Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is in response to the following quote by MysticPhD from the "Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3)" thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Extreme fundamentalists, like Charlie... force their belief in Christ to conform to what our ignorant ancient ancestors believed about God, instead of conforming their belief in God to what Jesus revealed and unambiguously demonstrated about God's Holy Spirit of agape love.
What I'm getting from this and from other posts of his is that Mystic views Jesus as being in stark opposition to the God presumably portrayed in the Old Testament.
I've never been able to engage Mystic on this topic, so I started a new thread.
Jesus referenced and quoted many Old Testament prophets approvingly and spoke often of judgment and hell. What specific examples do we have of a dichotomy between Christ and the OT God?
This thread is in response to the following quote by MysticPhD from the "Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3)" thread:
What I'm getting from this and from other posts of his is that Mystic views Jesus as being in stark opposition to the God presumably portrayed in the Old Testament.
I've never been able to engage Mystic on this topic, so I started a new thread.
Jesus referenced and quoted many Old Testament prophets approvingly and spoke often of judgment and hell. What specific examples do we have of a dichotomy between Christ and the OT God?
I think the basic problem is caused by an overly literal, historical reading of the Scriptures and the reaction against that which is to overly spiritualise
This was a continuing problem at the start as well, and Is the systemic problem that is created - orthodox/heretic, black/white, us/them, etc
This thread is in response to the following quote by MysticPhD from the "Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3)" thread:
What I'm getting from this and from other posts of his is that Mystic views Jesus as being in stark opposition to the God presumably portrayed in the Old Testament.
I've never been able to engage Mystic on this topic, so I started a new thread.
Jesus referenced and quoted many Old Testament prophets approvingly and spoke often of judgment and hell. What specific examples do we have of a dichotomy between Christ and the OT God?
OT on basic level 'designed' for lower type of consciousness than NT strives to achieve, good examples are in Matthew 5. like :
21“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment;"
This thread is in response to the following quote by MysticPhD from the "Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3)" thread:
What I'm getting from this and from other posts of his is that Mystic views Jesus as being in stark opposition to the God presumably portrayed in the Old Testament.
I've never been able to engage Mystic on this topic, so I started a new thread.
Jesus referenced and quoted many Old Testament prophets approvingly and spoke often of judgment and hell. What specific examples do we have of a dichotomy between Christ and the OT God?
There are no dichotomies between Jesus and the OT God. They are one and the same. In fact, the reason that the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah had no problem with calling him God is because in Second Temple period Judaism there was a belief based upon their own Hebrew Scriptures of a 'two powers in heaven.' That is, two complimentary powers. By the second century AD it was declared a heresy by the Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah because they didn't like the idea of Jesus being that second power.
Philo, who regarded the logos to be 'the second god' is an example of the 'two powers in heaven' belief.
In the Hebrew scriptures/Old Testament, the Angel or Messenger of the Lord is both depicted as being Yahweh and yet distinct from Yahweh. He is depicted as being both the Word of the Lord and the Lord.
There is a clear binitarian aspect . . .God as a united one, in the Hebrew scriptures. Furthermore, the New Testament writers equated Jesus with Yahweh. For instance, the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27 which is a prayer addressed to Yahweh and applies it to Jesus.
I think the basic problem is caused by an overly literal, historical reading of the Scriptures and the reaction against that which is to overly spiritualise
This was a continuing problem at the start as well, and Is the systemic problem that is created - orthodox/heretic, black/white, us/them, etc
it is nature of non spiritual understanding of God, soul nature sees demiurge in God, spiritual nature sees One True God. They - soul nature - can not help it.
it is nature of non spiritual understanding of God, soul nature sees demiurge in God, pneumatic nature sees One True God. They can not help it.
Nah
There is a lot of symbolism in the Scriptures that needs to be understood in context
The creation is composed of elements - and so much more
Air, earth, fire, water and needs to be correctly balanced to support life
I just don’t think that The Scriptures are the “mystical” things that you believe them to be
Our imagination can lead us astray which why we are to communicate with each other, to judge each other so we don’t get “unbalanced” like the oppositions do - eg, literalist/spiritualist
There is a lot of symbolism in the Scriptures that needs to be understood in context
The creation is composed of elements - and so much more
Air, earth, fire, water and needs to be correctly balanced to support life
I just don’t think that The Scriptures are the “mystical” things that you believe them to be
Our imagination can lead us astray which why we are to communicate with each other, to judge each other so we don’t get “unbalanced” like the oppositions do - eg, literalist/spiritualist
It is mystical. look up meru.org
in is way above my pay grade but I understand a bit.
similarly with Greek of NT.
I spent too much time with people like Rudolf Steiner to think otherwise.
I had some experiences myself, i can not dismiss that. Burn midnight oil.
OT on basic level 'designed' for lower type of consciousness than NT strives to achieve, good examples are in Matthew 5. like :
21“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment;"
The primary issue is and was the need to present spiritual concepts to primitive and carnal minds, which you allude to, Duval. The inspirations are at base spiritual but were interpreted carnally by the receivers who had no other reference point (and were terrified of Spirits anyway). Regrettably, they have continued to be interpreted and perpetuated carnally despite sporadic attempts (derided as heresies) to try to interpret them more spiritually.
There is an inherent disconnect between conceptualizing things from a carnal and worldly perspective and doing so from a spiritual perspective. The carnal dominates our lives and conditions our thinking so it obviously is difficult to put aside despite ample clues suggesting that it is our state of mind (spiritual status) when we act that is of concern to God, NOT specific carnal or worldly actions, per se.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meerkat2
I think the basic problem is caused by an overly literal, historical reading of the Scriptures and the reaction against that which is to overly spiritualise
This was a continuing problem at the start as well, and Is the systemic problem that is created - orthodox/heretic, black/white, us/them, etc
Your posts represent fine efforts to spiritualize and temporalize, and regionalize, and place scripture within the contexts of particular eras, etc. Unfortunately, you tend to be guilty of insufficient spiritualizing (evaluating the states of mind involved) and overly compromising (accommodating worldly concerns)with things that only provide the context within which our states of mind need to be evaluated.
When the Bible is characterized as a book to be interpreted spiritually, that is not a mere suggestion because the source of the inspirations is entirely focused on our spiritual development, period.
There are no dichotomies between Jesus and the OT God. They are one and the same. In fact, the reason that the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah had no problem with calling him God is because in Second Temple period Judaism there was a belief based upon their own Hebrew Scriptures of a 'two powers in heaven.' That is, two complimentary powers. By the second century AD it was declared a heresy by the Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah because they didn't like the idea of Jesus being that second power.
Philo, who regarded the logos to be 'the second god' is an example of the 'two powers in heaven' belief.
In the Hebrew scriptures/Old Testament, the Angel or Messenger of the Lord is both depicted as being Yahweh and yet distinct from Yahweh. He is depicted as being both the Word of the Lord and the Lord.
There is a clear binitarian aspect . . .God as a united one, in the Hebrew scriptures. Furthermore, the New Testament writers equated Jesus with Yahweh. For instance, the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27 which is a prayer addressed to Yahweh and applies it to Jesus.
In other words, you are saying that he is the one who ordered or commanded the slaughtering of innocent women, children, infants, and their animals? And, he is also the one who says to love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you - in the New Testament?
The primary issue is and was the need to present spiritual concepts to primitive and carnal minds, which you allude to, Duval. The inspirations are at base spiritual but were interpreted carnally by the receivers who had no other reference point (and were terrified of Spirits anyway). Regrettably, they have continued to be interpreted and perpetuated carnally despite sporadic attempts (derided as heresies) to try to interpret them more spiritually.
There is an inherent disconnect between conceptualizing things from a carnal and worldly perspective and doing so from a spiritual perspective. The carnal dominates our lives and conditions our thinking so it obviously is difficult to put aside despite ample clues suggesting that it is our state of mind (spiritual status) when we act that is of concern to God, NOT specific carnal or worldly actions, per se.
Your posts represent fine efforts to spiritualize and temporalize, and regionalize, and place scripture within the contexts of particular eras, etc. Unfortunately, you tend to be guilty of insufficient spiritualizing (evaluating the states of mind involved) and overly compromising (accommodating worldly concerns)with things that only provide the context within which our states of mind need to be evaluated.
When the Bible is characterized as a book to be interpreted spiritually, that is not a mere suggestion because the source of the inspirations is entirely focused on our spiritual development, period.
Paul in Heb. 5 talks about training one's senses. This is one way of bridging the "inherent disconnect".
Paul had a correct church that was wiped out by the Archonic system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
