I disagree, I think dodging a question or bagging on someone for asking it as a way of changing the subject is as dishonest as lying.
All historic testimony is questionable. As far as Josephous go's; One refers to the trial of James the brother of Jesus. So far I've seen more scholars who accept it as gueniune than not. The other is supposed to be a reference to Jesus himself. Most scholars think that it's guenuine but all (even christian scholars) agree that it was worked over by a pro-christian editor at some point. if you read an accurate trans. you can see for yourself that it was written by 2 different people with 2 different veiws, which suggests two things: 1) The church didn't have any reservations about fudging the facts in their favor. 2) It probably was taken from a legitamate quote, otherwise why not just start from scratch and make the whole thing up? Of course if you talk to a christian scholar they'll tell you one thing, if you talk to an anti-christian scholar they'll tell you something else but there are scholars who care more about history than theology. I think it's the job of the reader to figure out who they are. Personally I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, I just want to see what all the evidence adds up to.
Surely they would view Jesus as they view every human being? IE. as equal, no greater/worse than anything/anyone else.
I dont know if it will fit but... Jesus is considered in Catholisism and most of Churches (or sects) as being the One announced in the whole monotheism Many Prophets came and revealed Words None of them created their "own" Church Humans usually after them did, In history there has been something going wrong, Humans seperated in so Global Churches we call religions For something like 2000 years ago We humans make a big mistake But Who send Them? You worship our Prophets when we should look at "what" is responsible for Them So Jews did not recognized Jesus, nor Muhammad, peace be upon them So Christians, as worshipping the "final Prophet" in a word the Christ, did not recognized Muhammad I see that as a major problem before considering what the question of the thread was The message is constanly being sent but it looks like we do not want to listen We are facing consequences and still creating new situations Buddhism teaches us how to overflow the causes and stop something like the Wheel of Karma But it doesn't exactly answer the same question that monotheism does It is just as if we (monotheists cultures) were looking at a point which is, I think a bit after in logic the point where Buddhism is looking We wonder why we are They wonder how to be (buddhists) Muhammad taught us we should not wonder why and try to know more about Him, The Creator Looks like we close from It What one worship will definitly wont be the point Humans will look at Believe or not. Being Buddhist is for some Buddhist not belief, I mean they do not need to believe because they know, and they dont need to worship anything or anybody in the sens we monotheist think the word worship It's practical, and made by anyone at anytime I dont know if I am getting somewhere, Just to say we should all consider that there is no differences between those who choose to worship or believe in, it's not facts, in the sense it is belief ,
Prophet, Masters Religions, sects Question of meaning you give to the word you use If I have to answer about Jesus especially, because NaykidApe told me to not change subject I would say that nothing stopped or started when Jesus came, but we human settled our years on his coming We want to own something that is free and continuous, we stupid That is answering the question?
There are records of high level churchmen (popes, cardinals) saying things about how it's ok to lie if it furthers their cause, and that they've profited greatly by lying about the Word. And God knows they have. This makes the whole thing seem fishy to me, and makes it really hard to let the evidence speak for itself, since it's been tampered with. But since I'm not a Christian, I don't have to worry whether a specific historical event occurred; Christianity is one of the only religions based on a set historical events, so this would concern them and their beliefs. But not mine. If Jesus never lived, so what? Still an interesting life, and the meanings and messages are still relevant. Historically set salvation may not be available, but I don't need that anyways.
A cpl good points spiritforces. The one I underlined is another thing that the Buddha and Jesus had in common (according to my limited and inperfect knowledge of history): Jesus was born at a time when Judiasim had become so steeped in tradition and ritual that some of the message had become lost and worship had become something you basically paid someone else to do for you. Jesus's teaching focused on getting past all the dogma and having a personal relationship with God as the Father. Buddha was born at a time when Hinduism had become steeped in tradition and ritual etc, etc,.. and The buddha's teaching outlined a path each person could take to achieve personal enlightenment. The message of both was get out of the church and experience the creative power of the universe yourself. and of course in both cases people took their teachings and built a church around them where the message became buried under tradition, ritual, dogma....
We humans are silly creatures, eh? Though to be fair, Jesus did send out the Apostles to preach the word, sort of building a church, and the Buddha did set up the shanga. Still, I think each had in mind community and spreading the message (which you have in italics above), rather than burying it in traditions (new ones though!).
WHat I would like to underline in " In history there has been something going wrong, Humans seperated in so Global Churches we call religions For something like 2000 years ago We humans make a big mistake" was that we on earth hosted 2 major prophets last two tausend years and we so "stupid" it resulted in 3 Monotheism So yes we are silly creatures
I believe in Jesus as a man. Son of god?? who knows, who cares. In my opinion he was a decent enough guy.
naykid youre still a hobo? id like you to come stay with me. i just want to know are you a sloppy hobo? i also dont like killer hobos.
If one, any of us, were to be faced with the direct choice, "die if you do what is good and correct" would you "do what is good and correct" ? The statement "good and correct" tends to create internal and external contention by it's nature because it "speaks to the heart". And if it is really the case that the answer is "yes", and knowing that this choice is really faced at each moment but in a "hidden manner", you would be "bearing your cross"; you would be, manifest, one with nature; one with God; one with "the Father". Jesus: Self realized human being; access to all the potential capablity given by nature, by "the Father"; one with God; one with "the Father". Same type human being with similar mission today would experience a similar result; consider this in "light" of the disscussions about the nature of humanity in this thread. .
John:10:30: I and my Father are one. John: Chapter 1. 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2: The same was in the beginning with God. 3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4: In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5: And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7: The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8: He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9: That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10: He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11: He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15: John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. Those are the bible verses that link Jesus and the Father(God) as being one and the same. For those that said it wasnt there.
Jesus is one with the father, as you or I are one with the father, which is why Jesus praises the father: Matthew 11:25 "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." and says this: matthew 20:23 "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father" and prays to our Father here: matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." For God acts through creation, all creation is part of what God does. The creation and God are one, even those parts of creation which do not percieve that they are one with the Father.
Thanks for the offer colours but I'm in the Killer Hobo's Union local #420 (they have a better pension plan). Hey Naturefreak, my favorite theory about the gospel of John is that it was written as anti-gnostic propaganda, ie a reponse to the growing popularity of the thomas gospel. 1. The Gospel of John was written around the end of the first cent. by that time there had already developed a schism in the church between those who believed in the unique Godhood of "Jesus" and those who believed we all have the potential to become like him. 2. It's the first major example of "christains" focusing on the messenger instead of the message, as if it's only purpose was to put forth the claim of christs divinity, something the first 3 gospels (which were written decades earlier) didn't do. The whole idea of the Thomas gospel was that we could become like christ. The gospel of John makes it clear that christ was something we could never be. 3. It's the only gospel that badmouths Thomas, and it do's that 3 times--in direct contradiction to the other 3 gospels. 4. Thomas is almost all message, John is almost all mythos. It's almost as if John was written specifically to get people to stop reading Thomas. 5. Just for the hell of it go and read the writings of Philo of Alexandria (writ. circa 40 AD) and then go back and read John again (circa 90-110 AD), tell me what the similarities suggest to you.
