ADN

I believe that Jesus is God's Son yet part of God. He came down to earth as God's Son but he is in God and every part of him is every part of God. So I subscribe to both things you said Ja...

in my opinion Jesus certainly is not God. God also did not "send" Jesus.

imho. jesus was a person just like you and me. an intelligent guy though. way ahead of his time. he understood how human behaviour would lead to chaos, war and tirrany and that was what he preached: how to use our brains in order not to let that happen, because he knew that we were (divinely?) gifted by our capacity to reason and knew that if we would tap that potential we all have in us that "Good" would prevail. He communicated that we indeed are tempted by a strong, dark side and that it would take reflection, prayer and a relentless search for "Good" to withstand it.

i also believe church is very much man-made - and lost all of its connection with that search for Good. quite on the contrary - even very early on - it did a lot of wrong, while preaching the exact opposite: we had corrupt popes, the inquisition, an archaic vision on pressing problems of our or of all times. But by far the greatest of its sins is its removal of personal responsibility in favor of putting that responsibility within the hierarchy of itself. An individual is no longer required to actually think about what he / she does. He is not capable of judging right from wrong and good from evil, he can act wantonly and plea for forgiveness when he does do wrong... eternally so. It invented all concepts of how exactly "God" is structured with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - maybe just to make it more mystique than it is; to hold a trump card explaining the exact same concept which makes up for its biggest sin. An individual does not hold the wisdom to understand; a scholar does. The masses are ignorant. Marx was right: religion is opium to the people - it turns them into mindless zombies, acting the exact same way their primal insticts make them do so. And again: if they turn out to be wrong: just ask for forgiveness - or buy it, which also has been possible throughout history.

From that down to earth view over to a more religious one. Non-cannonical writings frequently address some kind of plurality in the concept of God. John's Apocryphon divides the divine being by at least 10 - exactly how they are structured is impossible without extensive analysis which I would still like to do one day. Do note that the concepts of more than one god is widely distributed with only the Jewish, Catholic and Muslim religions holding on to only one - correct me if I am absolutely wrong. Quite some other existing and deceased religions use multiple entities to describe the divine being.

you have at least three different entitites and movements in the early tenets of Christianity.

1. the mythical "iesu",.. the Demi-god. This was a Greek model, not a Hebrew one. The gods coming and bedding down with a woman who begets a son of God was their model for divinity. He undergoes tribulations, faces evil, accomplishes the task of dispelling it, and ultimately ends in the promethean tragedy, which he transcends through immortal regonition. His is a personal journey, and has a lot to do with great deeds being accomplished in the sight of disbelievers, who join his ranks.

2. the rabbinical Jeshua,.. the Master Teacher. This was the man capable of great deeds, and known for great wisdom teachings. He sought to renew the covenant that is according to his teaching the birthright of the Jews. He achieved the Meshiach' which was the goal of ever Essene. There would be two to come, one the suffering servant, and one the warrior king. Jeshua was, by all hopes of his disciples, going to the be the warrior king to lead Israel back to its former glory. This is the oldest view of Jeshua, and is still held by the Ebionites, who were and remain the original Christians, who say Christ was given bad pr and the entire works of Paul are emeshed in fantasy, which does his honor a discredit, and perverts the context of his teachings.

3. the evangelical Jesus,.. who was sent to save all people from all suffering, in a world where most only knew suffering. His was the task to undertake the very defeat of hell and death, and yet live. He is the gnostic sacrifice of the demi-urge that it may redeem itself, by becoming the horror it created which is an abomination to God, an abomination called man; who is the origin of all that must be refined in the world, less it be but a world of darkness.

Paul took the writings of a'Matishyahu (Matthew), gave them to his own students, and said (basically) "give me a super-star!!!" and got Mark, Luke, and John, which are where the Greek demi-god, and the evangelical Jesus come into play and flesh out the Rabbinical Jeshua. A few redactions later, and lots of scholarly cosmetic "work", and the book almost fits together. But it is not until it is translated to German that it truly integrates.

My beliefs in the matter respectfully reside between the three of these distinct views, that quickly became one when the western mind became respectful of the need for literacy. Until then, most of the Bibles were filled with gibberish, and many of them still exist today.

QUOTE(DaddyJ)The WORD = Truth = Light = God  
Jesus is the word the light and the truth.  

Man saw the word the truth the light in flesh.

It's that simple but to understand you must believe.

The word doesn't leave room for a "unified" word.  
The truth doesn't leave room for a "unified" truth.
The light  doesn't leave room for a "unified" light.

The WORD is wrong. It is THE WORD. That Greek word is Logos. It means much more than word. it means "word of law", "logic", "reasoning" - basically the summation of data to reach a conclusion or to form a expression.

In John, Paul calls Iesu LOGOS. The Chinese equivalence is Tao, and that is the word used in their Bible in your verse.

Lemme show you my old Christian spell books, much older than your bible or your church, with prayers to Ra and Horus, using names of Greek and Phoenician gods.

But among the essenes (with which Paul did some study) this has a different meaning. It is the word uttered by the God (Atum) when he "ejaculated out of his penis" and created the world. And that ejaculation is the "transgression of the demi-urge." And that word is HU. the "ejaculated out of his penis" is distinctly not to say he did this literally, rather - this is the closest a man could understand what it was, and thus this was the heiroglyphs used to express that surge of creative force.

That "ejaculation" is LOGOS, and thus Paul said it was Iesu, for to him, the Messiah was the manifestation of the very same creative force.

QUOTEPaul took the writings of a'Matishyahu (Matthew), gave them to his own students, and said (basically) "give me a super-star!!!" and got Mark, Luke, and John, which are where the Greek demi-god, and the evangelical Jesus come into play and flesh out the Rabbinical Jeshua. A few redactions later, and lots of scholarly cosmetic "work", and the book almost fits together. But it is not until it is translated to German that it truly integrates.

How is that possible when Mark was written first? Almost all of the scholars and biblical professors agree that Mark was the first gospel written

interesting point you make there, being that oh, Mark wasn't a disciple and all,.. He was in fact imprisoned with Paul, and good friend to peter some 20 years. He was introduced to the Christian mythos because we was a cousin of Barnabus.

All of the gospels have went through redaction, but linguistic analysis shows that Matthew is the most intact clearly the first, the least "spectacular", the most reflective upon actual Jewish culture, sentiments, bias, and even the elements of public sentiment, pride, and prejudice; specifically in regard to Gentiles.

It is the only book in the Bible written by a Jew that details the essenianic tradition Jeshua adhered to in his rabbinical studies, for practicing Jews. It is clear that it is the only book that has the view Jews are a people chosen to deliver Gentiles, who are in his Time, essentially Pagans,.. but by time of Mark, the Gentile is a reference to a non-Jewish Christian.

But IN FACT the tradition of The Christians is that MATTHEW wrote the first gospel, and it was the only one originally written in Hebrew, according to Papius.

.brains wrote....i also believe church is very much man-made - and lost all of its connection with that search for Good. quite on the contrary - even very early on - it did a lot of wrong, while preaching the exact opposite: we had corrupt popes, the inquisition,

...Ill be the first to agree there have been gross injustises done by the church to people including christians killing other christians.Whats that got to do with jesus or the new testement?I must have missed the part were it says kill they neihgbor and lie to your flock.The church isnt god.A pope isnt above the word of god.( at least for me cause im non denominational)..Dont be mad at the religeon.Be mad that it was abused.

brains..... But by far the greatest of its sins is its removal of personal responsibility in favor of putting that responsibility within the hierarchy of itself. An individual is no longer required to actually think about what he / she does. He is not capable of judging right from wrong and good from evil, he can act wantonly and plea for forgiveness when he does do wrong... eternally so.

.......Dude you are soo far off track i wouldnt know where to begin.Why dont you try asking some questions about your concerns before coming to a opinion like that.

brains....An individual does not hold the wisdom to understand; a scholar does

......Those lucky scholars..only they get to know god.

At raum..to post 13....Thats a lot of opinions but ill start here.First of all your asking us to believe you some how know exactly what these three belief systems were... and were sopposed to believe you have interpreted all there beliefs accuratly.Thats a lot to ask.Im sure if you gave ten different experts the same evidence they would come up with ten different opinions. How can you have three different belief systems and claim there all christian.Thats like saying theres an apple a pear and a peach but there all apples.I have no dought that there were different groups that concederd there beliefs to be the true path but they cant all be christion.Just becouse you or they call it christian doesnt make it so.If your going to exept jesus came and taught some thing.. than what did he teach and what is the clearest version of that teaching.If you want to discuss what you believe the true teachings of christ are than great.post away.This whole.. i know how every thing came to be.. is pointless.

raum......My beliefs in the matter respectfully reside between the three of these distinct views, that quickly became one when the western mind became respectful of the need for literacy. Until then, most of the Bibles were filled with gibberish, and many of them still exist today.
.... ..It sounds like your saying you cant make up your mind.Get off the fence..pick some thing....will try not to pick your beliefs apart....=)

Not just to raum......I dont know any thing about the documentation that got the bible here but ive read what seem to be very intelligent people with degrees in or being schooled in theolegy debating for over 100 posts on this stuff.They come at each other with piles of old documents of varios languges and argue over interpretations of words and sentences..If you believe the auther was influenced by this he must mean that if by that he must mean this.Nobody ever seems to agree on dates.When you bring two or more of these types of people together nobody seems to win.It all seems to come down to your personl interpretation or dare we say belief..Of course you never really know how much of this the people of that time really conciderd to be well respected beliefs or just fringe crazy stuff.What was myth ..what was the religios version of wives tails What was truely inspired and what was the ramblings of some one on a power trip looking for the biggest group of followers he could get...I think any one who thinks they have all the answers to how some thing came to be that is so big with so maney variables would be a good definition of blind faith.Blind faith in your own abilities.

Sorry if im simple but the bible to me is a perfect path( or to be fare one of them) to god that is proven true to me every day.If it didnt work or if it hadnt made profound changes in my life i wouldnt be writting this.I believe the truth found its way to the here and now.To look at its world wide exeptance and the 100s of millions of peaple it calls believers i believe says some thing about the power of its truth.God uses friend and foe, those who are fools and those who are in the know to achieve his final goal.

...raum wrote...That "ejaculation" is LOGOS, and thus Paul said it was Iesu, for to him, the Messiah was the manifestation of the very same creative force.

Honestly i dont know wether your disagreeing or agreeing.Your saying paul called him a creative force.Sounds good.He created the WORD so you could say he is the word.Hey we all agree.

@highlife:

lucky scholars indeed. haha. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

seriously: I do not believe a lot of catholics think about god; they (should) go to church instead and (should) hear about god. then they go home, do whatever they want and confess their sins when they think they made them. You get a few assignments - e.g. pray a few - and you are set to continue your life of sin.

I am not of track at all. The questions you say I should ask, I did and that is the conclusion I made. Think about it or ask me the questions you think I should ask myself.