The definition of "white" is variable. At one time the Irish weren't white.
Calling Jesus Jewish like calling George Washington a Brit.
God let Rome conquer the Jewish homeland because of their sins, according to the Old Testament.
Why not both?
Did both.
Did both.
Did both.
Did both.
Did both.
Both
Why not both? Jesus half siblings were Joseph's kids from his previous marriage.
Expected his teaching would cause divisions, that's not holy war: "Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against."
Joseph never consummated the marriage with Mary, who was a consecrated virgin. Moreover, he never had more than one wife who was living at the same time. Again, Jesus' half brothers were from Joseph's first marriage.
Now, The old testament supported polygamy, but not the new testament. Get your anti-Christian messages straight please.
Also, "Greek life" is a thing (college fraternity). Most Ivy League schools have the Greek life experience and some community colleges mimic that.
America is a mashup of all things, all races, all religions. It is merely presented to us in a different, newer synthesized format. That's the illusion of "western civilization".
There are many people we could attribute the Jesus (Messiah) archetype to.
That's what it is, an archetype. Someone who understands God (consciousness).
There were many people named Jesus, still is. There was probably an ancient Jesus (of Nazareth) who carried the Messiah archetype.
Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Muhammed, Zoroaster and Plato carried the archetype as well. There are many others like Francis Bacon, Ghandi, Moses, Heracles, Thomas Jefferson.
u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)
Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !
By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".
Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.
Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.
So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ?
Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now.
God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...
Now - next things:
Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?
Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.
Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin
killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state:
"Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...
friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - then rejecting so generous gift... moreover gift being gift from GOD... who DIED to give it to you...
liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists
subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?
king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.
traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists. &Bible view about for example active homosexuals is obvious...
holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword - BUT he was NOT rejected for that.
Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but
it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy is.
That argument has been made that Christianity is the invention of St. Paul (a Roman citizen), rather than on what Jesus said in the Gospels. That's bandied about. But there was a historical Jesus, many records indicate a trouble making named rabbi was crucified. Was he the living son of God? Well, lots of people say no, and that's fair enough, but he did walk the earth at the time.
The bible itself is a historical record, as is the writing of Josephus, among others. The noted Roman historian Tacitus mentions him.
However, you're getting things backwards. The 12 apostles were not Romans, they were Jews and Gentiles, but not culturally, Roman. They were only "Roman" in that the empire conquered their homelands. It would be like calling someone from Texas a Canadian if Canada annexed Texas. The only Roman citizen was Paul, who was not an apostle, who was a Jew and Roman citizen who converted. Much of what the Christian religion is today is on account of his writing. For instance, because of Paul, Christians are not obliged to follow Mosiac dietary laws or get circumcised.
By the time the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, the tenets and background of the faith were largely in place, thus you cannot say it was a joke created by Romans.
You're very amusing on this topic. I've debated whip sharp atheists and am willing to concede a lot is a matter of faith, but you're just wrong on the history here.
Peter means Pater, father. Think "at the potter's house". What does a potter do? Shape mud into urns, he gives form to the formless.
What does a child have? A father. The child needs a father to give form to his formless mind.
Church is a physical place meant to resemble the mind. You go into the church (mind) to pray and respect God (consciousness).
With the Temple of Solomon, there are two pillars outside the door you must pass thru to enter the temple, called Boaz and Jachin (but that's not important to the metaphor). These pillars are symbolic for going beyond the known realms of mankind in the old world (beyond physical/material world). You see, the pillars were a copy of the pillars at the Straight of Gibraltar, the pillars of Hercules, which marked the gateway to the vast ocean, an endless unknown territory. This is much like the mind. So you enter Solomon's Temple, passing thru the pillars, and it's symbolic of entering your mind where God is.
Jesus walks on water indeed. Like the analogy of Solomon's Temple and the Straight of Gibraltar, Jesus is exploring that unknown vast ocean of consciousness. He walks upon consciousness (water).
Their language was not as abstract as ours, so they spoke in very direct literal words, pulled from their surroundings, to express psychological things.
But then we read about their psychological things with our abstract language and interpret them literally, big mistake.
For example, they used words like "waters" to mean the subconscious, before a time when they had a specific word for subconscious that couldn't be confused with actual water. And then take it one step further, actually believing that a man named Jesus actually walked on water. It all seems to be metaphorical, and it is, but only to us, because of how the languages have evolved. Plato was into making analogies.
Some 2000 years ago, the Roman architect-engineer Vitruvius used an analogy to figure out how to build an excellent theatre. "As in the case of the waves formed in the water, so it is in the case of the voice," the architect wrote.
Voices are formed in the waves of subconscious that appear and disappear, briefly begging for your attention to allow them to rise to the conscious level.
One might say that the analogy of Jesus walking on water represents "being above the subconscious" (enlightened). He sits on the throne, as the King of his Church (mind). *Jesus is King."
Have a look at this image of an Ojibwe indian "surviving the flood that leaves most others behind":
It is about how consciousness evolves and our understandings change, leaving broken ways in the past.
Here is a funny thing.
You have the Tetragrammaton "YHVH", which is said to be the four letter name of God. It is pronounced many ways like Yaweh or Jehova.
Then in relation to the Tetragrammaton you have Metatron which states "my name is in him". The word Metatron can be found within the word Tetragrammaton.
Now maybe you know of a dude named Osiris. Have you also heard of Isis? My name is in him. The word Isis can be found within the word Osiris.
Tetragrammaton and Osiris represent God. Metatron and Isis represent Jesus. Isis is another way to pronounce Jesus. Metatron means Mithra's Throne. How many letters in the word Isis? Four. How many in King? Four. Jesus is King.
There has long been a debate about how literal to take passages of the bible. For instance, I'm not taking the story of Adam and Eve literally. However, biology tells us humanity did all spring from an Eve, and all one need believe as a Christian is that there were the first humans disobeyed God for it to be true in an allegorical sense. I don't presume to understand it all, nor that there aren't mistakes in the bible, there are.
As for being a former Morman, I get where you're coming from, as I was a lapsed Catholic for a decade or so until I had a spiritual awakening. It's given me the distance to appreciate the myriad problems with the church, let alone Christianity in general.
You see, though, you are taking things from the bible that are similar to things in other religions or cultures, from the time of the writing of parts of the bible, and assuming that the bible copies those things in creating a story, rather than that thing just coming from shared cultural aspects. For instance, Moses is put into a basket and pushed down a river. This thing shows up in other religions, that is, the baby in the basket down the river. But it was also a cultural thing in the region at the time, the same way it was common at one time in America to leave a baby on the rectory doorstep and how firehouses are safe places to drop off babies no questions asked today.
A carpenter knows how to create useful form out of useless things.
A potter (pater/father) turns mud into urn, and this urn can now hold substance/source (consciousness). The Holy Grail.
A shepherd takes care of his flock (family/husbandry).
Jesus is about building good things in your mind and life.
Francis Bacon likely wrote the New Testament (KJV).
Consider the point of reading the Bible is to (re)gain consciousness, nothing more. It's not there to instruct people to do anything or act in any sort of religious way. That's our doing. Consciousness is God. The reason the Bible is everywhere ("a bible in every home") is so that consciousness can never be destroyed. The book preserves it forever. Nobody can destroy all the Bibles in the world, even with a mass book burning. It would be found and recopied and reproduced once again.
God is consciousness and we have used it in bad ways.
The Bible is a story about the different ways we have used it.
By reading the Bible we can gain consciousness, learn of the bad our ancestors did, and instead aim to do good.
You don't know how to do good unless you have something bad to compare. For every Hero, there was a villain.
The knowledge of good vs evil, is just consciousness itself.
To know good, you must know evil.
The Bible contains everything needed to understand all this.
When "God" sends an "Angel" to stop Abraham, it is a voice of in his consciousness debating right vs wrong. Debating the potential consequences of actions. This was merely how they described the conscious experience. We actually do have "voices in our head", many of them, instructing our ego about conditions and feelings of our environment. When these voices are too prominent over the ego, or too loud in general, modern science calls it schizophrenia. But this is essentially how consciousness works. There is a subconscious made of many subtle voices.
We read the old testament and see an angry god, pushing genocide, supporting conquests, stoning people to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath. But hey, at least he sent an angel to stop Abraham from performing a human sacrifice.
What do you think, that the Bible is telling us to act in this way? It's merely telling us how dumb this behavior was, as an example of what not to do with consciousness. Their bad behavior came from God (consciousness) so we have to get smarter and better about using it. That's why the Bible doesn't say these horrible actions are wrong, because God is not wrong, consciousness is not wrong, God is unbiased and almighty, he (we) can do anything, but the way we use God can be wrong or not conductive to our prosperity. That's what the Bible points out.
Joseph never consummated the marriage with Mary, who was a consecrated virgin. Moreover, he never had more than one wife who was living at the same time. Again, Jesus' half brothers were from Joseph's first marriage.
Now, The old testament supported polygamy, but not the new testament. Get your anti-Christian messages straight please.
Western Culture is a lot of things, Roman and Germanic, etc. Respectfully, I'm not seeing the point of that line of reasoning.
Also, "Greek life" is a thing (college fraternity). Most Ivy League schools have the Greek life experience and some community colleges mimic that.
America is a mashup of all things, all races, all religions. It is merely presented to us in a different, newer synthesized format. That's the illusion of "western civilization".
There are many people we could attribute the Jesus (Messiah) archetype to.
That's what it is, an archetype. Someone who understands God (consciousness).
There were many people named Jesus, still is. There was probably an ancient Jesus (of Nazareth) who carried the Messiah archetype.
Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Muhammed, Zoroaster and Plato carried the archetype as well. There are many others like Francis Bacon, Ghandi, Moses, Heracles, Thomas Jefferson.
It's not about a person's race or era.
u/pkvi : thing that modern "jews" don't call themselves "white" doesn't mean that "middle-eastern brown skinned" are NOT white. Semites shall be recognised as "white" too - fortunately or not (of course term "white" is actually piece of complete shit if we look at genetics and actual ethnicity but...)
Thing that jews and arabs currently CLAIM they are not white... They are anti-western and both want to use black community for their purpose,so they obviously claim they are not white.But they are white of course, their ancestors (jews & arabs) were even those exact ones catching and trading black slaves !
By the way - about modern view of Christ as white - those "pictures" are actually ICONS not pictures. Icon is actually loophole in Biblical old-testament rule respected also by Islam reflected in 2nd commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image".
Some claim: No image is no image-peridod, others were not - as image is here NOT the issue,the issue is praising image vs praising god through image.
Icon is NOT considered that as in theological therms shall like meme - spread actual religious message behind picture or monument,that means ICON shall be considered as tool to focus on good being kid of reflection of ideas driving to god NOT object of cult alone.Holy and sanctified reflection but only reflection. Of course after schism between ortodox and catholic part of that is not fully respected by roman catholics,but it is just the question of papacy depravation and so on. And the question of risk of using material object for cult purpose which was real issue behind 2nd commandment - defocusing instead of focusing.
So those images of Jesus as "white" serve the message which shall be reflected by for example this simple sentence: HE WAS ONE OF US. Ok ? Yes it is half truth and he was also foreigner - we shall accept also such view now. God's nature and theology is complicated and not so completely based on logic so it is natural there are some problems...
Now - next things:
Christian vs Jewish ? Why not both ?! Read Paul/Saul letters,those are crucial about relation about Jewishness to Christianity. Jewish who rejected Jesus are actually self-rejected from being chosen and favoured - but of course could return like prodigal son by accepting Christ. What is more : Christ offer was and is originally especially for them.For free,and they (Jews!) don't want it ?
Colonized by Rome - actually not so Anti-Roman,but not understood about it even by Apostoles.
Justice by retribution or restoration - second more,but it not mean rejecting first. 2 sides of same coin
killed by church and state - synagogue wasn't "church" but ok. About the state: "Give/Render to cesar what what belongs to caesar and to god what belongs to god". Also - Late roman Bizantine doctrine of Christian Ceasar as earthy leader of faith being kind of "vassal" of Christ. Not fully biblical but VERY useful for healthy Church-state relation (faith-protector of it) and proselytism what couldn't be said about papacy. Those episode with popes being political leaders not only caused schism with orthodox but also resulted in spawning of protestantism (second schism) after all...
friend of sinners and outcasts - correct,but those who would not accept his mercy and self-sacrifice,those who reject redemption will unfortunately go to hell. Simple. Mercy is offered to all,but those who still reject it will be mercilessly punished as worthless degenerates they are. After all - if god himself died to liberate you from consequences of your evil, if gives you his mercy - then rejecting so generous gift... moreover gift being gift from GOD... who DIED to give it to you...
liberates opressed ? In some way yes,but not like violent revolutionists
subverts empire ? Yes and no. Is making bad thing good/better bad subversion ?
king or homeless & child refugee - again: BOTH. And both sides together make it MORE than one side alone means.
traditional family unit ? well: yes and not. It is more about tradition here. Doctrine-first (doctrine>family) according to teachings but not so anti-family like are for example marxists. &Bible view about for example active homosexuals is obvious...
holy wars ? Indeed Christian doctrine and doctrine of Jesus were originally pacifist,but after analysis there are verses justifying violence in defence of faith (case of merchants in temple) and fathers of church agreed that self-defense is NOT forbidden - while being not holy thing it is also NOT a sin: while Peter for attacking temple servant during arresting of Jesus was admonished that those who use sword die from the sword - BUT he was NOT rejected for that.
Indeed violent part of Christianity is more tradition than teachings of Jesus,but it is like with all religion - pacifism is not so well working in practice. And there are loopholes big enough. According to Christianity it would be better to proselytize or reconcile the enemy that to fight,but defence isn't sin.Hating enemy is.
That argument has been made that Christianity is the invention of St. Paul (a Roman citizen), rather than on what Jesus said in the Gospels. That's bandied about. But there was a historical Jesus, many records indicate a trouble making named rabbi was crucified. Was he the living son of God? Well, lots of people say no, and that's fair enough, but he did walk the earth at the time.
The bible itself is a historical record, as is the writing of Josephus, among others. The noted Roman historian Tacitus mentions him.
However, you're getting things backwards. The 12 apostles were not Romans, they were Jews and Gentiles, but not culturally, Roman. They were only "Roman" in that the empire conquered their homelands. It would be like calling someone from Texas a Canadian if Canada annexed Texas. The only Roman citizen was Paul, who was not an apostle, who was a Jew and Roman citizen who converted. Much of what the Christian religion is today is on account of his writing. For instance, because of Paul, Christians are not obliged to follow Mosiac dietary laws or get circumcised.
By the time the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, the tenets and background of the faith were largely in place, thus you cannot say it was a joke created by Romans.
You're very amusing on this topic. I've debated whip sharp atheists and am willing to concede a lot is a matter of faith, but you're just wrong on the history here.
What does a church have? A father.
Peter means Pater, father. Think "at the potter's house". What does a potter do? Shape mud into urns, he gives form to the formless.
What does a child have? A father. The child needs a father to give form to his formless mind.
Church is a physical place meant to resemble the mind. You go into the church (mind) to pray and respect God (consciousness).
With the Temple of Solomon, there are two pillars outside the door you must pass thru to enter the temple, called Boaz and Jachin (but that's not important to the metaphor). These pillars are symbolic for going beyond the known realms of mankind in the old world (beyond physical/material world). You see, the pillars were a copy of the pillars at the Straight of Gibraltar, the pillars of Hercules, which marked the gateway to the vast ocean, an endless unknown territory. This is much like the mind. So you enter Solomon's Temple, passing thru the pillars, and it's symbolic of entering your mind where God is.
Jesus walks on water indeed. Like the analogy of Solomon's Temple and the Straight of Gibraltar, Jesus is exploring that unknown vast ocean of consciousness. He walks upon consciousness (water).
Yeah, here's why I think that is.
Their language was not as abstract as ours, so they spoke in very direct literal words, pulled from their surroundings, to express psychological things.
But then we read about their psychological things with our abstract language and interpret them literally, big mistake.
For example, they used words like "waters" to mean the subconscious, before a time when they had a specific word for subconscious that couldn't be confused with actual water. And then take it one step further, actually believing that a man named Jesus actually walked on water. It all seems to be metaphorical, and it is, but only to us, because of how the languages have evolved. Plato was into making analogies.
Voices are formed in the waves of subconscious that appear and disappear, briefly begging for your attention to allow them to rise to the conscious level.
One might say that the analogy of Jesus walking on water represents "being above the subconscious" (enlightened). He sits on the throne, as the King of his Church (mind). *Jesus is King."
Have a look at this image of an Ojibwe indian "surviving the flood that leaves most others behind":
https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/a-flood-of-myths-and-stories/
It is about how consciousness evolves and our understandings change, leaving broken ways in the past.
Here is a funny thing.
You have the Tetragrammaton "YHVH", which is said to be the four letter name of God. It is pronounced many ways like Yaweh or Jehova.
Then in relation to the Tetragrammaton you have Metatron which states "my name is in him". The word Metatron can be found within the word Tetragrammaton.
Now maybe you know of a dude named Osiris. Have you also heard of Isis? My name is in him. The word Isis can be found within the word Osiris.
Tetragrammaton and Osiris represent God. Metatron and Isis represent Jesus. Isis is another way to pronounce Jesus. Metatron means Mithra's Throne. How many letters in the word Isis? Four. How many in King? Four. Jesus is King.
There has long been a debate about how literal to take passages of the bible. For instance, I'm not taking the story of Adam and Eve literally. However, biology tells us humanity did all spring from an Eve, and all one need believe as a Christian is that there were the first humans disobeyed God for it to be true in an allegorical sense. I don't presume to understand it all, nor that there aren't mistakes in the bible, there are.
As for being a former Morman, I get where you're coming from, as I was a lapsed Catholic for a decade or so until I had a spiritual awakening. It's given me the distance to appreciate the myriad problems with the church, let alone Christianity in general.
You see, though, you are taking things from the bible that are similar to things in other religions or cultures, from the time of the writing of parts of the bible, and assuming that the bible copies those things in creating a story, rather than that thing just coming from shared cultural aspects. For instance, Moses is put into a basket and pushed down a river. This thing shows up in other religions, that is, the baby in the basket down the river. But it was also a cultural thing in the region at the time, the same way it was common at one time in America to leave a baby on the rectory doorstep and how firehouses are safe places to drop off babies no questions asked today.
A carpenter knows how to create useful form out of useless things.
A potter (pater/father) turns mud into urn, and this urn can now hold substance/source (consciousness). The Holy Grail.
A shepherd takes care of his flock (family/husbandry).
Jesus is about building good things in your mind and life.
Francis Bacon likely wrote the New Testament (KJV).
Consider the point of reading the Bible is to (re)gain consciousness, nothing more. It's not there to instruct people to do anything or act in any sort of religious way. That's our doing. Consciousness is God. The reason the Bible is everywhere ("a bible in every home") is so that consciousness can never be destroyed. The book preserves it forever. Nobody can destroy all the Bibles in the world, even with a mass book burning. It would be found and recopied and reproduced once again.
God is consciousness and we have used it in bad ways.
The Bible is a story about the different ways we have used it.
By reading the Bible we can gain consciousness, learn of the bad our ancestors did, and instead aim to do good.
You don't know how to do good unless you have something bad to compare. For every Hero, there was a villain.
The knowledge of good vs evil, is just consciousness itself.
To know good, you must know evil.
The Bible contains everything needed to understand all this.
When "God" sends an "Angel" to stop Abraham, it is a voice of in his consciousness debating right vs wrong. Debating the potential consequences of actions. This was merely how they described the conscious experience. We actually do have "voices in our head", many of them, instructing our ego about conditions and feelings of our environment. When these voices are too prominent over the ego, or too loud in general, modern science calls it schizophrenia. But this is essentially how consciousness works. There is a subconscious made of many subtle voices.
What do you think, that the Bible is telling us to act in this way? It's merely telling us how dumb this behavior was, as an example of what not to do with consciousness. Their bad behavior came from God (consciousness) so we have to get smarter and better about using it. That's why the Bible doesn't say these horrible actions are wrong, because God is not wrong, consciousness is not wrong, God is unbiased and almighty, he (we) can do anything, but the way we use God can be wrong or not conductive to our prosperity. That's what the Bible points out.
Only the white race comes from Adam and Noah. The darkening occured after the spread of islam.