Bill Still: Why do we call it Good Friday?

[murray t turtle]

[QUOTE="Good1,[partial] post: 4640215, member: 177970"..........

This could describe the central Jewish theme of priestcraft, which is the control of the largest number of people, with the smallest police force, using terrorism (the spectacle of murder) as one of its main methods of control.

This is generally what governments do, and what Pontius Pilatus did in using the public murder of Jesus to terrorize (and gain control with the smallest police force) the Jews.

I call that priestcraft, and i call priestcraft blasphemy. What do you call it?[/QUOTE]
%%
It looked like murder, that kangaroo court that killed Jesus Christ. BUT really it[ the death burial + resurresction of Jesus chist , according to the scriptures ,was a cruel form of capital punishment ] First corinthians 15 has the gospel, which is what i just delivered to you Mr Good 1-Murray T Turtle, nickname ,not an alias The Romans wanted to intimidate everyone with that cruel from of capital punishment, the cross. Hope this helps; it helped me a lot.

 

[Good1]

It looked like murder, that kangaroo court that killed Jesus Christ. BUT really it[ the death burial + resurresction of Jesus chist , according to the scriptures ,was a cruel form of capital punishment ] First corinthians 15 has the gospel, which is what i just delivered to you Mr Good 1-Murray T Turtle, nickname ,not an alias The Romans wanted to intimidate everyone with that cruel from of capital punishment, the cross. Hope this helps; it helped me a lot.

But in the case of Jesus, it was not capital punishment. He had done nothing wrong, or at least nothing rising to that level within the Roman law system.

Likewise, when a priest "sacrifices" a lamb, the lamb has not necessarily done anything wrong, certainly not within the law system of the priest.

So i'm saying "sacrifice" is a euphemism for public displays of murder, especially when done in the name of a god.

It's a euphemism because the son of god (Son of God if you prefer capital letters) was not sacrificed. The father still has the son, so-to-speak.

So what happened on "Good Friday" other than the spectacle of public torture and murder for the purpose of intimidation (terrorism) to bring the crowds under control?

Can the killing of a lamb really be called a "sacrifice"? Only when it is owned by the priest doing the killing, and only when the lamb represents a significant percentage of the priests household portfolio. Chances were, the lamb was given to the priest by one of the people, to whom the lamb may have represented a significant percentage of their household portfolio. But if sacrifice is the main objective, then the priest, or the people, can just publicly throw money into the sea, or give it to charity. What is the purpose of the killing?

So i'm saying, whether it's a lamb or a man like Jesus, the purpose is for intimidation, to bring the largest crowd of people under control, with the smallest police force.

Priestcraft is similar to statecraft, in that both endeavor to bring the largest crowd under control with the smallest police force. Priestcraft differs in that it adds the element of divinity, calling it "God", and makes this god into a kind of thought police. By making god into a thought police, the priests can reduce their police force to an absolute minimum, making priestcraft very efficient.

Statecraft lacks thought police, unless you count surveillance. But surveillance is not as efficient as invoking the name of a god, and so, states generally have larger police forces to keep the crowds under control.

In either scenario, it is carrot and stick, rewards and punishments. Priests involve the divine nature in this basic method of motivation. I'm saying Good is not involved in this method of motivation.

I'm saying Pontius Pilatus used Jesus, regardless of Roman laws on capital punishment, to intimidate the crowds that were showing up in Jerusalem during the highest holy day (holiday). The crowds were large enough they could probably over-run the Roman garrisons if the crowd could be persuaded to attack. Intimidation ( state terrorism) was seen as an effective way to keep the crowds under control. So the crucifixions were posted at the gates of the city, as people were arriving.

And i'm saying priestcraft, especially when it "sacrifices" innocent lambs, in the name of a god, has the same motive. The result is a stream of income for the priest class, with minimal need for force (a police force). In statecraft, the result is a stream of income for the governing class with minimal need for force.

Laws are the excuses the priests and governors need to perpetuate intimidation. Notice the number of laws grows every year. They would make breathing illegal if they could get away with it.

 

[murray t turtle]

But in the case of Jesus, it was not capital punishment. He had done nothing wrong, or at least nothing rising to that level within the Roman law system.
What is the purpose of the killing?

%%
Good question, Good 1; I left out a major part of 1 Corinthians 15 gospel. Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, was buried, + rose again the 3rd day, according to the scriptures. That's the gospel; and to blame the romans or any group misses the target com-pletly. No offense intended; thanks for good question, Good 1.

 

[Good1]

Sacrifice is basically a decision to give something up, in order to get something.

This is not the same as public displays of murder to intimidate crowds of people to insure an income for the governing class.

People make sacrifices everyday that are not seen to be cruel. Generally, we call them "decisions". Whenever we make a decision, we have to let some possibility go, in order to get something we want more.

For example, if you want to sleep, you have to make the decision to give up being awake.

If you want to be awake, you have to make the decision to stop sleeping, or never go to sleep.

Meaning, there are circumstances that are mutually exclusive, you can't be awake and asleep at the same time. You have to make a decision.

Likewise, if you want to live in an imaginary world, you have to let go of reality (sacrifice reality). And if you want to live in a world full of lies, you have to sacrifice the truth.

I'm saying that "this world", a world of material objects (seas, bees, trees) is something that is "gained" at the expense of (sacrifice of) truth.

Now, if "truth" and reality are the same thing, then the inhabitants of this world have sacrificed reality in order to live within their own imagination (within their own bubble).

I'm saying that Good is truth and reality itself, and that this Good (truth and reality) was "sacrificed" in order to establish the world we currently think we live in (a material world of seas, bees and trees).

And i'm saying that on "Good Friday", Jesus taught how this world began: by the sacrifice of the truth (Good, reality).

 

[Good1]

%%
Good question, Good 1; I left out a major part of 1 Corinthians 15 gospel. Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, was buried, + rose again the 3rd day, according to the scriptures. That's the gospel; and to blame the romans or any group misses the target com-pletly. No offense intended; thanks for good question, Good 1.

Thanks for asking me about this issue. I will do my best to provide an answer.

If you read my last post, above, you will see just how Christ died for your sins.

However, it did not happen on Good Friday as you think.

It happened, if it happened at all, "before the foundation of the world", that is, before the world you think you live in was established.

So this goes way back, even before the so-called "big bang".

Yes, truth must die for lies to live.

Likewise, the proverbial "Kingdom of God" must be destroyed (think big bang) for your world to exist.

Now, all we have to do is define "sin", and correlate the establishment of the world you think you live in as "sin", both it, and everything that populates it.

I call this the "status quo", which is like a stale mate in a war against the truth (Christ).

On Good Friday, Jesus demonstrated, giving a graphic picture, just what the establishment of your world does to "Christ".

In other words, your world, and Christ's world cannot coexist. If one lives, the other must die (be sacrificed), and visa versa.

Likewise, for you to exist, as a man, Christ (reality, truth) must die.

This is the "status quo".

But why do you still value the status quo?

Christ died for your "sins" (everything you believe that is not true, including this world).

Why do you want to perpetuate that?

By misinterpreting (misrepresenting) Jesus' message, you perpetuate the so-called "sins".

In other words, why does anyone still value the death of Christ (truth, reality)?

Seems to me the death of Christ (truth) can only be valued by that which still wishes to perpetuate sins (untruth).

Salvation is about recognizing the injustice of the status quo, and choosing to rectify the situation, by accepting the truth instead of lies.

In choosing the truth, one must "sacrifice" lies, and visa versa. It's the most basic decision.

 

[Good1]

What if we called it Truth Friday instead?

What if, on this one Friday of all Fridays in time, someone, in a world full of lies, told the truth?

Wouldn't that be revolutionary? Wouldn't that be good?

Well, on this particular day, Jesus told us the truth about how the world was made, and what that looks like from a divine perspective.

Prior to this, we had the Jewish perspective of how the world was made...which turned out to be a big fat lie (the bigger the lie the more people will believe it).

What the foundation of this world looks like, in graphic terms (the spectacle of crucifixion) is the insulting destruction of the Truth itself (if the Truth could be personified as a Living Being), in order for the interloping world to "exist" (truth is sacrificed for lies). That making of the world of man is actually a disaster for the divine reality. As such, the making of man's world is a huge "sin", from a divine perspective.

So, instead of calling the making of this world "good", the truth is: the making of this world was a big fat "sin".

Sin, as i define it, is everything-that-is-not-true.

As such, sin would describe a world that is completely made up in a rogue imagination...something artificially constructed in a wandering mind.

As such, the world that sin (imagination, lies) makes up, is itself sin, as well as everything that populates that world, including everything that everything in that world does. Does it breath? Sin. Does it die? Sin. Everything that happens in a world of sin is sin.

The "good news" about sin is that it is NOT TRUE.

If it is not true, then it can be DISMISSED (forgiven) as NOT TRUE.

When sin is dismissed, then we can move on to the "resurrection" phase of salvation.

But we have not yet reached, at least not as a mainstream consensus, a universal definition of sin that can be dismissed.

Even if we were to agree sin is everything that is not true, it would still be a challenge to dismiss it, if it is in-your-face as a "reality".


For Jesus, for whom the sin of pain was not even a reality, sin was dismiss-able (he dismissed pain).

In dismissing pain, Jesus gives us hope that we can also dismiss every other kind of untruth (or symptom of untruth).

 

[Good1]

To summarize, the gaining of the world of man is purchased at the price of (the expense of) reality. As such, reality itself is "sacrificed" for man's world, which is now called "reality".

Normally, sacrifice does not seem cruel. Sacrifice is involved in all decision making. Since man is always making decisions, he is always sacrificing.

As such, man "lives" by sacrificing having gained his existence by sacrificing reality as a Living Being.

Without sacrificing (making decisions) man would die. The problem is, man will die anyways, and because of decision-making (sacrificing).

If you could personify reality, and give it a name, I would call it "Christ!" with an exclamation mark. The word itself is an expression of exclamation, of surprise, of astonishment! Regardless it's etymology, that is how it is used in everyday vernacular. Astonishment!

That is how i use the word Christ!

The fact is, reality, as it is (unchanged) is astonishing to man-kind, which abides within a bubble of imagination (unreality). As such, reality is BEYOND MAN'S IMAGINATION, and man is ASTONISHED to even hear about reality. Man's first reaction to reality is UNBELIEF.

For example, if i told you Jesus did not feel pain while being crucified, would you not be astonished? And your first reaction would be UNBELIEF.

I hope it is clear to every honest mind that reality and imagination cannot coexist any more that sleeping and waking, living and dying can coexist.

Just as living threatens dying, and waking threatens sleeping, reality threatens imagination.

As such, man is threatened by Christ!

As such, man's first reaction is to protect his own existence, by killing Christ! (by sacrificing and re-sacrificing). This is not just a Jewish or Roman thing. It has been happening every day since the foundation of man's world.

Man's next reaction is to RE-INTERPRET reality to suit his own purposes. This is just as effective as killing the truth.

This is why all of Jesus' words have been reinterpreted to serve man, rather than Christ!

For example, Jesus is said to have said: "You must lay down your life for Christ's sake. He who holds on to his life will lose it."

This has been reinterpreted to mean smoking cigarettes. If you can stop smoking cigarettes, you can claim to have laid down your life for Christ. Plus, you can call yourself a Christian.

This is just a silly example of how Jesus' explanation of the non-coexistence of diabolically opposed opposites, and the only way they can be reconciled, is interpreted.

Man does not see himself as diabolically opposed to reality as a Living Being.

Man does not see how his own existence comes at the expense of (sacrifice of) reality as a Living Being.

Man does not see how, in order to "live", man must lay down his own existence and exchange it for the existence of the Living Being. Otherwise, man will continue to die, which is the expression of change, which is the expression of untruth (Truth does not change/die).

But these are things Jesus spoke (taught) about, and demonstrated, especially on "Good Friday", which i call "Truth Friday".

Man's existence is a "sin" that destroys the existence of reality as a Living Being. Is it a coincidence that half of mankind does not know of there is a Living Being comprising all of reality, and the other half can only believe, without actually knowing/experiencing? I don't think so. Man, as such, is "separated" from reality as a Living Being.

And this is because reality and imagination cannot co-exist.

This is why you can "gain the whole world, and lose your soul".

Assuming your soul is the only "real" aspect of your ( man's) existence, yes, you could gain (at the expense of reality) the entire world of imagination. And having gained it, you would lose reality itself, as a Living Being. If your soul was the only real aspect of your existence, then your soul would be the only thing worth saving.

People who don't understand this are simply having trouble recognizing and accepting, that there is such a thing as diametrically opposed polar opposites that cannot coexist (sleeping/waking, living/dying, truth/lies)...having trouble seeing that their perspective comes from the side that is diametrically opposed to Good, and so, suffer from cognitive bias and selective memory.

Man "lives" in an imaginary world that combines diametrically opposed polar opposites. In man's world, you can sleep AND be awake, you can live AND you can die, you can have truth AND you can have lies, you can have reality AND you can have imagination.

Summarily, you can have good AND you can have evil (which is a lie due to it's impossibility). Time (another lie), and material (another lie) was made to enable the dual existence of polar opposites. For example, you can be awake AND asleep, just not at the same time. You can have both north and south poles (polar opposites), just you can't be at both at the same time if you've been reduced to an object in the space-time continuum.

"Died for my sins" is, or ought to be, a confession. It means, in simplest terms, the death of truth enables lies. Specifically, the death of reality, as a Living Being, enables my own existence as a usurper of reality, who appropriates reality for myself, as an expression of my imagination. In the most simple terms, it means the world of Good was destroyed for my world.

Is anyone willing to admit this?

If so, is this what we want to perpetuate?

Man's last reaction is to ignore, specifically, ignore reality. I call this the "status quo" (which is a stale mate in a war against the truth).

I predict this thread will be ignored.

 

[murray t turtle]

Thanks for asking me about this issue. I will do my best to provide an answer

Christ died for your "sins" (everything you believe that is not true, including this world).

Why do you want to perpetuate that?

By misinterpreting (misrepresenting) Jesus' message, you perpetuate the so-called "sins".

%% WHAT; I cant make any sense of your confusion?????? I AM not confused on gospel; some are....

 

[Good1]

%% WHAT; I cant make any sense of your confusion?????? I AM not confused on gospel; some are....

Thanks for asking this question.

Many believe that "gospel" means "good news".

The problem is that mankind is not sure about what is actually good, since good has been reduced to a circumstantial adjective.

So, what may be good for Bob might not be good for Jane.

Likewise, what is good for man (existence) may not be good for reality as a Living Being (Christ's existence).

Conversely, what may be good for Christ may not be good for man in the same way being awake may not be good for those who want to sleep, and living may not be good for those who want to die, and truth may not be good for liars.

I have merely explained what is good for Christ!

What is good for Christ is that man be dismissed as not true (forgiven).

To understand this, you must first "accept" the basis (or lack thereof) of man's existence, and how that affects reality as a Living Being.

Once this is understood, we can then understand what "salvation" really means.

Salvation for man is not good for Christ, and conversely, salvation for Christ is not good for man.

So depending on where your VALUE SYSTEM lies, there will be your loyalty to one "gospel" or another.

But what is certain, is your gospel and mine cannot coexist.

What is being saved is the soul of Christ, which is the astonishing reality as a Living Being.

What gives mankind "life" is mental attention (the power of Christ's mind) that is siphoned off of reality, and directed toward imagination.

A whole world is built upon this imagination, as mental attention is either borrowed, given, or stolen from reality as a Living Being (Christ!).

There's an old magical saying: "Power ["energy"] flows where attention goes".

The only thing holding the world of man together is faith, but faith is basically mental attention.

This is why salvation involves devoting your "whole mind" to Good.

Instead, man devotes faith to his own existence, and the existence of his own world, which is entirely imaginary.

If faith is withdrawn from man, his existence, and his world (if it is dismissed) then man and his world would disappear back to the empty void of imagination.

This is "good" for Christ!

It is not good for man.

If full attention is brought back to Christ, then the power that is being siphoned off (bled off) of Christ would be withdrawn from supporting an imaginary world, and the reality of Christ would appear (re-appear).

Upon seeing reality as it is, unchanged, as the Living Being (Christ!), "you" are "saved".

That is the "gospel".

What gospel were you speaking of?

 

[Good1]

How the "blood of Christ" saves mankind.

First we have to interpret what "blood" means, given that Christ is a spiritual being, and has no blood like a man.

If we interpret blood to mean the power of mental attention, then it starts to make sense.

Man depends on mental attention (faith) that is begged, borrowed and stolen from the mind of Christ, in order to perpetuate the apparent existence of an otherwise imaginary world of seas, bees and trees (a material world based on faith alone).

In this way, man depends on Christ the way vampires depend on the blood of their victims to be able to survive in the dark (no sunlight) world they "live" in.

The power behind man's faith is Christ, but it is stolen power so long as man uses it to animate an otherwise dead world of imagination.

So yes, the bleeding of Christ both makes and "saves" man (perpetuates the human phenomenon) to the extent that the power of Christ is being held hostage, devoted to all things untrue.

This is the "status quo", or what i describe as a stale-mate in a war against the truth.

But is the status quo something we still want to value?

Is the status quo good for Christ, which is bleeding?

If you don't think so, consider another "gospel" which cannot coexist with the mainstream, popular version that supports the salvation of mankind.