On peut remarquer deux choses en ce qui concerne Jésus, et qui sont des indices supplémentaires de sa supériorité par rapport à tous les autres leaders religieux de l'histoire.
1.Toutes les grandes religions cherchent à se l'approprier : c'est le 2ème plus grand prophète dans l'Islam, une incarnation de Bouddha dans le Bouddhisme, un avatar de Vishnu dans l'Hindouisme, un éclairé dans le Confucianisme et le Taoisme. Cela, parce que son pouvoir et son autorité spirituelle sont indéniables, alors tout le monde cherche à le caser dans sa religion pour la légitimer. Au contraire, Jésus ni la Bible ne réclament aucun des "grands sages" de l'Histoire.
2.Les groupes occultes en général ne s'opposent pas à Muhammad, à Vishnu, à Confucius, ou à Bouddha. Ils s'opposent à Jésus. C'est le culte de l'Antechrist. Cela, parce que le Diable, s'il existe, sait qui est son ennemi.
18 septembre 2010
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
3 commentaires:
What you are saying about other religions seeking to claim Jesus to legitimize their worldview is true of us as well.
I read a book in seminary called "American Jesus." It went systemically through American history and showed how whatever was the popular ideal of the "best man" or best human"... People would then start describing Jesus that way.
For example, a couple hundred years ago, the feminine was seen as more divine. So you see all these womanly-looking paintings of Jesus, and "wimpy" disciples with just a touch of a beard.
The most obvious bit of this of course is that we most often paint Jesus as white. But it applies to character traits as well. We tend to try to justify who we are and who we have become by imaging Jesus is that way, too. ("Of course Jesus was a hippie!")
It's just another way of trying to make ourselves god, to assert god-likeness in ourselves... which is what the Garden of Eden mistakes were all about.
We make God in our image of instead of ourselves in His.
Does that make sense?
Yes. That's a whole debate in itself.
Churches also tamper with facets of their theology according to what the people are looking for or what the church thinks they need.
Conviction of sin. Repentance. The saving grace. A transformed life. Spiritual gifts. A bright future.
They're not wrong though, just incomplete.
I absolutely agree, "incomplete" not "wrong." I've had a very multi-denominational background, and my seminary training looked at many different theological perspectives and where they come from.
You're exactly right; churches often say the other is wrong, instead of recognizing that *within the Christian tradition* each perspective is one incomplete part of the whole.
The eye cannot say to the foot, "I don't need you; you don't see the prophetic" and the foot cannot say to the eye, "Yes, but you do not care for the poor as we do..." etc. etc.
Who IS teaching you all of this, Vincent? You must have some Bible school over there, or a very great recommender of books.
Enregistrer un commentaire