Sorry, it is derived from your conclusion of Matthew and Job.
Statement 1 ("If you know God, then God exists.") is derived from Job, but not from Matthew.
Statement 2 ("If God knows you, then you exist.") is derived from Matthew, but not from Job.
The two statements are separate and not interdependent.
The Kaballist and other mystic Jews would disagree...
Well, I should hope so! Does anyone think they should be required to adhere to Orthodox Christian theology? If so, it is not I. They have the Zohar; we have the Philokalia; the two present radically differing approaches to understanding reality.
This alone will ensure you never experience true religion - religion stems from the Latin legio, meaning to bind.
And do you bind one thing to itself? If so, whatever for? Or do you bind two or more discrete objects or entities together? Obviously you've made my argument for me, here; I have nothing to add.
Similarly, yoga means union. This is the nature of all religion, if you see it as something else, then you must name it something else.
Since "union" can only occur between two or more discrete objects and/or entities, once again you've made my argument for me. Have you decided what to name your "all-is-one" belief, since obviously, as you yourself state, "religion" doesn't apply to it?
If you would trust the likes of Buddha or Krishna, it is certainly provable... I know this to be fact.
Never having met the gentlemen, "trust" of them is rather irrelevant at best. As for what is "provable", submit your relevant replicable data in evidence, together with whatever hypotheses and predictions you derive therefrom, and I'll gladly take a look at them. You see, dear colleague, anything which is "provable" must also be "falsifiable". You can't have one without the other.
This is just it, the realization removes self from the picture, we see this in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 - we drop ourselves and arise in Christ.
This entire passage demonstrates the continuing existence and individuality of all who are baptized into Christ: the "we" of v.13 and the "you" (plural form) of v.27. As v.14 states, "For in fact the body is not one member but many." One body, many members: still discrete, still individual.
Christ is part of the trinity, thus this has important ramifications that the organizations claiming to be reigious deny.
An interesting claim, but difficult to support. To deny known truth is the act of an heresiarch, and should a bishop do this, the Church becomes obligated to remove him from office, as occurred first in 449 A.D. and, most recently, in 1999 A.D.
The Pope is paid based on dependence of people on Christ, why would he state otherwise?
Paid or unpaid, why would he state otherwise, since he, like all Christians, is entirely dependent upon Christ, without whom we are nothing?
Of course, there are those that state the second coming has been and gone, and that the Pope was notified and ignored this claim. This person, I think, would agree with me.
Fascinating! If so, you have allies whose understanding of the second coming of Christ appears to differ significantly from that of the Bible, and therefore from that of Orthodox Christian theology. The more relevant question would then become, do
you agree with
them and, if so, why?
I have claimed nothing otherwise, although our awareness of our relationship to God seems to be at different stages.
Which of course would be impossible if all were in fact one, wouldn't it? Since that is not the case, I agree with you.
Sincerely,
Jim
