SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Grainne who wrote (32108)3/7/1999 10:10:00 AM
From: Sidney Reilly  Read Replies (2) of 108807
 
Hi Christine,
An interesting post, let me see...

<<First, how can you prove this is true? I asked Bob here once, what was
Jesus' real name, for starters? Jesus simply means "savior". So what can
you tell me about whoever the young, charismatic rural rabbi was who came
to be called Jesus much later?>>

I think it's true that Jesus was named Jesus from the start. But in His language. I have read that in Hebrew it is Yeshua and the Greek for Yeshua is Jesus. I understand that Yeshua was a common name like Bob, Tom, or Bill. This would possibly be symbolic of His mission for the common man to identify with the masses as He always did. But Jesus (Yeshua) does not mean savior, Christ means savior. Yeshua Christ = Jesus Savior. This would distinguish Him from all the other Yeshua's. The Hebrew language had a way of distinguishing people in that way. Their name plus an identifier. Someone more knowledgeable could explain that aspect of the Hebrew language better. If the Gospel's started out in Hebrew then were translated to Greek then Jesus started as Yeshua and became Jesus in the Greek.

<<Secondly, my understanding is that Mary was perhaps actually
impregnated by a Roman soldier. What is immaculate about this
conception? Are you aware that the virgin birth story runs through many
ancient mythologies?>>

This story was circulated to discredit the virgin birth by the Hebrew priests because they knew it was a requirement for the appearance of the Savior from the old testament prophecies about the Savior. If you want concrete proof you will have to find a time machine, go back and follow Mary around for around 9 or 10 months. But the anti story has no more credibility than the virgin birth. Being raised Catholic (Reilly!) the virgin birth is part of my upbringing.

<<Third, on what basis do you assume that there is everlasting life? Are you
aware that, statistically speaking, the poorer and less educated people
are, the more likely they are to believe in life after death? Historically, this
has been the way that oppressive leaders keep the poor quiet, hoping for
something in the next life to ameliorate the pain and struggle of this one. >>

The question of everlasting life. What a challenge! I look at it this way. In my life I have definite proof that I am a spirit being in a physical body. This proof to me is beyond question. The physical body is what gets old and wears out, the spirit not being physical will not wear out with it. I will go on being everything I am conscious of now without my body. And I am not alone in that knowledge as so many people have come to the same conclusion, and even Tibbetan priests astro-project and have taught others to leave their bodies for short periods to travel outside as a spirit. Something I also did once but had no desire to do again, I guess I'm too attached to my body right now! LOL
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext