• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Contemporary Descriptions of Jesus

^ I'm not sure i agree.
Non-belief has room for scepticism, whereas 'belief' doesn't seem to, in terms of 'faith'.
 
You misunderstood what I meant by it.

Try converting a Muslim into a Christian (or any other religion for that matter). His "non-belief" is pretty much guaranteed it won't happen, and there's no scepticism involved, either. Most of these arguments seem to target Christianity and don't really consider it works the same in other religions.

Isn't non-belief just another ideology to crack, though? Like Atheist science, etc.

Anyway, it's a two-edged sword, and most people's beliefs and non-beliefs have deprived them of much they could have benefitted from.
 
Well, I guess what i mean is that one who follows ("believes") another religious creed is not a "non believer"
 
Right, but assuming there IS such a thing to believe in, wouldn't they come out as pretty stupid and lacking in perceptive and reasoning abilities?

Not that that's what's my concern. It's a deeply personal thing based on strong experiences hard to communicate to non-believers. No one can take that from you, but it's possible to live without it.

Have you ever had an orgasm? A high-level spiritual/consciousness experience completely triumphs that, but it's such a subjective ecperience.
 
That's the point though - subjective "belief" goes out the window when a large proportion of "believers" carry the faith with or (more specifically) without reliable historical sources.

Orgasm, on the other hand, can be objectively identified through physical observation.

My original post was not disagreeing with you particularly - just noting a difficulty in this subject.
I'm not religious but that doesn't mean I'm "anti-Jesus"...
 
The're a chasm between the "haves" and the "have-nots" - that's why it's so hard to come any understanding.
 
But you come across as you don't like the idea of the existence of Jesus at all, positive or otherwise.
So maybe not the most objective approach to it.

What gives you that idea? Are you just assuming that because I've disputed some of your evidence? But yeah, given that I perceive of most christian theology as incorrect and that the primary source for this theology as fictitious, I found it really difficult to accept secondary information regarding characters in this as real. Perhaps I am being close-minded, but I follow my instincts here :)

FWIW, I believe that jesus existed, I just don't believe he was divine or the son of god because I don't believe in that sort of god.

Anyway, people have all sorts of crazy ideas about Jesus. It's a shame because I've seen what he can do. The sad thing is how many miss out on what he can do for them, if you can achieve some sort of connection.

But you first need to believe, accept, and welcome him into your home, of course. He won't come and save you like a Superman, you need to the most of the work yourself. That's what's challenging about it, but easy when you've establishd a connection.

See, that I don't understand.

But I do understand and appreciate the concept of a metaphorical, symbolic god as long as this doesn't disengage people from actively trying to be good and kind people and taking responsibility for thinking and deciding right and wrong for themselves.

Why does jesus require my belief before he can improve my life? Most things that are objectively real in our universe do not require belief as a prerequisite towards exerting influence.

It makes me think of the existential and solipsistic nightmare that god must be within given the preoccupation with faith and belief.

Ninae said:
The linguistic anomalies are easy to explain - very ancient texts, translated over again and again, of course so inconsistencies were like to show up.

That's a good point, and likely to be one reason for the implausibility of these descriptions of jesus. I still think that the more likely reason for these anomalies is because the texts containing them are retrospective and basically marketing on behalf of the church to increase their material resources.

Ninae said:
People who are so against Jesus generally don't get anything out of reading something like this, nor are they prepared to.

I think most people would love it if god/jesus was explicitly proven, because it would make our lives better; we would have some sort of recourse in times of trouble and help in situations that are unpleasant.

As it stands, to state my perspective- I am not against jesus anymore then I am against any historical figure. I just don't want to have the ensuing morality imposed on me by people who simply believe that they are correct and, because of their wealth and power, I have to go along with it. Anyone can believe what they want AFAIAC.
 
If you want a more appealing view of Jesus you could read some of the originial Gnostic scriptures (stored in Alexandria) or the Gnostic Cathar teachings from France.

http://gnosis.org/library/cathtx.htm

http://books.google.no/books?id=LXf8jPbHA14C&pg=PT749&lpg=PT749&dq=cathar+ballads&source=bl&ots=4RRkTHp7b1&sig=dzXKhIPEdEvG52g_OEytoY_rnwg&hl=no&sa=X&ei=3PyOU77SJOP0ygON_YDgCw&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=cathar%20ballads&f=false

It's a bit different and supposed to be closer to his original teachings that were inspired by Egypt, the Far East, etc

Always stroke me as more credible, and not worked to death over centuries with literary means to make the whole book read as a piece of poetrty (to impress and gain entry into simple people's mind at the time). In the end the whole book was more like a big volume of poetry:

"A city that is built upon a hill can not be hid" was changed to "A city that is set upon a hill can not be hid" to make it more cahtchy. Clever, because that sort of poetry makes a stronger impression on the subconsciousness.

Cathar teachings were also great. They taught a mixture of East and West and believed in Enlighenment, reincarnation, purity, etc. until they were all burned.

Some beautiful ballad teaching with spiritual ideas in, though leaning more towards the Eastern side "Renouncing the world", etc.


Always been a fan of this movement, for some reason...and their lovesongs were so romantic (though mostly directed towards God).

http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/French/FromDawnToDawn.htm#_Toc246327896


http://www.pinterest.com/realprovision/church-of-love-troubador/
 
Last edited:
Well of course his image is westernized, the Romans took control of it and later the Church and western Europe. All you have to do is follow the ethnography and the standard appearances of how people looked at that time to get a decent imagining of what Jesus would've looked like. If he really was enlightened, then his energy would have made him seem far more beautiful than simply looking at a picture of him though. Therefore his specific appearance doesn't matter to me.

I don't have a problem with people who make him into their "personal Jesus" while changing his appearance because he's supposed to be a yidam for one's spiritual path. If you believe that Jesus is somewhere 'out there' then you're missing the point.

This.

That people create idealized images of those they idealize ought to be a banal conclusion. This is nearly a tautology.

I'm a gnostic Christian if I can be called Christian at all, and as such I recognize that 'Christ' is someone to become, rather than someone to worship. Through this lens, it's easy to see that any Christian's visual image of Jesus is largely a projection (i.e. externalization) of what he or she is seeking, on some level or another.

Taking this a step further, I think it's a boon to Christians that no contemporary visual image or vivid visual description of Jesus is known to exist. Similar to how Muslims have the right idea frowning upon visual images of Muhammad's physical appearance. Why? Because when it comes to spiritual teachers, one typically gets much more mileage by enshrining the message, than the messenger. Focusing on attributes of the teacher that don't directly pertain to the lessons he reached you with, such as his physical appearance, makes it easier to fall into the Cult of Personality trap.
 
I would also call myself a Gnostic Christian, if I had to be one, although I don't believe in Christianity as much as I do in Christ.

Like all main world religions it was mainly a vehicle for social, political, and financial control, and at the best you could find 50% of truth in it. So whether Christianity is true or not is really an obsolete argument in my case and not what I mean when I talk about Jesus. The old testament is also very different from the new, and something Jesus sought to change, so it's very confusing.

But at least the Gnostic scriptures were the original ones and probably the closest to what he actually taught. Actually, the library of Alexandria was a Gnostic library. While later versions have been written over and over and employed every rhetoric tool in the world, like rhyme and rhythm, as if to have a brainwashing effect on the human mind. Still, the final Bible is quite an impressive piece of poetry. Though I think that's exactly how the makers wanted us NOT to see it.
 
"Gnostic's are the ones who missed the joke of Christianity"
Zizek clarifies:
"To really get to the true abyss, to have an authentic atheistic experience, one must go through Christianity".

"Why art thou proud, O man? God for thee became low. Thou wouldst perhaps be ashamed to imitate a lowly man ; then at least imitate the lowly God. — St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 7."

This is why the church leaders thought the imitation was greater than that of merely following the Word.
 
Are you saying Jesus was the imitator that was the joke on us? Because that doesn't really add up with much I've read of Gnostic writings. Though there are both the original Gnostics and the revival sect in middle-age France.

I see Christ more as a mediator between us and God. God can sometimes be not that easy to reach. And when you're lying there calling out for help and there is no forthcoming there aren't really that many alternatives. At least that was my reasoning when I really turned to Jesus about 1 1/2 years ago, and I must say, I was suprised to find that he's very real.

That possibility had never even interested me much before - I thought trying to connect with God was enough on my plate. Little did I know it was a short-cut.
 
No the joke is the abyss itself. The theme is atheism itself. He is dead. The Spirit worships His Holy Ghost in participation with God (an all encompassing metaphor). So if John states God is love and then He gets crucified over the skull of Adam; then humanities last act was the very same betrayal as Adam and Eve. We killed God and His last message is a tragically romantic one. The Gnostic's just take it too far man.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I see your point now. Teaching Christianity frequently seems to lead to Atheism.

I thought the whole point was that he's supposed to be still alive in spirit though? To me he is very much alive when I can feel his presence. I think he knew he was going to be killed. He wasn't welcomed by either the Roman or Jewish establishment which wasn't interested in an equal world for all or the enlightenment of common human kind.

But doesn't he just exist in a higher dimension we can't normally access? It's the bridge from here to over there that's a challenge to cross. It's almost like an impossibility that can be made possible.
 
I thought the whole point was that he's supposed to be still alive in spirit though?

The point of Christianity is to have an egalitarian Spirit. It isn't do you accept his teachings, how could you? It is, can you imitate even a fraction of the story's glamour so that as you say 'Jesus is alive in you'. This is to say, however, only if you have that same Spirit of Christianity. So let us say you go to church and pay your 10-15% yearly but you are passive in other peoples suffering? Are you causing suffering through your passiveness? I will give you a paradox to this, gay marriage. Clearly if we are molded in God's image which is distinctly love (if you're a Christian) and you do not let them share in the delight of the Holy Spirit then you are passively causing suffering. You may as well be a Roman in this instance or more succinctly Atheist.

I am a Christian-Atheist for two reasons. The first, it's a story. Secondly I can do no better than Gandhi; "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ"
 
Last edited:
Not the point of Christianity. The point of Christ and what he can do for you. Christianity doesn't concern me all that much.

When I can feel Jesus presence and his healing/blessing power flowing through me THAT impresses me. But it wasn't something I was able to imagine until I'd experienced it. It's also quite whimsical, and not something I can control much at will, but I believe there are those who can (or I have seen it).
 
Top