But why him over others who are alive today and understand what it's like to live in the world how it stands? What sort of real and healthy 'personal relationship' can one have with an ancient dead man?
Did Jesus really die on the cross?
- Thread starter B_tallbig
- Start date
But why him over others who are alive today and understand what it's like to live in the world how it stands? What sort of real and healthy 'personal relationship' can one have with an ancient dead man?
While he lived in ancient times the things we worry about are still basically the same, having enough to eat, a roof over our head, money, family, love, so what he said on these things has as much relevance today as they did then.
I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, but that doesn't matter, some of the things he said were worth taking note of.
I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God, but that doesn't matter, some of the things he said were worth taking note of.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Posts
- 6,059
- Media
- 9,229
- Likes
- 280,828
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Maryland, United States of America
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
What he just said! I did not always believe in this way, but life's lessons have brought me around to acceptance of this belief as the most rational way for me to understand and explain the beauty and the majesty of life and all of God's creation!
Not to forget to mention antiquated. We've already moved beyond Jesus' version of morality. On divorce, adultery, slavery, and freedom for instance.
And I refuse to do some of the things that Jesus said to do for the reasons he gave them. 'Because god wants it that way' isn't good enough for me. For example: As a gay man myself, I will not marry some woman making both of us miserable so that I may 'cleave to my wife' and become 'one flesh' with her. That's idea appalling to me.
No one said you had to, it's up to you whether you chose to believe in Jesus or not.
Really?
What did Jesus have to say that was so note worthy about food that can help me to ensure I always have enough?
What about a Roof over your head?
Money?
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
""If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
I don't know about you but I'm not doing that.
Family?
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." which of course conflicts with the ten commandments. How can one hate their parents and honor them to?
Love?
Well there are a few nice things about love that he said, but those things can be either be gotten elsewhere or they're nice but don't really have any real use. and "Love your neighbor as yourself" wasn't exactly new when he supposedly said it.
And when Christians who feel otherwise than you force their idea of morality from the Bible on all of us through legislation as they've done in the past and continue to do on some issues?
You feel that the ten commandments are a religious rather than an ethical prohibitions?
I'm not religious but I still feel that it's not a great idea to kill, steal or covet my neighbours ass.
I'm not religious but I still feel that it's not a great idea to kill, steal or covet my neighbours ass.
The Ten Commandments are both religious and ethical prohibitions and they were stolen from the Egyptians whose list was much longer. Even if I disagree with killing and stealing they aren't black or white issues. I would kill to protect myself, and I would undoubtedly steal if I were starving and wouldn't think twice about doing either for those reasons. The rest are unnecessary. I can even imagine there is a time when it would be necessary to 'bear false witness against my neighbor' although it would have to be a very very good reason for me to chose to do so.
Those 'thou shalts' about god, the sabbath, and idols are meaningless.
I don't believe in 'honoring'. meaning 'respect' I must assume, anyone unless they've earned it including my parents. Unlike some my parents have earned it.
Adultery? Well Jesus said even if you THINK it you've committed adultery. So NO I don't agree with that. My thoughts are my own and I'll do what I please with them.
Coveting your neighbors stuff? Well that is very anti-American isn't it? Coveting is the cornerstone of our economy.
Well that's where I must draw the line. I've lived next to a guy who had a beautiful ass when he was out washing his car. MMMMMM MMMMM.
- CUBE,
Many think the cross was unique to Jesus. The Roman Empire used them by the thousands and thousands. Juda being a far off provence of the capital. I would have no reason to think this execution was any different in it's end than any of the others for the time. I didn't know there was so much specualtion to the contrary. Interesting
Don't be absurd. First, there more than likely was a man named Hercules/Heracles who was known for his exploits in battle. The son of Zeus? Probably not. I could be incorrect, but it seems your only point to the fact that people don't exist is their connection to religion and mysticism. Which I have not raised as a proponent of my argument at all. Which is why I feel you keep dodging my points. If not, please clarify and stop attempting to weaken my arguments by attaching religious dogma that I did not identify with.
Secondly, me saying "the man named Yeshua" is just as bad as me saying "The man named George Washington" which is also a common name. The commonality of the name does not remove validity of truth or weaken the documentation by any standard. No, the truth actually means a lot to me. Jesus not only appears in those accounts, but in other religious books. Which I believe it safe to call history books. Whether the text comes from the Quran or the text comes from your World History book. It's all things that people wrote and agreed on as the valid history from their subjective perspectives. By accepting any particular view of history you also accept the subjectivity of the account.
I believe what makes this difficult is that you are "attacking" my arguments by attaching religious dogma that I am not attributing to at all. And if you can't get past the point of subjectivity on the issue, then I'll just have to let you foam at the mouth on your own accord.
I believe that may be quite the misconstrued quote. Again, I could be wrong. The passage you're referring to meaning if you do one thing, but mean another thing your heart, you may as well have done what was in your heart and it's just as wrong.
If I walked to you and said, "I love you." but meant, "I hate you and I plan on killing you in the near future.", then the fact that said "I love you" does not cover up the fact that I still hate you and want you to die. Maybe I misconstrued the quote...
Who's talking about religion...in that instance at least? I was talking about people in general; governments, and systems of law, an umbrella of which religion is apart of.
You elect a president, yes? You have a desire to be governed and dominated. It's human. No one is judging you because of it. I vote for a president as well. It keeps order. Religion is nothing but a system of laws governed by a "head" which is called God. Religion is also very different from Spirituality which is the belief in a "being" greater than one's self. You despise religion...great. I could care less...but if you're debating religious theory, your spite of religion is just as bad as someone who so dogmatically resides in the belief one's own religion. At any rate, I think I'm through.
Aside from the fact that I believe in a God, QFT.
Again, what you are failing to see is that the books of the Bible are written as a whole and not as segments. For example: It's the "Gospel of John", not the book of 'The "Sermon on the Mount" in which no other non-Sermon on the Mount occurrences are spoken of. The instant you attribute mystical/magical things to an individual the entire book is suspect as to its veracity. Especially when those mystical/magical things are throughout the entire book. One has no reference to know where the fiction leaves off. You are using your own judgment as to what to believe. That's fine for you, but one could just as easily disregard the magical things in The Odyssey and believe that Odysseus existed as well, and even if someone named Odysseus existed why should we live our lives bound to anything he may or may not have said anyway?
I'm dodging nothing, you continually misunderstand why I keep bringing it up.
No, saying 'the man named Yeshua' is like saying 'the man named George', NOT George Washington. There is a difference and it's a big one.
I agree that the truth is truth no matter where it comes from, but we are not just talking about truth when it comes to the existence of a man named Jesus 'The Christ'. We're talking about probability. If there were a man named Jesus back then that those books were embroidered around that would be one thing, but the probability that there was a man who said all those things and magically healed the people of things we can't heal today, raised the dead after they've been dead for days, and rose from his own grave is so slim it may as well be considered impossible. Why is that? Because that's not how the universe works. And again, there is no way to know where the fiction stops. It could all very easily be fiction, including the probable non-mystical/magical parts.
It doesn't matter, there is much in our current history books today that are untrue. 'History is written by the victors' and all that. But again, who cares? I don't live my life based on books and neither should anyone else. It is a mistake to do so, but it is your mistake if you wish to make it.
I see that you're one of those who interpret things to mean what you want them to mean, or makes sense to you, rather than what it says. You're on your own with that one.
You are incorrect about this. There is a disparity between the concession of a need for others to have someone tell them what to do and a desire to be governed and dominated myself. Let's take this scenario. I live in the U.S. I have no desire to be governed but I recognize that others need it and that in itself gives me protection from others because of the system we have here. Let's say there are 2 candidates for President. One who will leave me to my life as I see fit, and one whose authoritarianism will hinder my autonomy. Should I not vote for the first one as a means of protecting myself?
From one fantasy to another...one is better than the other, right?
The funniest to me about this statement is that the passages that Christians use to condemn are Jewish scriptures.
Do you even know what he said? And it's up to the individual person or group to couch the moral philosophy with the Christian mysticism. You make that choice. You focus on the fact that most Christians want you to believe that Jesus died and reappeared in three days and healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. If that doesn't matter to you then why do you focus on it?
And it happened again. I answered you in a previous post, before you even asked the question.
Who cares if he drew it from a bunch of other sources. Isn't that what EVERY philosopher does? Isn't that what a scientist does? You take the research and work that people before you implemented and innovated and you expound upon it. That's how any great scientist or philosopher works. Why would Jesus be any different? Like Buddha, like Mohammed. All of these people historically existed...and OBVIOUSLY made an impact so great that we still talk about them today more than many in the history of humanity. I question more why you need the man named Yeshua, who appeared on SO many historical accounts aside from the Bible, to not exist in your mind more than the fact that you wish me to not believe that he did. Like slavery and Holocaust...they didn't exist too. Right?
You know I look down less on these philosophers and more on the people who worship them. People NEED a king. They need something over them. They have an innate desire to be dominated. Which is why we can't have laws implemented without presidents, and Kings, and Queens and such...but that in whole is another conversation.
I dont believe in messianic stuff but i see why the jews dont believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus dont have the traits that the real messiah supposely have.
Isn't that what we all do? Isn't that how you came to your conclusion? You can interpret things literally or figuratively and neither is more valid than the other because the truth in the message lies in the one who originally delivered it. Since I cannot make a phone call to Jesus and ask him to call you to clarify, I'll have to said that point is null and void.
History is what you make of it. You can accept anything that anybody tells you or you can draw your own truth from multiple sources and move on from it. The problem with your whole comeback on the "George Washington/Jesus" issue is that I am under the impression that we do not know Jesus' last name. Therefore all we know him as IS Jesus. Who was called "the Christ". Don't be coy.
You're right. I do not understand why you attach religious sentiment to historical citation in an attempt to demean points. Which is why I said, I'd rather allow you to rave on your own time, because you're wasting mine. Your disbelief is as blinding as those who choose to blindly believe. One vice in exchange for another. Neither weightier than the other. I challenge you to be virtuous and find objectivity in debate. That's all.
All of your points are based on subjectivity. And therefore, I cannot continue this with you.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
One of the earliest Gnostic "heresies" is known as Docetism. This view is based upon the theory that Jesus as the son of god, could not die in the first place, he was "word created flesh", a divine spirit without beginning or end. The belief is that he did not die on the cross and therefore was not ressurected.
Paul made the death and ressurection a central tenet of christianity, so whenever docetism has raised its head since, it has been stamped on.
Most modern christians aren't even aware of the debate it seems.
Paul made the death and ressurection a central tenet of christianity, so whenever docetism has raised its head since, it has been stamped on.
Most modern christians aren't even aware of the debate it seems.
Most "Christians" are followers of Moses and Paul more than they are of Christ. I don't buy into the whole Paul version of the theology. It's more bells and whistles than anything in my book.
I agree is more accurate to say the creator of christianity is Paul rather than Jesus.
