The conspiracy against Jesus

Many ATSers and people who are part of the jewish religion seem to believe that Jesus Christ was not the messiah. They base this claim on verses from the bible, and supposed inconsistancies regarding the prophecies in the OT and what happened in the NT.

I, even I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour...

Now I am a christian and I thought it would be interesting to have a thread about why the "anti Jesus" conspiracy never made me question the truth of the NT yet.

It is said in then bible that God is a jealous God. A God that does not want humans to praise any other God but Himself.
This is made clear in several verses where God clearly states there is only ONE God and that He is the one true God that people should worship.

In the times before the birth of Christ there were several other religions and "gods" that a lot of people believed in.
The religions of the greek Gods and the forerunner of allah, baal had loads of followers in those times and in the bible, God simply made clear that He alone was the Creator, the Alpha and Omega, and that praising or worhsipping any other god was a sin.

Then Jesus was born.
To me Jesus is one of the most misunderstood figures in religion these days.
How can Jesus be God while talking to God?
How can Jesus be Gods sinless son, yet asking God why God has abandoned him at the cross?

I think to understand these questions and answer them, it must be clear what Jesus is.

When God created what we know as the universe, what we know as time and what we know as creation, the system of laws, rules and complex, interacting objects, He created a world that He Himself was not part of.

God being outside of Creation as we know it, is a difficult concept to understand because we, as humans, are inside Creation and have never seen anything outside the system of rules and laws that we live and die in.

This is also why it is hard to understand that at some point in time, God chose to become part of His own creation, by becoming human and going to earth.

The concept "son of God" and especially the word "son" does (in this case) obviously not mean son as we earthly humans know it.
There is no word in our language that can grasp what Jesus really was in relation to God, but it is quite clear that the earthly word "son" is used because it probably comes closest to that meaning.

So when we realize that son is not the 100% correct term, but that this word does mean that there is a similarity between God and Jesus, the question rises, are they different identities?

When God chose to become part of His own creation by becoming human, God chose to become a human just like the other humans.
This means God became a "real" and "powerless" human, with no "direct line" to God or to Gods powers.
A human like all other humans, not a half-God or an improved version.

In order for God to become a real human and to really become similar to all of us, God had to become something totally different than what He originally is.

Now I think God laid His identity, His character in a human form, and that besides that Godly character and identity, there is nothing that seperates Jesus from other human beings.

The simplistic and rude way to say this in a different way, is that God "copied" Himself partly, to become part of His own creation in a human form.

This also explains why Jesus talks to God, and asks God things. To Jesus God is just as far away or close, as to every other human being.

This also explains why Jesus said miracles are not performed by Him Himself, but by God, His father.
Jesus never said he was God, Jesus never opposed Gods clear message, about there being one God, because Jesus was not God.
Jesus was Gods character and identity "molded" into a human form, losing the "God" status.

This also makes it possible for Jesus to truly feel pain, fear, and to even ask God why God has abandoned Him at the cross when Jesus dies.
Any other way would have ment that Jesus is not really a human being like the rest, and would have conflicted with Gods earlier statements that there is only ONE God.

So far the part about what I think Jesus really is, I wonder what you all think about it.
The conspiracy against Jesus also revolves around prophecies in the OT not matching up to what happened in the NT according to some, but more about that later.

So you saying that "Clone" would have been a better word for Jesus than "Son" ? Sorry....lame joke.
Your theory raises some interesting questions. If Jesus was the purely human personification of God, do we worship Jesus? How is he taken in relation to other "god's men"? Adam was also supposedly made "in the likeness of God". Is he the same as Jesus? Moses was also able to perform great miracles that were said to come from God. What is your take on the trinity? If there is no saviour besides "the Lord", is "The Word" being referred to in the in John 1 actually this: "the system of laws, rules and complex, interacting objects"?

[edit on 9-5-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
So you saying that "Clone" would have been a better word for Jesus than "Son"

? Sorry....lame joke.

No problem, I didn't want to use the word clone, because I think the proces of God becoming part of His own Creation can just not be grasped by that word alone.

Your theory raises some interesting questions. If Jesus was the purely human personification of God, do we worship Jesus?

Yes we do, and people in Jesus' time also worshipped Jesus, but not because He is God, because He made it clear He is nog God.
Jesus was praised for His kindness, His wisdom, His ability to teach and guide other people in life, and His ability to preach. He was also praised for the fact that He was without sins. There are many reasons to praise Jesus, even praising Him for choosing to die for you and me would make sense.

How is he taken in relation to other "god's men"? Adam was also supposedly made "in the likeness of God". Is he the same as Jesus? Moses was also able to perform great miracles that were said to come from God.

No Adam is not like Jesus, as Adam is not the character of God transformed to a human being.
Moses was able to perform great miracles, but many many people in the bible (and even today) are able to perform great miracles, but all in the name of God. (God does the miracles because he is asked to)

If there is no saviour besides "the Lord", is "The Word" being referred to in the in John 1 actually this: "the system of laws, rules and complex, interacting objects"?

[edit on 9-5-2005 by babloyi]

The Ultimate saviour has to be God, because God is the one who has the last word over everything. If it was Gods plan to enter His own Creation through Jesus and save humanity, you could say that Jesus is the ultimate example of God being the ultimate saviour.

So Jesus saved us, but only because God wanted us to be saved.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Jakko]

you said "... people in Jesus' time also worshipped Jesus..." (above)

Actually, I don't believe there is any evidence to support that statement. Maybe I am wrong but I think, at most, people saw Jesus as a great teacher and a leader. It isn't even quite clear (outside the 4th century versions of the NT) that Jesus' contemporaries, disciples, followers, etc. recognized him as the "Son of God" or his divinity. It's my understanding that he was recognized as "a son of God" - meaning that he was a holy and devout man (to his followers).

Most all the historical records would indicate that any worshipping of Jesus and/or recognition of his divinity did not begin for at least 300 years.

Thanks to a link provided by RANT:
It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that, by vote, Jesus was declared a god, not a mortal prophet.

Am I wrong about any of this?

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Al Davison]

I believe the applicable word you're searching for Jakko is "avatar" as it's any representative manifestion of interaction between dualistic "realities."

Ironically it's in the limitations of that dualistic existence wholly created by man in the image of that which he is not, however, that your logic (most prevalent western theology in fact) falls apart; or at least renders God (the other side of the coin) less than all pervasive and powerful at best or irrelevant (to this side of the coin) at worst.

There's just no good reason for a "creator of the Universe" to log into the Earth forum once, upload a Jesus avatar, post some crazy # (without links), get banned, then have people keep the thread going 2,000 years in the dogmatic belief he wasn't just another troll.




[edit on 9-5-2005 by RANT]

Avatar is actually not the right word.
An avatar is too superfacial to grasp the meaning of God becoming human, whatever God is and whatever it took for Him to become human.

An avatar suggests the appearance merely changed, while what makes God God has to do with a lot more than just appearance.
I'll reply to the rest of your post later on.

How can you have a conspiracy against a dead man?

Originally posted by Jakko
Avatar is actually not the right word.

Actually, it is. That's the very origin of the word from a much older religion than yours that yours happens to borrow from quite a bit, so it's perfect.

Definitions of Avatar:

avatar
A noun
1 avatar - the manifestation of a Hindu deity (especially Vishnu) in human or superhuman or animal form; "the Buddha is considered an avatar of the god Vishnu"
Category Tree:
psychological_feature
╚cognition; knowledge; noesis
╚content; cognitive_content; mental_object
╚belief
╚spiritual_being; supernatural_being
╚deity; divinity; god; immortal
╚Hindu_deity
╚avatar
╚Rama
╚Krishna
╚Kalki
╚Jagannath; Jagannatha; Jagganath; Juggernaut

2 embodiment, incarnation, avatar - a new personification of a familiar idea; "the embodiment of hope"; "the incarnation of evil"; "the very avatar of cunning"
Category Tree:
entity
╚object; physical_object
╚living_thing; animate_thing
╚organism; being
╚person; individual; someone; somebody; mortal; human; soul
╚personification
╚embodiment, incarnation, avatar
╚reincarnation
╚deification

An avatar is too superfacial to grasp the meaning of God becoming human, whatever God is and whatever it took for Him to become human.

Okaaaaaaaay, but you're only arguing with yourself then...

Originally posted by Jakko
Jesus was not God. Jesus was Gods character and identity "molded" into a human form, losing the "God" status.

Sounds like an avatar to me.

An avatar suggests the appearance merely changed, while what makes God God has to do with a lot more than just appearance.

Again, see the defintion of "avatar."

I'll reply to the rest of your post later on.

Perhaps we should first agree on foundational language before responding to dependent anologies at all, hmmm? Yes, yes. Quite, quite.

Part of the reason I believe westerners (especially Roman Catholics) have such trouble with the idea of Jesus as an avatar of God (readily obvious to most everyone else) is not only the whole Trinity debacle of 325AD with the [Marketing] Council of Nicea trying to incorporate paganism into the fold, but the sheer audacity of various Christian sects thereafter to try and copyright "God" for selfish gain as exclusively Jesus, one church and one way. What folley.

Christianity is actually a beautiful religon where practiced by open minded reflective peoples most "Christians" wouldn't even consider Christians.

From Why Did God Become an Avatar? (Christian Salvation in Hinduism)

Suggested reading would be the songs, but here's the relevant notes:

Those who are born from an earthly father and whose father's names are mentioned are not avatars but devotees. God becoming man is totally different from man elevated to the status of God. In the term 'Avatar' the syllable 'ava' means 'below' and 'tar' means coming down. Hence, the word signifys God coming down as a man. Worship is universal whereas religion requires doctrines and regulations based on scripture, philosophy, theology etc.

The religions that existed in the pre-Christian era in India are Jainism and Buddhism. Both these religions do not contain any concept of God and are called agnostic religions. Apart from these religions, there were worships in India (Dravidian and Aryan worship), but there were no theistic religions in the pre-Christian era.

Saivism, Vaishnavism, Gowmaram, Sowram, Kanapathyam and Saktham, referred to as the Six-fold religions, developed as religion in the post - Christian era and they have three basic doctrines which are
1. Doctrine of Triune/Trinity
2. Doctrine of avatar, and the
3. Doctrine of fulfillment of sacrifice.
These three doctrines cannot be seen in the worships and the agnostic religions which were prevalent in the pre-Christian era and Christianity alone has these three basic doctrines. Jainism and Buddhism are agnostic religions, and there is no room for sacrifice (religions, which deny the need for sacrifice). After the sacrifice of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Six-fold religions, which accepted His fulfillment of sacrifice, originated. Thus, the avatar of God gave rise to the emergence of religions with the fulfillment of sacrifice in the worship in India. This also led to spiritual liberation and drastic changes and development in the history of religions.

The period of Bhakthi Movement is after the 5th c.A.D. Recent research reveals that Christianity which developed in India from the 1st c. A.D. has led to the development of Saivism, Vaishnavism and the other Six-fold religions.

Even though many avatars are mentioned in Vaishnavism, they are the result of syncretism.

Recent research reveals that Sanskrit was formed after 1st c. A.D. Hence, the doctrines such as the avatar of God, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and others found in Sanskrit literature belong to the post - Christian era.

Another problem with westerners on the subject of Christianity, especially Christians, is they tend to think not only did they invent something new, but that every spiritual pondering that pops in their head is a revelation that hasn't been done to death repeatedly before Jesus was anything more than twinkle in His Father's metaphysical eye. And alot of that is our own western history, including significant world shaping theological and philosophical traditions in both the pre and post Christian era. It's a shame really.

But Jesus? Avatar. No doubt about it.



[edit on 9-5-2005 by RANT]

Hmmm I would have to apologise RANT, it seems avatar is indeed the right word for what I mean.
I am from the netherlands and my perception of "avatar" was quite different from your description.

Another problem with westerners on the subject of Christianity, especially Christians, is they tend to think not only did they invent something new, but that every spiritual pondering that pops in their head is a revelation that hasn't been done to death repeatedly before Jesus was anything more than twinkle in His Father's metaphysical eye. And alot of that is our own western history, including significant world shaping theological and philosophical traditions in both the pre and post Christian era. It's a shame really.

Why is this a problem rant?
Isn't it logical and predictable that people rather make themselves believe they created or thought of something unique, instead of comparing everything that pops into their head to what figures in worldwide history may have written down?

Why is it even wrong? Doesn't it show that when different people in different times think of the same theories and interpret something in the same way, their way of interpretation may be close to the correct way?

Originally posted by RANT
Ironically it's in the limitations of that dualistic existence wholly created by man in the image of that which he is not, however, that your logic (most prevalent western theology in fact) falls apart; or at least renders God (the other side of the coin) less than all pervasive and powerful at best or irrelevant (to this side of the coin) at worst.

What kind of limitations do you mean?
Less than pervasive and powerfull is something else then bound by His own rules and laws in order to remain what He promised he is; righteous and just.

There's just no good reason for a "creator of the Universe" to log into the Earth forum once, upload a Jesus avatar, post some crazy # (without links), get banned, then have people keep the thread going 2,000 years in the dogmatic belief he wasn't just another troll.

If that is how you see the "story" then indeed it's doubtfull that there's a good reason.
As I see it however, this comparison doesn't make a whole lot of sense, not if you look at goals, objectives and most of all influence and longterm effect that this "troll" had on the world you live in.


[edit on 9-5-2005 by Jakko]

Originally posted by Jakko
Why is this a problem rant?

I honestly don't recall. I think I was mad at that particular moment about living in a world that would deny me Half & Half for my coffee. But all has since been recitified. Sorry and praise be.

I think though there's a relationship, not just among all the elements of this discussion, but everything. Somehow that ties in (at least for me) whereas partitioned or out-of-context reflections don't. This speaks directly to the shortcomings of falsely dichotomous thinking (a hallmark of engrained western logic) especially when resolved to grasp and define the metaphysical (sometimes merely assumed to be a dichotomously limited opposite of "us").

I actually thought too along that same line this analogy was a "bigger" way to "see the story" than most attempt:

There's just no good reason for a "creator of the Universe" to log into the Earth forum once, upload a Jesus avatar, post some crazy # (without links), get banned, then have people keep the thread going 2,000 years in the dogmatic belief he wasn't just another troll.

Reserving judgement on the "troll" reach, that's actually a somewhat larger and more relevant perspective taking into account all of human existence.

Originally posted by Jakko
If that is how you see the "story" then indeed it's doubtfull that there's a good reason.

Exactly.

Whereas to the extent you disagree with the pretext profoundly:

As I see it however, this comparison doesn't make a whole lot of sense, not if you look at goals, objectives and most of all influence and longterm effect that this "troll" had on the world you live in.

...Requires stepping inside or accepting the "system" while ignoring any objective evalutation altogether. And using the thread analogy again, indeed further assuming to know the mind of the poster behind the avatar as retold again and again by subsequent generations of new members each a little more removed from the event.

But I think again, even within the context of your efforts here Jakko there's significant precendent worthy of consideration. Most notably from the first Council of Nicea and man made resolution of the Trinity three and a quarter centuries after the death of the man called Jesus. So I'd start there, unless you've got a particular beef with the Christian Church you'd like to reform. In which case, I'll get my notes.

Originally posted by RANT

...Requires stepping inside or accepting the "system" while ignoring any objective evalutation altogether.

Not at all, the troll we speak about had this huge impact on our "forum" wether you accept the message that this "troll" brought or not.

This is also why there has to be something special or remarkable about either the troll or the post that the troll submitted to the forum.

And using the thread analogy again, indeed further assuming to know the mind of the poster behind the avatar as retold again and again by subsequent generations of new members each a little more removed from the event.

The techniques used to make sure that through translations the message was not corrupted were actually quite strict.
Of course over time translation was not perfect, but to act as if what's left now is so far away from the first version is an overstating attitude.

Besides this, for new translations of the bible, people usually take the oldest translation they can find and re-translate it like many many others allready did in the past.
It's not an evergrowing chain of confusiong and mistakes, translations stopped being "serial" if you know what I mean, they are more like parallel now.

But I think again, even within the context of your efforts here Jakko there's significant precendent worthy of consideration. Most notably from the first Council of Nicea and man made resolution of the Trinity three and a quarter centuries after the death of the man called Jesus. So I'd start there, unless you've got a particular beef with the Christian Church you'd like to reform. In which case, I'll get my notes.

Of course, and that's interesting to look at, but the theory I explained in the topic start, is something I have figured out on my own more or less, and the quest of finding out wether I could wrong or right would start with looking at how other people in history looked at it.

I have heard and read many articles about the trinity and none of those were truly satisfying for me, satisfying as in it explaining and answering all my questions on the subject.