PDA

View Full Version : Jesus



MistOfTheSea86
July 17th, 2001, 05:48 AM
I thought I would post my views on him in here, I must first point out that this is not and will not be a bashing. Quite on the contrary, I hold Jesus in very high regard. My views on Jesus are, that he was a holy man. Whether he was the son of god or not, he was pure at heart and in his deeds were holy intents. He wanted to teach those around him, and let them feel free from their shackles. Though i have not read the bible, I have learned about him. And from what it says, he was a good man. It was his disiples that ruined it. Telling everyone that other cultures were satan. This was not what Jesus wanted as I see it. And I am sad that his disiples ruined it for millenias to come. I think that Jesus was a good man, I do not neccesraly think that he was the son of god, but I think he was on the path of light. And anyone following that is good in my book. What are your views on him? Good or Bad? Why Whynot?:D Just curious little old me.

Margie
July 17th, 2001, 08:33 AM
Hi MistOfTheSea86,

I think this is a good topic, however I won't be posting my views since they would most likely be harsh and I really don't want to spark a debate based on Xianity being shoved down my throat for the past 22 years.

Anyways I just wanted to aknowledge your mature reflection on your perception of Jesus.

Xois
July 17th, 2001, 10:55 AM
Jesus vs. Christ

Perhaps one of our Christian friends anc confirm this for me...Jesus referes to the man, calling him christ recognizes him as the son of god...right?

Revelation
July 17th, 2001, 01:17 PM
Christ comes from the Greek CHristos which means Messiah, also, Anointed One.

Earth Walker
July 17th, 2001, 01:51 PM
No Comment

Danustouch
July 17th, 2001, 01:53 PM
I may be wrong...been a while since I brushed up on my biblical interpretation and history...however, I believe there was at least one quote in the gospels, where Jesus did refer to himself as "the Christ.". However, simply because he referred to himself as such, does not mean that he felt he was the ONLY Christ. He did, numerous times try to deflect the attention paid to him by such quotes as.."Why do you call me good? No-one is Good, but God". Etc.

My personal feelings on the subject, are that yes, Jesus was a good man. I think most healers, ARE good. And he tried to point out a path of love, and forgiveness, in an era where the established religions priests were preaching hellfire and damnation. Not only that, but they had a similar social structure to the Caste system. It was very oppressive to the peoples of the time. To them..whatever situation you were born into, was the situation you were dealt by God. So in other words, if a person was diseased, or mentally ill, or poor...it was Gods Will. And they believed that it was probably Gods will due to a sin you or your family committed (the sins of the father, are visited upon the son.). Imagine the guilt that these people walked around with, weighing on their soul, day by day. Their unhappiness? How little hope these people had in life? Jesus came, IMO, to "Save" the people from these destructive thoughts. He came to enlighten people, and to show them love, in a loveless time. Where the Priests of their faith, avoided the people with leprosy, and cursed the ones who were mentally ill (perhaps epilepsy), Jesus reached out, and touched them, with kind words, an attentive ear, and a touch of healing. Imagine how much this meant to people in such suffering? That was the Miracle. Whether or not he was the one and only Son of God...I guess I'll find out on the other side. Though I personally, believe he was only one of many children of the devine.

So..with that said..Yes..I think it was some of his desciples who twisted it...and are still twisting it today. They have become the very thing, which Jesus spoke out so strongly against. I have NO doubt, that if I met Jesus today, he'd sit and talk with me, as a human. Listen to my troubles, talk them through with me, and be a kind and dear friend. Too bad that not ALL of his followers are more like him.

rantnraven
July 17th, 2001, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Mystique
No Comment

That, in itself, is just that, a comment. :D

Jesus, Son of God, carrier, or forgiver, of our sins.

I believe there was such a man but, only a man, with a message. The psychology purposed by the Bible is great and, I encourage all to read it. The thought of divine conception, however, to me (and I will own this) is hog-wash. The Bible is a great book, to that I will not contest. However, allow me to make the choice as to the application.

An it harm none,
RnR

Myst
July 17th, 2001, 03:26 PM
I found the responses here interesting. They seem to be polar, either he was a good man (regardless of if he really was the son of God), or "no comment". He brought hope and healing to the sick, regardless of his parentage, so can you begrudge him that?

My friend once told a fundie that Mary was an unwed teen mother. Which is true, if you think about it. But probably would be insulting to some Christians, because that makes her on par with the rest of us normal humans. :)

ladyrowan
July 17th, 2001, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by MistOfTheSea86
I think that Jesus was a good man, I do not neccesraly think that he was the son of god, but I think he was on the path of light. And anyone following that is good in my book.


Just a thought here, but i think it wise not to immediately trust 'anyone' just because they're on a similar path. I know of a few i wouldn't trust in any circumstances! You still have to use a bit of common sense in who you trust.

Emerald Sky
July 17th, 2001, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Mystique
No Comment

Good girl, Mystique! :D

MistOfTheSea86
July 17th, 2001, 09:16 PM
YOu are right to a certain degree. I do not trust him because of the path, In fact how could I trust him if I can not meet him? I just said that he was all right for being on the path of light. I also in no way was referring this ti Paganism. I was just referring to as positive path.

Dellit Tandannon
July 17th, 2001, 09:56 PM
i've never met anyone here (with the exception of kaylara) and i trust many of you

Twig
July 17th, 2001, 11:35 PM
I belive Jesus [the man] was a man infused with a "special" soul. I therorize it is the same soul that was given to the other great prophets. Budda, Mohammed, Krishna and others were given this soul also.

Why? Because the Gods saw that man wanted to worship in different ways and gave them the intermediator that was needed at the time.

And Man began to sing "My Gods better than your God. My Gods stronger than yours!" heheh

Just my 2 pence worth.

Peace,
Twig
:elf:

Draeconin
July 17th, 2001, 11:49 PM
> Whether he was the son of god or not, he was pure at heart and in his deeds were holy intents.

He was disgusted with how the leaders of his religion had started using it. They were selling salvation, you had to pay to get a priest to say prayers for you, etc. This is what his rage was all about when he "drove the money-lenders from the temple". And you don't think he did it all alone, do you? No, of course not. Back then, religion and politics were not separated, and religious leaders often had small armies, comprised mostly from the men of their followers. Assassination was also a popular political tool.

> And from what it says, he was a good man.

You wouldn't expect *their* book to say anything else, would you? But as it happens, he probably *was* a good man.

> Telling everyone that other cultures were satan.

"Satan" merely means "opposer" or "enemy" in the language it came from, and that's how the writers of the Bible used it.

The writers of the various "books" of the Xtian Bible lived far after Yeshuah ben Yoseph died. The first one was written about 50 years after his death. Opinions differ as to when the last one was written. It ranges from 150 to 300 years after his death. Paul was the worst of the lot, being a bigotted misogynist. It is *his* teachings that most Xtian denominations preach and follow - not Yeshuah's.

"Jesus Christ", btw, means "The Chosen, Annointed One". ('Jesus' = 'The Chosen One' - 'Christ' = 'The Annointed One') His birth name in English would be "Joshua, son of Joseph".

mol
July 18th, 2001, 12:15 AM
Hmm..

This seems more suitable to the Gods and Goddesses forum.

Mairwen
July 18th, 2001, 12:30 AM
I agree, as Mod for that Forum. Could a Moderator here kindly move this to Gods & Goddesses, please? Thanks! :D

EasternPriest
July 18th, 2001, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Draeconin
[B
The writers of the various "books" of the Xtian Bible lived far after Yeshuah ben Yoseph died. The first one was written about 50 years after his death. Opinions differ as to when the last one was written. It ranges from 150 to 300 years after his death. Paul was the worst of the lot, being a bigotted misogynist. It is *his* teachings that most Xtian denominations preach and follow - not Yeshuah's.

"Jesus Christ", btw, means "The Chosen, Annointed One". ('Jesus' = 'The Chosen One' - 'Christ' = 'The Annointed One') His birth name in English would be "Joshua, son of Joseph". [/B]

...and, since he was Christ, those who follow Him are Christians, not Xtians.

Armitage
July 18th, 2001, 01:41 AM
I think I have to agree with Twig here...His comment actually clarified how I felt. I never could put it in words when asked.
*highfives Twig*

Draeconin
July 18th, 2001, 02:32 AM
> ...and, since he was Christ,

*I* didn't accept him as "The Annointed One"...

> those who follow Him are Christians, not Xtians.

"Xtians" is perfectly good usage - originated from the Greek and a variation, Xmas, has been in English usage since at least the 1940's, when American retail stores started using it to save on space in their store windows.

ladyrowan
July 18th, 2001, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Twig
I belive Jesus [the man] was a man infused with a "special" soul. I therorize it is the same soul that was given to the other great prophets. Budda, Mohammed, Krishna and others were given this soul also.
Peace,
Twig
:elf:

Once again I agree with Twig.
I tried explaining this in a christian chatroom once - was nearly slaughtered! haha

Mairwen
July 18th, 2001, 05:22 PM
Okay, the topic of this thread is Jesus, not the viability of the letter X. If you want to discuss the "X", please take it to another forum. Let's pull it back to discussing Jesus please, or I will close the thread.

(and before I get my head bitten off, yes, I know I contributed to the X conversatoin, but was submitting information I learned ages ago in church, soooooo)

Let's go, gang!



dunno why this posted BEFORE instead of at the END of the thread!:mad:

AnnaHawk
July 18th, 2001, 06:03 PM
Personally, I wouldn't care if someone who needed to be monosyllabic called me a pag or a gwydd (gwith). Diminuatives are a natural course in the evolution of language and inter-group dynamic. Xtian, however is different. It is a Greek based spelling variation that is linguistically proper, and verbally in no way shortens the word. X-tian is still pronounced Christian, not Ex-ee-ann. And even so is not a mono or di-syllabic diminutive of the phrase. While a person may chose to take offense to anything, taking offense to something which in no way is objectively meant to be such could be considered a waste of energy.
When people call the indigenous peoples of North American In'jins, or the Japanese Japs, the Chinese Chinks, Italians Waps - these are meant to diminish. An archaic, yet proper spelling variation that in no way shortens the verbal referance to a religion nor intends no disrespect to its god cannot be seen the same way.
Besides, it is not Pagans or Buddhists, or others that began the usage. It was Christians.
Personally, I think having to write out Gwyddoniad every time I refer to the name of our order is a pain in the butt. It is why I tolerate the grammatically improper use of the term Gwyddonic. Not much, but a little shorter. A symbol for a part of it, like the luck Christians have (the X) that would be cool. And then to have people still universally know what I mean. How cool would that be ! :D

It's all how you choose to look at the thing.

Anna Hawk

Mairwen
July 18th, 2001, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by AnnaHawk
Personally, I wouldn't care if someone who needed to be monosyllabic called me a pag or a gwydd (gwith).

Which is partly why my Craft Name is Mairwen y Gwydd. :D Praise the Gods for the Paste command.

Now, about that Jesus man. What were we talking about, again?

silvrsnstr
July 18th, 2001, 07:58 PM
[THIS PART EDITED OUT BY MODERATOR]

I think that Jesus was a good man. People might not agree with what he "tought" but since the Bible is ultimatly written by People, then that is all we ahve to go on. And there were probably dozens of powertrips in which people changed it! In the end, the only way to learn the Word of The Christian God, is to hear him talk to you.

If you disagree, well, i am from S NJ.
Nuff said.

silvrsnstr
July 18th, 2001, 08:00 PM
The message a typed last is meant to be at the bottum. I think i will wait for the server transfer, if thats the kinda problems it causes.
Thanks

Mairwen
July 18th, 2001, 08:22 PM
Please people, let's pay attention to HOW we're wording and stating things! Please try not to be offensive. And if I see another post in here like the one I edited, I'll take it to Staff. And this is the second time I've had to moderate this thread. If I have to do it again, it's getting closed.

Celtic_Angel
July 18th, 2001, 09:25 PM
Since the name of the thread is Jesus and not X, I will reply to and only to the topic presented.

I guess my signature says it all when it comes to how I feel about Jesus. Anyways, I feel that He was a good man, whose teaching can be of use to those who follow Him as the Messiah and those who don't.

silvrsnstr
July 18th, 2001, 10:31 PM
That was just my opinion. Xtians is not a substitute for Christians, and to me a term of disrespect. If Christians don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that.

Crimson StarRaven

Mairwen
July 18th, 2001, 11:18 PM
Yes, wasn't X meant to mean Christ in Greek?

And if you lie it on its side, it's the "beginning" of the Icthus symbol, without the ) on the end.

EasternPriest
July 19th, 2001, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Draeconin
> ...and, since he was Christ,

*I* didn't accept him as "The Annointed One"...

> those who follow Him are Christians, not Xtians.

"Xtians" is perfectly good usage - originated from the Greek and a variation, Xmas, has been in English usage since at least the 1940's, when American retail stores started using it to save on space in their store windows.

Xtians is not perfectly good usage, it is dimunitive, and offensive to many. It does not matter what your personal beliefs in Jesus are, and it does not matter what retail stores have done.

EasternPriest
July 19th, 2001, 01:04 AM
As an example, would it be ok for others to refer to you in general as pags and wics?

MistOfTheSea86
July 19th, 2001, 05:27 AM
what happened here everyone? It has been moderated two times, please try to be more careful:(

Draeconin
July 19th, 2001, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by EasternPriest
As an example, would it be ok for others to refer to you in general as pags and wics?

Are there historical and common usage precedents?

Xois
July 19th, 2001, 09:51 AM
Pag!!! I LOVE IT!!! ;)

Just call me Pag! LOL I am rolling EP... Thanks, I needed that today!!

Cheers
Zois (I changed the X *wink*)

ps you know I am just joshing you

Mairwen
July 19th, 2001, 10:30 AM
I'm sorry, but I asked folks not to go there, and you did. This subject is closed.
=====================================


Originally posted by silvrsnstr
That was just my opinion. Xtians is not a substitute for Christians, and to me a term of disrespect. If Christians don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that. Crimson StarRaven