DS Forums

 
 

Getting to Heaven


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-01-2017, 19:26
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
Jesus never forced anyone to follow him.
People aren't forced to follow Kanye West, Taylor Swift or the Queen of England either, but they do it (either via support, or events, or Twitter etc).

Does that mean that Kayne, Taylor and Lizzie are children/prophets of the lord?

Looked to me like Jesus was needed.
No more than Kayne, Taylor or Elizabeth are.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-01-2017, 19:36
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
As i understand it, the idea of jesus as ''2nd person in divine trinity'' was a theological development, after his crucifiction (& resurrection?), worked out after the events ........ Peter's outburst recorded in the gospels having been followed by a warning ''shush'' from jesus .......
The trinity may have come along later. Jesus never taught the trinity. It's difficult, because if Jesus wasn't a man, his suffering would have been faux suffering So more likely a son of Man.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 19:38
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
People aren't forced to follow Kanye West, Taylor Swift or the Queen of England either, but they do it (either via support, or events, or Twitter etc).

Does that mean that Kayne, Taylor and Lizzie are children/prophets of the lord?

No more than Kayne, Taylor or Elizabeth are.
No it doesn't mean that because none of them are prophets. You're a bit too far off the ranch now for my taste.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:02
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,273
The trinity may have come along later. Jesus never taught the trinity. It's difficult, because if Jesus wasn't a man, his suffering would have been faux suffering So more likely a son of Man.
This works without any issues in Idealism. Jesus just had a change of mind
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 20:17
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
No it doesn't mean that because none of them are prophets. You're a bit too far off the ranch now for my taste.
But in 2000 years time (so in the year 4017), some people make assume that Kanye, Taylor and Lizzie were prophets. No?

Unless Jesus specifically stated who/what he was, then there's no difference between him or anyone else. Either way we'll never know because nobody from that time exists today. If Jesus was just a man, then there was nothing special about him, except his apparent ability to heal (etc) but even then, we don't know exactly how true the scriptures were.

You could write a story right now, about your neighbour. You could write him as the nicest person you know, or the most evil. In 2000 years that story could be translated to another language and read the thousands, and then interpreted as truth, when in actuality, it's only your opinion.

The people who wrote about this man named Jesus did just that; they had an opinion about a man that they either met, or heard about, and so they made some notes. A few decades later, these notes were supposedly put together and The Bible (and other such texts) were formed.

It's a story, created by man, of another man. That's it! We know nothing to be fact.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 22:31
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
But in 2000 years time (so in the year 4017), some people make assume that Kanye, Taylor and Lizzie were prophets. No?

Unless Jesus specifically stated who/what he was, then there's no difference between him or anyone else. Either way we'll never know because nobody from that time exists today. If Jesus was just a man, then there was nothing special about him, except his apparent ability to heal (etc) but even then, we don't know exactly how true the scriptures were.

You could write a story right now, about your neighbour. You could write him as the nicest person you know, or the most evil. In 2000 years that story could be translated to another language and read the thousands, and then interpreted as truth, when in actuality, it's only your opinion.

The people who wrote about this man named Jesus did just that; they had an opinion about a man that they either met, or heard about, and so they made some notes. A few decades later, these notes were supposedly put together and The Bible (and other such texts) were formed.

It's a story, created by man, of another man. That's it! We know nothing to be fact.
If you took away the resurrection, the healing and miracles could you imagine there still to be a religion there? I could. The teachings in themselves contain fundamental truths about life and have the ability to transform the way a person lives, thinks and conducts themselves.

I don't know how important it is that all these teachings were actually spoken by one man historically - still less that the character dressing could be validated by Dr Who.

But there is something magical in focusing the teaching and symbolism in one figure. And we should remember that the nature of mystery religions is to explore the mystery esoterically - not to try to apply mundane tests of historical fact.

Deciding whether a man called Jesus died and was resurrected in actuality will not transform your life, whatever conclusion you reach. But exploring the esoteric mystery of what it means for one man to die to liberate all just might.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 22:49
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,031

Unless Jesus specifically stated who/what he was, then there's no difference between him or anyone else.
Read the gospel of John
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 23:29
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
The Trinity is implicit in jesus' sayings. The question being, oh course, did he really say them, or were they added later ?

Nobody's mentioned John Allegro yet ...........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 00:40
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Someone who is away with the fairies, believing in entirely implausible things, simply because they're mentioned in a Holy Text, is now labelling what is/isn't 'junk history'. I mean, really? That's some Ken Ham style hypocrisy right there.

Quelle surprise.

"Religion & Brain: Belief Decreases With Analytical Thinking, Study Shows"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...arch_n_1457396

"Critical Thinking Supressed in Brains of People Who Believe in the Supernatural"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/critical-th...atural-1551233

and a classic:

"Study: Religious children are less able to distinguish fantasy from reality"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

NOW, I'm not saying I necessarily subscribe to these sentiments, but given what absolute implausible, nonsensical, ill-thought tosh is being peddled out here in defence of the Gospel reliability, it's not hard to see where these apparent "misconceptions" of devoutly religious people come from.

EDIT: I should add too, that this goes FAR beyond making the case for the plausibility of God. This is like playing a game of Balderdash where you simply make up your own definitions and storylines in the hope that people will buy it.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:11
barbeler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,685
You should strive to achieve your heaven on earth, otherwise you'll be wasting the only life you'll ever have.
barbeler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:12
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
The Trinity is implicit in jesus' sayings. The question being, oh course, did he really say them, or were they added later ?
Don't see where he ever preached the Trinity. It's a later effort to reconcile how he could be both divine and human. As I see it.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 05:29
spiney2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 24,092
Pointing out the probable dates of the gospels, according to best expert opinion, isn't ''tosh''. Regardless of whether anyone thinks jesus is god, a mushoom, or just invented fantasy .......

Don't see where he ever preached the Trinity. It's a later effort to reconcile how he could be both divine and human. As I see it.
enough is said, by jesus, to establish trinitarianism. So it's a cart-horse problem. Did jesus actually say those things, or were they ''put into his mouth'' after the doctrine was first established ?

You should strive to achieve your heaven on earth, otherwise you'll be wasting the only life you'll ever have.
i don't think christians believe this is the only life, but certainly they do believe in words PLUS deeds, so increasingly used ''food banks'' are often administered by churches .......

The trinity may have come along later. Jesus never taught the trinity. It's difficult, because if Jesus wasn't a man, his suffering would have been faux suffering So more likely a son of Man.
the creed says ''....... fully man, fully god ...... ", which is a difficult idea, with seemingly built in contradictions .....
....... the people who came up with this stuff believed in Aristotelean physics, but they were not naive idiots .........
spiney2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:02
ChristmasCake
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 20,218
Getting to Heaven is easy, it's at Villiers street, right near Charing Cross station..
ChristmasCake is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:24
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
Pointing out the probable dates of the gospels, according to best expert opinion, isn't ''tosh''. Regardless of whether anyone thinks jesus is god, a mushoom, or just invented fantasy .......
It's not the dates that are the main problem - it's coming up with any old excuse, no matter how implausible, ridiculous or convoluted to try and present the Gospels as factually accurate - such as miracles. I mean, really?

Even proponents of it know it's tosh, because when they're presented with something just as implausible, they avoid the point at great lengths, or make out that skepticism on it is the issue, or that the skepticism is somehow unreasonable.

Which is fine if you want to debate with other theologians about tosh. Then it's no different from Tolkien enthusiasts debating whatever Middle Earth tosh it is they want to debate.

I could even respect - although disagree - someone saying they did think Jesus was the son of God, but hey, the miracle bit was overstated, the walking on water part probably made up, and all the rest of it. But no. It's written in the Gospel so it has to be true, and because other people believed it, it must be.

Yes, it's a valid point that whether or not Jesus performed miracles is of very little importance - but if you want to discuss Science, or History, or other legitimate forms of knowledge, don't pretend it entertains such ludicrous prospects just because it's dealing with Jesus.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:29
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,273
You should strive to achieve your heaven on earth, otherwise you'll be wasting the only life you'll ever have.
Do you think we have any choice in the matter?
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:31
noodkleopatra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ashtray City
Posts: 4,723
i don't think christians believe this is the only life, but certainly they do believe in words PLUS deeds, so increasingly used ''food banks'' are often administered by churches .......
I have nothing but respect for the Food Banks, although I think it's insidious that we even need them in the first place. A case of locking the gate after the horse has bolted.
noodkleopatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:40
fastzombie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,464
Someone who is away with the fairies, believing in entirely implausible things, simply because they're mentioned in a Holy Text, is now labelling what is/isn't 'junk history'. I mean, really? That's some Ken Ham style hypocrisy right there.

Quelle surprise.

"Religion & Brain: Belief Decreases With Analytical Thinking, Study Shows"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/ent...arch_n_1457396

"Critical Thinking Supressed in Brains of People Who Believe in the Supernatural"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/critical-th...atural-1551233

and a classic:

"Study: Religious children are less able to distinguish fantasy from reality"
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28537149

NOW, I'm not saying I necessarily subscribe to these sentiments, but given what absolute implausible, nonsensical, ill-thought tosh is being peddled out here in defence of the Gospel reliability, it's not hard to see where these apparent "misconceptions" of devoutly religious people come from.

EDIT: I should add too, that this goes FAR beyond making the case for the plausibility of God. This is like playing a game of Balderdash where you simply make up your own definitions and storylines in the hope that people will buy it.
The trouble with these studies is , well we all know what the trouble is. They're the equivilent of mascots wheeled out at soccer games. Who cares.
It would be interesting to see what other human qualities decrease with analytical thinking, especially when it's dependent on the rules that analytical thinking is predicated on.
fastzombie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:41
MrQuike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,273
Nobody's mentioned John Allegro yet ...........
I'll see your Allegro and raise you one Berkeley....
MrQuike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:42
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
It's not the dates that are the main problem - it's coming up with any old excuse, no matter how implausible, ridiculous or convoluted to try and present the Gospels as factually accurate - such as miracles. I mean, really?

Even proponents of it know it's tosh, because when they're presented with something just as implausible, they avoid the point at great lengths, or make out that skepticism on it is the issue, or that the skepticism is somehow unreasonable.

Which is fine if you want to debate with other theologians about tosh. Then it's no different from Tolkien enthusiasts debating whatever Middle Earth tosh it is they want to debate.

I could even respect - although disagree - someone saying they did think Jesus was the son of God, but hey, the miracle bit was overstated, the walking on water part probably made up, and all the rest of it. But no. It's written in the Gospel so it has to be true, and because other people believed it, it must be.

Yes, it's a valid point that whether or not Jesus performed miracles is of very little importance - but if you want to discuss Science, or History, or other legitimate forms of knowledge, don't pretend it entertains such ludicrous prospects just because it's dealing with Jesus.
Maybe the C of E has changed but when I was a regular church goer the norm was not to believe that miracles were literal truth. Rather we were encouraged to regard them as allegory and to consider the literal acts of human compassion that underlay the story (e.g. feeding of the five thousand).

I actually felt this went a bit too far - especially since the resurrection itself was not up for debate - belief in it's literal truth was the cornerstone of faith.

Similarly, no-one was taught that the narrative sequence was historically accurate - we were encouraged to understand that it was written that way to demonstrate Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy.

Christians do understand the issues. It's a multi-dimensional affair though.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:00
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
enough is said, by jesus, to establish trinitarianism. So it's a cart-horse problem. Did jesus actually say those things, or were they ''put into his mouth'' after the doctrine was first established ?
Where did he say that? It seems that early Christians did not think he was born divine, but 'exalted' during his lifetime.

I don't go with the idea that things were 'put into his mouth' as a conscious effort, rather than, teachings get interpreted in different ways. Then Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew words have different translations.

There are other religions in which we are all born from spirit and return to spirit. Or the divine is in us.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:20
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,501
Where did he say that? It seems that early Christians did not think he was born divine, but 'exalted' during his lifetime.

I don't go with the idea that things were 'put into his mouth' as a conscious effort, rather than, teachings get interpreted in different ways. Then Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew words have different translations.

There are other religions in which we are all born from spirit and return to spirit. Or the divine is in us.
Catholicism would agree with Spiney though I think?

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).
link
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:33
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
Catholicism would agree with Spiney though I think?


link
I wasn't referring to organized religion, but to what Jesus said.

And was explaining that the Trinity was an effort by the church to reconcile Jesus as human and spirit. Or to reconcile what was beyond their understanding.

It doesn't mean Jesus preached the Trinity (as he did not). I pointed out he said that his disciples would do greater things than he did. So you don't have to be God to do those things.

There is a lot of evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Doesn't dim belief for me to think of him as that.

Edit: Your linked quote about the father, the son and the Holy Spirit does not say that Jesus was the 'same as' God. He says other places in the Bible that only God knows, not he.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:05
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
John 5:30


By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.

If Jesus were the same as God, he could do everything.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:02
Flash525
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
If you took away the resurrection, the healing and miracles could you imagine there still to be a religion there? I could. The teachings in themselves contain fundamental truths about life and have the ability to transform the way a person lives, thinks and conducts themselves.
I could, yeah, but as it's already been stated, there was religion before Jesus came along, so what's so special about him?

Deciding whether a man called Jesus died and was resurrected in actuality will not transform your life, whatever conclusion you reach. But exploring the esoteric mystery of what it means for one man to die to liberate all just might.
People have been known to sacrifice their life for others throughout history, even today it no doubt happens. There's no mystery in that though, and there certainly isn't a religion for each individual.

Read the gospel of John
Why suggest I read a gospel when you know I wont, and you presumably have? Wouldn't it save us all a lot of bother if you simply answered the question?

I could even respect - although disagree - someone saying they did think Jesus was the son of God, but hey, the miracle bit was overstated, the walking on water part probably made up, and all the rest of it. But no. It's written in the Gospel so it has to be true, and because other people believed it, it must be.
Perhaps he was a self taught doctor that walked on puddles.

Yes, it's a valid point that whether or not Jesus performed miracles is of very little importance - but if you want to discuss Science, or History, or other legitimate forms of knowledge, don't pretend it entertains such ludicrous prospects just because it's dealing with Jesus.
Regarding the miracles performed by Jesus; is that any different from any of us going to a magic show, really? Most of us go to a magic show, or witness a magic trick with no idea how it's done; we're in awe. We don't however think it's a miracle. Magicians are simply people that have learnt skills to fool/entertain the public, and presumably similar people existed some 2000 years ago, though they may have had different methods of entertaining. Maybe that's all Jesus was; a street performer.
Flash525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 11:03
bollywood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,209
I hope we don't have to re-visit those studies about religious belief that we're already cited for their flaws, and misrepresented by others as finding something that wasn't found.
bollywood is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:34.