PDA

View Full Version : Judas and satan



shian
02 February 2010, 09:43 PM
think,

Johanes 13:2
Judas betrayal is because satan has whispering

satan want Jesus die in cross

so ?

how great satan's merit for christian .

and then, about Judas betrayal.
Judas is have receive Jesus , off course in the name of Jesus.
but, how come in the name of Jesus, still can do such things ?
many things in this world make me open eyes to see, what is the power of name of jesus by christian ?

wcrow
31 May 2011, 11:47 AM
Thought like this was an interesting question, I hope that I am not breaking a rule by bumping an old thread.

First let me preface my answer with a quote from Scripture:
1 Cor 22
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-23.htm)but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Christians see the cross as a paradox. It is nonsense to say that the messiah has been put to death and that our redemption comes from it.
It is not meant to be a good thing - it was an instrument of torture and "cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree" (deut 21:23). Yet Christ turned this great evil into our redemption and salvation.
Perhaps this has been lost in many forms of modern Christianity, but in Orthodoxy, Jesus's death was a great crime. It was certainly not just. It would have been better if it had not been needed at all. Yet it is a testament to the love and greatness of God that the death of his messiah was turned into our salvation. I think that some people miss the "scandal of the cross" - it is a great shame, a curse, an evil - and yet it was our messiah that chose out of his love for us to experience that. Because our rejection of Jesus and God, he died that shameful death.
The point is that Judas represents all of us, fallen humanity. We betray Jesus and lead him to his crucifixion by our sins. If we had never done that, then Jesus would never had died! Becuase of our sin, Jesus dies. Because Jesus dies, we are freed from sin.

The second part of your question, you are asking how Judas could have betrayed Jesus? Without Judas, there would be no Cross - Judas represents sinful humanity who crucified Jesus and rejected him. We have all betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. As to how that is possible - ask Adam, or Satan. Both disobeyed God because of pride or ignorance. If we don't want God, then we don't have to have him.

Hope this comes some way to answering your question.

TheOne
31 May 2011, 04:10 PM
The Christians have amazingly tricked themselves in a bunch of lies.

Firstly, "Satan" as Christians believe him does not exist anywhere in the Bible. If anything the "Satan" figure is more of a "prosecuter" in the legal sense. If a Christian even followed his own (selective)scriptures , one will realize that if God is the Judge, Satan is the prosecute, and Jesus would be the "defense attorney" and like any good ol' bunch they shake hands and are friends at the end of the day.

Now that was the mythical view. The real view is that Christianity is the product of the Roman Empire which manufactered its own version of Christianity and hunted down and destroyed all rival views(Gnostics, Hindu Brahmins, Buddhists, etc.).

One very rarely here's of the Hindu / Buddhist interaction with many of the early Christian sects. Some of the attacks that Bishop Irenaues used against Gnosticism was that it was similar to the Indian "brahmins" in Rome. Imperial Christianity, from its very conception had at its heart its plan to destroy all heresies, Christian or otherwise, including Gnostics among others.

The idea that "Christianity" had a good relationship with any other religion is false. From the moment "Christianity" took power in the Roman empire it set about its agenda to destroy all Gnostic texts.



PS: Your claim that Judas Iscariot, represents the worst of humanity is just one of many opinions. Some of the other gospels that the church decidedly banned tell of a more intimate relationship between Judas and Jesus, one which the betrayle was pre-organized and some which there was no crucifixion at all. Imposing your rather skewed view of pseudo-history is ignorance at best.

Adhvagat
31 May 2011, 09:12 PM
The point is that Judas represents all of us, fallen humanity. We betray Jesus and lead him to his crucifixion by our sins. If we had never done that, then Jesus would never had died! Becuase of our sin, Jesus dies. Because Jesus dies, we are freed from sin.

What makes a christian have any sense of responsibility then?

A person that is freed from everything bad from a higher authority is what we call a child here in this world.

sanjaya
01 June 2011, 12:02 AM
I've always had the same problem with Christian atonement as Pietro. If I say that I don't want a third party to pay for my wrongdoings, Christians tell me that the only way to repay God for my sins is to burn in hell for all eternity. After that, believing in Jesus and converting to Christianity sounds like a far better option.

In one fell swoop, Christianity eliminates any need for personal responsibility. Oh yes, I know many Christians who preach sanctification and who earnestly attempt to lead good lives. But at a philosophical level, they don't have to take any personal responsbility for their sins. Christianity trivializes all sin by saying that anything from stealing a paperclip to presiding over a holocaust is worthy of the same punishment: eternal hell. And all sin is payed for by the same mechanism: faith in Christianity.

In Hinduism, the concept of Karma ensures that all wrongdoings are met with a commensurate response. And contrary to Christian missionary claims, Karma does not eliminate the grace of God, for we are taught that by sincere devotion to God, the burden of Karma can be removed. This is a system I can recognize as being from God.

Lest any evangelical say that I am committing idolatry by replacing "God's Word" with my own ideas about God, let me observe that God imbues men with a personal conscience that tells us what God ought to be like. The Bible cannot be assumed true a priori. Any scripture that presumes to speak for God cannot deviate strongly from how the human conscience perceives him. I cannot in good conscience say that the Bible is inspired by God, and thus I reject the Christian doctrine concerning sin atonement.

wcrow
01 June 2011, 02:19 AM
Great replies.


Firstly, "Satan" as Christians believe him does not exist anywhere in the Bible. If anything the "Satan" figure is more of a "prosecuter" in the legal sense. If a Christian even followed his own (selective)scriptures , one will realize that if God is the Judge, Satan is the prosecute, and Jesus would be the "defense attorney" and like any good ol' bunch they shake hands and are friends at the end of the day.In the old testament perhaps, but read the new. Satan is most definatly presented as the "evil one" - as the Lords Prayer shows.


Now that was the mythical view. The real view is that Christianity is the product of the Roman Empire which manufactered its own version of Christianity and hunted down and destroyed all rival views(Gnostics, Hindu Brahmins, Buddhists, etc.). History shows you are wrong. Read the pre-nicene fathers and you will see that Christianity then is largely the same as it was after the legalisation of christianity. I would like to see some sources for the stuff you are writing.



PS: Your claim that Judas Iscariot, represents the worst of humanity is just one of many opinions. Some of the other gospels that the church decidedly banned tell of a more intimate relationship between Judas and Jesus, one which the betrayle was pre-organized and some which there was no crucifixion at all. Imposing your rather skewed view of pseudo-history is ignorance at best.Perhaps they do. It is rather irrellevant considering that the crucifixion is historically attested to before these writings start being penned.
Perhaps I could start pulling apart hinduism like you are trying to do here? If you look at every religion you will see that they developed and that everyone imposes some kind of false history into religion, the same can be said of your vedic scriptures. It gets us nowhere.

wcrow
01 June 2011, 02:35 AM
What makes a christian have any sense of responsibility then?

A person that is freed from everything bad from a higher authority is what we call a child here in this world.No, we are forgiven. We still have to deal with what we have done. Indeed, it is a pre-requisite for forgivenss. We do have to make amends -"repentance". "forgive your brother, and you will be forgiven".



I've always had the same problem with Christian atonement as Pietro. If I say that I don't want a third party to pay for my wrongdoings, Christians tell me that the only way to repay God for my sins is to burn in hell for all eternity. After that, believing in Jesus and converting to Christianity sounds like a far better option.
The Cross is not payment (to god). You can thank protestant christianity for that view! We are freely forgiven, not paid off. The incarnation, death and crucifixion is the means of our sanctification (paul uses justification and sanctification interchangably) because we gain eternal life, like we were meant have. Hell (gehenna) is the natural consequence of cutting oneself off from God - a punishment in the same way that a burnt hand after sticking it in a fire is punishment. Scripture does use the language of payment, but we must be very careful not to take it too literally, otherwise we imprison God in his own justice.

http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-The%20Atonement (http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-The%20Atonement)

From Athanasius On the Incarnation:

On the other hand there was the consistency of God's nature, not to be sacrificed for our profit. Were men, then, to be called upon to repent? But repentance cannot avert the execution of a law; still less can it remedy a fallen nature. We have incurred corruption and need to be restored to the Grace of God's Image. None could renew but He Who had created. He alone could (1) recreate all, (2) suffer for all, (3) represent all to the Father.

Forgiveness is not the issue, our fallen nature is.

TheOne
01 June 2011, 05:25 AM
Great replies.
In the old testament perhaps, but read the new. Satan is most definatly presented as the "evil one" - as the Lords Prayer shows.
History shows you are wrong. Read the pre-nicene fathers and you will see that Christianity then is largely the same as it was after the legalisation of christianity. I would like to see some sources for the stuff you are writing.


Perhaps they do. It is rather irrellevant considering that the crucifixion is historically attested to before these writings start being penned.
Perhaps I could start pulling apart hinduism like you are trying to do here? If you look at every religion you will see that they developed and that everyone imposes some kind of false history into religion, the same can be said of your vedic scriptures. It gets us nowhere.



Have you read the Book of Job? Satan is not presented as the "evil guy" at all, he is presented as the prosecutor, and many Jewish scholars have attested to such a view.


Your view that Christianity was a cohesive entity since the crucifixion is in any serious academic circles a laughable idea. The prevailing idea, supported by large amounts of textual and historical evidence is that there were instead dozens of branches of "Christ-ism" preaching a different message, I'm not denying there was a worship of Christ as god man, akin to Mithra and Isis worship, but the roots of your Christianity are based on Gospels that are influenced, and sometimes direct copies of Mithric texts such as the one below.

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Also the resurrection is not "historically attested to" at all. The four gospels are the only "evidence" of it. There isn't any independent source which verified any of Christianity's claims. Sir, I myself don't buy into the pseudo-history of many vedic "scholars" as well. I don't accept the superstition, and cultural additions to the philosophy, so I, for the most part could not be considered a standard brand Hindu but I still hold strong respect for Hinduism as more of its claims have been substantiated then Christianity's . "It gets us nowhere". No, it gets us the truth, I'd rather have all of Hinduism attacked viciously if it produced the truth then have people turn a blind eye to it and accept it. The opposite is of Christianity which, for 2000 years has attacked and crushed ANY opposition, even blatant scientific fact to further it's own agenda.

Good day sir!

wcrow
01 June 2011, 06:47 AM
Have you read the Book of Job? Satan is not presented as the "evil guy" at all, he is presented as the prosecutor, and many Jewish scholars have attested to such a view.

Yes, I have, and I know. This does not present a problem for christianity. But read the New Testament - whatever you think about how it got there, the Gospel does present Satan as the enemy. Start with the Lords Prayer, the Apocalypse, Luke 10, John 8, 1 Peter 5... I could go on.

As to the rest of your arguements, I cannot answer them. I am no apologist.
Have a good day.

Adhvagat
01 June 2011, 07:51 AM
Wcrow, what about reincarnation? I know of no major church that accepts it. What's your view?

I personally don't agree with christianity based in its history that makes me have little credibility for it. Adding to this the skewed visions of the churches, it doesn't sound appealing to me. I see that apparently you considered Sanatana Dharma as a path, what makes you chose christianity instead? Family? Tradition?

It would be interesting to know your instance.

nitinsharma
01 June 2011, 08:12 AM
Christian has always been,will be about fearing god and nothing else.......no wonder they have so many 'followers'.

wcrow
01 June 2011, 09:59 AM
Wcrow, what about reincarnation? I know of no major church that accepts it. What's your view?

We believe that the soul is created immediatly and at the same time as the body, by God, at conception. There was a debate on reincarnation and the pre-existance of the soul in the early church, but it was condemned by many of the Fathers of the church.


Christian has always been,will be about fearing god and nothing else.......no wonder they have so many 'followers'.

We fear God, in the true sense of the word - awe, reverence ect. Much deeper is love - you may not see it in many people today, but it is there. Love of God is the deepest mystery of christianity. We say that the Holy Trinity is love. Loving God, and knowing he is merciful does not in anyway diminish the fact that he is our creator and there will always be a gap between us, that we follow him and obey him - not our of "fear", but awe, reverence, love. If you fail someone you love, you are upset - yes?
The idea of God as Just is there in Scripture, but far greater is that of him as life. We prefer to see hell not as a punishment, but as a natural consequence of willingly cutting onself off from God. Rules are necessary because we need to know what cuts ourself off from God, and what does not.


I see that apparently you considered Sanatana Dharma as a path, what makes you chose christianity instead? Family? Tradition?

No, my family are Atheist. I read the bible, and realised what I had rejected for so long was there in the person of Christ.

PatrickMB
01 June 2011, 11:31 AM
I was raised Roman Catholic and still attend mass with my family. I have not renounced my membership as of yet.

For me, reincarnation and the eventual perfection of the soul toward moksha is much more loving and compassionate than the belief that is, in effect "one life then you go to hell."

sanjaya
01 June 2011, 04:50 PM
I personally don't agree with christianity based in its history that makes me have little credibility for it. Adding to this the skewed visions of the churches, it doesn't sound appealing to me.

This is largely my approach too. I don't believe in any of Christianity, and I have no intention of converting. But as long as Christians keep their missionaries out of India, I'm content to leave them alone too. Problem is, that tends not to be the case.


We fear God, in the true sense of the word - awe, reverence ect. Much deeper is love - you may not see it in many people today, but it is there. Love of God is the deepest mystery of christianity. We say that the Holy Trinity is love.

Hindus also love God. We revere God as well. So I'm not entirely sure what makes these unique qualities of Christianity. Christianity, however, adds in a concept of eternal punishment. I think this makes the Christian God one to be feared, and not merely in the sense of reverence. Maybe I'm missing something. I know you say the Orthodox don't view hell as a punishment. But it's hard to read New Testament passages about weeping and gnashing of teeth and see it as a good thing.


The idea of God as Just is there in Scripture, but far greater is that of him as life. We prefer to see hell not as a punishment, but as a natural consequence of willingly cutting onself off from God. Rules are necessary because we need to know what cuts ourself off from God, and what does not.

I think the problem for most of us Hindus would be that condemnation to hell isn't based upon behavior, but on whether or not one is a Christian. I know the Orthodox Church claims ignorance on the fate of non-Christians, but I see this as a cop out for the sake of political correctness (no personal offense intended to you). Christianity has traditionally afforded salvation only to Christians. My understanding is that the requirement for salvation is a specific set of beliefs concerning Jesus. Hindus don't share those beliefs, so you see why this makes relations between Hindus and Orthodox Christians a bit awkward.

TheOne
01 June 2011, 05:35 PM
The thing is Church doctrine is never final, with the invention of the trinity, all the way up to the 1960's in Vatican 2, there are always HUGE additions to doctrine. Some of which are, giving black people a soul, condemning antisemitism, and the prohibition of contraceptives. Other doctrines from earlier years were, that Jews rejected gods promise and deserved eternal damnation, that astrology should be banned not because it is irrational but because it takes power away from the Church, among various other silly doctrines which were invented and later recanted in the churches 2k year history.

sanjaya
01 June 2011, 05:43 PM
The thing is Church doctrine is never final, with the invention of the trinity, all the way up to the 1960's in Vatican 2, there are always HUGE additions to doctrine. Some of which are, giving black people a soul, condemning antisemitism, and the prohibition of contraceptives. Other doctrines from earlier years were, that Jews rejected gods promise and deserved eternal damnation, that astrology should be banned not because it is irrational but because it takes power away from the Church, among various other silly doctrines which were invented and later recanted in the churches 2k year history.

Indeed. The stuff you've mentioned is largely Catholic doctrine (the black people thing sounds Mormon though). The Protestants basically invented a bunch of new doctrines in the middle ages too, and even went so far as to revise the Bible. What kind of "truth" is variable? I find Christians to be on shaky footing to say that their religion is true.

TheOne
01 June 2011, 07:18 PM
Whoops, yeah, the black people having souls is definitely a Mormon thing, sorry about that.

sanjaya
02 June 2011, 12:21 AM
Whoops, yeah, the black people having souls is definitely a Mormon thing, sorry about that.

Heh, no apologies necessary. Actually I find the Mormons to be an interesting variant of Christianity. Evangelicals consider the Mormons to be utterly ridiculous, not realizing that the rest of us consider evangelical Christianity to be equally ridiculous.

On one point, however, I will credit the evangelicals. Strangely, they seem to have more or less purged racism from their ranks. I charge evangelicals with many wrongs, but I will say that hatred of blacks isn't one of them.

wcrow
02 June 2011, 02:37 AM
The thing is Church doctrine is never final, with the invention of the trinity, all the way up to the 1960's in Vatican 2, there are always HUGE additions to doctrine. Some of which are, giving black people a soul, condemning antisemitism, and the prohibition of contraceptives. Other doctrines from earlier years were, that Jews rejected gods promise and deserved eternal damnation, that astrology should be banned not because it is irrational but because it takes power away from the Church, among various other silly doctrines which were invented and later recanted in the churches 2k year history.

Dogma most certainly is final, which is why Rome excommunicated the east for not adding "filioque" to the creed. I can't answer for Catholics or Protestants, but I can tell you that what we proclaim in the creed and the councils is final and definitive. The rest can, and does, change as people change.
I notice you are basing most of your criticism on caricatures of Catholic teaching.
You want to find a source for that "invention of the trinity" thing you keeps saying? I can certainly find many sources that say the opposite.


Hindus also love God. We revere God as well. So I'm not entirely sure what makes these unique qualities of Christianity. Christianity, however, adds in a concept of eternal punishment. I think this makes the Christian God one to be feared, and not merely in the sense of reverence. Maybe I'm missing something. I know you say the Orthodox don't view hell as a punishment. But it's hard to read New Testament passages about weeping and gnashing of teeth and see it as a good thing.The thing with Gehenna is, that do you really think giving people another chance would do anything if they have decided against God? That is our position. There has got to be a point where a decision has to be made. Anyway, the Orthodox position is that there can be change in ones salvation after death. Nothing is final until the Last Judgement. Some have even advocated for a universalist position, while not denying the reality of eternal hell. We may hope for universal reconcilliation.


I think the problem for most of us Hindus would be that condemnation to hell isn't based upon behavior, but on whether or not one is a Christian.Well, that is not entierly true. We know that there is a path to God, and it can be found in the Orthodox Church. We don't believe "once saved, always saved" - you can be a bad christian and not make it to heaven.


Christianity has traditionally afforded salvation only to Christians. My understanding is that the requirement for salvation is a specific set of beliefs concerning Jesus. Hindus don't share those beliefs, so you see why this makes relations between Hindus and Orthodox Christians a bit awkward.I think I can say that salvation is by grace alone - sola gratia.

nitinsharma
02 June 2011, 03:19 AM
Hey Crow,who do you think you're kidding???Don't you know how the cutheans got these many people with them in the first place....it definitely wasn't infinite love....just in case you don't-cold blooded mass murder,mass manipulation and I can go on all day.So any thing conceived on such violence is a load of trash.Way I see it,its some kind of a human domestication program or something.Btw,I bet a few hundred years ago you would be named something like Pippin,Griffin,Merlin;whatever.Even A million years ago I would've been Named 'Nitin' and nothing else.....Sanatana Dharma means eternal religion.Go take your "God" elsewhere.Stupid Christian Faggots.

TheOne
02 June 2011, 04:53 AM
You want to find a source for that "invention of the trinity" thing you keeps saying? I can certainly find many sources that say the opposite.



There is no mention of a trinity in the Gosepls and there isn't any mention of a triune god until at least 180 A.D. show me any other historical evidence of a trinity god in the Bible or in early Christianity.

TheOne
02 June 2011, 04:55 AM
A video describing James' view of Jesus. I have more videos if wanted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRbuKDJhzU4&feature=grec_index

sanjaya
02 June 2011, 09:49 AM
The thing with Gehenna is, that do you really think giving people another chance would do anything if they have decided against God?

This sort of logic may perhaps be applied to atheists. Hindus are not atheists, however. We've never "decided against God." What we've decided against is that we need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved. I think that often times, Christians sweep everyone else under the rug with atheists and say that we have "decided against God," in order to make eternal punishment seem like a just reward for our perceived crime. If you said "decided against converting to Christianity," then eternal hell would perhaps not sound like an appropriate fate for Hindus, don't you think?


That is our position. There has got to be a point where a decision has to be made. Anyway, the Orthodox position is that there can be change in ones salvation after death. Nothing is final until the Last Judgement. Some have even advocated for a universalist position, while not denying the reality of eternal hell. We may hope for universal reconcilliation.

Some have advocated this? I can't think of anything more important than the fate of all human souls. Seems to me this is something the Orthodox Church should determine with a higher degree of certainty. The blind hope for universal reconciliation seems like more of a means for Christians to sleep easy at night without thinking about the idea of others burning eternally in a place of outer darkness, where the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever. You make hell seem not so bad, but the words written in your own Bible are far more gruesome.


Well, that is not entierly true. We know that there is a path to God, and it can be found in the Orthodox Church. We don't believe "once saved, always saved" - you can be a bad christian and not make it to heaven.

I think I can say that salvation is by grace alone - sola gratia.

Yes but that grace is only found through conversion to Christianity. You say bad Christians don't make it to heaven. What about good Hindus? The evangelicals would say that "good Hindu" is a misnomer, but I am certainly interested in your Orthodox opinion.

TheOne
03 June 2011, 04:45 AM
Hell as Christians made up does not exist in the Bible, other than revelations and some other references. Jewish scholars have all but dismissed eternal damnation but Christians continue to identify a figure of speech, to eternal Hell, presided over by Satan.

Friend from the West
12 June 2011, 10:39 PM
Namaste Crow, the one post in response to you was not cool by any means. At the same time, I understand (I think) their offense. This is a SD forum not a Christian forum. I do not see patience from you with your Catholic or Protestant breatheran, let alone with us. I personally appreciate your attempts at proseltyzing, if sincere from your perspective. However, I do not understand why you are here. Many of the Westerners here at HDF, are learned in Christianity and are here by choice. It appears many of our friends from India have been more than harmed, either overtly or otherwise by Christians, and they are here. I wish you luck.

nitinsharma (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=2719) http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_65647", true);

nitinsharma
13 June 2011, 01:52 AM
It appears many of our friends from India have been more than harmed, either overtly or otherwise by Christians, and they are here. I wish you luck.

nitinsharma (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=2719) http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_65647", true);

Its nothing like that.

Jainarayan
13 June 2011, 09:18 AM
In the old testament perhaps, but read the new. Satan is most definatly presented as the "evil one" - as the Lords Prayer shows.

The Lord's Prayer does not mention Satan.

"Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."

No mention of Satan.

Satan (say-tan in English), ha-satán, shaitán (Hebrew and Arabic, respectively) all mean "adversary". When Iran called America the "great satan", it was meant as the great adversary (enemy).

When Peter makes a comment to Jesus, Jesus rebukes Peter:

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” - Matthew 16:23

It was not a reference to the devil, but to Peter as contrary to what Jesus was teaching.

Jainarayan
13 June 2011, 09:32 AM
Namaste nitinsharma.


Christian has always been,will be about fearing god and nothing else.......no wonder they have so many 'followers'.

You are right. That's Christianity as it is today, stemming from the time the Church (the organization is capitalized, the building is not) began to acquire material wealth. The clerics and hierarchs began to exercise control over the people. Gradually over the centuries it became a religion of fear. There is too much focus on the Old Testament, i.e. the Hebrew bible. Yet even Jewish scholars do not interpret the OT the way modern Christianity does.

Jesus was an orthodox Jew; Judaism does not believe in hell as Christianity does. Hell is a Christian invention of fear conjured up by the aforementioned Church hierarchs as a control mechanism. Jewish hell is more like a shady underworld where souls wait for salvation.

Modern Christianity has completely twisted what Jesus taught. I myself have now rejected Christianity and fully embraced Sanatana Dharma, but I still believe that Jesus taught wisely. There was a discussion about whether he existed or not, but I think that's immaterial. Someone said what is attributed to him. Teaching to love others and to love God totally can't be wrong.

Jainarayan
13 June 2011, 09:53 AM
Dogma most certainly is final, which is why Rome excommunicated the east for not adding "filioque" to the creed.

That's too simplistic. The schism between east and west was brewing for centuries, along with the political division of the Roman empire into east and west. Language was becoming a stumbling block between the Latin-speaking west and Greek-speaking east.

The eastern Churches rejected the ideas of the filoque* and the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome was not satified with being primus inter parum, the first among equals, as is the Ecumenical Patriarch today (yes, I was Eastern Orthodox).

After years of east-west bickering the bishop of Rome sent legates to Constantinople to treat with the patriarch, Michael Cerularius (who I might add had a wicked temper according to historians). However, while the papal legates were arriving in Constantinople, the bishop of Rome (or pope) had died. So the legates had no authority to speak for the pope anymore. They had no authority to deliver the Bull of Excommunication to the patriarch. Moreover, it was a personal excommunication, not one of the entire eastern Church. They marched into the patriarchal cathedral as Michael was performing a Divine Liturgy, violated the Holy Doors and slammed the BoE down on the altar.

Michael responded in kind and excommunicated the bishop of Rome; apparently he had no idea the pope had died. Well hey, it was 1054 CE, and news was a little slow in traveling. From that point on the two Churches declared each other to be in schism. Not heretical, but schismatic. Only in the 1960s when Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met, did they lift the excommunications on each other's offices.

However, the schism is not healed and probably won't be anytime soon. The Patriarch of Moscow is steadfastly against it, though Patriarch Bartholomew has met with Pope Benedict XVI. And if memory serves, it was either John Paul II or Benedict XVI who held a joint prayer service with Patriarch Bartholomew.

*filioque, Latin for "from the son". Found (or not found for the EOC) in the Apostles' Creed. That argument between east and west is that the west believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; the east believes the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father.

Jainarayan
13 June 2011, 09:58 AM
There is no mention of a trinity in the Gosepls and there isn't any mention of a triune god until at least 180 A.D. show me any other historical evidence of a trinity god in the Bible or in early Christianity.

True dat. At Jesus's baptism, the gospel says that the spirit of God appeared as a dove. Jesus says he is one with the Father, but only says before his ascension that he will send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. And there is no mention of what this Holy Spirit is. I also don't recall anything Jesus said indicating a triune Godhead.

Friend from the West
13 June 2011, 06:08 PM
Namaste to all,
Nitinsharma and anyone else who was participating, I jumped into this post without reading everything and responded in haste last night to the benefit of no one. I caught Nitinsharma's response and read everything. All I can say is sorry and oops.
Take care.

nitinsharma
14 June 2011, 05:14 AM
Namaste to all,
Nitinsharma and anyone else who was participating, I jumped into this post without reading everything and responded in haste last night to the benefit of no one. I caught Nitinsharma's response and read everything. All I can say is sorry and oops.
Take care.

No problem.:).Happens.

Loki
25 June 2011, 07:22 PM
I found that the Church was too grand for me.

The only real Christian in this time would simply read the New Testament and decide for himself. Such is the will.

And I don't think this is the time or place for those of a religious bent to not see similarities and learn from one another.

I have found karma to be a very real factor, and have learned not only from Hindu scripure, but the Koran, and the Taoist texts, and even the Greek philosophies.

In this world the real dichotomy is between material and spiritual, the West has wowed the world with its use of alchemy and architonics, but is that the true measure really?

I disagree with the Western treatment of animals and diet, and I do think it makes a difference.

I actually think it will be Islam that makes the biggest impact, as many African-Americans have received a deepening of spirit, and they need only the spirit of that text to turn them to rebellion.

I just think you'll find that the mind tunes itself better to monotheism, whether it be from a Taoist mind, Hindu mind, or African mind.