Proof of Jesus existance (page 4)

myelaine

Satanus,

If only that was a good excuse all the time.

love michelle

How sad that great ideas get crushed under secular definitions. Paul was the original "apostate" who ignored direction from the governing body of the time ("the older men") and published his teachings/procedures directly to congregations and individuals. I wonder what would happen if a JW tried that today.

Paul discovered he was Christ's messenger after he was struck blind. How appropriate.

Terry

Here is the premise.

Humans need rescuing from death.

Why do they die in the first place?

They INHERIT death.

How?

???????????

From who?

Their ancient proto-parents: Adam and Eve.

Explain please.

1.Humans were contingent creatures. The contingency meant they had to supply their physical bodies with the energy fuels from the death of other living things. Further:

2.They had to do as they were told to do. The only autonomous feature of their so-called FREE WILL was to choose to do as they were told. (How this is considered superior to being created with built-in RIGHT instincts is a separate issue).

3.Adam and Eve were offered information that appeared to be superior to the contingency plan. They could be like God. God didn't have to follow anybody's plans but his own. They chose this course and were punished.

4.Punishment? Death. The transmission of death continued in all humans.

STOP RIGHT HERE!

The next part is very important. Why? Because it is the PREMISE for all that follows.

1.(God) By choosing to make humans INHERIT (?) sin without having yet committed it (!) all humans would die regardless of how carefully they lived.

2.The humans now needed a rescue or they would all die eventually.

Does anybody notice how contrived this is?

1.Rather than letting each human have equal standing in obeying god (as Adam and Eve did) he puts an EXTRA barrier between them. a.They must be rescued from the inherited sin FIRST and only then will they be allowed equal standing in regard to obedience. b.They must recognize the method of rescue and go along with it.

2.The Rescuer figures heavily into the equation. The Rescuer (Messiah) is a proxy. Instead of humans dealing with God they must deal with the proxy.

This whole Byzantine (Rube Goldberg) twisty "plan" of rescue only exists in the first place because decided it would.

Note: The above "interpretation" is just plain nonsensical. It is mainly the invention of Origen and Augustine.

Sin is entirely what God chooses to regard as wrong behavior. But, being "born" with sin is just plainly impossible! There is no mechanism of transmission of bad behavior that hasn't happened.

You may as well punish somebody for being tall or blue-eyed or left-handed for all the justice of it.

The ancient Jews' view of Messiah was far less complex than the above. The Jews believed a man would come along who was "in good" with God and would be selected to be a King and a Priest. This chosen and anointed man would be the greatest ruler of all time. This Messiah would rule a world government. Everybody would benefit from his rulership. The idea of Messiah requiring of his constituency that they "believe" in him is absent.

The "apostle" Paul hijacked the history of Jews and their concept of Messiah and contorted it into something entirely foreign. It was a Platonic ideal. Jesus was something Pagan's could easily understand. Jesus was a god in human form. He would rule "up there" and not down here. (No proof required).
It was all assertion and salesmanship.

The apostles had walked and talked with Jesus and he had explained himself to them. But, Paul seems to know everything and they know nothing. How? Paul's interpretations were entirely contrary! He invented his own apostleship. He invented the plot of rescue and the greater Adam substituting for the original Adam. Paul's explanation supplied the ONE missing piece of information the genuine apostles lacked. Paul could EXPLAIN WHY THE MESSIAH (Jesus) DIED!

All of Paul's sci-fi ideas were untestable. They were easy for Pagan's to accept and they filled in the missing part of the logic for the natural Jews who had followed Jesus.

That is why Christianity was successful and Judaism was consigned to fringe lunacy.

The Jews had to be accused of being the culprits for their non-belief. They were the only true witnesses of the actual events and the ones best qualified to give counter-evidence.

The rest is history.

JamesThomas

Welcome Jew.

Only in our minds limited and childish beliefs do we make one man more holy than all else ( an act of diluting and diminishing the Divine in all the rest of the universe; which is an incredibly arrogant and foolish thing to do; ALMOST as bad as shrinking God down to a tiny tribal deity called Yahweh.......I guess I should add Allah to that, so I can offend damn near everybody).

j

myelaine

Dear Terry,

Death. Is it a punishment? Would you like to live forever and forever be a witness to the degredation man has succumbed to. I wouldn't

Death. Is it a consequence? Would a loving God want man to be subjected to the degredation that he himself is able to succumb to. I don't think that would be very loving of God.

michelle

Terry

Personally I think of death as a natural consequence of change.

Everything is made of parts and the parts are in flux. For a little while those parts can be me.

But, while I'm me I'm in a state of change. Infant to teen to adult to old fart and then dust.

The parts are free to be something else.

We are born in the movie theatre and gradually notice the film onscreen. Not having seen the beginning we guess at the plot. But, we all die before the film ends and the next group gets their turn at guessing.

God is one of our guesses for "Who directed this crap?"

myelaine

It is as good a guess as any, I suppose, if we believe that "sombody directed this crap"

michelle

Narkissos

Ezekiel,

His mission was to release his fellow Jews from their culture, the Law, oppressive traditions.
He knew his scriptures, and capitalized on them to gain traction with his Jewish followers.
He had no respect for Jewish law or tradition, he openly violated these "laws of men".

This I find extremely unlikely.

As I said before, I believe that the religious quest for the historical Jesus is somewhat pointless, or at least contradictory in terms. Yet among the traditions about Jesus there is a very old and prominent one which depicts him as a faithful Jew, fully committed to the Law (although with a somewhat original interpretation of it at times):

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I don't say that these are really Jesus' words. They reflect the belief and practice of one Jewish movement (Nazoreans) associated with him. Now what is worth considering is that they are the exact opposite of Paul's teaching, which calls for breaking free from the Law. Paul's influence, in turn, is reflected in the Hellenistic Gospel traditions (especially Mark) about Jesus as a lawbreaker.

Of course we may feel better tuned with this image of Jesus as a kind of romantic freethinker. But this is, I feel, the most unlikely possible description of any "historical Jesus".

ezekiel3

Hijackers unite! My apologies to Jew.

Ok, yes, we are having a debate on what Jesus taught even though we agree the written record about him is highly suspect. My studies of Jesus show a pattern: a person concerned with the injustice of his society - including the burden of the Law.

If you were in this spot, how would you introduce new concepts to a domatic culture? Not by stating "Your Law is bunk!" Instead you would endeavor to use the "good" points of that society to open minds, to find a common ground.

Look what Jesus does for principle versus strict Law code:

He said to him: "?You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.? This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this, ?You must love your neighbor as yourself.? On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets." Mat 22:37-40

Jews had been dumping their wifes for centuries, in accordance with the Law. Jesus added to the Law here:

He said to them: ?Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning. I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.? Mat 19:8

Stupid traditions were right out:

Why is it your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.? Mat 15:3

When it came to healing, Jesus definitely violated the Law:

So on this account the Jews went persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things during Sabbath. John 5:16

including touching lepers (Luke 5:12) and condoning contact from a woman with a flow of blood (Mark 5:25-29), both considered unclean by the Law.

This is why I call Jesus a subversive: Even though he had a revolutionary agenda, he did not make himself an enemy of Jews or the Law. What a smooth statement: "I came to fulfill the Law."

Satanus

It seems that jew has left the building.

Ezekial3

Thankyou.

Paul discovered he was Christ's messenger after he was struck blind. How appropriate.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or sarcastic

S

Proof of Jesus existance

Share this