Khl
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1
- Points
- 0
Latest on MJJC
New Documentary - Michael Jackson Was Your Jesus
- Thread starter Khl
- Start date
elusive moonwalker
Guests
im an atheist lol aint no body my jesus. michael was my michael!
qbee
Proud Member
I am a Christian and know who Jesus is and he isnt Michael Jackson.
Michael Jackson believed in God believed in the bible and followed Jesus teachings.
I dont think he felt he was God or Jesus either. In fact publically said he wasnt.
Also there is proof Jesus existed and walked this earth. Even Non- believing scholars
agree he was real. They Just dont agree on who he was or his purpose for being here.
Michael Jackson believed in God believed in the bible and followed Jesus teachings.
I dont think he felt he was God or Jesus either. In fact publically said he wasnt.
Also there is proof Jesus existed and walked this earth. Even Non- believing scholars
agree he was real. They Just dont agree on who he was or his purpose for being here.
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
Some may say, waaaaaay hotter, too. Although clearly This Time Around physical resurrection doesn't seem to be the stone that gets the story rolling. Given the fact that Krishna shows up in that clip almost makes me want to watch this just to see what this is actually about - the Krishna next to Jesus inclusion opens the "christed" field up a whole lot more.
So, it would make me curious what the filmmaker actually means- aside from the title baiting Christians into varies reactions.
And... wouldn't it have to be "IS", not 'was'??
(still trying to figure out a Lenten promise)
Last edited:
T.N.A.
Proud Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 709
- Points
- 0
Yeah, well that was kinda my point too. Though I did put it in a more simplified version of 'Jesus the person' might have been real but 'Jesus the son of God' and his magical powers most likely were not, by saying what I said.
Not a big fan of mythology to be honest, though this isn't the time and place to talk about that.
As far as the comparison between Michael and Jesus go, there are a couple of similarities between the two, but nothing more than that. Michael was certainly not not Jesus 2.0 and neither did Jesus live again as Michael. That thought is just... completely irrational and silly, to say the least.
Like qbee said, Michael was indeed religious so to a certain extend he was influenced by Jesus and his stories. Which is why there are a couple of similarities between the two. Nothing more though.
Autumn II
Proud Member
There are no physical artifacts whatsoever that prove Jesus' existence. A lot of people DO believe, but there is nothing that can be considered to be authentic, factual, proof. It's a FAITH question, not a "proof" question.
Michael was a PERSON whose influence was widespread, and it was GOOD.
Michael was a PERSON whose influence was widespread, and it was GOOD.
Marissa87
Proud Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Messages
- 100
- Points
- 0
Why on earth (and I say EARTH not Heaven or whatever else the afterlife is supposed to be) is this comparison being made? Michael is Michael is Michael is Michael is Michael. Period.
Michael being religious himself and would have hated the comparison to someone he worshiped.
Some people put him on this pedestal like he was perfect and could do no wrong. He's said so himself - he is just a normal person like you and I.
Wasn't Jesus the 'perfect' son of God? Michael is not perfect, he had lots of flaws. And it is those flaws and his humanity that makes us love him as much as we do, so no - he is not Jesus, Krishna, etc.
Michael being religious himself and would have hated the comparison to someone he worshiped.
Some people put him on this pedestal like he was perfect and could do no wrong. He's said so himself - he is just a normal person like you and I.
Wasn't Jesus the 'perfect' son of God? Michael is not perfect, he had lots of flaws. And it is those flaws and his humanity that makes us love him as much as we do, so no - he is not Jesus, Krishna, etc.
maral
Proud Member
in the aspect of being innocent and yet being judged there are ways compare both.. but i'd say it's a very bold thing to do
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
Actually, it's not very difficult to imagine. There are also other religious and spiritual movements for example who seek a 'christed' status, "Christ Consciousness" etc- without them being Christians in a traditional sense. They (Bob, Joe and everyone else) is being viewed as 'perfecting' themselves toward that "Christ Consciousness". One of the reasons why Jesus Christ does show up throughout other religions as well, not just in Christianity alone.
One does not have to be Christian to think about Michael's life through various viewpoints- it doesn't have to mean making a deity, either. But I don't harm myself by examining what Michael's life could be to me- in spiritual terms.
Michael can still be very much Michael and as human as everyone of us.
Not having seen the documentary, it's hard to tell where the maker is going with that.
Actually, you're bringing up something that's very debated in Christianity, as many would agree on Jesus being "truly God and truly man"- and what's debated until the cows come home is how exactly he can be just that- and what does being "truly God and truly man" really means. And especially what "human nature" means... A minefield. Pretty difficult position theologically- if he's human he's allowed to be human. If he's divine, he's divine.
The first four councils within the Church for example didn't 'streamline' that a whole lot.
The Council of Nicea (325) sought to clarify that and the Church of that time also defined pretty clearly what it considered 'heresy' about the divine and human nature of Jesus Christ.
It is also next to impossible to get one answer on that since Christians of different denominations, rites and sects can't agree on that, either. Pentecostals hold very different beliefs on the nature of Jesus' "Oneness" than say, Catholics. All consider themselves Christian, but hold vastly different beliefs.
So, 'perfection' per se wasn't even demanded of Jesus Christ if he was truly divine and human.
Big contention in Christianity.
Yes, T.N.A., very much a Dr. House reply. :rofl:
I'm just a big curious softie, you know.
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Interesting topic
Historically speaking, apart the Gospels (including the apocryphas) and much later the Qur'an, we unfortunatelly do not possess a single writing on Jesus. So, indeed we can't prove it with any neutral document.
Theologically speaking, Pace is right. There are so many debates surrounding the nature of Jesus that it all depends on each individual's or religious group's beliefs.
Now, regarding the topic itself, I am not surprised to see this question raised whether MJ was Jesus, because as a matter of fact he (Michael) did unite people through his message of love and he did say that he was an instrument of nature created by God. I remember when a journalist interviewed Michael in the early 80s and asked him about Beat It, where did he have his inspiration from. Michael answered that it was already there, written, composed, before him and all he did was collected it from "above".
Now, the real challenge is not to know whether Michael was Jesus or not, but this:
if someone comes to you and clearly says "I am Jesus", would you believe him or would you treat him nuts?
Let's not forget that every time there was a messenger, a prophet, every time the messenger, the prophet, was either rejected by his people or not recognized as such. For example, there is a man in Russia claiming to be Jesus. Those who believe him have left everything to go and live with him somewhere in Siberia if I am not mistaken, the others reject his claims.
Challenging, challenging
Historically speaking, apart the Gospels (including the apocryphas) and much later the Qur'an, we unfortunatelly do not possess a single writing on Jesus. So, indeed we can't prove it with any neutral document.
Theologically speaking, Pace is right. There are so many debates surrounding the nature of Jesus that it all depends on each individual's or religious group's beliefs.
Now, regarding the topic itself, I am not surprised to see this question raised whether MJ was Jesus, because as a matter of fact he (Michael) did unite people through his message of love and he did say that he was an instrument of nature created by God. I remember when a journalist interviewed Michael in the early 80s and asked him about Beat It, where did he have his inspiration from. Michael answered that it was already there, written, composed, before him and all he did was collected it from "above".
Now, the real challenge is not to know whether Michael was Jesus or not, but this:
if someone comes to you and clearly says "I am Jesus", would you believe him or would you treat him nuts?
Let's not forget that every time there was a messenger, a prophet, every time the messenger, the prophet, was either rejected by his people or not recognized as such. For example, there is a man in Russia claiming to be Jesus. Those who believe him have left everything to go and live with him somewhere in Siberia if I am not mistaken, the others reject his claims.
Challenging, challenging
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
Aha, interesting you included the Apocryphas since they above all are the oil in the fire in many discussions- especially what it means to be of human nature and what 'divinity' in itself is, the very definition. Quite the esoteric challenge, too.Interesting topic
Historically speaking, apart the Gospels (including the apocryphas) and much later the Qur'an, we unfortunatelly do not possess a single writing on Jesus. So, indeed we can't prove it with any neutral document.
Indeed.Challenging, challenging
Last edited:
teli-mj
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 625
- Points
- 0
Interesting topic
Historically speaking, apart the Gospels (including the apocryphas) and much later the Qur'an, we unfortunatelly do not possess a single writing on Jesus. So, indeed we can't prove it with any neutral document.
Theologically speaking, Pace is right. There are so many debates surrounding the nature of Jesus that it all depends on each individual's or religious group's beliefs.
Now, regarding the topic itself, I am not surprised to see this question raised whether MJ was Jesus, because as a matter of fact he (Michael) did unite people through his message of love and he did say that he was an instrument of nature created by God. I remember when a journalist interviewed Michael in the early 80s and asked him about Beat It, where did he have his inspiration from. Michael answered that it was already there, written, composed, before him and all he did was collected it from "above".
Now, the real challenge is not to know whether Michael was Jesus or not, but this:
if someone comes to you and clearly says "I am Jesus", would you believe him or would you treat him nuts?
Let's not forget that every time there was a messenger, a prophet, every time the messenger, the prophet, was either rejected by his people or not recognized as such. For example, there is a man in Russia claiming to be Jesus. Those who believe him have left everything to go and live with him somewhere in Siberia if I am not mistaken, the others reject his claims.
Challenging, challenging
I would treat him nuts UNLESS he did some of the miracles that Jesus supposed to have done, you know, resurrect dead people and things like that.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
For my part I did an extensive research and study on that subject, so I do have my idea about it. But I am also aware that it will remain a neverending debate among people for the simple reason that everythings is based on "common sense" of each individual, which is always seen by others as not more of a "common sense" than "pure belief".
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
What was the subject of the study, if I may ask? I did some research, but it was more of the garden variety interest, not so much 'proving' or disproving any point.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
The problem with the concept "miracle" is that there are as many miracles as people's concepts of what a miracle is. Despite "miracles" in his times, Jesus was not followed by everyone, let's not forget it. So, in my opinion the miracles are much more subtle than what the common idea of a miracle suggests.
Autumn II
Proud Member
Interesting topic
Historically speaking, apart the Gospels (including the apocryphas) and much later the Qur'an, we unfortunatelly do not possess a single writing on Jesus. So, indeed we can't prove it with any neutral document.
That is correct. And even the Gospels were not written contemporaneously with the lifetime of Jesus. And let's not forget the "lost books of the bible," when some texts were accepted and some rejected from the bible as it's known today.
Right. There is actually huge variety in how Christianity is practiced in the present, ranging from the utter austerity of the Amish, to the liberal Quakers, to the Catholic "pantheon" of saints, and pagentry, and also the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, that put emphasis on Revelation. And snake-handling sects (that really happens), and many, many more variations. And, the Unitarian/Universalists, who began as Christians, and evolved to become a dogma-free church.
Yes, but that is not limited to Michael. Many artists, writers, composers, etc. say that their work is "channeled," and that they don't really create it.
Now, the real challenge is not to know whether Michael was Jesus or not, but this:
if someone comes to you and clearly says "I am Jesus", would you believe him or would you treat him nuts?
Let's not forget that every time there was a messenger, a prophet, every time the messenger, the prophet, was either rejected by his people or not recognized as such. For example, there is a man in Russia claiming to be Jesus. Those who believe him have left everything to go and live with him somewhere in Siberia if I am not mistaken, the others reject his claims.
Challenging, challenging
Yes, that's the real challenge. There is NO ONE who can say with authority, that Michael was or was not. . . Jesus. (and no, I'm not moving to Siberia! Hopefully not?) The messages of global peace and healing are similar. The ridicule endured in their lifetimes is similar. The love of children is similar. And simply the SCOPE of the message is similar. During Jesus' time, many thought him to be a false prophet, i.e. not believable. There really is no way to come up with a definitive answer, but the topic sure makes for a good discussion?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Oh, I've been actually studying it from the early years of my childhood. I intend (if I find time) to do a PhD in either theology, philosophy or linguistics (the subjects are all linked at some point).
So basically the subjects have been:
history
philosophy (European)
comparative religions
Islam
Christianism
Judaism
Translation and encyclopedia of translation (historical translation)
Dialectology of the Indo-European languages, Indo-persian languages and general linguistics (evolution of the concepts and proto-languages)
Superficially: buddhism, hinduism, mythology
and many, many more
p.s. Here's the interview I was talking about earlier
[youtube]6mExMI0PclY[/youtube]
ooops, wrong video, but I'll find it.
Ok, I've found it, here it is:
[youtube]lao3_sB0_nY&feature=related[/youtube]
@ Autumn, indeed
Last edited:
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
Oh, I've been actually studying it from the early years of my childhood. I intend (if I find time) to do a PhD in either theology, philosophy or linguistics (the subjects are all linked at some point).
So basically the subjects have been:
history
philosophy (European)
comparative religions
Islam
Christianism
Judaism
Translation and encyclopedia of translation (historical translation)
Dialectology of the Indo-European languages, Indo-persian languages and general linguistics (evolution of the concepts and proto-languages)
Superficially: buddhism, hinduism, mythology
and many, many more
...
Oh, I was assuming you meant the Apocrypha specifically as your subject, which grabbed my attention. I had just bought a pre-ISBN book in German on the topic since translations are even more of a debate there. Just coincided with some of my Christian Gnosis exploration and Gnosis in general.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well, unfortunately no, not the apocryphas. They are regarded as doubtful because they're all written much later than the four canonical gospels. However, what cannot be proved is whether the oldest traces we possess of those apocryphas are themselves copies of earlier scriptures. Impossible to know.
One of the gnostical gospels that is worth reading is Juda's gospel. It provides food for thought.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
There is no proof that the Jesus of Nazareth existed. Most scholars today think (based on very good evidence) that the Gospels weren't written by eye witnesses but decades later. The Gospel of Mark was the first written of the four Gospels in the Bible and that was written around 70. The other three were written later. Chronologically the the first books of the New Testament are Paul's letters which were written around 65. Paul himself admitted that he never met Jesus physically (only in a vision). There are simply no contemporary eye witness records of Jesus or his alleged ministry. Nothing in Jewish or Roman records. Simply nothing. Which is odd considering that the Bible attributes huge miracles to him. Miracles like many dead people in Jerusalem being raised after Jesus was raised. But apart from the Bible (written many decades later) there is no record of such an event. Thing is there is not even evidence for the existence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus, let alone for the existence of Jesus himself.
I personally think that probably there was someone around whom the myth was built, but that person was nowhere near to the person we read about in the Bible. Doomsday cults were very popular in 1st century Palestine and "Jesus" might have been one of these cult leaders. Also the name Jesus (Yeshua) was a very common name at the time.
Last edited:
Autumn II
Proud Member
And THAT is why belief in Jesus is a matter of FAITH, but not factually provable, either way. None of the written material about Jesus was produced during his lifetime or shortly thereafter. Whether or not the writings of the Bible were divinely inspired, is yet again a question of faith, not "proofs." There are no physical/material artifacts concerning Jesus, at all. (Carbon-dating proves that the Shroud of Turin was from the Middle Ages, and not from Jesus' lifetime, for example.) But yet, we CAN speculate that there WAS such a person, given the endurance of the narratives about Jesus.
I "predict" (LOL) that this thread will go south. Most religion-based threads usually do. Unfortunately.
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Indeed. Obviously it's a very touchy subject for many people who believe in Jesus as the son of God and Christianity as the true belief system.
It's also an interesting subject to study how the Biblical canon as we know it today came about. Who decided what to include what to exclude and on what basis? Were those people inerrant? If not then how can the Bible be inerrant? In fact, most scholars today think the Bible includes forgeries, such as many letters written allegedly by the apostles. There are debates going on over many, however it's almost universally accepted among scholars that 2 Peter, for example, wasn't written by Peter. Some of the letters attributed to Paul weren't written by Paul. And so on. And of course, the very fact that different Christian denominations use different canons (for example, the Catholic is different to the Protestant) reflects on the fact that, like you said, what one considers the (inerrant) word of God is a matter of faith.
PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
I actually watched a few other videos of his and it seems pretty clear that he is not speaking of Michael as the physical re-incarnation of Yeshua, but he clearly says "They don't want you to think that being a Jesus type figure is attainable." (scholars could rip that apart, but that is somewhat a condension of what many gnostic and early Christians/Mystics also understand to be possible) and continues to explain the difference between a literal and allegorical interpretation of the bible, for example.
I find that comment spot on in a number of ways.
I had speculated earlier that perhaps the film maker refers to "Jesus" as "Christ Consciousness" and he did say some similar, he said "Jesus type".
I'm actually glad that the difference between literal and allegorical meaning is being explained- which brings up another point in Christianity. While those that identify as Christians seem to have a great denominator- Jesus Christ- not all Christians are thinking and believing the same thing.
There are a lot of denominations and sects that do in fact believe in the Bible as the literal Word of God to be taken taken literal.
Those denominations and sects stand in sharp contrasts to other Christians who believe that the bible is an allegory that requires actual work and understanding to be deciphered- the famously fascinating "He who has ears let him hear".
Not every Christian interprets the bible strictly literal- and this is were great conflict arises between those that interpret literally and those Christians who interpret differently.
Completely agree here. The text you will find in a Catholic Church is going to differ from the one in a Baptist Church or the text that Jehovah's Witnesses will use.
Different emphasis.
Hm, I actually don't think that Michael would be that offended so easily.
Michael of all people spoke a heck of a lot of wanting to emulate and imitate Jesus, so he himself opened up that comparison- not in a literal sense of being the reincarnation of Yeshua (I say Yeshua, because "Christ" is clearly a work title, if you will), but the person who says he himself want to imitate and emulate certain qualities would clearly not be insulted by the thought process, if Michael himself is even verbalizing wanting to be a man of such attributes. Nothing blasphemic in that wish, either.
So all in all I'm curious to watch this thing as it's pretty clear that the filmmaker isn't referring to Michael as the physical re-incarnation of Yeshua at all and you never know when you stumble upon something to make you pause and think.
Last edited:
HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
I'm not sure what this film is about but it could as well as be interesting. Though I think not many people will like the comparation because of religious sensitivities and at the end, I'm afraid, Michael will be bashed for it.
Talking from a secular point of view I take Jesus as a symbol now. A symbol that represents some ideals for many people. Whether those ideals have their root in reality or can even be derived from the Biblical portrayal of Jesus can be debated, but people usually attribute such ideas to the name "Jesus" as love, peace, forgiveness. Many of those attributes can be discovered in Michael. He was all about love, more than anyone I have ever known. Wanting to be loved and wanting to love. Sometimes to a fault.
We also think of Jesus as an innocent victim of false accusations and lynch mob mentality. And that's what Michael went through as well. He's still being a victim of it. Sometimes when I see how the media and many people behave with him I almost hear them chanting "crucify him, crucify him!". In fact, I think these people (many of whom consider themselves good Christians!) would have been there in the mob chanting this against Jesus as well!
Talking from a secular point of view I take Jesus as a symbol now. A symbol that represents some ideals for many people. Whether those ideals have their root in reality or can even be derived from the Biblical portrayal of Jesus can be debated, but people usually attribute such ideas to the name "Jesus" as love, peace, forgiveness. Many of those attributes can be discovered in Michael. He was all about love, more than anyone I have ever known. Wanting to be loved and wanting to love. Sometimes to a fault.
We also think of Jesus as an innocent victim of false accusations and lynch mob mentality. And that's what Michael went through as well. He's still being a victim of it. Sometimes when I see how the media and many people behave with him I almost hear them chanting "crucify him, crucify him!". In fact, I think these people (many of whom consider themselves good Christians!) would have been there in the mob chanting this against Jesus as well!
Autumn II
Proud Member
Yes, there surely are similarities. I really don't know much about the film's content, but I'm pretty sure a comparison to Jesus would NOT have been offensive to Michael, in that on various occasions he said he liked to "imitate Jesus." A very worthy ambition, IMO.
I've wondered, for those people who take the Bible as LITERAL, what-in-the-world they think about the Apocrypha? Those are the books/sections eliminated from the Bible, as it's known today. And also, what about the various VERSIONS of the Bible, depending on denomination, i.e. Catholic and Protestant? And, some versions contain SOME of the Apocrypha, in various places. And some don't, and so forth. So there, I guess the question is, in WHICH Bible do you "believe?" They really are not all the same. . . . (but, of course, theologians know this.)
Here is a list of Apocrypha, i.e. books mostly left OUT of the Bible.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/index.htm
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well, the most of the New testament was attributed to St. Paul, who as a matter of fact claimed himself to have seen Jesus in vision only. It is also his writings that distanced the customs from the Jewish ones (for example: according to Paul it was ok to eat pork meat and the circumcision wasn't necessary any more -as seen in the pagan traditions-, whereas Jesus in the Gospels never talked about that, not to mention that he was as a matter of fact circumcised).
Regarding the Gospels, we know they are not written by the apostles because the authors narrated the event in the reported speech in the third person, whereas an eye witness would narrate it in the first person.
This thread won't go south if we respect each other.
Indeed, while there is no physical or documented proof of Jesus's existence, it does not mean he didn't exist. We can just speculate what is true or what is not true about him. Also, there is still a possibility to dig up some ancient documents on which one day we may see his name mentioned. What is surprising though, is that a religious sect around Qumr'an hid the scriptures dating back to Jesus's times. Some of the copies of the Old Testament seem to match with theirs, but what is surprising is to see that nowhere in their texts they mention Jesus, although they lived in his times revolutionizing the Jewish faith and performing such miracles as resurrecting people and healing the leprous.
Indeed, the division itself indicates that everything comes down to interpretation and faith. However, the paradox is that messengers, prophets always called people to unite and not to keep on dividing.
As far as I am concerned, I from the beginning of this thread thought of an allegory. And, as I said just above, the common point with all the messengers and prophets is uniting people. Michael did it pretty well via his art.
I just wonder if someone like Michael had lived in ancient times if his songs and example of philanthropy would be considered as divine's intervention. In other words, if a modern day prophet or messenger showed up today, how would we recognize him? Through his deeds? After all, Michael did do some "miracles", he did have positive impact on some sick children. The Avrizo kid, wasn't he diagnosed with cancer and healed in Neverland?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
There are actually more apocryphas than what's on that list.