For Those Who Deeply Love Jesus

quote from Terry Pratchett’s Granny Weatherwax

"Sin … is when you treat people as things, including yourself, that’s what sin is."

As the Christian movement continues to look for ways to change Christ's command about loving everyone, especially when it comes to men loving men or women loving women who they are sexually attracted to, it ignores the very clear warning that Jesus gave about the love of money.

He went even further to say that to love Him meant that we have to hate money or materialism or as Pratchett say's treating people as things, or commodities.

I don't know of a church where the hatred of money is preached and practiced. Maybe that was Christ's point. Love is not a commodity that can be institutionalized.

Love has always been the way of escape for me.
 
Are we allowed some "Saint" Paul bashing here? The most important defiler of Jesus' teachings that ever existed. I speet on heem. (to quote from The Van by Roddy Doyle)

You are not familiar with the well accepted fact that half the books in the Bible attributed to Paul were not written by him, but by others much later?

From Wikipedia:

The Pauline epistles are the fourteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, although many dispute the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews as being a Pauline epistle.[1][2][3]

There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.[1]

There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the New Testament epistles, the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. Since the early centuries of the church, there has been debate concerning the authorship of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews, and modern scholars reject Pauline authorship.[4][/quote]

And so on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

A critical reading shows the later pseudo-Paulines differ greatly in language and content from the earlier authentic letters. Paul actually wrote of a mystical Jesus, and he was much concerned with eschatology, the idea that the world as he knew it was about to end, thanks to Jesus' crucifixion. The latter fakes were written in a time when the Kingdom as Paul wrote of it seemed like a failed fantasy, and they were getting back to brass tacks, politics and the control of women's sexuality and power.
 
"Sin … is when you treat people as things, including yourself, that’s what sin is."

That isn't Biblical. Sin literally means "missing the mark," as in missing the target in archery. So, supposedly, a man loving (in a deep emotional and sexual way) another man, or a woman loving a woman, homosexually, is somehow missing the mark? What mark? The possibility of conceiving another one of "God's soldiers," of course!

As the Christian movement continues to look for ways to change Christ's command about loving everyone, especially when it comes to men loving men or women loving women who they are sexually attracted to, it ignores the very clear warning that Jesus gave about the love of money.

He went even further to say that to love Him meant that we have to hate money or materialism

Then what of Job? Loved by Yahweh, gifted with huge flocks, crops and a big healthy family? He was prosperous. Yahweh only promises large families and plenty of food to his worshipers. It takes plenty of moolah to support many children and feed and clothe everyone well and comfortably. So, you're saying Jesus disagrees with his own Father? (Or was Yahweh not Jesus' father, as the gnostics proposed?


Love has always been the way of escape for me.

So how do you reconcile the OT idea that money is good, with Jesus' Cynic idea that money is bad, and we should all go barefoot and only own one robe? How is abandoning your aging parents, wife and needy children to go preach the Logos showing "love" anyway? It goes against Yahweh's commandment to honor you father and mother, and his ruling that a man and his wife are One.
 
I reconcile the way the old testament treated money the same way I reconcile the way teachers of the law treated love both then and now.

I ignore them.

Disappear into the crowd, look for the nearest state trooper to hide behind, walk around JP pond, look at ducks, let go of my spirit in the forest in the city I love.

I look at the lovers on the benches sharing their lives together and say a prayer for them to live in love forever.
 
So you ignore the fact that it takes lots of money to raise children, and the OT idea that Yahweh/El means for his children to have plenty of kids and lots to eat, and a non leaky tent to sleep in.

You like the idea of gay sex, so you ignore the Biblical idea that an ovary and a sperm are sacred, and the only reason we should have sex is to unite them; Yahweh's firm instruction to go forth and multiply.

Then you throw out way more than half of the Bible, to support your love of MM or FF sex/love. And yet you still cling to this legendary 1st century preacher as you ideal. I don't understand why.

And I bet you have a nice house, plenty of food in the fridge, quite a lot of clothing, you've got a working computer or high tech phone, and maybe even a nice flat screen TV.

You're focused on the idea that somehow your Jesus, who hated money, allows you to have all those possessions, and a desire for MM or FF sex/love as well!

Why not just be a happy pagan? Pagans are sex positive and don't need to struggle with all this "sin" crap. Material possessions are blessings to be worked for, and enjoyed. Women also have much more power in paganism as it's practiced today.
 
Do you know of any "happy" pagans who would tolerate, adore and open the eyes of someone who loves Jesus?

I know of a few crab apples but I'm keeping my eyes out for a sweetheart.
 
Do you know of any "happy" pagans who would tolerate, adore and open the eyes of someone who loves Jesus?

I know of a few crab apples but I'm keeping my eyes out for a sweetheart.

Um, yeah. This is even shown in the canonical book, the Acts of the Apostles. Pagans weren't monotheistic. Therefore, you, as a Christian, would be welcome in their midst. Hell, a pagan might even visit your church and honor some version of your god. Jesus is, in fact, an OK guy in my book, though I prefer his wife Mary Magdalene (and her other facets, Martha and Mary Virgin).

After all, it was Gentile pagans who synthesized the Tanakh and the dying/rising godman of pagan mystery religions, such as the tales of Dionysus, and created Christianity. It is a syncretistic religion. Christianity is obviously not a direct offshoot of OT Judaism.

Even OT Judaism is made up from odd parts of monotheistic (sun, fire, volcano worship) Egyptian religion, Babylonian religion and Persian religion. And since the fall of the Temple in 60AD, Jewish rabbis and "lawyers" have combined ancient beliefs with practical realities, allowing divorce for many reasons, female Rabbis, and intermarriage with non-Jews, and homosexuality, just to name a few things.

If all religion is viewed figuratively and symbolically, we could all get along. But worshipers, especially way too many Christians and Muslims, take the Bible or Koran literally and confuse xenophobia with love of god. This is why I must throw out the baby with the bathwater. Jesus religion is far too tainted with hate and domination.
 
The baby isn't Jesus, the baby is love.

And I've known you for too long to know that you love deeply with tremendous sincerity.

I also read on another thread that you have an attractive nose.

That along with your big brain adds up to a happy pagan in my book.

I'll continue to use the forum to modify my approach as I leave the world of make believe and enter the world of being retired, wintering in Palm Springs.

I might even get a rainbow wig. :)
 
Jesus himself, in one of the Gospels, I forget now which one, kept on saying:

"You have heard it said: xyz, but I say to you: 123."

So Jesus himself was throwing out "Judaism," to come to an entirely different religion. This has been a stress and strain for "Christians" (not to mention the Jews they persecuted and murdered, ahem), for 2 centuries. Christians hold onto the OT. It gives Christianity a certain glamor and cachet, to be, not just 2000 years old as it is now, but to have attached to it the 1500 BCE years of Hebrew religion as well.

And people who like rules, like many Christians, mine the OT for more rules to live by. And more rules to hate other groups by as well.

I can love Christ as the "Christ in me" aspect Paul talks about. It's no different than saying Namaste, I honor the divine in me and you.

But I don't need an entire gigantic books of fairy tales, myths, legends, fables and hero stories to do that.

If it is as simple as "God is love, and Jesus was a fleshly symbol of that love," why all the confusion and mess?
 
why all the confusion and mess?

I'm married to a Christian, my friend woman lover is a Christian and my friend women who tolerate and encourage me are Christians. My son is a Christian missionary, thankfully my daughter keeps her beliefs about deity to herself, but she's the exception.

You are my first pagan friend woman or at least I think we're headed in that direction.

Understanding how to continue loving the people who love and look to me for love is my reason to sort out the confusion and be less of a mess about it.
 
Damn, this thread has taken off. :)

I look at the Bible as an interesting book with some truth in it. I look at Jesus as a good man who may or may not have existed. I want to get along with all people but it seems to me that I'm not very good at that. I think love is the best goal any of us can strive for but it is also a mystery at times.

I hate to leave just when things are getting interesting, but I am scheduled to leave for Utah in about an hour and a half. After that, you must not expect to hear from me again for over a week. Please carry on in my absence, I hope to come home to some more cool and interesting discussion.

Regards,
Kevin T.
 
Welcome to the thread, MrFarFromRight. [...] I'm curious ... how accurate do you think the Four Gospels (the Biblical accounts of Jesus' life) are? [...] [Then, in answer to my Q of whether we were allowed "Saint" Paul bashing] I think we are. (If there are no objections?) Though having said that, I like some of what Paul wrote. I just think he was preaching the Gospel of Paul more than he was the Gospel of Jesus.
a) Accuracy of the 4 Gospels: You have to consider that Luke never met Jesus, that Matthew and Luke based all their accounts of the Nativity and boyhood of Jesus on hearsay... unless you accept the idea that the whole thing was divinely inspired, that God was telling each one what to write down.

If the latter were true, WHY would God need 4 versions of the same story? (If this is God's word, shouldn't we believe it based on ONE telling?) And why would there be discrepancies between the 4 versions? (Perhaps the most famous example is re: Jesus telling Peter that he [Peter] would deny him [Jesus]. In one Gospel, it's "Before the rooster crows, you will deny me"; in another it's "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me twice"; in a third it's "Before the rooster crows three times, you will deny me three times".)

The fact is that there are MORE than 4 Gospels, but that the council of Nicea (325 A.D.) decided which were God's Word - and therefore to be included in the New Testament - and which were spurious falsities - and therefore heresies. So now we're asked to believe that God Almighty was an active member of the council of Nicea.

Following logically on this premise that the Gospels weren't 100% accurate, we have to ask ourselves just HOW accurate they are. And we have a clear example of an exasperated Jesus berating his disciples (12 men hand-picked by him, and NOT including Mark or Luke) for not understanding ANYTHING of what he was saying.

b) Something else to think about: Sift through the New Testament and you may discover that Jesus NEVER gave himself the title "The Son of God". No, Jesus regularly called himself "The Son of Man". It was only AFTER he was dead that people started using the term "The Son of God". The last time that we come across "The Son of Man" as referring to Jesus is when Stephen was being stoned to death. He raised his eyes to the skies and claimed to see God and - sitting at his right hand - "The Son of Man". And who was the cloakroom attendant on that gory occasion? A certain Saul... later known as "Saint Paul"!

c) which brings us to this nasty character, who - in his letters - commanded the early Church to reject out of hand any doctrine originating from anybody who wasn't Jesus... with one exception: "If I tell you something, you may believe it as if it had come directly from Jesus" [my paraphrasing]. Who introduced misogyny, gay-bashing, and the virtues of self-loathing into an originally healthy belief system.

HOWEVER - to echo kdt26417's "I like some of what Paul wrote" - this slimeball somehow came up with the shortest, most accurate summing up of the whole ball of wax. Just 3 words were all it took. If I could be said to have a religion, it was defined by Paul (who apparently never put it into practice) and not by Jesus (who did). You can complicate it with theological treatises, debate, and honeyed words as much as you want, but all you really need are these 3 words.

"God is Love."
 
a) Accuracy of the 4 Gospels: You have to consider that Luke never met Jesus, that Matthew and Luke based all their accounts of the Nativity and boyhood of Jesus on hearsay... unless you accept the idea that the whole thing was divinely inspired, that God was telling each one what to write down.

Actually, the authentic Pauline letters were written before the first Gospel (Mark) was written. So, the most accurate information is in Paul. Who never met Jesus except in a vision.

Many scholars believe that the differing narratives of Jesus' "life" were based on Paul's theology, as folk tales to bring Jesus more down to earth. Paul is notoriously wacky and hard to understand. But then again, he was so beloved, there sprang up a "School of Paul," who used his name to write the later fake epistles.

WHY would God need 4 versions of the same story? (If this is God's word, shouldn't we believe it based on ONE telling?) And why would there be discrepancies between the 4 versions?

Because God didn't need tales of Jesus. People did, and made them up, and embellished them, occasionally writing them down so that the one person in the village who could read, was able to tell the tale to others. (The huge majority of people back then were illiterate.) Each Gospel was circulated in its own place in the region. It took hundreds of years for a collection to be made and canonized. (It took until the 15th century for the book of Revelation/Apocalypse/Unveiling of John to be added, because it is the craziest book of all of them. But there were other apocalypses written in that time period. They were rejected from the canon because they claimed authorship by Moses and others long dead. No one knows who this John was, so they figured he was a contemporary man telling the truth, lol.)

The fact is that there are MORE than 4 Gospels, but that the council of Nicea (325 A.D.) decided which were God's Word - and therefore to be included in the New Testament - and which were spurious falsities - and therefore heresies. So now we're asked to believe that God Almighty was an active member of the council of Nicea.

Yes, and many people do believe these bishops were inspired by God. Others have historical information... Constantine bribed the bishops to just get their act together and agree on a doctrine so he could use it to rule his Empire.

b) Something else to think about: Sift through the New Testament and you may discover that Jesus NEVER gave himself the title "The Son of God". No, Jesus regularly called himself "The Son of Man". It was only AFTER he was dead that people started using the term "The Son of God".


Yes.

The last time that we come across "The Son of Man" as referring to Jesus is when Stephen was being stoned to death. He raised his eyes to the skies and claimed to see God and - sitting at his right hand - "The Son of Man". And who was the cloakroom attendant on that gory occasion? A certain Saul... later known as "Saint Paul"!

Well. Calm down. The story of Paul holding the cloaks of the men who stoned St Stephen was in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (which is nothing but a folk tale). It was not Paul's authentic autobiographical words. However, Paul did seem to work (perhaps for the Jerusalem Temple police) to root out people (like Jesus' followers) who were commandeering the Jewish religion and warping it by claiming the Messiah had come. The official script in Judaism was, and is, that the Messiah is still hoped for. If the Messiah had come, the Temple (House of Yahweh) would be restored and all Jews would return to Jerusalem and live in peace. This has not happened. So, there was nothing inherently WRONG with a Jewish Paul persecuting the early Christians. He was protecting Judaism, the religion of his fathers, from Gentiles who were warping Jewish doctrines. However, yes, he did then convert himself, and was the major proponent of this new doctrine, which is heresy to the Jews.

which brings us to this nasty character, who - in his letters - commanded the early Church to reject out of hand any doctrine originating from anybody who wasn't Jesus... with one exception: "If I tell you something, you may believe it as if it had come directly from Jesus" [my paraphrasing]. Who introduced misogyny, gay-bashing, and the virtues of self-loathing into an originally healthy belief system.

I agree, Paul was self hating. He had issues, for sure. A vaguely referred to "thorn in the flesh." But he wasn't a misogynist. In fact, he and his male followers also traveled with "sister wives," (non-sexual close friends and believers) who preached and even baptised new converts. It was the later fakes, the pseudo-Paulines, which commanded women should not speak in the eccleisia. As I referred to above.

HOWEVER... this slimeball somehow came up with the shortest, most accurate summing up of the whole ball of wax. Just 3 words were all it took. If I could be said to have a religion, it was defined by Paul (who apparently never put it into practice) and not by Jesus (who did). You can complicate it with theological treatises, debate, and honeyed words as much as you want, but all you really need are these 3 words.

"God is Love."

Oh. My favorite phrase from Paul is also three words: "Christ in you." And the context seems to imply Christ's body, his flesh, is the church, the human members themselves, not an actual person named Jesus who lived and walked and taught.

1Colossians:

...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.


Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Gospel is an English word meaning god's word (from old German, Gott's spiel). The Greek word is euangelion. Good message. Eu, and ev, are the same prefix, meaning good. Angel means messenger. This is where we get the word evangelist from. Good news messenger.

"This is the good news... Christ in you."

The Gentiles are the heirs of this mystery! God's son, the Jewish god, Yahweh's son, is the idea that Christ (messiah) is in everyone, as love and as a hope of glory. That is pretty clear. Jesus never existed as a man. He was an idea Paul, the Jew, had, that the Messiah is nothing more than an idea, a belief available to everyone's heart, a working towards love and glory.
 
Last edited:
@ Magdlyn: I acknowledge your superior knowledge about how the New Testament came about. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian missionary family. No doubt was encouraged, the 100% TRUTH of the whole Bible was taken for granted. We weren't concerned with the council of Nicea. it was - in fact - probably never mentioned. Because that would have thrown a spotlight on the fact that a cherry-picking operation had taken place 300 years after the events related.

My earlier comment here was to explain the cracks in that theory that caused me to doubt the "official" version. Whether or not Paul wrote all that he is claimed to have done is Wurst [German sausage] to me. I was disputing the theory that the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) is absolute Truth, inspired directly by a God who told its writers exactly what to put down on paper. Everything that you write only backs up my position that that idea is bunk. My question was not: "Why were 4 (or however many) gospels written?" My question was: "IF the Bible is the TRUTH, inspired and dictated directly by God, WHY does it need 4 gospels?"

The Communist Manifesto was written by MRS. Marx and F. Engels (who were, perhaps, lovers). Yet it's attributed more to Karl than to either of its true authors:
"Your question for 10 points: Who wrote The Communist Manifesto?"
"Karl Marx."
"We'll give you 8 points for that. The full answer is Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Next question: Who wrote the I & II books of Corinthians?"
"Saint Paul."
"Corrrrrect!"

(Or - if it's a fundamentalist quiz show): "We're going to give you just TWO points for that. The correct answer is 'The Holy Spirit, through Saint Paul'. St. Paul was only a channel for God's Sacred Word to flow through."
 
As a practical matter I rely on the NIV's account of the gospel of John. I met and interviewed one of the men who worked on the research of the manuscripts used to authenticate John's account. I'm told these manuscripts are some of the most scrutinized.

What comes out of John's account is more the spirit of his eye witness relationship with Christ than anything else for me.

I guess if you don't think John wrote the book or it is a counterfeit none of this matters.

My wife attends the Episcopal church where the liturgy includes the old and new testament and the gospels. Three distinct readings from 3 distinct points of view.

We started this thread hoping that other's who like John believe that Jesus is not only God but that He is the creator and the Word, or promise of God would have a place in this forum to meet and interact.

Instead it has once again become a place of debate about the authenticity of the bible and a challenge to anyone who believes Jesus is God.

What has come to light for me is the bravery of the LGBT people I've met at my wife's church who openly profess their faith and belief in Christ in a place where they are welcomed and loved.

I didn't realize until now just how difficult it is for them to return from church to a community where they have to keep their faith in Christ hidden for fear of creating havoc.

This Sunday is my obligatory once a month church day. I'm probably going to go out of my way to make sure that the gay couples who attend get a smile showing my admiration for their strength.
 
As a practical matter I rely on the NIV's account of the gospel of John. I met and interviewed one of the men who worked on the research of the manuscripts used to authenticate John's account. I'm told these manuscripts are some of the most scrutinized.

A man who is trying to "authenticate" a ancient manuscript full of magic? How does he do that? Do you mean he has a hold of the oldest manuscripts?

What comes out of John's account is more the spirit of his eye witness relationship with Christ than anything else for me.

I guess if you don't think John wrote the book or it is a counterfeit none of this matters.

It matters to me because I have a love of history, magical thinking, and myths. The Gospel According to John is of course, way out of line of the messages in the other 3 gospels, called the Synoptics (syn=same, optics=view). It says Jesus' mission was only 1 year, not 3, just for starters. Did you friend authenticate that that was true?

My wife attends the Episcopal church where the liturgy includes the old and new testament and the gospels. Three distinct readings from 3 distinct points of view.

The gospels are part of the New Testament, so I am not sure what you mean. Btw, interesting tidbit is, the letters of Paul make up half of the New Testament.

We started this thread hoping that other's who like John believe that Jesus is not only God but that He is the creator and the Word, or promise of God would have a place in this forum to meet and interact.

The Gospel of John is the only book that claims Jesus is the Logos (Word) and was present at the creation. Why does the Old Testament fail to mention that? And what does "the Word" mean, anyway?

Instead it has once again become a place of debate about the authenticity of the bible and a challenge to anyone who believes Jesus is God.

Yup. I guess there aren't too many Christian believers of your type on this board. I guess you missed, however, my understanding that Christ is in you and me, according to Paul. That Christ's body is not flesh and blood of his own, but made up of members of those who believe in the good news of "Christ in you." Hm?

I find your belief system naive and fuzzy. I don't feel you've really spent much time reading the Bible. Just cherry picking the pretty parts?

What has come to light for me is the bravery of the LGBT people I've met at my wife's church who openly profess their faith and belief in Christ in a place where they are welcomed and loved.

I didn't realize until now just how difficult it is for them to return from church to a community where they have to keep their faith in Christ hidden for fear of creating havoc.

This Sunday is my obligatory once a month church day. I'm probably going to go out of my way to make sure that the gay couples who attend get a smile showing my admiration for their strength.

You go to church once a month to please your wife?
 
"You go to church once a month to please your wife?"

Yes. I'm an introvert and I don't like group meetings of any sort.

Must have something to do with my naïve and fuzzy cherry picking way of going about things. :)
 
Instead it has once again become a place of debate about the authenticity of the bible . . .
Authenticity as what? Everyone knows it was written by numerous people as historical reports and reflects their personal views of the ancient world and the politics of its time, and then was re-written and re-written and re-written and re-written and re-written by people in power to get the populace to do what they wanted them to do, or see things how they wanted the to see, all political and careerist machinations. Just like the Koran is being rewritten by terrorists and distributed to the illiterate masses, teaching the uneducated to "kill all infidels," when that is not what Islam or the Koran teaches at all. The same thing happened with the Bible through the years - it became a tool used to wield power over those who could not see through the flimsiness of what they were told.

When I was a young teenager, even the pastor of the Lutheran church my family and I attended told my mother to stop reading the Bible. She was trying so hard to understand it and live by it that she would get confused and upset, which didn't help her already fragile mental state, so he told her that it would never make sense if she tried to take it literally instead of interpreting it to glean the basic message of being good to one another. She would get so worked up about the Bible's teachings and tried so hard to understand what Jesus wanted for/from her, until she hallucinated that he came to her and let her touch his wounds. So, yes, our pastor literally said to her, "You have to stop reading the Bible."
 
I don't think the issue is whether the bible is authentic or not... It's as Loveboston said, the thread was originally started with the intention of providing those who *do* believe it's authentic and *do* believe Chris is the son of God, etc. with a place to express and discuss those beliefs.

It's on a public forum, and in the off-topic section, so it's completely logical and reasonable for the thread to derail from its original purpose. I derailed it myself, and Kevin told me not to worry about it. So of course there's going to be discussion that doesn't fit what people might want it to fit. I think Loveboston was just expressing disappointment at this particular derail.
 
Authenticity as what? Everyone knows it was written by numerous people as historical reports...

Actually, I don't agree with this statement. It seems obvious to me, the Gospels were written as hagiography. Hagiography means the biography of a saint; in this case, a holy man. They tend to be rather fanciful.
 
Back
Top