cunninglily

Oh yikes! Is it almost Christmas? Thanks Aletheia, you just got my "wanter" activated. lily

Yeah, I'm of the mind that most of us need to shut up and trance. (yes, our spiritual ancestors went into trance. what do you think "caught up in the heavens" means?) Being a witness is not the same thing as witnessing and, imo, being a witness is best. But I feel as you do, sterr, I too fall short. I'm a "babe" and a student of these mysteries, not an authoritative witness. Besides, "evangelism" presumes a superiority within the tradition that I do not feel. I enjoy talking to people about religion and about my studies in Christianity and am not shy about professing an allegiance to Christ, but I maintain associations and friendships with several who believe differently and practice within different traditions and to do this I have to relinquish any need to be "right" or to assert any dominance that some within my tradition feels the tradition has. The more I study and learn the more apparent it becomes that all philosophies and religious traditions share a common core...it may only be the heart of the seeker that comprises this core, but thats significant to me, and besides, I'm of the mind that all the religious traditions throughout history have become woven within the great tapestry of spiritual truth, and that you can't look deeply into any one of them without detecting strands of the other in the warp and woof. I sometimes suspect that our religious and spiritual ancestors were far more syncretic than we give them credit for, and maybe even more unselfconsciously syncretic than some of us are today. (I'm not speaking of the orthodox Jew or the orthodox Muslim or the orthodox Christian here so much because the efforts of these are to shape a consistent doctrine and to dominate sociopolitically by way of its authority) Being a witness to me is not about bringing people in to my tradition, but in demonstrating the fruit of "The Way" so that others may be inspired to follow in it. Do I fall short? Er. Which only strengthens my conviction that any thing I may say regarding the presumed superiority of Christianity and the efficacy of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will lack authority to the ears of the unbeliever. When, and to the extent that I demonstrate the fruit of the vine, that will be my witness. lily

C'mon, you know that Jesus and the apostles never taught that we must be physically crucified or persecuted to death in order to enter the Kingdom of God. The "martyrs" were actively seeking persecution which was and is a distortion of the truth. This is not to say that times have not come and that times may not come again where persecution to the death may be unavoidable, but it is certainly not something to pray for or to actively seek out...AND actually physically dying is probably a lot easier (since we all do it anyway) than is "dying before you die" in the sense of "letting go your life" while continuing to live it. Sorry. You are right. I've got "fourth century" on the brain. However, it is not MY assertion that the rejection of martyrdom sealed the process that had already begun regarding doctrinal differences that ultimately ended in some Christians being considered heretical. Up until the martyrdom issue came to a head, the Valentinian gnostic Christians (at least) were still a part of the larger Church. This particular issue separated the orthodox from the heretics decisively. This I have learned from historical commentary and other sources...I didn't make it up. I am just now studying the Early Church Fathers including Clement and Origen, and I understand that there were many differences in doctrinal opinion between those considered orthodox and those later condemned as heretics. The "elitism" charge is of particular interest to me currently. Surely you can see that there are many instances in scripture in which certain knowledge was not given out to the uninitiated. Even Jesus is reputed to have spoken in parables to those "outside" his chosen circle, and taught differently depending on who He was speaking to. Paul also clearly made the distinction between the "milk" of the gospel suitable for "babes in Christ" and the "strong meat" for the more fully "initiated". The early orthodox Church Fathers wanted a uniform and consistent Church doctrine. This is difficult to maintain if those in "The Way" are receiving revelation that is simply not available to all by virtue of their level of spiritual growth. jamesAMDG.blogspot.com <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, the whole reincarnation thing is fairly new to me. I've only recently begun to explore it. But I wouldn't constrain my study to only those "Church Fathers" who condemned it. I would also assume that because it was condemned that it must have been a problem, ie, somebody must have believed it in the Early Church or condemnation of the belief would not have been necessary. Wouldn't you think? But I don't yet have sufficient grasp of the subject to "prove" or "disprove" how many actually believed this in the days of the Early Church, or if any of the OT authors believed it or not. You seem to be coming from the position that only what was canonized or made orthodox is True and that what was then considered heretical is, well, heretical and not true. I am not yet biased in that way. What was once considered heretical may be begging reconsideration today and may contain important "Truths" that are of value to the Body of Christ. The difference between us, James, is that you have found your position and are apparently satisfied with it. I am just not as sure as you are that I know what the truth is concerning all these matters and so I am still actively seeking among oft-times contrary views. I stated quite clearly that I experience a resistance to the reincarnation doctrine. But I don't assume that because I don't like it or that because Irenaeus and Tertullian didn't like it, that it did not form the worldview of some important early christian thinkers and writers, and that there is no truth in it. Therefore, it is worth exploring in my mind. lily

Really? Maybe I worded something badly. On the contrary, I think these NT passages are very much not literal history. I meant to say that, when the historical and spiritual modes of perception are not yet differentiated, the two sets of meanings get collapsed down into one, such that a passage like Ps. 8 directly implies certain historical/scientific facts, such as that Jesus' body could not have been left to rot in the tomb. But that implication is due to collapsing the two sets of meanings down to one. I didn't mean that was my view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, gotcha. You didn't word anything badly, I just assumed you were speaking from your own point of view. My mistake. I think, though, that we shouldn't assume the perceptions of the NT authors as all undifferentiated, or that these authors intended "collapsing" literal and metaphorical meaning into one. Not that I will make the mistake of assuming that you are, but you do allude to the different modes of perception operative "then" and "now", as if we can now see things in scripture metaphorically that the author intended literally. I'm only trying to point out that during the time in which the OT documents were written, there were already those interpreting *literally* and those interpreting *metaphorically*, therefore the key question is whether or not the OT authors wrote metaphoric-cultus history or factual-literal history, or do we collapse the two and posit that they were writing both? And I understand the impulse to avoid the "reincarnation" issue. I have always been weirdly antagonistic to the belief in reincarnation myself. Those Baptist roots run deep, afterall. But do keep in mind that the Western understanding of "reincarnation", which is not as well documented or understood, is not identical with the Eastern understanding. I am also, btw, not necessarily giving my own views every time I post either. lily

I'm not sure that I can agree with this. I know what you are getting at but I think we have to at least consider that the biblical authors were applying metaphor to metaphor and not metaphor to "literal events". It could be that our biblical authors were speaking of "spiritual realities" and not "material realities" from the get-go. We, it seems to me, need to understand what it may have meant to the minds of the biblical authors to be "abandoned to the grave" or to "see decay and corruption". For instance, there was a widespread belief in reincarnation in the early church, which in time, of course, became heresy. Those who were thought to be Divinized were those who had transcended the wheel of birth and death and knew corruption no more. We do not know with any certainty whether the OT authors adhered to this belief or not. There are scriptural indications that were not excluded from the canon that suggest that some did. This would lend a completely different perspective on what "decay and corruption" may have meant in the minds of the authors. The real point I am trying to make is that there were those from the very beginning who did not believe that Jesus was literally and totally Creator God, but a man become One with God; that Jesus the man became Divinized and both demonstrated and showed The Way to this ultimate Union with God. These two points of view would differ in their "interpretation" of the OT and would apply the prophecies in different ways. Did the NT authors write factual history or metaphorical/spiritual history? The latter was much more common in the day than was the former. As you point out, "facts" and "history" as we think of it today was argueably not the way they thought of "facts" and "history" then. I know that I am making "subtle points" here as well, but I think you are coming from the a priori assumption that the events depicted in scripture are literally true but can be metaphorically understood. I'm not saying that this is a wrong way to look at it, only that its not the only way. lily

Well, for one thing DC, the Christian martyrs of the early church actually believed that martyrdom would get them into the Kingdom of God, or into heaven. This particular madness was widespread during the fourth century and was based on a literal interpretation of the directive, "Take up your cross..." In fact, even more so than other doctrinal differences, this understanding of what it means to "take up your cross and follow Jesus" is what ultimately split the church into orthodoxy and heresy. The Valentinian gnostic Christians, who considered themselves part of the Church and were not interested in separating themselves from it, were condemned as heretics because they believed that "courting" martyrdom was insanity and a literal interpretation of what was meant metaphorically (clearly, the literal versus metaphorical debate has been going on from the beginning). Today, I don't hesitate to say, none of us believe that we are to literally court martyrdom; to actively seek persecution and death as a way to God. But the early orthodox Christians believed precisely this, and those who did not were branded heretics and false believers unwilling to die for Jesus. My point is that the Christians who were "beheaded, crucified, and fed to lions" in many cases believed exactly as did the Muslim terrorists who crashed into the Twin Towers. They were sadly and tragically mistaken in their interpretation of what it means to "lose your life for My sake", which leads to the conclusion that people CAN believe a lie and even die for it. The examples throughout religious history are, sadly, endless. So, its not good scholarship or sound thinking to believe that because someone is willing to die for an idea that this alone makes the idea True. lily

I dislike anything that evolves from a conscious and deliberate effort to "bring people in"...especially young people. I keep waiting for a "buddy jesus" like that used in the movie "Dogma" to pop up at one of these "contemporary" services. For one thing, I think people tend to underestimate the spiritual needs "of the young" and to discount the sophistication of todays youth. Most of the young religious minded people I encounter are looking for substance, not a "rock-n-roll" Jesus. Besides, I think this movement toward making church parallel with contemporary culture is a serious mistake that will backfire. Someone here pointed out that it is not the "contemporary" churches that are thriving, but the traditional, orthodox, and even literalist ones that thrive today. Why? Because I think people are hungering for meaning and purpose and an identity that precisely separates them from the morass of contemporary culture. ...but this from one who isn't attending a local church at all. lily

Awesome. Great post. Thanks Fred. This helped to clarify my own thoughts a great deal. lily

Yep and I don't know quite how to bridge the language barrier here, although granted, it may only be a barrier contrived of my own ignorance. I like to use the example of Santa Claus. We don't believe in a literal Santa Claus, though some of us may believe in the "spirit" or metaphor of Santa Claus...but the telling thing is whether or not on Christmas Eve you are able to experience a heart pounding expectation of Santa Claus's arrival by Christimas morning. If you are a literalist, you'll be sorely disappionted. However, if in making Santa Claus metaphorically true, you lose the power to believe in his coming with any expectation, then Santa Claus is simply not real to you and meaningless; a nice story to tell the kids so as to teach them of the spirit of giving and etc. My argument is that mystics do not believe in a literal Santa Clause, but are nevertheless able to believe with great expectancy that he will indeed come by christmas morning. Do you catch my drift? We need, imo, to find a middle ground between literalism and the 'nothing but" of metaphor. lily

Yes, Lolly...it is the "mystery" that I long to fully experience. I have no objection to being "deluded" by something neither "factually" or "historically" true, in fact I pray for it. If facts and historical knowledge offer nothing but the same daily round of work, eat, watch tv, go to bed, smug in the knowledge that "all the myths" are 'nothing but' metaphor that can be explained away...than I choose delusion. I'd rather be "a fool" than one of the fat and contented "wise". but thats just me. lily

I see what you mean des and I agree, but what I am referring to is the tendency of some to take the mystery out of such things as the resurrection by making it more understandable according to our common experience. We've all encountered the "Jesus was a good man who died to his ego and became a fully individuated human being" etc. etc. way of interpreting metaphorical truth. Metaphor and parable and allegory and story are used as devices to trigger deep and powerful responses from those who hear. They are not meant as devices for "explaining" or "explaining away". It is my contention that all of these things were meant to "confound the wise"; to turn what we think we know on its head, and to elicit deep transformative experience from within us. It is my observation that we lose the power of Mythos to change us when we begin to interpret these mysteries as "nothing but" metaphors for psycho-spiritual processes which are of common knowledge. I may be reacting to my own personal experience of having the creative tension of the mysteries fizzle out in my own exploration of scholarship and history. Surely some of you know what I mean. Last night I was watching the history channel and "historians" were busy as bees trying to prove or disprove that A. Lincoln did or did not write the Gettysburg Address. It is not that I object to "fact-finding" or efforts to discover "what actually happened" rather than what we've been led to believe happened, its just that I observe a move toward a certain cynicism inside myself that threatens to do its own "transformative" work within me, and I believe that I can discern this same "cynicism" happening on a large scale. If we are not careful with our insistence on fact and historical truth we may end up with a generation who believes in nothing, or worse, a generation that believes that all the mysteries have been explained away and that only those things that we can perceive with our five senses is "real". I think part of why so many are moving into modern Pagan reconstruction (and during my time on Pagan e-lists and such I watched many "ex", disenfranchised, marginal, heretical, exiled "Christians" come in) is that it offers "initiations" and "encounters" and "experiences" into the mysteries, as mysteries. I think all of us with a religious bent hunger for that. We want to be changed by our religious tradition; swept up by it and prepared to wager everything in order to experience what it stirs in us as possible and promised. It seems to me that this is happening less and less in the Churches, and I must confess, less and less to me, which is, btw, why I'm here. lily

...this will be OT in some ways, but I've spent some of the weekend perusing on-line sources concerning the historicity of "the figure" Jesus, and writings and discussions concerning early christianity (pre-fourth century), and though much of it is exciting to me personally, and important and enlightening in an "ah hah" kind of way, I realize that there will always be some schism between the "mystics" pursuit of the "heart of religion" and the historians pursuit of "the heart of religion"...if indeed it can be said that historians pursue the "heart"...but I think many do. I don't think we can reason ourselves out of the proverbial paper bag. I think the pursuit of "history" and "truth" and "proof" is endless, though not useless or unnecessary exactly, just that at some point, if one is genuinely religious and interested in being transformed by religion, one must "can" the endless reasoning, and endeavor to experience the *reality* religion points to. It appears to me that there is ample evidence to support an understanding of pre-Constantinian Christianity as a true Mystery Tradition, a tradition of gnosis (which is not to be confused with the religion of Gnosticism), experience, and revelation. One thing all Mystery Traditions share in common is the understanding that what is true is not always Truth, and that Truth must be encountered and is impossible to tease out through Reasoning alone. W.B. Yeats, himself a student of the Western Mysteries, said, "Life being illusory one must in some way be deluded in order to triumph in it". There is much paradox and depth in this statement, and, I believe, much truth. What is religion but the endeavor to live the best you know, and more than this, the best you can IMAGINE and envision. This is very difficult. Symbols and myths and stories and art...all these things stir us and inspire us and enthuse us...and against these things there is no proof or even any need for proof. When you catch a glimpse of reality and your inseparable union with God will you need proof that the vehicle that carried you there was historically true? I doubt it. ...just some early morning thoughts, lily

These are good points DC. The words "authority" and "authentic" share the same origins. There is scripture that relates that "He (Jesus) spoke as one having authority", which, I believe denotes that he spoke as one *who knows* or *authentically*; from experience and not only from "inspiration". Jesus WAS as He spoke. This suggests to me that to the degree we experience what the scriptures point to, is the degree that it will hold any authority for us...and this is surely a work of the Holy Spirit both in us and through scripture. In other words, I don't think the problem is with inerrancy or infallibility when it comes to the Bible...I think its the fallibility of man and the nasty habit he has of thinking he knows something when he knows nothing that is the problem. Much of this, in my mind, stems from not understanding what is stated in the Epistles and the writings of the Early Church..."I come to you as Babes in Christ, with milk and not solid food, for you are not yet able to receive it". First, this tells us that there are "initiations" or "levels" of understanding and revelation pertaining to scripture, and secondly, and perhaps most importantly, that all the Mysteries of God are not writ. That is not to say that the Mysteries of God can not be discerned through the vehicle of existing scripture, because I believe they can, but that not all that "God has in store for those who love him" is written therein. The implication is that the Mysteries of God can not be written or spoken, but only authentically known, in other words we must become the Truth to know it. For me, this makes the Bible of great importance but not of ultimate importance, if you see what I mean. I believe with Paul that "those who have the law written upon their hearts" and yet have never opened the Bible, can prove the things therein. This is because God has written the laws upon every heart and, indeed, upon Everything, and therefore The Truth is not confined to the scriptures of our Bible. just my take, lily

There is a scripture the gist of which states that we no longer know Jesus in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Do any of you know the scripture I am referring to? I think you have hit on something important in the above post Fred, though I'm hard put to find words for it right now. There are so many things coming up in this thread for me that I don't know where to start. The issue of *effort* or "works" as distinct (are they distinct?) from the initiatory grace and workings of the Father in us is one thing (which was actually my intent in starting the "praxis and ritual" thread)...and the meaning of Jesus Christ as The Way and what that might mean is another. I've been exploring the idea that The Way is the paradigm; that The Way is Christ but The Way is not identical or inseparable from Jesus the Christ. What I mean is that the Truth is not in words or doctrines, the Truth IS and Jesus demonstrates The Way of Truth as the Christ which IS The Way. ...just thoughts, lily

I agree on all counts. I believe the humanity of Jesus to be a great key; a great mystery and that Jesus the man + Christ IS the divine son, amen and amen. lily

Yes, exactly so. While I was showering I had this thought: What if Spiritual Reality IS Reality and Material Reality is the metaphor? hmmm. ...and if I don't get ready for work we'll be eating manna this weekend. later, lily

I would agree with everything you've said Fred, if you would exchange the name Jesus for the Christ. I believe that Christ has been "God with us" from the beginning of time, but not the man Jesus. I regard "Christ" theologically as a sign and Jesus as the historical figure. This is probably where we are getting snagged in understanding one another. lily

I think its important to at least consider that the scriptures contain levels of meaning and truth that are discerned according to the degree that our minds are "renewed". Paul wrote that the "carnal mind cannot perceive the things of God". We are in the habit of thinking that Paul is refering to unbelievers in this statement, but he is not, he is writing to the churches when he says this, and he seems to be saying that "babes in Christ" are yet carnal minded. Granted, some *contradiction* found in scripture may come as a result of scriptural "tampering" by those who wished to promote specific doctrine...but some of the contradiction may be only apparent to those of us who can not yet fully discern spiritual reality, because our minds are not yet opened to perceive spiritual truth and reality. Consider then that within Spiritual Reality Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead. The resurrection is real. Consider also that Jesus alluded to the fact that we who walk this Earth are already dead. Did he not say "Let the dead bury the dead"? Those of us who have not entered the Kingdom of God could be dead already, and therefore to enter the Kingdom is to be literally "born again" into Life for the first time. What I am suggesting is that a literal interpretation of the resurrection is both right and wrong. (another paradox) I believe that Jesus literally rose from material reality and death to spiritual reality and Eternal Life. So, personally, I find it closer to the truth to believe in the Resurrection literally, than to water it down to mean only that Jesus rose from the dead metaphorically. just my two cents, lily

No no. Quite the contrary. God inititates everything. I do not support a belief that our "salvation is based on personal effort" at all. This is, in fact, the "something missing" in our discussion I alluded to when reposting your initial post. I wanted to say then that this is something we can not do. This is an impossibility, a mystery, a paradox that we can not even properly fathom unless God reveal it to us. I agree that God reaches out to us to make our reconciliation possible. I also agree that it is by Grace that we seek Him at all. Actually, I don't readily see in what I've posted that gives you the idea that I believe that man is saved by works, or that I dismiss vicarious sacrifice or the blood of Jesus. To me these are separate topics and not the one under discussion. There seems no contradiction to me that Jesus the man became the Lamb of God. Do you see a contradiction? lily

Just to expand a bit on what i posted previously here... It is my suspicion that the doctrine that Jesus is God is in essence antithetical to a belief in the "perfecting" of man, even though Jesus's admonition to "be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect" is retained in our scriptures. The "Jesus is God" doctrine keeps us merely human, sinful, and fallen; saved only by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and by Gods' grace. Jesus as "Man Become Divine" by virtue of making His Human Nature and His Divine Nature One shows us the way *out* of this state of fallenness through IMITATION of Christ as those who are called to be Sons of God or Sons of Light, just as Jesus is. For me, it is not a question of Jesus's divinity, for I assert the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but of *when* and as *what* He became so. This to me is the big question. If we analyze or search doctrine for its fruits, we can see that the Jesus is God doctrine has in many ways kept us "babes in Christ" at best for all these many centuries. Or would some of you argue that? Who in the history of the Church has *proved* "the greater things that you shall do" since Jesus has gone to the Father? Who has become "perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect"? (and yes, I know the word "perfect" has many levels of meaning and can be interpreted in several ways, but who can testify to being perfect in any way?) These are the things that make me go, "hmmm"... what say you? lily

I took Aletheias lead and checked out "theosis" yesterday. Simply stated, this belief is based on the idea that "God became man so that man could become god." This belief actually rests within orthodoxy as it maintains that Jesus is God, and that we "partake of His Divine nature" as stated in the second book of Peter chapter 1 verse 4, still human, distinct from God, but of One Spirit with Him. The Gnostic Christians, on the other hand, did not believe that Jesus is God, but that Jesus became divinized at resurrection, and "begotten" at baptism, and therefore did not worship Jesus as God and considered it more "literalization" to do so. The Gnostics believed that Jesus was the Way or Wayshower to the divinization of man; that He pointed the way to God but was not God. Both of these beliefs acknowledge the "divine nature" inherent in man, while differing dramatically on who they believe Jesus is. My own feeling, which is not based on scholarship, is that the belief that Jesus is God distances us from our own divine nature. Simply put, if Jesus is God then only God can do what Jesus did. How can we "follow" Jesus if Jesus is God? If we are to *go* where Jesus leads must we not also be as Jesus is? It seems more meaningful to me to *see* Jesus as a man who became Divine rather than the other way around. But I'm not locked in yet; I'm still exploring and searching. I tend to be a pragmatist in many ways, which means that I am primarily focused on gaining a sense of *reality* as a buttress to my faith. What I mean by this is that if Jesus is God then I can not be as Jesus is. I can worship Jesus as God, but I can not share in His destiny. However, if Jesus was a man who became Divine by virtue of making his human nature and divine nature One, then I can share in this destiny, as can we all. -just some thoughts, lily

...actually, that would be "messiah" and "lucifer"....not satan. sorry about that. lily

"Gematria is the study of numbers and Hebrew letters, their meanings and how they apply to our lives. Within the original language (Hebrew) every letter, word and phrase equals a number. Words or phrases that equal the same number mystically are related to either the good or evil of that special number. Through Hebrew Gematria one can observe secrets, insights, and unique connections." Interesting in this context that the number 616 is also the number of the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses and the Law. The most famous Gematria connection is between "Messiah" and "Satan", which share the same number. Aleister Crowley must be turning in his grave about now. His claim to have been "the Beast, who's number is 666" , is, well, wrong. lol lily

This topic includes, but is not limited to: * Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ? * If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally? * If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it? * How does Jesus relate to Christ? As my quote above should make clear, I want to affirm that it is possible, and (in my opinion) crucial, to make the claim of the divinity of Christ strongly as progressive Christians. Furthermore, I think that it can be done without appealing to virgin births and empty tombs -- but at the same time, without reinterpreting it away, to the point that it ceases to mean what it clearly claims that it means. Fire away! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I took the liberty of bumping Freds' first post which opened this topic. I was thinking earlier how *pat* my posts sometimes seem to me and how I keep failing to convey something that I think is vitally important to this discussion. Fred, in his opening post touches upon it, but also this first post really capsulizes what it is we are talking about very well, and it was helpful to me to read it again... thought you guys might feel the same way. lily

Thank you Fred, but you are wrong. I can not carry it without you. It just so happens that I am occupied, if not preoccupied, with this very topic under discussion, and initially came to this forum so occupied in hopes of having discussion with others concerning it. You, Fred, know the theology and philosophy behind what I say, I do not. There are many gaps in my understanding that I rely on you and others to help me fill in. Besides, I may be wrong about a great many things and am in the midst of exploring these thoughts and ideas without any great personal grasp of the full implications of them. Please don't leave me alone with my thoughts. lily