Christian Bigotry

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't know man...

I mean, I like the sentiment, but I don't really think that's a good representation of Christian history and development. The idea of a 'Living Christ' wasn't widespread before the existence of the organized church. before Constantine, Christian belief and practice had quite a lot of variety. Since Martin Luther is has even more variety.

As an example, in the church I grew up in, the First United Pentacostal Church (yep), Accepting Jesus as your savior is required for salvation, as is the need to be witnessed speaking in tongues. When you speak in tongues, you are being filled with 'The Holy Ghost. I don't imagine many of you feel that doing so is a requirement to being saved.

So yeah, a lot of variety and change through the ages. So yeah, the idea of a 'Living Christ' is old, but not continuous.

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: Boadicea

I absolutely regret the title - it was too provocative and does not properly represent what I intended to say.

Fair enough.... so we live and learn. And the lessons we learn best are those we learn thru living. I've sure made my mistakes over the years in debating online! I'm sure every ATSer would say the same.

However, the title does not, in my opinion, imply all Christians. - Christian Bigotry could very easily read Crocodile Diseases, and certainly 'Crocodile Diseases' does not imply all crocodiles have diseases.

Again, fair enough. Looking at my response as honestly as I can, I could have -- and perhaps should have -- considered that, and I definitely could have been more gentle in my response. I could have just as easily suggested that, or asked for your clarification. So my mistake there, and I apologize. See? I'm still living and learning too.

Semantics and rhetoric, and picking apart every word I've typed for every human mistake I could make - that's what this is about now. ugh.

Ugh indeed!!! Been there... done that... bought the T-shirt. It's trial by fire. But you're still here to tell the tale, so it wasn't fatal. What doesn't kill us can only make us stronger, right? Just put the experience to good use, and consider yourself better for it.

I'm just regretful and bored and defeated.

Oh noes! Don't go there!!! ATS needs all the good posters it can get -- be one of them. Take the criticism here, and use it to hone your skills, to refine your message. For example, you now know to use lots of qualifiers, and to be as specific as possible.

And dear lord is everyone so ticked off about me using blanket statements. I actually did that initially to avoid attacking any one individual, because I didn't want to make any personal assumptions... But holy wow are you willing to make some personal assumptions about me.

I can see that. I knew even as I read your message that you were trying to be careful, to not step on anyone's toes unnecessarily, and I appreciated that. Apparently not enough. I could have done better as well.

Boadicea - I actually thought you had areally nice post,although I again feel like my point, the only point I wanted to make, keeps getting missed. So I'm quite sorry for being snippy. This was a huge mistake, and I should have worded my arguement better or not at all.

Thank you -- and right back atcha. I apologize to you as well, for the same reason. For me, I guess I do get a little defensive, because that is not the Christianity I practice or believe in, and I hate seeing all of us painted with the same (hateful) broad brush. There is so much more to Jesus and His message, so much better, that deserves greater attention. And I sure did a piss poor job of representing that side, which I regret.

So, let me just ask then, is it okay for Christians to use history to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong? And if a Christian were to do this at the expense of another religion, say a Buddhist, and say that particular belief system is not valid because Christianity is true, that's just all okay then?

Good question. And I appreciate the opportunity for a fresh start. No one -- Christian or otherwise -- should use history to belittle or disprove anyone's faith. No one can ever know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about anything, especially the farther back in history one goes; so even just trying is an effort in futility and arrogant ignorance. Perhaps -- and I say this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of course! -- the more effective approach might have been to ask why Christians consider it important to establish proof Jesus lived; or even specifically ask the posters if they do in fact believe that establishing historical proof somehow also proves Christianity is the one and only true religion, and go from there. For example, the next obvious question would be which Christian faith would be proven?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't believe anyone said "All Christians" created pious forgeries or that "All Christians" promote those forgeries to advance their agenda. But, I'm pretty sure that "All Christians" believe that Jesus is "God" and that He's the only way to salvation.

Actually no, not all Christians believe that Jesus is God. Certainly not this Christian. If Jesus is God, then who was Jesus praying to on the mount? Who would Jesus be referring to when He referred to His father?

This very issue -- was Jesus wholly divine, wholly human, or something in between -- was actually a source of a schism between the western and eastern churches.

originally posted by: windword
I don't believe that anything that Jesus supposedly taught was brand new or original.

His teachings, especially the esoteric aspects, can certainly be corroborated in the esoteric traditions of the East. The details in the Bible, e.g., "being born again from here", the descriptions of unity, the eye being single, etc., all point to an ascent to the Divine Light above. This was understood back then by a few yogis and saints in the East to be part of the subtle body's capacity for cosmic unity, that most earth-bound beings are usually unaware of.

Jesus, who spoke of these matters, and initiated his disciples, was clearly aware of these pathways above this mortal existence. His teaching clearly is not original in terms of his spirit-transmission via this subtle mechanism when initiating his followers, but it certainly is original in the sense that someone who was a spiritual master and adept in these matters, created this esoteric teaching in the west, or at least the middle east.

Regardless, such instances of this type of spiritual master, who transmits the power of God intentionally and directly to his disciples, is very rare.

Like I said before, no ordinary people could have come close to these kinds of experiences and descriptions - and even if they went to India, these teachings were not given out freely - one had to prove oneself ready for such a teaching with real disciplines and testing.

Some think Jesus did go to the East, but it makes no difference in terms of this argument that his teachings as presented in the Bible indicate a true spiritual adept was the source of them, not some ordinary person or persons collecting a hodge-podge of spiritual knowledge and pasting it into some new religion. It is just too consistent with what is known about the subtle body and the Divine light of unity above the head.

What supports your belief that nothing Jesus supposedly taught was brand new or original?

originally posted by: Herolotus

So, let me just ask then, is it okay for Christians to use history to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong? And if a Christian were to do this at the expense of another religion, say a Buddhist, and say that particular belief system is not valid because Christianity is true, that's just all okay then?

(I know you know the answer to your question already, but I will respond to it anyway.)

Of course not! History should be used for all kinds of positive improvement of the human condition, to learn from one's mistakes, etc., etc., but certainly not to destroy others of a different faith or the way they relate to the Divine.

But even if Jesus was proven to exist beyond any doubt, would that actually prove all other religions are wrong? Everything Jesus said can be understood in terms of the unity of ALL beings. Why? Because that clearly was his realization, demonstration, and message.

For anyone to think otherwise, and who really want to or need to find some factual evidence to the contrary to justify their presumed unique status, this is not going to happen because that is not what Jesus truly taught, nor what he would want.

That presumption of some kind of unique super-status is all about separation, not unity.

originally posted by: Herolotus
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't know man...

I mean, I like the sentiment, but I don't really think that's a good representation of Christian history and development. The idea of a 'Living Christ' wasn't widespread before the existence of the organized church. before Constantine, Christian belief and practice had quite a lot of variety. Since Martin Luther is has even more variety.

As an example, in the church I grew up in, the First United Pentacostal Church (yep), Accepting Jesus as your savior is required for salvation, as is the need to be witnessed speaking in tongues. When you speak in tongues, you are being filled with 'The Holy Ghost. I don't imagine many of you feel that doing so is a requirement to being saved.

So yeah, a lot of variety and change through the ages. So yeah, the idea of a 'Living Christ' is old, but not continuous.

Yes, St. Augustine was before Constantine and confesses to the Living Christ.

I am so sorry you grew up in that church, but it is Christian. I grew up in trinitarianism Pentecostalism, and it has never been wrong to me.

The Living Christ, indeed continuous. Clement of Rome

“On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls” (Clement of Rome, 1st Clement, 49

Ignatius

“Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. "Where is the wise man? where the disputer?" Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, 18).

Justin Martyr

“…nor to know that the Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63)

Irenaeus on Polycarp

“I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures” (Irenaeus, Fragments, 2)

Since the beginning of Christendom, the belief in Christ as God and living, has always been taught, unbroken.

Those early men were never in the organized church, which I remind you that you are thinking of the Roman Catholic church, but the Roman church was merely one out of the many. Even to this day, the Byzantine Church has their church canon from St. Andrew. The Coptic Christian, Orthodox Ethiopian (Abyssinian), Greek Orthodox all began at the same time. Just because you are familiar with the Roman Catholic church, that Constantine was not part of, his mother was Byzantine, does not mean the belief was not there. The Nicean Creed was johnny-come-lately because there were other creeds before that, they were called ante-Nicean.

Nicea was not the first council, but it is the one most people point to, because they don't really know about the others, and neither do they care to be historically inclined to know.

Constantine didn't make a Bible, the Nicean Council did not make a Bible either, they did however determine what was going to be used for the Byzantine Church, because the other churches kept their canon that is still used to this very day. The Ethiopian Church still has the Book of Enoch.

Rome is the headquarters for Roman Catholicism. Rome was never the headquarters of the Byzantine Church, Constantinople was. And it was such an issue for Mohammed because he makes mention of that. Christianity by Mohammed was in sects, as it always had been. But Mohammed talks about the Bible in the Quran, he called Christians and Jews "People of the Book". Why does he do that? What book was he referring to? Not the Quran, the Bible. And he does not accept the Biblical teaching of Jesus as God, that's why he does not like it.

If there had been no widespread teaching of Jesus as God, then why did the Indians of Tamil point to Thomas as the disciple of Christ and had a statue set up for him and when Christian missionaries went there, the Indians said "you guys are late, we already believe that".

St. Andrew in the Eastern Orthodox, St. Thomas in Tamil, and the various other disciples being found in other places, cannot be overlooked. The teaching was there 2,000 years ago.

In an effort to practice what I preach, and to learn from my own mistake, I'm going to give this a new and hopefully improved try... and maybe redeem myself just a little...

And let me preface this by thanking you for trying so hard not to be offensive as you expressed your thoughts. It is much appreciated!

originally posted by: Herolotus

Now that the intro is out of the way, here is the meat and potatoes. The life of Jesus can never, and should never be proven to be real.

I agree that His life can never be proven to be real... and therefore perhaps no one "should" try either, if only because it's an effort in futility. But there is much value, on many levels, for seeking and considering the historical Jesus from both His contemporaries and those that followed. Such efforts can be, but are not necessarily, bigotry.

Put simply, no one contemporary to the life of Jesus felt him remarkable enough to comment on. The strangeness of this is profound enough to cast real doubt on the reality of this character...

There are indeed accounts contemporary to the life of Jesus, some more disputed within the scholarly community than others; but again, little if anything is proveable beyond a reasonable doubt, so we can only wonder with a preponderance of the available evidence. And we also have to consider the tendency for tyrants -- both political and theocratic -- to destroy that which does not fit "their" Christianity. All the more reason no one knows anything for sure.

... and considering that, in the past, whole branches of Chritianity have existed that held the belief that the Christ was non-corpreal, existing only as spirit, further the likelyhood that he is an invention.

But why does it matter what historians and archaeologistis think? This is the heart of my issue. A good Christian simply has faith, a major requirement in the religion for salvation. God, in the Christian teachings, does not require proof to exist, nor does he ask you as a believer to seek said proof outside of your spirit and heart. To substitute faith for facts or proof is an unbridled act of Pride, a deadly sin.

The definition of a "good Christian" is actually quite subjective, even within the Christian community. The early Gnostics, for example, actually believed that personal knowledge ("gnosis") was exactly what Christianity was all about. My Christian church encourages -- even challenges -- us to put the words and concepts of Jesus into action, and prove or disprove His message for ourselves.

If God doesn't care what you prove about Him or His son, than what would be the point of proving that Jesus lived?

I agree; I figure God and Jesus have better things to worry about. And since I don't think it's even possible to definitely prove that Jesus lived, I don't want to nor am I trying to, but I can say that I can see much value in learning about the historical Jesus, in what context and circumstances He taught, how his contemporaries saw him, how his peers and disciples viewed him... if only so that no one can hijack His name and mission for their own nefarious purposes.

To be RIGHT, and by being 'RIGHT', proving all other religious faiths for all time false. This is a terrible, aggressive, inhumane, indecent, dishonest, and wholly corrupt act.

Agreed. And I cannot speak for the authors, but I've never gotten that feeling from these threads. I tend to think the authors have various purposes in mind. Sometimes they are just a response to threads which claim to prove that Jesus never existed.

Find whatever truth you want, but don't ever fool yourself into thinking that you are doing something like 'proving' Jesus existed for the glory of God, for Truth, or for the health and spiritual growth of humanity. What you do is selfish, is out of pride, and is insulting by it's very effort to everyone who may be different than you.

Ouch! Rather harsh words. Some might deserve it, but not all.

The world as God created it is wonderful and colorful, and it is a miracle jsut the way it is.

Yes, indeed it is. So is it any wonder people wish to know and understand as much as possible about the source?

I appreciate that anyone would read this...

Thank you for the obvious thought and effort you put into this, and noble ideals set forth... just remember not all Christians search for answers for such an ugly reason.

a reply to: bb23108

Regardless, such instances of this type of spiritual master, who transmits the power of God intentionally and directly to his disciples, is very rare.

Save it please. Jesus is a mythical, allegorical character, like Moses, Abraham, Jonah, etc., and was not a real person. IMO

His teachings, especially the esoteric aspects, can certainly be corroborated in the esoteric traditions of the East. The details in the Bible, e.g., "being born again from here", the descriptions of unity, the eye being single, etc., all point to an ascent to the Divine Light above.

Everything Jesus taught was within Jewish doctrine.

John 3 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

It's just that, like Christians, Jews couldn't decide on their "doctrine" and fought over it, like animal sacrifice, for example.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: bb23108

Save it please. Jesus is a mythical, allegorical character, like Moses, Abraham, Jonah, etc., and was not a real person. IMO

Everything Jesus taught was within Jewish doctrine.


It's just that, like Christians, Jews couldn't decide on their "doctrine" and fought over it, like animal sacrifice, for example.

Your one-liners are hardly convincing. Would you kindly elaborate on how Jesus' statements below are from Jewish doctrine?

John 3:3
Jesus replied to him, "Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 17:21
" that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't believe anyone said "All Christians" created pious forgeries or that "All Christians" promote those forgeries to advance their agenda. But, I'm pretty sure that "All Christians" believe that Jesus is "God" and that He's the only way to salvation.

Actually no, not all Christians believe that Jesus is God. Certainly not this Christian. If Jesus is God, then who was Jesus praying to on the mount? Who would Jesus be referring to when He referred to His father?

This very issue -- was Jesus wholly divine, wholly human, or something in between -- was actually a source of a schism between the western and eastern churches.

Sorry, but if you don't believe that Jesus is an equal part of the "godhead" as in; God the Father; God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit, you're not a Christian. If you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead, you're not a Christian.

a reply to: bb23108

Sounds like you don't anything about Jewish doctrine at all! Here are some of the esoteric and philosophical writings of two prominent Jewish teachers whom the New Testament emulates through Jesus, John and Paul.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Hillell

THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL

Philo of Alexandria

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't believe anyone said "All Christians" created pious forgeries or that "All Christians" promote those forgeries to advance their agenda. But, I'm pretty sure that "All Christians" believe that Jesus is "God" and that He's the only way to salvation.

Actually no, not all Christians believe that Jesus is God. Certainly not this Christian. If Jesus is God, then who was Jesus praying to on the mount? Who would Jesus be referring to when He referred to His father?

This very issue -- was Jesus wholly divine, wholly human, or something in between -- was actually a source of a schism between the western and eastern churches.

Sorry, but if you don't believe that Jesus is an equal part of the "godhead" as in; God the Father; God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit, you're not a Christian. If you don't believe that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead, you're not a Christian.

The OP comes from the Oneness tradition. They don't believe the first part of what you said. But they are considered Christian.

The second part, yes, that is what Christians believe.

The OP being from that Oneness tradition, could be why he and I have slightly different perspectives about Christianity, but it is true, not all Christians believe that.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The OP comes from the exact same tradition as I do, and yes, Pentecostals believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

The OP comes from the exact same tradition as I do, and yes, Pentecostals believe that Jesus is part of the Godhead.

Oh, I see what you mean when you have criticisms, but I kind of guessed that you might have come from that. Oneness believe that Jesus is all there is, that Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not as different persons, but different manifestations or offices.

I am a Trinitarian. Tell me, did your family also believe in William Branham? If they did, I am so sorry. Believe me, I have Oneness relatives that still handle snakes, and still tell you that you are going to hell unless you were baptized their way. I don't really make baptism an issue, it should be a personal choice. And it should be your personal choice of when and where.

Trust me, I do understand where you are coming from if you grew up in Oneness. I never was, but my relatives were and still are. And my dad's cousin, she really went overboard when talking about Branham. The Branhamites, those are some really whacky people.

If that is what hurt you, I am so sorry. Please know that I am the type of Pentecostal who thinks you have the right of your conscience. Never would I take that from you. In fact, I am so unorthodox, I would never say anyone is going to heaven or hell, because I am not the judge of their final destination. I am not the judge of their hearts. I cannot and will not act like I am God to tell them where they are going.

But it seems that is what you have dealt with, and I am so sorry they did that to you.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I have no idea who William Branham, but my mother followed all kinds of evangelists and their tent meetings! Here's one of mothers "idols".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

I have no idea who William Branham, but my mother followed all kinds of evangelists and their tent meetings! Here's one of mothers "idols".

Oh, Kathryn Kuhlman. Yes, I know her. She was actually one of those who started this modern stuff, and she knew Branham as well.

She probably drug you to see Leroy Jenkins. But hey, at least she didn't drag you into Jim Jones' People's Temple. Maybe she did take you to his tent meetings, because he did a lot of that.

You don't have to say any more, I know where you are coming from.

a reply to: windword
Thank you for the links. And yes, I have not studied much Jewish doctrine - that is why I asked you for some passages that supported your statement.

I always have found the Eastern and some of the Christian traditions more straight-forward in terms of esotericism - and within the Eastern traditions, I found parallels with what Jesus spoke of, particularly relative to subtle body experiences.

It is not clear from what I read thus far in those links that specifics that Jesus spoke about, such as the eye being single, being born from above, etc. are actually part of the Jewish tradition - so if you could be more specific about those, it would be helpful.

But regardless, I am not arguing that Jesus was not influenced by other traditions, Eastern or Western. What I find support for, is that Jesus was real based on the consistency of various spiritual descriptions of experiences within a very specific framework of the subtle body, that is corroborated by Eastern mysticism.

It would be interesting to see if such specific corroboration for the mystical aspects of Christianity also exists in the Jewish tradition as well, and to what extent. Do they talk about the third eye, for instance, as being the gateway to unity about the gross body?

But I certainly understand that whether Jesus existed will never be conclusively proven - I am basically assuming he did because of what I have already outlined a few times, mainly that his skillful means to love, initiate, and also deal with his followers, are very much what other spiritual masters have done for transforming their disciples. In other words, no group of writers were going to be able to fake this, imo.

It was in this spirit that I brought what I did to this thread, not because I have some need to prove Jesus existed. I don't, and especially given I am not a Christian.

Thank you windword for you input - I will study more of the Jewish tradition, particular what I can find in terms of one's direct relationship to God, mysticism, and what that may do altogether for one's life in the Divine.

a reply to: bb23108



You might like this guy who explains the Old Testament and the New Testament, being the same esoteric and allegorical lesson.

a reply to: windword
Thank you for that vid - I like his passion, knowledge, and approach at least in the bit I watched, and look forward to watching it through tomorrow.

a reply to: windword
He is an entertaining presenter who definitely drives the point home that Christians should practice what Jesus says, not just believe in him and then not obey him. The esoteric interpretations he makes of the Old Testament are interesting and parallel other, particularly Eastern, traditions.

He also teaches that people should focus in the right brain ("the tribe of Judah, the place of the East" as he calls it) and to find there what Jesus meant as our being the light of the world.

What is his name? It is not on the video. I would be interested in hearing more from him, though he spends little time describing esoteric anatomy and much more time speaking about why people should seek the Kingdom of Heaven within as Jesus taught.

He is definitely interesting, but I am hoping to find more specific references to the "science" of esoteric practice in the Jewish tradition - such as the third eye, the light of God, the higher mind, etc. If he has other videos, they may contain more along these lines.

If you have any specific passages or mystics that may have dealt with these matters, I would appreciate your further help.

In reviewing my many many years ago study of Jewish mysticism, it is fairly veiled - like it was in other "old school" traditions. And it still is obvious to me that most of the Jewish traditions are concerned with exoteric, in life, even sectarian matters.

Many think Jesus was a Hellenistic Jew. This could imply that Jesus was more influenced by the Greek and even Oriental mystical teachings of his day. This certainly also makes sense to me given what he taught.

Once Jesus began teaching and initiating followers in various exoteric and esoteric matters, the Gnostic traditions integrated and supported his teachings going forward, given they recognized his profound demonstration and understanding of esoteric matters. But of course, these teachings were mainly forgotten based on what Christianity ending up becoming.

That the Gnostics picked up what Jesus was teaching and carried it forward, also indicates that Jesus taught esoterica.

Thanks again, windword.

P.S. I figure this is "on topic" - especially if more specifics can be found about Jesus' actual esoteric demonstrations and understanding.