It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus was a master of Kabbalah

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


Where do you get this stuff? Form that movie made by Oliver about Jesus' life? Or from your book of esoterica?




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


What if heat is actually just the absence of cold, and light merely the absence of darkness?

I think I should stress again, just because I put forward a viewpoint or question doesn't mean I believe it, just that it makes an interesting discussion. Thought I should clarify in case anyone thought I actually do believe light is the absence of dark.

EDIT: To make the point I actually wanted to in the first place. Evil might be man-made, but if God were truly all-loving he would not want even the most despicable man to suffer (after all, He loves all, even the most vile) and therefore would put a stop to it. Since he doesn't, it must mean that He doesn't love the worst person. Ah, but he must, he's All-Loving. Maybe He can't stop the evil, then? But then He wouldn't be All-Powerful. Therefore, I proffer for discussion, what we consider Evil is in fact Good, but from our lowly perspective we see it as Evil. If we were God, we would be able to see even the most evil situations for what they truly are, God's unconditional Love.

What d'ya think, guys?

[edit on 15/3/2008 by rexpop]



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Shawn B.
 


If there were such thing as a "master of Kabbalah" that person would realize there is no such thing as a master of Kabbalah.




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Incarnated
 


Ha, I know this is only a one-liner, so it might get removed, but Incarnated just made an excellent and profound point and I wanted him/her to know I applaud her/him.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rexpop
 


well thank you, you might say I was a master kabbalahist, if such a thing existed. LOL

I do understand however the point of the OP and see it's a true enough statement. Unfortuanlly I am conserned it implys that Jesus was taught Kabbalah.

I don't really think Kabbalah can be taught. It needs to be realized and as of anything that requires, at least in my understanding, self ability to realize it. People could study Kabbalah for thousands of years and still not get Kabbalah teachings.

Such teachings come from an internailzed source, not an extrenailzed understanding.

It's that internalized source that is the required medium of expressionary understanding in the spiritual relaity of the phyical world and associatied afterlife that SHOULD BE the desired effect of living in this phyical reality of time and space.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by rexpop
 


Unfortunately ,suffering is necessary. I learn from it. Scott Peck, psychologist, wrote, "all neurosis are the result of the postponement of legitimate suffering." You punish your children... that doesn't mean you don't love them.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Yes, but if you were to punish your children by subjecting them to horrific torture when you have the power to stop such torture, I think it would prove you didn't love them, wouldn't it? Besides, if you truly loved them, absolutely, for who they are, you wouldn't need to punish them - you punish behaviour you don't like, but if you were all-loving, there wouldn't be any behaviours that you didn't like, or else you wouldn't be all-loving.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexpop
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Yes, but if you were to punish your children by subjecting them to horrific torture when you have the power to stop such torture, I think it would prove you didn't love them, wouldn't it? Besides, if you truly loved them, absolutely, for who they are, you wouldn't need to punish them - you punish behaviour you don't like, but if you were all-loving, there wouldn't be any behaviours that you didn't like, or else you wouldn't be all-loving.


Oh wow, now that's a new concept. We should NEVER EVER torture our children. But being all-loving of our children does not in anyway make them perfect...quite the opposite. You can love your children so much that you never, ever discipline them which is exactly the opposite of loving them. I know that sounds like a paradox, but consider this:

I love my child so much that he/she is a part of me and therefore, I cannot punish him/her because I would be punishing myself. Would that be good for the child? No! The child would grow into a monster with no self-control. Being all-loving toward my child does not negate the need for punishment (better said as "correcting them"). Punishment sounds like a bad word. But I think you get my gist.

[edit on 3/16/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Yes, but if you were all-loving you would love them just as much if they were a monster as if they were "perfect". In fact, if you were truly all-loving, there's no difference between the most evil act and the most good act - you love both equally, with all of your being. Even hate. If you're all-loving you even love hate. What's more, you love it with the same ferocity as you love love. If you don't, then you have to give up the title of all-loving, because there is something you don't love. Even if you love even one tiny element of existence slightly less than the rest, you're no longer omnibenevolent.

Since I do believe God is omnibenevolent, I also believe that there's no such thing as evil (from His perspective, at least. From ours, evil is undeniable).



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexpop
Yes, but if you were all-loving you would love them just as much if they were a monster as if they were "perfect". In fact, if you were truly all-loving, there's no difference between the most evil act and the most good act - you love both equally, with all of your being. Even hate. If you're all-loving you even love hate. What's more, you love it with the same ferocity as you love love. If you don't, then you have to give up the title of all-loving, because there is something you don't love. Even if you love even one tiny element of existence slightly less than the rest, you're no longer omnibenevolent.

Since I do believe God is omnibenevolent, I also believe that there's no such thing as evil (from His perspective, at least. From ours, evil is undeniable).


Except for one thing. You can dislike the "hate" and still love the person. You are still all-loving toward the person even though the person needs correction for the "feeling" of hate. God still loves us even when we hate, although hate in and of itself draws "naturally" bad consequences. That is a law of nature. All things (including decisions) have naturally occurring consequences.

You can still be omnibelevolent toward the person but dislike (can't find a better word) the actions. When my child does something wrong (or stupid), I still completely love my child even though I may completely dislike what he/she did or thinks.

By the way, I did not understand this aspect of God until I had children. It was very difficult for me to grasp.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Incarnated
 



Hi Incarnated,

I just wanted to make a quick comment here. Jesus, being God, would have been aware of Qaballa or any other form of religion, spiritualism, dogma, form of worship, etc. But being aware of it and using it are two different things. Not saying he didn't, because I wouldn't know since it's not mentioned in the New Testament...but thought I would draw that line there.

Also, I'm sure the Saducees and Pharasees of the day whom Jesus fought with a vengeance for their pompousness, were aware of and probably used Qaballa since it was a form of the Jewish oral tradition. I'm just not sure Jesus would have needed Qaballa to perform his work.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rexpop
 


But that's people doing that to people. God does not promise justice in this life on earth but the next. Obviously this life is not fair. God has given authority of this world to Satan.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker (and bigwhammy)
 


Yeah, but you're not all-loving, Idle_rocker, no human can be. God can be all-loving, however. If you're happy with a definition of God that says He all-loving but only towards people, that's fine, but I'd say that that means he's not all-loving. All-loving surely means loving all - from a speck of dust to a cloud to a person to a war crime to candle to a... and so on...

Now, just to make clear here, personally I believe that suffering and evil are necessary components of humankind's redemption - and one's individual perfection, too. I do believe all evil comes from God because he loves us and wants us to be perfected and united within him. I'm merely playing devil's advocate - but it's an interesting point, and one that I can't dismiss, and nor can you really. If God is truly omnibenevolent in the most unlimited sense of that word (and God is, if nothing else, unlimited) then God must love everything. Every particle, every concept, every war, every person, every death, every birth, everything. That's what all-loving means. To be loving of ALL.

The only way I can reconcile these things is by reference to the belief that I have that God is also omnipotent. So omnipotent that he's not bound by binary logic, and can do things that seem logically impossible. Like be infinitely close and infinitely transcendent at the same time. And like being all-loving whilst allowing suffering to continue despite that fact that at any time he could stop it.

Which is another question I'd pose, because all these parents comparing themselves to God is a little simplistic, I think - if your child was about to be hurt because of the actions of another person, even if s/he probably deserved it or even directly provoked it, wouldn't you step in if you had the power?



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
To say Paul is a Kabbalist is a direct contradiction to Paul's own words.

So to say Jesus or Paul adheres to the practice of calling on Angels rather than Yahweh as taught in Kabbalah is just absurd heresy.

Notice I provide specific evidence for what I say not just wild claims.



Hey Big...

Well it could be heresy. It seems you are bent to believe so.

Again it also appears my point made in other post have not come through, in that you have one definition of what kabbalah is. If you missed the point about that we are at an impasse it seems.

It is a bit unfortunate, as I have tried to carefully lay out and explain the bit about words and their meanings and how people get tangled in them. But again it is understandable if you have not come to the same realization, so to speak, about words.
(What I just said wont make a bit of sense to you, I wouldnt think, seeing that you are pretty determined you know what kabbalah is. - The word is a pointer that has various traditions within itself)

Ah, and about the verse for the school of the prophets. Did not realize that is what you referred to. Crack open the bible and start reading and find it...if its not there no harm done to you... except getting more into the word. - Im not playing hard here.
I really believe at some point, if someone is truly interested, they will do some research for themelves. It is way to easy to depend on what someone else says.

Does not mean that its not good to help. But if the interest is there, and not just an argumentative, "prove me wrong/right" mentality, you will look.

Otherwise, even if I did find it and post the verse for you, there would probably be yet another hurdle thrown out to me to cross over. (Ive run that part of the race, no need for me to jump the same hurdles.)

This is important as if we realized this, a lot of the bickering in the religious forums would stop. Because typically when one has the prove me wrong or right mentality and it leads to no where.

When one is truly curious they put the effort there to. In this case it would benefit you either way it would seem. If im wrong, you got more in the "Word"...if Im right...well you have something new to ponder and you have the reward of your own effort and not an easy bone where you can than challenge "what that verse may or may not actually mean." - This last cycle goes on forever...even within or amongst denominations.

That last statement shows something that I found to be true growing up and that the body of Christ is splintered. There is no unity except against the infidel. (Well maybe that term isnt used in Christianity.)


Lastly, I believe you said that my claim about Paul is heresy, which is what we have been discussing.

But remember this...a persons testimony is theres...no one can take it from them.
You are free to your own beliefs, but your beliefs cannot be enforced on another.

Put simply, it was my own experience from studying Paul day in and day out and then studying kabbalah (If I can use that word without all the baggage going with it... as people make 'idols' out of words)...anyway it was for me like a connection. I saw what Paul said and what I had learned in Kabbalah as being the same.

Now what did I learn? Im sure wiki will tell you.

But see the absurdity in this? Wiki has no idea what I studied.
Some may argue, "then it wasnt kabbalah that you studied".

Read up more and you will eventually see...if you actually pay attention, that its not just one system of thought.


When you put strings around something so tight, you distort what it truly is. Let it loose and dont be afraid to search.

Again, my post dont seem to be actually coming through. The most I get from your replies are more demands to see more of this, or to to be told definitively that such talk is heresey.

The last is a statement made up by a mind that already 'knows what it believes' and thus drives home what I have been talking about. If one is not open then one cannot receive. And all work done will be in vain and the swine will trample the pearls. (not calling you a swine, but the parable fits) Because a lot of effort can and does often go into trying to prove ones point as the other says, "if you just show me a sign". But in truth they dont want to know...they believe they do know.

The cup is full and no more water can be put in.

I dont expect this to be understood by you at all.
Not because you cant understand it, or that Im clever.
But based upon how I understand your post, in that it seems you have not caught on with where Im coming from thus far.

At this point, this is all I have to say on this subject, so any other comments by either of us would more than likely be the ego (false self as Paul put it) trying to push its own 'agenda' through.


Peace

dAlen



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dAlen
 


In regards to the prophet bit mentioned in the above post, I will give some extra insight into it. After researching it again, it may only be fair to do so.

If you go to koshertorah.com and check out the Rabbis material I believe you will come to understand that in Jewish tradition (kabbalah aside) prophesy was something learned. (I have tapes/cds from the rabbi, etc. No I dont have any immediate quotes from him, but you may find it beneficial to go through his free online pdf library.)

Again, this gets to the roots and past a lot of the mumbo jumbo in a lot of Christianity concerning prophesy today. And you may actually get a better translation as well.


So there is a pointer, but it does turn more into a 'study' and not a 'quick fix'.
Its there for those who are interested. And the only reason I refer to a Jewish Orthodox website is that it would seem that understanding the culture and beliefs of those from whom the Christian faith started, would be of some benefit to cut through some of the confusing dogma that splits the church today.

Anway...suppose enough said on this.

peace

dAlen

p.s. - Just kind of hit me, but I have totally forgotten in my communication that its not a matter of sharing basic experience and thought with Christians and going beyond that.

Many people are still in their denomination trappings.
There are no bridges for them to cross.

I suppose I have been spoiled to have worked amongst Christians of various denominations who were not hardline but seemed to meld together relatively well despite their differences.

But this indeed does add to the dynamic of communicating with Christians, as there are (as I have pointed out before in other post and in my blog) some great divides in theology.

So looking at Christianity as a whole as united in belief and going from there...while conceptually good will not always reach the mass crowd and be understood. Often much can be taken for granted, believing the other to obviously 'know/believe' what you know or believe. When indeed they are isolated from concepts due to presentation as well as living in the confines of their dogma.

This may not make sense to some...in reality its something I was pondering as I was considering the communication gap with what I write and many Christians on this board, so I thought I would jot it down.


It does show the different approach though.
I have looked at things wholistically through my spiritual journey...trying to find the unity in the body of Christ, so to speak, and so my approach is different than getting tied down in the mundane and lost in the trappings of words which are pointers beyond themselves.

I take it for granted that everyone is like that, and I would assume that true seekers are pretty much like that. As you have to look at the bigger picture.

None-the-less its good to remember that there indeed are yet different areas and paths people are traversing and its good to have insight into the communication pattern amongst those groups, which can help with clarity in what the presenter is saying.
(Although in this case it would take a lot more effort and work and really, as one of my post above points out, would be rather futile unless that person is actually ready to go beyond fear and the constrictions of dogma.)

Anway...like I said, quick thoughts jotted down, dont get lost in what is said...


[edit on 16-3-2008 by dAlen]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by dAlen
 




Again more big talk... zero evidence. I know nothing about the Kabbalah really but I've presented more facts than you have. I really have no reason to believe you, you have a pattern of making big claims on this board. When asked to back it up you consistently side step. Sorry it has nothing to do with getting crossed up in words; it's more your condescending tone with no substance to back it up.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
Ah, and about the verse for the school of the prophets. ... Crack open the bible and start reading and find it ... I really believe at some point, if someone is truly interested, they will do some research for themelves.


Hey...
I did do the research... I posted the info about the school on this forum.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Again more big talk... zero evidence.


Did no one read my post?


it's more your condescending tone


I don't mean to rude, dAlen, because I really dig your philosophising, but sometimes you do come across as a bit condescending. I know you probably don't mean your posts to sound that way, but I think it's putting some people on the defensive, and then everyone comes off looking close-minded, even though they're probably not in reality. I know I often overstate things when I feel I'm being attacked, even though it gives a misleading picture of my actual beliefs. Then again, I'll often take the side of the apparent underdog even if I don't share any of his/her beliefs just because on a forum like this all ideas deserve a proper hearing, even ones that don't agree with me.

Also, I think a good point was made earlier by Incarnated. If Jesus really was the son of God (and for intellectual honesty here I will tell you my real belief which is that Jesus was just an ordinary person who was later transformed into a religion) he wouldn't need to use kaballah as he would be God and therefore omnipotent. Only mortals (and maybe angels and demons?) require kabbalah to perform miracles.

[edit on 16/3/2008 by rexpop]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rexpop
 


God is all-loving. Evil is necessary to reveal love and right-thinkingness. That is why the commandments were given. The Israelites did not understand their own wickedness and evil thoughts and deeds. In order to understand good, you must be shown something to compare it to.

That still doesn't mean God isn't all-loving. He doesn't create the wars and other evils you mention. He does not love those. But he still is tender-hearted toward those who foment the wars knowing through Jesus (who lived in a physical human world and felt human emotions) that they do not understand what they do or why they do it.

Remember on the cross Jesus said "forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do".

And the comparison with children may be simplistic, but it's the closest match I can find for God the Father. Now you also mentioned Omnipotent. Yes, God is also Omnipotent, everywhere at the same time, knowing and loving. And I agree with your premise that if I knew my child were in trouble I would want to save him/her. That one is a difficult one to reconcile. However, I don't think God always intervenes in our affairs and some things are allowed to happen in order to teach lessons. A good book is "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People". I can't remember the author's name, but he's Jewish...not written from a Christian point of view and it's very good at explaining these things.



[edit on 3/16/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
reply to post by rexpop
 


God is all-loving. Evil is necessary to reveal love and right-thinkingness.




Okay so what you're saying is... you wouldn't recognize someone being nice to you without people being jerks to you?...

or you wouldn't be able to see people doing good in the world without the people doing bad?........

These are dangerous belief systems which allow those bad people to exist in tolerance.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rockerThat still doesn't mean God isn't all-loving. He doesn't create the wars and other evils you mention. He does not love those.


Then, by your own admission, He's not all-loving: there exists something he does not love (namely sin). He might be very, very loving, but as long as there is something, even the tiniest thing, even the most hateful thing, that He does not love, he cannot, by definition, be all-loving. The important part here is the all bit.


But he still is tender-hearted toward those who foment the wars knowing through Jesus (who lived in a physical human world and felt human emotions) that they do not understand what they do or why they do it.


I agree with that (apart from the Jesus part). I do want to stress that my own personal beliefs are very similar to yours, idle_rocker, I just want to make clear that theodicy is no simple matter. There is no answer to it that is going to satisfy everybody, or even answer the problem in its totality. The problem of evil is something we all have to struggle with if we believe in both an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God. I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just trying to say that it's a profoundly difficult issue and that there are no easy answers. If there were, theodicy wouldn't have been the hot-topic for theologians from time immemorial to present day. No one has yet found a solution that answers the problem comprehensively. If they had, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I just think it's really important for all believers of anything (and not just talking about religion here) not to get complacent in their assumptions and faith. Faith is meant to be a struggle, a constant dialectic with the Almighty - at least in my opinion, although I have no beef with you if you disagree completely.

Also, for those of us for whom Jesus does not figure in our faith, the problem of Evil is not answered by Jesus' crucifixion.

EDIT: for typos, the usual drill

[edit on 16/3/2008 by rexpop]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join