Jesus in India ( Himalayas)

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh yes .... being a Hindu land certainly brings peace  

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/18/hatred-bigotry-and-untruth-communal-violence-grips-india

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/08/horrific-stories-thousands-flee-ethnic-violence-north-east-india-manipur

 

^  tip of the iceberg

Could you imagine… giving palestine (the holy land) to india… i think we might have solved peace in the mid east.

 

but unironically… all of us has probally done more for world peace then many of the ones who have won it, just by not starting a war. Allthough replacing the palestinians with hindus would cause a third world war

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

14 hours ago, Nungali said:

There seems two currents that the IE carried ; one was a type of opposite ; a warlord , patriarchal , raid and run culture . The other, which may have arrived later , a more egalitarian  approach with animal and environmental considerations .  This possibly relates to early Holocene post dispersion (and relating to later horse domestication ) .

Very interresting, do you have a sense of who those cultures might have been?

[SirPalomides]

21 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

.it has all been there in text for a very, very long time and no one needs to be a scholar to read it.

 

I'll add something else here which is both obvious and yet not obvious... Christians, even Protestants who say they only follow the Bible, learn their Christianity from other Christians first. Before they read the Bible they are taught what to expect there. Often they are fed short snippets of text and told what they are supposed to mean. So as soon as they crack the book open they are already coming with preconceptions about what's important in this book, what it means, etc. The many passages that don't fit, that are obscure, that are just plain weird, are passed over in silence. Then the apologists can say, "The Bible obviously teaches x, y, z" because everyone around them has already been conditioned to read certain passages in terms of x,y,z. 

 

If you handed the Bible to someone who knew nothing about Christianity and said, "Hey, what kind of religion do you deduce from this?" you're not going to get something that looks like any Christianity we know about. It certainly wouldn't resemble the post-Nicene orthodoxy that most Christian sects profess. They don't have the lens so they won't see what they're supposed to see according to Christians. 

 

For western Christians, the person most important in forging this lens was Augustine. Just like most modern people have never read Copernicus or Newton yet are very much under their influence, western Christians imbibe Augustine even if they know nothing about him. Augustine was in many ways a fascinating and brilliant man but, for Latin Christians, he was pretty much the Church father, which meant that his speculations and idiosyncrasies proved far more influential than they might have been if there had been comparable figures to balance him out. And a lot of the worst tendencies of Latin Christianity can be traced to his influence. His thoughts on eternal damnation, predestination, persecution of heretics, etc. became synonymous with the doctrine of the church itself. I'm not saying he invented any of these things but he gave them a particularly grim and stark expression that hardened into dogma for later generations. 

Edited January 11 by SirPalomides

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

There is a reason why many of the Church fathers- not new agers by any stretch- were universalists.

Im intruiged, would you mind elaborating?

 

Quote

As for Revelations, let's be clear, nobody knows WTF is going on in that book. 

 

Haha fair enough… maybe we wil have to go to «the sacred mushroom and the cross» to figure that Out😆 

[SirPalomides]

17 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh yes .... being a Hindu land certainly brings peace  

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/18/hatred-bigotry-and-untruth-communal-violence-grips-india

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/08/horrific-stories-thousands-flee-ethnic-violence-north-east-india-manipur

 

^  tip of the iceberg

 

I won't pretend Hindus are meek pacifists or that people aren't responsible for the shit they do but there's a lot to be said for how much the British f'd up the subcontinent, fomenting communal division there and pretty much every place they went, and making sure they were as dysfunctional as possible when they left. I read a saying from Iraq: "If you see two fish fighting in the Tigris, there's an Englishman nearby". 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

I shouldnt speak on his behalf, but i feel confident that he didnt intend to imply that hindus are inheirinetly violent

[SirPalomides]

32 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Im intruiged, would you mind elaborating?

 

 

The Orthodox bishop Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev published a very interesting and beautiful book called Christ the Conqueror of Hell which collects a range of early Christian texts, hymns, and poems relating to the descent of Christ into Hades ("the harrowing of hell" as it's known in western Christendom). While this is not the main thesis of his book, what becomes clear is that many of these texts carry the assumption that Christ descended to Hell to liberate everyone there, and this was taken as a pledge of what he would do at the end of time. Some of the hymns he cites are still used today in Orthodox Churches, especially in the Holy Saturday services. 

 

A minority of texts teach rather that Christ only liberated the Old Testament righteous- these texts come largely from the Latin fathers who, for whatever reason, developed a harsher theology than the Greek fathers. 

 

The theologian David Bentley Hart (also Orthodox) published That All Shall Be Saved which argues (conclusively, IMO) that the New Testament has a universalist message, that many of the fathers shared this message, and that it's the only view that actually makes sense from an orthodox Christian perspective. This book has of course been wildly attacked by the "infernalists" but everything I've seen from the critics indicate an unwillingness to actually understand or engage with the arguments Hart makes.

 

Anyway for further leads on Christian universalism, as advocated by very much orthodox Christians, and not just some green-haired crystal-gazing Episcopalian hippies in rainbow stoles, this is a great blog: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/essential-readings-on-universalism/  

Edited January 11 by SirPalomides

[SirPalomides]

.

Edited January 11 by SirPalomides

[old3bob]

23 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

read your Bible

 

I did not say anything about the many interpretations/commentaries on the Bible,  including the esoteric or largely unknown and also very subjective per individual experience thus not being main stream.  It sounds to me like that may be what you are mixing in with the quote from Swami Yogananda and expecting such information and conclusions to be included in our short exchange?  whereas I meant just read the Bible text as it is and as many people do and thus they end up with information that says the earth is only around 10,000 years old, eternal damnation, etc. etc.  Jesus is a truly great golden soul per my subjective and fortunate experience and which I can not prove to anyone, and btw. I'd also say that Yoganada's take can also not be proved unless someone experiences same first hand!  Anyway Jesus has been co-opted 10,000 ways by thousands of ism's which are about impossible for a regular Joe or Jane to untangle, and which many do not even think of untangling! 

Edited January 11 by old3bob

[snowymountains]

3 hours ago, SirPalomides said:

 

The Orthodox bishop Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev published a very interesting and beautiful book called Christ the Conqueror of Hell which collects a range of early Christian texts, hymns, and poems relating to the descent of Christ into Hades ("the harrowing of hell" as it's known in western Christendom). While this is not the main thesis of his book, what becomes clear is that many of these texts carry the assumption that Christ descended to Hell to liberate everyone there, and this was taken as a pledge of what he would do at the end of time. Some of the hymns he cites are still used today in Orthodox Churches, especially in the Holy Saturday services.  

 

An interesting parallel in Buddhism is that at least per some "delog" descriptions of the hell realms, there are Bodhisattvas there to help beings in those realms.

I don't know if any textual reference to Bodhisattvas helping sentient beings in hell realms was ever made B.C. and if there's anything beyond delog accounts, i.e. if there's something on this in Mahayana Sutras.

 

In any case, better not to draw too many parallels between Abrahamic and Dharmic religions.

 

If the correct interpretation is that Christ eventually liberates all beings in the Christian Hell though, doesn't this sound a bit like, "do whatevs, you'll suffer for awhile but ultimately all will be a-ok, even if you did the exact opposites of Christ teaching's during life on Earth" ?

Does Alfeyev comment on this aspect ?

Edited January 11 by snowymountains

[SirPalomides]

17 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

If the correct interpretation is that Christ eventually liberates all beings in the Christian Hell though, doesn't this sound a bit like, "do whatevs, you'll suffer for awhile but ultimately all will be a-ok, even if you did the exact opposites of Christ teaching's during life on Earth" ?

Does Alfeyev comment on this aspect ?

 

No, universalism is not Alfeyev's focus in the book, so he doesn't address any arguments pro or con. David Bentley Hart's book That All Shall Be Saved on the other hand is very polemical and does address this objection, which, along with "What about free will?" constitute the two perennial arguments for a doctrine of eternal torment. It's been a while since I read his book but as I recall, the basic counter-points are: 1. Our fundamental human longing is for God; sin is suffering and any joy we hope to find in sin is just a distorted form of this divine longing; sin is torment in itself; 2. our natural human response to God's revelation of love and salvation is to love him in return, that's why it's "the good news"; 3. constructing a monstrous vision of God so as to terrify believers is not only lying but blasphemous (this is more addressed to the "closet universalists" who still thought the doctrine of eternal damnation was needed to keep the flock in line.) 

 

It should also be kept in mind that the universalists do not deny that that the torment of hell is real, only that it is eternal. It is a purification by fire, as St Gregory of Nyssa says. 

[snowymountains]

3 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

It should also be kept in mind that the universalists do not deny that that the torment of hell is real, only that it is eternal. It is a purification by fire, as St Gregory of Nyssa says. 

 

Thank you, very interesting, so it's similar to Dharmic view of hell realms, that existence there is impermanent, though how existence there ends is mostly different between the two.

 

Also interesting that all beings will be saved.

 

Are the views in these books considered to be part of the official Orthodox Church dogma ?

[SirPalomides]

8 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Thank you, very interesting, so it's similar to Dharmic view of hell realms, that existence there is impermanent, though how existence there ends is mostly different between the two.

 

Also interesting that all beings will be saved.

 

Are the views in these books considered to be part of the official Orthodox Church dogma ?

 

No, definitely not. This is a minority viewpoint which appears to be tolerated. The parameters of Orthodox dogma are pretty murky though apart from the ecumenical councils. 

[snowymountains]

10 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

No, definitely not. This is a minority viewpoint which appears to be tolerated. The parameters of Orthodox dogma are pretty murky though apart from the ecumenical councils. 

 

Are the ecumenical councils archives somewhere online ?

I was trying to find in which one reincarnation ( or rebirth, whichever of the two was it ) was removed from the dogma, but couldn't find their archives in the first place 😁

[SirPalomides]

9 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Are the ecumenical councils archives somewhere online ?

I was trying to find in which one reincarnation ( or rebirth, whichever of the two was it ) was removed from the dogma, but couldn't find their archives in the first place 😁

 

The records of the proceedings of the ecumenical councils are pretty spotty. I think the first one where they actually have extant records of the back-and-forth and the decrees is Chalcedon. There was no dogma of reincarnation but Clement and Origen of Alexandria (both highly Platonic theologians) talk about it in their writings- whether as doctrine or speculation is debatable. They were both highly influential thinkers in what became orthodoxy, but in retrospect they had a number of views that were embarrassing for the later orthodox party. The Emperor Justinian (an all-around jerk if you ask me) did promulgate a series of anathemas against Origen in the 6th century- sometimes these are treated as part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council that Justinian orchestrated but they are really separate. You can read these anathemas here:https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-116.htm A lot of the themes here will be familiar to those versed in the more speculative strands of Platonism. 

[Nungali]

23 hours ago, oak said:

 

The discussion is about the concept of "hell". What "hell" is all about.

 

No it isnt . Its supposed to be about Jesus in the Himalayas

 

Yes, the expression eternal damnation or punishment is in the bible...not denying that. Like anything needs interpretation.

 

I'm confused ... it certainly looked like you where denying it and also having a go at old3bob for saying it WAS in the Bible .

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Very interresting, do you have a sense of who those cultures might have been?

 

Well raid and run is easiest ;   the groups of IE that did that via horse , later 'Mongols'  also  a large part of Viking culture via ship .

 

I'd have to go deeper into anthropology and archaeology to tag  accurately  the 'good guys '  but generally they where elements within those cultures that we tag by their teachings, principles and laws .  Coming into Central Asia is rather vague , coming out , east and west  is mostly via Zoroaster and Miwoche  and their associated cultures .

[snowymountains]

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

 

The records of the proceedings of the ecumenical councils are pretty spotty. I think the first one where they actually have extant records of the back-and-forth and the decrees is Chalcedon. There was no dogma of reincarnation but Clement and Origen of Alexandria (both highly Platonic theologians) talk about it in their writings- whether as doctrine or speculation is debatable. They were both highly influential thinkers in what became orthodoxy, but in retrospect they had a number of views that were embarrassing for the later orthodox party. The Emperor Justinian (an all-around jerk if you ask me) did promulgate a series of anathemas against Origen in the 6th century- sometimes these are treated as part of the Fifth Ecumenical Council that Justinian orchestrated but they are really separate. You can read these anathemas here:https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-116.htm A lot of the themes here will be familiar to those versed in the more speculative strands of Platonism. 

 

Neoplatonists may had believed in reincarnation as Plato believed it ( his Hell if I recall correctly was also impermanent, but haven't read on this for a long time ).

Btw Christianity I believe still allows for some form of rebirth for special reasons ( whatever that means ), though it's not meant to be the default scenario after death.

 

The speculation is as to whether Constantine removed it himself by ripping of pages.

Reincarnation was removed, can't recall in which council though, it probably was one during Constantine's reign or at least close to his reign era.

While it was never inserted in a council, as it was removed, the only conclusion can be that at least in some churches they did preach it.

[SirPalomides]

14 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Neoplatonists may had believed in reincarnation as Plato believed it ( his Hell if I recall correctly was also impermanent, but haven't read on this for a long time ).

Btw Christianity I believe still allows for some form of rebirth for special reasons ( whatever that means ), though it's not meant to be the default scenario after death.

 

The speculation is as to whether Constantine removed it himself by ripping of pages.

Reincarnation was removed, can't recall in which council though, it probably was one during Constantine's reign or at least close to his reign era.

While it was never inserted in a council, as it was removed, the only conclusion can be that at least in some churches they did preach it.

 

There's a popular legend (most recently pushed in the Da Vinci Code) that Constantine had some role in fixing the New Testament canon and that he excluded or edited various texts. He did not. The canon of scripture wasn't even on the agenda at the Council of Nicaea. 

[Apech]

1 minute ago, SirPalomides said:

 

There's a popular legend (most recently pushed in the Da Vinci Code) that Constantine had some role in fixing the New Testament canon and that he excluded or edited various texts. He did not. The canon of scripture wasn't even on the agenda at the Council of Nicaea. 

 

Wot!  Dan Brown wrote a pile of bullshit!  OMG!

[Maddie]

10 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

There's a popular legend (most recently pushed in the Da Vinci Code) that Constantine had some role in fixing the New Testament canon and that he excluded or edited various texts. He did not. The canon of scripture wasn't even on the agenda at the Council of Nicaea. 

 

Yes the council of Nicaea was about the doctrine of the Trinity. 

[SirPalomides]

2 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Yes the council of Nicaea was about the doctrine of the Trinity. 

 

Particularly, the divinity of Christ- and on that count, it failed almost as soon as it ended, as the Arians continued to be very influential (and Constantine himself seemed start leaning towards them). 

[snowymountains]

23 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

 

There's a popular legend (most recently pushed in the Da Vinci Code) that Constantine had some role in fixing the New Testament canon and that he excluded or edited various texts. He did not. The canon of scripture wasn't even on the agenda at the Council of Nicaea. 

 

The speculation on whether it was him predates the Da Vinci Code, the (speculative) reasoning given was that he perceived reincarnation ( or rebirth, not sure which of two ) to reduce incentives from his subjects to be obedient in this one life.

 

Imo the flaw in this is that no emperor would realistically bother ripping pages, sounds like something they'd put pressure for, not something they'd do themselves. I don't remember under which council this was done, so can't point the exact timeframe, it was early Christianity though, during his reign where there other councils beyond Nicaea?

[SirPalomides]

35 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

The speculation on whether it was him predates the Da Vinci Code, the (speculative) reasoning given was that he perceived reincarnation ( or rebirth, not sure which of two ) to reduce incentives from his subjects to be obedient in this one life.

 

Imo the flaw in this is that no emperor would realistically bother ripping pages, sounds like something they'd put pressure for, not something they'd do themselves. I don't remember under which council this was done, so can't point the exact timeframe, it was early Christianity though, during his reign where there other councils beyond Nicaea?

What I’m saying is, it didn’t happen. There was no council where someone went through a Bible ripping out pages and said, “Okay, here’s our new Bible guys.” The origins of the New Testament texts as we have them today, and their relation to Marcion’s canon, is pretty murky but there’s no evidence that there were some passages about reincarnation that were later excised.

[Maddie]

The books of the bible were decided upon at the council of Hippo in 393ce and Carthage in 397ce. Constantine not the council of Nicaea had anything to do with it.