Your objective above is noble. You should write more about that, and often. TIA
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
Your objective above is noble. You should write more about that, and often. TIA
My view on sin requires more backstory to understand.
My idea of original sin is very different from the popular flavored theological offerings.
When was the word first used?
In the Jewish folklore book called "Genesis"?
Anyways, it seems certain it was an established concept long floating around in the Jewish theological pool by the time Jesus arrived on the scene.
As commonly understood, it is something specific, within an otherwise "good" world, that the creator of the good world finds to be wrong, destructive, bad, or evil...to the point it needs to be noted in a database and punished sooner or later, some how, some way.
But sin is deceptive, and if that's how it is commonly understood, then the deception, and therefore the sin, remains.
Perhaps the Jesus of the Mary gospel was trying to explain this. But i don't think the author of that gospel understood the actual situation, what he was trying to convey.
Yes, specific conditions like adultery are called sin.
But to me, everything people do, including dying, is sin.
Rationally, there is a problem if everything a man does is a sin, but then someone makes up a list of specific sins, and leaves everything else a man is and does alone, as good or natural.
Not just the things that man does, but more importantly, what man is.
Man is a sin.
And there is only one kind of rationality that can remove that.
That kind of sin can only be removed by removing mankind.
Mankind can only be removed by an honest recognition of what man actually is:
a deceptive apparition.
Things that don't exist cannot be imputed with sin.
But if man exists, every thing he is and does, is sin.
The arbitrary making of lists of sins actually supports the existence of man.
That is basically what Jesus was arguing against, when he talked about how sins are named and listed.
Looks like you do have an interesting theory/theology about Sin!
So, do you love Man/Sin? Or hate? LOL
So long, my friend!
Last edited:
So here is a list of sins that stu won't like, but also Christians, Jews and Mohammedans won't like it either:
Birth
Growth (change)
Breathing
Eating
Sex (married or not married, same gender or different gender)
Death
This list describes man's existence, and even man's end of existence (death).
This implies that the "sin", if there is one, is the responsibility of "man's maker".
Yes, that's what i am saying.
I'm saying man's maker is the chief sinner, and man is simply made after the image of it's maker, so-to-speak.
With this much backstory, it might be possible to to understand what is really the "original sin".
The original sin goes back before man was even conceived as a concept.
The conception of man, as a concept, was "conceived in sin", meaning, everything about the concept was sinful.
Birth was sinful.
Growth (change) was sinful.
Breathing was sinful.
Sex was sinful.
Eating was sinful.
Dying was sinful.
I hope people are understanding the scope of sin now.
Narrower scopes all support the existence of man, which continues to support the original sin.
Alas, we come now to the actual definition of sin, which are notions about reality that are not true. When taken seriously, such notions are manifest in the imagination of "mind" that is driven insane by it's notions.
Stated another way, man and man's world is manifest out of the imagination of a mind gone mad, as it ignores reality, and reinterprets reality according to it's own notions.
But not even that is the original sin.
The original sin traces all the way back to Christ.
What do i mean by that?
The original sin traces all the way back to reality, and from reality, wanders out into the unknown darkness of unreality; the domain of the imagination.
It is in this domain, the domain of imagination, that man is conceived and "born".
Indeed, man is made as an image (appearance) within imagination.
As such, it is not man that is doing the sinning.
The sinner is the thing that imagines man to be...to exist.
Whatever that sinner is, it is not sane, which is the real meaning of "unclean".
Something breaks away from reality with the idea that it will create it's own reality.
That thing starts with imagination, and proceeds to call it's manifestations (appearances) "reality".
By calling it's appearances "reality", that thing, that thinking principle, loses it's sanity. This is the real meaning of "lost".
Actually, man is an extension of the thing that breaks away from reality, and wanders off into the outer darkness of the unknown.
By extension, i mean the sinning thing transforms itself into all manner of creeping things, whether two-legged, eight-legged, two-winged, or four-winged.
Long story short, the "sinner" becomes, by way of transformation, all that man is, all that man does, all that man sees, and all that man thinks. In fact, the sinner is man's entire world, hiding in plain daylight.
The only way for this sinner to be forgiven, is for it not to exist.
Birth
Growth (change)
Breathing
Eating
Sex (married or not married, same gender or different gender)
Death
This list describes man's existence, and even man's end of existence (death).
This implies that the "sin", if there is one, is the responsibility of "man's maker".
Yes, that's what i am saying.
I'm saying man's maker is the chief sinner, and man is simply made after the image of it's maker, so-to-speak.
With this much backstory, it might be possible to to understand what is really the "original sin".
The original sin goes back before man was even conceived as a concept.
The conception of man, as a concept, was "conceived in sin", meaning, everything about the concept was sinful.
Birth was sinful.
Growth (change) was sinful.
Breathing was sinful.
Sex was sinful.
Eating was sinful.
Dying was sinful.
I hope people are understanding the scope of sin now.
Narrower scopes all support the existence of man, which continues to support the original sin.
Alas, we come now to the actual definition of sin, which are notions about reality that are not true. When taken seriously, such notions are manifest in the imagination of "mind" that is driven insane by it's notions.
Stated another way, man and man's world is manifest out of the imagination of a mind gone mad, as it ignores reality, and reinterprets reality according to it's own notions.
But not even that is the original sin.
The original sin traces all the way back to Christ.
What do i mean by that?
The original sin traces all the way back to reality, and from reality, wanders out into the unknown darkness of unreality; the domain of the imagination.
It is in this domain, the domain of imagination, that man is conceived and "born".
Indeed, man is made as an image (appearance) within imagination.
As such, it is not man that is doing the sinning.
The sinner is the thing that imagines man to be...to exist.
Whatever that sinner is, it is not sane, which is the real meaning of "unclean".
Something breaks away from reality with the idea that it will create it's own reality.
That thing starts with imagination, and proceeds to call it's manifestations (appearances) "reality".
By calling it's appearances "reality", that thing, that thinking principle, loses it's sanity. This is the real meaning of "lost".
Actually, man is an extension of the thing that breaks away from reality, and wanders off into the outer darkness of the unknown.
By extension, i mean the sinning thing transforms itself into all manner of creeping things, whether two-legged, eight-legged, two-winged, or four-winged.
Long story short, the "sinner" becomes, by way of transformation, all that man is, all that man does, all that man sees, and all that man thinks. In fact, the sinner is man's entire world, hiding in plain daylight.
The only way for this sinner to be forgiven, is for it not to exist.
By emphasizing short lists of "sins", the list-makers effectively emphasize the basic reality of man's platform. Short lists effectively use reverse psychology to affirm man's existence.
That is why all three Abrahamic religions affirm man. Arguably, that's all they do, intending to save man from non-existence.
The concept of glorified bodies, to be resurrected later, is simple more of the same old, same old preservation of the essence of what mankind is.
Mankind is all about special status, and a glorified body simply affirms that status.
So as i've said, sin traces back to Christ, and either Christ is a sinner, or Christ is not a sinner.
The only way for Christ to not be a sinner is for the realm of imagination to not exist.
Alas, we are getting closer to the "original sin".
Technically, all sin is a deception about reality, attached to reality, and called "reality".
Since Christ is reality, all sin is about Christ.
As such, all sin mocks Christ, twists Christ, wrecks Christ, and ultimately destroys Christ...if it could.
If Christ, the real, accepts sin as real, then Christ is transformed into the sin.
While the sin transforms reality into something it isn't, it (reality) is destroyed by the imagination.
What lives dies, if sin is the "truth".
All Jesus ever did was to discern the difference between real and unreal, and make a choice.
Anybody who wishes to be "saved" from the domain of imagination must make the same choice.
So no, Jesus did not die for anybody.
Instead, he taught lessons for anybody to understand.
If anyone can understand the lesson and make the choice, that one is saved.
But again, one must choose between what to save.
Will you save the real, or will you save the unreal?
If you save the real, you save Christ, and in saving Christ, you save your SELF.
That is why all three Abrahamic religions affirm man. Arguably, that's all they do, intending to save man from non-existence.
The concept of glorified bodies, to be resurrected later, is simple more of the same old, same old preservation of the essence of what mankind is.
Mankind is all about special status, and a glorified body simply affirms that status.
So as i've said, sin traces back to Christ, and either Christ is a sinner, or Christ is not a sinner.
The only way for Christ to not be a sinner is for the realm of imagination to not exist.
Alas, we are getting closer to the "original sin".
Technically, all sin is a deception about reality, attached to reality, and called "reality".
Since Christ is reality, all sin is about Christ.
As such, all sin mocks Christ, twists Christ, wrecks Christ, and ultimately destroys Christ...if it could.
If Christ, the real, accepts sin as real, then Christ is transformed into the sin.
While the sin transforms reality into something it isn't, it (reality) is destroyed by the imagination.
What lives dies, if sin is the "truth".
All Jesus ever did was to discern the difference between real and unreal, and make a choice.
Anybody who wishes to be "saved" from the domain of imagination must make the same choice.
So no, Jesus did not die for anybody.
Instead, he taught lessons for anybody to understand.
If anyone can understand the lesson and make the choice, that one is saved.
But again, one must choose between what to save.
Will you save the real, or will you save the unreal?
If you save the real, you save Christ, and in saving Christ, you save your SELF.
Forgiveness is about overlooking sin.
The only way to overlook the sin of man is to overlook man.
The only way to overlook man is to look beyond man.
So it's not a matter of love or hate.
It's a matter of recognizing a reality beyond the unreal appearance of man.
As we get better at this process, the problems of man, like pain, affect us less and less.
If you got really good at this, you could hang nailed to a cross and not feel any of the problems of pain.
The world ends when it is no longer seen, not even as an appearance.
That's when reality stands on it's own, as it's own, as its SELF.
One must love this SELF to see it.
In seeing this SELF, one will be it.
That's all Jesus ever did. He forgave the world it's sins.
In this way, the "truth takes away the sins of the world".
By recognizing the world as sin, and recognizing sin as unreal, the truth washes away the whole world, like a flood, leaving Christ, alone, standing tall...sinless.
Perhaps a conclusion would be, more students learning Jesus' theory is a proof of Jesus' evidence historically.
And his students nowadays are all the secular soles including some attending churches who need to graduate sooner or later, rather than keeping themselves in a church learning Jesus' theory their whole life inside church without graduation, ever.
Jesus was the first offering education to female students, Mary was one among them. Very seldom by any other philosophers, or theologians of any traditions in faith.
However, a formal system for educating female students was only started by Christian churches until very late era. Probably after year 1,500, off-head guess. By Methodists, perhaps.
With more graduates from churches, the gross number of traditional Christians would be naturally diminishing. That should be considered a success, not a fail.
We should expect this same result would be matured in other different faiths. Rather than worrying the comparison of nominal number of active worship-place-goers. Because, many of Jesus' believers are simply secular persons today, as graduates of Jesus' theory/teachings.
Whether these graduates calling themselves Christians or anything (including atheists), is not important at all. No significance.
Probably the best way for other faiths to learn is this same process that many graduates of Jesus theory experienced. And the graduates of Jesus' theory should help believers of other faiths to go through the same learning process, sooner or later.
Graduation could well be part of Jesus' theory about fire baptism process. Rationality = Fire. God = the Nature.
That, the graduation process, could be the real modernisation and secularisation of any faith systems in this Internet era.
A church's success should measure how many graduates from the church rather how many are being kept inside a church. And their graduates should be welcome to visit the church anytime where they studied/graduated before.
We should overcome our fear against the growth of some other faiths by helping and accelerating their growth/graduating process, like that we experienced before. Rather than using any other alternative mass-destroying methods/instruments.
That could be one of the most effective approaches for a world-wide peace-building process. Also to overcome any future growth of extremists/ fundamentalists in any faiths, including our own.
LOL
Last edited:
%%That's why it's called Faith -- ...it's only in your head, or your own personal beliefs
; For better or for worse, or for right or wrong
Thanks for the comment,LL; Hebrews 11 ;1 says '' faith is the title deed.....'' Ever bought any real estate?? Faith is the title deed; some states name them ''deeds of trust''. Ever been in a synagog or church, ever read the Bible , or did a Bible study?? Ever had any or many answered prayers?? Ever met a Christian?? Ever known 1983 is the year of the Bible US Pres Reagan declared, are you aware of that??
so what is your point. You doubt the entire record of Josephus?
I can understand saying you don't trust record if it is not the original and not tested by a court of law... But.. then you would also be arguing Obama must show the original birth certificate before you accept the fact he was born in HI. (see how you own bullshit catches up with you.)
my view is the following.
I agree the historical record we have is not perfect and it therefore does not conclusively prove Jesus existed.
But, since there is a record of him in our accepted history you can't credibly argue against the fact Jesus is a historical person.
I can understand saying you don't trust record if it is not the original and not tested by a court of law... But.. then you would also be arguing Obama must show the original birth certificate before you accept the fact he was born in HI. (see how you own bullshit catches up with you.)
my view is the following.
I agree the historical record we have is not perfect and it therefore does not conclusively prove Jesus existed.
But, since there is a record of him in our accepted history you can't credibly argue against the fact Jesus is a historical person.