Liberating Jesus from Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't mean I'm doing it on the grand scale that God does it, but He does do some of His work through people like me. (Hence His commands to love others, and hence Jesus' command to spread the Gospel.) What, you thought Christians are expected by God to just sit around? What about Jesus' instructions to feed the poor, visit the sick, etc? Man, you are ignorant, or at least do a darn good impression.

If it is not HIS work, the whose work is it? (Of course this is true to me since I don't believe in Free Will)


Now I don't agree with Ragtime theologically speaking (in fact very little); I don't accept his truth as Truth. However, according to my beliefs his is true to him and by him believing that in itself is its own path towards Him and would imply he is doing His work.

Sin is subjective as well as moral wrong. Some laws make the unlawful lawful and the lawful unlawful. It just means we are not identical. Certainly if the lawful remained lawful and unlawful unlawful, why do Christians eat pork, catfish, and food with blood in it? Why do many not circumcise?


I really dislike pork and catfish,..and blood on my food.

But you're not supposed to 'straighten' truth. The Spanish Inquisition tried to do that with racks, and look where it got them. In fact, there are three major strikes against Christianity:

1. The Inquisition.

2. The Crusades.

3. Missionary work to 'heathen savages' who didn't want conversion.

Feeding the poor and helping the sick, I don't object to. Hell, I'd encourage it. But you seem to think that you might as well slip some scripture in, infect others with your meme.

Actually you should.

Think of a person trying to teach scientific works (the bible to atheists) to ignorant men but the facts are not correct. Would you remain idle by or interject?

That's not straightening truth. Not in the sense that Christians do. We use facts that are observed and tested through experiment. Can you test God? If I recall, there's a few Bible verses saying that you can't put God to the test, which is actually very much a cop-out. So, if God refuses to let himself be tested, then you cannot quantify him or classify him (as ridiculous a task that may sound).

I just had the funniest image of a doctor calling up God so he could do some blood tests. And an even funnier image of it actually being a paternity test!

says the scarecrow.

You're right, you can't classify Him and you surely cannot put Him through any tests. That is in my opinion blasphemy, including applying attributes. I use very little attributes mainly due to ineffability. These are He (which is mainly due to limits within English) and Creator. I try to limit myself as I don't like to participate in religious discussions with atheists.

And I can't imagine your image as it would be blasphemy. But I'm sure it's a funny thing when you're considering Christianity.

Are you kidding me? Have you actually read the Bible all the way through? Read the four gospels closely, and tell me, do they agree?

If you are unwilling to discuss this, it means that you have failed in your argument.



While I'm not so stupid as to declare victory, you are obviously unwilling to argue this point. Bye bye.

You don't know what Jesus said. You only know what a follower of Jesus said almost a hundred years after his death. Nobody who wrote the gospels saw Jesus or knew him personally. They weren't eye witnesses. You keep presenting beliefs as facts.

What does it to to the Bible, then? Subtracting the main character of the story would turn it into something else, something NOT the Bible.

Were you an eyewitness? Were you there? Did you know Jesus personally?

Hmm...The writers of the Gospels assert that they were witnesses to Jesus' work.









You missed the point or misunderstood me. I never said I am unwilling to argue or debate, I am unwilling to discuss or share my faith however. There is no "Sharing the Good Word" as I am not a Christian. So when I say Religious Discussions it only means discussions where the group is sharing their experiences and meanings behind the Word or in trying to get another to understand and know.

It is not for me to speak of the Pure with the impure, hence why I do not converse serious religious matters with non-believers. It would also seem as if I'm proselytizing, an act I'm completely against.

Hmm, the last part might be considered offensive depending on how you interpret it. Oh well, I'll get the popcorn ready.

What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that scripture is only authoritative to people who believe it is the inherent word of God. I don't. I view scripture in the context in which it was written. If one takes the sayings of Jesus that all the gospels have in common, you will probably have a good argument for their authenicity, but you can't quote a single verse and say that it is the truth. Furthermore, the Son of God is not literal. It is about title. Son of God means king. David was the Son of God, because he was king. People thought Jesus was the anointed one like David, the messiah. When he talks about Son of Man, that means he is the judge of human kind at the end of time. Of course, you wouldn't know any of this stuff unless you took some theology courses and studied the scripture closely, which I have. I trust what my instructors (Christians who devoted their lives to studying and preaching scripture) say. Until somebody on this site shows me their doctorate in theology, they can't tell me anything about the Bible. Even if they did, I would have to read it for myself, because everybody has a different interpretation. I've read Ragtime's posts, and it sounds like something he learned at Sunday School. He's no expert on the Bible. He's just sharing his opinion.

Liberating the character of Jesus from Christianity would not mean excising it from the Bible. The Old Testament, being pure Hebrew/Jewish literature, would remain the same. But the Gospels would be treated as one big parable, in four versions, written for 3/4 significantly different audiences.

The character of Jesus came from outside the hebrew tradition; from Greece, India, and further east, most immediately from the gnostic mysteries practised by followers all over the Eastern mediterranean and points east in the last centuries BC and the first century AD.

The Jesus character was the archetype representing sacrifice and resurrection. It was a very important and powerful element in the spiritual journey.

As the roman empire spread across all that part of the world ideas and people mixed, including that of Hebrew religion with those of Gnosticism/the greek mysteries.

Various versions of the resulting mixture were taught/told across the area; some versions of the parable/story designed to appeal more to traditional jewish people, others for the more classically greek educated, etc. The religious "crossbreed" was vigorous, had astonishing power.

This may have been the result of gnostic symbolism combining for the first time with monotheism, instead of ( indian and greek) polytheism, from which the gnostic mysteries, ( involving several major characters, including for example Sophia, representing objective knowledge/wisdom, the "sister" of the Jesus character , but who unfortunately got lost in the new amalgam, not surprisingly seeing the intensely misogynist nature of the hebrew religion compared to the greek) , had evolved originally.

Nobody then would have believed that the story called "The Gospel" was about real people anymore than we would about Batman, or Jason Bourne. But as time passed and teaching the tool for spiritual awakening to the the literal minded romans demanded more circumstantial detail different writers rewrote to include more personal, historical, "touches". To help people unused to the spiritual practices of the gnostic mysteries to connect with them.

Think of remakes of films; the American remake of "The Ring" for instance which appeals to the mainstream US market more than the original Japanese film. "The Gospel" was a bestselling story with which people identified deeply because the characters in it represented parts of themselves.

Ironically it was this rewriting/elaboration of the story which contributed to its adoption by the roman empire as a genuine history, of somebody real. The Romans needed it to be "history". They didn't understand its importance and value as a story, as a guide with symbols to inner/spiritual growth.

Liberating Jesus from Christianity is an interesting project; liberating Jesus from the tomb of "history"/"objective reality" in which the character was incarcerated by the Roman Catholic Christian Empire. Don't even have to wait for the rest of the world to do it.

Last edited by ouinon on 30 May 2008, 6:57 am, edited 3 times in total.

What exactly is an expert? A person only with a doctorate in Theology? You wouldn't consider a person who has studied for years under auspices yet has no theology degree?


Anyways, what is your opinion on Gospel of John?