My Take On Jesus

[Toontown]

Toontown, Yes, I am familiar with that famous line. I hope that you'll agree that many things in life, including lines attributed to Jesus, are subject to a certain amount of interpretation, and if you'd actually like to discuss some of these things (i.e. "turning the other cheek:) in more depth, I'm more than willing.

In the case of the line "Do not suppose I come to bring peace, but, rather a sword," I think that Jesus was just describing what was going to happen when he came on the scene. He was talking about some very heavy duty stuff, and, from what I can tell, he had some idea of what was going to happen when his teachings got into the hands of people who would put their own spin on it. He was saying something like "Hey, guys, the things I'm talking about are very powerful, and, even after I'm gone, it's going to hit the fan for a very long time." I'd say that the J-Man called that one exactly right.

By the way...Happy Easter!

Happy Easter, Lamont.

The trouble with your post is, your re-interpretation is not anywhere near what Jesus is quoted as having said. Jesus said HE would bring fire and division upon the earth. And another problem is, the Messiah was not supposed to be "gone" for a long time after he showed up. The Messiah was supposed to appear, lay low Israel's enemies, and rule the earth from Jerusalem. Plain and simple. No sacrificial lamb stuff, no multi-millenia waiting period. The prophesied Messiah was no lamb. He was a conquerer. The sacrificial lamb thing was something that was concocted later.

I believe Jesus may well have been a real person who sought to fulfill the Messiah prophecy. But he failed. The Messiah was supposed to put the Romans to the sword, not be crucified by them.

[Dennis Campbell]

Between Bruce and one other here, both having been on the RP, these two have more than 10,000 posts recorded, a bit over 5,000 each. The other poster was known as "Salt Creek," now "Elk" on the RP site, but he seems to have migrated to greener grazing or hunting grounds here. They have had a long history of quite enthusiastic posts. From what I've scanned here so far, it seems a deja vu experience. Bruce has always been civil and articulate, but he has a quite thick skin as well. As might be guessed, neither of these two are likely to have much impact on the other.

Dennis

[LaMont Cranston]

Toontown, Once again, we all get to make our own interpretations about the meaning (if there is any) about many parts of life, including whether or not God exists and the teachings of Jesus. I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. For the record, I grew up in a not very religious Jewish family and knew absolutely nothing about Jesus. I was probably past the age of 30 before I even knew that Easter was a religious holiday. I had never paid much attention to a lot of that stuff.

At some point in my life, I became interested in knowing more about what love was about, and that led me to looking into the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and quite a few others. I came to the conclusion that Jesus was very cool, he probably had a great sense of humor and he was talking about some very high-level concepts. So far, in your posts, I notice that you are not mentioning what Jesus was saying about love, gratitude, forgiveness, compassion and quite a few other things. Is there some reason you are not addressing those ideas?

You say that Jesus failed in his mission. I disagree. I'd say that the idea that love is that powerful is still very much with us, and it is still a work in progress. I know that, much to my suprise, it has become an extremely important part of my life. Most of us grew up in Judeo-Christian cultures, and Jesus is the one who put the Christ in Judeo-Christian. Those things that Jesus talked about have been with us for 2000 years, and they are not going to go away any time soon, despite the wishful thinking of many so-called clear and rational thinkers.

What's also true is that many hypocrites, assholes, scumbags, etc. have done many horrible things in the name of God, Jesus, country, love, etc. I can beat my wife or kick dogs and claim I'm doing in the name of love (I don't do those things), but the fact that I do those things doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make me any less of a hypocrite. The fact that human beings have done those things and claimed they were doing it for God, Jesus or whatever doesn't make it so, and it doesn't diminish the power of what Jesus was talking about.

[Toontown]

Well, LaMont, I just do not agree that your sweeping re-interpretations are valid. Words must mean what they say, must carry a distinct meaning, or they mean nothing at all.

If Jesus didn't really mean he had come to bring fire, division, and the sword, then he shouldn't have said it. If Jesus meant others would do so in his name, then he should have said that. Obviously the words of the true Messiah, the Son of God, are very important, and so must carry a distinct, unambiguous meaning, not open to "interpretation".

It is quite possible that Jesus' original mission did undergo some mission creep when he saw what he was up against. The Rome of Jesus' time was a military superpower. One might just as well undertake to overthrow the mountains. It wasn't going to happen. It is entirely possible that Jesus came to that realization. It is clear from Jesus' own words that he became disillusioned with the Jews and vowed to take his ministry to Rome. Jesus didn't live long enough to get to Rome, but some of his followers did.

And Jesus was certainly not the first to understand or speak of love. Love has been an integral part of the human psyche for many millenia, and has often been spoken of throughout recorded history and certainly long before. Frankly, Jesus' concept of love appears rather primitive and narcissistic to me:

"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

So, according to Jesus, it is not enough simply to love him. One must love Jesus above all others, else the furnace of hell must be stoked up to receive the insufficient lover, for he is "unworthy". And we know what happens to the "unworthy" in the arbitrary, narcissistic system of Godly "justice".

P.S. "Bad things will happen if you don't love me, and do so with the proper intensity" is NOT an advanced concept of love. That's more of a Nero-like concept. Real love is about loving, not being loved by an arbitrary requisite amount.

So, basically, Jesus pretty much shot himself in the foot with that whole series of apparently ill-conceived statements which Christians now really wish he hadn't said - to the point that they try to re-interpret what he purportedly said.

[Bruce Burleson]

You say that Jesus failed in his mission. I disagree. I'd say that the idea that love is that powerful is still very much with us, and it is still a work in progress. I know that, much to my suprise, it has become an extremely important part of my life. Most of us grew up in Judeo-Christian cultures, and Jesus is the one who put the Christ in Judeo-Christian. Those things that Jesus talked about have been with us for 2000 years, and they are not going to go away any time soon, despite the wishful thinking of many so-called clear and rational thinkers.

Jesus obviously succeeded in his mission. He's still number one after 2000 years. Even the upstart Muhammad hasn't passed him. Pretty impressive to be relevant for 2000 years. Ya gotta deal with him in any serious discussion about where we are going, whether you like him or not. If you go back and re-examine his message without all the religious BS baggage, it's pretty good. Jesus - he just won't go away. Happy Easter.

[LaMont Cranston]

Toontown, Sorry, but I can't think of any statements attributed to Jesus that I really wish he hadn't said. Yes, those of us who think that Jesus was a very cool and righteous being get to interpret what he said and apply those teachings in our own lives. Many of us find that those teachings work incredibly well.

Of course, there are also many non-Christians who have their own interpretations of what Jesus was talking about. Some of these people proclaim themselves to be clear and rational thinkers and, in their wishful thinking, would like to have others believe that their interpretations are more valid or pack more weigh than the beliefs of those people who find great value in Jesus. It's funny, but some of those non-believers find Jesus so interesting that they study him, talk about him and even offer up posts on Easter.

Frankly, your personal interpretation of what Jesus was saying about love may appear to you to be primitive and narcissistic. I think that most of us know that Jesus neither invented love nor was he the first being to talk about how powerful it is. What's also true is that in all of my research, I can't find anybody who said better things about what love is about than Jesus. It could be that the problem you have with the teachings of the J-Man is not what he was saying about love; it might have more to do with your willingness to understand what love is about.

[Toontown]

With all due respect, LaMont, I'm not the one who has the problem with the J-man's teachings. You are. You're the one who twisted his words around to something entirely different from what he is quoted as having said.

And with all due respect, this discussion is not about me and my perceived inadequacies in the love department. I'm not in the habit of submitting to amateur psychological evaluations from internet strangers.

But happy Easter anyway.

[Toontown]

You say that Jesus failed in his mission. I disagree. I'd say that the idea that love is that powerful is still very much with us, and it is still a work in progress. I know that, much to my suprise, it has become an extremely important part of my life. Most of us grew up in Judeo-Christian cultures, and Jesus is the one who put the Christ in Judeo-Christian. Those things that Jesus talked about have been with us for 2000 years, and they are not going to go away any time soon, despite the wishful thinking of many so-called clear and rational thinkers.

Jesus obviously succeeded in his mission. He's still number one after 2000 years. Even the upstart Muhammad hasn't passed him. Pretty impressive to be relevant for 2000 years. Ya gotta deal with him in any serious discussion about where we are going, whether you like him or not. If you go back and re-examine his message without all the religious BS baggage, it's pretty good. Jesus - he just won't go away. Happy Easter.

Fallacy: argument from popularity.

Jesus' stated mission was not to become the most popular false god. His mission, as stated, was to fulfill the Messianic prophesy. 2000 years later, the prophesy remains unfulfilled. The Messianic prophesy was not about being a sacrificial lamb. It was about the physical establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, with the Messiah himself ruling the entire world from Jerusalem.

That is why John of Patmos predicted that precise outcome in the book of Revelation. Except it wasn't supposed to take nearly this long. The Messiah was not supposed to show up, get crucified for no logical reason, then disappear for a few millenia before showing up again with his army to finish the job, after inexplicably allowing an "antichrist" to take over the world and rule it for years, no doubt collecting billions of hell-fodder souls in the process.

Every day this incredibly slow "plan of salvation" takes, more souls get condemned to eternal hell fire. And allowing an antichrist to take over the world is certainly not going to save any souls.

But I guess that's why they're the inscrutable supernatural guys and I ain't. they can see the logic of all this, and I can't. It just looks freaking crazy to me. If all you're going to do is fill hell to the brim, then why even make Man? Was there a shortage of screaming and suffering in the universe or something?

Well, it's a mystery, as they say.

[Bruce Burleson]

His mission, as stated, was to fulfill the Messianic prophesy. 2000 years later, the prophesy remains unfulfilled. The Messianic prophesy was not about being a sacrificial lamb. It was about the physical establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, with the Messiah himself ruling the entire world from Jerusalem.

Jesus fulfilled this by spiritualizing the prophesies. He now rules through the Kingdom of God on earth (the worldwide church) from Jerusalem (the heavenly Jerusalem). See how it all fits together so nicely.

That is why John of Patmos predicted that precise outcome in the book of Revelation.

Revelation is totally symbolic. Everything in it, including "hell," is a metaphor. I am now accepting registrations and tuition payments for my Revelation class beginning in the Fall of 2010. Let me know if you are interested and I will send you an application. You will need to supply your banking information.

[LaMont Cranston]

Toontown, Let me get this straight...

There was a Jewish teacher who lived 2000 years ago in a remote part of the Roman Empire. This Jewish teacher has had, arguably, the most powerful impact on the world of anybody who ever existed. More than that, he has quite obviously had a powerful impact on your life to the point where you have studied his teachings and think that you know a great deal about him, more than I do. It also happens that your take on Jesus, the subject of this thread, is that he failed, he was narcissistic, etc. That is your personal interpretation, or would you have us believe that your take is the final word on the subject, a subjective viewpoint that we must accept above all others? That sounds a bit narcissistic and arrogant to me, but, nonetheless, I respect your right to have your interpretation.

You are correct that this discussion is not about your perceived inadequacies in the love department, and I am far from an amateur psychologist. What's also true is that you, I and other people are constantly revealing information about themselves all the time, whether they happen to think they are being totally anonymous or not. That means that, regardless of what you think your habits are or what you'd like them to be, you reveal yourself and subject yourself to what happens to you on fora such as these.

The Shadow knows and hopes you're having a Happy Easter too...

[Toontown]

His mission, as stated, was to fulfill the Messianic prophesy. 2000 years later, the prophesy remains unfulfilled. The Messianic prophesy was not about being a sacrificial lamb. It was about the physical establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, with the Messiah himself ruling the entire world from Jerusalem.

Jesus fulfilled this by spiritualizing the prophesies. He now rules through the Kingdom of God on earth (the worldwide church) from Jerusalem (the heavenly Jerusalem). See how it all fits together so nicely.

A likely story.

Yes, He is doing a wonderful job of ruling the world through the "worldwide church". That's why everything is all good now. Why, heck. You can hardly tell the place from Heaven.

That is why John of Patmos predicted that precise outcome in the book of Revelation.

Revelation is totally symbolic. Everything in it, including "hell," is a metaphor. I am now accepting registrations and tuition payments for my Revelation class beginning in the Fall of 2010. Let me know if you are interested and I will send you an application. You will need to supply your banking information.

I know. That's why the numerological representation of Nero's name was used instead of his name. The "Antichrist" was clearly Nero, and Rome was clearly described metaphorically. And all the metaphors culminate with the overthrow of the Antichrist (Nero), imprisoning Satan (which should have been done ages ago) and ruling the earth benevolently forever (after thousands of years of neglect and abuse). Except for a brief episode during which Satan is foolishly paroled for a short time and predictably goes right back to his usual rat-killing. (Who'da thunk it)

Except none of that happened. Which is what made it so confusing to Christians. It was all supposed to have happened two millenia ago. The Christians of the time understood the metaphors perfectly, just as we would easily understand metaphors about our times. But Jesus never showed. Eventually time, forgetfulness, and a complete lack of intellectual honesty glossed over the failed prophecy. Now hardly any Christian understands the prophecy or knows the prophecy failed to materialize.

If Christians were smart, they would simply admit that the Revelation is a false prophecy, thereby alleviating themselves of the embarrassment of repeated failed predictions of imminent Armageddon, which have been going on for...well, two millenia now.

[Toontown]

Toontown, Let me get this straight...

There was a Jewish teacher who lived 2000 years ago in a remote part of the Roman Empire. This Jewish teacher has had, arguably, the most powerful impact on the world of anybody who ever existed. More than that, he has quite obviously had a powerful impact on your life to the point where you have studied his teachings and think that you know a great deal about him, more than I do. It also happens that your take on Jesus, the subject of this thread, is that he failed, he was narcissistic, etc. That is your personal interpretation, or would you have us believe that your take is the final word on the subject, a subjective viewpoint that we must accept above all others? That sounds a bit narcissistic and arrogant to me, but, nonetheless, I respect your right to have your interpretation....

Well, LaMont, is it or is it not narcissistic for Jesus to demand that people love him more than they love their own children, or be deemed "unworthy" by God? Yes, I believe it is plainly narcissistic for someone to demand that others love them, on the threat of condemnation. I don't consider that an interpretation. I'm not altering the meaning of the words the way you've done, I'm drawing a conclusion from the actual words.

You are correct that this discussion is not about your perceived inadequacies in the love department, and I am far from an amateur psychologist. What's also true is that you, I and other people are constantly revealing information about themselves all the time, whether they happen to think they are being totally anonymous or not. That means that, regardless of what you think your habits are or what you'd like them to be, you reveal yourself and subject yourself to what happens to you on fora such as these.

The point is that shifting the focus to my perceived personal inadequacies is a derail, bordering on an "attack the messenger" fallacy. My claims stand or fall on their merit, not on my perceived motivation or personal shortcomings.

[Loki_999]

Jesus fulfilled this by spiritualizing the prophesies. He now rules through the Kingdom of God on earth (the worldwide church) from Jerusalem (the heavenly Jerusalem). See how it all fits together so nicely.

That my friend is called fitting the facts to match the story after the event. Well done.

[Tigger]

This man referred to himself as the son of god once. Had he done it two millennia ago, I wonder what would've happened.

[Feck]

This man referred to himself as the son of god once. Had he done it two millennia ago, I wonder what would've happened.

From his shite (sorry site) "I have been naming the former British Prime Minister, the now late Ted Heath, since 1998 to be a child-killing paedophile Satanist and, in terms of his 'high-office', he is far from a rarity (see article below this one). I know others, including one who spent a long time in that position. "