Freethought & Rationalism Archive

premjan · 03-25-2009, 12:03 PM

What happened to Jesus can be placed in contrast with what happened to Gandhi. The Roman empire depended on the exertion of force though they were even-handed apart from that. The British empire had some ethical basis larger than mere brutality and conquest. Hence one was crucified and the other obtained freedom for his country.

razlyubleno · 03-25-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

The Roman empire depended on the exertion of force though they were even-handed apart from that.

I thought they depended on cultural assimilation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Hence one was crucified and the other obtained freedom for his country.

One was fighting for the freedom of his country. The other wasn't.

storytime · 03-25-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Christianity without the trinity, without the divinity of Jesus, without the incarnation and vicarious atonement, Christianity stripped of all its distinctive characteristics, is nothing but the universal religion of Yahve, such as was conceived and proclaimed by the greatest prophets and wisest teachers of Israel, among whom I count and reverence the immortal prophet and teacher of Nazareth. Christianity without a Christian dogma is not the religion of the genuine historical Christian churches. It is the universal faith which is usually named Judaism. It is what I call Yahvism in order to dissociate it in consciousness from the element of the race. It is the universal religion of broad humanity, of justice, of love and holiness. It is the religion of Moses, of Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hillel, and Jesus. It is the ethical monotheism of Israel without the limitations and the trammels of race, without the yoke of ceremonial law. It is the religion which I and all enlightened rabbis profess and teach.--Yahvism, and other discourses / Adolph Moses: p. 162.

Christianity's core doctrines can NEVER allign with that of its claimed attachment to its mother religion. This saddest of facts has befallen humanity, and is also displayed between Christianity and Islam, and both those religions and Judaism. I say:

AN HONEST DISAGREEMENT BEATS A DISHONEST AGREEMENT.

The only resolvement of this issue is not via Christianity, Jesus, the Quran or Mohammed - but only via Moses. PERIOD. It cannot be resolved by Christians or Muslims speaking in Moses' name.

It appears the adherants of all three religions hold equally genuine views of their beliefs [though it is doubtful this is equal considering the time period of belief and the price paid by Jews to uphold their beliefs]. However, the sincerity of all three does not mean all are equally correct and right: it is a blatant fact that both Christianity and Islam cannot be equally right, and have submitted mutually exclusive doctrines upon humanity, which has thus far caused billions of innocent deaths the last 2000 years - with more on the agenda as a guarantee.

The test is how these three religions behave with each other - while there is a core disagreement in their belief systems. After all, this is what the story of Abraham represents: diabolical testings. The most suspicious factor remains that Christians and Muslims do not look to a return of Moses, instead of their own, far removed figures - who have caused this ubsurd situation in the first place!

A desired falsehood cannot be chosen instead of a disdained truth - and the truth is also pointing in that direction, of Judaism's favor, but this is met with denial by christians and muslims - for understandable reasons. This is not a bad resut, considering that humanity's future is not with the figures of any religion but only with the true Creator of the entire universe - its not about three belief systems only.

IMHO, Judaism will prevail as the truth in every instance, the premise of equal rights and justice for all will prevail - the notion of unbelievers and infidels will fall and go belly up. But this will have to be via an independent, mysterious and miraculous manifestation - and this would have to include Moses at the helm. No options here. If any adherants of the three Middle-east originated religions are not looking to Moses to affirm the correct path - they are a suspicious lot and not inclined towards the truth. :huh:

I don't think either Christianity or Islam will go belly up as you call it. Both will continue to expand. I think Judaism will have to catch up in recognizing both Christianity and Islam are just as valid a religion as itself. So, let the Jews have Moses, Christians have Jesus and Islam have Mohammad.

The Moses character, if anything, represents law for Israel, not law for the whole world. The Jesus character claiming his authority was before the days of Abraham and in the priesthood of Melchizedec, if that is the meaning of "before Abraham was, I AM". And Mohammad the prophet whose characterization is that of a godly prophet. Seems each of these are separated from each other and none are going away anytime to soon. But maybe we can hurry their departure along? At least get them to recognize themselves for what they are - fabricated stories handed down through heresay.

storytime · 03-25-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Looks like the quarrel between mythicists and historicists goes back a long way.

I didn't realize there another side to the debate. The story of Job appears in much older Mesopotamian texts. I thought it had been resolved CENTURIES ago, Job is not originally a Hebrew story. No where in the story is Job identified as Hebrew, either.

Oh gosh...come to think of it, I don't think Abraham is identified as a Hebrew in the story, nor his sons Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. And his other sons by his other wives. One Kenturah comes to mind. So who was Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The story says that Isaac and Jacob were related to Laban the Syrian. How did Jacob-renamed "Israel" end up being identified as Hebrews??

No Robots · 03-25-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

So, let the Jews have Moses, Christians have Jesus and Islam have Mohammad.

All three of these figures belong to all three groups.

Quote:

The Moses character, if anything, represents law for Israel, not law for the whole world.

Moses is the great prophet, the architect of the whole idea of national consciousness, of the unity of the people with the principle of the Absolute.

storytime · 03-25-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

When did Christianity reverse it perverse accusation of the Jews for killing Jesus... Nostra Aetate, early 1960s. The Romans killed Jesus. Read it, it is in your Bible. There is no argument. Crucifixion was a Roman death penalty. Had the Jews killed Jesus they would have stoned him. If you think Rome cared one way or another about who Jerusalem executed or imprisoned... think again. To Rome, the only good Jew was a rich one or a dead one.

Quote:

btw, When did Jewish people ever deny killing Jesus or conspiring to have him killed? When did Jewish rabbi's ever deny there was a Jesus the Jewish militant? They may have hated him but when have they denied Jesus was a Jew? Let's see, it's been how long now, 2000 years? Where is the Jewish decree stating that "there was never a Jesus the Jew?" Maybe if we can get this out of the way, then proving Christianity an illegitimate construct will be much more simple. You think?

When did you ever deny killing Jesus or conspiring to kill him?

I've always denied the blood guilt, even as when I was a Christian Baptist. And I said so to whatever preacher was preaching "we're all guilty of killing Jesus". Pure BS, imo.

So, who do I think killed Jesus? From the "story", Pilate turned Jesus back over to Herod the appoointed "tetrearch"(?), because Pilate found no fault in Jesus; then Herod obtained responsibility and took Jesus back to a place outside Jerusalem for execution. Herod was Jewish, acting on behalf of Jewish interest in the matter as per his appointment by the Romans.

Why would Rome have cared one way or the other? I would imagine they would not as they considered Jewish infightng a Jewish problem. And according to the story, certain leaders at Jerusalem wanted Jesus the militant Jew dead. So, I see the story as Jews holding the responsibility in judgment of their fellow Jewish brother, Jesus. "Crucify him..Crucify him".

ps.. I gave Jesus back to the Jews and became a full time atheist. :Cheeky:

kcdad · 03-25-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

I thought they depended on cultural assimilation.

Nope. PEACE THROUGH VICTORY

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Oh gosh...come to think of it, I don't think Abraham is identified as a Hebrew in the story, nor his sons Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. And his other sons by his other wives. One Kenturah comes to mind. So who was Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? The story says that Isaac and Jacob were related to Laban the Syrian. How did Jacob-renamed "Israel" end up being identified as Hebrews??

The Hebrew name came from The Egyptians during the captivity there, I believe.

Quote:

storytime;5866207]
I've always denied the blood guilt, even as when I was a Christian Baptist. And I said so to whatever preacher was preaching "we're all guilty of killing Jesus". Pure BS, imo.

Yeah. Well. Just so there is no mistake, everyone who is executed by electric chair, gas chamber or lethal injection is executed by the state... not by the church, not by Walmart, not by Social Services or the Library system. And it is the Governor who has the final say on whether to do it or not. (Just like 2000 years ago.)

storytime · 03-25-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

So, let the Jews have Moses, Christians have Jesus and Islam have Mohammad.

All three of these figures belong to all three groups.

Quote:

The Moses character, if anything, represents law for Israel, not law for the whole world.

Moses is the great prophet, the architect of the whole idea of national consciousness, of the unity of the people with the principle of the Absolute.

I'll agree that Moses was a prophet in the story, his idea of national consciousness meant for the unity of Israel alone, as the laws he instituted was meant for the inheritance of Israel only, not for any other peoples. Other people already had their own laws for sustaining their non Israeli cultures and/or traditions.

btw, I think it dishonest to foster ancient Israel's laws onto the whole world. I'm not saying you're doing that, but I think it would be helpful if distinction was made in who received what laws and for what purpose.

storytime · 03-25-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by razlyubleno

I thought they depended on cultural assimilation.

Nope. PEACE THROUGH VICTORY

The Hebrew name came from The Egyptians during the captivity there, I believe.

Quote:

storytime;5866207]
I've always denied the blood guilt, even as when I was a Christian Baptist. And I said so to whatever preacher was preaching "we're all guilty of killing Jesus". Pure BS, imo.

Yeah. Well. Just so there is no mistake, everyone who is executed by electric chair, gas chamber or lethal injection is executed by the state... not by the church, not by Walmart, not by Social Services or the Library system. And it is the Governor who has the final say on whether to do it or not. (Just like 2000 years ago.)

And likewise, just so there is no mistake, everyone in death penalty states are not crying "fry the bastard! Fry the Bastard". Although, there are some I believe serve no usefulness as human beings.

No Robots · 03-25-2009, 01:47 PM

By the way, I mistranslated the title of the work I cited above. The original German is "Rede der Juden: Wir wollen ihn zurück", which should be translated as "Speech of the Jews: We want him back". For added clarity, it should be "Speech of the Jews [to the Christians]: We want him back".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2009, 12:03 PM	#121
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	What happened to Jesus can be placed in contrast with what happened to Gandhi. The Roman empire depended on the exertion of force though they were even-handed apart from that. The British empire had some ethical basis larger than mere brutality and conquest. Hence one was crucified and the other obtained freedom for his country.

03-25-2009, 01:47 PM	#130
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	By the way, I mistranslated the title of the work I cited above. The original German is "Rede der Juden: Wir wollen ihn zurück", which should be translated as "Speech of the Jews: We want him back". For added clarity, it should be "Speech of the Jews [to the Christians]: We want him back".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.