Chili

Did you know Johnny that philosophy still is the finest of fine arts?

WishboneDawn

Oil painting is a fine art. Sometimes it produces masterpieces. sometimes Elvis on black velvet.

Johnny Skeptic

I agree completely that philosophy is the finest of fine arts, but your abilities to make sensible arguments regarding philosophy are questionable. If you are at this forum for any reasons other than wasting the time of readers and moderators, will you please tell us whether or not you are trying to convince people of anything at all? Are you not aware that practically no one believes that your posts make any sense? Do you ever get compliments on your posts?

I said "Nor is anyone else, including Chili." You replied "Ever seen an artist buy his own stuff?" What did you expect to gain with such a ridiculous question? I suspect nothing but entertainment, in which case I will not provide you with any more entertainment.

Koyaanisqatsi

I don't know why I'm doing this, but...

Triple, no less.

Judaism is not an "identity" in the same sense that being a god is an "identity;" it's a belief system, so unless you're arguing (as I have before) that Christianity is nothing more than Roman concocted anti-Judaism as part and parcel to their occupation and subjugation of the region, your "argument" is incoherent.

Chili

Yes he also was the son of a carpenter but it was his Jewish identity that the pharisees looked at when they convicted him by their law (not for being the son of a carpenter, although, I hold that Joseph was a carpenter because carpenters are known to make many things and since all things are made in sin, Joseph was a big sinner. This idea goes along well with the fulfillment of sin that Jesus spoke of).

Christianity cannot be a religion if it is the end of religion such as it was for Jesus the son of a Jewish carpenter. Catholicism is something like a daughter religion that is grafted on the trunk of Judaism because we use the same Genesis where we must come full circle when everything is said and done.

Chili

No, I am here for my own benefit and you do not have to read my post or respond to them (although, me being the lonely boy that I am, I like to see responses to my posts).

It would be wrong for me to convince people that I am right because that would be like solving the mystery of faith which at one time was punishable with death. No, just that if you know what you are writing you don't have to believe it.

Koyaanisqatsi

Except that, he wasn't convicted by their law, or they would have stoned him to death on the spot (as they supposedly tried to do twice prior). Please don't raise the fallacy that they couldn't stone him to death because Roman law prohibited it, as that's not true (again, as evidenced in the gospel accounts that they tried twice prior).

If he existed and was crucified, he would have been convicted according to Roman law for breaking Roman law (most likely for sedition) and crucified by Romans accordingly. Even if the Sanhedrin wanted the Romans to convict and crucify him, they would have had little to no sway over a brutal, murderous dictator like Pilate, unless they paid him an inordinate sum of money to do so.

Which, again, goes contrary to the fact that they wouldn't need for the Romans to do such a thing.

None of the pro-Roman, anti-Judaism nonsense of the trial would have taken place; certainly no release of a convicted criminal (much less a murderer/seditionist, as Barrabas was supposed to have been) would have occurred.

Whoever the early Jesus cult was formed around, it would have probably been a radical, perhaps popular local Rabbi teaching unorthodox Judaism at best, but more likely leading a group of "freedom fighters" (what the Romans would have called the equivalent of "terrorists") against the Roman occupation. His "betrayal" would have been from either a Roman "spy," or from someone within his "outfit" (or possibly a member of the Sanhedrin) who was pro-Roman, or had their own political agenda.

All of the subsequent anti-Judaism of Paul and the later creation of the passion mythology would have been added in, or selectively edited by the victors (aka, the Romans).

This is in the real world, btw, so I'm not sure you can address any of this.

Well, see, now you're no longer talking about this in any real world sense; rather in a mythological/theological sense, which means the whole thing was concocted out of whole cloth, as it were.

Where? It goes better with the sinful nature of man that Judaism (aka, the Old Testament) spoke of, but, again, might make sense if, as I posit, the whole thing were Roman concocted anti-Judaism "psy-ops" propaganda, considering that the writing of Mark (and the creation of the passion narrative accordingly) coincides rather nicely with the 70 C.E. "final solution" massacre by the Romans.

IOW, Jesus, the popular Rabbi/seditionist who was martyred by the Romans some forty years ago and as a result, his growing band of seditionists/"terrorists" over those forty years fought the occupiers "in his name" were such a problem that the Romans had to send in the garrisons to wipe out the entire Jewish population as a result, and part and parcel to and in anticipation of that military opperation, there were propaganda attempts to convince the locals this Jesus martyr they have all reverred and fought the Romans in his name, was actually betrayed by their own cult leaders and the Romans had nothing to do with it. In fact, as the propaganda story of Mark went (which even Christian theologians concede was probably not written by a Jew), innocent, good, kind Pilate actually publicly acquitted their martyr, but for the evil of the local Jew's fathers and grandfathers, was forced to kill him against Pilate's will (which is patently absurd, but perfectly in keeping with the nature of propaganda).

We do this all the time just before sending in troops; only in modern times we air drop propaganda pamphlets into places like Iraq, or Vietnam, or Guam, etc. We also did it to the native American Indians; spending tremendous money and time on destroying, or distorting their religious beliefs as a first step to the "solution" of just wholesale genocide. That was one of the purposes of slaughtering all the buffalo; not just because it was their primary source of meat, but also because the buffalo, quite understandably, was a large part of their religious beliefs.

I'm sure if we ever decided to invade and occupy India, we'd work in some way to get everyone loving hamburgers just prior. It's so ingrained, in fact, that our military now has to have "muslim sensitivity" training while stationed in Iraq, so as not to have soldiers using the Quran as toilet paper, or the like.

But I digress .

Well, it can't be Judaism if it was meant to be the end of Judaism, I guess, and it certainly is nowhere near Judaism, other than poorly stealing some of the concepts (such as Messiah), but if you're arguing this was anything other than manmade, we've got issues .

Well, it's certainly circular in logic, I'll give you that .

Chili

Jn. 19:7 reads: '"We have our own law" the Jews responded "and according to that law he must die because he made himself God's son."'

My response is based on John which is the gnostic point of view where both Jesus and the Jews knew what was going on. The Jews knew that Jesus had to die because he had made himself God's son and were happy to oblige so Jesus could finally say "it is finished." No it doesn't. The law 'is' and the effect of sin is real and so was the trial, conviction and the rest of it but not in the literal sense of the words used. After all, if the ego is conjectured how can it be crucified in the literal sense of the word. //

The purpose of the law was to create a stream of consciousness against which salvation must be found. Hence, the cross of eternal salvation is said to be for sinners only (lost sheep etc.), wherefore the laws were given to Moses not to stop sin but to convict man of sin. This very well means that any law will do as long as humans are able and willing break it so they can stand convicted for doing so.

The whole thing indeed is a mental journey but that does not mean that it does not take place in real life or the Law would be redundant while in reality it is the heart of the mythology. It is man made but inspired to contain the best kept secret in the world. Religion is, or at least can be, a means to the end much like a train that takes us from A to B and must be left behind when we get to B.

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, here we go...

Yes, it does. The problem is, of course that no such law exists. Claiming to be god is punishable by death, but not claiming to be god's son.

And yet you keep avoiding the fact that "the Jews" did not kill Jesus (at best, it could have only been one that might have ratted him out to the Romans; the "Judas" that you will no doubt compound) and no such trial as described in the synoptics ever took place.

It did not happen; it could not happen, which means it was entirely made up for a specific purpose and that purpose can only be to absolve the Romans of any wrong-doing in the death of a popular martyr and put the blame (as best they could with what was likely a real-life crucifixion) on the very people they were trying to assimilate, or, barring that, exterminate.

There simply is no other real-world explanation for the contradictory nonsense that goes on during the "trial" and crucifixion, other than it was either written by the Romans entirely, or, at the very least, written by Roman sympathizers to further undermine the Jewish religious stronghold in the region.

It was their minds the Romans sought to conquer; their spirit and they could not, because their fanatical Judaic beliefs were too ingrained. This has been the case for millenia (and spawned two offshoots that are just as fanatical) and it would have been the case for millenia prior to the Roman occupation as well (though I understand there's some conjecture over just exactly how old Judaism is).

It is a slave's religion (meaning also that it turns its adherents into slaves to the religion) that speaks of one all powerful vengeful god (aka, Pharaoh) that has specially chosen his poeple (aka, slaves) and no matter how much the Romans beat them, or physically subjugated them, or occupied their territory (for they are nomadic) made any bit of difference, because of their fanatically held beliefs (just as it is today with all offshoots of Judaism).

So the next step for the Romans (before, or in conjunction with the final, military step) is to attempt to destroy those religious beliefs.

What does that mean, the "law 'is?'" The "law" was nothing more than social behavior rules and regulations, just like any law, only there was no means to enforce said law, so an extension of a Pharoah was created; an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-vengeful god was concocted to enforce that law. And the ignorati, just like every generation of ignorati, bought it.

:huh:

No great mystery; just man's inhumanity to man.

The "effect?" What effect?

No! There would have been no trial the way it was depicted in the NT and Jesus was not ever convicted of anything, nor was he ever charged with any crime, either according to Roman law or Jewish law. Once again, it's not against any Jewish "law" to claim to be the son of Yahweh. To claim to be Yahweh is, but Jesus never did.

If we can believe anything in the trial sequence, then that point is abundantly made clear again and again that Pilate can find no charge against him. According to the NT account, he's not a criminal and therefore cannot be "released" because he was never imprisoned; never convicted. He was always a free man at every single point of the "trial."

:huh:

What? So it was all real, just in a metaphorical sense?



And we're back into pure fantasy land. You're talking about a comic book at this point, Chili; a rather poor one at that.

No, the purpose of the laws (as with any laws) was to keep the cult members operantly conditioned to behave in a certain way; aka, "society." Eat this way; clean this way; wear these clothes; fuck this way; fight this way; and, above all, sacrifice your greatest wealth this way, so that we, your leaders, can always control you for good or ill.

Identical to all other theocracies the world over, with the one exception that it was monotheistically based.

Jesus was allegedly crucified to answer for Adam's sin. Or are you just going to conveniently and randomly toss that bit of poetry out in favor of your own? I don't blame you as it is incoherent and would logically mean that once Jesus died on the cross, the sin was "payed" and we would all subsequently be born directly into paradise the way Adam and Eve were before the whole debacle.

Of course it does!

Then it isn't "man made."

Well, I'll certainly agree that it must be left behind when we get to "B." The problem is that we got to "B" (human self-actualization) thousands of years ago and still haven't left behind "A" (human superstition).

After all, there were smart enough people back then to create and exploit all of this superstitious nonsense to begin with, so the myths themselves prove someone had a clue.

:huh:

Chili

Didn't I give you the relevant passage that even Pilate was not aware of who therefore addresses Jesus-the-man, not once but three times so we would get the message that Jesus was to die by Jewish law only . . . with the death of this Jewish-only identity being the fulfillment of the law. You are the one who keeps insisting that it was a real world event. If Pilate looked at the man and the Jews looked at the Jew that must be killed to set free the man beneath the cloth that makes him Jew, why do you think it was a bad thing to have him crucified.

I always say that it was the best thing they ever did, that they did it often and knew exactly what they were doing.

I'll continue tonight on this because I must introduce you to my Pilate, my Herod, my Mary, my Magdalene and my John. In short if the persona was just a mask why would we need real people to kill it. Oh, I forgot to rat out my favorite Judas.