Jesus literalist. What would change your mind?

Originally posted by Wonders
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

This is the most ignorant thread that I have seen here in a long time. If you were unbiased you would learn so much, but alas, you choose to believe that Jesus doesn't exist because of your very limited experience. Perhaps if you actally searched for the truth instead of merely seeking to validate your beliefs. You have a lot to learn and I don't have time to spoon feed you. What I learned I learned through experience, not through youtube.

I measure success by the receipt of your type of reply as opposed to someone who can actually refute something I said.

This gives truth to the direction of my thinking. Many thanks.

Regards
DL

reply to post by DaMod

My guess is you are an Atheist and basically just believe in nothing at all.

Atheism ≠ Nihilism

Why do you even care?

Why does anyone care? Why do people discuss politics or philosophy? Should we bother trying to share our opinions?

Is it some sick pleasure you get out of it?

No.

Why is it so important to attack people that believe in something greater than themselves?

How is it an attack? I would never attack individual people for committing to belief; and i fully support freedom of expression.

I support even the believers freedom of expression; Unlike Ron Paul, i support separation of church and state as Kennedy did.

I support it because it has benefits for us all;

-The non-religious (or non-believing) can be free from religion;
-The religious can practice whichever religion they want, in their own time.
(This allows for true freedom, no prejudice over one particular religion)
-Fundamentalist preachers don't get paid by the state, or goverment (i.e. with your taxes)

Why the hell do you care about the beliefs of others when apparently you have none of your own?

"Apparently" being the key word.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by megabytz

 

Jesus did things that were practical and you could see why he did things.
He did things that helped people.
He did not do things just to be famous or to have people praise him.
He did things to point to a higher concept of humanity.
That we can gain lessons from them does not mean they were just made-up stories to teach lessons.
A god is not something we as mortals have the ability to judge very well.
I would go so far as to say Jesus was some sort of god in a way we can not easily understand but was at the same time as much a normal human as us.
He utilized a pathway that connected him to God which he never allowed to be weakened or put aside for the sake of personal pursuits. So he had a fully realized spirituality that no other before him had gained and there is a reason behind that which is that God had a specific plan for him.

Yes. A perfect plan to have him murdered or commit a self aggrandizing suicide to become the hero of the world. Not self serving at all eh?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

Absolutely nothing.

Give me Jesus or give me death.

Give you a scapegoat so that you can profit from the murder of self aggrandizing suicide of an innocent man or death eh.

Mentally, you are already dead.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

. . .demanding the adoption of the creed.

Is the only part of this post what you wrote, the sentences beginning with "Yet" an "Yup" ?
Just wondering because this supposedly historical account is amazingly inaccurate.
The creed came much later, and the product of a Church Council is a declaration called a canon.
There were no non-trinitarians at the council.
Arius, the person behind Arianism, despite popular lore saying otherwise, was a trinitarian.
The followers of Arius walked out of the council after the first day because they saw it was rigged and only one possible outcome of the council would be allowed, so they never "voted".

reply to post by Greatest I am


What's your faith or creed?

(An interested observer)

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

The question I have here is.. Why do you even care?

I have no idea what you believe.. You could be a Hindu converted to Voodoo making the hoodoo that you do for all I know.. My guess is you are an Atheist and basically just believe in nothing at all.

Why is it so important to attack people that believe in something greater than themselves? Is it some sick pleasure you get out of it? Why the hell do you care about the beliefs of others when apparently you have none of your own?

I would like to add my answer to your question.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

www.youtube.com...

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...


Promoting death to Gays.
www.youtube.com...

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

I have many but if you are one who believes in fantasy, miracles and magic, why waste my time.

If you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and is the same genocidal maniac of the O T, then you just keep embracing that Jesus.
Genocide, after all, is just good justice. Especially for the innocent children and babies.

I would like to see your "many" examples of where it says in the New Testament that the stories purporting to be historical are only meant to be taken allegorically.
Trinity may not be the most accurate way to explain God, but I believe Jesus is his own individual person, while at the same time being in at least some aspect, a god in his own right. That would go against a lot of mono-theistic views but I do not claim to be a mono-theist, which I think is an artificial concept, inserted into theology way after the fact, for political and philosophical reasons.
If the old religion, and the old god (read angel) of the Old Testament was sufficient for a global religion, then there would have been no reason to create a New Testament.
Anyone who thinks I am blaspheming, you should read the Book of Job in Hebrew.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

. . .demanding the adoption of the creed.

Is the only part of this post what you wrote, the sentences beginning with "Yet" an "Yup" ?
Just wondering because this supposedly historical account is amazingly inaccurate.
The creed came much later, and the product of a Church Council is a declaration called a canon.
There were no non-trinitarians at the council.
Arius, the person behind Arianism, despite popular lore saying otherwise, was a trinitarian.
The followers of Arius walked out of the council after the first day because they saw it was rigged and only one possible outcome of the council would be allowed, so they never "voted".

edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I would have to research to answer your question properly.
The original that I quoted show it was produced by a poster called animefan48.
I have used this often and this is the first time anyone does not accept it.
I think that the notion of the Trinity is so silly that I have never bothered to research it.
I will thought before I use it again but i am slow at it.

I have read some of what you have written here and think your search methods may exceed mine.
If no vote was taken as you say, and I believe you for the moment, how did the Trinity find it's way into Christianity?

Regards
DL

I Edited my post to not seem mean.
I know this poster because he also posts on the jrandi forum but I can not speak for him or explain his views adequately.

reply to post by Greatest I am

. . .how did the Trinity find it's way into Christianity?

The formula for baptism, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost".

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

What's your faith or creed?

(An interested observer)

I call myself a Gnostic Christian but do not believe in a miracle working God.
The Godhead, I know is a cosmic consciousness that I found through apotheosis.
Unfortunately I have no more proof of this than any others who follow a God but let me be quick to point out that it is a part of nature and not the supernatural. It has no dogma for me to pass on and demand nothing from mankind. It is not a deity in the usual sense of the word and I see it as just our next evolutionary step.
I do not push my belief because, as I said, I have no proof to show.

Man is supreme here. Even if it could, it would not try to usurp man rightful dominion on earth.

Regards
DL

reply to post by jmdewey60


North Korea's dictatorship is one short of a trinity.

They worship the Father ("The Dear Leader" who is deceased) and the Son (Kim Jong Il)

They must pay homeage to them.

One point of view is that Kim Jong Il's cult of personality is solely out of respect for Kim Il-sung or out of fear of punishment for failure to pay homage.[83] Media and government sources from outside of North Korea generally support this view,[84][85][86][87][88] while North Korean government sources say that it is genuine hero worship.[89] The song "No Motherland Without You", sung by the KPA State Merited Choir, was created especially for Kim in 1992 and is frequently broadcasted on the radio and from loudspeakers on the streets of Pyongyang

That's why i'm against the "trinity" concept, because it's like a celestial version of North Korea. A divine dictatorship.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I have many but if you are one who believes in fantasy, miracles and magic, why waste my time.

If you believe that Jesus is part of the Trinity and is the same genocidal maniac of the O T, then you just keep embracing that Jesus.
Genocide, after all, is just good justice. Especially for the innocent children and babies.

I would like to see your "many" examples of where it says in the New Testament that the stories purporting to be historical are only meant to be taken allegorically.
Trinity may not be the most accurate way to explain God, but I believe Jesus is his own individual person, while at the same time being in at least some aspect, a god in his own right. That would go against a lot of mono-theistic views but I do not claim to be a mono-theist, which I think is an artificial concept, inserted into theology way after the fact, for political and philosophical reasons.
If the old religion, and the old god (read angel) of the Old Testament was sufficient for a global religion, then there would have been no reason to create a New Testament.
Anyone who thinks I am blaspheming, you should read the Book of Job in Hebrew.

Although not Jewish, I, like most Jews, do not read the bible literally or believe it to be meant as historic.
Not believing in fantasy, miracles and magic, I would say that anywhere in the Bible and N T where a miracle is shown, it cannot be read literally and allegorically or some other way should be the way of choice.

www.raceandhistory.com...

For these reasons and having no trust in the early church as well as all the forgery in scriptures, is why I do not believe any of it.

I Do think that if there is or was a God at all, then he is un-knowable, unfathomable etc., so we can never know anything of him till he pops up. everything that we have been told about the un-knowable God is information that we cannot possibly know.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

. . .how did the Trinity find it's way into Christianity?

The formula for baptism, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost".

Would it not have to exist before the concept of baptism then and if so, why did it not become official till 300 odd years after Jesus supposedly died?

As an aside, have you seen this yet?

channel.nationalgeographic.com...-Videos/07451_00

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

. . .he is un-knowable. . .

I would think that this statement directly contradicts your earlier one about being gnostic, which I believe means something about knowing God.
But that is not my business, how people want to label themselves.
Anyway, you have your own opinion about how to read the Bible.
I don't personally know any Jews who share your view that the Old Testament is to be taken any way but literally.
Have you gone to an Orthodox Synagogue or spoken with a Rabbi about it?
The people I knew when I went to Synagogue were deadly serious about the Torah.

reply to post by Greatest I am

I just watched two and a half minutes of it.
This is a stone I am familiar with, having heard the researcher of it discussing it on Coast to Coast.
Obviously baptism was around before Jesus but he instituted a different sort of meaning to it.
I don't know if Jesus ever took any prior religion in wholesale, but used a lot of different bits of things that people had some familiarity with, to express concepts.
Even the "son of god" concept was around previously but in a hypothetical way.
Jesus fit into a lot of conditions set by the various sects, they just didn't like his political views of getting along with other people. They would have rather have had a supremacist to make all other nations their slaves.
My point being, it's not new, the ideas, just the application.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

. . .he is un-knowable. . .

I would think that this statement directly contradicts your earlier one about being gnostic, which I believe means something about knowing God.
But that is not my business, how people want to label themselves.
Anyway, you have your own opinion about how to read the Bible.
I don't personally know any Jews who share your view that the Old Testament is to be taken any way but literally.
Have you gone to an Orthodox Synagogue or spoken with a Rabbi about it?
The people I knew when I went to Synagogue were deadly serious about the Torah.

edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

My experience with Jews is only from forums like this.
Not a one so far has taken the bible literally. There are various sects so there could be literalist Jews about but I have not bumped into one.
I have found that they are usually too bright for such nonsense.
They have mentioned that Moses did not write was he is said to have written because he wrote about his own death. Forgeries abound in any religion.
Ashera, God's wife, and other oddities like staffs that turn into snakes also send one away from literal reading?

Do you believe Moses was real and if so, if he believed in God, as he must have, having spoken with him and all, how do you explain why he would have changed the divorce laws away from God's, let no man put asunder, to divorce can be had for adultery. Knowing God, you would think that he would never go against anything the big guy said.
Not to mention all the killing he ordered when he came down from the mountain with the big 10.

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am

. . .Ashera, God's wife. . .

Do you know anything about that, or are you giving me someone else's list of problems with the Old Testament?
I have to assume there is some reality of Moses if I am to accept the words supposedly spoken by Jesus in the Gospels.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, about the divorce law. Are you saying that the Law of Moses contradicts an earlier law?
Jesus made a clarification of the Law, which is different, is that what you are referring to?

The original "Jesus movement" was, as far as I can tell, that of the transmission of a mystical tradition for initiation into the Wisdom of the Ages, with Jesus or Yeshua representing the focal point of a type of cosmogenesis. There are more writings from antiquity regarding the person of Jesus than any other historical figure.

Funny how people accept the person of Buddha who lived approximately 500 years prior to the person of Jesus, yet they reject the idea of Jesus having lived as a human being, why is that?

The "problem" of Christianity, is what happened when the first Pope / ex Roman Emporer laid down the Biblical cannon and orthodoxy for socio-political interests.

And just for the record, to suggest that the story of the Garden of Eden either must be taken literally and not allegorically as a story about the emergence of the duality of human consciousness and the resulting fall from grace (oneness, unity) represents the height of ignorance and simplemindedness ie: the whole Bible must be discarded if science proves a physical snake cannot talk - c'mon people, get with it ok?!

Enough with all this jeuvenile simplemindedness. We can do better than this!