Religion Beyond the Historical Jesus

[Leo Volont]

Religion Beyond the Historical Jesus

The other week I had published my bio-story indicating my personal reasons for my conversion to Catholicism. But as per usual, one reader in particular exercised every mental contortion in order to miss my primary point (I forget his name), and wondered that I could believe in any Religion that sourced originally from a History of Jesus which he supposed to be dubious, even after I had presented every evidence of believing in an Actively Valid, Demonstratively True and Current Religion. Indeed, if one does one’s research into the current state of Modern Spirituality, then one can be rather quite liberated from dependence upon any extremely dated or doubtful histories from much back in the ancient past. After all, why would Catholicism need any record of Jesus, if the last 500 years had demonstrated the existence of more than a few Christ-like Saints, quite the equal or even the betters of anything the dusty old Scriptures had portrayed regarding Jesus. And then we have the documented and verified Apparitions of Mary, the Mother of this Christ. We can certainly infer the Real Existence of a Christ simply on Her say so, as one Miracle can certainly be cited to confirm another.

And then my preference for Catholicism is one of Degree and not of Kind, since I wholeheartedly acknowledge a Kinship of Higher Religions in which Catholicism is but one of the Family Members. Indeed, we must look to any of the Religions that have been able to put forward in its favor any Actual Saint. You see, any Saint is Proof of the Existence in the World of a Fruitful Vine of the Living Christ (as Christ as a Metaphysical Reality or Spiritual Status is quite independent of any historically particular Religion). You see, Saints do not do what they do as a function of any independent power sourced from entirely within themselves, though their Will may be a Free Will still within their personal control, but the Power that works through them is connected into some Greater Life, a thing that my Dreams have told me to regard as the Cosmic Christ who is the deathless as well as birthless Life in All Things.

So, anytime we see this Expression of the Cosmic Christ in the manifestation of Miracles in His Saints, we should realize we have seen a Verification for the Authenticity of whatever particular Religion had given rise to that Saint, at least in regards some basic and central content of that Religion which had earned for it Actual Divine Sponsorship. Then, by examining what all of these Verified Religions have in common, we can then discern what the Basic True Points of what constitute a True Religion might be. Compiling these Comparisons, we see that God seems to Sponsor Goddess Central Religions that speak to Unity of All Life ultimately into One Supreme and Central Godhead. This may seem contradictory, when viewed from one polarity to its extreme counterpoint, but it allows for the progression from Exoteric Religion to Esoteric Religion, as a Goddess Religion moves its Adherent from the functional Duality of Ishwara-Prakriti Male-Female Cosmology through the Divine Feminine Nodal Point in the Center to the Undifferentiated Oneness that is expressive of the Cosmic Christ in Unity with Brahma.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

Wonderful prose but -

There remains to this date no verifiable evidence that a Jesus ever actually existed. Nothing to indicate that what he is claimed to have said was ever said by anyone of import. No eye-witness accounts of his alleged life. No indication that a resurrection is possible or that one ever took place. No evidence that a Mary or Joseph ever existed. Every reason to believe the entire nativity story is an entire fabrication. And every reason to believe that the Jesus myth is just another variation of contemporary myths of the time.

Further - No indication that gods could exist let alone that one actually exists. No evidence that anything supernatural is a viable concept. And with the new knowledge from neuroscience no reason to believe that spirits or souls are either necessary or probable, and without souls the entire Christian concept is completely farcical.

As to Catholicism: Holy cow – a twisted bureaucratic mush of bizarre concocted distorted rationalizations to support a myth that has no factual basis. That anyone would voluntarily choose to follow such lunacy is beyond rational human understanding.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo,

Wonderful prose but -

There remains to this date no verifiable evidence that a Jesus ever actually existed. Nothing to indicate that what he is claimed to have said was ever said by anyone of import. No eye-witness accounts of his alleged life. No indication that a resurrection is possible or that one ever took place. No evidence that a Mary or Joseph ever existed. Every reason to believe the entire nativity story is an entire fabrication. And every reason to believe that the Jesus myth is just another variation of contemporary myths of the time.

Further - No indication that gods could exist let alone that one actually exists. No evidence that anything supernatural is a viable concept. And with the new knowledge from neuroscience no reason to believe that spirits or souls are either necessary or probable, and without souls the entire Christian concept is completely farcical.

As to Catholicism: Holy cow – a twisted bureaucratic mush of bizarre concocted distorted rationalizations to support a myth that has no factual basis. That anyone would voluntarily choose to follow such lunacy is beyond rational human understanding.

Thank you for admiring my prose... but you need to read them. You argue that there is no proof that Jesus ever lived. But the entire point of my essay is that it doesn't matter in the least -- that we have Christ-Like Saints documented well into the Modern Era. THAT is enough to support the Truth of Divinity, Religion, and to give credability to the Religions that gave rise to such True Miraculous Saints.

The Fruits of the Vine of Christ are the Proof of Christ the Root of it All.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

Indeed I did note your point and should have referenced it, but really you cannot be serious, and I assumed you would realize the serious flaw in your perspective without it being highlighted. Without an actual Jesus, there would be no crucifixion, no Mary, no resurrection, no holy spirit, no trinity, no redemption. His actual existence is a primary pre-requisite for your entire fantasy. Or are you saying that saints and angels are all that your religion requires? I don’t think so.

 

[Leo Volont]

Here is another emample: Zoroastrianism, the Religion of Zarathustra.

Well, we know a thousand times more about Jesus then we do of Zarathustra... Historians still argue of which Millenium to put Zarathustra in. Not only is Zarathustra a very ancient source, but subsequent invasions of the pillaging Huns, Mongols and Turks, that were not as well defending in Old Persia as in Europe, destroyed a great deal of Source History, or even secondary and purely literary mentions. Essentially the Barbarians had completely burned Persia to the ground, not just once, but several times.

So if a Religion required a verifiable History, Zoroastrianism would be screwed, wouldn't it?

But Zoroastrianism survives in Sufism-- The Spiritual Movement of the Dervishes and the Fakirs. Now, Islam had its predations also. They would cut your throat with a Sword for not being Muslim, and so, surprise surprise, the great Majority of Sufis will tell you that they are Islamic and that Sufism is a growth from out of Islam. That is what they say, and many are unsophisticated enough even to believe it themselves. It DOES make lying easier when you believe it, and so the Subordinate Sufis were taught to believe it. But Sufis at the Leadership Level -- the Masters -- see the continuity between old Persian Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

And Sufism is a Religion of copious Miracles. I have always had some sympathy for the Sufis, as when they were in Spain they all became very good Marians along with the Catholics. Then in Persia, while still freshly in the throes of Islamic Conquest, they had Divine Female Apparitions that would urge them on in their Spiritual Resistance. Any Goddess Religion that comes with a catalogue of Miracles is either Marianism or just like it.

And then, in India today, some of the Hindus most favorite Miracle Saints are at least half out of Sufi and Zoroastrian influence. Kabir from the Sixteenth Century is a good reference. Then there was Sai Baba of Shirdi, who died just in 1918, who was a Sufi Fakir, but now mostly appreciated by the Hindu Community.

So, my point here is that one does not need to verify a single shread of evidence of whether Zarathrustra ever existed or not. Not as long as his Zoroastrianism still manages to have some Spiritual Influence in and around the World.

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually Zoroastrians, who escaped Persia due to Islam, migrated to India where they still live. Due to their practice of marrying only within their religion, they are still purely the same Persians. They call themselves Pharisees.

Sufis on the other hand are those who focus on the mystical aspects of Islam and use mysticism to express their love and devotion to God.

 

[imaplanck.]

Here is another emample: Zoroastrianism, the Religion of Zarathustra.

Well, we know a thousand times more about Jesus then we do of Zarathustra... Historians still argue of which Millenium to put Zarathustra in. Not only is Zarathustra a very ancient source, but subsequent invasions of the pillaging Huns, Mongols and Turks, that were not as well defending in Old Persia as in Europe, destroyed a great deal of Source History, or even secondary and purely literary mentions. Essentially the Barbarians had completely burned Persia to the ground, not just once, but several times.

So if a Religion required a verifiable History, Zoroastrianism would be screwed, wouldn't it?

But Zoroastrianism survives in Sufism-- The Spiritual Movement of the Dervishes and the Fakirs. Now, Islam had its predations also. They would cut your throat with a Sword for not being Muslim, and so, surprise surprise, the great Majority of Sufis will tell you that they are Islamic and that Sufism is a growth from out of Islam. That is what they say, and many are unsophisticated enough even to believe it themselves. It DOES make lying easier when you believe it, and so the Subordinate Sufis were taught to believe it. But Sufis at the Leadership Level -- the Masters -- see the continuity between old Persian Zoroastrianism and Sufism.

And Sufism is a Religion of copious Miracles. I have always had some sympathy for the Sufis, as when they were in Spain they all became very good Marians along with the Catholics. Then in Persia, while still freshly in the throes of Islamic Conquest, they had Divine Female Apparitions that would urge them on in their Spiritual Resistance. Any Goddess Religion that comes with a catalogue of Miracles is either Marianism or just like it.

And then, in India today, some of the Hindus most favorite Miracle Saints are at least half out of Sufi and Zoroastrian influence. Kabir from the Sixteenth Century is a good reference. Then there was Sai Baba of Shirdi, who died just in 1918, who was a Sufi Fakir, but now mostly appreciated by the Hindu Community..

I think you missed Cris's point, or chose to ignore it. I cant speak for Cris but I believe his point was that if you can't set any store in the bigshot character in a story how can you rely on, therefor give any credit what so ever to the story entirely?

So, my point here is that one does not need to verify a single shread of evidence of whether Zarathrustra ever existed or not. Not as long as his Zoroastrianism still manages to have some Spiritual Influence in and around the World.

....That is logical claptrap, you really expect people to accept turnout rates are a substitute for evidence?

 

[Leo Volont]

Actually Zoroastrians, who escaped Persia due to Islam, migrated to India where they still live. Due to their practice of marrying only within their religion, they are still purely the same Persians. They call themselves Pharisees.

Sufis on the other hand are those who focus on the mystical aspects of Islam and use mysticism to express their love and devotion to God.

Well, yes, the Pharsees are an interesting fossil. But I was speaking of the Sufis who seem to actually be flying the Zoroastrian Spiritual Flag with more enthusiasm then what has been reduced to an ethnic enclave.

The difference here is between a Spiritual Movement that people actively join, and the ho-hum religion of their birth.

Besides, in India, with its rampant Chaste System, any Ethnic Enclave would have to be absolutely insane to give up their Status as NOT being Hindu, because in India to NOT be a Hindu while not being lucky enough to be a Brahmin is to consign one's self to a degradated status... like the way a Protestant must feel next to a Jew -- a born reprobate next to a Chosen Person.

But, yes, it is a good point you make, that the only surviving Persians in the entire world may be this small enclave in India. Those living in modern Iraq, after so many sweeping genocides across this territory, hardly suggest the painting and the statuary of Ancient Persia, but look more like the Huns and the Mongols that killed their people. Ironically, the Modern Iranian Nation is the Embodiment of their own Worst Enemies.

 

[Leo Volont]

I think you missed Cris's point, or chose to ignore it. I cant speak for Cris but I believe his point was that if you can't set any store in the bigshot character in a story how can you rely on, therefor give any credit what so ever to the story entirely?

....That is logical claptrap, you really expect people to accept turnout rates are a substitute for evidence?

Reread my primary essay, and try to pay attention to my point, that, in your words we do not need to verify the Bigshot if the source Religion has been able to reproduce even into Modern Times other similar Bigshots.

What does it matter how we derive our Proof of Divine Providence -- from Jesus, where the History after two millenia is a bit shakey, or from Saint Vincent Ferrer who was more powerful then Jesus ever was, and was reported in the chronicles of Modern History.

Pay attention.

I know Chris is your buddy. I know Chris thought he had a fool proof argument. But you guys need to give it up when you are topped or your persistance in error only starts sounding ridiculously stupid and stubborn.

I know... denial. But don't argue. See your therapist.

 

[imaplanck.]

Reread my primary essay, and try to pay attention to my point, that, in your words we do not need to verify the Bigshot if the source Religion has been able to reproduce even into Modern Times other similar Bigshots..

No they aren't my words. You pay attention and dont put words into my mouth.

What does it matter how we derive our Proof of Divine Providence -- from Jesus, where the History after two millenia is a bit shakey, or from Saint Vincent Ferrer who was more powerful then Jesus ever was, and was reported in the chronicles of Modern History...

No you have no proof! Are you so retarded as to not know the difference between word of mouth stories and proof?

I know Chris is your buddy. I know Chris thought he had a fool proof argument. But you guys need to give it up when you are topped or your persistance in error only starts sounding ridiculously stupid and stubborn.

I know... denial. But don't argue. See your therapist.

Firstly I dont even know Cris. Secondly he or I have made no errors(but then I suppose errors have a different meaning in your world ) , you though have made plenty and I suggest that you read this part back to yourself and try to comprehend that it actually applies to you rather than us.

 

[Leo Volont]

No they aren't my words. You pay attention and dont put words into my mouth.

No you have no proof! Are you so retarded as to not know the difference between word of mouth stories and proof?


Firstly I dont even know Cris. Secondly he or I have made no errors(but then I suppose errors have a different meaning in your world ) , you though have made plenty and I suggest that you read this part back to yourself and try to comprehend that it actually applies to you rather than us.

Go see a therapist... you, and your buddy Chris are in denial. Your pretty argument is gone and you don't quite know how to adjust to this your now completely ruined lives.

But its not my Problem.

I was only the Messenger.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

So if a Religion required a verifiable History, Zoroastrianism would be screwed, wouldn't it?

But that is really irrelevant. Whether a religion has adherents and survives or not doesn’t give any credence to its claims. That Christianity still has followers doesn’t mean its claims are any more valid because it has survived for so long. Remember that truth is not determined by a majority vote.

So, my point here is that one does not need to verify a single shread of evidence of whether Zarathrustra ever existed or not. Not as long as his Zoroastrianism still manages to have some Spiritual Influence in and around the World.

You do if the validity of its claims depended on it. In this respect if Jesus never existed then your religion is a farce.

Now I understand that you think that miracles occur etc which you feel validates your religion so indeed in your mind Jesus must have existed and no further proof is needed. But those are just your delusions since you cannot verify any of those miracles are real. Add that to the real doubt concerning Jesus’ existence and your religion is on very shaky ground.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo,

But that is really irrelevant. Whether a religion has adherents and survives or not doesn’t give any credence to its claims. That Christianity still has followers doesn’t mean its claims are any more valid because it has survived for so long. Remember that truth is not determined by a majority vote.

You do if the validity of its claims depended on it. In this respect if Jesus never existed then your religion is a farce.

Now I understand that you think that miracles occur etc which you feel validates your religion so indeed in your mind Jesus must have existed and no further proof is needed. But those are just your delusions since you cannot verify any of those miracles are real. Add that to the real doubt concerning Jesus’ existence and your religion is on very shaky ground.

A Religion is not a Farce if it can demonstrate a Miracle.

Historical details become irrelevent with the first Miracle.

What does it matter whether a System of Belief is Historically Valid as long as it is Spiritual Effective.

If it WORKS as Advertised, my guess would be that there must be something TRUE about it.

Now, I've sure you could have inferred all of this from what I have said before. Perhaps you should take a few months and go into seclusion and see if you can reorder your life around these new truths... instead of repeating and repeating these same objections over and over again.

 

[imaplanck.]

Go see a therapist... you, and your buddy Chris are in denial. Your pretty argument is gone and you don't quite know how to adjust to this your now completely ruined lives.

But its not my Problem.

I was only the Messenger.

The more you write, the more I am convinced you are subconsciously exerting commands for yourself to follow. Did you lose a lot of your childhood to overbearing parents?

 

[Leo Volont]

Well, that is rude.

You don't really expect an answer, do you?

 

[imaplanck.]

Well, that is rude.

You don't really expect an answer, do you?

Nope I said it purely to be rude.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

A Religion is not a Farce if it can demonstrate a Miracle.

Which none have.

Historical details become irrelevent with the first Miracle.

Which hasn’t occurred and I don’t expect one any time soon.

What does it matter whether a System of Belief is Historically Valid as long as it is Spiritual Effective.

Agreed. Pity that the spiritual concept is just fantasy though.

If it WORKS as Advertised, my guess would be that there must be something TRUE about it.

But religions don’t work. Show me proof of a soul and an afterlife.

Perhaps you should take a few months and go into seclusion and see if you can reorder your life around these new truths... instead of repeating and repeating these same objections over and over again.

But Leo you haven’t presented any truths, you’ve only presented the same old religious gibberish, with absolutely no support, that we have seen here over and over again. All we see are just the rantings from your warped deluded imagination.