The COMMON interpretation of history? Please site your history book. Who wrote it?

Jeannie

The only fact being displayed here is that you have placed more value into another's words concerning what Jesus believed than you have placed into Jesus' own words about what Jesus believed...

Amazingly enough, and as absurd as it is...

That is a fact, Mirror...

Good day to you,

Its the version of history that is commonly accepted as fact.

Mirror Mirror: You sound like an educated person. Perhaps someone who went to college. I don't mean this in a bad way, but.. "only the facts please?"

Okay, if you want to converse in only facts, not ideas or beliefs or mysticism or metaphysics, then please have your sources ready. We like to check facts.

Jeannie

Im saying Jesus was a monotheist and nothing else. Thats what im saying. Im not talking about his parables. The man was a jewish rabbi. That makes him nothing else than a monotheist.

Yeah Im in college right now. LOL

It is not commonly accepted as fact by me or any thinking person, especially one who deals in facts, unless you can name your source or your history book. Just because it is something you have heard your entire life over and over, that does not make it a "commonly excepted fact." So don't deal in facts if you cannot support them with anything better than that.

Jeannie

ABRA!!!!!

I love you, but you are being difficult to love. hard love?

What is the title of the thread and where can it end?

In silence?

it still will be in the depths of the catacombs as long as JSH has aserver in play!

Someone will dig it up and open the wounds.

Jesus is not a pantheist.

This thread is your dogma.

All misapprehensions that you echo from the past having been refuted by others in other threads, myself included, are being ignored as though your supreme command of Chrsitian thought and tha way of life that it is is according to the Gospel of Abracadabra!

You make no sense defending youself while tainting others of the true apprehensions Christ enjoyed by those that have so found it.

Leave it alone. You have no basis point from which to substantiate your belligerent dogma in this thread.

The premise is yours.

Correct the error or give it silence.

You have brought this strife upon yourself.

Abandon the foolishness of it.

It does no good to support a fallacy which discredits your own efforts in enbracing them and continuing to spout opinions of things that you don't understand, by your own admissions.


No one is telling you what to believe.

But your preachy inclinations to subjugate Christ into pantheistic debates has cornered you indefensibly.

The judgements you make stand alone. The Bible doesn't defend your mockery of it.

On the contrary, your mockery opens you up to ridicule.

I am not ridiculing you or your beliefs or your right to teach them to others. That I am embrace as a good thing for you to do to test the efficacy of your position in the fires of the hearts of men.

I am merely reflecting back the inconsistencies within your insistance to burden the things of Jesus Christ with your defences of pantheism.

That is idol worship on your part, Abra.

Maligning His message and the things that depict his having come about as though the history behind his presence is meant to justify thsoe things he was born out of is errant to the core.

And then calling on him as though he is an advocate of things you have apprehended in direct contravention tto things he espoused is ludicrous at best and dangerous for you to do.

It is mockery. A false God of the worst kind, to suppose on Christ that he is a pantheist and draw him into your dogma and then cry that you are being fouled.

You make no sense continuing in this invalid premise that you have spawned.

How may we ever escape the life you have given this thread?

By silence reigning from this post and onwards?

Highly unlikely.

I will not have the last word on this, I am almost certain.

It would please me immensely, though.



a

Then I suggest you get out before they ruin you completely. A good mind is a terrible thing to ruin.

Mathews, Warren. World Religions. Fifth Edition. Belmont, California: Thomson & Wadsworth, 2007.

Theres a source citation JeanieBean. My textbook.

Im sorry, but there is a commonly accepted version of history. There are also alternative versions of history as well.

Geeeeze Wouldee how you doth protest! (too much I think) That Abra suggests the Jesus could have been a pantheist should not matter to you.

That you believe otherwise ....well, so what who cares. I don't think Abra plans to start a movement to overthrow Christianity.

Give it a rest yourself. Seems you have made it clear that you don't agree with this idea, so that should be the end of it.

You can't prove your claims either except to yourself. I am glad you have found your peace. Feel pleased with yourself.

Thank you. Now was that so hard?

Now, here is another question: Books have always held great authority over people, and because they are written and printed, hold great influence. But there are many books that contradict each other. History books are written by people who want you to see history a certain way. Your book, mentioned above, you probably read in School and you probably had to take a test on it. You were probably told that these are the common facts of religion. So you believe that. Now I understand why you believe that.

But I don't believe that. The reason is because "popular History" is seldom true. To pick only one book and take it as gospel is a big mistake. It puts you inside of a very small box. Open your mind just a little and peek out. There is a large world out there.

Get out of College before they ruin a good mind. That is my advice.

Jeannie

And then there's the Truth. "Commonly accepted" versions of history are transitory, and subject to revision as more facts are revealed (or disproven, or better lies are concocted, or political philosophies shift). I know of several history books which are far more accurate, in some varied regards, than ones being published currently; the inverse is also the case. To get at the Truth, it takes a lot of research. On world religions alone, I have read over 40 "definitive" works. No matter what the topic, you have to digest it all, and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Actually it’s not. I’ve read about this idea before. They make a good case I think. I can’t remember where I read it or I would cite the source. I do know that I have seen this idea proposed in several different texts, some of those were supporting it, other’s had mentioned in attempt to refute it. Therefore it must be popular enough for people to consider refuting it.

It’s not my idea. It’s just an idea that I’ve come to realize holds more potential that the commonly accepted religious view of Jesus that we now call “Christianity”.

After all, Christianity is really nothing more than a specific view of history that has grown to become popular. Had a differnet view grown initially then that is what we would see as the popular view today.

I’m a realist. Definitely more of a humanitarian than a theologian. When I look back on these ancient events I look through the lens of humanity. I don’t cloud my vision with preconceived hopes that it will support an ideal that I have already come to believe.

I offer ideas as food for thought.

You are pushing a specific dogma as ‘the gospel truth’.

The difference between you and I Wouldee is that I am open to considering all things that might conceivable be truth, whilst you are bent on proving that you already have the absolute truth.

I tell you, over and over again, why I can’t accept your ‘truth’. From my vantage point it is full of inconsistencies and self-contradictions.

It’s not that I refuse to exam it. I have examined it to death. As far as I can see it’s completely self-inconsistent and can’t possible be ‘truth’. That’s my conclusion. And the more I exam it the more profound that conclusion becomes.

So it’s not like I’m not willing to look in that direction. It’s just that what I see there is total in-consistency.

To me, the idea that Jesus spent a large part of his life in the far east makes sense. That portion of his life is completely absent from the biblical story. The idea that he was interested in spiritual maters and sought to find the Wiseman of the East makes sense to me.

And this is especially true when I then come back to look at what Jesus taught,… The questions are simple,…

Did what Jesus teach match up with what was taught in the Old Testament,…

Clearly the answer there is no. He taught almost the exact opposite.

Ok, so next question,…

Did what Jesus teach match up with what Eastern Mystics teach.

BINGO!!!

It’s just a reasonable explanation. It makes perfect sense to me Wouldee.

This isn’t a personal battle between Wouldee and Abracadaba.

I’m just offering a plausible scenario as food for thought for anyone who might find it interesting.

I’m not trying to ‘prove’ it. Nor am I claiming that it is necessarily true.

I’m just saying that it makes SENSE to me.

Keep in mind too, that if this scenario is true, then the Bible is not the inspired word of God and therefore any ‘gospels’ about the life of Jesus are the highly questionable writings of men and most likely contain massive amounts of demagoguery.

It’s just food for thought Woudlee. You don’t need to chew on it if you don’t like it.

Just spit it out and order something else.

Oh yeah Mirror...

Just a thought, as simple as it is...

Pantheism is also monotheistic...

Oneness...

Mono = one

Abra,

I don't know what is wrong with wouldee, you make perfect sense to me. Your posts are alway crystal clear logic,(albeit they lean towards the harsh and brutal truth, brutally put,) I understand them very well, almost as if I wrote them myself.

Now there is a FACT. (Mirror like facts you know. )

I know I can be brutal and direct. I tend to focus on logic and fail to consider appealing to the spirit.

That's a shame too because I have the writing ability to be more poetic, not necessarily using rhapsodic verse, but meaning that I could paint a prettier picture of these ideas if I merely focused on that goal.

I was really just putting the idea out there because I think it is something worth considering.

The only point that I really wanted to make is that this idea has as much merit as any other idea. I believe that Wouldee and MirrorMirror are attempting to argue that it doesn’t have any merit, but I strongly disagree.

In my mind it makes more sense than the popular traditional view.

MirrorMirror’s argument seems to simply be that popularity and tradition hold more weight than anything else. But we know that’s not true. Just because the masses believe something doesn’t make it true.