Jesus Christ's Superderterministic, Cosmological, Magnum Opus.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

You'd also have to read the gospels, again, with an open mind and heart and recognize the person or character or the VOICE of Jesus,

This is the blind faith part I was talking about.

Not entirely, since it's also a contextual criticism and evalaution as a meaningful frame of reference.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

which I don't think can be dismissed, nor his unique genius, overlooked or discarded, but maybe that's just me. To each his own. I think you're missing out, but it's up to you. It is after all a free invitation and if you don't want it, that's fine.

Originally posted by daskakik

That is just it. It is just you. That is why you can't find anything outside of your own words to really back any of it up, in any concrete way.

You have connected a bunch of unrelated dots and when asked about them you deflect, accusing the person asking the question of not being able to grok, of not having read the gospels with an open enough mind or of not getting the joke that god played.

Sorry but no. Your theory, and the texts, pics and videos that go with it, do nothing to bring any kind of clarity to the subject and it isn't because the listener isn't trying but because your theory lacks any real substance and coherence. It is just new age fluff with a christian veneer.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a joke that God played, I'm sorry you didn't get it, and I recognized going into this that for some it wouldn't make any sense at all. You must admit to having an agenda as a staunch atheist, so how could you "get it" even in terms of what it represents and signifies for us also as human beings in the creation. It's by no means belittling, what I've tried to convey in this thread, except to our own small-minded ego-centrism.

That last statement as a play on my monicur, that's a low blow, and unfair. In Christ we who humble ourselves are exalted, and our true stature as children of God, realizing that in time and history is what will bring about a "new age" as an age both of reason and spirit.

We can agree to disagree. You're not buying it that's fine, but this thread isn't even for you really because you're a self-professed atheist, you've already arrived at a conclusion, and you're free to hold to it. Let's just agree to disagree, there's no need to try to discredit the other guy or ridicule that's not nice.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Not entirely, since it's also a contextual criticism and evalaution as a meaningful frame of reference.

Sorry but that is more deflecting on your part. You just said I have to read the gospels to recognize the voice of Jesus. Now you're changing the tune, once again.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there is a joke that God played, I'm sorry you didn't get it, and I recognized going into this that for some it wouldn't make any sense at all. You must admit to having an agenda as a staunch atheist, so how could you "get it" even in terms of what it represents and signifies for us also as human beings in the creation. It's by no means belittling, what I've tried to convey in this thread, except to our own small-minded ego-centrism.

There you go again blaming the reader instead of recognizing that whatever it is that you tried to convey with this thread is anything but clear, except to the choir. My agenda is to point out the holes in your theory.

That last statement as a play on my monicur, that's a low blow, and unfair. In Christ we who humble ourselves are exalted, and our true stature as children of God, realizing that in time and history is what will bring about a "new age" as an age both of reason and spirit.

Low blow? New age philosophy coated in Christianity is all I see in your theory. I'm sorry if you can't see it for what it is.

We can agree to disagree. You're not buying it that's fine, but this thread isn't even for you really because you're a self-professed atheist, you've already arrived at a conclusion, and you're free to hold to it. Let's just agree to disagree, there's no need to try to discredit the other guy or ridicule that's not nice.

I think we have already agreed to disagree. I even let you expand the thread without a peep out of me for a while, but this whole site is about discrediting the other guy, if what he offers has holes in it.

If you were really interested in an honest discussion you would not dismiss other people's theories so quickly. As soon as someone even questions the official story of Jesus, you are quick to "discredit the other guy".

reply to post by daskakik

I'm comfortable letting the reader (in general) draw from it what they will, and I'm proud of my efforts here to convey these things to the best of my ability, I KNOW it will be of help to someone at some point.

I think too that people can and do read between the lines and that motives speak very loudly, even in textual form (without the nuance of social cues), and that people can read the heart and the intentionality and again in that regard I'm happy with my efforts, which don't have to please everyone.

(no need to reply)..

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

I'm comfortable letting the reader (in general) draw from it what they will, and I'm proud of my efforts here to convey these things to the best of my ability, I KNOW it will be of help to someone at some point.

But you're not comfortable with entertaining what they took away, when it isn't what you wanted them to take away.

I think too that people can and do read between the lines and that motives speak very loudly, even in textual form (without the nuance of social cues), and that people can read the heart and the intentionality and again in that regard I'm happy with my efforts, which don't have to please everyone.

So now, instead of it being a straight forward compilation of information to lay out what God's great plan is, people have to read between lines and grasp motives, read the heart and the intentionality? Glad you "cleared" that up.

I'm glad you're happy with your efforts, guess I'll be quiet now.

reply to post by daskakik

Basically what I was saying is that it's plainly obvious to the readers where people are coming from and what their motives are, yours included, and I'm glad to have put in the effort to provide the content that's been provided. I don't need to make any apologies for it.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Basically what I was saying is that it's plainly obvious to the readers where people are coming from and what their motives are, yours included,

I've been straightforward about my participation in your thread. I'm here to point out the holes in your theory. No need for reading between the lines or second guessing motives.

I'm glad to have put in the effort to provide the content that's been provided. I don't need to make any apologies for it.

You sure don't but you could at least admit that you were less than cordial and quite quick to "discredit others" while asking them to not act in the same way towards you.

As you have pointed out many times, this thread isn't about/for me. In similar fashion, my critique of your theory isn't about/for you either. It is for the rest of the readers.

Claiming that the timing of the birth of Christ was somehow unique, and dismissing the fact that up to 30 thousand births could have taken place with the same 24 hour period, shows that you are just looking to justify your religious beliefs and have no intention of engaging in honest discussion.

I'm just here to point that out to others who may stumble into this thread.

reply to post by daskakik

We've already discussed this.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

This thread isn't just about that one aspect, the rest of which provides a larger frame of reference by which to consider the person and M.O. of Jesus, and how indeed those signs referenced him even at a particular location, within a certain framework of prophecy and of Jewish and Biblical history.

Edit to add: I'm not sure about your math, but you do make a point about more than one being born under the same sign in the same general locale, which was how and why Herod tried to kill the young Jesus the Magi referenced as "the King of the Jews", by ordering the slaughter of all boys (which totalled 300) from the same agegroup (under the age of two) in the region of Bethlehem of Judea, although Joseph was given it to him in a dream to flee from the area, the result of which Jesus was spared, so the rest of them to whom it was determined that this principal applied, were all killed off, something that I've already indicated would have effected Jesus deeply once he found out about it.

16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Wise-men.

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying,

18 A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not.

~ Mathew 2:16-18

Of significant note also (and a central "crux" of this thesis) is the precision timing of the Great Work itself and how Jesus could possibly have organized things so that the day of the cross coincided with a solar eclipse whereby the moon rose over the horizon already beginning to eclipse the setting sun while he was on the cross, something which, relative to those who put him there, would have presented itself to them in the form of what I've called a reverse-sting-hoodwink, the result of which they would surely have been astonished and exclaimed OMG how did he KNOW?!

The Day of the Cross
www.bethlehemstar.net...

You say you've offered a critique and are here to poke holes in the theory that Jesus' life AND Great Work was framed by the divine order of the Cosmos, but I don't see much from you other than potshots from the stands. Also in regards to alternative theories about the official story, those were flying right off the rails including the suggestion (wthout any basis at all) that John the Baptist was either a) Jesus' father, or b) his lover..

I've just been picking up on the motives of you and another poster, which just didn't seem all that appropriate to the discussion and presentation, which is what this thread was for, not as a debate with atheists.

"My hour has not yet come."
~ Jesus (while slipping through a crowd who were about to stone him for claiming to be the son of God)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

We've already discussed this.

And you didn't offer anything that really countered the fact presented. You present a story which may or may not be true. That is one of many "ifs" in your theory. I don't need to make long overly verbose posts to point these out.

Tens of thousands of children born on or around the same time but this one is special because of folklore. The cosmos could care less about Jewish tradition and prophesies but I could see Church leaders making things "fit" to keep the flock in awe.

I've just been picking up on the motives of you and another poster, which just didn't seem all that appropriate to the discussion and presentation, which is what this thread was for, not as a debate with atheists.

This whole site is about two sided discussions. If you want a one sided presentation you should make a blog or something of that nature.

Originally posted by daskakik
The cosmos could care less about Jewish tradition and prophesies but I could see Church leaders making things "fit" to keep the flock in awe.

To keep them in awe how precisely, in anticipation for the day when they would all aquire astronomy software and wind the tape back to see if there was any astonomical correlation to the events, as described..?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

No, to keep them under control and keep fleecing them. It was a flat out lie and you are trying to use it as the basis for some transcendental truth, totally oblivious to the fact that you have also fallen for the lie.

ETA: I'm not saying that there was nothing in the sky, just that the Priest Class knows how to build stories around those types of occurrences to their advantage.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

It was a flat out lie and you are trying to use it as the basis for some transcendental truth, totally oblivious to the fact that you have also fallen for the lie.

Are you prepared to support that unequivocal statement of fact re: the lie, with anything more than your own personal opinionated bias?

What lie? Is it a lie that life isn't purely random happenstance and coincidence, but that the human being has been made with intent to reflect and contain the nature of the living God as the center and source of life and the first father of creation?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus Christ is the Phi Ratio Son of God

The Golden Proportion is analogous to God’s relationship to creation

The Golden Section, or Phi, found throughout nature, also applies in understanding the relationship of God to Creation. In the golden section, we see that there is only one way to divide a line so that its parts are in proportion to, or in the image of, the whole:

The ratio of the larger section (B) to the whole line (A) is the same as the ratio as the smaller section (C) to the large section (B):

Only “tri-viding” the whole preserves the relationship to the whole
And so it is with our understanding of God, that we are created in His image. Not by dividing the whole, but only by tri-viding the whole does each piece retain its unique relationship to the whole. Only here do we see three that are two that are one.

The Book of John begins with these words that capture the essence of this:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

Jesus, in John 14:9, expressed a similar thought:

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

Is it a lie that inevitably in the fullness of time and history one among us would come to embody the fullness of what this means and represents?

You can't make such a statement as FACT without backing it up..

I say that the entire context taken together, in full, including all information available, to the contrary, instead of proving a lie, generally and for the most part validates the historicity of the events and moreso the central personage or character involved regarding his thinking, philosophy, motivations and drivers, part of which involves certain very sorrowful and painful truths, on par with the story of Herod's killing of all the children in that region on account of the information conveyed by the Magi, things involving origins and destinies that are as much hidden as they are revealed in the apocrypha of the Gospels.

What if recent archeological findings generally show that ancient Biblical history, is true?

There's a very very large framework of information available to deal with, so you might have your work cut out for you to prove that it's all a lie, as fact.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Are you prepared to support that unequivocal statement of fact re: the lie, with anything more than your own personal opinionated bias?

The lie is that someone special was born and/or died during these celestial happenings. You have shown no proof other than the very same tales built around those occurrences. That is circular logic

What lie? Is it a lie that life isn't purely random happenstance and coincidence, but that the human being has been made with intent to reflect and contain the nature of the living God as the center and source of life and the first father of creation?

I can show as much valid proof that that is a lie, as you can that it is the truth.

reply to post by daskakik

Sadly, one thing you fail to recognize in all this, is what it states about us and about our place as human beings in God's creation.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Sadly, one thing you fail to recognize in all this, is what it states about us and about our place as human beings in God's creation.

What you fail to recognize is that your take on God's creation and our place, is based on information that was under the control of a chosen few. That is standard MO for those seeking to control and they have shown, time and again, that they have no problem with lying. That can be seen on the sociopolitical level today. What makes you think that it wasn't practiced in those times?

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Are you prepared to support that unequivocal statement of fact re: the lie, with anything more than your own personal opinionated bias?

The lie is that someone special was born and/or died during these celestial happenings. You have shown no proof other than the very same tales built around those occurrences. That is circular logic

Let me get this straight, if I'm reading you correctly. Are you suggesting that the entirety of the New Testament was written based around, and built upon, these celestial occurances?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Let me get this straight, if I'm reading you correctly. Are you suggesting that the entirety of the New Testament was written based around, and built upon, these celestial occurances?

What I am saying is that proof that these celestial occurrences took place isn't proof that what was built up around them is true.

reply to post by daskakik

Interesting, and you said I was using circular logic, but do you know how the lawyer in the Star of Bethlehem videos discovered that there was a solar eclipse on the day of the cross, and are you aware that it wasn't otherwise common knowledge, and still isn't to this day, nor used in any argument in relation to the historical authenticity of Jesus or of the cross? Both are there, the historicity of Jesus, the cross, and the eclipse, the only one seen from Judea during the reign of Pontias Pilate..

doesn't it even make you wonder.. ?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Interesting, and you said I was using circular logic, but do you know how the lawyer in the Star of Bethlehem videos discovered that there was a solar eclipse on the day of the cross, and are you aware that it wasn't otherwise common knowledge, and still isn't to this day, nor used in any argument in relation to the historical authenticity of Jesus or of the cross? Both are there, the historicity of Jesus, the cross, and the eclipse, the only one seen from Judea during the reign of Pontias Pilate..

doesn't it even make you wonder.. ?

Actually no. Don't know where you get the idea that it isn't common knowledge, There is even a wiki entry about it.

Crucifixion darkness and eclipse

reply to post by daskakik

Well it was just speculation, just "story" until the lawyer in the Real Star of Bethlehem videos verified it.

With that data, looking back through the gospels what becomes clear to me isn't that the story was fabricated based on the celestial event, but that Jesus saw his life's work framed by it and worked to a schedule relative to it, while also recognizing his sent-calling by the signs surrounding his birth.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Well it was just speculation, just "story" until the lawyer in the Real Star of Bethlehem videos verified it.

It wouldn't have been to the people who used it as the event to set the date of the crucifixion.

With that data, looking back through the gospels what becomes clear to me isn't that the story was fabricated based on the celestial event, but that Jesus saw his life's work framed by it and worked to a schedule relative to it, while also recognizing his sent-calling by the signs surrounding his birth.

Of course you would see it that way. You want to believe that the story is real and that the events are proof. Instead of believing that the events were real but that the story was fabricated to fit the timing of the events.

There are many stories based on things happening in the sky around the world. Why would this one be any different?