Energy of The Christos.

Post Reply New Topic

There really isn't much orthodoxy until May of 325. Don't you find it incredibly strange? Before there was some proto orthodoxy. Before this Council occurred, there were so much info and sects. The vast majority were labeled as heretics by the Council. It's dubious at best, anything the Council maintains. They were just trying to establish themselves as the only source and stamp out everyone else. That's suspicious in itself.

For once I agree with something you have said. However if you are going to use the subjugation of many different gospels and the manufacture of the Trinity to question the the Crucifixion don't bother. The existence of Jesus as a man, his preaching of impending apocalypse and his death have so much evidence that it is very unlikely that he did not actually exist. Multiple independent attestations, and the criterion of dissimilarity are two concepts you need to investigate and understand.

No matter what you think of the first council, making up nonsense about what was decided there is inexcusable. Once again you are using your lack of knowledge to allow you to come up with fanciful tales rather than trying to get close to the actual truth.

You ask the question "dont I find the lack of orthodoxy incredibly strange"?. Well I would if the events happened today, ie with mass media, photos, written accounts etc. But we are talking about a time where the vast majority were illiterate and stories and news was passed orally. So no I do not think it is strange that so many wild variations and thoughts existed on this subject, Basically it became more grand and more elaborate with each retelling, and aas the stories took there own paths so did the believers in the various oral traditions. This is what Constantine and the Bishops did, they chopped away all the various traditions determining that the Creed was to be the only acceptable version of events and anything else was criminal heresy. But to suggest that the Crucifixion and resurrection were not part of the earliest narratives is plain wrong. Like I said ANA do some research, read Bart Erhman Did Jesus Exist and How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. to which there is a rebuttal titled How God Became Jesus.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 24 May 2015, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence he existed as a man. If you are going to believe he did, might as well believe Mad Max is out there, too, existing in real life, and Clark Kent, Luke Skywalker, Aunt Medea, Harry Potter, Spongebob Squarepants, Katniss Everdeen, Shrek, Jeffrey Lebowski, Kermit the Frog, Dorothy Gale, Samwise Gangee, Zeus, Tarzan, Doogie Howser, Captain James T Kirk and Mr Spock, are all out there somewhere and are very real entities. No fiction here. We all know they exist, why? Because they have stories about them, therefore they MUST exist!! !!

oh dear, whatever, you clearly will never bother to sit down and actually understnad anything that takes effort. Go on then, spend your time in fluffy clouds were energy is mystical and make up nonsense as it seems fit to you.

Out of interest I suppose all the major figures from antiquity never existed after all we have little evidence other than multiple attestations for them, except of course those who have a bust or statue, but then according to your perspective so does hans solo.

Let's take a deeper look at the cast of fictional characters I just listed. Sure they are fiction, but strangely, each one of them has ENERGY!! ! Even though they aren't real flesh and blood, they can still persuade and influence our culture and society by creating this sub culture that revolves around their characteristics. A fan base, in other words. Same applies to Christos. This is how you see his energy manifest. It's the same with any character, fiction or non fiction. They can have the same energy and effect on others, who take their energy within themselves and start acting like them or doing what they do.

What we do is look for multiple credible sources and background info. As you can see, The First Council conveniently made that as difficult as possible to do...

Ana sounds like those new age hippies that only speak of energies because their yogi told them about them. There is a big different in "believing" and "knowing". Believing states a personal assumption that does not necessarily need to be credible or provable as it is something subjective. Knowing states a claim that needs proof. If the proof cannot be provided then the claim remains unproven and therefore false in the eyes of those challenging the claim.

If Ana said that she only believed and doesn't know, then I am okay with it.

Quite the contrary, I am not a new age hippy. I am an explorer and an adventurer.

I look at Christos and can only see the effects he has on the populous and the generations because I have no vision of him as a flesh and blood being. I can only observe his energy in the words, actions and deeds of others based on what I know he stood for as is stated in the Bible. I do not assume what is written about Christos is any more than a fictional story. Whether he is a real person or just a fictional character I do not know. Nobody does. If they say one way or another, it is based entirely on a belief, not factual knowledge.

At one time many people believed Zeus was real, after all. How many believe it now?

I try to take experiences and deduct the best possible conclusions rather than blindly following what a book says is absolute truth, for example. I may read the book but there's no guarantee I am going to believe what I read.

exactly. you believe your own pop corn ideas over years of study and research.

The study and research into exactly whom Jesus was hasn't produced a lot of promising results.

Once again you are guilty of moving goal posts. Your reference to books was to all books not just the bible, you have a long standing reputation for pop corn ideas on a great range of subjects, and simply do not understand why so many of us do not agree with your assertions or assumptions. I think this is best summed up in Why Does E=MC2 Brian Cox and Jeffrey Foreshaw
"He did not have an academic post at a university or research establishment, although he discussed physics regularly with a small group of friends, often late into the night. An unfortunate consequence of Einstein’s apparent isolation from the mainstream is the modern temptation to look upon him as a maverick who took on the scientific establishment and won; unfortunate because it provides inspiration to any number of crackpots who think they have single-handedly discovered a new theory of the universe and cannot understand why no-body will listen to them"

I notice, at times, on this forum, when people agree they don't say much. When they disagree they say a lot. From what I have read, many people who use this forum do not believe Christ existed as a flesh and blood man.

Just because there are other threads and posts I have made doesn't take away from the validity of this particular one.

Right now I am focusing on Christos, exploring why he made such an impact on our lives, even if it is true he has only existed as a fictional character and how his energy is, essentially, beneficial even though some of his followers try their best to use it as a tool of alienation instead of what it truly is, a helpful service type energy, full of grace, mercy and kindness.

And there's no point in using Einstein as an excuse to insult, either. Discussing is not a crime. I do not feel the need to call others "crackpots" because Einstein existed just like I feel no need to judge others just because of this Christos energy.

Tell me why it is so necessary to be so judgmental of others? What is the point? What does it accomplish? You either agree or disagree but there is no need to be so judgmental.

Like I said in my other post, I seriously consider myself to be an adventurer and explorer and that's that. I take these duties to heart and am not prepared to abandon them because others do not wish for me to explore ideas. We are allowed freedom of thought.

Talk of Apocalypse leads us to St John the Beloved exiled on Patmos where, quite possibly, he could have written many texts. No wonder he wrote Apocalyptical text considering he was exiled. He might have indeed felt like his world was in a crisis state. As much is known about him as is known about the rest of the Apostles, and Christos.

A fellow Gnostic Christian. Sweet.

Is part of having a Christ mind not to seek those who live in darkness and bring them into the light and does that not include our judging that they need to be enlightened?

For instance Gnostic Christians do not agree with many Christian moral tenets.
Should Gnostic Christians then not seek out Christians o correct them?

Does this quote not go against your view of not judging?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL

By judgment I am referring to behavior I witness from regional Evangelicals that trigger what I call "the Whirlwind of Judgment" which I regard as being quite destructive to those involved, including the Evangelicals and I think Christos energy resists this type of situation. Using the Bible as a guide, since we have no choice, we see examples of Christos resisting judgment, instead accentuating mercy and kindness, like when he stood by a woman who was about to be stoned. He knew why she was there but he was not going to allow her to be treated in such a manner.

Mercy of The Christos as it appears in the Holy Text:

John 8:1-11New Living Translation (NLT)

A Woman Caught in Adultery
8 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

He was not going to leave her side to keep her from being stoned by the angry Pharisees. See the emphasis on mercy and not on judgment?

Following the stoning custom of the day, Jesus was likely looking for the man who was supposed to be there to be stoned along with the woman.

If you are to believe that part literally then why not this one?

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

But that aside.

Is Jesus not judging that woman when telling her to go and sin no more?

Is he not saying she sinned and just forgiving her for the reason stated?

If we never judged evil as evil, then are we not allowing evil to grow?

Would you scrap the saying that goes, --- for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing?

To me, not judging is allowing evil to grow.

----------------
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Is this quote not saying to judge what is good and what is evil and hold fast to the good while denouncing the evil?

------------------

As an aside fellow Gnostic Christian, have you seen anything of a creed for us?

Regards
DL