Jesus in India ( Himalayas)

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

I like you.

 

Well thank you. I like you as well :-)

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, oak said:

 

What matters is the teaching delivered with words and symbolic actions, most actions performed by "Jesus" were symbolic. To have a notion of their meaning one has to study the whole book. 

Anyway, the book of Revelation speaks of a book that is sealed with seven seals. Will an intellectual or skeptical approach break any of those seven seals? Don't think so.

 

 

why do say most actions by Jesus were only symbolic?  As i see it most of his actions were down to the brass tacks and the nitty gritty,

no wishy washy or half guessing it.  Granted there were a lot of metaphor type stories but I wouldn't equate such with just debatable symbolism.

[Nungali]

On 1/7/2024 at 2:54 AM, Maddie said:

Here's a question that I don't think has been asked yet. What exactly did Jesus teach that was so novel or significant? I don't really see anything amazing in the gospels and somethings quite disturbing to be honest. 

 

I guess it was relevant to the people then ... who may have been 'coming from a very different head space ' .

 

Then there was the organizational take over  later that  changed it somewhat . 'Politics'  can  'help' .

 

But I can see what makes some aspects pop today .  A woman I know, who started off not too bad  then went through a terrible decline ;  did all sorts of shit and got into bad trouble, wrecked her career , got a criminal record, lost friends and created mistrust of herself .  Used to be a 'pagan' , very much so .

 

Then  after hitting her 'rock bottom'  she 'found Jesus ' ... and gave all her troubles and sins to him and he took them on and she is now 'resolved '  .... ' free '  and saved .

 

" Get out of guilt for free '  card  .    

[Nungali]

On 1/7/2024 at 4:48 AM, Maddie said:

There have been some interesting points on both side, but to me personally for someone to be the greatest teacher of all time they need to have a little more than just "don't be a dick" to offer. 

 

^   ' The One Commandments '  .

 

 

[Nungali]

On 1/7/2024 at 5:02 AM, Maddie said:

 

The whole human sacrifice for other peoples sins thing makes no sense from a justice point of view, which is what it appeals to. 

 

'Scapegoat ' ... he was a Capricorn want he ?  

 

Its an old Jewish tradition , so that part might have made him 'traditionally popular' ?

 

scapegoat /skāp′gōt″/

 

noun

1. One that is made to bear the blame of others.
2. A live goat over whose head Aaron confessed all the sins of the children of Israel on the Day of Atonement. The goat, symbolically bearing their sins, was then sent into the wilderness.
3. In the ancient Jewish ritual, a goat on which the chief priest, on the day of atonement, symbolically laid the sins of the people. The goat was then driven into the wilderness. Lev. xvi.

[Nungali]

On 1/7/2024 at 5:58 AM, snowymountains said:

Well there's this whole discussion of whether Jesus claimed resurrection was something like the rainbow body which some Dzogchen masters in Tibet have been claimed to have achieved.

Jesus post-resurrection body, to the best of my understanding at least, was claimed to be a body of light, hence his words to Magdalene that she can't touch him.

 

There is no proof of neither Jesus' resurrection nor dzogchen rainbow bodies.

 

There's a catholic priest, father Tiso who did go to Tibet to study the claimed rainbow bodies and potential links to Christ's resurrection. He has written a book and has some talks on youtube.

There are also other stories from many religions that are similar, equally unproven.

 

It's interesting to note that the historical Buddha did not do a rainbow body at his death, so assuming it exists (personally, I am not convinced), I do not see why a Buddhist should aim to pass in that way.

 

Ermmm ... John  20:27 .    (hows that for 'selective quoting '      )

[Nungali]

20 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Touche 😉

 

And thats what Thomas said after he did it .    

[Apech]

While we're chatting anyone want a biscuit?

 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

You don't seem to like me very much. 

 

I got an idea .  lets abandon  the idea if Jesus was in India and start picking on Maddie instead  ....  and offer her free psychological advice from the TBs experts ! 

 

 

 

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I got an idea .  lets abandon  the idea if Jesus was in India and start picking on Maddie instead  ....  and offer her free psychological advice from the TBs experts ! 

 

 

 

 

Yes lets get down to the root of the problem :-)

[Nungali]

8 minutes ago, Apech said:

While we're chatting anyone want a biscuit?

 

 

have you read Joseph Cambell 's writing on  'eating God'  ,  'divine cannibalism '  ? 

 

... then wash it down with a nice glass of fresh blood  

[Nungali]

10 minutes ago, Apech said:

While we're chatting anyone want a biscuit?

 

 

 

Besides, I dont like them things , a priest dropped one on my arm once ... started fizzing and burning me  it did !  

[Nungali]

2 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Yes lets get down to the root of the problem :-)

 

I didnt say Freudian  psychology

 

. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=root

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

I didnt say Freudian  psychology

 

. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=root

 

Oh right you said Dao Bums psychology, so deflecting and attacking the person when you get frustrated with the point they are making. Gotcha ;-)

[Nungali]

yes .... or being unable to back up what one  said when  it is challenged . . .  that can make one an instant DBs psychologist .

 

I must warn you , they have penetrative insight  and can be aware of  motivations in yourself you never knew you had (or others observed )  .

 

- right from the beginning  I just knew an 'Abrahamic ' religious discussion forum  was gonna 'pay off '  .

[Maddie]

20 minutes ago, Nungali said:

- right from the beginning  I just knew an 'Abrahamic ' religious discussion forum  was gonna 'pay off '  .

 

Right? It's going about how I envisioned it going LOL

Edited January 7 by Maddie

[Maddie]

20 minutes ago, Nungali said:

yes .... or being unable to back up what one  said when  it is challenged . . . 

 

Surely the only reason that somebody would want facts to support what someone says is because they obviously hate the imaginary entity that the person's referring to, and not because objective truth and verifying that with sources is important.

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Ermmm ... John  20:27 .    (hows that for 'selective quoting '      )

 

Still, that's often part of the argumentation for Jesus having done a rainbow body. I don't know how they reconcile that with John. While this argumentation is typically coming from rainbow body folks, I think father Tiso also entertains the possibility of Jesus having done a rainbow body, but again I don't know how he reconciles that with John.

 

In any case, I'm not a big fan of neither in a literal interpretation of reincarnation nor rainbow bodies, but father Tiso's work would probably say more on the topic.

 

 

[old3bob]

24 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Surely the only reason that somebody would want facts to support what someone says is because they obviously hate the imaginary entity that the person's referring to, and not because objective truth and verifying that with sources is important.

 

there is no earthly objective verification for someone subjective experiences beyond the 3d and 5 senses.  But there is possible correlation's people can make who have had similar experiences along such lines.  To otherwise try and force or deny such things one way or another is futile.

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

gave all her troubles and sins to him and he took them on and she is now 'resolved '  .... ' free '  and saved .

 

" Get out of guilt for free '  card  .    

 

Of course, this works, what's odd about it?

 

 

If she did psychodynamic therapy and did regressions or bridges, wouldn't she "overwrite" all her traumatic memories and typically insert an ally in the "overwrite", why wouldn't having Jesus as the ally not help her in exactly the same way?

[snowymountains]

59 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Surely the only reason that somebody would want facts to support what someone says is because they obviously hate the imaginary entity that the person's referring to, and not because objective truth and verifying that with sources is important.

 

It's the objective bit that's at odds with choice of religion.

 

The reasons why the people in the empire converted to Christianity are not objective, faith is something entirely subjective, as is the relative importance we assign to values.

 

I.e. you may not agree that Jesus teachings were groundbreaking but the citizens of Rome found them to be so.

 

Keep in mind that these matters are not always the conclusion of a sequence of logical arguments. Feelings play a huge role. Feelings help us prioritize, Jesus' teachings raised feelings which in turn changed the priorities people had.

 

This doesn't mean that his teachings should raise feelings for everyone nor raise the same feelings to everybody, at the end of the day a lot of followers of the old religion didn't convert ( guess what happened to a lot of them.. ).

 

But there's no such thing as what feelings should objectively be raised.

 

It's not the same as accepting a more complete philosophical model or a more evolved scientific theory.

 

Ps: The above are a comment on the "objective" bit, not in support of the ad-hominem that was done to you earlier in this thread, which I found very unfortunate

 

Edited January 7 by snowymountains

[Maddie]

42 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's the objective bit that's at odds with choice of religion.

 

The reasons why the people in the empire converted to Christianity are not objective, faith is something entirely subjective, as is the relative importance we assign to values.

 

I.e. you may not agree that Jesus teachings were groundbreaking but the citizens of Rome found them to be so.

 

Keep in mind that these matters are not always the conclusion of a sequence of logical arguments. Feelings play a huge role. Feelings help us prioritize, Jesus' teachings raised feelings which in turn changed the priorities people had.

 

This doesn't mean that his teachings should raise feelings for everyone nor raise the same feelings to everybody, at the end of the day a lot of followers of the old religion didn't convert ( guess what happened to a lot of them.. ).

 

But there's no such thing as what feelings should objectively be raised.

 

It's not the same as accepting a more complete philosophical model or a more evolved scientific theory.

 

Ps: The above are a comment on the "objective" bit, not in support of the ad-hominem that was done to you earlier in this thread, which I found very unfortunate

 

 

The vast majority of Roman citizens did not become Christians until the empire made it the official religion and then they did so because they had no choice.

 

That is an objective historical fact that can be supported with historical documents.

 

This is what I mean by objective.

 

Also continuing with the definition of objective, there is no objective evidence that the Christian God exists or is real. Therefore if someone says that they believe in this God my question is what reason can you give to demonstrate that what you believe is correct or true? If no objective reason can be presented in my question is, then why do you believe it?

 

If someone gives a completely subjective answer for believing it then that is their choice but it is not an objective answer by definition.

Edited January 8 by Maddie

[old3bob]

30 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

The vast majority of Roman citizens did not become Christians until the empire made it the official religion and then they did so because they had no choice.

 

That is an objective historical fact that can be supported with historical documents.

 

This is what I mean by objective.

 

Also continuing with the definition of objective, there is no objective evidence that the Christian God exists or is real. Therefore if someone says that they believe in this God my question is what reason can you give to demonstrate that what you believe is correct or true? If no objective reason can be presented in my question is, then why do you believe it?

 

If someone gives a completely subjective answer for believing it then that is their choice but it is not an objective answer by definition.

 

are there electronic instruments that objectively measure and verify acupuncture results in real time or soon thereafter?  (for instance in the exact flow directions and measured amounts of chi) If not why does anyone believe in it?

Edited January 8 by old3bob

[snowymountains]

40 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

The vast majority of Roman citizens did not become Christians until the empire made it the official religion and then they did so because they had no choice.

 

That is an objective historical fact that can be supported with historical documents.

 

This is what I mean by objective.

 

Also continuing with the definition of objective, there is no objective evidence that the Christian God exists or is real. Therefore if someone says that they believe in this God my question is what reason can you give to demonstrate that what you believe is correct or true? If no objective reason can be presented in my question is, then why do you believe it?

 

If someone gives a completely subjective answer for believing it then that is their choice but it is not an objective answer by definition.

 

That cannot even be a verifiable fact. There simply was no census with accurate religious belief data.

 

As long as Constantine the Great converted for political reasons, I'm inclined to believe the exact opposite, that he needed the popularity that being Christian gave him amongst the people.

 

Of course there's no objective proof that the Christian God is real. 

And of course there cannot be an objective answer for something subjective, like religious belief.

 

This applies to nearly everything spiritual, eg what is the objective proof for the laws of Karma ? There isn't any.

 

People believe all sorts of stuff for no objective reason at all, because they're subjective.

 

People choose a partner because of how they feel around them, not according to some objective reasons that everyone agrees to.

 

Similarly, they may choose spiritual beliefs based on how they feel without any objective reason.

 

On that, ironically, people often choose partners who remind them their parents and they adopt their parents religion too 😂

 

 

Edited January 8 by snowymountains

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

are there electronic instruments that objectively measure and verify acupuncture results in real time or soon thereafter?  

 

Yes