What if Jesus is the DECEPTION?

reply to post by jmdewey60

You can take all the comments about Satan after the gospels, in the New Testament, and understand it in a metaphorical way of whatever that opposes the improvement of the world.
The point being that "Satan" ceases being an name of a person and becomes a term for a thing.

And yet a significant portion of Christians would swear that Satan is a conscious, tangible, distinct entity bent upon the corruption and destruction of everything their god holds to be good and true. Once again, the crux of the matter hinges solely upon interpretation.

The world is a matter of perspective, and perspective is a product of interpretation. Need I say more?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Once again, the crux of the matter hinges solely upon interpretation.

I don' think that they even bother to interpret the Bible, and just go along with Medieval myths.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I thought your love for Satan as your brother seemed off from a biblical point of view, to indicate to readers (who may not want to hunt back to an earlier page) what this is even about.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don' think that they even bother to interpret the Bible, and just go along with Medieval myths.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I thought your love for Satan as your brother seemed off from a biblical point of view, to indicate to readers what this is even about.

You seem to be implying that you can prove that Satan is nothing more than a label to express the idea of anything other than kindness or love or compassion or empathy. Perhaps even apply the same principle to God, reducing the divine almighty to nothing more or less than terminology intended to translate raw and visceral emotion into something more easily...communicated between spiritualists. Am I correct in reading that impression?

I'll admit that last part might have been me reading rather further into it than you had intended. My apologies.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Perhaps even apply the same principle to God, reducing the divine almighty to nothing more or less than terminology intended to translate raw and visceral emotion into something more easily...communicated between spiritualists. Am I correct in reading that impression?

That's not how I think about it.
Someone else could do that if they want and I doubt that I would be on it complaining.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's what I'm beginning to think "god" is. Just terminology designed to communicate a raw and visceral emotion that we couldn't otherwise express and yet feel is there. A word that has evolved to convey a myriad of ideals that all fall under a common theme of both power and grace. The absolute strength to do what needs to be done, and the perfect grace to do it judiciously. It seems to me that "God" is an icon of that persona in a world where no one has the strength and no one has the grace...much like "V" in the movie "V for Vendetta". Like he said:

"Ideas...ideas are bulletproof." God isn't a person or an entity, so much as an idea.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Just terminology designed to communicate a raw and visceral emotion that we couldn't otherwise express and yet feel is there.

We have different ways of looking at things.
I think more externally while you seem to think more internally.
I see God acting in actual physical ways in the world, as well as internally inside of people, but it comes from without to affect the within.

reply to post by jmdewey60

We have different ways of looking at things.
I think more externally while you seem to think more internally.
I see God acting in actual physical ways in the world, as well as internally inside of people, but it comes from without to affect the within.

I think what is inside composes the lexicon for translating what is outside. Or put more simply, the scribes in our heads determine how our reality is translated. You cannot correctly interpret reality until you know what is doing the interpreting and how that device might be flawed. So whereas you examine the reflection, I examine the object doing the reflecting. Does that make sense?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

. . . I examine the object doing the reflecting.

I think that it is a natural part of life that at some point you go through a phase where it seems to be exactly that going on but it is only self-delusion to think that you control it.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think that it is a natural part of life that at some point you go through a phase where it seems to be exactly that going on but it is only self-delusion to think that you control it.

I didn't say control it. I said examine it - the intent being that when you understand what is doing the reflecting, you will be better equipped to pursue a greater comprehension of that which is being reflected. If you do not understand how the water refracts the light, how do you hope to spear the fish?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

We have different ways of looking at things.
I think more externally while you seem to think more internally.
I see God acting in actual physical ways in the world, as well as internally inside of people, but it comes from without to affect the within.

I think what is inside composes the lexicon for translating what is outside. Or put more simply, the scribes in our heads determine how our reality is translated. You cannot correctly interpret reality until you know what is doing the interpreting and how that device might be flawed. So whereas you examine the reflection, I examine the object doing the reflecting. Does that make sense?

edit on 4-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Its all about the facets.

reply to post by JeffersonAirplane


It wasnt God who implemented societal rulers. Quite the opposite, Israel didn't need a king bc they had the Living God as their king. Worldly rule came from all the other kingdoms (pagan). It wasn't until long after the people of Israel were freed from Egypt and a list of judges brought up to bring Israel back from their worship of foreign gods, that Israel begged God for a human king. then God graciously gave them over to their desire of a king to show them the insufficiency of a human ruler due to sin. Saul was given to them as their first king. He disobeyed God and his throne was given to David (the only man said to be "after Gods own heart) then his throne was established forever through Jesus.

Observe people's behavior around you, you'll find that people desire leadership whether it be for forming a single file line (which I'm not convinced has ever actually happened lol) fashion, apps, or humor. most of us depend on others leadership to form our own interests rather than knowing our creator and what is right and wrong to form our own identity. we look to celebs and their ideals to decide whats right and wrong.

I'm new, I hope this made sense and wasn't obnoxiously long.

Originally posted by jazz10
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

If the Messiah was here would he even know who he is? Sorry to interupt thread. Would he know things that he couldnt explain or would he know?
Enjoying the thread; Also all replies.

That is the question, the Messiah only exists on paper that other people wrote about decades later. The Messiah is an IDEAFORM, never a person in the flesh, this hologram was created, just as you might believe the Wizard OF OZ as a 1938 "film" shown to 500 BC Greek Senators...would believe as true and Hirododus would have completely rewritten his histories. Do you not think that time (IDEA) INSERTS have happened? and Jesus as well as Mohamed and Siddhartha were just the same???? To change a direction in the nature of MAN? Who says the mythologies are real (THEY ARE NOT) Ulysses never lived, niether did Zeus, or Hera etc. Humans are the most gullible beings on this planet..so easily led.

reply to post by Jusvistn


I didn't read your post but the title was enough for me to know you haven't read the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Read it and then you will see who is the deceived one.

You just called the creator of the Universe a deception.

What will you do about it?

I urge you to Repent my friend.

Kudos for giving me an amusing moment when I misread your title. Fun Fun

Jusvistn
I honestly do not want to start a holy war or all out religious cyber fight, but am looking for real input.

I believe in GOD, I believe that there is an intelligent design to our planet, our environment and our species, but I truly struggle with the concept of Jesus as GOD.

I'm not saying that Jesus never existed, and I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't a great inspiration bringing GODS will and knowledge to us, but I find it difficult to worship a man when GOD says you "will put no other GODS before me." Essentially, is that not what folks are doing when they are praying and worshiping Jesus INSTEAD of God?

And though Jesus teaches these things, and then tells us to worship him..... what if he is the true deception in the grand scheme of things?

To me, Jesus is separate from God, and I have a hard time calling them one in the same, and I have difficulty with the God made flesh aspect that brings us to the whole Son, Spirit, Holy Ghost thing..... For me, to believe in the "one true God" means that Jesus would be no more than a teacher as what you would find preaching from the front of the church today. So I ask again, could Jesus be the Deception, and in his "teachings" be pulling the people away from God and into his own agenda?

I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around this. I appreciate your civil insights.

To answer your question, yes.

Good job.

You've stumbled upon something that's been blatantly obvious to me since I was 10. It's pretty much common sense. In the Bible, it says "God is the word, and that word is light (love)" or something to that effect. You can pretty much just close the book after that.

reply to post by Nostrenominon

You've stumbled upon something that's been blatantly obvious to me since I was 10. It's pretty much common sense. In the Bible, it says "God is the word, and that word is light (love)" or something to that effect. You can pretty much just close the book after that.

I think personifying the concept of "love" is the equivalent of cramming a rose bush into a box, closing it, and expecting to behold the same lovely plant everytime you open the lid. It won't happen. You will limit it, stifle it, and eventually kill it.

The same goes for love. Your understanding of love will cease to expand with your understanding of the world, leaving it more and more out of context until eventually that particular understanding of love is no longer even remotely relevant.

Don't personify love. Don't give it an anthropomorphic nature. Our lives are so short that we never realize the effect of making that mistake, but looking back over the evolution of language and how we express ideas and mold our comprehension of those ideas according to those expressions makes it very clear to me how we strip the face off of a concept and leave the rest of it to rot away as we put that very tiny trace of the idea in embalming fluid to preserve it for the ages to come.

All you will have left is a shadow of what it meant, and even less of what it could have been. That's why no one understands God now, because the idea has never been allowed to keep pace with our understanding of the world. Of all the ideas and philosophies that have been revolutionized as a result of our intellectual progress, God has remained untouched for the most part. It has remained a taboo subject, only available for nostalgic spiritualists.

And that's our biggest mistake, as far as I'm concerned.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Nostrenominon

 

You've stumbled upon something that's been blatantly obvious to me since I was 10. It's pretty much common sense. In the Bible, it says "God is the word, and that word is light (love)" or something to that effect. You can pretty much just close the book after that.

I think personifying the concept of "love" is the equivalent of cramming a rose bush into a box, closing it, and expecting to behold the same lovely plant everytime you open the lid. It won't happen. You will limit it, stifle it, and eventually kill it.

The same goes for love. Your understanding of love will cease to expand with your understanding of the world, leaving it more and more out of context until eventually that particular understanding of love is no longer even remotely relevant.

Don't personify love. Don't give it an anthropomorphic nature. Our lives are so short that we never realize the effect of making that mistake, but looking back over the evolution of language and how we express ideas and mold our comprehension of those ideas according to those expressions makes it very clear to me how we strip the face off of a concept and leave the rest of it to rot away as we put that very tiny trace of the idea in embalming fluid to preserve it for the ages to come.

All you will have left is a shadow of what it meant, and even less of what it could have been. That's why no one understands God now, because the idea has never been allowed to keep pace with our understanding of the world. Of all the ideas and philosophies that have been revolutionized as a result of our intellectual progress, God has remained untouched for the most part. It has remained a taboo subject, only available for nostalgic spiritualists.

And that's our biggest mistake, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm concerned that your biggest mistake was injecting some idea that wasn't even there and drawing conclusions from assumptions based on nothing. When I say that God is merely love, I mean that God is just the "rose" in your analogy. You are saying that God is the box we put around love, not me.

Let me make it more clear. Instead of saying God is love, what I meant, was that literally Love is God. It makes more sense to say it that way. As in the concept or "box" around the "rose" in your analogy isn't God because it's personifying it, the Rose itself is what is originally worshipped and therefore the source for any concept of God itself.

Jusvistn
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

I'm not calling anything or anyone evil, and I'm certainly not a Satanist. I ask the question because I believe that the life and message of Jesus has been distorted, taken completely out of context and sensationalized to the point ppl believe more in the "son" than the Creator.

What evidence do you have for this?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Jesus is NOT the creator of the universe, and never claimed to be.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

So, unless "God has a God", Jesus isn't God!