Michael wrote:
“I love Christ for a very simple reason. I love an have accepted his
teaching.”

I feel the same way about Jesus. I have very much respect and
admiration for what he taught. And even more admiration for the fact
that he shared his wisdom with the masses.

I’d like to share a view I have about Jesus.

Often times, when people are sitting around talking someone will asks a
question, “If you could go back in history and have a live discussion
with someone who would you choose to visit?” Almost inevitably someone
will suggest that they would most like to visit with Jesus. And once,
that thoughts been brought up most other people will agree that Jesus is
the one person they would like to talk with most. I think this may be
because they feel that he is God.

I view Jesus as just a man. Certainly not an ordinary man, but then
Martin Luther King wasn’t an ordinary man either. And although I
respect Jesus highly for what he did, I wouldn’t find conversing with
him to be very interesting. Why not? Because I would just sit there
and keep saying, “I agree” to everything he says. I may as well talk to
myself in a mirror. I don’t mean that to claim that I am some kind of
saint, but rather to simply point out that I totally agree with
everything Jesus was saying.

What I admire about Jesus was not so much his views, but rather that he
selflessly dedicated his life to his life to enlightening those around
him. The same is true for Martin Luther King. If I sat down to talk
with Rev. King I would just find myself saying, “I agree” to everything
he says. The difference between myself and Rev. King was not in our
views, but rather Martin Luther King devoted his life to actually
helping to enlighten those around him. As far as I’m concerned Martin
Luther King is on a totally equal footing with Jesus are far as making
every effort to enlighten humanity and help the world become a better
place.

While I agree with the moral values of both of these great men (and many
others) I’m just not the kind of person to go out into the world to try
to make a difference. I’m just not into politics. And while many
people may not view Jesus as a political leader he actually was. He was
just a very moral and spiritual political leader. Just like Martin
Luther King was.

Michael wrote:
“The bible itself is not one book by any means. It is many books put
into the same binder. I find the Bible interesting because of looking at
the original languages that these books were written in. King James
tried to put his own spin on it, but I find the originals to be much
more interesting.”

I’m curious. In your studies you must have come upon the two main ideas
of afterlife. One is an eternal heaven and the other is reincarnation.
I’m fully aware that these are not clear-cut and that in some cases some
religions believe that we go through a lot of reincarnations that
culminate in an eternal nirvana in the end. Others believe there is no
‘end’ and that the whole process just keeps repeating over and over
again in cycles.

So I’m curious what your thoughts are concerning the nature of
afterlife. Do you find any particular picture to be any more compelling
than another? If so, why do you find that picture compelling.

Abracadabra,

You state that if you talked to Jesus, you would just agree with
everything he said.

Would you agree with Jesus when he said that every man sins?
Would you agree with Jesus when he said that the Bible should be studied
by everyone?
Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the only path to God?
Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the son of God?

Are you sure you would agree with Jesus on anything?

Spider wrote:
“Are you sure you would agree with Jesus on anything?”

I was thinking about morals in general. You can’t trust the quotes of
Jesus in the Bible to be accurate anyway.

“Would you agree with Jesus when he said that every man sins?”

Not in principle. But if he’s talking about biblical sin I’d have no
choice but agree with him.

“Would you agree with Jesus when he said that the Bible should be
studied by everyone?”

As long as he didn’t rule out other books I wouldn’t have a problem with
that. And I don’t imagine that he did.

“Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the only path to
God?”

I think Jesus was terribly misunderstood by his own disciples. Keep in
mind that when you pull these quotes of ‘Jesus’ out of the bible these
are not actually the words of Jesus. Jesus wasn’t a writer and never
wrote anything down that I’m aware of. All of the supposed ‘words of
Jesus’ that you read in the bible were actually written by his disciples
many years after Jesus had died. So what you are actually quoting
aren’t the actual words of Jesus but the words of his disciples.

In fact, the disciples even quoted Jesus as saying that the disciples
themselves didn’t really understand his message. So what you are
actually reading are ‘quotes’ from memory of men who didn’t even
understand what Jesus was trying to say.

I believe that what he actually meant was that following his teachings
is the only path to enlightenment.

You see, Jesus spent time in the far east. I believe that he had
actually come to know the god of eastern mysticism. Then when he came
back to the west he tried to enlighten the people to the true nature of
god. But they were already locked into the God of the bible, so they
misunderstood what Jesus was trying to say.

You see, I too believe that am god, because I believe that god is this
universe, and so am I. Of course, you are god too. And I think Jesus
even tried to make that point, but it was extremely difficult because he
was trying to explain this to people who could only think of God as
being a Godhead.

In short, I think Jesus was trying to enlighten the masses to the god of
eastern mysticism and they simply never really understood him.
Including his very own disciples who went on to actually write all the
words that we now quote as the ‘words of Jesus’

So they wrote the words of Jesus from their western perception of God as
a Godhead, and completely missed the real message that Jesus was trying
to bring to them.

“Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the son of God?”

We are all the children of god, so of course I would agree with Jesus
that he is the son of god.

Spider>

I know you posted this to Abra.

'Would you agree with Jesus when he said that every man sins?
Would you agree with Jesus when he said that the Bible should be studied
by everyone? Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the only
path to God? Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the son
of God?

Are you sure you would agree with Jesus on anything'

Before Jesus the 'bible' did not exist. There was mosiac law and the
Torah. How then did Jesus 'say' we should study the bible.

Where you there? My congragulations on looking as young as you do after
all these years.

Ever played wisper. You wisper something to someone and they pass it
on. When it gets back to you it is allways changed.

According to historians the bible was first agreed upon and printed 300
years after christ.

This is a very long game of wisper between the orginal message and the
text as it is printed today.

Abra, you said, 'And while many people may not view Jesus as a political
leader he actually was. He was just a very moral and spiritual political
leader. Just like Martin Luther King was.'

Do you have any thoughts as to when, in honor of Dr. King, time
will be split...our calendars will revert to year 1 a.d. the year of our
Lord, Martin Luther King?

AdventureBegins wrote:

Spider>

I know you posted this to Abra.

'Would you agree with Jesus when he said that every man sins?
Would you agree with Jesus when he said that the Bible should be studied
by everyone? Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the only
path to God? Would you agree with Jesus when he said that he is the son
of God?

Are you sure you would agree with Jesus on anything'

Before Jesus the 'bible' did not exist. There was mosiac law and the
Torah. How then did Jesus 'say' we should study the bible.

Where you there? My congragulations on looking as young as you do after
all these years.

Ever played wisper. You wisper something to someone and they pass it
on. When it gets back to you it is allways changed.

According to historians the bible was first agreed upon and printed 300
years after christ.

This is a very long game of wisper between the orginal message and the
text as it is printed today.

======================================================================================

SpiderCMB replied:

Well, I could copy and paste the whole website, but I see no reason.
Did it occur to you, a non-Christian, that your assumptions about the
Bible wouldn't be correct? Below you will find a link that will show
dozens if not hundreds of examples of Jesus teaching from the OT. Also,
Torah is what the Jews call the OT, so you basically said "Jesus didn't
quote the Old Testament, he quoted the Old Testament!"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp

If you thought I was suggesting that Jesus taught from the New
Testament, then you need to lay off the pot, seriously.

Last thought...The Dead Sea scrolls included most of the books of the
Old Testament. Some of them were a thousand years older than any
previously discovered copy of the text with only extremely minor
differences. Even before the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, it was
well known that the Jewish oral tradition was incredibly accurate.

wait.. maybe im missing something jesus??? teachings in the old
testament??? he didn't have teachings in the old testament.....

I was stating that Jesus taught from the Old Testament.

oh 1 more thing can i just add paul was never a follower or jesus it
wasn't until after his death that he has a vision and becomes a convert
and is a founding father in christianity and his letters are in the new
testament... then the gospels go there were hundreds of gospels it
wasn't until constatine converted when he set up the nicean council to
decide which books would go into the cannonical group and which gospels
would be burned which is why we have the non cannonical gospels that
for example are infancy narratives, gospel of mary mag, and all kinds
of others found in say nag hammadi library , the point being no text
were even written about jesus till... a little bit after his birth then
there were bunches and man decided which ones were " right" and which
were heretics.. just a thought though

Please do not misqote me.

Makes me wonder about the accuracy of your other quotes?

you posted.

*Would you agree with Jesus when he said that the Bible should be
studied by everyone? *

to which I replied.

*Before Jesus the 'bible' did not exist. There was mosiac law and the
Torah. How then did Jesus 'say' we should study the bible.*

At no point did I mention either the Old Testament or the New. I merly
repeated your use of the word 'bible'.

The dead sea scrolls are contested by parts of the christain faith
itself and THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE BIBLE WAS PRINTED or
translated. Therefore they have no bearing on this.

If you think your genesis matches the Torah READ THEM BOTH SIDE BY SIDE.

you may be suprised.

sororitygurl4life wrote:

oh 1 more thing can i just add paul was never a follower or jesus it
wasn't until after his death that he has a vision and becomes a convert
and is a founding father in christianity and his letters are in the new
testament... then the gospels go there were hundreds of gospels it
wasn't until constatine converted when he set up the nicean council to
decide which books would go into the cannonical group and which gospels
would be burned which is why we have the non cannonical gospels that
for example are infancy narratives, gospel of mary mag, and all kinds
of others found in say nag hammadi library , the point being no text
were even written about jesus till... a little bit after his birth then
there were bunches and man decided which ones were " right" and which
were heretics.. just a thought though

=====================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

That isn't really true. It's a common misconception. The First Council
of Nicaea was a group of 300 bishops agreeing on the Bible. The Bible
already existed and was in circulation, the councel just confimed that
the existing and accepted books would be the whole of the Bible.
Sometimes it is suggested that the council decided that Jesus was God,
but the truth is that the debate was "Was Jesus more human or more God?"
The final decision was that Jesus was fully man and fully God.

um.. no the council of nicean agreed upon what books would be accepted
as cannonical and non cannonical, hence why they continued to burn
gnostic scriptures...

and jesus didn't teach from the old testament!!! he was against the
law.. he reeks havoc in the temple when they're selling stuff, he lets
his people eat from the grains, he challenges the roman authority, he
continuously in his teachings challenge the jewish teachings which is
why .. christianity basically comes about because st. paul says that
the whole purpose of jesus was to realize that non of the old laws were
what we were suppose to focus on the only one we should have is to love
thy neighbor, which is not what the jewish faith believed so that was
one of the main reasons for the split/ creation of christianity

AdventureBegins wrote:

Please do not misqote me.

Makes me wonder about the accuracy of your other quotes?

you posted.

*Would you agree with Jesus when he said that the Bible should be
studied by everyone? *

to which I replied.

*Before Jesus the 'bible' did not exist. There was mosiac law and the
Torah. How then did Jesus 'say' we should study the bible.*

==============================================================
SpiderCMB wrote:

I see, you are splitting hairs. Surely you knew that I meant
"scripture" when I typed "Bible". I didn't misquote you, I quoted you
completely. I just didn't realize you were balking on one word.

==============================================================
AdventureBegins wrote:

At no point did I mention either the Old Testament or the New. I merly
repeated your use of the word 'bible'.

The dead sea scrolls are contested by parts of the christain faith
itself and THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE BIBLE WAS PRINTED or
translated. Therefore they have no bearing on this.

==============================================================
SpiderCMB wrote:

No, they aren't. Some of the books aren't agreed upon, but there were
many translations and synopsis of the accepted books of the Bible, as I
already stated.

==============================================================
AdventureBegins wrote:

If you think your genesis matches the Torah READ THEM BOTH SIDE BY SIDE.

you may be suprised.

==============================================================
SpiderCMB wrote:

There are only minor differences between the Christian Old Testament and
the Jewish Torah.

Circulation? How pray tell could it have been in 'circulation'.

spider you posted...


'That isn't really true. It's a common misconception. The First Council
of Nicaea was a group of 300 bishops agreeing on the Bible. The Bible
already existed and was in circulation, the councel just confimed that
the existing and accepted books would be the whole of the Bible.
Sometimes it is suggested that the council decided that Jesus was God,
but the truth is that the debate was "Was Jesus more human or more God?"
The final decision was that Jesus was fully man and fully God.'
________________________________________________________________

Beg to differ...

Printed by who... There were no printing presses. Books and scrolls
were carefully hand translated and written. How long do you think it
would have taken a scribe to write one single bible by hand?

Just how many 'bibles' could there have been in 'circulation'?

How many people could read anyway. Such education was reserved for the
wealthy. As far as the godliness of Jesus if it was debated at all it
puts a lie to the book. It should not have needed to be debated unless
it is a control measure placed in the book by the council.

when constatine converted there were many different forms of
christianity going around he wanted to create 1 form of christianity to
keep it orderly.. if thats the word to use for it which is why the
nicean council was put together...


and then the old testament is part of the jewish bible... hence it being
the old... and the new being about jesus...

sororitygurl4life wrote:

and jesus didn't teach from the old testament!!! he was against the
law.. he reeks havoc in the temple when they're selling stuff, he lets
his people eat from the grains, he challenges the roman authority, he
continuously in his teachings challenge the jewish teachings which is
why .. christianity basically comes about because st. paul says that
the whole purpose of jesus was to realize that non of the old laws were
what we were suppose to focus on the only one we should have is to love
thy neighbor, which is not what the jewish faith believed so that was
one of the main reasons for the split/ creation of christianity

=====================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

That is completely and totally untrue. You could not possibly have EVER
read the New Testament if you think that.

Matthew 5:18
For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the
smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is
accomplished.

Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, he clarified it. Jesus frequently
quoted the Torah and prophets.

Jesus did not just reak havoc in the temple because "they were simply
selling stuff". They were making a mockery of the temple He had built to
worship in. They were being unholy and making gain and prospering in a
place that was set aside for His worship.

Kat

he did it to prove them wrong my god go read the bible.. read pauls
letters, read the quotes from jesus about the law when he disrupts
temple, or when his followers are eating the grain and the pharasees
question him on it... JESUS WAS A JEW AND DIED A JEW HE WANTED TO
REFORM JUDAISM HE DID NOT WANT TO CREATE CHRISTIANITY.

not to mention all these gospels are written by men... not by jesus nor
by people who were sitting there writting stuff down as it occured...
and the fact that somethings have been changed...