Stop Equalling Christ with "Christianity" please

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Thank you for the suggestion, but I already have a faith, and it does not fall under the Abrahamic umbrella.

Also, note that I didn't deny Christ's divinity. I do think he is a beautiful, divine being. But his message was turned upside down. What a crying shame that is.

reply to post by Daniem

Yup, I know full well of those origins, are you implying Thor and Athena do not exist? And you know this how..?

I merely meant things are not just randomly named. I don't want to give away my name by my last comes from the geography of where we came from. Things are named for a reason, say Rocky Mountains, Devil's Island, ___'s Fjord, Valley of the Sun, anything in Japan if you look at the kanji... Atlantic ocean? Who knows

reply to post by spellbound


'paulianity' anyone?

Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and a Greek convert named John.

link

Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to a branch of Early Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul the Apostle through his writings. Most of orthodox Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus.

link

Christ said that he was the son of God. He also said we are his brothers and sisters. Where does that put us? Is your brother's father not also your father. The saving message is one of forgiveness and lack of judgment. Judging someone on their belief of a few assumed details (the devil is in the details anyone) goes completely against the saving message, the message that would reverse the polarity from the entropic connection of hate to the symbiotic connection of love. I strongly believe the messianic message, the only way to the father is through me (Christ), operates on multiple levels. Only when we stop judging, projecting, hating, and not forgiving, choosing to believe in the lie of image, when we stop doing all of this, then we see the whole perspective, we at least catch a glimpse of the mind of God, so to speak. Believing based on external authority is an animalistic defense mechanism; it is a dead-end path. It desires worldly acceptance over truth. It would rather have the appearance of love than actually BEING love. I believe the message was to raise people beyond the omnipresent slavery and destruction, but it has been twisted to sow the seeds of destruction and slavery. Anyone who has caught a glimpse of the Christ mind can understand where the Christ was coming from in saying, "I did not come to save this world, but to bring curses." Anyone who has "figured it out," removed the tree of false images, knows that the only way humanity comes to love each other is if the state of war and hate and deception comes to such a culmination, on a critical mass level, a sort of tipping point, that there can no more be a blind eye. The beast, so to speak, must be recognized in the world, and in the inner self, as they are intrinsically connected, in order for the poles to switch.

I have my views on Paul. I am not certain, but I have my views. He was supposed to be a sadistic Christian persecutor who "saw the light." He then turned a perspective of love into a perspective of hate. He was a control freak, and legalistic, and focused on details (devil in the details again). I think it is even possible that he sabotaged the message; what better way to destroy something so beautiful than to craftily reverse the message. He is even said to have asked to be crucified upside down, as he was not worthy to be crucified like the Christ. He was upside down alright, in my humble view.

Originally posted by epitaph.onehe created a cult

He did not create a cult. Read the history of Christianity before making such ridiculous statements.

It was Paul that should be blamed for the beginnings of the cult.

reply to post by spellbound


spellbound
I'm not a christian
but i totally agree with you.

The origin of Christian teaching was pure holy.
However, after thousand of years, many Christians have wrongly followed the "man-made" way of this religion.

S&F for you.

Without going into what my own belief (or lack of one) system is.
Pay attention to Ghandi.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

reply to post by EdCase512


Gandhi was a wise man.

Most religions are essentially based on treating your fellow man as you would want to be treated. It's man, not any god, who messes things up. The bible, as well as all the other books that religions are based on, were written by man as they interpreted at the time from "god(s)". Interpretation being the key word because no one living now was there when all of this happened. So at this point in time even after all these many years of fighting over religions, we're still going strong. We're STILL at each other about personal beliefs. If Christ taught tolerance, as did the other spiritual leaders, where is it?

The biggest problem with Christianity is Christians.

If they followed the teachings of Joshua son of Mary called by the Greeks Cristo’s (Jesus Christ) we would all get along just fine.

Every major Church is an abomination to his name. All bank accounts held by any church are also an abomination to his name.

It’s all well and good to have a wonderful church but that is the last thing his teaching where about.

So when all the churches give up there wealth and put it to the good of society I will believe we have a Christian world.

He preached on a hill side not in a cathedral so let them who profess to be his preachers do the same today.

Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by spellbound

 

So he would help hitler? Why would he help such evil tyrans? Did he infact help hitler with things?

Hitler wasn't a sinner because he was evil, he was evil because he is a sinner. Hitlers sin was nothing God couldn't have forgave him for if Hitler repented and asked. I don't think he ever did.

Originally posted by spellbound
And I mean everyone, even if you are really bad, just call upon Christ to help you.

Yeah. Agreed.

Word of advice, he never returns your calls. For some who is apparently too ineluctable, we never seem to get a response!

reply to post by Cypher-X


Oh my god...
I cannot even fathom the words to describe how idiotic and repugnant your post was. So if Hitler asked, your god would have simply forgiven him for genocide of 6 million Jews

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by Cypher-X

 

Oh my god...
I cannot even fathom the words to describe how idiotic and repugnant your post was. So if Hitler asked, your god would have simply forgiven him for genocide of 6 million Jews

God is not like us humans that get taken in by empty apologies only to be disappointed again. God knows our heart condition and if Hitler had genuinely seen the error of his ways, sincerely asked for forgiveness and turned away from his wrong doing (repent), then God would have forgiven him. In repenting he would have had to turn himself in and submit to earthly punishment. Actions have consequences.

Let's be honest though, when you have been responsible for so many deaths, isn't your conscience seared? I don't think Hitler would have repented, but that's just my opinion.

reply to post by the siren


"KILL THE GOD BELIEVERS! KILL THE JEWS! 6 million dead? OK ill repent now."

And so god was pleased and sent him to heaven when his time came



I truly believe there is something mentaly wrong with people who believe in these things. And i hear some post that say; "Well Jesus said this and that"
No, Jesus NEVER said ANYTHING at all in the bible himself.. he never wrote down ANYTHING..

ALL the things in the bible about him were written long after his death by people who had heard stuff abot jesus from other people... hearsay in otherwords.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

If you do not understand this, imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them. Hearsay does not work as evidence.



How can you people be so gullible, ignorant and just plain stupid? Sure there are good stories and good lifestyle rules in the book... but to take everything as good truth, and IGNORE all the nonsencical, unscientific, contradictory dumb and evil in the book.. is just plain irrasional. Whats wrong with you all?

Have you no moral compass within you without religion?
You think you are more moral than atheists? What moral act are you able to do that atheists cant? (exept suicide bombing)

[edit on 26/7/2009 by Daniem]

reply to post by Daniem


Um, actually he is mentioned in Roman records a few times. Pliny The Younger mentions him, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius.

Then of course there is the Jewish records:

The Babylonian Talmud in a few rare instances likely or possibly refers to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Satda," and "ben Pandera." These references probably date back to the Tannaitic period period (70 to 200).[81] One important reference relates the trial and execution of Jesus and his disciples. It includes this text:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him." Yeshu was different because he was close to the government

These early possible references to Jesus have little historical information independent from the gospels, but they do seem to reflect the historical Jesus as one who had disciples and was crucified during Passover.[81] They reflect hostility toward Jesus among the rabbis.[81] The story of Jesus' trial asserts that Jesus was guilty of a capital crime, and defends the court against the early Christian criticism that Jesus' trial had been hasty.[81] Another aspect of this record is that it varies dramatically from the records in the gospels. Instead of twelve disciples, there are only five, and only one name, that of Matai, even resembles those of the disciples in the gospels. Other differences include hanging instead of crucifixion, a call for witnesses to his defence and the disciples all being sentenced to death after their own trials.

It is taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah. They brought Matai [before the judges]. He said to them: Will Matai be killed? It is written (Psalm 42:2) "When [=Matai] shall (I) come and appear before G-d." They said to him: Yes, Matai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 41:5) "When [=Matai] shall (he) die and his name perish." They brought Nekai. He said to them: Will Nekai be killed? It is written (Exodus 23:7) "The innocent [=Naki] and the righteous you shall not slay." They said to him: Yes, Nekai will be killed as it is written (Psalm 10:8) "In secret places he slay the innocent [=Naki]." They brought Netzer. He said to them: Will Netzer be killed? It is written (Isaiah 11:1) "A branch [=Netzer] shall spring up from his roots." They said to him: Yes, Netzer will be killed as it is written (Isaiah 14:19) "You are cast forth out of your grave like an abominable branch [=Netzer]." They brought Buni. He said to them: Will Buni be killed? It is written (Exodus 4:22) "My son [=Beni], my firstborn, Israel." They said to him: Yes, Buni will be killed as it is written (Exodus 4:23) "Behold, I slay your son [=Bincha] your firstborn." They brought Todah. He said to them: Will Todah be killed? It is written (Psalm 100:1) "A Psalm for thanksgiving [=Todah]." They said to him: Yes, Todah will be killed as it is written (Psalm 50:23) "Whoever sacrifices thanksgiving [=Todah] honors me." [90]

Scholars who promote the conclusion that Jesus is a myth sometimes use this early rabbinic literature to show that the Jesus stories of the gospels derive from a Jewish teacher in the first or second century BC.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

But, basically there is more proof to put a case up for a historical figure than there is arguing for the existance of Socrates. But considering it's ancient history....... *shrugs*

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


My view is Paul represents the point at which things started to "go wrong" so to speak. He twisted whatever existed before into what suited him and most likely for his gain. And that set a precedent that was happily followed by others like him.

reply to post by Daniem


To talk about irrationality while irrationally ranting in condemnation of others for an idea while abusing massively generalization.......... Now that's entertainment me boy!

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Daniem

Um, actually he is mentioned in Roman records a few times.

Are you implying that i deny that? I have only said there occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

Then of course there is the Jewish records: The Babylonian Talmud in a few rare instances likely or possibly refers to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Satda," and "ben Pandera."

You claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E.

And the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

But, basically there is more proof to put a case up for a historical figure than there is arguing for the existance of Socrates.

As i said, hearsay CASES doesnt go well in court.

CONTEMPORARY stuff man.. doesnt exist.. You show me all these things written long after the alleged death of Je-Zeus.

Dont be lured into believeing all the nonsence, just because they show you good stuff doesnt mean you should just give under and swallow IT ALL, thats what they want. Get you feeling good and ecstatic, so you'll ignore the illogical BS and stop thinking about it, and make you into a braindead follower. Thats how religions work, you think you are special?

[edit on 26/7/2009 by Daniem]

reply to post by Daniem


Is there any contemporary record of Pontius Pilate executing anyone? And remember you use that to support your statement he didn't exist. Which I find spurious at best. Not to mention not in the least bit unexpected..