The intent of christ

Here's the thing guys. You keep talking about all the things He said and about how He was a very wise man. But you completely neglect that He went around and said "I am God." And if He ment some sort of Oversoul or Atman, He sure did mess it up. He didn't say we are all God. He said "I am God" and spoke as though others were not God.

So what kind of wise man goes around saying that he is the unique God and that no others are like him? That he is the sole creator of all that is?

It just doesn't make any sense to say that Christ was just a wise man. There are only a few options:

1) He was a complete liar.
2) He was completely crazy.
3) He was God.
4) He didn't exist and the entire Gospel is fiction (both the claims of divinity AND the wise sayings).

 

Strawpuppy

All occam can say , he read of jesus..he wished he could have walked at his side.
Yet he ended up with this stupid parody of his life ,, called christianity.

Of priests more interested in little boys than understanding.
Of flocks more interested in comfort, than understanding.
Of thiesms more interested in justification. Than understanding.
Of religions more interested in money and power than understanding...

It seems to occam that the period from christ to now...
Is very sparcely populated by people who wish for underatnding...As christ did.

Most of THOSE ,, were scientists.
The others, were called saints.
Occam suggest that einstein,, a man of god...will one day be proclaimed a saint...for he saw the method of gods reality..it's rules..and described them to us.
One of his most striking quotes is
"god does not throw dice"
[later integrated into quantum theory by his own words]

And it seems this is a truth...Our reality is not the only one...
There are no winning throws..
All possible throws..exist. And we are but one

[The quantum theory term.."superposition"
Is anotherway of saying we are a result of ONE throw.
And all throws exist..the multiverse.]

Occam

 

Alsharad

How do you know this?

From the bible?

If the bible is truth..then he was god..if it is not then he never said he was god...

Understand?

Occam

 

"Ahhhhh"......huge sigh of relief from strawpuppy....
Occam, with you in the world it has already become a better place....
I have a theory that I cannot yet disprove no matter how hard I try....I search the forums (Hip-planet) and philosophy forums, look at super heavy leading edge knowledge sites...yet still I cannot disprove it.
My voice has not yet appeared and It is very frustrating, when something can be understood so clearly, seen so clearly, yet not shared.....It is silent within me, yet it burns inside.......
I do not mind if it is wrong, if it is, let it be so, and let us move on towards whatever wonderful truths there are yet to be discoved, for there are many wondorous things that we cannot even concieve of as yet, that are to come........

I digress,

Alshared:

I am God, I am a unique God, there are no other gods like me....I truly believe that......So there is another one like Jesus, Me......

I'ts not so absurd, in fact it is probably more true than anything else you have ever heard....

 

Yes, I understand. And that is what I am saying. You cannot say He was a wise man, for if the Bible is NOT historically accurate, then we do not know what He said at all. If the Bible cannot be trusted as a historical record, then we know nothing of Christ outside of what was written by the secular scholars (which is practically nothing in regards to His character and words). So, either the Bible, as a history book, is complete fiction or Christ lived and claimed to be God. It is either one or the other. Even then, you cannot maintain that Christ is simply a good sage. If the NT is fiction, then Christ is fiction and does not exist. If the NT is an accurate record of His words, then He claimed to be God.

Simply put, if you want to say that He did NOT claim to be God, then you cannot say ANYTHING about his teachings at all because at that point, we cannot distinguish what He said versus what He did NOT say.

You are speaking equivocally. Are you actually claiming to be the complete and entire sole intelligence that authored all of creation? Are you claiming to be of limitless power and authority which is completely contained within your being and nature. Christ wasn't talking about just being unique or being a part of God. He claimed to be the ONLY God. He claimed to be literally eternal and that no one else was. He claimed to be the God of the Old Testament. Yaweh. Elohim. Jehovah. He didn't just say that He was a part of Yaweh. He said that He and Yaweh were the same in essence and nature AND that NO ONE ELSE WAS. Is that what you are claiming?

 

I think that old testement is there to gib#ve us examples of tghe teachings of christ...teachings we shouldnt take literally but should learn from. However i do believe they actually happened..so i think the are relevant because they are there as examples. if there is harshness....it was used as an example to show the right way... he became the God of love.he does not want to hurt us. If occam has any questions, i'd be glad to help out.
roly.xxx

 

the ols testement tells us of wot we wud ahve had2 do to become righeous to god agian if jesus had not died for us!the only way in which ppl became washed of theyre sins was by the blood of an inocent animal! however,u were not pure forever it was a temporary righousness.......every thing in the old testement is telling them wot they had2 do to earn gods love....but the new testement trells us of a NEW COVENATNT!
thats teaches that nothing u cud do cud make god love u more,nothin could make him h8 u either,coz everythin that ever neededto b done was done on the corss through jesus,because of jesus we get an awesome relationship with god(if we coose to) man and god are no longer seperatd but his spirit is available to us!the ols testement is still relevant in the sense that we can learn from the examples of great leaders and ppl in the bible(who also made mistakes like us,even if theyre heart was really to follow god)
but i dnt believe however that we shud follow some of the things in the old testement,coz in those times christ was not there,and because of christ many of those things do not need to b practised today!

 

How much of the New Testament is fiction, we can never know. But we do have an inkling of what Jesus was trying to say. I "Pick-N-Mix" what I want out of the NT but then I do not claim to be a Christian, just someone who believes that Jesus was one of the greatest men to walk the earth....

Now if I remember correctly, we do know for a fact that Jesus was crucified because he said he was God (or the Son of God, in my view it is irrelevant as they are the same thing..)

If he also said, "No one can know the father except he who is from the father, and, "the only way to the father is through the son of God" (Jesus)

Well, untill proved wrong, I claim descent from God, therefore am part of God and can know him (or at least the part of me that is in him I know...for does it not say no-man can know the mind of God or comprehend his ways....

So yes, I am a God ( 1: I am part of that onmipotence) I am a unique God ( 2: There's only one and yep he's the one) There are no other God's like me (2: No i'm the only me, so there's only one part of him that is like me).....

It's all relative to your perception of God and what the concept means to you personally..

 

If we say, as Occam seems to, that the Bible is not an authoritative source, then really that turns the concept of Jesus into a blank canvass on which we can paint whatever figures we imagine.

Also, Einstien said 'I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe' - he said it to refute the then current notions of Quantum Mechanics.

 

Your method of Biblical interpretation is logically flawed. You cannot simply pick what you want to believe He said and relegate everything else to fiction. You are then interpreting the book in light of your own preconceptions. If that is the case, then everything that you read in the Bible is either superfluous or wrong. You ASSUME that Christ was a great man, and then you pull what you like out of scripture to support that. Anything else would have to be fictitious. You are failing to treat the Gospels for what they are. Historical eye-witness accounts. If you say that one part of it is fiction, then you must dismiss all of it as you no longer have any way to distinguish fact from fantasy. In other words, either Christ claimed to be God or He didn't say anything at all.

But not in the context of our discussion. You said it is not insane to claim divinity. Your claims are not the same as the claims made by Christ. Let me compare the statements.

You said: I am a God ( 1: I am part of that onmipotence).
Christ said: I am THE ONLY God. I have all divine authority. The completeness and wholeness of ominpotence dwells within my nature and essence.

You said: I am a unique God ( 2: There's only one and yep he's the one).
Christ said: I am eternally distinct from all other beings. No one that has come before or since is ontologically like me. The difference between me and other all men is infinite in scope.

You said: There are no other God's like me (2: No i'm the only me, so there's only one part of him that is like me).
Christ said: There are NO OTHER GODS AT ALL.

Here is the big difference. Christ claimed to be God to everyone. His claims were far brasher than your claims. He didn't claim to be a part of some grand deity. He claimed that the entirety and wholeness of God was contained in His own being. And here's the kicker, He claimed it to a group of men that He knew would kill Him for it. So, either He believed His claims or He didn't. If He didn't, then He was a liar, if He did, then He was either crazy or God.

Oh yeah, and you can't pull the "they just didn't understand" line of thought. Christ had multiple opportunities to explain His words. They would still be seen as blasphemous, but He would have corrected His critics and His followers on the nature of God. He didn't. He AGREED with the Pharisees regarding God's nature and essence, then He claimed to be one with it. That either makes Him a VERY poor teacher, possibly the worst in all history (since EVERYONE misunderstood Him for hundreds if not thousands of years) or He knew exactly what He was saying and either believed it or didn't (see above paragraph).

 

Strawpuppy

Occam would dearly love to hear your theory..

Occam

 

Alsharad

So is the bible accurate?

If it is...Occam is wrong...so what ,, you always thought he was.
But then ,,, christianity is false....

If it is not...and christianity is true...
Then occam will burn in hell for no reason..A thing YOU must justify to
yourself...
Occam wishes NO HUMAN, to suffer for the beliefs of others...

Yet you accept that occam will suffer ,, for what?
YOUR BELIEFS?
Because he trusts his method above the non-method of religion

If he has faith..he abondons reason.
If he has reason..he has no faith...
Both are given by your god...

Which path should occam take...?

Your god offers NO CHOICE at all. Occam must blindly accept...
Or be tortured...

Is that not a dictatorship?

Occam

 

"historical eye-witness accounts" is almost certainly something that the gospels are not...

even as they were being written, there were "hidden agendas" within them...
and biblical scholarship folks can identify for what audience (and with what biases) the various gospels (& epistles) were written...
and the "face" of jesus as revealed in the textsc altered as the decades rolled on...
(& as for "pick-n-choose" as regards translations, editings, & eventually choosing as canonical, these bits of holy writ, even in the first couple/few centuries of the common era... well, there was "a whole lotta shakin' goin' on"...)

~

and as i have suggested elsewhere, the expectations of judeans & galileans as to the nature of the "messiah" ended up being quite different from the gentile expectations for the "christ"...



ymmv...

 

As a historical document? Yes. By that I mean that the New Testament that we have now has been accurately transmitted through the ages. So, if there is error or fabrication, it is the author of the autograph that made the mistake, or lied. So, if the book is lying about Christ, then it was the original author who lied, not some Church father 250 years later. I believe this because the New Testament is the most well attested to ancient document in existence. There is more manuscript evidence for the New Testament then there is for Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Tacitus combined. If you throw out the New Testament as being accurately transmitted to us, then you have to throw out all ancient history for the West and the Near East.

No, Occam, you would burn for a reason. That reason is that you refuse to accept that you (and everyone else in existence) are simply too unholy to abide God's presence. If you accept that, and then ask God to give you His holiness, He will, and then you can remain with God. If you refuse and choose to try and stand up to God's standard by your own merit, then God, when you fail to measure up, allows you to recieve the wages for your deeds.

No, a dictator would force you to accept or simply torture you. But you are using a straw man here. It is a false dichotomy. We have gone over this before, but until you move past the presupposition (and it IS a presupposition) that Reason and Faith are incompatible, you simply will not understand. Try this: Is is POSSIBLE that Faith and Reason are congruous? If not, why not?

Sure they are. If they have not been accurately transmitted to us, then we can no longer trust any ancient document. If they HAVE, then we know that either the authors are mistaken, they are lying, or they wrote down what they experience accurately.

Of course they had agendas. They had different audiences. What kind of author doesn't write for his audience? That doesnt' mean that they had "hidden agendas," nor does it mean they were particularly biased in a contradictory fashion. I am biased against me eating seafood (I hate seafood), does that mean that I cannot accurately write a book on the preparation and serving of seafood dishes?

Really? How?

There was dispute as to whether some NT books were canonical, but there was NEVER a question regarding the Gospels. They were considered Inspired Scripture from day one. And the gospels are what are important in this discussion. Did Christ actually say what He allegedly said? So far, the evidence is that He did.

Here's a thought, if He didn't claim to be God, then why was He crucified?

 

How was it insulting. Occam said that Jesus was a great man.

He did not say anything slanderous about Jesus, he just didn't say that Jesus was God.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

Can you call yourself sane if you don't know what madness is?

 

Hehe just some food for thought, Absolute power corrupts absolutely... Christianity's god has absolute power no? Therefore...

 

Adam had that breathe of God in his lungs. So do you. What is the soul, if it is God.

Have you never experienced entheusiasm (which means God in us).

If we are not forms of God then what are we? There is absolutely nothing that is not God, because God is all. This does include us.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

I agree with that, as a brief summary of a point i could of ranted for ages about.

It has to be said that the story of Jesus has been told by different cultures before and after his supposed time of life - it is a code that relates to dozens of other 'diety-incarnates'. The bible is based on a pagan worshipping of Nature, with The Sun, as The Son. There is something called Christ or Krishna Consciousness, and it will come to those who create and promote positive energy, in comparison to negative energy. Light instead of Dark. Good instead of Evil. That was Jesus's message, and it has just been painted over and lacquered with so much crap, and essentially ignored, that it is barely recognisable.

It is about opening the God within each of us, about fulfilling our potential, that we should be concerned with. That's a point I'd like to clear up about Satanism; one of the ideals behind taht is exactly what i just said, that each person is it's own god, and should try to further its self and purpose. And what should be your purpose? Godhood, Oneness, purity in mind body and spirit, crystalline form, evolution, a free and perfect world. Maybe one or all of those.

 

Thereby calling Jesus a liar. Kind of insulting, don't you think? Wouldn't you be insulted if someone called you a liar?

I think you meant "what is the soul if it is NOT God." If I am wrong, could you please explain what you meant?

Yes I have, but the word describes a feeling, few people would believe it literally means that God reaches down and touches us in a literal fashion.

Reflections. We are as much like God as a reflection in a mirror is like us. There are some similarities, but in reality the reflection is nothing compared to the real thing.

How do you draw this conclusion? What logical steps did you take? By the way, if an artist paints a picture is he "in" the picture? Yes, in the sense that the picture reflects attitudes, the talent, and the discipline of the artist, but the artist is not literally "IN" the painting in the way that I am in my house. Just because God made everything doesn't mean that God is "in" everything in the way that you seem to mean. A tree reflects God's talent and genius, but it doesn't follow logically that God because God made it, He must, therefore be residing in the tree.

There are similarities, but that has no bearing on whether or not Jesus Christ actually existed and said the things that He said. You seem to be implying that the authors borrowed from other cultures. If that is the case, you have no proof. You have only circumstantial evidence. And it is weak "evidence" at that.

How do you know that was Jesus' message? What evidence do you have that it has been painted over? As far as we can tell, the gospels have been accurately transmitted to us. We have records of what Christ said. You either have to dismiss them all as fiction or accept them all as fact. If it is all fiction, then Christ is a nobody and all Christianity is a sham. If it is fact, then Christ was either crazy, a complete liar or God. No matter what you say, you cannot escape the fact that Christ cannot be considered "just" a good man. Let me recap:

Every one of Christ's sayings is either fictitious or real.
If even one saying is fictitious, then all must be regarded as fictitious as there is no way to separate actual quotes from fictitious ones.
If they are all fictitious, then we know nothing of what He actually said and He can no longer be held as a great man (since we really don't know what He taught or did, etc.)
If the sayings are real, then Christ either believed what He said or He didn't.
Christ claimed to be the whole, complete, sole God and Creator of the universe.
If He did not believe it, then He is possibly the most vile liar in all of history. In any case, He should not be regarded as a great man (unless you are counting Him as a great evil).
If He did believe it, then he was either crazy or God.
If He was insane, He would not really be considered a great man, as He did nothing on purpose. His great teachings would be the result of accident and chance. He just got lucky.
If He does not fit any pattern of insanity known and did not exhibit the signs of delusion or megalomania, then it is doubtful He was insane.
If He was not insane, He must be God.
God is not "just" a good man, He would be much greater than any man.

So, any way you slice it, Jesus cannot be a good, or even a great man. He is either much less or much more.