• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The abuse and abandonment of the teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
If, by "ideologically incompatible", you're referring to texts like Matthew 18, maybe they've just been mistranslated and misunderstood.
Almost the whole of the Christian scriptures were written by early Christians and do not have a historical base (they are creative religious writing in order to inspire you to be a good Christian). That is no problem if you are a Christian, but if you are interested in the teachings and mission of Yeshua the Nazarene, those Christian writings will cloud your vision and keep you from getting to know the historical Yeshua.

You yourself are a Christian, so it is better for you to not study the original teachings in their pure form as this will only confuse you.
 

Jos

Well-Known Member
You may think, who the heck is 'Yeshua the Nazarene'?
That is probably what the first followers of the spiritual Master Yeshua (Jesus) called him.
They did not think of him a Jesus Christ, as someone who could miraculously save them from damnation through a so-called 'vicarious sacrifice'. They saw him more as their divine Teacher who through his Self-Realisation was their nearest and dearest being to God, the Loving Father (Abba). They loved Him, felt a great attaction to Him and wished to serve Him, directly and indirectly and were promised their own self-realisation, their own re-unification with the 'Holy (Cosmic) Spirit' or the 'Rule of God'.

They recalled and someone possibly wrote down many of his instructions and his other words in a document, that still existed when the authors of gMatthew and gLuke creatively wrote down their Christian gospels.
That document still came closest to the original teachings and it reflected the original mission of Yeshua the Nazarene before he became transformed into the Christian Jesus Christ.

That initial phase, when the mission was still controlled by Yeshua the Nazarene himself, did not last. Soon after that, a great confusion started and different missions sprang up developing their own competing types of myth and teaching around the great Master.

Somewhere in the second century a dominant sect got the upperhand, although initially it was still divided between a Roman branch and a Marcionite branch. That sect grew into the Christian Church. It had twisted and absorbed the original document to make it fit into the Christian myths and ideology and had in fact abused the original teachings by abandoning them and exchanging them for the teachings of the Church.

Several of the other sects survived for centuries more. But eventually they all became extinct and we know very little about their own myths and teachings because their scriptures were sadly enough no longer preserved and copied. We have to make do with what the Christians left us and with the analysis of how exactly they twisted and abused the original teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene.

How I wish I could take a time machine and talk to some of the original followers the Nazarenes about their relationship to Yeshua and His teachings.
Citation needed.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Citation needed.
I'm just rewording and summarizing what can be found in The reconstructed sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yeshua.
In Luke there is also a scene with a female disciple who pours expensive oils over (I think the feet of) her Master, illustrating the (need for a) devotional sentiment for the spiritual Master as God (Guru) Yeshua. Other disciples criticize her for this, but Yeshua explains why she did the right thing.
 
Last edited:

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
The contradiction is Paul which negates the second coming or the entirety of Pauline Christianity. Whichever one would prefer.
imo The Second Coming is the collection of souls after the total destruction of the Earth, or did you not read my link.
No contradiction.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I'm just rewording and summarizing what can be found in The reconstructed sayings of the tantric-mystic Master Yeshua.
In Luke there is also a scene with a female disciple who pours expensive oils over (I think the feet of) her Master, illustrating the (need for a) devotional sentiment for the spiritual Master as God (Guru) Yeshua. Other disciples criticize her for this, but Yeshua explains why she did the right thing.

Secret rule of God? Tantric mysteries? What does that mean?

Your translations are not new to me..

What makes you think Jesus didn't speak Greek?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
imo The Second Coming is the collection of souls after the total destruction of the Earth, or did you not read my link.
No contradiction.

There is NO total destruction of the Earth... even the tribulation was local.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Wait a minute. References or an explanation, please.

You might start with the Sermon on the Mount.. a new era.. the end of the old order and a new beginning.... NOT the destruction of the earth.

The Scofield evangelicals and pentecostals were hoodwinked 150 years ago.. and now its even spread to the Muslim world.. the Shia in particular.
 

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
You might start with the Sermon on the Mount.. a new era.. the end of the old order and a new beginning.... NOT the destruction of the earth.

The Scofield evangelicals and pentecostals were hoodwinked 150 years ago.. and now its even spread to the Muslim world.. the Shia in particular.
Your opinion has bee noted.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Secret rule of God? Tantric mysteries? What does that mean?

Your translations are not new to me..

What makes you think Jesus didn't speak Greek?
There are mistranslations in the text that point to an Aramaic origin of the text rather than a Greek one.
Who are you quoting? Not me for sure.
Tantra is any teaching or practice that leads to personal spiritual development (liberation).
The teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene fall completely in that category. They are not a religion.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
Many more fundamentalist type of Christians keep stressing that God made the present Bible collection into a perfect "Holy Scripture" that cannot and should not be changed.

But in the early centuries, when Christianity (if you can call it that) was still very much more wild and divided between all kinds of sects and upstart movements at a time when there was no such thing as a Christian Bible or indeed a Christian Church, many followers still considered only the Jewish sciptures as sacred whereas other groups did not even do that.

The situation was so wild that somehow the teachings of Yeshua were not respected and protected from the hands (and pens) of people creating new and different forms of religion through their own creative thoughts and writings.

There must have been dozens of such experimenting sects and not one of them seems to have protected the teachings of their own Lord Yeshua against such abuse and corruptions. Or if there was such a sect, it did not survive and its sciptures were tragically lost.
Because of that tragedy noone any longer studies the teachings of the Lord in any serious way in the manner that they were meant to be understood nor are they put into practice.

Thomas people, early Muslims, Jehova Witnesses, Apostolic revivalists and Bahai have made courageous attempts to get a grip on where it went wrong in the history of Christianity but none have managed to analyze and penetrate deep enough to recognize how early the corruption in fact occurred and what the nature of the original teachings was.
Although their attempts were noble, they got stuck in their own religious side tracks, just like those early Christians had.
Christianity lost the proper way at the very beginning and not sometime after the writings of the New Testament were formed.

And even now the original teachings have finally resurfaced through the sustained and united efforts of many scholars noone really seems to care much about the teachings apart from affirming them being a unique document that is fundamentally unchristian.
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Somewhere in the second century a dominant sect got the upperhand, although initially it was still divided between a Roman branch and a Marcionite branch. That sect grew into the Christian Church. It had twisted and absorbed the original document to make it fit into the Christian myths and ideology and had in fact abused the original teachings by abandoning them and exchanging them for the teachings of the Church.
This second century church began with bishops that were baptized, taught, and ordained by the Apostles. I don't think they would have been placed over such large churches if they significantly deviated from "the gospel."

Any misunderstanding they may have had of the relationship of Christianity to Judaism can be understood as due to the following:
1. In the earlier church, the practice of Judaism had been maintain only by Jews.
2. The council of Jerusalem, and Paul, made it clear that Gentile believers were under no obligation to be circumcised and come under the obligation of the 613 laws.
3. After the destruction of the Temple, and later the destruction of Jerusalem and diaspora of the Jews, the Church was predominately Gentile -- it had lost its Jewish hub in Jerusalem, which was replaced with Rome.
4. Given the predominance of Gentiles, it is no wonder that Gentile rules became the law of the day.
 
Last edited:

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
This second century church began with bishops that were baptized, taught, and ordained by the Apostles. I don't think they would have been placed over such large churches if they significantly deviated from "the gospel."

Any misunderstanding they may have had of the relationship of Christianity to Judaism can be understood as due to the following:
1. In the earlier church, the practice of Judaism had been maintain only by Jews.
2. The council of Jerusalem, and Paul, made it clear that Gentile believers were under no obligation to be circumcised and come under the obligation of the 613 laws.
3. After the destruction of the Temple, and later the destruction of Jerusalem and diaspora of the Jews, the Church was predominately Gentile -- it had lost its Jewish hub in Jerusalem, which was replaced with Rome.
4. Given the predominance of Gentiles, it is no wonder that Gentile rules became the law of the day.
This link to so-called "Apostles" cannot be proven as being historical, this is part of the myths about the origins of the (projected) early Church. In fact nothing in the gospel stories or in Acts can be trusted to be historical (such a the council of Jerusalem and the adventures of Paul there and elsewhere).
We know very little about what an "early church" would have looked like if indeed there ever was such a thing as Christianity before the second century. The Christian view of (imaginations about) Paul is also largely mythical.

There were groups that became Christian from a Jewish background and the group which wrote gMatthew expanded the mythical gospel story (gMark) in a way that linked Jesus even more to the Jewish scriptures and religion than in gMark.
The original teachings of Yeshua (in Q-lite) however lack such an explicit connection almost entirely.

The greatest move (back) towards a more Gentile Christianity happened before and under the Marcionite Church which produced the gLuke, Acts and the earliest Pauline epistles and which shunned gMatthew and gMark and the Jewish scriptures. You can compare their movement somwhat to the JW's who also want to return to a time when Christianity still was as they imagine it to have been.

So you cannot say that the Gentile Church removed any Jewishness from the original mission of Yeshua as it was not there from the start. It started in a Jewish setting but was not in any sense typically Jewish but already very universal.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
This link to so-called "Apostles" cannot be proven as being historical
Of course they can. Polycarp is mentioned in the NT. Ignatius is known to have been a student of John, friend of Polycarp, and possibly ordained by Peter. Irenaeus was converted by a sermon of Polycarp. And so these lineages go.
 
Top