Jesus-Myth: Ananda Marga, PROUT, Zeitgeist, Shiva v. Christian Commons

Form submission:

you have so much logic in what you said [what and where?], but remember we are still no different than jesus, we are the divine too, but jesus was self realized that is why he is unique.. infact the doctrine of the trinity is hindu but it really means that we are body mind and soul connected to the divine,,
also THE VIRGIN BIRTH IS PAGAN, AND FOR ME THE RESSURECTION IS SYMBOLIC..
THE ESSENES SAY JESUS NEVER DIED ON THE CROSS BUT HE WAS REVIVED, ANDjoseph of arimathea CAME AND HEALED HIM WITH HERBS BEC THE ESENES WERE HEALERS AND THIS IS HOW JESUS USED TO HEAL. ONE CAN HEAL BY KRIYA YOGA
BUT i WANT TO ASK WHY WAS JESUS MEAN TO A GENTILE WOMAN AT FIRST CALLING HER A DOG

My Reply:

Greetings [deleted],

Why did you submit this via the form rather than leaving it as an open comment/question?

I don't agree that everyone is divine. Also, that there is trinity in Hinduism doesn't mean Christianity has Hindu roots. It doesn't. Trinity in Christianity is what it is: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The virgin birth is a matter of faith. Some accept it. "Almah" in Isaiah 7:14 has been translated as virgin but also "young woman" (of marriageable age) who is to be a virgin [by choice or a widow].

In Christianity, Jesus heals by the faith in God to heal with and without herbs.

As for Jesus saying "dogs," it hearkens back to other tribes who did in fact act that way. That is not to say that Jacob's descendents were immune. Jesus was sent first to the 12 tribes to bring back those who were of the spirit but lost. Then he told his followers to also go to the Gentiles.

She proved herself no dog. That's all. She was not offended and did not offend. She was tested and found not wanting. It was a lesson, a sign, a foreshadowing, far from mean.

Peace,

Tom Usher

Her reply [Subject: the suffis say we are all divine by nature but we forgot that]:

what do u think makes jesus different than us. I don't believe he was god, and also why did he test the woman's faith bec she is a gentile how about the jewish woman whom jesus told the pharisees if u are without sin throw the first stone, why did he help a jew if a gentile did this he will say she is a dog. why is that isn't he a loving person

Her reply [Subject: what i mean about trinity is that its not original]:

the trinity in xtianity was taken from greek babylonian and hindu cultures, this has nothing to do with monothiesm.. and jesus was much weaker than god he cried and prayed

My reply:

You don't believe him. That's up to you.

He tests everyone. It's inherent. You're being overly "literal."

He also called certain Jews "serpents." He called his own disciple, Peter, "Satan." You are misunderstanding what love is.

He loved Peter. He told Peter the truth that Peter was being anti-God when Peter was saying what he was saying. Peter repented. That was good. If Jesus hadn't told him, Jesus would have been hating Peter — having not enough love to tell him the truth that Peter needed to hear.

When Peter was being Satanic, he was not being divine. When he repented, he was then and only then heading in the right direction. Evil is not divine. Sin is anti-divinity.

Do you understand now?

You didn't answer my question. If you don't answer my questions, I won't continue responding.

Her reply [Subject: no i love him]:

ofcourse all masters should test their deciple as u said this is love. I told u jesus and buddhs talked only abt love and the were the awakened ones this is the divine within them. I learn from them I would love to talk to them if I can. I always admired jesus, he is my love , my brother, But with all my respect to you, I don't worship him. Read about the essenes and also there is a book called The historical jesus vs the christ of faith, the jesus of the bible is not a real person, he is a copy of many pagan gods before him..
there was a jesus in history actually there were many, but not all were good. the true yeshua son of joseph and mary was enlightened and he became unified with god, but that doesn't mean we should make him an idol of worship. but its up to u if u want to think he is god this is not my concern

My reply:

You use words in ways not intended in the Gospel. Situations were testing, but Jesus didn't set up tests. The distinction may be too subtle for you at this point.

Have you looked up the word "worship" and studied its roots, etc.?

I have already studied Essenism.

Lastly, Jesus is not an idol in real Christianity.

Your understanding of Jesus and Christianity is very limited and woefully misguided.

The following video is tailor-made for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hgX6w4U-2o [Not a full endorsement, but it does refute Peter Joseph. There is a glaring error concerning Albert Pike, not that Pike didn't worship Satan. He just didn't write what the video attributed to him. That part is known as the "Taxil Hoax," after Leo Taxil who dishonestly spoofed the Roman Catholics.]

You are being called. Will you be chosen?

Her reply [Subject: lol I know about religions more tha u do by far]:

you don't even have philosophy sorry to say. infact the zeitgist might not all be correct but, the ideas put in the bible are definately pagan. I sent u a whole article about the mythical virgin birth. there are thousands of so called mythical gods who have the same story as jesus
and by u saying my knowledge is limited, im sorry to tell u I asked many priests and i read the bible. all i can tell u is that its pure myth
if u don't believe the true yeshua was a kabalist essene, then im sorry to tell u stick to ur pagan mythical christ
I respected ur believes although they are premature to me but u went out of your way to tell me in ignorant. solet me be bec your mentakity and believes are not realistic to me. go and read philosophy about our divine soul the atman and brahman read the suffi philosophy as well as the essene, you will then get out from fairy tales, as long as u believe things like a man being born without a father, nd he camr from the clouds, he died and rose on the 3rd day u are very far from reality..
by the way did u know that christmas and easter are pagan.. infact easter is the rebirth of the fertility god. and christmas is actually the birth day of the sun god mithra, when the sun crosses the winter eqinox...
you can never deny the pagan origin of christianity. I don't care what you believe, but to me you are worshiping an idol... if u love jesus you will learn about the real yeshua of history, in this way u are giving him value, but to worship a mythical god man thats not the historical man called yeshua

Her reply [Subject: the symbolism of the bibles]:

by the way there are many bibles suppressed by the church...infact if u read the gospel of thomas, and phillip you will see that jesus was a wisdom teacher.. and maybe he was even married, its not impossible .. the church made mary magdalene as a prostitute to supress her role... yuck mainstream xtianity is so fake and so illogical. jesus admired women. but from paul whom u consider a saint he made women like objects. I hate when he says women do not speak in churh just obey ur husbands.. this is really so ignorant. I don't think an enlightened person like jesus would have agreeed with this whole christianity we have today.. poor jesus he has really been misinterpreted.. really the people who can depict the real jesus are countable.. im happy to join the ananda marga bec they have a great wise philosophy..
lol just one more thing that u don't know, jesus never talked about resurrection literally .. jusus tought reincarnation. he was jewish and jews did believe in that the soul reincarnates until it reaches perfection.. infact although reincarnation was suppressed by the church, u can still find hints of it in the bible. jesus said that john the baptist was elijah to come, and the more obvious one is when his deciples asked him why is the man born blind was he a sinner, so when was he a sinner in his mom's womb obviously not. its clear that he had a previous life..
if u realize jesus didn't rebuke his deciples by saying what kind of doctrine are u talking about? he just said for the glory of god to be worked on him..
by the way also not all the miracles in the bible are real. sometimes making the blind see could mean making a person who lives in darkness and ignorace become enlightened or unified with god, same thing with the lazarus story when he was brought to life

My reply:

Look [deleted], out of the blue, you did a form submission. You made some comments and asked a question. I replied with the answer and specifically asked you, "Why did you submit this via the form rather than leaving it as an open comment/question?" You didn't answer the question. I then told you I wouldn't continue communicating if you don't answer my questions. You replied without answering; and you said you had told me things, but I have no such information in your preceding messages.

You say you discussed Buddha with me, but I have no such message where you supposedly did that.

Following on that, you wrote back again claiming you are laughing and based upon a few messages and without knowing me, stating in the subject line of your message that you "know more about religion than" I "do by far." You hardly had enough information to make such an assumption.

You claim you sent me a whole article about the virgin birth. I received no such article, not that I need one from you.

Without asking, you jumped to so many wild assumptions about what I do or don't believe and what I have or have not read. You are no conversationalist.

You speak at me as if I'm a Roman Catholic. I am not a Roman Catholic, and I am not Orthodox or Protestant. I don't push Roman Catholic dogma or strict-literalist interpretations. I'm not consumed by the virgin-birth issue. I have never dismissed it out-of-hand, but neither have I ever defended it. I certainly believe God has the power to bring forth people without the sexual procreation by which you came into this world. I certainly believe Jesus literally performed the miracles attributed to him in the Gospels. There really were some five thousand men with women and children Jesus fed with two fish and five loaves of bread and had twelve baskets full left over. If you choose to believe that Jesus was a real person but did none of the miracles, that's you.

I don't care about the term "pagan" in terms of how you think you are applying it to Jesus. If you think my Jesus is pagan in any sense you are thinking you may have defined the term (although based upon what you've written to me and how, I doubt you've ever defined it), it doesn't change my mind about Jesus.

You also claimed again that I worship an idol even after I told you Jesus is not an "idol." You don't appear to be using the term as it is used in the Old Testament. If you mean that it is an error to consider Jesus a deity, then why did you write we are the divine too?

I had asked you if you've studied the word "worship." You didn't answer that either. You claim to love Jesus and you claim we are divine with him, yet you turn around and dishonor him by saying that he is not worthy of being loved and honored as a deity. You appear to want to separate everyone, including Jesus, from the power that is God. You appear to be saying that no human being is ever anointed to perform what to the materialists would constitute metaphysical feats or miracles.

I was going to say: "What is your religion, scientism? Is metaphysics too abstract for you? You have apparently not experienced what is widely considered the metaphysical or spiritual." However, you wrote that you adhere to Ananda Marga. That explains a great deal about your negative attitudes toward the God of Jesus Christ of the canonical Gospels.

In spite of your somewhat lengthy negative statements about my Christianity (which you still don't understand), you never clearly stated your own religious first-principle. Nevertheless, I understand that you are a humanist apart from YHVH (who is Jesus's and my God and is not a Demiurge but rather misunderstood by the Pharisees and others, including you); emphasize Shiva; and do not agree with my non-Marxian communism unless you disagree with the founding guru of your sect.

Your founding guru's (Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar) understanding of the proper economics of existence falls far short of my understanding and the things I've written on this site pertaining. In the economics of the Kingdom of God and the New Heaven and New Earth, there are no divisions as outlined by your founder. There is no separation of government from cooperatives from private property. There is no private property. Your guru leaves capitalism. There is no capitalism in Jesus's Heaven. Capitalism is based upon selfishness for the individual first and foremost and has no place in the New Earth. Credit usury {micro-credit (allowed under the Prout system) or otherwise} does not exist in the New Earth of Jesus Christ. Souls have moved beyond such unenlighten baseness and crassness.

The World Prout Assembly claims the following:

Both capitalism and communism believe in the centralization of economic power to be in the hands of an (corporate or party) elite.

That is an error. The Christian Commons Project (CCP) is not centralization of economic power in the hands of an elite but the exact opposite.

Denigrating communism and leaving private property as acceptable in the minds, hearts, and souls of the flock is counter-productive and will not lead to ultimate enlightenment but woefully fall short.

The Prout system calls for trade. There is no trade in the Christian Commons. There is only giving and sharing. In addition in the Prout system, shares and dividends are granted on the basis of what one has going in. In the CCP by contrast, everyone entering gives all and all are equal once in.

In their PDF download (accessed April 7, 2011) entitled "Frequently Asked Questions on PROUT Economy": the Prout Assembly claims the following:

In the commune system, individual ownership is denied. Hence there is no scope for workers to get either inspiration or incentive to fully utilize their skills. There is no opportunity for them to enhance their working capacity. Further, workers in the commune system are confined within the four walls of intellectual staticity. They have no psychological or human relation with their work. Hence countries using the commune system fail in production and must take handouts from capitalist countries. The poor masses live a miserable existence of hunger and deprivation.

That is a total lie. There are reams on this site that debunk such false propaganda. It echoes the worst of the laissez-faire-capitalist nonsense about communism. There are numerous examples of communes in the world that have work very well and would work vastly better were there not selfish "traders" blocking the way. It is a low calling, an uninspiring call, to souls to be motivated or incentivized first and foremost for themselves as individuals apart from the oneness or wholeness that is the spirit of God.

Capitalist countries have more to supposedly handout by reason of their historical violent takings: Imperialism and colonialism and not that non-Marxian communism can't incentivize because human nature is woefully selfish. Selfishness is a learned trait. Yes, babies get hungry and cry for food, but that doesn't translate into selfishness. Selfishness comes later at the hands of those who have fallen to the evil temptation.

Sarkar discussed the exploitation by the rich yet turns around and immediately forgets when it comes time to discuss why capitalist states have historically had more money. Furthermore, he said nothing about the way in which money is created and how and why it would be an easy matter to alter everything with a mere stroke of the pen.

There are easily over 100 posts on this website touching upon this issue.

You see there in Sarkar the creeping darkness of humanism apart from God. You see the Shiva side of Hinduism creeping in — the chaotic, destructive side. It is immoral, and the self that is realized from it is not the spirit of God Most High, is not the highest consciousness.

It is my contention that Shiva is the darkside spirit spoken of in both Zoroastrianism and Christianity, not that Zoroastrianism and Christianity are one. They are not. That spirit of Shiva is the spirit of wrath and vengeance that Christians are told by Jesus to avoid. It must be understood that Satan can appear as an angel of light. He tricks souls. It is also irrelevant to either Zoroastrianism or Christianity that there is no Satan, per se, in Hinduism. That's the point in Christianity. The Hindus don't realize Satan leading them away from God proper. It also doesn't matter whether or not Zarathustra spoke or wrote directly about Shiva. It is the Shiva spirit of destruction as opposed to the perfect eternity of the God of Jesus Christ that concerns the Christian. This is the Christian view of Hinduism, not the Hindus apologizing for, or defending, their own view of "reality." When someone "likes" evil, evil is seen in that one's mind as beautiful. However, the same is seen as hideous or grotesque to the Christian once the sheep's clothing is peeled away. So, the Hindus (some) will depict Shiva and speak of Shiva as perhaps even always wholesome (a major stretch) while the Christians and others will notice those things about that Shiva that are decidedly unscrupulous, etc. Shiva is counted the trickster even by many if not most Hindus.

This is not to say that there is not great overlap in much of what went into Sarkar's thinking and the Christian Commons. I can easily say that I agree with many of the thing Sarkar said. He was not though a Christian in any sense of the term.

You also complained that Jesus cried and prayed making him weaker than God and therefore not God. You do this without defining God. You made your complaint perhaps from a Muslim perspective even while you have been all over the map about Hinduism and I assume Buddhism, since you did mention Buddha.

As a Christian, Jesus's definition of God is my definition of God. I'm reconciled to the Jesus of my narrow canon — pre-Constantine I.

You also asked me if I know about assertions about Jesus and Mithra that were addressed in the video the link to which I supplied. Your statements to me about that, again, are addressed toward me as if I'm popish. That indicates that you have difficulty comprehending, retaining, and addressing me in context.

What I am decidedly not is Gnostic; and before you go spinning, I already said I've read everything you've mentioned [with the exception of the particular book you mentioned entitled: "The historical jesus vs the christ of faith"]. My God is not a Demiurge or unknowable and not limited to some notion Mohammed had about monotheism. I don't care what Mohammed thought. I've read the Qur'an and reject it. I only care that hundreds of millions were further confused by Mohammed's ego and confusion, but I don't use coercion on them. I simply say what I say.

I am also not Pauline, yet you assume I consider him a saint. I didn't canonize Paul. He has his pros and cons. I've written and published a great deal on the subject. I've also studied Higher Criticism. I read the multi-volume Interpreters Bible back in the late 1960's and early '70's. I've been at this sort of thinking for many decades. I've been all through the various arguments. I am certainly not convinced that you know more about them or can shed any new light on the subjects. Nothing you've written suggests to me otherwise.

You obviously haven't researched these issues on the RLCC site, yet you've made sweeping statements about what I do or don't know and do so as if not knowing means not agreeing with your worldview. Of course Jesus spoke about resurrection. Just because he spoke about Elijah and John doesn't negate that he taught the resurrection. You use the Roman canonical Gospels to discuss a sense of reincarnation, but then you reject those same Gospels where Jesus is literally, bodily resurrected and ascended.

You reject those Gospels nearly wholesale while pointing to the Essenes who fully believed in the power of God to perform miracles. You think Jesus was Essenic, but he was critical of a number of doctrines that are largely traditionally attributed to the Essenes. They were standoffish. He was not. They were secretive. Jesus was not. Were you ever told this before?

I wrote of these things before Wikipedia existed too, so please don't assume that I have gained all my knowledge from the Wikipedia or even online sources. Of course, more and more information is pouring onto the Internet even while much is dying off as well.

It is true that Jesus's teachings are much closer to the Essenes' than to the Pharisees'. There is much to be admired about them relative to the Pharisees and Sadducees. That though doesn't make Jesus an Essene.

In addition, Jesus ate fish and drank wine. It is the common understanding that the Essenes, at least the strictest ones, did not eat fish or drink wine.

Of course, we must not try without evidence or direct revelation to attach to the Essenes what may not truly be of them. The Dead Sea Scrolls truly have not yet revealed of themselves that they are Essenic, per se.

Now, you've written at me about the Jews as if there were no sectarian divides even while you appeal to me to understand the Essenes, who were a sect divided from the Pharisees, etc. Frankly, you can't have it both ways.

As for Jesus being a Cabbalist, I don't see anything to rule it in or out, depending upon what is being defined in or out concerning what constitutes Christian Cabbalism. There is no doubt that Jesus and his closest disciples were familiar with the various schools of thought in Judaism. Also, I am certain Jesus was aware of the other major religions and the philosophical schools of Hellenism, etc. He was not an ignorant man. Certainly Jesus did not echo everything that Jewish Kabbalists say, but there is overlap as there is with everything short of the absolute perfection of God versus the essence of evil, which essence of evil, contrary to the view of Hindus, will finally be rooted out of humanity (in the New Heaven and New Earth).

As for your interpretation about the blind one, you are jumping to conclusions that he was born blind for his sins in a past life. Jesus didn't say he was blind due to sin but for a sign about the healing power of pure faith in God that everything you've written to me suggests you completely reject.

You further say not all miracles in the Bible are real because you think you can interpret them as possibly being figurative. I have written volumes on the literal versus the figurative. This is nothing new to me. However, Jesus literally raised Lazarus from being clinically dead. It is not an allegory. If you want to assume that those canonical Gospels are just myths upon myths and allegories, then upon what are you basing your assumption that Jesus was an historical person? That's a rhetorical question. I'm really not interested in hearing more from you if you are going to continue your same pattern of wild assumptions and claims.

You have your faith (and that's all it is), and I have mine.

I didn't contact you. You contacted me.

I have already read all the things you've mentioned. You haven't brought up one thing, issue, religion, group, or writing I haven't already studied, with the exception of whatever you claim you sent me that I didn't receive and the one book I indicated (but I have certainly covered the subject matter that, that book's title suggests).

Now, the submission form is provided for those who have some reason for confidentiality. All of this should have been handled out in the open via the commenting system on the website.

That you chose to approach me via the form so that others would not see and you failed to answer why and you otherwise apparently don't have any valid reason, doesn't favorably impress me about you.

However, you leave me feeling about you that you are a hasty rather than deep thinker. Perhaps my telling you that will encourage you to slow down and focus on God rather than being swept away by the endless stream of attacks on Jesus coming from people who want to avoid living up to the implications of his words and deeds (including the actual miracles) as recorded by his disciples.

Have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls? I have (all of them up to 2004). I've done a direct comparison of them to the "modern" scriptures I also use. There have not been the wholesale changes claimed by most of the Jesus-Mythers. The differences are very slight (not operative) and most of them (and all of the important ones) were already known before the scrolls were discovered. So you need to back off and rethink all of your assumptions if you are going to make any real headway.

You should also grow up and capitalize sentences and spell out words more. Reading your messages was made more difficult by the juvenile style. If you are young, that statement is not meant to offend but to help. If you are old and as well-educated as you appear to want me to believe you are, what are you doing writing as a faddish/trendy child?

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.