Jesus Christ

he wasn't using the term christian related to religions or cultures . . . the problem with the attachment to terms and definitions is exactly what he was talking about . . .

there is no thing wrong with the facts you presented. . .never crosssed my mind . . (in fact . .ty)

Mareeka wrote: he wasn't using the term christian related to religions or cultures . . . the problem with the attachment to terms and definitions is exactly what he was talking about . . .

there is no thing wrong with the facts you presented. . .never crosssed my mind . . (in fact . .ty)

and the problem was that he doesn't seem to understand that " christian" is specifically a religious or cultural term. Take ToTJO for example, temple of the jedi order are all seperate words that transcend the form of what we find in this group currently. Yet when organised, and given a recognisable tradition that has been worked towards and established , we now have a new name that we approach the words with. Christ or the suffix of "ian" can transcend the form of Christian, yet it's recognised as the religion and that recognition can only be attributed to the tradition that gives the phrase meaning in order to be identified.

The thing that you're friend is being ignorant of is that the groups he is calling "christian" already have a very deep and valued society and religion, they they claimed phrases that they attribute to their culture to be identified. Because at the very same time as they had similarities they also had vast differences.

A muslim (for the most part) believes Jesus was born in Nazareth by a virgin and evangelised then sacrificed himself at the age of 33, which is what they share with a Christian. Yet the difference being how the venerate Jesus makes a distinct difference both culturally evolving and religiously, showing at times a completely different tradition than what culturally evolved in the west.

This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

sidvkili wrote: This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

Only the sacramental ones are ceremonial magicians. Protestants are a different breed of strange.

steamboat28 wrote:

sidvkili wrote: This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

Only the sacramental ones are ceremonial magicians. Protestants are a different breed of strange.

I don't even want to go there, lol

Star Forge wrote: You know, I'm an admitted and outspoken racist, and I don't have the preoccupation with race that the world seems to have. Not meaning to attack the OP, just getting that out.

Sid's right- the Eastern churches, some of them anyway, depict Christ as non-white. For instance, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church depicts him as black, and the Antiochian church depicts him as Arab. I believe the Egyptian Christians also depict him as an Arab. My belief is that the images of Jesus we see today are so old that they came from a time when people weren't likely to regularly encounter a person of another race, if at all. That's why the European Jesus is white, the Ethiopian Jesus is black, et cetera.

As for his actual race, I imagine he'd look like a modern-day Sephardi or Mizrahi Jew, as in, the ones that are native to the middle east, not the Ashkenazim that we are more familiar with, which look European. There's a theory that he was more European looking due to his Amorite heritage, but personally, Isa al-Masih is Isa al-Masih to me, no matter what race he was.

Yeah sorry to bring this topic up again but I wanted to clarify something I missed.

The ethopian Churche's iconography of Christ was actually independant of the relevant council, it was done out of pure traditon. However the Ethopians never depicted Christ as black, they show him with tan skinned, dark long wavy hair and well hairy. Sounds arab to me.

steamboat28 wrote:

sidvkili wrote: This distinction is important, otherwise it's like saying since every Christian is a ceremonial Magician, every ceremonial Magician is a Christian. The connection and similarity is there, just non existent in the dynamic you presented.

Only the sacramental ones are ceremonial magicians. Protestants are a different breed of strange.

I consider myself an active Catholic and I have always considered especially the sacrament of the eucharist as being a very high form of ceremonial magic. For anyone interested in exploring this topic further I could strongly recommend "The Science of the Sacraments" by Rev. C.W. Leadbeater (Bishop of the Liberal-Catholic-Church and high ranking member of the Theosophical Society). In this book he explores the rites of the Catholic liturgy from a magical and "energetic" perspective.

Much of the "magical" content of the mass has sadly been lost in Protestantism and also in the Catholic liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council.

A Pdf-version of Leadbeater's book can be found here:

https://archive.org/details/sciencesacramen00leadgoog