The Gospel Truth(?)

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Such a question is completely hypothetical. Who could even know that?

ChrisL with his Akashic Records does. At the rate I'm going with my psychic progression, I should be able to go look too soon.

[royster]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Such a question is completely hypothetical. Who could even know that?

Anyone heeding the Spirit.

Thanks. And what a come-back, too!

I agree whole-heartedly that God works through us, and that includes Jesus. As Jesus was the example of what we can ascend to (and by his own words, MORE) it stands to protocol that we don't perform these things of our own will, but in alignment with the Divine Will...which (also protocol) is for the betterment of all.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

ChrisL with his Akashic Records does. At the rate I'm going with my psychic progression, I should be able to go look too soon.

How can Akashic Records prove hypotheticals?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Causality gets hard to define in these sorts of cases. Sure, Jesus may not have done them, but would they have happened without him?

If I hammer a nail into a piece of wood, there's no confusion about whether the hammer is the cause of the event, regardless of the fact that I needed the hammer to accomplish it......Or is there?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

How can Akashic Records prove hypotheticals?

You have to look under 'H' for hypotheticals and page through it until you find it.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

You have to look under 'H' for hypotheticals and page through it until you find it.

Cool. Sounds like something someone else can do. I got enough on my plate with the Latin.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Beingist

How can Akashic Records prove hypotheticals?

It's not a hypothetical. It's a simple question, who did it? Someone did.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If I hammer a nail into a piece of wood, there's no confusion about whether the hammer is the cause of the event, regardless of the fact that I needed the hammer to accomplish it......Or is there?

There's no question. You're the cause. A hammer can't cause anything. Are you comparing Jesus to a hammer?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's not a hypothetical. It's a simple question, who did it? Someone did.

Yes, it is a hypothetical. My late great uncle would have responded to that with, "if the dog don't stop to take a dump, will he still catch the rabbit?"

Nonetheless, as I explained in the very post in question, as Jesus himself either explicitly or implicitly states in several verses, it was the Father who did the works, through Jesus (and, again, assuming he really said what is written, and unless it's contradicted by the original Greek text).

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's not a hypothetical. It's a simple question, who did it? Someone did.

No, the question was would the miracles have happened without Jesus. Would somebody else have fulfilled that role. As B says, it's hypothetical, and not useful to know anyway.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

There's no question. You're the cause. A hammer can't cause anything. Are you comparing Jesus to a hammer?

Yes, the person using a tool to complete a task is analogous to God using a person to accomplish a task. They're just different contexts. As you say, there's no question about Jesus being the cause.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yes, it is a hypothetical. My late great uncle would have responded to that with, "if the dog don't stop to take a dump, will he still catch the rabbit?"

Nonetheless, as I explained in the very post in question, as Jesus himself either explicitly or implicitly states in several verses, it was the Father who did the works, through Jesus (and, again, assuming he really said what is written, and unless it's contradicted by the original Greek text).

And of course it applies to everything Jesus, or anybody else, does since volition is an illusion.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

And of course it applies to everything Jesus, or anybody else, does since volition is an illusion.

After listening to some Adyashanti, I'm only now coming to understand this, but indeed, it is why I felt it necessary to include this in the quote.

Something else that's often stuck with me is the very next verse, though it's a lead-in to a major soliloquy that I'm still trying to understand in light of Truth, and in light of the historical context, but still seems in context to his previous statement:

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus seems to be quite aware that he, himself, is an illusion. It's not about him, but the Father. Few words appear more frequently in the Gospels than the word, Pater, (or the declension thereof). The Father does the work. "I and the Father are one". "Even the Son of Man knows not the hour ... ". Etc.

He's just a vessel, and he seems completely aware that he's just a vessel.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

After listening to some Adyashanti, I'm only now coming to understand this, but indeed, it is why I felt it necessary to include this in the quote.

Something else that's often stuck with me is the very next verse, though it's a lead-in to a major soliloquy that I'm still trying to understand in light of Truth, and in light of the historical context, but still seems in context to his previous statement:

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus seems to be quite aware that he, himself, is an illusion. It's not about him, but the Father. Few words appear more frequently in the Gospels than the word, Pater, (or the declension thereof). The Father does the work. "I and the Father are one". "Even the Son of Man knows not the hour ... ". Etc.

He's just a vessel, and he seems completely aware that he's just a vessel.

It's a difficult message to get across. Folks don't know if he's Superman or God or a 'hammer'. Oneness is such a simple concept, but rather difficult to embrace in practice.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Yes, the person using a tool to complete a task is analogous to God using a person to accomplish a task. They're just different contexts. As you say, there's no question about Jesus being the cause.

Why would God care about accomplishing things? Thought you didn't believe in God, anyway.

[Beingist]

Another oft-quoted saying of Jesus:

He who has ears, let them hear

If one isn't ready to hear it, the point is often lost, but that doesn't mean the message ceases to be told, and in infinitely various ways.

Along these lines, he explains that,

No one can come to me, unless the Father, who sent me, drew him

No one can do the "converting", either.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Why would God care about accomplishing things? Thought you didn't believe in God, anyway.

Actually, I DID learn something from Hawkins. I gained a clear understanding of context. In one context, man chooses and acts. In a larger context, God is the creator and man is the creation. In another context, God is both the source and substance, the noumenon and phenomenon, creator and created, subject and object. In the largest context, all distinctions collapse, lacking any dualistic counterparts. (i.e., if the object IS the subject, the distinction has no meaning)

As you can see, the larger the context, the more difficult it is to conceptualize and grasp, and so everything must be talked about in a given context. Contexts are complete within themselves and include their own content. They are ways of talking about things, but no context is ultimately true. It should be understood that larger contexts always supersede smaller ones, so for example man as a volitional being is NOT true in the context in which God is inclusive of phenomena (humans), and so man is not a volitional God. The larger contexts are always closer to the truth, but the Truth is not found in any context as it refers to that which precedes the conceptual mind.

[Prinie]

VinceG and Arcanum, While I personally couldn't care about your banter and debating, you saw what happened in the last post you two bantered in. It was closed. I happen to enjoy reading this thread and while I don't want to speak for the others, Royster and Beingst probably enjoy it too. Don't derail it. It might get closed.

PM each other and yaddy yada that way. Or just agree to disagree

[Arcanum]

Hey, B. Does the Latin Vulgate include Genesis? There's another thread essentially asking why, since trees didn't eat the forbidden fruit (hehe) why do they have to die for their sin? I didn't know where to begin deconstructing the beliefs in order to make sense out of it, and so I didn't, but I would be willing to explore the meaning of the story here.

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Another oft-quoted saying of Jesus:

If one isn't ready to hear it, the point is often lost, but that doesn't mean the message ceases to be told, and in infinitely various ways.

Along these lines, he explains that,
No one can do the "converting", either.

I'm glad you shared that. And I think that's one of the hardest things for people to accept and also creates a paradox in this world. It's interesting, many condemn others to hell because they didnt' convert to Christianity but one has to be led and feel a connection to that path of some sort. It's not somethng that can be imposed and because the message doesn't quite register for some doesn't mean that it's false. It simple means that wasn't the way for them.

Eg: I love writing and I'm incredibly enthusiastic about nursing. Family hates it, can't stand the thought of doing anything related to nursing. Doesn't make them less than, just makes them not interested. They have to find their own path.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Prinie

VinceG and Arcanum, While I personally couldn't care about your banter and debating, you saw what happened in the last post you two bantered in. It was closed. I happen to enjoy reading this thread and while I don't want to speak for the others, Royster and Beingst probably enjoy it too. Don't derail it. It might get closed.

PM each other and yaddy yada that way. Or just agree to disagree

There is nothing here to indicate a problem, aside from your post of course. Please try to relax. I put quite a bit of consideration into responding to Vince's question, and I don't appreciate you referring to it as "yada-yada".

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

There is nothing here to indicate a problem, aside from your post of course. Please try to relax. I put quite a bit of consideration into responding to Vince's question, and I don't appreciate you referring to it as "yada-yada".

Okay. I'm relaxed. And thank you for putting consideration into your response.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Actually, I DID learn something from Hawkins. I gained a clear understanding of context. In one context, man chooses and acts. In a larger context, God is the creator and man is the creation. In another context, God is both the source and substance, the noumenon and phenomenon, creator and created, subject and object. In the largest context, all distinctions collapse, lacking any dualistic counterparts. (i.e., if the object IS the subject, the distinction has no meaning)

As far as I can tell, in none of those contexts does God act in any other fashion than as Creator.

As you can see, the larger the context, the more difficult it is to conceptualize and grasp, and so everything must be talked about in a given context. Contexts are complete within themselves and include their own content. They are ways of talking about things, but no context is ultimately true. It should be understood that larger contexts always supersede smaller ones, so for example man as a volitional being is NOT true in the context in which God is inclusive of phenomena (humans), and so man is not a volitional God. The larger contexts are always closer to the truth, but the Truth is not found in any context as it refers to that which precedes the conceptual mind.

Why do larger contexts supersede smaller ones? I see no reason why they should do so. Your example is flawed because you're going out-of-context, not because one context is 'better' than any other.

Your contexts are basically the levels of consciousness, so lets talk about that, because, as you say, the larger contexts are difficult to conceptualize directly. Crime exists on one level, and it exists on all the levels above it. What changes is how those perceiving from the higher contexts view it.

No information gets invalidated, only recontextualized.

And if you really read all eight of Hawkins books, you should have learned more than "something."

If this is to be discussed further, it needs its own thread. I'm not going to participate in derailing this one.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Prinie

Okay. I'm relaxed. And thank you for putting consideration into your response.

I just read your blog for today. Sounds like that happened today? If so, your reaction is understandable. I hope you're feeling better.

[Prinie]

Don't be an a$$. that didn't happen today. It's actually very old and my response was calm. The bold was to alert you and Vince to it. Because the OP was about latin translations and the BIble and it became about Akashic Records and Hawkins. I then remembered that there was another thread in which a guy asked about what to believe it was closed for derailment.

I got passionate about something I'm interested in. But I saw your post after mine involved Genesis so you can disregard my initial post you and Vince.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Hey, B. Does the Latin Vulgate include Genesis? There's another thread essentially asking why, since trees didn't eat the forbidden fruit (hehe) why do they have to die for their sin? I didn't know where to begin deconstructing the beliefs in order to make sense out of it, and so I didn't, but I would be willing to explore the meaning of the story here.

Yes, the Vulgate is the whole ball-o-wax in Latin, but as far as translating, I have been focusing on the Gospel, with the exception of the 23rd Psalm. (I just like the Psalms. )

As far as the deconstruction of Genesis, I'm cool with any discussion here. The thing about Genesis is that it's all so ... metaphoric, but since it's so easy to take it literally, any attempts at deconstructing beliefs (even my own, in my case) about it can lead to confuzzlement.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Prinie

Don't be an a$$. that didn't happen today. It's actually very old and my response was calm. The bold was to alert you and Vince to it. Because the OP was about latin translations and the BIble and it became about Akashic Records and Hawkins. I then remembered that there was another thread in which a guy asked about what to believe it was closed for derailment.

I got passionate about something I'm interested in. But I saw your post after mine involved Genesis so you can disregard my initial post you and Vince.

Now I'm an as*? Your blog was dated today and written in present tense. In the interest of the thread, I won't be responding to your posts anymore.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yes, the Vulgate is the whole ball-o-wax in Latin, but as far as translating, I have been focusing on the Gospel, with the exception of the 23rd Psalm. (I just like the Psalms. )

As far as the deconstruction of Genesis, I'm cool with any discussion here. The thing about Genesis is that it's all so ... metaphoric, but since it's so easy to take it literally, any attempts at deconstructing beliefs (even my own, in my case) about it can lead to confuzzlement.

Okay, sounds like it's easier to not discuss any of these matters here. (hehe) If I develop an interest in context or Genesis or thread paranoia, I'll start another thread.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Prinie

VinceG and Arcanum, While I personally couldn't care about your banter and debating, you saw what happened in the last post you two bantered in. It was closed. I happen to enjoy reading this thread and while I don't want to speak for the others, Royster and Beingst probably enjoy it too. Don't derail it. It might get closed.

PM each other and yaddy yada that way. Or just agree to disagree

No worries, Prinie, I don't think this thread will be derailed as the other was. And if it is, I'm okay with that (I've been becoming okay with a lot of stuff, these days). I'll do my best, and I think others (like yourself) will help keep things on track.

It's too bad I can't simply assign all the contention to the 'What Is, Is' thread. I consider that an official battleground, of sorts, if only because I've fought my own imaginary battles there , but also because 'What Is' is rather infinite, and would include all contention.

[Prinie]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Now I'm an as*? Your blog was dated today and written in present tense. In the interest of the thread, I won't be responding to your posts anymore.

you're right, I should date it for 2010.