New Book By Deepak Chopra

[torn asunder]

since we all love to talk about religion so much, i wanted to post this to get opinions. (i received it in an email from deepak chopra's website the other day...)

The Third Jesus: The Christ We Cannot Ignore

By Deepak Chopra

Who is Jesus Christ?

In The Third Jesus, bestselling author and spiritual leader Deepak Chopra provides an answer to this question that is both a challenge to current systems of belief and a fresh perspective on what Jesus can teach us all, regardless of our religious background. There is not one Jesus, Chopra writes, but three.

First, there is the historical Jesus, the man who lived more than two thousand years ago and whose teachings are the foundation of Christian theology and thought. Next there is Jesus the Son of God, who has come to embody an institutional religion with specific dogma, a priesthood, and devout believers. And finally, there is the third Jesus, the cosmic Christ, the spiritual guide whose teaching embraces all humanity, not just the church built in his name. He speaks to the individual who wants to find God as a personal experience, to attain what some might call grace, or God-consciousness, or enlightenment.

When we take Jesus literally, we are faced with the impossible. How can we truly “love thy neighbor as thyself”? But when we see the exhortations of Jesus as invitations to join him on a higher spiritual plane, his words suddenly make sense.

Ultimately, Chopra argues, Christianity needs to overcome its tendency to be exclusionary and refocus on being a religion of personal insight and spiritual growth. In this way Jesus can be seen for the universal teacher he truly is–someone whose teachings of compassion, tolerance, and understanding can embrace and be embraced by all of us.

here's an excerpt from the book...

anyone have any thoughts on this? (if you have the time, please read the 4 short pages in the "excerpts" link) i’ll add mine in a bit, but suffice to say, i agree with everything i’ve read so far…

[Steven]

what do you with apparent contradictions in that which we have been led to believe is historically relevant to that which Jesus spoke and taught versus this new all inclusionary theology?

Disregard those lessons of exclusivity?

or just cast enough doubt on them by stating that there is no true "proof" that he said/taught those things?

and if we begin to exclude /dismiss sorely for the purpose of sustaingin that which appeals to us, why is it then that we should seek relevance to the portion of his history that does appeal to us and our personal agendas?

this part is no good, but this part is great.

isint that what the council of Nicea has been accused of all this time later?

but now its ok?

I think the genius of Christ was his all or nothing positioning in terms of his identity and purpose.

to attempt to re-write that history means the process never has to end - it can all be revised at will and at need - and then whats the point of any of it? Soon we'll have the 4th Jesus, the 43rd Jesus, Big Ed's jesus, Fat Tony's Jesus, The Soviet Socialist Republic of Jesus, Vato Jesus, George bush Jesus, Jesus hates black people Jesus, and on and on and on.

I dont think Christ needed any help enlightening his image and relevancy from a latter day (and there have been many) guru.....I think what he did in 3 and half years stands quite well on its own.

[torn asunder]

what do you with apparent contradictions in that which we have been led to believe is historically relevant to that which Jesus spoke and taught versus this new all inclusionary theology?

Disregard those lessons of exclusivity?

or just cast enough doubt on them by stating that there is no true "proof" that he said/taught those things?

and if we begin to exclude /dismiss sorely for the purpose of sustaingin that which appeals to us, why is it then that we should seek relevance to the portion of his history that does appeal to us and our personal agendas?

this part is no good, but this part is great.

isint that what the council of Nicea has been accused of all this time later?

but now its ok?

I think the genius of Christ was his all or nothing positioning in terms of his identity and purpose.

to attempt to re-write that history means the process never has to end - it can all be revised at will and at need - and then whats the point of any of it? Soon we'll have the 4th Jesus, the 43rd Jesus, Big Ed's jesus, Fat Tony's Jesus, The Soviet Socialist Republic of Jesus, Vato Jesus, George bush Jesus, Jesus hates black people Jesus, and on and on and on.

I dont think Christ needed any help enlightening his image and relevancy from a latter day (and there have been many) guru.....I think what he did in 3 and half years stands quite well on its own.

i'm curious - did you read the excerpt? it doesn't sound like it, but i don't want to assume...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm not fond of the modern buffet style religion. Take from this religion the things you like... take bit from over here and a bit from over there... Make your own religion that justifies how you want to live your life. Ignore all those aspects that don't support what you want to believe.

There was one Jesus Christ. He was the Son of God and God incarnate.

[torn asunder]

I'm not fond of the modern buffet style religion. Take from this religion the things you like... take bit from over here and a bit from over there... Make your own religion that justifies how you want to live your life. Ignore all those aspects that don't support what you want to believe.

There was one Jesus Christ. He was the Son of God and God incarnate.

not to be redundant, but, did you read the excerpt? i'm curious as to what in it, isn't acceptable - since it makes perfect sense to me, i'd like to hear competent criticism/"destruction" of the concepts...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Yes, I read it.

My last line sums up my feelings on it. I don't need a Hindu interpretation of Christ.

[torn asunder]

Yes, I read it.

My last line sums up my feelings on it. I don't need a Hindu interpretation of Christ.

and you don't think that the representation of jesus' message ahs been at all corrupted over 2000 years through multiple translation errors, or even flat out intentional selectivism by the roman catholic church (for example - not to single out) to fit their agenda? how do you (generic) know that the jesus of whom you learned is actually who he was?

not saying he's not, necessarily, it just seems to me that you're dismissing this concept because the author is of a different religion than you (hindu). also, i'm in no way trying to put words in your mouth - it was just my impression...

i'll try to post some more specific questions, using the excerpt as my quoted source - maybe i'll be able to communicate my questions/thoughts better that way...

[phee]

and you don't think that the representation of jesus' message ahs been at all corrupted over 2000 years through multiple translation errors, or even flat out intentional selectivism by the roman catholic church (for example - not to single out) to fit their agenda? how do you (generic) know that the jesus of whom you learned is actually who he was?

Torn just spoke from my brain...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

and you don't think that the representation of jesus' message ahs been at all corrupted over 2000 years through multiple translation errors, or even flat out intentional selectivism by the roman catholic church (for example - not to single out) to fit their agenda? how do you (generic) know that the jesus of whom you learned is actually who he was?

not saying he's not, necessarily, it just seems to me that you're dismissing this concept because the author is of a different religion than you (hindu). also, i'm in no way trying to put words in your mouth - it was just my impression...

i'll try to post some more specific questions, using the excerpt as my quoted source - maybe i'll be able to communicate my questions/thoughts better that way...

out of order of presentation but..

I don't think a Christian is he best person tell tellme a out Vishnu. No matter how well read they are.

Not saying that modern Christians of any sect have it right... or Jews or Muslims... But the core teaching have not changed, just how they are presented. I ignore the presentation.

and to the big questiont there... I have Faith. Thats how I know who Jesus was.

[torn asunder]

out of order of presentation but..

and also of ommission, and addition, if i understand correctly. (fire & brimstone hell, for example)

I don't think a Christian is he best person tell tellme a out Vishnu. No matter how well read they are.

Not saying that modern Christians of any sect have it right... or Jews or Muslims... But the core teaching have not changed, just how they are presented. I ignore the presentation.

sure, i can sort of buy that - but again, that comes across as "he's hindu, therefore, i write him off". is that your intent? it seems a bit closed-off... somtimes a different viewpoint can make the things you already knwo, a little clearer.

*add - by the way, wayne dyer says/believes almost the same exact things deepak does, and he's a detroit boy...

and to the big questiont there... I have Faith. Thats how I know who Jesus was.

and that (and i'm not trying to insult you here) comes across as a cop-out - "well, i believe what i believe, end of discussion".

of course, if that's your stance, i can respect that - many people feel the same way. it just makes for lack of conversation...

[Steven]

i'm curious - did you read the excerpt? it doesn't sound like it, but i don't want to assume...

yes I did, and the author is seemingly attempting to introduce the idea that there is a great undiscovered mystery in Christ - such as his reference to Christ coming to divide by a sword.....these things have been discussed here in DGN even, where we've talked about that scriptural reference but also the ones in revelation where Christ is girded for war.

[torn asunder]

yes I did, and the author is seemingly attempting to introduce the idea that there is a great undiscovered mystery in Christ - such as his reference to Christ coming to divide by a sword.....these things have been discussed here in DGN even, where we've talked about that scriptural reference but also the ones in revelation where Christ is girded for war.

i don't see that he's saying anything about a secret - that quote, on the 1st page, is showing the contradiction of the "first (historical) jesus:

The first Jesus is less than consistent, as a closer reading of the gospels will show. If Jesus was perfectly peaceful, why did he declare, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"? (Matthew 10:34) If he was perfectly loving, why did he say, "Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"? (Matthew 25:30) (Sometimes the translation is even harsher, and Jesus commands "the worthless slave" to be consigned to hell.) If Jesus was humble, why did he claim to rule the earth beyond the power of any king? At the very least, the living Jesus was a man of baffling contradictions.

he then goes on to explain:

And yet the more contradictions we unearth, the less mythical this Jesus becomes. The flesh-and-blood man who is lost to history must have been extraordinarily human. To be divine, one must be rich in every human quality first. As one famous Indian spiritual teacher once said, "The measure of enlightenment is how comfortable you feel with your own contradictions."

this seems to be complimentary, insomuch as it's saying that jesus must have been "extraordinarily human", indeed, "enlightened" based on the obvious contradictions of the "man". do you (steven, or anyone else) take this in a negative way?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

extraordinarily human... Divine.

Faith is not a cop-out. It's Faith. Something I think more people need.

[torn asunder]

because i felt it would be easier, i'm going to copy page 2 in here, so people can read it... (highlighting/bolding by me)

Millions of people worship another Jesus, however, who never existed, who doesn't even lay claim to the fleeting substance of the first Jesus. This is the Jesus built up over thousands of years by theologians and other scholars. He is the Holy Ghost, the Three-in-One Christ, the source of sacraments and prayers that were unknown to the rabbi Jesus when he walked the earth. He is also the Prince of Peace over whom bloody wars have been fought. This second Jesus cannot be embraced without embracing theology first. Theology shifts with the tide of human affairs. Metaphysics itself is so complex that it contradicts the simplicity of Jesus's words. Would he have argued with learned divines over the meaning of the Eucharist? Would he have espoused a doctrine declaring that babies are damned until they are baptized?

The second Jesus leads us into the wilderness without a clear path out. He became the foundation of a religion that has proliferated into some twenty thousand sects. They argue endlessly over every thread in the garments of a ghost. But can any authority, however exalted, really inform us about what Jesus would have thought? Isn't it a direct contradiction to hold that Jesus was a unique creation--the one and only incarnation of God--while at the same time claiming to be able to read his mind on current events? Yet in his name Christianity pronounces on homosexuality, birth control, and abortion.

These two versions of Jesus--the sketchy historical figure and the abstract theological creation--hold a tragic aspect for me, because I blame them for stealing something precious: the Jesus who taught his followers how to reach God-consciousness. I want to offer the possibility that Jesus was truly, as he proclaimed, a savior. Not the savior, not the one and only Son of God. Rather, Jesus embodied the highest level of enlightenment. He spent his brief adult life describing it, teaching it, and passing it on to future generations.

Jesus intended to save the world by showing others the path to God-consciousness.

Such a reading of the New Testament doesn't diminish the first two Jesuses. Rather, they are brought into sharper focus. In place of lost history and complex theology, the third Jesus offers a direct relationship that is personal and present. Our task is to delve into scripture and prove that a map to enlightenment exists there. I think it does, undeniably; indeed, it's the living aspect of the gospels. We aren't talking about faith. Conventional faith is the same as belief in the impossible (such as Jesus walking on water), but there is another faith that gives us the ability to reach into the unknown and achieve transformation.

Jesus spoke of the necessity to believe in him as the road to salvation, but those words were put into his mouth by followers writing decades later. The New Testament is an interpretation of Jesus by people who felt reborn but also left behind. In orthodox Christianity they won't be left behind forever; at the Second Coming Jesus will return to reclaim the faithful. But the Second Coming has had twenty centuries to unfold, with the devout expecting it any day, and still it lies ahead. The idea of the Second Coming has been especially destructive to Jesus's intentions, because it postpones what needs to happen now. The Third Coming--finding God-consciousness through your own efforts--happens in the present. I'm using the term as a metaphor for a shift in consciousness that makes Jesus's teachings totally real and vital.

[Steven]

and you don't think that the representation of jesus' message ahs been at all corrupted over 2000 years through multiple translation errors, or even flat out intentional selectivism by the roman catholic church (for example - not to single out) to fit their agenda? how do you (generic) know that the jesus of whom you learned is actually who he was?

not saying he's not, necessarily, it just seems to me that you're dismissing this concept because the author is of a different religion than you (hindu). also, i'm in no way trying to put words in your mouth - it was just my impression...

i'll try to post some more specific questions, using the excerpt as my quoted source - maybe i'll be able to communicate my questions/thoughts better that way...

no, I dont think that the representation of jesus' message ahs been at all corrupted over 2000 years through multiple translation errors, or even flat out intentional selectivism by the roman catholic church.

I have asked for evidence of actual gospel structural ideals that have been changed over the years from many people in DGN. They never come. I have asked how parchmants dug up - thousands of remnants - dont deviate from the cannonized collection - and I havent received an answer.

I understand the logic of what your asking - but Ive yet to see any compelling evidence of that theory being proven....again when you do the comparisons you find: the same Messiah, same need for mediation in the god to man relationship, same doorway to salvation, same church patriarchs, same history of Israel datign back to Abraham.

there have even been archeological evidences that have been dug up that pertain to specific biblical charactors, such as Joseph the son of Jacob, where Egyptian hyrogliphics describe this man, and they use israelite words - where he is called a champion or savior of Egypt - thats a big deal - the charactor of Joseph is heavily clouded in supernatural events. If you know your biblical history he was an israelite who became an Egyptian Prime Minsiter and was 2nd only to Pharoh and his administrative talents allowed Egypt to survice years of famine. Nobody likes to talk about that sort of thing - yet it exists.

You forget Mike - that most peopel who beleive in and or accept a Messianic Chrsit also beleive that a God who had the ability to create the worlds also has the ability to protect and maintain his ideals in the ages of the written word, including thru nicean councils and agnostic offshoots.

[Steven]

extraordinarily human... Divine.

Faith is not a cop-out. It's Faith. Something I think more people need.

Mike has a great degree of faith himself.

and tremendous accomplishments have taken place over the ages because of that same small minded cop out stuff called faith.

For example, go tell Mother Theresa what a cop out she is, but then be willing to compare your life's accomplishments to hers.

[Steven]

i don't see that he's saying anything about a secret - that quote, on the 1st page, is showing the contradiction of the "first (historical) jesus:

he then goes on to explain:

this seems to be complimentary, insomuch as it's saying that jesus must have been "extraordinarily human", indeed, "enlightened" based on the obvious contradictions of the "man". do you (steven, or anyone else) take this in a negative way?

the problem is that this man sets up his questions with scenarios that only support his thesis - which relies on accepting that Jesus is who this man says he has been presented as.

for exmaple the use of contradictions in sayign that Jesus was ALL peace - no he wasent, nor did he live on earth that way, he was constantly at odds with the religeous powers that be, legalists, and had his famous temper tantrum in the temple where her flipped out on the money makes and drove them all out.

thats not new revelation at all. I definately dont recognise this Jesus that the writer is attempting to present to me. I reject your writer - because he attempts to first steer my impressions with half truths.

[phee]

no, I dont think that the representation of jesus' message ahs been at all corrupted over 2000 years through multiple translation errors, or even flat out intentional selectivism by the roman catholic church.

I have asked for evidence of actual gospel structural ideals that have been changed over the years from many people in DGN. They never come. I have asked how parchmants dug up - thousands of remnants - dont deviate from the cannonized collection - and I havent received an answer.

When we first started discussing this... I provided a lot... more then a lot.... (almost two years ago)

An EXCELLENT source of this is the book: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

by Bart D. Ehrman, he himself is a Christian... and it is not a religious bash at all... it is an explination.

I highly recommend it....

[torn asunder]

extraordinarily human... Divine.

Faith is not a cop-out. It's Faith. Something I think more people need.

sorry - i didn't mean to imply that faith was a copout... i meant that saying "that's what i beleive" is a copout, because it precludes anything anyone else says from being true, automatically...

sorry i wasn't more clear.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Jesus intended to save the world by showing others the path to God

Fixed

[Steven]

When we first started discussing this... I provided a lot... more then a lot.... (almost two years ago)

An EXCELLENT source of this is the book: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

by Bart D. Ehrman, he himself is a Christian... and it is not a religious bash at all... it is an explination.

I highly recommend it....

well then do me a favor Phee: re-present alot. I dont remember what you provided....did I try to refute it?

[phee]

I will do some research tonight.... from the board... If I can I will PM you the link to the discussion....

[Steven]

sorry - i didn't mean to imply that faith was a copout... i meant that saying "that's what i beleive" is a copout, because it precludes anything anyone else says from being true, automatically...

sorry i wasn't more clear.

well lets pick that theory apart a little bit.

what I (Steven) beleive has led me to a specific lifestyle - one that includes a great deal of personal risk and investment of time and energy and resources into other people, and this has been going on for years.

because of what I beleive I am often asked to assist others who have gotten lost - especially when it comes to marital issues and issues of walking in faith

because of what I beleive I have very healthy interpersonal relationships that continue to grow

because of what I beleive aI have been fortunate enough to be welcomed in and out of many different types fo social circles

because of what I beleive I am not the kind of man who vascillates, ever

because of what I beleive I am a leader, and I am respectable despite my own shortcomings

.............. ok so how much of that consitutes cop out like behaviour?

[torn asunder]

the problem is that this man sets up his questions with scenarios that only support his thesis

everyone does this, steven - yourself included. they're called "examples". we use the quotes we choose, in order to make our point. if you're in a debate with someone, are you going to choose examples that are contradictory to your point? i don't think so - if you did, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. it sounds like your issue with this is that his examples go against what you believe, and therefore, aren't valid. you've spent a great deal of time using this very type of supported argument, expecting people to refute your ascertations. in this case, how would you refute his?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Yet in his name Christianity pronounces on homosexuality, birth control, and abortion.

No. The Old Testament does that.