The Penalty For Blaphemy

[Lycorth]

If the Crucified doesn't mean anything to you His death will seem like no big deal. It's like a newspaper headline. You read about it one day and the next day you forget.

 

I can understand why you would shrug your shoulders and say, "Yeah....so?"

 

Now when it's personal to you, like the death of a dear friend who sacrificed himself in order to rescue you...Well, that's another story.

 

However, if you did see His death like that it's just not going to matter.

 

Perspective is a big thing, here. You choose to emphasize one way of looking at it, and I choose another.

 

Most Xians can't understand why non-Xians don't think the Cruci-fiction™ is a memorable thing. And we who are former Xians ourselves can't see why Xians don't understand it like we do.

 

Nevertheless, an action where the one who is supposed to have suffered for us and given up something major for our sake and yet comes out fine, with the ultimate goal evidently unaccomplished, really is beneath belief for me. If the wages of sin is death, which is understood as eternal damnation, and if Jeezus™ paid the price of our sin for us, he should be in Hell™, satisfying the punishment eternally for us all, and thereby preventing anyone else from even being able to fall into Hell™.

 

But it isn't.

 

At least, sin and evil should've been conquered on the cross. But according to Xian mythology, it's still alive and well. Sin, evil, and death in any form continues, Cruci-fiction™ or not. Evidently, the "sacrifice" of Jeezus™ accomplished nothing.

 

The Indian-giver melodrama of the Cruci-fiction™ is now the ultimatum that Xians are boxed into a corner with. It's gussied up with lots of romantic adjectives, but it all boils down to "Believe or burn forever." The same insidious concept of spiritual terrorism lies at the heart of it all.

 

No friend would demand ultimatums, but would rather take care of the problem. That is why Jeezus'™ "sacrifice" is both meaningless and insulting to me.

[SkepticOfBible]

it is my belief, that the reason they do not accept him was the reason he was crucified. Other than the fact that the chief preist were after him due to the threat of political power. the common jew rejected him because they wanted an earthly savior to restore there kindom as he had done so many times in the OT. But this was not God's plan this time.

 

err, did you ever read the OT. The Old Testament makes it absolutely clear that the Messiah and his kingdom would be a earthly one

 

Please present scripture from the OT which shows God's plan that you are asserting.

 

Messiah Wanted!

 

to my knowlegde, both judiasm and islam reffer to Jesus as a great prophet.

 

Wrong, only Islam validates him as a prophet, however Mohammed was supposed to be greatest amongst, just xtianity claims that Jesus was the greatest prophet. However they both counter the Torah declaration that there can be no prophet greater than Moses

 

Deuteronomy 34:10 Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom HASHEM had known face to face, [11] as evidenced by all the signs and wonders that HASHEM sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his courtiers and all his land, [12] and by all the strong hand and awesome power that Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel.

 

It is because of one of these claims that Jews have Jesus as a prophet or valid messenger from their God, let alone be there a messiah. Jesus is not the only one who claimed to be expected Jewish messiah.

 

 

how could he be a prophet.

 

He was a false prophet according to Deaut 13;18. Please show why he does not fulfill these laws

[SkepticOfBible]

If the Crucified doesn't mean anything to you His death will seem like no big deal. It's like a newspaper headline. You read about it one day and the next day you forget.

 

I can understand why you would shrug your shoulders and say, "Yeah....so?"

 

Now when it's personal to you, like the death of a dear friend who sacrificed himself in order to rescue you...Well, that's another story.

 

However, if you did see His death like that it's just not going to matter.

 

Actually it doesn't even matter to the Hebrew God. It says it right there that each man would die for his sins.

 

Deuteronomy 24:16

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

Ezekiel 18:1-4

1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

" 'The fathers eat sour grapes,

and the children's teeth are set on edge'?

 

3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

 

Ezekiel 18:20-24

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

 

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

 

24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

 

Ezekiel 18:26-27

26 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. 27 But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right(ie follow the law), he will save his life.

 

Moses tried to pull that stunt(I'll die for the sins of others) in Exodus, but what does his god says

 

Exodus 32:30-35

30 The next day Moses said to the people, "You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin."

 

31 So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

 

33 The LORD replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin."

 

35 And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made.

 

And look, this concept is reaffirmed in the New Convenant(The real one) of Jeriamiah 31

 

Jer 30:31

30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—his own teeth will be set on edge.

 

Mmmm, just be careful not to tell a Jew that Jesus/Yeshua died for his sins, least you get embarrased by your own scriptures

[Amanda]

You know the cross symbol is basically from the zodiac. The sun symbol in the middle of the circle, with the cross sign from the lines between the equinoxes and the solstices. The cross is the symbol of the astrological connection of the Sun God and the 12 Months. The mediator. So the cross in itself is Jesus, the symbol that connects the high god and the humanity. From inside to outside. From the inner of our soul to the outer reality. (Damn I'm deep. I'll better log of and make some coffee instead... )

Wow HanSolo... you never cease to amaze me!

 

I did know that there is a lot of astrology/zodiac interests in the Bible. Also, there's a lot of significance placed on numerology too, which I think had meaning attached to the times allocated to the crucifiction.

 

As far as incorporating pagan rituals, such as the eucharist and baptism, that could be good, IMO. Rituals can have a powerful impact to internal states. The eucharist seen as each and every person as part of ONE body, related by our blood of humanity, in a ritualistic manner... can have deeper effects than just saying it. If baptism lets go of past guilt and mistakes, washing them away, and allows the ability to start all over fresh, can be a powerful way of encouraging positive change. If some other belief system has a better idea, why not use it? I think it would be better if Christianity still did that today... or is that what New Age does?

 

 

JEEEEEEEEZUS fuckin christ! What kind of swim trunks do I wear in that fuckin fiery lake?

 

I highly recommend the asbestos with the chili pepper motif.

 

Hey, what about the hot dogs and popcorn?

[Mike D]

Now when it's personal to you, like the death of a dear friend who sacrificed himself in order to rescue you...Well, that's another story.

How is the death of a dear friend who rescued you analogous to a person talked about in a dusty 2000 year old book? And, if you believe this guy is real (thereby making him an invisible friend), then he didn't actually die or make a sacrafice, did he?

[Asimov]

Well Mike, that's your opinion. He is very real to me and that's why His death is meaningful. You don't believe so the death of Christ doesn't have an impact. Kinda like a pesky mosquito. wack! It's over. Move on to the next subject.

 

Shouldn't it be absolute and undeniable that his death is meaningful and real?

[Lycorth]

Shouldn't it be absolute and undeniable that his death is meaningful and real?

 

Yes - isn't this supposed to be one of the biggest, unquestionable dogmas of the Xian faith?

[Amanda]

Well Mike, that's your opinion. He is very real to me and that's why His death is meaningful. You don't believe so the death of Christ doesn't have an impact. Kinda like a pesky mosquito. wack! It's over. Move on to the next subject.

 

Shouldn't it be absolute and undeniable that his death is meaningful and real?

Asimov, couldn't it be that these principles expressed through that story, real or not, be what is meaningful and real? I see a lot of liberating concepts expressed through the story of the crucifiction. If it did not really happen, I would be glad, however, these teachings stand on their own merit anyway, IMO.

 

What I don't understand is how dedicated Christians can just settle for 'Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and saved us'. When asked, "Well, how does that work?", they do not know, it just does. How does that give meaning?

(Not to be confused as implicating Amy Marie believes this way, because I have no idea.)

[Ouroboros]

Wow HanSolo... you never cease to amaze me!

I've been listening to stuff and watching videos quite a bit lately. Very little I say is unique or new. I steal most of it!

 

There's a whole bunch of material on iTunes, for free.

 

 

I did know that there is a lot of astrology/zodiac interests in the Bible. Also, there's a lot of significance placed on numerology too, which I think had meaning attached to the times allocated to the crucifiction.

Very true. Numerology is very important in mystery religions.

 

As far as incorporating pagan rituals, such as the eucharist and baptism, that could be good, IMO. Rituals can have a powerful impact to internal states.

Yup. That's what I think religion is for overall. It touches a deeper source of mystery in our mind. Like a beautiful song touches our emotions, or good food makes us happy, or a little rascal but cute dog wants to jump up on your lap and just cuddle will make you smile, religion is the little program disc that when inserted it will start a computer program in your mind that gives you a certain feeling of connection to the universe and existence. The feeling of one-ness with the Whole can be just as important for some as life itself.

 

The eucharist seen as each and every person as part of ONE body, related by our blood of humanity, in a ritualistic manner... can have deeper effects than just saying it. If baptism lets go of past guilt and mistakes, washing them away, and allows the ability to start all over fresh, can be a powerful way of encouraging positive change. If some other belief system has a better idea, why not use it? I think it would be better if Christianity still did that today... or is that what New Age does?

New Age is mostly just a group name for "all the other kind of spiritual ideas". And not a real, one, uniform religion.

 

I really like Doc Bob Price, he kind of claim to be a Christian Atheist, where he doesn't believe there is a God, or soul or spirit or afterlife etc, but he loves to go to Church and sing the hymns and participate in the rituals to connect to his inner being.

 

JEEEEEEEEZUS fuckin christ! What kind of swim trunks do I wear in that fuckin fiery lake?

 

I highly recommend the asbestos with the chili pepper motif.

 

Hey, what about the hot dogs and popcorn?

I'll bring some cigars. Who will bring the steak?

[Ouroboros]

What I don't understand is how dedicated Christians can just settle for 'Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and saved us'. When asked, "Well, how does that work?", they do not know, it just does. How does that give meaning?

(Not to be confused as implicating Amy Marie believes this way, because I have no idea.)

What's even more funny is that I kind of know how it works, or how it is supposed to work. And the explanation also would show how wrong it is to claim the Bible to be a moral book we have to follow.

 

In the Roman epistle, it's established that the law in the OT was to prove to humanity that we can't follow a moral code. We will always break it, one way or another. It's inherited in our nature. So the moral code there is not there so we have to follow it to be saved, but only to show that we can't follow it on our own.

 

Jesus death on the cross is a pseudo-event that only have one importance, and that is that if you believe in the event, than God will give you the ability to work your way to become a person that won't sin anymore, and at the same time be forgiven for every sin that you commit. It's all in the belief in the crucifiction that "saves" you, not the crucifiction in itself, that's just the event to believe in. The transformation is from the belief itself. That's why the event doesn't have to be historical to be important for the transformation of a person. We can see people change from the "salvation" experience, I did, even though I changed even more when deconverting, still the experience of believing is what moves people inner being and make them anew. It's some old computer program our the brain that gets unlocked somehow. And of course it doesn't happen for some people, and some don't even care, want or need this experience.

[chefranden]

Perhaps there is an original story to Jesus that is much more endearing than the one we have popularized in modern times. Just like I think the original story of St. Nicholas is much more awesome than the traditional perception we have today.

 

So what?

 

If there is an original story it could be less awsome as well. But what is the point of this speculation? What is the point of trying to preserve some sort of nice guyism by guessing there must have been a better story? Since you don't have the orginal story, what difference is there between Jesus and Asa a street sweeper of Jerusalem 11BCE to 17CE? None, they are both dust lost to time.

 

The sacrifice of Jesus unless believed on and accepted in a personal way won't amount to a hill of means if it means nothing to you in the first place.

 

NO! Your wrong. Unless you declare that there is only one God, and Mohammad was his Prophet, then you will go to Hell and burn forever with the other infedels!!!!!!!!

 

Now, do you see how stupid it is to preach to someone who does not share your beliefs

 

No, She won't see how stupid it is. She knows Jesus to be the real God and Allah to be a false one.

 

A person can't know what she doesn't know. She doesn't know that saying Jesus is the same as saying Allah, or George for that matter.

[Asimov]

Asimov, couldn't it be that these principles expressed through that story, real or not, be what is meaningful and real? I see a lot of liberating concepts expressed through the story of the crucifiction. If it did not really happen, I would be glad, however, these teachings stand on their own merit anyway, IMO.

 

What I don't understand is how dedicated Christians can just settle for 'Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and saved us'. When asked, "Well, how does that work?", they do not know, it just does. How does that give meaning?

(Not to be confused as implicating Amy Marie believes this way, because I have no idea.)

 

What principles are expressed? The principles of Jesus are not meaningful, rational, nor real. What liberating concepts?

[chefranden]

If the Crucified doesn't mean anything to you His death will seem like no big deal. It's like a newspaper headline. You read about it one day and the next day you forget.

 

I can understand why you would shrug your shoulders and say, "Yeah....so?"

 

Now when it's personal to you, like the death of a dear friend who sacrificed himself in order to rescue you...Well, that's another story.

 

However, if you did see His death like that it's just not going to matter.

 

The problem is, Amy, that the Crucified is supposed to be the strange attracter to your religion. It is suppose to be the thing that signifies God's love to the world (John 3:16) that means it has to signify for non-believers. The Crucified's lack of significance among non believers is significant of it's lack of power, something like priestly problems of abuse signify the Holy Spirit's lack of power to produce its fruit.

 

I should add the death of a friend would be permenant. What you should compare The Crucified to is a friend getting her finger cut or a three day cold. Sure you feel sorry for her, but it is just not the same as dieing. Jesus dying is just not the same as dying. You dig?

[Mike D]

Well Mike, that's your opinion. He is very real to me and that's why His death is meaningful.

Well no, actually it's a fact. If someone died then they aren't alive now because they're dead. Agreed?

 

Secondly, if someone is alive today and their death was a sacrafice, then they couldn't have made a sacrafice or they would be dead. True or false?

 

Do you deny that dead people aren't alive, and that alive people never died?

[Amanda]

What principles are expressed? The principles of Jesus are not meaningful, rational, nor real. What liberating concepts?

 

Asimov, I can't very well list ALL of them right here, right now! I'm not even saying that Jesus existed or if he is mythical... but I tend to believe there was a naturally human guy all this was based around. However, speaking of the crucifixion... there are clearly principles associated with that, if it is just a fable, allegory, or not.

 

First, is to be true to our self, of our altruistic values. Complacency and peace are NOT the same thing. Some things are worth dying, to have them for others. It is the concept of grace allowing unconditional forgiveness, even in a torturous situation, that always yields the best internal state for any situation. Grace is understanding that EVERYONE is doing their best, in the situation they're in, with the coping skills available to them. "Walk a mile in their shoes before we criticize or abuse." "Forgive them for they know not what they do." How can we be angry or condemn someone (or self) if that is their best? What else can we expect but their best? This ends condemnation, hence internally saved from it. (IMO, heaven and hell are states of mind, so this compassion helps save you from hell.) You do know that forgiveness is for yourself, not your perpetrator? However, that does NOT mean we condone or excuse their behavior. EVERYONE must be accountable and responsible for their actions, as that is how people change for the better.

 

Speaking of forgiveness, this story portrays the forgiveness being done spiritually, internally, within us. He did not look down and say, "Hey you guys, I forgive you." He knew they were not ready for it, and they would have just thrown more things at him. He did it within him self. And yet, it is said, that if we come to Jesus, in our spirit, imagination, or whatever, right now, and ask for his forgiveness, he would say he forgave us a long time ago.

 

If Jesus would have looked down from the cross and said, "all of you should be annihilated for what you have done to me", then he would have been 'contaminated' by their 'sin'. Then he would have had hatred and vindictiveness inside of him. He knew that was why they were acting the way they were. He refused to be 'contaminated' by understanding and letting go. He saw his perpetrators as being the victims, releasing him from being the victim. These principles allow and promote emotionally healthy states in all of us. It's a pretty good story, IMO, and I hope it's not true... not about an innocent guy getting crucified... however, being a martyr is probably what led to his popularity.

 

BTW, much of Jesus’ concepts were right in line with the Atheist movement, IMO. I don't know Ayn Rand, however, Jesus and Madeline O'Hare saw eye to eye. Jesus was about God within you, NOT out there somewhere, and moved through us. It was about being accountable and responsible, not to pray for something to fall from the sky! We have to make it happen. "Ye too are gods."

[duderonomy]

Amy,

Like a lot of others here, I would love to have a good reparte' (?) with you, but you will not.

You'd be a good boxer, with all of your bobbing and weaving.

 

For example, as Mike D. is leading to (if I may), did Jesus die? Was He dead? That must mean that God died.

 

Without making fun, Amy, if He (God) died, did He set some kind of timer for Himself to come back to life? Is He still dead?

 

If Jesus was/is Very God, and He died, then how is it that He 'died'. You need to define your view of what 'death' is for us.

 

But you won't, and I believe you can't, at least from the Biblical perspective. It will drive you nuts trying, because if the Three are One, then All died. If They are still alive, then They either never died, or Their superficial death isn't really death (were the types and shadows of Christ in the Old Testament; i.e. the lambs and bulls and goats that were sacrificed really killed or not?).

 

As Christians, we are supposed to believe in Death, and The Second Death. That's a lot of death Amy!

 

So then, when I'm dead, I'm still really not dead? Then Jesus, being Very man, wasn't really dead when He died on that cruel cross?

Or if my Heavenly Father still watches over me, then He never tasted death either? Or He and Jesus weren't really 'One'?

[julian]

Reply to Amy Marie

 

If the Crucified doesn't mean anything to you His death will seem like no big deal. It's like a newspaper headline. You read about it one day and the next day you forget.

 

I can understand why you would shrug your shoulders and say, "Yeah....so?"

 

No, the crucifixion doesn't mean anything because it can't mean anything significant. If you look at how the concepts of damnation and sin and a "saviour" are, you will see they are illogical.

 

Now when it's personal to you, like the death of a dear friend who sacrificed himself in order to rescue you...Well, that's another story.

 

However, if you did see His death like that it's just not going to matter.

 

Just what did he supposedly save us from? Just how is he a dear friend? Just how is this a sacrifice and what reason is there to think anything needed sacrificing?

 

I can't speak for every Christian but as for me this is why the Crucified has "strangely attracked" me for these many years. Besisdes all the things that are being discussed here, forgiveness of sins etc. it is the life that I continuously receive from His sacrifice.

 

People who don't believe they have been saved by anyone live fine lives. Existence, life and everything with it is eternal and not a variable, it cannot be received or gifted because it is always there. Please look at the continuity of the world, the continuation of things and even the laws of conservation of mass/energy to see this.

 

The early Christians compared the death of Christ to the legend of the pelican who would strike her own breast and then feed her young with her blood.

 

That's a bad comparison. We are not in need of nourishment. We are no one's "young". I could go on.

 

Jesus gives Himself evermore by norishing the soul with His very own self, Spirit, Soul, Body and Divinity, holding nothing back. It is no mistake that Christ died the way He did. He could have died at the whipping post, or on the way to be crucified, or being stone to death. He chose the cross.

 

First, what actual evidence is there to say he died the way he did? Next, it doesn't matter in what way he supposedly died because the entire concept of his "sacrifice" is simply flawed and illogical. Nobody is sinful, no one is in need of being saved. Don't believe me? Take a look at the world.

 

I think it's interesting that the human body is shaped like a cross, that is when you hold your arms out to embrace a loved one. Jesus died with His arms outstretched, His body exposed and vulnerable, His heart pierced, His head bowed some have said, "To kiss us."

 

The human body can look like a t, but it can also look like an X, or a Y, or an I. What's you point? Furthermore, are you even aware of how many other people died in the same "poetic" manner?

 

The word worship means "To kiss towards." So in this "relationship" Christ is always giving of Himself and the Christian back to Him. That's why Paul compares our life with Christ to a spiritual marriage where He is the Bridegroom. A husband gives himself to his wife and the wife to her husband and the two become one flesh.

 

OK, since we've already shown the basis of this to be incorrect, the application of it is similarly mistaken.

 

Of coursei if you think Jesus is dead this would have no meaning to you. I compare this life in Christ to the one you love in your own life and how great it is when you both feel connected, it's more than just physical. You connect soul to soul.

 

Why do you claim to love this projected person? There is no need to try to love something such as this, it is in defiance of reality. It is in defiance of the world to claim a connection to something which is obviously based off of a flawed concept, incorrect and unethical and more.

 

-----------

 

The scriptues say that Jesus tasted death for every man and that He actually became sin for us. I still don't understand what good would have been accomplished if He stayed dead. How could He have then been our Saviour?

 

What reason is there to think he tasted anything? What reason is there to think sins needed cleansing? What reason is there to believe he saved anything? What reason is there to believe anything of the sort? Nothing.

[SkepticOfBible]

Jesus gives Himself evermore by norishing the soul with His very own self, Spirit, Soul, Body and Divinity, holding nothing back. I

Hi Amy,

 

I see that you ignored your post. Show us in the Old Testament where it says that Messiah can be considered a valid sin sacrifice?

 

The scriptues say that Jesus tasted death for every man and that He actually became sin for us. I still don't understand what good would have been accomplished if He stayed dead. How could He have then been our Saviour?

Demonstrate from the Old Testament that the Messiah would be a saviour?

[SkepticOfBible]

Much of Isaiah 53. He is also called the Suffering Servant.

 

Where does Isa 53 even mention a "Messiah"?

 

The suffering servant is identified as Israel in the previous chapters

Isa 49:3-6

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.

And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

 

Lemme ask you a question, do you think all the verses of Is 53 applies to Jesus? If not, then please tell me why?

 

You honesty would be appreciated

 

 

 

FYI, The prophet Isaiah does talk about a saviour. It is mentioned right there Is 45

 

Isa 45:21-22

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

As stated here the saviour is God, not Jesus, and as stated here, he is singular, not a triad personhood wrapped in one Godhead.

 

So where is this second saviour that you are talking about?

[Amanda]

Skeptic of the Bible, I know you are far more informed about this subject than I. However, I have noticed some interesting aspects you've sited. Now, I do think that this is embellished, and probably a lot to be said for story telling, to get the point across. Using this site here, and using its associated concordance, by just clicking on the word, I do find some interesting information concerning these verses you site.

 

Much of Isaiah 53. He is also called the Suffering Servant.

 

Where does Isa 53 even mention a "Messiah"?

 

The suffering servant is identified as Israel in the previous chapters

Isa 49:3-6

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.

And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

 

Lemme ask you a question, do you think all the verses of Is 53 applies to Jesus? If not, then please tell me why?

I know this was NOT directed to me, and I would like to hear Amy's comments, , yet hope you don't mind if I point out something. Well, this might indicate that God is Jesus. Because if you click on the word LORD, and go back to the word from which this evolved, it says to become, to come about, to come to exist the true God. Also, I might note, that Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, nor the messiah, nor the Son of God... it has always been the people around him. He did say that he and God are one, just as we are... "ye too are gods."

 

Yes, I know the story could have been written or changed to accommodate the OT. I'm well aware of that... however, I do see where they seem to be congruent here. Maybe it was their way of acknowledging that their idea of God was not completed yet?

 

FYI, The prophet Isaiah does talk about a saviour. It is mentioned right there Is 45

 

Isa 45:21-22

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

As stated here the saviour is God, not Jesus, and as stated here, he is singular, not a triad personhood wrapped in one Godhead.

 

So where is this second saviour that you are talking about?

 

Then there is no second saviour, they are both the same... wouldn't that be the implication?

 

Of course the trinity is NOT mentioned in the NT. However, I think it was probably borrowed from the Buddhist, as from what I've read somewhere, it seems the Tibetan Buddhist have what is called the Power, the Consciousness, and the Divine Incorporation of ALL, of an altruistic manifestation upon mankind. Isn't it still this "sacred" revelation, just expressed in different ways? Might these teachings just articulate it differently, the Father as the Power, the Consciousness as the Christ nature, and the Divine incorporation as the Holy Spirit?

 

Your opinion is appreciated.

[Ouroboros]

Amanda, the trinity idea could be from the earlier Vedic religion, where Buddhism and Hinduism came from, but it could also be that it was an attempt to explain the conflicts between monotheism and Jesus still being God.

 

But here's an interesting part from Wikipedia about Vedic religion: The Vedic pantheon was interpreted as a unitary view of the universe with God seen as immanent and transcendent in the forms of Ishvara (God's Personal Feature), Paramatma (God's localised feature) and Brahman (God's Impersonal Energies).

 

It fits pretty good, God Father = Ishvara, Jesus = Paramatma, and HS = Brahman.

[Amanda]

Amanda, the trinity idea could be from the earlier Vedic religion, where Buddhism and Hinduism came from, but it could also be that it was an attempt to explain the conflicts between monotheism and Jesus still being God.

 

But here's an interesting part from Wikipedia about Vedic religion: The Vedic pantheon was interpreted as a unitary view of the universe with God seen as immanent and transcendent in the forms of Ishvara (God's Personal Feature), Paramatma (God's localised feature) and Brahman (God's Impersonal Energies).

 

It fits pretty good, God Father = Ishvara, Jesus = Paramatma, and HS = Brahman.

 

Very interesting! I think that monotheism brings us back full circle to the Vedic religion. Maybe there is only one God, and everything that appears separate is a different manifestation of "God" experiencing itself?

 

It is even said that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our hearts, soul, and body. The second is the same as the first, it was told to us to love our neighbor as ourself. I think this was because, our neighbor is ourself! Further, EVERYTHING is our neighbor, and collectively, EVERYTHING is God.

[Ouroboros]

Amanda, here's a link I'm sure you'll like: The order of the Nazorean Essenes

 

And yes, I think the idea behind "love your neighbor" etc, or when Jesus say in gospel of Thomas, and some in the four Gospels too, that God is everywhere, and he is within you, and that kingdom of God is within you etc. And Jesus even make a reference to the Psalm that say "you are gods". I think that is the core Gospel. We are gods, we are it, we are one, and we are here. Forget judgment day, because we should not judge others anymore than the high God would judge us. There are scriptures that point to that there is no hereditary sin, and that everyone is "saved". There's nothing more to it. We're it. We are the gods in the heaven on Earth. Unfortunately the evil gods are the literal fundamentalists that want to create schisms between everyone.

[Amanda]

Amanda, here's a link I'm sure you'll like: The order of the Nazorean Essenes

 

And yes, I think the idea behind "love your neighbor" etc, or when Jesus say in gospel of Thomas, and some in the four Gospels too, that God is everywhere, and he is within you, and that kingdom of God is within you etc. And Jesus even make a reference to the Psalm that say "you are gods". I think that is the core Gospel. We are gods, we are it, we are one, and we are here. Forget judgment day, because we should not judge others anymore than the high God would judge us. There are scriptures that point to that there is no hereditary sin, and that everyone is "saved". There's nothing more to it. We're it. We are the gods in the heaven on Earth. Unfortunately the evil gods are the literal fundamentalists that want to create schisms between everyone.

 

Thanks for the link HanSolo! I will check it out.

 

I think the Gospels were trying to say that heaven and earth are becoming one, through us, right here.

 

Our Father, God, which is in 'heaven', which is the 'kingdom of God within us', so God is in us. What is holy, sacred, altruistic inside of us is how we know and identify him within us, holy is his name. His kingdom within us needs to come out of us, so 'his' will shall be done on earth as it is in 'heaven', so that heaven and earth become one! I think heaven is to manifest here on earth through us! Everyone!

 

Yes, I agree with you about the religous right, as it's the same today as back then... maybe worse then. However, it is said that if we judge these religous right... then we are no better than they are.

 

We probably need to realize they don't know any better, yet hold them accountable and responisble for their actions. Hopefully they'll eventually learn. I do think it is good to recognize it is them, not us, and understand they haven't got a clue though.

[julian]

Reply to Amy Marie

 

"He is forgiven much loves much."

 

If you don't believe in the concept of sin than you'll see no reason for a Saviour and His death and my speaking about Christ nourishing the soul will make absolutely no sense.

 

That's a good question: How can you love something or something that isn't real? That seems foolish except for the person who belleives He is a reality.

 

The point is not (just) that I don't believe in the concept of a need for a saviour, the point is that there is no reason to believe in such a concept. Since there is no reason to think that anything needs saving, or that a saviour even existed (I could go on), it is clearly unreasonable to believe in those things.

 

You can express love for something that isn't real. You can express love for basically anything, but that doesn't mean you should.