What I am saying to you is that the tradition of the desert fathers, widely accepted in the 4th and 5th centuries, was lost out of christianity in time. Frowned upon. What I mean is that the desert fathers resembled closer the real way of christ. Which is similiar to the buddhist/daoist way.
The fact that the desert fathers existed in 5th century is because, and this is what I mean to say, they were closer to the time when this way was acceptable to lay christians.
So when I say Christ was not part of organized religion as such, well it is with some difficulty I have to admit that I explain this. The way of the desert fathers, the real way of christ, is not a religion. He was here to change Judaism, he was there to make change.
No. Religion is religion, the way is the way. These people here mentioned were exceptional.
They did not need scriptures to base their decisions on. They were above that. They were born into it, and worked from the inside, that is all. Remember, Christ said, you shall wash the cup on the inside first before you wash the outside.
Judaism was rotten at the core. If you like, heaven sent some enlightened beings to sort it out. Jeshua, which was Jesus real name, and Isaiah , who like all the others, were enlightened .They folowed the way. The path similiar to that of hermes trigmesterus.
Who came many years afore christ. Consider this lineage if you will. Consider please the notion of a secretive path that has always existed since early man. It is here I must take you to before things will make any sense.
If this is your own interpretation, you are off the mark.
Otherwise It is the people you have spoken to before about christianity, whoever they may be, that have led you astray. The bible is a book of much symbolism.
Just because people you have spoke to have an interpretation of a doctrine that entails etenal damnation, christ as king of the world literally, and all other sorts of nonsense, does,nt make it right.
Its your call. Believe something stupid. Dont Believe in it at all.
Or actually follow the way. No difference between a good kung fu , sufism, kabbalism and the way I mention. This way will enrich you same as any other good way. And all ways go to the same place.
This is a science and guide for practical living. Dont be naieve, there was more to christ than some limp and feeble christian is telling you.
Chirst according to the Gospels. which is all we know of him, was a JEw. HE was the ao called “King of the Jews”. HE mingled with Rabbi’s. He was fucking Jewish. Your wannabe esoteric rambleings aside according to the only documents that we have on the guy, he was a jew.
These “Desert Fathers” you put so much stock in…how do you know that they were more on some “true path” or that they knew more of thew “real” JEsus? Sounds like you are just talking out of your ass.
How do you know they were enlighened? All we know of Isah is in the JEwish and Christian scriptures. Thats it. Again your just talking wannabe mystical hooey out of your ass. All we know of Christ is in the gospels. If you want to believe a bunch of hoo-ha about them you can only do it on faith.
It is the interpretaion of MILLIONS of JEws who do NOT believe that Jesus was the messiah. Jews had very stritct messiah requirments and Jsus did not fulfill them. You can interpret almost anything allegorically. One gets os flakey on meanings that things can be interpreted to mean anything.
Who is believing in something stupid? I do notbelieve in organaized religion. Nor do I take on faith that some desert “fathers” where some super gurus.
In one post you talk about how corrupt Judaism is, then you insist that Jesus was not a Jew THEN you say that JEsus was the Jewish messiah! How was he the Jewish Messiah if he wasnt even a JEw?
Your all mixed up with your wannabe mystical horseshit dude. You make my head hurt.
Not my fault you are confused and misled, and at the moment have no hope whatsoever in understanding the real nature of christianity. Go on and think what you want if it makes you happy.
I’ve seen popularity, personal belief and general misinterpretation in this thread and I’d just like to throw in some food for thought.
Would a million people believing in a lie be considered more convincing then one person telling the truth? …Of course.
‘Credible’ or ‘uncredible’ text sources, one or a thousand. Does it make a difference? …Yes it does.
We as people have a seemingly great need for knowledge and proof. Two sources make things seem more credible and truthfull then just one. Three sources more credible and truthfull then just two and so on and so fourth.
To me, one source is as good as a thousand. Why? As long as you use your common sense and your own belief’s you will decide for yourself whether something is real or not.
Perhaps Moses, Jesus, Muhammed and Buddha were all simply characters of fiction - made up by groups of people who used their combined knowledge and wisdom under the guise of Moses, Jesus, Muhammed or Buddha to inpire and attract followers to their belief’s or cause.
Then again, perhaps they were real. ‘Credible’ or ‘uncredible’ text sources, one or a thousand. Does it make a difference? …Yes it does.
I am afraid though, that unless you were there and saw these people and/or events for youself you can not really speak about them in absolutes. All we can do it extract what we believe to be real and false information from texts and evidence to form our own views and beliefs about them - no ones beliefs anymore ‘true’ then the next man’s - though we may argue them to be all we like, which is always fun.
Even better, we can test the validity of what we first of all believe in our hearts and minds. If what you believe is making you happy, this is worth consideration, regardless of what some dull, droning functionalist would say about the apparent genetic reasons for why this happiness has come about.
Well why not? Maybe if you are teaching children that a man flys through the sky dressed in red bringing presents that would be not so good. But santa Claus is the name for St nikolaus of turkey.
His reputation as “santa claus” grew because he embodied the spirit of giving. So why not teach children that “Santa Claus” is alive and well.
Because he is. The spirit of giving is alive and well. You would not be lying to tell them about St nikolaus. And what a remarkable spirit he was. In fact, it woud not be a bad thing to teach them that he floats around in the sky watching them ,as an entity of course.
But children being children do not understand so well finer details. So there is no harm in dressing it up a little for them. But you would not be lying .
There,s no point to us engaging really. You have strong views. If i engage it would mean having to explain the nature of good and evil. Too much hassle for someone who probably would remain unconvinced of my opinion anyway.
Hum, how many eyewitness accounts of your existence will exist 100 or 200 years from now?
[.quote]I have found errors in Wiki before. These are exerpts of what I found:
[/quote]
[.quote]This supports your claim, but again, Jesus was not an upper-class, significant individual in the ancient world, at least, not until later.
[/quote]
Again, this supports your claim.
Again, I do believe that the man existed, just as Moses and Abraham probably existed. There is usually a kernal of truth in all myths and legends.
I loved the movie and thought it was great: even worthy of more Academy Awards / nominations.
I thought Gibson’s version of the crucifixion was pretty much in keeping with the biblical version of events. I understand that the biblical version is questionable, but to dismiss Gibson’s movie based on that criteria alone makes me question your reasons/motives… Below are some of the biblical accounts of Christ crucified (for anyone who doubts the accuracy of the movie’s depiction of the crucifixion)
A similar account is available in Mark:
[size=150]FtheNaysayers[/size] - I think you will find that it can be reasonably accepted that Pilate would have let the people decide on the fate of Jesus if (a) he didn’t personally believe that Jesus was a threat to the empire (b) and the veracity of the timing of Jesus’ crucifixion holds up and indeed Pilate let the people “vote” for the release of a prisoner for the Feast. In my opinion, Jesus didn’t have the following to be a threat to the empire, Pilate could not have cared less about Jesus, and he let the people decide… Assuming Jesus existed of course. Any thoughts?
Many prophets were crucified by the Roman Empire during this time period, Jesus was one of them. They were deemed a threat as this was a very troubled area and Jews used guerilla tactics to harass the Romans. Any religious leader who developed a following and did not “suck-up” to the Roman governor or other leaders was suspect.
Pilate was a brutal man and I doubt he would allow the Jews decide Jesus’ fate.
Also, Gibson had Satan lurking about during the crucifixtion and I do not remember any mention of this in Biblical texts.
Biblical texts provide the Christian view, how many Roman or Jewish texts describe the crucifixtion?
Again, this is a movie and Gibson’s interpretation. I do not view Gibson as a theologian or intellectual heavyweight.
Well, you can have your doubts, but it is found in the bible; Gibson’s account is artistically faithful to the bible.
(1) The bible has Jesus being tempted in the dessert after his 40 day fast. So, one can take the artistic liberty to have Satan lurking about.
(2) In the movie, Jesus stomps on the head of the snake - in keeping with God’s phrophecy that man will trample on the head of snakes. I think that scene was Gibson’s artistic expression.
You said yourself that Romans crucified many phrophets, what’s one more? How many crucifixions were there in those days? Are there accounts for each of these crucifixions?
(1) Is Cecil B. DeMille a theologian/scholar/intellectual heavyweight?
(2) Since when do you have to be a theologian/scholar/intellectual heavyweight to make a movie?
(3) Isn’t The Ten Commandments a great movie despite the fact that it took MANY various liberties with the biblical account? I say it is a great movie, just like the Passion of the Christ.
(4) Passion was cheated by the Academy - it deserved more nominations.
Oliver Stone is an intellectual flyweight and major league blowhard, but some of his movies are decent. Certainly academic credentials and towering intellect are irrelevant in those simply making movies. And I can’t fathom why a bunch of atheists would care whether the bible placed Satan at the crucifiction. Certainly The Passion is about as “accurate” an account as I’ve seen portrayed on film in the Biblical sense, and that’s the only way you can logically analyze it.
If one is pretending to review the film, then discuss the film on its own merits, not as opposed to your own religious biases and bigotry.
[.quote]Chuckle, yes, Gibson does have his Roman Catholic agenda.
[/quote]
At the moment all my texts are in California, and I am in Nevada. I understand if you discount my claim as, at the moment I cannot support it.
Yes, the movies are a diffent genre than literature, or academic texts. You have a point. DeMille took huge liberties with his religious flicks, and no he was not intellectual heavyweight. Yes, the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur (written by two Civil War Union generals), the Great Escape, worked well in the 60’s, but would not go far today as they are too idealized.
I only went to see the Passion, as it was me mum’s birthday and she wanted to see it and I took her to dinner afterwards. I did not enjoy the flick at all. It is difficult enough reading regarding the brutality of the past without watching it on the big screen.
The past, and much of the current Third World are incredibly brutal. Individual impaled, beheaded, maimed, burned alive, etc.
