Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 4:22:12 GMT -5
But Bible is not talking about Impersonal, they are talking God as multiple persons in the first two books, New Testament people are confusing this with Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit. Read something in passing a few years back, that the "Celts" held triads to be somehow important or sacred, something about a "law of three". As you might know, the "Celts" were the Romans primary early enemy, and the Romans tried to assimilate them to various degree of success in Gaul and Britain. Just as there are some hints that the Christians incorporated Northern European paganism into the dates and characteristics of their yearly rituals (Halloween, Christmas and Easter), this "law of three" might be a hint as to the origin of the trinity. Another thing to consider about the trinity: (Perceiver, Perceived, Witness). Trinity is the false logic derived from Bible, this hasn't happened at one single day, this was the result of a long process and it has been concluded in Nicene Creed. Jesus was made God in trinity!
But the thing which came from paganism was 'virgin birth'. Those days greeks god believed to have born of a Virgin so God incarnation was commonly believed in those era and that always happened via virgin, that's commonly believed in paganism which was incorporated by Later Christians(Matthew and Luke).
Infact Paul doesn't believe any such virgin birth which was written at 48-52 AD and very early writing of all Bible books. When Mark was writing, there was no virgin birth which happened on 70AD, but when matthew and Luke writes(80AD), there came a virgin birth. Why they are in need of a virgin birth but Paul doesn't need such a virgin is completely another interesting story. But virgin birth came from paganism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 4:22:40 GMT -5
But Bible is not talking about Impersonal, they are talking God as multiple persons in the first two books, New Testament people are confusing this with Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit. It's not multiple persons, it's multiple perspectives. Though perhaps that challenges your view that other perspective can't be proven. This has nothing to do with bible.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2022 8:30:41 GMT -5
Read something in passing a few years back, that the "Celts" held triads to be somehow important or sacred, something about a "law of three". As you might know, the "Celts" were the Romans primary early enemy, and the Romans tried to assimilate them to various degree of success in Gaul and Britain. Just as there are some hints that the Christians incorporated Northern European paganism into the dates and characteristics of their yearly rituals (Halloween, Christmas and Easter), this "law of three" might be a hint as to the origin of the trinity. Another thing to consider about the trinity: (Perceiver, Perceived, Witness). Trinity is the false logic derived from Bible, this hasn't happened at one single day, this was the result of a long process and it has been concluded in Nicene Creed. Jesus was made God in trinity!
But the thing which came from paganism was 'virgin birth'. Those days greeks god believed to have born of a Virgin so God incarnation was commonly believed in those era and that always happened via virgin, that's commonly believed in paganism which was incorporated by Later Christians(Matthew and Luke). Infact Paul doesn't believe any such virgin birth which was written at 48-52 AD and very early writing of all Bible books. When Mark was writing, there was no virgin birth which happened on 70AD, but when matthew and Luke writes(80AD), there came a virgin birth. Why they are in need of a virgin birth but Paul doesn't need such a virgin is completely another interesting story. But virgin birth came from paganism.
Not all historical influences were written down directly as they were happening. Some are more subtle, more along the lines of a collective subconscious. This isn't to dispute your interpretation of the trinity, btw. In your terms, going with your conclusion, what I'm suggesting is a possible underlying source of the "false logic". Why did the bishops at Nicea read the triad into the bible? Who were those bishops, where did they come from? What old legends might have influenced them along those lines? Why would the divinity of Jesus require a trinity? Why not just a duality of the Father and the Son?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 12:05:20 GMT -5
Trinity is the false logic derived from Bible, this hasn't happened at one single day, this was the result of a long process and it has been concluded in Nicene Creed. Jesus was made God in trinity!
But the thing which came from paganism was 'virgin birth'. Those days greeks god believed to have born of a Virgin so God incarnation was commonly believed in those era and that always happened via virgin, that's commonly believed in paganism which was incorporated by Later Christians(Matthew and Luke). Infact Paul doesn't believe any such virgin birth which was written at 48-52 AD and very early writing of all Bible books. When Mark was writing, there was no virgin birth which happened on 70AD, but when matthew and Luke writes(80AD), there came a virgin birth. Why they are in need of a virgin birth but Paul doesn't need such a virgin is completely another interesting story. But virgin birth came from paganism.
Not all historical influences were written down directly as they were happening. Some are more subtle, more along the lines of a collective subconscious. This isn't to dispute your interpretation of the trinity, btw. In your terms, going with your conclusion, what I'm suggesting is a possible underlying source of the "false logic". Why did the bishops at Nicea read the triad into the bible? Who were those bishops, where did they come from? What old legends might have influenced them along those lines? Why would the divinity of Jesus require a trinity? Why not just a duality of the Father and the Son? I will come to this tomorrow. It all happened because of Clergyman Arius.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 14:24:02 GMT -5
It's not multiple persons, it's multiple perspectives. Though perhaps that challenges your view that other perspective can't be proven. This has nothing to do with bible. If the The Genesis Story is representative of the emerging evolution of individual consciousness then the 'Us' that the Lord God was speaking of in 3:22, was the Collective Consciousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 14:32:01 GMT -5
Trinity is the false logic derived from Bible, this hasn't happened at one single day, this was the result of a long process and it has been concluded in Nicene Creed. Jesus was made God in trinity!
But the thing which came from paganism was 'virgin birth'. Those days greeks god believed to have born of a Virgin so God incarnation was commonly believed in those era and that always happened via virgin, that's commonly believed in paganism which was incorporated by Later Christians(Matthew and Luke). Infact Paul doesn't believe any such virgin birth which was written at 48-52 AD and very early writing of all Bible books. When Mark was writing, there was no virgin birth which happened on 70AD, but when matthew and Luke writes(80AD), there came a virgin birth. Why they are in need of a virgin birth but Paul doesn't need such a virgin is completely another interesting story. But virgin birth came from paganism.
Not all historical influences were written down directly as they were happening. Some are more subtle, more along the lines of a collective subconscious. This isn't to dispute your interpretation of the trinity, btw. In your terms, going with your conclusion, what I'm suggesting is a possible underlying source of the "false logic". Why did the bishops at Nicea read the triad into the bible? Who were those bishops, where did they come from? What old legends might have influenced them along those lines? Why would the divinity of Jesus require a trinity? Why not just a duality of the Father and the Son?Because the fusion of Cosmic Intelligence (the Father) and Earthly existence (the Son) unavoidably, gives rise to the Tao. It was this primordial Way, that was renamed the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 10, 2022 16:06:10 GMT -5
Not all historical influences were written down directly as they were happening. Some are more subtle, more along the lines of a collective subconscious. This isn't to dispute your interpretation of the trinity, btw. In your terms, going with your conclusion, what I'm suggesting is a possible underlying source of the "false logic". Why did the bishops at Nicea read the triad into the bible? Who were those bishops, where did they come from? What old legends might have influenced them along those lines? Why would the divinity of Jesus require a trinity? Why not just a duality of the Father and the Son?Because the fusion of Cosmic Intelligence (the Father) and Earthly existence (the Son) unavoidably, gives rise to the Tao. It was this primordial Way, that was renamed the Holy Spirit. You may be right, but I'm not so sure about that. During a CC in 1984 something happened that I've never previously written about because it's even harder to describe or explain than anything else that happened that day. At one point during the CC there was awareness of a wispy but physically intangible something (almost like an alive transparent and intelligent smoke) that seemed to be moving/curling through and around the room that I was standing in. I have no idea what it was, but later, as I remembered the sequence of events that transpired that day, I wondered if that aspect of what was sensed during the CC was what Christian mystics might have referred to as "a Holy Spirit?" So many strange things happened during the CC that when I wrote about what happened that day, I left that aspect out--probably because it was so vague and indeterminate. If early Christian mystics experienced something similar during CC-type events, some of them might well have named this aspect of such a happening "a Holy Spirit." There was already the apprehension of something infinite and utterly incomprehensible, as well as the sense that all of reality is a living intelligent presence that cares about every aspect of Itself, so this was only a minor aspect of the CC in relation to everything else. Nevertheless, I can see how someone with a more traditional religious outlook might call that wispy something "a Holy Spirit." Today, after having had all kinds of non-dual experiences ("events" is probably a more accurate term because there is no separate experiencer of such things) and insights over the last 38+ years, it's obvious that there is only THIS, and that any sense of twoness or otherness is just an illusion created by the intellect. Words like "God," "Holy Spirit," "THIS", etc. are intellectual distinctions that all point to something vast and ungraspable by the human mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 10, 2022 20:55:52 GMT -5
Because the fusion of Cosmic Intelligence (the Father) and Earthly existence (the Son) unavoidably, gives rise to the Tao. It was this primordial Way, that was renamed the Holy Spirit. You may be right, but I'm not so sure about that. During a CC in 1984 something happened that I've never previously written about because it's even harder to describe or explain than anything else that happened that day. At one point during the CC there was awareness of a wispy but physically intangible something (almost like an alive transparent and intelligent smoke) that seemed to be moving/curling through and around the room that I was standing in. I have no idea what it was, but later, as I remembered the sequence of events that transpired that day, I wondered if that aspect of what was sensed during the CC was what Christian mystics might have referred to as "a Holy Spirit?" So many strange things happened during the CC that when I wrote about what happened that day, I left that aspect out--probably because it was so vague and indeterminate. If early Christian mystics experienced something similar during CC-type events, some of them might well have named this aspect of such a happening "a Holy Spirit." There was already the apprehension of something infinite and utterly incomprehensible, as well as the sense that all of reality is a living intelligent presence that cares about every aspect of Itself, so this was only a minor aspect of the CC in relation to everything else. Nevertheless, I can see how someone with a more traditional religious outlook might call that wispy something "a Holy Spirit." Today, after having had all kinds of non-dual experiences ("events" is probably a more accurate term because there is no separate experiencer of such things) and insights over the last 38+ years, it's obvious that there is only THIS, and that any sense of twoness or otherness is just an illusion created by the intellect. Words like "God," "Holy Spirit," "THIS", etc. are intellectual distinctions that all point to something vast and ungraspable by the human mind. Or maybe it was an old Druid that had a CC so the ancient Brits liked 3. I get the impression from what little I know about them that precipitating CC's was part of older, what we might call indigenous cultures today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 4:33:50 GMT -5
Trinity is the false logic derived from Bible, this hasn't happened at one single day, this was the result of a long process and it has been concluded in Nicene Creed. Jesus was made God in trinity!
But the thing which came from paganism was 'virgin birth'. Those days greeks god believed to have born of a Virgin so God incarnation was commonly believed in those era and that always happened via virgin, that's commonly believed in paganism which was incorporated by Later Christians(Matthew and Luke). Infact Paul doesn't believe any such virgin birth which was written at 48-52 AD and very early writing of all Bible books. When Mark was writing, there was no virgin birth which happened on 70AD, but when matthew and Luke writes(80AD), there came a virgin birth. Why they are in need of a virgin birth but Paul doesn't need such a virgin is completely another interesting story. But virgin birth came from paganism.
Not all historical influences were written down directly as they were happening. Some are more subtle, more along the lines of a collective subconscious. This isn't to dispute your interpretation of the trinity, btw. In your terms, going with your conclusion, what I'm suggesting is a possible underlying source of the "false logic". Why did the bishops at Nicea read the triad into the bible? Who were those bishops, where did they come from? What old legends might have influenced them along those lines? Why would the divinity of Jesus require a trinity? Why not just a duality of the Father and the Son?
Jesus died on 30AD and Paul has completed all his writings on 52AD and Mark at 70AD and Matthew and Luke completed their writings on 80AD, None of these books haven't created any such confusion regarding Jesus being God or not, they are very clear that Jesus as son of God. Except that Paul did believe Messiah was the preexistence being. But none of these writers believed that Jesus is God or any sort of things. At 90AD John started his writings, it ended at 120AD. Here is where the real confusion comes, He writes some lines as if Jesus is God, but still it is not sure whether he believes in such thing because he is very clear in John 17 : 3 that Only Father is God.
The above paragraph was the story about what happened after Jesus died. Now people started confusing themselves as Jesus as God or son of God only. That time, there exists multiple version as Jesus is God, Jesus is not God, Jesus is only son of God. There was a clergy man named Arius he was preaching Jesus was just the son of God not God himself. So new creed arises to solve this arian controversy, and that's what named as nicene creed, Clergyman Alexander from Alexandria the bishop of the time went to craft the Nicene Creed to bring the new clarity that there Jesus is within that One God. And from then on Arian's doctrines were marked as heresy. This is the way trinity came into being.
Because they would like make Jesus as god because John writes such thing and also at the same time they can't violate the main principle of Jewish as God being one. So they bring the new theory One God but three person. And they started pointing out 'us' in the Genesis to say that that 'us' include Jesus there but in fact, those text are taken from Elohist as I said earlier. The Status of God is only to the one who is uncreated so they brought the new truth of Jesus as the same nature of Father co-exist with him eternally.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2022 14:06:14 GMT -5
Not all historical influences were written down directly as they were happening. Some are more subtle, more along the lines of a collective subconscious. This isn't to dispute your interpretation of the trinity, btw. In your terms, going with your conclusion, what I'm suggesting is a possible underlying source of the "false logic". Why did the bishops at Nicea read the triad into the bible? Who were those bishops, where did they come from? What old legends might have influenced them along those lines? Why would the divinity of Jesus require a trinity? Why not just a duality of the Father and the Son? Jesus died on 30AD and Paul has completed all his writings on 52AD and Mark at 70AD and Matthew and Luke completed their writings on 80AD, None of these books haven't created any such confusion regarding Jesus being God or not, they are very clear that Jesus as son of God. Except that Paul did believe Messiah was the preexistence being. But none of these writers believed that Jesus is God or any sort of things. At 90AD John started his writings, it ended at 120AD. Here is where the real confusion comes, He writes some lines as if Jesus is God, but still it is not sure whether he believes in such thing because he is very clear in John 17 : 3 that Only Father is God.
The above paragraph was the story about what happened after Jesus died. Now people started confusing themselves as Jesus as God or son of God only. That time, there exists multiple version as Jesus is God, Jesus is not God, Jesus is only son of God. There was a clergy man named Arius he was preaching Jesus was just the son of God not God himself. So new creed arises to solve this arian controversy, and that's what named as nicene creed, Clergyman Alexander from Alexandria the bishop of the time went to craft the Nicene Creed to bring the new clarity that there Jesus is within that One God. And from then on Arian's doctrines were marked as heresy. This is the way trinity came into being. Because they would like make Jesus as god because John writes such thing and also at the same time they can't violate the main principle of Jewish as God being one. So they bring the new theory One God but three person. And they started pointing out 'us' in the Genesis to say that that 'us' include Jesus there but in fact, those text are taken from Elohist as I said earlier. The Status of God is only to the one who is uncreated so they brought the new truth of Jesus as the same nature of Father co-exist with him eternally.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I'd heard about the Arian heresy before in reading about the Goths, didn't know the origin of it. Now, perhaps I'm missing something, but this still doesn't explain to me the need for a triad, as what you've written about here seems to me to only implicate the duality of the Father and the Son. Why did they need three? Hey, thought you might be interested in this guy. He's a character in his costume there, but this vid has the most facts crammed into it I've encountered and his reasoning seems to me quite disciplined. Interested in what you might think.
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 11, 2022 16:43:27 GMT -5
I would say there is an end to reverse engineering one's egoic structure, and this can take place because consciousness can be gained of the thinking mind's capacity for unconscious programming. You are consciousness, so awakening is the loss of identification, and to the extent you are not in the process of compartmentalized emotion, is to the same extent lots of other stuff is going out the window. I also posit this 'end' to reverse compartmentalization should roll over into the collective engine and create a ripple of reverse compartmentalization there as well, which may very well explain my passing interest in discussing human origin. If for nothing else, the inability to exist within a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship. What happens to people when they are addicted to 'you' and 'you' go away? Nevertheless, life goes on. Is "the loss of identification" the ending of the self? There would still be an observer and one is that until the body dies.
I would appreciate your clarification of what you mean by "loss of identification".
(My post above was in response to Full Member. Looks like I placed what he said into laughter's box I amnew here and still trying to figure out how this works. Sorry.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 18:30:30 GMT -5
Jesus died on 30AD and Paul has completed all his writings on 52AD and Mark at 70AD and Matthew and Luke completed their writings on 80AD, None of these books haven't created any such confusion regarding Jesus being God or not, they are very clear that Jesus as son of God. Except that Paul did believe Messiah was the preexistence being. But none of these writers believed that Jesus is God or any sort of things. At 90AD John started his writings, it ended at 120AD. Here is where the real confusion comes, He writes some lines as if Jesus is God, but still it is not sure whether he believes in such thing because he is very clear in John 17 : 3 that Only Father is God.
The above paragraph was the story about what happened after Jesus died. Now people started confusing themselves as Jesus as God or son of God only. That time, there exists multiple version as Jesus is God, Jesus is not God, Jesus is only son of God. There was a clergy man named Arius he was preaching Jesus was just the son of God not God himself. So new creed arises to solve this arian controversy, and that's what named as nicene creed, Clergyman Alexander from Alexandria the bishop of the time went to craft the Nicene Creed to bring the new clarity that there Jesus is within that One God. And from then on Arian's doctrines were marked as heresy. This is the way trinity came into being. Because they would like make Jesus as god because John writes such thing and also at the same time they can't violate the main principle of Jewish as God being one. So they bring the new theory One God but three person. And they started pointing out 'us' in the Genesis to say that that 'us' include Jesus there but in fact, those text are taken from Elohist as I said earlier. The Status of God is only to the one who is uncreated so they brought the new truth of Jesus as the same nature of Father co-exist with him eternally.
Thanks for taking the time to write that. I'd heard about the Arian heresy before in reading about the Goths, didn't know the origin of it. Now, perhaps I'm missing something, but this still doesn't explain to me the need for a triad, as what you've written about here seems to me to only implicate the duality of the Father and the Son. Why did they need three? Hey, thought you might be interested in this guy. He's a character in his costume there, but this vid has the most facts crammed into it I've encountered and his reasoning seems to me quite disciplined. Interested in what you might think. Sure I will see the video and will get back, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 11, 2022 22:45:28 GMT -5
Nevertheless, life goes on. Is "the loss of identification" the ending of the self? There would still be an observer and one is that until the body dies. I would appreciate your clarification of what you mean by "loss of identification". (My post above was in response to Full Member. Looks like I placed what he said into laughter's box I amnew here and still trying to figure out how this works. Sorry.)
Common mistake, no worries.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 12, 2022 2:41:00 GMT -5
Nevertheless, life goes on. Is "the loss of identification" the ending of the self? There would still be an observer and one is that until the body dies. I would appreciate your clarification of what you mean by "loss of identification". (My post above was in response to Full Member. Looks like I placed what he said into laughter's box I amnew here and still trying to figure out how this works. Sorry.)
Welcome to the forum. The loss of identification is the loss of the sense of "me" as a separate volitional entity. Most people identify with a body, a name, and a story about what appears to be a personal history. This identity can be seen through, and when that happens, past self-referential thought patterns fall away and the "default mode neural network," which seems to be responsible for the sense of selfhood, shifts to what might be called "a unity-consciousness neural network." When this happens, the organism discovers the impersonal field of intelligence--Source--that is the actual observer and doer of whatever is seen or done. It is beyond name, form, thought, birth, and death.
|
|
|
Post by sree on May 12, 2022 11:28:25 GMT -5
Is "the loss of identification" the ending of the self? There would still be an observer and one is that until the body dies. I would appreciate your clarification of what you mean by "loss of identification". (My post above was in response to Full Member. Looks like I placed what he said into laughter's box I amnew here and still trying to figure out how this works. Sorry.)
Welcome to the forum. The loss of identification is the loss of the sense of "me" as a separate volitional entity. Most people identify with a body, a name, and a story about what appears to be a personal history. This identity can be seen through, and when that happens, past self-referential thought patterns fall away and the "default mode neural network," which seems to be responsible for the sense of selfhood, shifts to what might be called "a unity-consciousness neural network." When this happens, the organism discovers the impersonal field of intelligence--Source--that is the actual observer and doer of whatever is seen or done. It is beyond name, form, thought, birth, and death. Thank you for the welcome, zendancer.
The "neural network" is part of the scientific account of reality. Science says that we are biological organisms, human beings - with neural networks - living on Earth. You seem convinced that it is possible for the human organism to switch from a selfish personal neural network to a unity-consciousness neural network.
How does this unity-consciousness neural network inform perception that enables the individual human organism to fend for itself? Do space and time still exist for such a human organism that needs to be fed, clothed, and sheltered?
|
|