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.
originally posted by: Proto88
After watching enough Saturday Morning Cartoons or Animes, and a bunch of Carthuses from a few bible readings an other Eastern schools of thought. I’ve been leaning that the idea of the Holy Spirit is very much the same as the Easts concepts of Chi. Now where to start, so usually the Holy Spirit is basically deemed as something as Gods or Heavens will or response of acting on Earth, or at least from my early Catholic Influences seem to suggest it. One thing I’ve noticed though, is that Jesus never really ever refers or expands on the Holy Spirit, while anyone but Jesus always refer to, how should I say , relationship with the Holy Spirit. Jesus always refers to God as The Father, while the Disciples never but call him a Son with the Holy Spirit because said connection or relation was so strong.
The Apostle Paul, love him or hate him, does seem to try to expand on the concept of a great spirit that permeates or pierces all things to the point, it sounds like The Force from Star Wars that seems everything.. For the Eastern schools, I’ll just simply refer to Chi, since Kindalini is sort of two step system involving not just Kundalini but Prana as well for simplicity. Now when it comes to Eastern Schools they usually tend to focus of detachment an flow of Chi, which is usually linkened to a said life force that can be guided or gathered an not so much controlled or invoked. The easiest summation I can think of or used is water being poured into a cup or pools flowing into other pools. The water being Chi, and the cup being a vessel(or body) that makes the water take shape, wether it half empty or full is up the users rising dragon(Yang)or crouching tiger(Yin). In some ways, it even described as steam or smoke even.
The only issue I have with Paul is that he makes it intangible an anxiety prone, where the East makes it out to be more tangible. Thing is there other eastern superstitions that I find are just as imposing or restrictive as Feng Shui for example an can go against them like a Wrathful Hebrew God. I personally think for whatever reason, the early church just wanted to differentiate itself from all other eastern influences due to Christianity being empowered as a state religion once upon a time, hoping to reap the same rewards possibly.
Just a few thoughts I wanted to share.
originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: chr0naut
Yea but what purpose does that serve to make three different attributes, that end up being the same thing with not much elaboration? What function does the Son, Father, an Holy Spirit serve then if not just being parts of a bigger machine sort of speak?
What about the power of Christ compels me or holy water actually acting as hand sanitizer, cleansing all the Sin an cloth, when says science it filthy an might boost your immune system?
originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: chr0naut
That quite an earnest opinion, an one I wasn’t expecting. I’ve usually buggered a few Christians regarding their Trinity, only to find they would be just as stumped as me. It only tries proves Christs relationship with God with lots of emphasis behind it but blindly. If I’m not mistaken, the Trinity might of came from Valentinus Gnostics, but was ostracized, then ended up being a widely accepted theory, if there any truth to it.
I’ve thought of the Trinity as being some lingual reference of sorts, referring to the body, mind an soul being separate yet completely whole, Jesus the body, the Father the Mind, an Holy Spirit being soul. Dare go to the realm that it might be a primitive analogy of Quantum Entanglement, like two particles interacting at a vast distance an time.
originally posted by: Proto88
Too add some more controversy, water is mentioned 722 times in the Bible with two mythical interpretations, Living Waters, and there is metaphysical Well(s). It is often unclear what is the meaning of the Living Waters, an could be fresh water for all I really know but Pure could be used for that. There is mention of the living waters coming from the belly or stomach and along with one passage correlating it to the Wells of Salvation in the N.T. In an other, Jesus is described as being able to be drunk or drawn from, like he was a well.
Bible an Water passages
Where as the O.T is, I find Fire ends being more symbolized with Hebrews, not to mention the amount of Serpent symbolized that might have it origins from the East. Haven’t gone to depth from O.T perspective yet, but water is mentioned as well. There is also Zoroaster which is a different religion that emphasizes on both fire an water, yet they used a Rooster for some reason.
I might be right or wrong, given my unfamiliarity to being a Westerner, but the Stomach can be described as a Sea of Chi, which also get symbolized with water, with more implications of it being stored an circulated. A lot of of the more advanced meditations require heavier breathing an movement of the stomach, or the human diaphragm. Chakras also act as agitators, while Dan Tiens acts as store houses, but have the same location of 3 chakras. There is also Meng Mein which is said to act as a pump too.
originally posted by: Proto88
a reply to: chr0naut
That quite an earnest opinion, an one I wasn’t expecting. I’ve usually buggered a few Christians regarding their Trinity, only to find they would be just as stumped as me. It only tries proves Christs relationship with God with lots of emphasis behind it but blindly. If I’m not mistaken, the Trinity might of came from Valentinus Gnostics, but was ostracized, then ended up being a widely accepted theory, if there any truth to it.
I’ve thought of the Trinity as being some lingual reference of sorts, referring to the body, mind an soul being separate yet completely whole, Jesus the body, the Father the Mind, an Holy Spirit being soul. Dare go to the realm that it might be a primitive analogy of Quantum Entanglement, like two particles interacting at a vast distance an time.
Tip: Don't get your information concerning the most important things from these types or those teaching their doctrines of men and demons, “the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.”(1 Timothy 4:1,2).):Get it from these:
...
Historical Background
In the middle of the second century C.E., professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war. Writes historian Paul Johnson: “[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and so it continued. . . . The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries AD swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to propagate themselves. . . . From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common.”
During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish. To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture.
This trend came to fruition in the writings of Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.), a Greek author from Alexandria. Origen’s treatise On First Principles was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely.
Writers and Orators
Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Emperor Constantine. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians, most of them writing in Greek, worked out in a long and bitter debate what was to be the distinguishing doctrine of Christendom, the Trinity. Chief among them were Athanasius, the assertive bishop of Alexandria, and three church leaders from Cappadocia, Asia Minor—Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus.
Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence. Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom (meaning “Golden-Mouthed”) in Greek as well as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo in Latin were consummate orators, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine. His theological treatises have pervasively shaped the “Christian” thinking of today. Jerome, the period’s most distinguished man of letters, was chiefly responsible for the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible from the original languages.
However, important questions are: Did those Church Fathers adhere closely to the Bible? In their teaching, did they hold fast to the inspired Scriptures? Are their writings a safe guide to an accurate knowledge of God?
Teachings of God or Teachings of Men?
Recently, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Methodius of Pisidia wrote the book The Hellenic Pedestal of Christianity in order to show that Greek culture and philosophy provided the infrastructure of modern “Christian” thought. In that book, he unhesitantly admits: “Almost all the prominent Church Fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths.”
Take, for example, the idea that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit make up the Trinity. Many Church Fathers after the Council of Nicaea became staunch Trinitarians. Their writings and expositions were crucial to making the Trinity a landmark doctrine of Christendom. However, is the Trinity found in the Bible? No. So where did the Church Fathers get it? A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity affirms: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”*
Or consider the teaching of the immortality of the soul, a belief that some part of man lives on after the body dies. Again, the Church Fathers were instrumental in introducing this notion to a religion that had no teaching about a soul surviving death. The Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) What was the basis for the Church Fathers’ belief in an immortal soul? “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia. And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”#
The Solid Basis of Christian Truth
After even this brief examination of the historical backdrop of the Church Fathers, as well as the origins of their teachings, it is appropriate to ask, Should a sincere Christian base his or her beliefs on the teachings of the Church Fathers? Let the Bible answer.
...
CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS
“The Orthodox Church . . . has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom,” states the writer Kallistos, who is a monk. Did these Church Fathers base their teachings on the inspired Scriptures? Regarding Basil the Great, the book The Fathers of the Greek Church states: “His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’” The same was true of Gregory of Nazianzus. “In his view the victory and the superiority of the Church would best be shown in its complete adoption of the traditions of classical culture.”
Regarding all three of them, Professor Panagiotis K. Christou writes: “While they occasionally caution against ‘philosophy and empty deception’ [Colossians 2:8]—in order to be in harmony with the commandment of the New Testament—they, at the same time, eagerly study philosophy and the relevant disciplines and even recommend the study of them to others.” Obviously, such church teachers thought that the Bible was not enough to support their ideas. Could their seeking other pillars of authority mean that their teachings were foreign to the Bible? The apostle Paul warned Hebrew Christians: “Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings.”—Hebrews 13:9.
CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA—A CONTROVERSIAL CHURCH FATHER
One of the most controversial figures among Church Fathers is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375-444 C.E.). Church historian Hans von Campenhausen describes him as “dogmatic, violent, and cunning, permeated by the greatness of his calling and the dignity of his office,” and adds that “he never considered anything as right unless it was useful to him in the furtherance of his power and authority . . . The brutality and unscrupulousness of his methods never depressed him.” While he was bishop of Alexandria, Cyril used bribery, libel, and slander in order to depose the bishop of Constantinople. He is considered responsible for the brutal murder in 415 C.E. of a renowned philosopher named Hypatia. Regarding Cyril’s theological writings, Campenhausen says: “He initiated the practice of deciding questions of belief not solely on the basis of the Bible but with the aid of appropriate quotations and collections of quotations from acknowledged authorities.”