I LOVE Lost, but this is why I want them to stay away from religious themes. They totally got the story behind Jesus wrong. If you read the New Testament, it clearly states that Jesus was sinless. That was how he cleansed the sin of mankind - because he was the pure, spotless Son of God. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist as an *example* for his disciples to follow. Not because he had sinned.

Ahem, "Jesus" never came to the cartharsis of his divinity until he was baptized. Hence the metaphor of the dove ascending down to him. God, entering him. In the New Testament, whether you take it at face value or read between the lines, your own discretion aside God literally informs Jesus of his extroadinary divinity.

It all depends on which book you read.

No one knows all the mintutia of what did or didn't take place 2000 years ago.

There is a big difference between knowing something and believing something.

The whole science/faith thing.

Perhaps it was intentional to show that Eko is not knowledgable as a priest?

Uh, could Mr. Ecko just be wrong? He is not really a priest.

Perhaps it was intentional to show that Eko is not knowledgable as a priest?

He also doesn't know what baptize means...

Cobblepot said

"Ahem, "Jesus" never came to the cartharsis of his divinity until he was baptized. Hence the metaphor of the dove ascending down to him. God, entering him. In the New Testament, whether you take it at face value or read between the lines, your own discretion aside God literally informs Jesus of his extroadinary divinity. "





exactly.

I'm a pretty devout Christian, but I'm okay with the thought that Jesus did sin. Jesus was amazing - the son of God - half-divine. But, it is important to remember, he was also part human. That's one of the reasons he's so great - he's divine so he can save people, yet at the same time, he's human so he can understand humans and what we go through. I think part of understanding what it is to be human would be to sin.

And I think sheba's right. No one knows everything that went on all those years ago.

Just my opinion :smile:

But yeah, Eko isn't really a priest too...

My thoughts given about this in another post is that
I doubt Eko has seminary training, he probably remembers bits and pieces
of what he picked up as a child living close to the church, not following
any particular demonination's statement of faith, nor accuracy of
scripture, but his heart and intent is in the right place and what he
does do is symbolic and figurative of what he does remember, imo.

read the da vinci code ;)


eko obviously was only doing it to give claire a peace of mind for herself and her baby (Which, i guess one could argue, could be all a baptism really is)

read the da vinci code ;)


eko obviously was only doing it to give claire a peace of mind for herself and her baby (Which, i guess one could argue, could be all a baptism really is)
the da vinci code is a fictional story book. Not to be confused with the truth. you know his other books have some factual info too, but no one ever claimed them to be real. just the da vinci code, wierd what religious themes can do to a persons mind. I'm a huge Dan Brown fan!


**Mod edited to remove offensive comment.**

Jesus was without sin. Eko's example is wrong according to scripture. Jesus was baptized as an example for others but he himself did not need to be saved. The dove was the holy spirit descending upon Jesus after he was baptized.

From what I know, Eko was correct. Baptizing was around *long* before John the baptist..if not the name itself. People would ritualistically cleanse themselves of any sin or impurities before entering the Temple for worship. It in no way meant that one had to be baptized to get to heaven...that was added later.

And according to texts, when John the Baptist cleansed Jesus he saw the holy ghost in the form of a dove swoop down. At this time Jesus was being tested by John, to see if he was indeed the child of christ.

Let's stop the religous banter and keep it lost related.

The thought that anyone could call themselves a Christian, and in the same breath claim that Jesus sinned amazes me. If Christ sinned, then his sacrifice was in vain, and we are all doomed to hell. Only the sacrifice from the SPOTLESS Lamb of God can save us.
You're entitled to your opinions, but please, no personal attacks on me and my religion. Back to Lost, which is what we should be talking about.

I think the point that a lot of people have raised Eko isn't a priest is the most telling about this. That leaves what Eko says about religion totally open to interpretation by everyone. Related question: why is Eko carrying on this charade of being a real priest? I'm not sure I understand his motives.

The thought that anyone could call themselves a Christian, and in the same breath claim that Jesus sinned amazes me. If Christ sinned, then his sacrifice was in vain, and we are all doomed to hell. Only the sacrifice from the SPOTLESS Lamb of God can save us. This isnt a religious debate forum, so lets keep the topic on what Eko could have meant and how he may have been correct or wrong...not on your *own* reglious beliefs.

You're entitled to your opinions, but please, no personal attacks on me and my religion. Back to Lost, which is what we should be talking about.

I think the point that a lot of people have raised Eko isn't a priest is the most telling about this. That leaves what Eko says about religion totally open to interpretation by everyone. Related question: why is Eko carrying on this charade of being a real priest? I'm not sure I understand his motives.
He's trying to atone for his past sins, while carrying on his brothers work.

the da vinci code is a fictional story book. Not to be confused with the truth.

That was kind of rude.. even though it wasn't directed towards me. Don't call people names that is pretty impolite, seriously. Let people believe what they want. Okay? Friends? Friends. (shakes hands)


**Mod edited to remove rude comment from quote.**
Please do not respond to rude posts, just report them. The mods will handle them from there.

Some catholics (Eko is a catholic) believe that Jesus actually sinned and Mary was the perfect one. The concept of emmaculate conception deals with Mary having had to be sinless to give birth to Jesus. Who knows? Maybe he believes that.

You're almost right about this. Prior to Jesus' arrival and his later crucifixion and resurrection, baptism was a ritualistic cleansing. Jesus' baptism was a symboilc event, and not meant to mean that he actually had anything cleansed from him. John wasn't testing him, because he knew who Jesus was. They were cousins and John knew who Jesus was and what his role/destiny was.

AFTER Jesus' resurrection, baptism took on a different role. Now baptism represented Jesus' death on the cross and going down into the grave (going underwater) and then rising from the dead (coming out of the water a child of God). Depending on what Christian denomination you are a part of, baptism has a varying degree of 'power'. Some denominations believe that truly being 'saved' doesn't occur until one rises out of the water from baptism. The other end has baptism being more symbolic, an outward sign of an inward change.


Of course we could be citing different sources which is always the issue with religous discussions, but I know that in Luke and Matthew John asked Jesus MT 11:3 “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another." The baptisim was more then an example, but a proclamation when the Dove swept down...and after this he declaired that Jesus was in fact the son of christ.

And see this thread proves that quite a few people are taught differently, so its not that much of an issue to assume Eko would believe one thing and others another.

Also the issue of Jesus being a sinner is a *huge* debate that has been going on for quite a while...also wouldnt be strange for Eko to believe this as well.

This really is a dangerous line we're walking here. Nothing like a heated debate about personal faith to get the blood boiling... so to speak.

There is also a fine line from being tempted by sin and actually committing sin. Jesus was tempted, we know that from the Bible, in the book of Matthew. Was he human... yes. Is he God also? My personal belief is.. yes. This my own personal belief and we all have free will to choose how we believe.

I do not like what the screenwriter said because it cannot be backed up by any historical evidence and so it would appear that he was stating a belief as fact. Thus giving the appearance of being somewhat forced upon an unsuspecting public. Many of whom are bound to disagree... thus leading to discussions like this. Controversy brews viewership and it may cost them some as well, but despite this disagreement I will still keep watching the show because it does not change my way of thinking. It's just fiction.

Again... these are my opinions and I'm making sure it is know as just that. Bashing each other's beliefs is wrong no matter how you believe.

I would like to request that this thread be locked... not that it's in my power to do so... but a humble request to the mods to prevent even further dissension among us. One thing that is known the WORLD over is that one's beliefs are taken very personal, and if this thread continues the way I think it may continue some people may come away very hurt.

My Thanks to All.

Hello.....

I started a thread about this, but I should have maybe just posted here....
The Roman Catholic Church is about to/has already abolished the idea of Limbo.
According to the mythology, Limbo is the place where the souls of babies who die before baptism go.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pope+benedict+abolish+limbo&btn G=Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=pope+benedict+abolish+limbo&btnG=Search)

Some reading for those who don't know:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=limbo&btnG=Google+Search)

Your pal,
MMF

This isn't a religious forum but it is a religious thread so while I agree that it's not the place to proselytize I think that dealing with the minutia of the show is definitely fair game.

The problem as I see it is that Eko, as a priest, would necessarily believe in the divinity and sinlessness of Jesus. This is central to Catholicism (and the vast majority of Christendom.)

Now, it is certainly feasible that his understanding is flawed due to a lack of knowledge inasmuch as his induction into the priesthood was a fairly recent occurrence that took place under rather dubious circumstances. That doesn't jive well, however, with his knowledge of the Bible. He's carving Scripture verses into his walking stick, reciting it from memory, and recounting the Old Testament story of Josiah. If he's whipping out the Josiah story he should certainly know better than to believe that baptism saves or that Jesus was ever sinful. I'm chalking this up to a writing debacle; intentional or otherwise.

well, I don't think closing this thread is likely to happen. This is only one of a dozen or so covering similar territory. And besides, the whole episode was about religion, so there's really no way to discuss the episode with religious discussion being a part of it. It would be like saying rock'n'roll can't be discussed.

I see your point, but such is the nature of this show, and this board.

By the same token, if Islam was spotlighted in an episode of Lost, and got it wrong, I'd be very interested in reading the discussion about it, because I wouldn't know what was accurate or not because I'm not versed in Islam. Those that are knowledgable would be eager to share what they feel is the correct information and I'm sure there would be debate among various Muslims.

Everyone's playing nice (so far), so I wouldn't worry about it.

Jesus was fully God and fully human. He, Himself, was tempted and therefore knows how we are tempted to do wrong - but the difference is that He did not give in to temptation. At any point, He could have gone off on His own (as when by tempted by Satan as He prayed and fasted) but He did not.

Jesus is often seen as the "spotless lamb," thereby befitting as a sacrifice for the sins of the world before God.

Not wanting to debate or get into a lot of religiosity but I did want to state the facts as I see them in Scripture.

I wonder if maybe baptism was explained inaccurately (according to most) on purpose. I believe that the version Eko told is easier to understand than the actual definition, so maybe they just wanted to make it easier for general viewers to understand, especially those that are non-Christians. While Lost is often a very accurate show it is also watched by a wide variety of people and it has to be easily understandable to all. Another option is that Eko told the simplified version because it was easier to explain it to Claire that way. He believed that Charlie's dream was saying that Aaron needed to be baptized and he wanted Claire to agree to the baptism, maybe he thought that phrasing the definition of baptism the way he did was the only way to convince Claire.

This isn't a religious forum but it is a religious thread so while I agree that it's not the place to proselytize I think that dealing with the minutia of the show is definitely fair game.

The problem as I see it is that Eko, as a priest, would necessarily believe in the divinity and sinlessness of Jesus. This is central to Catholicism (and the vast majority of Christendom.)

Now, it is certainly feasible that his understanding is flawed due to a lack of knowledge inasmuch as his induction into the priesthood was a fairly recent occurrence that took place under rather dubious circumstances. That doesn't jive well, however, with his knowledge of the Bible. He's carving Scripture verses into his walking stick, reciting it from memory, and recounting the Old Testament story of Josiah. If he's whipping out the Josiah story he should certainly know better than to believe that baptism saves or that Jesus was ever sinful. I'm chalking this up to a writing debacle; intentional or otherwise.

Right. The writers are drawing on elements of the Bible and Christianity as another in the vast number of world mythologies. They will pick and choose whatever makes for the most interesting story. In the world of Lost, ALL religions and mythologies are equal, and equally great sources for story material.

Agreed that this isn't a forum for proseletyzing, but when a show like Lost gets the CENTRAL tenet of a religion wrong, you pretty much have to expect there will be a vocal group out there working to correct the glaring mistake the writers of Lost made.

This is a dangerous line we're crossing here. This is not the forum for religious debate. Religious beliefs are highly individual and personal. Since it seems that we are not content discussing the topic, this thread will be closed pending review by a UMod.

Closing now.

What's strange here, is that so many are arguing the finer points of religion, when religion was not the topic of the eppy.

The eppy (or at least the dreams) was a moving (as in physically moving, not moved to tears) rendition of The Baptism of Christ. Not the Bible story ... the painting.

link (http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/baptism.html)

Hello.....

Have any of you read "The Lost Books of the Bible" or "The Forgotten Books of Eden"?
They have most of the stories that were in the bible (or septuagint) before the whole editing of the bible when christianity became the official religion of Rome. Appropriate to this thread would be the story of jesus killing a fellow playmate who knocked him down.


Your pal, MMF

Ahem, "Jesus" never came to the cartharsis of his divinity until he was baptized. Hence the metaphor of the dove ascending down to him. God, entering him. In the New Testament, whether you take it at face value or read between the lines, your own discretion aside God literally informs Jesus of his extroadinary divinity.
What you're claiming is recognized in certain circles but is largely outside the mainstream of Christianity. I'm not saying this makes it wrong (though I believe it couldn't be more so) but I am saying that stating it as an established and widely accepted fact is tenuous ground.