Skip to main content

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Matthew 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?

Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.

Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

John 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James THE LORD'S BROTHER."

Always Remember that: "Anytime We As A People Are Not Having Our WaySomeone Else Is Having Theirs...And It's Never To Our Advantage."

Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
thanks
Sarah and Rachel, huh? That's interesting EP!

Christiandom paints the picture of a dysfunctional family unit, but I know this is not the case.


Of course not. Jesus came from a very loving and normal family (aside from the legend that he was born of a Virgin). tfro

quote:
The fact that the European Think Tank made a great science of whitewashing the truth is proof enough that getting to the DNA of this famous family is priority #1.

bsm
Fine


bsm

I think there are alot of facts about Christianity that were shut out very early on by the powers that be that wanted to obscure certain things in Jesus' teachings that meant an end for their power structure. Personally, I believe that the Romans and the early Catholic Chruch purposely chose certain books over others to be included in the Bible, and had others thrown out because it would be a dis-service to their social and political hegemony.

There were hundreds of gospels and many of them were just as popular as the Four Gospels are now. The early Church throwing them out is very suspicious indeed.

That's why I greatly enjoy the Nag Hammadi findings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. They give the whole vision of Christianity that history had tried to erase. They tell all sides of the story and then leave the individual to decided what to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by donna529:
The Bible did mention Jesus as having a brother, James and sisters, that it did not name. He met his disciples in the upper room, whom he called his "Brothers" by faith with God, his father. But what about Jesus being black? Or married? Which both are true.


I was talking about the Gospel of Thaddeus, which is considered "Apocryphal" by theologically conservative Christians.

Then again, there is no universal "Bible". Eastern churches have books that are not included in the Western canon and Western Christian theological conservatives view to be "apocryphal" or "pseudiographic".
quote:
I think there are alot of facts about Christianity that were shut out very early on by the powers that be that wanted to obscure certain things in Jesus' teachings that meant an end for their power structure. Personally, I believe that the Romans and the early Catholic Chruch purposely chose certain books over others to be included in the Bible, and had others thrown out because it would be a dis-service to their social and political hegemony.


Empty Purnata: True, and also....

Know that "Paul Marcion" had a great hand in tampering with the New Testament as well as the Bible in general.

Fine
quote:
The Bible did mention Jesus as having a brother, James and sisters, that it did not name. He met his disciples in the upper room, whom he called his "Brothers" by faith with God, his father. But what about Jesus being black? Or married? Which both are true.


donna529

1. Jesus was a person of color.
2. Yes. It has been speculated that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that the Wedding of Cana was their wedding. The Knights of Templar are also implicated as protectors of this holy family after the resurrection.
quote:
Empty Purnata: True, and also....

Know that "Paul Marcion" had a great hand in tampering with the New Testament as well as the Bible in general.

Fine


True, Marcion wanted to throw out the entire Old Testament because he regarded all of it as being inspired by a "false god". Personally, I think that is on the extreme side. Some of the Old Testament does contain alot of harshness, and at times the God of the Old Testament seems very much-like a man-made idea of God. However, alot of it is also very valuable and good, and should be preserved.

Both Kabbalah and Christian Mysticism (and Sufism as well) have roots in the Old Testament.

To the compliment of the Gnostics though, Valentinus (an arch-gnostic who almost became Pope, and one of my favorite Christian figures) did not view the Old Testament as "evil". He viewed some of it as being a man-made misunderstanding of the God of Jesus (as opposed to Marcion who believed it was inspired by the "Devil").

Ultimately, the early Church rejected both Marcion and Valentinus' ideas. Personally, I'm quite intrigued by the idea of how Christianity would have turned out if Valentinus or Basilides had become Christian leaders. I think Christianity would be much closer to Eastern religions.

Valentinus believed that "God the Father" that Jesus spoke of referred to a mystic, impersonal Allness/Fullness that the cosmos and everything in it is a part of (like the Buddhist view of Shunyata or the Hindu view of Brahman).
"I think Christianity would be much closer to Eastern religions."

E/P--Nothing personal!

I don't care how close Christianity gets to Eastern, Western, Southern or Northern Religions, I have a beef with Christianity, because I know it to be racist. Rome and everyone else that follows this whore acknowledges a white Jesus.

When the lying lore or christianity fesses up and acknowledges that Jesus is a man of color then maybe, just maybe I will consider some of its precepts.

Fine
Fine
my husband had an interesting view of this conversation. this is his quote: The first Bible to the masses was written in the 1500's, which was the same time the slave trade had started. It is no question that the first slave ship was called Jesus. The so called Moses in the Bible did the exact same thing that King Tut father try to do. He said there was only one God, and that God was the SUN; not SON.When the original text says that the SUN walked on the water it was translated as SON in the Bible. Asar and Aset also known as Osiris and Isis had a son named Horace. The virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus is the same picture of Isis holding Horace. When Jesus was in his "father's" temple at the age of 12, that represented the sun at its highest point which is 12 noon. When Jesus had died at the age of 33; which represents the free masons code of 33 degree mason,whch is the highest degree most masons can achieved, but there are higher degrees that very few know about. When Jesus died for three days(so did Lazarus)it is the same thing that most SKULL AND BONES society members do in their rituals. When it rained for 40 days and for 40 nights, that is another mason sign(Moses wandered the wilderness for 40 years).Another mason-Rothchild number is the number thirteen, or the letter M, which is represented by the many Marys in the Bible. If you read the Bible close enough, you will see that Genesis is not the first book of the Bible, and if you read deeper, you will see the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. The Rothchild's crest is the STAR OF DAVID, which is also the star of the Jews, but there were no Jews in the Bible. It was all made up by the Rothchilds. Jesus was the king of the Jews but he too was a made up character. Cruxifition is a Roman punishment, what Roman law did he broke? To this very day, almost every religion is worshipping the SUN, not SON. The people in high position knows this, and that is why most church altars face the East.
That is why Jesus said I did not come for the righteous but for the unworthy( because the righteous knows better). The name JESUS is a made up name that was tooken from the Egyptian mystery schools, but the real names are OSIRIS, ISIS, and HORACE. Every story in the Bible couldbe found in almost every culture thousands of years before the Bible was ever written with different characters. The picture that people have on their walls today of Jesus is Michael Angelo's first cousin.If there are any questions or doubts, I will be writting now and then to see what the group thinks about this subject. Prove me wrong guys. How many disciples did Jesus really have? How many missions did Hercules have? How many knights on King Arthur's round table? How many months in a year? How many numbers on a clock?
quote:
E/P--Nothing personal!

I don't care how close Christianity gets to Eastern, Western, Southern or Northern Religions, I have a beef with Christianity, because I know it to be racist. Rome and everyone else that follows this whore acknowledges a white Jesus.


LOL, I know how you feel!

I myself am an ex-Christian, I left Christianity about 1 year ago. I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian, then I grew up and regained my sanity. I started studying the mystic traditions of Western religions, and I instantly fell in love with them. Then I started studying Eastern religions, and I instantly fell in love with them.

For a while, I tried to be a mystic Chirstian and combine Eastern philosophies with Jesus' teachings (and in the process I rejected or re-interpreted many of the orthodox Christian doctrines). But, I ended up eventually leaving. The reason I left Christianity was:

1) I saw that it was hopeless being a mystic Christian admist a sea of Fundies and Christian Conservatives who regarded me as a "heretic" or saw my mystic views of Jesus as "devil-inspired psycho-babble (ironically, their own dogmatic views of the Bible and about Jesus sounded more insane and illogical than any "psycho-babble").

2) When I got more into Eastern religions (especially Buddhism and Hinduism), I realized that the universe is too large to be contained in any one religion, philosophy, or human being. Christianity is but one religion admist a sea other religions, on one tiny speck of dust in the vast ocean of the Cosmos. Clinging to one religion over another seemed downright ridiculous.

3) Last year when I started college I started studying science and got really into Quantum Physics (in fact I still am). I saw how scientific discovery really adds more fuel to Eastern philosophies and mystic Western traditions.



So I decided to be a philosophical vagabond and now I pick and choose what I believe from all different kinds of human philosphies (spiritual and secular) and make up my own mind.

I don't have anything against Jesus, I have a grudge against the organized religion that has been built around him. I view Jesus as human being that achieved enlightenment.

quote:
When the lying lore or christianity fesses up and acknowledges that Jesus is a man of color then maybe, just maybe I will consider some of its precepts.

Fine
Fine


Depends on what type of Christianity you mean. I would never consider becoming an orthodox Christian (lower-case "o", not upper-case "O") because of the ridiculousness, dogmacy and the sometimes pure evilness of its doctrine (the concept of an Eternal Hell simply for thoughtcrimes [not belonging to the "right" religon] is the most cruel and evil thing I have ever heard of).

If I ever chose to settle into a religion, it would probably be either Mahayana Buddhism, Advaita Venanta, Daoism or Valentinian Christianity.

*Valentinian Christianity is basically like Buddhism with the term "Buddha" replaced with "Christ" and "Nirvana" replaced with the term "Abyss". There are virtually no major differences between Valentinan Gnosticism and Buddhism.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
E/P--Nothing personal!

I don't care how close Christianity gets to Eastern, Western, Southern or Northern Religions, I have a beef with Christianity, because I know it to be racist. Rome and everyone else that follows this whore acknowledges a white Jesus.


LOL, I know how you feel!

I myself am an ex-Christian, I left Christianity about 1 year ago. I used to be a Fundamentalist Christian, then I grew up and regained my sanity. I started studying the mystic traditions of Western religions, and I instantly fell in love with them. Then I started studying Eastern religions, and I instantly fell in love with them.

For a while, I tried to be a mystic Chirstian and combine Eastern philosophies with Jesus' teachings (and in the process I rejected or re-interpreted many of the orthodox Christian doctrines). But, I ended up eventually leaving. The reason I left Christianity was:

1) I saw that it was hopeless being a mystic Christian admist a sea of Fundies and Christian Conservatives who regarded me as a "heretic" or saw my mystic views of Jesus as "devil-inspired psycho-babble (ironically, their own dogmatic views of the Bible and about Jesus sounded more insane and illogical than any "psycho-babble").

2) When I got more into Eastern religions (especially Buddhism and Hinduism), I realized that the universe is too large to be contained in any one religion, philosophy, or human being. Christianity is but one religion admist a sea other religions, on one tiny speck of dust in the vast ocean of the Cosmos. Clinging to one religion over another seemed downright ridiculous.

3) Last year when I started college I started studying science and got really into Quantum Physics (in fact I still am). I saw how scientific discovery really adds more fuel to Eastern philosophies and mystic Western traditions.



So I decided to be a philosophical vagabond and now I pick and choose what I believe from all different kinds of human philosphies (spiritual and secular) and make up my own mind.

I don't have anything against Jesus, I have a grudge against the organized religion that has been built around him. I view Jesus as human being that achieved enlightenment.

quote:
When the lying lore or christianity fesses up and acknowledges that Jesus is a man of color then maybe, just maybe I will consider some of its precepts.

Fine
Fine


Depends on what type of Christianity you mean. I would never consider becoming an orthodox Christian (lower-case "o", not upper-case "O") because of the ridiculousness, dogmacy and the sometimes pure evilness of its doctrine (the concept of an Eternal Hell simply for thoughtcrimes [not belonging to the "right" religon] is the most cruel and evil thing I have ever heard of).

If I ever chose to settle into a religion, it would probably be either Mahayana Buddhism, Advaita Venanta, Daoism or Valentinian Christianity.

*Valentinian Christianity is basically like Buddhism with the term "Buddha" replaced with "Christ" and "Nirvana" replaced with the term "Abyss". There are virtually no major differences between Valentinan Gnosticism and Buddhism.


This is impressive. Smile tfro

May the forces guide you!
quote:
This is impressive. Smile tfro

May the forces guide you!


Thank you! Wink

Yes, I thoroughly enjoy mystic Western traditiosn like Christian Mysticism, Sufism and Kabbalah like I enjoy Eastern philosophies.

Personally, I view all religions as equally important pieces of a puzzle the cosmic whole. People just express this experience through different words. "God", "Brahman", "YHVH", "ALLAH", "Godhead", "Shunyata", "Nirvana", "The Eternal Tao/Dao", "Jinahood", "Moksha", etc.

They're human words of expressing a deep, universal enlightenment experience that is so close to us, we often forget it is there.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
This is impressive. Smile tfro

May the forces guide you!


Thank you! Wink

Yes, I thoroughly enjoy mystic Western traditiosn like Christian Mysticism, Sufism and Kabbalah like I enjoy Eastern philosophies.

Personally, I view all religions as equally important pieces of a puzzle the cosmic whole. People just express this experience through different words. "God", "Brahman", "YHVH", "ALLAH", "Godhead", "Shunyata", "Nirvana", "The Eternal Tao/Dao", "Jinahood", "Moksha", etc.

They're human words of expressing a deep, universal enlightenment experience that is so close to us, we often forget it is there.


Most of us are on spiritual journeys. While I am [I guess] an Agnostic, have have looked at many "religions" and try to pull together those aspects that appeal to me sense of right and wrong.

My view on other's religious belief is: Whatever you believe, live it for you, not for me.
quote:
So I decided to be a philosophical vagabond and now I pick and choose what I believe from all different kinds of human philosphies


Funny, I did the opposite. I was more an agnostic and believed in just being spiritual.

But after some studying and soul searching I felt that to discard Jesus as my saviour was like discarding the "baby with the bath water". We wouldn't do away with the theory of relativity if we found out that Einstein had committed various sins.

One of the main problems I find with Christians is that they think they are no longer sinners or capable of it.
quote:
Funny, I did the opposite. I was more an agnostic and believed in just being spiritual.

But after some studying and soul searching I felt that to discard Jesus as my saviour was like discarding the "baby with the bath water". We wouldn't do away with the theory of relativity if we found out that Einstein had committed various sins.

One of the main problems I find with Christians is that they think they are no longer sinners or capable of it.


Cool. tfro

Well, I never really denied Jesus (I still don't). I just deny him the title of "Savior". I don't believe that anyone can redeem another person, I believe that people can only attone for their own wrong-doings. I believe that Jesus was an enlightened figure that leads other people to enlightenment/illumination.


I find the idea of "Savior" to be limited. It makes the "saved" person a slave and not autonomous. It denotes a certain kind of helplessness, and I feel that it doesn't promote personal growth. If someone is always your "Savior", they are always your master, and you never catch up to them. You're always under someone else's shadow.

I believe that the ultimate goal of life is to abolish egoism and realize one's oneness with All. Saviors and saved kind of promotes egoism, or at least some kind of inequality.
Exerpt from "Trick of Integration" by Gerald Smith

"Over the past year, there have been numerous on-going e-mail discussions between members of my study group and several fundamentalist christians. They all end the same way. As various questions are raised or answered by study group members, the christians counter with Bible verses. If we ask them to read; we get Bible verses. If we ask them to think; we get Bible verses, Finally, when the impasse is reached, a few will get up the nerve to read "outside" of the box - the rest retreat into self-declared silence. The ones who get up the nerve to read become "born again Africans" seemingly in a matter of minutes. From that time on, they worry you to death - want to borrow all of your books - wake you up in the middle of the night to tell you what they just read or figured out - and make you almost sorry that you ever told them anything in the first place.

A second similarity is the use of the "impediment". Both christianity and integration must make you accept as real that there is an impediment from which you need to be saved. In christianity, the impediment is "original sin". In integration, the impediment is "your Blackness".

Here again, the impediment is created wholly out of the air. Jews do not believe in original sin. The doctrine of "original sin" is a christian concept and that's another big problem. Christians base original sin on the story of Adam and Eve getting thrown out of the Garden of Eden. Only problem is - the story is a Jewish story and the Jews say that it does not have a thing to do with any original sin.

But if you "accept" the premise that you are somehow "cursed" by god - then you are ripe to accept the "cure" of salvation through the european Jesus. And if you accept the fiction that there is something bad and wrong with you Black skin - then you are ripe to accept quasi-white membership on any terms that they dictate.

Both integration and christianity make you dependent on forces "outside" of yourself - outside of your community. Both have you "waiting" for salvation or full acceptance. And both promise that you will get the benefits - after while - if you patiently wait.

It has been probably nearly twenty years since I saw the movie, The Sting. Now that I am beginning to understand it - maybe I'll rent it again and see what else I may have missed.

Now that I'm clear."
________________________
One of the main problems I find with Christians is that they think they are no longer sinners or capable of it.
________________________

I'm sorry, but at this one I had to laugh. The person who says this obviously does not know many Christians nor what it means to be one.

Are there some Christians who think this? No doubt, but they are few and far between. This issue was handled fairly thoroughly in the Biblical book of 1 Corinthians. There are centuries of teaching about this subject, and even among the modern fundamentalists (of which I am not one, in case you wanted to be suspicious) the teaching is very clear: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Are they glad that they are no longer in THAT state at least? Sure. And who wouldn't be? But gladness and celebration is not conviction of perfection. In their better moments--we all have them, and we all have the other kind, too--they know that they are not without sin. I hear them pray for forgiveness all the time. In their churches they talk about confession (they even have that well-known acrostic ACTS for their prayers, meaning "Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication" Confession? Doesn't sound like "Christians" have any conviction of being without sin to me), and you can't have confession without sin.

I am capable of it. I even am still quite sinful. Try praying for God to show you what it is like to live one day without sin, and you will be quite humbled, for it can't be done. Even when I do not commit an act of sin I know sinfulness in me. That's why I am grateful to God for his obvious love--I know what he's had to work around and against in me.

So let's have no more of this facile claptrap about "Christians" believing that they are without sin or are incapable of it. It simply is not true. And it is not a good idea to base an important part of your philosophy on a falsehood.
Gerald Smith is wrong.

Is there a difference between the Jewish understanding of Adam's sin and the modern fundamentalist understanding of it? Sure. But Smith is flat wrong when he says
______________________
the Jews say that it does not have a thing to do with any original sin.
_____________________

Well, then, what do you suppose the Smith would do with the phrase "Chet (pronounced with that Hebrew gutteral, not with the English "ch" sound) Adam Harishon," or "sin of the first man," what Christians call "original sin"? this sin, in Jewish thought, is in all of us. We are "lower" (their term) than Adam and Eve were, and God's work in human history is to return us to that state and then to surpass it. But God has to do quite a bit in oder to affect that.

Then it should be plain that there really is little practical difference bewteen the Christian idea of original sin and the Jewish. There are some differences in the meaning of it, and certainly in the cure for it, and this has led some Jews, especially the Reformed and Conservative Jews, to deny the Christian concept of it--primarliy it seems to me because they do not wish to admit the need for a sinless Son of God as the means, and in Judaism there has always been the means of Torah--but it is there in both Christian and Jewish thought. When Jews deny "original sin," they deny the full-blown Christian concept of it, but they know that sin exists in humanity, and it sure looks a lot like
original sin.

Fine, you really should be a little more careful in picking your sources and authorities. So far you've chosen those who don't know what they're talking about.
Empty Purnata,

Thanks for your input. Your thoughts on the issue are interesting. I do disagree with them (I hope you don't mind), but perhaps not for the reason you might fear. If you've talked extensively with Christians you'll have found that some of us have not thought about these things quite as much as we should have, and thus we sometimes react instead of discuss.

You do not say why you "believe that Jesus was an enlightened figure that leads others to enlightenment." The Bible certainly doesn't say that so you probably concluded that on your own, but you don't say how you arrived at it.

Having a "savior" you say is limiting. On the contrary, having a savior is limiting as having, say, a car or a computer is limiting. Am I admitting that I cannot run 60 miles an hour and I need a car to get me 100 miles in a couple of hours? According to your post, this is Car As Master, and there is no way to be faster if I use a car.

But this isn't tte only way that having a savior works. Just as I can drive to the track and run a workout for an hour, having a savior means much more than you are giving it credit for meaning. Having a savior means that I can overcome the sinfulness in my life, the "me" that is petty, self-centered, and untrustworthy. I couldn't before simply because I didn't think that way. I couldn't because, as the Bible says, such thoughts about my sinfulness (which is related to but different from my "sin") were "foolishness" to me. I couldn't figure it out, why I would need a savior. I can now, and I live a much different life from the one I lived before.

Your idea of "helplessness" doesn't quite include all it should. I am "helpless" to do anything about my sinfulness, that is true, but once I surrender to the Savior, I am filled with the strength to do something about what I was helpless to do anything about before. I can listen, I can learn, I can change. I can even learn to do these things better than I used to, and better tomorrow than I do today (sometimes I am told that I take to long to do this, and it may be so. In my defense: I do try to be objective, which takes time. To see around and past one's own biases is not easy to do. I do try to do that, though).

It is not helplessness but a different kind of strength that I think you see, if indeed you do see it. Your comment on this was an intuition and not, I notice, from experience. It seems more of a fear than a fact. the strength is for the fight against ourselves, which is the hardest fight we can wage. In karate I was taought, "There is no first blow in karate." That is, it is not karate's aim to make us puffed up and self-important, looking for an opportunity to beat someone down. The strength that it gives is to be used wisely and as gently as possible, avoided if it can be. That is true strength, for it is strength against oneself, the one we are most gentle and indulgent with, to other peoples' harm.

Having a savior is like that. It makes us strong, only the strength is different, deeper, and more real than the strength we most often believe we should have. That strength is based on fear and selfishness (our concern about being disrespected comes form this fear,and thus is not strength at all, but weakness). A savior puts us in the proper perspective. It puts Christ in the proper view, too.

Is it so bad to be in "someone else's shadow" if that someone helps you to be stronger, to do what is right, to know and understand the truth, and has only your good in mind?

"Saviors" may promote some kind of "inequality." I'm not sure how many saviors there are, so I'm not sure that we can actually say that. But this Savior puts us all on an even level and makes us equal. He doesn't make us identical, though, and thus puts a great adventure in our lives. We can discover wondrous surprises in each other's lives, understand each other's worth, help others in their need, and grow in truth and love.
Cool, well, I'm glad that you have found your empowerment. I wish you all the best. tfro

The reason I don't believe in "Saviors" (well, at least in the same way you do) is that I don't believe that I am "helpless". I believe that everyone has it within them to discover truth and improve themselves.

However, I don't believe that we are completely alone in this process. I believe in "Wayshowers" (similar to "Saviors", but not quite the same). Wayshowers are men and women that have reached enlightenment or illumination (Jesus being one of them) who become teachers of men and show people the Way.

I don't believe in the traditional concept of "Saviors" (the way it is commonly understood) because I think that while they can be empowering, they also can foster a kind of learned helplessness in the "saved" person. Instead of relying on themselves, they can become totally dependent on the "savior" like a crutch.

I believe that "saviors" should be fingers pointing to the Moon. They are examplary figures pointing towards enlightenment/illumination/salvation/unity/harmony/balance, etc. To me, that is what a "Savior" is, but I know many Christians would not agree or think of it as a "savior". That's more like a "Wayshower" like I called it earlier. Alot of times, "Saviors" (with some Christians and very theistic branches of Hinduism alike) end up pointing at themselves instead of pointing at the Moon. Instead of saying, "You must change your ways and show compassion to others and improve yourself", they end up saying, "You must believe in ME! It's all about ME! You are NOTHING without ME!" To me, that is nothing but egoism.

Since I don't believe in Original Sin (I believe that humans are born Neutral morally), I believe that humans are not in need of an absolute Savior. I don't mind Christians who see Jesus as an exemplary figure, I just have problems with ones who view him as an Absolute substitutionary figure, and then insist that other humans are somehow "less than" for not agreeing.
Empty Purnata,

Thank you for your wishes. I wish you well, also.

I'm not sure that your reaction against the idea of "helplessness" is justified, because I think your concept of it is too limited.

Ever argue with a logical positivist? IT's difficult to do, because he is convinced that knowledge comes onnly through logical deduction or sensory experience. If it can be proven objectively, then it can be known. His trouble it twofold:
1. The well-known problem of his presupposition, that all knowledge is logical or scientific is not itself logical or scientific. IT cannot be proven. It can only be accepted, so he has a problem at the start, an internal contradiction to overcome.
2. Science and logic are not the only ways to know truths. What does one do with Pablo Picasso's famous quote, "Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth"? It cannot be summarily dismissed, because it might be true, but the logical positivist has by his presupposition cut himself off from even considering it. He must only deny it on the basis of his presupposition, which is neither helpful nor convincing.

What of your idea about "Helplessness"? It is likewise limited, defined too narrowly. Cognitive thought is limited when it comes up against faith (even faith in Wayshowers) in much the same way that one deply in love cannot really describe his experience and feelings. As a word seeks to state what is beyond its grasp it must accept the cost of this attempt at verbalizing what it is not equipped to do, acepting the distortions that necessarily arise, even paying if necessary with its own destruction.

"Helplessness" is like that, it's part of this attempt to express a truth that it is limited in expressing. Are we able to do something, anything? Of course we are. The Bible never says that we can do nothing at all. Even the sinful Pharisee could put something into the Temple coffers, and the Good Samaritan is not described as being particularly devout, for Jesus recognizes that good deeds can come from sinful hearts.

That's not what this "helplessness" means, however. The helplessness of which the Bible speaks is a helplessness of coming to God on our own without His help. The wisdom of God is foolishness to us we are told, and it is clear that that is in fact the case. People are forever (not literally, of course) confused about Jesus' words, and always have been. Nicodemus, the woman at the well, Martha, the Pharisees, Zaccheus, those who watched Jesus dine with "sinners" and criticized him for it (oh, that must have really hurt him to hear), his disciples, his mother, Pilate...There simply is not anyone who understands him in the Bible. The disciples begin to in Acts, but even there they must learn.

Now, obviously we are not completely "helpless," for we are called to believe in Jesus, and we are given the choice and the opportunity and the rest is up to us, so we have SOME kind of ability here. But we cannot obey God in our own strength. We need him to help us, for it is his life, not our own only more so, that we must live.

I wonder if what you are reacting against is not a Biblical teaching but rather a particular interpretation of a Biblical teaching? As I said before, I am not a fundamentalist, so I will disagree with them on some things, and I think that this is one of them. John Calvin was not an unmixed blessing to the Church of Jesus Christ and need not be followed as if his word is Scripture at any rate.

But I don't think that you can dismiss Jesus so easily and still be respectful to the history of his life. The Bible leaves us no choice--he said that he was equal with God, and he said that he was sent to die for us, whether as a substitutionary atonement or as a "Christus Victor" announcement of God's overcoming the power of sin and death. He was needed. We needd him.

This does not make us any more helpless than we were before. Our concepts do not change reality. While they influence the way we see it and undertstand it, it still has a hard character against which we bump rather painfully sometimes. Thus we must change our concepts to match reality. While riding in his car, a friend and I were talking about an allied issue, about whether people were basically good or bad. I believed (and still do) that we are "bent" (to use C. S. Lewis's word) to evil. HE disagreed, saying that people are good.



when we got to our destination, he got out and locked his car. If he believed that people are good, I asked him, why did he lock his car? "That's just to keep them that way," he replied with a smile. We cannot change reality by our concepts. We can deny our helplessness all we like, but we still are helpless in our sin, we will do sin and think sin no matter how good we may feel about what we did today.

But this realization is freedom, not limiting. God always gives us the bad news first, and truth sets us free. What I am is not "empowered," E/P, it's changed. I am far more than I used to be, because I surrendered to Christ and do so every day, even when I don't want to, which is every day, which is the work of sin in me. I am a messy, rebellious fellow who only gets it right when I follow Christ. Ask my family.
quote:
Originally posted by donna529:
my husband had an interesting view of this conversation. this is his quote: The first Bible to the masses was written in the 1500's, which was the same time the slave trade had started. It is no question that the first slave ship was called Jesus. The so called Moses in the Bible did the exact same thing that King Tut father try to do. He said there was only one God, and that God was the SUN; not SON.When the original text says that the SUN walked on the water it was translated as SON in the Bible. Asar and Aset also known as Osiris and Isis had a son named Horace. The virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus is the same picture of Isis holding Horace. When Jesus was in his "father's" temple at the age of 12, that represented the sun at its highest point which is 12 noon. When Jesus had died at the age of 33; which represents the free masons code of 33 degree mason,whch is the highest degree most masons can achieved, but there are higher degrees that very few know about. When Jesus died for three days(so did Lazarus)it is the same thing that most SKULL AND BONES society members do in their rituals. When it rained for 40 days and for 40 nights, that is another mason sign(Moses wandered the wilderness for 40 years).Another mason-Rothchild number is the number thirteen, or the letter M, which is represented by the many Marys in the Bible. If you read the Bible close enough, you will see that Genesis is not the first book of the Bible, and if you read deeper, you will see the New Testament was written before the Old Testament. The Rothchild's crest is the STAR OF DAVID, which is also the star of the Jews, but there were no Jews in the Bible. It was all made up by the Rothchilds. Jesus was the king of the Jews but he too was a made up character. Cruxifition is a Roman punishment, what Roman law did he broke? To this very day, almost every religion is worshipping the SUN, not SON. The people in high position knows this, and that is why most church altars face the East.
That is why Jesus said I did not come for the righteous but for the unworthy( because the righteous knows better). The name JESUS is a made up name that was tooken from the Egyptian mystery schools, but the real names are OSIRIS, ISIS, and HORACE. Every story in the Bible couldbe found in almost every culture thousands of years before the Bible was ever written with different characters. The picture that people have on their walls today of Jesus is Michael Angelo's first cousin.If there are any questions or doubts, I will be writting now and then to see what the group thinks about this subject. Prove me wrong guys. How many disciples did Jesus really have? How many missions did Hercules have? How many knights on King Arthur's round table? How many months in a year? How many numbers on a clock?


To the group, somebody please give me some comments on this.

peace Asar-Osiris
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
Exerpt from "Trick of Integration" by Gerald Smith Smile

"Over the past year, there have been numerous on-going e-mail discussions between members of my study group and several fundamentalist christians. They all end the same way. As various questions are raised or answered by study group members, the christians counter with Bible verses. If we ask them to read; we get Bible verses. If we ask them to think; we get Bible verses, Finally, when the impasse is reached, a few will get up the nerve to read "outside" of the box - the rest retreat into self-declared silence. The ones who get up the nerve to read become "born again Africans" seemingly in a matter of minutes. From that time on, they worry you to death - want to borrow all of your books - wake you up in the middle of the night to tell you what they just read or figured out - and make you almost sorry that you ever told them anything in the first place. Big Grin

A second similarity is the use of the "impediment". Both christianity and integration must make you accept as real that there is an impediment from which you need to be saved. In christianity, the impediment is "original sin". In integration, the impediment is "your Blackness".
interestingly, this is the reason Mormons refused to allow Blacks to ascend in their congregration. their belief is that ther was a "afore life" where by people created sins (I don't think this is the same as the Buddhist belief in reincarnation but similiar in that one creates karama) but as Jesus died for our sins then when one is born..they are born sin free. Blacks however did not eradicate their sin in the "afore life" and thus were born Black. They must therefore suffer societal ills as a result of being born Black. Until the 1980's they were so tarnished by their color that they could not ascend the Mormon preisthood which is offered to young Mormon males.
Here again, the impediment is created wholly out of the air. Jews do not believe in original sin. The doctrine of "original sin" is a christian concept and that's another big problem. Christians base original sin on the story of Adam and Eve getting thrown out of the Garden of Eden. Only problem is - the story is a Jewish story and the Jews say that it does not have a thing to do with any original sin.

But if you "accept" the premise that you are somehow "cursed" by god - then you are ripe to accept the "cure" of salvation through the european Jesus. And if you accept the fiction that there is something bad and wrong with you Black skin - then you are ripe to accept quasi-white membership on any terms that they dictate.

Both integration and christianity make you dependent on forces "outside" of yourself - outside of your community. Both have you "waiting" for salvation or full acceptance. And both promise that you will get the benefits - after while - if you patiently wait.

It has been probably nearly twenty years since I saw the movie, The Sting.I'm sure I'm missing it so please explain the obvious; what does the Sting enter into this?OLOR] Now that I am beginning to understand it - maybe I'll rent it again and see what else I may have missed.

Now that I'm clear."



Confused[COLOR:BLUE]as the bible has been rewritten, so many times from it's ancient origins, how can anyone trust the text as the definetive 'word of God? also, as these were men writing it rather than from HIS own hand? I am told "well, these were men who were inspired by God..has there been none since? Lastly, how does a Black person deal with the passage; "Slaves serve your master well" ?o
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
________________________
One of the main problems I find with Christians is that they think they are no longer sinners or capable of it.
________________________


So let's have no more of this facile claptrap about "Christians" believing that they are without sin or are incapable of it. It simply is not true. And it is not a good idea to base an important part of your philosophy on a falsehood.



Personally most of Christians I know don't believe that they are incapable of sinning rather, they just pick and choose what they believe to really be a sin...for instance, fornication, is NOT one..One can have three, four babies out of wedlock and still be in a good Christian.living with a man and not being married; "it costs so much to live on a single salary these days".

I sometimes frequent another message board which is given to popular culture. Most of the AA females are never married single parents, who believe in God. They see nothing wrong with their status. They see nothing wrong with their children not having a in home father. Shame is just not part of their vocabulary. "SIN" is typically defined as what someone else is doing;"God knows MY heart".

It seems "SIN" nowadays is no longer clearly defined but is rather a pick and choose buffet.

There are no longer any clear sins if you can assauge your own conscience. If you can get your family and friends behind you; hey your status is actually as one of a saint that just happened to have engaged in....(fill in the blank)
fro
quote:
Originally posted by mirahjay:
quote:
Originally posted by Melesi:
________________________
One of the main problems I find with Christians is that they think they are no longer sinners or capable of it.
________________________


So let's have no more of this facile claptrap about "Christians" believing that they are without sin or are incapable of it. It simply is not true. And it is not a good idea to base an important part of your philosophy on a falsehood.



Personally most of Christians I know don't believe that they are incapable of sinning rather, they just pick and choose what they believe to really be a sin...for instance, fornication, is NOT one..One can have three, four babies out of wedlock and still be in a good Christian.living with a man and not being married; "it costs so much to live on a single salary these days".

I sometimes frequent another message board which is given to popular culture. Most of the AA females are never married single parents, who believe in God. They see nothing wrong with their status. They see nothing wrong with their children not having a in home father. Shame is just not part of their vocabulary. "SIN" is typically defined as what someone else is doing;"God knows MY heart".

It seems "SIN" nowadays is no longer clearly defined but is rather a pick and choose buffet.

There are no longer any clear sins if you can assauge your own conscience. If you can get your family and friends behind you; hey your status is actually as one of a saint that just happened to have engaged in....(fill in the blank)
fro

Setting anecdotal accounts aside for the moment, I do not believe that shame should be a part of the equation with respect to ones relationship with other human beings or God. There is a difference to my mind between conscious or conviction for ones sin and shame. Shame is psychologically and spiritually destructive. As to the apellation of saint, how does the song go "a saint is just a sinner who falls down, and then gets up."
Finally, there are many non-fundamentalist Christians out there. Conversely, there are fundamentalist of various persuasions, theist and non-theist. I would assert that the same lack of critical thinking and inquiry that you find in many Christians is true of the general populous. It is often the case that people use various systems, spiritual or otherwise, to reenforce certain fundamental assumptions they possess about the nature of reality. Its not just Christians.
mirahjay,

To a large extent I agree with you. Where I would part company with those who posted before, especially the one who's post I quoted, is in their making the false conclusion that to disagree with certain Christians (would you or midlifeman disagree with, say, Mother Teresa's lifestyle? Then why not talk about her instead of about those who do not live like her? Why that choice except to make a point previously decided on, that is, to confirm a bias?) one somehow disproves the religion the Christians do not follow.

Now, your point is true, but my question to is is "to what end did you make it?" Why do you say what you do about Christians who do not do as they should?

You see, many of us who make this point do so without considering where these people started from, how long they have been on their spiritual journey, and who their teachers have been and what they've taught them. All these would have vast influence on what they do and why.

And just how "fast" should peole learn spiritually, anyway, and how are we to tell them how fast they must learn?

So, what was the reason you said what you did?
donna529,

If indeed your husband said all this, and if indeed you agreed with him, it says more about your both not caring to really investigate what you seem to think are important matters than it does anything about the Bible. All these issues you raise can be easily answered by a little time at the computer, let alone with books.

You and he are right insofar as you say that there is a Bible and it says something about Jesus.

Other than that, your whole post was wrong.

What you mean by a "Bible for the masses" you do not say. You seem to think, though, that a Bible for the masses did not exist before the English Bible was printed by Gutenburg. But this is historically ignorant.

The Hebrew Bible was the Bible for the masses. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 200 BC to AD 70, so the Bible existed that far back anyway. The Septuagint version (the Greek translation made by Alexandrian Jews for all the Jews who were no longer speaking or reading Hebrew) of the Hebrew Bible was translated about 220 BC (give or take a couple of decades), so the Hebrew Bible existed before that, too, and the Septuagint was deliberately made to be a "Bible for the masses." In fact, there are so many quotes fromt eh Septuagint in teh New Testament that it seems plain that it was widely known and read by Jews all over the Mediterranean.

the Aramaic Targums were begun to be translated at about this time, somewhere between 200 BC and AD 100, and they were translated from Hebrew into Aramaic so that Jews living in the eastern Mediterranean could read the Bible. This, too was a "Bible for the masses."

In the late 300s to early 400s was the translation of the Bible into Latin. It was called the "Vulgate" because it was translated into the "common" (vulgaris) tongue. It was a Bible for the masses, for it used a simplified Latin instead of the classical Latin the educated people used.

By the time William Tyndale came along in the late 1400s and early 1500s, there had been several "Bibles for the masses." He simply translated one into English.

And shortly before he died, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, again for the masses.

So your assertion that the first "Bible for the masses" did not exist before the 1500s is simply wrong. Several Bibles "for the masses" existed.

What you evidently think of as a Bible for the masses is an English Bible printed on Gutenburg's press, or on those that followed his. There were others long before then.

Now, there other problems with your post.

You wrote:
__________________________________
The so called Moses in the Bible did the exact same thing that King Tut father try to do. He said there was only one God, and that God was the SUN; not SON.When the original text says that the SUN walked on the water it was translated as SON in the Bible.
___________________________________

Well, no. This is a false etymology. As far as I know, neither Moses nor Tut spoke and wrote English, which they would have to have done in order for SUN to be changed to SON. In Hebrew, "sun" is "shemesh," and "son" is "ben." Just where did Moses get these two confused?

And just where did Moses talk about the "Son of God"?

You wrote:
__________________________________
The virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus is the same picture of Isis holding Horace.
__________________________________

Where to start with this one...
1. "Horace" is not an Egyptian name. It's Roman.
2. I don't suppose any Egyptian artist could possibly have taken the image of a mother holding her baby and painted Isis to look like that?
3. I don't suppose that Mary ever held her baby the way every other mother has held her baby.
4. How do you know this?

You wrote:
__________________________________
When Jesus was in his "father's" temple at the age of 12, that represented the sun at its highest point which is 12 noon.
_________________________________

Oh, boy. I love it when one thing in the Bible "represents" something else entirely.
How do you know this? Can you find any place in the Bible other than a vision or a visionary prophetic act where an ordinary act is said to "represent" something like "noon"?

This occurance of Jesus' life was just that, a case of a young boy being more knowlegeable than boys of his age usually are. Noon. Sheesh.

You wrote:
______________________________________
When Jesus died for three days(so did Lazarus)it is the same thing that most SKULL AND BONES society members do in their rituals.
______________________________________

I see. The Bible has in it people who imitate the antics of a rich-frat-boy's college club that didnt exist for two thousand years after they died. That makes sense.

Oh, by the way, Lazarus was dead for four days, not three.

You wrote:
_____________________________________
If you read the Bible close enough, you will see that Genesis is not the first book of the Bible, and if you read deeper, you will see the New Testament was written before the Old Testament.
_____________________________________

What on earth can this mean? this is nonesense. We have manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible from long before the writing of the New Testament. remember the Septuagint? 220 BC? It is a translation of the Hebrew Bible, so it had to exist before that.
______________________________________

You wrote:
_____________________________________

Jesus was the king of the Jews but he too was a made up character. Cruxifition is a Roman punishment, what Roman law did he broke?
_____________________________________

This is a hard one. Ever hear of "treason"? That's the discussion between Jesus and Pilate, in fact: [Pilate] "You are a king then?" [Jesus] "To this end I was born...My kingdom is not of this world..."

The proximate cause of Jesus' crucifixion was disturbing the peace. The official charge was treason. That's why the placard above his head on the cross read, "Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews."

Didn't you say something about reading the Bible "closely"? Why haven't you done so?

One more--

You wrote:
___________________________________
The name JESUS is a made up name that was tooken from the Egyptian mystery schools, but the real names are OSIRIS, ISIS, and HORACE.
__________________________________

Ah, me. "Jesus" has nothing to do with Egyptian. It is a Hellenized form of his Hebrew or Aramaic name "Yeshua" or "Yehosua."

Now, donna529, let me guess--you posted this because you don't particularly like the Bible or Chrisitans, so you thought that this would be a series of arguments against both?
I don't buy this whole thing about any book having to be some "exclusive book of God". That's one of my main turnoffs about organized religions, THE EXCLUSIVISM.

1) It encourages a triumphalistic and devicive attitude (saying that your religion is the exclusive truth implies that non-believers are somehow 'less than' or 'deceived').

2) There is no need for exclusivism in the first place, there is no need why any one religion to be "all right" unless they are insecure.

3) Also, for theistic religions, I don't see the need for people to believe that they are "servants". I've seen liberal theists who have very mature views of their God and view their God as teacher rather than a paternalistic feature.
Mary the mother of Jesus had more children. Jesus Christ sole purpose in life was to live sinless and win the reigns of death for his chosen believers. He came into the battlefield with a game plan. The virgin birth separates him from the human element.

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? - Matthew 12:48
Empty Purnata,

It would be exclusive only if it weren't true. If it is true, then it isn't exclusive any more than any other truth is. That's the nature of truth; it's remarkably exclusive of anything else, which is falsehood.

1. There are plenty of Christians who are not triumphalistic. Why don't we believe because of them instead of disbelieve because of the others? This argument seems to be more emotional than factual. At any rate, one cannot judge the truth of an assertion or a belief by the effect it has on others. No matter what it makes people do, either the statement is true or it isn't.

2.Insecurity is not the only reason a religion might have a truth claim. The belief that it is the truth would be a good reason that springs to mind. Don't religions have truth-claims?
Wasn't your claim about insecurity just a little...condescending?

3. "Mature" and "paternalistic" are not descriptive of anything except our feelings toward the beliefs in question. Wouldn't the true belief be the one we accept and not the one that seems to us (for whatever emotionally convoluted reason) "mature"? Is it a mark of maturity to believe that there is no exclusive truth when that is, in fact, the very nature of truth?

It's pretty exclusive to say that there is no exclusivity, isn't it? That's because when we make a truth-claim we can't get away from exclusivity, even when we decry it. If a statement is true, then everything that oposes or disagrees with it is not.

And as I have said before, being a Christian does mean being very exclusive in our understandings, but it demands that we not be exclusive in our dealings with others. We are exclusive in our thoughts and philosophies, but not with people. Any form of Christianity that does that--as you seem to point out in your quite right irritation at and denial of triumphalism (which is not a Christian attitude, by the way)--is not a form of Christianity. While it may be Christians being like that, insofar as they are triumphalistic they are not Christian.

But let's also be fair and realize that not all celebration and gratitude of God's giving his truth to his people is triumphalism, no matter how much we may dislike it. Sometimes our emotional reactions are wrong.
Empty--
quote:
I don't buy this whole thing about any book having to be some "exclusive book of God". That's one of my main turnoffs about organized religions, THE EXCLUSIVISM.


--Very well stated.

Organized religion has craters for holes. And the ironic part is that all 'religious roads' lead right back to Rome: The whore of babylon--the "beast" -- without the slightest protest or hesitation!

The mother of all lies, Rome--is clever and she has been for centuries. All of its bogus-traditions were stolen from Black Antiquity (i.e. ceremonious method of carrying the pope around on a seated throne is a tradition practiced by the 'Akan' folk ions ago. "The Africans Who Wrote the Bible"--Dr. Alex Darkwah)

The concept of a savior/messiah/son of God predates Christianity, as well!

Fine
Last edited {1}
fine,

Surprise is not an answer, nor is pointing to someone else's answer. We have heard from Gerald Smith, and he was wrong. He obviously neither knows Hebrew nor asks Jews what they think. he apparently is in the habit of making sweeping overgeneralizations (as in his comment that whites are seen as doing white-collar crime, and we do the "low," violent crime.

For crying out loud: Marion Barry did drugs, not violence; Jesse Jackson skimmed money off Operation PUSH; Frank Raines oversaw dishonest accounting practices at Fannie May and almost ran it into the ground; Adam Clayton Powell treated his job as congressman with amazing disinterest, misappropriating money not his; we are just as capable of white-collar crimes as anybody else. Gerald Smith simply forgets his history, and recent history at that. It's one of the reasons he can be so wrong in so much. So, don't point me to soemone else's argument, especially someone so obviously biased.

No, what do YOU say about the Jews actually having a doctrine of original sin, which is in Hebrew, "chet adam harison"? Its existence destroys Gerald Smith's whole thesis and puts your reliance on him in serious doubt. Besides, now that I have read what he has unfortunately written, I'm interested in your ideas, not his.

So what do you say about it?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×