Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
prince zachary

did jesus really know what it's like to be "human"?

161 posts in this topic

so jesus is god in human form, right? and not only was his purpose to die for our sins, but also to show that god became man and understands what we go through as human beings, yes? the problem is, if jesus is god in human form, clearly, jesus knew for a fact that god existed (because he was god, kinda...?) therefor, TECHNICALLY, jesus had no idea what it was like to be human because no human being will ever know that god is real. hence religion being based upon "faith" and not "facts". in conclusion, god doesn't know what it's like to be human, so there is no reason he should be able to judge us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant be judged by something that doesn't exists.

The sun "god's sun" is personified as Jesus.

Hence, religions are bullshit, it's based upon ancient astrology and sun worship.

I have examples below or you could watch zeitgeist.

Jesus "the east star" shares the same characteristics with numerous saviors,

They were all born a virgin on Dec 25, 3 kings,12 disciples, dead for 3 days, resurrected... etc etc.

Fucking zodiacs how do they work?

On Dec 24 (The East Star) Sirius aligns with the 3 brightest stars (the 3 kings) on Orion's belt.

1674632268_2e7bb70baf_o.jpg

On Dec 25 The 3 Kings and The East Star point towards the sunrise. This is the birth of "gods sun" at winter solstice.

God%27s%20Sun.jpeg

Virgin Mary = the constellation Virgo aka "Virgo the virgin"

1673779221_4b8c23ec01_o.jpg

aka the "House of Bread"

1673781933_c6711a0438_o.jpg

The representation of Virgo is a woman holding wheat which refers to harvest time, August and September.

The "House of Bread" is actually directly translated to Bethlehem, thus is a direct reference to the constellation Virgo ( a place in the sky not earth)

(The ancient glyph for Virgo is z6.gif ,

Virgin mother names in many religions start with an M)

The resurrection refers to the suns transition period.

On Dec 22 the sun travels south until its lowest viewable point in the sky.

For 3 days the sun will stop traveling south and form The "Crux"

1674636532_aee56e211a_o.jpg

aka "Southern Cross" constellation from Dec 22 to the 24 = "dead for 3 days"

On Dec 25 the sun shifts its direction back into the northern hemisphere = resurrected.

The resurrection isn't celebrated until the spring equinox "Easter",

this is because the duration of day light becomes longer, the sun defeats the darkness.

1674637796_79d35da952_o.jpg

12 disciples = 12 constellations

who travel with

Jesus = sun

buddy_zodiac.png

In conclusion, are u a retarded or do u just have the facial features???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"First of all, the birth sequence is completely astrological. The star in the east is Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, which, on December 24th, aligns with the 3 brightest stars in Orion's Belt.

Actually, it always aligns with Orion's Belt. There's nothing significant about it aligning this way on 12/24. It aligns the same way every day of every year.

And how is Sirius "the star in the east"? Like all natural stars, it's in the west just as often as it is in the east. Stars can reside exclusively in the north or south, but never exclusively in the east or west, due to the rotation of the Earth.

These 3 bright stars are called today what they were called in ancient times: The Three Kings.

First, the three stars were NOT called "The Three Kings" in ancient times. The name appears to date to no earlier than the 17th century A.D. Secondly, the Bible says nothing about Jesus' visitors being "Three Kings". They're a group of magi, not kings, and (contrary to popular belief) the Bible doesn't say there are three of them. Also, they did not visit Jesus on the day He was born, but at His home when He was probably around one year old.

The Three Kings and the brightest star, Sirius, all point to the place of the sunrise on December 25th. This is why the Three Kings "follow" the star in the east, in order to locate the sunrise -- the birth of the sun."

Orion's belt and Sirius appear in the sky about 6 P.M. in December. Over the course of the night, the earth's movement makes it so that this line points to almost every point on the eastern horizon, as well as the southern horizon. Yes, this includes the area where the sun rises. But since it points to so many other areas, this is essentially meaningless.

Also, the stars in Orion's belt don't "follow" Sirius. Stars move east-to-west across the sky, and Sirius is located EAST of Orion's belt. Therefore, it trails along behind them as they go across the sky.

"Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread, and the representation of Virgo is a virgin holding a sheaf of wheat. This House of Bread and its symbol of wheat represents August and September, the time of harvest. In turn, Bethlehem, in fact, literally translates to "house of bread". Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo, a place in the sky, not on Earth."

While Bethlehem does translate to "House of Bread", Virgo is never referred to as "House of Bread", so Bethlehem is in no way a reference to Virgo. Bethlehem is also a place referred to several times in the Old Testament.

He also claims that the sun stops moving south (from the perspective of those in the Northern Hemisphere) on Dec 22nd, residing in the vicinity of the "Southern Cross" constellation for three days, before moving north again on December 25th. He says that this corresponds to Jesus' death on the "cross" and His resurrection three days later. There's a lot wrong with this idea.

One is that that sun never stops moving north and south in relation to the people on Earth. It does slow as it reaches its lowest and highest points, but whether it "stops" for 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 4 days, 5 days or whatever depends on how slow you consider "stopping". In fact, if the sun appears to stop for the two days following the solstice, then it also appears to stop for the two days preceding the solstice, since the sun appears to be moving just as fast approaching the solstice as it is leaving it. There is no evidence that ancient peoples considered it to have stopped for 3 days.

The second is that the "Southern Cross" constellation isn't visible from the northern hemisphere, as he claims (and, besides, it was "discovered" by either Augustin Royer or Petrus Plancius in the 17th century A.D.). It would have been visible from Jerusalem several centuries before Jesus' time (though it wasn't considered a "cross" back then, but just part of Centaurus), but by Jesus' time, it was no longer visible from the middle east, though it might have been if you were closer to the equator. But, either way, the sun did not reside in the vicinity of the Southern Cross in Jesus' day. It would have resided in the Sagittarius constellation, while the Southern Cross is in the Centaurus constellation.

The third is that Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection happened in the spring, not in December.

These "parallels" are clearly a case of Christ-mythers desperately trying to draw comparisons between astrology and the Jesus story, whether they fit or not.

"And after this time on December 25th, the Sun moves 1 degree, this time north, foreshadowing longer days, warmth, and Spring. And thus it was said: the Sun died on the cross, was dead for 3 days, only to be resurrected or born again."

I see many Christ-mythers making the claim that the sun has moved one degree from the solstice (usually December 22nd) to December 25th. It's completely false. I used the NOAA Solar Position Calculator to calculate the sun's position in Jerusalem from 12/22 to 12/25 (I had to use the year 1 AD, since the calculator doesn't calculate for BC, but it wouldn't have been much different only a few years earlier):

On 12/22/01, the sun was at -23.69 degrees.

On 12/23/01, the sun was at -23.68 degrees

On 12/24/01, the sun was at -23.66 degrees

On 12/25/01, the sun was at -23.63 degrees

As you can see, it's only moved .06 of a degree, not a full degree as Zeitgeist claims. It isn't until January Sixth that the sun reaches -22.69 degrees, and thus has moved a single degree. That's fifteen days, not three.

Of course, I recently had a Christ-myther say that Zietgeist is considering the "Azimuth" of the sun, or its position clockwise from due north, at sunrise. He gave me the following numbers:

22 December - 117° 37.524'

23 December - 117° 37.695'

24 December - 117° 37.337'

25 December - 117° 36.381'

He says that the jump from 117° 37.337 to 117° 36.381, between the 24th and 25th, is roughly one degree. Of course, he ignores the fact that the degree measure here is the 117 (which is why you see the ° after the 117), and thus the jump he's pointing out is roughly one-hundredth of a degree, not one degree. The total jump from the 22nd to the 25th is 0.01143 degrees.

However you slice it, the sun does not move one degree north anywhere near the winter solstice, by any measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what were you saying again about me being retarded?

You believe in war starting fairy tales.

Your religion,like most, has done nothing but kill and manipulate people.

Pretty retarded, unless your cool with people dying over faith.

But hey now that you (or whatever site you copied that from)

debunked zeitgeist, I have a few questions.

Can you explain to me how the Virgin Mary got pregnant?

Why does almost every religion have identical characters?

If Jesus died for your sins, why do you care if you're judged by god, wouldn't you go to heaven anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You believe in war starting fairy tales.

Your religion,like most, has done nothing but kill and manipulate people.

Pretty retarded, unless your cool with people dying over faith.

But hey now that you (or whatever site you copied from)

debunked zeitgeist, I have a few questions.

Can you explain to me how the Virgin Mary got pregnant?

Why does almost every religion have identical characters?

If Jesus died for your sins, why do you care if you're judged by god, wouldn't you go to heaven anyway?

huh? im not christian. why do you think i started this thread? im just not dumb enough to accept anything someone says as fact before doing a little research. clearly you havent done any research besides regurgitating whatever sounded good to you.

i dont believe in christianity, but id rather "debunk" it with the best version of the TRUTH available, not some wackjob fringe theories without any support.

every religion doesnt have identical characters, sorry. i believed that, too, until i did more research on the subject and found out that was more wackjob bullshit unsupported by any real evidence. even if there are similarities, check this out:

"1. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were elected to Congress in '46 (1846 in Lincoln's case, 1946 in Kennedy's). Both became President in '60.

2. Both had lazy eye muscles which would cause one eye to wander.

3. Both had been skippers on boats (Lincoln on the Mississippi river boat 'Talisman' and Kennedy on the PT-109)

4. Both were the second sons in their families. Each lost a sister to death before becoming President. Both married 24-year-old brunettes who had been previously engaged to other men, and who spoke French fluently.

5. Both had a child die while living in the White House.

6. Both were related to U.S. Senators, U.S. Attorney Generals who graduated from Harvard, and ambassadors to the Court of St. James.

7. Both were acquaintances of a man named Adlai E. Stevenson who ran for either Vice-President or President, a doctor named Charles Taft and a man named William Graham.

8. Both were advised not to go to the place where they died.

9. Both Lincoln's theater box and Kennedy's car were altered for their benefit (Lincoln's theater box had a partition removed to accomodate his party, Kennedy's car had a raised rear seat)

10. Both were slain on a Friday before a major Holiday (Lincoln on the Friday before Easter, Kennedy on the Friday before Thanksgiving). Both were shot while sitting next to their wives and in the presence of another couple. Of the other couple, the man was also wounded by the assassin, but neither wife was wounded.

11. Both were shot from behind and in the head. Both of their wives cradled their husband's heads after they were shot.

12. John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln from inside a theater, and fled to a warehouse. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy from inside a warehouse and fled to a theater.

13. Lincoln was shot while inside the Ford theater, in box 7. Kennedy was shot while inside a Ford automobile, in car 7 in the motorcade.

14. Both were pronounced dead in places with the initials P.H. (Lincoln in the Peterson House, and Kennedy in Parkland Hospital)

15. Both of their assassins escaped, and were killed before going to trial.

16. Both of their assassins were privates in the military. Each was detained after the shooting by a policeman named Baker. Both were eventually killed by a Colt revolver.

17. Both Lincoln and Kennedy were succeeded by southern ex-senators named Johnson who were born in '08. Both Johnsons were in their mid-fifties when they took the office and both suffered from urethral stones (the only presidents to have them). Both Johnsons could have run for re-election in '68, but chose not to. "

by your logic, JFK was not real, but instead was based on the story of Lincoln. get it? when you only focus on what people have in common, and instead of what they DONT have in common, you can make lots of misleading claims. but once again, there arent many commonalities shared between jesus and other "saviors" or "gods" of that past, and if you'd like, i'll direct you to a website debunking every single one of them. keep in mind, i told my christian mother the same thing you told me, and i told her about a week ago (now im not as naive), so i dont blame you. we are tend to be drawn to whatever we want the truth to be, regardless of whether its true.

all i want is the most accurate truth. does that make sense to you?

now back to my original question, please, because im NOT here to defend christianity, im here to get answers to my question against it.

(i must say, you got defensive rather quick and made some big assumptions after i dismissed everything you said, thats a tell tale sign of not actually knowing what you're talking about...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that Christianity is based on older Pagan religions,

Have any views on that?.

I've done my own research,

That's why I don't agree with religion, IMO its all bullshit.

I posted the zeitgeist stuff because I don't believe in a God/or a religion

and I assumed you did after reading your op.

I wanted your opinion, I figured you would try to prove it wrong,

If your information is correct and credible

you "dismissed" zeitgeist, great job!.

Now you can make your own debunking conspiracy video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your religion,like most, has done nothing but kill and manipulate people.

Seriously? What a very simple view of something as large and complex as a religion.

Yes, people can and will hurt others based off of what they believe in. However, last time I checked, that's not the only thing they have done, as you have claimed. Churches and Christians are constantly helping people. Of course, I'm sure you just read all the headlines about Pastors doing terrible things with kids or focus solely on the picket-sign "God Hates Fags" people. If you want to focus on the negatives, then by all means do so, but don't make the absurd claim that Christianity has "done nothing but kill and manipulate people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that Christianity is based on older Pagan religions,

Have any views on that?.

I've done my own research,

That's why I don't agree with religion, IMO its all bullshit.

I posted the zeitgeist stuff because I don't believe in a God/or a religion

and I assumed you did after reading your op.

I wanted your opinion, I figured you would try to prove it wrong,

If your information is correct and credible

you "dismissed" zeitgeist, great job!.

Now you can make your own debunking conspiracy video.

i've "read" that, too, but i've "read" a lot of things and you can't believe everything you "read."

EDIT: why the fuck do you keep bringing up this zeitgeist bullshit in my thread? this thread has nothing to do with that shit. i asked a question and you come in here trying to disprove christianity. make your own fucking thread, you asshole. i dont give a shit. thanks.

i have a great website for sifting through what is bullshit or not. the guy is a christian, but he has really liberal views and is all about research and proof for anything on the subject of christianity. he's gone back and forth with the lady who inspired a lot of the religious topics on zeitgeist until he asked for sources to what she said (he asked a few times in a row and she just kept beating around the bush) until she stopped responding. he also has an offer going for $1000 to anyone who can give scholarly evidence to back up zeitgeists claims. he doesnt seem like much of a religious nut, as im very weary of those types of people. he's the kind of christian that i, as a non-believer, look up to and respect. it kills me seeing friends who are christian that dont know shit about their religion. here's his site:

http://www.kingdavid8.com/homepage.html

i actually just emailed him my question i posted here, so i'll post a reply if he gets back to me.

i'm all for "disproving" christianity and religion, but i wan't FACTS, not bullshit. i hate you fuckers who just spew out unsupported bullshit and lead people like me astray with things that sound good and looks like they were researched, but upon digging deeper, you realize there is no real evidence for any of the outrageous claims made. that makes you no better than the christians that we feel are misleading people.

ludovico, personally, i think you're a fucking idiot. just saying. do some research. it took me about 5 seconds to find this shit in google. it's not hard. dont be a lazy fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? What a very simple view of something as large and complex as a religion.

Yes, people can and will hurt others based off of what they believe in. However, last time I checked, that's not the only thing they have done, as you have claimed. Churches and Christians are constantly helping people. Of course, I'm sure you just read all the headlines about Pastors doing terrible things with kids or focus solely on the picket-sign "God Hates Fags" people. If you want to focus on the negatives, then by all means do so, but don't make the absurd claim that Christianity has "done nothing but kill and manipulate people."

but you must also understand, we can do all the "good" stuff christians do without all the bullshit that leaves room for the bad. yes, people will be bad regardless of religion, but it seems fucked up to brainwash people like this if its not true. all the hate and division it causes is really sad. even the good stuff done in the name of christianity is pretty scary. none of the people do it because they want to help, they do it "for god." personally, i think that's sad that they need some kind of punishment hanging over their head to help others. i respect an atheist who goes and and volunteers and does good over a christian who does, because the atheist is doing it out of the kindness of their hearts while the christian is doing it to please some "god."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so jesus is god in human form, right? and not only was his purpose to die for our sins, but also to show that god became man and understands what we go through as human beings, yes? the problem is, if jesus is god in human form, clearly, jesus knew for a fact that god existed (because he was god, kinda...?) therefor, TECHNICALLY, jesus had no idea what it was like to be human because no human being will ever know that god is real. hence religion being based upon "faith" and not "facts". in conclusion, god doesn't know what it's like to be human, so there is no reason he should be able to judge us...

I'm an atheist, but from my discussions with some of my Christian friends, I think they would respond to your argument that God does know what it's like to be human because he created us and knows all things. Which is a pretty bad non-answer to your question, I see the logic in your argument you are making, but I don't think many of the devout would question your idea that their religion is not based on facts, but faith. The idea that there is something more, something that can't be quantified through our measurements.

I don't agree with that idea, I feel you could make the same argument for the existence of the tooth fairy with that kind of logic.

But then again, many Christians also like to say that certain stories of the Bible are lessons to teach and guide them, not necessarily what actually happened. I just find it odd that so many these days pick out certain parts to follow more than others, especially when it comes to parts that have been proven wrong by science or logic (Noah's Ark, the earth being a few thousand years old, dinosaurs existing at the same time as humans), yet they will still hold on to beliefs that a jewish zombie walks on water and makes blind people see. All because you have to have faith?

Give me logic over faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've "read" that, too, but i've "read" a lot of things and you can't believe everything you "read."

I agree.

EDIT: why the fuck do you keep bringing up this zeitgeist bullshit in my thread?

this thread has nothing to do with that shit.

I thought your OP was retarded,

I was more interested in your opinion on zeitgeist,

I used it to draw a response from you.

I asked a question and you come in here trying to disprove christianity.

I came in here for your tool opinion on zeitgeist and religion.

I knew if I posted zeitgeist shit, you would come back name calling with googled debunking info.

I had all of the info you posted before you posted back at me, even the link you posted.

That's the reason I did it, it just proves how awesome you are.

make your own fucking thread, you asshole. i dont give a shit. thanks.

No thanks, this is fun, I think I'll just keep posting here :).

I'll leave once you explain how the virgin mary was inseminated.

Wasn't she a prostitute?

i'm all for "disproving" Christianity and religion, but i wan't FACTS, not bullshit.

I agree.

i hate you fuckers who just spew out unsupported bullshit and lead people like me astray with things that sound good and looks like they were researched, but upon digging deeper, you realize there is no real evidence for any of the outrageous claims made. that makes you no better than the Christians that we feel are misleading people.

I'm glad you hate me, that makes me smile.

I have no belief in what zeitgeist claims, I believe in no faith or religion.

I didn't make up those outrageous claims, who ever created zeitgeist did, I posted that to draw a response from you.

Sometimes I wish I did believe in some sort of faith so I could have something to look forward to when I die.

ludovico, personally, i think you're a fucking idiot. just saying. do some research. it took me about 5 seconds to find this shit in google. it's not hard. dont be a lazy fuck.

Assumptions Assumptions

Right back at you bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the original post, I believe that you are saying that because Jesus did not have doubt about God that he, and thus, God, cannot know what it's like to be human. So you are proposing that in order to know what it is like to be human that one must experience doubt about God?

Also, are you saying that God judges people based on whether or not we believe in him?

I disagree with both statements.

First, I do not believe that one must experience doubt in order to know what it's like to be human. Jesus came to Earth, and as you said, did not experience that there was a God because after all, he WAS God. However, I think that experiencing humanity is completely different. I think that humanity isn't about doubt, but it's about being made of flesh and bone, walking the Earth, experiencing physical things, being tempted, and choosing to do wrong and right which is the most important reason why Jesus was sent. He was sent to live a sinless life to pay for our sinful lives.

The second statement, about God judging people based on whether we believe in him is also not true. It's a little hard to understand, but God's judgement of us is based on the account of our lives, our sins, and decisions we have made. We decide then if we want to stand behind the sacrifice that Jesus made for us in order to be free from our sin that separates us from God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is quite obviously a Solar Myth, for he is the medium between Man and Divinity, and he represents a moral archetype. None of the stories surrounding Jesus can be all that truth. The mystery of crucifixion is an old Osirian symbol.

caduceus-1-2-4.gif

As far as the zodiac, it could be true that the formula of "Virgo, Scorpio, Sol" (IAO) could be that of The Mother, The Father, The Son.

In ancient alchemical manuscripts, you would have:

Male (point) + Female (point)

----------[hermaphrodite] (single point in the triangle)-------

Now in the new Aeon, we could translate the same gnostic and alchemical principle as follows:

Male + Female

-----[The Exalted Goat, Baphomet, Horus as Crowned and Conquering Child]----

Again, Horus, the Sun, would be the hermaphrodite, he is the alchemical product of the "elixir of life" (Amrita).

What does that have to do with Jesus? Nothing, he is the product of "immaculate conception", He is literally the "Son of God" for his father is not human....

So is Jesus just a way to exalt a royal bloodline (the holy grail) into Godliness. This is obviously the product of a fraternal esoteric agenda (all male, probably of Roman origins).

You have to understand the "Jews", the Gnostics, were not a popular religion in the Roman Empire, they conflicted with the Imperial Cult and its agenda, now very much still alive through various military orders around the world, like the Marines:

lauren-conrad-and-marines.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the "Cross of Light", the mystery of resurrection was a mythos revolving around the SUN GODs of Egypt.

Why change it? Motivations aren't hard to see. Take their symbols, their language, their identity, and the generations to come will live in an entirely different reality, perhaps a reality in which they are loyal to the one King.

There was also a great deal of overlap culturally between Egypt, Hellenistic Greece and Judaic tribes, synthesizing all of these into an Imperial Religion was always the end.

Nowadays it seems like high-profile Evangelical Christians (such as George Bush), are also fond of "Druidism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From wikipedia:

Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger notes that in one account of the Osirian cycle he dies on the 17th of the month of Athyr (approximating to a month between October 28 and November 26 in modern calendars), is revivified on the 19th and compares this to Christ rising on the "third day" but he thinks "resurrection" is a questionable description.[25]

Egyptologist Erik Hornung observes that Egyptian Christians continued to mummify corpses (an integral part of the Osirian beliefs) until it finally came to an end with the arrival of Islam and argues for an association between the passion of Jesus and Osirian traditions, particularly in the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus and Christ's descent into Hades. He concludes that whilst Christianity rejected anything "pagan" it did so only at a superficial level and that early Christianity was "deeply indebted" to Ancient Egypt."[26]

David J. MacLeod argues that the resurrection of Osiris differs from Jesus Christ, saying:

Perhaps the only pagan god for whom there is a resurrection is the Egyptian Osiris. Close examination of this story shows that it is very different from Christ's resurrection. Osiris did not rise; he ruled in the abode of the dead. As biblical scholar, Roland de Vaux, wrote, 'What is meant of Osiris being "raised to life?" Simply that, thanks to the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will never again come among the living and will reign only over the dead. This revived god is in reality a "mummy" god.'... No, the mummified Osiris was hardly an inspiration for the resurrected Christ... As Yamauchi observes, 'Ordinary men aspired to identification with Osiris as one who had triumphed over death. But it is a mistake to equate the Egyptian view of the afterlife with the biblical doctrine of resurrection. To achieve immortality the Egyptian had to meet three conditions: First, his body had to be preserved by mummification. Second, nourishment was provided by the actual offering of daily bread and beer. Third, magical spells were interred with him. His body did not rise from the dead; rather elements of his personality - his Ba and Ka - continued to hover over his body.'[27]

Saint Augustine wrote "that the Egyptians alone believe in the resurrection, as they carefully preserved their dead bodies."[28]

A. J. M. Wedderburn further argues that resurrection in Ancient Egypt differs from the "very negative features" in Judaeo-Christian tradition, as the Ancient Egyptians conceived of the afterlife as entry into the glorious kingdom of Osiris.[29]

Marvin Mayer notes that some scholars regard the idea of dying and rising deities in the mystery religions as being fanciful but suggests this may be motivated by apologetic concerns, attempting to keep Christ's resurrection as a unique event. In contrast he argues that the ancient story of dying and rising in the divine, human and crops, (with Osiris as an example), is vindicated and reaches a conclusion in Christianity.[30]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so jesus is god in human form, right? and not only was his purpose to die for our sins, but also to show that god became man and understands what we go through as human beings, yes? the problem is, if jesus is god in human form, clearly, jesus knew for a fact that god existed (because he was god, kinda...?) therefor, TECHNICALLY, jesus had no idea what it was like to be human because no human being will ever know that god is real. hence religion being based upon "faith" and not "facts". in conclusion, god doesn't know what it's like to be human, so there is no reason he should be able to judge us...

Your thinking on this matter seems to be something like the following:

P1: Jesus is God in human form (assumption).

P2: Jesus is human (from P1).

P3: Jesus understands what human beings go through (from P2).

P4: Jesus is God (from P1).

P5: Jesus knows God exists (from P4).

P6: No human being can know that God exists (assumption).

Conclusion: Jesus DOES NOT understand what human beings go through (contradicting P3 above).

I am not so sure that your conclusion follows from your premises. Rather, it seems that the conclusion to draw is that whichever of your assumptions (P1 or P6) is initially more doubtful than the other ought to be rejected. That is, I think the correct logical conclusion to draw from your line of reasoning is either that (a) Jesus is not God in human form, or (B) Some human being can know that God exists. (This line of argumentation is known as reductio ad absurdum).

Now, the Christian believes P1 to be true (more technically, the Christian believes that Jesus is one person with two unconfused and unmixed natures - one human, the other divine), hence she denies the truth of P6. This is a logically sound thing to do. The question is simply does the Christian have good reason to believe P1. I think she might.

So, I think the Christian's response to your line of reasoning is simply to deny your claim that "no human being will ever know that god is real." Plenty of non-Christians would deny this claim as well, for instance, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Deists, and well pretty much any Theist who was not a hardcore skeptic would deny the claim.

Why would you think that no human being could know that God is real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your thinking on this matter seems to be something like the following:

P1: Jesus is God in human form (assumption).

P2: Jesus is human (from P1).

P3: Jesus understands what human beings go through (from P2).

P4: Jesus is God (from P1).

P5: Jesus knows God exists (from P4).

P6: No human being can know that God exists (assumption).

Conclusion: Jesus DOES NOT understand what human beings go through (contradicting P3 above).

I am not so sure that your conclusion follows from your premises. Rather, it seems that the conclusion to draw is that whichever of your assumptions (P1 or P6) is initially more doubtful than the other ought to be rejected. That is, I think the correct logical conclusion to draw from your line of reasoning is either that (a) Jesus is not God in human form, or (B) Some human being can know that God exists. (This line of argumentation is known as reductio ad absurdum).

Now, the Christian believes P1 to be true (more technically, the Christian believes that Jesus is one person with two unconfused and unmixed natures - one human, the other divine), hence she denies the truth of P6. This is a logically sound thing to do. The question is simply does the Christian have good reason to believe P1. I think she might.

So, I think the Christian's response to your line of reasoning is simply to deny your claim that "no human being will ever know that god is real." Plenty of non-Christians would deny this claim as well, for instance, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Deists, and well pretty much any Theist who was not a hardcore skeptic would deny the claim.

Why would you think that no human being could know that God is real?

How would you define God? As an archetypal supernatural myth to explain a worldly phenomenon (archaic definition), or as the total sum of human knowledge (omniscience) and human potential (omnipotence) [to which Christianity, as a modern movement, does not apply to (in which the Christian God is the only God/Knowledge/Power)].

Taking into consideration the symbolism behind the Christ myth, and early artifacts that have been found of Early Christianity, the life of Jesus Christ seems to be a veil for what seems to be a "NEW ERA" marked by the transition from the Pisces(FISH) to Aries(Lamb/Ram) in the ZODIAC.

tsadde.gif

Jesus was marked by the Hebrew letter Tzaddi, which is a later adaptation of a Hebreaic glyph for a fishhook (the Hebrew people began using fishhooks far before metallurgy and the manipulation of brass and other metals). In Greece, the myth was recognized by the word for fish, ΙΧΘΥΣ, and early Christians incorporated other pagan beliefs associated with fish into their cult.

Fisher of men, whom thou to life dost bring!

from the evil sea of sin

and from billowing strife

gathering pure fishes in,

caught with the sweet bait of life.

Alexandrine hymn

Now if the awaited Jewish Messiah were to be marked by a STAR in the East, that Swallowed up seven other stars in the North, and this Messiah would be the "Redeemer" (redemption from a debt, usually associated with Slavery), to which combined with the Jewish tradition of the "Lamb of God" (who taketh all the sins of the world), you effectively get the transition.

So you see, there is absolutely no way that the bible is literal, much less relevant.

/thread.

Aleister_Crowley_1.png

I behold a small dark orb, wheeling in an abyss

of infinite space. It is minute among a myriad

vast ones, dark amid a myriad bright ones. I who

comprehend in myself all the vast and the minute,

all the bright and the dark, have mitigated

the brilliance of mine unutterable splendour,

sending fort V.V.V.V.V. as a ray of my light, as

a messenger unto that small orb.

Liber X, 1-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0