Jeff

Interesting theory. But I would disagree with your apologist perspective. The apologist mentality has abosoluting nothing to do with actual teachings of Jesus, but all much more relates to the nature of the various religious-empire-military instutions that attempted to build an entity around him. To me, it is very simple, just throw away Old Testament stuff and focus on the actual words and teachings of Jesus in the various gospels. No one ever really seems to read them in context, but it is very clear. I would also add the gospel Thomas to the mix, as it was probably only not included by the Roman Empire because of it’s specific statements of Peter not being the chosen one and hence diminishing Rome.

In context, only the OT was being referenced.

I don’t see it at all. Rav Hillel was famous for telling everyone to study the Torah (and the law), and one of his most famous sayings is.... “If I am not for myself who is for me? And being for my own self, what am 'I'? And if not now, when?" - Hillel, Pirke Avot I.14, translated Charles Taylor This is not anything like the teachings of Jesus. Additionally, Rav Hillel would tell everyone to fit in to the culture and even dress alike, definitely very un-Jesus like who says how he will set parent against child.

Very interesting that you pick this verse from Mark, because in context it fit exactly what I have been saying about the “new wine” stuff... Mark 2:18-28 “And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” ‭‭ As you can see Jesus with sabbath comment is specifically, talking about the old rules being taken out of context. Additionally, he is saying that he is speaking from “spiritual higher authority” when he says that the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

Thank you very much for your detailed overview. I very much enjoy such discussions. But, if you look at the analysis and similarities that you are describing, it is talking about cross over with the Old Testament and earlier Jewish thought. Additionally, concept like the “trinity” are not stated by or part of the teachings of Jesus, but were added much later by Roman Empire based theologians. And I would agree that it is highly likely that their thinking, was affected by Plato and other great philosophical thinkers. I see it as the Roman Empire redefining the meaning and teachings to create an integrated base within the broader empire. A perfect example of this “hijacking” can be seen in the creation of a hierarchy of priests/fathers, when Jesus very clearly stated that one should call no man father/priest/rabbi. To me, this discussion is silimar to the historical Buddha coming out of a classical and well educated Indian culture. His concept and view was a radical shift in historical view of doctrine that for believers caused a fundamental split. But, from the view of existing Hindu cultural framework, they historically “readopted” him as a classical avatar. i would argue that all of the actual teaching/words of Jesus are about a spiritual understanding and realization, not about a world king revolutionary concept that had been hoped for by political strategists (or the historical Old Testament view).

Thanks for your comments, but my response to Cheshire was related to the topic of Jesus bringing a new and higher understanding then the “old law” of the Old Testament. His point to his original quote from Matthew was an attempt to show that Jesus was the “fulfillment” in terms to continuation, as opposed the new view that the rest of chapter seems to clearly demonstrate (different that Old Testament - Jewish views). Also, I am in no way saying that what Jesus is stating is in some way unique. While personally, I don’t see your Greek/Plato connection, I would agree that the Teachings of Jesus in the gospels are remarkably similar to Buddhist and Daoist thought from that time period. I also think that it is important to note that there is actually no third party historical records for Jesus’s life in general. Only, with John the Baptist, is there such historical records. My point is really that relative to the teachings of Jesus, you might as well just throw away the Old Testament. They talk about two completely different concepts of God and also how a person should relate to others in general. Or Jesus’s terms, new wine that doesn’t fit in the old wineskin (of Judaic Old Testament thought).

Ask the master to do that trick again with putting the paper pieces directly on the table, and see what (doesn’t) happen. Or, visit any good 5th grade science fair and meet many such masters. The key to being able to do it is having very dry hands (and dry environment), any claminess (or direct contact with the table) and the charge breaks down.

With the above video, maybe ask yourself why the little pieces of paper sit on another piece of paper and not directly the table itself. Or, for those who are not familiar with static effects, simply rub a blown up ballon on your head.

I would definitely agree that that Jesus should be read in context, that is why to me taking one verse out of context does not tell the story. If one is interested in the teachings of Jesus, it is important to read the full section. By “fulfill” in this context, he means transcend or move beyond. You can easily see this concept in the later verses of your quoted chapter... Matthew 5:21-22 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” ‭ In the above verse, Jesus is showing that the old literal is not enough. Then he goes on right after that to show a new and “higher” understanding... Matthew 5:38-48 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” ‭ So you can see by the end of the chapter, he is basically rewriting all of the old (Testament) rules.

To me, it tells much more than that. But, I would agree that you could find many similar concepts specifically in the Lotus Sutra and the coming of the many jeweled Stupa (or twin tower buddha). From the last part of Revelations... Revelations 21:1-7 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

I would disagree. The "God" in the Old Testament is a totally different "thing", than in the New Testament with the teachings of Jesus. Additionally, the "motive" with the teachings of Jesus is not about any original sin. It is more about "returning" or seeing through the worldly crap. As Jesus clearly states, he brought the "truth" (or higher realization), not subject to the old laws (old understanding). Or, you can't put new wine in an old wineskin...

I think it is also important to differentiate between the Bible (with the New Testament) itself and really what you are describing about the Old Testament.

This is a followup question from the original post... Anyone feel like things have sort of re-stabilized over the last couple of days? Kind of like today things are more calm or sort of back to (the new) normal? Thanks.

While I would agree that chasing abilities is a trap, I would say that a balanced approach of both observation and energy work can be advantageous. With observation alone, it is possible to fall into a hole and never even notice it is a hole. While with the addition of energy work, one quickly will notice that hole. For me, silence and energy are just two sides of the same coin. While it may seem so for a while, it is not possible to truly have one without the other.

I think you raise a good and interesting point. Definitely agree it can be a trap to pursue powers as that is by definition feeding the ego. But also, I think there is a trap in observation, but never really every clearing any underlying issue, and thinking yourself "enlightened" when still being whipsawed by subconscious stuff. I think the great Kashmir Shaivism master Abhinavagupta, touches on this point well... "The question is thus appropriate because contentment (enlightenment) is not possible without a conscious realization. Contentment is of two kinds. The first is effected by means of absorption (samavesa) and consists of magical powers. The second is attained by reaching a condition of conscious heart-felt realization, and it is the state of being liberated while still alive." -Triadic Heart of Siva

That was really not my intent. As I have described in many posts in this thread, it was more talking about the "formless nature" of the residing. Not trying to say that any guru is better than any other guru (at being a guru ). Also, the spinoff thread further describes what I mean about levels and layers in such a context.

Yes, I still go to work, and love my family. But fear of death, is simply another fear. And that fear can easily cloud your ability to appreciate life. Also, nothing wrong with developing an astral body, it can be a lot of fun, with some very interesting stuff.

Sky, What kind of issues are you having? Anything you can share or describe? Best, Jeff

Interesting concept. What about also having sort of a sex level that is so good, loving and intimate that the two become one together? Kind of like the two polarities merge into oneness.

Yes, very sad to hear. Had the opportunity to see him on his recent tour.

Maybe these words of Jesus will help with the point regarding the Kingdom and where it is found... Luke 17: 20-21 20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

I think he is pretty much saying the exact same thing as Lao Zi. Take a look below from the Tao Te Ching, and I think you will see that he is not talking about “this world” either when residing with the Tao... chapter 14 Look, it cannot be seen—it is beyond form. Listen, it cannot be heard—it is beyond sound. Grasp, it cannot be held—it is intangible. These three are indefinable; Therefore they are joined in one. From above it is not bright; From below it is not dark: An unbroken thread beyond description. It returns to nothingness. The form of the formless, The image of the imageless, It is called indefinable and beyond imagination. Stand before it and there is no beginning. Follow it and there is no end. Stay with the ancient Tao, Move with the present. Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

Much love. Terribly sorry for your loss.

I would say that the Daoist and Buddhist view are the same on this point. Chapter 20 Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles. Is there a difference between yes and no? Is there a difference between good and evil? Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense! Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox. In spring some go to the park and climb the terrace, But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am. Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile, I am alone, without a place to go. Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing. I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused. Others are clear and bright, But I alone am dim and weak. Others are sharp and clever, But I alone am dull and stupid. Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea, Without direction, like the restless wind. Everyone else is busy, But I alone am aimless and without desire. I am different. I am nourished by the great mother. Does a newborn babe have a favorite teacup? Being aimless and without desire, drifting like the waves, and having nothing, kind of implies no favorites.

Guess it depends on the connotations to the “favorite”. The difference can be found If you would miss that teacup when gone. The “missing it” is the suffering part. If favorite simply means most useful, than no big deal, you move on to the next teacup. The individual love is still there, but if you say love the people in your neighboorhood more than some other town, there is still attachment and it is not what I am calling universal love. The concept that I am trying to describe in these examples is more “pure desire” as compared to more individually attached desire. In Buddhism, it is found in the concept of ”bodchitta”, and Taoism, it is found in “de”. The pure (unattached) universal flow to expand (or realize in spiritual terms).