It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Jesus being Foolish?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I have no intent to offend the Christians on this board with the wording of this thread. The word foolish usually means to do something without proper reason or awareness or sensibility. I question whether Jesus's actions which lead to his crucification were sensible. He knew what would happen if he openly went about challenging the religious elite of his time, he would be executed most certainly. Yet he behaved in a manner which was very anagonistic to the religious elite, openly challenging their beliefs and denouncing them. Isn't that like putting your hand into the lions mouth?

How many of us are brave enough to lose our lives over some beliefs? Sure there are many fundamentalists out there, but most of are sensible enough to keep our beliefs to ourselves if we know they would bring about fatal consequences. Who dares tell the emperor he is naked? And if you do and you're executed, what good has that done - you're dead and a dead person is useless to the world.

So I argue shouldn't have Jesus have used some tact? Why did he have to preach at all? He had reached enlightenment himself. He could have just lived his entire life in his bliss and not worry about what other people believed. But no, he had to actually go out and antagonize the religious elite. This hardly was a sensible thing to do. He could have easily have kept himself to his own group. Those who wanted to learn from him could learn. In a sense by preaching to those who did not want to learn Jesus infringed on the free-will of others.

The more I think of it the more I think Jesus died in vain. His death was turned into a religion that was created by other people, who introduced their own distortions and then went the oppsite way to what Jesus taught. That sounds like the failure of a religious teacher. On the other hand, the Buddha, the Jesus of the East, was able to create a religion which for the most part has stuck to its teachings and managed to stay alive. It sounds like Buddha was a much more succesful and wiser religious teacher than Jesus.

Anybody want to answer my obection? Am I missing something?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
You are definitely onto something.
The argument you could get here is that jesus' life was never meant to be lived in shelter. That god wanted him to have this public life sort of thing.
Though I'm not a christian; I propose that would be one main point of attack they might launch against this thread.
I for one commend your ability to look at this jesus in a different light.
He was a unique soul I'm sure; but no god, and no son of any god.
There is a unique though bittersweet film about a real guy who was probably more like jesus than anyone even knows.
The film is Into The Wild. Pearl Jam's
Eddie Vetter wrote the soundtrack to it.
The guy was basically like what I think Jesus was. The guy the film is based on.
A revolutionary thinker and a mind expander.
It was based on a real guy from my home city Atlanta, GA.
He could have been amazing but was a real self destructive guy.
The song Big Hard Sun is the theme of the film It's the best Pearl Jam/Eddie Vetter song IMHO ever made.
You should see the film
Sorry this is so long.
I've been where you are now. It's a good questioning place to be.
Check out Into The Wild. You will thank me; in your own mind if not online

And here is the amazing song from the film



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


Big Hard Sun

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
You make a lot of valid points and I have to say I agree whole heartedly with them. I personally am anti-Christain, though very pro-Jesus. It seems he could have done a lot more to ensure the survival of his original teachings. Though I suspect we need a staunch Christains opinion on the matter.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Personaly, Jesus's ultimate act of death was the ultimate lesson, he wanted to show everyone, not tell, but show everyone, that there is no death, and he put himself on the line to prove it.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Jesus understood his mission on earth would carry out great pain great upheavals in his manifestation, he being Enlightened understood the big picture, but he did not die in vain I can assure you that, his sacrifice for us had a tremendous effect on the world. It was the Will of The Universal Spirit that manifested such events. He brought a message to this world. A message of Unselfish Love. His messages got attention from the oppressors/rulers of the kingdom, it threatened their very existence. His messages would be taught to the whole world not the few, those who had ears to listen.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

He brought a message to this world. A message of Unselfish Love.


So did Buddha. The difference, though, Buddha lived and his religion has remained relatively intact with little distortion, nor was his religion used for any holy wars.

You kind of lend credence to my point that Jesus failed as a religious teacher.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


There is a very interesting book by Albert Schweitzer called The Quest of the Historical Jesus that, rather than chronicle the life of Jesus, it chronicles historians attempts to find verifiable accounts of Jesus existence. Schweitzer was highly critical of these historians claiming that the historians own cultural bias undermined any credibility that an actual objective account of the life of Jesus could ever be written.

That said, historians, journalists, theologians and authors have continued to write about a historical Jesus attempting to rationalize Biblical accounts and to somehow make sense of the seeming contradictions of the New Testament accounts from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The major problem with attempting to reconstruct a historical figure in Jesus, is in the problematic contradictions between a "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of Faith".

For most Christian religions reconstructing a historical Jesus did little, if anything at all, for strengthening the faith in Christ. This is an important distinction in that religious tales or Testaments are often linked with mythology. Myths are universal life lessons told to a willing populace who embrace them for their universal appeal as they inspire us to act in more heroic ways and attempt to bring meaning to a seemingly chaotic world.

Joseph Campbell, the leading mythologist of his time, perhaps of all time, wrote an astounding book called The Hero With a Thousand Faces in which he makes the point that virtually all mythologies posses the same qualities, particularly that of the hero's journey. Many mythic hero's chronicled in myths since time immemorial tend to go through the same steps or journey in order to reach their final conclusion.

There are remarkable similarities between Hercules, or Heracles and Jesus. Both are reportedly conceived by the consummation of a god or God with a human woman. Both possess remarkable powers that astound their peers and both are put through certain tests in order to verify their heroic nature. For Hercules it was the 12 exploits, (now more commonly referred to, in the academic institutions obsessed with Marxism, as "labors"), and for Jesus it was the 12 Stations of the Cross. Both end up ascending into Heaven or Mt. Olympus to sit at the right hand side of their "father".

The word myth is often used in today's lexicon as a falsehood or misrepresentation of fact which is unfortunate as it seems to miss the point of mythology. It matters not whether the myth is rooted in any historical fact or not, what matters is the message. That the word myth is now so commonly used to dismiss a particular message has only helped to undermine powerful messages handed down to us since the days of antiquity.

Was Jesus a historical person who actually lived and challenged the hierarchy of his times? There seems to be enough evidence to suggest so, as Josephus the Roman historian has a Jesus chronicled as being executed by Romans for being a revolutionary. Of course, in more recent times Josephus credibility as a historian has been questioned, but to some degree it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that many historians today should have their credibility questioned.

One of the conundrums of attempting to recreate a historical Jesus is the miracles. In today's modern world we tend to view miracles as marvels of human endeavor with advancement in technology or simple acts of humanity that seem to defy normalcy. We even tend to acknowledge the simple patterns of nature as "miraculous" when we experience the birth of our children, or take special notice of the complexity of a leaf, a snowflake or the setting sun. However, the miracles presented in the New Testament tend to be more akin to what we might view as parlor tricks or spectacles of magic and we are inclined to explain them away as such.

Many modern historians from the past few hundred years have endeavored to do this, to rationalize the miracles presented in the New Testament. Thus, Jesus raising the dead is explained away as merely a perception of death and those dead were not really dead but in a coma or unconscious. Indeed, Jesus himself is quoted several times as saying that they were not dead but merely sleeping before raising them "from the dead". The miracle of turning water to wine is rationalized as a parlor trick easily done, the turning a loaf of bread into a feast rationalized as careful planning, and so on.

The ultimate miracle then becomes Jesus own resurrection from the dead. In terms of a historical Jesus reconstructed by a rational thinker, either Jesus died on the cross and the resurrection was staged or Jesus did not die on the cross and his death was staged so that a resurrection could be real. There is a very interesting book by Hugo J. Schonfield known as The Passover Plot that theorizes that there was a plot to stage a fake death so that Jesus may rise from the dead later and rule as the rightful Messiah later. Schonfield also suggests that this plot was derailed when a Roman soldier thrust his spear into Jesus heart and that the resurrection was staged and it was most likely John, author of one of the Testaments, who appeared three days later as the Christ.

The Passover Plot was published in 1965 and was an instant best seller and quite controversial, and years later another book would be published known as The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail written by Micheal Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. This book presents another plot similar to the Passover Plot only presents a Jesus who survived the crucifixion and married Mary Magdalene and moved to France. This idea was parroted to some degree in the Da Vinci Code.

There is scientific evidence to support the notion that the nine hours Jesus spent on the cross was not near enough time to kill him, even considering the horrific abuse he had suffered before being nailed to that cross, and his own death scene does seem to be remarkably dramatic. Whether it was a staged event as part of a plot to fulfill prophecy or whether he genuinely died on the cross and was later resurrected is a matter of conjecture, as what accounts we have of this are written in scripture more intended to function as myth than historical account. He is, above all else, a mythic hero.

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I have no intent to offend the Christians on this board with the wording of this thread. The word foolish usually means to do something without proper reason or awareness or sensibility. I question whether Jesus's actions which lead to his crucification were sensible. He knew what would happen if he openly went about challenging the religious elite of his time, he would be executed most certainly. Yet he behaved in a manner which was very anagonistic to the religious elite, openly challenging their beliefs and denouncing them. Isn't that like putting your hand into the lions mouth?

How many of us are brave enough to lose our lives over some beliefs? Sure there are many fundamentalists out there, but most of are sensible enough to keep our beliefs to ourselves if we know they would bring about fatal consequences. Who dares tell the emperor he is naked? And if you do and you're executed, what good has that done - you're dead and a dead person is useless to the world.

So I argue shouldn't have Jesus have used some tact? Why did he have to preach at all? He had reached enlightenment himself. He could have just lived his entire life in his bliss and not worry about what other people believed. But no, he had to actually go out and antagonize the religious elite. This hardly was a sensible thing to do. He could have easily have kept himself to his own group. Those who wanted to learn from him could learn. In a sense by preaching to those who did not want to learn Jesus infringed on the free-will of others.

The more I think of it the more I think Jesus died in vain. His death was turned into a religion that was created by other people, who introduced their own distortions and then went the oppsite way to what Jesus taught. That sounds like the failure of a religious teacher. On the other hand, the Buddha, the Jesus of the East, was able to create a religion which for the most part has stuck to its teachings and managed to stay alive. It sounds like Buddha was a much more succesful and wiser religious teacher than Jesus.

Anybody want to answer my obection? Am I missing something?

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]


You are missing a little basic framework -- that it was his holy mission to do it they way he did etc. I have strong opinions about it. (*cough cough* hooey *cough*)

somewhere after the time of jesus THE BEAST kicked in . . . you know the HRE?
Flashforward to america. . . . the beast is just chugging right along

[edit on 28-12-2009 by '___'omino]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Calling His actions foolish, yet talkng about them 2000 years later sort of kills the argument that is being presented here.
Same can be said for calling His life useless.
Blasphemous.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

The more I think of it the more I think Jesus died in vain. His death was turned into a religion that was created by other people, who introduced their own distortions and then went the oppsite way to what Jesus taught. That sounds like the failure of a religious teacher. On the other hand, the Buddha, the Jesus of the East, was able to create a religion which for the most part has stuck to its teachings and managed to stay alive. It sounds like Buddha was a much more succesful and wiser religious teacher than Jesus.

Anybody want to answer my obection? Am I missing something?


The simple answer is martyrdom.

Jesus was a martyr, Budda wasn't.



A martyr is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief, usually religious.

en.wikipedia.org...


Jesus knew that if he was to be successful in destroying the worlds regions he would have to create a legion of followers who were willing to die to prove that thier beliefs were correct.

While Budda himself does appear to have avoided personal martydom he also created a legion of followers who are willing to die to prove that thier beliefs are also correct.



Ref: www.vietnampix.com...

---

I guess another difference is Christians let other people do it to them, while BUddhists do it to themselves.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Die a hero or live long to see yourself become the villian



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
That's a great question, Indigo.

If we go by the Gospel of John, then Jesus began his career by doing what ought to have gotten him killed: the hissy fit in the Temple. He gets away with that in John, and stays provocative throughout his ministry. The phrase "one step ahead of the law" summarizes the Jesus of John.

What gets him killed in John is the resuscitation of Lazarus of Bethany, and especially courting the interpretation of that as having raised Lazarus from the dead. The two men started doing joint appearances, and drew crowds. The PTB's objective was to kill both of them, but in the event, they settled for Jesus.

So, if this account is to be believed, Jesus died because he overplayed his hand once too often.

Staying private with what was, according to John, a spontaneous act of personal love, might have passed, as so many other things had passed. It was those public joint appearances afterwards that tipped the balance. It is also interesting that the entire incident appears nowhere in the synoptic gospels.

Was that foolish? Meh. We all die. Jesus had an enormous ego and a short fuse. Quiet settled life would not have suited him. It would have been a living death for him. Better to die as the Son of God than to have died anyway as an addict to his own endorphins.

Your comparison with Gautama is interesting, but we have no better records of his actual teaching than of Jesus'. Gautama was of the ruling class, and our best guess about his career is that he lived off of his friends and peers for decades.

There is nothing 'provocative' about what survives of his take on the previous religions, nor was there any divine mandate to kill people for "blasphemy" in India. Buddhists were persecuted elsewhere, and were persecuted, extirpated, in India when Islam invaded. But that was long after Gautama had slipped the mortal coil. He himself had a good ride in comfort. But then, he also had the personality that could accept that.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by eight bits]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Jesus' purpose was/is to defeat death.

Buddha's purpose was to make you HAPPY! Yay!

Happiness is so short and vain.

Solomon said, "It is better to have a sorrowful heart."

Buddha said, "Don't worry! ---- Be happy!"

Let's see. Believe in someone who gained experience through suffering or believe in someone who gained experience in being spoiled?

If we raised our kids the way the "enlightened one" was raised, oh wait... Hahaha. Welcome to America. There's an economic crisis and I need to work 3 jobs to make sure that I can still pay for cable TV, life insurance, and my nice new Jetta!

Oh... wait, I'm still only talking about the poor people. Hmph. All you rich people who somehow claim that you're only middle class... what a bunch of crap!

The irony is that those who claim to follow Jesus actually live the lifestyle of Gautama "the enlightened".

Jesus was never, ever, by any means, a fool. However, Gautama sat under a tree for many moons in order to attain "enlightenment". Amazing... and yet, Gautama is ... dead?! How ENLIGHTENED! Oh my gosh! He figured it all out and then *WOOSH!* -- he croaked! Mwaha!

Interesting.

Poor Gautama. Poorer followers of him. So much wasted potential and intelligence, for what? Entertainment? I'm entertained, that's a fact! Oh, whatever would I do if the world didn't have people who tried so -hard- to deny the simplest things. "Can't see the forest for the trees!" There are so many trees! Holy moley! How about this one... you can't see the real tree because some people took seeds from it and tried to make hybrids with their weak trees because their own trees couldn't survive. Yeah, so their hybrids have been surviving okay thus far. But, them branches lookin' awful funny! But, people like things that look funny. It makes them feel original... unique. Why would everyone want to be the SAME anyway? Perfection is SO overrated.

Smoke and mirrors. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there are mirrors, there are people. People are on fire! Liars, liars, all your pants on fires! Where there are mirrors, it might be water. Could a mirror put out the smoke? At the right angle! Can you see the source of the flame? No? Because you're looking in the wrong direction! Look in front of you and you will see a perfect reflection! Now find some water and jump in! Don't look before you do. You'll be fine.

I've come to a wicked realization that I enjoy this way too much.

More seriously, It is better to conquer death than life. It is better to follow Jesus than the foolish Gautama.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
maybe Jesus knew and knows something that we don't know, maybe thats just how things had to be, maybe we should just relax and have a little faith...

by the way the most important theme in Christianity is not Jesus' death, its his resurrection meant to reinforce his unique message.

if you don't think jesus' life hasn't had an impact on how and if we as a race made it to this stage in time, then you must also disbelieve history.

i personally believe that everyone born to a soul is capable and intent on doing what they feel is right, and just. the problem is establishment and conservative views, these sins of stagnation have distorted our vision, and it is hard to judge what is truly morally right and what is not.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Everything below is just my own BS and you may desbelief totaly if you want:

- Firstly I don't know if Christ and Jesus are the same creature.

- Jesus probably was a leader, a prophet, a revolutionary, a reframer, the Son of God, a wise and evolved being that was sent to help mankind evolve. He said some esoteric golden nuggets...

Contrary to many religious "misleaders", his message was very empowering.

- Like him there were Socrates (who "foolish" confronted the status quo of his time by making people confused of their own assumptions), Budda, Krishna, etc...

- Everything that happened to him served a purpose, he could get away with anything, if he wanted so.

- Even Judas probably was his best friend and the one that most helped Jesus accomplish his plans.

- Jesus probably created - conciously or not - the most powerful memes that marketers will ever dream. He lived more than 2000 years ago and we are still talking about him, his words, his rituals, etc... Jesus was a very good communicator and leader.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Exactly, not only was he "used" after his death, but the majority of his teachings were fabricated in my opinion. Think of how many were killed in
his name.


All he truely believed in was love and service. Which in my opinion is the upmost important belief in life.

Namaste.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

I find this statement of your interesting:

In a sense by preaching to those who did not want to learn Jesus infringed on the free-will of others.

How so did he do this? Wouldn't they of used their free will to of ignored his message he was bringing? Or even chose to walk off? I have missed it in the bible where he held people captive and forced them to listen to him.

Also another statement you made:
Why did he have to preach at all? He had reached enlightenment himself.

What good does knowledge or wisdom do if we keep it to ourselves? If Christ would of done that wouldn't that of made him self centered only concerned about his own soul?

All followers of Christ are not sheeple. Do not confuse us with people that set in pews and let someone else tell them the current correct political view of what the bible says of the teachings of Christ.

Christ set us an example. To fight to change things even if it means our own physical deaths. I read before the olympics in china they decided to let tourist bring bibles with them but they could only bring one. They also had to take t hat bible out with them when they left. Perhaps the role model of a man that gave his life for his beliefs was a threat to them. It is better to have your people follow the example of a man that sets under a tree and does everything peacefully. There is no threat there.

Throught the teachings of Christ we have learned and yes his teachings came acrossed to America with many of the founding fathers and people that settled this land to oppose governments, to have freedom of speach. Just as he did in his time. As we see today in this country that wants to put Christ out of the picture our government would like us to set down and shut up and set under a tree and keep our thoughts to ourselves. Even if they have to force it upon us. In case you haven't noticed look at the banner on this site where the government wants to close down web sites.

Did Christ teach in vain? I don't think so as followers of his teachings and his life we in America have flourished both spiritually and physically by his deeds, actions and words. That is until some people in this country decided we had grown to be so enlightened that he's not our cup of tea anymore. Look around at other countries especially the ones that Budhas teachings are in do they have the freedoms Americans still have even if we are having ours taken away from us slowly.

Let me ask you something what has budha done for you lately or ever?

I have a tree in my yard if you'd like to come and think about that for many years. Please come with your own funding as he had. Also don't worry I won't bother to ask if you figured it out I wouldn't want my free will infringed upon. So your thoughts would only be of use to you and in vain.

Just think if the tables were turned and we were in a budhist country we probably wouldn't be even having this discussion. I guess budhist in American should not think of the life of Jesus as a waste without him they might not be able to spread their beliefs here.

Yes I know I lack tact. But then you claimed Christ did also. I find him such a good role model I don't think I want to change!



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So I argue shouldn't have Jesus have used some tact? Why did he have to preach at all? He had reached enlightenment himself. He could have just lived his entire life in his bliss and not worry about what other people believed. But no, he had to actually go out and antagonize the religious elite. This hardly was a sensible thing to do. He could have easily have kept himself to his own group. Those who wanted to learn from him could learn. In a sense by preaching to those who did not want to learn Jesus infringed on the free-will of others.


Public speaking is their form of public forums back in those days. It may seem completely out of place and very strange today, but it used to be the norm! They have no internet/online forums where you can simply shut or ignore/block user by a single press of a button (you have to walk around a city block or more or shut your ears to avoid unwanted speeches - good for your health though..). By the same, measure, you doing the same thing, the one you are accusing, only in different mediums (electronic medium, rather than acoustic/live), but still the same
Either way, no free will is violated. A bit of annoyance maybe, depending on anyone's perspective.




The more I think of it the more I think Jesus died in vain. His death was turned into a religion that was created by other people


Any good, selfless deeds are never in vain. There will always be evil people around to destroy the good works of others. If there's absolutely no one to oppose them, then the world will be plunged into complete chaos and darkness. What stops evil people in their tracks is the fact that NOT EVERYONE, they can control even with the threat of pain and death!!

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
goos response aggkkk i mispelled short term memory bad!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join