There has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross...

There has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross. Anything after that is lies.

That assertion was made by Friedrich Nietzsche. The Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard had somewhat of a similar sentiment. What do you guys think---Christians, agnostics, atheists, Devil worshippers--I'm sure all of you have your opinions.

Now I know that Nietzsche is a bad word for many of you Christians, I hear you guys cussing with that, 'Nietzsche damn you!' ;-) ----Yes we all know that he declared numerous times that God is dead. But he was also making a cultural observation as well as a point for a godless philosophy. But don't beat a dead horse---in other words, if you comment, don't write it off as the ravings of a crazy atheist, or simply debate whether god is dead or not.

 

i would say Christian means "one who is Christ-like"... so Christ would epitomize Christianity, many of those close with him and probably for long after would fit as being Christian... i would say that a lot of us have moments of being Christ-like whether we're Christian or not, and some of the more enlightened practice more consistently... etc

 

But Kierkegaard would say that is a cop-out. He would say that there is always a choice---if one is to be a christian one should commit and strive to always be. He believed that there was an existential self--that is faced with choice, and an essential self that is aligned with god. the existential self is faced with the mortality of life, he then tries to do something to overcome that---and his actions result in more guilt and shame---a revolving cycle. To break through this cycle, he must be like Abraham about to sacrifice his son---facing an objective uncertainty in a most subjectively passionate manner. It entails true non-conformity striving to do what one subjectively ought to do (one's essence)-----in other words---to break free of shame and guilt and to always be a Jesus.

 

That's Kierkegaard for you. It's arguable that Jesus wasn't a Christian, because he was the Christ and Christian means follower of Christ. I think Saint Paul was the first to use the term Christian (with reference to himself and his associates) when he was in Antioch. But see Pamela Eisenbaum's controversial book Paul Was Not a Christian.

 

blaa blaa blaaa
I don't know who "he" is but he can believe what every he wants. It has nothing to do with what I believe.

 

Don't tell anybody Jo-----but I'm with you...

Seriously though----I think there probably was a Jesus who was a healer. I don't think he was 'the' son of god---he tried to tell us that we all were. I also think that he tried to deny allegations that he was. And I also think----for very good reason----that many elements of his story were embellished for the sake of the institution, and the political power of Rome. I feel there is way too much Indo-European symbolism within the story----but i am getting off the point and that is not exactly what this thread is about.

 

That's right---and fair warning, don't take Kierkegaard too serious. I tried to sacrifice my son, and god never stopped me. Fortunately everyone just thinks he's on some extended exchange student trip in Europe. (What do you mean that Kierkegaard never suggested we should try to sacrifice our kids???)

Seriously though---that is not really the context that Nietzsche meant it in either.

But if I would think that it would be from a Kierkegaardian perspective that a Christian would consider this statement----and this could be first of three points of discussion: an attack on the hypiocrisy and lack of commitment and so forth of Christianity---a self examination and an examination of other believers.

The second point would be one that both Christians and non-Christians could argue: that the institution of Chrisitanity that arose after his death in fact perverted his teachings, or did things that institutions do---take a good thing and turn it into an institutional power play and thrust for political power, and a rigid structure designed to sustain itself. Included in this is the argument of Titanism---making Jesus into something greater than he was, i.e. greater than or equal to god itself. For example, around the time of the Protestant Reformation, it was considered a heresy to worship Jesus---which was caled Jesuologie. Some protestant sects actually thought of this as atheism.

The third point, which would probably be more interesting to the rest of us (non-christians), and would represent an extension of the second one is: whether Christianity is a life-denying rationalisitc idealism---which is Nietzsche's attack on Christianity. (And of course Christians can chime in on this too---but please explain).

That sounds like a good book Okiefreak----Nietzsche also felt Paul was nothing but a power-hungry Rabbi, trying to make up for his displacement from any respectable position in the Jewish hiearchy.

 

Christ was a spirit that was with God from the beginning. Christ is a property of the Universe. Kierkegaard might call it the "essential nature"...Christ is "the logos" or "the word".

People think Christ was the personage of Jesus, but that is not correct. Jesus was a human, Christ is an aspect of the Godhead.

Jesus was, in my opinion, probably a person who lived/taught an enlightened lifestyle and philosophy, because he was aligned with his true nature as a child of God and embodiment of the logos, or will of God. In this way he was Christ-ian, or Christ-aligned. In living without fear or shame, he manifested or embodied The Christ.

In this sense of the word I believe there have been many Christ-ians.

I am reminded also of the famous Gandhi quote: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

GREAT RESPONSE Raga Mala!!!!

 

Interesting Joseph Campbell quotation I came across in a lecture today, although it was a couple hours ago so I will not get his wording correct, but an idea to the effect of: In Christianity, the miracle of Jesus is that he was both fully God and fully Man. In the Orient, of course, everyone is taught to identify themselves with the divine mystery, so this is not considered a big deal.

 

jesus was'nt religious.

 

That is right----he was spiritual, not religious.

 

How do you know he wasn't religious? He was raised religiously and cared for the religion of his fellow people. Just because he criticized it for example, or wanted people to see things differently doesn't make him nonreligious.

 

most definitely wolf :2thumbsup:

 

Maybe you are right Asmodean---and it could be a bias on my part.

But perhaps this is why Nietzsche's statement was so significant to me that I felt I wanted to create a thread based on it: There has only been one Christian, and he died on the cross. Anything after that is lies.

The fact is, and I apologize in advance to all Christians and members of any other organized religion: I have never met any member of any religion that is as spiritual as either a.) the founders of that religion, or b.) those who sincerely seek out spirituality as opposed to religion.

I have known a lot of good Christians, for example, and I commend them on the passion for their spiritual path---we all have our own path, and far be it for me to try criticize the path they are on, but for most of them, (dare I say almost all of them) and their intense devotion to the Bible----they do not seem very Jesus-like when it comes to acceptance of others around them. My sister for example, an extremely devout Christian, offended my Korean sister-in-law, because her recently deceased mother is Buddhist, and she will never go to heaven according to my sister.

Another Christian friend talks about loving one another, and we need to accept all people as a brother despite race, and he really is a loving caring individual. He tries to live life as a good Christian should. And I commend him for that. But then if you hear him talk about the Temple on the Mount, or whatever the place is in Jerusalem-----that scares me. Do you seriously think that Jesus would really want the killing of many Jews and Muslims? seriously?????

I don't think Jesus would condone the murder of anyone for any purpose. Granted there are two versions of Jesus in the Bible--the Synoptic version of love and acceptance and spiritual insights that one finds with any spirituality. And a second version of a more dualistic nature---you are either with me or against me, and those against me shall die facing an eternity of hell and brimstone.

I for one believe that the true Jesus was the former not the latter---and that he opposed religion for all the faults that it has. I think that he tried to tell of a deeper more loving and all accepting path---because that is the path that those immersed in spirituality find.

There are other Christians that are more accepting. And I have some friends like them. Some of them often act in a Jesus-like manner. But their religion is largely rational and more based on an existential leap of faith rather than on a true experience of deep spiritual significance--an enlightnement of life-changing dimensions if you will.

A Native American---a member of the Native American Church---the ones who have the peyote ceremonies------said, (and I paraphrase) Christians go to their churches and pray to God. Indians however, go to their teepees and talk with God. (The Native American Church has Christian overtones, but that is only because it was illegal for Native Americans to practice their own beliefs, the NAC adopted Christian overtones to allow them to practice. But what does it matter? To Indians and anyone else immersed in spirituality----it's all the same absolute consciousness---the same God.)

Jesus didn't pray to God as much as he talked with God. And that is the reality of spirituality.

I do not follow a religion, but a spirituality---indigenous beliefs---If I were to share experiences about my own beliefs, things I've seen, and experienced, which are far more powerful and spiritual than your average run of the mill Christian will ever experience---than all the Christians would label it---of the devil. And I almost guarantee that those who don't, would have their misgivings. But yet---I go into the sweat lodge, up on the hill, into a yuwipi or house ceremony or to a sundance, not to pray to god, but to talk with god. And if that doesn't scare you, the fact that I have a deep and very personal relationship with a wolf will----because it is not a physical wolf---but a spirit. And despite anyone's Christian misgivings on that----it is a spirit that is fulfilled only by my doing good to others and to the world around me.

Jesus was not a follower---he spoke to rabbis as if he had something to teach them---he cast out the money changers, he was a rebel, so no he didn't submit to the institution. He stepped out on his own----he was spiritual, not religious.

 

After posting that (and I had some Stormy Nights (Rum and Ginger Beer) and a couple of beers before I did, and as I was posting) I should also point out that while my path is not necessarily a Christian one, I do think very sincerely that everyone has their own path.

There are Christians who have asked me what advice I would give them---and I tell them that Christianity has its own spiritual core---like any other organized religion. It is the core that the institution was built around. The institution is a man-made structure of management, growth, manipulation, control, marketing, and so forth. You have to break through that to the spiritual core----the mysticism.

But that definitely means breaking away from Christian and societal conformity.

And in the sense that there have been such Christian mystics, perhaps Nietzsche's statement is more of a generalization than a truism.

 

That's right Lodog!

ANd the OP on this thread is Eeeeeeevillllllllllll!!!!!!

He is Eeeeeeevillllllllllllll I tell you!!!!!!!!

 

Where is the "fire and brimstone" Jesus in the gospels? Most of that nonsense seems to be later church doctrine or the inventions of St Paul.

 

I thought the fire and brimstone talk in the bible is more present in parts of the old testament instead of the new testament which is actually about Jesus.