jump to last post 1-34 of 34 discussions (367 posts)

why didn't Jesus write a book?

  1. lizzieBoo profile image79
    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago

    I'd like to suggest that Jesus chose not to write anything down nor ask anyone else to write anything down because he didn't want to create a religion that would be based on a book. I suggest that he wanted to create an enlightened tradition based on truth and action and human interaction that would be passed down by word of mouth. The New Testament was compiled some hundred years after Christ's life on earth from documents which had been written within those hundred years. Up until then, the very many practicing Christians had not read the Bible. Since most people did not read, the Bible continued to be not read by most for hundreds of years after the Bible was written.
    ... And yet, Christianity spread like wildfire across the world, with or without the might of great empires, and was charged with the same enthusiasm of its first disciples. Is this not proof that the Bible is just a small player in the manifestation of Christianity as a religion, and that it is the gift of the Holy Spirit that has carried us thus far?
    I am not one to quote great tracts of the Bible, but this line from Proverbs sprang out at me the other day:

    "Trust in the Lord with all your heart. Never rely on what you think you know".

    1. Titen-Sxull profile image95
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why didn't Jesus write a book? The answer seems obvious. He was probably illiterate.

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And the operative word in your statement is "probably." In other words, you don't know. Conclusions from conjecture? Interesting idea.

    2. kess profile image61
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is impossible that Truth can ever be written.....

      Now the letters came with the intention to deceive, posing and promoting themselves as Truth.

      This is the understanding of The Christ.

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think he probably was illiterate.

      1. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It directly says in the bible that the jesus character excelled at his lessons and exceeded his teachers - then he went on to teach at the temple which got him into trouble.  No I don't think he was illiterate.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          recommend1, you're right, he was known to be very learned from a young age, and read the Torah like any practicing Jew. Definately not illiterate, which is why it is an interesting question.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I disagree that he was known at all. What Luke wrote is not proof of anything any more than the rest of the bible is proof of anything.

            You have to buy the belief that the bible is more than a bunch of bronze aged myths before anything becomes "proof" or evidence, or stateable as fact.

            1. lizzieBoo profile image79
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not giving credit to the Bible here at all. You are proving exactly why having a Bible is a problem.

    4. 59
      ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      1.He followed Moses and the Torah.
      2.He migrated to India and died in Kashmir at the age of about 120 years.
      3.The New Testament does not present acts and teachings of Jesus; it presents the teachings of Paul; Paul founded Christianity not Jesus.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, he migrated to America after taking a Chinese wife. He lived 117 years and his descendants became the rulers of America, later exterminated by Incas.

        1. 59
          ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Please present some proofs in support of what you say.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Shall I ask you the same?
            Can you present some proof of What you said?

        2. recommend1 profile image71
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          ibneahmad's story is much closer to any possible truth.  Especially in the case of christianity being a total fabrication by Paul who was in it for political gain, clashing with jesus appointed followers as he tried to take over the gang.

          If you follow Paul's book you have been conned big time.

          1. 0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Actually if you follow any of the Christian version, you are conned.
            The Christ story is a collection of stories of many myths, real people and expectations. There never was a fellow named Jesus the Christ(or Jesus son of Joseph), as is said in bible. There may have been a little known fellow of the same name,(not known outside his family), but he certainly is not the Jesus of the bible.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well - I am no christian but I did have a seriously heavy catholic upbringing - and although there is no corroborating evidence of any jesus as depicted in the bible - this does not mean that the basic story is untrue as there is no evidence for that either.  Of course whether any possible real jesus was the son of god is open to serious question and a mental issue might be a more likely explanation - especially in times when any messiah that appeared was followed and worshipped as a matter of routine - must be a huge issue for an ego, especially if the holder of the ego is clever ?

              1. 0
                jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Is there a basic story? All the plots are played by previous actors, either real or imagined. There is nothing original. You don't expect evidence for non-happened events, do you? And a little history will tell you, NT is nothing but plagiarism.

                1. recommend1 profile image71
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course there is a basic story, every story you read is made up of parts of other stories, references to other stories and older myths etc.

                  I will restate that I am not christian - but the story exists in its own right whether it is true or not, it is a form of communciation from the past containing messages about society, personal behaviours, politics and other matters that were deemed important to the original writers and all the people who have handled it down the centuries.

                  Whether it is true or not is the least important part of it.

      2. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, Christians founded Christianity. Paul had been executing Christians before his own conversion.

        1. 59
          ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Paul had been killing and persecuting the followers of Jesus and he continued even later when Jesus migrated from Judes; he started character-assassination of Jesus; he changed his teachings. Paul only changed his strategy.

          1. lizzieBoo profile image79
            lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm a little confused now. Paul was persecuting Christians when Jesus migrated...?

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hey Lizzie, you might want to check the timeline....was Paul even alive when Jesus taught his disciples? lol lol

              1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yep, I think something has definitely  been lost in translation here wink

    5. DoubleScorpion profile image84
      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Pauline letters were some of the first writing that made it into the NT. Paul never met Jesus. If fact he states that he never heard of Jesus by man, just from his readings of the "scriptures" and by revelation of "Jesus(Christo)himself". Prior to the Pauline letters there is no writings by or about or referenced to Jesus. The gospels and other writings were written 30+ years after the Pauline letters. Other than the NT, there is little to no references to Jesus in any of the other writings.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        galatians 49ad, james 49ad, 1,2 thes 51,52ad,  1,2 corinth 55ad, romans 57ad,  MARK 58 or 60ad, Ephesians 60ad, Colossians 60ad, Philemon 60ad, philipians 61ad, MATTHEW 62ad, LUKE 63ad, 1 tim 64ad, titus 64ad, 1 Peter 64 or 65ad, jude 65ad, acts 67ad, 2 Peter 68ad, 2 timothy 68ad, hebrews 70ad, JOHN 85ad, 1,2,3 john 90, revelation 95ad.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
          DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, I see you got google to get assumed years, most are ranges BTW, because none of the "originals" can be accuarately dated. But, seeing as the "originals" we have today are (almost all) actually copies of the originals. we can not be sure of any of the dates. But as you can see from the dates you have found, the letters from Paul are the oldest. And the majority of the other books of the NT, were written much later.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Its nice that you said that. There are instances in the books that refer to outside sources. Herod, the temple destruction, trips to these places where a letter would have been sent first as was the custom.. yes they are approximate, not assumed.... based on some fact.. like we know when such and such died so the letter was written before that event...lol
            I was surprised to read that galatians was the first, i always considered the gospels were first.. i didn't realize matthew had two t's till 6 months down the road.. doesn't matter, good books, excellent content. I am fine with them all.

    6. Jerami profile image77
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Just my opinion (Obviously)  I think that Jesus didn't nor did he instruct anyone to write a book because he was talking to those people that were alive when he walked the earth.

        He said that "THIS" generation shall not pass till all these things be fulilled"

        NOW,  whatever happens after these things were fulfilled is another story entirely.

          I gotta go for a while  later.

    7. Freegoldman profile image61
      Freegoldmanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      May be he didnt get enough time nd was 2 busy....

      1. 59
        ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe he did not want to as he followed the teachings of Moses and the Torah.

      2. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It was 30 years before he began preaching. There was plenty of time before that. No, I think he chose not to write for a reason.

    8. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's very similar to the belief that eating a rat every day warded off the plague.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Really? How's that then?

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The belief was wrong and millions died eating rats that carried the plague.

  2. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Yes religion spread throughout the world. So did the black plague.
    One killed the body, the other the mind.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, not religion, Christianity. Religion could mean absolutely anything. I don't know why people even bother to use it as a category.

  3. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    What is christianity exactly?

    Do you mean the hundreds of different beliefs that none of the christians can agree on?

    Show me  a religion without the agenda of controlling and talking down to each other because they have the one true religion and all the others are wrong.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      OK, before you get carried away on the religion thing, think about what I'm asking here. When did the problems of sectarianism start in Christianity? It was when the Bible was translated for all and made the central focus of the faith. The Book became the issue. So I'm wondering, is this why Jesus chose not to write one?

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As even after thousands of years there is not one iota of proof that he ever existed, I don't think he could have written anything.

        If he did exist he was probably illiterate. smile

        1. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You may choose to argue that he never existed, but his followers are a fact, and it is they who carried the faith, without a book, without a battalion, for all that time.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes his followers are a fact. So are followers of the KKK. So what?
            There is always plenty of terrified ignorant individuals who so scared of living and dying they would even believe the story where a god makes itself, becomes his own son then kills himself to atone for the complete f up he made of his creation in the first place.

            Sounds more like a spoilt 2 year old!

            1. lizzieBoo profile image79
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I see where you're coming from with your fury. I don't see how Christianity is about terror though. How do you feel about suffering generally? Life begins in great pain. Is it more scary with a meaning or without?

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Meaning is derived by self creating meaning. Those who don't understand that can still live life, but only proves that they don't understand their life.

                1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                  lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So we create meaningless meanings to make sense of a life which already has meanings if we are bright enough to understand them without being told?

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you have a purpose for living your life? If not, then why not? Were you not told by your parents that you had to give your life purpose, so you life has meaning?

                    Your above statement makes no rational sense.

              2. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Fury? lol

                Suffering is living.

                I "suffer" from CNS pain 24/7. Have since I was a kid in my twenties.
                I remain happy despite the pain, as I see it as a choice to be happy which is logical.

                I see 11 million people starving in Africa as we speak. That is half the population of my country.

                I don't have any right to be unhappy or to consider myself as suffering while living in a free country with plenty of food and shelter.

                1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                  lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I like that. Choosing to be happy IS logical.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    you can just feel the happy in his posts lol

      2. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good to see you're keeping the Fire burning, love.
        also great to read your perfect point =it was the book that caused the entire 'problem'. Same as the compiled Law/Torah did to the Hebrews.

        Do you know what is interesting? Only a few prophets and David were told to 'write' anything down about events. Not even the first 12 were told to write it but rather to live it.




        jeje.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you James. This is a subject in which the fallacy of the importance of the written word is so ingrained that it is very difficult for people to accept it being another way. We have become incredibly blinkered.
          I didn't think about the prophets, but yes, so there is a clear line of evidence.

    2. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Buddhism, Ch'an, Zen, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Hinduism...

      There are dozens at the least... including some branches of what may be considered "Christianity." (which is, indeed, an overarching term used to describe many groups with disparate beliefs)

      Organized religion is axiomatically rigid.  Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Fundamentalist Islam among others sit at one end of the scale.  People who are ignorant of religion and spiritual matters in general tend to draw all of their conclusions from only that end of the scale.

      In doing so, however, they are missing the much larger portion of the picture... the role that religion and spirituality play not as an opiate of the masses, but individually in the hearts and mind of those genuinely seeking truth. 

      Spirituality (and religion in the abstract) serves not as a mere basis for an ethos, but rather as an ongoing and interactive learning experience wherein one learns their role in the universe by discovering the ways in which they are fundamentally interconnected with all that is, has been, and will be.

      To become actualized in this sense is most certainly not about telling people they are wrong for not following your plan, but rather about gaining wisdom which can be measured in the ever-increasing awareness of how much one does NOT know.

      Atheism in this sense is merely the equal an opposite dysfunction to fundamentalism.  Either makes the mistake of assuming they know everything.  Each of us has been alive for but a second, and witnessed but a corner of one speck of dust in this universe... yet we stand on soapboxes and lie to ourselves out of insecurity that we can and do know the whole truth.

      Neitzsche stands as a symbol of our modern arrogance.  He is the yin to the yang of fundamentalist religious icons.  He was a miserable and broken man who went insane mistaking pessimism for intelligence... and intelligence for wisdom.  His proclamation that "God is dead" has resonated throughout modern society and forms the basis for what has become modern atheism.

      Nazi soldiers carried two books.  They did not carry bibles.  They did not carry Qur'ans.  They did, however, carry "Mein Kampf", and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." (Neitzche)

      It is not religion per se that causes wars.  It is the notion that only our viewpoint is correct, and all others are deluded.

      It is the incorrect and unenlightened view that we have all the answers.

      I tend to stay out of these discussions for the obvious reason that they tend to be pointless and moot shouting matches between equally but oppositely ignorant parties.

      You strike me as a very intelligent man, however, Earnest (and perhaps wise as well).  Take this as all things with a grain of salt, but I invite you to entertain the notion that intelligence and wisdom are not the same, and that "religion" means many things to many people that go far beyond the dogma with which it is often equated.

      Namaste.

      1. 59
        ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with your above words.

        One should learn about the Creator God from those humble persons with whom the Creator God had a Converse in all eras and in all regions of the world; those who had the Message from Him.

  4. 0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Lizzieboo, years ago I felt the same way. Made the same argument, but it just isn't so. Christianity became a force when it became the religion of Rome. Rome helped it spread. The Vatican's control over the royal families helped make it the religion of the commoners.

    Life was about control during feudalism and religion was a great tool in the arsenal.

    Imperialism spread it throughout the known world.

    Yes, I agree with you that your Jesus certainly preached a spiritual awakening and not religion. Christianity is not the product of his message. imho.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It was 300 years before Constantine proclaimed religious freedom for Christians, and a good while after that before it was accepted spread around the globe. All that time, through all the persecution, the faith was carried man to man.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Emile, what I mean to say is, and I'm agreeing with you, the Book has become a stumbling block. The baton was dropped when people started getting all learn'ed, instead of wise.

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And woman to woman. But, you said yourself. It was  well after the Council of Nicea before it spread around the globe. Which means that it gained exposure as the official religion of Rome first and then the church was  well established before Rome fell.

        I don't see the spread of Christianity as a miracle, just excellent control, manipulation and management of resources by the Vatican. But I am not an historian.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, control, manipulation and management, throw in some inquisition and keep the bible from the masses and you have catholicism - not what jesus preached at all.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting to see you post such a comment. I'm envisioning a talking pot and kettle. Wait. The vision is getting clearer. Nope just a talking pot. And it's blind to the fact it is also black. smile

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Still on the warpath eh.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Warpath? That's another odd statement. Does every opinion that doesn't mirror your own equate to war? Strange world you live in.

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Not really. That was not a nice post at all you wrote and it was not meant to be nice.
                  There was nothing wrong with my post.. it is true what the catholics did and this is so very obviously not what jesus preached.
                  I remember the last time you tried to defend catholicism... I am actually surprised you posted such a comment.
                  Wish ya all the best.
                  take care and remember to eat healthy and exercise.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not certain which time you are talking about. I've made it clear every time you reply to one of my comments that  I am uninterested in your prejudicial views on that topic.

                    A warpath would be if I had read your post and commented.  You read mine and felt the need to open a dialogue in an attempt to correct me. So, in that sense you might be the little indian.

                    As to my response to your post, it is true. Whether you accept it or not. None of Christianity follows the teachings of Christ. You have all veered off course. Why you snip at one another for doing the exact same thing is a mystery.

    2. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus' overall message had nothing to do with spiritual awakening, but for consciousness awakening.

      Many of the people Jesus spoke with were not consciously aware of their own existence, much less anything else.
      It is the product of humankind, so as to control the masses. Nothing more.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Cagsil, I don't know if that's true. Jesus was speaking to Jews from a rich tradition of belief going back 5000 years. The Adam and Eve story is all about becoming consciously aware is it not?

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I do, because I did the research on it. wink Look up Julian Jaynes hypothesis on the human consciousness. You'll learn that many people around Jesus' time were conscious of their own existence, but not the people he taught.

          Those who were already following a religion of some sort, Jesus was against, because he knew it was false and was following an external god. Which is why Jesus' teachings were all about searching within for the only true god, which is Self.

          No other authority is necessary or needed.

          1. lizzieBoo profile image79
            lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A personal god was what he preached. A god of the Self. hmm. I'll have to think about that.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            jullian jaynes also wrote a book called "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". I read this 'book' when i was a teenager. It told about how a node (somehow) shrunk around the roman era and that it was larger before. Also stated was an idea that because this node between the left and right hemispheres was bigger, that communication between the two hemispheres was busier.
            The part that wasn't explained is WHY the node shrunk or HOW it shrunk - it just did.
            As a christian you know that i know those two questions are answered.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I figured there would be no response to this post. The idea of a node that somehow shrunk without reason and spurred on the evolution of the mind is like all other science theories.. it lacks the obvious conclusion

              Goddunnit
              smile

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think we're on the same page. I think we would all agree Christianity was a tool to control the masses.

        As to the other, I think its a definition of terms. To me, your conciousness is your spirituality. Being fully aware on all levels.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Caesar Nero
          at age 18 he poisoned someone
          22 killed his mother
          25 divorced and killed wife
          27 burned 70% of rome
          28 killed second wife
          31 killed himself
          This guy was a complete wack job

          and Paul wrote:
          Romans 13:1   Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
          Romans 13:3   For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
          Romans 13:5   Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

          Imagine that a book of control that says submit to a wack job. There is something else behind these verses and it is not to control. The next verses talk of love being the fulfilling of the law.
          hindsight is 50-50 at best.
          Which came first?  control or the book? I'm thinkin book.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Bad subject to bring up.  Many a person has willfully given up control of their own lives, simply to be taken advantage of by those who would use the Bible as a means to control people. The Bible has been used as justification for war, murder, rape and subjugation of women. It has been used for justification of treating entire populations as second class citizens.  It was used as justification for forcing the Jews into ghettos.

            I don't have to imagine that book.  It is the Bible in many many instances.

            Control has always been an aspiration of some people.  This is one book that was written to help achieve that goal.

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So are also good reasons to subjugate people:  economics, politics, greed, envy and, and, and,
              Now it is true that wolves love to wear sheep clothes and of course the corrupt love a good cover and of course the bible is a complete sucker to their whims, being a book and all that anyone can read. People can read passages and turn them to their advantage but i guess that is the case of all books. Buddha, jung, etc.. they all have their passages people can use, but that does NOT dictate the PURPOSE of the book just the purpose of the (bad) people who read the book.
              Hinduism has a caste system.. that is much more effective at keeping its second and third and fourth classes down. Economics was the best reason for exterminating the jews.. they had a banking system declared by God.. no interest.. and they were gaining popularity over the previous banking institutions that charged interest,  also there was that Aryan thing goin on about blonde and blue eyed.. super race.. that was a good reason and not from the bible.
              Your selective reasoning is too narrow and pointedly focused there are so many reasons mankind does what mankind does, it is not all bible oriented.
              Also i am reminded that if the USA, for example, were a buddha state would not then the criminally minded be using the teachings of buddha for their cover and not the bible?
              Food for thought huh.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I almost didn't bother to read your response. Paragraph separation is that important to me. But, I chose to shove my way through it, out of courtesy.

                That isn't food for thought. It is a blatant attempt to justify the actions of those within your faith. Yes, there are multiple factors that cause man's inhumanity, but religion cannot be ignored as one of those factors.

                And do not attempt to blame the  centuries of persecution of the Jewish people on the banking system. It's callous. I shudder to think how you would justify the treatment of women by the church.

                I don't know of many in America that use the Bible as a cover for their crimes, not sure where you were headed with that one. Are things so different there in Canada?

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  i think you have prejudicial views toward me and anything i say you will just refute even if what you say is obviously geared toward rebuttal and not accuracy.

                  Do you know the impact the jewish banking system had on the economies of europe? Probably not.. Do you know the lengths the banking system goes through to keep its control? Ever wonder why there are so few banks and how difficult it is to start a bank?

                  You completely missed the whole Aryan comment which also held much weight.. and hitler was in complete favor of.

                  I think in third world countries women are controlled because men fear the power women have. Its like in nature only reversed.. the males have the bright colors and the females have colors that blend with their surroundings.. not something that evolution had keen insight into and decided to do but this is how God set it up. Woman have the bright colors and men umm not brightly colored, so to speak. The control that women can have and do try to have over men is rather embarasing, both for the woman who tries to control and the man that succumbs to that type of control. So i think in third world countries women have been controlled because men fear women. Not a nice scenario at all, but where Christianity is introduced women are liberated, because the bible indeed liberates from that type of environment and mind set and in north America there is really not much room for more liberality in that area.
                  As to your third point well you may well discover the answer to that as you peruse around hub pages reading different posts.

                  as to reading my posts, i kinda wish you wouldn't lol because then you should not comment so freely.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    From one angle this mighty appear to be true.  But, is this true? We are in a public forum. Discussing religion and beliefs. Your beliefs and mine are at odds.  Your religion and my philosophy are at odds. The only moments we feel the need to converse are when we disagree. 

                    You open a dialogue. I open a dialogue. But they are opened because we see a statement that we feel compelled to respond to. I did notice once a comment you made in a thread we were both in when we agreed on something, but I didn't interject into the conversation you were having with a statement of 'me too' simply because, knowing your stand, our agreement was probably on a very superficial level.



                    Are you saying that the entire Jewish population were bankers? I suppose the children that were ripped from their parents arms to be raised by 'good christians' were bankers? I missed those facts in the history books.



                    My statement on the church and its treatment of women has nothing to do with the third world at this moment.  It had to do with the history of the church's actions toward women in the west.  And fundamentalist stands toward women today.  As evidenced by your statements




                    Yes, I do realize it would be to your advantage to speak without the trouble of being reminded of the errors in your statements,and there are already a great number of people that make valiant attempts to help you see the light; but since this is a public forum I will continue to be a part of the fray. smile

      3. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think you can claim this - the Greek and Roman philosophers well before this time were laying the foundations of all today's thinking.  There is no evidence that the people of that time were any different to us - in fact no evidence to suggest that even stone age man was less clever than us.

        The rest is about right I would say.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And none of them were taught by Jesus, now were they.

          Do try to make statement that coincide with statements made. Don't try to distract.
          As my previous statement said- Look up Julian Jaynes' work.

        2. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well my point was, Jesus never wrote down a single thing. Why? That certainly can't have been about controlling the masses.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Because he wanted his message to be received as he told it. He didn't want it manipulated by others, which is what he saw inside "religion", which is why he despised it.

            1. lizzieBoo profile image79
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              exactly.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Which is why I said to most religious I talk to.....that Jesus' teachings needed to be ripped out of religion and properly translated, including the metaphors he used. wink

          2. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As there is no evidence that he even existed except in the bible the first thought would be that his not leaving any writings would be another pointer to his non-existence.

            In the case of him as myth - the Druids, who were the priests and scientists and king makers for many thousands of years and over most of the 'known' world before the year 0, apparently did not write anything and so their practices and knowledge do not survive.  So it was normal for the sage, wise man or prophet to not write anything.  This seems to be a widespread phenomenon - even Confucius in China only survives in the writings of others.

            1. lizzieBoo profile image79
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well the evidence that He existed is that there were Christians being burned and crucified before the Old Testament had been written. That's historical. The conclusion then, is that Christianity does not have its basis in the Bible, nor does it need the Bible to exist. That is the modern fallacy.

              1. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You might like to explain how christians were being crucified before christ ?

                and especially before the old testament was supposed to have been written, maybe this is a typo ?

                and where was any of this mentioned except in the bible ?

                1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                  lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry, I meant before the New Testament was written people were dying for their faith, excuse me. The Romans were having great fun chucking Christians to the Lions. That is historical.

                  1. recommend1 profile image71
                    recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think so - the Romans were doing this to everyone that opposed their viewpoint or just did not matter.  there was no such thing as a christian until after christ - before that they were the old Jewish faith, and it was their messiah that they were proclaiming, still are in some places as they deny christ was the one I think ?

                  2. mistyhorizon2003 profile image90
                    mistyhorizon2003posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I actually saw a really interesting documentary recently that showed that this probably never happened, and additionally even if lions etc were ever sent into the arena (to attack criminals not Christians), the animals were probably too scared by the sounds of the screaming crowds to attack, even if starved first! Just a bit of interesting info to add to the knowledge here (no sides taken, I hate religious debates).

  5. amandaD profile image59
    amandaDposted 5 years ago

    Because his hands were nailed to a cross boom boom!

    1. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are a very very naughty girl and if there should by some strange twist of fate actually be a god who fathered a human son - then you are in deep doo-doo big_smile

  6. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    There is disagreement amongst different Christian groups as to the importance of the Bible.  Some groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses carry a Bible with them at all times, including in religious meetings, where each member follows the text being read in their own Bibles.  There are other Christians who consider themselves people of the book too.  The Roman Church though throughout history did everything it could to prevent the ordinary Christian from reading the Bible, including banning its publication in the languages used by the masses, ensuring that only the clergy could read it in Latin.  The Church killed or tortured those who tried to make the Bible available to everyone.  The Bible was considered to be too holy to fall into the hands of the common person.  Also, if the commoner could read what the Bible actually said, they might discover that is was often the opposite of official Church teaching.  I doubt though that Jesus, as a Jew had any idea that a new religion would develop in his name.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sherlock, OK, what you are repeating is 400 year old misunderstandings of Christianity and what went wrong. The Protestant movement was radical because it put its entire emphasis on the Bible. It made Christianity about whether or not a book was true. The Roman church was never ever based around the Bible and so it is absurd to make out that it would have killed or tortured to somehow keep this 'magic' book to themselves. Early missionaries did not cart the Bible around in order to convert people (have you seen the size of the thing when it's written by hand?) They came to countries, they lived in poverty, they lived in the example of Christ, the people were converted by grace.

      1. 0
        Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        John Wycliffe's translation of the Bible into English was declared as heresy by the Roman Church and its copies destroyed.  The anger of the Church resulted in the exhumation and burning of Wycliffe's bones.  In 1408, the Synod of Oxford banned the English translation of the Bible, declaring "he who shall act otherwise, let him be punished as an abetor of heresy and error."

        John Hus called for the preaching and reading of the Bible in the common language of the people and asserted the primacy of the scripture over church leaders and councils.  He was declared a heretic and burned at the stake in 1415.  Wycliffe's Bibles were used as kindling for the fire.

        William Tyndale's English translation of the Bible of 1525 was burned.  In 1535, he issued a revised edition and was arrested, spent over a year in gaol and was then strangled and his body burned at the stake.

        In 1517, seven parents were burned at the stake for reading the Lord's Prayer to their children in English.  The Council of Contance, under Canon 14 outlawed the private ownership of the Bible.   These are just a few examples of the Church's attempts to keep the Bible out of the hands of ordinary people.  Not that it makes much difference to me, as I am not a Christian of any denomination.  However, to deny that the Church has ever killed to prevent people reading the Bible, is simply not true.  Your point that the Roman Church was never based around the Bible is true, and that was my point.  Church tradition and teaching was always considered to be more important than scripture.  It was for this reason, that the Chruch did all it could to prevent the widespread use of the Bible.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Who were the clerics if they weren't ordinary people? And why would you think the ordinary person could read English any better than he could Latin? There was one form of Latin, whereas English at the time had many forms as it had not yet been standardised. The reason for wanting to keep everything in Latin was because things get lost in translation. You could go to a Catholic church anywhere in the world, (up until recently) and hear Mass in exactly the same words, and therefore with the same meaning, every time. Call it early globalisation if you like. Not all globalisation is bad.
          People attending Mass would have understood the words because they could not have participated otherwise. There are directions throughout the Mass such as, Oremus: let us pray, Corpus Christi: the body of Christ, mea culpa: my fault, Agnus Dei: Lamb of God. You are required to be part of the Mass and therefore to understand it, and every word and symbol used in the Mass is taken directly from Christ's Passion as handed down by the apostles.
          And how were the churches full of images of Christian stories if the people didn't know the stories? And how did every town and city in the country perform things called Mystery Plays, which were Bible stories spoken in the local dialect by the local people, if they didn't know their Bible stories well?
          Religion was very much in the hands of the people. Why was medieval England known as Merry England? Though impoverished, it lived in celebration of its rich, unified Christian culture.
          When the likes of Wycliff were punished for publishing Bibles, it was because they were seeking to be divisive and indeed were divisive of faithful Christians. He perpetuated the lie that the Bible had somehow preceded all other Christian practice and had been planted on the earth by God. The Bible is a compliation of documents of evidence, selected by practicing Christians of an already formed Church: the church that was to evolve into the Roman Catholic church. The church didn't want to block people knowing the life of Jesus. It wanted to prevent the Bible becoming a golden calf. Once Calvin and Luther and Wycliff and their Holy Books came along, Christianity was stripped of its joy and celebration and has been divided ever since.

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope.
            Catholicism was very much established before 324ad.
            The Spanish Inquisition was founded in 1478 by Ferdinand and Isabella to maintain catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and was under the direct control of the Spanish monarchy. It was not definitively abolished until 1834, during the reign of Isabel II.
            What was being preached in the catholic churches was not the words of the bible. LUTHER plainly showed that. The bible was kept from the masses intentionally. Wycliff was punished for publishing bibles by the catholic church because the bible was too holy for commoners.
            catholics have never been christian because theirs is a blended religion. You can tell their impurity by the practices they practiced over their history. They blended paganism into their doctrines, this is why mary has such high status and this is why killing and fleecing their own people did not matter to them. They never followed jesus teachings and still do not to this day.

  7. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago
    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Randy, my point is quite different here though. I'm not asking if he wrote a book. I'm saying that the fact that Christianity first existed without a book, and for a few hundred years, is proof against the idea that the Holy Book is at the heart of Christianity. The Book is not, and should not, be the thing we look to.

      1. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The writings came about later. The disciples of jesus kept notes.. who wouldn't? and compiled them their lives were stable enough to put the books together.
        In 1450 Johannes Gutenberg made his first printing press, until then books were a lot of work, especially without whiteout fluid or erasers. Ink and parchment was expensive.
        Jesus preached from age 30 - 33. Mark was written around 58ad (25 yrs later) Matthew 63ad (30 yrs) Luke 63ad and John 85ad (52yrs). This is not a long time when God is in the work.
        The disciples themselves say that the book is what we learn from.
        2 Timothy 2:15   Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
        Just like the cross of Christ, we cannot deny the word of God.

  8. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I don't believe he was even alive, let alone literate. smile

    So many stories are repeats from other times in history that every word attributed to him may have come from one of the many earlier "jesuses."

    Joshua or any of the other derivatives simply means "saviour" .....
    a title many people used at the time. smile

    1. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree - I think it is a common myth story compounding all the various messiahs that were running around the place at that time.  The question is still relevant even if it is about a character in a story though I think smile

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sure, it's a valid question. smile

    2. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know of any other books that start off "in the beginning God created...". I know elohim means powers. I know Egypt had a huge number of gods all which were systematically humbled when God showed His people that He was the true God. There are really no similarities between the bible and other religions, certainly not paganism which dominantly worships nature.
      As to joshua meaning savior... as i have stated before this is the typology that Israel lived under... Moses represented the Law, Moses did not bring Israel into the promised land - the Law could not bring them into the promised land. The law(giver) died before entering the promised land. Christ was crucified to bring us into the promised land. Joshua is a type of Christ. Christ can bring us into the promised land. So to discredit the bible because joshua means savior is poor studying indeed.
      God has the whole deal wired from OT to NT and when seen through the lens of the full counsel of the bible its a beautiful, perfect and complete picture.

  9. brimancandy profile image82
    brimancandyposted 5 years ago

    I was just going to make this more simple, as more of a supply issue. Maybe during the time of Christ, things like writing devices and the ability to distribute the written word to the masses was not possible. So why would he bother? Like the whole Moses thing, and the 10 commandments written in stone by the hand of god. (Curious if those are still around and dated as fact.)

    If think, more than likely Jesus was central to a very small area. I mean there was no ability to travel, other then by mule or cart. So perhaps it was more he told others what to write, and they distributed what they could. Kind of like today's news papers his word put in print, by someone else with a habit of being overly dramatic.

    One reason why I think the bible was written centuries after Christ. Perhaps by shreds of what they found where he was located, and from information gathered from lots of sources. Which is why the translated Bible makes absolutely no sense.
    As perhaps the people in power at the time of translations wanted to use the bible to control the masses, back when the the earth was ruled by conquerors and kings. What a better way to do that then put out a book that scares people to death.

    The thing that always gets me, is that the people who live in the countries where Jesus was supposed to live do not believe he is the son of god, and, in the US christian bible images of god show him to be a white man, while people who have always lived in those countries are arab or muslim. Certainly not white. I grew up thinking he was white, until I learned more about the middle east, and, now I know that couldn't be possible.

    1. recommend1 profile image71
      recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not so - travel was organised all over the Roman Empire and beyond.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        True, but I doubt if that applied to the great unwashed who may not have even made it to the next village. smile

      2. brimancandy profile image82
        brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with earnestshub. Just because travel was organised doesn't mean it was available to everyone. Also wasn't the Roman Empire many years after Christ? At any rate, the question was about Jesus writing a book, and if I am not mistaken the Roman Empire was like the Egyptian empire, they did not worship the christian god, so anything that Jesus might have wrote would have been burned or fed to the lions. Strange so many different religions in the world of the past and present don't see Jesus or God as being any more real than mythology.

        1. recommend1 profile image71
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Of course travel was not available to everybody,  but the Romans ocupied Israel at the supposed time of christ and were instrumental in putting him to death, Pilate- who washed his hands of hte matter - was the Roman consul.

          all the supposed disciples travelled to different parts of the world without any problem if the book is correct, including Joseph of Aramthea who travelled to England.

          It is not correct that people did not travel so much, the Silk route was in existence at much the same time and the Phoenicians sailed the (known) world hundreds of years before that.

          1. brimancandy profile image82
            brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, at least in this discussion we learned that travel was more widespread then some of us thought. It would be interesting to learn more about the non religion aspects of what was going on in the world at that time. But, I have a picky attention span. Lately I have been looking into the difference between various amusement parks in the world, and their differences. I learned that American theme park owners are cheap.

          2. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have to say that is all true, but surely it was the better off who could travel? smile

            1. Evolution Guy profile image61
              Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And the soldiers. Pretty sure they traveled a lot. big_smile

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yep! The biggest industry at the time. smile

                1. recommend1 profile image71
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So - what has changed ??    the military and the well off travelled, the traders certainly did one heck of a lot of travelling, there were various countries with sizeable trading fleets, one of which, the Moors, were renowned for raiding the  south west coast of England for slaves !

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    What has changed?

                    Not much! lol

    2. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The tablets were put in the ark of the covenant and the ark is in heaven.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You mean the ark of the covenant is not crated up in an undisclosed government warehouse somewhere? Raiders of the Lost Ark was not a documentary? I'm writing a letter to Spielberg and Lucas.

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          yep
          Revelation 11:19   And the temple of God was opened IN HEAVEN, and there was seen in his temple the ARK of his testament(covenant): and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. I can see you have your own personal brand of religion, added to the 30K denominations, but probably not registered yet?

            "The MT text has “the ark of the covenant of the Lord”. Ark is κιβωτὸς [kibōtos] , meaning “box, chest,”1  and is used to describe both the Ark of the Covenant (Heb. 9:4; Rev. 11:19+) and Noah’s Ark (Mtt. 24:38 cf. Gen. 6:14, LXX). The ark of His covenant refers to the box which stood in the Holy Place containing items which testified of God’s relationship with Israel.

            There has been much speculation concerning the location of the earthly Ark of the Covenant.

            The ark of the covenant disappeared when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple and carried Judah captive into Babylon 600 years before Christ.

            Numerous locations have been suggested for the earthly Ark of the Covenant:"



            http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/ … 031119.htm

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I referred to the ark of the covenant which holds aarons rod, manna bread and 10 commandments. That is in heaven. God took it.

              are you saying noahs ark is in heaven?

              the words are identical, obviously, since no one had seen a boat that big in the desert and without knowledge of rain the common word would be box. in hebrew the word is tebah - a box.

              how does this get me a personal brand of religion?
              shall we read this then:
              Revelation 11:19   And the temple of God was opened IN HEAVEN, and there was seen in his temple the BOX of his testament(covenant):
              I am okay with that. Box is good.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You obviously didn't read the link I provided that explains your dilemma and would give reason as to why you have your own denomination of religion (not yet registered with the 30k other Christian religions)

                See how easily so many sects can just sprout up out of nothing?

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  i read the link its quotes from 1 and 2 Maccabees which are apocrypha and therein are other non scriptural practices...
                  to think that the queen of sheba switched the ark is foolish.
                  certain rabbis claim the ark is under the temple ground.... there is no evidence of such
                  etc, etc,, blah blah.
                  This is why i say never to outsource from the bible. Everything we need is in there.. except the box of the covenant it is in heaven as the bible says plainly that it is.

                  This sect of where the ark is.. is not a sect at all. I am sorry to say but you can't force your incorrect belief upon me. Bible says.. Bible is correct. You are indeed troubled.

                  over and out on this conversation

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL! What you're basically saying is never believe anything outside of what is written in a book that has changed so dramatically over the years it doesn't resemble anything to its predecessors.

                    Can I assume from your "over and out" that you're not interested in any discussions that aren't completely centered and based on your own personal religion, a bubble you've built around yourself to shield you from the world?

                    lol

    3. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They used to travel by caravan, much like the westerners in N.A. - wagon trains. Robbers were throughout the countryside even unto the days of the roman empire. In Abrahams time, for example, travel was something that people just did not do. There were no national boundaries, wars were common all over the place, no police anywhere. All travelers were at the mercy of those who found them.
      In roman times things were the same but not as severe, there were still dangerous roads and back roads but now there were main highways which were safer.

  10. GrowingDeeper profile image60
    GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago

    Jesus was The Book. The Word became flesh (John 1:1) What else did He need to say. His life is the sum total of every jot and tittle of Scripture ever intended by God to be penned using man as a vessel and even as a witness to the Word. He is THE Truth. He need not write "a book". He was The Book.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You mean you don't ignore all the psychosis in the OT and read the whole book?

      Indoctrinated at an early age? smile

    2. GrowingDeeper profile image60
      GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Let me just rant for a second. So much of what is written on here is all men trying to intellectualize something that truly is so simple. But, it is so simple they choose not to believe it. But, this is to be expected. The preaching of the gospel is "foolishness" to those who do not believe. But, it is the power of God unto Salvation to those that believe. If you do not believe, do not ever expect to "understand it." Completely pointless and futile. Read 1 Corinthians 1:17- the end of chapter 2. Maybe you will understand why it makes no sense to you.

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Or maybe some of us were christians or believers...... just as fervent as you appear to be, and got do involved they made an intense study of it in several of the original languages, compared it with other belief systems, then learned enough about the human mind and psychology to understand where the god originates, .

        The "good book" is a fine example of what psychosis and megalomania are, so they then realise they have been bleating a lot of myths as "truth" from an abusive and psychotic book. smile

        1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
          GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Herein lies the problem and basis for my second comment. You are trying to intellectualize faith. You are trying to understand an infinite God through the finite mind, much less through a flawed mind who puts more "faith" in psychology which is to a large degree a "flawed" science, to explain the legitimacy of God or His Word. This is why we will never see eye to eye and probably why you left the faith (if that is what your comment is implying). You placed more emphasis on man's word, thoughts and knowledge than God's. This will always lead to apostasy. And, earnesthub let me be very clear, I am not spewing hate towards you. But, yes I am a fervent believer because I know what God has meant to my life and without Him, I am nothing. And, people may think that is weak minded. I am okay with that. And, I am comfortable in saying, I am absolutely no good apart from my Lord and my God. It is incredibly frustrating to see people reject Him and His love simply because of the deception and blindness of the limitations of human intelligence of the damage inflicted by other "Christians" who have less knowledge of God than some atheists.

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Having just canned psychology perhaps you would like to enlighten me with your knowledge of the subject.

            I know your subject very well, and dismiss that which is psychotic as what it is, psychotic.

            It is you who place too much trust in the words of men, sick men in a psychotic book.

            So much abuse, so little love!

            1. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Where do you get off saying you know the bible very well?
              You have been shown 200 times that you know nothing but sloppy interpretations and haven't a clue to context.

              Sorry, but for you to say this is very dishonest.

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sloppy interpretations? Nothing has been changed in any scripture I have posted. Never, not once. smile

                You on the other hand have had no agreement even with those who do the fairy. smile

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You have a short memory which serves as a clear conscience.
                  despicable behavior.
                  you cannot even be honest with yourself

                  1. earnestshub profile image88
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Memory is excellent. Apparent across all my posts and hubs. smile

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wonderfully said!

      2. recommend1 profile image71
        recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You misunderstand - most of those who reject your book know it very well - much better than those sheeple who pretend to know but have no idea at all.

        Like the Kuran and other bronze age literature it is past its useful time.

    3. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      see, now you're all talking about the book again. Jesus neither wrote, nor asked anyone else to write a book.

      1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
        GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is in fact an inaccurate statement. Many times prophets or others were told to "write" in a book or scrolls the things being revealed to them. Revelation being the example where Christ told John to record what He saw.

    4. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So how are we to learn if there is no book? Is every christian supposed to live like a monk, come home and just sit and pray? That's not much of a life and pretty soon it would be more like a religious rite and a bore. If  there were not one reference that all could have access to which was about God,  could you then imagine the number of false religions we would have. The bible tempers the ones who would abuse religion. It gives us checkpoints and scripture to quote to keep on the right track. It is a useful tool. All aspects of learning use books, why shouldn't God also.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
        DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this



        And there are over 30,000 Denominations of Christianity out there. Which one is true and which ones are false?

        1. brotheryochanan profile image61
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          After you read the book as a saved christian then you tell me, other than that, i am fine thanks for askin smile

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I did read it as a Saved Christian. I was a Christian Minister for years (hence the Doctorate in Biblical Studies). But as others have done. I opened my eyes and found that what is taught in church as real, is nothing of the sort. In fact almost all who claim to be "christian" have no clue as to what they are actually claiming, they are only basing their beliefs on what they think the bible means. Most have had no formal study of the book, and refuse to even think of obtaining formal study. Yet they will claim to understand it better than someone who does have formal study and I have even seen some use quotes for arguement from a book in a debate with the person who authored the book. You can chose to live and understand the bible as you see fit. But, the fact remains, with over 30,000 different denominations of christian out there, either they are all right, or all wrong.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Which is of course no guarantee that you were actually saved or in a relationship with Christ.



              I would say that entering into 'formal' study would kill most peoples chances of actually understanding what God was saying, and turn our a Minister of Churchianity, a fully paid up mouthpiece of Churchianity.

              Seminaries kill faith.



              Never thought that just possibly they ALL contain some truth, and yet ALL contain some error, just like they all contain some true believers in relationship with Christ, and all contain some hirelings who are just in there for the reward, and all contain some pew warmers who are just their for the insurance policy it provides them.

              Christ hid His body amongst all the tares, and like He said, don't worry, we will rip out the tares when the harvest takes place.

              Obviously your formal study did you more harm than good.

              I suggest you open a bible again and ask God to guide your reading and bless you with understanding, possibly a request for wisdom and discernment would also be a blessing to receive.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Lets see...Up until 1517 the Catholics was the only "christian group" out there. Then Martin Luther (based off of formal and personal education) decided that they were wrong and the Protestant group was born. So without some education we wouldn't have the christian faith that most believe in today.

                So lets crunch some numbers...

                Catholics have been at it around 2000 years give or take a few.
                Protestant have be at it about 600 years give or take.
                And some of the others even less than that. So you are claiming that just because I don't agree with you, that you are right and I am wrong? If that is the case then everyone who isn't Catholic is wrong as most don't agree with them and they have be at it longer than all of the other christian faith groups.

                Those who refuse to learn (either in agreement with or against personal beliefs) are those who go through life with a closed mind. One cannot understand who they are without also knowing what they aren't.

                PS.
                And once again we have someone who is claiming to be "A saved Christian" telling someone else that they were not or is not a saved christian because of a difference in topic opinions. You only enforce those of atheist believes when this is done.

            2. brotheryochanan profile image61
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So let me see if i got this straight ... you had formal training but you are where you are now.. and you think formal training is the way to go?

              am i missing something here?

              Also you put your trust in, what, length of time of service? The catholics have been at it longer and therefore are correct?

              so you were catholic?

              and as i have said before.. there are not 30,000 denominations, only 103. If you go to the sight where you got that information and look for a breakdown in the names of churches you will find that the catholic church in russia and the catholic church in tunisia and the catholic church in drosky are all catholic churches, which share the same belief and hence do not equal 3 denominations these examples here, represent, for the sake of example.. one head denomination and two offices. If i have an anglican church in every state of the united states of america there is essentially, one head office and 50 offices and only one denomination. All baptist churches teach the same thing, all presbyterian teach the same thing... catholics are not christian anyway.. so there goes like, 20,000 denominations off the list.

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and if you read my profile, you can see I am what would be called a 'free' Christian, as in I have no denomination, just the life and words of Christ, but I think you are pushing the envelope to suggest that there are NO true believers in what you term as the 'Catholic' church.

                In reality, no matter how many denominations there may be, there is ONLY one church, one body of Christ, one faith, one hope.

                In that respect, we are all 'catholic' in that we are universally the one church of Christ.

                God chose to hide His people amongst ALL those 'denominations' and they are everywhere, the tares will be sorted when the harvest happens, until then, believers remain hidden for our own protection.

                For the record, I know Holy Spirit filled 'born again' Catholics who stand ready for the day when the whole truth is revealed, and ready to bring those in deception into the light.

                In the same way there are 'born again' Rabbi's in the Jewish synagogues also awaiting the time of the harvest, to bring their people out into the light.

                God never slumbers nor sleeps.

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Agreed. I have said that the catholic belief is wrong and i have said they need to come out of that faith. Of course God will bring them out, if he can work in spite of their indoctrination, but bring them out he will. Just because they are not out now, doesn't mean they won't come out later, but God has to bring them out to be true to his word and what their desire for the whole truth of God. Its hard to remain faithful to any belief when you know the obvious wrongs in it.
                  Its the heart above all but jesus said He is the way... and this i believe with all my heart for jesus is God in the flesh and there is no room for mary or dead patron saints or closed communion or rosary, hail mary nor confession booths to a person called, father, to name a few.
                  Blended religions are not Gods idea of following Him. Many shall perish because of bad shepherds who feed the flock wrong.

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Brothery, do you not think there is virtue in the existence of religious practice that aims at being universal rather than personal? Organised religion, though a pretty uncool concept these days, is aimed at order and unity and a communal existence, as oppose to anarchy and confusion. Being a face in a crowd allows us to step away from the modern tyranny which celebrates the cult of the individual, over a celebration of the humble member of a group. It is the unity of the group, and not the emphasis on the individual, which has carried Christianity thus far.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You've been to all of them and came to that conclusion despite the fact those denominations are registered as being different?

                lol

        2. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          yes, that's 30,000 denominations since the reformation, or...since the move to have a religion focused on the written word....to go back to original point.

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And which one is true and which ones are false? They are all claiming to follow the bible, correct? If God/Jesus/Holy Spirit truly guides the true believer in the understanding of the bible, then why can't anyone agree on its true meaning?

            1. lizzieBoo profile image79
              lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              1 billion Catholics + Eastern Orthadox and High Anglicans agree. The disagreements came after wrongly placing the Bible at the centre of the faith.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The Bible is supposed to be the "Word of God" should it be at the center of the belief? I would think that the Word of God should be at the center of the faith.

                And if they all agree then why the different factions? Why not just all be called Catholic or drop the name completely and just go by the name of Christian only. No Catholic, Baptist, Luthern or Angelic?

                1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                  lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Catholic means universal.
                  Faith is a grace which is not magically given by reading the Bible.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                    DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And again, if they all agree "faith wise". Why not just go by one name?

      2. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We live by faith, not by sight, surely.

  11. www.lookseenow profile image60
    www.lookseenowposted 5 years ago

    Jesus did exactly that asking other writers to write things down.  He told the apostle John to write in a book. 

    By inspiration John came to be in the Lord’s Day, and he heard in a strong voice like that of a trumpet the voice of the glorified Jesus. 
    (Revelation 1:10-11)

          “What you see write in a scroll and send it to seven congregations scattered about.” 

    What John saw in visions, he must later write from memory what he saw, and heard.  It became the book of revelation.  When John was pardoned, and released from prison, he wrote four more books, and these books from memory too.  63 years had past, mind you since his ministry with Jesus, but his writings were about the 3-½ year ministry of Jesus.  John added a fitting conclusion in his book of John saying:

          “There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose, the world itself could not contain the scrolls written. (John 21:25)

    Jesus did create a religion that would be based on books all of which and even more that I mentioned.  There was Revelation, John, 1st John, 2nd John, and 3d John.  Do not forget Matthew, Mark, and Luke all of the above and then some do indeed create a religion known as Christianity.

    1. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This entire posts proves religious folk don't bother to research their religion.

      Everything in the NT is false, simply because it wasn't written based on Jesus or his teachings, but is based on Paul's wrongful interpretation of what Jesus was supposedly teaching.

      Go learn something would you.

      1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
        GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Paul's doctrine is not contradictory to Jesus teachings at all. And, since you have such a great knowledge of this subject, I would love for you to elaborate and provide specifics as opposed to a generalized statement. And, why would the whole of the New Testament be false if only Paul's writings were inaccurate? What about James, John, Peter, etc?

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Attempting to put words in my mouth will only get you nowhere.
          There was nothing in my statement that was generalized.
          Because, tests confirm that the NT was nothing more than junk, distorted by the "church".
          Many of the gospels were copied from one another and hand-writing analysis of the gospels have proven this.

          1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
            GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You stated that Paul wrongfully interpreted Jesus teachings without any specific illustrations of related doctrines or scripture references. That my friend is a generalization. And, a rather misinformed one at that.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, I think you need to check the words you used in your post. Maybe, you should learn the English language better. lol
              Misinformed one? My 10+ years of research of the BS of Christianity was in-depth enough to learn that Paul was only interpreting Jesus' teachings from what had already been written by others. Not to mention, he was using a one-sided form of philosophy to draw his answers and NOT using objectivity.

              But, nice try.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, but the oldest NT manuscripts in existence are from the 2nd century.  And most of Paul's epistles are not considered by biblical scholars to be authored by him.

          1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
            GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Have you ever heard of dictation? Could it be possible? This doesn't change the authorship if he chose to use a scribe.

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You have a small time problem with the dictation don't you?

              1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
                GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No, i chose not to acknowledge that portion of the answer because I believe that is still an area of great debate. Was it rewritten, no doubt? Have you ever seen any artifact as delicate as parchment that would have made it more than 100 or 200 years? And, note he said the oldest in existence. Never meant that they weren't written during the time frame we believe and have evidence that they were.

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I have seen the dead sea scrolls, so I know some old things made it.
                  Being old doesn't make it less psychotic does it?

                  1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
                    GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That wasn't a very well thought out past hub.I responded in great haste much opposed to my own good judgment. I readily admit some documents could survive. But, it doesn't makes them any less phycotic. Nor, does it make them any less true.

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            we may have 2nd century copies but they used the originals and the copies of the originals and the copies of those copies... You may think lightly of copies of copies but i remind you the ones copying these copies thought of them as scripture, sacred texts... you don't take that kind of mission on lightly.

      2. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol  prove that paul was wrongful and i will put it in proper perspective for you.
        Paul was handpicked by God to be the 12th disciple to replace judas, because he persecuted the church.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
          DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Acts 1:20-26

          20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
          21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
          22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
          23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
          24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
          26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.


          According to the Bible, looks to me like God picked Matthias as the 12th Disciple to replace Judas

          1. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            not necessarily, lots were cast but that doesn't mean lots have the final say.
            Are lots cast anywhere else in the NT besides at jesus cross?
            I am sorry but when Jesus appears to Saul and says he has a job for him.. i believe that over lots cast in favor of a person that is never heard of. I mean lets face it.. if i cast lots between my coffee cup and my typewriter to see which will go to the store to buy milk.. one of the two is gonna get the mission. Whats the new testament pattern... to pray for things not to cast lots.. the disciples blew it here because they were anxious.. this shows us a replacement had to be, otherwise why not just leave it at 11.

            Matthias was never heard of again and i can prove that this matthias is not the writer of matthews book.

            try again smile

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
              DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So in verse 24 when the Apostles Pray for God to show them, Jesus trumped God and that Prayer doesn't work? So you are a follower of Jesus, not God...Gotcha...smile

              1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes they prayed but they did not pray according to the WILL of God. God had already picked out who he wanted and jesus went to extreme lengths to make that decision known... Lets face it if anyone were to drop the ball, Peter is the one. He cut off a mans ear, denied christ 3 times. He was a zealot, even a sicarii, Jesus called him satan.

                The short of this is, that even mighty people of God can drop the ball so to speak. They prayed to God BUT they wanted their answer now and so they threw the lots.. if they had've prayed and prayed.. and never thrown the lots.. different story.
                Recall also romans 15:25 parallels acts 21:4, 11, 12.
                Romans 15:25   "But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints."   Paul speaking.
                Acts 21:4   And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul THROUGH THE SPIRIT, that he should NOT go up to Jerusalem.
                you can read the other 2 distinct warnings that Paul should not go to jerusalem.
                People are people. We are not perfect. Sometimes we want something badly enough that our flesh yearns for it. Paul loved to debate with the jews, he was a son of a pharisee, a pharisee himself. studied at Gamaliel school. Paul knew torah and oral law.. etc.. He was wired to debate with the rabbis.. but God sent Paul to the Gentiles...anyway.. what happened when Paul got to jerusalem.. he got mobbed and nearly beaten to death. Centurions pulled him out of the fray and locked him away and sent him off to rome.
                Anyway this is a similar scenario to peter and the casting of lots.
                God loves us in spite of our faults or mistakes and He will use those situations to His benefit, somehow. Paul got to Rome but not the way he wanted to smile
                Peter filled the vacancy but not with Gods choice candidate and the evidence of a wrong decision is that mathias is never heard from again and Paul was amazing.

                1. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok. So you are a follower of Paul. <shrug> doesn't matter to me.

                  Jesus called Simeon, Peter because he was to be the rock that he would build his church on.

                  1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    oh no.. i tackled this one on another thread and i said it was peters confession which was the rock. Peter wasn't the rock which Jesus acknowledged by saying:
                    Matthew 16:15   He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
                      Matthew 16:16   And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
                      Matthew 16:17   And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
                    (notice here jesus calls him bar jona... bar means son of;  jona means jonah.. as in jonah swallowed by the fish - jonah was certainly no rock)
                      Matthew 16:18   And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (notice here he calls him peter.. which means rock in the greek but hollow rock in the hebrew - see how peters character is defined as wavering)
                    Notice he says to peter... you are peter.. like peter didn't know that.. and upon this rock... Jesus didn't say.. and upon you.. he said this rock.. the statement of Jesus being Christ the son of the living God. That is the rock that is stable and cannot be moved. That is the whole premise of Christianity.. Jesus, the Son of God.. and to the jews.. his messiah-ship, which was in huge controversy.
                    Peter was to be important, yes, but not more important than jesus. The church is founded on Christ, christ is the cornerstone
                    Ephesians 2:20   And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
                    If you know about building brick walls, the cornerstone is the most important, it is always placed first and the rest of the wall aligns with it.
                    It's all important, every word. I love what Jesus said and i love what Paul wrote. Some people think Paul was off base but man, Paul is right on.
                    Thanks for the discussion.

  12. 0
    wongomowaleposted 5 years ago

    Because if there was a Jesus he wasn't the Son of God.

    1. 59
      ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you, Jesus was not a son of god in physical terms.

    2. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Then one can only assume your thinking as: you also not a son of Creator?
      James.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        smile

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Good point, James.

        When someone speaks from the viewpoint of ego, they are speaking from a created object. Ego is the master of this world, the source of all evil (selfishness).

        When someone speaks from utter humility and perfect confidence (faith), and a full love of God, they are a child of God (spirit does not have gender).

        After 61 years, I'm still working on finding my own answers. But there are a lot more out there to find.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Odd. You speak of ego-less yet do not demonstrate this trait. If Christians such as your self were actually humble and lacked ego - I could admire the religion. Instead - they are like yourself.

          Thank you for reminding me why I despise your religion.

    3. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lets see, a sinless sacrificial lamb was needed to be the final atoning sacrifice for all mankind..
      There were many successful men in the bible but they all had faults and all sinned at least once.
      No if God needed a perfect sacrifice for this job, He would have to do it himself.

      1. Evolution Guy profile image61
        Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is such nonsense cousin. Worse than the Catholics, I think. If that is possible. Hard to tell which cult makes the least sense.

        1. lizzieBoo profile image79
          lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Bah humbug!

          1. Evolution Guy profile image61
            Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Innit. Love - I feel it. lol

          2. brotheryochanan profile image61
            brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            either one of you two

      2. brotheryochanan profile image61
        brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        and yet no evidence.. just personal opinion.
        do i need to quote the verses where jesus and the father are one or the father loves the son or do i have to show the sins of the OT saints.
        I have no time for your personal opinions but please feel free to put forth any evidence to back yourself up. If you can

  13. Paradise7 profile image87
    Paradise7posted 5 years ago

    There IS a book, anyway.  What else were you saying we have to go by?  I didn't get it, maybe.  The Spirit of the Lord?  That's true, too, but I think we need the book, also.

  14. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Dearest Christian Crows and Post-Christian Cowards,

    "Jesus" was not, I repeat NOT "The Nook", which you reference as the Bible for and against your silly little fixations. Second "Jesus was not, I repeat NOT "The Holy Spirit".

    point b) first: And coming out of the water, the Holy Spirit came upon him.
    point a) In Johns Epistle, it is often confused what is being said. Those few verses are smashed together to produce one event, when in fact, John is discussing several keynotes in his opening statement. John never claims "Jesus" is the complete, total, only, utter "Word/s" of the Father. He became those Words, yes, same as you and me and Adam are reflections of those words when we Walk with Him (walk IN -not by or around, ahead or behind- Faith). Because the term words in translated ruach (breathe, words, speech, voice, desire). I could discuss this point for months, because ironically the Book" supports my case. But, you probably wouldn't listen, like the Pharesses, you KNOW better -pro/believing and con/former believing, of course, and for us to claim we are the sons of The Father, is blasphemy, right?

    Sigh.

    James.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fondly regarded poster,

      We are just as entitled to our silly fixations as your are yours.  Aren't we?  smile


                                              sarcastichiss

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol I was going to suggest the same Randy, I have this strange opinion that jesus was never around to write anything.... at least not the biblical one, and I would like to see a wee bit of proof before I go throwing my life under the train of religion. smile.

        1. recommend1 profile image71
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You don't get proof of such important things Earnest, god just comes into you immaculately big_smile

          1. earnestshub profile image88
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, he came to me immaculately, so I guess he left by the same door! lol

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              As you are a guy then I guess that this would be by the back door - beyond conception isn't it big_smile

              1. earnestshub profile image88
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not subtle.....but correct. smile

          2. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Isn't that what Mary told Joseph when she found out she was "with child"? 

            Is this considered in Bad taste?  smile

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol lol

              I think she came up with one helluva cover story myself! lol

              Whodathunkit?
              It was another goddunnit! lol

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Well, the scenario wasn't anything new, Earnest.  Apparently the "god born of a virgin" thing was adopted from an ancient Egyptian deity predating the Jesus myth.

                The Greeks borrowed freely from other religions when creating new tales to bolster the then popular "Christian" soap opera of the times.  Of course, some of the many new "adventures of JC and the boys" were not acceptable as being worthy of including into the popular saga of the time.


                Young virgins seem to be an obsession with gods for some reason.  smile

                1. brotheryochanan profile image61
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  omg the think tanks get the sound of the buzzer again.
                  God is spirit, correct.. so how would he ruin virginity?
                  Luke 1:35   And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the POWER of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
                  HMMM.
                  God used his power not a flesh and blood penis because in order to use a penis he would have to incarnate himself to incarnate himself. In a sense if God had sex with mary he would be committing adultery but if God zaps a zygote in there, the rites of jewish marriage are unbroken and no adultery, DUH.
                  God prefers that people, both male and female marry as virgins because God wants them to experiment or experience lovemaking together, to be awkward together to become confident together. To enjoy each other from the beginnings of sexual relations not from s and m onward. God wants something other than the 'utility bills' to be new.
                  As to the cover story of mary.. buzzzzzer sound. Mary would have told the truth and as truth goes, when it told it can be believed. The bible says joseph was visited in a dream to back up marys story. You see, joseph was a man born under the law and although he thought to put her away privately - not in anger or wrath but in a kind way, meaning he believed her story but thought like you two... hows God gonna do that.. gees i've studied 30 plus years and i've studied 10 yrs and we are stumped... but in the end, unlike you two, joseph made room for this miracle.

    2. GrowingDeeper profile image60
      GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      James, the word in John 1:1 is logos. Not ruach. It means the manifestation of Himself or His thoughts, it is commonly used for reasoning and other various meanings. But, in this instance with the definite article it is to mean the expression or manifestation  of the Deity of God.

      1. GrowingDeeper profile image60
        GrowingDeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The same thought is conveyed in Hebrew 1:2,3 as well for your understanding. Christ was the "express image" or exact image of God.

      2. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This is not entirely correct. Now, I am not certain why the ministers of the "Church" are not teaching you this, but perhaps this will assist.

        In the old Greek, logos is defined as the reply or response to words. In essence the answer to the prayer/words spoken. To fulfill this: "...will not return to me void."

        In the Hebrew, ruach is defined as the totality of Life, which comes by the words of Creator; the Breath, the Spirit, air, wind. There is no beginning/end to those words. This is also defined by this: "...were framed by the word of Creator." and also "...by His words all things are sustained..." and also "..upholds/fulfills all things by the word of His power." That power is known as Faith --applied faith/logic/understanding. The power of Spirit.

        Faith, and the words of Creator cannot be understood by reason. Reason has a beginning-end. Point A to B. It cannot be rationed or rationalized using processes of thinking. It must be experienced by application only.

        Ruach is the breath of life. "And life was the light in man." and "..breathed into him the breathe of life". Now, watch closely: "And mankind (adam) became a living being. A living being is separate in translation, as meaning becoming tangible/flesh. So, all men are made in the image/likeness of Creator and are set apart.

        What John describes Immanu El as, is the ORIGINAL manifestation of a human being, once the Spirit came upon him. "...became flesh (a man/adam)." The confusion comes at the last part: "..as of the only begotten of the Father.." And because of this single statement, they assume it means "Jesus" was Creator himself -in totality in bodily form. Which is not correct. There are many examples to provide for this. I give you two: "...the Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" and also "...do not touch me for I have not yet returned to my Father (logos)."

        Notice there in John 1.1-4 how he describes that everyone who has the ruach has been given the title AND ability to be called and become the Children of the Father. You do not realize the opportunity, privilege, power and right you have been given through the Yod of creation and the last yod that fulfilled the Law, crushed the knowledge of sin (meaning reason/rationale) and removed death itself from your life. Instead, you cling feverishly to the Book's words -for belief AND doubt alike, forgetting the word: "..is in you, so you may hear it AND do it." as the prophets of old said.

        Close the book, enjoy the Life and blessings of it, forever. Live the book, continue the curse and wait for Death.

        smile

        James.

        1. Evolution Guy profile image61
          Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Contradictory nonsense. You have no understanding of anything and - making claims to esoteric knowledge such as this is why your religion causes so many conflicts. This business of rejecting reason in favor of esoteric knowledge is the reason we do not understand the world around us - or respect it. People like you.

          You have no knowledge. You have no authority. Your nonsensical beliefs are just that - nonsensical.

          Rather funny that you just tried to explain that they are nonsense as well. lol

          Even funnier that you tried to use reason to explain why reason is useless to understand the majik that you understand. lol lol

          Back on topic - Jesus did not write a book because Jesus did not exist. wink

          Tell us about the 800 year old peeps again. I like that story best. big_smile

          1. lizzieBoo profile image79
            lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So a little revolution took place 2000 years ago, which was passionately followed by believers in that revolution for some several hundred years, surrounding a person and an event which never existed? We know the followers existed. Would it not be reasonable to assume there was somebody there at the beginning? Or does that not fit with your argument?

            1. Evolution Guy profile image61
              Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No - it would not be reasonable. What would be reasonable is some verifiable contemporary evidence. Of which there is none.

              What would also be reasonable is some corroboration of the story from sources out side religionists. There is none. The Romans kept fantastic records. Yet there is no record of a census being called during the year this person was supposed to have been born. You can go see the records for yourself.

              It would also help if the story was not complete and utter nonsense.

              I am well aware people such as yourself believe this without any evidence at all.

              This just proves you are irrational and incapable of reasoning properly - not that what you believe has any basis in fact.

              The most simple explanation as to why this jesus person never wrote a book is that he was not a real person. He did not exist. Not some obscure and illogical reasoning process that means god wanted us to fight for 2,000 years over what Jesus said or did not say.

              Every single utterance by Jesus in the bible is hearsay. Every single word. No evidence outside the bible of this miracle worker? How strange - you would think the records of the time would be all over this guy who brought people back from the dead. Instead - Nada.

              As we are talking about "reasonable." lol

              1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You're right, I don't spend a lot of time looking for evidence to disprove the existence of Jesus. I like the story of how Christianity spread, it makes profound sense to me. I like how people just got it, even though it was new and radical. I like how the rough Anglo-Saxons were civilised by Christianity.
                If I didn't like what  it was saying I would, like you, find some way to discredit it.  Some people have spent their academic talents trying to prove that Shakespeare didn't really exist; that different people wrote his plays: That no one could be as prolific as that. What is that? Jealousy? I don't know. I prefer to relish the meanings in his plays. It takes a type of thinking I suppose. For you, resonance and meaning are not important, only scientific calculations. I call it a kill-joys approach to life. You want verification for everything, even the immeasurable, like love and hope. You are mistaking facts and figures for real life.

                1. Evolution Guy profile image61
                  Evolution Guyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Christianity was spread largely by violence. Have you actually read any books at all?

                  There is no evidence of Jesus full stop. I don't spend all my time looking for "evidence to disprove the existence of Jesus," lol I looked for evidence to prove his existence and there is none. lol

                  You were the one asked what was reasonable - now you are arguing you don't care if there is no evidence? lol

                  Not sure how you jump to the irrational conclusion that the only think that has meaning in my life is science because I point out the 100% total lack of evidence for Jesus. Nor am I sure what Shakespeare has to do with anything.

                  If you are not interested in being reasonable - why ask? I mean - if you choose to believe something that makes no sense and has no evidence for - you would be well advised to leave reason at the door.

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    what I'm saying is that if you're talking about books and evidence, then you're missing the point. Christianity has continued as a practice for 2000 years because of Christians. Not because of books or evidence or violence or war. Those things will continue merrily along regardless of Christianity. They are a human problem. The evidence of Christ is Christianity. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ubi est.

                2. DoubleScorpion profile image84
                  DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I apologize ahead of time if this sounds kinda mean, but have you actually read how christianity spread, it was on a believe or die basis more often than not(Inquisition). Sure, there was some spreading that wasn't done this way, but that was accomplished by incorporating the "pagan" beliefs of the locals into the christian system. Where do you think Christmas and Easter came from?

                  And again, I am not trying to sound or be mean. I just wanted to point out a few things.

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it doesn't sound mean. I know about the pagan heritage. I know about baddies within Christianity. Christianity came in peace to Great Britain via nomadic missionaries. When the Romans tried to force it, it didn't catch on. People know what is true and what is not; what matters and what doesn't. Who cares what day Christmas falls on? Does it alter the meaning? What is amazing is that Christianity has flourished despite the wrongs. We all know what it means still to be a good Christian.

                3. mega1 profile image81
                  mega1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you - and take it even further - in another forum the other night I mentioned Joseph Campbell whose scholarly life was used to research and write about the various "religious" traditions, their similarities and origins, the oral traditions that for centuries sustained parables and myths that are the basis of all spiritual teachings.  It is fascinating that he did this and shared it with us.  His methods were profound and illuminating - the fact that people all over the earth came up with the same basic heroes and anti-heroes to populate their myths which served the purpose of creating and maintaining civilizations.  It's not just all about Christianity, although the Christian oral tradition is just as profound as any of the others -  we have to remember that books, as we know them, didn't exist for most people until about 5 centuries ago, so when Jesus was alive they were writing on scrolls and only the very elite could decipher them.  I think without the strong oral tradition of song and dance and poetry that passed down teachings about how to hold love in your heart, there would not be any books about spiritual things now - or all the books we do have about these things continue the oral teachings. We seem to find it hard to create NEW myths and parables and maybe that's because the quantity and quality of the old ones is quite sufficient for us, if we just pay attention.   But we don't need to get stuck in the Bible or any other old book, for instance, to tell people what to do - especially when a lot of what is in the Christian Bible doesn't relate to modern life, we don't wash each other's feet very often anymore, now, do we? 

                  I for one, IzzieBoo - totally get your point, that he didn't have to write a book is a miracle in itself - the miracle and art of human oral tradition.  I may joke about these things sometimes, but I do value wonderful teachers.

                  1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                    lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    mega1, you get it! The unwritten message is a miracle, yes! I agree.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              By that reasoning, every crazy thing anyone dreams up; if they gather a following must be true. Wanting to believe  in something doesn't necessarily mean that the  foundation of the belief system is based in  fact.

              1. lizzieBoo profile image79
                lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You're right, having followers doesn't mean it's true. I was just talking about the evidence of there being a Jesus.
                You may have a problem with the institution of religion (I understand and empathise btw) but Christianity as a practice makes logical sense. You know it does.

                1. lone77star profile image90
                  lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Good points for both you and Emile, Lizzie.

                  But why does Christianity as a practice make logical sense? Could it be that the transcendent viewpoints cause us to awaken spiritually?

                  We are so used to thinking in physical terms. We can't help it. For most of us, physical reality is all we know -- Newtonian action-reaction. But take something like true forgiveness (turning the other cheek). This goes counter to logic and emotion. If someone truly forgives another, no matter what the trespass, then the past is forgotten and the former victim is now neither victim nor burdened by resentment.

                  This kind of discontinuity -- breaking with the chains which bind us to the source of resentment -- allows us to do all the miracles Jesus did and even greater. Relying on the continuity of physical reality is a trap. That's why the rich have such a hard time making it to heaven. The burden of continuity is too thick to fit through the gate. Even the slenderest blade could not fit.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Logical sense?

                  I’m afraid I don’t think that Christianity as a practice makes logical sense; simply by observing how it is practiced by the masses. Organized religion is Christianity.  Is there logic in the way the Pentacostals practice their faith? Or any of the fundamentalists?

                  There is no logic in arguing the fact that the evidence against the existence of a figure that has been named Jesus by Christianity is pretty compelling. Fear of answers, not logic, is the only thing I see within the vast majority of Christians when faced with this question.  If you begin with the assumption that the Bible is somehow inspired by God, why would you fear the truth? There is no logic in that.

                  I don’t see any logic in claiming to follow a spiritual path when the very foundations of the belief structure of Christianity have been soundly refuted.  A god as described in the Bible does not exist in our world.  That’s a fact that no one can argue with credibility.

                  Christianity might make logical sense in some contexts, but as a path to spirituality I don’t see how it can logically be used as anything other than a stepping stone in the search for truth. It’s too prone to devolve into fantasy.

              2. brotheryochanan profile image61
                brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Buddha was born approximately 560 B.C. in the land of Northern India.

                oh yah i bet they had printing presses back then. And if buddhas books can be read and believed how is it that the NT cannot?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It has more to do with the claims made and the actions of those who read the books, than the book itself.  You do see the difference? We have a lot of books and ideas from the distant past.  How many of them are read by people now and used to oddly proclaim they have a message from God that needs to be heeded, or your soul is in danger? Read any stories of terrorism perpetrated by buddhists recently?

                  The claims, made by the monotheistic religions, are why a greater burden of proof is placed upon it. You can't simply walk around and say you follow a god and the son of one, unless you are willing to accept the fact that, without proof, you will be laughed at.  I would expect no less from you if I began to make claims of a personal relationship with a divinity.

                  1. aguasilver profile image88
                    aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Weird, you are actually saying that if I have a personal but very real relationship with an entity, but you do not, it is my responsibility to prove my relationship to you.

                    Lets go further there are millions of people who have the self same relationship with the same person, yet you demand that they all provide proof to you that you will accept.

                    How strange!

  15. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    He writes a new page everyday in the book that is my heart

  16. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    Actually, I think it would have been very useful if Christ had written a book, because there seems so much confusion amongst Christians today as to what exactly they should believe in.  Some believe in following Old Testament laws, whilst others reject them altogether.

    1. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good point, Sherlock. And the Nazarene teacher said that he had come not to do away with the laws, but to fulfill them. The intent of those old laws was to help nurture the awakening of each individual spiritual self -- the immortal child of God, within.

      The old approaches weren't working because ego took advantage of the laws to show "self" as being "right." Such egotistical selfishness is the antithesis of spiritual awakening. The new covenant that the Nazarene brought required only that we love God and each other, and the laws would naturally follow. Truly loving God leaves no room for any incompatible activity (selfishness).

  17. Vigilantics profile image61
    Vigilanticsposted 5 years ago

    Well, Historically speaking, I don't believe every town back in Jesus' day had it's own publishing epicenter. I'm fairly confident that the written word wasn't all that well adopted by the general populace. If you wanted to spread your messages you preached or . . . you didn't. So, Jesus being literate or not, having an author about with some papyrus, ink and feather pen or focusing on having his words written into stone by the locals of every town he visited is irrelevant. When Jesus was alive, you simply had to preach and hope to reach the hearts of your audience enough to influence them to pass on your message (and not necessarily the EXACT, word-for-word, message but the message of love, understanding, forgiveness, kindness, etc).

    I think the biggest mistake we can make when discussing faith is to focus on the instruments and not the point. Religion takes faith, not hardware. If we focus on all the wrong things (like physical proof and Jesus' handwriting skills, or lack thereof) then we're really losing sight of the big picture. Ask any Priest if every single story and word of the Bible is simply as it is and 100% accurate . . . he will say no. A lot of the Bible is simply there to provide inspiration and guidance. Your real faith should only rest in God, His Son and the Holy Spirit, that's it.

    Jesus' story made it 2,000 years to today, which is miraculous because it was NOT written while he was alive. His inspiration and teachings lived on long enough to find the written word (so far, thousands and thousands of re-written words). The power of His message though, isn't it's longevity, it's the importance of the message that simply will not die.

    Ask yourself not what physical manifestations you can judge, belittle or historically debate, but what that message is truly saying. In the end, sum it all up, and what you are left with is forgiveness for what you've done wrong, the innate message to love one another and the instruction to make you and everyone around you happy. I'm sorry, but it's wildly out of focus to think about something as historically inessential as the written word as a condemning factor to His beautiful message when, in the end, it's completely and totally irrelevant. The Bible is a written document, carried by the message of hope and love, through the ages, to help people focus on or be inspired by the TRUE intention God has for us, which is simply to love Him and one another, and that is it.

    BTW - Unless you know Paul personally, or any of the people mentioned in the Bible, you CAN NOT say for sure what they did, where they went, how long they lived or otherwise. I've seen and read plenty of works with regards to the accuracy of the Bible and it's stories and I can only find one verdict, everyone is convinced and no one is right . . . all because the pursuit is pointless and fruitless when the messages sits before us completely untarnished by its many years of translation. Remember, it's not a history book and was never meant to be such. It's a book of guidance and inspiration with a message, not a definition.

  18. amandaD profile image59
    amandaDposted 5 years ago

    His hands were nailed to a cross, he didn't have time to write and he needed the toilet too! oh and he didn't exist!

    1. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Did you use real logic for that? Or the imaginary kind of logic? wink

      Or are you trying to tell us that you're omniscient? Oooo! lol

  19. mega1 profile image81
    mega1posted 5 years ago

    golly gee whiz! I never thunk of that!  Maybe that ol sucker did write hisself a book back there!  If so, I sure hope they find it and send me a copy - I'll gladly pay a buck two fifty for one!  I already got me my autografed pitchur!

  20. sarahilania525 profile image60
    sarahilania525posted 5 years ago

    that was not a good thing to say. even evils know there is God..

  21. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Jesus didn't write a single word, let alone a book! lol

    1. mega1 profile image81
      mega1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ok, mr. smartypants - you were probly there and saw he didn't write down nothin' - or somethin. ha.  But when I get my copy of the Jesus book and I put it in the place of honor write under that autografed pitchur I got of him from that radio ad (betcha ya don't got one of them, either!)  you're gonna be real dam jealous of me and that book I got for only a buck two fifty!  Ha!  so don't just be too shure you know everything, mr. smartguy!  betcha then you'll believe that Jesus could so to have written that book!  Hey, I bet the pages will glow, too!  kinda like that lamp I got with Jesus painted on velvet and light glowing offen his head - man, that thing is a beaut!

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm gonna listen to the radio and I better see that autographed piktyer!

        1. mega1 profile image81
          mega1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I betcha yu missed the ad, durn it.  It was a spell back afore we got that newfangled tv thing.  Don't rightly recall whether it was 1984 or 1944, but I sent off for that autografed pitchur of Jesus there from the folks on the Grand Old Opry, I think it was, or it could have been one of them other musical verighty shows, and shure enough they sent me that pitchur. twas only
          $1.29 I think - it looks so real! could almost be a foto pitchur!  and he has a real nice handwriting - signed it "All My Love, Jesus"   = I'd post a pitchur of it here, but Ma says that would not be good,
          'twould be blassfeemy, she says, so I dasn't do it, or I'd jus rot in hell for shure.  Your jus gonna haveta trust me bout this one, Earnest!

    2. 59
      ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is true; Christianity does not present anything written by Jesus; not a word even.

    3. brotheryochanan profile image61
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      neither did jeremiah, he had a scribe named baruch.

  22. secularist10 profile image91
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    "And yet, Christianity spread like wildfire across the world, with or without the might of great empires, and was charged with the same enthusiasm of its first disciples. Is this not proof that the Bible is just a small player in the manifestation of Christianity as a religion, and that it is the gift of the Holy Spirit that has carried us thus far?"

    The "might of great empires" was essential to Christianity's global spread. The Christians were persecuted and put down by Roman authorities, until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, thus everyone in the Mediterranean basin became a Christian.

    Later on, Christianity spread in the Americas, Africa and Asia only with the assistance of powerful empires and well-armed militaries, such as Spain, Portugal, France and England. In the absence of the military, political, economic and cultural domination of the European powers, there is no chance that a foreign religion could have gained so much influence in these places.

    Thus, the expansion of Christianity is eminently and completely explainable in straightforward, real-world terms, just like all major religions. The "Holy Spirit" or other supernatural explanations are not in any way needed to explain its growth.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How do explain the first 300 hundred years of Christianity without a book and without the endorsement of a great empire?

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Momentum of powerful teachings. And likely the charisma and powerful miracles of the spiritually adept.

        Somewhere in the following few hundred years, Christianity lost that "magic."

        Perhaps this is why only the first pope ever walked on water, and he hadn't know he had been elected to the position.

      2. secularist10 profile image91
        secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "How do explain the first 300 hundred years of Christianity without a book and without the endorsement of a great empire?"

        What is there to explain? It was a religion, like many others, that muddled along for several centuries. It gained some popularity because of charisma, missionary zeal, the message of Jesus which resonated with the poor, etc.

        It was not until it gained the support of the strong and powerful (in the 300s) that it started to become a major political or cultural force on a regional or continental scale.

  23. mega1 profile image81
    mega1posted 5 years ago

    oh, plus shippin and handlin too - forgot, that was $19.99 - seemed a bit steep to me, but I'll never regret it as long as I live!  Not one other person on this road out here has got one like it, and I doubt if anyone in town has either!  Really, folks come in and its the first thing they see there on our wall, that and the glowing painted on velvet Jesus lamp that Ma gave me for Chrissmus back in 58 - she won it at the carnival in the ring toss and kept it hid all those months from August jus so's I would have a surprise on Baby Jesus' birthday.  That was the best chrissmus ever!

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Geez Meg! you are so talented! You should write hubs! ... oh yeh! lol

  24. Divinemusings profile image61
    Divinemusingsposted 5 years ago

    Jesus was a master who wanted to let each one be his or her own master. He only wanted to awaken others to this truth. He would not have wanted any dogma or religion or principles to be built around his words. For, people would then never bother to know the truth  by themselves. They would prefer to live on borrowed principles

    1. 59
      ibneahmadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Then the Christians should not have the Gospels.

  25. 0
    thirdmillenniumposted 5 years ago

    His life was the book. A book does not write itself

    1. Gillme profile image59
      Gillmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What is exactly that supposed to mean? R u like saying that Jesus was somehow trapped in a book?

  26. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    Lizzie, an awesome idea you've presented.

    One key message of Jesus was that of not relying on the continuity of physical reality. One blazing example of this was when the thousands were fed from a meager few loaves and fishes. The Nazarene told his disciples not to worry about the fact that they had not brought a ton of food with which to feed the multitude.

    Faith is transcendent confidence. Belief is an attitude about something perceived (effect), while faith is an attitude about something created (cause). Faith is perfect confidence (what the Buddhists would call "paramita"). It contains no doubt because it is creation, not perception.

    Jesus wanted us to rely on the spiritual (love of God) and not the physical. Walking on water was like that. To depend on what you remember of the properties of water, you would naturally doubt your ability to walk on it.

    And this is why the Ten Commandments cautions against graven images, because God is not physical. Any physical image would thus be a lie.

    Misinterpretation

    The problem with depending solely on a written work is that it can be misinterpreted. Thus we get the abuses so many of the skeptics like to talk about (pogrom against the Cathars, Crusades, Inquisitions, burnings at the stake, etc). Or we get the delusional ideas that skeptics enjoy ridiculing (fundamentalists' belief in a 6000-year-old universe, Homo sapiens walking with dinosaurs, etc).

    All of those problems come back to ego -- the insistence on being right, the sense of entitlement, and of making others wrong.

    If one has humility (subduing the "love of self") and have faith (100% confidence) and love of God, then the answers can come to you. The writing of the Bible can start to make more and more sense.

    Finding the Kabbalist's "Tree of Life" embedded in Genesis is only one example of what can be accomplished with humility, persistence and love of God. Many scholars have thought the Kabbalists didn't exist before the Middle Ages. And here, there most reverred template has been in Genesis for at least 2000 years longer.

    There is so much more to learn. Humility and faith are the key.

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lonestar, I agree with you, and I particularly like the analogy of the properties of water.  Faith is about transcending the academic truths that weigh down our complete understanding of something.

  27. Gillme profile image59
    Gillmeposted 5 years ago

    uh....what does notion mean?

    1. lizzieBoo profile image79
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      it means a vague belief in something.

      1. Gillme profile image59
        Gillmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks LizzieBoo! U seem smart! Nice idea up there!

  28. James102 profile image61
    James102posted 5 years ago

    Jesus was not on earth to write a book. People already had bible 2 centuries Before Christ. Yet I believe he did not want people to live according to the Book. He wanted people to love god and live with heart full of love and kindness.

    He preached everything simple, then christians made christianity more complicated.

    1. Gillme profile image59
      Gillmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How would you exactly know if people had Bibles back then? And anyways, how did Gog create this world? I mean how come He exists? He created us, but how was He created. You can't just be there. I don't know how to explain this but I hope u understand what I mean.

  29. 60
    DataJackposted 5 years ago

    Free will is your answer @double scorpion

  30. realMotocross profile image60
    realMotocrossposted 5 years ago

    nice!. Faith is important and could help save a man.

  31. Gillme profile image59
    Gillmeposted 5 years ago

    People on Earth - Oh God! You're so right Emile! What's holy anymore?! These people are turning everything holy into something bad. I think something's wrong in their heads. Why can't this world live in peace?!

  32. 0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    why didn't Jesus write a book?

                      He couldn't find a pen? hmm

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Boom Boom!
      Hiya Klara. smile

      1. 0
        klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How're you feeling, my love? wink

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sore as hell! lol

          Thought I'd be weird and answer honestly. lol

          1. 0
            klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sure it (whatever IT is) will heal soon. big_smile

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              My back. Ambulance ride and day wasting a hospital bed last Friday.

              Still not stunningly wonderful! lol

              1. 0
                klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I'm sorry that this is happening so often. I hope you find a way to improve your condition.

                1. earnestshub profile image88
                  earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks Klara. smile
                  If I could just learn to behave myself I would be better off in the back department, but still a big kid at heart. smile

    2. Gillme profile image59
      Gillmeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ha-Ha! Very funny Klarawieck. Jesus didn't write a book because HE WAS POOR! Isn't that so obvious?! His family had no money to teach him to be a scribe and anyways, He didn't even have time! God sent Him to help others and teach them and spread the good news (What was the good news anyways?), not spend His time writing a book!

  33. Gillme profile image59
    Gillmeposted 5 years ago

    You have a point. I totally agree with usmile

  34. mhaydock profile image77
    mhaydockposted 5 years ago

    He in fact did write a book. Jesus is God, the Son of God made incarnate as a man who walked this earth. We do not worship three but three in One, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, written as it was given to the hearts of man. So we can trust thathrist's words are recorded faithfully as they were not only witness and recorded by those who walked with him, but later given by the Holy Spirit to men chosen by God to deliver this message of salvation for the world to hear and believe. The Bible is not a book to be worshiped, but the Word of God to be believed.

 
working