- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 May 13
Originally posted by Taoman
We all look upon the same boundless truth through the glass of our own mind. This one knows that his is different to the other, while you fearfully sticking to your lens, keeps saying, "No!, no! this is the only view!".
We all look upon the same boundless truth through the glass of our own mind. This one knows that his is different to the other, while you fearfully sticking to your lens, keeps saying, "No!, no! this is the only view!".
Nothing new and revolutionary there Taoman.
The New Testament tells me that I as an individual Christians apprehend with all the saints together the vast dimensions of Christ which are virtually the infinite dimensions of the universe.
" ... that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may apprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and height and depth are and to know the knowledge surpassing love of Christ, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:17b-19)
Paul speaks of the great love of Jesus Christ as the breadth, length, height and depth. These are the infinite dimensions of the universe.
In other words the love of Christ is as the endless infinite expanse of the universe in every direction. And no one individual can apprehend it all alone. We must apprehend it with all those who are made holy in His salvation - the saints, the ones made holy.
So my experience of Christ is only a drop like a drop of water in the vast ocean.
How broad is the breadth ?
How long is the length ?
How deep is the depth ?
How high is the height ?
This we who are saved in Christ will need eternity to explore.
Until we are "filled unto all the fullness of God".
On the contrary. Most of the Eastern religious descriptions I have seen of a consummate truth are very individualistic. I see as of yet nothing in Buddhist philosophy as a city of God like the New Jerusalem at the conclusion of the Bible.
Nirvana seems very individualistic and isolated with no corporate enjoyment of a collective.
21 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipNirvana represents the fifth dimension as does the word "heaven".We all look upon the same boundless truth through the glass of our own mind. This one knows that his is different to the other, while you fearfully sticking to your lens, keeps saying, "No!, no! this is the only view!".
Nothing new and revolutionary there Taoman.
The New Testament tells me that I as an individual Christians apprehend ...[text shortened]... rvana seems very individualistic and isolated with no corporate enjoyment of a collective.
Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that just you think you know what "God" or heaven is like, you actually have no idea. The best thing you could say is to state what is NOT there. Anything else is mere speculation.
And no amount of 3-d visualization can prepare you for a five-d experience.
Edit: "...Most of the Eastern religious descriptions I have seen of a consummate truth are very individualistic. I see as of yet nothing in Buddhist philosophy as a city of God like the New Jerusalem at the conclusion of the Bible.
Nirvana seems very individualistic and isolated with no corporate enjoyment of a collective." >>Sonship
All collectives, including the Buddhist one (you didn't notice?) are utlimately a dream, along with the high sounding words that extol them.
Nirvana is the letting go of the pseudo-collective partitioning in favor of the no-self diving into MU, that liberates ultimately. You are there, but you can't see it, caught behind the partition you have so strongly constructed in your mind.
Jesus and Buddha are friends, pity you can't join them...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 May 13
Sooner or later you're going to have to realize that just you think you know what "God" or heaven is like, you actually have no idea. The best thing you could say is to state what is NOT there. Anything else is mere speculation.
And no amount of 3-d visualization can prepare you for a five-d experience.
Well, you do not see me mentioning Heaven much in these discussions.
And I do enjoy God. But how much much more I need to enjoy God. I would not dare say I am very deep in this experience.
But the principle we see in the NT is that we foretaste today in Christ what we will have a fuller taste of in the future.
The Holy Spirit is a appetizer of a much fuller union with the Triune God to come. This is the case. The Christ we can enjoy today is like a down payment of a much more consummate enjoyment following His second coming (if we are overcomers living through Him now).
So we see the Spirit spoken of as the PLEDGE -
" ... you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of the promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance unto the redemption of the acquired possession ..." (Eph. 1:13,14)
While my body awaits transfiguration there is tension between this PLEDGE and the fallen Adamic flesh. But the redemption of the acquired possession I think, mean the transfiguration and glorification of the body.
In the mean time the indwelling Spirit of Jesus is the PLEDGE. This is very very enjoyable.
Paul repeats the concept in Second Corinthians - "But the One who firmly attaches us with you unto Christ and has anointed us is God, He who has also sealed us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge." (2 Cor. 1:22)
We Christians have a supernatural SEAL. It is also a foretaste of a fuller taste to come. So we may expect a far greater enjoyment of what we are essentially enjoying of Jesus Christ today. That is the principle of what to expect in the future.
We have a foretaste also in a corporate way when we come together in meetings. The love and oneness is heavenly. And Satan is crushed under our feet.
This is happening in many localities throughout the earth.
www.localchurches.org
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 May 13
1 edit
All collectives, including the Buddhist one (you didn't notice?) are utlimately a dream, along with the high sounding words that extol them.
You might notice that when you expound in your threads about Buddhism, I stay out of those threads as a gentlemen. You may notice that I do not come over to argue about your belief. You have a right here to expound your view of spirituality as I.
Here is a bit of an exception as a reaction, I think.
If all lofty speech is a dream would that include your own ?
Or are you saying all OTHER lofty speech but your own is a dream ?
Is your own high sounding speech a dream as well?
Nirvana is the letting go of the pseudo-collective partitioning in favor of the no-self diving into MU, that liberates ultimately. You are there, but you can't see it, caught behind the partition you have so strongly constructed in your mind.
Is this speech a dream according to you statement -
All collectives, including the Buddhist one (you didn't notice?) are utlimately a dream, along with the high sounding words that extol them.
Then your teaching would be self defeating. Wouldn't it ?
Jesus and Buddha are friends, pity you can't join them...
I never said Jesus and Buddha were not friends.
But let me ask you. Jesus challenged His enemies "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" In other words He declares and challenges His opponents that He is a man without sin and sinning.
Did the Buddha make such a claim ? Just curious here.
If the Buddha did not make such a claim - they may indeed be friends because Jesus is called the Friend of Sinners. But He would be the sinless Savior as friend of the sinful one who needs forgiveness FOR his sins.
The friendship may indeed be there between the Buddha and Jesus Christ the Son of God. But it would be a friendship of the Savior towards another one needing to be saved.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
23 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipjesus and buddha friends? i didnt think you were allowed to believe in other gods?All collectives, including the Buddhist one (you didn't notice?) are utlimately a dream, along with the high sounding words that extol them.
You might notice that when you expound in your threads about Buddhism, I stay out of those threads as a gentlemen. You may notice that I do not come over to argue about your belief. You have a right ...[text shortened]... God. But it would be a friendship of the Savior towards another one needing to be saved.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 May 13
2 edits
jesus and buddha friends? i didnt think you were allowed to believe in other gods?
Buddhism is probably known best here by Taoman, perhaps visted. I do not think Buddhism HAS a god.
The Gospel of Christ of course has God. And Jesus claims to be Son of God and even the "I AM" which God uttered in Exodus.
I don't think you have a God in Buddhism. Correct me if I err.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
23 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipgood point, i think you are correct. although wouldnt buddha have to turn to christianity to be hanging out with the big j?jesus and buddha friends? i didnt think you were allowed to believe in other gods?
Buddhism is probably known best here by Taoman, perhaps visted. I do not think Buddhism HAS a god.
The Gospel of Christ of course has God. And Jesus claims to be Son of God and even the [b]"I AM" which God uttered in Exodus.
I don't think you have a God in Buddhism. Correct me if I err.[/b]
23 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipIn general, you are correct. Duecer pointed out to me some years ago that there are deities in some streams of Buddhism, but I have never studied them (being mostly Zennist).jesus and buddha friends? i didnt think you were allowed to believe in other gods?
Buddhism is probably known best here by Taoman, perhaps visted. I do not think Buddhism HAS a god.
The Gospel of Christ of course has God. And Jesus claims to be Son of God and even the [b]"I AM" which God uttered in Exodus.
I don't think you have a God in Buddhism. Correct me if I err.[/b]
I do not know to what extent such deities are taken to be actual beings (whether natural or supernatural), or metaphors or archetypes for natural forces—e.g., the great Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki, as I recall, used the “G-word” in such a way.
The “G-word” has not always meant something like the (a) supernatural, (b) personalistic, (c) individual entity of western theism. What might be the thoroughly conventional understanding of theos in that paradigm is not, and has not been, the exclusive understanding. For the ancient Stoics, theos was synonymous with the rational principle—rationality/coherence—(logos) of nature (phusis) expressed by way of the underlying generative energy, referred to as pneuma—generally translated as “spirit” (or wind or breath), but used by the Stoics to refer to the natural element of fire or the combined elements of air-fire. Did some Stoics think there was a god-being (or beings) in the dualistic/individualistic sense? I think so—but in general, thephilosophy was nondualistic, and theos/phusis/pneuma were just different ways of looking at the whole of nature; and when Epictetus, for example, refers to Zeus, I would tend to take him to be speaking archetypally.
23 May 13
Originally posted by sonshipI and others do not share your presumption that Jesus was a sinless god-man. Objective modern people cannot see how Jesus was anything other than a man like Gautama, known as the Buddha.All collectives, including the Buddhist one (you didn't notice?) are utlimately a dream, along with the high sounding words that extol them.
You might notice that when you expound in your threads about Buddhism, I stay out of those threads as a gentlemen. You may notice that I do not come over to argue about your belief. You have a right ...[text shortened]... God. But it would be a friendship of the Savior towards another one needing to be saved.
The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
A gathering of church officials were virtually forced by Emperor Constantine to decide which of the many differing versions of Jesus going around were to be discarded. God-men were a dime a dozen then. All the pagan and Jewish dates and celebrations were weaved by the poliitico-religious church into the story to edge the competition out.
Your arguments start out with "taken as read" stuff. It is circular arguing. "Thus is true because the the words that say it are true, and the words are true because the God that they talk about 'says' it's true, and on it goes..."
Buddhism relies on an inner experience of a total liberation from being dependent on anything else but release within your own mind. It encourages questioning. All the sutras and all the symbols and all the koans are intended as simply tools to help you see this.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 May 13
5 edits
Originally posted by Taoman
I and others do not share your presumption that Jesus was a sinless god-man. Objective modern people cannot see how Jesus was anything other than a man like Gautama, known as the Buddha.
The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
A nd all the symbols and all the koans are intended as simply tools to help you see this.
I and others do not share your presumption that Jesus was a sinless god-man. Objective modern people cannot see how Jesus was anything other than a man like Gautama, known as the Buddha.
You may not share that belief. But I think you have to deal with the idea that He made that claim before His enemies - to indicate in what had He sinned.
It was a bold claim - "Which of you convicts Me of sin?".
Actually they did desperately attempt to draw up a few trials by witness and jury to condemn Him of wrong doing. They turned out to be such kangaroo trials that even the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate said he found no fault in the man. Pilate gave the mob their desire to have Him executed by his Roman guards but he attempted to wash his hands of the whole matter.
Mind you that there was no love loss between the Jews and Pilate.
My point here is his most murderous enemies could only trump up false accusations against Jesus. Maybe you should consider that He actually was sinless.
For certain if He was not sinless He would not have qualified to be the atoning Redeemer which He taught He was. He does not appear to be a man given to low integrity. I think if He knew He was a sinner He would withdraw any claim to be that sinless sacrifice able to fulfill the prophet Isaiah's word of a sinless Suffering Servant.
The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
The earliest record of a New Testament document is the First Letter to the church in Corinth. In that letter we see what Paul had passed on to him as a tradition already fully formed:
"For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also ... who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."
This is our earliest record of what the teaching about Jesus was all about. And it was a fully formed tradition ready to be passed on to Paul that Christ died and resurrected from the dead in fulfillment of the OT Scripture prophecies.
This writing is agreed upon by NT scholars of all persuasions - liberal and conservative, as most primitive indications of apostolic writing. This document predates the Gospel of Mark and any other Gospels. This is the earliest document describing what the Gospel was that was being preached.
Gary Habermas is worth listening to in consulting this letter from a purely HISTORICAL point of view (not as sacred or divine inspired scripture).
Rather than write up his impressive historical method I suggest you watch this video for awhile -
23 May 13
Originally posted by TaomanTell me this. How was the image on the Shroud of Turin formed? If you can provide that evidence, I am sure the scientists that examined it would submit you for a Nobel Prize.
I and others do not share your presumption that Jesus was a sinless god-man. Objective modern people cannot see how Jesus was anything other than a man like Gautama, known as the Buddha.
The Hellenistic post-Pauline man-created image of Jesus of Nazareth an unknown "Jeshua"was gradually built up 60 years to nearly two centuries after he was around.
A ...[text shortened]... nd all the symbols and all the koans are intended as simply tools to help you see this.
The Instructor
23 May 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy do you think the shroud is positive proof that JC was buried in it? It could have been anyone, you have ZERO proof of anything supernatural.
Tell me this. How was the image on the Shroud of Turin formed? If you can provide that evidence, I am sure the scientists that examined it would submit you for a Nobel Prize.
The Instructor
23 May 13
Originally posted by sonhouse“Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural,” read the headline in The Independent of London.
Why do you think the shroud is positive proof that JC was buried in it? It could have been anyone, you have ZERO proof of anything supernatural.
“What the Italian scientists are saying is that the image was created on the Shroud in a burst of energy that Christian believers would understand as physical proof of the Resurrection,” Corsi told WND. “Skeptics who relied on the carbon dating to dismiss the Shroud as a medieval fake are now going to have to rethink their arguments.”
Still, MSNBC’s science editor Alan Doyle remained a doubter, noting that the Italian scientists did not prove a flash of a miraculous resurrection was the only way the Shroud image could only have created.
Doyle cited an email to him from the lead researcher, Paolo Di Lazzaro, who drew his conclusions more narrowly.
“It is obvious that a scientific work cannot prove any supernatural action,” Paolo Di Lazarro emailed to Doyle. “We have shown that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud image. As a consequence, we may argue it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a medieval fake is really low. In this sense, the Shroud image is still a scientific challenge.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/380633/#QGp6rYjYzCbm1pi8.99
There will always be doubters. Maybe that is the reason for the lake of fire.
The instructor