Satan, Inc (TOL's heretic's list)

[freelight]

points to note......

points to note......

Jesus said that no man comes to the Father but by Him. Jesus said that He is the way and He is the only way.

Note this statement of Jesus is contained only in John's gospel (John 14:6), and it reflects the writers own theological emphasis....and a later date of developing Christology.

The writer of John's gospel would naturally continue with his theme of presenting Jesus as he saw him...and have Jesus say what was within the context of the purpose of his writing. The question is "how much of what is written was actually spoken by Jesus...and how much is the creative license of the writer?"

Even so,...Jesus always directed our worship to the Father-God, who is Infinite Spirit. Jesus at the time, representing 'God' would naturally and most logically be the way, truth and life of 'God' expressing to those available to recognize such.

Do you believe that the Blood of Jesus and the salvation offered by God through faith is the only way to get to heaven?

If you were familiar with my older thread "Atonement without blood" (it got deleted in the recent trimming), you'd know the answer to that, or at least see that there are ways of 'atonement' NOT requiring blood (human or animal) found within the OT. - also the idea of 'blood atonement' is against the sensibilities of many modern day persons...and is problematic in the light of certain principles such as 'karma' and 'self-responsibility'....since every man reaps what he sows and suffers for his own sins, as well as is responsible for his own 'salvation'.

Do you believe biblical Christianity is the only way to God? I think the answer would be no.

Correct,....I dont limit 'salvation' to anyone's definition of 'biblical Christianity', neither to any one religious school, tradition or culture...since 'God' is the single, infinite, all-encompassing ONE. Also from a 'non-dual' perspective.....since 'God' is omnipresent, there is no 'way' to Him. What is ever-present....is always being. There is no distance, where there is no seperation.

Therefore, you call Jesus a liar and therefore consider Him a heretic, even though I am sure you find it uncomfortable to say it out loud.

I indicated that some believed Jesus was a heretic in his day..since he deviated from what some Jews considered 'customary' or 'orthodox'.

I've never called Jesus a liar, although words attributed to him can be 'variously interpreted'.





pj

 

[Choleric]

Note this statement of Jesus is contained only in John's gospel (John 14:6), and it reflects the writers own theological emphasis....and a later date of developing Christology.

The writer of John's gospel would naturally continue with his theme of presenting Jesus as he saw him...and have Jesus say what was within the context of the purpose of his writing. The question is "how much of what is written was actually spoken by Jesus...and how much is the creative license of the writer?"

Even so,...Jesus always directed our worship to the Father-God, who is Infinite Spirit. Jesus at the time, representing 'God' would naturally and most logically be the way, truth and life of 'God' expressing to those available to recognize such.




If you were familiar with my older thread "Atonement without blood" (it got deleted in the recent trimming), you'd know the answer to that, or at least see that there are ways of 'atonement' NOT requiring blood (human or animal) found within the OT. - also the idea of 'blood atonement' is against the sensibilities of many modern day persons...and is problematic in the light of certain principles such as 'karma' and 'self-responsibility'....since every man reaps what he sows and suffers for his own sins, as well as is responsible for his own 'salvation'.



Correct,....I dont limit 'salvation' to anyone's definition of 'biblical Christianity', neither to any one religious school, tradition or culture...since 'God' is the single, infinite, all-encompassing ONE. Also from a 'non-dual' perspective.....since 'God' is omnipresent, there is no 'way' to Him. What is ever-present....is always being. There is no distance, where there is no seperation.



I indicated that some believed Jesus was a heretic in his day..since he deviated from what some Jews considered 'customary' or 'orthodox'.

I've never called Jesus a liar, although words attributed to him can be 'variously interpreted'.





pj

Thank you for being honest about your beliefs. It's more than some are willing to do.

And thanks for reaffirming your belief that Jesus was a heretic. Have a good day.

 

[freelight]

key perspectives......

key perspectives......

Thank you for being honest about your beliefs. It's more than some are willing to do.

You're welcome

And thanks for reaffirming your belief that Jesus was a heretic. Have a good day.

See previous post.

You can only make this assumption from a presupposition. The exclusivity-claim of John 14:6 is a subject in itself.

Jesus who was 'in tune' with God, could make such a statement that he was the way to the divine reality, the Living Father...since he represented 'God' in his purest essence as much as could be embodied or realized in Man. As an 'incarnation' of 'God' he was 'God' in their midst....essentially, because He was wholly God-conscious. He and the Father were one (this 'oneness' can be described in variuos ways metaphysically).

I have no problem with this interpretation of seeing Jesus as 'God', with the proper understanding. The Father was that greater Incorporeal Presence or divine Father-Personality (however you want to view it) that Jesus always acknowledge as 'True God'. It is that divine incorporeal BEING, the Father of all (including Jesus),...that is properly and truly 'God' as defined in the traditional/classical sense...for that Being is greater than any one human personality. In this sense, a more 'Unitarian' understanding and reverence for God is 'proper'. But my view of Deity includes all possible points of view, as that 'Presence' of Spirit and Mind that is both immanent and transcendent.



pj

 

[freelight]

Clearly it is does state these things clearly because otherwise the "heretics" wouldn't be able to cite the bible to support their argument. Even your criteria for what should constitute heresy is not Biblically supported but seemingly arbitrary. Why shouldn't other things mentioned in the bible be part of the criteria for who is or isn't a heretic?

Remember,...to the 'orthodox'...anything that does not agree with their 'theology'....is more or less 'heretical' - and that 'definition' and 'qualification' is determined by them...of course.



pj

 

[Choleric]

You're welcome



See previous post.

You can only make this assumption from a presupposition. The exclusivity-claim of John 14:6 is a subject in itself.

In other words, I know what he said, but he didn't mean it.

Jesus who was 'in tune' with God, could make such a statement that he was the way to the divine reality, the Living Father...since he represented 'God' in his purest essence as much as could be embodied or realized in Man. As an 'incarnation' of 'God' he was 'God' in their midst....essentially, because He was wholly God-conscious. He and the Father were one (this 'oneness' can be described in variuos ways metaphysically).

I have no problem with this interpretation of seeing Jesus as 'God', with the proper understanding. The Father was that greater Incorporeal Presence or divine Father-Personality (however you want to view it) that Jesus always acknowledge as 'True God'. It is that divine incorporeal BEING, the Father of all (including Jesus),...that is properly and truly 'God' as defined in the traditional/classical sense...for that Being is greater than any one human personality. In this sense, a more 'Unitarian' understanding and reverence for God is 'proper'. But my view of Deity includes all possible points of view, as that 'Presence' of Spirit and Mind that is both immanent and transcendent.



pj

Exactly, Jesus said He was the only Way and you call Jesus a liar by claiming that there are in fact many ways to God.

Thank you for supporting my claim. Have a good day

 

[freelight]

intermission......

intermission......

In other words, I know what he said, but he didn't mean it.

Still reading into things.

Exactly, Jesus said He was the only Way and you call Jesus a liar by claiming that there are in fact many ways to God.

There are more ways than one to interpret the said 'claim' (passage-context, inference, translation, etc.) Also, since 'God' is the only absolute reality (all else is relative), and is omnipresent....there is no 'way' to 'God', since God is all there really is at the fundamental core. Any concept of 'many ways' to 'God'....is another way of saying....every dimension of existence already inheres in 'God', since nothing exists outside of 'God' and any pointer in the direction of that reality, is a 'useful' one (many 'pointers' may be employed, but they all still point to what is 'original' to all). - as you expand out from here...things get even more exciting

Thank you for supporting my claim. Have a good day

I think those 'supports' may need a little 'tinkering'. giggles. I see that your stifling the 'dialogue' here (refusing any actually), so....i'll accept that 'nice day', and bid you one as well :thumb::wave:



pj

 

[Choleric]

Still reading into things.

Not at all, simply repeating without all the fluff. Jesus said one thing, you profess something that is 180 degrees opposite of that. Sure, you have a clever way of attempting to explain it all and in your mind it may in fact be very kosher. But you are saying Jesus was wrong.

There are more ways than one to interpret the said 'claim' (passage-context, inference, translation, etc.) Also, since 'God' is the only absolute reality (all else is relative), and is omnipresent....there is no 'way' to 'God', since God is all there really is at the fundamental core. Any concept of 'many ways' to 'God'....is another way of saying....every dimension of existence already inheres in 'God', since nothing exists outside of 'God' and any pointer in the direction of that reality, is a 'useful' one (many 'pointers' may be employed, but they all still point to what is 'original' to all). - as you expand out from here...things get even more exciting

Again, Jesus said "I am the Way" and you say "there really is no way to God." To any sane person reading that with second grade reading comprehension, they will see you are calling Jesus a liar.

Again, you are saying "all roads lead to God". that is flat wrong. Jesus said that there are many on one big road that leads to a lake of fire and there is a narrow road, which is Christ Himself. You either take what He is offering and forsake all else, or you go to hell with your transcendentalism.

I think those 'supports' may need a little 'tinkering'. giggles. I see that your stifling the 'dialogue' here (refusing any actually), so....i'll accept that 'nice day', and bid you one as well :thumb::wave:

pj

Getting to God is not done through mental ascent to the fact that "a" God exists. You are a sinner, who is unable to "clear the record" with the judge, jury and executioner of the universe. Jesus is the only way to have your sins covered, and you righteousness filled to the full. He is the Lamb of God for a reason. Without Him, you are "dead in your sins" and no matter how much you think about god or whatever you do, you are still in your sins. There is nothing you can do, no pontificating that will cover it.

Without Christ, you are still in your sins. unitarianism is of the devil, who started all sin with "hath God said?" And you have fallen hook line and sinker for the oldest lie in the "Book" and you have fallen waaaaaaay down the rabbit hole.

 

[Choleric]

Clearly it is does state these things clearly because otherwise the "heretics" wouldn't be able to cite the bible to support their argument.

The vast majority of Christianity throughout all time agreed on these 3 points. Those in the list are in the vast minority for a reason. And the heretics cannot support their doctrines using the bible. One of the groups denies 13 books of the New Testament to arrive at their doctrine and the other two groups deny hundreds of verses which contradict their doctrines.

Even your criteria for what should constitute heresy is not Biblically supported but seemingly arbitrary. Why shouldn't other things mentioned in the bible be part of the criteria for who is or isn't a heretic?

It appears you are not very well informed in basic Christianity. It is one thing to disagree with others on the intricacies of the faith, but you cannot be saved and believe that jesus was not God, that Paul was a heretic and that salvation has to be earned.

 

[freelight]

God is everywhere present

God is everywhere present

Again, Jesus said "I am the Way" and you say "there really is no way to God."

Already addressed Jesus statement (John 14:6), which can be interpreted in different ways affecting different conclusions.

and you say "there really is no way to God."

I shared on this from a non-duality perspective. I used to have a thread on 'Non-Duality'. If one does not understand the basic essentials of what 'non-duality' is...it will be more difficult to understand.

Also see: Non-dualism (as held in the various religious traditions)

From a non-dualistic perspective...where 'God' is the omnipresent One (prior to all differences or seperation), that 'allness' of God includes and encompasses all....because IT is all (Infinite Spirit, Infinite Consciousness). There is nothing existing seperate from or outside of 'God'. Where 'God' is the One omnipresent reality.....there is no 'way' to that God-Presence since IT already is the all-pervading reality (filling all space, timeless, everywhere present). How can there be a path to what is already being? Someone or something may act as a pointer to 'that'. This is the fundamental view of Non-Dual Awareness in which all apparent forms and appearances come and go...but the Silent Witness of all passing phenomena remains. The duality of an 'seer' and 'seen' are vanished, and there is only the 'seeing'.



pj

 

[Choleric]

Already addressed Jesus statement (John 14:6), which can be interpreted in different ways affecting different conclusions.

Yes, and my restatement of your explanation is 100% accurate

I shared on this from a non-duality perspective. I used to have a thread on 'Non-Duality'. If one does not understand the basic essentials of what 'non-duality' is...it will be more difficult to understand.

Also see: Non-dualism (as held in the various religious traditions)

From a non-dualistic perspective...where 'God' is the omnipresent One (prior to all differences or seperation), that 'allness' of God includes and encompasses all....because IT is all (Infinite Spirit, Infinite Consciousness). There is nothing existing seperate from or outside of 'God'. Where 'God' is the One omnipresent reality.....there is no 'way' to that God-Presence since IT already is the all-pervading reality (filling all space, timeless, everywhere present). How can there be a path to what is already being? Someone or something may act as a pointer to 'that'. This is the fundamental view of Non-Dual Awareness in which all apparent forms and appearances come and go...but the Silent Witness of all passing phenomena remains. The duality of an 'seer' and 'seen' are vanished, and there is only the 'seeing'.



pj

Again, I appreciate your desire to clarify your position, but the conclusion is the same. Jesus said no man can get to the father but by Him. You say God is all so you are already there so Jesus was wrong. You assume all roads lead to God. By simple logic, that would exclude Jesus' teaching since Je taught that no person can get there without going through Him.

And if what you teach is true, what do you make of the commandant to have no other Gods? Why did God make such a big deal about idol worship and Baal worship and Molech if they all lead to the same end?

In order for you to be true to your theological system, you would have to exclude the judeo-Christian theologies from your Unitarianism.

You do not get ton God by default according to the bible, you do not get there by mental ascent either.

You get there by being sinless and fully righteous which no man can be without Jesus. While you are breathing it is not too late.

 

[freelight]

recognizing the greater 'context'

recognizing the greater 'context'

Yes, and my restatement of your explanation is 100% accurate

Looks like you've made up your mind on that point.

Again, I appreciate your desire to clarify your position, but the conclusion is the same.

Appreciation noted, - I just shared the more pure metaphysical position and philosophical context of looking at things from a 'non-dual' point of view,....that acknowledges the unicity behind all things, that 'being' and 'consciousness' is a homogenous whole, and all is connected within this matrix of Life, whose essence is energy-awareness.

Leaving religious beliefs and opinions asides,...when the mind is still....there is always this primordial underlying 'beingness' that is whole in its nature, yet includes the passing perceptions of forms and appearances. The 'things' that arise in consciousness....come and go....but the pure awareness at the Heart of all, does not 'come' or 'go'. A 'duality' would imply we are 'seperate' from 'God' or 'this' or 'that',...but there is only this ocean of pure awareness. 'That' in which the world arises....is 'God'. It is the origin and support of that is and ever will be.

I usually come from a 'base' of this recognition (as pure ontology/metaphysics), unless I'm commenting on particular religious subjects within a different context. I look at things from the vastness of space itself and see their 'context' and 'relationships', but recognize the primal substratum in which this world-play is taking place in the mind as it 'interprets' things influenced by various conditioning.

Jesus said no man can get to the father but by Him.

That verse can be variously translated. And even so,...it is propositional and only valid within a given context in as much as Jesus can somehow be a 'medium' or 'mediator' between a soul and 'God', according to one's 'faith' and the 'mechanics' of one's theology.

You say God is all so you are already there so Jesus was wrong.

Where God is the one all-pervading, omnipresent, timeless reality....there is no distance, space or time to traverse to get to God, since God is "all-ready, always available".

Jesus when speaking, was using himself naturally as a 'focal-point' of truth, revealing 'God' to them. He wasnt 'wrong' but pointing to himself as the expression and embodiment of 'God' in their very midst. One full of God and radiating pure God-consciousness can do the same.

You assume all roads lead to God.

Not necessarily. In a more liberal all-inclusive sense, that might be true, if souls are earnest in their quest for truth, and truly come into a true valuing of 'God'...because that 'attraction' naturally affords its affection.

By simple logic, that would exclude Jesus' teaching since Je taught that no person can get there without going through Him.

Again, a matter of 'interpretation' and how one applies such within a given context. The omnipresence of 'God' entails its own fullness, here, now. There is no 'getting' to what already is HERE as Spirit.

And if what you teach is true, what do you make of the commandant to have no other Gods? Why did God make such a big deal about idol worship and Baal worship and Molech if they all lead to the same end?

Consider the cultural context here, and how that other 'gods' were any deities outside of the revealed law and precepts of 'YHWH', so that any 'god' outside the tribe was an 'idol' or false god. The Jewish law points out that 'God' is One and Incorporeal,...so any graven or fashioned image, or a deity-concept different to the revealed one in their tradition...was not to be worshipped. Remember,...'YHWH' is a jealous 'God' by his own admission. The Jewish concept of God as monotheistic still holds in its essence, as an incorporeal One....no matter if one supposes a 'Godhead' within that unity or not, as defined later in Christian theology.

In order for you to be true to your theological system, you would have to exclude the judeo-Christian theologies from your Unitarianism.

Not really, if my theology is all-inclusive - 'Unitarian' and 'Trinitarian' are just two primary views on God/Jesus among other less popular ones within Christian theology.

You do not get ton God by default according to the bible, you do not get there by mental ascent either.

But from a non-dual perspective, if 'God' is an all-pervading universal reality, there is no 'getting' to 'God', although one may adopt a theology or religious tradition that can assist them in relating to God. Some use the Bible (compounded with a NT attached), others the Torah only, Gnostic scriptures, Vedas/Upanishads/Gita, various Sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Koran, the Avesta, various other religious texts, not to mention many modern day schools and channeled writings. Apparently 'God' makes all these available within the freedom of consciousness.



pj

 

[jeremysdemo]

I remember some time back, Chickenman asked me to show proof of this too and I found a couple posts of yours and showed him and you most definitely have.

Well that is god you are confirming things with another brother, definite step in the right direction....

Still, it would have been better to do before casting a stone. (always easier to get collaboration after the fact)

I never said Paul was a liar, (but he said he lied, Romans 3:7)

That is a lie. Paul never said he was a liar.

See there you go again (putting words into my mouth).
How is referring to a passage were Paul says if the gospel is furthered because of his lie should it counted as a sin calling him a liar?

how do you interpret that passage? or do you just use to condemn people that talk about it

On more than one occassion I have asked you to clear up your positions for us all. Just say the following:

Yes you have, but here is the problem I have had with it from day one.

It's called accuse now ask questions later, I don't think Y'shua would approve of your method and I am not required by all of God's law to do so either, in fact all the wisdom of the Torah speaks against entertaining such notions.

If you can put your stamp of approval on that statement, I will publicly repent and apologize. Past experience tells me you won't.

I see putting your own stipulations on your own repentance how very godly of you.

If I could save you trust me I would but you are not the dictator here you are an equal in God's eyes anyway.

It is for your own good that I do not bend to your foolishness, I hope some day God opens your eyes in that respect.

They mean quite a bit to me:

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Of course, that command comes from the pen of Paul, and we can understand why you would ignore that one.

I don't remember causing any division here, you seem to be causing quite a bit tho.
I don't know what doctrine you have learned either and if it is the same as what Paul is reminding his listeners of to even know if anything I say is contrary, I do know the NT pretty well tho and nothing I say to my knowledge is contradictory to it, if it was I would be more than happy to repent of even suggesting it.

They do, which is why I am so passionate about truth and the unperverted gospel. People that teach heresy lead others to hell, which is what those on the list do.

God is a good shepherd, I have full confidence and faith in him to lead his sheep from harm.
that being said, it's clear you have all the zeal of the pre-converted Paul, what seems to be lacking (at least from our conversations) is scriptural knowledge which may be why you misunderstand a lot of what I say for something it is not.

I don't think Paul charged his new converts with this task or individuals for that matter, I'm sure it was left to the elders and due process, God does not set up things that way in communities there are protocols and groups that make decisions after group prayer and deliberation.

If you don't believe me crack open your bible sometime and read Acts.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[Choleric]

See there you go again (putting words into my mouth).
How is referring to a passage were Paul says if the gospel is furthered because of his lie should it counted as a sin calling him a liar?

:rotfl: THere you go again trying to play dumb after making a blatant statement that you though Paul lied.

how do you interpret that passage? or do you just use to condemn people that talk about it

I interpret it like everybody who doesn't think Paul was a heretic, he was speaking as his attackers were who were claiming that if sin glorified God who forgives sin, why am I yet a sinner? In other words, Paul's attackers were saying, "if forgiving sin glorifies GOd, and God wants to forgive sin, then why am I a sinner for doing something that allows GOd to be glorified?"

Yes you have, but here is the problem I have had with it from day one.

It's called accuse now ask questions later, I don't think Y'shua would approve of your method and I am not required by all of God's law to do so either, in fact all the wisdom of the Torah speaks against entertaining such notions.

No, it's "we all know where you stand, as we have repeatedly seen you attack Paul and plant seeds of dissimulation and doubt, the gig is up"

I am not going to search again for your heresy and post it for you. At this point, it is your chance to openly repent.

I see putting your own stipulations on your own repentance how very godly of you.

If I could save you trust me I would but you are not the dictator here you are an equal in God's eyes anyway.

It is for your own good that I do not bend to your foolishness, I hope some day God opens your eyes in that respect.

God said I should forgive you if you repent. Surely you realize that is in the bible. And I will, if you repent.

I don't remember causing any division here, you seem to be causing quite a bit tho.
I don't know what doctrine you have learned either and if it is the same as what Paul is reminding his listeners of to even know if anything I say is contrary, I do know the NT pretty well tho and nothing I say to my knowledge is contradictory to it, if it was I would be more than happy to repent of even suggesting it.

By causing doubt and planting seeds of dissent against half of the NT canon, you are indeed causing division. By reading your doubting and dissimulation, another person who is trusting God based on His word in Romans through Philemon, you can cause a person to question their faith. That is division and it is wrong. You may say "I am only asking questions" etc, but you are intentionally causing people to doubt the authenticity of Paul's writings.

God is a good shepherd, I have full confidence and faith in him to lead his sheep from harm.
that being said, it's clear you have all the zeal of the pre-converted Paul, what seems to be lacking (at least from our conversations) is scriptural knowledge which may be why you misunderstand a lot of what I say for something it is not.

God is indeed a good Shepherd. That is why in His word, He warns us about people like you and the rest on the list. God is very concerned about "false gospels" and it takes up quite a bit of the NT discussing this very topic and warning the church to stay away from it.

God was not kidding about it as you appear to assume.

I don't think Paul charged his new converts with this task or individuals for that matter, I'm sure it was left to the elders and due process, God does not set up things that way in communities there are protocols and groups that make decisions after group prayer and deliberation.

If you don't believe me crack open your bible sometime and read Acts.

Please show me where the protocol is to allow some elder to be the only person who can recognize and deal with dissimulation and heresy?

Paul wrote those letters to all believers in any church he wrote to. You should pick up your bible sometime and see it...Notice he doesn't start his epistles with "to the pastor and elders in ephesians"

 

[YahuShuan]

All of us should have paid closer attention to "the Truth".

All of us should have paid closer attention to "the Truth".

No one should even give Choleric an ear...Pro 29:9-11 When a wise man disputes with a foolish man, Whether he rages or laughs, there is no peace. Bloodthirsty men hate the perfect, And seek the life of the straight. A fool lets out all his breath, But the wise calms it down.

Luk 24:25 He said to them, "Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

Simply said, Foolish men do not believe ALL that the prophets have spoken...a prophets main stay is to tell people to return (shuv/turn), or cause people to repent, thus they return to Torah. When they do believe, that is, they "turn from their wicked ways".

When they don't believe...they don't return. What is it that those who do not turn from their wicked ways to be saved do believe in? LAWLESSNESS!

2Th 2:7-12 For the secret of lawlessness is already at work – only until he who now restrains comes out of the midst. And then the lawless one shall be revealed, whom the Master shall consume with the Spirit of His mouth and bring to naught with the manifestation of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and with all deceit of unrighteousness in those perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth, in order for them to be saved. And for this reason Elohim sends them a working of delusion, for them to believe the falsehood, in order that all should be judged who did not believe the truth, but have delighted in the unrighteousness.

It is not the ones who do believe in the Law who are judged, but the ones who do not! They can not muster the BELIEF that "they can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth them". So instead, "they do lie".

Psa 119:142, 143 Your righteousness is righteousness forever, And Your Torah is truth. Distress and anguish have found me; Your commands are my delight.

Mat 12:43-50 “Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. “Then it says, ‘I shall return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and decorated. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.” And while He was still talking to the crowds, see, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. And one said to Him, “See, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answering, said to the one who spoke to Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” And having stretched out His hand toward His taught ones, He said, “See My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the desire of My Father who is in the heavens is My brother and sister and mother.”

So when you see people railing against those who are with all they have, trying to DO what JESUS SAID...you are seeing "lawlessness" and it has been sent as "delusion"...FROM GOD HIMSELF!

So, "do not fear them"! Fear God instead! And allow Him to cast out all fear with HIS "perfect love". Obey your Father who is in Heaven...do it as you so pray it be done..."on Earth, as it IS IN HEAVEN."

I only give Choleric an ear to "protect the people". I always knew I would never be able to convince him of truth. Only the Spirit of Yah can do that. All we can do is "expose"...and as you can see, the unrighteous...the "lawless one"s, they provide the opportunities for their own exposure, they are deluded into pointing at themselves with their own false accusations of others. So, we should all learn from this.

Choleric can be proud, I learned about him...from him. Now I can let him keep pointing at himself, and thank him for exposing what could easily have happened to me, and was. But because of seeing Choleric, I looked at my own faults much deeper, and sought out the truth of the matters. And pray that all of our eyes be opened, and that we all return to the Torah of Yah. IT IS TRUTH. And it was made flesh. And now we all know how to be "brother sister or mother" to the Messiah Yahu'Shua (Jesus the Christ), and it is by "doing the Fathers will"! And that "will" is His Torah!!!!!!! THAT is the "power" we have been given, "to BECOME son's of God"!

Praise be to the Names of Yah and Yahu'Shua! May they be blessed! And you who "DO" believe...May your names be written in the Lambs Book of Life.

Shabbat Shalom.

 

[Choleric]

3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

 

[Lon]

The 'greater context' is a lesser one, actually.

Looks like you've made up your mind on that point.

Either "Scripture said it and I believe it" or your truth is relative.
Once you open your mind to the possibility that truth has a greater context, it is no longer truth. That is, once an absolute is settled, there i no other context - end of story/end of discussion.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, No one comes to the Father except by Me," is one of those.

Appreciation noted, - I just shared the more pure metaphysical position and philosophical context of looking at things from a 'non-dual' point of view,....that acknowledges the unicity behind all things, that 'being' and 'consciousness' is a homogenous whole, and all is connected within this matrix of Life, whose essence is energy-awareness.

Anything outside of the complete context of truth, is mixing lies and settling happily. This is your philosophy and your world. Dualism means excrement has a 'separate' place than my living quarters. That's dualism.
Dualism means 'my sin' is not okay. That's dualism. In your world, it is okay if the fly lands in crap and then lights on your dinner plate. That's not dualism. Our very philosophies collide against each other.

Leaving religious beliefs and opinions asides...

That's fairly dualistic of you. Isn't it rather that you want to choose what you will have a duality of mind about? In other words, it is impossible, let alone unproductive, to try and deny what is there in front of you. You are a duality conundrum because of sin. You cannot meditate it away. Truth doesn't allow that. There is no 'greater' truth. You are trying to redefine it. That's called "a...?" I'm sure it will come to you, regardless of desire to deny. By your own definition (and mine) this fact is true.

...when the mind is still....there is always this primordial underlying 'beingness' that is whole in its nature, yet includes the passing perceptions of forms and appearances. The 'things' that arise in consciousness....come and go....but the pure awareness at the Heart of all, does not 'come' or 'go'. A 'duality' would imply we are 'seperate' from 'God' or 'this' or 'that',...but there is only this ocean of pure awareness. 'That' in which the world arises....is 'God'. It is the origin and support of that is and ever will be.

No problem with relaxing and looking for a broader picture, however, there is no greater context than the truth itself. It cannot be adulterated else it becomes that lie, I've been speaking of. Our rendition isn't accurate, but God's is. You are attempting to blur those lines: God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. You cannot bring a greater context to these truths when God sets it for you in dualistic terms. You are lying to yourself and trying to get others to see the blurring of indelible lines. That, incidently is why most don't argue the point with you, you are too "esoteric" for most to address. I'll simply say here, I believe God Himself calls you wrong, so open-minded that other stuff gets in that isn't supposed to, 'nuff said'

I usually come from a 'base' of this recognition (as pure ontology/metaphysics), unless I'm commenting on particular religious subjects within a different context. I look at things from the vastness of space itself and see their 'context' and 'relationships', but recognize the primal substratum in which this world-play is taking place in the mind as it 'interprets' things influenced by various conditioning.

God is made for this. In the Garden, perhaps man could have been this open minded because there was no problem in the dualistic. It was dualistic ("don't eat from this tree") but man had no internal dilemma with it. Because of sin, you and I 1) cannot look objectively at the greater context without 100% failure (sin taints all) 2) are dualistic, whether you want to be or not. You cannot uncreate your sin condition nor just accept it and call it good. The whole problem with such is a desire to be married and connected to your sin condition. That too, was a problem in the Garden and God tossed the man and women out so they could not eat from the tree of Life. In essence, you are falling for the serpent's temptation all over again. Genesis 1-3 addresses your attempt rather starkly and clearly. Pay attention to God then, there is no 'greater' context, only an adulterated one (therefore lesser). You aren't broadening your mind, you are broadening your sin.

That verse can be variously translated. And even so,...it is propositional and only valid within a given context in as much as Jesus can somehow be a 'medium' or 'mediator' between a soul and 'God', according to one's 'faith' and the 'mechanics' of one's theology.

That's that "lesser context" speaking again. Just as in the Garden: "You will not surely die, you will become gods..." Wake up from the vast kettle of your stupor.

Where God is the one all-pervading, omnipresent, timeless reality....there is no distance, space or time to traverse to get to God, since God is "all-ready, always available".

Exit (remove) sin. It has no place in this universe.

Jesus when speaking, was using himself naturally as a 'focal-point' of truth, revealing 'God' to them. He wasnt 'wrong' but pointing to himself as the expression and embodiment of 'God' in their very midst. One full of God and radiating pure God-consciousness can do the same.

And again..."You will be like gods." You are judging His text, rather than being judged by it and Him. Once you begin to tell God what He means rather than He telling you what He means, "that is the dark path that leads to hate" - Yoda.

Not necessarily. In a more liberal all-inclusive sense, that might be true, if souls are earnest in their quest for truth, and truly come into a true valuing of 'God'...because that 'attraction' naturally affords its affection.

A denial of dualism is a pos-rep toward a 'greater' enlightenment.
I believe strongly, it is adulterated truth. Truth adulterated with anything else, is no longer true.

Again, a matter of 'interpretation' and how one applies such within a given context. The omnipresence of 'God' entails its own fullness, here, now. There is no 'getting' to what already is HERE as Spirit.

Yes there is. Again, you are marrying sin. I am denying it. My flesh is weak, but my spirit is willing, therefore I live with a duality. You do too, you are just choosing to make up your own as the 'god' of your own universe. A simple disagreement with Choleric here, is dualistic. You are just rejecting one and making up another of your own that 'you can live with.' It is yet dualistic and here is the kicker: unless you are God, you cannot escape dualism. You are as infected by sin as any man that walked the earth. That's why, I believe, Jesus had to be God.

Consider the cultural context here, and how that other 'gods' were any deities outside of the revealed law and precepts of 'YHWH', so that any 'god' outside the tribe was an 'idol' or false god. The Jewish law points out that 'God' is One and Incorporeal,...so any graven or fashioned image, or a deity-concept different to the revealed one in their tradition...was not to be worshipped. Remember,...'YHWH' is a jealous 'God' by his own admission. The Jewish concept of God as monotheistic still holds in its essence, as an incorporeal One....no matter if one supposes a 'Godhead' within that unity or not, as defined later in Christian theology.

This is dualistic as well ("us" "them"). You cannot escape it no matter how hard you try. For you it is impossible "but with God, all things are possible."

Not really, if my theology is all-inclusive - 'Unitarian' and 'Trinitarian' are just two primary views on God/Jesus among other less popular ones within Christian theology.

You are dualistic whether you see it or not. Eastern religions are too, whether they recongize it or not. That's the real irony...

But from a non-dual perspective, if 'God' is an all-pervading universal reality, there is no 'getting' to 'God', although one may adopt a theology or religious tradition that can assist them in relating to God. Some use the Bible (compounded with a NT attached), others the Torah only, Gnostic scriptures, Vedas/Upanishads/Gita, various Sutras, the Tao Te Ching, the Koran, the Avesta, various other religious texts, not to mention many modern day schools and channeled writings. Apparently 'God' makes all these available within the freedom of consciousness.

pj

Exactly so. It is the lie of the Garden. It is the promise "...will be like god."

 

[jeremysdemo]

See there you go again (putting words into my mouth).
How is referring to a passage were Paul says if the gospel is furthered because of his lie should it counted as a sin calling him a liar?

:rotfl: THere you go again trying to play dumb after making a blatant statement that you thought Paul lied.

If memory serves me correct I was asked if I thought Paul lied, my answer to this was "He said he did" followed by the passage we have been discussing.
In any event, if that is truly what you beleive of me, there is really no biblical reason to be laughing at what you perceive as my sin, certainly not aloud with that icon, Paul treaches this,

1 Corinthians 13:6
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

I want you to think of some of the history behind Paul and what he claimed to be to others (a Jew and a Pharisee from the tribe of Benjamin, taught under Gamaliel) in order to gain an audience or credit in the synogagues such a claim would be common place even if it was not entirely true.

was this the lie he said that furthered the gospel that should not be counted as sin?

certainly something to consider, we have no historic confirmation of what he said to them in his speech in Acts 22:3......if one is considering those historical context that certainly is not calling Paul a liar when it comes to the gospel as he knew and preached it, in fact one can completely agree with Paul's gospel AND what he said about that mis-information/lie whatever you want to translate or interpret it as, which he came under attack for.

Romans 3:7KJV
For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

how do you interpret that passage? or do you just use it to condemn people that talk about it?

I interpret it like everybody who doesn't think Paul was a heretic, he was speaking as his attackers were who were claiming that if sin glorified God who forgives sin, why am I yet a sinner? In other words, Paul's attackers were saying, "if forgiving sin glorifies GOd, and God wants to forgive sin, then why am I a sinner for doing something that allows GOd to be glorified?"

I did too at one time, only it does not make sense when read that way.
First of all, it wasn't others talking (at least in older translations) it was him, and he would not entertain people calling his gospel a lie or sin like that, he was very zealous for the gospel.
IT makes a lot more sense to read it as a rebuttal to those who questioned Pauls education as a Pharisee and lineage as a Jew that he claimed in Jerusalem, he alludes to that in the first passage Romans 1:1

you could do some research about Jewish law, more specifically Geneivat da'at, if you want to know more about that, and how such an act would have been perceived under Pharisitical tradition of the time.

No, it's "we all know where you stand, as we have repeatedly seen you attack Paul and plant seeds of dissimulation and doubt, the gig is up"

who is this "we"? so far you got you and chickman (which you got after the fact of accusing me, not before as the Torah and Paul say, 2 Corinthians 13:1,Deuteronomy 19:15).....

do you really beleive Paul? how about Y'shua? Matthew 18:16

you have not done any of the things in any of the order our Messiah and Paul say to do, I never knew chickeman agreed with you till two years after the fact of being on your "list" in fact not since a few days ago.......

I am not going to search again for your heresy and post it for you. At this point, it is your chance to openly repent.

as previously explained I cannot repent of something that was never in my heart, your ignorance of the NT and what I am saying about it does not constitue a sin on my part.
I beleive I have been consistent from day one in my profession of disagreeing with your accusation, so it seems it has been you who was unsuccesful in convincing me of the evil you say I have done, tho I do understand how you have been reading my words all these years (out of ignorance and maybe some fear of the implications) only because I lived that way for a long time myself, and was probably more zealous and unlearned in that respect.

I see putting your own stipulations on your own repentance how very godly of you.

If I could save you trust me I would but you are not the dictator here you are an equal in God's eyes anyway.

It is for your own good that I do not bend to your foolishness, I hope some day God opens your eyes in that respect.

God said I should forgive you if you repent. Surely you realize that is in the bible. And I will, if you repent.

Epic fail,

my above statements are about your repentance, not mine.

I find it concerning when a person cannot fathom the possibility they can be wrong to the point they cannot see the plank in their eye, Matthew 7:3.

I don't remember causing any division here, you seem to be causing quite a bit tho.
I don't know what doctrine you have learned either and if it is the same as what Paul is reminding his listeners of to even know if anything I say is contrary, I do know the NT pretty well tho and nothing I say to my knowledge is contradictory to it, if it was I would be more than happy to repent of even suggesting it.

By causing doubt and planting seeds of dissent against half of the NT canon, you are indeed causing division. By reading your doubting and dissimulation, another person who is trusting God based on His word in Romans through Philemon, you can cause a person to question their faith. That is division and it is wrong. You may say "I am only asking questions" etc, but you are intentionally causing people to doubt the authenticity of Paul's writings.

if a persons faith is so weak it does not stand up to strutiny it may not be of God but of man, so nothing of any value will be lost, only His faith will weather the storms, lean not unto your own understanding comes to mind.....
That being said, nothing I have said (when understood in context) should discourage those of Godly faith, my questions are just as dangerous as Pauls letters to the unlearned, do you also condemn Peter for saying the same? 2 Peter 3:16, there is a reason for the warnings, and there is a reason we need to know the difference between authentic Godly faith and mans own spirit/faith/understanding.

God is a good shepherd, I have full confidence and faith in him to lead his sheep from harm.
that being said, it's clear you have all the zeal of the pre-converted Paul, what seems to be lacking (at least from our conversations) is scriptural knowledge which may be why you misunderstand a lot of what I say for something it is not.

God is indeed a good Shepherd. That is why in His word, He warns us about people like you and the rest on the list. God is very concerned about "false gospels" and it takes up quite a bit of the NT discussing this very topic and warning the church to stay away from it.

God was not kidding about it as you appear to assume.

As Peter says above the unlearned can take Pauls words and twist them to their own destruction.
This is exactly what a person does when they take one passage out of context (something that is adressed to a community and meant to be inacted by groups of elders in agreement with the Spirit) and make it their personal tool to commit sin (bearing false witness).

Please show me where the protocol is to allow some elder to be the only person who can recognize and deal with dissimulation and heresy?

Gladly, only that is not what I said, I didn't say "some elder singular" I said groups of elders comming into agreement.
Do you really need examples of that in the NT? do you really expect anyone here to beleive Paul went about setting up communities of beleivers without structure? like the other apostles had?

Paul wrote those letters to all believers in any church he wrote to. You should pick up your bible sometime and see it...Notice he doesn't start his epistles with "to the pastor and elders in ephesians"

your very statements confirm their were pastors and elders in the communites Paul wrote to, you agree with the NT go figure, and that there were protocols to be followed before marking anyone among them per his instruction, as with many of their community descisions it was not left to one mans dictatorship, it had to be confirmed by two or more witnesses prior to being done.

the intruction is to the brethren to be carried out in the manner in which the "brethren" learned, the same manner which Y'shua taught the apostles and Paul taught his disciples, not by individsuals acting alone to accuse and then later looking for collaboration.
If you are truly curious as to how these rabbi's taught to deal with disagreements and how they taught to deal with heresy within their communities you can begin with the scriptures given in this post and then move onto the rest of their teachings in the NT, keeping in mind that TOL is also a community of sorts.

keep shinin

jerm

 

[Nick M]

You can add "surrender" to the list. godrulz couldn't have said it better.

.....Where is it written that Jesus died for future unrepentant sins?......The phrase “it is finished” says NOTHING about unrepentant sins being forgiven.

 

[freelight]

The yoga of joy......

The yoga of joy......

The 'greater context' is a lesser one, actually.

Hi Lon,....that depends on point of view

This was a bit extensive so I skipped responding to it, but will skim over a few pointers.....

Either "Scripture said it and I believe it" or your truth is relative.
Once you open your mind to the possibility that truth has a greater context, it is no longer truth. That is, once an absolute is settled, there i no other context - end of story/end of discussion.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, No one comes to the Father except by Me," is one of those.

Coming from a viewpiont that sees truth at two levels, both 'absolute' and 'relative', there is no problem here in seeing this seeming 'duality' in the greater context of total reality. Total reality includes all duality, multiplicity, appearances, illusions, perception, etc. 'Duality' is inevitable in a world of space-time relativity.

Jesus saying he was the way, truth and life, is a relative statement...for it can only be 'related' within the context of the writers intent and preconceived theology

Anything outside of the complete context of truth, is mixing lies and settling happily. This is your philosophy and your world. Dualism means excrement has a 'separate' place than my living quarters. That's dualism.
Dualism means 'my sin' is not okay. That's dualism. In your world, it is okay if the fly lands in crap and then lights on your dinner plate. That's not dualism. Our very philosophies collide against each other.

My former statement holds.

That's fairly dualistic of you. Isn't it rather that you want to choose what you will have a duality of mind about? In other words, it is impossible, let alone unproductive, to try and deny what is there in front of you. You are a duality conundrum because of sin. You cannot meditate it away. Truth doesn't allow that. There is no 'greater' truth. You are trying to redefine it. That's called "a...?" I'm sure it will come to you, regardless of desire to deny. By your own definition (and mine) this fact is true.

You're assuming according to your own definition of 'sin' and interjecting the concept where it is unnecessary.

God is made for this. In the Garden, perhaps man could have been this open minded because there was no problem in the dualistic. It was dualistic ("don't eat from this tree") but man had no internal dilemma with it. Because of sin, you and I 1) cannot look objectively at the greater context without 100% failure (sin taints all) 2) are dualistic, whether you want to be or not. You cannot uncreate your sin condition nor just accept it and call it good. The whole problem with such is a desire to be married and connected to your sin condition. That too, was a problem in the Garden and God tossed the man and women out so they could not eat from the tree of Life. In essence, you are falling for the serpent's temptation all over again. Genesis 1-3 addresses your attempt rather starkly and clearly. Pay attention to God then, there is no 'greater' context, only an adulterated one (therefore lesser). You aren't broadening your mind, you are broadening your sin.

Going on about 'sin' again.......

That's that "lesser context" speaking again. Just as in the Garden: "You will not surely die, you will become gods..." Wake up from the vast kettle of your stupor.

And they did not die physically, but were enlightened to know both good and evil, an essential cognitive ability that enables true learning and progressive evolution. So they did become 'gods' in a sense. In one Gnostic perspective,...Sophia (divine wisdom) posed as the snake luring the couple to accept their divine birthright and liberate themselves from the captivity of the Demiurge (Yhwh). The Demiuge did not want the couple to recognize their true divine potential, but strangely tempted them into making the forbidden fruit more appealing, an odd tactic to say the least.

Also note Jesus quotes from the Psalms affirming that 'God' calls men 'gods', and that such a reference to 'elohim' is a proper title for the children of God, or a son of God such as himself. Therefore they persecuting him for being called the Son of God was unjustified. Being created in the same image and likeness of 'God' and possessing the same cognitive and creative powers of a parent Deity has its 'entitlement'

Exit (remove) sin. It has no place in this universe.

Still going on about 'sin'......

And again..."You will be like gods." You are judging His text, rather than being judged by it and Him.

Yes, I usually interpret a text in a way most logically comprehensible within its context. I have that right and responsiblity. 'God' gave it to me.

Once you begin to tell God what He means rather than He telling you what He means, "that is the dark path that leads to hate" - Yoda.

Its not a matter of me telling a so called 'God' anything, but using my own God-intelligence to define a matter.

As far as quoting Yoda,...didnt you know I'm a charter member of the Jedi Council? - love the little guy. My path has never included hatred, so it goes without saying with its fruits, what frequency level my position hails from. Remember,....'God' is pure LIGHT. - naturally in a world of duality, ...there appears to be 'good' and 'evil' (light & shadow)...hence the existence of a so called 'darkside'. But you know that the existence of 'evil' exists because a so called 'good' does, and God's omnipresence includes or allows BOTH to appear in a world where there is 'relativity'. Duality arises as a phenomena within the Infinite One. - such is the way of 'perception'.

Yes there is. Again, you are marrying sin. I am denying it. My flesh is weak, but my spirit is willing, therefore I live with a duality. You do too, you are just choosing to make up your own as the 'god' of your own universe. A simple disagreement with Choleric here, is dualistic. You are just rejecting one and making up another of your own that 'you can live with.' It is yet dualistic and here is the kicker: unless you are God, you cannot escape dualism. You are as infected by sin as any man that walked the earth. That's why, I believe, Jesus had to be God.

To the bold above....you're getting warm - the 'God-presence' in me is prior to and transcends any dualism whatsoever, since it is pure God, before any association, duality or relativity. It is pure 'light' beyond definition or conditioning. Where there is not two (which is what "Advaita" {non-duality} means)...there is only 'God'. 'God' is that one universal non-dual reality behind all appearances of duality. 'God' is the prior reality before any concept of 'sin' or sense of 'seperation'. The ego has seperated itself by its own illusion of seperation.

This is dualistic as well ("us" "them"). You cannot escape it no matter how hard you try. For you it is impossible "but with God, all things are possible."

Oh dear. Of course its impossible in this dimension of existence and language-medium to relate anything that is not more or less 'dualistic' because all in this space-time dimension is more or less 'relative',...it is a world of relations, appearances, forms, objectivity and subjectivity,...a seeming duality of 'observer' and 'observed', 'this' or 'that', 'up' and 'down', 'light' and 'dark', 'me' and 'you', etc. This is a world of plural perceptions, distortion, maya.

You are dualistic whether you see it or not. Eastern religions are too, whether they recongize it or not. That's the real irony...

Assumptions. I may start a new 'Non-Duality' thread, - its important to understand the essence of 'Advaita', and realize that oneness of Being at the Heart of all, the 'Self'. 'Brahman' is 'Atman', there is no seperation. This is of course from that point of view, as one abides as the unborn, undying, unchanging essence within. That 'presence' is 'God' (Brahman/atman). This is the central view of the Advaita Vedanta school. There is ONLY that PRESENCE. It is not only 'One' but 'All'.

There are more 'dualistic' schools within Hinduism that are more like judeo-christian understandings of the relationship between God and souls (being seperate, uniquely different in certain respects, while alike in others), etc. One who studies such will recognize and discern the differences, where these are 'assumed' anyways.

Exactly so. It is the lie of the Garden. It is the promise "...will be like god."

My former statement stands - God makes all available or possible. This is a truth. How do you know, besides a religious assumption or 'belief' that a lie was told in the Garden? Have you cared to research it again? or have you the final ultimate conclusion on it and everything else? Research can do wonders.

As far as becoming like 'God',....isnt this the ultimate, most respectful, noble and inspiring ideal to strive towards??? Didn't Jesus say to be 'perfect' as our Heavenly Father is 'perfect'? Doesn't God want us to strive towards excellence, progress, growth, integrity, unfolding our divine potential, our capacity for creation, our experience of joy and happiness, to share in His divine nature? If you think of eternity and infinity....there is an endless vista of Life and realities beyond our imagination over every horizon point. Infinity has no finish. In Reality, there is no beginning or end. Only we assign time-points to anything that 'comes' and 'goes'...being 'events' as they arise. But what is that in which they arise..that never comes or goes?


Namaste,


pj

 

[Pierac]

I see Satan, Inc is still allowed to rule here!!!


oly::sherlock:
Paul