0
   

What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Born?

 
 
dauer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Sep, 2004 08:26 pm
I am Jewish. There are problematic verses in many ancient texts and religions always find a way to deal with them. This is true of Judaism too. For the sake of gaining actual insight into the Historical happenings, these justifications and half-truths must be stripped away, regardless of how comforting they are. Only then can we begin to encounter the person or persons, or created person or persons that have been lost to the myths and legends that built up after them.

I would do the same to Moses or Abraham, only they are so lost in the seas of their legends that I doubt anything can ever be known.

When you approach this you look for a person pursuing a noble cause who always stood for what he believed in and did what was right, died for what he believed was right, an ideal man. When I approach this I look for a man. Whose agenda is more appropriate in a thread about what the world would be like if this this individual was never born?

I am not denying your belief in God, nor the way you deal with that belief. All approaches to God are equally valid in their own way.

I am challenging you to toss your religiously-understood notions aside and try to get to the root of the matter of who this man actually was, if he was at all.
0 Replies
 
Lekatt
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 07:41 am
dauer wrote:
I am Jewish. There are problematic verses in many ancient texts and religions always find a way to deal with them. This is true of Judaism too. For the sake of gaining actual insight into the Historical happenings, these justifications and half-truths must be stripped away, regardless of how comforting they are. Only then can we begin to encounter the person or persons, or created person or persons that have been lost to the myths and legends that built up after them.

I would do the same to Moses or Abraham, only they are so lost in the seas of their legends that I doubt anything can ever be known.

When you approach this you look for a person pursuing a noble cause who always stood for what he believed in and did what was right, died for what he believed was right, an ideal man. When I approach this I look for a man. Whose agenda is more appropriate in a thread about what the world would be like if this this individual was never born?

I am not denying your belief in God, nor the way you deal with that belief. All approaches to God are equally valid in their own way.

I am challenging you to toss your religiously-understood notions aside and try to get to the root of the matter of who this man actually was, if he was at all.


I said before I hold no religious beliefs. I look at the teachings of Jesus, not the man, but the teachings define the man. Yes, I believe He was totally honest in His "mission" to bring abundant life to the people He taught. He stated that was His mission "to bring life and life abundantly." I believe those who understand and follow His teachings do indeed have a better life than they had before.

I don't hold the religious beliefs that Jesus was God, or that He died for our sins, etc. The importance is in the teachings. Jesus said a lot of things religious people choose not to see. Like, "why do you marvel, you can do as I do, and even more."

It was my near death experience that triggered my understanding of His teachings. I had been through them hundreds of times not seeing anything, but the NDE opened my eyes to the light, and I am very grateful.

I don't expect others to understand, especially those who have not seen. The path to God is a personal one. Each finds their own way. It can not be any different.

I still feel you have an agenda, not willing to put Moses or Abraham under the same skeptical analysis as you would Jesus. I have no doubt Jesus lived and performed what seemed like miracles in His day.

With our growing knowledge of the spiritual world through reseach in NDEs, OBES, and PSI phenomenon, etc. We can now understand how some of these miracles occur.

Love
0 Replies
 
dauer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 12:08 pm
Actually, I've just signed up for a class today with a teacher who has had people walk out on him because what he said was blasphemous to them. It's on the History and Ideology of Ancient Israel and he's going to show, particularly, how the ideology of Israel shaped the way they portrayed History. One thing I gather based on what he's said is that he is going to tear the religous understanding of David to shreds, showing that in reality he was not a nice guy at all.

My feeling on Abraham is that he didn't exist, or that if he did there's really nothing we can know about him. He may have just been the result of an origin myth. My feeling about Moses is that he may have existed, but all of our surviving records are biased and can't be trusted for an accurate understanding. My profesor did mention that originally the tribes were not united together and they each had their own shrines. They worshipped the same god, but there would be a separate sort of manifestation in each place. It was very similar to the worshipper of Baal in that way. What I wrote now is really disjointed and I don't think I've said much, but at least you know I'm critical of my own texts too. It seems like you say I have an agenda so that you can disregard what I have to say.

I respect that you had an experience and that you found the teachings that you attribute to Jesus helpful. This does not mean that Jesus taught them. Nor does it have anything to do with how honest he was. And I did not deny that those who follow the teachings attributed to Jesus have a better life than they did before. I'm not concerned with that. I am concerned with the Historical figure known today as Jesus. Do the teachings define the man? Were the teachings by the man? There have been people throughout History who taught things contradictory to the way they lived their lives.

Does this mean that I can teach people to love one another and then sleep with my brother's wife and strangle their baby? No. This is an exaggeration.

But first it needs to be established if Jesus actually taught those things. If he did teach those things, it needs to be established whether they were new or not.

The question is whether your faith is strong enough to pursue the truth and test it with the greatest of rattling. This is an issue I am confronting right now in my own life. If you are not, we should probably end this conversation. I won't be able to respond much for the next few days anyway.
0 Replies
 
dauer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 12:12 pm
Oh, and also, about things that cannot be confirmed as true, I think it is important to ask why they were written. Why was the creation story included in the bible? Why was it told in that manner and not another? What were the authors trying to show or convey? How relevant is this to today. I tend to agree with Heschel that all of the bible should be read as midrash, which are stories that are written using biblical characters to teach lessons. The most famous you may know, is about Abraham in his father's workshop, smashing the idols and then placing the hammer in the hand of the largest. But Heschel asserts that as with this stories, we must look for the lessons and teachings that can be learned and never begin to convince ourselves that this a true history. That is my outlook.
0 Replies
 
Lekatt
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Sep, 2004 08:18 pm
dauer wrote:
Actually, I've just signed up for a class today with a teacher who has had people walk out on him because what he said was blasphemous to them. It's on the History and Ideology of Ancient Israel and he's going to show, particularly, how the ideology of Israel shaped the way they portrayed History. One thing I gather based on what he's said is that he is going to tear the religous understanding of David to shreds, showing that in reality he was not a nice guy at all.

My feeling on Abraham is that he didn't exist, or that if he did there's really nothing we can know about him. He may have just been the result of an origin myth. My feeling about Moses is that he may have existed, but all of our surviving records are biased and can't be trusted for an accurate understanding. My profesor did mention that originally the tribes were not united together and they each had their own shrines. They worshipped the same god, but there would be a separate sort of manifestation in each place. It was very similar to the worshipper of Baal in that way. What I wrote now is really disjointed and I don't think I've said much, but at least you know I'm critical of my own texts too. It seems like you say I have an agenda so that you can disregard what I have to say.

I respect that you had an experience and that you found the teachings that you attribute to Jesus helpful. This does not mean that Jesus taught them. Nor does it have anything to do with how honest he was. And I did not deny that those who follow the teachings attributed to Jesus have a better life than they did before. I'm not concerned with that. I am concerned with the Historical figure known today as Jesus. Do the teachings define the man? Were the teachings by the man? There have been people throughout History who taught things contradictory to the way they lived their lives.

Does this mean that I can teach people to love one another and then sleep with my brother's wife and strangle their baby? No. This is an exaggeration.

But first it needs to be established if Jesus actually taught those things. If he did teach those things, it needs to be established whether they were new or not.

The question is whether your faith is strong enough to pursue the truth and test it with the greatest of rattling. This is an issue I am confronting right now in my own life. If you are not, we should probably end this conversation. I won't be able to respond much for the next few days anyway.


Yes, we should end it, I am discussing one thing, and you another.
I have found my path to truth. I think you are still looking for yours.

Good Luck
Love
0 Replies
 
melbournian cheese
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 01:37 am
Algis

It's spelt Muslim and the religion is Islam. Geez, some people are so uninformed nowadays. I suppose you're saying 'Moslem' because they're usually terrorists to you.

I've browsed around and it seems a lot of Yanks seem to say 'Moslem' quite usually followed by the word 'fundamentalist' or 'terrorist'. It's like all Yanks seem to hate all Muslims for simply being. Seems a lot like the crusades.
Spooky stuff.
0 Replies
 
Lekatt
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2004 06:46 am
melbournian cheese wrote:
Algis

It's spelt Muslim and the religion is Islam. Geez, some people are so uninformed nowadays. I suppose you're saying 'Moslem' because they're usually terrorists to you.

I've browsed around and it seems a lot of Yanks seem to say 'Moslem' quite usually followed by the word 'fundamentalist' or 'terrorist'. It's like all Yanks seem to hate all Muslims for simply being. Seems a lot like the crusades.
Spooky stuff.


There are many words that can be spelt more tnan one way, moslem is one of them. As for all Yanks hating muslims, not so, many Yanks are moslems.

Love
0 Replies
 
melbournian cheese
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2004 01:23 am
i've never seen it spelt moslem, and i've lived most of my life in an arab country
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 10:41 am
What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Born?

Your thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 10:51 am
melbournian cheese wrote:
i've never seen it spelt moslem, and i've lived most of my life in an arab country


Quote:
Main Entry: moslem Pronunciation Guide
Usage: usually capitalized
variant of MUSLIM
Source: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (2 Dec. 2004).

The term 'moslem' is used especially in Germanic languages, while 'muslim' more in the Francophone regions .... and in some English speaking regions :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 11:20 am
That's interesting, Walter. You're such a good educator. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 01:19 am
"Mussulman," and "Mussalman," from the Turkish Müslüman, and the Persian Musulmän, also used to be used in English, but had given way to the use of "Moslem" ages ago. The use of "Muslim" in English is relatively new.

"Muhammedan" or "Mohammedan" also used to be used to a lesser extent, but its use was considered objectionable.

From Ahmed Ali's Introduction to his translation of The Qur'an, and Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 10:28 am
Re: What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Bor
What would the World be like if JESUS had never been Born?

Your thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:16 pm
Well, while attempting not to get into the debate about who and what he was, it is still possible, if we can all agree that he was, to postulate a couple of things.
Since to many, the concepts of loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek are traceable to Jesus, I'd say we probably would have been a much more violent species if he'd never lived. There might not have been a Ghandi or an MLK if there hadn't been Jesus. No peaceful protests (the mores of Malcolm X might have held sway, and people might have tried to kill more police and police dogs in the 60s), no sit-ins, no marches, no boycotts. Violence and an eye-for-an-eye might have ended up seeming much more reasonable as replies to oppression.
I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if I'm repeating others' words, but that's the first things that came to my mind.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2004 04:25 pm
Welcome Snood.

The permutations to a Jesus-less world seem unimaginable!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 06:29:56