• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Redemption through Divine Blood

John Martin

Active Member
I respect your belief too. The entire Christianity is based upon Augustine

Yes, it is true. I am neither Augustinian nor Pelagian. I embrace both. For some people's psychological condition St.Augustine may be helpful. For some people's psychological condition St.Pelagius is a model. It is unfortunate that Christianity has chosen St.Augustine and called Pelagius a heretic. For me he is a saint. Let us imagine two persons fall into two wells. The first person is weak and not able to climb up so he shouts for help. Some hear the voice and bring him out. The second person makes his own effort and comes out of it. The first person experienced the grace coming from above and the second person actualized the grace inherent. St.Augustine held the view of external grace and Pelagius held the view of grace inherent. Both are right in their own way. Ultimately our salvation is the grace of God whether it comes from outside or inside. Meritorious actions are manifestations of the inherent grace. An atheist who does not believe in God and does meritorious actions is manifesting the inherent grace. This applies to Buddhism also. Buddhism does not positively believe in God. It relies very much on human effort. It is actualizing the inherent grace. It certainly supports Pelagius.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
One of the core doctrines of Christianity is the redemption of sin via the shedding of the divine blood of Jesus through his Crucifixion and Death:


im not sure if that is quite correct. Sin can never be redeemed because it is against Gods law...so there will never be a time when God says sin is ok.

Humans on the otherhand need redemption from sins 'effects' or 'consequences'

Sin brings death to all of us. If we ever want to be free of that curse, then we need redemption.

[/COLOR][/I]If faith is required anywhere in the teachings, it is here, since no one knows exactly how this is accomplished. One must only have unquestioning faith that it does.
Therefore, a scapegoat was required as the host upon whose back both sin and guilt were transferred and carried, this being reflected in the Jewish image of the scape-goat that is sent into the wilderness to perish. (Leviticus), the prefigurement of Jesus as scapegoat 'bearing the sins of the world', and as the sacrificial 'Lamb of God'.

Therefore, the retention of the doctrine of sin redemption via blood sacrifice within Christianity is a pagan ritual, based purely on superstition, having no basis in fact or via direct experience, as in meditation and spiritual transformation of consciousness. It's efficacy is purely a product of the belief that it is so, with virtually no understanding as to how it is achieved.


the scriptures reveal how this is achieved.

Matt 20:28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”

A 'ransom' is a price paid to redeem someone from a kidnapper.

The kidnapper is death - Jesus 'life' is the ransom price paid to release us from death.

Now that the ransom has been paid, it has provided God with a legal means of removing the consequences of sin, namely death, from those who commit sin.

In this sense, we are talking about something called 'white magic', culminating in the ritual of the Mass, wherein wine and bread are believed to be literally transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (ie; 'transubstantiation'). The process of sin redemption is two-fold: contrition, repentance and confession, and then the partaking of the Eucharist as a means of entering into the state of grace.

transubstantiation is not a bible teaching... its a church teaching based on something which is not true. Jesus never told anyone to literally eat his flesh or drink his blood.

Yeshu's original teachings did not include blood sacrifice. In fact, Yeshu would have been a vegetarian as a practitioner in the Nazarene Essene community.


no, he really wasn't an essene. They were a jewish sect who were around long before Jesus arrived.

It should be noted that, according to Essene teachings, which are said to be three-tiered, the first tier is for the initiates, while the second and third are of the inner Mysteries, of which the initiates would not have understood. It was the members of this first tier of initiates who broke with the Essenes and became the first Christians, their focus being primarily evangelistic, rather than mystical in nature. Therefore, doctrine and belief become the primary focus amongst orthodox Christians, rather than direct access to, and experience of the inner living source within, sometimes referred to as Gnosis, Namaste, the Kingdom of God, Big Mind, etc.

some essenes may have become christians, but Jesus nor his apostles ever became essenes.

The eseens beliefs and practices were quite different to Christs. For one, they were not politically neutral but more then willing to take up the sword and fight the romans. Christ said not to take up the sword but to be obedient.
The Jewish Pictorial Biblical Encyclopedia says that the Essenes “fought heroically in the rebellion against Rome, some leaders even coming from their ranks.”
The historian Josephus makes reference to a certain “John the Essene” who served as a Jewish general in the revolt of 66*C.E.

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Important arguments .*.*. speak against this assumption.” There are “fundamental differences between the Qumrān sect and John the Baptist .*.*. [as well as] diametrical differences between the views of the sect and the range of Jesus’ ministry, his message of salvation, his understanding of God’s will .*.*. and, especially, the radical character of his commandment of love and his fellowship with sinners and social outcasts.”

Marriage was not look upon as something good by the Essenes, they were mostly celebate males who rejected marriage and women. Whereas we see the teachings of Jesus apostles (who were married men btw) and even Paul who admonished husbands to love their wives as they do themselves and advised young christians with a sexual desire to marry in order to satisfy it. So far from being against marriage, the apostles of Christ showed in their teachings and lifestyle that marriage was honorable and good and they promoted it.

Jesus was most certainly not an Essene.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
im not sure if that is quite correct. Sin can never be redeemed because it is against Gods law...so there will never be a time when God says sin is ok.

Humans on the otherhand need redemption from sins 'effects' or 'consequences'

Sin brings death to all of us. If we ever want to be free of that curse, then we need redemption.

Jesus is not saying that sin is OK, only that it is redeemed via the shedding of divine blood, which I give no credence to.

'Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin'

The whole point of Jesus as blood sacrifice is to reopen the Gates of Paradise for all of mankind that Adam and Eve had closed with Original Sin, Jesus, 'The Lamb of God', being the only perfect, and therefore, acceptable host in the eyes of God.

the scriptures reveal how this is achieved.

Matt 20:28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.”

A 'ransom' is a price paid to redeem someone from a kidnapper.

The kidnapper is death - Jesus 'life' is the ransom price paid to release us from death.

Now that the ransom has been paid, it has provided God with a legal means of removing the consequences of sin, namely death, from those who commit sin.
I give no credence to this at all.

transubstantiation is not a bible teaching... its a church teaching based on something which is not true. Jesus never told anyone to literally eat his flesh or drink his blood.

It does not matter whether flesh and blood are consumed literally or symbolically: the idea remains the same that divine flesh and blood have the power to wash sin away.


no, he really wasn't an essene. They were a jewish sect who were around long before Jesus arrived.
So what? The idea is not that Jesus founded the sect, but that they did exist prior to his coming, in preparation of his coming. He was known amongst the Essenes as 'The Teacher of Righteousness'.

some essenes may have become christians, but Jesus nor his apostles ever became essenes.
Nazarenes were a sect of the Essenes. Jesus was a Nazarene.

Jesus was most certainly not an Essene.
There is much that points to the idea that he indeed was an Essene, specifically a member of the Nazorean Essenes at Mt. Carmel, a family monastery where it is said he and his family lived communally and where he grew up, to later become the head of the sect upon the death of John the Baptist. We have evidence of his presence there, along with his two brothers, in a letter announcing the death of John the Baptist read directly to them. (Book of John). This sect was a healing sect, which had connections to the healing sect of the Buddhist derived sect of the Therapeutae in Greece and Egypt. It was the Buddhist King Asoka who sent his Theravada monks (again, healers) West to establish monasteries in Egypt and Greece. There is evidence that Joseph and Mary fled to one of these monasteries, either Therapeutae or Coptic, in Egypt and hid there from King Herod. The teachings Jesus, or rather, Yeshu, would have been exposed to were not those of pagan blood sacrifice, but of the breath oriented practices from the East. Yeshu was a man of the East, not of the West. Men of higher consciousness abhor blood sacrifice, and find the Christian notion of 'washing in the blood of Jesus' a disgusting act. IOW, in the East, the breath, and not the blood, carries the life-force. The Greeks believed the breath to be spirit. They called it 'pneuma', which is the root world for such modern words as 'pneuomonia', and 'pneumatic'. But modern science has eviscerated this root word of its original meaning, rendering it to be associated only with air. The Greeks probably attached to the Eastern teachings and incorporated them into their spiritual culture.

edit: unlike the Qumran Essenes, who were an apocalyptic sect, the Nazorean (Nazarene) Essenes of Mt. Carmel were a mystical sect. Yeshu was a Jewish mystic. Orthodoxy did not teach that God was within, but Yeshu did indeed teach that. Yeshu states: 'I and the Father are One', which is a reflection of divine union, a mystical teaching.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Jesus is not saying that sin is OK, only that it is redeemed via the shedding of divine blood, which I give no credence to.

'Drink, for this is my blood, which shall be shed unto many for the remission of sin'

The whole point of Jesus as blood sacrifice is to reopen the Gates of Paradise for all of mankind that Adam and Eve had closed with Original Sin, Jesus, 'The Lamb of God', being the only perfect, and therefore, acceptable host in the eyes of God.

well yes, its for the redemption of the 'sinner'... not the sin.

His blood was shed for the 'many'


It does not matter whether flesh and blood are consumed literally or symbolically: the idea remains the same that divine flesh and blood have the power to wash sin away.

if the divine penalty for sin is death, but God wants to save a person from such a penalty, then there is only one legal way to do that.

This is why the Apostles and Jesus spoke of Jesus life as being given as a 'ransom'

The mosaic law stipulated 'life for life' 'eye for eye' 'tooth for tooth' ... to balance the scales of justice, the equivalent of what is lost must be replaced.

Jesus gave his life in exchange for ours... hence he took the divine penalty meant for us sinners upon himself. Thats very logical imo.

So what? The idea is not that Jesus founded the sect, but that they did exist prior to his coming, in preparation of his coming. He was known amongst the Essenes as 'The Teacher of Righteousness'.


But Jesus wasnt one of them.

Nazarenes were a sect of the Essenes. Jesus was a Nazarene.

Jesus was from the town of Nazareth. The scriptures call him a 'Nazarene' because he came from that town... just as someone who comes from America is called an 'American' or from Australia and 'Australian'

It doesnt mean that Jesus is a member of a religious sect by that name.

There is much that points to the idea that he indeed was an Essene, specifically a member of the Nazorean Essenes at Mt. Carmel, a family monastery where it is said he and his family lived communally and where he grew up, to later become the head of the sect upon the death of John the Baptist. We have evidence of his presence there, along with his two brothers, in a letter announcing the death of John the Baptist read directly to them. (Book of John). This sect was a healing sect, which had connections to the healing sect of the Buddhist derived sect of the Therapeutae in Greece and Egypt. It was the Buddhist King Asoka who sent his Theravada monks (again, healers) West to establish monasteries in Egypt and Greece. There is evidence that Joseph and Mary fled to one of these monasteries, either Therapeutae or Coptic, in Egypt and hid there from King Herod. The teachings Jesus, or rather, Yeshu, would have been exposed to were not those of pagan blood sacrifice, but of the breath oriented practices from the East. Yeshu was a man of the East, not of the West. Men of higher consciousness abhor blood sacrifice, and find the Christian notion of 'washing in the blood of Jesus' a disgusting act. IOW, in the East, the breath, and not the blood, carries the life-force. The Greeks believed the breath to be spirit. They called it 'pneuma', which is the root world for such modern words as 'pneuomonia', and 'pneumatic'. But modern science has eviscerated this root word of its original meaning, rendering it to be associated only with air. The Greeks probably attached to the Eastern teachings and incorporated them into their spiritual culture.


You can't believe every account you read about him from all the many various sources where such accounts are found.

If these accounts were true, then surely his closest companions, who wrote the accounts of his life and teachings, would have mentioned something about it. But they dont.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
The fundamental question is how the ignorance came to be? I have not come across a satisfying answer either in Buddhism or Hinduism.
Christian tradition speaks of original sin. When we are born we are in a state of original ignorance. Christianity calls this original ignorance as original sin.
Ignorance does not come from the past. Everyone begins with that. This ignorance produces desire and the whole process of becoming. Hinduism and Buddhism call this process as samsara. Ignorance belongs to the evolutionary process of our spiritual growth. We cannot avoid it. We need to go through it. Christian tradition or Catholic tradition calls it Felix Culpa: happy Fault.
They sing during the Easter vigil, O Happy and Necessary Fault of Adam that brought the saviour into this world.

I believe you are referring to what Christians call our 'sin nature'. I give no credence to this. I do not believe man is born with this. For one, sin is tied up with morality, but nature is amoral. But what is morality but the product of our social indoctrination. What I am suggesting to you is that morality is the cause of ignorance. Why? Because it is what stifles our true nature, superimposing an artificial system of behavior over it, thereby creating ignorance of our true original nature, which is naturally good. Morality is the cause of hypocrisy, a form of ignorance. When Yeshu said: 'Unless you turn and become as little children, you will not enter into Paradise', he was saying to turn away from our learning and knowledge of moral behavior, which is also linked to the system of reward and punishment, and toward the inner world of the living spirit. The lure of Reward and avoidance of Punishment are causes of self-righteous behavior. To become as little children means to see the world without judgment, without discrimination. This kind of mind is called Innocency (not innocence). It is our original pure mind which the Buddha talks about. It knows what to do, how to act, without having a rigid set of laws superimposed over it to stifle it.

Now consider the following:

The orthodox story of the Fall is that Adam and Eve committed the Sin of Disobedience, and thereby became separated from God and driven from Paradise. Much of the history of mankind is based upon this idea. But there is another, and I feel more original story which became corrupted into the orthodox version, and that is that there was no sin committed at all. God forbids A&E the partaking of the so-called 'Forbidden Fruit', and then goes away, as in the orthodox story. But then God reappears to them as a serpent in order to ensure that they eat of the Fruit! Why? Because the Fruit is a symbol for Divine Union, or Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent says: 'God does not want you to eat of the Fruit because your eyes will be opened and 'you will see as He sees'. What is this but God consciousness? What is happening here is that God has cleverly set up a piece de resistance as a psychological device, making the Fruit a highly desirable object of curiosity. Of course A&E will eat of it. How can they avoid it? But the point here is that we do not have separation due to disobedience of the Law, but instead we have divine union which is both Essence and Law in harmony with one another. Story end, and all is well. Divine Union achieved while still alive. But the orthodox story is the long, drawn out bloody history of mankind, what the Buddhists call 'The Long Way Home', where mankind hits every bump in the road. And then, no one gets to Paradise until they die. Just a horrible scenario.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
well yes, its for the redemption of the 'sinner'... not the sin.

His blood was shed for the 'many'

Again, the idea is pagan in nature, that divine blood somehow has this power of redemption. It comes down to a matter of belief that it does, just as the idea that one's guilt could somehow be transferred to a scapegoat or an animal sacrificed in the temple. Actually, it's superstition and ignorance. Why would anyone believe such nonsense?


if the divine penalty for sin is death, but God wants to save a person from such a penalty, then there is only one legal way to do that.

This is why the Apostles and Jesus spoke of Jesus life as being given as a 'ransom'

The mosaic law stipulated 'life for life' 'eye for eye' 'tooth for tooth' ... to balance the scales of justice, the equivalent of what is lost must be replaced.

Jesus gave his life in exchange for ours... hence he took the divine penalty meant for us sinners upon himself. Thats very logical imo.
This idea of ransom is one of man's ideas superimposed over those of the divine nature, which does not work in the same way. Ransom, debt, and penalty are not part of Unconditional Love, which is associated with the divine nature. Going back to the source, if God was upset over Adam and Eve's disobedience, He would simply have forgave them and called it a day. But again, man is superimposing his own selfish values onto God, and creating an angry, unforgiving God who demands that his Son be sacrficed as payment for Original Sin. This is garbage. I know that the spirit does NOT work in this way. I don't require a God to take on my wrongdoings. I only need to take responsibility for them myself and understand the their nature so that I can avoid such behavior in the future. We forgive each other for our transgressions, and that works. No one needs to be crucified on some cross to free us. Where is the 'logic' in that?


But Jesus wasnt one of them.
He was their leader.



Jesus was from the town of Nazareth. The scriptures call him a 'Nazarene' because he came from that town... just as someone who comes from America is called an 'American' or from Australia and 'Australian'

It doesnt mean that Jesus is a member of a religious sect by that name.

No town called 'Nazareth' ever existed during the time Yeshu walked the Earth. However, just 10 miles away from what is now modern day Nazareth, lies the Nazorean (Nazarene) Essene monastery of Mt. Carmel, which we know for certain did exist at that time. In fact, there is evidence of a tent city on its slopes, which formed a small community, or 'tent city', whose inhabitants were thousands of Nazarenes. This arose because the monastery forbade anyone but members of the sect to stay at the monastery itself. Those in the tent city were devotees and laeity. Scripture called Yeshu a Nazarene because he was an Essene from Mt. Carmel.


You can't believe every account you read about him from all the many various sources where such accounts are found.

If these accounts were true, then surely his closest companions, who wrote the accounts of his life and teachings, would have mentioned something about it. But they dont.
Paul and Rome went after Yeshu and his followers hell bent for leather, and destroyed many of their teachings, then hunted down the Nazarenes:

In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:
"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5, New Revised Standard Version).
It is clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus.

Many authors have argued that "Nazarene" was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself. The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene" (e.g. Matthew 26:71; Mark 1:24, 10:47, 14:67; Luke 4:34; John 17:5; Acts 2:22).

What is a Nazarene
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Again, the idea is pagan in nature, that divine blood somehow has this power of redemption. It comes down to a matter of belief that it does, just as the idea that one's guilt could somehow be transferred to a scapegoat or an animal sacrificed in the temple. Actually, it's superstition and ignorance. Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

perhaps its a universal understanding that only God can save us from death.

The bible actually says that the blood of animals cannot redeem mankind. So contrary to what you think it says, it doesn't say it.

Hebrews 10:1 For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 On the contrary, these sacrifices are a reminder of sins year after year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.

The ancient people were offering sacrifices in the hope that they could redeem themselves from death.... they universally knew that blood represents life and they likely hoped that by offering one life, they could redeem their own. But for the jews, it was a 'reminder of sins'

'Life for Life' as the mosaic law stated. But as the bible says, their sacrifices did NOT take away their sins....they were still condemned. So something more was needed.


This idea of ransom is one of man's ideas superimposed over those of the divine nature, which does not work in the same way. Ransom, debt, and penalty are not part of Unconditional Love, which is associated with the divine nature. Going back to the source, if God was upset over Adam and Eve's disobedience, He would simply have forgave them and called it a day. But again, man is superimposing his own selfish values onto God, and creating an angry, unforgiving God who demands that his Son be sacrficed as payment for Original Sin.


Its in harmony with divine law. 'life for life' 'eye for eye' etc

God had already warned Adam what would happen if he disobeyed...then Adam disobeyed. So what would God do? Simply forget that he had to administer the laws that he had already instituted???

No. That would be impossible for God to do. Unlike us, he does not lie, he does not ignore justice. He is a God of justice and righteousness and justice had to be administered in harmony with earlier declaration.

This in no way makes him unloving or angry nor did he loose control of the situation. He did not 'demand' his son be sacrificed... Jesus was a willing participant in Gods plan for saving mankind from the disastrous consequences of Adams disobedience. And that plan really emphasises just how great Gods love is for us... it put a plan in place at great cost to himself in harmony with his own standards of divine justice.


I don't require a God to take on my wrongdoings. I only need to take responsibility for them myself and understand the their nature so that I can avoid such behavior in the future. We forgive each other for our transgressions, and that works. No one needs to be crucified on some cross to free us. Where is the 'logic' in that?

the fact that we die shows that forgiveness is not enough. If it were, then Jesus would not have offered his life.

But for death to be completely removed from mankind, 'life for life' was a legal requirement to balance the scales of justice.

1 perfect life for 1 perfect life.

1Cor 15:22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
I respect your belief. I believed like that thirty years ago not now.

Genuine giving is unconditional. We don't do it to gain anything. We are not concerned with merit or no-merit. We are concerned with the act of giving itself, and not with any favorable outcome.

One of the Zen lessons is this:

Sweep the floor in order to sweep the floor.

Imagine a housewife who spends all day cleaning the house with the thought in mind of pleasing her husband. Now the husband comes home, but has had a bad day at the office. He uses his wife as a punching bag for his troubles. She becomes upset because he is unappreciative of the clean house, not even taking notice. He sees her as uninterested in his problem. If she had cleaned the house in order to get it clean, that would be done without any expectation of praise. Now when her husband comes home, she can listen attentively to his problem with understanding. That over, the husband now notices the clean house and lets her know how much he appreciates it.
:)
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
perhaps its a universal understanding that only God can save us from death.

The bible actually says that the blood of animals cannot redeem mankind. So contrary to what you think it says, it doesn't say it.

Hebrews 10:1 For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would not the sacrifices have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service once cleansed would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 On the contrary, these sacrifices are a reminder of sins year after year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.

The ancient people were offering sacrifices in the hope that they could redeem themselves from death.... they universally knew that blood represents life and they likely hoped that by offering one life, they could redeem their own. But for the jews, it was a 'reminder of sins'

'Life for Life' as the mosaic law stated. But as the bible says, their sacrifices did NOT take away their sins....they were still condemned. So something more was needed.

It is not that one method did not work and another did; it is that they are both derived from the same erroneous superstitious belief. The ancients did NOT know universally that blood represents life; they only universally believed that it did, just as they universally believed that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it.

Conversely, the Eastern practice of breath control and meditation was a direct experience of the divine nature within. It was not belief based.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Its in harmony with divine law. 'life for life' 'eye for eye' etc

This doctrine was overturned by Jesus himself:


38"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matt 5:38-39

The message was transformed from revenge to forgiveness and understanding.

The God of the Old Testament was a rigid, ruthless, unforgiving God. The Jews kept breaking the covenant, and God kept punishing them mercilessly. Yaweh is the God of the Law. Jesus represents the heart, and a way of dealing with transgression other than the punitive Law. The idea of the Eucharist was to put the divine nature inside of man, rather than to see him in some far off distant Heaven in the sky. The difference is that of orthodox belief compared to that of the mystical experience; the imposition of external Law compared to that of internal direct experience of the divine Essence. The former is other directed; the latter self-directed.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
the fact that we die shows that forgiveness is not enough. If it were, then Jesus would not have offered his life.

But for death to be completely removed from mankind, 'life for life' was a legal requirement to balance the scales of justice.

1 perfect life for 1 perfect life.

1Cor 15:22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive

Forgiveness and death have nothing to do with one another. You cannot remove death from mankind. It is inseparable from life. However, through spiritual awakening, you can get an insight into the true nature of life and death, and then transcend both. Man involved in life and death is asleep. Awakened mind is man at one with the divine nature within. This divine nature is the same divine nature Yeshu pointed to as 'I Am', which is not of history or memory, and therefore, not of life or death as Abraham was. It is transcendent of life/death, and is, therefore, freedom itself.

The passage you quoted is saying what I just said, but 'Christ' here is not a singular, unique Christ, but a universal experience within all men. Here again we touch upon the Buddhist influence on Yeshu, which is that all sentient beings are capable of Enlightenment. Yeshu said as much when he pointed to the kingdom of God within [all men]. IOW, the gifts of the Incarnation are not relegated exclusively to the historical Jesus, but are available to all of mankind apriori; that is to say that these gifts were given to man even before his birth. They are already in our possession. All that is required is their discovery. No messy blood sacrifice need apply.

You notice that the passage says: 'in the Christ', referring to the divine nature and not to the singular personage of Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Forgiveness and death have nothing to do with one another. You cannot remove death from mankind. It is inseparable from life.


not according to the bible.

Adam was given the opportunity to live along side his creator forever. Death was only the result of sin. So logically, if Adam never sinned, then death would never have resulted.

And that is why Jesus spoke of eternal life for those who put their faith in him.
John 3:36 The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life...

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

John 6:47 Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life


The hebrew scriptures speak of the future promises that God will bring about, ie:
Ps 68:20 The true God is for us a God who saves;
And Jehovah the Sovereign Lord provides escape from death.



Psalm 37:29 The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it.

The passage you quoted is saying what I just said, but 'Christ' here is not a singular, unique Christ, but a universal experience within all men. Here again we touch upon the Buddhist influence on Yeshu, which is that all sentient beings are capable of Enlightenment. Yeshu said as much when he pointed to the kingdom of God within [all men]. IOW, the gifts of the Incarnation are not relegated exclusively to the historical Jesus, but are available to all of mankind apriori; that is to say that these gifts were given to man even before his birth. They are already in our possession. All that is required is their discovery. No messy blood sacrifice need apply.

You notice that the passage says: 'in the Christ', referring to the divine nature and not to the singular personage of Jesus.

i dont really understand all those eastern mystical philosophical ideas. I just know what the bible says and it is very simple.

Trust the God has a provision to save mankind from the consequences of Adams sin and put your faith in his promises to restore us to perfection.

The opportunity is for us to live forever and i can't think of anything more simple then that.

:)
 

John Martin

Active Member
Genuine giving is unconditional. We don't do it to gain anything. We are not concerned with merit or no-merit. We are concerned with the act of giving itself, and not with any favorable outcome.

One of the Zen lessons is this:

Sweep the floor in order to sweep the floor.

Imagine a housewife who spends all day cleaning the house with the thought in mind of pleasing her husband. Now the husband comes home, but has had a bad day at the office. He uses his wife as a punching bag for his troubles. She becomes upset because he is unappreciative of the clean house, not even taking notice. He sees her as uninterested in his problem. If she had cleaned the house in order to get it clean, that would be done without any expectation of praise. Now when her husband comes home, she can listen attentively to his problem with understanding. That over, the husband now notices the clean house and lets her know how much he appreciates it.
:)

Sweep the floor in order to sweep the floor.

:yes:

This is exactly what Jesus taught.
 

John Martin

Active Member
I believe you are referring to what Christians call our 'sin nature'. I give no credence to this. I do not believe man is born with this.


I am not referring to the sin nature. I am saying that people are born with sin. What I said was that human beings are born with original blessing. Original sin means not beings conscious of this original blessing. It is not a conscious sin committed by anyone.



For one, sin is tied up with morality, but nature is amoral. But what is morality but the product of our social indoctrination. What I am suggesting to you is that morality is the cause of ignorance. Why? Because it is what stifles our true nature, superimposing an artificial system of behavior over it, thereby creating ignorance of our true original nature, which is naturally good. Morality is the cause of hypocrisy, a form of ignorance.


Yes, awareness of sin is related to the moral structures created by the society or religions. They are imposed from outside. Until children grow up and are capable of thinking for themselves, certain moral or ethical education is necessary. Even though it is limited and sometimes can damage the children psychologically.
I do not think morality is the cause of ignorance. Morality from outside comes when we are ignorant of our true nature. When the children are not able to walk we provide them walking aids until they learn to walk. Once they learn to walk,they are no longer necessary. Hence morality is not the cause of ignorance. It is the ignorance of our true nature that creates moral structures as a temporary support.
Yes,morality can be the cause of hypocrisy. It can create self-righteous attitude.
Our true nature is not amoral. It is trans-morality. Its morality is based on the oneness of humanity. Whatever we do to the others,we do to ourselves. This is the only morality.


When Yeshu said: 'Unless you turn and become as little children, you will not enter into Paradise', he was saying to turn away from our learning and knowledge of moral behavior, which is also linked to the system of reward and punishment, and toward the inner world of the living spirit. The lure of Reward and avoidance of Punishment are causes of self-righteous behavior.
When we are born we are like little children, ignorant and innocence, with an unconditioned mind. As we grow we are conditioned and become adults. We need to De-condition ourselves and discover our original innocence. The difference between a born child and who has become like a child is: the born child is innocent and ignorance but a person who has become like a child is innocent but wise. A wise person is one who knows the limitations of the knowledge and lives by wisdom, they were led by the stars. In the New Testament who have the three wise men who were led by the star and come to the child, a symbol of wisdom, and fall and worship the child. But it takes time.We do not just move from born childhood to mature childhood. We need to pass the river the of adulthood, the river of samsara, knowledge and morality.

To become as little children means to see the world without judgment, without discrimination. This kind of mind is called Innocency (not innocence). It is our original pure mind which the Buddha talks about. It knows what to do, how to act, without having a rigid set of laws superimposed over it to stifle it.
To become as little children means to see the world with the conditional love, as the Sun gives light to everyone and everything. It is not to see the world without judgement or without discrimination. It is to see that the so-called good and evil are relative good and relative evil. The Absolute goodness does not have an opposite called Evil. We can call it universal mind that is united with the whole of humanity and creation. It is like a trunk that holds all the branches and leaves. It lives for all. It is not bound by any moral structures. Jesus said, 'It is written in you Law but I say unto you'. He was beyond the Law. He also said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. It is freedom from the external moral code and living from the inner wisdom. It is living according to the New Covenant, the Law written in the heart. This I understand is the mind of Buddha.



Now consider the following:

The orthodox story of the Fall is that Adam and Eve committed the Sin of Disobedience, and thereby became separated from God and driven from Paradise. Much of the history of mankind is based upon this idea. But there is another, and I feel more original story which became corrupted into the orthodox version, and that is that there was no sin committed at all. God forbids A&E the partaking of the so-called 'Forbidden Fruit', and then goes away, as in the orthodox story. But then God reappears to them as a serpent in order to ensure that they eat of the Fruit! Why? Because the Fruit is a symbol for Divine Union, or Higher Consciousness. Remember that the serpent says: 'God does not want you to eat of the Fruit because your eyes will be opened and 'you will see as He sees'. What is this but God consciousness? What is happening here is that God has cleverly set up a piece de resistance as a psychological device, making the Fruit a highly desirable object of curiosity. Of course A&E will eat of it. How can they avoid it? But the point here is that we do not have separation due to disobedience of the Law, but instead we have divine union which is both Essence and Law in harmony with one another. Story end, and all is well. Divine Union achieved while still alive. But the orthodox story is the long, drawn out bloody history of mankind, what the Buddhists call 'The Long Way Home', where mankind hits every bump in the road. And then, no one gets to Paradise until they die. Just a horrible scenario.


I do not interpret the Genesis as the Christian tradition interprets. Here I give you my interpretation which I have posted in another thread.

Our spiritual evolution can be described as a journey from the unconscious unity to the conscious unity.
There are two trees in the Garden of Eden. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The tree of life is a symbol of unity, non-duality and a life of unfolding. A tree has leaves branches, trunk and the roots. Leaves represent individuality, branches represent collective consciousness, trunk represents universal consciousness and the roots represent divine consciousness. In the tree of life there is harmony among them. Leaves respect the branches, branches respect the trunk and the trunk respects the roots and the roots respects the three. So they form one unit, one life, one truth and one way. In the tree of life there is no good and bad. There is only absolute good that has no opposite called evil.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a symbol of fragmented truth. It is either at the level of leaves or branches, or trunk without connection with the others. This creates good and evil.
The Garden of Eden is the symbol of the life of unity. Life of oneness, one way, one truth and one life. But it is unconscious like just born children, a way of innocence and ignorance.
Then comes the desire to become like God. This desire is the desire to become conscious what is unconscious. They were already like God but they were not conscious. Hence this desire is a good desire. This desire projects God,who is inside, outside. Thus it creates duality,distance, time,effort, becoming, good and evil, suffering and violence. This is eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
But the day will come when human beings discover that this path cannot take them to unity. They stop it. This helps them to reenter into the Garden of Eden. This is eating the fruit from the tree of life. It is entering the Garden of Eden consciously.
The life of unconscious unity is represented by a serpent holding its own tail.
The life of becoming, good and evil, knowledge, is represented by a serpent crawling on the ground.
The life of conscious unity is represented by a serpent raising its hood.

There is no direct path from the unconscious unity to the conscious unity. We have to fall into the life of becoming. We need to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is a necessary process.
The Garden of Eden did not happen in the past. Whenever a child is born the Garden of Eden begins. It is living from the unconscious wisdom. As the individuality develops and desires emerge the child comes out of the Garden of Eden and takes up the path of becoming, effort, struggle,knowledge and good and evil and sin.
The day will come when the human consciousness stops this movement and reenters into the Garden of Eden consciously. It is rediscovering original unity and wisdom.
Hence eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge is a necessary stage for our spiritual evolution. Christian tradition calls it Felix Culpa: Happy and necessary Fault.

The forbidden fruit is the fruit of union with God. It is the fruit that brings us of our unconscious state and puts on the path of spiritual evolution.

It is true that Christianity postpones divine union to after our physical death.

Jesus Christ taught that the union with God is possible in this life itself. We do not need to wait until we die.
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
not according to the bible.

Adam was given the opportunity to live along side his creator forever. Death was only the result of sin. So logically, if Adam never sinned, then death would never have resulted.

And that is why Jesus spoke of eternal life for those who put their faith in him.
John 3:36 The one who exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life...

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

John 6:47 Most truly I say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life


The hebrew scriptures speak of the future promises that God will bring about, ie:
Ps 68:20 The true God is for us a God who saves;
And Jehovah the Sovereign Lord provides escape from death.



Psalm 37:29 The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it.

Well, Peg, so far, there has not been a single human being that has not died, so I would say physical death has not been conquered, nor can it be conquered. To think in those terms is the wrong idea. What needs conquering is the fear of death. Death itself should be welcomed with open arms when it arrives, but that is not possible where fear is present. We should accept death just as we accept life. Both sinner and saint; fool and sage; rich and poor do inevitably meet with death. There is no escape, nor should one try to do so, for the more one struggles against it, the more entangled one becomes. When we formulate and cling to belief systems about it, we add dead weight to our lives; but when we let go via faith, we are free. Belief clings; faith lets go. That is the difference.



i dont really understand all those eastern mystical philosophical ideas. I just know what the bible says and it is very simple.

Trust the God has a provision to save mankind from the consequences of Adams sin and put your faith in his promises to restore us to perfection.

The opportunity is for us to live forever and i can't think of anything more simple then that.

:)

In your world, you are not now living forever. You are living in limited time and space because you know that you will die, and that is a problem. So the attainment of eternal life for you will occur after death. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. What I want to know is this: since you don't have a clue as to what 'eternal life' actually is via experience, why do you want it?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One


In your world, you are not now living forever. You are living in limited time and space because you know that you will die, and that is a problem. So the attainment of eternal life for you will occur after death. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. What I want to know is this: since you don't have a clue as to what 'eternal life' actually is via experience, why do you want it?



its possible that i may die before i see eternal life. But Jesus said that some people wont. Why? Because there will come the day when God brings all enemies to an end....and one of those enemies is death itself:

1cor 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.

Why do i believe its possible to live forever? There are a few things that tell me its possible.
1. Angels dont die.
2. God doesnt die.
3. We think in terms of 'forever'... it seems to be built into us that everlasting life is the norm.
4. The Garden of Eden story explains that death is a consequence of sin....if thats the case, than surely it implies that if there is no sin, there is no death.

But the most convincing evidence is that Christ himself taught that people will live forever...and God has promised it in his word.

I have no reason to doubt all this evidence before me. Sure, i've never seen it, but I believe its possible...my faith is based on all these lines of reasoning.


And even if i do die before this great change takes place, I am assured that I will be restored to life:
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.

Death will be no more.... mankind will be 'with God' and in that condition, we will have the opportunity to live forever... we have Gods word on it:

Revelation 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.



This is going to happen... its only a matter of time. :)
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
its possible that i may die before i see eternal life. But Jesus said that some people wont. Why? Because there will come the day when God brings all enemies to an end....and one of those enemies is death itself:

1cor 15:24 Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.

Why do i believe its possible to live forever? There are a few things that tell me its possible.
1. Angels dont die.
2. God doesnt die.
3. We think in terms of 'forever'... it seems to be built into us that everlasting life is the norm.
4. The Garden of Eden story explains that death is a consequence of sin....if thats the case, than surely it implies that if there is no sin, there is no death.

But the most convincing evidence is that Christ himself taught that people will live forever...and God has promised it in his word.

I have no reason to doubt all this evidence before me. Sure, i've never seen it, but I believe its possible...my faith is based on all these lines of reasoning.


And even if i do die before this great change takes place, I am assured that I will be restored to life:
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it, and death and the Grave gave up the dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.

Death will be no more.... mankind will be 'with God' and in that condition, we will have the opportunity to live forever... we have Gods word on it:

Revelation 21:3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.



This is going to happen... its only a matter of time. :)

You do not, in actuality, know for certain that any of the above is true. You only believe them to be true, but will not actually be verified until you pass through the door of death itself. I think you WANT it to be true because it provides an answer for the fact that your not-knowing creates a certain amount of anxiety about what is going to happen to you when you do finally meet with death, and your beliefs provide a certain amount of comfort and temporary relief from your anxiety. IOW, such beliefs create a model of security for us. Death is the big un-doer of our life on Earth, and for most of us, that is a hard pill to swallow. But what that fear signifies is that we are not living in our true nature; instead we allow our ego to create these props. Why? Because the ego never wants to die; it wants to go on forever so that it can continue to enjoy being adored, praised, and stroked. Our true nature does not require any of that superficial nonsense, because it is already beyond both praise and blame. My question for you at this point is this: Why would you wish to carry even a single speck of your current identity into Paradise? Do we want to continue driving the old jalopy, wheezing and coughing, in Paradise, or do we want to savor the thrill of a fabulous ride in our new Rolls-Royce?

Yeshu taught us the parable of the Lilies of the Field, otherwise known as the Wisdom of Insecurity. He told us not to worry about the morrow, as the morrow will take care of itself. When we are overly concerned with the afterlife, we lose sight of the priceless gift that we have at our disposal in the current moment, and we forget to live our lives now. We end up a nervous wreck, never being fully alive and present, with our minds always either fixated on the dead past or in the still non-existent future. We essentially cheat ourselves out of our lives. When we pay attention to what is going on now, the future will take care of itself without us having to intervene. But when we dam up life with too many security devices, life becomes dead and artificial, so we are always thinking there must be something better beyond this life. In actuality, we don't really know of any such time or place. What we know for certain is right under our nose all the time. It is a matter of gently shifting our attention always back to this Eternal Present Moment. If you cannot find Eternity in the Present Moment, where do you expect to find it?
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
You do not, in actuality, know for certain that any of the above is true. You only believe them to be true, but will not actually be verified until you pass through the door of death itself. I think you WANT it to be true because it provides an answer for the fact that your not-knowing creates a certain amount of anxiety about what is going to happen to you when you do finally meet with death, and your beliefs provide a certain amount of comfort and temporary relief from your anxiety.


im not sure if thats true for me seeing i dont fear death. I dont believe we experience anything after death.... death is like being asleep. Its a state of unconsciousness so there is nothing whatsoever to be scared of.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all,...'


IOW, such beliefs create a model of security for us. Death is the big un-doer of our life on Earth, and for most of us, that is a hard pill to swallow. But what that fear signifies is that we are not living in our true nature; instead we allow our ego to create these props. Why? Because the ego never wants to die; it wants to go on forever so that it can continue to enjoy being adored, praised, and stroked. Our true nature does not require any of that superficial nonsense, because it is already beyond both praise and blame. My question for you at this point is this: Why would you wish to carry even a single speck of your current identity into Paradise? Do we want to continue driving the old jalopy, wheezing and coughing, in Paradise, or do we want to savor the thrill of a fabulous ride in our new Rolls-Royce?

God created us to be unique, physical individuals....we are supposed to be who we are and i wouldnt want to change one spec of who i am... except for my flaws of course.

We all have unique skills and talents and this earth is a very large place with so much opportunity to explore and grow....i want to experience every peice of it and i wont experience any of it if im not here in the body i've been created in. I dont want that to change.... i just want the world to change. ;)
 
Top