It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It is difficult to reconcile the OT god with Jesus in the NT

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I think Jesus was like a revolutionary against the established jewish system and for that the jews crucified him.

the talmud is full of blasphemies against Jesus. that proves that the they truely hate him... till now even.




posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Read Levellers & KingLizards postings again. I have PERSONALLY studied BOTH Buddha-Dharma & the Philosophies of "Jesus the Christ". I am not speaking about Jesus's Race - nor do I care about Jesus's Race. I can safely say that I believe that Jesus was in-fact a BUDDHIST!!!

There are people in this world who are HIGHLY INTOLERENT of people who are not EXACTLY of the same Faith as themselves. Muslims Display this attitude consistently & I hate to say it -but so do most of the "Modern" Jewish people that I run into as well. A lot of Judeo-Christians want to say "Well Jesus was Jewish & the Son of the JEWISH GOD - Period" - what they often miss is the Christianity is all about INCLUSION NOT EXCLUSION - they have been practicing this Racist form of exclusion for so long that they totally FAIL to pick up on this inconsistency. I think it is Sad that the NAZI's did EXACTLY the same thing!!! What was it that Jesus said about the Pharisees again?



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Interesting discussion and an ancient one at that, over 1,850 years old. In fact, an early church bishop, Marcion (born c. 85 AD), asserted that the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside. He accounted for it by postulating a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was father of Jesus Christ. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Relatively little is known about Marcion (died c. 160) because his heresy was put down and his works were destroyed, or lost, or both. What is known of his life, writings and theology are found, or founded upon, the works of his enemies: Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (120-202), Epiphanius (ca. 315-403) and especially Tertullian5 (145-220) who encountered Marcion half a century after his death. (Marcion & Marcionite Gnosticism)

Marcion's teachings were a radical departure from traditional Christianity. He came under the influence of the gnostic teacher Cedro "who believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The God of the Old Testament was unknowable; the latter had been revealed." Marcion, by Dermot McDonald, in The History of Christianity, at 104-105. Cedro also stressed the existence of "secret knowledge" from Jesus that had not been previously made public (a common claim among gnostics). Marcion adopted these ideas into his "heretical" brand of Christianity.

Marcion's teachings departed from traditional Christianity in a number of ways. Most dramatically, perhaps, Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. Up until then, the traditional Church had considered the Old Testament to be sacred and assumed that Christianity was a fulfillment or continuation of Judaism. Marcion's rejection of that idea affected many different doctrines and beliefs.

Marcion faced an uphill battle with his revolutionary ideas. He faced a pretty obvious problem. For more than 100 years, Christians had been using the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, and even the most sacred documents of Christians referred to and relied heavily on, the Old Testament. The solution for Marcion was to completely reject the Old Testament and establish a canon that de-emphasized Christianity's Old Testament and Jewish roots as much as possible.

Paul, with his focus on free grace, was by far Marcion's favorite Apostle. As a result, he rejected the writings attributed to all the other Apostles and relied on forms of Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles that he redacted. Although a small number of scholars have, from time to time, argued that Marcion may have had access to earlier forms of the gospels (especially Luke), even John Knox, the most prominent promoter of this theory, admits that Marcion intentionally and knowingly excised as much Old Testament and Jewish influence as he could find in the Paulines and Gospel of Luke.
(Marcion, the Canon, the Law, and the Historical Jesus)

Christ, so Marcion contended, came down from heaven and began teaching, proclaiming a new kingdom and deliverance from the rule of the malevolent Demiurge. However, those who were loyal to the Demiurge crucified Christ, thus unwittingly contributing to the defeat of the former, since the death of Christ was the price by which the God of Love purchased men from the latters kingdom into his own. Christ also rescued from the underworld those who had died and who in their life-time had not been obedient to the Demiurge and thus from the standpoint of his Law were wicked. All that the Good God asks of men if they are to escape from the rule of the Demiurge is faith in response to his love. Men have been emancipated from the legalistic requirements of the Demiurge and of his creature Judaism. (Marcion had apparent antisemitic overtones.) (Marcion: Portrait of a Heretic)



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
I have PERSONALLY studied BOTH Buddha-Dharma & the Philosophies of "Jesus the Christ". I am not speaking about Jesus's Race - nor do I care about Jesus's Race. I can safely say that I believe that Jesus was in-fact a BUDDHIST!!!



Buddhism has no god. The afterlife of Nirvhana is a state of nothingness - not even the spirit survives. I find this to be contrary to Jesus' teachings.

But I do sympathise with your argument to an extent. I go with the interpretation that he was involved with gnosticism. When looked at closely there are many simlarities between Judaic Gnostics and Buddhists. Certainly, the undercurrent for both belief forms is that it is up to the individual to find his own way.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Ah Leveller - now you are getting my drift. OK scratch the previous statement. How about this - Jesus was a GNOSTIC!!!



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I agree with you.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most of the great prophets of all religions were involved with gnosticism in some way.

As I'm sure you're aware, pure gnosticism does not rely on religion but involves each person trying to find their god for themselves. The problem comes when there is a base religion and the interpretations are tied into that - you don't get a pure view because you may try to find yourself interpreting things to actually fit the religion.

It's quite possible that Yahweh was formed by Moses after a gnostic vision on the mount. But he had a religion behind him and when he came down he formed that vision around the old religion. Obviously, some of what he interpreted didn't fit well with the older beliefs so they evolved into the form of Judaism that we see today. When Jesus came along, his gnostic beliefs changed Judaism to Christianity. Later along the line, Mohammed did the same thing with Islam.

And this is where religion becomes a problem. There are die-hards who try to stick to these prophets interpretations and don't question them. They don't realise that these prophets were merely providing new frameworks. They should be worked upon - not set in stone and never challenged or altered by the individual.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I agree with Leveller and a good deal of Gnosticism. Before I was familiar with Marcion, the old testament and the new seemed inconsistent, at best. I even brought that up with my fundamentalist sister and of course there was no discussion, only a brief shooting-down of my thoughts. When I discovered that my observations were hardly anything new, I was glad for the affirmation.

It seems that we all do find our own path and Jesus was a master of reality. Of course, not just the real world that is apparent to us but also eternal and infinite reality. Unfortunately, there appears to have been some manipulation of his doctrines. But fortunately, we do have apocrypha that escaped the purges and rewriting. Those texts are very helpful to me in finding my way.

Sometimes it seems to me that almost ALL established religion relies upon cultish practices to keep believers enmeshed. Mostly, they use fear and doubt and offer one way (theirs) to escape the fears they instill. It's like a bumper sticker I saw, "I've got Jesus - He's in my trunk - I'll show him to you for 5 dollars."



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Quote: "Buddhism has no God. The afterlife of Nirvana is a state of nothingness ".

Actually I should correct you. Buddhahood is a Divine State that can be reached through Spiritual Practice. So is Christhood. We obviously have two historical examples of Human Beings that have reached this New State of Being. The point of the Religions that were formed around them is that if you Practice the Path that they laid out - then you too can Achieve that state. The point is NOT to be a subservient slave to a "God". Nirvana (Total Liberation) & Samsara (the Cycle of Reincarnation that is caused by Clinging/Attachment to Material/Worldly Pleasures) are two sides to the same coin. It is based on your worldly actions in your LIFE = Karma. Death is but a Door.

A lot of people accuse Buddhism of being "Nihilistic". It is not - they are miss perceiving the Dharma. The Buddha spoke of Emptiness
- NOT Nothingness. There is a difference between saying that a Container is Empty vs. the Container is No-Thing/Non-Existent (which is an Illogical Statement). The Buddha was NOT saying that "Worldly Reality" does Not Exist. He was saying that our Flawed Perceptions lead us to Believe in Illusions & to Perform Negative Actions (i.e. Build Negative Karma).



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

A lot of people accuse Buddhism of being "Nihilistic". It is not - they are miss perceiving the Dharma. The Buddha spoke of Emptiness
- NOT Nothingness. There is a difference between saying that a Container is Empty vs. the Container is No-Thing/Non-Existent (which is an Illogical Statement).


I've visited Buddhist countries and spent a lot of time studying the religion first hand. This is not what I was taught. I will always remember the words of one of one of my teachers -"Nirvhana is a complete state of nothingness. Nothing survives. Not even the soul."
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree with each other on that one.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Perhaps you are forgetting about there being Different Sects in Buddhism. That is not how my Teacher puts it. Ask a matter of fact he Stressed the point that Emptiness does not mean Nothingness. He said once a Being becomes Truly Enlightened - Reality doesn't just go away - instead you realize that everything is Empty in Nature - i.e. there is No Permanent Self. This is not an active thought - it is just instinctively known to be true!!!

Did your guy say after you achieve Nirvana that you go to "Heaven" or something? The Historical Buddha achieved Absolute & Complete Enlightenment (i.e. He became a Buddha & entered Nirvana - while ALIVE). Out of Compassion he decided to teach the Buddha-Dharma for many years before he Died & reached "Pari-Nirvana"!!!



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Did your guy say after you achieve Nirvana that you go to "Heaven" or something?


No. He was quite emphatic that there was no Heaven. He stated that Nivhana is not even a state of non-existence. By this I guess he meant that even non-existence doesn't exist!!!
I believe that he was talking about a totally different state of reality.



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I am curious - what Buddhist Countries did you visit?



posted on Jul, 24 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Sri Lanka and Thailand.
I also lived in Singapore for a couple of years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join