My Views About Jesus

[Judgment]

Those being words penned and plagiarized decades later by apologists who arguably never met the purported source.

Plagiarized ? Strange word to use. As far as I know.. none of the authors took credit for Jesus' words as their own.

Some of his words could have been misconstrued - I am claiming no perfection of the NT - But the basic message is there.

 

[Ben Masada]

I didn't think that it had anything to do with Jesus - just pointing out that many commandments are unnecessary . Animal sacrifice is not needed at any time. What type of a God wishes animals to be sacrificed in his name? For what purpose ? There is no need to see it again.

Ben: I didn't say that God wishes animals to be sacrificed. The Jewish People wanted, and did them while the Temple was standing. And when you say that there is no need to see them again. What was the need to see them then?

You are thinking of the things done in Christianity's name - not what Jesus taught to actually do. The violence that was done was learned from the old teachings in the Torah - this was because many Christians were unable to separate the two.

Ben: So, you mean to say that the Christian attrocities were perpetrated because of the Torah? I am not sure of what you mean.

By saying that Jesus brought nothing at all new - you diminish him and you lower him from the exalted few.

Ben: He himself declared that he didn't come to abolish anything but to confirm everything as it is from the beginning.

Agree - Jesus' words are the most important - nothing else that was claimed about him.

Ben: Therefore, anything claimed about him by Paul and the gospel writers is not important or true.

Agree - We are the light of the world - but - sometimes one comes with knowledge and understanding that outshines the multitudes.

Ben: Nevertheless, it won't diminish the light of the People. The anointed is the People and not the individual. (Habakkuk 3:13)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Those being words penned and plagiarized decades later by apologists who arguably never met the purported source.

Plagiarized ? Strange word to use. As far as I know.. none of the authors took credit for Jesus' words as their own.

Would you prefer the term copied? Very well ...

Those being words penned and copied decades later by apologists who arguably never met the purported source.​

On what grounds should we assume the authenticity and accuracy of these narratives - especially given that some are clearly problematic?

 

[Judgment]

Ben: I didn't say that God wishes animals to be sacrificed. The Jewish People wanted, and did them while the Temple was standing. And when you say that there is no need to see them again. What was the need to see them then?

Is animal sacrifice not a commandment ?

There was no need to see them - that is my point.

Ben: So, you mean to say that the Christian attrocities were perpetrated because of the Torah? I am not sure of what you mean.

There is no violence in the NT. The OT is rife with it - from barbaric punishments for broken laws to extermination of villages. For the majority of Christians the NT is only an extension of the OT. Instead of living by this new religion sitting atop the ashes of the old - they kept many of the old ways.

Ben: He himself declared that he didn't come to abolish anything but to confirm everything as it is from the beginning.

He did not - it could be left as is for the people that wished to follow. He created new enlightened teachings. The overall human consciousness expanded.

Ben: Therefore, anything claimed about him by Paul and the gospel writers is not important or true.

The words are the true miracles - not any miracles claimed about him.

Ben: Nevertheless, it won't diminish the light of the People. The anointed is the People and not the individual. (Habakkuk 3:13)

I agree - the light is not diminished.

 

[Judgment]

Would you prefer the term copied? Very well ...

Those being words penned and copied decades later by apologists who arguably never met the purported source.
​

On what grounds should we assume the authenticity and accuracy of these narratives - especially given that some are clearly problematic?

On the grounds of the message itself. Is it something that rings true to your mind and your heart ?

What is it that you find problematic ?

 

[Ben Masada]

Is animal sacrifice not a commandment ?

There was no need to see them - that is my point.

Ben: You don't have to see them. That's for the Jews and not for Gentiles.

There is no violence in the NT. The OT is rife with it - from barbaric punishments for broken laws to extermination of villages. For the majority of Christians the NT is only an extension of the OT. Instead of living by this new religion sitting atop the ashes of the old - they kept many of the old ways.

Ben: There is no violence in the NT! We don't have thousands of crucifixions because the NT hides the real truth, by revealing only one as if Jesus was the
only Jew crucified by the Romans.

He did not - it could be left as is for the people that wished to follow. He created new enlightened teachings. The overall human consciousness expanded.

Ben: Why don't share with me these new enlightened teachings Jesus created that are not in the Tanach?

The words are the true miracles - not any miracles claimed about him.

Ben: Go ahead and mention some of Jesus' miraculous words.

I agree - the light is not diminished.

Ben: So, what are we talking about then?

Ben:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On the grounds of the message itself. Is it something that rings true to your mind and your heart ?

So the criteria for accuracy and authenticity is that which "rings true to your mind and your heart" ... :biglaugh:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! ​

 

[Judgment]

Ben: You don't have to see them. That's for the Jews and not for Gentiles.

They are nonsense - for any human being to undertake - at any time - in any place.

Ben: There is no violence in the NT! We don't have thousands of crucifixions because the NT hides the real truth, by revealing only one as if Jesus was the
only Jew crucified by the Romans.

I am speaking of the barbaric punishments for mundane crimes - I am speaking of God telling us to kill everything - including woman and children and infants in our path.

Ben: Why don't share with me these new enlightened teachings Jesus created that are not in the Tanach?

Jesus clearly moved away from Judaism with his teachings - but - most important is that he removed all of the violence and vengeance to be found within it's teachings. His words show none of it

God can not say to turn the other cheek in one sentence - and - then tell you to destroy woman and children and infants in the next breath - that is Judaism.

"His disciples asked and said to him :
'Do You want us to fast ? How shall we pray and give alms ? What diet shall we observe ?' Jesus said : 'Tell no lie and do not what You hate, for all things are plain in the face of Heaven. For nothing hidden will fail to be revealed, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered.'"
The Gospel of Thomas


"Jesus said : 'Damn the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat.'"
The Gospel of Thomas, 102.

"His disciples said to him : 'Is circumcision useful or not ?'
He said to them : 'If it were useful, their Father would
beget them already circumcised from their mother.
Rather, the true circumcision in spirit is in all ways useful.'"​

Gospel of Thomas, 53.

Ben: Go ahead and mention some of Jesus' miraculous words.

Jesus: If those who lead You say to You : 'See, the Kingdom is in heaven !', then the birds of the sky will be there before You. If they say to You, 'It is in the sea !', then the fish will be there before You. But the Kingdom is inside You and outside You. When You know yourselves, then You will be known, and You will know that You are the children of the Living Father. But if You do not know yourselves, then You dwell in poverty ; then You are that poverty."

Ben: So, what are we talking about then?

Jesus: "I am the Light that falls on all things. I am the All. From Me the All has gone out and to Me the All came back. Cleave a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up a stone, and You will find Me there."

 

[Judgment]

So the criteria for accuracy and authenticity is that which "rings true to your mind and your heart" ... :biglaugh:

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
​

The truth will set you free.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Yes. I have also read about hate, destruction, violence and vengeance.

I am curious, if you do not mind, as to which view you think is the more enlightened; just to be clear on where you stand.

View A: When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die (death equating to ignorance, by the way). Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

View B: A human sacrifice having taken place to cover with blood your sins that were inherited irregardless of your own deeds.

Is view A barbaric and ignorant? Is view B an enlightened view? Which has the ring of truth in your opinion and why? It is a good question and I am curious of your answer.

 

[Judgment]

I am curious, if you do not mind, as to which view you think is the more enlightened; just to be clear on where you stand.

View A: When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die (death equating to ignorance, by the way). Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

View B: A human sacrifice having taken place to cover with blood your sins that were inherited irregardless of your own deeds.

Is view A barbaric and ignorant? Is view B an enlightened view? Which has the ring of truth in your opinion and why? It is a good question and I am curious of your answer.

Neither one shall be damned.
I am not Christian - but - respect Jesus and his teachings.

A human sacrifice is barbaric at any time.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Neither one shall be damned.
I am not Christian - but - respect Jesus and his teachings.

A human sacrifice is barbaric at any time.

I am glad that you say the latter is barbaric... I quite agree with you. I will not lie. I would rather be "damned" than to try to cover my learning through experiences with someone's blood. The thought of rejoicing in such a thing never set well with me.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.


Do you know who gave the above command and, was the one in which the words originated enlightened do you think? Also how do you Love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might? Commanding someone to love seems an odd thing, no? What do you think is meant to command such a thing as Love from someone?

Would like to hear anyone's thoughts, as I find it rather a curious command myself.

 

[Judgment]

I am glad that you say the latter is barbaric... I quite agree with you. I will not lie. I would rather be "damned" than to try to cover my learning through experiences with someone's blood. The thought of rejoicing in such a thing never set well with me.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.


Do you know who gave the above command and, was the one in which the words originated enlightened do you think? Also how do you Love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might? Commanding someone to love seems an odd thing, no? What do you think is meant to command such a thing as Love from someone?

Would like to hear anyone's thoughts, as I find it rather a curious command myself.

The commandment is in Deuteronomy in the Hebrew bible. It was repeated by our friend Jesus. After Jesus repeats this - he goes on to repeat "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The words are enlightened - they mean.. the meaning of life is Love - it engulfs all things. Love God, Love your neighbors, Love your enemies.

There are many enlightened words in the OT of course - Jesus repeats many & adds his own - but - as I have said before... it's duel nature is also exposed.

Also in Deuteronomy: The death penalty is called for for conversion from Yahwism and for proselystisation. The death penalty is called for for males who are guilty of disobeying their parents, profligacy and drunkenness. Slavery is allowed. The Amalekites are to be utterly destroyed (men, women, children and infants). All nonsense - God's word should trancend human history and human laws.

More from Jesus - as he moves beyond the old teachings:
Matthew 5:43-48 (New International Version)
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[IF_u_knew]

The commandment is in Deuteronomy in the Hebrew bible. It was repeated by our friend Jesus. After Jesus repeats this - he goes on to repeat "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The words are enlightened - they mean.. the meaning of life is Love - it engulfs all things. Love God, Love your neighbors, Love your enemies.

Very cool! As far as what you have highlighted, I almost agree with you. (and I know others take a different view than myself). I do not think the command to Love is as simple as you are saying. It is much deeper than that. You can not LOVE someone unless you KNOW them. You must FIRST have knowledge of who they are and have developed a bond of trust and familiarity in order for you to gain those deeper feelings of Love that, as you say, transcends all else. Thus, the command is not given lightly and there is a profound Wisdom beyond what it is that you are seeing (what you are seeing being the words only, that is).

Now, carry that bit of knowledge over into the other things that you are reading in the Tanakh and perhaps you will get a better idea of what is so special amidst all the surface words that you are reading.

This is what Jesus was trying to show the people to whom he was sent. The message was overlooked though for the quick fix to vain pleasures, aka the deceit. Jesus simply was trying to share the very deep knowledge of what it was he saw beyond just the surface that most were reading at the time. It is gorgeous and hardly barbaric. If you see the surface only, then yes, certainly you will be turned off. But as you start to understand the Wisdom of God, you will read it through a new sight... the Word behind the words.

As far as loving your enemies.. this does not mean to lay down and let your enemies destroy those that you love. I think this is speaking of those, say for instance, who are of a different race, etc. Seeking to understand things from their perspective will actually surprise many into realizing that though they are different, sometimes those differences are born in much the same way that your differences were born. In that way, you are less apt to heap onto the often building tension that separates you from them. But again, this might be a case where I agree that it is more a matter of learning to respect your enemies rather than blindly allowing them to take advantage of you.

Well.. anyway, point is that the Tanakh is not meant for the surface reader, and certainly this was the message that Jesus had intended on teaching to others. He still does a rather good job for those who are paying attention to the message and not the image. :yes:

 

[Judgment]

Very cool! As far as what you have highlighted, I almost agree with you. (and I know others take a different view than myself). I do not think the command to Love is as simple as you are saying. It is much deeper than that. You can not LOVE someone unless you KNOW them. You must FIRST have knowledge of who they are and have developed a bond of trust and familiarity in order for you to gain those deeper feelings of Love that, as you say, transcends all else. Thus, the command is not given lightly and there is a profound Wisdom beyond what it is that you are seeing (what you are seeing being the words only, that is).

Now, carry that bit of knowledge over into the other things that you are reading in the Tanakh and perhaps you will get a better idea of what is so special amidst all the surface words that you are reading.

This is what Jesus was trying to show the people to whom he was sent. The message was overlooked though for the quick fix to vain pleasures, aka the deceit. Jesus simply was trying to share the very deep knowledge of what it was he saw beyond just the surface that most were reading at the time. It is gorgeous and hardly barbaric. If you see the surface only, then yes, certainly you will be turned off. But as you start to understand the Wisdom of God, you will read it through a new sight... the Word behind the words.

As far as loving your enemies.. this does not mean to lay down and let your enemies destroy those that you love. I think this is speaking of those, say for instance, who are of a different race, etc. Seeking to understand things from their perspective will actually surprise many into realizing that though they are different, sometimes those differences are born in much the same way that your differences were born. In that way, you are less apt to heap onto the often building tension that separates you from them. But again, this might be a case where I agree that it is more a matter of learning to respect your enemies rather than blindly allowing them to take advantage of you.

Well.. anyway, point is that the Tanakh is not meant for the surface reader, and certainly this was the message that Jesus had intended on teaching to others. He still does a rather good job for those who are paying attention to the message and not the image. :yes:

I disagree. No where does Jesus say that you must first know someone before you Love them. He does say to Love God, To Love your Neighbor and to Love your enemies. He is not speaking of the same type of love that is felt between family, that is felt between friends, that is felt between husband and wife after they have grown to know each other. He is speaking of the Love that engulfs all things - the Love of God. Re-read Matthew 5:43-48.

In no way was I saying that 'Love your enemies' meant to lay down and allow yourself to be destroyed. To 'Love your Enemies' is not a cry for sacrifice - and does not mean that you are not allowed to defend yourself.

I am no surface reader - some things just are as they sound. Please tell me what is so special and not barbaric in teachings that tell you to kill others for trying to leave Yahwism and for proselystisation - death penalty is called for males who are guilty of disobeying their parents, profligacy and drunkenness - where slavery is allowed - where the Amalekites are to be utterly destroyed (men, women, children and infants) ?

There is nothing special there - only barbaric. If you just accept everything you read there as the ultimate truth - and question nothing - your path is cluttered - the light obscured.

 

[IF_u_knew]

If you just accept everything you read there as the ultimate truth - and question nothing - your path is cluttered - the light obscured.

This was kind of my point!

As far as me being wrong about my view on the command to Love God, logically we can conclude that without knowing Him, we cannot keep the first commandment. You can *say* you love Him.. but well, would it be true if you said you loved your wife and yet knew very little of her?

 

[S-word]

MY VIEWS ABOUT JESUS

For more than several times, I have been asked to post a thread on my views about
Jesus. Well, here then is how I view Jesus: A religious Jew born with the mission to bring his People into a spiritual revival. Jesus' awakening reform is reflected in Matthew 5:17-19.

Jesus' target was to turn the nation into a State governed by Torah as the constitution of the Jewish People. He was too nationalistic though, which rather
being a virtue, would invite misreadings of his personality as we have what happened to Judas.

Although he focused on his private group of 12, he had quite a following. Between the greater multitude and the 12, he had 72 special disciples, whom he would assign certain roles in his Ministry. (Luke 10:1)

I believe his biological parents were indeed Joseph and Mary; and because of a Roman Census in the year 4 BCE, his parents had to go to Bethlehem and Jesus happened to be born. When he was 40 days old, the family returned to Nazareth. He was never in Egypt. The attempt of Matthew to take him there was to plagiarize the call of Israel from Egypt.

When he was 13, his parents brought him up to Jerusalem for his Bar Mitvah, and because he was a very gifted child, really precocious, he would indeed impress priests and Teachers of the Law with his wisdom.

From his age 13 till 30, he must have spent his life between helping his father in his Carpentry and with his cousin John the Baptist in an Essene Monastery in preparation for the Rabbinate.

At that time there were two classifications of Rabbis in Israel. Senior Rabbis who would stay in Yeshivas where students would go to, and Junior Rabbis, who opperated on an ambulant manner: Going from place to place preaching and teaching Torah.

Jesus was never more than a Junior Rabbi, as the title was never granted on widom alone but according to the time spent as such. Jesus didn't have even four years as a Rabbi.

| also believe he was married, because the Law was strict about married Rabbis. One wouldn't even start as a single Rabbi. And I believe he married Marry Magdalene because she was the one he loved and was loved by.

I believe he was crucified because among others like him who were ambulant Rabbis, they irritated the Romans, who had a policy to arrest any head of a subversive private group and put him to the cross, so that the followers would disperse. But I don't believe he died on the cross. He did survive the cross. After
40 days after his crucifixion he left Israel with his wife, Joseph of Arimathea, and probably his mother, and silence was gold for about 30 years.

When Jesus left he made sure his disciples would continue his work of Torah revival.
Then, there was never in the History of Israel a group of more missionary Jews than the Nazarenes. They organized the Sect and started making converts everywhere, even from among the Pharisees.

The Sect became know as the Way. And it grew geometrically, until Paul showed up with a strange gospel about Jesus. Not because Jesus was what Paul preached about him but because he needed him to give rise to his Church of Christianity.

Little by little and until 133 CE, the Nazarenes were absorbed, part into the Church of Paul and part into mainstream Judaism.

These then are my views about Jesus. All the Pauline paraphernalia about Jesus were only sausage fillers. Jesus was Jewish, and anything said about him that contradicts his Faith, which was Judaism, is not true.

Ben:

I believe his biological parents were indeed Joseph and Mary; and because of a Roman Census in the year 4 BCE, his parents had to go to Bethlehem and Jesus happened to be born.

Nope, Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, who had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had delivered her first son Jesus, was not his biological father. Mary the cousin of Elizabeth of the daughters of Levi, gave birth to the child Jesus who was sired by her half brother Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, who was the son of Heli, the descendant of Nathan the son of Uriah the Hittite who had married into the tribe of Levi, and Nathan was not only the step son of King David who married his mother, Bath-sheba, but also the son in law of David, which give Jesus the right to the throne of Judah.

Joseph of Arimathea from the tribe of Judah, who laid Jesus in his own family tomb that had never been used, was the first born son of Joseph the Son of Jacob, who was the step father of Jesus, and James the younger of Mary's three biologocal sons was sired by Alpheaus who is also called Cleophas, to whom Mary was married at the time of his death. Cleophas is an abbreviation of Cleopatros, which is the masculine form of Cleopatra the mother of Jesus' uncle, Philip Herod, who mysteriously disappears from the pages of history in the year of the death of Jesus.

As Isaac, who was the prototype of Jesus, who was offered up as a sacrifice by his father on the very mountain upon which jesus was offered up, was also born of a brother and sister relationship according to God's promise and to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Judgment]

This was kind of my point!

As far as me being wrong about my view on the command to Love God, logically we can conclude that without knowing Him, we cannot keep the first commandment. You can *say* you love Him.. but well, would it be true if you said you loved your wife and yet knew very little of her?

Your point is that you believe killing for mundane reasons is ok - because - it says so. Am I mistaken ?

"48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
God loves all things - be as God is. As I said - the Love for my wife is not the same exact Love as Jesus is speaking of. I Love you - yet - I do not know you.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Your point is that you believe killing for mundane reasons is ok - because - it says so. Am I mistaken ?

uhm..... :no:, that is NOT what I said. I guess it is hard to explain how I read the Tanakh. I see these things as literal, but not necessarily physical... does that help you to understand what I am saying?

"48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

God loves all things - be as God is. As I said - the Love for my wife is not the same exact Love as Jesus is speaking of. I Love you - yet - I do not know you.

Yes, I do not believe that you love me. I think you mistake respect for love. You do not even understand my views which are HIGHLY valuable to me... so, to say you love me cheapens what love really is. Just being honest. You might respect me, but I do not believe that love can exist where there is no knowledge.

Edited to clarify the first response.

 

[Judgment]

uhm..... :no:, that is NOT what I said. I guess it is hard to explain how I read the Tanakh. I see these things as literal, but not necessarily physical... does that help you to understand what I am saying?

Yes, I do not believe that you love me. I think you mistake respect for love. You do not even understand my views which are HIGHLY valuable to me... so, to say you love me cheapens what love really is. Just being honest. You might respect me, but I do not believe that love can exist where there is no knowledge.

Edited to clarify the first response.

How can these things not be physical ? These were real punishments for perceived crimes. These were not stories to teach a lesson. Thousands of people were killed - for nonsensical reasons - because of these words.

You mistake the Love that you know - for the Love that God is. When you understand God - You understand the light shines on all things - You understand that that very light - is Love.