If dreams have any mean, and believing in many dreams that i had while younger, maybe Jesus will come. I had many dreams, strange dreams, in wich Jesus returned to a destroyed earth. Only now that you speak on that i started to remember such dreams...they were really strange and different from other dreams...but they were just dreams.
Besides that, maybe the second upcoming of Jesus (if we believe in the Bible), it is not to far. The signals of His return are somehow clear (dangerous wars, famine, etc) but there are some missing signals, like the upcoming of the Beast. Who the heal is that person?!
We only now that he has the number 666. Many people believe that the name of the beast if translated to Hebraic will give the number, because each letter in the alphabet (hebraic) has a correspondent number.
BTW: I have much more to discuss but no time to do it, but believe me that your topic it´s very interesting.
He'll come when HE'S good and ready [:)]
Yes, he most definately will come when he is ready and the moment is opprotune.
Another question for everyone. Does anyone have any information or know of a book that describes Jesus's childhood and teenage years? I am wondering what it was like for him to grow up either knowing, or not knowing who he would become! If anyone has any input feel free!!
Gnostic texts.
Jesus himself will not return, the prophesy of his return is actually just a metaphor of the return of the planet Nibiru or dimensional crossing.
Greetings everyone,
I dont know anything about the return of Jesus but something Kazabadan said triggered a memory that I thought I would throw in just for the sake of divilment [;)]
quote:
Besides that, maybe the second upcoming of Jesus (if we believe in the Bible), it is not to far. The signals of His return are somehow clear (dangerous wars, famine, etc) but there are some missing signals, like the upcoming of the Beast. Who the heal is that person?!
Look up Aleister Crowley. You will find that he called himself and was commenly known as "The Beast (who's number is 666)"
The more I discovered about that man the less intrigued I become with his 'work' but thats beside the point. Maybe "The Beast" has already come and gone [?][:P][:D]
Best regards,
Dave
The Messiah ideas are Jewish in origin. The Jews were to first to say a monotheistic messiah will come in the future, and that this messiah, upon coming around the next time, not the time after that (ie the first, not second coming) would put an end to all wars as well as show definitively that 'God' exists. Upon the death of Jesus, the New Testament makes some changes to what the ancient Jews were saying rather than consider that Jesus wasn't the messiah that the Jews spoke of. After all, Jesus didn't do really anything the Jewish Messiah is supposed to. Wars continued, and neither Christianity nor Judaism are the only religions Earth knows (and probably never will be).
The Jews' influence from the Sumerians was great, and according to the work of Zecharia Sitchin, 'God' from the Old Testament was the same deity as the Sumerian 'Enki', and Enki was the one who created the 10 Commandments for man to abide by as the Annunaki retreated to Nibiru, worked the Ark, etc. An example of what may very well be evidence for this is the biblical statement of God: "I am that I am", which is still not clearly understood if not looked at for double-meanings. The Sumerians are known to have used words with double-meanings quite often, especially in their more religious and epic texts (ie 'Adapa', the biblical 'Adam', meaning, in Sumerian, both 'man' and 'earth' or 'clay'.. Biblical similarities?). The ancient Jews show evidence of learning this art, as 'I am that I am' has a double-meaning which would mean 'I am Enki'. This double-meaning, which was probably meant to be discovered by the most informed in this ancient religion, can be revolutionary.
Anyway, now that you've been shown an example of how the Old Testament draws off of Sumerian culture, maybe it wouldn't be as insane to consider that the Sumerian 'Nibiru' that a lot of us have been hearing so much about is indeed the Jewish Messiah. It certainly sounds similar, in how if it was to come around it would certainly end any major wars on Earth immediately, even before it was actually visible. But after becoming visible, it would probably also go a great deal in the way of showing how much our modern religions can really tell us.
Ah the ol' new planet approaching theory. Food for thought...
Did any of you who are not mormon realize that the LDS church also believes in this? In the book of mormon it is called Kolob. Thought that might bring up some ideas.
Yes, I have heard of Nibiru. What does that mean evolutionary wise? please elaborate on Nibiru, I would like to hear some views!
I also hear Deepak Chopra talk about imaginary cells within species, such as the imaginary cells that turn the catapillar cocoon into a beautiful butterfly. He believes that there is a certain cell or individual that exsists in our population that is extensively imaginary and what we could call a dreamer. He believes that there is 1 or 2 people like this in our civilization and that these people are the ones that will help create our new evolution. Do you think that this might pertain to Jesus to the christians? Are Jesus and this person or persons the same thing?
And who says that Jesus couldn't come back as two seperate people? Jesus is not the only Son Of God, We are all children of god.
I believe that Religion is just another mask that tries to divide and conquer people to keep us from evolving! It's all God in the end!
I think i saw somewhere a book that speaks the childhood of Jesus. I will check out if i have the information in my house and i will post it.
About Nibiru: what´s that?
About the Beast (it would give a nice topic by itself): it is said that he will come before the returning of Jesus. I don´t believe that Alex C. is the beast. He was just person with different ideas. The Beast itself will not need to say constantly (as many people say in these days)who he is. His power and his evil will be great enough to show their face.
The idea of the Beast appearing in the past (and we not recognize it as so) it´s not new. There is an author that says that the Beast was Hitler. The words Austria- Adolph - Hitler when translated to Hebraic would give a name that when calculated (i mean subsitute all the letters by the equivalent number) the number that results it´s 666(in the book he shows the translation, the calculations, etc). It´s an interesting idea.
About Jesus: i don´t know why but when i thing in the Second Return i always imagine Ufos...
quote:
About Nibiru: what´s that?
It's another name for 'Planet X', but generally implies more than just another planet in our solar system. Nibiru is a Sumerian term meaning roughly 'Planet of Crossing' in English. According to the Sumerians, the Annunaki ("Those who from Heaven to Earth came") reside there. The planet comes around about every 3600 years (see this estimated orbit: http://users.lycaeum.org/~martins/nibiru.html ) and is supposively about to start really effecting things on Earth, like weather, as it approaches the Asteroid Belt.
quote:
Yes, I have heard of Nibiru. What does that mean evolutionary wise? please elaborate on Nibiru, I would like to hear some views!
Evolution-wise I'm not exactly sure what I'd believe as far as that goes. Sumerian depictions and texts suggest that the Annunaki, especially 'Enki', an original leader and scientist, took the primitive man that was already in the are and adjusted its genes to be better suited to work for the Annunaki, as there was a problem at the time as to who was going to work the mines. The Annunaki that travelled to Earth apparently didn't like the idea of having to do the hard physical labor that they were being made to do. This would explain a few problems the modern theory of where man came from, including why we aren't still living in caves as we technically should if we had continued at the rate primitive man was evolving.
The Zeta, on the other hand, have been channeled to say that the Sumerian tablets that depicted and described those things were simply stories, though I've not really gathered much more than that from the channelings. I don't know how the Zeta would explain our evolution and what role the Annunaki played in our history. The Zeta channelings have mentioned that we
were somehow altered, if I remember correctly, but by who I'm not sure, and in such details there may be a few discrepencies between the different channelers. Might be something to ask on the Zeta-channeling post if you're interested.
More information on the Annunaki can be found in Zecharia Sitchin's series of books, starting with
The 12th Planet.
The Idea that we were created as slaves makes for a pretty depressing feeling about life.
If anyone else has any information on Jesus's Teenage years PLEASE POST HERE!!
my theory is that jesus went to india in his teenage years and learned yoga
the many feats he had done (healings, walking on water, resurection)where all described in ancient hindu texts like the rgveda and the upanishads LONG before jesus was but a twinkle in gods eye.
jesus the famous yoga master,
Now would be a good time...but who knows? And what if "he" is a "she" this time? Some who do prophecy indicate this might be so.
Either way, if the prophecies are to be believed, most of us die off in yet another war to end all wars and only a few survive to see the kingdom of peace which is supposed to follow.
I hope it is not that way as I would like to be around to see it and to live it.
Well, you really shouldn't get to excited unless you are Jewish, as it has long been known to scholars that Jesus was a Jew and his teachings were for Jews *only*, He actually *forbade* his disciples to teach to non Jews. Only Jews were to be part of the 'heavenly kingdom'. (These teachings were not accepted by the Jewish authorities however, where he was considered a radical)
Also, rather than stating that the old laws were annulled, as later Christianity asserts, he actually preached an even stricter adherence to the 10 commandments, as he felt that Jews had been slacking off in the past, meaning that they wouldn't get to be part of the 'heavenly kingdom' when it arrived (which was to be within that generation btw).
There is also no evidence that he EVER referred to himself as 'the son of god'. He only ever used the term 'son of man', which still survives in some passages today.
It is also the case that he thought of himself as some kind of a prophet, although perhaps not the same one as mentioned in the OT. Rather he was just there to warn Jews that the 'heavenly kingdom' was close and that they had better stop slacking off! In this context Jesus only ever referred to himself as 'a Herald of the Kingdom of God', nothing more.
It was only after Jesus' death that Paul (or Saul of Tarsus, a Hellenised Jew), broke with Jesus' original instructions and started preaching to non-Jews, the so called 'New Way', much to the horror of many of Jesus original Jewish followers.
Over time, Jesus' Jewish followers watched with alarm and then resignation as Christ's teachings grew and developed into a 'genteel' religion, using the somewhat suspect excuse of 'divine revelations' which allowed people like Paul and others after him to develop additional teachings or scrap old ones as they saw fit.
This led to several developments which seem natural parts of Christianity today, but would have been quite strange in Jesus' time, such as the theories of Trinity, Incarnation and Original Sin;
The concept of Trinity was only developed in the 3rd century, while Original Sin was developed by Augustine in the early 5th century, and only in the west; the Orthodox Church has never accepted it, even now.
Not much of Jesus' original teachings are known; as stated, we DO know that he preached a strict adherence to the 10 commandments; the idea that they were 'fulfilled' is later invention. However his basic tenant about 'love thy neighbour' AND even 'love thy enemy' DOES appear to originate from him, so that's something.
However, all the miracle working etc is highly suspect and is likely to be a result of the 'Hellenising' of Jesus' life, when it was usurped by the 'gentiles'. It had to appeal to a pagan audience, otherwise no-one would accept it, therefore it had to contain classical elements familiar to pagans, such as the healing and miracle working, as pagans were familiar with such gods with healing powers, such as Ascelepius for examples who in many ways is a 'proto-Jesus'.
Likewise the 'immaculate conception' story is later invention, as classical pagans were used to the idea of gods impregnating mortal women so that they would bring forth divine or semi-divine offspring; the Christian developers wanted a similar backdrop to Jesus' birth in order to make it more appealing to pagans; latest estimates place this addition took place after 100CE; the resurrection part is also suspect, and only seems to appear in the story after 100CE; earlier accounts have his disciples much more concerned about his LIFE; his death was relatively unimportant.
As I said, this data has long been known to scholars; with much work done recently by the Jesus Group, a body of scholars dedicated to uncovering and analysing the historical origins and facts of Jesus' life and the later development of the religion of Christianity; Check your local divinity/theology or ancient history dept. at your local university for more details on this work!
Douglas
Many good points, Gandalf. Especially related to Paul (Saul) who really shaped much of what became the Catholic Church.
The real Jesus would probably have been horrified at what his life and ideas became over the past 2000 years.
Perhaps what is meant is that the Christ consciousness will return to and within mankind. It is certainly needed.
if he's merely an astral being but got here once, why can't he do it again? :P
~kakkarot
quote:
Originally posted by Adinaut
>Originally posted by kakkarot
>if he's merely an astral being but got here once, why can't
>he do it again? :P
[:)] Well, astral entities and forms don't go to 3rd density.
If you want to meet jesus, then you can go to Monroe Focus 25.
Also you can see greek, norse mythology heaven and so forth.
These belief centres will fade away as the energy by the
believers are withdrawn. Some areas are fading, as they
don't get much energy anylonger.
Cool.. then John the Baptist must be there also .. that's the one I'd like to see and speak[;)]
Jesus may be a higher dimensional charector, But the mere fact that the majority of The American Population believe in him should have the capability of creating his prescence in physical form. We create what we believe so we should apply that to Jesus.
Yes, but the majority of the american population (or of any other country) has not sat down and activly tried to will a physical incarnation of Jesus into being.
If this were to happen I have no doubt whatsoever that they would succeed.
It only take a few people a few weeks of active concentration to create a sentient thought-form entity, which grows in power and begins affecting the physical enviroment.
Check out the famous 'Philip experiment' conducted by para-psychologists a few years back, where they created an entity 'Philip', who was able to levitate the table and speak audibly within only a few weeks.
Occultists give instructions on how to cultivate this thought-form until it can manifest physicaly in a form of your choosing.
However, they also warn that if there is anyone of unstable mind participating in the creation of the thought-form, this will affect it, making it unpredictible, possibly even deadly.
Therefore, I woudnt like to see this on state level, given all the nutters in society. You'd have a real crazy Jesus!
Btw, the energy generated by belief is what I think generates all deities. Therefore, I think that all widely worshiped deities can be said to be real, and possibly even compete with each other for 'supporters'. Its just that no single group has tried to *actively* will them into physical existence as yet!
Douglas
But maybe the seconde encarnation of Jesus wont be related in any way with power of thought. Our mind can create deitys but i think that some few exist independtly of our thoughts. The first Jesus was a real person (i dont know if he was the Truly Messias, etc,etc)and the second upcoming (or the first upcoming of the real Messias, it depends on point of view) will be, in my opinion, a real one, not he creation of thought power.
The second upcoming maybe it is not to far, there are signals of bad things to come (preciding Jesus return in theory), but it is still missing the Beast. Only after the beast Jesus will appear. I think that is the thoery, but now i am confuse, since i dont touch in Bible at some while!
Kazbadan_
I dont agree with the concept of 'second comings' as there was no real 'first coming'. As stated earlier, scholars have known for some time that much of the material in the NT is later invention. This includes the 'second coming'. Scholars have been able to sift out the earliest form of accounts into what is known as the hypothetical 'Q' gospal, and there is no mention of second comings or 'revelations' prophesies. There is the 'kingdom of God' which he believed had already arrived. He also never called himself the son of god, or said he would return. He only refered to himself as 'the son of man' or 'a herald of the kingdom of god'. There is also nothing of the divine birth, a common pagan concept, or the return from the dead and the 'dying for our sins' teachings; in fact there was no talk of original sin at all, this was a 5th century concept (Augustine). In fact, the earliest accounts show no interest in his death or aftermath, it was his *life* that was seen as important.
This all changed with Paul however, who pioneered 'the new way' and took the Jewish cult of Christianity to the Gentiles, something which Jesus had originally fobidden, as he made it quite clear that the kingdom of god was for Jews only, as were his teachings. Jesus actually forbade his diciples to teach to non jews. Once he was dead however, there was'nt much he could do about it.
If you want to know more about the historical fact of christinity you should ask at the Divinity or Ancient History dept at your local university, or do a search for the 'Jesus Seminar', a federation of scholars from all fields who have done a lot of work in recent years to uncover the historical realty behind the myths.
btw, I dont think this hinders christianity as a religion, as even although most of it is later formulation, as a symbolic and metaphorical story, it contains much that is spiritually enlightning and food for meditation. People like Augustine etc were great thinkers after all.
Douglas
Hi Douglas
I would like to ask you to read the enclosed article. I find it absolutely astonishing that you keep on talking as you do above, postulating and assuming, without honestly admitting that The Jesus seminar as well as yourself base your belief on ....faith. Be fair that is all I ask....Thankyou!
The Jesus Seminar, Part 2
by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier: Archives
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
A response to The Jesus Seminar, as featured by the Peter Jennings ABC special, In Search of Jesus.
As noted in our previous installment The Jesus Seminar, Part 1, The Jesus Seminar (so-called) has proposed a restructuring of Christian history – principally in three areas.
First, this panel of liberal theologians has presented to contemporary society a new Jesus, whom they claim is the real Jesus. Their "Jesus" is not the virgin-born, raised-from-the-dead Son of God whom Christians serve; rather, this new Jesus was simply a first-century revolutionary preacher who significantly impacted his culture.
Second, this conclave of radicals has declared that 82% of Christ's "sayings" were inventions of the early church, which Jesus actually never uttered.
Finally, this body of skeptical "scholars" intends to redefine the canonical books of the New Testament record. The first two allegations were addressed in our previous discussion. Attention is now directed to the matter of the New Testament canon.
The Jesus Seminar has begun a dramatic alteration of the documents which compose the New Testament. In an incredibly arrogant assertion, Robert Funk, head of the Seminar's Westar Institute in Sonoma, California, charges that the Christian movement "hasn't seriously examined the question of canon since the 15th century" (Sheler, Nov. 8, p. 75). And so, ignoring 1,900 years of Christian history, and pretending that conservative scholarship does not even exist, these modernists will bequeath to society a revised New Testament.
The word "canon" derives from the Greek word kanon, which originally was a measuring reed. The term then was used to signify any sort of "rule" (cf. Gal. 6:16). Eventually, it was applied to that "standard" a document would be expected to meet in order to be considered inspired of God, and thus authoritative. And so, ultimately, it came to denote that collection of writings venerated as Holy Scripture, in contrast to a variety of apocryphal or spurious works. Origen (c. 185-253) spoke of the "canonized Scriptures."
It is sometimes asserted by uninformed people that the Catholic Church, near the end of the 4th century A.D., decided which books would constitute the New Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a recognition of the inspiration of the New Testament books as they were being produced in the first-century.
For example, Paul quoted from Luke's Gospel and acknowledged it as "scripture" (1 Tim. 5:18); similarly, Peter recognized Paul's writings as "scripture" (2 Pet. 3:15-16), even though he and his fellow-apostle had clashed over the matter of Gentile fellowship (cf. Gal. 2:11).
While it is true that in the post-apostolic age there were some disputes over the genuineness of certain New Testament documents, the pristine character of the books, undergirded by solid evidence, finally led to their universal acceptance. And so, as Thiessen notes,
"it is a remarkable fact that no early Church Council selected the books that should constitute the New Testament Canon. The books that we now have crushed out all rivals, not by any adventitious authority, but by their own weight and worth" (p. 25).
But what are the criteria by which the inspiration of a book is determined. In brief, these areas are involved:
Primary Evidence
The primary factor in identifying the nature of a divine book is the information that is contained within the book itself. Here are some of the elements which may, in part or in whole, be involved.
Does the book claim, or disclaim, inspiration (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37)? Some of the apocryphal books actually disclaim inspiration (cf. the Prologue of Ecclesiasticus; see also Price, p. 42).
Did the original recipients acknowledge that it came from an inspired person (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13)? Does it speak authoritatively (2 Thes. 3:6)? Is it characterized by an exalted theme? Is it honest in its dealings with both its friends and foes? Is it factually accurate in terms of history, geography, science, etc.? Does it reflect a lofty sense of morality? Is it internally consistent? Does it harmonize with other inspired writings?
Secondary Evidence
By secondary evidence we mean evidence which corroborates the principles outlined above. This sort of evidence is not conclusive in and of itself, but it lends its support to the primary material.
For example: Biblical revelation is designed to transform lives (Rom. 12:1-2); does the narrative possess that kind of power? After it has been tested, debated, etc., has it won the approval of honest and reasonable people? Has it survived the test of opposition?
It has been said that "Homer must be handled with care." The biblical documents glow all the brighter the more they are attacked, and the more vicious the persecution becomes (as in the present case of the Jesus Seminar assault).
As observed earlier, the Jesus Seminar wants to overturn almost 2,000 years of history and revise the catalog of books contained in the New Testament. Let us consider two examples of their work in this area.
It is claimed that the Book of Revelation should be removed from the canon. Does the final book of the Bible pass the test that would be expected of an inspired narrative? Yes, it does. For example:
It was written by John (1:1,4,9; 22:8), and the early church writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) identify this John as the Lord's apostle. Additionally, vocabulary studies reveal similar word patterns in the Book of Revelation and John's other writings. For example the term "Word" (logos) is used in a personal sense only in John 1:1,14; 1 John 1:1, and in Revelation 19:13.
The Book of Revelation has a very exalted theme; it proclaims the victory of God's people over their persecutors by means of the Lamb who was slain, and who is now reigning (cf. 5:9-10; 6:12-17; 11:15; 12:11-12).
The document speaks with authority. The author is placed in the category of a prophet (1:3,11; 22:9), and the book is characterized by prophetic injunctions which must be obeyed (1:3; 22:7,10,18-19).
The record is doctrinally consistent with information presented elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., the divine nature of Christ, and the concept of the atoning blood of Jesus).
Too, the fact that Revelation so wonderfully complements the Book of Daniel, which Jesus Christ endorsed as scripture (Mt. 24:15), also argues for its divine inspiration (cf. Dan. 7; Rev. 13).
There is thus no valid reason for the Jesus Seminar to remove the Book of Revelation from the sacred canon. Their biased inclination against the possibility of prophecy is at the base of this reckless action. We must remind ourselves that there is a curse pronounced upon those who tamper with the words of this book (22:18-19).
Not only does the Jesus Seminar propose to "take away" from the words of the Bible by the removal of the Book of Revelation, these renegades intend to "add to" the Word of God by the inclusion of spurious works, such as the so-called Gospel of Thomas, which they have characterized as "a fifth Gospel."
In 1945, an archaeological excavation at Nag Hammadi in Central Egypt yielded a collection of 13 papyrus codices (books) totaling over 1,100 pages. One of these documents contains the Gospel of Thomas in the Coptic language. In this form it dates from c. A.D. 350. However, the original work is apparently much older since three Greek papyri from the Oxyrhynchus collection (c. A.D. 150) contain fragments of the narrative. It is thus believed that the original Gospel of Thomas was compiled c. A.D. 140, probably in Edessa, Syria.
It consists entirely of a collection of 114 "sayings of Jesus," which are supposed to be a secret revelation which the Lord gave to the apostle Thomas. (That "secret" business ought to be a red flag within itself.) Some of these sayings repeat the words of Christ from the canonical Gospel accounts. About 40 of them are entirely new. Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas is highly tainted with the heretical philosophy known as Gnosticism (Cameron, p. 539).
Occasionally, some very absurd language is put into the Lord's mouth. Here is an example:
"Simon Peter said to them: 'Let Mary (Magdalene) go out from among us, because women are not worthy of the Life.'"
"Jesus said: 'See I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'" (Saying 114, Funk, p. 532; see also Yamauchi, p. 186).
Does that even remotely resemble the dignified status that women are afforded in the New Testament?
R.K. Harrison has well noted that this apocryphal work "cannot in any sense be called a 'fifth gospel'" (Blaiklock & Harrison, p. 450). It is quite apparent that the so-called Gospel of Thomas has no place in the inspired canon, and history has been correct in rejecting it – the Jesus Seminar to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Jesus Seminar is not a reflection of serious and devout scholarship. How can one legitimately be called a "scholar" when every syllable of instruction that he or she issues is erroneous? Is a man a "mechanic" if he doesn't know the first thing about an automobile engine?
This panel represents the meanderings of a group of confused theologians who have lost their faith but who, for reasons known perhaps only to them and God, desire to cling to some remnant of religiosity. Pity their blighted souls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information regarding The Jesus Seminar, see our previous article, The Jesus Seminar, Part 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES
Blaiklock, E. M. and Harrison, R.H. (1983), The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Cameron, Ron (1992), "Gospel of Thomas," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, David Noel Freedman, Ed. (New York: Doubleday), Vol. 6.
Funk, Robert W., Hoover, Roy W., and The Jesus Seminar (1993), The Five Gospels - What Did Jesus Really Say? (New York: Macmillan).
Price, Ira M. (1989 Reprint), "Apocrypha," Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, Ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Sheler, Jeffery L., "Cutting loose the holy canon," U.S. News & World Report, November 8, 1993.
Thiessen, H.C. (1955), Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Yamauchi, E.M. (1979), "Apocryphal Gospels," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Revised, G.W. Bromiley, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), Volume One.
Hi Mustardseed_
I have to say that the argument above isn't really that convincing and I think that the argument that 'I am relying on faith just as you' doesn't really hold.
The arguments they use to say a book of passage is canonical is not overly convincing eg 'is it authoritative... does it change lives....is it characterised by an exalted theme'; these cannot be used to decide if something originally comes from the word of Jesus. It only implies a literary theme present in the work as a whole, one of many themes which are found in later formulations of the NT.
First, this panel of liberal theologians has presented to contemporary society a new Jesus, whom they claim is the real Jesus. Their "Jesus" is not the virgin-born, raised-from-the-dead Son of God whom Christians serve; rather, this new Jesus was simply a first-century revolutionary preacher who significantly impacted his culture.
Talking of themes. The people here completely ignore the 800 years or so of classical culture, which if the NT writings are taken in context with (which most Christians fail to do) the classical themes so beloved of the NT are seen to have direct parallels in mythology. This includes virgin births, apotheosis, healing and miracle working, even last suppers and trials..
If you are familiar with classical mythology the said themes in the NT are BLATENT! This is not a matter of faith its simple fact.. literary comparison. This is the way critics trace influences and continuation of ideas throughout a whole range of literary works, eg textual analysis has shown the clear and significant influence of the Roman poet Ovid in the works of Shakespeare, and to deny them as only 'faith' is bad thinking.
You can only get past this by citing as coincidence that the life of Jesus in the NT has striking classical themes found in earlier material... if so then it is the biggest coincidence in history!
What are more, major Christian themes like Trinity are PROVED to be formulated in the 3rd century, and original sin, is strictly 5th century Augustine, as I have said.
Therefore any statements which are stated to have been said by Jesus concerning Trinity or original sin are NOT SAID BY HIM, he would find these ideas quite strange. As independent proof of this, the earliest copies of Christian texts from the early to mid 1st century make so mention of such doctrines. I say again, It is for this reason that the *Orthodox Church STILL does not accept this doctrine*.
The criticism also completely whitewashes the issue of canonical scripts, instead they state that the canonical scripts we have today were always the only ones that were ever regarded universaly as canonical; in effect only these texts were ever regarded as te 'true' ones.
This is just plain wrong and completely misses the historical background.
Up until the 325 and the council of Nicea, there were many gospels and texts circulating around the empire relating to Christianity. Raging arguments went on between different sects. Yes, they all followed the same basic story which had been agreed upon by all Christians by that time (the basic gospal narrative having been crystalised by 100-130AD), but there were still HUGE theological disputes between Christian groups in different part of the Empire. At Nicea, Emperor Constantine FORCED a small fixed set or Cannon of gospels. He made the bishops choose a fix set which best represented Christian teachings. Constantine wanted a fixed doctrine quickly so that he could move on, thus stipulating a small fixed cannon. Because of this, a small collection was quickly labelled canonical while the others were rejected, by vote.
He hoped by this that the huge theological disputes within Christianity would be ended; in this he was fairly naive. however his plan didnt work, in the end he actually gave up tryng to reconcile the various rifts withing christianity. The church iteself eventially sorted the problem by outlawing heresy or 'wrong belief' as oppossed to true belief, the rules being set by the orthodox Roman state church. After this, christian groups who still opposed the states opinions on theology were increasingly persecuted out of existence.
However, if it was not for Constantine forcing the issue, it remains the case that the amount of Christian texts termed canonical and the accompanying theology would have differed significantly from what we have today.
Even at the time, many bishops were unhappy with the outcome.
One major example is Arrian, Bishop of Alexandria, who had fundamental problems with other Christians view on Jesus and his relation to god.
While Christians have traditionally painted him as a 'lone star' contrary to everyone else, in fact this has been shown to be false. In fact there were MANY bishops who agreed and supported Arrius; the Christian writer Eusebius was an Arrian, but he decided to keep his mouth shut at Nicea.
It is claimed that the Book of Revelation should be removed from the canon. Does the final book of the Bible pass the test that would be expected of an inspired narrative? Yes, it does. For example:
It was written by John (1:1,4,9; 22:8), and the early church writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) The document speaks with authority. The author is placed in the category of a prophet (1:3,11; 22:9), and the book is characterized by prophetic injunctions which must be obeyed (1:3; 22:7,10,18-19).
The record is doctrinally consistent with information presented elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., the divine nature of Christ, and the concept of the atoning blood of Jesus).
Too, the fact that Revelation so wonderfully complements the Book of Daniel, which Jesus Christ endorsed as scripture (Mt. 24:15), also argues for its divine inspiration (cf. Dan. 7; Rev. 13).
They are using as verification other texts of later formulation! It is no wonder they compliment each other.
Their biased inclination against the possibility of prophecy is at the base of this reckless action. We must remind ourselves that there is a curse pronounced upon those who tamper with the words of this book (22:18-19).
The less said about this comment/threat the better, especially seeing how it undermines the whole image of Christ they are trying to project.
Douglas
Hi Douglas
As usual I will have to read your reply again some times but just let me get this off as an initial response.
I do not have a problem with The Trinity, or original sin. Nor do I have any doubt that the scriptures may not hold in themselves all truth. Jesus was quoted to say : I have yet many things to say to you. In my book he is a living real person. What I do have a problem with is this.
RB stated some time ago that Archaelogic evidence to support the Bible is inherently flawed if it is funded and done by believing Christians. It would stand to reason that they would be inclined to conclude issues to the confirmation of what they believe. If this is a right way to see things (I AM NOT SURE IT IS) then the Jesus semionar is also flawed for the exact same reasons.
The kernel of the matter is that most of us seem to build our Faith belief or whatever we call it on what we conclude from the pile of incompleate evidence available to us. However we tend to be reluctant in granting other people the right to do the same.
If we are compleately honest Douglas, in reality , WE DONT KNOW do we? With this in mind I believe it would be wrong to use statements like "he hoped to" or "he believed" becourse we do not know their thoughth.
I also want to remind you or maybe I did not make it clear, that the article I included was meant to show that the Jesus Seminar in not an uncontested group of believers and nonbelievers who is unbiasedly trying to find the truth. Allthough they claim to be just this they have gotten under considerable critque as being biased.
Last of all , if you state that it would be "the biggest coincidence" in the world all I can say is.......well it aint impossible then. It is a pretty important issue and if there is a God I would not be surprices if he used what seems like the biggest coincidence ever to help people make desisions ....by faith. Maybe I should ask Him[;)].
Regards Mustardseed
Hi, everyone. I doubt if many Christians would buy into this new, modern version of Jesus Christ. Not even those of us who think the Virgin Birth and other aspects of his life have been mythologized in an attempt to bring in the pagans and gentiles of the time.
I would like to see the books the Nicean Council refused to allow in the New Testament as well as a new translation of the oldest of them without the editorializing and omissions.
Ever wonder what documents the Vatican has in its many vaults? They need to let those be seen and translated.
I do think writings can be divinely inspired although sorting out whose really are and whose are just someone saying so is difficult.
The real issue is: what has the ring of truth to it, deep down in both your gut and your mind and emotions?
Sounds like this new council of scholars are trying to water down Jesus Christ into someone politically correct and acceptable, someone so ordinary that no one would find much reason to put any faith in him or his teachings.
I think there is/was much more to him than that. I don't know the truth of it, but it doesn't appear that they do either. They may be right on the mythologized aspects, but not on other things.
It is an interesting debate...Thanks for the good reading...Jena
Hi Douglas!
Have you ever read the Gospel of Tomas? I found it on the net since it is dificult to find in librarys (at least here in Portugal). But my last hard disk as make a "buumm!", so i lost it.
Well, anyway, i think that in part your are correct.After reading the "kicked" (by the Church) the refered Gospel and other Gospels, the main impression that i have it is that Jesus as been in contact with Oriental/budhist religions. In the gospel there is not almost any reference to God. The importance of "ilumination" or "Heaven" or "kingdom of God" (dont know wich is the best phrase) it is put in the man itself. There are many interesting concepts in the gospel. It is very beatiful! If you can, search it in the net and read it.
I enjoy learning about all of your ideas on the ideals of messiah. Born unto the ideas we feed from, our true form formed from all aspects as one. I hope nobody finds the answer yet, it would be no fun.
"I had a dream the other day
in which my birth led to the grave.
It was a wonderful thing I think,
to have had something in such a wonderful way
but the faces peering out from the womb
also lay with me in the casket.
I felt the breath of stone flowers in bloom
but in the metal reflection of motion
my pace in swift speed
my pace in swift time
all round the edge of haste
in the kiss across my spine
and the lesser of two evils shine
in blossomes of the shade
in beacons across the belt of time
these spaces relentless of absence
pretense to the stress of muscle memory
torn back into a precept of sense
into a pretense of perception
I had a dream the other day
in which my death led to the womb
it was a wonderful thing I think
to have had something in such a wonderful way
but the faces that lay with me
and the faces peering down upon me
are such expressions of myself
and myself in the reflection of my sea"
I was just curious, with all the upcoming propechies and end times, does anyone have any input on the return of jesus? I just thought I wouls start a thread that was actually looking forward to the good parts of the coming prophecies and not just all that evil crap that everyone is talking about!