Did Christ Say Be Ye Transformed?

[otherbrother]

If so, how can that jive with the theology of substitutional atonement in which it is believed he and his Father took away our enslavement to sin?
Wouldn’t Christ have said “Let me transform you?” if the standard ransom payment thing were true?
Seems fair to say instead that he showed us spiritual growth examples and tools that we have to emulate and use in order to outgrow our brokenness (our enslavement to sin) and move towards wholeness. This might be termed “transformational atonement?”

 

[otherbrother]

Also suggests Christ thought we had it in us to be transformed, to grow spiritually—the potential is there. While we all sin, it doesn’t define who we are. Perhaps Christ would agree with Wayne Dyer’s premise that we are spiritual beings in a human form? Seems that way to me.

 

[otherbrother]

In the Trinity thread. Thomas equates the Son with Logos. Logos, the Word, seems in line with philosophical Idealism that posits ultimate reality to be more like mind than anything else we can conceive. Stand alone thoughts come out of a mind in general. Mind is within or behind the particular thoughts. Perhaps overall reality is formatted similarly? A Universal Mind thinks “thoughts” that act as skeletons upon which “meat” attaches (mass). Thomas’s “Logos” would be the thoughts/skeletons. Christ represents the wholeness of a human being, the so-called soul, that can only exist as a particular thing just behind/within the meat/flesh. It is Mind Itself’s (not my mind or your mind, but mind independent of selves—another way of saying Universal Mind) way of manifesting into the physical realm. The hypothesized (and supposedly proven) “Higgs Boson particle” transforms frequency/laden energy into mass. This seems a corollary of Logos/Son/Soul. Analogous to those concepts.
During some of my distance runs, I developed a sene of three foci that helped me attitude-wise (and perhaps psychosomatically) with my running: Deep, Flow, and Being. I eventually noticed a similarity to Father, Holy Spirit, and Son. Had I empirically discovered the Trinity? At least another not too unreasonable of a way to look at it.
Being requires a something behind it (mind’s eye? Soul?) to experience intentional being and being as a whole. Something behind/within (and/or just beyond it?) the being (noun form) seems required to observe and regard beingness. An I behind the me?
This may well be the Christ function, source of “anointing”. The formatted energy or Logos interfaces out to physical reality and in to spiritual reality. Then, perhaps, spiritual reality interfaces with Mind Itself? If there is such a thing as an individual spirit distinct from a soul, perhaps it is a conduit, pipe, to enact flow of subtle energy?
Imagine being able to have mental activity of some sort from the point/level of the Higgs Boson particle. It would seem to be a spiritual perspective of being. And that type of consciousness would likely increase the quantum coherence (wave-richness) of the physical being. Anointing it. Making it Christlike.
This behind being skill would greatly assist spiritual growth, “transformation.” It may be the metaphysical means by which we utilize “transformative atonement,” heal our brokenness.

 

[wil]

These things and greater ...

 

[otherbrother]

While it seems true that we did not create ourselves, the created self is not merely a static noun, it is a working verb in progress. Assuming that the human mind can choose to see and approach (work with) being as a verb, it can largely determine the specific characteristics that develop in the being as a noun (in the “self”). For want of a better term, I call this “intentional being.” Right in line with the concept of “self actualization” (Was that Maslow’s? Or Erickson’s?).
Jesus Christ’s advice to embrace personal transformation certainly implies a belief in intentional being and/or self actualization.

Here’s a playful version of the advice. I posted a video showing a beer bottle (and at one point pouring its contents into a glass) on YouTube and TikTok:

Be a Beer!


Originally, I was going to say “No, not a beer, a be-er—meaning a person who is intentional about the quality of her or his being. We are so busy doing, that we often ignore the state of our being. We rumble along like a car missing a cylinder or two.

But my sideways-slipping mind decided that the regular meaning of “beer” works too! Why not go with it. Imagine your life is like a hot summer day that leaves you all sweaty and tired while pounding in fence post on the back forty. Break time at last. Out comes an ice cold beer. It tastes and feels like the best beer you’ve ever had. Now imagine that YOU are that wonderful beer.

I know it’s just tricking your mind. But not a bad way to intentionally improve your state of being.

Perhaps we all need a go-to gimmick like that to get all our cylinders firing , to feel more vibrant and alive, even while struggling and straining and feeling beat down in life.

Your go-to memory could be a special moment with grandma or grandpa (or MY special moments with my grandkids!).

Have it ready in advance to pull out of your toolbox of intentional high quality being.

 

[otherbrother]

These things and greater ...

Certainly more and greater than my meager individual mind can conceive, but comforting to think that God, Mind Itself, informs (puts some of the form into) my highly speculative thought.

 

[Thomas]

In the Trinity thread. Thomas equates the Son with Logos. Logos, the Word, seems in line with philosophical Idealism that posits ultimate reality to be more like mind than anything else we can conceive.

Certainly one can regard Christian Neoplatonism as sharing some concepts, but you'd have to nail down which school of philosophical idealism you're taking as a reference.

Thomas’s “Logos” would be the thoughts/skeletons.

No, prior to that. Thoughts, Plato's 'Ideas', are the logoi.

Christ represents the wholeness of a human being ...

More than that, as Christ represents the unity of Divine and human.

Moreover, Christ represents the wholeness of a cosmos ...

... the so-called soul, that can only exist as a particular thing just behind/within the meat/flesh.

Again, this does not adequately describe the relation of body to soul in Abrahamic terms: there is soul (psyche), there is body (soma) and there is flesh (sarx) ...

It is Mind Itself’s (not my mind or your mind, but mind independent of selves—another way of saying Universal Mind) way of manifesting into the physical realm.

Well that's an idealism, but it's not Logos.

During some of my distance runs, I developed a sene of three foci that helped me attitude-wise (and perhaps psychosomatically) with my running: Deep, Flow, and Being. I eventually noticed a similarity to Father, Holy Spirit, and Son. Had I empirically discovered the Trinity?

Not the Trinity ... a triune, yes.

At least another not too unreasonable of a way to look at it.

As said, as long as we remember it's an analogy, it's not 'it'.

Being requires a something behind it (mind’s eye? Soul?) to experience intentional being and being as a whole. Something behind/within (and/or just beyond it?) the being (noun form) seems required to observe and regard beingness. An I behind the me?

Here you get into infinite regress. Does being require something behind it? it depends how one defines being.

I'm guessing you define being as subsequent to mind?

I define mind as subsequent to being. For me, mind it a way of being.

And then we have 'beyond-being' ...

 

[otherbrother]

These things and greater ...

This, that you said on the Trinity thread seems very aligned with my concepts here. We seem to be on the same, or at least similar, “page.” LightWithin’s views also seem to be on the same (or similar) page.
I think I share with Lightwithin what I call a “Supra-natural” emphasis when it comes to God and religion.
I really liked your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd cause discussion. Seems aligned with (Veda/Vedic?)
concepts of Causal Body, Subtle Body and Gross Body. Would Causal Body be First Cause? Subtle Body Second Cause (all mental activity that forms into discrete units, “thoughts”?) ? And Third Cause be Gross Body?
Thomas’ matching of Christ to Logos would fit in with your Second Cause. But his physical incarnation would be Third Cause?
And perhaps we agree that The Anointed One manage to integrate Second and Third causes in a self actualizing sort of way? And in his integration of individual mind with physical creation, was Mind Itself allowed to be sensed (or even physically channeled?) as though shining through Third Creation (“I and the Father are one.”)?
All speculative food for thought.

 

[otherbrother]

Certainly one can regard Christian Neoplatonism as sharing some concepts, but you'd have to nail down which school of philosophical idealism you're taking as a reference.


No, prior to that. Thoughts, Plato's 'Ideas', are the logoi.


More than that, as Christ represents the unity of Divine and human.

Moreover, Christ represents the wholeness of a cosmos ...


Again, this does not adequately describe the relation of body to soul in Abrahamic terms: there is soul (psyche), there is body (soma) and there is flesh (sarx) ...


Well that's an idealism, but it's not Logos.


Not the Trinity ... a triune, yes.


As said, as long as we remember it's an analogy, it's not 'it'.


Here you get into infinite regress. Does being require something behind it? it depends how one defines being.

I'm guessing you define being as subsequent to mind?

I define mind as subsequent to being. For me, mind it a way of being.

And then we have 'beyond-being' ...

Thomas,
As usual, you do a great job pushing me to the limits of my rational deliberation! That’s why I give it a thumbs up. My tendency to think poetically does seem to frequently blur the line between analogy and a more objective or logically consistent kind of truth. I’ll do the best I can to understand your points, but don’t hold your breath. Whether I can be that precise/clear or not, I feel blessed to share thoughts/minds with you and others on this forum.
Christ in,
Darrell

 

[Thomas]

I rathert think you miss Paul's point – the whole verse reads:

"And be not conformed to this world (Gk: 'aion'): but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind ... " (Romans 12:2)

It seems to me you're assuming that this process of transformation will conform to the world – that it can be explained or interpreted via the world, by the mechanics of the science of the day, whereas I'd suggest the key here is the term 'transform' (Gk: μεταμορφόω (metamorphoō)" which means 'changed' or more significantly, in Biblical terms, 'transfigured' ...

 

[Thomas]

Jesus Christ’s advice to embrace personal transformation certainly implies a belief in intentional being and/or self actualization.

Not quite, though, as it is not done via the self, but in union with the source-of-self ...

 

[otherbrother]

More than that, as Christ represents the unity of Divine and human.

Moreover, Christ represents the wholeness of a cosmos ...

I guess I see “wholeness” as also representing Divine and human. To me there can be no wholeness of being without the Ground of Being (Paul Tillich’s reference to God).
And because I see wholeness as having Divinity baked into it (or as Divinity eclipsing it?) , your second point makes perfect sense to me.
You don’t believe we all inherited a “Christ Function?” I believe Christ was showing us how to begin to do (transform self into a spiritual being that allows the Divine to shine through) what he was doing (and, therefore, BEING). He was showing us what I call intentional being

 

[otherbrother]

I rathert think you miss Paul's point – the whole verse reads:

"And be not conformed to this world (Gk: 'aion'): but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind ... " (Romans 12:2)

It seems to me you're assuming that this process of transformation will conform to the world – that it can be explained or interpreted via the world, by the mechanics of the science of the day, whereas I'd suggest the key here is the term 'transform' (Gk: μεταμορφόω (metamorphoō)" which means 'changed' or more significantly, in Biblical terms, 'transfigured' ...

So Christ did not say “Be Ye Transformed?” It was gleaned from what Paul was saying when referring to Christ? Thanks for clarifying

 

[Thomas]

If so, how can that jive with the theology of substitutional atonement in which it is believed he and his Father took away our enslavement to sin?

Atonement is such a complex word ... the original English is a contraction of at-one-ment, and speaks of unity, reconciliation, and so on ...

I don't buy the substitutional theology, personally...

 

[otherbrother]

I rathert think you miss Paul's point – the whole verse reads:

"And be not conformed to this world (Gk: 'aion'): but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind ... " (Romans 12:2)

It seems to me you're assuming that this process of transformation will conform to the world – that it can be explained or interpreted via the world, by the mechanics of the science of the day, whereas I'd suggest the key here is the term 'transform' (Gk: μεταμορφόω (metamorphoō)" which means 'changed' or more significantly, in Biblical terms, 'transfigured' ...

Wow! This thread would have been much shorter if someone had merely said “No, Christ did NOT say that!
But was he THINKING It?!!! Was Paul suggesting that Jesus would want us to grow spiritually by learning about the Great Spirit?
Copied this from internet search:

Paul tells us to abandon the chase for pleasure, possessions, and status—to stop living like everyone else. Instead, he urges us to be transformed from the inside out. Specifically, he writes that we must be changed in how we think, to have our minds renewed so that we can begin to understand God's will for our lives.

 

[otherbrother]

Atonement is such a complex word ... the original English is a contraction of at-one-ment, and speaks of unity, reconciliation, and so on ...

I don't buy the substitutional theology, personally...

At least that’s one thing we agree on!!!!

 

[otherbrother]

Wow! This thread would have been much shorter if someone had merely said “No, Christ did NOT say that!
But was he THINKING It?!!! Was Paul suggesting that Jesus would want us to grow spiritually by learning about the Great Spirit?
Copied this from internet search:

Paul tells us to abandon the chase for pleasure, possessions, and status—to stop living like everyone else. Instead, he urges us to be transformed from the inside out. Specifically, he writes that we must be changed in how we think, to have our minds renewed so that we can begin to understand God's will for our lives.

The belief in an inside out process of learning to do God’s will IS in line with the notion that Christ himself well COULD have said “Be ye transformed.” Do you think Christ believed we have it in us to change and grow by intentionally changing the way we think? If, so, I had the spirit of the law right

 

[Thomas]

I guess I see “wholeness” as also representing Divine and human. To me there can be no wholeness of being without the Ground of Being (Paul Tillich’s reference to God).

OK, but Tillich understood God as transcending the Ground of Being' or as 'God above God' – what we woul;d call 'Beyond-being'.

And because I see wholeness as having Divinity baked into it (or as Divinity eclipsing it?) ,

It depends whether you see yourself as whole, right here, right now ...

You don’t believe we all inherited a “Christ Function?” I believe Christ was showing us how to begin to do (transform self into a spiritual being that allows the Divine to shine through) what he was doing (and, therefore, BEING). He was showing us what I call intentional being

Well, yes, by repentance and turning towards God. He also said quite emphatically "apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, other than I don't agree we can 'do it ourselves' (the whole thrust of spiritualities asserts that), or that spiritual growth is a mechanical process ... it simply isn't the same order of thing. It's not quite like photosynthesis.

One might say "It is us, but we are not it" – 'in Him we live and move and have our being', but that being could be so much more ...

 

[Thomas]

So Christ did not say “Be Ye Transformed?” It was gleaned from what Paul was saying when referring to Christ? Thanks for clarifying

He did say that, but be transformed by Him, not by us ... our job is to clear the decks.

 

[Thomas]

The belief in an inside out process of learning to do God’s will IS in line with the notion that Christ himself well COULD have said “Be ye transformed.” Do you think Christ believed we have it in us to change and grow by intentionally changing the way we think? If, so, I had the spirit of the law right

We have it in ourselves to change and grow according to the limits of our nature ... but, Christ and St Paul is talking about a change and growth beyond our nature ...