Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[JoStories]

really?
and what pray tell is deeper than God?

See Genesis....and darkness was upon the face of the deep....

God went First.

Someone had to be First.

IMO, a deeper and more profound understanding of God. What does God being first have to do with this?

 

[JoStories]

The stuff that has been attributed to Paul has been determined to be later additions to Paul. If Paul were "all about the rules," why would he have said what he did about love being the Law?

I know that those things were added dear one. However, that, IMO, proves my point. It is about control and rules. Whether he wrote these things or not is beside the point really, IMO. And love being the law? That, too, shows me that if one loves the law, they would adhere to it. Now, I think I should admit that I am very clearly biased against this faith. And I am quite sure it shows.

 

[JoStories]

Exegesis doesn't assume that the texts are historically accurate. Exegesis uses historical criticism to determine the historical veracity of what's written.

Only when we know what's actually written, and the accuracy of it, and the reasons for the inaccuracies (all of which is included in the process of exegesis) can we construct theologies that make sense.

Yes, I know that. Its interesting that you bring that up as I wrote an essay on how using exegesis through the guise of criticism actually does work toward proving historical accuracy. It was my opinion of course, and one the prof did not agree with but he had to give me credit for a sound and cogent argument. As for theology making sense, isn't that stretching things a bit? What I mean is that theology is based on faith and faith does not lend itself well to accuracy. How does one accurately prove God, for example? Or that Jesus was divine?

 

[JoStories]

When was hyperbole ever a capital offense?

Well, its a darn good thing its not, non?

 

[JoStories]

Only one overall situation has been thus far. A book which contained an accurate overview would not be seen to be accurate by the entire world. People in the world are born essentially ignorant, do not initially have the knowledge and experience necessary to know the truth, are taught and accept incomplete and/or incorrect ideas, etc......

Even a complete lie is based on -and is an inaccurate description of -the truth.

It is true that even a completely accurate quote of the truth from a perfect being would still be heard or read by imperfect beings -and could then be misunderstood -the misunderstanding passed on, etc...

It is also true that humans communicate in imperfect languages built upon incomplete understanding of the universal truth -and so are inherently prone to allowing misunderstanding -and any truth written or spoken in those languages would also be.

God did not actually write the bible -that is true. However, that is not the same as saying some things written in the bible are not direct quotes of truth from God (or others who knew the truth) -who intended that they be written by men, and were expressed to them and written by them in their imperfect languages -and were then subject to misunderstanding, incorrect translation, alteration, etc....

Also -as humans know -much care must be taken in the revealing of facts/truths (when, where, how, to whom at what point, etc.) in order to create the best possible outcome.

Some bible verses on the subject....

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Forgive me, but this seems to be simply stating that a book written by men, flawed men hampered by language, etc, is still the truth because of humankind being prone to not being able to understand said book. Yet men wrote it. Tap dancing around that fact does not diminish that fact. Backing your premise up with verses from that same book does not, IMO, bolster your argument. It points to the fact that men knew that what they were writing was 'above the capacity of the average Joe' to understand and therefore, they wrote that into the book. Self fulfilling prophecy, IOW. I agree that no sacred text of any religion can be understood at face value and most require lifelong study and introspection. However, that said, it does not change the fact that those books were written by men. Perhaps inspired men, but men nonetheless.

 

[JoStories]

Please do I did

Jesus seminar posted it.

Its wonderful and I do thank you love. Kiss kiss darling.

 

[Thief]

I think everything Jesus said is ridiculers, when heard through the ego, and hence the many wars and arguing over what he said.

so do the words and their meaning shift properly when you drop the ego?

some here could learn to do it.....maybe...

 

[Etritonakin]

Forgive me, but this seems to be simply stating that a book written by men, flawed men hampered by language, etc, is still the truth because of humankind being prone to not being able to understand said book. Yet men wrote it. Tap dancing around that fact does not diminish that fact. Backing your premise up with verses from that same book does not, IMO, bolster your argument. It points to the fact that men knew that what they were writing was 'above the capacity of the average Joe' to understand and therefore, they wrote that into the book. Self fulfilling prophecy, IOW. I agree that no sacred text of any religion can be understood at face value and most require lifelong study and introspection. However, that said, it does not change the fact that those books were written by men. Perhaps inspired men, but men nonetheless.

You are certainly able to have your own perceptions and go forth with them.

 

[sojourner]

I know that those things were added dear one. However, that, IMO, proves my point. It is about control and rules. Whether he wrote these things or not is beside the point really, IMO. And love being the law? That, too, shows me that if one loves the law, they would adhere to it. Now, I think I should admit that I am very clearly biased against this faith. And I am quite sure it shows.

However, it was not about "control" in the beginning, as we were discussing. And what Paul meant about love was that love takes precedence over lawkeeping -- that the Law should be a way of showing love -- not judgment or control.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I know that. Its interesting that you bring that up as I wrote an essay on how using exegesis through the guise of criticism actually does work toward proving historical accuracy. It was my opinion of course, and one the prof did not agree with but he had to give me credit for a sound and cogent argument. As for theology making sense, isn't that stretching things a bit? What I mean is that theology is based on faith and faith does not lend itself well to accuracy. How does one accurately prove God, for example? Or that Jesus was divine?

Theology doesn't seek to "prove" anything. It only seeks to describe meaning of things. Theology makes sense when it provides meaning that is consistent with the bible and the rest of the Tradition -- and when that meaning is cogent to the human condition in the world.

 

[psychoslice]

so do the words and their meaning shift properly when you drop the ego?

some here could learn to do it.....maybe...

Well of course, its either we see what is said through the carnal mind or through the Christ mind, this is why Jesus spoke in parables, those who weren't ready only understood the story as a story, but those who were like gunpowder, ignited when hearing the words, and those who were like green wood took a lot longer to realize what was being said.

 

[JoStories]

However, it was not about "control" in the beginning, as we were discussing. And what Paul meant about love was that love takes precedence over lawkeeping -- that the Law should be a way of showing love -- not judgment or control.

I can see your point here but I continue to disagree. I don't see anything that Paul wrote being about love. I see it being about control, particularly of women. I see him trying to place women in a lower caste. Almost like the caste system of Hindi people of old, and even some today. Women were to be silent, were to obey and essentially be chattel. How is that about love?

 

[JoStories]

You are certainly able to have your own perceptions and go forth with them.

Its not just my perception however. Most theologians would tend to agree with me on this. Leaving out Christian apologists of course. IMO, in order to view and understand sacred texts of any faith, and the faith itself, one must set aside bias in the form of having faith ones' self. I have to do that with my own faith in God.

 

[JoStories]

Theology doesn't seek to "prove" anything. It only seeks to describe meaning of things. Theology makes sense when it provides meaning that is consistent with the bible and the rest of the Tradition -- and when that meaning is cogent to the human condition in the world.

Agreed but that was what I was trying to do you see. Provide meaning through the understanding of historical accuracy. Perhaps I was not clear on that point. Do you disagree that historical accuracy of a text does not provide meaning to any discussion of theology? If one takes the Bible, for example, and studies it in terms of accuracy, does that not affect the meaning contained therein?

 

[sojourner]

Agreed but that was what I was trying to do you see. Provide meaning through the understanding of historical accuracy. Perhaps I was not clear on that point. Do you disagree that historical accuracy of a text does not provide meaning to any discussion of theology? If one takes the Bible, for example, and studies it in terms of accuracy, does that not affect the meaning contained therein?

I think that the historical accuracy of the text affects how we read the text accurately to arrive at a viable interpretation. But a word of caution: historical validity isn't primarily important in the formulation of a theological construct. The theologican is looking for and dealing mostly with mythic constructs, not historic constructs. Knowing the historical accuracy can help in that process, but does not largely overshadow that process.

 

[JoStories]

I think that the historical accuracy of the text affects how we read the text accurately to arrive at a viable interpretation. But a word of caution: historical validity isn't primarily important in the formulation of a theological construct. The theologican is looking for and dealing mostly with mythic constructs, not historic constructs. Knowing the historical accuracy can help in that process, but does not largely overshadow that process.

Of course I agree however, my dissertation required many chapters on the history of mysticism before I ever got to speaking about the commonalities between the various faiths when it came to mystic experiences. Almost all of my various essays or papers had to have a part of it which dealt with history, in one form or another. For example, the import of language or culture as it pertains to a particular topic. For example, looking at what Josephus added to the story of Jesus must include historical influence and a bit about the who of who Josephus was. Does this explain my view any better?

 

[rusra02]

Jesus made wrong statements like he is son of god and the unfaithful will go to hell. Tell me who is not a son of god? How can a son of god go to hell for eternity? I have heard these ridiculous statements from christians. My question is why do we need such a religion based on blackmailing?

I believe the Bible teaches that our first parent Adam was a son of God.(Luke 3:38) Because he rebelled against God, Adam lost that relationship and so did his offspring. Of those who rebel against him, the true God says; "They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own." ( Deuteronomy 32:5) Jesus explained that God sent him to undo the harm Adam caused the human family. (John 3:16)
The Bible does not teach Jehovah torments people forever. That scurrilous doctrine, along with the unscriptural teaching that the true God is a trinity, are actually pagan teachings grafted into an apostate church sometime after the death of Jesus apostles, IMO.

 

[sojourner]

Of course I agree however, my dissertation required many chapters on the history of mysticism before I ever got to speaking about the commonalities between the various faiths when it came to mystic experiences. Almost all of my various essays or papers had to have a part of it which dealt with history, in one form or another. For example, the import of language or culture as it pertains to a particular topic. For example, looking at what Josephus added to the story of Jesus must include historical influence and a bit about the who of who Josephus was. Does this explain my view any better?

In that case, I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[Thanda]

Sorry for the delayed response: It's exam time this side

1. In general, I agree with you that the older someone is, the harder it is to teach them, however, some can and do learn. But where it pertains to one lifetime V the next, that does not work that way. Each life is unique and one does not impact another, save that one evolves over time. Here is a wonderful article written by His Holiness, the Dali Lama, on the topic. http://www.dalailama.com/messages/s...nzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation.

First I must admit to knowing absolutely nothing about Buddhism going into our conversation (besides Monks and Reincarnation). So if I ask a lot of questions please forgive me.

1. You say one life does not impact upon another - so what is Karma?

2. In connection with point 1, what is a mind stream?

From what I read in the words of the Dalai Lama, it appears he appears to believe (as is logical to me) that both good and evil character traits follow a person from one life to the next. It also appears to me that he at least contemplates the possibility that some might stay in this rebirth cycle forever if they do not repent (i.e. if they don't follow the path that leads to enlightenment). See the paragraph below quoted from the page you linked to:

"There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel."​

And as I said earlier, this merry go round that someone is subjected to so long as they do not come to the path of enlightenment can itself be described as a hell. We often speak of people who are damned in hell. But in my religion's theology the word damned doesn't denote an artificial punishment that God meets out to people who refuse to listen to him. Rather the word is used to mean a lack of progression and a consequential loss of opportunity and blessings. This lack of progression is the natural result of refusing to follow the light. It is the natural consequence of choosing to remain in the dark. Just as Karma and involuntary rebirth is a natural consequence of not following the path of enlightenment and not an artificial punishment imposed by the Supreme Being.

My understanding of the universe and the spiritual realm rests on two pillars. Firstly that there are objective, universal truths that define good and evil. Secondly that the power to choose (between good and evil) is a basic right even God himself would never take from us. The implication of this is that God is not responsible for the consequences of our poor choices. Thus if we reject him and choose a path that leads to unhappiness, it doesn't somehow make Him a bad person if we find ourselves in an unhappy place with other unhappy people (i.e. hell).

​

 

[Muffled]

The whole "Jesus is God" thing makes zero sense to me. In the garden, why would Jesus pray to himself?

I believe that is the body speaking. It does not like pain or death. Jesus is both God and physical body and as usual God overrules the body and requires it to be in harmony with the will of God.