Non-christian Jesus adherence, what's your perspective?

[Desert Snake]

Now, what is your perspective on Jesus adherence, if it is not Christianity: does it have to be Christianity? If it has to be Christianity, then why?
Many arguments seem contextual /inter-Christian, where, Christians are stating that although you don't have to be a Christian, if you are a Christian, then you have to adhere to etc etc
This is patently ridiculous.
This thread is to delineate, if you want, what type of Jesus adherence is ok , /or not ok/, and to give your opinion on whether you should be a Christian, or it isn't necessary, so forth.

 

[Desert Snake]

Biblical adherents only, and open to Jesus adherence, as well, even if you are not a Christian
ie ''Same faith''

 

[RedDragon94]

Jesus adherence= Christianity to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This thread is to delineate, if you want, what type of Jesus adherence is ok , /or not ok/, and to give your opinion on whether you should be a Christian, or it isn't necessary, so forth.

You should not be a Christian if miracles are the reason that you are one. There is zero excuse, no matter who told you this was Ok, no matter how much you want miracles. It is not Ok. Avoid congregations of people hoping for miracles, because their is a terrible hidden price you will pay for attending them.

Many arguments seem contextual /inter-Christian, where, Christians are stating that although you don't have to be a Christian, if you are a Christian, then you have to adhere to etc etc
This is patently ridiculous.

It is annoying when people hope charismatic leaders, arguments, miracles, plots and councils will provide the ecumenical unity that they abominably have failed to attain.

Now, what is your perspective on Jesus adherence, if it is not Christianity: does it have to be Christianity? If it has to be Christianity, then why?

Much is wrong, and very little is right. Nobody has their act together as far as I can tell, so the minimum should be focusing on our own problems and finding them if we do not see them. We are standing in the middle of the nuclear winter of Christianity. Everything is backwards and upside down. The animals have the wrong number of legs. Find yourself a cave with clean water and remove your eyes.

 

[ajay0]

Now, what is your perspective on Jesus adherence, if it is not Christianity: does it have to be Christianity? If it has to be Christianity, then why?
Many arguments seem contextual /inter-Christian, where, Christians are stating that although you don't have to be a Christian, if you are a Christian, then you have to adhere to etc etc
This is patently ridiculous.
This thread is to delineate, if you want, what type of Jesus adherence is ok , /or not ok/, and to give your opinion on whether you should be a Christian, or it isn't necessary, so forth.

I am a non-christian but I see Jesus Christ as an enlightened master or Buddha .

While my base lies in the dharmic religions, I enjoy reading the biblical verses as it helps to clarify my own perspective as well.

But I must say here that I read the bible at 17, and while charmed by Jesus's personality, could make no logic or heads and tails out of it.

It was after the study of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and Sufism that I was able to crack the code and figure out the mystery of Christianity.

The bible could be recommended for other scholarly dharmic followers similarly to clarify their perspective, and it is useful in this regard, as the same teachings are seen from a different angle and can help to bring about clarity and coherence.

 

[David T]

I am a non-christian but I see Jesus Christ as an enlightened master or Buddha .

While my base lies in the dharmic religions, I enjoy reading the biblical verses as it helps to clarify my own perspective as well.

But I must say here that I read the bible at 17, and while charmed by Jesus's personality, could make no logic or heads and tails out of it.

It was after the study of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and Sufism that I was able to crack the code and figure out the mystery of Christianity.

The bible could be recommended for other scholarly dharmic followers similarly to clarify their perspective, and it is useful in this regard, as the same teachings are seen from a different angle and can help to bring about clarity and coherence.

Yea he and Buddha have a lot in common. There was a Buddhist here who said Jesus was about perfection Buddha was about suffering. I had to laugh and say be careful reading the text through the eyes of christianity it's only religion with many flawed views as most human collective endeavors are. The cross was no walk in the park and we today call it good friday!!! Should be called bad Friday good Sunday lol. I might add you almost need to be a Buddhist today to even understand the text at all. It's a very very very old story buried in the deepest depths of the unconscious. Not easy stuff actually.

 

[ajay0]

I might add you almost need to be a Buddhist today to even understand the text at all. It's a very very very old story buried in the deepest depths of the unconscious. Not easy stuff actually.

Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and I see it as a positive sign that more and more christians are studying Buddhism and Vedanta, and which has helped them to understand Christianity better.

And you can see from my post it works both ways.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to reach any consensus on what the word "Christianity" means, nor on whether Jesus existed or which roles, if any, he fulfilled.

Therefore, I guess I consider anyone who wants to claim to be a part of Christianity or a believer in or follower of Jesus to be just that.

But that says very little indeed. Far as I am concerned, the significant parts of anyone's beliefs, doctrines and religious practices lie elsewhere, almost by definition.

In order to reach some mutual understanding of what people practice or believe, some effort must be put into describing those doctrines and beliefs in more objective terms. For instance, on whether there is some conception of afterlife and which that would be; which virtues are acknowledged as worth pursuing and how they are to be pursued; which are the core concepts of the doctrine and how they relate to each other. And, I suppose, whether there is some form of deity concept in there and how it is to be understood and used, if at all.

 

[David T]

Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and I see it as a positive sign that more and more christians are studying Buddhism and Vedanta, and which has helped them to understand Christianity better.

And you can see from my post it works both ways.

They all are philosophical in nature but it's not the goal of metaphysics itself or not at least for the mystic traditions in the variety of metaphysics which tend to dramatically harmonize. So goes Buddha so goes Christ so goes Christ so goes Buddha. And it goes on and on in the various traditions. It's when it becomes more organizational more accedemic more political more theoretical hypothetical speculative belief we start to see increasing psychological problems. It's a continuum. Mystics see like insane people but they see the difference and are very grounded there is. Fine line they understAnd . There is no line visible line between normalcy and insanity they tend to be ungroundedband its spectral on continuum. Artists musicians especially, also often times fit mysteicism so its not just religion where musticism exists. John Muir was a mystic. Rudolph Steiner was a mystic. Carl Jung most certainly. Mysticism isnt magic literally it seez magically.

 

[ajay0]

They all are philosophical in nature but it's not the goal of metaphysics itself or not at least for the mystic traditions in the variety of metaphysics which tend to dramatically harmonize. So goes Buddha so goes Christ so goes Christ so goes Buddha. And it goes on and on in the various traditions. It's when it becomes more organizational more accedemic more political more theoretical hypothetical speculative belief we start to see increasing psychological problems. It's a continuum. Mystics see like insane people but they see the difference and are very grounded there is. Fine line they understAnd . There is no line visible line between normalcy and insanity they tend to be ungroundedband its spectral on continuum. Artists musicians especially, also often times fit mysteicism so its not just religion where musticism exists. John Muir was a mystic. Rudolph Steiner was a mystic. Carl Jung most certainly. Mysticism isnt magic literally it seez magically.

Yes, spirituality and the spiritual systems as found by any enlightened master is simple , and is bound to peace, love and harmony.

It is the disciples who make it an organized religion for the necessity of spreading the teachings, and which ironically corrupts the whole system, by bringing duality into it so that it becomes an another 'ism' , which is spiritually counter-productive. And this duality brings up the usual 'us versus them' syndrome which spirituality is supposed to eliminate.

For them it is just an another ego trip and the religion is seen as an identity of sorts, but spirituality ends up being the loser.

Spirituality is a private affair , and the original focus of all religions is to develop spirituality in the individual, not create movements.

 

[David T]

Yes, spirituality and the spiritual systems as found by any enlightened master is simple , and is bound to peace, love and harmony.

It is the disciples who make it an organized religion for the necessity of spreading the teachings, and which ironically corrupts the whole system, by bringing duality into it so that it becomes an another 'ism' , which is spiritually counter-productive. And this duality brings up the usual 'us versus them' syndrome which spirituality is supposed to eliminate.

For them it is just an another ego trip and the religion is seen as an identity of sorts, but spirituality ends up being the loser.

Spirituality is a private affair , and the original focus of all religions is to develop spirituality in the individual, not create movements.

Its a very consistent pattern though which I find interesting. They seem to follow a certain arch like the Persephone story in Greek mythos narrative.

 

[Vidarsdottir]

"Jesus adherence" is fairly problematic itself, never mind the "Christianity" bit. I have never been convinced that Jesus is or was a deity, though I do group him with other deities for the simple fact that he is essentially treated as one in the society in which I live. I am agnostic and a Heathen (Norse Pagan type), and I tend to give all deities equal weight. I clearly have my favorites, and he's one of them whether he is a deity or not. As for adherence to his message - oh, dear. That is a sticky one.

I do have a special fondness for Jesus simply because of the way *I* perceive him. Being from a large family with a high degree of religious diversity, I was exposed to many different concepts of Christ from an early age. Like I'm sure many children do, I quite liked who I'll call "hippie Jesus" because he was presented to me as a fair and gentle man by some of my Christian relatives. Then another Christian relative would grab me up and take me to their fire and brimstone church and scare me away from who I'll call "jerky Jesus", who was presented to me as someone who would happily do you harm for the crime of being human and having human thoughts - unless you put the quarter mom gave you earlier in the plate and apologized for being a person in the *exact* right way, every Wednesday, Friday and twice on Sunday. As an adult my views of him are far more complex, but I've not found good evidence that jerky jesus deserves my time or consideration, let alone a capital "J" in his name, though he certainly has gained a lot of followers in the intervening years.The two radically different concepts of Jesus are alive and well in my family and always have been, so while I know there is one Jesus, there are in some ways just as many Jesuses as there are people who say the name. I choose to focus on the positive wherever it can be found, so when I reference "Jesus", I always mean "hippie Jesus", because that's how I perceive him.

The message I received about loving your neighbor and having hope in the face of adversity and being just an all-around OK kinda person was so firmly attached to the concept of Jesus that I hold it to a certain extent to this very day. I have a very strong concept of Jesus as a good guy if nothing else. I do not worship him, I do not go to church and take communion, I have never been baptized. I do not light candles for him, pray to him or talk to him. What I *will* do is defend his name from baseless attacks based not on his own behavior, but on the behavior of those who claim to be acting on his behalf - every. single. time. I will defend his name from attacks by those who claim to be acting in a way he would approve of or a way that he demands but that are actually being more like jerky jesus - every. single. time.

That does not make a me a Christian. It does not make me an adherent. This isn't me trying to follow an example he set or anything of the sort. That makes me a Heathen whose own perception of Jesus along with the concept that the 'word fame' (reputation) never dies makes me become deeply offended by those who would try to slander that name. He does not deserve other people's BS, in other words, so don't they DARE. What others choose to make of that is entirely up to them, but whatever they choose to think about it, it is extremely unlikely to change my concept of Jesus or even my sometimes aggressive defense of his reputation. It is also highly unlikely to make me mistake myself for a Christian, though others sometimes do.

You know, I did have someone try and 'call me out' on that sort of thing once. A neighbor told me I 'couldn't like Jesus' if I wasn't a Christian. REALLY? I told him something like "OK, then make me stop." He seemed a bit uncomfortable with that suggestion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now, what is your perspective on Jesus adherence, if it is not Christianity: does it have to be Christianity? If it has to be Christianity, then why?
Many arguments seem contextual /inter-Christian, where, Christians are stating that although you don't have to be a Christian, if you are a Christian, then you have to adhere to etc etc
This is patently ridiculous.
This thread is to delineate, if you want, what type of Jesus adherence is ok , /or not ok/, and to give your opinion on whether you should be a Christian, or it isn't necessary, so forth.

IMO, if the Christians can co-opt the mythology of Judaism, others can co-opt the mythology of Christianity.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

Now, what is your perspective on Jesus adherence, if it is not Christianity: does it have to be Christianity? If it has to be Christianity, then why?

Many arguments seem contextual /inter-Christian, where, Christians are stating that although you don't have to be a Christian, if you are a Christian, then you have to adhere to etc etc
This is patently ridiculous.
This thread is to delineate, if you want, what type of Jesus adherence is ok , /or not ok/, and to give your opinion on whether you should be a Christian, or it isn't necessary, so forth.

I'm a non-Christian Jesus adherent, a Gnostic. That means I don't regard his death as a way to pay for anyone's individual sins only if he/she submit to "the doctrine". I regard Jesus's words, as they are written in the Gospels, as true, and wise, and as originating from God. If we heed the words, we may achieve liberation from this corrupt universe and come back home to God.

I was a Christian, and I don't think it is ridiculous to regard Jesus in a certain way to keep the religious system intact. Jesus in the Christian system carries a certain authority from God by being soleborn, and by reverting the hereditary sin allegedly introduced by Adam. If you break certain facets of the faith, you risk ending up like me: "apostating" to non-Christianity.

 

[Marcion]

For me personally the historical Jesus is only the Yeshua of Q-lite, the tantric-mystic Yeshua before Christianity shaped him in a very different direction.
Some people seek Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas or other non-christian gospels.

With Q-lite only it seems hard to imagine that a fully fledged historical tradition existed behind it although it somewhat resembles Buddhist or non-Buddhist Tantric traditions with similar teachings and instructions to their followers.

I don't understand how the big shift was made or caused from the Yeshua of Q-lite to the Christian Christ-Jesus.
To stick to my understanding of adhering to Yeshua, you will have to follow the Q-lite instructions strictly.

Christians writing in the New Testament books don't seem to take any interest in the coherence of or in the spiritual significance of the original teachings of Yeshua. They build their new religion around anekdotes about his life and religious fantasy using different traditions they knew from their surroundings. So they very much created a new mission diverging from the original mission started by Yeshua and did this with a nasty attitude of intolerance towards groups who wanted to find their own way in this process of religious formation.

 

[Jim]

Now, what is your perspective on Jesus adherence, if it is not Christianity: does it have to be Christianity? If it has to be Christianity, then why?
Many arguments seem contextual /inter-Christian, where, Christians are stating that although you don't have to be a Christian, if you are a Christian, then you have to adhere to etc etc
This is patently ridiculous.
This thread is to delineate, if you want, what type of Jesus adherence is ok , /or not ok/, and to give your opinion on whether you should be a Christian, or it isn't necessary, so forth.

Can you give some more context for the question? I've read it four times now, and I'm still hopelessly confused about what it's asking. "Christianity" means different things to different people, and in different contexts. One possible definition is "following Christ." By that meaning, Jesus adherence might be Christianity by definition. I'm not sure because I've never seen or heard the expression "Jesus adherence" before, so I don't know what that means either.

I invited Christ into my life many years ago, and it seemed to me that He accepted the invitation. I still see my life as Christ-centered, with Him inside of me moving me to do His Father's will. Is that Jesus adherence? I don't call myself a Christian, and I don't think most Christians would call me a Christian, for several reasons. I'm a member of an explicitly non-Christian religion. I'm following a prophet who came after Jesus, and some other scriptures besides the Bible.

I think that learning to love, trust, and follow Jesus, would be good for anyone. It seems to me that most people who see their relationship with God in those terms would call themselves Christians, and be recognized as Christians by other people, but I think that it would be possible for a person to be following Jesus, and still identify and be recognized as a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or even an atheist.

 

[pearl]

The cross was no walk in the park and we today call it good friday!!!

In John's gospel Jesus 'raised' up on the cross is Jesus' moment of glory, 'the King of Glory'. And if Jesus purpose was the redemption of all, or the many, depending on how you interpret it, then it was 'good' for man.

 

[David T]

In John's gospel Jesus 'raised' up on the cross is Jesus' moment of glory, 'the King of Glory'. And if Jesus purpose was the redemption of all, or the many, depending on how you interpret it, then it was 'good' for man.

It was horrible for him. So calling it good friday Means followers have zero capacity to see the world through his perspective?

I would say thats a fact But then again isnt that Judas perspective? Isnt that the entire group of disiples perspective as the all run off and hunker down together confused? They are incapable of sesing through his perspective? Now some might pritest and say "but he is god". And facrually to that i know the person is an idiot and dangerously stupid if they push that on others. Food friday is BS. Bad friday good sunday. JESUS DOES NOT HAVE SELF ADORING EYES. as so many claim he does.

Because the topic "GOD" is written down, we read it and and that creates the illusion we understand it. Historically virtually zero evidence of that exists.. Christianity for about 2,000 years has vacilated between the nicene creed and what ever is prattling around in our brains at the moment. A continual "i am spiritual not religious" branching into modern confusion. How many denominations today? How many variarions?

 

[pearl]

Isnt that the entire group of disiples perspective as the all run off and hunker down together confused?

From the perspective of the 12 Jesus and his movement was a failure. Only through post Resurrection, Easter faith, did they begin to understand.

Bad friday good sunday

The D/R is one event, and ought not to be separated, otherwise too much emphasis is placed on one or the other.

JESUS DOES NOT HAVE SELF ADORING EYES. as so many claim he does.

Not sure what you're referring to, but Jesus did not preach himself, he preached the Reign of God.

Because the topic "GOD" is written down, we read it and and that creates the illusion we understand it.

And it will continue be until it is accepted that God is an incomprehensible Mystery.

Christianity for about 2,000 years has vacilated between the nicene creed and what ever is prattling around in our brains at the moment.

In search of and need for adequate language to express what is believed evolves, develops as it must.

 

[David T]

From the perspective of the 12 Jesus and his movement was a failure. Only through post Resurrection, Easter faith, did they begin to understand.



The D/R is one event, and ought not to be separated, otherwise too much emphasis is placed on one or the other.



Not sure what you're referring to, but Jesus did not preach himself, he preached the Reign of God.



And it will continue be until it is accepted that God is an incomprehensible Mystery.



In search of and need for adequate language to express what is believed evolves, develops as it must.

"And it will continue be until it is accepted that God is an incomprehensible Mystery"

Is that like hirogliphics without a rosseta stone? We persieve it exists we have no clue to exactly what it is? Dunny i actually have a degree titally dedicated to telling everyone exactly what that is. Its called theology. It of course is worthless in application of the bible but a great psych tool of the development of the intellect over 2,000 years. Even psychology itself is problematic right about at that peanut region of the brain that manifests and is called the intellect. Living in an interpreted world is not home. Not that difficult actually and nearly immpossible to understand.