"and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." - is how we attain
that level, through our own Christing.
Perhaps it comes down to believing, as the mystics do, that attaining
the spiritual level of Christ is possible for man, and that was
exactly the message he intended to deliver. Whether we assign the
term "Christ", or buddha or Bodhisattva, or Son of God, the esstential
idea is the same, as I see it. What we do ourselves, we do for
everyone because through the eyes of God, we are everyone.
You don't have to agree. This is my humble view.
On Jun 4, 11:22 am, Pat<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4 June, 15:28, Molly<[email protected]> wrote:
"I cannot be you. Nor can I be
anyone other than myself. These are not possible."
this is where we part ways, my friend. I contend that we ARE all
others, and ourselves, the One and the Many. Within us, we are the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost as realized in the moment through
awareness. "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto
me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest." (Matthew 11:27 - 28) Someone who has realized themselves as
individuals, and all others, "knoweth the son." The son ascended to
the father in us allows heaven on earth. There you have the heart of
the Christian mystic teaching.
Yes, but if 'No man knoweth the Son, but the Father', that is,
paraphrased for a modern reader: no man knows the Son, rather, only
the Father (knows the Son). Then no man can attain that level. The
next phrase explains the get-out clause, i.e., "save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal him". I'm hoping that you misspelt
that last word and that it should have been capitalised, i.e., "and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him", so that "Him" actually relates
to God rather than anything/anyone else. The key point of this is
that Christ himself must intervene and ALLOW the revelation. It isn't
a self-realisation according to that quote, rather, it is a mediated
event mediated by Jesus. And I'm not too sure that this quote can be
relied upon, as it smacks a bit of Pauline theology more that actual
Christian teaching (by 'Christian teaching' I mean teachings actually
taught by Jesus rather than words put into his mouth at a later date
by those with an agenda to make his words more Pauline). Could you do
a bit of research for me, please? Is there an equivalent statement in
Mark? Mark was the earliest Gospel and the one that has had the least
amount of tampering done to it. If there is no equivalent quote or if
the quote is slightly different, I would lean towards the version in
Mark as being closer to the Christian teaching.
I can agree completely that we are all linked to one another, but only
God can truly state that he is ALL of us. We DO, without doubt,
reflect one another, and that can make it seem like we are, in fact,
others, but it is no more than mistaking the reflection in the mirror
for your actual self, which I don't think you would do given a
mirror. Just as there are optical illusions, there are spiritual
illusions and, in a holographic universe, both of these can be
pitfalls for the seer (pun intended).
Still, no worries about disagreeing. I've never yet met another
individual with whom I agreed regarding everything. These differences
are the whole reasons for our individuality and define our purpose for
existence as they PROVE the fact that differences can be had/made. If
we all thought the same, there's be little purpose in having so many
people. Our differences are our strengths. ;-)
Can we live in all time consciousness and linear consciousness
simultaneously? I believe so. You may not. It's OK. I respect you
completely.
I believe we can, but not whilst incarnate. Once we have 'shuffled
off this mortal coil', then we can have access to the "all-time
consciousness" and that may well be one of the boons to heaven.
Having that possibility taken away from one may well be one of the
punishments of hell.
"We do, though, have a
certain amount of time to think about how we react TO those
realisations and/or feelings and it is our duty to one another to
take
that time and do just that."
Interesting, and what some, I suppose would feel to be choice. "Come
onto me" would be the first step.
Well, yes. Jesus' philosophy was, if taken and lived by, a way of
becoming at peace with the world and accepting one's role in it. To
"Come unto me" would be the first step for a Christian. It may take
other forms for those of other faiths. For Jews, it would be "To love
God with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy might" and
for Muslims it is to understand without doubt, that "there is no God
worthy of worship but God/Allah". Note that both the other Abrahamic
faiths require no mediator/intercessor as is implied in the quote you
quoted. However, In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus implores everyone to
state "Thy will be done". Note how this does not allow for free will
or any will other than that of God. and that everyone addresses God,
through that prayer, as "Our Father, which art in heaven...". There
is no intercessor implied in the Lord's Prayer and I believe that this
role of intercessor is another Pauline doctrine that was not a valid
Christian teaching. We all have a one-to-One relationship with God
and the Lord's Prayer is a testament to that in amongst many quotes
that lead us to believe otherwise.
But, please, do me that favour and see if there is a similar quote in
Mark, as I strongly suspect there isn't (and I don't have time to
look, myself, at the moment but I WILL look as soon as I get home).
And, please note that it takes a lot of work to separate Jesus' real
quotes from those that were added later. The main thing to look for
is whether or not they line up with Pauline doctrine or not. If they
DO, then they are suspect. Jesus was a Jew and would have, therefore,
believed that each of us has a one-to-One relationship with God, as
that is a basic tenet of Judaism. Anything that makes Jesus 'special'
and, in some way, God-like, is probably incorrect. Remember Jesus'
words in Gethsemene: Not my will but Thine be done. It was his
resoluteness in this belief that it was 'The will of God' that is/was
enacted and the one-to-One relationship that marks his mission not any
'special relationship' that he held. THAT is Pauline doctrine.
On Jun 4, 7:39 am, Pat<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4 June, 09:21, Molly<[email protected]> wrote:
your sneer is showing. I will leave what Pat knows and doesn't up to
Pat. But will say, like relative and absolute, One and Many, choice
is a matter of state and stage of being. Ultimately, as we have
realized the One within our individuality, our choices are the choices
of the One, our self will becomes Divine Will. Yet, the choice to
realize the One, to move toward, with or against others, to use
hateful words or compassionate words, to make the move to understand
or not, are all the relative choices that allow us to realize
ourselves as One in Many. The paradox of it, is that we have choice
and non choice and ultimately, they are the same because when we have
realized infinite possibility, we have made all choices and so no
choices. How many people do you know that have realized infinite
possibility (Christ consciousness)? Anyone capable of moving against
another person, has not. This realization, like all others, requires
a change in viewpoint (that is a choice) that precludes such action.
Those 'choices' are illusory and depend on our inability to know the
future like we do the past. We have access to the past through memory
but have no such facility with respect to the future. Einstein put it
best when he said that 'Free will is not compatible with space-time'
and it's really as simple as that. The space-time continuum holds ALL
events: those of our past, any present and all of the future. The
appearance of free will comes about because we have no access to the
future but DO, in the present, have the ability to perceive possible
'next moves'; however, we can only ever perform one of those
possibilities and it is the one act we perform that is the act that
was, forever, contained in the continuum.
Put mathematically: There is an event, X, that is a possible future
event and there is an event, Y, that is a possible future event. We
shall refer to the ACTUAL event as 'A'.
Reality, in a space-time continuum, allows for either:
A=X
or
A=Y
But, if free will exists, the equation would read: A= (X or Y)
But, we can never perform (X or Y), rather, we can either perform X,
or we can perform Y. It's a subtle difference but one with a HUGE
impact. I hope the parentheses helps.
What you say regarding responsibility FOR our actions is correct. We
are. for the very same reason that we have no choice, that is,
because we have no access to the future. Having that veil preventing
us from knowing the truth of future events means that we only have our
past information to
...
read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
