Jesus Christ, what's the real story?

[wil]

Allow me to cite the Common and Angelic Doctor but, please do not make the immediate assumption that Aquinas is neither as clever nor as illumined as you ... you'll just make an ass of yourself

I find Aquinas quite lacking in that quote....but more than that your statement above I find interesting...

Your education facilitates your often putting your finger on quotes from those gone by such as this. You indicate that TA was clever and illumined....more clever and illumined than others...

I wonder what order you'd put all your ancient teachers and quotables....as to the heirarchy of clever and illumined they are and who would be making an ass out of whom based on this?

I think you'd find that many have made good points as well as lacking ones...and that many more than they have had their 'clever and illumined' moments. I'd rather actually discard both of those words...as clever to me is more coniving rather than enlightening and illumined indicates more than a moment but a permanent state.

I think we all have moments of clarity, moments of connection, and as discussed on numerous times lack the ability to translate that into something meaningful for others...or all.

If ANYONE had EVER done this ....translated their connection to something meaning for all.....then we would not have all these religions or denominations or this discussion forum now then would we...

(I do so like the title to this thread... is it asking Jesus a question, Stating the name of the figure and asking the question...or throwing one's hands up in frustration, screaming a common Christian epithet and then asking a question....me I chuckle at them all interchangeably)

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Oh dear. Sadly, AdvaitaZen, I don't think so.

Allow me to cite the Common and Angelic Doctor but, please do not make the immediate assumption that Aquinas is neither as clever nor as illumined as you ... you'll just make an ass of yourself.

The problem such men have faced is the necessity to stay within the confines of their systems. Catholicism had enough power to behead any threat they saw at various times in history, but luckily I am not confined in such ways.

Nothing about the divine is the divine, so knowledge is not useful.

The point, it seems to me, is that you want to contend with me about the nature and meaning of Christian doctrine, and yet it is evident that your understanding of the doctrine is founded on a number of erroneous assumptions.

The problem is only your clinging to Christian doctrine.

It is creating a division, I am not Christian, neither was Christ. I am not interested in doctrine, I am interested in the state which is often called inspiration, the knowing in Jesus which has caused what is displayed in the scripture.

I tell you that is available to all, yet you quote nonsense at me each time I say it.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Every religion is only a stating of a particular individuals experience.

We decide by their wording that they do not agree on what they are saying, so we fight. Yet each has simply gone on trying to show the same state each has found. Our only grounds for deciding which is most true is our own decision, yet we cling to that.

Dropping identification, there is a possibility of meeting.

Every post I've made since I joined this site is about dropping identifications, how can oneness, unity be found through such boundaries?

It is only the mind, ego which divides, the ego also masks the divine.

I only show you this so you can lift it, which is the meaning of apocalypse.

To lift the veil.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Of course, no one can force this, only you can remove your veil.

I can only cause you to see it more clearly, which your recent tone shows, your ego is seeking protection from me.

Just look at it.

You must hate... even your own life... else you cannot be my disciple.

You must reject all thoughts of possession, all thoughts of identity, all thoughts which feed your notions of separation. When you are no more there, only God is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For Christians, this relationship is 'more real' and more intimate than any relationship between any two consitituent elements of the Cosmos.

In what special way? There are non-dualists, for whom there is only one constituent of the cosmos.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

In what special way? There are non-dualists, for whom there is only one constituent of the cosmos.

And God is only a particular name for that single constituent.

Certainly it is not in the word, but words have to be used. Better to use words people are familiar with so that your expression is understood more easily.

To say "I am God", "Ahem Brahmasmi", it is only to say "I am not other than the one".

All that is necessary is to see it is only illusion that causes notions of separation, and all schools, belief systems, religions are only a particular way of trying to cut through that illusion.

The ego is a particular name for the collective feeling of separateness, another is atman or soul in relation to Brahman and Spirit respectively. Buddha simply says there is no true self, and points instead to Dharmakaya or our Truth Body which is not distinct from anything else. Again, since all is ultimately empty Buddha confirms no actual differences in reality. His emptiness is Brahman, it is the mystery of the trinity in Christianity, it is Tawhid in Islam, it is the whole point of religion itself, to see you are not what you think you are, you are the thinker of that. Seeing you are ever the whole, the One, fear of death does not arise - fear itself is the result of beleiving we are this form and mind, which we know will cease.

All waves fall back into the ocean, we are the water thinking ourselves ice, seeking steam, but ever it is just water seeking water, nothing changes in reality, but the mind creates distinction.

 

[AdvaitaZen]

Love is the result of dropping the ideas about separateness, it is another word for oneness, for nonduality, for God, the divine.

Ordinarily, love is only felt in a directed way, for another individual, religion is really a way to love the entire existence, and all that is necessary is dropping your insistences on separateness - you were never really distinct. This is maya, the divine play - leela.

The answer to all questions is ultimately love.
Rather, the dissolution of all questioning happens in love.
No answer comes, only the asker ceases.

Yet, again, love is only a word.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I believe the historical Jesus was another apocalyptic prophet who thought the end of days was right around the corner. But the Jesus I relate to, the Jesus who matters, the "real" Jesus, is the wise and counterintuitive teacher who drove authority figures crazy.

 

[donnann]

This is in reply to a few posts on the "Barabbas" thread:




These are entirely new ideas for me and they have me intrigued. I have previously always been told that it was very well documented historical fact that about 2000 years ago there was a guy called Jesus who went around teaching and healing the sick. Before now I had no idea that anyone seriously called this into question.

So then, how factual is the Biblical account of Jesus?

I hope that people, from both sides of the argument, will explain their views.

Thanks

Jesus was clearly a divine being incarnated into the human egg. The question is who was he prior to his human incarnation? Was he Michael or God? Daniel 12 says he was Michael.

 

[OneTrueGod]

Naturally, Christ taught that we are all Sons of the Most High, He emphasized this throughout His Ministry, and He never asked for our worship. He even clearly distinguishes Himself from the `Father' when He points out that it is not Himself, but the FATHER which is "in Him" which "does these things" (heals the sick, raises the dead, etc.).

And what is the natural consequence of acknowledging this? That we must follow in Christ's own footsteps - and specifically EMULATE HIS ATTITUDES AND ACTIONS ... rather than simply singing His praises. Which is easier? And thus we see which of these has become the heart of an entire religion ... and which is the narrow way about which Christ spoke.

So again, the real story of Jesus of Nazareth is the more difficult to accept, because it IMPELS us to "be all that we CAN be," to borrow from the U.S. Army slogan. Anything else - is really not worthy of our time ... (then again, I suppose it just depends on what we wish to accomplish) ...

taijasi

It was said you shall be adopted those whom are righteous, it was not said you are Sons of the Most High, it was said to pray using the title Father which in itself is a mystery yet to be shown to mankind. It was also said that mankind would be adopted by Jesus and they would become his sons and daughters of God. If you were a Son of God you would have the attributes of God in you living selfless speaking always in kindness and understanding the mystery's that others can not, you would not be of the world and own very little having giving all away to others in need.

Some things spoken in the new testament are being spoken to those whom where present and directed to them, not necessarily the person reading it later by the book. The disciples were not same spirits as rest of world and were considered sons of God, except Judas he was considered a son of devil. Most of mankind are sons of devil being given opportunity to be adopted since their father is a wicked father whom seeks only to bring them torment.