A question about the Law

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

. . . I believe he "god" of the OT is a false God
That character in the OT can only be a 'false God' if a person makes Him one.
There was always the real God who existed, no matter how the Israelites were describing 'their' God.
There were entities involved in that national history but the NT describes it as an "administration of angels".
The NT also warns against worshiping angels.
So don't worship story characters as God, that's idolatry.
Worship the 'Living God' like the OT tells you to, the one we now know through Jesus, His Son.
edit on 1-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Your post on the other thread seems to be a longer version of what you said here.
I can't hardly imagine you being more wrong.
I would say that the exact opposite is more likely to be true, than your take.
I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion so it is rather worthless.
LOL. You are sounding like Paul, who also had no apparent interest in Jesus' earthly life - or at least its importance. It is unimaginable that the many people who followed Jesus did not feel his love, example, and personal impact of his teaching in their lives. He lived as love and this would have been felt as the basis for living his core commandments that prepared their body-minds for his Blessing.

This is what Jesus wanted the disciples to live and continue, but Paul usurped all of this by only promoting and objectifying the icon of Jesus up in heaven, and that the belief in this icon would lead to one's eventual salvation. Jesus was a living master who taught people how to love the Divine directly through the spiritual relationship with him and this is absolutely essential for Christians to reclaim.
edit on 1-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

This is what Jesus wanted the disciples to live and continue, but Paul usurped all of this by only promoting and objectifying the icon of Jesus up in heaven, and that the belief in this icon would lead to one's eventual salvation. Jesus was a living master who taught people how to love the Divine directly through the spiritual relationship with him and this is absolutely essential for Christians to reclaim.
Spiritual masterbation?
How is your 'icon' better than the Risen Christ.
"Was" in your paragraph is rather significant.
Meditate on that.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
"Was" in your paragraph is rather significant.
Meditate on that.

Good Lord... I used the word "was" because I personally am not a Christian. If I was a Christian I would have said this in the present tense - so I feel this is irrelevant in terms of what we are discussing here.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
How is your 'icon' better than the Risen Christ.
My icon? I am talking about a non-separative relationship with the Divine - not the objectifying of the Divine as some distant separate iconic Other to only be believed in and at a future time be saved by.

Jesus granted salvation in this life to his disciples who where "born from above" by Jesus' direct blessing. This is the tradition that Paul did not understand.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


So, the gospels to you is a nice story because it fits somehow with what you already believe?
Have a nice day.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 
Your comments seem to be getting rude and presumptuous and I am not sure why.

I am deeply respectful of Jesus, his teachings, and his work - and love what he truly represents in the great spiritual tradition of mankind. I have long been a student of his teachings, have learned much, and am greatly inspired by his message of love and esotericism - and I have only ever praised him and his message. Not sure what the problem with my recent participation here is for you, jmdewey.

Anyway, a very nice day to you too.
edit on 2-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

Not sure what the problem with my recent participation here is for you, jmdewey.
I'm having a problem with my 'participating ' with you.
I have to think that you are probably a Muslim and that would explain your attitude, that your religion tells you Jesus was a real person.
Unless you believe that Jesus is god, then merely acknowledging him as a historical person does you no good.
And I think your emphasis on 'devotion' would be explained too, by your religious affiliation, since they are big on that, praying five times a day and that sort of thing, believing that being religious means ritual and meditation.
I don't believe in that and so my earlier comment that you may be taking offense at. I do not apologize and feel now more its appropriateness.
I would have the same problem with someone who I realized was a New Ager who saw Jesus as a kind of mandala, to look at and focus feelings of love with. That's not the purpose of Jesus' life. Jesus was god, preincarnate, living in heaven with God the Father, who then came to earth as a man to save us, and in the process, suffering and dying so that we can have what he has, a resurrected body, and can live, at least hypothetically, 'forever' with God, too.
Having conversations with such a person, over theology, is just an exercise in futility because they are not interested in being a Christian, just looking at the shiny object hanging by a thread, so pretty, spinning in the wind, and reflecting the sunlight.
edit on 2-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I'm having a problem with my 'participating ' with you.
I have to think that you are probably a Muslim and that would explain your attitude, that your religion tells you Jesus was a real person.
I can only assume from the presumptions you are making here that you do not read my posts unless they are specifically addressed to you. No problem there, they do tend to be a bit long. However, it would be wise of you to actually read what I post before jumping to conclusions and writing me off because you think I am a Muslim or belonging to some other religion you do not agree with. Reading my posts and THEN writing me off is one thing, but not reading them sufficiently and deciding I am a Muslim, and writing me off, is quite another.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, it seems you are saying that unless I am a Christian you don't want to consider anything with me. Isn't that what is commonly called close-minded?


Originally posted by jmdewey60
Unless you believe that Jesus is god, then merely acknowledging him as a historical person does you no good.
And I think your emphasis on 'devotion' would be explained too, by your religious affiliation, since they are big on that, praying five times a day and that sort of thing, believing that being religious means ritual and meditation.
I don't believe in that and so my earlier comment that you may be taking offense at. I do not apologize and feel now more its appropriateness.

Again, you are jumping to conclusions and projecting. What I said earlier was that Jesus was a spiritual Master and if one looked at the traditions relative to the true spiritual masters, this could shed some light on the esoteric aspects of Jesus' teachings. Those posts are in that same "Paul" thread and elsewhere, though I doubt you will bother given your statements here.

Actually, I have never said that I am certain that Jesus existed as a real person - relative to actual conclusive evidence that is still under investigation by many many people, as you must well know.

However, and somewhat ironically, the most conclusive evidence that Jesus actually was a real person is in his esoteric teachings - at least in my opinion. His commandments of loving God with the whole body-mind and one's neighbor as oneself are his admonitions to everyone relative to our essential non-separation from God and all, and living these commandments also prepared the body-mind for his esoteric Blessing. There are various passages in the NT that describe those esoteric processes in a way that are very consistent with what other God-realized spiritual masters have described in detail.

Once again in my opinion, no group of unrealized writers could have come up with the esotericism found in the NT. Such teachings were actually secret back then - only truly prepared followers would be initiated in them. E.g., the ascension to above and being born from above are clearly documented by other spiritual traditions but was not publicly available back then. So unless Jesus as a realizer of the Divine Spirit Light above actually existed and initiated others in these processes, no one would have known about them.

Anyway, I wrote more about this on other threads and will let that be enough of a recap here.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus was god, preincarnate, living in heaven with God the Father, who then came to earth as a man to save us, and in the process, suffering and dying so that we can have what he has, a resurrected body, and can live, at least hypothetically, 'forever' with God, too.
Yes, that is exactly the Avataric tradition spoken of by other spiritual realizers.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
Having conversations with such a person, over theology, is just an exercise in futility because they are not interested in being a Christian, just looking at the shiny object hanging by a thread, so pretty, spinning in the wind, and reflecting the sunlight.
Actually, I am not wanting to look at Jesus as an object at all. That is what Paul's writings have tended to do - to de-personify and objectify Jesus into a distant sacred "Other" only to be believed in.

Jesus is not separate from the Divine nor did he assume anyone is. But to not understand his teachings here on earth as a means of "being born to here from above" because of this de-personification and belief in some later salvation, is to miss his most essential point. Jesus granted his followers non-separate love/God-union in this life. Jesus did not want everyone to wait until some future date to understand and live this principle of unity - he called for it presently and blessed many with this understanding.

All I was basically trying to communicate, jmdewey, was that Jesus taught his Oneness with the Divine directly and personally to many people, calling everyone to that presently through his person, example, commandments, and blessing. And this is certainly not what Paul emphasized - nor did (does) the subsequent institutions of Christianity tend to either. Until Christianity is restored to its original exoteric and esoteric roots, it will only continue in its decline.
edit on 2-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

. . . Jesus taught his Oneness with the Divine directly and personally to many people, calling everyone to that presently through his person, example, commandments, and blessing.
"Jesus" is not a teaching that people can pick up and practice and learn to recognize their own god-ness or whatever.
That to me is objectifying Jesus.
Jesus was a person who lived and died as one of us but is now in heaven acting as intermediary between us and God, to God, as a representative of humanity, and to us, as a representative for God.
Jesus taught his oneness explanation, not to the "many", but to the few, his closest disciples, and then he was describing a oneness with God through him, with those who believe in Jesus being in Christ, and Jesus being in the Father.
That principal is repeated by Paul.
We have a relationship with the 'now' Jesus, who is the living risen Christ in heaven.
The 'gospel' Jesus is a cardboard cutout story-board, who is not a living person.
edit on 2-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
"Jesus" is not a teaching that people can pick up and practice and learn to recognize their own god-ness or whatever.
That to me is objectifying Jesus.
Jesus was a person who lived and died as one of us but is now in heaven acting as intermediary between us and God, to God, as a representative of humanity, and to us, as a representative for God.
Jesus taught his oneness explanation, not to the "many", but to the few, his closest disciples, and then he was describing a oneness with God through him, with those who believe in Jesus being in Christ, and Jesus being in the Father.
That principal is repeated by Paul.

The quote below is fitting - it does not speak of waiting until death for such unity (or oneness) to be recognized. It is talking about this Divine Unity for everyone in this world too. This was Jesus' essential message because he did not assume he was the only one that is not separate from God and therefore was some kind of absolute intermediary.

He assumed everyone is non-separate from God, but Paul clung to the old traditions of assuming everyone was a sinner (i.e., separate from God) and so made Jesus the intermediary in some distant objectified manner to be one's savior at some future date.

Jesus blessed many with his spirit transmission and would speak in terms of this Blessing being the means to be awakened to here from above, but Paul never received Jesus' direct Blessing in these human terms. So Paul spoke of Jesus as some absolute intermediary or Divine Separate Other, not the great master who demonstrated even in this world the Divine Spirit Light above, and left teachings of love and spiritual practice. Jesus had hoped for a lineage of disciples to continue with both the exoteric and esoteric teachings for all future followers to realize their fundamental inheritance as children of God Whom they are not separate from.



John 17:20-26
New International Version (NIV)

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.



Originally posted by jmdewey60
We have a relationship with the 'now' Jesus, who is the living risen Christ in heaven.
The 'gospel' Jesus is a cardboard cutout story-board, who is not a living person.

Yes, when Jesus was physically alive he constantly reminded his followers that he was beyond the body-mind and to love the Divine as his whole being demonstrated. In other words, Jesus was always reminding his followers that the flesh alone was not Truth.

So even while present as the body-mind, Jesus admonished his followers to love the Divine fully and others as oneself - not later after they were saved at some future time, but NOW because upon recognizing Jesus as the very Divine, THAT was their salvation! And only on the basis of living that recognition moment to moment could they fulfill his otherwise impossible commandments of love.

Jesus expected this message of one's inherent ("inherited") non-separation from the Divine from the very beginning to be the basis for true morality and real practice relative to both life and spirit. He had hoped that his exoteric message (the commandments of love) and his esoteric message ("to be born to here from above") would be the basis for Christianity and peace on earth. Unfortunately, Paul got a big jump on re-working things which made for a more acceptable (by the masses) message of mainly belief in Jesus for one's future salvation and far less emphasis on responsibility for the commandments.
edit on 2-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


You should include like a little glossary to define your terminology.
I am guessing that "the divine" is your way of avoiding saying "God".
Where God is not a person but some kind of spiritual substance.

Anyway, your post gave me a little chuckle.
I'll have to get back with you on that.
It is a bit dreary on the boards so I'm kind of stuck with this.
edit on 2-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You should include like a little glossary to define your terminology.
I am guessing that "the divine" is your way of avoiding saying "God".
Where God is not a person but some kind of spiritual substance.
The Divine could just as readily be called the Divine Person as far as I am concerned. I use the word God as well, but some people relate better to the word Divine than God. What other terminology should I clarify?


Originally posted by jmdewey60
It is a bit dreary on the boards so I'm kind of stuck with this.
LOL. As an alternative to being stuck with this discussion, you could always just simply take a break, be still, and surrender to the Divine Person with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength.
edit on 2-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

As an alternative to being stuck with this discussion
. . . this discussion is an alternative to what seems to me like juvenile bickering on some other threads. That's what I meant by "dreary".
I had to surrender to my bed and get some rest. I think I'm better now.

. . . not . . . waiting until death for . . . oneness . . . to be . . .
There was this thing that Jesus was trying to get at in John 11 about life and resurrection, that you can be given a type of life that is independent of the physical life of the body.

It is talking about this Divine Unity for everyone in this world too
I don't know about all of that. The important thing is a unity between fellow humans that is accomplished through the divine. I don't think God needs us to be "united" with Him other than in principle, as in us living in harmony with divine principles of love. It would be ridiculous I think to imagine a God who need our love, other than loving what He stands for, which is goodness.
edit on 3-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

. . . you do not read my posts unless they are specifically addressed to you.
That is true sometimes.
Sometimes I feel stressed out and skip a lot of stuff that looks like a private conversation.
Also a lot of stuff I skip because it is difficult or too annoying to read.
At least you write well, with good grammar and spelling.
A lot of times I get put off by bad writing because I think, if the writer could not take the time to read what he just wrote, then why should I bother.

they do tend to be a bit long.
That's not the problem. I'm reading all day long, from early in the morning to late at night.

read what I post before jumping to conclusions and writing me off
A lot of times all I can think about is what is right in from of my face.
Seriously and it isn't just you, it's everyone on this forum, they imagine that readers know all their philosophy because they posted it so many times.
If you have a philosophy, and you want others to know what it is, then you have to post it every single day, and not imagine everyone is keeping a personal dossier on you.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
There was this thing that Jesus was trying to get at in John 11 about life and resurrection, that you can be given a type of life that is independent of the physical life of the body.


John 11
New International Version (NIV)
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

I assume this is the part of John 11 you are referring to? I think what Jesus is saying here is that one must die to identifying with the body-mind and all of its fleshly desires, selfish principles, etc. This "death" is what living his core commandments is about. This dying was further accomplished by Jesus' Blessing his most devoted followers - and this Blessing raised them up to the Divine Spirit Light Above to what is Eternal (God the Father).

Thus being born to here from above, they saw what is the Truth and could then live in this mortal fleshy realm with freedom from fear of death. In that sense, one is independent of the physical life and its mortal bondage and its message of survival at all costs, etc.

And of course if their understanding deepened and became constant through real practice of Jesus' commandments and Blessings, it would allow them to meet their actual physical death without the usual fear because they fully knew they were not simply the body-mind.

This great Blessing is the salvation Jesus was offering to his most ardent followers - the ones who prepared their body-mind's for his Reception by their of loving God with their whole body-mind and spirit, and neighbors as oneself.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
The important thing is a unity between fellow humans that is accomplished through the divine.
Yes, once one recognizes the Divine, the unity that we all arise in is obvious.


Originally posted by jmdewey60
I don't think God needs us to be "united" with Him other than in principle, as in us living in harmony with divine principles of love. It would be ridiculous I think to imagine a God who need our love, other than loving what He stands for, which is goodness.
God does not need to be united with us because from the Divine Person's "standpoint" , He already is. God is not separate from us - but we in our mortal meanderings believe and even seem to be apparently separate from God.

God is Love, so God does not rely on our love. However, God's impulse is the Law of Love which always draws our hearts to this tacitly felt recognition of Who He Is. The Divine is always available to us, we just don't tend to notice.
edit on 3-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

I think what Jesus is saying here is that one must die to identifying with the body-mind and all of its fleshly desires, selfish principles, etc. This "death" is what living his core commandments is about.
I would have to engage in semantics in order to find disagreement with your post.
So, that would be a response to your earlier post, asking what other terms you should define.
I was participating in a group bicycle ride yesterday on this 'old railway bed turned to pedestrian/bike/skate traffic' park and at the end of the ride, one of the members said "Life is good." I thought it was profound in the context of the general conversation that had come up.
That to me would be "identifying with the body-mind". There is nothing wrong with that and is why we exist, or at least why we exist in a material physical universe.
Getting evil out of the equation is a commendable pursuit. Wanting to be "dead" seems completely worthless to me and is against the principle of what is good for everyone.
In that quote is the word, life:

". . . whoever lives by believing in me . . ."

a way of life, not death.
Now that is not to say that there is not a place for dying, Jesus did it, because he felt trying to save his life at that point would have caused more harm that good, and the beneficial aspects of the life he had led up to that point would have been diluted and lost.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by micmerci
 


If all hasn't been accomplished then how are Christians exempt from the Law? He didn't say nothing but Christians would pass from the Law did he?

By your logic, Jews are still saved by keeping the Law. What was that about Jesus being the only way again?
edit on 31-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


The Jews were never "saved" by keeping the law.
Salvation has always been through faith, beginning with Abraham.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


So what was the point of the law if it never saved? If the Law never saved, what happened to all the Jews in the BC's? God let millions of Jews go to hell the thousand or so years before Jesus came?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


So what was the point of the law if it never saved? If the Law never saved, what happened to all the Jews in the BC's? God let millions of Jews go to hell the thousand or so years before Jesus came?


God chose the Jews to be a holy people. He set them apart to be an example to the rest of the world. He gave them the laws to follow, in faith, and when they followed the Law, they were abundantly blessed. If they abandoned the Law, they were punished. All this so the rest of the gentile world would recognise that there is a God and turn to Him.
Those who followed the Law in faith were the ones that were in Abraham's bosom.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


So now they were saved by the Law...

If following the Law gave them blessings then how is that any different from being saved?





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join