Spirit in the sky

[ecco]

You've stated that you realize that the authors of all the words that Jesus is crediting with saying could not have had first-hand knowledge. You need to believe that somehow anything that Jesus said was said in front of people with photographic memories.

You can't accept the fact that all these stories and quotes are just the utterings of people with a religious agenda.

I certainly did not say anything like that at all!

Now I wonder if you read my posts before you respond to them.

Are you referring to this part of my comment: You've stated that you realize that the authors of all the words that Jesus is crediting with saying could not have had first-hand knowledge.

Didn't you say...
(My emphases)

Matthew seems to have been partly just using the first gospel written down, that of 'Mark', and then have additional stuff, from that group that wrote Matthew.

Which means something interesting to me -- 35 years later would imply that among the thousands that listen to Jesus, a 15 or 20 year old that heard Jesus and lived to be 50-55 or so would be alive when Mark was written down.

Of course many older witnesses would have been dying out, and it's thought that is one main reason Mark was written, to preserve their accounts.

But I never got side tracked worrying about how accurate gospel accounts were. That would not be possible to pin down with certainty.

That sure sounds like you acknowledging that the Gospels were not first-hand accounts by the authors. Why else would "Mark" have needed these "thousands"

 

[ecco]

I said quite a few significant points that are about the gospel accounts accuracy, actually, not just 2 or 3 points. If you think I said only 3 things, you didn't get all I said yet.

I sure don't understand your above comment.

 

[ecco]

You make the baseless assumption that the "2 or 3" followed Jesus around like the Gospel authors pretend to have done.

No, actually l didn't make that assumption.

The two or three you referred to that had the photographic memory to remember word for word what Jesus said or did. Do you not remember what you wrote...

But, of the tens of thousands that would have heard Jesus preach, perhaps only 2 or 3 having this ability might be enough to matter to account writers.

​

But... have you made an assumption though?
(the opposite one -- that the 'disciples' did not follow Him for 3 years?)

Where did I use the word "disciples"? We were talking about the 2 or 3 people back then who had photographic memories.

 

[ecco]

But... have you made an assumption though?
(the opposite one -- that the 'disciples' did not follow Him for 3 years?)

Where did I use the word "disciples"? We were talking about the 2 or 3 people back then who had photographic memories.

Or did you use an assumption that none of the 12 could possibly have a highly accurate memory?

When did you ever imply that some of the disciples had photographic memories? You, yourself said that photographic memory was and is quite rare. Now you are making another baseless assumption that one or more of the twelve disciples had this ability.

It's like I said earlier, you have to keep making up stories to try to justify the stories in the Gospels.

 

[halbhh]

You, yourself said that photographic memory was and is quite rare.

Would you please show me that, as I do recall saying some quite different things. I think it would be a mistake to say it's rare as if I knew a definite rate of occurrence. (making definite statements about unknowns I consider error). But did I say that? If so, show me, and I'll correct it.

What did I actually say....?

 

[halbhh]

Here, let me help. I did not say it was rare. So...you imagined that.

 

[halbhh]

Now you are making another baseless assumption that one or more of the twelve disciples had this ability.

Nope.


heh heh

ah, I see you accused me of baseless assumption....heh heh....who is it that made a baseless assumption again?

Here's a huge help, if you can accept it -- stop accusing others, and then you won't end up accusing others of what you are yourself doing....

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, to learn whether or not local crowds came to hear Jesus at that time everywhere, came to him when they heard he was around, such as the crowd in this passage that marvels at his answer, you'd have to read in the gospels.

Those people who make crowds gather by their speeches were, as it seems, quite common in Jesus' time and before him in Jewish lands. I have heard that there are such people in US even today who would preach from street corners. In India, the rabble rousing is done by minions of politicians who make speeches before and after their leader speaks. They are professionals in the trade and anyone can hire them. People who are idle at that time easily gather around these rabble rousers.

A special corner for protests and speeches at Mumbai’s Azad Maidan soon?

 

[ecco]

heh heh

ah, I see you accused me of baseless assumption....heh heh....who is it that made a baseless assumption again?

Here's a huge help, if you can accept it -- stop accusing others, and then you won't end up accusing others of what you are yourself doing....

Well, we've come full circle. Do you remember making these baseless assumptions about me four pages ago:

• I severely limit myself, my life, my experiences.
• I'm not willing to experience the new.

Do you remember also giving me male bovine feces advice back then?

No? Well, just so you can't duck and dodge again I'll post what you said.

Real question to you: Why limit yourself, your life, your experiences, so severely? I'm not suggesting a drug, though I don't try to judge that, but even just merely taking time to stare at the sky for a while or something (bath, music, running, whatever), can be helpful to people to better their conscious state. If life seems like you'd not want to continue it after 4.32 bn years or after 2.5 minutes (I'm serious here), perhaps the problem is not being willing to experience the new.

This conversation with you has gotten quite repetitively boring.

 

[halbhh]

I severely limit myself, my life, my experiences.

ah, but instead of an accusation, I asked questions.

It was really a question.

You could have replied,
"I do pretty well. thanks." for instance.
or
"That's always a good principle, to try out something new."

You certainly needn't have taken it to be bad. I was surprised by your response.

I really was sincerely asking, and to rephrase to emphasize the meaning as best I can recall where you were saying you'd not want an 'eternal' life, or that it wouldn't be so great or such, and I objected to that, and asked in essence, the real point of the question:

"Why think what we've already experienced is all that there is? Why not try out new things, find better states of being/consciousness?" (rephrase to emphasize the essence of the questions)

Is it any more clear now? If it seemed very different than this, my fault for poor writing and phrasing.

 

[halbhh]

Your actual post and my actual response. (and a possible helpful rewording at the end?):

↑
"And you could experience all of them in a tiny fraction of infinite time. Then what? Do it all over again? How many times would you repeat them before becoming bored? But given infinite time, you would become bored. If you don't believe that, it is because are unable to comprehend the concept of infinite time."

My response (perhaps too brief and too easy to take in the wrong way?):

"Some states of consciousness that we can experience even here and now, even here, are timeless -- where a sense of time passing is irrelevant and missing.

"Real question to you: Why limit yourself, your life, your experiences, so severely? I'm not suggesting a drug, though I don't try to judge that, but even just merely taking time to stare at the sky for a while or something (bath, music, running, whatever), can be helpful to people to better their conscious state. If life seems like you'd not want to continue it after 4.32 bn years or after 2.5 minutes (I'm serious here), perhaps the problem is not being willing to experience the new."
---------

Perhaps a better wording would have been:
"If an eternal life seems it would be boring, or interminable, then perhaps one is thinking there are not infinite states of consciousness, new ones, that one could experience."

 

[halbhh]

Those people who make crowds gather by their speeches were, as it seems, quite common in Jesus' time and before him in Jewish lands. I have heard that there are such people in US even today who would preach from street corners. In India, the rabble rousing is done by minions of politicians who make speeches before and after their leader speaks. They are professionals in the trade and anyone can hire them. People who are idle at that time easily gather around these rabble rousers.

A special corner for protests and speeches at Mumbai’s Azad Maidan soon?

It's interesting in contrast to see how it was in the accounts in the gospels, the contrast to this example you've thought about --

Mark 4:1 Once again, Jesus began to teach beside the sea, and such a large crowd gathered around Him that He got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people crowded along the shore.

It's very crowded, and he moves out away from the crowd in a boat.

We get this picture (here in this verse and in others) -- the people are very attracted to hear him teach. (though at one point in time, they continue following him around because they seem to be interested in the free food after he fed the thousands; at other points sometimes many are coming to be healed, and others to watch. But many just come to see him, we get, from the overall repeated instances.)

Diverse crowds, large many times. Thousands.

 

[syo]

I am going to heaven when I die

nope. we reincarnate and live again as something else.

 

[Aupmanyav]

-- the people are very attracted to hear him teach. (though at one point in time, they continue following him around because they seem to be interested in the free food after he fed the thousands; ..)

Yeah, or perhaps they had nothing better to do. Food again, that is an attraction for those who do not like to make any effort. For example, hundreds of people gather near a few temples in Delhi because people feed them in the memory of their ancestors. At a Bhairava temple, you get free booze. Flowers and liquor to please Bhairava. It is mandatory to give what is left to people waiting outside as the blessing of the deity.

 

[Jainarayan]

That reminds of a great old song, in more than one way

My initial thought exactly. It’s on my mind because I just learned to play it. Really simple.

 

[ecco]

ah, but instead of an accusation, I asked questions.

Nonsense.

"Real question to you: Why limit yourself, your life, your experiences, so severely?

You think because you put a question mark at the end of a sentence that makes something you write a serious question.

If you ask why I limit myself, it's because you assume I limit myself.

If I ask "Why did your home-schooling fail you?", it's because I assume you were poorly home-schooled.

If I ask "How young were you when your religious indoctrination began?", it's because I assume you were religiously indoctrinated as a young child.

But, you know that. Your deceptive attempt to put accusations into the form of questions is obvious to one and all.

As I said previously...

This conversation with you has gotten quite repetitively boring.

Take your last shot, I'll not bother to respond.

 

[halbhh]

Yeah, or perhaps they had nothing better to do. Food again, that is an attraction for those who do not like to make any effort. For example, hundreds of people gather near a few temples in Delhi because people feed them in the memory of their ancestors. At a Bhairava temple, you get free booze. Flowers and liquor to please Bhairava.

Food is pretty nice in a time and place, a nation at a certain time -- when the people did not have much food, perhaps not quite enough, and were not rich enough to just buy more....

heh heh. context helps, right

But, he had a message for them.

 

[halbhh]

Nonsense.



You think because you put a question mark at the end of a sentence that makes something you write a serious question.

If you ask why I limit myself, it's because you assume I limit myself.

If I ask "Why did your home-schooling fail you?", it's because I assume you were poorly home-schooled.

If I ask "How young were you when your religious indoctrination began?", it's because I assume you were religiously indoctrinated as a young child.

But, you know that. Your deceptive attempt to put accusations into the form of questions is obvious to one and all.

As I said previously...

​

Take your last shot, I'll not bother to respond.

Unless you change, you'd just continue to accuse others of what you are yourself doing, more than the others you accuse. This is a very common thing, and everyone has done it some, but it's best to notice and begin to avoid.