two up indiscriminately.

Your prinicipalities (or 'municipalities', heh heh) and powers are simply sky-god equivalents of the earthly hierarchies under which people lived in those times. Anthropomorphism and anthropocentricsm gave us the Genesis myth and the entire cosmology of Judaeo-Christian tradition, including particularly, Kabbalism, in which the multiple levels of the Byzantine bureacracy are faithfully reflected in the Sephirot.

Its a matter of some explanation to be certain. I brought the implied context of the 'principalities and powers' script for purposes other than perceived by the respondents. It is the perpetuity of two or more states of perception and reality that exist independently, yet sharing points of interchange within an environmental singularity we call knowledge or perhaps something which allows it.

So, when I think that I am addressing a religious person, particularly those of Abrahamic institutions, there is this sort of curious duality or plurality presenting itself. On one hand a conceptual multiplex that feeds on (or provides direction to) ritual compulsion, refined through individualistic and cultural filters, ultimately cartelized in human social structures with multifarious ends. I have always wondered if any zealot actually studies his own bible.

On the other side, the alleged absurdities or universal truths. The implication of universality may be counter intuitive. As one small example, the territorial universe presents all of human history as an epitome or abstract of an expanded, diverse world view. In such an instance, the inhabitants of this planet are considered by others as either an alpha race to be worshiped or at the bottom of the food chain. In a flat world, where the ocean drops into the dark abyss, it is the dissonance of intellectualism and esoterism which becomes the symmetry definition. Here, we expend our energies contending for science or the omnipotent creator. But physics reveals quite allot of information about the evolution of the universe, the solar system and Earth.

In any case, intelligent life is synonymous with organization, municipalities and authorities throughout the evolutionary stratum.

a reply to: Gianfar

Allow me to translate your post above into English.

'That's not what I meant. People often misunderstand me. Religious people, especially Jews, Christians and Muslims, are the worst, because they have all kinds of preconceived notions that aren't even in their own scriptures. We aren't the most important beings in the universe.'

All of which is trite enough, and fails to address any of the points made earlier. Ta-ta!

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Well said. Perhaps you could read my other posts. Save me the effort of rehashing.

Yes, I have done. You express your points well, some of them are very good and very understandable (whether people agree or otherwise).

One thing I often wonder. If there is some ultimate force in our universe, why people don't seek their own intimate, private relationship with it? Rather than relying on middle men, long dead prophets, marketers in souls, books with ridiculous claims or the rules and simplistic faux philosophy. If there is something, surely this is possible. In fact one of the things that keeps me from being a true atheist is such a possibility (though not concerning religious gods), yet also makes me doubtful because if so, surely it should happen de facto for all?

Possibly why I see other systems (such as those without a domineering sky fairy figure) as more thoughtful. One of the best sentiments I have heard from one group is "when we are alone, we are rarely in good company". Which expresses the need to improve oneself without worrying too much about the faults of others. With much (seemingly helpful) Buddhist and alternate philosophy and psychology. Strange then to see them turn gays away and look down on other beliefs as evil because, in the end, they have a dogma containing god's rules. A brainwashing cult (which all religions seem to be, in varying amounts).

This is possibly the thing I object to most. The notion of divine will and supposed rules derived from such a thing, especially those claiming to be intermediaries, which is (certainly historically) open to such abuse and corruption. For this reason, if jesus did exist (which I find doubtful), he was just another delusional prophet. A 1st century John Frum, only difference is that Frum was more likely to have been a historical person.

I share many of your sentiments. A dogma that offers the highest rewards for the least effort is simply too good to be true. Its rather simplistic and naive to accept such a shallow philosophy. The masses tend to relegate themselves to a series of basic, predictable functions, the least of which are mental-intellectual development and emotional self reliance. Not at all difficult to manipulate and manage.

As I have said before, its not about bad leadership, its the people who will submit to any fantasy that exonerates moral responsibility. The cares of this world are sanctimoniously thrust at an omnipotent deity in every ritual prayer and deed. Whatever it is that comes through the wire is distorted, misunderstood, inapplicable and frankly its dangerous.

I spent more than half my life as a Christian and then a Muslim, clarifying most of my discontent with respect to ideological behavior in religion, but also in the range of human culture and politics. Knowledge is power, an expression often used and seldom realized. There are many levels, many perspectives. We are operating from the stone age as tribal primitives who garnered their wisdom from mindless ritualistic affairs, mysticism, spells, unseen deities.

originally posted by: Joneselius
Jesus was not married. Not by a long shot. He's coming back for his bride. Are you also claiming he's an adulterer?

Bollocks. This Bride is 144,000 males and a city of astronomical proportions. Are you saying that Jesus is gay? And given their number, well, your logic and scriptural qualities aren't very impressive here. Jesus himself says that when we enter the kingdom of heaven we do not marry, but like the angels of heaven, we breed and love responsibly without the old oath of inherited sin and 666, the stuff people call marriage. I call it hypocritical BS.

Jesus prohibits marriage the way the church performs it. Why? Because it is a sworn oath, and we are not allowed to swear oaths. We are not even allowed to place our hand on the Bible in the court of Law and swear to tell the truth by it. Besides, Jesus himself says that when we die, the oath of matrimony is lifted, and the Church must adhere, for the liturgy clearly says, «'till death do you part», and by the norms and definitions at the time of Jesus, Jesus was indeed legally dead, if not medically using present day definitions.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

Jesus himself says that when we die, the oath of matrimony is lifted

Try telling the Mormons that...

Anyway, true love is eternal. No sworn act towards the church or state...just pure love.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Gianfar

Allow me to translate your post above into English.

'That's not what I meant. People often misunderstand me. Religious people, especially Jews, Christians and Muslims, are the worst, because they have all kinds of preconceived notions that aren't even in their own scriptures. We aren't the most important beings in the universe.'

All of which is trite enough, and fails to address any of the points made earlier. Ta-ta!

Care to be more specific?

originally posted by: VigiliaProcuratio

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

Jesus himself says that when we die, the oath of matrimony is lifted

Try telling the Mormons that...

Anyway, true love is eternal. No sworn act towards the church or state...just pure love.

Hehe, well love is one thing, it's free and Life depends on it, it's a great thing God has given us, but love and procreation has another important thing concerning itself, raising children and the divine responsibility you have doing it right. To some extent marriage secures this, well, it used to anyway. But in order to enter the Kingdom, you cannot be married or enlisted in the military and such. If you are married and in the army you must protect yourself and your loved ones— yourself. That's the deal. The text is very clear.

Jesus: «“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.» [ESV] Matthew 5:33-37

James: «But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.» [ESV] James 5:12

a reply to: Gianfar

Care to be more specific?

You first!