Don't Limit Jesus to This World

Jesus showed that the goodness of God is within us in our capacities to love and be free.
He also showed tht we are born into a sinful environment which impedes us from living that goodness.
The way of liberation/salvation is the way of the cross which is the painful living of love despite the environment - changing our hearts and our social structures.
When we thus achieve fellowship/communion with people we achieve fellowship/communion with God.
To which truth is witnessed by the Resuurection
Therefore one can say Jesus is a personal, interpersonal, insitutional, societal revolutionary.

Jesus showed that the goodness of God is within us in our capacities to love and be free.
He also showed tht we are born into a sinful environment which impedes us from living that goodness.
The way of liberation/salvation is the way of the cross which is the painful living of love despite the environment - changing our hearts and our social structures.
When we thus achieve fellowship/communion with people we achieve fellowship/communion with God.
To which truth is witnessed by the Resuurection
Therefore one can say Jesus is a personal, interpersonal, insitutional, societal revolutionary.

Overnight shipping free pills prescription pharmacy, http://myrxpill.com

To all of you!! One must commend the Bishop for this post. It brings such delight to our Lord and Saviour who very much loves you all in spite of your believing in him or not believing in him. Keep searching for he really is standing at the door of your hearts, with open arms...for there will come the day when every knee will bow and at that time there will be no options.

My prayers and thoughts are for you

David

concerned:

i know my religious history just as well as you, so please spare me the sarcasm and condescension. More importantly, i take it for granted that you agree with all of my other arguments made above, from Godel and the limits of reason to the dangers of atheistic ideologies, since you neglected to respond to them. so, i'll move on...

1) very scant evidence that any of these religious founders were actually just hallucinating. How can anybody know for sure that they weren't actually encountering something beyond nature? There is no way to prove it. How can you, living hundreds or even thousands of years later, know for a fact that these people were merely hallucinating? any argument that says they were is frustratingly tautological.

I suggest you read the classic Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, psychologist, especially the chapter on rleigion and neurology. James, though more agnostic than religious, nevertheless admits that one can never prove one way or the other whether somebody, apparently suffering form hallucinations or drug induced experience, is actualy encountering the divine or not. You should also read the work of Andrew Newburg, neuroscientist, who has done a lot of research on monks and nuns in deep prayer, finding tha twhile some neural activity is ocurring, this proves absolutely nothing as to the veracity of the experience. Indeed, if the brain wasn't doing anything, one would have more reason to be suspicious...

Of course, knowing your style, you may just prefer to take take the easy way out and google them, rather than give their work any serious attention or thought.

2) the argument that only 30% of what jesus is attributed to have said in the gospels was actually said by him is a figure developed by the Jesus Seminar, a group of quasi-scholars with VERY little credibility as a whole, though some of them are fairly reputable. While this is something their popular audiences might not be aware of, I have studied early christian history extensively along with many other colleagues, all leaders in their field, at my secular university. All of them universally agree that the Seminar's work simply does not past muster as scholarship. Relying on voting, for one thing, and then shading font depending on the number of votes a certain opinion received to determine authenticity is absolute rubbish.

3) fair enough that many of the purported miracles of ancient times, or even biblical figures, are elaborations. really nothing new there. I know of very few thoughtful religious practitioners who actually think Jonah was eaten by a whale. nevertheless, there is something called "metaphor," which people living before us certianly knew how to use - it's really quite condescending to believe that they didn't. a story can still be prophetic even if it makes use of metaphor and myth to convey a message that's deeper than what simple explication or scientific argument can convey.

4) Jesus was indeed a poor carpenter. But that does not damage the credibility of his claims. It actually fits well with the overall message of Christianity and Judaism: God loves even the meek, the mild, the poor and the oppressed, regardless of how they are treated on Earth.

personally, i think you could learn a thing or two about humility - the best you can say is that you are uncertain, not that all religion is based upon hallucination. maybe start reading the new testament, or other great religious works, they have a thing or two to say about it - though admittedly their adherents often fall flat in practicing it. but, and i think your case illustrates the point, the atheists I know tend to violate it, almost universally.

best wishes,
j

Recently converted,

To reiterate, it is all about the founders of the major religions and their favorite "tinker bell(s)" aka angel.

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

The Founders- a Summary:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism -(From an Hindu website) "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

formed by the cynics eh? what book did you read that in?

And of course, the Babylonians had their own systems of religious thought as well.
again, my argument still holds that these principles of ethical conduct are universally promoted by theists or nontheists alike...they have just found their ultimate expression in religious figures throughout history.

these truths aren't simply deductible from "logic" or "common sense". As Godel's celebrated second incompleteness theorm shows, every logical system depends on axioms that are not provable within the system itself. non-rational processes ultimatley have to come in to play at some point. sure, commandments offer a good way to prevent chaos in society, but in all religious traditions, you find the sentiment that right conduct is good-in-of-itself, beyond whether it merely serves to produce order. these ethical axioms are beyond simple reason, and must come from something else. proposing that their foundations are in God is perfectly rational, given the multitude of evidence we have for his existence from various sectors of experience.

granted, religion has been co-opted, in many periods of history, as a mechanism for endorsing the wicked aims of corrupt leaders. but the same is true of many other, non-religious - indeed thoroughly atheistic - ideologies, from social darwinism to marxism.

Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin all corrupted ideologies, and committed heinous atrocities while merely claiming to have discovered and implemented the basic truths of social theory or dialiectical history using "science" and "reason." and look what happened! the greatest tragedies of human history. holocaust, khmer rouge, the worst famines known in human history. hardly compelling examples ethical conduct or truth.

one does not need mysticism to corrupt systems of thought and make them vehicles for atrocity. one also cannot simply say that all ethical systems are grounded in pure reason alone. so instead of knocking mysticism, focus your energie son something else. and stop pretending that atheists are infallible...history has shown repeatedly that they aren't.

Recent Convert,

Religion is not evil. Unfortunately it has been taken over by profiteers using mystical communications with God/Allah/Abraham/Jesus/Smith et al to convince the "pew peasants" to monetarily support the profiteers' view points. Take away the "prophets/prophecies/fortune tellers", the "pretty wingie talking thingies", the "demons of the demented" and basically what you have left are the Twelve Commandments (eight if you are an atheist), nothing more and nothing less. These Commandments were first formulated by the ancient Cynics and Babylonians using reasoning and common sense. They are the only necessary keys to the spirit state of Heaven.

anonymous is right on point about physical vs. non-physical resurrection/englightenment deism leading us astray from fundamental Jewish understandings of resurrection. This highlights yet another problem for Crossan - his belief that disciples may have seen Jesus' "ghost." such a dualistic worldview is foreign to 1st century palestine, not to mention contemporary physicalist understandings of the relationship of mind to matter.

as for "spiritual body," could mean many things. but the greek suggests proper interpretation to be "body animated by the holy spirit" rather than by the human spirit...so it is a transformed flesh, sort of crossing dimensions rather than simply being revived on earth like a zombe.

whether all this is "illogical"...up to the individual to decide. Hume's fork suggests that such things cannot be determined based on their a priori logic alone, and I think I may agree (though I do give more credit to the power of the mind to shape an accurate understanding and predictioof the world...hence einstein's general relativity theory being later confirmed by experiment.) when such formulations cannot be deduced simply by reason, knowledge must then be based on evidentiary experience.

for me, I have every reason to trust that the first christians weren't lying - why would they? Even Paula Fredrickson admits that she believes the early christians really thought that the resurrection happened, though she's very critical of those who argue that Jesus thought he was God.

Moreover, the idea of a single man being resurrected was so foreign to the people of the time...sort of "stranger than fiction." It flew in the face of contemporary jewish understanding. thus, it's likely that it was truly in response to some extraordinary experience. My own experience suggests that this spirit of renewal permeates around the world - and calls me to work for social justice more powerfully than anything else. sincerity compels me to say that i believe the resurrection, or something like it, happened. (which is the assesment of many other non-religious scholars, such as EP Sanders, who after a long career revolutionizing biblical scholarship, had to say about the subject of the resurrection: "I have no rationalizations...I can only say that something happened")

if you really believe in the golden rule, why don't you go out and live it rather than wasting your time on a blog trying to tell peole why you don't believe in anything?

amazing to me that people can dedicate so much of their time and energy to debating about the historicity of individual events in Jesus' life, and about why religion is evil, generally speaking. probably more to do with bad personal experiences than anything else.

Few things to add:

1) Few actual academic historians, whether believers or not, accept Crossan as a serious scholar. His obsession with the gnostic teachings has led him quite astray, though his focus on writing books for popular audiences has led many people down the wrong path with him. Most scholars who spend their time actually researching and teaching, and aren't out to beocme a blockbusting nytimes bestseller, understand that most evidence we have suggests that such texts were written long, long after Paul's letters, the earliest written artifacts of Christianity in 1st century palestine. these early letters were written long before the gospels, which frustrates theories that theologies of christology and resurrection were retrodicted by later church communities looking for power.

theories about christians having cognitive dissonance that led them to believe in the resurrection, or about jesus being a frustrated social revolutionary after trying a hand at popular magic might seem logically coherent, but are simply not substantiated by the most reliable texts that we have.

Crossan's scholarship is dubious - and, it goes without saying, so is the scholarship of people who pop up on a 2-second google search. I mean come on, really...

2) Concerned mistakenly quotes Constantine's Sword by James Caroll as a book exhorting the same views as Crossan and the Jesus Seminarians. While Caroll's book is a compelling and much needed critique of the corruptability of religious institutions, Caroll remains a devout Catholic who believes in the Resurrection and the historical reliability of the synoptics. He's more on par with Gary Wills - author of what jesus meant - who is similarly progressive and condemning of corruption and hypocrasy in the church, but is nevertheless "orthodox" - and, it's worth noting, a fan of N.T. Wright's.

3) jesus said something confuscius also said. so what? many profits before jesus said stuff that jesus also said later. Christians believe that the truths of past revelation - in Judaism or whatever other tradition - came to their fullest expression and ultimate fruition in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. He didn't invent the golden rule, but he lived it to the fullest, and in a more extreme way than others have before - he probalby wouldn't have liked confuscius' mandated subjection of women to the rule of their husbands or subjects to the whims of their leaders. People might throw something at me about women being Jerusalem to their husband;s Christ...but most readings today suggest that this sayin gof Paul's elevated the position that women traditionally held in Roman Palestine, and was actually subversive given the context. Don't forget that one of the most horrid things Romans saw in Christain communities was female deacons.

P

DAVEB, there were several sites that showed up on this list. Please narrow it down to one or two. Also, I would much prefer some serious scholarly work/evidence as opposed to something posted on the internet by anybody.

Paul would have agreed that the resurrected Jesus was physical. He was made out of spirit.

Paul calls the Corinthians 'fools'. Why?

Paul taught the Corinthians that earthly things are categorically different to heavenly things. Fish, animals, birds, man, the sun, the moon, the stars are all different from each other.

Only a fool thinks that a fish does not turn into the moon.

And Paul calls the Corinthians fools for thinking that a corpse can turn into a resurrected being.

'The first man Adam became a created being, the last Adam a life-giving spirit.'

The corpse was Adam's body.

This is why Paul pleads in Romans 7:24 'Who will rescue me from this body of death?'

Paul knew what happened to corpses and he wanted out of there.

CHESTERTON
'The reason that Paul says Jesus is a life giving spirit is to announce that because of Jesus' death and resurrection, death has been defeated and in the present, we can participate in Jesus' resurrection life.'

CARR
That is not 'becoming a spirit' means, unless you believe that Paul taught that Jesus was now a spirit who lived inside the mortal bodies of Christians.

GK Chesterton,

And what is being taught in large Catholic university Theology classes??

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

Steven:

The Christian faith does not profess that Jesus' body was left behind to take on a non-physical existance. The Christian faith professes that through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, God has defeated death by giving Jesus a new body, one that is not subject to death and decay. The reason that Paul says Jesus is a life giving spirit is to announce that because of Jesus' death and resurrection, death has been defeated and in the present, we can participate in Jesus' resurrection life in anticipation of that time in the future when all of creation will be renewed and we will be giving new bodies.

To interpret the words "spirit" and "physical" as non-physical and physical is to adopt a Greek philosphy and not a faith that is grounded in the Jewish faith. In our Enlightenment day and age which sees God as detached from this world and denies miracles, our culture has adopted this non-physical-physical dualism. Why? Because if God is detached from this world, then this physical world must not be important to God. Therefore, we conclude, there must be a non-physical world that will take the place of this created world. This line of thinking is not orthodox Christianity.

Illogical - No.
Amazing, Wonderful, Good News - YES!!!!

Steven Carr:
"Waving the corpse of Jesus in front of Paul would have elicited the response 'That is made out of the dust of the earth. The resurrected Jesus is a spirit'."

The flesh and blood body was not left behind. God brought it back to life and Jesus' body was transformed into a new kind of physicality.

Illogical - no. Amazing, wonderful, good news - YES!

Again, to interpret the word "spirit" as non-physical is to go down a path that leads to dualism (physical world vs. non-physical world.) That leads to a greek philosphical interpretation of the meaning of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection and not an interpretation that is rooted in the Jewish understanding of resurrection.

A zillion people have gone down this path in interpreting the scriptures because of the Enlightenment's mindset that God does not intervene in this world so what's the use of this world if God doesn't care therefore there must be a non-physical world out there where God resides and where people will end up going. I believe this is why people latch on to the whole "spirit" vs. "physical" misunderstanding even though the greek words don't go that direction.

And last but not least, Jesus is "a life-giving spirit" because God defeated death through Jesus' death and resurrection and even for believers, this resurrection life is presently at work through them in anticipation of that day when all of creation will be renewed and death will be no more and all of God's people will be given new bodies. That's why Paul refers to the resurrected Jesus as "life-giving."

What is illogical about Christianity?

Jesus was God made Flesh and always had the life-giving spirit of God in him and Paul says Jesus became a life-giving spirit at the resurrection.

Paul cannot mean that Jesus became what he always had been.

If he had meant that, the Corinthians would have replied 'You call us idiots. You are the idiot. Jesus had always had a life-giving spirit inside him. He was God made flesh. How much more spiritual can a body be than a body that is God Himself?'

Obviously Paul meant that Jesus left his flesh and blood body behind 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God', and moved into a body made of spirit.

Paul writes 'The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.'

Waving the corpse of Jesus in front of Paul would have elicited the response 'That is made out of the dust of the earth. The resurrected Jesus is a spirit'.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
"The Bible might indicate (with foggy analyses) that Jesus was incarnate but as Spock would say, "it is highly illogical".

And this begs the question, "what is it about Christianity that is illogical and how do you know?"

And you conveniently neglected the following to your list:
x=spock
x=concerned the Christian now liberated

The Bible might indicate (with foggy analyses) that Jesus was incarnate but as Spock would say, "it is highly illogical".

Think about the logic (or lack thereof) in the following:

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
x=GK Chesterton

CARR
"SO Jesus became a spirit, something which enabled his body to be transformed?

As this enabled his body to be transformed, did Jesus become a spirit *before* his body was transformed?

When Jesus became a spirit, did he stop being God made flesh? Or had he always had the life-giving spirit of God in him, even before he was resurrected?"

You ask great questions! The way I interpret orthodox Christianity, Jesus had the Spirit of God all along his ministry and yet he still needed to struggle, doubt, and wrestle with what it meant to be the suffering servant/Messiah for the sake of Israel and the world.

Here's how I see Jesus' life as it relates to the Spirit:

Jesus has always been "God incarnate." When the Spirit descended upon him at his baptism, it was more of a sign to the readers of the Gospel that Jesus was God's Son. And yet, he was also fully human, subject to death and decay. (Weird, huh?) That's the tension of Christian theology in describing Jesus as both fully God and fully human. Jesus' was resurrected through the power of God which meant that God transformed his human body into a new type of physical body not subject to death and decay. The resurrected Jesus is still Jesus but now with a glorified body in which he can never die again. This is also the hope of his followers that they too will receive resurrected bodies when Jesus' returns to earth a 2nd time and all of creation will be renewed.

Jesus was God before he was incarnated - One with the Holy Spirit.

And then the Spirit entered him at baptism.

And he became a spirit at the resurrection.

How many times over can Jesus receive the Spirit?

GK CHESTERTON
The point Paul is making is that the "spirit" is what enabled Jesus' physical body to be transformed into a transformed physicality that is not subject to decay and death.

CARR
SO Jesus became a spirit, something which enabled his body to be transformed?

As this enabled his body to be transformed, did Jesus become a spirit *before* his body was transformed?

When Jesus became a spirit, did he stop being God made flesh? Or had he always had the life-giving spirit of God in him, even before he was resurrected?

Anon says: "IF propogating the teaching (regardless of WHO invented it), irritates others, then they have some sad, depressed and twisted spirits."

I don't notice any Christian love shining through there! Is that what you call doing unto others?

By the way, people can and do appreciate the teaching, without attributing it to Jesus (or anyone) or believing in his sacrifice.

CARR
"So when Paul said 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit', Paul meant the baptism was when Jesus became a spirit, not at the tesurrection?"

It sounds to me that you're taking the I Corinthians 15 passage and interpreting "a body" as to mean "physical" and "spiritual" as to mean "non-physical." The greek words do not have that meaning although many bible translations have taken it that direction.

The point Paul is making is that the "spirit" is what enabled Jesus' physical body to be transformed into a transformed physicality that is not subject to decay and death.

So when you say, "Jesus became a spirit" it doesn't mean that Jesus took on a non-physical form. Even at Jesus' baptism when the Spirit came upon him, he was still subject to death. It was upon his death (after he faithfully took upon himself the sins of the world) and the resurrection that he became "a life giving spirit." But again, "spirit" in the context of the greek use of the word does not mean "non-physicality."

GK Chesterton
Actually, the Spirit was present in Jesus at his baptism.

CARR
So when Paul said 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit', Paul meant the baptism was when Jesus became a spirit, not at the tesurrection?

PeaceTroll, forgive me.

CARR
"Isn't that what Paul believed? He writes about the resurrection of Jesus 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit', meaning that at the resurrection, the spirit of God entered the flesh of Jesus."

Actually, the Spirit was present in Jesus at his baptism.

The message doesn't bother my spirit because I don't have one. Boosh.

ANONYMOUS wrote
'Jesus is God in the flesh.'

CARR
Isn't that what Paul believed? He writes about the resurrection of Jesus 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit', meaning that at the resurrection, the spirit of God entered the flesh of Jesus.

Peacetroll writes:

"Here is the basic maxim Jesus taught:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Confucius taught the same principle 500 years before the birth of Jesus. What's your point?

Jesus is God in the flesh.

Without him nothing was made.

The point I made (that went over your head obviously DaveB), was that Jesus propogated the theology of treating others humane.

IF propogating the teaching (regardless of WHO invented it), irritates others, then they have some sad, depressed and twisted spirits.

Dave L, google for "historical jesus exist". You will find some interesting reading.

PeaceTroll, atheist Susan Jacoby is among the commentators here. This forum does not exclude non-believers. We sometimes want to express our views too. Personally, although I do not believe in Jesus, or any god or gods, I hate no one, fictional or real. I live by the golden rule. Jesus did not invent it.

Go to www.choosejesusrightnow.com & click on BUMPER STICKERS.

Why do those who hate Jesus Christ bother to come and talk here?

I'm just curious.

Just because you don't appreciate Jesus Christ and his sacrifice, teachings and the hope we have in him, doesn't mean you need to go around trying to bash Jesus.

It is so sad.

Here is the basic maxim Jesus taught:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. For with Love all prophecy and law is fullfilled.

Does that message bother your spirit so that you must spend so much time trying to smear his name???

DAVE B: "No one knows what Jesus was really like, or if he even existed at all."

That's a bit overly skeptical. By what basis, historical, philosophical, scientific, or whatever, is this claim made?

The drunken Moses Story's is as sobering as the Drunken Noah story! Please you are G-d not Jesus not Moses not Mohamad not ....?! ECLAT :i: is you and IT (g-d stuff thingy) and ITSELF (Your unique Reality on the Move via eternal like in Photons)

No one knows what Jesus was really like, or if he even existed at all. This is a silly topic.

Jesus rejected the first and third temptations, after all (order in Matthew).

To Whom It May Concern: Dear World God is real and a lot of people know His Name but not many people seem to know very much about Him at all. First off God is a Trinity like a lot of people seem to believe, Second the second Person of the Trinity did empty Himself and become a human being like a lot of people say. Third the Holy Spirit was sent to us to guide us into all Truth like some people seem to believe. God is Pure Love not the hate-filled, egotistical, revengeful piece of garbage that a lot of people that call themselves Christians think that He is. Jesus is the Saviour of the entire human race not the second rate prophet of the prince of this world. The True Living Triune Triumphant God is a searcher of people's hearts and minds and I would recommend that if you say that you are a Christian then be one. Truth is Truth whether you believe it or not and God does look at what you do but He is not the big authoritative cop in the sky like so many people want to scare you into believing. God has a Plan and it is unfolding before our very eyes and He has had this Plan before He created anything whether on the spiritual or material plane. I write He even though God is not male or female but you have to use some kind of pronoun to speak about Him, God incarnate though became a man but as you might have heard He asked permission from a Lady to become a human being. Judaism is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a people and Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a person. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Justin,

K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

JD Crossan's books, In Search of Paul and also The Historic Jesus

Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll (Paperback - April 1, 2001)

You have to read in between the lines when searching out the influence of money in early Christianity since there were no economists in those days.

The wealth of the contemporary religions and associated aristocrats like the Queen of England is easily found via a Google search.

And money comes in various forms. For peasants like Jesus it came, in many cases, in the form of free room and board. One also assumes that Peter's travels especially to Rome were financed somehow. Ditto for Paul's many travels. Paul also collected significant funds from the Gentiles for Jewish famine relief. Did this also buy the Gentile entry into the movement? Probably. Paul also had a number of rich followers/disciples and his "prophecy" of the imminent second coming must have been a real money maker. (Still is!!!)

Jesus' ability to instantaneously change water into wine and replicate bread and fish sure kept expenses down. One must wonder if he had a winery and bakery as a side business? :))

As per Crossan, the movement started as egalitarian . As we know, it did not proceed down that path for very long.

And we also have this conclusion:

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

N. Thomas writes:

"Jesus was a social revolutionary in the same way that Mozart was brilliant at counterpoint."

???

The better example would have been Bach, at least if one wishes to faithfully draw an analogy to the stylistic strengths of a given musical period or composer.

Still, point taken.

In Philippians 4, Paul thanks people for all that they have given him.

Doug: You are absolutely correct in your statements on Paul and Jesus.

I think Concerned did write some truths, albeit far from the absolute.

Concerned seems to have a cynic's view of religious institutions. But for all their power there has been some good things to come out of it. Yes! Far greater good should have prevailed but still there was some good and there still is some good from the monies these institutions carry.

Concerned: Could you please post the verses of the Bible or academic text that have you interpreting, as you've written here, the for-a-fee ministries of Jesus and Paul?

You have to remember the standards Jesus was railing against.

There is good evidence that there were people hanging around the Temple, who demanded that others hand over all the proceeds of property sales to the religious authorities, the penalty for concealing even a part of the proceeds being death.

All humans are not God's.

Else Jesus would not have told the Pharasisee's the following:

John 8

42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

The body is just a clay vessel. It is the spirit that the true God is concerned with. And those spirits from the true God will love Jesus Christ. It's just that simple.

Again:
"If God were your Father, ye would love me"...Jesus Christ.

Silly comments? I think the comment that Jesus fed and healed people is far sillier.

Concerned:

Have you ever actually read the Bible? Or do you just like making up fantasies?

The Jesus who you say charged crowds for his services actually healed and fed the crowds getting nothing in return. That's why they followed Him. Also, when someone wanted to be his disciple he discouraged him by saying that he had no place to lay his head.

So much for being someone who was "zealous" in "trying to earn a living."

As for Paul, didn't you know that most of the time he did not accept money from the churches he served. He maintained his work as a tent-maker rather than charge for his work in the gospel even though he had that right.

Really, I would think you would read a little more before you made silly comments.

Early Christian economics 101: (Jesus was not a social revolutionary but just a guy well trained by the "Dunker" in how to earn a living.)

The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word plagiarized orally from the ancient religions but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree.

Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters for a fee and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big
buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!!

Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free".

The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's
richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies.

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

In conclusion, money is a major foundation of Christianity to include Mormonism. Ditto for Islam.

The martyred apostles ran afoul of Roman political and religious authorities because they preached, healed, and baptized for the conversion (and profit) to a non-Roman way of life. This support of an anti-Roman cult resulted in the typical murder/crucifixion of the cult leaders.

The apostles' conversions also caused a dramatic drop in Roman/Jewish temple appearances and contributions and just like Jesus' Jewish temple outburst, it resulted in added punishment to include crucifixion.

Jesus said that My Kingdom is not of this world, but that doesn't mean that we don't have to live down here for the time being. God has a Plan and it is unfolding and His Plan is for the salvation of all of His children. Do people that call themselves Christians realize what that means: actually it is to carry on the work that Jesus started. The enemy is satan and his cronies, not each other. All of humanity are God's children and all of humanity are also God's brothers and sisters since the Second Person of the Trinity of God became one of us. God is Pure Love, a consuming Fire of Pure Love and one day all the crud will be burned away. The seventh day will arrive when the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Love whichever you wish to call it will arrive. We are in the sixth day and have been for quite a while but night is coming be ready. God is God we ain't. On the seventh day God Blest, Rested and Made Holy that definitely hasn't arrived yet. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.