What is Contemplative Christianity?

[Yoshua]

We were talking about how you said Peter was not practicing meditation when it says he was praying. I said it doesn't detail how he was praying, so he could have been sitting in a lotus position for all you know, making the point since it doesn't say what he was doing, YOU CANNOT SAY HE WAS NOT PRACTICING MEDITATION. Did I ague he was meditating? No, of course I didn't! It doesn't say either way what he was doing. Yes, illogically, irrationally you ignore the fact that you are "making your own story" when you say he was not! How hard is that to follow?

Hi Windwalker,

Who do you think that was illogical, the one that assume (look at your statement)?

Yes, that is true, you don’t argue, but you injected a lotus position for Peter. That adds a meaning in the text to connect with New Age. Let us try to do some test with this question : if somebody tell you that you did something, but in reality you did not do, will you be joyful and commend that person?

Am I hard to follow? No it is not. I don’t make a story because I don’t add and assume anything for Peter. I stick to what the Scripture says.

That sounds man-made to me. But to me, it's just a valid as any other form of prayer of meditation we come up with that helps us on our spiritual path. But the difference is, you are too immature to allow others their own paths. They have to look like you in order for you to be comfortable with it, making yourself and your ideas the standard for all others. Grow up.

Who said that I’m disallowing others to their spiritual path? The truth is when you look at the standard of the Scripture and the words of Jesus, you cannot accept Him—as your standard. It’s not me, but the Scripture.

This is a very bizarre, incoherent response. You are unable to address the valid points I made, and just blurted out this incoherent, irrational response. To put this into context. Here's what I posted that you responded to with this mess. My words here:

"Dwelling" on the Bible actually can be understood as obsessing about it in your illness. Mentally ill people obsess over religion all the time. It's common. So the fact you bury your face in scripture, does not mean you don't have other problems. It's not a magic fix, buddy. "How can I have a problem if I trust in God with all my heart?", the reasoning goes. You actually do have to do some work on yourself, and that is very clearly taught in scripture. Otherwise, the obsession with the Bible or religious fundamentalism in general is a form of escaping yourself, avoiding doing the work and being made whole through the healing of Spirit.
What in the world does "There is no illness in the word of truth", have to do with the person reading it having a mental illness? None. You prove my point. You believe if you just read the Bible, if your bury your face in hiding within it, all your problems will "magically" be fixed! No wonder you hate the idea of meditation. Meditation makes you face yourself and deal with your shortcomings. I am suggesting, strongly at this point, that your brand of religion is being used by you as form of escapism in an unhealthy psychological repression.

You are indicating dissociation and an avoiding dealing with things in yourself, escaping into this bizarre form of religious paranoia and fanaticism. Your responses are incoherent, as in not just this glaring example, but pretty much all of them. The trains of thought are disconnected, not just a different point of view, but way out of true, way off-center, off-beam. No one reading your response above to the points I raised can see that as having anything to do with what I said, or am suggesting. I'm sorry, but that's the sad truth of this.

As I said originally, mental illnesses are not treatable by burying your face in scripture. The paranoia you demonstrate your irrational and unsupportable suspicions of other points of view, and in the way you read and interpret the Bible to reinforce your delusions, as well as how you respond to logical and rational points of view with posts like this, indicates a potential problem. I mean this respectfully, but you should seek some help outside just reading the Bible to help your thinking itself that you bring into the Bible with you. There are no magical fixes. It takes sincere work on ourselves, not just "pray it away" approaches that leave someone deeply delusional as to take a suggestion of being obsessive and turn it into this sort of a response as follows:

You’re saying that those who reads the Bible is mentally ill. You are pertaining the whole people around the world if you are saying that thing. It can be summarized as ”don’t read the Bible.” Actually, I want to follow Jesus because He said the following :

John 17:17
14. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15. I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.
16. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

John 8:31-32
31. Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.
32. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.''

John 15:7
7. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.

Ps.119:41-43
41. Let thy steadfast love come to me, O Lord, thy salvation according to thy promise;
42. then shall I have an answer for those who taunt me, for I trust in thy word.
43. And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in thy ordinances.

Yes, you can be obsessive in "following Jesus". You betcha. There is healthy and unhealthy forms of everything, including your "obeying Jesus". Obsession, fanaticism, blinds the one doing it. It's unhealthy. It's damaging. And it is not "following God". It's an illness.

I think you are not consistent, and your word fires back to you. Please do not make a joke. You just say those who read the Bible is mentally ill. What is following God to you? Can you define what is the word “follow”?

Describe and enumerate healthy and unhealthy in obeying Jesus so we may see it clearly what is your point.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I realize nothing anyone says matters to you as you are not open to actual discussion, but posts like these do make me laugh at just how badly you misunderstand scripture. "Christ lives in me" is "not in the Spirit"? Are you so ignorant that you do not know that "Christ in you" is "The Spirit in you"? There's a book in the NT which Paul wrote called Romans. In that book is a passage in the 8th chapter, and in the 9th verse which I think may confuse you, leaving you wondering how a "New Age" concept got in there.

"You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ."
​

So having the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, is the same thing as "Christ in you". Spirit of Christ, Spirit of God, the Spirit, etc. They are all the same thing, according to both me and that infamous, original New Age hippie freak, the Apostle Paul.

The “Christ lives in me” means that the life which we live (flesh) is by faith in Jesus Christ, and not the Spirit of Christ or Spirit of God. You jumbled all “Spirit” here without knowing what is their distinction and what are they. I answering you in theological view here. Why I cannot say that the Son of God is the Spirit of God? It is because of their personality (person) as the Son of God is not the Spirit of God (trinitarian doctrine).

Rom. 8:5-16
5. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
8. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Paul is referring to the flesh, to who are dependent and being driven by the flesh instead allowing the Holy Spirit to direct their spiritual life. There is no New Age concept here, it is how you understand the Scripture. Read the whole Scripture rather than focusing your mind in one phrase only. Please understand why the phrase “Christ in you” or “Christ lives in me” were used. Look at the explanation of Paul. The Holy Spirit dwell in us, this is why he connote that the Spirit of Christ is in us. And that does not mean we are already Jesus Christ, and the Son of God. Take a look at v.13, it clearly says you put to death the deeds of the body (flesh) to live.

9. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
10. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
13. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father.''
16. The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

The words are staring right at you, yet in your blindness you cannot see or understand them. Let me illuminate it with special exciting highlight colors for you where they hopefully leap off the page a little better for you. "YOU are the light of the world". "Let YOUR light so shine" Do you see them now? The words YOU and YOUR and LIGHT? Do you understand what they are saying? Let me explain using the Bible something I think you have no knowledge of. Hopefully you're willing to listen and learn with humility, rather than continue in these endless displays of willful ignorance as you have been showing.

Cross reference this light of the world with John 1:4-5. "In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." And John 1:18, "I am the Light of the World". If Christ is the light of the world, and YOU are the light of the world, how does this happen? Are you kicking Christ off the throne in your egotistical power seeking, or is it some other thing going on you can't put together. Could it be that "Christ in you", makes YOU "the light of the world"? Christ is the light of the world. You are the light of the world. Keep saying those together in succession and see what you come up with.

That's right, you become God in the world. "You are the light of the world, by being "God in the flesh". No other way to be that Light, actually. "[I pray] that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you... have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity."

Jesus is New Age too, apparently. I think you need to find a different religion than the one you think you're part of, since it's so full of these "New Age concepts".

How will I find another belief if I already know those deception of the enemy? I know how they work and distort the gospel. I see the truth by faith in Christ Jesus.

Not surprising. I fully know that verse--is being used by New Age to prove their concept.

Matt. 5:13-16
13. "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14. "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15. "Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

We should understand what is the “light” that Jesus is referring. In v.16, it is clear that the light must be shine before men so others will see the good works, and this good works is to glorify our Father in heaven.

Eph. 5:8-11
8. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light
9. (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth),
10. proving what is acceptable to the Lord.
11. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

So being a light has goodness, righteousness and truth, it should be acceptable to the Lord.

Phil. 2:12-16
12. Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
(this is the fear the Scripture is saying aside from the wisdom; the salvation is worked out with fear and trembling)

13. for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
(it is God who works, and not by our own capability—the Holy Spirit’s working)
14. Do all things without murmuring and disputing,
15. that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,
16. holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain.

John 17:1-26
1. Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2. "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3. "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
4. "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
5. "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

The v.1 to v.5 is the petition of Jesus.

6. "I have manifested Your name to the men (Apostle/disciples) whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You (Father) gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
7. "Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You.
8. "For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
9. "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. (for those believers and followers only)
10. "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.
11. "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.

The oneness here is the unity of the believers and the followers of Christ; it is not call for ecumenism—oneness of all different religion and beliefs. Jesus once said, follow me. I don’t think all religion and belief will carry their own cross because they are not a follower or a disciple of Jesus Christ.

12. "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
13. "But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves.
14. "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. ( the world hated the follower of Christ)
15. "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
16. "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. (The follower of Christ is not of the world)

Any belief that is not of Jesus is considered as “not of the world.” They should be the follower of Jesus Christ only.

17. "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
(the importance of the word of God is the truth )
18. "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19. "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

This is the prayer for His Disciples, and not for those unbelievers. Take note of that.

The following are the basis why Christ prayed for them:
1.) God had given the Apostles/disciples to be with Jesus.
2.) The prayer of Jesus is based on their faith in Him.
3.) The Apostles/disciples received Jesus Christ’s words, same as the Father’s words. They accepted.
4.) They believed that He is the Son of God, and He was sent into the world.
5.) They have an intimate relationship with Christ.

20. "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
21. "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
(The one in Us is to believe that the Father sent Jesus Christ)
22. "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:

(Jesus is referring to the unity of the believers as the Father and the Son is also in unity; thus, the unity was to be an evidence to the world that Jesus Christ came from God and was God )
23. "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
24. "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
25. "O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me.
26. "And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.''
The v.20 to v.26 is prayer for the family of the believers.

You seriously need to get a safer hobby, like stamp collection or something much more straightforward with clear instruction books to follow. Your hurting yourself playing with the Bible like this.

I’m not hurt, but have the knowledge what is the truth and what is not. The Bible is not a toy or collection –for you to play like what you’re thinking. That is a sword, and penetrates the soul of men to the truth of Jesus Christ. How can I be hurt with the world, I’m not with the world? Jesus overcome the world.

John 16:33
33. "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.''

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Jesus came to remind us who and what we are.

Hi Sojourner,

Remind?? it seems you’re using the terminology as indirect and not straightforward like you use the word “participate.”

Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.
1 Tim. 1:15
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Jesus Christ came into the world to call sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17
"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Jesus Christ came into the world to seek and save the lost.
Luke 19:10
"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Jesus came into the world to demonstrate the true purpose of life and give Himself a ransom.
Matthew 20:28
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Jesus Christ came into the world to be a King and bear witness to the truth.
John 18:37
"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Jesus Christ came into the world to do the Will of His Father.
John 6:38
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

Jesus Christ came into the world to be a Light in the world.
John 12:46
"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness."

Jesus Christ came into the world that men might have the Abundant Life.
John 10:10
"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

Jesus Christ came into the world to Judge the world.
John 9:39
"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."

Jesus Christ came into the world to Proclaim or preach the Good News about the Kingdom of God.
Mark 1:38
"And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth."

Jesus Christ came into the world to die on the cross.
John 12:27
"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour."

Jesus Christ came into the world to fulfil the law.
Matthew 5:17
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

Jesus Christ came into the world to be a Divider of men.
Matthew 10:34, 35
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."
(Christ makes it necessary to choose between relatives and the truth. This choice often causes division.)

Jesus Christ came into the world as a demonstration of God's Love.
1 John 4:10
"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Jesus Christ came into the world because the Father sent Him.
John 20:21
"Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."
Where did you get the idea that Jesus came here to remind us who we are and what we are? I don’t see remind here?

We are all perfectly human. And being human isn't sinful, because it's what we were made to be.

If human is not sinful, then why Jesus came here to save sinners, would you believe Jesus word’s about sinners?

Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.
1 Tim. 1:15
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Jesus Christ came into the world to call sinners to repentance.
Mark 2:17
"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

There is no external point of reference.

Then, there is no direction on what you are believing. Can you share Christianity, and share Buddhism and Hindusim also—as preaching the gospel?

ell, that's what it comes down to for everyone.

Everyone? What’s the use of Jesus saying, I am the truth, if that is your conclusion.

Christianity has its own doctrine; and aside from His doctrine, those are not in accordance with the doctrine of Christ. This is a very strong assurance coming form the mouth of Jesus.

John 17:17
16. Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
17. "If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

When one loves, one is committed, submitted to that love, and obedient to it, yes?

Absolutely not. You know why? because the “love” that you understand—is not the love that Jesus is proclaiming. I don’t see commitment, submission and obedience to those who cannot accept, believe and obey God’s word. Jesus came here for sinners; you just say He just came to remind who we are and what we are. Also, you don’t believe that human being is a sinner. Therefore, this is a proof of contradiction with the purpose of why Jesus came here (see above Scriptures).

Maybe, that is your definition of love to other religion or beliefs, but not for Christianity. Jesus’ Christianity is not cheap and a superficial commitment, but a greater love that has given to all to serve and obey His words.

This is the “love” that Jesus is referring.

John 15:12-15
12. "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
(there is a commandment—to love one another)

13. "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
(the love of God is a greater love, that no one that surpass His love)

14. "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.
(there is an order to His believer, to do and obey His commands)

15. "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.

(He used the word servant as one who will follow and do His command, but altered it to “friends” because of all the things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. There is no secrets between friends but transparency. The proof continued in v. 16 & v.17 by bearing fruit and loving one another. Now, that does not mean you can do whatever you want, you will go back to v.14, as proof that you are a friend of Jesus.

Well, no -- but we don't have to get truth from others, just as others don't have to get truth from Jesus. Different perspectives aren't "different truths." Christians have one perspective of truth. Other faiths have other perspectives -- but it's all truth.

Jesus is the (only one) who suffered and lay His life to save the souls of many. He confessed that He is the truth. If you knew someone who can surpass Jesus, please inform me.

I believed others have no real truth—as Jesus claimed He is the truth.

Different perspectives =/= "half truths." Yes. The truth of Jesus is the truth of Jesus only. Other teachers have their own truth. Again, truth is truth -- with many perspectives. Not everyone is going to see truth from the Christian perspective -- and that's OK.

Then, please enumerate what they did to save the soul of mankind and their proof of capability to bring people to eternal life ( pls. also specify what truth they are claiming).

No, it's not "like I'm saying that" at all. You think sin is our natural condition, from which we must be saved. I think sin is an unnatural condition, from which we must be saved. You think that salvation makes us something other than what God created us to be. I think that salvation restores us to what God created us to be.

Then, that restoration is already the reason why Jesus came here (John 3:16).

You're misunderstanding. Jesus is always undergoing the one sacrifice. He is also always being resurrected from that one, eternal sacrifice.

Did you have a proof that His sacrifice in the cross was done so many times, and not just once?

No. You don't "got my point."

Then what is your point regarding the Eucharist as experiencing the person instead an old picture?

You still don't get what I'm saying.

Jesus is the way; the way to the Father, the mediator; the way of our salvation through Him.By Yoshua

That is the right interpretation about “the way” of Jesus.

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, that is true, you don’t argue, but you injected a lotus position for Peter. That adds a meaning in the text to connect with New Age.

I said for all you know he could have been sitting in a lotus position. For all you know he could have been doing yoga. For all you know he could have been standing on his head, doing jumping jacks, backspins, flips, or singing loudly, or gently petting a cat as a form of prayer. For all you know. The scripture does not specify how he was praying. Therefore for you cannot say that how he prayed did not look like any of the above. Yet, you say it didn't. How do you say it didn't, when scriptures doesn't say what it was? Doing that, is you injecting your assumptions into scripture.

BTW, the lotus position isn't New Age! It goes way back into Hindu practices. You really have this irrational obsession with New Age, don't you?

Am I hard to follow?

You're not hard to follow as everything you say only goes about a quarter of an inch deep. What the problem is you have a challenge following others and respond to stuff in your own head, other than what others are saying. Sorry, but that's pretty obvious to anyone following these posts and your replies to them.

No it is not. I don’t make a story because I don’t add and assume anything for Peter. I stick to what the Scripture says.

No you don't. You are not sticking with scripture when you tell me he was not doing some form of meditation practice. If you were being genuine, you would say this, "I can't say he was or he wasn't, as scripture doesn't say what he was doing." That's honest.

Who said that I’m disallowing others to their spiritual path? The truth is when you look at the standard of the Scripture and the words of Jesus, you cannot accept Him—as your standard. It’s not me, but the Scripture.

There it is! Right there! Everything I have been saying all along! People like you do not accept responsibility for their own beliefs and biases! "It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture."

Let those words ring out for all to see and hear. You abuse scripture to justify your own thinking, saying "It’s not me, but the Scripture." This is like the immature little child saying, "It wasn't me, she made me do it!" "It wasn't me, it was it was the devil!" "It's not me telling you you're going to hell, it's the Bible!" It isn't me thinking everyone who doesn't do what I do is wrong, it's the Bible". It's not me saying slavery is okay, but the Bible. It's not me saying the Jews are Christ-killers, but the Bible. It's not me saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but the Bible".

All of it, hiding from your own self-responsibility. As I said, your brand of religion is dysfunctional. It's escapism. It's pathological. It's a spiritual disease.

I think you are not consistent, and your word fires back to you. Please do not make a joke. You just say those who read the Bible is mentally ill. What is following God to you? Can you define what is the word “follow”?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? You honestly could twist what I said to say I am saying everyone who reads the Bible is mentally ill? I read the Bible too, and quote from it all the time in this thread, as well as elsewhere. No, I said that don't kid yourself that just because you are reading scripture, it's going to help someone who has a mental illness, not have one! It's simply saying don't escape responsibility for dealing with your problems by not seeking professional help if you have a mental illness, and instead read the Bible and say you don't have a problem because you believe in the Bible. The Bible is not going to magically cure you just because you read it. You need to deal with your problems doing some actually inner work, working with a therapist or a psychiatrist.

Describe and enumerate healthy and unhealthy in obeying Jesus so we may see it clearly what is your point.

By their fruits you shall know them. What you are doing, is unhealthy. It appears your religion in how you practice it is making things worse for you. Religion can be fine and helpful, but not if you do not have the proper foundations of good mental health to begin with. The Bible in the hands of the psychological disturbed can in fact be harmful to them, deepening their delusional and paranoid thinking.

And this brings us full circle back to the practice of meditation. Someone who doesn't not have a relatively stable psyche to begin with, should not attempt meditation practices without the guidance of a professional instructor. It's the same thing with the practice of religion too. In meditation, opening up to the deep recesses of the psyche could be misinterpreted in damaging ways, misreading and misinterpreting what is exposed in them to mean something "Satanic", and so forth. And with religion, burying oneself into a book of rigid external laws superimposed by a deity, throwing oneself into them in religious fanaticism, likewise may cause a psychic break, leading to deeper self-dissociation and dysfunction. Religion attracts mentally ill people because of this, the more fanatical and off-center the form of the religion, the more attractive it is to those who are already unbalanced.

Both are unhealthy forms of otherwise healthy practices. It begins and ends with the mind of the person engaging in them, not the practices themselves. Religion and meditation practices within them are healthy and helpful for those who are ready and desiring to grow, but unhealthy when practiced by those seeking to escape themselves, who are not ready for growth. They are instead seeking to escape the hard work and the religion is misinterpreted as validation and sanction for their path of self-avoidance, "It's not me, but the scriptures".

I think that summarizes the last 60 pages of this discussion well.

 

[InChrist]

I often muse how the term "Christian" means "little Christ", yet theologically Christians say we cannot be! But isn't this what "being transformed into the image of Christ" means, to become Christ? "Let your Light" shine. "I live, yet not I but Christ in me". Jesus realized his eternal nature and fully lived as that Light of the World. Imagine if we did? In other words, we'd all be actual Christians.

.

From my understanding "Christ" means anointed and His followers were called Christians because they believed He was the promised anointed One... Messiah/Savior..
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp129.htm

I have read and re-read your previous posts and would like to focus on "Christ' a little further. I've been thinking about the way you believe and espouse that humans (you, me, we, us, everyone, or anyone) can become Christ/God. Many, as you, seem to believe this idea of “becoming God”, “merging with God’, ‘attaining Christ consciousness”, “realizing Christ within”, etc.

I am coming from a completely different perspective and believe Jesus has always been God (He did not at a certain point realize this, but has eternally known who He is) that He only is Christ, as the prophetic scriptures indicate in reference to the anointed Messiah/ Savior Jesus Christ who was “God with us” (Matt. 1:23), the Eternal Son of God who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:I; 14),and the One appointed to be the anointed One ...He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:42-42).

It is this One, Jesus, who I believe is the one and only Christ that gives His Light...

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (John 1:9), Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8:12), Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.” (Eph. 5:14)

John the Baptist, though, sent by God, did not claim to be the Light or Christ, but was a witness of Jesus Christ as the Light of the world.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. (John 1:6-8) He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” (John 1:20)

You, I assume have been practicing contemplative prayer/ meditation for quite a while, is that correct? I get the impression that you consider yourself fairly advanced in your spiritual journey and realization of “being Christ” and believe you are spiritually more advanced in your perspective than I am in mine of simply believing the straightforward message of the Bible. Is this a correct perception?

Are you confident in believing and saying that you are God or Christ?

 

[InChrist]

Amen to this.

It is wonderful to know Jesus Christ and be filled with His Light. To God be the glory now and forever!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own,and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-14

 

[Yoshua]

I said for all you know he could have been sitting in a lotus position. For all you know he could have been doing yoga. For all you know he could have been standing on his head, doing jumping jacks, backspins, flips, or singing loudly, or gently petting a cat as a form of prayer. For all you know. The scripture does not specify how he was praying. Therefore for you cannot say that how he prayed did not look like any of the above. Yet, you say it didn't. How do you say it didn't, when scriptures doesn't say what it was? Doing that, is you injecting your assumptions into scripture.

Hi Windwalker,

If the Scripture does not specify how he was praying, then why you keep telling it could be anything? You are now adding meaning to it. This is how good you are on this.

How about the government constitution? Will you assume anything that you like using “it could be”?

Your response “The scripture does not specify how he was praying. Therefore for you cannot say that how he prayed did not look like any of the above. Yet, you say it didn't. How do you say it didn't, when scriptures doesn't say what it was? Doing that, is you injecting your assumptions into scripture.” only proves that you treat the Scripture as a story book rather than the word of God.


Ok, why not try your assumption that he is in lotus position and doing yoga? Now, how will you prove that he really doing yoga by using the Scriptures?

BTW, the lotus position isn't New Age! It goes way back into Hindu practices. You really have this irrational obsession with New Age, don't you?

Hindu concept is New Age; at the same time Hinduism contributed to the New Age movement.

Hinduism in the West
Colonial period
Hinduism-inspired elements in Theosophy were also inherited by the spin-off movements of Ariosophy and Anthroposophy and ultimately contributed to the renewed New Age boom of the 1960s to 1980s, the term New Age itself deriving from Blavatsky's 1888 The Secret Doctrine. Wikipedia

God
New Agers confuse the Creator with His creation and think that God is part of creation, not separate from it. They borrow from Eastern religions the belief in monism -- that "all is One" -- only one essence in the universe, everyone and everything being a part of that essence. Everything is a different form of that essence (energy, consciousness, power, love, force). But the belief in monism is really Hinduistic pantheism (all is God). New Agers view God as an impersonal life force, consciousness, or energy (M. Ferguson, Aquarian Conspiracy, p. 382; S. Gawain, Living In the Light, pp. 7-8) (e.g., the "Star Wars Force"), rather than a Person. They believe that every person and thing is "intertwined" with God (Spiritual evolution to the state of "the Christ" being), and use Luke 17:21 ("the kingdom of God is within you") to support this idea (despite the fact that "within you" in this passage means "in your midst"). They claim every human has a divine spark within him because of being part of the divine essence. The state of God is called by various terms among different New Age groups, i.e., God-consciousness, Universal Love, Self-Realization, the I AM, Higher Self, Brahman, Nirvana, etc. New Agers are obviously part of a religion of idolatry and self-worship. [HJB] 911:new Age agenda www.thebabylonmatrix.com

Hindu Contributions to the New Age Movement

As a phenomena which has gained notable attention in the last two decades or so, the New Age movement has been of special interest to those who specialize in the study of religion. The history and origin of this essentially American movement is an especially interesting one. While several historical trends have contributed to the development of this world view, the main impetus for the New Age movement - both since the 1960's, and including its pre-Sixties antecedents - has been the periodic influx of Hindu spiritual and philosophical ideas.

The modern New Age movement had its origins in the explosive interest in achieving maximal human potential and personal spiritual development witnessed in 1960's America. Today, included among many of the more famous New Age leaders are Deepak Chopra, Bernie Seagal and Marianne Williamson. As a social phenomena, this spiritual movement seeks both personal and planetary transformation. The former, most New Age theoreticians would say, leading necessarily to the latter. While this movement has gained great notoriety in recent years, however, the core basis of its ideas are nothing new. Many scholars have, in fact, described New Age ideas as a revival of esoteric and mystical religion traditions rooted in humanity's ancient past. Indeed, the greatest single contributor of philosophical concepts to the American New Age movement has been something neither new nor American, i.e., the ancient religious tradition of Hinduism.

This fact is evident both historically and in more contemporary observations. Historically, there were several 19th Century antecedents of the New Age movement. These include a) the Theosophical Society, b) the New Thought Movement, and c) the arrival of Swami Vivekananda in America. The Theosophical Society of H.P. Blavatsky derived much of its philosophical outlook from the religions of Asia, specifically Hinduism and Buddhism. The source of divine knowledge for Theosophists were the mysterious and elusive "Mahatmas" who supposedly lived in the Himalayas. The New Thought movement - which inspired such 19th century Christian movements as Christian Science and Unity - was also very receptive to religious currents emanating from Eastern sources. The New Thought movement, in turn, owed much of its theology to the ideas of the New England Transcendentalists, such as Thoreau and Emerson, who where greatly influenced by the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. About the Bhagavad Gita's influence in his life, Thoreau has written, "In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial". Finally, the famous 1893 arrival of Swami Vivekananda, and the subsequent growth of his Vedanta Society in America, helped communicate Hindu religious thought to an eager American audience in a more explicit form.

Building upon these 19th Century foundations, the New Age movement began its modern development in the 1960's. Though other trends certainly contributed significantly to this development, including transpersonal psychology and occultism, it was the new influx of Hindu spiritual traditions which was most responsible for the movement's subsequent development and outlook. Due to changes in the immigration laws in 1965, Asian spiritual teachers (gurus) found entering the U.S. less of a challenge. During this time, many esteemed Hindu gurus began traveling about America on lecture tours, including Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Bhaktivedanta Swami, Swami Rama and Swami Satchidananda. Consequently, many Hindu religious traditions began to find new and eager adherents in America. Some of these traditions included Yoga, Vedanta, Tantra, Vaishnavism and various Advaitic Hindu teachings. The contributions of these different Hindu schools of thought to New Age thinking was immense.

These include both philosophical and practical contributions. While New Agers currently believe in such concepts as: the interdependence of all life, non-violence, concern for the Earth's environment, and tolerance for diverse viewpoints, it was the ancient Hindu philosophical heritage which first helped formulate these concepts coherently in the mind's of many nascent New Agers. Other New Age ideas which received strong philosophical support from India's religions include the belief in reincarnation and karma, the efficacy of ritual, and the need for compassion towards animals. Indeed, the latter trend within the New Age movement is quite in keeping with the vegetarian and non-violent ethic taught by most Asian spiritual traditions (specifically Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism).

Possibly the most important component which the New Age movement owes to Hindu spirituality, however, is the practice of meditation. Every tradition of Indian religion teaches one form of meditation or another. Perhaps the most important proponent of meditation in the U.S. has been the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement. Other forms of meditation introduced from India include mantra-meditation, visualization and karma yoga. As a result of this influx of Hindu meditational techniques, the practice of meditation has become an integral part of the New Age landscape.

While it is true that many of the beliefs and practices of the New Age movement can also be traced to other sources (for example, Platonic and Hermetic philosophy, as well as Native American beliefs), it is apparent that the movement owes a great deal of its ideas to the much older spiritual traditions of India. From the practical considerations of vegetarianism and meditation, to gaining a more philosophical justification for its belief structure, the New Age movement finds its greatest source of inspiration and ideas from the great religious tradition of Hinduism. www.hinduwisdom.info

There it is! Right there! Everything I have been saying all along! People like you do not accept responsibility for their own beliefs and biases! "It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture. It’s not me, but the Scripture."

Let those words ring out for all to see and hear. You abuse scripture to justify your own thinking, saying "It’s not me, but the Scripture." This is like the immature little child saying, "It wasn't me, she made me do it!" "It wasn't me, it was it was the devil!" "It's not me telling you you're going to hell, it's the Bible!" It isn't me thinking everyone who doesn't do what I do is wrong, it's the Bible". It's not me saying slavery is okay, but the Bible. It's not me saying the Jews are Christ-killers, but the Bible. It's not me saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, but the Bible".

All of it, hiding from your own self-responsibility. As I said, your brand of religion is dysfunctional. It's escapism. It's pathological. It's a spiritual disease.

Then, that is the truth. The Scripture speaks to us. It is just the same thing that is written when I posted those Scripture, that is still the Scripture all around the world. There is no such thing as abusing the Scripture, no way to that. I’m still fall short in reading the Bible.

Why are you irritated so much for those who saw the truth in the Scripture?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? You honestly could twist what I said to say I am saying everyone who reads the Bible is mentally ill? I read the Bible too, and quote from it all the time in this thread, as well as elsewhere. No, I said that don't kid yourself that just because you are reading scripture, it's going to help someone who has a mental illness, not have one! It's simply saying don't escape responsibility for dealing with your problems by not seeking professional help if you have a mental illness, and instead read the Bible and say you don't have a problem because you believe in the Bible. The Bible is not going to magically cure you just because you read it. You need to deal with your problems doing some actually inner work, working with a therapist or a psychiatrist.

Yes, of course. It should be balance. The Bible is not going to magically cure, but it cures anxiety, fear and insecurities. It is also a light to my path.

It is good to know that you also read the Bible, thus, by reading and listening, faith comes.

By their fruits you shall know them. What you are doing, is unhealthy. It appears your religion in how you practice it is making things worse for you. Religion can be fine and helpful, but not if you do not have the proper foundations of good mental health to begin with. The Bible in the hands of the psychological disturbed can in fact be harmful to them, deepening their delusional and paranoid thinking.

It is more direct & deeper if by their commitment and obedience to His words, you will know them, aside by their fruits. I believed you put yourself so much in psychology, that makes unhealthy. Because it is usually bring confusion with spirituality in Christ. I have my spiritual foundation, and it's totally changed my life with peace, security, assurance and love in Christ Jesus.

And this brings us full circle back to the practice of meditation. Someone who doesn't not have a relatively stable psyche to begin with, should not attempt meditation practices without the guidance of a professional instructor. It's the same thing with the practice of religion too. In meditation, opening up to the deep recesses of the psyche could be misinterpreted in damaging ways, misreading and misinterpreting what is exposed in them to mean something "Satanic", and so forth. And with religion, burying oneself into a book of rigid external laws superimposed by a deity, throwing oneself into them in religious fanaticism, likewise may cause a psychic break, leading to deeper self-dissociation and dysfunction. Religion attracts mentally ill people because of this, the more fanatical and off-center the form of the religion, the more attractive it is to those who are already unbalanced.

Don’t worry, because I’m not in psychology and not meditating like you do. I’m meditating with the Scriptures. Did knowing what is the truth and not--is dysfunction? Did meditating with the Scriptures is dysfunction? How about following and obeying the words of Jesus?

By the way, I’m not into a religion. It is by having a personal intimate relationship with Jesus Christ. This is one on one relationship with Him. Just by faith.

Both are unhealthy forms of otherwise healthy practices. It begins and ends with the mind of the person engaging in them, not the practices themselves. Religion and meditation practices within them are healthy and helpful for those who are ready and desiring to grow, but unhealthy when practiced by those seeking to escape themselves, who are not ready for growth. They are instead seeking to escape the hard work and the religion is misinterpreted as validation and sanction for their path of self-avoidance, "It's not me, but the scriptures".

I think that summarizes the last 60 pages of this discussion well.

You are saying that centering prayer, psychology, new age and adhering to mystical practices is healthy while obedience and submission to Jesus Christ’s words is unhealthy.

In the first place, Jesus never commend us to do such practices as part of our growth in spiritual. It is by following what he uttered. He said that he who abides/keep/remain in His word is His disciples. How can I break that statement? My choice is to believe in what He say rather than adhering to man-made beliefs, psychology studies in relation to spirituality, religions, relative views, syncretism, monism, pantheism, panentheism, mystical practices etc..

Did obeying God’s word is an escape? It is not. It is a commitment, a loyalty to God. A doctrine to follow with submissive heart. Seeking multi-religious practices, syncretism and adhering to other practices is purely an evidence of escaping from a commitment and submission to God’s will. It is the will of God from sending His Son, Jesus Christ to give us the hope of salvation. He is the only one who can do that offer; nobody surpass that greater love to mankind.

John 17:17
16. Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.
17. "If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.

It is truly not my will, but the Scripture (word of God/will of God) be done. Not me, it is the Scriptures.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

I just watch recently a film that catch my attention, this is a quotation with this sequence of statement. I try to change some of it to incorporate with spirituality.
Here it goes:

Remembering God in the Old Testament
who made the heaven and earth;
He made us--that which we are, we are
Love has given to our hearts and minds,
one equal nature with life,
made weak in our corrupt nature
but strong in will, to strive, to seek,
to find and not to yield,
to follow and to obey in Christ Jesus

Thanks

 

[Windwalker]

From my understanding "Christ" means anointed and His followers were called Christians because they believed He was the promised anointed One... Messiah/Savior..
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp129.htm

I'm working off the opinion that the name given to the followers of Jesus as "Christians", means "little Christ". There's lots of info out there about the reasons why people think that's what the term means, and Martin Luther himself used it that way. But regardless of that, I think my point that to be a "follower", really has the emphasis of becoming "like" the teacher, in that you for all intents and purposes so embody that teacher you are identical with him.

That is actually what being a student of a teacher was like back in the days of Jesus, where the student so well inhabited the teacher's mind and being, he could in fact speak as that teacher himself. As he spoke for the teacher, his words were treated as the teachers. (Much of the words of Jesus in the Bible stories are more than probable of being attributions, words of later Christians speaking as their Master would say, reflecting the points of view of the Christian community, spoken not as frauds, but as "appropriate", consistent with what they felt Jesus would likely say).

So the point is what a follower is supposed to do is to be transformed into the image of Christ. Right? This "image" is for all intents and purposes, "being Christ". I think my Meister Eckhart quote nicely conveyed what that looks like.

I have read and re-read your previous posts and would like to focus on "Christ' a little further. I've been thinking about the way you believe and espouse that humans (you, me, we, us, everyone, or anyone) can become Christ/God. Many, as you, seem to believe this idea of “becoming God”, “merging with God’, ‘attaining Christ consciousness”, “realizing Christ within”, etc.

I was hesitant to get too embroiled in what this 1st Person perspective of God speaks to, as I knew theologically it's a hard idea for most to grasp, and understandably so! I didn't want to get too ensnared in something that really doesn't have too any ultimate bearing on what meditation does for you. That is ONE of the realizations that may come, or may not at all, depending on the person and other factors. There is also the 2nd and 3rd person perspectives as well. I actually don't consider that the "highest" realization, but that's a whole other discussion.

I don't mind a little theological aside like this, but ultimately it doesn't make or break the rest of what I am saying. But to address this to help clarify for you a little more, if possible, the way I tend to look at this is that in reality, we all already are God. This "realization" is not an attainment of something you currently do not have. That is a key misunderstanding. In realizing God, the consistent response that people say is, "It was there the whole time!" Indeed, it couldn't been anywhere else! Infinite, is infinite - not finite. It can't be "somewhere else". The only thing that made it somewhere else, is the perception of ourselves as separate from it. It is only our mind's imagination that sees ourselves as separate from the Divine. "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?", asks David. Amen, and Amen!

So this "becoming" is really only a metaphoric expression, speaking from the point of view of one who sees themselves apart from God. You do not literally become God, but you realize that you already are. But that realization is not the ego-self. The ego-self, the separate "I", is the one that sees itself as separate. That is not God, but an illusion. One cannot, definitely cannot take the ego-self, the separate seeking-self and make that God! Absolutely not. So it is not arrogance, puffing one's ego's up into imagine itself to be God. Indeed, that would be delusional and utterly incorrect. And that last sentence is the key point to understanding the difference. It is in getting rid of the separate self, that we realize who and what we ultimately are, which is none other than the Source in us.

But again, this is not the only valid way of knowing the Divine, and it is perfectly valid and important to realize the Divine in other ways, in 2nd person theistic relationships, or a 3rd person experience of the Divine in the manifest world. I think to deny other modes of realizing God, denies God. And that denying of God, is in fact what is the actual hubris of mankind in its image of itself as it prevents God.

I am coming from a completely different perspective and believe Jesus has always been God (He did not at a certain point realize this, but has eternally known who He is) that He is only Christ, as the prophetic scriptures indicate in reference to the anointed Messiah/ Savior Jesus Christ who was “God with us” (Matt. 1:23), the Eternal Son of God who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:I; 14)

Jesus, like me or you, most certainly was not "In the beginning". Jesus was a man. He was born of human flesh and blood like all of us. He ate, breathed air, sneezed, got sick, threw up, fell in love, felt emotions, laughed, cried, got angry, felt pain, bled and died, etc., just like all of us. The Logos however, is eternal. It is was came before all we see in our visible universe, and created all that is and is becoming. Just to make that distinction clear here....

It is this One, Jesus, who I believe is the one and only Christ that gives His Light...

And yet, Jesus said of us that we would do greater works than he. From what Source do we do this? The same Source Jesus did, the Logos. The Light Jesus brought, we can bring as well, from "Christ in you". When we are as Aware as he was, then it is that Logos in the flesh, in us, through us. There is only One Source, and hence why Jesus stressed the first commandment was to love that Source with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, as it enables us, gives us the ability to allow that Source to live in and flow from us into the world in order to truly love your neighbor as yourself. It's what Jesus did, and that is the Way.

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. (John 1:9), Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8:12), Therefore He says: “Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead, And Christ will give you light.” (Eph. 5:14)

Yep.

John the Baptist, though, sent by God, did not claim to be the Light or Christ, but was a witness of Jesus Christ as the Light of the world.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. (John 1:6-8) He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” (John 1:20)

Yep. John was not awakened to That. He was not "Enlightened". He saw Jesus as the one who was, not himself.

You, I assume have been practicing contemplative prayer/ meditation for quite a while, is that correct?

Yes, for over 5 years everyday about an hour or so each morning, plus walking meditation for a half-hour after lunch, plus periodic 'mindfulness' practice bring myself back to ground and center throughout the day, all of which can be understood as Paul says, "pray without ceasing".

I get the impression that you consider yourself fairly advanced in your spiritual journey and attainment of “being Christ”

Again for emphasis, I do not believe we can "attain" what is already fully ours. That's like trying to attain your lungs. What I have learned, is about my own nature, both in my humanness, in learning my emotional and psychological bodies and learning to work with them in a spiritual path in order to allow the spiritual nature of who we are to be in myself, and in learning about the nature of the Divine itself. In other words, I learn to allow God, to get myself out of the way in cooperation with the Divine.

I have learned a lot in this, yes, to be sure. It's learning something that no amount of reading others thoughts and ideas or theologies or doctrines can impart. It's an individual journey that everyone individually must take if they wish to grow in this living knowledge.

and believe you are spiritually more advanced in your perspective than I am in mine of simply believing the straightforward message of the Bible. Is this a correct perception?

I believe I have a larger or wider perspective because it includes a multitude of perspectives that yours, or anyone's cannot when they are looking solely outside themselves. Absolutely, seeing with the eye of Spirit does in fact alter how one understands everything else. It is "more" than the eye of flesh, and more than the eye of mind. But like the eye of mind, we learn to develop seeing with it. If someone never opened a book in their life and read anything else to gain greater perspectives, would they be as advantaged as someone who was in fact very well-read? Not likely.

It's all about exposure to knowledge, and different types of knowings. It's important to understand that the spiritual path as I see it is all inclusive of the whole person, the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit. To see only with the eye of mind, "thinking about things", limits what can be known.

Are you confident in believing and saying that you are God or Christ?

I wish. I have had these 1st person experiences of the Divine, and I have experienced states of pure nondual consciousness. But I am still growing, learning to adapt, learning to integrate such awareness into myself. Most often I still see and experience myself as separate. I have had some plateau states of inhabiting that awareness that's lasted for several weeks, but I'm still on my path, and I doubt it's possible to ever not be. I still struggle with self-contraction, but with time and exposure, it is easier to inhabit that self-sense of dualistic separateness without struggle and disconsternation. But having experienced the Absolute, I am confident to say that that Light which shines on all things, is the energy of Life that is in all things, including you, including me, to such a degree that when the veil is pulled back, we are overwhelmed in all of what and who we all are. That I know.

 

[sojourner]

Where did you get the idea that Jesus came here to remind us who we are and what we are? I don’t see remind here?

No, you don't, and more's the pity.

If human is not sinful, then why Jesus came here to save sinners, would you believe Jesus word’s about sinners?

I didn't say, "human beings aren't sinful." I said, "being human isn't sinful."

Then, there is no direction on what you are believing. Can you share Christianity, and share Buddhism and Hindusim also—as preaching the gospel?

Yes, so long as each is preaching love and union with the Divine.

Everyone? What’s the use of Jesus saying, I am the truth, if that is your conclusion.

Because Jesus' truth is the truth of love.

Christianity has its own doctrine; and aside from His doctrine, those are not in accordance with the doctrine of Christ. This is a very strong assurance coming form the mouth of Jesus.

The "doctrine" of Jesus is a doctrine of love.

Absolutely not. You know why? because the “love” that you understand—is not the love that Jesus is proclaiming.

You have no idea what I'm talking about. Further, your perspective on "what the bible says" about love is narrow (and shallow) in the extreme.

Jesus is the (only one) who suffered and lay His life to save the souls of many. He confessed that He is the truth. If you knew someone who can surpass Jesus, please inform me.

I believed others have no real truth—as Jesus claimed He is the truth.

No one's asking you to become something than you already are. Why are you insisting that others become something you think they "should" be?

Then, please enumerate what they did to save the soul of mankind and their proof of capability to bring people to eternal life ( pls. also specify what truth they are claiming).

God saves humanity. God brings people to eternal life. And God is bigger than Christianity or Christian doctrine.

Did you have a proof that His sacrifice in the cross was done so many times, and not just once?

I really wish you understood this concept. You're so locked into a simple, temporal mode that, apparently, you're unable to grasp that one event (the crucifixion) can be (and is) an eternal event -- that is, it's always happening. Just as the resurrection event is always happening.

Then what is your point regarding the Eucharist as experiencing the person instead an old picture?

When you look at a picture, are you actually having a conversation, or touching, or having some kind of interpersonal intercourse with a person -- or are you experiencing a memory of such things that happened in the past, and are no longer happening right now? If you're honest, you'll say that you're experiencing a memory of something that happened in the past, and is not happening right now.

When you're with someone in the actual moment, are you experiencing a memory, or are you experiencing a real interpersonal exchange? Are you actually seeing, touching, and hearing the other person, or are you only recalling something you've seen and touched and heard before?

The Eucharist (like the crucifixion) is an event that is always happening. The moment lies outside temporal experience, so that we participate in it -- no matter the "moment in time." That's the understanding of anamnesis. "Remembering a past event" isn't the same thing as "living a present moment outside the confines of temporal experience."

Jesus is the way; the way to the Father, the mediator; the way of our salvation through Him.By Yoshua

That is the right interpretation about “the way” of Jesus.

There is no one "right" interpretation.

 

[sojourner]

No. It is not, you are promoting a New Age concept. No Christian (a follower of Christ) say the good news—is we are one.

John 17:21

Yes, I know that the gospel is gospel about love. The purpose of the gospel--is people will come to Jesus to receive the salvation he offered to gain eternal life. It is not about binding together in love but committing to become disciple of Christ.

That's not how I see it. What does it mean to "become a disciple of Christ?" Does it mean to "believe certain things about Jesus?" Or, does it mean "to do what Jesus told us to do?" -- That is, to love one another?

Oh..I see. So that concludes you are not a follower of Christ.

No it doesn't conclude that at all.

How can you prove that Jesus Christ is the same as other beliefs?

Other belief systems promote love of self, love of others and love of Deity.

What makes you think that Christianity of Jesus—is not the true beliefs or faiths when it come to salvation of our soul?

Christianity isn't properly a religion -- it's a way of being. Any religion can be "Christian" in nature, when it promotes love.

Paul did not encouraging anyone to eat the food sacrificed for idols, rather he is telling that we should not make our brother to stumble.

"Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'no idol in the world really exists,' and that 'there is no God but one.' 5 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

What would you think Jesus will say if a claimed follower did not put Jesus Christ first (priority) ?

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us.

Since you agree and say it is nothing wrong with Merton to embraced and practice Buddhism, Sufism and Christianity, that would mean you conform to that doctrine. Are you denying Merton?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. I can have deep respect for and agree with the differing beliefs of others, even if I, myself, do not adhere to them.

The family of Jesus Christ and the family of Buddha is totally separated.

How? Genetically, we are All. The. Same.

Oh come on, it does not matter if I know so much, or not so much. It is not that counts. The realization that one knows the truth of Jesus from surrendering his life to Him—as giving him direction to his life--is enough. To follow and obey His teachings—as submission to His will.

I don't think you know enough to "realize the truth," judging by your posts here.

Oh, my. That is why I have faith in Jesus Christ and not other beliefs. I believe in one faith—in Jesus Christ. Only one, not like Merton, and your belief—as many as you can. That’s surely logical to conclude that a person did not know what He believes, because He is not contented with one belief, and still searching where is the truth.

You're confused because you incorrectly believe that there is "only one belief" and "only one truth."

I think what you see is only the external—as you defend your belief that—it is by love. Therefore you conclude that love is a universal love to all religion or faiths. What I already defined is the internal, the salvation that it is ONLY through Jesus that one can be saved and have eternal life. Why?

"Only through Jesus" isn't "internal" -- it's external. This is why you're so confused.

Did Buddhism looks up to God, and dependent with God—as denying himself? How can you defend your position about this?

Truth is truth, with different "clothing" for each belief system.

 

[lovemuffin]

I'm working off the opinion that the name given to the followers of Jesus as "Christians", means "little Christ". There's lots of info out there about the reasons why people think that's what the term means, and Martin Luther himself used it that way.

This doesn't invalidate your point, but for what it's worth, as far as I can tell this is etymologically wrong. The "ianos" ending on the Greek christianos is not a typical diminutive form, but probably a latinization that indicates something more like possession, as in "followers of Christ". Another example, The usage is parallel to the term "herodians" in Matthew 22:16, with the same kind of meaning. There may be some other nuances (c.f. http://ichthys.com/mail-the-name-Christian.htm)

I'm just being a language nerd, I don't think the general point is wrong, that early Christians saw their relationship to Christ often in a mystical/experiential way. Ignatius of Antioch's title "theophorus", "God-bearing" is a great example, as is 2 Peter 1, the entire gospel of John, Paul's usage of "in Christ", and a bunch of other stuff already mentioned in the thread

 

[Windwalker]

If the Scripture does not specify how he was praying, then why you keep telling it could be anything? You are now adding meaning to it. This is how good you are on this.

I seriously am just smiling at your responses, wondering how challenging can what I am saying be to anybody. Yet, you manage somehow to extract the most bizarre possible responses. I can't even predict your responses they are so out-of-true. Anyway, not that my responses matter as you'll just push them through the twisted gristmill of you unique logic processes and come out with some spaghetti response, but I'll answer anyway.

Very simple. Here it goes. I'm not claiming anything either way. Never have, never will. I'm too smart to say he was practicing yoga, lotus positions, jumping jacks, or high-speed head spins. Scripture doesn't say what he was doing. He could have been doing what you claim he was as well. It doesn't say, so I can't make a positive claim he was not doing what you say. I just can't say. And neither can you. You cannot say he was not spinning on his head, you cannot say he was not doing yoga, you cannot say he wasn't sitting in a lotus position. Neither you, nor I can make any claims. Yet, YOU ARE!

Now, I know all of that is just going to drop straight though into a pile of some mangled mess that your will argue against. But know this, you're still not understanding the simple logic of this, and it's highly doubtful you ever can. If you can't deal with this simple logic, why should I bother responding to anything else you say?

I'll just converse with InChrist. She is able to respond with intelligent replies and questions. You should study how she listens to others and asks appropriate questions. I'll respond to those sorts of replies and they are respectable. So, unless you shift radically, I'll not be responding anymore to you as it's just nothing but attempts at clean up of the mangled mess you make of everything you push through the gristmill of your thought processes. You seem incapable of reasoned dialog. You just see what you're mind butchers and refuse to listen to others or try to understand. That's not a healthy approach to anything, let alone spiritual knowledge and growth.

 

[sojourner]

No. it is not that way. FYI. Not by reading--that one can be saved. I will repeat it. Not by reading--that one can be saved. No Scripture is telling in that way. Reading/hearing increase faith in God. Faith is the caused and result—in hearing the word of God.

But rowdies one come to know Jesus and his teachings, in order to have faith in the first place?

And did you know why is fragile during that time, and not forever fragile? That is because the plan of salvation has yet to be fulfilled. After the crucifixion, and resurrection, He is not fragile but solid as steel that cannot be destroyed. His resurrection made a solid theology. Evil cannot penetrate it.

And that fragility is always part of him, just as someone having been addicted is always part of that person's fabric of life.

The New Age has the right to come and submit themselves to Jesus as a follower of Christ.

If New Agers love, then they are following Christ.

Why deny the truth that it is the gospel?

In v.1, he connote the word “gospel” that he was preached and received. In v. 3, he repeat the word "gospel" that he received, and told us what is that gospel he received. That is “ Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4. and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

A very basic, easy to understand reading of the statement. This statement does not need a very in-depth bible study, even a kid can comprehend what it says.

Can you show any Scripture that define the gospel—as specified clearly like 1 Corinthians?

"Gospel" is a generic term. There are any number of gospel messages. That's not the gospel that Jesus preached. Jesus preached the gospel that God's kingdom had come near.

We respond to that love by believing, submitting, obeying and surrendering our lives to Him.

So I guess the first and greatest commandment is bogus, then. We don't have to "love the Lord our God" because we only have to "believe, submit, and surrender."

How can you pretend you love without following His will?

God's will is that we love.

How can you reconcile pre-marital sex and depending on the definition of “marriage”? I think you need to expound this.

I think you need to understand that the ancients who wrote the bible conceived "marriage" differently than we do.

Of all the words that uttered to me, a libel?

That's what it's called when something is misrepresented in writing.

 

[sojourner]

So the emergent church did not believe that the Scripture is authority and absolute truth.

Correct. Neither do lots of other Christians. Viewing the bible as "absolute truth" isn['t a prerequisite for being a Christian.

They compromised with the word of God like Mclaren, Brian. Emergent practitioner allowed to absorb and adhere the doctrine of other religious groups.

Christianity has done that since the very beginning. Jesus compromised the Law of the Judaic religion. Paul further compromised it.

Committed? I never define a committed follower of Jesus--as embracing multi-religion. I believed Jesus does the same. He want us to hear His word and not the word that is not coming from Him. Jesus came here to seek the lost, and not finding the love--because He first love us. He is seeking for those who will obey and follow Him. That was it mean by the word “Disciple.”

Jesus is seeking to foster love.

But the love that is of God--is the love of Jesus Christ (also), so people come to Jesus--as that love came from God. Show me that other faiths source of the love--is the same love that is of Christ preaching?

Love is love.

The same principles and concept applies with nationalism.

1. A soldier committed his life to serve his country—as Christian committed his life to Jesus/God.
2. A soldier report & submit to his superior or authority—as Christian report & submit to Jesus.
3. A soldier follow orders—as Christian follow God’s commandments.
4. A soldier is loyal to his country—as Christian is loyal to Jesus/God.
5. A soldier is loyal to his superior—as Christian is loyal to Jesus/God.

Wow. If that's what you really believe, I'm certainly glad I don't go to your church.

Preaching what the Scripture says is doing the better job, and not by man-made philosophy and principles. Fear has nothing to do with the Scriptures. The evil one is the one who fear the Scriptures.

You're not "preaching what the scripture says." You're "preaching what you say the scriptures say."

 

[Windwalker]

Wow. If that's what you really believe, I'm certainly glad I don't go to your church.

Relating that back to our earlier discussion of Fowler's stages of faith, that solidly confirms the Red vMeme "Warrior" stage. No better example of that than those 5 examples that were offered of a soldier's nationalist fervor related to how his form of faith is understood.

 

[sojourner]

Oh come on. And you agree that book is the Word of God, the word of Jesus? That shows disrespect of the Scriptures. That reflects on how cheap is the word of God for them.

For them, the word of God is found more in the heart and in loving relationships than in a book.

The word Christian means the follower or representative of Christ. When we say a "follower, " he follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is the same with Muslim, Buddhist and Hindus. One example is the Muslim, could you say a Muslim believe in the incarnation of Jesus Christ? No. Can you say that they are holding the Holy Bible as their inspired word of Allah/Mohamed? Certainly not.

But how come for Christianity, the emergent and contemplative practitioner tend to degrade the word of God as the necessity in the "as needed" fashion. They agree to embraced others faith in exchange for Christianity. Why I don't hear Muslim, Buddhist and Hindus compromised their faith?

They do that because they find Christ's teachings being implemented more on the fringes than in the midst of the "church machine." The established church doesn't have a corner on the market of love as taught by Christ.
To seek love is not to "deny Jesus."

Emerging Church - Distinctive Teachings and Goals

• The world is radically changing and the church must radically change with it
  Emergents believe postmodernity represents a dramatic break with the past and that only an extreme transformation in the church can keep the church relevant and effective in this environment. What is needed, they say, is not just a change in methodology. We need a new kind of Christian.
• Since the Church has been culture bound for so long we must reexamine and question every belief and practice in the Church, finding new ways to define and express these

Visiting emergent blogs, one will find that absolutely any doctrine or moral standard can be questioned. It seems at times that emergents are engaging in a complete reinvention of Christianity accompanied by a radical redefinition of Christian terms.

• We have no foundation for any beliefs, therefore we cannot know absolute truth
  Critics of the Emerging Church movement insist that emergents misrepresent epistemological foundationalism (the belief that we do possess some knowledge that serves as a basis for further knowledge) as requiring “bombproof certainty,” something contemporary foundationalists insist they do not hold to. What contemporary foundationalists do believe is that we can possess real knowledge that is so certain it requires extraordinary evidence to refute it. [13] D. A. Carson points out that emergent postfoundationalism is based upon yet another of their false antitheses, saying “In effect the antithesis demands that we be God, with all of God’s omniscience, or else forever be condemned to knowing nothing objective for sure.” [14] Additionally, emergents fail to consider the scriptural teaching of faith as something God-given which does possess supernaturally certain knowledge (Mt 21:21, Eph. 2:8, Heb 11:1). Emergents do not seem to realize that critiquing secular foundationalism is not the same as critiquing Evangelical foundationalism. In A New Kind of Christian McLaren’s fictional altar ego, Neo, says even Scripture is neither authoritative (in a “modern” sense) [15] nor a foundation for faith. [16]
• Since we cannot know absolute truth, we can only experience what is “true” for our communities
  Postmodern philosophers and theologians insist that truth is only known and validated within communities (“There are no Metanarratives only local narratives”). While this implies that truth is culturally relative and that true cross-cultural communication is impossible (those outside a community must first join a community before they can understand the community’s ideas), postmodern authors communicate to people of various communities simultaneously, apparently expecting them to all equally understand their intent.
• Since we cannot know absolute truth we cannot be dogmatic about doctrine
  Emergents see orthodoxy as “generous,” [17] that is, inclusive of many beliefs Christians have historically thought of as aberrant or heretical. Many leading emergents echo McLaren’s refusal to assert Christianity’s superiority to other world religions.
• Since we cannot know absolute truth we cannot be dogmatic about moral standards
  Absolute stands on issues such as homosexuality are viewed as obsolete. Activities such as drinking, clubbing, watching sexually explicit movies, and using profanities are seen by some emergents as opportunities to show those who are not part of the Christian community that postmodern Christians do not think they are better than them through any false sense of moral superiority. [18]
• Since we cannot know absolute truth, dogmatic preaching must give way to a dialogue between people of all beliefs
  Emerging Christians do not posture themselves before the world as though they were the light and the world were in darkness. Instead of “preaching” to the “lost” they join in “conversation,” with people of various beliefs. Conservative Evangelicals seem not to be truly welcome to contribute their distinctive content to this conversation since they represent the old, rotting corpse of “modernism.”
• Since propositional truth is uncertain, spiritual feeling and social action make up the only reliable substance of Christianity
  Emergents consider propositional truth a “modern” (and thus outmoded) fascination. Postmoderns think and communicate in narratives. [19] Since the pursuit of truth is portrayed as a never ending journey with no solid starting point, they consider the only legitimate measuring rods of Christianity to be experience and good works. Without a solid footing in revealed truth, however, emergents have no firm foundation for knowing which experiences are valid and which works are good (something they do not seem to notice).
• To capture a sacred feeling we should reconnect with ancient worship forms
  Trappings such as burning candles and events such as silent retreats are popular in the movement. Embracing these premodern forms further breaks their connection with “modern” Christianity.
• Since sublime feeling is experienced through outward forms, we should utilize art forms in our worship
  Many participants in the movement see appreciating art for art’s sake as a spiritual experience.
• Through conversation with them, “outsiders” will become part of our community, and then be able to understand and believe what we teach
  The postmodern approach is not to try to persuade people to believe, it is to try to befriend people into joining. This is commonly expressed as Robert Webber does when he says “People in a postmodern world are not persuaded to faith by reason as much as they are moved to faith by participation in God’s earthly community.” [20] There is a false antithesis in such statements, however. We do not have to choose between a purely cerebral attempt to talk others into believing correctly on the one hand and offering an open, unqualified invitation to our group on the other. The Bible teaches us to proclaim the gospel message with reliance upon the Holy Spirit to empower, illuminate, and convict (1 Co 2, 1 Thess 1:9). When such proclamation is absent, as it is in the Emerging Church movement, there is no prophetic voice coming from the church calling sinners to repent and believe the Gospel (Ac 2:38, 16:30-32).
• All are welcome to join the “conversation” as long as they behave in a kind and open-minded manner.
  Emerging believers reject any posture which hints at exclusivism. Dogmatic Evangelicals, however, are not treated as kindly in the conversation as others are (something many emergents admit).
• The ultimate goal is to make the world a better place
  The Emerging Church movement envisions a utopia in which the oppressed of the world are free, the poor are no longer impoverished and the environment is clean. This paradise is achieved through social activism. Many emergent leaders think it is selfish folly to live for the return of Christ.

The accomplishing of all of the above is seen by those in the movement as evidence that the Church is emerging to reach the culture, adapting to it. Critics of the movement see these things as signs that the Church is submerging into the culture, being absorbed by it.

I don't see anything wrong with any of this. The points (and attendant commentary) are, essentially, correct and, I believe, necessary, if the church is to survive, flourish, and meet the needs of postmodern society. I thoroughly applaud the Emergent conversation for taking this bold step out from behind walls, formulas, doctrines, and establishments that have become a hindrance to speaking the gospel, and making a foray into a freer, more honest dialog with the real world.

 

[sojourner]

I just watch recently a film that catch my attention, this is a quotation with this sequence of statement. I try to change some of it to incorporate with spirituality.
Here it goes:

Remembering God in the Old Testament
who made the heaven and earth;
He made us--that which we are, we are
Love has given to our hearts and minds,
one equal nature with life,
made weak in our corrupt nature
but strong in will, to strive, to seek,
to find and not to yield,
to follow and to obey in Christ Jesus

Thanks

Thanks for completely desecrating a great work by Tennyson. the poem, as is, stands as a marvelous theological statement, without the fundigelical, Calvinistic usurpation of it.

Here's the real deal:
"...Come, my friends,
'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

Edit: You see, taking something beautiful, with a theological message of its own, and usurping it with some other message, isn't "Christian." Jesus didn't steal ideas and change them to suit his purposes. Rather, Jesus brought out the deeper truth in things. Giving something a shallow, "Christian meaning" doesn't make that thing "Christian." Truth makes something "Christian." The poem is a fine, Christian statement of human truth, as-is, without pasting in some "evangelical" something-or-other.

 

[Windwalker]

In my first response yesterday I keyed in on something talking about the eye of flesh, the eye of mind, and the eye of spirit (or contemplation). I realized these are some important distinctions to make and found someone had extracted some material from Wilber's book Eye to Eye (one of my favorites of his dealing with epistemology). I think it is well worth anyone's reading of this brief excerpt. It very much helps put things into perspective, understanding that when one stops and only thinking about God in matters of theology or philosophy, there is a whole other level yet to go. I describe the eye of contemplation, or eye of spirit, as experienced initially like getting another brain on top of your brain. Indeed it is, as it is a whole other set of eye you use, a set of eye dormant in most, unseen and unrecognized.

Anyway, well worth the short read. Just click on "Continue Reading" to see the whole thing:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=156679781055790

 

[InChrist]

I'm working off the opinion that the name given to the followers of Jesus as "Christians", means "little Christ". There's lots of info out there about the reasons why people think that's what the term means, and Martin Luther himself used it that way. But regardless of that, I think my point that to be a "follower", really has the emphasis of becoming "like" the teacher, in that you for all intents and purposes so embody that teacher you are identical with him.

That is actually what being a student of a teacher was like back in the days of Jesus, where the student so well inhabited the teacher's mind and being, he could in fact speak as that teacher himself. As he spoke for the teacher, his words were treated as the teachers. (Much of the words of Jesus in the Bible stories are more than probable of being attributions, words of later Christians speaking as their Master would say, reflecting the points of view of the Christian community, spoken not as frauds, but as "appropriate", consistent with what they felt Jesus would likely say).

So the point is what a follower is supposed to do is to be transformed into the image of Christ. Right? This "image" is for all intents and purposes, "being Christ". I think my Meister Eckhart quote nicely conveyed what that looks like.

I think therein lies a problem, to be “working off the opinion” of many out there, even Martin Luther himself. For one thing, Martin Luther, although used in mightily by the LORD in church history, had his incorrect opinions. His extreme anti-Semitism directly clashed with the scriptures. Secondly, I think it would be an important thing to look into what others meant when or if they inferred that Christians were ‘little Christs”. It is very possible they meant something entirely different from the mystical,concept you are trying to derive.

It is one thing for a Christian to be like Christ in their godly character and behavior (fruits of the Spirit), as this is the teaching of the Bible. But to claim that a created human being can be or is as Christ in His Eternal God essence/nature, but is unaware and needs to realize this, is to reinterpret and give an unbiblical twist to the scriptures and truth of being conformed to the image of Christ.

Earlier I said that the scriptures of the Bible interpret themselves, which you readily discounted. Yet, I think it is the scriptures which define what “Christian” means as they do all biblical/spiritual triths, irrelevant of anyone’s opinion. If you look up the word Christian in the NT it is only used about three times. Similar words such as, follower or followed are used about 65 times, disciple around 279 times, and apostle(s) 88 times. Studying these words in their context reveals a lot and gives a clear definition as to their meaning and what Christians did or did not do, or what a Christian is or is not. Some of the primary things these Christians, followers, disciples, and apostles of Jesus Christ did was ...believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, believed in Jesus, believed the scriptures, saw and believed the risen Lord Jesus with the marks of the wounds in His hands and side, spread the gospel about Jesus the Savior, preached forgiveness of sins through His shed blood, continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, sanctify the Lord God in their hearts, have love for one another, suffer for righteousness’ sake, and glorify God.

New Testament spirituality is repentance toward God (because we are separated by sin), faith in the Person of Jesus Christ, regeneration and the indwelling and enabling power of the Holy Spirit, all based on the propositional revealed truth of Scripture. There is not one mention or even hint that Christians who were ( or are now) followers of Jesus Christ were ever taught by Him or believed themselves that they were to turn within through contemplative prayer, mysticism and realize their own divinity or that they were “little Christs”. On the contrary, they all looked to Jesus Christ as the promised Savior and one and only Son of God. Possibly, those disciples who found His saying too difficult and turned away from Him to follow no longer eventually believed such a lie as Satan has been perpetuating since the beginning and in numerous ways throughout history. But Jesus addressed this idea very candidly...

And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you.For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. Matthew 24:4-5

Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew 24:23-27

I think Meister Eckhart in his confused mystical panentheistic/ pantheistic view simply swallowed the greatest lie of all time.

What if God is GOD, and you are not? Do you care? If it is true that God alone is GOD, would you defer to this truth or prefer to remain in your own unreality?