The Conspiracy to Deny the Reason for the Crucifixion

reply to post by adjensen

You have a very serious and fundamental misperception of this entire situation; which is a direct consequence of the current religious establishments and the witless doctrines that they teach.

The religious 'authorities' want your money. In one way or another. They want your money.

So, they will answer questions of anyone who asks questions, in the hopes that they can convince you that that they are telling the Truth. Once they convince you of that, you will give them your money. Or they would no longer be in business.

They have no other demands upon their followers.

This is simply not the way it is with anyone who has a Knowledge of the Truth.

I am no theologian or religious 'authority'; and I don't want your money.

So none of those rules or expectations apply in relation to what I am doing here.

When Jesus preached, people deserted him in droves. Read the Gospels

His Teaching was more and more difficult to believe. This can be confirmed in the kind of language that is found in the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender in the Nag Hammadi Codices.

But the simple fact is that any teacher worth his salt does not give the Teaching out willy-nilly simply to anyone who asks for the Teaching.

Any true teacher is required to assess the ability of the student not merely to understand the Teaching but to pursue that Truth. It is a process of continual testing of the student to see what he does and does not understand. This is very clearly demonstrated in Saying #13 of the Gospel of Thomas, in which Jesus gives a specific Teaching ONLY to Thomas and not to either Peter or Matthew because Thomas has passed the test and they have not.

According to the tradition, even the Buddha told his own son to go away and live his life first--he was in his early to mid 20s--because his ears were not yet ready for the Teaching. (But, today, we have 5 year old "evangelists" preaching "the Gospel" to congregations; and Christians 'think' that this is "cool" or something.)

But there is something much worse here. You have no understanding whatsoever of the personal dimension of the relationship between a teacher and a student. You seem to 'think' that because I claim to have some Knowledge that you do not have, that I am somehow required to give that Knowledge to you...for a reason which I simply do not understand.

And you choose to respond to what I have written by accusing me of evil and criticizing me; the whole attitude you project being that, somehow, you are ENTITLED to be told the Knowledge that I have; almost as if I OWE it to you; almost as if you ARE someone to me.

I do not owe you anything. Because you are not anyone in particular to me.

But, because you have no belief that people live more than one life, you also cannot understand that the Creator puts people together life after life after life for the purpose of both an education to the Truth and a further development of the relationships that they have had in their previous lives. I have memories of previous lives of a number of people I know. And my relationships with them have continued in this life in ways different than those previous lives. This is something not only beyond your belief, but utterly beyond your experience.

The simple fact of the matter is that I have given you FAR more 'benefit of the doubts' here than you deserve.

There is really no point in me replying to you anymore because the likelihood is that I will only make you angrier than you already are.

Michael

Click here for more information.

reply to post by adjensen

The subject matter of this thread is the reason for the crucifixion:

Was it as a "vicarious atonement for the sins of men", as asserted by Paul?

Or was it, instead, because Jesus taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'?

That is the subject for discussion here.

I am saying that to 'explain' the crucifixion by Paul's doctrine of "vicarious atonement for the sins of men" resulted very directly in the idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

Address the subject matter of this thread rather than engaging in any number of distractions and side issues.

Mi cha el

Listen up

The topic of this thread is

The Conspiracy to Deny the Reason for the Crucifixion

It is NOT "lets attack members and conduct some kind of witch hunt"

Discuss the topic, NOT the poster. If you cannot do that, don't post.

I've had to drop this warning on you guys in another thread.

If I see this again I'm handing out 48 hour posting bans on all three accounts.

Sound good? Yeah, didn't think so.

All of The Abrahamic Faiths needs to keep Jesus Christ in a positive light as having sacrificed himself on the crucifix and not reflect on his Roman Military criminal record of being a Heretic and a National Secuirty threat both of which imho were trumped up.

The end result made him a Judeo-Christian Martyr for the cause of Christianity which is one of the 5 major events spanning 4,000 years that gave rise to the Abrahamic Faiths.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by adjensen

The subject matter of this thread is the reason for the crucifixion:

Was it as a "vicarious atonement for the sins of men", as asserted by Paul?

Or was it, instead, because Jesus taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'?

These are two separate notions. The first is defining God's purpose, while the second is defining man's purpose.

The counter to the second is "Jesus wasn't crucified because he was preaching reincarnation, he was crucified because he was teaching that the Jewish authorities were misleading the people."

If you have a counter for the first, an explanation of God's plan, that is fine, but all evidence is that my version of the second is the accurate one.

I am saying that to 'explain' the crucifixion by Paul's doctrine of "vicarious atonement for the sins of men" resulted very directly in the idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

You are once again making a cause and effect leap in logic that is invalid. Jesus was killed, I presume that we can agree on that. Jesus was killed by the Romans, at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities, I don't presume that we can agree on that, but this is what the evidence shows.

So, regardless of the rational for the action, the result is the same. Would anti-semitism exist if Christianity had not become the predominant religion that it did? That's impossible to say, though the Jews of the Old Testament clearly had their fair share of enemies, and telling others that you're God's chosen people is a bit off-putting, in itself.

People kill each other, en masse, for lots of different reasons, but it rarely comes down to anything other than power. The Holocaust (which killed more people than just Jews, you know,) happened because a corrupt and evil government used propaganda to incite and control the people.

You fault Paul for teaching Christ's atonement, but you ignore the fact that he also taught tolerance, love and forgiveness. If we lived by Christ's teachings, as presented in the Gospels and Paul's epistles, not stuff imagined or added to, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the 20th century genocides by Communist regimes and a host of other atrocities would not have occurred.

We don't need new doctrine and new explanations, we need to understand, accept and practice the ones that we already have before we deem Christianity a failure.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by adjensen

The subject matter of this thread is the reason for the crucifixion:

Was it as a "vicarious atonement for the sins of men", as asserted by Paul?

Or was it, instead, because Jesus taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'?

These are two separate notions. The first is defining God's purpose, while the second is defining man's purpose.

The counter to the second is "Jesus wasn't crucified because he was preaching reincarnation, he was crucified because he was teaching that the Jewish authorities were misleading the people."

If you have a counter for the first, an explanation of God's plan, that is fine, but all evidence is that my version of the second is the accurate one.

I am saying that to 'explain' the crucifixion by Paul's doctrine of "vicarious atonement for the sins of men" resulted very directly in the idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' and the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

You are once again making a cause and effect leap in logic that is invalid.

Logic cannot save you here. It makes no difference if you consider it invalid. There is historical evidence of several hundreds of years of Christian anti-Semitism. What was its source? The belief that "the Jews" were responsible for killing 'God'. Merely that statement alone makes "the Jews" to be the most EVIL critters in the history of human civilization.

Jesus was killed, I presume that we can agree on that. Jesus was killed by the Romans, at the behest of the Jewish religious authorities, I don't presume that we can agree on that, but this is what the evidence shows.

Of course we agree on this. But the question is "Why was Jesus so dangerous?"

So, regardless of the rational for the action, the result is the same.

This is where you are blind to the consequences.

The idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' is necessary for the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

Without that idolatrization, there may very well have been discrimination of Christians against Jews, but there would have been no establishing of an equivalence beteen Jews and "children of Satan".

It would have been recognized that this was done by a religious establishment attempting to preserve its power.

That, and not "the Jews" would have been considered the source of the problem of evil.

We don't need new doctrine and new explanations, we need to understand, accept and practice the ones that we already have before we deem Christianity a failure.

Christianity is not any failure. It almost succeeded in exterminating the Jews of Europe.

It has succeeded in exterminating the Gnostics and the Albigensians.

It has succeeded in exterminating millions of Muslims throughout the Middle East over the past 34 years.

And it is now doing everything it possibly can to incite a mutually annihilating war between Iran and the Israel, in order to exterminate millions more Jews and millions more Muslims.

You say that "we don't need any new doctrine".

And it has also been said that insanity is defined as "doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results".

The Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious officials will continue to teach their lies until the onset of the "time of trouble".

They will do the same thing over and over and over; and they will expect to attain genuine Peace in the Middle East.

That is certifiably insane.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Logic cannot save you here. It makes no difference if you consider it invalid. There is historical evidence of several hundreds of years of Christian anti-Semitism. What was its source? The belief that "the Jews" were responsible for killing 'God'. Merely that statement alone makes "the Jews" to be the most EVIL critters in the history of human civilization.

As I said, you've come to the conclusion that Jews would not be picked on if Jesus wasn't considered to be God. This is a leap in logic. Yes, there is anti-semitism. Yes, some of it is by Christians. But the fact that some of it is NOT Christians (and I would again point out that true followers of Christ cannot be anti-semitic, so it may be argued that NO Christians are anti-semitic, but that would be a matter of semantics,) leads to the conclusion that Christianity cannot be the source of anti-semitism.

Of course we agree on this. But the question is "Why was Jesus so dangerous?"

I don't see the relevance of that. Dead is dead, crucified is crucified. Man's reasons for putting him there merely point to the injustice of it, I don't know that motivation matters.

The idolatrization of Jesus as 'God' is necessary for the doctrine of vicarious atonement.

You have those backwards. The doctrines came out of the observation that the earliest documentary and historical evidence showed that the early church was worshipping Christ as God, and was an effort to try and sort that out. Because it is a work of man, I don't know that the Doctrine of Atonement is correct. I think that it is, but it may well be completely wrong.

Paul was a Jew. A jew's jew, as he says. He would not simply "make up" the fact that Christ was God incarnate, because of what that would really mean for a Jew in the first century.

It has succeeded in exterminating millions of Muslims throughout the Middle East over the past 34 years.

Again, you confuse politics and religion. I guarantee you, with 100% certainty, that if the Middle East had no resources of interest, or if the western economy wasn't pegged to fossil fuels, there would be little to no interest in the machinations of that region.

wasnt "jesus" executed for breaking the law? if the law of god stated there was a curse on the "egyptians" and this curse was pertaining magic use; then by proxy the law felt his actions were an abomination of the standard of law and not the law he fought against.because he was against the expression of law and its lack at being a law temporally(as all laws are), his execution was more of an initiation for his own sake. i dont think its wrong to know why a man such as himself was executed regardless of how tragic or romantic the reason is.

Originally posted by Ausar
wasnt "jesus" executed for breaking the law?

Wasn't the Iraq war because there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

In other words, the 'cover' stories that people in power use to 'explain' their motivations are not always the Truth.

Something had to be said to convince the people that Jesus was EVIL. That was the ultimate goal. Whatever words were used to preserve the power of the Jewish religious establishment were considered 'justified'.

Neither the people nor the Romans would have understood the Doctrinal disagreement.

And the Romans would have cared ONLY about the POLITICAL implications of any Doctrine that Jesus taught, which would have been to CHALLENGE the 'authority' of the Jewish religious establishment, thus threatening their political control over the people; thus, ultimately, threatening a problem for the Romans as well.

Even Jesus Christ Superstar absolutely politicizes this conflict into a threat against Roman power.

Do you see how successful these Pharisees have been in preserving their power?

This, after all, is almost 2000 years AFTER the event.


Mi cha el

There was no crucifixion, it even states in the Acts 3X that Jesus was hanged by a tree