The second coming = WWJD

[Thomas]

The only people who are called “Christians” in the Bible are the disciples in Antioch, and it isn’t Jesus or the apostles who are calling them that. It probably means “people who think that Jesus was the Christ.” It doesn’t say anything about what they are saying about Him, other than being a promised king of Israel.

Hart offers, as ever. an interesting note to this verse in his translation of the NT:

χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς Χριστιανούς (chrématisai te protosen Antiocheia; tous mathétas Christianous).
"... It should be noted that there is a certain oddity to the very word Christianos, since it is not a natural Greek nominalisation; rather, it is a Latin nominalisation transliterated into Greek, and Latin was certainly not the common tongue of first-century Antiochenes."

+++

So yes, it's quite likely the term was coined by people who had no real idea about what they taught, other than they seemed to bang on a lot about repentance and forgiveness and their man Jesus the Annointed.

 

[Thomas]

“The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." The kingdom is a state of consciousness. Christ-consciousness leads to an inside-out transformation. Not only does the one with Christ-consciousness transform herself, but she transforms society as a result of her active mode of being, transforming the world into a more and more beautiful rose garden.

This is, however, very much an anti-mystical interpretation of Scripture that strips out the Divine-human relation – it strips out everything Christ was actually talking about – and replaces it with a rationalist psychological model in which 'God' and 'Christ' as such are irrelevant.

 

[Ahanu]

This is, however, very much an anti-mystical interpretation of Scripture that strips out the Divine-human relation

What you see as a "striping out" I see as a re-centering. You only need to change your lens of classical, scholastic metaphysics.

Concerning God and spiritual realities, the way of interiority alone exists. The starting point is the self. A purely rationalist psychological model would end with the self. This path begins with the self in order to journey to God.

Self-knowledge is the gate, the Manifestation of God is the path, and God is the final destination. This final destination is infinite with endless spiritual progress.

With that being said, the Baha'i teachings do not strip out the Divine-human relation. They redefine and safeguard it from the projections of human imagination.

The Divine-human relation is made real and accessible through the Manifestation of God. The Divine-human relation is the relationship between humanity and this Manifestation.

As Abu’l-Fadl clarifies:

"All that whereby God's essence is described, and everything which is added to and rests upon God - including such attributes as glory, grandeur, power, might, knowledge, wisdom, will, volition, and so on - refer, in reality, to the Manifestation of His Cause.”

Your lens makes this appear as follows: "God is irrelevant." However, in my lens it makes God accessible. Without this link - the Manifestation of God - all you have is either human imagination or unknowability.

– it strips out everything Christ was actually talking about –

No, it doesn’t. Only from a certain lens would that be true.

and replaces it with a rationalist psychological model in which 'God' and 'Christ' as such are irrelevant.

No, it doesn’t.

What is irrelevant is the human attempt at theological speculation about God's essence.

The focus has shifted.

We are no longer in the abstract ontology of classical theologians.

We are now in the lived reality of consciousness, which is the realm where God's attributes are expressed and perceived. You see God and Christ becoming irrelevant, but I see them being understood in a way that is relevant to the spiritual transformation of both the individual and society.

 

[Yahweh kid]

it's the beginning of learning to serve and obey Him, learning together to live the way He says to live.

I agree with most of what you say....
However I would like to mention that Jesus did not (as far as I know) see us as His slaves, but rather His brothers and sisters..... Hebrews 2:11 .., btw. He is the King of kings so will be honoured and revered, worthy of our praise/worship and obedience. I serve Him, because I love Him, not because He tells me too.... I learn by His teachings how to serve Him and what is important to Him. Just again, this is my beliefs...

 

[Yahweh kid]

Hey, @Yahweh kid – never realised that ... for 'horrible' you do well. I would have allowed more scope in my responses.

Thank you. Hopefully I will get better by chatting with you all intelligent beings..

 

[Longfellow]

I serve Him, because I love Him, not because He tells me too.... I learn by His teachings how to serve Him and what is important to Him. ...

Exactly.

 

[Longfellow]

However I would like to mention that Jesus did not (as far as I know) see us as His slaves, but rather His brothers and sisters..... Hebrews 2:11 .., btw. He is the King of kings so will be honoured and revered, worthy of our praise/worship and obedience. I serve Him, because I love Him, not because He tells me too.... I learn by His teachings how to serve Him and what is important to Him. Just again, this is my beliefs...

He calls the servants brothers and sisters, and friends, but He also calls Himself their Lord. He is their brother, and their Lord, at the same time, and by "Lord," He means for them to do what He says.
- John 13:13 (KJV) Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
- Luke 6:46 (KJV) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
- Matthew 7:21 (KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Longfellow]

This is, however, very much an anti-mystical interpretation of Scripture that strips out the Divine-human relation – it strips out everything Christ was actually talking about – and replaces it with a rationalist psychological model in which 'God' and 'Christ' as such are irrelevant.

A few days ago I had a new idea about that conversation. I was thinking that what Jesus was saying was that the kingdom was there within the gathering, in the form of Him and His disciples. That's my understanding of the kingdom, people learning together to live the way He says to live. Now, looking at the context, I'm having some doubts about that being what He meant in that conversation.

 

[TheLightWithin]

(later) I should say, do they only want to be a Christian, or do they want what Jesus wants for them, to be one of His disciples? In the world today, being a Christian mostly only means having some beliefs about Jesus, but what I think He want for us is much, much more than that. What I think He wants for us is to be His disciples.

I think.many want to be "in the club", like joining the masons so you can twist your ring towards the judge while sitting at.the defendents table. Maybe they wanna get into the heavenly hereafter club, they are askeered of the options and want to hedge their bets. Others join or stay because family or friends are there. Others for the camaraderie, refreshments or soup line...

Social pressure / avoiding disapproval / attaining social approval / are and have long been motives for many who align themselves with religion.

 

[Thomas]

What you see as a "striping out" I see as a re-centering. You only need to change your lens of classical, scholastic metaphysics.

Quite. I wouldn't disagree with that – it's not so much the lens as how much light it lets in (or excludes).

Concerning God and spiritual realities, the way of interiority alone exists. The starting point is the self.

I would put God first, neighbour second, self third. Or love first, with self-love least in the order of things.

I think authentic spirituality, which is really authentic religion, is a call to the Principle, its reception and its lived experience in the world – I would see the Three Jewels of Buddhism as an exemplar of this.

I think the current focus on self is the root of so many ills ...

A purely rationalist psychological model would end with the self.

That's rather my point.

Self-knowledge is the gate, the Manifestation of God is the path, and God is the final destination. This final destination is infinite with endless spiritual progress.I'm sorry, but this all sounds too technical to me.

If I reflect on my own existence – a sense of wonder is the threshold, the ground of my own being is and will always be a mystery.

With that being said, the Baha'i teachings do not strip out the Divine-human relation. They redefine and safeguard it from the projections of human imagination.

As do all authentic religions.

The Divine-human relation is made real and accessible through the Manifestation of God. The Divine-human relation is the relationship between humanity and this Manifestation.

Yes. The Logos of God.

As Abu’l-Fadl clarifies:
"All that whereby God's essence is described, and everything which is added to and rests upon God - including such attributes as glory, grandeur, power, might, knowledge, wisdom, will, volition, and so on - refer, in reality, to the Manifestation of His Cause.”

Yes, the distinction between God's essence and His energies, as the Orthodox say.

All this is addressed by the Fathers, and notably by the pseudoDionysius in his distinctions between the apophatic and the cataphatic.

Your lens makes this appear as follows: "God is irrelevant."

After all I have said in our discussions, you claim this of me ... I see no point in going further.

 

[Ahanu]

Quite. I wouldn't disagree with that – it's not so much the lens as how much light it lets in (or excludes).

I would put God first, neighbour second, self third.

So you would put God first.

But, if we simply explore what that means, perhaps you would see my previous post in a different light.

To "know thyself" in a spiritual sense is not a selfish act. It is how you distinguish between the egoistic self and the true, spiritual self. To know the true self is the practical first step that makes the two commandments - to love God and neighbor - possible in the first place. Without knowing thyself, love for God becomes mere abstract dogma and love for neighbor is just a robotic duty.

I think the current focus on self is the root of so many ills ...


That's rather my point.

You say "the current focus on self is the root of so many ills," but you're conflating the worship of the ego with the discovery of the true, spiritual self. The Baha'i path calls for the annihilation of the selfish ego so that the person may become a reflection of the attributes of God.

This is the creature turning to the Creator and saying: "You loved to be known, and I will polish the mirror of my soul to become the knower you created me to be."

There is no higher form of putting God first than this.

Is there any other way to genuinely place God first? If so, I would like to know what you mean by "put God first." Surely it involves dethroning the ego . . .

If I reflect on my own existence – a sense of wonder is the threshold, the ground of my own being is and will always be a mystery.


As do all authentic religions.


Yes. The Logos of God.


Yes, the distinction between God's essence and His energies, as the Orthodox say.

All this is addressed by the Fathers, and notably by the pseudoDionysius in his distinctions between the apophatic and the cataphatic.

After all I have said in our discussions, you claim this of me ... I see no point in going further.

I don't see no point in going further either.

 

[Thomas]

So you would put God first.

Yup.

To "know thyself" in a spiritual sense is not a selfish act. It is how you distinguish between the egoistic self and the true, spiritual self.

Is not 'To "knowing thyself" in a spiritual sense' a process within a context? The Abrahamic context puts God first. Christianity follows Judaism in that regard – the Shema Israel. The Decalogue. Slef doesn't make the list.

To know the true self is the practical first step that makes the two commandments - to love God and neighbor - possible in the first place.

Disagree.

Without knowing thyself, love for God becomes mere abstract dogma and love for neighbor is just a robotic duty.

Disagree.

You say ...

I was just making an observation. Please do not read what you will into what I say.

The Baha'i path calls for the annihilation of the selfish ego so that the person may become a reflection of the attributes of God.

Every path calls for that.

There is no higher form of putting God first than this.

Putting God first is putting God first ... the rest is dressing and self-validation.

Is there any other way to genuinely place God first?

Yes. Just getting on with it. Love God. Love neighbour.

I don't see no point in going further either.

There we go then.