A head on a stake? Or a body nailed to a cross?

Blimey!

I find the whole concept of Jesus and religion in general totally contradictory.
Its supposed to radiate love and peace yet seems to generate dictation and war.

I think in this day and age Jesus is seen by many as a fashion icon, not a religious icon.
He gives comfort to some,or provokes hatred in others.

Surely the fact that Jesus was Jewish and from hin Christianity was born shows that religion is 'made up' and manipulated.If we truly loved Jesus we would be following the Jewish faith.

I saw The Passion of Christ and was amazed by how 'wishy wshy' the reasons were for killing Jesus.If people lives are based on that, I dont think there is hope for anyone.

Re: A head on a stake? Or a body nailed to a cross?
The crucifix and the old head on a stake have the same purpose, to warn people not to mess around with the "authorities".

The reason Jesus died is because he pissed off the "authorities". Karma, enlightment, etc. didn't have much to do with anything.

Most Christians will say that he died to fulfill a prophecy, or he died for our sins, or whatever. There entitled to their beliefs. After all, it is futile to try to prove or disprove a religious belief.



Out of the billions of Christians in the world, there is probably at least one worthy one, somewhere.

Anyways, the problem with Christianity is not with the individual Christians. The problem is that it has become an "organized" religion, run by people who do not necessarily follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I see it as a testament to the quality of this forum than no one took this post seriously enough to argue against it.

Thanks. Sincere compliments are rare.

Not very many people who are very smart really believe in religions like Christianity.

You do not have to believe in the dogma to obtain value from a religion.

All you have to do is open your eyes to the wonder it can help reveal.

The rest is up to you.

Meister Eckhart, a medieval mystic once said that you have to get past your image of God to get to God.... and you have to get past the dogma of a religion to see what it is supposed to open up inside of you.

I will let the words of Joseph Campbell speak of myth, because at heart, they apply as well to the term we call "religion."

"The first function of a mythology is to reconcile waking consciousness to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans of this universe as it is: the second being to render an interpretive total image of the same, as known to contemporary consciousness. Shakespeare's definition of the function of his art, " to hold, as ?'twere, the mirror up to nature," is thus equally a definition of mythology. It is the revelation to waking consciousness of the powers of its own sustaining source. A third function is the enforcement of a moral order: the shaping of the individual to the requirements of his/her geographically and historically conditioned social group. The fourth, and most vital function is to foster the centering and unfolding of the individual in integrity, in accord with d) him/herself (the microcosm), c) his/her culture (the mesocosm), b) the universe (the macrocosm), and a) that awesome ultimate mystery which is both beyond and within ourselves and all things."

The problem, or distance between the Christian churches and the words of Jesus are the difference between the connotations, the spirit of the words and the denotations, meaning they are hard facts. This is the basis of western religions, and in Christianity of the historical Jesus. But his words, as well as those of Mohammed, the Buddha, and others, have to be seen for their connotation, the spirit of the meaning and the pointing of a way to lead a full life and a way to seek the transcendent. This is the spiritual part of the message which religion houses in its structure, a way to a truly transcendental/spiritual experience.

Religion is meant as a constellation of metaphors, ones pointing to the spirit, not the history books. When the latter happens, dogma arises and kills the spiritual message contained at the core of the religion.

There is no doubt that contemporary religion is in a bind in this modern world. The major western religions are still reeling from the effects of the Age of Reason from 300 plus years ago. For millennium these religions have taken the symbols as their references, and have concretized the metaphors as fact. These metaphors, whether "the Promised Land", the "Resurrection of Jesus" and such have been accenting the historical image that actually carries the message, yet we stay with the image. And the message is lost.

The importance of Jesus is not his death and resurrection, but the metaphor that his resurrection tells us and informs us of our own spirit, or that the Promised Land is not Jerusalem, but wherever you are. As long as the institutional aspect of the Western religions remains strong, then the concretization, the taking of the spirit of the image for fact shall reign and we see all around us the result of that. We have no religion that can be based in the facts of ancient history, for the denotation is not historically true considering what we now know.

The life force of the Western religions is being extruded out by this insistence on the "facts" of their beliefs. When the facts are undermined so too are the religions. So we must reinvent the religions we have, or discard them and start over. However, if we look at the connotation of the major Western religions, it is all there, the ways to lead a good life, the ways to seek the transcendent, but again the institutionalization of these systems hinders us. If one says that the spirit of the transcendent is inside of you and your life can becomes a transparency through which this light shines, you are branded a heretic by orthodox religion and yet they close their ears to the facts of science that refute even their most basic beliefs. As these institutions lose their hold and dominance, something else must fill the vacuum, not simply a new religion, but a new way of looking at religion and its impact upon the individual's life.

Or of course, you could like I do....dance to the rhythm of the Universe....the backbeat is the sound your own heart makes.

And it doesn't hurt to sing to yourself a line from Bob Dylan's "Back Pages......."

I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

I agree that the stories can be taken as metaphors and teach great life lessons.

Why then, do people spend so much time, so much money in donations, so many times in church worshipping?

I can't believe some people devote so much time, and money (donations and such) to a church.

If they believe in god, then that's all well and good, but why do they need to attend church all the time?

No, the importance of jesus was his teachings, not his fate, and not what allegedly happened after he died.

You shall not kill, he said, yet christians eat meat. They justify it by saying that jesus also ate meat.

They do not follow, they imitate. What they forget is that jesus was great. He could do whatever he wanted, he was a mighty man. Still, he said that you shall not kill, and his followers should live by his commands, not wade around in his sandals like kids in their father's shoes.

Really?

Duh!

you missed the point and did not understand the context of the comment in the sentence. the focus of the thread speaks of the crucifixation as an emblem of christianity but that emblem was only a precursor to the Resurrection.

btw: the death and Resurrection of jesus was the fulfillment of the Convenant, and without that there is no heavenly imprimatur on the teachings of jesus christ. without that rising from the dead, he would be just another dead sea prophet.

but thanks for the theology lesson on the teachings of jesus and vegetarianism, i never knew that about the guy until you posted your information. i guess they didn't have any veggie burritios back then.

as to that "shalt not kill" remark, its from exodus 20:13 and it is not numbered as #5 ibn the text ...... and the original hebrew translation means that "one shalt not commit murder."....and there remains until today debate on whether it meant then murder of anyone or only for another member of the tribes of israel.

Maybe I did miss the point. Or maybe you all did. No offence intended.

I am just more interested in Jesus the man than in Jesus the son of God. My opinion is that christianity fails to honor the true heritage of Jesus Christ, and I am sure I'm not alone in this.

you all obviously need to do your research...

You cannot talk about jesus, unless you know why he came and died.

The crucifix is a man-made catholic tradition. what jesus really did, as clearly spelled out in the new testament, is truth. and the old testament sets up the context for what jesus did and why He came. I don't belive in christianity the religion, i believe in christianity the truth. it's not a myth. it's History, as the civil war is history.

you can't say christ didn't die for our sins, if you don't understand that term. this is the basic story of the bible in a paragraph.

God created the world perfect. man introduced sin into the world. God desires to spend eternity with you because He loves you; however, god's rule is that in order to get to heaven (the purpose for everyone's life) you must be perfect. man can't be perfect because he is born a sinner. when someone sins, something has to die to get rid of that sin. so that's where sacrifice comes in. but all sacrifices are not perfect, so this doesn't cover over all the sin, making it impossible for man to get to heaven. this is why Jesus came. He was the only perfect thing in the world. he made a choice to come to earth, because he desires to be with you. he sacrificed himself so that the world could be free of sin. Jesus was the only valid sacrifice that covered over all sin. this is the context for the term 'jesus died for our sins'.

now, I think you all are missing the point. jesus didn't come and die for us to honor His heritage. he died to free us. the Bible is a big flashing neon sign that says this, and you're looking at it and saying, "oh, he was jewish. i guess we're all to become jews." look at what it's really saying and take it seriously.

look into it, and do the research. I hope this helps.

Perhaps you should take a bit of your own advice and do some further research yourself.

The theme of a divine or semi-divine being sacrificed against a tree, pole or cross, and then being resurrected, is very common in pagan mythology.

It was found in the mythologies of all western civilizations stretching from as far west as Ireland and as far east as India. In particular it is found in the mythologies of Osiris and Attis, both of whom were often identified with Tammuz.

Osiris landed up with his arms stretched out on a tree like Jesus on the cross. This tree was sometimes shown as a pole with outstretched arms - the same shape as the Christian cross.... oh say, 1500 years BCE.

In the worship of Serapis (a composite of Osiris and Apis) the cross was a religious symbol. Indeed, the Christian "Latin cross" symbol seems to be based directly on the cross symbol of Osiris and Serapis.

The Romans never used this traditional Christian cross for crucifixions, they used crosses shaped either like an X or a T.

The hieroglyph of a cross on a hill was associated with Osiris. This heiroglyph stood for the "Good One," in Greek "Chrestos," a name applied to Osiris and other pagan gods. The confusion of this name with "Christos" (Messiah, Christ) strengthened the confusion between Jesus and the pagan gods.

A guy named Josephus was writing a basic history circa Jesus' lifetime, and made some remarks not coerced by religious affiliation about his impressions. You might want to give that a look.

actually the two texts by John Dominic Crossan, "the Historical Jesus" and "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biopgraphy" would do you better.

I can loan out my copies or you can get them here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dstripbooks%26field-keywords%3Djohn%20dominic%20crossan%26results-process%3Ddefault%26dispatch%3Dsearch/ref%3Dpd%5Fsl%5Faw%5Ftops-1%5Fstripbooks%5F4272837%5F2/102-6702123-8231324

Josephus was a lacky to the Romans and an apologist for them to Jews, and vica versa...and his writngs post-date the death of Jesus by several decades.

Thanks for the titles, kuvasz. Should be interesting.

you are welcome, the first text "the historical jesus" is more of a scholarly work, full of minutae and references. it has only an author and biblical text index, no subject index, which makes it hard to look up things, the second text is more for general reading.... in the first one Crossan blasts Josephus as a sharper who was always out to make his patrons happy, either roman or jew.

but the first text has an intro chapter called "overture" that is fascinating for its exposition on what jesus actually said. you will enjoy that chapter.

Crossan is an ex-jesuit priest who is a member of the jesus seminar group. the other two texts in this area that might be of interest are the Nag Hammadi translation of Gnostic texts (James Robinson, editor..its the most accessible translation) and elaine pagel's "the gnostic gospels."

enjoy... and glad to find mutual ground with you in the teachings of Jesus.

Glad, too.

My daughter has expressed an interest more than once about such a study of Jesus, and I'm thankful to have a starting place for her--and I have my own curiosity.