Can Buddhism be more reliable than Christianity?

[Medicine*Woman]

Re: Re: Apples???

Originally posted by Jenyar
And the Afrikaans word for 'apple' is 'appel'. What has that got to do with anything? The word used in Genesis 3:6 is not apple (it's a popular misconception). It is "priy" (Strong's # 6529), meaning:
1)fruit, produce (of the ground)
2)fruit, offspring, children, progeny (of the womb)
3)fruit (of actions) (figuratively)

What Adam and Eve ate was literally 'the results of the tree', whether it was meant literally or figuratively is up to you to decide. "Apple" would have been 'tappuwach', apple/apple tree.

No matter how mysterious or complicated you find the original languages of the Bible, it does not help to insult the intelligence of those cultures by saying they could not describe events properly. If you don't agree with the translation, get a concordance, study the use of the word in its original context, and translate it yourself.

What a dumb ass you are! I did NOT 'insult the intelligence of THOSE CULTURES by saying they could not describe events properly.' Moses was a patriarch who allegedly wrote the first 5 books of the OT, Genesis included. My problem is Moses was a grand dragon of the Patriarchy, a male-dominated society who got credit for recorded history as we know it which we now all know is packed with lies! This is who I insult!

 

[okinrus]

Thou didst find more faith and no less love in them than in men, and one of them was Thy most sacred Mother, from whose merits we derive merit, and whose habit we wear, though our sins make us unworthy to do so.[19] We can do nothing in public that is of any use to Thee, nor dare we speak of some of the truths over which we weep in secret lest Thou shouldst not hear this our just petition. Yet, Lord I cannot believe this of Thy goodness and righteousness, for Thou art a righteous Judge, not like judges in the world, who, being, after all, men and sons of Adam, refuse to consider any woman's virtue as above suspicion. Yes, my King, but the day will come when all will be known. I am not speaking on my own account, for the whole world is already aware of my wickedness, and I am glad that it should become known; but, when I see what the times are like, I feel it is not right to repel spirits which are virtuous and brave, even though they be the spirits of women.
St. Teresa of Avila

 

[Red Devil]

Re: Re: Can Buddhism be more reliable than Christianity?

Originally posted by Gravage
Read Luig Cascioli's Fable of Christ-he irrefutably proved that Jesus Christ didn't exist at all,he was only a figure of controlling people,power and authority.

I suppose you could say that Arthur didn't exist as such. But Arthur is an anglicisation of Ar Fur (sp?), a gaelic word which means Great Chief. So could Jesus have been an "Ar Fur" too? I personally think that such a person did exist, but not in the religious context, more as a radical left wing terrorist who preached dissention against the occupying forces of Rome.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: Re: Re: Apples???

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
What a dumb ass you are! I did NOT 'insult the intelligence of THOSE CULTURES by saying they could not describe events properly.' Moses was a patriarch who allegedly wrote the first 5 books of the OT, Genesis included. My problem is Moses was a grand dragon of the Patriarchy, a male-dominated society who got credit for recorded history as we know it which we now all know is packed with lies! This is who I insult!

All indications are that it was probably not only Moses who wrote them, and that at least he was not the original author. You'll know that creation stories like Gilgamesh already existed by the time the Torah was put in writing, and were probably orally transmitted before then.

You seem to take it very personally that the culture of the time was male-dominated, that families and whole tribes had men as fathers, leaders, priests and law-makers. Unfortunately present feminist arguments do not work in retrospect. Furthermore, just because Moses was a man does not make lies of recorded history. If you start at Moses, why stop there? Why not dismiss Plato, Socrates, Ceasar, Alexander, all the Kings of all countries, in fact: the whole of early history, as patriarchic lies? Does it bother you that the stories of Joan d'Arc, Elizabeth etc. were probably also recorded by men?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Apples???

Originally posted by Jenyar
All indications are that it was probably not only Moses who wrote them, and that at least he was not the original author. You'll know that creation stories like Gilgamesh already existed by the time the Torah was put in writing, and were probably orally transmitted before then.

You seem to take it very personally that the culture of the time was male-dominated, that families and whole tribes had men as fathers, leaders, priests and law-makers. Unfortunately present feminist arguments do not work in retrospect. Furthermore, just because Moses was a man does not make lies of recorded history. If you start at Moses, why stop there? Why not dismiss Plato, Socrates, Ceasar, Alexander, all the Kings of all countries, in fact: the whole of early history, as patriarchic lies? Does it bother you that the stories of Joan d'Arc, Elizabeth etc. were probably also recorded by men?

No. It bothers me that since these stories were recorded by men, the whole truth probably wasn't told. Since the time of Eve, women have been enslaved by men. If history were retold by women, it would have been a more truthful account. When the cavemen were out on their long hunts, sometimes never to return, it was the women who gathered roots and small animals to ensure their children would survive. Civilization survived because of the women, not the men. Furthermore, men are the creators of organized religions. That's why there is so much confusion. Had history been written by women, there would be only one religion--Mother Earth--our Creator who provides everything for us. It's all about control. Funny, but men take the credit, yet all of us humans have our ancestral mother's mitochondrial DNA, not vice versa.

 

[Raithere]

Banana anyone?

Medicine*Woman:

While I too decry the treatment of women throughout recorded history your argument is largely unsubstantiated.

If history were retold by women, it would have been a more truthful account.

And you base this opinion upon what evidence? That women are more truthful than men? I would also point out here that the Bible can hardly be considered an historical account.

When the cavemen were out on their long hunts, sometimes never to return, it was the women who gathered roots and small animals to ensure their children would survive.

Are we assuming here that these ‘long hunts’ were simply for fun? Did they provide nothing to the survival of the tribe through winter? Is this all that men ever did and nothing else?

Civilization survived because of the women, not the men.

Civilization survived because of everyone who contributed, women and men.

Furthermore, men are the creators of organized religions.

Actually, the oldest religious icons seem to depict a matriarchal religion. Our ‘western’ patriarchal/warrior societies seem to have had their genesis in the Indo-European steppes.

Had history been written by women, there would be only one religion--Mother Earth--our Creator who provides everything for us.

Pure supposition, this.

It's all about control. Funny, but men take the credit, yet all of us humans have our ancestral mother's mitochondrial DNA, not vice versa.

I don’t see the correlation.

I agree that humanity at large and women specifically have suffered greatly at the hands of patriarchal dominated, hierarchical, and politically driven cultures and I am all for a correction of history. But you go beyond a proper reckoning into the realms of fantasy; the harmonious, ecologically friendly, matriarchal society is as much a myth as the peace loving noble savage.

You also neglect to recognize that the misogyny you so rightly decry has a direct influence upon the behavior of women and is itself partly responsible for gender associated behavioral differences. Subdued, women have had to rely upon collaboration and peaceful resolution. Conversely, men have been required to ‘up the ante’ in an increasingly competitive society. The interesting and troubling thing is that as modern societies have started to inch their way towards equality what we are seeing is a tendency for women to behave more like men, with all the related problems, than for men to adopt some of the healthier behaviors traditionally associated with women. What we need is wisdom, the ability to recognize the beneficial aspects traditionally assigned to one gender or the other as wise behavior and genderless.

~Raithere

P.S. Of course one of my favorite Genesis accounts is that Adam ate first from the tree of knowledge from whence he learned to put the blame on Eve.

 

[everneo]

Re: Banana anyone?

Originally posted by Raithere
P.S. Of course one of my favorite Genesis accounts is that Adam ate first from the tree of knowledge from whence he learned to put the blame on Eve.

Raithere,
You blasted-off your own argument. If eve was powerful everything would be different then..

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Jenyar

It does not have to be explicitly stated.
Luke 22:48
but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"
Judas wasn't betraying anybody but Jesus with his kiss.

Of course he was, he betrayed Jesus, the “Son of God” who came here to “save” man, therefore he was betraying man with the intention of killing the saviour.

This is definitely not Biblical or scientific. What are your sources and why do you believe this?

There are various degrees of knowledge, on the bottom rung of the ladder of knowledge is information, which may or may not be true, the top rung is “to know.” The two genres you have mentioned “religious and scientific” amounts to information, but to know, one has to use the facilities given to him, i.e. brain, mind, senses, observation and experience, when these are utalised with the information, and one can relate it to ones own self, then we have knowledge. Perfect knowledge has to be personal.
My sources are varied, mixed with my own experience and observation. As I stated, this is my belief, I did not say it is a fact.

Have you considered that the belief in transmigration of the soul and your consequent effort to escape the burden of karma to redeem yourself, might only weaken your faith?

My faith is weak because I am busy enjoying the fruits of the material world through the agency of sensual gratification. In other words, I spend too much time serving my body instead of me, the soul.

Your words sound similar to those of Paul, except that you are trying to escape suffering by your own merit.

Is that not what the majority of people are doing?
The law of karma acts whether we are aware of it or not. If we can understand this, plus we are not these temporary bodies, and that we are part and parcel of God, then we can cease our karmic reactions and develop God-Consciousness. Of course, if we serve the devotee of God (e.g. Jesus), our karmic reactions are immediately vanquished. But the question is, how do we serve the devotee? Not by mincing his words, would be a step in the right direction.

You are trying too hard to earn a life worthy of God.

How so, by reading His words, and that of his devotees?

That is the nature of faith

The nature of faith is to believe in God, through is devotee, through little or no knowledge, trust and love, then and only then can you elevate yourself to the level of God-Consciousness, where you will eventually develop full knowledge, and understand the ultimate meaning of love and trust.

Jenyar I have run out of time and will reply to the rest of you post later.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

part 2...

Jenyar,

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Here is a good example of “son of man,” like you, the questioners thought Jesus was referring to himself, but he brings them in on the whole picture by saying; “…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”
Also,
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

quote:

John 11
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."
12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." 13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

Lazarus’s “body” was dead, but to Jesus, he was asleep, how so? The only reason must be that he accepts the spirit/soul as the person, which cannot die, but is resting in the vicinity of the dead body. Who knows probably waiting for a period (3 days) until it is time to move on.

Then Jesus proceeded to raise Lazarus from the dead, but this is still not the resurrection. Lazarus died again, but Jesus "was raised, never to die again".

Maybe not “the” resurrection, but a resurrection, which could possibly mean that resurrection is a natural proccess. The difference between Jesus and Lazarus was that Jesus wasn’t an ordinary man, his adventation wasn’t the result of a semen-ovum mix.

They are not inhabiting other bodies in the meanwhile. To each soul has been ascribed its own body, according to its nature:

When you say “inhabiting other bodies” it gives an impression that they are ghosts or mischievous spirits, but that’s not what reincarnation is. From vedic accounts, the soul, after being judged by Yama-Raja (death), is transported by the subtle body made up of mind, intelligence and false ego, which is still the same as the previous incarnation, to a moment of conception by suitable parents, at which time the soul is forced into the sperm of the male.
Imagine the stress caused by contraception.

1 Cor. 15
37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

This is a good verse, I have not read the whole context as yet, but I will. But you will find this explained in fantastic detail in some of the Puranic texts.

If Christ had not been resurrected, those who fell asleep in Him (died while believing in Him) would have been lost.

Why would they? The fact that they died believing is good for them. If Christ was the last thing on their mind as they died, that would have been a perfect and successful life. The whole point of Jesus or any spiritual master is to bring people to the point of God-consciousness. That means one sees God in everything and everything in God, it means that they are totally reliant on God, the object of their desire is God, they do not accept anything unless it is acceptable to God, they offer everything they have to God, so when they leave their body, which they are not really concerned with other than basics, they go back to God.

How much more would those people be lost who did not take part in Christ's resurrection and died while still in their sins (or "under the burden of their karma")?

If they believed in Christ, why would it make a difference whether he was resurrected or not? The resurrection of Lazarus was something to increase the faith of the people, it was a show.

Romans 6
4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

This doesn’t make any sense to me, perhaps you could explain it.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

Jan,

The Son of Man was clearly understood to refer to Jesus, and only those anointed by God himself.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

I would like to see you or me sending out angels.

Luke 12:8
"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.

I acknowledge that Jesus is the the Son of Man, if I myself was a Son of Man, who would acknowledge me before God, according to Jesus?

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
35Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer... where I go, you cannot come...
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Jesus was teaching Christ-consciousness, not "god-consciousness". We find our hope in Christ, because in our sin we cannot enter into God's presence otherwise.
--------

Lazarus’s “body” was dead, but to Jesus, he was asleep, how so?

John 11
13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.
14So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead,"

Clearly Jesus meant 'death' when he said "asleep". He brings them into the whole picture by saying he was dead. Jesus knew He had power over death, and that is why is said he "was going to wake him up".

Who knows probably waiting for a period (3 days) until it is time to move on.

I presume you base this on Jesus' words that "the Son of Man must be dead for three days before rising again", but this is yet another proof that Jesus was speaking regarding himself:
John 11:17
On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days.

...which could possibly mean that resurrection is a natural proccess

Quite evidently it isn't. If Jesus had left Lazarus there, he would have remained bodily dead until the first resurrection (Rev.20:6), but He resurrected him then so that people would believe it was in His power. It is not a power anybody but God has. And it is certainly not natural to be resurrected with the same body you died in - as both Lazarus and Jesus were.

Jesus certainly wasn't an ordinary man, at least not by birth. Yet by assuming the title "Son of Man" he subjected himself to ordinary life, suffering and death. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21)

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.

1 Cor. 15

What this verse means is that our spirit is one kind of seed, producing one kind of body - in fact, only one body. The body dies naturally, but the spirit is immortal. But our spirit is still contained in the same spiritual body. Jesus did not appear to many people in different places, but to different people in succession - in a body that did not decay: his wounds could still be seen, and his disciples were able to recognize him as Jesus. (1 Cor. 15)

The power of death is sin. Jesus said: "I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34) and thereby indicated that we could not free ourselves from it. He came to do that. God's mercy nullifies any effect that "karma" might have had. Once sin is forgiven, God does not keep score of it. Otherwise you will die for your sin yourself, because the penalty for sin is death. If there were second chances, the Son of Man need never have died. If one soul could sin anew in every life, Jesus would have had to die bodily again and again, in order to save each body - flesh and blood must pay for flesh and blood.

Your body cannot save your spirit from spiritual death, and your spirit cannot save your body from death.

Hebrews 9
25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Romans 6:11
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Jan, you are trapped by your own efforts to achieve perfection, when Jesus has already made us perfect. We need only grab hold of God's mercy to experience it. In your case, it is probably just a shift of emphasis, but it is an important one: that God has saved you - and He deserves the glory - you and no one else, not even Jesus, has ever saved himself.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Originally posted by Jenyar
Jan,

The Son of Man was clearly understood to refer to Jesus, and only those anointed by God himself.

Medicine*Woman says, "The Son of Man" refers to Jesus, the human being, just as we all are.

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

I would like to see you or me sending out angels.

Medicine*Woman says, This contradicts everything that Jesus tried to teach. It's that blood-thirsty Xianity again. If Jesus was God, why would he need to "send out his angels" to do anything? He would have the power to weed out his own kingdom. If there was no "sin" in the world and no one who did "evil," there would be no one to repent to would there? Another Xian contradiction!

Luke 12:8
"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.

I acknowledge that Jesus is the the Son of Man, if I myself was a Son of Man, who would acknowledge me before God, according to Jesus?

Medicine*Woman says, Another Xian contradiction. "whoever acknowledges me before men," says Jesus wanted to be treated like any other human being.

53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Medicine*Woman says, This is cannibalistic Xianity. "Eating one's flesh and drinking one's blood," means that his DNA is in our DNA and that he has many descendants. "...raise him up on the last day...," means that the human race will never end--we may evolve--but we will never end.

Who is this 'Son of Man'?"
35Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer... where I go, you cannot come...
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Medicine*Woman says, "...where I go, you cannot come...," this statement right here by Jesus proves that there is NO eternal life, NO salvation!

Jesus was teaching Christ-consciousness, not "god-consciousness". We find our hope in Christ, because in our sin we cannot enter into God's presence otherwise.

Medicine*Woman says, Jesus was trying to teach these illiterate, hard-headed folks that each and everyone of us, from then to now, are vessels for the Spirit of God. Until we realize how powerful we are in God's eyes, we will never see the face of God. Sin has nothing to do with it. Even sinners are vessels for the Spirit of God.

John 11
13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.
14So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead,"

Clearly Jesus meant 'death' when he said "asleep". He brings them into the whole picture by saying he was dead. Jesus knew He had power over death, and that is why is said he "was going to wake him up".

Medicine*Woman says, more mistranslations! Seems that Jesus was calling a spade a spade here. Death is death of the body. The Spirit NEVER dies.

I presume you base this on Jesus' words that "the Son of Man must be dead for three days before rising again", but this is yet another proof that Jesus was speaking regarding himself:
John 11:17
On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days.


Quite evidently it isn't. If Jesus had left Lazarus there, he would have remained bodily dead until the first resurrection (Rev.20:6), but He resurrected him then so that people would believe it was in His power. It is not a power anybody but God has. And it is certainly not natural to be resurrected with the same body you died in - as both Lazarus and Jesus were.

Jesus certainly wasn't an ordinary man, at least not by birth. Yet by assuming the title "Son of Man" he subjected himself to ordinary life, suffering and death. "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21)

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.

Medicine*Woman says, There is no such place as heaven or hell. Heaven can be found in one's innermost heart and soul, but so can hell. This scripture is referring to the Spirit of God in each of us.

Medicine*Woman says, Mistranslation city here, people. "Resuscitation" has been mistranslated as "Resurrection." Refer to language books of Aramaic, Hebrew and other ancient historical records, and not your stupid concordance. For God's sake, you Xians are the most illiterate and naive people in the world!

What this verse means is that our spirit is one kind of seed, producing one kind of body - in fact, only one body. The body dies naturally, but the spirit is immortal. But our spirit is still contained in the same spiritual body. Jesus did not appear to many people in different places, but to different people in succession - in a body that did not decay: his wounds could still be seen, and his disciples were able to recognize him as Jesus. (1 Cor. 15)

Medicine*Woman says, I will agree with the first sentence, the second sentence, the third sentence, and the fourth sentence.... Hey, I'm almost about to retract that statement I made about you Xians being illiterate, but then you said, "...Jesus appeared...in a body that did not decay...." If this was true, if Jesus had eternal life like he said, then he would be here in the body TODAY! I don't know about you all, but I haven't seen him--nor heard of anyone else who has! I'm sure if Jesus had a body that did not decay, you Xians would surely know where he stays. All that blood dripping from his wounds would make such a mess and leave a trail that verily everyone would know where Jesus was.

The power of death is sin. Jesus said: "I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34) and thereby indicated that we could not free ourselves from it. He came to do that. God's mercy nullifies any effect that "karma" might have had. Once sin is forgiven, God does not keep score of it. Otherwise you will die for your sin yourself, because the penalty for sin is death. If there were second chances, the Son of Man need never have died. If one soul could sin anew in every life, Jesus would have had to die bodily again and again, in order to save each body - flesh and blood must pay for flesh and blood.

Medicine*Woman says, According to the Bible, God said, "Vengence is mine. I will repay." Also written in the Bible somewhere it says, "Everything in moderation." "The power of death is sin..." makes no sense. I wasn't aware that death had power. Another contradiction. Anytime we "sin," we remove/replace that part of Godliness in ourselves with negativity. I do agree, however, with "Otherwise you will die for your sin yourself, because the penalty for sin is death." Now, of course, this is not literal "death," but allegorical "death," which is spiritual death, or negativity of the Spirit. There are "second chances, third chances, a zillion chances!" More mistranslations--when will it ever end? However, as "sons of men"(humans), we die. The body is corrupt but the soul is pure. When we fill our hearts with negativity, it devours the soul. "...in order to save each body - flesh and blood must pay for flesh and blood." The old, "eye for an eye, etc." The point missed here is that flesh and blood are to the body what mind and spirit are to the soul. If you "sin" with the body(i.e. disease), you will die and decompose. If you replace positive spirit with negative spirit, you will lose your soul.

Your body cannot save your spirit from spiritual death, and your spirit cannot save your body from death.

Medicine*Woman says, See previous paragraph.

Hebrews 9
25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Medicine*Woman says, We only die once since the body is corrupt. Reread Hebrews 9. It says that Jesus didn't even enter eaven. We as human beings are responsible for our own sin and our own death. More importantly, we are responsible for our own life. We are One with God, and we are all God in One Spirit. Jesus had nothing to do with this other than he was trying to teach this aspect of the Spirit.

Romans 6:11
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Jan, you are trapped by your own efforts to achieve perfection, when Jesus has already made us perfect.

Medicine*Woman says, Jesus makes no one perfect. That is up to us and between us and our Creator.

We need only grab hold of God's mercy to experience it. In your case, it is probably just a shift of emphasis, but it is an important one: that God has saved you - and He deserves the glory - you and no one else, not even Jesus, has ever saved himself.

Medicine*Woman says, We are in control of God's mercy in our lives. I agree with this last statement, "...not even Jesus has ever saved himself." Salvation simply doesn't exist. Sinners (all us humans) need to take responsibility for our own actions. We are our own savior.

 

[Red Devil]

Medicine: I didn't read all your post as I do not read posts filled with biblical quotes but your last section merits a reply. You say we are our own saviours. Perfectly true. I think that a person's only TRUE religion is carried within. A brick or stone monument with a cross on its roof is not the place for religious beliefs, its what in your own mind. Only you - the reader - knows how sincere you are; how truthful; how honest with others. Therefore only you, the reader, can truthfully say how your "faith" is.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Long biblical quotes????

Originally posted by Red Devil
Medicine: I didn't read all your post as I do not read posts filled with biblical quotes but your last section merits a reply. You say we are our own saviours. Perfectly true. I think that a person's only TRUE religion is carried within. A brick or stone monument with a cross on its roof is not the place for religious beliefs, its what in your own mind. Only you - the reader - knows how sincere you are; how truthful; how honest with others. Therefore only you, the reader, can truthfully say how your "faith" is.

It was nice to hear from you, Red Devil. I also don't read longwinded Biblical quotes--far be it from me--I'm not Xian! There are so many contradictions in the Bible that it can't be used as any credible reference. If you get a chance, look back over some of my other postings and you will see that I believe the same as you. It is unfortunate for those of us who want to discuss man's relationship to creation and evolution on this forum that those blood-thirsty, bible thumping Xians quoting pages and pages of ancient, passe mistranslations that set them apart as the idiots of the world ("sinners" they call themselves) who look blindly for some self-created(illusionary) messiah to pay for their sins so they won't have to. As I've said before, they need their own web site so they can talk about Jesus all they want. But their answer to me was that if they had their own forum, "no one would communicate with them!" Is is any wonder, my friend? Is it any wonder?

 

[Red Devil]

Re: Long biblical quotes????

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
As I've said before, they need their own web site so they can talk about Jesus all they want. But their answer to me was that if they had their own forum, "no one would communicate with them!" Is is any wonder, my friend? Is it any wonder?

Complete agreement my friend

 

[okinrus]

M*W is the Devil's lackey
Quotes from the bible are one of the only ways to correct you because of your flawed ideas of christianity. Also many of your ideas are borrowed from Christianity. There is nothing new. You say you have your own faith, but in Jeremiah, God says that he will write his law on our hearts. We do have our own <a href="http://www.theologyonline.com">forum</a>. Actually I would consider myself less bible thumping then most fundamentalist christians.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Accounts in Genesis

Originally posted by Circe
Perhaps there are 2 gods. After all, there are 2 accounts of creation in Genesis.

Try 3!

 

[Jenyar]

Medicine*Woman,
Someone once convinced you the Bible was full of mistranslations and archaic nonsense. Now you read everything with that preconception. If you say something is a mistranslation: prove it. You obviously have no desire to find God anywhere else but within yourself - and that is where you find the mysteries that God created you with. Those mysteries are not God! They point to God - look a little further than your own nose.

You don't need salvation because it is very easy to save yourself from nothing. God is not nothing. Your god will die when you die, and yes you are right: you will have to pay for your own sins.

If there was no "sin" in the world and no one who did "evil," there would be no one to repent to would there?

That is the ideal, yes.

Medicine*Woman says, Another Xian contradiction. "whoever acknowledges me before men," says Jesus wanted to be treated like any other human being.

Wrong, Jesus wanted people to believe that He was the Son of God, and unlike any other man. He was a mortal man, yes, but He was also the Saviour and Judge of mankind, as appointed by God.
Jesus said
"For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

Medicine*Woman says, There is no such place as heaven or hell. Heaven can be found in one's innermost heart and soul, but so can hell. This scripture is referring to the Spirit of God in each of us.

Luke 18
30...will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."
This "age to come" is called paradise/heaven: when God will be with us and we with God. It has definitely not happened yet, or people would not still wonder whether there is a God or not.

Medicine*Woman says, Mistranslation city here, people. "Resuscitation" has been mistranslated as "Resurrection." Refer to language books of Aramaic, Hebrew and other ancient historical records, and not your stupid concordance. For God's sake, you Xians are the most illiterate and naive people in the world!

The Sadducees and Pharisees did most definitely not differ about a trifle like 'resuscitation'! Paul was a Pharisee, and he was on trial for believing in resurrection ("Anastasis" - Paul was a Roman citizen and would not have used Hebrew or Aramaic):
Acts 23:6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."

The Sadducees (Saddoukaios="the righteous") denied:

• resurrection of the body
• immortality of the soul
• existence of spirits and angels
• divine predestination, affirmed free will

The Sadducees assumed that resurrection implies simply a resuscitation to a resumption of human functions, including the physical side of marriage. Their error lay in the low idea of God.

After you ever tried to 'resuscitate' a body that has been in the grave for four days? The word is 'Anastasis' with verbs anistemi, "stand up," and egeiro, "raise." There is no technical term for resurrection in the Old Testament, but in Isaiah 26:19 are found the verbs chayah, "live," kum "rise," kic "awake", and Job alludes to a "change" (Chaliyphah) after death.

Why don't you provide me with the Aramaic or Hebrew word, and where you found it?

"...Jesus appeared...in a body that did not decay...." If this was true, if Jesus had eternal life like he said, then he would be here in the body TODAY! I don't know about you all, but I haven't seen him--nor heard of anyone else who has! I'm sure if Jesus had a body that did not decay, you Xians would surely know where he stays.

He is in heaven, at God's right hand, from where he will come to judge those who are still alive and those who have died. It's right there in the Bible. This is called his "second coming".

Reread Hebrews 9. It says that Jesus didn't even enter heaven.

Excuse me?
Hebrews 9
24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

We as human beings are responsible for our own sin and our own death.

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

God saved Jesus, and He saved us through Jesus. You who would save yourself:
Micah 2:3
Therefore, the LORD says: "I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves. You will no longer walk proudly, for it will be a time of calamity.

It is by grace you have been saved: through faith – not from yourselves. It is a gift of God. (Ephesians)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Part 1 of 2....

Originally posted by Jenyar

Jan,

The Son of Man was clearly understood to refer to Jesus, and only those anointed by God himself.
Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
I would like to see you or me sending out angels.

Jenyar Jenyar Jenyar!
Before Adam (MAN) was created, he was presented to the angels in heaven, who were instructed by God Almighty, to bow down before him and worship him, of which one decided not to. Therefore, ADAM (MAN), could, if he chose, send out angels.
Also, the kingdom which Jesus always referred to was the kingdom of God, inside which, sin and evil doers could not enter, not any kingdom on earth, and Adam (MAN) was presented to the angels as a “VICEROY” on earth. A viceroy is nothing short of a king or leader, therefore the “kingdom” that is talked about in that verse, by simple analysis, has to be the earth, and the original ruler of the earth was ADAM (MAN).
Now, as in any kingdom, the king always has heirs to the throne, these heirs are the sons of the king, and as Adam was the original MAN, which was also his title, the Son of Man had to be his sons.
Jesus was the Son of God, acting on behalf of man, because at that/this time MAN needed to be saved.

You and I (I speak for myself moreso) do not have any authority to summon angels, as we are heavily condition in this material world.

Mathew,
36 Then Jesus sent the multitudes away, and went into the house. His talmidim came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the darnel of the field." 37 He answered them, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the darnel are the sons of the evil one.

In this verse Jesus says, “He who sows the good seed is the son of man.” The seed as explained by yourself and is mentioned in the Cor. Verse, is us.
Now the question is; DID JESUS SOW ANY SEEDS ACCORDING TO THAT EXPLANATION?

Luke 12:8
"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
I acknowledge that Jesus is the the Son of Man, if I myself was a Son of Man, who would acknowledge me before God, according to Jesus?

Why did he not say, “….i will also acknowledge him before the angels of God,” why did he separate himself (“I”), from “Son of Man.”
“40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Can’t you see what this is about, he is of this world through his mercy and love of God, but he is not of this world, the rules that apply to us, do not apply to him. He was not born of a man or woman, therefore he is not son of man.

Quite evidently it isn't. If Jesus had left Lazarus there, he would have remained bodily dead until the first resurrection (Rev.20:6).

It is this kind of rhetoric which gives atheists amunition.
Now we know that if Lazarus’s body was left there, it would have decayed and only his skeleton would be left, in all seriousness, how would he be resurrected in that body?

And it is certainly not natural to be resurrected with the same body you died in - as both Lazarus and Jesus were.

Recalling a soul back to its body is not a new thing, there are occasions in vedic literature where highly advanced souls (brahmin) perform this act.

Jesus certainly wasn't an ordinary man, at least not by birth. Yet by assuming the title "Son of Man"

Where does it say he assumed the title “son of man.”

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), not only went to the highest heaven, he went where no angel could tread, beyond the veil of the universe, where he discoursed with God (Allah).
If you don’t believe the Qur’an to be authentic scripture, that is your business.

What this verse means is that our spirit is one kind of seed, producing one kind of body - in fact, only one body.

What do you mean “one kind of seed,” how many seeds are their in this context?
Well of course only one body, we couldn’t produce multiple bodies could we?

The body dies naturally, but the spirit is immortal. But our spirit is still contained in the same spiritual body.

The spirit is not separate from the spiritual. “Spirit” is spiritual just as “matter” is material, both refer to a particular nature, so a spiritual body means a body of that nature (spirit).

The power of death is sin. Jesus said: "I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John 8:34) and thereby indicated that we could not free ourselves from it.

Death has no power, only the fear of death. Death is a natural process.
Why do you think, I think we can free ourselves, have I said this in any part of our discussion??

Otherwise you will die for your sin yourself, because the penalty for sin is death.

The “wages” of sin is death, death is inevitable.

If there were second chances, the Son of Man need never have died. If one soul could sin anew in every life, Jesus would have had to die bodily again and again, in order to save each body - flesh and blood must pay for flesh and blood.

What do you mean “second chances?” Reincarnation is not about second chances, it is the transmigration of the conditioned soul.


Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jenyar]

Jan
First off - thanks for taking the time and effort to discuss this. I guess we both could have given up on the subject a long time ago, but I truly feel you are reading things into the text that conform to your beliefs, rather than forming your beliefs out of what Jesus .

The discussion has been illuminating to understand where you are coming from. I try to read every verse with the mindset you propose, to see how you might interpret it, and whether I have to adjust my own interpretation. In some cases this has happened, and I am indebted to you for that. But I have been studying the gospels as a whole and your interpreation is limiting its message to such an extent that I am compelled to defend my position.

At least, I am quite certain that my beliefs conform to what the disciples believed. Jesus is the one who keeps us blameless. There is no "karma" left to be payed off...

1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24The one who calls you [God] is faithful and he will do it.

However, you might hold that the disciples were themselves deceived, or mistaken like me (which of course creates other serious problems). I try to keep to what Jesus said himself as far as possible, but I quote other verses to show how my belief agrees with what his disciples believed.

The Bible makes it clear that man was made "a little lower than angels"(Ps.8.46), and Jesus himself, while mortal, was in this position. He was only glorified after his resurrection, when God placed everything under his feet, including the angels. (Heb.2:9) Just like that, man will also be placed above the angels after our death, when we have received our spiritual bodies. Please read Hebrews 2, at least.

Jan said
In this verse Jesus says, “He who sows the good seed is the son of man.” The seed as explained by yourself and is mentioned in the Cor. Verse, is us.
Now the question is; DID JESUS SOW ANY SEEDS ACCORDING TO THAT EXPLANATION?

Those who come from Jesus are his 'seed'. Those who spread his Message are his people. From the Old Testament, we learn that God has kept a remnant of the original MAN apart. This 'remnant' has been adopted by Jesus, and are called to live through him under God's mercy (incidentally, Muslims feel they replace the original remnant, and the Quran claims to succeed the Message).
To quote Paul: "9For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him."

Jan said
Can’t you see what this is about, he is of this world through his mercy and love of God, but he is not of this world, the rules that apply to us, do not apply to him. He was not born of a man or woman, therefore he is not son of man.

I completely agree, that is why I said He assumed the title.
Jesus said: "The Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men" (Matthew 17:22; 26:45; Mark 9:31; 14:41) just before he was betrayed by Judas and taken prisoner.

Matt. 24 (Jesus' words):
26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he [the Christ] is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he [the Christ] is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it [Why?].27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man [i.e., the Christ].
...
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth [i.e. those who are not the Son of Man] will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

Matt.16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist [one man]; others say Elijah[one man]; and still others, Jeremiah[one man] or one of the prophets." [I think you used Jeremiah as an example of the son of man]
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

These passages make it impossible for me to think Jesus meant "all of humanity" under the title 'Son of Man' - and therefore I conclude that it is an assumed title of some meaning, one that possibly includes your interpretation, but is definitely not exclusive to it. Jesus uses it to show he is "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief", as prophesied in Isaiah 53:3, and like us. We are created in the image of God, and Jesus is the image of God. The difference is both subtle and profound.

Jan said
It is this kind of rhetoric which gives atheists amunition.
Now we know that if Lazarus’s body was left there, it would have decayed and only his skeleton would be left, in all seriousness, how would he be resurrected in that body?

We both know atheists don't need much to use anything as ammunition. (Not different than what we are doing at the moment, mind you.) Jesus also restored the body. Now that is significant, because it is said that Jesus' body, being sinless, did not decay (Acts 2:31). Jesus also said:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; (1 Corinthians 15:42)

Jesus is called the second Adam (first from God/the man from heaven) and both are the image of God, as I have said, now:
47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

The same body, the same likeness. One is physical, but will be changed to become spiritual.

In Matt. 10 Jesus says:
28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I had more to say, but I've lost my train of thought now... maybe I'll also send you a "Part 2" - although, this post is long enough already. I also don't like quoting large amounts of scripture, it makes the post hard to follow...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Jenyar

First off - thanks for taking the time and effort to discuss this. I guess we both could have given up on the subject a long time ago.

Why should we give up this subject, this is proper religous debate. How many proper religous debates are taking place on sci-forums at the moment?

but I truly feel you are reading things into the text that conform to your beliefs, rather than forming your beliefs out of what Jesus

I admit i have inferred, but my main points weren't so much out of belief of Jesus, even though i believe in the essence of Jesus, but taking what he says literally, and looking at it objectively.

I try to read every verse with the mindset you propose, to see how you might interpret it, and whether I have to adjust my own interpretation.

Interpretation is where the problems starts. There are moments when Jesus speaks in parables, we are aware of this, and whatever he says should be taken as such. When he is not speaking in parables, then we must take him at his word and what we don't understand, we seek help from someone who does.

At least, I am quite certain that my beliefs conform to what the disciples believed. Jesus is the one who keeps us blameless. There is no "karma" left to be payed off...

Karma: material activities for which one incurs subsequent reactions.
Simple, isn’t it? No mystery, no ghosts or hobgoblins, just a straight-ahead system, real and proper justice. If you act in someway which obstructs the balance of nature, then you must accept the reactions, whether good or bad.

However, you might hold that the disciples were themselves deceived, or mistaken like me (which of course creates other serious problems). I try to keep to what Jesus said himself as far as possible, but I quote other verses to show how my belief agrees with what his disciples believed.

From my low position, I do not see a problem with your faith, as I have said before it is admirable, but my debate with you is not about your faith, you have that covered, it is about knowledge of God. I believe the problem with “religion” is that we are divided instead of united. The same essence of God, which is in the Bible, is in the Qur’an, is in the Torah, is in the Vedas, they all speak of the same Person, but yet we cannot agree. Why?

The Bible makes it clear that man was made "a little lower than angels"(Ps.8.46),

Psalms; Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them,
8:5 and make them almost like the heavenly beings?"

Here you have interpreted “almost” as “lower”, Why?
It means the form of man is not quite like the form of angels, but almost.
In the Qur’an, there is a text where God (Allah), asks the angels to bow down and worship Adam, this was how Iblis (the satan) was rejected, therefore Adam is closer to God in quality.

(Heb.2:9) Just like that, man will also be placed above the angels after our death, when we have received our spiritual bodies. Please read Hebrews 2, at least.

By Qur’anic account, man, in his original state was placed above the angels but had fallen.

Here is a nice text from Matthew;

17:26 After he said, "From foreigners," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. 17:27 But so that we don't offend them, go to the lake and throw out a hook. Take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a four drachma coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you."

Can you see an explanation as to what the son of man means?

Matt. 24 (Jesus' words):
27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man [i.e., the Christ].

Do you understand it literally or do you understand it through interpretation?

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth [i.e. those who are not the Son of Man] will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

As Jesus does not say, “I will appear in the sky…….”, why should I assume that he means himself. Before Adam had fallen, he must have been great and glorious. It stands to reason right? Things started to go downhill when he fell. Either way he was a man, he was glorious, then he fell. If man can become glorious in the same way as Adam, the original man, was (son of man), then what’s to stop man being the “son of man” mentioned by Jesus.

These passages make it impossible for me to think Jesus meant "all of humanity" under the title 'Son of Man' - and therefore I conclude that it is an assumed title of some meaning, one that possibly includes your interpretation, but is definitely not exclusive to it.

“Son of Man” I believe, means son of the original Man, Adam, before he fell from grace. When God created Adam, He was perfect, so Man was perfect, and anybody who becomes like Adam, or Jesus, in quality, is automatically a son of the original, perfect man in mind, body and soul.

We are created in the image of God, and Jesus is the image of God. The difference is both subtle and profound.

If we are created in the image of God, then we have to be perfect, like the original cast. That means that what is meant by “image” is not only bodily features, but mind as well.

Love

Jan Ardena.