Why didn't jesus write the new testement (page 5)

purplesofa

There's a light at the end of that book

dang I hope so!!!!!

Satanus

Willy

He didn't make his one purpose for coming here very clear, nor what it meant. It took saul of tarsus to do that. Why was that?

S

Satanus

Jst2laws

If one is expecting Jesus to start a religion, he did a terrible job. If you expect his teachings to only lead us to a way of connecting to the Essence of all things (he called "father"), he did all he could do considering his audience.

Agreed.

It doesn't matter that he wrote nothing. If he had written anything his writings would have been venerated, interpreted and analyzed more than the writings of later Christian writers such as Paul.

And it was wrong to venerate the rest of the bible.

Every inspired spiritual leader, if his insight is recognized, is turned into a god and his teachings are embellished by generations of followers of followers.

And so it happened.

This sad development does not change the fact that Jesus, whether the man or the teaching (at least the teaching existed) was a great message.

The message comes through only vaguely.

Jesus spoke of a new concept; only the two laws of love, forgiveness and becoming "one with God". This is the "Way" or the "Tao" of that the man Jesus taught.

Can't knock that.

It's bad enough that this "way" became a religious institution at the hands of his less inspired followers. It would have been worse if he had laid out rules and dogma AS IF he INTENDED to start a religion.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the nature of jesus, supposedly the only godman, logos, only son etc was misunderstood. Maybe we all have what he had, only hidden. That makes us equal to him. At any rate, pauls writings were intended exactly for the founding of a religion. He went against the intentions of the one he was claiming to promote, doing his utmost to muddy the water of his message. S

Narkissos

The main force of the "wisdom sayings," among all the teachings ascribed to Jesus, is that they depend neither on the authority of the speaker (being or not being Jesus' words doesn't add anything, or cut anything off, their value) nor on any objective truth (or imaginary belief). It's all hear, do and see. Actually it doesn't matter where such words come from; they are older than any religion and can survive it.

Satanus

Narkissos

Yes. In words ascribed to jesus are what leibnez and auldous huxley termed the perennial philosophy, that which is experienced by mystics irrespective of their religions of origin. From http://mythosandlogos.com/perennial.html , here are some quotes:

Though he may not be able to describe it in words, though he may not be able to logically demonstrate its validity, to the mystic his experience is fully and absolutely valid and is surrounded with complete certainty. He has been 'there,' he has 'seen,' he 'knows.'

To speak more generally, mysticism has its fount in what is the raw material of all religion and is also the inspiration of much of philosophy, poetry, art, and music, a consciousness of a beyond, of something which, though it is interwoven with it, is not of the external world of material phenomena, of an unseen over and above the seen. In the developed mystic this consciousness is present in an intense and highly specialized form.

Not only have mystics been found in all ages, in all parts of the world and in all religious systems, but also mysticism has manifested itself in similar or identical forms wherever the mystical consciousness has been present. Because of this it has sometimes been called the Perennial Philosophy. Out of their experience and their reflection on it have come the following assertions:
1. This phenomenal world of matter and individual consciousness is only a partial reality and is the manifestation of a Divine Ground in which all partial realities have their being.
2. It is of the nature of man that not only can he have knowledge of this Divine Ground by inference, but also he can realize it by direct intuition, superior to discursive reason, in which the knower is in some way united with the known.
3. The nature of man is not a single but a dual one. He has not one but two selves, the phenomenal ego, of which he is chiefly conscious and which he tends to regard as his true self, and a non-phenomenal, eternal self, an inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within him, which is his true self. It is possible for a man, if he so desires and is prepared to make the necessary effort, to identify himself with his true self and so with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature.
4. It is the chief end of man's earthly existence to discover and identify himself with his true self. By doing so, he will come to an intuitive knowledge of the Divine Ground and so apprehend Truth as it really is, and not as to our limited human perceptions it appears to be. Not only that, he will enter into a state of being which has been given different names, eternal life, salvation, enlightenment, etc.
Further, the Perennial Philosophy rests on two fundamental convictions:
1. Though it may be to a great extent atrophied and exist only potentially in most men, men possess an organ or faculty which is capable of discerning spiritual truth, and, in its own spheres, this faculty is as much to be relied on as are other organs of sensation in theirs.
2. In order to be able to discern spiritual truth men must in their essential nature be spiritual; in order to know That which they call God, they must be, in some way, partakers of the divine nature; potentially at least there must be some kinship between God and the human soul. Man is not a creature set over against God. He participates in the divine life; he is, in a real sense, 'united' with God in his essential nature,

This preexisted jesus.

S

jst2laws

Narkissos,

That's it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if historians are correct in concluding Jesus never existed.

Satanus,

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe the nature of Jesus, supposedly the only godman, logos, only son etc was misunderstood.

Unfortunately, he was NOT the "only godman, logos, only son". Those pre-existing myths applied to Jesus also call into question legitimacy of the orthodox view.

Maybe we all have what he had, only hidden. That makes us equal to him.

I think that was what he was trying to tell us. He insisted he was a "son of man", yet a "son of God" and we were all 'children of God'. He did not claim what John and Paul attributed to him, exclusive divinity. In fact, if we can read only the gospels (liberally, as accounts of men and without the clouding of dogma from the christian institutional thinking) you see a mystic performing allusions and spreading the perennial philosophy about a reality beyond this material world. Like Buddha, his followers lost the original meaning and established a religion to preserve their movement. What do you think? Jst2laws

minimus

He was too busy performing miracles and his secretary was on vacation.

Satanus

What do you think?

I agree (not dogmatically). Makes total sense, yes.

S

willy_think

He didn't make his one purpose for coming here very clear, nor what it meant. It took saul of tarsus to do that. Why was that?

I don't know what you are on about, It is clear. What is confusing you? What do u believe you need to understand for his sacrifice to have an effect?

Nosferatu

Personally, I don't blame Jesus for not writing a damn thing. He came from a planet where they knew how to use artificial insemination and built spacecrafts that would hover over the barn he was born in. When you've got a better means to write things down (whether it be a laptop or telepathy) why the hell would you want to go back to chiseling rock?

Of course, that's assuming Jesus knew of these things when he was artificially inseminated into Mary.

However, even if he didn't know of these things, he probably just wanted to get the hell off earth and go where technology was more advanced, and there were others like him. Why would he care to write anything down if he just wanted to get the hell off earth?

And all of this is conditional on the story being true or a nice bedtime story.

Why didn't jesus write the new testement

Share this