"Jesus" was a Jedi

Yeshua Ha' Mashiach or Yeshu Ben Yosef was a Jedi. :evil:


por que He was. i've always believed this, and i may expound otra vez más tarde.

Too many labels. It doesn't do all that good to call Jesus a Jedi, whether or not it's true.

There is more still. It is never out of security that people invoke celebrities or even deities to be representative of their side. A good cause stands on its feet with and without support from big names.
But there is also a deep running presumptuousness in claiming to know an allegedly historical figure's mind or what they would think or say on any modern issue considering the things we grew up considering. Of course if the figure is also a deity, there is no arrogance-o-meter big enough to fit that on its scale...

So the question really isn't so much "how do you know?" but rather "how can you know?", to not even start asking how anyone even dares claiming gods to their cause. Now, since nowadays baseless assumptions constitute knowledge to be shared whereas reason and evidence are mere commodities to be purchased for precious green, I shall pose neither of those questions and instead propose that the claim, ontop of being presumptuous, baseless and betraying a slight insecurity, in combination with its boldness is also... let's say somewhat worthy of the following ridiculing comparison: Behold Wild Bill claiming the mind of Martin Luther King Jr. just the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IC1U5GkC5Y

Depending on how loosely interchangeable to you the term "Jedi" might be with "Monomythical Hero" as depicted and explained by Joseph Campbell, yes, one could say Jesus was a Jedi.

Otherwise, "Jedi" could be seen as just a branch off term for the "Hero", where which Jesus may not so accurately coincide.

The main stem of depictions of the Hero considers both "good guys" and "bad guys" alike, and does not choose sides, since to the villain, they are in their own minds the hero and the other, the villain within their terms and perception.

As long as one is depicting the character of Jesus in literal and thus divisive terms, disagreement and misunderstanding abound. Is this a perpetually circular dance you're willing to have?

Yes, Pro. If we replaced Jedi with Monomythical Hero, I would say Jesus was definitely that.

"presumptuous" psychotic presumptor. pink cast iron kettles. butt hurttia is a song played on the chords of so many inflamed fundaments.

guitar hero jesus/jesus - guitar hero

:evil:

ghost dog wrote: "presumptuous" psychotic presumptor. pink cast iron kettles. butt hurttia is a song played on the chords of so many inflamed fundaments.

guitar hero jesus/jesus - guitar hero

:evil:

Wait... what? :huh: Jedi Jesus plays video games? I'm so lost...

And why is "Jesus" in quotes in the title?

Ghost likes to speak with a dimensional understanding quite alien to our own. lol. Sometimes, you just have to accept what it is and go with it! :lol:

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/from-sock-puppets-to-astroturfing/]

Connor L. wrote: Too many labels. It doesn't do all that good to call Jesus a Jedi, whether or not it's true.

Well, then, it shouldn't be all that bad to say it either, and, if so, why is it so bad to do so?

Bad choice of words. I meant 'helpful'.

And yes, while it wouldn't be unhelpful, one could have standards for where one places his/her energy.

Would you say that Jesus is a below standard "Monomythical Hero"?

I don't know Jesus.

But, his story as I understand it paints him very interestingly. He's got some good ideas.

There is a difference, for me, between Monomythical hero and Jedi. He is a great example of the former, and not an example of the latter.

I dunno... being myself, what many who call themselves "Christian" might call a "heathen", I like being able to look at things without giving a flaming rat's butt about anyone trying to convince me I'm going to "Hell" for not sticking to present orthodoxy - therefore...

Let's all, everyone reading this, assume just for this point, that there is no question that Jesus existed - just to get that temporarily aside for point-making's sake...

If we look at the book, the bible, and if we do away with the post-scriptedly *introduced* idea of trinity, and see that there is nothing that says that Jesus was a deity, but a *mortal man*, who, upon his baptism and apparent heavenly approval, the "heavens were opened up to him" - that is, knowledge, abilities, all that were lost and stripped from Mankind in the garden, were returned to him, then we can see what kind of man he was - and in turn, through his interactions with his circle of close friends, *we all* are - or have potential to be.

He was able to conduct "miracles" - some things that science can today display, others that science may soon do as well... most, if not all, alchemists and other ancient-tech-savvy schools of thought can explain as well.

Explainable? "Blasphemy!", some may say...

But assuming what is written as canon, he DID these things, *as a mortal man*, along the laws of physics in the universe.

It has been said that, "Magic does not defy the laws of physics of the universe... it conforms to the laws, many of which science as a whole has yet to fully understand".

Turning water into wine - transmutation...

The time when he walked on water is among the most important from a Jedi viewpoint - Peter saw him walking about upon the waves, and bade him to come back - Jesus was all like, "Uhm, no way, man - why don't you come over here, dude?" and Pete was all like, "Ha! Yeah, right - look... if you really think I can, then tell me to come to you, and because of my faith in you, I will" - then Jesus was like, "Well alright, come on then... come on over here, man" - so Pete put his foot over the edge of the boat and stood on the water... and his next foot... and he took a few more steps...

...he got nearly all the way to Jesus, and he was totally gobsmacked at what he was accomplishing - then he got too analytical and within his mind he scoldingly told himself that what he was doing was impossible - and so he started to sink, and just then, Jesus took his hand and pulled him up, and was like, "Dude, you HAD it... then you lost faith - that's why you sank."

Jesus *proved* that he was a *man* capable of what we ALL are capable of - and through Peter, he *proved* that we all are capable of it! We need not be a deity - we only need what can be found within ourselves which was already place there by deity - we are Jedi already, we merely need to recognize it. Jesus proved that ALL MANKIND have the ability to perform all that he performed, because he also did so *as a mortal man*.

This walking on water - it has been mirrored in the Jedi parable of the X-Wing and the Dagobah swamp. Yoda (Teacher) told Luke it can be done, if he had faith - the size of the ship (the fact that Peter was a mere man) didn't matter. Luke tried to use the Force and started to lift the ship out of the swamp (Peter stepped out of the boat and onto the water), and though he was actually doing it, he internally reprimanded himself that this is idiotic and impossible (Peter looses his faith), and so the ship sunk back in (Peter sinks into the water) - Yoda (Teacher) stretched out his own hand and lifted the ship out and rested it onto the shore (Jesus took Peter's hand and pulled him up)... Luke said, "I don't believe it!" (Peter struggles with his faith even as Jesus pulled him up), and Yoda said, "THAT is why you fail" ("You had it, but then you lost your faith)...

The historical figure called "Jesus" was actually called something like Yeshua Ben Yosef, Yeshua Ben Joseph, or Yeshua HaMaShiach.

The closest Angle translation would be Joshua.

I am still shocked at the hatred that is absolutely apparent by simply typing in the text Jesus, for christ's sake, those characters where even between "---" quotations.

The anal inflammation that registered on the fundamental inflamotor was such a strong reading that it broke the dang needle off it's swivel. Therefore, we must conclude that Jesus actually did exist in a parallel dimension and was actually "called" Jesus after all.



:evil:

I totally forgot about this name YoHoshua.





:evil:

Jesus is a name, Christ is a title. Was there a man we know now as Jesus who existed? Almost certainly, the idea that a religious cult would come about without a leader of some kind seems highly unlikely. Did this man we know as Jesus but who is given the title of Christ do all of the miracles it is claimed that he performed? Well that one can argue is a matter of faith, but from a critical standpoint many claims are certainly false.

The problem with creating arbitrary boundaries for what particular words mean is that the boundaries are arbitrary. If you asked Jesus if he was a Jedi he would say "No, I am a Jew". If however you said that a Jedi was just a "monomythical hero" and explained that all humans are "monomythical heroes", and Jesus is a human, then obviously he is a Jedi.

The problem here is that you are talking about things in two different fashions, as the Buddhist differentiate, the "ultimate" level of things and the "conventional" level of things. The ultimate level is how things are on a much more hollistic meta- level of being while the conventional level is that which is just common everyday usage.

A productive conversation should make such distinctions or it will invite confusion.

Jesus is a transliteration of a substitution of a name, unless you are talking about a Hispanic name, so as not to cause any confusion.

A more helpful discussion would be what did the title of Christ mean.

Originally this thread was intended to be a lighthearted shoot the scat about Jesus being a Jedi, and it unintentionally caused a 9.6 magnitude earthquake in the fundamental region of numerous folks' comfort zones so........................


I'm content to just leave it at that.

On the other hand if you have any foreknowledge of what the "christ" actually was in ancient Hebrew then that might be fun, but if you are just going to look up some stuff and regurgitate a bunch of nonsensical mainstream swine scat you have no desire to understand or present understanding of then why bother? this is an actual earnest question btw.

And there wouldn't be tremors rattling the so called temple if there was any care for finding or possession of any understanding of that, but I'd love to be proven wrong.