Who was Jesus talking to when he said...

[davewhite04]

Doesn't really change that he called her a dog, does it?

In the same context he also called grown men children, how dare he.

I certainly don't know, but he clearly made it a point to shame both pharisees and non-generous wealthy for their power and riches. The parables abound with stories designed to make foolish the powerful and the rich.

Foolish, because their earthly riches only lasts a very limited time, the text cannot, and doesn't try to convey how these rich people felt.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Basically, god and human both, human part saying "Hey, I'm kind of upset about this."

M-W: ever stub your toe?

************
M*W: I guess the character of Jesus could have had human feelings about what was happening to him. I concur with that. I guess that even a god could have some awkward feelings. I don't discount any feelings that could have emerged from the personalities of a triune god-character. It makes for interesting fiction.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What other people have wrote about the NT and mystic origins is of no interest, as it is pure unfounded speculation. A simple fact remains, SOME one or more wrote the NT, the question is what was the MOTIVE?

Let me give you my opinion.

The gospels were written about a man called Jesus. He was an enlightened human being(like many before and after him) here to teach us about love and peace and such, which was not symbolic, it was written as a story.

If Jesus did not exist(this brings up the obvious question, if Jesus didn't exist then who was this person? Brian?), the gospels still teach valuable lessons.

It is blatantly obvious they are not symbolic(the gospels), no matter what these other books and no doubt the money driven authors say.

If you have a scholarly book that theorises the motives of the NT, I am interested, hell, I'm interested in why you think the book teaches something else, and what in your opinion is the motive of this something else.

I think Jesus existed, it is only logical. I think he was a man. I think he was taught his knowledge by someone or some beings that had more knowledge then him and who wanted to help mankind(these beings taught others before and after Jesus, for example the prophets of the OT who describe them as not of this world).

The folks who knew and listened to Jesus wrote down what he said, end of. The knowledge was meant to reach and teach us(the gospels).

Paul met perhaps a being that did not have our best interests in mind and he wrote things that have been the catalyst or an excuse to rage wars ever since his pen(or Luke's or whoever) left the paper.

John on his island penned the revelations which have occurred numerous times since his pen left the paper(from Nero, the black death, world war 1/2 etc) without the 1000 years of peace. Believers wait in anticipation everyday now for another end of days event(all mainstream religions contain this crap), which is both controlling and sad and mad at the same time. John was influenced by a being or beings that did not have mans best interest at heart.

The NT is both good and evil, the good is meant to teach us and bring peace to earth, unfortunately the corrupted books after the gospels are there to create the opposite, and importantly used to control the folks that believe it by using fear.

The motive is (in my opinion) both meant to teach us(the good) and to control us(the bad).

I'm wondering and pondering now as to who or what these beings are, as I believe they have and still do influence mankind.

The simple fact remains, this one book influences the world more than any other book in history by far, so either the writer was the greatest genius ever or the knowledge was not of this world.

Sounds crazy, but not as crazy as thinking that Jesus was/is actually God.

Hope you get better soon.

*************
M*W: Dave, briefly, you have learned of the character of Jesus in a specific manner. I also learned the same thing you have learned. However, I have researched in depth and have learned something different, something that contradicts the usual teaching. Just because it's totally different than the earlier teaching, does not make it wrong. I know you don't understand this, and I don't intend to change what you believe. I just want to present the other side and let the readers choose. I will attempt to gather the info and provide it as soon as I am able to get around on this peg leg.

 

[GeoffP]

************
M*W: I guess the character of Jesus could have had human feelings about what was happening to him. I concur with that. I guess that even a god could have some awkward feelings. I don't discount any feelings that could have emerged from the personalities of a triune god-character. It makes for interesting fiction.

In your opinion.

 

[river-wind]

In the same context he also called grown men children, how dare he.
...
Foolish, because their earthly riches only lasts a very limited time, the text cannot, and doesn't try to convey how these rich people felt.

I think you just agreed with me. My original post was to point out that Jesus did in fact put people down as recorded in the NT. He wasn't all rainbows and sausages. I made no moral claim as to if those actions were justified or not.

To now make a moral claim, I personally agree with him on the rich folk side of things. I disagree with him on the racism.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

What other people have wrote about the NT and mystic origins is of no interest, as it is pure unfounded speculation. A simple fact remains, SOME one or more wrote the NT, the question is what was the MOTIVE?

Let me give you my opinion.

The gospels were written about a man called Jesus. He was an enlightened human being(like many before and after him) here to teach us about love and peace and such, which was not symbolic, it was written as a story.

If Jesus did not exist(this brings up the obvious question, if Jesus didn't exist then who was this person? Brian?), the gospels still teach valuable lessons.

It is blatantly obvious they are not symbolic(the gospels), no matter what these other books and no doubt the money driven authors say.

If you have a scholarly book that theorises the motives of the NT, I am interested, hell, I'm interested in why you think the book teaches something else, and what in your opinion is the motive of this something else.

I think Jesus existed, it is only logical. I think he was a man. I think he was taught his knowledge by someone or some beings that had more knowledge then him and who wanted to help mankind(these beings taught others before and after Jesus, for example the prophets of the OT who describe them as not of this world).

The folks who knew and listened to Jesus wrote down what he said, end of. The knowledge was meant to reach and teach us(the gospels).

Paul met perhaps a being that did not have our best interests in mind and he wrote things that have been the catalyst or an excuse to rage wars ever since his pen(or Luke's or whoever) left the paper.

John on his island penned the revelations which have occurred numerous times since his pen left the paper(from Nero, the black death, world war 1/2 etc) without the 1000 years of peace. Believers wait in anticipation everyday now for another end of days event(all mainstream religions contain this crap), which is both controlling and sad and mad at the same time. John was influenced by a being or beings that did not have mans best interest at heart.

The NT is both good and evil, the good is meant to teach us and bring peace to earth, unfortunately the corrupted books after the gospels are there to create the opposite, and importantly used to control the folks that believe it by using fear.

The motive is (in my opinion) both meant to teach us(the good) and to control us(the bad).

I'm wondering and pondering now as to who or what these beings are, as I believe they have and still do influence mankind.

The simple fact remains, this one book influences the world more than any other book in history by far, so either the writer was the greatest genius ever or the knowledge was not of this world.

Sounds crazy, but not as crazy as thinking that Jesus was/is actually God.

Hope you get better soon.

*************
M*W: I found this on the web:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/1644.php

For starters, until I can go through my reference books. There are other websites about this subject which are easily found online. I would rather provide you with the scientific and archeological peer-reviewed data, but this will give you an idea of how rich the NT is with astrological information.

I want you to first understand that I'm not an astrologer nor do I believe in astrology as a science. It's more of a fad. I am, however, a great believer in the ancient study of the skies as a religion of the day, or pre-christianity.

I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks for your patience!

M*W

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: I found this on the web:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/1644.php

but this will give you an idea of how rich the NT is with astrological information.

Quoted from site above:

"It is also of great interest that Jesus himself was associated with the fish. The phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour" in the Greek reads "Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter." The capital letters from this phrase spells ICHTHU, -- which is the Greek word for "fish." Because of persecution a Christian would secretly communicate his belief in Christ with another Christian by merely drawing or making the sign of the fish."

Do you honestly take this seriously?

No offense, but that is the highest form of hogwash. There was a lot more of it on that site....

 

[river-wind]

The use of the fish symbol as a means of underground communication system between early Christians, and the origin of the fish symbol is fairly well established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

Much of the rest of that page is quite a stretch but your quoted line seems pretty in line with accepted history.

What is your understanding of the symbol's history?

 

[davewhite04]

The use of the fish symbol as a means of underground communication system between early Christians, and the origin of the fish symbol is fairly well established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

Much of the rest of that page is quite a stretch but your quoted line seems pretty in line with accepted history.

What is your understanding of the symbol's history?

river-wind:

"It is also of great interest that Jesus himself was associated with the fish. The phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour" in the Greek reads "Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter." The capital letters from this phrase spells ICHTHU, -- which is the Greek word for "fish." Because of persecution a Christian would secretly communicate his belief in Christ with another Christian by merely drawing or making the sign of the fish."

Jesus himself was not associated with the fish. Christians apparently adopted a code which did introduce the fish symbol into Christianity yes. The quoted paragraph is simply ridiculous when you think of it ("Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter.")

The wikipedia explanation seems more plausible.

I'm still interested in Medicine*Woman's other research though.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The use of the fish symbol as a means of underground communication system between early Christians, and the origin of the fish symbol is fairly well established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys

Much of the rest of that page is quite a stretch but your quoted line seems pretty in line with accepted history.

What is your understanding of the symbol's history?

*************
M*W: It's important to click on the references. There is a lot of info in them.

 

[river-wind]

river-wind:
The quoted paragraph is simply ridiculous when you think of it ("Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter.")

The wikipedia explanation seems more plausible.

Jesus himself was associated with the fish in terms of being a fisher of men. Along with the sermon on the mount food miracle and his close connection to actual fishermen, fish were a common theme in the NT. Not too surprising given how much the culture in question depended on the sea.

St. Clement gave official support for the fish symbol (as well as a dove cross symbol) in the second century, and it had already been in use as an underground identification symbol/gang sign (East Galilee represent) for over a hundred years at that point. Theologian Tertullian, again in the second century, said: "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water", referencing the born-again nature of baptism as central to Jesus' teachings.

The wikipedia link supports the paragraph you're saying is ridiculous - "Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter" is directly referenced in the wikipedia link as well:

* Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for "Jesus".
* Chi (ch) is the first letter of Christos (Χριστὸς), Greek for "anointed".
* Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), Greek for "God's", the genitive case of Θεóς, Theos, Greek for "God".
* Upsilon (y) is the first letter of yios (Υἱὸς), Greek for "Son".
* Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for "Savior".

 

[davewhite04]

Jesus himself was associated with the fish in terms of being a fisher of men. Along with the sermon on the mount food miracle and his close connection to actual fishermen, fish were a common theme in the NT. Not too surprising given how much the culture in question depended on the sea.

So this means that Jesus was associated with a fish, personally?

St. Clement gave official support for the fish symbol (as well as a dove cross symbol) in the second century, and it had already been in use as an underground identification symbol/gang sign (East Galilee represent) for over a hundred years at that point. Theologian Tertullian, again in the second century, said: "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water", referencing the born-again nature of baptism as central to Jesus' teachings.

You are confusing Christians with Jesus himself, once again. Jesus himself was not associated with fish in the sense that you and that article assume.

He is associated with being a fisher of MEN.

The wikipedia link supports the paragraph you're saying is ridiculous - "Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter" is directly referenced in the wikipedia link as well:

* Iota (i) is the first letter of Iēsous (Ἰησοῦς), Greek for "Jesus".
* Chi (ch) is the first letter of Christos (Χριστὸς), Greek for "anointed".
* Theta (th) is the first letter of Theou (Θεοῦ), Greek for "God's", the genitive case of Θεóς, Theos, Greek for "God".
* Upsilon (y) is the first letter of yios (Υἱὸς), Greek for "Son".
* Sigma (s) is the first letter of sōtēr (Σωτήρ), Greek for "Savior".

Compare the two again.

And, if you're reading Medicine*Woman, is this all of your research? Or are you still struggling?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Quoted from site above:

"It is also of great interest that Jesus himself was associated with the fish. The phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour" in the Greek reads "Iesous CHristos THeou Uios Soter." The capital letters from this phrase spells ICHTHU, -- which is the Greek word for "fish." Because of persecution a Christian would secretly communicate his belief in Christ with another Christian by merely drawing or making the sign of the fish."

Do you honestly take this seriously?

No offense, but that is the highest form of hogwash. There was a lot more of it on that site....

*************
M*W: Hogwash to you is nectar to me. I know what you believe, and I can feel your pain, but you've got to face the truth that there's a lot of data out there to prove that Jesus was just a myth taken from an earlier myth. I don't post this information to offend you. I post it because I believe it is the truth. Can you prove that Jesus existed without using the bible as your reference?

 

[davewhite04]

*************
M*W: Hogwash to you is nectar to me. I know what you believe, and I can feel your pain, but you've got to face the truth that there's a lot of data out there to prove that Jesus was just a myth taken from an earlier myth. I don't post this information to offend you. I post it because I believe it is the truth. Can you prove that Jesus existed without using the bible as your reference?

Can you prove that he is some sort of symbol for a fish(do you believe in Billy the Fish?)?

I would rather rely on a historical document, such as the Bible. And read it as a historical document as it is one.

 

[river-wind]

So this means that Jesus was associated with a fish, personally?

Yes, it does. He was associated with a fish, by at least those two individuals, and clearly by many others, given the history of the fish symbol.

You are confusing Christians with Jesus himself, once again. Jesus himself was not associated with fish in the sense that you and that article assume.

He was associated with fish by his followers, yes. Do mean to say that Jesus did not give himself the label of fish; that he did not create the fish association himself?

He is associated with being a fisher of MEN.

Yes, and he is reported to have created loaves and fish, and baptism, which he considered important, is connected to fish. These were all used to associate the message and story of Jesus to him by his followers. (edit: clarified wording)

Jesus himself was not associated with fish...

There seems to be some language confusion going on. Jesus did not associate himself with a fish (as far as I am aware) or with fish imagery, but Jesus was associated with a fish by others, per my examples.

I did not understand that you meant to say that Jesus didn't call himself a fish. If that was your point, then I do agree with you. He certainly was associated with fish by his followers; both in iconography and is description. He didn't say those words himself (as least it was not recorded), however - the argument could be made that his association with a fish by his followers was in error.

Compare the two again.

I am comparing the two again, and the only difference is in Upsilon, which in the wikipedia version is given as a Y; this is a non-issue as the lowercase upsilon is rendered as a u, and the greek for son Υἱὸς can also be written as uἱὸς

 

[John99]

*************
M*W: Hogwash to you is nectar to me. I know what you believe, and I can feel your pain, but you've got to face the truth that there's a lot of data out there to prove that Jesus was just a myth taken from an earlier myth. I don't post this information to offend you. I post it because I believe it is the truth. Can you prove that Jesus existed without using the bible as your reference?

Its just a stupid argument so it isnt realistic. Now your asking not to use any references and then you say there are no references but if that is the criteria then no one existed before video tape or photographs. You should try showing examples of other people who are accepted as being actual people although they never existed.

 

[John99]

Also M*W, Jesus didnt become real popular until after his death. Now there is the real point of contention and one that can be intelligently debated.

 

[John99]

Therefore this should be in pseudoscience.

Edit: whoops, M*W was asking about existence so i thought this was the existence thread.

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, it does. He was associated with a fish, by at least those two individuals, and clearly by many others, given the history of the fish symbol.



He was associated with fish by his followers, yes. Do mean to say that Jesus did not give himself the label of fish; that he did not create the fish association himself?

Yes, and he is reported to have created loaves and fish, and baptism, which he considered important, is connected to fish. These were all used to associate the message and story of Jesus to him by his followers. (edit: clarified wording)



There seems to be some language confusion going on. Jesus did not associate himself with a fish (as far as I am aware) or with fish imagery, but Jesus was associated with a fish by others, per my examples.

I did not understand that you meant to say that Jesus didn't call himself a fish. If that was your point, then I do agree with you. He certainly was associated with fish by his followers; both in iconography and is description. He didn't say those words himself (as least it was not recorded), however - the argument could be made that his association with a fish by his followers was in error.



I am comparing the two again, and the only difference is in Upsilon, which in the wikipedia version is given as a Y; this is a non-issue as the lowercase upsilon is rendered as a u, and the greek for son Υἱὸς can also be written as uἱὸς

The whole point of that article is to try and associate Jesus and Christians and the whole sha bang with the constellation Pisces(and some nonsense about it meaning the age we live in(Pisces apparently), some people are waiting for the great age of Aquarius) because his followers decided (apparently) to use a code based on some Greek translation, of whatever (the wikipedia article says ""Jesus Christ, God's son, savior,", the razz matazz site uses "Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour".

I won't go on and on about it...

There has been a mixup, we can agree to disagree

 

[river-wind]

I do agree that the claims for Christianity solely being a personification of earlier zodiac/astrological mythologies are pretty thin in the evidence department (many of these sorts of claims reference astrological symbolism that only came about in the middle ages), however, there has certainly been wholesale adoption of existing religious ceremonies, mythologies and symbolism into Christianity over the years. The use of the fish symbol prior to early Christian's adoption is clear, and the use of other such pagan fertility rituals and symbols in Christianity is rampant.

Either this means, as I think M*W has previously claimed, that Christianity is actually a pagan fertility religion disguised as the exact opposite, or it means that Christianity's history of adopting local customs and symbols to its own use, applied to the religions common in the area at the time, resulted in a new religion with *lots* of older stories and symbols integrated into it.

So I do think the site M*W linked to is drawing conclusions that it doesn't effectively support, but I don't think that every claim it makes is 100% false, either. I initially commented on your refutation of the fish paragraph because on its own, that was one of the best-substantiated paragraphs in the entire article.

As for the zodiac ages, I haven't done much in-depth research into the topic, but what I have read says that the 'ages' equate to roughly 2,000 year periods, with the recent progression being Aries (Ram), Pisces (Fish), Aquarius (water-barer). Outside of any supposed link to Christianity, people are waiting (and singing) about the coming "Age of Aquarius" for a while now.