Jesus: A Prophet of Islam - By Siraj ...
First Prev
of 10
Next Last
God

Huntsville, AL

#196 Oct 17, 2013
The Christian Gnostics practiced a spirituality more similar to Eastern traditions than to the Western Christianity we know today. "Gnostic" is Greek for "knower" and it is "Gnosis" or "Knowledge" that they were seeking. Unlike the blind faith demanded by today's Churches,'Gnosis' meant direct, mystical experience

In the Gnostic text, the Secret Gospel of Thomas, Christ promises "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched and what has never arisen in the human mind." This description is not unlike the Upanishadic experience "the Self is devoid of birth and death, it neither grows old nor decays and the accidents of life do not affect it. The Self transcends space and time; what is great is not too great for it to comprehend and what is small is not too small to escape its attention.

The most ancient Eastern spiritual texts, the Vedas, of India, tell us that the process of spiritual awakening by which one attains truth -awareness is called 'Self-Realization'. The Self Realized person lives in direct experience of reality -- this is called "Jnana" ( a traditional sanskrit word meaning 'knowledge' or 'Gnosis'). Such a person is called a "Jnani" ('knower ' or 'gnostic')
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#197 Oct 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL... no Bible existed pre-Nicaea! Right, you just made my case!
No I didn't...There is a huge differences between a Bible and writings.
Ish Tov wrote:
To create a Bible, much of Christian literature had to be rejected, much of it extremely popular. Then they create a Bible and claim that somehow this organically, or rather divinely, appeared as if God were showing the Bishops what was acceptable and what was not.
You're not making any sense...if literature existed that were not considered orthodox in views by the dominant group based on known traditional teachings from the apostolic age..why are you attempting to downplay the usage of common logic for divine inspiration?
Ish Tov wrote:
Judging from hints in the remaining canon,
Remaining...misleading language in attempts to strength and add credibility to the rejected writings that were NEVER included..Just saying.
Ish Tov wrote:
we see that much of the real teaching of Jesus was excluded.
Of course that makes no sense and cannot be proven..as the earlier church and documents are in agreement with what was canon.
Ish Tov wrote:
There are strong indications that there was a strong rule played by Mary Magdalene, and this was hidden, and the Church then taught for centuries that she was a prostitute.
more conspiracy theories..no known facts.
Ish Tov wrote:
There is a lot of similarity of Jesus' teaching even in the canon with Buddhism,

along with evidence Jesus was in Kashmir studying with Buddhist monks during the “missing years”.
Proof?
Ish Tov wrote:
How many people were tortured and killed to enforce your “mainstream” orthodoxy?
Millions.
You want to make this about religion or Christianity to be exact...but this is properly filed under societal purging..Wars motivated by religions only makeup 7%(and even some of those are intertwined with other motivators)..Why an overwhelming(93%) purging in societies were motivated by non-religion...You're trying to debate if we should "throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater"...which is just silly...
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#198 Oct 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
The dominant sect contains the liars,
Proof?
Ish Tov wrote:
who pretended they had some sort of divine inspiration for the purging of certain Christian literature, and the of its adherents.
You have any prove they "pretend"?
Ish Tov wrote:
You're attempting to justify these atrocities, which rank among the greatest in history, all committed in the interests of the “mainstream” cult.
Where did I justify any atrocities? I'm debating the understanding and comprehension of known religious history..nothing to do with personal feelings or emotions..
Ish Tov wrote:
And, rejected early on by whom? By those in power. You pretend that the orthodox sect has legitimacy how? Because it was able to violent purge “heretics”?
You could make that same argument to justify Nazism but it would be no more valid.
The mainstream orthodox view was able to purge out heretics views..societal purging sometimes includes violence....most of the time; it's peaceful..
and let's note what heretics actually means..so there is no need for " ".....
Ish Tov wrote:
No,“mainstream” was defined by those in power. Other sects were diminished by violence. It was “mainstream” because it was the sect of Constantine. If he'd been a Nestorian or Arian or Gnostic, then you'd be calling that “mainstream” today.
You seem to have a problem with the word mainstream..not I..I don't care if Nestorian or Arian or Gnostic,were mainstream..just like I don't care what is mainstream in Islam..mainstream is mainstream..it simply means what was/is the dominant belief/ideologies...that doesn't equal divine..
Ish Tov wrote:
You define what is the Bible and then claim that other texts had to be eliminated for being “unbiblical”! LOL!!! You cannot see the circularity of that reasoning.
I'm not the one to define what is the Bible..LOL
I gave the definition of Bible..I didn't write it....and according to the meaning of Bible..the texts who were NEVER included make them unbiblical.. This is simple..You can claim those other writings are divine or whatever..that would be another debate, but you simply cannot claim them to be biblical...The latter implies they were canon (Which they NEVER were:)
Ish Tov wrote:
Face it, you cult is forced on the people by intense violence and repression, and stained by 1500 years of violence against anyone practicing another religion or sect.
Christianity was widely spread before the called of Nicaea..ignore this fact as you may..it doesn't change the truth....in fact, the church was victim of intense persecution up to that point themselves..
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#199 Oct 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
The excluded texts were called heresies by Constantine's bishops! Those reading them weren't calling them that.
It doesn't matter if the followers call their own writings non-heresies..they simply are..based on the definition of the word..

*belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious*
It was indeed heresies...
Ish Tov wrote:
And so again, it came from the top, the decision of what was heresy. And the bishops enforced their opinions with intense violence.
Why are you repeating yourself? How many times do I need to repeat..those sects and their writings were called heresy long BEFORE the period you're focusing on..What do you have to say about that?
Lisa

Tulsa, OK

#200 Oct 17, 2013
Ish Tov wrote:
<quoted text>
You're naive about the exercise of power.“Mainstream” is what was enforced from the top. Your Islamic example proves my point. The domninant fundamentalist orthodoxy was aways enforced by violence. Look what happened in Timbouktou recently.
I'm not naive..You're simply using tunnel vision about Christian history because of your personal reasons as a pagan..sort of too bias to step outside...
My points should be clear..that the beliefs were dominant and mainstream BEFORE the purging of heresies..this cannot be debated..In fact..it can be used as a motivator for such purging..like Islam...That's the point I'm making...You can still attempt to give legitimacy to the other texts..but you would need to find another method..trying to claim it had any type of dominant authority before the council(who needed to REMOVE it from the Bible) isn't historically true....There are too many available documents..that claim those texts weren't legit before the Council was even a thought..
Ish Tov wrote:
Following the apostolic age, many divergent sects of Christianity developed. The one which prevailed was that of the Emperor. The one the Emperor wanted to prevail. Did they hold an election among Christians to decide this? No. It came from the top.
The Imperial Christian cult was forced on the people by Imperial power, and in the West after Rome fell by the Church and Kings.
Christianity had huge numbers, but in different sects. The “purging” which you seem to justify was violent in the extreme and involved the torture and murder of large numbers of people.
Are you aware of how the Saxons were converted? Charlemagne's army began a thorough genocide in Saxony when the Saxon rulers refused to accept Christianity, to force them to convert or face the annihilation of the entire people.
Following Constantine's death, that sort of purging was conducted extensively throughout the Empire. That you justify then the dominance of the “mainstream” or Orthodox version of Christianity entails some serious ethical problems.
As a pagan, naturally I find this history to be disturbing.
Justify?...this isn't personal on my end..I'm just giving the facts..You want to focus on the religious connection..sort of like using slavery and "The Bible"...I can no more blame religion directly for people using it for purging as I could not blame ethnicity for ethnic cleansing..Do you follow? You want to make it about Christianity DIRECTLY and it's simply not..anymore than an ethnic cleansing can be blamed on that ethnic group...The real culprit is societal purging...not it's motivator..Do you understand what I'm saying?

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#202 Oct 17, 2013
Darkjaemess wrote:
The old and conveniently forgotten Gospel of Barnabas corroborate with the Islamic interpretation of Jesus[Isä]. Allahu Akbar!
Nobody cares about the evil psychopath Mohambone's twisting of Christianity to serve his evil purpose, boy.

Shut up.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#203 Oct 17, 2013
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not naive..You're simply using tunnel vision about Christian history because of your personal reasons as a pagan..sort of too bias to step outside...
My points should be clear..that the beliefs were dominant and mainstream BEFORE the purging of heresies..this cannot be debated..In fact..it can be used as a motivator for such purging..like Islam...That's the point I'm making...You can still attempt to give legitimacy to the other texts..but you would need to find another method..trying to claim it had any type of dominant authority before the council(who needed to REMOVE it from the Bible) isn't historically true....There are too many available documents..that claim those texts weren't legit before the Council was even a thought..
<quoted text>Justify?...this isn't personal on my end..I'm just giving the facts..You want to focus on the religious connection..sort of like using slavery and "The Bible"...I can no more blame religion directly for people using it for purging as I could not blame ethnicity for ethnic cleansing..Do you follow? You want to make it about Christianity DIRECTLY and it's simply not..anymore than an ethnic cleansing can be blamed on that ethnic group...The real culprit is societal purging...not it's motivator..Do you understand what I'm saying?
They were made dominant due to persecution by the Empire and Bishops which had begun before Nicaea.

Nicaea was only the culmination of the process of forcing the Imperial cult version of Christianity on everyone in the Empire.

No, Christianity motivated the extensive violence, as it became necessary for Charlemagne to enforce orthodoxy, as the Council of Nicaea dictated.

Nicaea was only one step in the march toward utter enforced totalitarian conformity to the Imperial sect decreed by Constantine and responsible for untold suffering.

For many centuries after Nicaea, Christianity was as oppressive and intolerant as Islam.

Ish Tov
Level 3

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#204 Oct 17, 2013
Lisa wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't matter if the followers call their own writings non-heresies..they simply are..based on the definition of the word..
*belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious*
It was indeed heresies...
<quoted text>Why are you repeating yourself? How many times do I need to repeat..those sects and their writings were called heresy long BEFORE the period you're focusing on..What do you have to say about that?
Yes, the creators of your sect had power, and even before Nicaea had begun their purging of anything divergent from their imperial version.

That doesn't validate them, simply because they had begun the process before Nicaea.

Are you aware of the philosopher Hypatia and how she was killed?

A Christian mob dragged her naked into the streets and cut her to pieces with bits of broken tiles. The Bishops applauded this as the work of God.

That's how your mainstream sect predominated. Pure intimidation, terrorism, violence, force, coercion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bill Cosby most prolific Rapist in US history 5 min 2 Dogs 10
Interracial dating is gross! (Nov '10) 12 min SadButTrue 104
Why Some Black Women Love White Men (May '07) 13 min 2 Dogs 11,227
White women are extremely jealous of bw! 16 min SadButTrue 50
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 24 min Grey Ghost 1,536,116
Is Feminism a Cancer? (Oct '16) 25 min SadButTrue 349
Why are black men so thirsty for white women? 34 min Miss Norris 86
HA HA HA! Trump cuts $1.7 TRILLION in welfare! 2 hr Dark Obsidian Mind 227
Black women want kids with that GOOD HAIR 12 hr SadButTrue 34
More from around the web