For Those Who Are Confused

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:34 am

Jesus is Christ is God Is The Holy Spirit As One God. The Only God. The Father, The Son, And The Holy Spirit, As One. Always And Forever. Amen.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:38 am

Jesus Christ Is My Lord And My Savior. He Died On The Cross For All Of Our Sins, And He Was Resurrected On The Third Day By The Father. The Father Who Is Also The Son, And The Holy Spirit, As One. Amen.

TruthBringer · Post by **TruthBringer** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:48 am

The Bible Is The Only Book A Person Ever Need To Guide Them Through Life. It Is The Word Of God In Written Form. A Person Can Look To Other Sources To Gain Knowledge, Insight, And Perspective, But Nothing Could Ever Compare To The Holy Bible. Amen.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:15 am

TruthBringer;1390724 wrote: Jesus is Christ is God Is The Holy Spirit As One God. The Only God. The Father, The Son, And The Holy Spirit, As One. Always And Forever. Amen.

Correction: Jesus was a Jew of Ancient Judea that fought against Roman oppression and religious hyposcrisy. His mission was to inspire his fellow Jews to revolt, as so did many other Jewish rabble-rousers of that age and place. Jesus, much like Bin Laden against the U.S., committed acts of treason and terror that resulted in an arrest and trial. He was convicted and sentenced to death on a cross, as he should have been. If he were alive now he'd probably be the first to tell us that he got what he deserved. For the Jews, Christ's mission failed. But not for the brilliant Jew, Saul of Tarsus. In Christ Saul (Paul) saw man's redemption from sin by his death on a Cross. What was once a tragic failure in the eyes of most Jews was for Paul a victory over the effects of sin, an atonement for man's transgressions, for all time. This radical idea was not very much embraced by the Jews of the day, and this explains why so many of Paul's days were spent running from them. The gentiles to which Paul preached however had no trouble with the idea of Jesus as a divine propitiation. Nor did they have any problem with Christ as a special son of God--a demigod if you will--having their whole lives been immersed in pagan religious traditions in which the gods were embodied in human form.

Gradually over time, as the story was told and retold orally and writing, it become more and more corrupted: Jesus the man, Jesus the Jew, became God in the flesh whose entire purpose since the beginning of time was to save us from our pitiful selves. All that practical and political nonsense in which Christ was embroiled while he walked the earth was part of God's unfolding plan of salvation for all mankind. For some reason God could not forgive us unless he caused His only begotten son to die a tortuous death for crimes and sins he himself did not commit. Then we are told that God caused the body of Christ to disappear from the tomb. This great miracle is shrouded in contradiction and imaginary beings, and even if it were true was destined to be rejected by all rational thinking people. Not long after, Jesus reappears to his disciples, eats a piece of fish, get's poked in the side with a finger, and then like a helium balloon in a Sunday parade floats up into heaven where he sits enthroned in glory at God's side.

There are so many "how comes," and "what fors," and "why dids," and "how coulds" inherent to this silly tale that one only need read it to know it as a fable. Could it be true that God orchestrated this ill conceived plan of salvation? It seems to me that Christ/God's greatest skill in all this was to so effectively deceive everyone into believing he was something other than the rebel he appeared to be, and in tricking the authorities into killing an innocent man on a cross. I do not see love, wisdom, or high intellect in such a scheme, only intrigue and connivance, born of man's imagination.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:18 pm

I could have done without the bin Laden comparison but other than that I like what you wrote.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:40 pm

Jesus was a Jew of Ancient Judea that fought against Roman oppression and religious hyposcrisy. His mission was to inspire his fellow Jews to revolt, as so did many other Jewish rabble-rousers of that age and place. Jesus, much like Bin Laden against the U.S., committed acts of treason and terror that resulted in an arrest and trial. He was convicted and sentenced to death on a cross, as he should have been. If he were alive now he'd probably be the first to tell us that he got what he deserved.
Any historical links to that, or is this opinion?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:01 pm

AnneBoleyn;1390932 wrote: Any historical links to that, or is this opinion?Links? History? Fact? Opinion? Ha!

Who needs any of that when you have revelation going for ya?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:54 am

Ahso!;1390972 wrote: Links? History? Fact? Opinion? Ha!

Who needs any of that when you have revelation going for ya?
He does assume a lot. Even a well-thought out opinion is still opinion.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:33 am

SnoozeAgain;1390920 wrote: I could have done without the bin Laden comparison but other than that I like what you wrote.

Personally I think the comparison is quite apt.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:34 am

AnneBoleyn;1390999 wrote: He does assume a lot. Even a well-thought out opinion is still opinion.

It's only an opinion to the uninformed.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:00 pm

Infinite Stop;1391007 wrote: It's only an opinion to the uninformed.
So to make a long story short, you have no historical evidence of your theory on the life of Jesus. Which is only right, as there is none. You have good theories, but that is all they are.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:31 pm

Infinite Stop;1391007 wrote: It's only an opinion to the uninformed.This is one reason I insist that this individual, or individuals to be immature. While in some posts the language skills appear to be refined, the concepts and thoughts offered are anything but. However, I suppose delusion might do that to people.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 pm

AnneBoleyn;1391014 wrote: So to make a long story short, you have no historical evidence of your theory on the life of Jesus. Which is only right, as there is none. You have good theories, but that is all they are.

If they are theories, they are theories grounded in reason. It gets to the point where the evidence is so overwhelming that to deny it one denies reason itself. That's how I feel about the Christ story.

Given two paths, I believe that one should take the path of reason, if the other be fabulous and unprovable. It is not "holy" or "righteous" to pretend that the irrational and unreasoned is rational and reasoned. It's not that God couldn't become a person, change water into wine, walk on water, and raise the dead; it's presumed that God could do anything if It wanted. However, if we go into the story objectively, then Christ was a man, a Jew among Jews, living under an oppressive Roman occupation: the indisputable highpoints of that man's life and death are innate to that contextual reality. To see the life of Christ outside that context--that milieu--is like seeing the colors without also seeing the picture they paint. But that's exactly what many Christians do; they see Christ's other-wordly mission, yet disregard the historical setting that made it all possible.

I'm convinced that if these believers could only set aside their bias and supersitious inclinations, they could see that those aspects of the story that render Jesus a divine being are more readily seen in the light of reason to render Jesus a man only, justly convicted of treason. Should we throw out all reason and worldly experience when confronted with a fabulous story? Should we give up all reasoned resistance to the supernatural and fantastic in some tale, even if all available evidence vectors toward a reasoned, rational explanation for the alleged events?

No, I believe that God would want us to use the gift of reason to our advantage, and not pretend that what is false and harmful to be holy and beneficial. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Question the very existence of God, for if there be a God, He must surely rather honest questioning over blindfolded fear." If we are right in doubting God's existence, then we are no worse for the belief; if we are wrong, then God will forgive us for the mistake, or God would not be God.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:29 pm

I reject "justly convicted of treason." That is because, to use your own words, "Christ was a man, a Jew among Jews, living under an oppressive Roman occupation". Therefore, Jesus was a patriot to his own people, his own country. The treason was in the mind of the occupiers. Also, why was "jesus of nazareth king of the jews" INRI, set atop the cross, why wasn't the crime of treason against the Empire not used?

King George thought the American colonists were treasonous. But, since the Revolution succeeded, we have another point of view. Treason is in the eye of the beholder, or the one who holds the power.

Infinite Stop, I enjoy your posts, I appreciate the thinking that you do to come to your conclusions. So, I am asking you the favor of not being condescending or sarcastic to me when I speak with you.

Carry on!

PS--if you don't mind my asking, whom did you prefer--Norm Coleman or Al Franken?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:59 pm

AnneBoleyn;1391023 wrote: I reject "justly convicted of treason." That is because, to use your own words, "Christ was a man, a Jew among Jews, living under an oppressive Roman occupation". Therefore, Jesus was a patriot to his own people, his own country. The treason was in the mind of the occupiers. Also, why was "jesus of nazareth king of the jews" INRI, set atop the cross, why wasn't the crime of treason against the Empire not used?

King George thought the American colonists were treasonous. But, since the Revolution succeeded, we have another point of view. Treason is in the eye of the beholder, or the one who holds the power.

Infinite Stop, I enjoy your posts, I appreciate the thinking that you do to come to your conclusions. So, I am asking you the favor of not being condescending or sarcastic to me when I speak with you.

Carry on!

I don't recall being "condescending" at all. I may have been shooting for humor, but not condescension. However, if it will make you feel better, I'm sorry if I was condescending. But If I may, I'll also say, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, Anne, ready to fly off on some angry tangent. Just wanted to mention that, that's all.

I'm going to forego any debate about whether Christ's campaign was "just" or not, because it doesn't matter either way. The point is, his mission was one of earthly matters, not heavenly, as traditional Christian doctrine states. You yourself mention the sign on the cross, "King of the Jews." This here is a strong piece of evidence that supports my point of view completely. Had Jesus truly been a religious nut he would never have been crucified a "King." See, that's why we have the alleged Davidic lineage of Christ in the Gospels, to establish his rightful claim to the throne of David. But one has to wonder why this lineage would even matter if Christ was born of God and a virgin named Mary. The reason is, of course, because those Gospel genealogies are vestigial left-overs from the true, historical story of the man, Christ. Those who contorted Christ the man into Christ the God did not fully grasp the true nature and earthly mission of the man they were worshipping; remember, they were not Jews, but converted pagans.

In fact, these pagans could not afford to truly grasp the earthly, historical Christ; for if they did they would be contradicting the radical salvation plan invented by Paul. Those that rewrote the Christ story did so for a reason. They had to conform historical fact to religious doctrine as taught and preached. The supernatural aspects that evolved following the death of Christ were far too necessary to that appealing plan of salvation to have to acquiesce to the harsh reality of historical truth.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:23 pm

But If I may, I'll also say, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, Anne, ready to fly off on some angry tangent. Just wanted to mention that, that's all.
It is always interesting to know what others think. You don't see yourself as others see you. And here I am, trying so hard to learn diplomacy.

See, that's why we have the alleged Davidic lineage of Christ in the Gospels, to establish his rightful claim to the throne of David.
That was of course made up to fulfill prophecy, as Jesus' alleged last words on the cross did also. The trick was to make the Old Testament prophetical to the New.

remember, they were not Jews, but converted pagans.
I truly appreciate your stress on this, it is important, & something I never forget to remember. I also share your opinion of Saul, the used cart dealer of those times. The greatest Public Relations guy who ever lived. Thank goodness he doesn't manage the Kardashians.

Norm or Al?

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:16 am

AnneBoleyn;1391028 wrote: It is always interesting to know what others think. You don't see yourself as others see you. And here I am, trying so hard to learn diplomacy.

That was of course made up to fulfill prophecy, as Jesus' alleged last words on the cross did also. The trick was to make the Old Testament prophetical to the New.

I truly appreciate your stress on this, it is important, & something I never forget to remember. I also share your opinion of Saul, the used cart dealer of those times. The greatest Public Relations guy who ever lived. Thank goodness he doesn't manage the Kardashians.

Norm or Al?

Concerning the prophecies, Anne, I'd like to ask, have you ever read Thomas Paine's work regarding those alleged prophecies? If not, please do, then see how you feel about things:

Examination Of The Prophicies

In regard to your last par., now who is being condescending? Believe me, I'm not at all stressed about the contradictory and absurd elements of Christianity; though I believe any reasonably intelligent Christian should be stressed. Even a cursory examination of the nuts and bolts of that silly tale should be enough to make anyone reconsider their choice of religious faith as a Christian.

That post of mine that you responded to stands securely on its own, for all to see. If you or anyone else chooses to take the irrational, superstitious path to God that's up to you and them.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:39 am

LIBERATION is actually another word for REVELATION. When God reveals something to you then chances are you become a candidate for liberation ( from delusion ) if you come to realize what God has revealed to you. & what is that? That you yourself is part and parcel of the whole ( God ). If we all gather together the living entities ( 8,400,000 species ) on planet Earth the total number of which equals God.

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:45 am

IS, you've talked elsewhere about your revelation from/of God and that you know it was very real for you.

If someone else posted on this thread that they had had a revelation from/of God and that this showed them that Jesus was born of a virgin, did perform miracles and rose from the dead, this would be very real for them too, wouldn't it?

What I'm trying to say, quite clumsily, is that, whilst we can all debate various "God issues" we can only ultimately know what is true for us.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:49 am

theia;1391072 wrote: What I'm trying to say, quite clumsily, is that, whilst we can all debate various "God issues" we can only ultimately know what is true for us.

What you do not know does not hurt, right?

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:56 am

rajakrsna;1391074 wrote: What you do not know does not hurt, right?

Yes, of course.

Infinite Stop · Post by **Infinite Stop** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:21 am

theia;1391072 wrote: IS, you've talked elsewhere about your revelation from/of God and that you know it was very real for you.

If someone else posted on this thread that they had had a revelation from/of God and that this showed them that Jesus was born of a virgin, did perform miracles and rose from the dead, this would be very real for them too, wouldn't it?

What I'm trying to say, quite clumsily, is that, whilst we can all debate various "God issues" we can only ultimately know what is true for us.

Basically I'd have to agree with what you have here. If one believes they have received a revelation of God, then for them, they have their proof. There are obvious exceptions where others may have good reason to doubt the veracity of the experience, of course; a history of mental illness may cast a pall over the claim. Also, if there are any indications for fraud, then the claim might be in doubt for that reason too. Another exception might be if any information allegedly conveyed is contradicted by some factual evidence to the contrary. But in spite of any reservations on the part of others to accept the revelation as true, there could be no greater proof of God than that revelation, but only for the one who has had the experience.

Remember, I never said that all claimed revelations are true. You and I are not at all obligated to accept another's claimed revelation as a true divine miracle. If I were to say that, I'd be contradicting my own argument. What I am saying is, that if anyone desires "poof" of God, then they themselves must be convinced they have personally experienced God. Anything less than that will alway leave room for doubt, and will amount to an argument from ignorance.

I've said before that I believe the greatest miracle in the universe is the universe itself considered in toto. Yet the miracle of universe itself has never been sufficient cause for a belief in God for critical thinkers. Now, if this greatest miracle, the existence of the universe, can't prove God, then I suggest nothing else could either; not a man walking on water, or water into wine, or any other fantastic occurrence. Even if science could prove that the universe could not be its own reason for existing, that still wouldn't prove God, because it's an argument from ignorance. There's never going to be a way for us to "peg" God's existence with a high degree of certainty.

That's why I say that revelation is the only means of ever knowing God. One must say to their self, "To me God has spoken; therefore God exists." There's simply no other way that I can see.

Townes · Post by **Townes** » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:22 am

If you speak to God, that is devotion.

If God speaks to you, that is schizophrenia.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:48 pm

Townes;1391406 wrote:

If God speaks to you, that is schizophrenia.

If Krishna speaks to me in a dream that`s not schizophrenia.