Cowboy, you DO NOT speak for Jesus, God, or the official religions of Christianity.

You're more than welcome to climb down off that silly giraffe anytime you're ready.

In fact, the Catholics, and the many different denominations of Protestantism, don't even agree with each others interpretations of scriptures.

So where do YOU get off thinking that you speak for God?

You're just an example of how these kinds of jealous God religions can have a negative impact on some people causing them to delude themselves into believing that only they hold the correct interpretations of "the gospels".



You're a shining example of just how these religions can so easily go awry.

Now that we are under the new covenant, we are not under the penalty of the law. We are now given the opportunity to receive salvation as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9). Through the life-giving Holy Spirit who lives in all believers (Romans 8:9-11), we can now share in the inheritance of Christ and enjoy a permanent, unbroken relationship with God. Hebrews 9:15 declares, “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first
covenant.”

I agree with you MorningSong that this is indeed the claims that are being made by the authors of the New Testament.

My question at this point is not one of "What is the religion trying to say?". Clearly I can already see what they are attempting to claim. I am not confused about what the story is attempting to claim. I understand perfectly.

So now comes a far more important question,...

Do I believe that these claims actually came from an all-wise God? Or does it make far more sense to me that these claims were made-up by men in an effort to create a religion that claims to have the ultimate authority of God?

Well, after many years of considering these things I've concluded that it makes far more sense to me that this religion is the devious scam of men, and cannot possibly represent the actual ideas, thoughts, or plans of any supposedly all-wise God.

So for me, the problem does not reside in understanding the religion. I understand it perfectly. I simply don't believe that any all-wise supreme being would create such a "foolish" situation.

And yes, I do believe that this situation is indeed utterly foolish. That's precisely why I reject the idea that it came from any supposedly all-wise God.

The whole thing flies in the very face of what this God is supposed to be like.

First off this God is supposed to be unchanging and therefore dependable. Yet this religion requires that God has changed his covenant with mankind. So that's already a major contradiction of what this God is supposed to be like.

The argument the apologists give is that this was always God's plan, and therefore does not constitute a 'change' in God's character. I disagree with that line of thinking. That's just a truly feeble excuse to try to support an unsupportable religion, IMHO.

I disagree with the behavior that has been attributed to this God the Old Testament stories. A God who "punishes" women with painful and sorrowful childbirth as a form of "punishment".

That is not wise, IMHO, and therefore cannot have been the action of an all-wise God, IMHO. Moreover, that "punishment" would have served no good purpose. Not only would it have been futile, but even according to these stories themselves it didn't serve to "teach" woman any lessons.

Punishment via physical pain is simply a "stupid" form of dealing with problems, IMHO. Therefore in order for me to believe that God would punish women with painful childbirth requires that I also believe that God is utterly stupid.

I also disagree with the idea of an all-wise all-powerful God having mere mortal humans judge each other and stone each other to death for their sins. Why bother? If God is omniscient and all-powerful he could deal with sinners far more easily than having mere mortal humans judging each other. Only God would know what's in the hearts of men. Other mortal men cannot know. So it would be far more WISE for an all-powerful omniscient God to simply deal with sinners himself. He could just give them a heart attack, or stroke, or just wave them out of existence with his magic wand.

It's totally absurd, IMHO, to think that a God would have "fallen humans" judging each other and stoning each other for being "sinners" when according to this story all humans are sinners anyway!



With all due respect to anyone who supports these stories, surely they can see the WISDOM in rejecting them as being utterly absurd and filled with impossible problems and contradictions.

Anyone who questions these stories as I do should be totally respected for rejecting these stories on the grounds that I reject them. I have extremely sound and sane reasons for rejecting these stories.

The entire old testament is filled with absurdities that I feel could have never been the choice of any truly all-wise supreme being. The choices and actions that have been attributed to the Old Testament God simply aren't wise, IMHO, and therefore cannot possibly be the choices and behavior of any all-wise God.

Even modern day Christians do not like the teachings of the Old Testament. We're basically talking about behaviors that are more akin to the practice of people like the Taliban, and the Christians would be the first people to renounce the moral values of the Taliban. Yet the behavior of the old testament Israelites was very much along the lines of what the Taliban believe.

Women were treated as property to be under the rule of the men (which was also part of God's Punishment to women if you read carefully). So that line of thinking actually comes from these Abrahamic tales. This was God's decree!

I also don't personally agree with God's treatment of the Canaanites. And I especially don't see where it would have been wise for him to have his chosen people mass murder the Canaanites when he's trying to teach them "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

To me that would be truly stupid for a creator to become involved in such utterly mixed messages.

It makes far more sense to me to just dismiss these tales as the superstitious writings of men, no different from the myths of Zeus, Thor, Odin, Athena, Apollo, or any other man-made image of a God. These Hebrews weren't any different from anyone else. They just made up their own superstitious tales that weren't any more wise nor more intelligent than any of the other tales.

So the entire Old Testament holds no value to me as having come from any supposedly "all-wise" God. It simply doesn't contain wise tales.

So then we come to Jesus and the New Testament. Well, to accept that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the God of the Old Testament would require that I actually believe in the God of the Old Testament. But I see no wisdom there to believe in.

Also, if you read these stories closely you'll clearly see that God promised to hand the throne of David over to the "messiah" (or "The Christ")

But clearly that never happened with Jesus. Jesus was never officially handed the throne of David. The Jews pointed this out way back in the days when these New Testament rumors were being started, and they rejected the New Testament rumors point blank for good reason, Jesus could not have been the promised "messiah" because he did not fulfill the prophecy of becoming the King of the Jews. So there's no question about it. It's a done deal right there.

I agree with the Jews completely on that account.

However, I go a step further and dismiss the original stories of the God of Abraham as well as being nothing more than Zeus-like myths, that are indeed very unwise in many places.

~~~~

So then the question arises, "Well what about Jesus? Did he truly exist? If so what did he actually teach? And how did he become the central figure of the New Testament as "The Christ"?

Well, I have practical answers for all those questions.

Jesus probably did exist (or at least some guy existed that gave rise to these rumors that he was "The Christ")

Based on my knowledge of both the New Testament and Mahayana Buddhism, I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist. Everything Jesus is said to have taught in terms of moral values fits in far better with the values of Buddhism than it does with anything that had been taught in the Torah (or Old Testament).

Jesus taught, "I and the Father are one". That's Buddhism.

When confronted on charges of blaspheme for having said this Jesus responded, "Is it not written in your law?, I have said, ye are Gods"

Again this shows a deep-seated believe in a pantheistic nature of spiritually. Jesus was actually saying, "We" and the Father are all ONE. That's the Buddhist view.

So he wasn't attempting to claim to be the "only begotten son" of any external jealous Godhead.

Jesus also renounced many of the teachings of the Torah. He renounced the seeking of revenge that had been taught as "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and instead replaced that with the Buddhist notion of non-involvement. Turn the other cheek, forgive and forget. Don't dwell on revenge, it serves no one any good.

Jesus renounced the stoning to death of sinners by cleverly proclaiming that only he who is without sin should cast the first stone. He also renounced the judging of other people, and instead replaced that with the Buddhist notion of non-involvement. Judge not lest you be judged. This is a principle of karma.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Put out the karma that you wish to receive in return.

Jesus was clearly teaching the spiritual wisdom of the Mahayana Buddhists, and NOT the nasty ignorance that had previously been taught in the Torah.

The reason people are so attracted to Jesus is not because he supposedly died to pay for their sins, but because he taught true wisdom and love! He taught the spiritual values of Mahayana Buddhism, and not the utterly stupid ignorance of the Torah.

~~~~~

It's crystal clear to me that Jesus could not have been the "son", nor the actual incarnation of the "God" of the Old Testament. Jesus had a totally different character that was the complete opposite of what had been described in the Torah or Old Testament.

~~~~~

So it makes far more sense to me to recognize Jesus as a mortal (albeit highly spiritual) man. If Jesus was in touch with any God, it wasn't the God of the Torah, but rather the God of the Buddhists. The eternal spirit of the Universe itself.

~~~~~~

So what about all these outrageous claims that have been made in the New Testament? And what about some of the things that Jesus supposedly said that appear to potentially support this idea that he was "The Christ"?

Well, first off, we need to realize that once we recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of God, then there is no reason to trust the words of the New Testament to be accurate or verbatim.

Jesus was not even alive when the New Testament was written and he did not contribute a single solitary word to it himself. There is really no reason why we should trust the authors of the New Testament to have quoted Jesus perfectly correctly. They could have, and probably did, twist his words to suit their own agenda to make out like Jesus was "The Christ".

That was clearly their agenda. They start by proclaiming that Jesus was "born of a virgin" who was purposefully impregnated by a God.

They go on to ignore the important things that Jesus did NOT fulfill in prophesy, (like being handed the throne of King David), and instead proclaim that a whole lot of little unverifiable things had been fulfilled. Things that they could have easily just written into the story for the sake of "fulfilling" these prophecies. After all, they had the old prophecies right there in front of them, it would be extremely easy for them to write into their stories things which seem to fulfill those prophesies. And they clearly had the agenda to do just that.

~~~~~

It's far easier for me to believe that the New Testament was the work of men who had an agenda to make out like Jesus was "The Christ", than it is for me to actually believe in the whole biblical story.

The very idea than an all-wise super intelligent God would send his son into a crowd to CHANGE his previous laws, when that very God had commanded people to KILL anyone who disagrees with God's Word, would be utterly stupid.

Even if Jesus was crucified for blasphemer that blood would be on God's hands in these stories because God is the very person who instructed people to MURDER HEATHENS. Anyone who was in that mob and being incited by the pharisees to support the crucifixion of Jesus for blaspheme would have only been going along with their very own religious leaders who were supposedly carrying out the very directives and commandments of the God of Abraham anyway.

~~~~~~

The story as held out by the New Testament makes no sense, and cannot be made to work, IMHO.

It would be a story of a God who shoots himself in his own foot.

There would be nothing all-wise or intelligent about it. Not to mention that this God would need to be appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place, which IMHO, is already an "ungodly" trait that belongs solely to the fictions man-made versions of gods.

No genuinely all-wise supreme being would be that crude and ignorant in the first place.

That my reason for rejecting this stories as being the actions and 'Word' of any God.

They simply aren't wise enough. And the idea that Jesus was a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist resolves all issues, and brings the entire historical event into a sound practical perspective.

~~~~~~~~~~

So this is a very valid and respectable view of the story of Jesus, and should not be taken as an "attack" against Christianity. It's just one human's view of how these rumors came to be.

People need to start to realize that a "disbelief" in Christianity is just as respectable as a "belief" in the religion.

It's not a "rejection of God" or any other such nonsense. It's just a sound legitimate conclusion that has been arrived at by some of humanities brightest minds; Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and so on and so forth.

It's absurd to think that all those men were "rejecting God". What they were rejecting is a collection of stories that they feel are far too ignorant and unwise to have ever come from any God.

They are calling the Hebrew tales on the carpet right along with the Greek tales of Zeus. That's all.

Jesus also renounced many of the teachings of the Torah. He renounced the seeking of revenge that had been taught as "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" and instead replaced that with the Buddhist notion of non-involvement. Turn the other cheek, forgive and forget. Don't dwell on revenge, it serves no one any good.

Jesus renounced the stoning to death of sinners by cleverly proclaiming that only he who is without sin should cast the first stone. He also renounced the judging of other people, and instead replaced that with the Buddhist notion of non-involvement. Judge not lest you be judged. This is a principle of karma.

Cowboy wrote:

He renounced all the laws of the Torah, cause that covenant was being completed and he was giving and setting forth a new covenant. Jesus is the judge in the new covenant, thus we no longer are in need of stoning sinners for that which they did, Jesus will do the judging. The new covenant gives one day when judgement is going to be made, so again no need for a judgement by the peers of when the crime is committed.

I reject that claim because, IMHO, it can't be made to work.

The curse of painful childbirth was part of the Old Covenant, and if the Old Covenant was being replaced by a new covenant, then this too would need to change.

Christians are also quite hypocritical about this in far too many ways. For example the idea that God hates homosexuality come from the old covenant, and NOT from the teachings of Jesus. Yet this religion uses Jesus as an excuse to support the ignorance and bigotries of the old Testament.

Besides, this would be a portrait of a God who changes drastically, from having mortal men judge each other and condemn each other to death, to putting an entirely different system in place.

It's wrought with contradictions and absurdities, IMHO.

The explanation that Jesus was actually a mortal man who rejected the teachings of the Torah and replaced them with the wisdom of Buddhism makes far more sense and contains no inconsistencies or problems.

In other words, to accept your version of things I would need to believe in a truly confused God who changes his ways and basically loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. He also solves all of his problems using violent gory methods not the LEASE of which would be having his son crucified to appease his need for brutal punishments to "atone" for disobedience, etc.

The whole things is founded on a God who solves his problems using low-mentality ideas of physical punishments, etc.

Accepting my conclusions about Jesus requires none of that.

In my scenario Jesus was just a mortal man who spoke out against the horrible ways of the Taliban and tried to teach them better moral values. He was crucified by this mob, and then made into an idol image to actually support the very things that he himself had rejected.

Jesus was a VICTIM of this religion. Not a demigod who came to change a covenant from a God who is appeased by blood sacrifices, including the sacrifice of his very own son. That makes no sense right there.

Jesus basically spoke out against this horrid religion and was crucified for his efforts.

In other words, to accept your version of things I would need to believe in a truly confused God who changes his ways and basically loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. He also solves all of his problems using violent gory methods not the LEASE of which would be having his son crucified to appease his need for brutal punishments to "atone" for disobedience, etc.

And how else was he suppose to punish us? Spank us? Put us in time out?

God looses nothing, it is the disobedient people whom are at the loss.

God didn't have his son crucified, our sins and disobedience got him there.

This is one reason why i am against religion. Even if God, Christianity and Jesus could be proved to me beyond any doubt, i would not want to be a part of it. I'll choose to burn in hell with the Jews and all the other good people there.

Cowboy wrote:

And how else was he suppose to punish us? Spank us? Put us in time out?

An all-wise God wouldn't need to "punish" anyone at all. The very mentality that punishment has any positive value is an ignorant idea to begin with.

The only reason that humans resort to such ignorant methods is precisely because they aren't all-wise nor omniscient.

In fact, there are actually quite a few mortal humans who have already recognized the utter stupidity of using crude and harmful punishments as a means of trying to teach anyone anything. There are far more intelligent methods for teaching people positive things.

So the very notion of a God who thinks that punishment is an intelligent method of dealing with anything is already a flawed idea, IMHO. Such a God would be far from "all-wise" and that flies in the very face of what this God is supposed to be.

Therefore these fables are necessarily false.

It's really quite simple.

~~~~~~

..............Jesus did NOT come to REJECT the Law, but to FULFILL the Law!!!!..............






In what way did Jesus FULFILL the law?

A.

How?


Jesus was a Jew born under the Old Covenant, under the law. If He was to fulfill the law, He had to keep it perfectly, which He did. But when He died, the law was fulfilled. The Old Covenant and its law then ended. We fulfill a contract by completing what we are obliged to do under the contract. Once we do this, we have fulfilled the contract, and it is ended.


Suppose I am an artist, and I am engaged to paint a mural in the city hall. A contract is drawn up detailing the obligations of all parties involved. Once I have completed the painting and fulfilled my obligations to the city, and they have fulfilled their obligations to me, the contract is fulfilled and ended. It no longer has a legal hold over me or the city. It is fulfilled. But suppose, before I fulfill my obligation in the contract, the state government steps in, reviews the contract, and says there is something about it that is contrary to state law. They then use their authority, or the authority of the court, to end the contract, to declare it void, to abolish or destroy the contract before it is fulfilled.



Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:17-18 that He had NOT come with the authority of God to DESTROY the law before it was fulfilled, but that He was going to FULFILL the law right down to every jot and tittle. Once He did that, the law would END because all obligations in the contract would have been FULFILLED!!!


The law changed when the Old Covenant law was FULFILLED by Christ and REPLACED by New Covenant law, the law of Christ. This is what William Gadsby called, "the gospel of His grace, which is the law from Zion, called the law of faith, the law of liberty, and the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.”


With the Old Covenant law NOW FULFILLED, for anyone to come along and say that we MUST still keep it is Judaizing or LEGALSIM!!!

Whatever reason anyone may give for saying this does not matter ,because there is now no valid reason for teaching that we must keep the Old Testament law.

Judaizing is often condemned in the Bible, and in Galatians it is called "another gospel: which is not another" (Galatians 1:6-7; see also Galatians 2:16-21; 3:1-14; 5:1-4; and Acts 15:1-5, 24). It is not really another gospel because "gospel" is not a proper word to describe it. "Gospel" means "good news," but this other message that legalists promote is bad news. This OTHER MESSAGE FROM LEGALISTS says that we are still under the law, and, therefore, Jesus did not fulfill it as He said He would. It implies that when Jesus said, “It is finished,” He lied.

It says, therefore, that Jesus did not do in the flesh everything that He was supposed to do. Thus, those who promote it fall into the category of antichrists and deceivers according to 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 1:7. Paul said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).



Fulfilled in Two Ways

Make no mistake about it. Jesus did not come to destroy the law before He had fulfilled it. But He DID FULFILL AND END IT!!!

He fulfilled the law in two ways. First, He lived under the law perfectly. He obeyed every bit of the law. And His perfect righteousness is imputed to us.

Secondly, He paid our legal, penal obligations by DYING in our stead. Because of our transgressions, because we have all sinned, our obligation was to die and spend eternity in hell. Jesus fulfilled that obligation for us by what He went through on the Cross.

AGAIN....Jesus did NOT destroy the law, but by FULFILLING the law, He removed us from being under legal obligations.



And what commandments did Jesus mean when He said, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”? (Matthew 5:19).

Most assume that he meant the Ten Commandments. But He never says this. To properly understand, we must look to the context. And the context shows us that Jesus must be referring to the commandments He is about to give, the commandments of the NEW COVENANT—commandments that, by the way, are continued through the rest of the New Covenant and are summed in one word, LOVE.
And LOVE is something that ONLY GOD works in us.


It is often said that in Matthew 5, Jesus amplified many Old Covenant laws and thus magnified or “filled to the full” the Old Covenant law. But the Old Covenant had no provision for such change. Although Jesus may have used what the people knew of the Old Covenant law as a springboard in His teaching, when He said, “But I say unto you,” Jesus was giving His New Covenant law that entirely replaced the Old Covenant.


And how can our righteousness exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20)?

There is only ONE WAY. Jesus Christ was perfect. He embodied perfect righteousness. This is the way that He “magnified the law” (Isaiah 42:21).

Not by amplifying the outdated and completed Old Covenant law, but by being righteousness personified. And His perfect righteousness is imputed to us if we BELIEVE on Him alone as our Savior. That is the only way to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

We know that in this life we do not perfectly keep Jesus’ commandments because our carnality does not allow us to perfectly and consistently love. But JESUS CHRIST IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, and, that being so, it is impossible for us to be condemned.

As John says, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin( sin willingly that is, without grievng the Holy Spirit...but if one does slip into sin, he will cry out to God to get right again,simply because he IS NOW born of God, and CANNOT continue in sin) , because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9).

There is NO CONDEMNATION to them which are IN CHRIST JESUS, as Romans 8:1 says. We always remain perfectly righteous when we are ROBED with the IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF JESUS CHRIST who FULFILLED THE LAW PERFECTLY FOR US!!!
(But God WILL chastise , however).


There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Romans 8:1-4



Copyright © 2009 Peter Ditzel. Permissions Statement.

But remember now, Jesus did NOT RENOUNCE the

Law , in order to give us a new covenant...




Jesus FULFILLED the Law and then gave us a new covenant....

ok I studied up on it a bit and it seems the new covenant started with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. My apologies, didn't mean to cause any form of confusion. Was learning myself. And had questions and previous thoughts on the matter. Again, I apologize for any form of confusion.