Nicene Creed??

[Amilius777]

I have been a bit questiony these days. I am not stuck in a mud but many thoughts have been going through my head.

First off the Nicene Creed vs. Modern Day Spirituality.

Now I understand the Creed in my view was a "form" to the Truth. Not the whole truth because none of the Church Fathers lived back then nor were any of the Church Fathers intuitive except maybe Thomas Aquinas, but he was more of a philosopher like Aristotle and his wisdom came from experience and probing his own mind. So the belief that the Holy Spirit chose a bunch of old dudes in a room to express the Truth of Christ is absurd. An absurd God would reveal the Truth to those who are opened to it inside, for the soul is within, not on some piece of paper or in a book.

One of the things also involves the Shroud of Turin. They have recently proven that the Shroud is in fact real. The dating is about 2000 years old and there are blood stains of AB. And the man was in fact "levitating" when it formed.

Another thing to take in account are psychic readings from Edgar Cayce, Sylvia Browne, Jane Doherty, Douglass Cottrell, Paul Solomon, etc and a whole host of others who make Jesus an important figure but dare not enter his field to explain.

1. You have Edgar Cayce saying that Jesus was crucified and all his blood was drained, died, and resurrected and eventually ascended into Heaven. Yet Cayce's material is vague and basically a roll off the tongue of Orthodox Christianity

2. Sylvia Browne has her crazy readings say that Jesus survived the crucifixion and actually was meant to suffer the pains of his people but not have to die. He survived and went on to live with Mary Magdalane which is absurd because the DaVinci Code is a complete hoax and nothing more but fiction.

3. Douglass Cottrell says that Jesus did died and did resurrect and ascended but was already married to Mary Magdalene and had children and obviously left her widowed and his descendants are around today. But Cottrell's readings are so wacky that not even the most opened minded would take them seriously

4. Paul Solomon is in accord with Cayce/Church teachings.

5. Paramahansa Yogananda is with Cayce/Solomon/Church teachings.

So in league with the Nicene Creed- We believe in One Father, His only son Jesus, died, buried, resurrected, ascension.

Does anyone think its beneficial to believe in these formalities to experience the Truth or it doesn't matter?

What are your personal matters?

The Shroud of Turin, Edgar Cayce, Sylvia Browne!!!, Cottrell and Solomon. I don't really see how any of these people could have any relation in context to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed was born out of a Spiritual revelotion that allowed Christianity to florish. The Romans got involved in the Christian movement around the same time so the Nicene Creed is viewed as a Catholic Creed. The Catholic Chruch are openly attacked on all levels these days so there is an attempt to stick a lot of negative stigma around things such as the Nicene Creed.
The Nicene Creed was written by the Nicene Counsel which was formed by Constentine. The Bible was assembled in to a single book at the same time. It's the Bible that has gained more attention than the Creed. Some people question the order in which the books of the Bible are presented. The Nag Hamandi also is questioned, it's a set of books that were omited from the Bible by the Nicene Counsel. So people often question what this Counsel was up to because they obviously made an impact on the world.

As for the Shroud of Turin, it was given back to the Church in the 1940's by a decendant of the last Night Templar. Everyone questions what this group had that was so cherishable, most try to say it was the Holy Grail because we do know that they went to Isreal before the crusades with treasure maps to religious artifacts. It dosn't take a genius to say hey where did this Shroud thing come from anyway?

[DivineLove]

There is an entire Universe out there. A cosmology, that very quickly falls outside of the term "religion".

Amilius. Your questions are good. However, trying to make everyone's teachings align somehow, and find truth in that, there is little hope of that happening.

Everyone, has a different story, on Jesus. On religion. On the spirit world.

So what does one do, when there are countless "theories"?

One must venture, within. As you said. Your soul, is inside.

This psychic, that you admire, Cayce. He used a form of trance mediumship. There are many books, which can teach you to make contact with your Higher Guides, and your Spirit Guides.

That is one approach. To at least get wisdom from within.

The best road, ultimately, is to go within. To traverse the terrains, within. As they contain great storehouses of knowledge, wisdom, and it is in this path, that you will also evolve spiritually.

Your "quandry", I understand this very well. As for the last 4 weeks, I've been in a similar state.

And my conclusion, is that for the most part, save for a few individuals, (God Bless them), who have ventured forth, and probed into the higher realms. Except for those, the vast majority, learn from books. Much as I have.

This is insufficient, for greater learning, for greater spiritual development.

Thoroughly insufficient.

Your questions, have answers Amilius. But what I am starting to see, is that those answers, will not come, from the very people who are on the same level you and I are on.

On this plane.

This plane, you will find a bunch of half truths. And some of it aligns. But it cannot replace either making contact with beings from Higher Planes, which can give us guidance, or if one is ready, to venture forth and obtain teachings directly from the Inner Planes.

This is where I am at, after my 4 week contemplation.

I wish you good tidings, in your inner search Amilius.

God's Love and Blessings, to All!

Originally Posted by Amilius777

I have been a bit questiony these days. I am not stuck in a mud but many thoughts have been going through my head.

First off the Nicene Creed vs. Modern Day Spirituality.

Now I understand the Creed in my view was a "form" to the Truth. Not the whole truth because none of the Church Fathers lived back then nor were any of the Church Fathers intuitive except maybe Thomas Aquinas, but he was more of a philosopher like Aristotle and his wisdom came from experience and probing his own mind. So the belief that the Holy Spirit chose a bunch of old dudes in a room to express the Truth of Christ is absurd. An absurd God would reveal the Truth to those who are opened to it inside, for the soul is within, not on some piece of paper or in a book.

One of the things also involves the Shroud of Turin. They have recently proven that the Shroud is in fact real. The dating is about 2000 years old and there are blood stains of AB. And the man was in fact "levitating" when it formed.

Another thing to take in account are psychic readings from Edgar Cayce, Sylvia Browne, Jane Doherty, Douglass Cottrell, Paul Solomon, etc and a whole host of others who make Jesus an important figure but dare not enter his field to explain.

1. You have Edgar Cayce saying that Jesus was crucified and all his blood was drained, died, and resurrected and eventually ascended into Heaven. Yet Cayce's material is vague and basically a roll off the tongue of Orthodox Christianity

2. Sylvia Browne has her crazy readings say that Jesus survived the crucifixion and actually was meant to suffer the pains of his people but not have to die. He survived and went on to live with Mary Magdalane which is absurd because the DaVinci Code is a complete hoax and nothing more but fiction.

3. Douglass Cottrell says that Jesus did died and did resurrect and ascended but was already married to Mary Magdalene and had children and obviously left her widowed and his descendants are around today. But Cottrell's readings are so wacky that not even the most opened minded would take them seriously

4. Paul Solomon is in accord with Cayce/Church teachings.

5. Paramahansa Yogananda is with Cayce/Solomon/Church teachings.

So in league with the Nicene Creed- We believe in One Father, His only son Jesus, died, buried, resurrected, ascension.

Does anyone think its beneficial to believe in these formalities to experience the Truth or it doesn't matter?

What are your personal matters?

It is my understanding that Constantine wanted to unite the empire. He had issues with the Pagans and the Christians and in order to unite them he made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. Due to the fact that there were beliefs of the Christians that would make his control that much eaiser. Christians believed in hell and heaven, consequently it was easy to threaten them with hellfire if they didn't remain in control. Many Pagan beliefs and rituals were converted into Christian beliefs in order to convert Pagans to Christianity. The winter solstice was turned into Christmas, the Pagan evergreen tree into a Christmas tree, yule log, mistletoe (a parasitic plant) add to that Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December. The May Pole (a phallic symbol) was a Pagan rite of birth and rebirth., the Easter egg another Pagan ritual of rebirth.

So you see the Pagan rites were mostly converted into Christian beliefs. I also believe that the crucifixion was a conspiracy and Jesus was not harmed. In Seth's teaching he states that another was placed on the cross to take his place. Why didn't Peter recognize Jesus in the Garden? It wasn't the Jesus that he knew. There is evidence that Jesus lived for many years after teaching in or around Tibet. What makes you think that the Di Vinci code was a hoax. There is some evidence to back that up as well.

In addition to other strange occurances, the Council of Nicene also took awary the connection of the Creator (Source) to humans and stated that humans were not divine, but mearly a creation of "God" and that left the church to be the only connection to God. Humans could not speak directly to God as they could only do such with the assistance of a priest. There are still some who believe that we must suffer as the Christ did, however I do not believe that Jesus was even close to the cross. Jesus was and remains one of the great masters of all times. He like many of the others came here to remind us of who we truly are. We are consciousness from the Source of all consciousness.

[theophilus]

Originally Posted by Amilius777

They have recently proven that the Shroud is in fact real. The dating is about 2000 years old and there are blood stains of AB. And the man was in fact "levitating" when it formed.

Who has proved this?

The Shroud can't be real because it doesn't fit the Bible's description of what Jesus was buried in. John 20:6,7 says,

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself

This shows that Jesus was wrapped in cloths and had another cloth placed over his face rather than being buried in a shrould. The account of the resurrection of Lazarus shows that this was the customary Jewish practice. John 11:43,44 says,

When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

So in league with the Nicene Creed- We believe in One Father, His only son Jesus, died, buried, resurrected, ascension.

Does anyone think its beneficial to believe in these formalities to experience the Truth or it doesn't matter?

What are your personal matters?

Belief in the resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the gospel. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:3,4

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

In verses 15 to 19 he stressed the fact that belief in the resurrection was essential to the faith.

We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

At the risk of sounding arguementative, How much evidence is there
that Jesus actually lived. It is mainly in scripture that his life is attested to. Even in those there are different accounts for the same time frame. There is very little outside of scripture that can show that he even existed.Then there is the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by any one of them, those scripture' came about some 60 years after Jesus left the scene.

We are infinite spiritual beings, we simply pass back to our true reality that being the nonphysical. No one falls asleep in Christ and no one perishes, ever. We reincarnate time and time again (those of us that are on the physical plane). There is no sin, you will not be judged, no hell and certainly no holy ghost. You of course are free to make your own choices and I wouldn't think of messing with your chosen path. Just saying what I've learned from a higher source. I would be happy to provide you with an extensieve list of books that prove reincarnation. One needs an open curious mind however.

[theophilus]

Originally Posted by Baldr44

It is mainly in scripture that his life is attested to. Even in those there are different accounts for the same time frame.

We have the same kind of evidence that we have for any other historical person. The reason there are no accounts outside of scripture is simply that all the reliable accounts were made part of the scripture. The differences in the gospels show that they were written independently of each other. Each of the writers chose to include different incidents in his account but there are no contradictions between them.

There is very little outside of scripture that can show that he even existed.

There is historical evidence of the existence and spread or Christianity. How could such a movement have existed without someone to found it?

I don't understand, all reliable accounts were made part of scripture? Where are the accounts? What text are they in? The gospels are packed with contradictions , how many generations between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 says 14 but Matthew 1:2 says 13. How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 says 2 but Luke 18: 35-38 says only one. Matthew says Jesus condemned public prayer but in Timothy Paul encouraged public prayer. Two thieves reviled Christ in Matthew but Luke says only 1.

In Matthew Jesus delivered the Lords prayer during the Sermon on the Mount to the multitudes however in Luke he delivered it only to the desciples alone and not part of the sermon on the mount. In Acts, all sins can be forgiven but in Mark, cursing or blaspheming the holy spirit is unforgivable. In Luke Jesus appeared first to the eleven disciples in a room in Jerusalem but in Matthew it was on a mountain in Galilee. In John Satan entered Judas during the supper but in Luke it was before.

Enough, however there are many more contradictions. You are right about a founder for Christianity and I believe Paul had that distinction not Jesus. It is my belief that Jesus didn't even want a church as he always gave his messages outdoors. When he told Peter that "on this rock I will build my church" he was talking about the third rock from the sun. I have no doubt about Jesus the metaphysician however I do doubt his being a martyr. Sorry but should you wish more, there are somewhere around 40 or more direct contradictions in both the old and new testaments. I am in no way questioning your faith because each must follow their own path to enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Baldr44

I don't understand, all reliable accounts were made part of scripture? Where are the accounts? What text are they in? The gospels are packed with contradictions , how many generations between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 says 14 but Matthew 1:2 says 13. How many blind men besought Jesus? Matthew 20:30 says 2 but Luke 18: 35-38 says only one. Matthew says Jesus condemned public prayer but in Timothy Paul encouraged public prayer. Two thieves reviled Christ in Matthew but Luke says only 1.

In Matthew Jesus delivered the Lords prayer during the Sermon on the Mount to the multitudes however in Luke he delivered it only to the desciples alone and not part of the sermon on the mount. In Acts, all sins can be forgiven but in Mark, cursing or blaspheming the holy spirit is unforgivable. In Luke Jesus appeared first to the eleven disciples in a room in Jerusalem but in Matthew it was on a mountain in Galilee. In John Satan entered Judas during the supper but in Luke it was before.

Enough, however there are many more contradictions. You are right about a founder for Christianity and I believe Paul had that distinction not Jesus. It is my belief that Jesus didn't even want a church as he always gave his messages outdoors. When he told Peter that "on this rock I will build my church" he was talking about the third rock from the sun. I have no doubt about Jesus the metaphysician however I do doubt his being a martyr. Sorry but should you wish more, there are somewhere around 40 or more direct contradictions in both the old and new testaments. I am in no way questioning your faith because each must follow their own path to enlightenment.

Jesus didn't condemn public prayer. He was saying some people pray out loud just to show how spiritual and religious they are. Like those pastors on T.V who walk around with their Bibles. "Praise the LAWD! He is Good! Look at all the things he has given me! Amen Amen Amen!" Yeah...it's loud but it does nothing for the edification of one's spirit.

Blaspheming I think of rejection of the spirit and that makes sense to me because how can you get something you reject? Ask, believe, receive. Don't ask, don't believe, don't receive. So the pharisees who were hardening their hearts and refused to listen weren't gonna experience the spirit because....how could they? Rejection, rejection, rejection!

Giving the makers of the Bible the benefit of a doubt, I think they might've put the four accounts (aka the Gospel) in their so that people can see the various testimonies. So one thief or two isn't really important to me. I usually try to keep my focus on the message and example Jesus kept demonstrating. That's usually what I say to people too when it comes to the Bible. I don't consider myself Christian so I'm not expecting anyone to follow or even agree with me but this is what I feel.

And I'm really skeptical on Paul as well. Many churches follow the "Pauline doctrine" which is the idea that it's all about faith in Jesus Christ and then that got spread to faith in Jesus is all you need to go to "heaven", etc. Paul often rubs my spirit wrong but I gotta remember it's not my job to judge another person's path PLUS he's not here so he can't defend himself. So I keep it movin, keep it movin!