Rate messiah’s

Rate messiah’s

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? :-"

You’ve got it down Amorphos!!!

Why would a REAL messiah care about whether you believed in them or not???

It’s all about reason, logic, the emotion of reason.

A TRUE king would never sit on a throne!!

That’s absurd!

You are far along the evolutionary ladder just for writing this post …

It gives me encouragement that people like you exist

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.

Thanks Ecmandu, feelings mutual.

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

Not a lot of people know this…

Son of “man” Means son of the earth.

It means you are taught by everyone on earth as the earths son.

I’ve had this job before! It’s a hard job.

Jesus really lived!! He was a sinner (before you criticize my splinter) he knew he was a sinner!!

A guy like me has the knowledge of all humans being an abdicated son of man

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.

?

No! Being the son of man is a huge deal and a huge honor…

It means you are earths son.

It means you are taught by everyone ever born.

The Buddhists have a phrase, “it takes a whole world to make a Buddha”

Like a king would abdicate a throne, I abdicated being my destiny, the son of man, and you’re all better off for it.

It’s hard to explain with the words I have access to

you sure???

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. :slight_smile:

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.

So you understand.

A real messiah needs no glory as a messiah.

People always want people to appreciate them (glory)

A messiah is a whole different kind of thing (being)…

They have cosmic consciousness, it’s very different.

People think I’m not very powerful, or that I’m a loser…

With a single thought, I can force females to have sex with me or pull their tops off…

My former job was a son of man…

I have a shitload of power

A shitload!!!

I also have a tremendous amount of integrity…

It’s part of my spirit, that’s why everyone chose me for the son of man…

And you are correct …

The last test is abdicating

[b]

[/b]

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? :slight_smile:

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

_

Make you rich eh?

Wealth is a different concept than money.

I could if I wanted to, but I’m not the Devil.

I could make you famous too.

This world is evil, glory here is not true contentment …

If it’s wealth you want, hold on.

Money is not wealth

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 :slight_smile: , thing is its difficult in this world to have ‘wealth’ which isn’t money, without also having money too.

Bullshit!!!

You don’t have AIDS!! That’s huge wealth…!!!

Wealth is not money, and money can never ultimately but wealth

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.

[b]

[/b]

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. :slight_smile:

  1. The 4 gospels in the NT are peppered with contradictions … intentional obfuscation ???

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

You’re contradicting yourself.

You are born with wealth for the most part, it’s not necessarily something earned …

If you had AIDS, it’s very obvious to you that people who don’t have it are wealthier than you…

So it’s not only not about addition, from their perspective, which is rational, it’s about addition