People cling to religion in order to harness harmful atavisms. These cultists seem unable to trust themselves and regulate their behaviour. Wouldn’t it be delightful if a person’s goodwill and feelings of humanity to his fellow man stemmed not from religion but were an extension of vagitus when we are innocent and pure.

This article has much going for it. It is true that Jesus unmasked the hypocrisy of his time and refused the established distinction between the good and the bad. He was a friend of sinners and he was an offence and died an offensive death.

“For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block (scandalon) to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” (1 Cor 1:22 NRSV)

He did abandon his family and indicated that ones faithfulness to God must be put above faithfulness to family. He broke the religious laws that were mere pretense at righteousness. After all, he had to do something very offensive to be crucified.

However, the writer goes too far, perhaps for dramatic effect, to paint Jesus as immoral. As he explains, in his context he did break with the “mores” of the time and hence could be called immoral. But to leave it at that gives the wrong impression. Breaking the mores of the time can only be in service to a real morality that respects each person as a child of God and that establishes God’s justice in the land. As many of us heard on Sunday the 15th….

“ Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb 4:12 NRSV)

It is the truth telling nature of the Word of God, the Word made flesh, that cuts us to the core and dispenses with our home made morality. We are thus not delivered over to anarchy and lawlessness but to a life lived out as peacemakers, truth tellers, friends of sinners, servants and seekers of justice.

Lawlessness was a problem in the early church, particularly in Corinth, and this came about because of the shattering of “mores”. But Paul brings the Corinthian church to heel.

Sage,
Not so fast! Firstly, one could say that we cling to the law in order to control “harmful atavisms” or we could say that we cling to culture for the same effect. As Rose says to Charlie in the “African Queen” “Nature, Mr Allnut is what we are here to overcome!”. The idea that if we were left in a state of nature all would be goodness and light is absurd. We may have been innocent when we cried our first cry after being delivered from the vagina but we do not remain so. This is a return to 18th century romanticism and the noble savage and has clearly been debunked.

Paul to the Phillipian Church:

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Sorry Sells I was a bit rushed this morning; I was waiting on a printing job to arrive. I should have been more expansive. Yes, by all means let’s have moral and behavioural codes but our codes must evolve in partnership with society. Why do some people follow the codes which were developed by a person who strode the earth in the 7th century? Should we get about the place riding a donkey? Of course not.

My reference to vagitus was brief. I didn’t mean that we should dwell in some lotus-eater’s paradise untouched by reality. I myself am a critic of those who find it uplifting to live the life of a noble savage yet seek donations because their lives are dysfunctional. Their historical gods have let them down. My mention of vagitus was also meant to convey the message that we are all born innocent. What happens to us? We learn to hate; we are over-taken by feelings of jealousy, rage, avariciousness and other moral maladies. Religion plays a role in those developments and religion also helps us to identify the ‘enemy’.

The author has done us a favour by treating the gods in a purely historical and moral context

Prepare yourself, you know it's a must; Gotta have a friend in Jesus.
So you know that when you die, He's gonna recommend you to the spirit in the sky: Doctor and the Medics.

God that’s a good, simple song.

But Pete, I am unsure of whether you support or reject the italics (hint hint: a split infinitive). If you looked at this thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=82#1671 you would find lots of rational debate about Jesus.

‘They ought to bring back the death penalty for people like Him’ is a minority opinion isn’t it. And if we looked at population types who support such hardline schisms, they are mostly peasant based. And given that Christianity does not hold a large population base in relative terms, what then makes it –or indeed any religion- so contentious.

Perhaps it is because that if a goody goody like jesus is to exist –In a theoretical form- so also must his opposite number. There are plenty of people around who would instantly embrace voodoo, anarchy, nihilism, Satanism, peruvianism and all sorts of debauchery, if there were no counter balance to such extreme human schizo-fantasy behaviour.

Your article is, I am sure, the opposite view of everything chrisitan, to which is your right. And too, it makes great debate material; but I really must question what it is you mean when you suggest: ‘And yet there is no question that Jesus of Nazareth was the most immoral Man to grace the steps of the Temple in Jerusalem’.

Am I just a raving Christian?

Clever article Peter.

The call-back callers would also point out the dubious background of the Nazarene. He was after all a product of rape. His father was also a notourious murderer of millions through various premediated means. This was nothing short of mass murder using various weapons of mass destruction.

But in the Nazarene's defence, it could be argued that he was fighting an insurgent war against an invading oppressor. The capture of this key terrorist and his supsequent imprisonment (at Camp Jerusalem) by the invaders would surely have been worth the money they paid to their informant Judas. The execution by crucification was reserved for crimes against Rome and was perfectly justified for such a terrorist and criminal.

Coach

Phillipians clearly states that Jesus was given his name AFTER death.
What was his name before death?

I believe that Jesus (while not the intended target) is horribly misrepresented. Nevertheless it is probably true that Jesus would have a tough time being accepted by many today including some Christians. Some Christians would reject His apparently intolerant/authoritarian action of chasing the “battlers” from the temple with a whip for their disrespectful actions and His call to take up His cross. Others would struggle with His building a Church on Peter after a trilogy of sin.

In defence of “immoral” Jesus

I wish I could say “So if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is much better for you to lose one of your limbs than to have your whole body go off to hell.” without the need to self mutilate to avoid hypocrisy. He was as moral as a man has ever been and no better role model has existed.

While lacking acceptance among those with a vested interest in self indulgence he drew ordinary decent folk like a moth to a flame even if he also welcomed all sinners who were willing to change their ways and follow Him. He did not hesitate to rebuke the moral have not and want nots who refused to give proper worship to God or to follow the moral laws including loving their neighbours.

Ordinary decent folk followed him all over the countryside sometimes in the thousands. Jesus spoke publically every day in and near the temple at Jerusalem but was arrested privately. There was an obvious fear that arresting Him publically could create a public disturbance.

Finally he didn’t come into someone else’s place and start complaining. When he was outraged in the temple He was in His own home. He is God. The people desecrating the temple were intruders. The King would welcome their proper worship and welcome them to the wedding feast of His Son but if they visit His house they should follow the 'house rules'.

fdixit,

I have a copy of the Gospel of Thomas somewhere that gives his name as Benjamin Pandira (or Pantera).

I don't know or remember where the author sourced this from.

Nice article.

My reading of this article wasn't that jesus was immoral (title not withstanding) but more a judgment of the hypocrisy of today's fundamentalist christian sect, as exemplified by the talkback italics.

In this I believe the author hammers home an excellent point. Not many seem to adhere to the old 'what would jesus do' credo, instead preferring the 'holier than thou' attitude.

This of couse, is generalizing in the extreme and is a disservice to their compassion and humanity.

It's just a shame that they don't seem to be the influential christians, who shield themselves from the riff raff to whom jesus extended open arms.

BTW can anyone point out where jesus approved of the church as an institution? I thought his whole rap was about god and the individual sharing a personal relationship, without need for intermediaries.

An interesting and entertaining read, and the author makes some good points. However, I think he rather over-plays his hand. The distinction between morals (as conventions or customs) and ethics (as doing the right thing) is not as clear cut in practice as the article implies – indeed, the article gets its shock value precisely from that fact that, in everyday usage, to call something immoral is to imply that it is unethical, not merely that it is unconventional. Jesus certainly broke many of the customs and conventions of his day in a way that shocked those around him, and his values were very different from those prevailing in the culture of that time (and this). But he was never unethical.

Calling Jesus “immoral” is rather pedantic sleight of hand is on a par with arguing it’s ok to call aborigines “uncivilized” because they never lived in cities, or people like me “sinister” because I’m left handed.

However, the key messages of the article are valid – that Jesus deliberately sought and befriended people who were socially unacceptable and sinners, that his behaviour was deemed shocking and scandalous by his contemporaries, and that modern-day Christians (like citizens of the first century Roman empire) often confuse their own conventions and values with fundamental ethical imperatives.

I meant to say, a disservice to those who genuinely espouse values of compassion and humanity.

Thank you Rhian for summarizing the article so well. I was getting ready to attempt to do something similar until I read what you had said much more pithily and precisely than I might have.
The only thing I would add is that though we think we know a lot about Jesus we rely on texts often written decades after his death. We know more about the morals, ethics, and values of the people who actualy composed those documents purporting to be biographies of Jesus.

Jesus, as God, knows his laws are good for the despiccable and corrupt. But, since he is God, and not like us, he is going to change the world in his own way (not like we would do) through the Holy Spirit, who enters each born-in-the-Spirit-of-God candidate who chooses to undergo this process, and who has faith that God is who he says he is.

Who is God? Unimaginable. Creator of heaven and earth, and of man, of molecules and galaxies, of motes of dust, sunsets, and seas... -- who can compare to him?

This is the one who in his unimaginability, stoops to help mankind, despite our despiccableness, our corruption, our liking for sin.

The two rules (human nature rebels against the word "rules") that sum up all the rest are the reason he is called the prince of peace -- Love your God with all your heart...and Love your neighbor as yourself.
If we followed the two, there would be no death (because no sin) and no war. If we willingly obeyed, which we cannot do without his help, given our contrary natures, the world as we know it would not exist.

And so he stoops, out of love for all of mankind.

This is the entity that created the birth of worlds seen through the Hubble telescope. This is the One who created the fundaments of physics that scientists can barely explain. This is the One who sent the great flood, because mankind thought and did only evil continuously. Jesus as God is the one who sent Joseph the dream of the stalks that bowed down to the one stalk, who raised him up from being a slave, to ruling over Egypt. And, he is the one who will cause every human knee to bow on his return.

There is no one like him, and no one who can offer mankind what he can.
This is the good news that he brings to men and women everywhere.

THIS AUTHOR IS TOTALLY WRONG !... ? or.. maybe he has some good thoughts.

I love this kind of article. You are never quite sure till reading the whole thing what the writer is on about. Is he serious ? Tongue in cheek ? Just trying to make us think ?

Well.. probably the last mostly.

We surely should think about our relationship with God in Christ.. about who was the real Jesus..

"Who then is THIS..that he calms the storm ?" said the disciples.

The only point I wish to make at this stage is that while it is true that Jesus was a friend of Tax Collectors and Sinners, his love for them was redemptive. He did not continue to associate with ongoing corrupt Tax Collectors or 'ongoing adulterous women'

Zachaeus "Lord, those I have exploited I will return to them fourfold"

The woman caught inadultery "Go you way and sin no more"

To Nichodemus "You must be born again"

To know Him was to love Him, and be awestruck.

He showed love to the sinner then, as he does now, with a view to salvation and renewal.

"I came not to be served, but to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many".

Halelujah.

P.S. Hawaiilawyer....thanx for the uplifting thoughts.

"My reading of this article wasn't that jesus was immoral (title not withstanding) but more a judgment of the hypocrisy of today's fundamentalist christian sect, as exemplified by the talkback italics."

That was definitely the focus. Christians just don't like to see Jesus badmouthed in title or in passing.

"This of couse, is generalizing in the extreme and is a disservice to their compassion and humanity."

It is refreshing to find a comment by an apparently fair minded non-Christian (I think you are not the only one in this thread.) In these forums I often start to feel that all atheists have some type of pathological hatred for Christians. Clearly such people are just overrepresented in some threads due to being attracted to opportunities to Christian bash.

"It's just a shame that they don't seem to be the influential christians, who shield themselves from the riff raff to whom jesus extended open arms."

Agreed. These days I think they can get caught up shielding themselves from incessant onslaught from Christian bashers and time left they share the faith with believers.

"BTW can anyone point out where jesus approved of the church as an institution? I thought his whole rap was about god and the individual sharing a personal relationship, without need for intermediaries."

In answer to the first question my immediate response would be the Bible. After careful consideration my response would be the Bible. Words that crop up in defining an institution such as an organisation formed for a purpose, behavioural pattern of importance for a community, and united I associate with the Bible. The idea of a personal relationship is central to the faith but no person is an island.

This just shows how stupid intellectuals are. Jesus is morality. He is the way and the light. It only through Him that we know morality. Look at the muslims are they moral teaching their kids to be human bombs. Look at the bloodthirsty Buddhists. The Jews are they moral? No their religion has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus is morality. And you people are immoral. You are like animals you will all be going to Hell.

Andrew, I think the doctor is paging you.

Thank God. Thank Peter. The real earthy gritty, friend of wine drinkers, prostitutes and flute players comes out in what you say. This is not the picture of a comfortable middle class nice person who wants us and him to be respectable.

This is someone who wants us to be the best we can for ourselves and others, taking us at where we are and moving us to do better things.

The Jesus of today would have been asking what David Hicks or Naura and other Immigration detainees are doing behind razor wire. This is not only an affront to Human and Christian values, mores, morals, it is deeper: Christian values are Human and humane values.

Boaz

You're entirely welcome. And thanks for yours as well.

mjpb
"Others would struggle with His building a Church on Peter after a trilogy of sin."

TurnRightThenLeft
"BTW can anyone point out where jesus approved of the church as an institution? I thought his whole rap was about god and the individual sharing a personal relationship, without need for intermediaries."

It always amazes me that people never see the irony in Jesus' proclamation to Peter: that he would be the rock on which he would build his church; probably said with a chuckle in his voice at the time.

Jesus was a master of irony. He undestood Peter was a Jewish [scriptural] literalist and didn't know how to interpret the world just as it is, ever-changing. As Jesus intended to undermine fixed religion (it was the primary cause of oppression), Peter, believing himself to be following the teachings of Christ, would build it up again. This must have been an endless point of amusement to Jesus.

Jesus never intended to build a church - As TRTL states, Jesus pointed the way to understanding one's own heart - not following blindly the warped interpretations of others. Peter was a classic example of the latter. Jesus knew that Peter would take his teaching literally rather than making decisions in the moment based on the evidence in front of one's own nose. To do anything else is to pre-judge a situation. The good hearted always know how to do the right thing, without having to turn to books or the self-righteous proclamations of others. Jesus WAS a kindhearted anarchist. He made the best of every situation he came across - providing the most peaceful solution to every conflict he was confronted with. Peace between men was his only motive. Whatever was needed to achieve this (in a multitude of different situations) is what he offered. Its what most good, right thinking people do everyday, "naturally".

Kevin.... Jesus did indeed intend to build a church...but before you leap on me like a Mongoose on a Cobra.. let me explain.

"Church"= Ekklesia in greek and primarily means 'congregation' ...i.e. the people. The 'congregation' is that body of people living under the kingship of God.

I will enthusiastically agree on one aspect of your point. I don't believe Jesus had specifically in mind a huge bureaucratic organization, (such as RC and Anglican and Lutheran) but clearly that is one possible outcome and even a valid form of the Kingdom, as long as it is simply the way that group organizes itself and does not claim to be the 'only' legitimate manifestation of the Kingdom.

Jesus said. "if the world hates you, know that it has hated me first"

Westy is a good example of this syndrome.

To some, Jesus was indeed immoral, he threatened their positions and privilege. But ill founded perceptions based on self interest and greed or immoral life goals, are no basis on which to understand Him.

I have always struggled to believe in God.
To my mind, faith is nothing more than unsubstantiated superstition.
I think all of us are born with an innate belief that we are part of something greater than ourselves. Some of us are happy to just accept this. Others, we call scientists or philosophers, have to explore or attempt to explain the feeling; to understand why they feel the way they do, and if it can be proven.
If they fail, they become atheists, or agnostics.
My epiphany came from reading and participating in these forums.
It seemed inexplicable to me that one God could be defined in so many ways, but now I understand.
We listen to God in exactly the same way that we listen to each other.
We only hear what we want to hear, or what we are capable of hearing.
And we are all prisoners of our own preconceptions.

Grim

There is the possibility that there might be an objective entity, though invisible, that created everything. Such a possibility would be like reading science fiction, only this time it would be non-fiction.

We can scarcely understand the meaning of taking vats of water and "turning" them into wine, or taking a few loaves of bread and pieces of fish, and turning them into five thousand or so loaves and thousands of pieces of fish.

Turning molecules of water into molecules of wine (skipping the seed, vine, grape stages) is something a creator can do.

We are hard-pressed to believe, since we cannot do these ourselves. We have no basis to measure these acts of God by. There is the possibility that our notions of god do not apply.

You may be familiar with Elijah, one of God's chosen spokesmen, who challenged the priests of a man-made religion to a contest. Elijah told the people of Israel that only the true creator would (or could) send fire from the sky to the earth to light the separate sacrifices prepared by each side. He was referring to the creator who as creator is in control of the laws of physics which he also created.

Elijah flooded his sacrifice with water to overcome the doubts of the audience, should God send fire to light Elijah's sacrifice, which of course he did....

There were more than twenty eye-witnesses to Jesus walking about after he was killed, something someone in control of the very molecules could do -- resurrect the dead. Lazarus was in a state of putrefaction when he was reassembled DNA up.

So, if Jesus as god makes an offer of forgiveness of all sins,

l) it must be important that sins be forgiven i.e. there must be an aggregious consequence if they are not (the wages of sin is death/human mortality);

2) all humans must be committing sins.

If you notice all man-made religious dispense with sins (they kiss up to the human preference for sinning). Jesus as god doesn't put up with us in that respect.

"If you notice all man-made religious"

should be

"If you notice all man-made religions"

Quick definitions
(values)
noun: beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something)

(morals)
noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong .

(immoral)
adjective: violating principles of right and wrong
adjective: morally unprincipled (Example: "Immoral behavior")
adjective: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good
adjective: not adhering to ethical or moral principles

I think some are wandering a tad off-subject.

The article proposed that Jesus was then, and might still even today have cause to be, considered immoral ( by those who had 'ultimate' power over human life and death and who had the greatest say into what was officially 'right and wrong' for the general populace).

For those without the wit to tell - the author was trying to raise debate about what our current values are based upon and he did so using the established literary practice of irony. He was not trying to prove Jesus was morally unprincipled, but that he violated the principles of right and wrong imposed upon the people by both an occupying army of Rome and by the rich and unscrupulous religious leaders of the Jews.

I feel that many of Australia's leaders and community voices are corrupting what is 'right and wrong' in our society by slavishly acquiescing to those values of the leaders of other nations, such as America, and are claiming 'Christian' moral high ground when they in fact fail to follow even a single principle the True founder of Christianity has been reported to have possessed as shown by his deeds and actions - not just his words.

As Jesus showed - (I am the Way) we are bound to follow, through our own hearts, the will of Our Father over the will of hypocritical leaders interested only in power, position and wealth and to not just do what others tell us is right.

I'm not familiar with Australia's leaders and community voices. Can you fill me in on their corruption?

God does keep an accounting of each human. That would be called Judgment Day, when ALL are judged (and not by humans). At the same time, Jesus came to save all humans, not just some. So he makes the offer, to the good (so-called) and the bad, to have their sins washed away, forgotten by God, provided they make the choice to believe/trust in him, who is God.

Humans, on the other hand, like to compare who's better/more righteous and who's worse/less righteous. This is something to which Jesus says -- don't do it. Why? Because no human is righteous in God's eyes.

The only way to be right with God is to borrow his own perfect goodness, which he, as Jesus, is willing to lend us if we have faith in him.

So where does that place the student who saw the unnamed film and made a comment about Christian morals? I don't know. Don't know the film, can't ask the student why she made the comment.

Humans would like to think there will be no judgment day. Humans hate to be judged (because then they would have to consider the idea of "sin"). That, of course, would be contradicting God's word which says there will be one (Revelation), but it will be God who does the judging, not other human beings who are equally sinful (do we, for example, really Love our neighbors as ourselves (the second commandment
of the two that sum up the ten)?

The reason Jesus hung out with sinners is that that's who we all are -- the entire human race, bent towards sinning, after the original Adam and Eve who rebelled. And we are rebellious , without God's help. The hypocrites are humans who don't think they are still human.

Without the help of the spirit of God, God's gift to those who agree to be born-in-the spirit, we remain enslaved to sin, bent towards harming others, and ourselves.

God never had to hang out with us to make the offer, but he did.

Yes, got to love those redneck talkback callers, and fundamentalist Christians.

Never seen any examples of this though, and suspect it's just an invention by the herd mentality that makes up the far left.

Whenever I've heard 2GB, which isn't often, and it's an issue about Muslims or whatever, most people are just concerned parents upset their kid was beaten up, or stabbed, by a group of middle-eastern males.

No one can deny it happens often. I even heard some Lebanese Christians ring up the day after Australia day, talking about how the night before, on Australia Day, packs of middle-eastern youth were walking the streets looking to bash Anglo's on their national day, to show who's boss.

They were lucky they said because of their appearance.

What is this country coming to?

You could have spent your article writing something serious, that needs to be said, about Muslim intolerance towards women, or better still, Christians.

In all your attitudes of discrimination of what Christ would face, you could have said what would have surely happened to him in a Muslim country, where churches are regularly burnt, Christian priests occassionally murdered (where they are allowed to practice that is, in many nations, they forbid churches) and followers attacked, robbed, kidnapped.

Why didn't you? Easier to attack fundamentalist Christians perhaps?

What fundamentalism, that they don't agree with abortion? Try talking about abortion to an Islamic person, it isn't even mentioned in their community.

Come on, get real. You've wasted an article.

Try writing an article about Mohammed, even tongue in cheek, you'll still be killed by redneck Muslims.

Pardon me Benjamin but YOUR bias is showing (and reflects badly upon you)

Only you mentioned 'Fundamentalist' Christians - the article has no mention of the word.

Try actually reading what the article says and not what your bias is telling you it says and you might just see that the article is asking ALL of us - you and me, no matter what our religion,schism or belief - to examine our actions in the light of Jesus' actions and quoted sayings.

The article takes a dig at the attitiudes of those in society who like to believe that whatever they do is 'right' and whatever they don't do is 'wrong' and who create a 'moral' society on this myth, the most hypocritical of whom do so while claiming they follow Jesus' teachings by calling themselves Christian and claiming we should live by such "christian" morals.

You could try and remember that, when Jesus lived, those who opposed him and ultimately had him executed were NOT Christians (neither was Christ - he was a True believer in the God of the Jews, Yahweh (Jehovah) therefore much of the article criticises those people (sadly many similar attitudes are present in today's society) not 'Fundamentalist Christians' as you seem to feel.

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?

Or how will you tell your brother,'Let me remove the speck from your eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own eye?

You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."
As Jesus put it Matt:7:3-5

Hawaiilawyer,
not in 350 words or less : )

While i could not prove corruption such as bribery and fraud and embezzlement in a court of law (i have no doubts that all exist in the highest echelons of Australian politics and leadership), the corruption i was referring to is epitomised in the following behaviours and the countless daily repetitions of similar practice they engender:

John Howard declaring on national television that Nuclear Energy is 'clean and green' knowing full well that spills/leaks occur regularly, even in our sole reactor at Lucas Heights, and millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced mining and refining Uranium.

Amanda Vanstone and Phillip Ruddock removing Australia's offshore islands from the sanctity of legal protection as a way to prevent people landing on them being able to claim protections under Australian law as refugees.

Our government locking men women and children up behind razorwire for years on end ( most recently in other countries ! ) for the crime of applying for refugee status without satisfactory documentation.

Our government not upholding their obligation under international treaty to prevent payments to Saddam Hussein even though all contracts were provided to them for examination and clearly showed that almost 300 million dollars were being illegally paid to the regime via a known Jordainan 'front' company of Saddams and many people told government representatives that bribes were being paid by a particular Australian company responsible for billions of dollars of wheat export.

Commercial TV networks announcing that Daylight Saving was being introduced for 3 years as a statement of fact when it had not been approved by either of the two levels of state parliament and after three separate referenda had been held in the 30 years before, all of which were against the introduction.
I can go on and on.

Part One

Posted in another section more recently - thought it might interest.

An earlier edition of the Guardian in the Weekly Review section by Mark Lattimer, had the centre of the main page revealing which looks like a copy of a painting of the boy Jesus surrounded by an ethereal glow with an adult male and female each side of him, also in Holy representation.

What made the pictorial even more interesting is that the foreground reveals the heads and shoulders of devote looking Christian Arabs moving into the Church.

The major headline simply expresses the phrase MASS EXODUS - the accompanying italics intimating that .........”as it is believed that a good half of Iraq’s Christians have now fled, why haven’t coalition forces done more to protect them?”

It seesms that Mark Lattimer and crew had gone to the extra trouble of showing the painting to reveal a truth that a trained journalist might understand but not the general public.

As one gets older during retirement having spent years studying the philosophy of Western history, he becomes more and more shocked how much what could have been revealed as genuine Middle-East Christian history has been deliberately left out because it is not the way the Church and Christian governments want the Christian story to be told.

Seeing that so many of our OLO appear so learned, probably much more than myself with an early small school upbringing, would like comments regarding the following suggestions?

Part Two

The boy Jesus revealed in the pictorial is very much like the story of the boy Jesus revealed to us by possibly an over-devout mother.

Therefore it was reasonably easy to believe when studying historical philosophy that the suggestion that the boy Jesus with his so-called intellectual brightness could have been naturally gifted like the young Socrates.

As the Bible does indicate the boy Jesus as a person eager to mix among learned people, as well that Jesus spent time in Egypt with his family. Accordingly, this does fit in with suggestions that the young Jesus could have attended the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt, as history books do indicate that more than half the pupils of the Great Library were Jews.

It is so interesting that the Sermon on the Mount without the accompanying spiritual content could have easily come from Socratic or even Platonic folklore.

One could also dare to suggest, that journalists like Lattimer are eager to reveal in their reports how certain Christian groups have long not been accepted and left to suffer by our Christian churches and their governments, and the case in Iraq has been easy to shut them out because they have stayed too friendly with the Islamics.

Indeed, there is much evidence to support the historical fact that the Arabic type Christians could be the true Christians rather than the Romanised believers. The Coptic-style Christians, as they are also known, are apparently not accepted because they are not forced to believe in the Holy Trinity, which after all was only finally made officially spiritual by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he presided over the Council of Nicaea in the early 3rd Century AD, when much of the Christian Church by then had become Romanised or Latinised.

Finally, because the news article only deals with the effects that the attack on Iraq has brought on Iraqi Christians, the use of the pictorial with its features suggesting a devotion more towards the Jesus of Nazareth, than the later latinised Jesus Christ, must be seen as a tribute to the article editors

Hawaiilawyer,

If you have the stomach for it please read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1162184626-/MrWUMVxWPg51RHGeIfZRw

Although it is evidence of your own government's corruption (in this case of scientific truth)it is typical of the kind of corruption Australia's leaders borrow from 'the Land of the Free' and other great dictatorships dressed up in democratic clothing.

Brain Drain

What the world is interested in is, as you know, not what Jesus is interested in. But let me say this about covering up scientific fact for political reasons. The reasons, I'm guessing, may include maintaining sole superpower status in the face of an economically rising China, a waiting Russia, a want-to-be unified Caliphate Middle East. Given an American population that loves to drive and otherwise use oil from the Middle East, American leaders would not be inclined to cede any power of any kind to those rising, waiting, or wanting. For that reason, covering up scientific fact in order to deal with countries that don't want to stop polluting, and therefore have an industrial economic advantage (I realize, as the world slides into global warming) -- and therefore keep sole superpower status, is a worldly political goal that may have the merit of not giving power to: China, Russia, the Middle Eastern oil producing countries.

In terms of geopolitics, considering whether one might prefer Western supremacy, rather than Chinese, Russian, or Middle Eastern, would one choose Western?

As for science, science is truth or facts writ small -- according to whatever areas of research are funded, though facts nonetheless.

Also part of the truth is righteousness, Jesus or God style.

Would it be RIGHT to have the Chinese/Russians/Muslims (countries) the sole superpower? Hard choice.

I really can't say. Read Revelation. The countries who take sides, and which sides. We're on God's timetable.

While I admire your desire for truth, I don't consider communists of any kind to be good candidates for world rule, given their track record of blithe genocide, even as I realize records of mass murder (or even one murder) are relative. More murderous compared to less murderous -- all look pretty bad to God.

The world is complex, and motives are hard to read. Even motives for hiding scientific fact.

"Indeed, there is much evidence to support the historical fact that the Arabic type Christians could be the true Christians rather than the Romanised believers. The Coptic-style Christians, as they are also known, are apparently not accepted because they are not forced to believe in the Holy Trinity, which after all was only finally made officially spiritual by the Roman Emperor Constantine when he presided over the Council of Nicaea in the early 3rd Century AD, when much of the Christian Church by then had become Romanised or Latinised."

Bushbred do you mind if I ask where you heard/read that?

Hawaiilawyer,

I risk going off-topic here but i feel a need to discuss a view i detect in your post.

Firstly I thank you for recognising that truth (both literal and Spiritual) is important to me (and hopefully everyone else).

The world IS a complex place. It is thus because of the many lies that our leaders want us to believe in order that we do not rock their and their master's boats and claim the power for ourselves that we willingly (or unconsciously) give away.

This is true of all societies and communities that have power placed in the hands of a small elite, be they Communist, Islamist, Christian or 'democratic'.

Accepting the lies because we believe we might be 'better off' than if another minority ruled over us is abhorrent to me. (as it was to Christ). Supporting one 'superpower's' domination over the planet out of the fear of how life might be under a supposed rise by another world dominating power is both immoral and illogical. One group should not seek to unify a world under their belief (control) that is clearly made of many differing groups united only through their humanity and the poverty of most of their citizens compared to the elite.

The Truth is that any minority can only rule and remain in power by spreading lies that a majority of the electorate (usually only a minority,< 50%, of an electorate votes a government in in western 'democracies') will fall for - or remain in sufficient doubt over - so as not to take action.

It is the duty of all intelligent citizens to demand their leaders speak the truth about issues that affect not only their own life (literally) but the lives of the majority in our country and also in other countries foreign to ours.

The hypocracy esposed daily by leaders such as Bush, Blair and Howard are an anathema to me (and to those who actually follow Christ's wisdom, not that of the christian church leaders (another powerful elite dependent upon lying to the populace), such as the Pope).

I declare:

All that is needed for Evil to Rule the Earth is for Good People to do nothing - or to do that which clouds and confuses the truth of a matter rather than clarifying.

Regardless of whether you choose to believe in religion, the Bible or in Jesus, there is ultimate Truth in Jesus's words - if you can find examples that are not taken 'out of context'.

Morality (right and wrong) is written in your Heart and needs to sometimes be carefully ananlysed by your head in order not to be corrupted by those who rely upon the poor thought of others for their own power.

Wisdom is to be sought and cherished in all things.

In time, there will be a world ruler, called the anti-Christ, because he will be wholly of the world, that is material. Under his rule, no one will be able to buy or sell, probably without the Verichip installed in head or hand.

As I noted previously, speaking of the world and worldly things, I DESCRIBED, not evaluated as "good," the motives of leaders in covering up scientific findings of global warming.

"Good," however, is more difficult. The world and its interests e.g. driving cars, having cars, buying oil products, products made with oil, have nothing to do with Jesus. He was not of this world but of his kingdom. Nothing, it is true, will be good until he returns to rule.

To be absolutely ethical, however, one would have to step out of this world, not drive a car, except a solar run car etc., not wear clothing dyed with color that pollutes the environment, not paint one's house with paint that pollutes in the making of it, and in the cleaning up o it. I could go on about ethics and the "good."

Humans can't be ethical, no matter how hard they try.

Pointing the finger at others doesn't get it either. Which is why Jesus came to tell us that we aren't HIM, and can't be.

As for choosing to live under communists, under caliphates, or under relatively more free societies, I choose the latter, which allows me to write this blog

Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do GREATER works than these, because I am going to my Father.

WHATEVER you will ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you will ask ANYTHING in my name, I will do it.

If you LOVE ME, keep my Commandments.
John 14:12-15

We are not the pure son of God but we are (ALL) God's children in whom and by whom miracles will be performed (greater than those of Jesus who raised the dead),if we but have faith as a mustard seed. (miniscule size compared to a human body)

John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he doesn't follow with us."

Jesus said to him, "Don't forbid him, for he who is not against us is for us."
Luke 9:49-50

"If yer not with us, yer agin us"
George W Bush

Those who cannot see the difference between christian Bush and Christ follower John's two statements will get all you truly deserve.

Hawaiilawyer, you paint a picture of no hope for us today, I suspect you long for the coming of the Anti-christ.

'Humans can't be ethical, no matter how hard they try'.

Not if you only deal in absolutes! To me Ethics is a spectrum: we do good when we move away from corruption, greed and contol over others and move towards Truth, Charity and encouraging self-control and Peace among all men.

You are free to live wherever you choose(almost). That does not mean everyone in your society is. On Earth Freedom is relative - it is not absolute.

If we do not persue truth from our leaders at all times is our society worthy of being called civilised? Or of global domination?

A lawyer lecturing us on ethics? what next

Personally i would rather paint a Way to a picture of True Hope for all mankind and encourage any and all of us to fight for truth from our leaders and Faith and self-control (and even self-denial of that which corrupts us away from our Soul's purpose here on Earth) in our own minds and bodies rather than justifying the unjust and giving cause to keep people in darkness and poverty and perverting their faith.

I ask Jesus for a better world than we have let be created by man here NOW - starting today! Open your heart, eyes and ears to truth. Speak out and demand better from your elected leaders (or dictators) when you hear lies being spouted as propaganda for elite regimes. Do God's work, not George Bush's, Or Ahminajad's, Or Olmert's, Or Jong-Il's, Or Howard's.

This applies to Muslim's and conned christians alike. Even to the Hebrews, although i fear it will be much more difficult for most of them, because of their history.

Thou Shall Not Kill!

Thou Shall Not Bear FALSE Witness!.

What part of NOT don't American/Australian christians get??

C'mon all you George and Johhny Lovers out there explain THAT one to me?

Brain Drain

It seems to me that Jesus said don't be of this world. Be in it, but not of it. He didn't say to the Jews take over the Roman world. He didn't say get into politics. He said tell the world of the salvation he offers. When Pontius Pilate asked him if he was the king of the Jews, Jesus said "You say it."

I'm not preaching ethics to you. I telling you what I think the Bible says. It says the ruler of the world is the devil, who is the father of lies, and of murder. The father of Cain.

And what is the world? Politics. Politics is a human solution. It is your choice if you seek it. When did Jesus run for office? Never.

Jesus came to destroy the works of the Devil. The work of the devil is sin (mankind sinning), the wages/compensation of which is death (human mortality). He did that by dying on the cross for our sins. That is a message of hope. He put an end to death, should we choose to follow.

He gave us an example to follow. Lean on him, not on our own understanding. Lean on the Holy Spirit.

What does the Holy Spirit say about this conversation we're having?
Ask in all things about everything, says God. So, what does he say?

I really don't know what you think on all the issues you think you have presented in this conversation, the issues which you expect me to agree with. Further, there is no need for me to agree with you.

My mission is to present what Jesus said to the world. That is what offers all humans everywhere the most hope -- whether or not they believe it, it is a fact.

OK Hawaiilawyer your last post made some reasonable points.

I think we are geting slightly off-post (the topic was about an 'Immoral' Jesus: one who did what was 'wrong' as those in power (on Earth) would have had 'us' see it, and how those in power 2000 years later might expect their followers to see it (Him or those who do like Him) today.

Having said that - back to your post.

Is it possible for you to post a biblical quote(s) that encapsulates your first comment? - That Jesus beseeched us to be 'in' the world but not 'Of' it? I would like to see for myself Jesus' motives there.

I know you are not preaching anything like ethics to me. Your earlier posts however made statements that could be incorrectly interpretted by some very easily into justifying Bush's stance on hiding the Truth from his people - something i do not believe is ever justified, certainly not on Climate Change and those most responsible for it.

Using the fear of global domination by Muslim or Communist dictatorships as justification for our elected leaders lying to us and using political standover tactics to keep the truth from being known i do not agree with at all.

My argument applies equally to those people in such areas of politics as those you seemingly vilify.

Clearly if Jesus came, as you claim, to destroy the works of the Devil he has not succeeded in the last 2000 years and much of mankind has suffered horribly here by holding onto such a fantasy.

Jesus did not put an end to death (more christian fantasy). I do not believe that humans could not find Eternal Life before Jesus was born, so His 'death' on the cross did not provide that for all of mankind either.

I do not deny Jesus' birthright or his value as a role model but i make claims based upon his words in the Bible and elsewhere and do not trust one iota 'traditional' christian instruction and dogma.
(cont)

I do so in an attempt to make the World (the only reality i am definitively aware of) politically and morally a better place so that more may understand and take back power over their own lives rather than giving it away to others to abuse.

To that end we may have similar motives and beliefs although we both might be suspect of each other and the way we seem to bring them into being.

Forgive me if i feel your words show you as more interested in a better life hereafter than improving the one we are all condemned to endure here now. I don't have quite the faith you seem to have in what that actually entails (the coming of an Antichrist; thousand years of satanic rule; and the 'New Jerusalem on Earth' - the Golden Age)

The hope you seem to rely on appears to me to be a fabrication by christian elite rulers intent upon keeping that power for themselves by getting their followers to believe that only they can correctly interpret God's word and determine dogma and scripture to reinforce that position.

My position is to offer a more immediate hope - one that involves making the real world a better place, by challenging the 'devils' work wherever and whenever i 'detect' it.

Braindrain,

Just so you don't misinterpret my comments ... there seems to be some George Bush issue kicking around that I'd rather not backtrack to and get involved with.

"Is it possible for you to post a biblical quote(s) that encapsulates your first comment..."

You quoted a number of scriptures. If you got them from your own reading rather than subjecting power to another then keep reading in the New Testament and you won't be able to miss it. I don't believe Jesus became a hippy until the 70s when people associated Da Vinci's long haired Jesus with the hippy culture. Prior to that he was God.

"I do not deny Jesus' birthright or his value as a role model but i make claims based upon his words in the Bible and elsewhere and do not trust one iota 'traditional' christian instruction and dogma."

What do you mean by "elsewhere" and do you get the Bible words yourself or are they ones someone else selected?

"...take back power over their own lives rather than giving it away to others to abuse."

In my opinion noone is an island. You are entitled to your opinion but promise you won't give power to people who are much more likely to abuse you then a priest.

"The hope you seem to rely on appears to me to be a fabrication by christian elite rulers intent upon keeping that power for themselves by getting their followers to believe that only they can correctly interpret God's word and determine dogma and scripture to reinforce that position."

If you take away faith is it really all that good to spend your time being considered such an authority in a secularizing world? Just a few paragraphs back you seemed to accept Jesus' words. Now you seem to be rejecting Churches.

"My position ... involves making the real world a better place, by challenging the 'devils' work wherever and whenever i 'detect' it."

I wouldn't call that unChristian. If you love and respect people in the process you are very close to that which you criticize

Part I:

1) Hebrews 11:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things
which do appear.
...But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewa
rder of them that diligently seek him.

2) John l:l
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.

[Jesus is the Word, and he is God. The Bible is the Word, not some
figment of an elitist human imagination]

3. The work of God is to believe the one he sent.

[God the father sent God the son to explain things of God to
humans. The Bible is the story of the lives of numerous
individuals who believed, or had difficulties believing,
or believed then backtracked -- and God relates what actually
happened in each case -- to draw pictures for us all, based
on real lives -- like reality t.v. before t.v. was ever
invented, except this time, true reality].


In the world but not of it:

l)Matthew l6:26:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

2) Matthew 4:l-11

2) Matthew 4: 8

...the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and
sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou
wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

All human problems start with human choices. In order to change bad choices, Jesus as God offers a metachoice to each individual -- change the source of his/her guidance system.

The two commandments of God which sum up the ten l) love your God with all your heart, mind... = choose him as the rudder/guide of your life and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. Don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to you. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't lie. Don't cheat. Don't commit adultery. Don't destroy others. This is the formula for a happy life. It is also the formula for "peace on earth, good will toward men". Jesus is the prince of peace.

He offers himself as the rudder of mankind. He offers those who have done some of these sins a fresh start, an opportunity to be forgiven, and a helper in times of need (the Holy Spirit).

This is supernatural help. He's not a human role model. He's God come in the flesh to be the map -- "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." John l4:6.

He gives people who choose to be born again in the spirit of God the opportunity and God-reinforced power to choose not to do the Cain thing, the Jezebel thing (advising her husband Ahab how to steal a neighbor's land through false testimony and murder). They change through what they choose not to do, their little corner of the world.

Each one saved, guided to change their choices through the help of the spirit of God.

Jesus as God knew, and knows, what he is doing. Omniscient = all-knowing.

Immoral? Moi?

HL, thanks,

‘seems to me that Jesus said don't be of this world. Be in it, but not of it….’

From all you have written it seems to me you are reading between the lines, not even paraphrasing Jesus. That can be a very tricky road to travel. Exercise extreme caution. You cannot say what Jesus did not say because you have never been privy to all that he did say – the Bible is sadly incomplete.

Mjpb

If you can live with your position on GW so can I. I believe he is doing more of the devil’s work than he is of Christ’s tho’ and am prepared to make my case whereever, whenever.

As for where I get my quotes: I own two Bibles, and I have the on-line parallel bible web page on my PC favourites and refer to these frequently (last 15 years). I do not give my power to another in this issue. I communicate with ‘God’ one-to-one, through reading and meditation only.

I have ‘missed it’ (the way HL describes) that’s why I asked for quotes. Each of us interprets things according to their collected wisdom. I have not collected what HL seems to have on this point (and a few others it appears) so I wanted to see why he/she said what they said based upon Jesus’s words. I don’t consider Jesus a Hippy (Jesus might, but I don’t see any need).

‘Elsewhere’, is wherever I find reasonably reliable (consistent with my heart’s knowledge) sources. A non-mainstream one is the works of Edmund Bordeaux Szekely who has translated the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Q’um ran. I find his works most enlightening.

As you may know, what we refer to as the Bible today owes it’s form to the Roman Catholic Church (the same Romans who crucified Christ), and was not ‘formalised’ (edited) until the 4th century after his death on the cross. Those who preach only from the Bible might speak truly but they do not possess all of Jesus’ wisdom, only that they have been allowed to see.
(cont).

The words of Jesus contained therein are true, but I believe the Whole Truth was covered up by Roman deceivers for purposes best known to them (and perhaps one ‘other’). The words are definitely not the only ones Jesus ever uttered yet many today believe that the Bible contains the only (true) record of Jesus. There are more than just 4 Gospels. I do not believe that only the 4 comprise the true words He spoke. Much of what he spoke was ‘immoral’ according to christian church founders and has been hidden from the ‘official’ record.

I do not ‘give’ power to abuse me (or anyone) to ANYONE - I will fight for the right of ALL to be free of corruption and deceit, as I would wish they do for me. At times I might be misled by carefully contrived deceit as anyone of us can, but by speaking out my mind and listening to dissent I try to determine the Truth (put all things to the test - 1 Thessalonians 5:21) I believe blind faith in Dogma to be very dangerous.

My aim is not to remove faith but to establish a direct link from where it resides (within each of us) to where it truly belongs and to encourage people to find it personally rather than be told how to find it and what to do to ensure it and ‘everlasting life’ by those who profit from it. (Why is the Vatican possessor of vast earthly wealth? Do they truly follow their Lord Jesus? Or another lord?)

Am I UnChristian? I see a great distinction between Christ and christianity). I profess to being unchristian (and unmuslim). I believe in Christ and ‘He’ who sent Him. The same who is within us all if we are not afraid to truly look. Seek and ye shall find.

I criticise the hypocrisy, deceit and hidden agenda of churches and ‘leaders’ and encourage all to open their eyes and ears and hearts and return worship to whom it belongs and where it belongs. Man’s church has no part in my Faith.

The Jesus of the scrolls found at Qumran is not the Jesus of the Bible.

There is a great chasm of difference between God and man, according to the Bible. According to almost all of the add-to-the Bible religions,
man is God or can be.

To say that man is or can be God hints that there is no such thing as sin. If there is no sin, then man is perfect, or can be. If there is no sin, there is nothing to repent of (to change). If there is no sin, death is not the consequence of sinning, since there is no sin.

Everything in the Qumran scrolls contradicts the Bible.

Satan is the one who sought to be God, and he seeks to make individuals in his own image, seeking to be God. That is not a possibility.

Studying God and his ways in the Bible, this is easy to see. We can't turn water into wine. We can't control molecules like the creator of the universe can. Neither do we love our neighbor as ourselves.

God however, loves us, warts and all. This does not mean, however, that he is going to make that decision for us, that we must make, to change our ways. It does not mean that anything we say, do or believe is "okay."

It is not okay to contradict the Bible. There are consequences. It is not okay to add to it. The Bible has a specific message, for a specific purpose. So that man can realize who he is relative to who God is, and who he is not relative to God. Once man can see that, he knows that he is not God and can never be. And then he knows whose help he needs.

There is a problem with mankind, with the nature of man. To say that man can be God is to be in denial about that nature, to confuse man with God.

Google "Charles Stanley" on the subject of God's ways.

Braindrain

"I believe he is doing more of the devil’s work than he is of Christ’s tho’ and am prepared to make my case whereever, whenever."

I'm happy to listen to your case. If your case is lacking would you acknowledge that you would be doing the devil's work?

"... Bible today owes it’s form to the Roman Catholic Church (the same Romans who crucified Christ), and was not ‘formalised’ (edited) until the 4th century after his death on the cross. Those who preach only from the Bible might speak truly but they do not possess all of Jesus’ wisdom, only that they have been allowed to see."

By the fourth century the Romans who crucified Christ were long dead. Romans involved in compiling (not editing) the Bible were a subset of pious Christians from around the world. Constantine converted and stopped the Christian persecution by Romans.

Why would Jesus set up a Church, bless it with His Holy Spirit and then let it fall apart in the 4th Century by allowing something to happen that would mean that almost any non-conspiracy theorist Christian would be led into error? Does that make sense to you? (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

"The words of Jesus contained therein are true."

Then you believe that the Church is the bullwark of truth not Dan Brown so wouldn't it make sense that it would have protected the truth not fiddle with it in the 4th Century? (1 Tim 3:15)

"Much of what he spoke was ‘immoral’ according to christian church founders and has been hidden from the ‘official’ record."

See above comments with Thess reference.

"I criticise the hypocrisy, deceit and hidden agenda of churches and ‘leaders’ and encourage all to open their eyes and ears and hearts and return worship to whom it belongs and where it belongs. Man’s church has no part in my Faith."

It isn't hidden. It is just myth. Jesus set up a Church for humans. It is integral to the faith. It keeps us grounded in the faith. Without the Church people get all manner of unique ideas.

Mjpb and HL, (we are getting way off-post Perhaps another discussion needs to be started if you feel so strongly? )

Part 1 of 3

I feel sorry for you

You have allowed the corruption of the Holy Word to blind you to TRUTH and argue correctly in your own minds but falsely in the way of man, Not of Jesus.

Like Satan you can quote from the Bible (Man’s work, overriding God’s) Your motives may be pure but your logic upon which those motives are based is false. That is the reason for my sorrow.

I feel it possible you might feel a similar argument in my case. It is doubtful I will change your set minds.

The words of Jesus in the Bible have been translated from Aramaic, firstly into Hebrew/Greek and into english today, by many, possibly devout christians, but as we cannot ask them their motives it is impossible to be sure of their convictions. Anyone who tries to read Chinese translated into English by Google will quickly understand that translation of the words is sometimes difficult but of the actual meaning is Infinitely harder. As to which works were allowed in and which denied to most of the christian world it was the very highest of the Elite who decided that – it was not done by ‘the people’ in committee. It has been polluted.

‘Nothing shall be added to or taken from’ is a quote from, and applies to, Revelation only – the last book of 56. Much has been taken from and not included where it should.

‘Everything in the Q’um ran scrolls contradicts the Bible’?? Man, even for a lawyer, that is just too puerilely stupid to even bother showing just how false it is, Do some research ! How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously after that comment?

The 'Bible' was compiled and EDITED for 2000 years before the 4th cent. Much more was included than has been finally left in (editing, leaving out, omitting, Hidden)

Part 2 of 3

Rome adopted christianity as it’s religion after almost 800 years of homage to Roman Gods and growing secularism and compteting religions within it’s empire. It did so at it’s Emperor’s decree to try to ensure he was able to stay in power. It was a compromise and the Bible has been compromised by the same forces that led to the crucifixion. (and yes I know full well that Jesus chose to die on the cross and therefore could not have been ‘betrayed’ by Judas. Judas was part of God’s plan, not Satan’s. Jesus HAD to die before he could claim power over life and death.

You trust other’s words for the denial of the Scrolls – not your own reading of the translations and declare falsely that the Jesus in them is not one and the same. Mr Szekely is in no doubt and just one of his quotations is of Jesus casting out the legion and turning them into swine. Only the Son of man had the power and faith in God to do that at the time.

I tell you – forget, if you are able, all you have been told by minds not your own and listen to the truth with your own heart and mind and eyes and ears be not corrupted by any man. Seek the Truth in ALL things. And prove those that lie only for yourself. Using true logic and faith for guidance.

There is a Massive chasm between God and man but God created man out of his own works and from his own being with the intention of establishing a link between them that cannot ever be broken (even by death) God exists within us all, it is up to us to chose to accept him or deny him in our mind. Our soul can never deny God because it comes from the same source and comprises an infinitesimally small part of God.

No, I have read translations of gnostic writings found at Nag Hammadi and Qumran.

And the Jesus of gnosticism IS diametrically unlike the Jesus of the Bible.

Gnosticism claims man is a divine spark trapped in matter (the body), and that the purpose of gaining knowledge, of evolving, is to shed that matter and release the divine spark so that it can travel back to God, being a part of God in the first place.

Christianity, on the other hand, says that man is not divine and cannot be. In addition to not being divine, man is fallen, his original parents having chosen to rebel against God's direction and protection, going it on their own, having been enticed to believe God was being stingy when he said they could have the bounty of all the trees in the garden of Eden except one (which the serpent twisted to say that Didn't God say you couldn't eat of the tree...?, as if God was treating A&E poorly, or not in their best interest).

Gnostics believe they can reach "the light" on their own, and that this light is the divine.

Christianity says there is only one way to the Father, that is through Jesus.

You can either believe the God of creation or you can reject what he says. Apparently you reject what he says.

There is a vast chasm of difference and consequence between believing oneself a divine spark trapped in the body, able to eventually transcend the body and return to a divine state, and believing that one is not God, but that God is infinitely trustworthy, and here to help and guide one.

Part II

Isaiah 55:89:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your
ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my
ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
thoughts.

Compare with:

The [Gnostic] Gospel of Thomas:

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke
...:

And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these
sayings will not experience death."
Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he
finds. When he finds...he will rule over the all."

_________

2 Peter l:9-l0...:

But these...speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;...Spots they
are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings
while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that
cannot cease from sin....

...I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance. That ye
may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the
holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of
the Lord and Savior: Knowing this first, that there shall
come in the last days, scoffers....

See also:

l John 3:8:

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth
from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was
manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Compare with:

The [Gnostic] Gospel of Mary:

Peter said to him, "...tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?" The Savior said, "There is no sin...."

I reiterate -- there is the word of God, and there are other words that oppose it. The work of God (doing his work) is to believe the one he sent.

If someone says "Jesus says" and the content of what he/she says is
diametrically opposed to what the Bible says Jesus said, then I
contend that the message of the former is "anti-Christ" or opposed to
what Jesus came to say and do on earth for humans. Further, the human consequences are vastly different (for part III).

Braindrain,

Please answer this question:

"By the fourth century the Romans who crucified Christ were long dead. Romans involved in compiling (not editing) the Bible were a subset of pious Christians from around the world. Constantine converted and stopped the Christian persecution by Romans."

Why would Jesus set up a Church, bless it with His Holy Spirit and then let it fall apart in the 4th Century by allowing something to happen that would mean that almost any non-conspiracy theorist Christian would be led into error? Does that make sense to you? (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

You said:

"The words of Jesus contained therein are true."

Thus why do you jump to the conclusion that some gnostic myth that clearly conflicts with them must be correct and adopt this conspiracy theory that amount to God abandoning His people? Please apply Thessalonians 5:21 and reconsider.

Part 3 of 3

In this sense ‘we’ are God. By chosing to deny such (we can only do this in our physical form) we do the work of the devil.. Satan did not desire to BE God, he sought (the same) power AS God. Understand the difference, it is important. God Created Satan – he had to or there could be no ‘free will’. If Satan does not exist what choice is there? On Earth we can choose ‘rightly’ or ‘wrongly’ Once we die that is impossible – we remember from whom we all came.

We do not perform miracles such as turning water to wine – God does that through our faith and our request. That we do not possess true faith is the reason we do not live up to Jesus’ instruction he gave to us through his disciples as quoted before.

Because the church would not have us own such power for ‘ourselves’ but rather have us give it only to them is part of the evidence I need to establish that the church and the Bible have been corrupted and you both follow incomplete teachings. Satan is truly IN the church. His fruits are everywhere. He uses God’s work to achieve his own ends (The Usurper).

Again I urge you to open your minds to the truth. Denounce evil and lies and truth contrived to fit another plan. Look into why I might be right and then explain why and if you still think me wrong. I have no doubt from what you have written so far that I am in any way wrong. How can there be so much that is wrong with this world (and His church) 2000 years after God sent His son to redeem us if christianity is right?

I have more challenges to those you make but the theme should be obvious… remove your bias imposed by those other than yourself and look for the truth in more than the one source you have been allowed to see thus far.

Again – another discussion so we don’t bore anyone here?

Why is there so much evil in the world? Humans choose it, following their fallen natures, and tempted to follow always by the Devil.

God is not responsible for evil. Humans are -- humans choose it...the Cain thing (murder), the Jezebel thing (theft, murder, false witness, deception).

The purpose of sending the Holy Spirit to those who agree to be born again, is to give them the opportunity of relying on the spirit for their choices. This choice of being born again, of admitting one's sins, then of choosing to follow Jesus is a choice that is declined by many.

To THINK GNOSTICALLY that man can achieve good by himself because he is a divine spark (godlike)is to be in denial about man's natural bent towards selfishness (bent out of fear that God cannot and will not provide). GNOSIS is based on an insufficient view of who God is, encouraged by the Devil, as in the garden (God is stingy and unreliable according to the serpent; man can provide).

Jesus described himself for our benefit, if we would hear and understand: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." He WAS -- before time itself. Were we?

Matthew 22:37-40: Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment [i.e. understand who God is].

"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Follow God's Word with all your mind. Do not depart mind-first into gnosis by mistaking man's capacities, and therefore mistaking who God is and why he makes his offer of salvation (which we desperately need). Adam and Eve had blurred vision/mis-perception of themselves and of God, their MINDS misled and enticed by the serpent, the most subtle (most intelligent) animal in the garden). We are not the most intelligent creatures God created....

Mjpb

Answer: once Jesus left his disciples (you shall not have me with you always) the entire Earth and man on it again came under the dominion of the Fallen one. Satan is not God but has power over men on earth, power to corrupt their minds and deceive. He does this best when he convinces them they do God’s work while they do the devil’s.

The Church of Jesus (on Earth) is NOT the church of Rome.

Jesus knows God (‘is’ God) Those men who truly follow Jesus know it is as his Father commanded in the 6th commandment. They understand it is better to die on Earth keeping your faith in God than to kill in God’s name.

Did christianity become the church of Rome by killing and conquest? What happened after Rome took over Jesus’ church – Death unto this day (will you tell George Bush it is wrong to kill in the name of God or should I? (At least I have tried Have you?))

In the 16th century the Pope had put to death those heretics who claimed the Earth was not the centre of the Universe and it rotated around the sun – is that Jesus’s church – or man’s (the devil’s)?

In the 20th century Catholics and Protestants kill each other in Ireland and elsewhere.

Which exactly IS God’s church? Catholicism? Protestantism? Anglicanism? Baptism? The Church of JC and the Latter Day Saints? Islam? Judaism?

To the 2 of you.

You are completely unqualified to know the will and minds of Gnostics. Your untruths prove this.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. You see only that you wish to see ( like most christians of whom Bush is a typical example – he leads others to sin as himself.)

Jesus is in my heart. I speak his words truly (wherever they are written) I do not listen to man’s church on earth but that of Jesus in my heart.

Do as you will.

I do not deny what you say about Jesus .

Which Jesus is that? Is that the Jesus who says the wages of sin is death, giving you a universal law which applies to all humans and tells them of their future -- death, as a consequence of the choice to sin?

Or is that the so-called Jesus made up by the gnostics who claim Jesus said there is no sin?

Satan comes to steal and destroy. Steal what? The life you could have with Jesus, by leading you down the path of a re-defined Jesus.
Destroy what? Your soul, by leading you down the path away from Jesus, to another "Jesus."

There is a spiritual war for your life and your soul, waged in the heavens. There is a war in heaven over the Word of God.

Why would that be? This is a war over your will, your choices, over your mind -- wherein resides your power to decide your future. Satan wishes you to decide wrongly, in the belief that you are deciding rightly.

Stay close to the word of God in the Bible. Draw close to God and he will draw close to you.

Daniel 3 (on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego).

By the way, I don't go to church.

"It is said in the scriptures 'an eye for an eye' but i say unto you do Good for Evil" (thou shall NOT kill! thou shall only LOVE your fellow man (not only those who think as you) - even if it results in your own death on the cross - on Earth but gives you eternal life)

That Jesus - (the one in my heart who brings me closer to His Father and shows me true Wisdom.)

Anyone who denies his words is not of Him.

Neither is anyone who follows the words of a false 'prophet' who might speak with His name ("For there shall be Many" )

How America doth love Guns and War. Such a christian country.

Go Fight the Good Fight HL.

Jesus' actions are much more important than his words - hence "I am the Life, the Truth and the Way". Understanding this is the key to understanding everything else. A man or peace, who did not retaliate at his own torture and curcifixion. This is His ultimate example. Dare you truly follow Him?

Kevin,

Ghandi Did - (a Hindu) but i do not know of another since 1948.

Me personally? I think at this point in my understanding I would be screaming "I recant I recant" when put on the rack to be ripped apart for my 'heresy' by those good christian men of the time. You know - the ones who could not face the truth spoken of by man that God's Earth was not the centre of the Universe and hence not the most important place as they claimed God wanted man to believe. (they spoke 'for' God using the Bible and Jesus's words as 'proof'.)

Having my unfortunate medical condition (i am allergic to pain and torture) I fear I would not have total trust (Just like our Lord Jesus failed to at the end) that the afterlife is better for 'me' (my physical 'self') than this world is, and might choose to lie to save my unworthy hide.

Which reminds me.... If Jesus truly was GOD and not God's human son why would he ask: "My Lord, Why have you foresaken me"?? on the Cross

I find that curious. I am sure christians have a pre-made answer waiting.

Ghandi was probably caught 'off guard', even though he could reasonably have expected to be assassinated for his belief and actions, or die on one of his fasts, and only had time to say 'Oh God' at the time of his release from earthly suffering.

It is not recorded if he also had a similar doubt of personal faith as Jesus, temporarily, before imminent death.

Also, since Jesus fasted why do modern day churches not proclaim the benefits of fasting to all their bretheren or do they and i just never noticed it?

HL? anyone?

"Anyone who denies his words is not of him"

Jesus did say he is the son of God the Father, and the Father as well (John l:l). He did say "I and the Father are one."

He did say his disciples could not cast out some demons/fallen angels because they needed to fast and pray. These cannot come out except by prayer and fasting.

When you speak of wisdom are you referring to his words, or to your thoughts, or to both?

I repeat, he also said his kingdom is not of this world. Politics is currently under the thrall of the devil, since all men are under that mental, spiritual, emotional slavery (unless they have agreed to be born again in the spirit of God, and agree daily to follow that spirit's leading). If you read the Bible, God raises up both kinds of leaders, good and evil, for his own purposes, within his plan for mankind. See especially the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 28: "...it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not harken unto the voice ofthe Lord thy God, to observe to do all the commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Cursed shalt thou be in the city and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land...Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out"

Reference: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

HL,
Wisdom is wisdom if it is True.

Whether true for mankind or true for God Truth is Truth.

I understand equally as well as you about the ways of man and of God's plan to match evil with Good on this particular planet. You may care to recall I advised you and mjpb to beware the evil of churches (of man). Deuteronomy (which i have read entirely)need only be quoted me when i say something that actually, rather than apparently, contradicts it and contradicts the word of Christ, not of man's interpretation of his word.

John 1:1 says the Word was with God. You equate 'a' Jesus with 'the' Word.

There is a detectable dichotomy between Jesus the Man and Jesus the Eternally living God.

You say Jesus said: I and the Father are one (a matter of interpretation. I can be as one with my Brother that does not make me my Brother) But God is in ALL of us and our entirity forms but a fraction of God so...

I say Jesus (the Man) while on the cross said: My Father, Why have YOU forsaken ME. (Eli! Eli! Lama sabach thani? Matt 27:46)

It is impossible to reconcile that statement with one and the same 'person'. Jesus/God.

I am certain you will try.

And if your first line was meant to imply that i deny the words of Jesus i challenge you to show that i do and it is not just your imperfect understanding of my words that blinds you to the truth in them.

You, like me, are human and thus fallible. And thus still able to be deceived by our imperfection. Your belief that you have accepted a fixed pre-existing notion of Jesus does not of itself make you the holder of all Truth. (it points to falsehood)

I do not try to deceive people away from God but to bring understanding of 'Him' to a wider group than you are capable of reaching.

Ghandi was a good role model for mankind. Just like the man Jesus the Christ.

By comparing Ghandhi and Jesus, you prove my point.Gandhi was a man, a mortal. Jesus was man and God.

God had to come in the form of a human, because humans are hard of hearing, and when not hard of hearing, unwilling to listen.

Just because you can't understand God as the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, doesn't mean that God doesn't exist as such.

In any case, it is futile setting the words of Jesus in front of you. In other words, futile debating you.

God may be interested in saving you from yourself, but I am not, since I am a human with a lot less patience and compassion than he has.

I prefer not to waste my time.

HL,

What? a lawyer cannot explain, and a Christ follower cannot be 'bothered' in explaining to a sinner why "My God. Why have you foresaken me?" destroys his own argument??

Were they the words of your 'Jesus is God' or not? Was the Bible wrong? Or was Jesus the human quoted 'out of context' by Matthew's Gospel? Could man's word and the Bible possibly contain something other than God's Ultimate Truth? Could it then omit much of that same Ultimate Truth?

Are your eye's and mind opening a little yet?

Maybe CS the Baptist can help you out?

Hmmmm... Interesting.

This will not be forgotten in the future - I assure you.

"...this will not be forgotten..."

That's right, I don't care if you are unsaved. And how do you know that the Holy Spirit didn't tell me to stop communicating with you?