Did Jesus accept Christ as his Lord and Savior?

[UrbanMonk]

Well?

[Alucard]

what this is I don't even

[salvationfound]

Did Jesus accept Christ as his Lord and Savior?


Nope and he didn't need to. Why would he need to?

[UrbanMonk]

Nope and he didn't need to. Why would he need to?

Uh, did he need to be baptized?

[UrbanMonk]

what this is I don't even

The question is did Jesus accept Christ as his Lord and Savior?

[gharfish]

Identify the someone else by this same title, please.


>

[UrbanMonk]

Identify the someone else by this same title, please.


>

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The bible says for us to have the same mind (attitude) that was in "Christ Jesus". Presuming Jesus was an example to follow, when did he accept Christ as his Lord and Savior? Stated another way, was Jesus the first "Christian"? Is that why he was baptized? To set an example to follow?

[gharfish]

Not sure, huh ? Jesus is called Jesus the Christ. Who is the other Christ (Messiah person) that Jesus could have accepted as His Lord and Savior ? (See your post to Alucard.)


>

[UrbanMonk]

Not sure, huh ? Jesus is called Jesus the Christ. Who is the other Christ (Messiah person) that Jesus could have accepted as His Lord and Savior ?


>

So you're saying Christ is a "Messiah person"?

[salvationfound]

Uh, did he need to be baptized?


Yes to reveal who he was but not to testify his conversion to
Christianity. What are you driving at here? I've already answered
no he didn't accept Christ as his Lord and savior so would
you please explain what this is all about? Or are you just
taking a survey?

[gharfish]

Christ means Messiah. It's a title given to a person. Isn't that right ?


>

[UrbanMonk]

Yes to reveal who he was but not to testify his conversion to
Christianity. What are you driving at here?

Is he an example that can be followed, or an example that can't be followed?

[UrbanMonk]

Christ means Messiah. It's a title given to a person. Isn't that right ?


>
I thought Christ was a title given to God, the Son of God. Is God a person?

?

[salvationfound]

Is he an example that can be followed, or an example that can't be followed?


I would say both are true.

[UrbanMonk]

I've already answered
no he didn't accept Christ as his Lord and savior so would
you please explain what this is all about? Or are you just
taking a survey?

What does it mean to accept Christ as Lord and Savior? Is your idea of acceptance the same as Jesus' idea of acceptance? In other words, is Jesus a saved savior?

[UrbanMonk]

I would say both are true.

So who judges between what can be followed and what can't?

[gharfish]

I thought Christ was a title given to God, the Son of God.

?Which is precisely who Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be, which He said was who the prophesied (from the OT) Messiah was to be, and now was--was believed to be this person by enough people at that time; the title with it's full meaning stuck.


>

[salvationfound]

So who judges between what can be followed and what can't?


Same as anyone who decides what job career to take. What is
possible for you to accomplish and what isn't? Partially its different
for everyone.


In other words, is Jesus a saved savior?


No but if we were innocent people we wouldn't need a savior
either.

[UrbanMonk]

Which is precisely who Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be, which He said was who the prophesied (from the OT) Messiah was to be, and now was--was believed to be this person by enough people at that time; the title with it's full meaning stuck.
>

When did Jesus accept that he was the Son of God? Did Jesus say the Son of God had to be the "Messiah" of the OT? When Jesus was asking people who they thought he was, were there any incorrect answers given? Did anyone say that he was the OT Messiah? Were they correct?

If the Messiah is a person, are you saying that Christ is a person? What is Christ now? When did people begin referencing Jesus as "Christ Jesus"? Isn't Christ a greek word?

[UrbanMonk]

Same as anyone who decides what job career to take. What is
possible for you to accomplish and what isn't? Partially its different
for everyone.

So Jesus thought that being Christ - the Son of God - was like a job that he could fulfill?


No but if we were innocent people we wouldn't need a savior
either.

Do you think Jesus accepted the fact that he was innocent? If so, should we follow suit? Can we?

[UrbanMonk]

Yes to reveal who he was but not to testify his conversion to
Christianity.

Maybe baptism is about revealing who we are. Well?

[Kelp]

Jesus is not His own Lord, the Father is His Lord, that's how the functional subordination within the Trinity works.

Jesus is not His own Savior because He had no sin to be saved from.

We however are sinners and we need His salvation and He is to be our Lord (along with the rest of the Trinity).

Why did Jesus get baptized? "To fulfill all righteousness". I don't know exactly what that does mean, but it does not mean that Jesus needed to be saved.

Obviously we are not supposed to do everything Jesus did. He never got married, we are allowed to. He was tried and murdered, that is not required of us for salvation either. Your assumption that we have to do everything Jesus did is specious. The Bible merely tells us to walk as He walked and obey His commandments.

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus is not His own Lord, the Father is His Lord, that's how the functional subordination within the Trinity works.

So Christ is not an equal to the Father?

Jesus is not His own Lord because He had no sin to be saved from.

Did he accept this (sinlessness)? How did he know this? Can we know this too of ourselves? When did he accept that he is "the Lord"?

We however are sinners and we need His salvation and He is our Lord (along with the rest of the Trinity).

So, sinlessness is not something we can "follow"?

Why did Jesus get baptized? "To fulfill all righteousness". I don't know exactly what that does mean, but it does not mean that Jesus needed to be saved.

The scribe of John 16 suggests that righteousness is to return to the Father. So, is baptism a prerequisite to returning to the Father? Would the revelation that one is the Son of God be a logical prerequisite for returning to "our Father"?

Obviously we are not supposed to do everything Jesus did.

Even though he said, "The things I do, you shall do also, and even greater things"?

He never got married, we are allowed to.

Are we allowed to identify ourselves with the Son of God as Jesus did? If not, are you saying that we cannot follow him in this manner?

He was tried and murdered, that is not required of us for salvation either.

What was required of Jesus for salvation?

Your assumption that we have to do everything Jesus did is specious.

So we don't need to suffer?

The Bible merely tells us to walk as He and obey His commandments.

So, if I walk as he, should I accept that I am a savior? The Savior?

[gharfish]

When did Jesus accept that he was the Son of God? Did Jesus say the Son of God had to be the "Messiah" of the OT? When Jesus was asking people who they thought he was, were there any incorrect answers given? Did anyone say that he was the OT Messiah? Were they correct?

If the Messiah is a person, are you saying that Christ is a person? What is Christ now? When did people begin referencing Jesus as "Christ Jesus"? Isn't Christ a greek word?We see that He thought so by about age thirty. (Hello ?)

He said He was the Son of God and the Messiah. You know this.

Yes, in that they denied Him what He claimed for himself. We can see that happening to Him in the gospel acounts. BTW, that's what known as a disagreement. :)

Yes. .....[And] I think so.

The Jewish Messiah was to be a human person; yes. Jesus said He was God in the flesh--the incarnation of, and the same as, the one creator God...that the Jews knew as their [heavenly] Father.

What is Christ now ? You mean what does the title, Christ, imply *now, now that it has *already been famously given to Jesus of Nazareth ?

Well, within some 20 years; we can see that officially in print! from Paul's letters. So, by then we can tell that some people were worshipping Him and [that] He was being called the Christ (Messiah), Jesus.

And yes; Christ is the Greek form of..... You know that !




>

[UrbanMonk]

We see that He thought so by about age thirty. (Hello ?)

Why did he think he was the Son of God?

He said He was the Son of God and the Messiah. You know this.

It's unclear. What was the Son of God before he was "the Messiah? What is the Son of God now?

Yes, in that they denied Him what He claimed for himself. We can see that happening to Him in the gospel acounts. BTW, that's what known as a disagreement. :)

Can you show me anywhere in the bible where it quotes Jesus as claiming to be the OT Messiah? Why did the OT experts disagree with him?

The Jewish Messiah was to be a human person; yes.

So are you saying that the Jews knew that the Messiah was supposed to be a man-god? A man who is God? A great man?

Jesus said He was God in the flesh--the incarnation of, and the same as, the one creator God...that the Jews knew as their [heavenly] Father.

Where does it say Jesus said he was God-in-the-flesh? So is Jesus the "Son" of God, or is he the "Father" of Jews?


What is Christ now ? You mean what does the title, Christ, imply *now, now that it has *already been famously given to Jesus of Nazareth ?

This isn't an answer. What is Christ now? And what was Christ before becoming the Messiah? For that matter, what was Christ before becoming "Lord and Savior"?

Well, within some 20 years; we can see that officially in print! from Paul's letters. So, by then we can tell that some people were worshipping Him and [that] He was being called the Christ (Messiah), Jesus.

It's also in print, "Follow me". He even says, "Take up your cross". Sure sounds to me like he asks us to follow in all things. But you seem to be saying that he is not anything we can really follow. Who judges what we can follow, and what we can't? Who did Jesus worship?

And yes; Christ is the Greek form of..... You know that !

Where do you make this link? Paul was an ex Pharisee. Why didn't he just use the term "Messiah", as in, 'have that mind in you that was in Messiah Jesus'?

For all we know, Christ is a psychological term that can be applied to anyone. Or, it could mean Reality (capital R) which is synonymous with "the Truth". Can you show me where you make the connection between Messiah and Christ?

[gharfish]

You ask too many questions. Seriously.

But Mononoke is probably up at this hour. "She" digs this stuff.


>

[Kelp]

So Christ is not an equal to the Father?He is ontologically equal to the Father (that is what is meant in the Creed by them being of the same substance), functional the Father is His superior.



Did he accept this (sinlessness)? Yes. How did he know this?The same way He knew He was God. Can we know this too of ourselves?If we know that we are saved, we know that God has imputed the righteousness of Christ to our account (in other words, we are perfect judicially). We are not perfect in practice however, not until we are glorified at the End. When did he accept that he is "the Lord"?When did Jesus know He was? I don't know. I would assume His human mind grew and developed normally ("He grew in wisdom and stature...."), but I don't know to what extent His Divine mind "intruded" during this process. It's all part of the mystery of the Hypostatic Union, I guess. At any rate, we have Him proclaiming His identity to His parents as early as age 12.


So, sinlessness is not something we can follow?We will eventually, though most Christians hold it cannot happen in this life (I'm uncertain whether it can or not, but lean toward thinking it cannot). However, Jesus was righteous by nature and never sinned. We will never be righteous by nature but only by grace.



The scribe of John suggests that righteousness is to return to the Father. So, is baptism a prerequisite to returning to the Father?Baptism is part of obedience to God, all true Christians are obedient to God as a side effect of their faith; however as we see from the case of the thief on the Christ, God will not hold circumstantial inability to be baptized against us. Would the revelation that one is the Son of God be a logical prerequisite for returning to "our Father"?We are not sons in the same sense as Jesus is, we are adopted sons. I don't personally think recognition of your salvation is an essential part of saving faith, no. There are some Christians who do not believe one can know if they are saved, but I believe they have been adopted by God nevertheless because they believe.



Even though he said, "The things I do, you shall do also, and even greater things"?In context that is referring to soul winning, and perhaps miracles.

You are taking this too literally, obviously we can not take every breath like Jesus did, we can't tie our sandals as he did (we don't all wear sandals), we can't the exact same meals he ate at every time he ate during each day, we don't have that sort of information.



Are we allowed to identify ourselves with the Son of God as Jesus did? If not, are you saying that we cannot follow him in this manner?I don't understand the question. Jesus is the Son of God.



What was required of Jesus for salvation?Nothing. He did not need to be saved. As a man, He was required to keep God's commandments, and He did this. We cannot keep them perfectly as He did and so we need salvation.



So we don't need to suffer?We need to be willing to suffer, it's part of faith. And suffering is good for us for a variety of reasons. We also suffer in a sense when we struggle against the passions of our flesh imo. But we will not always be in a position, especially in this society in which we will suffer greatly for Christ. I see no Biblical evidence of a command to seek out suffering.



So, if I walk as he, should I accept that I am a savior?Well, there is a sense in which we save others when we introduce them to Gospel, but one must not overemphasize this. The Savior? No because you are not the Savior. Are you are an ethnic Jew? Jesus was, He knew it too. Jesus accepted that He was male; are you saying women have to accept that they are male? It's doing everything Jesus did, after all.

[UrbanMonk]

You ask too many questions. Seriously.

But Mononoke is probably up at this hour. "She" digs this stuff.


>

This thread is devoted to questions. I'm giving you a chance to answer. Your answers truly beg more questions. Are you expecting people to just accept what you say without due diligence?

[UrbanMonk]

the Father is His superior.

So he is not the "King of Kings" or, "Lord of Lords"? Are you saying there is a heirarchy in heaven? How did Jesus know he was A.) an equal, B.) a subordinate?

[UrbanMonk]

Originally posted by UrbanMonk
Did he accept this (sinlessness)?

Yes.

So can we also accept sinlessness? Can we follow the example of Jesus in this regard?

[gharfish]

This thread is devoted to questions. I'm giving you a chance to answer. Your answers truly beg more questions. Are you expecting people to just accept what you say without due diligence?Oh. I didn't know that you had devoted this thread to you asking the one question, then six and then a dozen questions to everyone at a pop. Good to know. Bye.


>

[UrbanMonk]

Oh. I didn't know that you had devoted this thread to you asking everyone about a dozen questions a pop. Good to know. Bye.
>

I didn't know you couldn't answer them. I've asked no more questions than you have made statements. Feel free to keep making statements.

[gharfish]

I didn't know you couldn't answer them. I've asked no more questions than you have made statements. Feel free to keep making statements.No, you have been in the driver's seat all along. I started nothing with my own statements. I came here to understand your OP question, [then] answered it, and then! got pulled into this. I know you are wide awake; check it out. You've done nothing else or more than to ask me exactly twelve questions, and I did answer them all. You are getting selfish in a hurry.


>

[UrbanMonk]

The same way He knew He was God.

How did he know He was God? Was he told by...Christ? And, was there a moment when Jesus accepted this information as "the truth"?

If we know that we are saved, we know that God has imputed the righteousness of Christ to our account (in other words, we are perfect judicially).

How did Jesus know that he was saved? Is this how he knew he was righteous, by knowing he was saved? Was the righteousness of Christ imputed to his "account"? How? Is this how he was saved?

Jesus said, "Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect". Was Jesus really perfect, or perfect judicially? What is judicially perfect? Who is perfect, Jesus or the Son of God?


We are not perfect in practice however, not until we are glorified at the End.

At the end of what? Will we have the same glory or perfection as Jesus?


When did Jesus know He was? I don't know. I would assume His human mind grew and developed normally ("He grew in wisdom and stature...."), but I don't know to what extent His Divine mind "intruded" during this process.

Is it possible that we too have a "Divine mind" that may someday "intrude" upon a process of maturing in wisdom? Was there a time when Jesus didn't know he was the Son of God?

It's all part of the mystery of the Hypostatic Union, I guess. At any rate, we have Him proclaiming His identity to His parents as early as age 12.

So at what age, exactly, do you think he came to know this? Was he told this? By whom? And was he required to accept what he was told?

[UrbanMonk]

No, you have been in the driver's seat all along. I know you are wide awake; check it out. You've done nothing else or more than to ask me exactly twelve questions, and I did answer them all. You are getting selfish in a hurry.


>

I don't think you answered post #25 as generously as Kelp is answering questions. Asking questions is selfish? Btw, thanks for answering the questions you were able to answer.

[Kelp]

So he is not the "King of Kings" or, "Lord of Lords"? Are you saying there is a heirarchy in heaven? How did Jesus know he was A.) an equal, B.) a subordinate?
King of Kings and Lord of Lords refers to His taking prority over all earthly authority. Yes, there is a hierarchy in the Trinity. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 NIV emphasis mine)

So can we also accept sinlessness?We will be sinless by grace in the next life (at least), we can accept it then. However we will never be sinless by nature, as Christ is.

ETA: Please answer me in one post at a time, this is hard to keep up with.

How did he know He was God? Was he told by...Christ?Jesus and Christ are the same person. I suppose His divine mind would have let His human mind know at some point and at that point His human mind accepted it.
How did Jesus know that he was saved? Is this how he knew he was righteous, by knowing he was saved? Was the righteousness of Christ imputed to his "account"? How? Is this how he was saved?
Jesus was not saved and did not receive imputed righteousness, because He did not need it. There was nothing for Him to be saved from.
Jesus said, "Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect". We Jesus perfect, or perfect judicially?Jesus did not sin, so he would be the former. As for the verse you quote, there is some evidence in that passage Jesus did not mean moral perfection but complete dedication of one's life purpose to God. Nevertheless, by the grace of God we will achieve perfection eventually. What is judicially perfect?When we sin, God the Righteous Judge is obligated to punish us by taking our life. As it says in the book of Hebrews, "without blood there is no remission of sins" Christ, the perfect man who was also God, offers to step up and perfectly obey the law what we were supposed to obey but could not. He then offers Himself as a sacrifice, taking God's punishment in our sted so that God can transfer Christ's perfect obedience to us and treat us as though we were the one's who perfectly obeyed. One might call it a "legal fiction", Christ payed for our sins so we who believe do not have to bare their consequences. God has been appeased. This is one of the primary messages of the book of Romans.

At the end of what? The end of time or the end of the world, call it what you will. When the dead are resurrected and all are judged. Will we have the same glory or perfection as Jesus?We will share in it. Obviously is it not possible for it to be exactly the same as Jesus is God and possesses glory and perfection as a necessary part of his being.

Is it possible that we too have a "Divine mind" that may someday "intrude" upon a process of maturing in wisdom?Certainly not. Jesus was both God and Man, two natures, two persons and two minds (as this is what is part of being fully human and fully divine). Was there a time when Jesus didn't know he was the Son of God?He always knew in His mind. There seems to have a been time (don't ask me when because I have no idea, if you made me guess I'd say somewhere around 6 or 7 was when He realized but this is total speculation) when His human mind did not know.

And was he required to accept what he was told?Yes, and He did. To say that His human will ever failed to follow His divine will is the heresy of Monotheletism.

[UrbanMonk]

We will be sinless by grace in the next life (at least), we can accept it then. However we will never be sinless by nature, as Christ is.

So if Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, are we, or are we not sinless? Did Jesus accept his sinlessness from Christ or as Christ?

[gharfish]

I don't think you answered post #25 as generously as Kelp is answering questions. Asking questions is selfish? Btw, thanks for answering the questions you were able to answer.Is this thread of your's in Apologetics because you want Christians to come forth and answer tens of questions (literally), so far, this one night ? It's no secret that you are of another religion: A Course In Miracles. Your terms are not "our" terms, you know !? That's a big problem ! You have used it on me, kind of to your advantage, confusing a number of issues.

Is all this really I want to learn about Christianity stuff ?

[UrbanMonk]

We will eventually, though most Christians hold it cannot happen in this life (I'm uncertain whether it can or not, but lean toward thinking it cannot). However, Jesus was righteous by nature and never sinned. We will never be righteous by nature but only by grace.

Didn't you just tell me we would be sinless in the next life? Is sinless and righteous the same thing? Are you now saying that we will NEVER be sinless? Not even by nature? Even though Jesus said, "Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect"? Are you saying we will NEVER share our Father's perfection?

Baptism is part of obedience to God

So what was baptism for Jesus? Salvationfound said it was to reveal himself. Are you saying that baptism is to reveal ourselves as subjects? Are you saying that becoming subjects saves us?

, all true Christians are obedient to God as a side effect of their faith;

So we are saved by obedience? So was Jesus saved by obedience too?

however as we see from the case of the thief on the Christ, God will not hold circumstantial inability to be baptized against us.

So where does "acceptance" come in? What do we "accept" when/if we are baptized? Do we accept that we are subjects and have faith that we are subjects?

We are not sons in the same sense as Jesus is, we are adopted sons.

So we can't really follow Jesus? Are you saying there's even more heirarchy/inequality in heaven than with just the Trinity? Between the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, who is "Lord"? Adopted, from what other parent? Adopted from the devil?

Besides Paul, who tells us that we are adopted sons and not a Son like Jesus? If you had a choice, which would you accept?

I don't personally think recognition of your salvation is an essential part of saving faith, no. There are some Christians who do not believe one can know if they are saved, but I believe they have been adopted by God nevertheless because they believe.

So did Jesus believe he was the Son of God? Or, how did he "know" this, if he was certain? Was he certain? How?

How are you so certain we are adopted, and not a Son like Jesus?

[UrbanMonk]

Is this thread of your's in Apologetics because you want Christians to come forth and answer tens of questions (literally), so far, this one night ? It's no secret that you are of another religion: A Course In Miracles. Your terms are not "our" terms, you know !? That's a big problem ! You have used it on me, kind of to your advantage, confusing a number of issues.

I was inspired to ask the question, "Did Jesus accept Christ as his Lord and Savior"? I understand that he was baptized and said things like "follow me" and "take up your cross". And we are told to have the "same mind". So I was wondering if we can think of Jesus as the "firstfruits" of whatever "christianity" is supposed to be...as an example to follow in all things, including the way he thought and what he thought about himself. I am just going with the flow. You seem to be telling me that Jesus is not an example we can follow because he is unlike us in every way. There seems to be no point at which we can arrive at the same place Jesus has arrived at. Therefore, why should we "follow"? Or, why is following so confusing? Don't you think it would be simpler if we just had the same mind in us as was in Jesus? But you seem to be saying we cannot have the same mind because we cannot think of ourselves the same way he thought of himself. So I am asking questions because your answers are confusing. This is your opportunity to shine...if you can.

If Jesus did not need to accept a Lord and Savior, when exactly did Jesus accept that he was/is Lord and Savior?

It's confusing because Kelp is now telling me (through Paul) that the Son of God is not really a Lord but some kind of subject.

Is all this really I want to learn about Christianity stuff ?

I will learn to accept it or learn to dismiss it...whatever it is. The jury is still out on what it is. Is it about obedience, or is it about identity?

[Kelp]

So if Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, are we, or are we not sinless?We are not sinless in practice. God "pretends" we are sinless in the context of judging us. We are sinless as far as our status before God's standard is. It's two different sense of the word of the word righteous, one judicial and one practical. Did Jesus accept his sinlessness from Christ or as Christ?As Christ.

Didn't you just tell me we would be sinless in the next life? We will. Is sinless and righteous the same thing?Yes. Are you now saying that we will NEVER be sinless? Not even by nature?We will never be sinless by nature, we will be sinless in practice. Even though Jesus said, "Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect"? Are you saying we will NEVER share our Father's perfection?
We will share in it in the sense that God's grace enables us not to sin. It is not as though will change ontologically and become necessarily holy by nature though. We will always be capable of using our free will to sin, in theory, even if we never sin in practice.

So what was baptism for Jesus? Salvation found said it was to reveal himself? Are you saying that baptism is to reveal ourselves as subjects? I don't know why Jesus chose to be baptized. Salvation found might be right, I have no idea. Are you saying that becoming subjects saves us?We become subjects when we are saved, at the same time. We are saved because of faith.

So we are saved by obedience?By no means. Faith produces obedience though. Where faith is present, obedience will be also as its fruit and evidence. It is a result of salvation but not a cause. So was Jesus saved by obedience too? Christians are divided on whether Jesus could have disobeyed God on earth (by succumbing to the temptation in the desert, for example). If Jesus had sinned, His sacrifice would not have been valid to secure our salvation, however.

So where does "acceptance" come in?Acceptance of Christ's Lordship over our lives is part of putting our faith in Him. Baptism is a public declaration that we identify with Him in His Lordship over us and in His death and resurrection. Do we accept that we are subjects and have faith that we are subjects?Yes.

So we can't really follow Jesus?We can try to be like Him and to obey Him (though we will obviously stumble at doing it perfectly). That is what is meant by following Jesus, not some strange sort of attempt to change what we are ontologically and become God. Are you saying there's even more heirarchy in heaven than with just the trinity? Between the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, who is "Lord"?The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity. As for "other" hierarchies, the angels are under the authority of God; but that's neither here nor there. Jesus is subordinate in function to the Father, the Spirit is subordinate in function to the Father also. Is the Spirit subordinate to the Son? Maybe. It's a theological debate known as the Filioque Controversy, but it is not germane to this topic. Adopted, from what other parent? Adopted from the devil?The Spirit does not need to be adopted and isn't adopted.

Besides Paul, who tells us that we are adopted sons and not a Son like Jesus? If you had a choice, which would you accept?There is no contradiction between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus because Paul's teaching is inspired by God. Nowhere does Jesus indicate that we can be ontologically divine or divine like He is. We are as close to being sons of God as we can be and still be creatures, let's put it that way.
Or, how did he "know" this, if he was certain? Was he certain? How? ...Lord, you know everything;...(John 21:17, ESV)

[Kelp]

It's confusing because Kelp is now telling me (through Paul) that the Son of God is not really a Lord but some kind of subject.
I am not. Jesus is our Lord and God. Within God, there is a functional subordination. That does not mean Jesus is not God or is less God than the Father is.

[gharfish]

"This is your opportunity to shine...if you can." Ahem.

Alucard had it right, immediately. Your OP question sentence is absurd and you know it. This was a try to bring Christianity into your cult's framework from the word go.

>

[Moksha]

Well?

No. He accepted Christhood from his Lord and Saviour GOD.

[gharfish]

A Course In Miracles presents a false Jesus; it's that simple. It leads people away from Jesus, going against every last thing that could possibly make Him even worth considering in the first place !

It's turns Him and His teachings--His salvation gospel / life's mission (and the Holy Spirit too, I might add!) both into goo. This is as convoluted as I've ever seen a cult get on it's host religion. Completely unrecognizable !

UrbanMonk, if you can make sense of THIS, which is a wild-as-it-gets distortion of--feeding off of, the Bible:
http://www.courseinmiracles.com/courseinmiracles_sitemap.html , (see ch. 11-on, for ex.)

from these two founding leaders: http://www.acim.org/Scribing/about_scribes.html

then you can *understand* the NT and yet you have strained instead to, and have chosen to trust instead in, what that one woman says Jesus said to her IN HER MIND, BETWEEN 1965 and 1972, and not trusted the Bible's NT as the source on Jesus.

Why not read Jesus from the Bible, for crying out loud ?! It's not so hard !
Had you no prior knowledge of Christianity before the ACIM ??


>

[jo7241974]

No. He accepted Christhood from his Lord and Saviour GOD.

It was not necessary for Jesus to accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Jesus offered to become the Savior, which was a role which needed to be fulfilled, in order to complete God's Plan of Salvation for man. Satan also offered to become the savior - however, he wanted to use his own methods which included no free will for mankind, and wanted to obtain the glory for himself. (think about it, satan still tries to take away man's free will) Jesus wanted to give all Glory to God (and bends His will to the will of the Father) - which He mentions more than once when He is teaching during His walk upon the earth. He also was in perfect harmony with the way the Father (God) wanted the Plan of Salvation to be executed - which included mankind's ability to keep his free will.

Satan was greedy and power-seeking from the get-go. He had many others who agreed with him - a third of the hosts of Heaven. This is the cause of the huge war in Heaven at which time Satan and his followers were cast out of Heaven.

I am not sure when Jesus became totally aware that He was the Only Begotten Son of the Father, and that His role was that of Savior, or that He had supernatural powers. It is clear that by the time He was 12, He knew. I think His earthly parents knew all along - although I am sure they did not comprehend fully what exactly that meant or what it would entail. Perhaps they even discussed this with Jesus since His infancy. At some point Angels must have ministered to Him - and Heavenly Father must have spoken to Him at which time, whatever "veil" of forgetfulness the rest of us are born with, was removed from His mind, and He was able to remember everything which had transpired before His birth on Earth.

He is the Lord of the Old Testament. He created our world and everything in it, under the direction of Father.

It was necessary for Him to be baptized as He was setting an example for us; also, once He was baptized, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, rested upon Him and confirmed and witnessed to those around Him, who Jesus was. As the example portion of His baptism, He is showing us the way - and even tells us that we must be baptized first by water, and then by the Holy Spirit. For no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God. Baptism by water "symbolically" washes our sins away. But it is the Blood of Christ which has the power to cleanse us. Jesus's baptism was actually the beginning of the fulfillment of all righteousness - and this process of fulfillment continued until He was crucified for our sins. Being baptized by water shows our commitment to follow Christ. Because Christ was crucified for our sins, the water sheds our earthly being (if you will). The Holy Spirit is the spiritual baptism (by fire) we experience at which time the gift of the Holy Ghost can become our constant companion, and we put on our spiritual being and prepares us to enter the Kingdom of God.

Also, it is the Holy Spirit which witnesses to us that Jesus IS the Christ. The Holy Spirit is the only being who has that power. Without it, unless we have had a face-to-face meeting with Christ in the flesh; and therefore, KNOW He is the Christ, we cannot know that Jesus is the Christ - ONLY the Holy Spirit can witness this to us. Man cannot, words cannot. This is why Jesus stresses we must walk in faith - if we had physical proof He is the Christ, we would no longer need faith. The Holy Spirit witnesses to our spirit - i.e., spirit-to-spirit who Christ is. As such, there is no physical proof - only in our spirit - which is why we are taught it is the Holy Spirit who can teach us of spiritual things through our spiritual minds - and not by the ways of man.

For those without the opportunity to be baptized in this earthly estate, they can be baptized by proxy here on earth, or will have the chance later to be baptized. Baptisms for the dead were done in Jesus's day, and continue today. Each individual who has received baptism by proxy, will have the opportunity to accept it or reject it.

Heavenly Father is the supreme almighty God. Jesus is His son - they are one in purpose. They look alike. There is an hierarchy - Heavenly Father is at the head of the Godhead. Jesus is at His right hand. The Holy Spirit is also a part of the Godhead, but has only a spirit body. They work in unison and their purpose is the same even though their roles are different. They are all Gods.

Jesus is the perfect example, as He never sinned. When we are instructed to be perfect, He knows that in this life we cannot, but we can try - and by keeping His commandments and listening to promptings of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us and teach us of the Kingdom of God,seeking forgiveness of our sins (that His blood can make us spotless) we can do pretty well. It is Christ's blood that will make up whatever differences there are in our shortcomings - so that in the next life, we will be perfected. Even when reunited with our bodies, they will be perfect as well.

[salvationfound]

Let's recap. First you asked me if Jesus accepted Christ as his
Lord and Savior. I answered.

Then you asked me about baptism and I answered.

You asked me if he is an example that can be followed. And I
answered. Then you asked if Jesus is a saved savior and I
answered. Then you asked who judges between what can be
followed and what can't and I answered.

And now I get 3 more questions and I still don't know what the
point of this thread is. Can you make that clear without stating it
in the form of a question? But I'll answer your questions again just
to be nice.


Maybe baptism is about revealing who we are. Well?


well obviously it is that's what I just said. We do it to show we
converted to Christianity so of course it is revealing who we are.


So Jesus thought that being Christ - the Son of God - was like a job that he could fulfill?


No that's not at all what I said. I said there are aspects of the life of
Jesus that we can follow based on who we are and others we can't.
And before you go in a circle and ask how we can know which ones
we can't this is where I go to we go for a job based on who we are do
we not? If you answer in a circle question again I'm not answering.


Do you think Jesus accepted the fact that he was innocent?


Sure he even stated that he hadn't committed a sin.

[/quote]
If so, should we follow suit? Can we?
[/quote]

Well I won't speak for you. I know I'm not innocent but as for you well
you tell me. Do you think your innocent?

[UrbanMonk]

Well I won't speak for you. I know I'm not innocent but as for you well you tell me. Do you think your innocent?

I think innocence is logical...a state of mind to be accepted. I believe that Christ is the only "One" who is innocent. Therefore, logically, to be innocent I must be Christ...I must accept Christhood. Logically, this is the only way that the "righteousness" of Christ can be "imputed" to me short of a substitutionary scenario. I don't believe in substitutionary scenarios. I believe such scenarios are placebos that don't address the core issue which invokes a feeling of "true moral guilt", and/or "psychological guilt". These feelings arise of an ancient primordial denial of truth...a rejection of Christ as Self. Magical mind-games won't blot these mental states out of our mind. Only the truth will blot these concepts out. Christ is the truth...and the truth is universal innocence. The acceptance of truth and the acceptance of Christ are synonymous. I am pointing out how the "acceptance of Christ" is the only way to return our minds to a state of innocence. Denial of Christ as Self is the problem. Therefore, acceptance of Christ as Self is the solution (salvation). This is the "way" Jesus went, obviously. And so, my question is designed to get us thinking like Jesus...to "follow" the "way" he went "to the Father". He went to the Father as the Son. There is no other way. There are none who are "innocent"...save the Son of God. And what is not innocent does not abide in the Kingdom of God.

What others here are attempting to do is somehow be innocent without addressing the problem...the rejection of Christ as Self. No wonder they are not able to come up with a way in which we are truly innocent...by nature. Any other kind of solution (salvation) is a mind-game which serves to damn us to the realm of guilt from which there is no escape...save Christ. By sweeping guilt under a rug of blood, confusion, complexity and chaos is invited to rule our minds...as evidenced by some of the answers given here in this thread. Such confusion simply leads to more questions...never quite getting to the Answer.

In this context, baptism is the washing of our minds of "sin", which is the denial of Christ as Self. Christ is denied by covering (burying) the Light by darkness (confusion). In the dark, we appear as many different identities. But these are merely a kind of "mud mask" (ie. bodies, humanity). When "sin" is washed away, we are revealed as...Christ...the beloved Son of God. This is the example Jesus set in his baptism. Did he "need" to be baptised? Yes, in the sense that there was a time when he needed to wash from his mind the idea that he was not the Son of God. This is done through the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is merely a symbol of what has been done by the Holy Spirit.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

No. He accepted Christhood from his Lord and Saviour GOD.

Score. Bravo. It was kind of a trick question. But you answered correctly.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[Kelp]

I think you need to ask yourself why it is you think that "Christ is self" is a true view of the world. You seem to just be assuming it, or else taking it as a given based on ACIM. But why should you believe ACIM?

Christians who believe in substitution do so because they believe that that is what Scripture teaches and they believe on other grounds that Scripture is the word of God.

You need to ask yourself, why have I and on what grounds have I accepted ACIM and it's thought categories and statements as the only logical truth?

[UrbanMonk]

I think you need to ask yourself why it is you think that "Christ is self" is a true view of the world. You seem to just be assuming it, or else taking it as a given based on ACIM. But why should you believe ACIM?

Christians who believe in substitution do so because they believe that that is what Scripture teaches and they believe on other grounds that Scripture is the word of God.

You need to ask yourself, why have I and on what grounds have I accepted ACIM and it's thought categories and statements as the only logical truth?

I follow logic like Donald Trump follows the money or like Sherlock Holmes follows leads and clues. I trust my ability to "hear" and "listen" to the "good shepherd".

Conversely, you need to ask yourself why belief in substitution seems logical. You have texts which seem to justify your belief. But have you considered that those texts are written by people who think just like you...to whom substitution is perfectly logical...despite being admittedly "foolish" by one of it's chief proponents (P(s)aul)? And so, it is a case of blind leading the blind. You believe that you are justified by an appeal to authority which amounts to merely proximity to Jesus by a factor of decades. And you seem to ignore that the mental states of those who followed Jesus were all over the map, unstable, and misunderstanding right up to the end...even after three years at the foot of the "Master". Not only that, they were still squabbling over trifles like circumcision a full twenty years later! Still separating themselves from "Gentiles" (non-Jews) during meals (Peter)! You have chosen these and their texts as authorities not because they are truly authoritative...but because you want to believe what they believed! Birds of a feather flock together. What you call "scriptures" are merely text you prefer to believe. Text (testimony) you prefer not to believe is not contained in the cannon of your preferred text...having been banished to the scrapheap of history.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[headheart]

A Course In Miracles presents a false Jesus; it's that simple. It leads people away from Jesus, going against every last thing that could possibly make Him even worth considering in the first place !

It's turns Him and His teachings--His salvation gospel / life's mission (and the Holy Spirit too, I might add!) both into goo. This is as convoluted as I've ever seen a cult get on it's host religion. Completely unrecognizable !

UrbanMonk, if you can make sense of THIS, which is a wild-as-it-gets distortion of--feeding off of, the Bible:
http://www.courseinmiracles.com/courseinmiracles_sitemap.html , (see ch. 11-on, for ex.)

from these two founding leaders: http://www.acim.org/Scribing/about_scribes.html

then you can *understand* the NT and yet you have strained instead to, and have chosen to trust instead in, what that one woman says Jesus said to her IN HER MIND, BETWEEN 1965 and 1972, and not trusted the Bible's NT as the source on Jesus.

Why not read Jesus from the Bible, for crying out loud ?! It's not so hard !
Had you no prior knowledge of Christianity before the ACIM ??



66624

"Did Santa accept Claus as Father Christmas ?"Such images are unacceptable.

[UrbanMonk]

"Did Santa accept Claus as Father Christmas ?"

Jesus accepted Christ as Self, and rejected Jesus as self. In this way, he separated the sheep from the goat...so-to-speak. He did not combine the two, as magically menaced minds try to do. What is not Self does not exist. So, "He" was "sinless", for sin is the denial of the Son of God as Self, and manifests as the "son of man" instead. This must be sorted out if you are to be saved.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[jo7241974]

Jesus accepted Christ as Self, and rejected Jesus as self. In this way, he separated the sheep from the goat...so-to-speak. He did not combine the two, as magically menaced minds try to do. What is not Self does not exist. So, "He" was "sinless", for sin is the denial of the Son of God as Self, and manifests as the "son of man" instead. This must be sorted out if you are to be saved.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Jesus is the Christ - He did not need to accept Himself. Did He have the ability to sin? Yes. However, He chose not to. Starting in Gethsemane and ending on the Cross, did He experience the sins of the world? Yes - He also experienced the pain of those sins, the pain of and results of sin which affected the victims of sinners, hunger, illness, loss, temptation. He suffered all the things that caused all of us to turn to sin. He suffered what the innocent suffer at the hands of oppression. And He suffered it of every person who had ever lived and who will ever live. Because He chose not to sin, He remained perfect - and was the perfect sacrifice, unblemished by the world, not taken in by Satan. As such, He can know everything we have individually suffered in order to be our perfect mediator when we are judged. He personally has felt everything we have. His compassion is perfect and His love for us is perfect. And, He gives all glory to Father and NOT to Himself.

In a physical body He was able to endure these things even as we suffer them with our physical limitations. Fortunately, His Godly powers were stronger, His will to do the Father's will was stronger, and He conquered the power of sin which could have destroyed His physical body - and He even conquered physical death. In so doing, He has given all man kind the gift of immortallity which will be enjoyed when our spirits are rejoined with our perfected physical bodies after we are resurrected.

This does not guaranty our place in Heaven---only immortality. We did not have to make any choices to receive this gift.

It IS our choices, however, which will determine where we spend our immortal eternity. Believing in and accepting Jesus as our Savior is the key. Remaining faithful, following in His footsteps, allowing our wills to bend to the Father and becoming perfected in Him -- the narrow path back to Him. Giving up sin and seeking forgiveness of our sins when we slip and fall - a lifelong journey while we traverse our earthly estate - that's what it's all about.

Your psycho-babble entirely misses the mark and has little if anything to do with whether we are saved or not.

[UrbanMonk]

jo,

Basically, what you are promoting is a subtle blasphemy...misrepresenting Christ...subverting the gospel. I'll explain exactly how you are doing this if you like. Let Jesus be the representative of Christ to you...without the posturing of so many who have claimed to represent him in the past. Open your mind. I can't communicate with you if you are just here to just restate tired and dead old metaphors and misjudgments.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[jo7241974]

jo,

Basically, what you are promoting is a subtle blasphemy...misrepresenting Christ...subverting the gospel. I'll explain exactly how you are doing this if you like. Let Jesus be the representative of Christ to you...without the posturing of so many who have claimed to represent him in the past. Open your mind. I can't communicate with you if you are just here to just restate tired and dead old metaphors and misjudgments.

Regards,
Urban Monk

You certainly have my curiosity - respect may or may not follow as it seems we are not starting off with even a basis of agreement. I will be happy to traverse awhile with you - we'll need to make sure we understand the definitions of the words we are using. BTW, I do not merely restate tired and dead old metaphors and misjudgments. My Savior is very much alive. What I speak is from my heart and personal experience, not someone else's textbook clause.

jo

[jesusreligion]

Originally posted by Kelp
"the Father is His (Jesus') superior."

So he is not the "King of Kings" or, "Lord of Lords"? Are you saying there is a heirarchy in heaven? How did Jesus know he was A.) an equal, B.) a subordinate?

When one follows the traditional ideas of Christianity, it becomes plain how illogical these ideas truly are. So, we are to believe that God is divided and governs himself? Nice points, Urban.

And, we are also to think a Holy Ghost must float around and enter into us when we are saved? How ludicrous. If we are already alive and God is the life-giving Spirit that gives everything life (I'm paraphrasing the church's hero, Paul), then God's Spirit is already within us. In fact, if God is omni-present, his Spirit is everywhere including within us.

Hmmm... Love this stuff, Urban. :teeth:

[JimL]

Originally posted by Kelp
"the Father is His (Jesus') superior."



When one follows the traditional ideas of Christianity, it becomes plain how illogical these ideas truly are. So, we are to believe that God is divided and governs himself? Nice points, Urban.

And, we are also to think a Holy Ghost must float around and enter into us when we are saved? How ludicrous. If we are already alive and God is the life-giving Spirit that gives everything life (I'm paraphrasing the church's hero, Paul), then God's Spirit is already within us. In fact, if God is omni-present, his Spirit is everywhere including within us.

Hmmm... Love this stuff, Urban. :teeth:
UM's philosophy is that you do not even exist. Only God exist's and you are nothing but a character in a bad dream that God is having. If God should happen to wake up then "puff," you no longer exist.

[jo7241974]

Originally posted by Kelp
"the Father is His (Jesus') superior."



When one follows the traditional ideas of Christianity, it becomes plain how illogical these ideas truly are. So, we are to believe that God is divided and governs himself? Nice points, Urban.

And, we are also to think a Holy Ghost must float around and enter into us when we are saved? How ludicrous. If we are already alive and God is the life-giving Spirit that gives everything life (I'm paraphrasing the church's hero, Paul), then God's Spirit is already within us. In fact, if God is omni-present, his Spirit is everywhere including within us.

Hmmm... Love this stuff, Urban. :teeth:

The problem does lie in orthodoxy. First off, the concept of a Trinity is wrong. There IS an heirarchy. Jesus is the literal Son of the most high and almighty God (Heavenly Father). The Holy Spirit is the third, separate being of the Godhead.

You are confusing the Light with the Spirit. The way I see it is the Light is comprised of that part of the Father which gives us life (and He breathed life into Adam....). It is that part of the Father which dwells within us which is not unlike that part of us as parents which dwells within our children. Yet, just like are children are separate from us, even though they are a part of us, we are also separate from the Father.

We each have our own spirit which is separate from our mind and our heart - although our spirit, while we are alive on this earth, dwells within us and has great influence in our minds and in our hearts by the choices we make. When we are following the example of our Savior, our "spiritual" part is much more in-tuned that part of Father which is omni-present. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to witness of both the Father and the Son, as well as open our spiritual minds and hearts to the Truths of the Kingdom of God. However, even after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after we have been baptized, He will not stay with us if we do not continue on the narrow path and make the obedient choices of keeping God's commandments.

Orthodoxy has that wrong as well...believing that once they have received the Holy Ghost, they will always have the Holy Ghost. However, being a part of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost cannot have the same influence over us if we choose to sin - just as we could not survive in the presense of God because no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is like a literal law of physics - it is just not possible.

Heavenly Father wants to share all that He has with us - and sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to fulfull the plan of salvation which can lead us back to Him wherein we will be able to receive His gifts. He cannot change the parameters or He would cease to be God. He has given us Prophets to teach us Christ's purpose. Christ fulfilled His mission. God continues to guide and direct us through modern-day Prophets as He never closed the Heavens....He never changed the way He has guided His children. It is not a difficult concept to follow. And all have the truth available for them to understand it if they are willing to accept His teachings.

Since it is ONLY the Holy Spirit which has the authority and power to witness of these Truths, man is automatically trumped by the Holy Spirit. For man to believe otherwise is foolish indeed.

We all have the opportunity to enjoy a very real and very personal relationship with Father even whereby the Holy Spirit can guide and direct us on a daily basis. By following to the best of our ability in Christ's footsteps, we can become perfected, line upon line, and precept upon precept.

Armed with this knowledge, studying the Bible becomes much easier and it makes consistent sense. As the Holy Spirit teaches us spiritual things which man cannot teach us, the entire plan of salvation no longer has to guessed about. As we continue to live our lives in faith, directed by the Holy Ghost, we can better understand all the Christ spoke - no loose ends. Our love for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are increased and becomes more pure. We truly can become one with Christ, even as Christ is one with the Father. All one in purpose.

For those of you who legitimately and sincerely wish to discuss this, I would be happy to do so. We can share our beliefs and the reasons for them, without prejudice.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Hey guys, what did I miss?

[TheologicalDisc]

why on earth would Jesus need a Savior? He never sinned. People that sin need a Savior, and since Jesus never sinned He wouldn't need a Savior.

[UrbanMonk]

why on earth would Jesus need a Savior? He never sinned. People that sin need a Savior, and since Jesus never sinned He wouldn't need a Savior.

Theo,

The Savior is the One Who tells us that we have never sinned. We believe the Savior or we don't. Jesus believed. The Savior is not a person, but an unlimited Spirit.

If we don't believe the Savior, we will continue to believe that we are sinners, guilty, somehow unforgiveable. It is precisely this attitude which builds a world upon the rejection of the truth. I'm saying that it is this attitude - that we can contradict God - which builds a "world" upon quarks, bosons, leptons, protrons, electrons, atoms and elements. The "truth" is what such builders reject. I'm saying that such a world is magical...illusiory...fake...pretend...untrue...unreal...fiction.

God cannot be contradicted. His laws are unbreakable. Only a "sinner" would maintain that he can "sin"...or claim he can "break" God's law. What arrogance! When we "see" the world built on quarks, bosons, ect. , we are subconsciously maintaining that we can sin against God and break One Spirit into bits and piece and parts. Again, this is not possible. Therefore, what you "see"...is not there! Does not exist. And what do we say of people who see things that are not there? We say that they are delusional, hallucinating, imagining things...or, just plain crazy. Well, that is what a "sinner" is/does.

The Savior tells the "insane" what reality is. Rather, He quietly and calmly reminds them and challenges them to remember. The insane one believes it or not. If not, he remains in his insanity...blind to reality. If he believes, he begins a process of psychological healing. Only the insane believe that he needs the blood of the Savior to purchase what is basically psychological healing. Can you see how it is impossible to be psychologically healed when we continue to believe in magic...in make-believe salvation?

Jesus never sinned. Whether you think of him as a human or as Christ - either way - he did not sin. This is how we must think of every human being...if we are to be saved. A human being is a manifestation of the idea that it is possible to contradict, and therefore "sin" against God. Again, this is not possible. Therefore, every human being is really sinless. And when I say "really sinless" I mean also that human beings don't exist. Jesus "died" to the idea that he as a "son of man" existed...or that what is ultimately "nothing" (dust) can sin against God. Thus, he "died" to him"self"...and thereby took up his "life" as Christ. He did this long before he ever volunteered for the crucifixion demonstration.

Jesus taught forgiveness as "the way". We must learn to look at our neighbor as "sinless". When we can do this, we will be able to see ourselves as sinless also ("forgive and it will be forgiven you").

Regards,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

UM's philosophy is that you do not even exist. Only God exist's and you are nothing but a character in a bad dream that God is having.

See Jim, this essentially misrepresents what I'm saying. The confusion arises when who "you" are is disputed. In this scenario, you insist that "you" must be the "character" in a divine nightmare...and deny that you might possibly be the "God" who is dreaming the dream. I insist that you are the dreamer...not the dreamed. That is my "story" and I'm sticking to it.


If God should happen to wake up then "puff," you no longer exist.

...unless you were God. In fact, there is no other way for "you" to wake up...no other way for the dream to end...but to "confess" the truth: YOU ARE ONE WITH GOD.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[jesusreligion]

The problem does lie in orthodoxy. First off, the concept of a Trinity is wrong. There IS an heirarchy. Jesus is the literal Son of the most high and almighty God (Heavenly Father). The Holy Spirit is the third, separate being of the Godhead.

You are confusing the Light with the Spirit. The way I see it is the Light is comprised of that part of the Father which gives us life (and He breathed life into Adam....). It is that part of the Father which dwells within us which is not unlike that part of us as parents which dwells within our children. Yet, just like are children are separate from us, even though they are a part of us, we are also separate from the Father.

We each have our own spirit which is separate from our mind and our heart - although our spirit, while we are alive on this earth, dwells within us and has great influence in our minds and in our hearts by the choices we make. When we are following the example of our Savior, our "spiritual" part is much more in-tuned that part of Father which is omni-present. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to witness of both the Father and the Son, as well as open our spiritual minds and hearts to the Truths of the Kingdom of God. However, even after receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after we have been baptized, He will not stay with us if we do not continue on the narrow path and make the obedient choices of keeping God's commandments.

Orthodoxy has that wrong as well...believing that once they have received the Holy Ghost, they will always have the Holy Ghost. However, being a part of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost cannot have the same influence over us if we choose to sin - just as we could not survive in the presense of God because no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is like a literal law of physics - it is just not possible.

Heavenly Father wants to share all that He has with us - and sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to fulfull the plan of salvation which can lead us back to Him wherein we will be able to receive His gifts. He cannot change the parameters or He would cease to be God. He has given us Prophets to teach us Christ's purpose. Christ fulfilled His mission. God continues to guide and direct us through modern-day Prophets as He never closed the Heavens....He never changed the way He has guided His children. It is not a difficult concept to follow. And all have the truth available for them to understand it if they are willing to accept His teachings.

Since it is ONLY the Holy Spirit which has the authority and power to witness of these Truths, man is automatically trumped by the Holy Spirit. For man to believe otherwise is foolish indeed.

We all have the opportunity to enjoy a very real and very personal relationship with Father even whereby the Holy Spirit can guide and direct us on a daily basis. By following to the best of our ability in Christ's footsteps, we can become perfected, line upon line, and precept upon precept.

Armed with this knowledge, studying the Bible becomes much easier and it makes consistent sense. As the Holy Spirit teaches us spiritual things which man cannot teach us, the entire plan of salvation no longer has to guessed about. As we continue to live our lives in faith, directed by the Holy Ghost, we can better understand all the Christ spoke - no loose ends. Our love for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are increased and becomes more pure. We truly can become one with Christ, even as Christ is one with the Father. All one in purpose.

For those of you who legitimately and sincerely wish to discuss this, I would be happy to do so. We can share our beliefs and the reasons for them, without prejudice.

Regarding the Trinity, that idea was created by orthodox proponents - and your description is still of a triune God, but only in some hierarchy form. God is Spirit (John 4:24). That was Jesus' teaching Spirit encompasses all...is all..

I would also argue that same answer would apply to what you mention about light. God is Spirit. So, spirit is light, but especially represents "truth," with shades of darkness not being evil, but better representing "lack of understanding of that truth." To know light is Spirit, we read "light is the life" (John 1:4). We know that the Spirit gives "life" (John 6:63).

Not to go into this further, but your ideas are that of "separation." Separation is what the parable of the Garden of Eden teaches. It is also the idea Christianity teaches: We are separate from God, from each other, from the creation, etc. Jesus worked to heal all of these separations within the mind of mankind. :teeth:

I might add that "a house divided (separation) will not stand." Somebody important said that I believe...

[jo7241974]

jesusreligion;2734559]Regarding the Trinity, that idea was created by orthodox proponents - and your description is still of a triune God, but only in some hierarchy form. God is Spirit (John 4:24). That was Jesus' teaching Spirit encompasses all...is all..

The Trinity teaches an incomprehensible being who functions differently from time to time in order to explain the circumstances being dealt with at any given time. Granted there are three different roles being played within the trinity, but all three are manifestations which the Father takes on. There are actually three separate beings, all three are Gods, but there IS an heirarchy as I mentioned before. This concept is distinct enough from a Trinity to cause most of mainstream orthodoxy denominations to claim that I am not a Christian. Yet once you understand that there ARE three separate beings, the teachings in the Bible become clear and cohesive.

I would also argue that same answer would apply to what you mention about light. God is Spirit. So, spirit is light, but especially represents "truth," with shades of darkness not being evil, but better representing "lack of understanding of that truth." To know light is Spirit, we read "light is the life" (John 1:4). We know that the Spirit gives "life" (John 6:63).

It would be easy to mix up light which is used in some passages to mean one thing, and how it is used in other passages to mean another. Christ is the light of the world. We can follow in His light, etc.... See 2Co 4:6, 1Jn 1:5, and 1Jn 1:7.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
This certainly has the ability to confuse without the understanding of three Gods who make up the Godhead. Inasmuchas both Father and Son have physical bodies (as Jesus taught if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father....IOW they not only both have bodies, but they also look like each other) the power of their Godhood also encompasses a spiritual nature to their being. Hence the Father is omni-present. The way to reach Him, and this is very logical, is through prayer, where your own spiritual mind can reach God's spirit. Obviously, if He is not present face-to-face with you, you MUST reach Him via spirit. Reviewing the manner of prayer which Jesus taught makes this clear as well. Prayer is the spiritual medium of communication with God, you pray in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Truth.

Not to go into this further, but your ideas are that of "separation." Separation is what the parable of the Garden of Eden teaches. It is also the idea Christianity teaches: We are separate from God, from each other, from the creation, etc. Jesus worked to heal all of these separations within the mind of mankind. :teeth:

The story of the Garden of Eden is not a parable. It is the history of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. The events which took place there explain how we came to be separated from Father; and subsequently, how we can return to Him was taught through the plan of salvation which was fulfilled through our Savior, Jesus Christ. The separation from Father is not just in the mind of mankind - it is a literal, physical separation.

I might add that "a house divided (separation) will not stand." Somebody important said that I believe...

Yes, He certainly did!! :smile:

[jesusreligion]

The Trinity teaches an incomprehensible being who functions differently from time to time in order to explain the circumstances being dealt with at any given time. Granted there are three different roles being played within the trinity, but all three are manifestations which the Father takes on. There are actually three separate beings, all three are Gods, but there IS an heirarchy as I mentioned before. This concept is distinct enough from a Trinity to cause most of mainstream orthodoxy denominations to claim that I am not a Christian. Yet once you understand that there ARE three separate beings, the teachings in the Bible become clear and cohesive.



It would be easy to mix up light which is used in some passages to mean one thing, and how it is used in other passages to mean another. Christ is the light of the world. We can follow in His light, etc.... See 2Co 4:6, 1Jn 1:5, and 1Jn 1:7.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
This certainly has the ability to confuse without the understanding of three Gods who make up the Godhead. Inasmuchas both Father and Son have physical bodies (as Jesus taught if you have seen Him, you have seen the Father....IOW they not only both have bodies, but they also look like each other) the power of their Godhood also encompasses a spiritual nature to their being. Hence the Father is omni-present. The way to reach Him, and this is very logical, is through prayer, where your own spiritual mind can reach God's spirit. Obviously, if He is not present face-to-face with you, you MUST reach Him via spirit. Reviewing the manner of prayer which Jesus taught makes this clear as well. Prayer is the spiritual medium of communication with God, you pray in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Truth.



The story of the Garden of Eden is not a parable. It is the history of Adam and Eve and the fall of man. The events which took place there explain how we came to be separated from Father; and subsequently, how we can return to Him was taught through the plan of salvation which was fulfilled through our Savior, Jesus Christ. The separation from Father is not just in the mind of mankind - it is a literal, physical separation.



Yes, He certainly did!! :smile:

LOL! I don't know where to begin with this, so I'll keep it short.

How you arrive at three gods I haven't a clue. That is something that has to have you in trouble with the Fundamentalists! :C) There is no sense in me addressing this other than stating I see God as "one.' Could I put scripture to this? You betcha', but I need to conserve some of my time. I just spent a half hour answering another post. LOL I would suggest the teachings in the Bible get muddied by three gods, just like they get muddied by literal interpretation.

Regarding Genesis, there is no way this is literal. A literal snake, apple, etc - no way. It is indeed a parable conveying a higher spiritual truth. I agree it teaches separation from God, but how that separation occurred (as well as what that separation is), well, that is where we disagree.

If Adam and Eve were literally the names of a man and woman who caused it all to go sour, (for curiosity sake) how do you reconcile Genesis 5:2 which says, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

By the way, I like your spirit, Jo. Nice to meet you! :teeth:

[jo7241974]

Hello jesusreligion :hi:

jesusreligion;2735014]LOL! I don't know where to begin with this, so I'll keep it short.

How you arrive at three gods I haven't a clue. That is something that has to have you in trouble with the Fundamentalists! :C) There is no sense in me addressing this other than stating I see God as "one.' Could I put scripture to this? You betcha', but I need to conserve some of my time. I just spent a half hour answering another post. LOL I would suggest the teachings in the Bible get muddied by three gods, just like they get muddied by literal interpretation.

Oh my, we could discuss this the rest of our lives and get no further than the rest of Christianity has since Christ first organized His Church while in the flesh. I could use just as much scripture to support my argument. In fact, we would most likely be using a lot of the same passages.

Regarding Genesis, there is no way this is literal. A literal snake, apple, etc - no way. It is indeed a parable conveying a higher spiritual truth. I agree it teaches separation from God, but how that separation occurred (as well as what that separation is), well, that is where we disagree.

If Adam and Eve were literally the names of a man and woman who caused it all to go sour, (for curiosity sake) how do you reconcile Genesis 5:2 which says, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

My guess, because I don't know for sure what the answer is to your question, is this. The first verse of Chapter 5 begins: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." Meaning this is the genealogy of Adam. Although no last names are given, and because lineage generally followed the male, it seems reasonable that Adam and Eve would be listed in the book under Adam's name. For instance, today (for the most part) a woman takes on the last name of her husband. She and her husband then become known by his last name. If it is "Jones", then they are the Jones's, etc.

Rarely are women's names listed when following lineage in the Bible, unless necessary when there are no male heirs. The Bible tells us Adam begat sons and daughters (Hey, poor Eve did all the work of having them but didn't get recognition in the "begatting".....the chauvinism thing started right at the beginning....hmmmmm), but only the names of the sons were given.

At any rate, I do not think Gen. 5:2 creates a problem concerning the first man and first woman as far as any reconciling goes.

I have a question for you now. Do you believe that all of Genesis is a parable? IOW, do you believe the earth was entirely flooded, etc..?

By the way, I like your spirit, Jo. Nice to meet you! :teeth:

It's nice to meet you too! Wow, maybe we can learn what each of us believes without ripping each other apart! That would be nice. :smile:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I have moved this thread to the Unorthodox Theology forum.

[THIEF]

LOL! I don't know where to begin with this, so I'll keep it short.

How you arrive at three gods I haven't a clue. That is something that has to have you in trouble with the Fundamentalists! :C) There is no sense in me addressing this other than stating I see God as "one.' Could I put scripture to this? You betcha', but I need to conserve some of my time. I just spent a half hour answering another post. LOL I would suggest the teachings in the Bible get muddied by three gods, just like they get muddied by literal interpretation.
Oh wow, you just misrepresented Trinitarianism in quite possibly the most fundamental way possible! Try attacking a position that Christians actually hold next time.

Regarding Genesis, there is no way this is literal. A literal snake, apple, etc - no way. It is indeed a parable conveying a higher spiritual truth. I agree it teaches separation from God, but how that separation occurred (as well as what that separation is), well, that is where we disagree.
So why couldn't the Fall be literal? All I see here supporting the claim that "there is no way [Genesis] is literal" is personal incredulity.

If Adam and Eve were literally the names of a man and woman who caused it all to go sour, (for curiosity sake) how do you reconcile Genesis 5:2 which says, "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
Remember that in Hebrew Adam, in addition to being a name, is also a noun that could denote one male person or mankind in general. How can you possibly jump from that verse to the conclusion that their names weren't literally Adam and Eve? And then use that to jump to the conclusion that the account of the fall isn't literally true? (Hint: the answer to both is "you can't.")

[JimL]

See Jim, this essentially misrepresents what I'm saying. The confusion arises when who "you" are is disputed. In this scenario, you insist that "you" must be the "character" in a divine nightmare...and deny that you might possibly be the "God" who is dreaming the dream. I insist that you are the dreamer...not the dreamed. That is my "story" and I'm sticking to it.




...unless you were God. In fact, there is no other way for "you" to wake up...no other way for the dream to end...but to "confess" the truth: YOU ARE ONE WITH GOD.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Am I one with God, or am I God? Which is it UrbanMonk?

[UrbanMonk]

Am I one with God, or am I God? Which is it UrbanMonk?

I'd say these are different ways of saying the same thing. I favor "one with God" in order to keep in mind that you (the Son of God) are "God from God", as it suggests in the Nicene Creed. This is according to the "like from like" principle, meaning, God only creates what is like God. So, there is no difference between what God creates and God's "creation". Creation, then, is a kind of extension of Self to *another*, so-to-speak. So, creation is rather a sharing of everything (God is/has everything).

"The world" is not a creation of God because it is not like God...at all! People don't stop to consider that if God can make "God from God", an equal, according to the like from like principle...then what in the world is the purpose of "the world"?????

Accordingly, the Son of God has the power to create as he was created...able to create like from like. In fact, the Son of God has done so. "The world" however, is not a true creation of the Son of God, but rather a "making"...an imagining...a concept...a distraction...a curiosity. The world is built according to an "unlike from unlike" principle.

In the "Kingdom of God" all are equals. So, the Son of God is the "Lord of Lords", or, "King of Kings". In his realm, having and being are the same. One has the Kingdom of God...and one IS the Kingdom of God.

This is all to say that there is nothing higher or more than "you". There is only a "first" in the sense that a father is before a son. That is the only difference. The world is a concept which challenges this order. So the world is out of order, out of control...chaotic. Jesus recognized this and restored order in his mind by claiming, "I am one with my Father". But in so saying, he also accepted his equality with same.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

You certainly have my curiosity - respect may or may not follow as it seems we are not starting off with even a basis of agreement. I will be happy to traverse awhile with you - we'll need to make sure we understand the definitions of the words we are using. BTW, I do not merely restate tired and dead old metaphors and misjudgments. My Savior is very much alive. What I speak is from my heart and personal experience, not someone else's textbook clause.

jo

jo,

Your treatment of the theme of "trinity" reminds me of something I read in the book "Urantia". I do not agree that aspects of God have different functions. I'm saying that the function of every aspect of God is the same...for God has ONE PURPOSE. Trinity is a teaching method for the purpose of the salvation of the Son of God. The Holy Spirit was created to keep communication links open between the Father and the "prodigal Son"...the Son of God. Without this communication, the prodigal Son would have damned himself forever. With this communication link, the prodigal Son may be saved...and will be saved...from his illusions of himself (ie. "son of man").

If you can begin to phrase sentences in the form of questions, I may be able to walk with you a mile. They should be genuine, open ended questions, not statements in the form of a question. Please understand that I am a teacher of God. I am here to give answers having already asked the questions with an open mind. You have an opportunity ahead of you. Waste not thy hour with me on making your own judgements about God. I simply won't respond. I am beyond communicating with minds that seem entirely devoted to the ego for the next 2000 years.

I've read some of what you have. I say, sell everything you have and follow me. If not, you are not ready to be a student of mine. If you do become a student, I promise to share everything I have so that you become an equal in a matter of time...a very short time. Otherwise, you must walk you own way, having your own experiences, having your own savior, your own salvation... perhaps for a long time.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[jo7241974]

Hello UrbanMonk,

UrbanMonk;2735386]jo,

Your treatment of the theme of "trinity" reminds me of something I read in the book "Urantia". I do not agree that aspects of God have different functions. I'm saying that the function of every aspect of God is the same...for God has ONE PURPOSE. Trinity is a teaching method for the purpose of the salvation of the Son of God. The Holy Spirit was created to keep communication links open between the Father and the "prodigal Son"...the Son of God. Without this communication, the prodigal Son would have damned himself forever. With this communication link, the prodigal Son may be saved...and will be saved...from his illusions of himself (ie. "son of man").

I do not believe in the Trinity.

1) I believe in Heavenly Father (Father), the supreme and almighty God as a separate and individual God. Those who believe in the Trinity would identify Him as the Almighty God, the supreme foundation and one of the "sides" of the trinity triangle. (Note: for others who are reading this, I am describing the Trinity, rather poorly and in simplistic terms as it would take much more depth than I feel is necessary to respond within the context of this discussion with UM.)

2) I believe in Jesus Christ, my Savior, as a separate God, a separate entity, whose "ranking" (I hate that term) would be not quite equal to that of Heavenly Father. Those who believe in the Trinity would identify Him as the manifestation of the Son of God -- a second side to the trinity triangle.

3) I believe in the Holy Spirit, as a separate God, a separate entity, whose "role" is to have the sole authority and power over both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, to undeniably (those who would deny the witness of the Holy Spirit will be condemned to outer darkness....the unforgivable sin) witness spirit-to-spirit (Holy Spirit to our spirit) of their existence and position within the God (plural) heirarchy. The Holy Spirit also opens our spiritual minds and teaches us of the Kingdom of God---doing so in such a way as cannot be done by the words of man. Those who believe in the Trinity would identify Him as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit --the third side to the trinity triangle.

More: I believe we are all literal spirit children of Heavenly Father. We all knew Father before being born here on earth - the purpose of which was to gain a physical body. Apparently there are things we can only do while in a physical body which cannot be done as a spirit. To make a long story short, in order to return to Father, a Savior was needed, and Jesus volunteered to become our Savior (He is also a spirit child of Father....therefore, we are His spirit brothers and sisters) and wanted to fulfill this role in accordance with the way and will of Father....and wanted to give Father all the glory and take none of the glory for Himself. Satan (also a spirit child of Father...therefore, also our spirit brother) also volunteered to become the Savior but wanted the glory for himself. He also "guanranteed" we would all be able to return to Father because he wanted to take away our free will....thus not following the way and will of Father.

Father accepted Jesus's offer and chose Him to become our Savior. Angered by Father's rejection, Satan and a third of the hosts of heaven (also our spirit brothers and sisters) who thought Satan's plan was superior to that of Jesus's, began the war in Heaven which resulted in their being cast out of Heaven. Having been cast out of Heaven, they have been denied the opportunity to be born and receive the physical body they need in order to return to Father.

Another spirit child agreed to become the Holy Spirit (he also was our spirit brother). His authority and mission are obviously unique.

If you can begin to phrase sentences in the form of questions, I may be able to walk with you a mile. They should be genuine, open ended questions, not statements in the form of a question. Please understand that I am a teacher of God. I am here to give answers having already asked the questions with an open mind. You have an opportunity ahead of you. Waste not thy hour with me on making your own judgements about God. I simply won't respond. I am beyond communicating with minds that seem entirely devoted to the ego for the next 2000 years.

In my sojourn upon the earth, and in my search for Truth, I left the Lutheran Church and converted to the LDS Church at the age of 22. The Holy Spirit has witnessed to me that Jesus is the Christ - and did so while I was still a Lutheran. The additional teachings I have been taught in the LDS Church have also been witnessed to me by the Holy Spirit as being True and correct. I have great joy in worshiping in the LDS Church and living my life following Christ.

I've read some of what you have. I say, sell everything you have and follow me. If not, you are not ready to be a student of mine. If you do become a student, I promise to share everything I have so that you become an equal in a matter of time...a very short time. Otherwise, you must walk you own way, having your own experiences, having your own savior, your own salvation... perhaps for a long time.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Jesus Christ is the only Begotten of the Father. Jesus has an earthly mother just like you and I have an earthly mother. However, only Jesus's Father of His flesh, is Heavenly Father. You and I have earthly fathers of our flesh. Because we both have earthly mothers and fathers, you can only be my spirit brother. You are not my Savior; I will not follow you.

That said, I am curious how you came to believe what you believe; and curious what those beliefs actually are. From what I've read so far, your beliefs are founded within your mind where they seem to stay; rather than relating to anything outside of your mind....or relating to any type of physicality. I know I worded that poorly.

???

jo

[John Goddard]

So he is not the "King of Kings" or, "Lord of Lords"? Are you saying there is a heirarchy in heaven? How did Jesus know he was A.) an equal, B.) a subordinate?

I'm not Trinitarian where Jesus was born a God, but Adoptionist where Jesus was born a man and given power by God to be like God to us.

So here, Jesus is a man subordinate to God:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

But as mediator and spokesman for God to all other men, he is also like God to us, at God's pleasure. Kind of like if you could only communicate with Barack Obama through his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Gibbs is acting as Obama in his communications with you.

Jesus knew this because God called him to do it, as God called Moses and other prophets to speak for Him.

Hebrews 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

[barnasha]

I'm not Trinitarian


1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;


I wonder how the trinitarians spin this one

[John Goddard]

I wonder how the trinitarians spin this one

They often say something like, Jesus pre-existed as Son person of God, then took on the nature of man somehow so that God could talk to men as a fellow human Christ Jesus.

To me this implies Jesus didn't really have a human spirit at all, only a God spirit. Which doesn't add up if he is supposed to be fully human.

So why not just say Jesus was a regular human and God went to dwell in him, as He did with other prophets? That would be simpler and less contentious, plus with more biblical precedence.

Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

[barnasha]

It all makes my head hurt, so i just kind of ignore it. It involves way too much imagination and hard work to maintain a lie. The trinity itself is not a lie, it's people who lie to themselves and believe something because "they are supposed to"

[John Goddard]

It all makes my head hurt, so i just kind of ignore it. It involves way too much imagination and hard work to maintain a lie. The trinity itself is not a lie, it's people who lie to themselves and believe something because "they are supposed to"

I don't like the idea of Trinity because it paints God as 3 persons talking to each other starting most famously with Genesis 1:26.

Which boils down to 3 Gods in my monotheistic head no matter how you explain it.

The only way I can accept it is to have 1 God the Father, and His force that interacts with creation is the Spirit, which dwells in man.

The Spirit totally consumed Jesus as a man so that he is one with God and like God to us, but still always and inherently a creation of God, a human like us.

Now I could make a Trinity out of that -- the original God the Father, His force, and His human mediator -- and call myself a Trinitarian.

Except for the fact that "orthodox" Trinitarians believe all 3 pre-existed eternally as different persons with 3 different "minds" which is weird to me, since I see only 1 God mind there eternally, so I have to play the role of heretic while the Church people play their game of being orthodox.

At least here on Tweb, but in my world they are the heretics.

[jo7241974]

It all makes my head hurt, so i just kind of ignore it. It involves way too much imagination and hard work to maintain a lie. The trinity itself is not a lie, it's people who lie to themselves and believe something because "they are supposed to"

In my mind, the Trinity is a poor interpretation of what the Bible teaches. And it is so complex a concept, it CAN make your head hurt. Even as a Lutheran, I couldn't and wouldn't swallow it. There are three seperate Gods all united in their efforts and purposes. However, it is not difficult to understand why there is so much controversy over this issue - It has existed since early in Christian history. At least with my belief, I don't have to take a lot of Advil. :smile:

[barnasha]

In my mind, the Trinity is a poor interpretation of what the Bible teaches. And it is so complex a concept, it CAN make your head hurt. Even as a Lutheran, I couldn't and wouldn't swallow it. There are three seperate Gods all united in their efforts and purposes. However, it is not difficult to understand why there is so much controversy over this issue - It has existed since early in Christian history. At least with my belief, I don't have to take a lot of Advil. :smile:

The trinity first appeared in orthodox Christian philosophy as "God, his word, and his wisdom"

three is a divine number and there are lots of trinities.

the Trinity god breaks the teachings of Moses which Jesus explicitly upheld



i found this explanation of the trinity, from a Christian website, particularly enlightening:

"Question: "What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?"

Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain."

[jo7241974]

The trinity first appeared in orthodox Christian philosophy as "God, his word, and his wisdom"

three is a divine number and there are lots of trinities.

the Trinity god breaks the teachings of Moses which Jesus explicitly upheld



i found this explanation of the trinity, from a Christian website, particularly enlightening:

"Question: "What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?"

Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain."

Perhaps mankind enjoys the philosophical exercise of making something they are not able to fully understand into something impossible to understand, thereby creating a paradigm wherein they can appear wiser and more noble when justifying their belief. Maybe the concept of "god", and some innate need for a "god" seems more desirable if god can remain in the realm of extreme mystery. I think Christians have made understanding the Bible much more complicated than it was meant to be. Once they decide to believe in the Trinity, its complexity paves the way for more philosophical interpretations resulting in the inevitable number of denominations necessary to satisfy the nuances of differences in their conclusions.

In order to make themselves feel that it is okay to be so divided, church leaders decided some semblance of uniformity was necessary. And qualifications to being a "Christian" became defined in "standard" basic beliefs, thereby allowing them to condemn some Christians as cults.

[UrbanMonk]

That said, I am curious how you came to believe what you believe; and curious what those beliefs actually are. From what I've read so far, your beliefs are founded within your mind where they seem to stay; rather than relating to anything outside of your mind....or relating to any type of physicality. I know I worded that poorly.

???

jo

I came to believe what I believe after about twenty five years of searching for "home" after I had an epiphany. I now understand that home is "Self", and salvation comes from my one Self...not my divided selves. All beliefs are within my mind, yes. Also, all truth is within my mind. So, both heaven and hell are within my mind. Heaven is the truth, and hell is it's opposite, hence, a lie...an illusion...a self deception. My Self is heaven, truth, life. All is within, including the Kingdom of God, God, Reality...everything. Hell is about many different - separate - selves outside of the Kingdom of God. Hell is a belief...the land of beliefs...of imagination. Hell is conceptual. It combines opposites together to concoct a strange fruit in which everything that lives, dies. And everything that dies, lives again to die again...thus combining "life and death" along with "good and evil".

Regards,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

In my sojourn upon the earth, and in my search for Truth, I left the Lutheran Church and converted to the LDS Church at the age of 22. The Holy Spirit has witnessed to me that Jesus is the Christ - and did so while I was still a Lutheran. The additional teachings I have been taught in the LDS Church have also been witnessed to me by the Holy Spirit as being True and correct. I have great joy in worshiping in the LDS Church and living my life following Christ.

jo

The LDS background explains the Urantia-like flavor I find in your posts. This flavor melds well with the "Keys of Enoch. Book of Knowledge" author JJ Hurtak c. 1977. In a word, this is about spiritual evolution, popular among "new age" authors and channeled material like "Seth Speaks".

So let me make it clear that the truth is what is true NOW. Meaning, what we are truly, we are that NOW.

"NOW" does not include anything with origins or destiny within time. So it does not include anything that grows. It includes Spirit...perfect as always. This means that there is no need for spiritual evolution. In fact, there is no such thing. Spiritual evolution is carrot and stick. It is an imaginative, made-up story about our so-called future and our so-called past. So this approach has much in common with orthodox christianity.

These approaches are all a form of "kabballa"...the latest, greatest b.s. regarding our origins and our destiny. Orthodox christianity is a primitive kabballa whose diabolically magical themes are further developed with treatises like Urantia and Keys of Enoch and LDS expose. Not all kabballas say the same thing, but they all have something in common making them effective tools of mass deception.

The main thing to remember is that there is no heirarchy in the Kingdom of God. Neither is there any learning or growing or evolving or developing or exploring or believing. Use this information (knowledge) as a rule of thumb to separate the sheep (true) from the goats (false).

I'm saying we are Christ (God)...now! Our Being is not time-dependant. It is an eternal fact. There are no "works" with which we can "grow" into such a state. Salvation is about removing the mental obstacles we've placed there which hides the truth from ourselves. When the obstacles are gone, we wake up to what is, was, and always shall be.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[JimL]

The LDS background explains the Urantia-like flavor I find in your posts. This flavor melds well with the "Keys of Enoch. Book of Knowledge" author JJ Hurtak c. 1977. In a word, this is about spiritual evolution, popular among "new age" authors and channeled material like "Seth Speaks".

So let me make it clear that the truth is what is true NOW. Meaning, what we are truly, we are that NOW. "NOW" does not include anything with origins or destiny within time. So it does not include anything that grows. It includes Spirit...perfect as always. This means that there is no need for spiritual evolution. Spiritual evolution is carrot and stick. It is an imaginative, made-up story about our so-called future and our so-called past. So this approach has much in common with orthodox christianity.

These approaches are all a form of "kabballa"...the latest, greatest b.s. regarding our origins and our destiny. Orthodox christianity is a primitive kabballa whose diabolical themes are further developed with treatises like Urantia and Keys of Enoch and LDS expose. Not all kabballas say the same thing, but they all have something in common making them effective tools of mass deception.

The main thing to remember is that there is no heirarchy in the Kingdom of God. Neither is there any learning or growing or evolving or developing or exploring or believing. Use this information as a rule of thumb to separate the sheep (true) from the goats (false).

I'm saying we are Christ (God)...now! Our Being is not time-dependant. It is an eternal fact. There are no "works" with which we can "grow" into such a state. [QUOTE] Salvation is about removing the mental obstacles we've placed there which hides the truth from ourselves. When the obstacles are gone, we wake up to what is, was, and always shall be.

Are your mental obstacles gone UM ? Have you awakened ?

[UrbanMonk]

Are your mental obstacles gone UM ? Have you awakened ?

No. They still linger. No, I have not awakened yet...in time. In eternity yes, I have awakened. In a sense, I am following a path that I have already taken. And each and every step is some kind of deja vu. It's challenging to explain that "it is finished"...meaning, the Son of God was saved the instant the Holy Spirit set out to bring him back to his senses. In time, the Spirit is waiting for each of us to accept our Self as Lord and Savior. In this capacity, we each have a role to "fulfill", without which salvation would fail. I'm saying that each of us knows how - through Self - to rise to the occasion, and will do so in good time. I am preparing to fulfill my role. Meanwhile, I do not even consider myself a "believer". I'm saying that I am gradually clearing a straight path in my mind. One must first understand where he is going before he is willing to go there.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[JimL]

No. They still linger. No, I have not awakened yet...in time.
Then how do you know what your talking about ?

[UrbanMonk]

Then how do you know what your talking about ?

I am satisfied with the level of "evidence" supporting the conclusions I've drawn...given 28 years of research. I have had moments of epiphany (hightened clarity) dating back the early 80's. Since the mid 90's I have read extensively about the capacity of mind. Often we hear that we are using only "10% of our brains". I wanted to understand why we weren't using the other 90%. I also wanted to understand why some people just seem to go crazy, jumping to conclusions, making false accusations about people who are innocent and/or close to them.

So my emphasis as been in the "healing" and "wholeness" and "power" fields of mind....for 28 years. There's something to be said for the phrase, "What you can concieve and believe, you can achieve". As such, the world encourages us to "dream"..."big". I tested this principle and proved to myself that I am generally capable of more than I credit myself. But during this test, I noticed a capacity for self-sabotage. So I became a bit suspicious that we aren't being told the whole truth about the so-called unlimited capacity of mind. Not until I stumbled upon my latest research material these past three years did it all make sense to me...why we are unlimited and yet are caught in a cycle of self-sabotage.

So, in brief, I "know" what I'm talking about the way a Sherlock Holmes would know what he's talking about...after he solves a case of mysterious murder. I'm saying that the world is within a mind which knows the truth...but which has chosen to "kill" the truth and "bury" any "evidence". So, what is the truth is into self-sabotage for some very mysterious reasons. It's challenging to find any "clues" of this "crime" because the mind interested in self-deception is powerfully shrewd in an almost unlimited capacity. But they (clues) are there for those who are willing to be truthful in their sleuthing about. We must be extremely honest with ourselves if we would escape such a matrix of our own making...a laborious labyrinth in our own mind. I "know" based on unusually clear levels of inner certainty backed by increasing self-honesty.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[jo7241974]

I am satisfied with the level of "evidence" supporting the conclusions I've drawn...given 28 years of research. I have had moments of epiphany (hightened clarity) dating back the early 80's. Since the mid 90's I have read extensively about the capacity of mind. Often we hear that we are using only "10% of our brains". I wanted to understand why we weren't using the other 90%. I also wanted to understand why some people just seem to go crazy, jumping to conclusions, making false accusations about people who are innocent and/or close to them.

So my emphasis as been in the "healing" and "wholeness" and "power" fields of mind....for 28 years. There's something to be said for the phrase, "What you can concieve and believe, you can achieve". As such, the world encourages us to "dream"..."big". I tested this principle and proved to myself that I am generally capable of more than I credit myself. But during this test, I noticed a capacity for self-sabotage. So I became a bit suspicious that we aren't being told the whole truth about the so-called unlimited capacity of mind. Not until I stumbled upon my latest research material these past three years did it all make sense to me...why we are unlimited and yet are caught in a cycle of self-sabotage.

So, in brief, I "know" what I'm talking about the way a Sherlock Holmes would know what he's talking about...after he solves a case of mysterious murder. I'm saying that the world is within a mind which knows the truth...but which has chosen to "kill" the truth and "bury" any "evidence". So, what is the truth is into self-sabotage for some very mysterious reasons. It's challenging to find any "clues" of this "crime" because the mind interested in self-deception is powerfully shrewd in an almost unlimited capacity. But they (clues) are there for those who are willing to be truthful in their sleuthing about. We must be extremely honest with ourselves if we would escape such a matrix of our own making...a laborious labyrinth in our own mind. I "know" based on unusually clear levels of inner certainty backed by increasing self-honesty.

Regards,
Urban Monk

What if you are wrong? For that matter, maybe none of us is correct. The mind is indeed very powerful. There is so little we really do understand about the mind. We certainly can see the affects of how awful the results are to individuals whose minds do not seem to be wired correctly. The brain, like any other organ of the body, is susceptible to disease, malfunction....even atrophy if we don't continue to use knowledge it has been exercised with; conversely, we can increase our capacity for knowledge merely by feeding it.

How does intelligence affect us? We try to lable everything within a parameter we can identify and recognize, then further define what is "normal", "abnormal", even placing "acceptable" and "unacceptable" into the mix in order to protect ourselves from assault.....physically, philosophically, religiously.

We can make ourselves crazy, even if our minds were not diseased.

So what the heck does all of this mean?

In reading the story of your mind's reality, I can get a sense of what you are talking about, and even why and how you got there. Out of the billions of people ever born, there have been at least as many different realities; and even more since people gain insights about themselves, what they believe about God, personal ephiphanies, etc., which change their personal realities through-out their life.

I am more comfortable where I am because I have tried living my life sometimes allowing God into my life, and purposefully following the example of Christ; and other times distancing myself from God. There is a definite difference in the quality of my mind's peacefulness and sense of spiritual well-being when I am actively engaged in following Christ. The experiences I have had with the Holy Spirit really do trump what man has told me. The teachings of Paul truly apply and knowledge I have received through the Holy Spirit is something I cannot deny.

My actions, as well as my inactions, can have a tremendous affect on those around me Where is that coming from?

More later??

[Sarah T]

Jesus accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. Jesus was the first Christian and Jesus is an example we can follow. Jesus got rid of all barriers between him and God and that is how he was his son. That is how he was 'God'. God is not separate from us and when we understand that (by eliminating barriers ie. sin) then we are following Jesus' example and we will become God.
It makes sense in my head.
That's just what I believe. :-)

[barnasha]

Jesus told him to follow him, doesn't mean we're becoming God.

on one level, on the very pure level, in our heart's intuition you are correct. especially wherever it makes you a good person and warm towards others. that is truly serving God, not your or my 'belief system'.

however I can say it's important to separate God's creation from God, our father in heaven from creation on earth.

[Sarah T]

"however I can say it's important to separate God's creation from God, our father in heaven from creation on earth. "

So we should separate ourselves from God?? Well That contradicts quite a bit that's written in the bible doesn't it?? In my experience at church (and I must admit that I don't go anymore) I was always told to build a relationship with God and to get close to God.. Every day I was told that if I didn't sin, it would bring me closer to God.. I never heard "separate yourself from God".. I think I took what you said a little bit out of context.. Haha, sorry.. I'm sure you didn't mean separate completely.. I understand that you mean separate as in.. Two different entities.. But I don't see why it is so important.. Feel free to enlighten me.. My purpose here is to learn.. :-)

[barnasha]

I mean understanding what God is.

I am not the all mighty

[UrbanMonk]

What if you are wrong?

You mean should I feel threatened if I am wrong? I've long since given up on superstitions of fear. Unless I had done so, it's not likely that I could have come this far along the road back to love...which casts out all fear.

For that matter, maybe none of us is correct. The mind is indeed very powerful.

I'm saying that, as lord's, we are using mind-power to explore mistakes. Every mind that makes its home in this world is incorrect..."all fallen short of the glory of God". Keep in mind, "all" had and have the glory of God before "the fall". The fall obscures the glory of God in us. This is done through a very powerful mind. The power is never neutral, and never diminishes. We are using power to "fall"...to fail...and to make mistakes. The result is a "strong delusion".

There is so little we really do understand about the mind.

There are books out which explore its power that we can learn from. Misunderstanding is an unnatural expression of the power of our mind.

We certainly can see the affects of how awful the results are to individuals whose minds do not seem to be wired correctly.

Everyone has a mind that is wired correctly. Those of us who still think we have separate minds have imposed another mind upon a mind that is wired correctly...as one. It's the individuated mind that is wired incorrectly, and so, harbors sickness.

The brain, like any other organ of the body, is susceptible to disease, malfunction....even atrophy if we don't continue to use knowledge it has been exercised with; conversely, we can increase our capacity for knowledge merely by feeding it.

From where I'm coming from, the brain doesn't really think. It performs more like a router for a mind which believes in separate minds. The brain is a symbol of this belief. It is also part of a self-deception which transfers attributes of mind to that mental construct we call the "body".

How does intelligence affect us? We try to lable everything within a parameter we can identify and recognize, then further define what is "normal", "abnormal", even placing "acceptable" and "unacceptable" into the mix in order to protect ourselves from assault.....physically, philosophically, religiously.

We can make ourselves crazy, even if our minds were not diseased.

There is a kind of "intelligence" which drives us crazy. Hell is a thought system opposed to the way God thinks. It appears to be intelligent because it builds the body and maintains it. But it also sickens the body, hurts it, and kills it. The body, in hell, is for the purpose of driving a mind mad...and thereby destroy it. Jesus spoke to this saying, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again". It's a reference to how the body acts as an engine of destruction against the mind which hosts it.


So what the heck does all of this mean?

It means that a powerful mind-state is intent on attacking the mind of Christ. It means there is a mind ("house") divided against itself, in conflict with itself...sabatoging itself...crucifying itself.

In reading the story of your mind's reality, I can get a sense of what you are talking about, and even why and how you got there. Out of the billions of people ever born, there have been at least as many different realities; and even more since people gain insights about themselves, what they believe about God, personal ephiphanies, etc., which change their personal realities through-out their life.

Yes, everyone born in the world has his own truth...each to his own reality. Jesus also had developed an idea of what reality is. His idea of reality enabled him to perform remarkable feats of metaphysics. If we were wise, we would study what it was that he believed/thought. Imo, his reality is the one true reality which is true for all.

I am more comfortable where I am because I have tried living my life sometimes allowing God into my life, and purposefully following the example of Christ; and other times distancing myself from God. There is a definite difference in the quality of my mind's peacefulness and sense of spiritual well-being when I am actively engaged in following Christ. The experiences I have had with the Holy Spirit really do trump what man has told me. The teachings of Paul truly apply and knowledge I have received through the Holy Spirit is something I cannot deny.

I grant that you are gifted with the Holy Spirit, even if you believe this world is your home. But if you have ever thought this world was your home, you are also burdened with what I will call the unholy spirit, what I would call the maker of this world...the "god-of-this-world". Your "ears" are tuned to "hear" this god...this spirit. It makes the whole world and scripts all of its scenarios. Let us not underestimate just how self-deceptive it is. You cannot trust experience, no matter how extraordinary. There are general guidelines by which we may discern between spirits. According to these guidelines, Paul was not of the Holy Spirit but of the unholy.

My actions, as well as my inactions, can have a tremendous affect on those around me Where is that coming from?

This is coming from the fact that you are "lord", whether you are aware of it or not. When you accept the power of your lordship, you will understand how to be a savior.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

I am not the all mighty

This is an example of denial of lordship. So it is an example of not following Jesus' example. He accepted the fact that he is all mighty...and was saved...and became a savior. Now it is our turn to do the same.

Regards,
URban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus told him to follow him, doesn't mean we're becoming God.

We don't become God. We are, or we are not. Whatever we are, we are that...now! The truth is, we are that...now. We can accept this and know it, or reject this and have experiences which correspond with denial of the truth. What is not God (good) does not exist. There is not God and not-God...no "good and evil". This wicked "tree" is a "lie".

on one level, on the very pure level, in our heart's intuition you are correct. especially wherever it makes you a good person and warm towards others. that is truly serving God, not your or my 'belief system'.

Sorry. This falls under the catagory of "works". We are not saved by works but by faith in what is true...now! Today! For "today" is the day of salvation, so-to-speak.

Brother, your statement above is part of your belief system. It was not part of Jesus belief system. Jesus was saved by faith in what he is...Christ...a Lord...and a Savior of Self from self-concepts (ie. "man"). He let what was not true "die" so that Christ could be a Savior through what remained of "Jesus"...until it no longer served a purpose.

however I can say it's important to separate God's creation from God, our father in heaven from creation on earth.

You can say whatever you want...and say it's true. This is officially a "judgement". Judgment is how "the world" begins. But no matter how many times we say it is God's green earth, it will always be a figment of our imagination...utterly unlike God's creation which is perfect...which is Christ.

Regards,
URban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Yes. And as Christ is an inclusive oneness, it was only a matter of time before Jesus' mind was transformed into "the Lord", and "the Savior". For, unless Christ is truly accepted as a one and all, Christ is rejected. The rejection of Christ produces the "many" lost subjects. Acceptance produces lords and saviors. Unless this is the "fruit" of following Jesus, it must be coming from another tree (ie. the tree of "good and evil")

Jesus was the first Christian and Jesus is an example we can follow.

Yes. This is easy to see if one is willing to have an open mind. Even the bible acknowledges that he is the "firstfruits". This implies that there will be many more like him, going the same way, thinking the same way, accepting the same truth...being the same truth. And unless the "fruit" is like the fruit Jesus bore, it must be coming from another tree...namely, the tree of "good and evil".

Jesus got rid of all barriers between him and God and that is how he was his son.

Yes. He was God's Son before the barriers were put up, and God's Son after the barriers were taken down. This is merely a rephrasing of the story of the "prodigal Son" which makes himself out to be anything but the Son of God...and builds defenses to protect his own neo-truth. As the "son of man", Jesus included himself in the experience of self-denial....the denial of Spiritual birth (inheritance). When he accepted that he was the Son of God, he was "born again"...of the Spirit, having rejected fleshly geneology.


That is how he was 'God'.

Yes. He just accepted what is always true, though it be denied through elaborate schemes of self-deception...all of which serve but to "crucify" the Son of God.

God is not separate from us and when we understand that (by eliminating barriers ie. sin) then we are following Jesus' example and we will become God.

Yes. And if we believe we are the "son of man", we believe we are separate from God. This "belief" is ancient, going back to the "genesis" of the "lie" which is "the world". In "the world" everything is separate from everything. But in the Kingdom of God, it is not this way at all.

It makes sense in my head.
That's just what I believe. :-)

It does make sense. This is the only way to resolve a mind conflicted and confused by self-denial.

Regards,
Urban mOnk

[Sarah T]

I like you UrbanMonk :teeth:

[Sarah T]

We don't become God. We are, or we are not. Whatever we are, we are that...now! The truth is, we are that...now. We can accept this and know it, or reject this and have experiences which correspond with denial of the truth. What is not God (good) does not exist. There is not God and not-God...no "good and evil". This wicked "tree" is a "lie".



Sorry. This falls under the catagory of "works". We are not saved by works but by faith in what is true...now! Today! For "today" is the day of salvation, so-to-speak.

Brother, your statement above is part of your belief system. It was not part of Jesus belief system. Jesus was saved by faith in what he is...Christ...a Lord...and a Savior of Self from self-concepts (ie. "man"). He let what was not true "die" so that Christ could be a Savior through what remained of "Jesus"...until it no longer served a purpose.



You can say whatever you want...and say it's true. This is officially a "judgement". Judgment is how "the world" begins. But no matter how many times we say it is God's green earth, it will always be a figment of our imagination...utterly unlike God's creation which is perfect...which is Christ.

Regards,
URban Monk

AMEN A THOUSAND TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :smile:

[jo7241974]

[QUOTE=UrbanMonk;2737811]You mean should I feel threatened if I am wrong? I've long since given up on superstitions of fear. Unless I had done so, it's not likely that I could have come this far along the road back to love...which casts out all fear.

No, not if you should feel threatened if you are wrong, I mean literally. Is there room in your current thought process for the possibility you could be wrong? What if your thinking is the result of some evil which has planted itself in your mind?

I guess this is where I am going with my questions: There are many concepts about God - some even question His existence. In your current understanding and reality of god, do you think that others who do not share that same reality are destined to experience a different eternity than yours? When I speak of these "others", i am referring to those who believe in and follow the Savior. Boy, that encompasses a huge spectrum of beliefs about the Savior and of Heavenly Father.

I'm saying that, as lord's, we are using mind-power to explore mistakes. Every mind that makes its home in this world is incorrect..."all fallen short of the glory of God". Keep in mind, "all" had and have the glory of God before "the fall". The fall obscures the glory of God in us. This is done through a very powerful mind. The power is never neutral, and never diminishes. We are using power to "fall"...to fail...and to make mistakes. The result is a "strong delusion".

There are books out which explore its power that we can learn from. Misunderstanding is an unnatural expression of the power of our mind.

Everyone has a mind that is wired correctly. Those of us who still think we have separate minds have imposed another mind upon a mind that is wired correctly...as one. It's the individuated mind that is wired incorrectly, and so, harbors sickness.


Are you including all levels and types of mental illness?

From where I'm coming from, the brain doesn't really think. It performs more like a router for a mind which believes in separate minds. The brain is a symbol of this belief. It is also part of a self-deception which transfers attributes of mind to that mental construct we call the "body".

There is a kind of "intelligence" which drives us crazy. Hell is a thought system opposed to the way God thinks. It appears to be intelligent because it builds the body and maintains it. But it also sickens the body, hurts it, and kills it. The body, in hell, is for the purpose of driving a mind mad...and thereby destroy it. Jesus spoke to this saying, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again". It's a reference to how the body acts as an engine of destruction against the mind which hosts it.

It means that a powerful mind-state is intent on attacking the mind of Christ. It means there is a mind ("house") divided against itself, in conflict with itself...sabatoging itself...crucifying itself.


Your comments intrigue me; but I must confess you sound "out there" much of the time. I mean no disrespect. I find myself defending my beliefs on a daily basis. Much of the confrontation is quite ugly. Inasmuch as we appear to have some common basis in some of our beliefs, I DO arrive at a point in your thinking where I mentally walk away.

Yes, everyone born in the world has his own truth...each to his own reality. Jesus also had developed an idea of what reality is. His idea of reality enabled him to perform remarkable feats of metaphysics. If we were wise, we would study what it was that he believed/thought. Imo, his reality is the one true reality which is true for all.

I grant that you are gifted with the Holy Spirit, even if you believe this world is your home. But if you have ever thought this world was your home, you are also burdened with what I will call the unholy spirit, what I would call the maker of this world...the "god-of-this-world". Your "ears" are tuned to "hear" this god...this spirit. It makes the whole world and scripts all of its scenarios. Let us not underestimate just how self-deceptive it is. You cannot trust experience, no matter how extraordinary. There are general guidelines by which we may discern between spirits. According to these guidelines, Paul was not of the Holy Spirit but of the unholy.


I thought I was tracking your thinking, but I am physically exhausted right now, and my brain just lost track. I do not understand why you say Paul was not of the Holy Spirit but of the unholy. ??

This is coming from the fact that you are "lord", whether you are aware of it or not. When you accept the power of your lordship, you will understand how to be a savior.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Thank you, Urban Monk. I am enjoying our discussion very much.

[UrbanMonk]

No, not if you should feel threatened if you are wrong, I mean literally. Is there room in your current thought process for the possibility you could be wrong? What if your thinking is the result of some evil which has planted itself in your mind?

If i'm wrong, then I will experience an experience that corresponds to my wrongness. The experience will tend to "prove" that I am right...even if I am wrong. If I am "wrong", then the experience will be a kind of "hell". But if I am right ("righteous"), the experience will be one of "heaven".

Understand that the position I am taking is an admission that I was "wrong" about everyting I thought I was right about before. In other words, I have "repented" of what I thought was right. At one time, for example, I thought orthodox christianity was right. I also thought I was right about how the world functions and what it was and what it was for. I was wrong. That is, after 25 years of research, I was willing to admit that almost everything I had learned was some kind of "wrong" perspective. The past three years have been an about-face.

So, in order to comprehend what I am explaining, you must be somewhat willing that you may be "wrong" about what, heretofore, you thought was "right". Let us not underestimate the capacity for hell to "punk" us. The lie is so enormous that the world's most brilliant minds have trouble comprehending anything of truth. Let us therefore be humble in our acceptace of lordship, and not arrogant in our denial of same.

I guess this is where I am going with my questions: There are many concepts about God - some even question His existence. In your current understanding and reality of god, do you think that others who do not share that same reality are destined to experience a different eternity than yours?

No. I say that they are destined to experience the same eternity as I. Those who do not share my acceptance of reality will continue to have experiences - in time - which correspond to their beliefs. They may even get "confirmation" that their beliefs are "true". This is what time is for! But time is temporary....and must come to an end. It will come to an end when those who wish for their own reality....weary of what it's like to go their own way. Each of us has all the time in the world to change our minds. There is no "dead line". There is only a time to truly live.


When I speak of these "others", i am referring to those who believe in and follow the Savior. Boy, that encompasses a huge spectrum of beliefs about the Savior and of Heavenly Father.

There are basically two kinds of savior. The Savior saves the Son of God from illusions of his Self. Thus, the Savior saves "us" (the Son of God) from our self-concepts (men, women, children). In hell, however, there is another kind of "savior". This kind of savior saves "us" as individuals (ie. men, women, children), thus insuring that in the "future" each of us will remain "special" (ie. different, separate). Jesus chose the former. Paul chose the latter. The former calls for mercy. The latter calls for sacrifice.


Are you including all levels and types of mental illness?

Yes, every kind of mental illness stems from the "root" of "separate minds". "Man" is a manifestation of this "root" concept. Thus, man does not go insane. Rather, man is a manifestation of insanity (sin) in a powerful mind. So, man is afflicted, from birth to death, with all of the maladies inherent in a mind which refuses to accept reality as the truth. Think about this a minute. Can a mind remain sane which rejects reality? Thus, as a mind rejects Christ (reality), it "falls" into "sin". In a state of sin, a mind hallucinates, makes things up, projects, imagines, believes and concieves of all that is unholy. This mind makes man...in its own image. For that matter, this mind makes the whole world. This is why the world is something to "overcome" and "renounce". I renounce the concept of separate minds. I call separte minds a "belief"...not a fact. Minds are joined, as God would have it. This is the truth. All else is an illusion, a self-deception...a lie. So, "let no man separate what God has joined".


Your comments intrigue me; but I must confess you sound "out there" much of the time. I mean no disrespect. I find myself defending my beliefs on a daily basis. Much of the confrontation is quite ugly. Inasmuch as we appear to have some common basis in some of our beliefs, I DO arrive at a point in your thinking where I mentally walk away.

I am reminded of stories in the bible that suggest large percentages of Jesus' listeners up and walked away. And I am reminded of references to a "narrow" path. Perhaps you are just now finding out just how inconcievable is the gospel to the wayward soul...and just how narrow is the path. Jesus was accused of "blasphemy". If you are a follower, and are not being accused of blasphemy....you might re-think your position. Jesus was radical in his way of thinking. For Christ's sake, he thought he was Lord! He was always saying things like, "Believe me". Why? Because what he was postulating was beyond the belief of the average hearer! He was encouraging the sheeple to believe what seemed impossible for them to comprehend. So don't feel bad that you are not tracking my thinking as of yet. You can and you will. If not now, someday, somewhere.

I thought I was tracking your thinking, but I am physically exhausted right now, and my brain just lost track.

I understand how you feel. It is very challenging to wrap one's head around such lofty principles. But we can and we must, if we would escape the littleness of hell. Hell is a "place" where nobody is "lord"...where lordship is not allowed but to tyrants. And should you assert your innocence, you are likely to be made "guilty"....for saying you are innocent! And guilty, you are liable to be attacked as a blasphemer. Yes, hell is upside down and backwards and inside out. Yes, it's exhausting to contemplate the opposite of hell. But then, that would play into the hands of hell quite well, wouldn't it?

I do not understand why you say Paul was not of the Holy Spirit but of the unholy. ??

Let me offer you a quick crash course on what is Holy, and what is not. What is Holy is Whole...complete....perfect....needing nothing...having everything...being everything. This is the only kind of Holy that a Holy God deals with. The unholy, on the other hand, deals with imcompleteness (limitation), imperfection, needs, lack and littleness. As such, it deals with heirarchy, which demands that some have more than others, or that some be different than others, or that some be separated from others. In fact, Paul dealt with all of these, selling the gullible "glorified bodies". He hyped these to-die-for glorified bodies so much that the gullible were even willing to die for them. Alas! Each of these glorified bodies is unique and different and separate from every other glorified body! In other words, Paul was selling more of the same...only more glorified...more separate from the rif-raff...more different from the outcasts...having more glorified "crowns" and levels of "reward" to be expected. In a word, Paul served to "tempt" sheeple. Temptation is simply whatever would draw you to see oneself as less than the Son of God who is the Holy One. This is Paul's legacy. He sold what was unholy (not whole)...appealing devilishly to our ancient desire to be special. Alas, it is this ancient desire to be special which has crucified us. Accordingly, even Paul said it himself, to wit, "I preach Christ crucified". That he did. And thousands of believers have died of his memes for many centuries of "time"....earning themselves the "wages of sin". Paul did not promote a Whole, he promoted parts...for a price.


Thank you, Urban Monk. I am enjoying our discussion very much.

You are very welcome. I appreciate the tone the discussion is taking.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[barnasha]

I am reminded of stories in the bible that suggest large percentages of Jesus' listeners up and walked away. And I am reminded of references to a "narrow" path. Perhaps you are just now finding out just how inconcievable is the gospel to the wayward soul...and just how narrow is the path. Jesus was accused of "blasphemy". If you are a follower, and are not being accused of blasphemy....you might re-think your position. Jesus was radical in his way of thinking. For Christ's sake, he thought he was Lord!


your point is incredibly good. I think your understanding is very pure and genuine.

but one thing stood out to me... the word LORD in KJV refers to God, whereas "lord" with a lower case is different (though Christian english translators used a capital L) - Jesus did not consider himself LORD. This would not make any sense, (at least before Christian doctrine popularized in late 3rd to 4th century AD)

the greek term 'lord' is used for God, and God's creations too - such as the man Jesus Christ.

[NormATive]

Well?

It's a deep subject.

Whenever I encounter a deep subject, I tell myself: Stop Making Sense.

There was a line
There was a formula
Sharp as a knife
Facts cut a hole in us

I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...

The island of doubt - It's like the taste of medicine
Working by hindsight - Got the message from the oxygen
Making a list - Find the cost of opportunity
Doing it right - Facts are useless in emergencies

The feeling returns
Whenever we close our eyes
Lifting my head
Looking around inside.

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape

I'm still waiting..I'm still waiting...

- Crosseyed and Painless, lyrics by: David ByrneI think Jesus was a disciple of Hillel who was one of many seeking to reform his religion. He would have succeeded if it weren't for...

success.

I'm still waiting...

NORM

[UrbanMonk]

It's a deep subject.

Whenever I encounter a deep subject, I tell myself: Stop Making Sense.

I think Jesus was a disciple of Hillel who was one of many seeking to reform his religion. He would have succeeded if it weren't for...

success.

I'm still waiting...

NORM

I don't interpret Jesus as a reformer. He was too radical to reform anything of Judaism. Reformation has resulted in "Judeo-Christianity"...an error of egredious proportions. Christi-anti is a better word for such a grandios mistake. Rather, only the "death" of Judaism and its offspring will yeild the "life" Jesus was talking about and whose power he was demonstrating.

Regards,
Urban MOnk

[UrbanMonk]

your point is incredibly good. I think your understanding is very pure and genuine.

but one thing stood out to me... the word LORD in KJV refers to God, whereas "lord" with a lower case is different (though Christian english translators used a capital L) - Jesus did not consider himself LORD. This would not make any sense, (at least before Christian doctrine popularized in late 3rd to 4th century AD)

the greek term 'lord' is used for God, and God's creations too - such as the man Jesus Christ.

"Lord" means one who is in charge of his experiences. Whether in heaven or "on earth", we are still lords. I use "lord" in small caps when refering to those of us who are lords, but do not recognize (accept) it. I use "Lord" for those of us who recognize (accept) that we are Lord. Lordship is an irrevocable inheritance given to the "Son of God". Though the Son may transform himself into a "prodigal Son", his power (inheritance) goes with him. He remains the "master of his own destiny". The "lost" lords are those who have used their power to imprison themselves by limiting themselves and others. The "found" Lords are those who use their power to set the prisoners free by unlimiting themselves and others. This is essentially what "forgiveness" is all about. We bind or we release. Either way, we are lords using our God-given power. To accept Christ as Lord means to accept that lordship is the truth, regardless of appearances. Until we can accept that we must be the lord, there is no way we may be set free. Lordship is a universal truth, not exclusive to any brand of believer. It is the truth, whether we believe it or not.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[jo7241974]

UrbanMonk;2738837]If i'm wrong, then I will experience an experience that corresponds to my wrongness. The experience will tend to "prove" that I am right...even if I am wrong. If I am "wrong", then the experience will be a kind of "hell". But if I am right ("righteous"), the experience will be one of "heaven".

Hmmm, from your paradigm, this makes sense. If you will, there is a mental hell as well as "Outer Darkness" which is the ultimate hell and pit reserved for Satan and the third of the hosts of Heaven who opposed Father and Jesus and were cast out. In Satan’s plan, he guaranteed that ALL of the children of God would be able to return to Him because Satan would take away their free will. This meant he would take away their ability to sin....since it is sin which would prevent them from being able to withstand the presence of God. Therefore, without sin, they could return to Father---100% of them (including himself). Satan also wanted all of the glory for having been able to accomplish this feat to be his alone --- not to be given to, or even shared with Father.

Satan and the one-third, by being cast out of Heaven, have been denied the ability to be born and receive a physical body. But they can use their powers against us. Once the "time" of the earth is finished and judgment is complete, Satan and his followers will be condemned to their permanent outer darkness (total absence of "light") and their powers will be stripped from them. Those in outer darkness will also not share in any of the things which Father will be sharing with His children who were able to avoid Outer Darkness. The only others of the remaining two-thirds of the Hosts of Heaven who, consequently DID receive their physical bodies but will NOT be able to live forever in Heaven, are those of us who deny the witness of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost has the power and ability to witness the Truth to our spirits. This Spirit to spirit communication and confirmation vs Spirit to mind (and logic and all the other properties associated with thinking) has the only convincing and irrefutable power to bring sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ. IOW the witness of the Holy Spirit is stronger even than a physical witness of us being able to touch or see Jesus in the flesh. This is the only unforgiveable sin. Thus, because they exist in a sin-state, they cannot dwell in Heaven. They will join Satan in outer darkness where there will be weeping, etc.

It is the desire, while they still have the opportunity (before final judgment), of Satan and the one-third to obtain bodies. If they can obtain those bodies, they have more control over their eternal fate. It is because they have been denied being able to obtain a body by the way prescribed by Father; i.e., being born to earthly parents, that they can only hope to be able to obtain a physical body by gaining possession of one of the bodies belonging to the remaining 2/3's of the hosts of Heaven. This explains the problems with "possession". The only other thing which Satan can do while he still has powers is to try to frustrate God's plan of salvation by turning others (of the 2/3's) against God. If he can get others to not believe and get them to deny the witness of the Holy Spirit, then he will have stolen others of God's children for they will not be able to return to Heaven in their sin-state.

There are degrees of Heaven, and even within those degrees, there are levels. Basically, at judgment, we will be assigned to that level of Heaven which is deserving of what we did or did not accept or accomplish within what our level of understanding required of us while we were in the flesh. It will be the knowledge that we had the opportunity, while in the flesh, to make choices different from the ones we ultimately made which will become our personal "hell". Another way to describe this is the way you already have described. And so, in our minds, we must deal with the results of our decisions. Yet, unless we have committed the unpardonable sin, we will still live in some level of Heaven. Thus, it is the physical Heaven where we will dwell for eternity which is not understood by Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy believes there is only one level of Heaven.

Babies and young children who die before the age of accountability will go to the highest degree of Heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. Additionally, those who did not have the mental capacity to understand the Gospel , due to severe mental illness, will also go to the Celestial Kingdom. (I hope you realize I am giving a very condensed version; and, in so doing, may have left out some of the thinking required to get from one point to the next.)

Understand that the position I am taking is an admission that I was "wrong" about everything I thought I was right about before. In other words, I have "repented" of what I thought was right. At one time, for example, I thought orthodox christianity was right. I also thought I was right about how the world functions and what it was and what it was for. I was wrong. That is, after 25 years of research, I was willing to admit that almost everything I had learned was some kind of "wrong" perspective. The past three years have been an about-face.

I think our understanding of the consequences of our wrong choices parallel inasmuch as we will be painfully aware that we screwed up. With the power of our minds, I think it is possible to suffer even more than He may have intended us to suffer for more minor infractions. That is why I have had to learn to forgive myself for the sins I have committed even after I have sought God’s forgiveness. I quickly forgive others who have hurt me, even when they have done so quite intentionally; and I will forgive them without having even asked my forgiveness. But if I screw up, I am really hard on myself. I have discovered that this can become a stumbling as well…..such a balancing all of the time….All of this learning, however, does help us to become more Christ-like; our hearts are softened, and our love for others becomes more pure. We can become perfected through Christ.

So, in order to comprehend what I am explaining, you must be somewhat willing that you may be "wrong" about what, heretofore, you thought was "right". Let us not underestimate the capacity for hell to "punk" us. The lie is so enormous that the world's most brilliant minds have trouble comprehending anything of truth. Let us therefore be humble in our acceptance of lordship, and not arrogant in our denial of same.

This is very interesting. We do believe we have the potential to become gods. However, what it takes to get there is paramount on our belief and faith in Christ. Your version seems to deny Christ’s accomplishment and His supreme sacrifice, and even His God-ship. He created the world we live in, and is our Redeemer. We cannot redeem ourselves. Following His example while giving yourself credit for learning what it is He wanted to teach you as though you could have come up with the ability to learn to those things if He had NOT shown you the way is flawed IMO. (Did I understand you correctly?) Of course, the most important thing is to remember it is Christ who made the sacrifice for you. He is your Lord and Redeemer. He will always be through-out eternity. I believe you have crossed a line never meant to be crossed.

I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it looks like what you are describing is actually a partial truth. Humility helps us to remain teachable. Humility is not a weakness. The times I have had the most powerful witnesses and experiences with the Holy Spirit are the times I have felt most humble as a result of those experiences. IOW, I was in awe of the understandings made known to me. It seems you have taken “humility-is-not-a-weakness” and have applied this to a false concept you have identified as ”acceptance of lordship”. Then to strengthen this application, you make the denial of “acceptance of lordship” a manifestation of arrogance. We need to keep an open mind even when contending with our personal intelligence. This is frightening territory because Satan can easily take our strengths (in this case intelligence) and use them against us. It is so subtle, yet so appealing.

No. I say that they are destined to experience the same eternity as I. Those who do not share my acceptance of reality will continue to have experiences - in time - which correspond to their beliefs. They may even get "confirmation" that their beliefs are "true". This is what time is for! But time is temporary....and must come to an end. It will come to an end when those who wish for their own reality....weary of what it's like to go their own way. Each of us has all the time in the world to change our minds. There is no "dead line". There is only a time to truly live.

This is also very interesting. It seems there are aspects about the truth you have grasped which have been lost in Orthodoxy. However, the way you have dealt with the truth and applied it to your version of how the plan of salvation works is very different.

Since you already have professed an understanding of what the LDS Church teaches, I will not go into a great deal of our beliefs beyond what I am explaining unless you would like to.

There are basically two kinds of savior. The Savior saves the Son of God from illusions of his Self. Thus, the Savior saves "us" (the Son of God) from our self-concepts (men, women, children). In hell, however, there is another kind of "savior". This kind of savior saves "us" as individuals (ie. men, women, children), thus insuring that in the "future" each of us will remain "special" (ie. different, separate). Jesus chose the former. Paul chose the latter. The former calls for mercy. The latter calls for sacrifice.

I do not see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus ever has illusions about Himself. He always gave the Father all glory and all power. In asking us to follow Him it was in humility. The only time He ever exhibited any anger was when defending the Truth (in confronting the Pharisees) and when He dealt with the money-changers, et al, in His Father’s Temple. He never needed saving. He never sinned. That is HOW He was the perfect sacrifice…..the unblemished lamb brought to slaughter. There is only one Savior. That said, however, I still appreciate the insight you are providing on what it is that you believe.

Yes, every kind of mental illness stems from the "root" of "separate minds". "Man" is a manifestation of this "root" concept. Thus, man does not go insane. Rather, man is a manifestation of insanity (sin) in a powerful mind. So, man is afflicted, from birth to death, with all of the maladies inherent in a mind which refuses to accept reality as the truth. Think about this a minute. Can a mind remain sane which rejects reality? Thus, as a mind rejects Christ (reality), it "falls" into "sin". In a state of sin, a mind hallucinates, makes things up, projects, imagines, believes and concieves of all that is unholy. This mind makes man...in its own image. For that matter, this mind makes the whole world. This is why the world is something to "overcome" and "renounce". I renounce the concept of separate minds. I call separte minds a "belief"...not a fact. Minds are joined, as God would have it. This is the truth. All else is an illusion, a self-deception...a lie. So, "let no man separate what God has joined".

This leads me to ask you another question. Do you believe Satan is real?

Also, I have made a few comments about the severely mentally handicapped. I think it is possible that some spirits were so tender and fragile that Father may actually have “blessed” them with these various illnesses so that they could be protected from Satan’s powers during their stay on earth. They will have completed the necessary step of receiving their physical body, and still be guaranteed the Celestial Kingdom. We have been promised we will never be given more trials than we are able to handle. He knew ahead of time that these spirits could not have handled their earthly estate in any other way.

It is all very difficult to grasp when we allow our minds, which ARE so powerful, to contemplate religion. We obviously can use our minds to help better our world – we ARE given talents to use while we are here. But there is also such a fine line when we consider our fate through eternity. We need to stay close to Father, we need to emulate our Savior, and follow the promptings and teachings of the Holy Spirit. We need to be aware of the power of our minds as well as Satan’s power to use our minds against us.

I am reminded of stories in the bible that suggest large percentages of Jesus' listeners up and walked away. And I am reminded of references to a "narrow" path. Perhaps you are just now finding out just how inconcievable is the gospel to the wayward soul...and just how narrow is the path. Jesus was accused of "blasphemy". If you are a follower, and are not being accused of blasphemy....you might re-think your position. Jesus was radical in his way of thinking. For Christ's sake, he thought he was Lord! He was always saying things like, "Believe me". Why? Because what he was postulating was beyond the belief of the average hearer! He was encouraging the sheeple to believe what seemed impossible for them to comprehend. So don't feel bad that you are not tracking my thinking as of yet. You can and you will. If not now, someday, somewhere.

But I do already comprehend. The way IS narrow. Jesus was anxious to teach us to be like little children in our faith. For their minds and hearts are still so pure and their faith is so simple. Man likes to make everything much more complicated than it needs to be. And they have the ego to deem their thoughts superior to those of others; worse yet, they rise and reign over others and are eager to destroy those who disagree with them.

Mainstream Christianity is a perfect example of how far things can stray from the Truth.

I understand how you feel. It is very challenging to wrap one's head around such lofty principles. But we can and we must, if we would escape the littleness of hell. Hell is a "place" where nobody is "lord"...where lordship is not allowed but to tyrants. And should you assert your innocence, you are likely to be made "guilty"....for saying you are innocent! And guilty, you are liable to be attacked as a blasphemer. Yes, hell is upside down and backwards and inside out. Yes, it's exhausting to contemplate the opposite of hell. But then, that would play into the hands of hell quite well, wouldn't it?

I do not believe it is necessary to contemplate lofty principles. However, it is man’s nature to do so; some more than others. It is very interesting to learn what other’s believe; at some point in our lives, we face making a decision for ourselves and choose what we will believe. Sometimes we change our minds based on new information we never accessed before.

Let me offer you a quick crash course on what is Holy, and what is not. What is Holy is Whole...complete....perfect....needing nothing...having everything...being everything. This is the only kind of Holy that a Holy God deals with. The unholy, on the other hand, deals with imcompleteness (limitation), imperfection, needs, lack and littleness. As such, it deals with heirarchy, which demands that some have more than others, or that some be different than others, or that some be separated from others. In fact, Paul dealt with all of these, selling the gullible "glorified bodies". He hyped these to-die-for glorified bodies so much that the gullible were even willing to die for them. Alas! Each of these glorified bodies is unique and different and separate from every other glorified body! In other words, Paul was selling more of the same...only more glorified...more separate from the rif-raff...more different from the outcasts...having more glorified "crowns" and levels of "reward" to be expected. In a word, Paul served to "tempt" sheeple. Temptation is simply whatever would draw you to see oneself as less than the Son of God who is the Holy One. This is Paul's legacy. He sold what was unholy (not whole)...appealing devilishly to our ancient desire to be special. Alas, it is this ancient desire to be special which has crucified us. Accordingly, even Paul said it himself, to wit, "I preach Christ crucified". That he did. And thousands of believers have died of his memes for many centuries of "time"....earning themselves the "wages of sin". Paul did not promote a Whole, he promoted parts...for a price.

I think this paragraph needs to be a separate thread. My interpretations of Paul’s teachings are very different from yours. There is much to cover in this discussion.

You are very welcome. I appreciate the tone the discussion is taking.

Regards,
Urban Monk

I appreciate the tone of this discussion as well.

jo

[NormATive]

I don't interpret Jesus as a reformer. He was too radical to reform anything of Judaism. Reformation has resulted in "Judeo-Christianity"...an error of egredious proportions. Christi-anti is a better word for such a grandios mistake. Rather, only the "death" of Judaism and its offspring will yeild the "life" Jesus was talking about and whose power he was demonstrating.

Regards,
Urban MOnk

I'm curious; where do you find such radicalism in the small record of what the Galilean named Jesus said and did?

Would you call Hillel a radical? I guess from the Orthodox perspective, this would be an apropos appellation. Or, rather do you view the Jesus story as a roman à clef of Hillel as do I?

The words and deeds attributed to Jesus parallel nicely with what Hillel is said to have taught. My gleanings of studying Hillel is that he was a reformer, not a radical as the Zealots perhaps were. IOW, he did not seek to overthrow Judaism, but to realign it with his view of G-d.

This is how I interpret Jesus - at least from what is written of him. BTW, I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was a real person, but perhaps a character in the gospel stories. There just isn't sufficient evidence to say one way or the other.

NORM.

[UrbanMonk]

I'm curious; where do you find such radicalism in the small record of what the Galilean named Jesus said and did?

Would you call Hillel a radical? I guess from the Orthodox perspective, this would be an apropos appellation. Or, rather do you view the Jesus story as a roman à clef of Hillel as do I?

The words and deeds attributed to Jesus parallel nicely with what Hillel is said to have taught. My gleanings of studying Hillel is that he was a reformer, not a radical as the Zealots perhaps were. IOW, he did not seek to overthrow Judaism, but to realign it with his view of G-d.

This is how I interpret Jesus - at least from what is written of him. BTW, I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was a real person, but perhaps a character in the gospel stories. There just isn't sufficient evidence to say one way or the other.

NORM.


I'm unfamiliar with Hillel. However, some surrounding Jesus may have been familiar with Hillel and worked to moderate the radical view of Jesus to fit within a more Hillel point of view. While Jesus may have been radical, those around him may not have been at all, choosing rather to be conservative, prefering not to burn their bridges with their Jewish legacy.

More later...

[barnasha]

"Lord" means one who is in charge of his experiences. Whether in heaven or "on earth", we are still lords. I use "lord" in small caps when refering to those of us who are lords, but do not recognize (accept) it. I use "Lord" for those of us who recognize (accept) that we are Lord. Lordship is an irrevocable inheritance given to the "Son of God". Though the Son may transform himself into a "prodigal Son", his power (inheritance) goes with him. He remains the "master of his own destiny". The "lost" lords are those who have used their power to imprison themselves by limiting themselves and others. The "found" Lords are those who use their power to set the prisoners free by unlimiting themselves and others. This is essentially what "forgiveness" is all about. We bind or we release. Either way, we are lords using our God-given power. To accept Christ as Lord means to accept that lordship is the truth, regardless of appearances. Until we can accept that we must be the lord, there is no way we may be set free. Lordship is a universal truth, not exclusive to any brand of believer. It is the truth, whether we believe it or not.

Regards,
Urban Monk

I must strongly agree.

You should learn about Hillel... highly recommended

[John Goddard]

The words and deeds attributed to Jesus parallel nicely with what Hillel is said to have taught. My gleanings of studying Hillel is that he was a reformer, not a radical as the Zealots perhaps were. IOW, he did not seek to overthrow Judaism, but to realign it with his view of G-d.

This is how I interpret Jesus - at least from what is written of him. BTW, I don't necessarily believe that Jesus was a real person, but perhaps a character in the gospel stories. There just isn't sufficient evidence to say one way or the other.

NORM.

You could not proclaim yourself as King of Jews and not be a radical to Caesar, so there was a lot of difference between Jesus and Hillel.

If Jesus stopped at Beatitudes then maybe they would be comparable, but Jesus was radical enough to get crucified, while Hillel kept his teaching confined enough to avoid it.

[UrbanMonk]

IOW, he did not seek to overthrow Judaism, but to realign it with his view of G-d.

NORM.

I'd say he did not seek to get his students stoned by radical Jews. A passage from the gospel of Thomas suggests that there were trigger happy (Jews ready to stone other Jews for blasphemy) among his students. Jesus most blasphemous - non Jewish - self/world views were taught to select students in private...for their own protection. Peter and James were not among the select students, being among the most compromising conservatives of the bunch. What we know of Jesus is mainly through such conservatives who, twenty years after the "resurrection" were still going round and round about circumcision and whether they (Peter) should eat with Gentiles or not. It is because of this type of student that Jesus is given a distinct Jewish flavor. Through the magic of editing, Jesus is tied down to the horns of an ancient alter of sacrifice, and made out to be the son of the god of israel. In this way, the pop gospels subvert Jesus message much the same way recut movie trailers are edited to change the entire tone of a movie (ie. see "Top Gun recut" Youtube). P(s)aul was among the chief editors coming from the school of Pharisee under Gamaliel.

Jesus was radical, and not aligned with Jewish literature at all. Where in Jewish literature, for example, is the idea that "The Kingdom of God is within you"? The "prodigal Son" was Jesus' retelling of the story of genesis, wandering and exodus. It is not aligned with anything Hebrew minds ever came up with.

[John Goddard]

Jesus was radical, and not aligned with Jewish literature at all. Where in Jewish literature, for example, is the idea that "The Kingdom of God is within you"? The "prodigal Son" was Jesus' retelling of the story of genesis, wandering and exodus. It is not aligned with anything Hebrew minds ever came up with.

Well he was radical, not a deviant not aligned with Jewish literature at all. Big difference.

The Kingdom of God for example reformed in one man Moses and grew again in the Hebrew nation. So what Jesus taught was not exotic, it was simply radical.

[UrbanMonk]

Well he was radical, not a deviant not aligned with Jewish literature at all. Big difference.

The Kingdom of God for example reformed in one man Moses and grew again in the Hebrew nation. So what Jesus taught was not exotic, it was simply radical.

It was indeed exotic...supposedly what ears had not yet heard and what eyes had not yet seen. Besides that, it was distinctly "eastern", so-to-speak. It was exotic enough for his claims to be considered blasphemous and not in alignment with the prevalent Jewish concept of "Messiah" by those most familiar with Hebrew literature at the time. The cloak of "Messiah" was forced on Jesus much the same way the Roman soldiers forced him to wear a purple robe. The robe of "Messiah" is a mockery to the Son of God.

[John Goddard]

It was indeed exotic...supposedly what ears had not yet heard and what eyes had not yet seen. Besides that, it was distinctly "eastern", so-to-speak. It was exotic enough for his claims to be considered blasphemous and not in alignment with the prevalent Jewish concept of "Messiah".

It was only considered blasphemous because his message threatened to disturb positions of Jews within the Roman Empire.

John 11:48-51 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

John 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

So it's not that they didn't believe in Jesus, they did. Otherwise their sins would not have been greater than the Romans who actually did the killing work.

John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Those Jews knew what Jesus was saying ok. It's just that they wanted to usurp God Himself. That's why they are deemed children of Satan, John 8:44.

So then, what Jesus said was not exotic. It was radical in the eyes of Jews who did not want their high positions disturbed.

Same as it would be when Moses caused Jews to make bricks without straw, Exodus 5:7.

[NormATive]

You could not proclaim yourself as King of Jews and not be a radical to Caesar, so there was a lot of difference between Jesus and Hillel.

If Jesus stopped at Beatitudes then maybe they would be comparable, but Jesus was radical enough to get crucified, while Hillel kept his teaching confined enough to avoid it.

You are right. If we just select the sayings of Jesus found in Mark and in the Sermon on the Mount and Plain, we find parallels to HIllel.

It's the rest of the New Testament that seems to make Jesus a radical. I find it troubling that there are two very different characterizations of Jesus in the New Testament.

I think the historical Jesus is quite different from the one created by his followers.

NORM

[UrbanMonk]

It was only considered blasphemous because his message threatened to disturb positions of Jews within the Roman Empire.

John 11:48-51 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

John 19:12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

So it's not that they didn't believe in Jesus, they did. Otherwise their sins would not have been greater than the Romans who actually did the killing work.

John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Those Jews knew what Jesus was saying ok. It's just that they wanted to usurp God Himself. That's why they are deemed children of Satan, John 8:44.

So then, what Jesus said was not exotic. It was radical in the eyes of Jews who did not want their high positions disturbed.

Same as it would be when Moses caused Jews to make bricks without straw, Exodus 5:7.

While Jesus may have claimed to be a King, he also claimed that his Kingdom was "not of this world"...which is precisely the domain of the Jewish concept of "Messiah". It is from the term "Messiah" that Jesus got a reputation for being the "King of the Jews". Again, that was not Jesus' opinion of himself being way too narrow minded. Accordingly, Jesus did not associate himself with the king of the world (rex mundi), which is the domain of Roman authority...and Jewish claims on authority. "...not of this world" also means 'not of rex mundi'. When certain Jews tried to trace their lineage back through the sons of man to man's maker, they made themselves the son's of hell...son's of satan...in Jesus' way of thinking. This is truly radical. Evidence of just how radical were his views is put forth in your quotes from John. Their very nation was threatened by what Jesus was saying about their "god" which was the basis for their religio-ethnic existence.

So, yes, this threatened their "high" positions, but in a way that you are not yet understanding. It's not because Jesus was a better exegete (interpreter of Hebrew literature)...it's because his interpretation invalidated anything and everything Jewish. To wit, "there is no Jew or Greek in Christ". Once, when a Jew tried to explain to Jesus how his adherence to all things Jewish was supposed to save him...Jesus told him to sell everything he had and follow him. Meaning, the Jewish viewpoint of what salvation is and how to achieve it is worthless to one who would follow Jesus...because it was worthless to Jesus. Pilates power came from 'rex mundi', above whom is the Son of God. Meaning, it was the Son of God who gave "Pilate" power to crucify himSelf...through the power given to rex mundi. That is why the crucifixion has been called "voluntary". Pilate and rex mundi and Judas are merely tools in a process of crucifixion. What betrays the Son of God is a desire to be special, and by his own desire, he brings hell upon himself.

[John Goddard]

While Jesus may have claimed to be a King, he also claimed that his Kingdom was "not of this world"...which is precisely the domain of the Jewish concept of "Messiah" It is from the term "Messiah" that Jesus got a reputation for being the "King of the Jews". Again, that was not Jesus' opinion of himself being way too narrow minded. Accordingly, Jesus did not associate himself with the king of the world (rex mundi), which is the domain of Roman authority...and Jewish claims on authority. "...not of this world" also means 'not of rex mundi'.

His kingdom was not of this world, meaning is was not a political one of Rome or any other, but God's own kingdom. He never said he wouldn't rule over the world.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

When certain Jews tried to trace their lineage back through the sons of man to man's maker, they made themselves the son's of hell...son's of satan...in Jesus' way of thinking. This is truly radical. Evidence of just how radical were his views is put forth in your quotes from John. Their very nation was threatened by what Jesus was saying about their "god" which was the basis for their religio-ethnic existence.

Can't argue much with these statements.

So, yes, this threatened their "high" positions, but in a way that you are not yet understanding. It's not because Jesus was a better exegete (interpreter of Hebrew literature)...it's because his interpretation invalidated anything and everything Jewish.

He validated and fulfilled it, which would make him the ultimate interpreter of the message Hebrew literature intended to convey all along.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

To wit, "there is no Jew or Greek in Christ".

There is no man or woman either. Which is not to say that Jesus himself was not also a man and a Jew. It's saying that you're either saved with Christ, or not saved, no matter who you are.

Once, when a Jew tried to explain to Jesus how his adherence to all things Jewish was supposed to save him...Jesus told him to sell everything he had and follow him. Meaning, the Jewish viewpoint of what salvation is and how to achieve it is worthless to one who would follow Jesus...because it was worthless to Jesus.

...only if Jews neglect more important aspects of the Law.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Otherwise, the Jewish Law still mattered.

Matthew 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Pilates power came from 'rex mundi', above whom is the Son of God. Meaning, it was the Son of God who gave "Pilate" power to crucify himSelf...through the power given to rex mundi. That is why the crucifixion has been called "voluntary". Pilate and rex mundi and Judas are merely tools in a process of crucifixion. What betrays the Son of God is a desire to be special, and by his own desire, he brings hell upon himself.

I think here you are just adding another layer in between what I said, that one reason Jesus was radical is because he claimed authority over earth, including Pilate.

But I see kind of where you are trying to make a distinction and don't disagree that much, on this note.

[UrbanMonk]

His kingdom was not of this world, meaning is was not a political one of Rome or any other, but God's own kingdom. He never said he wouldn't rule over the world.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". You are defining "world" in your own way in order to make his statement fit your world-view. Some people define "world" to mean some specific behavior thought to be "bad". They then are able - in their personal exegesis - to bring Jesus back to earth to rule over "good" people. These same people are those who bring earth back whenever the bible says that "heaven and earth" shall pass away.


The book of revelations is an historical document, not a truth document...nor even an instructional document. It reveals not Christ but what is anti-christ...as if it were Christ. The book of revelelations is a picture of a state of mind. If it reflects the mind that made this world, it is a confused and confusing document intent on damning its readers to the very hell is promises escape from. Whatever rules the world fits the Jewish concept of "Messiah"...the "King of the Jews". This is a literary robe that cloaks the messenger of a real Kingdom...reversing his message. The net effect is a "wolf in sheeps clothing". The concept of "Messiah" is the "wolf". It is cloaked under the legitimate authority of the "Good Shepherd".

[UrbanMonk]

He validated and fulfilled it, which would make him the ultimate interpreter of the message Hebrew literature intended to convey all along.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Oh contrare. He didn't fulfill anything remotely Messianic (King of the Jews-ish) in terms of what experts in Hebrew literature expected. Neither did he interpret anything the same way literary experts interpreted Hebrew folklore at the time.

Who validates? Matthew! That anonymous scribe who wore Jewish colored glasses to see what he wanted to see about a message/messenger which transcends all things Jewish, to wit, "There is not Jew or Greek in Christ".

It is Matthew and his Messianic-Jew ilk which shove words in Jesus mouth the way the Romans shoved nails in his hands. Oh yes!, Jesus would have interpreted Jewish literature. But interpretation and endorsement are not the same. Interpretation and "fulfillment" are the same. The meaning is lost in translation. Jesus was all about destroying the works of the devil. However, he does not destroy the way the world destroys. Instead of a book burning, Jesus merely interpreted what was written...to mean what he wanted it to mean.

A good example is how he narrowed the ten commandments down to one...and added one of his own. The one he added threatens the very foundation of Hebrew literature...if one is willing to understand its full import. It is very "eastern" in its world-view. This, then, is destruction via subversion. Rather, it is destruction by telling the truth. It is the truth that washes away the lies...like the waters in the story of Noah washed away the known world. This is not an endorsement of the story of Noah. I have merely used Hebrew literature to make a point...to construct a parable...which points to the truth. And when one can understand what truth does to the world, one can then understand the parable of "baptism". Baptism washes away all things Jewish, and therefore, all things Messianic...not to mention the whole world. Truth does not destroy the world violently. It destroys it gently...by washing it away.

[John Goddard]

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world". You are defining "world" in your own way in order to make his statement fit your world-view. Some people define "world" to mean some specific behavior thought to be "bad". They then are able - in their personal exegesis - to bring Jesus back to earth to rule over "good" people. These same people are those who bring earth back whenever the bible says that "heaven and earth" shall pass away.

The book of revelations is an historical document, not a truth document...nor even an instructional document. It reveals not Christ but what is anti-christ...as if it were Christ. The book of revelelations is a picture of a state of mind. If it reflects the mind that made this world, it is a confused and confusing document intent on damning its readers to the very hell is promises escape from. Whatever rules the world fits the Jewish concept of "Messiah"...the "King of the Jews". This is a literary robe that cloaks the messenger of a real Kingdom...reversing his message. The net effect is a "wolf in sheeps clothing". The concept of "Messiah" is the "wolf". It is cloaked under the legitimate authority of the "Good Shepherd".

Jesus says much of the same things in Gospels, that he'll return to rule the world. So Revelation is about both Christ and Antichrist, not entirely confusing for me.

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Matthew 13:41-43 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

[UrbanMonk]

There is no man or woman either. Which is not to say that Jesus himself was not also a man and a Jew. It's saying that you're either saved with Christ, or not saved, no matter who you are.

P(s)aul stole this catchphrase from "the way" he prosecuted, and interpreted it as he saw fit.

In it's original context, it's saying that there is Christ...and nothing else. No Jews, not Greeks, men, women, slave men or free(d) men. It means there are no bodies, no arms, no legs no spleens. It also means there are no opposites...there is no duality (ie. "good and evil"). Rather, there is only the "tree of life". Christ has a monopoly on reality. One is either Christ, or one is an unreal, temporary (time-based) thing (machine, slave). Christ's monopoly leaves no room for competitors. There is no other reality...no other "Kingdom"...no other "world"...no other "truth"...no other "life"...no such thing as "life and death", nor "good and evil".

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus says much of the same things in Gospels, that he'll return to rule the world. So Revelation is about both Christ and Antichrist, not entirely confusing for me.
[/I]

A miracle worker rules the world, yes? And Jesus said that those who believed in him would work miracles like he did...even greater one's. And whenever a miracle-worker arrives on the scene, "Jesus" has returned. Rather, Christ has been inserted/asserted where Christ is denied. This is the very basis of a miracle. Whenever Christ is allowed to be the truth, his power will "rule" whatever situation seems to deny his authority. When we are willing to "follow" Jesus' lead in this regard, then, yes, Christ will rule the world. However, the way Christ rules the world is to overturn the world...turning it's tables on itself. Every miracle questions the world validity/authority. It's very laws come into question every time anyone is raised from the dead, or any time the blind are made to see. The "return" of Christ is the passing away of the world...the "death" of the world...the end of time. Time ends when we invite Christ back and give Christ our hands and feet and mouths. In this way, we all contribute to the passing of the world (the anti-christ) and the restoration of the rule of Christ...without opposite.

[John Goddard]

Oh contrare. He didn't fulfill anything remotely Messianic (King of the Jews-ish) in terms of what experts in Hebrew literature expected. Neither did he interpret anything the same way literary experts interpreted Hebrew folklore at the time.

That doesn't mean Jesus invalidated things Jewish, it just means they didn't expect that Messiah would ascend to Heaven for a while, then return thousands of years later to rule himself. They thought he should rule at first appearance.

Which when they believe Elijah also ascended to Heaven to complete his mission later, they should have also considered the possibility Messiah might do the same thing.

Who validates? Matthew! That anonymous scribe who wore Jewish colored glasses to see what he wanted to see about a message/messenger which transcends all things Jewish, to wit, "There is not Jew or Greek in Christ".

Again, that's referring to salvation. Jesus acknowledges that he is a Jew.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

It is Matthew and his Messianic-Jew ilk which shove words in Jesus mouth the way the Romans shoved nails in his hands. Oh yes!, Jesus would have interpreted Jewish literature. But interpretation and endorsement are not the same. Interpretation and "fulfillment" are the same. The meaning is lost in translation. Jesus was all about destroying the works of the devil. However, he does not destroy the way the world destroys. Instead of a book burning, Jesus merely interpreted what was written...to mean what he wanted it to mean.

Considering you cite the Gospels to make other points like the one following, I don't exactly know what you are driving at.

A good example is how he narrowed the ten commandments down to one...and added one of his own. The one he added threatens the very foundation of Hebrew literature...if one is willing to understand its full import. It is very "eastern" in its world-view. This, then, is destruction via subversion. Rather, it is destruction by telling the truth. It is the truth that washes away the lies...like the waters in the story of Noah washed away the known world. This is not an endorsement of the story of Noah. I have merely used Hebrew literature to make a point...to construct a parable...which points to the truth. And when one can understand what truth does to the world, one can then understand the parable of "baptism". Baptism washes away all things Jewish, and therefore, all things Messianic...not to mention the whole world. Truth does not destroy the world violently. It destroys it gently...by washing it away.

Love God and each other has always been part of Torah, he didn't add anything, he simply renewed focus on those aspects of the Law.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

[John Goddard]

A miracle worker rules the world, yes? And Jesus said that those who believed in him would work miracles like he did...even greater one's. And whenever a miracle-worker arrives on the scene, "Jesus" has returned. Rather, Christ has been inserted/asserted where Christ is denied. This is the very basis of a miracle. Whenever Christ is allowed to be the truth, his power will "rule" whatever situation seems to deny his authority. When we are willing to "follow" Jesus' lead in this regard, then, yes, Christ will rule the world. However, the way Christ rules the world is to overturn the world...turning it's tables on itself. Every miracle questions the world validity/authority. It's very laws come into question every time anyone is raised from the dead, or any time the blind are made to see. The "return" of Christ is the passing away of the world...the "death" of the world...the end of time. Time ends when we invite Christ back and give Christ our hands and feet and mouths. In this way, we all contribute to the passing of the world (the anti-christ) and the restoration of the rule of Christ...without opposite.

Christ rules in each person, yes, but a plain reading says he also returns to rule the literal world.

[UrbanMonk]

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Matthew 13:41-43 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Again, interpretation is key. I can interpret these passages in a way that destroys the meaning previously given to them. The meaning assigned to parables is not always the meaning Jesus assigned to them. In fact, if it is appearing in the NT, the meaning given is almost always not what Jesus meant. And this is not to mention the many things Jesus did not say that people thought he said and wrote down as if he had said them.

To interpret what Jesus says, one must read it as if he is speaking as Christ...in the first person. Christ is reality. The world is unreality (anti-christ, a lie, a "liar"). The "lie" that is the world includes all that is separated one from another...including all of humanity and their nations. These must all "bow down" because they are unreal and Christ is real. When they bow down it means they finally will accept their non-existence and will be "put to death"...by their own sword. And when they lay down their "lives" in this way, they may take them up again...as Christ....but only as Christ. Any other identity is an "enemy" of Christ...because Christ has a monopoly on Identity. One is Christ or one is not. If one is not for Christ, one is against Christ. There is no neutral ground.

[UrbanMonk]

Christ rules in each person, yes, but a plain reading says he also returns to rule the literal world.

A "plain reading" is not as effective as a correct (right) reading. First of all, who or what are you reading? To put words in Jesus mouth is easy. To take them back out is a little more challenging if they've been there for two thousand years. Everything about the NT is questionable. What counts is what makes sense...a single-minded message. A single minded message is, for example, "My Kingdom is not of this world". A double-minded message is, 'he is coming back to literally rule a literal world'. Another word comes to mind when I think of double-minded. Besides duality (ie. tree of good and evil) I think of a forked-tongue. And what is a forked-tongue but a mind in conflict with itself? A single-minded message says, "a house divided against itself cannot stand (will not last)". The world is a mind, split against itself, trying to combine opposites (ie. good and evil) to make a "duality" in competition with the Kingdom of God. It won't "stand".

[UrbanMonk]

That doesn't mean Jesus invalidated things Jewish, it just means they didn't expect that Messiah would ascend to Heaven for a while, then return thousands of years later to rule himself. They thought he should rule at first appearance.

This pretty much invalidates anything a Jew might think...or the thoughts of anyone who uses Jewish literature to guide his world-view. Their literature has failed them in the past. What makes you think the same literature will somehow be "fulfilled" in the future? Insanity is thinking the same things over and over...expecting to get a different result. To P(s)aul, it was not insane to keep thinking Pharisee-minded thoughts about the future...about nationalistic-ethnio-religious eschatology. To Jesus, there was no such thing as the future because Christ transcends time being the "Truth" now and always. You can accept this or reject it. The Jews, and anyone who thinks like them, reject it because they believe in time, and/or a time-salvation correlation. "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees". And beware anyone who boasts of being a student of Gamaliel, a Pharisee.

[John Goddard]

A "plain reading" is not as effective as a correct (right) reading. First of all, who or what are you reading? To put words in Jesus mouth is easy. To take them back out is a little more challenging if they've been there for two thousand years. Everything about the NT is questionable. What counts is what makes sense...a single-minded message. A single minded message is, for example, "My Kingdom is not of this world". A double-minded message is, 'he is coming back to literally rule a literal world'. Another word comes to mind when I think of double-minded. Besides duality (ie. tree of good and evil) I think of a forked-tongue. And what is a forked-tongue but a mind in conflict with itself? A single-minded message says, "a house divided against itself cannot stand (will not last)". The world is a mind, split against itself, trying to combine opposites (ie. good and evil) to make a "duality" in competition with the Kingdom of God. It won't "stand".

We simply differ on interpretation. You think "not of this world" means Jesus will never physically return to earth. I think it means that his kingdom did not originate in the minds of men but from God, and that he will still return.

A plain reading favors my interpretation.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

He physically returns in the clouds, just like he physically ascended up on one.

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

You have to turn his ascension and return into visions that don't physically happen in order to make your interpretation work, and nothing says they are just visions.

[UrbanMonk]

A plain reading favors my interpretation.

A plain reading may favor your interpretation...because the scribe favored your interpretation. The scribes interpretation, however, is not any kind of authority on what Jesus' parables actually meant. There is really only one way to interpret his parables. If you don't "get" what Jesus meant, then you don't get to participate in the "life" Jesus spoke of. The meaning of words are easily twisted. The following phrases mean entirely different things based on a small bias given through the addition of one word.

Did Jesus accept Christ as his Lord and Savior?
Did Jesus accept Christ as Lord and Savior?

[UrbanMonk]

He physically returns in the clouds, just like he physically ascended up on one.

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

You have to turn his ascension and return into visions that don't physically happen in order to make your interpretation work, and nothing says they are just visions.

Jesus said, "I have come to open the eyes of the blind". So it has very much to do with what we can see. Alledgedly, Stephen saw it as he was being stoned to death by comrades of P(s)aul. The Kingdom of God is both "within" and "at hand". One cannot see it while he is focused on the "physical" (flesh, matter, limitation, anti-christ). If you are focused on the physical as truth, you will interpret Truth incorrectly...and damn yourself to a "life" of "flesh". However, "flesh and bones will not inherit the Kingdom of God". The Kingdom of "Spirit" which is opposed to the flesh, just as flesh is opposed to the Spirit. Can't have both. Both is a duality...merely a continuation of the "tree of good and evil" theme. To have both is to keep eating of the true which combines opposites into a duality in competition with the Spirit.

[UrbanMonk]

Christ rules in each person, yes, but a plain reading says he also returns to rule the literal world.

Christ does not yet rule in the person who has not bowed down and surrendered. It means the end of the "person". Thus, there is no more "Jesus", no more "John", no more "UrbanMonk". It's a sweet surrender. It exchanges non-existence for existence...death for life...flesh for Spirit. Those who surrender are in their "last days", meaning their days (in time) are numbered...meaning time is almost over for them and the eternal has already resumed.

[UrbanMonk]

...only if Jews neglect more important aspects of the Law.

There are no "important" aspects of a "law" that is not of God (our Father). Big difference. The laws of the world and the law of God have nothing in common. Christ is the law of God unto righteousness unto them that believe. There are not "works" involved except perhaps the work of changing one's mind from lies to truth. This is "repentance", and it is a learning process. The learning process goes by another name...baptism.

[barnasha]

Jesus said, "I have come to open the eyes of the blind". So it has very much to do with what we can see. Alledgedly, Stephen saw it as he was being stoned to death by comrades of P(s)aul. The Kingdom of God is both "within" and "at hand". One cannot see it while he is focused on the "physical" (flesh, matter, limitation, anti-christ). If you are focused on the physical as truth, you will interpret Truth incorrectly...and damn yourself to a "life" of "flesh". However, "flesh and bones will not inherit the Kingdom of God". The Kingdom of "Spirit" which is opposed to the flesh, just as flesh is opposed to the Spirit. Can't have both. Both is a duality...merely a continuation of the "tree of good and evil" theme. To have both is to keep eating of the true which combines opposites into a duality in competition with the Spirit.


Beautiful exposition.

An excerpt from related literature which may be helpful to some:


John 3:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
He came to Jesus at night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.'
The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Nicodemus answered and said to him, "How can this happen?"
Jesus answered and said to him, "You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this?

[NormATive]

It is quite interesting how this thread has come full circle. It begins with a challenge to the traditional interpretation of the gospel and ends with an alternative interpretation of such.

What both have in common is an emphasis on some special knowledge in order to please the gods.

Urban Monk, you have given us all some interesting things to ponder.

However, I remain only confident in one thing: G-d's will / my purpose is what comes before me each day when I arise. I take pleasure in drawing a few more breaths of gorgeous oxygen and behold all that my eyes take in - and see that it is good for the most part.

Whether by creation, imagination or accident, this world provides endless delight and endless challenge.

In addition to ruminating the meaning behind the scribblings of first century goat-herders, I believe we should salt the world with acts of mitzvah. For it is in THIS WORLD that we currently have any kind of grasp of reality, and any control over such - however non-existent one may think it to be.

There are plenty of souls whose reality is far from a pleasurable thing. Perhaps in seeking to make their lives better, we can chance a glimpse of whatever the glory of G-d might be.

NORM

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus acknowledges that he is a Jew.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Once again, you and your beloved NT are sending a double message. Here are some examples of dual, forked-tongued messages.

"My Kingdom is not of this world."
His Kingdom is of this world.

"Peace I give you."
I have not come to bring peace but a sword.

There is no Jew or Greek in Christ.
There are Jews in Christ. Jesus was a Jew.

The world is passing away.
The world is coming back.

Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Jesus will come back to rule flesh and blood.

I am the Truth (Christ).
Guilt is the truth.

Christ was crucified "before the foundation of the world".
Christ was crucified two thousand years ago.

As such, I interpret the "new testatment" to mean a new literary expression of duality...the voice of a fork-tongued snake, tempting readers to eat of a tree that combines opposites into one thing, speaking out of both sides of it's mouth. The NT as, such is like a farmer who went out and planted good seed (Jesus). Night came (confusion, darkness) and the evil one (a split mind, prodigal Son, hard hearts) came and sowed evil seed among the good. Combined together, the crops became so intertwined that it became hard to uproot the evil seedcrop without destroying the good. This is the present state of the "new testament". Now, unless we judge with Christ, we cannot tell the difference between wheat and tares. They all look the same to the unlearned, wanna-be farmers. To even begin, a "judgement" must be made of the "new testament"...what it represents. I have just made such a judgement. Those who judge it to be wholly wheat will eat the fruit of the evil one blindly, swallowing huge lies while at the same time choking on common sense. The NT is "bread" leavened with "the leaven of the Pharisees".

[UrbanMonk]

He physically returns in the clouds, just like he physically ascended up on one.

You have to turn his ascension and return into visions that don't physically happen in order to make your interpretation work, and nothing says they are just visions.

An aquaintance of mine described a vision he had of the sky opening up as if it were torn...like a hole torn in it. And in flowed something like "wind", which I take to be a metaphor for Spirit. The vision showed that what we consider to be "reality" is anything but. Our "world" is going to be rendered meaningless by Spirit...given time. And what appears in front of our face will be seen to have been an illusion set up to decieve our mind(s). Christ is too unlimited to be coming back the way you think. Christ comes back by removing what limits our vision of "him". The world cannot contain the Son of God, for it is too small, too weak, to untrue. It must be washed away for anyone to truly "see" the "glory" of God. Understand that all physicality is a limitation, whereas, Christ is unlimited. Your concept of Christ is limited.

[John Goddard]

However, "flesh and bones will not inherit the Kingdom of God".

Then you don't believe that the resurrected Christ inherited the Kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Your doctrine on this is too far out for me to even debate, like debating a Mormon or something. I don't even try.

There are no "important" aspects of a "law" that is not of God (our Father).

Like I said, you pick and choose from the NT. When you do that, there's no basis and you can just make stuff up as you go along. As I said, kind of pointless to debate.

Once again, you and your beloved NT are sending a double message. Here are some examples of dual, forked-tongued messages.

Only if you take them out of context like atheists do with their lists of biblical contradictions.

And what appears in front of our face will be seen to have been an illusion set up to decieve our mind(s).

Rather, we see the same things, but in the proper context. Don't try to tell me you are like Neo in the Matrix seeing code instead of physical entities. You are speculating since I don't believe you see everything in visions.

[UrbanMonk]

It is quite interesting how this thread has come full circle. It begins with a challenge to the traditional interpretation of the gospel and ends with an alternative interpretation of such.

The interpretation I am sharing will eventually replace the old interpretation. This is a long-term "plan" that will bring time to an end...even if it takes a million more years. Interpretation is primarily what it's all about...not only the interpretation of books, but the interpretation of what is in front of our face. Interpreted rightly, we are empowered to see through the illusion (fog, darkness) to the Truth that is there now...at hand ...within. This interpretation says that everything eyeballs can see is "within"...your own mind! And what eyeballs "see" is not really "there...hence, "blind".

What both have in common is an emphasis on some special knowledge in order to please the gods.

Pleasing the gods has not crossed my mind as the intent of thinking the way I think. If that were true, more minds would believe me and fewer minds would believe P(s)aul...a real crowd pleaser. Pleasing a god and Being God are vastly disconnected approaches to salvation.

Urban Monk, you have given us all some interesting things to ponder.

Thanks, I try.

However, I remain only confident in one thing: G-d's will / my purpose is what comes before me each day when I arise.

Again, its about knowing what's in front of your face. The Spirit of salvation asks us to "forgive" what comes in front of our face...to interpret it correctly...to see it rightly (honestly)...to overlook it...to see beyond it.

I take pleasure in drawing a few more breaths of gorgeous oxygen and behold all that my eyes take in - and see that it is good for the most part.

Seen this way, you may not be willing to look beyond what you cherish. Seen another way, what eyeballs can are the musings of a mind gone mad, attempting to combine opposites together into one....world. This is a world, for example, where some breath fresh air...and some breath polluted air.

Whether by creation, imagination or accident, this world provides endless delight and endless challenge.

Delight and despair...together. Endlessness and constant change...together. What if "endless delight" changes? What is a challenge but a problem combined with delight into one thing? A delightful problem! The world is a joke...an oxymoron inside an enigman wrapped inside a riddle.

In addition to ruminating the meaning behind the scribblings of first century goat-herders,

Very funny...

I believe we should salt the world with acts of mitzvah.

Actions flow from beliefs. Our beliefs will either save us or damn us. We will believe in Christ or believe in people. Believing in Christ is the most loving "act" we can "do" for "people", just as Jesus' belief in Christ healed the sick and raised his friends and neigbors from the dead. To believe in Christ is to disbelieve in our own alledged personhood. To the extent we truly believe, what we thought we were dies, and Christ lives instead. This is the "greatest love of all". Then, the "hands of Christ" may bless any and all they touch.

For it is in THIS WORLD that we currently have any kind of grasp of reality, and any control over such - however non-existent one may think it to be.

Someone once said, "God is all reality, but not all reality is God". The "reality" that eyeballs see is made of the power of God...but it is not God...and "Our Father" is not a part of it...not it's author...because it is not his will. It is a wish "we" cherich in our own mind(s). Our wish draws power from Christ like a vampire draws blood from a defensless victim. Because it is the wish to express all that is ungodly, it is "out of control" and seems to "happen" to us. It is a wish to control reality...and make of it what we...well...what we wish! However existent we may think it to be...it offers us not a shred of reality to grasp onto. No sooner we grasp onto anything it offers, what was given is taken away, slipping right through our fingers.

There are plenty of souls whose reality is far from a pleasurable thing. Perhaps in seeking to make their lives better, we can chance a glimpse of whatever the glory of G-d might be.

If we would be willing to glimpse the glory of God first, we may be able to help them. The glory of God can be seen instead of "people"...whereever a "person" is standing. But to see the glory of God, we must completely overlook what seems to be standing there (in the flesh). Beyond what is standing there is...drum roll please...Christ! In all his glory. And when we "see" Christ this way, we will be offering salvation to our "brother", and he in turn will offer it to us. This is "forgiveness" given and recieved. It's about releasing what our earthly sight (eyeballs) would bind to some kind of limitation ( a body, a sickness, aging, death). It's about releasing the "inner light", hidden by our "wish" that Reality be what it is not.

[UrbanMonk]

Then you don't believe that the resurrected Christ inherited the Kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Your doctrine on this is too far out for me to even debate, like debating a Mormon or something. I don't even try.

Excuse me but the "risen Christ" is not flesh and bones, but Spirit. Flesh and bones symbolizes a "fall" from magnitude to littlness...from unlimited to limited...from one to many...from Sprit to flesh. This is what the Son of God descends to. Conversely, the Son of God ascends back to where he came from...to Spirit! Only what descended ascends because it is a return to glory. Flesh and blood is not of the glory God gave the Son...so it cannot go where the Son goes. The "risen Christ" and the "ascended Christ" are different ways of saying the same thing. No need to throw red herrings out as an excuse why you can't rise to the call of common sense and reason. I am being perfectly logical here.

Like I said, you pick and choose from the NT.

Yes. I also step carefully through minefields. Like I said, the NT is wheat and tares sown together, first by the "good farmer" and secondly by the "evil one" who comes in the dark (confusion). I think I have adequetly demonstrated that the NT is a forked-tongued expression of a mind in conflict with itself. If not, refer back to the short list of opposing positions it takes on the same issues. Christ teaches us to judge between sheep and goats, wheat and tares. I merely approach the NT as a historical document scribed by the victors in an ideological war. It is the heresy that became the orthodoxy. As such, it still retains grains of truth for those able to tell the difference. One must be careful however not to get caught in the brambles when reaching in for juicy ripe blackberries.

When you do that, there's no basis and you can just make stuff up as you go along. As I said, kind of pointless to debate.

Uh...the NT is a cherry picked embellishment...a novel made up as subsequent story-tellers edited the "good news" to sound better to the ears of a broader demographic. As such, they are the most popular retellings of parables none of them really understood, including the legendary teacher's own students! So what is the point! The point is to carefully reconstruct the authentic meaning of a legendary teacher whose exploits deserve a better interpretation. In other words, you do not get a free ride just because you subscribe to the opinionated musings of dead fishermen, as if their understanding were at the same level as one who walks out of a tomb after a Roman crucifixion. There is simply no comparison.


Only if you take them out of context like atheists do with their lists of biblical contradictions.

From it's very first sentence, the bible is contradictory (ie. "...god made the heavens and the earth"). "Heaven and earth", "good and evil". Contradictions. THAT is it's context. It's up to honest detectives to sort out the truth of the matter. The context of the bible is that of a forked-tongued snake which tempts us to eat from a "tree" of contradictions, attempting to combine opposites into one fruit as if it offered us more than "life" itself. Everyone who has ever believed in the bible is dead, including every Jewish prophet and every Jewish student/"apostle" of Jesus...who did not consider himself to be Jewish, but rather, equal to God as Christ, the Son of God....not a Jewish Messiah (King of the Jews).

Rather, we see the same things, but in the proper context. Don't try to tell me you are like Neo in the Matrix seeing code instead of physical entities. You are speculating since I don't believe you see everything in visions.

At this juncture, I am merely relying on common sense, something that anyone and everyone is capable of exercising...if they are honest. The story of the "prodigal Son" is one of coming back to one's senses and realizing that what one thought before about "our Father" was simply not true. And our reception back home will be nothing like we scare ourselves into believing in the meantime (ie. great white throne judgement).

[John Goddard]

Excuse me but the "risen Christ" is not flesh and bones, but Spirit. Flesh and bones symbolizes a "fall" from magnitude to littlness...from unlimited to limited...from one to many...from Sprit to flesh. This is what the Son of God descends to. Conversely, the Son of God ascends back to where he came from...to Spirit! Only what descended ascends because it is a return to glory. Flesh and blood is not of the glory God gave the Son...so it cannot go where the Son goes. The "risen Christ" and the "ascended Christ" are different ways of saying the same thing. No need to throw red herrings out as an excuse why you can't rise to the call of common sense and reason. I am being perfectly logical here.

He was resurrected flesh and bone:

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

A physical body could enter another dimension and state and be made glorious, maybe that's what you mean. As Adam was before he left the Garden. He still originated with a body of dirt.

Otherwise you would need to explain Luke 24:39, and also where his body disappeared to from the tomb.

[UrbanMonk]

He was resurrected flesh and bone:

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

He was resurrected as "Christ"....the Son of God...which is Spirit-Mind. The Son of God sleeps and dreams he is flesh and bones. When he awakes, he understands that he is Spirit and not flesh. An awakened mind is capable of a display of power. A display of power is not an endorsement of flesh and bones as "truth". Rather, Jesus used power to show the plasticity of the body...it's insignificant relative to the power of the mind that makes and maintains it.

Spirit does not have flesh and bones. Mind, however, can imagine what it wishes. Flesh and bones are mental manifestations. The term "physical" is misleading...as if the body is something outside of or other than mind. It is 100% mental. That is why salvation is psychological.

A physical body could enter another dimension and state and be made glorious, maybe that's what you mean. As Adam was before he left the Garden. He still originated with a body of dirt.

Nonsense. A "physical" body is a "fall" from glory due to "sin"...insanity on a grandiose scale. A body is a limitation. A limitation cannot ever be the glory of God.

Otherwise you would need to explain Luke 24:39, and also where his body disappeared to from the tomb.

Luke, a second or third generation purveyor of hearsay, comes from that school of thought that believes that because one can be touched, he must be flesh and bones. Far from. Those who appear and disappear at will - like Jesus did - do not display the attributes of flesh and bones....but rather, a mind that has mastered (overcome) limitations. Flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom of God...because it is a symbol of limitation...of a mind not free...of a mind confused...of a mind deluded by the only "benefit" a body could possibly offer: specialness. The Son of God is not special, being the same as all that is the "Kingdom of God".

[UrbanMonk]

Beautiful exposition.

An excerpt from related literature which may be helpful to some:


John 3:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
He came to Jesus at night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him."
Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.'
The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Nicodemus answered and said to him, "How can this happen?"
Jesus answered and said to him, "You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this?

Good point. The way I read this is that we can either think of ourselves as the "son of man" (born of flesh) or the Son of God (born of Spirit). The truth is that we were born of Spirit once already. That "inheritance" was obscured by the idea that we are born of flesh...which is a lie. We must make a choice of allegience. When we are willing to overcome the lie by giving allegience to our Spiritual Origin/Inheritance, then we will be "born again" ....of the Spirit. This only means anything if it is supplemented with the denial that we are born of flesh. Therefore, Jesus wisely counseled us to "call no man father".

[UrbanMonk]

I find it troubling that there are two very different characterizations of Jesus in the New Testament.

I had found it troubling as well. So I quit believing in biblical narratives telling us what/who Jesus was or what he said or what he meant. I defaulted to agnosticism for many years. I would always take notes whenever other sources said they knew this or that about Jesus. The messages, when compared, were conflicting. So the question becomes, why so much b.s. around the message/mission of Jesus? Reasonably we can deduce that propaganda serves to bury the truth. The "official" story about Jesus is like the "official" story about 911. There's no point in asking anyone who supports separation about Jesus, just as there's no point in asking Dick Cheney what happened on 911. There is a conflict of interest. The whole world is interested in separation, yeah, the mind that makes the world is throwing its power of deception behind the concept of limitation, differences...whatever makes us special. And this interest will always try to "kill" the interests of Jesus, which were to "gather together" what is "scattered"...into its original ONENESS.

I think the historical Jesus is quite different from the one created by his followers.
NORM

Agreed. His followers were not all agreed among themselves what was the meaning of what they had witnessed. Seeing and understanding are not always the same.

[John Goddard]

The Son of God sleeps and dreams he is flesh and bones.

Maybe your body is all illusion right now, like the Matrix, and the reality of the spirit is your real flesh and bones body when you wake up out of this false reality.

[UrbanMonk]

Maybe your body is all illusion right now, like the Matrix, and the reality of the spirit is your real flesh and bones body when you wake up out of this false reality.

Nice try. But Spirit is unlimited. Flesh and bones are part of a limit complex. There are no borders or walls to contain Spirit. Spirit makes no barriers, nor does Spirit break barriers. So, the barriers we set up in our mind remain as long as we would have them stand. Meaning, until we are ready to be unlimited, we cannot wake up.

[NormATive]

The interpretation I am sharing will eventually replace the old interpretation....

"Meet the new boss!
Same as the old boss!"


...you may not be willing to look beyond what you cherish. Seen another way, what eyeballs can are the musings of a mind gone mad, attempting to combine opposites together into one....world. This is a world, for example, where some breath fresh air...and some breath polluted air.

Delight and despair...together. Endlessness and constant change...together. What if "endless delight" changes? What is a challenge but a problem combined with delight into one thing? A delightful problem! The world is a joke...an oxymoron inside an enigman wrapped inside a riddle.

Actions flow from beliefs. Our beliefs will either save us or damn us. We will believe in Christ or believe in people. Believing in Christ is the most loving "act" we can "do" for "people", just as Jesus' belief in Christ healed the sick and raised his friends and neigbors from the dead. To believe in Christ is to disbelieve in our own alledged personhood. To the extent we truly believe, what we thought we were dies, and Christ lives instead. This is the "greatest love of all". Then, the "hands of Christ" may bless any and all they touch.

Someone once said, "God is all reality, but not all reality is God". The "reality" that eyeballs see is made of the power of God...but it is not God...and "Our Father" is not a part of it...not it's author...because it is not his will. It is a wish "we" cherich in our own mind(s). Our wish draws power from Christ like a vampire draws blood from a defensless victim. Because it is the wish to express all that is ungodly, it is "out of control" and seems to "happen" to us. It is a wish to control reality...and make of it what we...well...what we wish! However existent we may think it to be...it offers us not a shred of reality to grasp onto. No sooner we grasp onto anything it offers, what was given is taken away, slipping right through our fingers.

If we would be willing to glimpse the glory of God first, we may be able to help them. The glory of God can be seen instead of "people"...whereever a "person" is standing. But to see the glory of God, we must completely overlook what seems to be standing there (in the flesh). Beyond what is standing there is...drum roll please...Christ! In all his glory. And when we "see" Christ this way, we will be offering salvation to our "brother", and he in turn will offer it to us. This is "forgiveness" given and recieved. It's about releasing what our earthly sight (eyeballs) would bind to some kind of limitation ( a body, a sickness, aging, death). It's about releasing the "inner light", hidden by our "wish" that Reality be what it is not.

You may be right, and this all may be a cruel joke played on us (by whom?) and what we perceive as reality is only an elaborate machination designed to "trick" the foolish and "unseeing" among us into perdition.

First, if such a god exists and this is it's "plan," then neither you nor I can trust it to do what it says. What if the illusion of the illusion is an illusion? If what you say is true, then there is nothing to rule out this possibility.

Upon what do you base your "belief?" The Bible? -Heh!- Your experience? -touche'- A revelation? - talk to the Mormons.

Whether it is illusory or not, I believe what I can see and experience. I take delight in what I can and try to fix what I perceive as messed up.

This is the simple "religion" I have come to accept. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don' t believe in miracles, eternal punishment, golden tickets and complicated sub-plots. I believe in the here and now. I believe in mitzvah, for it is humans helping humans.

NORM

[barnasha]

"Meet the new boss!
Same as the old boss!"




You may be right, and this all may be a cruel joke played on us (by whom?) and what we perceive as reality is only an elaborate machination designed to "trick" the foolish and "unseeing" among us into perdition.

First, if such a god exists and this is it's "plan," then neither you nor I can trust it to do what it says. What if the illusion of the illusion is an illusion? If what you say is true, then there is nothing to rule out this possibility.

Upon what do you base your "belief?" The Bible? -Heh!- Your experience? -touche'- A revelation? - talk to the Mormons.

Whether it is illusory or not, I believe what I can see and experience. I take delight in what I can and try to fix what I perceive as messed up.

This is the simple "religion" I have come to accept. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don' t believe in miracles, eternal punishment, golden tickets and complicated sub-plots. I believe in the here and now. I believe in mitzvah, for it is humans helping humans.

NORM

sounds like a very correct interpretation of teachings of Moses and Jesus to me

[UrbanMonk]

(by whom?)


By self. We're in on it.

[UrbanMonk]

That is why I have had to learn to forgive myself for the sins I have committed even after I have sought God’s forgiveness. I quickly forgive others who have hurt me, even when they have done so quite intentionally; and I will forgive them without having even asked my forgiveness. But if I screw up, I am really hard on myself. I have discovered that this can become a stumbling as well…..such a balancing all of the time….All of this learning, however, does help us to become more Christ-like; our hearts are softened, and our love for others becomes more pure. We can become perfected through Christ.

Do you even understand what forgiveness is? God (Our Father) does not forgive because he has never condemned. Forgivness is for those who have invested in the concept of condemnation...who have condemned Christ and themSelves along with. Forgiveness is for remembering who we are...overlooking what we've made ourselves out to be...namely, sinners.



This is very interesting. We do believe we have the potential to become gods.

I don't speak in terms of potential. Either we are or we are in denial. As "sinners", we are in denial. To "accept Christ" is to accept who are are, as opposed to denying who we are.


However, what it takes to get there is paramount on our belief and faith in Christ.

Do you even know what faith in Christ means? It means you believe that Christ is the only truth. And if you are not Christ, you are an enemy of the truth. To believe in Christ, therefore, is to disbelieve in the self you made by disbelieving in Christ as your Self.


Your version seems to deny Christ’s accomplishment and His supreme sacrifice, and even His God-ship.

Jesus is really Christ. Christ is not really Jesus. For Christ is an unlimited Spirit, and Jesus was a "son of man", limited, as are all men. For the limited to embrace the unlimited as Self, the limited aspect must "die". Thus, Jesus "died" long before he went to the cross. This is the "death" which can be said to be the greatest act of love for the lost. However, such a death is not a sacrifice at all. Jesus was all about mercy, NOT SACRIFICE. To have mercy means to end sacrifice. To end sacrifice means to end the experience of limitation and to embrace the experience of unlimited glory as it was given before ever there was such a thing called "the world". It is this "glory" which is sacrificed to become a "son of man". This is cruelty to self...self-crucifixion...symbolized by the cross. The end of sacrifice is the resurrection. The resurrection happens when the limited "dies" to it's limited experience. Manhood is a limited experience...so the "man" must "die". Actually, the death of "man" is the choice to truly LIVE as Christ.

He created the world we live in, and is our Redeemer.

No. The "prodigal Son" made the world we think we live in, and the "Redeemer" retranslates it that the Son of God may be saved. The Redeemer is the Holy Spirit. The beneficiary is the Son of God. Flesh and bones has no part in salvation, being a mental (insane) manifestation of the prodigal Son.

We cannot redeem ourselves.

The selves we made are too ignorant to retranslate the world, so yes, the Redeemer must by relied on to "judge" for us what's what...and tell us who we really are!

Following His example while giving yourself credit for learning what it is He wanted to teach you as though you could have come up with the ability to learn to those things if He had NOT shown you the way is flawed IMO. (Did I understand you correctly?)

Jesus was the FIRST to be redeemed by the Redeemer. The orthodoxy does NOT follow his example. Someone had to be the first. It happened to be Jesus. He "accepted Christ"; accepted what the Redeemer offered him...his own Identity back. Christ was Jesus true Identity...NOT JESUS the "son of man". If Jesus had not accomplished this shift back to his true Identity, the rest of us might still be struggling in the dark more than we already are...for a longer period of time. Look! Even though he accepted Christ as his Self, few have deemed to follow his example!!! See then that his accomplishment was miraculous.

Of course, the most important thing is to remember it is Christ who made the sacrifice for you.

No. Christ does not sacrifice anything. "I" sacrificed Christ that "I" might "live" instead of Christ. Now, the "I" must "die" that Christ may "live" in me - as me - instead of what I made (a lie).

He is your Lord and Redeemer.

"I" do not truly exist. Only Christ exists. So how can he be "my" Lord? I am the Lord, or I am not anything at all. Shall I "obey" mySelf? My will is the same as Christ in truth. Obedience is a moot point...a non-issue. If you get into the obedience game, you are denying Christ's kind of Lordship. Christ is the Lord of Lords, meaning, THERE ARE NO SUBJECTS IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. What has denied it is lord - the son of man - must bow down to what accepts it's Lordship.

He will always be through-out eternity. I believe you have crossed a line never meant to be crossed.

I have crossed the line we are all destined to cross.

I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it looks like what you are describing is actually a partial truth. Humility helps us to remain teachable.

Humility is to accept ourselves as Our Father created us. Our Father created us the Son of God, like him in every way...equal...without a difference. Arrogance is to deny it and make another self...another will beside the Will we share with Our Father. If you cannot even begin to accept that you may be the Son of God, you are not yet teachable by the "Good Shepherd".


Humility is not a weakness. The times I have had the most powerful witnesses and experiences with the Holy Spirit are the times I have felt most humble as a result of those experiences.

The Holy Spirit teaches us about equality...as an equal. What has denied it is equal to Our Father must bow down and surrender to the truth of equality. Only the arrogant would hold on to inequality at the expense of the truth.

IOW, I was in awe of the understandings made known to me.

There are two teachers in this world: the unholy spirit and the Holy Spirit. Beware who and what you are listening to. If you are being taught about heirarchy, you are listening to the unholy spirit.

It seems you have taken “humility-is-not-a-weakness” and have applied this to a false concept you have identified as ”acceptance of lordship”. Then to strengthen this application, you make the denial of “acceptance of lordship” a manifestation of arrogance.

Yes. To accept lordship is to be humble because that is how Our Father created us...equal to himself...a lord among lords. Nothing can happen to us without our consent. Therefore, salvation cannot happen to us without our consent...that we are indeed lords. This is a truth whether we believe it or not. We can either accept it or reject it. To reject it is arrogance because it is not possible that we cannot be lords...or anything but as we were created before ever there was such a thing called "the world". "The world", therefore, is an expression of arrogance. It is an impossibility in competition with what Our Father created, namely, the Son of God...his ONLY creation.

We need to keep an open mind even when contending with our personal intelligence. This is frightening territory because Satan can easily take our strengths (in this case intelligence) and use them against us. It is so subtle, yet so appealing.

"The world" and "Satan" and "anti-christ" are synonymous. If you do not understand this, you have greatly underestimated the power of the mind of the Son of God and by inference, the power of the mind of the "prodigal Son". Christ is everything. And in this world, everything is backwards and upside down...hence, "anti-christ". Let us beware, then, what seems to confuse Christ himself. The prodigal Son is extremely intelligent, but very confused by his own beliefs about himself and the "father" he made to replace "Our Father".

This is also very interesting. It seems there are aspects about the truth you have grasped which have been lost in Orthodoxy. However, the way you have dealt with the truth and applied it to your version of how the plan of salvation works is very different.

I have indeed resurrected themes out of orthodoxy that had lost their meaning, such as the "original sin" and why children are "born in sin". Yes, how I treat these themes is very different from how the orthodoxy has evolved them...because the orthodoxy is built on false premises. I am building on a rock solid foundation...upon truthful premises. Namely, "the world" is the crucified Son of God. The crucified Son of God is the "prodigal Son" having crucified himself by leaving the Truth behind...leaving behind his Self.

I do not see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus ever has illusions about Himself.

Once he accepted himself as the Son of God, he had no more illusions about himself as the "son of man".


He always gave the Father all glory and all power.

The paradox is that as he gave credit where credit is due, he was given his own due and his own power back...as the Son of God.

In asking us to follow Him it was in humility.

Yeah, and if we are humble, we would "confess" that our name is also his name, namely, "Christ".

The only time He ever exhibited any anger was when defending the Truth (in confronting the Pharisees) and when He dealt with the money-changers, et al, in His Father’s Temple.

First, it wasn't his Father's temple. And he didn't drive out the money-changers. He drove out a false belief system from his own mind, which is his AND his Father's true temple. I repeat, temple is a metaphor for MIND. The MIND of the Son of God (the prodigal Son) is destroyed by the exchange of the concept of guilt. When guilt is purged from one's mind, there can be no more pain and suffering.

He never needed saving. He never sinned.

This is what he accepted when he accepted the truth...and himSelf as THE TRUTH. What seems to sin - the son of man - is a lie. So, yes, the Truth does not need saving. The Truth has never sinned.

That is HOW He was the perfect sacrifice…..the unblemished lamb brought to slaughter.

You've got this utterly backwards. What is perfect - Christ the Truth - was sacrificed by the "prodigal Son" when he left "home" in favor of a foreign land ( a land of beleifs instead of knowledge). This "sacrifice", if it happened at all, happened before the foundation of the world...so that the world could "live" instead of the Truth. In other words, "the world" is a lie.

There is only one Savior. That said, however, I still appreciate the insight you are providing on what it is that you believe.

There is only one Savior, yes. And there is only ONE SAVED...namely, the Son of God.

This leads me to ask you another question. Do you believe Satan is real?

No. Neither do I believe the world or the anti-christ is real. However, we have made them real enough, and so we are dealing with them in the process of salvation...in the process of saving our mind (our temple) from what we have invited to occupy and possess it.

[jo7241974]

UrbanMonk;2749556]Do you even understand what forgiveness is? God (Our Father) does not forgive because he has never condemned. Forgivness is for those who have invested in the concept of condemnation...who have condemned Christ and themSelves along with. Forgiveness is for remembering who we are...overlooking what we've made ourselves out to be...namely, sinners.

How closely you walk the line between God's Truth and what the world thinks is truth. I think you have found folly here. The Father has given, and the Father can take away. You have gone to a place in your mind which has heightened your senses of what you perceive is. I know we are here for a reason where we learn to control our physical bodies and whatever priniciples this can teach which we cannot learn any other way. We are tested in accordance with our weaknesses and our strengths. You have gone from one extreme of how orthodoxy practices what they believe to be correct Christianity, to the entire opposite. His truths lie in between.

I don't speak in terms of potential. Either we are or we are in denial. As "sinners", we are in denial. To "accept Christ" is to accept who are are, as opposed to denying who we are.

Original sin is utterly ridiculous - a tool which the ancient leaders of the church used to trap mankind into their web of half truths and apostasy. That said, I know when I have done something wrong. But it was my choice to make a bad decision. In your current existence, are you capable of sin? Is there a price to pay? Is the price payable now? Who do you pay? Depending on what you have done, there can be payment to the governing officials of where you live, in addition to what you do as an individual either mentally or physically. What do your actions have to do with your eternity?

Do you even know what faith in Christ means? It means you believe that Christ is the only truth. And if you are not Christ, you are an enemy of the truth. To believe in Christ, therefore, is to disbelieve in the self you made by disbelieving in Christ as your Self.

You play word games in a frightening way, UM. Are you actually saying what you mean to portray? Or are you substituting definitions?

Jesus is really Christ. Christ is not really Jesus. For Christ is an unlimited Spirit, and Jesus was a "son of man", limited, as are all men. For the limited to embrace the unlimited as Self, the limited aspect must "die". Thus, Jesus "died" long before he went to the cross. This is the "death" which can be said to be the greatest act of love for the lost. However, such a death is not a sacrifice at all. Jesus was all about mercy, NOT SACRIFICE. To have mercy means to end sacrifice. To end sacrifice means to end the experience of limitation and to embrace the experience of unlimited glory as it was given before ever there was such a thing called "the world". It is this "glory" which is sacrificed to become a "son of man". This is cruelty to self...self-crucifixion...symbolized by the cross. The end of sacrifice is the resurrection. The resurrection happens when the limited "dies" to it's limited experience. Manhood is a limited experience...so the "man" must "die". Actually, the death of "man" is the choice to truly LIVE as Christ.

No. Jesus IS the Christ. He know dwells in His glorified, resurrected body. He lived as a Spirit before He gained His physical body. Now His Spirit lives in the temple of His glorified body - yet He still has all ability with His Spirit as well. The sacrifice He made was to accept the pain of every single person to be born. The pains were sources of physical and mental illness, as well as the suffering of the consequences of sin. He is unlike any other. For you to claim to also be Christ is wrong. When have you taken on the pains of the world? You can be Christ-like; you cannot be Christ.

No. The "prodigal Son" made the world we think we live in, and the "Redeemer" retranslates it that the Son of God may be saved. The Redeemer is the Holy Spirit. The beneficiary is the Son of God. Flesh and bones has no part in salvation, being a mental (insane) manifestation of the prodigal Son.

Satan is real. Christ is our Redeemer. The Holy Spirit witnesses Truth to us. If you are cut, you bleed - that is not a mental manifestation.

The selves we made are too ignorant to retranslate the world, so yes, the Redeemer must by relied on to "judge" for us what's what...and tell us who we really are!

We can know so much more while we are in this estate. But orthodoxy prefers to deny this. There is more, however, to being "judged" than telling us who we really are.

Jesus was the FIRST to be redeemed by the Redeemer. The orthodoxy does NOT follow his example. Someone had to be the first. It happened to be Jesus. He "accepted Christ"; accepted what the Redeemer offered him...his own Identity back. Christ was Jesus true Identity...NOT JESUS the "son of man". If Jesus had not accomplished this shift back to his true Identity, the rest of us might still be struggling in the dark more than we already are...for a longer period of time. Look! Even though he accepted Christ as his Self, few have deemed to follow his example!!! See then that his accomplishment was miraculous.

Jesus IS the Christ.

No. Christ does not sacrifice anything. "I" sacrificed Christ that "I" might "live" instead of Christ. Now, the "I" must "die" that Christ may "live" in me - as me - instead of what I made (a lie).

I find it unimaginable to not see Christ's sacrifice. I do believe we need to allow Christ in us. We can only be perfected if we do let Him in - but He does not replace us. I am still me. You are still you.

"I" do not truly exist. Only Christ exists. So how can he be "my" Lord? I am the Lord, or I am not anything at all. Shall I "obey" mySelf? My will is the same as Christ in truth. Obedience is a moot point...a non-issue. If you get into the obedience game, you are denying Christ's kind of Lordship. Christ is the Lord of Lords, meaning, THERE ARE NO SUBJECTS IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. What has denied it is lord - the son of man - must bow down to what accepts it's Lordship.

I have crossed the line we are all destined to cross.

This looks like philosophical, intellilectual brainwashing which has been taken way too far, while being disguised as some type of god-truth. Arrogance.

Humility is to accept ourselves as Our Father created us. Our Father created us the Son of God, like him in every way...equal...without a difference. Arrogance is to deny it and make another self...another will beside the Will we share with Our Father. If you cannot even begin to accept that you may be the Son of God, you are not yet teachable by the "Good Shepherd".

I think there is much truth there. We have our own will - however, we can choose to do the will of our Father and be one with Him. We are still each separate beings. Orthodoxy denies what the Bible has taught us. I think orthodoxy is "teachable" only to a point because they do NOT believe we are literally His sons and daughters. Once we can accept who we are, we will see everything differently. I can say this confidently because that is what has happened to me.

The Holy Spirit teaches us about equality...as an equal. What has denied it is equal to Our Father must bow down and surrender to the truth of equality. Only the arrogant would hold on to inequality at the expense of the truth.

I don't think I would call it equality. I still think it is Spirit to spirit......the part of us that has always existed being touched and taught again about that which is familiar - and which will eventually help us to return to the Father's presence. When the Spirit witnesses to us, the joy and humility and wisdom it brings....who can explain it? We will not know everything in this estate - emulating Christ and seeking guidance, however, is a grand journey. No matter how difficult our lives, or the pains we endure, those moments of being uplifted.....and to realize that is what is possible for eternity...wow!

There are two teachers in this world: the unholy spirit and the Holy Spirit. Beware who and what you are listening to. If you are being taught about heirarchy, you are listening to the unholy spirit.

I would warn you about who you would listen to, as well.

I'm going to stop here for now. Not only is this post getting really long, it's also 3:30 in the morning. I will respond more later.

Thank you Urban Monk.

jo

[barnasha]

“This looks like philosophical, intellilectual brainwashing which has been taken way too far, while being disguised as some type of god-truth. Arrogance.”

they probably said the same thing about Jesus... but sometimes very 'unorthodox' sounding statements can have a truth underneath them which may not be readily apparent in the interpretation of some.

[UrbanMonk]

“This looks like philosophical, intellilectual brainwashing which has been taken way too far, while being disguised as some type of god-truth. Arrogance.”

they probably said the same thing about Jesus... but sometimes very 'unorthodox' sounding statements can have a truth underneath them which may not be readily apparent in the interpretation of some.

Indeed. A lie needs the truth as a cloacking device. The "devil" will float the truth in order to carry a lie. The devil can quote scripture, apparently. What they don't tell us is that the devil can scribe scripture just as well as it can quote it.

[UrbanMonk]

Satan is real. Christ is our Redeemer. The Holy Spirit witnesses Truth to us.

The truth is that the devil (ego, Satan, opposition to God) is not real...because the will of God cannot be opposed except in our mental imaginations.


If you are cut, you bleed - that is not a mental manifestation.
jo

Yes it is. It opposes the truth, and seeks to "prove" that the Son of God (the Truth) can be harmed. This is not the will of God and so it cannot be anything but our own mental manifestation of mad metaphor. Does it seem real? That is merely a testament to the power Our Father gave us...forever. We never lose our power. We simply use it for or against ourselves.

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus IS the Christ.
jo


Yes he is. But Christ is not really Jesus. Jesus "died" that Christ may "live" instead. Jesus and Christ cannot coexist. It is a converse relationship. And what is true about Jesus is true about all of "us". We must "die" if we would "save" our "life". Our life is Christ. We ARE Christ...or we are NOT. As men, we deny we are Christ and "die" as "lies". As Christ we live as LIFE lives.

Let me restate this metaphor. Is Captain Kirk William Shatner, or, is William Shatner Captain Kirk? You can choose one, but not both.

[UrbanMonk]

You play word games in a frightening way, UM. Are you actually saying what you mean to portray? Or are you substituting definitions?

jo

First, the world is a frightening word game which redefines Christ [words are not of God]. As a messenger of Christ, I redefine how the world has defined - deemed - Christ. This is called "redemption"..."translation"..."interpretation"..."reformation"..."transformation". Get it? To deem and define are the same thing. Deem and esteem are synonymous. The world is all about low Self esteem. To "redeem" is to re-esteem WHO WE REALLY ARE. To re-deem is to re-define ourselves ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH. We are really Christ. If you don't believe it, it's because you have low Self esteem and are in need of redemption. There is only ONE TRUTH. IT IS UNIVERSAL. Besides this Truth, there is NOTHING ELSE.

[UrbanMonk]

This looks like philosophical, intellilectual brainwashing which has been taken way too far, while being disguised as some type of god-truth. Arrogance.

Once again, arrogance is to deny who we really are...the way Our Father created us. He created us LIKE FROM LIKE...TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD. This describes an equality. But equality is not enough for the arrogant. The arrogant uses the power of God to "make all things"...meaning, to make a heirarchy of limited beings. THIS IS ARROGANCE!

We are still each separate beings.

Salvation is all about changing your mind about this. Damnation is all about declaring this to be the truth...and defending your truth despite all the problems you encounter to maintain it.

Orthodoxy denies what the Bible has taught us.

Not really. The bible is a product of the orthodoxy. It is a self-contradictory collection of documents, sayings, notions, theories and ideas taken out of context and turned around backwards and upside down.

The "orthodoxy" is an ever present plague to those who wish to escape hell and go back home to heaven. The orthodoxy will tell us that hell (the world) is our home...where we were born...where we come from. The orthodoxy will never tell us that our home is not of this world, nor how to return to our home. It stands at the door leading out of hell to block the way for those who would leave...blocking the door in the name of God.

I think orthodoxy is "teachable" only to a point because they do NOT believe we are literally His sons and daughters.

We are not "sons and daughters". We are a non-gender oriented ONENESS called "CHRIST"...the one and only creation of our Creator.


Once we can accept who we are, we will see everything differently. I can say this confidently because that is what has happened to me.

Our perception of who we are is always changing...shifting as we collect new information. Radical shifts are not necessarily indicative of who we are. Death is a radical shift, and whatever we emerge as on the other side is still not who we are...until we are set entirely free by the truth.

I don't think I would call it equality. I still think it is Spirit to spirit......the part of us that has always existed being touched and taught again about that which is familiar - and which will eventually help us to return to the Father's presence.

The Holy Spirit teaches equals as an equal that they may re-learn equality...instead of the iniquity (inequality, heirarchy) they have taught themselves through an unholy spirit.

When the Spirit witnesses to us, the joy and humility and wisdom it brings....who can explain it? We will not know everything in this estate - emulating Christ and seeking guidance, however, is a grand journey. No matter how difficult our lives, or the pains we endure, those moments of being uplifted.....and to realize that is what is possible for eternity...wow!

The unholy spirit is shrewd. So beware. It manifests all of what we call mass or matter. So don't underestimate it's scope, and what it can "gift" to the minds of men as a defense. Yes, its gifts are a defense system.

No matter, we are all promised that we will be led HOME by the Holy Spirit which was "sent" to save us from illusions unleashed by rash judgements about what is true.

I would warn you about who you would listen to, as well.

The difference perhaps is that I am intending to be constantly aware of the scope of the unholy spirit and its influence on my thought and speech life. Many teachers are teaching pure unholy spirit oriented doctrines...in the name of the Holy Spirit. But what else is new? The world is all about usurping the place of God...a kind of identity theft if you will.

Thanks for listening.

Urban Monk

[headheart]

Thanks for listening.

Urban Monk

:lmbo:

You said...

No. Christ does not sacrifice anything. "I" sacrificed Christ that "I" might "live" instead of Christ. Now, the "I" must "die" that Christ may "live" in me - as me - instead of what I made (a lie).

So where did you go to ?

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

:lmbo:



So where did you go to ?

Sincerely,
HH

Where does anyone go when they go to sleep?

[headheart]

Where does anyone go when they go to sleep?

68071

The Cuillin Mountains ?








Do Psychic Vampires ever sleep ? :flaming:

[UrbanMonk]

The Cuillin Mountains ?

Dreamers go nowhere.


Do Psychic Vampires ever sleep ? :flaming:

"No rest for the wicked".

[jo7241974]

Once again, arrogance is to deny who we really are...the way Our Father created us. He created us LIKE FROM LIKE...TRUE GOD FROM TRUE GOD. This describes an equality. But equality is not enough for the arrogant. The arrogant uses the power of God to "make all things"...meaning, to make a heirarchy of limited beings. THIS IS ARROGANCE!

Salvation is all about changing your mind about this. Damnation is all about declaring this to be the truth...and defending your truth despite all the problems you encounter to maintain it.

Not really. The bible is a product of the orthodoxy. It is a self-contradictory collection of documents, sayings, notions, theories and ideas taken out of context and turned around backwards and upside down.

The "orthodoxy" is an ever present plague to those who wish to escape hell and go back home to heaven. The orthodoxy will tell us that hell (the world) is our home...where we were born...where we come from. The orthodoxy will never tell us that our home is not of this world, nor how to return to our home. It stands at the door leading out of hell to block the way for those who would leave...blocking the door in the name of God.

We are not "sons and daughters". We are a non-gender oriented ONENESS called "CHRIST"...the one and only creation of our Creator.

Our perception of who we are is always changing...shifting as we collect new information. Radical shifts are not necessarily indicative of who we are. Death is a radical shift, and whatever we emerge as on the other side is still not who we are...until we are set entirely free by the truth.

The Holy Spirit teaches equals as an equal that they may re-learn equality...instead of the iniquity (inequality, heirarchy) they have taught themselves through an unholy spirit.

The unholy spirit is shrewd. So beware. It manifests all of what we call mass or matter. So don't underestimate it's scope, and what it can "gift" to the minds of men as a defense. Yes, its gifts are a defense system.

No matter, we are all promised that we will be led HOME by the Holy Spirit which was "sent" to save us from illusions unleashed by rash judgements about what is true.

The difference perhaps is that I am intending to be constantly aware of the scope of the unholy spirit and its influence on my thought and speech life. Many teachers are teaching pure unholy spirit oriented doctrines...in the name of the Holy Spirit. But what else is new? The world is all about usurping the place of God...a kind of identity theft if you will.

Thanks for listening.

Urban Monk

Somewhere along the line, somebody really sold you a bill of goods which have nothing to do with who Jesus the Christ is. You have been led astray in your own consciousness - a very dangerous place to be when you discard the Truth and rely instead on the tricks of the adversary. Please come back.

God bless,

jo

[UrbanMonk]

Somewhere along the line, somebody really sold you a bill of goods which have nothing to do with who Jesus the Christ is. You have been led astray in your own consciousness - a very dangerous place to be when you discard the Truth and rely instead on the tricks of the adversary.

This is the story of the prodigal Son...the story of how "the world" begins.


Please come back.

This is what salvation is all about. Going back home from where we came.

GodspeeD

[headheart]

Dreamers go nowhere.


68129

I once flew to the moon with a witch, and even met one on a spiral staircase that wanted to have all my crazy writings.

"No rest for the wicked".

68130

:lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo::lmbo:

[headheart]

Going back home from where we came.


68131

Phi-Phi-Lee ?

[headheart]

68132



This is the story of the prodigal Son...the story of how "the world" begins.




"Once upon a time ..."

[Bosco]

Well?

Unless he didn't believe that he was the Messiah, which we know he did as seen in many places, then he had to believe because he was.

Irrelevant question anyway seeing as Messiah he doesn't need a Messiah! He doesn't need the door to the Kingdom, he is the door to the Kingdom.

Peace.
Ken

[headheart]

68134



What they don't tell us is that the devil can scribe scripture just as well as it can quote it.



Genesis 3:1-4 - The Devil is a Liar ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgf2kFyScsw) < Seawind Video.



Had enough of his lies ?

HH

[UrbanMonk]

I once flew to the moon with a witch, and even met one on a spiral staircase that wanted to have all my crazy writings.


Witches are great story tellers. They cast spells with words...for a living. They are always looking for new material. Your orthodox yarns are spells worthy of attention. Have you considered sending some sample of orthodox doctrine to J.K. Rowling?

Brother, "the world" is a fiction made to seem real in the mind of the prodigal Son. It's a story...not a reality. None of it matters except that we pull our heads out of it.

[UrbanMonk]

Unless he didn't believe that he was the Messiah, which we know he did as seen in many places, then he had to believe because he was.

Irrelevant question anyway seeing as Messiah he doesn't need a Messiah! He doesn't need the door to the Kingdom, he is the door to the Kingdom.

Peace.
Ken

Ken,

Care to be a bit more coherent?

At what point did Jesus accept the fact that he was Christ? Therefore, at what point did he realize that he did not need a "savior", because he was "the savior"? Did Jesus believe first, and "know" later? Or, did he just "know" it since he was three years old? Which comes first, faith or knowing? Was Jesus told he was Christ? By whom? What makes his process different from our? And if you were told you were Christ, would you believe it? Would you accept it...like Jesus accepted it?

[UrbanMonk]

68131

Phi-Phi-Lee ?

What comes from "Paradise" goes back to Paradise. It's just not an earlthly/worldly concept of paradise. Only what comes from Paradise goes back to Paradise. You can't bring your flip-flops with you.

[Bosco]

Ken,

Care to be a bit more coherent?

Care to be a bit kinder toward other brethren? We are to be peacemakers, not dividers!

At what point did Jesus accept the fact that he was Christ? Therefore, at what point did he realize that he did not need a "savior", because he was "the savior"? Did Jesus believe first, and "know" later? Or, did he just "know" it since he was three years old? Which comes first, faith or knowing? Was Jesus told he was Christ? By whom? What makes his process different from our? And if you were told you were Christ, would you believe it? Would you accept it...like Jesus accepted it?

Yehoshua is God, therefore, he knew in the beginning who and what he would become to undo the curse of sin... death. There are many Brit Chadasha and Tanach references to him being from everlasting.

Peace.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

Care to be a bit kinder toward other brethren? We are to be peacemakers, not dividers!

Noted. Kindness is helpful. However, the doctrine you propose divides, as evidenced by its fruit of centuries. Maybe its because it denies that we are the ONE Son of God. What else is left after that but division, differences...and each to his own truth? And this perpetuates the experience of death. Is death better if it is given with kindness?



Yehoshua is God, therefore, he knew in the beginning who and what he would become to undo the curse of sin... death. There are many Brit Chadasha and Tanach references to him being from everlasting.



At what point did Jesus believe, accept, or know who he was? And was his true identity different from anything he believed himself to be before, ie. a carpenter's son?

[Bosco]

Noted. Kindness is helpful. However, the doctrine you propose divides, as evidenced by its fruit of centuries. Maybe its because it denies that we are the ONE Son of God. What else is left after that but division, differences...and each to his own truth? And this perpetuates the experience of death. Is death better if it is given with kindness?

We are the "one" son of god? Book, chapter, and verse please? I see where we are called the sons and daughters of God, but never the "one son of god."

At what point did Jesus believe, accept, or know who he was? And was his true identity different from anything he believed himself to be before, ie. a carpenter's son?

If you believe Yehoshua was just a man, then I would say when the Spirit descended on him after his baptism. I however, believe Yehoshua and YHWH are one and the same. Therefore, He knew in the beginning what He would do to redeem His people.

Peace.
Ken

[Bosco]

Also UM, it isn't about kindness. "Blessed are the peacemakers" Messiah said. I do not believe he was speaking about diplomats and politicians but directly to HIS PEOPLE. I believe Yehoshua is the Son of God sent to save his people. I believe he lived sinlessly, died, and was raised in three days as he stated and now sits on the right hand (power/authority) of God. According to scripture, I am the opposite of an anti-Messiah in this regard. I am neither better or worse than you, I am not favored more than you, and like you I have my opinions. However, I believe each man should be allowed to draw his own conclusions, make up his own mind on all spiritual matters. True heresy as it was defined in the 1st and 2nd centuries is when a man uses either a scriptural truth OR a manipulation of the truth to either Lord Over or otherwise manipulate others. This is also known as the Doctrine of the Nicolaitians. I am not here to cause strife, nor force anyone to see things as I do. I am here to share my perspective and glean from the perspectives of others. I am not God, therefore I have to prove all things and rightly divide the word of God like everyone else. I hope you see yourself in this manner.

Peace.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

We are the "one" son of god? Book, chapter, and verse please? I see where we are called the sons and daughters of God, but never the "one son of god."


The bible suggests that God has an ONLY Son. Therefore, if we are not THAT Son, then we are not son’s at all. Plus, we are not "son's and daughter's" because "there is no male and female in Christ", and, there is no marriage in heaven. Likewise, God has ONY ONE CREATION. If “the world” is not THAT, then it is not “creation” at all. This is reinforced by phrases such as “my kingdom is not of this world” and, “the kingdom of God is within you”. It the kingdom of God is within you, how can you not be a “God”, namely, the “Son of God”? This is reinforced by latter chapters of John in which our oneness with the Son of God and with our Father is affirmed…going so far as to say that we are in the Father and the Father is in us (the Son of God). If the “kingdom of God” and the “Father” are synonymous, this confirms that the Son of God encompasses the kingdom of God because he encompasses the Father…and visa versa. This explains how and why “the kingdom of god is within you”. It is the “Light” that is hidden (blotted out) by the “darkness” that is “the world”…by the mental state of mind of the prodigal Son.

[UrbanMonk]

Also UM, it isn't about kindness. "Blessed are the peacemakers" Messiah said. I do not believe he was speaking about diplomats and politicians but directly to HIS PEOPLE.

As aforementioned, Our Father does not have “people”. Our Father has his beloved Son. “People” are the “sons and daughters” of the prodigal Son. This is another “father” altogether. The son’s of this other “father” cannot be “adopted” or “grafted” into the family of Our Father.

I believe Yehoshua is the Son of God sent to save his people.

The Holy Spirit was sent to save the Son of God from his illusions of himself…from the concept of the “prodigal Son”. As such, “people” are not saved, nor are they savable. They are an expression of a pathogenic state of mind (“sin”) in the prodigal Son. They are expressed in the image of the prodigal Son…not of Our Father.

I believe he lived sinlessly,

Sinlessness is a universal truth. This is what our Savior, the Holy Spirit tells us. “The world” is a false witness against the Son of God…against us. It accuses him of this, that and the other. It sets up “laws” that can never be fully kept, thus making the Son of God guilty. As such, the world’s maker is the great “accuser of the bretheren”. The Holy Spirit dismisses these accusations, telling us that appearances deceive. What appears to be “sin” – what appears to prove that guilt is the truth – is really a complex lie. Furthermore, the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. If Jesus is guilty, then we are all guilty. If Jesus is sinless, then we are all sinless. This is hard to understand. But we must ACCEPT it if we would be saved. The fact is, whether Jesus kept Jewish laws or not, he was sinless. And so are we, whether we keep Jewish laws or not. Jewish laws are national laws, are chaos control laws, are the laws of the prodigal Son, the author and king of chaos. The laws of the prodigal Son do not apply to the Son of God…who IS THE LAW OF GOD.


died,

God can’t die, and didn’t die. At best he went on vacation. At worst, he had a bad vacation. This is the story of the “prodigal Son”…who leaves life for a “life and death” kind of existence. Jesus used his body as a parody of the story of the parable of the prodigal Son. It’s the same story, told in another way, using his body instead of his words. The “cross” is the experience of the prodigal Son. The “resurrection” is a symbol of the return of “sense” to the prodigal Son’s way of thinking…and his return home. The absence of the prodigal Son from home was like a “death” in the family. So when the Son returns, it’s like returning from the dead.


and was raised in three days

See above statement regarding resurrection. Three days is a reference to time…the time the prodigal Son spent away from home…which is eternal (not time oriented). Time is a “tomb” for the prodigal Son. “Tomb” is a metaphor for all of time, from the beginning of the world to the end of the world. The resurrection is the end of the world. Jesus is the “first fruits” of a much grander resurrection which is the rejoining of the “broken” pieces of the Son of God. That means “us”.


as he stated and now sits on the right hand (power/authority) of God.

This is a reference to equality and power and order. This is our rightful place.


According to scripture, I am the opposite of an anti-Messiah in this regard.

Orthodox "scripture", for the most part, is antithetical to the truth that Jesus spoke of…because it’s scribes misunderstood…and its assemblers simply agreed with the scribes who had misunderstood Jesus. If you are in agreement with orthodox brand text, you are most likely going to take some kind of heretical (antithetical, misunderstood, mistaken) stand on the issues of what truth is. The Jewish concept of “Messiah” has nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with nationalistic wishful thinking…all things worldly.

I am neither better or worse than you, I am not favored more than you, and like you I have my opinions.

We are equals, in Christ, at home. Away from home (in time) , we are temporarily unequal and at different stages of learning/awakening.

However, I believe each man should be allowed to draw his own conclusions, make up his own mind on all spiritual matters.

This is what the “prodigal Son” does, in whose “image” we are “made”. Salvation comes about as we become willing to think only with the mind of Christ…to share the thought system of the Holy Spirit, our Teacher and Savior.


True heresy as it was defined in the 1st and 2nd centuries is when a man uses either a scriptural truth OR a manipulation of the truth to either Lord Over or otherwise manipulate others.

Heresy, as defined by a heresy…is kind of meaningless. When a heresy becomes an orthodoxy, confusion follows…leading to/through a dark age. How does a heresy become an orthodoxy? Through brute force. A heresy is most inclined to use violence to support it’s agenda. Jesus “Way” is passive, does not get involved in the things of the world, does not go out of its way to defend itself, and turns the other cheek. These are not the attributes of a heresy/orthodoxy. A heresy/orthodoxy will do violence to text as well as person. Book burning is a sign that a heresy is intent on becoming an orthodoxy. There was so much violence against text in the early decades/centuries that we scarcely have a valid record of the historicity of Jesus…such that people question whether such a man even walked the planet. Such is the legacy of insanity, no matter what word we call it (heresy, orthodoxy).


This is also known as the Doctrine of the Nicolaitians.

Feel free to describe this doctrine and explain why you think it applies to what I’m sharing here as “the truth” and “the way”.

I am not here to cause strife, nor force anyone to see things as I do. I am here to share my perspective and glean from the perspectives of others.

Noted.


I am not God, therefore I have to prove all things and rightly divide the word of God like everyone else.

I am willing to help anyone with an open mind. An open mind leads to an open tomb. If your mind is open, the Teacher is able and willing to enter, and sit and dine with you. I am a “spokesman”…for beginners.


I hope you see yourself in this manner.

I am willing to see you as God, the Son of God…far away from home…confused as to what’s what. Salvation is a promise from God that you will find you way home at last. I am willing to see myself the same way. How’s that? To the way I think, this is how to make peace.

Peace,
Urban Monk

[Bosco]

The bible suggests that God has an ONLY Son. Therefore, if we are not THAT Son, then we are not son’s at all. Plus, we are not "son's and daughter's" because "there is no male and female in Christ", and, there is no marriage in heaven. Likewise, God has ONY ONE CREATION. If “the world” is not THAT, then it is not “creation” at all. This is reinforced by phrases such as “my kingdom is not of this world” and, “the kingdom of God is within you”. It the kingdom of God is within you, how can you not be a “God”, namely, the “Son of God”? This is reinforced by latter chapters of John in which our oneness with the Son of God and with our Father is affirmed…going so far as to say that we are in the Father and the Father is in us (the Son of God). If the “kingdom of God” and the “Father” are synonymous, this confirms that the Son of God encompasses the kingdom of God because he encompasses the Father…and visa versa. This explains how and why “the kingdom of god is within you”. It is the “Light” that is hidden (blotted out) by the “darkness” that is “the world”…by the mental state of mind of the prodigal Son.

Scripture says God has only one "begotten" son. Adam is called the Son of God, but was not begotten. As for there being no male or female in Messiah... when Yehoshua raised and was talking with his disciples, he is in the form of a man. "No male or female" is a metephor UM, just as "no Jew or gentile." There is Jew today in two forms, the Southern and Northern Kingdom. And there is unfulfilled prophecy concerning the two Houses of Israel (see Ezk. 37 and Jer. 31) that shows a future event, (just before or at the time of Messiah) where those two houses (and Ephraim) come together as one body before God, never again to be divided.

I am one with my wife, yet we are still two people. Echad does not mean one, echad means unity or united. I am echad with my wife, just as I am echad with God. He the husband and we the wife... another metephor seeing I am not a woman and there will be no physical consumation.

Peace.
Ken

[Bosco]

I may not know all there is to know UM, but I am not a beginner. Your beliefs are not mainstream (which isn't always a bad thing, the mainstream is stuck in much tradition whether it realizes it or not) but also notn in line with scripture. I could go line by line over the next to last post to me, but I am not so sure you are willing to hear it. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but if you see yourself as some kind of conduit for God, a teacher for beginners like me, than I would rather wallow in my error than waste time.

I am interested in scripture, not tradition, not man's understanding or logic. I seek God and His righteousness. So unless I have really misunderstood your positions, I wish you well.

Peace to you.
Ken

[headheart]

The Gospel according to Urban Monk.


Brother, "the world" is a fiction made to seem real in the mind of the prodigal Son. It's a story...not a reality. None of it matters except that we pull our heads out of it.

68203

[RCNicholas]

Did Jesus accept Christ as his Lord and Savior?

Does God believe in God?

[headheart]

Does God believe in God?

:lmbo:

[RCNicholas]

:lmbo:

Maybe God is Buddhist...He doesn't really believe He exists. :shrug:

[barnasha]

I may not know all there is to know UM, but I am not a beginner. Your beliefs are not mainstream (which isn't always a bad thing, the mainstream is stuck in much tradition whether it realizes it or not) but also notn in line with scripture. I could go line by line over the next to last post to me, but I am not so sure you are willing to hear it. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but if you see yourself as some kind of conduit for God, a teacher for beginners like me, than I would rather wallow in my error than waste time.

I am interested in scripture, not tradition, not man's understanding or logic. I seek God and His righteousness. So unless I have really misunderstood your positions, I wish you well.

Peace to you.
Ken

scripture without someone to interpret it is just meaningless words on a page.

jesus didn't teach with a book, he taught with his heart.

you can't listen with a book, you can't think with a bøok, you have to think with your heart and your mind and your soul.


"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."


"But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

[UrbanMonk]

The Gospel according to Urban Monk.



68203

Nice pic of Winney the Pooh flying from a symbol of duality. That pretty much capsulizes the issue. Duality is a fiction.

[UrbanMonk]

Does God believe in God?

If Jesus was the proverbial "prodigal Son" (along with all of us), then he had been living in denial, disbelieving in himSelf (Christ,God). If he repented (as he suggests we all do), then he would have begun believing in himSelf again. And, believing in himSelf, he came to know himSelf as Christ, the Son of God, an equal, born or Spirit, and given the glory of God as his irrevocable inheritance.

My question is, when did Jesus abandon any other kind of identity, and accept himSelf as the Son of God (Christ)? So far, no one has provided an answer. What it when he was three, six, nine, thirteen, eighteen, twenty one, twenty nine, thirty three? "He always knew" is not an answer, its an asssumption that aids denial. And if he came to know, who or what told him he was Christ?

[RCNicholas]

If Jesus was the proverbial "prodigal Son" (along with all of us), then he had been living in denial, disbelieving in himSelf (Christ,God). I don't think anyone in mainstream Christendom acknowledges this. Generally we believe that Christ was sinless.

[UrbanMonk]

I may not know all there is to know UM, but I am not a beginner.

The correct interpretation of the cross/resurrection sequence is a beginning. If the correct interpretation is denied, resisted, fought against, pounded down, mocked, insulted, rejected and left for dead…one has probably not even begun yet to comprehend what salvation is all about.


Your beliefs are not mainstream (which isn't always a bad thing, the mainstream is stuck in much tradition whether it realizes it or not) but also notn in line with scripture.

Mainstream and orthodoxy are synonymous. This is not a popularity contest. The gospel has always been underground, driven there by the mainstream.


I don't mean that in a condescending way, but if you see yourself as some kind of conduit for God, a teacher for beginners like me, than I would rather wallow in my error than waste time.

Thanks for being honest.

I am interested in scripture, not tradition, not man's understanding or logic.

Orthodox brand scripture IS tradition, IS man’s understanding, IS man’s logic. Our egos are interested in self-sabotage (voluntary self-crucifixion). Our interest in orthodox scriptures is not in our best interests, unless we are willing to interpret them according to a holy Spirit and not an unholy spirit.



I seek God and His righteousness.

Having run away from home, and having problems, the only right thing to do is go home. This is the example Jesus set, as defined in John 16. Righteousness is to GO HOME to where we came from, to what we abandoned to seek out another world, another will, another reality, another father.


So unless I have really misunderstood your positions, I wish you well.

I don’t know if you are misunderstood or not. It’s more likely that you just don’t want what I’m telling you is being offered as your salvation. Perhaps there is another kind of salvation you are holding out for…hoping it works. I wish you will find what God offers truly. And so, I wish you well too.

Peace to you,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

I don't think anyone in mainstream Christendom acknowledges this. Generally we believe that Christ was sinless.

That's just the thing. Jesus understood that the prodigal Son was sinless (along with all of us).

[RCNicholas]

That's just the thing. Jesus understood that the prodigal Son was sinless (along with all of us).Where in the world do you get that idea from?

[UrbanMonk]

Where in the world do you get that idea from?

Well, all you have to do is read the parable. When the prodigal Son got home, the Father treated him as if he were sinless.

[RCNicholas]

Well, all you have to do is read the parable. When the prodigal Son got home, the Father treated him as if he were sinless.

LOL. After coming home and repenting, yes, the son was FORGIVEN. That doesn't make him sinless.
"And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'...'for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

More to the point, I don't see where Jesus ever identified HIMSELF as the prodigal son.

[UrbanMonk]

Scripture says God has only one "begotten" son. Adam is called the Son of God, but was not begotten.

See my thread, “Is God a substitute for man or is man a substitute for God?” What you say here supports my thesis.

As for there being no male or female in Messiah... when Yehoshua raised and was talking with his disciples, he is in the form of a man.

No, he is in the form of a restored man. A restored man is a metaphor for a restored Christ. And in a restored Christ, there is no male or female or marriage between genders. There is no marriage between genders because there are no genders.

"No male or female" is a metephor UM, just as "no Jew or gentile."

Oh, so now you believe in metaphors…when it is convenient to change the obvious? These are pretty straight foreword statements. If there were no gender differences in Christ, how would you go about stating that fact…other than how it is stated here?

There is Jew today in two forms, the Southern and Northern Kingdom.

You are going the opposite direction. Now, instead of no Jews, there are two kinds of Jews. I suppose there are two kinds of Greeks, two kinds of men and two kinds of women too?

And there is unfulfilled prophecy concerning the two Houses of Israel (see Ezk. 37 and Jer. 31) that shows a future event, (just before or at the time of Messiah) where those two houses (and Ephraim) come together as one body before God, never again to be divided.

So now there is one kind of Jew, one kind of Greek, one kind of man, one kind of woman? Nice try! This text could just as easily be a metaphor for the atonement…the rejoining of what was separated and made different…back to what it was before: an unbreakable oneness…never to be divided again.

“A house divided against itself” is a reference to a split mind, the prodigal Son on the one side, and the Son of God on the other. Israel’s problems are a reflection of this problem…not the actual problem. The problem is a divided mind…one which accepts it is Christ, and the other which denies it is Christ. The side that rejects it is Christ is symbolized by Jacob (Israel), which wrestles with God for it’s own truth. However, only God’s truth can be Israel’s truth, symbolized by the changing of his name.

To wit, all of the events, scenes and scenarios of the world…are the “fruit” of a “good and evil” tree which splits off from the “tree of life”. The happenstance relative to Israel is a metaphor for the happenstance of the entire history of all the world. The problem is not solved by reuniting Jews. The problem is solved by uprooting the tree of good and evil from its roots. This is echoed in the gospel of Thomas…

40. Jesus said, "A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish."




I am one with my wife, yet we are still two people.

To be one and also two is to eat of the tree which combines opposites into one fruit. Your mind is split. You are either one, or you are two. Which is it? God has joined our minds as one. The concept of “mankind” would “put asunder” (separate, make two, dualize, pluralize) what God has joined. Therefore, “Let no man put asunder what God has joined”. In other words, your marriage is at best a metaphor…a symbol of oneness. So long as you maintain that you are also a man and a woman, you are resisting the truth…that your mind’s are joined as one by God…before the foundation of the world.

Echad does not mean one, echad means unity or united. I am echad with my wife, just as I am echad with God.

No. You are some kind of echad with your wife, but you are one with God. That is the truth, which “echad” would deny.

He the husband and we the wife... another metephor seeing I am not a woman and there will be no physical consumation.

Mind, in it’s natural state, is joined and united and has no physical attributes. Physicality is an unnatural use of mind-power. It’s what the prodigal Son does with his inheritance ( a powerful mind). And spending his power on physicality, the prodigal Son “squanders” his inheritance. We are one with Christ naturally, as Mind-Spirit…as Being. No, it does not involve physical “consummation” because there is not physical aspect to a healthy and healed mind. “Atonement” is the process of making the mind healthy again by rejoining what has separated through the appearance of physicality.

Peace to you,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

LOL. After coming home and repenting, yes, the son was FORGIVEN. That doesn't make him sinless.

Excuse me but forgiveness is the recognition of sinlessness-as-the-truth. It does not recognize guilt-as-truth scenarios and then let you off the hook for cash (blood money) or a holier than thou attitude.

"And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.'...'for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

You see, it's the prodigal Son's attitude - that he was a "sinner" - that made him what he was, "the prodigal Son". However, the prodigal Son's attitude about himself IS NOT THE TRUTH. Only his Father's attitude about him is THE TRUTH. It is the prodigal Son's attitude that makes him as if he were "dead". And it is his repentance (change of attitude about the truth) that makes him "alive" again. The prodigal Son can't be a "sinner" because the Law of God (Christ) cannot be broken. To think that he can break the Law of God...this is the essence of insanity, hence, the essence of "sin". As such, the prodigal Son was mistaken...but a "sinner", no.

More to the point, I don't see where Jesus ever identified HIMSELF as the prodigal son.

Many times Jesus called himself "the son of man". THAT is his identification with the prodigal Son...and with all of us. This reinforces the fact that the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. If he is a man, then we are men. But if he is really the Son of God, then we too are really the Son of God. When we try to make him some kind of god-man-half-breed, we are secretly trying to become gods ourselves...trying to save our own lives...trying to become eternal through word-magic. This is only to repeat the mistakes of the past. The Son of God cannot be anything but God...without limits...fully invested with the "glory of God". To "become flesh" is to deny the glory of God, and fall short of an unlimited (abundant) inheritance. To be flesh is to "sacrifice" the Son of God. We have all fallen short of the glory of God...just like Jesus. And falling short, we descended from heaven. Likewise, as we accept the truth about Jesus as the truth about ourSelves, we shall rise as Christ rises as from the "dead" (prodigal Son).

[RBerman]

forgiveness is the recognition of sinlessness-as-the-truth.
How do you know that?

[RCNicholas]

Excuse me but forgiveness is the recognition of sinlessness-as-the-truth. It does not recognize guilt-as-truth scenarios and then let you off the hook for cash (blood money) or a holier than thou attitude. Forgiveness does not allow you to say you have never sinned. Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:10



You see, it's the prodigal Son's attitude - that he was a sinner - which made him what he was, "the prodigal Son". However, the prodigal Son's attitude about himself IS NOT THE TRUTH. Only his Father's attitude about him is THE TRUTH. I was quoting the Father in the second half there...the Father makes it quite clear that his son was dead and lost.

It is the prodigal Son's attitude that makes him as if he were "dead". And it is his repentance (change of attitude about the truth) that makes him "alive" again. What you're missing is that there IS an actual change in the son. It's not merely that his perception of himself changes...the father quite unequivocally states that his son WAS dead, and NOW is alive; WAS lost and NOW is found.



Many times Jesus called himself "the son of man". THAT is his identification with the prodigal SonThat is one of the worst examples of eisegesis I've ever seen.

and with all of us. This reinforces the fact that the truth about Jesus is the truth about us all. If he is a man, then we are men. But if he is really the Son of God, then we too are really the Son of God. When we try to make him some kind of god-man-half-breed, we are secretly trying to become gods ourselves...trying to save our own lives...trying to become eternal through word-magic. Trying to become "like Christ" is what we are trying to do, yes. That doesn't mean we ARE Christ.

This is only to repeat the mistakes of the past. The Son of God cannot be anything but God...without limits...fully invested with the "glory of God". To "become flesh" is to deny the glory of God, and fall short of an unlimited (abundant) inheritance. To be flesh is to "sacrifice" the Son of God. We have all fallen short of the glory of God...just like Jesus. When did Jesus sin?

[UrbanMonk]

How do you know that?

Well, I didn't learn it from the orthodoxy, that's for sure. So I must have learned it from the Good Shepherd, somehow, some "way". How else can we be innocent unless we are...uh...innocent? If we are guilty, then pretending to be innnocent would not be a truthful existence, would it? And do you think that the Truth would accomodate what is false in it's Kingdom?

[UrbanMonk]

Forgiveness does not allow you to say you have never sinned. Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:10

The orthodoxy does not allow you to say you never sinned. The Truth does, because the Truth is universal. There is no place where the Truth is not true. There are no circumstances, scenes or scenarios in which the Truth is no longer true. The Truth is true...and everything else is false. Either innocence is the Truth, or guilt is the Truth. You decide. But your decision determine what your experience will be..."heaven" or "hell". Hell is where guilt is "the truth". And guilt demands punishment. Hell offers word-magic, which covers guilt (pays for it), but does not dispell it. To cover it or pay for it...is to maintain that guilt is still "the truth". Because the Truth is universal, the Truth "takes away the sins of the world". The Truth takes sin away by declaring that innocence is the Truth, and guilt is a lie. Only a "liar" would accuse us of being guilty. Guilt has been a lie "from the beginning". Who is the "accuser of the brethren" but he who lies? At worst we have made a mistake. At best, we have applied the Law of Love upside down. Either way, we have loved. Is love a sin?

[RCNicholas]

The orthodoxy does not allow you to say you never sinned. That's fine. As long as we're clear that you're flatly contradicting the Bible, keep right on going with your little theory. :smile:

[UrbanMonk]

That's fine. As long as we're clear that you're flatly contradicting the Bible, keep right on going with your little theory. :smile:

So long as the bible contradicts the truth, I will contradict it. The bible does not flatly contradict the truth. It is a forked-tongued document, containining wheat and tares mixed together, contradicting its very self. It is "a house divided". I merely select the wheat from it's context. In the process, I end up destroying the credibility of the entire document as a "holy" book. As a semi-historical document, it is useful. As a "holy" and entirely "true" document, it is a fraud. The fight for the bible is a fight for an idol...and "oracle" made of paper and ink. "A house divided cannot stand".

The orthodoxy is an interpretation of an ambiguous document. My interpretation is more of an underground "grass roots" kind of thing. I treat the bible honestly, as what it is. Seeing it as what it is, what it hides (the light) is exposed. The bible is one big metaphor containing many metaphors. It's the interpretation of the metaphors that makes the book "holy". Interpet with a holy Spirit and you will be made holy. Interpret with an unholy spirit, and you will "remain in your sins". Allow it to accuse you of being guilty and you allow the "liar from the beginning" to accuse you and your brethren.

[UrbanMonk]

I was quoting the Father in the second half there...the Father makes it quite clear that his son was dead and lost.

"Dead" and "lost "are not the same as calling his son a "sinner" or "guilty". You are adding the latter inference because of your personal biases.

[RCNicholas]

So long as the bible contradicts the truth, I will contradict it. The bible does not flatly contradict the truth. It is a forked-tongued document, containining wheat and tares mixed together, contradicting its very self. It is "a house divided". I merely select the wheat from it's context. In the process, I end up destroying the credibility of the entire document as a "holy" book. As a semi-historical document, it is useful. As a "holy" and entirely "true" document, it is a fraud. The fight for the bible is a fight for an idol made of paper and ink. "A house divided cannot stand".
In other words, you pick and choose what you like from the Bible (whatever fits your preconceived notions) and leave the rest. Not a terribly logical or objective method of Biblical analysis and interpretation, but unfortunately not that uncommon, either.

The orthodoxy is an interpretation of an ambiguous document. My interpretation is more of an underground "grass roots" kind of thing. I treat the bible honestly, as what it is. Seeing it as what it is, what it hides (the light) is exposed. In other words, you assert yourself as a more accurate authority than all of mainstream Christianity. A bold claim, but one that I'm betting is not very well substantiated.

[RCNicholas]

Dead and lost are not the same as calling his son a "sinner" or "guilty". You are adding the latter because of your personal biases.
LOL...you're right, Urban, you can be spiritually dead and lost without being a sinner....:lmbo:

Do you really believe this stuff or are you just playing devil's advocate for fun?

[UrbanMonk]

In other words, you pick and choose what you like from the Bible (whatever fits your preconceived notions) and leave the rest.

Yes. More like, I point out the original greenery that somehow pokes up from the orthodox/mainstream asphalt that paved over "the Way" to make way for a superhighway heading nowhere.


Not a terribly logical or objective method of Biblical analysis and interpretation, but unfortunately not that uncommon, either.

It's logical if you first understand that the bible is like a field in which a good farmer sowed his wheat...only to have an "evil one" come in the middle of the night (in the midst of confusion) to sow the seeds of confusion (darkness). It's about being honest about what you are calling "the truth". You put an astounding amount of faith in men you never met, who mouth mamoth memes for the many...against the ONE.

[UrbanMonk]

LOL...you're right, Urban, you can be spiritually dead and lost without being a sinner....:lmbo:

Do you really believe this stuff or are you just playing devil's advocate for fun?

Well, if being a "sinner" means being "guilty" then you are right. But if being a "sinner" means being mistaken, then I am right. I'm saying that it is the mistaken thoughts of the prodigal Son which manifest the phenomenons of "death" and "lost". A prime part of the mistake is that he thinks he is guilty for doing what he thinks he has done. I'm saying that the prodigal Son has not done anything....because it was just an imaginative dream in his powerful (unlimitedly powerful) mind. The truth is...IT NEVER HAPPENED. It was all made up...a story...history...the story of the prodigal Son about himself. THAT is what the world-story is...a fiction...a lie...an illusion...a delusion. In this light, "world", "delusion", "insanity "and "sin" are synonymous. Is it a crime to be insane?

[RCNicholas]

It's logical if you first understand that the bible is like a field in which a good farmer sowed his wheat...only to have an "evil one" come in the middle of the night (in the midst of confusion) to sow the seeds of confusion (darkness).
That's a very, very big IF, my friend. It's not what Scripture has revealed about itself or what the Church, early or modern, has ever understood about Scripture.


It's about being honest about what you are calling "the truth". You put an astounding amount of faith in men you never met, who mouth mamoth memes for the many...against the ONE.
False dichotomy. I believe "The One," that is, God, has revealed His will through men whom He established for that purpose. So if you're saying that I have more faith than you....why thank you. :smile:

[RCNicholas]

Well, if being a "sinner" means being "guilty" then you are right. But if being a "sinner" means being mistaken, then I am right. I'm saying that it is the mistaken thoughts of the prodigal Son which manifest the phenomenons of "death" and "lost". A prime part of the mistake is that he thinks he is guilty for doing what he thinks he has done. So it WASN'T wrong for him to desert his father and squander all his lot? Methinks you have totally missed the point of the parable.


I'm saying that the prodigal Son has not done anything....because it was just an imaginative dream in his powerful (unlimitedly powerful) mind. The truth is...IT NEVER HAPPENED. It was all made up...a story...history...the story of the prodigal Son about himself. THAT is what the world-story is...a fiction...a lie...an illusion...a delusion. In this light, delusion, insanity and "sin" are synonymous. Is it a crime to be insane?
That is some weird, occasionalist, Christian Science-esque mumbo-jumbo which I have not had enough caffeine to deal with today. :teeth:

[UrbanMonk]

What you're missing is that there IS an actual change in the son. It's not merely that his perception of himself changes...the father quite unequivocally states that his son WAS dead, and NOW is alive; WAS lost and NOW is found.

Don't be silly. Neither the Son of God, nor the prodigal Son can die. The prodigal Son appears to die because he was gone. But as the parable suggests, he was just gone…not dead. Thus, “gone” and “dead” are synonymous metaphors. And so long as we are “gone” from our home, we may consider ourselves “dead”. If home is Christ, then we are “dead to Christ”…so long as we are “gone”. But when we decide to return, the we are “alive to Christ”. And if Christ is the only true LIFE, then we are truly alive only as we are returning home

[UrbanMonk]

So it WASN'T wrong for him to desert his father and squander all his lot? Methinks you have totally missed the point of the parable.

Well, obviously it was not wrong if you go by the behavior of the Father upon his return. It was only "wrong" to "big brother" (symbol of the orthodoxy). You see, salvation is not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of true and false. What the prodigal Son thinks he did is false. God only knows. And by God's knowledge (gnosis) we are set free of our illusions of ourself. Jesus did not say, 'I am right'...he said, "I am the Truth". Salvation is a matter of knowing the universal Truth as reality...and the ONLY reality. All else is a self-deceptive lie...self-imposed ignorance for the purpose of having an experience. The experience is what's called "the world". Rather, it is a fictional story made to seem real by a very powerful mind...power which is denied by ignorant "sinners". A fiction is not wrong...it's just not true!

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE=UrbanMonk;2756403]Well, obviously it was not wrong if you go by the behavior of the Father upon his return.The Father was overjoyed because his son was LOST and DEAD spiritually, and returned to Him to be reconciled.

Is it wrong to be dead spiritually?

[UrbanMonk]

The Father was overjoyed because his son was LOST and DEAD spiritually, and returned to Him to be reconciled.

Is it wrong to be dead spiritually?

No, because for one thing it is not really possible. The Spirit can never die. The MIND, however, can imagine that it can die. Before it can possibly make such an improbable scenario seem real, it must transform itself in to "man, beast, and every creeping thing". Now it is "born to die". The flesh is for dying...that is, for making it appear that death is possible and that death is the truth! But appearances decieve. We are not bodies. We are eternal Spirit and a MIND that images (the body is an image, a "graven image") what is not true. Is it "wrong" to imagine what is not true? No. It's just plain crazy. Is insanity a crime? "Lost and "dead" are experiences driven by the self-imposed ignorance of the prodigal Son...whose ignorance we have all inhereted as minds pass viral memes one to another.

The Father was overjoyed because his son was NOT lost and dead. "Lost" and "dead" are metaphors that apply to what the prodigal Son thought about the kingdom of God. Because the Son IS the kingdom of God...that is what the prodigal Son thought about himSelf. In other words, the world is an experience of what we think of the Son of God. We think the Son of God is guilty. So, as a body, as all bodies, we see the Son of God as guilty. This is how we see ourSelf. The world, then, is a mirror of what we think we are. It's all completely false. What we are can't be seen with eyes of flesh. Eyes of flesh were made for seeing the Son of God as a body, and as guilty, as lost, as dying and as dead. As such, the world is a SELF-CONCEPT.

[RCNicholas]

No, because for one thing it is not really possible. Then stop quoting the prodigal son parable, because it makes it repeatedly obvious that it is both possible and actual. Since you fancy yourself so full of wisdom and spiritual insight, capable as you obviously are of determining what parts of the Bible are true and which aren't, you should just make up your own parable for this odd concept you have, instead of hijacking a Biblical one and ripping it totally out of context and changing its meaning.

The Spirit can never die. The MIND, however, can imagine that it can die. Before it can possibly make such an improbable scenario seem real, it must transform itself in to "man, beast, and every creeping thing". Now it is "born to die". The flesh is for dying...that is, for making it appear that death is possible and that death is the truth! But appearances decieve. We are not bodies. We are eternal Spirit and a MIND that images (the body is an image, a "graven image") what is not true. Is it "wrong" to imagine what is not true? No. It's just plain crazy. Is insanity a crime? "Lost and "dead" are experiences driven by the self-imposed ignorance of the prodigal Son...whose ignorance we have all inhereted as minds pass viral memes one to anotherAgain, your tendency toward occasionalism would make Berkeley proud, but you're not providing any substantiation at all for this.

[UrbanMonk]

Then stop quoting the prodigal son parable, because it makes it repeatedly obvious that it is both possible and actual.

Its a parable! Only the wise one can tell what is true about a parable, and what is...well, a parable!

Since you fancy yourself so full of wisdom and spiritual insight, capable as you obviously are of determining what parts of the Bible are true and which aren't, you should just make up your own parable for this odd concept you have, instead of hijacking a Biblical one and ripping it totally out of context and changing its meaning.

Because i am not really allowed to use my own bible, so-to-speak. Meanwhile, the orthodox brand of preferred text represents a kind of asphalt that paves over "the Way". I simply point out the original greenery that pops up here and there through the asphalt as it seeks the Light. These represent those aspects of a split mind that are willing to seek the Truth through the darkness no matter how hard it seem to be.


Again, your tendency toward occasionalism would make Berkeley proud, but you're not providing any substantiation at all for this.

Berkeley had some pertinent things to say. How about if I provide the namesake of a prestigious university as "substantiation" for all of this?

[RCNicholas]

Its a parable! Only the wise one can tell what is true about a parable, and what is...well, a parable! It's fairly obvious from that response that you don't even know what a parable IS.



Because i am not really allowed to use my own bible, so-to-speak. Meanwhile, the orthodox brand of preferred text represents a kind of asphalt that paves over "the Way". I simply point out the original greenery that pops up here and there through the asphalt as it seeks the Light.
Yes, I understand that. You're your own Pope. You determine what's true and false for you. It's a very convenient system. :smile:


Berkeley had some pertinent things to say. How about if I provide the namesake of a prestigious university as "substantiation" for all of this?I'm from Cali, bud...you really think I haven't heard of it?:wink: The fact that someone has a university named after them doesn't make them right about everything, of course. I pointed it out because you seem to be espousing some variant of occasionalism (though again, not supporting any of it with Biblical or philosophical evidence).

[UrbanMonk]

It's fairly obvious from that response that you don't even know what a parable IS.

Unless you know what the "moral" of the "story" is...you don't know the moral of the story. If you don't know that the story is a story, then how could you possible learn it's "lesson"?

From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral)

A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves, or may be explicitly encapsulated in a maxim.

You seem to be confusing morals with maxims.

The reader must determine for themselves what the "lesson" is to be learned. But, unless he interprets rightly, he will not get the reward the lesson promises. As stated at the head of the gospel of Thomas:

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

Parables and metaphors are similar. Wiki Parable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable) See also my other thread "Is Jesus a metaphor for Christ?" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=131154)

From Wikipedia:
A parable is like a metaphor that has been extended to form a brief, coherent fiction.

[UrbanMonk]

Yes, I understand that. You're your own Pope. You determine what's true and false for you. It's a very convenient system. :smile:

No. I just recognize the Good Shepherd when I hear his voice. When I listen, what I hear is infallible toward it's intended purpose. When I don't hear...I waste my time. I'm not about wasting my time.

I'm from Cali, bud...you really think I haven't heard of it?:wink: The fact that someone has a university named after them doesn't make them right about everything, of course.

Oral Robber comes to mind. But I mean a "prestigeous" university. :wink:

Are you saying George Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley) (1685-1753) cherry picked the bible like I do? First of all, are you aware that the bible is a cherry picked document? It was picked by a group of men in whom you invest an audacious amount of faith...on what grounds? And it is their selection which you deem to call "scripture" to the exclusion of all else. And since then, other men, whom you probably put faith in have deemed to cherry pick what was already cherry picked, making up neo-versions of the bible tailored to a neo-doctrine, namely, "sola fide". Sola fide lends more support for my premise than yours. It's faith in what's true that saves us, not faith in "right and wrong"...nor faith in what is false. We are either Christ or we are not. Believe it or not. Your unfaithfulness will not change the Truth.

Meanwhile, here's a tidbit from Berkeley's way of thinking:

As a young man, Berkeley theorized that individuals cannot know if an object is; they can only know if an object is perceived by a mind. He stated that individuals cannot think or talk about an object's being, but rather think or talk about an object's being perceived by someone.

[RCNicholas]

Unless you know what the "moral" of the "story" is...you don't know the moral of the story. If you don't know that the story is a story, then how could you possible learn it's "lesson"?

From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral)



You seem to be confusing morals with maxims.

The reader must determine for themselves what the "lesson" is to be learned. But, unless he interprets rightly, he will not get the reward the lesson promises. As stated at the head of the gospel of Thomas:



Parables and metaphors are similar. Wiki Parable. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable) See also my other thread "Is Jesus a metaphor for Christ?" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=131154)

What you also have to discover, though, is that a parable only makes sense if it is a realistic representation of how things are. The parable of the mustard seed can only be understood if the mustard seed really IS a little seed that grows into a huge tree. If Jesus spouted off some nonsense about unicorns on the backside of Jupiter, the larger spiritual meaning of His words would be missed. A parable is literally "true" in the sense that it is realistic...such things really do happen. Thus, when a person can apprehend the literal, physical concept that is being addressed, one can begin to apprehend the spiritual concept that is being alluded to.

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE=UrbanMonk;2756604]No. I just recognize the Good Shepherd when I hear his voice. When I listen, what I hear is infallible toward it's intended purpose. Again, that's all incredibly convenient. You determine which voices in your head are divine and infallible. I wish reality were that simple.


Are you saying George Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley) (1685-1753) cherry picked the bible like I do? Not nearly as badly as you seem to...from what I've read, he could string together coherent thoughts in structured sentences.

First of all, are you aware that the bible is a cherry picked document? It was picked by a group of men in whom you invest an audacious amount of faith...on what grounds? On the grounds that the Church was established by Christ Himself to be the pillar and ground of the truth...but that's another thread. Again, I have more faith in God than you, because I believe God is capable of preserving His truth through a group of selected men, and you don't.

And it is their selection which you deem to call "scripture" to the exclusion of all else. And since then, other men, whom you probably put faith in have deemed to cherry pick what was already cherry picked, making up neo-versions of the bible tailored to a neo-doctrine, namely, "sola fide". I don't believe in Sola Fide, so that's rather a moot point, isn't it? :ahem:


Meanwhile, here's a tidbit from Berkeley's way of thinkingI'm aware of Berkeley's thoughts...that's why I brought them up:wink: My point was, you provided neither Scriptural nor philosophical evidence for your claims.

[UrbanMonk]

Again, that's all incredibly convenient. You determine which voices in your head are divine and infallible. I wish reality were that simple.

This is really dishonest, because in picking that oracle we call "the bible", you are determining for yourself which voices in your head are divine and infallible.

On the grounds that the Church was established by Christ Himself to be the pillar and ground of the truth...but that's another thread.

Yah...and anyone who recognizes his brother as Christ, and therefore as himSelf, he is building upon "the truth". Because that is the truth. Any body of believers built on any other kind of "truth" is building on sand, and justifying their unbelief with word-magic.

Again, I have more faith in God than you, because I believe God is capable of preserving His truth through a group of selected men, and you don't.

Not really. If you really believed in God, then you would believe the truth is universal. But you don't believe that God is universal...that there are some places...some worlds...where guilt is the truth...where there are "men"...where there is something that is not God. Technically, if God is not all that is, nor all that you know and experience, then you are an atheist. And by selecting "men" to tell you otherwise, you are actively working against the Truth.

I don't believe in Sola Fide, so that's rather a moot point, isn't it? :ahem:

I teach Sola Identity. And faith in that Identity, and only in that Identity, is what saves that Identity from "us"...the "many" (different, separate, special). For yet more support for Sola Identity, I offer, "the only begotten Son of God". There isn't anything else. All else is a bastard...a half-breed...a hybrid...a moot point. If it is not the Truth, it is false. If it is false, it is nothing, and will return to the "dust" (nothingness) from which it came.

I'm aware of Berkeley's thoughts...that's why I brought them up:wink: My point was, you provided neither Scriptural nor philosophical evidence for your claims.

You have not provided any basis for for what you claim about scripture except what you believe should happen in regards the spread of the gospel. Philosphy is the love of wisdom. If you don't recognize wisdom when it comes to you, you would not recognize Christ either.

[RBerman]

Well, I didn't learn it from the orthodoxy, that's for sure. So I must have learned it from the Good Shepherd, somehow, some "way".
If you don't know how you learned it, how can you be sure you didn't learn it from the Evil One?

[UrbanMonk]

If you don't know how you learned it, how can you be sure you didn't learn it from the Evil One?

How was Jesus sure he was Christ...equal to God...the only Son of God? Who told him? What was his learning process. I can't tell you exactly what his learning process was, nor mine. But it was a process...a step by step approach...a gradual recognition...a careful path. It is not something you accept overnight, or at an "alter call". You accept only guilt at an alter call...not innocence. The mass of minds are more responsive to calls for guilt...because minds already believe in guilt at a subconscious level. This is why the orthodoxy - whatever teaches guilt is the truth - is always mainstream. But when you think about it, the advocacy of guilt is the task of the "accuser of the bretheren". So, who or what is the orthodoxy really allied with? To be wise, all you have to do is accept the fact that innocence is universal because it is an attribute of the Truth...which is UNIVERSAL. When you are willing to make this distinction, you are ready to discern between spirits, understanding what is "holy" and what is "unholy".

[RBerman]

If you don't know how you learned it, how can you be sure you didn't learn it from the Evil One?
How was Jesus sure he was Christ...equal to God...the only Son of God? Who told him? What was his learning process. I can't tell you exactly what his learning process was, nor mine. But it was a process...a step by step approach...a gradual recognition...a careful path.
What you're saying is that you have absolutely no assurance that you didn't learn it from the Evil One, but that since you don't know how Jesus knew what he knew, you don't mind. Is that really your argument?

[UrbanMonk]

What you're saying is that you have absolutely no assurance that you didn't learn it from the Evil One, but that since you don't know how Jesus knew what he knew, you don't mind. Is that really your argument?

The Good Shepherd is the Guide out of a complex psychological labyrinth. "We" are all located in various places in this labyrinth as we have gone, each one, "according to his own way". Therefore the exact path back to where we came from is going to be unique, insofar as the paths we've followed in getting lost are unique. The destination is always the same...home.

Just as you are questioning me, Jesus was questioned as to what kind of spirit was operating behind is doctrine and supporting his abililties. Are the "lost" really in any position to judge the "found"? What does "found" mean to the "lost"? The lost don't want to be found...or else they would not be lost! So your line of questioning is coming from willfullness (the intent to do battle), or from a genuine interest in understanding what is "the Way". Which is it?

Simply put, Jesus knew because he opened his mind. The mind that does not know is like a closed, dark, damp tomb. Nothing can "live" in such a state of mind. When he opened his mind, the Good Shepherd came to dine with him, sup with him...Guide him. When his mind was fully opened to the Truth...he awoke. This is the truth about the legendary "resurrection". This took place before he went to the cross.

Likewise, I have opened my mind...having gone beyond the pale of what is allowed by the orthodox mainstream. I did this by first shunning the concept of fear...and any doctrine that mongered fear in me or in anyone...by making threats of any kind. This helped my open my mind to the Spirit of Love...which casts out all fear. The more we open, the more/better we are able to hear.

By and by, we are ableized to select "sheep" texts from "goat" texts..."sheep" voice from "goat" voice. Such texts/voices leverage our ability to hear more directly...as we follow the instructions given. This is the function of Jesus. He heard, and instructed us how to hear. As we follow his instructions, we will hear as he heard...the same Good Shepherd. This is what it means that he gives us the Holy Spirit. He doesn't give us anything we didn't have already. He gives us instructions on how to follow the Guidance we've been given. There are a few things you need to "accept", at least intellectually, before you can know who or what is guiding you.

First of all, you must accept that your neighbor is your "self". Now you are "ready" to be taught what is "oneness". This is taught by the Teacher of "atonement". Till then, you are not ready to be a student of Jesus, nor a student of mine. WE are students of the Teacher, who saves what/whom is open minded enough to learn. The "sheep" hear the voice of the "Good Shepherd"...knowing it when they hear it...because it is already inside them...his words written upon their heart deep down.

[RBerman]

You're pretty quick to compare your experiences to those of Jesus, UM. I don't see the connection, particularly since most of what you say is not consistent with what Jesus said. That's just more evidence that the voice you've been listening to is not from the Shepherd, but from the wolves.

[UrbanMonk]

You're pretty quick to compare your experiences to those of Jesus, UM. I don't see the connection, particularly since most of what you say is not consistent with what Jesus said. That's just more evidence that the voice you've been listening to is not from the Shepherd, but from the wolves.

Excuse me but there is only one way. The way Jesus went is the way we must go if we would go where he went. It's very simple. So there are going to be similarities because our Teacher is the same. Your own texts suggest that the things Jesus did we would do also. And in the gospel of Thomas, Jesus says "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." So it seems a bit ironic coming from a tradition in which the goal is to be "like Jesus", don't you think? So, I am like Jesus and now that's a problem?

All you think you know about what Jesus said is filtered through minds as resistant to Jesus' message as you and many others are resistant to the message I am relaying. Your treatment of my message is not much different from the way tradition weighted minds responded back then. People think they "know" what Jesus meant, and fabricate their own interpretation and pass it on as "gospel truth". We read what they say Jesus said. We read what they think Jesus meant. We think they have authority-by-association, or by time-proximity. But these are not accurate guages re: authenticity. Your very own gospels are clear about apostolic confusion...even after three years of association. They did not understand! Is it the end of the world? No! Deal with it.

Salvation will be accomplished with or without the viewpoints of the largely anonymous and second hand testimony of NT scribes. We gather, through P(s)aul's testimony, that the earliest teaching legacy was called "the Way". And yet, once it became a popularity contest, we never hear from "the Way" again. What happened? So I'm not going to allow you to pull biblical rank on me and pretend that your sources are golden. If you can't own up to the flaws involved, you are not honest enough to be any kind of student of Truth.

Telling the difference between sheep and wolves is easy once you get the hang of it. You must accept some very basic general principles to be able to tell the difference. You have yet to make the distinction, and ally yourself with the Good Shepherd...even though the truth is "written on your heart" deep inside. Its just not what you want right now. That's temporary. It could be another year or another thousand years before Truth is preferred over illusions.

[UrbanMonk]

forgiveness is the recognition of sinlessness-as-the-truth.

How do you know that?

It's 2 + 2 = 4. Christ is the truth. Christ is sinless. Forgiveness is the recognition of sinlessness-as-the-truth. Forgiveness is the recognition of Christ, instead of whom/what you think has sinned against you. It's that simple.

[RBerman]

Excuse me but there is only one way. The way Jesus went is the way we must go if we would go where he went. It's very simple. So there are going to be similarities because our Teacher is the same. Your own texts suggest that the things Jesus did we would do also. And in the gospel of Thomas, Jesus says "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him." So it seems a bit ironic coming from a tradition in which the goal is to be "like Jesus", don't you think? So, I am like Jesus and now that's a problem?

There is only one way to eternal life. But there are many false ways, and you are on one of them, because you trust your own internal dialogue more than you trust the Bible. The problem is not that you want to be like Jesus. The problem is that you think you're like Jesus in ways that you're not really like Jesus. And you're not as good at telling the Shepherd from the wolves as you think; indeed, you have them backwards, because you've accepted the false authority of "A Course in Miracles."

[Bosco]

scripture without someone to interpret it is just meaningless words on a page.

jesus didn't teach with a book, he taught with his heart.

Yehoshua went into the Temple and read from the scrolls, he also spoke from his heart. Seeing he is God, I think he knows what the book says... but still read from the scrolls anyway. Spirit alone or book alone does not work, we are led by the Spirit, taught by the Spirit, but must still "rightly divide the Word of Truth." We are to "STUDY to show ourselves approved a workman unto God." Even Paul said that scripture is "given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for" among other things "doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness." So if you want to go it alone without scripture, I certainly cannot nor will not stand in your way. I believe it is a mistake, I believe it leads to deception because there is NOTHING to align what you see and hear to save for your own imagination or the ideology of the author of UM's favorite book. I mean no disrespect, I am simply speaking plainly and truthfully with you. Without scripture, there is nothing to align what we see and hear to!

Peace to you.
Ken

[UrbanMonk]

Yehoshua went into the Temple and read from the scrolls, he also spoke from his heart. Seeing he is God,

When did Jesus see that he was God? Or, when did he accept that he was God?

I think he knows what the book says... but still read from the scrolls anyway. Spirit alone or book alone does not work, we are led by the Spirit, taught by the Spirit, but must still "rightly divide the Word of Truth."

The Word of Truth is not a book/text/scroll. It's what IS before books/texts/scrolls are scribed in the name of Truth using words. What text, then, can ever be more important than hearing the Word of Truth for ourselves?

We are to "STUDY to show ourselves approved a workman unto God.

"Study" may or may not have anything to do with text. It may in fact have everything to do with sorting out true thoughts from false thoughts in our own mind. This is the "work" of salvation. It's all psychological because salvation is for our mind.

" Even Paul said that scripture is "given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for" among other things "doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness.

What scripture is P(s)aul talking about? The words that he was writing? What about the words that I'm writing?

" So if you want to go it alone without scripture, I certainly cannot nor will not stand in your way.

I have my own texts, which equate to "green pastures". I have been Guided to their use. When they have served their purpose, I will be finished with them. I have been Guided by the Good Shepherd. What about you?

I believe it is a mistake, I believe it leads to deception because there is NOTHING to align what you see and hear to save for your own imagination or the ideology of the author of UM's favorite book.

As far as I can tell, the "author" of one of the textual pastures that I graze in is Jesus, as someone lent him an open mind, open ears, seven years, pen and paper. Who told me the author is the Son of God? Not flesh and bones.

I mean no disrespect, I am simply speaking plainly and truthfully with you. Without scripture, there is nothing to align what we see and hear to!

You are still in a logic loop. The Spirit of Truth must speak to one with an open mind and open ears...before there can ever be any such thing as textual "scripture"! You've truly got it backwards. At any given moment, you are relying on a mind's ability to "hear" the Good Shepherd, and your ability to select which minds are hearing the Good Shepherd! If you select rightly, your teacher, be it text or spoken word, will enable you to hear the Good Shepherd more directly...by changing the way you think...by getting you to open up your own - closed - mind.