Was Jesus, a victim of self aggrandizing suicide.

[Lori_7]

the trinity is not that difficult to understand. the father is the law by which everything is created and destroyed, the holy spirit is just that...a spirit, and jesus is a perfect human according to that law (that's why he's referred to as the fulfillment of the law). so easy.

 

[spidergoat]

What's a spirit?

 

[Lori_7]

What's a spirit?

google it.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Not quite literal for sure.
Yet you read literally, to some extent, a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monsters.
Jesus appears between those two and so does his genocidal father of the O T.

How much of a literal Jesus do you believe in?
Virgin birth?
Was he his own father somehow?
Did he father himself with his own mother?

Regards
DL

What did I read literally? For me the Apocalypse book is nothing but the metaphorical description of our own death (individual) and the confrontation from our own fears and desires created by the nourished ego during our whole life (3 headed monster - body, mind and self).

If it would have been literal, we probably wouldn't have that scripture right now (it most probably would have been destroyed as many other scriptures).

How much of a literal Jesus do you believe in?
Virgin birth?
Was he his own father somehow?
Did he father himself with his own mother?

Regards
DL

None of the above, the reference to a virgin mother is just a metaphorical description to a “pure woman” as in innocent. It is very poetical actually.
An innocent woman is not necessarily a “physical virgin”, but a woman who does not have un-pure thoughts, and the sex is out of pure love, as opposed to out of lust as it most commonly is.

I guess your other two questions are rhetoric so… If still you want to believe that the scripture is referring to a physical virgin birth, that is your choice; I think is beautiful poetry, the virgin birth is ridiculous if you look at it literally.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

the virgin death is ridiculous if you look at it literally.

Yes, there definitely would have been some questions.

 

[NMSquirrel]

My whole theory is that these lost years of Jesus were systematically removed because they would show how Jesus was an ordinary human being (a “hippie type” one); and he had to experience and learn many things before he became (by his own effort) an enlightened Being. Showing that everyone can achieve what he did, and that there is no point in blindly worshiping him.

wouldn't it be more easier to be like Jesus if he were a normal person? (or at least more inspired by Jesus)
they missed that point when they canonized the bible..
but i also wonder how much of 'do as your told' was needed back then?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Turn the other cheek.

from here;
"If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

so turning the other cheek in essence was a person 'stepping up' and NOT backing down.

 

[scheherazade]

Just a comment on the 'virgin birth'.

Do your research on the hymen.

A women can get pregnant without having her hymen broken or having coitus. Sperm does have a way of getting around or 'happening'.

None of the above, the reference to a virgin mother is just a metaphorical description to a “pure woman” as in innocent. It is very poetical actually.
An innocent woman is not necessarily a “physical virgin”, but a woman who does not have un-pure thoughts, and the sex is out of pure love, as opposed to out of lust as it most commonly is.
Posted by Wisdom Seeker

That's a very interesting interpretation, Wisdom Seeker.

Where women are concerned, I would venture to say that sex out of lust is not the most common reason for my species to agree to participate.

It's a 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't' scenario.

Many lustful men will seek comfort in the arms of another, and some less confident women will offer their virtue in the hopes of retaining the interest of the male.

Not wishing to take this thread off topic, but felt it appropriate to respond to that 'most commonly is' bit, in defense of my species, especially after querying the virgin birth in my post.

I am so damned by the true believers now.

To quote a teen......"Whatever......"

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Just a comment on the 'virgin birth'.

Do your research on the hymen.

A women can get pregnant without having her hymen broken or having coitus. Sperm does have a way of getting around or 'happening'.



That's a very interesting interpretation, Wisdom Seeker.

Where women are concerned, I would venture to say that sex out of lust is not the most common reason for my species to agree to participate.

It's a 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't' scenario.

Many lustful men will seek comfort in the arms of another, and some less confident women will offer their virtue in the hopes of retaining the interest of the male.

Not wishing to take this thread off topic, but felt it appropriate to respond to that 'most commonly is' bit, in defense of my species, especially after querying the virgin birth in my post.

I am so damned by the true believers now.

To quote a teen......"Whatever......"

Hi Scheherazade, I apologize for my un-prudent comment; let me refrain my words:
This applies to both genders:
The motive and quality of sex for most people today is not love, because to find true love nowadays is rare to find. Courage, trust, self-respect and self-love are prerequisites of true love for your “significant other”, and all of these characteristics are very strange today.
Nevertheless, whatever your initial motive may be, if you engage in sexual intercourse without true love for your partner, lust is almost an inevitable emotion. I say “almost”, because there is a lower state than that: indifference.
Love is the transforming agent in the equation, if one engages in love-making with one’s partner, with love one’s heart, the sex takes a different quality; the energy starts moving “upwards” to higher centers of being, as opposed to move “downwards” which is the natural course for sexual energy. This is referred to in Vedic literature as “tantric sex”. To speak in common language, the love becomes stronger in quality and intensity during the act itself.

So my interpretation of the Jesus’ mom being a “virgin”, is that she never engaged in non-loving sex, sort of speak. And therefore, her thoughts, emotions and heart were innocent, and pure.

 

[scheherazade]

Hi Scheherazade, I apologize for my un-prudent comment; let me refrain my words:
This applies to both genders:
The motive and quality of sex for most people today is not love, because to find true love nowadays is rare to find. Courage, trust, self-respect and self-love are prerequisites of true love for your “significant other”, and all of these characteristics are very strange today.
Nevertheless, whatever your initial motive may be, if you engage in sexual intercourse without true love for your partner, lust is almost an inevitable emotion. I say “almost”, because there is a lower state than that: indifference.
Love is the transforming agent in the equation, if one engages in love-making with one’s partner, with love one’s heart, the sex takes a different quality; the energy starts moving “upwards” to higher centers of being, as opposed to move “downwards” which is the natural course for sexual energy. This is referred to in Vedic literature as “tantric sex”. To speak in common language, the love becomes stronger in quality and intensity during the act itself.

So my interpretation of the Jesus’ mom being a “virgin”, is that she never engaged in non-loving sex, sort of speak. And therefore, her thoughts, emotions and heart were innocent, and pure.

Thank you for that clarification, Wisdom Seeker. I see your earlier remark in a much more comprehensive context now.

You are a thoughtful individual, by your posts, and so I posed the question.

Once again, thank you for sharing your interpretation.

 

[murdoch]

And Jesus did not get to that immoral plateau.

Much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus in another instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

I follow humanistic line or simply put secular one. Sometimes one needs to ignore religious line considering time, place and situation while keeping in strict line with what actually ones moral values and social ethos expect him to do. I hope you got the answer back there with regard to lady thing...

gia,

it amazes me that you can look at humanity and look at your own self and not realize that there is something tragically wrong with you that you can not fix yourself. wow.

Thanks for alerting me! I guess you need to get more deep delving into the realms of such things before making such views about anyone. May be it's the surrounding you and me living around matters our pattern of thoughts.

 

[Greatest I am]

Greatest I am,

Those questions can be answered the day you make a gold fish or even a little guppy.

I did better. I made sons. With my wife,s help of course.
I do not have a flying miracle working absentee God to blame my actions on.
Some of us do not need to place our responsibilities on others.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

What did I read literally? For me the Apocalypse book is nothing but the metaphorical description of our own death (individual) and the confrontation from our own fears and desires created by the nourished ego during our whole life (3 headed monster - body, mind and self).

If it would have been literal, we probably wouldn't have that scripture right now (it most probably would have been destroyed as many other scriptures).


None of the above, the reference to a virgin mother is just a metaphorical description to a “pure woman” as in innocent. It is very poetical actually.
An innocent woman is not necessarily a “physical virgin”, but a woman who does not have un-pure thoughts, and the sex is out of pure love, as opposed to out of lust as it most commonly is.

I guess your other two questions are rhetoric so… If still you want to believe that the scripture is referring to a physical virgin birth, that is your choice; I think is beautiful poetry, the virgin birth is ridiculous if you look at it literally.

So if nothing real, or literal, points to a real Jesus, how do you come up with a real Jesus?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

from here;
"If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality."

so turning the other cheek in essence was a person 'stepping up' and NOT backing down.

Not the traditional view but then everyone seems to make u their own Gods nowadays.

Regards
DL

 

[Hesperado]

Scripture indicates, Trinitarians aside...

That's a gigantic aside -- large enough to drive a Roman chariot through.