|
Post by Isapop on Aug 24, 2022 0:11:52 GMT
"A" saviour rather than "the" saviour?" That raises some questions. Then there are other saviours among which people can choose? Who, for instance? What are the reasons why a person might choose one saviour over another? Wouldn't Jesus have disputed the idea that he is a saviour rather than the saviour, in view of his words: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 There are many paths up the mountain. I take the sayings of Jesus with a grain of salt, I accept the intention is normally accurate, however none of the gospel writers ever heard what they are quoting. The explanation for that statement is that Jesus is showing you the path by example to come to the father, in other words, look at me, I am actualised, you can be too if you follow my way, there is no other way except the work I have shown. There is also an esoteric explanation that Jesus life is an example of how to grow spiritually and so he is literally the example of the way you can be like him. That explanation for Jesus' statement sounds pretty solid. And it just seems incompatible with the idea that there are many paths up the mountain. ("there is no other way") And, btw, who else besides Jesus is also a saviour?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 1:47:41 GMT
There are many paths up the mountain. I take the sayings of Jesus with a grain of salt, I accept the intention is normally accurate, however none of the gospel writers ever heard what they are quoting. The explanation for that statement is that Jesus is showing you the path by example to come to the father, in other words, look at me, I am actualised, you can be too if you follow my way, there is no other way except the work I have shown. There is also an esoteric explanation that Jesus life is an example of how to grow spiritually and so he is literally the example of the way you can be like him. That explanation for Jesus' statement sounds pretty solid. And it just seems incompatible with the idea that there are many paths up the mountain. ("there is no other way") And, btw, who else besides Jesus is also a saviour? Well first we have to assume that that is in fact what he said. If it is, then my rationale is that there is no other way except experiential work, which fits as I believe Jesus was an Essene, which means his way is the only way, but the method of achieving experiential work is annunciated culturally. In other words, Buddha taught the same idea, the same concept with a different cultural lens. This is why modern western esotericism borrows so much from India, we lost our experiential path with the scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 24, 2022 3:36:39 GMT
I would not dispute someone's claim that they are a Christian. But I like to know what someone means when they say they are a Christian. And since I don't know if Hermetics have different ideas among themselves about Jesus, I still have no answer to my simple question. It's a bit more nuanced than a binary choice, put it this way, Mary was not a virgin, Jesus' physical body came about through good old fashioned sex. He is also the saviour, or rather a saviour. Mary and Joseph were already married when Jesus was born, she definitely wasn't a virgin.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 24, 2022 3:39:35 GMT
The explanation for that statement is that Jesus is showing you the path by example to come to the father, in other words, look at me, I am actualised, you can be too if you follow my way, there is no other way except the work I have shown. There is also an esoteric explanation that Jesus life is an example of how to grow spiritually and so he is literally the example of the way you can be like him. That squares with Peter's quick stroll on the water.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 24, 2022 8:40:29 GMT
That explanation for Jesus' statement sounds pretty solid. And it just seems incompatible with the idea that there are many paths up the mountain. ("there is no other way") And, btw, who else besides Jesus is also a saviour? Well first we have to assume that that is in fact what he said. If it is, then my rationale is that there is no other way except experiential work, which fits as I believe Jesus was an Essene, which means his way is the only way, but the method of achieving experiential work is annunciated culturally. In other words, Buddha taught the same idea, the same concept with a different cultural lens. This is why modern western esotericism borrows so much from India, we lost our experiential path with the scientific method. You called Hermeticism "a known and recognised branch of Christianity." One wouldn't get that impression from the curators of the Hermetic Fellowship Website, which I take is about as close to "the horse's mouth" as one is likely to find. www.hermeticfellowship.org/HFindex.htmlLooking over the article "What is Hermeticism?" it seems that Hermeticism, rather than being a branch of Christianity, is a more eclectic belief system whose adherents can incorporate elements of Christianity into their beliefs if they choose to. In other words, a Hermeticist can regard himself as a Christian, while another Hermeticist doesn't regard himself as such.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 24, 2022 15:55:34 GMT
I suppose that might be pedantically correct, but I wouldn't call an individual a religion. Is it a religion if there is no shared identity? Kind of like calling yourself a club of one, or yourself and friends going out for pizza a fraternity or sorority. There are groups like Masons that require belief in a higher power but are not religions even though they share spiritualism. And there is the viewpoint that only Abrahamic religions are organized and everything else is a cult or folk superstition, which is an expression of Christian power. Yeah and there are also people like me who follow a codified religion but don't belong to any kind of group or go to any church, and I am a Christian. That's nice, but you would never have had or heard of your codified religion without millions of obedient Christians devoutly giving money to organized churches over the centuries, primarily the Roman Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 19:03:05 GMT
Well first we have to assume that that is in fact what he said. If it is, then my rationale is that there is no other way except experiential work, which fits as I believe Jesus was an Essene, which means his way is the only way, but the method of achieving experiential work is annunciated culturally. In other words, Buddha taught the same idea, the same concept with a different cultural lens. This is why modern western esotericism borrows so much from India, we lost our experiential path with the scientific method. You called Hermeticism "a known and recognised branch of Christianity." One wouldn't get that impression from the curators of the Hermetic Fellowship Website, which I take is about as close to "the horse's mouth" as one is likely to find. www.hermeticfellowship.org/HFindex.htmlLooking over the article "What is Hermeticism?" it seems that Hermeticism, rather than being a branch of Christianity, is a more eclectic belief system whose adherents can incorporate elements of Christianity into their beliefs if they choose to. In other words, a Hermeticist can regard himself as a Christian, while another Hermeticist doesn't regard himself as such. Wow that is a well fruity site, and optimised for Netscape 4, what a modern and exciting world we live in Yeah I guess that is a good point, hermeticism I guess is not so much a branch of christianity as one interpretation of it, I came to it through Christianity, well and Kaballah, this is quite a good blurb The other thing is of course that the west has lost their experiential tradition, so a lot of the spiritual practice bears the stamp of eastern religion. I tend to get my teaching through written word, one of my favourite authors goes by Yogi Ramacharaka, who is very clearly taking a synthesis of yogi teachings and Christianity. I really rate his Mystic Christianity as a book.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 19:04:01 GMT
Yeah and there are also people like me who follow a codified religion but don't belong to any kind of group or go to any church, and I am a Christian. That's nice, but you would never have had or heard of your codified religion without millions of obedient Christians devoutly giving money to organized churches over the centuries, primarily the Roman Catholic Church. Im not sure you can prove that, still it's interesting to note.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 19:06:00 GMT
It's a bit more nuanced than a binary choice, put it this way, Mary was not a virgin, Jesus' physical body came about through good old fashioned sex. He is also the saviour, or rather a saviour. Mary and Joseph were already married when Jesus was born, she definitely wasn't a virgin. Also it ruins Jesus, if he is not born of man, and therefore simply a seed carried by a woman (as one would assume God did not in that case use one of marys eggs) then he has zero connection to humanity, hes just an alien telling us how we should live. Part of the basis of Jesus is that he is incarnate in human flesh, and the only way to do that is rumpy pumpy.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 19:06:50 GMT
The explanation for that statement is that Jesus is showing you the path by example to come to the father, in other words, look at me, I am actualised, you can be too if you follow my way, there is no other way except the work I have shown. There is also an esoteric explanation that Jesus life is an example of how to grow spiritually and so he is literally the example of the way you can be like him. That squares with Peter's quick stroll on the water. yup and esoteric tradition holds a few more acts of the disciples that are miracles.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 19:07:56 GMT
There are many paths up the mountain. I take the sayings of Jesus with a grain of salt, I accept the intention is normally accurate, however none of the gospel writers ever heard what they are quoting. The explanation for that statement is that Jesus is showing you the path by example to come to the father, in other words, look at me, I am actualised, you can be too if you follow my way, there is no other way except the work I have shown. There is also an esoteric explanation that Jesus life is an example of how to grow spiritually and so he is literally the example of the way you can be like him. That explanation for Jesus' statement sounds pretty solid. And it just seems incompatible with the idea that there are many paths up the mountain. ("there is no other way") And, btw, who else besides Jesus is also a saviour? Hey also I'm sorry, you clearly weren't trying to call me out, I was overly touchy. Apologies for any rudeness.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Aug 24, 2022 20:44:55 GMT
That explanation for Jesus' statement sounds pretty solid. And it just seems incompatible with the idea that there are many paths up the mountain. ("there is no other way") And, btw, who else besides Jesus is also a saviour? Hey also I'm sorry, you clearly weren't trying to call me out, I was overly touchy. Apologies for any rudeness. That's quite all right. In trying to get a handle on what you were saying, I came across a book titled Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism. Maybe you know it.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 24, 2022 20:48:57 GMT
That's nice, but you would never have had or heard of your codified religion without millions of obedient Christians devoutly giving money to organized churches over the centuries, primarily the Roman Catholic Church. Im not sure you can prove that, still it's interesting to note. It's hard to imagine that Christianity would spread from its humble origins if most of the adherents were stay-at-home Christians. How could all the pagans of Northern Europe be converted to Christianity without an active and forceful organized church to make it happen?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 24, 2022 23:22:49 GMT
Mary and Joseph were already married when Jesus was born, she definitely wasn't a virgin. Also it ruins Jesus, if he is not born of man, and therefore simply a seed carried by a woman (as one would assume God did not in that case use one of marys eggs) then he has zero connection to humanity, hes just an alien telling us how we should live. Part of the basis of Jesus is that he is incarnate in human flesh, and the only way to do that is rumpy pumpy. No it does not ruin Our Lord Jesus. Rather, your (& Sarge's)view is what ruins Our Lord Jesus. You see, the Lord Jesus Is the Son Of God. We are all children Of the Heavenly Father, but, Jesus Is SPECIFICALLY His Son. If Jesus was conceived naturally, then his sonship to God, would be absolutely no different than anybody else's sonship/daughtership to God, thereby making the Title "Son Of God" meaningless. All religions are centred upon a certain person, but, in the case of all the others, they are known for titles or "vocations (for lack of a better word)" other than being God's Son (& in the few cases that there are alleged sons or daughters of God or gods, it they belong to polytheistic or pantheistic religions; not monotheistic); Abraham is the Patriarch or Forefather of several religions (Christianity included); Moses the Lawgiver (first Prophet) of Judaism; Zarathustra is a Prophet in Zoroastrianism; Confucius is the philosopher in Confucianism; St. John the Baptist is the final Prophet for Mandaeism (as well as the Herald Of the Christ in Christianity); Muhammad is the seal of the prophets in Islam; Nanak Dev is the founding guru in Sikhism; Bahaullah is the final manifestation of God in Baha'i. None of these religions view their founders as Being SPECIFICALLY God's child, but, as holy men under other titles.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 23:38:51 GMT
Also it ruins Jesus, if he is not born of man, and therefore simply a seed carried by a woman (as one would assume God did not in that case use one of marys eggs) then he has zero connection to humanity, hes just an alien telling us how we should live. Part of the basis of Jesus is that he is incarnate in human flesh, and the only way to do that is rumpy pumpy. No it does not ruin Our Lord Jesus. Rather, your (& Sarge's)view is what ruins Our Lord Jesus. You see, the Lord Jesus Is the Son Of God. We are all children Of the Heavenly Father, but, Jesus Is SPECIFICALLY His Son. If Jesus was conceived naturally, then his sonship to God, would be absolutely no different than anybody else's sonship/daughtership to God, thereby making the Title "Son Of God" meaningless. All religions are centred upon a certain person, but, in the case of all the others, they are known for titles or "vocations (for lack of a better word)" other than being God's Son (& in the few cases that there are alleged sons or daughters of God or gods, it they belong to polytheistic or pantheistic religions; not monotheistic); Abraham is the Patriarch or Forefather of several religions (Christianity included); Moses the Lawgiver (first Prophet) of Judaism; Zarathustra is a Prophet in Zoroastrianism; Confucius is the philosopher in Confucianism; St. John the Baptist is the final Prophet for Mandaeism (as well as the Herald Of the Christ in Christianity); Muhammad is the seal of the prophets in Islam; Nanak Dev is the founding guru in Sikhism; Bahaullah is the final manifestation of God in Baha'i. None of these religions view their founders as Being SPECIFICALLY God's child, but, as holy men under other titles. Now you are starting to get it, Jesus life is a template to bring us closer to our heavenly father (as you almost certainly put it, I would say the all, Tolle uses 'source'), we ARE all children of God, mystic Christians sometimes refer to Jesus' soul as being pure, ie not having been already incarnated, even if you don't that that though, Jesus was clearly an advanced spiritualist, and his teachings are designed for us to follow his path to reunion with the all.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 24, 2022 23:40:43 GMT
Im not sure you can prove that, still it's interesting to note. It's hard to imagine that Christianity would spread from its humble origins if most of the adherents were stay-at-home Christians. How could all the pagans of Northern Europe be converted to Christianity without an active and forceful organized church to make it happen? The spread of Christianity is another question, you claimed I would never have heard of my belief set if Christianity had not happened, it's true I would not class myself as a Christian, im quietly confident that the ideas I hold would still exist.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 25, 2022 0:13:50 GMT
No it does not ruin Our Lord Jesus. Rather, your (& Sarge's)view is what ruins Our Lord Jesus. You see, the Lord Jesus Is the Son Of God. We are all children Of the Heavenly Father, but, Jesus Is SPECIFICALLY His Son. If Jesus was conceived naturally, then his sonship to God, would be absolutely no different than anybody else's sonship/daughtership to God, thereby making the Title "Son Of God" meaningless. All religions are centred upon a certain person, but, in the case of all the others, they are known for titles or "vocations (for lack of a better word)" other than being God's Son (& in the few cases that there are alleged sons or daughters of God or gods, it they belong to polytheistic or pantheistic religions; not monotheistic); Abraham is the Patriarch or Forefather of several religions (Christianity included); Moses the Lawgiver (first Prophet) of Judaism; Zarathustra is a Prophet in Zoroastrianism; Confucius is the philosopher in Confucianism; St. John the Baptist is the final Prophet for Mandaeism (as well as the Herald Of the Christ in Christianity); Muhammad is the seal of the prophets in Islam; Nanak Dev is the founding guru in Sikhism; Bahaullah is the final manifestation of God in Baha'i. None of these religions view their founders as Being SPECIFICALLY God's child, but, as holy men under other titles. Now you are starting to get it, Jesus life is a template to bring us closer to our heavenly father (as you almost certainly put it, I would say the all, Tolle uses 'source'), we ARE all children of God, mystic Christians sometimes refer to Jesus' soul as being pure, ie not having been already incarnated, even if you don't that that though, Jesus was clearly an advanced spiritualist, and his teachings are designed for us to follow his path to reunion with the all. But if His Sonship is no different than anybody else's, what is the point of being specifically HIS disciple as opposed to all the others that I have mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 25, 2022 0:20:17 GMT
Now you are starting to get it, Jesus life is a template to bring us closer to our heavenly father (as you almost certainly put it, I would say the all, Tolle uses 'source'), we ARE all children of God, mystic Christians sometimes refer to Jesus' soul as being pure, ie not having been already incarnated, even if you don't that that though, Jesus was clearly an advanced spiritualist, and his teachings are designed for us to follow his path to reunion with the all. But if His Sonship is no different than anybody else's, what is the point of being specifically HIS disciple as opposed to all the others that I have mentioned? You really are cutting to the chase huh? The good parts of religion are simply a cultural take on the same truth.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 25, 2022 0:23:56 GMT
But if His Sonship is no different than anybody else's, what is the point of being specifically HIS disciple as opposed to all the others that I have mentioned? You really are cutting to the chase huh? The good parts of religion are simply a cultural take on the same truth. But, what is the point of being Christ's Disciple, as opposed to any other, if He Is not Who Claimed to Be? Who His Apostles claimed Him to Be?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 25, 2022 0:35:23 GMT
You really are cutting to the chase huh? The good parts of religion are simply a cultural take on the same truth. But, what is the point of being Christ's Disciple, as opposed to any other, if He Is not Who Claimed to Be? Who His Apostles claimed Him to Be? Well firstly I do not believe he claimed that, and secondly as I am saying, you are getting it. The various prophets are all speaking the same thing, they simply do it in a different cultural lens. Of course there is a caveat as to who I accept as a prophet, for example I am not convinced by Joseph Smith
|
|