Christ Revealed

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I find it reasonable to accept
that some two thousand years ago
when human societies were still involved in
clan feuding
tribal warfare
and Roman conquest
and when everyone accepted the 3 billion year-old Law
that the most powerful animal in the jungle
is entitled to the lion’s share of the territory
the consciousness of a young Jewish carpenter/ theological scholar
came to the inspired realization
that might is not necessarily right
That love for one’s neighbor
that peaceful coexistence
instead of hate and war with one’s neighbor
held out greater possibilities for long-term social advancement
and spiritual fulfillment
than short-term territorial occupation and exploitation
followed by revengeful retribution

I also find it reasonable to accept
(since Freud had not yet explained the sub-conscious)
that this humble carpenter sincerely felt his novel idea
which went completely against conventional thinking
had to be God-inspired
and that he felt was specially selected to be the Divine messenger

I also find it reasonable to accept
that twelve of his friends and relatives
also became enthused by the possibilities of his idea
and that this small group
during a time when there was general public unrest
and common dislike
for the weight of the mighty Roman heal
that they found a willing and growing audience
among the oppressed.

I further find it reasonable to accept
that influential Jews
waxing rich under Roman patronage
and seeing the advantages of Roman technology
decided that a peasant revolution of civil disobedience
was not in their best interest
and had the carpenter silenced
permanently
or so they thought.

But the revolutionary idea itself
and the new consciousness it brought with it
because it was true
did not and could not die

This being so
I further find it reasonable to accept
that in order to continue to advertise
promote and popularize this revolutionary ideology
in that predominately religious era
that the idea itself
had to have come down to mankind as the Word of God
and that a human face had to be put on it
thus the martyredom of the carpenter
was essential for furtherance of the revolution of new thought

Like all new ideas
it was up against the established custom
and was faced with a formidable social and religious barrier

In those pagan days
only the Sons of God
Romulus and Heracles and Apollo for instance
were worshiped and obeyed as the representatives
of Divine wisdom

I find it reasonable to accept
that after three centuries of struggle against Roman paganism
the Bishops at Nicosia
in their wisdom
decided that the young Jewish carpenter had to be deified

and thus the myth of the Virgin birth
took birth
and that via this strategy
of baptizing all new converts
under the creed
“Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God
and that his mother Mary was a virgin
that he died on the cross in order to wash clean the sins of men and was risen from the dead”
helped to convert all of pagan Rome to Christianity

I also find it reasonable to accept
that while so many people today
continue to believe that might is right
and that it is okay to exploit the poor
that this idea of love for neighbor
'should be spread throughout the world
by all good Christians

What I do not find it reasonable to accept
in this day and age
is that in order to be a good Christian
and see the long-term social advantages
and spiritual peace
in love for our neighbors
that every one of us
including our neighbors
has to accept that primitive creed as Truth
or face the prospect of being banished to hell for all eternity

2

…is perhaps the only one available to those who allege that there is validity to ‘Bishops’.

3

As far as I see it, the more we as humans progress in thought, our perceived advancement in technology while making life more comfortable in this world we live in, somehow makes us think we do not have to be accountable to a higher source.

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The human race stays in flux thus this facilitates an air of infallible arrogance. Instead of fostering our spiritual side, we rely on our material selves for our place in this world. It is what it is. If we do not heed the call, then uncertainty will follow us to our demise.

4

The Deification of Jesus

Historians mention some arguments during the debates at Nicosia. Some 300 bishops attended.

“The Trinitarians said that the Son was of God, Arius said that in the Bible all things are of God, so how can Jesus be divine when all things are from God? The Trinitarians said that Jesus was from God and was of the essence of God. But again the monotheists said that this was their own word and does not appear in the Bible. Trinitarians said that the Bible says that Christ is the eternal image of the Father, the monotheists said that the Bible says that all men are the image of God. The discussions spread. The mother of Constantine supported the Paulines while his sister supported the monotheists and Arius, believing that he taught what Jesus taught. She hated the politics. The Emperor did not show his tendencies to indicate that he was objective. When it became clear, Constantine noted that everyone was trying to please him because he did not persecute the Christians and might start to do so if he became disenchanted. Eusebius, even though he supported Arius, he told him and the supporters of Arius said that there could be some harm to the Christians, so Arius decided to disassociate themselves and adopted a passive role.”
from wikipedia

Had the monotheists won the argument
Christianity would have been a more sane and less violent religion

Arius (AD 250 or 256 – 336)

Ariuswas a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead, which emphasized the Father’s Divinity over the Son, and his opposition to the Athanasian or Trinitarian Christology, made him a controversial figure in the First Council of Nicea, convened by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. After Emperor Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, the newly recognized Catholic Church sought to unify and clarify its theology. Trinitarian partisans, including Athanasius, used Arius and Arianism as epithets to describe those who disagreed with their doctrine of co-equal Trinitarianism, a Christology representing the Father and Son (Jesus of Nazareth) as “of one essence” (consubstantial) and coeternal.[1]

Although virtually all positive writings on Arius’ theology have been suppressed or destroyed[2], negative writings describe Arius’ theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, where only God the Father existed. Despite concerted opposition, ‘Arian’, or nontrinitarian Christian churches persisted throughout Europe and North Africa, in various Gothic and Germanic kingdoms, until suppressed by military conquest or voluntary royal conversion between the fifth and seventh centuries.

Although “Arianism” suggests that Arius was the originator of the teaching that bears his name, the debate over the Son’s precise relationship to the Father did not begin with him. This subject had been discussed for decades before his advent; Arius merely intensified the controversy and carried it to a Church-wide audience, where other “Arians” such as Eusebius of Nicomedia would prove much more influential in the long run. Eusebius of Nicomedia should not be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea (Bishop of Caesarea of Palestine), a renowned church father, a church historian and eulogistic biographer of Roman Emperor Constantine. Eusebius of Caesarea is possibly one of the drafters of teh Nicene creed. In fact, some later “Arians” disavowed that moniker, claiming not to have been familiar with the man or his specific teachings.[3] However, because the conflict between Arius and his foes brought the issue to the theological forefront, the doctrine he proclaimed—though not originated by him—is generally labeled as “his”

5

Jesus was just one of many charismatic dudes that have cropped up throughout history. He was right about some things and painfully wrong about others–but the most remembered things that remain of him today are the fictional elements of his legend.

6

Bit of an understatement I would say
give credit where it is due
Jesus was THE most influential charismatic dude of the last two thousand years
with 1.3 billion followers
10 million dead in his name
Mohamed runs a close second

Jesus as Theologian

At puberty Jesus reveals a precocious interest in theology
enough to impress the Rabbis in Jerusalem while attending his barmitzvah

It is more than likely that after serving his apprenticeship as carpenter with is father
he attended or lived for a while with one the many Essene communities
His cousin John the Baptist was obviously a member

The Roman writer Pliny the Elder (died c. 79 A.D.) in his Natural History (N’H,V,XV). Pliny relates in a few lines that the Essenes do not marry, possess no money, and had existed for thousands of generations. Unlike Philo, who did not mention any particular geographical location of the Essenes other than the whole land of Israel, Pliny places them in Ein Gedi, next to the Dead Sea.

A little later Josephus gave a detailed account of the Essenes in The Jewish War (c. 75 A.D.) with a shorter description in Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94 A.D.) and The Life of Flavius Josephus (c. 97 A.D.). Claiming first hand knowledge, he lists the Essenoi as one of the three sects of Jewish philosophy[6] alongside the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He relates the same information concerning piety, celibacy, the absence of personal property and of money, the belief in communality and commitment to a strict observance of the Sabbath. He further adds that the Essenes ritually immersed in water every morning, ate together after prayer, devoted themselves to charity and benevolence, forbade the expression of anger, studied the books of the elders, preserved secrets, and were very mindful of the names of the angels kept in their sacred writings.

Pliny, also a geographer and explorer, located them in the desert near the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the year 1947 by Muhammed edh-Dhib and Ahmed Mohammed, two Bedouin shepherds of the Ta’amireh tribe.[7]

7

Bishops, or imperial poodles?

Should we have a thorough clear-out of petty-minded apparently brain-dead anti-intellectual red-necked right wing propagandists who have invaded what is supposed to be a philosophy forum?

Or should they merely be charged $10 000 for each post like the above? No doubt they would regard it as mere petty cash.

8

Just to clarify, you are referring Jesus of Nazareth to whom the Christian Bible notes in scripture as the Son of God? What would you consider to be the ‘the painfully wrong’ things He had said or done?

9

Mao’s got that beat by a few ten million.

He may have been very precocious about the Law, but that was rote cogitation about angels on the head of a pin. Paul came up with most of the “theology” attributed to Christianity, and Jesus’ morality, such as automatically relegating the wealthy to be little better than dogs, is just wrong.

I believe they were partners, and their message was one of Judaic repentance for the forgiveness/correction of sin–something that somehow got forgotten by Paul and his faith is the only thing philosophy. Don’t you suppose, if that was correct, that Jesus and John the Baptizer should have preached that, or rather, why preach anything at all since Jesus hadn’t died yet for their sins?

The thinking among archaeologists lately is that the proximity of Qumran to the Dead Sea Scrolls was coincidental, and they aren’t really sure now what Qumran was. Philo’s description appears to be closer to the reality. It’s hard to know what Jesus was. He has much in common with the Nazareens (var. sp.). The heirs to the Jerusalem Church that sprang up after he died with his brother James as its head, which then fled to the outlying areas after the destruction of Jerusalem, are most likely the Ebionites.

10

Seconding TPT here.
In all the years studying, that was the relative same conclusion I arrived at.
The only difference is that I found it probable for the Nazarene as I did the Essene.
But really…that’s kind of like saying, “Was Martin Luther King Jr. Protestant or Baptist”, as the Nazarenes were quite the devoted sub-sect of the general category of Essene (not to be confused with the sub-sect monastic’s “Essene” which carry the same name as the general family of religion, and are included among that name); or Galilean; Judaic faiths.

From my studies, it seems to go something crudely along the lines of

--> Nazarene Essene-| ------> Ebionite

And even in this; the difference seems to be a geographically created difference of North and South as the Nazarenes were largely northern, while the Ebionites were largely (almost exclusively) southern; yet both adhered to the same texts uniquely.

11

Who the hell cares who christ is. The important thing is the moral and ethical messages that are valuable for human behavior. Example----“let he who has not sinned cast the first stone” (something like that). Who cares who said it.

12

Everyone.

13

You left out some important parts of my post Ochaye. I don’t care who christ is. I care what christ stands for.

14

Precisely said turtle
In the future
the myth of Jesus
will be no more relevant than that of Perseus today
only the message remains eternal
idolizing rock stars
is juvenile
if the lyric is meaningful
it is recorded in the annuls
I wonder
is elvis still in the building?

15

Personally, studying the anthropology brings about more lessons and different perspectives of value on the lessons. For others, maybe the surface is fine. For myself, I enjoy learning the history. It brings much more life and value to many of the statements.

16

Do you know what the meaning of the word ‘christ’ is?

17

You left out some important parts of my post Ochaye. I don’t care who christ is. I care what christ stands for.
[/quote]
Do you know what the meaning of the word ‘christ’ is?
[/quote]
Yes.

18

You do now.

19

There is no worse sin in a family
than to favor one child
over another
this is where putting Jesus on the altar of Christian worship
fails provocatively
he never suffered on the cross
any more
and for no better cause
than the thousands who did the same
all of them were anointed ones

20

How is there such unjustified certainty? Because Jesus is not perceived as just priest, therefore propitiation. He is perceived also as lord, due to the debt of gratitude owed for atonement. His lordship means human obedience, and loss of autonomy. So the human spirit naturally rebels at the threat of this loss. So most of humanity either says with Muhammad that Jesus did not die at all, or with many other religionists that his death did not have the significance that it was and is given. One could not make it up, that one man died for the sins of everyone else. It’s the only thing that cannot be made up. We all know that it is true at the moment we first hear or read it.