24 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipYou continue to base your claims from the literature that is seeking to make the same claim. The story is historically constructed to convince you of a sinless Saviour, a god-man.I and others do not share your presumption that Jesus was a sinless god-man. Objective modern people cannot see how Jesus was anything other than a man like Gautama, known as the Buddha.
You may not share that belief. But I think you have to deal with the idea that He made that claim before His enemies - to indicate in what had He sinn ...[text shortened]... uggest you watch this video for awhile -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqertodsVk
Logic denies human beings without any fault. It is all based on ancient mythic ideas that we need ritually purified sacrifices to appease gods.
24 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsThe controversy about the way this imprint was made continues. There are many indications of other means to construct such "miraculous" icons and relics. It was good money for local Cathedral churches and their priests to have famous relics where many went and made monetary offerings for indulgences. The rich, as usual, were courted. Indulgences were the official "waving" away of sins, or conformation of escaping purgatory and a place in heaven. It appears the sinless savior was not enough.
Tell me this. How was the image on the Shroud of Turin formed? If you can provide that evidence, I am sure the scientists that examined it would submit you for a Nobel Prize.
The Instructor
Life and religious philosophy based on such is unstable and shallow. Your own mind is much more fruitful to enhance your spirit and what is happening now in front of you. Tricks are not the basis of a positive integrated life. Other wondrous mysteries are all around you if you only look.
24 May 13
Originally posted by TaomanYou don't even know the history of the Shroud of Turin or the Sudarium of Oviedo. Neither of these were in control of the Roman Catholic Church at the time of paying Indulgences, etc.
The controversy about the way this imprint was made continues. There are many indications of other means to construct such "miraculous" icons and relics. It was good money for local Cathedral churches and their priests to have famous relics where many went and made monetary offerings for indulgences. The rich, as usual, were courted. Indulgences were the offi ...[text shortened]... of a positive integrated life. Other wondrous mysteries are all around you if you only look.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 May 13
7 edits
Originally posted by Taoman
I and others do not share your presumption that Jesus was a sinless god-man. Objective modern people cannot see how Jesus was anything other than a man like Gautama, known as the Buddha.
The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
A nd all the symbols and all the koans are intended as simply tools to help you see this.
The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
The oldest document revealing primitive Christian teaching, First Corinthians, reveals a already formed tradition passed on to Paul by others of a Christ having died and been resurrected and seen.
Paul is reciting probably what was an early creedal formula as evidenced by the phrase used by rabbinical students concerning what they were taught by their teachers -
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which I also received ..."
In other words "I am being faithful to pass on to you the teaching that was passed on to me. I did not make any of this up myself."
Criticisms therefore that a executed and resurrected God man dying and rising again "for our sins" being concocted "centuries" latter are false.
A gathering of church officials were virtually forced by Emperor Constantine to decide which of the many differing versions of Jesus going around were to be discarded.
Long before Constantine's council in a limping Roman Empire the incarnated God, dying and rising from the dead existed. Constantine sought to "rescue" Roman society by trying to make Christianity the state religion after failing to stamp it out by persecution through successive emperors. Here's a somewhat converted emperor who sought to politically control the Christian faith for his own political needs.
You cannot say that Christian doctrine was invented at that time because arguments over Christology were debates about proper interpretation of New Testament teaching already in existence. We do not have to wait until Constantine to notice that even in the book of Acts disputes over interpretation of the apostolic preaching arose.
John's prologue is specifically designed to counter Gnostic teaching that Jesus was too good to have actually come in flesh and blood. Some teachers could not believe someone that good could be material. So John assures them that he witnessed blood pouring out of His crucified body. Ie. He was a real man and not a phantasm of some sort.
"But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he says what is true, that you also may believe." (John 19:35)
The earliest disputes then we see between people preaching and teaching something concerning Jesus of Nazareth are arguments about whether someone like Jesus could have been material or non-material. I find this interesting.
The most primitive arguments were not about whether He really lived or not but how could someone so wonderful be material.
At any rate you attempts to push forward the creation of essential Christian teaching down a few centuries to the time of Constantine's politics are invalid. Essential Christian creed already existed, albeit some debates were ongoing.
Not a huge deal. Even Paul publically corrected Peter about how to treat the Gentile disciples (Galatians 2:11-21). And the range of scholars agreeing that Paul wrote Galatians spans over liberal and conservative scholars.
Squabbles which the political emperor tried to rein in for the sake of basically political needs of national unity should not be made too much of. Do not point there and thing the foundations of Christian belief was created at that time.
God-men were a dime a dozen then. All the pagan and Jewish dates and celebrations were weaved by the poliitico-religious church into the story to edge the competition out.
It appears that your tactic is going to be to ignore the source documents for Christian belief and only resort to political / religious considerations.
For instance, it is the case that the Roman Catholic Church sought to subsume all kinds of pagan beliefs and define them in "Christian" garb in order to attract the masses. Ie. "You can still worship the goddess. We will just say that the goddess is Mary the Mother of Jesus - the Mother of God."
This kind of meshing of older pagan religions under one world wide public "Christian" congregation was the leavening of the fine flour which Jesus predicted would happen.
"Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leaven," (Matt. 13:33)
In the Scriptures leaven signifies evil things (1 Cor. 5:6,8) and evil doctrines (Matt. 16:6,11-12).
The church as the practical kingdom of the heavens, with Christ, the unleavened fine flour, as its content, must be a loaf of unleavened bread (1 Cor. 5:7-8). However, the Catholic Church, which was fully and officially formed in the sixth century and which is signified by the woman here, took in many pagan practices, heretical doctrines, and evil matters and mixed them with the teachings concerning Christ, leavening the whole content of Christianity. This mixture became the corrupted content of the outward appearance of the kingdom of the heavens ..."
For the primitive sources of Christian belief, it is not legitimate, I think, to refer to the leavening process of the Roman Catholic Church to induce the masses of pagans to just "Christianize" their pagan superstitions.
That such a corruption took place is bad for the Gospel no doubt. But exploiting this matter to undermine the pure apostolic message cannot mislead many of us who consult with the New Testament itself for source teaching of the Christian faith.
I would do you the same courtesy of trying to separate out the most original Buddhist teaching if possible from the man himself and his immediate disciples to ascertain what Buddhism originally meant. While I suspect politics came into the picture latter with its agenda to exploit religion for its own ends, I would be careful to discriminate between such developments and pure Buddhist teaching as the originator taught it.
Your arguments start out with "taken as read" stuff. It is circular arguing. "Thus is true because the the words that say it are true, and the words are true because the God that they talk about 'says' it's true, and on it goes..."
I don't know if any world view of any type does not contain some amount of circular reasoning. It would not be hard to locate circularity in Buddhist thought as well probably.
An advantage that I may have is that "as read" existed already for over a thousand years before Jesus was born. And predictions concerning Him He seemed to fulfill very accurately. So we do not simply have a case of He is Son of God merely because He said He was the Son of God.
We have instead centuries older prophecy as to how the Son of God would be. And then fulfillment of those prophecies.
One example would be the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. When a delegation of wise men came from far away inquiring where a born king of the Jews might be found, the scholars of the Old Testament prophets knew where to direct them. Such a person we expect to come out of Bethlehem. That was written in their Bible for about five hundred years already.
Many people may be born in the city of Bethlehem. Maybe two or more impressive people may be born in Bethlehem. It strains coincidence that someone acting and teaching as Jesus did, would orchestrate His own birth from Bethlehem. That is unless He was God and able to do so.
The argument of "it is so because it says it is so" in the case of prophecy fulfillment is not too strong.
Micah had penned down five hundred years earlier, and they long knew it -
"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, So little to be among the thousands of Judah, From you will come forth to Me He who is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth are form ancient times, From the days of eternity." (Micah 5:7)
This is the passage that the scribes pointed Herod and the Eastern delegation of sages to as concerning where a divinely born king should be found.
This is man born yet whose goings forth are from eternity. In other words His existence predates His physical birth. Probably meaning the incarnation of the eternal God as a man.
Sure, many can be born in Bethlehem and claim that characteristic. Jesus claimed and ACTED as such a person as well. So I think we are not dealing with a mere case of "it says so therefore it is."
Buddhism relies on an inner experience
Nothing terribly new or revolutionary here.
Certainly, my Christian experience is very inward.
"Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved." (2 Cor. 13:5)
And inward experience would not be a new concept. God dispenses Christ INTO our innermost being in a form of "life giving Spirit".
He and His Father will come to His lover as the Divine "We" and make an abode with them (John 14:23). Very inward.
of a total liberation from being dependent on anything else but release within your own mind.
Liberation or being freed would not be a new and revolutionary concept to us.
"And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
"Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom."
And there is very much in the New Testament about the Holy Spirit healing and liberating the human mind which has been damaged by the fall of Adam and by sin.
It encourages questioning.
This would not be overly revolutionary or new as in prayer it is quite good to pour out one's heart before God. And th...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 May 13
1 edit
cont. from above
God never rejects an honest questioning prayer.
And of course I still have many questions and unsolved matters in my heart as I continue to study the Holy Bible. I've got some really good questions.
At the same time there is the matter of trust and praise toward Christ for His faithfulness. We learn to trust Him because He is Trustworthy, approved, reliable, tested.
All the sutras and all the symbols and all the koans are intended as simply tools to help you see this.
Thanks. I use to meditate on some Zen Buddhist koans when I was reading Allen Watts - "The Way of Zen."
Anyway, my deepest need turned out to be a Person. A vibration, a force, or something on a lower level then myself was attractive. But I found that my real need was for a Person Lord and Person Savior.
I didn't have to imagine one up. In the shadows of life I found a real One - Jesus Christ. A hymn says, and I found it true "Somewhere in the shadows you'll find Jesus."
With the help of the Bible it is certainly true. Praise God.
24 May 13
2 edits
I believe a person or persons kept the burial cloths of Christ from the empty tomb. They were able to secretly look at the image and blood stains on these cloths when they gathered to build their strength and faith inspite of the persecution they recevied.
I believe those cloths with the image and blood stains of Christ served also to confirm the faith of new converts. Some even used it as inspiration to make paintings of Christ covered with that very same burial cloth or to make paintings of Christ's face, which are very similar in likeness to the image of the man on what they now call the Shroud of Turin.
I am sure they must have felt a need to guard the cloths very well to prevent the Jewish leaders or the Roman government from kowing of there existence to prevent them from trying to confiscate and destroy this evidence of the risen Christ. I also believe the image may have been more visible in the beginning and faded over time to the way it is today.
The Instructor
24 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipAlright, I won't exchange further. We have both more than said enough. I feel free to choose what parts of the Old and New Testament that help my spirit and what do not. I am free in my mind to discard ancient primitive thinking or use myths symbolically as I decide, rationally as possible. You, patently, are not able to do that and that to me is not the Freedom of Uncertainty the OP is pointing to. I agree with him and not with you. Peace.
cont. from above
God never rejects an honest questioning prayer.
And of course I still have many questions and unsolved matters in my heart as I continue to study the Holy Bible. I've got some really good questions.
At the same time there is the matter of trust and praise toward Christ for His faithfulness. We learn to trust Him because He is Trus ...[text shortened]... ws you'll find Jesus."
With the help of the Bible it is certainly true. Praise God.
24 May 13
“The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit.”
A reminder from the original OP.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 May 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Taoman
Alright, I won't exchange further. We have both more than said enough. I feel free to choose what parts of the Old and New Testament that help my spirit and what do not. I am free in my mind to discard ancient primitive thinking or use myths symbolically as I decide, rationally as possible. You, patently, are not able to do that and that to me is not the Freedom of Uncertainty the OP is pointing to. I agree with him and not with you. Peace.
Alright, I won't exchange further.
Okay. But I warn you. I am sometimes not good on "parting shots."
I may respond to this post if I feel to.
We have both more than said enough. I feel free to choose what parts of the Old and New Testament that help my spirit and what do not.
Of course as a Christian I read discerningly through the whole Bible.
Ie. "Money solves everything" in Ecclesiastes I try to ascertain the appropriateness and context of the passage.
I am free in my mind to discard ancient primitive thinking or use myths symbolically as I decide, rationally as possible.
Discerning between symbolism and allegory and different styles of writing is of course something I would do as well.
You, patently, are not able to do that and that to me is not the Freedom of Uncertainty the OP is pointing to.
Just because I regard what we have discussed about Jesus as sound teaching, ie. God incarnate, death and resurrection, with which you disagree, does not mean I am "patently ... not able to" discriminate between layers of communication in the Bible.
I don't mind if you say "Well, I don't believe this or that." This has little to do with freedom of the mind.
I agree with him and not with you. Peace.
Rhetoric, which I could easily show is probably not the case. You would NOT agree on a number of major aspects of Christ's teaching. This is obvious I think.
Number one, you don't seem to be able to pinpoint where His teaching is. You said that the Jesus myth was invented some 60 years to centuries latter by others. Your implication is that you don't know what He really taught.
So how can you say you'd agree ?
Thanks for the exchange, All respect. And I still plan to stay out of your way and let you expound your Buddhist beliefs.
25 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipChrist has certainly raised the awareness of a great deal of humans.Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that just you think you know what "God" or heaven is like, you actually have no idea. The best thing you could say is to state what is NOT there. Anything else is mere speculation.
And no amount of 3-d visualization can prepare you for a five-d experience.
Well, you do not see me mentioni ...[text shortened]...
This is happening in many localities throughout the earth.
www.localchurches.org
I like to stay with the positive mostly.
25 May 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipBuddhism is a complete system of psychology. It is not a religion like any other organized religions.jesus and buddha friends? i didnt think you were allowed to believe in other gods?
Buddhism is probably known best here by Taoman, perhaps visted. I do not think Buddhism HAS a god.
The Gospel of Christ of course has God. And Jesus claims to be Son of God and even the [b]"I AM" which God uttered in Exodus.
I don't think you have a God in Buddhism. Correct me if I err.[/b]
The truth is only very few people alive know the true meaning of "Buddhism", all other interpretations are academic descriptions of the Buddha's life and his teachings, as well as many individualistic interpretations of what Buddhism is ; which is generally encouraged by Buddhists. (I believe that Buddhism survived wars and violence which sought to wipe it out because it was blasphemous,etc. by other religious nuts, by adapting , which meant things like eating meat, which is generally considered out of sync with the Buddhist philosophy in general.)
25 May 13
Originally posted by sonship"overly revolutionary" ????The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
The oldest document revealing primitive Christian teaching, First Corinthians, reveals a already formed tradition passed on to Paul by others of a Christ having died and been re ...[text shortened]... ur out one's heart before God. And th...
WTF? with that long post of yours?
Simplify
Simplify
........ 😉
25 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipYes, you are one of the few that was converted to Christianity from Buddhist tendencies ...
cont. from above
God never rejects an honest questioning prayer.
And of course I still have many questions and unsolved matters in my heart as I continue to study the Holy Bible. I've got some really good questions.
At the same time there is the matter of trust and praise toward Christ for His faithfulness. We learn to trust Him because He is Trus ...[text shortened]... ws you'll find Jesus."
With the help of the Bible it is certainly true. Praise God.
The stats will reflect that you are in the vast minority as there are way more Christians converting to Buddhism than vice versa.
25 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipThank you for your final statement. I am reassured somewhat by your ability to differentiate various parts of the bible and types of literature and contexts.Alright, I won't exchange further.
Okay. But I warn you. I am sometimes not good on "parting shots."
I may respond to this post if I feel to.
We have both more than said enough. I feel free to choose what parts of the Old and New Testament that help my spirit and what do not.
Of course as a Christian I read d ...[text shortened]... d I still plan to stay out of your way and let you expound your Buddhist beliefs.
The statement "I agree with him and not with you" I was referring to the author of the OP, not to Jesus. Peace.
25 May 13
Originally posted by TaomanThat statement "I agree..." was unclear in it's reference..
Thank you for your final statement. I am reassured somewhat by your ability to differentiate various parts of the bible and types of literature and contexts.
The statement "I agree with him and not with you" I was referring to the author of the OP, not to Jesus. Peace.