God always planned to take on flesh and defeat the devil.
He did this by maintaining the rules fully that he put in place whilst taking the full punishment for the sins of the people he chose to save who didn’t keep those rules fully.
If you don’t believe in the sacrifice he made and genuinely believe he carried it out for you then you aren’t one of the individuals who he came to save.
That’s it….It’s black and white….It’s binary.
Who you talkin’ bout, Jeezus? Lol, that clown doesn’t know what sacrifice is.
God can do whatever he wants …He’s God.
Well, no, not really. Two things god can’t do. Violate the rules of logic and make me like em.
Well God chose not to save you then didn’t he.
Bro, i wouldn’t go to heaven even if i got a free pass. I can’t stand people. The last thing i wanna do is spend eternity with em.
That’s ok then.
Read the OP and several of your earlier posts on this thread. You bring up some interesting points, but I have a different take on the Christian narrative and the beginning of where things went wrong for Christianity. Also, not sure if you understand what ultimately underlies the commonality between the words attributed to Jesus during His ministry and the Vedas: Truth as in what is, what has been and what ought to be. Ultimately the God of Jesus is Truth, e.g. “Spirit of Truth”. Ultimately Brahman is Truth.
Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of the words He spoke during His ministry. Christianity ought be built upon those words and the rest of the NT scrapheaped. The OT as well for that matter.
John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
31Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
John 12
48He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Thoughts?
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully. I agree that “truth” is a profound meeting point between traditions, and that both the New Testament and the Vedas speak in ways that transcend simple doctrinal boundaries. Where I would gently differ is in how that truth is understood.
In the Vedic tradition, Brahman as ultimate reality can indeed be described as Truth in the sense of what is, namely, the ground of being itself.
The Vedas were composed in Vedic Sanskrit, which is an extraordinarily precise and philosophically flexible Indo-European language. The keyword here is Sat, meaning being, reality, that which truly is.
Brahman in the Upanishads is described as:
Here, truth (satya) is fundamentally ontological — it concerns the nature of reality itself. It is not primarily relational but metaphysical.
By comparison, in the Christian narrative, truth is not only metaphysical but personal and relational. When Jesus speaks of the “Spirit of Truth” (John 16:13), truth is not merely an abstract principle but something embodied, encountered, and lived within a covenantal relationship.
So while there may be resonance at the level of language, the underlying theological vision seems to me distinct: one pointing toward ontological unity, the other toward personal communion.
That is why the following …
… is talking about the habitual, even addictive behaviour that is calculative in its approach, asking “what’s in it for me?” Such a position takes itself out of the relational and is focused on personal advantage and profit. That way, the relationship with God isn’t transformative but transactional, which is something that the late prophets were condemning, saying that God couldn’t stand their sacrifices.
Instead, those who do not sin are commended as those who are spontaneously compassionate and forgiving, who go the extra mile. The good Samaritan and the father of the prodigal son are role models. The feeding of the thousands is equally relational, with everybody giving what they have and finding there was even some to spare. The miracle is that Jesus invokes this spirit.
Freedom from that transactional and the discovery of the blessing in the relational is first and foremost. That is why the love of God and neighbour is the sum of the law. That is why he uses the word Abba, and his prayers are about reciprocal behaviour. “Give us … as we give …”
The wisdom that is ignored will come back and haunt people, and we know that in everyday behaviour, when we are out of line after accusing someone else of being out of line. Forgiveness is essentially relational because we know how easy it is to miss the mark ourselves.
I appreciate the conversation — it sharpens the thinking.
There is no Christian Tragedy…there are only individual tragedies when individuals do not accept the teachings of Christ who is able to explain reality philosophy;science and psychology such that it makes complete sense to them.
The problem in society today is that individuals have been so brainwashed with deluded mainstream science which claims that the I am (SELF) doesn’t exist that many individuals do not understand consciousness and their relationship to it and the need to CONTROL it.
Mainstream science hasn’t got a clue about consciousness and freely admits this and yet it still persists in trying to convince the world that its BS science is correct…No it ain’t.
How is telling anyone that they are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) going to help them with understanding their psychological make up??? We have simply got to stop listening to these deluded psychotic crank/crack pots atheistic scientists who’s theories have all now failed…Buddhism beliefs/ideologies and worshiping the god of Shiva (There is a statue of this god outside the religious cult of atheistic sciences HQ at CERN near Geneva) …don’t work!!!
Like the vast majority of Christians in my experience, you seem to be interpreting the words of Jesus through the lens of the “Christian narrative” rather than allowing His words to speak for themselves. This has led you to draw demonstrably false conclusions. This is in large part why I suggested the following in my previous post. It’s an extremely common occurrence.
For example, for John 8:34 you conclude that Jesus is speaking of “habitual behavior”. The Truth is that Jesus is speaking of any and all sins regardless of whether or not it is “habitual” - however you may want to define that. This is incontrovertible. The Greek word Jesus used that was translated as “commits” is poieo which literally means “make” or “do” and refers to a single act.
Lexical Summary
poieó: To make, to do, to act, to cause, to work
1. to make or do
{in a very wide application, more or less direct; properly refers to a single act thus differing from G4238 [prasso]}
Strong's Greek: 4160. ποιέω (poieó) -- To make, to do, to act, to cause, to work
Lexical Summary
prassó: To practice, to do, to perform, to accomplish
1. to practice, i.e. perform repeatedly or habitually
2. (by implication) to execute, accomplish, etc.
3. (specially) to collect (dues), fare (personally)
{differing from G4160[poieo], which properly refers to a single act}
Strong's Greek: 4238. πράσσω (prassó) -- To practice, to do, to perform, to accomplish
Care to reevaluate your position?
I am mildly amused by you saying this, but then going on to speak about “Greek word Jesus used”.
The author of the Gospel used the Greek; nearly everybody is convinced that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I think of the historical Jesus as a bit of a distraction, because historically, his death is a tragedy.
I was enthused some time ago after reading The Hidden Gospel by Niel Douglas-Klotz, who spoke about the transition from Aramaic to Greek, and how that was a decisive move away from the depth of Jesus’ teaching (if we assume that the Greek rendering of core teachings was his) that is better accessed through the Semitic language.
As Douglas-Klotz and others remind us, Aramaic, as Jesus probably spoke it, was a semantically fluid and experientially resonant language. Words carried multiple layers of meaning, blending physical, emotional and spiritual realities. This is in contrast to the more abstract, categorical structure of Greek. Key words such as ru ḥa (spirit, breath, wind) and malkuta (kingdom, empowerment, cosmic harmony), for example, evoke living processes rather than static theological entities.
Greek writers could only draw on their own literary sources to try to inspire the cosmic relevance of that teaching, and they did so copiously. When the early followers attempted to preserve these teachings in Greek, they used a language steeped in Platonic and Stoic categories of being, essence, logos and cosmos. These tools were invaluable for achieving philosophical precision, but they tended to turn into solid things what, in Aramaic, might have been expressed through movement, relationships, and dynamic balance. Thus, the inner rhythm of a Semitic mystic became clothed in Hellenistic metaphysics.
Essentially, though, they were using a different tradition to convey a deeper message, just as the Septuagint became the Tanakh of the Greek-speaking Jews. Even if I can’t prove it, I believe that Jesus was reviving the Jewish mystical tradition, which is why the Aramaic is so important. This touches on the intersection of linguistics, mysticism, and cultural translation. My argument has a solid foundation in both theological linguistics and comparative mysticism.
The idea that Jesus was reviving a Jewish mystical tradition is consistent with the fact that second-temple Judaism contained proto-Kabbalistic and apocalyptic elements, such as Merkabah (divine chariot) visions, wisdom literature, and Qumran mysticism involving light and the word. In this view, Jesus wasn’t inventing a new faith but reawakening the experiential knowledge of the divine within creation, an idea that echoes ancient wisdom traditions from cultures around the world.
As you may be aware of, many older cultures speak of a primordial wisdom: the Dao in China, ṛta/dharma in the Vedic tradition, Maat in Egypt and Logos in early Stoicism. This suggests a shared archetypal language of cosmic order and inner alignment. Seeing Jesus as a channel of that re-emergent pattern redefines Christianity as less of a departure from Judaism or a Hellenistic synthesis, and more of a localised expression of perennial wisdom, reinterpreted through the lens of first-century Judea.
Following this line of thinking, the ‘historical Jesus’ becomes less the endpoint of inquiry and more a portal and a historical instance of initiation into ageless consciousness traditions, obscured by the filters of translation and empire.
I think we should approach religious scriptures as mythologies and recognise their importance in a non-technological world where it was difficult to access books and people had to memorise texts or know someone who could. The stories’ deeper meanings were not written down but transmitted through relationships. Stories, chants and parables were performative acts that conveyed memory, ethics, cosmology and communal identity simultaneously. Meaning was elastic and multi-layered, enriched by tone, repetition and context. So the ‘deeper meaning’ wasn’t hidden on a page but emerged from people’s participation in the retelling.
I think anyone who has been a Christian in evangelical or Protestant circles will have found this to be an obstacle when approaching ‘Gnostic’ teachings that dismiss the atonement via the cross in favour of awakening and empowerment to know oneself as an expression of the inner light of consciousness that enlightens all beings. I can see how Vedanta could help you in this respect, by preventing the transformative psychology and mysticism at the heart of Jesus’s message from being obscured.
As I said, the scriptures serve as living metaphors for inner awakening. This is essentially how we should ‘follow’ Jesus on this noble ‘Way’, rather than being confident that he has done it all for us. It is interesting how ‘people of the Way’ suddenly becomes understandable. In a mystical interpretation, the cross ceases to represent an external sacrifice and instead symbolises an inner crucifixion of the ego and the surrender of separateness, resulting in rebirth into unity. The ‘resurrection’ then signifies a new mode of being and awareness, grounded in what we call the ‘inner light of consciousness’.
“Tat tvam asi” (“You are That”). The Christ-self and the Atman become analogues, pointing to the same non-dual recognition that the divine and the self are not-two.
What do you think?
Warm regards
C’mon Bob. Are you really going to play that game? In my experience most are well aware that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic and that the NT authors wrote in Greek many years after His death. But for ease of conversation, it is common to use phrases such as “Jesus said”, “His words”, etc. Did you really need me to explain that to you?
In the OP you speak of the importance of following “Jesus as a visionary prophet” and “His words”. In that vein, for all intents and purposes, we need go by the Greek words attributed to Him by the NT authors. In that vein, we first need to understand those words. In that vein, the mythology the NT authors wrapped around those words are unimportant; the cross is unimportant; the “Christian narrative” is unimportant. What’s more, reading those words through the lens of the “Christian narrative” effectively “blinds” people from understanding those words. Ditto mysticism. Ditto “personal relationship”.
Even more important than those words, is the underlying conceptual model being conveyed. If you understood that model: you wouldn’t think that Jesus was speaking of “habitual sin” in John 8; you wouldn’t speak of “personal relationship”; you wouldn’t look to mysticism to understand “resurrection”, etc. Allow Jesus’ words to speak for themselves - Aramaic not required - only eyes to see and ears to hear. You make things needlessly complicated.
You really didn’t understand my original posts, did you? I went to great lengths to explain that I see a different message in the Gospels, but that it has been overlaid with a teaching that doesn’t empower people to be transformed but instead teaches them to rely on a substitutionary atonement, emphasising that Christ endured God’s wrath against sin on behalf of believers.
What I said:
I also said more recently that I see a transformative psychology and mysticism at the heart of Jesus’s message, reviving a Jewish mystical tradition is consistent with the fact that second-temple Judaism contained proto-Kabbalistic and apocalyptic elements, such as Merkabah (divine chariot) visions, wisdom literature, and Qumran mysticism involving light and the word.
So the Aramaic language is, in fact, very important, because it connects far further back to wisdom from long ago that is not limited to Judaism. Love and compassion appear as core elements in the earliest documented religious and spiritual traditions, traceable to Sumerian literature around 2000–1550 BCE, with possible roots in even older prehistoric spiritual behaviours. Sumerian hymns urge kindness to the feeble, charitable deeds, and righteous living as divine expectations, integrating love into worship and ethics.
Vedic Hinduism (Rigveda ~1500 BCE) emphasises ‘daya’ (compassion) in the Upanishads, urging non-hatred and empathy. Ancient religious and spiritual traditions consistently portray love and compassion as ideals that are repeatedly challenged, undermined, or subordinated by the pursuit or exercise of power, often through tyrannical rulers, and portrayed as divine conflicts or cosmic tensions.
Jesus’s teaching of love and compassion is not just virtuous, but continues a tradition that shows it as an essential force underpinning humanity’s endurance and survival against existential threats like destruction, isolation, or moral decay.
There is a quaint little town called Maaloula which is predominantly Christian and Muslim in Syria and is one of the last places on earth where the language of Jesus Christ that is spoken is Aramaic. The city where Jesus actually performed most of his work and did most of his preaching was the city of Capernaum. There is also another little town and that one is Korazim, where Jesus spent much of his ministry, on a small hill overlooking the Sea of Galilee, the traditional “mount” on which Jesus probably spoke his first sermon. He starts off by saying, “blessed are the poor”…
He begins his sermon, the Jews sitting there in their thousands waiting for him to announce himself as the Messiah and to say, I am the Messiah. You are the chosen people of God, I have come to set you free from the Roman yoke, You will rise and be the greatest in heaven. That is what they are waiting for and here He gets up and the first words as Messiah that He speaks are, “blessed are the meek, blessed are they who do hunger and thirst, blessed are the peacemakers”… These represent a life of compassion and righteousness contrasting with worldly values, a difficult road for mankind to travel.
There’s definitely a failure to communicate.
Let’s try this a different way. I’ll ask a couple of direct questions. Hopefully you’ll start giving me straight answers.
What is required of individual to receive the Spirit of Truth?
What is required of an individual to receive salvation / receive eternal life / live in the Kingdom?
The “Spirit of Truth” is a biblical term primarily referring to the Holy Spirit, as described by Jesus in the Gospel of John, where it acts as a divine guide leading believers into deeper understanding beyond human limitations.
As a universalist and panentheist, I see truth as a universal property of existence, alongside goodness and beauty. It is essentially relational. As one of the transcendentals, truth is not static dogma, but a dynamic, relational harmony that connects the self to the cosmos and individual insight to universal oneness. In this view, the Spirit of Truth manifests as the inner capacity to unveil what is real. This is similar to Plato’s Forms or Aquinas’s convertibility of being, where truth, goodness and beauty coexist as intrinsic aspects of existence. Rather than receiving the Spirit of Truth, I surrender to it. This surrender is akin to Eastern non-attachment or Christian kenosis: the release of egoic barriers to allow discernment to flow naturally.
The Spirit of Truth is the immanent divine impulse towards an unconcealed reality. It guides us through compassion, justice and beauty, helping us to dismantle the illusions of separation and revealing the unity of all beings. The Spirit of Truth is the path to salvation itself. It is the divine force flowing through existence, awakening discernment to dispel the illusions of division and drawing all into an eternal, interconnected relationship with the universe.
Thanks. This is helpful. Can you expand on what you have in mind when you speak of “divine impulse” / “divine force”? Also elaborate on exactly what this “interconnected relationship” entails. Plus what do you think Jesus said is required of an individual to receive the Spirit of Truth?
It would also help if you could answer the 2nd question from my previous post.
Jesus provides the answer to your question in John 3.
Nicodemus pondered exactly the same query.
