True Follower's Of Christ

[Open_Minded]

There will be no more arguing form me.

 

Good - now I have a heart-to-heart challenge for you. Are you willing to stay and learn? Are you willing to stay and try to understand a different point of view besides your own? Are you willing to try very hard to accept different approaches to life and spiritual seeking as VALID as your own.

 

Amy ... I've been thinking all night long. I have one more - very sincere - challenge for you. It is a challenge for you privately. I don't care if you ever tell anyone here whether you've taken me up on the challenge. This challenge is simply born out of my sincere belief that you are searching for something. The challenge is as follows:

 

Amy ... someday ... do a painting of any one of the following subject matters:

1. The transfiguration
   
2. The WORD made Flesh
   
3. The Light of the World
   
4. The "Living Water"
   

Amy - I'm not asking you to do this for me, or this board, or anyone else. I'm asking you to do this for yourself. Go into your private room and just paint a picture of any one of the above understandings of Christ. For you - do this. As you paint - emerse yourself in it - watch your heart and your soul. Just simply feel what you are painting.

 

I don't care if I ever know whether you do this - or not. I really don't - I"m just making a suggestion - As John of the Cross says:

 

To come to the knowledge you have not

you must go by a way in which you know not.

 

In your private room - Amy - take a risk and go by a way in which you know not. Paint a subject matter you've not painted before.

[freeday]

I'm in a limbo between those two positions. I can imagine a person that was a teacher and had new philosophical views of the old time religion, Judaism. And it wouldn't surprise me if he was a disciple of Philo or some other Hellinistic philosopher. But I can also, just as easily imagine that Jesus was nothing but an idea that over time took form as a mythological story, a legend, and eventually got misunderstood to be a historical account. Over the last year, I've become more and more agnostic in many views, and this is one of them. I'm content with not being sure if there was a real teacher that later got turned into Jesus, or if he was just a complete fictious character. When I debate, I choose my angle, depending on who I'm talking to.

 

HanSolo ... your position is most reasonable - and surprisingly near my own

 

As I found myself returning to Christianity I had to work through this very issue. Although I have come to the conclusion that Jesus probably did live - and that a legendary, mythical narrative grew up around him - I also recognize the reality that one can never know for sure. That reasonable people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is a "complete fictious character".

 

What's important - really isn't whether he lived - or did not live. For myself, I've come to the conclusion that if "faith" is based on the physical body of Jesus, then it is lacking indeed. I can very easily see how someone would be agnostic about this issue - I was there once myself. And where I'm at now, isn't so far removed from that position. If someone found archeaological evidence tomorrow that proved Jesus was fictious it wouldn't change the core of my faith. The core of my faith is the belief in Alpha and Omega (beginning and end - ONENESS). The core of my faith is believing that this ONENESS is intimately connected with LOVE and WISDOM. I find this in the gospels. I believe that there was a man named Jesus in whom his followers saw this Divine Love and Wisdom manifested. But, I accept that my beliefs are not concrete, provable, physical fact.

 

i completely agree with you on this, it is what he taught and what he stood for that is most important to me. although i tend to lean more towards the litaralist side. the only thing i really disagree with is the whole deamon possession thing. i think they thought that mentally ill people, mutes and what not were deamon possessed. i think they just didn't understand certain medical problems and just clasified it as such.

[Open_Minded]

Yes. That is part of the mystical journey, embracing the unknown of God. The cloud of the unknowing.

 

Amy... have you read the Cloud of Unknowing?

 

If so - the original English text - or a more recent translation?

 

 

In response to you desiring for us to hear what you are sharing of your heart through your art, I had a good friend help me out today to make my music available for you and others here who are interested to be heard via the Internet. If my words fail to express what is in my own heart, in how I see the power and beauty of life, I hope this communicates what my words cannot:

 

A small sampling of my songs: http://www.talkingtimeline.com/music/

 

 

Antlerman - I'm sitting here listening to your music as I write. It is beautiful - it takes me wonderful places.

 

Thank you for the beauty - it's a wonderful way to start the day.

[RHEMtron]

i completely agree with you on this, it is what he taught and what he stood for that is most important to me. although i tend to lean more towards the litaralist side. the only thing i really disagree with is the whole deamon possession thing. i think they thought that mentally ill people, mutes and what not were deamon possessed. i think they just didn't understand certain medical problems and just clasified it as such.

How is it you can pick and choose? Do you think we can say that about all miracles, dreams, visions, natural disasters, creation, and anything else that is deemed heavenly? That (like you said) they just didnt understand, and things are just classified as heavenly.

[Amanda]

although i tend to lean more towards the litaralist side.

 

Freeday, I'm curious to know if you believe in a literal hell?

 

My apologies if you've revealed this earlier somewhere.

[Antlerman]

Amy,

 

In response to you desiring for us to hear what you are sharing of your heart through your art, I had a good friend help me out today to make my music available for you and others here who are interested to be heard via the Internet. If my words fail to express what is in my own heart, in how I see the power and beauty of life, I hope this communicates what my words cannot:

 

A small sampling of my songs: http://www.talkingtimeline.com/music/

 

Antlerman,

 

What I could hear of the musical selections was very beautiful and moving. Unfortunately my computer wouldn't let me play all the tracks. You are a very talented musician. Thanks for sharing your gift.

Thank you. That is a shame your computer isn't letting it play correctly. You really need to be on high speed access to be able to play it, so my thought is you must be on dial-up? Perhaps if you try to access it on someone else's computer it should work better? I was hoping you would be able to listen to them al together. Only hearing bits and peices of it would be like someone looking at just a hand in one of your paintings. Oh well, technology

 

 

Antlerman - I'm sitting here listening to your music as I write. It is beautiful - it takes me wonderful places.

 

Thank you for the beauty - it's a wonderful way to start the day.

Thanks. You must have high speed access!

[Antlerman]

i completely agree with you on this, it is what he taught and what he stood for that is most important to me. although i tend to lean more towards the litaralist side. the only thing i really disagree with is the whole deamon possession thing. i think they thought that mentally ill people, mutes and what not were deamon possessed. i think they just didn't understand certain medical problems and just clasified it as such.

Hi freeday,

 

I'd like to raise a point for consideration here for you and for others about reading the Bible.

 

You just remarked how that you see the stories of demon possession as being non-literal. I know that you work as an R.N., and my suspicion is that you see it this way because you work in the medical field and understand there are credible medical reasons behind these sorts of abnormal behaviors? I also suspect that when you read those perceptions of writers in the Bible that these people had demons in them, you take it as reflective of their understanding at that time, lacking the knowledge we have today?

 

Do you see where I am going here?

 

It's OK to appreciate how these people perceived - the natural world - through the language of mythology back then. It doesn't diminish what they may have to say by understanding them in a different light other than a strictly literal reading of the words. You already do this. So do other most other Christians.

[freeday]

although i tend to lean more towards the litaralist side.

 

Freeday, I'm curious to know if you believe in a literal hell?

 

My apologies if you've revealed this earlier somewhere.

 

not sure what kind of hell i believe in, just don't want to go there.

 

 

i completely agree with you on this, it is what he taught and what he stood for that is most important to me. although i tend to lean more towards the litaralist side. the only thing i really disagree with is the whole deamon possession thing. i think they thought that mentally ill people, mutes and what not were deamon possessed. i think they just didn't understand certain medical problems and just clasified it as such.

Hi freeday,

 

I'd like to raise a point for consideration here for you and for others about reading the Bible.

 

You just remarked how that you see the stories of demon possession as being non-literal. I know that you work as an R.N., and my suspicion is that you see it this way because you work in the medical field and understand there are credible medical reasons behind these sorts of abnormal behaviors? I also suspect that when you read those perceptions of writers in the Bible that these people had demons in them, you take it as reflective of their understanding at that time, lacking the knowledge we have today?

 

Do you see where I am going here?

 

It's OK to appreciate how these people perceived - the natural world - through the language of mythology back then. It doesn't diminish what they may have to say by understanding them in a different light other than a strictly literal reading of the words. You already do this. So do other most other Christians.

 

in my head i can rationalize that, but for example the walking on water, i can't rationalize it, so i just take it for its word. that is my thoughts on it.

[NotBlinded]

not sure what kind of hell i believe in, just don't want to go there.

Then don't hold true a belief that excludes. If you don't hold that belief as true, then the Christian hell, as popularly understood, can't exist can it?

[Antlerman]

It's OK to appreciate how these people perceived - the natural world - through the language of mythology back then. It doesn't diminish what they may have to say by understanding them in a different light other than a strictly literal reading of the words. You already do this. So do other most other Christians.

 

in my head i can rationalize that, but for example the walking on water, i can't rationalize it, so i just take it for its word. that is my thoughts on it.

Are you saying that you can rationalize demon possession, but not something like walking on water? If so, in the same light as understanding that seeing mental illness as demon possession was based on a lack of understanding the medical sciences do you think that stories of walking on water may also have a rational explanation, one that you just have considered yet? It seems a natural flow of reason from one to the next to me.

 

Legend. One quick alternative explanation over a literal historical happening. Consider this: Which disciple was the "eyewitness" during the trial of Jesus? None was. Yet we have a story about it. Legend is entirely reasonable to understand this accounting of the walking on water story. A solid ration possibility that has support in the development of legends world-wide.

 

Footnote: As much as understanding demon possession was a language to understand abnormal psychology, why is the story of Genesis 1 to be understood as a proper scientific explanation of the origin of the species on earth? Yet each "myth" does contain a certain "truth", just not one that fits within the study of the natural sciences: whether that is medical, geological, cosmological, biological, agricultural, etc. The Bible is a book of faith, told in sayings, parables, mythologies, legends, poetry, hymns, etc; all that, but not science. Can it be the "word of God" without being scientific? That's the question you have to resolove somehow for yourself. Denying credible science to make the Bilbe scientific is something I cannot believe is healthy for anyone's spirit. I'm sure you understand the negative psychological effects of living in denial?

[freeday]

It's OK to appreciate how these people perceived - the natural world - through the language of mythology back then. It doesn't diminish what they may have to say by understanding them in a different light other than a strictly literal reading of the words. You already do this. So do other most other Christians.

 

in my head i can rationalize that, but for example the walking on water, i can't rationalize it, so i just take it for its word. that is my thoughts on it.

Are you saying that you can rationalize demon possession, but not something like walking on water? If so, in the same light as understanding that seeing mental illness as demon possession was based on a lack of understanding the medical sciences do you think that stories of walking on water may also have a rational explanation, one that you just have considered yet? It seems a natural flow of reason from one to the next to me.

 

Legend. One quick alternative explanation over a literal historical happening. Consider this: Which disciple was the "eyewitness" during the trial of Jesus? None was. Yet we have a story about it. Legend is entirely reasonable to understand this accounting of the walking on water story. A solid ration possibility that has support in the development of legends world-wide.

 

Footnote: As much as understanding demon possession was a language to understand abnormal psychology, why is the story of Genesis 1 to be understood as a proper scientific explanation of the origin of the species on earth? Yet each "myth" does contain a certain "truth", just not one that fits within the study of the natural sciences: whether that is medical, geological, cosmological, biological, agricultural, etc. The Bible is a book of faith, told in sayings, parables, mythologies, legends, poetry, hymns, etc; all that, but not science. Can it be the "word of God" without being scientific? That's the question you have to resolove somehow for yourself. Denying credible science to make the Bilbe scientific is something I cannot believe is healthy for anyone's spirit. I'm sure you understand the negative psychological effects of living in denial?

 

funny you bring that up, one of my athiest buddies, thinks Jesus had unlocked certian parts of his brain (we only use a small portion of it, can't remimber the percentages off hand). therefore he could use his mind power to do such miracles. i can not rationalize walking on water, or calming storms, healing the blind. so i take it as a miracle of God. the God i believe in can do such at his will.

 

i have been working on typing an article up, its just to much info to condense. it goes play by play of the universe and earths creation and compares it to what the bible says. he uses the big bang theory and the nebular hypothesis. and funny enough, it coincides perfectly.

[Amanda]

funny you bring that up, one of my athiest buddies, thinks Jesus had unlocked certian parts of his brain (we only use a small portion of it, can't remimber the percentages off hand). therefore he could use his mind power to do such miracles. i can not rationalize walking on water, or calming storms, healing the blind. so i take it as a miracle of God. the God i believe in can do such at his will.

 

i have been working on typing an article up, its just to much info to condense. it goes play by play of the universe and earths creation and compares it to what the bible says. he uses the big bang theory and the nebular hypothesis. and funny enough, it coincides perfectly.

 

Freeday, everything Jesus did, we too can do, and even greater things. Do you think it was Jesus physically walking on water, or just his spirit?

 

I would love to see the Big Bang and the nebular hypothesis reconciled with the OT. Evolution and such has been objectively debated here in regards to the OT account, and it seems there were a few areas that were not as science has depicted them at this point. I too have found some interesting correlations for the Big Bang and evolution in the Bible, especially to have been written 6000 years ago! But there seems to be a few things in the wrong order...

[Antlerman]

funny you bring that up, one of my athiest buddies, thinks Jesus had unlocked certian parts of his brain (we only use a small portion of it, can't remimber the percentages off hand). therefore he could use his mind power to do such miracles. i can not rationalize walking on water, or calming storms, healing the blind. so i take it as a miracle of God. the God i believe in can do such at his will.

 

i have been working on typing an article up, its just to much info to condense. it goes play by play of the universe and earths creation and compares it to what the bible says. he uses the big bang theory and the nebular hypothesis. and funny enough, it coincides perfectly.

This is an interesting conversation. I always have a problem when someone tries to find natural explanations for stories which are much more easily accepted as a literary phenomenon, rather than an established fact of history. To go down the path of explaining Jesus walking on water, as a "thick growth of lily pads" (I've heard that one too), to me is completely bypassing a critical examination of a non-corroborated story of some miracle by someone, somewhere. These types of stories are NOT unique in mythology. (Flying people, etc.)

 

I generally go with Occam's razor on this one, that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The story has every earmark of a mythological story, and none of an actual event that would merit finding an explanation for it. It's a common literary feature. Not the supernatural poking its face into the natural, or worse yet a natural event of unbelievable proportions that left his followers deceived that it was something supernatural. Was Jesus trying to fool his followers to thinking he was a miracle man? I don't see things that way. Much more understandable as admirers venerating this figure and the story growing into legend of the man who walked on water, and slayed thousands with his smile, etc, etc.

 

Man is the creator of miracles.

[KT45]

in my head i can rationalize that, but for example the walking on water, i can't rationalize it, so i just take it for its word. that is my thoughts on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-EygeAcKHw...walking%20water

 

Criss Angel did it. You said you can't rationalize Jesus doing it but I bet you will try to rationalize this. I want to ask, why are you quick to believe Jesus walked on water but not quick to accept Criss Angel did it?

[Ouroboros]

Criss Angel is the new Messiah then. Since miracles are the proofs. At least we have a video on it. But we know that somehow, it is a trick... or?

[Lycorth]

We witness the birth of Crisstianity...

[julian]

Open Minded, I have a few things to add.

 

HanSolo ... your position is most reasonable - and surprisingly near my own smile.gif

 

As I found myself returning to Christianity I had to work through this very issue. Although I have come to the conclusion that Jesus probably did live - and that a legendary, mythical narrative grew up around him - I also recognize the reality that one can never know for sure. That reasonable people can come to the conclusion that Jesus is a "complete fictious character".

 

What's important - really isn't whether he lived - or did not live. For myself, I've come to the conclusion that if "faith" is based on the physical body of Jesus, then it is lacking indeed. I can very easily see how someone would be agnostic about this issue - I was there once myself. And where I'm at now, isn't so far removed from that position. If someone found archeaological evidence tomorrow that proved Jesus was fictious it wouldn't change the core of my faith. The core of my faith is the belief in Alpha and Omega (beginning and end - ONENESS). The core of my faith is believing that this ONENESS is intimately connected with LOVE and WISDOM. I find this in the gospels. I believe that there was a man named Jesus in whom his followers saw this Divine Love and Wisdom manifested. But, I accept that my beliefs are not concrete, provable, physical fact.

 

You're right, Jesus is a "complete fictious character". However, the thing I think you miss is that the whole basis for the Christian mindset is built upon him actually being what he was supposed to be in the Bible. If you try to say that Jesus is irrelevant, you are mistaken because his "life" is central to Christianity.

 

I do have another thing to say. The "Alpha and Omega" implies that there is a beginning and an end, correct? That doesn't make sense when you look at the world, as there is continuity through creation, life, destruction and so on and so forth. However, that is somewhat minor. Why do you believe that there was any sort of "Divine Love and Wisdom" in something that is clearly fiction? Furthermore, why do you think that there is this "love and wisdom" in a mindset which is clearly intolerant, spiteful, myopic, illogical and worse? The assertions that Jesus and/or Christianity is the only way to "divinity" and "truth" by many including the supposed "Jesus" are evidence of this. IMO (and this is just an opinion), you are trying to inject something into something that doesn't exist.

 

Look, that's just my opinion, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to add it. I'd also like to add that these are but minor objections in the bigger picture, of which there is most likely a great deal of agreement.

[duderonomy]

Amy,

I'm sorry to butt in on all this artsy-fartsy stuff, but, does the Man contradict Himself? Because His Word sure does make a distinction between what He said, and what He did!

If you can't explain the real and many passages/verses/chapters/books/testaments in the Bible that don't agree by any stretch of the imagination or brain that God gave us, then why are you playing smart with your own little prose?

 

If Jesus is 'The Word', then let's talk about the parts where Jesus told His Captains to wipe out every living person in certain villages, right down to the babies, and if that wasn't enough, then they may as well snuff even their very cattle (of course we know from the start that God wanted their cattle dead too. And you're little dog, too,

my pretty!).

Not to mention good will to man, the Savior is born, and not more than a few months after, the slaughter of the innocents began. Every man child under two years old? One year? Sorry I don't want to recall. But the Almighty and his 'virgin' mother and cuckolded father ran away to Egypt.

 

God forbid that The Father should interfere with the death of so many thousands of babies, while making sure that His own bastard son (chapter and verse upon request), that is to say, Himself, Child of the Holy Spirit, that is to say, Himself, won't perish.

 

Explain this, please, first, and then we will talk about walking on water; and why you live in New York.

[Lycorth]

Good points, duderonomy.

 

Jeezus™ is one and the same in the Holah Trinity™ with Yahooweh™ and the Holy Spurt™. This is not to be found in the Babble™ but it is nonetheless a key tenet of Xian mythology. And the NT does say that Jeezus™ is the same "yesterday, today, and forever," no? So that could be cited as Babblical™ evidence for the Trinity concept.

 

So, therefore, Jeezus™ is the same god who set the Tree in the Garden and permitted the Serpent to tempt Adam and Eve...

 

the same god who punished Adam and Eve for just making a mistake (when he knew they could'nt have known better to begin with)...

 

the same god who drowned the world (when it is impossible to suggest that all of its inhabitants were "wicked")...

 

the same god who incinerated two cities (when it is also impossible to posit they were all evil), demanded useless animal sacrifices at his Temple...

 

permitted Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter and Lot to give his girls to the town rapists...

 

ordered the Israelite goon army on campaign after campaign of murder and genocidal conflict, even to the point of mass-rape, slave-taking, and the wholesale slaughter of noncombatants, just to establish Jewish supremacy and the supremacy of his own deranged cult...

 

murdered every first-born child of Egypt when there could've been no guilt attached to them for the enslavement of the Israelites...

 

Need I go on?

 

Nevermind the crimes attributed to Jeezus™ in black and white in the NT, the OT is full of crimes that are also the product of this so-called god of love. If Jeezus™ is one and the same with Yahooweh™ and the Holy Spurt™, therefore Jeezus™ can be said to have done these things, and all others that are found in the OT.

 

When you add them all up, the negatives really do outweigh the positives.

 

= :

[Antlerman]

Alas..to love the words without the Man or the Man without the words I cannot.

 

Jesus is the WORD and The WORD is Jesus.

 

Or the Man without His Divinity or the Divinity wihout His humanity...I cannot.

 

You know me....

Have you never loved another, to see them in the joy and hopes of your own heart; then to grow beyond the eyes of youthful love and see them in a new and different light: and love them as they are, and as you are?

 

There are many faces of God.

[Asuryan]

If Jesus is 'The Word', then let's talk about the parts where Jesus told His Captains to wipe out every living person in certain villages, right down to the babies...

 

 

 

I already tried. She won't speak about it. How could she admit that her knight in shining armor is a cold-hearted genocidal serial killer?

[Ouroboros]

You're right, Jesus is a "complete fictious character". However, the thing I think you miss is that the whole basis for the Christian mindset is built upon him actually being what he was supposed to be in the Bible. If you try to say that Jesus is irrelevant, you are mistaken because his "life" is central to Christianity.

Yes and no. Christianity as we mostly know it today is dependent on a historical Jesus. But I'm not certain this is how it was in the early Church.

 

I talked to my one of my sons yesterday, and discussed Christianity. And he asked me if it was possible that there were two kinds of Christians in the first century, one true faith, and one false faith, and the true one died out or got destroyed and the false one survived. And in my opinion he is right.

 

There were many competing versions of Christians back then, and even Paul writes to warn about following the "false teachers", and we even have some evidence that people were falsifying Paul's letters too. If there were Christians back then that saw the story about Jesus as a mythological story to move and transpose you as a person, but they were destroyed by Constantine. Then we can't say that Jesus as a historical character must be believed in Christianity, since that wasn't the case with some of the denominations back then. It is very possible that the non-historical-Jesus version is the first and original one.

 

I'm going to give a little explanation to why I think this is possible.

 

I keep on coming back to Philo of Alexandria, which I consider probably one of the major keys to Christianity. Philo wrote his books in the early first century, and the early Christian church saved his books. It's thanks to the Christians we have any copies at all. His writings influenced Gospel of John. Philo had many philosophical ideas, but one of the important ones were that the Old Testament stories should be read and understood and allegories.

 

Now think about this. The first books the Christians had, before Paul's letters were explaining that the Genesis, Noah's Ark etc, all where mythologies and should be read in a light of spiritual understanding. To me that shows that the first Christians were believing in mythology and legends from the Old Testament, and would not look at the Old Testament as historical facts or read it literally.

 

My opinion is that the Pharisees were kind of a Jewish version of the fundamentalists and literalists that we have today in Christianity. And that in the stories Jesus broke with these views by criticizing and condemning the Pharisees. He was trying to explain to them to not follow the letter of the law, but the spirit. To me it looks more like the story of Jesus was written to explain the faith, rather than to give a specific reason to why it existed. And the early Christians wouldn't have a problem with a mythological/legendary Jesus, since they already saw the old testament that way. These are stories made to move you, transform you and touch you, but not to follow blindly.

 

It's very possible that the first stories were nameless and had only good sayings. A collection just like the Proverbs. And and then some from one of these sect combined stories from other, and even gave it a name, and maybe assigned it to a good teacher they knew whose name was Jesus. The stories expanded, and Paul gets into the picture and made it to a full blown missionary movement.

 

Paul is an interesting character too, since he never met Jesus, but he knew the "Christians" well. Persecuting them and suddenly have the vision. Now, he never sat down and talked to the apostles, because if he found them, he killed them. So it's very doubtful that he knew the deeper meanings of this new heretic Jewish cult. And when he converts he doesn't find out the or learn the real views, but go back to Tarsus and study on his own. Now Tarsus was were Paul grew up, and it was heavily influence by the Mythra cult. And here we can see when and where the Mythra mythology started to get mixed into Christianity. Death and Resurrection and much more. He starts his ministry, and not until 10 years later does he go to Jerusalem to meet Peter, and then he chew out Peter and correct him. This is the most obnoxious and absurd stories of all. To me it's obvious that Paul made up his own version of Christianity. And all the rest just came naturally when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the original version of Christianity was lost.

[Antlerman]

Paul is an interesting character too, since he never met Jesus, but he knew the "Christians" well. Persecuting them and suddenly have the vision. Now, he never sat down and talked to the apostles, because if he found them, he killed them. So it's very doubtful that he knew the deeper meanings of this new heretic Jewish cult. And when he converts he doesn't find out the or learn the real views, but go back to Tarsus and study on his own. Now Tarsus was were Paul grew up, and it was heavily influence by the Mythra cult. And here we can see when and where the Mythra mythology started to get mixed into Christianity. Death and Resurrection and much more. He starts his ministry, and not until 10 years later does he go to Jerusalem to meet Peter, and then he chew out Peter and correct him. This is the most obnoxious and absurd stories of all. To me it's obvious that Paul made up his own version of Christianity. And all the rest just came naturally when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the original version of Christianity was lost.

There is truth to this. When Paul met with James and the others of the church of Jerusalem, he records that he basically told them off and gave them a piece of his mind, but omits that it had any influence. He did not win the day. The early Christians were still quite rooted in the traditions of Judaism.

 

There were many Christianities springing up independently all over the Diaspora, and to me it seems Paul's ensuing mission after the confrontation with James was to win the day in bringing all the Christianities under his influence, thus becoming a major player. "Paul's Christianity" really does have word of truth to it.

 

I had a pastor in years past who had a fight in the church and yelled at the others in front of the congregation, splitting off from them and dragging off over half the chuch body along with him. He lost the battle in not influencing the church leadership, but won the war in bringing the church body under his control. This was a highly driven man with a huge ego and a great charisma - like Paul. Don't tell me this didn't happen back then too.

 

When I was in the fundis world, they claimed to be teaching the original Christian beliefs before the pollution of Constantine and paganism. This claim is touted repeatedly by hundreds of the Christian sects today - none of which is really valid to say. The best anyone can do is as you say - look at the sprit of the teachings - and not look at any one specific reading as "the truth". Once you do, you go down a sink hole of leaps of logic to try to make it "the truth". The basis of your faith becomes something that is indefensible.

[Amanda]

Man is the creator of miracles.

Antlerman, I agree! Yet, I don’t think the authors intended for them to be seen as a magic wand effects, but techniques that were very effective for those times. Just like we have miraculous methods of separating conjoined twins, etc. Remember, it is said that everything Jesus did, we too can do… and even greater things. Additionally, it says when Jesus went to heal someone, it didn’t always work. It’s as you say, IMO, his admirers ran away with the story.

 

Alas..to love the words without the Man or the Man without the words I cannot.

 

Jesus is the WORD and The WORD is Jesus.

Amy, what does it mean to you that Jesus is the Word and the Word is Jesus? Is that literally meant to mean that these words I'm typing here, each one is Jesus?

 

If you try to say that Jesus is irrelevant, you are mistaken because his "life" is central to Christianity.

Julian, to some people it is these teachings that are attributed to Jesus are the most important. These principles still stand on their own... if he was a real person or not, IMHO.

 

 

Varokhar, or maybe most of these are fables, perhaps attached to a piece of truth, that, at the most, embellish a story to drive home the moral of the story?

 

To me it's obvious that Paul made up his own version of Christianity. And all the rest just came naturally when Jerusalem was destroyed, and the original version of Christianity was lost.

HanSolo, it seems Paul is a very misunderstood person. May I ask what it is that he has said that is found so offensive? He is the one that lays no criteria for salvation of everyone! He corrects Peter's assumption that people have to be Jewish first. Paul is the one who says it is not of works, but grace. He drives home that salvation is more free than the air you breathe, hence universal salvation.

 

Yes, I too think the original verson of Christianity is lost... yet much can be recovered, IMO. It is a matter of recognizing allegories and parables, and to reasonably sift through mythology superimposed by all the cultures that adopted these teachings. Go back to the original manuscript these versions, such as KJV was taken, and reanalyze. And of course, to undo what people have done for their own political agendas. Fortunately, there are other ways to get the same teachings, but perhaps people would be better informed that tend to do such atrocities based on lies. :ohmy:

[Ouroboros]

There is truth to this. When Paul met with James and the others of the church of Jerusalem, he records that he basically told them off and gave them a piece of his mind, but omits that it had any influence. He did not win the day. The early Christians were still quite rooted in the traditions of Judaism.

What I think happened there, was that the Jerusalem Christians (Essene inspired) were in conflict with the Mythra Christians (driven by Paul), and when Jerusalem was destroyed, the original Jerusalem Christians were gone, since they basically had most of their followers in Palestine. While Paul had established a "world wide" church in the Hellenistic culture. From this you had different sects sprouting out, mixed with the teachings of the now diaspora jews from Jerusalem. Basically the diaspora played into Paul's hands and his teachings, and this Mythra Christians mixed with Hellenistic views too and then mixed back into the first Christians, and so on, and then borrowed from other religions and cultures.

 

From what I understand, Constantine was born and raised in a Christian family of the kind that saw Jesus and the stories literally and historical instead of spiritual mythology. And when he and his sons started to persecute the Gnostics, Pagans and all the other faiths and versions of Christianity, the literal view of Jesus won the "war".

 

So the view of Jesus we have today is thanks to an emperor that happened to support one kind of sect, and not because that is the real or true version of the faith. And what is amazing is that Christians points back to this time and to the martyrs and doesn't know that many of these martyrs were killed by fellow Christians under the Christian emperors. They were considered heretics, but maybe were right. And to point back and say, "look, they died for their beliefs, that proves it to be right" is kind of twisted, because these people that died didn't have the same faith as todays Christians, and the todays Christians even refuse to believe what they did back then. It's just friggin ridiculous! If they died for it, and that proves them right, then all Christians should become Gnostics or Essenes!