do all christians view jesus christ is same manner or do they differ in their views for jesus christ?...i mean some christians say he was god , some say he was son of god , some say he was god/son combined and so on...
Of course they are divided. That was the object of "religion".
A divided masses cannot unite to learn truth.
They are divided because religion is an elaborate mixture of historical accounts and myths. There is no single truth to him as his Christian story is mythical.
The reality is Jesus was son of man, as he himself proclaimed, and he was a loved one of the Creator-God and a Messenger Prophets of Him. It is wrong of Christians of believe Jesus a god or son of god and against Jesus' beliefs. It is sinful to believe Jesus a god or son of god; Paul committed this sin and the Church followed Paul.
All Christians believe Him to be the Messiah. Not because of the knowledge of men but by revelation of who he is.
the reality is Christians believe what they will, and Muslums believe what they will, and the whole thing is so off tilt we are killing each other over it, and "all" of it reguardless of beliefe is based or word of mouth knowledge handed down from 80-150-500 years after it happened. No proof what o ever.
its not worth all the death and hatred for all of its glory.
when you have a book, and deny the first half of it, then keep watering down the 2nd half as the new word of fact.
then brainwash groups of people to believe their one version of it is the only way. then confusion, seperation, and false aqusitions will continue forever.
like Cag just said, keep em divided and the truth stays hidden forever while some folks get rich on the donations. Its big profitable business to divide and prevent truth. False Gospel sells big, always has.
Of course, Christianity has been long divided every since the Great Schism around the 11th century, (unless you count the council divisions within the mid 450s); now, ever since the Protestant Reformation (around the 16th century), the church has, ever since, been divided into little theological castles that place full authority on scripture (and the person interpreting) than anything else (which can be very deceptive, flawed, and false according to 2nd Peter). Where Catholicism was born with a Pope out of the Constantinian realm, Eastern Orthodoxy had been hiding in the shadows with its unchangeable beliefs and practices. However, before the Great Schism, Western and Eastern Christianity had no problem being united, even though there were some small differences (at the early stages) between their theological views. The question comes to the Christian: "Which Jesus (as portrayed in churches) is the right one?" Then comes the second question: "Why does it matter?" The only concern here in division is truth and preference. People either believe what they believe because they have to, because it is truth, and truth is their highest concern in life. Or, people either believe what they believe because they want to. For example, I may believe the Orthodox church because it has been an unchangeable truth (for the most part, well, more than anything) for the last two thousand years. Someone else, a non-denominational Christian may believe in one their churches, because the words of their pastor may bring them comfort in their forgiveness and salvation. People believe things and attend different churches for many different reasons. I think if Jesus were to walk here now and see us, he would be greatly sad, for remember how sad He felt when His saw his people divided in the Judaic times when He walked the Earth. If anything, we all need to put away our theological views and our prejudices to live one common purpose, to be united as a body. I would say it is not within knowledge (which seems to be what separates Christians), but it is within living.
I think we are. The message and the meaning create wide schisms. The nature of the essence of Christ others. This is not, in my opinion, a bad thing. Imagine if there were 1.7 billion evangelicals, or Quakers. The world we live in shows me that the diversity of belief is necessary to negate the impact the negative face of Christianity can have on the world, but we have apparently not reached the point where peace is possible, so an entirely Quaker philosophy would be dangerous too.
The diversity in philosophy does not negate the bottom line truth of Christianity. To me, it can logically be seen as validating it.
that is what i am asking my friend...what is bottom line truth of christianity?...is jesus god or son of god or both?
It depends on who you ask. But, to me, the argument over the essence Christ has sidelined the search for the message. Whatever you believe he may have been is not as important as seeing the need to look inside yourself and strive for a better relationship with your God and your fellow man.
Both.. Jesus is God-Man. 100% God and 100 % Human
Added together, we get a total of 200% myth.
well.. I am just trying to illustrate in that way so that it can more easily understood. In one person.. perfectly human and perfectly being God
that is what I was trying to say though
Stating that something is 100% this and 100% that can only be valid if the two variables are not similar in concept or nature, as that would create a physical and logical contradiction.
And, that is the physical and logical contradiction I refer.
Not being able to contemplate the spiritual is probably the crux of your delimma. Sorry, I realize this fact can be a nuisance.
Oops, that opens a can of worms. Can you please describe in detail the "spiritual" you refer which I am supposed to contemplate? What exactly, apart from scriptures, can you offer that would provide me ample reason to resolve such a dilemma?
There is a host of literature at your disposal. Perhaps, some research on your part might be in order. A little knowledge can serve a person well, especially if they hope for a valid opinion on the topic.
Because, without personal reflection and knowledge to draw from; what is one left with? An empty opinion?
Yes, but I said apart from scriptures. That much I already know.
Done already, nothing available beyond scriptures. Got anything else?
Sorry, you're telling me that?
No. Actually, I was simply being contrary. Spirituality is an individual search. Of course I can't explain it to you. If you choose not to search, it is not on the table to include in your views on life. I clearly see why the fact that others have an extra plate on their table could be a mystery to you.
Yes, I know. Few believers can. Of course, the explanation at hand is that of indoctrination. But, you don't want to hear that.
It is no mystery at all. Quite understandable, in fact. Contemplating spirituality is indeed a dilemma, when there isn't anything to contemplate other than the extraordinary having been accepted without question and criticism and without extraordinary evidence to support it.
And yet, according to you, this all eludes me simply because it is a matter of searching. Again, searching for what?
Round and round we go.
Round and round? I thought we had made so much progress. I must be delusional.
Do you honestly believe the whole world minus what? 8% is indoctrinated so deeply that they are making this all up? An atheist told me yesterday that science recognizes that there may be some type of consciousness to energy. I have no idea what he was talking about. Never heard it before but can you not, at the very least, concede the point that there exists even the slightest possibility that you might be wrong? How can you be so sure you have the answer to a question that has remained on our collective conscience since time began?
Consciousness at any level can be determined by actions. Anyone paying close enough attention, can observe consciousness and determine the action. Example: I wrote a hub answering some of the major questions about Life- which in turn, explains, even the Earth is, in and of itself is alive. What level of consciousness the Earth has? Is unknown. However, it only appears to function as we do.
Our conscience has nothing to do with it. Our consciousness has been determined to be nothing more than an opening of mind space within our brain. Are we connected to the rest of the Universe? Yes, only because we can distinguish between living and death.
As always, your post is shortsighted and long winded. Wish you luck on your philosophy on the cosmos. Our opinions are destined to remain at odds.
Shortsighted? and Long winded? It isn't like I posted 3 pages of a post that didn't have meaning. The simple fact that James himself said "consciousness" is in everything. What part did you not understand?
Now you sound just a like a religious fanatic who cannot accept truth about what has become collective knowledge about existence.
Only because of you and no other reason.
I accept every fact of this physical world. I simply consider it arrogant and incredibly short sighted to think anyone knows it all. Accusing me of being fanatically religious simply reinforces my opinion. You do not know me, yet simply because my opinion is in opposition to yours you jump to a false conclusion. That behavior falls into the category of fanatical.
That's not true at all. If you did, you wouldn't believe many of the things you do now. And, the fact that you've admitted to not even knowing of or understanding many of the physical laws of our world would refute your response.
Hey, be nice. I may not know everything, but I am willing to believe it, when I find out about it and the evidence is there. I can't be like you and know it all. That's why you're mhy hero. You just show up, and point it out. Not nicely, I must say, but you do it nonetheless.
Here is where you may wish to entertain the notion that "believing" in something is entirely difference from "understanding" something. So, rather than just accepting without question a claim and believing it, try to take the time to use critical thinking skill to evaluate the claim based on the evidence provided and understand exactly what is being claimed and what is being used to validate the claim.
This is a very big step to take as it may require you suspend your beliefs and imagine a world without gods.
Been there done that. And I found out, I didn't need to take that pebble from your hand. I already had it, I just didn't realize it. You didn't realize it because you can't see the pebble.
No, you haven't done anything of the sort, that has been made amply evident in your posts. Keep trying, though.
OK. I admit, I have posted comments about the message of Christ. I don't think that makes me believe in anything beyond the physical world, or what any of us know. The bottom line message is a good one. Whether you believe anything more than a couple of guys thought up a good idea and somehow that idea made it through the centuries. Look inside yourself and change your heart. I think it is a wonderful concept. Sue me.
I don't know where the message of Taoism orignated. But I've been known to quote that too, when I remember what it said, if the moment comes up. I don't know if there really was a Buddha, but they've got some killer ideas that do flow along the lines of what my core belief is. I happen to be excited about the whole thing. I realize that there must be dozens, if not hundreds, of spiritual messages that people have tried to share throughout the centuries that I've simply blown off as not worthy of study, simply because I was led to believe that there was only one way to figure it out.
I will not become bitter simply because I do not believe as others do. If I think someone can benefit from what I believe the true message of their faith is, I'll share it. Again, sue me.
That which you say in your post is encapsulated entirely within our agreement of reality. Both you and I can easily agree the bible holds some interesting and valid messages. However, we can use reason and rationale coupled with evolutionary characteristics of our ancestry and come up with similar messages.
We can also see there are other religions and philosophies that hold equally valid messages. Aesops Fables also contain very interesting messages. Buddhism and The Art of War, contradictory in almost every way, yet both reveal interesting messages about ourselves.
So, it's not really a matter of changing ones heart considering the vast array of literature in all its forms providing us with a well rounded perspective of ourselves and reality, rife with all kinds of messages teaching us a great deal about our world and ourselves.
Indeed. Lest we not forget, there are also dozens, if not hundreds of "physical" messages that people have discovered over the centuries, which you also cannot simply blow off as not worthy of study, simply because...
Why do you find it so difficult to let another person breath, when they've made a monumental discovery about themself? I'll admit, I do like to hear your thoughts, but I have finally realized that my beliefs don't align me with where I perceived myself to be. This was not a newsflash, by any means, just an articulation of what I already knew.
You cannot contemplate the spiritual. I get that. I am completely capable of holding two concepts in my head at the same time, comparing them and coming to logical conclusions.
I realize it is an utter disappointment that the 'light' of atheism eludes me, but you could certainly be polite and think of something nice to say, nonetheless.
Excellent. You'll soon quickly realize too, that religious myths don't align with anything, in reality. Every single claim uttered or written by believers in regards to the supernatural outright and explicitly defy reality and violate everything we understand about the world around us.
All this, without a shred of evidence or a word of explanation.
We can both equally contemplate a great deal of "spiritual" ideals offered from the various religions and philosophies claimed throughout history. Beyond that, we are both relegated to relying entirely on our imaginations for any further contemplations.
. I guess the answer is no, you can't.
Yes, but if we don't keep searching, we will always be in the dark. Oddly, you only scoff at searching for answers if they have to do with the spiritual.
See, the definition of a shred of evidence is a little subjective. I can't help the fact that there is a need to understand something I do know and take for evidence.
I will concede this point, if you will please share one that you have actually contemplated for more than the time it takes to snort in derision.
I'm not trying to be difficult, although you have probably surmised otherwise. I am simply telling you that there is a reason only 8% of the world follows your philosophy. I can't cross something off until it is ruled out. Apparently 92% of the world has the same dilemma. It hasn't been ruled out for me.
Yes, I do understand believers pretend they possess "special powers" such as a "spiritual juju" that allows them to peer into the supernatural realm to have tea and crumpets with their gods, but this is due to a lack of critical thinking skills and an inkling of understanding of the world around them coupled with a religious indoctrination designed to eliminate that thinking and understanding.
Sure, and while we wile away the time searching for your spiritual answers, like theologians have been doing for centuries, failing miserably, you'll sit there and scoff at our understanding of the physical world that already clearly defy the answers you want to hear.
No, it isn't. Evidence is clearly defined in a number of aspects and scenarios.
And, what pray tell, will that accomplish?
Yes, and your reasoning covers a number of logical fallacies; Appeal to Belief, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Tradition, Bandwagon and of course, Appeal to Popularity.
Perhaps, you should be looking at it from this point of view, it's only 8% now, but it has risen from almost 0% and is continuing to climb while the religions themselves are declining. Over time, it will most likely become 92% or more.
If jumping on the Bandwagon is your reasoning, then it would appear you will eventually make the switch, if not for any other reasons.
OK, when I laughed, that was laughing at the request that you say something nice. Nothing more. I don't have any juju, whatever that is.
I do not scoff at the physical world. Again, I believe I have said this, ad nauseum. The fact that you continue to accuse me of it, at the same rate, does not make it so.
Evidence as defined by Mirriam Webster:
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof
These definitions apply.
You said we can both contemplate the spiritual. I need proof that this is true if you expect me to believe it.
I have never, nor will I ever, jumped on anyone's 'bandwagon'. Atheism has not gone from 0% to 8%. You have no idea what is was prior to anyone keeping records on it. It's like the people who rail that there are more earthquakes now. Simply because we were not keeping record at one time does not mean that there were none.
I don't care if every living person on the earth other than myself professed a belief, or lack of belief, in something. I will make my own decisions by what I see, what I feel and what I conclude to be the truth, and I would not begin to consider the need to apologize to anyone for holding firm to what I think to be truth.
Ain't it the truth. Round and round we go all the way back to square one.
Indoctrination is strong in this one.
Why are you so difficult? How am I indoctrinated? OK. I see. You think that the only way to believe in the existence of something on a different plane is indoctrination. I think I finally get it. If this is your stand, then that something on a different plane went out of its way to make sure I don't forget that it is there. Do I have any idea why? No. Who the heck am I? Just another person. And yet the fact remains. I cannot replicate the event of my own volition. Sorry. Wish I could. I could be a sideshow for a carnival. I do like to travel.
Not at all. I think your beliefs in Jesus are from indoctrination and your claim to "believe in the existence of something on a different plane" is magical thinking, a result of the effects of religious indoctrination.
My belief in Jesus is limited to belief in the message. I think, the man probably existed. But it doesn't matter either way. The message is the important part.
And as to your statement about the magical, the time when my feelings were hurt by people saying this ended about the 200th time pcunix made that statement. Facts are facts Beelzedad. I can't change them. I am simply explaining to you that even though you desperately want to believe that everyone can see the atheist angle it is a pipe dream. It can't happen because of facts that you refuse to consider possible. I do understand this. There have been times that I would have liked to be right there with you on that philosophy. That's just gone, because facts changed.
I have no idea what the other is. I don't claim to. But I can guarantee you, if it is a deity as the evangelicals preach, that type of God would probably be sorry he bothered to enlighten me. I would never take part in an afterlife that excludes people for a lack of ability to agree with what they teach. And I'd be pretty vocal about it.
They are both making up stuff as they go along and also perpetuating the myths of their religions. This is not so difficult to fathom considering some centuries ago, pretty much the entire world was heavily indoctrinated into religions.
And of course, you immediately decided to research the concept of energy in order to gain an understanding so you could either accept the concept as valid or dismiss it as nonsense? Did you do that?
I can, believers cannot, though. The difference is that they are not armed with knowledge and information on the world around them, but instead get their information from scriptures, like yourself.
I'm not sure. However, the fact that there are thousands of different religions all spouting different messages about their gods, which have never been shown to exist, should give us some idea that they can't all be right, or even the fact that none of them could be right.
You have been indoctrinated to believe your religion is right, same as the other billions of believers in the world with their various religions.
Hey. I was deleting stuff and saw I had missed this post. You're not sure. Wow. I can't believe you said that. That's pretty amazing you admit that. I'm impressed. That might possibly be the most honest thing you've ever said on this topic.
When one is indoctrinated into a religion, they accept and perpetuate whatever they've been told, whether lies are truths, it doesn't matter. The indoctrinate has lost most of their abilities, if not all, to think critically about anything, hence it doesn't matter whether or not hard evidence is waved in front of their faces, they will emphatically deny it exists if it contradicts the indoctrinated beliefs that they have long accepted as absolute truth.
Took you 25 hours to formulate that response? It's a pretty well written one, but I find generalizations rarely do more than show the speaker doesn't take into account all the variables necessary to understand the person being spoken to. Try again.
No, I have a life.
What variables? Describe them.
Individual experience. Individual thought. People are unique. All people. Not simply you. I see the generalization of people into groups an attempt to corral diversity into some pattern you can identify, dissect and label. I find it interesting that the atheists I have conversed with are fiercely adamant of their independence of thought, yet their thought patterns, as articulated, appear to be the same. Perhaps that's the problem. We are a mirror image of each other's confusion. The odd thing is, sometimes I think people are in agreement, they just don't know it because they are too busy talking to take the time to listen.
Anyway the bottom line is, you don't know me. You couldn't possibly if you stand behind that post as am explanation of who, or what, I am.
What individual thought? Did you not read my post?
Childhood religious indoctrination is most definitely a pattern and easily identifiable.
In other words, they all don't accept the claims of religious believers, yes, I know, that is the point entirely. Well done.
I may not know you, but you have presented the same patterns of religious indoctrination as other believers.
You know, when I first got here, I thought it was odd that four of the most frequent posters on a religious forum were atheists. I decided I'd give as good as they gave. It's been interesting; you most of all. For a time, you seemed to have a degree of fluidity in your thoughts. Everyone else kept hammering from the same angle, over and over. I honestly believed you had a purpose.
Sorry. That probably appeared as if I was focusing on the individual. Go have fun elsewhere. If you come up with anything to say that involves a reasonable discussion, I'd be more than interested.
Actually, the dilemma is yours to be honest. The only spirituality the human species ever needs to understand is Love and it's power.
Anything else is just distortion and misinformation.
If we look at a glass filled with water. We can say that the glass is 100% glass and the water is 100% water. In this container we have 2 100%'s. If we look at jesus who is "God (100%) IN flesh" (100%) we end up with the same conclusion. 2 100%'s.
God is spirit
wrapped in flesh
That has been my argument all along, with which you now appear to agree.
Hence, god never died, he just removed his spirit that was "wrapped in flesh" just like if we removed the glass from around the water. Note that nothing happens to the water when you do that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Hey, it just occurred to me, you don't get the argument simply because it defies the logic of the physical world so you stop trying to figure it out. The flesh died, not the spirit. Spirit doesn't die. The symbolism is that we are raised up to be one with the divine after our death. The number of days was significant to an ancient. Three has to do with mortality. The physical world. Look at the times chosen by the writers. Jesus was thirty when he started the ministry. That is 3 x10. The number that signified divine completion within the mortal world (7 + 3 or 10 to be exact) multiplied by the number for the mortal world (3). His ministry was ended after three years. Time enough for his mortal mission. He's 33 when he's crucified.Mortal action finished, after divinely mortal beginning. Rising in 3 days is symbolic of conquering the mortal world. Symbolically, it is everything it needs to be to share the message. To an ancient.
Hence, Jesus never died. Thanks for confirming.
Yes, when one moves away from scientific thought, one can manipulate numbers to mean anything.
You mean, like how the Sun stays down on the horizon and then rises 3 days later at winter solstice?
Now, where have I heard that before. LOL!
It's symbolism Beelzedad. Think about it from a logical perspective. Let's say, to make you comfortable, since I'm only trying to help you see how this scenario could work. We'll pretend Jesus didn't exist; that four guys had a great idea. They didn't have an enlightened teacher, just a great idea. They write four different books, each with a little different take on the basic theme. They take it to the Jews. Sounds great to some, since there's a lot of stuff in there about fulfilled prophesy, but it isn't quite the movement they'd envisioned for this revolutionary idea. They need more converts. The gentiles don't understand Jewish prophesy, they've got hundreds of gods of their own to keep up with. but they do believe in the mystical nature of numbers. So, you add that aspect to the story. It makes sense to me. Call me crazy.
not sure what you are getting at here beelzy. Gods flesh died and that was the sacrificial part of Jesus that needed to die. When He removed His Spirit the flesh died. There was a death, a death of the flesh.
Nope, it was a charade. Jesus never died, he just removed his "flesh" coat.
Of course, your claim would show that Christians are far more interested in the fleshy coat than they are in the god. Christians are worshiping the fleshy coat, and not the spirit of god, is that right?
Or, are Christians completely concerned with the spirit of god and not the fleshy coat?
Which one is it?
That is irrelevant actually.
"Jesus" has nothing to do with "Christianity".
That is the irony of it all.
"Salvation; Re-unified human being eternal also has nothing to do with "Christianity".
This is why there are so many divisions, doctrines and sub-doctrines of many ideologies within the sciences of equation and sensation.
Clearly, there ought to be a total abandon of the aforementioned to truly fulfill the purpose of the work done for mankind, as exemplified by the Firstborn of many, in each person.
You're killing me with your posts. Can you suggest a book to go to to start a search for better understanding? You make too much sense to ignore.
sorry curious, I don't want to kill you.
And do hope my writing helps.
Honestly, I am writing much on the subject of Eternal Life, as well as, the purpose of the Work. These explanations are only to spark a fire in people. But really, no book can compete with the real experience of everything these sciences talk about. The funny thing is the common thread in them all, the theme which comes back to a simple, yet infinitely powerful expression of faith-action,
versus people constantly spinning the "Jesus" story -which ends up in idolizing the man or the works and forgetting the reason those works were manifest (illuminated). Or worse, amplifying the reason by words of woop-woop and not by example.
Short story: my better half is not an atheist, but grew up in a country where all theology was illegal until a few years ago. She never considered the concept and still wonders what all the noise is about these concepts. A tough and not easily swayed woman. One day she was felling sick and we were far away from any hospital or pill. I simply knew what was possible, hovered my hand over her and she jumped! She kept asking me how I did that, she felt a surge of energy go through her and immediately felt better than she had in a while. I simply told her it was "natural" for us to do this. So, the experience is what proved to her the possibility, versus me conditioning her with a 30 hour sermon on the pulpit.
This is what is missing in all the sects.
Where there is division there is sin...
because Sin is division itself and not the cause of it.
This cleary means that Christianity do not have the Truth...
Because their "Truth" is divided and therefore cannot ever be Truth.
Truth is Single. Truth is ONE
The Christ within christianity is actually antichrist because it is divided and cause division..thus Sin.
This is plain except to themselves.
The same can be said of muslims, buddhists, agnostics and even the yellow brick road. We are a people of tangible existence. From birth we thrive in the learnings of what we can see, smell and touch. The road of faith in that which is not physically seen is a long and personal road. No two people are on the same point on that road. Sure, sin is everywhere but in this case it can be as simple as a matter of perception.
The relationship with your chosen god is your own and yours to strengthen. That relationship is your perception that no one else shares. This goes with every system of faith out there. Beware of pride! Slamming an entire faith system because there are divided flawed humans is a narrow view indeed.
Those who actually follow Truth from the heart are already one and would not speak from with none of these establish systems...
each must follow their own path, but only those that truly understand this enough to make it a reality will know Truth and Follow it..
Those within the systems, seeks justification from the system and by the system....thus erring from the singularity of Truth within.
Any man within any system must abide by the rule of this system, and everything he does within the system is for the system itself thus he promotes this system because he is one with the system.
Check your doctrine my friend, you know Truth but you hide it under a bushel.. which is the lies of the system.
That's a lot of "systems" in your reply. I prostrate myself before your knowledge. If I tried saying that three times fast I would have tripped over my tongue.
I believe you are confusing system with order. Even the universe has order. Order is the highway to progress. You CAN have order and personal liberty in a coexisting package. It's irresponsible to advocate "free living" in an anarchy setting. Religious systems are established in their respective orders. Every individual is duty bound by their Creator to use good informed judgement to see if any particular "order" is right for them.
Personal liberty to choose is the foundation of the universe.
If you understood the Order of God who is ONE for truth ONE and his Order is ONE....you would understand why the systems themselves are false...for they are multiple
For the systems builds another order that is foreign to the first oeder...
And without the order of the systems and within these systems their false belief cannot continue...
note if satan does not have an order how can his kingdom exist?
ps. dont get side tracked by trivialities....
I think in a very small way we are trying to say the same thing. For everything that is good there is an evil mirror to it. In other words, His is a house of order and likewise the adversary has set up hosts of houses to mimic that order. Yes, these are false. Yes, that true order is the Order of God. Yes, in that Order the people are one. Yet, that perfect oneness exists in heaven at the presence of God. While on earth in mortality we are beings left to our each understandings and perceptions. We each have the responsibility to listen to the voice within and choose our paths.
We are ages apart in our understanding and purpose.
You operate from within a system because you do not know any better.
So therefore in your ignorance you perpetuate an Order which is actually the dominion of Satan.
The Order which is of God unlike the Order of the world.
If you knew it you would not do the things you do...
There is one truth and it has nothing to do with religion which is an indoctrination evolved through the origins of social management. The earliest worship was spiritually of the stars, sun and nature without human connotation. When rulers realised the power they could gain through harnessing these beliefs they manufactured stories that captivated people's spiritual ties with themselves having god-like status.
By the time Jesus came onto the scene, religion (re-legion) had become a sophisticated process in parts of the Egyptian Empire (e.g. the Babylonians). European invaders particularly around the time of the Romans adopted their knowledge and techniques to concoct an elaborate story re-interpreting, sometimes fabricating fundamentally Egyptian/Ethiopian beliefs.
Judaism chose to ignore Jesus who was something of an enemy, Islam recognised him as mortal being while Christianity positioned him as the son of god alias Sun God in Egyptian terms. Much of the biblical story is misrepresentation of earlier beliefs in my view and therefore pure myth.
Judaism did not ignore the torah. The early writings of God. In this they had exclusive rights to as God chose to save them from slavery in egypt. The jewish religion system was always based on the torah. Others had their imagined Gods and godessess and semi-gods and fairies and creatures of creation imbued with magic powers. But only one God produced results as the case in egypt clearly states and the other multitude of prophesies in the bible state plainly.
By the time jesus came on the scene... you might be interested in this: adam to abraham 2,000yrs, abraham to christ 2,000yrs. Gods ways because His ways are not our ways, were perverted by man whose flesh and self reigned instead of God. The bible which you say is a misinterpretation of earlier beliefs i would like to remind you is an early belief in itself having origins with adam and describing the creation of the world. We might well say that nations all worshiped stars and created things like the sun and moon but we forget that God revealed himself to some people and thus corrected those misguided ways.
Agreed, on some levels. Individuals search for truth. Organized religion attempts to package it in a message for the masses, which in and of itself is a recipe for disaster.
"The bottom line truth of christianity"
With a straight face?
That would depend on your definition of the bottom line truth. I'm right there with you that many definitions are points for humor. I do like to laugh, but I find their philosophies make their joke quite flat and sad.
Most definitely divided. However, I've tried to teach my congregation to strive toward common ground in relating with other faiths in the community. I did an activity back in October involving a large Catholic congregation and my Mormon congregation. It was fantastic! I was scared but it went extremely well. At the end I expressed the thought that if we can agree that Jesus Christ is our Savior and that it is through Him that we can gain our place in heaven than there is solid common ground on which to work together. All other doctrines and practices aside.
That sounds commendable of you. I couldn't begin to imagine the difficulty in having to moderate such a gathering, although I do believe that the individual Christian is a little more accepting of others outside of the confines of their church's teachings. I often wonder how closely linked teaching is to the individual's personal belief. I think, if people shared their feelings honestly, and didn't feel the need to repeat their understanding of the dogma, we'd be closer to the same page than we think.
You have no idea how "right on" I'm with you on that. Faith is a personal journey. Many faiths do not advocate personal study of the scriptures. They would rather you accept the words of your preacher. This is not good in my opinion and strips one of the right and responsibility to make informed choices. Every Christian should have a set of scriptures and diligently reading them.
If we do this and allow the Spirit to touch our hearts, minds and understanding we will be on the road to being "one" as a people.
So glad to hear a minister say that. People don't appear, at times, to want to put the effort into it, or maybe it is simply that they are scared to face their own demons. I don't know. I do believe that your stance should be the rule, and not the exception.
I must say, and this goes for all religious systems, that not advocating personal study and informed choice is a device of power. To teach blind acceptance of someone's words is a means of maintaining power over that person. The idea is offensive to me. Sure, many people in various congregations would be dwindled due to personal study but in the end those who teach it will have a much stronger base of people.
Very good point. You can't build a rock of faith on somebody else's island. I think many people are so afraid of hearing an alternate view because they know it will make them have to face the fact that they have no continuity. They have a conflict within themselves. You can't truly have faith if you can't line up your perception of reality with your professed beliefs.
Well so much for a math or geography or history book or i guess even model train set 001 is out the window and these are books of man. If we begin to believe that Gods word is not Gods word then we journey down a trail of falling away. The more i read the word of God i more i cannot believe it is written by mere man. People who need a reason not to believe in the bible this is the first straw they grasp at.
so how did the mary thing go? This is the problem if we lay aside all the important stuff of course we can get along BUT this is not Gods way. We have to think of other false relgions as God thought of evil nations surrounding israel in the OT. A force to be reckoned with and hopefully annihilated. There is only one way to God... Jesus did not preach be the best person you can be and get along with everyone. Indeed the religious system of the pharisees and saducees were vipers and thieves (john 10:10) and so it is in our time. Many people think they have a way to God and often the way they have chosen is quite pleasing to their flesh, funny how that worked out. I once said God bless you to a mormon and he looked completely shocked as he worked his way to God through his own efforts, while christ wants us to cease from our own works. In every area of study or learning, exactness is tantamount. How much less in our journey to eternal life.
The division among the Christian denomination will be bridged with the advent of the Promised Messiah 1835-1908.
Christians are so divided that some have even subtracted themselves from Christianity.
Also some weirdos have been added. Some don't even know what the Bible says.
They are Christians in name; they are not one with Jesus- Son of Man, the Messenger Prophet of the Creator-God who selected Jesus for guidance of the human beings like Moses,Krishna and Muhammad.
No. They all agree he sucked ass, except for the part where he where he literally said gays were hell-bound, that part they agree on. And the shit about Muslims. And the rest of us. All that they agree on..
Jesus came to unite human being on Truth.
They are Christians in name; they are not one with Jesus- Son of Man, the Messenger Prophet of the Creator-God who selected Jesus for guidance of the human beings like Moses,Krishna and Muhammad.
The Christians should believe truthful teachigs of Jesus instead of the deviation made by Paul and the Church; that will unite them again.
Was Jesus telling the truth when He said that His Father sent Him?
what about when He said about His own life, "I have the power to lay down my life, and take it up again". (Resurrection)
Or, "I and the Father are ONE". NEVER did Jesus refer to Allah, much less that Allah was His Father.
I mean, if you keep telling everyone that the Gospels are a lie, and that Paul made it all up to deceive, just how can you (or anyone) know what Jesus actually said? Where else are His teachings written down for us to know and learn?
remembering that jesus was a fleshly human husk which contained the fulness of the godhead bodily. It is not out of context that jesus say the father sent him. Many other prophets were sent, or put on missions. When God became born, wrapped in flesh he had a dual purpose: to live like a human pointing us to God, who is father to all and to teach the new dispensation as prophesied in the torah.
Getting back to the topic. Perhaps there are many unresolved perceptions about the deity of Jesus Christ. A main issue i see is that while atheists believe they know all things, christians are not that way inclined. Indeed to know spirituality which are the ways of God christians need to study, meditate and learn about such a thing. With all the necessary information about how God wants US to walk there are also doctrines of this and that and one of those is exactly who is Jesus Christ. I will not attempt to answer this question and i will parallel it with another dioxy. As some are quite content to believe a snake talked in the garden and the fruit of the bad tree was an apple; while following the ways of God in the bible, this is okay. There is no real foul manifested. Time is dilemma as we humans have so little of it, so it seems. We eat, sleep, work, have families and affiliations and entertainment time, etc.. study and prayer are things that require time made not time found. Indeed when Christians make time for God and the pursuit of him the deity of Jesus christ will become clear, in the appropriate time. It is impossible for US to know all things and we need to grow and learn along the way.
Nope, it's the other way round, atheists will admit to not knowing all things, just like scientists will admit that, too. It is in fact believers, Christians, Muslims, etc. that do indeed tell us they know all things absolutely, through their gods.
Do Christians eat apples or keep snakes as pets?
Christians absolutely do ram down our throats their righteousness and damnation of non-believers as heathens and sinners. A spiritual reality may exist but Jesus the son of god? I think not. Jews do not think so and Muslims regard him as just another figure of that time. To believe that a contrived story written by man provides all meaning to life is just ridiculous. The bible and Jesus are not the beginning of our existence as its early European indoctrinators would have one believe. A lot more happened before then. In fact, Christianity is the most fabricated of all religions that all emanated from Egyptian/Ethiopian spiritual beliefs.
Jesus god or son of god in literal terms is a fabrication of sinful Paul and the sinful Church, for sure.
Jesus, "God" or "Son of God" not a matter of discussion. But he was a man of caliber , who played a vital role organizing the society in his time. That made him someone equivalent to the God.
by Ben Bush8 years ago
Many people in this World seem to have many different ideas about what a Christian is or should be.What do you think a genuine Christian Is? What does the life of a genuine Christian look like?And what is the standard...
by ShaunLindbergh4 years ago
Christians often speak of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.What does this mean? Please describe your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. What makes it a "personal" relationship?
by Melissa Barrett2 years ago
There's a lot of going back and forth about how Christians are this that or another. Yet no one ever pins down exactly what specific belief it is that makes Christians delusional, or hateful or whatever. The fact is...
by Julie Grimes2 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by Esenbee2 years ago
I've been a Christian for many years and for as long as I can remember, I noticed that there are many different denominations within the Christian faith. This great disparity within the faith has always upseted me...
by EphremHagos4 years ago
Does Christianity speak the truth about Christ?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.