John Martin
Active Member
yes we are. because even meritorious atheists are saved, because of their merits
I respect your belief. I believed like that thirty years ago not now.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
yes we are. because even meritorious atheists are saved, because of their merits
I respect your belief. I believed like that thirty years ago not now.
I respect your belief too. The entire Christianity is based upon Augustine
One of the core doctrines of Christianity is the redemption of sin via the shedding of the divine blood of Jesus through his Crucifixion and Death:
[/COLOR][/I]If faith is required anywhere in the teachings, it is here, since no one knows exactly how this is accomplished. One must only have unquestioning faith that it does.
Therefore, a scapegoat was required as the host upon whose back both sin and guilt were transferred and carried, this being reflected in the Jewish image of the scape-goat that is sent into the wilderness to perish. (Leviticus), the prefigurement of Jesus as scapegoat 'bearing the sins of the world', and as the sacrificial 'Lamb of God'.
Therefore, the retention of the doctrine of sin redemption via blood sacrifice within Christianity is a pagan ritual, based purely on superstition, having no basis in fact or via direct experience, as in meditation and spiritual transformation of consciousness. It's efficacy is purely a product of the belief that it is so, with virtually no understanding as to how it is achieved.
In this sense, we are talking about something called 'white magic', culminating in the ritual of the Mass, wherein wine and bread are believed to be literally transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (ie; 'transubstantiation'). The process of sin redemption is two-fold: contrition, repentance and confession, and then the partaking of the Eucharist as a means of entering into the state of grace.
Yeshu's original teachings did not include blood sacrifice. In fact, Yeshu would have been a vegetarian as a practitioner in the Nazarene Essene community.
It should be noted that, according to Essene teachings, which are said to be three-tiered, the first tier is for the initiates, while the second and third are of the inner Mysteries, of which the initiates would not have understood. It was the members of this first tier of initiates who broke with the Essenes and became the first Christians, their focus being primarily evangelistic, rather than mystical in nature. Therefore, doctrine and belief become the primary focus amongst orthodox Christians, rather than direct access to, and experience of the inner living source within, sometimes referred to as Gnosis, Namaste, the Kingdom of God, Big Mind, etc.
im not sure if that is quite correct. Sin can never be redeemed because it is against Gods law...so there will never be a time when God says sin is ok.
Humans on the otherhand need redemption from sins 'effects' or 'consequences'
Sin brings death to all of us. If we ever want to be free of that curse, then we need redemption.
I give no credence to this at all.the scriptures reveal how this is achieved.
Matt 20:28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”
A 'ransom' is a price paid to redeem someone from a kidnapper.
The kidnapper is death - Jesus 'life' is the ransom price paid to release us from death.
Now that the ransom has been paid, it has provided God with a legal means of removing the consequences of sin, namely death, from those who commit sin.
transubstantiation is not a bible teaching... its a church teaching based on something which is not true. Jesus never told anyone to literally eat his flesh or drink his blood.
So what? The idea is not that Jesus founded the sect, but that they did exist prior to his coming, in preparation of his coming. He was known amongst the Essenes as 'The Teacher of Righteousness'.no, he really wasn't an essene. They were a jewish sect who were around long before Jesus arrived.
Nazarenes were a sect of the Essenes. Jesus was a Nazarene.some essenes may have become christians, but Jesus nor his apostles ever became essenes.
There is much that points to the idea that he indeed was an Essene, specifically a member of the Nazorean Essenes at Mt. Carmel, a family monastery where it is said he and his family lived communally and where he grew up, to later become the head of the sect upon the death of John the Baptist. We have evidence of his presence there, along with his two brothers, in a letter announcing the death of John the Baptist read directly to them. (Book of John). This sect was a healing sect, which had connections to the healing sect of the Buddhist derived sect of the Therapeutae in Greece and Egypt. It was the Buddhist King Asoka who sent his Theravada monks (again, healers) West to establish monasteries in Egypt and Greece. There is evidence that Joseph and Mary fled to one of these monasteries, either Therapeutae or Coptic, in Egypt and hid there from King Herod. The teachings Jesus, or rather, Yeshu, would have been exposed to were not those of pagan blood sacrifice, but of the breath oriented practices from the East. Yeshu was a man of the East, not of the West. Men of higher consciousness abhor blood sacrifice, and find the Christian notion of 'washing in the blood of Jesus' a disgusting act. IOW, in the East, the breath, and not the blood, carries the life-force. The Greeks believed the breath to be spirit. They called it 'pneuma', which is the root world for such modern words as 'pneuomonia', and 'pneumatic'. But modern science has eviscerated this root word of its original meaning, rendering it to be associated only with air. The Greeks probably attached to the Eastern teachings and incorporated them into their spiritual culture.Jesus was most certainly not an Essene.
Jesus is not saying that sin is OK, only that it is redeemed via the shedding of divine blood, which I give no credence to.
'Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin'
The whole point of Jesus as blood sacrifice is to reopen the Gates of Paradise for all of mankind that Adam and Eve had closed with Original Sin, Jesus, 'The Lamb of God', being the only perfect, and therefore, acceptable host in the eyes of God.
It does not matter whether flesh and blood are consumed literally or symbolically: the idea remains the same that divine flesh and blood have the power to wash sin away.
So what? The idea is not that Jesus founded the sect, but that they did exist prior to his coming, in preparation of his coming. He was known amongst the Essenes as 'The Teacher of Righteousness'.
Nazarenes were a sect of the Essenes. Jesus was a Nazarene.
There is much that points to the idea that he indeed was an Essene, specifically a member of the Nazorean Essenes at Mt. Carmel, a family monastery where it is said he and his family lived communally and where he grew up, to later become the head of the sect upon the death of John the Baptist. We have evidence of his presence there, along with his two brothers, in a letter announcing the death of John the Baptist read directly to them. (Book of John). This sect was a healing sect, which had connections to the healing sect of the Buddhist derived sect of the Therapeutae in Greece and Egypt. It was the Buddhist King Asoka who sent his Theravada monks (again, healers) West to establish monasteries in Egypt and Greece. There is evidence that Joseph and Mary fled to one of these monasteries, either Therapeutae or Coptic, in Egypt and hid there from King Herod. The teachings Jesus, or rather, Yeshu, would have been exposed to were not those of pagan blood sacrifice, but of the breath oriented practices from the East. Yeshu was a man of the East, not of the West. Men of higher consciousness abhor blood sacrifice, and find the Christian notion of 'washing in the blood of Jesus' a disgusting act. IOW, in the East, the breath, and not the blood, carries the life-force. The Greeks believed the breath to be spirit. They called it 'pneuma', which is the root world for such modern words as 'pneuomonia', and 'pneumatic'. But modern science has eviscerated this root word of its original meaning, rendering it to be associated only with air. The Greeks probably attached to the Eastern teachings and incorporated them into their spiritual culture.
The fundamental question is how the ignorance came to be? I have not come across a satisfying answer either in Buddhism or Hinduism.
Christian tradition speaks of original sin. When we are born we are in a state of original ignorance. Christianity calls this original ignorance as original sin.
Ignorance does not come from the past. Everyone begins with that. This ignorance produces desire and the whole process of becoming. Hinduism and Buddhism call this process as samsara. Ignorance belongs to the evolutionary process of our spiritual growth. We cannot avoid it. We need to go through it. Christian tradition or Catholic tradition calls it Felix Culpa: happy Fault.
They sing during the Easter vigil, O Happy and Necessary Fault of Adam that brought the saviour into this world.
well yes, its for the redemption of the 'sinner'... not the sin.
His blood was shed for the 'many'
This idea of ransom is one of man's ideas superimposed over those of the divine nature, which does not work in the same way. Ransom, debt, and penalty are not part of Unconditional Love, which is associated with the divine nature. Going back to the source, if God was upset over Adam and Eve's disobedience, He would simply have forgave them and called it a day. But again, man is superimposing his own selfish values onto God, and creating an angry, unforgiving God who demands that his Son be sacrficed as payment for Original Sin. This is garbage. I know that the spirit does NOT work in this way. I don't require a God to take on my wrongdoings. I only need to take responsibility for them myself and understand the their nature so that I can avoid such behavior in the future. We forgive each other for our transgressions, and that works. No one needs to be crucified on some cross to free us. Where is the 'logic' in that?if the divine penalty for sin is death, but God wants to save a person from such a penalty, then there is only one legal way to do that.
This is why the Apostles and Jesus spoke of Jesus life as being given as a 'ransom'
The mosaic law stipulated 'life for life' 'eye for eye' 'tooth for tooth' ... to balance the scales of justice, the equivalent of what is lost must be replaced.
Jesus gave his life in exchange for ours... hence he took the divine penalty meant for us sinners upon himself. Thats very logical imo.
He was their leader.But Jesus wasnt one of them.
Jesus was from the town of Nazareth. The scriptures call him a 'Nazarene' because he came from that town... just as someone who comes from America is called an 'American' or from Australia and 'Australian'
It doesnt mean that Jesus is a member of a religious sect by that name.
Paul and Rome went after Yeshu and his followers hell bent for leather, and destroyed many of their teachings, then hunted down the Nazarenes:You can't believe every account you read about him from all the many various sources where such accounts are found.
If these accounts were true, then surely his closest companions, who wrote the accounts of his life and teachings, would have mentioned something about it. But they dont.
Again, the idea is pagan in nature, that divine blood somehow has this power of redemption. It comes down to a matter of belief that it does, just as the idea that one's guilt could somehow be transferred to a scapegoat or an animal sacrificed in the temple. Actually, it's superstition and ignorance. Why would anyone believe such nonsense?
This idea of ransom is one of man's ideas superimposed over those of the divine nature, which does not work in the same way. Ransom, debt, and penalty are not part of Unconditional Love, which is associated with the divine nature. Going back to the source, if God was upset over Adam and Eve's disobedience, He would simply have forgave them and called it a day. But again, man is superimposing his own selfish values onto God, and creating an angry, unforgiving God who demands that his Son be sacrficed as payment for Original Sin.
I don't require a God to take on my wrongdoings. I only need to take responsibility for them myself and understand the their nature so that I can avoid such behavior in the future. We forgive each other for our transgressions, and that works. No one needs to be crucified on some cross to free us. Where is the 'logic' in that?
I respect your belief. I believed like that thirty years ago not now.
perhaps its a universal understanding that only God can save us from death.
The bible actually says that the blood of animals cannot redeem mankind. So contrary to what you think it says, it doesn't say it.
Hebrews 10:1 For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 On the contrary, these sacrifices are a reminder of sins year after year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.
The ancient people were offering sacrifices in the hope that they could redeem themselves from death.... they universally knew that blood represents life and they likely hoped that by offering one life, they could redeem their own. But for the jews, it was a 'reminder of sins'
'Life for Life' as the mosaic law stated. But as the bible says, their sacrifices did NOT take away their sins....they were still condemned. So something more was needed.
Its in harmony with divine law. 'life for life' 'eye for eye' etc
the fact that we die shows that forgiveness is not enough. If it were, then Jesus would not have offered his life.
But for death to be completely removed from mankind, 'life for life' was a legal requirement to balance the scales of justice.
1 perfect life for 1 perfect life.
1Cor 15:22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive
Forgiveness and death have nothing to do with one another. You cannot remove death from mankind. It is inseparable from life.
The passage you quoted is saying what I just said, but 'Christ' here is not a singular, unique Christ, but a universal experience within all men. Here again we touch upon the Buddhist influence on Yeshu, which is that all sentient beings are capable of Enlightenment. Yeshu said as much when he pointed to the kingdom of God within [all men]. IOW, the gifts of the Incarnation are not relegated exclusively to the historical Jesus, but are available to all of mankind apriori; that is to say that these gifts were given to man even before his birth. They are already in our possession. All that is required is their discovery. No messy blood sacrifice need apply.
You notice that the passage says: 'in the Christ', referring to the divine nature and not to the singular personage of Jesus.
Genuine giving is unconditional. We don't do it to gain anything. We are not concerned with merit or no-merit. We are concerned with the act of giving itself, and not with any favorable outcome.
One of the Zen lessons is this:
Sweep the floor in order to sweep the floor.
Imagine a housewife who spends all day cleaning the house with the thought in mind of pleasing her husband. Now the husband comes home, but has had a bad day at the office. He uses his wife as a punching bag for his troubles. She becomes upset because he is unappreciative of the clean house, not even taking notice. He sees her as uninterested in his problem. If she had cleaned the house in order to get it clean, that would be done without any expectation of praise. Now when her husband comes home, she can listen attentively to his problem with understanding. That over, the husband now notices the clean house and lets her know how much he appreciates it.
I believe you are referring to what Christians call our 'sin nature'. I give no credence to this. I do not believe man is born with this.
I am not referring to the sin nature. I am saying that people are born with sin. What I said was that human beings are born with original blessing. Original sin means not beings conscious of this original blessing. It is not a conscious sin committed by anyone.
For one, sin is tied up with morality, but nature is amoral. But what is morality but the product of our social indoctrination. What I am suggesting to you is that morality is the cause of ignorance. Why? Because it is what stifles our true nature, superimposing an artificial system of behavior over it, thereby creating ignorance of our true original nature, which is naturally good. Morality is the cause of hypocrisy, a form of ignorance.
When we are born we are like little children, ignorant and innocence, with an unconditioned mind. As we grow we are conditioned and become adults. We need to De-condition ourselves and discover our original innocence. The difference between a born child and who has become like a child is: the born child is innocent and ignorance but a person who has become like a child is innocent but wise. A wise person is one who knows the limitations of the knowledge and lives by wisdom, they were led by the stars. In the New Testament who have the three wise men who were led by the star and come to the child, a symbol of wisdom, and fall and worship the child. But it takes time.We do not just move from born childhood to mature childhood. We need to pass the river the of adulthood, the river of samsara, knowledge and morality.
To become as little children means to see the world without judgment, without discrimination. This kind of mind is called Innocency (not innocence). It is our original pure mind which the Buddha talks about. It knows what to do, how to act, without having a rigid set of laws superimposed over it to stifle it.To become as little children means to see the world with the conditional love, as the Sun gives light to everyone and everything. It is not to see the world without judgement or without discrimination. It is to see that the so-called good and evil are relative good and relative evil. The Absolute goodness does not have an opposite called Evil. We can call it universal mind that is united with the whole of humanity and creation. It is like a trunk that holds all the branches and leaves. It lives for all. It is not bound by any moral structures. Jesus said, 'It is written in you Law but I say unto you'. He was beyond the Law. He also said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. It is freedom from the external moral code and living from the inner wisdom. It is living according to the New Covenant, the Law written in the heart. This I understand is the mind of Buddha.
Now consider the following:
The orthodox story of the Fall is that Adam and Eve committed the Sin of Disobedience, and thereby became separated from God and driven from Paradise. Much of the history of mankind is based upon this idea. But there is another, and I feel more original story which became corrupted into the orthodox version, and that is that there was no sin committed at all. God forbids A&E the partaking of the so-called 'Forbidden Fruit', and then goes away, as in the orthodox story. But then God reappears to them as a serpent in order to ensure that they eat of the Fruit! Why? Because the Fruit is a symbol for Divine Union, or Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent says: 'God does not want you to eat of the Fruit because your eyes will be opened and 'you will see as He sees'. What is this but God consciousness? What is happening here is that God has cleverly set up a piece de resistance as a psychological device, making the Fruit a highly desirable object of curiosity. Of course A&E will eat of it. How can they avoid it? But the point here is that we do not have separation due to disobedience of the Law, but instead we have divine union which is both Essence and Law in harmony with one another. Story end, and all is well. Divine Union achieved while still alive. But the orthodox story is the long, drawn out bloody history of mankind, what the Buddhists call 'The Long Way Home', where mankind hits every bump in the road. And then, no one gets to Paradise until they die. Just a horrible scenario.
I do not interpret the Genesis as the Christian tradition interprets. Here I give you my interpretation which I have posted in another thread.
Our spiritual evolution can be described as a journey from the unconscious unity to the conscious unity.
There are two trees in the Garden of Eden. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The tree of life is a symbol of unity, non-duality and a life of unfolding. A tree has leaves branches, trunk and the roots. Leaves represent individuality, branches represent collective consciousness, trunk represents universal consciousness and the roots represent divine consciousness. In the tree of life there is harmony among them. Leaves respect the branches, branches respect the trunk and the trunk respects the roots and the roots respects the three. So they form one unit, one life, one truth and one way. In the tree of life there is no good and bad. There is only absolute good that has no opposite called evil.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol of fragmented truth. It is either at the level of leaves or branches, or trunk without connection with the others. This creates good and evil.
The Garden of Eden is the symbol of the life of unity. Life of oneness, one way, one truth and one life. But it is unconscious like just born children, a way of innocence and ignorance.
Then comes the desire to become like God. This desire is the desire to become conscious what is unconscious. They were already like God but they were not conscious. Hence this desire is a good desire. This desire projects God,who is inside, outside. Thus it creates duality,distance, time,effort, becoming, good and evil, suffering and violence. This is eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
But the day will come when human beings discover that this path cannot take them to unity. They stop it. This helps them to reenter into the Garden of Eden. This is eating the fruit from the tree of life. It is entering the Garden of Eden consciously.
The life of unconscious unity is represented by a serpent holding its own tail.
The life of becoming, good and evil, knowledge, is represented by a serpent crawling on the ground.
The life of conscious unity is represented by a serpent raising its hood.
There is no direct path from the unconscious unity to the conscious unity. We have to fall into the life of becoming. We need to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is a necessary process.
The Garden of Eden did not happen in the past. Whenever a child is born the Garden of Eden begins. It is living from the unconscious wisdom. As the individuality develops and desires emerge the child comes out of the Garden of Eden and takes up the path of becoming, effort, struggle,knowledge and good and evil and sin.
The day will come when the human consciousness stops this movement and reenters into the Garden of Eden consciously. It is rediscovering original unity and wisdom.
Hence eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge is a necessary stage for our spiritual evolution. Christian tradition calls it Felix Culpa: Happy and necessary Fault.
The forbidden fruit is the fruit of union with God. It is the fruit that brings us of our unconscious state and puts on the path of spiritual evolution.
It is true that Christianity postpones divine union to after our physical death.
Jesus Christ taught that the union with God is possible in this life itself. We do not need to wait until we die.
not according to the bible.
Adam was given the opportunity to live along side his creator forever. Death was only the result of sin. So logically, if Adam never sinned, then death would never have resulted.
And that is why Jesus spoke of eternal life for those who put their faith in him.
John 3:36 The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life...
John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
John 6:47 Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life
The hebrew scriptures speak of the future promises that God will bring about, ie:
Ps 68:20 The true God is for us a God who saves;
And Jehovah the Sovereign Lord provides escape from death.
Psalm 37:29 The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it.
i dont really understand all those eastern mystical philosophical ideas. I just know what the bible says and it is very simple.
Trust the God has a provision to save mankind from the consequences of Adams sin and put your faith in his promises to restore us to perfection.
The opportunity is for us to live forever and i can't think of anything more simple then that.
In your world, you are not now living forever. You are living in limited time and space because you know that you will die, and that is a problem. So the attainment of eternal life for you will occur after death. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. What I want to know is this: since you don't have a clue as to what 'eternal life' actually is via experience, why do you want it?
its possible that i may die before i see eternal life. But Jesus said that some people wont. Why? Because there will come the day when God brings all enemies to an end....and one of those enemies is death itself:
1cor 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.
Why do i believe its possible to live forever? There are a few things that tell me its possible.
1. Angels dont die.
2. God doesnt die.
3. We think in terms of 'forever'... it seems to be built into us that everlasting life is the norm.
4. The Garden of Eden story explains that death is a consequence of sin....if thats the case, than surely it implies that if there is no sin, there is no death.
But the most convincing evidence is that Christ himself taught that people will live forever...and God has promised it in his word.
I have no reason to doubt all this evidence before me. Sure, i've never seen it, but I believe its possible...my faith is based on all these lines of reasoning.
And even if i do die before this great change takes place, I am assured that I will be restored to life:
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.
Death will be no more.... mankind will be 'with God' and in that condition, we will have the opportunity to live forever... we have Gods word on it:
Revelation 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.
This is going to happen... its only a matter of time.
You do not, in actuality, know for certain that any of the above is true. You only believe them to be true, but will not actually be verified until you pass through the door of death itself. I think you WANT it to be true because it provides an answer for the fact that your not-knowing creates a certain amount of anxiety about what is going to happen to you when you do finally meet with death, and your beliefs provide a certain amount of comfort and temporary relief from your anxiety.
IOW, such beliefs create a model of security for us. Death is the big un-doer of our life on Earth, and for most of us, that is a hard pill to swallow. But what that fear signifies is that we are not living in our true nature; instead we allow our ego to create these props. Why? Because the ego never wants to die; it wants to go on forever so that it can continue to enjoy being adored, praised, and stroked. Our true nature does not require any of that superficial nonsense, because it is already beyond both praise and blame. My question for you at this point is this: Why would you wish to carry even a single speck of your current identity into Paradise? Do we want to continue driving the old jalopy, wheezing and coughing, in Paradise, or do we want to savor the thrill of a fabulous ride in our new Rolls-Royce?