Jesus Christ is come in the flesh = God?

[taijasi]

My dear Andrew ... rant away, but try to keep possession of your wits. This is utter nonsense, and the idea of the Roman Catholic Church denying the reality of the Divine ... really ... Lord alone knows who's been whispering what nonsense in your ears.

When you come down from your high horse someday, Thomas, I think you may be surprised.

More than that, old chum, the Holy Spirit is immanently present to all and everything throughout creation, else it would not exist.

Oh! Agreed, then.

The 'candidates' of which you speak, and quite whom you refer to I do not know, we've called 'anonymous Christians' since the days of Clement of Alexandria. Perhaps you didn't know. Also, Christ said 'For I came not to call the just, but sinners" Mark 2:17.

Of course, if one thinks one's beyond perfecting ... ]

Of course not. Else there would be no Chrestos to become Christos!

... I might also add that generally today, the difference between exoteric and esoteric knowledge is largely that the latter can be said to knowledge with an unhealthy dose of ego. The esoteric is available in screeds in bookshops, and makes not the slightest bit of difference to the reader. other than inflating their sense of superiority over others. What's esoteric to one is quite commonplace to the other.

Here we speak of a different esotericism ... and the matter of ego does, unfortunately sometimes enter in ~ for as you imply, we are here for the perfecting, and to parade about as if one does have some high and mighty seat ... reveals plenty about the soul in question, or at least about the current struggles of the incarnate PERSONA.

You are correct in the statement that what's known to one remains beyond another's ken, for awhile. The human family ranges from Buddhas and Christs, High Initiates and seers, at the one end, and the humblest of the humble, the meekest of the meek at the other. To some degree, the point at which the Soul Individualized marks its rung upon the Ladder of Spiritual evolution ... yet the Christ was the first of Earth's own Humanity, becoming incarnate since Lemurian and Atlantean days, to reach Liberation. Far `older' souls still walk the earth, nowhere yet near their `Christhood!'

This means that His progress was, and perhaps remains, unparalleled. What, of course, will this mean to us ... if we have already rejected the Mahatmas out of hand, and continue to fight and skirt our way AROUND the topic at hand, the issue under discussion? We will not see, despite ample and abundant evidence, that Christ has been with us all along. We will not care in the least that dozens, perhaps by now several hundreds of ordinary men can already attest to these facts far better than you can attest to or prove what you had for breakfast. And thus we will remain, unfortunately, utterly closed to the possibility that indeed, when Christ comes knocking, there may be too little time for Him to knock twice and sit waiting for an answer.

Of course, the esoterism of which Plato and the traditions speak is not knowledge, but being. and as Plato himself said, he'll never write about it, nor could he.

This is because Plato was himself an INITIATE and knew well what matters he might discuss openly, plus those which he could reveal only in symbol, and also upon which subjects he would forever be required to keep Silent. Again, those familiar with the subject of esoteric Initiation understand what is implied by the words, "No man comes to the Father except by Me." And yet, Initiate or otherwise, we can repeat in clear terms what BAPTISMS and Transfigurations of character may be occurring, for a Jesus of Nazareth, a Saul of Tarsus (on the road to a HIGHER Calling), etc.

Or is the subject of too little appeal for those who already have all the answers? Yes I thought as much!

It's worth contemplating those whom Jesus considered 'justified' already ... the widow at the temple courtyard, the publican at prayer, the robber on the cross — not an esoteric fact between the three of them. The rich young man however (and by riches ther wise read knowledge, not material goods) was a lost cause ... and so it goes ...

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas. A Book FULL of Symbolism, yet leveled, once again by the CANONS. Alright, go ahead, reload. Your style is as any predictable as that of any common pirate. Come alongside and unleash with a mighty blast ... hopefully leaving them reeling, wondering how they got taken by surprise!

I have watched you swimming around in these waters for long enough to know your various tricks. You play the Good Fish when it suits you, and as long as your ego is not threatened ... yet you become a shark when there is the prospect of fresh meat, or even an old hand at these matters to perhaps be exploited. By exploited I mean, you love to tear away, like Captain Hook, hoping to reveal some fatal flaw, some weakness in your opponent's case.

You are much practiced at this, and pride yourself on it. When Christ asks you how this can be of benefit to your fellow man, indeed, how HAVE you made this keen, piercing intellect of SERVICE, what shall you tell Him? Or in fact, will he know you at all ... I dare say, He'd better get to conforming Himself to this picture you have framed him in, for otherwise, how will you recognize him at all?

Apocryphal accounts of the meeting of Christ with certain of the Disciples illustrates just this kind of point. When we THINK we know who and what it is we're looking for, it is likely we shall miss entirely the true appearance of the One(s) sent by God, be that Christ or another Master, seer or sage. You do not recognize the Prophets of your OWN Christian Traditions. You have not seen them today, any more than you were able to know ELIAS 2100 years ago and more. You cannot even acknowledge Christ's Elect as They walk openly among you today. Why on Earth do you think you will recognize Christ at all, as He again Appears on the stage of world events, HERE AND NOW ~ or in days soon to come?

But to repeat: All created natures exist by virtue of the will of God, so Divine Grace is not something extrinsic to creation, but immanent to it, and participative ... it all depends what one does with the life one's been given.

Entirely in agreement we are, insofar as your statement goes. But you stop with the tautology, and fail to point out that when one does not see 95% of the picture at hand, improper conclusions will naturally be drawn regarding this business of "the life one's been given." When you have a greater grasp on THAT [or, to be fair, when IT has better grasped you by the ears and managed to get your attention, this BEING you hint at] ... it will be apparent just why failure in one incarnation need not prove the end of the spiritual career of the Individual in question. No more so, let us realize, than the failure of a Tree in ONE season to bear adequate fruit automatically condemns or fore-ordains that Tree to likewise bear insufficient or unwholesome fruit in the Season that follows.

Oh, If you could only see ...

Thomas, you are certainly one to talk. A clever fellow, however, stealing my lines like that. I see that you are a bit more mystically inclined in this lifetime, and that while it may cripple you in conversations like this ... I mean, really, you have no hope at all of becoming a Theosophist in this incarnation - a deficit, to be certain ... nevertheless, for all I know, you are walking PRECISELY that path which God has called you to walk.

Here is the difference between you and I, and in fact between you and most everyone else you've ever gotten all hard-nosed up against at this website, over the years. Some of us can accept that Truth is One, Paths are Many, and we're long past the mistake of believing our own YARDSTICK to be the Golden Mean. If anything we seek to HUMBLE ourselves before the example given by the Christ, the Buddha, the Great Ones and Teachers of every age.

Then there is the rather ridiculous notion that until and unless a person glance down the length of our OWN, narrow nose at others and their beliefs, somehow they won't be able to *see it*. They are not as gifted as we are, or they must be spiritually, psychologically or genetically INFERIOR. The assertion is subtle, sometimes unawares to us altogether. Otherwise, I'm fairly certain we wouldn't make such asses of ourselves, from time to time ... or at least, far less often.

Enough, however. If there is a Peacock planning to strut its feathers around here and amuse us all with its repeated call, I will quickly take my leave and let the show commence! Far be it for me to ruin a good dance.

Are you trying to teach me Catholic doctrine now? Ref. Clement again ... or Karl Rahner if you want a more contemporary commentary.


As Scripture says, cf John 1.

So far, old chum, this is, and the saying goes, a statement of the bleedin' obvious ...


Are, here of course we differ. I see the person of Jesus Christ as being the Logos of God incarnate ... I fail to see why, if the Logo of God can indwell in the human soul, it cannot manifest Itself as Itself ...

If you want to take up ONE SINGLE IDEA relevant to the subject of this thread, I would say that this last paragraph is the one to pick. I'm game. It marks a field already well-prepared and sown, with plenty of fruit also ready for the harvest.

You've also misread Paul and the other Apostles, by the way, who were in no doubt (after Penetecost) that the man whom they saw, spoke to, heard, and touched, was not an instance of the divine indwelling operative in and through the person, as in the case of a priest or prophet and so forth, but rather what they beheld in the flesh was the manifestation of the Principle Itself, through an hypostatic union as a person.

But here you will need to comment upon that hypostatic union, its nature, and HOW this operates within the COMMON man, once he has prepared himself to receive that which Christ Jesus received [the CHRIST, the whole point of it!] ... if you expect this discussion to be of any use. Otherwise, it remains scattered freely [I would agree] across the web, far and wide, in a thousand or ten thousand libraries on every dark corner of the earth, practically ... yet little grasped by the masses, and even doubted at times by the Initiates themselves. Either the Gospel is real and imitable, capable of being put into daily practice ... or it's just trappings. We are certainly agreed on this, and part of Christ's Mission was to REVEAL these Mysteries ... so if you have some insight, let's on with it.

As Athanasius and others declared "God became man, that man might become God" and furthermore, Athanasius clarified, "God became man, he did not come into a man" (my emphasis).

Well since they pretty much couldn't even get the sublime symbolism of the Virgin Birth sorted out, I don't hold much stock in such pronouncements ... where a definite Insight is first afforded, and succinctly so, yet in the next breath butchered out of apparent, utter ignorance. At best, the poor man - and his modern-day enthusiast - is deluded. Pardon me ... CONFUSED. But understandably so, and thus it must remain while we cannot appreciate the flesh (vahan, rupa, sarira, etc.) for its WORTH.

Ah, you really don't understand faith.

Not the blind obedience and lip service of the modern Church. No I don't. There's nothing there to understand, however. It's tail-chasing, and although some of it is plenty harmless, even quite positive and uplifting in the aspirant's life, there is much real confusion that is caused as people try to sort out all of the ridiculous impossibilities and absurdities that theology has had to cook up down through its Dark Ages ... in order to keep the sheep guessing, bleating and running, ever running, from the proverbial wolves and slithering serpents. But of course, Satan cannot cast out Satan!

As a preface, it should be obvious by know that knowledge — esoteric or otherwise — does not make the man. Some of the most knowledgeable people who ever lived were quite despicable persons ...

Clearly, and a good point.

But faith is not, perhaps as you assume, a deficiency of knowledge, but rather true faith is the indwelling of the Supraformal, the Dark Radience of the Divine, which is why, as the man says 'faith can move mountains'.

Had YOU that same faith, you too could, and perhaps would, move mountains. In order to learn to do so, however, you will not simply WISH or even impetuously WILL your way over the landscape, with some dark, brooding presence forced to comply ... or else you will learn in short order that the Devas already have matters well in hand, as has been the case since BEFORE man's appearance or FALL into Generation on this globe some several million years ago.

Faith can serve as a Bridge under Feet that KNOW, inclining them to step forth trusting into an apparent abyss of confusion or uncertainty. When Faith is lacking, however, only the foolhardy will insist, once the Master has cautioned against it. When that Radiance is indwelling, by the way, it is usually referred to as the SHINING COUNTENANCE by those Faithful to the Aaronic, Mosaic and thus also Messianic lineage which underlies the Christian Message and paradigm. This, you should know by now if you paid attention to your Priestly Blessing (yes I would tell you about you own faith, if you need to hear it). And the Lords of the DARK Face, about whom plenty was said in the WAR Scroll, should be apparent to you also as the DARK BROTHERS who thwarted Christ's earlier appearance on our planet, as ever they have done since the Atlantean Conflict which gave rise to this well-established tradition of warring brothers, divided within (despite) the ONE Human Family. Maybe you should visit the Mahabharata and Song of the [SAME, CHRISTED] Lord - in his prior incarnation - if this doesn't ring a bell. They are the Pandava and the Kaurava, though of course, where a man simply seeks to find a scapegoat - or place blame OUTSIDE of himself, or of his kind - he will never understand ... the TAO. Black within white, white within black, good within bad, bad within good ... Spirit within matter, matter within Spirit. This is really not all that new, but the Light/Dark distinction is kind of an important one!

 

[taijasi]

Ah, dear me ... I think this kind of gross and frankly offensive self-opinionated blethering once you get your steam up, really shows how little you actually know, and how prejudiced you actually are.

Again, Thomas, I think you're quite the one to talk. You were bested a long time ago, not just by me, but by everyone you've ever sought to brow-beat around here. Your game was up a long time ago. Sometimes you're fun, sometimes you're not. I'm the same way. It's hard to learn to lighten up, isn't it. After all, you do like to scream bloody murder when suddenly you feel you've been made the punching bag again. Yet you waste no time or breath being the FIRST to condemn and decry every last issuance from your OWN Teachers, unrecognized in their present incarnations or appearances. You are not to blamed for this, and plenty of us understand what is going on. But you, I'm afraid, are the one who thrashes about ... and you need to realize that you're really not just a caged animal. That Intellect of yours will lead you from the floor of the Cave once again, as ever it has sought to do - RAYED FORTH to you, as to us all, from your particular Genius [Eloha] in the Heavens. This is not your highest Principle, and you may rest assured, if one can KNOW, then surely you too will come to that Knowledge.

You still mistake intellect for Buddhi, or Pure Reason, and even when your own Tradition takes its very NAME from the Testament to this PRINCIPLE, left by the Egyptians and Romans, the Greeks and Pagans, ALL in acknowledgment of a Sol INVICTUS! ... you fail to grasp the point. Christ dwells in EVERY MAN, and it is WE who roll away the stone from the sepulcher, wherein the Son of God has been VOLUNTARILY CRUCIFIED (there's SACRIFICE for you) upon the cross, within the worlds, of MATTER [MATER, the VIRGIN]. What needless inventions and complications, when the Truth, the GOSPEL, was so SIMPLE and Sublime.

At least we agree, that the Tao that can be named ...

Still, the SON and the SUN are one, when esoterically considered and regarded from a certain angle. This ANGLE, by the way, is fairly close to your own theology and belief (as best I gather) regarding the Christ or 2nd Aspect, INCARNATE, to be certain, in Jesus of Nazareth. Theosophists may quibble, and sometimes emphasize that Jesus was *Overshadowed* by the Christ. Yet if you took the time to study what this actually signifies, involves and implies, your own Christianity would be a little more Brightly Illumined, and perhaps thereby the Insights which you so often seek to afford to or share with others.

The Sun IS THE CHRIST, when once you understand that material science [at present but] DIMLY REFLECTS the Divine Science, and also the Work which is involved in order for that SUN/SON to make Himself/Itself manifest at the start of a new Cycle of Manifestation [or Solar System] ... and the same relationship carries forward to the scale of a Planet, then to a MAN [whether considered as a Divine Monad, a relatively permanent Spiritual, though Individuated Soul, or even as the personality itself, threefold and ensheathed in a fourth, fleshly vehicle], and even to the atomic level.

Who told us all of this, and revealed it in such a way (or ways) that it remains readily accessible as the Path of Divine Approach? That'd be a good question to ask, and to keep asking, and to keep meditating, praying and pondering upon. Or at least, it helps for me!

As I recall, you told me once you live in 'Bible-Belt' America? Well you have my sympathy, really you do. Some of the things that come of of self-declared Christians on your side of the pond I find frankly quite disturbing. Like the whole creationist nonsense ... but please don't assume we're all like your neighbours, nor tar us all, as they say, with the same brush.

On the other hand, America has produced some excellent theologians, as well as perennialists ... and you have some serious talent from the Perennial Tradition living there.

America is my current field of service, as is Great Britain for yourself. We exist as close as the snap of one's fingers, however, when Consciousness is freed - even temporarily - from its earthly bonds. No one need be an occultist, a medium or a man of magic in order to understand this, or at least on occasion, accomplish it. And it can serve tremendously ... in countless, perhaps limitless, ways.

That's meant to be pithy, I suppose, but True is True. A Master, on the other hand, knows the personal mind in much the same way we regard the body, and I don't believe either proves for him the tremendous burden, or impediment that it does for us ... save on occasion when He must manifest to the world of men, attempt to deliver some Message, or otherwise get through to the joker who's standing there with his hands over his ears, eyes narrowed if not closed and held tightly shut, all the while saying, "Blah, blah, blah blah" either in an attempt to hear himself talk, to impress those around him with his infinite lore and great wisdom, or perhaps even defeat this very selfsame effort of said Master to just - get - a - subtle HINT dropped in edgewise.

Here, I mean any of us, and all of us. I don't doubt this is how it must seem or be at times, even while others would feign listen all day, and believe they have never heard a word or the least of Divine Indications ... not even realizing, too many instances, how great the Presence already is within their own, spiritually-attuned heart or mind, and perhaps not knowing what Service they already render, just by the effort to remain an OUTPOST ~ of the Master's Awareness.

But as you believe in reincarnation, might I suggest you aim for France the next time round? The esoteric tradition in France has been a strong current for many, many years.

No, Thomas, my years and service in France - unless I am much mistaken - are already on file. That land was much loved by me in that incarnation, and perhaps the Good Knight will one day surprise you and share something with you during one of your sojourns. It won't have been me directly, of course, as I neither believe in that sort of interpretation - on the matter of rebirth - nor do I have a connection, any longer, with this previous of my Soul's manifestations. It does, I remain convinced, have the ability [my Soul, that is, as yours] of appearing, at least in the subtle worlds, when and as needed - usually to inspire or to forewarn, perhaps to safeguard in some special circumstance, as this has been my relationship to my own former `self', in most of the times that I "met" him.

The Templars were none too keen on Mother Church in that historical period, either ... but we know something of that, do we not? Jacques de Molay would have a thing or two to add, but I never met the man - or at least, not while living.

God bless

And the same ... NAMASKAR

 

[Thomas]

Again, Thomas, I think you're quite the one to talk...

OK — I'll ignore the abusive ranting, and do what I try to do ... put forward the correct expression of orthodox doctrine, and some of the ideas and principles contained therein, for anyone interested.

You still mistake intellect for Buddhi, or Pure Reason ...

Intellect in the Christian Tradition is prior to and higher than reason. Only angelic and human nature possesses intellect (as traditionally understood, not mere intelligence) as a power of the soul, whereas animic nature possesses reason. I think you're mis-reading me.

... ALL in acknowledgment of a Sol INVICTUS! ... you fail to grasp the point.

The point is, as I have pointed out often, you work to a cosmological horizon, whereas I work, within the Tradition, to a metacosmic one. This is an example of that order of thinking.

Christ dwells in EVERY MAN ...

That's an acceptable sentiment, but the more accurate and precise statement is 'I dwell in Christ' rather than 'Christ dwells in me'.

The famous poetic statement 'in Him we live and move and have our being' reflects this. Too often people read it, but regard it as 'in me He lives and moves ...', which is an inversion, with all that term implies.

In the orthodox traditions, moreover, there is the operation of the Holy Spirit — something many post-Reformation denominations and self-styled non-institutional Christians ignore — even though explicitly stated in Scripture.

It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) who reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father, a point which St Paul made to his congregations, and which the Johannine corpus asserted.

... within the worlds, of MATTER [MATER, the VIRGIN].

To correlate 'matter' and 'mater' signifies nothing more than the inventive capacity of the mind. One could add MUTTER (the word), MUTE (silence), MATE (union) ...

Still, the SON and the SUN are one, when esoterically considered and regarded from a certain angle.

I'm interested in First Principles, not angles. There is only one Son, there are many suns. Instances of a principle are not the principle as such, as effects are not their own causes.

The Sun IS THE CHRIST...

No, it's not. An instance of a principle is not the equal of a principle. You confuse the cosmic and metacosmic. Suns are multitudinous, come in all shapes and sizes, and are finite and contingent. Christ is One.

Who told us all of this ...

Told us what, about cosmology or Christ? The former is the accrued wisdom of the human race. The latter is according to Apostolic Tradition.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

When you come down from your high horse someday, Thomas, I think you may be surprised.

I have a feeling ...... that you two have been at this for so long that I wonder who it is that is actually on the high horse?

You're either both on the high horse or you're talking to someone you think is on the high horse. (The other guy is the one on the high horse.) Obviously neither of you want to be on the high horse, in which case using the high horse card doesn't make sense.

If the guy on the high horse is the enemy and neither of you want to be on it, you don't want to be accusing the other guy of being on it. Maybe it's Lancastrians against Yorkists or Cavaliers against Roundheads, but thank goodness the other guy isn't French or Spanish!!!!

.......... unless one of you is secretly on the high horse -- for some evil purpose. But you're playing the good guy in disguise. (Look at me, I'm on the high horse!!!!)

I would have thought you'd have gotten to know each other by now. Unless .......... there hasn't been any time to get acquainted.

 

[mojobadshah]

Here's an example of the zeal that at least one person has about this: Jesus Christ is God! Period! And you are an antichrist if you deny it! That's what scripture said. If you do not like it. Your problem. But consider to repent and embrace Gods salvation plan in Christ.

The God that most of us are all familiar with, the God of Judaism, the God of Christianity, and the God of Islam can not be proven to exist. If there is one man that can PROVE it. Show me. Otherwise it is pure lie and delusion to say that God exists, for one to believe in God, and for one to be motivated by this God.

The term flesh as used in the above scripture is (sarx). It not only implies the tissue that covers us, but also our human nature, which is prone to temptation and sin.

This may or may not be of some consequence but the words text, testament, and tissue are all derived from the same root.

Jesus was both the son of God and the son of man. He was both from above (heavenly) and from below (worldly). This thought is echoed throughout the scriptures, that he suffered temptation, but also that he was made perfect through suffering by overcoming his human nature. He came in the flesh, and was like us in every respect. He was prone to temptation and sin just like us, yet he overcame, just as we can overcome.

The ancient Greco-Romans said Zarathushtra was the son of Ahura Mazda or "God" who is documented to have experienced similar things. Could there have been two of these figures or was the story of one of them based on the other?

So many place Jesus as God, suggesting it impossible for us to become as he was. The entire point of that particular scripture is to show Jesus' humanity, that he overcame despite being prone to sin. Trinitarians make living the life Jesus lived impossible by making Jesus God, but our lives are to mirror Jesus' own. We are to follow him in heart and in deed. Jesus came into the world as we do, able to be tempted, prone to sin, yet he overcame by the power of God in him. Keep reading 1 John 4 and it will clue you in on how Jesus accomplished what he accomplished. The Spirit of the anti-Christ is the spirit of doubt that we can be as Jesus was (A living sacrifice) through the power of God in us.

But there are also those who acknowledge Jesus' existence, but deny that Jesus was more than a man such as the Nestorian Christians whose scriptures were the earliest of which to have been written in Aramaic, and Muslims.

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error - Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him (live as he lived).

Truth and love is good. The Yahweh of the Old Testament was not a loving God. Ahura Mazda was always a loving God. The Zarathushtrians would some truth, justice, and all that good stuff up in one word, Asha. Yeshua or Jesus falls short of being described as God in the earliest versions of the New Testament, but many describe Jesus as a type of loving God today. Like the Trinitarians. But the doctrine of the incarnation has been around since the Zarathushtrians or Mathravans first walked the earth.

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Then there are a lot of liars out there. Like the people who run the Churches for one, but the Synogogues, and the Mosques too. And the politicians and the judges.

This scripture is about believing in the power of God in us to make us acceptable in his sight, that we (like Jesus) may present ourselves as living sacrifices unto God. Jesus showed us what it takes: He was the way, the truth, and the life and we too become the way, the truth, and the life by yielding to God as love. We are the body of Christ after all!

Are we? I know what I'm talking about and I don't think that WE are on the same level. Because if we were Churches, the Mosques, and even the Synogogues would be compensating the Aryan Cultural Heritage Foundation for the third party usage of the expressions characteristic of the Aryan cultural heritage. Expressions like God, Christ, Holy Spirit, angel, Incarnate Word, the devil, demon, Heaven, hell, the Resurrection, and Judgment Day. None of these expressions are universal expressions.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Are we? I know what I'm talking about and I don't think that WE are on the same level. Because if we were Churches, the Mosques, and even the Synogogues would be compensating the Aryan Cultural Heritage Foundation for the third party usage of the expressions characteristic of the Aryan cultural heritage. Expressions like God, Christ, Holy Spirit, angel, Incarnate Word, the devil, demon, Heaven, hell, the Resurrection, and Judgment Day. None of these expressions are universal expressions.

When I say "we", the "we" implies those who believe in the way of Christ. You may not believe in his way, but "we" who do represent Christ's body. The entire purpose is to fulfill the promise given to Abraham and do our part to help achieve peace on earth, good will towards men. Some get it, others don't.


"We" don't labor for ourselves. "We" labor for our descendants. "We" are few in number, yet "we" still labor for a certain end: Peace on earth and good will towards men. This will one day be achieved, even if it takes another 5000 years to do it. Perhaps you and I are not on the same level, but "we" who represent Christ's body are.


"For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”


Btw, the above is universal in application.

 

[radarmark]

Gatekeeper, yep, just like "zero" or "gravity" that which is connoted by "G!d" is pretty universal.

 

[Thomas]

Of course not. Else there would be no Chrestos to become Christos!

Well in the case of the Incarnation, this does not apply. Every Christian — indeed anybody and everybody who is regarded as being 'a good person' can rightfully call themselves chrestos — Andrew Chrestos, Thomas Chrestos — according to the ancient and common meaning of the term.

Chrestos also took on a certain 'esoteric' definition in the various schools of antiquity, each according to its own determination, but to assume that one and the same definition applies to all is a 'terminalogical inexactitude'. You certainly can't assume that because 'this' means 'that' according to one schol, then 'this' means 'that' in every school.

This highlights the difference between syncretism and synthesis. The latter takes full account of the intended meaning of terms, the former assumes a common definition (often its own) fits all. It is abundantly evident, here and elsewhere, that the Theosophical movement prefers to offer its own definitions of terms it borrows from the various world traditions without adequately accounting for the definition in its proper context.

In this particular instance, I would suggest you do not make the necessary distinction between an instance of a principle in action (chrestos) and the manifestation of the Principle itself (Christos).
Jesus Himself highlighted the distinction, when addressing the 'archon' (according to Luke) "And Jesus said to him: Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)

One might posit this 'archon' was the leader of some esoteric group, he certainly knew his Torah. The main has no adequate answer, whereas had he said "I call you goods because you are the incarnation of the Divine Principle, the Logos of God" then the conversation might have led somewhere else.

There is a huge clue here for the Scriptural exegete. Our Lord tells the man to sell everything he has, and follow. The man, attached to his 'riches', is unable to do so, and the parable of the rich man passing through the eye of a needle follows.

But here's the thing. Even the disciples are shocked (vv26-29), yet they have done just that, left the world to follow Christ. Why, then, should they question? Have they not the right to laud it over those attached to worldly goods?

The point is, as I see it, is that Christ is not talking about material wealth, but intellectual wealth — knowledge — and if the man is an archon, we can assume esoteric knowledge of some order. Esotericism belongs to the realm of the manifest, it is a determination, a qualification, a distinction within the realm of knowledge. Our Lord is talking of something else, not the giving away of goods, but the 'giving away' of all modes of manifestation in pursuit of the Unmanifest.

In the end, the giving away of God to attain the Godhead, as Meister Eckhart would say. This teaching is above philosophy, theology, esoterism, ontology, epistemology ... even theology ... it is pure and unconditioned metaphysics. It is Revelation.

This story is immediately followed by the miracle of the blind man's eyes being opened ... for those with the eyes to see, let them see...

(For more on the discussion of chrestos, you can read: here or more stuff here.

Suffice to say the terms were sufficiently plastic in their understanding, especially when translation and transliteration come into play. By insisting on one, single determinate definition of the term, one is trying to retro-fit one's own idea onto the antique term.

Here we speak of a different esotericism ...

I rather think that's the point. You're talking esoterisms — and as you say, the term is necessarily plural, therefore relative and dependent. I am trying to point to a universal metaphysic, the Principle, not instances of the principle in various modes of manifestation.

You are correct in the statement that what's known to one remains beyond another's ken, for awhile...

Sometimes for a while, sometimes forever ... but thank you.

High Initiates and seers, at the one end, and the humblest of the humble, the meekest of the meek at the other.

In my Tradition, the meek and humble are the higher ... 'initiates' and 'seers' are still bound to the manifest orders (as, indeed, are mystics). Not so the meek and humble, they are bound to the Unmanifest.

To some degree, the point at which the Soul Individualized marks its rung upon the Ladder of Spiritual evolution ...

Sorry, but this is more degrees of determination ...

... and continue to fight and skirt our way AROUND the topic at hand, the issue under discussion? We will not see, despite ample and abundant evidence, that Christ has been with us all along.

Well speak for yourself, but it is abundantly clear in my Tradition ...
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me" (Matthew 25:34-36)

There's an apocryphal saying of the Fathers: "Love God, and love thy neighbour, for where thy neighbour is, there God is also."

But you stop with the tautology, and fail to point out that when one does not see 95% of the picture at hand, improper conclusions will naturally be drawn regarding this business of "the life one's been given."

Again, you're talking about a 'picture', implying the formal, the manifest, the relative and the contingent. I'm talking about the supraformal, prior to manifestation.

Some of us can accept that Truth is One, Paths are Many,...

I would rather say the Truth is One, and the Way is One "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" is one, not many.

As soon as one begins using plurals, one is talking about subsequent determinations. I am not saying their are not valid or viable, quite the reverse ... but I am saying they do not comprise 'the one thing necessary'.

But here you will need to comment upon that hypostatic union, its nature, and HOW this operates within the COMMON man, once he has prepared himself to receive that which Christ Jesus received [the CHRIST, the whole point of it!] ... if you expect this discussion to be of any use.

OK. Let me explain.

When we say 'hypostatic union' we invariably refer to the person of Jesus Christ. Hypostasis means, roughly, 'to stand under', and in that sense the human nature of Our Lord 'stands under' the Divine nature of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Now in a general sense, everyone is an hypostatic union, the individual instance of a given human being stands under the formal but unmanifest universal human nature. (The unmanifest universal manifests itself in the individual). No one person, nor indeed no group of persons, manifests the totality of the universal, but each and every person is wholly and entirely human by nature ... but this is a digression.

The Incarnate Son is unique in that He signifies not an instance of the Divine making Itself known in and through this or that person — everyone participates in the Divine in that sense, that is a given — but rather the Incarnate Son is the manifestation of the Divine Principle as a Person.

Thus there is no person 'christed' — the humanity of the person of Jesus Christ was neither assumed nor subsumed, extinguished nor exalted, by the indwelling of the Divine — there was no point at which this man became that God, or that this God entered into that man.

The humanity of Jesus, His gender, stature, complexion, height, shoe size, hair colour, beard growth ... are all accidents of nature (accidents in the philosophical sense), as extrinsic to His person as the same and other elements are extrinsic to you and I. Brunettes are not 'more human' than blondes; tall people do not participate in human nature to a greater degree than small ones.

The point is, the Incarnation is the manifestation of the Principle as Person, not the instance of the Principle operative in a person.

Philosophically, 'Person', when applied to the Divine, is always ambiguous, but it is the 'best of the least' adequate term to describe what occurs. what shines out however is the Grace of the Divine who chooses to manifest Itself to its creature as that creature.

I could write screeds more, but that, i hope, is enough to be going on with.

Well since they pretty much couldn't even get the sublime symbolism of the Virgin Birth sorted out, I don't hold much stock in such pronouncements ...

Sighs ... I think the Christian concept of the Virgin Birth, that the created can bring forth the Uncreate; that God chooses to reveal Himself as one of us, for our salvation, far exceeds the symbolism you speak of. I don't understand why you can't see it.

Not the blind obedience and lip service of the modern Church. No I don't.

You see, that kind of comment doesn't help anyone, least of all yourself. It's the straw man argument ...

Faith can serve as a Bridge under Feet that KNOW, inclining them to step forth trusting into an apparent abyss of confusion or uncertainty.

Oh, Andrew — that's the whole point ... the object of faith in the Christian Tradition is beyond knowledge, precisely because it is beyond forms. This is common to all the Great Traditions, implicitly if not explicitly.

If one were to ask me for a critique of modern Theosophy (I do not so it as a continuation of one ageless and timeless tradition) I would point out that the Theosophist's insistence on reincarnation is so that one can realise and exhaust every possibility of manifestation, an argument that Nick, for example, makes very well — it's perfectly logical and rational and I can see and agree to that, if that is the way you want to go, but there are other ways, and one thing in common among the Great Traditions is that they transcend the manifest orders without the need to attempt to exhaust the inexhaustible.

Thus 'The Secret Doctrine' and other such works of Theosophy are bulging with formal is discreet knowledge, be it esoteric or otherwise, and I devoured them, in my days as a Hermeticist, as much as I could get. But the point I came to realise is that the mind can create such orders, levels, modes, degrees, whatever ... infinitely ... like a fractal ... but really, one is simply moving round in ever-increasing circles of complexity.

The sheer amount of such data becomes overwhelming, and utterly convincing, but, as the Anonymous Author who was himself the heir apparent to one such school of theosophy realised — on contemplating the Rose Window in the Cathedral at Chartres — the mind is like an Oroborous, ever consuming itself in round after round.

... the Lords of the DARK Face ... DARK BROTHERS ... Black within white, white within black, good within bad, bad within good ... Spirit within matter, matter within Spirit. This is really not all that new, but the Light/Dark distinction is kind of an important one!

Indeed they are, but you're using plurals again, so we're in the world of formal manifestation; they (whoever they might be) are subsequent to the world of Principle: the Formless, the Boundless, the Infinite, the Absolute ...

God bless

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

I would have thought you'd have gotten to know each other by now.

It's precisely because we each know just enough of the other's aims, and occasionally there is an effort to balance matters. It is not so much the settling of an old score (since only one of us can even consider how ancient may be its origins) ... as the effort to maintain a status quo. One man wants to show ... and that, for whatever else goes on, is usually enough!

... put forward the correct expression of orthodox doctrine, and some of the ideas and principles contained therein, for anyone interested.

Well, sometimes you tow the party line, sometime you give us your own rehashed or nuanced version and belief(s). Either way, we come at this question from a different angle. Here and there, there may be some overlap.

Intellect in the Christian Tradition is prior to and higher than reason. Only angelic and human nature possesses intellect (as traditionally understood, not mere intelligence) as a power of the soul, whereas animic nature possesses reason. I think you're mis-reading me.

Not at all. Beyond the Intellect, of which you speak and of which your tradition apparently treats ... there is Buddhi. Christ acknowledged this and sought to elucidate, as well as ILLICIT such a PRINCIPLE. He also spoke of another and even Greater Principle, its sphere of activity being the "Peace which passeth Understanding." Now you will come to read Understanding here, as the Buddhi ... and the Peace as Nirvana. Else you will misread the Master's statement. But that's nothing new.

The point is, as I have pointed out often, you work to a cosmological horizon, whereas I work, within the Tradition, to a metacosmic one. This is an example of that order of thinking.

Thomas, get off of the my-dick-is-bigger stick. You just make an ass of yourself. Again, nothing new, but really, can't you GROW UP? Or do we have to get some kind of nice pointy hat and new slip of paper for that to happen?

That's an acceptable sentiment, but the more accurate and precise statement is 'I dwell in Christ' rather than 'Christ dwells in me'.

The famous poetic statement 'in Him we live and move and have our being' reflects this. Too often people read it, but regard it as 'in me He lives and moves ...', which is an inversion, with all that term implies.

In the orthodox traditions, moreover, there is the operation of the Holy Spirit — something many post-Reformation denominations and self-styled non-institutional Christians ignore — even though explicitly stated in Scripture.

It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) who reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father, a point which St Paul made to his congregations, and which the Johannine corpus asserted.

Oh, you can mince words as is your WONT, but you are not adding anything. The HIM in Whom we live, and move, etc. is the LOGOS of our Planet, perhaps Solar System. This both is, mystically, but certain IS NOT the Christ of Theology and of Tradition. You don't even know your own, yet you would seek to INSTRUCT ME in it? Come come, Fair Nicodemus, let us sit in the tree a little while and see what even by accident we may not pick up? PRICK UP, your ears ...

You repeat well what you have read, and been taught, but cannot draw the correlations. You either lack the insight, or just plain don't care.

You don't seem to even realize that the Holy Spirit is the ILLUMINED, awakened HIGHER Intellect [to which you earlier refer] and the SON thus revealed [with its correlation, or parallel in the SUN, our STAR - again something you clearly do not grasp] ... the CHRIST, or BUDDHIC Love-Wisdom, Intelligent Compassion, w/o which there is no Agape, and thus w/o Whom and which, there could be no Planetary and specific Christ - relative to Human expression. This latter Christ, then, the Heart Center of the planet [when grasped as ONE Kingdom, exclusive of NO MAN nor of any ANGEL] ... correlates with the HEAD Center, Shambhala, the Father's House or simply `The Father' as it has apparently been glossed for so long.

But Thomas, ye who can so well compartmentalize in your own thinking, but apparently not make bridge ONE when it comes to how this SAME Revelation occurs and has occurred in other traditions ... will not EVER see these simple possibilities, much less come to place stock in them ~ while the ears are full of WAX. Prick them up, I tell you, or hear these same teachings another Day, somewhat of your own choosing, perhaps somewhat of necessity!

To correlate 'matter' and 'mater' signifies nothing more than the inventive capacity of the mind. One could add MUTTER (the word), MUTE (silence), MATE (union) ...

My good man, are really that THICK? And do not invert MY meaning. Either you recognize this, or I will stop giving you credit altogether. I think that's what finally happened with Nick. I don't blame him, or others. If you are that thick-headed, there probably is no hope. Good luck next time around, and do pardon me if I neither recognize you then, NOR CARE TO.

There is only one Son ... Christ is One.

But the fact that you can utter such words, yet remain almost altogether alien to Him and the significance of such ... reminds me that I'm far happier with my current understanding. As, it would seem, are you. Fair enough.

Well in the case of the Incarnation, this does not apply. Every Christian — indeed anybody and everybody who is regarded as being 'a good person' can rightfully call themselves chrestos — Andrew Chrestos, Thomas Chrestos — according to the ancient and common meaning of the term.

Chrestos also took on a certain 'esoteric' definition in the various schools of antiquity, each according to its own determination, but to assume that one and the same definition applies to all is a 'terminalogical inexactitude'. You certainly can't assume that because 'this' means 'that' according to one schol, then 'this' means 'that' in every school.

Actually, if you understand point 1 about `The Incarnation,' you'd realize that this is WHY we can even speak on such matters today! It is because Christ proved this FULLY, fulfilling the Law and Prophets, and revealing - via Jesus of Nazareth, the ancient and unbroken Tradition, or lineage ... because of all this, that we DO KNOW Chrestos becomes Christos.

That your own Tradition has failed to guard properly and sufficiently the secrets, that its own corruption ran so deep that even those FEW who were privileged enough to have been GIVEN, in such proportion as they had ANSWERED ... when even THESE few could no longer preserve the Truth in the face of its enemies and oppressors - ALIVE AND WELL even from the time of the ORIGIN of Roman Catholicism [notwithstanding such minds as Clement, Origen - even Justin Martyr and Synesius] ... with all this FAILURE I have no intention to deal. You can't even read the works of these great ones without imposing caveat after caveat upon their revelations, or without citing all the curious nuances which your tradition [or else yourself] has imposed upon the OBVIOUS meanings given.

No, no, but I misspeak. When a man cannot even see that there is a GNOSTICISM which has no more to do with history than is the activity of the Holy Spirit limited to such ... he will be blinded even to the Wisdom still preserved in SOME of his treasured and favorite writings. I mean, here we will soon hear you spewing this file FILTH about Theosophy's own Foundress, RECANTING of her oh-so-horrible and mistaken ways upon her DEATHBED! ROFL

THIS, when we even know WHICH Mahatmas were there, as WITNESSED by those present, also some of the details - as faithfully RECORDED - about what transpired ... I mean, really now Thomas, how long will you keep up the charade? I say again, ARE YOU REALLY THAT DAFT, or is this just the same TOMfooler and skullduggery, legerdemain, as we are used to?

I will have to leave you, soon, because it kind of disgusts me. You are so bright, and clearly well educated. But you are an enemy of the Truth, even while you may not intend to be! I speak not spiritually, or really about some deep, dark esoteric secret ... I just mean, Philosophically, you don't have any real context for what you say? If all you're after is the preaching to the choir angle on Roman Catholic theology and history, espousing a bit of tradition as best you know or can guess it when you find an audience, then sure. Keep it up.

Otherwise, you will make these ridiculous statements which pretty well let the cat out of the bag ... and then I wonder, would you really have to BLIND yourself, staring straight INTO IT, in order to finally understand the true correlation between THIS sun - or ANY Star - and GOD, or GODs?

Apparently. Meanwhile, I try to tell you there is another way. And all you can is rattle your chains, shake your somewhat-mobile finger at the shadows on the wall ... and insist to me, "There is a LIGHT, there is a LIGHT!" That's really all you're saying, and I am nodding, and even as I sit beside you, head TURNED and staring you straight-on [the BOTH of us somewhat still veiled, in the SHADOWs - cognate, sometimes, with the PHYSICAL PLANE, which another group of Gnostics chose to emphasize]. I realize my friend, from where you sit, and given your perspective on things, of COURSE x, and y, and z is how it all appears. I have never DENIED it.

I have, simply, tried to get you see that there are other angles on this ... and if you cannot, or WILL NOT, adapt your philosophy [and worldview] and see how to PLUG INTO this ... then it's your loss. No, you will feel nothing, but how can you MISS what you've never HAD? You are like the child who screams and kicks and yells and protests, all the while telling his mother, "I DON'T like GREEN BEANS!" ... or parsnips, or cabbage, or what-have-you.

The realization will one day finally come: How do I REALLY Know ... since I umm, err, uhhh, DIDN'T REALLY TRY IT/THEM?

C.S. Lewis tried, and that's as close a parallel as I can find. I see a correlation, and I pity you both. But you have chosen as you have chosen, and for all your resistance ... I have nothing more to say about it.

Thomas, you are recalcitrant, and BLIND. I will waste no more of your time, my time or anyone else's here at CR. You are no different than any common preacher that I have met, or heard yapping at the top of their lungs, Bible [and you certainly have yours] clutched TIGHTLY in hand, though all too ready to point out, passage and page, where THE AUDIENCE is SURELY IN ERROR ...

... and instead of seeing the BEST in what another person has to share, or offer, or suggest, you know only how to pick apart and beat down. I can show you CORRELATIONS and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and emphases by the dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands, between what Theosophy may have brought or shown the world - even 150 years ago - and what the RC Catechism might have or have had to offer.

But you will not hear word ONE of it, because you are too busy spouting invective and swatting at gnats. You cannot see that some of us would help to ELEVATE the Christ, and esoterically LIFT HIM UP, because you too busy STANDING UPON HIS CHEST, dragging his NAME [alone] behind you ... the man through the dirt along with all you can apparently appreciate about Him, which is that which he GAVE, even in DEATH as well as in LIFE - and here, though you RECOGNIZE the Sacrifice, you know not WHO, nor WHY nor even really HOW.

You do, however, acknowledge, reverence and even worship a DEAD Christ ... and I will CHALLENGE you to show me any OTHERWISE.

Take THIS challenge alone, for it is short and simple ... and SHOW me how Christ is alive to and for you, and for Christians. Heavy on the "for YOU," or can you do that, without using seventeen syllable words ... and a bunch of endless yet mindless rhetoric about things you have clearly, either NEVER experienced, or long ago placed on the mantlepiece - to gather dust, yet to remind you, perhaps, that once upon a time, you, yes YOU TOO, caught a GLIMPSE.

I will tell you about MY mantlepiece, if asked ... and also about how Christ LIVES in my life, and how I SEE HIM and witness this ... in the lives of others, Christians and non-Christians alike. I GLADLY share with others, as opportunity arises ...

... and then I stop by here, I see Mr. SQUELCH blathering on with nicely formed sentence structure and more of those 50 cent or even 2 dollar/5 pound words ... and I ask, WHERE did the Son of God go wrong? Why isn't he GETTING IT, yet? And - though unlikely - is there anything I might add, or is this bloke really still so thick, so daft, so BLINDED ... that he WILL NOT SEE?

It's your nose, pal. One day you're gonna find out just what's after the END of it. Til then,

Affectionately your
OLDER - if equally stubborn - BROTHER

Why, Thomas, why? What does all that doubt and unhealthy skepticism ever get you? I just don't grasp the tradeoff. And I think your Soul wonders, as well. It waits ...

 

[taijasi]

Thomas, you cannot cross a BRIDGE by placing one foot on the present shore, the next foot upon the distant shore, only to THEN choose to span the spaces in between. One day you will grasp this.

Your castles in the air, same as mine or anyone's - essentially, are just fine.

But you misunderstand your own Tradition, thoroughly, when you suggest, "oh, we know how to skip the crossing of the bridge altogether."

Theosophy reveals more than has ever yet [save of late] been revealed regarding the RIGHT PASSAGE across this BRIDGE. Yet such is done with no appeal to the separated, false self, or EGO. When that obstructs, you can be assured, either the Message is relayed imperfectly ... and/or YOU have managed to let EGO get in the way.

You can see and appreciate NEXT TO NOTHING of Theosophy, precisely for the latter reasons ... but all I can do is apologize that no one yet has bothered to sit down with you and DRAG YOU THROUGH the darkness and ignorance of your own mind. Stop being such a cry-baby. Stop wailing and flailing there in the dark. If you don't like it, GROW UP!

Do something about it. Don't fuss, however, because we haven't stooped low enough, or "come down to your level" to straighten out and clarify every last question and problem when you try to shove and force the more Sublime into the neat, tiny, square little BOXES you have prepared for it.

Next time, try ticking ALL the boxes when it asks, "Who can we pray for?" ... etc. Try letting your own [views of] God OUT of the wrappings, and you may just find that this mummy, this man left for dead and BURIED, is a good bit more than a cock crowing in the morning, proud as can be ... for you to sing hymns of praise about, every day elevating a little closer to status as your UNKNOWN GOD, but equally REMOVING the same from ACCESS ... for the common man.

You are as guilty of this offense as ever your TRADITION [YICCCHHH] ONCE WAS. And for that, I may forgive you, but I also DESPISE YOU.

Do you understand yet, just how much you PISS ME OFF?

If not, then think on it. YOU WERE THERE, MAN
But you either don't even know it, and are the greater Doubter today, FOR IT ....

... or you are simply working it out, working through it all, like ANY of us. I prefer this explanation, and it makes it far easier to forgive, and understand your stubbornness, your ignorance, your perseverance, even when you're just whistlin' Dixie, despite yourself.

And then, I may be DEAD, FLAT WRONG. And this makes me feel pretty sheepish, and I have to say mea culpa, but not because we aren't reborn, you idiot. Just because YOU, puffed up old egotistical fool that you may be, YOU ... weren't perhaps there, AFTER ALL.

And that makes you - like any - fairly SMALL. If my own ego is the size of Montana, however, I'd say yours has got the whole eastern seaboard covered ... and since I LIVE There, I'd say I've got my work cut out for me.

I will see you again, however, no matter when we might first have met. And I'll be honest: I don't entirely look forward to it.

I will recognize you, though. I probably can't help that.

 

[mojobadshah]

When I say "we", the "we" implies those who believe in the way of Christ.

Btw, the above is universal in application.

Gatekeeper, yep, just like "zero" or "gravity" that which is connoted by "G!d" is pretty universal.

Seriously, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing universal about God or any religion when you're speaking in the context of that religion.

Well in the case of the Incarnation, this does not apply. Every Christian — indeed anybody and everybody who is regarded as being 'a good person' can rightfully call themselves chrestos — Andrew Chrestos, Thomas Chrestos — according to the ancient and common meaning of the term.

That's just silly. The term Chrestos is rooted in the term "Messiah" which is in turn rooted in the Aryan term Saoyshant. It means "chosen one," and it implies that one's belief system is monotheist, and typically one wouldn't have anything to do with the term Chrestos unless they associated with Christianity.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Seriously, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing universal about God or any religion when you're speaking in the context of that religion.

We were speaking about how what we do today affects our descendants tomorrow. This is universal in application. Would you agree with this much? Take God and religion out of the paradigm and others will still reap tomorrow what we sow today.

 

[taijasi]

It is said that our sins are visited upon us, even unto the 7th Generation. If that affects me personally in some way, it's a whole lot easier to realize I'm about to make a mistake ... or, iow, to think before I do something that may adversely impact either self or others.

Then again, if I have been misled to understand that I will be long gone ... then to hell with what Jesus just said.

So there is one way in which his statement, though cryptic, is an indication for us. Again, when you throw out the proper context for interpretation, you must invent a meaning, and cook up false understanding ... which can never substitute for insight.

Isn't that how dogma is born?

Nature Herself speaks to the true NATURE of things, but man in his folly invents yet additional ways to peel a grape. And Christ turned water into wine, yadda.

I want to know why I should care what happens by the time you remove the impact of my actions (thoughts, words, etc.) by 6 or 7 Generations ...

I think it's a fair question.

And there is a conclusion as obvious as day and night, regarding what Christ expected His Followers [any that were paying attention, with half an IQ] to believe, about this impact of their sins or virtuous deeds. So, also, an easy to grasp implication about the 2nd Coming, including where who'd be, what'd they'd be doing and how that affects people like you, me, the rest of us, etc. ... now and in the days ahead.

Enough of that. It's a thought or so.

 

[mojobadshah]

We were speaking about how what we do today affects our descendants tomorrow. This is universal in application. Would you agree with this much? Take God and religion out of the paradigm and others will still reap tomorrow what we sow today.

Yeah, I heard that, but I don't agree that Christian, Muslim, or Jewish institutions respect that in part that was what the Zarathushtrian cultural expressions are to the Aryan community, cultural expressions like Ahura Mazda "God," the Mathravan "the Incarnate Word," and the Saoyshant "the Christ." These expressions equate to potentially trillions of dollars a year, but the Aryan community has not seen one scent. The Churches, Mosques, and Synogogues that use the expressions characteristic of the Aryan cultural heritage like God, the Incarnate Word, and the Christ, don't compensate the Aryan community, and ontop of that consistently threaten to wage wars against the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) nations, and have no problem making their Abrahamic brothers the Saudis and the Egyptians rich. If the Aryans can't reap what their forefather's did sow then why should anyone else?

 

[wil]

If the Aryans can't reap what their forefather's did sow then why should anyone else?

I have yet to see a more entitlement view in my life. You've continued to be the epitomy of the 'you owe me' club.

How did this come to be? This can't be of your own doing. Which leader do you follow that has instilled this need to harp on this rather than simply live your life.

But let us look logically, are you a descendent of Zarathruster? If not, by what methodology do you claim a right to anything, you are simply a follower.

By your logic aren't the descendants of Pythagarus are owed a living and massive wealth by everyone who uses the triangle, or the musical scale?

I wonder who I owe a penny to everytime I eat a spaghetti noodle?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'm wondering why mojo just doesn't let it go. I get what you are feeling, right or wrong, but you are in a tiny, tiny minority who demand a lot, it's just not very realistic. You state that life has been unfair for thousands of years, what do you think has changed? My philosophy is to change what I can and accept what I can not change. Trying to push over a mountain with your bare hands will get you nowhere, tired and really disappointed.
Aim lower.

 

[Gatekeeper]

ACOT - I think for some it's more about the journey and less about the destination. I say aim higher and reach for the sky!


A lil sappy, but a great song just the same:


[youtube]NG2zyeVRcbs[/youtube]

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yeah, I heard that, but I don't agree that Christian, Muslim, or Jewish institutions respect that in part that was what the Zarathushtrian cultural expressions are to the Aryan community, cultural expressions like Ahura Mazda "God," the Mathravan "the Incarnate Word," and the Saoyshant "the Christ." These expressions equate to potentially trillions of dollars a year, but the Aryan community has not seen one scent. The Churches, Mosques, and Synogogues that use the expressions characteristic of the Aryan cultural heritage like God, the Incarnate Word, and the Christ, don't compensate the Aryan community, and ontop of that consistently threaten to wage wars against the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) nations, and have no problem making their Abrahamic brothers the Saudis and the Egyptians rich. If the Aryans can't reap what their forefather's did sow then why should anyone else?

Universally speaking, and entitlement demand aside, I'd suggest that the Aryans are in fact reaping the labors of their forefathers. Maybe they are not reaping the monetary gain, but is wealth all they are in it for? Perhaps that is the problem, that the treasure of their heart is silver and gold, that which is both corruptible and corrupted. Many wars have raged over the pursuit of wealth and now, because the Aryans have not been compensated, a war rages within themselves it seems.



The lives you lead today are I product of what your forefathers did yesterday, and likewise, the lives your descendants lead tomorrow will be a product of what you do today. The Aryans can demand monetary entitlement all they like, but this does not mean they are entitled. Why not leave for your descendants a peaceful world, one where more value is placed on peace than on silver and gold? Why not not pursue peace and goodwill towards all men? It could be that when your heart is in the right place, that your desires will be met.



The love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

 

[mojobadshah]

I have yet to see a more entitlement view in my life. You've continued to be the epitomy of the 'you owe me' club.

I'm doing my best to stay out of the box and rather act as a representative. I prefer to look at it as 'they [that monetarily profit off of the expressions in question] owe them.'

How did this come to be? This can't be of your own doing. Which leader do you follow that has instilled this need to harp on this rather than simply live your life.

Well I was brought up in the west thinking the Aryans were one thing and came to learn in later years that the Aryans were another thing. And the money, what the heritage is worth, is partly the culmination of a 10 year long journey.

But let us look logically, are you a descendent of Zarathruster? If not, by what methodology do you claim a right to anything, you are simply a follower.

It doesn't really matter. This isn't about me. It's about something much larger than myself. It's not exclusively about the "descendants" of Zarathushtra. It's about anyone who values cultural diversity and in this case we are talking about the Aryan culture, which has been antogonized by westerners ever since the ancient Greeks. It's only recently, the 18th century, that westerners discovered the native Zarathushtrian literature. I'm aware that Catholic schools teach Zarathushtra, and even public schools have begun to teach religion including Zoroaster, but I think the point gets lost amidst all the western chauvinism.

By your logic aren't the descendants of Pythagarus are owed a living and massive wealth by everyone who uses the triangle, or the musical scale? I wonder who I owe a penny to everytime I eat a spaghetti noodle?

It don't agree that that is a fair analogy. You are talking about geometry and music theory. I'm talking about culture that has a lot to do with identity and authority structures. But if you think that these phenomena are NOT UNIVERSAL and that it is just as REASONABLE that the Greeks be compensated for the integration of these ideas into our institutions so be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

I'm wondering why mojo just doesn't let it go. I get what you are feeling, right or wrong, but you are in a tiny, tiny minority who demand a lot, it's just not very realistic. You state that life has been unfair for thousands of years, what do you think has changed? My philosophy is to change what I can and accept what I can not change. Trying to push over a mountain with your bare hands will get you nowhere, tired and really disappointed.
Aim lower.

I'm not so sure being in a minority is an issue. If the law is altruistic and is really there to protect people and culture then in the end it really should matter how small or big the plaintiff is. I do question how sane western society truly is, however. Say an Aryan Heritage Foundation is established and third parties are mandated by law to compensate the foundation for the use of the expressions that are characteristic how tolerant is the west really? The 1 percenters seem to be doing alright. To begin with the history textbooks portray Aryan (Irano-Afghan) society in a very dark light. We've already seen Koran burnings, and protests against Mosques (hardly constitutional behavior) albeit these are Semitic institutions and not Aryan institutions, but would whoever is to run such a foundation need to live in a fortress like Bill Gates does? I guess how big of a deal would something like this be is what my question is.

Universally speaking, and entitlement demand aside, I'd suggest that the Aryans are in fact reaping the labors of their forefathers.

They would be, and money would not be an issue, if there were just as many Fire Temples or Poston's Buttes dedicated to the Aryan cultural heritage as there were Churches, Mosques, and Synogogues dedicated the the Abrahamic cultural heritage.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'm not so sure being in a minority is an issue. If the law is altruistic and is really there to protect people and culture then in the end it really should matter how small or big the plaintiff is. I do question how sane western society truly is, however. Say an Aryan Heritage Foundation is established and third parties are mandated by law to compensate the foundation for the use of the expressions that are characteristic how tolerant is the west really? The 1 percenters seem to be doing alright. To begin with the history textbooks portray Aryan (Irano-Afghan) society in a very dark light. We've already seen Koran burnings, and protests against Mosques (hardly constitutional behavior) albeit these are Semitic institutions and not Aryan institutions, but would whoever is to run such a foundation need to live in a fortress like Bill Gates does? I guess how big of a deal would something like this be is what my question is.

But you do understand how budgets work, right? You have a certain amount of money to spend and if you decide spend a lot of that money on one thing you have to take it away from other things, so you are actually asking the great majority to sacrifice for a cause they don't believe in and they get nothing in return. I'm not discussing right or wrong (as I consider it subjective) I'm simply saying that it's not going to happen.
I feel I'm coming off as obnoxious, but it isn't my intent, I just feel that you're not trying to meet any of us half way here, like you don't understand the language I'm typing.