Historical Jesus

[blastula]

Uhhh...I was replying to the post I replied to....

I see absolutely no difference between theist interpretations and secular intersessions of Jesus.

Both end up with selective moral interpretations.

You didn't quote any secularists talking about moral interpretations of Jesus.

 

[TomC]

We are building a global theocracy, Christ-centred, democratic, non-religious.

Who is "We", and how do the rest of us get rid of you?
Tom

 

[No Robots]

We are building a global theocracy, Christ-centred, democratic, non-religious.

Who is "We", and how do the rest of us get rid of you?
Tom

We are all those who seek our spiritual and intellectual emancipation by using Christ as our tool and weapon.

You can get rid of us by not talking shit about Christ. The more you talk about him, the more you invite people like me to come in and take issue with your views. We are using you as a means to promulgate our own views. We are building our Church on your bones.

 

[TomC]

We are building a global theocracy, Christ-centred, democratic, non-religious.

Who is "We", and how do the rest of us get rid of you?
Tom

We are all those who seek our spiritual and intellectual emancipation by using Christ as our tool and weapon.

You can get rid of us by not talking shit about Christ. The more you talk about him, the more you invite people like me to come in and take issue with your views. We are using you as a means to promulgate our own views. We are building our Church on your bones.

Weaponizing Jesus Christ?

Seriously?
That's already been done, brother.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

Weaponizing Jesus Christ?

Seriously?
That's already been done, brother.
Tom

Making him into a god and a myth strips him of his weapons. Keeping him a man, well, that's the ticket, brother.

 

[TomC]

Weaponizing Jesus Christ?

Seriously?
That's already been done, brother.
Tom

Making him into a god and a myth strips him of his weapons. Keeping him a man, well, that's the ticket, brother.

Jesus was weaponized a few centuries after He* died.

It's the "global theocracy" based on what little we know about anything He said or did that I find horrible. And how people interpret it. We've already done that. The generic term for a Christian global theocracy is "Euro-Colonialism".
Eff that.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

It's the "global theocracy" based on what little we know about anything He said or did that I find horrible. And how people interpret it. We've already done that. The generic term for a Christian global theocracy is "Euro-Colonialism".
Eff that.
Tom

We have been through a cleansing fire of absolute skepticism and absolute materialism. It is now time to establish a purified spiritual/intellectual regime. The reign of universal peace and brotherhood is ahead of us. But it can only be built on the true understanding of Christ. The churches do not want to be part of this. They will not relinquish their man-god-thing. They are a smoking ruin. That leaves only the skeptics and materialists. They have no love of religion, of spiritual life. But they do have intellectual fire. It is ironic yet inevitable that on that rock will be founded the New World Order.

 

[TomC]

It's the "global theocracy" based on what little we know about anything He said or did that I find horrible. And how people interpret it. We've already done that. The generic term for a Christian global theocracy is "Euro-Colonialism".
Eff that.
Tom

We have been through a cleansing fire of absolute skepticism and absolute materialism. It is now time to establish a purified spiritual/intellectual regime. The reign of universal peace and brotherhood is ahead of us. But it can only be built on the true understanding of Christ. The churches do not want to be part of this. They will not relinquish their man-god-thing. They are a smoking ruin. That leaves only the skeptics and materialists. They have no love of religion, of spiritual life. But they do have intellectual fire. It is ironic yet inevitable that on that rock will be founded the New World Order.

Again.
Who is "We"?

Seriously. Who do you mean when you use that word? It apparently doesn't include me.
Tom

P.s. ~Why don't you capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus? Even I do that. ~

 

[No Robots]

Again.
Who is "We"?

Seriously. Who do you mean when you use that word? It apparently doesn't include me.
Tom

We, all of of humanity, have all been exposed to rapid change in the intellectual/spiritual realm. Admittedly, most people would not attest to any profound changes in their own outlook. Seen globally, however, the developments over the last few centuries are staggering. Most significantly, the rise of science and skepticism have had a dramatic impact on tradition of all kinds. Surely, you would acknowledge that this discussion board is a manifestation of that?

P.s. ~Why don't you capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus? Even I do that. ~

I don’t call him a god. Why would I capitalize his pronoun? If I were to capitalize it, I would have to do the same for my other heroes.

 

[No Robots]

The other "we" is the small number of people who are serious about their spiritual/intellectual development. They contrast with the vast majority, content to eat, fuck and fight. The illuminati and the illiterati.

 

[steve_bank]

Uhhh...I was replying to the post I replied to....

I see absolutely no difference between theist interpretations and secular intersessions of Jesus.

Both end up with selective moral interpretations.

You didn't quote any secularists talking about moral interpretations of Jesus.

You are deflecting the issue.

If you identify as non Christoan xxx-Christan as people have done on the forum it is justtaa selective morality as Christians.

The question I ask such people is Jesus reinforced Mosaic divorce, said if yiu divirece and remarry yiur are guilty of fonication, and ewuated fornication as a serious crime along with murder.

If you are a philosophical sort of secular Christian what about fornication?

I Asked the now Gnostic Christian Bishop several times about fornication with no response. He cited Jesus as a source of moral truth.

I see no difference between secular and theist Christians. Both go by an odd collection of documents of unknown authors and unknown sources. Both believe without any proof of an HJ.

There are no original source documents. Whatever they were, what we have today is at the end of 2000 years of copying and translation with likely many shades of mending in the long process added.

Someone posted on the thread that the fact the NT says Paul mate James is proof Jesus existed.

Same self serving interpretaions theists.

The King James version. People quote the bible without any idea of the genesis.

King James Version - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans,[7] a faction of the Church of England.[8]

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology, and reflect the episcopal structure, of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy

We have no idea who Jesus may have been and what was actually said. Unduedly copiers and translators added their own ideas.


I used the Oxford bible in an old philosophy course on comparative religion. The associated commentary book goes through each book covering translation issues and obvious errors and possible authorship. There are ancient Hebrew terms for which there are no clear translations.

For example in Genesis god created the Earth can also be interpreted as out of chaos god brought order.

The NSRV was commissioned as a new translocation taking into account all modern archeology, scraps of documents, and documents.

It is criticized by conservatives because the translation tnes down the male dominance and misogyny. Yet another biased translation.

The end result is secular and theist Christians both make Jesus into what they want.

No one has a clue who Jesus may have been, what he actually said, and what he actually did.

 

[No Robots]

Skeptic scholastic scientism claims that nothing certain can be known about the New Testament or of Christ. This is pure hogwash. Our scientistic scholastic skeptics simply don't like what they see. They don't want anyone to make use of what's in there. They want everyone to remain in a cloud of unknowing. This is the result of their own brokenness, their desire to bring everyone into that brokenness. They despise the idea of anyone actually enjoying intellectual and spiritual freedom. "But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter."

 

[No Robots]

At root, it is a jealousy, a hatred of anyone who appears to be great. Everyone must be brought down to the level of the snivelling, dry-as-dust broken person. Those of us who are unbroken cannot allow the broken to break us. We must band together and continue to uplift ourselves perpetually. To do that, we need the help of the great masters, and in particular the great master from Nazareth. He did make use of the poor and broken, enlisting them in his war against the scholastic masters. In our day, the tables have turned, and the schloastics have enlisted the poor and broken against Christ and the principle of intellectual/spiritual emancipation. No matter. We have our Christ, the man Christ, his words and example. We will fight against those who attempt to deprive us of these essential tools. The scholars will hide in their classrooms while their lowly minions are slaughtered in the discussion boards.

 

[TomC]

Dayum.
That's some high performance arrogance you got going on there @No Robots .

While I agree that much of what is attributed to Jesus was excellent for it's day, it's still murky and primitive. It wasn't particularly original even then. Now it's darned near obsolete. Great when it puts the patina of antiquity on secular ethics, which it often does.

Not so great when it drags primitive old ethics into the modern world.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

Obsolete? The battle for spiritual/intellectual emancipation that Christ initiated is nearing the end of its opening phase: the destruction of the global slaver empire is almost complete. The next phase is the full emancipation of the intellectual/spiritual few from the grip of the masses. We can then proceed with our spiritual and intellectual development unfettered. We will not relinquish Christ. He will always remain the master in this ongoing project of spiritual/intellectual emancipation. The skeptic, scientistic scholastics will always try to rip him away from us. They want us to focus on them, not on him. Not gonna happen.

 

[No Robots]

Arrogance? "Bow to us!" That is the demand of the scholastic masters. "Know nothing but by our say-so!" Christ put a dagger in their hearts. It takes a long time for them to die. In their agony, they wish him away. First, "He's a no-good bastard!" Then, "He's god, and we are his spokesmen!" And now, "He's a myth, do not speak of him!"

 

[bilby]

"Bow to us!" That is the demand of the scholastic masters. "Know nothing but by our say-so!"

Literally no scientific or post-enlightenment scholastic institution says these things.

Though ironically, that's exactly your demand in this thread - you want people to believe stuff because you say so. You present zero evidence, just demands (snd false claims of victory for your cause).

What do "scholastic masters" actually demand? "Nullius in Verba".

 

[TomC]

Obsolete? The battle for spiritual/intellectual emancipation that Christ initiated is nearing the end of its opening phase: the destruction of the global slaver empire is almost complete. The next phase is the full emancipation of the intellectual/spiritual few from the grip of the masses. We can then proceed with our spiritual and intellectual development unfettered. We will not relinquish Christ. He will always remain the master in this ongoing project of spiritual/intellectual emancipation. The skeptic, scientistic scholastics will always try to rip him away from us. They want us to focus on them, not on him. Not gonna happen.

This is the kind of primitive old ethics I was referring to.

Authoritarian and divorced from reality.

Like it or not, the world's biggest "slavery empire" was built on Christ and the culture He inspired. The generic term for it is "EuroColonialists". We secularists have been trying to stomp out that Christian nightmare for over two centuries.

We haven't finished yet, Christian organizations like the Russian Orthodox Church keep reigniting the fire. But we're trying.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

Christ destroyed the slaver empire. The materialists are trying to take the credit. Sure, the Churches joined with the slavers, became their main weapon. But the words and life of Christ overcame even this betrayal.

The goal of the ethical project is the kingdom of heaven on Earth, wherein every individual attains cosmic consciousness. Far from complete.

As for our scholastic institutions, let's start with their theory of evolution. In the last century and a half this has become unquestionable dogma. So much for their pious slogans of pure skepticism.

 

[No Robots]

In fact, the theory of evolution is a last-ditch attempt to save slavery. Its race hierarchy validates colonial imperialism. It continues to do its work, legitimizing the massive transfer of cheap labour to the developed nations under the guise of humanitarianism.