The Love Of Jesus

[Guest end3]

End,

 

I'm going to post something from A 2nd Tier Christianity here for you. This has to do with Ken Wilber's Intergral Model which Antlerman understands better than I do. I've listened to his CD's and it is really hard to grasp because he maps the levels of consciousness...anyway, this has to do with Christianity:

 

For example, many Christians have the experience of feeling God's love and forgiveness when they repent of their sins and seek forgiveness. The experience is real. But the transcendent reality behind that experience may not be a bearded, white-haired God (who cannot tolerate any unclean thing in his presence) forgiving us, because Jesus suffered in our place and thus satisfied this God's demand for justice. Rather, the transcendent reality behind this experience of love and acceptance may be an encounter with the 2nd person aspect of God or Spirit, out of which everything in existence arises, including each one of us and our many sins. This is an experience common to all of the world's spiritual traditions, though it may be interpreted differently in each tradition.

 

Many Christians also have experiences of personal transformation that enable us to better live Christ's teachings, to become more Christlike in our daily lives. Our hearts may be softened, so that we are more patient, and feel more love toward others. We may become less selfish and more giving. At amber, we may understand this transformational force to be God's Spirit helping us to better live the commandments. But the reality behind this experience may be what happens, in any tradition, when we surrender our individual desires and interests to a higher purpose or cause, and move up one or more stages on the vertical axis of the Wilber Combs Lattice. We become what we surrender to. So when we surrender ourselves and our lives to Christ as we understand him, the result is that we become more Christlike.

 

In the integral model, experiences of God are a subtle state phenomenon. God is an aspect of our own transcendent nature that appears as other in gross and subtle state experiences. So the ideal of Christ that we surrender to at amber, and thus become more like, may be what our own deepest I Amness or Christ Consciousness looks like when it is projected outward, onto the historical person of the awakened Master, Jesus.

 

Here is the link: A 2nd Tier Christianity

 

Look at it and poke around if you have time. If you have an excessive amount of time and want your brian fried, check out Ken's Integral Model here: Ken Wilber Online

 

Thank you.

[NotBlinded]

Thank you.

You are very welcome.

[Guest end3]

Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the actual Source.....not a separate Ground of Being that Jesus is only a well tuned representative.

 

This is why it is binary....you either believe this, or you don't.

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me. What does the word "through" suggest to you? I hear agency there, don't you?

 

He was The Gate brother....half of the gate's being is exposure to one direction and half to the other direction....That was His claim. Are you the Gate as well or are you standing on one side. The question still, is do you believe His claim, or don't you.

So... Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit then. Sounds to me like you're not a Trinitarian at all. You're a Modalistic Monarchian! (seriously)

 

BTW, I don't believe that was ever his claim, that he is "God the Father" (and he certainly never said "God the Son").

 

Theologically speaking, now if you want to talk about Logos, that's another matter. As such, that agency of God, would be God's nature and the Manifestor. But Manifestor of what, end3? You could say the Expression of God, but the Nature of God is what is expressed. And that nature is in ALL manifestation. What Logos is then is Agency. What the writer of John had in mind was an image of Jesus as the Divine Logos, that Agent of Manifestation of the Nature of God.

 

Do I believe the actual man Jesus was this Divine Agent as the people of John's community imagined him (which you should really do a read of the Gospel of Thomas along with John, which is a most fascinating derivation of more pure form of Gnosticism in Thomas, tailored for the more "common" believer, 'dumbing it down' as it were by taking the internal processes of Enlightenment and externalizing them in Jesus as symbol in its gestures to the other Jesus movements - such as Mark's community, and Matthew's etc.)? I believe Jesus stands as symbol of that. In that sense, then that is what he is.

 

Do I use that symbol myself? Unnecessary. Does that mean I can't apprehend God if I don't?? That is the true question of this whole thread. You only have a theological argument to support the denial of it to those who don't adopt the symbol, and glaring contradictions in the reality of people the world over experiencing the Transcendent. To say if you don't use that symbol you can't get to God, to me betrays that those who say that either haven't experienced its transcending nature, meaning it goes beyond definitions and is all-inclusive, or they are so distracted by their system of signs that they see God as the signs themselves. Or put another way, they see "blue" and that is the same as "sky". Blue and Sky are one and the same. In either case, its not a conclusion that comes from the Heart within, its a conclusion of reasoning about things beyond reason.

 

I appreciate the reference.

 

So you view yourself as a messiah of sorts...."annointed" by experience? And anyone can access this? And the Source is the nature of the creation?

 

That's fine, but I am wanting to hear mechanisms and testamonies to make it real......and don't be exclusive please.

[Antlerman]

I think the distinction...."A symbol" vs "the symbol"....an intercessor, everthing that is expressed in that.

End, it's a symbol - to us. It doesn't matter if its "a" symbol or "the" symbol. It's function to us is the same as any symbol. I think there's confusion of what we mean when we speak of symbols. Here's a quick Wiki blurb on Symbols:

"

Psychology has found that people, and even animals, can respond to symbols as if they were the objects they represent. Pavlov's dogs salivated when they heard a sound which they associated with food, even if there was no food.

Common psychological symbols include a gun to represent a penis or a tunnel to represent a vagina.[1] See: phallic symbol and yonic symbol.

 

The psychologist, Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term "sign". In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise. An example of a symbol in this sense is Christ as a symbol of the archetype called "self".[2]

 

The use of symbols is often attributed to being unique to homo sapiens. Humans use symbols in a variety of different ways. For example, written languages are composed of a variety of different symbols that create words. Through these written words, humans communicate with each other. Kenneth Burke described homo sapien as "symbol-using, symbol making, and [a] symbol misusing animal" to indicate that a person creates symbols in her or his life as well as misuses them (Burke 6). One example he uses to indicate his meaning behind symbol misuse is the story of

a man who when told a particular food item was whale blubber, could barely keep from throwing it up. Later, his friend discovered it was actually just a dumpling. But the man's reaction was a direct consequence of the symbol of "blubber" representing something inedible in his mind

(7). In addition, the symbol of "blubber" for the man was created by him through varies kinds of learning. Burke emphasizes that humans gain this type of learning that helps us create symbols by seeing various print sources, our life experiences, and symbols about the past (5).

 

Burke also goes on to describe symbols as also being derived from Freud's work on condensation and displacement further stating that they are not just relevant to the theory of dreams, but also to "normal symbol systems" (7). He says they are related through "substitution" where one word, phrase, or symbol is substituted for another in order to change the meaning. In other words, if a person does not understand a certain word or phrase, another person may substitute a synonym or symbol in order to get the meaning of the original word or phrase across (7). However, when faced with that new way of interpreting a specific symbol, a person may change their already formed ideas to incorporate the new information based on how the symbol is expressed to the person."

Whether one calls it "the" symbol or not is irrelevant. It still functions as a symbol to us.

Again, how is Christianity expressed as everyone being the Messiah? Where is that in the Bible?

Did I say everyone is the Messiah? If you mean Christ, that's a different word and a different meaning. That becomes a bit of a theological discussion, but to keep it short without getting into any debate surrounding that, Christ just means "anointed one". The Jewish messiah is another animal that got merged with the Christ concept.

 

But personally, I don't say we are Christ, but that we can attain a "Christ consciousness", as some would call it. Again, what Christ represents - symbolically, comes back to that whole Logos thing I've mentioned four or five times so far in this discussion which is always overlooked somehow.

 

Everyone's annointing comes from this specific Vessel. Is this not what Christianity is? I don't accept that the Spirit comes except through this Means.

All things comes by that means End. "All things were made through him".

 

Christianity is a specific belief in the Mechanism of the relationship between ourselves and God.

Yes. It is supposed to be about a developing a relationship with God, about "conforming to the image of Christ" (or attaining a "Christ" consciousness, if you will, meaning a living manifestation of the Divine Nature). The argument in this discussion is this: The Christian says you cannot apprehend that, obtain that, realize that in your life unless you follow Christian teachings.

 

That statement in itself, negates their own attainment to it by denying God to others in their own minds, who aren't part of their religion! I cannot stress that strongly enough. In doing that they cut themselves off from recognizing that Universal Spirit in the World, and instead turn inward into themselves as the special ones, the chosen few, the elect, the enlightened in a world full of lost sinners.

 

How horribly sad!! How sad for them because they are focused on themselves. It is a sad replacement for Spirit. It is the illusion of unity within a human religion. It is not Unity within Spirit. If it were, it would see it in others. It would recognize it as the Same.

 

I just don't think you can label your thread "The Love of Jesus" and then label other specifics to Jesus. Perhaps "The Mechanism of Spirit, Was it Jesus?"

The topic is labeled "The Love of Jesus", because that is the words Pastor Larry used in the comment that inspired me to start the topic (which by the way, I'm certainly hoping for his continued participation - the man has a true spirit I respect, despite our differences in view at this time). I'm not aware I'm labeling other specifics to Jesus. What the "Love of Jesus" really means in how I understand it, as I've said, is that of a Transcendent Love, God's Love. I've centered everything I've expounded on around that, and have explained my use of it throughout this thread.

 

And everyone is saying No. So then, that is not the Love of Jesus....it is the Love by some other mechanism.

It is the Nature of Spirit. The essence of ALL. It is Being. (All of which, BTW, are symbols).

[Antlerman]

End,

 

I'm going to post something from A 2nd Tier Christianity here for you. This has to do with Ken Wilber's Intergral Model which Antlerman understands better than I do. I've listened to his CD's and it is really hard to grasp because he maps the levels of consciousness...anyway, this has to do with Christianity:

 

For example, many Christians have the experience of feeling God's love and forgiveness when they repent of their sins and seek forgiveness. The experience is real. But the transcendent reality behind that experience may not be a bearded, white-haired God (who cannot tolerate any unclean thing in his presence) forgiving us, because Jesus suffered in our place and thus satisfied this God's demand for justice. Rather, the transcendent reality behind this experience of love and acceptance may be an encounter with the 2nd person aspect of God or Spirit, out of which everything in existence arises, including each one of us and our many sins. This is an experience common to all of the world's spiritual traditions, though it may be interpreted differently in each tradition.

 

Many Christians also have experiences of personal transformation that enable us to better live Christ's teachings, to become more Christlike in our daily lives. Our hearts may be softened, so that we are more patient, and feel more love toward others. We may become less selfish and more giving. At amber, we may understand this transformational force to be God's Spirit helping us to better live the commandments. But the reality behind this experience may be what happens, in any tradition, when we surrender our individual desires and interests to a higher purpose or cause, and move up one or more stages on the vertical axis of the Wilber Combs Lattice. We become what we surrender to. So when we surrender ourselves and our lives to Christ as we understand him, the result is that we become more Christlike.

 

In the integral model, experiences of God are a subtle state phenomenon. God is an aspect of our own transcendent nature that appears as other in gross and subtle state experiences. So the ideal of Christ that we surrender to at amber, and thus become more like, may be what our own deepest I Amness or Christ Consciousness looks like when it is projected outward, onto the historical person of the awakened Master, Jesus.

 

Here is the link: A 2nd Tier Christianity

 

Look at it and poke around if you have time. If you have an excessive amount of time and want your brian fried, check out Ken's Integral Model here: Ken Wilber Online

Thanks for posting this. I highlighted a couple points above to underscore what most of us have been saying here, certainly I have.

 

Wilber does a nice job in distilling huge amounts of thought into what I see an inspiring and practical model. I'm working on one of his primary sources right now, Sri Aurobindo, whom I've referenced several times. It's probably easier to read Wilber's books than to try to decipher his speaking on a CD.

 

Wilber draws from many sources, but that one in particular I wanted to dig into. Reading Sri Aurobindo, I can almost imagine as if whoever the real Jesus was had written books would have been like. It's far deeper and illuminating than the Bible. The Bible is like the dumbed-down version - the Reader's Digest version. No offense.

[Guest end3]

It is the Nature of Spirit. The essence of ALL. It is Being. (All of which, BTW, are symbols).

 

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

 

 

Col 1:2 To the holy and faithful [fn] brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father. [fn]

 

 

Col 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

 

 

Col 1:4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints-

 

 

Col 1:5 the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel

 

 

Col 1:6 that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth.

 

 

Col 1:7 You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our [fn] behalf,

 

 

Col 1:8 and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.

 

 

Col 1:9 For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding.

 

 

Col 1:10 And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God,

 

 

Col 1:11 being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully

 

 

Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you [fn] to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.

 

 

Col 1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

 

 

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, [fn] the forgiveness of sins.

 

 

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

 

 

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

 

 

Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

 

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

 

 

Col 1:19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

 

 

Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

 

Col 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of [fn] your evil behavior.

 

 

Col 1:22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation-

 

 

Col 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

 

 

Col 1:24 Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

 

 

Col 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-

 

 

Col 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

 

 

Col 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

 

 

Col 1:28 We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ.

 

 

Col 1:29 To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

 

 

How is this not Logos?

[zandurian]

 

I think the distinction...."A symbol" vs "the symbol"....an intercessor, everthing that is expressed in that. Again, how is Christianity expressed as everyone being the Messiah? Where is that in the Bible?

 

Everyone's annointing comes from this specific Vessel. Is this not what Christianity is? I don't accept that the Spirit comes except through this Means.

 

Adam is created "in the image of God" universally (this effects all).

Is this not what Christianity is?

Look at the history. Christianity tries to put a patent on it and and sell it (think Ian Malcolm) "your selling it, you want to sell it, well..."

 

How has that gone? Not too well. So yes, What you describe may well be "What Christianity is" so hence the label "Ex-Christian".

 

OUTSIDE of the creeds, the conditions, the orthodoxy, there is a universal truth and it has to do with all mankind.

[Pastorl5]

It doesn't matter if its "a" symbol or "the" symbol. It's function to us is the same as any symbol. I think there's confusion of what we mean when we speak of symbols. Here's a quick Wiki blurb on Symbols:

"

Psychology has found that people, and even animals, can respond to symbols as if they were the objects they represent. Pavlov's dogs salivated when they heard a sound which they associated with food, even if there was no food.

Common psychological symbols include a gun to represent a penis or a tunnel to represent a vagina.[1] See: phallic symbol and yonic symbol.

 

The psychologist, Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term "sign". In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise. An example of a symbol in this sense is Christ as a symbol of the archetype called "self".[2]

 

The use of symbols is often attributed to being unique to homo sapiens. Humans use symbols in a variety of different ways. For example, written languages are composed of a variety of different symbols that create words. Through these written words, humans communicate with each other. Kenneth Burke described homo sapien as "symbol-using, symbol making, and [a] symbol misusing animal" to indicate that a person creates symbols in her or his life as well as misuses them (Burke 6). One example he uses to indicate his meaning behind symbol misuse is the story of

a man who when told a particular food item was whale blubber, could barely keep from throwing it up. Later, his friend discovered it was actually just a dumpling. But the man's reaction was a direct consequence of the symbol of "blubber" representing something inedible in his mind

(7). In addition, the symbol of "blubber" for the man was created by him through varies kinds of learning. Burke emphasizes that humans gain this type of learning that helps us create symbols by seeing various print sources, our life experiences, and symbols about the past (5).

 

Burke also goes on to describe symbols as also being derived from Freud's work on condensation and displacement further stating that they are not just relevant to the theory of dreams, but also to "normal symbol systems" (7). He says they are related through "substitution" where one word, phrase, or symbol is substituted for another in order to change the meaning. In other words, if a person does not understand a certain word or phrase, another person may substitute a synonym or symbol in order to get the meaning of the original word or phrase across (7). However, when faced with that new way of interpreting a specific symbol, a person may change their already formed ideas to incorporate the new information based on how the symbol is expressed to the person."

Whether one calls it "the" symbol or not is irrelevant. It still functions as a symbol to us.

 

 

AM, we're thinking on the same wavelengths because I was just about to offer up a discussion as to what is meant by symbol in reference to this discussion. So, let me offer up a response to this article that you quoted:

 

What I find interesting is the definition Dr. Jung uses the term symbol. If I understood it correctly a symbol is defined as something that better helps us understand a thing that cannot be understood or clearly defined. Then he does what I think you've been trying to say as well: Dr. Jung claims that Christ is a symbol of the actualization of self. That somehow Chirst is a symbol of what we as humans try to obtain through ourselves. Okay, I get it. I just don't agree with it.

 

You see Christ is more than "a" symbol or even more than "the" symbol. As End puts it, Jesus is the Source. To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons. If Dr. Jung's definition is correct, then in the view of Christianity, The Bible is the symbol of Jesus.

 

Now you said that whether or not Jesus is "the" symbol or not is irrelevant, that Jesus functions as a symbol to you and others on this website. You know just as much as I do that making an assertion doesn't automatically make it true. As the saying goes, "I can take a crap and a box, wrap it up, and put a bow on it, but at the end of the day it's still crap."

 

The Bible certainly does not infer that Jesus considered Himself "a" or "the" symbol. Yes, Jesus says that no one gets to the Father except through the Son. Correct. As a matter of fact, Jesus tells us that He is the way, the truth, and the life (still refers to Himself as the Source). Yet, as you also know, this is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. As a person who has studied the Bible you must realize of all the claims that Jesus made of Himself that, in the context of First-Century Judaism, declared Him to be not only equal to God, but God Himself.

 

Which brings me to the infamous "Logo" Text you keep referring to (and I keep avoiding). In the beginning was the Word(Logo) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. later on John tells us that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us, obviously referring to Jesus as that Word(Logo). Now if Jesus is the Word and the Word is God, isn't the Bible then suggesting that Jesus is God? Of course.

 

Now to the conclusion: We talk of symbols here, but we must remember that Jesus never claimed to be anything but God. Even if you don't agree with the statement you cannot deny that the authors of this religion called Christianity certainly did not believe anything else about Jesus.

[qadeshet]

 

Now to the conclusion: We talk of symbols here, but we must remember that Jesus never claimed to be anything but God. Even if you don't agree with the statement you cannot deny that the authors of this religion called Christianity certainly did not believe anything else about Jesus.

 

Since Jesus never existed, it doesn't really matter what the Bible writers thought.

[Pastorl5]

Of course that is your argument, had you'd been reading the earlier posts you would understand that I was merely trying to answer some of the arguments others had made.

 

oh, by the way, no one in their right mind would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Sure, the argument of who He Jesus was is a valid argument, but even the staunchest of atheists agreed that Jesus existed. So I'm sure that you are not suggesting the Historicity of Christ, just the accuracy of who He was, right?

[zandurian]

Of course that is your argument, had you'd been reading the earlier posts you would understand that I was merely trying to answer some of the arguments others had made.

 

oh, by the way, no one in their right mind would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Sure, the argument of who He Jesus was is a valid argument, but even the staunchest of atheists agreed that Jesus existed. So I'm sure that you are not suggesting the Historicity of Christ, just the accuracy of who He was, right?

 

Yikes!!! You missed that one eh? Some historians do question Jesus' existence. Many modern atheists have taken that view as well. They site lack of evidence outside Christian writings and the forgery added to the writings of Josephus which is (pretty much) the only secular historian who purportedly mentioned Him.

 

Check out "The God who wasn't there" :

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22the+god+who+wasn%27t+there%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=be5ffa94030d2d34

 

All sides reported here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

 

Welcome to the crazy round earth!

[Rev R]

Pastor Larry and End,

 

Throughout this discussion you imply that there is something that is completely inaccessible to the non-Christian. Some concrete "thing" that sets the Christian apart, and perhaps elevates the Christian above the rest of humanity.

 

So let's turn the tables a bit from this talk of mysticism and symbols. Can either of you point directly to this thing that is inaccessible to the non-Christian without resorting to the use of Christian language or doctrine?

[Deva]

You see Christ is more than "a" symbol or even more than "the" symbol. As End puts it, Jesus is the Source. To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons. If Dr. Jung's definition is correct, then in the view of Christianity, The Bible is the symbol of Jesus.

 

Its all symbols, it is all language and the word is not the thing it represents. If you say something like "Jesus is the Source" exclusively, and not a symbol, then you are making a statement of faith.

 

Now to the conclusion: We talk of symbols here, but we must remember that Jesus never claimed to be anything but God. Even if you don't agree with the statement you cannot deny that the authors of this religion called Christianity certainly did not believe anything else about Jesus.

 

I am not sure we can say what Jesus actually said. Some of the authors may have believed this. How can you be so sure that in the intervening years they wrote Jesus as saying some things he actually didn't say, in order to bolster their particular view of him?

[Antlerman]

Of course that is your argument, had you'd been reading the earlier posts you would understand that I was merely trying to answer some of the arguments others had made.

 

oh, by the way, no one in their right mind would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Sure, the argument of who He Jesus was is a valid argument, but even the staunchest of atheists agreed that Jesus existed. So I'm sure that you are not suggesting the Historicity of Christ, just the accuracy of who He was, right?

 

Yikes!!! You missed that one eh? Some historians do question Jesus' existence. Many modern atheists have taken that view as well. They site lack of evidence outside Christian writings and the forgery added to the writings of Josephus which is (pretty much) the only secular historian who purportedly mentioned Him.

 

Check out "The God who wasn't there" :

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22the+god+who+wasn%27t+there%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=&fp=be5ffa94030d2d34

 

All sides reported here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

 

Welcome to the crazy round earth!

I'll throw one more in there that I feel has better legs, even though I personally don't agree with it in whole: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/preamble.htm These people aren't idiots, and present fairly good cases for their views. Personally I believe there was a historical Jesus for reasons. Being purely myth doesn't quite fit the layers laid on top of a purely mythical foundation. But certainly the Narrative Gospel's Jesus is mythologized.

 

 

I'll get to my actual response to Pastor later today sometime.

[Snakefoot]

 

oh, by the way, no one in their right mind would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

 

http://jesusneverexisted.org

[qadeshet]

Of course that is your argument, had you'd been reading the earlier posts you would understand that I was merely trying to answer some of the arguments others had made.

 

oh, by the way, no one in their right mind would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Sure, the argument of who He Jesus was is a valid argument, but even the staunchest of atheists agreed that Jesus existed. So I'm sure that you are not suggesting the Historicity of Christ, just the accuracy of who He was, right?

 

Based on 40 years of study, I am certain that the Gospel Jesus never existed. No more than any other dying and resurrecting Sun god. Claims that Jesus never existed go back all the way to the First century. The debates between Origen and Celsus prove that doubts about a historical Jesus are nothing new.

 

Celsus' view of Christians and Christianity

 

The great Gnostic Marcion was also certain that Jesus never existed. The list of modern scholars who reject the historicity of Jesus are many. Feel welcome to prove he existed and while you're at it go ahead and prove that Baal, Adonis, Attis, and Mythra existed.

[Shyone]

Of course that is your argument, had you'd been reading the earlier posts you would understand that I was merely trying to answer some of the arguments others had made.

 

oh, by the way, no one in their right mind would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Sure, the argument of who He Jesus was is a valid argument, but even the staunchest of atheists agreed that Jesus existed. So I'm sure that you are not suggesting the Historicity of Christ, just the accuracy of who He was, right?

Actually...

 

Are you saying that "JESUS" had that exact name, spelled that way, when he was actually preaching? MMMmmmm? Maybe you would admit his name was - something similar that was changed to JESUS. Hmmmm?

 

So, "JESUS OF NAZARETH" never existed. And you would admit it. And rationalize it. But admit it.

 

Considering the archeology, did "he" come from Nazareth, or was he a Nazarene?

 

While we're at it, do you think Hercules actually existed?

[Antlerman]

Just to keep things on topic here, we merely supplied links to Pastor of scholars who in fact do dispute the historicity of Jesus in order to correct his view that no one says that. This isn't going to turn into a debate over his actual existence or not. There's plenty of other threads covering that: Here's one and here's Another

[NotBlinded]

 

What I find interesting is the definition Dr. Jung uses the term symbol. If I understood it correctly a symbol is defined as something that better helps us understand a thing that cannot be understood or clearly defined. Then he does what I think you've been trying to say as well: Dr. Jung claims that Christ is a symbol of the actualization of self. That somehow Chirst is a symbol of what we as humans try to obtain through ourselves. Okay, I get it. I just don't agree with it.

 

You see Christ is more than "a" symbol or even more than "the" symbol. As End puts it, Jesus is the Source. To put Jesus at the level of a symbol is making Him no better than a statue of a false god or some other thing that is worshipped for all the wrong reasons. If Dr. Jung's definition is correct, then in the view of Christianity, The Bible is the symbol of Jesus.

 

Now you said that whether or not Jesus is "the" symbol or not is irrelevant, that Jesus functions as a symbol to you and others on this website. You know just as much as I do that making an assertion doesn't automatically make it true. As the saying goes, "I can take a crap and a box, wrap it up, and put a bow on it, but at the end of the day it's still crap."

I'm pretty sure you have your understanding of a symbol reversed. When you take a symbol and make it concrete, it then becomes an idol or false god because you are taking the unkown and claiming to have knowledge of it. It is no longer a mystery. You make it concrete and mental idols are far more dangerous than solid ones. The people that worshipped idols didn't use them symbolically. Those idols were their gods. And as Rev R has correctly pointed out, if it is not a symbol, you should be able to point to it and show it to us. You can't do that. You are telling us that Jesus himself wanted to be worshiped as God in the literal sense. There are many places in the bible where this is shown to be false. You can't separate the levels of understanding needed in order to comprehend this. I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but your use of the saying "crap and a box" has me wanting to be a little more frank with you. You are claiming that Jesus is God (exclusively). It is you that has turned him into an idol because what he was pointing to became concrete. You worship Jesus as God because you have made God into a single man.

 

Many ask, "Should we worship Jesus?" Some even bow to Jesus as God. But, I do not believe

this was Jesus' message, otherwise he would of stated so. Did he tell us, "Go build buildings on

every street corner and call them churches; then teach everyone you meet to bow down and

worship me as God?" If one is honest, the answer easily is "No." Better yet, did Jesus worship

himself? No, he stated and demonstrated we are to revere the "Heavenly Father (his name for

God the Divine Spirit)." Through condemnation of all beliefs contrary to their own, christian

religious leaders will mistakenly twist Jesus' statement, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No

one comes to the Father, but by me." The religious are unable to hear what Jesus was truly

saying. Jesus did not say bow and worship him; but in this verse he simply gave the example of

his life as an example of being the only way to communicate with Spirit. How did Jesus connect

with Spirit? He did so from within his being. Allow me to re-phrase the prior quote attributed to

Jesus: "When you see my life and how I communicate with the Heavenly Father, you should

know how you too need to communicate with Spirit." Jesus further plainly stated, "The Kingdom

of God is within you," but religion's teachers often mis-interpret those words into some

misinterpreted statement, to support their flawed doctrines.

 

John 4:21 "...the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem worship

the Father."

John 4:23 "the hour is coming and now is when the true worshippers will worship the Father in

Spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him."

 

The phrase, "neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" refers to the traditional, outward worship

of a god that the Jewish national religion historically performed. Notice that in the second verse

that we are to reverence God by seeking the truth through the Divine Spirit; and that can only

come from within us, and the time to do so is now - today. It is not some day!

 

John 4:24 for "...God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in Spirit and truth."

 

In the above verse, Jesus clearly proclaims we are to revere Spirit. Jesus does not claim to be

the one who is to be worshipped. He did, however, make the statement, "I and my Father are

One;" but that means one "in spirit and in purpose." Why? I say one in spirit and purpose,

because Jesus also prayed that we may also be one as he and His Father are one. To me, that

means becoming one with the Divine Spirit in the same way Jesus was one with Spirit.

 

Jesus never stated that he himself is the Father, that we should worship, otherwise he would be

implying that we, too, could become Fathers to be worshipped! Jesus was demonstrating that if

you connect as one with Spirit...God from within your very being, that oneness will manifest

outwardly into the physical realm. You could call this God manifest in the Earth!

 

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul stated he was one of many Jews "who worship God in the Spirit

(now inwardly; no longer outwardly), rejoice in Christ Jesus (what he taught and showed them as

truth), and have no confidence in the flesh (no longer looking outside of themselves to systems

of religion for God and answers to life's questions)." Even Apostle John's Revelation 19:10 and

22:9 further exclaim that we should not worship the messenger, but the living God (within all).

 

Are you worshipping the messenger? Many are worshipping Jesus today instead of the Father.

Jesus is the "first-fruits of many brethren." We could also call Jesus the "pattern son" we

should look at as our example, but according to Paul, you are a "Son of God," as well:

 

"...those who are led by the Spirit are Sons of God (Romans 8:14)."

 

The question one must ask their self is, "Am I a Son (or Daughter) of God, like Jesus' example?"

If so, then seek to reverence the Spirit from within, and not through outward, dead worship as

religion would have us all to do

Jesus Religion.com

 

Please, if the "Jesus is the Source" isn't a symbol of the greater Mystery, then show us that this Mystery has become concrete and we can go look at it. Show us that only Christians experience the "Love of Jesus" and only they can feel a unity with the Mystery. Then we will all follow your faith.

[Guest end3]

Pastor Larry and End,

 

Throughout this discussion you imply that there is something that is completely inaccessible to the non-Christian. Some concrete "thing" that sets the Christian apart, and perhaps elevates the Christian above the rest of humanity.

 

So let's turn the tables a bit from this talk of mysticism and symbols. Can either of you point directly to this thing that is inaccessible to the non-Christian without resorting to the use of Christian language or doctrine?

 

I am also interested in hearing this.

 

Phanta

 

Ok, I will step out on a limb for you guys. For me, it was an conscious experience that gave me an understanding of what my behaviors should be, that is, behaviors in alignment with Him, and also, what was the reasoning behind why I was not behaving this way, and also how it was out of line/hurting Him and His creation. This in an experience that included visualizing, not by my will to my knowledge, an image I believe to be Jesus.

 

Now, two things:

 

1) It's your choice to believe what I say.

2) I personally don't believe a non-believer will have this experience unless by God's sovereign act. I do hold that to be a certain possibility.

 

Hope that helps. It is as honest as I can describe my experience.

 

So in short, it is a knowledge and knowing more than a concrete behavior. The knowing now resides in me but the physical act(s) is up to me to carry out.

[Guest end3]

 

I think the distinction...."A symbol" vs "the symbol"....an intercessor, everthing that is expressed in that. Again, how is Christianity expressed as everyone being the Messiah? Where is that in the Bible?

 

Everyone's annointing comes from this specific Vessel. Is this not what Christianity is? I don't accept that the Spirit comes except through this Means.

 

Adam is created "in the image of God" universally (this effects all).

Is this not what Christianity is?

Look at the history. Christianity tries to put a patent on it and and sell it (think Ian Malcolm) "your selling it, you want to sell it, well..."

 

How has that gone? Not too well. So yes, What you describe may well be "What Christianity is" so hence the label "Ex-Christian".

 

OUTSIDE of the creeds, the conditions, the orthodoxy, there is a universal truth and it has to do with all mankind.

 

What I am trying to say Z....the Outside for me, is Jesus.

[qadeshet]

 

Now, two things:

 

1) It's your choice to believe what I say.

2) I personally don't believe a non-believer will have this experience unless by God's sovereign act. I do hold that to be a certain possibility.

 

Exactly why should we believe anything you say? You're wasting your time here because we've heard it all before. Remember, we used to BE Christians. Present proof or go away.

[Guest end3]

Exactly why should we believe anything you say?

 

It's your choice to trust me....it's your choice to trust God.

 

You're wasting your time here because we've heard it all before.

 

I don't think so, I have made some new friends....good ones at that.

[Rev R]

Hey End,

 

I see your response but I'd like to give the good pastor a chance to respond before I dig in.

 

Cool?

[Guest end3]

Hey End,

 

I see your response but I'd like to give the good pastor a chance to respond before I dig in.

 

Cool?

 

Absolutely