View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: Who Was Jesus? |
|
|
Ok - to expand the ever-increasing religion threads....
Who do you think Jesus actually was (his ethnicity, religion, purpose, etc)?
I think there's a pretty good case for believing that Jesus was Jewish in ethnicity only, but Egyptian in religious beliefs and cultural persuasion. There's a good possibility his formative years were spent in Egypt (as well as John's, his cousin), and that they were both adherents of an Isis/Osirus - type gnostic tradition. Also, it's not unreasonable to believe that Jesus was sexually involved with Mary Magdalene. There are various reasons to believe this: (1) The gospel writers obviously tried to downplay Mary's significance in Jesus' life; (2) Many Gnostic gospels explicitly state that Jesus and Mary were sexually involved; (3) that the apostle Peter was obviously jealous of Mary's place in Jesus' life and ministry.
I will wait to write more after I see some replies.
Peace,
Daniel |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
cruisemonkey

Joined: 04 Jul 2005 Location: Hopefully, the same place as my luggage.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why... Jesus was Korean... of course!... everybody knows that!  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fiveeagles

Joined: 19 May 2005 Location: Vancouver
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Why... Jesus was Korean... of course!... everybody knows that! Wink |
And his main diet was gimchi...
Quote: |
1) The gospel writers obviously tried to downplay Mary's significance in Jesus' life; (2) Many Gnostic gospels explicitly state that Jesus and Mary were sexually involved; (3) that the apostle Peter was obviously jealous of Mary's place in Jesus' life and ministry. |
Once you start believing in the gnostics than you get on a slippery slope. The gnostics are not in the gospel for a significant reason. They were erroneous and didn't have enough credit to being added.
Jesus also set himself apart from living a lifestyle of pleasure. His main purpose was to give pleasure unto the Father.
12��For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother��s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven��s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.��
Matt 19
Paul also lived a lifestyle of chasity. You can read that in Corinthians.
To say Jesus was sexually involved outside of marriage is wrong. He was perfect and without sin and died sinless. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the understanding of Jesus expressed by "fiveeagles" is a lot closer to the truth than that expressed in the OP... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:54 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
No conservative Christian has ever been able to give me a decent answer for the development of the Christian Canon. Why did so many Church Fathers before the Council of Nicea use or refer to the Gnostic Gospels in their writings and sermons? It is said they were not added to the official canon for good reasons. What are these reasons? I think the main reason was to protect a patriarchal political church system which wanted to subjugate woman by erasing the influence of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' primary apostle and successor.
When discussing Jesus, it is imperative to realize that not a single biographical word was written about him until at least 37 years after his death, and the four gospels were not proclaimed canonical until 300 years after Jesus lived.
It is interesting to note the similarities or exact matches between Jesus and Horus:
Jesus and Horus were both born of a virgin. Horus' mother's name was Meri. Jesus' mother's name was Miriam. Horus' foster father was Jo-Seph. Jesus' was Joseph. They were both supposedly born in a cave. Both births were announced by an angel to the respective mothers. Both births were heralded by a star. Both births were witnessed to by shepherds. Horus' later witnesses included three solar deities. Jesus' witnesses included three wise men. Both went through rites of passage at age 12. There is no data for both between the ages of 12 and 30. They were both baptized in a river. They were both 30 when baptized. Both baptizers were subsequently beheaded. They were both tempted in the desert. They both had 12 close disciples. They were both transfigured on a mountain. They were both crucified. They were both resurrected after 3 days. They will both reign for 1000 years in the future. (from The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur)
For those who do not automatically throw out non-canonical books, many of the Nag Hammadi documents either implicitly or explicitly state that Jesus and Mary M. were either lovers or married.
Peace,
Daniel |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
joe_doufu

Joined: 09 May 2005 Location: Elsewhere
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus was the really good bowler in The Big Lebowski. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
huck
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have wondered about how much of Jesus's life was taken from other mythology, just so it would sound familiar or god-like to the future converts. If you look at it rationally, it does seem obvious that quite a few things from Christianity were lifted from other, older religions.
I don't think Jesus was a white guy, to answer the OP's question. I think he probably looked more like Sayid from "Lost".
As for what God looks like....there are numerous references that "prove" that the picture Christians use to define God - old guy, flowing white hair and beard - is actually Zeus....but again, they had to use familiar symbols so that it would be easier to bring people into the fold.
And finally....I do think five eagles is too rah-rah about quoting the bible and believing it verbatim, so it's difficult to have any kind of discussion. To have a discussion, one must be willing to admit that their point of view might necessarily not be the correct one, and for most Christians, that would show a lack of faith. However, Kermo usually gives me the best answers to my questions, and I find that I agree with most of what she says... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
T-dot

Joined: 16 May 2004 Location: bundang
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you mean Jesus Shuttleworth?
If so... ITS Ray Allen in He Got Game. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
eamo

Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't we do the religious thing a couple of months back?
When will you believers understand?
We have thought about it! We don't want it!
Any discussion relating as to what Jesus was or wasn't is kind of null in void. He wasn't the son of god. If he was the world would be a lot better than it is now. Otherwise we have a cruel god.
Did Jesus come to make the world worse or better? What has happened in history to make you believe jesus made it all better? Tell me the benefits of a guy getting nailed to a cross 2000 years ago?
It's a creation. It's a man-made miracle. It's a sympton of our weakness.
I disbelieve but I do not scoff. I just want you religious guys to answer a question. If god is love and if he loves us all why does he allow such suffering in the world. He allows the people he loves to die in horrible and senseless ways all the time. He allows church rooves to collaspe on those worshiping him!
What kind of god is this? Is it a loving god? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kermo

Joined: 01 Sep 2004 Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
huck wrote: |
However, Kermo usually gives me the best answers to my questions, and I find that I agree with most of what she says... |
That is a very sweet thing to say-- I was feeling quite disagreeable after getting bitten in another thread. I just dropped in to check out people's opinions. I don't plan to weigh in, except to say this:
Huck, if Jesus looked like Sayid, then Jesus was hot. (and Indian.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
eamo wrote: |
Didn't we do the religious thing a couple of months back?
When will you believers understand?
We have thought about it! We don't want it!
Any discussion relating as to what Jesus was or wasn't is kind of null in void. He wasn't the son of god. If he was the world would be a lot better than it is now. Otherwise we have a cruel god.
Did Jesus come to make the world worse or better? What has happened in history to make you believe jesus made it all better? Tell me the benefits of a guy getting nailed to a cross 2000 years ago?
It's a creation. It's a man-made miracle. It's a sympton of our weakness.
I disbelieve but I do not scoff. I just want you religious guys to answer a question. If god is love and if he loves us all why does he allow such suffering in the world. He allows the people he loves to die in horrible and senseless ways all the time. He allows church rooves to collaspe on those worshiping him!
What kind of god is this? Is it a loving god? |
Perhaps God is not all-powerful. That would explain the coexistence of a loving God and evil. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
desultude

Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kermo wrote: |
huck wrote: |
However, Kermo usually gives me the best answers to my questions, and I find that I agree with most of what she says... |
That is a very sweet thing to say-- I was feeling quite disagreeable after getting bitten in another thread. I just dropped in to check out people's opinions. I don't plan to weigh in, except to say this:
Huck, if Jesus looked like Sayid, then Jesus was hot. (and Indian.) |
Ah, yes, my thoughts exactly. Said could make me a believer.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
I think the main reason was to protect a patriarchal political church system which wanted to subjugate woman by erasing the influence of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' primary apostle and successor. |
I suppose the reason the church fathers did not organize a canon sooner is that they were much closer to these events than we were and perhaps didn't see the need; the fact that the Romans were previously trying to kill them didn't help for organizing conferences.
By 1st century standards, Christ treated women much better than secular society did. This bogus idea of Christ and Mary Magdalene never seems to go away. There is nothing in scripture that says she was a prostitute or immoral, but popular tradition can't let go of the image. This way of thinking, that because scripture doesn't say it it must have happened and they took it out to cover up is not a good way to do things. The canonical meetings to decide on the biblical texts were heated enough without this supposed giant anti-woman conspiracy being adopted.
Ken:> |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Grotto

Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Once you start believing in the gnostics than you get on a slippery slope. The gnostics are not in the gospel for a significant reason. They were erroneous and didn't have enough credit to being added.
Jesus also set himself apart from living a lifestyle of pleasure. His main purpose was to give pleasure unto the Father.
12��For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother��s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven��s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.��
Matt 19
Paul also lived a lifestyle of chasity. You can read that in Corinthians.
To say Jesus was sexually involved outside of marriage is wrong. He was perfect and without sin and died sinless. |
Lets break this down peicemeal....
Quote: |
Once you start believing in the gnostics than you get on a slippery slope. The gnostics are not in the gospel for a significant reason. They were erroneous and didn't have enough credit to being added. |
Once you start believing any part of the bible you are on a slippery slope! Just who decided that the gnostics were erroneous? Ahh went against the party line and out they go. sad really.
Quote: |
Jesus also set himself apart from living a lifestyle of pleasure. His main purpose was to give pleasure unto the Father. |
Sick! Geez buddy you got some sick ideas! Now just how do you get away with saying that your boy jc set himself apart?? Did you follow him around? Ask him? Got any evidence to back that up? Thought not!
Quote: |
To say Jesus was sexually involved outside of marriage is wrong. He was perfect and without sin and died sinless |
Say what? Again any evidence to back this up? Lets take a look realisticly. Supposedly he was Jewish...religious law basically forced him to marry and father children...but back then the records being what they were...travelling around with MM a woman of questionable morals...please.
Just because a bunch of bible thumping morons jump around saying praise jesus doesnt make any one a god or the son of a god!
IF you believe that your christ was a man then he had all of mans needs. It wasnt until the middle ages that christ was deified! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Moldy Rutabaga

Joined: 01 Jul 2003 Location: Ansan, Korea
|
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Say what? Again any evidence to back this up? Lets take a look realisticly. Supposedly he was Jewish...religious law basically forced him to marry and father children...but back then the records being what they were...travelling around with MM a woman of questionable morals...please. |
Jewish law mandated no such thing. There is no evidence that MM was a fallen woman or that Christ was close to her.
Quote: |
IF you believe that your christ was a man then he had all of mans needs. It wasnt until the middle ages that christ was deified! |
Christ was deified in his own lifetime when he called himself son of man and son of God.
The church fathers selected some texts because they believed some to be true and others to be fictitious. Every time this thread comes up it circles into the same old canard-- there aren't enough historical records of Christ, therefore it's all an invention. Because all biblical scripture isn't verifiable by 21st century standards, every word is fiction. If we used the same criteria for other historical figures before the middle ages, very few of them would be admitted to have existed.
Ken:> |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|