Jesus Christ

[Summer]

I was wondering what all of your views are on Jesus Christ? Do you believe that he was an enlightened Master, do you think he was the actual son of God? What are your thoughts about him?

[Thorn]

Honestly, these days JC holds little interest for me. He seemed to have some good things to say, but there's no way of knowing if he actually said them. And even if he did, his followers have twisted everything to their own purposes for 2K years - starting from Paul onward.

Enlightened Master? Probably. At least, my gut says probably. But, see above re evidence of this.

Son of God? You and I have really different concepts of god, so it doesn't really apply. But yes, I think he was the son of god. That's a no brainer for me. We all are children of the gods. Was he particularly "special"? Genetically, I mean? As in divine DNA? Unlikely. I haven't read anything in the New Testament - even as it's come down to us - that couldn't be interpreted either way.

[Summer]

I believe that Jesus was an enlightened Master like Krishna. I don't believe that he was special genetically either. I believe that he had much truth that he taught, and many miracles that he performed also. I also believe in the theory that Jesus traveled throughout the Middle and Far East learning from all of the Masters that he could find while he wasn't mentioned in the bible from the ages of 14 to 30.

I have a hard time believing that Mary had emmaculate conception, however. And I also believe that what he taught has been changed over the past couple of thousands of years. I also believe that we are all children of God, and that is what he was trying to teach when he said that he was the son of God.

I do believe that it is possible that he when he died on the cross he performed a great ritual, and took upon himself a lot of the bad karma of those who believe in him. I think that he knew he was going to die, and could have easily escaped, but he welcomed the chance to perform the ritual and help the people that he loved so much.

I also believe that one can be Pagan, and believe in Jesus' teachings as well. That is how I am. I believe that Jesus is the most magickal person to ever walk this Earth so far. And when I pray to him, I believe that my prayers are heard, and that his energy is now omnipresent, like Buddha's or Krishna's energy is.

I also believe that Jesus taught reincarnation, but the minused those teachings from the bible, like they minused his marriage to Mary Magdalene. For their own selfish purposes and plans. I also believe that Jesus believed in Gods and Goddesses, although I have no proof of that. So, it's too bad in my opinion, that what he taught has been changed so much throughout the years. It gives him a bad name, one that I don't believe that he deserves.

[Thorn]

Oh, I think it's totally possible to combine Christ's teachings with paganism. It takes some thought, but it's doable.

But that's just not for me. I seem to have a strong aversion to anything JCI these days. Not in the sense that I've got any disrespect for the followers of those paths, but in the sense that I don't really want anything to do with them myself.

Oddly, I have no problem accepting Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu, but the divinity of Christ raises issues. Of course, Krishna didn't live in historical times, did he? I mean there's no record that he even existed outside of myth (in our physical realm, anyway.) Unless I'm wrong?

[Summer]

You know, I pray to Krishna every day, and I don't know whether or not he was ever included in written history. I just have an affinity to him, for some reason.

There is a Hindu holy book, but I cannot remember the name of it right now. He might have been written about in it though.

[Thorn]

There are several Hindu holy books, but I think you might mean the Bhagavad Gita, as it's a biggie for Krishna worshipers.

As far as I'm aware, it's not a historical document in the same sense that the Bible is (meaning only that many of the more mundane parts of the Bible can be verified by outside sources.)

In it Krishna appears as the charioteer of the mortal Prince Arjuna. The book is a conversation between the two on the eve of battle.

And, it's been a long time since I've read it so I could easily be wrong, but I seem to recall Krishna revealing himself as a god in human form, as opposed to a human conceived by a god like JC. This was believed to a fairly "common" way for gods to teach and/or mess with mortals - the Greek gods, for example, are believed to have taken human form all the time. Whereas Christ was born human and lived an entire human lifetime.

[Summer]

Yes, that is the name of the book. I can't ever remember that name for the life of me! I have never read any of it, and would like to someday. From what you are saying, it sounds very interesting.

Didn't Krishna basically teach a similar spiritual path as Christ did? I really haven't studied near as much about him as I would like to.

[Thorn]

I'm no expert in Hinduism, especially Krishna. It's been 20 years since I read the BG, I remember very little. Maybe Ria could answer that?

[Summer]

OK, I will ask her then. I am not an expert at any of the Hinduism either.

[Summer]

According to Ria, there really are few similarities in what Christ is said to have taught in the bible, and what Krishna taught in the Bhagavad Gita. One of the main differences in their teachings is reincarnation.

But according to what I believe, Jesus taught reincarnation, only the church later deleted those teachings out of the bible in order to have more control over the masses. I have no proof of this, other than the part of the New Testament where the man comes up to Jesus and asks how to enter the kingdom of heaven, and Jesus replies that one must be born again. Jesus doesn't go into how he supposedly means that you must be reborn of the spirit in this passage, he simply says that you must be born again. Why all of the Christian preachers don't see it for simply what he said, I am never going to know. The early followers of Christianity, from what I have studied so far, believed in reincarnation. Too bad it was deleted from the churches doctrines.

[jimmyRRpage]

Please note: The following are my beliefs and they are strong. If I offend anyone, I am sorry I offended you, for that was not my intention, but I refuse to apologize for my beliefs and these words I use to state them:



I find it very, very hard to see Jesus as anything more than another Rabbi, honestly.

Half of the reason I left Christianity is because of the accepted New Testament. It is so full of holes and contradictions that I find it hard to believe.

Then there is the fact that Jesus did not fulfill the original Jewish prophecy for the coming of the messiah.

A great, great article that includes this reason among many others is here:
Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

Also, it is the fact that, like Thorn said, what Jesus actually said and did is unknown, because it has been twisted and turned for each individual Christian Sect's use. Who knows what the original, unchanged words actually say about what Jesus did and said.

Then you have to remember that one of his greatest powers can be explained in the most natural of ways. Jesus was said to have the ability to raise the dead. Back then, who knew the difference between a dead person and someone who's either fainted or been knocked out? All Jesus probably had to do was sprinkle some cold water over the person's eyes and voila! "The dead has been raised!"

I do believe, on the other hand, that if Christians were right all along, and Jesus truly is the "Son of God" and our Savior, then the Gnostic gospels hold a much truer picture of Jesus and his life than the accepted New Testament.

Here's another one for y'all:

In Judaism, Meshiach, or Messiah, means "Anointed One." Guess what? Every king, from King David onwards, was anointed, making them a Messiah. When babies are Baptized in the Catholic Church, they are anointed. Guess what that makes all those babies in Judaism? Messiahs.

And for even more, we consider God our parent. We are all sons and daughters of God. So, yes, Jesus was a Son of God. But so am I. You are also a Son or Daughter of God.

And finally, in Judaism, the messiah was never supposed to be "special" in any way. the Messiah was never supposed to be a "Son of God."


Because of what I have learned going through Christianity, spending time believing in God but having no religion, too ultimately becoming Jewish, I have found that Jesus either is not the Savior so many believe he is, or he has been grossly misrepresented by those who worship him.

[Summer]

After reading through the article that you included, I can definately see why you think Jesus isn't the Messiah. I don't know if I think he is the Messiah or not myself. I know that I do believe that he was capable of performing the miracles they claim that he could.

I also believe that Jesus was a Rabbi. I believe that Jesus was married like all Rabbi's are supposed to be. I believe that they deleted so much information out of the New Testament, that they made Jesus seem like a God or something, when he was just an enlightened man.

Jesus taught that what he did so could any of us do. That we were and are all children of God, including him. I'm not even sure that he thought himself to be the Messiah personally. And modern day Christianity is full of teachings that Jesus didn't teach. So it frustrates me a lot. I tend to stay far away from it myself.

[Thorn]

Frist: Hi JRRP! Long time no see! Welcome back!

Now, please don't take offense, but this is a pet peeve of mine, especially since I've made some (limited, granted) study of medical systems dating back to long before the time of Christ:

Back then, who knew the difference between a dead person and someone who's either fainted or been knocked out? All Jesus probably had to do was sprinkle some cold water over the person's eyes and voila! "The dead has been raised!"

This just isn't true.

We're not talking the stone ages here. We're talking the era of Augustus and the early Roman Empire. People just weren't that ignorant. Medical science in the west hadn't reached today's levels, but much of it was quite sophisticated. And medical practice in the East (at least in India and China), which they had at least some access to in Israel and the surrounding areas, was pretty amazing. It's safe to say they certainly knew how to at least check for a pulse.

And for even more, we consider God our parent. We are all sons and daughters of God. So, yes, Jesus was a Son of God. But so am I. You are also a Son or Daughter of God.

My thoughts exactly. As Jesus (supposedly) said "Our Father who art in Heaven..."

Wasn't the Messiah supposed to be a secular leader? A general or a king? That's why the Romans were so afraid of him.

As for the etymology of "Messiah" I don't really see how it applies. I'd leave it out of your arguement, it weakens it. There are too many cases of a word having different meanings that the strict definition. "Lord" for example. Many lords, the Lord...

[jimmyRRpage]

thorn said:

Frist: Hi JRRP! Long time no see! Welcome back!

Thanks. Good to see you, too.

Now, please don't take offense, but this is a pet peeve of mine, especially since I've made some (limited, granted) study of medical systems dating back to long before the time of Christ:

Back then, who knew the difference between a dead person and someone who's either fainted or been knocked out? All Jesus probably had to do was sprinkle some cold water over the person's eyes and voila! "The dead has been raised!"

This just isn't true.

We're not talking the stone ages here. We're talking the era of Augustus and the early Roman Empire. People just weren't that ignorant. Medical science in the west hadn't reached today's levels, but much of it was quite sophisticated. And medical practice in the East (at least in India and China), which they had at least some access to in Israel and the surrounding areas, was pretty amazing. It's safe to say they certainly knew how to at least check for a pulse.

But we aren't talking about the elite, here, either. We're talking about the very people Rome tried so hard to suppress. Even small things like this would have been kept from most Israelites if it helped in their suppression. Unfortunately we can't know, and unless someone builds a time machine, we'll never truly know.

And for even more, we consider God our parent. We are all sons and daughters of God. So, yes, Jesus was a Son of God. But so am I. You are also a Son or Daughter of God.

My thoughts exactly. As Jesus (supposedly) said "Our Father who art in Heaven..."

Wasn't the Messiah supposed to be a secular leader? A general or a king? That's why the Romans were so afraid of him.

Exactly.

As for the etymology of "Messiah" I don't really see how it applies. I'd leave it out of your arguement, it weakens it. There are too many cases of a word having different meanings that the strict definition. "Lord" for example. Many lords, the Lord...

But this is a fact. In Hebrew, Meshiach, or Messiah. means anointed one. That is not supposition. I got this from my Rabbi, who learned it at the Jewish Theological Seminary. In fact, when learning how to speak and understand Hebrew, it is one of the first things taught. Every king was anointed, and in Judaism that makes them Meshiachs, or Messiahs. The practice of anointing a king as a Meshiach was a common practice among Judaism for as long as there were kings in Israel.


From the article I posted in my initial post:

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

[Thorn]

But this is a fact. In Hebrew, Meshiach, or Messiah. means anointed one.

I'm not disputing the definition of the word, only that it can have different shades of meaning. An annointed one (any king, priest, or basically anyone who's had some olive oil dumped on their head) can be quite different from The Annointed One (a specific king, etc, pre-ordained to liberate Israel from the Romans; or pre-ordained to save us all from hell, depending on one's faith.) Just like when I say "The Lord," people know I'm not talking about Lord Byron.

But we aren't talking about the elite, here, either. We're talking about the very people Rome tried so hard to suppress. Even small things like this would have been kept from most Israelites if it helped in their suppression. Unfortunately we can't know, and unless someone builds a time machine, we'll never truly know.

Rome tried to keep the Jews as part of the Empire. As imperialists, they certainly weren't the good guys in large parts of the world, but I think they get a bum rap. The Roman Empire only became so vast and so long-lasting because the Romans, as a whole, knew how to govern it. Doing so by atrocities doesn't work.

They did not try to make slaves of the Jews (that would be the Egyptians). At least not more than in the sense that people at the time were slaves to their king, be he Roman or Jewish. They were actually fairly open minded about the cultures of all the people that they conquered. They would let people continue to worship their own gods, f'ex, as long as it didn't interfere with worshipping the Roman dieties as well (which was considered a political duty.) They even made an exception for Jewish monotheism for a long time, only really cracking down, as in tearing down the temple and all, when the Jews started actively fighting for their independance.

Even then the Roman's interest was in re-establishing a loyal province for their Emperor, not in making the people of Israel uneducated savages. What they wanted to supress was the rabble-rousers. A good way to do that, one that the Romans knew well, was to make sure that their province wasn't a breeding ground for them - i.e. make sure the common folk had an OK life if they obeyed the Romans. (Obviously, some governers did this better than others, of course and there were some really awful ones.)

But even if they did want to supress any learning, they weren't the sole source of wisdom. They could never do it with something this basic. The Jews had eyes, and they had minds. Even assuming that Lazarus' family didn't consult a doctor (or whatever form of experienced healer was available to their social class - someone's grandmother who knew about herbs, whatever), they'd still have experience to draw from. Someone would have seen a person get knocked unconscious and eventually get back up again.

Plus, there'd be clues even more obvious than the pulse - he'd still be breathing for one, and he wouldn't be getting any colder or bluer. Dead people really don't look like live people for very long.

I don't think a time machine is really needed when we have well-documented history and any understanding of human nature.

But even if we are just making assumptions, I prefer to assume that the ancient Israelites (or any ancient people, for that matter) weren't stupid.