# Jesus Who?



## Phre-massen.nash (Dec 29, 2012)

[h=3]It's time to clear up Jewish misconceptions about Christianity.[/h][h=4]By Amy-Jill Levine[/h]

_In the following article, the author describes common Jewish myths about Christianity and explains why she believes it is important for Jews to learn about Christianity. In subsequent articles, Levine will debunk these misconceptions and put the development of Christianity in historical context. These essays first appeared in Moment magazine, and were also published in _Best Spiritual Writing 2003_ (Jossey-Bass). Reprinted with permission of the author.


_


That many Christians have misperceptions about Judaism--views rang&shy;ing from the slightly humorous (all Jews are smart, all Jews can read He&shy;brew) to the blatantly obscene (Jews are children of the devil, Jews seek world domination) is common knowledge to us Jews. We would like our Christian neighbors to appreciate Judaism as a tradition of spiritual depth, profound practice, rich culture, and moral emphasis, and we would also like them to know that we Jews do not have horns, do not worship a God of wrath and law as opposed to a God of love and compassion, and do not spend much time worrying about the state of our immortal soul. 

But ignorance cuts both ways. It's time for us to learn more about Christianity: not just its history of anti-Semitism, but also its theological depth and system of morality.
[h=3]Why Learn More?[/h]Most Jews know little about Christianity, and what we know--impressions often gleaned from benign mall decorations of elves and bun&shy;nies to the spoutings of narrow-minded ministers convinced that they have a lock on heaven's doors--is likewise often mistaken. Our errors range also from the harmless (thinking that "Christ" is a last name) to the horrifying (thinking that all Christians are anti-Semites).
Yet, in fact, since the birth of the Christian church, we have been ask&shy;ing questions about this moment. Today, with the rise in Christian missionary efforts to convert Jews, on the one hand, and with the current congeniality of interfaith dialogue on the other, it's time to revisit these questions.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




Learning more about Christianity helps us in at least two ways. Not only does this type of inquiry tell us how anti-Jewish attitudes developed within the church, but also, informed historical discussion enables us both to appreciate the traditions of our Christian neighbors and to en&shy;hance our appreciation for the choices Judaism made.
[h=3]Mistaken Notions[/h]As a professor of the New Testament at a predominantly Christian di&shy;vinity school, I do get a lot of questions from Jews interested in what their Christian neighbors are thinking. Here are some of the issues I am most frequently confronted with:
â€¢ Jesus was a Jewish man who after his death was proclaimed to be divine. The whole _megillah_--virgin birth, walking on water, resurrection from the dead, ascending to heaven--is nonsense that no intelligent person could possibly believe.
â€¢ Christianity is primarily a pagan religion: Although they have the "Old Testament," they dumped all the laws; instead of recognizing that God is "One" (as expressed, for example, in the statement "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One"), they wor&shy;ship three gods, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit (who used to be called the "Holy Ghost"), and some worship the Virgin Mary. They are also idolators because they worship statues and paintings.
â€¢ Christians believe they eat the real body and the real blood of Jesus when they "take communion" and are thus engaged in some sort of cannibalism.
â€¢ Christians are necessarily anti-Jewish, think all Jews are going to hell, and therefore the proclamations of the church lead directly to the ovens of Auschwitz.
Each of these positions, however, is based on partial evidence only, and that evidence has been sifted through centuries of Christian persecution of Jews.
[h=3]What Christians Believe[/h]What do Christians really believe? The response begins with a word of warning. We can no more claim that "all Christians believe" something than we can claim that all Jews hold to a particular view. There are numerous groups within what is broadly called the "church": Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant; some churches are organized according to a particular system of leadership (popes or patriarchs, bishops, deacons, elders, etc.); some are independent. Some ordain women, and some do not; some approve of birth control and abortion, and some do not; some think that all Jews are going to hell, and some do not.

And not all church members agree with the official teachings of their church: Some Roman Catholics favor birth control, but the church's official line condemns it; some Presbyterians and United Methodists favor the or&shy;dination of gays and lesbians, but the official teaching of their denomina&shy;tions still forbids this. A few years ago, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention proclaimed that "God does not hear the prayers of the Jews"; numerous Baptists disagreed.
In other words, Christianity in terms of its di&shy;versity looks very much like Judaism. Thus, any comments that might be made about "what Christians think" are true only in a general sense.

Is the whole system nonsense? No, it actually makes a great deal of sense when seen in its historical context. The Christian proclamation was both developed and accepted by a number of Jews, so it must have made sense to them, and it clearly made sense to the greater number of pagans who joined the church. The reason many of the claims of the church ap&shy;pear so alien to Jews today is the passing of time; to understand how the church could begin within Judaism, we need to go back several genera&shy;tions before Jesus.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Dec 29, 2012)

Christians would do well to learn about Christianity.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Dec 30, 2012)

Yes, Christians would do well, and do well to learn about the lies spread by those who would twist Christianity's history and make long-discredited claims about the origins of the Faith.


----------



## widows son (Dec 31, 2012)

What exactly of the origins of Christianity are false?


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 31, 2012)

Origins?  Or, rather, interpretations?

It is human nature to affix truths to that which we do not understand.  Fear, prejudice, and ignorance reign supreme in all human emotions.

What more fertile ground than religion?


Think long and hard of these traits.  Then tell me who is qualified to cast the first stone.


----------



## widows son (Dec 31, 2012)

Well there are scholars who find facts about the origins of certain religions. Archeology doesn't lie.


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 31, 2012)

As long as you take into account the activity of pack rats, erosion, and thieves through the ages.  

I had a professor years ago who criticized many of his fellows, saying they liked to go out, mark off a grid, and go at it with front-end loaders.  Often you had to check the booster stickers on the back of the tractor to see which university was to blame.

Such critique is never lost to the wise.

hmy:


----------



## widows son (Dec 31, 2012)

I think regardless of what facts there are, a person will disregard them if it goes against what he/she was indoctrinated with, even if it is true.


----------



## jwhoff (Dec 31, 2012)

Unless they are willing to explore their faith.  How much stronger are the beliefs of someone who has taken the time to check the facts and find their beliefs, after honest examination, were indeed factual?

But you are right my brother, so very few are strong enough to even try.


----------



## widows son (Dec 31, 2012)

But those truths that they disregard are found when one divulges into their faith. Sometimes the truth contradicts.


----------



## daddyrich (Jan 1, 2013)

Remember that even only 100 years after the death of Jesus the Christ, church Fathers couldn't even agree upon his age at 'crucifixion' It's a shame, but opportunists will always jump at the chance to join a movement to further themselves and their greed for temporal power. As true now as it was then. Just read some of the early works against heresies, very little cohesion but clothed in authority.


----------



## widows son (Jan 1, 2013)

I'm quite familiar with the heresies. All religions are based on former religions. A newer religion will borrower successful ideas from former religions to further ground itself on legitimacy and authority. We see this in the worlds 3 major religions. I believe at one point there was a prevalent belief system among ancient humans that spread across the globe once they decided to migrate out of Africa. Still a theory but a very plausible one.


----------



## jwhoff (Jan 1, 2013)

That's plausible.  Man's greatest quest it to discover his origins and purpose.


----------



## widows son (Jan 1, 2013)

I don't think we will find our purpose, only because I think our purpose is to just live and experience. If you look at it a certain way: as beings we are composed of matter, that was created when our sun created the solar system, which much earlier was created by the universe. We are a direct product of the universe, so therefore we are the universe. So one can say we are a way for the universe to observe itself.


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Jan 2, 2013)

Religion is beautiful because it shows man's quest to know himself and God.

Religion is terrible because it shows what man is willing to do to others on a quest.


----------



## widows son (Jan 2, 2013)

Religion is an institution created by man, spirituality is a gift given from the creator.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 3, 2013)

widows son said:


> I'm quite familiar with the heresies. All religions are based on former religions. A newer religion will borrower successful ideas from former religions to further ground itself on legitimacy and authority. We see this in the worlds 3 major religions. I believe at one point there was a prevalent belief system among ancient humans that spread across the globe once they decided to migrate out of Africa. Still a theory but a very plausible one.



Agreed, and Christianity is based primarily upon Judaism. The problem is that most people, Christian or not, are quite ignorant of the full variety of Judaism during the last Temple Era. Most people blindly believe that modern (Rabbinical) Judaism, in its three major forms, is what Judaism always have been. Thus, when some element of Christianity does not agree with Rabbinical Judaism, it is automatically (blindly) attributed to "pagan" sources. Angelology/Hagiology? Jewish. "High Church Liturgy"? Jewish. Festivals and celebrations? Jewish. Messianism? Jewish. The "Word"? Jewish. They just aren't Rabbinical Jewish. Yes, there were other elements openly adopted and not concealed at the time, but they were usually adopted as "prefigurations" or "prophecies" of the basic Christian message.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 3, 2013)

widows son said:


> Religion is an institution created by man, spirituality is a gift given from the creator.



Mushy "spirituality" is a temptation from the Enemy, every but as much as a totalitarian and tyrannical "religion".


----------



## widows son (Jan 3, 2013)

Most recent archeology has shown that the majority of Judaism sprang from former Canaanite beliefs, in fact substantial evidence is showing that the Jews are Canaanites, and that in some part of the past a peasant population revolted and replace the urban Canaanites with a new faith and a new identity, still a theory in the works, but a numerous amount of pottery and other artifacts are helping to push this along. We know that Judaism as we now it today sprang from their time in Babylon, in which they tried to preserve their culture among many others. Christianity does have its roots on Judaism, but as it was brought to Rome it started to become something else. I have yet to find anything on the contrary to show me that Mithras and his many attributes are the precursor to the attributes of Christ: his birthday, his divine status, the shedding of blood for sins (the bull), virgin birth, died and rose from the grave. In those days most religions resembled each other, as a result of the middle east being a hot bed of different ideas and philosophies. In fact there are many things the early church adopted from other faiths to incorporate into Christianity. As far as spirituality being a device of the "enemy" consider the following. Spirituality, not religion has been at the forefront of human evolution. There is substantial evidence to prove that proto humans such as homo erectus, homo habilis, Neanderthal and the first Homo sapiens all were spiritual and even helped propel their evolution. Also take into account that once religions appeared on the scene humans started to war each other. Also note that a religion among other things has the sole purpose of self preservation, so control over its subjects is imperative, where as spirituality has the freedom of ones own consciousness. Before you mock spirituality consider how much more sense does your faith make? Does your faith provide you with the proper facts based on what has been proven to be true, on the origin of the universe? Of humanity?  Nope. Does spirituality do? Nope, but it at least will leave room for that acceptance, where as your faith doesn't. Before you mock my faith consider that your faith has shed more blood in the name god than spirituality has. Also consider that if your faith is superior,why is it divided and have many sects? If christs word is the word, why is his church divided? Why were catholics killing protestants and protestants killing catholics? Before you mock spirituality as a totalitarian belief system consider that your faith at one point tried to unify the world with Christianity at the helm, not many people's cup of tea. Spirituality has never condemned anyone for their belief.  Spirituality has never spread hate in the name of god and Christ, as we see certain sects in America doing. Spirituality is the oldest form of veneration to the unknown. Unlike religion where it claims to have the answers, spirituality claims it doesn't, but relies on the human being to make sense of the world around them using the tools that helped propel us to where we are in the first place. Spiritualities aim is close to that of religion, the difference is there is no finality, no limit. Because it acknowledges as humans we have a long way to go until we find the right answer, and never claims to have the final answer as some faiths do. If you choose to
mock my faith that is fine, I will not mock yours as that is disrespectful, but what I will do is continue to show you facts, to show that you and your faith are nowhere near superior to anyone or anything.


----------



## widows son (Jan 3, 2013)

Btw, the definition of spirituality is: a way for a conscious being  to make sense of his environment, his place, his origins, and role in the universe, using pre existing and current factual information, that has been passed down through generations (as we see in early human species) and trial and error ( as we see today)


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 3, 2013)

widows son said:


> Christianity does have its roots on Judaism, but as it was brought to Rome it started to become something else.


 
This is very typical of the Latinocentric beliefs of Western Christianity. Rome is all, Rome is everything, Rome is the beginning, the middle, and the end. My Church existed before "it was brought to Rome" and has existed independent of Rome from those days. Jesuits and Evangelicals are united in denying this, since it would violate their political ecclesiology and call into question their competing claims of absolute supremacy. Regarding the tired old lie that Christianity = Mithraism, that's a fairy tale invented in the 19th century by Evangelicals seeking to discredit anything they deemed to be "Popish". Fortunately, some Evangelicals have been honest enough to actually study history and not just repeat the same old tales: http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-connection.html.



> Spirituality, not religion has been at the forefront of human evolution. There is substantial evidence to prove that proto humans such as homo erectus, homo habilis, Neanderthal and the first Homo sapiens all were spiritual and even helped propel their evolution.


 
And the evidence that this "spirituality" was not expressed as religion is what? I have equally as much evidence to claim they WERE religious and the various artifacts found are all artifacts of religious activities.



> Also take into account that once religions appeared on the scene humans started to war each other.



More 19th-century empty speculation.



> Also note that a religion among other things has the sole purpose of self preservation



Sounds more like dogmatic diatribe on your part than a necessary attribute of religion. You sound like the teenage self-appointed _philosophes_ of my college days. Blah blah blah--religion bad. Blah blah blah--religion bad--but be sure to construct a straw man parody of religion and then blindly and dogmatically insist that this is the "true" definition of religion.



> Does your faith provide you with the proper facts based on what has been proven to be true, on the origin of the universe? Of humanity?  Nope. Does spirituality do? Nope, but it at least will leave room for that acceptance, where as your faith doesn't.


 
Prove it. Prove that my faith does not do these things. Go ahead, since you write as if you are infallible and omniscient, go ahead and prove your accusations. You can certainly find clergy of my Church who might have written or write all manner of things--including things that contradict each other. This is because the questions are bigger than any man's ability to comprehend the answers. My Church does not have a human monarch considered omnicompetent to rule on all issues.



> Also consider that if your faith is superior,why is it divided and have many sects?


 
My faith is not divided. There is the Church, and there are those who left the Church or have never known the Church. Christ's Church has never been divided. Catholics and Protestants kill each other because they are human, and that's what humans do when confronted with the idea that something is greater than they are. In any case, what two groups of heretics do to each other is not a matter of issue regarding the Church. Both groups are outside the Church.



> If christs word is the word, why is his church divided? Why were catholics killing protestants and protestants killing catholics? Before you mock spirituality as a totalitarian belief system consider that your faith at one point tried to unify the world with Christianity at the helm



And any "spiritual" person who blindly and dogmatically puts down "religion" is trying to do exactly the same thing--he just lies to himself and everyone else about making the attempt.



> Spirituality is the oldest form of veneration to the unknown.


 
Evidence? No tired old 19th-century nonsense or modern re-hashes of that stuff.



> mock my faith that is fine, I will not mock yours as that is disrespectful, but what I will do is continue to show you facts, to show that you and your faith are nowhere near superior to anyone or anything.



Every negative screed you post about "religion" is mocking my faith. Of course, you exempt yourself from your own standards.


----------



## widows son (Jan 3, 2013)

Also I'd like to note that the so called scholars who refute this are of the Christian denomination, so how can they be credible when they have a vital interest in not showing anything that contradicts their faith, fact or
not?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 3, 2013)

widows son said:


> Btw, the definition of spirituality is: a way for a conscious being  to make sense of his environment, his place, his origins, and role in the universe, using pre existing and current factual information, that has been passed down through generations (as we see in early human species) and trial and error ( as we see today)



Source of this alleged "definition"? Cambridge disagrees: *the quality of involving deep, often religious, feelings and beliefs, rather than the physical parts of life. *Webster also disagrees with you.

I predict you will go full Humpty Dumpty on me and insist that your little pseudo-definition is the "true" definition.


----------



## widows son (Jan 3, 2013)

Well there is a problem with your latinocentric comment. First off the core attributes of Christ are the same no matter what part of Christianity you choose to affiliate yourself with, eastern, roman, Protestant, Calvinism, they all follow the attributes set out by the council of Nicea. This is fact. We do not see the other Christian sects refuting this or changing this. All they did was do away with the pomp and political hierarchy  that dragged down the roman sect. All the churches became basic in decor, reflecting the simplicity that should characterize the teaching of the Christ. As far as Mithras: birthday: Dec 25th, shed the blood of the bull for the sins of the world, was known as "the way" "the light" etc. also note that Mithras had a halo as well, but was attributed to him as the status of the sun god. And there's more. Just take it upon yourself to look, if you can get around the your dogmatic mentality.  Your evangelical comment also doesn't make sense as they are firmly in the belief of Christ as the sole saviour and would never attribute him to another lesser god. Ancient hominids never had any form of organization in their beliefs. They lived in family units and new innovations barely left the group due to them being territorial, but as Homo sapiens evolved and spread so did their ideas. Their spiritual ideas are what led to religion, but not until agriculture was domesticated. These ancient people revered certain aspects of nature which they knew they could predict, such as tidal forces so they can gather shellfish, moon phases for the seasons, fertility etc. these people were very superstitious, but there is zero evidence for worship of any deity. Please explain to me how any of this is 19th century thought. These studies have been carried on since then yes, but  how exactly is it false?  In 20,000BC Homo sapiens and Neanderthals warred over territory for hunting and living space, but not a shred of evidence shows that there was a religious or spiritual motive behind it. The earliest documentation of war between Sumerian and Akkadian people's shows that their "god" was behind them. Somewhere between 20,000BC and 10,000 BC religion became a major driving force behind conquest. We know this because the earliest records of civilization are in full swing, when we know it takes a lot of time to develop complex ideas of society and beliefs, Which makes sense because around 10,000bc agriculture was discovered, which led to civilization. As for my blah blah blah on religion, explain to me how this isn't the case. Whenever a religion needs to spread itself, it usually means that its trying to preserve its existence. Collecting more converts ensures a lengthy survival. Not all religions do this, only the ones who feel threatened by other ideals. Also wouldn't this be the case today? We see Christian sects agreeing with scientific ideas when 50 years ago it was refuted, and this is not just with Roman Catholicism. To me you sound like someone who is afraid that modern techniques will do away with religion.  The proof that your faith doesn't open up for newer possibilities is: that the only way to discover God is through Christ. That science cant discover the qualities of God, that other faiths are inferior to Christianity, that most Christian sects condemn organizations such as freemasonry who have paved the way for free thinking that we enjoy today, that every person is born a sinner even though when we enter the world we have no clue between evil and good, that humans are older than 6000 years. And many more that I don't feel like typing out. You may choose not to acknowledge it but your faith is divided. If it wasn't and was the one true faith there wouldn't be the 1000 something versions of Christianity, but this is true with other faiths as well but expected from something that is imperfect, created from an imperfect being. You continually say that I'm rehashing 19th century beliefs when that is not the case. The 19th century brought a new wave of ideas as technology brought the world closer, but these ideas have been continually studied. Here are some modern scholars who have continued this thought: Carl Jung, Freud, Albert Einstein, Robert Eisenman, Manly P Hall, Matt Ridley, Spencer Wells as well as many more, but I'll let you do some work.  I don't mock your faith. There are brothers on here who are not offended by the facts presented, only you seem to be, but the truth can hurt, but you shouldn't let it. I hold my beliefs up just as anyone, but if something comes along to prove it wrong I accept it, not throw some nonsensical jargon to reinforce it. I hold my beliefs up to the same standards I do to any belief. Again there are many authors who have shown the extreme similarity and overlapping quality in all religions to ever exist. Does this make your religion or any other less important? Absolutely not. Religion and spirituality are different but yearn for the same end result. As much as I am not Christian, I respect it, not because of the Christ or authority or age, but because of its teachings.


----------



## widows son (Jan 3, 2013)

Dont deep religious feelings stem from the questions of our origins and purpose? That's great that Webster and Cambridge say that, in fact it just reinforces the definition!


----------



## Frater Cliff Porter (Jan 3, 2013)

I think spirituality and religion both have value, but I don't either of you should put the other in the place of having to defend it.  I think that is different than discussing it.


----------



## widows son (Jan 3, 2013)

Very true, however there is certain things presented that are hard to refute, because of what we are learning about the past.  And if one is going to deny and be condescending at the same time with a comment such as "19th century nonsense", then at least elaborate. Jesus isn't the first to preach what he preached, but if his words are what strikes you more than any other then follow it. I respect that.  When the past is being dug up and we look into their world and see things that might contradict our own beliefs, that is up to the individual to reconcile. But it doesn't any less degrade what you are believing in.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 8, 2013)

Frater Cliff Porter said:


> I think spirituality and religion both have value, but I don't either of you should put the other in the place of having to defend it.  I think that is different than discussing it.



Religion and spirituality are no more opposite than the Key of B flat Major and the "Star Spangled Banner" are opposed. Claiming that religion is opposed to spirituality is as buffoonish as claiming that specific songs are opposed to the keys they are in. Going around putting down "religion" and cheerleading "spirituality" is as dimwitted as going around putting down Greek and cheerleading "language". I would think that such a fundamental truth would have been self-evident.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 8, 2013)

widows son said:


> Very true, however there is certain things presented that are hard to refute, because of what we are learning about the past.  And if one is going to deny and be condescending at the same time with a comment such as "19th century nonsense", then at least elaborate. Jesus isn't the first to preach what he preached, but if his words are what strikes you more than any other then follow it. I respect that.  When the past is being dug up and we look into their world and see things that might contradict our own beliefs, that is up to the individual to reconcile. But it doesn't any less degrade what you are believing in.



But you do go around degrading what others believe in and do it often. Then, when you are called on your misbehavior, you backpedal, weasel, and act in a most unmanly fashion. If you are going to put something like religion down, be honorable enough to glory in this or virtuous enough to admit to it, apologize, and cease doing so.

You will do neither, since you have done neither.


----------



## BEDickey (Jan 9, 2013)

I would recommend everyone look up Jordan Maxwell, student and friend of the late great Manly P. Hall, for the truth about all religions. Many faiths claim "astrology" to be evil, but all are based in it. Christianity came to power in the age of Pisces, so you have much "fish symbolism", ring of the fisherman, being a fisher of men, feeding people with two fish, the Jesus fish car symbol. Modern Judaism was founded in the age of Aries, hence they blow the Rams Horn. However it has it's beginnings in the age of Taurus, hence worshiping the golden calf in the bible, along with the Hindu religion, which is why cows and bulls are sacred to them. Mazzaroth is even the ancient name of the Zodiac as given by the early Jewish people's. The seat of the Popes Throne has a large golden zodiac on it. There were 4 major (7 total) cults of the ancient world, the stellar, lunar, solar and saturnian cults. Christianity is an amalgamation of all of them. An "astro-theological hybrid", if you will. Heck even that animal symbols for the Matt, Mark, Luke and John are Zodiac symbols, the lion (Leo) the eagle (Scorpio) the bull (Taurus) and Angel (Aquarius). I know some of our more devout brother will hate what I have just said, and not want believe it. But I use this analogy. If someone were to wake you up with a bright Light, is not the natural reaction to turn away from it? Now ask yourself how many Church congregations and sects use the Sun, rising Sun or other similar symbols? How many times have you seen Jesus the Christ (as he should be truly called, as "Christ" is not a name but a title meaning "anointed with oils") depicted with the Sun behind his head. Or the cross with a circle on it (known as a Celtic cross), depicting the 4 seasons. Nothing is hidden from us, our creator in his wisdom gave us not only eyes, ears, nose mouth and skin to learn about this world he gave us, but also a mind with which to reason and think. Did Jesus not say "Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts; the incense of your offerings disgusts me! As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath and your special days for fasting--they are all sinful and false. I want no more of your pious meetings" " Come let us reason, together"


----------



## BEDickey (Jan 9, 2013)

I forgot to add, Jesus is a symbolical representation of the sun as is passes threw the zodiac. He was born of a virgin (born in Virgo), and brought Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh, ancient symbols of the Sun, in recognition of him being the Sun King. The Three Wise Men is an ancient name for the 3 stars in Orion's belt which just so happen to point the the exact spot of the Suns rise on the day of Jesus's current birthday (which has been changed many times) He raised to prominence being known as the Lion of the Tribe of Juda(meaning he is the Lion King or Solar king, Lion = Leo = The Sun). I mean he is even called "The Son". He is betrayed by Judas with a Kiss, this is the origin of the phrase "kissed off" and of the mafia habit of kissing those marked for death. Scorpions are known in the middle east to sting twice, one on top of the other, looking exactly like a pair of lips, hence in those days you really did get "the kiss of death". This is the origin of Jesus(the sun) being kissed by Judas, in Scorpio the Sun begins its fall into darkness and continues until the resurrection on Easter, when the ancients knew the Sun, after just barely coming over the horizon in the sky for 3 days, during which it was though of as "dead", rises one degree higher in the sky, the sign that the Son will once again come to full strength and reign over the earth as the "Light of the World", the Son of God, the Sun, who gives his life so that we may live, with out which all life on the earth would indeed parish, and fast. Jesus was asked, how would we know what do to at the end of things, he responds with,"As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters." this is a blatant reference to Aquarius. Not only that, at the time of its writing no man EVER carried water, it was a woman's job, strictly. This is where we get stories of woman hanging around and gossiping at the local well in ancient times. The fact he would say a man is carrying it only makes it more suspect when you know the customs of the times. This is just an allegory of the Sun moving out of the age of Pisces into the age of Aquarius. The more we all start learning these truths, why they were written and the meaning behind them the sooner we can all learn to live in peace and not slaughter ourselves in the name of religion.


----------



## BEDickey (Jan 9, 2013)

Also if anyone would like some more Light on this subject I would be happy to help, just send me a PM. Also a fun fact, Israel is really Isis, Ra, and El. Isis an ancient moon goddess of the Egyptians, Ra(everyone should know that name) the ancient "high" sun god of the Egyptians, and El, the name of the god of the Saturnian cults faith. Ever wonder where the after prayer saying "Amen" comes from? "Amun Ra" the "final" name of Ra, is the answer. Ever wonder why the Sun sets or we turn lights on? On was an ancient name of the Sun. And after Horus(where we get hours from, also a name for the Sun) got done fighting with Set, the personification of darkness, the sun would disappear into darkness as Set ruled the world, until Horus was reborn/resurrected to fight off Set again and cover the World in his life giving Light.


----------



## BEDickey (Jan 9, 2013)

Also, I would like to earnestly ask the more faithful among the Brethren to give me there opinion on the Bible. If it is the absolute word of God, why has it been changed/rewritten so many times? The Bible as we know it(KJV), was set down during the time of Sir Frances Bacon in the 1500s. What of the Gospels of Thomas and Mary? They are known to be true Gospels but were excluded from the Bible. Why was it forbidden under penalty of death for anyone but a priest to read from the Bible in early years? Most of the those years it was also chained to the alters of the church. While it may sound like I am trying to cause trouble, I wish to honestly know how someone can believe the Bible is the Absolute word of God, while still knowing these facts to be true. Or do these facts cause doubt and as such are ignored? If it makes it even I shall discuss my Faith, in any manner you wish (i am a student of Hermes Trismagistus aka Mercurius ter Maximus aka Thoth-Hermes, known as a Hermeticist)


----------



## widows son (Jan 9, 2013)

Thank you bro. BEDickey for elaborating further on my comment. Bryan, I think your analogies aren't appropriate for the context. All I'm trying to convey is the similarities between religions past and present.  I won't stop conversing about this because I don't have to. From the amount of info that I've come across, and experienced, is enough evidence for me to continue thinking and believing in what I've been talking about on this thread and others. If that doesn't sit well with you, then that's something your going to have to reconcile and is also not my problem. I've tried being civilized with you, but it just doesn't seem to work.  Also i dont see you doing anything to prove me wrong, other than being condescending and insulting. Others believe in what I talk about too, and I will continue to express my belief. Also there are devote Christian brethren on here that I've personally conversed with and aren't the least bit offended by what i believe in. Never have I said anything derogatory about any faith. And anything I've said concerning any faith has been said or written on here by people other than me also. I've never said anyone is stupid or worse, for believing in what they believe in. I merely point out and converse on topics that have been studied by many academics, so take your problems up with them. As for my behavior, maybe you should look at yours. We have opposing beliefs, but in the true spirit of
Masonry I welcome an respect your beliefs, even though they are opposed to mine. I really can't say the same about you. So I'm not going to apologize for what I believe in.  I will continue to read and research and post topics on the subject(s) so they can be discussed with brethren who are interested. If you want to converse with me about this or any other topic, feel free to private message me. 

Fraternally,
Widows Son
Merritt Lodge No. 168


----------



## widows son (Jan 9, 2013)

Bro. BEDickey I ask myself the same questions all the time.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 10, 2013)

BEDickey said:


> Also, I would like to earnestly ask the more faithful among the Brethren to give me there opinion on the Bible. If it is the absolute word of God, why has it been changed/rewritten so many times? The Bible as we know it(KJV),


 
The Bible as I know it is not KJV. Not all of us are Western Christians. My own Church has maintained its Scriptural tradition independently of the West.



> What of the Gospels of Thomas and Mary? They are known to be true Gospels but were excluded from the Bible. Why was it forbidden under penalty of death for anyone but a priest to read from the Bible in early years?


 
1: The spurious books you mention have NEVER been accepted as "true Gospels" except by fringe groups and crackpots.
2: At NO TIME AT ALL in the history of my Church, going back to the earliest days in Jerusalem, was there any such prohibition on reading Scripture by non-priests. Why do you persist in spreading pernicious lies?

Let me guess, you also believe the tired old lie that the Bible was only permitted to be in Latin, too. Latin was never popular in my Church. Greek, Slavonic, Syriac, and the other LOCAL languages of the people were used and have always been used.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 10, 2013)

widows son said:


> Never have I said anything derogatory about any faith.



That is a flat-out lie. You have stated, multiple times, that religion is about nothing but power. Now, you will puff yourself up in false injured dignity and compound your lie by lying further.


----------



## jvarnell (Jan 10, 2013)

BEDickey said:


> the truth about all religions"



I am sorry but when I here someone state "the truth" about anything I have a problem.  Even if 99% of everone think that it is the truth it may not be.  The truth is only the truth untill proven diferent and we as humans can only acknowlage what we beleive is true to ourselfs.


----------



## widows son (Jan 10, 2013)

In my opinion some are. It doesn't mean that I think the followers are. Again Bryan not my problem if you have an issue with what I believe in. Also before the reformation in England priests were the only ones who could read the bible, and was always in Latin. Thank god for the printing press.


----------



## widows son (Jan 10, 2013)

Bryan in my opinion most religions are about control, but I don't necessarily think the followers are. Again it's not my problem, nor do I care if you have an issue with my beliefs. Also in England before the reformation, priests were the only ones who could read the bible, and it was only printed in Latin, at least in Europe. This  was one of the reasons for the reformation. Thank god for the printing press.


----------



## widows son (Jan 10, 2013)

Sorry didn't mean to repost. This app is acting screwy.


----------



## widows son (Jan 10, 2013)

I also love how you deem anything that doesn't fit in your box of reality, crackpottery, or nonsense. Have you anything to counter this claim? No offense, but by you just saying its crackpot isn't really credible. I'm sure your church maintains traditions that didn't make it to Europe, to be honest you've never really said what part of Christianity you follow, nor is it my business so I really can't comment.


----------



## BEDickey (Jan 10, 2013)

Bryan, are you a Coptic? In that case I would agree with you, Coptic Christians are a unique subset of the Faith, and maintain many links to the Egyptian faith. I would ask also, if you don't use the KJV, what version do you use?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 13, 2013)

widows son said:


> In my opinion some are. It doesn't mean that I think the followers are. Again Bryan not my problem if you have an issue with what I believe in. Also before the reformation in England priests were the only ones who could read the bible, and was always in Latin. Thank god for the printing press.



ENGLAND IS IRRELEVANT TO MY CHURCH, so stop pretending that all Christians are limited by your ignorance of history. There was never any "Reformation" for my Church. Latin was always a minor little tongue, not mandated by any stretch of the imagination. Stop imputing the problems of Rome to all of Christianity. You are quite persistent in your bigotry.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 13, 2013)

BEDickey said:


> Bryan, are you a Coptic? In that case I would agree with you, Coptic Christians are a unique subset of the Faith, and maintain many links to the Egyptian faith. I would ask also, if you don't use the KJV, what version do you use?



I am an adherent to the Orthodox Church, often known as the "Eastern Orthodox Church" in the West. Contrary to the lies spread by Jesuits and some Evangelical proselytizers, we are not merely "Catholics without the Pope". We have substantial doctrinal, praxis, and historical differences from Rome and her children. The Copts, by the way, are not some isolated group off on its own but are part of the "Oriental Orthodox" communion, which is closer to the Eastern Orthodox than to other Christian groups and includes the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church, the native churches of India (as opposed to the European-sponsored groups), and several others. If you want to go around claiming that the Copts are a relic of Egyptian paganism, I suggest you tell this to the face a of few Copts and see if they let you keep your nose. After all, if you are going to make such claims about the Coptic Church, that means you DO personally know a few Copts, right? As a matter of fact, I do know personally know some Copts.

I get rather prickly about claims made regarding "Christianity" because they almost always are based on non-scholarship of the 18th-19th centuries, in which a purely Latinized "history" was accepted without question--and what wasn't from this was simply made up from whole cloth. It served the purposes of Rome and the Reformationists to deny any uniqueness to both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, so the "scholars" of the west went along with this.

As for versions of Scripture, my Church has never had a sanctioned English text. This is because there were very, very few Orthodox who only spoke English until the late 20th century. Thus, multiple translations are acceptable, but none are officially sanctioned. In recent years, a sanctioned translation has been started: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/ It will not be mandated, but it is meant to be the "go-to" translation for English speaking Orthodox Christians. However, since it is a scholars' edition, it is a bit pricey, and it's being published piecemeal at the moment.


----------



## LRG (Jan 13, 2013)

" Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". The belief in my Lord Jesus Christ is not a religion, it is faith. It matters not how old he was or the color of his hair nor what star was where. To me it matters not what jewish persobs or any other person believes in, but my belief and that of my family. For the Father Son and Holy Spirit is One and Jesus Christ is the Son of Our Almighty Father)


----------



## widows son (Jan 14, 2013)

Amen.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 14, 2013)

What is the specific difference between a "religion" and a "faith"? It sounds like claiming that "music" somehow manages to exist without any songs at all. The moment that one has any concrete expression of "faith" it is religion. Is Freemasonry, with its ritual, practices, special spaces, etc. not really a fraternity? Instead, those who really "understand" would have "Fraternity" but would reject "Freemasonry"?

Just a Freemasonry, the Elks, the Lions, etc., all are expressions of "fraternity", and "fraternity" simply does not and cannot exist outside of some specific expression, so "faith" cannot exist outside of some specific expression, and that expression is named "religion".


----------



## jwhoff (Jan 14, 2013)

I can't agree with that statement.  Religion is man-made.  One's faith is, or should be, something else entirely.


----------



## widows son (Jan 14, 2013)

Agreed. What if you put your faith in humanity? That we will get over our problems and push forward? I don't thing religion can claim faith for its own.


----------



## crono782 (Jan 14, 2013)

> so "faith" cannot exist outside of some specific expression


George Michael would like a word with you. :laugh:

Hah,I'm sure BM is referring to faith in the religious context rather than the broader definition of "complete trust in somebody or something". I have faith that my car will start in the mornings.


----------



## widows son (Jan 14, 2013)

Right, but you don't base it on a way to live your life


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 15, 2013)

jwhoff said:


> I can't agree with that statement.  Religion is man-made.  One's faith is, or should be, something else entirely.



Faith is as "man-made" as is religion. What one might choose to put faith in could be Divine, but that doesn't make the faith you have any less "man-made". 

Of course, there is a self-lie told by some "Christians" in the present day that their own personal flavor of religion isn't a religion but is "a faith". Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...


----------



## widows son (Jan 15, 2013)

But they could easily say the same about you.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Jan 15, 2013)

widows son said:


> Right, but you don't base it on a way to live your life



Brother that's not entirely true.  I am a commuter, I have to base my life on the hope that my car will start in the morning.  If it don't start, I don't eat!


----------



## widows son (Jan 16, 2013)

But that is not the context in which faith is being described. Do you have faith that when your car dies, it will come back to save you?


----------



## jwhoff (Jan 16, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...




Right you are!  

And we all know what they say about ducks.

:40:


----------



## crono782 (Jan 16, 2013)

> And we all know what they say about ducks.



???

That they walk into bars, order drinks, and say "put it on my bill"?
:49:


----------



## widows son (Jan 16, 2013)

Haha, I'm using that one.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Jan 16, 2013)

widows son said:


> But that is not the context in which faith is being described. Do you have faith that when your car dies, it will come back to save you?



Sorry Brother  I guess my sense of humor didn't entirely communicate through that last post.   But now that we are there on the serious tip: A. My car doesn't have a life or a soul so it can't technically die  and B.  My definition of faith doesn't mean someone will come back to save me , to me faith is when you count on something to happen without actually knowing whether "it" will happen.  Whatever "it" is, is entirely up to the faith holder.

Damn I am glad we don't talk about this kind of stuff at lodge, the Brothers bicker enough as it is about whether or night we are servicing coffee at refreshment or not!


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 16, 2013)

widows son said:


> But they could easily say the same about you.



My religion is a religion, I don't claim it isn't a religion. That doesn't mean I blindly accept all other religions as being equal. After all, are all fraternities equal?


----------



## widows son (Jan 17, 2013)

Sorry SeeKer, right over my head I guess. But wouldn't my comment fall under what you describe to be faith? Do you not count on Christ to return, without actually knowing it will happen? You put faith in that he will. Your car analogy is a good example, but faith is a broad definition. I guess I'm just trying to say that one need not look just to religion to have faith. 
  Bryan, I can really comment on other fraternities because I don't really know enough about them. I do know fraternities such as AMORC, Oddfellows, Lions Clubs etc, promote fraternity, character building, and community effort, which we do as masons, so in that sense id say there's an equal platform. I too believe that all religions share a common quality in terms of morals, traditions, and deity, among fraternal ties, character building, and community effort.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Jan 17, 2013)

widows son said:


> Sorry SeeKer, right over my head I guess. But wouldn't my comment fall under what you describe to be faith? Do you not count on Christ to return, without actually knowing it will happen? You put faith in that he will. Your car analogy is a good example, but faith is a broad definition. I guess I'm just trying to say that one need not look just to religion to have faith.



Actually, Brother, I would like for Christ to come and absolve me of my sins and all that, but do I count on it?  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Christ was a man, and his words have been interpreted and translated so many times that I personally do not know what will happen, what I do know is that I put my faith in the Father, the GAOTU and my respect to all of his children.


----------



## widows son (Jan 17, 2013)

Agreed brother.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 18, 2013)

SeeKer.mm said:


> Actually, Brother, I would like for Christ to come and absolve me of my sins and all that, but do I count on it?  I wouldn't hold my breath.  Christ was a man, and his words have been interpreted and translated so many times that I personally do not know what will happen, what I do know is that I put my faith in the Father, the GAOTU and my respect to all of his children.



Christ is God and man, fully both. He is equally as much God as is the Father.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jan 18, 2013)

widows son said:


> Bryan, I can really comment on other fraternities because I don't really know enough about them. I do know fraternities such as AMORC, Oddfellows, Lions Clubs etc, promote fraternity, character building, and community effort, which we do as masons, so in that sense id say there's an equal platform. I too believe that all religions share a common quality in terms of morals, traditions, and deity, among fraternal ties, character building, and community effort.



Do you consider them to be interchangeable, no difference worth caring about?


----------



## widows son (Jan 18, 2013)

To a degree, yes. It is said that AMORC had a hand in freemasonry as we know it in the days of Ashmole and Bacon. Today they work in a lodge and practice what is known as the temple legend in their rituals, from what I've read anyway.  The Oddfellows wear aprons, jewels and collars like us, use similar symbolism, and have a similar moral attitude towards life  in general. Lions club I'm not sure how they do things, but I'm sure its noble work. I'd say the society closest to be interchangeable with freemasonry would be AMORC.


----------

