PDA

View Full Version : Pentecostals



shurale
12-01-2011, 00:35
My favourite 4 people are Pentecostals and I would like to be like them. Any Pentecostals around here who can tell me more about your religion?

sis
12-01-2011, 08:53
my brother, i will be happy to tell you how you can join the flock. Simply make a humble donation into my bank account, and i will start preaching the good news...
Send me a private message for the details

yakspeare
12-01-2011, 16:00
The religion is Christianity. Started about 2000 years ago. It is reasonably popular.

pjw
12-01-2011, 16:32
My favourite 4 people are Pentecostals and I would like to be like them. Any Pentecostals around here who can tell me more about your religion?I guess you mean they are your friends by referring to them as your favourite people. If they like you too then they certainly won't be putting pressure on you to change or to join their religion. If they are real friends, they will accept you as you are, enjoy your company and respect your personal beliefs without trying to brainwash you. However, the Pentecostals, without meaning to put them all in a box, have an agenda of getting you into their group. It's a strange feeling, you'll feel it early when encountering these people.

More like a sect than a normal Christian church group, the Pentecostal Church, with its strong power structure/hierarchy, fixed pecking order of who's in charge and charismatic leader running things, often like a personality cult, especially seems to attract people with low self esteem who need direction & acceptance. Enjoy the show, it's an experience.

yakspeare
12-01-2011, 19:26
That is why i became Pentecostal...

Thank God for my charismatic personality and ability to lead:))

pjw
13-01-2011, 16:20
That is why i became Pentecostal...

Thank God for my charismatic personality and ability to lead:)) Is this church really in Russia?

Is it popular? I hadn't heard of these people in years. Are you regularly active in a group in Krasnodar Yakspeare? I've never heard of the Pentecostal Church in Russia. Tell me pls.

yakspeare
13-01-2011, 18:02
haven't found anything down here to be honest.

Really Pentecostal and their Charismatic cousins can be a denomination(such as Assemblie of God etc) or infact in more mainstream churches...i have been to Pentecostal Anglican churches, Pentecostal Baptist Churches and many others.

Pentecostals believe that what was true 2000 years ago is still true today in terms of miracles etc. Worship is often loud, rock music, or standing to sing and clapping(sometimes called happy clappers)...a call for healing and laying on of hands is often part of the serfvice as is cell based home churches.

I am still learning what is down, i will let you know.

sis
13-01-2011, 18:54
I was once at a Pentecostal miracle tent, and I saw a guy with crutches and a stutterer go in. The healer banged on his bible a few times, then told the guy to throw his crutches away, and the stutter to praise the lord.

The stutterer than said, t-th–the c-c-c-cripple has f-f-fallen over

shurale
13-01-2011, 19:05
My appologies, I found out that Homer, Marge, Bart and Maggie are not Pentecostals. They are Presblutherians.

rusmeister
14-01-2011, 00:07
It's useful to know that Pentecostalism is recycled Montanism.

robertmf
14-01-2011, 19:48
Is this church really in Russia?

Is it popular? I hadn't heard of these people in years. Are you regularly active in a group in Krasnodar Yakspeare? I've never heard of the Pentecostal Church in Russia. Tell me pls.

:piano: It would seem "they" hang out in St. Pete
http://www.apostolic-pentecostal-churches.org/russia.html

:tgif:

rusmeister
15-01-2011, 11:06
A fellow teacher in the local public school is Pentecostal. She and a friend of hers had some lessons and a number of discussions with me (I let them observe my lessons as well). In the end, on a walk home with the two of them, I pointed out to them the basis of their faith - Sola Scriptura, and why it is useless to try to convert an Orthodox Christian who knows the basis of his. Since they themselves are the authority interpreting what they read from a canon determined by a Church that they rejected nearly two thousand years ago (and a couple of hundred years before that Church that they had separated from formed the canon which they themselves use), anyone can be an authority on the same basis as them and contradict them (and then you have the arguments about who has the better exegesis between 2 Sola Scripturists)

Certainly the people I know are very friendly - but friendliness is not much help in discerning truth.

MickeyTong
15-01-2011, 16:28
....I pointed out to them the basis of their faith - Sola Scriptura, and why it is useless to try to convert an Orthodox Christian who knows the basis of his.

It's useless trying to convert anyone whose ideology warns against outsiders.....

yakspeare
15-01-2011, 17:46
A fellow teacher in the local public school is Pentecostal. She and a friend of hers had some lessons and a number of discussions with me (I let them observe my lessons as well). In the end, on a walk home with the two of them, I pointed out to them the basis of their faith - Sola Scriptura, and why it is useless to try to convert an Orthodox Christian who knows the basis of his. Since they themselves are the authority interpreting what they read from a canon determined by a Church that they rejected nearly two thousand years ago (and a couple of hundred years before that Church that they had separated from formed the canon which they themselves use), anyone can be an authority on the same basis as them and contradict them (and then you have the arguments about who has the better exegesis between 2 Sola Scripturists)

Certainly the people I know are very friendly - but friendliness is not much help in discerning truth.

Well i have spent the Christmas season with Orthodox families and attending Orthodox services.

I would say, in general, it is useless to argue with an Orthodox about what they believe...since the majority I have encountered have such a rudimentary knowledge of the bible, the teachings of Christ and so forth that the average non believer would probably know more.

"We aren't like that" "Oh only those who are priests know about that" etc.

I could safely say a great many have no real understanding why they even attend a service...they just do. Hardly inspirational stuff.

Music was nice though...

rusmeister
15-01-2011, 19:38
Well i have spent the Christmas season with Orthodox families and attending Orthodox services.

I would say, in general, it is useless to argue with an Orthodox about what they believe...since the majority I have encountered have such a rudimentary knowledge of the bible, the teachings of Christ and so forth that the average non believer would probably know more.

"We aren't like that" "Oh only those who are priests know about that" etc.

I could safely say a great many have no real understanding why they even attend a service...they just do. Hardly inspirational stuff.

Music was nice though...

Well, when you say "Orthodox", I have to ask whether you mean merely baptized people who wear crosses, or people who regularly attend church and take the faith seriously. Pentecostalism in Russia doesn't have the special problem of nominalism (as I pointed out in the other thread on Saudi Arabia, if one has to pay for one's beliefs, they don't come cheap), but Orthodoxy (here) does. People who regularly attend church are extremely unlikely to say those kinds of things, but people who say "I'm Orthodox", and "yeah, I went to church - last year" - are very likely to - only that's nominalism - in name, but not in fact. To the credit of minority and unpopular religions, their adherents do not suffer from that. Before Constantine, being a Christian could easily cost you your life - death by torture. After Constantine, it became fashionable to be Christian and things like public confession before the whole church disappeared in favor of confession before only the priest. So today we see the rise of nominalism in Russia. People already complain about hypocrite politicians who use a pretense of faith to garner political capital. Nominalism does not disprove faith. It only proves that the Church truly thrives when it is unpopular - when people are willing to pay for what they believe.

So argue with me. Do you think I have only a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible? :)

I was explaining why even the best of pentecostalism wouldn't work for me - because of a weakness that my own experience has shown to be fatal. Simply traveling around the world, learning foreign languages and cultures taught me the impossibility of successful and correct exegesis of a wide variety of documents in ancient languages representing a wide variety of genres in the context of ancient cultures and successfully constructing a correct theological system on one's own personal knowledge and experience (and the limitations thereof). In simple language, whatever they quoted at me to support their position I could quote back at them with a different context and exegesis - one not dependent on my own limitations.

rusmeister
15-01-2011, 19:42
It's useless trying to convert anyone whose ideology warns against outsiders.....
Whatever "warns against outsiders"means...

If I speak of evolutionists encouraging the introduction of creationist teaching as part of science courses in the name of being "inclusive" or even simply encouraged skepticism on the validity of carbon dating, I would be introducing heresy into evolutionary teaching that would break down and discredit the latter.

Next I suppose I'll have to provide a clear definition of heresy... (Help, Mr Belloc!)

MickeyTong
15-01-2011, 20:36
Whatever "warns against outsiders"means...

If I speak of evolutionists encouraging the introduction of creationist teaching as part of science courses in the name of being "inclusive" or even simply encouraged skepticism on the validity of carbon dating, I would be introducing heresy into evolutionary teaching that would break down and discredit the latter.

Next I suppose I'll have to provide a clear definition of heresy... (Help, Mr Belloc!)

Outsiders = heretics = misinformed = lacking credibility = lacking valid grounds for dispute.

MickeyTong
15-01-2011, 21:02
......Church truly thrives when it is unpopular - when people are willing to pay for what they believe......

..... the impossibility of successful and correct exegesis of a wide variety of documents in ancient languages representing a wide variety of genres in the context of ancient cultures and successfully constructing a correct theological system on one's own personal knowledge and experience (and the limitations thereof).

"Heretics" in Western Europe were willing to pay for their belief that Catholic Church doctrine was not "The Truth".


Personal exegesis inevitably involves the psychological process of projection (I hope you don't dispute the reality of this process), especially with regard to ancient/foreign texts/symbolism from ancient/foreign cultures. And projection is particularly strong when there is a vested interest involved.
Although a couple of Anglican bishops have just been ordained as Catholic priests, not many Anglican clergy have been persuaded by Catholic (or Orthodox) doctrine....or any other doctrine (Christian or otherwise).

Perhaps this has something to do with being a non-nominal adherent of a faith: the more it costs - the bigger your investment - the more you will convince yourself of its value, and the more reluctant you are to revise your affiliation.

rusmeister
15-01-2011, 21:45
"Heretics" in Western Europe were willing to pay for their belief that Catholic Church doctrine was not "The Truth".

And that protestantism was not the truth, nor Anglicanism. In England alone, the persecution went both ways.


Personal exegesis inevitably involves the psychological process of projection (I hope you don't dispute the reality of this process), especially with regard to ancient/foreign texts/symbolism from ancient/foreign cultures. And projection is particularly strong when there is a vested interest involved.

This is called "hermeneutics" for short.

It's a sidebar here, but I think psychology a science (knowledge) inseparable from spiritual truth - and the further the psychologist from spiritual truth, the more dangerous he is as a psychologist. If one has the wrong understanding of causes, then they are inevitably going to be a poorer scientist/specialist.


Although a couple of Anglican bishops have just been ordained as Catholic priests, not many Anglican clergy have been persuaded by Catholic (or Orthodox) doctrine....or any other doctrine (Christian or otherwise).

This is where I think you are speaking from the limitations of your knowledge. I happen to know otherwise; a fair amount of American Orthodox clergy are former Protestants, I directly know of at least a few clergy converts from the Episcopalian Church (the Anglican Church in America) offhand.


Perhaps this has something to do with being a non-nominal adherent of a faith: the more it costs - the bigger your investment - the more you will convince yourself of its value, and the more reluctant you are to revise your affiliation.


This I think to be true.

rusmeister
15-01-2011, 21:51
Outsiders = heretics = misinformed = lacking credibility = lacking valid grounds for dispute.

I don't think all of these things equal each other. Heretics (something you seem to doubt could exist?) often have an amazing amount of credibility; the notable ones have been successful at drawing quite a few people away from orthodoxy (small 'o').

And we would not call most people heretics, simply because they do not hold Orthodox belief. It is the attempt to establish the teaching within the Church that draws that label.

I might agree with you on "valid grounds for dispute" - only we would probably disagree on what constitutes "valid".

MickeyTong
16-01-2011, 01:17
And that protestantism was not the truth, nor Anglicanism. In England alone, the persecution went both ways.

Yeah....it's tragic, the lengths that true believers go to bring heretics back to the Truth. Although, the believers in Avagadro's Hypothesis don't torture their critics.

This is called "hermeneutics" for short.

I know. Despite being in a subordinate profession within the health sector I know quite a few big words.


It's a sidebar here, but I think psychology a science (knowledge) inseparable from spiritual truth - and the further the psychologist from spiritual truth, the more dangerous he is as a psychologist. If one has the wrong understanding of causes, then they are inevitably going to be a poorer scientist/specialist.

And you are entitled to that opinion, as you are to your narrow concept of spiritual truth. Not all psychologists are mental health clinicians....(and I freely acknowledge that most mental health clinicians are crap [most people in any profession are "average" and, while "average" is good enough in many fields, in health care good enough is not quite good enough...], mainly because they have no "feel" or compassion for psychological distress (and are actually afraid of it) and merely follow formulaic, off-the-shelf, McDonaldesque procedures.
As for "causes"......are you suggesting that if people accepted Orthodox doctrine they would be "cured" of their mental distress? Sorry, but I think the experiential phenomenology of psychotic illness and the emotional/psychological/personality of abuse/neglect/betrayal/etc are the same, regardless of cultural milieu.

This is where I think you are speaking from the limitations of your knowledge. I happen to know otherwise; a fair amount of American Orthodox clergy are former Protestants, I directly know of at least a few clergy converts from the Episcopalian Church (the Anglican Church in America) offhand.

I don't dispute that my knowledge and experience are limited, Rus, but please don't underestimate me. I know Buddhist monks who used to be Anglican monks, Muslims who used to be Jews, Catholics who were atheists, anarcho-syndicalists who used to be consumerists....but, really, most rabbis don't become Baptists, not many Israeli politicians become Hindu and very few (beyond-nominal) Orthodox Christians jump over to...er...anything else.


This I think to be true.
Well spotted. Of course you (like the rest of us) are immune to subjective bias.

Best wishes

MickeyTong
16-01-2011, 01:37
I don't think all of these things equal each other. Heretics (something you seem to doubt could exist?) often have an amazing amount of credibility; the notable ones have been successful at drawing quite a few people away from orthodoxy (small 'o').

No, not equal, but my keyboard doesn't have a "sort-of-semi-like" sign. I mean credibility with the orthodox (small "o"), not credibility with the ignorant.

And we would not call most people heretics, simply because they do not hold Orthodox belief. It is the attempt to establish the teaching within the Church that draws that label.

OK....my bad. "Orthodoxy" says 2+2=4, heretics say 2+2= 3.97562, or 4.0000000000134257. Or: Orthodoxy (small "o") says "free markets = justice" or "socialised markets = justice" or "the civil rights movement is a communist attack on America and Christian civilisation"

I might agree with you on "valid grounds for dispute" - only we would probably disagree on what constitutes "valid".

We could start with "praying to dead men to put in a good word with the Big Man."


Happy New Year.

rusmeister
16-01-2011, 05:20
We could start with "praying to dead men to put in a good word with the Big Man."

As long as you realize that that translates in practical understanding to " speaking to others who are alive in God, asking them to pray for us (just as we ask our friends to pray for us)". If you misunderstand the nature of what you are looking at, then you can well misinterpret it to the ridiculous form you expressed.


Happy New Year.


Thanks, and same to you!

MickeyTong
16-01-2011, 08:40
As long as you realize that that translates in practical understanding to " speaking to others who are alive in God, asking them to pray for us (just as we ask our friends to pray for us)". If you misunderstand the nature of what you are looking at, then you can well misinterpret it to the ridiculous form you expressed.


Of course, you can't see the ridiculous form that you have just expressed. Why is there a need for an intermediary if God is omnipresent and omniscient? I've mentioned "spiritual bureaucracy" before: speak to someone who will pass your request to someone else, who may (or may not) pass it up the ladder to someone who has the ear of a more important official who can influence someone who has the authority to persuade someone who can action things if he can get the attention of a really important individual who has access to the inner circle of executives who advise the Big Man, and if your request fits in with The Plan (and you pass the social/personal tests and have made the appropriate "propitiations" and your original application was made in the correct format with no mistakes) you might get what you ask for.

My wife (of a very Presbyterian background) was in kinks of laughter followed by horror when I read to her the grounds for John Paul II's beatification - that a nun had prayed to him (a dead man - allegedly alive in Heaven...) to intercede on her behalf for help with her illness. "Why not just pray to God?" she asked....

.....not to mention "relics".....or "icons"....

And you wonder why Protestantism came about? Can you really not experience the numinous without a dead man's toe bone, a picture and some incense?

rusmeister
16-01-2011, 12:41
Of course, you can't see the ridiculous form that you have just expressed. Why is there a need for an intermediary if God is omnipresent and omniscient? I've mentioned "spiritual bureaucracy" before: speak to someone who will pass your request to someone else, who may (or may not) pass it up the ladder to someone who has the ear of a more important official who can influence someone who has the authority to persuade someone who can action things if he can get the attention of a really important individual who has access to the inner circle of executives who advise the Big Man, and if your request fits in with The Plan (and you pass the social/personal tests and have made the appropriate "propitiations" and your original application was made in the correct format with no mistakes) you might get what you ask for.

My wife (of a very Presbyterian background) was in kinks of laughter followed by horror when I read to her the grounds for John Paul II's beatification - that a nun had prayed to him (a dead man - allegedly alive in Heaven...) to intercede on her behalf for help with her illness. "Why not just pray to God?" she asked....

.....not to mention "relics".....or "icons"....

And you wonder why Protestantism came about? Can you really not experience the numinous without a dead man's toe bone, a picture and some incense?

Well, Mickey, maybe it seems ridiculous to you because I haven't explained absolutely everything and you haven't even tried to find out. It's easy to see things as ridiculous if we don't understand them. So aborigines might find a man threatening them with a pistol to be ridiculous. I've explained that the pistol kills. You haven't found out why yet, or even asked. Of course it is possible to pray without icons, etc, just as it is possible to kill people without guns. But guns help. (as far as that analogy goes...) It gives the impression that you already know the inside explanation when I can see that you don't. I'll cheerfully share more - if asked. But if you just want to see ridicule, then that's all you'll see.

shurale
16-01-2011, 23:48
It's useful to know that Pentecostalism is recycled Montanism.

And recycled Montanism is a bad thing? Did adherents of recycled Montanism kill burn churches, torture and kill millions of people?

rusmeister
17-01-2011, 07:30
And recycled Montanism is a bad thing? Did adherents of recycled Montanism kill burn churches, torture and kill millions of people?

Recycled Montanism may be quite a peaceful thing - and so may Buddhism - or any faith. Certainly it was people and not the teachings of the Christian faith that caused Christian evils. I can reasonably suppose that had Montanism dominated, we would have a Montanist litany of evils to read off.

The important question is whether what they taught was true enough that it could maintain theological coherency - a practical thing with practical results over millennia. As a matter of historical fact, the Montanists did not hold that coherency while Orthodoxy (and it may be fairly argued Catholicism as well) did. We have no evidence of any Montanist organization lasting more than one-two hundred years at a shot.

MickeyTong
17-01-2011, 16:00
It's useful to know that Pentecostalism is recycled Montanism.

It's useful to know that Christianity (and other monotheisms) is recycled paganism.

Matt24
17-01-2011, 16:42
It's useful to know that Christianity (and other monotheisms) is recycled paganism.

How about Christianity is pre-emptive Judaism?

MickeyTong
17-01-2011, 16:57
How about Christianity is pre-emptive Judaism?

How about: Christianity is heretical Judaism?





Anyway....here's Mr Zappa:

YouTube - Frank Zappa-Cosmik Debris

rusmeister
17-01-2011, 20:23
It's useful to know that Christianity (and other monotheisms) is recycled paganism.
It would be useful, if it were true - but it's not. It is the thing that paganism coalesced towards; not the contradiction, but the fulfillment of paganism. That would involve a lengthy and Lewisian conversation to explain - I'd encourage you to try some Lewis to compare your current conceptions (that I also once had) that oppose them.

The trouble with modern thought is that it is mostly not even up to the level of paganism, let alone Christianity (or even of, say, al-Ghazali, who I agree was a fairly sharp thinker). It assumes its own superiority while knowing next to nothing about the past. The ancient pagans definitely did NOT make that mistake.

Ruth123
17-01-2011, 20:36
It would be useful, if it were true - but it's not.

It is true. :)

"
There have been dozens of similar savior stories that propagated the minds of humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" is original or new.



similarities between the Jesus story and other godmen such as Horus, Krshna, Mithras, Dionysus and Osiris are clearly illustrated below:

Horus
Horus and the Father are one
*Horus is the Father seen in the Son
*Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
*Horus was the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
*Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
*Horus the Good Shepherd
*Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
*Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
*Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
*The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
*Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
*Horus the afflicted one
*Horus as life eternal
*Twelve followers of Hours as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)

Osiris-Dionysus
Egyptian/Greek godman (combined merely for the similarities of the 3)
*Osiris-dionysus is god made flesh, the savior 'son of god'
*his father is god and his mother is a mortal virgin
*he is born in a cave or humble cowshed on December 25 before 3 shepherds
*he offers his followers a chance to be born again through the rites of baptism
*he miraculously turns water to win in a marriage ceremony
*he rides triumphantly into town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honor him
*he dies at eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world
*after his death he descends to hell, then on the third day he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven in glory
*his followers await his return as the judge during the last days
*his death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine, which symbolizes his body and blood

Krshna, an incarnation of the hindu deity Vishnu
*was killed to atone for the sins of mankind
* was also the "full measure of the god-head" according to the Ramayana, ~300 years BCE
* was born miraculously by a virgin, his birth attended by shepherds and angels, according to the Bhagavad Gita and in accord with prophecy
* at birth was presented with frankincense and myrrh
* survived a command by Cansa, who ordered all the first born children to be put to death
* wrought many astounding miracles, including healing the sick, restoring the sight of the blind, casting out devils, raising the dead to life
* was baptised (ablution) in the river Ganges
* enabled his disciples to net large amounts of fish
* "transfigured" at a place called Madura
* spoke in parables
* taught that you should forgive your enemies, avoid sexual thoughts, love your neighbor, and condemn material wealth
* ascended back to Heaven in the sight of all men

Mithras
According to the Book of Origins, the Canon of the Mithrasic faith, "the universe was created through Mithras, and Mithras was born into the world to save humanity from the attacks of the evil one, Ahriman, who was opposed to human beings. Mithras released the goodness Ahriman had stolen from humanity, and then died to the world, going to the underworld to destroy the servants of Ahriman and bind Ahriman there forever. Then He returned to the earth to teach humanity His commandments and begin Mysteries and Rites which would help humans remember His acts on our behalf. Because of His actions, we can choose good without the overwhelming power of evil, even though evil's influence can still seem powerful because our minds believe it is. Because of His teachings, we know that the purpose of our lives is to serve others in the name of Mithras."

He was:
* allegedly born on December 25th
* was born of the Sun God and a virgin mother
* created all life by slaying a bull, whose blood gave life to all useful things, hence the song, "Thou hast redeemed us by shedding the eternal blood." from an Avestan Hymn to Mithras
* considered the saviour of humankind, and stories abound of His healing the sick, raising the dead, and performing miracles (making the blind see and the lame walk)
* protector of human souls, a mediator between "heaven" and "earth" and was even associated with a "holy trinity"
* keeper of the covenant with mankind
* put to death on a cross and buried in a cave (some legends have Him held up in a cave to be reborn once a year)
* took part in a last supper with his 12 disciples (often associated with the 12 signs of the zodiac)
* ascended to the heavens to watch over His "flock" from above.
* was known as "The Way," "The Truth," "The Light," "The Life," "The Word," "The Son of God," and "The Good Shepherd"
* often pictured carrying a lamb on his shoulders
Mithraists believe:
* On judgement day, the faithful dead would be resurrected and light would triumph over darkness. They took part in ritual purification or baptism, held Sundays sacred, drank wine and ate bread as a symbol of the body and blood and even took part in ritualistic purging (purification rites such as flagellation).
* there is a "celestial heaven" and hell


Other interesting similarities to Christ in Pagan myth:

Quexalcote of Mexico:

He was:
* born of a spotless virgin
* retired to the wilderness and fasted for forty days
* was worshipped as a God
* crucified between two thieves
* was buried and descended into Hell
* rose the third day

Buddha, the 'Enlightened One' who spurred a new form of spirituality which is a tangent of Hindusim:

walked on water:

"He (Buddha) walks upon the water without parting it, as if it were solid ground."
~ Anguttara Nikaya 3.60 (see Mark 6:49 for parallel)

calmed a storm:

"Now at that time a great rain fell, and a great flood resulted. Then the Lord (Buddha) made the water recede all around, and he paced up and down in the middle on dust-covered ground."
~ Vinaya, Mahavagga I.20.16 (see Mark 4:39 for parallel)

walked through walls:

"He (Buddha) goes unhindered through a wall."
~ Angutta Nikaya 3.60 (see John 20:26 for parallel)

performed miracles:

"As soon as the Bodhisattva (Buddha)was born, the sick were cured, the hungry and thirsty were no longer oppressed by hunger and thirst. Those maddened by drink lost their obsession. The mad recovered their senses, the blind regained their sight, and the deaf once more could hear. The lame obtained perfect limbs, the poor gained riches, and prisoners were delivered of their own bonds."
~ Lilitavistra Sutra 7 (see Luke 7:22 for parallel)
"


read more at: http://articles.exchristian.net/2003/04/is-christianity-based-on-pagan-roots.php

rusmeister
18-01-2011, 08:07
It is true. :)

"
There have been dozens of similar savior stories that propagated the minds of humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" is original or new.



Nor is there any claim that Jesus Christ is or was something "new". He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. The Christian claim is that He is the completion, not something completely new. In that light, He is the completion of all that was good and true in paganism, as well as Judaism (although the latter had a good deal more of it than the pagans). So to all claims that Christ was presaged in different cultures (and nowhere so more than in Judaism), I say "Yes - of course. You are right!" :)

yakspeare
18-01-2011, 09:09
you can argue that christianity is recycled paganism-people are entitled to their point of view. Please do some research though on Horus, I had this argument with willy on here months ago.

Horus was the sky God, Ra was the sun god and completley unrelated. He wasnt born a virgin, he was a god that was made from osiris by isis in the nile river.he did not have disciples, let alone 12 and the rest is just all rubbish , written by someone who has no idea of the subject...there is also a youtube video on it full of even more errors.
He did not have

yakspeare
18-01-2011, 09:18
double post.

martpark
19-01-2011, 15:12
Nor is there any claim that Jesus Christ is or was something "new". He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it. The Christian claim is that He is the completion, not something completely new. In that light, He is the completion of all that was good and true in paganism, as well as Judaism (although the latter had a good deal more of it than the pagans). So to all claims that Christ was presaged in different cultures (and nowhere so more than in Judaism), I say "Yes - of course. You are right!" :)

But Christ was a Jew, no? He never renounced Judaism. And why does it take an all-knowing and all-seeing being 10,000+ years to complete a project on Earth? Shouldn't he have worked this out during the creation phase of the project?

yakspeare
19-01-2011, 17:50
Martpark, 10,000 or whatever years of ours are hardly significant to the almighty in timespan.

The whole notion of three main religions was everything was made perfect, we just screwed it up. Still there was a plan in place to even overcome our stupidity.

If you are lucky enough you will have eternity to argue with the almighty about it...

Matt24
19-01-2011, 18:31
But Christ was a Jew, no? He never renounced Judaism. And why does it take an all-knowing and all-seeing being 10,000+ years to complete a project on Earth? Shouldn't he have worked this out during the creation phase of the project?

MartPark, I have an opinion on the answer to your first question, and an irritating "who knows it depends if you have faith" to the second. I write this more in order to get my thoughts down, rather than sell any particular brand / or demand that anybody recognises the rightness or superiority of my thoughts over theirs or anybody elses.

If you're a Christian - Christ was The Messiah, he wasn't a follower of any religion, but part of what should be followed, a unique fulfilment of a prophecy / the Son of Man etc, as to renouncing Judaism, he didn't because his claim and the claim of his disciples and the legions that followed was and is that he fulfilled Judaism - his birth, life, crucifixion, and resurrection are seen as the steps in a prophesied development process.
If you're a Muslim - Christ was a prophet that had a special connection to the Almighty that has elevated him above the ranks of normalcy.
Only if you're a Jew is Christ just another Jew, plain and simple, without sounding too 'Life of Brian' Judaism does not proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, the faith holds that the Messiah is still on his way, but so far hasn't turned up.

With regard to the workings of the Almighty,(if you believe in the existence of such), who knows what other projects he has underway, what his timescale is like, or indeed what is the point of this whole humanity thing. !0,000 - 10,000,000 big number or not, who knows?

That's how I read it

Matt

Ruth123
19-01-2011, 20:22
But Christ was a Jew, no?
Yes.

He never renounced Judaism.
Indeed, he didn't. He never intended to start a new religion, he was an observant Jew himself and in its beginning Christianity was merely one of many Jewish sects in Jerusalem (one of 24 if i am not mistaken.)

And why does it take an all-knowing and all-seeing being 10,000+ years to complete a project on Earth? Shouldn't he have worked this out during the creation phase of the project?
Because none single person can complete such a project, everyone should do their own 'homework' and when we all have completed it - it will be done.
Btw, i don't have a doubt in Jesus as historical person, also, not a slightest doubt that he was very wise and a Kabbalist too...
the thing is that he wasn't the only one declared Messiah, there were candidates who fulfilled even more criteria - Shabbatai Tzvi for example.
Again, i think Christian Bible is great, i think any holy text that teaches the good and bashes the evil is great - i think that some parts are outstandingly written and just great (Sermon on the Mount for example ) ; but to dismiss all the other ways to one's Higher Self, to claim that one's interpretation of it which happens to be re-told Judaism blended with recycled Paganism - for that one needs to be really uninformed and uneducated.. or simply obtuse.
Do your thing, its a good thing, but don't insult our IQ and waist your (generic you) time trying to convince everyone it is the only way - it isn't.

MickeyTong
19-01-2011, 20:27
With regard to the workings of the Almighty,(if you believe in the existence of such), who knows what other projects he has underway....


Looking for a Higgs boson? (If you believe in the existence of such.)

robertmf
19-01-2011, 20:30
Looking for a Higgs boson? (If you believe in the existence of such.)

Look no further than AndreyS 'W' :10241:

MickeyTong
19-01-2011, 20:39
Btw, i don't have a doubt in Jesus as historical person, also, not a slightest doubt that he was very wise and a Kabbalist too...


He could have been a mushroom.....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909327,00.html

http://www.iot.org.br/caostopia/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/allegro-john-m-the-sacred-mushroom-and-the-cross-ingles.pdf

Ruth123
19-01-2011, 20:50
He could have been a mushroom.....

Lol, i don't think so, but its a wide spread believe that both - the guys described in the first sequel (Jewish Bible) and those from the second sequel (Christian Bible) were high on something... The theories vary on what though - some say local herbs with hallucinogenic effect, some say the famous vine from the New Testament, as it fermented in those special vessels, was gaining LSD like effect...
Amazing trip though. ;)

robertmf
19-01-2011, 21:54
He could have been a mushroom.....


:evilgrin: What's the term for someone who 'risen from the dead' ?

martpark
20-01-2011, 01:09
MartPark, I have an opinion on the answer to your first question, and an irritating "who knows it depends if you have faith" to the second. I write this more in order to get my thoughts down, rather than sell any particular brand / or demand that anybody recognises the rightness or superiority of my thoughts over theirs or anybody elses.

If you're a Christian - Christ was The Messiah, he wasn't a follower of any religion, but part of what should be followed, a unique fulfilment of a prophecy / the Son of Man etc, as to renouncing Judaism, he didn't because his claim and the claim of his disciples and the legions that followed was and is that he fulfilled Judaism - his birth, life, crucifixion, and resurrection are seen as the steps in a prophesied development process.
If you're a Muslim - Christ was a prophet that had a special connection to the Almighty that has elevated him above the ranks of normalcy.
Only if you're a Jew is Christ just another Jew, plain and simple, without sounding too 'Life of Brian' Judaism does not proclaim Jesus as the Messiah, the faith holds that the Messiah is still on his way, but so far hasn't turned up.

With regard to the workings of the Almighty,(if you believe in the existence of such), who knows what other projects he has underway, what his timescale is like, or indeed what is the point of this whole humanity thing. !0,000 - 10,000,000 big number or not, who knows?

That's how I read it

Matt Cheers for the answers, Matt and Yak.
He was thought to be the Jewish messiah, not the Christian messiah. The title 'christ' means 'messiah' If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, then he is still a Jew and his followers also. If I liked the Beatles and John Lennon left the band, I could still like the Beatles and John Lennon. I don't, by default, become an exclusive Lennon fan. (Be grateful for this analogy, I could have used Thatcher and John Major.)

Both your post and Yak's above have missed the original reference, those 2000 years of 'unified' Christianity. Well, there has been 10,000+ years of spiritual thought on planet earth that we know of. There are plenty of religions that are still widely practiced that have been around for twice as long as Christianity and whose adherents contend that their beliefs are more consistent with what Christ tried to do then the Christian factions. As an example,The Jains think Jainism has always been around and will always be around. They make the orthodox religions look like frat boys.

Why would an all-knowing all-seeing being need projects? He knows the score. He has seen the movie and can repeat every line, not just token phrases remembered over 2000 years. Human existence is a blip in the evolution of universe. That doesn't make today any less important.

rusmeister
20-01-2011, 07:31
Cheers for the answers, Matt and Yak.
He was thought to be the Jewish messiah, not the Christian messiah. The title 'christ' means 'messiah' If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, then he is still a Jew and his followers also. If I liked the Beatles and John Lennon left the band, I could still like the Beatles and John Lennon. I don't, by default, become an exclusive Lennon fan. (Be grateful for this analogy, I could have used Thatcher and John Major.)

Both your post and Yak's above have missed the original reference, those 2000 years of 'unified' Christianity. Well, there has been 10,000+ years of spiritual thought on planet earth that we know of. There are plenty of religions that are still widely practiced that have been around for twice as long as Christianity and whose adherents contend that their beliefs are more consistent with what Christ tried to do then the Christian factions. As an example,The Jains think Jainism has always been around and will always be around. They make the orthodox religions look like frat boys.

Why would an all-knowing all-seeing being need projects? He knows the score. He has seen the movie and can repeat every line, not just token phrases remembered over 2000 years. Human existence is a blip in the evolution of universe. That doesn't make today any less important.

Your first sentence is strange. he was thought - by the people who accepted Him - to be THE Messiah - as the One who really DID fulfill the Jewish prophecies. A small, then increasing number of Jews accepted Him, although a great many, looking for instant deliverance from the Roman Empire and so understanding the prophecies, did not Then, it was revealed to Peter, that most Jewish of Jews, that Christ was to be the Christ of the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

Christ never ceased being a Jew. Only, since Judaism had been fulfilled, a new Covenant was given - to the Jew, and also to the Greek. The Jew who accepts Christ is probably the most fortunate person walking the planet. It was to his people that the promises were made, and kept, and he is the first inheritor of those promises.

As to religious thought, I count little over 6,000 years of actual recorded thought. But why any religion makes Orthodox Christians 'look like frat boys' is clearly in the eye of the beholder - even if he has a beam in his eye. Certainly I would not say of the other ancient religions that they 'look like frat boys'.

The omnipotent, omniscient Being doesn't need anything. WE need all this stuff. This "project", as you put it, is something for US, not for Him. God knew Abraham would attempt to obey God, even if it meant killing Isaac. It was Abraham that didn't know that. It was Abraham who needed to experience the struggle, and the surrender, and then discover that his God would take care of his needs no matter what. Abraham became great because he was put to the test (to which God, being outside of time altogether, already knew the results) and passed. But if he hadn't been put to the test, he wouldn't have known how far his commitment to God would really go.

Ruth123
20-01-2011, 09:59
The Jew who accepts Christ is probably the most fortunate person walking the planet.

Do you realize how stupid is what you have written from the point of view of Jewish theology?

Also, as a non-Jewish person, you should be using form Jewish not the derogatory Jew.

Its silly to refer to a non-Jewish person as a gentile, its insulting too.

By the time and quantity of the posts you make - i'd say, you really don't have too many errands to run... if any.
Very strange way of spending the time for one who should be looking for a secular job (or focusing on the one if they might have) and ways to provide for their family...
But then... i understand that internet evangelism is a trip in its own right... and probably the last hope of the mind affected by Messiah complex. :p

yakspeare
20-01-2011, 10:32
Calling someone a Jew is not in the least bit derogatory(using this word in English).

I realise russian has a variety of names for a Jewish person, but it quite acceptable in English.

You would have to change the sentence to say " A Jewish person who accepts Christ.." to be grammatically correct if you didn't use it the way Rus wrote.

You can't really say " A Jewish who accepts Christ.."

Gentile is an old term that has a historical context. It is also not offensive. I am a gentile.

Same applies for Arabs... " An Arab who accepts", " The Arab who accepts"...not "the Arabic"...

Ian G
20-01-2011, 16:42
Also, as a non-Jewish person, you should be using form Jewish not the derogatory Jew.

Its silly to refer to a non-Jewish person as a gentile, its insulting too.




I agree with Yakspeare on this- "a Jew", "a Christian", "a Moslem" is not derogatory at all, any more than "a Russian" is. What is derogatory- and it's fortunately rather old-fashioned now, is "the Jew" or "your Jew" in sentences like this: "Your Fuzzy Wuzzy [Sudanese tribesman] is an excellent fighter, but he can't tell his left from his right. Now, your Pathan..."

Ruth123
20-01-2011, 16:49
Calling someone a Jew is not in the least bit derogatory(using this word in English).


Your knowledge in this area is obviously equal to your knowledge of Chinese.
http://www.expat.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=286393&page=2

Ian, as i do have respect for your posts - the fact is that its derogatory, if used by a non-Jewish person, trust me on that one.
For a non-Jewish person, the proper form is "Jewish", 'tis all.

The equivalent would be calling a non-Jewish person goy, or shiksa, originally those weren't derogatory, but with time they became and those are better NOT used when referring to non-Jewish persons (you being Jewish that is).

Ian G
20-01-2011, 17:03
[QUOTE=Ruth123;789745]
Ian, as i do have respect for your posts - the fact is that its derogatory, if used by a non-Jewish person, trust me on that one.
For a non-Jewish person, the proper form is "Jewish", 'tis all.
[QUOTE]


I'm thinking about this. The adjective is ok but the noun form isn't?

"He's Jewish" but not "he's a Jew".
"She's Moslem" but not "she's a Moslem".
"She's Buddhist" but not "she's a Buddhist".
"He's Spanish" but not "he's a Spaniard".
"They are Turkish, but not "they are Turks".
"I'm Catholic" but not "I'm a Catholic".

Hmmmm... I have to say I'm not convinced.

Still- about goyim I agree! Anyway it's probably not a good idea to pepper your speech with Yiddish words if you are not Jewish!

MickeyTong
20-01-2011, 17:56
The equivalent would be calling a non-Jewish person goy, or shiksa

Thank God I'm a yok....:AngelPray:

rusmeister
21-01-2011, 08:03
Do you realize how stupid is what you have written from the point of view of Jewish theology?

Also, as a non-Jewish person, you should be using form Jewish not the derogatory Jew.

Its silly to refer to a non-Jewish person as a gentile, its insulting too.

By the time and quantity of the posts you make - i'd say, you really don't have too many errands to run... if any.
Very strange way of spending the time for one who should be looking for a secular job (or focusing on the one if they might have) and ways to provide for their family...
But then... i understand that internet evangelism is a trip in its own right... and probably the last hope of the mind affected by Messiah complex. :p

Hi Ruth!
First of all, I do not hold Jewish theology to be true - I hold it to be in error, just as you hold Christian theology to be in error. From the standpoint of Jewish theology, I would say that the intelligent Jew would say that my statement was "false", not "stupid".
Secondly, the word "Jew" is not derogatory - unless you want it to be. It is a normal word that many Jews over the centuries and millenia have been proud to describe themselves as - and I think their pride has merit. That would make it more praise than derogation. Maybe someday you'll realize that I hold Jews in higher regard than you think I do. And I am certainly not in the least insulted by being described as a Gentile. It is a factual acknowledgement that I am not a Jew. That's...what I am. Why should I let it insult me?

shurale
21-01-2011, 10:17
I will ask my Jewish friend about "Jew" and "Jewish".

yakspeare
21-01-2011, 10:37
Jewish World Review August 15, 2000 / 14 Menachem-Av, 5760
Jonah Goldberg


Proud and true:
He's a Jew
http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- IF YOU HAVEN'T heard by now that Joseph Lieberman is the first Jewish candidate on a major party ticket in American history, you might also like to know that we put a man on the moon and that the eight-track tape is out of production.

With the media overkill there's not much left to say about Lieberman's religion. And we don't have much information yet about what America's reaction to it will be. But, thanks to the Lieberman boom, there is something interesting happening that nobody has commented on. The word "Jew" is being rehabilitated.

The day after Lieberman was tapped, a good friend called me. My friend is very well-educated and WASPy --- if he goes more than 72 hours without mayonnaise he needs to have it injected intravenously. He is also wildly pro-Jewish and would probably volunteer for the Israeli army long before me. Anyway, he called and said, "Hey, Jonah, isn't it sort of bad to call someone 'a Jew.'" After a brief moment to digest the question, I knew exactly what he was talking about.

It is bad to call someone a Jew, sort of.

The newspapers and nightly news shows keep using the word "Jew" where normally you would expect them to say "Jewish" or "Jewish person." Senator Lieberman is as often as not referred to as "a Jew" in print, television and radio.

"How will Americans react to a Jew in the White House," reporters have asked repeatedly. The New York Times blared in huge headline type, "FIRST JEW ON A MAJOR U.S. TICKET."

What's wrong with that? Well, in one sense, nothing of course. Lieberman is "a Jew" and it hardly needs stating that anti-Semitism is not one of The New York Times' - or the media's - many problems. But in another sense, hearing "Jew" is a bit jarring.

For centuries "Jew" was the preferred pejorative term for Jewish people. For example, "Don't Jew me" meant don't haggle me down to the lowest possible price. "Dirty" or "filthy Jew" were standard parings. Benjamin Disraeli the 19th century British Prime Minister offered perhaps the most famous defense of the word when he was taunted about being a Jew in parliament. "Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon."

Still Hitler was largely successful in smearing the word "Jew." The word was so beaten up that after the Holocaust most American Jews took to saying, "I'm Jewish," rather than say, "I am a Jew."

Ironically, the Jew-Jewish distinction was brought to the fore recently by - or to be more fair - because of, another Democrat: Hillary Clinton. The allegation that she called an aide a "f***ing Jew bastard" 30 years ago, fairly or not, reminded some people that "Jew" can be a hurtful word. "F***ing Jewish bastard," oddly enough, would not have been as offensive.

According to the "Philologos" (word lover) column in the Jewish newspaper The Forward, the word "Jew" is unique in the English language. In English, there are two rules of thumb for using nouns as adjectives when referring to ethnicity or geographic origin.

In one system, the noun and the adjective are the same. "Russian," "German" and "Greek" are interchangeable as nouns and adjectives; you say, "he's Greek" and "he's eating a Greek salad." In the second system, the noun and the adjective are different. You drink "Turkish" coffee, but no one says "he is a Turkish."

"There is, to the best of my knowledge," according to Philologos, "only one consistent exception to this rule: the word Jew." You can use "Jew" and "Jewish" interchangeably. The column contends that using "Jew" as an adjective is therefore offensive because it inherently suggests that Jews are "unlike all other human beings."

If you call someone a "Jewish lawyer" you're being descriptive and grammatically correct. Call someone a "Jew lawyer" and you're being grammatically correct and you're suggesting that a Jewish lawyer can never be anything but a Jew. A "Jewish boy" is some kid named Sol you pat on the head. A "Jew boy" is something Nazis say.

It's kind of funny that "Jew" is being rehabilitated largely - I suspect - because "Jewish person" is too long for newspaper headlines and the TV news. Nevertheless, even though I hope Lieberman meets electoral defeat, I'm grateful that he's helped elevate a word that should never have been lowered in the first place.




Is the term 'Jewish person' politically correct as opposed to the term 'Jew'?

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_term_'Jewish_person'_politically_correct_as_opposed_to_the_term_'Jew'#ixzz1BeYghwuI


You can use either :)

Historically, the word 'jew' was defined in negative terms and today it is still used in an anti semitic way, but only by anti semites! A lot depends on the context. For instance, it's probably more polite to ask someone: 'Are you Jewish?' as opposed to 'Are you a Jew?'

But it would be fine to say, for instance: Woody Allen is a Jew. Natalie Portman is a Jew.

So you can use either. Jews tend to know when someone is using the word 'jew' negatively, so you don't need to worry about causing offence, if you're just asking a genuine question or making a perfectly innocent remark :)

http://www.ajewwithaview.com
http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org/


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_term_'Jewish_person'_politically_correct_as_opposed_to_the_term_'Jew'#ixzz1BeYm8dzg

shurale
21-01-2011, 10:56
Thank you yakspear for your post. I'm sure my friend won't take offence if I call him a Jew or Jewish, he knows me, he knows I like him.

Ruth123
21-01-2011, 11:27
I would say that the intelligent Jew
I believe you would say that, as you have posted various things so far, but i do know that yours would be heavily doubted as you obviously don't happen to belong to any of the two categories mentioned above.



Thank you yakspear for your post. I'm sure my friend won't take offence if I call him a Jew or Jewish, he knows me, he knows I like him.

I am sure then that you would't mind him calling you goy, right?

shurale
21-01-2011, 12:27
goy, right?[/QUOTE]

In private I wouldn't. In public, I strongly doubt he would call me a goy.
Well, I don't know how it is among women, but when men are long-term friends, and by friends I mean much more than "facebook friends", then crude or rude words can be used as terms of affection.
Do you know that adult wolves play? So, as they play, they bite each other, but these bites are not wounding, flesh-tearing bites. Thus it is with human males who are good friends.

Ruth123
21-01-2011, 13:49
goy, right?


In private I wouldn't. In public, I strongly doubt he would call me a goy.
Well, I don't know how it is among women, but when men are long-term friends, and by friends I mean much more than "facebook friends", then crude or rude words can be used as terms of affection.
Do you know that adult wolves play? So, as they play, they bite each other, but these bites are not wounding, flesh-tearing bites. Thus it is with human males who are good friends.

Ok, i understand that - thank you for explaining.