Was Jesus a victim of self aggrandizing suicide?

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/expedition-week/4290/Overview#tab-Videos/07451_00

My position is simple.
To offer or be a scapegoat for others who will not step up to their own responsibilities and consequences for their action is immoral and self aggrandizing. I see mythical Jesus as doing just that.

To accept the sacrifice of a scapegoat Jesus and to try to profit from his death is also immoral.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYaQpRZJl18&feature=related

Scripture indicates, Trinitarians aside, that God the Father sent his son to die for mankind to fulfill a need that God himself created. That of a blood sacrifice to forgive sin when he has the power to forgive sin without it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

As above so below.
For us to believe that God would plan for and send his son to die, we would have to think it normal and good for a father to bury his son. Any good man would reject such an example of good conduct as definitely not good, natural or moral. Any God the father, or earthly father, worth his title, would step up himself for such a task yet Bible God takes the cowardly route and sends his son. What a pathetic God. What pathetic followers he also has who would think that this is the way things should be.

Eze 18;20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Psa 49;7
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Do you recognize the immorality of believers using Jesus as a scapegoat and of them trying to profit from his murder?

If his death was a suicide, which is the way I see it, is it moral for believers to try to profit from his pathetic self aggrandizing sacrifice?

Regards
DL

I am aware of the theory on which Jesus goes to his death willingly, and he even provokes it knowingly. This is a solid theory, it is based on much information and common sense.
The only question is why?
Christians are clueless, they said “Jesus died for us”, not even knowing what they are saying; you probably would call this answer as the “scapegoat approach”.
You are saying that Jesus knew that his death was going to be interpreted that way, and that is the reason why he actually did it. But that makes no sense to me either

My understanding is this:
Jesus accepting and provoking his own torture and death was Jesus accepting, and living his own karma. You may call this “going with the flow”, this is the Zen approach: surrender to what existence brings no matter if it leads to your death.
Just as Socrates accepted his own death by poison, even given the possibility of running away out of Athens (he was offered exile); he refused, this was the alleged Socrates response:

“And if I say exile, I must indeed be blinded by the love of life if I were to consider that. When you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would fain have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. And what a life should I lead, at my age, wandering from city to city, living in ever-changing exile, and always being driven out! For I am quite sure that into whatever place I go, as here so also there, the young men will come to me; and if I drive them away, their elders will drive me out at their desire: and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their sakes. “

You can say that these men committed suicide; that is what you and many others may perceive. But really, I only think that these men were not clinging to life (the survival instinct had no longer a grip on them).
Jesus rather stood his ground in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people; the people who raised him and saw him grow old (up until 33 off course), the people he loved and wanted to heal; than going (out of fear of death) away to an unknown land where he was more likely to be accepted.
Socrates rather stood his ground in Athens, the capital of the Greeks, his people; than running away to exile clinging to life.
These men did not commit suicide, they gave their executors a chance, and they told them: I only speak the truth, and if you want to kill me I am not going to run away. I am here on this world for you.

If he rose from the dead, then he didn't die for our sins or any other reason, he just didn't die.

If he rose from the dead, then he didn't die for our sins or any other reason, he just didn't die.

Hi man, If you are referring to the possibility that he didn’t die at the cross, it’s obvious that is the most likely scenario; but does that really means it somehow the act requires any lesser balls?

And the part of "he died for our sins" does not mean we don't have to "carry our own cross".

From time to time some spiritual being is supposed to sacrifice his/her life to keep humanity from sufferings. It is about taking over the sins of people over himself to relieve them from endless miseries. That is what Jesus did for his followers. To get it(sacrifice thing) in proper sense one needs to attain a particular level mental state of mind and wisdom.

gia,

it amazes me that you can look at humanity and look at your own self and not realize that there is something tragically wrong with you that you can not fix yourself. wow.

Hi man, If you are referring to the possibility that he didn’t die at the cross, it’s obvious that is the most likely scenario; but does that really means it somehow the act requires any lesser balls?

And the part of "he died for our sins" does not mean we don't have to "carry our own cross".

Thousands of people died the same way, maybe tens of thousands. But the legend is that he didn't actually die. So no sacrifice was really made, he knew he would survive it.

From time to time some spiritual being is supposed to sacrifice his/her life to keep humanity from sufferings. It is about taking over the sins of people over himself to relieve them from endless miseries. That is what Jesus did for his followers. To get it(sacrifice thing) in proper sense one needs to attain a particular level mental state of mind and wisdom.

I agree. He imagined himself as the long-awaited Judaic savior. I believe he intended to become known as that by liberating the Hebrew tribes from Roman occupation. His plan was to start a riot in the Temple that would lead to a general uprising. The situation was not yet ripe for that, however, and he failed. (It took some seventy years more to become "ripe.")

His action can be referred to as "a sacrifice" in the sense that he surely knew the risks and the consequences of failure. One the other hand, he probably believed that "God" had sent him to save "his chosen people" and would not, therefore, fail. The fact that the Temple riot he caused did not lead to the revolution he expected seems to account for his asking "why have you forsaken me?"

Brough,
civilization-overview dot com

The Jesus meme is something often repeated in human history. It is/was nothing new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology#Similarities_between_differ ent_religious_mythologies

You might want to take a trip through the, "Golden Bough".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough

Humanity has had at least 40,000 years of religion.

Gimbutas is another good scource.

Please tell us how the meme theory explains something about the age, function, and future of religion. I'm all ears . . . :confused:

brough
civilization-overview dot com

Thousands of people died the same way, maybe tens of thousands. But the legend is that he didn't actually die. So no sacrifice was really made, he knew he would survive it.


I totally agree with you on the part where, if there was a Jesus, he didn't die at the cross; there are plenty of clues about this even in the NT cannon. And there are scriptures from Tibet stating the legend of a saint that came from the West (Issa), and with wounds of crucifixion in his hands and feet; he lived many years and died of old age in Kashmir, India.

But what I’m saying is, the fact that it was all a plot, and not as an actual martyr, doesn’t mean it doesn’t take courage to do this. I mean is crucifixion!! I bet some will argue that is it better to die than to be tortured and then crucified for some 6 hours. This is another clue that Jesus survived the crucifixion, because normally it takes a few days for a human being to die from this torture; besides the fact that after the crucifixion his women followers were accompanying him with medicinal plants and elixirs (not at all used for dead bodies, but to heal an alive body).

If there was really a Jesus (this is my non-supernatural view), then he certainly did die on the cross if not before, and the stories of his resurrection were either fabrications, hallucinations, metaphorical, or perhaps his body was stolen for some reason.

It probably did take some courage to face torture deliberately, or it might not have actually been deliberate, or Jesus might have been mentally ill (in which case it can't be called courageous).

Hi man, If you are referring to the possibility that he didn’t die at the cross, it’s obvious that is the most likely scenario; but does that really means it somehow the act requires any lesser balls?

And the part of "he died for our sins" does not mean we don't have to "carry our own cross".

A debt does not get paid twice.

Regards
DL

From time to time some spiritual being is supposed to sacrifice his/her life to keep humanity from sufferings. It is about taking over the sins of people over himself to relieve them from endless miseries. That is what Jesus did for his followers. To get it(sacrifice thing) in proper sense one needs to attain a particular level mental state of mind and wisdom.

And Jesus did not get to that immoral plateau.

Much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus in another instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

Do you recognize the immorality of believers using Jesus as a scapegoat and of them trying to profit from his murder?

If his death was a suicide, which is the way I see it, is it moral for believers to try to profit from his pathetic self aggrandizing sacrifice?

Jesus was the fufillment of the Old Testament's line of a Prophet coming along to fufill the promises of God by example- and Jesus was willing to toe that line.

Problem is, Jesus self-ressurected and with that, proof of His Divinity.

Forget when it happened or why- IT HAPPENED. We are the witnesses of it. We either accept it or deny it.

I think the original poster makes a very insightful point and observation.

That whole sacrifice thing comes from a time when the Hagars of the world anthropomorphized just about everything, and they just did for the weather (or whatever) what they would do for anyone they honored, give them a gift of food.

It wasn't about the killing. It was just frick'n food. What else would a thing want? That's certainly all Hagar thought about all damn day. Giving a good kill away was a SACRIFICE.

So incorporating that silly, backward theme into your metaphysics (something that your average first grader is too sophisticated to do at present) is pretty backward, dare I say, Neanderthal. I just can't identify with the whole procedure when it involves your children, but the bible has that as a recurrent theme.

Jesus was the fufillment of the Old Testament's line of a Prophet coming along to fufill the promises of God by example- and Jesus was willing to toe that line.

Problem is, Jesus self-ressurected and with that, proof of His Divinity.

Forget when it happened or why- IT HAPPENED. We are the witnesses of it. We either accept it or deny it.

If he proved his divinity when he reportedly died and resurrected then on e has to wonder why it took 300 odd years for Christianity to make him divine and part of the Trinity concept that Constantine basically forced down Christian throats with a vote that was split down the middle.

Regards
DL

I think the original poster makes a very insightful point and observation.

That whole sacrifice thing comes from a time when the Hagars of the world anthropomorphized just about everything, and they just did for the weather (or whatever) what they would do for anyone they honored, give them a gift of food.

It wasn't about the killing. It was just frick'n food. What else would a thing want? That's certainly all Hagar thought about all damn day. Giving a good kill away was a SACRIFICE.

So incorporating that silly, backward theme into your metaphysics (something that your average first grader is too sophisticated to do at present) is pretty backward, dare I say, Neanderthal. I just can't identify with the whole procedure when it involves your children, but the bible has that as a recurrent theme.

And exactly why it should be ignored as a holy book.

Thanks for the kudos.
Always good to find a good mind.

Regards
DL

I might love you.:D

If he proved his divinity when he reportedly died and resurrected then on e has to wonder why it took 300 odd years for Christianity to make him divine and part of the Trinity concept that Constantine basically forced down Christian throats with a vote that was split down the middle.

Regards
DL

Bureaucracy. :D

I might love you.:D

why don't you guys get a room huh?

I might love you.:D

I might return it if you were a RegularOldgirl.
I love women only.
I do like some men a lot though based on their minds and not their hairy bodies. :p:D

Regards
DL

why don't you guys get a room huh?

Why?
You like threesomes and want to romp do you?
If that is your real picture then we will keep the room dark.

Just kidding, you are not that bad. :rolleyes::D

Regards
DL

It was purely platonic. I'm not...

NOT that there's anything wrong with that... (Seinfeld).

It was purely platonic. I'm not...

NOT that there's anything wrong with that... (Seinfeld).

I agree and found this one day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in9SiDtJLaU&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Why?
You like threesomes and want to romp do you?
If that is your real picture then we will keep the room dark.

Just kidding, you are not that bad. :rolleyes::D

Regards
DL

you are. your self-glorification makes me sick.

A debt does not get paid twice.

Regards
DL
depends how many times you clock it up
;)

And there are scriptures from Tibet stating the legend of a saint that came from the West (Issa), and with wounds of crucifixion in his hands and feet; he lived many years and died of old age in Kashmir, India.


Why India? Possibly he had been there before?

Why India? Possibly he had been there before?

There is a big possibility for that; there are more than 18 years that were absolutely erased from the canon.
One theory is that when Jesus reached adolescence, out of curiosity, attraction or respect, Jesus went to return the visit to the three magi from the East, the 3 Kings from India that went to pay tribute to him at his birth place. There was a well-known trade route from Jerusalem to India in Jesus days.

The first lost years of the gospel, is when the wholly family went to Egypt to get away from the prosecution of Herod. They probably took refuge were the marginal Egyptian Jews lived (now known as the -Therapeutae- they were mystic healers, accounted by the Greeks). But then they returned to Jerusalem when Jesus was about 12 years old. These years are also missing in the canon…
After that episode of Jesus arguing with the priests in the temple when he was 12, there is no more mention of Jesus life in the canon until he was 30.

There are scriptures in Tibet (Hemis Monastery in Ladakh, India, high in the Himalaya) and Kashmir about his life in India, in his adolescence and as a young adult he received initiation as Issa (his Initiate name). There is an early church of Thomas in Kashmir he went with Jesus to India after the crucifixion; and there is also a text from a King in India called “Salivahana”, from the first century, the scripture is called Bhavishya Maha Purana (written in Sanskrit) where the King meets “Isa-Masiha” (Jesus the Messiah) years after the crucifixion.

I read an amazing book called: ”Jesus journey to the country of the Magi” (interestingly have not yet been translated into English language, I read it in Spanish, the book was published in 2009 and it is called “Viaje de Jesus al País de los Magos” (http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-viaje-de-jesus-al-pais-de-los-magos-segun-las-visiones-de-ana-ca-talina-emmerick/1192885/2900001246020)) that accounted the visions from 1820 to 1821 of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) (in 2004 canonized as saint for her documented clear visions, miracles and stigmata). Mel Gibson even based the movie “Passion of the Christ” from other visions attributed to her.
The interesting thing about this book, is that the visions of Anna were documented in detail about Jesus journey to India as a young adult; Anna Catherine Emmerich was not a scholar, and did not have access to the information we have right now about Jesus scriptures and early churches in India; but still, her visions about Jesus journey were in extreme clear detail, she said that she felt that she was there when she was having the visions, and she herself did not understand and was puzzled by the fact that she was in two places in time simultaneously. She was cataloged as an heretic in her time, because what she preached was not in any scripture of the bible, she claimed she was a witness of the whole thing.

My whole theory is that these lost years of Jesus were systematically removed because they would show how Jesus was an ordinary human being (a “hippie type” one); and he had to experience and learn many things before he became (by his own effort) an enlightened Being. Showing that everyone can achieve what he did, and that there is no point in blindly worshiping him.

I agree and found this one day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in9SiDtJLaU&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

That was genius. Sometimes I feel like I am missing out on so much great stuff just because I'm so local. What do they call that parochial?

There is a big possibility for that; there are more than 18 years that were absolutely erased from the canon.
One theory is that when Jesus reached adolescence, out of curiosity, attraction or respect, Jesus went to return the visit to the three magi from the East, the 3 Kings from India that went to pay tribute to him at his birth place. There was a well-known trade route from Jerusalem to India in Jesus days.

The first lost years of the gospel, is when the wholly family went to Egypt to get away from the prosecution of Herod. They probably took refuge were the marginal Egyptian Jews lived (now known as the -Therapeutae- they were mystic healers, accounted by the Greeks). But then they returned to Jerusalem when Jesus was about 12 years old. These years are also missing in the canon…
After that episode of Jesus arguing with the priests in the temple when he was 12, there is no more mention of Jesus life in the canon until he was 30.

There are scriptures in Tibet (Hemis Monastery in Ladakh, India, high in the Himalaya) and Kashmir about his life in India, in his adolescence and as a young adult he received initiation as Issa (his Initiate name). There is an early church of Thomas in Kashmir he went with Jesus to India after the crucifixion; and there is also a text from a King in India called “Salivahana”, from the first century, the scripture is called Bhavishya Maha Purana (written in Sanskrit) where the King meets “Isa-Masiha” (Jesus the Messiah) years after the crucifixion.

I read an amazing book called: ”Jesus journey to the country of the Magi” (interestingly have not yet been translated into English language, I read it in Spanish, the book was published in 2009 and it is called “Viaje de Jesus al País de los Magos” (http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-viaje-de-jesus-al-pais-de-los-magos-segun-las-visiones-de-ana-ca-talina-emmerick/1192885/2900001246020)) that accounted the visions from 1820 to 1821 of Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) (in 2004 canonized as saint for her documented clear visions, miracles and stigmata). Mel Gibson even based the movie “Passion of the Christ” from other visions attributed to her.
The interesting thing about this book, is that the visions of Anna were documented in detail about Jesus journey to India as a young adult; Anna Catherine Emmerich was not a scholar, and did not have access to the information we have right now about Jesus scriptures and early churches in India; but still, her visions about Jesus journey were in extreme clear detail, she said that she felt that she was there when she was having the visions, and she herself did not understand and was puzzled by the fact that she was in two places in time simultaneously. She was cataloged as an heretic in her time, because what she preached was not in any scripture of the bible, she claimed she was a witness of the whole thing.

I saw some TV show on this. It seems a little far fetched. Most blokes in this era never got more than 5 miles away from where they were born. (just guessing -- figuring it was like New York City with no taxis).

I'm guessing he just made a buttload of benches and tables and stuff (following his dad's lead) and his life was extremely boring. So boring that he wanted to bust out. And since he was a major narcissist, he eventually made up a few whoppers and went out looking for sycophants.

But I'm just spittballing here. ;)

I saw some TV show on this. It seems a little far fetched. Most blokes in this era never got more than 5 miles away from where they were born. (just guessing -- figuring it was like New York City with no taxis).

I'm guessing he just made a buttload of benches and tables and stuff (following his dad's lead) and his life was extremely boring. So boring that he wanted to bust out. And since he was a major narcissist, he eventually made up a few whoppers and went out looking for sycophants.

But I'm just spittballing here. ;)

Mmm I think you are projecting your own points of view into Jesus’ actions. The reason or motive for what Jesus did could, and most probably, be something we cannot imagine.
I say that because I believe his actions were caused by a quite different motive than what you are stating, but nonetheless if I say it I would also be projecting my own ideas into Jesus.

The thing is, as he himself said “The tree is known by its fruits”, and studying Jesus words (fruits); the “tree” that Jesus mind was, seems to me as one of the most precious ones in history, not to mention highly artistic.

Too bad the fruits don't all know the tree, But I guess that is why Perennial philosophy exists.

Have you read Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian"? He quotes a lot of Jesus and takes the moral high ground since Jesus' words make him out to be kind of a dick.

Have you read Bertrand Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian"? He quotes a lot of Jesus and takes the moral high ground since Jesus' words make him out to be kind of a dick.

I did, and Bertrand Russell makes some interesting points; he was not much against the teachings of Christ as he was against the hypocrisy of mainstream Christians, as to that I agree with him wholeheartedly. Then he starts discrediting some teachings of Christ as if he knew what Christ meant; I agree with Russell on the things he opposed Christ teachings, but I do not think he understood them as they were originally designed. For example he discredits Jesus statements on the supremacy of Israel, or the belief in hell; but I don’t think Jesus himself believed these things either; you can just interpret his words that way if you wish to. The description of Hell is taken from the Apocalypses, but that book has a deep esoteric meaning not meant to be understood in that time (occult simbology used to protect the teachings). Statements taken out of context can be interpreted in many ways; you need to consider the context in order to understand what he meant. As an example: the Hebrew term “Yisrael” (later Greek “Israel”) means, quite literally, "He has striven with God," or "He has been saved by God"; Jesus was not referring to a worldly country, as if that makes sense; it makes no sense at all as Russell stated, but he didn’t consider other meanings.
Russell was against churches and the manipulation of the masses via fear, Jesus was against those things as well; I think the whole essay of Russell is directed to Christianity, not Christ.

Also, Russell uses the word “Christ” indifferently to “Jesus”; when you understand the teachings you would know that these words are not to be used in the same meaning. He says that “Christ” was the man, well, he was mistaken about that, “Jesus” was the man, and “Christ” is the quality of his consciousness that lies hidden within each and every one of us. Jesus was the son of man, Christ is the son of god (notice the past and present verbs used); cause Jesus was the mortal man, Christ lives as the universal spirit. Off course these sentences have metaphorical meaning, not quite literal.

Good thought provoking summary. You remember a lot more if it than I do. I read it in 1973.

That was genius. Sometimes I feel like I am missing out on so much great stuff just because I'm so local. What do they call that parochial?

Not the way I use that word.
Humor transcends boundaries.

Redards
DL

I did, and Bertrand Russell makes some interesting points; he was not much against the teachings of Christ as he was against the hypocrisy of mainstream Christians, as to that I agree with him wholeheartedly. Then he starts discrediting some teachings of Christ as if he knew what Christ meant; I agree with Russell on the things he opposed Christ teachings, but I do not think he understood them as they were originally designed. For example he discredits Jesus statements on the supremacy of Israel, or the belief in hell; but I don’t think Jesus himself believed these things either; you can just interpret his words that way if you wish to. The description of Hell is taken from the Apocalypses, but that book has a deep esoteric meaning not meant to be understood in that time (occult simbology used to protect the teachings). Statements taken out of context can be interpreted in many ways; you need to consider the context in order to understand what he meant. As an example: the Hebrew term “Yisrael” (later Greek “Israel”) means, quite literally, "He has striven with God," or "He has been saved by God"; Jesus was not referring to a worldly country, as if that makes sense; it makes no sense at all as Russell stated, but he didn’t consider other meanings.
Russell was against churches and the manipulation of the masses via fear, Jesus was against those things as well; I think the whole essay of Russell is directed to Christianity, not Christ.

Also, Russell uses the word “Christ” indifferently to “Jesus”; when you understand the teachings you would know that these words are not to be used in the same meaning. He says that “Christ” was the man, well, he was mistaken about that, “Jesus” was the man, and “Christ” is the quality of his consciousness that lies hidden within each and every one of us. Jesus was the son of man, Christ is the son of god (notice the past and present verbs used); cause Jesus was the mortal man, Christ lives as the universal spirit. Off course these sentences have metaphorical meaning, not quite literal.

Not quite literal for sure.
Yet you read literally, to some extent, a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monsters.
Jesus appears between those two and so does his genocidal father of the O T.

How much of a literal Jesus do you believe in?
Virgin birth?
Was he his own father somehow?
Did he father himself with his own mother?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,

Those questions can be answered the day you make a gold fish or even a little guppy.

the trinity is not that difficult to understand. the father is the law by which everything is created and destroyed, the holy spirit is just that...a spirit, and jesus is a perfect human according to that law (that's why he's referred to as the fulfillment of the law). so easy.

What's a spirit?

What's a spirit?

google it.

Not quite literal for sure.
Yet you read literally, to some extent, a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monsters.
Jesus appears between those two and so does his genocidal father of the O T.

How much of a literal Jesus do you believe in?
Virgin birth?
Was he his own father somehow?
Did he father himself with his own mother?

Regards
DL

What did I read literally? For me the Apocalypse book is nothing but the metaphorical description of our own death (individual) and the confrontation from our own fears and desires created by the nourished ego during our whole life (3 headed monster - body, mind and self).

If it would have been literal, we probably wouldn't have that scripture right now (it most probably would have been destroyed as many other scriptures).


How much of a literal Jesus do you believe in?
Virgin birth?
Was he his own father somehow?
Did he father himself with his own mother?

Regards
DL
None of the above, the reference to a virgin mother is just a metaphorical description to a “pure woman” as in innocent. It is very poetical actually.
An innocent woman is not necessarily a “physical virgin”, but a woman who does not have un-pure thoughts, and the sex is out of pure love, as opposed to out of lust as it most commonly is.

I guess your other two questions are rhetoric so… If still you want to believe that the scripture is referring to a physical virgin birth, that is your choice; I think is beautiful poetry, the virgin birth is ridiculous if you look at it literally.

the virgin death is ridiculous if you look at it literally.

Yes, there definitely would have been some questions. :D

My whole theory is that these lost years of Jesus were systematically removed because they would show how Jesus was an ordinary human being (a “hippie type” one); and he had to experience and learn many things before he became (by his own effort) an enlightened Being. Showing that everyone can achieve what he did, and that there is no point in blindly worshiping him.
wouldn't it be more easier to be like Jesus if he were a normal person? (or at least more inspired by Jesus)
they missed that point when they canonized the bible..
but i also wonder how much of 'do as your told' was needed back then?

Turn the other cheek.


from here; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek)
"If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

so turning the other cheek in essence was a person 'stepping up' and NOT backing down.

Just a comment on the 'virgin birth'.

Do your research on the hymen.

A women can get pregnant without having her hymen broken or having coitus. Sperm does have a way of getting around or 'happening'.


None of the above, the reference to a virgin mother is just a metaphorical description to a “pure woman” as in innocent. It is very poetical actually.
An innocent woman is not necessarily a “physical virgin”, but a woman who does not have un-pure thoughts, and the sex is out of pure love, as opposed to out of lust as it most commonly is.
Posted by Wisdom Seeker

That's a very interesting interpretation, Wisdom Seeker.

Where women are concerned, I would venture to say that sex out of lust is not the most common reason for my species to agree to participate.

It's a 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't' scenario.

Many lustful men will seek comfort in the arms of another, and some less confident women will offer their virtue in the hopes of retaining the interest of the male.

Not wishing to take this thread off topic, but felt it appropriate to respond to that 'most commonly is' bit, in defense of my species, especially after querying the virgin birth in my post.

I am so damned by the true believers now.

To quote a teen......"Whatever......"

Just a comment on the 'virgin birth'.

Do your research on the hymen.

A women can get pregnant without having her hymen broken or having coitus. Sperm does have a way of getting around or 'happening'.



That's a very interesting interpretation, Wisdom Seeker.

Where women are concerned, I would venture to say that sex out of lust is not the most common reason for my species to agree to participate.

It's a 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't' scenario.

Many lustful men will seek comfort in the arms of another, and some less confident women will offer their virtue in the hopes of retaining the interest of the male.

Not wishing to take this thread off topic, but felt it appropriate to respond to that 'most commonly is' bit, in defense of my species, especially after querying the virgin birth in my post.

I am so damned by the true believers now.

To quote a teen......"Whatever......"

Hi Scheherazade, I apologize for my un-prudent comment; let me refrain my words:
This applies to both genders:
The motive and quality of sex for most people today is not love, because to find true love nowadays is rare to find. Courage, trust, self-respect and self-love are prerequisites of true love for your “significant other”, and all of these characteristics are very strange today.
Nevertheless, whatever your initial motive may be, if you engage in sexual intercourse without true love for your partner, lust is almost an inevitable emotion. I say “almost”, because there is a lower state than that: indifference.
Love is the transforming agent in the equation, if one engages in love-making with one’s partner, with love one’s heart, the sex takes a different quality; the energy starts moving “upwards” to higher centers of being, as opposed to move “downwards” which is the natural course for sexual energy. This is referred to in Vedic literature as “tantric sex”. To speak in common language, the love becomes stronger in quality and intensity during the act itself.

So my interpretation of the Jesus’ mom being a “virgin”, is that she never engaged in non-loving sex, sort of speak. And therefore, her thoughts, emotions and heart were innocent, and pure.

Hi Scheherazade, I apologize for my un-prudent comment; let me refrain my words:
This applies to both genders:
The motive and quality of sex for most people today is not love, because to find true love nowadays is rare to find. Courage, trust, self-respect and self-love are prerequisites of true love for your “significant other”, and all of these characteristics are very strange today.
Nevertheless, whatever your initial motive may be, if you engage in sexual intercourse without true love for your partner, lust is almost an inevitable emotion. I say “almost”, because there is a lower state than that: indifference.
Love is the transforming agent in the equation, if one engages in love-making with one’s partner, with love one’s heart, the sex takes a different quality; the energy starts moving “upwards” to higher centers of being, as opposed to move “downwards” which is the natural course for sexual energy. This is referred to in Vedic literature as “tantric sex”. To speak in common language, the love becomes stronger in quality and intensity during the act itself.

So my interpretation of the Jesus’ mom being a “virgin”, is that she never engaged in non-loving sex, sort of speak. And therefore, her thoughts, emotions and heart were innocent, and pure.

Thank you for that clarification, Wisdom Seeker. I see your earlier remark in a much more comprehensive context now.

You are a thoughtful individual, by your posts, and so I posed the question.

Once again, thank you for sharing your interpretation.

And Jesus did not get to that immoral plateau.

Much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus in another instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

I follow humanistic line or simply put secular one. Sometimes one needs to ignore religious line considering time, place and situation while keeping in strict line with what actually ones moral values and social ethos expect him to do. I hope you got the answer back there with regard to lady thing...


gia,

it amazes me that you can look at humanity and look at your own self and not realize that there is something tragically wrong with you that you can not fix yourself. wow.
Thanks for alerting me! I guess you need to get more deep delving into the realms of such things before making such views about anyone. May be it's the surrounding you and me living around matters our pattern of thoughts.

Greatest I am,

Those questions can be answered the day you make a gold fish or even a little guppy.

I did better. I made sons. With my wife,s help of course.
I do not have a flying miracle working absentee God to blame my actions on.
Some of us do not need to place our responsibilities on others.

Regards
DL

What did I read literally? For me the Apocalypse book is nothing but the metaphorical description of our own death (individual) and the confrontation from our own fears and desires created by the nourished ego during our whole life (3 headed monster - body, mind and self).

If it would have been literal, we probably wouldn't have that scripture right now (it most probably would have been destroyed as many other scriptures).


None of the above, the reference to a virgin mother is just a metaphorical description to a “pure woman” as in innocent. It is very poetical actually.
An innocent woman is not necessarily a “physical virgin”, but a woman who does not have un-pure thoughts, and the sex is out of pure love, as opposed to out of lust as it most commonly is.

I guess your other two questions are rhetoric so… If still you want to believe that the scripture is referring to a physical virgin birth, that is your choice; I think is beautiful poetry, the virgin birth is ridiculous if you look at it literally.

So if nothing real, or literal, points to a real Jesus, how do you come up with a real Jesus?

Regards
DL

from here; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek)
"If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

so turning the other cheek in essence was a person 'stepping up' and NOT backing down.

Not the traditional view but then everyone seems to make u their own Gods nowadays.

Regards
DL

Scripture indicates, Trinitarians aside...

That's a gigantic aside -- large enough to drive a Roman chariot through.