Jesus Christ, what's the real story?

[lunamoth]

Nice post, flow.

luna

[nimesh0775]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Agreed, up until the point where you say that we cannot be on the same level of Jesus' devotion. Nor is the emphasis on serving a servant necessary. The result is unneeded separation from our Heavenly Father. Christ did not preach this.

My point is that if one ever comes to the level of Jesus' devotion, then it will be BECAUSE he has no other desire but to serve God. The most elevated devotee may have the same level of devotion as Christ, but he will never consider himself as great as Christ, and he will consider all progress that he makes simply the mercy of God and His devotees. It is a dangerous pitfall to think that we can directly serve God without serving His devotees. It goes hand in hand because serving God requires pleasing Him to the highest degree and He is most pleased when we please His devotees.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Consider, nimesh, that humily is not the same as servility. To confuse these two, is to be in error. As I say, I agree with what you started out to say - but not with where you end up. Christ gives us the insight we need in saying, "The Son of Man comes not to be served, by to serve." Further, I think that what is actually most pleasing to Jesus, is not quite what you suggest ... although this type of cooperation is an absolute prerequisite for what I'm about to say: Not simply that fellow devotees might serve one another, but that all of God's children might be ministered to - THIS is most pleasing to Christ. For remember:

"I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. " (Luke 6:28-32)

I would humbly refer any Christian, or Biblical scholar, who has overlooked this last passage, emphasized in BLUE, to consider or reconsider - that the Lord our God is a LOVING God. Christ has asked us here to do something very difficult, yes, but not impossible. Otherwise, he would not have asked it. I would also refer anyone with Buddhist connections to enquire about, or revisit, the Perfection of the Paramitas. For this is precisely what is being asked of us. And again, it is not easy.

"The Son of Man (i.e. Jesus) comes not to be served but to serve". In other words this is the mentality of a pure devotee. He comes not to be served or to be praised or honoured, but to serve everyone by helping them become free from material entanglement. We should serve even our enemies by trying to give them love of God. However, we shouldn't kid ourselves about the level we are at. If we are weak, and we think we can go and help all our "enemies" then we may actually end up being badly influenced by their association and end up committing sinful acts again. That is why we must have discrimination to associate with and serve the devotees in order to get that empowerment so that we will be able to influence those who are inimical without us being adversely affected. Consider this, if someone is inimical to the devotees, the most mercy we can show them is to avoid them so as to avoid them causing more offence. To those who are innocent, we can try and guide them. And we should try and maximise association with those who are actually serving God.

Originally Posted by taijasi

But to say, "we cannot do these perfect things as did Christ Jesus" is to miss the point entirely. Yes, we CAN do them. Christians may approach this from a different angle as Buddhists, or with a different set of assumptions as Hindus, but the reality is the same. Jesus taught his disciples how to cast out spirits (`elementals' in the most oft-cited Biblical passage), and how to heal the sick (where physical infirmity is rarely the actual source of ill, thus he taught them of the CAUSE of illness, and the much more challenging task of treating this cause, and not just the symptoms).

I would say Jesus' teachings go deeper than just healing the sick. If we really want to give the highest benefit to people then we should seek to be empowered by Jesus to do the highest welfare, which is to give love of God. Healing the sick is a temporary benefit, because this body is temporary - but to give love of God brings eternal benefit. Of course, healing is possible, but our concentration should be on bringing deeper, more lasting benefits. After all the root cause of all unhappiness is the fact that people have not realised love for God - so we must treat any illness at the root.

Originally Posted by taijasi

He taught them not simply how to repeat blindly and mechanistically something chanted, or words uttered - he taught them science!!!

Originally Posted by taijasi

What he taught them is a Sacred Science, so termed because it ALWAYS dealt with underlying causes, and not with surface appearances. And yes, having FAITH that the Sacred Science will "work" is indeed important. It is important in the same way that having FAITH in gravity is important if you see a large rock falling out of the sky - headed swiftly for your head! Let me ask you - are you going to fall to your knees and pray god that you are "delivered?" Or are you going to MOVE??? .

Yes, I didn't say we should not make effort. I meant we should make effort because it attracts mercy. Not that it guarantees mercy. We show our devotion to God by making the best effort possible - and the rest is carried by the Lord and His devotees. That is why Jesus said God's grace is higher than God's justice.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Sacred Science (call it by any name you will) is not different than physics in that it has to do with Cause and Effect. Jesus did not simply teach his disciples TO pray, he taught them how, and he taught them WHY it is effective. He explained things to them. And yes, sometimes their questioning must have driven him nuts! So he did not always answer them in quite they way they might have wished. Sometimes, he answered their question with another question, or gave them a koan - and always the end result was that they learned much, much more that way than if he had simply given a snappy comeback.

It is cause and effect, but we must understand God is not our servant that there is some mechanical process that He is bound to give us the result. He is always independent and hence we should always understand that effort and prayer are both simultaneously necessary. We could make a lot of effort but think that "we are the doers" and then become a victim of pride. Similarly we could just pray all the time and become victims of laziness. Therefore both are necessary to ensure we don't become lazy or proud.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Again, I think this goes against everything that Christ Himself taught. Of course we will be able to emulate him. Just remember to forgive yourself when, even after a lifetime, you are still - not yet perfect. He didn't say it was always easy.

If you ever emulate him it will only be by God's mercy and Jesus' mercy (attracted by the effort you make). And one who truly emulates Jesus will never think himself to be on the same level as him.

Originally Posted by taijasi

Careful how high we build this pedestal. Jesus asked neither for worship, nor for vain and idle flatteries. He DID ask, however, that we emulate Him.

Of course Jesus didn't ask for worship - a pure devotee of the Lord only wants people to worship God, he doesn't want any praise. However, God is pleased when we serve His servants (His children) - Jesus does say this, the Bible says this. So in order to please Jesus we should worship God and in order to please God we should offer respect to and worship pure devotees (like Jesus, Muhammed, Moses)

Originally Posted by taijasi

There are any number of fellow Masters of the Wisdom (or Lords of Compassion, as was Master Jesus), in addition to their trained Disciples (many of them High Initiates) who can and do, heal as did Christ Jesus, every single day. To witness this directly should be evidence enough ... though certainly, not for one who really doesn't want to believe, for to such a person, not Christ Himself could convince him otherwise (as has already been pointed out).

Yes, compassion. Jesus showed his potency by healing the sick, but his real compassion was to give people love for God. We shouldn't cheapen Jesus's powers to just healing some sick people, but rather seek to give the highest welfare - eternal love for God.

[nimesh0775]

Originally Posted by flowperson

"Reasonable faith" sounds too much like a term in some sort of contract for me. I'm more comfortable with "belief".

It is not a contract. I'm simply indicating the danger of considering it just belief. People have done some pretty disgusting things based on what they believe. Why? Because their belief is not reasonable - it is blind faith. So belief is not very comfortable if it leads to such fanaticism - after all, we all use our discretion and discrimination in order to understand truth from illusion - I am simply trying to point to that need which is somewhat ignored in "belief".

Originally Posted by flowperson

This is not because a certain "authoritative knowledge" made a "reasonable faith" possible over this period of time. As we all know knowledge formation and transmission is a dynamic thing, and is changing faster and more significantly with each day that passes. But it is because a series of stories, from several knowledgeable authors who existed 1,900 to 1,700 years ago coincided in their visions of what this man said and did several dozens and even hundreds of years before they existed, that Jesus' spirit has been able to defeat the boundaries of time and space and inform us of His visions of eternity. The stories effectively engage our emotions AND our intellects. That is what effective mythology does for civilizations in forming core belief systems.

Reasonable faith is dynamic, but not to say that it changes ad hoc. It adapts, but the core principles stay the same. For example, I am limited, therefore I have to accept an authority. Now the best authority is one that is passed down from a perfect source (God). That is what I mean by reasonable faith - that we accept the authority that claims to be from the perfect source - and at the same time we use our intellect and discretion to understand whether it makes sense or not - again, i'm just alluding to the danger of accepting something blindly.

Originally Posted by flowperson

Long statement short, "reasonable faith" that comes from "authoritative knowledge" is by its nature fixed in time, bound to be undermined, and certain to become more and more meaningless over the relentless forward flow of time and events.

Yes, but we are not perfect, so we need a process by which we come to gain more knowledge, without risking blind faith. That is why I said 'reasonable faith'. Of course this is not eternal. When one's eternal nature is fully revived, it is no longer reasonable faith but actual truth.

Originally Posted by flowperson

The "truth" of what Jesus was as a man is lost to us forever, except for what we choose to believe of the stories written about His life and death. But his spirit is always available to us through prayer, meditations, word offerings, thoughts that we sacrifice to the timeless "way", which all have the capability to unite us with His meaning from time to time if we are truly fortunate.

I agree .

[taijasi]

Nimesh,

Relevant to your most recent replies to all my clever caveats ... I think you make valid, valuable points. Thank you for taking the time to respond, and also for the spirit in which you did so. This brings a greater measure of Wisdom to my seeming objections, and shows me that we're on the same page after all! I get the feeling you've been here before ...

Namaskara,

taijasi

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by nimesh0775

It is not a contract. I'm simply indicating the danger of considering it just belief. People have done some pretty disgusting things based on what they believe. Why? Because their belief is not reasonable - it is blind faith. So belief is not very comfortable if it leads to such fanaticism - after all, we all use our discretion and discrimination in order to understand truth from illusion - I am simply trying to point to that need which is somewhat ignored in "belief".



Reasonable faith is dynamic, but not to say that it changes ad hoc. It adapts, but the core principles stay the same. For example, I am limited, therefore I have to accept an authority. Now the best authority is one that is passed down from a perfect source (God). That is what I mean by reasonable faith - that we accept the authority that claims to be from the perfect source - and at the same time we use our intellect and discretion to understand whether it makes sense or not - again, i'm just alluding to the danger of accepting something blindly.



Yes, but we are not perfect, so we need a process by which we come to gain more knowledge, without risking blind faith. That is why I said 'reasonable faith'. Of course this is not eternal. When one's eternal nature is fully revived, it is no longer reasonable faith but actual truth.



I agree .

You and Flow make good points. I would say that faith is the same as trust, not mere consent to an intellectual propostion. And as Paul says, "If I have faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

There is even a kind of "as if," creative element in faith. That is, I don't know for sure, yet am willing to act as though certain things are true. And then, in a limited sense, I make them true.

Flannery O'Connor's story "The River" is a beautiful example of faith in action.

[flowperson]

Luna, nimesh, jeannot:

Trust Rules ! Thanks for your responses . I'm still a believer, not a fanatic.

flow....

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by nimesh0775

1. Where does Jesus say "I am THE God"? - he never says that at all - he identifies himself as the Son of God.
2. How did you go from "I am who am" to "I am God" ? This is what I mean - it is not specific, you have made an inference and pretend it to be "Truth". What "I am who am" means is open to interpretation because it is not clear cut what Jesus is saying there - so it would be dangerous to claim Jesus is saying something beyond doubt when there is no evidence for it. There are other more reasonable and direct ways of understanding Jesus' statement "I am who am" - but it depends on whether those who read Jesus' teachings are open to the possibility that Jesus might not after all be God and may be a very dear Son of God, as he CLEARLY SPECIFICALLY says all the time.

Thanks for your above post.
I advance the argument put forward by you viz-a- viz if Jesus is literal God or Son of God?
Now, since this is a very basic concept of faith of Christianity, it could not be taken casually or lightly or with ambiguity. If Jesus would have claimed to be God, why should he hesitate to pronounce it in so many words or what made him to hesitate, why was he afraid of the Jews, why would he need that say Paul or John or anybody else to put words into his (Jesus’) mouth after his passing away. Why could Jesus not do it himself? Was he God with deficiency or with defects? First of all God never dies, if God could die temporarily, then he could have died forever, that is more likely? If the universe could do without a God less for a while, then perhaps it could do without that forever.
Now, I quote verses 3:13-18 from Exodus from the Jewish Bible:
3:13 Moses said to God, 'So I will go to the Israelites and say, 'Your fathers' God sent me to you.' They will immediately ask me what His name is. What shall I say to them?'
3:14'I Will Be Who I Will Be,’ replied God to Moses.
[God then] explained, 'This is what you must say to the Israelites: 'I Will Be sent me to you.' '
3:15 God then said to Moses, 'You must [then] say to the Israelites, ‘YHVH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, sent me to you.' This is My eternalname, and this is how I am to be recalled for all generations.
3:16 'Go, gather the eldersof Israel, and say to them, 'YHVH, the God of your fathers, appeared to me - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He said, 'I have granted you specialprovidence regarding what is happening to you in Egypt.
3:17 I declare that I will bring you out of the wretchedness of Egypt, to the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Yebusites - to a land flowing with milk and honey.' '
3:18 'They will take what you say seriously. You and the elders of Israel will then go to the king of Egypt. You must tell him, 'YHVH, God of the Hebrews, revealed Himself to us. Now we request that you allow us to take a threedayjourney into the desert, to sacrifice to YHVH our God.' Unquote
In Exodus verse 3:14 the name 'I Will Be Who I Will Be,’ has been used. which has not been repeated in the next some verses where instead the eternal name of God YHVH has been mentioned, in any case name Jesus has neither been mentioned here nor referred to there.

Now we take up John 8:52-58
52 At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"
54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.” Unquote
Here I would mention that reference and context is very essential to understand a verse. Please refer to the previous chapter and the next chapter and that would solve the issue.
John 7 (New International Version)
40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, Surely this man is the Prophet.
41 Others said, He is the Christ. Still others asked, How can the Christ come from Galilee?
42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?
43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus.
44 Some wanted to seize him, but no-one laid a hand on him.
ﺎﻨﺣﻮﻳ 7 (Arabic Life Application Bible) version mentions clearly that the people were talking about Jesus and saying that he was “the prophet” while others said he was “the Moshiach” or the Messiah or the Christ.
John 8
“42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!” Unquote
Jesus was talking in parables, as he was used to. He told the Jews since they were telling lies so to him their father was devil or they were sons of the devil likewise Jesus was son of God, as he spoke truth.
John 9

17Finally they turned again to the blind man, "What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened."
The man replied, "He is a prophet." Unquote
So, we can conclude that Jesus never gave any specific reference of Exodus here, and if at all that is only an imagination of some people. Exodus is nevertheless clear that God’s name was YHVH as per the Jewish people and Jesus himself and his mother Mary were Jews and believed in YHVH.
Similarly John Chapters 7, 8 and 9 mention Jesus as a prophet, the prophet, the Moshiach, the Messiah and the Christ.
Jesus never mentioned that he was literal God or Son of God, what he mentions is in metaphoric sense, and in that sense every believer who speaks truth is son of God.
Jesus was Man, Son of Man, Son of Adam and a Prophet for sure. This is my belief with arguments, others could believe whatever they liked, no compulsion.
I am an Ahmadi a faith in Islam.
Thanks

[Jeannot]

BTW, when God says to Moses "I am who am" or "I will be whom I will be" (either translation is correct), it COULD be a way of saying "Mind your own business."

So maybe the Jewish tradition which refers to God as "the nameless one" is right!

[flowperson]

Tracing the letters in the name of the nameless one in a Strong's Concordance yields (for me) a meaning for YHVH of "look, hook, desire, hook".

It fits with the Sumerian/Babylonian imagery of the Oannes/ the fishmen gods of their antiquity as the most powerful of their creator gods. The OT word dictionary in Strong's is of the Chaldean language, not Hebrew,
which was the language used in ancient Sumer/Babylon and a/the precursor of Hebrew.

And, of course, the Greeks identified Jesus with the fish, which we still see on the rear ends of automobiles to this day. And how does one catch fish (disregarding the use of nets) ?

Something there I believe.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

BTW, when God says to Moses "I am who am" or "I will be whom I will be" (either translation is correct), it COULD be a way of saying "Mind your own business."

So maybe the Jewish tradition which refers to God as "the nameless one" is right!

In the Genesis story the Creator brings all the animals to Adam to name. To name something, or to know the name of something is to have control, or dominion over it. Humans can't "know" God's name. We can't have dominion over God. In the tower of Babel story the people are trying to build a tower to the heavens. God stops them short by mixing up their language. In Revelation Jesus gets a new name that only he knows.

YHVH isn't God's name, it's a working title for his workings within a certain elemental, that is to say four-square, mode. IOW, it's one of his hats.

2c
Chris

[nimesh0775]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Nimesh,

Relevant to your most recent replies to all my clever caveats ... I think you make valid, valuable points. Thank you for taking the time to respond, and also for the spirit in which you did so. This brings a greater measure of Wisdom to my seeming objections, and shows me that we're on the same page after all! I get the feeling you've been here before ...

Namaskara,

taijasi

Namaskara Taijasi,

Thank you for your kind words . If what I posted had any value, it was to the extent I simply repeated the words of the great acharya (spiritual leader), Shrila Prabhupada .

Namaskara,

Nimesh

[nimesh0775]

Originally Posted by Jeannot

You and Flow make good points. I would say that faith is the same as trust, not mere consent to an intellectual propostion. And as Paul says, "If I have faith to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."

There is even a kind of "as if," creative element in faith. That is, I don't know for sure, yet am willing to act as though certain things are true. And then, in a limited sense, I make them true.

Flannery O'Connor's story "The River" is a beautiful example of faith in action.

Yes i agree . When I accept something on faith, I don't know it's true 100%, that is why it is called faith. Faith cannot exist without some doubt. I have faith that it is 100% true, because I trust the authority. Love is a big part of it. The baby doesn't know anything, so has no choice but to trust his parents know best. Similarly, we are limited souls, so have no choice but to trust our dear Father, God.

[nimesh0775]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Luna, nimesh, jeannot:

Trust Rules ! Thanks for your responses . I'm still a believer, not a fanatic.

flow....

Hi Flow,

My intention was not to call you a fanatic! Sorry if that impression came across. I was just trying to define what we actually mean when we use the word belief.

Your aspiring servant,
Nimesh

[Jeannot]

Originally Posted by nimesh0775

Yes i agree . When I accept something on faith, I don't know it's true 100%, that is why it is called faith. Faith cannot exist without some doubt. I have faith that it is 100% true, because I trust the authority. Love is a big part of it. The baby doesn't know anything, so has no choice but to trust his parents know best. Similarly, we are limited souls, so have no choice but to trust our dear Father, God.

I like the story of the desperate father who says to Jesus, "I believe. Help my unbelief!"

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by nimesh0775

Hi Flow,

My intention was not to call you a fanatic! Sorry if that impression came across. I was just trying to define what we actually mean when we use the word belief.

Your aspiring servant,
Nimesh

Nimesh:

I must admit, I do believe that I have occasional fanatical moments; but, rest assured, I was just joking in my post.

My outlook on life these days is that it is mostly a joke, so I try to laugh with and at myself as much as possible. I find that this makes life a little easier and bearable.

Your humble, joking, compatriot....

flow....