Are Christians Suppose to Strive to be Like Jesus?

[Shermana]

The answer is quite simple.

She was already outside.

Jesus was "on his way" when she approached him.

Just because a crowd forms doesn't mean she has to avoid everyone who's coming into her area where she is already out.

But thank you for reminding me of yet another major discrepancy in the NT.

Perhaps you'd like to address it on the new thread I just made.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/156261-when-did-jesus-heal-bleeding-woman.html

 

[Shermana]

the law says she was unclean.... like pig meat is unclean. You dont touch it, right?

Again, considering it says Jesus's power went from him after she touched him, it was possible that she had made him unclean. He wouldn't have touched her, she had to touch him first. But there was no sin in it. All she did was inconvenience him. He had to bathe himself and wash his clothes presumably. The text doesn't have to say that he does, especially since the intended audience was familiar with that. What the text DOES say is that his power went from him. As in he lost the power.

Why would it mention that?

 

[psychoslice]

I feel that we should try to be even better than Jesus, he himself said, you will do greater things than I, if we try to be like Jesus we only be a copy of Jesus, we need to find our own inner Christ and live from there. Jesus or the story of Jesus is only an example of what we can do, if we keep clinging to him we will never know of our own inner Self, just as we need to let go of our parents so as to mature and live our own life.

 

[Shermana]

I feel that we should try to be even better than Jesus, he himself said, you will do greater things than I, if we try to be like Jesus we only be a copy of Jesus, we need to find our own inner Christ and live from there. Jesus or the story of Jesus is only an example of what we can do, if we keep clinging to him we will never know of our own inner Self, just as we need to let go of our parents so as to mature and live our own life.

I believe the "Greater things" he was talking about, in context, was referring to actual supernatural miracles that one will be granted to be able to do through following his teachings and example.

What part of Jesus's teachings do you think people need to stop clinging to exactly? Name an example.

What do you think "Inner Christ" means? Do you know what "Christ" even means?

 

[psychoslice]

I believe the "Greater things" he was talking about, in context, was referring to actual supernatural miracles that one will be granted to be able to do through following his teachings and example.

What part of Jesus's teachings do you think people need to stop clinging to exactly? Name an example.

What do you think "Inner Christ" means? Do you know what "Christ" even means?

Like a baby that needs milk, you will believe you need the teachings of Jesus as long as you are still a bab, the meat or the deeper things belong to those who have matured in Christ.

The inner Christ is our higher Consciousness, just as the Buddha Consciousness, or Krishna Consciousness, you can call this inner Self whatever name, but it makes no difference because you are not the name, the name only points you to what IS.

 

[Shermana]

Like a baby that needs milk, you will believe you need the teachings of Jesus as long as you are still a bab, the meat or the deeper things belong to those who have matured in Christ.

The inner Christ is our higher Consciousness, just as the Buddha Consciousness, or Krishna Consciousness, you can call this inner Self whatever name, but it makes no difference because you are not the name, the name only points you to what IS.

So you're now saying we shouldn't ignore or abandon Jesus's teachings but should instead focus intensely on them until we master them and adopt them into our very being and let them solidify our structure and ideals and morality to the very core, just like how mother's milk weans the child. So rather than not clinging to them, you're saying we should be clinging to them with all our might because they are like milk to us, and we never really should abandon them, because abandoning them would be like throwing out the foundation itself. Glad you made yourself more clear.

And what IS this "higher consciousness" exactly? What is the "Buddha consciousness" or the "Krishna consciousness" which you think is all the same concept. Give us a basic nutshell of the concept other than the idea of "being at peace and oneness with everyone", especially in a way that applies to all situations at all times.

 

[psychoslice]

So you're now saying we shouldn't ignore or abandon Jesus's teachings but should instead focus intensely on them until we master them and adopt them into our very being and let them solidify our structure and ideals and morality to the very core, just like how mother's milk weans the child. So rather than not clinging to them, you're saying we should be clinging to them with all our might because they are like milk to us, and we never really should abandon them, because abandoning them would be like throwing out the foundation itself. Glad you made yourself more clear.

And what IS this "higher consciousness" exactly? What is the "Buddha consciousness" or the "Krishna consciousness" which you think is all the same concept. Give us a basic nutshell of the concept other than the idea of "being at peace and oneness with everyone", especially in a way that applies to all situations at all times.

na, your just trying to make it all complicated when in fact its not, like I said, as long as you don't realize your true SELF the Christ, then yes you will continue to cling to scripture or whatever, all this does is keep you from your true identity, again the Christ Consciousness. Christ Consciousness is just a word, but it points to our true inner Being, and if you don't understand that, then that's fine, your still on the milk.

The fact is we don't need anything to awaken to our true Self, as long as we believe we do, then the longer we are from who we truly are.

our so called higher Consciousness is our true Consciousnesses, while we are in the lower self conscious, that is the ego who we believe we are, then we are as the carnal self, the animal self. You could call the higher Consciousness God, but what does that really mean, the word Consciousness is a better words, as it means a higher Awareness. But it doesn't matter what word you use, that is never what it truly is.

religion can be a great stepping stone, but so many stay right on that stone, they camp there for the rest of their lives, never growing in Consciousness.

 

[Shermana]

Oh it's not complicated, I see.

And of course, you think you're done with the milk, because you have your own view on what it means. Have you even drunk the milk or do you think you never needed the milk in the first place? Because I know for a fact you do not do as Jesus teaches or follow his example. You're not a Messianic Jew for one thing.

All this new-age mumbo jumbo is nice wordplay and an attempt to steer away the concepts to fit your own religious concepts, but it's historically inaccurate and you might as well not even include the teachings of Jesus and Buddha into your equation.

It's quite obvious you need the milk.

 

[psychoslice]

Oh it's not complicated, I see.

And of course, you think you're done with the milk, because you have your own view on what it means. Have you even drunk the milk or do you think you never needed the milk in the first place? Because I know for a fact you do not do as Jesus teaches or follow his example. You're not a Messianic Jew for one thing.

All this new-age mumbo jumbo is nice wordplay and an attempt to steer away the concepts to fit your own religious concepts, but it's historically inaccurate and you might as well not even include the teachings of Jesus and Buddha into your equation.

It's quite obvious you need the milk.

that's Ok if you think that way, i'm just here sharing how I see it, I'm not saying your way is wrong or my way is right, its just my way, its the best way for me.

Hebrews 5:13
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

Hebrews 6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 

[Pegg]

Again, considering it says Jesus's power went from him after she touched him, it was possible that she had made him unclean. He wouldn't have touched her, she had to touch him first. But there was no sin in it. All she did was inconvenience him. He had to bathe himself and wash his clothes presumably. The text doesn't have to say that he does, especially since the intended audience was familiar with that. What the text DOES say is that his power went from him. As in he lost the power.

Why would it mention that?

it was healing power that he felt go out of him

His power came from God....therefore God healed the woman.

But why would he do that if she was a law breaker. You can claim that she was allowed to be in a crowded place and she could touch anyone if thats how you wish to reason it.

I would be more inclined to follow the Torah in this matter and view her being there as a breaking of Torah law. Unclean persons were to remain away from the camp...away from people so that they would not pass on whatever disease it was they were carrying.

 

[Windwalker]

Because I know for a fact you do not do as Jesus teaches or follow his example. You're not a Messianic Jew for one thing.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wish to point something out in this. A follower of Jesus would do as he said and not judge another as the world judges. "You are not following my religion as I see it. So you don't follow Jesus", is an example of how the world judges.

As far as the rest of what psychoslice says, it is not New Age. That is an inaccurate label you wish to attach to it to dismiss it out of hand. The truth be told, I see what Jesus teaches as being much more consistent with what he was saying, if you understood what that actually was, as opposed to your legalistic Christ image, which I do understand what that is.

The way I put it would be more like this. It is better to call Jesus brother, than to call him Lord. I believe that to mean that the purpose of following Jesus, calling him Lord, is to learn to bring all things unto obedience of Christ. Which as you do, you shed the flesh of ego and become as Jesus was, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." It is to awaken the whole person to be Christ in the world. "You are the light of the world". YOU. How is that possible if you are operating out an unawakened ego, despite all your conformity to the letter of the law? Jesus knew that was not possible to do. You have to awaken the Spirit in the heart, and the law writes itself from the pen of Spirit as the world unfolds before it.

If on the other hand, you wish a religion over realization, to be told by an army general what to think and how to act, then you may read the Gospels as an extension of the book of Joshua, complete with blood on the end of the sword and villages of heathen laid waste before the righteous boot of God. I however can't palate that image. There's too much knowledge of the Love of God in my heart to wrap my mind around that.

But as psychoslice said, as a child I thought as a child, I imagined God as warlord, but as an adult I put away childish things and thought as an adult, and God is Love.

 

[ChristineES]

We should become "Christ-like" as the name "Christian" means. It doesn't mean we are supposed to walk on water or anything but to have compassion, to serve others, to have mercy, the feed people, and so on.

Too many of my faith don't do any of these things.

 

[davidluice]

I don't know the project yet.i am not clear.

 

[Shermana]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wish to point something out in this. A follower of Jesus would do as he said and not judge another as the world judges. "You are not following my religion as I see it. So you don't follow Jesus", is an example of how the world judges.

As far as the rest of what psychoslice says, it is not New Age. That is an inaccurate label you wish to attach to it to dismiss it out of hand. The truth be told, I see what Jesus teaches as being much more consistent with what he was saying, if you understood what that actually was, as opposed to your legalistic Christ image, which I do understand what that is.

The way I put it would be more like this. It is better to call Jesus brother, than to call him Lord. I believe that to mean that the purpose of following Jesus, calling him Lord, is to learn to bring all things unto obedience of Christ. Which as you do, you shed the flesh of ego and become as Jesus was, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." It is to awaken the whole person to be Christ in the world. "You are the light of the world". YOU. How is that possible if you are operating out an unawakened ego, despite all your conformity to the letter of the law? Jesus knew that was not possible to do. You have to awaken the Spirit in the heart, and the law writes itself from the pen of Spirit as the world unfolds before it.

If on the other hand, you wish a religion over realization, to be told by an army general what to think and how to act, then you may read the Gospels as an extension of the book of Joshua, complete with blood on the end of the sword and villages of heathen laid waste before the righteous boot of God. I however can't palate that image. There's too much knowledge of the Love of God in my heart to wrap my mind around that.

But as psychoslice said, as a child I thought as a child, I imagined God as warlord, but as an adult I put away childish things and thought as an adult, and God is Love.

And you are wrong.

The Book of Revelation is much about condemning false churches and false teachers.

Paul's epistles are also much about condemning false doctrines.

Jesus himself is much about condemning false beliefs of the Pharisees.

John's epistles say to not even politely greet or say goodbye to those who preach false doctrines.

So as you can plainly see, you are WRONG.

Jesus knew that was not possible to do.

Not possible to do what? Follow the Law that he explicitly says to follow?

There is nothing in the NT whatsoever that says we are forbidden from calling out false doctrines and those who push them, and if anything it is encouraged. Heads are supposed to butt. If you're teaching something that goes plainly against what Jesus says, I'll dive right in and fight for what the text and context imply.

If you aren't following what Jesus teaches, you aren't following what Jesus teaches.

You claim I don't understand. No YOU don't understand. I wouldn't doubt if you haven't read the Gospels. You claim I want a "Religion over reailziation". No, what you want to do is to COMPLETELY THROW AWAY what Jesus actually teaches in exchange for some vague, "NEW AGE" concept that COMPLETELY THROWS AWAY what he actually taught.

Have you? Have you read the gospels all the way through? Yes or no.

If not, you should take a step back before I go further into detail about who "understands" what Jesus was teaching.

Jesus said Judge not lest ye be judged. Which means, you will be judged if you judge.

I will take the risk of being judged to judge someone who claims to have incorporated Christ's teachings when they have not.

I simply won't tolerate such deviation from those who aren't even familiar with Jesus says or how he lived in the first place. If you were remotely familiar, then you'd know what I was talking about. But you obviously aren't and you are in fact trying to push a revisionist New Ager philosophy that has absolutely nothing to do with what the Gospels, or even the generally-accepted "Q" basis teaches whatsoever. I don't even think you'd be able to adequately describe what you think this "Realiziation" is about in the first place and what it constitutes, and if you did, I'd bet that it completely contradicts many of the things Jesus espoused.

I love when people think Jesus wasn't actually teaching Jewish Law. It's amazing just how badly people have historically wanted to rip the historical Jesus away from his cultural context to paint their own agenda one way or another. It just CAN"T POSSIBLY BE that Jesus was a...GASP....JEWISH TEACHER!!! Oh no!!!! We can't have that!!! We can't have Jesus just teaching Jewish Law! No we, need some vague "Christ consciousness" concept. (OF which those people have no idea what "Christ" actually means in the first place or implies in Jewish theology).

It's really sickening just how badly people want to take Jesus away from his Jewish context. It's just...wrong!

 

[Shermana]

We should become "Christ-like" as the name "Christian" means. It doesn't mean we are supposed to walk on water or anything but to have compassion, to serve others, to have mercy, the feed people, and so on.

Too many of my faith don't do any of these things.

And ahem...follow the Torah (Cough cough).

 

[Windwalker]

And you are wrong.

The Book of Revelation is much about condemning false churches and false teachers.

Paul's epistles are also much about condemning false doctrines.

Jesus himself is much about condemning false beliefs of the Pharisees.

And isn't it ironic that I see these things differently than you do? I see the criticism of the Pharisees being very much the same criticism I would have of your views. Isn't that strange how that works?

John's epistles say to not even politely greet or say goodbye to those who preach false doctrines.

Then why do you participate on the RF site? Are you disobeying John?

So as you can plainly see, you are WRONG.

Just WRONG, in all caps, and not WRONG!!!!! with all caps, bold text, and five exclamation points? You seem rather wishy-washy in you absolutism.

Why such vehemence? Why the need to be RIGHT?

Not possible to do what? Follow the Law that he explicitly says to follow?

I would contend with you that you will never follow that law, never be able to, unless you do so from a transformed heart of love. To merely conform yourself to externalized standards is what the Pharisees did, and which Jesus called whitewashed tombs. It is not the letter of the law Jesus was concerned about, but the weightier matters of the law, that of the heart. Straining at gnats, following the law explicitly, amounts to nothing. The Christian work is not explicit law following, but inner transformation of the heart. Following the letter of the law is a cheap substitute. Hypocrites do that.

There is nothing in the NT whatsoever that says we are forbidden from calling out false doctrines and those who push them, and if anything it is encouraged. Heads are supposed to butt. If you're teaching something that goes plainly against what Jesus says, I'll dive right in and fight for what the text and context imply.

And isn't it odd, that I see you teaching what goes against what Jesus says?

If you aren't following what Jesus teaches, you aren't following what Jesus teaches.

I believe I am. You believe you are. Isn't that odd?

You claim I don't understand. No YOU don't understand. I wouldn't doubt if you haven't read the Gospels.

I have a degree in theology, have spent countless hours in contemplation of scripture, I meditate every day in communion with God, I live my life with a heart of devotion and surrender to God, my single focus for the last 30 years of my life has been knowing God, and so on.

You absolutism is amusing to me. I too once thought I had the answers because of how I read the Bible. Once the heart opens, the eyes in what they see change. Two people reading the same words see and hear two different things. I understand why you read it the way you do because I've been there. Can you say the same of me? Have you been here?

You claim I want a "Religion over reailziation". No, what you want to do is to COMPLETELY THROW AWAY what Jesus actually teaches in exchange for some vague, "NEW AGE" concept that COMPLETELY THROWS AWAY what he actually taught.

Again, your use of New Age applied to me is just rhetoric. How specifically is it "New Age", and do you actually understand what New Age really is? And no, I think my understand that unfolds daily to me, does not "COMPLETELY THROW AWAY" [all-caps yours] what Jesus. To me, it allows it to blossom, flourish, and radiate like a thousand jewels. It's a living truth, not a static rule-based law chiseled in rock.

Have you? Have you read the gospels all the way through? Yes or no.

I have read the entire Bible through multiple time, and the Gospels are pretty much memorized. Back in the day, they called me a walking concordance. So, yes.

If not, you should take a step back before I go further into detail about who "understands" what Jesus was teaching.

Reading it doesn't mean you see it. Hearing it, doesn't mean you hear it. Jesus said this, "Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?"

I think what makes the difference is not just reading it over and over again, but perspective. And how do you gain that perspective? Please answer this one question I ask.

Jesus said Judge not lest ye be judged. Which means, you will be judged if you judge.

By the same sort of narrow perspective you judge others, is what he was saying. So in other words, don't assume you have the perspective of God in judging me or others. You put yourself in a bad position doing that. Judge with the heart, not with your head which is limited in knowledge and understanding. Just because you have eyes, does not mean you see.

I will take the risk of being judged to judge someone who claims to have incorporated Christ's teachings when they have not.

You judge yourself in doing this. You judge yourself as being naive and prideful in judging as God.

I simply won't tolerate such deviation from those who aren't even familiar with Jesus says or how he lived in the first place. If you were remotely familiar, then you'd know what I was talking about.

Well, clearly, you've judged wrongly. Haven't you? Have I made my point to you?

But you obviously aren't and you are in fact trying to push a revisionist New Ager philosophy that has absolutely nothing to do with what the Gospels, or even the generally-accepted "Q" basis teaches whatsoever. I don't even think you'd be able to adequately describe what you think this "Realiziation" is about in the first place and what it constitutes, and if you did, I'd bet that it completely contradicts many of the things Jesus espoused.

I believe it is exactly what Jesus taught. I say so not merely because of words I read, but because of the Light of the heart that is illumined by a knowledge of God. You can't know that be trying to read your way into it. You have to hear with the heart, not read with your eyes words on a page that cannot be penetrated by your conceptual mind.

I love when people think Jesus wasn't actually teaching Jewish Law. It's amazing just how badly people have historically wanted to rip the historical Jesus away from his cultural context to paint their own agenda one way or another. It just CAN"T POSSIBLY BE that Jesus was a...GASP....JEWISH TEACHER!!! Oh no!!!! We can't have that!!! We can't have Jesus just teaching Jewish Law! No we, need some vague "Christ consciousness" concept. (OF which those people have no idea what "Christ" actually means in the first place or implies in Jewish theology).

And amazingly you have figured this all out! I on the other hand, make no such claim as to know exactly what Jesus meant. As I said, its a dynamic, constant unfolding of that Truth, and I understand its nature as such because of experience. Is Christ Consciousness vague? Yes, to those who have never experienced that. Yet Paul said, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus...".

The difference between religion and realization, is that religion is forms and rules and rites and regulations. Anyone can learn that. Realization is an inner transformation of the heart, mind, and soul. And that is incredibly more challenging to do, and not everyone is willing to do what it takes, which is literally a death to your pride and arrogance, and all that you seek to feel safe and secure in your own identity, such as being a solider of God, and whatnot.

It's really sickening just how badly people want to take Jesus away from his Jewish context. It's just...wrong!

I gather from your vehemence throughout this post, your views are very tightly wound for my views to makes such a twanging sound as they hit them.

Anyway, I hope my response put things into a clearer perspective for you.

 

[Shermana]

Wow, the blatant hypocritical arrogance of this "Illumined heart" is utterly sickening. Because Windwalker HAS the "Christ Consciousness". Wow. An enlightened soul!! Telling me how wrong I am for judging people who make claims which run contrary to the text. I should bow down to this enlightened one who has assuredly achieved the Christ consciousness. And don't you dare question whether they have this "Illumined heart", because God has surely blessed them with knowledge and truth. We have something close to a prophet here! Forgive me for insulting your wise, knowing illumined heart, for surely you know far better than this pesky "historical context", and those verses that poke holes in your view, of course they don't mean what they plainly say.

Because of course, historical context is BAD!!! It's okay to have an objective view judging others who have an objective view, as long as you agree with Windwalker here, and don't have an objective view he disagrees with, as we can see:

And isn't it ironic that I see these things differently than you do? I see the criticism of the Pharisees being very much the same criticism I would have of your views. Isn't that strange how that works?

Then you have no concept of what the Pharisees were actually being criticized about. Anyone can say anyone is a pharisee who disagrees with them, and that's usually the case.

Then why do you participate on the RF site? Are you disobeying John?

If you haven't noticed, I'm not really that polite to anyone who I'm opposed to. That's what it's talking about.

Just WRONG, in all caps, and not WRONG!!!!! with all caps, bold text, and five exclamation points? You seem rather wishy-washy in you absolutism.

You seem rather unable to actually substantiate your positions.

Why such vehemence? Why the need to be RIGHT?

It's called Debate.

I would contend with you that you will never follow that law, never be able to, unless you do so from a transformed heart of love. To merely conform yourself to externalized standards is what the Pharisees did, and which Jesus called whitewashed tombs. It is not the letter of the law Jesus was concerned about, but the weightier matters of the law, that of the heart. Straining at gnats, following the law explicitly, amounts to nothing. The Christian work is not explicit law following, but inner transformation of the heart. Following the letter of the law is a cheap substitute. Hypocrites do that.

No, Jesus was very much concerned about the Letter of the Law. To say otherwise you'd be demonstrating a lack of familiarity. Jesus was quite harsh with people he disagreed with. You know, calling them broods of vipers and what not. And Paul and John and James weren't that kind about it either.

And isn't it odd, that I see you teaching what goes against what Jesus says?

Which teaching exactly? Was it the teaching that says don't call people who teach false doctrine that they are broods of vipers? Was it the teaching to not beat people with whips of cords if you think they are corrupting the Temple?

I believe I am. You believe you are. Isn't that odd?

Which teaching do you think I'm not following? I can already prove that you are denying Jesus's explicit teaching to obey the totality of the Law.

I have a degree in theology, have spent countless hours in contemplation of scripture, I meditate every day in communion with God, I live my life with a heart of devotion and surrender to God, my single focus for the last 30 years of my life has been knowing God, and so on.

30 years down the drain apparently. Where did you get your Theology degree? Sounds like they ripped you off.

You absolutism is amusing to me. I too once thought I had the answers because of how I read the Bible. Once the heart opens, the eyes in what they see change. Two people reading the same words see and hear two different things. I understand why you read it the way you do because I've been there. Can you say the same of me? Have you been here?

I don't have to have been there. Would you like to 1x1 debate on this?

Again, your use of New Age applied to me is just rhetoric. How specifically is it "New Age", and do you actually understand what New Age really is? And no, I think my understand that unfolds daily to me, does not "COMPLETELY THROW AWAY" [all-caps yours] what Jesus. To me, it allows it to blossom, flourish, and radiate like a thousand jewels. It's a living truth, not a static rule-based law chiseled in rock.

Blah blah blah "living truth" apparently means "Anything but the historical context".

I have read the entire Bible through multiple time, and the Gospels are pretty much memorized. Back in the day, they called me a walking concordance. So, yes.

Would have never guessed.

Reading it doesn't mean you see it. Hearing it, doesn't mean you hear it. Jesus said this, "Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?"

Basically your entire spiel is one big attempt to get around the historical context and what was likely intended. It is you who fails to see and hear, and thinks anyone who disagrees with you doesn't. That's okay, I have the same view, except mine is right.

I think what makes the difference is not just reading it over and over again, but perspective. And how do you gain that perspective? Please answer this one question I ask.

I gain that perspective by thinking about what was the likely context and intention, and not in terms of it being some kind of "living text" (cough cough) where you can twist it to mean anything you want EXCEPT what the historical context implies.

By the same sort of narrow perspective you judge others, is what he was saying. So in other words, don't assume you have the perspective of God in judging me or others. You put yourself in a bad position doing that. Judge with the heart, not with your head which is limited in knowledge and understanding. Just because you have eyes, does not mean you see.

I'm quite fine with my narrow perspective. The Truth is a tight fit. My position is not bad. Yours is. It is not a perspective of God in judging others, it's a perspective of historical scholarship and reading it into its likely intended context. The Jewish context.

You judge yourself in doing this. You judge yourself as being naive and prideful in judging as God.

Basically your cop out is to accuse anyone who believes in a consistent historically contextual view as Native and Judging as God. Are you not judging as God all the same? Oh of course not. You couldn't be possibly being hypocritical whatsoever because you have the "Living truth". You have an "illumined heart".

Well, clearly, you've judged wrongly. Haven't you? Have I made my point to you?

No, I've judged quite right. I don't think you'd get my point if it flew in front of you.

I believe it is exactly what Jesus taught. I say so not merely because of words I read, but because of the Light of the heart that is illumined by a knowledge of God. You can't know that be trying to read your way into it. You have to hear with the heart, not read with your eyes words on a page that cannot be penetrated by your conceptual mind.

What's that? You believe your view is exactly what Jesus taught?

What are you, judging as God all of the sudden?

So now YOU have the Divine truth.

Hypocrisy overwhelming.

And amazingly you have figured this all out! I on the other hand, make no such claim as to know exactly what Jesus meant. As I said, its a dynamic, constant unfolding of that Truth, and I understand its nature as such because of experience. Is Christ Consciousness vague? Yes, to those who have never experienced that. Yet Paul said, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus...".

The difference between religion and realization, is that religion is forms and rules and rites and regulations. Anyone can learn that. Realization is an inner transformation of the heart, mind, and soul. And that is incredibly more challenging to do, and not everyone is willing to do what it takes, which is literally a death to your pride and arrogance, and all that you seek to feel safe and secure in your own identity, such as being a solider of God, and whatnot.

Blah blah blah new age rhetoric blah blah utter hypocrisy blah blah blah.

I gather from your vehemence throughout this post, your views are very tightly wound for my views to makes such a twanging sound as they hit them.

Oh no, you're just staggering around claiming you didn't get hit as the blood pours from the wounds.

Anyway, I hope my response put things into a clearer perspective for you.

You made them very clear indeed.

 

[Windwalker]

Thank you for your response.