anti-christ discussion, from middle p. 3 to end.

[honorentheos]

Resurrection is a Christian-centric concept. This presupposes that Jesus is somehow more essential than any other potential source of wisdom teacher because only he is able to save us from...well. all the things I've pointed out in this thread since joining it.

So is that your answer, huckelberry? You believe only Jesus can bring about the resurrection promised by Christianity which you view as necessary? Buddhism doesn't teach resurrection but instead teaches reincarnation. And various groups within Judaism debated it at the time of Jesus.

The concept of resurrection imposes Christianity on other belief systems. And it's very much a concept based on a fallen, corrupt world needing to be consumed and replaced or reborn.

Honorentheos you note
"resurrection is Christian concept and presupposes that Jesus is somehow more essential than other wisdom teachers." Of course it does , It normally presupposes he is divine eternal creator of heaven and earth. That well known Christian view is hardly a surprise. It is also no surprise that a cluster of concepts like a religious tradition does not always fit with every other system. I do not believe in reincarnation. so?

So, is a Christ necessary or not?

Resurrection will happen or will not happen> It does not depend upon a contest of belief systems or imposing the belief on folks. I do not see it as depending upon a "fallen world" though I am unsure what that means to you. I do see that any new development will start to replace things that are old. I admit to seeing the human family as less than perfect. I do not see why you view that as a horror when connected to Christ.

Of course the human family, and you and I, are not perfect. But th concept of being fallen isn't the same as being, well, fallible and human. Being fallen includes both separation from the divine as well as an innate need for divine intervention to be able to access ones potential. Good becomes a function of extra-human intervention and influence as opposed to something we have access to within ourselves.

Now, both the idea of Jesus and Buddha can serve as vehicles for helping others tap into their better angels, which may even be a necessary part of human progress. I don't know. I lived too much of my life tapped into th a Christian worldview to be able to say one way or the other from my own experience. And I don't know how well it translates into our daughter's worldview and ethics since I've sought to give her a spectrum of examples and sources to pull from with a full expectation that life is for learning and striving. Home and family should be the safe space that serves to resist judgment and provide love with minimal conditions. Does that mean people who don't have that in their lives need to have something like belief in a saviour to be able to move past previous mistakes? I don't know. But I'm very certain that the idea the world is fallen, humanity is corrupted, and the champion of God will justify and raise the believers while judging the enemies of God to suffer is inherent to the Christ myth, and I am anti that. It seems to me that so are most people participating in this thread, but you aren't comfortable with the phrase anti Christ because...conditioning I guess.

[Jersey Girl]

Wait. Doesn't Zoroastrianism belief in resurrection pre-date Christianity? I may be a little rusty, but I think it does, honor.

I haven't read this whole thread so if you covered this at some point, just skip my post.

Don't know, but I found this on Bart Ehrman's blog:

https://ehrmanblog.org/was-resurrection ... rian-idea/

Thanks honor, I will go through that more carefully when I get done with tasks for today. It's been a very long time since I've discussed or thought about this topic. Twenty-ish years or so I would say. When I read your comment, Zoroastorianism popped out of the far recesses of my mind. Some part of me thinks that the ideas regarding resurrection were an outgrowth of what you might think of as fertility thought regarding the observation of the life cycle in the natural world and eventual planting of crops, dependency on crops, leading to fertility rituals and so on and so forth.

I donated my books about that so I will try to search out some information about it as I have time, if only for myself. I find the development of God belief in general, very interesting. The reason I refer to observation of the natural world is because that is where I think belief in a higher/awesome power began. Sky god, thunder god, and such as that if I am not mistaken. They were tied to forces found in the natural world.

Wouldn't mind seeing a separate thread on that but this one will do. I wouldn't mind seeing a timeline of the development of religions. Perhaps there is one on the Internet...you would think so.

[honorentheos]

I wouldn't mind seeing a timeline of the development of religions. Perhaps there is one on the Internet...you would think so.

Given the scope of this, I imagine this is a very over-simplified example:



It also has Mormonism beginning in 1820 which I find problematic. Maybe 1828 at the earliest for when Smith and co. seemed to be on a path that would lead to a new splitting off from the Christianity trunk. Perhaps they are just using decades and felt 1830 wasn't accurate because the split happened before the official establishment of the Mormon church? Don't know.

[Jersey Girl]

I wouldn't mind seeing a timeline of the development of religions. Perhaps there is one on the Internet...you would think so.

Given the scope of this, I imagine this is a very over-simplified example:



It also has Mormonism beginning in 1820 which I find problematic. Maybe 1828 at the earliest for when Smith and co. seemed to be on a path that would lead to a new splitting off from the Christianity trunk. Perhaps they are just using decades and felt 1830 wasn't accurate because the split happened before the official establishment of the Mormon church? Don't know.

Oh honor. Thank you!

[Moksha]

Jersey Girl, sorry to hear about your dog. My heart goes out to you.

[dastardly stem]

Dastardly stem, I suspect that the phrase , "I never knew you" is a figure of speech referring to a lack of connection of an important type. You have clearly identified reasons that it does not make any sense in a strict literal sense.

Thanks again for responding Huckleberry. I have a hard time figuring out how the New Testament's usage was but a figure of speech. what was the intended meaning?

I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity

It's at least interesting to view this as a figure of speech--meaning, I suppose, that it is a non-literal sentiment. So here we have a believer who for his life prayed to God, sought to do good for God, thought, apparently, he was included in God's favored, and is told at the end, for whatever unspecified reason that God never knew him. But it's not literally that God never knew him, its just figurative, in that God never really was with him, or heard his pleas or thought much of him, or other such stuff?

"I mean, I know you. I can see you thought you were trying to do good by praying to me and seeking my will, but you failed. So don't literally depart from me...just literally move over here onto my left side, and I won't literally spew you forth out of my mouth--that's just figurative. So it's not that big of deal".

Is that how you see it? Sorry to clutter this up a bit.

I don't really see how there's much of a distinction here. Either God really never knew these many believers, or God is so opposed or upset with their efforts or their non-efforts that it's essentially as if he never really knew them.

You refer to Matthew 25 . verse 41 clarifies, Depart from me you accursed for I was hungry and you gave me no food, naked and you did not cloth me........as you did it not to one of the least of these you did it not to me.

huh? Verse 41? That's a different parable. The lesson of the 10 virgins is believers don't know the day nor hour when Jesus comes back, so they should do something that meets the demands of trimming your lamps with oil and have it on the ready at any time. You are applying the lesson summed up for the parable of the talents to the parable of the ten virgins. The parable of the talents has it's own problems. Who fails to help give food, or shelter to others? I mean those who don't have enough to give, I suppose. And perhaps there are some people out there who don't give much of anything and just keep it for themselves, or whatever. But for the most part, humans seemingly want to help their neighbor. Of course there is room to say we individually could give more. But this presents it as if there is either/or which simply isn't reality. We all give, we all take, we all try. But of course, I'm thinking generally and not just of believers. I'd say it's about the same for those who believe. So who are the many believers whom God curses, and casts into everlasting fire? (I realize you are likely to say that is just a figure of speech to, but again, the effect is the point).

It is true that the 10 virgins story does not specify what they lacked beyond concern for the situation. You will have to use your head to interpret.

Not really. The story is pretty stupid. Life simply isn't either/or as Jesus, apparently, liked to paint it. Part of the problem, of course, is people can rightly guess many things that he meant, but no one really knows. What is the oil?

"well, you didn't get baptized and enter into his covenant when given a chance", says the Mormon.

"well, you didn't really have faith, you weren't really Christian", says the conservative Protestant.

"well, God didn't elect you. He chooses and it's out of your hands", says the Calivinist.

And so on.

[huckelberry]

Stem, the phrase "I never knew you" is not part of the ten virgins parable. It is in Matthew followed by the explicit explanation I mentioned. Jesus returns again and again to his dislike of people who make show of their piety without being helpful to others. Those would also be the people with no oil in their lamp.

If you are thinking of other stories than I am you might note chapter verse so we can are speak of the same things.

[huckelberry]

Doc, Your straightforward question about Christ and Buddhism I made a response to located at the top of page 13. You have followed with a couple of questions which I did not understand. Perhaps I did not catch the connections you thought were obvious.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc, Your straightforward question about Christ and Buddhism I made a response to located at the top of page 13. You have followed with a couple of questions which I did not understand. Perhaps I did not catch the connections you thought were obvious.

Meh, it’s not a big deal. I appreciate the good faith effort, though. You’re a good egg.

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

Stem, the phrase "I never knew you" is not part of the ten virgins parable. It is in Matthew followed by the explicit explanation I mentioned. Jesus returns again and again to his dislike of people who make show of their piety without being helpful to others. Those would also be the people with no oil in their lamp.

If you are thinking of other stories than I am you might note chapter verse so we can are speak of the same things.

Hey Huckleberry, I'm aware that we are speaking about two different parts of the New Testament. (I am the one who mentioned them). One part is found in Matthew 7 where it is taught that God never knew many believers, even though it suggest they tried to do good by him. He seems intent on telling them they failed. the closest thing he indicates was their evil was they were like a foolish person who built their house on sand, or heard his "sayings" but "doeth them not". I was commenting on your idea that his statement of not ever knowing these many believers is really just a figure of speech. I was also curious about your characterization that it's ok because "The people he says he does not know are specifically those who do not bother to help others". Which doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me, since 1. Everyone helps others to some extent or another--it's not an either/or thing. 2. Jesus is declaring he won't help many believers? If it is good to help others, then why is he intent on teaching and exemplifying the notion that he only wants to help some others, even though, as it turns out, he supposedly has the power to help all others? Also, I would be curious to know who doesn't help others?

Then I commented too on the Parable of the virgins because as I saw it we both were commenting on these last week and I hadn't got back to it until today. I don't see how it's helpful to append to the parable of the virgins your notion that what he really means is what is summed up in verse 41 and 42--eemingly suggesting that half of the virgins, by not getting oil in their lamps refused to give to the needy and such. I don't think that works. The parable is already explained with it's moral being: you don't know when Jesus is coming so you have to do the arbitrary sounding thing he's commanded. As I suggested people have taken that to mean many things. We don't know specifically what he meant. I suppose one can think he meant "you didn't give enough money to poor people" and that's reasonable. But we don't know. And again, everyone gives. If he's being reasonable he'd have to suggest something more like, "well, you didn't give enough. Jim here gave enough...but you only gave a little in comparison". That'd make more sense.