If Christ wasn't the messiah, what was he?

[rosends]

apples and oranges. It wasn't just Peter -- if the history of Acts is correct, Jewish priests also believed. Obviously Jewish forefathers don't agree with every jot and title--it was still derived from Jewish thought.

sure, if. And if Harry Potter is correct, there is a magical train that takes you to Hogwarts. There is so much wrong with the presentation of things "derived" from Jewish ideas throughout the gospels that one has to wonder about either how ignorant the writers were or how intentionally they got it wrong.

 

[Kenny]

sure, if. And if Harry Potter is correct, there is a magical train that takes you to Hogwarts. There is so much wrong with the presentation of things "derived" from Jewish ideas throughout the gospels that one has to wonder about either how ignorant the writers were or how intentionally they got it wrong.

Nice analogy... *no*

 

[rosends]

Nice analogy... *no*

Why? A Londoner wrote the book. It must be infused with London thoughts.

 

[Kenny]

Why? A Londoner wrote the book. It must be infused with London thoughts.

And, of course, Elijah's chariot ride was was a course called "how to train your dragon" and when joined with Elisha, it was because we see the show "The lone ranger" and Tonto. Did I get the analogy right?

 

[rosends]

And, of course, Elijah's chariot ride was was a course called "how to train your dragon" and when joined with Elisha, it was because we see the show "The lone ranger" and Tonto. Did I get the analogy right?

No, but that's ok.

 

[Kenny]

No, but that's ok.

Great! It sure sounded just like yours to me.

 

[rosends]

Great! It sure sounded just like yours to me.

and just like your initial statement to me about the "Jewish Peter"! Perfect.

 

[Kenny]

and just like your initial statement to me about the "Jewish Peter"! Perfect.

He was Jewish as was Paul, John, Mark, James and Matthew. Jesus too! Potentially, the author of Hebrews was Jewish too.

 

[rosends]

He was Jewish as was Paul, John, Mark, James and Matthew. Jesus too! Potentially, the author of Hebrews was Jewish too.

And Manson was Christian. And Rowling is from London. To associate the end result (assuming you actually believe in their existence and authorship of those texts) with the background of the writer is not useful.

 

[Kenny]

And Manson was Christian. And Rowling is from London. To associate the end result (assuming you actually believe in their existence and authorship of those texts) with the background of the writer is not useful.

And Lenin had a Jewish great-grandfather and murdered millions, and Jeroboam built a golden calf as did Aaron. So? Have no idea how you are associating this with what we are talking bout.

I'm just pointing out that it had a Jewish beginning. They didn't have a "New Testament" at the beginning... they preached from the TaNaKh and then wrote the understanding after. You don't have to accept it, but it is historical in light of my signature and our Jewish authors.

 

[rosends]

And Lenin had a Jewish great-grandfather and murdered millions, and Jeroboam built a golden calf as did Aaron. So? Have no idea how you are associating this with what we are talking bout.

You assumed that because of the claim the Peter was Jewish, material he might have written necessarily was imbued with "Jewish thoughts." If you associate the thoughts with the purported background of the author, you end up with the ridiculous examples you correctly cited.

I'm just pointing out that it had a Jewish beginning. They didn't have a "New Testament" at the beginning... they preached from the TaNaKh and then wrote the understanding after. You don't have to accept it, but it is historical in light of my signature and our Jewish authors.

Or they never really studied it themselves and were easily impressed by parlor tricks.

 

[Kenny]

You assumed that because of the claim the Peter was Jewish, material he might have written necessarily was imbued with "Jewish thoughts." If you associate the thoughts with the purported background of the author, you end up with the ridiculous examples you correctly cited.

Or they never really studied it themselves and were easily impressed by parlor tricks.

Personal viewpoints - which you are welcome to have. It doesn't change what was written - it simply changes understanding by the person who is viewing it. Some Jewish people didn't believe the prophets but it didn't change what God said.

 

[metis]

IMO, this is a ridiculous discussion; like: "When I walk into a garage, do I become a car"?

IOW, one's nationally doesn't mean that they're intrinsically right or wrong on religious matters.

 

[Colt]

As the Son of God and creator incarnate, Jesus chose as his title Son of Man. Realizing he wasn't and couldn't ever be the expected Jewish Messiah, he allowed people to believe what they needed to believe in order to fulfill his incarnate mission.

 

[rubi]

The law is about knowledge of good and evil, which is the same as the symbol of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Law was connected to Satan, by the symbolism of Satan in the tree of law, which teaches us good and evil. Law was not condoned by God in paradise, since God knew law would lead to death. Law is vulnerable to human subjectivity, whereas paradise was the logical product of natural selection and integration. Look at the dual injustice system in the USA. Law is flawed and corruptible. Any good defense law will try to game the legal system. Law can even be used to serve evil; Hitler.

Satan is often symbolized as a serpent or snake. This is a cold blooded critter, like strict enforcement of law and the cold impulses that need law, to control. Jesus, as the lamb, is symbolize a gentle and warm blooded critter; love.

My earliest intuitions on this came from the book of Job. In this book, Satan is getting God to alter the fate of Job. This shows how much control Satan was given on the earth, as Lord of the Earth. This symbolism shows how law can be used to lead God; laws of man and Satan, instead of follow his lead.

This finally all made sense if you assume God was resting on the first Sabbath day, with the duration of that rest not exactly quantified; open ended duration of rest. Days in the divine realm are not the same as earth days. How does day one in creation correlate to an earth day, when the earth was not yet formed? God is often describe as light; speed of light, which to me implied Einstein's relativity and time dilation. Different time references allows science and the Bible to agree on the time scale of creation.

If you look at science times estimate for cosmology to evolution, forming the universe takes the longest; 10-15 billion years, then the sun and earth; 5 billion, then life; about 1 billion, species; 100 million, etc. This implies a relativistic change in God's time reference; slowing from the speed of light reference, until God become man; earth time. This can be modeled With connected space-time and separated space and time.

If God was on the first Sabbath rest on day seven, and the human Sabbath was an image of the Divine, God would not be working as he rested. He would need to have others doing the work. Satan, who had been Lucifer, was near the top of the divine food chain. A third of the Angels served him; Revelations. He was put in the Garden by God, in advance, since God knew would be needed for God's upcoming rest. God would be like the chairman of the Board, who heads the steering committee, but does not do work. Satan would be the CEO in charge of daily operations, based on God's work order instructions. God was in on this, but Satan was given the job to implement God's policy, as God rested; tomato or tomarto.

Satan does not lose his job until Revelations. Satan was condoned in heaven from before Genesis to Revelation. He was in charge through the time of Jesus. But eventually he loses his job, and his power is no longer divinely sanctioned; thrown from heaven to the earth.

When Satan still had all his divine power, he offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth, if Jesus would bow and serve him. This offer is where the true authority of Satan, on earth, is shown. Had Jesus accepted the offer, he would have become the Messiah that had been promised by Satan, on behalf of God. Jesus refusal to accept the offer, alters the fate of Satan; New dispensation. Satan had tried to lead the Son of God astray, from the Sabbath rest, leading to a political battle in Heaven. Satan gets the boot with 1/3 of the Angels. Satan was very powerful.

Jesus said nobody has seen the Father except the Son. This is because God was on Sabbath rest and he was not working. However, he was still interacting with his family on the Sabbath. God did not even intercede for his Son, who died for the sins imply by Law. Satan was able to get even with Jesus, but he misjudges his authority as the Son. The political battle would reach a pinnacle and Satan would be demoted. Jesus would take over as CEO.

In Revlation God starts to work again, forming a new heaven and earth.

you basically say that satan created and gave the Tanach to the people of Israel. Judaism and Christianity don't believe in it. read again my previous response.

 

[lukethethird]

If Christ wasn't the messiah, what was he?​

He's a very naughty boy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And to understand what Christ is to us now, we need to recognize that what we're discussing is an ideal, or an ideology, not a person.

So why name it like it's a person?

That message being that the divine spirit of God exists within each of us, and that is the spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity. And that if we will allow ourselves to become the embodiment of that spirit within, it will heal us and save us from ourselves

Or, we do that without invoking gods. The human spirit is a product of the human brain and is capable generating moral excellence and nobility - unless waylaid by some ism with a flawed epistemology and ethics. As Weinstein suggested, religion - or more properly, the divine command theory of Abrahamic religions - can make good people do bad.

GOD didn't create the evil. Evil was authored by an angel who wanted to usurp GOD

Who created the imp and its evil proclivities, and allowed it to express them? That's whose responsible for its behavior.

GOD created a perfect Universe and Adam and Eve were created good; however, GOD foreknew that they would be temped by Satan and fail. Foreknowledge, doesn't mean one created things to be evil

Foreknowledge that one is creating an evil entity is foreknowledge that one is creating evil. Being omniscient and omnipotent means being omni-responsible.

knowledge of good and evil was not natural

Sure it is. It was for me. It was an intuition, a moral instinct. I didn't choose it. I discovered it.

The self righteous will act good by the law, on the surface, but they still have an inner Satan subroutine, that is the consolidated dark side reflection of all our conscious good.

In neuroscience, that is known as the reptilian and mammalian mind. That Satan subroutine is a collection of urges and instincts that support survival in pre-literate man, but aren't always appropriate for civilized life.

Uninstalling the Satan subroutine is not easy.

You can't and don't. One learns to modify the urges and passions by trial and error using his intellect according to the dictates of reason and his moral intuitions. A good analogy is the horse (affective thought) and the rider (cognition). You tame the beast, not kill it. Nor would you want to. One learns to control his appetites and desires, not "uninstall" them.

All of this god and Satan talk is dispensable, and I don't see the benefit to it. It's metaphor, but potentially dangerous if believed literally. I just read a passage on another thread by a zealous theist preoccupied with Satan and atheists. I can see how that kind of thinking helps his church by keeping him dependent on it for protection from these demons, but how does that help him?

 

[Windwalker]

So why name it like it's a person?

Why speak of Wisdom as if it were a cosmic She? Why speak of "Mother Earth"? Why speak of "Father Christmas"? The answer is because it makes abstractions relatable to human experience, to speak of these "as if" they are embodied in these ideal personages.

It's using the tools of the human mind and experience of interpersonal relationships to teach and convey the meanings of these things.

Or, we do that without invoking gods.

But it is as effective historically speaking? Are these principles really being taught and communicated in modern times as in the past with these images of gods, and such? Where are those symbols today? The flag? Fireworks displays?

You see, all of those are doing the same things as statues, or the stories of gods are, but with the ideal of patriotisms instead. What do you think the Lincoln Memorial is, or the Washington Monument, if not these "gods" of old? They are all communicating truths and meanings by the same means.

It's the same tool though that have been used for ages because of how the human mind works. This is the transformative power of symbolism, over the emptiness of literalism.

The human spirit is a product of the human brain and is capable generating moral excellence and nobility - unless waylaid by some ism with a flawed epistemology and ethics. As Weinstein suggested, religion - or more properly, the divine command theory of Abrahamic religions - can make good people do bad.

And it can also make bad people do good. That's because its tools of symbolisms are powerful, and can be used to either liberate or enslave others. Both are inherent in it. But why attack the tools instead of address the root causes behind the abuse of those tools? That is the real and much more intriguing question to ask here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why speak of "Mother Earth"? Why speak of "Father Christmas"? The answer is because it makes abstractions relatable to human experience, to speak of these "as if" they are embodied in these ideal personages.

Adults seem to handle Father Christmas and Mother Earth without confusing them for actual conscious entities with threats and commands for them. Not so much with "God."

But it is as effective historically speaking? Are these principles really being taught and communicated in modern times as in the past with these images of gods, and such? Where are those symbols today? The flag? Fireworks displays?

Yes. Humanists are teaching humanist principles (reason, tolerance, empathy, human potential and empowerment, etc.) in the schools and in venues like this one, but don't tend to use symbols and certainly not myths. Symbols can be another problem like gods:

it can also make bad people do good.

Religion? Not Abrahamic religion. What Christianity can do is motivate people to perform for a god for a reward or to avoid the stick, which isn't moral behavior. It also has people giving up swear words and smiling a lot, especially on Sunday mornings, but that also isn't moral behavior, either.

Look at how Christianity deformed Mother Teresa, a natural spiritual genius who wandered into the church with that gift, and where she learned that suffering is good - a tragic attitude in a woman running hospices. The church also helped her deceive donors to these hospices and convinced her to divert those donations to the Vatican treasury rather than spend them on the suffering and dying poor.

You seem like a decent guy. I don't believe religion made you that way. You brought that to your religion like Mother Teresa did, only it hasn't corrupted you as best I can tell. Why? Probably because you don't let it, but it would if you did. Its continual influence is to promote magical thinking and submission, and it promotes bigotries in the name of loving the sinner. You're not listening. Good for you. But the credit goes to you, not any religion.

 

[Windwalker]

Adults seem to handle Father Christmas and Mother Earth without confusing them for actual conscious entities with threats and commands for them. Not so much with "God."

It depends upon which culture and time in history you are looking at. People take symbolic meanings all the time and see them as actual entities.

Take the idea of a nation state for instance. There is no such thing as a "France" outside of the meaning people assign to it. "France" is a literal fiction, and yet it has reality to it because people act "as if" it exists. It therefore become a reality, both in the world and in individual experience. "France" symbolizes something real within individuals and the collective.

Now apply that to "God". What is it people are symbolizing that is real to them in the word "God"?

Yes. Humanists are teaching humanist principles (reason, tolerance, empathy, human potential and empowerment, etc.) in the schools and in venues like this one, but don't tend to use symbols and certainly not myths.

Maybe that's why it's not as effective as you might hope it to be. Have you ever heard the phrase, "A picture paints a thousand words"? That is the power of symbols and myth over the power of words and detailed analytics.

Those don't motivate the way symbols do. Those don't move nations to pull together. Art, music, myth, symbols. Now those are exponentially more powerful in communication.

Symbols can be another problem like gods:

View attachment 81482

While I love George Carlin, I don't consider comedians to be great sources of academic knowledge.

(Also, bottom dollar he responded to certain symbolisms the same as any human does. It's programmed into our very genes).

Religion? Not Abrahamic religion. What Christianity can do is motivate people to perform for a god for a reward or to avoid the stick, which isn't moral behavior.

You cannot be fair enough to look back into history and see anything good at all that Christianity has done? And as I've pointed out many times, your experience of Christianity does not define all that Christianity is, looks, like, or has done for everyone involved in it since its very inception.

When you talk like that, that's what makes me hear cynicism rather than a reasoned and rational point of view. I'm not defending it as all good, or all bad. To me, the rational view is to see both the good and the bad and try to understand and appreciate what good it has done, while being honest and fair about the bad.

It also has people giving up swear words and smiling a lot, especially on Sunday mornings, but that also isn't moral behavior, either.

That totally depends. I try to avoid curse words as well, but because I recognize it fuels and feeds negativities in myself, which create stress, which creates being ill-at-ease, which creates, negative feedback loops. Now others may swear and call others ******** all day, and claim it has no ill-effect on them, but I personally don't believe that is true. Why are they doing it then?

So my point here is, even if the principle of not swearing may be interpreted as a rule/role sort of thing, "getting in trouble with mom or dad (God) for doing it", that just means the lesson has not been internalized yet as a good, wise principle based upon good practical reasons.

That is exactly what I am talking about with the "mythic-literal" stage of faith development. They still externalize all of it, the way young children have not yet internalize the moral reasons why not to do something. It's a stage of moral development. The problem isn't religion. They issue is they are still children morally, when they should be adults and have learned to internalize the reasons for the rules. Do you follow that here?

Read this academic view of moral development. They are still at the bottom "avoiding punishment" stage: Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

Is the issue religion isn't teaching them to grow up? Now that is a valid question to discuss with you, not this "religion bad/humanism good" reactive response to religion's shortcomings

You seem like a decent guy. I don't believe religion made you that way. You brought that to your religion like Mother Teresa did, only it hasn't corrupted you as best I can tell. Why?

Now this is a great perspective! Indeed yes. I see religion and its teachings as tools, as guidelines, as principles that can be used for good - or they can be manipulated and abused for bad. As I said in my last post, it's not religion that is the problem. It's the nature of why some use it for good, and some use it for bad.

An axe in the hand of a lumberjack is tool for good. An axe in the hand of a murder is tool for evil. I'm fond the Sufi saying, "A knife is neither good nor bad, but woe to him who grasps it by the blade!"

What I can say very briefly of my own history with religion is that, now in retrospect, it did give me some tools, some language, some symbolic forms to focus my good intentions upon or towards, that help to cultivate and make more effective that good intention that I always had. It also helps to set warnings around certain things that work against those positive goals. I am fond now of referring to these in all religions as "Wisdom traditions" They are the accumulated wisdom and warnings of many good individuals how like me have sought to find spiritual truth and liberation in their lives in this world.

The real qeustion is, what is it that makes some seek good, while others seek the bad? That is the real question I would love for you and I do disuss. Not this distraction of "religion bad/humanism good". That's not looking that the real issue at all.

Probably because you don't let it, but it would if you did. Its continual influence is to promote magical thinking and submission, and it promotes bigotries in the name of loving the sinner. You're not listening. Good for you. But the credit goes to you, not any religion.

Of course it goes to me, or anyone who choose to pursue "love, light, and truth". By the same token, the blame also goes on those who take religion and choose to use it for bad. It's not religion at fault. It's the perversions and distortions of it by those with corrupted hearts that is the problem.