There is no proof of God ...

['Amir Alzzalam]

Yes, I wonder how much Jesus had to play along with this concept. I suspect that he preferred teaching about a spiritual Way that would become a cultural movement that would overcome the worldly ways of the prevailing culture and society. The Messiah thing seems a trap set for him by the Jewish tradition. I suspect that he saw us all as saviors if we can grow spiritually and be enlightened. I see a movement towards democracy in Jesus’ theology. And Isaiah and other latter prophets also seemed to grasp the need for greater inclusion and empowering the previously disenfranchised.

Since there isn't any evidence of Yeshua's actual words, or existence for that matter, this is simply wishful thinking on your part.

 

[otherbrother]

Since there isn't any evidence of Yeshua's actual words, or existence for that matter, this is simply wishful thinking on your part.

I don’t really care if Jesus existed or was an amalgam/composite of spiritual leaders at the time, etc. What new insights and evolutionary steps were occurring? And did the faith community build on it, or slide back to older, more Tribalistic ways? The whole messiah thing was part of tribalism. I am interested in the Way.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

I don’t really care if Jesus existed or was an amalgam/composite of spiritual leaders at the time, etc. What new insights and evolutionary steps were occurring? And did the faith community build on it, or slide back to older, more Tribalistic ways? The whole messiah thing was part of tribalism. I am interested in the Way.

Then you are following Paulism, that's who designed the Christian/Yeshua/Messiah faith everyone follows.

 

[wil]

I don’t really care if Jesus existed or was an amalgam/composite of spiritual leaders at the time, etc. What new insights and evolutionary steps were occurring? And did the faith community build on it, or slide back to older, more Tribalistic ways? The whole messiah thing was part of tribalism. I am interested in the Way.

The footsteps are worth emulating

 

[wil]

Then you are following Paulism, that's who designed the Christian/Yeshua/Messiah faith everyone follows.

And so?

 

[Thomas]

Yes, I wonder how much Jesus had to play along with this concept.

We should be careful not to project our own ideas onto the past.

The 'Failed Messiah Movement' post by majority does that – what evidence is there these figures claimed to be the messiah?

Josephus, for example, says there were rebels who set themselves up as 'kings', and a Jewish writer would have known the distinction; kings are not de facto messiahs, and I see no evidence here for a 'failed messiah' theory.

 

[Thomas]

I suspect that he saw us all as saviors if we can grow spiritually and be enlightened.

If we can, and do, that's dependent upon Him, which sets Him apart from us ... we can be saints, enlightened, etc., but not saviousr, not without emptying the term of meaning.

 

[Thomas]

Appollinius (sp?) apparently avoided the Messiah trap , but got killed anyway.

Well he was a Greek, so neither claimed, nor would have been seen, as a messiah.

He was a Neopythagorean mystic, tried for magic and conspiracy against the emperor, and executed.

It was a period of great unrest in the region, for sure.

 

[Thomas]

Then you are following Paulism, that's who designed the Christian/Yeshua/Messiah faith everyone follows.

LOL

 

[otherbrother]

We should be careful not to project our own ideas onto the past.

The 'Failed Messiah Movement' post by majority does that – what evidence is there these figures claimed to be the messiah?

Josephus, for example, says there were rebels who set themselves up as 'kings', and a Jewish writer would have known the distinction; kings are not de facto messiahs, and I see no evidence here for a 'failed messiah' theory.

Thomas, Here we go again. You repeatedly warn against anthropomorphizing God or Ultimate Reality. And yet I keep going there again and again.

Now is a good time for me to discuss “positive projection.” Psychology emphasizes the projection of disowned characteristics of self onto others. Here in the USA we have a presidential candidate who does this constantly. I’m rubber and you’re glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks on you. Except he often does it before the accusations are even made! As though knowing the truth and nipping its revelation in the bud. And, in the process, beating the accusers to the punch.

But we also project positive qualities that feel too good to be true about ourselves. It doesn’t feel right, humble enough, to own characteristics that should only be attributed to a more advanced being than we are. And so we project these positive potentials onto God. And then look to God to draw out these innate potentials.

Why all the projection, negative or positive? Because we tend to think in terms of dichotomies, black and white categories, instead of in ratios, fields, and continuous flows that lend themselves to continuums and gradients. In perceptual psychology I learned about the Mach band effect that makes us see edges more than they really are. It helps us with ego manipulation of a world thought to consist of objects. Modern bias to objective thought reflects this lean towards what the Taosts call the Ten Thousand Things.

This tendency of dichotomous thought makes projection inevitable.

And I can’t in good faith argue against it, since it is a way we are equipped to live in a physical world. I simply advocate adding “thinking like energy “ to supplement and improve the contributions of dichotomous thought.

Given this, we must accept projection as a normal byproduct of existing. And then try to manage it responsibly.

If I project onto God the characteristic of being super rich in potentiality, I can responsibly “reclaim “ that projection in the manner that Gestalt Therapies advocate. I can get good use out of the positive projection, as long as I don’t continue to rigidly project it outwardly.

So God can be BOTH not merely pure potential AND pure potential (until I can reclaim my own positive potential that previously exceeded my wildest dreams). By grace God helps me become the person I could only dream about becoming. It is very important to not get in the way of this projection and reclaiming process. It is as natural as our hearts beating.

 

[otherbrother]

Thomas, Here we go again. You repeatedly warn against anthropomorphizing God or Ultimate Reality. And yet I keep going there again and again.
Now is a good time for me to discuss “positive projection.” Psychology emphasizes the projection of disowned characteristics of self onto others. Here in the USA we have a presidential candidate who does this constantly. I’m rubber and you’re glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks on you. Except he often does it before the accusations are even made! As though knowing the truth and nipping its revelation in the bud. And, in the process, beating the accusers to the punch.
But we also project positive qualities that feel too good to be true about ourselves. It doesn’t feel right, humble enough, to own characteristics that should only be attributed to a more advanced being than we are. And so we project these positive potentials onto God. And then look to God to draw out these innate potentials.
Why all the projection, negative or positive? Because we tend to think in terms of dichotomies, black and white categories, instead of in ratios, fields, and continuous flows that lend themselves to continuums and gradients. In perceptual psychology I learned about the Mach band effect that makes us see edges more than they really are. It helps us with ego manipulation of a world thought to consist of objects. Modern bias to objective thought reflects this lean towards what the Taosts call the Ten Thousand Things.
This tendency of dichotomous thought makes projection inevitable.
And I can’t in good faith argue against it, since it is a way we are equipped to live in a physical world. I simply advocate adding “thinking like energy “ to supplement and improve the contributions of dichotomous thought.
Given this, we must accept projection as a normal byproduct of existing. And then try to manage it responsibly.
If I project onto God the characteristic of being super rich in potentiality, I can responsibly “reclaim “ that projection in the manner that Gestalt Therapies advocate. I can get good use out of the positive projection, as long as I don’t continue to rigidly project it outwardly.
So God can be BOTH not merely pure potential AND pure potential (until I can reclaim my own positive potential that previously exceeded my wildest dreams). By grace God helps me become the person I could only dream about becoming. It is very important to not get in the way of this projection and reclaiming process. It is as natural as our hearts beating.

Thomas, Actually, in this case you were referring to projecting onto the past (instead of God) . But it felt like a good time for me to articulate my views about the projection process in general. Perhaps even some projection onto the past can be useful, if we loosen our grip on our interpretations, count them more as sketches than finished works of art.

 

[otherbrother]

Thomas, Actually, in this case you were referring to projecting onto the past (instead of God) . But it felt like a good time for me to articulate my views about the projection process in general. Perhaps even some projection onto the past can be useful, if we loosen our grip on our interpretations, count them more as sketches than finished works of art.

If Christ was into Zionism more than I would like to think, it may be useful for me to project my own preference for The Way, which seems much deeper and more sustainable than Zionism . Maybe The Way was more Paulinian, as someone suggested. But I feel free to reclaim that projection from Christ. There is plenty reason to think that Paul’s theology of Grace was woven into much of what Jesus said. Paul’s emphasis may have been a useful highlighting of Jesus’s add ons to spiritual/theological thought and practice.

 

[otherbrother]

Neither ...

Isaiah positions the expectation of Israel in the figure of the 'Suffering Servant' which the spiritual will see but whom the worldly will ignore.

One might suggest that the crowds who turned out to welcome Jesus on His entry into Jerusalem were the same as those who bayed for His crucifixion a few days later. Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy, and Christianity regards Him as fulfilling His divine mission – and maybe God knows the hearts of his creature better than we know ourselves. Jesus was a man of peace, but there may well have been an expectation of something else ... ?

Also, the suffering servant was an allegorical statement about Israel. Jesus and others of his time felt comfortable standing for the collective plight and consciousness. These days we seldom blur the singular and the plural, but they thought more poetically back then.
So his actions of promoting peace and inclusion symbolized what he hoped his beloved people would aspire to and achieve? He stepped ahead, like any prophet worth their salt.

 

[otherbrother]

Also, the suffering servant was an allegorical statement about Israel. Jesus and others of his time felt comfortable standing for the collective plight and consciousness. These days we seldom blur the singular and the plural, but they thought more poetically back then.
So his actions of promoting peace and inclusion symbolized what he hoped his beloved people would aspire to and achieve? He stepped ahead, like any prophet worth their salt.

Thomas, You actually indicated that the suffering servant was about Israel. I need to slow down and listen better before I respond! I was preaching to the choir on that one!

 

[otherbrother]

Sooooo because Isaiah didn't specifically say "Jesus", it's null and void. I don't follow that logic one bit, but to each his own.

Can you imagine if the Bible did mention Jesus by His name? Every boy born in Israel would have been named Jesus. It would have been pointless to name Him in prophecy.

Likewise if a prophet had warned us that a man named Adolf Hitler would lead Germany into a war killing millions of people, nobody would name their kid Adolf Hitler. It would be pointless to name him in prophecy.

But like I said, to each his own.

Yes, prophecy seems more about emerging patterns than about predictions of facts. The prophecy pulls the collective toward it. “Here’s a future that could be if we are willing to nurture it.”

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, Here we go again. You repeatedly warn against anthropomorphizing God or Ultimate Reality. And yet I keep going there again and again.

I hope my warnings are more against drifting into erroneous assumptions, rather than against cataphatic affirmations per se.

And really we have to decide in what way we're talking about God.

From the standpoint of Faith, Jesus taught to think of God in terms of 'Father' (pater) and indeed as father in a more personal sense Abba) (eg Mark 14:36) – so I am not against anthropomorphising as such.

It's when we get into 'how should we think about God' that we can get into difficult terrain.

Now is a good time for me to discuss “positive projection.”

OK, and it has its place. again, it depends on context.

If you're talking from the mystical perspective, for example, 'positive projection' has its limits and should be seen as useful, up to a point, at which point one has to abandon it, and move on. Buddhism is even more adamant that such a practice is more hindrance and leads to illusion.

If one's talking about the nature of God, then one has to be doubly careful that a positive projection is not simple imputation

Modern bias to objective thought reflects this lean towards what the Taosts call the Ten Thousand Things.

Quite.

If I project onto God the characteristic of being super rich in potentiality, I can responsibly “reclaim “ that projection in the manner that Gestalt Therapies advocate. I can get good use out of the positive projection, as long as I don’t continue to rigidly project it outwardly.
So God can be BOTH ...

Hang on, now you seem to be suggesting that a worldly way of thinking is the right way of thinking about God, and I would suggest you're in thye realm of the 'ten thousand' ... as the Buddhist would say, it leads to a 'thicket of views' which leads to suffering ...

 

[Thomas]

So God can be BOTH not merely pure potential AND pure potential (until I can reclaim my own positive potential that previously exceeded my wildest dreams). By grace God helps me become the person I could only dream about becoming. It is very important to not get in the way of this projection and reclaiming process. It is as natural as our hearts beating.

OK ... let's take this slowly.

If one speaks of God as Pure Potential, then that suggests the possibility of God potentially being more than God actually is ... which is illogical, unless God is in some way finite and conditional ...

If one says we have the potential to be more than we are, then I would say yes. Further I'd say once we reach the limit of our human capacity to be, there exists potentially the possibility of being more, of transcending our own nature, which we cannot do under our own steam, but can aspire to, and be drawn into, from above – a work and gift of grace.

I'd say, based on the writings of the mystics, that detachment from the idea of self is the sure means of self-realisation.

 

[otherbrother]

I hope my warnings are more against drifting into erroneous assumptions, rather than against cataphatic affirmations per se.

And really we have to decide in what way we're talking about God.

From the standpoint of Faith, Jesus taught to think of God in terms of 'Father' (pater) and indeed as father in a more personal sense Abba) (eg Mark 14:36) – so I am not against anthropomorphising as such.

It's when we get into 'how should we think about God' that we can get into difficult terrain.


OK, and it has its place. again, it depends on context.

If you're talking from the mystical perspective, for example, 'positive projection' has its limits and should be seen as useful, up to a point, at which point one has to abandon it, and move on. Buddhism is even more adamant that such a practice is more hindrance and leads to illusion.

If one's talking about the nature of God, then one has to be doubly careful that a positive projection is not simple imputation


Quite.


Hang on, now you seem to be suggesting that a worldly way of thinking is the right way of thinking about God, and I would suggest you're in thye realm of the 'ten thousand' ... as the Buddhist would say, it leads to a 'thicket of views' which leads to suffering ...

Perhaps a positive projection of open mindedness onto God would help prevent the real problem of conflating a tree with the forest? In other words, follow Socrates’ advice to know that we don’t know. Not definitely at least when it comes to The Good Unknown. But still be empowered to take our best shot at the truth.

Also, keep a keen eye on the “ball” of functioning, how does my version of truth function in my life? Does it, as Jesus said, “bear good fruit?”

Loosened grip on our thoughts and functional assessments together may prevent the conflation of part mind to whole mind.

 

[Thomas]

Perhaps a positive projection of open mindedness onto God ...

LOL, I think that's what apophatism is!

The Hindu has 'neti-neti', meaning "not this, not that" or "neither this, nor that" (the thicket of ten thousand things)

 

[otherbrother]

LOL, I think that's what apophatism is!

The Hindu has 'neti-neti', meaning "not this, not that" or "neither this, nor that" (the thicket of ten thousand things)

Wow! We seem to be seeing eye to eye on this! Doesn’t always happen! But I like a few good curve balls anyway.
I associate “whole mind” with God. Even my own measly mind can’t quite be comprehended because I am always distracted by the part-mind activity called “thoughts.”