What Have You Learned from the Gospel

I learned that John the baptist is the Jesus Christ character he created that was informing himself in angel of the Lord form in book of Rev. That makes Rev a very false book. There is Jesus of N and Jesus Christ. Just compare the Gospel to the book of Rev. Both are characters from two different persons.

I learned that Elias is also John. And there is another Elias which is the Highest which is the author of the Gospel which bared an uncovered record of John.

I learned the Son of man is the Devil of the Father.

I learned there are 3 mankinds. Two co-existing by being here (on earth) and there (where the sun is), one seperately existing elsewhere (in paradise).

I learned we of the Highest shall get cast out the world as each a prince, and we have something to everything out the Highest.

What have you all learned from the Gospel which others might should know?

 

I have learned that they are valuble tools for people who have no structure in their life otherwise.

They have good wisdom concerning daily life and dealing with your peers.

For a spiritual path, they are corrupt. An abomination of truth, and those that follow them for that purpose will become an abomination of truth themselves. They will spread this diseased seed all over the world and call it good.

Until they meet me.



x

 

I have learned that names given the gospels are not necessarily who the authors were. I have learned that they were written at the very least 40 some odd years after Christs' death. I have learned that the epistles written by Paul, written only a few years after Jesus' death make no mention of the life and times of Jesus. They make no mention of the virgin birth, his teenage life and basically only speak of Jesus as a spirit and not a man. It wasn't until the gospels that a virgin birth is mentioned or his historical existence is mentioned. I have learned that the gospels were compiled into a book hundreds of years after Jesus' death by a counsel, basically "voted" on by the order of Constantine. I learned that there is the Catholic version of the bible (which includes the apocrypha) and the Protestant version, sans apocrypha. I've learned that the bible means many things to many people but seldom do these people agree on what it means. Some think hell is nothing more than separation from god, others think its a lake of fire and gnashing teeth. I've learned that if this book was truely the word of some friend in the sky, he would have made it so there was no interpretation necessary and we'd all understand it the same. If we are to think that the bible is a book to live our lives by, like instructions, then like any instructions, we'd all agree on the meaning behind the instructions. We don't!!! An example would be, if you are given instructions on how to operate a toaster, then you hand the instructions over to me, we'd both operate the instructions the same. Sure, you may put the bread in first then push the button and I may push the button and then insert the bread, but the end result is toast. This isn't the case with the bible and the bazillion of sects is evidence of this.

 

Well, I learned from the Gospels, that its authors delivered a very strong and influential set of teachings, based on respect for truthfulness and honesty. If they had been liars themselves, who would have followed? You can deceive people looking for riches or any other selfish gain; but those looking for truth will tell a liar from an honest person, they know the smell of the goods they're after.

True, Jesus is a very strong character, but his message is even stronger. With such message on hands there'd be no need to "invent" a fake Juses. John would have been well off even presenting those teachings from himself. He already had great respect among the Jews. Why run the risk of being exposed as a liar?

And the teachings found in the Gospels are really helpful in telling truth from lies; as Jesus could see the motivation of people's hearts, so you also can do using his council. No magic, no aura seeing, only practical wisdom.

And this last thing I learned from the Gospel, that you know the tree by its fruit. So, taste the fruit and see for yourself. No sense asking others, because some will like it, others will not, and still others will rationalize without ever trying for themselves.

Good reasoning! Well you don't find "hell" in the Gospels, really. Neither do I.
And the point on the instructions is brilliant, too. But you will agree human being is a bit more complicated than a toaster, for better or for worse. We are all individuals and each one unique. So, the main principles mentioned are clear, the application allows for a good deal of freedom -- as far as the principles are kept.
Unless, of course, they really use it as a tool to manipulate people!

 

As Socrates said in Plato's Republic, the man who is good at being unjust will have the appearance of a just man.

 

Choosing a man to rule over our lives is always tricky. I am sure it is all wrong.
But choosing principles you always have to try them out. When you have, you see if the teacher is a true follower of them, or not.

 

Proof about John the baptist being behind his own created charcater Jesus Christ which is exposed by the author of the Gospel:

Revised:

And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?

They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.

He said to them, But whom say the self (the ego) that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.

And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell every man that thing;

Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him confess himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

^^^The author of the Gospel had his created character Jesus of N expose John the baptist's Jesus Christ. In the book of Rev John is his own character (J. Christ). It's easy to see!

He who cant receive this understanding is a fool. That I am? Who is "that" I am? The author of the Gospel, who is the Highest, is not the I am nor that I am to be specific. How easy is it to overlook the word "that"?

In Rev John had it take off from Daniel with similar things (the beasts etc). The angel of the Lord in Rev John made out to be a Jesus Christ seperate than God. John made sure to make it so Jesus Christ's new name is the name of the arch angel/prince of the ppl (Micheal) in Daniel. But it's just a continued story line. In other words, it's false. The real truth to the world and the world to come is in the Gospel!

And the question of the day is who is that I am? Answer: The Devil themself.

 

I learned, among other things, about a wandering peasant teacher, sage and healer who went from village to village trading wisdom and healings for meals and preaching and living a radical message of unconditional, judgment-free love and equality. Real or myth, it changed my life for the better, and that's good enough for me.

 

Then ask yourself why none of the gospels were written by contemporaries of Jesus during his life time?

Yeah OK. Name one President in the last 40 years that we can honestly say we trust, yet we elect and trust them anyway. There is no "compelling truthfullness" in the bible whatsoever.

This is why the gospels were written 40+ years AFTER his death. There were little to none of his contemporaries around to refute what was written in the bible. A reminder, Paul first wrote about Jesus in the spiritual sense, not in the human form sense. Paul knows nothing about the historical Jesus.

Humans are inherantly social animals. As such we instinctually know that harming the social group is bad and those that do, are punished. There is nothing new in the bible that humans didn't already know. The teachings have done nothing to stop bad behavior among people.

This is nonsense. If we judge or "know" a tree by its fruit, then we should automatically assume Jeffrey Dahlmers parents are a bad tree? Again, nonsense. If we look at the individual as the tree and his fruits are his actions, then what say you about Christians who do bad? Please don't use the "they aren't true christians" line, thats a fallacious argument. There's an old saying that goes something like.... there are bad people who do bad things, and there are good people who do good things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things.....

I veared from the gospels here to illistrate the point of interpretation.

Yes, I agree we are a bit more complicated than a toaster, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there are numerous interpretations of the bible (and gospels) and depending on what sect you follow, you have no way of knowing if you are getting the correct interpretation (i.e. truth).

 

Obviously you didn't learn humility from the gospels or elsewhere.

 

Well I appreciate your real thinking behind your post, Itsdarts. You bothered to beat every point of mine, thanks. As we have this tendency to take things on faith only, it is very importand that somebody should question our faith in such way. So, thank you again.

So here is what I think on these, point by point (I also put some Bible links, but without quoting them):

why not written during Jesus' life time:
Jesus was really full of interesting things to tell the Jews about God. It was best thing then to come and listen to Jesus himself, while he was alive (for example Mathew 7:28,29). He encouraged everyone to do even that. The writing could be done later, he also pointed out that the holy spirit of God would, in due time, remind the apostles of the important points(John 14:26).(But he DIDN'T say the spirit would bring in any crazy new ideas, which would turn the whole doctrine upside down, ha-ha-ha!).

compelling truthfullness:
Ah, in the matter of truth seeking you have to try it out anyway. I agree with you, there is no reason to trust any "compelling truthfullness" whatsoever, especially a "compelling" one. I just mean the truth seekers will not rest until they make 100% sure, while lottery players and business "gamblers" rather trust "that it must work out", blinded as they are by their lust for money. Why, looking for truth is much like fighting to have your eyes open and wide awake, while pursuing material gain(as a guarantee of happiness) is likened to blinding yourlself deliberately. Sorry, English is not my native language.

why written 40+ years after Jesus' death:
Yes, it seems, Paul didn't know Jesus in the flesh. And yes, when Jesus was long gone from the Earth, it was beneficial for his followers to learn about what kind of person he was, and especially his examplary obedience to his Father. Obedience is our weakest point ever, it seems. Although generally Christians were encouraged to "imitate God" in their attitudes, Jesus (from the Christian viewpoint) was the best example of HOW humans could do that.
I've always hated the idea of "obeying", because I never could for various reasons. The hippy ideology, it seems, is trying to find a way around: if you're a hippy, you do "your own thing". Yes, you still have to obey -- but you obey "your own thing" and it seems not so heavy. So within myself I need not lie: my heart doesn't always know what IS the right thing to do. And at times it causes seriuos problems. So now I do my own thing in learning how to obey God's principles which seem to be right and fair and just. Neither do they deviate from LOVE, PEACE AND FREEDOM values anyway.

The teachings have done nothing to stop bad behavior:
No teachings will stop bad behaviour of people, until they should change their minds. If they would ... Jesus wasn't illusive about it either, judging from Math chapter 25. I appreciate this point, that God in fact will not FORCE anyone into obedience to Him. He's just ready to help the willing. Is it not real freedom?

Please don't use the "they aren't true christians" line, thats a fallacious argument:
Why couldn't I say that them who do bad things aren't true Christians? Wasn't it Jesus's own point?(i find it in Matthew 7:21).

you have no way of knowing if you are getting the correct interpretation (i.e. truth)
The TRUTH? Well, if their interpretation makes it all work , then I call it the truth. If it answers all my questions in a satisfying way (without "boy, God doesn't like such questions" stuff) -- then I call it the truth. If it really does develop Christian qualities in all the followers (and not in "saints" only) -- then I call it the truth. And it must have all of these together, ha-ha.

Thanks for having patience with me,
may God help you on your way to the truth.

Can even smile sometimes

 

I consider myself a Christian, but I think you make a good case for why it's hard to view the Bible as God giving dictation, which seems to be the fundamentalist view of it. It seems to me that this is a matter Christians (and Jews) need to address. Why wouldn't God be clearer? One approach seems to be:just believe it (faith). God isn't clearer because (S)he doesn't want to be or can't, for reasons we mortals can't understand. Another possibility is that God wants us to figure it out as a kind of test (and if we flunk, there may be hell to pay). Catholics seem to say God gave us a Church to figure it out for us. Many Christians take a charismatic approach and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them--raising the paradox to nonbelievers of why the Holy Spirit is guiding different people to different solutions. The liberal Jesus Seminar uses several criteria to distinguish the authentic teachings of the historical Jesus from the inauthentic, such as: (1) age of the document (the earlier given more weight); (2) number of attestations from the different documents; (3) internal consistency & coherence; (4) rhetorical style; (5) congruity with the cultural and historical contexts. The Jesus Seminar has been rightly criticized for its methodological quirks, e.g. questionably dating and over-weighting non-canonical sources; arbitrarily rejecting any notion that Jesus believed or taught "End of Times"; and a controversial system of voting and scoring. This has led to the questionable rejection of 82% of Jesus' sayings as either too Jewish or too Christian.

While I generally follow the Jesus Seminar approach without the quirks, I'm basically Jeffersonian in finding some really compelling, life changing passages in the Bible, interspersed with passages that don't really move me. Above all, I look at the basic underlying principles: for the New Testament, unconditional love, forgiveness, and equality. I think the Bible was written by men like us, tuned in to a higher source of truth within or outside of themselves, trying to find answers to important questions about God and existence, possibly with supernatural help. We see now "as through a glass darkly", so there will be distortions. I use my reason, judgment, intuition, and experience to evaluate the wisdom of what they say--and hope for the best. The fact that there are a "bazillion of sects" out there doesn't cause me to give up, any more than the fact that there are lots of political candidates and positions out there causes me to give up voting or holding a political opinion.

 

How much clearer still? Should God be as "clear" as write his message on every blade of grass and every rock?
But hey, what kind of "freedom of choice" would that be for us humans, I wonder?
I mean, if we are really serious about God in Heaven. If it is "God in our hearts", then every interpretation has its right to exist, as every one of us has his own heart and mind.

And the Bible doesn't seem to say so. It is us who figure out for ourselves -- even decide if we can trust this church or another.

Again, you find the answer in the Bible: not all the spirits are from God, even though they all claim to be so.

So, it seems, God is as clear as to make us understand it from our own experience, that the decision is ours, but if we decide in favour of being led by Him, we'll have to rely on Him and trust Him anyway. He is as clear as to show us, how following Him differs from following our own ideas. But the decision must be ours to make.

 

i learned from this thread alone that people only hear what they want to hear and therefore ignore postitive statements like this becauses it goes against their personal agenda.


people.

 

oh, yeah. i also learned that jesus had a pretty smart idea when he put forth the time and effort to fight organized religion, but the people in power were determined to maintain their hold over the masses and killed him for it. and then his own people were more than happy to do the exact same thing that the old established pack of theives and power abusers did. so much for revolution, eh? people just can't help themselves.

 

mamaKCita, your statement goes much in line with "my agenda"; that was the very point of Jesus's, that "people can't help themselves".
That's why we need Jesus' teachings in writing (aka Gospels) -- in case we follow them, it will be God to help us, rather than ourselves.
And revolution, too? Revolutions are nothing else but efforts made by this system itself, in order to change dress and somehow survive a bit longer under a new mask. We've seen that many times.
So did you notice Jesus didn't really FIGHT the organized religion of his people? He only exposed the leaders thereof to be false to its nature. He also prophesied about the end of ALL the false religions -- again, not by the hand of his followers, but of his Father. We have already witnessed that in the atheist countries; the show isn't over yet, we're still to see the total crush of all false religions.

 

sign related, you always have some pretty far out shit to say, and i dont understand what your talking about it.

uh, i've read daily bible qoutes and shit from this pamphlet from a church, it does ahve some good shit about wisdom and daily life, but no better or no worse than any other book would.