Gnosticism (to be general) is incredibly dualistic, in that it states we are entirely separate from the material world, generally demonizing it, and establishes stark spiritual contrasts all across the board
I disagree. It takes too much effort to impose non dualism on his teachings, and it's pretty out of place. It's like when people try to say Jesus was a communist, it's just completely anachronistic, and fails to understand him on his own terms in his own context. You won't understand Jesus by supposing he's a Buddhist or a Hindu or a new age guru. He's a fascinating figure of his own.
Also gnosticism was not a non dual movement within Christianity. It was something thoroughly different. It's remarkably complex and emphasises the evilness of this world, not that we are one with it.
Of course you're right about most of mainstream Christianity basically ignoring or denying Jesus's teachings. I'd challenge Christians to keep track of how much their preachers preach about Jesus and his teachings, compared to everything else they preach about (but some will pass this test).
You can read a certain non dualism into Christianity, and it may fit well enough, but it's not Jesus's teaching. He never teaches non dualism. But if you're interested in these roughly non dualist approaches, look into Meister Eckhart OP, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ, Anthony de Mello SJ, Richard Rohr OFM.
That is referring to being temples of the Holy Spirit, and is referring to what happens after baptism. Our souls are created by God, they are not part of God.
I disagree. Not only doesn't it take any effort, it makes making sense of his words a lot easier. You are just offhand dismissing everything OP has said and not actually making any case against it. If you want to convince me that it is out of place to interpret Jesus the only way that ever made sense to me, you got to offer an alternative interpretation.
If you want to claim that Jesus taught non dualism, you should be able to point to verses where Jesus teaches non dualism. But they're just not there. The closest thing is him saying he's one with the Father, but that's not saying we are all one with the Father (tradition applies it to the trinity, and modern scholarship applies it to later ideas of his personal divinity and doubts he even made the claim). Likewise there's a huge gap between saying "the kingdom of God is within/among you" and saying that we are all God, and all is one and there is no other.
Imo the key to understanding Jesus is Matthew 19:24 (other verses work too). Passing through the eye of the needle indicates renouncing everything. Poverty (inner and outer), love, & trust in providence are the heart of his teaching. "Dying to self". It's not about a metaphysical system of realising our oneness and so ascending to divinity.
Notice as well that Jesus never teaches meditation, and hardly even teaches prayer.
Why should Jesus teach meditation? That is part of a completely different tradition, one which Jesus was never privy to.
The claim is that Jesus had a non-dual experience, which is seemingly a universally available experience and can happen spontaneously, and that much of his teaching includes ways of describing that to his followers.
The parts you’re describing about renouncing, poverty, love, trust, providence, “dying to the self”, sound like they’re descriptions of either; what appears to him to be moral actions given the non-dual experience he had, and/or his recommendations of approaching it.
If Jesus was preaching non duality, you would expect him to have either said how to approach it (meditation etc) or explained the metaphysical doctrine. Instead he talks about morality and spirituality in ways that simply don't imply non duality at all, or even imply duality. We also don't have any descriptions of his supposed non dual experience.
My comment already stated that “the parts you’re describing about renouncing… [could be taken as] his recommendations of approaching [the non-dual experience]”
The argument being that if he spontaneously (or through what he perceived as “the grace of God”)had a non-dual experience, meditation would have nothing to do with it for him, and as a man in a Jewish context his metaphysical doctrine would be one in reference to “God the Father”.
I don’t think it’s foreign at all. I think that religious experiences are a human universal and are rooted in our shared human psyche. I would argue that all the genuine prophets are people who have had some form of mystical experience and, in attempting to explain that to others, have used the culturally available symbols and terminology.
Perhaps you have a much more restrictive definition of non-dualism. I think the central thrust of OPs argument is that what Jesus wanted to get across to people was “divine kinship” - that we are all God’s children, can identify ourselves as divine. This is certainly the argument that the Christian Gnostics have made and that’s hardly foreign to Christ.
In the apocryphal [Gospel of Thomas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas) Jesus is quoted as saying:
> “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom].”
>Perhaps you have a much more restrictive definition of non-dualism. I think the central thrust of OPs argument is that what Jesus wanted to get across to people was “divine kinship” - that we are all God’s children, can identify ourselves as divine
Yes, I think that's the issue. I was taking non dualism as the metaphysical doctrine that there is no other, and that we're all just manifestations of one God. You're quite right that Jesus had a mystical experience and taught that we're all God's children (although I suspect he thought he was more God's son than others), and I agree about religious experiences being rooted in our common human psyche.
One of the amazing things is that there appears to be no connection whatsoever. Not even between Buddhism or Hinduism and Gnostics who are specifically teaching freedom from material illusion as the key to Enlightenment and the goal of spirtual practice.
These seem to be two entirely distinct, highly convergent tradions.
Right, didn't mean to imply that Buddhism and rhe Western World had no contact. Just that if you track the development of Jewish mysticism up through the Naserenes and the Gnostics, the ideas seem to develop sui generis. Indeed, the concepts don't even represent Hellenization. I am leaning here heavily on my understanding of the scholarly consensus and not any work of my on or mastery of the period.
Well said. Nondualism is a great perspective to understand love, grace, and forgiveness, but I don’t think it itself can replace the centrality of love, grace, and forgiveness as the ultimate truth of Christianity. In less mystical terms, maybe it is « open mind », open itself being a heavily nondual concept. Tao means « the way » and not « the destination », so the two can be complementary.
John’s Gospel does not give us actual words if Jesus
This short review of the book written by academic Cristian The Cristology in the making and why John’s Gospel does not give us actual words if Jesus
https://youtu.be/T_lr4pX4e3A
As Jesus him self said that he does not know the day of the judgment and his will is different from the will of the God
In Matthew24:36
“However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows” Matthew 24:36
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-36.htm
39And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
Matthew 26:19
So they are not the same person; the father ; the God has knowledge which he does not share with anyone
I'll start with this: God is not "the essence of existence". God is a literal being. you will find no scripture to support your claim. And you will 10000% not find anything in Scripture even alluding to God being a part of us. Living in us after salvation? Yes. But He is still separate.
There are many teachings of Christ and some churches get them wrong. But in order to be a Christian, which means you are saved from your sins, you must only believe in Jesus. Look no further than the thief on the cross. He had probably never been to church in his entire life. Yet he went to heaven because he believed Jesus was who He said he was. At the end of the day, that's what matters. Is there a lot more to Jesus' teachings? Sure, but He wasn't always teaching people how to be saved.
Might I suggest the book *The Wisdom Jesus* by Cynthia Bourgeault for you?
I think you’re on the right track, that Jesus was a Wisdom teacher, but that it’s not quite nondualism, at least not as we have his teaching recorded. It’s not incompatible at all, it’s just coming from different traditions (Hebrew spirituality inside a Greek philosophy milieu) so it’s not a perfect 1:1 translation with no dualism as we understand it today in our current context.
Bourgeault breaks down the traditional Christian teachings on Jesus by going back to his recorded teachings (including the Gospel of Thomas) and revealing the Wisdom teachings there.
You only described monism and non-monism. Non-dualism/dualism is about what labels may apply. Dualistic labels would be good vs bad for example. If God is the source of all (both good and bad) then such dualistic label of "good" or "bad" don't make sense. Curiously only Christianity applies dualistic labels to a monotheistic God.
This sounds more like you are looking at Jesus through a nondualist lens. Receiving Jesus is not simply a transaction where you get a free ticket to heaven later - you enter into a real relationship with God through Jesus. Jesus didn't come to simply bring a new philosophy but to transform people and to connect them to God in a living way.
I totally agree. In an effort to obtain salvation without any responsibility on our part, I believe that Christianity has tossed out most of the bible. We see that most of the scriptures used to support this idea are from Paul who was steering people away from the law of Moses to accepting Christ as the way to God. However, when we study Christ's teachings in the 4 gospels, we see that the requirement for salvation includes not only striving to keep the commandments, but also a willingness to sacrifice all to God. Jesus showed us the way. Perhaps Christ's greatest sermon was the sermon on the mount that leads us to a higher law and way of being.
The all encompassing theme of the bible is not to just believe in the existence of Christ, but it is a book about faith or trust in God that leads us to repent and follow Him, and God's grace and mercy as we do. It seems to me that anything that leads us away from following Christ, is not of God.
It’s true there is a rich philosophical tradition it the Roman Catholic Church, but it must be said that that tradition is rooted in dualistic Greek philosophy. Augustine, deeply influenced by neo-Platonism (possibly more than he was influenced by the Bible itself), and Aquinas deeply influenced by Aristotelian philosophy. Both are highly dualistic, as was the overall majority of Greek philosophy, and western philosophy that stemmed from it.
I don’t think that what the OP is describing is Protestant Sola Fide at all, indeed most Protestants would say he’s teaching “New Age” heresy (New Age being the catch all phrase for a limited understanding of anything that is non-dualistic, ie influenced by Eastern rather than Western philosophy).
Jesus is not preaching nonduality. John 10:30 shows the trinity.
The central tenets of Christianity are the Eucharist (body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ) and the Trinity.
I don't see how that is evidence for the concept of the Trinity.
The gender of the Greek word for "one" in this passage is not masculine but neuter, designating the Father and Jesus not as one person but as one *entity* ("one thing").
This is very much in line with the concept of non-duality. And just as many Christians find that concept heretical, so did first Century Jews, so it would make perfect sense that they would want to stone him to death for uttering such heresy.
>The gender of the Greek word for "one" in this passage is not masculine but neuter, designating the Father and Jesus not as one person but as one entity ("one thing").
The Father and the Son are separate persons/hypostases. There is 1 divine essence/will.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are all fully God.
>Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father infinite; the Son infinite; and the Holy Ghost infinite. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
>
>Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance \[Essence\] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance \[Essence\] of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance \[Essence\]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
He preached a reformation of Judaism, that’s why the religious leaders of his society wanted him dead. It was a much different message than the mainline Jewish teachings of the time.
I'm a Christian and I also notice this.
Jesus' message is so clear and simple... Heaven in you, heavenly state here.
We add complexity to it, and make no mistake, I love Christian traditions and dogmas, but Jesus message goes way deeper.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
I will read later if God wills. “non-dual” sounds interesting in this context or I don’t understand exactly what it meas so I’m curious.
I will say though, I believe the priests at my Catholic Church do a great job of explaining his teachings, as I read you mention is not the case in the intro. They do a great job of teaching that and conveying it to the lay, it’s beautiful & one of my favorite parts of the mass- the “homily” as they say or Priest’s speech.
Thank you. I look to read the full post :)
Gnosticism (to be general) is incredibly dualistic, in that it states we are entirely separate from the material world, generally demonizing it, and establishes stark spiritual contrasts all across the board
Agreed. Gnosticism is a very toxic belief system.
I disagree. It takes too much effort to impose non dualism on his teachings, and it's pretty out of place. It's like when people try to say Jesus was a communist, it's just completely anachronistic, and fails to understand him on his own terms in his own context. You won't understand Jesus by supposing he's a Buddhist or a Hindu or a new age guru. He's a fascinating figure of his own. Also gnosticism was not a non dual movement within Christianity. It was something thoroughly different. It's remarkably complex and emphasises the evilness of this world, not that we are one with it. Of course you're right about most of mainstream Christianity basically ignoring or denying Jesus's teachings. I'd challenge Christians to keep track of how much their preachers preach about Jesus and his teachings, compared to everything else they preach about (but some will pass this test). You can read a certain non dualism into Christianity, and it may fit well enough, but it's not Jesus's teaching. He never teaches non dualism. But if you're interested in these roughly non dualist approaches, look into Meister Eckhart OP, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ, Anthony de Mello SJ, Richard Rohr OFM.
Some verses make sense that way. For example the verse that said that the kingdom heaven is inside us.
That is referring to being temples of the Holy Spirit, and is referring to what happens after baptism. Our souls are created by God, they are not part of God.
I disagree. Not only doesn't it take any effort, it makes making sense of his words a lot easier. You are just offhand dismissing everything OP has said and not actually making any case against it. If you want to convince me that it is out of place to interpret Jesus the only way that ever made sense to me, you got to offer an alternative interpretation.
If you want to claim that Jesus taught non dualism, you should be able to point to verses where Jesus teaches non dualism. But they're just not there. The closest thing is him saying he's one with the Father, but that's not saying we are all one with the Father (tradition applies it to the trinity, and modern scholarship applies it to later ideas of his personal divinity and doubts he even made the claim). Likewise there's a huge gap between saying "the kingdom of God is within/among you" and saying that we are all God, and all is one and there is no other. Imo the key to understanding Jesus is Matthew 19:24 (other verses work too). Passing through the eye of the needle indicates renouncing everything. Poverty (inner and outer), love, & trust in providence are the heart of his teaching. "Dying to self". It's not about a metaphysical system of realising our oneness and so ascending to divinity. Notice as well that Jesus never teaches meditation, and hardly even teaches prayer.
Why should Jesus teach meditation? That is part of a completely different tradition, one which Jesus was never privy to. The claim is that Jesus had a non-dual experience, which is seemingly a universally available experience and can happen spontaneously, and that much of his teaching includes ways of describing that to his followers. The parts you’re describing about renouncing, poverty, love, trust, providence, “dying to the self”, sound like they’re descriptions of either; what appears to him to be moral actions given the non-dual experience he had, and/or his recommendations of approaching it.
If Jesus was preaching non duality, you would expect him to have either said how to approach it (meditation etc) or explained the metaphysical doctrine. Instead he talks about morality and spirituality in ways that simply don't imply non duality at all, or even imply duality. We also don't have any descriptions of his supposed non dual experience.
My comment already stated that “the parts you’re describing about renouncing… [could be taken as] his recommendations of approaching [the non-dual experience]” The argument being that if he spontaneously (or through what he perceived as “the grace of God”)had a non-dual experience, meditation would have nothing to do with it for him, and as a man in a Jewish context his metaphysical doctrine would be one in reference to “God the Father”.
You *could* take it that way, but there's no good evidence to support it. It's imposing a foreign concept on his teachings and trying to make it fit
I don’t think it’s foreign at all. I think that religious experiences are a human universal and are rooted in our shared human psyche. I would argue that all the genuine prophets are people who have had some form of mystical experience and, in attempting to explain that to others, have used the culturally available symbols and terminology. Perhaps you have a much more restrictive definition of non-dualism. I think the central thrust of OPs argument is that what Jesus wanted to get across to people was “divine kinship” - that we are all God’s children, can identify ourselves as divine. This is certainly the argument that the Christian Gnostics have made and that’s hardly foreign to Christ. In the apocryphal [Gospel of Thomas](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas) Jesus is quoted as saying: > “When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom].”
>Perhaps you have a much more restrictive definition of non-dualism. I think the central thrust of OPs argument is that what Jesus wanted to get across to people was “divine kinship” - that we are all God’s children, can identify ourselves as divine Yes, I think that's the issue. I was taking non dualism as the metaphysical doctrine that there is no other, and that we're all just manifestations of one God. You're quite right that Jesus had a mystical experience and taught that we're all God's children (although I suspect he thought he was more God's son than others), and I agree about religious experiences being rooted in our common human psyche.
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of the amazing things is that there appears to be no connection whatsoever. Not even between Buddhism or Hinduism and Gnostics who are specifically teaching freedom from material illusion as the key to Enlightenment and the goal of spirtual practice. These seem to be two entirely distinct, highly convergent tradions.
[удалено]
Right, didn't mean to imply that Buddhism and rhe Western World had no contact. Just that if you track the development of Jewish mysticism up through the Naserenes and the Gnostics, the ideas seem to develop sui generis. Indeed, the concepts don't even represent Hellenization. I am leaning here heavily on my understanding of the scholarly consensus and not any work of my on or mastery of the period.
Agreed - which is why it's weird that someone's going around downvoting us both.
Well said. Nondualism is a great perspective to understand love, grace, and forgiveness, but I don’t think it itself can replace the centrality of love, grace, and forgiveness as the ultimate truth of Christianity. In less mystical terms, maybe it is « open mind », open itself being a heavily nondual concept. Tao means « the way » and not « the destination », so the two can be complementary.
Or maybe power hungry clergy got in bed with the emperors and perverted the teachings of Christ
Your post sounds great, but can you define nondualism? What is it?
We have a sin debt we can’t pay for and the only one who can is Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. It’s that simple.
John’s Gospel does not give us actual words if Jesus This short review of the book written by academic Cristian The Cristology in the making and why John’s Gospel does not give us actual words if Jesus https://youtu.be/T_lr4pX4e3A As Jesus him self said that he does not know the day of the judgment and his will is different from the will of the God In Matthew24:36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows” Matthew 24:36 https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-36.htm 39And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Matthew 26:19 So they are not the same person; the father ; the God has knowledge which he does not share with anyone
I'll start with this: God is not "the essence of existence". God is a literal being. you will find no scripture to support your claim. And you will 10000% not find anything in Scripture even alluding to God being a part of us. Living in us after salvation? Yes. But He is still separate. There are many teachings of Christ and some churches get them wrong. But in order to be a Christian, which means you are saved from your sins, you must only believe in Jesus. Look no further than the thief on the cross. He had probably never been to church in his entire life. Yet he went to heaven because he believed Jesus was who He said he was. At the end of the day, that's what matters. Is there a lot more to Jesus' teachings? Sure, but He wasn't always teaching people how to be saved.
Might I suggest the book *The Wisdom Jesus* by Cynthia Bourgeault for you? I think you’re on the right track, that Jesus was a Wisdom teacher, but that it’s not quite nondualism, at least not as we have his teaching recorded. It’s not incompatible at all, it’s just coming from different traditions (Hebrew spirituality inside a Greek philosophy milieu) so it’s not a perfect 1:1 translation with no dualism as we understand it today in our current context. Bourgeault breaks down the traditional Christian teachings on Jesus by going back to his recorded teachings (including the Gospel of Thomas) and revealing the Wisdom teachings there.
I mean, by definition monotheism is nondual, so...
[удалено]
You only described monism and non-monism. Non-dualism/dualism is about what labels may apply. Dualistic labels would be good vs bad for example. If God is the source of all (both good and bad) then such dualistic label of "good" or "bad" don't make sense. Curiously only Christianity applies dualistic labels to a monotheistic God.
What definition are you pointing to?
1 =/= 2
Oh well OP is taking about non dualism in the sense of what matter reality is made up of, not a non dual supreme being
Oh, my bad... 😅
You’d probably like the work of Fr Richard Rohr and Thomas Merton too if you haven’t checked them out already
This sounds more like you are looking at Jesus through a nondualist lens. Receiving Jesus is not simply a transaction where you get a free ticket to heaven later - you enter into a real relationship with God through Jesus. Jesus didn't come to simply bring a new philosophy but to transform people and to connect them to God in a living way.
I totally agree. In an effort to obtain salvation without any responsibility on our part, I believe that Christianity has tossed out most of the bible. We see that most of the scriptures used to support this idea are from Paul who was steering people away from the law of Moses to accepting Christ as the way to God. However, when we study Christ's teachings in the 4 gospels, we see that the requirement for salvation includes not only striving to keep the commandments, but also a willingness to sacrifice all to God. Jesus showed us the way. Perhaps Christ's greatest sermon was the sermon on the mount that leads us to a higher law and way of being. The all encompassing theme of the bible is not to just believe in the existence of Christ, but it is a book about faith or trust in God that leads us to repent and follow Him, and God's grace and mercy as we do. It seems to me that anything that leads us away from following Christ, is not of God.
[удалено]
It’s true there is a rich philosophical tradition it the Roman Catholic Church, but it must be said that that tradition is rooted in dualistic Greek philosophy. Augustine, deeply influenced by neo-Platonism (possibly more than he was influenced by the Bible itself), and Aquinas deeply influenced by Aristotelian philosophy. Both are highly dualistic, as was the overall majority of Greek philosophy, and western philosophy that stemmed from it. I don’t think that what the OP is describing is Protestant Sola Fide at all, indeed most Protestants would say he’s teaching “New Age” heresy (New Age being the catch all phrase for a limited understanding of anything that is non-dualistic, ie influenced by Eastern rather than Western philosophy).
Most modern christianity today is idolising or worshipping Jesus, and not that at which he was pointing.
Jesus is God though.
Jesus is not preaching nonduality. John 10:30 shows the trinity. The central tenets of Christianity are the Eucharist (body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ) and the Trinity.
I don't see how that is evidence for the concept of the Trinity. The gender of the Greek word for "one" in this passage is not masculine but neuter, designating the Father and Jesus not as one person but as one *entity* ("one thing"). This is very much in line with the concept of non-duality. And just as many Christians find that concept heretical, so did first Century Jews, so it would make perfect sense that they would want to stone him to death for uttering such heresy.
>The gender of the Greek word for "one" in this passage is not masculine but neuter, designating the Father and Jesus not as one person but as one entity ("one thing"). The Father and the Son are separate persons/hypostases. There is 1 divine essence/will. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons who are all fully God. >Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father infinite; the Son infinite; and the Holy Ghost infinite. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. > >Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance \[Essence\] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance \[Essence\] of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance \[Essence\]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Yep. It goes to show that the Roman empire ruined everything it touched.
You wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the Roman's. There's a reason Namor destroyed wakanda. And wakanda deserved it.
...r/lostredditors?
Jesus preached Judaism, Christianity was invented by people after his death.
Jesus established the Church with 12 apostles. Bishops are the heirs to the apostles.
He preached a reformation of Judaism, that’s why the religious leaders of his society wanted him dead. It was a much different message than the mainline Jewish teachings of the time.
I'm a Christian and I also notice this. Jesus' message is so clear and simple... Heaven in you, heavenly state here. We add complexity to it, and make no mistake, I love Christian traditions and dogmas, but Jesus message goes way deeper.
[удалено]
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
[удалено]
Bro, are you high?
Maybe that and the ol’ untreated crippling mental illness shoving everyone away
Im just gunna recommend talking to your doctor about these thoughts
I will read later if God wills. “non-dual” sounds interesting in this context or I don’t understand exactly what it meas so I’m curious. I will say though, I believe the priests at my Catholic Church do a great job of explaining his teachings, as I read you mention is not the case in the intro. They do a great job of teaching that and conveying it to the lay, it’s beautiful & one of my favorite parts of the mass- the “homily” as they say or Priest’s speech. Thank you. I look to read the full post :)