Jesus... [Archive] - Astral Dynamics Down-Under Community

rapidlearner

22nd August 2007, 11:31 AM

Thanks for replying...

What I'm trying to get at is the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins and came back to life in physical form on Earth, with many witnesses. Muslims don't believe in his resurection, Yes they believe he was a prophet but not God himself. Christians refer to Jesus as Lord, whereas Muslims don't believe in worshiping anyone other than God.

As you probably know, Muslims believe that Mohammed was the last prophet, which Christians ignore.

Now with two major world religions believing in different accounts of Jesus' life, I think its one of the most important facts to get right. Many many people have died and wars have been and arguably still are being fought over "My religions right not yours" stance.

If the main difference is the belief in Jesus being God and Mohammed being the LAST prophet, who is going to be brave enough to step forward with the Truth? As one of the Religions has its facts wrong or they both do.

Thanks again

Korpo

22nd August 2007, 11:46 AM

If the main difference is the belief in Jesus being God and Mohammed being the LAST prophet, who is going to be brave enough to step forward with the Truth? As one of the Religions has its facts wrong or they both do.

Is that really of any importance at all? I could live on very well without that knowledge, it seems only important to the dogmatics and fundamentalists.

I don't believe in any religion, just in God. I try to feel for the creative power of God in my experience. The books of men cannot give you that. Within me and within you and within everything that is there is a connection back to the omnipresent energy of God.

If there is an entity Jesus it surely does not depend on us going around like scribes to get the facts right. I think Jesus' message of love and mercy, compassion and being humane can heal, and if you focus on that instead of scripture, you bring more of what Jesus is about into the world than any fact you could find.

And perhaps this is just what you might find in the Akashic Records. Not a historical file of Jesus, but the full-scale experience what the entity Jesus is about, a connection in an interconnected Universe. Now that would be something, wouldn't it?

Oliver

CFTraveler

22nd August 2007, 02:49 PM

rapidlearner wrote:
Now with two major world religions believing in different accounts of Jesus' life, I think its one of the most important facts to get right. Many many people have died and wars have been and arguably still are being fought over "My religions right not yours" stance. And that is what the real problem is, not what 'facts' are right or wrong. I think any religion that is willing to kill others for their beliefs is wrong, regardless on what the 'facts' are. Why? Because no one really knows what the facts are, but the central tenets in the lives of both men were about love and worship of God, not on one being right and the other wrong. So both religions are wrong, regardless of facts that are unverifiable.

If the main difference is the belief in Jesus being God and Mohammed being the LAST prophet, who is going to be brave enough to step forward with the Truth? As one of the Religions has its facts wrong or they both do. And I reiterate that it never was or never should have been about who is right and who is wrong. So anyone who wants to make a religion be about that, is wrong, dead wrong.

rapidlearner

22nd August 2007, 04:21 PM

Is that really of any importance at all?
Of course it is... It defines what religious sect you fall in society depending on your beliefs

e.g. If you believe that Jesus is God then you are a Christian. If you believe that there is only one God and Mohammed is his last messenger then you are Muslim. Simple as that (well not that simple!). Religion might not matter to you, but it matters to a massive chunk of society. There are 2.1 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and that huge slice of humanity don't integrate peacefully without problems... For example, A Christian can't marry a Muslim without converting. Marriage forms the backbone of society and if one can't marry another based on religious background, then barriers are formed which is where the tension begins.

I do understand what your both trying to say... That the deepest message was that of Love which is all that matters but we can say that for most religions. The differences in the relgions are based on what people believe to be that of fact of the bible (Gospel) and fact of the Quaran. Ultimately, these facts lead to differences, tensions, supression, death and war. Sounds extreme but it builds up and people use religion as the excuse.

And I reiterate that it never was or never should have been about who is right and who is wrong. So anyone who wants to make a religion be about that, is wrong, dead wrong.
Hmm... By Jesus saying he is God, he is therefore saying that Judasim (or anyother religion is the wrong path to follow. Mohammed also explains that if you don't believe in Allah then you are destined for hell. That, to me is pretty much like saying, My religion is right others are wrong.

Maybe I should have changed the title to the Profit Mohammed... If anyone is able to look him up in the Akashic libary it would certainly puzzle 2.1 billion Christians as they don't believe he was a profit at all. In fact, they believe your destined for hell if you convert and vice versa.

So it is the little details and facts that lead to differences in the society we live in today and it is, I think, very important :D

CFTraveler

22nd August 2007, 04:43 PM

So it is the little details and facts that lead to differences in the society we live in today and it is, I think, very important I disagree. I think today's divisive society is what leads to people to point out differences instead of similarities, and that is what I believe the problem to be.
But then, it's just my opinion.

This is what I'm talking about- picking a detail and taking it out of context to promote discord:
Hmm... By Jesus saying he is God, he is therefore saying that Judasim (or anyother religion is the wrong path to follow. First of all, Jesus said we were all children of God, including him. He did not say he was God. He said he did not come here to change religion. He was a practicing Jew who kept to the law as he understood it, and ocassionally ignored it when he thought it made no sense. He didn't set out to 'denounce judaism as wrong'- it was the later christians (the much latter christians, actually) who did this. So this proves my point.

CFTraveler

22nd August 2007, 04:54 PM

Rapidlearner, I am going to officially warn you now:
If you have initiated this post to see what perceptions people who visit the Akashic records have about how things were in the 'first century', that's fine and good. If you are trying to get into an argument with christians about their and your beliefs, you are in the wrong forum.
We do not promote religious bickering in the name of 'who's right'- and trying to force the issue about one side 'having to be right' so that another one is 'then proven to be wrong' is trolling pure and simple, and not allowed in this forum.
We welcome religious discourse, but not religious bickering.
If you continue on this path the thread will be closed and you will be on the way to banning.

rapidlearner

22nd August 2007, 05:31 PM

CFTraveler - First of all, I do not have a religion... Which is why I'm interested in seeking the truth. I am not trying to prove anyone wrong. I just want to find out what people that visit the Akashik records say about Jesus and Mohammed for that matter.

I'm not bickering with you or anyone. I thought a discussion had been created after a low response.

I think the official warning is inappropriate to show everyone, you could have sent it to me privatly.

And last but not least here is a link to a Christian Website that has quotes from the bible where Jesus did say he was God
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/whodoyousay.html

One final point! I'm not saying that any of them set out to prove anyone wrong. I'm saying that one is right (therefore the other is wrong) or they are both wrong.

This is a Forum. Censoring questions shouldn't form part of an open, honest community.

Mishell

22nd August 2007, 06:15 PM

I'm saying that one is right (therefore the other is wrong) or they are both wrong.

Maybe they're both right in their own way and we just don't have the perspective to see it too.

Nothing is black or white, or right or wrong for that matter.

You (I mean anyone, not just you RL) won't find truth by analyzing it to death, only by searching with an open heart.

CFTraveler

22nd August 2007, 08:03 PM

I have to say that quoting John as a source to what Jesus said makes my point. The John that wrote the book never even met Jesus, since serious Bible historians place that book as written approx. 90 years after his death.
What you are ignoring is that Jesus said that God is in all of us, so once again, you are taking something out of context to prove a point that is nebulous at best.
You are saying that a group has to be wrong for the other to be right.
But what we are trying to say (or some of us, anyway) is that no one has to be right or wrong, because none of us here and now has all the answers. Using scripture as a source of history is, well, if I said it I'd have to sternly warn myself.
Use scripture to inspire you to do good deeds. Don't use it to condemn others.
Once again, my above post wasn't to curtail your research- it was to nip something in the bud that was going downhill fast.

Flash_hound

23rd August 2007, 07:16 AM

You could go and mentally project and talk to Jesus yourself about what he believed and his opinions on what people do in his name. I'm sure you will have an interesting conversation with him.

Korpo

23rd August 2007, 07:53 AM

This has however the catch that everything passes through our perception filters, and the nature of the astral and mental realms seems to be impacted strongly by that.

This may sometimes just result in symbolism where your mind is not yet ready to understand. But nobody can guarantee you that you do not only communicate with a thoughtform you and others created - the "New Testament Jesus" compared to the real Jesus.

Very often misperceptions overrule objective truth, even in the most miraculous matters. Famous and confirmed stigmatists bleed out of their hands with no loss of blood... Surrounded by all kinds of small miracles and virtually unbelievable stuff, testament to the magical nature of our Universe.

But Jesus was not nailed to the cross through his hands! This is not possible. Only beginning with the wrist you can do this, the bones of the hand cannot carry the human body. So belief and a tradition of depicting like this have created powerful miracles that do not reflect historical reality.

Therefore I would be very, very careful about determining "ultimate truth" from anything remotely psychic, or relying on having met the "real deal". I do not say it is impossible, not at all. But the power of our common beliefs seems to create on its own, we all participate in creating the Universe. Maybe we are even changing the past every day... in the end, the past exists because we can remember it. :)

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.(George Orwell, "1984")

Oliver

rapidlearner

23rd August 2007, 03:54 PM

star

23rd August 2007, 04:02 PM

Thats how it is processed by your brain. Pay attention to how you feel, as much as you pay attention to what you see.

Lets say a spirit shows me a picture of flowers blossoming and snakes wriggling around them.

Who knows what that can mean? You have to feel the messages you get.

Think about what your seeing.

Korpo

23rd August 2007, 06:07 PM

Nice post Korpo. Maybe Jesus and Mohammed and other profits were presented with symbolic messages also and interpreted them in the language they felt that best described their experiences. Although they were both spoken to with words?... it may have been how their brain translated the information?.. I don't know! I guess noone ever will :( .

I don't think so. But prepared to be less worked up by the answer when you do. The same desires that now make you frantically want answers sometimes need to go to get answers and understand them. Paradoxical, but also wonderful. The mind lets go of the attachment to the answer, and answers will come. (Okay, that was a bit oversimplified perhaps. ;))

I have in two instances dreamed about people in great detail that suggest these were not really dreams, or at least not solely creations of the brain without reference to the real persons.

In one instance I knew the look of the person before having ever seen a picture. But in the "dream" she spoke to me in German, but I'm pretty sure she cannot.

When my Higher Self conveys me something I can feel it. I can assign words to that feeling, but it is so much more. The words are an interpretation, a limited way of understanding a - for want of a better word - telepathic message.

At the same time I knew "Let go. It is okay." was the message from my HS. At the same time I knew words were never uttered. I could go back and find a different sentence describing the same, and it would be still only another interpretation from another point of view.

You see, words can fool you there.

I suppose a lot of things like "eye witness accounts" aren't 100% reliable as it is Humans we're talking about here!

I think I may have said this before but why does everything in the Astral have to be symbolic or confusing? You know like dreaming of a spider signifies being trapped in a relationship. Why not just dream of being trapped in a relationship...lol.

It all depends on the capacity of your mind at that moment, on the degree of your personal growth. If you look at Monroe's first book where he mostly stumbled around trying to find out without referencing other what was happening to him he references the "Scenario II" - the Astral Plane. There he references also a complete symbolic scenario where a gong sound is intonated, everybody cowers on the ground because the "Grand One" passes through or something like that. All awfully symbolic, nonsensical almost, a bizarre theater.

I am of the conviction that this describes the exactly same scenario Robert Bruce describes when referring to the the Astral Pulse/Astral Wind/Karmic Seeds in AP. But Robert's account was made from a different stage of development. When you look at Monroe's second book you begin to note how little of the weird symbolism is left. The 2nd book is Monroe's real start into OBE for personal development, and it shows. His comprehension of what he experiences seems always to be good enough to understand or begin to understand, like you would expect when you are actually taught something.

Oliver

rapidlearner

24th August 2007, 03:44 PM

Hi Korpo...

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to start a religious argument or anything here... how does your response relate to both Jesus and Mohammed?

The Quran clearly states that Mohammed is God's last messenger until the coming of the Antichrist. The Bible and the Quran both clearly state that if one does not follow their religion they're destined for hell. Again are you saying the concepts have been misunderstood?

I realise that if one lives their life with an honest and open heart... thats the way forward!... I'm trying to steer the topic more into the reasons why two profits got their messages from God so different. (not taking away the similarities)

Are you saying they were at different stages of their development? According to the Quran Jesus spoke his first words when he was a baby (a few days old? I think) and explained that he was a profit so that everyone didn't think Mary had conceived without marriage and so that everyone didn't think she was going crazy! According to the Bible, Jesus didn't perform his first miracle until the age of 30 (changing water to wine)

I know people are going to say... what does it matter etc... But it's interesting because the differences in religion have shaped our world and culture as it is today i.e. A Muslim woman from Iran leads a completely different life to that of a Christian man in say 'Britain. The religions have shaped cultures and ultimately led to death and war (worst scenario)

I believe the route of culture clashes start with religion. It is at the source of how following one set of rules compared to another created different cultures. And the two main religions I mentioned (Christianity and Islam) were created by two Men that got their information from the same being, yet they may not have been developed enough to interpret the information they got. E.g. Mohammed was told that Jesus did not die for our sins and was not resurected. Jesus was told that he will die for everyones sin... I think they shaped humanity as it is today... Well at least 3 billion people that believe in each religion.

P.S If anyone is offended by this, please say so and I'll try and rephrase it. I know I may come accross naive or a bit stupid, maybe I am? But I have to ask if I don't understand

CFTraveler

24th August 2007, 04:10 PM

The Quran clearly states that Mohammed is God's last messenger until the coming of the Antichrist. The Bible and the Quran both clearly state that if one does not follow their religion they're destined for hell. Again are you saying the concepts have been misunderstood? Jumping in for a second, there is also the historicity of the documents that tell us this. How can you be sure that what you are reading is what actually happened? I'm not sure that the prophets were different in development (frankly I think they were more alike that most people think)- My thought is that the personalities we know as Jesus and Mohammed have been shaped by the people that follow/worship them.

I realise that if one lives their life with an honest and open heart... thats the way forward!... I'm trying to steer the topic more into the reasons why two profits got their messages from God so different. (not taking away the similarities) I really think that we are disregarding the political climate around the time they were here- IMO that's where the differences come from, not from themselves.

According to the Quran Jesus spoke his first words when he was a baby (a few days old? I think) and explained that he was a profit so that everyone didn't think Mary had conceived without marriage and so that everyone didn't think she was going crazy! According to the Bible, Jesus didn't perform his first miracle until the age of 30 (changing water to wine) This to me is a good example of how a culture defines it's spiritual leaders.

But it's interesting because the differences in religion have shaped our world and culture as it is today i.e. A Muslim woman from Iran leads a completely different life to that of a Christian man in say 'Britain. The religions have shaped cultures and ultimately led to death and war (worst scenario) I think it's more of a give-and-take situation- the culture shapes the religion, and then the religion shapes the culture, and so it goes until the next religion comes along.

And the two main religions I mentioned (Christianity and Islam) were created by two Men that got their information from the same being, yet they may not have been developed enough to interpret the information they got. E.g. Mohammed was told that Jesus did not die for our sins and was not resurected. Jesus was told that he will die for everyones sin... I think they shaped humanity as it is today... Well at least 3 billion people that believe in each religion. I think that both versions of the story were around and Mohammed was exposed to one theory (after all, he lived with Christians as a young man, this is historically recorded) than another group.
I believe you have oversimplified christianity as the religion that believes that Jesus died for our sins, and was resurrected. Early christians did not believe this, this only became official doctrine after a few years (possibly the Nicene Council, but maybe down to the Didache- the fact is that even today there are many christian sects that do not believe in this. So it is not that surprising that when Mohammed was alive this was not the christian prevailing belief.
Something that jumped out at me is your statement that the bible says that if you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell- it actually does not say that anywhere, and having worked at a church for over 4 years I have looked- so where did that idea come from?

rapidlearner

24th August 2007, 04:40 PM

CFTraveler

24th August 2007, 04:45 PM

Ok here is a reliable source from the Christian Apologetics and Research ministry where it clearly states that Jesus said he was God (not ignoring the fact he said God is in all of us)

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusisgod.htm

Since the bible states that Jesus is God... The belief is, if one does not ask him to be forgiven for their sins and accept the free gift of salvation then one is destined for hell. Something along those lines anyway... I am not asking where it says that Jesus is God. That is not my question. You showed me how some people interpret what the bible says to mean this. I can interpret the above quotes to say something completely different. What I want is one bible quote that says that if we don't believe in Jesus we will go to hell. That's all.

rapidlearner

24th August 2007, 05:13 PM

CFtraveller, I'm sure you know more about the bible than me, having worked in a church...I'm not in competition with you or anything, I only know the basics of the two religions, which I've most probably misinterpreted myself. Which is the whole aim of this thread, to understand that it is how something is interpreted which can cause a chain reaction in society.

Like you say it is interpretations that creates confusion. It's happeining today with suicide bombers thinking they're going to paradise in the name of their God.

The following could be an interpretation of not being saved (going to hell)

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who
does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 RSV)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the
life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
(John 14:6 RSV)

But again the question begs... Why do things have to be metaphorical or symbolic? And if its a case of development, how can you be sure that you are at the right stage of development and not interpreting a message literally that was supposed to be metaphorical?

Palehorse Redivivus

25th August 2007, 03:17 PM

The Bible and the Quran both clearly state that if one does not follow their religion they're destined for hell. Again are you saying the concepts have been misunderstood?

I am! I am! :D The Quran is indeed clear (and graphic) on the subject of Hell, but with the Bible its not so clear cut. Christian ideas of "Hell" mostly come from the fact that the word was pasted over four different words that mean completely different things, none of which refer to a place of punishment after death.

I wouldn't recommend taking anything on CARM too seriously either. Its run by a staunch Calvinist posing as a mainstream evangelical; i.e. a very narrow brand of Christian theology coming off like an authority for all Christians everywhere. It also grossly misrepresents other belief systems in order to discredit them, using this same theology that relatively few Christians share.

As a sidenote, interestingly Calvinism, which among other things posits that not only is there a Hell, God deliberately chooses who goes there, is closer to Islamic theology than it is to most other strains of Christian thought.

rapidlearner

25th August 2007, 04:41 PM

I am! I am! Ha ha Yes, at last!

So it is all about interpretations... One can be absolutly sure of what something means when in fact it could be a metaphore. It's kind of like the Homer effect, I can just imagine people smacking their heads at the pearly gates screaming "Doh" When God says "No no no.. It was a metaphore!"

journyman161

26th August 2007, 12:19 AM

Ha ha Yes, at last!

So it is all about interpretations... One can be absolutly sure of what something means when in fact it could be a metaphore. It's kind of like the Homer effect, I can just imagine people smacking their heads at the pearly gates screaming "Doh" When God says "No no no.. It was a metaphore!"You may want to have a read of this thread (http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=9346&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) There's a definite possibility that everything is interpretation.

The problem with discussions about beliefs is that beliefs don't rely on anything real. When they (beliefs) are used as the foundations for a life, it leaves the believer open to all kinds of manipulation. You only have to look at how the supposed teachings of Christ have been manipulated to be justification for mass murder & terror. Mohammed formed a very tolerant society initially, one in which other religions were not only allowed, but given the protection of the Muslim empire. Look at it now.

Even if the original instigators of the religions were real & had great vision, their teachings have been corrupted & twisted to mean whatever those in power wish them to be.

sorana

3rd October 2007, 03:42 PM

You could go and mentally project and talk to Jesus yourself about what he believed and his opinions on what people do in his name. I'm sure you will have an interesting conversation with him.

lol. Now this line was so inspired! :D

U-Mos

7th October 2007, 07:09 AM

i don't know what the akishak records say but im under the impression that the astral plain is extremely mold-able by the minds of the mases that the akishak records is polluted with mythology and popular opinion so what ever you do find there may be the polutants and not what really happened.

personally im a firmly believe that jesus is a mythological charter and there is quite a bit of evidence supporting that fact in the physical world. you can find the sake down on this movie.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
you only need to watch the fist part. and search up "the god who wasn't there" on you tube

CEP2plet

6th November 2007, 11:04 PM

When bringing up the Akashic Records, it's hard not to think of Edgar Cayce. Cayce himself has said that the only reason he was able to access the Akashic Records so frequently and readily is because he had no intention of using the information in the Records for profit or personal/corporate/political/religious gain whatsoever. The Records were only readily accessible to him because he used the information to help heal others. He was known as the "sleeping doctor", because that's how he would figure out what to prescribe to his patients to heal whatever ailments they had was by falling asleep and accessing the Akashic Records. Cayce never attended or graduated from medical school in his life. Anyway, if you're planning on accessing the Records, there MIGHT be a "subscrition fee", aka agreement of good will/intent (I'm only saying this because of Cayce's experience of it).

Berserk

10th November 2007, 08:50 PM

I have traced many of the Quran's details about Jesus' life to Christian infancies Gospels composed between the late 2nd and 5th centuries. Western scholars dismiss these Gospels as too late to contain accurate historical information. Muslims, of course, believe that Allah is the source of the Quran's revelations, and so, would presumably claim that these parallels reflect areas in which these late infancy Gospels preserve genuine information. What fascinates me is the question of where Muhammad actually derived the information behind these parallels. Perhaps, he overheard these details in contacts with Christians during one of his caravan trips to Damascus.

I have examined many alleged conversations with Jesus experienced during NDEs and channeled materials (e. g. ACIM). The only modern source that I consider genuine is atheist Howard Storm's lengthy NDE conversation with Jesus preserved in his fascinating book, "My Descent into Death." As an academic specialist in the field, I have been able to independently confirm much of "Jesus" novel claims from that book. Most conservative Christians would dismiss these revelations as bogus and heretical. I am an avid reader of books on paranormal experiences and consider Storm's book the most compelling of its kind I have ever read.

Don

iadnon

11th November 2007, 10:52 PM

Have a look at this. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

blacktiger057

12th November 2007, 10:25 PM

Berserk

12th November 2007, 11:14 PM

andonitxo,

Thanks for the graphically captivating and humorous movie. It reminds me of the witty and tongue-in-cheek pseudo-scientific periodlcal, "The Journal of Irreproducible Results." Of course, the premise for all the "parallelomania" is based on two academically discredited books by D. M. Murdock (alias Acharya S.) , "The Christ Conspiracy" and "Suns of God." So many of her mythic "parallels are contrived (e. g. dubious interpretations of ambiguous ancient art and iconography) that her model breaks down. More seriously, her books ignore the proper methdology for history of reliigions research. Postulation of thematic origins must be preceded by the establishment of the presence and influence of motifs in question in the relevant locales and culture. In the case of Jesus, all the movie's postulated parallels find their relevant counterparts in first century Palestine, not in the far away regions relevant to her contrived parallels. Still, the movie was visually stunned spectacle.

Don

iadnon

12th November 2007, 11:22 PM

Berserk:

I'm not an expert in religions. But I found interesting the video, that's why I posted here.

Anyway, it's true there are a lot of parallelisms in between avatars, and many of their teachings. But, as said, it's an inner feeling I have, more than a profound research.

In fact, it's so easy to say the truth as to say the contrary, and vice versa. Anyhow, in what it's concerned about religion there are a lot of dark spots in all the beliefs systems.

FireSylph

13th November 2007, 03:34 AM

Acktually, this debuncking has been debuncked:
[link removed by Admin due to the 20 post min rule]

star

13th November 2007, 04:40 AM

CFTraveler

13th November 2007, 01:44 PM

Acktually, this debuncking has been debuncked:
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/viewtopic.php?t=1149
Firesylph, you don't have enough posts to display links, but I'll leave it here.

Aunt Clair

16th November 2007, 01:01 AM

What fascinates me is the question of where Muhammad actually derived the information behind these parallels. Perhaps, he overheard these details in contacts with Christians during one of his caravan trips to Damascus. There is a book of the Quran devoted to Christ and another devoted to Mary . Mohammed had mystic visions and travelled on a merkabah to the realms learning from angels . Historically it is believed that he could not write but that he related his dreams and visions to scribes .

Caelrie

16th November 2007, 04:21 AM

Berserk

19th November 2007, 12:28 AM

[Firesylph:] "Actually, this debunking has been debunked :"
__________________________________________________ __

No, Acharya's alleged "debunking the debunkers" only makes it transparent why she is routinely ignored by mainstream secular Bible scholarship. Her alleged parallels to other mythic figures to do survive critical scrutiny. The Gospel tradition took shape in the early and mid-first century in Palestine. Jesus spoke Aramaic and Aramaisms abound in the Gospel sayings material. The cultural picture in the Gospels fits nicely with what we independently know from non-Christian source from late antiquity.

What Acharya S's work desperately needs (but, sadly, lacks) is evidence that any of the mythic parallels she adduces were known in first century Palestine. Many secular Bible scholars have little respect for early Chrisitanity. if readers need to justify a preconceived skepticism on historical grounds, they would be well advised to read just about any scholar other than Acharya S.

In a parallel vain, I once heard Robert Bruce claim to have observed an alien base on the other side of the moon during OBEs. A medium recently confirmed that claim. Unverifiable claims of this sort quickly lead to all kinds of silly conspiracy theories about government cover-ups and, sadly, make me and others like me doubt the credibility of RB's astral oberservations on a wide variety of fronts. To keep this important work sane, we simply must take seriously the current state of science and scholarship outside the New Age ghetto and acknowledge that interdiscplinary critiques play a vital role in keeping our "astral insights" respectable in the eyes of honest seekers with abundant common sense.

Don

CFTraveler

19th November 2007, 03:13 AM

In a parallel vain, I once heard Robert Bruce claim to have observed an alien base on the other side of the moon during OBEs. A medium recently confirmed that claim. Unverifiable claims of this sort quickly lead to all kinds of silly conspiracy theories about government cover-ups and, sadly, make me and others like me doubt the credibility of RB's astral oberservations on a wide variety of fronts. Are you saying that because a medium confirmed (or concurred) with this claim it makes it automatically suspect?
If you are going to publicly doubt Robert's credibility, I don't think Robert's forum is the place to do it, unless you are deliberately provoking negative attention. Is this what you are doing?

To keep this important work sane, we simply must take seriously the current state of science and scholarship outside the New Age ghetto and acknowledge that interdiscplinary critiques play a vital role in keeping our "astral insights" respectable in the eyes of honest seekers with abundant common sense. This is insulting and consider yourself warned: Calling the New Age movement a ghetto is insulting and against forum rules. Consider this your first official warning.

Freawaru

19th November 2007, 10:46 AM

What I'm trying to get at is the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins and came back to life in physical form on Earth, with many witnesses.

If I recall correctly he came back "in the body" - and even those who knew him well did not recognize him at first. To me the big question is: which body? The physical is not the only one after all.

Muslims don't believe in his resurection, Yes they believe he was a prophet but not God himself. Christians refer to Jesus as Lord, whereas Muslims don't believe in worshiping anyone other than God.

I would say that Christians also only worship God. But for them Jesus IS God. Jesus said "I and my father are ONE".

As you probably know, Muslims believe that Mohammed was the last prophet, which Christians ignore.

I doubt that the term "last" refers to a time-dependent concept. I think: "Last" means the final one, the highest, something like this. A state. Jesus said that he was the last and Mohammed said that he was the last: both had attained the same state, same level, before full unity. Origining in "The Last" both teachings have to be fundementally identica, they have the same source. The seeming difference, IMO, comes from false interpretations (and often false translations), such as interpreting the term "last" as a temporal one.

If the main difference is the belief in Jesus being God and Mohammed being the LAST prophet, who is going to be brave enough to step forward with the Truth? As one of the Religions has its facts wrong or they both do.

There seems to be another conceptual problem, this one deeply mystical. IMO, Avatars are not always avatars regarding the world. What I mean is that avatars live in two ways, one human (or other) and the other is their divine Self.
Avatar means "descending one", but this descending is not permanent. Most of the time the human "vessel" (prophet) is just human.

The Veda describes this best, IMO, in the story about Hanuman, the Monkey King (king of monkey mind). Hanuman himself is no avatar, but he is fully enlightened, a Buddha, Christ, The First and The Last. He says to the avatar Rama: "when I forget who I am I am myself and when I remember who I am I am you".

This Unity between human and God, also known as enlightment, Buddhahood, Christ consciousness, Krishna consciousness, etc. is the highest goal of HUMAN. According to the Catholics Jesus is the First HUMAN and the Last HUMAN - in addition to his full divinity. The question is always, what exactly does one talk about when referring to the person Jesus or Mohammed. Does one talk about Jesus the human, a Monkey king like Hanuman, or does one talk about Jesus as avatar? They are two different lines of occurrence.

The following quote by the "Acts of Pilate" illustrate this difference and still unity between the avatar and the human, both one and the same:

IV (XX)

1 And while all the saints were rejoicing, behold Satan the prince and chief of death said unto Hell: Make thyself ready to receive Jesus who boasteth himself that he is the Son of God, whereas he is a man that feareth death, and sayeth: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. And he hath been much mine enemy, doing me great hurt, and many that I had made blind, lame, dumb, leprous, and possessed he hath healed with a word: and some whom I have brought unto thee dead, them hath he taken away from thee.

2 Hell answered and said unto Satan the prince: Who is he that is so mighty, if he be a man that feareth death? for all the mighty ones of the earth are held in subjection by my power, even they whom thou hast brought me subdued by thy power. If, then, thou art mighty, what manner of man is this Jesus who, though he fear death, resisteth thy power? If he be so mighty in his manhood, verily I say unto thee he is almighty in his god-head, and no man can withstand his power. And when he saith that he feareth death, he would ensnare thee, and woe shall be unto thee for everlasting ages. But Satan the prince of Tartarus said: Why doubtest thou and fearest to receive this Jesus which is thine adversary and mine? For I tempted him, and have stirred up mine ancient people of the Jews with envy and wrath against him. I have sharpened a spear to thrust him through, gall and vinegar have I mingled to give him to drink, and I have prepared a cross to crucify him and nails to pierce him: and his death is nigh at hand, that I may bring him unto thee to be subject unto thee and me.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... demus.html (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelnicodemus.html)

The important quote being:

If he be so mighty in his manhood, verily I say unto thee he is almighty in his god-head, and no man can withstand his power.

rapidlearner

1st December 2007, 03:44 AM

But again the question begs... Why do things have to be metaphorical or symbolic? And if its a case of development, how can you be sure that you are at the right stage of development and not interpreting a message literally that was supposed to be metaphorical?
That's easy. You're always at the right stage of development for you.

LOL... I love these general type answers... So the question remains unanswered.

If everything is a matter of interpretation, No one can be sure that their theory, beliefs are accurate. If only the world's religions understood this.

CFTraveler: I see no reason as to why you display your authority and insist on warnings with threats to ban people. This part of the forum has the title "OBE Research and Discussions" It wouldn't make for interesting research if counter arguments weren't given against the validity of OBE's. If the confidence is there in the "realness" of OBE's, than there should be no problem debunking the debunkers. I don't see why people would take time out of their day just to be negative... its just that some people are naturally skeptical and this surely has to be understood in "this" section of the forum. And please don't remove this part of my reply, (as you have done in the past) as I think its valid and appropriate to this thread. I for one, want to believe and I will only find the answers I'm looking for if I challange beliefs. Censoring queries (even if somewhat negative in your opinion) does not create a liberal forum. I was intrigued by Berserks posts and I hope it sticks around to give us his informed insight.

Freawaru: I don't think humans are generally intelligent enough to look deeply into a religion and make distinctions between what you would call an "Avatar" and what they see as first or last prophet. The prophets must have known that there words were only interpretations or were they not developed enough?

Caelrie

1st December 2007, 05:00 AM

ButterflyWoman

1st December 2007, 07:43 AM

I actually think that the whole "is it the right time" thing can be a limiting belief in some cases. If you feel that there is a "right" time then you must also think there's a "wrong" time and it can lead to indecision.

Just my $0.02, mind you (and it's a limiting belief of my own that I've been working on).

rapidlearner

1st December 2007, 10:12 AM

But again the question begs... Why do things have to be metaphorical or symbolic? And if its a case of development, how can you be sure that you are at the right stage of development and not interpreting a message literally that was supposed to be metaphorical?
That's easy. You're always at the right stage of development for you.

LOL... I love these general type answers... So the question remains unanswered.

It's not a general answer when you think about it. It's advice that worrying about whether you're at the "right stage of development" or not is pointless. You have all of eternity. What's your hurry? And who would the third party be who's going to judge whether you're in the right place or not? What criteria would they even use to judge the "progress" of an eternal being with no deadline?

Well that was my point exactly. If you look at where you originally qouted me from... I was replying to Korpos answer of stages of development (page 2) where he was implying that Robert Bruce may be at a certain stage of development, which is why he interprets things differently to the stage of Monroes development. *not the other thread where R.Bruce gives his opinion on their differences*

Since it was a theory of such, and related to Jesus and Mohammed, I then asked how could anyone be sure what stage of development they are at, including Jesus and Mohammed.

As for who is the third party that judges what stage of development they are at, I would call that third person 2 billion people that believe in Chritianity or Islam. Now before you say, "what does it matter" well, it matters a great as ultimatly, people have been killed in the name of religion (which is why I started this thread in the first place).

Take a look at the British School teacher who is in jail in Sudan because she asked the class what they wanted to name a teddy, they decided on calling it Mohammed (after a boy in the class) and she was subsequently arrested and now faces 15 days in Jail or 40 lashes for Blasphemy. Unbelievably, there are now protests by the Sudanese people to have her executed. Here is the link incase anyone hasn't kept up with the news lately: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 69,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1689769,00.html)

Now, its interpretation of religion that make it so important. Why things are not crystal clear in each religion or the fact that no objective evidence of God exsisting is nowhere to be found, doesn't cease to amaze me.

Freawaru

3rd December 2007, 07:46 PM

Freawaru: I don't think humans are generally intelligent enough to look deeply into a religion and make distinctions between what you would call an "Avatar" and what they see as first or last prophet.

Yup. :evil:

The prophets must have known that there words were only interpretations or were they not developed enough?

I think they knew. Religions scripture such as the Bible and Quoran are full of warnings. Think for example of Jesus saying to the Pharisees that they had no clue about what he meant - and the Pharisees were the experts, intelligent people, having had studied the Torah all their lifes, leading a secular life of prayer. And still it was not enough. But warnings like these are not heeded by most. Today many Christians seem to think that the Bible flew down from the sky, bound in leather and in the King James translation.

Did you know that the famous "Sermon on the mount" in the Bible was never read to the public but considered too advanced by the early clerics - until Luther translated the whole Bible into German? And even more, there are several texts that were excluded from the Bible at the beginning - not due to their wrongness but cause they were judged too easily misinterpreted. Both Torah and Quoran are traditionally forbidden to be translated in the first place - seekers were meant to learn a full language just to read it. That is what I call dedication! But today all it supposedly takes is to pick up a gun.

When you have had mystical experiences you know how difficult they are to describe. Ineffable. To talk about it, to teach about it, to ease the communication between the wake consciousness and those deeper states of mind, a terminology is necessary. And thus, IMO, religions scripture is only meant for those who have had these experiences. I mean, how many people can open a book on Quantum Field Theory and expect to understand, not to mention USE, it? But religions scripture, so much more complicated than modern physics, is expected by about everybody to be understood by her or himself, without any study of their mind at all.

As to humans using religion as an excuse for war and such - well, humans use all kind of excuses for their faults and intentions. Religion is just one of them. In general it is a lack of awareness of their own mind patterns that leads to this. Have you never met a person who will consciously or subconsciously alter the memory of a dialogu to turn it into an "I was right and he/she hurt me"? Or someone who will only tell you what he/she has done good to another, convieniently forgetting all the bad things he/she had done - so that all the blame of a conflict is the other person's?

Since it was a theory of such, and related to Jesus and Mohammed, I then asked how could anyone be sure what stage of development they are at, including Jesus and Mohammed.

Good question. I think the onion approach is appropriate here. WIth experience and study one moves deeper and deeper until nothing but God is left.

As for who is the third party that judges what stage of development they are at, I would call that third person 2 billion people that believe in Chritianity or Islam.

2 billion people? My name is Legion, indeed.

Why things are not crystal clear in each religion or the fact that no objective evidence of God exsisting is nowhere to be found, doesn't cease to amaze me.

Come on, if you were God would you make it THAT easy to your creation? ;-)

ButterflyWoman

3rd December 2007, 11:04 PM

When you have had mystical experiences you know how difficult they are to describe. Ineffable. To talk about it, to teach about it, to ease the communication between the wake consciousness and those deeper states of mind, a terminology is necessary. And thus, IMO, religions scripture is only meant for those who have had these experiences.

I've thought this, myself. Jesus frequently noted that what he was saying was "for those who have ears", meaning, for those who would be able to hear what he was saying, not physically hear, but hear and understand.

Also, the more I grow spiritually, the more in the Bible makes sense to me, because it's not about the literal reading, it's about the symbolic meaning, which you don't really get until you've had the mystical experience. (Works that way for me, anyway.)

I will note that I really had to discard all of the established dogma and really read the texts for myself (including looking up stuff in the original Greek), before I started to really "get it".

As to humans using religion as an excuse for war and such - well, humans use all kind of excuses for their faults and intentions. Religion is just one of them.

I've been saying that for years. :) Humans could start a minor war over breakfast cereal or the rules of tennis. Give them something really important and they start huge wars.

There's also the human tendency to use any weapon at hand to indulge their egos. If religion is handy for exerting control, well they use that. When they can't, they use something else.

Just a few thoughts I had upon reading this excellent post. Hope nobody minds. ;)

Freawaru

6th December 2007, 05:27 PM

Thank you, OlderWiser :-D

Also, the more I grow spiritually, the more in the Bible makes sense to me, because it's not about the literal reading, it's about the symbolic meaning, which you don't really get until you've had the mystical experience. (Works that way for me, anyway.)

Me, too :-D

I will note that I really had to discard all of the established dogma and really read the texts for myself (including looking up stuff in the original Greek), before I started to really "get it".

Hey, I did that, too. But my greek is non-existant so I needed my husband's help :lol:

Also, Meister Eckhart and some other Christian mystics are very helpfull.

I would enjoy comparing notes. I mean, it is still difficult for me to identify experiences and insights with terminology. I believe I have worked out a few but there is still a lot to do until I have my "mystical dictionary". Do you think it would be a good idea to start a thread on mystical terminology over on the mysticsm board?

CFTraveler

6th December 2007, 09:45 PM

Just to add: Rocco Errico is a christian mystic who analyzes scripture and translates from the greek and aramaic with a metaphysical eye. I enjoy his books, and he's been around for a while.

CFTraveler

6th December 2007, 09:47 PM

I would enjoy comparing notes. I mean, it is still difficult for me to identify experiences and insights with terminology. I believe I have worked out a few but there is still a lot to do until I have my "mystical dictionary". Do you think it would be a good idea to start a thread on mystical terminology over on the mysticsm board? I like the idea, and we can always use additional material for the AD pedia. Every time I think we've got it covered someone asks about something that's not in it, and then it's time to add to it.

Freawaru

9th December 2007, 07:39 PM

Just to add: Rocco Errico is a christian mystic who analyzes scripture and translates from the greek and aramaic with a metaphysical eye. I enjoy his books, and he's been around for a while.

Great! I do not know his books, yet. Can you provide some terminology from it? I have started a thread on the term "Fear of God" on the mysticsm board because I think it is a very fundamental and important term. Also, I think, many people misunderstand what it means to "fear God" and thus misinterprete the Bible and what it is all about.

CFTraveler

9th December 2007, 10:52 PM

Actually, I was confused. Rocco Erricco is the scholar who wrote "Setting a Trap for God, the Aramaic Prayer of Jesus". He studies the Lord's Prayer in Aramaic, which is the language Jesus spoke, and shows what a highly mystical prayer it was. It is not widely known that it is also in the Old Testament, btw. Anyway, here's a link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Setting-Trap-God- ... 0871591243 (http://www.amazon.com/Setting-Trap-God-Aramaic-Prayer/dp/0871591243)

The (more modern) author I was really thinking about was Todd Michael, who wrote "The Twelve Conditions of a Miracle" which is the greek translation of the Sermon of the Mount, which when looked at in greek it shows how mystical it really is- in other words a 'how to' perform miracles. Whether you agree or not, it teaches a lot of how the greek translations changed meaning when they were translated to latin.

http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Conditions ... 1585423521 (http://www.amazon.com/Twelve-Conditions-Miracle-Todd-Michael/dp/1585423521)

One of the things I remember from it is the treatment of the Word:
You know, the famous "In the beginning was the word...." in John- in greek it reads "In the beginning was the Logos..." Yet in contemorary greek the word Logos was used both as 'idea' and 'word'- the latin translators picked 'word' because it made sense to them. But any mystic would find more sense in "In the beginning was the idea; and the idea became...." There are many more gems like that in it. I highly recommend it to any christian mystic.

ButterflyWoman

9th December 2007, 11:28 PM

Hey, I did that, too. But my greek is non-existant so I needed my husband's help :lol:

Oh, my Greek is pitiful, but I'm good at using a concordance and a lexicon to look stuff up. My husband can read Koine Greek, though (he learned it specifically to read the New Testament in the original language because he, like I, hates being told what something means and wants to read it for himself ;)).

Do you think it would be a good idea to start a thread on mystical terminology over on the mysticsm board?

Sure, why not? Can't hurt. :)

Berserk

21st February 2008, 06:16 AM

In the Greek of John 1:1, 14 "Logos" means the rational -self-expression of God as opposed to God in His unknowability. Thus, the very ascription of the term "Word" to Jesus already implies a God who is not anthropomorphic. The implicit concept of God echoes the thought of Isaiah 55:8-9:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

In the Ancient Near East it was commonly assumed that the name of a god disclosed its essence. Precisely for this reason, God repeatedly refuses to reveal His name when requested to do so (Genesis 32:29; Judges 13:18). In Moses' encounter with God at the Burning Bush, God's refusal is expressed by an evasive circumlocation: "I will be whatever I will be has sent you (Exodus 3:14)." This reply can also be translated: "I am who I am" as long as it is understood in the previous sense. God is in effect saying. I can be whatever I want for you; but I reserve the right to reveal myself through other symbols and myths to peoples of other religions and cultures. So you are well advised to know me in terms of my gracious actions towards you rather than in terms of an anthropomorphic identity.

Don

ButterflyWoman

21st February 2008, 08:12 AM

God is in effect saying. I can be whatever I want for you; but I reserve the right to reveal myself through other symbols and myths to peoples of other religions and cultures. So you are well advised to know me in terms of my gracious actions towards you rather than in terms of an anthropomorphic identity.

I concur with that entirely. I have been working spiritually and intellectually on these concepts for some time now. I am convinced that God is God is God, and while we, as humans, are inclined to anthropomorphise God (and everything else, really) and to assign an "identity" to God and a "personality" to God and other human traits, God is not that. God may well choose to act through those beliefs (i.e., there's no reason God can't act through any image we might have or assign to God), but what we can envision is always only a tiny portion of the whole, if that.

The way it was given to me is that you take a piece of heavy, dark paper and cut a shape in it, let's say a fish. You cut out the fish shape, then hold the paper up to the sky and look through the fish shape, with the paper close enough that you can't see anything else of the sky. You conclude that the sky that you see through the fish shape is "the sky". And it is. But there's a LOT more sky than just what you perceive through your "fish sky" idol/image. And even if you succeed in getting rid of the piece of paper entirely, there's always going to be more sky than you can see. Not only is the sky way too big to see it all, there's a lot of sky that is blocked from our view by trees, buildings, the earth, itself, other heavenly bodies....

ariesr

27th February 2008, 11:25 PM

Considering recent events in Turkey. Could the following be found in Hadith?

Hmm... By Jesus saying he is God, he is therefore saying that Judasim (or anyother religion is the wrong path to follow. Mohammed also explains that if you don't believe in Allah then you are destined for hell. That, to me is pretty much like saying, My religion is right others are wrong.

CFTraveler

28th February 2008, 01:27 AM

You have to realize that Jesus he said he wasn't God more times than he said he was God. And when it is said he said that what he said was "I am the Way", which can be interpreted that way. So the statement "Jesus said he was God" is an interpretation, not a fact. In fact, not even scriptural.
The idea of Hell as a place of eternal punishment didn't even come about until the early middle ages, a very long time after Jesus left the world as a human.

rapidlearner

28th February 2008, 03:14 PM

CFTraveler

28th February 2008, 03:41 PM

What do you believe?

SpiritualVoyager

28th February 2008, 04:11 PM

Hi long time no post.

While we're on the subject of facts... There is no evidence to date of Jesus even existing. None.

There is a film on youtube called 'Explaining Why Chritianity is FALSE'. It has an interesting perspective on the evolution of religion and how and why things are interpretted the ways they are.

Speaking in those terms, there are no "facts" that Astral Projection exists and yet here we all are. You can watch countless videos of scientists that explain why astral projection is not possible and why we think we can project, but does that mean you stop believing it is possible?

CFTraveler

28th February 2008, 07:01 PM

I would like to redirect the thread to my above question, I beg your pardon SpiritualVoyager-
Rapidlearner started this thread in the first place. Even though either proselityzing or religious bashing are not allowed in this forum, upon being asked, he said that it was to find out:
...Now with two major world religions believing in different accounts of Jesus' life, I think its one of the most important facts to get right. Many many people have died and wars have been and arguably still are being fought over "My religions right not yours" stance.
So far in the previous three pages all the people that have participated have tried, mostly successfully, to give their observations, opinions & beliefs in a respectful manner.
Now, on page 4, rapidlearner comes back with the following statement:

Hi long time no post.
While we're on the subject of facts... There is no evidence to date of Jesus even existing. None.
There is a film on youtube called 'Explaining Why Chritianity is FALSE'. It has an interesting perspective on the evolution of religion and how and why things are interpretted the ways they are.
So again I ask, to the original poster: What is your belief, and what was your purpose for starting this thread?

rapidlearner

28th February 2008, 08:50 PM

I thought I made it clear that I don't have any set beliefs. I have experiences and question them. Thats just my nature, if people are offended I'm sorry but I thought thats what a forum was about.

To question a religion does that mean you are bashing it?

If one can't see the importance of religion in worlds history and the conflicts caused because of the differences then I don't know what history books they've been reading. Ultimately this planet and its people revolve around their religious connetations. Its not just extremeists or terrorists that interpret it to justify their causes, It's countries with their interventions to spread 'democracy' for financial gain that delude the people thinking its justified. Just watch 'the war on democracy' by Jon Pilger (A highly respected investigative journalist... Not a conspiracy theorist like Michael Moore) to find out how countries use religion to justify their brutal actions which ALWAYS result in innocent deaths.

Its not as simple as 'well I believe what I believe, I cause no harm' as there is always a bigger picture... If you believe in 'X' religion and your neighbour believes in the same and you all congregate in the same place, contributing financially to the growth of the religion then the people with authority within that religion will have great power to decide whats right or wrong morally or politically with the full backing of his common worshipers. That is where the danger lies.

With so many religions around the world, wouldn't it be a safer place if there was only one or none? Scandanavian countries are 70% agnostic or athiest and they have some of the lowest crime rates and happiest people in the world. So its not as if we need religion for Moral guidance.

My purpose of starting the thread was to see if any one had any experience projecting back in time to the era of Jesus or Mohammed and really to get people thinking and talking about what they believe in and why.

CFTraveler

28th February 2008, 09:27 PM

Questioning a religion or even the value of religion is not bashing, but starting a thread about the differing beliefs to end up stating that a specific religion is false is- unless it evolved naturally from the conversation, and it doesn't seem to have been the case in this thread.

With so many religions around the world, wouldn't it be a safer place if there was only one or none? No, because having only one religion would mean that someone would decide for all others what religion is the one allowed, and that would put us back into the middle ages when one religion ruled, and decisions about people's lives were based on scripture and it's interpretation, instead of logic or what we could call democracy. You would need to have a people who decided they wanted one only. And that is what is known as 'jihad', 'crusade', and in other occasions 'ethinc cleansing'.
As to no religion allowed? Remember Stalinist Russia, when the idea of religion became 'wrong' and it was illegal to have it? In this type of development the religion became the 'collective', or the 'state', and it's benefit overrode any possible individual needs, and in fact the idea of anything that smacked of individualism, like artistic expression or religious expression became not only prohibited but punishable. Communist China used the excuse that Tibet was the world's most religious place (and yet they used to be pretty happy there too) to occupy it and change the ethnicity of the place. That's why the Dalai Lama lives in India now.

Scandanavian countries are 70% agnostic or athiest and they have some of the lowest crime rates and happiest people in the world. So its not as if we need religion for Moral guidance. Scandinavian people have chosen to be agnostic or atheist, no one told them they had to be. That is why they are happy (or some of the reasons)- but no one has told them they're not allowed to be either.
The truth is that if you look at history you will see that both religion and spirituality fill a need that seems to be inborn in humanity- and even though some deny this need, there is always something that replaces it when religious expression is not allowed. The communists proved this when they used what is the same as religious fervor to advance the idea that individuality is anathema and to happily give control to a select group- in this case it was 'the collective', which in reality were the party bosses.
When it's not religion it's the state, and when it's neither (as in the present US) it's the 'economic powers that be'. But it is a fact that throughout history, humanity has tended to strive to subordinate their will to 'powers greater than them'. What the 'powers' are have traditionally been religious establishments, but when those traditions were broken they were replaced with other ideological establishments. That' just history.
So no, 'only having one religion or no religion' wouldn't solve this problem, it's been tried before and it didn't seem to work.

rapidlearner

28th February 2008, 11:27 PM

Questioning a religion or even the value of religion is not bashing, but starting a thread about the differing beliefs to end up stating that a specific religion is false is- unless it evolved naturally from the conversation, and it doesn't seem to have been the case in this thread.
I started this thread a looong time ago. I came today, noticed that it was still going and mentioned a video that I'd seen that shows how religion is interpreted which is a common theme in this thread. I didn't state that any religion is 'false', the video does. I just stated that the video was interesting.

No, because having only one religion would mean that someone would decide for all others what religion is the one allowed, and that would put us back into the middle ages when one religion ruled, and decisions about people's lives were based on scripture and it's interpretation, instead of logic or what we could call democracy. You would need to have a people who decided they wanted one only. And that is what is known as 'jihad', 'crusade', and in other occasions 'ethinc cleansing'.
As to no religion allowed? Remember Stalinist Russia, when the idea of religion became 'wrong' and it was illegal to have it? In this type of development the religion became the 'collective', or the 'state', and it's benefit overrode any possible individual needs, and in fact the idea of anything that smacked of individualism, like artistic expression or religious expression became not only prohibited but punishable. Communist China used the excuse that Tibet was the world's most religious place (and yet they used to be pretty happy there too) to occupy it and change the ethnicity of the place. That's why the Dalai Lama lives in India now.

good point :wink: But I didn't mean 'enforce' no religion as law.

So no, 'only having one religion or no religion' wouldn't solve this problem, it's been tried before and it didn't seem to work.

When I say one religion. I mean evidence that 'x' religion is correct. Evidence in the way that we have dinosaur bones and can piece together their existence. We rely on evidence in a court of law to prosecute someone, if there is too much faith or instincts involved in a decision and not enough evidence, then it is more likely that the accused will be found not guilty. So then why shouldn't religion be put on trial so that we can go through the scriptures, eye witness accounts, interpretations, translations etc...? If people commit crimes in the name of their religion based on their interpretation of a religion, then surely the religion has to take some responsibility somewhere down the line. Who is to say that a suicide bomber is interpreting their religion incorrectly? Who is to say that the bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin?

I'm also battling with reasons as to why God would chose to have an influence on humanity 2000 years ago and not decide to step in and make things clear now when humanity is battling over who is right or wrong. That would seem like a good solution to me.

CFTraveler

29th February 2008, 01:25 AM

So then why shouldn't religion be put on trial so that we can go through the scriptures, eye witness accounts, interpretations, translations etc...? That's an interesting concept- at least on a mental level. It would be impossible to get representatives of each religion who actually agree with each other to address each question.... Impossible to assemble, IMO, but interesting nonetheless.

ButterflyWoman

29th February 2008, 02:44 AM

IMO, and this is ONLY my opinion, religion can't be "put on trial" any more than philosophy can. Who is correct, Kant or Nieztche? Which is "true", existentialism or nihilism? Which are correct, the Stoics or the Epicurians?

Religious and/or spiritual beliefs are not something that have to be "proven", just as philosophy doesn't have to be "proven". There are many things in this world that don't need "proof".

Oh, and trials are not always fair, no matter how much evidence or how many witnesses there are. Guilty people go free, innocent people are convicted... So putting something "on trial" isn't necessarily going to give you any definitive answers, either. ;)

SpiritualVoyager

29th February 2008, 03:20 PM

I wasn't truly offended the last time I posted, I was just stating a counter point. I just think that a logical discussion about what facts can prove is a little odd on a forums such as this, a board full of free thinkers. Your right there isn't a whole lot of proof of these things outside of written accounts. But of course when I first started researching OBEs and Astral Projection, I was following written accounts then to.

And yet there are so many accounts of what is experienced in the astral that no one can paint an accurate map of it for anyone. How can we decide what is real and what is not in that case? I think the argument of religion is similar to that. What if there isn't ONE correct religion? What if all the religions are really the same anyway and the only thing we really need to learn is how to coexist? What if faith is just the first step of our spiritual maturity? Maybe its a test to see if we can let go of all the fact and science that rules what we think. In a way, that's kind of what we do when we project.

These are just musings of course.

CFTraveler

29th February 2008, 05:28 PM

I wasn't truly offended the last time I posted, I was just stating a counter point. I wasn't responding to the meat of what you wrote, I was apologizing for rudely ignoring your post to do some Administratin'. :lol:

I just think that a logical discussion about what facts can prove is a little odd on a forums such as this, a board full of free thinkers. Your right there isn't a whole lot of proof of these things outside of written accounts. But of course when I first started researching OBEs and Astral Projection, I was following written accounts then to.

And yet there are so many accounts of what is experienced in the astral that no one can paint an accurate map of it for anyone. How can we decide what is real and what is not in that case? I think the argument of religion is similar to that. What if there isn't ONE correct religion? What if all the religions are really the same anyway and the only thing we really need to learn is how to coexist? What if faith is just the first step of our spiritual maturity? Maybe its a test to see if we can let go of all the fact and science that rules what we think. In a way, that's kind of what we do when we project.

These are just musings of course. Ah yes but we love to argue. I mean discuss.
:wink:

rapidlearner

1st March 2008, 06:49 AM

IMO, and this is ONLY my opinion, religion can't be "put on trial" any more than philosophy can. Who is correct, Kant or Nieztche? Which is "true", existentialism or nihilism? Which are correct, the Stoics or the Epicurians?
IMO, not a good idea to compare religion with philosophy. Religion is a belief in something supernatural to the point that you believe its a fact. Philosophers will change their stance on their 'opinion' of the world as soon as new information comes along.

Impossible to assemble
Of course, that is the point. Humans would go to war to try and prove or disprove the unproveable. But seriously, if an external auditor from say the panet Zod went through the evidence, my hunch would say they would think we were clutching at straws. (hunch = IMO)

I wasn't truly offended the last time I posted, I was just stating a counter point. I just think that a logical discussion about what facts can prove is a little odd on a forums such as this, a board full of free thinkers. Your right there isn't a whole lot of proof of these things outside of written accounts. But of course when I first started researching OBEs and Astral Projection, I was following written accounts then to.

And yet there are so many accounts of what is experienced in the astral that no one can paint an accurate map of it for anyone. How can we decide what is real and what is not in that case? I think the argument of religion is similar to that. What if there isn't ONE correct religion? What if all the religions are really the same anyway and the only thing we really need to learn is how to coexist? What if faith is just the first step of our spiritual maturity? Maybe its a test to see if we can let go of all the fact and science that rules what we think. In a way, that's kind of what we do when we project.

These are just musings of course.
Sure. Free thinking or open mindedness doesn't mean you have to accept all information thats given to you. I personally think thats when a person becomes over suggestible. Take your time, read through the data available and sum up what you think is reliable or not. We're all human. We all have the ability to recall things accurately or with bias towards what we want it to be like. If you want to question something, fire away! I think the majority of people here have genuine experiences and thrive off of doubts or validations. The thing is, when you've had an OBE it's in the past and it is no different to recalling what you did yesterday afternoon in waking life. Now when you think about waking life, even that can become muddled and blurry. So people will have their doubts about the 'realness' of the experience and its sometimes up to us to probe. The same with religion... If you don't probe, you won't get answers.

With regards to arguments... Nah, I have a lot of respect for the people here as they've helped me personally with sound advice. I just like to delve deeper before taking things at face value. If that means questioning something, than so be it :wink:

Berserk

1st March 2008, 09:58 PM

As an ex-religion professor, I of course enjoy a good debate on religion. But I do respect the purpose of this site and its rules. So let me offer 3 lines of inquiry to see what the author of this thread and the moderator deem appropriate.

(1) From a strictly historical viewpoint, the origin of Muhammad's Quranic information about Jesus is easily traced to late
2nd century to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels that no modern historian credits as a valid source of historical
information. It is also easy enough to lay out the case for a connection between New Testament Jesus material and
eyewitness testimony. Do you want such an overview?

(2) Beyond this, the case for the non-biblical evidence for Jesus' existence is easy enough to articulate, but seldom
surfaces on New Age websites. If desired, I can lay out the case from Josephus, Tacitus, archaeology, and even anti-
Christian Jewish perspectives on Jesus from the first two centuries. Such a discussion, of course, involves
popular misconceptions about the reports of both Josephus and Tacitus.

(3) Point (2) can be expanded to consider the evidence for Jesus' words and deeds from reliable Christian sources outside
the New Testament. Of course, the question of historical pedigree and criteria becomes crucial here. This seldom
explored approach is essential for any assessment of the ever growing spate of sensationalist books about Jesus and
his associates (e. g. "The Da Vinci Code," "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," "The Christ Conspiracy," "The Sun God").

If not (1)-(3), what line of inquiry would you appreciate?

Don

Gman

1st March 2008, 10:45 PM

rapidlearner originally wrote
I would like to know from anyone that has ben able to transgress time or go to the Akashaik (spell?) records and is able to explain Jesus' purpose, who he was and about his life in the physical reality that we live in now.

If you cant visit the records I would still be interested in your opinion and how he fits in the Astral or if you even believe he was a profit of God... Or God himself!

Thank you

I personally dont believe in any religious texts but thats just me, anyone else is entitled to their opinions. Just to get back to rapidlearners original question, I came to the conclusion that most of the prophets are 'real' in the sense of existing in astral kingdoms (manipulated group mindset suplanes) who are fed from this reality through our blind beliefs. The more religious followers, the stronger the entity becomes.

In the 3D realm however I agree with some other researchers that Jesus is just a metophor. Who would have guessed it eh? millions of people killed throughout the world over a metaphor?? silly aint it

Palehorse Redivivus

1st March 2008, 11:06 PM

Hi Berserk,

You're okay to post some historical info. We just want to make sure this all stays objective, civil and doesn't stray into proselytizing territory (which of course goes for everyone involved). :)

Berserk

2nd March 2008, 12:45 AM

Caelrie,

About your generalizations about Josephus and Tacitus: I will document the contrary consensus. I was a Teaching Fellow in Classics for Zeph Stewart at Harvard when I was finishing my doctorate there in Biblical Studies. I regularly attended the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical LIterature, the international secular organization for biblical studies that is attended by professors worldwide. I actively participated in their programs and have published academic articles in the field. I think I know how the academic establishment thinks. Stay tuned for historical documentation!

Don

Caelrie

2nd March 2008, 12:53 AM

Josephus forgery...

http://altreligion.about.com/library/te ... nity25.htm (http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_forgerychristianity25.htm)
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html
http://www.christianorigins.com/zeitlin.html

There are hundreds of such sources.

Caelrie

2nd March 2008, 12:55 AM

Tacitus wasn't even alive in the time period Jesus lived in, and thus can't even be called a witness in the first place. Further, Tacitus also wrote about non-christian miracles, many of them, so if you want to use him as a source you must accept those as valid as well. Even doing so, however, still doesn't place him as a witness unless you believe he somehow managed it before he was born.

CFTraveler

2nd March 2008, 03:10 AM

Before this continues, I want to note that this thread is not about how qualified anyone is to have knowledge, expertise or opinion on religious matters. Instead of arguing about who's qualified to make any claims, or what religion they are, let's stick to historical theories and their possible validity.
If it continues on the vein of polite name-calling (ie. "you shouldn't talk 'cause your religious vs. you shouldn't talk because you're not a professor") I will lock the thread and delete any further posts in this vein.
This would be a shame because I was looking forward to some unbiased information on the matter.

Berserk

2nd March 2008, 03:42 AM

Caelrie impugned my ability to identify the academic consensus on Josephus's relevance and did so on the basis of googled material that supports his preconceptions. So the issue of academic credentials was initially essential, but will no longer be relevant once we actually engage the ancient texts and the modern (not the outdated) scholarly consensus. If I am victimized by ad hominems here as I've been in the past, I will simply stop posting. Too bad because I can inject new material into the discussion that websites like these never cite.

Don

Jaco

2nd March 2008, 03:48 AM

I'm interested :) Please write what you know.

CFTraveler

2nd March 2008, 04:05 AM

(snip)...the issue of academic credentials was initially essential, but will no longer be relevant once we actually engage the ancient texts and the modern (not the outdated) scholarly consensus.
Don That's all I ask.
I have no desire to victimize you or anyone, and will keep to the best of my abilities this from happening. However, at the first redirection of the theme towards personal insults, from anyone, it will be locked.

rapidlearner

2nd March 2008, 04:37 AM

I would love to see evidence.

The problem we have is keeping it short enough so that it remains interesting.

Please share and remember that now you've exposed your credentials, you're like a gladiator in the areana full of snipers waiting for the big guy to slip up :D

Oh and if I don't reply for a while its because I'm really busy at the moment but I definately will. Being 'The Author' I feel like I've created a monster! :twisted:

Kunama

2nd March 2008, 10:00 AM

I too am really interested, please keep posting, - there are not many opportunities to read or learn about this. So please post away :wink:

star

3rd March 2008, 12:51 AM

Beserk, I feel like your teasing us. I was entranced by this entire thread until I got to the point where you decided to quit posting, doh!

CFTraveler

3rd March 2008, 02:54 AM

I decided to allow the thread that will be titled "The Historical Case for Jesus". It will be in the "Expanding Awareness" forum.It has been split to avoid comments about the value of religion to get mixed up with ideas of whether Jesus existed or not, or whether things happened the way we've been taught they were not.
I will post a link to the new thread, with a warning:
This thread is going to be informative, and not a platform for arguments of belief or conviction. No one, not even me, will be allowed to make any comments that are personal about the poster, including their profession or lack of it.
So if you disagree about a source, you argue about a source, not about the person writing the post, regardless of your personal feelings about that person.
This is not debatable.
I will delete posts that are about another person, and I will ban whoever continues to include comment about the other person.

Here is the new thread for those who wish to read or participate:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11317 (http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11317)

journyman161

3rd March 2008, 10:56 AM

Hi! Long time no post :D

OK I just watched a documentary about the difference in what Muslims believe Jesus is/was compared to the Christian view. As you can imagine, they were both different and both adament about what actually happened and who he actually is.

I would like to know from anyone that has ben able to transgress time or go to the Akashaik (spell?) records and is able to explain Jesus' purpose, who he was and about his life in the physical reality that we live in now.

If you cant visit the records I would still be interested in your opinion and how he fits in the Astral or if you even believe he was a profit of God... Or God himself!

Thank youI have no direct knowledge via Akashic records nor have I met anyone in the Astral. But I do know from physical records that there is murkiness in the stories we have been told. The recent discoveries of non-mainstream gospels which contradict the idea that Jesus was 'the Son of God' or that show Judas in a new light as the most favoured rather than the traitor history has condemned him to be, or that portray Mary of Magdalene as the most favoured & knowledgeable rather than the whore the Church makes her out to be suggest there is something awry.

Even from the Bible, it is apparent there is something fishy, apart from how the Shepherd becomes a Fisherman. (the time of the Christ was the transition from Ares (Ram) to Pisces (Fish)) The Church was basically formed by Saul, (later Paul) a tax collector who, out of everyone's witness, was supposed to have been struck blind by the vision of Glory. He was basically the founder of the Pauline Church.

The next couple of centuries were pretty much a battle between the Church of James & the Church of Paul. Paul seems to have re-emphasised the Church into something that allowed 'Authority' to intercede between an individuals & the God that the Christ came to tell us about.

Co9nstantine formalised the Pauline doctrines in the Nicaean Council with the expressed purpose of stabilising the Roman Empire - in other words, he turned it into a tool for control of the various warring factions. From that time on, anyone who disagreed with the established dogma was hunted down & killed.

From the Gnostics through the Caspars, to the witches & Heretics, anyone who had any thoughts about spirituality other than what the Church decreed was killed, usually after tortures that make the Nazi's look like Mother Theresa. Only their fanatical devotion to stopping an unstoppable Science brought them down - eventually pure knowledge reduced their control & Governments could actually govern without deferring to the Holy See.

Along the way came Mohammed, a man who became incensed about the Jews failing to recognise him & so began yet another set of religious hatreds. In one way, religion can be seen as a succession of hatreds, all based on the concept that 'I am right & if you disagree you should die'

But in another view, religion, in spite of the hatreds it brings, has somehow inspired many good things. Or maybe it's because of the hatreds it inspires good things - every strong passion seems to cause its opposite.

The differences between Judaic religions are as bitter as any family feud. The Arabs are first cousins to the Jews - yet their hatred is legendary. They are the children of Jacob & Esau. Christians fought wars to conquer Israel based on hatred of the people who crucified the Christ, ignoring entirely the fact he seem4ed to seek out his destiny. Let's face it, if a man, even The Man, knows where something is going & actively brings it about, are those implements of his destiny actually guilty or are they simply pawns. Did Caiaphus, Annias(sp?) or Pilate have any choice in what they did if the Son of God & God himself wanted it to happen?

Religion is a horribly murky place. Both the possible glory of Mankind & also the manipulative, controlling, destructive tool of the Dark. The only way to treat it is to take at face value the few words of Christ that seem to have survived even Paul. Do unto others as you would be done by; Love thy neighbour as yourself.

Anything else opens the door to manipulation & control by those with ulterior motives.

Berserk

4th March 2008, 01:53 AM

[journyman:] "The recent discoveries of non-mainstream gospels which contradict the idea that Jesus was 'the Son of God' ...or that portray Mary of Magdalene as the most favoured & knowledgeable rather than the whore the Church makes her out to be suggest there is something awry.
__________________________________________

But these noncanonical Gospels are so late and transparently inauthentic that modern scholars seldom feel that they muddy the waters about our knowledge of either Jesus or Mary Magdalene.

[journyman:] "Even from the Bible, it is apparent there is something fishy, apart from how the Shepherd becomes a Fisherman. (the time of the Christ was the transition from Ares (Ram) to Pisces (Fish)."
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Jesus was neither a shepherd nor a fisherman, though he occasionally went fishing with his disciples who had been fishermen. The astrological parallels are irrelevant and not part of any first-century Christian mindset.

[journyman:] "The Church was basically formed by Saul, (later Paul) a tax collector who, out of everyone's witness, was supposed to have been struck blind by the vision of Glory."
__________________________________________________ ________

First, Paul was a tentmaker, not a tax collector. Second, Paul formed only one small segment of the church. He was just one of the missionaries sent out by the Mother Church at Antioch. Other major missionary bases were Jerusalem and Transjordian Pella. Paul did not pioneer the churches in major Mediterranean centers like Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Rome. So what on earth are you talking about?

[journyman:] "The next couple of centuries were pretty much a battle between the Church of James & the Church of Paul."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

No, the church of James, preferably designated the Jewish-Christian church, was very small, not widespread, and lacking in any significant influence on the wider Gentile church. It comprised a few tiny groups of "Ebionites," "Nazareans," and "Elchasaites" amd generated a tiny amount of literature (the Gospel of the Ebionites," "the Gospel of the Nazareans," "The Ascents of James," and "the Pseudo-Clementines"). Nor did Pauline Christianity have much influence until the Protestant Reformation led by Luther in the 1500s.

[journyman:] "Paul seems to have re-emphasised the Church into something that allowed 'Authority' to intercede between an individuals & the God that the Christ came to tell us about."
__________________________________________________ ________

Just the opposite! Paul was anti-authoritarian and championed a gift-based church structure that included several female leaders. This was too unstructured for Catholics who replaced it with an authoritarian structure (bishops, elders, deacons) that eliminated female leadership.

[jurneyman:] "Constantine formalised the Pauline doctrines in the Nicaean Council with the expressed purpose of stabilising the Roman Empire - in other words, he turned it into a tool for control of the various warring factions. From that time on, anyone who disagreed with the established dogma was hunted down & killed."
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

No, Constantine was Arian and his heretical Christology was rejected by the Catholic church. The 2 Councils of Nicea had little to do with Paulinism. Nor can you back up your over-the-top statement about subsequent persecution of Christian minorities. The Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of the Cathars and witches was of course deplorable. But in general, such persecution was merely occasional and relatively rare.

Don

Berserk

4th March 2008, 02:10 PM

Journyman,

You create the impression that Jesus was by vocation first a shepherd and then a fisherman. There is no evidence for that. Jesus was a carpenter prior to His public ministry (Mark 6:3). In a figurative sense, Jesus promised to make His disciples "fishers of men (mark 1:17)," but that was their role, not His. The thought just occurred to me that you may have had in mind Jesus' figurative Good Shepherd discourse in John 10 and the early Christian fish symbol that was used as an acrostic to express some of Jesus' messianic titles. This Good Shepherd image was sometimes used in early Christian art. And we know from early Roman catacombs (2nd century) that the Roman church used the fish as the symbol of their community. The Greek word for fish "ichthus" was used as an acrostic with each letter standing successively for "Jesus Christ, son of God, Savior." In Greek "Jesus" is "Iesous;" Son of God" is "theou uios;" "Savior" is "soter." But there is no evidence that this had anything to do with astrology. On the contrary, from the late first century on, the early church condemned all forms of magic, including astrology.

Don