It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


LOGIC-Do you think Jesus was a good man? You are wrong!!!!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:22 AM
reply to post by yeahright

hence the reason I didn't start out with "scripture slapping"..

However on this subject presented, the trinity doctrine is very important. If you carefully listen to the video provided you'll see that his entire reasoning is based on this doctrine. take the doctrine out of the equation and he simply has not got a point.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:50 AM
Just a few thoughts I had after watching that vid. They are just observations, I do not have any definite opinion about this matter.

If he did say he was the son of God, he meant either; a) he realized that we all are the sons/daughters of God (the absolute creator) and after being shunned for his statements and told he was wrong, he turned defensive of his position by saying "I am the son of God". or b) he never made this statement and this was added by his followers who sought a way to ensure his message was continued or c) he never made this statement and it was added by TPTB to either, discredit a revolutionary mind that threatened their rule, and/or manipulate his followers to follow the TPTB's rule. or d) he in fact thought he was the only son of God.

It is highly probable that if such a man existed, his words and life have been purposefully distorted and/or misinterpreted over the past 2000 years, especially giving the fact that we can look back and see how the Church has benefited, and how manipulative/controlling that area of the world has been.

Another thing I would like to add is about C.S. Lewis' statement that for Jesus to have acted like he deeply cared about all human suffering and promoted forgiveness even for his/your enemies, that he must of either thought he was the only son of God sent here to save us and he was insane or he did not think he was the only son of God, but he still was insane. Would we then also consider Buddha Gautama insane for his stance on forgiveness and quest to end human suffering?

If I had any opinion on this I would say, either their was no man named Jesus and TPTB created a master piece of a story to deceive/control their subjects, or there was such a man who was a revolutionary, like Buddha was, and parts of his life and words have been distorted to benefit TPTB. If the latter is true, I cannot see such a man who cared so deeply about human suffering, and who was so insightful and wise as he, manipulate the people for his own benefit. Therefore most of what we would know about him is not complete and some of his teachings and words have been added on later by others. But who knows.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by LifeIsEnergy]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

It is highly probable that if such a man existed, his words and life have been purposefully distorted and/or misinterpreted over the past 2000 years,...

Appreciate your thoughts here...

However, to me it is highly logical, that an omnipotent being, could preserve a clear message it they desired to...

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by OldThinker

But isn't that statement accurate? we still have the bible in its original form. The translations wich came from that have been greatly altered but there are a few good translations out there...

Now a whole other thing is the interpretation of the bible.. the "church" has done a terrific job to make it fit their personal agenda...

Whatever the case with the bible itself, its a completely different story when it comes to interpretating it... some flaws in mainstream thinking wich has no biblical support or just outright goes AGAINST biblical teachings:

-The Cross of Jesus
-Eternal souls
-Satan the devil

These are all points of discussion BECAUSE the church has implemented a personal view into mainstream thinking on this.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by faceoff85

-The Cross of Jesus
-Eternal souls
-Satan the devil

These are all points of discussion BECAUSE the church has implemented a personal view into mainstream thinking on this.

Yes, these are interesting for discussion

I use the following grid.... my way to interpret them....I take a more traditional appproach on them.

I had hoped to center the discussion on the conspiracy of who Jesus is...but this thread was bts-ed...of well.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:32 AM
reply to post by darkelf

Thank you for posting the youtube the right way, I never can seem to get it right...

The thread was moved to BTS, btw...

Wonder why?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Village Idiot

For every Sin we have perpetrated against us, we take personally, only a creator would see it as a sin against himself.


Only a creator, yep!

You are correct.

Thx for stopping, appreciate the S&F, but I don't think you can get them on BTS :bash: oh well

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:10 AM
Jesus would probably be the first to tell you that no not one good thing comes from me alone it is the father in me that doeth the works.

Then he would proceed to tell you "Stop putting me on a pedestal and worshiping me" I call you friend not servant and on that note. Tell my professed followers if they really do love me to take down the graven images and that dastardly instrument of pain, torture, and death you call the crucifix. I never want to see that thing again and you can tell the priests and rome to stick it up their koola.

One other thing before I go. "Do not be afraid, think you know it all, or guilt trip yourselves"

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by faceoff85

However on this subject presented, the trinity doctrine is very important. If you carefully listen to the video provided you'll see that his entire reasoning is based on this doctrine. take the doctrine out of the equation and he simply has not got a point.

Yes, I agree. Lewis presupposed that Jesus held the popular Jewish view that God is the totally other. Without that assumption, the argument falls flat. If Jesus did hold the popular views he wouldn't have had much trouble with TPTB in Jerusalem.

On forgiveness: I don't recall Jesus forgiving anyone for a sin committed against another person, as implied by Lewis. I recall that he pronounced forgiveness to people popularly viewed as cursed by God with physical infirmity for supposed sins against God. His "acts of forgiveness" was for the purpose of blowing away what he viewed as utter nonsense. And wouldn't a good man do such a thing?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:37 AM
Explanation: Flagged!

Its both! Here is why...

1stly Jesus is talking about being the observer before the Big Bang [creation] and since that observer and God are synonymous and God is Omnipresent [also a biblical tenet both of the OT and NT!
PLEASE don't make me quote chapter and verse at everybody
] well then Lewis's premise that the Jews saw God as existing beyond as not being congruent with Hinduism is a complete FAIL! :shk:

Here is why...

Brahman [wiki]

In the Hindu religion, Brahman (Devanāgarī: ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe.[1] The nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal by different philosophical schools. In the Rig Veda, Brahman gives rise to the primordial being Hiranyagarbha that is equated with the creator god Brahmā.

Brahma [wiki]

According to the Puranas, Brahma is self-born (without mother) in the lotus flower which grew from the navel of Vishnu at the beginning of the universe.

This is because Brahma signifies a personification of Brahman (God) or is a manifes- tation of Brahman (God) .


The Vishnu Sahasranama[2] declares Vishnu as Paramatma (supreme soul) and Parameshwara (supreme God). It describes Vishnu as the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of—and beyond—the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within.

So, zero dimensional state [The Source= non-local] self assessed [not ethical but do-able] i.e. "I think,... Therefor I AM!" and in doing so INVERTED what its state was became the 1 dimensional plancks length/second sized Big Bang singularity that is 100% everthing at that moment in space and time and is INDEED ALL space and time [The Godhood= global]!!! The extra momentum of creation forced the super symmetry of the singularity to fold and therefor break its symmetry in 10 local dimensions plus the original Zero dimension = 11 dimensions!

Personal Disclosure:
I do note that Time is actually the 1st dimension and NOT the 4th! :bnghd: :shk:
This means its degrees of freedom is limited to n-1 where n is the number of dimensions which in this case is 2 [0dim = 1 dimension] therefore it has only ONE degree of freedom and therefor can only go forward and this is observed generally as the arrow of time! Quantum tunneling backwards due to Quantum uncertainty specifically balances out the odds!

Degrees of freedom (statistics):Linear regression [wiki]

One says that "there are n − 1 degrees of freedom for residual."

Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry) [wiki]

Degrees of freedom in physics
In physics, for each particle belonging to a system, and for each independent direction in which movement is possible, two degrees of freedom are defined, one describing the particle's momentum in that direction, the other describing the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction.

A more general definition
In statistical mechanics, a degree of freedom is a single scalar number describing the classical micro-state of a system. The micro-state of a system is completely described by the set of all values of all its degrees of freedom.

If the system studied can be described as a set of mechanical particles, then degrees of freedom are defined in the same manner as above. Thus, a micro-state of the system is a point in the system's phase space.

It must be noted that for a system, a micro-state defined by using degrees of freedom is intrinsically a classical state. This is because for a quantum micro-state, defining a precise value of both the position and momentum of a particle violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

And thus everything is special and relative because we as observers in the present/now can only truely know our momentum through the whole of space+time!

Special Relativity [wiki]

The contrast between SR and QM is just that... a contrast algorythym to do with dimesional scale between the infinitesimal and the infinite!

Edited to add... Anthropic Principle [wiki]

P.S. Who is this I?, in IAM?
... its God of course!

[edit on 28-7-2010 by OmegaLogos]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:42 AM
OldThinker- Hello.

I don't think we've crossed swords as of yet.

I like your avatar. One of my favorite movies.
Father Gabriel ascends the mountains of Brazil to bring christianity to the natives. He is successful and brings about a golden age among them. Mendoza, a slaver, kills his brother in a fit of rage, and only Fr. Gabriel's guidance prevents his suicide. Gabriel brings Mendoza to work at his mission with the natives, and Mendoza finds peace and asks to become a priest. The church , under pressure, cedes the land to the Portuguese which will allow slavers in again. Mendoza breaks his vows and organizes the natives to resist while Gabriel warns him to help them as a priest

As I recall, (long time since I've seen it) the Vatican ordered the missionary to leave and peacefully hand it all over to the Portugese, since the Pope himself arranged the handing over. The priest was of the opinion that he had a duty toward his flock higher than duty to Pope (TPTB)

Better to die in solidarity with people at the hands of authority than to step aside and watch them enslaved or slaughtered. As I recall, Jesus sent an emissary to the high priest to arrange for his own capture as long as his followers were left to go free. That sounds like a good man to me.

For those followers, Jesus did indeed die for them. Unfortunately, someone else later decided to make it into a general doctrine of human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. I view that as a terrible distortion, which I don't tend to blame Jesus for.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by pthena]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

Could and did are two different things though. Are you saying the church and/or TPTB (ie. Rome, Greeks, Jews...) did interpret and pass along his message clearly? Please clarify what you mean by omnipotent being, I am a little confused what you meant.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by OmegaLogos


What a post!

Please give me some time to review...

Here's a some-what-related old one from OT...

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:22 PM

Originally posted by OldThinker
Please see this short 3 min. video link to find out why…

In ‘Chronicles of Narnia’ Author CS Lewis’ own words…

Is he speaking OF you?

Is he speaking TO you?


PS: “Whom do men say IAM?”


well here's the thing, his desiples spoke of using the sword to kill those who bother you. And Jesus didn't write down anything at all you know. His Apostles did so the message was lost.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by OmegaLogos

Degrees of freedom, hm!

btw, I'm an ASQ Cert LSS MBB

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:45 PM
I like Acarya S's idea that he was the "Sun" of God as opposed to the "Son" of God. And, that his disciples represent the twelve zodiacal signs.

I wonder also if his story comes from a large group of captured dissenters who were about to be put to death at the hands of the Romans. Yet one man stood forth saying, "no, take me let them go, these are innocent men and women who have children to raise, I will die in there place". And so they killed him and his fame grew from then to what it is today.

It doesn't seem so impossible.

Was he a good man? I have no idea really. I'd like to know the truth surrounding his story though.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:05 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:13 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by OldThinker

wow, that is a cool video!
that's C.S. Lewis's speaking voice?

i LOVE it!!!
it's what i imagined Aslan's voice to be, more or less.

what really grabbed my gut, listening to his words, is when he mentioned that Jesus told us he was humble and meek and that given the situation, if he were merely a man, it would be the farthest thing from the truth.

i had this sudden vivid image of just how meek and lowly our Creator would, and could, and did become, just to be amongst us. something he chose to do all along.


posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:29 AM

Originally posted by faceoff85
the greatest flaw in this video is that it is based on a doctrine, a doctrine set by caesar augustinus if Im not mistaken at the council of geneve about 400 years AFTER Jesus walked the earth... what doctrine? the one doctrine wich the majority of christians accept as gospel while there is not 1 reference in the bible about it... Trinity.. this doctrine is easily debunked and consequentially this thread is as well...

anybody waiting for some "slappin with scriptures" just ask..


The Bible clearly says there is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. That the Godhead is comprised of 3 persons, yet God is one.

let me ask you a question...

Do you think your soul and spirit will move along when your body is dead? If so, you are like God in the fact that you are comprised of 3 "persons", you have a soul, spirit, and physical body. But are YOU 3 people or are you one person made up of 3 parts??

The Trinity is the same thing, God is the same, that's why Jesus said at creation "Let US make a man in OUR image..."

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in