Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The comprehensibility of God


Will Due

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Great story, thank you for sharing. I like your take, you even include your love of magic. Very cool. 

Well a bit of correction. Several years ago my wife lost her car keys. I hadn't gotten home and found her and our girls looking for them. On a whim I crafted a sigil to find them. A few seconds of focus and I was "guided" to exactly where they were. Behind the couch. So, yeah, weird. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Lightly

I think it is based on how egos exist in social settings to the advantage of the whole.

Howdy j :)   Yup, I guess  ‘Righteousness’ is doing ,or even just believing, what is considered ,by any culture’s belief system, as ‘right’… right thinking..doing the right thing ,as you say, to the advantage of the whole.  Good way to put it.    But ..what is “right” based on?  I guess it’s all about cultural norms and expectations?   But , ya it does all seem to based on the golden rule…because anyone can understand and empathize with how it feels to be ‘wronged’ .  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Well a bit of correction. Several years ago my wife lost her car keys. I hadn't gotten home and found her and our girls looking for them. On a whim I crafted a sigil to find them. A few seconds of focus and I was "guided" to exactly where they were. Behind the couch. So, yeah, weird. 

I find stuff for my hubby all the time based off his behavior patterns. :D

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've said too much. No more stories from me, back to the topic. Shoundn't have mentioned that stuff anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lightly said:

Howdy j :)   Yup, I guess  ‘Righteousness’ is doing ,or even just believing, what is considered ,by any culture’s belief system, as ‘right’… right thinking..doing the right thing ,as you say, to the advantage of the whole.  Good way to put it.    But ..what is “right” based on?  I guess it’s all about cultural norms and expectations?   But , ya it does all seem to based on the golden rule…because anyone can understand and empathize with how it feels to be ‘wronged’ .  

I think oxytocin the bonding chemical facilitates empathy, which is really a hormone stimulated by a hug, etc etc. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Well, I've said too much. No more stories from me, back to the topic. Shoundn't have mentioned that stuff anyways.

We want to know about you, and appreciate your sharing don’t ever stop. :wub:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sherapy said:

We want to know about you, and appreciate your sharing don’t ever stop. :wub:

These are my own thoughts and I claim no authority.

In my thinking if there is a god it is either not personal or beyond our reasoning. The reason I brought up righteous living was out of its meaning. In most context it's about doing what is right, what is moral. Considering that the golden rule is pretty much a universal thought. Wouldn't that be enough. What kind of god is so petty that it'll punish someone for following the wrong religion? Kinda of cultish/childish if you ask me. Plus I don't see a point in trying to prove god can be know or experienced. Anything we put an association on that is going to be a false positive. I guess I'm trying to say that religion is for people and spirituality is based on emotions. No religion is true either. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 1:49 PM, Will Due said:

 

I just have one question about the reform of the existing religion.

If Jesus set out to reform or revise or update the religion of his forefathers, why didn't Judaism end up being reformed?

If Christianity in reality, in the regard that we're talking about this, is Judaism reformed, then Judaism wasn't reformed and Christianity became a separate and new religion. Did it not?

The way I see it, this speaks to the fact that Jesus wasn't a reformer. The parable of the cloak and the wine clearly indicate the futility of pasting something new onto something old and that when that is attempted, everything becomes ruined. I think he made it pretty clear that his mission was not to reform the old religion but rather to replace it.

It seems to me that Jesus was definitely trying to instill in the minds and hearts of the people an entirely new way to be religious. To be religious directly and interactive with the creator God who he said many times, dwelt within, meaning there was no more need for religious authority from men, meaning there was no more need for rituals, meaning there were many things about the old ways that were irrelevant. Like how the Jewish priests got all upset because Jesus refused to wash his hands before every meal. By not washing his hands, he rebuked the priests with their unnecessary demands. And many other things that the hierarchy of the leadership of the Jews thought was blasphemy when he didn't follow their unwritten laws. The new religion that Jesus taught, transferred religious authority from the priest to the people as individuals. He taught that every person had the authority to interact with God directly without anyone else intervening.

Jesus spoke often that what he was intending the people to learn was liberating, was something that would set them free. Set them free from the bondage of the old ways.

All of this, of course put him in direct opposition to the leadership of the religion of the Jews. And that created a very dangerous situation which resulted in him being taken out for in effect, calling them out for their spiritual hypocrisy. The priest knew what they were doing. That they were taking advantage of the people.

So no, Jesus wasn't about reforming the old religion. What he wanted to do was to establish something new. And that something new was revolutionary in almost every way to the extent that now people could relate and interact with God as their Father and themselves as his child and be free to learn from him directly without burden how to live the way he intended men and women to live. In my opinion what he was doing wasn't to replace one thing with another one religion with another religion but in effect to create a new definition of what religion really is in the first place.

 

 

Judaism is reformed now and has grown in leaps since the Roman Era. They understand that many of the laws were written for desert nomads and no longer apply. That the characters in the Bible are mythical or exaggerated. That many incidents never happened and are very deist about Adonai/ Yaweh and no longer personify the Creative Spirit.  They no longer look for a religious warrior king messiah but look forward to the Messianic Age where everybody gets along.

Only the Ultra-Orthodox stayed in the dark ages and get on mainstream Jews nerves.

One of my dearest friends is a female Rabbi and a Lesbian. That's serious growth.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Piney said:

Judaism is reformed now and has grown in leaps since the Roman Era. They understand that many of the laws were written for desert nomads and no longer apply. That the characters in the Bible are mythical or exaggerated. That many incidents never happened and are very deist about Adonai/ Yaweh and no longer personify the Creative Spirit.  They no longer look for a religious warrior king messiah but look forward to the Messianic Age where everybody gets along.

Only the Ultra-Orthodox stayed in the dark ages and get on mainstream Jews nerves.

One of my dearest friends is a female Rabbi and a Lesbian. That's serious growth.

 

While I’d agree with you for the most part “reform” in the context of how it relates to Jesus’ alleged teachings is NOT the same kind of reform to which you refer. 2000 years later the Jews STILL don’t see Jesus as “a” or “the” Messiah, something of which can be blamed on Paul and others because there’s no actual evidence that Jesus was setting himself up as the Messiah. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

While I’d agree with you for the most part “reform” in the context of how it relates to Jesus’ alleged teachings is NOT the same kind of reform to which you refer. 2000 years later the Jews STILL don’t see Jesus as “a” or “the” Messiah, something of which can be blamed on Paul and others because there’s no actual evidence that Jesus was setting himself up as the Messiah. 
 

cormac

Like I said before. The only historical Jesus for that era was a doomsday prophet (Ben Ananias) and the Book of Matthew was a obvious bogus biography wrapped around a Therapeut wisdom book.

@eight bits has me reading Eusebius of Ceasaria and not only did he add the Jesus the Christ part to Josephus, he made up the crap about Constantine being a Christian.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Like I said before. The only historical Jesus for that era was a doomsday prophet (Ben Ananias) and the Book of Matthew was a obvious bogus biography wrapped around a Therapeut wisdom book.

@eight bits has me reading Eusebius of Ceasaria and not only did he add the Jesus the Christ part to Josephus, he made up the crap about Constantine being a Christian.

The only historical Jesus independently written about, meaning written about in non-Biblical texts. That’s not the same as supporting the claim that Jesus ben Joseph “didn’t” exist. Since the Gospel of Mark was written circa 70 AD at the same time Jesus ben Ananias was crushed by a ballista rock it rather strains belief thinking that Ananias was written as Christ, especially since Christ was supposed to have been dead for 35+ years and was crucified. People who knew ben Ananias would have caught the lie. 
 

cormac

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The only historical Jesus independently written about, meaning written about in non-Biblical texts. That’s not the same as supporting the claim that Jesus ben Joseph “didn’t” exist. Since the Gospel of Mark was written circa 70 AD at the same time Jesus ben Ananias was crushed by a ballista rock it rather strains belief thinking that Ananias was written as Christ, especially since Christ was supposed to have been dead for 35+ years and was crucified. People who knew ben Ananias would have caught the lie. 
 

cormac

Mark wasn't written for a Jewish audience so there's a good chance it slipped through.

I know many exaggerated accounts of working cowboys and loggers that wouldn't pass where they lived.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

 People who knew ben Ananias would have caught the lie. 

And done what about it? Do you suppose nobody in the 19th Century caught the lies about Joseph Smith? Do Mormons seem rare today as a result?

I'm not as radical about Jesus ben Ananus as @Piney, because I think Mark's Jesus combines more elements than just that one guy, but damned if Josephus's story doesn't sound eerily like the core of Mark's Passion narrative.

The respectable range of dates for Mark is 65-80;

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Josephus's War came out during the 70's, and the relevant events (Jewish and Roman law enforcement action against ben Ananus, scourging, reprieve by the Roman procurator) occurred in public during 62 or 63. The timing isn't much of a problem here.

And for what it's worth, Mark never says that his story is true. Some people who knew both Mark and the ben Ananus story might have slapped Mark on the back and said "I like what you've done with that."

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piney said:

Judaism is reformed now and has grown in leaps since the Roman Era. They understand that many of the laws were written for desert nomads and no longer apply. That the characters in the Bible are mythical or exaggerated. That many incidents never happened and are very deist about Adonai/ Yaweh and no longer personify the Creative Spirit.  They no longer look for a religious warrior king messiah but look forward to the Messianic Age where everybody gets along.

Only the Ultra-Orthodox stayed in the dark ages and get on mainstream Jews nerves.

One of my dearest friends is a female Rabbi and a Lesbian. That's serious growth.

 

Indeed, very well said, Piney.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

These are my own thoughts and I claim no authority.

In my thinking if there is a god it is either not personal or beyond our reasoning. The reason I brought up righteous living was out of its meaning. In most context it's about doing what is right, what is moral. Considering that the golden rule is pretty much a universal thought. Wouldn't that be enough. What kind of god is so petty that it'll punish someone for following the wrong religion? Kinda of cultish/childish if you ask me. Plus I don't see a point in trying to prove god can be know or experienced. Anything we put an association on that is going to be a false positive. I guess I'm trying to say that religion is for people and spirituality is based on emotions. No religion is true either. 

I agree. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Piney said:

Mark wasn't written for a Jewish audience so there's a good chance it slipped through.

I know many exaggerated accounts of working cowboys and loggers that wouldn't pass where they lived.

I know lots of stories presented as true myself. None that completely ignore or handwave a 30+ year difference in timeframes for a person though. For Ananias to be the actual Jesus’ involved then one has to ignore anything the Gospels say about Herod or Tiberius as related, replace Pontus Pilate with Lucceius Albinus, replace Christ’s 3 year ministry for Ananias’ 7 year, ignore the Crucifixion on a cross in favor of being crushed by a ballista rock and bring the story forward in time by at least 30 years. Does that really make sense to anyone? On top of which NOBODY has ever shown that Ananias was ever referred to as ‘Christ’. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I know lots of stories presented as true myself. None that completely ignore or handwave a 30+ year difference in timeframes for a person though. For Ananias to be the actual Jesus’ involved then one has to ignore anything the Gospels say about Herod or Tiberius as related, replace Pontus Pilate with Lucceius Albinus, replace Christ’s 3 year ministry for Ananias’ 7 year, ignore the Crucifixion on a cross in favor of being crushed by a ballista rock and bring the story forward in time by at least 30 years. Does that really make sense to anyone? On top of which NOBODY has ever shown that Ananias was ever referred to as ‘Christ’. 
 

cormac

John Henry's race with the steam hammer was written in memory of his death when he died from a lung disease in a tunnel where no steam hammer was ever used.

Ned Buntline was selling stories in the East which were completely fictional about still living cowboys.

I think the "Christ" title was a "writer's addition" and added by followers who didn't know any Jesus. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, very well said, Piney.

The one Jewish member was chased off. Somebody needs to explain what they actually believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Piney said:

John Henry's race with the steam hammer was written in memory of his death when he died from a lung disease in a tunnel where no steam hammer was ever used.

Ned Buntline was selling stories in the East which were completely fictional about still living cowboys.

I think the "Christ" title was a "writer's addition" and added by followers who didn't know any Jesus. 

John Henry and the cowboys, ALL of whose stories were written about them, were still alive. You’re essentially creating Jesus Christ out of whole cloth. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
Punctuation
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Piney said:

The one Jewish member was chased off. Somebody needs to explain what they actually believe.

And, you do a great job of it too. I only know Jewish folks as you describe. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

John Henry and the cowboys, ALL of whose stories were written about them, were still alive. You’re essentially creating Jesus Christ out of whole cloth. 

As opposed to Paul, who first met Jesus after Jesus had died. At least whole cloth is tangible. Mark? He never met Jesus, but he surely read Paul. Matthew and Luke? They never met Jesus, either, but they liked what Mark wrote so much that they made it their own. And John? He read a message from an unnamed disciple; no copy of it survived, but hey, would John lie to you?

Seriously, the evidence for Jesus having been a specific real man is poor, and the evidence for him really saying or doing any of the things attributed to him is no better.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, eight bits said:

As opposed to Paul, who first met Jesus after Jesus had died. At least whole cloth is tangible. Mark? He never met Jesus, but he surely read Paul. Matthew and Luke? They never met Jesus, either, but they liked what Mark wrote so much that they made it their own. And John? He read a message from an unnamed disciple; no copy of it survived, but hey, would John lie to you?

Seriously, the evidence for Jesus having been a specific real man is poor, and the evidence for him really saying or doing any of the things attributed to him is no better.

It’s stronger than the evidence that Jesus ben Ananias was reworked as the Biblical Jesus ben Joseph. The rest of that sentence doesn’t matter, I’d agree. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Mark? He never met Jesus

 

Then how do you explain the traditional belief that the lad who went running naked out of the grasp of the Roman soldiers that night in Gethsemane was none other than John Mark.

Since this event is only recorded in the Gospel of Mark it is traditionally believed that John Mark is describing an event that happened to himself. Although unnamed.

So if Mark was the youth described running naked in Mark's gospel then he most certainly would have met Jesus as a very young lad who then later as an adult became associated with Paul.

 

"And when [Peter] had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.Acts 12:12

 

Surely Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark would have been very much associated with the Apostles during the lifetime of Jesus. Some even believe that the room which held the Last Supper, was a room in the Mark family home we're over the years the followers of Jesus had many times, when in Jerusalem, gathered there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, due to several factors, it's difficult to be sure about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. But that doesn't change the fact that there's an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that suggests, Jesus of Nazareth did live a life a couple of thousand years ago where he made certain claims about himself, us and God. The record, as spotty as it is, still has a certain consistency about it. Minus those things that are rather below the belt that were inserted by unscrupulous scribes to further there not so spiritual religious agenda.

One of the things that stands out about what's written in the Bible about the life and teachings of Jesus is that basically, he dared to live what he taught.

For example, he taught that there is no greater love that a man can have than to lay down one's life for the sake of his friends.

Another thing he taught was that when one is struck on one side of the face, one should turn the other side so that whoever it was that struck him would have something to think about when presented with the other side.

Both of those things he lived out when he submitted himself to the religious derangement of the priests who had him taken to Pilate on trumped up charges of blasphemy for execution.

They scourged him, they mocked him, they spit upon him but he did nothing to defend himself and in effect turned to them the other cheek and then died for his friends so that on his return from the tomb, since he was the incarnate creator having the power to do such things, they could see that what he said was true, that life doesn't end when a person takes his last breath.

 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • This topic was locked and unlocked

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.