fiveelementtao

I would advise against experimenting with anything like this without a teacher's guidance. It is very easy to seriously injure yourself by playing around with energy in your head.

There are some good techniques and teachings for using energy in the ways you describe but there is also considerable danger if done improperly... It is possible to permanently and severly injure yourself.

Hi TF,

No, you did not anger me or offend me. I also want to be helpful like you do in sharing the knowledge. You bring up a very good subject that deserves further inquiry. I am merely seeking to inquire from you in a more specific way how we can fix this problem. But you have not given any specifics from your life as to how you personally are being prevented from learning this knowledge you speak of. And you still have not said what exactly it is that you want to learn. If we knew the specifics, then perhaps someone on this forum might be able to help you find a teacher, thereby fixing the problem for you.

I believe these days its not so much about reaching nirvana or enlightenment but bringing this to the public in functional form.

Bringing what exactly to public? Knowledge? Ok... Specifically what knowledge are referring to? in what ways will this help people? Can you be more specific?

it sometimes p%$$es me off seeing how things could change quite fast if some of these elite folks opened there hearts.

Who specifically are the elites? In what ways are they hiding knowledge from you personally that would change the world so quickly? Give some concrete examples and perhaps we can help you fix the problem.

This direction IS my life (and probably for many others here), and can be quite difficult having family needs, money needs etc.

OK... So, are you saying that because you have chosen to have a family that you do not have time or resources to seek out spiritual teaching? OK, I can understand that. But, that was your choice. You could have chosen to seek spiritual teaching as some of us did. I, myself, chose not to have a relationship or get married until I was 45. So, I was able to spend 20 years seeking out knowledge. I had the opportunity many times to have a family or start a career, but I chose to seek knowledge instead. It was a difficult sacrifice at times, but it was important to me. You could have done the same, but you chose to have a family instead. If what you say is true and you do not have time or resources to learn, then even if this knowledge was given to you, it sounds like you wouldn't have the time right now to learn it anyway because of family obligations. So, how is that someone else's fault?

Without getting too specific on who, if you do some serious research- even with mainstream information you can see where "they" exist, even FOI documents.

Well, I am asking you to be specific. Otherwise it's just talk on a forum. In terms of "serious" research, in your OP, you mentioned one scenario from a book by Blavatsky that was totally inaccurate. Had you seriously investigated that further you would know that it was innacurate. So, are you only getting this information from books or videos and TV?...

Perhaps, you are right and there is knowledge that is being withheld. So, please be specific so we can investigate it together and then DO something about it. But reading about information and making an effort to find this information is two different things. There are quite a few people right here on this forum who have traveled around the world to learn "secret" knowledge and they are actively sharing this to anyone who asks. I myself was able to learn alot of stuff without ever having to leave Los Angeles. My personal experience tells me that this stuff is everywhere if one is willing to look for it.

If what you are saying is that you are mad because someone does not come knocking on your door to teach you this knowledge... Well, what are the chances anyone is going to do that for anything?. You will have to make some effort and be clear about what you want or nobody will know you exist. But you still haven't even specified the exact knowledge that you yourself want to learn. So, even if someone wanted to come to your house and teach you, they wouldn't be able to because you haven't specified what it is that you want to learn.

This is why I said it sounds like what you want to do is simply complain. Because you don't seem interested in putting any effort into trying. And based on what you have written here, it seems to me that you don't even KNOW what it is exactly you want... So, how can anyone help you?

On the book it says "kundalini tantra". What is the difference between kundalini yoga and kundalini tantra? and what is KAP?

 

Edit: also another question... what is Sat Nam Rasayan ?

Any Kundalini Yoga instructor can teach you about Sat Nam rasayan. I suggest looking for an instructor.

KAP is "Kundalini Awakening Process" Shaktimama is on this discussion forum and is an instructor for KAP. Contact her about KAP.

Tantra means "technique or discipline" Yoga means union. Tantra is part of Yoga.

Again Niklas... You will have more and more questions. I do not think that asking a bunch of questions on a discussion forum is the best way to learn about kundalini yoga. I encourage you to get up from behind the computer, find some books and begin reading and most importantly go and find a teacher you can learn from who can answer all your questions for you....

Thanks taobums for really nice responses. I'm happy to see deep thoughts.

 

There is no doubt that this problem we find ourselves in, is a deep and complex one. However this does not change the fact that it truly is a "problem" and one of the Earth's great problems....I personally will not take it and don't expect anyone else to let them control our own functional existence by fabricating fears and "protecting" us from ourselves.

Who are "they" and how are "they" suppressing this knowledge? Which traditions do you want to learn that you have been denied access to? have you made any efforts to learn a discipline?

I'm sure if there were a specific discipline you wanted to learn, someone on this forum could point you toward a teacher. I hear you complaining about being denied knowledge, so I want to know what you are doing about uncovering and learning this knowledge other than complaining about it on a discussion forum?

Interesting to hear you say that, it's actually the first time I've heard anyone say that there is "kundalini yoga" in India. Not that there aren't yogas meant to raise kundalini, but that there was anyone practicing what they would call kundalini yoga. . . As far as YB and his teachers, they do claim that there is kundalini yoga in India, but I've never encountered it in any of my travels in India, or could verify it's existence with any other yoga teacher either here in the states or in India. Regardless, we're very much in agreement about the whole thing, including the cult-like aspects, though I find that mostly with the older teachers who knew him personally. The new generation of kundalini practitioners (including myself) seem to take the practice for what it's worth, and have dismissed the cultishness.

Since YB died, it has become easier to distance the practice from the cult. It was pretty bad there for awhile, when he was in his heyday.

I agree with you that in India, Kundalini Yoga is not a name for one system of yoga. It is a name more about any high level practice that focuses on Kundalini. It is mostly found in the more esoteric parts of shaktiism and tantric Shaivites. YB drew from many of these sources. I have found that YB told pretty much the truth when he said that these types of Kundalini Yoga were only taught to initiates in secret until YB began teaching it openly. There are a couple of exceptions out there, but none as well known as YB...

Here is one of the books by swami sivananda

http://www.amazon.com/Kundalini-Tantra-Re-print-Satyananda-Saraswati/dp/8185787158/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

We also have KAP instructors like Shakti Mama here on Taobums. Might want to give them a looksee..

Ok. Is kundalini yoga for raising your kundalini only? I have read that kundalini yoga is to increase your awareness. Is that what you get by raising your kundalini from your lower back to the crown of your head? I don't really understand the purpose of this practice.

That is a very deep question which will get you different answers depending on whom you speak with. I suggest finding a teacher. The answer to that question will not be answered in a forum post, IMO. Find a teacher...

There was no actual practice called "kundalini yoga" until Yogi Bhajan took the yoga and meditation practices he learned as a child in India, formalized them into a system, and attached them to his Sikh practices. That is what we now call Kundalini Yoga. There are of course other practices that raise your kundalini, but they are not part of this formalized system.

That's not entirely true. That is the story that Yogi Bhajan told. Yogi Bhajan was a brilliant teacher, but he was notorious for not being entirely truthful which he himself admitted to. Bhajan claims to have learned mainly from Sant Hazarah Singh. But when investigated, there is very serious doubt about that. Bhajan traveled around India for much of his life learning from different masters. The truth is there are other versions of practices labeled as Kundalini Yoga and they came before Yogi Bhajan's version. Bhajan's version is a syncretic mix of different kundalini yogas and his understanding of Sikh mysticism. In reality, bhajan's version is not entirely Kundalini Yoga. Yogi Bhajan trained mith numerous traditional Hindu yoga masters including hatha, raja and kundalini styles and synthesized them into his own style which he called Kundalini Yoga. He was a very devout Sikh and so he infused many sikh beliefs, mantras and rituals into his style of yoga.

traditionally kundalini yoga is practiced from a tantric hindu perspective. Bhajan replaced much of that with sikh religion influences

It is very good stuff. I echo the sentiment that to get the most out of it, one may consider getting past the strong sikh influence. Traditional sikhs do not practice Bhajan's style of yoga and many sikhs do not appreciate Bhajan's style of Sikhism.

IME, when I was practicing Bhajan's yoga, I also sought out Sanskrit mantra and tantra as they are more traditionally connected with kundalini yoga. Bihar school of yoga teaches a more traditional style of Kundalini Yoga. They have a few really good books out there that I recommend to anyone seeking kundalini yoga. Their website is gone sadly. But you can find books by Swami Sivananda saraswati. Those are quite good, IMO.

Bhajan's yoga is, as I said, IMO very, very good. It is a fire practice though, so, I advise caution if anyone plans on mixing it with deep Taoist practices. KY is a very forceful practice as opposed to much of Taoist practices. Depending on what taoist practices one chooses to mix it with, it can cause energy imbalances. So, I suggest, choosing one practice and sticking with it or make sure you have a good teacher to help mixing the two practices. And also be aware that Bhajan's yoga is pretty much a cult at the deeper levels. So, keep that in mind when you seek out instruction.

Indeed, i feel that your words have weight.

 

-IME and from reading and listening to others i have found that often the path of healing and spiritual growth is one of suffering because we must drop a lot of garbage that we have become attached to.

 

-It has also been my experience that although the individual has to muster enough courage and intentionally release there blockages, energetic work can often help strengthen the awareness to the point where it becomes easier to recognize and heal the wounds of the self.

 

-So my question would be to what degree do you feel that that energetic practices and and spiritual growth are separated from one another? Can one achieve his ultimate goal simply with intensive self reflection? Or is the ego the ultimate divider between energetics and spirituality?

 

-A Note: I know this is a technical question that might not have perfect answer. I simply would like to hear your opinion.

Good question. I do not necessarily think that energetic accomplishments are separated from spiritual accomplishment per se. Everything is spiritual. Everything is made of energy and spirit. It is we who make the distinction between physical and spiritual. But reality itself does not make this distinction. I believe the mindset that wants to view energy work as being something separate from physical reality will also want to make them more 'spiritual.' The tendency to overspiritualize energetic accomplishments IMO comes from a dualistic mindset. As with the witch hunters of 300 years ago who felt that anything supernatural was evil. Nowadays, people have swung in the opposite direction and feel that anything supernatural is spiritual. So, energy accomplishments are just like anything else. Neither good or bad.

One reason I am attracted to pre-christian european practices is because 2,000 years ago in europe there was no distinction between the physical and spiritual realms and consequently, there was no abitrary attachment of judgement such as "spiritual' and "non-spiritual." Everything just WAS. Supernatural abilities were viewed just like anything else, it could be good or evil or neutral. Wizards could be good or evil just like everyone else. Nowadays, however, if someone shows supernatural abilities, our first inclination is to believe they are enlightened. This knee-jerk reaction makes them more seductive. The idea that we NEED something outside of us to transport us to enlightenment comes from a place of insecurity. IMO, all destructive actions stem first from a place of insecurity, a place which says, "I am not enough as I am. I need something outside of me to save me. I need siddhis."

I don't know if I answered your question. But as always, it is only my opinion for today. Tomorrow I may feel differently.

I myself still practice alot of energy work and I get alot of health benefits from it, both physically and emotionally. But energy and accomplishments in and of themselves are neutral but my REACTIONS to them determine how I use these abilities.

So, for me, the only real litmus test is if I can be helpful to both myself and others.

I was under the assumption that siddhis were a sign of ones progression along the path but not the end goal.

 

-However, you implied hear that it is perhaps a detour or a side path that is not related to spiritual progression towards immortality/enlightenment/rainbow body...etc

 

-Is this an incorrect assumption?

I am making a distinction between energetic accomplishments and spiritual accomplishments. Rainbow body, IMO does not necessarily mean enlightenment. It means energetic accomplishment. IMO, it is possible to become an immortal or even a god and still be trapped in the illusion of self...

IMO and IME, Siddhis are, at best, nothing more than an entertaining distraction. At worst, they can actually retard one's spiritual evolution. Unfortunately many believe that siddhis are a sign of spiritual achievement. I disagree. Siddhis can be used as a means to strengthen one's spiritual practice because they show the person that there is more to reality than meets the eye. But, they can also give one ego delusions and even further separate them from spiritual truth. IMO, the highest form of enlightenment is compassion. No one needs siddhis to practice compassion... Just my opinion...

Interesting perspective.

 

That the spiritual path has so few that get anywhere on it, and that these things are quite normal, just due to hard work.

 

John

I myself am too lazy for siddhis

The unspoken assumption I hear when I read from those who believe that these abilities are being hidden from them is that these abilities are as easily learned as tying your shoelaces. Five minutes and presto! you're John Chang!

IME, siddhis do exist but they do not bring fulfillment or enlightenment any more than huge muscles from bodybuilding. I sought after them and had some minor experiences but then I realized that siddhis had no practical use in my day to day life or in my relationships. Nor did they bring the fulfillment I expected. From those whom I have met whom I believe do have siddhis, some of them are very immature, unhappy and bitter. Their powers have isolated them from others. They are very lonely and egomaniacal. But, the other aspect is that they worked really, really hard... sometimes 8 hours a day for years to get their abilities. In the end, it is not so different from training to become Mr. Universe. You need some genetic predisposition, and lots and lots of hard work.

What's more is that some of those I mentioned have personal lives that are an absolute train wreck and they seem to have overlooked the natural siddhi abilities that all people have but remain largely unrealized.

For those truly interested in siddhis that we all have, I recommend a book called "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne McTaggert. It gives credible scientific evidence to the idea that we are able to create reality with our mind...

But it shows that we can destroy with our minds just as easily... So, in the end, seeking happiness and enlightenment still is the highest siddhi...

So just because YOU do not see someone do something, you assume they do not, are not, can not, have not, or will not do something?

 

Not anymore... My apologies...

Probably when someone who knows them teaches people what they are, and they see that anyone can learn to do them.

 

But it's not like people with siddhis go around doing that.

 

Unless we got people levitating, walking through walls, and walking on water somewhere that I haven't seen, teaching other people to do them successfully

So are you saying that siddhis are only siddhis if YOU don't know how to do them? We do all kinds of things today that 100 years ago would be considered siddhis.

Even if these skills do exist like levitation etc.., what makes them siddhis instead of little known science tricks?

IMO as long as you believe in the concept of siddhis being supernatural because they are beyond your abilities, then no matter what siddhis you learn, you will want the ones you think you can't have.

In your case sloppy, you have asked about certain abilities that are available to you in many directions from numerous people, yet I have not seen you actually take the time to find them...

do you REALLY want to learn them?

Would Pygmie tribespeople who have never seen a bodybuilder think that Lou Ferrigno has siddhis?

If so, would they still believe in siddhis once they learned that he got his physique from lifting weights for hours every day for many years?

At what point do siddhis stop being supernatural and just become lots of hard work?

Wanted to provide a space to discuss this and release some energy here. We hear a lot about certain groups, stories and people who have made some real progress in capability and identity of what they really are. They have demonstrated abilities and insights that are rare. Why don't we manifest a planet that releases this knowledge as it is our god given right to learn about what we are?

 

Examples of supression:

-In olden day China, energy practioners were often killed and so now there are so few left that have fled.

-In the documentary of Ram Bomjan, a very high lama mentioned openly in front of the camera: "we generally don't share much."

-The Vatican and its secret library (enough said).

-Whistleblowers and documents from the military coming forth mentioning armies of troops trained in energy ability.

-Helen Blavastky wrote in her book that from what she researched, after the Buddha passed away the top students formed an elite caste out of greed called the Brahmins and did not share the good stuff with others. Eventually the knowledge became almost extinct. Hence we are left with truly very little meditative knowledge.

 

There is the argument that if we all had access to the knowledge, everyone would instantly want to kill each other (and other things), this is absurd. The elite groups have the power already to do this for centuries to us unawares.

 

Let's have the power to make our own choice with this. They have repeatatively shown they don't care about its folk.

 

TF

 

SPREAD THE KNOWLEDGE

Well, First off Helen Blavatsky has it backwards. The brahmins did not emerge after Buddha. They existed before him and Buddha was the one who taught against the caste system of the brahmins and opened up spirituality to all castes and both sexes. This is one reason he became so popular...

But, from those who believe that secret knowledge is being kept from them, I would be interested to know:

How do you see this secret knowledge being transmitted to you? By books. Free teaching?

How easy or difficult would it be to teach you this knowledge?

What do you know about the methods that are used to teach the knowledge that you already consider secret?

Is this secret knowledge something everyone could easily learn if they were exposed to it? Or would there be some who even if they had this secret teaching right in front of them, they would still be unable to absorb it?

What is the average age of those who believe that secret teachings are purposefully being withheld from them?

What lengths would you be willing to go in order to learn this knowledge? How far and how long would you go search to learn it? Or do you believe it should come to you?

What if any responsibility do you have if you were given full access to this knowledge?

fiveelementtao awesome thread! thank you for this. Its very interesting.

 

The truth is, someone somewhere could make a case that any text thousands of years old is just science fiction or so called bullshit.

 

The Story of Troy comes to mind for me, thought to be only a myth, ancient science fiction....until it was found!

I completely agree Immortal and that is exactly my point. every single new testament scripture as written at least 100 years AFTER christ. the wise Men scripture was dated to the 3rd century so that puts it WELL within the same time frame as any other Jesus scripture. Seeing as how there is ample written record from the church fathers themselves reccomending that all gnostic gospels be destroyed and those who copy or carry them be killed, that makes this gospel even more likely to be authentic since it survived the church purging. I am not saying one way or the other whether this one or any of them are true. In terms of textual criticism, (according to church dogma, no less!) the rule is that the older the extant physical text, the more likely it is to be "authentic." the Nag hamaddi library are the oldest extant christian scriptures, so by the churches own standards, the gnostic gospels of Nag Hammadi are the most reliable and probably closer to the original than the four church gospels. That means my favorite "the gospel of Thomas" (according to the Church standard of authenticity) is more reliable than Matthew. In that text, Jesus had much more in common with taoists, buddhists and hindus than with modern christianity.

I highly reccomend it to anyone.From the gospel of Thomas...

Jesus said, "Keep on seeking until you find. When you find, you will become disturbed. When you become disturbed, you will marvel and reign over all."

Prince... Your biases are showing... If you are really serious about proving your point, you need to be able to back up what you are saying with more than just calling everything that contradicts church theology "bullshit."

.I don't give a shit who disagrees with me

Then why the angry, generalized, profanity laced naysaying with no evidence to back you up?

I think many here are interested in your views if you can present them with some reason and evidence.

Again I remind you, you came on this thread to call the OP bullshit. If you have credible, objective sources... share them...otherwise I don't see how profanity helps your position...

IMO, Enlightenment is not a destination. It is a process. I believe these types of experiences are merely interesting stops along the way. Enjoy it, then move on to the next one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBA7LsumNGs

Jesus and Mithra

Is Tao and the Force from star wars the same thing?

 

 

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Taoism/The-Tao-Of-Star-Wars.aspx

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2002/05/The-Force-Is-With-Everyone.aspx

 

http://www.scifidimensions.com/Jun01/forcetaobutterfly.htm

 

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Star-Wars-Phantom-1243/force.htm

 

http://chippit.tripod.com/tao_of_star_wars.html

As I understand it, yes. from what I have heard, Lucas drew from many sources of inspiration including Taoism...

@ Prince...You came on this thread calling other scriptures "bullshit." And I merely pointed out that I believe your reasons are not objective. And now you are trying to defend the Church. That is not the point. My point is that your argument that the syriac texts are bullshit is coming from biased self-referential viewpoint that is already skewed against anything contrary to accepted church dogma. I'm not trying to prove the syriac texts. I was only pointing out your lack of objectivity in your criticism.

All of this blabbity blah about the Roman Empire and the Church-- that's one side of the story. How about I persecute your ass for centuries?

Why do you want to persecute anyone? I don't understand the point here. The romans persecuted the aryans and gnostics too. or are you saying that any abuses done by the Roman Church are somehow OK, because they were persecuted before constantine? Forgive me, but that is a child's argument... "They did it first."... Jesus taught forgiveness and turning the other cheek, not revenge or religious persecution. If you're saying that centuries of persecution made them fearful, or angry and therefore it is only understandable that they kill and perscute others, then they didn't learn Christ's lessons and are not worthy to interpret his teachings and create any dogma since they can't seem to follow the most basic of his teachings... In any case, it does not take away from the fact that the Roman church became a state sponsored religion backed by the power, wealth and military might of the Roman Empire. To overlook this fact is to overlook a major factor in their motivations for "accepted church dogma."

If you want to study the Bible critically, you don't add things that are not written based on your assumptions of what you think happened based on outside material.

With respect, I disagree. This is why it should not be called "textual critcism". You can't use the bible to prove the bible. That is self-referential and biased. That is not Critical thinking. the definition of critical thinking is: "purposeful reflective judgment concerning what to believe or what to do based on objective criteria"

If you want to study church theology from the bible, then, stick with the church fathers and the approved texts. I have no issue with this if one knowingly wants to study the church's dogma and theology. But it cannot be used from a purely critical standpoint. If one wants to study the bible critically, then that means you MUST be willing to view it objectively. That cannot be done from a self-referential perspective.

Jesus story is not patterned after previous Messiahs-- it is patterned after Moses. The miracles are patterned from Elijah/Elisha.

With all respect, my friend. Yes, the Jesus story has many, many similarities with other messiahs that were worshipped in the Roman Empire. This is simply historical fact. Jesus may be based on Moses according to church dogma, but there are many jewish scholars who would diagree with that interpretation. the Mithra story parallels the Matthew version of events in many ways. http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

There were other preachers in the Roman world before Jesus that are attributed with similar miracles and messages. It's in the history. It is fact. This does not necessarily detract from Jesus. As I said, I have no problem with the Jesus story. But it is a historical fact that his story and message is almost identical to many others that preceded him.

I have no need to dissuade you from your faith. But, I do take issue with the knee-jerk orthodox christian tendency to monopolize the spiritual arena especially in light of historical facts. As I have said on this forum numerous times before. It is not an "either/or" scenario. Jesus can be a legitimate object of faith and worship AND the christian church can still be a very flawed human institution. Other religions seem to understand the value and holographic nature of myth. IMO, the christian church shot itself in the foot when it diverted from the power of myth and tried to squish holographic spiritual truths into linear black and white, literal historical fact and then proceeded to kill and torture those who disagreed with them.

Didn't know we had all these seminary boys in town! What do you guys think about the missing years during Jesus's life? Do you think he could've gone over to India?

 

Well maybe I should first ask do you think that Jesus as a person actually existed? If none of the texts can be verified and they are the only proof of his life, then his very existence could be doubted, right? If that's the case, then perhaps by logical necessity he had to have existed because how could such a movement begin without a real figure?

It is equally possible (IMO) that he could have been a real person or fictional. The problem is that the Jesus story (virgin birth, son of God, Miracles etc..) is almost verbatim identical to numerous other messiahs that were being worshiped in the roman empire during the same period. There is little hard evidence of the existence of Jesus outside of the gospels which were ALL written long after Jesus was dead (or resurrected, depending on one's beliefs). There is no evidence for the editorial accounts of Jesus' life outside of the gospels. So, there is no way to verify any of the editorial details of his life. The argument that the Gospel of Matthew was the most likely candidate because the Church vouched for it is flawed in a couple of ways: It was written long after his death and there is just as much evidence that all of the details were either made up, exaggerated or combined with existing mythology surrounding other messiahs being worshiped at the same time. Not to mention that Rome had a political and military agenda that was best suited to the literal fundementalist version of the gospels. After Rome made Christianity the state religion, it tried to cover up all the other similar messiah religions.

For me personally, I have no problem with the idea that an avatar was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected. I certainly have no problems whatsoever about his core teachings of forgiveness, Kindgom of God is within you, We all have direct access to the divine and that we are also children of God. My problem is the stuff about eternal damnation, original sin etc...

One thing that many of the christian gospels that were not included in the bible hold in common is the idea that they do not preach original sin, eternal damnation, or exclusivity of belief. This is why I see the whole modern christian religion as being a construction of men. Before Constantine, the gnostics were set up to become the sect of the mainstream population and gnostic christianity was very similar to eastern mystical ideas. IMO, had Constantine not become emperor and legally sanctioned Eusebius' literal fundamentalist version of christianity, gnostic christianity would most likely become the orthodox christian sect... (Assuming it survived at all). Most likely, (IMO) gnosticism would have been absorbed into existing pagan beliefs just as buddhism in India was absorbed into hindu polytheism and now in India Buddha is seen as one of the ten avatars of Vishnu... I myself view Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu...

In terms of Jesus going to India. It is as possible as anything else. He certainly preached things similar to the buddha. Many early christian mudras seen in medieval paintings are identical to Yogic meditative mudras. It is possible he learned meditative techniques in India and taught them to his disciples... But in actuality anything is as plausible as anything else..

My point is this particular manuscript is about a narrative that is only found in Matthew.

Does this agree with the Matthew narrative? If that's the case, why does Matthew have differences? If the original "Matthew" text contained a narrative that was more close to this one, when was it redacted? Since Matthew was in circulation a long time before 300 C.E. the only conclusion I can draw based on the evidence is that this manuscript was probably written after as creative "inspired" fiction.

 

 

The Council of Nicea was not so much about "establishing" an approved theology-- it was really in response to the Arian controversy. The creation of the New Testament Canon and the Nicean creed were all a response to the controversy created by Arius.

 

Everything I see about books being destroyed/concealed/banned seems to forget that the Bible was #1 on the list of banned books. Not everyone in the church is/was evil or had bad intentions. It was to prevent these crazy ass controversies and jacked up interpretations from spreading. The Catholic church no longer does that job and look at how splintered the Christian movement has become. If I don't like the church that I've been attending, I can say,"I went to Seminary, I know the Bible, I don't agree...I'm starting my own church." When someone doesn't like what I teach, they do the same. Someone from that congregation does the same.

 

If you take a tree and keep cutting away from the trunk, eventually all you have left is dust.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there were not Christianities that continue to exist even to this day. With that in mind, I still can't see any of those communities accepting this particular manuscript.

This discussion really is better served in another thread. First, before launching into a debate involving textual criticism, it is important to remember that textual criticism is a "science" invented by imperial christians to lend credibility to it's own version of the bible. Since, the imperial bible was already established before textual criticism was even invented, it is not reliable either since it is already biased in favor of itself.

It is True the Council of Nicaea was not convened to establish the canon. It was established to decide what was going to be considered the "catholic" version of christianity to be officially sponsored by the roman state. so the state sponsored sect led by Eusebius could then wipe out any "unauthorized" sect it did not like, including the arian and gnostic versions. After Constantine lent his stamp of approval on Eusebius and the resulting "verdict" of the state sponsored council, state sponsored imperial christianity launched a major attack upon gnostic, arian and any other sect of christianity which differed from the now imperial catholic version. It is well established that any bishops who disagreed with eusebius had to recant and accpet the catholic version or suffer expulsion. There was no honest debate about anything. Eventually after a couple more emperors, all those involved in other "heretical" sects could be executed for having banned texts.

Everything I see about books being destroyed/concealed/banned seems to forget that the Bible was #1 on the list of banned books.

That is misleading and not relevant to this discussion. Trying to play the victim game in order to hide the victimization of imperial christianity is a typical diverting argument... The christian texts were not in any danger after constantine converted to christianity. When any of the christian texts were in danger ( because there was no bible yet.) would have been before constantine. We are talking about something after constantine.

My point is this particular manuscript is about a narrative that is only found in Matthew.

Once again you are operating from an assumption that says that Matthew is somehow more "valid" than any other christian text. This is again a self referential proof. NONE of the christian texts, including matthew can be proven any more valid than any other. The only proof of it's validity come from Catholic church fathers who were themselves biased and recommended that those who carried unapproved gospels be put to death. I listened to these argument for years. Christianity has made decsions based on the testimony of these same christian church fathers who were the head of the imperial roman "good ole boy club" that decided for itself what version of christian history they liked best. The bottom line is that christianity in all its modern versions are what was left over after a group of men who gained sponsorship of a religion took complete control of said religion.

In the spirit of the season. I think we can all agree on at least the core message of Jesus which was "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

Merry Christmas!