What do you personally think that Jesus taught and why does it matter now?

Carlos said:
To start, Jesus preached to the people of Israel. Not to Jews alone, not to gentiles but to Israel, this is to say, the twelve tribes. This preaching focus alone was a missile targeting the headquarters of the religious authorities in those years.

He himself said that the religious authorities gave priority to traditions and leave in second place the word of the creator. However, Jesus also used those traditions in his words and actions, and the people turned crazy about such a novelty. He acquired lots of followers with his wisdom, while the religious authorities at the time of teaching the law were very strict, dry and even threatening.

His interpretation of the scriptures were phenomenal, he became the champion.

This is like a person believing in the theory of evolution for years and years and suddenly Jesus comes and teach a better interpretation of the process of life on earth. And this new interpretation is way more accurate and based on scientific evidence while the theory of evolution was found to be born from philosophy rather than scientific observation and/or tests.

No laws were changed by Jesus but these were interpreted accurately.

There are many things that most current religious denominations ignore from Jesus words and actions because current believers are far away from being part of Israel, this is to say, also learning the traditions as well. But one day they will catch up.

Point is that the religious authorities found out that Jesus teachings did show that several of their interpretations of the scriptures were simply incorrect. As people started to follow him, they decided to take him away from the public. Their authority was at risk.

I will say it this way: if current followers find out what Jesus said and did based on traditions and correct interpretation of the scriptures, then current religious authorities will also try to impede for that such knowledge to spread out because will turn down several of their doctrines based on the same scriptures.

After his resurrection he spent forty years explaining them things about the kingdom, an this part appears to be correct, because at his depart the apostles inherited the same style of interpreting the scriptures.

I like that guy, Jesus.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I'm curious, do you see all this in the gospel stories, or did you learn it some other way?
 
Longfellow said:
Thank you. I'm curious, do you see all this in the gospel stories, or did you learn it some other way?
Click to expand...
I used to write essays in a messianic assembly magazine. When I heard from them I wanted to participate just writing articles from time to time. It happened that the pastor of that congregation printed a New Testament with the names of the characters in Hebrew. This is a particularity of these assemblies to use the names in their original language, plus including the obedience of the laws written in the scriptures. Well, the pastor asked me to check his Old Testament translation, his intent was to print the entire Bible.

Here is where I got a little deeper studying the scriptures. However, he didn't get the necessary donations to print his book. When I was reviewing the translation I found out new interpretations of several events and how the "traditional interpretation" that rules up to today, practically has changed the meaning of some passages.

When I discovered some, lets say, errors in translation, I also found out that Jesus noticed the same in his years. I was curious about other details that he mentioned that appeared not to be important for today's readers but surely was notorious for the people of those times, because some of his words and actions were directly and indirectly related to old, very old stories of the people of Israel.

Of course, the religious leaders in those times weren't happy when their teachings or interpretations were challenged.

I don't consider myself a religious person, but this topic about religion is very fascinating to me.
 
Carlos said:
You can't find a better avatar to reflect in picture what you stand for.
Click to expand...
My avatara has been discussed in the forum. It is one of the holiest ancient symbols of the Eastern world in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism; and stands for welfare of all beings in the world (has been used by many other ancient cultures too).

"sarveṣāṃ svastir bhavatu, sarveṣāṃ śāntir bhavatu;
sarveṣāṃ pūrṇaṃ bhavatu, sarveṣāṃ maṅgalaṃ-bhavatu."

(May there be well-being in all, may there be peace in all; may there be fulfilment in all, may there be auspiciousness in all)

Shanti Mantras - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Aupmanyav said:
My avatara has been discussed in the forum. It is one of the holiest ancient symbols of the Eastern world in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism; and stands for welfare of all beings in the world (has been used by many other ancient cultures too).

"sarveṣāṃ svastir bhavatu, sarveṣāṃ śāntir bhavatu;
sarveṣāṃ pūrṇaṃ bhavatu, sarveṣāṃ maṅgalaṃ-bhavatu."

(May there be well-being in all, may there be peace in all; may there be fulfilment in all, may there be auspiciousness in all)

Shanti Mantras - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Well said coming from a strong atheist. I have no idea why, but well said.
 
otherbrother said:
Please correct me if and how I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
Not so much wrong, as me having a second bite of the apple ...

otherbrother said:
I get the detachment from things and even individual concepts of God emphasis, but that would still lead to experiences of inclusion and oneness, experiences that even masters of transcending attachment would have because they are human.
Click to expand...
Oh, for sure ... but the experience is then of a higher order, of an ontological oneness, a pneumatic oneness rather than a psychic apprehension.

otherbrother said:
“Holy humanism” as opposed to secular humanism would embrace and fully utilize the spiritual experiences that are stepping stones and side effects of Eckhartian detachment?
Click to expand...
I don't think so much 'side-effects' – the practice of detachment enables one to truly experience oneness because it's experienced in a transcendent state.

It's the reason why I continually reject the 'drop in the ocean' analogy. It's fine, as far as it goes, but it falls short. A drop of water, abssorbed into the ocean, loses all identity. That drop can never be recovered again. If union with the divine was like that, there would be no way back from the experience. The experience of oneness would wipe out the individual self – so what happens to the body, the person?

I don't think the point of the drop-in-the-ocean analogy means the erasure of the self, rather it means the erasure of the egoic idea of self, a process which frees that particular manifestation of being to be as it is intended to be?

The idea of theosis, of divinisation, in the Christian Tradition, which in this very moment of writing I might dare to suggest is, in its fullness, a collective event, one that is prefigured in the motif of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. There, Jewish exegetes would say the Servant is not an individual, but the Body of of Israel, and that Christian exegetes have identified Christ as the Servant – but I would argue that Christ's sacrifice and suffering was emblematic of the Body of Israel – that it is both individual and collective – the Suffering Servant is Paul's Adam of 1 Corinthians 15, not 'just' an individual, but also the celestial archetype.

But I'll part that there ... to be examined ...

otherbrother said:
Otherwise, it smacks of Gnosticism and lack of fully accepting the earthly mission each of our spirits agreed to help us fulfill. Detachment is the “not of the world” part, but acceptance and appreciation is the “in the world” part of that useful formula.
Please correct me if and how I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree with you inasmuch as the Gnostics went too far in deciding everything in the Lapsarian Cosmos was essentially evil. That takes no account of the Divine oikonomia, the Divine plan to salvage humanity and the cosmos from its fallen state. as I see it, the Gnostic path is one of self-preservation, the salvation of the anthropos and the abandoning of the ship of the cosmos to its fate. Whereas the Christian path – indeed the Abrahamic path – is one of the salvation of the entire fallen cosmos:

"For the earnest expectation of creation anxiously awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For creation was made subordinate to pointlessness, not willingly but because of the one who subordinated it, in the hope that creation itself will also be liberated from decay into the freedom of the glory of God’s children. For we know that all creation groans together and labours together in birth pangs, up to this moment; not only this, but even we ourselves, having the firstfruits of the spirit, groan within ourselves as well, anxiously awaiting adoption, emancipation of our body" (Romans 8:19-23).

This, surely, must be the constitutional foundation and mission statement of Christian Environmentalism!
 
Longfellow said:
This is not only for Christians, or even for followers of Abrahamic religions. Other people might have opinions about what Jesus taught and why it matters now. For some people, what he taught might be "nothing" because they don't believe that there ever was such a person as the one in the gospels. Then if they want to, they can say why that matters to them.

I'm not asking for proofs, reasons or Bible verses. Just what you personally think about what he taught and why it matters now.

This question came to me while I was thinking about what I might want to post about, if I keep posting here.
Click to expand...
He taught faith in Himself, because the church without Him, without looking to the Human from God, could not be saved, for various reasons. And because looking to Him as the Divine, involves necessarily love, charity, mercy for faith without charity is dead, so He taught love to the neigbour, for love to God does not exist without love to the neighbour. In fact, His whole teaching be called as teaching of the essential love to God and to the neighbour, not only in the external, but even more internal form then before.
 
koinonos said:
He taught faith in Himself, because the church without Him, without looking to the Human from God, could not be saved, for various reasons. And because looking to Him as the Divine, involves necessarily love, charity, mercy for faith without charity is dead, so He taught love to the neigbour, for love to God does not exist without love to the neighbour. In fact, His whole teaching be called as teaching of the essential love to God and to the neighbour, not only in the external, but even more internal form then before.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I see that in His teaching, but I see more than that.
 
Longfellow said:
Thank you. I see that in His teaching, but I see more than that.
Click to expand...
There can be many particulars, these are just the general ideas that illustrate the keypoints, about the coming/manifestation of God, or His Human, assumed in the world, and glorified, and about faith and charity, and more interior truths, than those earlier revealed. So, whatever was revealed was then in written in the Word.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Well, atheists too are humans. They are not ogres.
Click to expand...
I have no other one but to agree with you. And if I pushed it some more, I have witnessed myself observing sometimes the atheist of being more merciful with the neighbor than the religious when the occasion requires it.
 
Carlos said:
I like that guy, Jesus.
Click to expand...

Aupmanyav said:
You are welcome to do that. I am a strong atheist. I do not accept the possibility of existence of any God or soul.
Click to expand...
To be fair, someone could like that guy Jesus without making or even accepting theological claims about the existence of any God or soul.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Ah, so you are worried about identity, individuality.
In East, it is considered a mirage. Oneness requires abandonment of identity, individuality.
Click to expand...
Well, concerned maybe?
Individuality and identity are important ideas in Western thought, in religion, philosophy, psychology, society, and daily life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top