a man asked Jesus about eternal life

[Jeff]

It seems that you're building a new theology based on vedanta-buddhist philosophies: that's quite interesting from a sociological point of view.

 

Veritably, a term which obviously has the sole literal meaning of a tangible kingdom (and it's the only meaning that can be supported in every contexts -in the gospels-) can be various things instead, in order to suit a particular philosophy.

 

In Mat 21:43 it's the teaching, in Mar 14:25 it's the afterlife... and in Lu 7:28 it's so abstruse that I cannot even distinguish what it is.

 

Ok, let's just say that the gospels have different layers of meaning: I keep the literal one.

 

Yes, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I think it is all incredibly well summed up in the beginning of John.  Maybe we could discuss that...

 

John 1:1-13

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

Verse 12 describes it well... 

 

To any who paid attention and listened to him, he taught them how to be a son of God.  

[doc benway]

My love and respect for the Christian teachings come from studying some of Anthony Demello's talks.

A good friend has studied the beatitudes.

It's all there... if we care to see it.

We can read anything into anything, it's a gift!  

[Cheshire Cat]

Yes, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[...]

 

Verse 12 describes it well... 

 

To any who paid attention and listened to him, he taught them how to be a son of God.

 

 

The gospel of John -and especially the prologue- has an enigmatic affinity with the Poimandres (Corpus Hermeticum).

Probably both texts were written in the same cultural context and in a specific background of ellenistic philosophies that are largely used by Church's father like Saint Augustine, Eusebius and Cyrill to defend the christian theories.

Hermeticism is a philosophy that responds to the precise needs of the people in that period.

 

Today, it's possible to read a text written by Celsus that escaped the persecution of the church because it was quoted in the work of one the Church's Father. This text shows "what" is early christianity: a cult for illiterate people, full of superstitions and ideas taken from various gnostic sects, oriental religions and so forth.

 

No wonder that you may find something that could be interpreted as high spiritual teaching, but I believe that it wasn't in the intentions of the authors to introduce the concepts that you explain today.

 

Hermeticism precedes Jesus and it's present only in John's gospel, not in the others... and not even in Paul's letters which are the earliest christian documents available (yes, Paul's letter were written before the gospels).

Paul was in contact with the first days Christians who received teachings from Jesus himself and if you compare Celsus and Paul, you can draw an accurate depiction of what the original christian doctrine really was.

No Higher selves, no rainbow bodies, no gurus, nothing.

They spent their lives waiting for the second coming of Christ to punish the sinners and establish the kingdom of God. Meanwhile, they established special communities with beautiful standards of communal living.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Cheshire Cat

[Jeff]

The gospel of John -and especially the prologue- has an enigmatic affinity with the Poimandres (Corpus Hermeticum).

Probably both texts were written in the same cultural context and in a specific background of ellenistic philosophies that are largely used by Church's father like Saint Augustine, Eusebius and Cyrill to defend the christian theories.

Hermeticism is a philosophy that responds to the precise needs of the people in that period.

 

Today, it's possible to read a text written by Celsus that escaped the persecution of the church because it was quoted in the work of one the Church's Father. This text shows "what" is early christianity: a cult for illiterate people, full of superstitions and ideas taken from various gnostic sects, oriental religions and so forth.

 

No wonder that you may find something that could be interpreted as high spiritual teaching, but I believe that it wasn't in the intentions of the authors to introduce the concepts that you explain today.

 

Hermeticism precedes Jesus and it's present only in John's gospel, not in the others... and not even in Paul's letters which are the earliest christian documents available (yes, Paul's letter were written before the gospels).

Paul was in contact with the first days Christians who received teachings from Jesus himself and if you compare Celsus and Paul, you can draw an accurate depiction of what the original christian doctrine really was.

No Higher selves, no rainbow bodies, no gurus, nothing.

They spent their lives waiting for the second coming of Christ to punish the sinners and establish the kingdom of God. Meanwhile, they established special communities with beautiful standards of communal living.

We definitely do seem to find completely different things in the gospels. Also, here are some actual writings of Paul that also show my point. Additionally, while the old testement talks about "punishment", the message of Jesus and the gospels are all about love and forgiveness.

 

Romans 8:6-17

6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

 

And some more on the point...

 

For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:...

 

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:1-6, 16-21 KJV)

 

Jesus did not teach about an "earthly" realm and ruling it. That is more the Jewish concept of a messiah.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Jeff

[Cheshire Cat]

We definitely do seem to find completely different things in the gospels. Also, here are some actual writings of Paul that also show my point. Additionally, while the old testement talks about "punishment", the message of Jesus and the gospels are all about love and forgiveness.

 

I don't think that the old testament is about punishment: it's about a pact between God and a specific group of people.

 

As for the real Jesus...

Let's read about the night in which he was arrested:

 

Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, (John 18:12)

 

That's your english translation which is supposed to show that a few soldiers were there to arrest a pacific man who teaches peace&love.

 

But if you read the original greek, you have a different version of the story.

The band is "σπεῖρα" and the captain is "χιλίαρχος"

The band is a Cohort (600 men) and the captain is a "tribune".

 

That was a serious affair: I can't really imagine 600 men sent to arrest a dozen whose leader teaches that "if they hurt you, show the other cheek".

 

Love and forgiveness is a later invention.

 

 

[...]

 

Jesus did not teach about an "earthly" realm and ruling it. That is more the Jewish concept of a messiah.

 

What other concepts of Messiah were around at the time of jesus?

Isn't Messiah a jewish thing?

 

Wasn't Jesus a jew?

 

Paul preached asceticism because he was a fervent ascetic: in those passages, he condemns worldly  desires of the flesh to purify his soul.

Purify for what?

To inherit the kingdom of God.

 

BTW, Paul never met Jesus in person.

Jesus loved women and his disciples never fast

[Cheshire Cat]

Here's something interesting to watch.

You can see what the bible and the gospels were supposed to support.

 

Edited May 20, 2016 by Cheshire Cat

[Jeff]

Here's something interesting to watch.

You can see what the bible and the gospels were supposed to support.

 

 

Thank you for the video.  It help with better understanding your position based in Mithraism.  It seems that our perspectives definitely are more that a little different.

 

Best wishes on your path.  

[Cheshire Cat]

Thank you for the video.  It help with better understanding your position based in Mithraism.  It seems that our perspectives definitely are more that a little different.

 

Best wishes on your path.

 

Once, I had your perspective thinking of Jesus as a sort of Buddha, but now I think that it's just a romantic view

[Jetsun]

I would say Jesus and Buddha are different, it is like Buddha represents the stillness and Jesus the dynamism

[doc benway]

In the Buddha's stillness lies the fullness of expression,

In Jesus' love there is no self,

Matchless peers in wisdom and method.

[C T]

Jesus is a buddha. Where is the difference? 

[Cheshire Cat]

What about Muhammad And Moses?

[Bindi]

Once, I had your perspective thinking of Jesus as a sort of Buddha, but now I think that it's just a romantic view

 

From reading a number of 'historical Jesus' books, I can see that the Jesus story might well be the hope and expectation for the Kingdom of God to be established in Israel in the lifetime of his followers, and that Paul really just took the concept of Jesus somewhere else. But I'm still a bit on the fence as to whether Jesus himself espoused something more or not. For example, were the Beatitudes all just overlay? And the New Testament's 'seeking the kingdom within'? A lot more research, and a few more discovered ancient documents would be a fine thing. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Bindi

[Bindi]

What about Muhammad And Moses?

 

The Mandeans would say that both Muhammad and Jesus are false prophets... The only really safe bet would be Moses 

[Cheshire Cat]

[...] But I'm still a bit on the fence as to whether Jesus himself espoused something more or not. [...]

 

Do you think that he left a legacy?

[Cheshire Cat]

The Mandeans would say that both Muhammad and Jesus are false prophets... The only really safe bet would be Moses 

 

Where are all the buddhist-newagey comparisons when it comes to Mohammed and Moses?

Was Mohammed a Buddha? Did he teach about the vajra body, the luminous fancy mind and all the paraphernalia ?

[Bindi]

Do you think that he left a legacy?

 

Can The Sayings Gospel Q shed any light on the legacy of Jesus?

 

Q is the Gospel of Jewish Christianity, which continued in Galilee to proclaim Jesus’ sayings, but the New Testament is the book preserving the ancient sources of Gentile Christianity, the oldest being the letters of Paul, for whom Jesus’ cross and resurrection, not his sayings, were central to the Christian message.

 

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm  

[Jetsun]

I think Moses always came from a perspective of there being a duality between man and God, whereas Jesus came and said that there is a unity, so Moses teaching is a kind of preliminary still in duality. Mohammed I don't know as much about but in these texts there are different levels all working simultaneously, for example the Bible can be read literally or mystically, both can be true at the same time, similarly with the Koran there were obviously a lot of Sufi Mystics who found union with God through that religion. Jihad for example can mean the war with your own negative tendencies, unfortunately though the vast majority of people in the world now read it literally.

 

You don't need anything new age to make comparison of Christianity to Buddhism though, just read the medieval Christian Mystics.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Jetsun

[Cheshire Cat]

Can The Sayings Gospel Q shed any light on the legacy of Jesus?

 

 

Isn't it an hypothetical text?

 

What about the Liber magisterii Christi ? It's a book written by the secret son of Pilate who shows evidences that Jesus never existed and everything was made up.

Unfortunately, it was destroyed by the church and it is an hypothetical text

 

 

I think Moses always came from a perspective of there being a duality between man and God, whereas Jesus came and said that there is a unity, so Moses teaching is a kind of preliminary still in duality. ...]

 

It couldn't be so because Jesus said: No man hath seen God at any time; (John 1:18)

... but Moses saw God face-to-face and talked to him. Many times.

 

They had different gods.

 

I know what you're thinking: Jesus is negating the experience of duality stressing the true reality which is One.

Or maybe that the experience of God is "outside" the time-concept.

Or that Moses was spiritually evolved to be much more than a man.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Cheshire Cat

[Jetsun]

 

Isn't it an hypothetical text?

 

What about the Liber magisterii Christi ? It's a book written by the secret son of Pilate who shows evidences that Jesus never existed and everything was made up.

Unfortunately, it was destroyed by the church and it is an hypothetical text

 

 

 

It couldn't be so because Jesus said: No man hath seen God at any time; (John 1:18)

... but Moses saw God face-to-face and talked to him. Many times.

 

They had different gods.

 

I know what you're thinking: Jesus is negating the experience of duality stressing the true reality which is One.

Or maybe that the experience of God is "outside" the time-concept.

Or that Moses was spiritually evolved to be much more than a man.

 

I wasn't there so I don't know what Moses saw or didn't see. To be honest I don't think it matters in the slightest if things are inconsistent or if Jesus was real or not, to focus on that misses the point as that doesn't negate the power of the mythology one bit. The power is in how to use and read mythology in an archetypal way, (how mythology was originally intended to be used),  what it brings to light within yourself and your own experience when applied to your inner life.

[Bindi]

 

Isn't it an hypothetical text?

 

What about the Liber magisterii Christi ? It's a book written by the secret son of Pilate who shows evidences that Jesus never existed and everything was made up.

Unfortunately, it was destroyed by the church and it is an hypothetical text

 

...

 

It is hypothetical yes, but ignoring that little issue, there are lines that for me unfortunately suggest "Q" is post-Jesus anyway, such as

 

- Q 14:27 “ The one who does not take one's cross and follow after me cannot be my disciple.”

 

 

- Q 12:40 "You also must be ready, for the Son of Humanity is coming at an hour you do not expect." 

 

Both of these seem to have been written in light of the crucifixion and in expectation of his return. There may be other lines that are similarly unlikely to have come from Jesus. But there are other lines that seem to be more plausibly authentic. So it’s still necessary to remove the added layers from even this hypothetical text. But I suspect the hypothetical Q might be getting close to what the hypothetical Jesus might have actually preached 

 

I likely wouldn't even be interested in the Jesus question if I hadn't been brought up nominally Christian, and for my own sake needing to distinguish between reality and indoctrination. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Bindi

[Cheshire Cat]

[...]

the power of the mythology one bit. The power is in how to use and read mythology in an archetypal way, (how mythology was originally intended to be used),  what it brings to light within yourself and your own experience when applied to your inner life.

 

No doubts that jesus mythology has a tremendous impact on our civilization, but I'm compelled to ask: "Do we really need that old myth that talks about the promise of a future resurrection from the dead?"

Maybe this could give a sort of significance to our lives -as it did for our ancestors-, but today we can't really accept the complete picture of this story, we focus on the tiny bits that can be compared with the oriental philosophies that we've already integrated in our souls.

We discard the core elements of the myth and we open threads and discussions to say that Jesus didn't conveyed completely with his words the true message. Sure, we know the true message and therefore Jesus also knew it... because... well... he's Jesus!

We can't even imagine that Jesus had no idea of the meanings that we create today.

 

What's the point of clinging to Jesus story?

To find certainty. To give power to our new philosophies because they don't have power in themselves.

 

 

I likely wouldn't even be interested in the Jesus question if I hadn't been brought up nominally Christian, and for my own sake needing to distinguish between reality and indoctrination. 

 

For me, it's the same

[allinone]

"Good master, what must I do to have eternal life?" -a rich man asked Jesus

 

"Sell all that you have, and give it to the poor, then come and follow me." -Jesus

 

 

Well, I certainly don't mean this as a judgment against Jesus, but he might have done better to say, "Absolutely nothing. You already have it!"

 

 

Life is eternal, and the concept of eternal hell is absurd.

 

he probably didn't meant it literally but pointed out a type of samadhi or quality you should cultivate and also the result of it will be that you are able to follow him..

 

"the rich man" asked the question so that could mean that you need to feed the poor forever if you want to live eternal life. This point to the same type of samadhi. If you become poor yourself you will be fed accordingly. Poor then can mean also purity.

Edited May 24, 2016 by allinone