For me if I place Jesus and Mohamed against say Alan Turing, they couldn’t mathematically construct a plinth high enough to stand on in comparison. So such people are way down on my ladder of ascension.
Now in pagan terms worshipers of Mercury [Jesus] are higher intellectually than worshipers of Jupiter [Mohamed]. however, Jupiter is a more powerful deity, and inevitably the early Roman depictions of a curly blond haired Mercurial Jesus, gave way to the more kingly Jupiter depiction of Jesus sat upon a throne with long dark hair and a beard ~ like the earlier Roman depictions of the pagan Jupiter.
Another way to test the theory is by the followers; if talking to them is like watching a train go by, and suddenly you realize anything you say is not getting on board, the chances are their religion is idiotic or otherwise non-negotiable [unphilosophical].
So now I have insulted half the world, who would you place upon the highest plinth, or is that generally not a good idea and even an intellectual failing on their part? :-"
But a credible question nine the less. The Highest. of the High does not ‘exist’ in a ‘teal’ sense, therefore it is not arguable, except in the sense of the vernacular
That the logic leads to this incalculable conclusion is without a doubt.
I suppose some would say that Jesus didn’t himself claim to be son of god [he said son of man if I remember correctly from the bible], or to be the true king, or king of kings. He spoke about god in the third person [as his father] which you wouldn’t do if you thought you were God [in the trinity sense].
Still, he didn’t do or say anything self beguiling or what have you either.
Meno,
‘Highest of the high’ is perhaps how others want to see their spiritual leaders, putting them on a pedestal because belonging to that party and personage makes them feel all gooey and superior inside. Religion is mostly driven by idiocy. Otherwise why wouldn’t you listen to and question them all.
Yes,to an extent, but inasmuch as philosophy per logic and unstructured religion through mysticism evolve more less contemporaniously, the One and the many should resolve as a logical precedent
I thought ‘son of man’ was equivalent to being the sons of god, in that god is ‘man’, so the original Hebrew meaning was ‘to be like man’[kind]-[is supposed to be] and represents a journey of the sinner to being more human in that sense.
the sin of the world occurs where we fail to be like man and do become like the world.
Well I agree with that. bit like my ‘pebble on a beach’ thread meaning.
There is no need for anyone to be king or king of kings, or even the Buddha. We probably all have to abdicate imho.
ask yourself ‘what were the reasons I originally thought there was anything special about me’, what was making you think that, such that the world had to show you otherwise. …we are all special of course, but that’s also why we are equal.
I sometimes think the same, but my sense for justice demands/hopes that its not true and we are in fact the same. One consciousness is the same as another, just the content which is different.
If you have power can you make me rich?
Tom, are you saying that it was only a later confusion that Jesus became considered as son of god, Council of Nicaea was it?
I guess I’ll never understand these Persians with their one god. I blame the Zoroastrian’s for that and the Hittites for the biblical language and way of thinking.
Lol no I would hate being famous, rich would be nice, but not poor would do!
I agree wealth isn’t money and I suppose that’s what I truly want lord , thing is its difficult in this world to have ‘wealth’ which isn’t money, without also having money too.
Isn’t wealth something in addition to [the given]?
is the lack of a deficit wealth, I suppose its better than having a huge negative like that, but I wouldn’t call it wealth because I haven’t gained anything, I just haven’t got anything bad instead.
I’m no Biblical scholar … yet … I have seriously reflected on the above question since 2003. An experience in Salamanca Spain … my walk along the Ruta Via de la Plata … placed it on centre stage in my mind.
Today, I lean towards the view expressed in the book … CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS … ergo … it started 20 years after the crucifixion. My personal opinion is based largely on reason and logic … big picture reason and logic.
The 4 gospels in the NT are peppered with contradictions … intentional obfuscation ???
While the 4 gospels were written 50+ years after the crucifixion … they very likely contain some truth(s). Even if all personal witnesses to the events were dead … the oral tradition would have carried along a fairly strong current of truth.
The one consistency all 4 gospels contain is the absence of violence in Jesus’s ministry … save for flipping over the money changers tables … Jesus being swarmed by a small crowd … and Jesus fixing the soldier’s severed ear in the garden.
Saul of Tarsus … his conversion event on the road to Damascus … was a violent event … being struck by blindness. The violence in this event is absolutely contrary to all NT conversion events.
The horrific “religious” violence stems from this event … continuing to the present day. As a matter of fact we have a “Road to Damascus” event happening now.