NationStates Jolt Archive

To you, who was Jesus?

Poll DONE!

It's a pretty poll!

This better have better options then the last one of these

The real question is "Who is John Galt?"

"Jesus was just this guy, you know?"
- Gag Halfrunt

*waits for poll*

While we wait, I think Jesus was a Jewish scholar of the 1st century AD with some radical ideas that the Romans didn't like, so they executed him, although not before he started a cult of loyal disciples who spread the word throughout the ancient world, believing him to be the Messiah.

Anything else is the invention of the third-century poets and should be disregarded (although the possibility that he was an illegitimate child still has to be considered).

I think these are pretty good options.

"A normal man that preached about how to live a good life"

me hallelujah (http://www.hlj.me.uk/PM-haircut.jpg)

The real question is "Who is John Galt?"
So long as Jesus isn't John Galt.....'cause THAT would blow my mind in all the wrong ways.

I think these are pretty good options.
Well you would say that..... :rolleyes:
Actually, come to think of it, very well-thought.
Now, in accordance with my Catholic beliefs, I of course went with the first option (I mean, c'mon), though they're not exactly how I'd suggest Jesus be verbally represented. Mainly 'cause I hate sounding like a preachy little Christian bitch when I can avoid it. So I'll just stick to the safe side and say......he was a revolutionary, man. A true revolutionary.

jesus was obviously a steriotypical art student

angry at the authoritiys
made a meal for 5thousand people from just some loaves and fishes (anyone who's been a student will admit that students eat like this)
hung around with a prostitute and an ex tax collector (dodgy)
thought he was god (or the son of god at least)
and the night gown sandels, long hear and beard......

need I say more

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14
I agree. Part of me would really honestly LOVE to believe that Jesus looked much like this:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/476240/2/Dark_Attitude.jpg
Oooh. How trendy and hip my Jesus was.

Simonist']Well you would say that..... :rolleyes:
Actually, come to think of it, very well-thought.
Now, in accordance with my Catholic beliefs, I of course went with the first option (I mean, c'mon), though they're not exactly how I'd suggest Jesus be verbally represented. Mainly 'cause I hate sounding like a preachy little Christian bitch when I can avoid it. So I'll just stick to the safe side and say......he was a revolutionary, man. A true revolutionary.
I wonder if I would have liked him in that case. I don't think so, he valued kindness and compassion far too much.... ;)

~The Libertarian Concordance of Czardas~
Official NS Revolutionary Anarchist and Social Outcast

I wonder if I would have liked him in that case. I don't think so, he valued kindness and compassion far too much.... ;)

~The Libertarian Concordance of Czardas~
Official NS Revolutionary Anarchist and Social Outcast
Love of the man and love of the ideals can be mutually exclusive, m'dear.....

Simonist']Love of the man and love of the ideals can be mutually exclusive, m'dear.....
Really? I must have missed something.

Besides, I can't stand watching someone who preaches kindness and virtue etc., without actually practising it himself. As I always say, "Death to all hypocrites!"

And if the guy does practice it himself, I hate him for being so damn virtuous where I'm not.. ;)

To you, who was Jesus?

Poll DONE!

It's a pretty poll!

Well, according to the Gospel of St. Matthew:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14

short haired jesus - http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14



Which would give him the heritic label.
duh.
Who cares about such dimwitted superficialities anyway.
Not the gods religious people worship, but the men who put the word
to paper.
if you're into that religious stuff


plus Jesus was probably had dark skin,
maybe even black,
and most likely not blue eyes (a resessive gene anyway)

Simonist']So long as Jesus isn't John Galt.....'cause THAT would blow my mind in all the wrong ways.
Of course, as a Christian Objectivist, I find far more compatibility with the New Testament and Objectivism than do most. (Especially since Ayn Rand's conception of Christianity was based on experiences with the most legalistic types of organized religion.)

So, while Jesus wasn't John Galt, I think they would have gotten along well together.

Cheers!

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14

What about the Nazirites (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/nazarite.html) ?

Hebrew: form Nazirite

the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in Num. 6:2-21

The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses.

The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things,

1.

abstinence from wine and strong drink,
2.

refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and
3.

the avoidance of contact with the dead.

bold emphasis added by me. Some think that Jesus was a Nazirite, hence the long-haired depictions...After all, if anyone was dedicated/consecrated to God, it was Jesus! :D

What about the Nazirites (http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/nazarite.html) ?

Hebrew: form Nazirite

the name of such Israelites as took on them the vow prescribed in Num. 6:2-21

The word denotes generally one who is separated from others and consecrated to God. Although there is no mention of any Nazarite before Samson, yet it is evident that they existed before the time of Moses.

The vow of a Nazarite involved these three things,

1.

abstinence from wine and strong drink,
2.

refraining from cutting the hair off the head during the whole period of the continuance of the vow, and
3.

the avoidance of contact with the dead.

bold emphasis added by me. Some think that Jesus was a Nazirite, hence the long-haired depictions...After all, if anyone was dedicated/consecrated to God, it was Jesus! :D

not cutting the hair was part of the vow, which only lasted a 100 days or so. paul is thought to have done this, (Acts 21:20-24). jesus also drank wine.

Some think that Jesus was a Nazirite, hence the long-haired depictions...After all, if anyone was dedicated/consecrated to God, it was Jesus! :D

Actually, Jesus was a Nazarene (i.e. from the region of Nazareth), not a Nazarite, a common misconception, given the similarity of the terms. This is abundantly evident in the contact He had with the dead, and with the consistent use of "fruit of the vine" (or, slightly-fermented grape juice), a product which Nazarites were forbidden to touch. His first miracle was turning water into wine, hardly a project for a Nazarite! Then, at the last supper, He passed around a cup of "fruit of the vine", all evidence suggesting that He drank it (since He said He would not drink it again until the Kingdom.

Just wanted to clarify . . .

I don't really care who he was

He would have been a black crazy person, who got abducted by aliens and then ordered to kill all of the evil robots that want to take over the world, which were controlled by bill gates!

Woops, i'm thinking of Martin Baker! :mp5: :headbang:

short haired jesus - http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/

Very interesting.

He was not supposed to be a beautiful man; not someone anyone would ordinarily take notice of, so it is probably a lot closer than those popular depictions.

Someday I am going to have to find out how accurate these forensic re-creations really are---if they have done any test reconstructions, using skulls of people whose pictures they have, to see how close they get to reality?

Someday I am going to have to find out how accurate these forensic re-creations really are---if they have done any test reconstructions, using skulls of people whose pictures they have, to see how close they get to reality?

that would be interesting to see how close they got...

There are no accounts of the biblical Jesus independent of the bible.
There are too many versions of the passage called the Testimonium Flavianum to be taken seriously. ".... There is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians."
"Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign."

In other words the story of Jesus is just more superstitious hokum, entertaining but not to be taken seriously.

Of course, as a Christian Objectivist, I find far more compatibility with the New Testament and Objectivism than do most. (Especially since Ayn Rand's conception of Christianity was based on experiences with the most legalistic types of organized religion.)

So, while Jesus wasn't John Galt, I think they would have gotten along well together.

Cheers!

A Christian Objectivist? You have *got* to explain that one.
But my own belief is that Jesus was the most powerful magician who ever lived. I'm not referring to the miracles, that's just special effeects. I define a magician as one who changes reality through his/her will and Jesus so changed reality that even those who don't believe in him record history from the supposed date of his birth, even if they now call it the Common Era. As to whether he was a god, no he wasn't. But he is now because the gods are created and sustained by our belief in them

You missed out delusional as one of the options.

Jesus's real name was Brian

I don't really care who he was
Gee, thanks Dervich, good to know that once in a very great while, somebody actually CAN post on topic. The stunning relevance your comment contributed to the discussion in general just gives me the warmest feeling deep down, especially knowing that NONE of us were really going in the right direction with what the OP intended.

Oh, wait.......*re-reads* dang, wrong again.

here's what Jesus says about himself:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:50
I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.

John 13:13
"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.

John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Luke 8:25
He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him."

Matthew 17:5
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

John 18:37
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."


Revelation 21:5-7
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Revelation 22:20
20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

A Christian Objectivist? You have *got* to explain that one.
.....
But he is [a god] now because the gods are created and sustained by our belief in them

Allow me to respond to the last first: shades of Dirk Gently? (If you've never read Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, and more especially, The Long, Dark Teatime of the Soul, you're missing out big-time!)

Okay, now for Christian Objectivism: You asked for it! *grin* I never mind delivering philosophical treatises . . . ;)

The central tenet of Objectivism that causes the most consternation among Objectivists when Christianity is brought up is what I call "no payment, no payout." In fact, with a Fundamental, rather than institutional (i.e. Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, some Presbyterian, and almost all charismatic, groups) theology, "love thy neighbor as thyself" (http://kjv.sehrgut.co.uk/Matthew/22.php#39) is in direct parallel with "if a man shall not work, neither shall he eat" (http://kjv.sehrgut.co.uk/2_Thessalonians/3.php#10). We have no obligation, Biblical or otherwise, to provide for those who will not provide for themselves.

Here's where some think it gets sticky, though, even if they realize that self-immolation (as Ayn Rand so aptly put it) is not a New-Testament, Biblical teaching. The fact that we are obligated, as Christians (and it is important that this dictate is not a moral truism, but a specific obligation of Christians, being God's adopted children . . . but that's another theological discussion altogether, and I don't think you want to turn this into Bible Doctrines 101, eh? ;) ) to put other before ourselves.

The single assumption that makes this seem absurd (from an Objectivistic standpoint) is that there is an obligation for payout without payment. However, as Paul put it in Romans 1:14 (http://kjv.sehrgut.co.uk/Romans/1.php#14), Christians are not acting based on altruism, but because of the fact that they are debtors. To receive Salvation is to receive freely a place in Heaven, rather than the place in Hell all humans deserve. Because of that, those who have accepted that gift are under obligation (though Salvation is not contingent upon fulfillment of any obligation) to serve on Earth.

That servitude is not based on believing others to be more important than myself, or inherently deserving of my goods and services, but upon the fact that I am in actuality serving God, anything I can do for Whom is already more than paid-for. In Matthew 25:40 and 45 (http://kjv.sehrgut.co.uk/Matthew/25.php#40), Jesus states that anything we do to or for anyone else is done unto Him.

Christian Objectivism only works within the framework of a literal interpretation (I would say, "of the Bible," but defensible is at least "of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles"), and an acceptance of the Trinity, Diety of Christ, and irrevocability of Salvation (the so-called "Eternal Security of the Believer," which I believe is evident from the arguments I've here presented.)

If you go to the thread I Support Maximum Freedom (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=447074) (I was posting then while I was logged in as Keia, another of my nations), you can see some of my arguments for Objectivistic philosophy, or my interpretation thereof anyway, without the theological arguments. I think you'll find that, under the theology I've here described, such a philosophy is not only not opposed, but very nearly required. (And from other Biblical passages, it's even more necessary.)

Cheers!

Jesus was a Jew,
The Son of God he claimed to be.
The Romans didn't like this,
So they nailed him to a tree.

- Moi, H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
Not bad for off the cuff improvisation, is it?

Jesus was born of flesh and became the Mouthpiece of God on earth. As did Buddha, Moses, Muhammed, Abraham and today Baha'u'llah.

My roomie at UNT. MEAN GREEN!
...
No seriously...A normal man who said extraordinary things for sure. The rest is up to speculation.

Christ said He was the living bread which came down from heaven. So does this mean He was a loaf of whole wheat. If we are strict literalists I suppose it does.


"Question. -- The Christ said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die."[1] What is the meaning of this utterance?
[1 Cf. John 6:51, 50.]

Answer. -- This bread signifies the heavenly food and divine perfections. So, "If any man eateth of this bread" means if any man acquires heavenly bounty, receives the divine light, or partakes of Christ's perfections, he thereby gains everlasting life. The blood also signifies the spirit of life and the divine perfections, the lordly splendor and eternal bounty. For all the members of the body gain vital substance from the circulation of the blood.

In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 26, it is written: "Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled."

It is evident that the bread of which the disciples ate and were filled was the heavenly bounty; for in verse 33 of the same chapter it is said: "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." It is clear that the body of Christ did not descend from heaven, but it came from the womb of Mary; and that which descended from the heaven of God was the spirit of Christ. As the Jews thought that Christ spoke of His body, they made objections, for it is said in the 42nd verse of the same chapter: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

Reflect how clear it is that what Christ meant by the heavenly bread was His spirit, His bounties, His perfections and His teachings; for it is said in the 63rd verse: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."

Therefore, it is evident that the spirit of Christ is a heavenly grace which descends from heaven; whosoever receives light from that spirit in abundance -- that is to say, the heavenly teachings -- finds everlasting life. That is why it is said in the 35th verse: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 96)

I have no doubt that there was a jesus but I don't think that he was what he is portrayed as in the forms of organized religion. Just a hype, anyone can sucker people into believing what they want them too, its just how well you do it, and apparently jesus was good at finding gullable people.

I have no doubt that there was a jesus but I don't think that he was what he is portrayed as in the forms of organized religion. Just a hype, anyone can sucker people into believing what they want them too, its just how well you do it, and apparently jesus was good at finding gullable people.

Finding gullabel people is one thing. But getting millions of people to follow your teachings for over two thousand years is something else again, and simply can't be done with hype and smoke and mirrors.

how come there are so many religious threads?

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14

Given the fashions of that particular period of history, it is likely that Jesus had long hair, although we can't say for sure. Short hair and shaved faces were the style for Roman men, so, for certain people, it seemed natural that men would have short hair because this was all they knew. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul makes it clear that he is stating his own opinions, and not necessarily God's.

Remember, God forbade Samson to cut his hair.

How can anyone possibly believe jesus was god? All you are listening to is a book. Jesus took in some followers, convinced them he was god, and the followers convinced others until he somehow became god to the public. Jesus was a 1st century hippie is all.

How can anyone possibly believe jesus was god? All you are listening to is a book. Jesus took in some followers, convinced them he was god, and the followers convinced others until he somehow became god to the public. Jesus was a 1st century hippie is all.

I don't believe that Jesus was God and he never said He was God. He said His Father is greater than Him. If one is God no one can be greater you. He was God's Messenger to the people of that time.

Finding gullabel people is one thing. But getting millions of people to follow your teachings for over two thousand years is something else again, and simply can't be done with hype and smoke and mirrors.

So, any religion that existed for 2000 years is automatically right? *looks around
Well, there's still a lot of them left to choose from. Buddhism is older, so is Hinduism, Toaism, Confucianism, Judaism and most natural religions.

Or is the oldest one the correct one, then, because it suvived the longest? Wait... that would be Hinduism, wouldn't it? Hail Ganesh!

here's what Jesus says about himself:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

John 8:24
I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:50
I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge.

John 13:13
"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.

John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.

Luke 8:25
He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him."

Matthew 17:5
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

John 18:37
"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."


Revelation 21:5-7
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." 6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

Revelation 22:20
20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Yah, what Jesus said. ;)

There are no accounts of the biblical Jesus independent of the bible.
There are too many versions of the passage called the Testimonium Flavianum to be taken seriously. ".... There is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians."
"Herod's infamous murder of the Innocents (in which he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of children), while playing a major role in the New Testament, is not mentioned by any other source, including the various accounts of Herod's reign."

In other words the story of Jesus is just more superstitious hokum, entertaining but not to be taken seriously.
I agree with Shlarg on this one

Isn't it odd that the majority of people have either voted 'The Son of God...' (myself included) or 'A good guy with a good message' (slightly paraphrased :D) and yet we still get so many people slagging off Christianity on here - huh, and they complain about us being hypocrites ;)

(Having chosen other)

The character of Jesus Christ is a historical invention; he never existed in real life. Jesus was either a simplified version of a more complex resistance leader or an amalgamation of several would be messiahs (Judea was in a revolutionary mood during that time period).

My own personal view of him is that of a cult leader within Judaism and a preacher of slave morality (which he did not invent but changed) whose death would by unfortunate chance became a rallying point for his miserable band of followers. Paul, a recruit to the sect, proceeded to recreated it with his ideas. He then spread his creation, the new Christian religion, throughout the world by targeting the gentiles (through such means as editing out the Jewish dietary requirements and preaching the end of the world nonsense). I could go on but that would be getting off topic.

Getting back on topic I wish, assuming Jesus was an actual individual, that his mother would have strangled him in the cradle.

(I think there are two possibilities concerning his birth. 1. Mary was molested by her own family, which is why there was supposedly no father. Think of all the child molestations and incest today. It must have been much worse then, with no State institutions there to protect children and a firm patriarchy in place. Either that or 2. Jesus was simply the product of a marriage and the virgin birth concept was invented much later. 2 is more likely but 1 is fun to think about.)

Isn't it odd that the majority of people have either voted 'The Son of God...' (myself included) or 'A good guy with a good message' (slightly paraphrased :D) and yet we still get so many people slagging off Christianity on here - huh, and they complain about us being hypocrites ;)

Paul was the actual founder of Christianity, not Jesus (if he existed that is). I voted other as I found the detailed choices too simplified.

short haired jesus - http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/

Jesus was a pretty small guy. 5'1" and 110 pounds at 33? I'm 12 and i weigh 130 pounds and i'm 5'6.25"

I don't get the whole "died for our sins" part...
He died because he defied Roman rule, just like the guy the crucified three years before him, and the guy they killed two years after him. They all claimed to be the Messiah and thus threatened stability.

How can he "die for our sins"? What sins? And why did he have to walk around, piss off the Romans and then make everyone feel guilty about it? Couldn't he just have died for our sins alone in some dark corner, without making it public?

So, any religion that existed for 2000 years is automatically right? *looks around
Well, there's still a lot of them left to choose from. Buddhism is older, so is Hinduism, Toaism, Confucianism, Judaism and most natural religions.

Or is the oldest one the correct one, then, because it suvived the longest? Wait... that would be Hinduism, wouldn't it? Hail Ganesh!

I think the point it is not a question of right or wrong because the religions you speak of have been changed by the influence of humanity. That does not make their source any the less real or legitmate. That source being God. All of the religions you mentioned came from God through the Mouthpiece of God that day. All of these Mouthpieces or Prophets spoke for God and can be considered as one, united in their purpose and station. One does not have a greater spiritual purpose or station greater than the other. There is only one God who sent Messengers to humanity at different time and to different place because we are all created by God and belong to the same family.

If just the simple principle of the unity of God's religions was understood and praticed around the world think of how many religious wars and strifes would be eliminated. If all of the worlds religions thought about themselves as having come form one common foundation we could be using our resources that we waste fighting about who's Prophet is correct and find solutions to our problems.

IMHO:

he is just a tale, not a real person ...

jesus to me was a stage magician who thought he was the son of god,convinced some other people and they convinced some people and now the worlds largest religion is formed around him

EDIT: I voted for a lowly carpenter who did nothing special :p

The "long hair" part is bullshit. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ had long hair. Moreover, the Bible condemns long hair in men.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

1 Corinthians 11:14


Thats becuase most of our ideas of what Jesus looked like, date back to the 13th century.
Most of the paintings of Jesus, during that time, and since, seem to be based upon the Shroud of Turin.
Problem is, the shroud is a hoax.
It carbon 14 dates to about 1200 A.D

I think the point it is not a question of right or wrong because the religions you speak of have been changed by the influence of humanity. That does not make their source any the less real or legitmate. That source being God. All of the religions you mentioned came from God through the Mouthpiece of God that day. All of these Mouthpieces or Prophets spoke for God and can be considered as one, united in their purpose and station. One does not have a greater spiritual purpose or station greater than the other. There is only one God who sent Messengers to humanity at different time and to different place because we are all created by God and belong to the same family.

If just the simple principle of the unity of God's religions was understood and praticed around the world think of how many religious wars and strifes would be eliminated. If all of the worlds religions thought about themselves as having come form one common foundation we could be using our resources that we waste fighting about who's Prophet is correct and find solutions to our problems.

Tell me,
Dont you find it at all arrogant to say that all religions, are different aspects of your God?
To imply that your God started Taoism, or Buddhism, as rather absurd, since theres no mention of him in any of those texts.
In fact, its almost insulting to imply that Ganesh, is Jesus, and vice versa.

In short, why must YOUR God, be EVERYONES God, regardless of what their own teachings tell them?

"No No, silly, youre not worshipping Odin today, youre actually worshipping Jesus, you just didnt know it."

A normal man who preached how to lead a good life.

That's from a jew.

Tell me,
Dont you find it at all arrogant to say that all religions, are different aspects of your God?
To imply that your God started Taoism, or Buddhism, as rather absurd, since theres no mention of him in any of those texts.
In fact, its almost insulting to imply that Ganesh, is Jesus, and vice versa.

In short, why must YOUR God, be EVERYONES God, regardless of what their own teachings tell them?

"No No, silly, youre not worshipping Odin today, youre actually worshipping Jesus, you just didnt know it."

We must start at the begining. Who created us all? God. There is only one God. God does not belong to me. I belong to God. God is the Creator. Is it possible that God wants to us to fight about religion? This hardly seems possible to me. Baha'u'llah is not God. Nor was Jesus; nor Muhammed. Nor, any of the others. They were sent by God to a paticular people at a paticular time to guide people to a better way of life, to better understand God's purpose for humankind.


"The divine Manifestations since the day of Adam have striven to unite humanity so that all may be accounted as one soul. The function and purpose of a shepherd is to gather and not disperse his flock. The prophets of God have been divine shepherds of humanity. They have established a bond of love and unity among mankind, made scattered peoples one nation and wandering tribes a mighty kingdom. They have laid the foundation of the oneness of God and summoned all to universal peace. All these holy, divine Manifestations are one. They have served one God, promulgated the same truth, founded the same institutions and reflected the same light. Their appearances have been successive and correlated; each one has announced and extolled the one who was to follow and all laid the foundation of reality. They summoned and invited the people to love and made the human world a mirror of the Word of God. Therefore the divine religions they established have one foundation; their teachings, proofs and evidences are one; in name and form they differ but in reality they agree and are the same. These holy Manifestations have been as the coming of springtime in the world. Although the springtime of this year is designated by another name according to the changing calendar, yet as regards its life and quickening it is the same as the springtime of last year. For each spring is the time of a new creation, the effects, bestowals, perfections and life-giving forces of which are the same as those of the former vernal seasons although the names are many and various. This is 92, last year's was 9 and so on, but in fundamental reality no difference is apparent. The sun is one but the dawning-points of the sun are numerous and changing. The ocean is one body of water but different parts of it have particular designation, Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean, Antarctic, etc. If we consider the names, there is differentiation, but the water, the ocean itself is one reality.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, p. 14)