Come gather round people, and hear the Good News!

[Aetherous]

You then interpret doing the will of the father as not being a sinner...

 

It's not my interpretation...as he is calling those who don't do the will of the Father, "lawbreakers" or "evildoers" or possibly another translation would say "sinners". They all mean the same thing of course.

 

So what is sin? Well one thing that Jesus made very clear throughout his short ministry is that sin has nothing to do with breaking the Law of Moses.

 

False, as we can see very clearly here...

 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

- Matthew 5:17-20 NIV

 

Pretty direct, eh?

 

He was quite prepared to break the law as he saw fit. Breaking the law,for example, by healing on the sabbath, is how everyone else around him thought of sin, but not him.  He had something else in mind.

 

Perhaps healing on the sabbath wasn't actually breaking the Law, but people only assumed it was.

 

He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

- Matthew 12:11-12 NIV

 

Did he have a new different set of rules and commandments?

 

Well, he said he came to fulfill the old law, not to come with a different new version that negates the old. The new version (fulfilling the law) is actually more challenging than the old version, as we can see here...

 

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,^a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister^b c will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’^d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

- Matthew 5:21-22 NIV

 

Who can never be angry with others?

 

No, his only requirement is the rather vague suggestion that we 'love God with all our heart and all our soul and all our strength and all our mind.

 

That was one thing he said. It certainly wasn't the only requirement...

 

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

- Matthew 5:48

 

So how do we 'do the will of our father?'

 

Doing the will of the father is putting yourself in such an attitude of surrender, that you are able, on a moment by moment basis, to know what is required.  When such surrender is possible for you, you no longer need any rigid guidance engraved on tablets of stone.  The law is engraved upon your heart and you are a law unto yourself, which is being a law unto God.

 

To do the will of the father is pure wu wei, and this is what Jesus taught to his uncomprehending followers.

 

It's kind of a good idea, that the law could be engraved on one's heart...following the spirit of the law rather than the letter. I think this idea is throughout the New Testament as well (vaguely recall seeing it). To follow the law too rigidly, at the expense of the good, is what the Pharisees did, as we know...and apparently they were not kosher to Jesus. So you're onto something here, perhaps.

 

But how could we discern whether our guidance is from the wisdom of God, or wisdom of the world or just from ourselves? What seems right or feels good in the moment isn't always right! Anyone who has tried their hand at celibacy knows this.

 

Specific ideas about sin, are the lot of the unregenerate.  Only those who do not love and trust God will preoccupy themselves with what is and isn't sin.

 

It certainly appears that way sometimes, for instance with the actions of the Westboro Baptist church (if you're aware of them). To be clear...accusing others of being sinners, judging them or treating them poorly, is not the path that Jesus taught. But that's not to say that sin is non-existent according to him! It just means that mercy and forgiveness are important.

 

...Another way to look at "loving and trusting" God, is to actually obey the laws...for instance, believing that God inspired or guided people to write those ideas down on how to properly live, trusting that they are accurate even if they don't make sense immediately (because we lack wisdom to grasp why they're necessary).

 

If a person doesn't do this, and just feels love for a nebulous concept of an all powerful all knowing creator being or something, which they have no personal experience with...well, perhaps there is some good to that. Maybe they get some comfort in believing in that kind of God. But my entire point is just to not associate it with being the same as Jesus' teaching. As we can see from his own words, it's far from it, to say that sin isn't a consideration in his path.

 

Anyway...the Christian way isn't for all. I can't even honestly call myself a Christian...only someone who has an interest in it and who wishes they were able to practice it. I don't expect anyone here to follow it...this is a Daoist forum for the most part. There are other spiritual paths. It's incredibly difficult, and almost no one likes to hear the truth of what it really involves. Because who can be "perfect"? None of us are.

 

All I ask is that you don't misquote or misrepresent various teachers who can't speak for themselves in response. When you put words in their mouth, which directly contradict words that already came out of their mouth, it's highly dishonest and slanders their teaching. That's my only point here!

[Jeff]

False, as we can see very clearly here...

 

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

- Matthew 5:17-20 NIV

 

Pretty direct, eh?

 

...

 

A few words for you consideration on the nature of the law and what Jesus brought...

 

Hebrews 8: 5-6, 12-13

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

...

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

The new covenant is the also known as the new wine that cannot be poured into an old wineskin without breaking the wineskin. The laws (or lower sutra like understanding) were refined.

[Spotless]

Any high biblical scholar would be very wary of speaking about what Jesus may have said or not said because if one is highly informed as to the nature of the compilation of the various Bible's then it becomes extraordinarily clear that we have nothing that has come down to us that is not suspect to the greatest degree.

 

Therefore interpreting what has been presented to us in the various concoctions and possible histories regarding the verbiage of Jesus is perfectly natural and open to every form of understanding.

 

It is typically the enlightening ones that are needed to tell us what Jesus was actually referring to when he said this or that because the distortions at this point could and most probably are very similar to the school house lesson where the teacher shows a simple picture to one student who must then draw what he saw and then show the next student a quick glance at what he drew and that person has to draw what he saw and so on and so forth until at the end the teacher shows the original picture of a house with a crescent moon and the last "copy" of that very same handed down version and it now appears to be a squashed bug with a ball nearby on the ground.

 

Quoting what Jesus's "actual words" we're from his lips as though we might actually speak to this with assurance is pretty much painting oneself into the hall of fools - unless you are actually an awakened and enlightening being.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Spotless

[Spotless]

What is interesting is that nearly every one of the awakened enlightening individuals that speak of Jesus come immediately closer to the gist of our original poster here than any who have refuted it.

 

(This would include awakened enlightening Christians who have awakened from their former "Christianity" and who in all cases distance themselves very clearly from their former understanding to the point of looking for all intents and purposes like those of Eastern religions - obviously in some cases they could not distance themselves too broadly or they might be put to death)

Edited May 28, 2015 by Spotless

[Aetherous]

A few words for you consideration on the nature of the law and what Jesus brought...

 

Hebrews 8: 5-6, 12-13

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

...

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

The new covenant is the also known as the new wine that cannot be poured into an old wineskin without breaking the wineskin. The laws (or lower sutra like understanding) were refined.

 

That teaching is likely from Paul, who was highly influential of beliefs in the modern Christian church, but who wasn't one of the 12 Apostles who were taught by Jesus while he was alive. Personally, I find that a lot of what he wrote was nice to consider, but it's not infallible in terms of representing Jesus' ideas and teachings, especially when it contradicts them.

 

Basically, who are you going to believe? A guy who didn't meet the teacher, who contradicts the teachings at times...or the words attributed to the teacher himself, sometimes in multiple different books? The guy saying that the old law is "obsolete", or the teacher clearly stating that it's still in effect?

[Spotless]

Their is a case in one of the interviews at batgap.com with a former hell and brim fire type Christian that made his living going about giving sermons at various churches in many States here in the USA. It happened to him that an event in his life triggered a complete upheaval and required a break and rethink - this created the stillness in a brief moment for him to awaken and become in an enlightening state.

 

Everything changed for him and his view of the bible and its teaching, his former conclusions and assurance. The new awareness fit very naturally but it certainly did not fit well with the congregations that he previously spoke to - they could quote hook line and sinker from the bible that he was wrong, that Jesus did not mean what he now knew to be true and the wall was as solid as ever. Only a few could accept what he came to know and wished to share.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Spotless

[noonespecial]

That teaching is likely from Paul, who was highly influential of beliefs in the modern Christian church, but who wasn't one of the 12 Apostles who were taught by Jesus while he was alive. Personally, I find that a lot of what he wrote was nice to consider, but it's not infallible in terms of representing Jesus' ideas and teachings, especially when it contradicts them.

 

Basically, who are you going to believe? A guy who didn't meet the teacher, who contradicts the teachings at times...or the words attributed to the teacher himself, sometimes in multiple different books? The guy saying that the old law is "obsolete", or the teacher clearly stating that it's still in effect?

 

In all fairness to Paul, Jesus as an Adept, and dare I say a Deity, purposely contradicted himself often, the key is noticing who he is addressing - you mentioned the well known verse 'not one iota (yod)' and the 'righteousness of the pharisees' - yet in the very same gospel, he calls the Pharisees hypocrites and a broods of vipers, and again tells them God can raise a new 'chosen' people from 'stones' - so which is it? Both most likely, the teaching seem to be adapted to circumstance. Either way, from the sanctioned Christians point of view, all things were accomplished, the heaven and earth passed away but not in a litetal sesne with the crucifxion and resurection of Christ, so the Law of Moses is nullified post Ascencion. New wineskins.

[Jeff]

That teaching is likely from Paul, who was highly influential of beliefs in the modern Christian church, but who wasn't one of the 12 Apostles who were taught by Jesus while he was alive. Personally, I find that a lot of what he wrote was nice to consider, but it's not infallible in terms of representing Jesus' ideas and teachings, especially when it contradicts them.

 

Basically, who are you going to believe? A guy who didn't meet the teacher, who contradicts the teachings at times...or the words attributed to the teacher himself, sometimes in multiple different books? The guy saying that the old law is "obsolete", or the teacher clearly stating that it's still in effect?

 

Ok, if you don't like Paul, which gospels do you accept...

 

Luke 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

Luke 5:34-39

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.

37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

Or does one just prefer the old wine...?

[Jeff]

Any high biblical scholar would be very wary of speaking about what Jesus may have said or not said because if one is highly informed as to the nature of the compilation of the various Bible's then it becomes extraordinarily clear that we have nothing that has come down to us that is not suspect to the greatest degree.

 

Therefore interpreting what has been presented to us in the various concoctions and possible histories regarding the verbiage of Jesus is perfectly natural and open to every form of understanding.

 

It is typically the enlightening ones that are needed to tell us what Jesus was actually referring to when he said this or that because the distortions at this point could and most probably are very similar to the school house lesson where the teacher shows a simple picture to one student who must then draw what he saw and then show the next student a quick glance at what he drew and that person has to draw what he saw and so on and so forth until at the end the teacher shows the original picture of a house with a crescent moon and the last "copy" of that very same handed down version and it now appears to be a squashed bug with a ball nearby on the ground.

 

Quoting what Jesus's "actual words" we're from his lips as though we might actually speak to this with assurance is pretty much painting oneself into the hall of fools - unless you are actually an awakened and enlightening being.

 

What is a "high biblical scholar" and how would they be any different than "the enlightening ones that are needed to tell us what Jesus was actually referring to"? All such speaking is based upon their relative perspective.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Jeff

[dawei]

So what is sin? Well one thing that Jesus made very clear throughout his short ministry is that sin has nothing to do with breaking the Law of Moses.  He was quite prepared to break the law as he saw fit. Breaking the law,for example, by healing on the sabbath, is how everyone else around him thought of sin, but not him.  He had something else in mind.

 

Did he have a new different set of rules and commandments?

 

No, his only requirement is the rather vague suggestion that we 'love God with all our heart and all our soul and all our strength and all our mind.

 

So how do we 'do the will of our father?'

 

Doing the will of the father is putting yourself in such an attitude of surrender, that you are able, on a moment by moment basis, to know what is required.  When such surrender is possible for you, you no longer need any rigid guidance engraved on tablets of stone.  The law is engraved upon your heart and you are a law unto yourself, which is being a law unto God.

 

To do the will of the father is pure wu wei, and this is what Jesus taught to his uncomprehending followers.

 

IMO, this is generally in the correct direction...

 

although you have not spelled out what is sin but I agree it becomes a focused stumbling block... so it might be better to define 'father' and 'god'.

[Aetherous]

In all fairness to Paul, Jesus as an Adept, and dare I say a Deity, purposely contradicted himself often, the key is noticing who he is addressing - you mentioned the well known verse 'not one iota (yod)' and the 'righteousness of the pharisees' - yet in the very same gospel, he calls the Pharisees hypocrites and a broods of vipers, and again tells them God can raise a new 'chosen' people from 'stones' - so which is it? Both most likely, the teaching seem to be adapted to circumstance. Either way, from the sanctioned Christians point of view, all things were accomplished, the heaven and earth passed away but not in a litetal sesne with the crucifxion and resurection of Christ, so the Law of Moses is nullified post Ascencion. New wineskins.

 

Nice post. I've heard some say that Paul was an Adept as well...I think he was one of the Sons of Mithras? That could just be a false rumor.

 

It's one interpretation, and the one of the modern church, to say that everything was accomplished with the resurrection. However, I personally think it means literally what it says, that heaven and earth didn't pass away with the death of Jesus...heaven and earth are still here for us, and so is the reaction of the Law.

 

The wineskin concept might not relate so much to the new versus old law...it might be referring to something else entirely.

[noonespecial]

Nice post. I've heard some say that Paul was an Adept as well...I think he was one of the Sons of Mithras? That could just be a false rumor.

 

It's one interpretation, and the one of the modern church, to say that everything was accomplished with the resurrection. However, I personally think it means literally what it says, that heaven and earth didn't pass away with the death of Jesus...heaven and earth are still here for us, and so is the reaction of the Law.

 

The wineskin concept might not relate so much to the new versus old law...it might be referring to something else entirely.

 

Cant say I disagree with any of your points, the gospels become very subtle; especially when one becomes familair with the inner landscape and her symbols. I must say Paul was most defintly some sort of initiate based on his epistles alone, with what school is up for debate, but ultimately they all teach the same thing imo, thanks.

[Aetherous]

Ok, if you don't like Paul, which gospels do you accept...

 

Luke 22:19-20

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

Luke 5:34-39

34 And he said unto them, Can ye make the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?

35 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.

37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.

38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.

39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

Or does one just prefer the old wine...?

 

These deal with symbolism and parable, so do we really understand them? In the context of modern Christianity (with salvation happening because Jesus died on the cross) they do make sense, though.

[Spotless]

What is a "high biblical scholar" and how would they be any different than "the enlightening ones that are needed to tell us what Jesus was actually referring to"? All such speaking is based upon their relative perspective.

A high biblical scholar would be one steeped in the evidentiary accumulated references to the life of Jesus as constructed not from history of his time for which there is none what so ever, but of the accumulated assmemblages starting not less than 34 years after his supposed existence.

 

An Awakened and enlightening teacher is somewhat removed from "the relative" by definition - they speak and see more to the heart of a teaching even if it is or is not a concocted one. Truth is a bit less clouded for these individuals - though it is still in varying degrees. Jesus would be counted among such individuals. I would hope that if he were here before you you might consider taking his word in a recounting of what he meant to say vs what has come to us from all means of politics.

(Remember - how would you know he was who he is saying he is? Unless you expect him to prove it to you - otherwise you would have to take his word for it and look at him deeply and decide for yourself)

Edited May 28, 2015 by Spotless

[Jeff]

These deal with symbolism and parable, so do we really understand them? In the context of modern Christianity (with salvation happening because Jesus died on the cross) they do make sense, though.

 

While I am not trying to defend institutional Christian church understanding of Jesus, the new covenant (or change) that Jesus made in the world is supported in many places in the gospels. Here is an example of the shift that his coming brought about...

 

John 14:10-17

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. 12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask^[c^] anything in My name, I will do it.15 “If you love Me, keep^[d^] My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

[dawei]

Both most likely, the teaching seem to be adapted to circumstance. Either way, from the sanctioned Christians point of view, all things were accomplished, the heaven and earth passed away but not in a litetal sesne with the crucifxion and resurection of Christ, so the Law of Moses is nullified post Ascencion. New wineskins.

 

I agree and the circumstance is not always clear too

 

Paul explained there was a mystery that the forefathers did not understand... but was now revealed... this darkness was made light... and Paul said that mystery was "Christ in you".

 

John said  "In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. "

 

So what does it take to comprehend it?

[Jeff]

A high biblical scholar would be one steeped in the evidentiary accumulated references to the life of Jesus as constructed not from history of his time for which there is none what so ever, but of the accumulated assmemblages starting not less than 34 years after his supposed existence.

 

An Awakened and enlightening teacher is somewhat removed from "the relative" by definition - they speak and see more to the heart of a teaching even if it is or is not a concocted one. Truth is a bit less clouded for these individuals - though it is still in varying degrees. Jesus would be counted among such individuals. I would hope that if he were here before you you might consider taking his word in a recounting of what he meant to say vs what has come to us from all means of politics.

(Remember - how would you know he was who he is saying he is? Unless you expect him to prove it to you - otherwise you would have to take his word for it and look at him deeply and decide for yourself)

 

With your description of "supposed existence", I assume that implies that you do not believe that he actually existed?

 

Could you give me an example of such an awakened and enlightening teacher that is removed (or beyond) the relative that has spoken on Jesus?  And how does one know that they are beyond the relative, and not just "steeped" in the understanding of their own relative consciousness?

 

Thanks.

[Spotless]

With your description of "supposed existence", I assume that implies that you do not believe that he actually existed?

 

Could you give me an example of such an awakened and enlightening teacher that is removed (or beyond) the relative that has spoken on Jesus?  And how does one know that they are beyond the relative, and not just "steeped" in the understanding of their own relative consciousness?

 

Thanks.

What you have assumed that it implies is incorrect - I simply am very well aware of the history of Christianity from its supposed base - their is in fact not one singular tidbit of evidence that The Biblical Jesus existed from the time of his supposed existence. Yet there are quite a few historians from that time who wrote about that time and who do not mention any figure such as the Biblical Jesus, not only is this the case, but infact it is nearly impossible to comprehend the omittance of such cataclysmicly interesting historical goings on as the killing of the first born of which no mention is made anywhere.

His birth story is the standard story - like even Socrates was given - with very few additions.

 

The Christian holidays are usurped from the Sun God's birthday (Mithra) on Dec. 25 as well as the Sun God's ressurection - they went from Sun God to Son of God.

Of the great Hebrew scholars who meet from time to time and vote with beads on various subjects regarding Jesus attribute less than 20% of what is ascribed in most Bible's as being even "likely" to have come from Jesus lips.

 

Regarding the rest of your question - who would you say you regard as enlightened today - nearly any one you pick has put a word in on the teaching or words handed down to us of Jesus. I need not get into an argument with you on who I might choose. Fortunately their are many alive today.

 

On how one "knows" whether a teacher is awakened and enlightening and that they are not in fact just speaking from an understanding "steeped" in their own relative understanding is something you must experience and cannot be conveyed. And if you find this answer insufficient once you have pondered it, than I am surprised you are even remotely attracted to the teachings of Jesus.

[Jeff]

What you have assumed that it implies is incorrect - I simply am very well aware of the history of Christianity from its supposed base - their is in fact not one singular tidbit of evidence that The Biblical Jesus existed from the time of his supposed existence. Yet there are quite a few historians from that time who wrote about that time and who do not mention any figure such as the Biblical Jesus, not only is this the case, but infact it is nearly impossible to comprehend the omittance of such cataclysmicly interesting historical goings on as the killing of the first born of which no mention is made anywhere.

His birth story is the standard story - like even Socrates was given - with very few additions.

 

The Christian holidays are usurped from the Sun God's birthday (Mithra) on Dec. 25 as well as the Sun God's ressurection - they went from Sun God to Son of God.

Of the great Hebrew scholars who meet from time to time and vote with beads on various subjects regarding Jesus attribute less than 20% of what is ascribed in most Bible's as being even "likely" to have come from Jesus lips.

 

Regarding the rest of your question - who would you say you regard as enlightened today - nearly any one you pick has put a word in on the teaching or words handed down to us of Jesus. I need not get into an argument with you on who I might choose. Fortunately their are many alive today.

 

On how one "knows" whether a teacher is awakened and enlightening and that they are not in fact just speaking from an understanding "steeped" in their own relative understanding is something you must experience and cannot be conveyed. And if you find this answer insufficient once you have pondered it, than I am surprised you are even remotely attracted to the teachings of Jesus.

 

I apologize that I made an incorrect assumption regarding your perspective on Jesus.  That is why I asked the question.

 

I would also agree that the teaching of Jesus were sort of wrapped in an institutional framework by the Roman empire a few hundred years later. 

 

Finally, I was not attempting to create any argument with you regarding the nature of any teacher. My point was more that those who consider themselves awakened or enlightened still operate from a relative perspective when operating in the world. With such perspective (or framework) they tend to translate into their own terms or experience.  As an example, the bible talks about a realization of direct ascension (or going light body), as does traditions like Bon or Dzogchen. The same is true of many Daoist immortal concepts.  Is such the real thing or a metaphor? Most current teachers are more in the metaphor camp.

[3bob]

speaking of sin an analogy that could be used to some degree would be with a simple electrical formula, for instance:

 

power = current x voltage  or P=IE

with the analogy of: "God" = unlimited spiritual current times unlimited spiritual potential 

 

but a catch that comes into play with the formulas above would include resistance in ohms or resistance to God in sin- thus and only when there is zero resistance to "God" can an unlimited spiritual potential and flow take place resulting in Love/work being done.

 

Further, such is why all the talk (and certain methods) of wanting to or trying to force enlightenment can be dangerous to a certain extant being that with this analogy one can see that a premature approach or contact (with whatever included subtle or not so subtle degree of resistance) to an unlimited voltage and current will result with either a blown fuse or tripped circuit breaker and maybe some seriously burned up wiring if resistance is not instantaneously removed or a direct contact is not backed off of !   

[Jeff]

speaking of sin an analogy that could be used to some degree would be with a simple electrical formula, for instance:

 

power = current x voltage  or P=IE

with the analogy of: "God" = unlimited spiritual current times unlimited spiritual potential 

 

but a catch that comes into play with the formulas above would include resistance in ohms or resistance to God in sin- thus and only when there is zero resistance to "God" can an unlimited spiritual potential and flow take place resulting in Love/work being done.

 

Further, such is why all the talk (and certain methods) of wanting to or trying to force enlightenment can be dangerous to a certain extant being that with this analogy one can see that a premature approach or contact (with whatever included subtle or not so subtle degree of resistance) to an unlimited voltage and current will result with either a blown fuse or tripped circuit breaker and maybe some seriously burned up wiring if resistance is not instantaneously removed or a direct contact is not backed off of !   

 

Fun analogy... Clarity (or minimal obstructions) would seem to be the key, heading towards that zero resistance...

[blue eyed snake]

speaking of sin an analogy that could be used to some degree would be with a simple electrical formula, for instance:

 

power = current x voltage  or P=IE

with the analogy of: "God" = unlimited spiritual current times unlimited spiritual potential 

 

but a catch that comes into play with the formulas above would include resistance in ohms or resistance to God in sin- thus and only when there is zero resistance to "God" can an unlimited spiritual potential and flow take place resulting in Love/work being done.

 

Further, such is why all the talk (and certain methods) of wanting to or trying to force enlightenment can be dangerous to a certain extant being that with this analogy one can see that a premature approach or contact (with whatever included subtle or not so subtle degree of resistance) to an unlimited voltage and current will result with either a blown fuse or tripped circuit breaker and maybe some seriously burned up wiring if resistance is not instantaneously removed or a direct contact is not backed off of !   

 

 

That's not a fun analogy, imho that's spot on

[3bob]

Btw, the saying, "the Pure in heart shall see God" means those having zero resistance to that seeing - which would not be possible otherwise and is based on spiritual "laws".

[Bindi]

 As an example, the bible talks about a realization of direct ascension (or going light body), as does traditions like Bon or Dzogchen. The same is true of many Daoist immortal concepts.  Is such the real thing or a metaphor? Most current teachers are more in the metaphor camp.

as·cen·sion

(ə-sĕn′shən)

n.

1. The act or process of ascending; ascent.

 

2. Astronomy The rising of a star above the horizon.

 

3.  In Christianity, the bodily rising of Jesus into heaven on the 40th day after his resurrection

 

Light bodies might be a part of Bon or Dzogchen tradition, and there is Daoist reference to light bodies, but why do you try to use biblical Christianity to falsely support your personal agenda?

[thelerner]

I see Jesus as a mystic, teacher, healer, rabbi living in a dangerous superstitious age who had mythologic stories attached to his life. 

 

Philosophically I think he'd be at home with reformed Judaism, though would find an orthodox synagogue more familiar.  Course its silly to argue when so much is speculation.  <maybe we all tend to see such   historical/mythic characters, in our own image>

 

I don't know if he'd be all that happy 'historically' with Christianity.  Maybe no religious 'founder' would be.

Edited May 28, 2015 by thelerner