Aetherous

Not Mistranslating the Bible

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Spotless said:

I am simply curious - do any Christians here not care if Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not born of immaculate conception and did not resurrect?

 

Does (would) this essentially change the narrative, your beliefs and the teachings for you?

 

To me, those are things unknowable one way or another (and to think rationally, of course they seem like tall tales). It doesn't change the spiritual teachings for me.

 

7 hours ago, Spotless said:

——-

separate second question:

 

Additionally - would it radically change your beliefs if he did not die for our sins - walk on water and feed the masses from a couple of bowls of bread and fish?

 

(these are not trick questions and I have no agenda to argue any point - I am actually just wondering)

 

Since I place precedence on his own teachings over anything else, it doesn't change my beliefs at all. I view those things in the same way I do the virgin birth - unknowable stories. "Mysteries". Although, the truth of the matter is murky - for instance, despite Jesus himself teaching that people need to do the will of the Father (to do good), much of the New Testament teaches being saved through faith in his dying for the atonement of sins (and that's a very core tenet of many denominations), and not being saved through our own works. The true teaching of Christianity is not so cut and dry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spotless said:

I am simply curious - do any Christians here not care if Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not born of immaculate conception and did not resurrect?

 

Does (would) this essentially change the narrative, your beliefs and the teachings for you?

 

Well, I am definitely not what you would call an “institutional” Christian, but I do follow/respect the teachings of Jesus, and the concept of “Christ”. Being born of a physical virgin is not important or relevant to me, but born of the “Holy Spirit” or the energy/light significance is important/relevant. Resurrection (or physical ascension) of moving beyond the “earthly body” is also very important.

 

Quote

——-

separate second question:

 

Additionally - would it radically change your beliefs if he did not die for our sins - walk on water and feed the masses from a couple of bowls of bread and fish?

 

(these are not trick questions and I have no agenda to argue any point - I am actually just wondering)

 

Dying for our sins is also very important, but not in the institutional way most think. Sins are things that separate one from God, and those are issues fears. His sacrifice of his body for everyone, is more like a buddha sacrificing their Sambhogakaya to make a broader shift. Similar to how the TTC talks about becoming an  “uncarved block” for all.  His dying for everyone is like this...

 

John 14:10-17

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you askanything in My name, I will do it.15 “If you love Me, keepMy commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

 

What he did/accomplished was vastly beyond and more elegant than simply dying for some sins. He established an entirely new potential...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fa Xin said:

My question to you would be -  is it necessary to believe in such things to call oneself a Christian?

 

No, it's enough to know very superficially the story of a man you don't really care about... and then decontextualize the few words Jesus allegedly said and that a specific tradition reported in its sacred text for purposes that you don't know and frankly don't care about. 

 

You then project your own opinions and ideas on such decontextualized sayings of Jesus so that he apparently speaks about the marvelous secrets of the universe that you happen to know in advance so that you can actually explain to others how Jesus meant this and that with metaphors and coded words. 

Discard what really doesn't make sense because you're not a miracle worker yet. 

 

How would you define a person that teaches people the things that you actually would like to teach to other people ?  A genius! 

How great is dzogchen Jesus! How great is Yogi Jesus! How great vedantin Jesus! Etc... 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

No, it's enough to know very superficially the story of a man you don't really care about... and then decontextualize the few words Jesus allegedly said and that a specific tradition reported in its sacred text for purposes that you don't know and frankly don't care about. 

 

You then project your own opinions and ideas on such decontextualized sayings of Jesus so that he apparently speaks about the marvelous secrets of the universe that you happen to know in advance so that you can actually explain to others how Jesus meant this and that with metaphors and coded words. 

Discard what really doesn't make sense because you're not a miracle worker yet. 

 

How would you define a person that teaches people the things that you actually would like to teach to other people ?  A genius! 

How great is dzogchen Jesus! How great is Yogi Jesus! How great vedantin Jesus! Etc... 

 

 

 

Yikes :D

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

No, it's enough to know very superficially the story of a man you don't really care about... and then decontextualize the few words Jesus allegedly said and that a specific tradition reported in its sacred text for purposes that you don't know and frankly don't care about. 

 

You then project your own opinions and ideas on such decontextualized sayings of Jesus so that he apparently speaks about the marvelous secrets of the universe that you happen to know in advance so that you can actually explain to others how Jesus meant this and that with metaphors and coded words. 

Discard what really doesn't make sense because you're not a miracle worker yet. 

 

How would you define a person that teaches people the things that you actually would like to teach to other people ?  A genius! 

How great is dzogchen Jesus! How great is Yogi Jesus! How great vedantin Jesus! Etc... 

 

 

 

Interesting concept.  But earlier you seemed to state that you should ask a Jewish Rabbi about Jesus. Why would a Jewish Rabbi be a good source of information or view on Jesus?  By being a Rabbi he has already effectively stated that he does not believe in Jesus.

 

What about you? Are you Christian? Believe in Jesus?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Interesting concept.  But earlier you seemed to state that you should ask a Jewish Rabbi about Jesus. Why would a Jewish Rabbi be a good source of information or view on Jesus?  By being a Rabbi he has already effectively stated that he does not believe in Jesus.

 

My English is quite bad unfortunately. I said to ask a Jewish Rabbi about the theological concept of a New Covenant... and he will tell you how insane is such an idea with the proper scriptural evidences. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

What about you? Are you Christian? Believe in Jesus?

 

No, I'm not Christian, but I was raised as a Christian. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

My English is quite bad unfortunately. I said to ask a Jewish Rabbi about the theological concept of a New Covenant... and he will tell you how insane is such an idea with the proper scriptural evidences. 

 

Actually, I have had such discussions and it was interesting.  Also, there are many different sects/levels of traditional beliefs depending on the Rabbi.  I have even seen Rabbis beating themselves with rods as they wait for the return of David.  The teachings of Jesus are pretty radically different than the Jewish Torah.  There is actually much more similarity between the Koran and Torah, then the gospels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Actually, I have had such discussions and it was interesting.

 

Yes, this idea of an eternal covenant that cannot be randomly replaced with a new one is consistent in all forms of Judaism. 

 

15 minutes ago, Jeff said:

There is actually much more similarity between the Koran and Torah, then the gospels.

 

Have you read the Quran? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2019 at 5:36 AM, Fa Xin said:

 

Hi Spotless,

 

My question to you would be -  is it necessary to believe in such things to call oneself a Christian?

For a great many these are fundamental beliefs that matter a great deal. 

 

I am not Christian (though raised Catholic, Catholic school, Alter Boy, comparative religions major, philosophy major, wife with divinity graduate degree from Harvard - looked at Christianity at one point quite a bit).

 

I do not profess belief in any system or religion - the questions were simply to see what some of the responses would be.

 

They are for a very long time now non-issues in a religion I have no interest in other than a curiosity and in many cases the various sects truly appear as dinosaurs and devil worship.

Edited by Spotless
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Spotless said:

For a great many these are fundamental beliefs that matter a great deal. 

 

I am not Christian (though raised Catholic, Catholic school, Alter Boy, comparative religions major, philosophy major, wife with divinity degree from Harvard - looked at Christianity at one point quite a bit).

 

I do not profess belief in any system or religion - the questions were simply to see what some of the responses would be.

 

They are for a very long time now non-issues in a religion I have no interest in other than a curiosity and in many cases the various sects truly appear as dinosaurs and devil worship.

 

Thanks for your response. 

 

I mean your hypothetical questions are very interesting. 

 

My landlord is an older Italian man. He keeps a picture of the Risen Christ on the dashboard of his car. 

 

When I saw that... it reflected what Jesus is all about for me. A personal and heart felt connection.  I’m sure the picture brought him comfort, and maybe reminded him of something.  I wouldn’t want to question the tenets of his faith, as that is a sacred thing. Why would I question *his* God?

 

I know you say you have no beliefs, and no interest in it. But maybe you can appreciate that it is a heart based tradition, and it probably differs from one person to the next. Perhaps the mythos isn’t as important as the energy Jesus represents - the higher aspect of ourselves, the connection to the divine.

 

Cheers!

 

 

Edited by Fa Xin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

But maybe you can appreciate that it is a heart based tradition, and it probably differs from one person to the next.

 

Stereotypes are heart based too and living by them is the oldest tradition ever. 

 

My teacher is an older greek man. He keeps a picture of Pocahontas on the dashboard of his car. 

 

When I saw that... it reflected what native americans are all about for me. A personal and heartfelt idea of profoundly spiritual people, guardians of nature that live in harmony with wild forests and rivers. They were peaceful and with high moral standards, they helped white men. The good savage exists and I know it in my heart. I’m sure the picture brought him comfort, and later I realized that it was a porn DVD cover. I wouldn’t want to question the tenets of his beliefs, as if native American women were all sexy girls with huge tits. Why would I question *his* native Americans Stereotype ?

 

Maybe you can appreciate that it is a heart based tradition, and it probably differs from one person to the next. Perhaps the porn DVD covers aren't as important as the energy Pocahontas represents - the higher aspect of native American culture, the connection to the divine, nature and tits. 

 

I hope this is interesting too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Stereotypes are heart based too and living by them is the oldest tradition ever. 

 

My teacher is an older greek man. He keeps a picture of Pocahontas on the dashboard of his car. 

 

When I saw that... it reflected what native americans are all about for me. A personal and heartfelt idea of profoundly spiritual people, guardians of nature that live in harmony with wild forests and rivers. They were peaceful and with high moral standards, they helped white men. The good savage exists and I know it in my heart. I’m sure the picture brought him comfort, and later I realized that it was a porn DVD cover. I wouldn’t want to question the tenets of his beliefs, as if native American women were all sexy girls with huge tits. Why would I question *his* native Americans Stereotype ?

 

Maybe you can appreciate that it is a heart based tradition, and it probably differs from one person to the next. Perhaps the porn DVD covers aren't as important as the energy Pocahontas represents - the higher aspect of native American culture, the connection to the divine, nature and tits. 

 

I hope this is interesting too. 

Ummm...

 

No, not the same at all.

 

 

 

Beautiful like a rainbow is nice and all, however, we're dealing with something entirely different when it comes to posts like that. Please stick to the topic. Porn, the female anatomy and racial slurs have no place here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kar3n said:

No, not the same at all.

 

Why not? 

 

What if I take well known verses from the Dao De Ching and use them to explain catholic theological concepts like the Day of Judgement, the resurrection of the deads and the Trinity of God? 

And trust me, that could be done very easily. 

 

Then, I will tell you that in all honesty my heart feels that Lao Tze was talking about those things, he was a Christian and that the poor Chinese people couldn't possibly understand the depth of my views, but that's OK because Lao Tzu is an energy that represents the higher aspect of ourself. 

Isn't that my personal Stereotype of Lao Tzu? 

 

Is that different from taking Jesus' words that were specifically written to explain specific theological ideas and then saying that the real meaning is dzogchen/vedanta/whatever? 

Wouldn't you call my approach "mistranslating Lao Tzu"? 

 

Edited by Cheshire Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Yes, this idea of an eternal covenant that cannot be randomly replaced with a new one is consistent in all forms of Judaism. 

 

Yes, totally agree.  This part of the fundamental difference.  But, it is more like with a tradition having a “higher” revelation. The old wine is simple a perceptional subset of the new. With this broader realization the potential (and tools) are much greater. Like having a jet to fly instead of just being able to walk somewhere.  It is impossible to walk across an ocean to a new land, but easy to fly there.

 

21 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

 

Have you read the Quran? 

 

Yes, most sections over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

 

Thanks for your response. 

 

I mean your hypothetical questions are very interesting. 

 

My landlord is an older Italian man. He keeps a picture of the Risen Christ on the dashboard of his car. 

 

When I saw that... it reflected what Jesus is all about for me. A personal and heart felt connection.  I’m sure the picture brought him comfort, and maybe reminded him of something.  I wouldn’t want to question the tenets of his faith, as that is a sacred thing. Why would I question *his* God?

 

I know you say you have no beliefs, and no interest in it. But maybe you can appreciate that it is a heart based tradition, and it probably differs from one person to the next. Perhaps the mythos isn’t as important as the energy Jesus represents - the higher aspect of ourselves, the connection to the divine.

 

Cheers!

 

 

"Perhaps the mythos isn’t as important as the energy Jesus represents - the higher aspect of ourselves, the connection to the divine."

 

Do you see the otherness in this teaching - the otherness in your wording?

 

In so very many ways Jesus represents Other 

 

He was not normal - he was not our brother - he was not familiar - his mother was not normal - his dad was God - his stepdad did not consummate the marriage with his wife.

 

Many other great teachers and saints come from two normal adults having sex - the woman is not diminished nor is the father.

We are not taught that we can have a connection to the divine but that we are that Divine - we cannot not have that connection - it is who we are - that we are not Otherness.

 

The apologists all to a person may now say - "that is not what is meant"

But look at what is in every aspect of all the major christian (and muslim) sects - and the apologists will find a snippit here and there and surely explain it away - but again - look at the fruits of these teachings - they inculcate Otherness - they inculcate a frown upon women - they inculcate beliefs that do not benefit mankind but divide mankind and spew competitiveness, hate and animosity.

 

What is good is from God

What is bad is from the Devil

Sound too simplistic - ? Live and breath these beliefs and Other is their heartbeat.

 

The greatest among them - rose above the religion - rose above the inculcations - and they have delivered some esoteric breath into the teachings - but they did so carefully so as not to die by their own words from the hands of their own religious leaders. The esoteric christian teachings are not those of the myths - but they are mixed in the quagmire of the necessity to hide and make vague for no reason other than not to be killed (literally) by their own. And even then - they are invariably contorted by the bigotry and inherent slight of hand that has protected them and calcified them.

 

Finding true practice among them - within them - is like inducing a virus and hoping it will become a good thing - it is only in rising above it that one receives benefit. The very best of their "religion" are those that for all purposes have become buddists/hindu/natural - and for whom the inculcation of otherness has fallen away.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Spotless
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spotless said:

"Perhaps the mythos isn’t as important as the energy Jesus represents - the higher aspect of ourselves, the connection to the divine."

 

Do you see the otherness in this teaching - the otherness in your wording?

 

In so very many ways Jesus represents Other 

 

He was not normal - he was not our brother - he was not familiar - his mother was not normal - his dad was God - his stepdad did not consummate the marriage with his wife.

 

Many other great teachers and saints come from two normal adults having sex - the woman is not diminished nor is the father.

We are not taught that we can have a connection to the divine but that we are that Divine - we cannot not have that connection - it is who we are - that we are not Otherness.

 

The apologists all to a person may now say - "that is not what is meant"

But look at what is in every aspect of all the major christian (and muslim) sects - and the apologists will find a snippit here and there and surely explain it away - but again - look at the fruits of these teachings - they inculcate Otherness - they inculcate a frown upon women - they inculcate beliefs that do not benefit mankind but divide mankind and spew competitiveness, hate and animosity.

 

What is good is from God

What is bad is from the Devil

Sound too simplistic - ? Live and breath these beliefs and Other is their heartbeat.

 

The greatest among them - rose above the religion - rose above the inculcations - and they have delivered some esoteric breath into the teachings - but they did so carefully so as not to die by their own words from the hands of their own religious leaders. The esoteric christian teachings are not those of the myths - but they are mixed in the quagmire of the necessity to hide and make vague for no reason other than not to be killed (literally) by their own. And even then - they are invariably contorted by the bigotry and inherent sight of hand that has protected them and calcified them.

 

Finding true practice among them - within them - is like inducing a virus and hoping it will become a good thing - it is only in rising above it that one receives benefit. The very best of their "religion" are those that for all purposes have become buddists/hindu/natural - and for whom the inculcation of otherness has fallen away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very nice post. As Jesus says, the kingdom of heaven is within and without. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spotless said:

Perhaps the mythos isn’t as important as the energy Jesus represents - the higher aspect of ourselves, the connection to the divine."

 

Do you see the otherness in this teaching - the otherness in your wording?

 

In so very many ways Jesus represents Other 

 

He was not normal - he was not our brother - he was not familiar - his mother was not normal - his dad was God - his stepdad did not consummate the marriage with his wife.

 

Many other great teachers and saints come from two normal adults having sex - the woman is not diminished nor is the father.

We are not taught that we can have a connection to the divine but that we are that Divine - we cannot not have that connection - it is who we are - that we are not Otherness.

 

The apologists all to a person may now say - "that is not what is meant"

But look at what is in every aspect of all the major christian (and muslim) sects - and the apologists will find a snippit here and there and surely explain it away - but again - look at the fruits of these teachings - they inculcate Otherness - they inculcate a frown upon women - they inculcate beliefs that do not benefit mankind but divide mankind and spew competitiveness, hate and animosity.

 

What is good is from God

What is bad is from the Devil

Sound too simplistic - ? Live and breath these beliefs and Other is their heartbeat.

 

The greatest among them - rose above the religion - rose above the inculcations - and they have delivered some esoteric breath into the teachings - but they did so carefully so as not to die by their own words from the hands of their own religious leaders. The esoteric christian teachings are not those of the myths - but they are mixed in the quagmire of the necessity to hide and make vague for no reason other than not to be killed (literally) by their own. And even then - they are invariably contorted by the bigotry and inherent sight of hand that has protected them and calcified them.

 

Finding true practice among them - within them - is like inducing a virus and hoping it will become a good thing - it is only in rising above it that one receives benefit. The very best of their "religion" are those that for all purposes have become buddists/hindu/natural - and for whom the inculcation of otherness has fallen away.

This post is spectacular! Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jeff said:

This part of the fundamental difference.  But, it is more like with a tradition having a “higher” revelation. The old wine is simple a perceptional subset of the new. With this broader realization the potential (and tools) are much greater. Like having a jet to fly instead of just being able to walk somewhere.  It is impossible to walk across an ocean to a new land, but easy to fly there.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I believe it would be a significant misunderstanding to hastily make parallels between the historical structural transformation of buddhism (from hinaya to mahayana) and the creation of the Christian faith out of judaism.

To apply the categories of buddhism to other religions will prevent you from understanding anything about them: I know because I did that exercise too a few times. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kar3n said:

 

No, not the same at all.

 

Why not? 

 

 

 

What if I take well known verses from the Dao De Ching and use them to explain catholic theological concepts like the Day of Judgement, the resurrection of the deads and the Trinity of God? 

 

And trust me, that could be done very easily. 

 

 

 

Then, I will tell you that in all honesty my heart feels that Lao Tze was talking about those things, he was a Christian and that the poor Chinese people couldn't possibly understand the depth of my views, but that's OK because Lao Tzu is an energy that represents the higher aspect of ourself. 

 

Isn't that my personal Stereotype of Lao Tzu? 

 

 

 

Is that different from taking Jesus' words that were specifically written to explain specific theological ideas and then saying that the real meaning is dzogchen/vedanta/whatever? 

 

Wouldn't you call my approach "mistranslating Lao Tzu"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Why not? 

 

 

 

What if I take well known verses from the Dao De Ching and use them to explain catholic theological concepts like the Day of Judgement, the resurrection of the deads and the Trinity of God? 

 

And trust me, that could be done very easily. 

 

 

 

Then, I will tell you that in all honesty my heart feels that Lao Tze was talking about those things, he was a Christian and that the poor Chinese people couldn't possibly understand the depth of my views, but that's OK because Lao Tzu is an energy that represents the higher aspect of ourself. 

 

Isn't that my personal Stereotype of Lao Tzu? 

 

 

 

Is that different from taking Jesus' words that were specifically written to explain specific theological ideas and then saying that the real meaning is dzogchen/vedanta/whatever?

 

 Wouldn't you call my approach "mistranslating Lao Tzu"? 

I'd call it trolling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

As I said in an earlier post, I believe it would be a significant misunderstanding to hastily make parallels between the historical structural transformation of buddhism (from hinaya to mahayana) and the creation of the Christian faith out of judaism.

To apply the categories of buddhism to other religions will prevent you from understanding anything about them: I know because I did that exercise too a few times. 

 

 

Yes, you have stated your position many times in this thread.  We just simply disagree with regards to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus’s realization of the “father” and the resulting oneness, are vastly beyond any realization of a previous prophet or anything taught in the what is call the Old Testament. Moses saw things from an early astral level perspective.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you want to have some real fun, check out the history of Arianism (not to be confused with Aryan) to see how something can be a popular belief, but then be declared heresy. It makes me wonder if anybody really understands the true meaning of anything in the Bible.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

 

Edited by escott
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deeply grateful for this conversation. 

 

While not related to the bible, what I'll try and convey can be applied to any experiential object, or mental concept, so perhaps a divestment is permissible. 

 

We each have our own experience of reality don't we? 

Our senses are triggered, a tale is woven from this and we operate on that story.

 

Much of my personal experiential reality has little to do with absolute reality.  It involves the story built from sensory signals.

 

My personal reality often arises and revolves around the story told about what arises in senses.

 

Stimulus arises in awareness, the storyteller weaves a tale.

 

This tale is not absolute reality.  The storyteller translates reality and this is my personal experience of reality.

 

We are all translating reality/senses according to our storyteller.  Perhaps this accounts for the incredible range of perspectives about one set of words, compiled from sixty six books written thousands of years ago by our ancestor's storytellers.

 

When the storyteller is quiet, and I am not translating reality, I experience clarity, bouyancy, unflinching neutrality, expansiveness, groundedness, joyfulness without manic tension, flow, effortlessness, raw simple being. 

 

Without a storyteller, all books seem to speak the same truths in a universal language.  The shapes of forms lose their meaning and any inherent value... gems are as grains of sand.  What shines, is presence.  Every form shines in its presence, not its shape!  Every blade of grass shines invaluable presence!  Stones are singing presence in the sun.  The jackhammer drums to the rhythm of the hummingbird's wings.  All connected, but no story.  No translation needed for presence.  It's the universal language of beingness.

 

 

 


 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

Yes, you have stated your position many times in this thread.  We just simply disagree with regards to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus’s realization of the “father” and the resulting oneness, are vastly beyond any realization of a previous prophet or anything taught in the what is call the Old Testament. Moses saw things from an early astral level perspective.

 

During his lifetime, Jesus often spoke of God as “my Father in Heaven.” For the Jews, this was a common poetic expression, and one that is still used in Jewish prayers.For the pagan gentiles, however, it had a much more literal connotation.

 

The Greeks already had legends about men who had been fathered by gods who had visited mortal human women. Legends like these had even sprung up about such eminent men as Plato, Pythagoras, and Alexander the Great.

Why should Jesus be any less?

 

They therefore interpreted his poetic expression quite literally, to mean that he had an actual genetic relationship with God. Jesus therefore became the “son of God,” conceived when the Holy Ghost visited Mary. As the “son of God,” Jesus was not susceptible to sin or even death. The death of Jesus was therefore only temporary.

 

The only reason why it was needed at all was to atone for the sin of Adam. His followers taught that Jesus was resurrected for eternity and ascended to heaven. There he sits at the “right hand of God,” even higher than the angels.

This was the first step toward the deifiication of Jesus, and it was not very difficult for the pagan world to take the second step.

 

Jesus was credited with such statements as (John 10:30), “I and the Father are one.” He had also spoken of (Matthew 28:19), “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” It was easy for the paganized Christians to look at the three as equal and identify Jesus with the “Son.”

 

To say today that such statements about the oneness with the father were an unprecedented realization of man's potential of such a profundity and innovation that people needed to study buddhism and vedanta 2000 years later in order to understand him, is a reasonably questionable idea. 

More likely, in the spirit of the times and contexts in which the text was written and originally intended to be used, it was about Jesus actually being a God and the physical son of the Jewish God. 

Edited by Cheshire Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites