Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Shabd Mystic

Was Christ a Yogi?

466 posts in this topic

There are not thousands of varieties, though I understand why you may think there is. There is only one Christianity. The problem is that humans are fallible and so we get some things wrong. If a church or denomination claims to be the only one with the complete truth I would say they are one of the few "wrong" churches. Most denominations have minor variations but would still hold the same core teachings.

Since they are only "minor variations," then there is no need for the "2,000" ... "many" ... different types of churches. Just put them all under one name. Maybe Baptist or Pentecostal or whatever.

Hey, I have a great idea. just go back to the "original" church and everyone be called "Catholic."

Since they are only only "minor variations," all the different church leaders can get into a big room (VERY big) and work out those only "minor variations."

And, as to my comment about the "2,000 varieties of Christianity there are out there" that you reworded to say I said "thousands of churches" (which could mean 999,000 churches but is a term rarely used for "2" thousand churches), the use of "2,000" was an exaggeration to make my point. I'd hoped anyone who read it would understand that. But since you didn't, I'll get more specific.

Here's the "Christian Churches" I was able to find (there are surely hundreds more, at least):

Hussites

Moravian Church

Unity of the Brethren

Utraquists

Waldensians

Apostolic Lutheran Church of America

Association of Free Lutheran Congregations

Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America

Church of the Lutheran Confession

Concordia Lutheran Conference

Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference

Evangelical Lutheran Church "Concord"

Evangelical Lutheran Free Church

Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Lutheran Church of Central Africa Malawi Conference

Lutheran Church of Central Africa Zambia Conference

Ukrainian Lutheran Church

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Evangelical Catholic

*snip - see SOURCE for a more complete list

I hope that was better than saying "2,000" churches. After all, I don't want anyone to take my number and falsely believe that means there are "a lot" of different Christian churches. ;)

.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is fair enough, as long as you understand what Christ actually taught, rather than trying to fit him into a Hindu ideology.

Hindu theology? :lol:

Where did you come up with that? That I posted an article that used the term "yogi?"

A yogi is the same as a mystic, though it also applies to followers of different kinds of yoga as well. I don't even know that much about Hinduism.

Mystics happen to be a big thing among Christians too. I figured a devoted follower of Christianity would know all about that.

Going back to your comment that all Christianity says we need is "belief", Jesus said otherwise - "Repent AND believe, for the kingdom of heaven is near". Not just believe but repent and believe. Do you know what Christ means by "repent"?

I know what the creators of the Bible meant. Though that's a totally different thing, does that count?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are of course free to hold any opinion you like. Funny thing is, in your last post you say you don't know much about what Christianity teaches and you don't care to because you are more interested in what Christ teaches.

I know what Christianity teaches. Better than most Christians I know. You are confusing my saying I am not familiar with all the differences throughout the "countless' (is that better than "2,000?) Christian sects with me saying I'm not familiar with what Christianity teaches.

Yet now you speak as if expert enough to make a value judgement on Jesus vs Paul.

I know it VERY well. How 'bout you?

I'm thinking you've never read Paul's teachings and are just repeating something you read or heard from someone else that you trust. Am I close?

LOL. If a billion light years away is your idea of "close," than I'd say you are right on the money. But since we've already seen an example of your ability to "estimate" I think I'll just say "no." :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet now you speak as if expert enough to make a value judgement on Jesus vs Paul.

I think it was adequately summed up by H.L. Mencken in "Notes on Democracy." He says:

"Is it argued by any rational man that the debased Christianity cherished by the mob in all the Christian countries of today, has any colorable likeness to the body of ideas preached by Christ?

"The plain fact is that this bogus Christianity has no more relation to the system of Christ than it has to Aristotle. It is the invention of Paul and his attendant rabble rousers--a body of men exactly comparable to the corps of evangelical pastors of today, which is to say, a body devoid of sense and lamentably indifferent to common honesty.

"The mob, having heard Christ, turned against Him. His theological ideas were too logical and plausible for it, and His ethical ideas were enormously too austere. What it yearned for was the old comfortable balderdash under a new and gaudy name, and that is precisely what Paul offered it.

"He borrowed from all the wandering dervishes and body-snatchers of Asia Minor, and flavored the stew with remnants of Greek demonology. The result was a code of doctrines so discordant and so nonsensical that no two men since, examining it at length, have ever agreed upon its precise meaning.

"Paul remains the arch theologian of the mob. His turgid and witless metaphysics make Christianity bearable to men who would otherwise be repelled by Christ's simple and magnificent reduction of the duties of man to the duties of a gentle-man."

Mencken wasn't even close to being the only brilliant man to point out what would be otherwise obvious to anyone who truly understood the Bible and Christianity.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shabd Mystic, as a follower of Jesus' teachings, what is your interpretation of the parable in Matthew 25:14-30?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more quotations about Paul's virtual takeover of Christianity (you all might recognize some of these names):

In Christ or Paul?, by Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore:

"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught. . . . For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message. . . . That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. . . . The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals:

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

*snip - for further reading, see SOURCE . In the future, please quote all sources. Thank you,

.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shabd Mystic, as a follower of Jesus' teachings, what is your interpretation of the parable in Matthew 25:14-30?

Since I don't want to get into a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"game to see "who knows Christianity better" this is the last I'm going to play this game ...

That said, I almost always see things written in the Bible, if they supposedly came from Jesus (or someone supposedly quoting Him), from a mystical perspective (since Jesus was a Mystic and very much taught from that perspective). That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that few are going to agree with me, nor do I care whether they do.

I suspect this is a game of "show me what you know," since you surely don't have any interest in any mystical perspective, and surely aren't seeking my "wisdom" (you'd have a long search, lol), but I'll play the game this one time:

From a mystical perspective The Parable of the Talents is saying that we are all granted the gift from birth of having God inside of us. That's like a buried treasure. All have access to it, despite the countless differences in our "worldly wealth." Some in this world are blessed with all sorts of skills, intelligence, position, power, etc.

Others might get some of some and none of others. Some might not get any of those.

But those are all "worldly" things that don't matter. As long as you use what God has given you, you will end up with the exact same "riches" as any man, regardless of whether or not you have made remarkable "worldly" gains or not.

The man who was granted "5 talents" and the man who was granted "2 talents" both used whatever "wealth" they were granted to the best of their ability and thus were rewarded equally in the end. The man who was granted "1 talent" chose not to use it at all and just sat on it (didn't even let it gain interest) and thus he ended up with nothing more than he had been granted from the "worldly" perspective.

In the parable it shows that no matter what amount of "worldly wealth" you are granted, as long as you use what you've got, you will end up just as rich as anyone else who does the same, whether they started out "richer" or "poorer" than you. It shows that we all have the same exact capacity for the "ultimate" in "riches" regardless of where we "start." All it takes is to use whatever you are given and "make the effort."

You will never become "rich" (by discovering the kingdom of God within you) unless you make the effort.. And that doesn't matter how much you are "granted" from the start. Anyone who makes the effort regardless of what they are granted will end up equally rich. Anyone who doesn't will end up poor.

Now you can criticize my perspective and laugh at "what little I know" and I'll just smile and and know that little "contests" such as this are meaningless. All that matters is what we do with the "talents" God has granted us and whether we bother to invest it (in other words, bother to "do the work").

And "invest it" is EXACTLY what I am doing every day of my life through my meditation. In the end I know i will be the one sharing my "Master's happiness" while so many others will be thrown out on the street because all they did was read a book and talk big. They never even bothered to use what they had been given from birth. It sat inside them unused and thus earned them no wealth whatsoever.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your father is God, you are going to be enlightened at a very young age.

Keven

So by that logic your son must be a dog who can speak english? How insulting would it be to a God to say a human, so limited, so minuscule in comparison to the size of the cosmos is this Self Sustaining Creators son .... Again, if someone came up to you and said a dog was your son is that not insulting? Different species, etc ,etc ,etc ,etc ,etc there are so many logical inconsistencies with Jesus being the Son of God rather than a simple human messenger whose intellectual capacity exceeded that of a normal humans. But Council of Nicera or whatever its called lol, 4 th AD. Jesus was Declared God, Read about Josephus also. Some historical evidence suggests St Paul may have been behindt he burning of Alexandrian Library and the one to corrupt Jesus's system of belief. anyway, people can believe what ever they want but the logic behind Jesus being the son of God is fallacious, not only so it is impossible. There are laws in this universe, thats why there is order. Natural Laws -.-

Edited by seller2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there will be virtually nobody who's interested in anything but fighting for what they already choose to believe, but for those extremely rare cases who are more interested in Truth than in what other people think of them, here is a GREAT book:

The Gospel of Jesus: In Search of His Original Teachings by John Davidson

It's over 1,000 pages thick so it's truly only for those interested in learning vs. talking about what they believe they already "know," but for those truly rare souls, it's a fantastic book.

About the book:

An inspirational encounter with the world of Christ, an uplifting study of the man, his times, and his teaching. Reveals how the true meaning of Jesus' teachings, as found in the canonical gospels and many of the apocryphal and other early Christian texts, is that of the ageless, eternal and mystic path to God. Exhaustively researched from Old and New Testaments, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the Greek mystics, the Gnostics, the Mandaeans, the Manichaeans and others of Jesus' era, it reflects the yearning of all Christians and seekers throughout the ages to penetrate the unresolved mysteries of their faith, and attain direct, personal mystic experience of God.

And just one of numerous reviews:

Jesus has been talked and written about in every conceivable manner for two thousand years. Yet, strangely enough, he has rarely been studied as a mystic. It is one of the achievements of John Davidson's remarkable and thought-provoking book to restore to us Jesus the perfect mystic and Master.

It may be a new thought - or indeed it may be anathema - for many to think of Jesus primarily as a teacher of a universal mystic path, and one who was born to teach and initiate (baptize) those few of his time and place who were ready to hear his words and act upon them.

What this book makes abundantly clear is that Jesus did not come to found a religion which bears his name and which has become the central fact of Western civilization.

The apparent paradox of the Masters is that they give a universal spiritual teaching which is the same for all men and all times, yet a particular Master has a certain number of preselected disciples only of his own generation and location. Without the return of the Masters over and over again, the great plan of the Lord in sending his beloved Sons is always distorted and crystallized into the form we call a religion.

This book explains, as few others have had the freedom or confidence to tell us so clearly, how the religion of Jesus came to be founded. Many other mystics of Jesus' time and place were written out of history, their names preserved only in the tracts which decried them as heretics.

Yet, wonderfully, enough of their writings remains for an observer who possesses the key of the universal mystic path, as John Davidson does, to show us in fascinating detail what these neglected and suppressed mystics taught. Their contributions throw light not only on the gospel of Jesus but on the spirituality of the time.

So we find, for example, the writings of Simon Magus, said to be a successor of John the Baptist, denounced in the works of the orthodox Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. The very rigour of the account provides evidence to reconstitute the suppressed teachings of an authentic mystic.

Or take the mystic Basilides whose 24 volumes of Interpretation of the Gospels are known only in quotations by ... Clement of Alexandria.

There are many such heroes in this book wonderfully restored to us, along with what must be the real voice of Jesus himself. History has been cruel to Mani, for example, and his followers the Manichaeans; it has been little better to the Mandaeans or, to take a more recent example from the book, to William Tyndale.

Tyndale bravely compiled the first translation of the Bible from Greek to English in 1525, not for his own glory, but so that his countrymen could have the gospels in their own mother tongue. Like many another, Tyndale paid the supreme price.

Remarkably enough, many of the sources used in this book were already available, but were sitting, neglected, on library shelves. While the discovery and translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last fifty years has transformed our understanding of the hidden teachings of immediately before Jesus' time, many other ancient texts were to hand, even translated into English, for an enterprising researcher armed with the key of the universal mystic path to unlock.

It is no less a part of John Davidson's achievement to have recovered the words and names of many other mystics of Jesus' era. From the dusty archive room their voices speak loudly and clearly and lovingly out of the centuries of neglect.

Take a few examples:

Jesus said, "I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind."

Gospel of Thomas

Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error, for he rose up first and then died... Those who say he will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.

Gospel of Philip

The Son of the Living God, the Physician of souls ...

He revived the dead from the death of their sins.

He opened the eyes that were closed at the time of the an born blind.

He caused the ears of the unhearing soul to hear.

Psalms of Heracleides

Yet it is the voice of Jesus which sounds most brilliantly in these pages. By going back to the earliest authentic texts and examining exactly what Jesus said and did not say, much as a forensic expert analyses minute evidence and builds up a larger universe from these details, we learn many things about Jesus' teachings and parables, and indeed the events of his life and death.

Later translations, commentators and theologians inevitably bring their own colouring to the picture. But we have in this book a rare thing: a book about Jesus which lacks dogma.

It must be the hardest task of all to distance oneself from the conditioning of two thousand years and a childhood in the culture of Christianity to see Jesus clearly as a perfect mystic, speaking strongly and freshly, direct to us.

As the author says in his Introduction, "When one studies the teachings of Jesus pure and simple, one finds they speak directly to the human heart."

This is what one discovers in these thousand or so pages: not a treatise of airy-fairy waffle which so often passes for mysticism, nor a personal and self-indulgent philosophical system, but a logical and wonderfully organized exposition of Jesus' inner teachings of the heart and spirit.

The Gospel of Jesus may well become the Path of the Masters of our time. It is equally as ambitious as Dr Johnson's classic text, and similarly it succeeds....

John Davidson is the author of half a dozen earlier works in the area of mysticism and science, including Subtle Energy, The Web of Life and The Robe of Glory. But none of his previous studies have the depth and breadth of this new and exhaustively researched review of Jesus and his teachings in the light of universal mysticism.

This book is not only for those of a Christian background. On one level it might be seen as a case study of the great and recurring human drama of good and evil, with the universal theme that God becomes man so that man can become God, by teaching and following a gospel of pure love; and yet the Shabd mystic almost inevitably is destroyed by those he would save, and once safely dead his teachings can be moulded into the religion of the state.

But you must judge for yourself. The book has been commercially published in the UK, but printed in India, with every effort made to keep its cost to the minimum. It is a provocative study of the sort that changes how you think and feel. Read it with care because it's unlikely you will be the same afterwards.

Matthew Seal, Science of the Soul Magazine

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No game here, Shabd - I'm just always curious about others' beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a sense, you do have to believe to be "saved". But I don't mean in the sense that Paranoid Android understands it, of accepting church teachings about Christ, or as so many Christians regard as of utmost importance, believe the resurrection story to be factual and literal. I have have met more than one such person who freely acknowledges that their faith hinges on it, and were it shown to be false, they would no longer be interested ! The true believer in my view accepts that there is a saving redemption within us, directly accessible to us without any external mediation, and in fact dependent on there being withdrawl from the sensible world, and our recollections of it. On the face of it, that appears to be an utterly barren prospect, but the seeming sheer unlikelihood of it holding anything of worth, let alone the Supreme Good, might just speak more to it being the truth, than the salesmanship of organized religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No game here, Shabd - I'm just always curious about others' beliefs.

I am so glad to hear that JK. I mean that sincerely. I'm sorry if i came across 'harsh" with my comments but I tend to get a bit defensive sometimes with this subject because I get a lot of "superiority" thrown at me in many forms by people who automatically figure that anyone who disagrees with their beliefs about this subject means they have no knowledge of the subject (or at least have less than they have).

I might no longer be a "Christian" but that is no reflection whatsoever upon my love of Jesus or belief in who He truly "was." In fact my love for Him and my bond with Him (or "attachment") is greater than almost any Christian I have ever met. It is so strong and "otherworldly" that it defies my limited capacity to define it, let alone describe it. I am very much a "Christ-ian." I am in NO way a "Christian." That's because the two things are diametrically opposed (though only the rarest Christian will ever be able to recognize that because once they do, they would be very unlikely to continue calling themselves a "Christian" unless it was important "socially" to do so - or for business, etc.).

I have read extensively on all this. Vastly more than most anyone other than a Biblical scholar (or something similar). Other than daily meditation, minor house duties (cook, shower, etc.) and occasional (American) football games to watch, that is what I do all day long, every day, for 80%-90% of my day. That is no exaggeration. Outside of a couple brief trips to the store each month I never leave the house any more. This is my ENTIRE life. It is an absolute passion. I have no other interests and I no longer have any desires of any kind to keep me busy in their pursuit. (Though I do spend time occasionally reading the news or writing to a friend or relative, etc.)

Does that mean I "know" any more than anyone else? Heck no. Maybe I do and maybe I don't know diddly squat. Everyone will come to their own conclusion regarding that and I honestly don't care what they believe. I'm just sharing these facts right now so that maybe a few of the people who always seem to want to dismiss me as some sort of clueless "non-believer" might actually decide to respect me as someone who has a well-researched opinion, even if they decide it's completely insane, lol.

I'd give a body-part to ever find someone who actually wants to "share" what they've found and bounce ideas off me, etc. But nobody is interested in that. That's why I at least appreciate your perspective as it's not the typical "let's see how little he knows or understands" point of view. It's not "let's expose this fool" it's more of "let's at least listen to this fool," lol. (Only kidding about the last part of that sentence, but it was too hard to resist.)

A forum like this tends to attract mostly people who want to show how much they "know." A perfect example is one member who seemed to share a lot of my beliefs who wrote to me privately. I was actually thrilled because there seemed to be someone with the same interests as me that I could "talk to." He sent me things to read, told me stories and shared his beliefs, and even sent me music. I then shared my views and sent him a book about the Path I follow. That was more than two weeks ago and I never heard another word, lol.

It just proved what I had already believed and that's that everybody wants to be the "teacher" while nobody ever wants to be a student. Everybody already "knows." There is nothing they can possibly learn. Every time I ever come here to post anything, and every time i foolishly comment about religion to a friend or relative, i always kick myself and then tell myself to shut the heck up and stop doing that. I KNOW I'm wasting my time writing all I write because I'm not the least bit interested in "being right" or winning any arguments (that used to matter, unfortunately). I'm just so caught up in this that I want to share it and I just wish everyone could find it and experience it.

I know that's lunacy, lol. In fact the Path I follow stresses that we should never do what I've been doing here. The time is coming when i will finally stop. It's close to that now. It would be very easy to do if I had "a life" beyond this (not that I would ever want one though). Anything remotely similar to what type of "life" nearly anyone else has (or what I did have) and I'd be distracted by many other things. But this is my "everything" and it means so much to me that I can't help but have a powerful urge to share it with "the world," even though I know without a doubt that will never fly in any way whatsoever. I just love talking about it and can't help feeling like a man who has discovered "the fountain of youth" but who suddenly becomes invisible the moment he tries to tell anybody else about it. :P

I need to just clamp it and move on, lol, but that's still likely to take a little while longer - though i keep coming close to finally doing so (which will be a relief to many, lol).

Thanks again.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they are only "minor variations," then there is no need for the "2,000" ... "many" ... different types of churches. Just put them all under one name. Maybe Baptist or Pentecostal or whatever.

Hey, I have a great idea. just go back to the "original" church and everyone be called "Catholic."

Since they are only only "minor variations," all the different church leaders can get into a big room (VERY big) and work out those only "minor variations."

I'd have no problem worth that, as long as the core teachings are consistent minor differences (eg, Calvinism vs Arminianism) don't really matter. Moreover I would argue that these differences should actually be encouraged so that Christians can actively think about what it is they believe rather than just blindly accepting whatever a preacher says on the pulpit.

And, as to my comment about the "2,000 varieties of Christianity there are out there" that you reworded to say I said "thousands of churches" (which could mean 999,000 churches but is a term rarely used for "2" thousand churches), the use of "2,000" was an exaggeration to make my point. I'd hoped anyone who read it would understand that. But since you didn't, I'll get more specific.

Here's the "Christian Churches" I was able to find (there are surely hundreds more, at least):

I hope that was better than saying "2,000" churches. After all, I don't want anyone to take my number and falsely believe that means there are "a lot" of different Christian churches. ;)

Different churches and denominations, some different theological ideas. But I would argue that there is only one Christian church. Earthly organisations do not denote Christianity. Followers of Christ denote Christianity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hindu theology? :lol:

Where did you come up with that? That I posted an article that used the term "yogi?"

I didn't say Hindu theology. I said Hindu ideology. Whether intentional or not your concept of Jesus is reflected in Hindu ideology (theology is something different).

I know what the creators of the Bible meant. Though that's a totally different thing, does that count?

They were Jesus' words, so you tell me. What did Jesus mean and what did the creators of the Bible mean?

I know what Christianity teaches. Better than most Christians I know. You are confusing my saying I am not familiar with all the differences throughout the "countless' (is that better than "2,000?) Christian sects with me saying I'm not familiar with what Christianity teaches.

So you know it well and yet generalise Christianity as all a person needs to do is "believe". If that is what you think perhaps you do not know it as well as you think you know it?

I know it VERY well. How 'bout you?

Better than most. And in saying that, I know of nothing contradictory between Paul's and Jesus' teachings. I would like to see some examples. I read your later post where you quote a website (without acknowledging the source), but I'd like to hear your own ideas, citing specific examples where necessary.

LOL. If a billion light years away is your idea of "close," than I'd say you are right on the money. But since we've already seen an example of your ability to "estimate" I think I'll just say "no." :tu:

My apologies, I was basing my comment on your statement that you neither knew nor cared what Christianity taught. You've clarified your meaning so I recant the question, and replaced it with a request to give examples where you see Jesus and Paul in opposition :tu:

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I would argue that there is only one Christian church.

But there are 700+ different Christian churches who might argue with that. :P (I get your point but feel like messin' around, lol.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better than most. And in saying that, I know of nothing contradictory between Paul's and Jesus' teachings. I would like to see some examples. I read your later post where you quote a website (without acknowledging the source), but I'd like to hear your own ideas, citing specific examples where necessary.

I honestly didn't read the rest of what you wrote, not because it might not have been worth the read, but because I have no interest in playing Internet ego games, which is what this has turned into. It has nothing to do with exploring "other" ideas and is solely about defending "what I believe." I said my piece and you said yours and there's no reason to say any more about it. You believe you're right and I believe I'm right, and nothing will change that.

That said, i did catch the part about "Paul" and read the above paragraph and figured I'd use it to make my greater point.

I appreciate what you said, but as I stated earlier, I'm not here to debate or argue or try to convince anyone of anything. I honestly couldn't care less what anyone thinks about "Paul vs. Jesus" and I have absolutely nothing to gain in trying to "prove" any of that to you or to anyone else. I put out the info just because i believe it "might" stir somebody to do a little further research. I know that is so unlikely it's practically ludicrous, but so far my heart's still beating out my head in such inner battles, so i still post.

If you are so determined to "prove" all that is false I suggest you counter the statements I provided by numerous "nobodys" such as Kierkegaard, who is about as devoted a Christian who ever lived. That way you can show everyone how much more you understand Christianity than numerous famous brilliant men and that will offer a bit more credibility to your beliefs than arguing with "some guy."

Winning or losing a word battle with an anonymous Internet poster over whether or not Paul was the original "anti-Christ" won't change the facts one way or another. All it will mean is you got the best of some guy on a message board or that you got bested by that guy. And of course the determination of the "winner" will be decided by each participant's own mind. :lol:

I really have no interest in Internet word wars. If you want to believe Paul was a "plus" in spreading the teachings of Jesus, why would I even care to try to change that? I don't get anything out of that in any way, shape or form. If you are truly interested in whether Paul was actually the worst thing that ever happened to Christ's teachings, there are myriad sources which explain in great depth why that is, and by minds vastly superior to my own.

Just do a little research if you have any interest. Of course that isn't the same as playing "prove I'm right" on the Internet, so it might hold no interest at all. :P

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren't interested in providing examples to back your position then why make such a derogatory statement about Christians following Paul and not Jesus in the first place?

Believe it or not, my question was an honest one, I wasn't intending to argue that I was right and your were wrong. Quoting a website with famous people supporting your view doesn't actually help me see what you believe, anymore than me quoting a Christian website will help you understand me better. You may not believe me but the question was aimed so that I can understand your view better.

If it helps, I promise not to make any rebuttal post against your research, even if I disagree with it. At most I'll say "thanks, I disagree but I understand you better now".

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you aren't interested in providing examples to back your position then why make such a derogatory statement about Christians following Paul and not Jesus in the first place?

Believe it or not, my question was an honest one, I wasn't intending to argue that I was right and your were wrong. Quoting a website with famous people supporting your view doesn't actually help me see what you believe, anymore than me quoting a Christian website will help you understand me better. You may not believe me but the question was aimed so that I can understand your view better.

If it helps, I promise not to make any rebuttal post against your research, even if I disagree with it. At most I'll say "thanks, I disagree but I understand you better now".

~ PA

This is pretty silly, google 'paul contradicts jesus' and you get enough material to keep you busy for some centuries, and SM did quote a number of reputable sources to support his assertion. So, to get back to the OP's question, was Jesus a Yogi, what do you say, PA ? I say to the extent they are both mystics, the answer is "yes", but I don't think you believe he was a mystic, do you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty silly, google 'paul contradicts jesus' and you get enough material to keep you busy for some centuries, and SM did quote a number of reputable sources to support his assertion.

LOL. You nailed it. :lol:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habitat:

1- I know I can google it. I have googled it. I'm not asking for him to teach me. I'm asking him so that I can understand him as an individual better. I want his individual answer, not the internet answer. Does that clarify?

2- I think Jesus would for some of the points be considered a mystic. However there are several points described in the original post that Jesus would disagree with. And since the article stated that a "true yogi" adheres to this then I have to conclude that Jesus is not a true yogi as defined by the article.

For example, a true yogi (according to the article) acknowledges the divinity in all living things. Jesus only acknowledged divinity in humans. Therefore he cannot be a true yogi. However he does fir some of the other criteria, and so could be described as a mystic.

Does that make sense?

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. You nailed it. :lol:

Sorry when I started to reply to habitat you hadn't responded yet. Read point 1 in my post above :tu:

Point 2 answers your thread question, so read that too :lol:

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I just got through answering my best friend's email after he went on about how wonderful Paul's "message" was, I figured I'd post it here to add to the "fun." :P

Here it is:

It's amazing how Paul was basically "working for Satan" by his persecution of Christians before "GOD" so miraculously changed him.

It's funny that God can't be bothered to change guys like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, etc., etc., but He goes to all the trouble of converting a tax collector.

That mean ole guy who was working for Satan is suddenly working for Jesus. That's great. Think of all the tax money a few people saved. Why bother doing that with serial killers, mass murderers, child rapists, etc.? None of that would save a few tax dollars for the Christians.

I wonder why God rarely seems interested in"stealing" guys away from "the other side." Is it because Satan's grip is too strong to bother? If so, how come it got loosened in Paul's case? Just because it made a compelling story that would help boost Christianity? Why then didn't he just "convert" Paul and tell the "remarkable" story of the conversion, and what a "great" man Paul became, in the Bible?

Since Satan had Paul so tightly in his grasp that Paul had been harassing Christians you'd think Satan would desperately want to hang on to him. He'd surely hate to lose him! He'd especially hate to lose such a great anti-Christian weapon and then have Paul take over Christianity, completely distort Christ's message, get the Christian religion formed based on the wrong doctrine (so that all the followers would be convinced they were going to be "saved" instead of hearing Christ's true teachings of how to save yourself from Satan), just like it happened.

Satan would hate that!!!

Oh wait ...

Never mind ... :w00t:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- I know I can google it. I have googled it. I'm not asking for him to teach me. I'm asking him so that I can understand him as an individual better. I want his individual answer, not the internet answer. Does that clarify?

My answer is "the Internet answer" since the countless reasons I say what I said have been reported for centuries and are all now available via the Internet.

Is an "individual answer" the same as me saying yet again what so many others have already said? Can I just cut & paste their words so I can save a ton of typing?

Is that the same as you repeating the same thing as so many other Paul apologists have said? Is that what makes your saying the same old things an "individual answer?"

And how will my providing an "individual answer" not instead just serve your need to "argue?"

If you want me to cut & paste let me know and I will tell you how you can save me all that trouble by using Google to do it yourself.

Does that clarify?

Does that help you to "understand me as an individual better?"

Perhaps you would like a copy of my resume as well? Medical records? DNA samples? :P

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habitat:

1- I know I can google it. I have googled it. I'm not asking for him to teach me. I'm asking him so that I can understand him as an individual better. I want his individual answer, not the internet answer. Does that clarify?

2- I think Jesus would for some of the points be considered a mystic. However there are several points described in the original post that Jesus would disagree with. And since the article stated that a "true yogi" adheres to this then I have to conclude that Jesus is not a true yogi as defined by the article.

For example, a true yogi (according to the article) acknowledges the divinity in all living things. Jesus only acknowledged divinity in humans. Therefore he cannot be a true yogi. However he does fir some of the other criteria, and so could be described as a mystic.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for the clarification !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shabd,

You see, this is where I disagree. Your individual answer will help me understand you by showing me you have done the research rather than just parroting what you read on the net. For example, let's say someone asks me a theological question about Christianity. I then quote a Christian website and leave no personal additions. Does this show I have thought about the topic and seriously pondered and processed the data to inform my opinion? Or does it show that I can google and have no opinion of my own (or worse, that my opinion is based on poor research)?

Call me old fashioned, but when I ask someone their opinion I like to see internalised opinion, not just data.

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.