Christianity

[scameter]

This topic is specifically for the theological, undogmatic discussion of Christianity beyon the dogma published by the churches. I have come to conclude, far beyond my conclusions beyond this most recent conclusion, that Christianity is my spirituality, my theological philosophy. This is because through logic and discussion, I have come to see that Christianity is a very all-encompassing philosophy of life and of humanity beyond the simple dogma published by the churches. The historical and scientific views of the Bible I believe are merely interpretations and speculations by those of the time who knew very little about actual, factual history and science, and thus their printed views should be updated. I do believe, however, that God could very well have created what we consider the Big Bang, being that scientists consider it to have come from nothing, as in the Bible, and that it is a singularity, defying all laws of mathematics and science during that time. This seems extremely fitting to the views of the Bible, even if the rest of their scientific and historical speculations are merely that, speculations. I think the Old Testament is simply a culmination of ancient Jewish stories and tales comprised together into a legendarium, a mythology of sorts describing both the views of the Jews of the time and truths about humanity. The New Testament, on the other hand, is the main source of Christianity. Jesus's teachings go way over whatever can be said of his history. Whether he died on the cross, was married or not, had kids or not; that doesn't matter at all. His teachings are what matter. That serves as the entire backbone of true Christianity. I believe that there are indeed three essences, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God. But, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the name for the soul and comprises every human's soul cumulatively; I believe Jesus is indeed the son of God, but that he embodies compassion. And I believe that what is called God constitutes as our emotions and our knowledge; God, being emotions and knowledge, can be greedy, jealous, angry, spiteful, revengeful, but is also omniscient, omnipotent, and timeless. But, I also believe that these three essences comprise God, that God is not only what is usually called God but with his son and the Holy Spirit simply being attachments. I think all three essences comprise God, and that there could very well be other essences too, such as the forces of nature. I think that God as a whole, all three essences and any others that may exist, comprise one thing: love. Even the jealous, angry entity usually called God comprises love, with his companion brothers and his son. I think that the mythology of J.R.R. Tolkien's celestial heirarchy very much so is possible, but from a more symbolic standpoint; that when he says the Valar(gods) of his world are aspects of Illuvatar(God)'s mind, that he is being literal. And that the creations of Illuvatar, his Children, humans, are indeed made in the likenss of God, with the aspects of God's mind being aspects of our mind as well, and that we have free will, just as he does. But, that God comprises one thing we do not: life as a whole. That is why his "design" is unavoidable: because he is life, like the Tao, and just as Jesus calls himself the Way, I believe he means it in terms of how the Tao does, that it is all-encompassing, and it's "designs" and "plans" cannot be avoided; they are inevitable. I hope that this post serves as an adequete starting point to the discussion of Christianity. :)

[locomotive]

ow you wanted to portrait jezus as someone like buddha?

[scameter]

i would rather discuss jesus than christianity...i was going to start a thread about jesus but the timing was not right...once you turn jesus into christianity you have already missed the point...

With the religion of the churches perhaps, but Christianity should not be a dogmatic religion, but rather a philosophy and a spirituality.

ow you wanted to portrait jezus as someone like buddha?

Jesus was a buddha.

[scameter]

Indeed.

[scameter]

Hey Thomas, perhas my calling this thread Christianity was taken to mean only the religion, even though I denied this, saying that this thread is for the discussion of Jesus, what he said, and the theological and philosophical implications therein. But, could you change my subtitle to say "NOT THE RELIGION"?

[scameter]

Although Christianity would cover more than just Jesus, ok. :)

[scameter]

The religion began with Jesus, but Christianity to me is the study of Jesus's teachings, as well as science, theology, and philosophy, in a theological philosophical manner with comparative mythology involved as well.

[Eege]

Evening friends....

I am curious about all this. For almost all of my life I have cringed at the mere mention of Christianity, and still have an issue with it. As I have ventured to answer the questions as to why, I have run across the desire to actually see laid before me the actual philosophy of Jesus, Christ consciousness, and the teachings that he conveyed in an unadulterated way. In fact, I would be hesitant to read something presented by anyone claiming to be a Christian OR a critic, for the bias will taint the message.

Can you assist me in finding a source?

Much thanks.

[Smurf]

hmm Christianity...

to me it resembles a path not to fully go down, if you do you risk losing your sense of open-mindedness, your free-thought and independent decision making...

do you actually need a religion? I find it pathetic that we absolutely must ascribe to a religion so as to make it easier for ourselves in stereotyping each other - another symbol of small minds..

advice to you Scam take it or leave it: Don't fully emerse yourself into christianity, leave room for improvement

[MidnightSun]

Hmm what about bible? :D

[TruthSeeker]

I seen a book once that said that Jesus went to India (probably to study). My mom read it... :D

Anyways... who knows... :huh:

[scameter]

Can you assist me in finding a source?

:) The ultimate source is the Bible. "The kingdom of heaven is within you," as Jesus said. It is up to the individual to explore the Bible, and think on it him/herself. I am not a church Christian, nor am I a critic, so I hope my advise is satisfactory. You are of course welcome to discuss what you find within the Bible and yourself here. :)

to me it resembles a path not to fully go down, if you do you risk losing your sense of open-mindedness, your free-thought and independent decision making...

That's the church talking, not the Bible.

do you actually need a religion? I find it pathetic that we absolutely must ascribe to a religion so as to make it easier for ourselves in stereotyping each other - another symbol of small minds..

I agree, which is why Jesus himself called those of the Jewish church to be all hypocrites, and called himself the Way, quite synonymous to the Tao.

advice to you Scam take it or leave it: Don't fully emerse yourself into christianity, leave room for improvement

Improvement? Even Taoism says there can be no imporvement, only clearer and fuller site of one's true self, and the nature of existence. :)

[Smurf]

Improvement? Even Taoism says there can be no imporvement, only clearer and fuller site of one's true self, and the nature of existence.

Then Taoism is flawed aswell... Nothing is perfect, there is one path, the path to oblivion... and many things happen on that path, meetings and partings; much joy and sorrow...




But don't mind me, I'm only a senseless rambler :D

[CSwriter1]

Scameter, I suspected you were Christian, because things started adding up. You hate your sexuality. You hold a very low opinion of humans. That is Christian alright. I consider this very unfortunate. I am sorry this religion has defined life for you, and I sersiously regret what it has done to our whole culture and the safety of life on earth.

About Jesus visiting India, there is a book about this, and those who study history have given evidence that he could not have learned what he is suppose to have learned in India. However, Rome was a melting pot of all spiritual ideas, and I do believe studying Buddaism better helps understand the teachings of Jesus. And so does studying Persian mysticism, the popular mystic beliefs in the day of Jesus, help us understand Christianity.

[scameter]

Then Taoism is flawed aswell... Nothing is perfect, there is one path, the path to oblivion... and many things happen on that path, meetings and partings; much joy and sorrow...

Or perhaps our perceptions are clouded and flawed. Perfection if a point of view; oblivion is a point of view; meetings and partings are points of view. Taoism and Jesus tell the simple truth about reality, with no frilliness or complication usually, even if unsaid, desired by those proclaiming to desire truth.

You hate your sexuality.

I did, but not anymore. I dislike parts of it, but I know how to deal with that.

You hold a very low opinion of humans. That is Christian alright. I consider this very unfortunate. I am sorry this religion has defined life for you, and I sersiously regret what it has done to our whole culture and the safety of life on earth.

:D I hold a low opinion of humans because of what I have experienced of them, not from any church. I am not a church going Christian, trust me on this, nor do I proclaim to be Christian, for to do so would so certify me as being limited to one faith as to truly go against God himself. I consider it extremely unfortunate that you think me Christian, and I hope this post changes your mind. Religion has not defined me; quite on the contrary, I despise the church. I am philosophical, free-thinking and theological, and I hate the categorization and limitation afforded by churches. But, do you honestly think it is religion that has endangered our safety on earth? lol No, it is humanity that has endangered our safety on earth. If people kill each other in the name of God, that is people's work, not God's. Nor does it truly matter if it was God's plan or not; people are just as capable of evil as they are good, but because evil gives them more power and is easier, they usually choose it over the more pious and generous good.

[Smurf]

Or perhaps our perceptions are clouded and flawed. Perfection if a point of view; oblivion is a point of view; meetings and partings are points of view. Taoism and Jesus tell the simple truth about reality, with no frilliness or complication usually, even if unsaid,

that Oblivion is a point of view... is a point of view aswell :D

same with Taoism and Jesus supposedly telling the simple truth... simplicity is an opinion, and we haven't yet defined reality...

desired by those proclaiming to desire truth.

... you see you desire the truth?

[MidnightSun]

Scameter, I suspected you were Christian, because things started adding up. You hate your sexuality. You hold a very low opinion of humans. That is Christian alright

Hmm i dont like my body for being such weak, does that mean im a christian too? :D

[TruthSeeker]

Some background to help in the discussion... :)

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=f52ef596...tvideo_breaking (http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=f52ef596-e87f-4c90-960e-d5c9378c858f&t=m963&f=06/64&p=hotvideo_breaking)

[scameter]

that Oblivion is a point of view... is a point of view aswell

Not really. It is of course said by me, and could be wrong, but it is more objective than an accusational statement, such as "Then Taoism is flawed aswell... Nothing is perfect, there is one path, the path to oblivion... and many things happen on that path, meetings and partings; much joy and sorrow...".

same with Taoism and Jesus supposedly telling the simple truth... simplicity is an opinion, and we haven't yet defined reality...

Jesus didn't define reality or simplicity. I said he suited under the common concept of simple, and he described what is commonly known as reality.

... you see you desire the truth?

Hmm...it's not a desire, so much as an...obsession of sorts? It's hard to explain.

[Smurf]

^Ahh so you ascribe to the common perceptions now?

Not really. It is of course said by me, and could be wrong, but it is more objective than an accusational statement, such as "Then Taoism is flawed aswell... Nothing is perfect, there is one path, the path to oblivion... and many things happen on that path, meetings and partings; much joy and sorrow...".

yeah probably a bit too much on my part :D
but opinion though,

Hmm...it's not a desire, so much as an...obsession of sorts? It's hard to explain.

yes and you ask questions?

[scameter]

^Ahh so you ascribe to the common perceptions now?

How did you gather that?

yes and you ask questions?

Umm yes. Why?

[Smurf]

Jesus didn't define reality or simplicity. I said he suited under the common concept of simple, and he described what is commonly known as reality.


bingo...

Umm yes. Why?

cool

[Kether]

If people kill each other in the name of God, that is people's work, not God's.
Since 'God' motivated them to kill each other, then the killing was God's work. Still, I suppose the greatest blame lies with those who created God; in other words, it was religion's work.
I am philosophical, free-thinking and theological, and I hate the categorization and limitation afforded by churches.
Isn't theology part of the Church's categorisation and limitation? It is the study of religious doctrines with the basic premise that those doctrines are true. Is this not limited?

It is curious that you consider the Bible to be in opposition to the doctrines of the church. But the Bible is what the church is founded on and was written by the church, not by Jesus.
Rome was a melting pot of all spiritual ideas
Indeed. In its early days, Christianity was just another of the popular escapist cults that flourished in the Roman Empire in their hundreds. A comparison between Christianity (and by that I don't mean the doctrines of Jesus, but those of the church) and some of these cults shows that Christian doctrines are a product of this melting-pot. Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, worshipped one of the attendants of God, who led an earthly existence involving great suffering and the performing of miracles, proclaimed Sunday the most sacred day of the week and the twenty-fifth of December the most sacred day of the year.

[scameter]

Since 'God' motivated them to kill each other, then the killing was God's work. Still, I suppose the greatest blame lies with those who created God; in other words, it was religion's work.

That isn't correct at all. God didn't motivate them, they had free will to choose to kill, from the Christian viewpoint. Thus, it is people's work. Is it so hard to accept that people are capable of murder and rape and commonly-known-as bad things?

Isn't theology part of the Church's categorisation and limitation? It is the study of religious doctrines with the basic premise that those doctrines are true. Is this not limited?

It isn't necessarily with that basic premise, and not all theology is Christian or even church-related. Theology is the study of god.

It is curious that you consider the Bible to be in opposition to the doctrines of the church. But the Bible is what the church is founded on and was written by the church, not by Jesus.

lol The church didn't even exist when the old testament was written, except the Jewish church, which is not the church I am talking about, nor did it exist when Jesus was around. Nor is the Bible always actually thought about and used appropriately.

Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, worshipped one of the attendants of God, who led an earthly existence involving great suffering and the performing of miracles, proclaimed Sunday the most sacred day of the week and the twenty-fifth of December the most sacred day of the year.

I find it much more fascinating that the days of the week, besides Monday and Sunday, were named after Norse divinity. And those day-names are even used by the so-called unreligious scientists, atheists, and agnostics.

[Kether]

That isn't correct at all. God didn't motivate them, they had free will to choose to kill, from the Christian viewpoint. Thus, it is people's work. Is it so hard to accept that people are capable of murder and rape and commonly-known-as bad things?
It is depressingly easy to accept.
By 'God' I meant the doctrine of God, obviously coupled with a lot of other emotions and beliefs, that motivate religious fanatics to commit atrocities. If God motivates them, then it's God's fault, and the fault of God's creators.
I find it much more fascinating that the days of the week, besides Monday and Sunday, were named after Norse divinity. And those day-names are even used by the so-called nonreligious scientists, atheists, and agnostics.
Maybe that is interesting, but I sense that there are some undertones in that statement that carry a deeper philosophical meaning.
The church didn't even exist when the old testament was written, except the Jewish church, which is not the church I am talking about, nor did it exist when Jesus was around.
The religion of Christianity was created after Jesus' death, including the New Testament of the Bible. The doctrines that make Christianity what it is today were invented by the Church, if they do not appear in the Bible.

[scameter]

By 'God' I meant the doctrine of God, obviously coupled with a lot of other emotions and beliefs, that motivate religious fanatics to commit atrocities. If God motivates them, then it's God's fault, and the fault of God's creators.

Then if you would, would you mind saying doctrines of God, instead of just God? Because when you just say God, it is as if you simply mean God himself. Doctrines based on him, and the thing it's self, are entirely different.

Maybe that is interesting, but I sense that there are some undertones in that statement that carry a deeper philosophical meaning.

If there are, it is mainly historical, because I meant none. I simply meant that it is fascinating that even in this day of science and Christianity and things not relating to the Viking myths, we still retain much of their ancient religion/mythology, such as the days of the week, Yule, and Easter.

The doctrines that make Christianity what it is today were invented by the Church, if they do not appear in the Bible.

Indeed, it was written about after Jesus's death, and the church carried on those doctrines religiously, but I don't see where this discounts or influences the truth of the book. Of course the monks could have altered the original writings, but even then, much of it is still fairly accurate to the original. The best translations would probably be the aramaic and ancient Greek, or Jewish versions.

[Kether]

Indeed, it was written about after Jesus' death, and the church carried on those doctrines religiously, but I don't see where this discounts or influences the truth of the book. Of course the monks could have altered the original writings, but even then, much of it is still fairly accurate to the original. The best translations would probably be the Aramaic and ancient Greek, or Jewish versions.
I didn't say that this fact did challenge the authority of scripture; I was responding to your contention (or what I perceived as your contention) that the church and Christianity are something different. Much of the Christian faith, especially as regards worship, is based on the theological teachings of the Catholic church, and many of these were carried on after the reformation.

[scameter]

I think that Christianity is the church, but the Bible isn't necessarily always truly expressed through the church, much less through it's followers. Nor am I saying that all church-followers are against the Bible. This is the cause for my seperation.

[Smurf]

I think that Christianity is the church, but the Bible isn't necessarily always truly expressed through the church, much less through it's followers. Nor am I saying that all church-followers are against the Bible. This is the cause for my seperation.

But christianity isn't all about the bible, just living a good life in God's name and all that, and I think that is what the church is trying to promote

[scameter]

What do you mean? Christianity is entirely the Bible, and this also excludes the church. The church is an attachment. Nor is the Bible all about living a good life in God's name, although the church does hypocritically try to promote this. The Bible is about truth.

[Smurf]

What do you mean? Christianity is entirely the Bible, and this also excludes the church. The church is an attachment. Nor is the Bible all about living a good life in God's name, although the church does hypocritically try to promote this. The Bible is about truth.

I beg to differ Scam, Christianity isn't all about the bible... the bible is just God's "word". Christianity is about the good ethics, morals and principles that it promotes. Church is a pivotal part of it as it brings people together. Who cares about the message... isn't it the medium that it the point? Is Taoism all about the Tao Te Ching? No, that is a main part of it but it isn't the religion.

[scameter]

That is entirely wrong, although it is often seen as that. And this is part of the reason the church exists, because the Bible is about truth, not about promoting moral or ethical health, nor in it's practical application. Christianity is the Bible. The church simply is one mode of interpreting the Bible, but it is not the Bible it's self. The Bible is indeed the word of God, and because of this it is Christianity; it is the lingual illustration of God's thoughts and the events regarding him in the past. Taoism is more of a philosophy than a religion, just as I personally consider Christianity more of a mythology than a religion, except for the addition and usual acceptance of the church as being Christian. Taoism is illustrated in the works that regard it, and it isn't about morality or ethics or it's practical application; it is about the truth that the contributors to it saw and experienced, and thus conveyed lingually.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Christianity is the Bible.

Christianity is a religion, a movement, a group of schools and churches. The bible is a book. So, they are most certainly not the same. For example, there are Christians which do not see the canonical bible representative of their faith.

Scameter: The Bible is indeed the word of God.

The bible is almost certainly the word of man. All books are written by people.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Christianity is a religion, a movement, a group of schools and churches.

Christianity is the religion of the Bible. Everything Christianity is has come from the Bible and people's translations of it. The church is simply one way.

For example, there are Christians which do not see the canonical bible representative of their faith.

I've never heard of that Thomas. Even the mormons believe in the Bible, even if it is alongside the Book of Mormon. And even if there are, they are simply another division in Christianity. They have obviously studied and heard of the Bible, or else they couldn't be considered Christian. That would be like a Taoist church or sect that didn't read or count as Taoist the Tao Te Ching.

The bible is almost certainly the word of man. All books are written by people.

That doesn't defeat it's ability to be the word of God. I'm not saying that God got a piece of paper and a pen and wrote a book. I'm saying that what men wrote about him is what God wished to teach us, which he did through the use of words.

[sonrisa]

people don't realize the extent that the cults of Mithras & Sol Invictus had/have on Christianity (click here) (http://www.crosscircle.com/CH_2f.htm) they have so compromised Christianity, we can't really be sure what Jesus was teaching. A few things have come thru, but a good part of Christianity is muddled up with these 2 ancient cults.

St Augustin once said that the priests of Mithras worshipped the same god he did.

[Smurf]

Christianity is the religion of the Bible. Everything Christianity is has come from the Bible and people's translations of it. The church is simply one way.

It is not the religion of just the bible, do you remember Jesus Christ? Miracle guy? Died on a cross? that sort of thing? Also religion is the promotion of principles and values that are considered to be good. It is a belief system and a way of life that stresses the importance of being good. The Bible is just a recording of the events that supposedly happened 2000 years ago. I am sure that you can try and say that Christianity is all about the Bible to any Christian and they will most definately disagree strongly. You do believe in God right? Then there you go, that's Christianity.


I've never heard of that Thomas. Even the mormons believe in the Bible, even if it is alongside the Book of Mormon. And even if there are, they are simply another division in Christianity. They have obviously studied and heard of the Bible, or else they couldn't be considered Christian. That would be like a Taoist church or sect that didn't read or count as Taoist the Tao Te Ching.


Pretty much every Christian? :D The Bible is just a religious text Scam, like the Koran (different spellings I know) or the Tao Te Ching etc... Books are not Beliefs

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Christianity is the religion of the Bible. Everything Christianity is has come from the Bible and people's translations of it.

This is not only an oversimplification, but it is also inaccurate. For example, the OT is not a Christian but a Jewish text. The bible as a whole is a collection of texts which underwent considerable change, especially the NT, in the process of canonisation and later translations. A lot of texts were produced/known by early Christianity which were not canonised in the period from 100-200 AD and are therefore not part of the bible. Case in point: the Coptic scrolls of Egypt and the gnostic gospels I had previously mentioned. This is very deplorable IMV, because these texts belong to the best that Christianity has ever produced.

Scameter: I've never heard of that Thomas.

In this case it may be beneficial to educate yourself about the history of early Christianity and the Christian sects. Christianity goes beyond what you've been taught in Sunday school. The RCC has basically functioned as a dogma distiller for a whole millenium. It has weeded out anything as "heretic" that did not support its established views and power structure.

Scameter: That doesn't defeat it's ability to be the word of God.

This is a fairly weak argument. Similarly, I could say: we all know that the Divine Comedy was written by Giovanni Boccaccio, but this does not exclude the possibility that it was actually prompted by six heavenly elves. You have to understand that the assertion: "the bible is the word of God" is a form of fundamentalism. It is a pure article of faith.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

It is not the religion of just the bible, do you remember Jesus Christ? Miracle guy? Died on a cross? that sort of thing?

We're not capable of going back in time, so the Bible is the only real way we can know what he said or did.

Also religion is the promotion of principles and values that are considered to be good.

Such as God telling his people to "cleanse sin" from a particular village, i.e. kill everything there? Yes, very good. Religion is the promotion of truth, not morality.

The Bible is just a religious text Scam, like the Koran (different spellings I know) or the Tao Te Ching etc... Books are not Beliefs

Tell me something: if the Bible hadn't been written, how would Christianity have ever even existed? If the Bible has no real part in Christianity, then it should've never been written, much less used as the center of the religion.

Christianity goes beyond what you've been taught in Sunday school.

I've never been to Sunday school.

we all know that the Divine Comedy was written by Giovanni Boccaccio, but this does not exclude the possibility that it was actually prompted by six heavenly elves.

Anything's possible.

You have to understand that the assertion: "the bible is the word of God" is a form of fundamentalism. It is a pure article of faith.

:o Uh oh, not that! :twoguns:

[Smurf]

We're not capable of going back in time, so the Bible is the only real way we can know what he said or did.

You say that you believe, yet you have no faith? that is the key to Christianity... faith in what you believe.

Such as God telling his people to "cleanse sin" from a particular village, i.e. kill everything there? Yes, very good. Religion is the promotion of truth, not morality.

Truth?? a relative truth yes... But where does it say that God asked his people to "cleanse sin"?

Tell me something: if the Bible hadn't been written, how would Christianity have ever even existed? If the Bible has no real part in Christianity, then it should've never been written, much less used as the center of the religion.

Paul, Peter, Thomas and all of the other "saints" that spread christianity after Jesus' death.

we all know that the Divine Comedy was written by Giovanni Boccaccio, but this does not exclude the possibility that it was actually prompted by six heavenly elves.

:lol: yes anything is possible Scam, but there are the limitations of probability :nono:

[scameter]

You say that you believe, yet you have no faith? that is the key to Christianity... faith in what you believe.

I am capable of faith, but remember I'm not a Christian. And how could I have faith if I had no knowledge of what I was having faith in? That would be like saying that I like science if science didn't exist.

Truth?? a relative truth yes... But where does it say that God asked his people to "cleanse sin"?

In Exodus I think, one of the first two or three chapters. He told Joshua and his army to do it. And I don't mean relative truth, I mean truth that applies to all.

Paul, Peter, Thomas and all of the other "saints" that spread christianity after Jesus' death.

And then what? The people who heard what the apostles said recorded it into the Bible. And the apostles also contributed.

yes anything is possible Scam, but there are the limitations of probability

Probability is a belief. Anything is possible, logically. Just because it is improbable doesn't make it impossible.

[sonrisa]

careful Scam your GA roots are showing. Louder than a bleach-bottle blonde's too.

[Smurf]

I am capable of faith, but remember I'm not a Christian. And how could I have faith if I had no knowledge of what I was having faith in? That would be like saying that I like science if science didn't exist.

But you believe in Jesus, and the bible as truth? :think:

In Exodus I think, one of the first two or three chapters. He told Joshua and his army to do it. And I don't mean relative truth, I mean truth that applies to all.

Ok then, so as a religion Scientology is truthful?

And then what? The people who heard what the apostles said recorded it into the Bible. And the apostles also contributed.


But before the Bible, Christianity existed for a period of time whereas you said that christianity would never had existed without the bible

Probability is a belief. Anything is possible, logically. Just because it is improbable doesn't make it impossible.

Ok then, so possibility without limits right? so according to you everything should be happening infinitly in every place at everytime instantly, wou should not exist and yet somehow exist at the same time, also we should be on this planet and everywhere else at the same time? That is possibility without limits. You claim that the bible is "truth" yet you say that probability is a belief? sounds like it should be the other way around to me don't you?

[scameter]

But you believe in Jesus, and the bible as truth?

I believe Jesus may have existed, and that the Bible may be truthful, but I am too philosophical to simply say that it is truthful beyond doubt.

Ok then, so as a religion Scientology is truthful?

Why is that relevant? But, I personally don't think so, because practically it is untruthful, but scientology is more of a pseudoscience, I think, than a religion, in it's application I mean, and when it entered that realm it came under the logic of science, which would dismiss it.

But before the Bible, Christianity existed for a period of time whereas you said that christianity would never had existed without the bible

The religion after the death of the apostles and Jesus and those they directly influenced personally couldn't have existed without the Bible. Do you think those that Jesus and his apostles spoke with personally would've carried on what Jesus told for as long as the Bible has, much less into the hundreds of churches and interpretations it has now?

so according to you everything should be happening infinitly in every place at everytime instantly

That is a crude assumption, I never said that, nor would I, because that questions implies "happening", which would then subsequently imply the physical, which would then imply science, which's logic would dismiss it. But conceptually, it is possible. *Possible*, not definitely happening.

That is possibility without limits.

Possibility is doubt. What you said is a crude assumption of what I said previously. Anything is possible, but that doesn't mean everything is truthful or real.

You claim that the bible is "truth" yet you say that probability is a belief? sounds like it should be the other way around to me don't you?

No, but I do wish that you would stop making such automatic assumptions about what I think my friend.

[Smurf]

I believe Jesus may have existed, and that the Bible may be truthful, but I am too philosophical to simply say that it is truthful beyond doubt.


But this thread is dedicated to your new religion is it not?

Why is that relevant? But, I personally don't think so, because practically it is untruthful, but scientology is more of a pseudoscience, I think, than a religion, in it's application I mean, and when it entered that realm it came under the logic of science, which would dismiss it.


well you said that religion is the promotion of truth? a general assertion

The religion after the death of the apostles and Jesus and those they directly influenced personally couldn't have existed without the Bible. Do you think those that Jesus and his apostles spoke with personally would've carried on what Jesus told for as long as the Bible has, much less into the hundreds of churches and interpretations it has now?


yes but you said that how could Christianity ever existed without the bible? Think of your absolutes before you say them... you just said Christianity not Christianity after the time of the Apostles :P

That is a crude assumption, I never said that, nor would I, because that questions implies "happening", which would then subsequently imply the physical, which would then imply science, which's logic would dismiss it. But conceptually, it is possible. *Possible*, not definitely happening.


so there are limitations then? and Probability is that limitation, but not the probability of flipping a coin and guessing the number of times it gets heads. No a probability that describes the possibility given the circumstances

but that doesn't mean everything is truthful or real.

But if everything isn't truthful or real then we shouldn't exist

No, but I do wish that you would stop making such automatic assumptions about what I think my friend.

well given the circumstances it is hard not to assume, you said that the bible is the truth Scam! and you said that Probability is a belief!

[scameter]

But this thread is dedicated to your new religion is it not?

Not at all. It is dedicated to the theological and theosophical discussion of Christianity.

well you said that religion is the promotion of truth? a general assertion

I did? Hmm.... I think that the base of religions promote some truth, but if I did say such a concrete statement as that, I was wrong.

yes but you said that how could Christianity ever existed without the bible?

I derived that question and knowledge from my study of the history of Christianity and from logic, not to make a concrete accusation. If I'm wrong, I would like to be proven wrong, since my assertion was historical/scientific.

you just said Christianity not Christianity after the time of the Apostles

Christianity began when the Bible began to be translated and interpreted. The church it's self came about around this time.

so there are limitations then?

I didn't say that.

Probability is that limitation

How? Probability is prediction without much certainty. That isn't a limitation. What was predicted as probable has very often been wrong, even if it has also very often been correct.

But if everything isn't truthful or real then we shouldn't exist

We may not exist.

well given the circumstances it is hard not to assume, you said that the bible is the truth Scam! and you said that Probability is a belief!

It can never be hard not to assume. Assumption is a choice, one that you have made several times, such as now. I never said the Bible is the truth. I think that the Bible has the ability to be somewhat truthful, but nothing I ever say is entirely concrete, unless I am speaking within a certain specific realm, such as history or science, in which rules and boundaries are established. In philosophy, there are no boundaries.

[Smurf]

I have come to conclude, far beyond my conclusions beyond this most recent conclusion, that Christianity is my spirituality, my theological philosophy.

Bam!

Christianity began when the Bible began to be translated and interpreted. The church it's self came about around this time.


Ahh so you're saying that the church is Christianity now? Christianity was around before the bible
from the bible: "And in Antioch Jesus' disciples were first called Christians" Acts 11:26

hmm I think, are we talking about the Bible? cause I just remembered that the bible is half the Torah :P

[CSwriter1]

Is someone saying there are two main supernatural beings, a good God and an evil Satan? If God is omipotent than how could Satan have any power at all?

Why a God allow a Satan to steal his souls? Why a God allow Satan to do to anyone what he did to Job? Why would a God allow demons to enter people and make them sick? Why would a God allow Satan power on earth? As a parent would you allow your child to be someone with evil? Why?


Where is the first mention of Satan, as a supernature being, in the bible?

[scameter]

Bam!

"nothing I ever say is entirely concrete, unless I am speaking within a certain specific realm, such as history or science, in which rules and boundaries are established. In philosophy, there are no boundaries." Obviously, when I said that Christianity is my religion, I was under some sort of delusion, because such a proclamation does not conform to my actual views at all.

Ahh so you're saying that the church is Christianity now?

I never said that.

hmm I think, are we talking about the Bible? cause I just remembered that the bible is half the Torah

And the other half is what makes the Bible the Bible.

[CSwriter1]

Actually yes, Christianity is the church. It defined who is a Christian and who is not, what is Christian and what is not. This gave Christianity need definition. For a long time the church had a lot of control over people's lives. It could kill someone who dared to speak of something not approved by the church. The greatest power the church held over people is they couldn't get to heaven unless they went through the church. So if the church excommunicated someone, that meant eternal damnation.

People took a huge gamble with their eternal life when they left the church and became Protestants. The Protestant claim is we get to heaven through the grace of God. Still, Protestants had a lot of control over people's lives, compared to today when a person can feel safe claiming to be Christian, even when one is not a member of a church! Not a member of a church! That is shocking. It was once unthinkable.

[Smurf]

And the other half is what makes the Bible the Bible.

but that makes it difficult that it is half not origional :P
Is it then the "word of God"? The Judaistic/Christian god, or just a collection of stories intended to give evidence that there is a god?

[scameter]

None of the Bible is entirely original smurf, mainly because it has been translated hundreds of times. And, I think, currently, that the Bible is a group of mythological stories meant to give truth as well as other things, but there are so many possibilities of what it is that it is impossible to truly say what indeed it is, thus I will not claim to be able to do so here, or now especially. To be honest, for me, discussion of the Bible and Christianity is becoming quite boring, mainly because most are unwilling to accept that it may require interpretation, and that the history of the church and the Bible interfers with the Bible it's self, as well as the fact that it is quite difficult to understand what the Bible was originally meant to say, because of the myriad translations and interpretations of it enforced throughout the centuries. Even the original Greek/Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles I cannot truly trust, because they could've been affected just as well as the modern English versions could have been/were.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: ...as well as the fact that it is quite difficult to understand what the Bible was originally meant to say, because of the myriad translations and interpretations of it enforced throughout the centuries.

It's not because of the translations. The translations may have done some damage here and there, but the original content itself is difficult to understand. There are several reasons for this: the most important is that the Bible is a product of an ancient culture with a patriarchic autocratic society order and a myopic understanding of natural and social phenomena. In other words, there is lots of junk in it. The same applies to the Qur'an, and even to some Hindu and Buddhist writings. There are morsels of truth, even passages of great wisdom and beauty, however. The distinguishing mind can find them. Therefore, to take the Bible, the Torah, or the Qur'an as the literal word of God is fundamentalist crap IMV. It is dogmatic blindness of a crude, unintelligent, backward mindset. Islam is affected very strongly by this, but Christianity -in some parts of the world- comes close.

I think it is not a good idea to vilify or to praise to the skies any ancient scriptures. One should take them as what they are: testaments of bygone ages written by mankind for mankind. There's still some good stuff in it. :)

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Yes, complication of truth is common when truth is expressed. May I ask, how can you know that the original content was complicated?

[Smurf]

Is someone saying there are two main supernatural beings, a good God and an evil Satan? If God is omipotent than how could Satan have any power at all?

Why a God allow a Satan to steal his souls? Why a God allow Satan to do to anyone what he did to Job? Why would a God allow demons to enter people and make them sick? Why would a God allow Satan power on earth? As a parent would you allow your child to be someone with evil? Why?


Where is the first mention of Satan, as a supernature being, in the bible?

exactly, if Satan was as powerful as God then God's power would have diminished.... his infinite love for us would make God sacrifice himself to rid us of the Devil, or something like that

A non-Christian perspective... what do you think CSWriter?

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Yes, complication of truth is common when truth is expressed.

It is a mark of mediocrity IMV.

Scameter: May I ask, how can you know that the original content was complicated?

From comparing translations. I collect antiquarian books. Unfortunately I don't have the money to collect antique bibles (they are very expensive), but I saw many. The original texts are also available online along with scholarly analysis.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

It is a mark of mediocrity IMV.

Then science and math are mediocre?

From comparing translations.

Yes, but are those translations, if indeed they are translation and not original and entirely factual recordings of what Jesus said and did as well as other aspects of the Bible, not simply translations, even if they are older than some translations? If there was a Bible that was an exact recording by the apostles (in regards to the New Testament, for now) or was guided by the apostles but written by others, then I would believe it. But, none such thing exists, or even if it does, how can we know if it is truly exact or not?

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Then science and math are mediocre?

If you mean to say that -according to my argument- math and science are mediocre because they are complicated, then you did not understand my point. You confuse "complicated" (adj.) with "to complicate" (verb). What I wanted to say is that the complication of truth (in particular of something simple) is a mark of mediocrity. A matter being complicated by nature is a different thing. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Scameter: Yes, but are those translations, if indeed they are translation and not original and entirely factual recordings of what Jesus said and did as well as other aspects of the Bible, not simply translations, even if they are older than some translations?

I think from a comparison of different translations one is normally able to grasp the essence of a text, even though one does not speak the original language. I do not speak Septuagint, Hebrew or Aramaic, but I learned Latin in school, so a medieval Bible is not entirely strange to me. What concerns the teachings of Jesus... only a part of the Bible is about that. Many of the texts are older and they refer to events and places that go back as far as 800 BC.

From what you said it seems you somehow think the origins of texts of the Bible are shrouded in mystery and the orignal texts are lost. For most of its content this is not true. The canonisation of the Bible took place fairly early and many of the original sources are well known. So the "lost in translation" theory doesn't apply.

Scameter: If there was a Bible that was an exact recording by the apostles (in regards to the New Testament, for now) or was guided by the apostles but written by others, then I would believe it.

The NT origins are more controversial than the OT origins. The true dilemma is that (a) The OT and NT teachings are not really compatible, (b) we know very little about Jesus and the apostles themselves. Obviously this is something that cannot be mended. So, we just have to take the existing sources and see what wisdom we can find in them. As previously mentioned, I find it important to pay attention to the non-canonical texts in this regard. Of course, this point of view was deemed "heretic" until recently.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Ah, I see Thomas. Sorry for my misinterpretation of your equation, but I did have your reply to my conclusion in mind. But, allow me to clarify: are you saying that truth is simple, and that religion, with it's myriad dogma, complicates the truth unnecessarily, and because of this it is rather unreliable?

No, I do not entirely think that Thomas, although I have previously heard that much of the original Bible is yet to be found. Perhaps I am wrong. Even so, for one, how can we truly know if the texts we have claimed to be ones of the original Bible are actually original and/or genuine, and for two, how can we know if they're actual, and not fictional?

I think the reason you see the OT and NT as being incompatible is because they are; the OT was dismissed by Jesus in the NT as being unnecessary because he extinguished the rites and tribulations of the Ten Commandments and the original orders of God expressed in the OT. But, may I ask, by what you say it is hard to grasp a conclusion to the question I am going to pose: do you think there is truth and wisdom in the Bible, or that it is simply dogmatic superstition and erroneous fiction, as many believe?

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: But, allow me to clarify: are you saying that truth is simple, and that religion, with it's myriad dogma, complicates the truth unnecessarily, and because of this it is rather unreliable?

No, that's not the point. I would not call the Bible "complicated". Archaic and garbled perhaps. It is my impression that the ancient texts of the East have aged much more gracefully. They still stand strong today. If you allow me the comparison: The Mahabharata -of which nobody knows exactly how old it is- still outshines the Bible for its intellectual vigor, its philosophical depth, its literary beauty, and its sheer size. I think we have to come to terms with the realisation that the civilisations of India and China eclipsed Western civilisation in antiquity. This may be a blow for the Western ego, but its truth cannot be denied.

Scameter: No, I do not entirely think that Thomas, although I have previously heard that much of the original Bible is yet to be found.

I think it may be an apologetic argument to hush up the obvious shortcomings of the Bible.

Scameter: Even so, for one, how can we truly know if the texts we have claimed to be ones of the original Bible are actually original and/or genuine, and for two, how can we know if they're actual, and not fictional?

It depends what you mean with "original". Basically all texts are considered genuine. In case of the OT, the origins go back before Christ and its final form was pretty much settled by 100 AD. The NT took a few hundred years longer and during this time, the intellectual world was dominated by the disputes of different Christian sects and philosophical schools. This had a definite bearing on the overall tone and message of the NT.

Scameter: Do you think there is truth and wisdom in the Bible, or that it is simply dogmatic superstition and erroneous fiction, as many believe?

Certainly there is truth to be found. I am far from being a Bible connoisseur, but I was resonably impressed by Gospel of Luke, Matthew, and the Corinthians for example. One of the greatest Christian writings is the Gospel of Thomas IMV, ...which is unfortunately not part of the Bible.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I would deny it Thomas. I think it is unfortunate how much Western society is seen negatively in recent times, but it isn't all bad. Look at Rome, Germany, the Vikings, the Celts, the Greeks, the French, the Scottish. All of these nations have done and contributed so much, even if they have faults, faults which are also present in much of Eastern culture. For instance, the French and English were at war for a 100 years, hence the 100 Years War, and I'm sure this is seen as just some horrible power struggle, which it was; but, Japan was split into many different states, that fought with one another for a long time in a civil war. Both West and East have their faults, as well as their positive qualities, even if in the West much of the goodness is overlooked, except possibly that of the Romans and Greeks. I think the reason the Eastern book you cited has evolved with time so well is because it barely traveled and, I'm not sure of this, it was probably only translated within the limits of the original language it was written in, and by the same followers. Look at how wide and varied the Bible has been used and translated, and by how many different kinds of people, from the Romans to the Germans to the Americans and elsewhere, even beyond European countries and America. And, perhaps to the Bible, the expression of truth is more important than the literary beauty of it.

By original, I mean what was firstly transcribed by contributors to the Bible, and that which is most genuine to what actually happened, if it indeed did; I'm not implying that any of it did, I'm just saying this is what I meant by "original". And indeed it did, I agree, which is quite unfortunate, because it is thus hard to truly see what Bible texts are genuine and unaffected, if any.

Unfortunately I haven't had much time to read the Gospel of Thomas, and no longer own it because, actually today, I traded it in, not thinking I would have much time to read it, which I probably won't and wouldn't have. But, I'm very glad to hear you say that; to be frank, I get somewhat tired by intellectuals continuously acting as if the entire Bible is simply contradictory and ignorant, which I think is a limited and somewhat blind view to take. I personally think ecclesiastes is quite interesting as well.

[poulenc]

The Bible has been used as a tool of oppression almost before the ink was dry. The Bible we have now is a translation of a translation of a...well, you get the point. It's been fiddled with by a King with an ax to grind (James I of England) who found it a handy tool to beat his political enemies with. Even in its pristine Dead Sea Scroll condition, folks, it was written by human beings "inspired" by whatever delusions held sway with their psyches. As "sacred" literature, it's definitely second rate when compared with the texts of earlier eastern religions. Its power seems to lie in getting racist, sexist, homophobic "true believers" to foam at the mouth and to fuel their abusive acts toward their fellow humans with a self-justification that beggars description. "The Bible tell me so," indeed.

Did Jesus even exist? Possibly--but there's an even chance that he did not. His life seems to be an amalgam of earlier mythologies, right down to his birth and crucifixion and resurrection.

Possession of a Bible should be permitted only upon successful completion of a thorough psychiatric examination.

[CSwriter1]

It appears evident to me that the story of Adam and Eve is a Hebrew translation of a Sumerian story. That means I do not accept the creation story as truth. Therefore the explanation of sin and why it was necessary for Jesus to be as the sacrifical lamb, just does't work for me.

The God of Hebrews is not a universal God, but is exclusively the God of Hebrews. The bible says Hebrew can own slaves, they just can't be slaves, because of their special relationship, convenant with God. Hebrews are instructed to give the food they are not to eat to non Hebrews. This is pretty careless with the health of non Hebrews, assuming there were health reasons for not eating some foods.

The history of the Old testament is ncessarily limited to the Hebrew point of view, considering this is a Hebrew book and not subject to the point of view of others. As such it is a distorted history. In Egypt and Rome people were expected to serve the country, as today we expect everyone to pay taxes. Saying the Hebrews were made slaves, distorts what was really happening here. Everyone in the area was expected to contribute, not just the Hebrews, but considering they thought everyone but themselves could be slavea, they thought themselves special, so their account of history presents them as special people.

[CSwriter1]

do you think there is truth and wisdom in the Bible, or that it is simply dogmatic superstition and erroneous fiction, as many believe?

The bible is a combination of myth and history. Especially the New Testament combines many mythologies, because the writers used the Roman Law of Nature to write it.

The Roman Law of Nature was originally a legal tool. When deciding a case involving people from different city/states with different laws, they would take what was in common in both legal systems and come to a decision. So using Roman Law of Nature to establish religious truth, was a matter of taking what was common in different belief systems and declaring it truth. So there is a huge mythologies.

Jesus, the bread and blood was Isis the bread and water. Both are involved with judging souls. This is like using the Egyptian symbols of "eggs, ressurection of life", and the "bunny, new life in Spring" to represent Jesus. The Egyptian trinity of the soul, became the Christian trinity of God. Now instead of being souls having a human experience, we become humans and the spirit of God is external to who we are. It is the same thing but different. I am saying Christians Christianized other belief and gave a Christian interpretation to everything they wanted to claim.

Recently they have stolen the Statue of Liberty and replaced the book she holds with a cross. The book represents literacy necessary to enlightenment, and Christians are distorting this symbol of democracy, taking out the literacy and offering only study of the bible. Okay, this what Chrisitians have done since the beginning.

Stoics and Hellenism in general had a strong influence on Christianity and so did the demon worship Persians, which really separates Christianity from Judism. Christians divided good and evil as Hebrews did not, and the cause seems Persian.

[sonrisa]

CS- this is pretty careless with the health of non Hebrews, assuming there were health reasons for not eating some foods.

-- yes there were, according to my cousin-law-law, who is Jewish. Even today pork doesn't keep well in the Middle East, & back when the bible was written there was no refrigeration at all, & pork has that little animal in it, I forget what it's called. Anyhow, that's why Jews don't eat pork. They don't eat rats, buzzards, bats, etc... for the same reasons the rest of us don't- those animal are literally unclean, you can get sick eating them.

oh, & btw, I just got done looking at libertycam (click here) (http://www.libertycam.com) & it looks to me like the Statue of LIberty still has her book, actually it's a tablet that says July 4th, 1776.

speaking of the 4th & the Statue of Liberty, I saw a lady wearing the coolest t-shirt on the 4th- It had dubya dressed as Count Dracula biting Lady Liberty. I want one of those.

[scameter]

Many things, if not everything, made by humanity has been made for oppression poulenc. But that does not mean everything is evil and entirely without worth in and of it's self. Many things we have made have also given people hope, inspiration, happiness, health, and a future, such as science and religion. To me, happiness is the best thing there is. Thus, if something can give happiness, it has some worth at least to that extent.

[vicente]

Christianity is my spirituality

Although it is literally impossible for a Christian to be Spiritual, just as one who is attached to realize Enlightenment, I didn't reply here to argue that point,...but to share with any who are interested the facts regarding the Christian meme.

http://www.ontosophy.com/onreligion.html

For those not afraid of the historic truth it's a nice read.

Vicente
:)


"I could not in good conscience, vote for someone who honestly thinks
that the other 95% of us (who believe in god) suffer from some sort of
mass delusion." Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), Contact, 1997


"If you leave the Christian Bible outside, eventually the wind and the
rain will destroy it. My bible IS the wind and the rain."

"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but
before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible
itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or
the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot
be admitted as proof of anything." Thomas Paine

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe
nothing, than to believe what is wrong." Thomas Jefferson

[scameter]

Although you didn't post specifically to say that, you did, and meant to, so I'll reply to it.

Why is it impossible? Yes, in Buddhism specifically, one cannot be attached and enlightened at once, but why could one absolutely not be spiritual and Christian? Do you think because Christianity is now a religion in churches that that is all it can be and ever has been? And why isn't religion spiritual? Are Buddhists and Hindus not spiritual? I think anyone can be spiritual at any point in any time with any affiliation, as long as they wish to and have the intent to. Even a theist. I even think that theism is spiritual; religion has often simply so dogmatized spirituality within religious articles, such as the Bible and the Vedas, as for them to appear without spirituality. But, how can you claim something so definite as what you just did? Nothing is so absolute. Even if we apply bounds, such as in science, anything is still possible, especially in a philosophical context.

[vicente]

why could one absolutely not be spiritual and Christian?

Spirituality is the direct opposite of "sets of beliefs" as Christian and its Abrahamic cousins. The Abrahamic religions are based upon conditions, whereas Spirituality is Unconditional. One cannot carry conditions into the Unconditional and expect the Unconditional to still be Unconditional. All aspects of the Abrahamic God, except for a few lines in the late 2nd Century apology 1John, is conditional, thus obscured from Spirit.

I can understand how many claim that there is no absolute,...yet if that was true, it would contradict itself, for if it was absolutely true there is no absolute truth then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, thus an absolute truth.

I can also understand that the majority think they can intermix sets of religious beliefs with Spirituality,...kind of playing pick and choose according to their belief patterning. Yet, the only way to the understanding of Spirit is though honesty, and a truely honest person could not possibly be a theist, nor cling to a set of beliefs for their identity.

That isn't advocating atheism, for atheism is pretty much in the same situation as a theist. A theist believes in a god, whereas an atheist believes in no god. All belief is fundamentally dishonest,...that is, belief as defined in English language dictionaries.

Christianity, as I talk of in the above link, predates the 1st Century fiction of Jesus by no less than 500 years. The original Christianity was more like Buddhism in that it supported the idea of "gnowledge" and Spirit.

Vicente
:)

[scameter]

Spirituality is the direct opposite of "sets of beliefs" as Christian and its Abrahamic cousins. The Abrahamic religions are based upon conditions, whereas Spirituality is Unconditional. One cannot carry conditions into the Unconditional and expect the Unconditional to still be Unconditional. All aspects of the Abrahamic God, except for a few lines in the late 2nd Century apology 1John, is conditional, thus obscured from Spirit.

You are looking at the churches, and translating the Bible literally, as I said previously. And, spirituality is unconditional? So a spirit could not exist and you could still have spirituality?

I can understand how many claim that there is no absolute,...yet if that was true, it would contradict itself, for if it was absolutely true there is no absolute truth then the absolute truth would be absolutely nothing, thus an absolute truth.

You are looking at it incorrectly. If nothing is absolute, then that includes what I just said, but it does not limit it's truthfulness. Why is truth absolute? Why couldn't something be truthful and still doubtable?

I can also understand that the majority think they can intermix sets of religious beliefs with Spirituality,...kind of playing pick and choose according to their belief patterning. Yet, the only way to the understanding of Spirit is though honesty, and a truely honest person could not possibly be a theist, nor cling to a set of beliefs for their identity.

Including belief in the spirit and that reality exists. But, do you think that you know every religion? But, before we go on, since you seem to know so well, please tell me what you mean by spirituality, because obviously it is entirely exclusive and isolated from everything else and yet is still unconditional.

Christianity, as I talk of in the above link, predates the 1st Century fiction of Jesus by no less than 500 years. The original Christianity was more like Buddhism in that it supported the idea of "gnowledge" and Spirit.

Christianity before Christ? So you mean Judaism? <_<

[vicente]

You are looking at the churches, and translating the Bible literally, as I said previously. And, spirituality is unconditional? So a spirit could not exist and you could still have spirituality?


Is there another way to honestly translate the Bible other than literally? Is there a "pick-n-choose" guideline? Christians, according to the Bible, generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize.

If anyone of those core beliefs is absence, how could a person honestly say they're a Christian?

Spirituality is not dependent on the reality of Spirit. In fact, Spirituality transcends Spirit. Yet this dialogue is way too premature to enter that discussion. How is one suppose to grasp algebra before basic addition? The sum of all positive and negative is not Christianity, nor anywhere close to being remarked upon in the Bible. Yet a Mahamudra addresses it clearly to those who can see.

You are looking at it incorrectly. If nothing is absolute, then that includes what I just said, but it does not limit it's truthfulness. Why is truth absolute? Why couldn't something be truthful and still doubtable

If nothing is absolute, than that would be the truth,...however, that is not true. There are countless absolutes. As I mentioned in another post, the fact that there is 'no present in time' is an absolute.

Personal, Objective, Relative Truths are indeed truthful for their level of truth (which is ultimately false), and still doubtable.

On the Bodhisattva path one comes to the realization that one should only relate with what will never leave you, and what you can never leave. When that is pondered upon even lightly, religions such as Christianity (the topic of this discussion) are let go.

Christianity before Christ? So you mean Judaism?

No, I do not mean that at all. In history, the words Christian and Christ (referring to an awakened one)appeared as early as the 5th century B.C.E., as can be found in the works of classical writers like Aeschylus, and the Father of History, Herodotus. Curiously (as is written in the link I provided), this was the same time that Siddhartha Buddha, the Light of Asia, was realizing that religion is a direct result or consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are.

Vicente
:)


"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Stephen Hawking

[scameter]

Is there another way to honestly translate the Bible other than literally? Is there a "pick-n-choose" guideline? Christians, according to the Bible, generally adhere to four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize.

Christians follow the church, and the church says that. Again, the churches. And, why must there be a guideline or a rulebook? Can you not read it and interpret it meaningfully and philosophically, without assuming anything or making guidelines or limitations?

If anyone of those core beliefs is absence, how could a person honestly say they're a Christian?

They couldn't, because Christians are those which follows the Christian church, and the church says that, so they must believe it. But the Bible is not the church.

The sum of all positive and negative is not Christianity, nor anywhere close to being remarked upon in the Bible. Yet a Mahamudra addresses it clearly to those who can see.

I don't know what that is, so I'll ignore it, about the Mahamudra. And, I agree, the Bible is not "the sum of all positive and negative", nor is any other religion, field of study, philosophy, viewpoint or spirituality. Things are too indefinite and uncertain for such absolutism. But, that does not make any of it void of meaning and insight.

If nothing is absolute, than that would be the truth,...however, that is not true. There are countless absolutes. As I mentioned in another post, the fact that there is 'no present in time' is an absolute.

I both disagree and doubt what you call an absolute. Again, why must truth be absolute? Nothing is absolute is a general, truthful statement because everything is doubtable and because of subjectivity, we can know nothing certainly. Reality and time aren't absolutes; how can present in time be an absolute, or no present in time?

On the Bodhisattva path one comes to the realization that one should only relate with what will never leave you, and what you can never leave. When that is pondered upon even lightly, religions such as Christianity (the topic of this discussion) are let go.

Ah... I see. May I ask, for reassurance: what religion, or as you would say spirituality, do you adhere to?

In history, the words Christian and Christ (referring to an awakened one)appeared as early as the 5th century B.C.E., as can be found in the works of classical writers like Aeschylus, and the Father of History, Herodotus. Curiously (as is written in the link I provided), this was the same time that Siddhartha Buddha, the Light of Asia, was realizing that religion is a direct result or consequence of the desire for things to be other than they are.

And then his own religion was formed. :) Yes indeed, those words and concepts did exist, and there were those who believed the Christ possible. But, Jesus Christ is the only one ever to be called Christ specifically, and Christian refers to those who follow him and/or (more usually) the Christian church of Christianity. Now anyways. I've never heard Muhammad or Buddha called Christ.

[vicente]

Can you not read it and interpret it meaningfully and philosophically, without assuming anything

No,...not if you want to interpret it correctly. Would good thing to incorporate in "true" Bible Study is ask the questions WHO wrote it, WHY did they write it, WHEN was it written, WHAT was it written for.

They couldn't, because Christians are those which follows the Christian church

Perhaps, but a better definition for todays Christianity is one who follows the Christian Bible. Not all who follow the Xian Bible are Church goers. Both are equally dishonest.

I don't know what that is, so I'll ignore it,

You don't know what the sum of all positive and negatives is? You should,...you will never realize enlightenment without it.

Things are too indefinite and uncertain for such absolutism

It is the nature of "things" to never be absolute. Things are not real, so how could they ever be absolute.

Ah... I see. May I ask, for reassurance: what religion, or as you would say spirituality, do you adhere to?

Probably Vajrayana Buddhism,...as present in Tilopa's Mahamudra, the Heart Sutra, and the like.

And then his own religion was formed

Yes. Buddhism is both a religion and a non-religion. Religion is distinctly defined as a set of beliefs. Some branches of Buddhism abvocate that beliefs step between a person and their direct experience. I advocate the same.

But, Jesus Christ is the only one ever to be called Christ specifically

That is Christian BS. Not a single Jewish, Roman or Greek historian, scribe or writer before 95 CE mentions the Jesus Christ depicted in the Gospels. For a specific example,...While Hadrian was Governor of Syria at the beginning of the 2nd Century CE, he wrote in a letter to Trajan, the Emporer, that in Syria the Sarapians called themselves Christians and Bishops of Christ. That Christ was Sarapis. Keep in mind, as every Bible hobbyist should know, Matthew 4:24 claims that Jesus' fame reached throughout all of Syria; yet the evidence shows that no one there knew Jesus' followers as Christians until well into the 2nd Century. For the fabrication of Jesus as Christ did not yet occur.

Now tell me, how can you possibly translate the Bible in an honest way without understanding basic historical facts? I have yet heard of a Religious Studies scholar who has said that Jesus, if he was actually an historic figure, uttered any more than 10% of what it is claimed he uttered in the Bible.

Not a single credible Religious scholar that I'm aware would agree that a Jesus spoke the so-called Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon was a 2nd Century fabrication. Does that matter,...you bet it does.

"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." Thomas Paine

[scameter]

No,...not if you want to interpret it correctly. Would good thing to incorporate in "true" Bible Study is ask the questions WHO wrote it, WHY did they write it, WHEN was it written, WHAT was it written for.

That is both incorrect, limited, and just like the scholastic view. Interpretation, in this case, is not meant to be "correct". It's meant to be spiritual and individual.

Perhaps, but a better definition for todays Christianity is one who follows the Christian Bible. Not all who follow the Xian Bible are Church goers. Both are equally dishonest.

I disagree. The best definition is followers of the Christian church, because one cannot "follow" the Bible, but one can certainly follow what the church says about it.

You don't know what the sum of all positive and negatives is? You should,...you will never realize enlightenment without it.

As I further illustrated in my post, that wasn't what I meant. And, even if I cannot realize that sum, that's ok. I'll die anyways. :)

It is the nature of "things" to never be absolute. Things are not real, so how could they ever be absolute.

That is too absolute. Things are not absolute because they are doubtable.

Probably Vajrayana Buddhism,...as present in Tilopa's Mahamudra, the Heart Sutra, and the like.

Ah, ok, thank you then. I see now. :)

Yes. Buddhism is both a religion and a non-religion. Religion is distinctly defined as a set of beliefs. Some branches of Buddhism abvocate that beliefs step between a person and their direct experience. I advocate the same.

Which is it's self a belief. A human cannot be human without beliefs. A religion is simply a set of similar, organized beliefs. :)

Now tell me, how can you possibly translate the Bible in an honest way without understanding basic historical facts?

Because it is a spiritual thing. It's not meant to be "correct", logical and scientific, although I'm sure this would depress many atheists or opposers to the Bible that want to interpret it literally and say it is contradictory. Well of course it is; it's not a science manual or a mathematical formula, designed to not be contradictory.

Not a single credible Religious scholar that I'm aware would agree that a Jesus spoke the so-called Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon was a 2nd Century fabrication. Does that matter,...you bet it does.

Sure it matters, as much as saying the Valkyries didn't actually come and pick up dead Viking warriors from the battlefield, as was claimed in Viking mythology.

"It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything."

I agree. It should not be taken as an authority to prove anything absolutely.

[vicente]

That is both incorrect, limited, and just like the scholastic view. Interpretation, in this case, is not meant to be "correct". It's meant to be spiritual and individual.

The individuality you are prescribing is a filter through which spirituality cannot be accessed. The Bible, in 1John, the late 2nd Century apology, says their "god is love". Yet throughout the rest of the Bible, their Patriarch is a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. Which should be interpreted as the accurate view?

And, even if I cannot realize that sum, that's ok. I'll die anyways

The Buddhist view is that everyone experiences Light shortly after death. "Its brilliance, however, is so overwhelming that the departing consciousness usually recoils in fear and is drawn instead into another samsaric rebirth. By learning to recognize the Light during his lifetime, an adept may return to it without difficulty when the shock of death threatens to disorient him."

Without understanding the sum of all positives and all negative, recognizing Light is improbable.

Things are not absolute because they are doubtable.

"Things" are not absolute because they are not real. But that discussion is comes after the emancipation of the Christiam meme.

Because it is a spiritual thing. It's not meant to be "correct", logical and scientific, although I'm sure this would depress many atheists or opposers to the Bible that want to interpret it literally and say it is contradictory

If you judged the Bible even partially how you judge my posts, you would have toosed the ridiculous thing away long ago. The Bible keeps its adherents further away from anything spiritual, than the Christian calender keeps us separated from nature.

The Bible contridicts itself hundreds and hundreds of times. Of course, those who read it devotionally refuse to see contridictions, like an angry person cannot see rationality.

Those who live by the Abrahamic Holy Books are devoid of any truth,...for understanding just one truth, is sufficient proof that all the Abrahamic Holy Books are false.

And as Eckhart Tolle said in 'The Power of Now', page 4, "we need to draw our attention to what is false in us, for unless we learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself"

or,

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong." Thomas Jefferson


V
:)

[poulenc]

Dear Vicente,

Thanks for your cogent, thoughtful and thorough voice of reason! It's refreshing, to say the least. These days, I think we need freedom FROM religion a heck of a lot more than freedom OF religion. Or if we must have religion, let it at least be of the mature variety. Down with infantilism! Become your OWN guru!

[Thomas Knierim]

I think that spirituality is not at all connected to dogma. Therefore it does not make sense to deny Christians or members of any other religion spirituality, because to the degree their spirituality is independent of dogma, it may very well be authentic. Attachment to dogma is a problem, however, because it can impede true spirituality and -in extreme cases- lead to blindness and hatred. The religious fundamentalism of the present provides alarming testimony to this. It does indeed seem that the Abrahamic religions are particularly susceptible to fundamentalism.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

I think we need freedom FROM religion a heck of a lot more than freedom OF religion

IMO when history is viewed as it was, verses how todays American Christians wanted it to be, the intent of the 1st Amendment is obvious. "...no law respecting an establishment of religion (FREEDOM FROM RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (FREEDOM OF RELIGION). 'Freedom From' is first and foremost.

For the sake of qualifying the term "intent", I offer this:

Since 1956, America has been one nation under Christianity's monotheistic God, when the former National Motto, E Pluribus Unum, 'From Many, One', was discarded. However, before the McCarthy Era, America was not a Christian Nation.

According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

Under George Washington, such a supreme Law of the Land was drafted in 1796, then unanimously ratified by the US Senate and sign into law on June 10, 1797 by President John Adams which said:

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".

Even though that document was read aloud in Congress without dissension, and well publicized at the time, there were no complaints or public outcry, as when Christians balked over the illegality of the addition of 'Under God' in the Pledge. In fact, at the signing of the above 1797 document, Adams said, "Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the end, may it be observed and performed with good faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; and I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill every clause and article thereof".

However, most religious people in todays America think that this Country was founded on Christian values. On February 10, 1814 Thomas Jefferson wrote that common law "is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England…about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.…We may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Christian values are not American values. For example, the 1st Commandment is in direct opposition to the 1st Amendment.

Most of America's Founding Father's were quite opposed to Christianity and its values. Neither George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, John Adams, nor Thomas Jefferson were Christians.

Thomas Paine, the Father of the American Revolution ("Washington's sword would have been yielded in vain had it not been supported by the pen of Paine" - James Monroe) and person who coined the term United States of America, said "It has often been said that anything may be proved from the Bible; but before anything can be admitted as proved by the Bible, the Bible itself must be proved to be true; for if the Bible be not true, or the truth of it be doubtful, it ceases to have authority, and cannot be admitted as proof of anything." Few Americans realize that the first Christian President was the 7th, Andrew Jackson, and there have been other non-Christian Presidents after him. "Mr. Lincoln was not a Christian" said Mary Todd Lincoln.

The groupthink of Christians today argue that America was founded by the Pilgrams. This is not true. The first English colony was in 1609 Jamestown. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were Pilgrims. Nor does Christianity have deep roots in the 18th Century Independence of America. Such a notion is purely 20th Century Christian Revisionism.

This new Christianity induces that America was founded as One Nation under their God. Yet the truth is, according to such eminent persons as Herman C. Weber DD, an expert in religious census and statistics, few early Americans were actually affiliated with Christianity. In the Yearbooks of American Churches, the census of 1800 showed just 6.9% of US citizens as belonging to a church. By 1850, Church membership rose to 15.5%. In 1900, Christians doubled their number to 37%. But, not until 1942, just 8 years before Senator Joseph McCarthy brought his conservative monotheism into government, and subsequently the Republican Party into the power it knows today, did Christian participation exceed 50%.
Today, all US Senators, whether Republican or Democrat, following their vote against the 9th Circuit Court, can in essense be labled anti-Americans.

In May 2002, the 9th Circuit Court said that the "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

In other words they said "Under God" promoted a situation where Atheists, Polytheists, Buddhists, Deists, Wiccans, Humanists, Brights, and those into Ontosophy, are not members of the Community. Nor, as George Bush said, "should they be considered patriots."

Written in 1892 and adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, the pledge did not originally include "under God.” Congress inserted the Constitutionally illegal phrase in 1954 during the McCarthy Era. Since then, Christian politicians have continued an agenda to make illegality legal, in violation of their oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Instead they have put their religion beliefs above the Law, and in principle engaged in the insurrection and rebellion against America (Section 3 of the 14th Amendment).

Unfortunately, many Americans haven't a clue about their Country. America is not one nation under a Christian majority, but one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. The majority has no right to tyrannize the non-monotheists on matters of religion.

Thus when history is viewed as it was, verses how todays Christians wanted it to be, the intent of the 1st Amendment is obvious. "...no law respecting an establishment of religion (FREEDOM FROM RELIGION), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (FREEDOM OF RELIGION).

Vicente Marco
Albuquerque, NM

[scameter]

I agree Thomas.

The individuality you are prescribing is a filter through which spirituality cannot be accessed. The Bible, in 1John, the late 2nd Century apology, says their "god is love". Yet throughout the rest of the Bible, their Patriarch is a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. Which should be interpreted as the accurate view?

Not necessarily, but it is certainly one possible view. And, I think it is wrong to assume it is correct, but as I said it is one view, and as I have also said no particular view is entirely correct due to the individuality of interpretation of the Bible required for it's spirituality. I think people limit God, as they limit everything; which I think is a large part of the age of reason and science, to limit and narrow things in order to make them "objective" and understandable to us without further wondering or doubt. This does not allow for spirituality. God is a very human thing; he is love, compassion, caring, fatherly, supportive, protective. He is also uncaring, hating, jealous, apt to rage, deceptive, and manipulative. Just like every human. I believe, as with all mythologies, the Christian God is one made by people to replicate their collective consciousness into a larger, more powerful and idolic figure to which to refer to and by which to record stories and tales regarding, that illustrate aspects of the human character and mind. I personally think the Bible is both mythological and philosophical, like every mythology, and is up for interpretation, and I think if it were to be seen in this way, the seeing of it would be more as it should be.

Without understanding the sum of all positives and all negative, recognizing Light is improbable.

That's ok. Trusting in Light, which I assume you know I do not mean actual light, is like trusting in Heaven or God after death. That's ok, I'll die anyways. :)

"Things" are not absolute because they are not real.

That is a doubtable assumption, just like any assumption made, including assumptions regarding truth and fact as posed by religions and science, for instance. Things are not absolute because they are all doubtable.

If you judged the Bible even partially how you judge my posts, you would have toosed the ridiculous thing away long ago.

If there was a reason for me to, I agree. :)

The Bible keeps its adherents further away from anything spiritual, than the Christian calender keeps us separated from nature.

Yet another assumption.

The Bible contridicts itself hundreds and hundreds of times. Of course, those who read it devotionally refuse to see contridictions, like an angry person cannot see rationality.

And like assuming people cannot see anything besides what they wish to see.

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."

I disagree with the first part, and agree that we should believe nothing, from the philosophical viewpoint. :)

[vicente]

I think people limit God, as they limit everything

Yes, that is the definition for god. So if you're talking about something that is not limiting or conditional, than god would not be the word to use.

For example:

God (god), n.,
1. A being (condition) conceived as the omnipotent (condition), omniscient (condition) originator and ruler (condition) of the universe (condition), the principal object (condition) of faith and worship (conditions) in monotheistic religions (conditions).
2. The force (condition), effect (condition), or a manifestation or aspect (conditions) of this being (condition).
3. A being of supernatural powers (condition) or attributes (conditions), believed in and worshiped (conditions) by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality (conditions).
4. An image of a supernatural being; an idol (conditions).
5. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed (conditioned).
6. A very handsome man (condition).
7. A powerful ruler or despot (conditions).
8. Used to express disappointment, disbelief, frustration, annoyance (conditions).

To me, there is a Source through which duality effects its motion. That Source is Unconditional, therefore it cannot be god, as defined in English language dictionaries.

[scameter]

Yes, that is the definition for god. So if you're talking about something that is not limiting or conditional, than god would not be the word to use.

That wasn't my point. I meant that God is not as limited as people make him out to be, and perhaps wish him to be, just as they do with everything.

For example:

And your example is simply further means of limitation, which you seem to favor. :)

To me, there is a Source through which duality effects its motion. That Source is Unconditional, therefore it cannot be god, as defined in English language dictionaries.

So, you believe in duality, which is conditional by nature, and yet not God, which is in fact only conditional through some interpretations? <_<

[vicente]

I meant that God is not as limited as people make him out to be, and perhaps wish him to be, just as they do with everything.

Hummm? Has you met this God you speak of, and "he" told you he wasn't as limited as the English language dictionaries?

So, you believe in duality, which is conditional by nature, and yet not God

No,...I don't believe in duality, or its God. Yet, I can see duality, as I see and believe the dreamland in my perceived sleep. To me, it would dishonest to believe in a God. It would be an attachment that had no purpose other than the sustainment of ego. How could an honest person even imagine believing in a God?
How could a dishonest person ever realize enlightenment?

V
:)

[scameter]

Hummm? Has you met this God you speak of, and "he" told you he wasn't as limited as the English language dictionaries?

If I had met him, sure. :)

No,...I don't believe in duality, or its God. Yet, I can see duality, as I see and believe the dreamland in my perceived sleep. To me, it would dishonest to believe in a God.

You mean impractical, because you can't directly experience it sensually. I suppose, then, that the entire realm of particle physics is out the door, because they have never actually seen a particle.

It would be an attachment that had no purpose other than the sustainment of ego.

Unfortunately, I think many people feel that way. I think that God is as meaningless as everything else created conceptually by people, including enlightenment, bliss, goals, science, games, philosophy, and everything else conceptually made by people that is unnecessary. I think we made mythological God because we were curious about our minds, nature, and the fact that we are able to conceptualize "more" to existence and ourselves, i.e. spirituality. We then attempted to interpret this into different things, including God. This is why I find the study of religions so interesting, because it is like studying the human mind directly, and our relationship to nature. I personally do not find much difference between religious beliefs and mythology; and I think that is the appropriate view of it. But, religion it's self, the organization, canonization and application of religious views and dogma I think is wrong, because it further limits people's attempts to interpret what they perceive as the spiritual in existence and themselves. :)

How could an honest person even imagine believing in a God?
How could a dishonest person ever realize enlightenment?

The same way anyone can imagine something and have faith in it, including God and enlightenment. "Anything you can imagine is real." -Picasso. :)

[Smurf]

How can you imagine something and then "poof" it's there ...

[vicente]

How can you imagine something and then "poof" it's there ...

That's the reality of dreams. Doesn't make them real,...only perceived.

V

[scameter]

What is real then?

[anica]

i heard of this also; it is my understanding jesus was out of site from age 13yrs until aproximately 30yrs . This period he spent in some parts of India, mostly in the Himalays.

[scameter]

<_< Well, that is interesting. For one, where did you hear that from? And for two, could this be why that that long period of his life was essentially uncovered by the Bible and anything else for that matter?

[anica]

it was sometime ago; i think it was a discussion of the book about jesus and his visit to india. sorry can't remember much .

[vicente]

What is real then?

Real is that what will never leave you, and from which you can never leave. Religion dies with the ceasation of neurological functioning. For example: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html

[vicente]

it was sometime ago; i think it was a discussion of the book about jesus and his visit to india. sorry can't remember much .

The story of the Xian Jesus being in India originated in the 20th century by a channeler named Levi in his book called the Aquarian Gospel. The canonized Gospels were written after 95 CE. Their authorship is said to be unknown,...however, much evidence suggests that Mark was authored by someone from the Piso family in Rome, Matthew by Ignatius, a Pauline Bishop in Antioch, Luke by an effeminate Greek Physician, and John by a Xian zealot following the Bar Cochba revolt.

My own research suggests that Mark was actually written alittle prior to 95CE, but was just unknown (due to particular political cercumstances) till then.

Vicente
:)

[scameter]

Real is that what will never leave you, and from which you can never leave. Religion dies with the ceasation of neurological functioning.

Besides that being too much faith in neurological functioning, your logic would make nothing real.

[Thomas Knierim]

The mainstream opinion of scholars is that the four canonical Gospels have been written between 65 and 100 CE, Mark being the earliest, probably around 50-70. Not that I know much about it or could verify it. It just seems to be the predominant view. What makes you think they are older?

The biggest problem with the Gospels is that there are discrepancies and obvious historical errors in them, which makes them pretty weak as historical documents. The stories in the canonical Gospels are probably based on 30-60 years of oral transmission.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Besides that being too much faith in neurological functioning, your logic would make nothing real.

For me, simple observations. Of course that implies, in my case, understanding that perceptions cannot be trusted.

I think many others agree,...for example:

Nobel Prize Physicist Charles Townes said, "Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith."

Friedrich Nietzsche expressed that "truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions". While Plato said in The Republic, that "truth pertains to the timeless reality that generates everything in our world".

Nietzsche also commented on people who clinch tightly to personal, individual truth, that "what they really mean is 'I don't want to know the truth'." While Stephen Hawking said "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge", or the famous Albert Einstein saying "reality is merely an illusion, although a very persistant one."

"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." —Muriel Rukeyser Or how about "The world of time and space is a projection."- Robert Monroe

My favorite though is Max Planck who said, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” In 1918 Planck also stated, "As a man who has devoted his entire life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much, there is no matter as such."

Nice to know I'm not alone in this religiously superstitious world.

Vicente

[vicente]

The mainstream opinion of scholars is that the four canonical Gospels have been written between 35 and 100 CE

I thought only Jehovah Witnesses still believed that.

No credible bible scholar would claim that Mark, the first, was written before 68-70CE, because it has content of things that occured then. But that doesn't date it till then, that just says it could not have been written before then.

The actual dates are closer to these. Mark, about 80-85CE, but unknown till after 95CE. Matthew about 102CE. Luke about 103-105CE. And John, not before 135CE.

Keep this fact clearly in mind,...the Gospels were historically unknown before 95CE. There is absolutely not one thread of evidence that they existed before 95CE.

For anyone interested in a fuller explaination of the above, try http://www.ontosophy.com/onreligion.html Nothing in that article can be factually disputed.

Vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Vicente: I thought only Jehovah Witnesses still believed that.

Oops, my mistake. That should have been 65-100 CE, not 35-100 CE. I have corrected the first mentioning. Do you have a specific date for the Coptic gospel of Thomas? My source (Prof. Bart Ehrman) says second half of the second century, others say 200 CE.

Vicente: For anyone interested in a fuller explaination of the above, try http://www.ontosophy.com/onreligion.html

Okay, thanks for the link.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Do you have a specific date for the Coptic gospel of Thomas? My source (Prof. Bart Ehrman) says second half of the second century, others say 200 CE.

I had given that question a bit of thought years ago and in my opinion the Gospel of Thomas is contemporary with Paul's Epistles, that is circa 50-60 C.E. The context of Thomas, "words of the living Jesus", is very consistant when seen as a rebuttal to Paul's proselytizing. I also feel that Thomas was a source for Marks gospel, not visa verse. Although various circumstancial evidence is not acceptable as proof, a circa 50C.E. Thomas does make a whole lot of sense when viewing the broader scheme of facts regarding early christianity.

Vicente

[Thomas Knierim]

Thank you, Vicente, that's interesting. Do you think that the Jesus of Thomas' Gospel is the same man as the Jesus of the other Gospels? Some of the sayings coincide with those of the canonical Gospels, others are completely different. Does this mean that gnosticism started in the first century?

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

Greek based Gnosticism started in the 5th Century B.C.E. They got it from Memphis. The term Christ and Christianity can be found in 5th Century B.C.E. writings.

The Jesus in Thomas' Gospel was, if you consider Occams Razor, Yeshua [Jesus] the Notzri [Nazarite]. This Jesus, born 7 B.C.E. during a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, had a step father was Joseph and a mother named Mary. On the eve of Passover in 28 C.E., he was convicted of sedition by Pontius Pilate and subsequently hung. Following his death he was called the Passover Lamb by his followers. His hanging was not the planned means of death, but proceeded because the "stoners" were late. Since the end of the day was near, which would have postponed his burial till after Passover, the soldiers allowed the alternative death by hanging.

Of course, the Jesus of Thomas' Gospel was not crucified, did not die for sins, was not resurrected, nor was a divine person,...those stories arose later and became part of the core beliefs of the new Christianity.

The original Christianity was connected to Sarapis. The Jesus image used today is the image of the 3rd century B.C.E. Sarapis. As I wrote in the link:
If there was an historical Jesus/Yeshua as presented in the Gospels, he would have had short hair and close cut beard as was the custom of the Jews, and the command of Paul, for example 1Cor 11:14, suggesting that long hair brings shame to man.

The Jesus in the canonized Gospels is a fabrication. A composite of several myths,...Sarapis, Mithras, Apollonius, Attis, Tammuz, etc.

To understand the history of Jesus one must see the BIG VIEW.

For one thing, keep in mind for example that in all the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 70 C.E.) there is not a single reference to Jesus.

It is widely accepted that James was the Righteous Teacher, The Wicked Priest was the High Priest Ananas and the Spouter of Lies was none other than Paul. So who was Jesus, and why isn't he present among any characters in the scrolls. An assistant to Robert Eisenman reportly said "there was no mention of Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls because Jesus as a living historical figure, did not exist".

Why else would there be absolutely no reference to Jesus?

The Jesus of the Gospels was fabricated after 85 C.E.

Vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Thank you, Vicente. That's again very interesting. The historical Jesus is indeed a very shadowy figure, more shadowy than the historical Buddha and most philosophers of antiquity. But there seems to have been a man who was called Christ and who was killed by Pilatus, the Roman prefect, for sedition. This occurrence is mentioned in a non-Christian historical text. But it also seems that this Jesus didn't make much of a splash during his lifetime. On the contrary, he must have been a marginal figure, since historical references are so scarce and practically non-existent before 65 CE. The evidence, or rather the absence thereof points to a legend that build up on account of oral tradition for about sixty years and gathered momentum only in the second century.

Would you agree with this view?

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

seems to have been a man who was called Christ and who was killed by Pilatus, the Roman prefect, for sedition. This occurrence is mentioned in a non-Christian historical text. But it also seems that this Jesus didn't make much of a splash during his lifetime. On the contrary, he must have been a marginal figure, since historical references are so scarce and practically non-existent before 65 CE. The evidence, or rather the absence thereof points to a legend that build up on account of oral tradition for about sixty years and gathered momentum only in the second century.

Would you agree with this view?

I'd agree that Jesus was somewhat a marginal Gnostic Nazarite, who was later made the son of god for political and faith-driven purposes. I would never say that a man named Christ was sentenced to death by Pilate,...because Jesus was not given the name Christ till well after his execution by hanging.

As I mentioned, Christ is an ancient term which can historically be found in the writings of Aeschylus, and the Father of History, Herodotus.

Speaking of Christ, Aeschylus, and Herodotus, here's an interesting Theosophical comment on the subject:

Chrestos (Gr.). The early Gnostic form of Christ. It was used in the fifth century B.C. by Aeschylus, Herodotus, and others. The Manteumata pythochresta, or the "oracles delivered by a Pythian god" through a pythoness, are mentioned by the former (Choeph. 901). Chresterion is not only "the seat of an oracle", but an offering to, or for, the oracle. Chrestes is one who explains oracles, "a prophet and soothsayer", and Chresterios one who serves an oracle or a god.

The earliest Christian writer, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, calls his co-religionists Chrestians. "It is only through ignorance that men call themselves Christians instead of Chrestians," says Lactantius (lib. iv., cap. vii.). The terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians, were borrowed from the Temple vocabulary of the Pagans. Chrestos meant in that vocabulary a disciple on probation, a candidate for hierophantship. When he had attained to this through initiation, long trials, and suffering, and had been "anointed" (i.e., "rubbed with oil", as were Initiates and even idols of the gods, as the last touch of ritualistic observance), his name was changed into Christos, the "purified", in esoteric or mystery language. In mystic symbology, indeed, Christes, or Christos, meant that the "Way", the Path, was already trodden and the goal reached; when the fruits of the arduous labour, uniting the personality of evanescent clay with the indestructible INDIVIDUALITY, transformed it thereby into the Immortal EGO. "At the end of the Way stands the Chrestes", the Purifier, and the union once accomplished, the Chrestos, the "man of sorrow", became Christos himself.

Paul the Evangelist knew this, and meant this precisely, when he is made to say, in bad translation: "I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv. 19), the true rendering of which is "until ye form the Christos within yourselves". But the profane who knew only that Chrestes was in some way connected with priest and prophet, and knew nothing about the hidden meaning of Christos, insisted, as did Lactantius and Justin Martyr, on being called Chrestians instead of Christians.

Every good individual, therefore, may find Christ in his "inner man" as Paul expresses it (Ephes. iii. 16, 17), whether he be Jew, Mussulman, Hindu, or Christian. Kenneth Mackenzie seemed to think that the word Chrestos was a synonym of Soter, "an appellation assigned to deities, great kings and heroes," indicating "Saviour." Great divinities among all nations, who are represented as expiatory or self-sacrificing, have been designated by the same title." (R. M. Cyclop.) The Asklepios (or Aesculapius) of the Greeks had the title of Soter.

[vicente]

This occurrence is mentioned in a non-Christian historical text.

Can you name one?

Before you do, consider this:

Sciolistic Christians vaunt that the historian Josephus, in two out of context remarks, verifies that Jesus/Yeshua existed. Today however, even conservative scholars agree that those quotes in chapters 18 and 20 of the Jewish Antiquities, a history of the Jews, were Christian interpolations. Such conclusions are consistent with Origen, the ante-Nicene father who in the 3rd century CE indicated that such a declaration from Josephus, of a Jesus Christ, did not exist in his copy of the Jewish Antiquities, nor did anyone else before the 4th century CE ever mention such an important reference from this often used source. Another claim by neo-Christians, as to Jesus Christ's historicity by Tacitus, is merely a 2nd century hearsay account. In Cornelius Tacitus’ Annals 15.44, the comment of how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians after Rome’s fire of 64 AD, was actually about Gnostic Christians, worshipers of Sarapis, not followers of Jesus, nor Paul. It was these Christians, the original Christians, whom the author of the Gospels of Matthew, a 2nd Century writing, called false Christians.

Considering a set of all knowledge for that period, not a single Jewish, Roman or Greek historian, scribe or writer before 95 CE mentions the Jesus Christ depicted in the Gospels. There are no artifacts, no works of carpentry, no physical evidence that a Jesus Christ ever existed. For such a famous person, professed to have been known far and wide, not a word from Pliny the Elder, Seneca, Gaius Petronius, the Syrian Mara, Philo Judaeus, Pausanias who traveled Syria, Theon of Smyrna, Thallus of Sameria, Silius Consul of Asia Minor, Syrian born Lucianus, etc. And yet, the word scribe(s) is mentioned at least 66 times throughout the New Testament. Thus, over and over again, what was not mentioned, says much regarding the history of present day Christianity. For instance, why was the Capital of Galilee, Sepphoris, known as the Ornament of Galilee, just four miles down the hill from the archeological site of Nazareth, never alluded to? Not in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John; although they all mention Nazareth. Could it be that the authors of the Gospels were unaware the city existed, because Rome leveled it during the Jewish Revolt of 66-71 CE., some forty years after the Talmud's Jesus/Yeshua was hung for sedition?

Vicente

[Thomas Knierim]

vicente: I would never say that a man named Christ was sentenced to death by Pilate...

Yes, he was called "Christ" only long after his death. To be correct one would have to say that Pilatus sentenced a man named Jesus to death who was (in the second century) called Christ.

vicente: Can you name one?

Well, you already mentioned the historical sources. There is Josephus and the Jewish Anitquities and there is Tacitus who mentions the Christians. Most scholars seem to think that the second (longer) text passage in Josephus is "engineered", because of its value judgement. One would think that Josephus, who was friends with the Romans, doesn't have any reason to think highly of a group which was so disliked by the Romans. What concerns Tacitus, there is nothing concrete, because he only mentions the fact that Christians were made scapegoats for Nero's burning of Rome. If Jesus was attributed "Christ" only in the second century, then these "Christians" might not even have been followers of Jesus. Besides, neither Joesphus nor Tacitus appear to have had any first-hand knowledge about Jesus.

So what do the historical sources say at all? In my view they only indicate that there was a Jewish man named Jesus born in Nazareth or Bethlehem (who the heck knows?) and that he was executed when he was roughly 30 years old by the Roman prefect Pilatus. That's all. Nobody in the Roman Empire seems to have taken a great interest in him at the time.

The life of Jesus and his sayings are basically legend.

Cheers, Thomas

[vicente]

If Jesus was attributed "Christ" only in the second century, then these "Christians" might not even have been followers of Jesus. Besides, neither Joesphus nor Tacitus appear to have had any first-hand knowledge about Jesus.

All the known historical references suggest that what we call Christianity today. stole the term Christian from the Gnostics in the first half of the 2nd Century.

As I mentioned:
The Jesus Christ myth was interwoven from many sources, like the Egypto-Greek Sarapis, whose devotees, according to Hadrian, called themselves Christians and Bishops of Christ. Sarapians had temples in most of the major cities of the time, including Alexandria, Rome, and even Bithynia, where Pliny the Younger was governor, at the beginning of the 2nd Century CE. Bear in mind, that under Trajan (who was married to Pompeia Piso), Hadrian was Governor of Syria, and as every Bible hobbyist should know, Matthew 4:24 claims that Jesus' fame reached throughout all of Syria; yet the evidence shows that no one there knew Jesus' followers as Christians until well into the 2nd Century.

Vicente

[Thomas Knierim]

I am certainly not a Bible hobbyist. My interest in this is fairly limited and my knowledge is anecdotal, but it's good to learn more about this topic. Thanks for your valuable input.

Cheers, Thomas

[Minneserenity]

Dear Vincent:

As a newbie here, I'd like to comment on how pleasantly surprised I am at the level of rational discourse and good manners practiced at this forum and on this subject in particular. And I'm more than a little impressed by your knowledge on this subject.

Isn't much of the wrangling that many have about "Christianity" due to the tendency many have to disregard any sect of Christianity that isn't or wasn't orthodox?

Rather than say that "gnosticism isn't Christianity," as many irate Bible thumpers do, wouldn't it be far more intellectually honest for them to instead say that Gnosticism isn't ORTHODOX Christianity?

I seem to recall that prior to 553 AD, Orthodox Christianity hadn't at least "officically" condemned Gnostic Christianity's reincarnation doctrine for example. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself states, in regard to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, that "anyone asserting the belief in the preexistence of souls (reincarnation) would be anathema."

From what I've been able to glean from the the books I've read over the years, while orthodoxy "won out," it seems to have been more a matter of superior "fire power" rather than any intrinsic "superiority" of orthodoxy itself over the other Christian so-called "heretic" sects.

However the orthodox version may not have got off totally unscathed, for the Jesus story does bear a striking resemblance to the dozens of other Christos myths from every continent on earth--even from the New World. I read that the Spanish Missionaries were astonished and then angered by the similar myths they encountered in Precolumbian S. America. They naturally attributed it all to the "Devil."

In view of these recurring global Christos myths I offer three possibilities:

1: Atheists are correct, and Jesus is just another Christos myth. Perhaps when all the continents were connected people took their myths and/or histories with them.

2: Orthodoxy is correct, and Christianity "Greco-romanized." One example of this is how the Church superimposed its own holidays upon significant "pagan" dates.

3: Mystics are correct, and Christos existed before Jesus, and they will exist after as well--all equal and from the same creator but "different" to suit the needs and idiosyncrasies of the people and times they might be in at some future date.

In closing here are some interesting pro-reincarnation quotations by some heavy hitters in early Christianity that some may be astonished to see. They clearly demonstrate a significant divergence from what many consider to be "Christianity" today.

However perhaps it would be more proper in such a case to use the word "Orthodoxy" since I believe that using the word "Christianity" in this context is inaccurate and gives the impression of sanctioning the violent intolerence Orthodoxy once practiced against "heretics." One need only say the word "gnostic" in the presence of a Protestant or a Catholic and note the expression of distaste and fear. They have almost no idea what it was or is, but they're instantly inolerant of it. I think that that says it all.

In conclusion, as the quotes that follow suggest, Christianity may have once been very different from Orthodoxy's version of it today. And Orthodoxy if it ventured into the dim past, might scarecely recognize him, and if He suddenly appeared in the here and now, I suspect that many so-called Christians would shun and repudiate him:

"Every soul... comes into this world strengthened by the victories or weakened by the defeats of it previous life. Its place in this world as a vessel appointed to honor or dishonor, is determined by its previous merits or demerits. Its work in this world determines its place in the world which is to follow this."

Origen - De Principiis (early church father) (185 - 254 A.D.)


"... it is absolutely necessary that the soul should be healed and purified, and if this does not take place during its life on earth, it must be accomplished in future lives."

St. Gregory - (257 - 332 A.D.)


"The message of Plato, the purest and the most luminous of all philosophy, has at last scattered the darkness of error, and now shines forth mainly in Plotinus, a Platonist so like his master that one would think they lived together, or rather, since so long a period of time separates them - that Plato was born again in Plotinus."

St. Augustine - (354 - 430 A.D.

Naturally there's more, but my screen "runneth over"...

Regards,

Minneserenity

[poulenc]

For my money, the best book on all this is John Shelby Spong's "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism." Scholarly but eminently readable. It's in paperback from Harper Collins and the ISBN number is 0-06-067518-7 for the paperback and 0-06-067509-8 for the cloth. He pinpoints exactly why the Bible is great literature and terrible history...and how its deeply spiritual nature managed to survive all the grotesque contortions of science and history that were imposed upon it while it was put together...and continue to this very day!

[vicente]

However perhaps it would be more proper in such a case to use the word "Orthodoxy" since I believe that using the word "Christianity" in this context is inaccurate and gives the impression of sanctioning the violent intolerence

Yes, I also find myself, while discussing this subject, to stress the differentiation between orthodox Christianity and "the historically original Christianity. I often call today's Christianity neo-Christianity, but orthodox (Growing Belief/opinion) fits much better.

As I have mentioned in this threads posts, the term Christos and Christianity can be seen as early as the 5th Century B.C.E. There appears to be little doubt that the 5th Century B.C.E. Greeks got the term from the Egyptian Krst philosophy from Memphis. Krst is said to have meant a "annointed One".

I would not dare say that Jesus' Nazarite cult were unfamiliar with the term Christos,...but looking at the more credible Gnostic texts (at least in my opinion), I'm not even slightly convinced that they, nor Gnostics or Sarapians of Jesus' day, considered him a Christ.

From all accounts I see as substantial, no Gnostics following Jesus execution (as per the Talmud story of Yeshua Ben Stada; the locally notorious Yeshua [Jesus] the Notzri [Nazarite], considered Jesus a Christ, a son of God, a ressurrected being, or died for anyones "sins".

Vicente
:)

[Minneserenity]

Dear Deva:

<<in that same class two other professors used to come hang out with us

it was probably the best class i ever took

so one day i asked if there was any evidence that jesus had visited the east before he began his ministry

two of the professors looked at each other (for support?) and said there is no evidence

but then professor number three says 'yes there is'

what do you think V

and serenity

well said>>

I'm not clear if the above was meant for me too, so I'll put in my two cent's worth:

Pro: Honestly I have no absolute proof that He did exist then there or elsewhere in time and space; but I believe and feel that He did.

I find the Gnostic/Essene theories of Jesus to be far more convincing, whereas I don't for a second buy the orthodox version of Jesus. There are simply too many contradictions in it for me to take it seriously. For example:

1--The Romans were obsessive record keepers, yet not one Roman map or paper mentions Nazareth. Nor does the Torah, Saint Paul or Flavius Josephus for that matter. And in the original Greek I'm told it's "Jesus the Nazarene" rather than "Jesus of Nazareth." Isn't it interesting that a sect known as the Nazarenes existed during that same period...

2--Simply referencing an almanac revealed to me that nobody has or ever will herd sheep in the middle of winter anywhere, let alone the Holy Land. It's too cold.

3--If Jesus truly were a Jewish Rabbi, then why didn't the Pharissees and Sadducess criticize him for not obeying Mishaic Law which required would-be Jewish Rabbis to marry before teaching? And Judaic orthodoxy of that period repudiated celibacy, yet the Bible is silent on all of this. When the Nicean Council voted Jesus equal to God, did they expunge any humanistic references to Jesus that would have contradicted their decision?

4--Various books I've read had revealed that Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, the Apocalypse of Peter(Greek), and the Koran assert that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrews 5:7-8, & Gospel of Barnabas declare the crucifixion was a hoax.

5--Referencing elsewhere reveals that Judaic law forbade the Sanhedrin to convene at night & only allowed execution by stoning. I've since read that the "custom" of releasing prisoners during Passover never existed. The vinegar given Jesus wasn't a torment but a common stimulant. And it's strange that for most the crucifixion routinely took days, or even weeks, to kill, whereas how odd that the son of a carpenter would die in the mere space of a few hours?! The carpenters I've known were very durable! Elsewhere I've read that in the original Greek, Joseph of Arimathea asks for the body of Jesus with the word "SOMA"--a word that applied ONLY to *LIVING* bodies. According to Roman law at that time, all crucified dead were denied burial & left to decompose on the cross as a warning to others.

6--Is there anything in Christianity, the Bible, or elsewhere, attributed to Jesus, His apostles or disciples suggestive that any of them (or indeed even the general populace) were for, against or even aware of reincarnation despite the claims of Orthodox Christianity to the contrary?

Again during the Fifth Ecumenical Council cerca 553 AD, it ruled that "anyone asserting the belief in the preexistence of souls (reincarnation) would be anathema." Does that mean that Christians beforehand did?

Since the four Gospels date approx. from 66-74 & 132-135 AD, could certain Biblical passages some have cited assuggestive of reincarnation truly be subtle remnants of Christianity's reincarnation doctrine?

The Samaritans, in their Taheb doctrine, affirmed reincarnation, yet Jesus still spoke well of them in the famous quotation.

How about at least some of the Jews?

According to Flavius Josephus, Eleazar, commander of the Masada garrison before it fell to the Romans, gave speeches astonishingly Essene, & even *Gnostic*, in nature with concepts like pre-existing immortal souls & reincarnation.

Yet as one reads the Bible, clearly Jesus never shrank from rebuking what he regarded as false teachings, yet Jesus never criticized reincarnation in the Bible...

<<i think i would like jesus if he showed up unproclaimed>>

I hope that we both would, and thank you.

Okay, my screen runneth over.

I apologize in advance for any typos and/or redundancies. For what it's worth, I'm a graduate student, have three jobs and run a household by myself, and I"m often tired. And since I live in the Bible Belt, it's a rare treat to converse with people who share ideas more similar to my own.

Regards,

Minneserenity

[Minneserenity]

SorryP. I meant Psyche--not Deva.

And thank you V. for your reply.

M.

[sonrisa]

Minneserenity, re: point #3 in your post- click here (http://www.llewellynjournal.com/article/659ååå) to read about the Sacred Marriage. The bible passages concerning Mary Magdalene make sense if she was Jesus' wife. But the early church fathers demoted Mary Magdalene from wife to hooker.

to all, I read somewhere that alot of what we know as Christianity was taken whole cloth from the cult of Mithras. So much so that St Augustin was supposed to have remarked that the priests of Mithras worshipped the same god he did. Any thoughts on that?

[Minneserenity]

<<Minneserenity, re: point #3 in your post- click here to read about the Sacred Marriage. The bible passages concerning Mary Magdalene make sense if she was Jesus' wife. But the early church fathers demoted Mary Magdalene from wife to hooker.>>

I've bookmarked the link. Thank you. I skimmed it now, but will read it more carefully later. I'm somewhat familiar with the general theory via the DaVinci Code and from Holy Blood Holy Grail. Some have theorized that the Canaa wedding was actually that of Jesus and Mary. I believe it was Pope Gregory who mischaracterized Mary M. as a prostitute. I'm told that it wasn't out of spite, but rather as a way to give hope to those who were perceived as the lowest of the low at that time.

<<to all, I read somewhere that alot of what we know as Christianity was taken whole cloth from the cult of Mithras. So much so that St Augustin was supposed to have remarked that the priests of Mithras worshipped the same god he did. Any thoughts on that? >>

Yes, it does bear a striking resemblance to Christianity in several salient details. Additionally many aspects of the Roman's Sol Invictus cult will sound quite familiar to many Christians as well. Moreover the myth of Krishna closely resembles that of Jesus as do Egyptian, and even a South American one that I do not recall the name of right now. I am aware of at least sixteen Christos myths throughout the world that resemble and predate the story of Jesus.

Interestingly mythologists declare that there are recognizable"Jack in the Beanstalk" myths on every continent on earth that seemingly occured independently.

What does all the similar global mythology mean?

Even Joseph Campbell wasn't sure.

Regards,

M.

[Minneserenity]

<<jesus and what he said are the only aspects of christianity i really care about>>

I respect that, and in the final analysis that's probably the most important thing.

However my take is as follows: Neo conservatives insist on making policies for the rest of us based on their particular Orthodox Christian dogma based on the following assumptions:

1--Their way is the only way.

2--Human life begins at physical conception.

3--We only incarnate once.


But what if...

...the soul actually pre exists as Origen, St. Gregory and et al. who I quoted in an earlier post clearly seemed to believe?

It would mean that the physical body would simply be an inert vessel whenever without the soul as the only source of life, mind, thoughts, emotions, and consciousness.

...the doctrine of inclusiveness recently declared by the Pentecostal Bishop Carlton Pearson is actually more true than that of the orthodox Pentecostal dogma he deviated from based on a revelation he claims to have had from God?

It would mean that we all go to "heaven" regardless; that "sin" is merely ignorance and "hell" a condition we suffer only here in this life--not in a literal sense eternally and unfairly elsewhere.

After all, whenever do finite causes ever have infinite effects?

Surely not in any rational universe or by any loving God. One might fear, serve and pray to such a cruel orthodox God, but one could never love it.

...the soul is literally eternal and existed before this life and long after?

It would mean that the Gnostics were right, and the orthodox might does not make right. It would mean that just as in modern cognitive psychology science, it is recognized and proven to be vastly more humane and therapeutic when one is allowed to make mistakes, learn from them and has the chance to try again to do better. How else will one ever learn, change and gtow into something better? Judging, labeling and condemning people only makes things worse in temporal affairs, so I fail to see how it would ever be otherwise in spiritual ones. After all, as both Aristotle and the Kybalion said more or less about the law of correspondence, the laws of the lower planes mirror those of the higher or "As above so below."

If just any one of these "what if's" are correct then it would have HUGE implications for the credibility of certain sociopolitical legislation promoted by the present Republican administration that it would impose upon everyone else in this country--Christian or non--.

Regards.

M.

[Minneserenity]

I apologize if it seemed I were criticizing you, but actually such a purpose never entered my consciousness the whole time I wrote it.

I got the impression from your post just before my last one that you are into transcedance, so you are not particularly involved or interested in temporal politics/affairs so I assumed you realized that remainder of what I wrote had not been with you in mind. And I took the chance of speaking my mind thinking that I could do so without further clarification as I had the impression that the gist of what I had written had sufficiently communicated it.

Except for the quote of yours, the remainder of my last post wasn't meant to have anything to do with you or your beliefs nor was it meant as some sort of oblique subtle criticism.

How could I?

I just "met" you,and we've never discussed them in detail so it would be impossible for me to do so.

Just to be clear, my last post was meant solely as a commentary solely on the "Big View" insofar as how certain things Orthodoxy takes for granted about the Bible and Jesus seem to fuel US government policy that potentially can have temporal consequences for all citizens here in the US Christian or non-- regardless.

[vicente]

Bible and Jesus seem to fuel US government policy that potentially can have temporal consequences for all citizens here in the US Christian or non-- regardless.

SEEM????

No, there is much more than a "seem",...even though the majority of the American Sheeple don't recognize it, mostly because they are part of the problem.

For example:

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand....after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Secretary of the Interior James Watt on Global Warming

"I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George HW Bush, August 27, 1987

"the solution to Islam is for the United States to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter 2001

"If you have the opportunity to get a few liberals out of office, do it," he told the evangelicals. "You will be doing the Lord’s work, and He will richly bless you for it." Republican Sen. James Inhofe, of Oklahoma

"We must fight against those radical minorities who are trying to remove God from our textbooks, Christ from our nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours." Jerry Farwell

"I am fighting for the work of the lord", George W Bush April 11, 2002

"I am fighting for the work of the lord", Adolph Hitler, the Mein Kampf

[sonrisa]

MInneS-- some have theorized that the Cana wedding was actually that of Jesus and Mary (Magdalene)

--yeah I've heard that as well. If not Jesus' wedding, then one of his sibs. Otherwise, why would the wine stewards tell Jesus' Mother about the wine situation, unless she was hostessing that soiree.

but it gets better: the only book the Cana wedding is in is John. Now John was much younger than the rest of the apostles, always portrayed without a beard, like a teenage kid. What if he was? At the wedding, when Mother Mary tells Jesus they need more wine, Jesus tells her his "time has not yet come" (John 2:4) but performs the miracle anyhow.

what if the Cana wedding occured not at the onset of Jesus' ministry, but beforehand, years beforehand? In those days Jewish couples typically married in their teens. Could John have been writing about his parents' wedding? Jesus' ministry did not start until he was around 30. At which point he could of had a 12-13 year old son. John was the Beloved Apostle. Becuz he was Jesus' son? On the cross Jesus instucts John (the only apostle present at the crucifixion) to take care of Mother Mary. Becuz she's his gramma? It would all make sense.

it's possible Pope Gregory meant to give hope to the lowest of the low by making Mary M a hooker. But there was also this notion going around that Jesus was too holy to be doing the nasty (it's dirty, remember?) So.... no sex, no family. Morever, the cult of Mithras was very male-oriented. So references to strong women like Mary M had to be watered down or purged altogether. But the early church fathers didn't edit the Bible very well. Which is why you have these strange passages in it that only make sense if you read them in the context that Jesus had a wife & family.

MinneS-- many aspects of the Roman's Sol Invictus cult will sound quite familiar to many Christians as well

-- Constantine practiced Sol Invictus. He merely ended the persecution of Christians- provided they incorporated aspects of Sol Invictus into their religion, of course. So basically, what we call Christianity is a mixture of Sol Invictus & Mithras. Gnostism, probably a truer form of Christianity (altho at this point, who knows?) was purged & declared a heresy. So was Origen, btw.

MinneS-- if just any one of these "what if's" are correct then it would have HUGE implications for the credibility of certain sociopolitical legislation promoted by the present Republican administration that it would impose upon everyone else in this country-- Christian or non--

-- well the bible does say to beware of false profits, um I mean prophets, er, whatever. :D

[Minneserenity]

<<SEEM????>>
:lol: Well, you've got me there.

<<No, there is much more than a "seem",...even though the majority of the American Sheeple don't recognize it, mostly because they are part of the problem.>>

I don't necessarily disagree with you. And the quotes are a nice touch.

If use words like seem and might it is merely because I'm accustomed to writing non inflammtory essays for mixed audiences. Rather than make direct attacks, I've found it far more effective to ask open questions, peak people's curiosity therefrom and hopefully inspire them to go look for the answers themselves.

That way they think that they "discovered" the answer, and they are far more likely to believe it to be true if they think it's their truth that they found. Otherwise one risks making them resistant to a fact even if it is true.

It's a little sneaky, but sometimes it works.

M.

[Minneserenity]

Hi Sonrisa,

I perceive another scholar like myself.

<<--yeah I've heard that as well. If not Jesus' wedding, then one of his sibs. Otherwise, why would the wine stewards tell Jesus' Mother about the wine situation, unless she was hostessing that soiree.>>

Good question. And it took a lot of money to run a shindig [sp?] like that which sort of brings into question the whole poor-soon-of-a-carpenter thing. And how many poor carpenters do we know who are multilingual, skilled at story telling/public speaking and well-versed in philosophy?

<<but it gets better: the only book the Cana wedding is in is John. Now John was much younger than the rest of the apostles, always portrayed without a beard, like a teenage kid. What if he was? At the wedding, when Mother Mary tells Jesus they need more wine, Jesus tells her his "time has not yet come" (John 2:4) but performs the miracle anyhow.>>

Yes, that passage has puzzled me too. There's apparently no rhyme or reason to the exact order of the four gospels that I've ever heard anyone pontificate upon.

<<what if the Cana wedding occured not at the onset of Jesus' ministry, but beforehand, years beforehand? In those days Jewish couples typically married in their teens. Could John have been writing about his parents' wedding? Jesus' ministry did not start until he was around 30. At which point he could of had a 12-13 year old son. John was the Beloved Apostle. Becuz he was Jesus' son? On the cross Jesus instucts John (the only apostle present at the crucifixion) to take care of Mother Mary. Becuz she's his gramma? It would all make sense.>>

That's a very intriguing hypothesis that I've never heard before regarding John being the son of Jesus. Many historians feel that the gospels were written decades after the apparent crucifixion by scribes unfamiliar with the intricasies of culture and geography. It's certainly possible that they might have gotten some things bass ackwards, and the later modifications revealed in the book "Misquoting Jesus" certainly make Biblical accuracy even more problematic. Even if none of the other potentials for inaccuracyexisted, I personally suspect that when you have non-mystics translating the stuff of genuine empirical mysticism, they're doomed to get it wrong even with the best of intentions.

<<it's possible Pope Gregory meant to give hope to the lowest of the low by making Mary M a hooker. But there was also this notion going around that Jesus was too holy to be doing the nasty (it's dirty, remember?) So.... no sex, no family. Morever, the cult of Mithras was very male-oriented. So references to strong women like Mary M had to be watered down or purged altogether. But the early church fathers didn't edit the Bible very well. Which is why you have these strange passages in it that only make sense if you read them in the context that Jesus had a wife & family.>>

The fact that Constantine had to sell this new religion to the Roman masses would make the synthesis of Sol Invictus and Mithrasism with Christianity plausible. It would have made it far more palatable. And it may be possible that the Jews were made the villain insofar as the crucifixion is concerned for the same reason and others that I wrote of earlier.

<<Constantine practiced Sol Invictus. He merely ended the persecution of Christians- provided they incorporated aspects of Sol Invictus into their religion, of course. So basically, what we call Christianity is a mixture of Sol Invictus & Mithras. Gnostism, probably a truer form of Christianity (altho at this point, who knows?) was purged & declared a heresy. So was Origen, btw.>>

I'm a huge fan of Elaine Pagels' books on Gnosticism. From what I recall her view was that Orthodoxy had it in for Gnosticism because A: It wasn't a system that was written down it books and so couldn't be standardized and thus monopolized orthodoxy. B: It empowered the individual to seek/find God/whatever on their own and made intercessors and organized religion irrelevant.

<<-- well the bible does say to beware of false profits, um I mean prophets, er, whatever>>

Nice job with the profits/prophets!

Very ironic in these times of self-absorbed greed and entitlement. It sickens me when our troops fight and die for us overseas, and of every gallon of gas we buy, 50% goes to the Middle East, and a significant portion of that obviously funds the war for terrorism. So when I see Hummers and ATV's ad nauseum driving offensively on the road, I can't but help think that rather than have a bumper sticker that reads on their back bumper: I support the troops, their's should read: I support my own sense of entitlement.

M.

[Minneserenity]

<<i felt no criticism>>

Good then.

I'm relieved that no slight was perceived since none was intended.

I used to be more into transcendance via Raja yoga, and I still respect it, but I've changed somewhat--hopefully better for my particular incarnation--as the years have transpired.

M.

[sonrisa]

MinneS-- it took alot of money to run a shindig like that which sort of brings into question the whole poor-son-of-a-carpenter thing.

-- I am the granddaughter of a carpenter. Trust me, they make good $. They may not be rolling in it, but they ain't starving either.


MinneS-- how many poor carpenters do we know who are multilingual, skilled at storytelling/public speaking, and well-versed in philosophy?

-- you aren't the only one to question that. Some scholars have suggested that Jesus spent time with the Essenes. They were known to take in poor kids, or kids from families of modest means, & educate them.


MinneS-- that's a very intriguing hypothesis that I've never heard before regarding John being the son of Jesus.

-- yeah, I read it years ago in some book or mag. I tried to find a link- any link- referencing John being the son of Jesus, but was unsuccessful. As I remember this article, John was supposedly talking about his parents' marriage, but not Jesus & Mary M. The dude was trying to establish a New Testament counterpart to the Lilith/Adam/Eve triangle in the Old Testament. Jesus is, after all, the New Adam. So if Mary M is the New Eve, the the New Lilith is..... who? This dude suggested a 1st marriage when Jesus was in his late teens- when Jewish boys/men normally married- to some unknown unnamed girl who died, possibly in childbirth, possibly from disease. At any rate, Jesus was left with a young son to raise, which is why he delayed his ministry. By the time Jesus was 30, the kid would of been bar mitzvahed, ie became a man in the eyes of Jewish Law, & Jesus would of felt free to start his ministry, with his son, now legally an adult, in tow.

however, IMHO, Jesus & Mary M could of just as easily been married in their teens & had kids. As noted previously, Jesus told his Mother that his "time had not yet come". Jesus could simply have waited & startd his ministry when he felt his time had come.

what the bible does tell us is that John was James' brother. Since James was Jesus' brother, that would also make John Jesus' brother. Except that Mark lists all of Jesus' brothers at the beginning of Chapter 6. John is not among them (the other 3 are Joseph, Judah, & Simon) Since John was so much younger than the other apostles, some scholars have suggested that John was actually James' son. Which would make him Jesus' nephew. That could very well be.

But John the Beloved is also known as John the Divine. A chip off the old block, maybe? The Early Church Fathers, in their editing out evidence that Jesus was a red blooded male, may have given John to James to obscure this.

MinneS-- nice job with the profits/prophets!

-- :devilish:
I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll post it again for your benefit in case you haven't seen it: when my nephew was living in Philadelphia, sometimes he & his friends would take the train down to Washington & talk to the Congressmen.

Re:the Middle East- according to my nephew, some of these idiots actually want Armageddon to happen. They actually think there's gonna be a rapture & all that nonsense. The whole 9 yards. But more to the point, these greedy bastards want the keys to the Thousand Year Kingdom. I mean talk about entitlement!!

but what I find most intesesting in all this is the unintended consequences of these fools trying to self-fulfill certain biblical phrophecies. And that is that other phrophecies- biblical & otherwise- appear to be coming to pass. Please note the word "appear" I am not a True Believer- Lord knows there's enough of those running around loose :rolleyes:- I just find it interesing, that's all.

but I will say this: anybody who spews hate, & passes it off as god's word, anybody who thinks war & WMD's are the path to glory & salvation, is most definitely tangled up with a false god/phrophet.

I shall have to read Elaine Pagel's books, they sound interesting. What I do know about Gnosticism I like. It seems to me to be a much truer faith that what's passing as Christianity these daze. And organized religion should be irrelevant. As things stand, it's a menace to humankind.

[Minneserenity]

<<I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll post it again for your benefit in case you haven't seen it: when my nephew was living in Philadelphia, sometimes he & his friends would take the train down to Washington & talk to the Congressmen.>>

No, I haven't. Thanks.

<<Re:the Middle East- according to my nephew, some of these idiots actually want Armageddon to happen. They actually think there's gonna be a rapture & all that nonsense. The whole 9 yards. But more to the point, these greedy bastards want the keys to the Thousand Year Kingdom. I mean talk about entitlement!!>>

I strongly feel that the best way to "support the troops" and be "patriotic" is to make energy independence #1 priority. But the resistance to it in industry and government to it in my mind paints a vastly different picture of where their priorities are too.

<<but what I find most intesesting in all this is the unintended consequences of these fools trying to self-fulfill certain biblical phrophecies. And that is that other phrophecies- biblical & otherwise- appear to be coming to pass. Please note the word "appear" I am not a True Believer- Lord knows there's enough of those running around loose - I just find it interesing, that's all.>>

As Joseph Campbell observed, in this "modern" age we like to scoff at mythology and say it's "just a myth"--except for our own that is.

<<but I will say this: anybody who spews hate, & passes it off as god's word, anybody who thinks war & WMD's are the path to glory & salvation, is most definitely tangled up with a false god/phrophet.>>

Yes, they will practice hate yet call it love, practice greed yet call it righteousness...

<<I shall have to read Elaine Pagel's books, they sound interesting. What I do know about Gnosticism I like. It seems to me to be a much truer faith that what's passing as Christianity these daze. And organized religion should be irrelevant. As things stand, it's a menace to humankind.>>

If the orthodox Christians had irrefutable proof that their preferred gospels had been tampered with and were inaccurate, it could have vast consequences for their so-called "faith-based" policies... That's why some one-star reviewers at amazon.com go ballistic over books like hers, or they try the "scholarly" approach and sneer that it isn't "Christianity." Or others try character assasination and sneer that Gnosticism is "elitist."

I'll let the reader decide which is more elitist: Gnosticism's empowerment of all who will listen to learn the supposed secret knowledge or gnosis to sidestep organized religions/intercessors and find God/whatever on their own;

or

Orthodoxy's claim of an absolute monopoly on God, that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot or worse, and threats of dire mortal consequences for any "heretics" both here and for an eternity "elsewhere." In other words: Keep the fear alive; be like us or die!

The former teaches genuine faith based on first-hand empirical experience, the other imposes fear based rote dogma based on hearsay, and as the gnostics called it ,"a faith of fools," or second-hand faith.

All other disciplines in human existence require both theory and lab work. I fail to see why spirituality should be any different.

Sure, maybe Gnosticism is not Orthodox Christianity; but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not more true than the alternative. And Pagels does a wonderful job of showing the differences. I particularly recommend:


The Gnostic Gospels: A Startling Account of the Meaning of Jesus and the Origin of Christianity Based on Gnostic Gospels and Other Secret Texts by Elaine Pagels

and


Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (Vintage) by Elaine Pagels (Paperback - May 4, 2004)

Regards,

M

[vicente]

i went thru yoga also but then to vajrayana buddhism

You went "thru vajrayana buddhism"? I've always looked at Vajra as the last Path, or even the Pathless Path, for let's be honest, Paths seek to get, not to let go,...Vajra is about Letting Go. Especially letting go of the delusions proselytized by the Abrahamic religions.

As Vajra says:
The clear light of Vajra cannot be revealed by canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises, nor of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka; the clear light of Vajra is veiled by concepts and ideals.

V
:)

[vicente]

my point being on the nature of belief

you believed it because you were told

i disbelieved it because the babaji i knew of was not publically accesible

Don't understand why you would think that I believe the Babaji I met was or was not another Babaji. There was simply this fellow who announced himself as Babaji. He shaved the head of the guy who taught me Rebirthing. That guy, Leonard Orr, did claim in his book 'Physical Immortality, the Science of Everlasting Life' that Babji was the same Babji who has lived for hundred of years. Don't matter to me whether that is accurrate or not.

However, I, as Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey, does not concede that everyone is destined to die.

Vicente
:)

[Minneserenity]

<<may i ask a question>>

Yes, if I may.

<<what was christianity to you as a child as a young person and as a young adult>>

I am glad to say that my parents never imposed any of their spiritual views upon me. They let me come to my own conclusions and act accordingly. Their love wasn't predicated upon mindlessly following their lead in spiritual matters or anyone else's for that matter.

My parents brought me up around a tradition that draws a sharp distinction to what Paramhansa Yogananda termed "churchianity" vs Christianity. I was taught and came to the same conclusion that while the former practices hate and calls it love, the latter is simply one path of many to the same mountain summit. And spiritual inclusiveness featured prominently in my teachings as well. And no, I'm not a follower of Yogananda although I respect him as one of the few gurus who actually walked his talk.

<<did you grow up in a christian household>>

The closest thing it resembled would be Gnosticism. However I'd prefer not to ever go into the specifics of our tradition as I am sworn to secrecy for much of it. Moreover I do n0t care to be perceived as the unintentional default example of it. Additionally I do not care to be potentially perceived as trying to "sell it." There's enough of that by other dubious organizations and individuals on the web already.

I strongly feel that if a spiritual system is real, good and true it'll naturally"sell" itself.

Suffice it to say that my beloved late parents were classical mystics, and my views on Christianity and the Christ, like theirs, are distinctly Gnostic, in nature although no one in our tradition has ever called or calls it that to my knowledge. Nor is our tradition an offshoot of
Gnosticism; We simply share some commonalities with it.

Indeed I'm not even aware if there are any practicing "Gnostics" in existence by that name--at least none with any credible provenance.

Nor are we ecclectic "New Agers." While there are some good--or at least well-meaning--people and organizations who/that call themselves that term, we find the term far too inclusive, and sadly there are some appallingly puerile/credulous groups and individuals who call themselves that that have unfortunate reputations due to legal judgements not entirely in their favor. Our tradition prefers to avoid any perceived guilt by association and eschew the term.

<<how involved with your parents>>

Regularly although it tapered off later in life. Such things wax and wane like everything else. Perfectionism is a fool's errand--even modern psychology has proven that.

<<go to church weekly bible school etc.>>

Before my time, my mother had been Catholic, but she was disgusted with the mindless brutal dogmatism of her church and foresook it. My father was a Presybeterian, but his clandestine associations with yogis, Freemasons, Theosophists and ah...our tradition...resulted in that tradition being his sole focus. By the time I came around both my parents were heavily involved in that same mystical tradition. While I've studied the Bible, I've also read the Gita, Tao Te Ching, various and sundry Christian Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls/Gnostic Gospels, and the Books of Jasher and Enoch to name just a few... I permitted the highly-motived "witnessing" Christian neighbors to shuttle me to their church one Sunday. But my impression has always been the same: Nice people for the most part, but it still felt like spiritual kindergarden. I asked a few calculated-safe questions of the parishioners from time to time that revealed nothing of myself. More often than I care to admit I was appalled at the level of ignorance many demonstrated regarding the histories of their own faiths. One even was astonished that I understood one of the parables in the Bible. It's fairly easy considering that in the next paragraph Jesus patiently explains it to his obtuse apostles.

<<how did christianity manifest itself in your life>>

My association and subsequent experience with my tradition made the limitations of mere book learning quite evident. Ours was/is an empirical and pragmatic mysticism. It's that way for every other field of human endeavor from the very beginning, so I fail to see why it would be any different for spiritual concerns. And as I stated in my introduction to the forum, I prefer pragmatism to mere armchair philosophizing. And to that end I've occasionally had some gratifying results. But truth be told, it seems I've often learned far more from my mistakes than from my easy successes.

Thankfully perfectionism is not a requirment for everything I do, else I'd not be allowed to do anything.

Insofar as the Bible Belt crowd was concerend, we perceived many of them as nice people , but as people with whom we could probably never discuss what we really thought in spiritual terms. And since we consider spirituality to be a private matter, we felt no compulsion risk becoming a neighborhood controversy back in the days when the locals were far more intolerant and quick to judge. Things have improved however. I'd never thought I'd see yoga or tai qi taught at local community education

Regards,

M.

[vicente]

just out of curiosity did you read the chapter

I once forced myself to read Paramhansa Yogananda,...seems extremely Spiritually dishonest to me.

The Chapter claims, "The northern Himalayan crags near Badrinarayan are still blessed by the living presence of Babaji, guru of Lahiri Mahasaya". So why didn't Leonard Orr meet him while he was there, and then travel back to the States with him?

As for Yogananda,...it is said in Vajra that it takes an ascetic 1000 lifetimes to realize enlightenment,....it takes a monk 100 lifetimes to realize enlightenment,...and it takes a yogi 10 lifetimes to realize enlightenment. From Yogananda's writings, I'm quite certain that no Vajra practioner would say that Paramhansa came even close to enlightenment in his last lifetime. He very well may have several to go.

By the way, it only takes a Vajra practioner 1 lifetime to realize enlightenment.

Vicente
:)

[Minneserenity]

Hi Psyche:

I guess I just do what I do, and I'm particularly concerned about other people's paths as such. I try to be process oriented rather than approval oriented. Not all people's reactions to what I do at any given time are going to be rational and/or fair no matter how good a job I do or don't do.

I cannot speak on the authenticity re. the Self Realization Fellowship or Yogananda with credibility since I'm not an expert on either or the Byzantine Yoga sutras for that matter.
While some of the things Yogananda clicked with me, and he made a good impression because of it, I'm not really into kriya yoga or zen philosophy as neither appeals to my temperament. So those are discussions I prefer not to participate in unless there are aspects that relate to something useful in the context of my own life--like CBT for example which has aspects of buddhism in it that are useful with real-world issues right here and right now.

Regards,

M.

[Minneserenity]

Hi Psyche:

<<as i thought you came from a serious mindful background of christian thinkers and believers

and you are deeply scholarly about this>>

Yes and no.

Yes, because to not learn from the past is to risk having to repeat it.

No, because many who call themselves "scholars" merely collect knowledge the way misers do coins. Either case is pure self-absorbtion and does nobody any good unless its put into circulation.

While book knowledge and theory are "nice," empiricism--the lab work!--must follow both else it's all just words words words...and/or worse egos egos egos...

I silently observed plenty of that phenomena at the--shudder--compuserve religion forum.

Needless to say I do not participate there.

I don't think it says much of someone when they clearly think that you're an idiot or worse if you don't slavishly pander to their ideologies.

And so the very fact that I'm here and sharing says volumes about what I think of this forum.

Regards,

M.

[Minneserenity]

Oh, by the way, Psyche, I meant to write Kriya yoga in that last post rather than just 'yoga'. I still do hatha yoga for the obvious physical and mental benefits, so it's hardly accurate to say that yoga doesn't interest me.

M.