Are we worshiping the same God ?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thomas, the nonsense is your vigilant insistence that early Christians didn't teach and believe Reincarnation. You will find, if you EVER decide to finally pursue this issue with an open mind, that you are sorely, sadly mistaken.

OK. If that is true, it will be:
1 - in our Credal statements
2 - in our Liturgy
3 - in our writings

There ... plenty to choose from. Now ... show me where.

+++

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Oh, and btw, STOP bashing the Theosophists, any time you like, Thomas! You claim that you dislike it when people speak out against your precious Roman Catholicism, so why is it okay to then turn around and throw stones at others? That's talking the talk, but NOT walking the walk.

I was demonstrating a point, Andrew ... don't like it, do you? So maybe in future, when presenting the doctrine of your Masters, you will do me the honour of not dragging my Master into it?

Originally Posted by AndrewX

AND STOP THE VICIOUS SLANDER against HPB ... this absolute HORSESH*T about seeking to be Baptized into a Church whose doctrines she ABHORRED, and knew to be pure BUNK.

Glad to see, at least, that you're willing to admit the vehement anti-Christianity of The Theosophical Society!

Originally Posted by AndrewX

NO SH*T it's not been confirmed!!! GOOD GOD man, why do you feel it is necessary to post such crap!?! You insult the Good name of the ONE woman who was able to sort out your NONSENSE form Christ's actual Teaching! She was doing His Work from the moment she agreed to serve the Master M., and her last speech - delivered via Annie Besant only because she was too sick to attend herself - attests PLAINLY to her ongoing support of the TS and its MISSION (about which she speaks clearly in her letter).

Actually, Andrew, if you read my post, you will see that I base my 'evidence' of HPB's conversion on the same argument that TS uses to insist that Christianity and reincarnation are compatible — by fabricating material and attributing it to whomever TS so chooses, and assuming that because there's no evidence that she didn't, doesn't mean she didn't.

In short, I've used TS philosophic/esoteric methodology. Take it up with your guys, it's not me you should be angry with. Personally I find that methodology intellectually bankrupt, to say the least ... and we've had two instances of it here at CR, fabricated quotes attributed to Origen, and fabricated quotes attributed to Jerome, both from published TS sources.

Thomas

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Snip)

OK. Tell that to Jesus:
John 14:1-6
"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

How's that for arrogance?

Ir is it simply the truth?

Thomas

Hello my brother Thomas,

Perhaps it is most true but your understanding of what he is saying is on an intellectual level which fails to grasp the deep meaning. It seems to me his words were spirit and cannot be grasped with the carnal mind. Just a view to consider.

Love and Peace,
JM

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

OK. If that is true, it will be:
1 - in our Credal statements
2 - in our Liturgy
3 - in our writings

It has been show, in each of these, especially so the Scriptures, though also in the very Ceremony of the Roman Catholic Church. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

You would also know the Christ of your creeds, if you weren't so busy with the utterance.

I can say hail marys all day long, my friend. So can you, so can Christ. This changes nought.

You can remain utterly ignorance of mantra, and thus even where your words might carry power ... they remain empty and meaningless. Another man can speak the Holy Word, and in a moment, there is a thunderclap - and the very waters before him will part.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I was demonstrating a point, Andrew ... don't like it, do you? So maybe in future, when presenting the doctrine of your Masters, you will do me the honour of not dragging my Master into it?

It is you who have dragged your Master down, friend. I can quote from His own Heart, His Mind, His Teachings ... yet you recognize neither the word, nor the Spirit. What does this tell me?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Glad to see, at least, that you're willing to admit the vehement anti-Christianity of The Theosophical Society!

You mean anti-churchianity? Yes indeed. The Roman Catholic Church's manipulation of the Master's Message, the bending of His words to your creeds, to justify your crusades and power-trips, the building of lofty, ornate cathedral after cathedral, with literally BILLIONS of dollars worth of gold candlesticks, your BURNING of anyone and everyone down through the ages who DARED to disagree with your dead-letter DOGMAS and your Papal BULL ... ah YES, all THIS, my dear Thomas, H.P. Blavatsky ABHORRED - and yet ...

I would have to part with even her Good Graces as I step into the ring, because if you wish to spar, I do so you your terms, MAN OF THE WORLD. You are the one always insisting that the Human Soul is perishable, and that "ONLY in God do we find our Salvation." Then know, Brother, that Death comes for you, as for every man. Which part of your nature, your `I,' is it, again, that is NOT "of this earth, earthly?" WHICH part is it, which doth house the Arête?

If you can find none, identify none, speak of none, acknowledge none ... then you are a nihilist, and your life is a waste. But if you DARE to counter this argument, if you DARE to stand and affirm your Virtue ... THEN you begin to know something, about Christ's Silence before Pontius Pilate. Where is your Virtue, Thomas? Where is that Temple of Solomon, not made with human hands?

*sighhhhhh* ....

Shrugging your hands ... "oh, please leave me alone"?

Then leave me alone. Reject the olive branch if you prefer, but that choice is entirely yours.

Christianity is a religion. Until you can accept that, and not feel a need to qualify it, you aren't even at peace with your own chosen faith.

Now how about things the way I see them?

`The Wisdom,' and `The Ageless Wisdom Teachings,' fulfil a similar function in my life ... and precisely the same in the lives of tens of thousands of other people.

Now you don't have to be happy about that, but that's your problem. Get over it!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually, Andrew, if you read my post, you will see that I base my 'evidence' of HPB's conversion on the same argument that TS uses to insist that Christianity and reincarnation are compatible — by fabricating material and attributing it to whomever TS so chooses, and assuming that because there's no evidence that she didn't, doesn't mean she didn't.

A Master, were one present, might say something like, "children, children, children," yet to the best of my knowledge the Masters aren't quite sarcastic ... just good-natured, good-humored, and the very embodiment of Patience.

If I can at least do my best to model the latter, then maybe I stand a chance to learn something more about these other Virtues ... and as I have argued that the Soul is the Good Qualies of our Nature, which endure from incarnation to incarnation, then I shall at least, look forward to some slight reward - even if it is only the having of a good laugh at your expense, Thomas.

Oh wait, did I say that? Hmmm, no, I'm sure I meant a good laugh WITH you, but then, never trust a man with a knife. Don't turn your back on him, at any rate.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In short, I've used TS philosophic/esoteric methodology. Take it up with your guys, it's not me you should be angry with. Personally I find that methodology intellectually bankrupt, to say the least ... and we've had two instances of it here at CR, fabricated quotes attributed to Origen, and fabricated quotes attributed to Jerome, both from published TS sources.

Talk does not cook the rice ... but I can see that some people around here are starving.

My promise to you, is that I'll take care of that. And I've set the table for two.

Namaskar,

~Andrew

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

OK. If that is true, it will be:
1 - in our Credal statements
2 - in our Liturgy
3 - in our writings

There ... plenty to choose from. Now ... show me where.

Namaste Thomas,

Show you where? If 'the church' would allow google or yahoo or any of the dozens of organizations who have offered to go into the library and copy and put everything on the web...we might know what your church fathers knew.

As for you 1, 2, 3, these are Catholic understandings of what Jesus taught, they are not Baptist, Methodist, New Thought, Theosophist, Presbyterian or any other denominations thought, they are the thought of one denomination, not consensus by any means....The world has no need to only look to your books for answers and anyone that studies I would think would look outside of the information that is fed to verify.

This is an Comparative Religion board on an Interfaith Forum section of a Comparative Religion Site... Discussion of the OP question is not very well continued by repeating, we are the only one and true religion, and only our books contain the knowledge of the ages. If you don't wish folks to counter statements like that, you may as well discuss them at a site where you can preach to the choir and everyone can mumble about folks that compare, contrast and explore.

No you don't ignore what you've learned, but if you don't read and explore the rest with an open mind it is as if you are on the dark side of the moon denying you are revolving around a planet full of life as your neighbor.

[Neemai]

Originally Posted by Thomas

John 14:1-6
... Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

In the original language, am I right in thinking it actually says "No one comes to the Father except through the son"?

IMO that puts a significantly different slant on things.

Best wishes,


... Neemai

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Neemai

In the original language, am I right in thinking it actually says "No one comes to the Father except through the son"?

IMO that puts a significantly different slant on things.

Best wishes,


... Neemai

Hello Neemai,

It seems to me that in the Greek Jesus is saying that he exists by the path that is truth and life (light as in illumination) that is the way to the father by which he that comes to the Father must come. That is the true light that lights every man that comes into the world. Jesus was not speaking of himself in the flesh but of the path that he manifested as his life that all men must follow to come to the Father. In my view, Perhaps this is one of the most misunderstood and mis-quoted versus.

Just a different take to consider,
JM

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Hello Neemai,

It seems to me that in the Greek Jesus is saying that he exists by the path that is truth and life (light as in illumination) that is the way to the father by which he that comes to the Father must come. That is the true light that lights every man that comes into the world. Jesus was not speaking of himself in the flesh but of the path that he manifested as his life that all men must follow to come to the Father. In my view, Perhaps this is one of the most misunderstood and mis-quoted versus.

Just a different take to consider,
JM

I'm coming more and more to that conclusion about John 14:6 myself. But I need to examine the scriptures more.

However, I took a closer look at another verse that pushes me more that way:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24

You always hear that you need to "believe in Jesus" to be saved. But I would ask, Who is the "him" in this verse? I'll give you a clue: It's not Jesus.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Dondi

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24

You always hear that you need to "believe in Jesus" to be saved. But I would ask, Who is the "him" in this verse? I'll give you a clue: It's not Jesus.

Can we go one step further, and consider that the "him" is also not a gendered being ... but that it is still the `Personhood' of God, in some kind of mysterious sense?

I don't think God waited around for humanity to evolve, and for US to come up with the idea of personhood, and then one day said, "Oh yes, now you've got it ... THAT'S the image I'm going to have you all (to have been) created from!"

You see? I certainly can't imagine (in detail) what a planet might be like where three genders are required in order to procreate, but Gene Roddenberry managed it ... in STNG, as I recall (or maybe it was Voyager). And there are all sorts of ways in which a single gender can manage to procreate. The Secret Doctrine describes several of these, even before modern science had put some of them down in the textbooks.

So that's why I advocate more focusing on the comparative part, in order to see if ... maybe this `God Person' is somewhat Intelligible, after all! (`Who is this God Person Anyway' being form HHGTTG )

If the Intellect itself, or Reason, was given to us by God (presumably with the idea that we would, sooner or later, get around to using it in cooperation with God, and with God's Holy Purposes) ... then gee, it can't be all bad, now can it?

And if our capacity to feel emotions, to empathize and sympathize with other people, and thus to respond to their need(s) is likewise a gift of God, meant for our own enjoyment - yes, in part - but also meant, and equally or greater so, I should think, so that we might HELP others (rather than turn a deaf ear) ... then ahhhh, now we're getting somewhere, and starting to think with the Heart, as did Christ Jesus.

Perhaps an even greater challenge is to discover that our willpower, the very ability to choose, is what sets us apart from the lower Kingdoms (and even distinguishes us from the Angelic Kingdoms, which obey God's Will implicitly). Except, we're not placed here, given the gift of Mind, and given the gift of emotional Response (leading to Responsability) ... so that we can - in the last analysis - just finally lose these gifts from God. What sense would that make, if that was what it actually meant to acquiesce to the Divine Will?

I don't think it matters whether we are approaching this from a more Western, and monotheistic viewpoint (wherein God is personalized) ... or an Eastern, philosophical approach (wherein a Nirguna Brahman, or its Buddhist equivalent, is never actually pictured, or imagined). The approaches can agree on the above facts ... that the Faculties of Consciousness we have developed throughout the past many thousands of years (both individually, and collectively, as a Race), serve a PURPOSE. The Highest Purpose may be something we can only leave to "the inscrutable Will of the Almighty," but what I resist ... is this idea that it is TABOO even to ask, "Why did God create us in the first place?" (or, "Why are we here?" - to be a little less monotheistic about it).

It seems like, if we have reservations about addressing this kind of question, then we really don't belong at a discussion forum to begin with. And if we can only imagine that - "it is a mystery, to which no one knows the final answer," - then, umm, yeah, well & good, but does that mean we should not be willing to discuss it? I mean, come on! We should be able to have fun with it, explore our roots, and ask the big questions about Where Human development (aka `Evolution') is ultimately headed? Most folks at C-R probably believe in the idea of Intelligent Design, even if - in say, a strictly Buddhist sense - we just aren't used to contemplating What Intelligence?

(What I can't stand, btw, is being patronized by a Buddhist who is every bit as heady with his or her Buddhism - as say, I am with my precious esotericism ... and who will thus condescend to lecture me on svabhavat and Adi Buddha ... yet who will never actually realize what s/he is talking about! To wit, Adi Buddha is described as [the] "first or primeval buddha; the supreme being above all other buddhas and bodhisattvas in the later Mahayana Buddhism of Tibet, Nepal, Java, and Japan" - and hint hint, that has EVERYthing to do with `worshiping the same God,' as this thread indicates! )

I didn't meant to editorialize so much, but then, I get sick of some folks always trying to box me in to being a Theosophist, or trashing my metaphysics every time you happen to want to plug the Roman Catholic Church's theology. Sorry, Thomas, it's not that I enjoy taking cheap shots (even if I'm way behind you, at this point) ... it's just that I am NOT a Theosophist, and I don't even particularly identify with much of what the later generations of Theosophists came to focus on. Hellooooooo ...

I have a very different view of the Masters than plenty of folks out there, and I think it's worth mentioning that as the Directors, or GUIDES of the Divine Plan for Earth's evolution, it's perfectly acceptable to DEFEND Their motives, Their methods and the very Fact of Their existence from the Catholic Church's ideology (or any other which openly makes war on a doctrine that is in disagreement).

The Masters of the Hierarchy, both East & West, serve the Christ directly, but remember, when the chosen Twelve walked alongside their Teacher ~2100 years ago, they did not call Him `Christ,' or even `Messias.' They did ASK Him about it, and received a response, but to the best of our understanding, they called Him `rabbi,' which means Teacher, or GREAT ONE. - source: Rabbi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, the very `Masters' Whom several of us at C-R KNOW to exist (including folks of the Eastern Traditions, who refer to them as gurus, Rishis, Yogis or Mahatmas, etc.) ... are also called Great Ones. It has been explained many times that several different Schools, or Branches of the One Brotherhood are known to exist - occupying all sorts of different locations, and corresponding with EVERY religious tradition now extant upon the planet (even correlating with some no longer actively praciticed).

Relevant to this thread and the ongoing conversation about intersections (vs. divergences) between the various ways in which people at C-R, and around the globe, all may be worshipping the exact same Deity ... I think it is worth looking at what any specific tradition may happen to say, either about this Deity, or about the forms of worship which followers have embraced.

For instance, the pre-Christian Druids of the British Isles are usually mentioned as polytheists. If this is so, is it possible that just as did many other polytheistic peoples, they did acknowledge many powers in nature ... but still revered ONE, as Greatest of them all? I do not know, but several folks at C-R are probably quite knowledgable. And rather than start with an a priori assumption, which I am accused of doing quite often (ahem, Thomas) ... I would rather hear what people have to say.

Namaskar,

~Andrew

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm coming more and more to that conclusion about John 14:6 myself. But I need to examine the scriptures more.

However, I took a closer look at another verse that pushes me more that way:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5:24

You always hear that you need to "believe in Jesus" to be saved. But I would ask, Who is the "him" in this verse? I'll give you a clue: It's not Jesus.

Dondi,

Yes. Excellent example and there are many more. Besides.... Even without the writings, it seems to me, it is self-evident that God is not exclusive nor does does God have a favorite man made religion. All are part of God's creation and in the fulness of times God will gather all things to Himself each in his/her own order. Just a view to consider.

Love and Peace,
JM

[arthra]

No one comes to the Father except through the son"

This is understood in the Baha'i Writings that the Manifestation of God is an Intermediary between God and man.... We would also say that "Son" is more of a spiritual title or description of a spiriual relationship than a literal biological thing...

- Art

[bananabrain]

i see andrew and thomas are at it again. i don't know why the two of you bother. do try and resist having a go at each other if you can; i suspect there is little the two of you will agree on. at any rate i could certainly do without having to scroll through yet another effusion of theosophical insight like this little gem:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Many esotericists are familiar with THREE of Jesus' own prior incarnations, beginning with Joshua, Son of Nun, who succeeded Moses ... and ending with Joshua from the Book of Zechariah (appearing as Jeshua, during the time of Ezra, in between).

hur, hur, hur. by that logic, he was also jehoshaphat, jehoash, joshi'a and a bunch of other [un]worthies of the later biblical period, or anyone else with a slightly similar name from the same word root or indeed a combination thereof, because it's really that simple, isn't it? presumably he also showed up as r. joseph karo, the codifier of the shulhan aruch (C16th) the prophet hose'a to say nothing of rabbi yehoshu'a of the mishnah - oh, hang on, he'd have had to had two gilgulim around at the same time, but i'm sure nothing is beyond him. in fact, i know about three or four rabbis called joshua - maybe they're incarnations, too! i love the way you guys are able to go so completely nuts armed with nothing more than biblical hebrew 101.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Among the Greeks yes, but not among the Jews, or at least, not among those of Jewish orthodoxy.

it is certainly an orthodox sephardic and hasidic point of view today. there are entire categories of sins for which one may be punished by reincarnation as a non-speaking life-form or as a human, if my yom kippur prayer book is anything to go by. if you follow the very early idea (suggested in the sefer yetzirah as far as i can remember) that the soul is a composite made up of various different components, this implies that each soul element can be routed separately when it is no longer required for the composite entity. thus you have separate statements in the Torah about "rua[u]h[/i]", "nefesh" and "neshamah" and comments about each element of the soul in the Talmud (such as the "neshamah" being present at a eulogy in BT shabbat 153a).

The Wisdom Literature of the OT comprise some of the latests documents in the canon, I think the Book of Wisdom was just 100 years prior to Christ. Here we can read intimations of the immortality of the soul (or at least speculation about an alternative eschatology), rather than the sleep of Sheol, and trace the influence of Hellenism (the author of Wisdom was an Alexandrian Jew) — but nothing about reincarnation, the pre-existence of souls, etc., which is part and parcel of the package.

reincarnation in the classic sense, of course, can definitely be spoken of in the zohar - but how early you consider this text will depend on whether you're a traditionalist (C1st, r. shimon bar yohai) or a historian (C12th, r. moshe de leon) but it is hard to see from my PoV how it would be possible to ensure that the canon of judaism supported such an extensive interpolation through retrofitting were it not already present from at the very least the time of jesus. i link to aish with a heavy caveat and warning, i don't like 'em very much, but they do write clearly about this: Reincarnation and Jewish Tradition

you could argue, however, that during the classical rabbinic period, as in christianity, it was all about resurrection, not reincarnation. in such aggadic matters there is ample room for personal interpretation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

Thank you, BB for that article. I saw the footnote (#15) regarding which body would be resurrected in the World of Resurrection, but am still a bit unclear on it. Assuming reincarnation is true, in each case we would have a body. But then upon death, that body is buried. So which body woul you be raised in at the World of Resurrection? The last incarnation? The first incarnation? The best incarnation? Would be resurrected as a man? A woman? Both?

What if you were a Jew in the previous life, but then became a Christian in the next life? Would your status as one of the Chosen be in jeopardy?

Then there is the issue of what happens to the other bodies of our former lives. The footnote (#15) suggests that the other bodies would be adopted by other spirits? Where would these spirits come from? Are they new from God?

So many questions....

[bananabrain]

hence my comment - in aggadic matters there is a lot of room for personal interpretation!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hur, hur, hur. by that logic

bananabrain, I said nothing about logic. And yet, when it comes to gaining insight into Biblical matters, it becomes clear at which point your - and Thomas's - brains quit working. Unless it can be reduced to some kind of empty-headed syllogism ... or pointed to as "that there portion of the text in red, what Jesus spoke" ... it will clearly never carry weight - with our two most elite and erudite, veteran Scholars.

One day, when it behooves you to stop admiring yourselves in the mirror, it will dawn that there are other sources than your own, precious egos ... for Biblical, spiritual or historical insight.

Till then, I will remain -

Patiently awaiting,

~Andrew

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

One day, when it behooves you to stop admiring yourselves in the mirror, it will dawn that there are other sources than your own, precious egos ... for Biblical, spiritual or historical insight.

yes, they're called sages, scholars, philosophers, philologists and grammarians, not just mystics. unless, of course, you're referring to million-year-old astral texts which nobody's ever seen apart from people that good old HPB claimed she knew. i'm not the only one with a mirror, mate.

b'shalom

bananabrain