During my internet years, I found info like Jesus married Maria Magdalena, went to India and studied there, that he did not die on the cross. I'm not sure what to believe in. Yesterday, I finished reading Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and in it I again read what I've found + Sarah, Jesus's daughter and how Constantine used the "perverted" new testament to make a god out of Jesus to win the Catholic over the Pagan. Altought the book has errors, it is still an interesting read.

What is your opinion on this? Jesus, the Lord or -just- a man?

an enlightent soul who decided to come back as a messenger. spreading the message, which only a few truly understood. no desire of having followers or a religion based on him. same like boeddha, Yogananda and the many more messengers which weren't as well known as these 3. they were "just" men who understood the potential we all posses...that we are all gods within our own rights.

as for the way he died i see 3 possibilities.

1. jealousy and envy from one of his apostels. not just him but in-directly representing that of many people. they look down on you if you're saying you hold the truth and preach on a street corner. you won't be holy untill you died. so basically an assasination
2. jezus would become a martyr if he was hung on a cross. who would benefit from that? the roman empire surely wouldn't seeing it would upset jezus's followers and causing chaos. now i see this as the church making it up so that he did become a martyr and an icon.
3. he just kept living and died a natural death after having lived an enlightent life like so many others have done. Boeddha nor Yogananda have been assasinated or such. Ghandi on the other hand did have trouble from the english empire but still didn't get assasinated or such.

This post has been edited by Sabazel: Jan 29 2006, 12:17 PM

dan browns book may be good, but it is still a fictional story.
It may be inspired by real life things, but i do not believe dan brown really found proof to these claims.

So its just a good book, nothing more.

This post has been edited by A_Smoking_Fox: Jan 29 2006, 12:34 PM

my thoughts on the man.

A misudnerstood sage, his wisdom and legacy are currently used as a product by the christian church and the vatican.

A wise man with good intention that where raped by rome.

Someone who would not be a christian if he were born today. But he would still spread the same message as he did then.

I would rather side with the "just a man" opinion, even if I can't claim that I am absolutely certain about it. I believe that he was extremely charismatic man, understood concepts in away to far too advanced for his times, but still just a man.

And for that reason those who were creating a religion based on his teaching, modified the story and his teaching, so they would fit their beliefs and the beliefs of people of that time and could be accepted by them, divine nature was one of those modifications. I also believe that by "playing God", they (the founders of the Christian church) destroyed 9/10 of the message that Jesus wanted to pass to the people.

Now, I don’t think that Jesus went to India (even if, who knows?), but I do believe that his relationship with Maria Magdalena was intimate, although not necessarily carnal and even if it was carnal, I don’t find anything wrong with that. What is wrong about love a woman or having a child from her? In the matter of fact I don’t find anything wrong with that even in the case he is the Lord. I don’t know why Christians go so mad about it.

Referring to “Da Vinci Code”, I find Brown approaches in a too superficial way, matters that are too serious and use them as a background for his story. But the good thing is that it became so popular. It is a good point to make people start asking questions, but for any information on the concept that this book touches I would suggest the documents of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. They vote strictly for the “Lord-option”, but give a much more interesting perspective of the matter than the texts that are recognized by the church.

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/ might be useful.

sure, Jesuz was just a man.

buddha was just a man, mohamed was just a man, martin luther king was just a man, malcom x was just a man, gandhi was just a man, mother theresa was just a woman.

We still remain human, no matter how far we go. To think otherwise would be idiotic.

However, i have enjoyed the new testament, and i like much of his style. He went against the current religious belief, he was a rebel. He stood up against a large society and fought for his beliefs, and was crucified for it. His voice is still heard 2000 years later.

That spells greatness to me.

What about the heretic theology of Johanites, being a millenium closer to Jesus than various contemporary claims ranging between "its a misogynist conspiracy" and "Jesus smoked weed and came from another planet!?

Mary was deceived by a man who came dressed as her husband and raped her, her husband didnt dump her since it wasnt her fault but restrained from having sex with her (for the obvious reason of "if she gets pregnant, I can be pretty sure its not mine", could have more fun if there was genetic testing back then), when the child was born, it was entrusted to Joseph the rabbi, who took the child to Egypt where the clergy has recognised him as Horus and initiated him into the cult of Osiris (the ressurected god, stylised engravings of a guy getting out of a box-osiris-have been found in early christian sanctuaries too). Understandably, when a person who isnt even wrinkled and crawly yet returns to Jerusalem and outsmarts the usual machiavellistic assortment of pricks that qualified as competent priesthood, trouble was quick to come.

Thus far the account of Johanites by Eliphas Levi in the History of Magic, who cut the very probable sounding account off by his usual "but its against the lawful hierarchy of the sovereign catholic church and hurts the ears of a good catholic" apologetic blahblah.

This post has been edited by Rakesh: Jan 31 2006, 05:19 PM

a superb and concise description! brilliant! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bigwink.gif)

the biblical stories are always symbolic of three ideals (trinity), in fact that is the judge used to determine if a text is valid or not - that the story has three or more hidden meanings, like the death on the cross also being an occult instruction that we must 'crucify' our own ego-selves to attain enlightment, and also at the same time be the legalistic requirement necessary to end 'tidal' blood-sacrifice (to a God that already has it all and dosen't need it anyway), which was met with horror by those who's livelyhood depended upon those tithes, plus it was also the basis of the trinity of proof of the capability to control time itself, so he would be therefore qualified to open the seals on the 'little book' and stop time forever in order to halt the earth's destruction by natural and man-made catastrophe, which becomes the precursor for the ultimate ressurection, that of the Earth and its inhabitants.

E.

This post has been edited by esoterica: Feb 1 2006, 10:30 AM

If you read the Old Testament, Jesus was the hebrew messiah, groomed for it over many lifetimes and all his miraclkes prearranged to make him appear as the messiah, which he was, TO THE HEBREWS. Not the WORLD> It is humanity's misconception. The Old Testament is a very rigid, structured account of a very SMALL group of people living ina very small area lloking for a political/religious leader to save them. this they got in jesus. When he heals people, he actually says that "This man was made ill that I might cure him so that you know I was sent by my father to do x,y and z." Read the OT and you'll see it's NOTHING like what they taught us in school or church for that matter. He went out of his way to do certain things that he might fulfill prophecy.
PS How many of you know that Moses' knickname was the KIller of TenThousand, and Abraham was pissed because his nickname was just the Killer of One Thousand?
OKAY! I'll try to shut up now...
Prat

And yet, the Jews did not accept him as teh Messiah in the end.
Reason is apparent.

When theres a concert at a country club of a village, neither of whose inhabitants has ever seen Elvis but everybody is expecting him to come on stage any minute, the guy mopping the stage up can have the time of his life.

Are you saying Jesus took advantge of those waiting for the Messiah and that Elvis is the true messiah and the country western fans missed it and the rock n roll fans are like the Christians were to the Jews, the new sect replacing the old one? What does that make Punk and New Wave fans? Thelemites? And what about the music of today? Are those fans like super-advanced aliens so far above us that we can't understand them?
P

HA! I (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wub.gif) all of you so much! You make me almost fall off my chair!

Perhaps Jesus did take advantage, but then who is the true messiah? Billy Idol?

E.

he's a man. the christians created a story to make him sound like a messiah. same with god himself (notice they weren't capitolized?). but anyway, jesus must be a man. if god and him were so powerfull and mighty, and god is able to simply kill everyone, why the hasn't he dont it yet? he MUST not be as powerful as people say he is, and if they lied about him, they most likely lied about jesus. the order for this post is probably messed up, sorry.

Ok I'll agree with that.

I'm not sure I follow, Judaic texts predicted the coming of a messiah, A rabbi may have been shaped later to fit a pre-exsisting mold but I don't think that Christ's followers (i.e. Christian's) met him, traveled a few hundred years into the past, and dropped off some scrolls for Isaiah. It would be a good "Back to the Future" Sequel though.

I have a feeling that if I was an Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent being, I could think of some better ways to spend my eternal existance then stomping on ants.
The entertainment of watching groups of them stomp each other over the idea that they are able to comprehend me would keep me entertained for at least a few million years when I got bored of trying to make rocks so heavy I even Omnipotent strength can't lift them. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

According to the Bible, Jesus was God incarnate as a man.

I no more argue over whether Jesus was only either one or the other, just as I do not argue over whether the creature who led Frodo and Sam into Mordor was either Smeagol or Gollum - because according to those tales they respectively were both.

The stories about Jesus only are just that to me: stories.

Whatever their authors say their characters are is whatever their authors say their characters are - in the context of such stories.

I do not live my life based upon considering any stories from the Bible as my history.

Well, I think god had set a few messengers, and miracle workers. We Had Apollonius of Tyana (Although he was a pagan philosopher, his story is similar to Jesus's), who wasn't very popular, Simon magus, who tried to buy power, and Jesus, the most popular who got 'the message' out. There's no doubt atleast in MY mind that he existed, but I think his story is a little fuzzy, which is fine. The writers of the bible werent looking to write a history book, or an accurate biography..They were writing gospels, to get out a message, so obviously the story would change to demonize some people, and glorify others. Just my two cents :-p.

.::Sempre Bene::..::Chris::.
-Fiat Lux.

This post has been edited by SangueDiNapoli: Mar 18 2006, 09:40 AM

Seems to me the importance of 'Jesus as God' only becomes desperate within Christianity itself. So far as paradigms are concerned, its one of the most powerful because it lays down the precept that One, transcendent God takes on flesh: the Word becomes encarnate, suffers and dies in order to bridge the divide between humans and God, washes our sins in the blood of the lamb etc...etc...the aesthetic it's all wrapped in shines through so strongly. The same can be said for its message: the way it creates this individual identification with Christ, who is himself identified as God. How that radicalized contemporary views of Hashem can be recognised in the way Christianity is seen as blasphemous and idolatrous by both other Abrahamic faiths. Does that diminish what I've taken away from his teachings? No. More power to the mavericks, scraggly beards and all.

(where would CM be without medieval catholics..)

This post has been edited by tyrian: Nov 3 2006, 08:09 PM

I don't believe in jesus christ being anymore than a man. He was a good use of treachery.

But those are just my opinions, I respect all opinions as well.

I've read info and seen shows disproving the ideas in the Da Vinci Code as no more than just a good story. Yet I myself, being athiest, don't believe in those concepts anyways. I feel, if anything, he was just a man, who through stories, became a modern day messiah.

I believe he did die on the cross, and that he did rise again on the sabbath, but calling him the son of God is alittle off from what I see it as. Jesus did not die for our sins, but to rather prove death is not the end of our journey. How exactly he did this was most likely by divine assistance, therefore coming off as the Son of God simply because he was spared by God. I guess you could say it was a form of magic too...but I personally don't follow that. The Bible states that there are three heavens. The sky, the stars, and then -Heaven-. I believe that once you die, your energy that resides with in your body is released, and re-manifests itself at the location referred to as -Heaven-. (Very basic stuff. Energy can turn into matter, and matter can turn into energy. The amount of energy and matter can never be changed. Suggesting that when you die, your energy does not fall apart like your boy.) I could post several theories based on what -Heaven- is, but in the end, it's really up to what you believe. I just figured I would toss my 2 cents out there.

I would be interested in reading them. Maybe I will start the thread on that right now or I will forget about it lol

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/1238.gif)

I'm going to go with a misunderdtood man. He was an ascended Master, if you will. Just as the Christian morphed the great godess Brigit, into St.Bigit, robbing her af much of her glory, they did the same to Jesus of Nazareth. They made him into a god, when he was most likely just a prophet for god.

P.S. These are my opinions, please no one be offended

P.P.S. I believe he was Jewish, but dont quote me on that...

Its interesting that one of jesus's most poignant, and also most often repeated messages was that everyones relationship with and understanding of god, is and should ultimately be a personal one, whether you keep it private or share it. That god is everywhere, as is god's church, as are our opportunities to communicate with god. I find it interesting that despite this, people still try to convince eachother to see their own perceptions of god, and especially jesus himself. How ironic. The one man who told us that no one else could tell us "how it is" but ourselves, is the one man about whom everybody else tries to tell us "how it is". Well well well.

In my opinion jesus is representative of a certain physical (i do not mean based on race or pectoral muscle size) ,spiritual, and mental ideal. Others may or may not have embodied this ideal throughout history, but the reality is that of all who are believed to have, Jesus is most certainly the most famous, and for myself therefore, the most powerful as a symbol. So when i do good, i like to think that i am doing the work of jesus, which is not just the name of one specific man, but the name of the potential of all women and men, the potential that is latent within myself.

The work of jesus is the highest work of the self. Jesus is the fundamental to which all aspire, no matter how naively or ignorantly. This can be very dangerous though for those who se this as a personally attainable power, and who are not in full control of their everything you know. rahdy rah.

I also want to note that I revere Jesus Christ...

That is if all the myths about him are true.

Now basing all of which is scripted about him as facts, i'd say he was one of the most couragous men alive, and was a man with great charisma.

So I have high respects for him, based on his stories.

I could say the same thing about Hitler. I respected his charisma, though I do not agree with what he did, and im sure many don't, I just respect that he stood up for what he wanted to, and that he had the balls to...

If more people were to have the charisma and balls those two men did, I doubt Jesus and Hitler would've even been so important. Its about the quantity, and the wolves from the heard of sheep which stood up and made the drastic changes...

I revere them for the fact that they made aeonic changes (though Hitler failed directly), they made changes which have "lasted".

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Nov 24 2006, 01:44 AM

What about Ghandi, a man with great charisma and won wars with non violence. He is the Jesus of our time IMO.

Of course, I have respect for Ghandi too but i wasn't going to make a list.

I used Jesus and Hitler because the majority of the population views one as "evil" and the other as "good", but they had the charisma which i admired, i took a neutral stand.

Looking from an esoteric occult perspective I believe Jesus was more like a Trance Medium.
At times God would enter his body. At other times God would leave his body (or isnt present in his body).

"I and the Father are one" (God enters Jesus's body)
"Father Father why have you forsaken me" (God has left Jesus's body)

This post has been edited by Jenfucius: Nov 24 2006, 01:34 PM

While the Da Vinci Code is good read and even not so bad as a movie I wouldn't take it for word. Much of what Dan Brown preclaimed as "Fact" was proven not only untrue but simply made up. For a writter I think it does good for him in his tale spinning for the readers to approach the book as though much of it was true. While deceptive, I think its an excellent way to get people to actually thing about just how honest the Church.

Constantine is an interesting subject. He was a Roman general contending for the title of Emperor amungst three others in a time when the days of Roman glory had wanned. The empire at the time was actually divided into three territories where each general claimed to be the true Emperor. The gist of the story is that Constantine and another general descided to team up against the 3rd. Constantine had an advisor who was a Christian, and probably a mystic as well. Before going into battle against this 3rd general the advisor instructed Constantine to paint the Phi-Chi (the P with the X) symbol on each of his soldiers shields. His own soldiers, who were pagan, at first refused as they thought it would curse them Yet Constantine insisted. They eventually defeated this 3rd dude. (I wish I could remember specific names but I'm not good at that) and because they won dispite bad odds Constantine paraded about with the Phi-Chi as his standard while claiming *a mirricale had happened* (this where we get stories that Constantine had a vission from God). While Constantine did convert we don't actually know if he was ever really baptized or not.

The point of all this backround information is that at the time there were many christians throughout the Empire, especially in the east. Christianity was no longer a minor sect that was viewed as a meager cult. If I remember correctly there were actually as many Christians as Pagans. Constantine was a vissionary. He wanted Rome to regain its former glory and he saw that his empire was divided into many different religions, religions being the opiate of the masses, he saw Christianity as a unifying force. The problem was there wasn't a clear deffinition about what exactly Christianity was. All one had to do was get baptized and claim to worship God, accept Jesus as the Massiah and celebrate the Holy Eucharist and anybody could to it. There wasn't even a clear understanding about the role of Christ in the Christianity other than was the incarnation of God's son but the holy trinity had not yet been divised. That was not until a second coucil was called - but thats another story.

So what Constaintine did after defeating his rival was he gathered the major theologians of the day and created the council of Nicea. At this council these theologians selected the four gosspels we know today and several other books out of the Torah (Genesis, Exudus, Levicticus I can't remember all of them). Combined these and formed the Old testiment. This was carefully created by this council, not Constantine. All Constantine wanted to do was create a Catholic - universal - church that he, as Emperor could proclaim as the true word of God. He may or may not have had an actual hand in the content of the Old Testiment we do not know for sure. This Church would be headed by a figure called the Pope who supposedly could trace his lineage to St. Peter [edit] St. Paul, not Peter[/edit] who was crusified in Rome. This is how Constantine legitmized his claim that the Catholic church was indeed the true word of God and all else was heracy. However the Pope would not hold any real power until, I believe Pope Benedict I, bought off the Huns and thoroughly established the Catholic Church as the political mechanism to the old Roman Empire.

So as you can see all Constantine did to influence Christianity was use Christian symbols on his military standards and hold a council that descided, for the world, a universal form of Christianity. It is at this pivitol moment that the Bible was created and all other gosspels were declaired herecies and ordered destroyed. Its known that some 33 gosspels existed at the time, possibly more and they were influenced by a variety of cultures, Eastern and Western. Only 4 were actually used in the Old Testiment. The amount of knowledge, let alone "truth" about Jesus, hs disciples and more, that was contained in these other gosspels we will never know. And a few did survive - The Gosspel of St. Thomas and Marry Magdaline are a couple examples. It is these surviving Gosspels that much of the conspiracy theories in the Da Vinci Code were based on. And indeed that content of these Gosspels do tend to contradict the Bible, which is exactly why they were left out. If they had been included, the Bible never would have made any sense. But the Council of Nicea did not portray Mary Magdeline as a whore. That was done by much later Catholic philosophers.

Now, Kinjo, you asked about Jesus the Lord vs Jesus the man there was second council, I'm not sure of the facts but I believe it was called the Council of Ephesus, I think this was after Constantine. It was here that this very debate was hashed out and actually lead to a division in religious faiths. I forget the name of the two factions that emerged but it was the idea that Jesus the Lord that was accepted by the Catholic Church and the others in the east who believed in Jesus the man were deemed Heretics. I think this lead to the formation of the Eastern Orthadox Church but I don't have my history notes in front of me so don't take that as gosspel. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Now for some closure: Once Constantine defeated his rival he and his ally co-ruled in a shakey alliance. His ally was still pagan and indeed so was Constantine's wife. Eventually this all fell through and the two Generals fought to a stand still and this lead to the division of the Western and Eastern Empires. Even though the West remained Pagan it did still tollerate Christians and so Catholicism stayed alive and continued to grew amungst Christians. Ironically, while Constantine's ultimate dream was to unify the Roman Empire he actually permanently divided it.

Now when talking about the relationship between Jesus and Marry Magdeline, their blood lines and the death of either I think we can all see why there is so much grey area. I hope this helps if you understand more about Christianity Kinjo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Acid09: Feb 7 2007, 04:49 PM

Well I lost track of time and got an hour ahead of myself so I wanted to finish up on my thought here.

When is comes to finding the truth about Jesus, Mary, the Descipiles and possible blood lines I think historical evidence is pretty useless, outside of speculation and story telling. The very reason I think is because what my first post is an attempt to articulate is that there are MANY sources that claim this and that about Jesus and such. There is no real truth only that which we choose to believe. The only real conspiracy of that time I believe in was the early Church's action to supress all the other gosspels to affectively "corner the Christian market".

IN my own humble opinion I think if we want to find any measure of truth to this subject we should step back and search ourselves with our own knowledge and our own reasoning.

I believe Jesus was a highly intelligent man who was raised Jewish and left Judea to study abroad both in the east and west. I know the bible insists that Jesus was poor. While he was most likely a generous philanthropist I don't think he was broke either. People of that time were willing to pay philosophers for their thoughts and I'll bet with the education Jesus accomulated he had some pretty interesting thoughts. If he did actually travel a lot he probably spoke several different languages so he had a means to articulate his thoughts that most did not have this may helped him as a trader, simply trading artifacts for goods. So influenced by what he had learned Jesus returned to Judea to teach and help others. That is what I think he felt was his true calling in life. He used his knowledge of Judaism and other religions to teach people a message of hope and compassion, a sort of live and let live philosophy. Over time this wondering philosopher found a small gathering whom he called his disciples, those who would spread the simple message to others.

There were actually many philosophers of the time and Jesus was not the only one people thought of as the Massiah. I believe the reason Jesus was given that title was because he became a Martyr in the eyes of his followers. I don't think Jesus fled Judea. I think he intended to die on the cross. I do think it is very likely that Jesus had a wife, or life partner who fled to Egypt to escape the persecution of the Romans and Jews. There her and any possible children lived under an assumed alias. They probably moved around alot and may even influenced some of the gnostic gosspels, as I'd bet their decendants did as well. But so did Jesus' other followers. They too moved around and soon the true story of the life of Jesus was too obscure to know what really happened. But the seed of Jesus' teachings did not die and they were perpetuated and morphed by his followers who claimed Jesus was not only a Martyr but the son of God who preformed miracles and the dispersment of Jesus' followers through out the Roman Empire is why I believe Jesus remained the Massiah while other contenders simply faded into the back waters of history. There were probably many Gosspels that detailed the life of Jesus and the early Catholic Church stamped out all save those that served its agenda. The Church probably went to great lengths to maintain dominance over the knowledge of Christ and even claimed its leader, the pope was a decendant of a disciple of Jesus, St Peter.

In reality, the story of Jesus is probably one of the saddest sagas ever told.

Greetings to all.

Jesus in the Bible over and over again calls himself the son of man. He never not even once called himself the son of God. I do not think Jesus was a liar. So I am going to take his word that he was a man.

Ever read the book of Barnabus? It was written by Jesus Brother. He says that Jesus never claimed to be anything other than the Son of Joseph.

I believe it was the Mystery religions like the Mithras and cult of Dionysus which immortalized Christ. At least Christianity seems to be modern paganism when closely compared with the Mystery religions.

Peace