Official Bible Interpretation Thread

Heaven and earth shall pass away, ceasing to exist as separate states. The earth itself will cease to exist in time. The son of man being revealed and the "last days", are two different concepts. "Some of you will not taste death until you see the son of man coming in his kingdom." You interpret this to be a prediction of the transfiguration but the transfiguration does not depict the son of man coming in his kingdom. Do you relate the two statements because they are physically adjacent to each other in the bible? That may be, but the content of the descriptions is different.

 

I'm sorry I accidently wrote, "feel free to answer if you don't want to." I meant to write, "feel free to not answer if you don't want to." I didn't mean to put you on the spot, and I certainly didn't mean to demand an answer.

Ha! I'm surprised a little to hear that analogy come from you. It is a great one though. I never even thought of that while watching those movies. It makes sense.

Jesus' comment, "How long must I bear with you?" Do you know what that was in reference to? It could seem like a desire for end, but that would depend on the context.

I didn't even think of that until now.

Genesis 2:21
And the LORD god caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof;

It never says he woke up. I'm not jumping to conclusions, justing noting what's there in the book. Could it be what comes after the deep sleep is told in the form of metaphor? Dream like state? After the "deep sleep" is when the serpent comes and they note that they're naked and they think they've done wrong by eating from the tree.

I've always been interested to know if the rib that was taken from Adam was on the same side Jesus was stabbed by a Roman soldier while on the cross. It may not bear any significance, but on the other hand it might. Jesus seemed to greatly contrast Adam in the stories.

 

God's temple is not a house but the devotional heart of man.

 

Mark 9:14-19. His disciples were having difficulty casting out demons from a boy. I don't think it was an expression so much as a desire for an end but for successful transmission of principle. There is the fact that Jesus being embodied was not immune to painful suffering. Somebody here made the comment that if Jesus sacrificed anything, it was to become incarnate.

I realize that I have a body when I recount this experience but I had and ecstatic mystical vision that I would describe symbolically as looking into the "kingdom". The most profound sense I brought from that experience was that if I had never had a body, I would not have missed a thing.

This is what I mean about truth being preserved despite efforts to obscure it.
These concepts are hidden from the translators in plain sight. Truly if they had had their way, none of this would remain because it frees people from subservience to false ideals.

All of this symbolism is connected and the symbolism illumines profound truth.
For instance, two lines in the crucifixion account sum up the entire teaching about our experience in the world.
"I thirst", we are in this life seeking. Jesus is given vinegar to drink, "bitter wine". And when Jesus had received the vinegar he said "it is finished" and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. The sweetness of substance is bittersweet. Everything born dies. Everything created last forever, energy cannot be destroyed. Jesus transcends the cycle of birth and death, and shows us how to do it as well. Seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added to you. You must create an enduring identity, an imperishable body.

 

So, in my understanding, Jesus was born a man, an ordinary man (that is, no different from you or I), was anointed, found god (love, truth) and it was through this medium that gave him eternal life, as he became the physical manifestation of it here on earth. To recognize love and to make oneself a part of it (not that we're ever actually separate, we only perceive that we are separate), that is to become it, is to live in that eternal light. Love is the only constant. It has no beginning and no end, it just is. So his ultimate goal then was to transcend the human experience through love and death to become part of eternal love, i.e God. God is love. That's quite a simple goal. Not confusing at all. If you love all you will be love. Or as you say, the measure you give is the measure you get. To be love is essentially to be god (godlike), at least in part if not in whole. Thus they say Jesus was god in human form.

That is pretty profound. But does not this human life give us the opportunity to become consciously aware of what we really are - eternal love? If you don't mind me asking were you influenced by a controlled substance when you had this experience? Not that it matters either way. I'm just curious. Don't answer this if you'd like not to.

True. I see that now.

That's interesting to think about. You make it very easy to understand the point behind much of this. You have a way of eliminating the confusion created by the rhetoric, the written word (man's) aspect of it.

 

please delete me

 

The solution is to post in the general Christian forum, which tends to be mostly the same as this one. The main point of Sanctuary is to let Christians quote the Bible, which they aren't allowed to do elsewhere.

 

As I understand it, Skip's Rules are that only Christians can post here. But what is a Christian? The criteria accepted by a majority of Christians around the world are set forth in the various creeds developed by the Fourth Century to separate the true Christians from the heretics. This would include belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. Undoubtedly, most Christians would have trouble regarding as Christian a person who denies the Trinity and insists that Jesus is a created being and the Archangel Gabriel, not to mention one who doesn't believe in hell or the afterlife. So if we start getting picky about who is in the club, we could empty this Forum pretty quickly.

 

Chris·tian\ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\ noun
Definition of CHRISTIAN
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus

I believe in the message of Jesus. Does that mean I can stay? Even though I seem to look good in black.

"As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day
long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
Romans 8:36, KJV

 

I think you'd have Jesus' vote. The Latter Day Pharisees might have a different opinion, but they kicked Him out long ago.

 

I don't know who The Latter Day ... are. Not to be rude or anything but it doesn't matter. I have love and I love all, of any backgroud or belief. That's all that ever matters imo. The rest is just semantics.

 

I guess we can wonder about the reality of most figures of ancient times who weren't royalty. Was the Buddha real? Does it matter? Did Shakespeare exist? Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare's plays?

As for Jesus and Socrates, the evidence isn't overwhelming, but I believe both of them existed. For Socrates, we have not just one but three witnesses: Plato you mentioned, but there're also Xenophon and Aristophanes (a hostile witness). For Jesus, if we dismiss the gospels, the vision of Paul, and the accounts of various Roman historians, who were probably getting their information second hand, there are still figures of the Jerusalem church who claimed to have, and were accepted as having, a close relationship to Jesus: namely James (Jesus' brother) and Cephas (aka, Peter). Paul mentions and corresponded with Cephas and James, so unless he was completely batty and made them up too, that might be reason to think they existed. And Josephus corroborates the existence of James, the brother of Jesus, allowing us to deduce that if a person's brother existed, that person did as well. In his book James the Brother of Jesus, Robert Eiseman matches the James depicted in the New Testament, mainly Acts, with a host of references in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the works of Josephus and non-biblical writings like the Clemintine Recognitions and Homilies, the Apostolic Constitutions, Eusebius, and the two James Apocalypses from Nag Hammadi, and comes to the conclusion that James, ergo Jesus, were real. There is also independent Jewish hostile witness evidence in the Talmud describing the conviction and execution of one Yeshu ha Notzri (Jesus of Nazareth) who practiced magic and "led astary and deceived" his fellow Jews. Was this the same Jesus Christians revere as their Lord and Savior? We don't have conclusive proof, but it would certainly be quite a coincidence if it weren't.Also, if you were making up a savior god, would it be anything like Jesus--not at all like the expected messiah, a carpenter's son and a convicted, crucified criminal?

Of course, that doesn't answer the question whether or not Jesus said or did the things attributed to Him. The very skeptical Jesus Seminar concludes that He said and did at least 16% of the things attributed to him, which isn't chopped liver. As for Socrates, Plato's idealized portrayal of him is hard to reconcile with Aristophanes' satirical treatment, but at least they and Xenophon agree he was a real philosopher-teacher-intellectual in Athens and had lofty thoughts. In my opinion, nothing is certain--not even that--so we look at the evidence and use our best judgment on what to bet on. Jesus. Socrates and the Buddha are my heroes, whether they existed or not.

 

Thus spoke Zarathustra

 

Don't know about superman but mastery is to pick ones life up and lay it down at will.

 

When do we ever lay our lives 'down' in love? Weariness with life is symptomatic of religious devotion. Nietzsche was right when he said that christianity is the religion of pity.

 

Latter Day Pharisees is my phrase, punning on the "latter day saints" which is what the Mormons call themselves, and the Pharisees who were Jesus' favorite sparring partners. Jesus attacked them for being legalistic literalists who knew the letter of the law and the words of Scripture by heart, but had no real understanding of them. I think the phrase fits a lot of modern day Christian evangelical fundamentalists who think they're the only true Christians. I think Jesus would approve of you, but he had plenty of harsh words to say about them back in the day.

 

By lay down, I do not mean end. The phrase as I was taught simply means that you are invulnerable to the elements of circumstance or coercion by your own appetites. You decide where you go or do not go.

The practice I was taught introduced me to intense joy and gratitude.

How many lives does it take before you see the punch line. Hunger is never satisfied.

I don't know what is pitiful about learning to master your own creations.

 

Can we master our own creations? Do we want to? Does the mastery not already exist in that they are ours? We love them.

Is death mere prejudice? Can our laughter not include a yes and a no?!

Terrible hunger! lol

 

I think Jesus was pointed in his remarks for effect but understood that the pharisees just didn't get it and did not know what they were doing. It is possible that there is a level of "editorial" spin to the degree that Jesus criticized persons. I think it was practice that he was concerned with.

More fundamental is overturning the status quo, new wine is meant for new skins. The vain always see truth as some sort of preferential entity, a magic potion that gives one power over things or others. Truth correctly apprehended produces equanimity for all things.

 

thedope:

If I didn't know what you mean by this, I'd put such a statement down to the basest vanity and anti-philosophical sentiment imaginable.