Jesus is NOT a copy from Pagan religions! Those are lies! Do research and do not believe!

reply to post by mantisfortress

Many in this thread have claimed that the divinity of Christ as invented after his death. This is so absolutely ridiculous! Obvoiusly, they have done no research on the topic.

On the contrary, friend. It was simply the Council of Nicaea. (325AD)
In tracing the origin of the Bible, one is led straight to 325 AD, when
Constantine the Great called the First Council of Nicaea, composed of
300 religious leaders. This was three centuries after Jesus supposedly lived, this council was given the task of separating divinely inspired writings from those
of questionable origin.

At this time, the question of the divinity of Jesus had split the church into two factions. Some believed he was Divine, some did not. Constantine offered to make the little-known Christian sect the official state religion if the Christians would settle their differences. Apparently, he didn't particularly care what they believed in as long as they agreed upon a belief. By compiling a book of sacred writings, Constantine thought that the book would give authority to the new church. At the Council of Nicaea, the bishops debated over Jesus' divinity, and produced the Nicene Creed, still recited by churches today. Study your history, friend, you won't find the answers in the Bible either.

reply to post by LunaKat

Pagans could not possibly have copied Christianity. Christianity is only 2000 years old which has been mentioned here before but deserves repeating.

Agreed, in History, Christianity is but a young child compared to Pagans. And a Goddess was worshiped for may thousands of years before the Church came along and tried to stamp this all out with murder and torture. I think it is time we place the Goddess back on her throne. After all, EVERYTHING has a Mother, even God. Heaven, Hell, Satan, Devils, Demons, all made up by the Church. The only judge is your own self. If you pass into the next dimension thinking of demons and Hell, you will find yourself there. And in reading threads here, the Christians here are obsessed with Demons, it seems.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

 

Not true. Bible does not say he was born on Decmber 25th, nor does it say that there were 3 wise men, only that three gifts were brought...

Whoa.... if my memory serves me correctly the Bible does speak of the 3 wise men. They are described as Shepherds who were in a field tending to their flock when an Angel appeared to and told them to travel to Bethleham and that a Savior had been born.

Okay those were just the Sheperds in the field, the 3 wise men, were from the east, as in the orient, one looked African, Asian, and I think Indian. They brought Fankinsence, Myrrh, and Gold, which all have specific properties, and are associated with astrology, and alchemy. Also they are used in rituals and masses.

Re: The historical Jesus. I presume that all the other characters must have been made up also, from Paul (Saul of Tarsus), to his elder contemporary Peter (desciple of Jesus), to Cephias the high priest, Pontias Pilate, John the Baptist, Mother Mary and Joseph, the whole lot of them, but for starters, isn't there historical evidence of Peter having been crucified upside down..?

Re: Jesus' Divinity: If the human being may be thought of, spiritually or in terms of consciousness, as not unlike a sphere within a sphere (research holographic mind/universe and monistic idealism ie: consciousness is primary) then is it outside the realm of concievable that Jesus could have been "reborn from above" or from the outer sphere, to the inner, with perfection, wholeness and integrity?

Re: Sphere within a sphere with perfection, wholeness and integrity..

what do we see at the Vatican but this..

"The Broken Sphere"



Looks to me like their motto is "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". How pathetic and disgraceful, and cowardly.

Out of fairness and giving them the "benefit of the doubt" that could symbolize the power of the spirit of the all-good father of love breaking through creation to reach Jesus, but to me it looks like an image of a type of theft or hijacking, although I could be wrong.

Originally posted by keyboredhere
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Don't talk rubbish. Robert Powell has had a very successful career following that role. Look for yourself www.imdb.com...

I stand corrected, but he sure played the part of Jesus to the hilt.

Originally posted by Sigismundus
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Hi New Age Man -

Of course, there is an evident 'typological parallels' between the picture of the Greek speaking iesous in the Gospels and 'old testament' heroes - e.g. the miraculous bith of Yitza'ak to Sarah parallels the 'virigin birth' in Matt and Luke;s Gospels (whoever they were) - and if ELIJAH was a typological model of Yohanon bar Zechariah (John the baptist) who baptised 'Iesous' in the Jordan river as his own disciple (along with 'Simon Peter' and his brother Andreas !) , then naturally ELISHA'Q being the disciple of ELIJAH would be the typological 'model' for Iesous - in both cases making John and Iesous 'greater than Elijah/Elisha'q' by peerforming greater deeds or having greater prophetic powers etc.

More tomorrow on this !!

Was looking forward to that..

Re: Geneology of Mary - I could be wrong, but in Luke, while it claims to be that of Joseph father of Jesus "or so it is thought", it's supposedly a geneology of Mary as a blood relative of Nathan in the line, whereas Mathew was the line of Joseph moving back from Abraham. Of course most of the Jews could trace their lineage back to Abraham.

www.lifeofchrist.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by autowrench

Do you think that Jesus was a real historical figure? Just curious.

reply to post by autowrench


You're absolutely correct. The mother is the source of all religion in this world. 20,000 years before Abraham (אַבְרָם), people were worshipping the Venus (Woman) of Willendorf [pictured] and other like-goddess figures, in a time when women were revered for their life bearing abilities, not held in contempt.
The entirety of modern Abrahamic religions all speak of the creation of "man", that woman was created by man, but this never made sense to me. Look at the Chromosome makeup of humans.
XX = Female
XY = Male
Our own evolution (which is controversial to some, I know) stems from subtle mutations in our Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down solely from our mothers. The female is the source of mankind's superiority.



Place the mother back on the throne?

She should've never been taken off.

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
Our own evolution (which is controversial to some, I know) stems from subtle mutations in our Mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down solely from our mothers. The female is the source of mankind's superiority.

Which also bodes well for the prophecy of Moses from Genesis that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent of the duality of the knowledge of good and evil, fullfilled through Mary the mother of Jesus.

reply to post by autowrench


Your post contradicts itself. My statement was that the divinity of Jesus was not invented after his death. You yourself stated that at the time of the Council of Nicea the "church" was split into two factions. Some of which believed in Jesus' divinity, some of which did not. Given the fact that some of them did believe in His divinity, what's your point?

I am very aware of history. Obviously you may have read a few lines of a Wikipedia entry, but understand what you are spouting off before posting it. The Council of Nicea had many purposes, from deciding the divinity of Christ, to setting the official date of Easter, to deciding how many seeds to plant in a hole for a wheat harvest. I don't see how that has anything to do with my statement.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Do you believe the "crushing of the head of the snake" is a prophecy about one man being the son of God and delivering mankind into salvation, or the rise of mankind and its ability to become/replace God as a whole through the seed of woman?

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Do you believe the "crushing of the head of the snake" is a prophecy about one man being the son of God and delivering mankind into salvation, or the rise of mankind and its ability to become/replace God as a whole through the seed of woman?

I see it as a story about the evolution of consciousness, from a fall through duality (producing separation and thus leading to destruction), to reunification and God-realization through Jesus Christ, re-establishing the appropriate I-Thou relationship WITH God as the Absolute (father, son, holy spirit). The rising to replace/become God is the inappropriate frame of reference (satanic, rebellious), since man is a created being within creation and God the eternal first/last cause or prime mover, although man as a self-consciously aware being is made in the image of God as self-aware consciousness ie: the fully informed (in eternity) Akashic Record.

The issue is one of spiritual authority and obediance (or rebellion) to that authority who's highest will is the will to love. The key to Jesus' power and influence resided in his obediance to the will of God, unto death itself.

"Let it be thy will and not mine that is done."

Jesus Christ is like God-food processed for our enjoyment, and that there might be a sympathetic, harmonious connection between God and man in eternity.

What is the love of God unless it is made known, made manifest and actualized. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that love with perfection, wholeness and without any loss of integrity (although there may have been an attempted theft of his riches, power and authority).

My "thesis" is based upon the fact that we live within a non-local, holographic universe wherein "time" is an illusion. Although approx 2000 years ago, it could have been yesterday, it is that relevant and applicable.

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I disagree. While mankind (ie> our perception of reality) may have been created by a higher power aeons ago, I do not believe that "God", if that is what you want to call the source of the universe, is beyond the possibilities of the evolution of mankind, provided we don't kill ourselves before reaching that level of knowledge/awareness (religious zealots reading this, I'm looking at you), and I don't believe any of this advancement requires the existence or following (if you're a believer) of a Christ figure.

The bible itself condemns religion, stating that an understanding of "God" can only come from a "personal relationship", not through Church or the teachings of man. You'd find more spiritual inspiration and knowledge sitting on a mountain top, watching the world, and listening to the wind, then you ever could sitting at mass.
Church is for the lost who need guidance; it's a twelve step program for the corrupt, except it's generally more of an enabler, and less a place of purity and spirituality.

Energy is manipulated by man, creating reality. Prayer, lighting candles, chanting, no matter what you believe works, they all do the same thing. They focus thought, which in turn becomes reality. Faith isn't hoping something will happen. Faith is knowing something will happen. And God isn't necessary once you realize this; and if God isn't necessary, then by all means, no other mortal claiming to speak for God is necessary either.

The human being is made to be in communion WITH God, and once God-realized, functioning appropriately within the framework of the relativity of human being (brotherhood/sisterhood of mankind). It's all about divine proportion and extension (see Phi ratio or Golden mean).

Jesus the man did nothing wrong, yet because of fate and circumstance ended up in a "wedge" or an arrow of progress on a collision course with the full spectrum of human evil, from the sins of the (human) father, to the oppression and domination of empire, yet he remained true to himself, and did not shirk from his calling or run away from a fated destiny.

His God is my God is the Absolute, and the appropriate framework is an I-Thou relationship with the Absolute, like that of a beloved and beloved other (for there to be love there is always two or more in relationship). The fatal error involves either the solipsism of isolate consciousness (one with everything) which doesn't honor the integrity of each one's own unique personhood and spiritual experience (individuality), or an ascent born of rebellion and pride (while retaining a flaw ie: lacking in wholeness and perfection without any loss of integrity). To break any part of the law, even in the inner sanctum of the heart, is to break the whole of the law which Jesus did not replace, only complete and in so doing, placed us under Grace, as an unmerited gift. Anything else would result in pride and another fall from grace where "pride always goeth before the fall". It's about a spiritual cataclysm resulting in permament separation, and avoiding that where "God's compulsion is our liberation" (C.S. Lewis)

Also, we needn't aspire to the Godhead, that's not neccessary. We are contained within it and are in relation to it, as it's reflection. This is the truth, and the appropriate order. Why would we want something else, something more than that? Don't be foolish, or absurd.

Is "child of God" begotten of God not sufficient?

P.S. I am an evolutionary Christian mystic who is convinced that the self-realized person of Jesus Christ is a model of what the human being is meant to be and to become, and there is no amount of Christ capable of ruining a personality!

My very best and truest self is very much like Jesus, although the student needn't be as great as the master.

The wisdom of ages, and all the rich spiritual traditions ought not be discarded. After all they describe our inheritance in eternity! The atheists would burn all of this, throw out the baby with the bathwater, and ask that we forget all about it and just get on with living our own life according to the "rational self interest" of a purely secular humanism, something sure to fail in times of crisis and competing self interest.

We can still get it right, after all this time, but the wisdom teachings, properly understood and "grokked" most fully, they are helpful signposts along the way.

Look to the last page of the Bible (Revelation) for example and tell me what you see, and how you interpret what's presented there.

Best Regards,

NAM
The Bride of Christ

Originally posted by mantisfortress
reply to post by autowrench

 

Your post contradicts itself. My statement was that the divinity of Jesus was not invented after his death. You yourself stated that at the time of the Council of Nicea the "church" was split into two factions. Some of which believed in Jesus' divinity, some of which did not. Given the fact that some of them did believe in His divinity, what's your point?

His point is that Jesus is only the son of God because The Emperor Constantine made it so, after the life of Christ.

I personally believe there was a man called Jesus who was quite influential at the time he lived but he was just a man and that if he came back today he would be shocked at the things people do in his name! The bible tells us that we worship where we want to, not that we have to go to church. At the end of the day, the original messages from the bible have long been twisted and perverted to suit mankind. If there was really a god he would have got in touch a long time ago to tell us we really screwed up what he was trying to tell us.

At the end of the day religion can do a lot of good, sadly it rarely happens.

Am i concerned for my soul? Nah, i'll be fine, despite not being a xtian (anymore)!

reply to post by Garkiniss

How very thoughtful and ingenuitive of you..

God made our spirit with wings to fly in the spacious firmament of love and freedom. How pitiful would it be to then lop off our wings by our own hand and suffer ourselves to crawl like vermin upon the earth.
~ Kahlil Gibran