Experiencing God

[Saint Frankenstein]

You can laugh all you wish, but the single reference I posted is far more than the paltry Biblical account of Jesus's 18 missing years as no more than a footnote to indicate his whereabouts. But wait. There's more. Much more. So to add a couple more tidbits to the pile, we have this:


"Buddhist records usually refer to Jesus as Issa-Masih, and Muslims use the name Yusu-Masih or some variant. One record of Jesus' sermons in Kashmir is in Bhavishya- maha-purana, written by Sutta in 115 CE. (18) Another record of Jesus' sermons in Kashmir was Tarikh-I-Kashmir, written later by the Muslim Mulla Nadri, who identified Jesus as Yuz-Asaph. (19) A Muslim record was Al-Shaikh Al-Said-us-Sadiq; Ikmal-ud-Din. (20) Another was the history of Kashmir written by Kalhana circa 1148 CE, which referred to Jesus as Isana, "the great guru" who impressed the king, Samdhi-mati. (21) A Persian account of Jesus in India is written around 900 CE by Al Shaikh Said-us-Sidiz and titled Mamal-Ud-Din. (22) Finally, the Apocalypse of Peter refers to Jesus sitting at one of the ten pillars erected in India by Ashoka: "As the Savior was sitting in the temple in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant and the agreement of the tenth pillar." (23) A passage in Song of the Yogi sung by Natha Yogas reads: "My friend Ishai has gone towards Arabia." A verse in the Puranas reads: "Having found the sacred image of Eeshai [God] in my heart, my name will be established as on the earth as Eesah Mashi [the Messiah]."

It might be useful to address two questions at this point:

1. Did Jesus remain in Nazareth during his entire 18 years, or did he travel, and how extensive were his travels?

2. Was there a Buddhistic presence/influence in and around Judea itself during those missing years? We know for a fact that there was definitely Buddhistic influence as far West as Egypt and Greece via the Buddhist King, Asoka, and we do know that Rome sent gold coins Eastward to purchase goods delivered back to the Near East along the Silk Road.

"Certainly, he [Jesus] was no hometown carpenter, and he probably traveled extensively throughout Asia Minor, which increased his exposure to Buddhism. His travel is indicated by the many records found in India and even China and the keen interest demonstrated by Buddhists and other Easterners.

The textual evidence shows that Buddhism not only had spread West through Silk Road travelers and contacts between East and West from the conquests of Alexander, but also had been deliberately propagated through emissaries sent from India during the third century BC. This influence is revealed both by the actions and statements of Jesus and by the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, a term probably derived from Sanskrit."

thezensite: Was Jesus a Buddhist?

Let me know when you have actual historical evidence and don't need to rely on frauds.

 

[godnotgod]

Let me know when you have actual historical evidence and don't need to rely on frauds.

So you're running away. Fine. I don't blame you, as you have zilch to support your theory.

Historical? Or do you mean hysterical? Because that is exactly what the Biblical account is. Surely you can't mean to say that the Biblical account can be counted as historical! What a joke!

The only fraud I see is the Biblical account, which is made up from whole cloth. On top of that, it refers to a first century Nazareth that never existed. Pure poppycock!

So here we have the Son of God living for some 30 years without a peep in a quiet village, where no one knew who he really was, eh? Only a fool would seriously believe such tripe!

"If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.

Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49) when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?

Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?"

- See more at: Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

Next!

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I do.

And you believe this because you have experienced it yourself, correct?

 

[Sonofason]

And you believe this because you have experienced it yourself, correct?

Well, yes, I believe I have.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, yes, I believe I have.

So you're not certain about your experience? You still dwell in the realm of belief.

 

[Ingledsva]

There's no conspiracy, but what makes this view lovely is how everything just falls right into place. So is there a point you were trying to make?

Interestingly, several ancient historians actually tell us the Hebrew originally came from India. They traveled - preaching, - eventually settling in Egypt, - then moving out to the areas we now think of as Hebrew..

"...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), (Book I:22.)

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)

*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you're running away. Fine. I don't blame you, as you have zilch to support your theory.

Historical? Or do you mean hysterical? Because that is exactly what the Biblical account is. Surely you can't mean to say that the Biblical account can be counted as historical! What a joke!

The only fraud I see is the Biblical account, which is made up from whole cloth. On top of that, it refers to a first century Nazareth that never existed. Pure poppycock!

So here we have the Son of God living for some 30 years without a peep in a quiet village, where no one knew who he really was, eh? Only a fool would seriously believe such tripe!

"If JC had grown up and spent thirty years of his life in a village with as few as 25 families – an inbred clan of less than 300 people – the 'multitude' that were supposedly shocked by his blasphemy and would have thrown him from a cliff, would not have been hostile strangers but, to a man, would have been relatives and friends that he had grown up with, including his own brothers. Presumably, they had heard his pious utterances for years.

Moreover, if the chosen virgin really had had an annunciation of messiah-birthing from an angel the whole clan would have known about it inside ten minutes. Just to remind them, surely they should also have known of the 'Jerusalem incident' (Luke 2.42-49) when supposedly the 12-year-old proclaimed his messiahship?

Indeed, had no one mentioned what had happened in Bethlehem – star, wise men, shepherds, infant-massacre and all? Why would they have been outraged by anything the godman said or did? Had they forgotten a god was growing up in their midst? And what had happened to that gift of gold – had it not made the 'holy family' rich?"

- See more at: Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

Next!

I'm not running away from anything. I'm just waiting for you to present evidence of your claims. Stop ranting to me and copying from fringe sites that don't prove anything. I'm familiar with the Jesus in India claims, the Buddhist claims and I've read almost everything on Ken Humphreys' site too many times to count.

Also, since you hate the Bible so much, I don't see why you bother with Jesus at all since almost everything we know about Him comes from the Bible.

 

[godnotgod]

What you are saying sounds reasonable enough to me. I just don't know. As far as I can tell, everything that a human being experiences, he experiences through the mind. We sense heat, we experience it through the mind. We see the natural world around us, and we experience that which we see through the mind. Without the mind, and I do mean specifically the brain, we experience nothing. I should say that it is not apparent in any way that we experience anything without the brain. And so since we are physical beings, and since I believe that God is fully capable of making Himself known to to physical beings, I can only conclude that we can experience God, and that experience does not take place without the brain. I would think that the human brain is absolutely necessary for human beings to experience God, and therefore, I would conclude that for a human being to experience God, there must be some capacity of the human brain to experience God. I don't think God would have it any other way.

However, that does not explain how one might experience God after this life. I have no idea how a spirit or a soul experiences God. But my guess is that God has a solution for that problem as well.

You stated in a post after this that you have experienced the Kingdom of God within, which is, essentially to say that you have experienced God.

Do you experience life via the mind, or via consciousness? I make the distinction between mind and consciousness to mean that consciousness precedes mind. It is the default state. Mind is only present when one thinks about it. Therefore, it is a self-created principle, an illusion. Only consciousness is real.

You accidentally burn your finger on a hot stove, and immediately recoil. That is an experience via consciousness. There is no immediate thought of your burning your finger, only the immediate reaction 'Ouch!'. Immediately afterwards, the thought comes: 'Oh, I burned my finger!". That is mind thinking about the experience afterwards, but not present during the experience.

We do not experience the divine nature via the mind. It is not a planned event, but a spontaneous one. Why? Because the nature of mind is to encapsulate reality via concept, but the divine nature can never be so encapsulated or contained via concept. It is not a conceptual idea, but a living presence dwelling in this eternal Present Moment.

There are a few documented cases of individuals who have had high IQ's and lived seemingly normal lives, and who were discovered to not have a brain, or much of a brain at all.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm not running away from anything. I'm just waiting for you to present evidence of your claims. Stop ranting to me and copying from fringe sites that don't prove anything. I'm familiar with the Jesus in India claims, the Buddhist claims and I've read almost everything on Ken Humphreys' site too many times to count.

Also, since you hate the Bible so much, I don't see why you bother with Jesus at all since almost everything we know about Him comes from the Bible.

Except for the fact that no such Jesus ever existed, as he is a myth, and so, I cannot hate something non-existent.

But I do give credence to a man named Yeshua who was indeed crucified by the Romans for sedition and treason, but not as the sacrificial host to redeem you from your sins. You see? I don't hate anything, but will point out things in the Bible that are patently false when I see them. It is this pointing out that I do that you see as hatred. Because you are attached to your doctrine, you must be defensive. I have no such doctrine to defend.

I have given you some documented references, but none are a smoking gun, if that is what you are demanding. Instead, they are a body of information derived independently of one another, and that, when taken as a whole, do point to Yeshua having traveled East.

Speaking of evidence, is the Biblical footnote to Jesus living out his 30 years in quietude evidence for you? Evidence is provable. Can you prove the statement to be true?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Except for the fact that no such Jesus ever existed, as he is a myth, and so, I cannot hate something non-existent.

But I do give credence to a man named Yeshua who was indeed crucified by the Romans for sedition and treason, but as the sacrificial host to redeem you from your sins.

I have given you some documented references, but none are a smoking gun, if that is what you are demanding. Instead, they are a body of information that, when taken as a whole, do point to Yeshua traveling East.

Speaking of evidence, is the Biblical footnote to Jesus living out his 30 years in quietude evidence for you? Evidnece is provable. Can you prove the statement to be true?

I'd rather go with that the earliest sources say rather than what people made up centuries later.

 

[godnotgod]

I'd rather go with that the earliest sources say rather than what people made up centuries later.

In that case then you will have to shuck aside Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, including Paul, as all were written decades after the Crucifixion, if they were written by them at all. We actually don't know who wrote them. The closest complete document we have is the Aramaic Khabouris Pe****ta Codex, a copy, originally written 165 AD.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In that case then you will have to shuck aside Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, including Paul, as all were written decades after the Crucifixion, if they were written by them at all. We actually don't know who wrote them. The closest complete document we have is the Aramaic Khabouris Pe****ta Codex, a copy, originally written 165 AD.

I said the earliest sources and those are the ones we find in the New Testament.

 

[godnotgod]

I said the earliest sources and those are the ones we find in the New Testament.

Dated.......????

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Dated.......????

From what I know, according to scholars, Paul's writings were written first, in the 50s AD. Mark is the earliest Gospel.

 

[godnotgod]

From what I know, according to scholars, Paul's writings were written first, in the 50s AD. Mark is the earliest Gospel.

That is the information I have as well, which puts the earliest writings some 5 decades after the Crucifixion. And you put your trust in this? Paul is the most highly criticized evangelist. I see him as a charlatan, as do many others. But if we are to speak of earliest sources, then we must go to the Aramaic oral tradition, which was the actual living tongue spoken during Yeshu's presence. I take issue with the notion of Greek primacy anyway. I see the Aramaic oral tradition going directly to the Aramaic Pe****ta, from which the Greek was poorly translated.

See, I would much rather put my trust in the living source itself, the same source to which Yeshu pointed when he said: 'the kingdom of God is within you'. It is from this living source within that all spiritual experiences issue forth, and which form the basis of all scripture. Therefore, scripture is merely a second hand account of the living spiritual experience, which is precisely why Yeshu (his Aramaic name) said:

'You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.'

.

 

[godnotgod]

Interestingly, several ancient historians actually tell us the Hebrew originally came from India. They traveled - preaching, - eventually settling in Egypt, - then moving out to the areas we now think of as Hebrew..

"...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), (Book I:22.)

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)

*

Yes, I have come across this as well. In addition, we also have this little tidbit:

And on a figure on a ancient wall in India a symbol from Hinduism this word 'Omm' is centered in the connection of the triangle female symbol and the upright triangle male symbol.

The so called Star of David is not a symbol from Judaism, but a symbol from the Vedic religion of the ancient India, that is worshiping the reunion of man and wife. The symbol and the hidden meaning from Hinduism of this symbol was known by teachers of the Jewish mysticism and has found over them its way to the present Jewish culture.

Shiva is preserved in the Hebrew Genesis as chavvah ( = eve ) ( “life-giver” ) as the female life together with the Hebrew chayim ("Life").

The Jews and all modern religious traditions originated in ancient India, page 1

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is the information I have as well, which puts the earliest writings some 5 decades after the Crucifixion. And you put your trust in this? Paul is the most highly criticized amongst scholars. I see him as a charlatan, as do many others. But if we are to speak of earliest sources, then we must go to the Aramaic oral tradition, which was the actual living tongue spoken during Yeshu's presence. I take issue with the notion of Greek primacy anyway. I see the Aramaic oral tradition going directly to the Aramaic Pe****ta, from which the Greek was poorly translated.

See, I would much rather put my trust in the living source itself, the same source to which Yeshu pointed when he said: 'the kingdom of God is within you'. It is from this living source within that all spiritual experiences issue forth, and which form the basis of all scripture. Therefore, scripture is merely a second hand account of the living spiritual experience, which is precisely why Yeshu (his Aramaic name) said:

'You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.'

.

Well, we all have our opinions. The Bible is just one part of Christianity, not all of it. I don't worship a book.

 

[mystic64]

I honestly don't know what Hindu gods are exactly. To my knowledge, I've never experienced one. I experience God. In God I trust. In God I believe. I'm not sure God appreciates all the labels you're trying to place upon Him. God is God.

I have met Lord Shiva and he is very real! I do not worship him though, we are just good friends. I have been a Christian mystic for sixty years now and had my first mystic experience when I was five years old. Needless to say I have met God. He is scarry and He is a handful. When the Bible says, "Fear thy God," no truer words were ever said. What is funny though is that in the presence of Lord Jesus, God is a fun and loving entity. When one is in God's presence without Lord Jesus being present God becomes a moster and He is very terrifying. He becomes something that I personally would not worship. But, in the presence of Lord Jesus He is fun and quite easy to live with.

Guys, this is an interesting topic . I have also studied shaman and witchdoctor stuff and it is also real if you know what you are doing . And if you were not terrified out of you socks when you met God (the Big One), then you have not actually met God. I don't think so. Unless of course you were holding Lord Jesus' hand when you met Him. And to honest with you, Lord Shiva can be very scarry also . But for some reason he likes me, so he is a lot of fun to be around.

 

[JerryL]

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

Here is a 100% reliable method: God helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sonofason]

So you're not certain about your experience? You still dwell in the realm of belief.

No sir, I believe I am quite certain about my experience. And I believe I still dwell in the realm of belief.