Please Answer This Question

[Morpheus]

"That may be so but there is no troll on this thread, I like talking about Christianity, but I hold no particular belief, truth cannot be held, it is ever flowing, after all what is
Christianity, everyone that calls themselves christian have a different belief to the other, as do Catholics, Protestants and all other denominations, no one is really right or wrong, there is just a difference of viewing the truth, you have your's and I have mine.
I will admit openly that I think that the Bible writers borrowed heavily from the
ancient Egyptian myths... The Stories of Horus and Jesus are nearly a perfect match of each other.
But if someone can give evidence that this is not the case, I am not above admitting I was wrong. I'm looking for honest answers here.
And Morpheus...Instead of always accusing people of attacking individuals of the faith and telling long drawn out stories, why not contribute something to the conversation within the context of the question."

I am but stating the apparent.
You could have started this dialogue in the Interfaith thread, or, one of the pagan's or other where it has been done, prior. Seeing you are not a subscribing Christian.

I've already asked a Mod a while back, why there is no humanist/atheist subforum, where people might have these discussions, also, with no answer or reply.

Gracey:

"i just read about the similarities of horus and jesus......i had no idea!!!"

Animus:

"One Christian theologian (name escapes me, at the moment) suggested the Devil foresaw the coming of Christ and imitated his life so when he finally did arrive, people would be incredulous to his claims of divinity."

Psycho:

"Animus:One Christian theologian (name escapes me, at the moment) suggested the Devil foresaw the coming of Christ and imitated his life so when he finally did arrive, people would be incredulous to his claims of divinity."
That was an excuse, a very poor excuse at that.

Minds Eye:

Actually, quite a few theologians have stated this in modern times and in the past. The problem with this view is that it contradicts other tenants of the Christian faith and even scripture.
The Bible says that the plan of salvation was hidden from Satan; and if he figured it out and pulled off a near perfect duplicate, not once but many times... that would make Satan almost as wise and omniscient as God. And so if we reason this point of view out, we will see that it doesn't really hold up in many respects.

Minds...you have no scripture reference for this?
Here is a Bible referencing tool. Feel free to use it to cite your statement, if it isn't a distortion.
http://bible.cc/

Reverend Keith:

"Basic answer to the question is that the authors of the gospels were probably gentiles, and they didn't have a lot of reference material to draw upon. There was a hunger for more information about Jesus, and some of that got filled in with what a gentile author thought was "appropriate" for a divine avatar, as drawn from their own cultural experience."

Interesting perspective from someone who claims to be a Christian theologian, Keith.
So I am wondering now... what do you do with the various prophecies concerning the coming Messiah in the books of the Old Testament, which dates of writing have been confirmed by the scholars, and through the various archaeological finds?
The Dead Sea Scrolls only being the most high profile among them?

Psycho:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christ

In all of this discussion, and particularly the comments about the counterfeit stories of a savior and the Messiah before and in other cultures, you are missing the, "Primer", or key, as it were.

Some, if not all of you may recall in the movie, "Contact", that it was brought out that to understand the plans for the machine which were sent to them, they had to think like an advanced race not limited to the 3 dimensional, as humans are.
Primer reffering to, a "key".

The primer involves this, you are still "inured" in your various reasonings, in not percieving the greater reality and Truth.
That, this "Construct", "Matrix" and "Maya" is not real....when compared with the greater situation.
"Time" is meaningless then. (along with attending space, and gravity).

You have been unable to include this equation into your perspectives, having to do with dissaffection, and, the egoic situation in which humanity is immersed.
All of this involves the situation of, "The Elect", (apart from time), and also, "Predestination", discussed in scripture. which also disregards time.

It is stated by Jesus, and it is true... that we will all give an account of every word and idea communicated by us...with attending consequences.

Continue on... while there is, "time".
Apart from the construct it is all a known by God, as can be evidenced in the many NDE accounts we can read today, and I'm not troubled by attacks, or assaults.
In my prior post concerning trials of the people of faith, this is nothing in comparison, and the Believers are told to expect the same in, "The World".

And TeeHee, you might consider this as well.

Edited by SF Staff

[Reverend Keith]

[quote=Mind's Eye]

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

Have you ever read The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur? It puts forth a most interesting idea about Jesus and other mythical god-men. I have to wonder whether or not Jesus did actually exist, based on the forged historical documents and lack of records about his life. One would think that if a man truly lived and done all that the Bible says he did, there would be more evidences than just the book we call the Bible...

But I also think that if he did exist, that religion has greatly misunderstood and even misquoted him, perhaps for their own purposes.

Thoughts?

Haven't read it, but looking over a summary, I think I'd like it. It's basically a popular Gnostic perspective - that the actual Jesus, if he even existed, is rather incidental to the spiritual Christ.

But I think there are a few encouraging things to consider about the historical Jesus. First of all, I do think the existence of an actual Jesus makes sense. If only in the sense of Occam's Razor, it makes sense that the simplest explanation for a large movement of people claiming to spread the teachings of a wandering holy man named Jesus is that there actually WAS a wandering holy man named Jesus. And the more you get back to what scholars believe are the earliest fragments of material surrounding Jesus, the more Jewish he sounds, which makes sense. A historical, Jewish Jesus with layers of gentile accretions surrounding his legacy fits the facts well.

But the interesting thing is that "Jewish" covered a lot wider range of ground back then - including mystical movements that would later form the basis of both Kaballah and Gnosticism. These mystical movements were heavily entrenched in the geographical and cultural regions Jesus frequented. This would help explain why the teachings of the Gospel of Thomas, which are widely regarded as VERY early, sound so Gnostic.

Jesus as a real, but rather secretive and mystical teacher, would explain a lot. It would explain why the historical record of him is sparse. He didn't focus on huge crowds. He probably wasn't as publicly popular as John the Baptist. He focused most of his teachings on a small group of private initiates. It wouldn't be out of bounds to describe him as a shaman or a guru. It would explain the rise of Christian Gnosticism and Thomistic Christianity. Some groups interpreted Jesus mystically because Jesus INTENDED to be mystical. And it would explain why the gentiles were so comfortable decorating their histories of Jesus with images and stories from the mystery cults and mythologies.

[Morpheus]

Keith:

Some groups interpreted Jesus mystically because Jesus INTENDED to be mystical. And it would explain why the gentiles were so comfortable decorating their histories of Jesus with images and stories from the mystery cults and mythologies.

I recall book, who's title I don't recall, on mystical Christianity, but, the statement that the mystical is the eventual, and ultimate destination of faith, sticks.

First of all, I do think the existence of an actual Jesus makes sense. If only in the sense of Occam's Razor, it makes sense that the simplest explanation for a large movement of people claiming to spread the teachings of a wandering holy man named Jesus is that there actually WAS a wandering holy man named Jesus. And the more you get back to what scholars believe are the earliest fragments of material surrounding Jesus, the more Jewish he sounds, which makes sense. A historical, Jewish Jesus with layers of gentile accretions surrounding his legacy fits the facts well.

From The Book of Daniel" written, around, 587-530 B.C.
Daniel 7:13,14 -
"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.
He approached the Ancient of Days.
14And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed"

Also, King David, in Psalms 110 -
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."

-snip-

Edited by SF Staff

[Reverend Keith]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

Reverend Keith:
Interesting perspective from someone who claims to be a Christian theologian, Keith.
So I am wondering now... what do you do with the various prophecies concerning the coming Messiah in the books of the Old Testament, which dates of writing have been confirmed by the scholars, and through the various archaeological finds?
The Dead Sea Scrolls only being the most high profile among them?

Usually, to avoid confusion, I call myself a follower of the Master Yeshua. You could consider me an esoteric or Gnostic Christian. However, if "Christian" means conforming to traditional post-Nicean doctrines and dogmas and the belief in the literal inerrancy of the Protestant Bible, then I'm not at all "Christian". But I also believe that traditional, post-Nicean dogmas represent a serious departure from what Jesus actually taught, and really can't be called "Christian" in any historically factual sense.

As for Old Testament prophecy, I find many of the messianic prophecies spiritually meaningful. But I generally don't find them to be, factually, a good enough fit to convince a Jew or a non-believer. Most of them rely on rather loose, out-of-context, spiritualized interpretations of Hebrew scripture. Useful for believers - unconvincing for outsiders. Particularly when the details of their fulfillment can be historically suspect.

[Morpheus]

As for Old Testament prophecy, I find many of the messianic prophecies spiritually meaningful. But I generally don't find them to be, factually, a good enough fit to convince a Jew or a non-believer. Most of them rely on rather loose, out-of-context, spiritualized interpretations of Hebrew scripture. Useful for believers - unconvincing for outsiders. Particularly when the details of their fulfillment can be historically suspect.

Convincing a Jew or non believer I don't think is relevant. There are those predestined to believing, and those not. Point is though, as in my prior post, these prophecies exist, and some being rather detailed, and specific.
However, some people will not be convinced, having to do with subjective issues.

Now... that scripture, and others in Daniel, are very specific, regarding, "The Son of Man".

Now, believers usually find these prophecies in the Old Testament after having already come to faith, and confessing Christ due to His own words, and teachings.

"This knowledge has taken different forms throughout the centuries. It is the "perennial wisdom" expressed through various religions, each adapted to the spirit of a particular time, people, and level of spiritual evolution.
Aivanhov's teaching incorporates aspects of Esoteric Christianity that relate to finding the "Kingdom of God on earth" within the individual."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omraam_Mikha%C3%ABl_A%C3%AFvanhov

Originally Posted by Morpheus

Convincing a Jew or non believer I don't think is relevant. There are those predestined to believing, and those not.

You might want to pause there and go back and check your beliefs. The above view of predestination was never taught in Christianity until John Calvin concocted it in the 1500's I believe. Calvin and Luther are looked at as heroes and champions of the faith, but an honest historical look into their lives and teachings shows that they were quite off center in their personal lives. Martin Luther even said before he died that he never meant for his reformation to cause a break from the Church of Rome.

This is where a lot of problems stem from in Christianity, there are so many split groups that divided from numerous other groups and started their own original teachings... So unfortunately, one never knows if what he believes is from authentic Christianity or some doctrine that came about over 1500 years after its inception. Many people say that its all in the Bible and the Bible is all we need.... But what did the early Christians do before there was a written Bible??? Do you even know the answer to that? Are you aware of the spoken, oral tradition of Christianity that is preserved mostly in the Roman Catholic Church and completely discarded by other sects of Christianity?

It is a hard fact for many to face... But the Catholic Church actually preserves more of the ancient traditions and teachings of early Christianity than an other denomination. So if you are going to enter into a more literal/traditional realm of Christianity, you are perhaps better off becoming a Catholic, because all else is a mass of personal opinions based on scripture alone... and the Protestant Bible was further edited and even had more books discarded from it than the Catholic version. Protestantism basically changed the Bible that all Christians used for over 1500 years... Where did they get this right and who said it was correct? So are you sure what you hold as the truth is really Christian, or is it something else that was reasoned out by men nearly 2000 years after Christianity was born?

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye

You might want to pause there and go back and check your beliefs. The above view of predestination was never taught in Christianity until John Calvin concocted it in the 1500's I believe. Calvin and Luther are looked at as heroes and champions of the faith, but an honest historical look into their lives and teachings shows that they were quite off center in their personal lives. Martin Luther even said before he died that he never meant for his reformation to cause a break from the Church of Rome.

This is where a lot of problems stem from in Christianity, there are so many split groups that divided from numerous other groups and started their own original teachings... So unfortunately, one never knows if what he believes is from authentic Christianity or some doctrine that came about over 1500 years after its inception. Many people say that its all in the Bible and the Bible is all we need.... But what did the early Christians do before there was a written Bible??? Do you even know the answer to that? Are you aware of the spoken, oral tradition of Christianity that is preserved mostly in the Roman Catholic Church and completely discarded by other sects of Christianity?

It is a hard fact for many to face... But the Catholic Church actually preserves more of the ancient traditions and teachings of early Christianity than an other denomination. So if you are going to enter into a more literal/traditional realm of Christianity, you are perhaps better off becoming a Catholic, because all else is a mass of personal opinions based on scripture alone... and the Protestant Bible was further edited and even had more books discarded from it than the Catholic version. Protestantism basically changed the Bible that all Christians used for over 1500 years... Where did they get this right and who said it was correct? So are you sure what you hold as the truth is really Christian, or is it something else that was reasoned out by men nearly 2000 years after Christianity was born?

The catholic church, which is the Universal church that was established by the non christian, King Constantine, in 325 AD, almost 300 years after the Apostolic church of Jesus Christ was founded in Jerusalem. Which Universal church has absolutely nothing to do with the Jesus who was taught by the Apostles.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Gem

I got a cross ready for you mate. teehee

He He, gee I've been crucified many times, these days its just like a cross of a ducks back lol.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by psychoslice

He He, gee I've been crucified many times, these days its just like a cross of a ducks back lol.

Good blessings Mr Slice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=SJUhlRoBL8M.

Originally Posted by S-word

The catholic church, which is the Universal church that was established by the non christian, King Constantine, in 325 AD, almost 300 years after the Apostolic church of Jesus Christ was founded in Jerusalem. Which Universal church has absolutely nothing to do with the Jesus who was taught by the Apostles.

That is true, but they did absorb many of the older traditions of Christianity.. But they do, of course, have some things added to it. The trick is to figure out which beliefs and traditions were those of the early Christians and which ones came about later. So even there you do not get a pure version of the original religion...

To say that Catholics are non-Christian is fallacy of Protestantism. And naturally they do have a lot of their facts obscured when it comes to what Catholic even believe. Strangely enough, Protestantism is actually the form of Christianity that has departed from most of the ancient beliefs of the religion. With the birth of sola scriptura, many began to invent their own doctrines according to what they read in the Bible and how they understood it. This is why you can walk into a hundred Protestant churches and get a hundred different answers as to what they believe.

As one huge example as to how Protestantism has departed from the original practices of the Christian faith, let us look at the practice of the Lord's Supper or communion. The early Christians partook of this meal every Lord's day, or the day of the week that they met. It was actually believed to be the body and blood of Christ and was the central rite of the Christian gathering. It doesn't take a historian or master theologian to do a little digging and find that this fact is so... Yet Protestantism looks upon this practice as being purely symbolic and most Protestant churches partake of the Lord's Supper once or twice a year using squares of bread and cups of grape juice.

Once one studies the subject out from a more historical point of view, they will find that Protestantism is actually farther away from actual Christianity then their favorite whipping boy.... the Church of Rome.