The Truth About Jesus

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

So did the crystal maze quintessentone.

Following paths is one thing mate.

Its where that can lead that the problems tend to arise.

What are these secret teachings all the same as you have piqued my interest?

In the Nag Hammandi, it's $59.99 but reduced by 20% so cheaper than Trump's Bible.

www.logos.com... &device=c&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=advertising_cpc&utm_campaign=bing_search-keyword_dsa_logos_ca_en&msclkid=7d432ae651451d83dc544cea51c9ec2e&utm_ter m=%2fproduct%2f&utm_content=PDP+DSA+Ad+

I'll learn the special teachings piecemeal for free.

a reply to: KnowItAllKnowNothin

The name Easter, used in many lands, is not found in the Bible. The book Medieval Holidays and Festivals tells us that “the holiday is named after the pagan Goddess of the Dawn and of Spring, Eostre.” And who was this goddess? “Eostre it was who, according to the legend, opened the portals of Valhalla to receive Baldur, called the White God, because of his purity and also the Sun God, because his brow supplied light to mankind,” answers The American Book of Days. It adds: “There is no doubt that the Church in its early days adopted the old pagan customs and gave a Christian meaning to them. As the festival of Eostre was in celebration of the renewal of life in the spring it was easy to make it a celebration of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus, whose gospel they preached.”

This adoption explains how in certain lands the Easter customs, such as Easter eggs, the Easter rabbit, and hot cross buns, came about. Concerning the custom of making hot cross buns, “with their shiny brown tops marked by a . . . cross,” the book Easter and Its Customs states: “The cross was a pagan symbol long before it acquired everlasting significance from the events of the first Good Friday, and bread and cakes were sometimes marked with it in pre-Christian times.”

Nowhere in Scripture do we find mention of these things, nor is there any evidence that the early disciples of Jesus gave them any credence. In fact, the apostle Peter tells us to “form a longing for the unadulterated milk belonging to the word, that through it [we] may grow to salvation.” (1 Peter 2:2) So why did the churches of Christendom adopt such obviously pagan symbols into their beliefs and practices?

The book Curiosities of Popular Customs answers: “It was the invariable policy of the early Church to give a Christian significance to such of the extant pagan ceremonies as could not be rooted out. In the case of Easter the conversion was peculiarly easy. Joy at the rising of the natural sun, and at the awakening of nature from the death of winter, became joy at the rising of the Sun of righteousness, at the resurrection of Christ from the grave. Some of the pagan observances which took place about the 1st of May were also shifted to correspond with the celebration of Easter.” Rather than steer clear of popular pagan customs and magical rites, the religious leaders condoned them and gave them “Christian significance.”

‘But is there any harm in that?’ you may wonder. Some think not. “When a religion such as Christianity comes to a people from outside, it adopts and ‘baptizes’ some of the folk customs which derive from older religions,” said Alan W. Watts, an Episcopal chaplain, in his book Easter—Its Story and Meaning. “It selects and weaves into the liturgy folk observances which seem to signify the same eternal principles taught by the Church.” To many, the fact that their church sanctioned these observances and treated them as holy is reason enough to accept them. But important questions are being overlooked. How does God feel about these customs? Has he given us any guidelines to follow in the matter?

Getting God’s Viewpoint

“Easter Day, the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord, is the greatest of all the festivals of the Christian Church,” said Christina Hole in her book Easter and Its Customs. Other writers concur. “No holy day or festival in the Christian year can compare in importance with Easter Sunday,” notes Robert J. Myers in the book Celebrations. That, however, raises some questions. If celebrating Easter is so important, why is there no specific command in the Bible to do so? Is there any record of Jesus’ early disciples observing Easter Sunday?

It is not that the Bible fails to give guidelines as to what should or should not be celebrated. God was very specific in this to the ancient nation of Israel, and explicit instructions were given for Christians to continue observing the Memorial of Christ’s death. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26; Colossians 2:16, 17) An early edition of The Encyclopædia Britannica tells us: “There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians. . . . Neither the Lord nor his apostles enjoined the keeping of this or any other festival.”

Some feel that the joyousness of such festivals and the happiness they bring are sufficient justification for their observance. We can learn, however, from the occasion when the Israelites adopted an Egyptian religious practice and renamed it “a festival to Jehovah.” They too “sat down to eat and drink” and “got up to have a good time.” But their actions greatly angered Jehovah God, and he severely punished them.—Exodus 32:1-10, 25-28, 35.

God’s Word is very clear. There can be no sharing between the “light” of true beliefs and the “darkness” of Satan’s world; there can be no “harmony” between Christ and pagan worship. We are told: “‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’; ‘and I will take you in.’”—2 Corinthians 6:14-18. (pardon the redundancy, cause I already quoted that one, but it was worth repeating anyway)

a reply to: andy06shake

So what are Jesus's secret teachings?

Depends on whom you ask. Mostly it's made-up bollocks from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

There are, however, the so- called Gnostic Gospels, discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, which aren't really Gospels as we understand them – accounts of Christ's life and ministry – but mystical tracts whose authorship is attributed to various Apostles. One of them, the Gospel of Thomas, contains a number of sayings attributed to Jesus. There isn't anything really new about Jesus in any of them AFAIK, but perhaps they are what quintessentone is referring to.

There was a bestselling book about the Nag Hammadi texts that came out in the Seventies, written by an academic for ordinary readers. I think the Da Vinci Code guy got a lot of his material from it: Mary M. is a big figure in Gnostic traditions: more prophetess than prostitute, though, and more mystical symbol than either.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: andy06shake

So what are Jesus's secret teachings?

Depends on whom you ask. Mostly it's made-up bollocks from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

There are, however, the so- called Gnostic Gospels, discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, which aren't really Gospels as we understand them – accounts of Christ's life and ministry – but mystical tracts whose authorship is attributed to various Apostles. One of them, the Gospel of Thomas, contains a number of sayings attributed to Jesus. There isn't anything really new about Jesus in any of them AFAIK, but perhaps they are what quintessentone is referring to.

There was a bestselling book about the Nag Hammadi texts that came out in the Seventies, written by an academic for ordinary readers. I think the Da Vinci Code guy got a lot of his material from it. Mary M. is a big figure in Gnostic traditions: more prophetess than prostitute, though.

Mary M. was a female leader and therein lay the problem.

a reply to: quintessentone

See now you are making a modicum of sense.

As Women get a rough deal throughout recorded history and where organised religious practice is concerned.

Dont know about these secret teachings all the same.

Any chance of a short summary regarding the most pertinent?

a reply to: quintessentone

Mary M. was a female leader and therein lay the problem.

That sounds more like an expression of twenty-first-century cant than anything supported by the Gnostic Gospels. You may rest assured that they were all written by men, and studied, too, by men living together in essentially monastic communities from which women were forbidden.

a reply to: Astyanax

So the gist of it being Jesus did not die on the cross but went on to have descendants?

a reply to: andy06shake

So the gist of it being Jesus did not die on the cross but went on to have descendants?

Nah, that's Dan Brown plagiarising another book, The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh; a piece of Eighties speculative fiction masquerading as scholarship.

To explain the Gnostic conception of the Magdalen would be tedious (and I am far from an expert) but essentially she represents a feminine aspect of spirituality or divinity. The same old mystical same old, nothing special. Sex was involved, of course.

More if you're really interested

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

See now you are making a modicum of sense.

As Women get a rough deal throughout recorded history and where organised religious practice is concerned.

Dont know about these secret teachings all the same.

Any chance of a short summary regarding the most pertinent?

They were not secret teachings, they were special teachings for special disciples/people chosen by Jesus to go forth and teach them. Actually on the video I watched, the Gospel of Mary scrolls were found in three different languages/locations, which it was deemed that this teaching, specifically, would have been very popular for so many to be found.

What would you consider to be 'the most pertinent' when the thread title is 'The Truth about Jesus'?

a reply to: quintessentone

They were not secret teachings, they were special teachings for special disciples/people chosen by Jesus to go forth and teach them.

You did say "secret" but sounds like intended for the priest cast to me.

What would you consider to be 'the most pertinent' when the thread title is 'The Truth about Jesus'?

His existence as anything other than a parable springs to mind for a start.

I'm on the fence there.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

They were not secret teachings, they were special teachings for special disciples/people chosen by Jesus to go forth and teach them.

You did say "secret" but sounds like intended for the priest cast to me.

What would you consider to be 'the most pertinent' when the thread title is 'The Truth about Jesus'?

His existence as anything other than a parable springs to mind for a start.

I'm on the fence there.

These types of gospels (ones not included in the Bible) are referred to many as 'secret'. The video I watched, the word 'secret' was in the title. I was just repeating that word as it would seem most people are unaware that these gospels exist, or don't want to know. However, at the time and as Jesus stated, they were not secret, not if he taught specially selected people then told them to go forth and teach others.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Any rabid adherence to an imbalance of an group of insiders and outsiders is technically a cult.

"Sect" is a synonym for "cult".

The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

...

Making Generalizations

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people. ...

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.

For example, in recent years a powerful antisect sentiment has swept many countries in Europe and elsewhere. This trend has stirred emotions, created the image of an enemy, and reinforced existing prejudices against religious minorities. Often, “sect” becomes a catchword. “‘Sect’ is another word for ‘heretic,’” wrote German Professor Martin Kriele in 1993, “and a heretic today in Germany, as in former times, is [condemned to extermination]—if not by fire . . . , then by character assassination, isolation and economic destruction.”

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis notes that “bad names have played a tremendously powerful role in the history of the world and in our own individual development. They have ruined reputations, . . . sent [people] to prison cells, and made men mad enough to enter battle and slaughter their fellowmen.”

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. And, as in the case of envy, fear can be played upon. The Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, of February 15, 1999, reported the following from Moscow: “When three girls committed suicide in Moscow last week, the Russian media immediately suggested they were fanatical followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Note the word “fanatical.” Naturally, people would be fearful of a fanatic religious organization that supposedly drives young people to suicide. Were these unfortunate girls really connected with Jehovah’s Witnesses in some way?

The Globe continued: “Police later admitted the girls had nothing to do with [Jehovah’s Witnesses]. But by then a Moscow television channel had already launched a new assault on the sect [whereislogic: note how these Canadians go along with the name-calling that is so popular in Russia as well, as if they're on the same team. Christendom is the largest religion in Canada, with Roman Catholics representing 29.9 percent of the population having the most adherents.], telling viewers that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had collaborated with Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany—despite historical evidence that thousands of their members were victims of the Nazi death camps.” In the mind of the misinformed and possibly fearful public, Jehovah’s Witnesses were either a suicidal cult or Nazi collaborators!

Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Some propagandists play on pride. ...

...

a reply to: quintessentone

So what constitutes a special person?

Do you mean the likes of disciples?

Because thats how we ended up with the Holy Roman Church of St Peter if I'm not mistaken.

As to the books contained within the Bible, I'm led to believe that's down to the Nicene councils of the time.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: quintessentone

Mary M. was a female leader and therein lay the problem.

That sounds more like an expression of twenty-first-century cant than anything supported by the Gnostic Gospels. You may rest assured that they were all written by men, and studied, too, by men living together in essentially monastic communities from which women were forbidden.

I never said they weren't written by men, what I said was that Mary M. was a female leader and that was the problem at that time and from the cherrypicked gospels in today's Bible, obviously right up until today.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

So what constitutes a special person?

Do you mean the likes of disciples?

Because thats how we ended up with the Holy Roman Church of St Peter if I'm not mistaken.

As to the books contained within the Bible, I'm led to believe that's down to the Nicene councils of the time.

Mary M. was a disciple and as the other disciples stated she was Jesus' #1 disciple so that would constitute a special person in Jesus' mind. Maybe her mind was open whereas the others' minds were what Jesus' described as blind thought. Who knows?

Who was Thomas in regards to the Gospel of Thomas? I'll be looking into this next.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for Peter, ah yes Peter who denied Jesus, not once but three times, yet Jesus gave him the nickname of 'Rock'.

www.myfaith101.com...#:~:text=Throughout%20the%20Gospels%2C%20Peter%20often%20demons trated%20doubt%2C%20fear%2C,make%20him%20a%20foundation%20stone%20of%20the%20Church.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AlongCameaSpider

Im not a Pagan.

What's your stance on the topic of evolution (cosmic evolution, chemical evolution a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life", quoting Haldane and Oparin, a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis", quoting Huxley, and biological evolution, the idea that all living organisms have evolved from single-celled ancestors as expressed in the expression "common descent")? I don't quite remember.

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Full title in case you can't see it: "Darwinism - just another pagan philosophy".

Another subject (that is actually related to the subject above, if you watch the first 2 videos you can see how, as it ties in with the pagan philosophy of reincarnation and the pagan philosophy of an immortal immaterial soul that survives the death of the physical body). Note that Plato was a pagan philosopher, a promoter of Pantheism and Mother Nature (Gaia) worshipper.

Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

... In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

...

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

...

Belief regarding death: “Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556.

...

Soul (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Definition: In the Bible, “soul” is translated from the Hebrew neʹphesh and the Greek psy·kheʹ. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. To many persons, however, “soul” means the immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. Others understand it to be the principle of life. But these latter views are not Bible teachings.

...

“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

...

What is the origin of Christendom’s belief in an immaterial, immortal soul?

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek [pagan] thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”—Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”—Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246.

...

In direct contrast with the Greek pagan teaching and philosophy of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”​—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Neʹphesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense neʹphesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·kheʹ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term.

a reply to: whereislogic

Evolution is a well-established scientific theory supported by a vast body of evidence from various fields, including biology, genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy.

Simple as that really.

And it does not completely discount the notion of a creator.

But simply suggests one of the deist sorts.

Given the big fellow's absenteeism and/or unwillingness to intervene.

Please can this thread not go to another creation (God vs. nature) discussion?

a reply to: quintessentone

Well, it is the truth that we seek and quintessentone.

And If that's the case not having that sort of discussion would seem rather counter-productive by my guess.

Given the relevance to the topic of the thread.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: quintessentone

Well, it is the truth that we seek and quintessentone.

And If that's the case not having that sort of discussion would seem rather counter-productive by my guess.

Given the relevance to the topic of the thread.

If the topic goes to creationism then finding the truth about Jesus will be forgotten. I've been on this roller coaster ride before.