Jump to content

The Love Of Jesus


Antlerman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think we will get through. They may be right where they are supposed to be.

What does my signature say? "What we are, that only can we see." It's not a judgment, but an understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 666
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think we will get through. They may be right where they are supposed to be.

What does my signature say? "What we are, that only can we see." It's not a judgment, but an understanding.

Indeed, yet I always have a little lingering hope inside me because it happened for me with a force that had me looking like a mad-woman. I was laughing out loud with tears streaming down my face. That realization...that shock...that breath-taking switch of understanding was amazing to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we will get through. They may be right where they are supposed to be.

What does my signature say? "What we are, that only can we see." It's not a judgment, but an understanding.

Indeed, yet I always have a little lingering hope inside me because it happened for me with a force that had me looking like a mad-woman. I was laughing out loud with tears streaming down my face. That realization...that shock...that breath-taking switch of understanding was amazing to say the least.

Boy, does that fit this description in this brief section of that long poem of Edna St. Vincent Millay I'm so fond of, or what?

 

"And as I looked a quickening gust

Of wind blew up to me and thrust

Into my face a miracle

Of orchard-breath, and with the smell, --

I know not how such things can be! --

I breathed my soul back into me.

Ah! Up then from the ground sprang I

And hailed the earth with such a cry

As is not heard save from a man

Who has been dead, and lives again.

About the trees my arms I wound;

Like one gone mad I hugged the ground;

I raised my quivering arms on high;

I laughed and laughed into the sky,

Till at my throat a strangling sob

Caught fiercely, and a great heart-throb

Sent instant tears into my eyes
;

O God, I cried, no dark disguise

Can e'er hereafter hide from me

Thy radiant identity!

 

Thou canst not move across the grass

But my quick eyes will see Thee pass,

Nor speak, however silently,

But my hushed voice will answer Thee.

I know the path that tells Thy way

Through the cool eve of every day;

God, I can push the grass apart

And lay my finger on Thy heart!

 

The world stands out on either side

No wider than the heart is wide;

Above the world is stretched the sky, --

No higher than the soul is high.

The heart can push the sea and land

Farther away on either hand;

The soul can split the sky in two,

And let the face of God shine through.

But East and West will pinch the heart

That can not keep them pushed apart;

And he whose soul is flat -- the sky

Will cave in on him by and by. "

 

The whole poem here This by the way, from someone who Christians would hardly consider Christian (bi-sexual relationships, open marriage, etc).

 

Has the point been conceded here yet that non-Christians can't know the power of Transcendent Love like a Christian? Do we need more examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we will get through. They may be right where they are supposed to be.

What does my signature say? "What we are, that only can we see." It's not a judgment, but an understanding.

Indeed, yet I always have a little lingering hope inside me because it happened for me with a force that had me looking like a mad-woman. I was laughing out loud with tears streaming down my face. That realization...that shock...that breath-taking switch of understanding was amazing to say the least.

Boy, does that fit this description in this brief section of that long poem of Edna St. Vincent Millay I'm so fond of, or what?

 

"And as I looked a quickening gust

Of wind blew up to me and thrust

Into my face a miracle

Of orchard-breath, and with the smell, --

I know not how such things can be! --

I breathed my soul back into me.

Ah! Up then from the ground sprang I

And hailed the earth with such a cry

As is not heard save from a man

Who has been dead, and lives again.

About the trees my arms I wound;

Like one gone mad I hugged the ground;

I raised my quivering arms on high;

I laughed and laughed into the sky,

Till at my throat a strangling sob

Caught fiercely, and a great heart-throb

Sent instant tears into my eyes
;

O God, I cried, no dark disguise

Can e'er hereafter hide from me

Thy radiant identity!

 

Thou canst not move across the grass

But my quick eyes will see Thee pass,

Nor speak, however silently,

But my hushed voice will answer Thee.

I know the path that tells Thy way

Through the cool eve of every day;

God, I can push the grass apart

And lay my finger on Thy heart!

 

The world stands out on either side

No wider than the heart is wide;

Above the world is stretched the sky, --

No higher than the soul is high.

The heart can push the sea and land

Farther away on either hand;

The soul can split the sky in two,

And let the face of God shine through.

But East and West will pinch the heart

That can not keep them pushed apart;

And he whose soul is flat -- the sky

Will cave in on him by and by. "

 

The whole poem here This by the way, from someone who Christians would hardly consider Christian (bi-sexual relationships, open marriage, etc).

 

Has the point been conceded here yet that non-Christians can't know the power of Transcendent Love like a Christian? Do we need more examples?

O.M.G. !!

 

Yes, that is it exactly. Funny how I used the same metaphor to describe the experience. I have never read the poem, but I will now!

 

Thank you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...AM, you now have to share the status of favorite with me in regards to the poem. If that isn't "it", I don't know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...AM, you now have to share the status of favorite with me in regards to the poem. If that isn't "it", I don't know what is.

When I first shared this with OM, she was speechless, asking where I had found it. It affirmed to her that she was not alone, to hear someone else express all this in this way.

 

I used to be able to quote this whole poem from memory, and I was considering adding it as an end track to the CD I produced where I did a reading of it in my voice, but instead opted to just make some meager attempt to pay in honor in a song I wrote for the CD. I titled it the name of the poem, Renascence, which means "Rebirth". I know you've heard the song before, but probably had no idea this context. It hardly does justice to it, but in my exploration of composing my own music, it was a meager attempt at it. It's too big to upload here as it goes over the 2mb limit. I'll see if I can't make it smaller to post it, in case anyone cares to hear it.

 

But, since you have my CD, if you look in the inside cover of it, you will see a quote from the poem. That shows how deeply I connect with it. My sister, we are connected through "It".

 

 

I'm wondering where Larry is at with all this? I haven't heard anything more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AM and all,

Just got back on tonight. Wow what a long couple of days! My wife went into pre-term labor so I've been at the hospital the last couple of days, but she is fine now and the baby is still in the womb! So, tonight I'd like to add another facet to this discussion that will hopefully allow all of us to better understand what the Love of Christ is all about.

 

On Monday I was in Seminary (yes, I am a student) and my teacher asked this assertion: When I go to another country I am not a Christian, I am a follower of Christ. At first I was confused and a little shocked because I had always thought that you cannot separate the two, yet once he explained to me what that meant it made all the sense in the world.

 

You see when we hear the word "Christianity" we tend to think many different things, mostly though we think of the Westernized Institution and not the original thoughts or ideas that are supposed to be associated with true Christianity (I say "true" because I see the way that we have almost ruined our religion by our own selfish desires and I accept the fact that the way we do Christianity isn't necessarily the correct way). So when we go to other countries, or to anyone really, we must strive to get away from the ideas of Westernized Christianity and instead focus on sharing what it means to be followers of Jesus Christ.

 

In light of all of that, my thought for all of you is this: In regards to the love of Christ, how much do we hold against Jesus for the institution of Christianity and how much do we misunderstand due to the institution? The Love of Christ is something that is great and wonderful, but what has the institution done to destroy that image? What has the institution done to mar Jesus Christ to the point where He is unrecognizable to those who claim to follow Him.

 

Don't worry, this isn't a crisis of faith, but it is very revealing. We really don't know Jesus the way that we should, and I would suggest that when we truly find Christ (that is Jesus) that is when we truly find His love.

 

Thoughts?

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AM and all,

...

Don't worry, this isn't a crisis of faith, but it is very revealing. We really don't know Jesus the way that we should, and I would suggest that when we truly find Christ (that is Jesus) that is when we truly find His love.

 

Thoughts?

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

My thoughts are that you are near to Truth. :)

 

I'll ponder my thoughts...

 

Peace,

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AM and all,

Just got back on tonight. Wow what a long couple of days! My wife went into pre-term labor so I've been at the hospital the last couple of days, but she is fine now and the baby is still in the womb! So, tonight I'd like to add another facet to this discussion that will hopefully allow all of us to better understand what the Love of Christ is all about.

 

On Monday I was in Seminary (yes, I am a student) and my teacher asked this assertion: When I go to another country I am not a Christian, I am a follower of Christ. At first I was confused and a little shocked because I had always thought that you cannot separate the two, yet once he explained to me what that meant it made all the sense in the world.

 

You see when we hear the word "Christianity" we tend to think many different things, mostly though we think of the Westernized Institution and not the original thoughts or ideas that are supposed to be associated with true Christianity (I say "true" because I see the way that we have almost ruined our religion by our own selfish desires and I accept the fact that the way we do Christianity isn't necessarily the correct way). So when we go to other countries, or to anyone really, we must strive to get away from the ideas of Westernized Christianity and instead focus on sharing what it means to be followers of Jesus Christ.

 

In light of all of that, my thought for all of you is this: In regards to the love of Christ, how much do we hold against Jesus for the institution of Christianity and how much do we misunderstand due to the institution? The Love of Christ is something that is great and wonderful, but what has the institution done to destroy that image? What has the institution done to mar Jesus Christ to the point where He is unrecognizable to those who claim to follow Him.

 

Don't worry, this isn't a crisis of faith, but it is very revealing. We really don't know Jesus the way that we should, and I would suggest that when we truly find Christ (that is Jesus) that is when we truly find His love.

 

Larry,

 

First of all, I want to express how glad I am that your wife and child are okay now. I know this must have been a long and stressful time for your family.

 

Secondly, concerning the institution vs. "true Christian" facet you bring up, this is a point which most who frequent this sight are familiar with. This is often called the True Scotsman fallacy or the "True Christian" fallacy in some cases.

 

Many of us are familiar with conservative, biblical evangelical Christologies. We spent years pursuing the love and knowledge of Christ. So, do we miss the love of Jesus because a corrupted, westernized Christianity has made us view a marred image of Christ? No. We got it when we were Christians.

 

The question we are trying to deal with here is, as I see it, "what is discernibly distinctive and exclusive about the "love of Jesus" in Christianity? What does this love of Jesus encompass that does not have a corresponding, experiential reality in non-Christian systems of belief?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to clarify something I said earlier so as not to mislead or be misunderstood:

 

When I said that we don't know Jesus as well as we should, what I mean is that the institution of Christianity has confused the image of Jesus Christ. With that said, what I think to be the solution is that we need to get back to the Scriptures and teach Jesus as He presented Himself. Once we truly understand Jesus and His teachings we truly understand His theology, once we understand His theology we then understand what is meant by His love for us.

 

 

The question was raised above, "what is discernibly distinctive and exclusive about the "love of Jesus" in Christianity?" The answer is simple: You can't experience that which you don't follow. If you are a follower of Buddha, then you gain the consequences of being Buddhist (both positive and negative, although the negative in my mind outweighs any positive). If you are a follower of Mohamed then you gain the consequences of Being Muslim (again, both positive and negative with the same results). So it would make sense that if you follow Jesus Christ then you would gain both the positive and negative (and in my mind there are none) consequences that follow. How can you claim that the "Love of Christ" is something that is for anyone when, at it's premise, you would have to be a follower of Jesus in order to partake in that love? What I mean by this is that anyone can be a follower, but not anyone can experience the love of Christ (you must first be a follower, which anyone can do, to experience that love first hand). You don't believe in Jesus? Fine, then search for the love somewhere else; but if you want to experience the love of Christ then you must first embrace the Christ in order to embrace the Love.

 

I hope this clarifies my stance.

 

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

 

Larry

 

P.S. Thanks for the kind words Oddball, it truly means a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to clarify something I said earlier so as not to mislead or be misunderstood:

 

When I said that we don't know Jesus as well as we should, what I mean is that the institution of Christianity has confused the image of Jesus Christ. With that said, what I think to be the solution is that we need to get back to the Scriptures and teach Jesus as He presented Himself. Once we truly understand Jesus and His teachings we truly understand His theology, once we understand His theology we then understand what is meant by His love for us.

Hi Pastor. Now I have some time over morning coffee to give a response. Being expectant parents can be quite an emotional ride when issues arise. I'm glad to hear everything turned out well with that ordeal at the hospital.

 

Now that you've clarified what you've said I'll offer a response to that, and try to bring this discussion to the point as Oddbird put it, "What does this love of Jesus encompass that does not have a corresponding, experiential reality in non-Christian systems of belief?"

 

First to the quote above. But "getting back to the Scriptures", is nothing different than what began in Protestant Christianity in the 16th Century with Martin Luther. The idea as you put it that, "once we understand His theology we then understand what is meant by His love for us," has been the claim of every denomination that has splintered themselves away from everyone else into 30,000 different islands of their own truth.

 

I have been saying through this whole thread that it, Truth, is not found through proper interpretation of Scripture. It is Spiritual. It is found within. And, it is through that that you will find Unity and Truth. Then with that as Guide, as you turn to your sacred texts, then you may actually find what you seek. Holding onto it as being "authoritative" over all understanding, in your hope to grasp and hold Truth, cuts off the Light of Spirit that comes up from inside you.

 

You then have a religion as God, and not Spirit. With Spirit, scripture then becomes the whole World, not just that book you call the Bible. You can read "God's Word" in the blades of grass, the wind, the great cosmos, and in the Soul of all living beings. And the living Words are written on the tablets of the Heart. As the poem above says it,

"Thou canst not move across the grass

But my quick eyes will see Thee pass,

Nor speak, however silently,

But my hushed voice will answer Thee.

I know the path that tells Thy way

Through the cool eve of every day;

God, I can push the grass apart

And lay my finger on Thy heart!"

Go ahead and turn to scripture, but don't limit scripture to the Bible. I am scripture too. All of Creation is, and if you don't read that, you aren't seeking God with your whole heart, as Jesus himself said you need to do.

 

 

The question was raised above, "what is discernibly distinctive and exclusive about the "love of Jesus" in Christianity?" The answer is simple: You can't experience that which you don't follow. If you are a follower of Buddha, then you gain the consequences of being Buddhist (both positive and negative, although the negative in my mind outweighs any positive). If you are a follower of Mohamed then you gain the consequences of Being Muslim (again, both positive and negative with the same results). So it would make sense that if you follow Jesus Christ then you would gain both the positive and negative (and in my mind there are none) consequences that follow. How can you claim that the "Love of Christ" is something that is for anyone when, at it's premise, you would have to be a follower of Jesus in order to partake in that love? What I mean by this is that anyone can be a follower, but not anyone can experience the love of Christ (you must first be a follower, which anyone can do, to experience that love first hand). You don't believe in Jesus? Fine, then search for the love somewhere else; but if you want to experience the love of Christ then you must first embrace the Christ in order to embrace the Love.

Oddbird's question, which has been mine and everyone else's is actually the second part of what he said here:

The question we are trying to deal with here is, as I see it, "what is discernibly distinctive and exclusive about the "love of Jesus" in Christianity?
What does this love of Jesus encompass that does not have a corresponding, experiential reality in non-Christian systems of belief?

It was asked of you by someone earlier to try to talk about it without using the langauge of Chrisitianity to describe it. The attempt at that I believe was to illustrate that when you take away the symbols "Christ, Buddha, Krishna", etc, what you have is no discernible difference.

 

I quoted from several mystics from various Christian and non-Christian traditions describing the same experience and effect of the Ineffable within themselves. They all experienced that Transcendent Love the Same. It was not bound to the Symbol. It was Boundless. Even if in the experience it may be manifest through that symbol, it is not bound to it and is manifest Universally. Regardless of traditions, it Transcends them all - Christianity included.

 

How do you account for these experiences? I may love my spouse, and you may love yours, and though of course my experience of Love with her will have different shades of manifestation due to the differences of personalities, it takes on different form in other words, it is absolutely still LOVE Itself that both you and I partake of. Now bear with me here.

 

If you say that the experience of Love will logically have to be different because Jesus and Krisha are not the same individuals, then you would also logically have to say that because I don't have a relationship with your wife, I don't know love because its not with her! It's the same line of reasoning. But of course you wouldn't suggest that.

 

In effect what you do is localize Love in the person of Jesus, and imagine that if someone's experience of Love does not take on the exact characteristics of your experience, that its not True Love. In effect then, you are taking Christ as God, and making him Jesus as a god that you follow, and saying that if someone doesn't have a relationship with your god, they don't know Love.

 

But people do experience the same thing. So either Jesus is the Source and, and is no respecter of religions, manifesting in Krishna and Buddha, etc, or Jesus is an Expression of Love, and that the Source is seen in the various Forms: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, my child, your wife, me, etc are all manifestations of it in one form, and to one degree or another. We are participate within it.

 

How did Paul put it? "In Him we live and move and have our being". If Jesus is the Source, then again, He is no respecter of religions because everyone is partaking in It. You experience it in Jesus, others do in other forms, like you with your wife and me with mine. We both participate in it.

 

Don't confuse Forms with Source. Love is manifest in multitudinous forms. But Love transcends them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...AM, you now have to share the status of favorite with me in regards to the poem. If that isn't "it", I don't know what is.

When I first shared this with OM, she was speechless, asking where I had found it. It affirmed to her that she was not alone, to hear someone else express all this in this way.

 

I used to be able to quote this whole poem from memory, and I was considering adding it as an end track to the CD I produced where I did a reading of it in my voice, but instead opted to just make some meager attempt to pay in honor in a song I wrote for the CD. I titled it the name of the poem, Renascence, which means "Rebirth". I know you've heard the song before, but probably had no idea this context. It hardly does justice to it, but in my exploration of composing my own music, it was a meager attempt at it. It's too big to upload here as it goes over the 2mb limit. I'll see if I can't make it smaller to post it, in case anyone cares to hear it.

 

But, since you have my CD, if you look in the inside cover of it, you will see a quote from the poem. That shows how deeply I connect with it. My sister, we are connected through "It".

 

 

I'm wondering where Larry is at with all this? I haven't heard anything more.

I just put in your CD again and am looking at the quote. Yes, the song and the poem can now go together in my mind. It's not a "meager" attempt AM, it's beautiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The question was raised above, "what is discernibly distinctive and exclusive about the "love of Jesus" in Christianity?" The answer is simple: You can't experience that which you don't follow. If you are a follower of Buddha, then you gain the consequences of being Buddhist (both positive and negative, although the negative in my mind outweighs any positive). If you are a follower of Mohamed then you gain the consequences of Being Muslim (again, both positive and negative with the same results). So it would make sense that if you follow Jesus Christ then you would gain both the positive and negative (and in my mind there are none) consequences that follow. How can you claim that the "Love of Christ" is something that is for anyone when, at it's premise, you would have to be a follower of Jesus in order to partake in that love? What I mean by this is that anyone can be a follower, but not anyone can experience the love of Christ (you must first be a follower, which anyone can do, to experience that love first hand). You don't believe in Jesus? Fine, then search for the love somewhere else; but if you want to experience the love of Christ then you must first embrace the Christ in order to embrace the Love.

 

 

Oh, Larry...God is so much greater than any idea or religion. You are putting forth notions that only have external meaning in the world. Religious ideas. This is what Jesus wanted people to move beyond. What we are speaking about is the theology of Jesus. His theology was, "I and the Father are one." What you mention above is the theology about Jesus. Surely Jesus didn't accept himself as his savior in order to partake in his own love?? It's this oneness with God that he experienced and tried to get others to experience also. This is the Christian's experience, or relationship, claim, but it's much deeper than they know to experience the "Living God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect what you do is localize Love in the person of Jesus, and imagine that if someone's experience of Love does not take on the exact characteristics of your experience, that its not True Love. In effect then, you are taking Christ as God, and making him Jesus as a god that you follow, and saying that if someone doesn't have a relationship with your god, they don't know Love.

 

But people do experience the same thing. So either Jesus is the Source and, and is no respecter of religions, manifesting in Krishna and Buddha, etc, or Jesus is an Expression of Love, and that the Source is seen in the various Forms: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, my child, your wife, me, etc are all manifestations of it in one form, and to one degree or another. We are participate within it.

 

Although I believe everything to be an expression of God, I don't hold a blade of grass as the Messiah, or God. What you are saying is that Oneness is just that. But we all have talked about only having temporary access to Oneness. Jesus claimed for more than just a temporary glimpe of Oneness.

 

And if you choose to look at Jesus through the Father analogy, then "no respecter of religions" is valid. Krishna, Buddha, et al. would be much like the step father appearing and raising the family. No wonder it makes him ill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you choose to look at Jesus through the Father analogy, then "no respecter of religions" is valid. Krishna, Buddha, et al. would be much like the step father appearing and raising the family. No wonder it makes him ill.

 

End, my dad was happy my stepfather came into my life and was good to me and Mom and helped provide for me until his death.

 

Phanta

 

Let me clarify P. I was referring to a man divorced or separated from his children not by his will.....for example, by the wife's choice or the children's choice. I see it as the same pain that the father would endure. Sorry for the general nature of the statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect what you do is localize Love in the person of Jesus, and imagine that if someone's experience of Love does not take on the exact characteristics of your experience, that its not True Love. In effect then, you are taking Christ as God, and making him Jesus as a god that you follow, and saying that if someone doesn't have a relationship with your god, they don't know Love.

 

But people do experience the same thing. So either Jesus is the Source and, and is no respecter of religions, manifesting in Krishna and Buddha, etc, or Jesus is an Expression of Love, and that the Source is seen in the various Forms: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, my child, your wife, me, etc are all manifestations of it in one form, and to one degree or another. We are participate within it.

 

Although I believe everything to be an expression of God, I don't hold a blade of grass as the Messiah, or God. What you are saying is that Oneness is just that.

No I'm not. Oneness does not mean the grass is God. I am not a pantheist. I don't believe nature is God. Oneness means it is all interconnected and is all assumed into ONE and comes out from ONE, it proceeds from ONE and returns to ONE - Source and Summit. Beginning and End. Manifestation is not the Source itself, but is Expression of It. So therefore, the second you put a name on it - Jesus - that is Manifestation. Even the Bible declares explicitly, not implicitly, that Logos is Manifestation. Messiah if you wish, is also Manifestation. Jesus is called the Son of God, (not God the Son). Manifestation of God.

 

But we all have talked about only having temporary access to Oneness. Jesus claimed for more than just a temporary glimpe of Oneness.

Jesus claimed Unity with God. And that that Unity is available to us. "I pray that they may be one even as we are one."

 

And if you choose to look at Jesus through the Father analogy, then "no respecter of religions" is valid. Krishna, Buddha, et al. would be much like the step father appearing and raising the family. No wonder it makes him ill.

I'm sure you are attempting to make a joke. I didn't say dis-respecter. Do you honestly believe God is made ill by other religions besides Christianity? At least I hope you're joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect what you do is localize Love in the person of Jesus, and imagine that if someone's experience of Love does not take on the exact characteristics of your experience, that its not True Love. In effect then, you are taking Christ as God, and making him Jesus as a god that you follow, and saying that if someone doesn't have a relationship with your god, they don't know Love.

 

But people do experience the same thing. So either Jesus is the Source and, and is no respecter of religions, manifesting in Krishna and Buddha, etc, or Jesus is an Expression of Love, and that the Source is seen in the various Forms: Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, my child, your wife, me, etc are all manifestations of it in one form, and to one degree or another. We are participate within it.

 

Although I believe everything to be an expression of God, I don't hold a blade of grass as the Messiah, or God. What you are saying is that Oneness is just that. But we all have talked about only having temporary access to Oneness. Jesus claimed for more than just a temporary glimpe of Oneness.

 

And if you choose to look at Jesus through the Father analogy, then "no respecter of religions" is valid. Krishna, Buddha, et al. would be much like the step father appearing and raising the family. No wonder it makes him ill.

What and why? Why does it have to be some sort of ego trip for Jesus? I'm really having a hard time understanding why this exclusive title is pasted onto Jesus. Why would Krishna, Buddha, et al be like step-parents? They are saying the same thing as Jesus and there are still people out there that are just as enlightened as Jesus was. Jesus wasn't the "Father" (in a literal/external sense) so why would the others be step-fathers?

 

I'm sorry, I'm getting a little frustrated...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not. Oneness does not mean the grass is God. I am not a pantheist. I don't believe nature is God. Oneness means it is all interconnected and is all assumed into ONE and comes out from ONE, it proceeds from ONE and returns to ONE - Source and Summit. Beginning and End. Manifestation is not the Source itself, but is Expression of It. So therefore, the second you put a name on it - Jesus - that is Manifestation. Even the Bible declares explicitly, not implicitly, that Logos is Manifestation. Messiah if you wish, is also Manifestation. Jesus is called the Son of God, (not God the Son). Manifestation of God.

 

Regardless, you are saying that Jesus is no different than an average manifestation....that we can all be Jesus in this sense. There would then be no need for Jesus, or the Cross, nor the New Covenant.

 

Manifestation alone, I can see that from a technical standpoint....but not really because if you put Jesus on the throne, then He was there prior to our manifestation(s). How do you place Jesus on the throne, but then say he was only there after a certain time of the Spirit?

 

But we all have talked about only having temporary access to Oneness. Jesus claimed for more than just a temporary glimpe of Oneness.

Jesus claimed Unity with God. And that that Unity is available to us. "I pray that they may be one even as we are one."

 

This is exactly what I am describing...a really, really liberal interpretation......REALLY.

 

And if you choose to look at Jesus through the Father analogy, then "no respecter of religions" is valid. Krishna, Buddha, et al. would be much like the step father appearing and raising the family. No wonder it makes him ill.

I'm sure you are attempting to make a joke. I didn't say dis-respecter. Do you honestly believe God is made ill by other religions besides Christianity? At least I hope you're joking.

 

No, watered down Christianity is like watered down milk.....bleeehaaahuuuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End, then damnit, stop putting him on a throne! Did he want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, watered down Christianity is like watered down milk.....bleeehaaahuuuck.

You mean as opposed to being what Jesus despised?

 

False teachers! In your hypocrisy you are no better than whitewashed tombs, which might appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of death and decaying bones. You may impress people by your superficial demonstrations of virtue, but inside you are consumed with hypocrisy and have fallen short of the truth. How can you believe, you, who live only for your colleague's praise, never seeking the honor that comes from God alone?

Yes, Jesus did love the religious...(sarcasm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What and why? Why does it have to be some sort of ego trip for Jesus? I'm really having a hard time understanding why this exclusive title is pasted onto Jesus. Why would Krishna, Buddha, et al be like step-parents? They are saying the same thing as Jesus and there are still people out there that are just as enlightened as Jesus was. Jesus wasn't the "Father" (in a literal/external sense) so why would the others be step-fathers?

 

I'm sorry, I'm getting a little frustrated...

 

I think my answer to this is tied to the response I gave AM. I am not ignoring you NB, but it really is about the jealous love of a father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What and why? Why does it have to be some sort of ego trip for Jesus? I'm really having a hard time understanding why this exclusive title is pasted onto Jesus. Why would Krishna, Buddha, et al be like step-parents? They are saying the same thing as Jesus and there are still people out there that are just as enlightened as Jesus was. Jesus wasn't the "Father" (in a literal/external sense) so why would the others be step-fathers?

 

I'm sorry, I'm getting a little frustrated...

 

I think my answer to this is tied to the response I gave AM. I am not ignoring you NB, but it really is about the jealous love of a father.

I'm backing out for now because, as I said, I'm a little frustated that God, which is greater than all stories and religions, is being stuffed in a box and labeled. Every so often, the box is opened and worshiped, along with all the qualities that are listed on the label (such as jealous), then closed again with a red sticker that says..."Warning! Private Property!"

 

Idolatry at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What and why? Why does it have to be some sort of ego trip for Jesus? I'm really having a hard time understanding why this exclusive title is pasted onto Jesus. Why would Krishna, Buddha, et al be like step-parents? They are saying the same thing as Jesus and there are still people out there that are just as enlightened as Jesus was. Jesus wasn't the "Father" (in a literal/external sense) so why would the others be step-fathers?

 

I'm sorry, I'm getting a little frustrated...

 

I think my answer to this is tied to the response I gave AM. I am not ignoring you NB, but it really is about the jealous love of a father.

I'm backing out for now because, as I said, I'm a little frustated that God, which is greater than all stories and religions, is being stuffed in a box and labeled. Every so often, the box is opened and worshiped, along with all the qualities that are listed on the label (such as jealous), then closed again with a red sticker that says..."Warning! Private Property!"

 

Idolatry at its finest.

 

I am sure that is why we are in disagreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What and why? Why does it have to be some sort of ego trip for Jesus? I'm really having a hard time understanding why this exclusive title is pasted onto Jesus. Why would Krishna, Buddha, et al be like step-parents? They are saying the same thing as Jesus and there are still people out there that are just as enlightened as Jesus was. Jesus wasn't the "Father" (in a literal/external sense) so why would the others be step-fathers?

 

I'm sorry, I'm getting a little frustrated...

 

I think my answer to this is tied to the response I gave AM. I am not ignoring you NB, but it really is about the jealous love of a father.

I'm backing out for now because, as I said, I'm a little frustated that God, which is greater than all stories and religions, is being stuffed in a box and labeled. Every so often, the box is opened and worshiped, along with all the qualities that are listed on the label (such as jealous), then closed again with a red sticker that says..."Warning! Private Property!"

 

Idolatry at its finest.

 

This is really a pretty rude statement. If you would like to discuss it, then step back up and let's talk about the hard stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I have to agree with End here, The Bible says time and time again that we are to have no other gods, or false idols, and put them in place of God. You see we're not putting God into a box we are freely exposing God for He truly is. Wouldn't you agree that we are all looking for truth in one form or another? Yet, when a group of people find that truth you call them wrong.

 

On that note, why do you tend to say that we are closed-minded (never actually said, but implied many times)? Just because God chooses to have one direct path doesn't make us closed-minded, if anything it means that we read the map the right way. We have to realize that there is one and only one Truth. When we find that truth, we embrace it. You might say, "Everyone claims to have that truth." Correct, but not every one is right. I, and i'm sure End (although I don't presume to speak for him) have found that truth in the form of Jesus Christ and anything else... well, just isn't truth. (Here comes the Heretical part...) If there is one truth and we all must find it, then it is assumed that anyone who cannot find that truth or refuses to accept it, will not be on that path and therefore, never come to fully know God.

 

 

Christians must say these things or they are not Christians, plain and simple. We believe in Jesus Christ as the ONLY SOURCE, not one of many, to a full relationship and realization of God.

 

So End, well done. Thank you for your posts and your willingness to defend our faith in Jesus.

 

Peace, Love, and Soul

Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.