Who was Jesus?

Tristan

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
It has been 2000 years of deceit and suddenly there is a discovery that shakes our minds maybe we need a mild recovery time to assimilate the new information we handle
This means our old program / ​​paradigm melts especially for those who have been educated in a Christian environment, even for some so-called atheists. Now We are are opening new possibilities for exploration
Moreover, apparently, this historical figure is more interesting as we are digging into their records and historical context surrounding
It gives me a special interest in the relationship with the stoicism What has to do with Christianity? and could be a connection with ancient teachings, and the fourth way
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Buddy said:
Let me speak conventionally for a minute. Let's assume for a moment that the New Testament gospels of Jesus' life and ministry are literally true. In that historical time period, as the story goes, Jesus took on the sins of the world and eventually sacrificed himself for Man - possibly buying us enough karmic grace to make it this far with no comets hitting us on the head. OK, here we are now with the very foundations of Christian Fundamentalism being called into question. So? For me, it's enough to know there is now evidence to question the whole shebang. If one of the results of all this is that entrenched institutional religion is uprooted so that humanity can pass through a needed phase in evolutionary growth, how do we know that this was not planned so as to be yet another sacrifice on his part? Either way he gets the glory, right? And a person is still free to choose his own personal beliefs and compare his fruits with others at any time, OSIT.

You seem to be positing a scenario where Jesus was real and at the same time fake and drawing a single conclusion from those two mutually incompatible scenarios. Doesn't really make sense.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Perceval said:
You seem to be positing a scenario where Jesus was real and at the same time fake and drawing a single conclusion from those two mutually incompatible scenarios. Doesn't really make sense.

Yeah, I kind of thought that's how it looked after I disengaged from it. Probably shouldn't have posted it. What I'm looking for is a future way to eventually address different people - those who believe in the story literally or believe in a traditional interpretation or believe something - all at one time.

It's not working though, I see. I'll work on it some more.
 

ROEL

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Nienna said:
ROEL said:
The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

And why is that? They have stated that they have a 70% accuracy rate - not 100%. And I can think of many other things that would be "a matter of the first order" other than the reliability of the Cs.

ROEL said:
I would still insist that a blunt question be put to the Cs:

'Was Caesar the "real" Jesus?'

I say this because in the Jesus/Caesar thread there is no clarification on this point, and the Cs, so to speak, should be amicably grilled about the various affirmations (replies) they gave on the identity of the being we refer to as Jesus.

This is almost humorous to me. It sounds like a fanatic who is afraid that their beliefs are about to be shattered and you need conformation that that just isn't so.

Maybe it would be good for you to relax a little and not write when you are so emotional? Demanding something from Laura and crew is very externally inconsiderate and quite full of internal consideration on your part. Laura is a very smart cookie, I'm sure that whatever questions she asks will be the ones that need to be asked, for whatever reason, on whatever topic, whenever that might be.

I think my turn came to chuckle at YOUR emotional reaction.
a) I'm far from fanatic.
b) "insist" means something quite different from "demand". Look it up.
c) Laura indeed is a smart cookie, to the point she doesn't need a self-appointed defense attorney.
 

NormaRegula

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
ROEL said:
Nienna said:
ROEL said:
The reliability (or not) of the Cs is a matter of the first order.

And why is that? They have stated that they have a 70% accuracy rate - not 100%. And I can think of many other things that would be "a matter of the first order" other than the reliability of the Cs.

ROEL said:
I would still insist that a blunt question be put to the Cs:

'Was Caesar the "real" Jesus?'

I say this because in the Jesus/Caesar thread there is no clarification on this point, and the Cs, so to speak, should be amicably grilled about the various affirmations (replies) they gave on the identity of the being we refer to as Jesus.

This is almost humorous to me. It sounds like a fanatic who is afraid that their beliefs are about to be shattered and you need conformation that that just isn't so.

Maybe it would be good for you to relax a little and not write when you are so emotional? Demanding something from Laura and crew is very externally inconsiderate and quite full of internal consideration on your part. Laura is a very smart cookie, I'm sure that whatever questions she asks will be the ones that need to be asked, for whatever reason, on whatever topic, whenever that might be.

I think my turn came to chuckle at YOUR emotional reaction.
a) I'm far from fanatic.
b) "insist" means something quite different from "demand". Look it up.
c) Laura indeed is a smart cookie, to the point she doesn't need a self-appointed defense attorney.

There is no call for rudeness, ROEL.

Nienna was not being emotional. Just stating the obvious.

It seems that you do have an emotional attachment to the idea of knowing right now whether or not Julius Ceasar was the man behind the Jesus myth, hence your insistence that the C's be given your blunt question rather than following the threads and research into this matter that is still ongoing here.

Insistence is a demand...especially in the way you have reacted thus far to the input here.

The dictionary's explanation of Insistence is:

To be firm in a demand or course; refuse to yield: insisted on giving me a second helping.
v.tr.
To assert or demand (something) vehemently and persistently: We insist that you accept these gifts.


I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
NormaRegula said:
I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.

I don't know what ROEL really wants, but likely answers to his questions are pretty easily found without any renewed grilling of the Cs on the topic.

Based on previous sessions, and new information, it seems likely that there was probably an enlightened person around 2,000 years ago who told spiritual truth to those people looking for them. He gained some popularity but probably not widespread, since at that time, like today, there was probably a control system in place that censored such information, and in any case, it was not everyone's cup of tea (like today) and very few actually prescribed to it (like today). The screwballs that wrote the bible, or the first draft, may have used some *minor* aspects of this person's teaching, but it was wildly distorted and exaggerated and, in any case, the main aspects or template of the "Jesus" story as it has come down to us today as Christianity appears to have been nicked from the life of Julius Caesar.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
ROEL said:
b) "insist" means something quite different from "demand". Look it up.

Actually, it's a synonym of demand.
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Perceval said:
NormaRegula said:
I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.

Based on previous sessions, and new information, it seems likely that there was probably an enlightened person around 2,000 years ago who told spiritual truth to those people looking for them. He gained some popularity but probably not widespread, since at that time, like today, there was probably a control system in place that censored such information, and in any case, it was not everyone's cup of tea (like today) and very few actually prescribed to it (like today). The screwballs that wrote the bible, or the first draft, may have used some *minor* aspects of this person's teaching, but it was wildly distorted and exaggerated and, in any case, the main aspects or template of the "Jesus" story as it has come down to us today as Christianity appears to have been nicked from the life of Julius Caesar.

That seems very much like a perspective I was searching for.
 

irjO

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Buddy said:
Perceval said:
NormaRegula said:
I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.

Based on previous sessions, and new information, it seems likely that there was probably an enlightened person around 2,000 years ago who told spiritual truth to those people looking for them. He gained some popularity but probably not widespread, since at that time, like today, there was probably a control system in place that censored such information, and in any case, it was not everyone's cup of tea (like today) and very few actually prescribed to it (like today). The screwballs that wrote the bible, or the first draft, may have used some *minor* aspects of this person's teaching, but it was wildly distorted and exaggerated and, in any case, the main aspects or template of the "Jesus" story as it has come down to us today as Christianity appears to have been nicked from the life of Julius Caesar.

That seems very much like a perspective I was searching for.

I thought the same thing about 'the 2 jesus'! Maybe the C's referrs the real one, and the one who we think is Jesus because of the bible, is Julius Caesar.
 

dant

The Living Force
I recalled that C's occasionally used the word 'moniker'
and a search for 'moniker' resulted in 8 found. I wondered
if Jesus & Christ are separate words in meaning, and
found the following:

Session 950916
Q: (RC) Is the word "Jesus" derivative of Isis or Zeus?
A: Neither, Jesus is moniker only.

Session: 970607
A: Prefixes are added and dropped at will in monikers.
 

H-KQGE

Dagobah Resident
I thought that "Christ" meant someone who was anointed.(consecrated, venerated etc) Didn't the C's mention that the first Christ was female? If we put that with the prefixes & monikers thing & the recent revelations from research, & finally with Perceval's post then it seems pretty clear that "jesus" as a saviour (remember there's evidence for a few people with that name in that period) just wasn't so.
 

l apprenti de forgeron

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Buddy said:
Perceval said:
NormaRegula said:
I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.

Based on previous sessions, and new information, it seems likely that there was probably an enlightened person around 2,000 years ago who told spiritual truth to those people looking for them. He gained some popularity but probably not widespread, since at that time, like today, there was probably a control system in place that censored such information, and in any case, it was not everyone's cup of tea (like today) and very few actually prescribed to it (like today). The screwballs that wrote the bible, or the first draft, may have used some *minor* aspects of this person's teaching, but it was wildly distorted and exaggerated and, in any case, the main aspects or template of the "Jesus" story as it has come down to us today as Christianity appears to have been nicked from the life of Julius Caesar.

That seems very much like a perspective I was searching for.

I agree. Clarifies better what was already thinking. I also believe these issues will continue to generate reactions until people start working the idea that nobody is going to save them. That is what the "inner child" raised in monotheism must know and work. Personally I have really wanted to communicate with family and friends about Julius Caesar, pass the links of videos and books, but still I need to know more because I can see possible attacks by them. Like as if to show openly that I do not believe in Catholicism is equivalent of lack of tact, and worse, lack of empathy (they would say compassion) for others, or cease to be a human. As if out of the belief empathy could not take place! You name it? How the church with morals of slavery took for herself something natural in humans as empathy?. I was reading the very interesting case of Laura Keynes, a descendant of Darwin (and John Maynard Keynes) who after passing through Buddhism and formed by an elite academic environment, returned to catholicism of his childhood because there was not normal people despised by atheist academicism. Even his conversion is a reaction to a book of Richard Dawkins. So, she returned to catholicism not because she believed that is a metaphysical truth there, but because there she can develop and embrace empathy toward all (or so I understood). She looks smart and with a good heart, so that "what is at hand" for she is Catholicism as a way of not allowing stolen her natural empathy that comes from inside. Although I think that way she fed the pathological church, since you can develop empathy fighting monotheistic principles, in civil society. Perhaps what lacks is just more information on pathological and psychopathic in religion, academics and elsewhere. Maybe even in some ancestor? Well, here are some links about it:

_http://www.strangenotions.com/darwin-catholic/
_http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/
 

Iron

Dagobah Resident
l apprenti de forgeron said:
Buddy said:
Perceval said:
NormaRegula said:
I think you need to take some time to reassess just what it is that you really want from Laura and the C's in regards to the Jesus question.

Based on previous sessions, and new information, it seems likely that there was probably an enlightened person around 2,000 years ago who told spiritual truth to those people looking for them. He gained some popularity but probably not widespread, since at that time, like today, there was probably a control system in place that censored such information, and in any case, it was not everyone's cup of tea (like today) and very few actually prescribed to it (like today). The screwballs that wrote the bible, or the first draft, may have used some *minor* aspects of this person's teaching, but it was wildly distorted and exaggerated and, in any case, the main aspects or template of the "Jesus" story as it has come down to us today as Christianity appears to have been nicked from the life of Julius Caesar.

That seems very much like a perspective I was searching for.

I agree. Clarifies better what was already thinking. I also believe these issues will continue to generate reactions until people start working the idea that nobody is going to save them. That is what the "inner child" raised in monotheism must know and work. Personally I have really wanted to communicate with family and friends about Julius Caesar, pass the links of videos and books, but still I need to know more because I can see possible attacks by them. Like as if to show openly that I do not believe in Catholicism is equivalent of lack of tact, and worse, lack of empathy (they would say compassion) for others, or cease to be a human. As if out of the belief empathy could not take place! You name it? How the church with morals of slavery took for herself something natural in humans as empathy?. I was reading the very interesting case of Laura Keynes, a descendant of Darwin (and John Maynard Keynes) who after passing through Buddhism and formed by an elite academic environment, returned to catholicism of his childhood because there was not normal people despised by atheist academicism. Even his conversion is a reaction to a book of Richard Dawkins. So, she returned to catholicism not because she believed that is a metaphysical truth there, but because there she can develop and embrace empathy toward all (or so I understood). She looks smart and with a good heart, so that "what is at hand" for she is Catholicism as a way of not allowing stolen her natural empathy that comes from inside. Although I think that way she fed the pathological church, since you can develop empathy fighting monotheistic principles, in civil society. Perhaps what lacks is just more information on pathological and psychopathic in religion, academics and elsewhere. Maybe even in some ancestor? Well, here are some links about it:

_http://www.strangenotions.com/darwin-catholic/
_http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/

As always is useful to remember the concepts of strategic enclosure and external consideration.
In other words, can you consider in a non-atached way what is there for them to gain from this information? Do they even want to know about this?
Or is you that want to determine their needs for them? This is not an ideological battle, they can choose illusion if they so desire.
So, perhaps it is best to forget this idea of "knowing more to defend yourself from attacks of those who will not believe" and focus on knowing because it is where your curiosity is leading you. OSIT
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
H-KQGE said:
I thought that "Christ" meant someone who was anointed.(consecrated, venerated etc) Didn't the C's mention that the first Christ was female? If we put that with the prefixes & monikers thing & the recent revelations from research, & finally with Perceval's post then it seems pretty clear that "jesus" as a saviour (remember there's evidence for a few people with that name in that period) just wasn't so.

Well, there is what some types of manuscript scholars tell us about the word, and then there is archaeology - finding words on public monuments etc, which sometimes contradicts or expands long held ideas. Seems that the word "chrestus" back in GraecoRoman times simply meant "the good" and was often attached to the name of someone who was considered to be that with no religious connotation at all. See Socrates Chrestus, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates_Chrestus And Mithridates Chrestus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithridates_Chrestus A similar word could mean "money lender" according to Carotta and may be the definition attached to the "Chrestus" in Rome reported by Seutonius who, in his Life of Claudius, says that Jews instigated by Chrestus were expelled from the city for causing disturbances.

Of course, this could easily have referred to some sort of activity related to commemoration of Julius Caesar because it is also noted that Caesar was very good to the Jews and they mourned his death more than any other group of people.

I would suggest that everyone interested in the topic at least read what Carotta has on his site which is about half of his book.
 

l apprenti de forgeron

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks Laura. For my part I begin to read what is available online of Carotta.

Iron said:
As always is useful to remember the concepts of strategic enclosure and external consideration.
In other words, can you consider in a non-atached way what is there for them to gain from this information? Do they even want to know about this?
Or is you that want to determine their needs for them? This is not an ideological battle, they can choose illusion if they so desire.
So, perhaps it is best to forget this idea of "knowing more to defend yourself from attacks of those who will not believe" and focus on knowing because it is where your curiosity is leading you. OSIT
Thanks Iron. You are probably right. There must be something narcissistic in my wanting to deliver this. Perhaps as the new revelation? A paradox: there is no savior, so I will save you! I should really learn and apply strategic enclosure and external consideration.
But I think what happens is that I want to share my core narratives with my loved ones (Timothy Wilson's words). And that doesn't happen, and I must learn to accept it. Luckily exist this network to recreate and enrich and share those narratives.
 
Top Bottom