It is written in Matthew that Jesus claimed that he will deny men before his father if they deny him before men:


Matt.10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

This is a verse that Christian proselytizers and evangelists often turn to in an effort to try to claim that Jesus will turn his back on anyone who refuses to believe in him.

Their purpose in pointing out this verse it to make an effort to instill in the non-believer an idea that to merely refuse to believe in Jesus is "denial" of Jesus and is therefore justification for Jesus to refute them in like manner.

In other words, the claim is that if a person refuses to believe in "Jesus" or "God" they are in essence condemning themselves and they have been WARNED fairly!

Of course this doesn't stand up to rational thinking anyway. But the proselytizers who love to spread condemnation in the name of Jesus love this verse because it appears to give them a scriptural verse that they can use to condemn people in Jesus' name whilst simultaneously claiming that Jesus is washing his hands of the whole affair like Pilate did to him.

However, there is a major problem with these words of Jesus. As the story progresses Jesus himself does not live up to his own words here.

When he is finally crucified and hanging on the cross these stories have Jesus making the following statement:

Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

These people are crucifying Jesus for blaspheme, blatantly denying him before men, and what does Jesus do? He pleads with his heavenly father to forgive them.

This is in direct opposition to his previous stance that he would deny anyone who denies him. Here is is attempting to plead with the Father that these men should be forgiven anyway since they "know not what they do".

~~~~~~

This is no trivial matter here.

~~~~~~

At best it shows that Jesus doesn't even honor his own statements with conviction. He had previously stated that he would deny those who deny him before men. Yet here he is pleading a case of ignorance for these people who are crucifying him.

That's a major inconsistency of his WORD. Apparently he doesn't keep his very own word. Whether it's in a good way, or a bad way is irrelevant. The bottom line is that he doesn't stick to what he had said he would do.

Moreover, looking at this bigger picture in full context of the overall story as it is being played out we can clearly see that if Jesus was willing to give non-believers who publicly humiliated him, denied him, and ultimately crucified him and killed, FORGIVENESS on the grounds that these people "know not what they do", then how much more would Jesus be willing to forgive decent folks who simply don't believe in him for sincere and heartfelt reasons?

~~~~~~

The very idea that Jesus would deny or condemn anyone for not believing in him simply does not follow from these stories.

If anything, we can see that Jesus is an extreme push-over and would rather renege on anything he might have previously said in an effort to forgive people no matter how dastardly they might behave or deny him before men.

It's right there IN THE STORY!

~~~~~~

So the very idea that Jesus would ever "deny" anyone or condemn anyone for merely not believing in him is nonsense. Clearly a person can deny him before men, humiliate him, nail him to a pole, and ultimately kill him and he's still willing to testify on their behalf and argue a case for them before the Father asking that they be forgiven for they know not what they do.

So this very idea that non-believers will automatically be rejected by Jesus simply doesn't jive with the story.

According to this story, Jesus will forgive everyone who doesn't believe in him no matter how nasty or rude or physically abusive they become.

The implication by Christian proselytizers who say that it's extremely important that a person believe that Jesus was the son of God simply isn't true even according to this story, because this story has Jesus himself serving as the ultimate example that he will not condemn anyone, nor deny anyone. At least certainly not on the grounds that they didn't believe in him!

So there we have a proof positive of this. An Undeniable Truth that comes right out of this very story itself.

Christian proselytizers and evangelists who claim that it's important to believe in Jesus are simply wrong. This story has Jesus himself clearly exhibiting behavior that vividly shows otherwise. In this story Jesus will not deny those who deny him before men. Clearly that verse was either a lie by Matthew, or a mistake made by Jesus. Or perhaps Jesus merely changed his mind. But whatever the case may be he didn't honor those words. And so any attempt to hold that verse up as being "dependable" is futile, because Jesus himself violated those very words when he asked the Father to forgive them for they know not what they do. He did not deny them before his father like he had previously said he would.

So there's a major Undeniable Truth and Contradiction in words attributed to Jesus right there. He said he would deny those who denied him, but when the time came he didn't keep those words.

His final statement was for forgiveness - unconditional forgiveness
so that is the last word.

Those who are not sure of the divinity of Jesus or even those who deny the divinity of Jesus are to be forgiven. People will make their own
heaven or hell on earth depending on whether they are virtuous or sinful but Jesus will forgive them whether they believe in him or not. What is most important is how they treat other people not whether they celebrate Christmas, go to Mass, celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday or eat Halal food.

You may take Matthew 10:33 as part of a story urging people to act
purely and without malice in accepting Jesus' teachings.



Jesus does not care what hat you wear.

Well, as you vividly know from the video you posted in the thread entitled, "Are YOU in danger?", there are Christian Preachers and proselytizers who do indeed hold out the notion that if a person does not believe in Jesus they are doomed.

In fact, there are even statements made right in the Bible the conflict with "Jesus' Last Words" as you have so kindly referrenced them.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

This is yet another verse that it in conflict with "Jesus' own last words".

According to Jesus's Last Words, Jesus himself is prepared to forgive people who do not believe that he is the only begotten son of God. For as Jesus himself points out, "They know not what they do".

Therefore these previous versus that claim otherwise cannot hold value.

So there are some major conflicts in the various statements and claims that are being made throughout these scriptures. One place the scriptures have Jesus denying people, another place the scriptures have people being condemned for merely not believing, but in the end of the story, Jesus refutes all of that and finally comes to his senses realizing that it would make no sense to condemn people for what they do not know.

So the whole cannon of stories should be sent back to the editor for some major revisions.

Incorrect.

How can Jesus turn his back on someone whom isn't either walking with him, to him, or anything of such? How can Jesus turn away from you, when you turned away from Jesus? eg., not believing in him. It would be the person whom turned their back on Jesus, not Jesus turning his back on anyone. Jesus is always there if anyone wishes to turn around and come back to him. Jesus will not forsake anyone. Would be again, the person them self whom chose to walk away from Jesus.

You're not paying attention Cowboy.

The people who crucified Jesus did not believe he was the son of God, the King of the Jews, or any divine messiah. They denied him before men as they were crucifying him and mocking him.

Yet Jesus asked his Father to forgive them for they know not what they do, thus violating his own previous statement that he would deny those who deny him.

So the whole thing is grossly flawed. Jesus' own actions and words fly in the very face of his previous words.

It's futile for you to continue to try to use Jesus to support religious bigotry when Jesus himself clearly wouldn't even support that ideal in the end. He caved, and went against his every own words. He did not deny those who denied him before men.

So he evidently changed his mind.

For you to try to continue to hold the opposite view requires that you yourself deny Jesus' very actions and his last words on the cross.

You need to deny Jesus in order to continue to support your religious bigotry in his name. He forgave those who denied him and he did not deny them, on the contrary he asked that they be forgiven.

So that's Jesus very own stance on the matter.

If you take a different stance, then you're own your own with that. Jesus clearly does not support your stance. He didn't even support his own previous stance. He clearly had a change of heart at the end.

Good ole Abra;

So - what you are asking me to believe is that Jesus - though speaking to two completely different audiences about two completely different things - was really refering to the same thing.

So you are trying to convince me that you think I think a horse and a cow are the same because they both stand on four legs, and even though i tell you I do not think they are the same - that I am wrong because I claim they both have four legs, and in doing so I HAVE to believe they are the same so that you can now come in and prove to me I'm wrong about what you claim I think?

We've been building and burning this strawman for YEARS!!!

By the way. How are you my friend! I miss you all!

Eljay

So what if you believe that a man named Jesus probably did live and maybe was a philanthropist of some type and people exaggerated the story in telling it as oftimes happens.

So that means you believe in Jesus so you should be covered in that sense right?

I mean this is more believable than the whole son of god virgin birth mullarky.

Hello Eljay.

Haven't seen you around for a very long time. Hope everything is going well with you.

~~~~~

As for your comment I don't see your analogy with a horse and a cow.

In these stories Jesus supposedly stated that those who deny him before men he will deny before his Father. But when the people who denied him crucified him he pleaded with the Father to forgive them stating that they know not what they do.

That is a direct correlation between his original WORD and very own later ACTIONS associated with the very same concept.

So your horse versus cow analogy breaks down. This is indeed the very same concept. Men are denying Jesus before men, and he is not denying them before his Father as per his very own WORD.

~~~~~~

Moreover, your horse and cow analogy actually supports my views to the HILT.

I was originally talking about Christians proselytizers and evangelists who try to claim that people who refuse to believe in Jesus are "denying him".

Talk about Horses and Cows!

To not believe in Jesus would not be the same as "denying" him anyway. You'd actually have to meet him in person and hear him make some claim before you could "deny" his claim.

It truly amazes me how these proselytizers, evangelists and fundamentalists preachers can so readily dismiss blatant contradictions in these stories claiming that "context" was different, or whatever, and then turn right back around and start preaching fire and brimstone arguments based on the idea that those biblical contexts should somehow APPLY to modern day non-believers.

Talk about your "strawman" arguments.

Nobody comes up with such invalid nonsense better than the proselytizers of this religion.

Replace Jesus with "Winnie the Pooh".

Now imagine this:

People are going around preaching to people that if they don't believe in Winnie the Pooh, they are rejecting God and this gives God the right to condemn them and it won't be God's fault because Winnie the Pooh told them that if they deny him before men then Winnie the Pooh will deny them before God.

Ok, so you don't believe in "Winnie the Pooh". However, just out of curiosity you happen to read the story of Winnie the Pooh and you find a blatant contradiction where Winnie the Pooh violates his own claims.

Wouldn't you at least point out to these people that their comic book has an error in it?

Also, if they keep harping at you that Winnie the Pooh will deny you before God, wouldn't you say, "No, if you read your comic book in more detail you'll see that at the end of the story Winnie the Pooh has a change of heart and realizes that God is wrong, and Winnie the Pooh tells God that he should not condemn people for not believing because they know not what they do.

You don't need to believe that Winnie the Pooh was real. All you're doing is pointing out that the comic book doesn't truly make the claims that the people were originally demanding that it makes.

It doesn't matter whether Winnie the Pooh was real or not. Winnie the Pooh ultimately recognized that the wisest thing for God to do is to forgive people who don't believe because they know not what they do, and it would be unrighteous to condemn people for not believing in something when they weren't given sufficient information to make an informed decision.

Winnie the Pooh simply recognized at the end of the story that God would be wrong to judge non-believers and he instructed God to forgive them.

All you're doing is pointing out to them how the story actually ends, and that their claims about things that happened earlier in the story no longer apply.

One needs the ability to deny the undeniable in order to have faith.

Matthew 10 begins with

1 Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness


it is quite logically possible that what followed was instructions to those disciples regarding their travels and their tasks,,,as in the verses preceding matthew 10:33

26 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

You continuously take things out of context, not sure if you do them intentionally or if it makes sense to you this way.

Jesus said deny me before man, I will deny you before my father. This would be a judgment, a judgment will happen at judgment time, judgment time will happen at his second coming. Jesus was merely feeling and expressing sympathy for these ignorant people whom crucified him when he said that.

So no violation of anything, you know not if those people will or will not go to heaven eg., denied before his father. You know not if at least some of these people change their mind and heart later on accepting Jesus as lord and savior, you know not anyone's judgment.

Again, Jesus wasn't here to judge the world when he had come the first time. So no judgment passed. He was merely feeling mercy again for the ignorance of these people. That's true compassion right there. Have a serious question for you, just for you, you don't have to express your answer on this bored, just something to think about. If someone(s) was crucifying you, mocking you, and doing all forms of evil things to you, would you still be able to say as Jesus did or something a long the lines of his words "father forgive them, for they know not what they do"? Would you be able to forgive them yourself? Again, no need to answer these questions on this bored, just something to think about.

You got that right. And that's ok for their own personal faith. But it gets extremely obnoxious when they constantly use their denial to condemn everyone around them. And tell everyone else that if they are willing to be in denial too they are the enemy of "God".

So there's always a hope that some will see the light. Especially those who haven't already reached the point of denial. I think it's pretty obvious that the people who are already in denial aren't likely to snap out of it easily unfortunately.

And you continually deny the facts.

It would be utterly pointless for Jesus to ask God to forgive these people if he KNEW that no judgments were going to be made until some future judgment day and that he would personally be there to make those judgements at that time.

In fact the authors of this story blew twice over in respect to this situation. They blew it once as I've described, having Jesus renege on his own word that he would deny those who deny him.

But they also blew in a second way:

The authors of the Bible wrote the following:


John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Well, if this were true and Jesus is "the son" then it would make no sense for Jesus to be asking the father to forgive anyone since all judgment had been committed to him anyway.

So this is yet another inconsistency and contradiction in these stories.

I'm just pointing out the TRUTH about these stories Cowboy. You keep denying them, but your denial doesn't change the fact that the Bible is riddled with logical inconsistencies and blatant contradictions that simply shouldn't be there if it had any true merit of being the "divinely inspired infallible word of God". It's clearly riddled with human errors and contradictions that we would expect in any man-made fable.

Aren't you interested in knowing the TRUTH?

Why would Jesus be asking the father to forgive anyone, if all judgment had been committed to him as you constantly preach?

He could just forgive them himself. Supposedly that's HIS JOB!

So for Jesus to be asking the father to forgive these people would employ that he either didn't understand what had been committed to him, or he didn't trust God to always allow him to do the judging.

It's a major logical flaw that simply shouldn't exist if there was any TRUTH to these stories.

According to the story he should have said, "I forgive you for you know not what you do", if he truly had been committed to be the judge. But that's not how the story goes. The story claims: John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So this story contains the kinds of human errors that we'd expect to find in man-made fables and not expect to find if these stories truly were the infallible word of some all-wise God.

~~~~~

So as far as I'm concerned this proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that these stories are man-made fables.

Now you may see this as an "Attack" against a religion. That's obviously your perspective because you have decided to "defend" this religion to your death.

However, this is not my intent at all. From my perspective I'm just trying to get people to see TRUTH. And the TRUTH is that these stories are flawed in major ways all the way through.

Don't you want to know the TRUTH?

~~~~~~

Jesus as a Misunderstood Jewish Buddhist

I even have a perfectly legitimate explanation for how these superstitious rumors may have come to be.

Mahayana Buddhism was at it's peak right around the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived. Mahayana Buddhism was also big on the concept of a Bodhisattva. A Bodhisattva is the idea of devoting your life to helping others find what the Buddhists believed to be spiritual TRUTH.

This fits Jesus' behavior and explains why he would have tried to teach these people what he believed to be spiritual TRUTH. And Jesus' spiritual TRUTH would have been however he perceived it to be in the details. Jesus would have been a mere mortal man in this scenario, albeit potentially spiritually "enlightened" in the ways of Buddhism.

~~~~~~~

What does all this mean?

Well, once you consider this scenario as being a possibility then this explains why Jesus may have said something along the lines of John 5:22


John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

However, from a Buddhists point of view you would realize that the term "son" here is not referring to Jesus himself as some special demigod born of a mortal virgin woman. But instead you would recognize that Jesus was referring to ALL MEN. All men are the "sons" of "God".

What Jesus was trying to teach these people is that you create your own reality via your own "judgments". All judgment has been committed to the son (i.e. man). That's the Buddhist's view of the nature of reality.

The Buddhists believe that "god" has given us the freedom to create our own realities and we do this via how we perceive things. (i.e. how we JUDGE things to be)

This isn't the kind of "judgment" that you're thinking of in terms of condemning someone for eternity or deciding that they are worthy of heaven. But rather it's the kind of "judgments" you make everyday on a daily basis. You get up in the morning and you decide whether it's a "Good Day" or a "Bad Day". If you go to work you decide whether you enjoy your work or whether you feel hemmed in by it and burdened by it.

All judgment has been committed to men by God. You decide what your life is like by how you "judge" things to be via how you perceive them

This is a very deep concept in Buddhism. This is nothing to sneeze at. This is truly a very central concept that comes with "enlightenment", you begin to realize that you are indeed creating your reality by how you JUDGE things to be every moment of every day of your life.

And so it makes sense that a Buddhist Bodhisattva would say something along those lines. And then rumors about the things that Jesus taught were 'perceived' by the Jews in terms of being morally judged, because that's how they viewed reality.

So we even see this concept in action right before our eyes in these very stories.

~~~~~

Here's some other examples of this:


Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


What sense would Matthew 7:2 even make if some supreme being was the absolute judge of everything?

What sense would Matthew 7:2 even make if some Jesus himself was the absolute judge of everything?

It wouldn't make any sense at all. Jesus is trying to tell people that how they judge their lives to be is how their lives shall be. He's trying to teach them these concepts of Buddhism spiritual philosophy.

And here we see it again in Luke:


Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:


Jesus was trying to convey to people this crucial understanding of how we actually create our own situations via our own choice of actions and perceptions.

These verses make no sense at all in terms of Jesus or God being some absolute authoritarian Judge. He was clearly trying to teach the philosophies of Buddhism here.

~~~~~

You become extreme "defensive" to the orthodox Christian view that Jesus is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords and the judge of all, because that's what Christianity has created out of the rumors of Jesus.

~~~~~

However, there are certainly other possibilities, and I'm just offering them up for the sake of the intellectual pursuit of TRUTH.

If Jesus truly was a Jewish Pantheists (and the pantheistic view of spirit was indeed quite common among Jews in the days when Jesus lived and Jesus), AND the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was rip (and it was indeed at its peak at that same historical time), then it makes perfect sense to consider this as a possible TRUTH.

I personally believe that once a person does this and starts to studying both the ideals and beliefs of the Mahayana Buddhists of that time period, and the rumors of Jesus written in the New Testament, one can begin to see that the words attributed to Jesus are indeed very much in agreement with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism once all the superstitious stuff is stripped away.

So it's worth taking a look at for anyone who is sincerely interested in TRUTH.

I'm not trying to claim what is actually "TRUE", I'm just saying that if someone is interested in TRUTH they need to consider all possibilities.

I'm not even saying that I necessarily agree with the spiritual philosophies of Buddhism. I'm just pointing out that they do indeed match up with much of what had been attributed to the teachings of Jesus.

~~~~~~~

Moreover, if a person is truly honest with themselves and takes the time to compare the teachings that had been attributed to Jesus with the Teaching of Buddhism, versus the teachings of Jesus compared with the Torah, they necessarily will begin to realize that what Jesus actually taught is far more in harmony with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and not even remotely in harmony with the teachings of the Torah.

~~~~~~

Even the gospels have Jesus renouncing many of the things that the Torah had taught people to do.

The Torah had people judging other to be "sinners".
Jesus taught us not to judge other (Buddhism)

The Torah had people stoning sinners to death.
Jesus taught not to stone people to death (Buddhism)

The Torah had people seeking revenge as in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Jesus taught them to forgive and turn the other cheek (Buddhism)

~~~~~~

It just makes far more sense that Jesus was teaching the moral philosophies of Buddhism and rejecting the horrible philosophies and directives of the Torah.

So I feel that this should be pointed out to people so they can SEE these truths for themselves.

Think of it as a community service for the enlightenment of mankind.



Nothing I do takes anything away from Jesus. Other than the superstitious idea that he was a demigod. But in terms of respect I have Jesus trying to actually teach his fellow man far better behaviors and moral values that they had in their Torah.

Jesus wasn't a demigod, he was probably just a Jewish Pantheistic-minded Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva. That makes perfect sense and explains perfectly why the New Testament is riddled with so many contradictions. The superstitious rumors of Jesus told in the New Testament aren't even consistent. So they must be wrong.

I just offer an explanation that actually answers all questions and explains away all these superstitions and contradictions.

I solve the mystery of the Bible without a hitch.

Problem is that the Torah does not "teach" these things. You
are wrong about that. The Torah (Old Testament) is simply
a set of stories and Jewish scholars did/do not interpret it
literally but used such stories as counterexample etc. Jesus
was one of those who followed the Torah and he was trying to
get others to be better Jews actually.

The Torah is cited as explicitly condemning murder including
stoning and also eschews revenge and insists on forgiveness
of sins. There is nothing that Buddhism or Jesus teaches that
is any different from Torah teachings.

Nice try though.



www.jewfaq.org

crominy....
bashing a book. LMAO.
You wish to bash what is written by the hands of men....
rather than permit the spirit to teach you the truth.
Yet wether or not you are aware of it, you admit Jesus existed by your own words.

For the record:
Blasphemy is the speaking evil of anything for that matter.

I'll be more than happy to accept this. However, if everyone accepted this we'd need to toss out all of the King James Versions of the Bible because they all contain explicit instructions of precisely which sins people should be stoned to death for.

It even says that we are suppose to stone our unruly children to death.

Moreover, the Jews themselves evidently believed that their Torah had taught them to stone sinners to death because that's precisely what they were doing when Jesus told them that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone.

So evidently all you are saying is that the Jews misunderstood their very own religious doctrine.



This may very well be true. But even so that could still be compatible with my idea that Jesus was probably also well-educated in the philosophies of Mahayana Buddhism. He probably was a "pantheistic-minded" Jew. Don't doubt that at all.

Besides, if we accept this then Jesus would not being bringing a "New Covenant" but rather just coming to clarify that the Old Covenant had been grossly contaminated.

I can accept that.

The Gospels even have Jesus referring to the Torah as "Your Laws" when speaking with the Pharisees and then calling the Pharisees hypocrites.

But that still would have been Jesus "rejecting" the Torah. Or at least "rejecting" what it had become at the hands of men.

~~~~~~

But if we want to look at it from that point of view then I have knew concerns:

Let's go back to the idea that Jesus truly was the "son of God" sent to straighten this mess out.

Well, my very FIRST question then would be "Why did a supposedly all-wise God allow things to get so far out of control in the first place? Why didn't he nip this in the bud when he saw that his instructions to mankind were being misunderstood and violated in their very doctrines?"

Surely everyone can recognize that it's wiser to nip things in the bud then to allow them to get grossly out of control?

So if God is "all-wise" he should have taken care of these things sooner. He should have been more responsible toward his human pets.

~~~~~

Also, if the Torah or Old Testament are that contaminated, then why should we accept anything they have to say at all.

This approach doesn't seem to help in terms of supporting the overall doctrine as any sort of "infallible" word of God, and if it is indeed "fallible", then what good is it? It can't be trusted to be the word of God if it's flawed.

~~~~~

Then you have the whole "Jesus died to pay for our sins" as the Sacrificial Lamb of God thing.

Here you have a God who is having grave problems with his "instruction manual" to humans. And in the middle of that he's trying to introduce a new concept of Jesus dying to pay for our sins?

~~~~~~

I think the idea that Jesus was indeed just a mortal man who tried to teach better morals than had been "taught" in the Torah (even if by gross misunderstanding), is a far more likely scenario than the idea that he was a demigod sent by the God of Abraham.

~~~~~~

The only reason I bring the Buddhism in is because it truly does fit extremely well. It was indeed at its peak at that time in history, and it explains very nicely where many of the concepts that Jesus was trying to teach could have come from, and why they were so grossly misunderstood.

So, for me, it just makes the most sense overall.

It explains a LOT.

"I and the father are one" (Buddhism)

"Before Abraham was I AM" (Buddhism - i.e. reincarnation)

"Ye are gods" (Buddhism)

"What you do to your brother you do to me" (Buddhism/Pantheism)

It just all comes together very nicely.

Yes I believe that a man existed, rejected the teachings of the Torah as the Jews currently followed it, and was ultimately crucified for his views, for his blaspheme of what the Jews believed that Torah had taught, and for calling the Pharisees hypocrites.

I believe that the rumors of this man gave rise to the stories we see in the New Testament.



I've always been taught that Blasphemy simply means to be disrespectful toward God or anything that is considered to be divine or sacred.

However, since I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, from my point of view I'm not blaspheming anything.

I'm just suggesting that the story of Jesus may have been sparked by rumors that become highly entangled with a lot of superstitions.

It's just an idea. A hypothesis.

I personally believe that it is far more plausible than the orthodox view which requires a belief in extremely outrageous things. Not to mention that the orthodox view also requires a person to ignore all the contradictions and inconsistencies found in these stories.

My hypothesis here requires nothing supernatural or implausible. The whole scenario could be perfectly true as I describe without any logical inconsistencies or problems. And the conditions were ripe for this scenario to fit as well.

Once it is recognize that the New Testament is indeed nothing more than a misunderstanding and just superstitious rumors, then there is no longer any need to try to justify every single solitary word of these texts. Of course they would contains contradictions, absurdities and even totally false exaggerations.

The only situation where it's required to support them as some sort of infallible absolute truths would be if they are indeed viewed and the divinely guided inspirational message from God.

I hold that they contain far too many errors and contradictions to fit that scenario.

Thus I hold out that my hypothesis is more plausible.

~~~~~

Is that "Blaspheme"?

It's just a sincere attempt to get at TRUTH.

Surely a sincere attempt to discover TRUTH cannot be "blaspheme".

~~~~~

The main thing that kept these rumors going throughout all of history was indeed the demand that if anyone questions their divine validity they shall be accused of "blaspheme" and suffer serious social chastisement, or possibly even be nailed to a pole themselves, or have a sword thrust through their chest.

Today we have the freedom to finally question these things without risk of being killed.

So why not consider alternative possible explanations for how these stories came to be?

It is fine. As far as I am concerned there are no real differences
which are substantive between Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity or
Islam.

They all have their different rituals but the core philosophies
are identical. The stories are just a starting point. Where it goes
wrong is when some individuals attempt to raise themselves above
others and assert that their beliefs are better.

All writings are "contaminated" and we all know you have impure
thoughts as well. But that's OK.

If we simply accept that there are different rituals but each religion
teaches ethical behavior in different ways and none of the religions
is better or more noble or more virtuous than another then all the
problems go away. Even Abra's. But he will still have to deal with
those impure thoughts. We can't help him with that.