Who do YOU say Jesus was?

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

An ordinary man. Good orator, inspired social activist, wise and kind, yet still and ordinary man.

THere is a VERY interesting book out there by Michael Chrichton called "The Miracle Strain". It is very much fiction, but raises some important What Ifs?

------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who' if we wins' knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid sould who know neither victory nor defeat."
-"The Man in the Arena"

Originally posted by patriotSTORM:
THere is a VERY interesting book out there by Michael Chrichton called "The Miracle Strain". It is very much fiction, but raises some important What Ifs?



....and, were you going to fill us in a little?

patriotSTORM,

I think you meant Michael Cordy. Are you referring to the story about a geneticist who invents a machine that can decode the human blueprint, and he discovers the "genes of God"?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Pashley,

I think he may have been planted in the womb of some poor young girl named Mary, who just so happened to have the "right" genetic makeup, by one of the "gods" (aliens? custodians of the earth? aerial hosts?) who used to fly around in their space vehicles much more openly than they do now. Jesus himself was reported to have claimed that he was not of this world, as opposed to his followers, who were of this world. I'm not sure what the purpose was, unless they saw that their labor pool was losing interest in serving them, and they felt they had to bring back the focus.

I think Jesus was basically a good person, and there seems to be some evidence (in the books that were left out of the Bible) that he did not want the role of Messiah. I think this may be why his "father" had forsaken him at the end - he wasn't as useful to him in spreading the dogma as had been hoped, and it could be that his father found him more useful dead than alive. Otherwise, he might have lived longer than 3 years once he began his ministry. Very mysterious, and very sad, too.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Originally posted by Searcher:
Pashley,

I think he may have been planted in the womb of some poor young girl named Mary, who just so happened to have the "right" genetic makeup, by one of the "gods" (aliens? custodians of the earth? aerial hosts?) who used to fly around in their space vehicles much more openly than they do now.


See what happens when you take too many hallucegenic drugs, kids? :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pat,

Is that the best you can offer in the way of a rebuttal? Why am I not surprised?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Pat,

I'm not sure about Jesus - he does seem to have been of much more sterling character than his father, Jehovah. However, one must ask oneself how far the apple falls from the tree?

As for Jehovah, I vote for all 3 - lord, lunatic and liar. [He was "lord" only in the sense that he was the ruler of a people, albeit from the air (is it just coincidence that the character, "Satan", was referred to as the prince of the power of the air?).]

More later...

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Pat,

I'd like to turn your attention for a moment to Ephesians 2:1-3, which says,

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Just who was this prince of the power of the air? Who else hung out up there, ruling from above, working in the children of disobedience? Could it be our old friend, Jehovah? Let's take a little trip back in time, shall we? Exodus 6:2-4 gives us an introduction to Moses' friend in the sky, Jehovah:

2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.


That this Jehovah intended to reign supreme was made clear in Exodus 20:1-6:

1 And God spake all these words, saying,

2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


But was he the prince of the power of the air? Well, all through Exodus it talks about the Lord hanging around in a cloud, or cloudy pillar, above the Hebrews. I don't want to make this too long by quoting every passage that says so, but I will quote a few of them later on, if anyone so desires. (For the time being, anyone with a bible may read about this "cloud" in the following chapters in Exodus: 13, 14, 24 and 33; also please read Genesis 19:16-19).

Turn now to the book of Joshua, which tells the tale of a genocidal rampage led by Jehovah against the inhabitants of Canaan, allegedly because they were disobedient. According to Joshua 11:19, "There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle." One might wonder why, when faced with a huge army led by a powerful "God" in the sky, more cities did not surrender, but chose instead to fight and be butchered? Let's take a look at the next verse, shall we? "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses."

I might also mention here that it was this same "Lord" who hardened the heart of Pharoah so that he would refuse to free the Hebrew slaves - for the sole purpose of showing off his great powers.

Wow! So it was Jehovah (who was pretty much established as the prince of the power of the air back in Exodus), who was working in the children of disobedience! And this guy was the father of Jesus? Hmmm....

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Originally posted by Searcher:
Pat,

Is that the best you can offer in the way of a rebuttal? Why am I not surprised?



Searcher, I actually started this thread just to see what people's opinion's of Jesus were, that's all. You'll notice I did not include my belief about him in the OP.

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Searcher, I actually started this thread just to see what people's opinion's of Jesus were, that's all. You'll notice I did not include my belief about him in the OP.

I see - so that was really only intended as an attack on my character rather than a defense of your Master? How very....Christian.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Originally posted by Searcher:


I might also mention here that it was this same "Lord" who hardened the heart of Pharoah so that he would refuse to free the Hebrew slaves - for the sole purpose of showing off his great powers.

Wow! So it was Jehovah (who was pretty much established as the prince of the power of the air back in Exodus), who was working in the children of disobedience! And this guy was the father of Jesus? Hmmm....



Well, I was about go thru the citations you listed when I came to the above paragraphs, and deceided not to. Addressing this was more important.

First of all, God didn't "harden the heart of Pharoah", he did that all by himself. You don't understand that when God gave us complete freedom, that included the ability to love OR hate. It's up to us. If he limited us in any way, we would not be free, now would we? If he hardened Pharoah's heart, that would necessarily imply a loss of freedom, and we could not love God freely of our own choice, which is the only way to REALLY love, now, isn't it? It's like holding someone hostage, and promising food "if you promise to love me". That's not love, that's coercion.

I can see your ideas on the nature of God are.....well, shall we say, inaccurate? :)

Originally posted by Searcher:
I see - so that was really only intended as an attack on my character rather than a defense of your Master? How very....Christian.



Don't give me that. Anyone that thinks Mary was impregnated by aliens which resulted in Jesus is nuts. You'll notice my first reply was more kind.

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

First of all, God didn't "harden the heart of Pharoah", he did that all by himself. You don't understand that when God gave us complete freedom, that included the ability to love OR hate. It's up to us. If he limited us in any way, we would not be free, now would we? If he hardened Pharoah's heart, that would necessarily imply a loss of freedom, and we could not love God freely of our own choice, which is the only way to REALLY love, now, isn't it? It's like holding someone hostage, and promising food "if you promise to love me". That's not love, that's coercion.

I can see your ideas on the nature of God are.....well, shall we say, inaccurate?

Pat,

Oh really? I see that you have taken it upon yourself to contradict what Jehovah himself promised Moses he would do (please join me in reading Exodus 14:4):

<font color = "red">"And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord."</font>

Then in Exodus 14:8, it states that he succeeded in this endeavor:

<font color = "red">"And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand."</font>

Apparently you have judged Jehovah to be either a liar or a manipulative tyrant! Not that I object, but you're the one who supposedly serves him - and personally, I don't think he'll appreciate your assessment of his character. RUN PAT, RUN! :)

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Don't give me that. Anyone that thinks Mary was impregnated by aliens which resulted in Jesus is nuts. You'll notice my first reply was more kind.

Pat,

It is quite apparent that you cannot tolerate opinions that vary greatly from your own. And when you find yourself incapable of presenting a logical argument to counter statements with which you are in disagreement, you resort to libel. As I said before...typical.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

You guys are fruit cakes.

Originally posted by Searcher:
Pat,

Oh really? I see that you have taken it upon yourself to contradict what Jehovah himself promised Moses he would do (please join me in reading Exodus 14:4):

<font color = "red">"And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord."</font>

Then in Exodus 14:8, it states that he succeeded in this endeavor:

<font color = "red">"And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand."</font>

Apparently you have judged Jehovah to be either a liar or a manipulative tyrant! Not that I object, but you're the one who supposedly serves him - and personally, I don't think he'll appreciate your assessment of his character. RUN PAT, RUN! :)



Sorry, but you fell into my trap. :)

You have misconstrued, as many do, that verse. God did not harden his heart, as I had said; he provided the circumstances for Pharoah, but that is all.

I hope I don't have to explain that :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by Infinity:
You guys are fruit cakes.

Wow, pretty powerful. Thanks so much for that contribution.

Anybody know the coding for sarcasm?

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

And here's a few gems from our new friend and fellow fruitcake, Infinity:

We didn't evolve from an Ape nor from Neanderthals or whatever the hell you want to call it. We evolved from these 3-4 foot creatures which were a mix between a Cat and a Monkey. They also had sharp long claws if im not mistaken.

Dogs wag their tails for hours after their dead

Hey Witch. Say, do you have any witch powers, like The Gap Troll from Mad Tv???

Welcome aboard, Infinity. Do you have anything useful to add to the conversation?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

You have misconstrued, as many do, that verse. God did not harden his heart, as I had said; he provided the circumstances for Pharoah, but that is all.

I hope I don't have to explain that

Sorry Pat - you do! Actually, I am quite used to Christians completely twisting what the scriptures do say to fit what they would like them to say. But you'll need to do some pretty fancy footwork to pull this one off to my satisfaction.

And once you've explained this, please provide the rationale for killing every man, woman and child in the various cities in the land of Canaan and giving that land to the children of Israel (while Jehovah kept the spoils of war for himself)? Don't bother mentioning that Jehovah allowed one prostitute from the city of Jericho to live - she was a traitor to her own people who helped two Hebrew spies.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Anybody know the coding for sarcasm?

How about the rolly-eyed guy? :rolleyes:

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Welcome aboard, Infinity. Do you have anything useful to add to the conversation?


No.

Infinity,

Great! Finally, an honest post!! LOL!!! Nice to meetcha, monkey-cat! LOL.

(Is is just me, or does this guy crack you all up too?)

Jesus was the first Anarchist.

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Originally posted by tiassa:
Jesus was the first Anarchist.



The FIRST one? I don't know about that. Socrates might fit that description. He did get the authorities upset though...!

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by Searcher:

And once you've explained this, please provide the rationale for killing every man, woman and child in the various cities in the land of Canaan and giving that land to the children of Israel (while Jehovah kept the spoils of war for himself)? Don't bother mentioning that Jehovah allowed one prostitute from the city of Jericho to live - she was a traitor to her own people who helped two Hebrew spies.



I'm sorry, could you clue me in to what chapter and verse you are specifically citing? You are not ringing any bells here...


------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

Fair enough. It was just a wild hair. In college I had the wonderful opportunity to demonstrate that Jesus was not a Messiah or Son of God. I did a fair job, but we all knew it came down to faith speculation. The best I could come up with at the time was political rabble-rouser; despite all else, I think it's fair to say the term applies.

But I do think of Socrates as more of an exclusive builder than deconstructor. There's where I would split the Socrates hair, but my Socratic studies are far lacking any sense of real qualification to that.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa,

Anarchy rules, dude.

And to contribute my two cents....Jesus is the human manifestation of God the Father, our Creator. They are one in the same, just two different manifestations. The third manifestation of Him is the Holy Spirit. What string were we talking about the trinity in? They are NOT three separate identities, but ONE identity, and three different manifestations of the same. Make sense?

And dag gone it....God is not an ET for crying out loud!!!!!! Aliens are demonic, demonic, demonic!!!!!!

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Ditto that, Lori.

I'd like to challenge Tiassa on the divinity of Jesus. I'd like to hear her major arguing points against the issue.

I guess the real crux of Jesus' divinity is the Reserrection. If THAT did not happen, boy, there's a lot of ideas that collapse!

But, (in my opinion), there is great evidence for it.

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

See what I can do ... it's over five years old, but the paper I wrote still makes cameos among all my junk. The only citation I recall off the top of my head was a gentleman named C.G. Monetfiore, who wrote about 1928-30. His portion I recall using to establish A) that Jesus' earthly family was of the Pharisees, and B) that Galilee at the time of Jesus' upbringing was essentially a Biblical Haight-Ashbury, with zealots and prophets running amok in the streets.

A European author named Mayer or Meyersson (use your imagination until I find the citation) established, for my purposes, that Jesus' being executed as a thief is no surprise, as most political opponents were put to death as thieves in the time.

Those were the primary academic points, aside from a littering of quotes from various textbooks and articles that were barely relevant. The real feat came in arguing that Jesus--and I can quote this from myself--"sought primarily political change, and could not by any means have forseen the ministry that would come in his name; had he that foresight, it is entirely possible that his mission would have been executed differently." This, of course, is arguable in any institution whose first devotion is not to Christ, but I was able to put the icing on the cake with a couple of simple literary citations, the most dramatic being from Ray Bradbury's Graveyard for Lunatics in which a young Hollywood writer composes the "True Last Supper" when the disciples encounter him on a beach, and share a meal of fish in the afternoon; the crux of the point being Bradbury's device for the ascension: midday heat on sand on a hill.

My professor bought it. I recall that, the last time I read it, I dismissed a couple of the smaller points as juvenile--that is, more included to demonstrate some political sympathy than to add to the weight of evidence.

But it all added up nicely enough that I should have written a novel; I'd be rich now. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I'd be interested in your take on the miracles Jesus performed, witnessed by (at least) hundreds; Prophecies before He came as well as after, and the Reserrection.

That oughta hold 'cha! :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

For the miracles I point initially to Bradbury's ascension. Since then, Don Imus, of all people, got a good take of walking on water, an illusion similar to several suggested "parting of the seas" theories. The feeding of the masses, of course, was taught by my Lutheran preacher as an allegory for the transformation of people's hearts ... definitely a miracle, but not as most modern Christians seem to interpret it.

Of many of the miracles, I seem to recall that good ol' Oral Roberts was a "faith healer" a few years back. Were those healings "miraculous", or were they fraud? Of Lazarus ... I can't even remember what that ... tetra-something or another from the Caribbean, featured in Craven's "Serpent & the Rainbow" ... curare can create the appearance of death as well. Comas, ad nauseum. Part of what I'm hinting after here is that I distrust the fundamental clarity of the retellings; thirty seconds after a shooting near my office, I knew twelve people who saw the shooter, and they gave about four generally varying descriptions, including skin color and height. Thirty minutes later, we had pinned it down to one of those descriptions, according to Seattle Police advisement; when the arrest finally came, absolutely none of the descriptions were accurate.

Of the prophecies ... how many of them did Jesus have access to? What was it he was reading to the rabbis when he was 12? Gee, might it not have contained some of the prophecies that he would later fulfill? Hey, give me an old prophecy that enough people have heard, and I can, with time and care, fulfill it. Furthermore, we deal, in the case of the Old Testament, with differences in interpretation of the prophecies. Give me a prophecy? How about "Give me an event and I will make it fit a preexisting prophecy." (This is a rhetorical proposition; myself, I am hardly a Nostradamus fan and it has been years since I've paid close attention to prophets; in this respect, maybe we should have a topic for that.)

The fact is, though, that any counterpoint circumstance I offer to a prophecy-fulfillment is just as wrong as declaring the event to fulfill a prophecy. Therein lies the point; one of faith chooses to believe that:

* Their personal interpretation of Hebrew Prophecy is correct.
* That the account of events is accurate.
* That the academic assessment of two-thousand years' worth of the described events is accurate.

This is the essence of faith, in a way. The miracles are only miracles because the faithful choose them to be.

To wit ... this is from Catholic school:

A Priest, a Minister, and a Rabbi go fishing. Out on the water, Father Jim's pager rings. Excusing himself, he hops out of the boat and dashes across the surface of the water to land. Upon making his call, he dashes back out across the water to the boat, whereupon Reverend Dan's pager sounds. Excusing himself, he makes the journey to land and back across the surface of the water. Rabbi Herschel, of course, is flabbergasted. Frustrated, he flings himself out of the boat and almost drowns beneath the weight of his waterlogged clothes. His fishing buddies haul him back into the boat, whereupon the Priest says, "Danny, you think we ought to show him where the rocks are?"

Juvenile, yes, but it's getting after my point. It's not a matter of whether an event happened or not. It's just that, as goes the loaves and fishes, "Farm Aid" might be a miracle, given two-thousand years to reflect on the miracles of Willie Nelson. ;)

When Jesus fed the masses, I have no trouble accepting that he accomplished such a feat. That he reached into the air and made loaves and fishes appear where they had not previously been in space and time is something I doubt.

Of the paralyzed man who walked upon Jesus forgiveness, I would point to "glove paranoia", documented by Freud, in which an inner guilt drives a person to suspend function in an otherwise functional body part.

And so forth. Again, let me reiterate that I do not argue that certain events occurred; just whether they occurred as the politically-edited Bible would have us believe if taken literally.

I cannot apply a standard to the Bible that is separate from my other standards of belief; as such, for the Bible to be true as told, so must Atlantis and the Easter Bunny; and also the alien zeppelin route between India and Central America mentioned by Huxley in Jesting Pilate

I'm aware that I'm hardly being as specific as you would like ... but we'll get to the detail in time. In the meantime, the latest miracle is how much time I've managed to waste at work today. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited June 13, 2000).]

Tiassa,

But the shooting did happen right?

Pash,

Tiassa is a dude, dude.

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Tiassa,

Well, you seem to portray Jesus, at least in the miracles category, as some kind of magician, the benefactor of Christians revisionists, or other paranormal phenomenon.

Funny it's all tied to one man. Why is that people will find all these excuses to downplay the miracles, even Jesus himself, when they don't question the two first-century accounts Hannibels' unlikely crossing of the Alps with 38 elephants in tow.

Yes, I understand the problem of witness continuity. But how can you mistake a dead man brought back to life? Wine, where there was none? Sight, where there was blindness?

All made up? Tailored to fit Christianity? I'd like to think the Jews of the time would be rabid to correct those published mistakes; anything to tear Him down.

Prophecies being "made" to come true? The coming of Jesus is foretold in the Old Testament; he told of his impending death and resserection, not to mention that Peter would deny him three times, and there is more that I am forgetting.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about the Resurrection :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by Lori:


Pash,

Tiassa is a dude, dude.



Really? I didn't know that, sorry. It just sounds like a girl's name or something, my apology.

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Lori--

FTR, yes, the shooting did occur. Specifically, a customer attempted to stiff a cabbie, apparently, or else an argument started inside the cab. The cabbie fired the first shot from inside the car, hitting the victim, who was able, after falling down, to get up and begin moving away, whereupon the cabbie exited the car, struck the victim with two more gunshots to the back, and then fled the scene in his cab.

The initial reports, for appearance sake, had discrepancies about whether the shooter was African-black or India-dark, discrepancies about his height and weight, and whether he was bald or had dark hair pulled back to a tail or knot; all agreed that he was a cabbie. The arrested suspect was a short, Middle-Eastern/Mediterranean man whose complexion was slightly "olive", as the term goes. He had, of course, short hair clipped to a modern style.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Pash--

Well, you seem to portray Jesus, at least in the miracles category, as some kind of magician, the benefactor of Christians revisionists, or other paranormal phenomenon.

That's a little on the harsh side. It implies a greater stake than necessary.

Specifically, I consider the factors of the times; politics and religion were greatly intertwined at the time--was John the Baptist religious or political or both? When I consider Montefiore's observations, that Jesus was born to a pharisee family, and that Galilee was a home for zealots, one begins to see the tie between Jesus and the political institution.

That Jesus fed the masses is a great example here; a very simplistic interpretation of inspired generosity served as my Lutheran explanation. But if we view the event as a political rally, in which Jesus inspired those who had to offer to those who had not, he still has fed the masses, and it is, given human character, is no less miraculous an event.

But he's hardly a fraud, as such. That his ministry was great, effective, and possibly miraculous is very easy to stomach. But the divinity ... that's a matter strictly left to faith. My Catholic-school theology teacher taugh exfoliation as one of Christ's healing miracles ... it must necessarily be left to faith to assume.

Funny it's all tied to one man. Why is that people will find all these excuses to downplay the miracles, even Jesus himself, when they don't question the two first-century accounts Hannibels' unlikely crossing of the Alps with 38 elephants in tow.

A girlfriend of mine once witnessed a conversation 'twixt myself and one of my ex-gf's. We reminisced briefly about the curious amount of chaos we went through together, and smiled in retrospect because we all were still alive. Upon leaving that place, the not-then ex pointed out: "See, we'll never be that close." I had no other option but to respond, "Yes, but your dad didn't rape you and you aren't about to kill yourself."

What's the important part there? That I was "closer" to a girl than the one who was asking? Really, did the not-yet ex really want to go through that? Point being, it's all in our perspectives.

As to why not Hannibal ... well, I don't recall that the world has suffered quite as much at the hands of Hannibal's Message of Extreme and Perfect Love. Part of that is the role which Christianity plays in our lives; certes, were we to celebrate Hannibal Day, or some-such, it might be more important to us to know the actual history that occurred there.

That the tale centers on one man is a quirk of history; we must remember the conditions that existed. A powerful minister/activist of Jesus' stature could well be remembered. Hey, we pin an awful lot of importance on Julius Caesar, and don't question that he was stabbed to death. In a hundred years, though, if the official tale includes, "Et tu, Brute?", we'll see a faith transformation of Caesar. Jesus was a very important man in his time; people knew who he was, which was a far-grander statement than it is today.

I would also counterpoint your own question with a variation: Why is it that people will find all these excuses to actualize the works of Jesus himself, when their standard of faith applies and functions nowhere else in life?

Jesus was. What came after him is the works of human beings, and necessarily imperfect. Within a century of his death, Christians were engaged in raising the status of their body political by the device of slandering their Jewish neighbors. By the time the Bible was edited and "finished" as such, what political considerations were present?

Furthermore, given that, upon Enlightenment, the Western world had to re-learn much of what the rest of the world already knew (for instance, that the world was round), we might wonder at the vernacular effect of that many generations of undereducated, politically-driven faith.

As to witness continuity:

* Mistake a dead man brought to life? Sure ... the aforementioned curare, as well as the elusive Caribbean molecule, both create deathlike symptoms. Is breathing a problem? How about psilocybin? I know that even low doses will drop respiratory rates; yes, people have checked to make sure I'm not dead when I'm tripping.

* Wine where there was none? Therein lies the question of continuity and accuracy. Flash-poof, Jesus the Juggernaut waves his magic wand wildly about and ... Abracadabra! Fish and wine! I just don't see it that way. You're talking about A) a transformation of human compassion, to incite people to share what pittances they had, or B) a violation of physics. Now, I accept B only because Christian faith requires it, so it becomes a quasi-valid point to argue against that option. But by and far, I think the Bible is much easier reconciled if we read it with a pinch of interpretive license.

* Sight where there was none? That happens these days. Ripley's records a young boxer who got smacked in a bare-knuckle match and immediately covered his ears and began howling uncontrollably; this is only significant because the young boxer was a deaf-mute. Theoretically, drugs could activate a part of the brain at random.

All made up? Tailored to fit Christianity? I'd like to think the Jews of the time would be rabid to correct those published mistakes; anything to tear Him down.

My impressions from reading Armstrong and Russell, as well as from Staniforth's edition of Early Christian Writings, that Christian/Jew rhetoric only got bad after, well ... to put it mildly, the Christians started it.

Furthermore, there were objections by the Jewish community to some claims of Jesus-as-God. By and large, these would become insignificant a thousand years later (or thereabout) when the Spanish Jewry was expelled by the Christians after retaking Spain from the Moors. But in the interim, there was little respect shown by the Christians for anything academic the Jewish might say. Again, we see the paring of the Gospels to four, as well as political infighting which affected the development of the idea of the Trinity, as well as the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in certain creeds.

Prophecies being "made" to come true? The coming of Jesus is foretold in the Old Testament; he told of his impending death and resserection, not to mention that Peter would deny him three times, and there is more that I am forgetting.

Well, the prophecies, in order to be prophecies, were written beforehand, right? Jesus knew at least some of them, right? That the coming of Jesus is foretold in the OT means little. To the one hand there is the fact that these prophecies ... again ... were written before Jesus walked. To the other, I have at least one Jewish associate who mislikes the appointment of Jesus as fulfillment of the prophecies, preferring instead to view Isaiah and others as summaries and warnings for the state of the Jewish people.

The denials by Peter have literary precedent in tales of Ereshkigal and Inanna; so, according to at least one author (Esbach), does the crucifixion. Considering, then, that the Great Flood of Old Testament fame has precedent in Bablonian cuneiform, well, we see the pattern forming, eh?

I'd like to hear what you have to say about the Resurrection

Frankly, I'd like to hear what you have to say about Elvis. What's your opinion of Schroedinger's Cat ... alive or dead or both?

The resurrection has many possibilities, from Jesus not being dead at all all the way up to imposters. Propaganda, poetry, &c. We could, literally, spend our lives on it and get no closer to an answer; I'll go wherever you choose to take that aspect of it.

And, yes, actual, honest-to-God resurrection is one of the possibilities. But right now, it's left solely to faith.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I'm sorry, could you clue me in to what chapter and verse you are specifically citing? You are not ringing any bells here...

How about the entire book of Joshua? If you don't have time for the whole thing, here's a couple of chapters to give you a good idea of what I'm talking about:

All of chapter 6: The taking of Jericho: every man, woman and child, ox, sheep and ass in the city killed - all except the traitor harlot and her family.

All of chapter 8: The taking of Ai: 12,000 men and women dead by day's end, and the king left hanging in a tree until evening, after which time his carcass was cut down and left at the city's entrance.

The bloodshed continues from there, of course, with Gibeon being the only city that gave up without a fight. The interesting part is what I've copied earlier in this thread, from Joshua 11:19,20:

<font color = "red">19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.

20 For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses.</font>

Have you even read the Old Testament? Do you have any idea about the nature of the God you are serving? If so, then how could you possibly love him? Or do you really only fear him?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

And dag gone it....God is not an ET for crying out loud!!!!!! Aliens are demonic, demonic, demonic!!!!!!

And that is different from your God in what way...?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Tiassa,

At best, you've given flimsy excuses for the miracles and the resurrection. "Elusive Caribbean molecules?" "Smacked in the head to restore vision?" C'mon.

Nor have you answered the question of prophecies satisfactorily. So what that there is a "literary precedent" for the denials of Peter? What has that got to do with anything?

I don't know why I discuss this with you. You seem to be able to find highly-unlikely explanations for the miracles and resurrection.

Maybe you believe like Searcher does too, that Jesus is the offspring of aliens and Mary? :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash,

I know it's a girlie name isn't it. ;) I did the same thing to him myself.

Tiassa,

Honey, did you get my point at all? I'm saying that just because you got four different versions of the details and circumstance, doesn't mean that the shooting never occurred. So you find little discrepancies maybe in the story of the resurrection (I remember Flash posting some of those), and it's all in the insignificant details, of like who got to the tomb first, and who saw the angel of the Lord and when, but the fact is that the resurrection still occurred, and that's what's important.

Search,

I have no idea what you're asking me???? God is demonic???? uh....

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Tiassa,

Sorry for coming across mean. That's not the way I want to debate :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Flash, I'd like to see some of the discrepancies Lori cites, regarding the Resurrection, if you would, please. :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

I get fired up about certain things, too. It's all part of what we do here. ;)

You're right that some of it's flimsy, but no more so than faith. Perhaps less. What I'm after with curare and the flimsy "Carribean molecule" is that substances do exist which create the illusion of a deathlike state. One can perform surgery using curare; it does nothing to reduce the pain, but it keeps the patient dead-still. I find it curious that your opinion reflects that the possibility that the "witnesses" and those who heard the subsequents story--and thus assigned it value--could have been, at some point, mistaken? Our modern doctors have made such mistakes in the recent past, so that people awaken in body bags or while being placed in refrigeration.

And, yes, I do believe it reasonable to consider various relationships between head trauma and restored faculty. Speech and hearing ... depression, too.

You seem to dislike literary precedents. Each taken on its own means little. But when we consider that much of the Bible reflects preexisting tales and ideas from cultures that "got it wrong", one must wonder how much of what we take on faith is genuine. The Creation tale reflects other traditions; so does the Great Flood; the crucifixion has some precedent, as well. That Peter's denial has a precedent creates the question of whether the event actually occured, or is just a literary device, and then invites the notion of whether the event occurred as written. These questions are already resolved, as such, so that only one possibility exists in the modern day for Christians--that of faith.

Perhaps explanations seem highly unlikely to you, but I consider one aspect: most Christians I know--by far a clear majority--learned to accept not the possibility of Christ's miracles, but the reality of Christ's miracles before such terms as "reality", "unlikely", or "possible/impossible" bore any real meaning.

Do we believe that princes of India used to fly with "aliens" in zeppelin-like craft to South or Central America? The story exists, has a rich cultural heritage, but do we really believe it, either as an alien story or as a tale of a lost era of India, in which the technology to build and operate zeppelins came and went mysteriously? Or would we be wise to consider Aldous Huxley's observation that many stories exist in India which claim prior achievement to Western accomplishments? Huxley also noted that these tales tend to develop quickly, but only after the Western accomplishment is known in India.

The big problem I'm having is that there are schools of thought, to which I am, admittedly, somewhat sympathetic, that would assert that the "flimsy excuses" we're dealing with come when we write off perfectly explicable (though hardly facile) ideas as "miracles". Now, I don't go that far, but to accept the Bible literally seems unwise to me. As with today, I would not argue with a witness as to what they say they saw; I might take issue with the idea of whether what they saw was what really happened.

But I do think it's flimsy to assert that one is the fulfillment of prophecies that said fulfilling person is aware of. It's called megalomania in its modern extreme. David Koresh, for instance.

If Jesus was an alien love child, though, it would explain a lot.

However, I am considering making the assertion that Elton John is God, and standing on it purely as a faith demonstration. It seems to me that's a more valid form of argumentation for you.

I mean, for one who stands entirely on faith, dismissiveness, and constant inquiry to fuel that dismissiveness, I'm having a hard time throwing ideas out for you. I'm not particularly anxious to write three-hundred page papers on the toxicology of Carribean fauna, or on curare manufacture and implementation, to demonstrate certain points, but apparently you'd like the University Library delivered in defense of suggestions offered to a question you've asked but generally refuse to answer. We can throw out the Carribean fauna if you'd like ... you may not like my perspectives, but you've failed to address the idea of curare. Furthermore, you've dismissed the mysteries of the human brain as insignificant to the vital interpretation of events that, by proxy of the tale involving a human body, must necessarily consider the brain's role in it. Furthermore ....

Well, ok ... see, I get steamed sometimes, too.

You asked our opinions. We answered. I'm sorry you find my particular answer unsatisfying.

But thus far, the only aspect I can get a fix on from your perspective is that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong; maybe y'oughta throw out a couple of your own assertions for your question--it might add dimension to the debate.

Gotta run for now. Truly, I'm sorry my answers don't meet your unspecified par. I guess maybe that means that you should take your own lament to heart and not bother, eh? 'Cause I don't know why you try, 'cause I have no idea what it is you're trying to accomplish.

peace,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I don't think I have the inability to accept new ideas anymore than anyone else; But things like alien impregnation and a neurological depressant from another part of the world, put me off immediatley, as being ludicrous.

I think we would be better served taking one specific point, and going at it; and to cut out the ambiguity.

So, I guess to start anywhere with Jesus, you have to allow the validity of the Bible, AT LEAST the New Testament. If you don't accept that the New Testament is a reliable, accurate account of Jesus, then any further discussion is pointless, correct?

So, Tiassa, your opinion on the reliabilty of the New Testament is....? :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,
I did a bit of searching to find this post. I posted it like a year ago. Here it is.

do not have time today to list all the reasons..but let's start here...
read Matt 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21... the story of easter..ok...
now... do not leave out a single detail in
all the descriptions. Not one. Write
down the chronological events beginning with
resurrection to the ascension of Jesus.
below are a few conflicts in their stories...
WHAT TIME DID THE WOMEN VISIT THE TOMB?
Matt: at dawn
Mark: as the rising of the sun
Luke: at early dawn
John: when it was yet dark
WHO WERE THE WOMEN??????
Matt: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Mark: Mary Madalene, the mother of James,
and Salome
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother
of James, and other women
John: Mary Magdalene

WHAT WAS THEIR PURPOSE?
Matt: to see the tomb
Mark: had already seen the tomb & brought spices
Luke: already seen the tomb & brought spices
John: the body had already been spiced BEFORE
they arrived

WAS THE TOMB OPENED WHEN THEY ARRIVED?
Matt: NO
Mark: yes
Luke: yes
John: yes

WHO WAS AT THE TOMB WHEN THEY ARRIVED?
Matt: one angel
Mark: one young man
Luke: two men
John: two angels

WHERE WERE THE MESSENGERS SITTING?
Matt: Angel sitting on the stone
Mark: young man sitting inside on the right
Luke: two men standing inside
John: two angel sitting on each side of the
bed

WHAT DID THE MESSENGERS SAY??
(read this yourself)
Matt 28: 5-7
Mark 16: 6-7
Luke 24:5-7
John 20:13

DID THE WOMEN TELL WHAT HAPPENED?
Matt: yes
Mark No "neither said they anything to
any man" (16:8)
Luke yes "and they returned from the tomb
and told all these things to the eleven,
and to all the rest" (24:9,22-24)
John yes

WHEN MARY RETURNED FROM THE TOMB, DID SHE KNOW JESUS HAD BEEN RESURRECTED???
Matt yes
Mark yes
Luke yes
John NO

WHEN DID MARY FIRST SEE JESUS?
Matt before she returned to the disciples
Mark " "
John after she returned to the disciples

COULD JESUS BE TOUCHED AFTER THE RESURRECTION?
Matt yes
John no (20:17) yes (20:27)

AFTER THE WOMEN..WHO DID JESUS FIRST APPEAR
NEXT??
Matt: 11 disciples
Mark: 2 disciples in the country then to
the 11
Luke: 2 disciples in Emmaus, later to 11
John 10 disciples...
in the book of Paul it states
first to Cephas.. then to the 12..
12????? wasn't Judas dead??? LOL

WHERE DID JESUS FIRST APPEAR TO THE DISCIPLES??
Matt On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles
away)
Mark to 2 in the country, to the 11 "as they
sat at meat"
Luke In Emmaus (about 7 miles away)at
evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem
John in a room at evening

DID THE DISCIPLES BELIEVE THE TWO MEN?
Mark NO
Luke yes (the group speaking ..not the 2)

DID JESUS STAY ON EARTH AWHILE?
Matt no(16:19) compare 16:14 with John
20:19 so this shows all was done on
sunday
Luke no..all happened on sunday
John yes, at least 8 days
Acts 1:3 said yes, at least 40 days!!

Look these dudes can't get their story straight.. and the Bible is perfect???
is this what you call perfection???
and isn't this suppose to be one of the most
important stories of the bible??
I smell a fish!!!!

Flash, thanks.

You seem to point out a bunch of inconsistencies or lack of continuity.

Let me say this: I'm glad the accounts of the Resurrection don't match exactly, because this would lead us to believe that there was collusion amongst the individuals; they all should have gotten their story straight.

I guess I could go thru each point you made, and address it? Is that what is called for here?



------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

I'm sorry to butt in, but this just cracks me up:

"But things like alien impregnation and a neurological depressant from another part of the world, put me off immediatley, as being ludicrous. "

THIS is ludicrous, but a man rising from the dead is completely believable? Huh??

Well, the cavalry comes to the rescue. Flash, you can serve in my military anytime you want, but since I think war is utterly stupid, I'll just say thanx for the info.

Pashley, I do consider a fair case made here by Flash's post.

Since you seem to want a black-and-white stance, I offer you this: nothing in the Bible should be taken literally; all aspects of it require some poetic, literary, or artistic license. Especially the New Testament, given that it has been edited and bowdlerized.

The Bible, then, reflects a story that is, most likely, true in its essence. The details are mere flourishes either of style or of communicative significance. That Christ walked is acceptable; that he preached is acceptable; that he is the Son of God, based on scant evidence, is a little bit less so. That he is the Son of God as an allegory, analogy, or metaphor, is not only something platable, but something palatable with substantial possibility, and a wonderfully convenient device in reconciling the lofty aspirations of the Bible to reality.

Is that enough of a place to stand for you? :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa, actually, I'd like to address your contention that Jesus was merely "indisposed of" that I believe you made earlier.

Is that true, that you think Jesus was just incapacitated, so to speak, not dead, when they put Him in the tomb?

Flash, let me get back to you on your points, ok? First come, first serve.

And let me point out right now, please, that my object is NOT to "win" an argument; only to show others, who are thinking people, why I believe. I'm not out to convert you, or shame you, only to show you why I think it's very reasonable to believe that Christianity is the Way... :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by MoonCat:


THIS is ludicrous, but a man rising from the dead is completely believable? Huh??

Well, I'll be getting into that MoonCat, stay tuned.

Hey, it can't be any worse than believing OJ is innocent!

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Originally posted by tiassa:


Since you seem to want a black-and-white stance, I offer you this: nothing in the Bible should be taken literally; all aspects of it require some poetic, literary, or artistic license. Especially the New Testament, given that it has been edited and bowdlerized.

Well, then I guess I need to start with asserting, and giving evidence for, the NT's crediblity then, first? I mean, if you can't hold that the Resurrection, at least, is not factual, or is meant to convey something else, I don't know how to sway you from that. If we have to start with the validity of the Bible, we can; but I would rather get to the meat and potatoes, the Resurrection.



------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pashley,

"Hey, it can't be any worse than believing OJ is innocent!"

*SNORT* I wonder if there's anyone who actually thinks OJ was innocent.

Originally posted by MoonCat:
Pashley,

"Hey, it can't be any worse than believing OJ is innocent!"

*SNORT* I wonder if there's anyone who actually thinks OJ was innocent.

Actually, yes, there is.....sad, huh? Don't worry, the Big Man upstairs is keeping score!

But I digress....

Where is Tiassa and/or Flash, anyway? :)


------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

The only thing I can offer here (I'm due for a meeting in a couple of minutes) is that I would look to "indisposed" or "incapacitated" when considering the raising of Lazarus.

As to the resurrection: Perhaps if "three days" didn't match up so well with other religions' regard for death (e.g.--the soul resides for three days before passing), I wouldn't start with that. But therein exists yet another literary precedent. Furthermore, as I recall the story: Jesus shows up to his disciples, who don't recognize him until he chides them. For a crucifixion, I probably wouldn't push the mere appearance of death. There I'd probably look to mistaken identity, or an emotionally induced conclusion drawn by the Apostles.

That's part of the reason why it's so important to me to separate the current state of our world from the considerations contemporary to Biblical writers. Any story in the Bible can have vastly different interpretations depending on what we, the readers, put into it.

I feel I must stop here; having finished my meeting, I have no idea where I was when I left off.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiasssa,

I guess what i was fishing for concerns the Resurrection only. In particular, is there a facet you don't believe, or maybe a alternative theory as to what happened?

-Patrick

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

The Resurrection: I don't believe it happened. I believe something happened, but the simple fact is that there's enough going on elsewhere in the Universe to indicate to me that Jesus called Christ did not rise from his grave. From the word Go, the Resurrection is fueled entirely by faith; therein lies its value.

But, to reduce it to the simplest number of options:

* There was no single Jesus; the whole thing is a well-executed amalgamation of wisdom teachings.

* That there was a Jesus executed as a political insurgent. From here we see the possibility of provocateurs claiming Jesus to be alive in order to frustrate the local authority. We also encounter the possibility that the Resurrection was a hoax.


But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. (John 21.4)

They say to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: Because they have taken away my Lord; and I know not where they have laid him.

When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus. (John 20.13-14)


Furthermore, when Jesus appears in the room with the Disciples in John 20.19, I'm left to wonder how that would have gone down had Mary Magdalene not tipped them off (20.18).

It would seem to me that the Disciples could not recognize Jesus. So I'll reiterate a stale question in the history of this forum: Why?

More directly: Why did Jesus the Resurrected have to convince the Disciples of his identity? Right there we now enter a question of "God's mystery" vs. "imposter". There is a predetermined, format answer for Christians, though: catechism.

* http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/NT/john.html is the reference I'm using today.

Good enough for your standards?

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

As to why not Hannibal ... well, I don't recall that the world has suffered quite as much at the hands of Hannibal's Message of Extreme and Perfect Love.

Ah yes, let's address some of the suffering caused in the name of Jesus, shall we? Here's a little tidbit to start off with:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1096jews.html

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Of course, we must include an article about the Inquisition (this is from a Christian site, by the way):

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/inquis1.htm

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

I'll be addressing Tiassa's concerns, and not your purposely inflammatory posts. You'll do well do sit back and learn.

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Let us not forget the Salem Witch Trials:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/97/salem/index.html
http://www.salemweb.com/memorial/default.htm


Or the trial of Joan of Arc for heresy and witchcraft:

http://www.counselquest.com/Joan-of-Arc.htm

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Originally posted by pashley:
Searcher,

I'll be addressing Tiassa's concerns, and not your purposely inflammatory posts. You'll do well do sit back and learn.



Pashley,

The actions of the early Christian church were indefensible, which is no doubt why you are left feeling so defensive when I bring it up. You want to believe that Christianity is "The Way", but you know its bloody history at least as well as I do, I'm sure.

If it makes you feel any better, Pash, Christianity is not the only religion with blood on its hands.

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

What exactly are you trying to say?

I went to the site you posted regarding the inquisition and througherly read it. It was not condoning the inquisition but pointing out that it not only affected the innocent but true believers also. It actually gives accounts of the atrocities visited on them also.

If your beef is with religion then yes I understand what you mean, the RC church has blotted its record book big time, as has just about every religion Christian or otherwise and including paganism throughout history, as have I in the way I lived and as have we all. But as I and many others who place their faith solely in Christ as the way of salvation and not organised religion, as we have asked time and again please see past what people have done and try to see who and what the real character and nature of God is. We as humans who devise, scheme, manipulate and attach each other rarely show the honest truth in out actions.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm continually hearing the same record playing about God and people making assumptions about Him based on past atrocities, based on past history of said religions or branches of said religions. Based on what men who make claims of serving God have done and not on what is truly shown in God's word if we honestly want to find it. The very truth of who He is and what He has done. Based on their mutual agreement of their views, but sadly I don't see anyone looking past the superficial and understanding that we are humans and as humans we all stuff up. We all have fallen short past, present and strike me pink in the future also. Give it another 100 years and I'm sure they'll be raving on about the atrocities of God in this century, its human nature to blame everyone but ourselves for the wrongs inflicted and to look for a scape goat. Its just way to convenient and easy to say ill of someone when we in reality have absolutely no idea of who they really are or why the do what they do and for what reasons they do it. AGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

You may have noticed that this is burning me up a bit :(

I just don't understand why people just keep ignoring who God really is?????? Its got me absolutely flabbergasted, I keep asking Lord am I telling them the wrong things? Lord am I not listening properly? Lord am I exasperating them? Lord am I taking their attention away from you?

You all out there who know me in this place know that I have purposely not tried to engage in argumentative discussion, I have continually sought to try to show and explain who He is. Have I confused you by doing this? Have I made Him foreign to you? Or have I tried to reconcile to you who He is? Have I tried to show you that regardless of how far the majority of Christians may label you to be from God that He, God Himself goes beyond our stereotypical pigeon holing and wants you regardless of what your into TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHO HE IS!!!!!!!!!! He wants to know so that the truth will be see and salvation's gift will not be foreign to you.

So what's the go? Why is it when I start to think maybe they are starting to see, maybe they are understanding, why is it I find thing right back at square one? Why do I see the same old, same old excuses being used time and again with every new Christian face that shows up? ARE ANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS PLACE AT ALL SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND???? Or are we all happy to walk around like the three wise monkeys? Myself included.

I sometimes feel so tired and drained by all this, yet at the same time I can see how the Lord has used some of you without you even knowing to draw me deeper into His truth. Sometimes I wonder what God needs to do, what does He need to do to make us understand. He has already given His most precious thing for us, His very life. And yet, me included, we so often do not take the time to try and understand what has happened. Why is it we don't see? Why do we refuse to acknowledge the truth when all God wants is for our best? I have been around the block on more than one occasion regarding this, if I have not explained or show clearly then forgive me, my frustration should probably be at myself than others.

I just wish I knew how to paint the picture that needs to be painted so that all in this place could see that God is not far off, so that all could see what has been done from Adam to Christ to the close of time. How God had set in place a perfect creation, a creation that was made to last throughout eternity. A creation that has been held captive to death since the fall and now groans and labours under the weight of sin and death. How God set about a way of salvation for fallen creation with Man and woman at the head. How He set about that plan from the day that He made garments for His fallen image, to protect them from the error of their decision. How He loved them and even in their shame cared for them. How He protected all who cried out to Him for help throughout the pages of history. How He honoured those who honoured Him and made it their quest, made it their hearts decision to follow Him and even in death to serve Him, He abandoned them not. How He established a nation that was to be to the world the example of what a right relationship with God meant. How He established this through the faith of one man, Abraham. And how from the line of his descendants God Himself would one day bring forth the way of salvation for all humanity and creation. How God loved and protected this people for the sake of that plan and according to His covenant with Abraham. How He established through Moses the law that would be their rod and staff to guide them into righteousness, to protect them in love from the unseen so long as they dwelt in it. The unseen being the attacks of the evil one in an effort to annihilate God purpose and plan. How God moved sovereignly against any that sought to destroy the one and only way of salvation, how He moved and at the same time did not allow His very character and nature to be compromised. How in the fullness of time God brought forth a baby in a manger who would be they very fulfilment of all His work with mankind, who would fulfil every word, every promise, everything when that child become a man and died three decades on. Died upon a tree alone and covered in the very guilt of all mankind, yet because He died innocent, because He died holy, because He layed bare His life as one without sin death had no authority over Him, He rose again!

And when He arose He conquered the very thing that has held man in captivity since the dawn of creation and the fall of man, death itself. By doing so He became the first born of many who believe in Him, by doing so He made straight the way of salvation. By doing this Jesus brought forth a way of restoration for all mankind, even all of creation.

You wiccans in this place have the opinion that we as Christians have limited or no understanding of your beliefs, yet you are not much different than us. We all cry out to be one, we all cry out to be restored. You call the earth mother, you call the moon sister, you call the sun father and you seek to be in that place of oneness with them. Do you think that I don't hear your hearts cry? Do you honestly think that God almighty the creator or every element, every atom, every electron, every single fibre of your being does not hear your desire? The very same cry that echoed forth from Adam and Eve when they hid themselves from God? Their cry of being that which they once were? To be restored. To be at one with all of creation and their creator. To have the communion they once had with Him made whole. But the very same thing that separated them from Him in the garden is the very same reason that you do not see. They sough to make their own way, they sought to follow their own path, they sought find a way outside of the way laid down by their creator. And likewise we as humans today still do the same, we still have the exact same desire, to be restored to be one. Yet we so often try to do it our way rather than the way that the Father, the creator of us who knows beyond our knowledge, who sees beyond our vision, who understands beyond our understanding.............. we try to do it our way and we forsake His way, a way that He gave His only Son to achieve. It was the only way to conquer the curse we live under. The curse of knowing that a part of us is missing, the curse of knowing that death is an obstacle that none can overcome on their own. And even in today's world the truth and the voice of His entire purpose and plan becomes dimmer and dimmer as we are faced with a flood of delusions, a deluge of half truths and a twisted and contorted understanding of who God really is, what His true character and nature are and why He has carried out what He has.

So why do I ask why? When if I stop and consider long enough I truly know the answers.

All I can tell you is that He is not what you consider Him to be, but how I show you and others the truth of this beyond words on a page I have no idea.


Oh Lord, my God, my King.

You alone hold the answer to the questions of the heart, you alone as my rock and refuge can answer my hearts cry for the truth to be seen, the truth of who you are. And as I wait on you in the early hours of the day for the people of this place hear my heart cry with words I can not speak, that they may know you.

Amen


Goodbye

Tony H2o


http://www.inspired-tech.com/dovebar1.gif




[This message has been edited by Tony H2o (edited June 15, 2000).]

Tony, Tony, Tony!! Settle down there, pal! Here, have a seat, take a deep breath, okay? Whew! You doing okay???

Feeling a little better? Take another deep breath anyway. :)

Let me start halfway through your post,

"You wiccans in this place have the opinion that we as Christians have limited or no understanding of your beliefs..."

Yes, this is true Tony, I do believe that the majority of Christians are ignorant of what witchcraft in general and Wicca in particular really is. How could you not be when you are fed lies by both general society and by visible "figureheads" of your own religion? Anyway, I'm not technically a Wiccan, but close enough. ;)

"...yet you are not much different than us."

This I agree with whole-heartedly. This is in fact something witches try to point out to Christians all the time, I'm very glad you percieve this to be true!

"You call the earth mother, you call the moon sister, you call the sun father and you seek to be in that place of oneness with them"

This is not quite accurate. The earth and the moon are BOTH symbols of the Mother, but you're close. There's no "place of oneness" though, we ARE one with them right NOW. We might lose knowledge of that and feel seperate from them, but that is an illusion. We are of Them, we ARE Them, in a very literal sense.

"Do you honestly think that God almighty the creator or every element, every atom, every electron, every single fibre of your being does not hear your desire? "

I don't believe God created everything, personally, so I would have to say yes, I don't think he hears me. Because I don't think that's who or what or how God really is. Sorry Tony. :(

"All I can tell you is that He is not what you consider Him to be, but how I show you and others the truth of this beyond words on a page I have no idea"

Well, Tony, I think He is not what you consider Him to be either, but I don't know how to show that to you either. :confused:

I understand your frustration, Tony. I feel the same way when I am talking to someone about Paganism and all they can talk about is animal sacrifice and these power-hungry fools running around today tarnishing that beautiful 5-pointed star by turning it upside down and claiming it as a Satanic symbol.

Going backwards;
"I sometimes feel so tired and drained by all this, yet at the same time I can see how the Lord has used some of you without you even knowing to draw me deeper into His truth"

Y'know that's kinda funny in a way. Not funny ha-ha but funny peculiar. There was a woman who posted on here very briefly called "lady o'the green", and she posted something very similar. She was a witch (not sure if she was Wiccan or what though), and she entered the debate and would thank the Christians for helping her take a fresh look at her own faith. Her faith too was strengthened by debate. So I guess it's a two way street! At the time I was just struggling with finding my footing on whatever path it was forming under my feet, and the way she presented herself impressed me. You remind me of her sometimes, Tony. Though you are on "the other side of the fence", you two seem to have similar strength in your faiths that enables you to calmly debate and not take things personally. Something I am working on very hard for myself. I think I've improved, but I know I have a long way to go yet.

Going back to the "ignorance" bit, I (again) do think most people in general ARE ignorant of the true nature of what us witches do and are. But I don't hold it against people. What I do hold against them are their negative actions taken in ignorance. I will never ridicule or turn away someone asking honest questions. I enjoy educating people about my religion, not to convert them, but so they can understand that I am not a monster secretly wanting to boil their baby son into a flying ointment, or whatever horrid B.S. they have been told. I realize that I am ignorant of many, many religions, and I certainally don't expect the general populace to be educated on all the world's religions. Heck, most folks don't know a whole lot about their OWN religions, don't you agree?? I try to keep this in mind when posting here, and try to ask questions rather than jump to conclusions. You know this, right Tony?? I know I'm not perfect, and I'm sure I have jumped when I should have questioned more than once, but I do make an honest effort to hear what you have to say. Especially YOU in particular Tony, because I like you, at least what part of you you've shown to us here on this board. But just because I listen doesn't mean I believe. Just as when I explain my faith to you, I don't expect you to believe either.

YOU are NOT the reason I don't believe in the same God you do, okay?? I wanted to make sure that's clear. I don't want you feeling like you've failed anyone because you haven't converted me. I cannot be converted by outside sources, you should understand that. I follow my heart, I have learned the hard way that this is the best guide for me. The few times I have disregarded its warnings I have ended up in extreme danger (once all the way to the brink of death itself, I kid you not), or extreme unblance and emotional unrest. My heart has guided me to the Natural Couple (as I like to call them), and for now, this is where I will be.

Does this make sense to you Tony?? If I were to ignore my heart and follow your belief system, I would be untrue to myself. I would not be happy. I would not feel blessed. I would not feel God's love. I would feel like a charlatan. I would feel disrespectful by reciting prayers to a God that doesn't mean anything to me. I would feel dishonest speaking to other parishoners. I don't like to think about how I would become, I don't think a Christian MoonCat is a happy MoonCat. I am not comfortable with your God, Tony, he is not for me. I just can't put it any plainer than that!!

I do still enjoy talking to you. I am interested in your thoughts about Christianity, but I must make sure you aren't talking to me about it solely to convert me, I don't want to waste your time. I certainally don't want you to go away, but I don't want you to be upset because I'm not a Christian.

Okay Tony, enough outta me for now. Are you feeling a little better? I hope so. :)

Searcher,

Man, how many times do we really need to discuss the sins of the Christian church? And the answer issssss....as many as it takes until you understand! :) This is how it is guys....Satan works within organized religion to the point that I almost want nothing to do with it. But honestly, organized religion is like anything else in this world. Created and operated by human beings, who are sinners by nature. Did you know that what we see as organized religion is NOT what Jesus calls "the church" in the Bible? The church in the Bible is the entire group of people who are actual believers, and that are born again in the spirit, and have faith in Jesus Christ. These people may or may not participate in what we know as organized religion, or what OUR definition of the church is, A church. Does this make sense?

And don't get me wrong, I watch my evangelists on TBN every Sunday, and I thank God for SOME of them, and SOME of them gross me out soooooo bad, that I can't even watch or listen. But even the best preacher, minister, born again Christian, or any human being makes mistakes, and has the wrong ideas about some things. And SOME don't even have a relationship with Jesus at all, and once you would get to know Him, it would be a lot more obvious to you, like it is to me.

It always, always, always boils down to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One that is begun, and fostered, and maintained IN YOUR HEART, which is our word for our soul. For example, have you ever heard of any Christian, or anyone for that matter who shares my view of homosexuality? That the only problem with it is what boils down to gender discrimination, and not one other thing is wrong with it? That it all boils down to one's intentions, and not the act? Do you think I got that from an evangelist, or from "the church"? Hell no! Do you know who told me that? Jesus told me that.

Tony will be ok, don't worry. I've been where he's at right now before. He's frustrated because it seems that no matter how hard he tries, you guys just refuse to get it. But Tony, if you're frustrated, then just take a look at some of Flash's recent posts. And the rest of you as well. Look back at some of her old, old, old ones, and then look now. THAT my friends, is an answer to MY prayers. Now, if that's not proof of the power of faith in Jesus Christ, then I don't know what is. Any thoughts on that?

Listen, you guys know just from personal experience, just like I do, that your own intent is sometimes very hard to examine objectively, and is a bit cloudy sometimes. It is the easiest thing in the world to lose sight of God, to lack faith, and to let that personal relationship slide, and all in the name of our own humanity and egos. It seems that we cannot help getting distracted by the things of this world, which when it is all said and done, amount to NOTHING. And this is exactly what happens in organized religion as well. As a matter of fact, there is no doubt that some people organize and use religion as a means of power and control, and don't EVER have a relationship with Jesus, and therefore, are not born again, and have NO FAITH. You can look at organized religion, just like you can look at anything else in this world, and you can identify right vs wrong within intent. You just have to know where to look. And you know that where to look is in your soul. That's where Jesus is, waiting for you to come and join Him, and talk to Him, and learn from Him. He's there whether you like it or not, you might as well say hi.

Listen, I've said it before and I'll keep saying it til I draw my last breath...if you want to know the truth about Jesus, all you have to do is SINCERELY ask Him for it. Humility and intent is soooooooooooo KEY. And this isn't just some garbly gook that I regurgitated from some preacher, or from the Bible. It is TRUE, 100% true, just like gravity; it's a law. So test it; I dare ya. If you want to know Jesus, He's right there with you all of the time. Just reach out to Him with sincerety and humility, and He will speak to your heart. I've told you guys this before, but I wanted to reiterate what Jesus "feels" like, because it's the most amazing feeling that I've ever had in my life.

When I first met Him, and after time after time after time, throughout my whole life, of trying in vain, I had actually gotten to the point of humility, in which I was just broken, broken, broken. Unfortunately, we humans are soooooo stubborn and steadfast, worshiping our own humanity and ego, that that's what it takes to get us to the real truth. But anyway, He felt like a long lost father, that I felt like I knew before, like at one time way way long ago, we had been soooooo close, but it was like I forgot about Him since. And it's like all my life, He was there with me, but I just couldn't see Him, and I could hear Him speaking to my heart, but I didn't realize it WAS Him. Is this making any sense??? Well, if you can imagine not knowing your real father, and carrying around that sense of loss and loneliness your whole life, and then opening up your eyes one day, and there he is, with open arms, and the most unconditional love for you that you could even imagine, and then you find out that He's always had this love for you, and has always been there, you just didn't know it. It was overwhelming. You think Hallmark commercials are bad, geez. Is this making any sense?

And you know, as hard as I try, and as much as I believe in Him, I still struggle with my faith, and those damn worldly distractions. It takes a real solid effort, like nothing you've ever done in your life to keep focused on what's important. Let me give you an example of something that's happened to me recently, and see if you understand what I mean. You guys know about all of the problems I've been through lately regarding my divorce, and then that I just got dumped by Superman right? Well let me explain what happened. This is kind of trippy. After all I've been through this past year, I prayed to God that He would give me a man who has the right intentions toward me, and would love me for who I was, and not what he could get out of me for nothing you know? Someone who loved God like I do, and had a good heart, and that I could trust with mine. I also told Him that I did not under any circumstances, trust my own judgement at all. So I asked Him if He would just plop this guy down right on my front porch for me, and make it soooooo obvious to me, that I couldn't make a mistake about who he was. Within a matter of DAYS, JJ showed up to put my roof on. By the time he was done, I KNEW that he was the one that God sent to me. It was OBVIOUS. Yes, even to me, as dumb as I am. LOL! This guy's heart is amazing. And his intentions are astoundingly pure. I was so happy. So we started dating, and he is the kind of guy who over-commits himself with the best of intentions, because he kind of wants to be everything to everyone you know? And then when he can't get to it all, it comes back and bites him in the butt. Well, because of that, and just the fact that he's so young I think, he made a few dates with me, and then had to cancel at the last minute. And what did I do? Me of little faith, what did I do? I doubted his intentions, and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and immediately assumed that he was dicking me around. And BOOM, he was gone. Just like magic. And I see now that in doubting his intentions, I was doubting God, and I was doubting that He answered my prayers. Now I have been through soooo much heartache, and have prayed sooooo hard, and I KNOW, because of many things that I've witnessed in my life that Jesus is REAL, and He's REALLY there, and when He says He's gonna do something, it's already done. And even knowing that, I STILL LAPSED IN FAITH!!!!! Can you believe that??? How stupid am I exactly? Ok, don't answer that. I'm just trying to tell you guys that faith is NOT easy. Not at all. It seems sometimes that you all are looking for some cut and dry, black and white, paint by numbers, quick fix. And I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, it's just not that way. Hey, if any dummy out there wishes it was that easy, it's me. But it's just not.
------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 15, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lori (edited June 15, 2000).]

The very first thing I did when I read Tony's post was write him an e-mail making sure he was ok. I'm happy to report that he said he is doing fine. However, MC, your post I'm sure will make him feel even better. :D I've said it before and I'll say it again, MC, you have a great heart!

Lori,
It always, always, always boils down to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One that is begun, and fostered, and maintained IN YOUR HEART, which is our word for our soul. For example, have you ever heard of any Christian, or anyone for that matter who shares my view of homosexuality? That the only problem with it is what boils down to gender discrimination, and not one other thing is wrong with it? That it all boils down to one's intentions, and not the act? Do you think I got that from an evangelist, or from "the church"? Hell no! Do you know who told me that? Jesus told me that.

YES!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!
Talk about confirmation right and left!!! :D
This is EXACTLY what I have been learning!!!!!!!! Gotta love Him! :D
The personal relationship is KEY, KEY, KEY, KEY! :D I'm just gonna leave it at that for now. LOL

Flash,

(blush) Thanks dear, I just try to do what I think is right. That's all anyone can be expected to do, I think. :) I just didn't want Tony to think I wasn't listening. I'm not believing some of it, but I AM listening.

Lori,

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!! The past three times I've read your post...I keep picking up on NEW things that I've missed before. :D LOL!

Hey, the truth is hilarious sometimes, is it not? You just HAVE to laugh, cause you know damn well what the alternative is, yes? ;)

------------------
You may think I'm a nut, but I'm fastened to the strongest bolt in the universe.

Searcher

Inflammatory or not, thank you for the articles; I must give them better attention soon, but there's no excuse that I don't have a real life going right now, so I'm compelled to spend/waste (circle one) time in other ways. (Apparently stumbling down the street to get drunk is far more socially acceptable than babbling at Exosci, but I digress, and must beg your pardon as such .... ;) )

Pash

Inflammatory or not, I would propose that such ideas are somewhat relevant. The reason for that I might best demonstrate if I borrow from Tony's post,

It was not condoning the inquisition but pointing out that it not only affected the innocent but true believers also.

Now, given that the Catholic Church, which brought these events on the world, was the sole vessel to transport the message of Christ ... how has that effect affected the generations that come after? What has changed fundamentally about the original ideas of Christ through centuries of botched interpretation and execution by the only vessel to transport it? We like to think that "In the beginning ..." is the start of a pure body of words, though it has been subject to more political distortion throughout history than anything I can think of. "Lord, lunatic, or liar?" Practical Christianity, even today, does a fair job of establishing Christ as all three.

Pick any third-world African nation. Wanna go there for fun in the sun? Not really, but I don't know for sure because I've never been there. Now, is my subjective desire to not visit a war-torn, famine-wrecked, disease-weary region for a week of getaway a full-blown prejudice, or an assessment that is mine to reach based on what I see?

Consider an emigrant from one of those nations; where will he go? What if his first exposure to "America" is CNN footage of the parade in New York City? Will he want to bring his daughters to this? It's not a fair reflection of America, but if it's his primary experience, what can we say?

Consider a person seeking faith: what God shall redeem him? It seems that often, it is deemed unfair to consider the whole of the Christian effect on the world; the only appropriate method, apparently, is to abandon all else, engage Christianity, accept it as full truth, and then try to work out from there. That apparent difficulty notwithstanding, should one choose to survey the overall Christian presence in the world, what would be the sum? Does it really seem that inviting?

Watch Kathy Bates fitting South American girls for brassieres in At Play in the Fields of the Lord (I hear the novel's outstanding, too). In that scene, Christ indeed is Lord, Lunatic, and Liar.

Christianity is a huge notion in the world; why is it so difficult to attempt that vista?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

<img src = "http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/BBoard_member_gifs/bowser_anim.gif"> Pashley,

<hr>
<font color = "blue">Who do YOU say Jesus was?</font>
<hr>

The Bible (New Testament) is a long-winded explanation of the truth, for those who just don't know. Jesus is the vestige of what we all desire. In this world, what is most rare and least practiced? From what I've gathered in my limited knowledge of the Bible and of Christ, it is a very simple message that is being conveyed:

<font color = "red">Love.</font>
...for eachother

<font color = "red">Peace.</font>
...on Earth

<font color = "red">Hope.</font>
...for mankind

That which makes it holy is the message. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser,

Can I give you an "Amen"?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Originally posted by Lori:


It always, always, always boils down to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. One that is begun, and fostered, and maintained IN YOUR HEART, which is our word for our soul. For example, have you ever heard of any Christian, or anyone for that matter who shares my view of homosexuality? That the only problem with it is what boils down to gender discrimination, and not one other thing is wrong with it? That it all boils down to one's intentions, and not the act? Do you think I got that from an evangelist, or from "the church"? Hell no! Do you know who told me that? Jesus told me that.


Lori, you still have to sell me on this intention issue.

I think when you can say "Well, it was my intent that....", you leave a loophole for people to sin. And no, I'm not obsessing about homosexuality either, but in general. I just think it is a slippery slope when we base our actions on our faulty human emotions. :)

I did like the rest of your post, though. :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Tiassa,

I'm sure you had a point there somewhere... :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Tiassa,

Per my previous message:

"Well, then I guess I need to start with asserting, and giving evidence for, the NT's crediblity then, first? I mean, if you can't hold that the Resurrection, at least, is not factual, or is meant to convey something else, I don't know how to sway you from that. If we have to start with the validity of the Bible, we can; but I would rather get to the meat and potatoes, the Resurrection."

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Searcher--

I got a chance to read more of a couple of those articles; I hope to offer the perspective of Jack Cady, later today, as regards the Salem Trials.

I did get through the Fordham and Jesus-is-Lord articles on the Inquisitions. Two things to note, but simply to make a note of:

* The only justifications I can draw for the Inquisitions are political; I have not yet understood the spiritual compulsion to these events.

* The Jesus-is-Lord article I found amusing. There exists a definitive context change in the eighth paragraph, when verbs switch from past to present tense. Hence, I would ask the author of the original document to show me the prisons in which these things are happening.


At the head of these inquisitors was one Dominic .... (paragraph 2)

The most zealous of all the popish monks ... were the Dominicans and Fanciscans .... (p.4)

This zeal in the emperor ... arose from a report which had been propagated throughout Europe .... (p. 6)
____________

The officers of the Inquisition are three inquisitors .... (p. 8)

The principal accusation against those who are subject to this tribunal is heresy.

A prisoner in the Inquisition is never allowed to see the face of his accuser .... (p. 11)


And so on. However, Searcher, the point is well taken, and I, for one, like to think myself capable of reading around this. But I thought it worthy of mention.

I'm still wondering, though, how such an allegedly powerful and positive message becomes one of the most dangerous practices in the world.

We might then, respecting the form of this topic, declare Jesus to be a Lord, the instruments of His evil to be lunatics, and the academics who support them to be liars. That way, we can cover all the bases.

I think the most important aspects of reviewing the tragedies of Christendom past comes when we identify how, exactly, one justifies abuses with the Word of their God. I point to the Schalflys, Robertsons, and likewise today, who know that they cannot burn the infidel threat at the stake, and choose instead to employ politics in a desperate attempt to strangle cultural expression out of the culture. Their Lord is a lunatic; same with Lon Mabon's.

In the end, the difference between Jesus as Lord, Lunatic, or Liar, seems to depend on the beholder. God, apparently, has done his part, and it's now left to humans to figure it out. Too bad we're still blowing it, on the whole.

But, again, thank you, Searcher, for the enlightening articles. You've given me much in topic to chew on.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Pash?

Let's review:

Well, then I guess I need to start with asserting, and giving evidence for, the NT's crediblity then, first? I mean, if you can't hold that the Resurrection, at least, is not factual, or is meant to convey something else, I don't know how to sway you from that. If we have to start with the validity of the Bible, we can; but I would rather get to the meat and potatoes, the Resurrection. (Pash; 6/14/2000)

Okay.

As to the resurrection: Perhaps if "three days" didn't match up so well with other religions' regard for death (e.g.--the soul resides for three days before passing), I wouldn't start with that. But therein exists yet another literary precedent. Furthermore, as I recall the story: Jesus shows up to his disciples, who don't recognize him until he chides them. For a crucifixion, I probably wouldn't push the mere appearance of death. There I'd probably look to mistaken identity, or an emotionally induced conclusion drawn by the Apostles. (Tiassa; 6/14)

then ...

I guess what i was fishing for concerns the Resurrection only. In particular, is there a facet you don't believe, or maybe a alternative theory as to what happened? (Pash; 6/14)

and then ...

The Resurrection: I don't believe it happened. I believe something happened, but the simple fact is that there's enough going on elsewhere in the Universe to indicate to me that Jesus called Christ did not rise from his grave. From the word Go, the Resurrection is fueled entirely by faith; therein lies its value.

But, to reduce it to the simplest number of options:

* There was no single Jesus; the whole thing is a well-executed amalgamation of wisdom teachings.

* That there was a Jesus executed as a political insurgent. From here we see the possibility of provocateurs claiming Jesus to be alive in order to frustrate the local authority. We also encounter the possibility that the Resurrection was a hoax.

(edited out--three quote from Book of John)

Furthermore, when Jesus appears in the room with the Disciples in John 20.19, I'm left to wonder how that would have gone down had Mary Magdalene not tipped them off (20.18).

It would seem to me that the Disciples could not recognize Jesus. So I'll reiterate a stale question in the history of this forum: Why?

More directly: Why did Jesus the Resurrected have to convince the Disciples of his identity? Right there we now enter a question of "God's mystery" vs. "imposter". There is a predetermined, format answer for Christians, though: catechism. (Tiassa; 6/14)

ya with me? ;)

Tiassa,
Per my previous message:

"Well, then I guess I need to start with asserting, and giving evidence for, the NT's crediblity then, first? I mean, if you can't hold that the Resurrection, at least, is not factual, or is meant to convey something else, I don't know how to sway you from that. If we have to start with the validity of the Bible, we can; but I would rather get to the meat and potatoes, the Resurrection." (Pash; 6/15)

Did you get all that?

Now ...

What would you like me to say?

In fact, that's a brilliant idea. Why don't you just tell me what points of argument you're allowing, and then we can skip this silly round of "did-not, did-too". And when you're done, you can pretend you've accomplished something by preventing a debate from escaping the confines you insist on applying.

Otherwise, I recalle my favorite Rocky & Bullwinkle product, a collegiate sweatshirt: Whatsamatta U?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa,

With any historical problem you start with a frame of reference. For instance, to discuss the Civil War in the United States, one presupposes that a United States exists or existed, and that a certain conflict called the Civil War occurred. That's your frame of reference for discussion. Otherwise, why discuss the issue? The same is true with the Resurrection. To discuss the Resurrection intelligently we must assume certain items. Eight to be exact, as follows:

1. JESUS LIVED. One Jesus.

2. JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED. As in, on the cross.

3. JESUS WAS CONSIDERED DEAD. If he wasn't dead, no Resurrectioncould occur; only ressuciatation (sp?). Conversley, if the Resurrection did happen, he necessarily had to die.

4. JESUS WAS BURIED IN A KNOWN AND ACCESSIBLE TOMB. As opposed to being spirited away to an unknow location.

5. JESUS WAS PREACHED RAISED AND ASCENDED. The Gospels say he not only was ressurected, but ascended to Heaven.

6. JEWISH LEADERS WERE MOTIVATED TO DISPROVE. This is a conclusion based on the facts and known circumstances, but the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem were more concerned to disprove the preaching of a Resurrection than we are two-thousand years later. They had more at stake. The preaching of the message at that time created riots and could have cost the Jewish leaders their reputations, their positions, their economic livelihoods and even their lives. What would happen to you if you were believed responsible for the death of someone worshiped as God? Disproving the preaching that Jesus rose from the dead was a matter of great importance to them. So much so, that:

7. DISCIPLES WERE PERSECUTED. All records indicate that the early Apostles and Disciples were imprisoned, tortured, and suffered greatly simply for saying Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven. The Jewish leaders being more concerned, more involved, and with more at stake, persecuted the New Testament preachers for spreading that message.

8. THE TOMB WAS EMPTY. The tomb had to be empty, because if Jesus was buried in a known accessible tomb, and if the Jewish leaders were more concerned to disprove the preaching than you or I are today, they would have checked the tomb. If a body was there, they would not have had to persecute the preachers. They could have proven the preachers liars by simply displaying the body. Another reason to assume the tomb was empty is because no one knows for sure where it is today. You can find ancient Old Testament characters with certainty. But nobody for centuries even wondered about Jesus' tomb, so it was forgotten and the exact site was lost in history. Why? Because who cared about an empty tomb back then? The people of the day followed a risen Savior, not a dead one.

If you agree to those predicates, we can begin; if not, we're back to establishing the vailidity and reliabliity of the New Testament.

Now, with those predicates, can you give me one refutation? I want only one, so we can not get diluted by other points. You have made a few refutations, I will ask you to just pick one, please :)

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

Pash--

Those points on which I can be in accord:

1. Jesus lived--I have no reason to believe otherwise.
2. Jesus was crucified--again, I find no reason to believe otherwise.
3. Jesus was considered dead--the key word there is considered.
6. Jewish leaders motivated to disprove--we could probably split hairs, but this is hardly outside the realm of acceptable assertions.
7. Disciples were persecuted--rather than having no reason to believe otherwise, I can look to the historical record to confirm persecution of early Christian believers.

However, of #4, 5, and 8, I have various difficulties. Since I'm limited to one objection, per your say-so, I think I'l choose ....

#4--What can you show me, that is not in the Bible or derived directly from, that indicates that Jesus' tomb was "known and accessible"?

Goshy, Reverend Pash, did I do good?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Lori--

I'm not ignoring your 6/14 post. I promise I'll have a response for you if you still want/need/desire it. Frankly, I have an answer but I'm quite sure the words I'm using to actualize it fall within a vague sense of impropriety. It's partially a "Duh," aspect, and partially much more; please forgive me for the delay. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

I'll be addressing Tiassa's concerns, and not your purposely inflammatory posts. You'll do well do sit back and learn.

Pashley,

Purposely inflammatory? Just what adjective would you assign to the following remarks made by you about me?

See what happens when you take too many hallucegenic drugs, kids?

Anyone that thinks Mary was impregnated by aliens which resulted in Jesus is nuts. You'll notice my first reply was more kind.

Whether or not you feel my remarks were "purposely inflammatory", the truth of them can hardly be denied. If you'll notice, I did not attack you personally, as you had done to me, but presented you with some very valid reasons why I do not accept Christianity as "The Way". Christianity as an institution has been anything but Christlike. There were many other articles I could have posted but didn't. A couple of topics that are particularly close to my heart include the cruel treatment of the Native Americans by Christians, as well as the destruction of ancient knowledge (the destruction of the Alexandria Library, records and artifacts belonging to ancient American cultures, etc.). I do not think that this is irrelevant!

I understand that it was not Jesus who authorized such ill behavior in his followers, though they felt quite free to do these things in his name. I understand that Jesus was a decent, honest, wise, loving human being. I do not think he was half God, nor do I think he was God incarnate. I do not necessarily believe that he himself ever claimed such a thing. If he was half anything other than human, then the only thing that makes sense to me is that he was half extraterrestrial. When I read the bible in that light, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place a bit.

So you don't agree with me - why do you feel the need to attack me personally? Is that how you represent Christ? Is that supposed to influence me to give up my Pagan ways and follow Christ? Is it supposed to influence any Pagan to follow Christ? Perhaps I'm not the only one who could benefit from your advice to "sit back and learn"?

I'll tell you what, Pashley: if you'll try to be a little more "Christlike" in your dealings with me, I'll forgo mentioning some of the past Christian atrocities that we all already know about anyway. Deal?

------------------
www.indigenousrocks.com (http://www.indigenousrocks.com)

Searcher,

From this point on, I'm ignoring you.

Not because you have any decent points to debate, but rather because your tone has been, from the outset, caustic, inflammatory and infantile.

I don't need YOU to tell me to be more Christ-like, as you spit in my face, either.

When you get over your obvious hate for Christianity, come back.

Otherwise, leave me alone.

------------------
"Know Jesus, know peace; no Jesus, no peace."
-Patrick Ashley

What exactly are you trying to say?

I went to the site you posted regarding the inquisition and througherly read it. It was not condoning the inquisition but pointing out that it not only affected the innocent but true believers also. It actually gives accounts of the atrocities visited on them also.

Tony,

First of all I would like to say that none of this was directed against you, and I apologize if it came off that way. I suppose you took it personally because it exposed the atrocities of those who supposedly followed Christ, those who you would therefore consider brothers and sisters in Christ. I can't really he