To simply invite people to participate in Christianity and worship doesn’t cut it. One of the mandates Paul teaches Christians is to go out into the world and teach about the resurrection of Christ. First of all we have to figure out what is meant by the resurrection of Christ.
St. Paul was the first to reveal the gospel of the resurrection of Christ and his enthusiasm in Corinthians comes through very clearly.
There is absolutely no evidence of any narrative Gospels in existence during the time of Paul. An evangelist minister once told me that there were verbal narrative Gospels in circulation at that time. However, he could provide me with absolutely no evidence to support his claim. It is pure speculation to say that there were any narrative Gospels in circulation during the time of St. Paul. There may have been sayings Gospels in circulation at that time, but definitely not narrative Gospels. They grew out of the sayings Gospels later toward the end of the first century. So what did Paul mean by ‘Gospel’? The answer to that becomes easy when you look at the Greek. ‘Gospel’ is the transliterated Greek word for ‘good news’. Paul was preaching about the good news of the resurrection of Christ. According to Paul, the resurrection of Christ brings about resurrection from sin. We will no longer live in sin because of the resurrection of Christ.
So what did Paul mean by the resurrection of Christ? First of all Jesus’ physically hanging on the cross and dying, although connected to it, has very little to do with the resurrection of Christ. In fact, there is some evidence presented by Laurence Gardner, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln that Jesus actually survived the cross with the help of his Pagan associates. He was never physically resurrected from a physical condition of being dead. In addition the word ‘Christ’ is neither the last name nor the title of Jesus the person. It is a state of being for people. ‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed’. We have the anointed Jesus, but what was he anointed with? It was not the incident of Mary anointing him with myrrh. That is something else all together. According to Willis Barnstone, co-editor of The Gnostic Gospels, the answer to that is an erotic one and I cannot post it on this site. If you want to see the answer, I can email it to you. Jesus was anointed with gnosis as it is called by the Gnostic Christians. There are varying opinions as to what Gnosis is. Some call it knowledge and some call it experiential knowledge and some call it intuitive knowledge. But essentially it is intelligent knowledge and wisdom. The anointed Jesus or Jesus the anointed (Paul says it both ways) is his state of being resurrected from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is the gathering of intelligent knowledge and wisdom that leads you to the understanding of how you can rise above the act of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In addition to teaching great wisdom, Jesus practiced the forgiveness of his persecutors even when he hung on the cross. He in no way accused or made judgments against anyone for his predicament. One who accuses no one and who forgives everyone for any action against him or her and uses intelligent wisdom in developing relationships with others is considered anointed. Jesus is anointed with gnosis
The mandate Paul gave to Christians is to go out and preach the good news of the resurrection from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and we will be saved from sin and death. The kind of death that Adam (a generic name for man) suffered is the death of being in sin. Sin is nothing more than the dysfunctional behaviour of man resulting from his eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Good and evil is nothing more than a symbol of Satan which is the transliterated Hebrew word meaning ‘the opponent’ or ‘the adversary’. When you have the duality of good and evil, you have the concept of opposition – good against evil. The problem with that is that “YOU” are always the bad guys and “WE” are always the good guys. We have unions versus management, African dictators and insurgents, fundamentalist Christianity versus liberal and Gnostic Christianity, the United States and the Saddam regime, the Americans and Jews against the fundamentalist Islamic freedom fighters, Russia and Chechnya, corporate power and socialism, holistic medicine versus conventional medicine, environmentalists versus profit seekers, the pro-lifers against the pro-choice on abortion, and so forth. There will never be any agreement on where the branches on the tree of good and evil fit. You cannot have different religions worshiping different forms of god and not sooner or later come into conflict with one another. There will always be opposition and disagreement. A case in point is Pope Benedict’s remarks about Islam and the reaction that came back from the Moslems. If you insult anyone’s idol, you had better expect trouble, especially if it is an Islamic idol. So when we resurrect ourselves above the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we will not recognize people as sinful. We will recognize them as having relationship problems. As far as physical death is concerned it is only the loss of our physical bodies. We continue to live in thought form or spiritual form as explained in the Book of Job. There is much, much more to every human being than a physical body. We are already immortal! But you won’t get this information from reading the English translations of Job You have to understand the root meanings of the Hebrew and Aramaic symbols and then convert them to English. I have been working on it for about a year slugging it out with 3 Hebrew English lexicons and a Hebrew grammar book, and I have only got as far as the 27th chapter with a rough outline for chapters 28 to 42.
The mandate of Christianity was not to go out and create a trinity idol with Jesus Christ a part of it and worship it and invite people to do it with you. God does not need to be worshiped. To worship anything, whether it is a golden calf, a piece of wood, a famous man or an imaginary powerful god, contravenes the second commandment. Paul’s mandate for Christianity includes going out into the world to get to know people at many different levels and to teach them about the resurrection of Christ. This mandate also includes teaching them how to rise above the teaching of the concept of good and evil. It begins with forgiveness.
Full Version: Worshiping Doesn't Cut It
QUOTE(Bobd @ Nov 27 2006, 08:05 PM) 
St. Paul was the first to reveal the gospel of the resurrection of Christ and his enthusiasm in Corinthians comes through very clearly.
There is absolutely no evidence of any narrative Gospels in existence during the time of Paul.
According to Paul, the resurrection of Christ brings about resurrection from sin. We will no longer live in sin because of the resurrection of Christ.
So what did Paul mean by the resurrection of Christ? In addition the word ‘Christ’ is neither the last name nor the title of Jesus the person. It is a state of being for people. ‘Christ’ means ‘the anointed’. We have the anointed Jesus, but what was he anointed with? It was not the incident of Mary anointing him with myrrh. That is something else all together. According to Willis Barnstone, co-editor of The Gnostic Gospels, the answer to that is an erotic one and I cannot post it on this site. If you want to see the answer, I can email it to you. Jesus is anointed with gnosis
So when we resurrect ourselves above the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we will not recognize people as sinful. We will recognize them as having relationship problems.
The mandate of Christianity was not to go out and create a trinity idol with Jesus Christ a part of it and worship it and invite people to do it with you. God does not need to be worshiped. To worship anything, whether it is a golden calf, a piece of wood, a famous man or an imaginary powerful god, contravenes the second commandment. Paul’s mandate for Christianity includes going out into the world to get to know people at many different levels and to teach them about the resurrection of Christ. This mandate also includes teaching them how to rise above the teaching of the concept of good and evil. It begins with forgiveness.
Well, well, well, Bobd, you certainly made Jen sit up and take notice of your comments above. Naturally, she read them to me, and I can't let them pass without comment. Of course, I understand that you probably don't accept that Jen is a channeller, nor that she's channelling me, Jesus, but, you know, sometimes a guy has to try anyway.
You're very keen on Paul, I notice. I wonder, however, how much thought you've given to the fact that Paul never met me. Never spoke to me. Never accepted my teachings. Never breathed a word to anyone of the reality that I was a channeller with a very powerful direct connection to God the Mother and God the Father. On the other hand, Paul talks as often as he can about his own gifts as a channeller (call it anything you like -- the man clearly claimed to be receiving direct revelation, which is what channelling boils down to). If the teachings of Paul feel right to you, then that's the path you should follow. But please be honest about the man's true teachings. He was staking out the territory of very early Christianity for himself. Romans Chapter 7 is a fantastic example of pure sophistry. What is a person to make of Romans 7: 7-12? (which I'll post here for convenience:)
"What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart fromt the law, but when the commandments came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing the opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good."
Like . . . huh? The law is good, but the law made me do it? Does this honestly make any sense? Is Paul being honest and telling his followers that they need to learn to recognize their own mistakes, forgive their own mistakes, then fix their mistakes with God's help? No. He's blaming the law for his mistakes. But at the same time he's also saying the law is holy. Come on. You've just can't excuse this kind of manipulation. These aren't the words of a man who understands forgiveness. These are the words of a man who doesn't practise what he preaches.
I also must say that I take particular exception to your comments about what I was anointed with. I was neither a Gnostic, nor a believer in the mystical habits of mystery schools. It was certainly not through sexual congress nor any other erotic means that I found my way to the Truth. I state this clearly for the record, as I wouldn't wish to see any human beings attempt to find divine wisdom this way. Sacred sexuality is an important part of a romantic, long term, monogamous commitment between adults (whether gay or straight). But marital intimacy belongs behind closed doors. This is a door that not even your divine Mother and Father wish to open. So don't bring it to the table of divine communion. There's enough on the table already -- like trying to understand what I meant when I taught that you should love your neighbour as yourself.
As for your statement that "there is absolutely no evidence of any narrative Gospels in existence during the time of Paul," you can try to convince others that green is red, and you might succeed. But that doesn't make your statement factually valid.
Thank you, Mother and Father, for your love.
Jesus
November 29, 2006
I like Point 4! They are all welcome at my table! Come one, come all ! No exclusion! Remember that old Sunday School song? Yellow, black, brown and white, they are all precious in his sight! Gay and Straight, believer and non- believer, Jew and Gentile, Hindu and Buddhist, come, all of God's children , lets share love and break bread! Amen.
P.s. Our job is to love God and our brother, why don't we leave the judgement part up to God.
P.s. Our job is to love God and our brother, why don't we leave the judgement part up to God.
QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Nov 29 2006, 05:04 PM)
Well, well, well, Bobd, you certainly made Jen sit up and take notice of your comments above. Naturally, she read them to me, and I can't let them pass without comment. Of course, I understand that you probably don't accept that Jen is a channeller, nor that she's channelling me, Jesus, but, you know, sometimes a guy has to try anyway.
You're very keen on Paul, I notice. I wonder, however, how much thought you've given to the fact that Paul never met me. Never spoke to me. Never accepted my teachings. Never breathed a word to anyone of the reality that I was a channeller with a very powerful direct connection to God the Mother and God the Father. On the other hand, Paul talks as often as he can about his own gifts as a channeller (call it anything you like -- the man clearly claimed to be receiving direct revelation, which is what channelling boils down to). If the teachings of Paul feel right to you, then that's the path you should follow. But please be honest about the man's true teachings. He was staking out the territory of very early Christianity for himself. Romans Chapter 7 is a fantastic example of pure sophistry. What is a person to make of Romans 7: 7-12? (which I'll post here for convenience:)
"What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart fromt the law, but when the commandments came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing the opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good."
Like . . . huh? The law is good, but the law made me do it? Does this honestly make any sense? Is Paul being honest and telling his followers that they need to learn to recognize their own mistakes, forgive their own mistakes, then fix their mistakes with God's help? No. He's blaming the law for his mistakes. But at the same time he's also saying the law is holy. Come on. You've just can't excuse this kind of manipulation. These aren't the words of a man who understands forgiveness. These are the words of a man who doesn't practise what he preaches.
I also must say that I take particular exception to your comments about what I was anointed with. I was neither a Gnostic, nor a believer in the mystical habits of mystery schools. It was certainly not through sexual congress nor any other erotic means that I found my way to the Truth. I state this clearly for the record, as I wouldn't wish to see any human beings attempt to find divine wisdom this way. Sacred sexuality is an important part of a romantic, long term, monogamous commitment between adults (whether gay or straight). But marital intimacy belongs behind closed doors. This is a door that not even your divine Mother and Father wish to open. So don't bring it to the table of divine communion. There's enough on the table already -- like trying to understand what I meant when I taught that you should love your neighbour as yourself.
As for your statement that "there is absolutely no evidence of any narrative Gospels in existence during the time of Paul," you can try to convince others that green is red, and you might succeed. But that doesn't make your statement factually valid.
Thank you, Mother and Father, for your love.
Jesus
November 29, 2006
Galatians 5:22-26 >
22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.
I particularly love verse 23b > "There is no law against such things." Unconditional and Unlimited and Uniting Love -- "What the world needs now is love, sweet love."
Outback Steak House slogan: "No Rules. Just Right."
>Outback Steak House slogan: "No Rules. Just Right."
LOL!
--des
LOL!
--des
QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Nov 29 2006, 06:04 PM)
Well, well, well, Bobd, you certainly made Jen sit up and take notice of your comments above. Naturally, she read them to me, and I can't let them pass without comment. Of course, I understand that you probably don't accept that Jen is a channeller, nor that she's channelling me, Jesus, but, you know, sometimes a guy has to try anyway.
You're very keen on Paul, I notice. I wonder, however, how much thought you've given to the fact that Paul never met me. Never spoke to me. Never accepted my teachings. Never breathed a word to anyone of the reality that I was a channeller with a very powerful direct connection to God the Mother and God the Father. On the other hand, Paul talks as often as he can about his own gifts as a channeller (call it anything you like -- the man clearly claimed to be receiving direct revelation, which is what channelling boils down to). If the teachings of Paul feel right to you, then that's the path you should follow. But please be honest about the man's true teachings. He was staking out the territory of very early Christianity for himself. Romans Chapter 7 is a fantastic example of pure sophistry. What is a person to make of Romans 7: 7-12? (which I'll post here for convenience:)
"What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart fromt the law, but when the commandments came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing the opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good."
Like . . . huh? The law is good, but the law made me do it? Does this honestly make any sense? Is Paul being honest and telling his followers that they need to learn to recognize their own mistakes, forgive their own mistakes, then fix their mistakes with God's help? No. He's blaming the law for his mistakes. But at the same time he's also saying the law is holy. Come on. You've just can't excuse this kind of manipulation. These aren't the words of a man who understands forgiveness. These are the words of a man who doesn't practise what he preaches.
I also must say that I take particular exception to your comments about what I was anointed with. I was neither a Gnostic, nor a believer in the mystical habits of mystery schools. It was certainly not through sexual congress nor any other erotic means that I found my way to the Truth. I state this clearly for the record, as I wouldn't wish to see any human beings attempt to find divine wisdom this way. Sacred sexuality is an important part of a romantic, long term, monogamous commitment between adults (whether gay or straight). But marital intimacy belongs behind closed doors. This is a door that not even your divine Mother and Father wish to open. So don't bring it to the table of divine communion. There's enough on the table already -- like trying to understand what I meant when I taught that you should love your neighbour as yourself.
As for your statement that "there is absolutely no evidence of any narrative Gospels in existence during the time of Paul," you can try to convince others that green is red, and you might succeed. But that doesn't make your statement factually valid.
Thank you, Mother and Father, for your love.
Jesus
November 29, 2006
canajan, eh?
Before we can discuss Paul, we need to be aware that
1 The letters that the translators can actually read are not from his own hand writing. They are copies of copies many times removed from what he originally wrote.
2 Many of the writings are known to be forgeries. For example 1 and 2 Timothy are known to have been written at the beginning of the 2nd century.
3 The organization in charge of the Pauline Letters in the early years of Christianity, was not above burning down a Library at Alexandria, torturing, burning material that did not agree their interpretation of what they thought scripture intended to say, conducting witch hunts, and burning heretics at the stake.
The historical evidence to support these statements is very prolific and very strong.
The early Christian Church was an organization that earned a reputation that would make one feel that they would not be above altering scripture to suit their own agenda.
With that in mind, I agree with you, Paul was a very manipulative person. However that is not on the point of point 4. What I was trying to say is that Paul's original mandate was to preach the resurrection of Christ which is not a physical resurrection but an attitude resurrection of resurrecting ourselves from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. His mandate was not to create a triune god and worship it.
I have read the canonical gospels, the gnostic gospels, the reconstructed gospel Q, the recently discovered gospel of Judas and the history leading up to the development of the gospels and I see no evidence leading me to believe that narrative canonical gospels were around before late in the first century. I agree with you, my statement was to emphatic. However, if you can find me any substantive evidence that the gospels were in circulation during the time of Paul, I will be happy to read it. If it makes sense to me, I am open to a mind change.
I think I agreed with you in my original statement that the anointing of Jesus by Mary has nothing to do with the anointing of Christ. If you did not understand it that way, I apologize for the confusion. I would also like to point out that the anointing of Christ has very little to do with Jesus. It applies to all of us. We anoint ourselves with Gnosis (intelligent knowledge) to rise above thinking of others as good or evil.
I see your point in signing as Jesus. My intention was to put forth the Gnostic viewpoint about the saviour and it came across as a fact instead of an opinion. As far as Paul never meeting Jesus, there is no evidence that he ever did. However the evidence showing that Jesus survived the cross is piling up.
BobD
BobD,
Seems like the most important thing about Christianity for you is the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged." But to insist that transcending judgmentalism is the same as resurrection--well, that just doesn't cut it either :-)
About the idea of Jesus surviving the crucifixion--in the words of a skeptic who also did not believe in resurrection--"It is impossible that a being who had crept half-dead out of the sepulchre, weak and ill, needing medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, who at last yielded to his sufferings; could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life--an impression which was the basis of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made on them in life, and could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm." --David Strauss
Seems like the most important thing about Christianity for you is the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged." But to insist that transcending judgmentalism is the same as resurrection--well, that just doesn't cut it either :-)
About the idea of Jesus surviving the crucifixion--in the words of a skeptic who also did not believe in resurrection--"It is impossible that a being who had crept half-dead out of the sepulchre, weak and ill, needing medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, who at last yielded to his sufferings; could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life--an impression which was the basis of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made on them in life, and could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm." --David Strauss
QUOTE(rivanna @ Dec 3 2006, 01:10 PM)
BobD,
Seems like the most important thing about Christianity for you is the idea of "judge not lest ye be judged." But to insist that transcending judgmentalism is the same as resurrection--well, that just doesn't cut it either :-)
About the idea of Jesus surviving the crucifixion--in the words of a skeptic who also did not believe in resurrection--"It is impossible that a being who had crept half-dead out of the sepulchre, weak and ill, needing medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, who at last yielded to his sufferings; could have given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life--an impression which was the basis of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had made on them in life, and could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm." --David Strauss
Hi David Strauss;
I agree with you that forgiveness is one of the main points of Christianity. However, that is off the point of this discussion. Point 4 has to do with worshiping.
Before we can get into the subject of worshiping we have to get into the object of worshiping. In your case it is the Prince of Life. Let' step back a moment and re-read the second commandment.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."
I don't agree with this NIV rendition because I can read Hebrew and I see it in a slightly different light. The Hebrew word Ka is a possessive conjunctive which means 'you', 'your', 'of the', or 'of a'. Elohim is plural meaning gods and the Lord is HaShem according to the Tanakh, or Yahveh. First of all Yahveh your gods doesn't make any sense. It reads Yahveh of the gods. The second rendition for god in Hebrew is 'el' which is the name for the Canaanite god of power and means 'power' - 'thought power'. You won't find these meanings in any institutionalized Christian publications because these meanings have been erased by organized religion in order to market their own concept of god. The Gnostics knew this and have preserved their meanings in symbolism and criptic language to avoid persecution. Jews and Christians have lumped 72 words in the Old Testament or Tanakh into meaning "God" or referring to God. This has completely blurred the meaning of many passages in these Old Testament scriptures. The Gnostics have known this for over 2 millenia.
The way I see the passage is as follows.
Don’t make a replica of an idol image of anything in the skies above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Don’t worship it and serve it; because I, Yahveh of the gods, jealous in disposition, keep track of descendents perversions established in the third and fourth generation to hate Me(bold italics), and show devotion to thousands for being My(bold italics) friend and observing My(bold italics) instructions.
I see 4 parties in this statement, Yahveh the messenger, Moses the carrier, the gods and I (bold italics0. Yahveh is not talking about himself, he is talking about the god I (bold italics)
In the I Am sayings Jesus says:
I am the light that is over all things. I am all: All came forth from Me and all attained to Me. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Pick up a stone and you will find Me there. (Gospel of Thomas saying 75)
I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from Me all came forth, and to Me all attained. (Gospel of Thomas, saying 77)
I am with you always, to the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:20)
I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. (Mark 12:26)
I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me will never go hungry, and he who believes in Me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)
I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. (John 8:12)
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in Me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)
I put the 'I' in bold italics but it doesn't show up on these postings. Jesus is not talking about himself because if he was he would be making himself an Idol to be worshiped. Anything you create in the skies or on earth or in the waters below is an idol, including Jesus Christ, Jehovah, a golden calf, Krishna or Allah or any other god you can imagine. If you set them up as idols and worship them, you are contraving the second commandment. Therefore worshiping doesn't cut it! This is the short essay. I have the long essay on this point which is about 130 pages. If you would care to read it, I can email it to and you can pick it apart as much as you like.
As far as Jesus physically dying physically on the cross and being physically resurrected, Gnostics will never believe that. What Paul was so excited about was the resurrection from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This point does not show up in the canonical gospels unless you interpret the words Jesus Christ as Jesus the anointed. The anointed is a state of being meaning "being anointed with gnosis" (intelligence, experiential knowledge or intuitive intelligence) As far as death goes, nobody ever dies and nobody ever has. To assume that we are our bodies is a very narrow concept. We are much more than that. So Jesus as a conquer of death doesn't impress me one bit. In fact the concept of Jesus dying on the cross physically didn't become popular until after the Counsel of Nicea in 325 CE and the cross of Christianity that we see today didn't become known until after then. The first cross of Christians was the Coptic Cross It has a circle on the top representing the circle of everlasting life - something every single human being already has. This is the Christian Gnostic view and always has been.
I trust that our intellectual sparring is being done in the context of love and respect for each other.
I(bold italics) am god and so are you. I see everyone as an extension of Me (bold italics) and I invite everyone to hear this good news as Paul did. It has completely changed my life in regard to the level of respect and reverence that I see and hear about because I see god in everyone - even the world's worst criminals because I see them as dysfunctional, not as evil. They need correction and love - not punishment. This information too is in my essay in more detail.
BobD
Whoa! I'm not David Strauss; that was a quote.
We're on totally different wave lengths here.
We're on totally different wave lengths here.
QUOTE(rivanna @ Dec 3 2006, 09:26 PM)
Whoa! I'm not David Strauss; that was a quote.
We're on totally different wave lengths here.
Rivanna;
Sorry! I only have one eye that works and sometimes I miss things. I also see red when I read some of these evangelical concepts. That further impairs my vision. Also I am new on this site and I don't understand instructions very well. I always blow it when I try to follow instructions. I prefer to learn by experience. I remember it better that way.
The jist of what I was saying is:
According to the second commandment, singling out any one thing as god to be worshiped, visible or invisible, whether it is in heaven or on earth or in the waters below, whether it be in the shape of a man, Yahveh, a golden calf, a specific doctrine or any physical or non-physical object, is idol worship. Many Christians are poor and blind and naked and cannot see that they are much more than just flesh and bones. They cannot see that they are already immortal and therefore must create idols like the Holy Trinity or Jesus Christ and worship them as the source of their immortality. I (bold italics) am in the father and the father is in Me (bold Italics).
BobD,
Sorry about your eye.
I agree with the direction you're advocating, getting away from idolatry--Jesus never wanted to be worshipped--and toward a more live-and-let-live attitude....less judgmental, less demonizing of one culture by another. You can affirm these things as part of Progressive Christianity without having to twist & warp the bible all out of shape :-)
Do you think belief in resurrection makes one an evangelical? I hope not. I definitely wouldn't want to give that impression.
Do you feel the idea of resurrection does more harm than good in the world?
I think it's dangerous to emphasize heaven too much, whether Christianity or Islam or whatever. Jesus did not want that focus on afterlife.
But one can think of resurrection as any resurgence of life, hope, energy, sense of fresh possibilities, New Being, getting past our own programming -- perhaps that is how you're trying to redefine it when you talk about the tree of knowledge.
Sorry about your eye.
I agree with the direction you're advocating, getting away from idolatry--Jesus never wanted to be worshipped--and toward a more live-and-let-live attitude....less judgmental, less demonizing of one culture by another. You can affirm these things as part of Progressive Christianity without having to twist & warp the bible all out of shape :-)
Do you think belief in resurrection makes one an evangelical? I hope not. I definitely wouldn't want to give that impression.
Do you feel the idea of resurrection does more harm than good in the world?
I think it's dangerous to emphasize heaven too much, whether Christianity or Islam or whatever. Jesus did not want that focus on afterlife.
But one can think of resurrection as any resurgence of life, hope, energy, sense of fresh possibilities, New Being, getting past our own programming -- perhaps that is how you're trying to redefine it when you talk about the tree of knowledge.
Resurrection as a bad idea, hey that's an interesting one!
At least the idea of an after life has caused lots of problems-- everything from holding up one group vs another ("we go to heaven you don't. nanner nanner" :-)) to suicide bombers guaranteed all the virgins (or raisins) they can handle.
And certainly the idea of resurrection neutralizes the whole radical nature of Jesus's ministry tying it all up
into the great cause celebe of resurrection. Jesus life becomes less important, it's his death and resurrection that count. I wonder if that was a motive somewhere for that. Jesus' ministry was troubling in many respects
to the powers that be. So refocus the whole thing on resurrection, your sin, and how he died for you.
I've noticed how very tame Jesus gets-- kind of the meek and mild Jesus, not the one that upset tables
and threw the money changers out of the temple.
I read some reviews of Jefferson's "new testament". You know Jefferson cut out all the miracles, self-referential quotes ("I am the way, etc), and ends with Jesus' death. Sort of like the opposite of the Scofield Bible. One reviewer who identified himself as a conservative Christian didn't see much to be excited about in Jesus life. I just thought that was interesting.
--des
At least the idea of an after life has caused lots of problems-- everything from holding up one group vs another ("we go to heaven you don't. nanner nanner" :-)) to suicide bombers guaranteed all the virgins (or raisins) they can handle.
And certainly the idea of resurrection neutralizes the whole radical nature of Jesus's ministry tying it all up
into the great cause celebe of resurrection. Jesus life becomes less important, it's his death and resurrection that count. I wonder if that was a motive somewhere for that. Jesus' ministry was troubling in many respects
to the powers that be. So refocus the whole thing on resurrection, your sin, and how he died for you.
I've noticed how very tame Jesus gets-- kind of the meek and mild Jesus, not the one that upset tables
and threw the money changers out of the temple.
I read some reviews of Jefferson's "new testament". You know Jefferson cut out all the miracles, self-referential quotes ("I am the way, etc), and ends with Jesus' death. Sort of like the opposite of the Scofield Bible. One reviewer who identified himself as a conservative Christian didn't see much to be excited about in Jesus life. I just thought that was interesting.
--des
QUOTE(rivanna @ Dec 5 2006, 12:04 PM)
BobD,
Sorry about your eye.
I agree with the direction you're advocating, getting away from idolatry--Jesus never wanted to be worshipped--and toward a more live-and-let-live attitude....less judgmental, less demonizing of one culture by another. You can affirm these things as part of Progressive Christianity without having to twist & warp the bible all out of shape :-)
Do you think belief in resurrection makes one an evangelical? I hope not. I definitely wouldn't want to give that impression.
Do you feel the idea of resurrection does more harm than good in the world?
I think it's dangerous to emphasize heaven too much, whether Christianity or Islam or whatever. Jesus did not want that focus on afterlife.
But one can think of resurrection as any resurgence of life, hope, energy, sense of fresh possibilities, New Being, getting past our own programming -- perhaps that is how you're trying to redefine it when you talk about the tree of knowledge.
Hi Rivanna,
Your questions are well chosen.
Live-and-let-live doesn’t go far enough for a Christian. Let me back-track a little bit and examine Dr Charles Scobie’s book ‘The ways of our God’. He suggests that there are 4 approaches to Bible theology. Dr. Scobie is a retired professor of theology and the author of many books on religion.
1 The Historical approach –very important
2 The Literary approach – also very important
3 The Canonical approach – Although it may be valuable in determining which scriptures are more authentic than others, I think that is a dangerous idea because it tends to narrow the concept of god and creates very elite organizations such as the Roman Church leadership in Rome and Mega-churches who claim to be the exclusive emissaries of god and who say they have “the word of god”. There is a tendency to reject scriptures that are not included in a canon as false heresy. It produces a tendency for these powerful institutions to demonize those of other religions. In addition there are variations of opinion as to what is “canon” and what is not. As Dr. Scobie points out, it is not always clear where the Christian “faith” finds its norm with the canonical approach.
4 The contemporary approach is where we apply the principles laid out in scripture to the situation today.
His mind is very superior to mine in these matters, but it seems to me that one approach has been left out – The Symbolism approach. This is a method where you interpret the meaning of some scriptural passages as symbolic rather than literal – especially when it does not seem to make any sense when interpreted literally – like eat my flesh and drink my blood.
If we use symbolism in our approach to understanding the Eucharist, we can approach its meaning in a different way. We look at the words ‘eat’ and ‘drink’ as to consume and absorb knowledge and information as well as food. If you look at Me or My as a symbol for god and wine as a symbol for the enjoyment of others company, then you come up with a different meaning.
Eat my flesh and drink My blood means to go out and mix with people and get to know them. And drink in remembrance of Me means that you are to remember god in the first person instead of as a second or third party( ie an idol). The kingdom of heaven is in within you and outside of you. If god is Me as Jesus taught, according to the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel “I AM” sayings, then the directive to Christians is to go out among the people, mix with them and become friendly with them and teach them that I (bold italics) am god and so are you. We are all a piece of the One god. Quantum physics has already proven that there is only One of us. (That is another long story) The directive to Christians is far more proactive than just live-and-let-live.
Paul picked up on this theme and took it further. We are all One in Christ. Interpreting it as symbolism this means that when we don’t view others as good or evil, we are resurrected. We look at people as dysfunctional and in need of forgiveness and correction, or communally faithful and communally beneficial as defined by the 10 commandments which I call commitments or guidelines. The resurrection is not a bad idea, as Des mentions, it is a misunderstood and distorted idea as it is currently interpreted. The harm comes from the misinterpretation of its meaning. If you see Jesus conquering death and set him up as an idol, you tend to regard other religions as inferior to yours. This ultimately leads to conflict. The concept of the resurrection needs to be rethought in terms of human relationships instead of in terms of idolizing. On that point you are correct. We don’t need to create an idol as the source of our immortality because we are already immortal. To worship ANYTHING as an idol doesn’t cut it. Churches need to replace worship services with meditation on the I (bold Italics) to get in touch with our higher selves and with prayers for our enemies. Praying for ourselves and fellow members of our respective congregations is egoist behaviour and useless in its effect. If our enemies are causing misery, then they are the ones we need to pray for to release their victims from suffering, not the victims themselves. Our enemies are the ones suffering from dysfunctional behaviour – not their victims. To pray for our enemies has to be done in unison, carefully and with the intent of love and on a large scale (nation wide or world wide) and very vocally before it will have any effect on the intended target.
Warped and out of shape is what the English translation of the Bible is now. The New Testament, as a presentation of history has already been debunked by many Bible scholars. As a presentation of wisdom, it still stands on the top of my list. The Hebrew version of the Tanakh, which carries basically the same information as the Christian Old Testament, is better than 99% preserved in accuracy. This is known from comparisons with the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is absolutely amazing, considering that it has been around for thousands of years. We owe the Jews a great deal of gratitude for preserving such a valuable collection of documents so accurately for so long. One change that I do know about, although it is not 100% certain because only one letter of the key word has survived from the Dead sea Scrolls, is that Goliath grew from 4 cubits and a span to 6 cubits and a span between the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the time of the Masoretic texts several centuries later. (1 Samuel 17:4) That’s quite a feat considering that he had already been slain many centuries before the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. What has happened is that, mostly because of power struggles and the male ego, distortion crept in to the meaning of many Hebrew words and natural changes have occurred in the meaning of others over these same thousands of years. Often, the religious group in power will change the meaning of a word here and there from their own interpretation of what they think it means to suit their own agenda. Meanings of words change over time and you have to watch out for that when you are trying to interpret the original meaning of scripture. Using the Gnostic approach of archetypal imaging and symbolism, along with the historical approach and the accurately preserved Hebrew words in the Tanakh, it is possible to recover the meaning of what the Old Testament authors originally intended to say. For example, did you know that the Book of Job speaks with a presumption of our immortality?
The resurrection is not a resurgence, it is a pulling out of a way of thinking and changing it to something completely different. The resurrection proposed by Paul is a complete attitude change about how we think about other people and this change has to come from within. We have to be “caught up in the air” so to speak with this idea.
‘Belief’ is a word that I don’t like to use. I hope to talk about belief in point 5.
BobD
[quote name='des' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:34 PM' post='12129']
Resurrection as a bad idea, hey that's an interesting one!
At least the idea of an after life has caused lots of problems-- everything from holding up one group vs another ("we go to heaven you don't. nanner nanner" :-)) to suicide bombers guaranteed all the virgins (or raisins) they can handle.
And certainly the idea of resurrection neutralizes the whole radical nature of Jesus's ministry tying it all up
into the great cause celebe of resurrection. Jesus life becomes less important, it's his death and resurrection that count. I wonder if that was a motive somewhere for that. Jesus' ministry was troubling in many respects
to the powers that be. So refocus the whole thing on resurrection, your sin, and how he died for you.
I've noticed how very tame Jesus gets-- kind of the meek and mild Jesus, not the one that upset tables
and threw the money changers out of the temple.
I read some reviews of Jefferson's "new testament". You know Jefferson cut out all the miracles, self-referential quotes ("I am the way, etc), and ends with Jesus' death. Sort of like the opposite of the Scofield Bible. One reviewer who identified himself as a conservative Christian didn't see much to be excited about in Jesus life. I just thought that was interesting.
--des
Des
The resurrection is not a bad idea, it is a misunderstood idea. The resurrection is an attitude change
1 To be resurrected we think of other people as an extension of ourselves
2 To be resurrected we think of god in the first person. If you think of god in the second or third person - "your god" or "he", you are idol worshiping.
Bobd
Resurrection as a bad idea, hey that's an interesting one!
At least the idea of an after life has caused lots of problems-- everything from holding up one group vs another ("we go to heaven you don't. nanner nanner" :-)) to suicide bombers guaranteed all the virgins (or raisins) they can handle.
And certainly the idea of resurrection neutralizes the whole radical nature of Jesus's ministry tying it all up
into the great cause celebe of resurrection. Jesus life becomes less important, it's his death and resurrection that count. I wonder if that was a motive somewhere for that. Jesus' ministry was troubling in many respects
to the powers that be. So refocus the whole thing on resurrection, your sin, and how he died for you.
I've noticed how very tame Jesus gets-- kind of the meek and mild Jesus, not the one that upset tables
and threw the money changers out of the temple.
I read some reviews of Jefferson's "new testament". You know Jefferson cut out all the miracles, self-referential quotes ("I am the way, etc), and ends with Jesus' death. Sort of like the opposite of the Scofield Bible. One reviewer who identified himself as a conservative Christian didn't see much to be excited about in Jesus life. I just thought that was interesting.
--des
Des
The resurrection is not a bad idea, it is a misunderstood idea. The resurrection is an attitude change
1 To be resurrected we think of other people as an extension of ourselves
2 To be resurrected we think of god in the first person. If you think of god in the second or third person - "your god" or "he", you are idol worshiping.
Bobd
This is how my church is. I choose first because it was open and affirming, second because I dont have to turn off my brain when I walk in the door, and third becaue I can be a unitarian there but not have to be dogmatic about it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.