Jesus a Religious Reformer, or Transformer?

[Benoni]

I have more than answered you questions, maybe not how you wanted me to answer them though, as i have said, i can except your way of seeing what you believe in, but just like a devoted fundamentalist you cannot see how others see what you see, do you see ?.

Yes I see how others see. All of us in this movement came out.

 

[Benoni]

This still doesn't explain what you do in order to hear. What makes the difference? Clearly, it has nothing to do with reading the words on a page, since all those you disagree with do the same, and claim the same. What do you do to open yourself to hear? Reading obviously isn't the key, since they do too and you and they don't see eye to eye.

What I'm getting at is that spiritual discernment requires something more than just reading words. Don't you meditate? What opens you to seeing and hearing, beyond just reading words.

I have been a believer all my life as far as I can remember at one level or another.

I know in my spirit who God is as I did as a child it was the religious dogma I was taught where the peace of God became second place and the Bible slowly became my lord.

In my early twenties I got involved with United Pentecostal Church (UPC). I attended their religion services for about a year and a half and everything I did seem to turn into bandage from the way we wore our cloths to the doctrines that condemned anyone who did not believe the way they believe. I did not see this at first but it got so bad I lost the peace of God’s Spirit and replaced it with the bondage of this religious dogma. I had the baptism of the Spirit from an earlier group I was attending and I remember reaching out to God in a prayer revival at UPC and I felt no peace and peace seemed too far away where I could not touch it. So I left UPC, my state

In my experience I have learned what is written in the Bible always has a deeper meaning then what is written on the surface and is seen by most; especially when it comes to the parts where the damnation and condemnation.

Many do not understand there is a letter that killeth and the spirit quicken it is the sprit quicken Word where the deep message is. The written Bible has errors put there by religious man; it is the Spirit of truth that leads us and guides us into all truth not the Bible. Without the Spirit of truth the Bible is nothing but another religious book.

 

[nash8]

Was Jesus a religious reformer, trying to get everyone back to a fundamentalist doctrine of strict legal observances, fixing what was corrupted in the system? Was he like Martin Luther, seeking to fix the Catholic Church? Or was he a religious transformer? Was he instead not about correcting the error of the religious in their practice to a former purity, but about elevating the understanding of religious practices to their essential message, one of transforming an inner awareness of truth that transcends the religion itself? Was his desire to teach an awareness that seeks to transform religious observance to an awakened heart, mind, and soul, beyond the rules and regulations of religious tradition?

My understanding of Jesus is the latter. What are others thoughts?

Jesus was most definitely Optimus Prime. So my vote goes for Transformer.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus was a religious reactionary, trying to get people away from the "Progressive" interpretations of the Pharisees and Saduccees and their artificial manmade doctrines and distortions and back to the original Israelite beliefs around the time of Moses as he believed it was originally.

 

[Windwalker]

In my early twenties I got involved with United Pentecostal Church (UPC). I attended their religion services for about a year and a half and everything I did seem to turn into bandage from the way we wore our cloths to the doctrines that condemned anyone who did not believe the way they believe. I did not see this at first but it got so bad I lost the peace of God’s Spirit and replaced it with the bondage of this religious dogma. I had the baptism of the Spirit from an earlier group I was attending and I remember reaching out to God in a prayer revival at UPC and I felt no peace and peace seemed too far away where I could not touch it. So I left UPC, my state

Ahhh... a fellow former UPC'er! Not too many I've run into. I too was involved with them in my early 20's for a number of years. And believe me, every word you're saying here is exactly spot on.

What is ironic about them, is that on the one hand they are all about the ecstasy of religious experience, to a narcissistic fault, while at the next moment suppressing any sort of spiritual freedom and insight gained through such exposures. The open to the spiritual, and then they straight-jacket it, open to it, then straight-jacket it, again and again.

What's worse is that they called anything that arose in the heart that didn't square with their doctrines, those legitimate doubts that love itself raised within us, as the devil trying to steal this truth from you. So they literally are teaching people to "grieve the spirit", by calling it the devil.

The balance of what was in my heart finally tipped the scales to allow doubt its legitimate concern to be voiced, and I examined them honestly to myself and found them deeply, deeply flawed. Wrote my pastor a 66 page letter detailing all the reasons why I was leaving them, and surprise, surprise, he never responded to me.

So when you see me challenging legalism today, you understand the background and why it offers some true insight for me into how it negatively effects the spiritual life, and why I see it as against spirituality itself. It's one thing to criticize it from the outside, and entirely different to understand it from within it to speak against it.

In my experience I have learned what is written in the Bible always has a deeper meaning then what is written on the surface and is seen by most; especially when it comes to the parts where the damnation and condemnation.

I've come to see a remarkable phenomena. People see in the texts who they are psychologically and spiritually. Someone who is a dogmatic, fundamentalist, legalistic person psychologically will interpret the words as supporting and sanctioning their own views. Someone who is more mystical, will see the words having great mystical insight. The legalist cannot see that content because their minds and hearts do not know how to process, or even recognize such content. That content doesn't fit into the landscape of their mental objects that comprise reality for them.

This of course squares with research into how the mind works through pattern recognition. If a pattern we have not encountered previously enters into our field of vision, it takes on a different "approximate" shape and we see it as that shape. Whereas in reality, it isn't that at all! And so it is as we develop on a spiritual, and a mental level as well, we see the subtle differences, which in time become profound differences! So profoundly different, that the meanings become complete opposites.

This ties nicely to a quote I love from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "What we are, that only can we see". This was his observation before research into the brain sciences exposed this. And indeed it is true. The legalist sees Jesus as a warrior for truth, vanquishing his foes who don't follow their strict interprations of the law and sending them to a fiery hell, while rewarding them for their faithful service. As I read the same words, I understand something entirely different.

So can we say that there is an objective truth that will judge and condemn people who were "wrong", while rewarding those who were "right", when in reality people are simply not capable of seeing something while they are still at a particular stage of development? People assume incorrectly that once we are "adults" we have reached the end of our development. That is their key flaw in their understanding of the nature of truth to not recognize that. We can be an adult, and still "think as a child", to quote the Apostle Paul.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus was a religious reactionary, trying to get people away from the "Progressive" interpretations of the Pharisees and Saduccees and their artificial manmade doctrines and distortions and back to the original Israelite beliefs around the time of Moses as he believed it was originally.

Point in hand. I see Jesus as the exact opposite, a complete progressive trying to get people to move beyond legalism to the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.

 

[Benoni]

Jesus was a religious reactionary, trying to get people away from the "Progressive" interpretations of the Pharisees and Saduccees and their artificial manmade doctrines and distortions and back to the original Israelite beliefs around the time of Moses as he believed it was originally.

Jesus was not a religious reactionary because first of all He was not religious and second of all He was not reacting He was changing.

The Law of Moses was fulfilled by Him and He surly had no need to fix it.

Yes He did react to the traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees NOT the progressive interpretations of the Pharisees and Sadducees and their artificial manmade doctrines and distortions.

Jesus message was a progressive message and yes based on the Law of Moses but He was fulfilling not trying to bring back the message of the Law as he believed it was originally.
He was the Temple so there would never ever be a need for a temple.
He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth so there was no need for another lamb to be slain in the Temple/Tabernacle.
All that Moses pointed to in the Law He was and is.
He was the coming Tabernacle of David so He fullfilled the need for a Holy of Holies and that is now where god's glory is

 

[Shermana]

Point in hand. I see Jesus as the exact opposite, a complete progressive trying to get people to move beyond legalism to the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law.

Well that's great, but you'll have to cut out a ton of verses to get there, or at least twist them like a Pretzel. You're right in the sense that he was trying to get them to obey the Spirit, but you have some convoluted idea that the Spirit of the Law can exist without the Letter. How does that even work?

The Jerusalem Church apparently never got the memo in Acts.

I can agree with you halfway in that the Pharisees had forgotten the Spirit of the Law, and had twisted the Law to suit their own desires, but this was all Jesus was opposed to in terms of "The Law". Hence, why he was a "Reactionary".

 

[Shermana]

Jesus was not a religious reactionary because first of all He was not religious and second of all He was not reacting He was changing.

The Law of Moses was fulfilled by Him and He surly had no need to fix it.

Sigh. I have to deal with this "Fulfilled" nonsense at least once a week here. You simply don't understand what it means.

Didn't Christ Fulfill the Law? | Biblically Kosher | Biblical Eating
Completion: Fulfilling Torah and Prophets (Messianic Judaism)

Jesus said anyone who teaches to break the Law shall be called the Least in the Kingdom. Or that "doers of Lawlessness" would be outright rejected.

He said he did not come to abolish the Law. Yet that's pretty much what you think he did.

Yes He did react to the traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees NOT the progressive interpretations of the Pharisees and Sadducees and their artificial manmade doctrines and distortions.

Huh? Whence do you derive that he did NOT react to their artificial manmade doctrines? He specifically said that they follow the doctrines of man and not the original. You apparently have not read the gospels.

Jesus message was a progressive message and yes based on the Law of Moses but He was fulfilling not trying to bring back the message of the Law as he believed it was originally.

You have a very odd definition of "Fulfilling" like most mainstreamers.

He was the Temple so there would never ever be a need for a temple.

Zechariah 14 says otherwise.

He was the lamb slain from the foundation of the earth so there was no need for another lamb to be slain in the Temple/Tabernacle.

Zechariah 14 says otherwise. And I'm assuming you're a KJV-onlyist by your faulty rendition of that passage in Revelation.

All that Moses pointed to in the Law He was and is.

What do you think this means exactly?

He was the coming Tabernacle of David so He fullfilled the need for a Holy of Holies and that is now where god's glory is

[/QUOTE]

So are you basically saying that you are now allowed to cheat your neighbor, commit adultery, practice witchcraft, cannibalize other people, not leave a corner portion of your field for the poor, work on Sabbath, and sleep with women during their menstruation? Do you believe Christians can now freely marry their sisters since the "Marriage laws" are allegedly abolished too? Do you realize that this common view basically allows Father-daughter marriage? Pretty disgusting, but hey, that's what you're advocating.

 

[Benoni]

Well that's great, but you'll have to cut out a ton of verses to get there, or at least twist them like a Pretzel. You're right in the sense that he was trying to get them to obey the Spirit, but you have some convoluted idea that the Spirit of the Law can exist without the Letter. How does that even work?

The Jerusalem Church apparently never got the memo in Acts.

I can agree with you halfway in that the Pharisees had forgotten the Spirit of the Law, and had twisted the Law to suit their own desires, but this was all Jesus was opposed to in terms of "The Law". Hence, why he was a "Reactionary".

I totally agree with Windwalker.

2 Corinthians 3:1Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:

5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory

 

[Shermana]

I think you're confused, the title of the Thread was, "JESUS a religious reformer or transfomer".

Besides, I'm not even going to get started on the scholarly opinions on the antinomian interpolations in Paul (like the blatant one in 1 Cor 9:20).

 

[Benoni]

You seriously have issues with scripture especailly when you are proven wrong.

 

[Philomath]

Transformer..... a decipticon

 

[outhouse]

You seriously have issues with scripture especailly when you are proven wrong.

I don't think you have come anywhere close to proving anyone wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

Well that's great, but you'll have to cut out a ton of verses to get there, or at least twist them like a Pretzel.

Oddly, I can say the same of you. How does that work?

You're right in the sense that he was trying to get them to obey the Spirit, but you have some convoluted idea that the Spirit of the Law can exist without the Letter. How does that even work?

How does that work, indeed. If you ponder that long enough, you will have your answer.

I can agree with you halfway in that the Pharisees had forgotten the Spirit of the Law, and had twisted the Law to suit their own desires, but this was all Jesus was opposed to in terms of "The Law". Hence, why he was a "Reactionary".

Well, I think you don't know what a reactionary is. Jesus was not Ronald Regan.

Can you explain in your own words what you believe the spirit of the law actually means?

 

[Shermana]

Oddly, I can say the same of you. How does that work?

I've explained in detail on numerous threads on how Jesus taught Mosaic Law. Name a single scholar who thinks Jesus did not uphold Mosaic Law. A single one.

The reason you say the same of me is because you have absolutely not a single clue what you're talking about. Not one iota.

How does that work, indeed. If you ponder that long enough, you will have your answer.

Yeah you can't answer.

Well, I think you don't know what a reactionary is. Jesus was not Ronald Regan.

No, YOU don't know what a Reactionary is. You think it only pertains to American conservative politics.

Can you explain in your own words what you believe the spirit of the law actually means?

It means the intent.

 

[Shermana]

You seriously have issues with scripture especailly when you are proven wrong.

I know you do but what do I?

 

[Benoni]

Soul.

 

[Shermana]

Soul.

You never proved me wrong on that. You merely insisted on your own translation and then insisted the Ascension of Isaiah doesn't count because it contradicts Genesis in your view, or something circular and presumptious like that.

 

[Benoni]

You never proved me wrong on that. You merely insisted on your own translation and then insisted the Ascension of Isaiah doesn't count because it contradicts Genesis in your view, or something circular and presumptious like that.

Then either you deny the Bible or you do not believe it.

1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit