|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Philip
45 Posts |
 Posted - Feb 15 2007 : 11:13:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
Philip:
Your posts represent some of the most outrageously eclectic material on these topics that I have ever read. You presume to interpret and explain Christian subject matter and terminology, yet your material isn't really Christian. You also make interpretive references to Kabbalah subject matter and terminology, but your material isn't really Kabbalah, and you make interpretive references to Hindu and Yogic subject matter and terminology, but your material isn't really these either. 
In my humble opinion, that leaves your information neither here nor there, in a "no man's land" which these Traditions never shared as common ground in the way that you have presented their relationship with one another. Your so-called 'gnostic' material looks to me like a "Jack of all trades, but master of none" shotgun approach to theology and spiritual philosophy. 
Although the Hindu and Yogic material and terminology you make references to has been in use within those Traditions since ancient times, they certainly were never a part of Christian Tradition in any way. Additionally, the Kabbalah was always based solely on the Torah and Old Testament Scriptures, and used exclusively in regards to mystical interpretation of same, never in correlation to Chrisitan or Hindu Theology and Spirituality.
Most interesting, however, is the fact that both the Kabbalah material and terminology you so frequently refer to, and the Gnostic use of Kabbalah ideas, as we see today, and in the way that you employ them, didn't even exist as formally structured Traditions until the Middle Ages. As such, neither was a part of anything Christian, secret or otherwise, in the Early Church. Thus, such claims totally defy historic credibility, IMO. 
I appreciate your comments, and I believe your sentiments are held by many people. I understand that the material that I have presented is not in any way the view of both the leaders and henchmen of any religion. Yet, in my view, there does not exist a single tradition that has not degenerated into an almost unrecognizable state when compared to its original form. 
To me, it is obvious, self-evident that all religious forms are the expression of the same cosmic truths. To me, from what I have studied, it is backed by libraries of evidence, and is directly verifiable, little by little, to those who take up the proper yogic techniques.  |
 |
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 15 2007 : 2:59:00 PM
|
Philip, you said:
"....in my view, there does not exist a single tradition that has not degenerated into an almost unrecognizable state when compared to its original form."
If you really believe this statement to be true, you either haven't looked very deeply into some of these traditions, IMO, or you are simply blinded by your own predjudices of value judgement and personal discrimination!
You also said:
"To me, it is obvious, self-evident that all religious forms are the expression of the same cosmic truths."
Although there is certainly a degree of truth in this statement, as I have also noted here previously, the intellectually complicated blend of your observations in this regard tends to obscure the common denominators that would likely reveal themselves in a more simplistic presentation of the material.
Additionally, using the terminology of one Tradition to explain and interpret other Traditions often confuses the issue, especially where separate terminology is normally used in each, because it is the concepts and ideas which find common ground with one another, not generally the terminology used to describe them. In these instances, more 'generic' words oftentimes serve better to "bridge the gap" between the individual Traditions being referenced or compared.  
Again, this is just the humble opinion of an old yogi who's been around the block a time or two so far. 
Regards ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 16 2007 11:08:21 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 17 2007 : 05:59:15 AM
|
Hi Doc
quote:
With all due respect for your personal opinion, I am afraid that your knowledge of Church History is a bit "fuzzy", to say the least. To believe that a supposedly arbitrary and unfair process was employed in the formation of the original Orthodox Christian Doctrine, and in the selection of texts to be included in the official list of New Testament Holy Scriptures quite simply is NOT TRUE, although it is an opinion shared by many, both Christian and non-Christian alike, who are unfamiliar with authentic Christian Church History and Doctrine, and therefore believe that it is theologically acceptable and philosophically desirable to draw upon an eclectic variety of works from any and all sources.
I am well aware that there are "official" church accounts of history, which are often at odds with accounts written by historians who were alive at the time or who lived shortly after the events actually happened. Of course, which we choose to believe is a personal choice open to all of us, but I wouldn't use the word "fuzzy" to describe someone who chooses to believe the impartial historians' accounts of events, rather than an institution with a huge vested interest in re-writing history. And it isn't just a case of which books were included and which were not, but of the actual content and wording of those books that were included.
Of course we will never know the truth... unless a young shepherd boy stumbles across hundreds of ancient manuscripts from the time of Christ in the Qumran desert that were buried there in urns to try and save them from being burnt.
Christi |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 17 2007 : 11:04:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi:
"I am well aware that there are "official" church accounts of history, which are often at odds with accounts written by historians who were alive at the time or who lived shortly after the events actually happened. Of course, which we choose to believe is a personal choice open to all of us, but I wouldn't use the word "fuzzy" to describe someone who chooses to believe the impartial historians' accounts of events, rather than an institution with a huge vested interest in re-writing history."
What a hoot! History obviously isn't your strong suit!
The Primitive Christian Church of the early centuries was subjected to constant persecution from the predominantly antagonistic, pagan culture and society within which it struggled to survive until the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century.
To declare one's belief in Christianity during this period of time ALWAYS meant that one could expect to suffer discrimination, persecution, and even torture for declaring this belief. These Christians are known as Confessors of the Faith , while those Christians who additionally shed their blood unto death are known as Martyrs in the Faith.  In fact, in those days, it was generally thought to be both probable and desirable to witness for Christ by suffering a martyr's death. 
Who exactly do you think was an impartial historian during that time period? Give me their names and reference their writings! All non-Christian historians at that time were either Jews or Pagans who rejected Christian religious beliefs for one reason or another. As such, they most certainly had their own "vested interest" in writing their histories, namely to discredit the name and person of Jesus (Yeshua) in any way possible, to refute and condemn His Teachings in the form of organized Christianity, and to promote the eradication of those who declared themselves Christians through outright lies, slander, false accusations, legal entanglements, and whatever else might subject Christians to negative Roman scrutiny, legal sanctions, and eventual punishment. You may have heard about Christians 'entertaining' Roman audiences in ampitheaters everywhere as live prey for starving lions and tigers! 
These early Christians had little or no power to influence the historical record in any way except by their willingness to die for their Christian Faith, which impressed even their persecutors, and won more than a few converts, ultimately including even Emperors! People willingly die for a great many reasons including defense of family, personal property, and homeland, but do not willingly go to horrendous deaths in such great numbers for the sake of a lie.
Something in the message and teachings of Jesus cast a ray of spiritual light into the hearts and souls of each and every confessor and martyr, something which they treasured enough to die for, rather than recant and go free without harm or suffering! The same atmosphere existed for Christians in Russia under the Communist regime, with tens of thousands executed for their refusal to recant their Orthodox Christian Faith.
Christi, you may never understand what that kind of Faith is all about, even though your name is already only one small 'i' away from Christ , and you may never choose to embrace ANY belief with that degree of intense commitment. Nonetheless, it is exactly this spirit of love and zeal which shaped early Christianity and formed the foundation of official doctrinal beliefs that determined which books and texts should be included in the New Testament Scriptures, as Divinely Inspired with similar love and zeal for Christ and His Teachings. 
Regardless of what any non-Christian historian has ever written, this IS a historical fact which many millions of people worldwide continue to be a witness for today...2,000 years later.
Love and Light to All ~
Doc
|
Edited by - Doc on Feb 17 2007 5:42:31 PM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2007 : 04:34:43 AM
|
Hi Doc,
quote:
What a hoot! History obviously isn't your strong suit!
You are right Doc, history isn't my strong suit, but then I never claimed it was.
For your information, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica were both Bishops sitting on the council of Nicea around 325 AD. They were both exiled by the council. Arius was exiled by Constantine along with some of his followers and his books were burned. Constantine ordered the destruction of all works composed by Arius on pain of death to any found holding them. Arius was later allowed to return, but by then of course the decisions of the council had been made and the church as we know it today had been formed.
I was under the impression that the Christian church had already accepted all this as historical fact, and did not dispute the historical evidence. As for historians, you could try Epiphanius, Athanasius, Sozomen or Socrates.
Don't worry about thanking me for helping you to better understand the history of Christianity.. it'll come in time.
I am writing this just to point out than when I said that the decisions of the councils were unanimous after those who disagreed had been exiled and had their books burned, it is because that is what happened. I don’t think you should be so ready to laugh at people who are making a serious attempt to understand Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ, just because you don’t want to admit that a particular historical event happened, and that the formation of the Bible was not a cut and dry matter.
quote:
Christi, you may never understand what that kind of Faith is all about, even though your name is already only one small 'i' away from Christ , and you may never choose to embrace ANY belief with that degree of intense commitment.
How do you know that I don't already? Doc, faith is something that goes much deeper than mere adherance to a particular creed or set of beliefs or religion. This is one of the problems we face in the world today, people don't know what real faith is. If we have real faith in God, then we will be ready to die for Him. This means to die to everything we think we know, everything we are attached to, our beliefs, our opinions, our religion, everything that keeps us seperate from God. This is real faith and it is something that is very rare to find in the world today.
So let me ask you another question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the only Son of God? And if so, why?
Philip, if you are still following I would be very interested to hear your views on this question as to whether Jesus Christ (Jeshua?) was the only son of God or not?
Christi |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2007 : 10:50:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Don't worry about thanking me for helping you to better understand the history of Christianity.. it'll come in time.
So let me ask you another question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the only Son of God? And if so, why?
Dear Christi:
I admire your persistence...even if in error! When properly directed and employed, such persistence can indeed be a great aid on the Path to Self-Realization and Spiritual Illumination.
Before you become too smug about supposedly helping me to "better understand the history of Christianity", you would do well to research the matter a bit deeper. It's good to Google, but it wouldn't hurt to read beyond finding what you perceive to support your views, either!
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that certain individuals were ejected from the Council, five dissenting individuals who denied the Divinity of Christ, and their writings destroyed, out of more than 300 other Bishops in attendance who were in full agreement with one another on this issue, but do you know why? Do you even care to know why? Or is the main issue for you that this was somehow unfair, and that the views of these five should hold greater weight and influence in shaping official theology than the views of the 300+ majority? Are you simply rooting for the 'underdogs'?
Please consider reading the actual documents created by the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, links to which I provided in a previous post on this thread, and check out the following as well.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/a...icle8062.asp
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-106.htm
As a Christian, I do in fact believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God because He said that He is, because He demonstrated that He is...unlike any other human ever has, and because His life and teachings have exerted a greater influence on mankind in general than any human life ever lived, IMO.
Regards to All ~
Doc |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2007 : 2:23:33 PM
|
Thanks Doc,
That sounds like very interesting info on nicea; don't have time to read them now, but will later.
My opinion differs on the status of Jesus, but I don't think that is important because I believe his teachings are the most important in western religions, and agree universally with eastern religions.
Do you have an opinion on why Jesus didn't write any of the bible, or instruct anybody else to?
|
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2007 : 6:13:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish:
"Do you have an opinion on why Jesus didn't write any of the bible, or instruct anybody else to?"
Hi Etherfish!
At the time when Jesus walked among people in Palestine and Judea, the vast majority of people were unable to read or write. Among the Jewish population, most of those who were literate were the cleric Levites, who served as the High Priests at the Temple in Jerusalem; the Rabbis, who officiated over the Liturgical Rites and Services in the Synagogues; and the Cantors, who served as chanters and readers for such services. To make their status even more exclusive in the perception of the common folks, Ancient Hebrew was used for most Holy Sacrifices, Sacred Liturgical Rites, and Divine Offices and Services. The common people of Palestine and Judea spoke primarily Aramaic, the predecessor of modern Arabic, not Hebrew as in ancient or modern Israel. Only the clerics, and a wealthy few were educated in reading or writing Hebrew at that time
I believe that this is why Jesus spoke publicly to disseminate His teachings, and encouraged His Apostles and Disciples to do likewise, rather than commiting His teachings to writing. The oral transmission of the teachings has always been a fundamental part of Christianity since then, following the example of Christ, in the form of public preaching, and through sermons and homilies presented in the churches.
The widespread illiteracy of these ancient peoples is another reason why the use of Religious Iconography took root in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The scenes depicted on the icons allowed those who were illiterate to learn about the major events of the life of Jesus, and about other people, places and events who shaped the birth of Christianity. For these people it could be truly said that through the Holy Icons...."every picture tells a story".
Recording the teachings and stories in writing came much later, when it was more common for the general population to possess literacy, and when such large numbers of people expressed an interest in the Gospel Teachings of Christ that it became impractical to spread the Good News by word of mouth alone.
Doc |
|
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2007 : 9:41:44 PM
|
quote:
Philip, if you are still following I would be very interested to hear your views on this question as to whether Jesus Christ (Jeshua?) was the only son of God or not?
Jesus is not the only son of God, according to my understanding of the Bible. A Son of God is someone - anyone - that has received or incarnated the Christ.
Here are some quotes from the Bible:
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." - Genesis 6:2
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." - Job 1:6
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." - John 1:11-13
"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." - John 10:33-38
I always give the quotes because, in reality, very few people have actually read the Bible. Yet, there is much wisdom within.
The CHRIST is the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son of God. YET, Christ is not a person. Christ is a FORCE, a FIRE, a LIGHT. Christ is not an individual, Christ is not a person, Christ is not a soul, Christ is not a "God", Christ is the Light of the World, the burning Fire that palpitates within the igneous particles of life. Christ is the Universal Spirit of Life.
Nevertheless, that Son can be incarnated in any individual who is prepared.
It is important to understand that Christ is beyond the soul and the spirit. It is beyond the "Buddha" or tathagata, the Being, the Atman, etc. Before one can incarnate Christ, one must first incarnate the Master, the Spirit, the Buddha... only then does one go even further than that, which the Christ, the Master of all the Masters, the Being of the Being.
So, someone who has merged with that fire has become one within that fire. Meaning, their individual Will is perfectly harmonized with Thy Will. When someone incarnated Christ, becoming a Son of God, they become a supra-individual. There is no ego, no will of the "I", no will of the self. It is a perfect individual expression of the collective will of that Intelligence we call God. This is what it means to be a supra-individual.
Therefore, when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM," that was the Fire of Christ expressing itself through the Bodhisattva called Jesus.
Jesus was a Son of God, an individual expression of Christ, that taught the Doctrine of the Cosmic Christ. The Cosmic Christ spoke through him when he said, "I am the way the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" because everyone who wishes to reach the Cosmic Common Eternal Father must incarnate the Christ, no matter what the name of it is. All the great prophets were Sons of God, yet they taught doctrines for the race of people that needed it. Every religion prior to Christianity was a religion for a particular people. Christianity was supposed to replace all the religions of the world, but that objective was sabotaged by a variety of causes. This is why Christianity is very particular, why it is supposed to be the doctrine of the Narrow Gate, the doctrine of Absolute Salvation, a highly elevated, superior, and subtle teaching that showed the way to reach the Father, through the Cosmic Christ. Being such a subtle and superior teaching makes it all the more easy to misunderstand it and to consciously or not remove or ignore that which is not understood. In my view, Christianity was not and is not simply a way to have a personal relationship with God via believing in miracles of the personality of Jesus, but the doctrine of the Way to incarnate Christ. |
Edited by - Philip on Feb 18 2007 10:38:02 PM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 18 2007 : 10:19:15 PM
|
Thanks Doc, It just doesn't make sense to me that if Jesus were God incarnate, and knew all the prophecies of the future, that he wouldn't have said something about the bible, as people call it the word of God, and he certainly would have known the impotance people would put on it for centuries to come.
However, if he was just a man raised to christhood as all men can eventually be, it makes sense he would not be concerned with 21st century christianity. i'm leaning toward the concept that christhood is something he achieved. After all, he said we could do everything he did and more.
------------------------
Thanks Philip; that makes a lot of sense.
I checked those passages in my bible by George M. Lamsa, translated from the original aramaic, which often clears up misunderstandings. The words are different, but the meaning remains the same as above. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Feb 18 2007 10:26:15 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2007 : 12:09:33 AM
|
Please note the lower case 's' of 'sons' used in the scriptural quotes referring to mankind in general as "sons of God" vs. the Capital 'S' used in reference to Jesus as "Son of God". Please note also that Jesus made frequent references to the 'Bible'...i.e. the Old Testament Torah and other Holy Scriptures of Jewish Faith. The 'Bible' as we may think of it today, including the New Testament Scriptures based on Jesus's Teachings, were not put into writing until after His death and Resurrection, but were disseminated through oral transmission instead until this method became impossible to depend upon solely in meeting the needs of huge numbers of converts to Christianity.
Regarding Philip's scriptural quotes, according to Orthodox Christian theology, all are capable of Union with God, Henosis....and eventual Deification, Theosis, as an inevitable result of such Union, but only Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha-Mashiach, the Annointed One of God's Salvation, is innately Divine in Nature, or Consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, One God in Three Persons, from the beginning!
All others must strive to achieve this Union and Deification as the perfect fulfillment of the "Kingdom of Heaven", through the manifestation of Unconditional Divine Love, which Jesus said was the summation of all the Jewish Law and the Prophets, and which therefore continues to be announced in the Good News of the Gospel Teachings. Jesus also said that Union between God and man cannot be achieved without a Mediator, Jesus Himself, Who is the Word Incarnated as flesh..."I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6). Thus, in and through the Son, Jesus, we become "sons of God". Incorporation into Christ is the only means to reach our supernatural end. The Holy Spirit facilitates and perfects this incorporation. In this regard, St. Irenaeus wrote: "Through the Holy Spirit one ascends to the Son, and through the Son to the Father." The redeeming action of Christ, therefore, through unifying power of Divine Love, constitutes the Alpha and the Omega, as well as the heart of Christian Spirituality.
Light and Love to All ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 19 2007 01:30:53 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2007 : 07:38:54 AM
|
Hi Doc,
quote:
I admire your persistence...even if in error! When properly directed and employed, such persistence can indeed be a great aid on the Path to Self-Realization and Spiritual Illumination.
So I am still in error am I? Amazing!
quote:
You are absolutely correct in pointing out that certain individuals were ejected from the Council, five dissenting individuals who denied the Divinity of Christ, and their writings destroyed, out of more than 300 other Bishops in attendance who were in full agreement with one another on this issue, but do you know why? Do you even care to know why? Or is the main issue for you that this was somehow unfair, and that the views of these five should hold greater weight and influence in shaping official theology than the views of the 300+ majority? Are you simply rooting for the 'underdogs'?
I'm not rooting for underdogs, and actually I would be very interested to know why members of the Council of Nicea were exiled. Actually what we are discussing here now is exactly what was discussed at the council, and the reason for the exiles of the Bishops and the burning of the books.
Of course we cannot really say that 300 Bishops were all in complete agreement with the adoption of the Creed and only 5 bishops were in opposition to it. After all, presumably they all knew that they faced exile and the destruction by fire of their scriptures. Under that kind of pressure, how many would dare to protest. It is a bit like pointing a machine gun at a group of people and asking them if they agree with you? Surprise surprise!, only five members protested. Someone obviously wanted something to be agreed upon very badly, and I suspect they got what they wanted.
quote:
As a Christian, I do in fact believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God because He said that He is, because He demonstrated that He is...unlike any other human ever has, and because His life and teachings have exerted a greater influence on mankind in general than any human life ever lived, IMO.
Thanks for that. I was just wondering where the line is in the bible where Jesus says that he is the only Son of God? I had a quick look, but couldn't find it.
quote:
Please note the lower case 's' of 'sons' used in the scriptural quotes referring to mankind in general as "sons of God" vs. the Capital 'S' used in reference to Jesus as "Son of God".
This is interesting. So there are two different kinds of Son of God? Does this use of the small letter s and the capital S represent the translation of different words from Hebrew/ Aramaic? Or did the original authors use lower and upper case letters?
Christi |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2007 : 09:46:19 AM
|
Christi:
Do your homework! All of your questions would be answered, and the proof of your misunderstanding regarding the atmosphere of fellowship and common accord among the Bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicaea would be clearly perceived, if you would merely take the time to read the linked documents already provided for you twice so far!
The overwhelming majority of Biships in attendance at this Council, 313 out of 318 initially present, agreed that they believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Additionally, a referendum of this official proclamation declared by the Council was overwhelmingly ratified by the vote of those Bishops who were not able to attend the Council, and by the overwhelming majority of local church members who composed the Christian communities everywhere.
Furthermore, this official proclamation of Christ's Divinity could have been removed or modified by any of the six subsequent Ecumenical Councils, any of the numerous local Councils convened thereafter, or by any of the public referendums which followed each of these. Clearly, THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIANS DID AND DO FREELY BELIEVE!
But if YOU wish to believe otherwise, or wish to believe that everyone was coerced under the pressure of some horrible sanction to accept this belief, that is certainly your right....even though in error. You go, girl!
Also, if you have any knowledge of Biblical Greek, or even merely access to a copy of Strong's Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek Dictionaries, you could easily verify the words used in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures and in the original Greek New Testament Scriptures, as well as the words used in the Greek documents produced by the Ecumenical Councils. All it takes is a bit of time to search them out.
So, either do your homework, by researching and reading what is available to you for clarification on this debate, or drop the issue and move on...satisfied that you know best, even though you didn't really check it out sufficiently. Either way is OK with me.
Regards ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 19 2007 3:17:30 PM |
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2007 : 3:57:00 PM
|
| Question: what is the true christian understanding about reincarnation ? |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 19 2007 : 4:27:30 PM
|
Interesting stuff. Backing up a little-
Doc wrote: "Please note the lower case 's' of 'sons' used in the scriptural quotes referring to mankind in general as "sons of God" vs. the Capital 'S' used in reference to Jesus as "Son of God". Please note also that Jesus made frequent references to the 'Bible'...i.e. the Old Testament Torah and other Holy Scriptures of Jewish Faith. The 'Bible' as we may think of it today, including the New Testament Scriptures based on Jesus's Teachings, were not put into writing until after His death and Resurrection, but were disseminated through oral transmission instead until this method became impossible to depend upon solely in meeting the needs of huge numbers of converts to Christianity. "
OK this will take a scholar to figure out, which I am not: You are claiming the bible makes a distinction between the "only begotten" son with a capital "S" and sons of God, us, with a small "s". Yet the bible was written from an oral tradition, and quotes things said when Jesus was alive. So was Jesus using some kind of hand gestures to indicate a capital "S?" Or maybe the original words were different in aramaic.
The other thing that doesn't make sense to me, is if Jesus was God incarnate, and the bible is the word of God, then surely Jesus would have made references to the testaments that had not been written yet, as prophecies in the bible extend until today, and he would have known the huge impact that the bible would carry for thousands of years.
Especially because there are so many christians who pretty much follow the new testament and kinda ignore the old.
Then there are people like me who believe in the teachings of Jesus, but not so much the bible except as a means of conveying Jesus' teachings only. |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2007 : 12:50:02 AM
|
Regarding the phrases "Son of God" and "sons of God" found in the Scriptures, the Greek word used for both phrases in all of the original Gospel texts is "huios", meaning "son" or "sons" of immediate family kinship.
In transcribing the scriptures from oral transmission to written texts, the first letter of this Greek word, "huios", was written as an Upper Case Letter when referring to Jesus as "Son of God" or "Son of the Living God" to denote His exclusive relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit, as One in Essence, an Equal Consubstantial Trinity, One God in Three Persons. This example was followed in translating the Gospels, and other New Testament Scriptures, from the original Greek texts into other languages. It is for this same reason also that other words used in personal reference to Jesus are written with an Upper Case first letter.
When Jesus asked his disciples "...who do you say I AM? Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus replied saying to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you, but My Heavenly Father."
This is understood to be an admission by Jesus of having a special and unique relationship with the Father, the Living God, which is distinct from that of any other human being, including the Prophets, Sages, and Holy Men who preceded Jesus, and the Saints or Holy Men who followed in succession after Him. Peter's Confession of Faith regarding Jesus's true identity is in fact the Foundation Stone or Rock upon which the Church has been built.
Regarding the notion that Jesus should have prophesied to people who couldn't read about scriptural texts which were not yet written.....c'mon, man, gimme a break  ....sheesh! What a hoot! To what purpose? This is an absurd and moot point, IMO.
Doc |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2007 : 02:29:17 AM
|
Hi Doc,
quote:
Christi:
Do your homework! All of your questions would be answered, and the proof of your misunderstanding regarding the atmosphere of fellowship and common accord among the Bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicaea would be clearly perceived, if you would merely take the time to read the linked documents already provided for you twice so far!
I had studied these references, so please don't be so presumptious! All I could conclude was that the Bishops present at the council of Nicea were being asked to agree to a common Christian Creed which outlined the common belief in the Unique Divinity of one man, Jesus of Nazareth. Any Bishops which did not agree to sign up to the creed were exiled and had there scriptures burned. Now if you want to call this an atmosphere of fellowship and common accord then that's your choice. I think most people would not choose that exact phrase! Please note that I am not questioning the Divine nature of Jesus Christ, but I am certainly aware that if the level of common agreement that you suggest existed was actually present then this particular form of control would not have been necessary.
quote:
Also, if you have any knowledge of Biblical Greek, or even merely access to a copy of Strong's Comprehensive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek Dictionaries, you could easily verify the words used in the original Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures and in the original Greek New Testament Scriptures, as well as the words used in the Greek documents produced by the Ecumenical Councils. All it takes is a bit of time to search them out.
So, either do your homework, by researching and reading what is available to you for clarification on this debate, or drop the issue and move on..
Actually I don't have any knowledge of Ancient Greek, or Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic, or access to any of the texts that you mention. That is why I put the question out onto the forum, just in case anyone else has knowledge of these things or access to the texts. If you don't, or don't want to help, then you can simply say so and leave it to others to debate.
But you didn't answer my question. Where does it say in the bible that Jesus claimed that he was the Only Begotten Son of God? You did say that he claimed that he was. I have searched the bible in vain, and could find nothing in any other non-biblical Christian works. If you are unable to find the referance right now then maybe someone else knows it? I have already done the research, and came up with nothing.
Christi |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2007 : 06:48:35 AM
|
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the very detailed and informative reply.
quote:
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
So in your understanding, this line in the bible refers to men who were Christed, marrying women who were not?
quote:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I assume that when it says "received him" here, it is reffering to Jesus Christ. So does this line indicate that the "sons of God" is not a reference to men in general, but rather to a state that someone can attain if they have faith in Jesus Christ? This would certainly re-enforce your understanding of what a "son of God" is, as being any person who has attained the Christed state.
quote:
The CHRIST is the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son of God. YET, Christ is not a person. Christ is a FORCE, a FIRE, a LIGHT. Christ is not an individual, Christ is not a person, Christ is not a soul, Christ is not a "God", Christ is the Light of the World, the burning Fire that palpitates within the igneous particles of life. Christ is the Universal Spirit of Life.
Nevertheless, that Son can be incarnated in any individual who is prepared.
It is important to understand that Christ is beyond the soul and the spirit. It is beyond the "Buddha" or tathagata, the Being, the Atman, etc. Before one can incarnate Christ, one must first incarnate the Master, the Spirit, the Buddha... only then does one go even further than that, which the Christ, the Master of all the Masters, the Being of the Being.
So, someone who has merged with that fire has become one within that fire. Meaning, their individual Will is perfectly harmonized with Thy Will. When someone incarnated Christ, becoming a Son of God, they become a supra-individual. There is no ego, no will of the "I", no will of the self. It is a perfect individual expression of the collective will of that Intelligence we call God. This is what it means to be a supra-individual
This is a beautiful description of a very high state of consciousness.
So if you are right, it looks like the Orthadox Christians, at some point, got confused between Jesus the man, and the Christ light, believing that the Christ light was only to be found in the man, and not something that was accessible eternally to all. It does look very much like we are discussing stages in the final process of Divine Realization here (note the Capital letters).
Doc indicated as much when he said this:
quote:
according to Orthodox Christian theology, all are capable of Union with God, Henosis....and eventual Deification, Theosis, as an inevitable result of such Union, but only Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha-Mashiach, the Annointed One of God's Salvation, is innately Divine in Nature, or Consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, One God in Three Persons, from the beginning!
It sounds like Doc is saying that humans are capable of attaining the Unified state of Consciousness, and after that, a higher Deified State. But that only Jesus Christ was Christed by birth. He seems to imply further that us ordnary mortals are not capable of attaining this highest state that Jesus Christ attained, of Consubstantiation with the Trinity. I assume that you would not agree with the last statement about the Consubstantiation being only available to Jesus Christ?
I assume also that the Gnostic Christians did not sign up to the Creed (We believe in one God etc....) that was accepted at the Council of Nicea?
Christi
|
|
|
|
Philip
45 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2007 : 10:15:07 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the very detailed and informative reply.
quote:
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
So in your understanding, this line in the bible refers to men who were Christed, marrying women who were not?
Yes, in my view, that is an allegory to the fall of certain angels.
Although sexual alchemy is the way to become an angel, it is also true that once the work of the genesis of the angel is complete, then it is forbidden to take a wife.
The “Being” has many different parts. It happens that the mind falls in love and through this doorway all the angels who ever fell, did so through the door of sex.
The entrance and exit of Eden is only possible through the door of sex.
quote:
quote:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
I assume that when it says "received him" here, it is reffering to Jesus Christ. So does this line indicate that the "sons of God" is not a reference to men in general, but rather to a state that someone can attain if they have faith in Jesus Christ? This would certainly re-enforce your understanding of what a "son of God" is, as being any person who has attained the Christed state.
A true Son of God would be a Christified One, but it could also be used in a more general way to refer to those who are progressing on the path towards that..
Now, what we are, are Sons of the Devil, and all the Lusts of the Devil we do!
38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
The Pharisees and Sadducees, which are always heckling the Christ, are all SYMBOLS.
Pharisee: the intellectual, skeptical mind that only knows information about the five senses and rejects the wisdom of the lord. Today, this is the vast majority of "science". This is also, many times, the thief on the left of Christ, abusing him.. they say, have "safe" sex with as many partners as you wish, express your sexuality through masturbation, there is nothing wrong with that, the bible was written by ignoramuses, based on the superstitions of mythomanaics, etc., etc.
Sadducee: the fanatical religious elements that believe, although very sincerely, very mistakenly, about how righteous they are, how lucky they are to be saved by the Lord, and wrong the others are. "Oh Lord, thanks be that I am saved, and that I am not like the others who do not believe in you..." Meanwhile they are like the thief on the right of Christ on the Mount of Skulls, also stealing from the Lord for "good intentions."
Both the Pharisee and the Sadducee live WITHIN; they both believe that they are the righteous ones. They add the "leaven" (unnecessary elements: beliefs, theories, ideas, pride, envy, lust, hate, anger, etc.) to the "bread" of Wisdom. The Christ principle lives WITHIN. The elements which kill the lord and scream "Cruxifiction!" are the elements of the "Devil" that live within! Therefore, we are sons of the devil until that devil dies, and only the "Son" can perform that.
So, because Jesus is symbolizing the part of the Son of God (the Christ principle), the only Begotten, it is good that he is the "Son" and others are the "sons." He is also, in my understanding, the one most highly exalted by God, he is at the "top," so it is fitting.
By faith we have to understand that this is beyond belief. Faith is not something held in the intellect. Faith is something that is assimilated through experience, it is the result of experiencing god. To really have faith in Christ, to believe in Christ, one has to have that experience of him, little by little, in every atomic particle of their existence. Once that occurs, they are saved! This means that one has illuminated, through the light of Christ, every particle of darkness that as a sum is the "unconsciousness." People believe that they are really saved but they still dream, they do not possess a permanent center of consciousness, and what is worse, is that they ignore that 97% of their self is "darkness" or unconsciousness.
quote:
This is a beautiful description of a very high state of consciousness.
So if you are right, it looks like the Orthadox Christians, at some point, got confused between Jesus the man, and the Christ light, believing that the Christ light was only to be found in the man, and not something that was accessible eternally to all. It does look very much like we are discussing stages in the final process of Divine Realization here (note the Capital letters).
Well, really, there are few who make any distinction between Jesus and Christ. In most cases it doesn’t matter because Jesus was the one who best transmitted the light of Christ.
quote:
Doc indicated as much when he said this:
quote:
according to Orthodox Christian theology, all are capable of Union with God, Henosis....and eventual Deification, Theosis, as an inevitable result of such Union, but only Jesus Christ, Yeshua ha-Mashiach, the Annointed One of God's Salvation, is innately Divine in Nature, or Consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, One God in Three Persons, from the beginning!
It sounds like Doc is saying that humans are capable of attaining the Unified state of Consciousness, and after that, a higher Deified State. But that only Jesus Christ was Christed by birth. He seems to imply further that us ordnary mortals are not capable of attaining this highest state that Jesus Christ attained, of Consubstantiation with the Trinity. I assume that you would not agree with the last statement about the Consubstantiation being only available to Jesus Christ?
God has no form. It is absurd to anthropomorphize space. “God” is the three primary forces of the Universe: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Kether, Chokmah, Binah; Osiris, Isis, and Horus; Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; Holy Affirming, Holy Denying, and Holy Reconciling.
Only that element called “Jesus” within can save you. Only that element called “Jesus” within can reach those heights. Only that element called “Jesus” is born pure within the one who knows the way and only through him can one be Christified.
Whosoever forms Christ becomes Christ. Only Christ can ascend to the Father. The Father is neither a human nor a divine individual. The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are substances, forces, transcendental and terrifically divine energies. That is all. What happens is that unfortunately people have a marked tendency to anthropomorphise these superior forces.
Jesus lived the drama of the Passion; nonetheless, he was not the only one who has lived it. Prior to him, some Initiates like Hermes, Quetzalcoatl, Krishna, Orpheus, Buddha etc., lived it. After Him, a few others have lived it. The drama of the Passion is cosmic.
quote:
I assume also that the Gnostic Christians did not sign up to the Creed (We believe in one God etc....) that was accepted at the Council of Nicea?
Christi
No, I find nothing wrong with that creed, it is pure Gnosticism.
If you want to know more about Christ, read this page: http://www.gnosticteachings.org/con.../view/83/65/
Here is a quote:
The world needed something new. The universal religion needed to manifest in a new form. Jesus was the initiator of that New Era. Indeed, Jesus the Christ was the Divine Hero of the New Age.
The Nicene Council held in the year 325 A. D. did not create a new hero, as the materialistic swine suppose. In the Nicene Council a Doctrine and a Man were officially recognised.
The Doctrine was primeval Christianity, today disfigured by the Roman Catholic sect. The Man was Jesus. Many men had declared themselves Avatars of the New Era; however, none of them except for Jesus had taught the Doctrine of the New Era. The facts speak for themselves, and Jesus spoke with facts; this is why He was recognised as the initiator of the New Era.
The Doctrine of Jesus is Christic esoterism, the Solar Religion of all ages and centuries.
The Gnosticism taught by Jesus is the religion of the Sun, the primeval Christianity of the Gods of Dawn.
Indeed, the Nicene Council gave legal status to a new religious form that had long endured terrifying persecution and martyrdom. It is enough to remember the circus of lions in the times of Nero, when the Christians were thrown into the arena to be devoured by those wild animals.
Let us remember the epoch of the catacombs and the sufferings of all those Gnostics. It was only just that the Nicene Council should definitively recognise in a totally official form a Solar Doctrine and a Man who had incarnated the Cosmic Christ.
We clarify that the Holy Gods of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Iberian, Scandinavian, Gaelic, Germanic, Assyrian, Aramaic, Babylonian, Persian religions, etc., have not died. Those Gods fulfilled their mission and thereafter they withdrew; that is all. In a future Mahamanvantara those ineffable Gods and their divine religions will Return in the right day and hour for a new manifestation.
When a religious form disappears, it commends its ecumenical universal principles to the religious form that follows it. This is the Law of Life.
Jesus has the divine attributes of Krishna, Buddha, Zeus-Jupiter, Apollo. All of them were born from a Virgin. Indeed, Christ is always born from the Virgin Mother of the World. Every Master practises Sexual Magic; thus, speaking in a symbolic sense, we can assert that Christ is born within the womb of the priestess wife.
The emblems, symbols and dramas of the Birth of the Gods are always the same. The God Mithra was born on the 24th of December at midnight, just as Jesus. The birthplace of Jesus was Bethlehem. This name comes from the name of the God of Babylonian and Germanic people, who named their Sun God Bel or Beleno. Therefore, the birth in Belen or Bethlehem was in order to make understandable the reality of a Man who had incarnated the Christ-Sun.
Thus, the Goddesses Isis, Juno, Demeter, Ceres, Vesta, Maia, were personified in the mother of the Hierophant Jesus. The Hebrew Maiden Mary was a great Initiate. Every occultist knows this. All these Goddess Mothers can rightly represent the Divine Mother Kundalini from whom the Universal Verb of Life is always born.
All the martyred Saints, Virgins, Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Archangels, Powers, Virtues and Thrones are the same Demigods, Titans, Goddesses, Sylphs, Cyclops and Messengers of the Gods, yet now with new names. The religious principles are always the same. The religious forms may change; however, the principles do not change because only one religion, the Universal Religion, exists.
The ancient convents of nuns reappeared in a new form. Nonetheless, it was a misfortune, because the medieval priests only used the priestesses to Fornicate, because of the fact of not knowing the Great Arcanum. If they had known the Great Arcanum, the priestesses would have fulfilled a great mission, and the priests would have attained profound Self-realization. Then the Roman Catholic form would not have degenerated, and Christic Esoterism would now be resplendent in all temples. |
Edited by - Philip on Feb 20 2007 10:20:15 AM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2007 : 10:28:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Christi:
"I had studied these references, so please don't be so presumptious! I have searched the bible in vain, and could find nothing in any other non-biblical Christian works. I have already done the research, and came up with nothing."
Hello Christi:
Well then, you are apparently only finding what you want to find when reading those documents...i.e. nothing to support your view, and seeing only what you want to see, kinda like you did when you used Google earlier on in this discussion.
In the final analysis, however, the Council documents are available for public perusal, the Nicaean Creed and other Theological Canons and Proclamations which the Council produced have remained the Foundation of Christian Faith for nearly 1,700 years to date, and have been accepted as such by more than one third of the world's population even today, even though these Basis Tenets could have been amended or replaced by any of the Councils which were convened through the centuries after Nicaea, and the general referendums which followed each of them.
Ultimately, Christian beliefs are only truly understood and accepted through a very personal Inner Experience of Spiritual Transformation brought about by sincere efforts to actually manifest the Gospel Message of Christ in everyday life....by spiritually resonating to Jesus's Teachings on Love, Forgiveness, Faith in God, and so much more, in a profoundly deep way inwardly.
This can NEVER occur through mere intellectual conjecture or polemics, regardless of how erudite or scholarly these may appear to be, but can only be acquired experientially through the Grace of God's Great Mercy towards mankind and the emulation of Christ's Divine Love for All, with the Guidance and Counsel of the Holy Spirit to assist us along the Way.
Understandably, those who are not Christians will not be inclined to seriously study the Holy Scriptures and Meditate on their Truth with a Christian perspective, or be inclined to engage in the Christian methods of Contemplative Prayer which open the Heart to their deeper spiritual meaning. Such individuals, always on the outside looking in, can't possibly see either the parts or the whole of real Christianity with the same perpsective that a genuinely devout Christian does. I would venture to say that this is probably true in regards to ANY religion, not just in reference to Christianity.
In any event, I honor your right to personally accept or reject Christian Doctrine and Theology according to whatever measure resonates best for you.
That having been said, I have neither the time nor the desire to devote further efforts towards debate on these issues with anyone here. We have all apparently made our personal choices regarding religious beliefs already, and these are not likely to change by debating the differences in opinion.
If you think that Philip's quasi-gnostic teachings on Christian doctrines better represent something that you feel more comfortable with, I don't have a problem with that at all. I will merely add once again that such teachings ARE NOT what the vast majority of Christians have ever identified with as authentic representations of Christ's Teachings.
If Philip's interpretations are correct, and millions of mainstream Christians are wrong, or visa versa, either way, we will all be held responsible before God in the end for our choice of thoughts, words, and actions. Karma always has a way of coming around sooner or later, doesn't it 
Love and Light to All ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 20 2007 11:49:51 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2007 : 3:11:40 PM
|
Gruss Gott, Wolfgang!
The subject of Reincarnation has been widely debated through the centuries within the ranks of Greek Orthodox or Eastern Christianity. Both those who support this belief and those who do not have offered Chapter and Verse passages from the Old and New Testament Scriptures, along with exhaustive and erudite treatises on the subject to support their respective views.
One of the key points of such debate has been to define the meaning of the terms 'reincarnation of souls', 'transmigration of souls', and 'transformation of souls', as these are commonly understood by people of many different religions, systems of spirituality, and schools of spiritual philosophy. Strictly speaking, these terms are not completely synonymous with one another, although often used as if they were, but have varying nuances of meaning and interpretation.
By Orthodox reckoning, 'reincarnation of souls' implies the transfer of soul consciousness from one body to another and another in succession, either up or down the ladder of spiritual evolution according to the retribution accrued by personal choices and their effects in previous lives.
The term 'transmigration of souls' was equated with the Greek term 'metempsychosis', which implies not only the assumption of a new 'body', but the acquisition of a new soul consciousness or a new mind as well, without continuation of individual spiritual identity.
And the term 'transformation of souls' implies a modification of soul consciousness, or the renewal of mind and spirit, through the use of the same body. Also implied in this concept is the potential for both spiritual and physical immortality, thus eliminating the need for more than one body. Additionally, the Resurrection of the Dead for reunion of soul and body in life is included here.
By acknowledging that anything is possible through the Grace and Will of Almighty God, who is also All-Knowing and Present in All, the concept of 'reincarnation' might well be a part of God's Plan of spiritual Redemption for mankind, and there is ample evidence of this belief among early Christian writers, including Scriptural passages which can easily be interpreted to imply such belief. This was especially true among those who were pagan converts to Christianity, more so than among those who converted from Judaism.
The idea of 'transmigration' or 'metempsychosis', by comparison, did not sit well with Traditional Jewish Theology or the Eastern Christian Theology which sprang from it. Thus, both the 'reincarnation of souls' and the 'transmigration of souls' were perceived to be concepts more closely associated with pagan spirituality historically, and were thus officially rejected by the Ecumenical Council of Constaninople.
The concept of the 'transformation of souls', however, is perceived to better reflect the Foundation of Christian Theology, specifically that Jesus conquered Death by death, through the uniqueness of His Redemptive Resurrection. This unique event in human history thereby eliminated any previous necessity for mankind to achieve Union with God (Henosis), and subsequent Deification in God (Theosis), solely through long, arduous personal efforts and merit alone, such as successfully obeying the Ten Commandments. Similarly, the resolution of cause and effect retribution resulting from an individual's thoughts, words, and actions no longer need to be resolved through personal efforts of penitence alone, nor through subsequent reincarnations into other bodies until you get the job done right!
Thus, Christ's Redemptive suffering, conquering Death by death, and His Resurrection, opened the Gates to Paradise once again and Illuminated the Way to God for all who choose to follow His Teachings, assisted by the Divine Presence of the Holy Spirit for Guidance and Counsel, and eventually culminating in the Resurrection of the Dead in the Last Days.
Love and Light to All ~
Doc |
Edited by - Doc on Feb 21 2007 12:19:58 AM |
|
|
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4514 Posts |
Posted - Feb 21 2007 : 12:33:58 AM
|
Hi Doc,
quote:
Hello Christi:
Well then, you are apparently only finding what you want to find when reading those documents...i.e. nothing to support your view, and seeing only what you want to see, kinda like you did when you used Google earlier on in this discussion.
Well, it seems from your answer to my question, that you also are not aware of any reference in the Bible or anywhere else where it is written that Christ said that he was the only begotten Son of God. You did say in an earlier post that you believed he was the only begotten Son of God because he said so and because he demonstrated that he was.
So it would seem that it is actually you that see what you choose when you read these scriptures and not me. I have looked hard for scriptural evidence to support the idea that Jesus of Nazareth believed that he was the only begotten Son of God. I am open to the idea. But the evidence does not seem to exist. In fact it would seem rather that Jesus of Nazareth believed that all who followed his teachings would become Sons and Daughters of God. Certainly this is the image that we get if we read the Gospel according to John. Certainly it is recorded that Jesus demonstrated many Siddhis in public. But I can't see how the demonstration of magical acts constitutes proof that someone is the only begotten Son of God?
I do not think that we should let the fact that 2 Billion people believe a certain thing to be true to taint our judgment in any way. After all, if you were to ask any Hindu if Jesus of Nazareth was the only begotten Son of God, I think they would emphatically say no. After all, where would that leave Krishna? I think the same would apply for Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, atheists. In fact it is possible that 4 Billion people believe that Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God, so if we want to count numbers as proof of anything, then it would swing heavily one way.
I do believe that it is important that we try to come to an understanding for ourselves of what Jesus Christ was trying to teach, and that we should help each other in that endeavor.
I am sorry that you are not going to continue this discussion with anyone, including myself. Your erudite wisdom, and knowledge regarding some aspects of Christian teachings will be greatly missed.
Christi
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Feb 21 2007 : 04:37:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doc
Gruss Gott, Wolfgang!
Thanks Doc, for your reply. Trying your German , not bad !
So, reincarnation seems to be excluded from the christian faith.
I would like to elaborate on this and may be get further input.
The main christian faith is, that we have one physical live,
then we die and go to the spiritual world. We end up either
in heaven or in hell or somewhere in between.
To my knowledge the christian faith also implies that those
who are in hell (or somewhere in between), have to wait until
the end of all days until they proceed (or are extinguished )
Anyway, my intention is not to attack the christian faith.
I am just wondering why the concept of reincarnation was dismissed
by the Ecumenical Council.
We have seen in history that dogmatic faith has been misused
many times, by inducing fear in the people like: "If you do not
believe (what we tell you) you will go to hell."
I think we can agree that such an inducing of fear surely
will have some serious karma consequences.
I think we also can agree that popes, bishops and priests
have misused their power by using faith concepts.
For me reincarnation shows a more loving God:
How can a mere 100 years of life (if we live that long) determine
the rest of eternity ?
100 years is long, but it is not long enough for any human being
to evolve all of humans capacity: discovering the divine within.
Now, reincarnation for me is still a belief concept, I have not (yet)
remembered any of my previous lifes.
I was brought up and lived in a catholic surrounding.
Catholic and any other christian faith concepts about hell and
purgatory are just that: faith concepts.
There are people who claim to remember some of their past lifes.
So, reincarnation seems to be possible.
Then there are people who claim to have spoken to the dead,
to their ancestors or to other people who have lived in the past
and who now are living in the spirit world.
Can we reconcile these two aspects ?
Love and Light
Wolfgang |
|
|
|
VIL
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - Feb 21 2007 : 05:05:55 AM
|
Here is another perspective on reincarnation from Abdul Baha:
Although I am not a member of the Bahai Faith, I agree with the teachings:
"Question.--What is the truth of the question of reincarnation, which is believed by some people?
Answer.--The object of what we are about to say is to explain the reality--not to deride the beliefs of other people; it is only to explain the facts; that is all. We do not oppose anyone's ideas, nor do we approve of criticism. "
[I love Abdul Baha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Baha]
"Know, then, that those who believe in reincarnation are of two classes: one class does not believe in the spiritual punishments and rewards of the other world, and they suppose that man by reincarnation and return to this world gains rewards and recompenses; they consider heaven and hell to be restricted to this world and do not speak of the existence of the other world. Among these there are two further divisions. One division thinks that man sometimes returns to this world in the form of an animal in order to undergo severe punishment and that, after enduring this painful torment, he will be released from the animal world and will come again into the human world; this is called transmigration. The other division thinks that from the human world one again returns to the human world, and that by this return rewards and punishments for a former life are obtained; this is called reincarnation. Neither of these classes speak of any other world besides this one.
The second sort of believers in reincarnation affirm the existence of the other world, and they consider reincarnation the means of becoming perfect--that is, they think that man, by going from and coming again to this world, will gradually acquire perfections, until he reaches the inmost perfection. In other words, that men are composed of matter and force: matter in the beginning--that is to say, in the first cycle--is imperfect, but on coming repeatedly to this world it progresses and acquires refinement and delicacy, until it becomes like a polished mirror; and force, which is no other than spirit, is realized in it with all the perfections.
This is the presentation of the subject by those who believe in reincarnation and transmigration. We have condensed it; if we entered into the details, it would take much time. This summary is sufficient. No logical arguments and proofs of this question are brought forward; they are only suppositions and inferences from conjectures, and not conclusive arguments. Proofs must be asked for from the believers in reincarnation, and not conjectures, suppositions and imaginations.
But you have asked for arguments of the impossibility of reincarnation. This is what we must now explain. The first argument for its impossibility is that the outward is the expression of the inward; the earth is the mirror of the Kingdom; the material world corresponds to the spiritual world. Now observe that in the sensible world appearances are not repeated, for no being in any respect is identical with, nor the same as, another being. The sign of singleness is visible and apparent in all things. If all the granaries of the world were full of grain, you would not find two grains absolutely alike, the same and identical without any distinction. It is certain that there will be differences and distinctions between them. As the proof of uniqueness exists in all things, and the Oneness and Unity of God is apparent in the reality of all things, the repetition of the same appearance is absolutely impossible. Therefore, reincarnation, which is the repeated appearance of the same spirit with its former essence and condition in this same world of appearance, is impossible and unrealizable. As the repetition of the same appearance is impossible and interdicted for each of the material beings, so for spiritual beings also, a return to the same condition, whether in the arc of descent or in the arc of ascent, is interdicted and impossible, for the material corresponds to the spiritual.
Nevertheless, the return of material beings with regard to species is evident; so the trees which during former years brought forth leaves, blossoms and fruits in the coming years will bring forth exactly the same leaves, blossoms and fruits. This is called the repetition of species. If anyone makes an objection saying that the leaf, the blossom and the fruit have been decomposed, and have descended from the vegetable world to the mineral world, and again have come back from the mineral world to the vegetable world, and, therefore, there has been a repetition-- the answer is that the blossom, the leaf and the fruit of last year were decomposed, and these combined elements were disintegrated and were dispersed in space, and that the particles of the leaf and fruit of last year, after decomposition, have not again become combined, and have not returned. On the contrary, by the composition of new elements, the species has returned. It is the same with the human body, which after decomposition becomes disintegrated, and the elements which composed it are dispersed. If, in like manner, this body should again return from the mineral or vegetable world, it would not have exactly the same composition of elements as the former man. Those elements have been decomposed and dispersed; they are dissipated in this vast space. Afterward, other particles of elements have been combined, and a second body has been formed; it may be that one of the particles of the former individual has entered into the composition of the succeeding individual, but these particles have not been conserved and kept, exactly and completely, without addition or diminution, so that they may be combined again, and from that composition and mingling another individual may come into existence. So it cannot be proved that this body with all its particles has returned; that the former man has become the latter; and that, consequently, there has been repetition; that the spirit also, like the body, has returned; and that after death its essence has come back to this world.
If we say that this reincarnation is for acquiring perfections so that matter may become refined and delicate, and that the light of the spirit may be manifest in it with the greatest perfection, this also is mere imagination. For, even supposing we believe in this argument, still change of nature is impossible through renewal and return. The essence of imperfection, by returning, does not become the reality of perfection; complete darkness, by returning, does not become the source of light; the essence of weakness is not transformed into power and might by returning, and an earthly nature does not become a heavenly reality. The tree of Zaqqum, [The infernal tree mentioned in the Qur'án.] no matter how frequently it may come back, will not bring forth sweet fruit, and the good tree, no matter how often it may return, will not bear a bitter fruit. Therefore, it is evident that returning and coming back to the material world does not become the cause of perfection. This theory has no proofs nor evidences; it is simply an idea. No, in reality the cause of acquiring perfections is the bounty of God.
The Theosophists believe that man on the arc of ascent [i.e., of the Circle of Existence.] will return many times until he reaches the Supreme Center; in that condition matter becomes a clear mirror, the light of the spirit will shine upon it with its full power, and essential perfection will be acquired. Now, this is an established and deep theological proposition, that the material worlds are terminated at the end of the arc of descent, and that the condition of man is at the end of the arc of descent, and at the beginning of the arc of ascent, which is opposite to the Supreme Center. Also, from the beginning to the end of the arc of ascent, there are numerous spiritual degrees. The arc of descent is called beginning, [Lit., bringing forth.] and that of ascent is called progress. [Lit., producing something new.] The arc of descent ends in materialities, and the arc of ascent ends in spiritualities. The point of the compass in describing a circle makes no retrograde motion, for this would be contrary to the natural movement and the divine order; otherwise, the symmetry of the circle would be spoiled.
Moreover, this material world has not such value or such excellence that man, after having escaped from this cage, will desire a second time to fall into this snare. No, through the Eternal Bounty the worth and true ability of man becomes apparent and visible by traversing the degrees of existence, and not by returning. When the shell is once opened, it will be apparent and evident whether it contains a pearl or worthless matter. When once the plant has grown it will bring forth either thorns or flowers; there is no need for it to grow up again. Besides, advancing and moving in the worlds in a direct order according to the natural law is the cause of existence, and a movement contrary to the system and law of nature is the cause of nonexistence. The return of the soul after death is contrary to the natural movement, and opposed to the divine system.
Therefore, by returning, it is absolutely impossible to obtain existence; it is as if man, after being freed from the womb, should return to it a second time. Consider what a puerile imagination this is which is implied by the belief in reincarnation and transmigration. Believers in it consider the body as a vessel in which the spirit is contained, as water is contained in a cup; this water has been taken from one cup and poured into another. This is child's play. They do not realize that the spirit is an incorporeal being, and does not enter and come forth, but is only connected with the body as the sun is with the mirror. If it were thus, and the spirit by returning to this material world could pass through the degrees and attain to essential perfection, it would be better if God prolonged the life of the spirit in the material world until it had acquired perfections and graces; it then would not be necessary for it to taste of the cup of death, or to acquire a second life.
The idea that existence is restricted to this perishable world, and the denial of the existence of divine worlds, originally proceeded from the imaginations of certain believers in reincarnation; but the divine worlds are infinite. If the divine worlds culminated in this material world, creation would be futile: nay, existence would be pure child's play. The result of these endless beings, which is the noble existence of man, would come and go for a few days in this perishable dwelling, and after receiving punishments and rewards, at last all would become perfect. The divine creation and the infinite existing beings would be perfected and completed, and then the Divinity of the Lord, and the names and qualities of God, on behalf of these spiritual beings, would, as regards their effect, result in laziness and inaction! "Glory to thy Lord, the Lord Who is sanctified from all their descriptions." [Cf. Qur'án 37:180.]
Such were the limited minds of the former philosophers, like Ptolemy and the others who believed and imagined that the world, life and existence were restricted to this terrestrial globe, and that this boundless space was confined within the nine spheres of heaven, and that all were empty and void. Consider how greatly their thoughts were limited and how weak their minds. Those who believe in reincarnation think that the spiritual worlds are restricted to the worlds of human imagination. Moreover, some of them, like the Druzes and the Nusayris, think that existence is restricted to this physical world. What an ignorant supposition! For in this universe of God, which appears in the most complete perfection, beauty and grandeur, the luminous stars of the material universe are innumerable! Then we must reflect how limitless and infinite are the spiritual worlds, which are the essential foundation. "Take heed ye who are endued with discernment." [Qur'án 59:2.]
But let us return to our subject. In the Divine Scriptures and Holy Books "return" is spoken of, but the ignorant have not understood the meaning, and those who believed in reincarnation have made conjectures on the subject. For what the divine Prophets meant by "return" is not the return of the essence, but that of the qualities; it is not the return of the Manifestation, but that of the perfections. In the Gospel it says that John, the son of Zacharias, is Elias. These words do not mean the return of the rational soul and personality of Elias in the body of John, but rather that the perfections and qualities of Elias were manifested and appeared in John.
A lamp shone in this room last night, and when tonight another lamp shines, we say the light of last night is again shining. Water flows from a fountain; then it ceases; and when it begins to flow a second time, we say this water is the same water flowing again; or we say this light is identical with the former light. It is the same with the spring of last year, when blossoms, flowers and sweet-scented herbs bloomed, and delicious fruits were brought forth; next year we say that those delicious fruits have come back, and those blossoms, flowers and blooms have returned and come again. This does not mean that exactly the same particles composing the flowers of last year have, after decomposition, been again combined and have then come back and returned. On the contrary, the meaning is that the delicacy, freshness, delicious perfume and wonderful color of the flowers of last year are visible and apparent in exactly the same manner in the flowers of this year. Briefly, this expression refers only to the resemblance and likeness which exist between the former and latter flowers. The "return" which is mentioned in the Divine Scriptures is this: it is fully explained by the Supreme Pen [Bahá'u'lláh.] in the Kitáb-i-Íqán. Refer to it, so that you may be informed of the truth of the divine mysteries.
Upon you be greetings and praise."
There are also many other Christian Subjects that are addressed here:
http://bahai-library.org/writings/abdulbaha/saq/
VIL
|
Edited by - VIL on Feb 21 2007 12:15:06 PM |
|
|
|
Doc
USA
394 Posts |
Posted - Feb 21 2007 : 2:57:46 PM
|
Very interesting posts from everyone! Thanks for sharing your views.
As stated in previous posts, Eastern Christianity acknowledges that all things are possible for an All-Knowing, All-Powerful God, Whose Presence fills the Universe. As such, it is possible that reincarnation is part of God's Divine Plan for mankind, thus granting us the maximum number of opportunities to achieve Spiritual Union with God through repeated lifetimes in a succession of different bodies until we perfect our Soul Consciousness.
One great stumbling block to the acceptance of this concept by the Orthodox Church has always been the absence of any way to validate that reincarnation actually occurs, either through credible spiritual or scientific means. The fact of the matter is that no one has ever been able to conclusively prove that they have lived any other lifetime other than that which they now live, or in any other body other than that which they now inhabit.
Supposed memories of past lives, visions of same accessed through regressive hypnosis, or through psychic readings of the Akashic Records, and so forth, are not conclusive or verifiable proofs that reincarnation is a reality. Additionally, to insist that reincarnation is the necessary norm for spiritual evolution is to deny the Omnipotence of God's ability to perfect our Soul Consciousness through the Indwelling Presence of His Holy Spirit.
Is it not equally possible that those who choose to surrender their human will, and all that they are and do in a lifetime, to God's Will, would likely attract God's Presence in their life to some greater degree? And wouldn't such surrender to God's Will be an act of personal Devotion which would likely hasten the Perfection, Union and Deification of their Soul Consciousness due to the indwelling Presence of His Holy Spirit active within them? And doesn't the basic concept of reincarnation conversely imply that Spiritual Perfection and Illumination can only be won by repeatedly long and arduous human efforts alone, through the course of many, many lifetimes?
Lastly, most major religions and spiritual philosophies suggest that it is God's Will to reunite us into His Divine Love Presence through the purification of our bodies, minds and souls. Why then would a Unconditionally Loving, Infinitely Compassionate and Merciful God want us to suffer so much for so long, by requiring us to reincarnate again and again, in order to find our way home?
Blessed Be!
Doc |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Kabbalah, Gnosticism and Christianity
