Mustardseed--I have a few Questions for you...

[Mustardseed]

Hi Beth
I read Origen. Not too clear. I guess what I summise is the even back then this controversy raged. Wonder what the official Jewish version is? My problem is two sided.

It is evident that the validity of the Bible, the literalist way so to speak was questioned. One would assume this to be a natural reaction. Jos. Fla. wrote and explained about this and seemed to use the same arguments as i did in a way. Though it would be fair to note that I have avoided to use the scriptures as proof of the scriptures!! Agreed?

Ok since this seems to have for a while been a hotly debated issue and there is no proof either way but absense of proof only. The ciorcumstantial eveidense becomes important. Personal experiences becomes secondary!! My OBE though very real and somewhat unusual is still not proof to me. Neither is Origin. I certainly understand his point and yours, but I did not know him!! Have no proof he is anything but a doubter and a neg inspired blind leader of the blind!!
Try to understand Beth that it is too vague for me.

I am still reading Jos.Fla. and will research Origin as well.

Regards

Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

Here is a link to Origen.  It is on a very reliable website, New Advent.org., the most reliable Christian encyclopedic website I have found.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

The quotes that I posted above come from his treatise, "First Principles."

As far as I know, there is no "offical Jewish position" except those Jewish scholars who were writing at the time. The most prolific was Philo of Alexandria, and he was keeping the tradition alive before Origen was even born.  Philo was a contemporary of Paul.  His position was what Origen inherited, that you must read scripture allegorically to get to the real message that it conveys.  Both he and Origen interpreted the proper names in the way that I have explained, as well as many other allegorical and metaphorical representations that they found in scripture.

That is why I feel so confident in my position Mustardseed.  The earliest writers that we have record of from both Judaism and Christianity agree on this method. There were of course writers that did not, but like Josephus, all they can do is repeat quotes from scripture.  Philo, Saccus, Clement, Origen and others, together represent the first two hundred years of Christianity as being those who interpreted scripture allegorically. It was not until the 3-4th centuries that the "literalists" won the debate.  But they did not win by truth or historical verification, but only through Roman political power.

You wrote:  

quote:I certainly understand his point and yours, but I did not know him!! Have no proof he is anything but a doubter and a neg inspired blind leader of the blind!!

Okay, I can see your point--but--please tell me what proof you have that the 4th century founders of the Catholic Church, who insisted on a literal interpretation were not "neg inspired blind leader of the blind."  I am really interested to know why you have such a great faith in these men who you also never knew.

Selah,
Beth

p.s.  Something just occured to me.  What if we had inherited the allegorical interpretation instead, which taught us of the soul, its origins and its relationship to us and to God, and today someone was trying to convince everyone that these events really happened.  In other words, what would things be like today if 2,000 years later, someone were trying to cnvince us of a literalist position over an allegorical one?

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth

That is a good one. I wondered about that too. All depending on what the truth IS (IS!!!!as in absolutely is![]) the roles could be reversed. It is true that I have had no relationship with these folks either(Romans), and this is my point exactly. Since there is no personal relationship either way and since it seems obvious that there were a controversy even back then, it obvious to me that we will have to believe, what we believe, BY FAITH.

I have by now (as Imagine have others)developed , on the basis of my own desire for serving God, an understanding of what releases Gods power!. I have in a "metaphorical" room found certain switches so to speak and I know atleast in part what turns on the inflowing of His Spirit, his knowlwdge his power and so on.

To me the answer (electricity )is LOVE. Even in the spiritual context love is a great aid. Its opposite, hate seems to only lead the wrong way, but Love seems to generate various great experiences and propels us into the presence of great men and women. When Love is applied things that were before complicated and things that were in a knot seems to loosen up.[] There may be different ways to minister this love (i.e. tough love) but the motive will always be the same.

Personal experience is in my opinion now moved from second most important to most important. We as individuals must now make sure for ourselves either way. Make up our own mind so to speak. Christianity then becomes in the very word a "faith", along with other faiths.

In this scenario, and if we adopt the stance that since we cannot prove a negative. ("Prove that something cannot be proven!!"), circumstansial evidence is moved up the ladder along with experiences. It becomes important to look elsewhere for indications as to what the Truth really is. Much like RBs Catch Basket Concept. I would compare my own life with Fx the lives I see living other faiths. This could be Hindues Muslims Pagans Atheists, Church people etc etc. As I heard it said once "I might not know where it IS at but I sure know where it is NOT at".


This following observation could be and is in my opinion an example of circumstantial evidense.

Where I come from the Pagan beliefs revolved around a pantheon of different Gods, Thoh and Odin being the big guys. They left this pagan belief system at the reformation and adopted a Christian value system instead. In India the system is the same or similar as it was in Scandinavia during the 300-600 a.d.,  Krishna Brama Vishnu etc are revered. (Most religious systems believe that God is either an angry God that will have to be appeased or at the least is indifferent as fx. Buddhism.) This has produced a system as we see it there. I would say it is safe to say that if these countries have had these religions as their building blocks for centuries they must blame/credit these religions for where they are at, having lived there I would say they are not doing that good. Dont read the story books on this one, but take my word for it, these countries are in a mess. This seems to be the truth as well for much of the Muslim world.

It becomes important to look around, at what peoples beliefs have caused them to do and how it makes them relate to others. Even on this board I find it is relativly easy for me to figure out whos postings can be helpful to me. There are a variety of people having adopted various names and having various attitudes and some I do not have much regard for. They seem indifferent to the pain and longing of others and generally are a ruthless lot. I would put Allannon in this bunch as well. I do not believe in "his God" either. A very few people emerge then in this situation, the things they say resonate with me and the experiences they have and had agrees with my own. This is also the same in society at large and in all relationships we as people have.

I am not a great believer in Books. Books are written by men Beth. In my opinion they are often nothing but words. History is written by the concourer as you so well explains and the more eloquent and more well connected person often gets the sopebox. Words, There was a time I believed in Words. No longer. Actions speak louder than words. Tell me how you live your life and I will tell you what you believe as someone said.

The spiritual experiences I/we have also becomes more important. In everything we do and in everything that happens to us there seem to be potential "red thread" God seems to delight in giving mankind hints, and seeing us use our free will to follow these "red threads". These experiences I am having may be one such "thread" but I believe that one should be very very careful how to interpret such experiences. As you know, my own recent concious OBE could be interpreted several ways, all depending on my point of view and desire.

All this to say that Christianity has served, and serves me well. God answers my prayers and when he does not I am always glad he didn't later on[]. He does seem to lead me in a plain path. From a distance it could look as if I as well as many other Christians are running out or asphalt and are coming to a dead end but it could also just be a ....bend in the road. I believe it is.

Thanks for listening to my many .... words[]

Regards Mustardseed

PS 1 left ,[] so far no go

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

Well, you have definately had many experiences in the phyiscal world that I have not.  You have traveled the world and you have seen other religions in practice.  I have not.  So I do not have the kind of comparative models to place beside Christianity in order to determine whether it is a better or worse religion than the others of the world.  I guess I can see where you would choose Christianity over these other options.

As I student of religion, not just Christianity, I have found where the whole idea of religion is a mixed bag.  Sure, they all have prescriptions for morality--some more than others.  They all have a historical tradition, in that most of these religions have been around for hundreds if not thousands of years.  So have Judaism and Christianity.  This is my point.

I do not see where religion, as an institutional organization, or as a collective understanding has really helped this world to evolve spiritually or morally--except in realizing that the ultimate power is beyond humanity.  This is a good thing--but this also has a double-edged sword.  Whenever a religion claims that "they" have the "truth" of this higher power, and that only through believing as they do can one access that power, it only serves to create an "elitist" (yes, I can easily use that word) attitude toward other people and their faiths or beliefs.

In the post before this last one, you said

quote:The circumstantial eveidence becomes important. Personal experiences becomes secondary!!

The circumstantial evidence ONLY becomes important when one is trying to "prove" or "disprove" one over the other.  To be forced to do this at all, is prohibiting us all from realizing the "truth of God."  God cannot be enclosed in any one religion.  We must rise above our need for religion and give the "truth" and the "power of the truth" over to that which possesses it.  That is God.

I have found that books, words, and the thoughts of others can be very empowering for a time--if they responate with you, and if you are in need of another's testimony. But these words and these books are not the words or the books of God.  They are the books and words of people's experience of God.

You obviously find where the Bible speaks to you on a level that has made your life better, and has helped you to learn that helping others is one of your gifts--gifts of Love that are of the highest and best that we can and should all give.  I admire that--and I have also tried to live my life in that same vein.  I too have gleaned a lot from the wisdom found in the Bible.  But that does not mean that the "truth of God" can only be found in the Bible--or in Christianity.

Your goodness Mustardseed, is much more a testament of YOU than it is of your religion.  YOU are a GOOD person, and probably would be a GOOD person even if you never found the Christian message.  As you report--you have certainly spent your life doing good deeds, or at least knew that there was something better, even before you found your religion of choice.

All my life Christianity has been an option for me--I do not come from a third world country or a European world where things are in worse shape than right here in America.  But what I have seen, is how the Christianity that is present here in America is seriously flawed.  I have seen people use this religion to do great harm to others--to separate families, and to pass judgments on people who otherwise do not deserve it.  I took from the religion the few parts that resonated with me, and I left the rest behind.  I then went on a search for something better.

I have yet to actually find where "any religion" meets my needs.  Personally, I do not think that I ever will.  Why?  Because once a spiritual message is institutionalized and concretized--it looses its power to speak on an individual basis to individual people in ways that are meaningful to each of them.  I "believe in" and "know of" this higher power that all religions are based upon--and that is where I look for my guidance and my new understandings.  I believe in the power and the presence--not any one group who has decided to "explain" that power, or "account" for that power.  This has liberated my life to really look at this world as just one of many worlds--that I am not "stuck" in a world where people think they can tell anyone "who God is" or "What God Is."  

I know you can't understand this because you are a man.  But virtually everywhere on this planet--God is referred to as "HE."  Quite a few years ago I was really drawn to worship the Goddess as a "SHE"--this resonated with me much more than "HE"--but I soon found that this was just the dangerous opposite swing of the pendulum.  To me, God is much bigger than man or woman--so when we think of God as being one or the other--we fall into a dangerous trap of arrogance and ignorance.  

I could not agree more with you when you say that "personal experience" should come first.  I have told you several of my experiences, and some of them have included Jesus, but others have not.  BUT--even the experiences I have had of Jesus--the Christians that I know would disregard them as "just my imagination" or as "just my own wishful thinking" that Jesus is somehow present and appearing in my life.  Christianity does not usually accept things like that, because that means that "I do not need Church" to help me get there, and it means that I have had an experience of Jesus that they have not.  Christians do not like this sort of thing. They prefer to believe that they will all "see" Jesus at the same time, when he returns.  This keeps is all on a level playing ground so to speak, and no one is able to experience Jesus outside of what the church deems acceptable.  The Christianity where I come from does not accept a one-on-one communication with God or Jesus.  All communication must be mediated through the Church.

I also know that many of your experiences would not be accepted by the Christians where I come from.  They would think you were just as nuts as I am! []

quote:All this to say that Christianity has served, and serves me well. God answers my prayers and when he does not I am always glad he didn't later on. He does seem to lead me in a plain path.

God does not necessarily = Christianity.  I have not given up "God"--I have just given up on Christianity's interpretation of God.  God has never left me, and as a matter of my own experience, I believe that God has stayed with me and given me the courage to live "without Christianity."  God is the constant in my life--not religion.

God has served and continues to serve me very well.  I do not know what will happen with Christianity, and you would think that since I am not a member of that religion that I really wouldn't care.  But I do.  I really do.  I would like for Christianity to re-form itself into what I, and others, have found gave rise to the religion in the first place.  That is--the power of God, the power of Spirit--and the power that we have within us when we but recognize these other two powers and allow them to lead us and guide us.  My trinity is God, Spirit, and then humanity.  It will be up to us humans how this all turns out--and we may never know the "truth" while in these bodies.  Maybe the truth can be had, but I do not see where any religion on this planet has found it.  

Thanks for listening to me this time!  I guess I have been rambling, but bottom line--you seem to think that God is in Christianity, and that if you give up Christianity, you are somehow giving up God.  I just don't think that this is the case.  To be quite frank, I did not really "find God" until I renounced Christianity and "looked within myself."  

"Love goes wherever Love grows."

Selah,
Beth

p.s. Just one more to go?--not true my friend.  You have a great many more opportunities, and just like the other night, it will come again "like a thief in the night."  It will come again when you are ready to receive it.  You have had a "glimpse" now--you have seen it, and you "know" it is there.  So, whatever you have been thinking about and doing in the last several days, perhaps that is the right path for you at this time.  Whatever it is, it is stirring the spirit deep within you.  Keep walking down that path, and IT will come again.  The Light is Within You.

[Mustardseed]

quote:Well, you have definately had many experiences in the phyiscal world that I have not.  You have traveled the world and you have seen other religions in practice.  I have not.  So I do not have the kind of comparative models to place beside Christianity in order to determine whether it is a better or worse religion than the others of the world.  I guess I can see where you would choose Christianity over these other options.

Glad you do. I tell you it is a very real consideration.

quote:
I do not see where religion, as an institutional organization, or as a collective understanding has really helped this world to evolve spiritually or morally--except in realizing that the ultimate power is beyond humanity.  This is a good thing--but this also has a double-edged sword.  Whenever a religion claims that "they" have the "truth" of this higher power, and that only through believing as they do can one access that power, it only serves to create an "elitist" (yes, I can easily use that word) attitude toward other people and their faiths or beliefs.

Agreed. I also do not adhere to an institutionalised religion. As far as a collective understanding that just seems to come all by itself, in every religion. As far the elitist think, I also believe this is a human trait. I would say that the administrators maybe Adrian and yourself and RB also do adhere to an elitist understanding of the world in the way elitist is commonly understood. I would say that Gnostisism itself is extremely elitist maybe more than most , so as one finger is pointing at someones fault 3 are pointing back at you[].

quote:In the post before this last one, you said

"The circumstantial eveidence becomes important. Personal experiences becomes secondary!!"

The circumstantial evidence ONLY becomes important when one is trying to "prove" or "disprove" one over the other.

Exactly

quote:To be forced to do this at all, is prohibiting us all from realizing the "truth of God."  God cannot be enclosed in any one religion.  We must rise above our need for religion and give the "truth" and the "power of the truth" over to that which possesses it.  That is God.

I do not understand this statement. Is that not exactly what you are doing. Trying to disprove Christianity and the Bible on the grounds that it is not a literal account of a historical series of events?

quote:I have found that books, words, and the thoughts of others can be very empowering for a time--if they responate with you, and if you are in need of another's testimony. But these words and these books are not the words or the books of God.  They are the books and words of people's experience of God.

All except one[]IMO

quote:
You obviously find where the Bible speaks to you on a level that has made your life better, and has helped you to learn that helping others is one of your gifts--gifts of Love that are of the highest and best that we can and should all give.  I admire that--and I have also tried to live my life in that same vein.  I too have gleaned a lot from the wisdom found in the Bible.  But that does not mean that the "truth of God" can only be found in the Bible--or in Christianity.

Not really. I have come to understand that as Paul said "in me..there there dwelleth no good, for to will is present but how to preform I find not". I have come to believe that all that is good about me is....God. It is his power inspiration and certainly His Spirit. He gats the credit all the time Beth. Think about it my friend!! You have had a few brief encounters with "me", "I" am not that soft and fuzzy to be around[]. I explained this concept to RB as well but he felt it was flawed in its logic. In the Christian tradition or belief, we are not good, it is only "Christ in us the hope of Glory" (doctrine of Co habitation)

quote:Your goodness Mustardseed, is much more a testament of YOU than it is of your religion.  YOU are a GOOD person, and probably would be a GOOD person even if you never found the Christian message.

It is my belief based on the direction I was heading at the time, and my experience with othere of like mind, that I would not be alive. If I would have made it to my 49th year I would be "high as a kite" or worse yet in jail, mental institution, or worse.

quote:
As you report--you have certainly spent your life doing good deeds, or at least knew that there was something better, even before you found your religion of choice.

I was not just thumbing through a catalouge of religions Beth. I was looking for a way out. For the truth and was not gonna settle for nothing less.

quote:All my life Christianity has been an option for me--I do not come from a third world country or a European world where things are in worse shape than right here in America.  But what I have seen, is how the Christianity that is present here in America is seriously flawed.  I have seen people use this religion to do great harm to others--to separate families, and to pass judgments on people who otherwise do not deserve it.  I took from the religion the few parts that resonated with me, and I left the rest behind.  I then went on a search for something better.

Good for you. I would include Church and that type of organised Christianity / fundementalists with all the other false ways so we agree there. "with their tounge they draw near no me but in their heart they are far removed from me" (I quote from memmory when I put no ref.)

quote:I have yet to actually find where "any religion" meets my needs.  Personally, I do not think that I ever will.

que sera sera

quote:I know you can't understand this because you are a man.  But virtually everywhere on this planet--God is referred to as "HE."  Quite a few years ago I was really drawn to worship the Goddess as a "SHE"--this resonated with me much more than "HE"--but I soon found that this was just the dangerous opposite swing of the pendulum.  To me, God is much bigger than man or woman--so when we think of God as being one or the other--we fall into a dangerous trap of arrogance and ignorance.

Interesting . Rather than saying God is neither he or she it is also possible and indeed plausible he/she is both. Some time back I came upon a theory that the Holy Spirit is female. Interesting idea.  

quote:I could not agree more with you when you say that "personal experience" should come first.  I have told you several of my experiences, and some of them have included Jesus, but others have not.  BUT--even the experiences I have had of Jesus--the Christians that I know would disregard them as "just my imagination" or as "just my own wishful thinking" that Jesus is somehow present and appearing in my life.  Christianity does not usually accept things like that, because that means that "I do not need Church" to help me get there, and it means that I have had an experience of Jesus that they have not.  Christians do not like this sort of thing. They prefer to believe that they will all "see" Jesus at the same time, when he returns.  This keeps is all on a level playing ground so to speak, and no one is able to experience Jesus outside of what the church deems acceptable.  The Christianity where I come from does not accept a one-on-one communication with God or Jesus.  All communication must be mediated through the Church.

We agree on so many points. This is one of them. I am glad you say the christianity where I come from (sounds like Texas!!)

quote:I also know that many of your experiences would not be accepted by the Christians where I come from.  They would think you were just as nuts as I am! []

Absolutely, been there felt that!!

quote:God does not necessarily = Christianity.  I have not given up "God"--I have just given up on Christianity's interpretation of God.  God has never left me, and as a matter of my own experience, I believe that God has stayed with me and given me the courage to live "without Christianity."  God is the constant in my life--not religion.

I think you have almost got a block against Christianity becourse you cannot comprehend it as being lived outside the churches. Selah!
But it is. The Churchanity you see and the Teleevangelists, Church Of God hypocracy is virtually unknown outside USA.

quote:Thanks for listening to me this time!  I guess I have been rambling, but bottom line--you seem to think that God is in Christianity, and that if you give up Christianity, you are somehow giving up God.  I just don't think that this is the case.  To be quite frank, I did not really "find God" until I renounced Christianity and "looked within myself."

You are very welcome. Always interesting to listen to you.  

quote:p.s. Just one more to go?--not true my friend.  You have a great many more opportunities, and just like the other night, it will come again "like a thief in the night."  It will come again when you are ready to receive it.  You have had a "glimpse" now--you have seen it, and you "know" it is there.  So, whatever you have been thinking about and doing in the last several days, perhaps that is the right path for you at this time.  Whatever it is, it is stirring the spirit deep within you.  Keep walking down that path, and IT will come again.  The Light is Within You.

I was actually referring to 1 night before my wife comes home[].....about the light being within me. .....I believe that I have Jesus so yes it is. However it was not always in me. I opened my life and it came, I was in darkness before I came to know Jesus.

Regards Mustardseed

PS You ended up with the statement "the light is within you" . I know you mean well but statements like that are probably what you want to avoid in your writings, that is if you want to get your message across to Christians. It is a little sort of condesending. I know you by now, and honestly am not offended but many will be. This is "tinkering" with a very central point in most folks beliefs. Sort of if I said to you. "Just keep searching Beth if you do you will understand and come to know Jesus as I do". I would find such a statement, selfrighteous and not fair on you, as well as unwise [].

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth

I came across this article yesterday during my research. I found it really spoke to me and thet the author must surely have been listening in on the astral pulse. I would appreciate your opinion.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg22.html

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed:

I have responded below to this article, but I don't think that he has been reading on the AP.  He probably has "no clue" that the AP even exists, nor would he understand any of it if he did.  What he is doing is taking what he has learned about Gnosticism and responding to it vis-à-vis Christianity.  Here on the AP, I have just been providing the opposite position.  

(Sorry it took so long to respond, but I had a hard time getting and staying on the AP this morning.  It said that the site was not responding.  I see now that I have been logged on all day—but I haven't been here.  I have been at work!)

Okay, here is my response.

He wrote:

quote:Gnosticism, as one scholar has put it, is "the sense that the divine is to be discovered by some kind of interior search, and not simply by a savior who is outside you." You can see why it alarmed the early Christians.

I will amend this to say that it only alarmed the "later-early Christians."  The "earliest" Christians WERE Gnostics in this sense.  The "later-early" Christians, those after the 1st-2nd century fell into the same trap as some of their Jewish predecessors previous to the 1st century —they took the scriptures to be literal happenings, external seeking, instead of "internal spiritual seeking."

quote:According to the Gnostics, the human race fell not into sin but into bodies. We fell from the world of spirit to the world of the senses. To be saved, we must learn the Gnostic truths that will save us from our degradation. We are saved, those of us who can be, by escaping the world and ascending to the real God and the purely spiritual world, which is accomplished through an interior search, by being initiated into the Gnostic secrets, and living by the Gnostic rules.

This is true to a point. There were, as in most cases, very radical Gnostics and then more moderate Gnostics.  The very radical Gnostics totally disdained living in the flesh, and would do things like starve themselves in order to leave their earthly bodies (obvious suicide was usually not an option.)  Others, however, accepted their flesh but worked toward understanding their true spiritual nature, through the secrets of Gnosis, so that when they did die they would go to these higher and better places to eventually have, once again—as in the beginning—union with God.  Many such Gnostics found that—like we have—through study and prayer, we can get glimpses of these higher worlds through dreams, visions, mind/heart lifting prayer, and yes, OBEs.

quote:They would escape the body and the world of the senses, so we do know the life of the spirit would be a life stripped of much that makes you different from everyone else.

The writer of this article does not know whether this is the case or not.  He is appealing to his reader's sense of "needing to maintain their individuality." I have found that my "senses" go with me into the Astral—just not my solid physical body.  I can still hear, see, speak, and feel with my touch.  This guy has obviously never had an OBE.

quote:He appeared in the man Jesus but was not what the ordinary unenlightened Christians crudely thought of as incarnate. He was the Savior, but one not burdened with a body that bound him to his fallen world.

This is true—the earliest Christians describe this in several ways.  It was the "Holy Spirit" or the "Logos (The Word)" that came into the teacher of righteousness—Jesus.  In a few cases, it is almost like he was "channeling" the Holy Spirit, through the teacher who would be in a trance-like state.  In other accounts, he would appear to the disciples in different forms—a child, a young man, and a very old man.  So yes, "he" did not have a body of his own, but would rather "assume" the body or appearance of others (See the Acts of John, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Thomas.)  

quote:Some of them thought, however, that those who weren't truly spiritual–by which they meant ordinary Christians–could work their way to an inferior sort of salvation. (This was nice of them.)

This writer obviously does not like the thought of this being a reality--and he is a smart-butt.  But this is exactly what the early Church Fathers thought.  Those that could not experience the fullness of spiritual salvation were at least in part helped by the outward interpretation.  Many Christians are good people because of the outward meaning, but it does not provide for enough personal responsibility in the present to help them see how their prejudices and their judgments inhibit them from progressing further.  Also, when you think you have all the answers—down-pat—there is no reason to look elsewhere for God.  This prohibits even more the ability to progress further in the Spirit because it never occurs to them to do so.  By questioning the "pat answers" one is lifted away from the bondage of "thinking you know God" into the realm where "God is vast--and much more of the reality of God can be discovered."  

quote:Many of them believed, as one Gnostic writer declared flatly, that "marriage and procreation are from Satan." For the Gnostic, to marry was to jump into the traps and illusions of the material world from which you would have trouble freeing yourself. It was rather like taking your first shot of heroin.

This is true of some Gnostic sects—but Paul also wrote that if you are already married, be married in good faith to each other—and together seek the gnosis for spiritual progress.  If you were not married, Paul encourages them to stay unmarried—for yes—being married in the usual sense of the term is a very physical thing.  This would keep your attentions occupied elsewhere and take away the opportunities to have solitary time for study, prayer and reflection.  <chuckle> Yes I guess you could say that the sensual pleasures of the world are much like being addicted to heroin.  For example, instead of taking your troubles and frustrations to God—many people take them to the marriage bed for sexual release (the drug.)  In another sense—they would be devoting themselves in "marriage and union" to another physical person instead of to God.

quote:However, the second moral position was just as logical a choice for the Gnostic. The Gnostic party animal could justify almost anything he wanted to do by saying that whatever he was doing with his body, his spirit was still free. In fact, that he could use his body for pleasure showed how free of it he was.

This writer is not reporting all the facts.  What he is referring to is a lifestyle of those who followed Epicurus.  Epicurus was a philosopher who chose this interpretation over the Stoics who held that being "a party animal" was just as destructive, for it too keep one's attention otherwise occupied and away from study, prayer and reflection that would led to God.  We have these same "types" of people today Mustardseed—the celibate and the promiscuous—the frugal and the materialists. Just like Paul reports, there are also many somewhere in between.  Not a lot has changed in 2,000 years.

quote:The Gnostic gaunt from fasting who refused to marry and thought children an evil...

Come on! gez..."Children" were NOT considered evil—he is once again trying to illicit an emotional response of outrage from his readers.  Physical matter was evil--all physical matter—in the sense that we have discussed many times here on the AP—it was a "stumbling block" to salvation for all the reasons that I have explained.  To "have children" people had to have sexual intercourse, and when they did this, their attention was not on God, but on another human person.  The resulting children were a product of this "evil"—this "missing the mark."  But children themselves were not considered "evil."(IMO This guy is really something else...)  I will say this on this subject:  Many Gnostics felt that they would not be doing children any favors by bringing them into the world, for they too would just have to try and overcome the same obstacles themselves.  So because of this, many Gnostics did not even try to bring children into the world--it was merciful NOT to do so.  But once again--children were not considered "evil."

quote:Now, before you laugh at the Gnostic teachings, remember that this all made sense to many people at the time, including Christians.

IMO It's too bad it doesn't make more sense today...

quote:St. John's Gospel spoke of salvation as knowing Christ (John 17:3). St. Clement of Alexandria and his brilliant student Origen, two of the formative minds of early Christian history, used Gnostic ideas and language while claiming them for the Church. (Whether or not this was a good idea is something Christians still argue about.)

"While claiming them for the Church"?  "Whether it was a "good idea or not"?? THIS WAS THE CHURCH at this early stage of development.  But throughout this early development, many people were wanting to "have their cake—and eat it too" and therefore decided to take what parts "felt spiritual" and still keep those parts the "felt good physically."  They only accepted Christ half-way.  But to these early Church Fathers—that was still better than living the life of an Epicurean (the brothel visiting, eating and drinking to the max sort of thing.)  

Why do you think that the Catholic Church instituted celibacy and prohibited marriage for their priests? So THEY would be in a better position to "know God" themselves--this would give THEM the power over the people--instead of giving it to the people themselves. The priesthood itself was actually Gnostic in these early centuries. (Of course, this did not work for very long for the Priests either, because by the Middle Ages, the Church had forsaken and forgotten all the original reasons for doing so, so the priests just had sexual encounters with each other or lived very sexually frustrated lives and in many cases living for material wealth to appease the longings. The Church and the priesthood was VERY wealthy for the most part.)

quote:If the gospel was a scandal to the Greeks, Gnosticism was not.

The Gospel was not a scandal to the Greeks.  As a matter of fact—the majority of early Christians WERE Greek or Greek Jews.  If it hadn't been for the Greeks--Christianity probably would not have gotten off the ground.  The only time that the Greeks had a serious problem with it was later, when it was taught in the literal sense of the term.  In the literal sense—it was not a scandal per se—but rather a ridiculous claim that could not be supported historically even back then, and as this writer is about to explain—it did not hold water to rational thought.

quote:We have little reverence for God. We aren't tempted to put him very, very far away because we don't think about him very much, and a god close enough to be used when we need him is a lot better than one out of hearing. He is like the waiter we want to be standing at the side of the room, where he won't bother us or overhear our conversation but will be over in a second when we summon him.

I like this paragraph!!  Good point and good metaphor--that would work as a modern day parable for today--against Christianity.  That is what the writers did--they used illustrations like this so the people of the day would understand the point being made--which was/is--"We have little reverence for God. We aren't tempted to put him very, very far away because we don't think about him very much, and a god close enough to be used when we need him is a lot better than one out of hearing..." God as a "waiter" for our beck and call?  I don't think so... And the Gnostics held that God was not close by "physically"--but rather "close by spiritually" which was far removed from just the physical aspect of our existence.

quote:Think of the hormonally driven teenagers who insist they have to go to bed with each other because they are in love. Most people are teenagers where God is concerned.

Think of the adults that do this too.  Many adults have not matured sexually out of their teenage impulses.  I read an article by a former priest who explained his sexual abuses of young boys to the fact that he entered the priest track at the age of 14—and so he never matured sexually beyond this point.  Then as a grown man—that was what he needed to sexually experience—young boys.

quote:...one group of Gnostics who believed that they had souls like Christ's and had powers like his.

Isn't this what Jesus taught in the Gospels, "You can do these things and much, much more"???

quote:But still, in a world that didn't know about the real Jesus, Gnosticism was a religion for the seriously religious. If it seems silly to us, it seems silly for two reasons: We aren't as seriously religious as they were, and we live in a world still formed, even after centuries of secularization, by the belief that God once became man.

This is true enough--We are "not as seriously religious as they were."  That is why we need to go back and recapture the spirit of these earliest Christians.  They found and shared something that few people know about today.  Something that is "hidden" that can only be found when people "seek" it.  If you do not seek--you will not find.

quote:As we have seen, Gnosticism began with a mistake about creation, but when Christianized, it required a new Jesus. In the Christianized versions of Gnosticism, he couldn't possibly be the Son of God made man, because God would never do such a thing as take a human body. He might put on one as a costume, but only as long as he needed it to share his message with people who were trapped in bodies themselves. He wouldn't be born of a virgin, nor die on a cross, nor rise again in the body.

I won't agree with the "first mistake about creation" but I will agree with the rest.

quote:Jesus had not been born of a virgin but was the biological son of Mary and Joseph. He was, however, "more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men" and at his baptism "Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being." (Impassible means incapable of suffering.)

True.

quote:This sort of thing, the Christianized Gnostics insisted, was what the Bible was really about. You just had to read it with the right key to realize that its language about creation, incarnation, and resurrection was symbolic and metaphorical. You had to have the key to know what parts to believe, because some of it was simply mistaken. The writers couldn't rise to the spiritual insights needed to see what they should say.

True—except I maintain that the writer's knew well what the "keys" were—it was the uninitiated readers that did not.

quote:This idea would have attracted some Christians, even if they ought to have known better. It promised them that delicious sense of being on the inside–and as Christians, of being on the inside of the inside. (A good rule for Christians is: Beware a religion with snob appeal.)

This guy sounds pretty darn "snobbish" to me.

quote:More importantly, it made sense to them. The average convert from the religions of the day must have felt some discomfort with that picture of God being a baby, and a Jewish baby, too. A Gnosticized Christianity would, he might easily have thought, let him keep the Lord he had met and the deep religious sense he had already without the disgusting idea that God could have a body.

And without the idea that God could actually be brutally tortured and murdered.

quote:The convert had already gained a superior knowledge and a new insight into Scripture when he joined the Church. He had come to see the world and himself in a radically different way–he had "switched paradigms," as we would say today. It wouldn't be hard to switch one more time, moving in what he thought was the same direction.

Yep.  Switching through several different "paradigms" was required as one moved through the gnosis of spirit.  With every new paradigm, old ideas would have to fall away in order to make room for even more spiritual truths. Notice too that it is here that he admits that the "Early Church" was actually Gnostic. He is just claiming that "later Christianity" was the "real" Christianity--after people kept only the "spiritual" parts that would not interfere with the physical pleasures of this world.

quote:The Gnostics simply invented a new way of reading the Bible that fit the world's assumptions, and other people believed it, because it made sense to them.

WRONG...I maintain it was the Gnostics that WROTE the scriptures.  They were the first to conceive of a 1st century way to tell a "humanized story" of a "very spiritual thing."  This is what their ancestors had done with the Hebrew Bible (OT.)  They all did this in order to help people better understand from their physical standpoint, like the "waiter standing over and away from the table."  They did not invent a "new" way of reading scripture—the literalists just never understood the original.  These writings were never meant to be taken literally.  That is where all the confusion began. And--people believed the "new" way of reading the scriptures--literally--because they were forced to.  Mustardseed, countless people died or were threatened with death if they didn't "believe." Even if it didn't make rational sense. Even if it couldn't be historically proven.  It was forced upon them by the Roman Government.  I kid you not. This writer is telling you what he knows about Gnosticism--but he is seriously neglecting to tell the ugly history of the later Church.

quote:But then a Gnostic teacher comes along and tells you that these four Gospels, to the extent you can trust them at all, are really a kind of code or allegory. They don't mean what they seem to mean. You've had a few literature courses and know that stories can mean a lot more than they seem to, and that you only find out the real meaning when you learn which details symbolize what.

True.

quote:You remember that poem that bored you to tears until the teacher told you what the flea stood for.

Once again, this guy is trying to appeal to a "ridiculous" situation in order for his readers to see this as "ridiculous" as well.  This is pure "mental manipulation" at its best.  

quote:I think, by the way, that the reason we don't feel the attraction of the alternative ways of reading Scriptures as strongly as did the early Christians is not that we know better than they did, but that we don't know Scripture as well as they did. We don't know enough to know that understanding Scripture presents us with some difficult problems.

This is very true.

quote:If you are vulnerable to ridicule (and most of us are), he may add a few criticisms of the Scriptures themselves. He might suggest that the witnesses were not reliable or that they saw what they wanted to see. The teacher might ask you, as did the Gnostic Celsus, if you believed that all the ancient stories of rising gods were myths yet actually believed that your story of a rising god was true. Put like that, the story of the Resurrection does seem doubtful.
And he might go on to ask, as Celsus did, why you would think a man who couldn't help himself when he was alive could rise again when dead? On top of this, who actually saw him risen? It is hard to take seriously the testimony of (in Celsus's words)
a half-frantic woman and some other one, perhaps, of those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind, or under the influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance according to his own wishes, which has been the case with numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an occasion to impostors like himself.
Everything that Celsus said has been said in heavily footnoted books by learned professors in universities all over the world. They know ten languages and have read everything written between 300 b.c. and a.d. 600. Who are you to argue with them?

First of all, Celsus was a Greek critic of Christianity—and Origen wrote extensively in response to Celsus—explaining how the allegorical and spiritual meanings are what they are.  It is through the letters between Celsus and Origen that we know of this controversy.  It is through these letters that the early Christian position is made clearer.  I guess this writer "forgot" to mention this fact... Second of all, this is an obvious "slam" at the "learned" and the "professors."  I really do not get this attitude—why don't people want to know everything there is to know--especially about something that you are going to devote your life to?  What is so wrong with having knowledge?

quote:That a system such as Gnosticism explains so much is a good part of its appeal. It claims to replace faith–and a delusionary faith at that–with knowledge.

Why can't one have "faith" in their "knowledge"?   Why does "faith" have to be something that is "unknowledgeable"???  This points to "faith" being for the "ignorant" and "knowledge" for the "educated."  I think this is absurd and do no think this has to be the case.  If we "know" something to be true—why can't one be said to have "faith in that knowing"??? <Beth scratches her head here in confusion...>  This whole "faith" vs "knowledge" thing is crazy to me.  "Faith without knowledge" is not more pious or more spiritual than "Faith with knowledge."   I think this is trying to compare apples with backyard swimming pools.

quote:You see what sort of salvation the Gnostics offered you: peace after the trials of life, through an escape from being trapped in matter into an immaterial and impersonal existence–in effect, the extinction of you as you.

Yes on the "peace" part. No on the last part.  He doesn't know this to be true.  All astral travelers know that the "real you" is also released from the body.  The "real you" is NOT "your body" it is rather your "soul" or "your spirit" or "your astral body" (whatever you want to call it.)  This guy obviously has no sense or knowledge that "he is anything except his body."

quote:You were not redeemed by a God who had taken your place, through your repenting of sins and growing in goodness. You escaped this world by learning the secrets, if you were one of the spiritual elite. If you weren't, you died in the trap.

But because belief in reincarnation was accepted, you continued to return to life until you were able to understand these spiritual truths.  And, as I posted above, Origen wrote that there were many levels to "reincarnate to and from."  That there were even higher realms than our "heaven" and that those who currently dwell in heaven still had progress to make, or had "fallen" from an even higher realm.   This makes our spiritual evolution a long process that is not easy.  I cannot claim to know what these realms are like, except the ones that I have had experience with.  But I still do not know what "levels" these realms are in.  They could be lower in some cases, and higher in others.  I am still trying to figure this out.  But I usually use the rule of thumb that my "spiritual self" knows the difference even if my "physical self" does not.

quote:The Christian Gnostic followed this fake Jesus right out of the world of the body and the senses. Gone for the Gnostic would be hymns such as "Silent Night" and "O Sacred Head Sore Wounded" and "Up From the Grave He Arose," which could be sung only by people who (the Gnostic would say) didn't know who Jesus really was.

Once again, he is trying to appeal to those things that are dear to people.  Mind/heart manipulation at its best.  

quote:The truly spiritual person rises above the affairs of this tawdry, messy world to be merged at last with all other beings in the impersonal spiritual unity of the cosmos.

True--but not necessarily "impersonal." He has just never experienced the astal realm.

quote:It is peace, but at the cost of personality.

Not true.  I have actually found quite the opposite.  My personality does go with me, and I have met others who also have very obvious personalities.  Once again, his guy has never been in the astral realms—Or been spoken to in a voice that has no body—or felt a touch or a movement that does not come from a physical source.

quote:I find much more compelling a salvation in which I remain me, but become the perfect me, in fellowship with all others–family, friends, neighbors, and millions and millions of others drawn from every race and tribe and nation who are (to adapt a phrase from Will Rogers) family I haven't met. In the truly Christian Christ, all of these human beings become perfectly–delightfully, beautifully, compellingly–themselves. They become more themselves the closer they grow to God.

This is NOT a narrow path—nor it is the "few" that Jesus spoke about.  This is more like the "majority" who will follow the antichrist believing that it is the Christ.  This is like a global club instead of an individual spiritual progression.  How can one spiritually advance when the entire experience depends upon all the others in his/her group having the same?

quote:You cannot escape your body, though you can be redeemed in the body.

"You cannot escape your body ..." -- Sure you can...[]

quote:Gnosticism promises a sort of extinction.

Bah!  He has no idea what he is talking about.

quote:Picture to yourself what the Christian promise of salvation means. It means that heaven can include Uncle Charlie with his joy but without his lust and gluttony, and Aunt Betty with her compassion but without her fear and anxiety, and your friend Mark with his wit but without his cruelty and condescension.

And why can't you meet up with these people in the gnostic sense—on the astral planes?  Of course you can.   The last projection I had (last week) I got to see my dog A.J.  We had a wonderful few minutes with each other!  I love it when I get to see him!

quote:Gnosticism leads to the loss of personality as you are absorbed into the spiritual world.

Once again—he doesn't know what he is talking about.  He is assuming a lot about something he knows nothing about.

quote:Christianity gives you more personality than you knew you had. The saints, as Dante saw, grew into mountains.

Yes—and Dante was much more gnostic than orthodox Christian.  And the saints in his work were more like to living in higher astral realms than the rest of us. That was why he chose mountains instead of valleys.

quote:Gnosticism leads to the silence of eternity. Christianity leads to an eternal pleasure and joy and celebration for which the best human party is only the weakest of metaphors.

Personally—I am not one to frequent parties.  And to each his own as to what "pleasure" really is.  I like the "pleasure" of striving to become one with the "Light of God."  If I have to lose part of my "personality" in order to do so—well, it will probably be those parts of my personality that I am least proud of.  But hey—for those that prefer it—PARTY ON!!    

Me? I am heading for the Light.

quote:If Jesus is the only way that we come to the Father and find eternal happiness, if he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we need to know exactly who he is. What we say about Jesus has vast and everlasting effects on human happiness.  

"Salvation" IS the Way, the Truth and the Life.  Salvation IS the meaning of the name "Jesus."  The effects of "salvation" are vast and have everlasting effects on "spiritual" happiness.

Mustardseed—I think that the real "key" to understanding the differences between Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity, is in having a life of extraordinary circumstances.  Dreams/visions, voices of the spirit, OBEs and all these things that we discuss on this forum are all helping us to better understand the Gnostic point of view.  

Like I said above, even you and your experiences would probably been seen as heretical by many Christians.  They would think that the "voice you heard" giving you your new name was just the evil Satan trying to make you feel more special than everyone else.  No, people do not like it when someone has an experience that they haven't had.  It makes them feel inferior, ergo, YOU are wrong.  

I think that the more people who experience the astral realm—the more we will all be able to collectively accept a different view of reality.  That is all that the Gnostics were trying to do 2,000 years ago.  Explain that there are many realms of existence, and that there is a great deal more to "reality" than just this one physical world, one heaven, and one hell.   Just the knowledge of planet earth being only one planet in a vast galaxy of possible planets that have life on them as well, will be enough for many people to see this.  But in addition to the endless possible other life-bearing planets, there are many more "non-physical" dimensions that our science has yet to know.  But we are getting there.

Gnosticism was not "evil."  Gnosticism was very "spiritual" and Gnostics set their aim toward God--not this physical world.

Selah,
Beth

[Beth]

p.s. WOW...that was a LONG ONE!  

I am going to bed now....[|)]...zzzzzz.......

[Mustardseed]

Thanks for the answer . Have a good rest.

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

I just thought of something else that might help.  Instead of looking back in time, let's look at the world today.  

Today we have astral travelers.  You and I are both of this type person.  We are aware of aspects of ourselves and of reality that many people are not.  We come on to this forum to discuss these things.  Most people do not.  They do not "know" that there is anything else "to know."  They live their lives in a way that does not include such ideas.

Relative to the majority of people in this world today, this forum could be viewed as an "esoteric" forum.  A forum where people of "like minds" come together to discuss things that they cannot necessarily discuss with their neighbors, or even their family.

To us, this "stuff" is just "the way that things are."  To others, however, we are discussing things that they do not understand, ergo, they think, that we think, that we are a "special group."  And we are--we are exceptions to the rule.

Our "secret gnosis" is:

1-we have astral bodies
2-these astral bodies have the ability of flight
3-these flights are brought on by a variety of different processes, but the end result is, to a certain extent, the same.

The "keys" to understanding and experiencing this "gnosis" comes through:

1-quieting the mind
2-relaxing the body
3-thinking in such a way that allows for "our knowledge" to actually be "experienced"
4-we "fly" -- we "experience" -- we "share" what we did
5-we dream. we have visions. we have contact with non-physical entities.  all these things are very important to our spiritual progress.

and--

5--we all draw certain "conclusions" from what we experience.

This is an extraordinary thing, but also a normal thing--to us anyway.  It may have complex implications that we do not totally understand, but as we progress, we learn more and more.  We are today's Gnostics.

This is NOT SO "normal" to many other people.  They do not know of these things, and since they don't know, they don't understand, and because of this--they are afraid.  If someone like this were to come onto this forum and read this stuff--they would be shocked--or dismayed--or--think it was Satan at work.

I have to go to work now, but what do you think about this comparison?  I think it works nicely.

Beth

[Mustardseed]

Yes I would say that is probable how it is, but to me this obsrevation is also nonconclusive. The same as when you said "you are more Gnostic than you know". I realise this is how it works and how folks jump to conclusions. People do yhis in all aspects of life. It is a rare individual who really takes time to try to understand a opinion, he/she precieves to me opposite or conflicting with his own.

People like that never bothered me that much. I felt as a  example Allannon was very much like that. "dont confuse me with the facts my mind is allready made up". Right!!

As a Christian who is active in different spheres of society I encounter people like that all the time. First they see what I do, then they are all over me in praise for the wonderfull work, buttering me up and "people worshipping" me, and then when they find out I believe in God and Jesus and pray and so on, they are soooo sorry. Now they just thought they found a nice reasonable socialworker and , tsk tsk he shous up to be a fanatic.

However I also find this with New Age folks like yourself. First all agreement and the power of God, yeahh, astral travel, jubii, healing dabbabdabba duh, Christian..............huh what ?? oh damn.

A lot of times people just have their minds made up and WILL NOT take a look at or consider an alternative explanation.

I myself do not think I embrace gnostisism, just becourse I have a active Christian prayer life with certain added experiences. Neither do I want to be told "na na na na na David is a Gnostic" [] if it means that I have to be less a Christian to be one. The Christian faith had many Mystics, Pios, Hildegaard etc, not to speak of the innumerable amount of people who never told their story. They did not identify themselves as Gnostics. They realised that the things of the spirit they were experiencing was probably "meat" for the average person.

Maybe you are still not aware that I along with a multitude of others are very critical of Christianity at large , Churchanity as I call it, but have no beef with Jesus. It is similar to being french and traveling in USA. I bet that often you will encounter problems even you make it known at every turn that you are not in agreement with your countrys foreign policy. This could also be American traveling in Europe actually.

My wife arrived home today, one day late. She was expected to come yesterday but managed to get on the wrong flight and by the time she got out of that one she missed the right one[]. We fit pretty good. Both nutty and quite the airhead.

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

I guess there is something that I failed to mention about the whole Gnosticism thing.  

There was never one group of people that called themselves "Gnostics."  There was never a branch of Christianity called "Gnostic Christianity."  WE are the ones that call them Gnostics.  We are the ones who have determined what was Gnostic Christianity and what was Orthodox.  

Who do we call Gnostics?  Any "Christian writer" that deviates from the Church's doctrine, and writes in more mystical language, or writes of things that the Church does not recognize as their official doctrine.  So "Gnostics" and "Gnosticism" has become a "catch all phrase" for anything that smacks of anything extraordinary.  

Who are "we"?  Anyone who makes it a point to study the past history of Christian thought and find two very different brands of the religion.  

In Greek the word they used for their particular interpretation was "gnosis" as in a special kind of knowledge--as in a particular kind of knowledge concerning reality.  So they used the word "gnosis" but did not really call themselves "Gnostics."  

The "Gnostics" that we are speaking of here, just called themselves "Christians." Because they were calling themselves Christians and the literalists were calling themselves Christians--something had to eventually be settled one way or the other.  The literalists won the title.  

Yes, Christianity has had quite a few mystics within their numbers, and "WE" refer to them as "mystics."  But they did not claim that title for themselves.  They called themselves Christians.  

Who do "we" call mystics?  Anyone who reports of things within a Christian context, that writes of extraordinary experiences.  The reason we do not refer to them as "gnostics" is that they did not try to create a whole cosmology that differed from the Church, they did not use the word "gnosis" in their writings, but they did write of extraordinary things--things are extremely similar to those that the ancient "Gnostics" wrote about. For example "unio mystica" or "union with God."  This was the whole basis of ancient "Gnostic Christianity."  They also wrote/interpreted scripture allegorically to describe this union.  By the Middle Ages though, no one called these "extraordinary" people "Gnostic" even though they were very close to being the same as their ancient predecessors.

So you see, ancient "Gnostics" and Medieval "Mystics" were not very different.  The only thing that was different was the actual Christian Religion.  It had, by this time, become very "set in its ways" so there was not any "controversy" to hammer out, ergo, mystics were not found to be heretical.  They were however, sequestered into monestaries and nunneries though.  This kept them out of the mainline Churches.  

When I said you were more "Gnostic" than you think--I was not insinuating that you "embrace Gnosticism."  I was saying that you and your experiences are more "gnostic" than you think. Not a group label--but rather--you have a special kind of "knowing."  In Greek "Gnosis" means "knowledge."

You wrote:

quote:Neither do I want to be told "na na na na na David is a Gnostic"  if it means that I have to be less a Christian to be one.

Personally, I agree with the ancient writers on this:
I think that you are actually "more of a Christian" because of this--not less.  I wish more Christians were exploring reality more and exploring more about God.  I wish more people were looking to God for answers instead of just looking to the Church.  I wish more Christians were "more Christian."

Oh well...truth be told--I wish for a lot of things, don't I???[8D]

I am glad your wife made it home safely!  Have a good Friday!

Selah,
Beth

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

A have a few very important questions to ask of you.  

You know that I am in the process of writing this book, and you know also that the material I will present in this book runs contrary to a literalist interpretation of the bible.  I have been thinking long and hard about what I am up against, and I hope that you will be able to help me figure out how to handle a few issues--if you are willing of course.  I ask these questions, not to "bully you" at all, but rather with all the sincerity of someone who really wants/needs to know.  I can easily see that you are well read in the Bible, and would like your honest opinion.

1--When we interpret the "names" of the NT, the overall message is the following:  It is "Salvation" that "dies on the cross" --for "we as people" "know not what we do wrong"--it is our personal "Salvation that dies on the cross for the sins that we all commit."

Why is it so necessary that this had to be a real human person, i.e. Jesus the man, that died on the cross 2,000 years ago?  Why can't this same illustration be a "message to us all" -- a message that is universal and available at all times instead of just one time 2,000 years ago?  That by not living through love for one another and mutual respect for one another (which covers just about all the commandments Old and New) that "our salvation" is doomed to a death that will be lived out in hell?  

2--When we interpret the "names" in Genesis as found on the surface layer of scripture, we find that "Adam" stems from the same root as "dust, ground" and "Eve" means "to give life to."  Adam and Eve therefore, represent the idea of "physical matter having LIFE" which is something that I don't think any of us would disagree on.  The "breath" that God "breathed into the nostrals of Adam was the Soul" and the "joining together of Adam and Eve" gives us the idea that "the SOUL as found in physical matter is ALIVE" in its own right.  "Outside of the Garden", i.e., in the physical world, these two things, e.g., physical matter and soul, come together to propogate our species. As a note: In the Bible, thereafter, "man" and "woman" also have different words, "ish" and "isha" but when "Adam" is used, it is usually translated as "human being or humankind" in a generic sense.    

Why must people believe that this is the actual accounting of the first man and woman on this planet?  Why can't this be an accounting of the fact that we, as humans, do exist in physical bodies, and that we DO have "Souls that exist" in their own right? And further, that "we--as beings that are alive" are really "souls" that currently reside in physical bodies in the physical world, "outside" of our natural environment where things are most probably very different?

3--Because the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, the languages surely must be known and understood to really know and understand what the scriptures are truly saying. English is a wonderful language, but it did not exist during biblical times.  The English vocabulary is made up of words from all over the world, and has a great many words that were not available when the Bible was written.  As I found when I studied these languages, the English translations that we have has really distorted a lot a "key" words from the Hebrew and Greek, AND with some words it has not captured the true meaning as found in the Hebrew/Greek.

Why don't people who believe in the bible as "ultimate truth" want to study the original languages that it was written in?  Why do they so readily accept it in English and yet not in Hebrew and Greek?

Why aren't you compelled to learn to read the Hebrew and Greek to find out for yourself?  Why do you so easily trust people who have translated it for you into a language that was non-existent at the time, and then a language that was only available a relative few centuries ago? And further, why do you distrust me so much, a person who is willing to tell you what the original Hebrew and Greek texts are saying?

4--The Apostle Paul speaks to the Galatians about "Sarah" and "Hagar" representing "two covenents" and gives an interpretation of these "people" that coincides with his other overall message of "salvation through anointment" and that of "another more heavenly world" than this one.    

Does this not send up "a flag" to you, that this may be a very important group of verses?  That perhaps this was the writer's way of saying that "Sarah" and "Hagar" do not represent real people, but rather are indeed representative of somthing else, e.g. "two covenents"?  (This one I ask you, not to "trap you" or anything.  I ask because it did send up a "red flag" for me, and I am just wondering why it hasn't done the same for you.)

5--This next one relates back to the first one.  If our "salvation" is on the line everyday, for "like a thief in the night" we know not when "that day will come", how does a god-man dying on a cross 2,000 years ago really help us with our salvation today?  How can a god-man die 2,000 years ago for sins that have yet been committed, and doesn't this make it okay to sin now, for they were all absolved in his ancient death so long ago?  I have never understood this part--even as a young girl. It never rang true to me--long before I could even put my question into words.  It just never made sense to me--until now.  That is, as I stated above, it is "my own salvation" that will "die" at the cross-roads of "my own sins."  I am ultimately responsible for my own sins, for my own "salvation" at "my own death." My salvation, or lack of it, will be determined by how I have lived my life.  Help me here Mustardseed--I really do not understand how someone else can die on my behalf and absolve the repurcussions of my behavior.  


6--In the material that I presented here on the AP, was there any better way that I could have presented it, that would not have caused such a problem for you, or would this kind of information cause a problem regardless of how it is presented?  

7--And finally,I have more questions, but I will only ask one more. Why am I "the bad guy" to you?  Why have you been angry with "me"?  

Mustardseed, you and I have really been around the block together now, and I hope that you will answer my questions. I truly ask them in all sincerity.  These really are a problem for me, in that, I do not understand why my material is such a threat in this day and age.  I can see where it would have been a threat many centuries ago, but that threat is no longer present.  

I hope to read your reply soon.

Peace,
Beth