|
Post by placid-void on Jun 27, 2015 18:38:02 GMT -5
Grace, faith and works . . . .
While reading through this thread and thinking about the exchanges, I found a description of “grace” in Wikipedia that I quite enjoyed. Grace was described as “the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it” and further expanded to be “understood by Christians to be a spontaneous gift from God to man”.
Seldom is there a morning when I do not awake to the experience of being the recipient of a spontaneous gift, the gift of being alive and having a part in a creation beyond all comprehension. I tend not to name the author of that gift as “God” but the awareness of the grandeur of the gift is no less palpable to me than to those who ascribe this gift to a specific entity, God. I can hardly imagine that individuals who embrace a material worldview, bounded on all sides by rational proof, would take issue with a simple claim of the intrinsic value of the mysteries of their life.
(P.S. on the mornings I do awake denying the wonder of my life, the inability to grasp the value of the gift rests in my mind and suggests to me the need to reassess my value equations.)
Bottom line, I experience each day as if my life is the product of grace, the author of which is beyond my knowing, but not my respect and appreciation. It is this engagement with the possibility (probability?) that there is meaning and purpose to life that transcends my understanding that constitutes my “faith”.
The next step is tricky for me and not something I have been able to work out. It seems to me, however, that an individual has the option “to be” or “to become”. In my worldview, “to be” is a static state where an individual is accepting of the gift mentioned above and chooses to acknowledge that gift with rituals defined by others.
The alternative in my worldview is “to become”. This is not a static state but rather an active pursuit of aspirational goals. In my view, the aspiration is not “to be saved”, it is not “to achieve eternal life”, it is not “to avoid excommunication and eternal damnation”. Rather my aspirational goals, in response to the “grace” I have received, would be to sincerely commit to a life of compassion and love of neighbor. Evidence of these qualities in my life would represent my acknowledgement of meaning and purpose beyond self.
Pelagius conceived of “the gift of free will, the Law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus” as the only requirements for the manifestation of good works. Having been raised in the Western Cultural Traditions, this seems like a reasonable starting point for me as well.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 28, 2015 19:47:36 GMT -5
hberry likes this
Post by Ross.Bowden on Jun 28, 2015 19:47:36 GMT -5
Paul was deceitful was he? Read Romans 5. Can you quote where Paul used the term "faith alone"? Romans 5: 15- 21
We are justified by faith alone. We are forgiven on the basis of Christ’s righteousness – sins past present and future. And we are adopted as a child of God (Rom 8:17, 1 Peter 1:4). In short, when we are justified we are forgiven, we are given His Spirit and we are saved. Faith alone gives new life in Christ. I had a read over the weekend and if you look at numerous other books in the New Testament you will also see that salvation comes by faith alone (not a complete list – from memory I think there are about 200 in total in the NT across the gospels and the balance of the books). Romans 3, Galatians 2:16 etc, Galatians 3:8 etc, Galatians 5:4 etc, Ephesians 2, Philippians 2:9, Colossians 1, 1 Timothy 4 etc, 2 Timothy 1, 3:15 etc, Titus 3, 1 Peter 1, 1 John 1:9, 1 John 5 Every day that we are a new creature in Christ it is our faith that inspires and motivates us to follow Him and do His will. - Our faith each morning causes us to pray to our Father - Our faith inspires and motivates us to love each other - Our faith causes us to open His word and to meditate on it - Our faith inspires us to tell others about Jesus - Our faith results in us watching and praying for His return As Paul says in Galatians 2:20 “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me”. Our faith is the reality of the future we hope and live for - the proof of what we cannot see. We live by faith – not by sight. The OT law, whilst God given, did not save one person. It was given to make us aware of sin and to point us to the ultimate solution for that sin – Jesus. When Jesus came and fulfilled the law he dealt with sin forever. But like Paul said in Galatians as humans we revert to type and try and reinstate the law by doing things for God – but to do that just means that we want to remind ourselves of sin again when sin has been dealt with on the cross of Calvary. Even in the Old Testament (as it indicates in Hebrews 11) it was by faith alone that the people were saved. In Judges 4 we see a wonderful account of Deborah and Barak who with the rag-tag army they had went up against the might of the enemy – but they prevailed simply because they trusted in the mighty power of God. If we think that one, even one, of our works would result in us meriting favour from God we are on the wrong path - the best we have to offer is as filthy rags before a Holy God. The gospel of grace is not about us – it is completely about Jesus. Our certain hope is built on nothing but Jesus’ blood and righteousness. There is no merit we can claim – we can simply lean completely on Jesus’ name. It is on Christ, the solid rock that we stand (there is a great hymn to these words). So where do works fit in? As we trust in Jesus for complete forgiveness and life, the Holy Spirit works in us for good – it produces fruit. It is His fruit, not ours (Phil 2:13 and many other places). It is His work, not ours. A genuine faith and trust in the living God will result in God doing His work in our lives and in Him making us more like Jesus. When Jesus “raised the bar” in the sermon on the mount, he wanted us to live like that. But he knew that it was impossible in a natural sense for humans to live like that without a change in their hearts. That’s why His ministry always pointed to Calvary where His complete work did what the law could never do – deal with sin – and make it possible, through complete faith in His death and resurrection to put on His complete righteousness and live in that light. Yes, faith without works is dead and useless as James said. For if the works of the Spirit aren’t evident at all in our lives and we keep deliberately sinning and our lives haven’t changed it’s fairly safe to assume that God’s Spirit is not in our lives and that our faith is not genuine – that is, we have not been saved. We need to repent again and place our complete trust in the living God and he alone will do the rest. On the other hand genuine faith and the outworking of that faith go hand in hand – they are inseparable. It is God’s way of perfecting us but by definition faith must come first, it alone gives life and complete righteousness in Christ. Every day as we live by faith and God works in us, we continue to be saved by Him and justified as James puts it very clearly. In James 5 Elijah’s faith which resulted in prayer resulted in God’s goodness on the land and fruit that the Lord provided. That’s why I am so critical when a worker or anyone talks about their sacrifice or emphasises the importance of the ministry or their role. It places the emphasis on them and not on Jesus. Many workers don’t do it but some unfortunately do and understandably these are the sermons that tend to get highlighted. A gospel which puts more attention on works is a destructive gospel. If righteousness comes by the law or our works, then Christ died for nothing as Paul puts it in Galatians 2:21. If we think our works merit some favour from God it is a perverted gospel as Paul states clearly in Galatians. He asks the question there – why would we go back to another gospel (ie the law) that reminds of sin and does not save when you now have the real thing? But faith in Christ’s death and resurrection will drive us to proclaim His name and rejoice in the forgiveness that He alone has given.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jun 29, 2015 10:56:40 GMT -5
Good morning Ross,
That is an awesome piece of research you did over the weekend. You present a strong case.
I can only imagine the confidence you must feel as you lay up your treasure in heaven and the joy you must experience thinking of the opportunities you will have to discuss these truths with Peter, Paul, James and Timothy throughout eternity.
My aspirations pale by comparison:
I see the halt, lame and lonely and can but offer to walk with them. I see the sad and discouraged and can but offer to share their burden. I see the sick and weary and can offer naught but compassion and a shoulder to rest upon.
Such is perchance a destructive gospel that guides my acknowledgement of the wondrous gift of life I share with my fellow in this amazing creation but it is the only way I know how to sincerely love my neighbor.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 12:40:38 GMT -5
Post by xna on Jun 29, 2015 12:40:38 GMT -5
... and the the age old Solas debate goes on, and on, and on.... 1. Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") 2. Sola fide ("by faith alone") 3. Sola gratia ("by grace alone") 4. Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone") 5. Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
|
|
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 14:44:08 GMT -5
snow likes this
Post by fixit on Jun 29, 2015 14:44:08 GMT -5
Good morning Ross, That is an awesome piece of research you did over the weekend. You present a strong case. I can only imagine the confidence you must feel as you lay up your treasure in heaven and the joy you must experience thinking of the opportunities you will have to discuss these truths with Peter, Paul, James and Timothy throughout eternity. My aspirations pale by comparison: I see the halt, lame and lonely and can but offer to walk with them. I see the sad and discouraged and can but offer to share their burden. I see the sick and weary and can offer naught but compassion and a shoulder to rest upon. Such is perchance a destructive gospel that guides my acknowledgement of the wondrous gift of life I share with my fellow in this amazing creation but it is the only way I know how to sincerely love my neighbor. Ynot, the Solas debate seems awfully selfish in comparison to your aspirations. I believe Jesus would see it that way as well. The theologians (Calvin played an important part) burned Servetus at the stake for denying the Trinity and Infant Baptism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_ServetusTheir ability to burn a good man alive brings in to question their understanding of what "grace" really means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 18:22:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2015 18:22:17 GMT -5
We are warned not to abuse that freedom Ross.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 19:44:26 GMT -5
tom likes this
Post by fixit on Jun 29, 2015 19:44:26 GMT -5
I grew up in a church that was almost completely works based. I left it because I was tired of hearing how I could try and earn my way to salvation and how the ministry was in their eyes the only right ministry on earth because of their sacrifice. From what's been written on TMB you are an elder in that church and I assume support that teaching? My perception of the doctrine taught is quite different to yours.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 20:51:52 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Jun 29, 2015 20:51:52 GMT -5
Hi Ross. I regret that you read my post as a critique of your faith. It was not intended in that manner. In fact quite the opposite. I found the careful scriptural analysis to be both impressive and informative.
Rather, my post is intended to offer a different and personal point of view on the topics being discussed. As 'fixit' points out serious-minded folk can have different perspectives. You probably already realize that I do not support doctrinal exclusivity.
Although, I would prefer that my brother not refer to some of the beliefs that inform my personal convictions as either damaging or perverted, I can imagine that the passion for one's own position could lead to such expressions as a point of emphasis.
While reflecting on the questions at hand and your analysis, I was struck by the centrality of "original sin" to the argument. "Original sin" has been a topic of other threads. I have never been able to embrace the premise of original sin. My understanding is that the concept was originally introduced to the early Church by Irenaeus and later developed by Augustine. The scriptural basis can be cited but seems weak to me.
My most cynical side worries that the dogma of "original sin" provides authoritative elements in a religious practice to exercise undue influence on the development of an individual's faith and their interpretation of the message of Jesus. I would be interested in your perspective on this point. It is interesting to note that it is this idea of original sin that would induce feelings of guilt and fear in my reflections whereas a focus on "works" is what drives your feelings of guilt and fear. An interesting difference in perspective.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 22:33:02 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jun 29, 2015 22:33:02 GMT -5
I think we'd agree that trying to tell others about Jesus and trying to love God and others doesn't fall into the category of indulging the flesh (unless we were doing it with a completely wrong motive ie trying to earn loads of money from it etc) Ross, do you "try" to love your wife and kids? Or do you simply love your wife and kids? An appreciation of grace should result in a natural affection for God and our fellow man.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 29, 2015 23:41:39 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jun 29, 2015 23:41:39 GMT -5
Ross, do you "try" to love your wife and kids? Or do you simply love your wife and kids? An appreciation of grace should result in a natural affection for God and our fellow man. I should have said loving God and others...and trying constantly to rely on Him more and more... On the subject of marriage, that's what happens when we are born again of His Spirit through faith and we become children of God. God brings us into an eternal relationship with Him. Even though we continue to sin or do good works, He will not love us any less - the relationship stands. The only thing that could affect us is, under the influence of Satan, we reject the relationship and are cut off. Here's my perception of the grace-alone doctrine and the way it's expressed by its proponents... It's like a wife telling everyone "no matter what I do to hurt him, my husband will not love me any less - the relationship stands".
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 0:15:00 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2015 0:15:00 GMT -5
Here's my perception of the grace-alone doctrine and the way it's expressed by its proponents... It's like a wife telling everyone "no matter what I do to hurt him, my husband will not love me any less - the relationship stands". It's a poor perception. A wife (or a husband for that matter) who truly loves and trusts her spouse would never even think that - let alone do that. And if they did that, there would be no relationship in the first place. That's the point really. Do we have a relationship with God, or a relationship with religious theory?
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 4:59:45 GMT -5
tom likes this
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2015 4:59:45 GMT -5
In the meetings, I constantly was reminded of my sin before God - it was as if I hadn't been forgiven - and the need to do things (principally obey the workers, go to meetings, fit in, pray (no problem with this one!) to try and make my position before God more secure. I knew if I threw 100% at this I still wouldn't be good enough to secure my salvation - like the COI I couldn't completely obey the law. I didn't need to - Christ had done it for me and the curtain had been torn in two. I had been forgiven, I had been justified - nothing to do with me - but because of His great love and mercy. Why would I want to go back to slavery when I had been freed from it? Ross, I'm glad to hear your testimony because it will help me to keep an eye open for folks who feel insecure as you did and encourage them. To feel so insecure would certainly be a horrible condition to be in. Was your insecurity made worse after your exposure to Calvinist doctrine and BSF studies? Most of the friends are not exposed to that, which may account for their satisfaction in the simplicity that is in Christ. Learning about theology on TMB gives me a greater appreciation for the simple life and teaching of Jesus, and the fellowship of my brethren.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 7:31:54 GMT -5
Post by rational on Jun 30, 2015 7:31:54 GMT -5
BSF and other teaching outside of meeting makes you aware of what the meetings lack in the way of teaching. It has been mentioned several times on here that when people started going to churches etc outside of meetings that they realized how starved they were of good teaching in meetings. I know that was also true for me. Good teaching results in a better understanding of our security in Christ. The simplicity that it is Christ alone who saves and not our own works. I think this is true iff you define 'good teaching' as teaching that conforms to your beliefs.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 7:41:11 GMT -5
fixit likes this
Post by placid-void on Jun 30, 2015 7:41:11 GMT -5
BSF and other teaching outside of meeting makes you aware of what the meetings lack in the way of teaching. It has been mentioned several times on here that when people started going to churches etc outside of meetings that they realized how starved they were of good teaching in meetings. I know that was also true for me. Good teaching results in a better understanding of our security in Christ. The simplicity that it is Christ alone who saves and not our own works. Good morning Mary, I wonder if you and others might be willing to engage with me for a few posts on the comments you make about other teachings/other churches. Sunday morning of this week I was sitting and thinking about some of the discussions we are having here on TMB. As I sat there thinking and wondering, this interesting image came into my mind. I live on the East Coast of the U.S. I had this image of the sun rising on Sunday morning, folks all up and down the East Coast waking up, having breakfast and getting ready to head off to their particular religious worship service. Slowly the image expands to the Central time zone, the Mountain time zone and eventually, the West Coast. I had this image of priests, ministers, bishops, deacons, and just plain folk standing in pulpits, at lecterns or just sitting on a couch and teaching the “Word of God”. I tried to think about being able to hear all those voices and feel all those yearnings. And I wondered what that might sound like. I wonder how that might feel if I had the scope of empathy required to absorb all of those hopes, aspirations and convictions. The image has troubled me since because my untutored senses hear only a cacophony of noise and I see only a swirl of uncertainty and confusion and I feel little mutual compassion and love. It is a painful image. I cannot imagine that this mass of mixed and confusing teachings was the message that Jesus or any of the prophets intended to teach. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 12:07:47 GMT -5
fixit likes this
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2015 12:07:47 GMT -5
That's the point really. Do we have a relationship with God, or a relationship with religious theory? It's hard to have a relationship with religious theory. It's also hard to have a relationship with God except by faith. Deep belief and certain hope in someone whom I have never seen personally. I don't think in the main we should criticise those have sort to understand more about God and His word - a gift that has been given them by God. I've met a few of them in my day and their relationship with God is loving and living - unless of course they are doing it to deny His existence or the truth of His word. I would disagree that it's hard to have a relationship with a religious theory. I believe that's exactly what's going on when there is so much difference between denominations and so many interpretations of the same book and what the same God supposedly says and wants. God is not the same to each individual. There are a many interpretations and religious theories out there as there are people. So it seems to be the theory people fight about and disagree over. That is a relationship because it's what they try to preach and defend.
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 14:20:18 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2015 14:20:18 GMT -5
BSF and other teaching outside of meeting makes you aware of what the meetings lack in the way of teaching. It has been mentioned several times on here that when people started going to churches etc outside of meetings that they realized how starved they were of good teaching in meetings. I know that was also true for me. Good teaching results in a better understanding of our security in Christ. The simplicity that it is Christ alone who saves and not our own works. Where does all this insecurity come from?
|
|
|
LL
Jun 30, 2015 14:58:05 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jun 30, 2015 14:58:05 GMT -5
Do you think security comes from clinging to a few key texts?
An easy believism feel-good gospel?
I don't think so.
|
|
|
LL
Jul 1, 2015 4:37:58 GMT -5
Post by fixit on Jul 1, 2015 4:37:58 GMT -5
There is an enormous of unity within each of (1), (2) and (3) - even in (3) churches and denominations are broadly in fellowship with each other unless a particular church has embraced liberal theology where it would be hard to categorise them as Christian. You seem very judgmental Ross. What right do you and your evangelical/Calvinist buddies have to define who is Christian?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2015 13:32:46 GMT -5
I would disagree that it's hard to have a relationship with a religious theory. I believe that's exactly what's going on when there is so much difference between denominations and so many interpretations of the same book and what the same God supposedly says and wants. God is not the same to each individual. There are a many interpretations and religious theories out there as there are people. So it seems to be the theory people fight about and disagree over. That is a relationship because it's what they try to preach and defend. Understand your viewpoint but I guess there are essentially three main branches of Christianity. 1. Roman Catholicism - which grew out of Constantine's decision to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire 2. Eastern Orthodoxy - which split away from the RCC in 1054 primarily about Papal primacy and authority; and 3. Protestantism - which was a major schism in Western Christianity in the 1500's-1600's - largely driven by theology intersecting with a complete rebuttal of Papal primacy and authority (2) and (3) are essentially rejection of the RCC's position that they are the true church and some of the teaching and practices of the RCC that have resulted from this position. There is an enormous of unity within each of (1), (2) and (3) - even in (3) churches and denominations are broadly in fellowship with each other unless a particular church has embraced liberal theology where it would be hard to categorise them as Christian. Within (1) you won't find Catholics having a relationship with religious theory - likely a relationship with the church and what it represents to them. In (2) again it will likely still be a relationship with the church although not in exclusive terms. In (3) you will generally find that a person who regularly attends church will place complete importance on their relationship with Christ, as opposed to which church they attend, although some will regard their particular church, its beliefs and practices as closer to the Bible than others. In all three, across regular Christians, I don't see a lot of focus on a relationship with religious theory - more with either the church and what it represents or with Christ. Even though the 2x2's are a small Protestant group most protestant ministers when reviewing 2x2 beliefs and practices would describe it as either as essentially Catholic or a Christian sect - the former largely because of the focus on the church, the only right way and the role of the worker which is quite similar to the role of the Catholic priest in the RCC. Just some thoughts... I understand that you think you're all having a relationship with Christ, but it is based on a process, a theory, and a book that supports that theory. Then there are the various interpretations of that book and theory, which I see as a relationship with the interpretation that you agree with. I'm not sure how anyone can justify judging who is Christian and who is not especially since all Christians just follow the interpretation of the Bible that best works for them. Who is to say one interpretation is superior to another, therefore making other interpretations wrong and non Christian? Knowing that there is even some speculation as to an actual historical Christ existing adds to the choices one must make when interpretation is done. We do know there was a pagan belief called a "Christos" or 'Christ Consciousness', that existed before the Christian 'Christ' that became the first historical figure in a long line of 'Christs'. So interpretation, theory and speculation are all part of the Christian belief system. The one that you are partial to is the one you base your relationship on. That's how I see it anyway.
|
|
|
LL
Jul 1, 2015 17:07:08 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Jul 1, 2015 17:07:08 GMT -5
I understand that you think you're all having a relationship with Christ, but it is based on a process, a theory, and a book that supports that theory. Then there are the various interpretations of that book and theory, which I see as a relationship with the interpretation that you agree with. I'm not sure how anyone can justify judging who is Christian and who is not especially since all Christians just follow the interpretation of the Bible that best works for them. Who is to say one interpretation is superior to another, therefore making other interpretations wrong and non Christian? Knowing that there is even some speculation as to an actual historical Christ existing adds to the choices one must make when interpretation is done. We do know there was a pagan belief called a "Christos" or 'Christ Consciousness', that existed before the Christian 'Christ' that became the first historical figure in a long line of 'Christs'. So interpretation, theory and speculation are all part of the Christian belief system. The one that you are partial to is the one you base your relationship on. That's how I see it anyway. Snow your line of reasoning makes a great deal of sense to me. I am not sure I would restrict your comments to just Christianity, I suspect that the process of having a theory, interpreting that theory and then speculating as to the implications of that theory would probably apply to most beliefs. Like you, I am also troubled by judgmental assertions based on beliefs. Interestingly, the admonition against judging is explicitly expressed in the NT and yet by my lights it is one of the most frequently ignored piece of scripture by most Christians (I raised this as one of my key concerns with LL's letter, but interestingly enough, that concern garnered almost zero attention in the subsequent development of the thread. . . . curious). A firm and clear assertion of one's own beliefs is the essence of a meaningful debate. Sincere questioning of another's beliefs is critical to our own learning and growth but assertions as to the "errors" of another's beliefs seems somehow inappropriate to me (regardless of the subject matter). I would be interested in learning more about the "pagan belief called a "Christos" or "Christ Consciousness" that you mention. Can you point me toward a well documented source on this topic, I would like to follow-up on this point.
|
|
|
LL
Jul 1, 2015 18:06:55 GMT -5
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2015 18:06:55 GMT -5
I understand that you think you're all having a relationship with Christ, but it is based on a process, a theory, and a book that supports that theory. Then there are the various interpretations of that book and theory, which I see as a relationship with the interpretation that you agree with. I'm not sure how anyone can justify judging who is Christian and who is not especially since all Christians just follow the interpretation of the Bible that best works for them. Who is to say one interpretation is superior to another, therefore making other interpretations wrong and non Christian? Knowing that there is even some speculation as to an actual historical Christ existing adds to the choices one must make when interpretation is done. We do know there was a pagan belief called a "Christos" or 'Christ Consciousness', that existed before the Christian 'Christ' that became the first historical figure in a long line of 'Christs'. So interpretation, theory and speculation are all part of the Christian belief system. The one that you are partial to is the one you base your relationship on. That's how I see it anyway. Snow your line of reasoning makes a great deal of sense to me. I am not sure I would restrict your comments to just Christianity, I suspect that the process of having a theory, interpreting that theory and then speculating as to the implications of that theory would probably apply to most beliefs. Like you, I am also troubled by judgmental assertions based on beliefs. Interestingly, the admonition against judging is explicitly expressed in the NT and yet by my lights it is one of the most frequently ignored piece of scripture by most Christians (I raised this as one of my key concerns with LL's letter, but interestingly enough, that concern garnered almost zero attention in the subsequent development of the thread. . . . curious). A firm and clear assertion of one's own beliefs is the essence of a meaningful debate. Sincere questioning of another's beliefs is critical to our own learning and growth but assertions as to the "errors" of another's beliefs seems somehow inappropriate to me (regardless of the subject matter). I would be interested in learning more about the "pagan belief called a "Christos" or "Christ Consciousness" that you mention. Can you point me toward a well documented source on this topic, I would like to follow-up on this point. I agree, it can apply to all beliefs, not just Christian. I only focused on Christian because it was the various Christian beliefs being discussed here. But it would apply to any religion and probably all belief systems since we all have different levels of knowledge and unique ways of processing that knowledge. Christ consciousness is the New Age name for it but Christos is basically the name for 'the anointed one' or 'chosen one' and was given to Jesus as their Messiah. I believe the Christ part to Jesus was given after the resurrection and it was Paul that seemed to stress this name. Which makes sense since Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. It is believed that some of the Gnostic Christians didn't believe Christ was an actual historical flesh and blood person, but a consciousness. Most did believe Jesus existed though and he very likely did, though not likely quite the way the story went in the Bible. It is defined mostly as a cosmic consciousness that is a kind of spiritual awakening. I guess it would be similar to what Christians define as being born again. The one difference would be that it usually happened through meditation without the help of a Priest or any other religious leader's help. It was life changing. It is sometimes equated these days with a 'higher consciousness'. The leaders of other world religions before Christianity were considered to have this higher consciousness (Buddha, Zoroaster etc.) It referred or refers to an individual that has connected with a higher source and undergone an awakening of who they really are. Jesus was considered to be the anointed one as was The Buddha because they were considered to be enlightened in comparison to most. One author that has done a fair amount of work on the subject is Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and they explain the Christ consciousness pretty well. However, they also don't believe Jesus was a real person based on what they researched regarding the definition of the anointed one. I don't agree with that conclusion, but they do a good job of explaining some of the idea. One of their books that is one that subject is 'The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" They saw it as a myth, albeit a very important one, and part of earlier mythological 'Christs'. Another is Hermes Trismegistus, an Egyptian sage, that wrote of Osiris who was the Egyptian version of the 'Son of God'. The Pagan myths of dying/rising Godmen reach back a long ways and are likely based on the dying sun in the winter when it stops for 3 days and then starts it's ascent again into longer days 'rising'. The birth of the son/sun of God. I researched a lot of this when I was new to the understanding that much of the Jesus story was very similar to other stories that were pagan in origin, which surprised me. The early catholic fathers tried to explain this similarity away or use it to attract pagans to Christianity depending on their focus. It's interesting reading and quite extensive if you really start looking into it indepth.
|
|
|
LL
Jul 1, 2015 18:58:56 GMT -5
Post by placid-void on Jul 1, 2015 18:58:56 GMT -5
I agree, it can apply to all beliefs, not just Christian. I only focused on Christian because it was the various Christian beliefs being discussed here. But it would apply to any religion and probably all belief systems since we all have different levels of knowledge and unique ways of processing that knowledge. Christ consciousness is the New Age name for it but Christos is basically the name for 'the anointed one' or 'chosen one' and was given to Jesus as their Messiah. I believe the Christ part to Jesus was given after the resurrection and it was Paul that seemed to stress this name. Which makes sense since Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. It is believed that some of the Gnostic Christians didn't believe Christ was an actual historical flesh and blood person, but a consciousness. Most did believe Jesus existed though and he very likely did, though not likely quite the way the story went in the Bible. It is defined mostly as a cosmic consciousness that is a kind of spiritual awakening. I guess it would be similar to what Christians define as being born again. The one difference would be that it usually happened through meditation without the help of a Priest or any other religious leader's help. It was life changing. It is sometimes equated these days with a 'higher consciousness'. The leaders of other world religions before Christianity were considered to have this higher consciousness (Buddha, Zoroaster etc.) It referred or refers to an individual that has connected with a higher source and undergone an awakening of who they really are. Jesus was considered to be the anointed one as was The Buddha because they were considered to be enlightened in comparison to most. One author that has done a fair amount of work on the subject is Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and they explain the Christ consciousness pretty well. However, they also don't believe Jesus was a real person based on what they researched regarding the definition of the anointed one. I don't agree with that conclusion, but they do a good job of explaining some of the idea. One of their books that is one that subject is 'The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" They saw it as a myth, albeit a very important one, and part of earlier mythological 'Christs'. Another is Hermes Trismegistus, an Egyptian sage, that wrote of Osiris who was the Egyptian version of the 'Son of God'. The Pagan myths of dying/rising Godmen reach back a long ways and are likely based on the dying sun in the winter when it stops for 3 days and then starts it's ascent again into longer days 'rising'. The birth of the son/sun of God. I researched a lot of this when I was new to the understanding that much of the Jesus story was very similar to other stories that were pagan in origin, which surprised me. The early catholic fathers tried to explain this similarity away or use it to attract pagans to Christianity depending on their focus. It's interesting reading and quite extensive if you really start looking into it indepth. Thanks snow, that is a useful summary and gives me some good starting points. Reading your summary, I feel as if I have been led to the shores of the Rubicon but I lack the conviction to cross. I am unable to defend my thinking but a long time ago I took a brief look at "New Age Thought" and "found it wanting". I backed away at the time and have been unable to give it an objective assessment since. I often feel that some of the experiences I express here on TMB are "New Age-like" and it troubles me. You may have noticed some of my protestations in other posts on other threads, things like "I do not support New Age ideas!" For as long as I can remember, "higher consciousness" has been foundational in my belief system and worldview. Stated another way, I think there is more to life than a collection of physical forces and relationships. I can not prove this but that does not trouble me, I am comfortable in not knowing the nature/qualities of the transcendent awareness. The belief system has served me well by motivating me to seek participation in something greater than self while simultaneously aspiring to achieve a greater awareness of purpose and meaning in this gift of life. It is an idiosyncratic response, but when words like "cosmic consciousness" or "Christ consciousness" are brought to bear, I back away, nervously. Because of my cultural heritage, I do place great value in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as guides to the deeper archetypes. I do not, however, subscribe to literal interpretations of the scriptures.
|
|
|
LL
Jul 1, 2015 20:23:41 GMT -5
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2015 20:23:41 GMT -5
I agree, it can apply to all beliefs, not just Christian. I only focused on Christian because it was the various Christian beliefs being discussed here. But it would apply to any religion and probably all belief systems since we all have different levels of knowledge and unique ways of processing that knowledge. Christ consciousness is the New Age name for it but Christos is basically the name for 'the anointed one' or 'chosen one' and was given to Jesus as their Messiah. I believe the Christ part to Jesus was given after the resurrection and it was Paul that seemed to stress this name. Which makes sense since Paul was a Hellenistic Jew. It is believed that some of the Gnostic Christians didn't believe Christ was an actual historical flesh and blood person, but a consciousness. Most did believe Jesus existed though and he very likely did, though not likely quite the way the story went in the Bible. It is defined mostly as a cosmic consciousness that is a kind of spiritual awakening. I guess it would be similar to what Christians define as being born again. The one difference would be that it usually happened through meditation without the help of a Priest or any other religious leader's help. It was life changing. It is sometimes equated these days with a 'higher consciousness'. The leaders of other world religions before Christianity were considered to have this higher consciousness (Buddha, Zoroaster etc.) It referred or refers to an individual that has connected with a higher source and undergone an awakening of who they really are. Jesus was considered to be the anointed one as was The Buddha because they were considered to be enlightened in comparison to most. One author that has done a fair amount of work on the subject is Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy and they explain the Christ consciousness pretty well. However, they also don't believe Jesus was a real person based on what they researched regarding the definition of the anointed one. I don't agree with that conclusion, but they do a good job of explaining some of the idea. One of their books that is one that subject is 'The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" They saw it as a myth, albeit a very important one, and part of earlier mythological 'Christs'. Another is Hermes Trismegistus, an Egyptian sage, that wrote of Osiris who was the Egyptian version of the 'Son of God'. The Pagan myths of dying/rising Godmen reach back a long ways and are likely based on the dying sun in the winter when it stops for 3 days and then starts it's ascent again into longer days 'rising'. The birth of the son/sun of God. I researched a lot of this when I was new to the understanding that much of the Jesus story was very similar to other stories that were pagan in origin, which surprised me. The early catholic fathers tried to explain this similarity away or use it to attract pagans to Christianity depending on their focus. It's interesting reading and quite extensive if you really start looking into it indepth. Thanks snow, that is a useful summary and gives me some good starting points. Reading your summary, I feel as if I have been led to the shores of the Rubicon but I lack the conviction to cross. I am unable to defend my thinking but a long time ago I took a brief look at "New Age Thought" and "found it wanting". I backed away at the time and have been unable to give it an objective assessment since. I often feel that some of the experiences I express here on TMB are "New Age-like" and it troubles me. You may have noticed some of my protestations in other posts on other threads, things like "I do not support New Age ideas!" For as long as I can remember, "higher consciousness" has been foundational in my belief system and worldview. Stated another way, I think there is more to life than a collection of physical forces and relationships. I can not prove this but that does not trouble me, I am comfortable in not knowing the nature/qualities of the transcendent awareness. The belief system has served me well by motivating me to seek participation in something greater than self while simultaneously aspiring to achieve a greater awareness of purpose and meaning in this gift of life. It is an idiosyncratic response, but when words like "cosmic consciousness" or "Christ consciousness" are brought to bear, I back away, nervously. Because of my cultural heritage, I do place great value in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as guides to the deeper archetypes. I do not, however, subscribe to literal interpretations of the scriptures. Don't be too afraid. The book I listed isn't too bad that way. I'm like you, I back away from New age thought. The term Christ consciousness or cosmic consciousness is a bit woo hoo for me also, but as you seem to think there could be a 'higher self' that you can't prove but seem to think it might exist, you will be okay with the older thought coming out of Hinduism and Buddhism (not new age stuff) that there is an enlightenment that is reached by some. The Pagan myths are not new age and give us very good insight into what the ancient world believed. In many ways Jesus seemed to uphold many of the Eastern religious views over the Hebrew religious views. By studying both you get to see the similarities and it does make you wonder if the stories are true that he did travel to India during the missing years of 12 to 30 and it was reflected in this beliefs and teachings. There is supposed to be a controversial scroll that is in one of the Tibetan monasteries that states someone by that name visited them and learned with them, that he visited with Thomas, his cousin John, Mary Magdalene and several others. I have read those reports and have no opinion really whether they are true or not. I think that the ancient world was an interesting place with some very sophisticated spiritual teachings. We know that most of what Jesus taught had already been a thought that had come from older sources. Christianity and even Judaism are still relatively 'new' religions in the big picture. It was actually quite a leap for people to go from worshiping many Gods to worshiping one God and the first that I know of was an Egyptian Pharaoh which is probably where the Hebrew people got the idea when they went from worshiping more than one god to just worshiping Yahweh exclusively.
|
|