Christ as 'Shaman'

[Dustypuppy]

How bout this, Christ was/Is well known for his healing properties,much as shamans are revered for in various societies around the globe.... Many Shaman reach their full potential and purpose through a form of suffering/Illness, Christ suffered upon the Cross which in Christian Doctrine fulfilled his purpose and bridged the divide that had been created through Sin and the'Fall'. In Doing so he essentially 'Healed' the world and according to Christians brought it to its full potential. A read of the Passion narratives or commentaries deepens this, that he 'Ascended' the Cross, which may link in with Shamans 'ascending' to the upperworld, 'descended' from it and indeed even 'descended' to hell itself during the period spanning Good Friday evening and The Ressurection to show his power and dominion over that particular 'Underworld' of existence.....thoughts?xx

[lamoka]

What a beautiful perspective..

[Dustypuppy]

its one that just came to me...I woke up this morning and was thinking it...never crossed my mind before, can't remember what I dreamt, still I like this idea..goin to look into it more! :-)

[blackroseivy]

Wow, yes - I always connected Christ with the Shamanic in legends - this is so beautifully put (this from a Druid/Heretic)...

[aluokaloo]

no i don't see Christ as a shaman, I see Him as a demi-god.

[lamoka]

I don't see it as "slapping" Christ with anything.. it's a perspective.. and there were healers long before asia or native americans.. so what if it is seen with a different label.. take away the word and look at the definition.. there are many similarities of many things in all walks of life.. why get uptight about a word.. and this comes from one who is currently studying with a Shaman Elder..

"Part priest, part sorcerer, magician and seer, healer, prophet, male
or female, shamans can enter into a state of trance, travel beneath the
sea or among the stars to the northern lights, transform themselves
into wolves, seals or monsters, call upon benevolent spirits and fight to
the death against malevolent ones, exercise justice, heal the body and
save the soul, condemn, forgive, take or give life. Mediums, sages and
sorcerers, they act as intermediaries between the world of the living
and the supernatural world of shadows and spirits"
~ Web definitions for Shaman
This is the definition given by my Elder for the course I study presently..
do you not see Christ in any of these lights.. or any other prophet, healer, or such..
open your heart, your mind may follow..
aho

[cheddarsox]

From my understanding of what a Shaman is, no Christ does not strike me as a shaman. He seemed to operate and understand his mission differently than shamans do.

Though there are some overlaps, I don't think he fits the title.

[lamoka]

WE give them meaning.. WE make them powerful.. without our perspective they are no more than symbols..
aho

[blackroseivy]

Them????

[HedwigHarfang]

The Christian religion is a carry-through of much European paganism, and incorporates elements from pre-Christ-ian "old religion", so why is Christ not a shaman?

Working in rural Berkshire until fairly recently, the dedication of animals, crops and the countryside to God brings nature and religion into focus together, thus fitting my own definition of shamanism. Christ too was known as the good shepherd, and had a rapport with nature. St Francis might too have been practicing pre-Christian shamanism working with animals.

I can see that if you rigidly define a shaman as someone from a particular culture, then yes, quite so, Christ was not a shaman. However modern paganism, New Age culture and spiritualists work closely with animals and animal spirits, and could be said to be bringing shamanism into modern life, and if that is so then adopting Christ's message as inherently shamanic in tone gives it a pagan meaning and relevance that is often ignored by purists. Accepting differences of belief was important to me when I started exploring spiritualism and paganism, and having them accepted by my Christian community was also important, so interpreting Christ's work as fulfilling a spiritual role in this way is quite interesting.

[David19]

Sorry but this totally debases the beliefs and practices of both Christians and shamans.

I'm tired of people just slapping shaman or witch on just any old thing that heals or is somewhat "mystical". Shaman is a term to describe the esctatic and mystical practices of Eastern Asia or very rarely the Native American Medicine practices.

I agree with you.

[plumedsnake]

Because words are powerful, they have meaning.

No, Jesus was not a priest, . . .

A priest after the order of Mechizedek, in fact. In other words he belongs to that Royal Priesthood.

I believe that Shaman can only be properly applied to one tribe if we are going to get so pedantic. ie. the tribe that coined the term. All other east Asian tribes have their own terminologies and peculiarities of practice. That there are similarities and overlaps is what makes anthropologists lump them all together and call them all Shamanism.

[cheddarsox]

The Christian religion is a carry-through of much European paganism, and incorporates elements from pre-Christ-ian "old religion", so why is Christ not a shaman?

Working in rural Berkshire until fairly recently, the dedication of animals, crops and the countryside to God brings nature and religion into focus together, thus fitting my own definition of shamanism. Christ too was known as the good shepherd, and had a rapport with nature. St Francis might too have been practicing pre-Christian shamanism working with animals.

I can see that if you rigidly define a shaman as someone from a particular culture, then yes, quite so, Christ was not a shaman. However modern paganism, New Age culture and spiritualists work closely with animals and animal spirits, and could be said to be bringing shamanism into modern life, and if that is so then adopting Christ's message as inherently shamanic in tone gives it a pagan meaning and relevance that is often ignored by purists. Accepting differences of belief was important to me when I started exploring spiritualism and paganism, and having them accepted by my Christian community was also important, so interpreting Christ's work as fulfilling a spiritual role in this way is quite interesting.

Christ did not come from a religion or culture that was "carried through" pre-christian European paganism. Whatever may have influenced Western Christianity since Christ's life, are not the same influences that acted on Christ himself. Basically, his religion, and modern day Western Christianity as practiced are two very different things.

Christ was not a shaman because he was something else. No harm, no foul. Redefining what he was, and what he considered his role to be 2000 years after the fact because it suits your "nonrigid" definition doesn't change what he was and considered himself to be.

If you respect the man, his life and teachings, that is great, no need to redefine him, or force him into a different mold or shell.

Shamanism actually has a meaning. Choosing to usurp the term or redefine it or take one aspect of it and decide that anything sharing that aspect is by default shamanism does a diservice to the actual meaning and history of the term, and to shamans themselves.

Someone and their mission may have shamanistic aspects without that person being a true or full shaman.

Christ's message is available to people of all faiths. There is no need to paganize it, shamanize it, animisticalize it or redefine it. Altering it to suit one's own needs may indeed be interesting, but it's not really honest. It can either stand by itself, and teach, or not.

I personally prefer to let things be what they are, not what I wish them to be, or what it would be convenient for me that they be. I am not such a purist that I don't believe we can study and learn from a variety of teachers and faiths, but I am a purist in that I don't believe that I have the right to redefine terms, teachings, and holy people of other traditions to suit my own needs.

I can learn things from Christianity without having to redefine Christ, or imagine him as being a member of my faith.

This is a touchy issue with me. I myself do not appreciate being "classified" by others according to their whim and convenience, and try not to do that to others.

[lamoka]

I'm sure this thread was not intended to touch off such a sensitive nerve with you.. it was simply putting a perspective out there for general thought.. no one was redefining anything or anyone no more than comparisons of christian ceremony to pagan ceremonies (which there are tons considering most evolved from pagan rituals)..
unless someone has first hand knowledge of EXACTLY what happened in Christs time, and had conversations with him regarding how he "labeled" himself then it is up to interpretation, which is what the church does every day of the week..
I'm sure, as well, that there was no intent to take away from those that are Shaman either in modern day or before.. the thread was not confrontational nor derogatory in any way to any faith, belief, or practice.. it is a perspective.. and I still believe it is beautiful in its simplicity and acceptance of a common thread that runs through all..
aho

[Philosophia]

Is Christ a shaman? No

Is Christ a witch? No

What or Who is he? A teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29) (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=christ)

[plumedsnake]

Christ was not a shaman because he was something else. No harm, no foul. Redefining what he was, and what he considered his role to be 2000 years after the fact because it suits your "nonrigid" definition doesn't change what he was and considered himself to be.


What exactly was he and what did he consider himself to be in your opinion?



What or Who is he? A teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29) (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=christ)

Interesting fact that I once learned was that Nazareth, the village, did not exist at the time of Jesus. Jesus was called a Nazarene which was a faction of Judaism that had taken a special oath. Nazarene was confused with meaning he came from nazareth. I cannot vouch for this fact 100 per cent but apparently according to archaologist nazareth came into existence around the time the Romans totally smash edthe last Jewish resistance and caused the diaspora. Around 70ad, I think. I'm gonna have to look this up a bit more.

[plumedsnake]

I so got it wrong above. these are the facts:

Historical and Biblical Significance

It is likely that a whole clan of the line of David, from the exiled tribe of Judah, returned from Babylon about 100 B.C. and established the town of Nazareth. This may explain why Joseph and Mary, of the tribe of Judah, were to be found so far from Judea. In referring to His reception in Nazareth, Jesus described the citizens of the town as being "His own relatives and .. . His own household" (Mark 6:4). (Archaeologists have found no evidence of the site’s being inhabited during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods, from the eighth to the second centuries B.C.)
Archaeological research suggests that at the time of Jesus, the population of Nazareth was about 120-150. Probably most of these people would have been related to the one clan, descendants of the group that had returned from Babylon one or two generations earlier.
Isaiah’s prophecy, "Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit" (11:1), identifies Jesus, the coming Messiah as a "shoot" (Hebrew netzer, from the verb "to shine" or "blossom"). Isaiah was not referring to the name of the village (Nazareth) in which the Messiah would live (it did not exist until some six hundred years later). Rather he was relating Messiah to the line of David (Cf. Matt 22:41-46; Rom 1:3). Although Mark writes of Jesus’ coming from Nazareth (1:9), implying that this was His town of origin, Matthew connects Nazareth with the genealogical significance of Nazareth. He writes, "And came and resided in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’" (2:23).
The significance of the name of the village, then, is twofold. It expresses Jesus’ credential as a descendant of David, and therefore from the royal line with the right to rule Israel in a restored kingdom (Cf Acts 1:6). He is a "Nazarene," in the sense that He is the "shoot," the netzer, predicted by Isaiah. Since Nazareth was also the village where He lived most of His life, it also became the means of distinguishing this "Yeshua" from the many others in the land. Not knowing the significance of Isaiah’s use of netzer, Pilate expressed more than he knew when he wrote on the tablet above the cross "Jesus of Nazareth, king of the Jews."
The size of the village and the origin of the clan at Nazareth adds a deeper dimension to the events surrounding the conception and birth of Jesus. The angel’s announcement to Mary and his explanation and encouragement to Joseph took place in a very small community that lived in a rather remote village. The return of this family of three, with a toddler, must have evoked a special joy, for the few families there would not likely have produced many babies. In each of these crisis times, Mary’s pregnancy and the couple’s return with the toddler, it must be remembered that this village was not populated by hostile strangers. Rather, the residents were a kind of extended family, one that probably could be judgmental but also supportive.
The small size of the village of Nazareth when Jesus lived there also becomes an important factor in our understanding of reactions to His teaching in its synagogue (Luke 4:16-30). Every one present, of every age, would have known Jesus well. In fact, it may be assumed that several of them may have been related to Him through Mary. A realization of this context helps us to appreciate more fully the significance of Jesus’ reading of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Himself (61:1,2) in what may have been the only synagogue in the village. The rejection by His own clan, and their dragging Him out to the edge of the ridge to throw Him down to His death, must have been a very traumatic event for all involved, especially for His mother and brothers and sisters, as well as the towns people who knew Him so well.
Later in His ministry, Jesus returned to Nazareth, this time with His disciples (Matt 13:54-58; Mark 6:1-6). Again the challenge was for Him to perform miracles there, as He had done elsewhere, thereby giving Nazareth the prestige other towns such as Capernaum enjoyed. And again, the real issue was the person of Jesus. Was He only a physical descendant of David, or did the angel’s announcement to Mary, in effect, validate His divinity? Jesus’ sad reaction to His neighbors in Nazareth, whom He knew and loved so well, was "He marveled at their unbelief" (Mark 6:1).

From here:http://www.ancientsandals.com/overviews/nazareth.htm

[cheddarsox]

I'm sure this thread was not intended to touch off such a sensitive nerve with you.. it was simply putting a perspective out there for general thought.. no one was redefining anything or anyone no more than comparisons of christian ceremony to pagan ceremonies (which there are tons considering most evolved from pagan rituals)..
unless someone has first hand knowledge of EXACTLY what happened in Christs time, and had conversations with him regarding how he "labeled" himself then it is up to interpretation, which is what the church does every day of the week..
I'm sure, as well, that there was no intent to take away from those that are Shaman either in modern day or before.. the thread was not confrontational nor derogatory in any way to any faith, belief, or practice.. it is a perspective.. and I still believe it is beautiful in its simplicity and acceptance of a common thread that runs through all..
aho

The OP wanted to know what our thoughts were on the matter. So, I posted mine.

Sometimes someone's personal idea is not meant to be deragatory, and they don't see how it can or will be taken by others. Usually I keep my opinions to myself, but since they were asked for here, I shared them.

There are beautiful and comforting and encouraging common threads that run through many traditions, I agree. There are differences as well, and I don't think they are insignificant, or that we should overlook them just to make nice.

I missed the part where Christian ceremony was compared to pagan ceremony. I only saw that some points were made to support Christ as a shaman, and I believe that some of those points were fanciful rather than factual. It's a pretty idea, but I don't think it is a true one.

[cheddarsox]

What exactly was he and what did he consider himself to be in your opinion?



My opinion doesn't matter. That's my point. 2000 years later, my personal opinion, filtered by my world experience cannot redefine who and what someone else was.

Christ was a Jew. A Rabbi and teacher (at least he acted those roles and did not rebuke his followers when they referred to him that way). Some scholars say there is evidence that he belonged to a Jewish monastic group known as the Essenes. Some of his followers considered him to be the messiah, the chosen one of God, and he did not "correct" them for saying so.

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, a healer, a holy man, an instigator. He was a teacher, a son, a leader of a band of itinerant preachers. He was a criminal crucified by the Roman government.

[Mesektet]

Sure, why not? Even past the healing aspects, looking at the apocrypha seeing his koan-esque teachings in the Gospel of Thomas, or his Gnostic leanings and perhaps participation. Plus looking his own history recorded in the 4 gospels, his casting out of demons, his time spent in the desert, his use of trance and gnosis. Plus, his association with John the Baptist, who IMO is one of the more blatent shaman archetypes in the bible.

So Jesus as a Shaman? Again, Why Not?

[plumedsnake]

Jesus as a Mason, Witch, Dali Lama, Druid, Anthropologist, Medicine Man, psychic, and ceremonial magician, too, right?

Right! But not too sure about the Anthropologist part. That would require more of a stretch.

[Mesektet]

Jesus as a Mason, Witch, Dali Lama, Druid, Anthropologist, Medicine Man, psychic, and ceremonial magician, too, right?

Why not? It doesn't matter either way to me. Piss and moan all you want about your perceived misuse of terms and titles,cultures and what-not, people are still going to see him for what they want to. As far as I'm concerned, all I see the man Jesus as is irrelavant.

[teishabee]

I think Jesus is a great figure. He was the only reason I included the christian faith in my beliefs when I was younger. But why does he have to be anything else but Jewish. Is that really so bad in the first place?

[wolfjan1]

As a shaman, Jesus was still written as a "Dangerous" character in the eyes of the leaders. These SAME leaders had been written as set in their ways, corrupt and basically power mad.
The similarities are basically there, and we are about to repeat history, once again.
So, Shall the people rise up against this degradation?

[Twinkle]

I'm sorry....I have to say that people making these kinds of leaps in logic without proper historical and cultural knowledge is what makes Neo-paganism in the shameful shape it is now.

All of you are assuming that Jesus Christ was a historical figure...and I'm sorry, but that also is a huge leap...since there is not one shred of historical or archaeological evidence that proves beyond doubt that he ever walked this earth.

[plumedsnake]

All of you are assuming that Jesus Christ was a historical figure...and I'm sorry, but that also is a huge leap...since there is not one shred of historical or archaeological evidence that proves beyond doubt that he ever walked this earth.

Apart from the biggest religion in the world today. Apart from being mentioned by Josephus, an historian who was contemporary with him.
historical evidence is basically what was written about something and plenty was written about Jesus, both by his followers and as I said above by Josephus who wasn't a christian.

You would be on saver ground if you questioned the accuracy of what we know about Jesus, but not whether Jesus existed at all.

[teishabee]

Apart from the biggest religion in the world today. Apart from being mentioned by Josephus, an historian who was contemporary with him.
historical evidence is basically what was written about something and plenty was written about Jesus, both by his followers and as I said above by Josephus who wasn't a christian.

You would be on saver ground if you questioned the accuracy of what we know about Jesus, but not whether Jesus existed at all.

I happen to be in agreement with plumedsnake.

Personally I do not have a doubt that he existed but more to what was percieved of him.

[Twinkle]

Apart from the biggest religion in the world today. Apart from being mentioned by Josephus, an historian who was contemporary with him.
historical evidence is basically what was written about something and plenty was written about Jesus, both by his followers and as I said above by Josephus who wasn't a christian.

You would be on saver ground if you questioned the accuracy of what we know about Jesus, but not whether Jesus existed at all.


Josephus' work is highly in question. In fact, it is not at all accepted as a historically accurate, and has been largely believed to have been forged by Christian scribes. Most of what was written about Jesus and his followers is in the New Testament, which is also a highly dubious source, as it was edited and re-edited by Christians...and not historically accurate....The Gospel of John especially is suspect.

Just because a religion is large doesn't mean it's tue. I don't understand how a sheeple mentality makes something historically accurate.

I'm on perfectly safe ground here. Unless there's some new archaeological evidence that proves the existence of the man, then I'm pretty safe in my statement that there is not one shred of historical or archaeological proof that the man walked the earth.

[plumedsnake]

Josephus' work is highly in question. In fact, it is not at all accepted as a historically accurate, and has been largely believed to have been forged by Christian scribes. Most of what was written about Jesus and his followers is in the New Testament, which is also a highly dubious source, as it was edited and re-edited by Christians...and not historically accurate....The Gospel of John especially is suspect.

Just because a religion is large doesn't mean it's tue. I don't understand how a sheeple mentality makes something historically accurate.

I'm on perfectly safe ground here. Unless there's some new archaeological evidence that proves the existence of the man, then I'm pretty safe in my statement that there is not one shred of historical or archaeological proof that the man walked the earth.

Do you believe that Darius I, king of persia existed? If so, what evidence do you have that is so much better than the evidence that Jesus christ existed.

[Agaliha]

I don't think Jesus was a shaman.
Shaman is a term that seems to get thrown around a lot.
Native American's weren't even Shamans...
Some info on Shamans:



Shaman |ˈshämən; ˈshā-| noun (pl. -man(s)) originally referred to the traditional healers of Turkic-Mongol areas such as Northern Asia (Siberia) and Mongolia, a "shaman" being the Turkic-Tungus word for such a practitioner and literally meaning "he (or she) who knows." The words in Turkic languages which refer to shamans are kam, and sometimes baksı.

Some say the Tungusic word šamán is from Chinese sha men (Chinese: 沙门，沙弥), "Buddhist monk," borrowed from Pali śamana, ultimately from Sanskrit śramana "ascetic," from śramati "he fatigues" (see shramana). However, it is disputed whether the connection with ancient Sanskrit is actual or merely apparent due to the words' similarities[citation needed]. Other scholars assert that the word comes directly from the Manchu language, and indeed is "the only commonly used English word that is a loan from this language".[1]

Another explanation analyzes this Tungusic word as containing root “sa-”, this means “to know”. “Shaman” is “one who knows”:[2][3] a person who is an expert in keeping together the multiple codes through which this complex belief system appears, and has a comprehensive view of them in their mind with certainty of knowledge.[2]

A criticism against the above approach says that there is no evidence that this Tungusic word would be of inner origin, and it is hard to reconstruct from the sources where this word was borrowed from in the past.[4][5]
The word passed through Russian and German before it was adopted into English.

In any case, the proper plural form of the word is "shaman" or "shamans" and not "shamen", as it is unrelated to the English word "man". Similarly, the feminine form is not "shamaness" but "shamanka".

In its common usage, it has replaced the older English language term witch doctor, a term which unites the two stereotypical functions of the shaman: knowledge of magical and other lore, and the ability to cure a person and mend a situation. However, this term is generally considered to be pejorative and anthropologically inaccurate. Objections to the use of shaman as a generic term have been raised as well, by both academics and traditional healers themselves, given that the word comes from a specific place, people, and set of practices.

(snip)

Native American and First Nations cultures have diverse religious beliefs. There was never one universal Native American religion or spiritual system. Though many Native American cultures have traditional healers, ritualists, singers, mystics, lore-keepers and "Medicine People", none of them ever used, or use, the term "shaman" to describe these religious leaders. Rather, like other indigenous cultures the world over, their spiritual functionaries are described by words in their own languages, and in many cases are not taught to outsiders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism)


He can be someone's leader, guide, savior, god,friend...but he's not a shaman.
Culturally and historically he wasn't. He healed, yes. He is said to have dispelled spirts, yes. But that doesn't make someone a shaman.
I don't think he was a witch either.
And because he's not a shaman that doesn't take away from his life and sacrifice, for those that believe in him it shouldn't at least.



Just because a religion is large doesn't mean it's tue. I don't understand how a sheeple mentality makes something historically accurate.
I'm on perfectly safe ground here. Unless there's some new archaeological evidence that proves the existence of the man, then I'm pretty safe in my statement that there is not one shred of historical or archaeological proof that the man walked the earth.


I agree. There really isn't any historical proof of his existance. People have to take it on faith.

In fact there's a whole theory/thesis and book devoted to uncovering history and showing a basis for his non-existance. It's really interesting, I have it and read most of it:
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (Paperback) (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Mysteries-Was-Original-Pagan/dp/0609807986) by Timothy Freke (Author), Peter Gandy (Author)
They have two more books, too. Equally interesting.
I recommed you have an open mind to read these books. Die-hard believers might not like it. It makes sense to me, but that's just me.

Then again people have the right to believe what they want, but not everyone has to believe it or take it as truth--espeically if it's doesn't add up historically.
People can make sites like this: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/2310/jesus-witch.html all they want. In the end I really don't care what people believe, if he's a shaman or not. I really don't have any personal investment in it all... *shrugs*

[teishabee]

So far we have Jesus didnt exist or we have limited proof and that we have taken shaman out of context.

I am interested though what is the right context for shaman. As I always have previously thought it was a native indian term. But then I always shyed away from anything relating to it, as its very new age to be a 'shaman'.

[Agaliha]

I am interested though what is the right context for shaman. As I always have previously thought it was a native indian term. But then I always shyed away from anything relating to it, as its very new age to be a 'shaman'.

I quoted some info about the term shaman and how it wasn't ever used with Native Americans above, not sure you saw that. You can also see that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism)

I haven't read these sites in full, I've just search and skimmed them:


Shamanism is not the same thing as Native American spirituality. The word shaman, used internationally, has its origin in manchú-tangu and has reached the ethnologic vocabulary through Russian. The word originated from saman (xaman), derived from the verb scha-, "to know", so shaman means someone who knows, is wise, a sage. Further ethnologic investigations shows that the true origin for the word Shaman can be tracked from the Sanskrit initially, then through Chinese-Buddhist mediation to the manchú-tangu, indicating a much deeper but now overlooked connection between early Buddhism and Shamanism generally. In Pali it is schamana, in Sanskrit sramana translated to something like "buddhist monk, ascetic". The intermediate Chinese term is scha-men (source). It has been adopted into the English speaking world not unlike words such as kayak for example, but when it is used to describe Native American holy men or women it can be offensive to traditional Natives and their Elders.

For the rest, see:
WE DO NOT HAVE SHAMANS: The Case Against "Shamans" In North American Indigenous Cultures (http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/not_shamans.html)


Shamanism: It Ain't Native American Religion! (http://www.metista.com/articles/aint.html)explains what it isn't and what it is.
Snippet:


Contrary to popular opinion, a "shaman" is not an Indian medicine man, and "shamanism" is not a Native American religion. In fact, many Native Americans find the terms "shaman" and "shamanism" offensive. The word "shaman" actually originates among the natives of Siberia, where it describes a specialized type of holy person. The shamans of Siberia interact with deities and spirits not only with prayer, ritual and offerings, but through direct contact with the spirits themselves.


I also found this:



The phrase plastic shaman is a pejorative colloquialism used for individuals who try to pass themselves off as shamans, or other traditional spiritual leaders, but who actually have no genuine connection to the traditions they claim to represent. Rather, plastic shamans use the mystique of these cultural traditions, and the legitimate curiosity of sincere seekers, for personal gain. This exploitation of students and traditional culture can involve the selling of fake "traditional" spiritual ceremonies, fake artifacts, fictional accounts in books, illegitimate tours of sacred sites, and often the chance to buy spiritual titles.
(snip)
Though the term "plastic shaman" originated among Native American and First Nations activists, and is most often applied to people posing as Native American medicine men and women, the term has also been applied to those posing as other types of traditional and alternative healers. People who have been referred to as "plastic shamans" include fraudulent spiritual advisors, seers, psychics, or other practitioners of non-traditional modalities of spirituality and healing who are operating on a fraudulent basis.
(snip)
No traditional Native American or First Nations group calls their spiritual teachers, leaders or elders "shamans", which is a term native only to Siberia. However, the term was adopted in academia to describe a variety of otherwise unconnected spiritual traditions that bear certain superficial resemblances to one another. More recently, this lumping together of diverse spiritual traditions under the term "shamanism" has been falling out of favor.But among some New Agers the term shamanism has continued to be misused in this over-generalized way, and come to refer to almost any type of spiritual path independent of hierarchically-structured religious traditions such as Christianity and Judaism. Contemporary, New Age, "global" shamanism is characterized by cultural appropriation, eclecticism and personal spiritual connections.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shaman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shaman)


Not sure if that helps clarify things. At least it'll help clarify what a shaman isn't.

[teishabee]

Yes thank you. I was just wondering what spiritual path it was originally sourced from. The text said it the area and the people but not what they practiced (apart from shamanism:weirdsmil )

Although the following snippets you have added have given more insight. Again thank you.

[Agaliha]

Yes thank you. I was just wondering what spiritual path it was originally sourced from. The text said it the area and the people but not what they practiced (apart from shamanism:weirdsmil )

Although the following snippets you have added have given more insight. Again thank you.

You're welcome :)

[plumedsnake]

So Shaman means 'one who knows'. I guess the question to ask then is : Did Jesus Know?

No ones come back to me on Darius yet. So Jesus didn't exist. Of course there are theories as there are for anything. And the Holocaust didn't exist either. Have you heard that one? Ultimately, if you weren't there there is no proof.

[Agaliha]

So Shaman means 'one who knows'. I guess the question to ask then is : Did Jesus Know?
Know what? Shaman means "One who knows" ...and :huh:
And even if he did know (whatever he's suppose to know) that still wouldn't make him a shaman.
Not historically. Not culturally. Not geographically.


And the Holocaust didn't exist either. Have you heard that one? Ultimately, if you weren't there there is no proof.
Well unlike Jesus there is proof. Images. Videos. Eye Witness accounts. Military records. Things of that nature. Those that deny it say it was blown out of porpotion or it was some Jewish conspiracy-- which isn't exactly saying it 100% didn't happen. Though I am sure there are people out there that think that-- sadly.

There's really nothing solid on Jesus. But why does that matter if you believe and have faith? If you do the lack of evidence shouldn't phase you. I mean look how many Christians there are in the face of these arguements. And Mormons (far as I know there's no historical and geographic evidence for the new world civilization --the Nephi--they talk about, but they still believe because they have faith).

[plumedsnake]

Well unlike Jesus there is proof. Images. Videos. Eye Witness accounts. Military records. Things of that nature. Those that deny it say it was blown out of porpotion or it was some Jewish conspiracy-- which isn't exactly saying it 100% didn't happen. Though I am sure there are people out there that think that-- sadly.

There's really nothing solid on Jesus.

Images: What about the thousands of icons, Turin Shrouds etc.

Eye Witness Accounts: Plenty plenty. In the letters of Paul, Paul is often at loggerheads with other christians who knew Jesus and challenge him on the grounds that he never met the man himself.

Videos: I'm stumped there.

Military records: Couldn't the Allied propaganda machine have created all those records at the end of the War.

Blown out of proportion: Yes, there is no smoke without a fire. The massive christian movement is the smoke in the case of Jesus. Perhaps he was merely blown out of proportion too. Some sort of Jewish conspiracy, which isn't exactly saying it 100% didn't happen. Though I see that there are people in here that think that --sadly.

I think the real act of 'faith' is to say he didn't exist in the face of all these arguments.

[Agaliha]

*sigh*

..I came in here to state my opinion regarding Jesus as a shaman and to provide Teishabee with some links and info. Not to debate with you Jesus and his existance-- though I shouldn't have taken your bait about the Holocaust. Really I don't care. I've looked into Christianity (recently even), I'm not clueless. It's not a path for me though, I have my beliefs and views. So does everyone. People have every right to believe he existed, just as people have every right to believe he didn't. I believe evidence for his existance isn't solid, doesn't mean for the person that believes in him he's not real. They have their own beliefs and faith, my opinion and view shouldn't matter regarding that. If you want to debate with someone, I'm not it. I have little passion on this topic to get into all of this and honestly I just don't care enough to-- it's of no personal consequence to me or my path, whether he existed or not. Maybe a few months ago I would have been more into it all, but not now.

/end.

[David19]

Know what? Shaman means "One who knows" ...and :huh:
And even if he did know (whatever he's suppose to know) that still wouldn't make him a shaman.
Not historically. Not culturally. Not geographically.


Well unlike Jesus there is proof. Images. Videos. Eye Witness accounts. Military records. Things of that nature. Those that deny it say it was blown out of porpotion or it was some Jewish conspiracy-- which isn't exactly saying it 100% didn't happen. Though I am sure there are people out there that think that-- sadly.

There's really nothing solid on Jesus. But why does that matter if you believe and have faith? If you do the lack of evidence shouldn't phase you. I mean look how many Christians there are in the face of these arguements. And Mormons (far as I know there's no historical and geographic evidence for the new world civilization --the Nephi--they talk about, but they still believe because they have faith).

I agree with you, mostly anyway, personally, I do think there was a Jesus, but I don't think he was a shaman (considering he wasn't from Siberia), perhaps some kind of Jewish sorcerer (there are Jewish records saying he spent time in Egypt (one of the occult capitals of the ancient world), and I think had magical tattoos covering his body). There's an interesting theory that Jesus was a mage of the Left Hand Path (it's in 'Demons of the Flesh' by Zeena Schreck and Nikolas Schreck), and that orginally Christianity (as it originally was -a mystery religion) is a Left Handed religion.

But, I also think some Christians and others make too much of a big deal about the historical Jesus, as I don't think it matters even if there wasn't a historical Jesus, it doesn't mean he isn't real, in the same sense, as I don't believe Zeus was a historical figure, yet he is still real (still rules Olympus, still communicates with his followers, he's just on another plane).

Hope this made some sense.

[omar]

Jesus Christ who's real name was Joseph Ben Yusaf or son of Joseph. Trained in Eygipt between the age of 18 - 30 at the Order of Malechezdec & was a trained priest & Master Magition. This grupe had been around for 600 years before Jesus was born. The Rosicrutions are desended from this order or at leased there teachings.

[plumedsnake]

Phew! that was a much needed break that I've had away from mysticwicks. Now where was I . . .


*sigh*

..I came in here to state my opinion regarding Jesus as a shaman and to provide Teishabee with some links and info. Not to debate with you Jesus and his existance-- though I shouldn't have taken your bait about the Holocaust. Really I don't care. I've looked into Christianity (recently even), I'm not clueless. It's not a path for me though, I have my beliefs and views. So does everyone. People have every right to believe he existed, just as people have every right to believe he didn't. I believe evidence for his existance isn't solid, doesn't mean for the person that believes in him he's not real. They have their own beliefs and faith, my opinion and view shouldn't matter regarding that. If you want to debate with someone, I'm not it. I have little passion on this topic to get into all of this and honestly I just don't care enough to-- it's of no personal consequence to me or my path, whether he existed or not. Maybe a few months ago I would have been more into it all, but not now.

/end.



..I came in here to state my opinion regarding Jesus as a shaman and to provide Teishabee with some links and info. Not to debate with you Jesus and his existance--

This is a public forum and if you are so keen to specifically address one person and that one person only then you can send them a private message. If you don't want to debate Jesus, surely there are thousands of other threads on MW that aren't about Jesus. This one is.


Really I don't care.

And herein likes the root of the problem. I know that there are numerous understandings and interpretations for the word respect but I would consider it an utter disrespect if a group of people are engaged in a conversation and someone butts in stating, as they sigh and shrug all the way, that they do not care for the subject of the conversation, yet continue to disrupt it with total illogicality. Yes, illogicality. It is a fact of Logic that one cannot prove a negative, however you have joined the conversation and insisted that a negative, the non existence of Jesus, is your conviction. As one cannot prove a negative you can''t have arrived at this conviction logically.

The 'bait' about the holocaust wasn't a bait but my attempt to demonstrate to you the illogicality of your stance. And what was your response . . . ?


I have little passion on this topic to get into all of this and honestly I just don't care enough to--

SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU POST? To demonstrate your disrespect, your lack of passion? It just totally baffles me. Why all the sighing and shrugging and yet you continue to remain engaged?

[Agaliha]

This is a public forum and if you are so keen to specifically address one person and that one person only then you can send them a private message. If you don't want to debate Jesus, surely there are thousands of other threads on MW that aren't about Jesus. This one is.


I came into the conversation and stated that I didn't believe Christ was a "shaman". Another member asked for resources. I gave them. I mistakenly (because I should have known it'd become be a debate) answered your post. Then you came in and addressed me. My initial post was all I was going to post, but when asked for resources that I could provide--ones that might be of interest to others in the thread and to the topic at hand, I posted them. They were on topic. But then I answered your post and got sucked into this...drama. There's no rule saying one can't post their view/opinion and then leave the thread. There's no rule saying one has to debate in a thread or argue or prove their view.


And herein likes the root of the problem. I know that there are numerous understandings and interpretations for the word respect but I would consider it an utter disrespect if a group of people are engaged in a conversation and someone butts in stating, as they sigh and shrug all the way, that they do not care for the subject of the conversation, yet continue to disrupt it with total illogicality. Yes, illogicality. It is a fact of Logic that one cannot prove a negative, however you have joined the conversation and insisted that a negative, the non existence of Jesus, is your conviction. As one cannot prove a negative you can''t have arrived at this conviction logically. ...

As I said, I came here to read the posts and state my opinion. I cared enough to post, but not enough to carry on with your conversation-- that's what I was really meaning. I didn't want to get into some long nit-pick every word argument. I only wanted to post my POV and then later the resources for Teishabee. It was my mistake to even address your post, from which you replied to and then I wrote the post you were just quoting now.

I'm not the only one that doesn't believe Jesus wasn't a Shaman and I'm not the only one that questions his existence. I don't have to prove my POV either. Why you're targeting me, I don't know.

I thought this thread was was about Christ=Shaman. I stated why I don't believe Jesus was a Shaman. That's all I wanted to do. I saw a few comments that I agreed with and mentioned that. Not get into some "does Jesus exist or not" debate that can go on and on and on and on and on and on.That's the part of this conversation that I have little passion for--that's the part I don't want to debate and get sucked into something that doesn't really have any consequence to me. It doesn't matter to me if Jesus was real or not, personally. I just came here to state my view (and just because I question his existence doesn't mean I can't have any opinions about him either) about Christ=Shaman. I mistakenly aswered your post and you came in and wanted me to debate with you about his existence and though I fell for you post the first time, I didn't want to carry on and on and on and on and on.


SO WHY THE HELL DID YOU POST? To demonstrate your disrespect, your lack of passion? It just totally baffles me. Why all the sighing and shrugging and yet you continue to remain engaged?I wasn't being disrespectful. I was sighing only after you posted you reply to my reply to you post that you wanted me to argue with you about. Also, a *shrug* isn't disrespectful. I have no passion to get into it with you, to spend that much time going back and forth with you over something that doesn't 100% matter to me (Jesus' existence--because really, that's what you wanted to debate). That's what I was meaning. I was never looking for a debate or argument. I just posted my opinion, resources, etc. The other posts of mine were because I was interested in the thread, if I wasn't I wouldn't have posted. There are so many threads I don't reply to, either 1. because I'm not interested 2. I don't have an opinion or anything to add. If I posted, I have some degree of interest, that's for sure.

That's all I'm going to say in this thread. Really.

If you persist to address me do it in private as you yourself said to me:
Though I honestly prefer you don't PM me at all.


This is a public forum and if you are so keen to specifically address one person and that one person only then you can send them a private message.

My post of resources on Shamanism was on topic (post 39 (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=3287631&postcount=39)), your post to me wasn't (post 48 (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=3331956&postcount=48)).

[FiresSong]

Know what? Shaman means "One who knows" ...and :huh:
And even if he did know (whatever he's suppose to know) that still wouldn't make him a shaman.
Not historically. Not culturally. Not geographically.

I concur.

It's an interesting theory, though.