Jesus (Yeshua) was a Jew, who died for a purpose..

Originally posted by schuyler
Hard to know where to start here. It is a compelling story that has a certain pull to it. In the interests of simplicity, which you espouse, I guess the one question I have to ask Christians such as yourself is:

How do you know?

I'm not trying to mock you here. It's just that these events happened a couple thousand years ago, yet present day Christians seem to feel they KNOW, without a doubt, not only what happened, but that it is divine truth. But you were born just yesterday. Who told you all this? I have a cousin who cannot understand why anyone would not be a Christian. My question to him is, who told you all this stuff? Well, his mother, who married a minister, told him. She did not get it from her parents (my grandparents) but converted. Truth tell, her 'husband' 'ministered' to her and wound up marrying her. They had my cousin, then divorced.

I've heard that some people have personal experiences, kind of a "on the road to Damascus" type of thing and that is what convince dthem, but most I know seem not to have had such a strong personal happening like that. But the basic, simple question, is, How do you know any of what you say is true?

This right here is the problem with religion. This man speaks nothing but logic yet not one star on his post. Why? Because the book written by people long dead says its all true. We live in a world where proof is needed to justify anything except religion. The sad part is if Christians would just learn the history of their religion they would understand how easy it is for almost anything in their book to be proven false. Instead you refuse to even discuss it let alone do your own research.

Ive learned long back not to even try to argue with religion nuts. No matter what proof you bring to the table they just wont listen and when you catch them in a lie or something that cant be explain "well god did it". So Im not even going to come back to this thread after I leave it. Ill believe in the creator that made this universe you believe in your bed time stories of talking snakes.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by schuyler

 

Thats very respectful of you.

Guess you dont like the Jews (or Judaism) very much.

Not sure where you got that. If you were familiar with my posts on ATS (not that you should be) you would know I am a strong supporter of Israel and the Jews--to my detriment with a leftist-leaning audience. Or were you reacting to dontreally? I'm a little confused here because both our names are referenced.

Originally posted by dantanna
the protokols of xion are REAL.

Oh, nonsense. I've already provided ample information on that. The real mystery is why anyone would buy off on such crapola. I guess I have the same question of you as I do the OP. How do you know this? What in your life has convinced you to BELIEVE. You certainly have provided no proof or reasons; you just state that it is so. This ain't Star Trek. Saying it is so does not make it so.

What a wonderful thread. It's amazing and heartening to see a respectful discussion of religion here, without the name-calling and nastiness that generally pops up almost immediately in religious threads.

To the OP: That was beautifully said. Your post made me cry. I'm so glad I came to ATS today.

I'm going to go back and read this entire thread again; so many people had deep things to say, I don't think I quite absorbed it all. I just wanted to point out a couple of things I thought were relevant as I read the thread:

Someone said something along the lines of "if Jesus was God, wouldn't he have been sacrificing himself to himself?" which I thought was quite interesting. I wonder how many people think about that? However, if you look to the very oldest (non-gnostic) gospels---general scholarly consensus is that Mark and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas are the very oldest gospels, written closest to Jesus's lifetime---nowhere does he claim to be "the only son of God". This is added by the later writers as they embellish the story and finally comes to full-blown fruition with John, written some hundred years after Jesus's lifetime. This is a constuct of Christianity, not a teaching of Jesus himself. Nor does Mark present any story of a virgin birth.

In fact, one of the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas very concretely suggests that he did NOT see himself as THE Son of God (although probably as "a" son of God), but as a prophet:

Thomas 52: His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you." He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."

Originally posted by cronotrigger30
no offense but you all sound crazy when u start quoting bible versus. eats cheese burger and sits outside and looks at the stars now thats life.

As long as it's not a quarter pounder with cheese from McDonalds.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Had Christ resisted being put to death, he would have acted contrary to his own teachings of love and forgiveness.

Jesus neither loved nor forgave those in the temple.

Sure he did, when he said "forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

If true, then that act of atonement, of unending and unrelenting love, relative, to sin and sorrow and siffering and strife, for the restoration of life, extends to us all, whether we believe in him, or not. It's all-inclusive, not exclusive.

Why? Because those who did or do not know what they do, would have included the temple priests, and those who rejected him.

reply to post by dontreally

What I hear you saying, and forgive me if I am mistaken, is, that you, and the Pharisees which Jesus had a problem with, and who didn't care for him very much either - are better, more informed, and more enlightened, as Jews, than was Jesus.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I never claimed Jesus died for our sins. If anything, I would say Jesus died to show us how not to be sinful.

Judge not, Love all, be at peace.

I didn't say I attributed it to you. You simply asked where I got the notion.

If you cannot look at this beautiful existence, the bountiful planet, the wonders all around us and see that God loves us, I ask that you look again.

I stand in just as much awe of the universe as you, yet I see no god at all, let alone one that loves us. A second look still produces no god(s).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Sure he did, when he said "forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

That's an interesting take on it though this was most assuredly not his reaction. You're referring to a statement made in reference to other actions. Sure, we could apply it retroactively, though you'd have to admit this is a serious stretch.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I didn't say I attributed it to you. You simply asked where I got the notion.

Ok, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification my friend.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I stand in just as much awe of the universe as you, yet I see no god at all, let alone one that loves us. A second look still produces no god(s).

I see my friend. It is a matter of semantics. I say God, you say awe. Then for the sake of our conversations, I will stand in Awe with you.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Sure he did, when he said "forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

That's an interesting take on it though this was most assuredly not his reaction. You're referring to a statement made in reference to other actions. Sure, we could apply it retroactively, though you'd have to admit this is a serious stretch.

Not in the least, giiven that they might even have been present at his torture.. and surely were, to get to see it.

Here's the difference I think, between how our minds work - I have an awareness of an unknowing, which doesn't involve a purely analytical right/wrong paradigm, and I am willing to explore unknowns, like the historical Jesus on the other side of a fog of myth, for one, where it would be impossible to slice it, from that perspective, from that frame of reference.

Those among us who understand, we are coming at it from any entirely different frame of reference to yourself, and you'd be surprised what can be addressed from that perspective, or from that frame, to your arguments, very surprised.

But I cannot spend all day in here arguing with you, about something which, by it's very nature, can't even really be argued about, since that's not what it's about, it doesn't fit that frame of reference, you are mistaken.

I'd hate to be in your position, so sure I'm right about something like this, relative to that frame of reference, which places you in a type of predicament of which you know nothing, and can't know, given your POV, and fundamental belief that you already KNOW and are definitely right about it all, while we misguided "believers" (even though I don't think of myself as a believer, but more of a Christian knower of sorts) are completely out to lunch, or worse.

So I'll think I'll just leave your posts for someone else to address, and then set to work doing something helpful today and of value, in accordance with what i know for sure, to be true.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Not in the least, giiven that they might even have been present at his torture.. and surely were, to get to see it.

Here's the difference I think, between how our minds work - I have an awareness of an unknowing, which doesn't involve a purely analytical right/wrong paradigm, and I am willing to explore unknowns, like the historical Jesus on the other side of a fog of myth, for one, where it would be impossible to slice it, from that perspective, from that frame of reference.

Those among us who understand, we are coming at it from any entirely different frame of reference to yourself, and you'd be surprised what can be addressed from that perspective, or from that frame, to your arguments, very surprised.

But I cannot spend all day in here arguing with you, about something which, by it's very nature, can't even really be argued about, since that's not what it's about, it doesn't fit that frame of reference, you are mistaken.

I'd hate to be in your position, so sure I'm right about something like this, relative to that frame of reference, which places you in a type of predicament of which you know nothing, and can't know, given your POV, and fundamental belief that you already KNOW and are definitely right about it all, while we misguided "believers" (even though I don't think of myself as a believer, but more of a Christian knower of sorts) are completely out to lunch, or worse.

So I'll think I'll just leave your posts for someone else to address, and then set to work doing something helpful today and of value, in accordance with what i know for sure, to be true.

Sir, could you be more condescending and arrogant? It's clear that Jesus asking forgiveness for those who knew not what they were doing was NOT directed at, nor a reaction to, the people in the temple that so angered him. When one is this errant about interpreting context, one should not be calling others "mistaken" and "know nothings".

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I see my friend. It is a matter of semantics. I say God, you say awe. Then for the sake of our conversations, I will stand in Awe with you.

Certainly it could be a matter of semantics. Though if we're going to call "God" that which we already call "awe" I really find no reason to invoke another work for it. Particularly when, for many people, "God" often means a supernatural entity of some sort.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Let me just clarify a little further then.

I hear you saying that Jesus anger at the Temple priests negates his ability to also love and forgive, and, at that same time, when you say he gave bad advice, etc., that you wish to place him in error, from your perspective.

That said the spirit is the same, the same spirit of the universe (call it consciousness, awe, awareness, love, etc. etc.) that inhabited and informed Jesus, remains the same spirit of truth, from age to age.

Is is therefore YOU, not me, who thinks he must be quite something.. and a "knowitall". Sorry, but I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn.

My intelligence is not entirely my own you see, and I am becoming less and less concerned all the time about being right, to another's wrong, which makes available even more knowledge and awareness.

You DO have a blindspot my friend, or something that you don't even know you don't know, yet.

That's not condescending on purpose, just an observation.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Certainly it could be a matter of semantics. Though if we're going to call "God" that which we already call "awe" I really find no reason to invoke another work for it. Particularly when, for many people, "God" often means a supernatural entity of some sort.

I can't speak for what others call God, but when I use the word it is to place a label which the label itself fails to wholly describe. Words fail when defining that which is God. I can say it is all, but that leaves out those things we are yet aware of. Therefore, it is futile to debate what one should use as the label. Anything would be inadequate.

Awe is therefore just as good as any other word. I understand the sentiment in the word. Can word fully describe that feeling of Awe to another who knows not that word? Yes, awe will do. Because then there is understanding between the two of us.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Let me just clarify a little further then.

I hear you saying that Jesus anger at the Temple priests negates his ability to also love and forgive, and, at that same time, when you say he gave bad advice, etc., that you wish to place him in error, from your perspective.

I never once said Jesus's anger at the temple priests negated his ability to love and forgive. He did, at times, give bad advice, though I've made it clear that he also gave good advice. I have no need to desire to place him in error, though modern scientific understanding leaves many of the tales about him in serious error.

That said the spirit is the same, the same spirit of the universe (call it consciousness, awe, awareness, love, etc. etc.) that inhabited and informed Jesus, remains the same spirit of truth, from age to age.

Sure, certain human aspects remain constant between the ages. This doesn't make it a "spirit of the universe".

Is is therefore YOU, not me, who thinks he must be quite something.. and a "knowitall". Sorry, but I don't see how any other conclusion can be drawn.

I don't see how you drew that conclusion in any way.

My intelligence is not entirely my own you see,

No, I don't see. Who else's intelligence inhabits you then?

and I am becoming less and less concerned all the time about being right, to another's wrong, which makes available even more knowledge and awareness.

The end of this sentence doesn't make sense to me. You appear to have been very concerned about being right just a few posts back when I pointed out your error in contextual interpretation.

You DO have a blindspot my friend, or something that you don't even know you don't know, yet.

That's not condescending on purpose, just an observation.

No, that most certainly is intentionally condescending. I understand we have a difference of opinion and am willing to leave it at that. I would never tell you that you have a blind spot, or any other such arrogant thing, simply on the basis of difference of opinion.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Words fail when defining that which is God. I can say it is all, but that leaves out those things we are yet aware of.

I don't think so. I'd think that "all" describes even those things too. We are aware of very little of the universe, let alone the things surrounding us now. And these all fall under "all". But again, personally I'd simply call it "all" rather than "god'

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


The temple scene didn't fit in, it was incongruous and therefore I believe a Roman addition as they didn't want people to fully understand the message Jesus represented was 100% in opposition to any of their wars and domination plans. He did not represent pyramid systems either.

reply to post by schuyler


Naming your dog after the most important figure in Judaism (moses) is what I meant by "disrespectful".

It wouldnt be anymore right if a Jew named his dog Jesus or mohommad.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

The temple scene didn't fit in, it was incongruous and therefore I believe a Roman addition as they didn't want people to fully understand the message Jesus represented was 100% in opposition to any of their wars and domination plans. He did not represent pyramid systems either.

Yes, that's the thing. Jesus problem with the keepers of the Temple, was that they had allowed the Temple to be corrupted by empire. Every time he used the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" he was also drawing very clearly, the distinction between hieararchies.

It could also be said that the "temple" was on the cross when Jesus was on the cross, since his body was temple of the living God, or the spirit of God embodied.

Note his reframe also to the woman at the well, about God being spirit and truth, available, neither in the temple or on the mountain, but anywhere and everywhere there are people who worship in spirit and in truth.

Seeing, first hand, the corruption of the temple, Jesus obviously enjoyed an intimate relationship with God apart from the Temple, and there he broke with his Jewish counterparts, since for him the law was something alive, something in the heart of man, not dead religious ritual that had divorced itself from the spirit of the law.