The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Sheesh. Come on. Havent you heard of allegory? Lewis lived and breathed it.

HAHAHA!

Too funny!

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Im not asking you to spit out memorized verses, but to show me where in the text that Jesus says uniquely gnostic teachings. There are ideas that cross over all religions, but that doesnt mean they are the same.

Lewis postulates that there is a moral standard that is innate that essentially uses the same behavioral framework as a template for the evaluation of moral behavior. That would be a biological correlation, not a historical one.

I just dont see Jesus promoting packets of revelation as the path to heaven. He specifically says that he alone is the path to heaven. That means living life a certain way, not coming to mystical revelations.

Gee, i dunno - the lack of needing a church or finding your own path to god sounds pretty fricken gnostic to me as just basic examples to repeat myself. Maybe it'd be easier if I just said jesus was a hippie

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Gee, i dunno - the lack of needing a church or finding your own path to god sounds pretty fricken gnostic to me as just basic examples to repeat myself. Maybe it'd be easier if I just said jesus was a hippie

Jesus in no way promoted life away from the synagogue. Jesus observed tradition like everyone else. Jesus promoted the individual accountability of everyone involved. He promoted individual accountability all the way up the Temple hierarchy.

Jesus did not encourage "finding your own path to God" in the sense that you think. It is not a universalist declaration.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by angryllama

You are the one making the outrageous claim. I have not seen you produce one verse in the context of the rest of the NT and OT. Gnosticism is an entirely different thing. You are claiming that Jesus was at least in part Gnostic or creating Gnostic philosophy. It is your job to prove it as you are the one posing the oddball claim. I have seen no evidence that this is the case and you are throwing out baseless generalities from my vantage.

google "gnosticism gospel of john"

Two distinct thoughts, and I'm outta here. Gnosticism is subject to two distinct meanings. One the literal "secret teachings of Jesus." John doesn't include that, though he treats Thomas differently than the synoptics. the second notion of gnostic is the early church had to stamp out any notion that a human could, without the church, find God. Thus, the church wanted to deny the zenlike (-: qualities of Jesus, though some come through even the redactions of Trent and earlier.

the gnostics had to be eliminated because they denied the authority of the church. anyone could come to God without the priests and church, and then what would be the use of the Priests and church. Luther raised this later.

Then there's the other question, smaller imo, whether Jesus taught by secret teachings. That's so politically charged, I won't even go there, aside from noting that the gnostic gospels, like Thomas, are interesting and imo fill out some of the redactions that occurred after the Pauline Church became dominant.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Jesus in no way promoted life away from the synagogue. Jesus observed tradition like everyone else. Jesus promoted the individual accountability of everyone involved. He promoted individual accountability all the way up the Temple hierarchy.

He did, did he?

From my understanding the bible is written on several levels, and one thing always stuck in my mind:

"No one comes to the Father except through me"
Who is the Father? Who is "me."
Jesus chastizes his disciples repeatedly when then take him literally.
"I only speak in parables," says Jesus at one point.
His whole life and existence was a parable; a teaching story. His "true" followers would have written the gospels in the same fashion.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by amesj523

He did, did he?

From my understanding the bible is written on several levels, and one thing always stuck in my mind:

"No one comes to the Father except through me"
Who is the Father? Who is "me."
Jesus chastizes his disciples repeatedly when then take him literally.
"I only speak in parables," says Jesus at one point.
His whole life and existence was a parable; a teaching story. His "true" followers would have written the gospels in the same fashion.

That's very imaginative, but I do not believe that Jesus' goal was to live an allegory. He gave words for living that even the uneducated could understand. This is where the gnostic argument comes short. Gnosis is some sort of secret knowledge only attainable by revelation. Jesus brought practical teaching for fulfilling the demands of the Jewish law.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

I showed you that some of the major ideas that push our modern western thought were birthed in the minds of people who used Christian or Jewish logical rationale.

No, you didn't. You merely noted these thinkers' religious backgrounds - you didn't show that their ideas and/or scientific theories were informed by "Christian or Jewish logical rationale."

And even if you were to succeed in showing such a thing, you'd ultimately have to acknowledge that most ideas you regard as specifically Christian or Hebraic were actually rooted in earlier cultures, myths, and traditions.

Originally Posted by angryllama

Well, you either take his words for what they were (he said that he was the God of the Jews), or you label him a crazy man. The only other option is that he was Satan himself.

"The only other option I'm aware of" would be more intellectually honest.

Originally Posted by angryllama

A closer study of the Bible will reveal to you that there is no way that Jesus thought that he was an ordinary man.

A broader understanding of comparative religion and mythology will reveal to you that Christ was not unique in this sense. Only the cultural and temporal inflection of His message can be regarded as unique - not its meaning.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

No, you didn't. You merely noted these thinkers' religious backgrounds - you didn't show that their ideas and/or scientific theories were informed by "Christian or Jewish logical rationale."
And even if you were to succeed in showing such a thing, you'd ultimately have to acknowledge that most ideas you regard as specifically Christian or Hebraic were actually rooted in earlier cultures, myths, and traditions.
"The only other option I'm aware of" would be more intellectually honest.
A broader understanding of comparative religion and mythology will reveal to you that Christ was not unique in this sense. Only the cultural and temporal inflection of His message can be regarded as unique - not its meaning.

Christian philosophy was predominant in the time period that Newton operated and he specifically mentioned his empirical pursuits as a way to look at God's creation.

Einstein said that he saw God more and more through his scientific discoveries and that he didnt understand how a scientist could believe anything else when exposed to the complexities.

Lewis was an atheist who became a Christian during his time as a professor at Oxford I believe. He held some pretty distinguished chairs in the British educational system and held open discussions on Christian philosophy in the public forum during WW2.

Mendel was a monk.

This means that they all work from a particular philosophy. That philosophy is deistic in every case listed. They came to logical or empirical conclusions on natural or philosophical subjects by using a general philosophy that included the beleif in God. The post that you reply to was in response to a quite ignorant poster that said no rational or logical thought could be born out of someone who believes the "myths" of religion. He collectively dismissed any religious thinker. I just showed him some examples of people who have made great contributions to empiricism and to philosophy that were to some degree religious.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Unless you view it that you won't be spirtually reborn unless you recieve and accept how jesus lead his life - and apply it to your own.

Yep - you get it.

For Christ to proclaim "I am God" in the cultural milieu in which he lived was blasphemy insofar as the Judaic conception of God was essentially political, i.e., a conception of God as a monarch or as the political ruler of the universe.

However, had Christ lived in India and proclaimed "I am God," people would have said "congratulations - at last you found out!" (As Allan Watts put it.)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Yep - you get it.

For Christ to proclaim "I am God" in the cultural milieu in which he lived was blasphemy insofar as the Judaic conception of God was essentially political, i.e., a conception of God as a monarch or as the political ruler of the universe.

However, had Christ lived in India and proclaimed "I am God," people would have said "congratulations - at last you found out!" (As Allan Watts put it.)

Well, you dont get what Jesus was about.

That is not the theology that Jesus was professing. He was not a universalist, but was a Jew, and thus believed in the fulfillment of the law in subject to the LORD.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Well, you dont get what Jesus was about.

Your arrogant and shameless assumption that yours is the only "true" or "correct" understanding of Christ is precisely what's wrong with Christian fundamentalism and why it will always be a stain on the image of Christ.

Originally Posted by angryllama

That is not the theology that Jesus was professing. He was not a universalist, but was a Jew, and thus believed in the fulfillment of the law in subject to the LORD.

Now you're making my case for me insofar as I just noted that the Judaic conception of God was political, i.e., a conception of God as some sort of political ruler or "Lord" of the universe. This is why the Jews accused Christ of blasphemy when He proclaimed He was "God."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Your arrogant and shameless assumption that yours is the only "true" or "correct" understanding of Christ is precisely what's wrong with Christian fundamentalism and why it will always be a stain on the image of Christ.

Now you're making my case for me insofar as I just noted that the Judaic conception of God was political, i.e., a conception of God as some sort of political ruler or "Lord" of the universe. This is why the Jews accused Christ of blasphemy when He proclaimed He was "God."

There is no point discussing this with you as you are typically only looking to get a rise out of whoever it is you disagree with. That will not happen here. I have one last thing to say: read and understand before you barge into a conversation proclaiming what Jesus is all about.

You should do some more googling before you get back into this discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by angryllama

There is no point discussing this with you as you are typically only looking to get a rise out of whoever it is you disagree with.

If something I said "got a rise" out of you, then that's your fault - not mine.

If you can't handle hearing points of view that differ from or challenge your religious views, then perhaps you should avoid threads like this one.

Originally Posted by angryllama

That will not happen here.

Too late, apparently.

Originally Posted by angryllama

I have one last thing to say: read and understand before you barge into a conversation proclaiming what Jesus is all about.

You obviously don't understand two basic facts:

1) Everyone has the right to "proclaim" what he or she believes "Jesus is all about" - not just you and your fellow fundamentalists on the far-right fringe.

2) No one on this forum needs your permission to participate in this discussion.

Originally Posted by angryllama

You should do some more googling before you get back into this discussion.

You should complete a lower division course in comparative religion before you embarrass yourself even further in this discussion.

[bendog]

Jesus may not have been the illiterate unworldly peasant. Jesus's view of Judism was Essene influenced, as John the Baptist was himself an Essene. And, there are obvious similarities, or borrowing, in what John and then Jesus taught, and the prevailing philosophies of the time: cynics and stoics

http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cynics.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/stoicism.htm

So, yeah, Jesus was a Jew, and he was preaching an interpretation, or reinterpretation, of the laws and the prophets to fit the world he knew.

I agree with Llama that Jesus was not a "universalist," but typically we understand the parable of the caanite woman to mean that gentiles could receive and understand his theology. What interests me in terms of historical curiosity and also trying to decipher what he did teach is the historical context of his time. And, as a Christian what's interesting both how politics and power have altered his message as well as the holy spirit acted to keep the message alive.

I've thought he was obviously devinely inspired, but the American protestant, and even traditional Christian, emphasis on his supposedly being all knowing and all powerful always seemed to me to be contradictory to the notion that God sent his own son to suffer being a human. IF he had god-like powers, he wasn't human. Ames notion of him being a Godhead is interesting.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by angryllama

That's very imaginative, but I do not believe that Jesus' goal was to live an allegory. He gave words for living that even the uneducated could understand. This is where the gnostic argument comes short. Gnosis is some sort of secret knowledge only attainable by revelation. Jesus brought practical teaching for fulfilling the demands of the Jewish law.

Why are you so opposed to gnositism? Why are you so advent on not believing that even through jesus's own words that he speaks in parables - that through revelation you would come to a higher understanding of teachings and meaning?

The bible is not to be taken literal, and if you do, it's your loss IMO.

[bronco_diesel]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Why are you so opposed to gnositism? Why are you so advent on not believing that even through jesus's own words that he speaks in parables - that through revelation you would come to a higher understanding of teachings and meaning?

The bible is not to be taken literal, and if you do, it's your loss IMO.

the early teachers, specifically paul was dealing directly with Gnosticism. that is why in books he went out of his way to show that Christ physically came down and physically died, and physically resurrected. gnostics beleive that Christ was a god, but not the God Jehova - paul also clearly shows that Christ and the Father are one (trinity). in a gnostic perspective, if christ were a god, he would not curse himself in trapped matter (created by Jehova, who they felt was evil) and take on physical form...so they hold that it was all perception. paul debunks this in his writings and clearly makes points on the key arguments.

the bible is to be taken literal, and is to be taken symbollic when the text tells you too. furthermore, the bible interprets itself. i invite you to join a study with me.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Jesus in no way promoted life away from the synagogue. Jesus observed tradition like everyone else. Jesus promoted the individual accountability of everyone involved. He promoted individual accountability all the way up the Temple hierarchy.

Jesus did not encourage "finding your own path to God" in the sense that you think. It is not a universalist declaration.

Jesus did advocate life away from the Temple. There was no synagogue. He advocated that Jews could approach God without going through the Temple, and that was one of the things that got him killed.

Thus the passages of Jesue scourging the money lenders as debating with the elders.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bronco_diesel

the early teachers, specifically paul was dealing directly with Gnosticism. that is why in books he went out of his way to show that Christ physically came down and physically died, and physically resurrected. gnostics beleive that Christ was a god, but not the God Jehova - paul also clearly shows that Christ and the Father are one (trinity). in a gnostic perspective, if christ were a god, he would not curse himself in trapped matter (created by Jehova, who they felt was evil) and take on physical form...so they hold that it was all perception. paul debunks this in his writings and clearly makes points on the key arguments.

the bible is to be taken literal, and is to be taken symbollic when the text tells you too. furthermore, the bible interprets itself. i invite you to join a study with me.

Nah i'll pass, i spend too long studying with prodestants - and i have no use for fundamentalist christian dogma - besides - what works for me works for me - So you only think of my interpretations as wrong becuase you have not seen what i have seen -

Besides, i am pursuing my own work - in which the lower self and higher self are to be tempered as one - The bible is only good for allegory and for the rites and rituals that are listed in it's words. Beyond that, i don't really buy into it. Maybe studying for 6 years with eastern religions and philosophies has allowed me to read the bible in a much more satisfying way than the doom and gloom and hard line rhetoric that the church spews.

I've had far too much enjoyment out of my own systems and my own beliefs that have guided me on adventure and revelations that are personal and enriching to my own well being.

I understand why christian dogma shuns gnostic principles - because with having or using gnosticsm - it removes the chruch from the equation thus negating their power over their flock.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bendog

Jesus did advocate life away from the Temple. There was no synagogue. He advocated that Jews could approach God without going through the Temple, and that was one of the things that got him killed.

Thus the passages of Jesue scourging the money lenders as debating with the elders.

This is also one reason why i interpret that "through christ" you would find god. you wouldn't need the church to find god.

[bronco_diesel]

Originally Posted by bendog

Jesus did advocate life away from the Temple. There was no synagogue. He advocated that Jews could approach God without going through the Temple, and that was one of the things that got him killed.

Thus the passages of Jesue scourging the money lenders as debating with the elders.

do you understand the jewish temple and priesthood?

Christ was the final Preist, thus making him the final and eternal path to God. Christ also resides in our hearts once you believe in who he is - i.e. invite him in. At that point, your body becomes a temple, and God dwells in you.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by bronco_diesel

do you understand the jewish temple and priesthood?

Christ was the final Preist, thus making him the final and eternal path to God. Christ also resides in our hearts once you believe in who he is - i.e. invite him in. At that point, your body becomes a temple, and God dwells in you.

What? Christ was not a Priest. Jewish or Christian.

[bendog]

Originally Posted by amesj523

This is also one reason why i interpret that "through christ" you would find god. you wouldn't need the church to find god.

The thing was that to access the Temple, a Jew had to PAY MONEY. The majority of Jews were destitute; destitute not being poor as we know it, but being poor as in starvation was imminet. They could not keep the laws because they could not afford it. They couldn't even marry, which makes the Jesus / Mary Magdeline thing more curious, btw.

The Priests' hold on their position in the socioeconmic scene was tied to the money. They collected it, and Rome took it's cut. So, when Jesus told the rabble they could look to God without the Temple .... doomed.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bronco_diesel

do you understand the jewish temple and priesthood?

Christ was the final Preist, thus making him the final and eternal path to God. Christ also resides in our hearts once you believe in who he is - i.e. invite him in. At that point, your body becomes a temple, and God dwells in you.

"Shekinah means "presence of God" and relates to the feminine aspect of the Holy Trinity. It is the energy that sanctifies from within the dimension of matter or the Holy Spirit. Shekinah is the visible manifestation of the divine presence. One place within the Old Testament it appeared as the cloud that followed the children of Isreal in the desert."

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by bendog

The thing was that to access the Temple, a Jew had to PAY MONEY. The majority of Jews were destitute; destitute not being poor as we know it, but being poor as in starvation was imminet. They could not keep the laws because they could not afford it. They couldn't even marry, which makes the Jesus / Mary Magdeline thing more curious, btw.

The Priests' hold on their position in the socioeconmic scene was tied to the money. They collected it, and Rome took it's cut. So, when Jesus told the rabble they could look to God without the Temple .... doomed.

Exactly! Damn bendog - Different sides of the same coin

[bronco_diesel]

Originally Posted by bendog

What? Christ was not a Priest. Jewish or Christian.

he was, but not in the Levitical preisthood (order of Aaron). He was in the order of Melchizedek.

Hbr 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Hbr 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

Hbr 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

Hbr 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Hbr 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Hbr 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Hbr 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hbr 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Hbr 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hbr 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:

Hbr 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec


study hebrews and the preisthood - understanding the Levitical preisthood and the difference from the order of Melchizedek