Now for an answer to what you wrote about my post to scythekain.
You just mention this without explaining how the above is concerned about “quantityâ€. Lapide was saying that if Paul’s words are true in one context, why shouldn’t they be true in another related context? Where is the discrepancy between “quantity†and “qualityâ€?
Do what? What are you actually commentating? I read the statement, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved†and a simple “… how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?†It doesn’t require much intellect to ask oneself whether this is relevant to the issue of Israel’s oppression under the Christians.
I appreciate the spiritual requirements needed before “proclaimingâ€, and the fact that the same applies to both Jew and Gentile. But what Paul failed to see in what he was teaching was that he was unbeknowingly promoting a separation between Hebraic Christians and Grecian Christians. That was the point I was making, no other.
This is a different question. You are describing various results of psychological manipulations of Christendom. Attempting to distort Christianity doesn’t help this. My concern is for Christianity rather than arguing over Christendom.
A true master is one who understands experientially. Part of this is understanding the gullibility of people in general, the need for hero worship, and how easy they are manipulated. This only creates slaves and since the master’s concern is for the individual’s inner freedom he has to push people away when they fall into this and develop their individuality as Jesus did from insisting on the necessity to carry ones cross.
This is not hijacking a thread but simply including the esoteric perspective which is essential if you are speaking of Christianity. Actually it could be considered more obnoxious to try and deny it. Yet I know it is just you being you and you are sincere in your secular perspective so using such words is meaningless for me.
Where the secular concern is for group reactions (quantity), the esoteric concern is for individual understanding (quality). There can be a relationship between the two but that is another thread.
You can teach a parrot to proclaim the name of the Lord but does this mean the parrot is saved? The question is what inside the collective being of an individual is proclaiming.
Group thought will always have its conflicts but Paul is speaking of re-birth which is a revelation for individuals within each group. To those that understand this essential message of Christianity, it is unimportant whether one is considered a Hebraic or Grecian Christian. They are together as having witnessed themselves as the wretched man and the help that is offered.
Naturally this understanding is lost once Christianity devolves into Christendom and politics becomes the primary importance
No small part of this discussion becomes unclear as it is pulled into bits and pieces of doctrine, dogma, the social milleau, writers intent, and so on.
If there is to be clarity the issues must finally be pulled back together and seen as a whole. The historical pieces of the evolution of Christianity can always be questioned, and there is hardly a single ‘fact’ related to the early history that isn’t continually in dispute. At some point, the words say all that is sayable and we are left with the unknowable. It is in the mystery that we dwell, and dwell in silence.
Dear Nick,
Our subject here is “Authority to Establish a New Covenantâ€. If you have a contribution to make, make it. What did your comments on experts have to do with the attempt I made to describe Jesus as someone who avoided political power and instead began a conspiratorial movement?
I too believe that the “inner freedom†or in my words, spirituality, has priority over following a hero or obeying blindly what authorities – even religious authorities – tell us. That is why we observe early Christians checking up themselves on what they are quoted from Scripture and telling authorities that they must obey God before man. I further say that Jesus did this discretely, even though he himself spoke openly with leaders and scribes. His aim was to protect his “familyâ€. I even think that it was the messianic hope of Judas that made him betray Jesus, because he was clearly not the Messiah.
On the other hand, it could explain why Jesus isn’t the historical figure he would have to be according to Church understanding. Someone who didn’t have political power but was more hidden (or esoteric) wouldn’t be interesting enough and his death would be just one of the thousands of crucifixions that took place. We must understand that Jesus didn’t encourage multitudes or even lead them, but rather hid from them at times (“push people awayâ€).
I see a very clear concern of Jesus for the group, whereas his teaching was clearly for the individual. The one didn’t rule the other out. Similarly, Mystics have had both sides, the spiritual depth and the social concern. In every case, it is the social concern that puts the Mystic on the cross. No authority cares about the Spirituality of Jesus or any Mystic that followed, but they were concerned about their authority being undermined – which Jesus was doing secretly and openly.
One of the main reasons that people become closed to the essence of Christianity is through the influence of experts creating the misguided impression that its purpose is political and for creating peace on earth. This is clearly not the case. The essence of Christianity is in opposition to earthly influences manifesting as the chaotic interaction of secular life.
Not all that cutsey pooh or New Ageish like we are all one and everybody loves everybody. Christianity starts with the assumption that we live unconsciously in continual changing emotional states within the confines of a mad house or in Plato’s cave if you prefer making all that talk meaningless. The purpose of Christianity is the realistic awakening to this condition and the change in being possible from this revelation. From this perspective the political discussion natural for experts attached to secular life is irrelevant.
The authority of Jesus to establish the New Covenant came as a direct result from his ability to remain conscious in life and through the Crucifixion. This in turn allowed for the direct conscious experience and affirmation of the most horrid things man can come up with. It is the conscious experience of such a horrid degree that invites the Holy Spirit to reconcile this struggle for consciousness opening the heart through the void created by the struggle and leading to re-birth.
We cannot even stay present on the street if someone gives us a dirty look much less remain self aware under such an experience as the Crucifixion. It was Jesus’ sacrifice that paved the way for the Holy Spirit to touch man’s corrupt being.
Doing is the authority. Verification is the experience of the Holy Spirit after Jesus departure from this world and the esoteric function of a church is the effort to keep it alive within those open to it for the purpose of following Jesus in re-birth… None of this has anything to do with a conspiratorial movement.
Who was Jesus family and what was this group?
The only reason for a mystic to be on the cross is for re-birth. Normal contributions for the good of society in general don’t require it. There is nothing wrong with societal good. But the essence of Christianity is re-birth. Jesus’ sacrifice made it possible allowing this new experience and knowledge of the heart to replace the ritual of the law. The doing leading to re-birth is what gave him the authority. We need the help from the Holy spirit since the fallen nature of our being prevents it.
Societal good is one thing but denying the essence of Christianity as fashionable in these times does neither it or Christianity any good and IMO just causes more harm.
Caught in the tangled web: to talk about what it is, and then to talk about what it means is a rock strewn path, is it not? While the mystery can only be contemplated in individual silence, the ‘re-birth’, Christian or other, cannot be extricated from the totality of experience. Our spirituality is the wellspring of understanding, but it can in no way be isolated from our knowing, we just have to be aware of the difference.
So you say that my purpose is purely secular and I interpret Jesus as someone who only wanted to create peace on earth? Then you haven’t been paying attention. We have to differentiate between a number of things that happened parallel to each other, just like in real life:
The social reality is the womb in which we are born, the family in which we grow up in, the social structures that guide our development and the hierarchy that rules social life. We all have a general perception of these things. Jesus was born of Mary, brought up under the Law of Moses, became known as the son of a Carpenter and lived in Nazareth with his brothers and sisters. He probably knew the Galilean Zealots and was in the group around John the Baptist. The people in Nazareth had noticed nothing different about him until the day he spoke in their synagogue. He too lived under the restrictions of Roman occupation.
The psychological reality is the way I interpret my social reality, who I am, how I want to be seen, where I see my role, where I gain meaning, purpose and well-being. It is also the way I see others in relationship to myself. This is a very personal picture I paint for myself. How Jesus saw himself is therefore very difficult to tell. However with regard to his calling, he gives strict orders not to tell anyone that Peter said he was the Messiah (and, from the answers that the other disciples give him, nobody thought of him as a Messiah anyway) and a short time after Peters witness, he is suddenly told, “Get behind me, Adversary, because thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men†(Mk 8:33).
The spiritual reality is the communication by which I compare my interpretation with the interpretation of others, learn and build relationships. It is also the receptiveness with which I hear, see and think what inspires me. Jesus is clearly inspired by the Law and the Prophets and has the gift of communication – the Spirit of the Lord has anointed him, he says, “to bring good news to the afflictedâ€. His message is the nearness of the “Realm of Godâ€, the “proclamation of liberty†and “a year of favour from the Lordâ€.
These elements of life run parallel to each other and don’t rule each other out. Just because someone is highly receptive spiritually does not mean that he is able to live separate from the world. Even being the vaguely prominent person who can talk to leaders and scribes, he would have had to show himself to have an opinion about what was going on around him, regardless of how wise he expressed it. It isn’t irrelevant for anyone to understand the political situation in which he is moving, and would be blatantly ignorant towards a people who have suffered so much in the name of Christ.
You see, the “realistic awakening†that you are speaking about is nothing without love and compassion. You may like to behave like a rock but I would suggest that you are only protecting yourself by doing that, showing that you have weaknesses that you want to ignore. But it is the poor, the defenceless, the oppressed who are blessed with the “kingdom of Heavenâ€. The “lowly†and the “little ones†have access and are the spiritual children. The unassuming and undemanding shall have the earth as inheritance etc.
Why do you words remain far off from Scripture? Why can I not, although I am familiar with so many translations, find your words anywhere but in your posts?
There you go, that sounds familiar, but I’m sure I’m wrong – up until now you have given us all the impression that only you have fathomed this out.
Its been busy and I’m too beat now to do justice to what you’ve written. I’m working away for a New Year celebration and when I return I’ll get back to it.
Until then, have a happy and safe New Year holiday and I’ll take this opportunity to include everyone.
I’m only speculating what many scholars before me have speculated. Many of them while the church was still doing so gave their lifes up for such a belief.
Well the flying spaghetti monster is way more strange than a god creating man in his own image, so it must be more true!
Occasionally there are strange things that happen, but it speaks less for supernatural events and more for the complexity of the world.
Like for instance, what’s more likely, that god from heaven rained down sulfur and acid on Sodom and Gohmorra, or that an earthquake ignited an underground vent of gas and caused it to erupt into the air raining down hot sulfuric acid for miles around. Then later the man with an even more limited understanding of the world than us, tries to understand why… why were they killed? because they wanted to gang rape an angel? or because they disliked visitors? (I’ve heard both interpretations of this text.)
it is more likely that the scholars are right, and that Paul (from his own admissions even, and from textual stylings.) did not know that Jesus had just died a mere 5 years ago when he was supposed to have started prostelyzing christianity. Paul in much the same fashion as Mohammed and Joseph Smith was a “prophet” of god that foretold (much like they did) that the end was upon us. The end was nigh.
Later, much was added to the story of the beginnings of the mormon church, just like much was added (and hidden) from followers of mohammed. If you tell them, “you know mohammed was a fierce warrior that conquerored cities and implanted his religion.”, They’ll flat out tell you that’s a lie. They’ll tell you that “You know christ didn’t really get resurrected that was a lie of the church”… and you’ll return fire. “that’s a lie”.
The truth of the matter is that the world is full of false prophets predicting the end of the world even to this day. Only now, we recognize them as such unless they are over a certain age. (Scientology is close to the threshhold.)
So, yes… I’m calling Paul out. He was a false prophet.
hebrews 8:44 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.
hebrews 10:35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For in just a very little while,
“He who is coming will come and will not delay.*
38 But my righteous one will live by faith.
And if he shrinks back,
I will not be pleased with him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed**, but of those who believe and are saved.
Note that he doesn’t say “returning” or “second coming” it’s “he who is coming”. Note in this same verse, the truth to Paul’s lie. “And will not delay”
** Note that this was transformed into a statement by christ in the gospels. Jesus states “those who have seen me and speak against me will be forgiven, but those who speak against the holy spirit are condemned to hellfire.”
The holy spirit is the very easiest thing to doubt and Paul’s statement here and in the gospels it’s a damning one. Those who shrink back even for a little bit are destroyed.
This hearkens back to the statement I just made in the other thread. Do you want to believe in a god that would intentionally confound a portion of the populace to ensure their descent into hell?
It’s more likely they haven’t heard of him, because Paul made him up the same way Joseph Smith made up Moroni, and Mohammed made up Allah.
I think you’ve got a couple of problems to work out (the jews as well.)
why is my religion more right than other beliefs?
If I say that there is truth in all religions, and I know that Joseph Smith and Mohammed were false prophets am I infact lying to myself? (if you believe that you are following the true religion and are not muslim or mormon, you dont’ believe in either of their prophets.)
Does the mystery need to involve the supernatural and the unexplainable? Sure such things are great fun for the mythologist (in most of us here) but for the average person they are going to interpret myth as reality. This is a dangerous prospect, as I’m sure you are aware.
if we were to suddenly say, “we can no longer justfiy a belief in these ancient supernatural gods” would that lessen the mystery?
How can we explain a mystery that’s already been solved? really looking at the christian (and other religions) literature, there are no mysteries left to be solved. (which again makes me wonder why the holy books are used by mystics.)
I think this is from you reading in between the lines. The good news is that Jesus died for your sins, and the only way to salvation is to believe in christ and to never doubt the holy spirit.
The salvation the jews were looking for was one like Samson, or Elijah. Jesus was most likely an essene teacher, that also by chance lead a slightly militant view of the current state of Judah.
There is alot of scholarly evidence that points to this fact.
But really that doesn’t matter. One can read the scripture like most people do and pull the literal meaning that was most likely meant from the writers. Or one can do what you do and pull an abstract meaning, that in nearly no way correlates to the christ of the bible.
It all goes back to…
How did they see the world?
How do I see the world?
The people who believed in christ believed that not only the earth was the center of the solar system, but the center of the entire galaxy. We were the center of god’s attention, (lest we forget lived in the firmament between the clouds and space)
WIth this kind of view, a christ centric lifestyle makes sense, as if we truly are the center of attention and god truly sacrificed himself for our sins, than it’d be all but foolish not to believe so.
Christ did say some truly moving things. As did Martin Luther King Jr, who was by chance a christian preacher. One would hardly devout their entire lives to following Martin Luther King Jr, though.
It’s important to not deify christ, through deification all of his statements become of equal importance.
It’s easier to try and find a mystery in life, when you think that there is a mystery. IMO, Jesus doesn’t answer questions that any of us can use or apply to the modern world. (except for the obvious bits about the golden rule, helping the poor, etc. which was also preached by Buddha 300 years earlier.)
Tell me how, when you pull grand mysteries from the holy book of good news you don’t justify the beliefs of those that I posted above (force ministry and aggresive ministry.)
You mention the social, psychological, and spiritual reality you see as yourself and this is roughly how we all see ourselves. But the question of Christianity is “Who am I?” It is one thing to say that we draw its meaning from our comparisons of external relationships but does this really answer the question and the human need in some for “meaning?” The whole analogy of Plato’s cave suggests that it is not. It suggests that we are asleep to a higher good and “I” for us in this condition is void of this higher meaning. This is also the teaching of Christianity.
Christianity suggests that through the New Covenant the emotions can become open to understanding what we are incapable of now since we’ve become so attached to the fetters.
Our trouble is that we cannot help believeing that we understand. The idea that we are so incapable of our potential for understanding is too repulsive to our ego. Yet Christianity suggests the advantage of dying to our egotism. We cannot by definition understand what this means. Our ego then adopts the idea resulting in all these “I am God” concepts so popular now. Beginning from the acceptance of our nothingness in the face of the human condition cannot be wanted by the majority and can only be valued by a minority and only a small minority of this minority can make good use of it.
You speak of “love and compassion” but can you have enough humility to at least consider how far we are from the depth of these words? Consider the words of Dr. Nicoll:
The direction he is referring to is the domain of human love and compassion which we only exhibit in a rudimentary contradictory form. What is the real good of loving ones neighbor one day enough to offer our shirt when on the next, we take it back and his pants as well? But this is what we do. As good as man as a whole is capable of, he is equally capable of a complimentary evil. This is the human condition.
Dr. Nicoll suggests that the Gospels are primarily a psychological work referring to a psychology of “being” only a few are open to.
How many times have you read demands for proof of the existence of God? But this is impossible. If we understood the human condition in ourselves,the natural question would be how to be able to grow in the capacity to understand. The idea that what we “are” is incapable of such higher understanding is normally seen as preposterous yet IMO this is precisely our situation.
As I’ve come to understand it, there are three basic steps to acquiring understanding. First there must be the desire. This must be followed by the practice and finally by the realization of the practice. This seems obvious for learning a skill like playing a piano but for human understanding, the efforts to be able to become Christian are ignored under the assumption that we already are and understand. This is why though so many people call themselves Christian, in reality, there are only a few in the world. The idea of “how to” become Christian must be more secretive otherwise it would just become the property of our egotism causing more harm than good.
We like to think of ourselves as the center of attention but it doesn’t dawn on us that as we are, we are irrelevant. It is up to us to make the efforts. We must feel the need. The inner teaching has to be sought after. It doesn’t bother me to dig around but I know that many are insulted by having to make efforts beginning from the realization that we don’t understand.
You haven’t studied esoteric Christianity so ideas like the Holy faculty of Attention as described by St.Simeon is unknown to you. Yet from this perspective, beginning to appreciate the profundity of the Crucifixion and Resurrection being described as a “conscious drama” begins to make sense.
None of this can make any sense without appreciating our capacity for understanding that transcends literal knowledge as a relative concept beginning with this idea of man captivated by imagination as suggested by Plato. Often it is considered elitist just to think such a thing.
It is obvious that much of this is considered repulsive. Yet I introduce it here for a lurking minority that like myself have come to the conclusion that there is no conflict between science and religion and the apparent conflict only exists from the lack of human understanding our egotism finds too repulsive to seriously consider making “Know Thyself” only a figment of our imagination.
I hate to be a pain in the neck, but where does Paul “admit†what you are saying here? I also do not agree about Mohammed. I believe that his revelation was genuine, based upon the awareness that Jews and Christians alike had left their Semitic origins and of course he reacted in the historical situation as could be expected of him. The imaginations of his admirers may speak of him in a way that suggests deity, but it is only language.
We really must pull away from the idea of a “physical†movement from another “placeâ€. This all puts God within physical boundaries that require a “miracle†to be able to act. The distance of God isn’t so much a physical distance as a distance of mind, and everything is permeated with what God is. His “Son†didn’t physically leave a place called heaven to come to earth, but is “reborn of the Spirit.â€
You quote Hebrews, but it is commonly known that Paul is not the author of Hebrews.
Religions are like cultures, they differ without necessarily being superior or inferior.
I know little about the Mormons since we don’t have many around. What I have come to know caused me to neglect further enquiry.
With Mohammed, as I said above, I think his thesis was basically right, that the Jews and Christians had left – even rejected – their Semitic origins, and in some ways forsaken the religion of Abraham.
This is only dangerous for as long as people are brought up in a way that makes them unable to intuitively understand Myth. Anyone who can enjoy Harry Potter still has this intuition, it is just a question of whether he uses it with Scripture.
Sorry, but there are still all of the classic mysteries in place. Why do you think that believers are “children†or “lambs�
The good news was around before the crucifixion and resurrection.
The deification of Christ comes from a wrong understanding of the Son of Man, i.e. the Son of God. This term refers the redeemed Man, the Son of Adam, and the image of God.
no, it’s no bother I enjoy the intellectual excercise.
In hebrews (Did I quote the verses?)
That’s a contradiction… part of mohammed’s revelation is that christianity is a lie, there is no trinity or resurrection.
Do you believe that?
He’s certainly not deified LIKE christ, but he is deified in the same way as Joseph Smith. Both religions CLAIM that christ was the ultimate prophet, one believes in the resurrection the other doesn’t. But both place MORE importance on the “newer” prophet and his book. What seperates them from christ in that regard is that the quran was started by Mohammed (and edited and finished by his disciples) the book of mormon and other writings were started by smith (then edited and redacted by leaders in later generations) and the information about christ, is only written by “followers” of christ.
But these “followers” wrote the information after successive generations of his life (if we are to assume he was real.)
So you are changing the definitions to suit your belief?
I am curious, where you are getting this interpretation from (scripture? apocrypha?)
I think that’s up for debate:
“The evidence both external and internal is so satisfactory, that an impression is left on the mind, that Paul was the author of this epistle, nearly equal to what his very name prefixed to it would have produced.â€
This is kind of a wishy washy feeling isn’t it? Somewhere along the line you have to say “my idea of god is better than this old idea of god” otherwise you wouldn’t accept the new idea of god.
For example, I’m sure you would say that your idea of christianity is better than that the inquisitioner practiced.
Even though you’ve read the same holy book, you’ve come to very different conclusions and very different beliefs about how the world works. It’s the projection of these beliefs that will affect your dealings in reality.
I think we can apply the same to culture. we now that a culture that sacrifices humans for blood/sin sacrifice to their god(s) is not as “enlightened” as our culture. For they don’t value life as much as we do to sacrifice it to “their imaginary gods”.
Another example is the child labor happening in China. Do you think that is an acceptable, equal “truth” of a culture? You may at this point (if you’re having trouble reading what I’m trying to get across) be wondering what my point is. How does this relate to the discussion?
Simply this, there are greater truths and we know what they are. To claim any sort of equality of truths is a lie to ourselves.
well, from what I’ve looked at there is little difference between mohammed and joe smith.
That’s the way most people are brought up into religion. I think they would all do good to listen to some lectures by Robert M. Price.
unfortunately as I think you know, most don’t (especially where I live.)
Depends upon your interpretation. You interpret that to mean that you’ve still got much to learn, in the way a buddhist once he starts down the path of buddhism is only given the tools and not the key.
BUT, to say that is in the intended interpretation IMO, is a stretch to make the christian texts seem as mystically inclined as those from the east.
Is it possible Christ meant that we must be accepting of new knowledge (like children) to enter the kingdom of heaven?
was the kingdom of heaven as you say “a metaphysical rebirth” (of sorts) or like most believed at the time, a place in the sky where god and angels resided?
I think the latter is more likely, and though there is clearly an eastern influence to some of jesus’ more profound sayings it is by and large, hellenistic-judaism.
(an example being the wine flask. You need a new wine flask for new wine ---- you cannot fill a cup of tea that is already full of old tea.)
I think other philosophies cover the mystery and it’s importance better than christianity. Unless you over interpret the text. I did such a thing to the text of Alice in Wonderland in the other thread, and by and large it came out as quite a metaphysical interpretation of a section of alice in wonderland. The same is possible from ANY book including the bible.
Does that make the bible inspired or the person reading the bible?
Interesting interpretation. Personal salvation is something I believe must come from the deep well of understanding why we act the way we do. If we simply ask a superficial self “forgive me father for I sin”, we will act in that manner again.
Let’s discuss Adam, since he is the very core of all judaistic religions. What was his real sin. Was it eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? (which is a sumeric myth about how man last immortality to a snake)
Or was it Adam’s nature to take the easiest path and just do something without questioning the consequences?
I appreciate what you are saying, but you say it badly. The mystic is of course aware that the deeper question of Christianity is a question of identity. Who am I? Am I just the biological presence, functioning on hormones and chemistry? Or is there more to be discovered? Redemption helps pull away the rubble and find the core of what we are. But life still happens on a multi layered strata, there are so many facets of life and I find it difficult to pretend that some of them are not there.
You might think that the danger is that I could be so caught up in the exoteric that the esoteric evades me. But it is out of the inner chamber that I gain the strength to do the task I have. At times, like yesterday when my Father died, with the ward leaders either sick or themselves caught up in palliative care of their parents, with strife in the air and myself surrounded by tasks that desperately have to be done, where do I get the quietude and how do I keep my balance?
What is lacking in what you quote is the reason why it is important. I am open about saying that I experience a planet yearning for redemption, for the Son of Man to be revealed and healing to take place. When I read you, I get the feeling that you take everything onto some kind of heavenly plane, where all of the problems of mankind become unimportant and everything you do is only for your own sake, for your own edification and advancement. I, on the other hand, believe that the path to such edification and advancement is through agape towards my fellow beings.
I am glad that you say “weâ€. If everything is pointing towards the assumption that we have understood, I can’t see why we shouldn’t assume it is true. You may say that we have missed something, or that there is something that only you have noticed, but of course we believe to understand things when all of the signs are pointing that way.
I am disturbed by the assumptions you make about me and others. I am also disturbed that many of your sentences are long but relatively “empty†- you say so much, but the message is often garbled. Of course, you could assume that you are so far advanced that I can only hear your “clear words†as garbled speech – but I think that this would exemplify what you have written about your “egotismâ€.
How much humility do you want?
After quoting the good man, what do want to say? Are you saying that we should all be glad that Nick is here to put us right?
I’m sorry to learn of the passing of your father. Please accept my best wishes.
I don’t see where the planet is yearning for redemption. If you consider how the entertainment dollar is spent it is obvious that the greatest attractions are at the most base levels. I just don’t see any yearning for redemption but at best rather the continued acceptance of the status quo.
To paraphrase a man who IMO is one of the few to surpass Simone Weil in understanding: “Before becoming a genuine altruist one must first become a conscious egoist.”
It’s not that the human condition is unimportant but rather its importance is not appreciated. As expressed in the Buddhist story of the Burning House, “Only fools fight in a burning house.” But this is what is happening. Oblivious in the burning house all the prettiness appears important. When the flames begin to be felt, importance acquires a different quality of meaning.
I do believe that a vital positive good that will enter society will come from a minority having acquired a conscious egoism giving them the ability to do what is necessary and not just fall into being a cog in a wheel following the lawful natural cycles.
What has man collectively understood? A person’s understanding is defined by what they do. I still see wars rapes, abortions, addictions, tortures, robberies, and a host of other delights continually happening and justified. Of course you can describe noble ventures of our species. But the point is that we equally understand and therefore are motivated by both the greatest human and inhuman goals. This is the scattered nature of our being both collectively and individually.
This is why I asked to help develop another board for esoteric religious thought. I know it is insulting that I speak of man’s nothingness. Yet the ancient traditions such as Buddhism speak of the same as esoteric Christianity. It would be better if I could rob some people from other sites with the intent to build a board that could discuss these things without the need for being politically correct. But if the discussion is about the New Covenant, it is necessary to consider Paul’s concept of the “Wretched Man” in direct defiance of politically correct thought. I can sympathize with your outrage but on such topics, as insulting as it is, the idea that we are not what we think we are must be taken seriously in order to do justice to the depth of the New Covenant.
I am not the issue. It only refers to you and only you can benefit from it.
I only introduce ideas that I know from experience are only of concern to a minority. I am not setting anyone right. This is a board that discusses religious ideas and I present my interests. Are you here to set me right? I cannot think this way. You share your views and I do mine knowing ahead of time that most here will consider them insulting. But I try to see if there are any kindred spirits out there. I don’t see what I should feel guilty about. Why is discussing unusual ideas considered putting others right? When people debate they try and prove others right. This is why I don’t debate. I prefer discussing with the goal of understanding.
OK, what this all implies, if indeed it is true, is that Jesus brought a new covenant, the old one is gone. But since the Christians have repeated all of the atrocities that the Jews have and more, what justice would be revealed?
BOB, you said “if indeed it is true”. Do you have reason to doubt the authenticity of the claim, of the scripture?
Also, you imply that the atrocities of Christians paralleling that of the Jews and hence… well, a few things:
(1) Hebrews 7:23-24; Jesus has an unchangeable priesthood (as in, his priesthood will last forever).
(2) Hebrews 9:28; Jesus shall appear again for those who are “saved.” If a new “justice” is to be “revealed” it will be once again Jesus that brings about that justice.
The best answer I could provide is a bit of sarcasm in an old joke: A handful of people were lamenting that God was dead, and that Christianity had failed, and … A quiet old man in the back of the group said he disagreed. Christianity hadn’t failed, it was just that no one had tried it yet.
If anything, the issue of a new or old covenant, while scholastically interesting, does nothing to help the individual find their spiritual nature or their personal relationship with God.
The New Covenant is about re-birth through the assistance of the Holy Spirit made possible through Jesus’ efforts. Justice is justice. What occurs on earth is karmic justice regardless of how insulting this may apear… IMO you insist on confusing Christianity with Christendom where the New Covenant is severely limited to those naturally good people.
For this is the covenant that I make, with the house of Israel, after those days:
I have given My law in their inward part,
and on their heart I do write it,
and I have been to them for God,
and they are to me for a people.
And they do not teach any more each his neighbour,
and each his brother, saying, know ye Jhvh,
for they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest,
for I pardon their iniquity,
and of their sin I make mention no more.
The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah gave the affirmation that God was going to offer some renewed opportunity for the Jewish people to know Him in a better and more intimate way. However, Christians started to interpret the New Covenant as what Jesus said in the Upper Room, “this is the New Covenant in my bloodâ€, but we mustn’t forget that the room was full of Jewish men. Since then Christians try and show that God made this new agreement by destroying the old agreement and replacing the Jewish people with the Christian church. It may be a common teaching in many churches, but it simply doesn’t agree with what Jeremiah says.
In the Tanakh, the setting for the New Covenant promise was at a time of considerable consternation. Jeremiah had told them that judgement was coming to Judah, and they were about to be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. The kings of Judah were no longer “friends of Godâ€, and the people only occasionally heard the prophetic voices, each warning of coming doom if the nation did not give him their hearts. In this situation, the “New Covenant†promise was given to encourage them that God had not finished with them, but rather would offer to them a new and inspiring relationship on a different level when their captivity was over.
In Jeremiah 30, a whole series of encouraging promises start with “I have turned back to the captivity of My people Israel and Judah, said Jhvh, and I have caused them to turn back unto the land that I gave to their fathers, and they do possess it†(30:3). The restoration of a King like David to the throne (30:9) was guaranteed, as well as “For with thee am I, … to save thee, For I make an end of all the nations Whither I have scattered thee, Only, of thee I do not make an end, And I have chastised thee in judgment, And do not entirely acquit thee†(30:11). God even promised a renewal of His promise to be their God: “And ye have been to Me for a people, And I am to you for God†(30:22). In chapter 31, the prophet reminds them: “With love age-during I have loved thee, Therefore I have drawn thee with kindness.†(31:3) and they need not be concerned with being cast aside: “Again do I build thee, And thou hast been built, O virgin of Israel, Again thou puttest on thy tabrets, And hast gone out in the chorus of the playful†(31:4).
In the midst of these promises, it is specified exactly what God has in mind for their return and reconstruction to the land of their fathers. He promises to “sow the land†with their children and grandchildren and restore their places (31:17-28). He explains that when restoration comes, the
people would finally be ready to admit they are personally responsible for each sinful practice (31:29-30): “In those days they do not say any more: Fathers have eaten unripe fruit, And the sons’ teeth are blunted. But each for his own iniquity doth die, Every man who is eating the unripe fruit, Blunted are his teeth.†They will need a changed heart to follow him: “I have given My law in their inward part, And on their heart I do write it†(31:33) and He promised they would ALL know Him! (31:34). He promised this specifically to the children of Israel by name more than a dozen times (Jeremiah 30:3,4,10; 31:1,2,4,7,9,10,12,27 and many others!)
His promise goes on to say that the relationship would exist as long as He was God of the universe (31:35-37). He also specified the promise physically applied to the city of Jerusalem (31:38-40). This was a “renewal†of the previous covenants of God, not something that departed from the past. The “newness†was that God was going to offer it is a new way, and it was going to change hearts from within! The promises were so important that God reiterated them in the next chapter in the same pattern:
I will re-gather the nation from among the places they were taken into (32:37) and bring them back to Israel (32:37b), and give them a safe haven there (37b).
I will reassert my places as their God, and they will follow Me (32:38).
I will re-unite them and their children as a people (32:39)
I will make another everlasting covenant with them (32:40) and bring to
bear My purposes wholly on them (32:41).
The New Covenant is a covenant for and with the people of Israel, not INSTEAD of them. Besides, no covenant in Scripture ever replaced the previous ones that God made. Each one built on another! For example, when God made the promise to Abraham to make of him a great nation, He did not take away His promise to “never destroy the earth again†in the Noah promise. He made an agreement, and no later agreement rewrote the earlier ones.
While the mystery can only be contemplated in individual silence, the ‘re-birth’, Christian or other, cannot be extricated from the totality of experience. Our spirituality is the wellspring of understanding, but it can in no way be isolated from our knowing, we just have to be aware of the difference.