[8jIDXQ80]

dear friends,

jesus is a way cool dude, but to place my faith in a single "man..."

i don't think so...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xgy3ajbcs0

be well, be love.

david

[viagradiscounttt]

quite central to lynette's title for this thread, matherne includes:
"you, by virtue of reading this review of a set of lectures by rudolf steiner, may be thinking that this is like preaching to the choir — you know much of this already. but there are many people who have lost their way because the external sciences haven been systematically undermining the very basis of christ jesus's divinity. by using methods of history, archaeology, and anthropology they strive to convince people that he was but a human being, if he existed at all, and that his teachings are just one among many great teachings which may benefit gullible believers." nina
i feel that to say, "he was but a human being," whether one subscribes to this view or not, necessarily entails a concept of intrinsic separateness and differentiation of relative divinity.

throughout history, men have approached their understanding of their relationship with god in terms of the mundane and the ethereal, the sinner and the blameless, the creator and the creation, etc., and have built huge, complex edifices of thought in order to try and categorize and define in relative terms just what our relationship to god is.

this is all part of the growth and evolution of man, and is exactly as it should be - for man begins by seeing himself as a product of his environment; as a product of something much greater than himself. with this 'obvious' fact as a starting point, man sets about attempting to define his place in creation, and to find ways to honor the gods and incur their favor.

man sets up a priesthood, and imagines he now has a communications conduit to divinity. the priestly ruling class sets about the complex task of defining in relative terms the place of man in the cosmos, and also consolidates its power over the lowly commoner, claiming a higher pedigree, or closeness to divinity.

thus the stage is set for an almost infinite complexity of theology, all based upon the agreed-on premise that man has his place somewhere on the hierarchical ladder of creation, with the simple creatures of the world below him in importance, and with the unseen angelic realms and other higher principalities occupying offices of greater intrinsic virtue and god-worthiness.

above this ladder of creation hovers the creator who views his creation and leads the battle against evil - cutting down and burning all who rebel against the priestly concept of relative divinity, and rewarding those who, from the perspective of admission of their intrinsic unworthiness and unclean stature, worship their creator with fervor.

again, i feel this is nothing but demonstrative of an evolving humanity and the necessary growng pains of the human stage of self-awareness, and is exactly as it should be. you can't tell someone they are wrong for their beliefs, as their unfolding evolution and becoming stands upon those beliefs. there comes a time when a spiritual seeker feels a growing unease with his complex seas of ologies and osophies, and the relativism that allows for the concepts of greater or lesser degrees of divinity. he determines to leave behind fear, sensing that his fears in some way limit his apprehension of his own divinity. he refuses to heed the priestly warnings of damnation, if he should dare openly explore the concepts of his own intrinsic unworthiness. he instinctively senses that there exists a simpler spirituality, free of the demand to internalize that which he is authoritatively told that he must internalize - a spirituality with his own inner being as his only authority, and with himself as his only direct guide to what direction his path of evolution should take.

this is the point at which one may be able to comprehend the truth of one. for many, it is stunning in its simplicity and its ability to replace all the ologies and osophies in one clear moment of realization. in the law of one, there is only one consciousness, one life, one being. there is no relative divinity, because there is only one. manyness is a self-imposed state of illusion, to counter infinite yet static intelligence with dynamic yet confused experience. as an antidote to fear-based theology, one begins to realize that each part of the creation is the creator itself; the tiniest particle only seemingly separate, therefore literally being the creator. one quickly deduces that everything seemingly exterior to themselves, other people and live things and objects are each as divine or not divine as every other thing, as each is the creator in full.

then comes the big cathartic moment - one realizes that there is in effect only one soul, and every manifestation of life 'out' there is really they themselves, merely having a different experience. that little salamander, warming itself in the sun? that's you, literally, and the creator, literally, merely enjoying another form of experience. literally. no experience is any less or more valid than any other, as every experience is the creator, all experience together is the creator, no experience can be separated from the creator, and no experience is other than the experiencing of the creator. our little sunbathing salamander is not part of the creator, he is the creator.

this is absolutely simple, and when one has allowed the infinite complexities of relative thought to stand aside for a while, and begins to allow the total yet infinite simplicity of one to begin to trickle through their being, one begins to realize that they can no longer live in the same way as before; as they now see themselves in every other face, see the creator in every other face, see no intrinsic evil in the world; but rather, man's ongoing process of realizing the law of one, individually and collectively. mark

[esconsise]

[quote=lighteye;35352]dear friends,

jesus is a way cool dude, but to place my faith in a single "man..."
i don't think so...

of course not. jesus never said for people to do that.

it is his teachings that are important, that and his example as a perfected human being.

known as the great teacher, he took complex ideas and made them simple enough for the common man to understand.

so much "garbage" has been said and done in his "name", it's no wonder that so many people are completely turned off at the mere mention of him.

i have been dealing with this topic with many people for years now. happily, after explaining the whole mess and what he taught, most folks understand.

thank you jesus (and all the other messengers) for your service to mankind!!!!

peace,
(:-deeze

[LarryG1978]

mark i think you've hit the nail square on the head, thanks..............sylvain.................

[kilibry]

the important thing to remember about jesus is that he is the finger; not the moon.

he is the signpost, pointing the way home; if you ever want to get home again, you're going to have to walk past the signpost -- someday.

[MightyMasd]

smanny-i find those stories all just as interesting as the one of jesus, i feel that they all could of been the same soul. corse nothing is for sure, any more insight on what you think about this....

hi again, lynette and all,
it's certainly possible that these people were all the same soul, but not very likely, in my opinion. i think it's much more likely that they all embodied what you might call the "christ consciousness."

i think part of the problem is that people confuse "jesus, the man" with the christ consciousness, because the bible tells stories of both. "jesus the man" is probably the one who killed his playmate as a child; took up a whip and beat the crap out of the temple vendors, smashing up their tables and scattering their money everywhere; cursed and killed a fig tree because it didn't have enough figs when he was hungry, etc.

please, don't get me wrong, i have great respect for jesus the man, but as he said in acim, he came to earth to be a "prime example", but people treated him more like a "prime exception". remember, after he performed all his miracles he said "you shall do all these works, and more"

jesus the man, was however pure and holy enough to embody the christ consciousness, much in the same way as what we today call channelling, and it was from this perspective that he did most of his teaching.

what would you do if a soul group that called themselves ra showed up with a spacecraft and told you they were here to take you to your safe haven from the wrath of earths sol? would you go?
heck no! i would run away as fast as i could!

ty for this. this is what i worry about. i worry there could be a massive fleet coming to gain something out of taking humans to a safe place. but, do you realize, how many people would be scared by this and think it was the way out... yes indeed, it has been rumored for many years that the ptb intended to use this as a form of entrapment/enslavement. fyi, the ra i know doesn't fly a spacecraft anymore and they don't go around saving people; another reason i'd run and hide, if someone calling themself ra came to 'save' me.

..i just cant understand why my family has had so many visions that pertain to this 'jesus'....and if it wasn't jesus, then there is a wondrous light being that has been visiting my family if you will....when my brother dies years ago, this was my mothers first vision...she saw her son walking off with a light being, she claimed it to of been jesus.

i remember reading in the seth books where seth was the spirit guide for some people. he said "i often had to take on the image of jesus, because otherwise they would be frightened, or they might think i was an evil spirit." this could very well have been their spirit guide, because they often appear to us in whatever form we imagine divine guidance to have.

[GohJHM9k]

dear supermanny,
i was puzzled by this too. if you search for "cursing fig tree" you will find many references (i liked this related elaboration),fr "as above, so below" ch , p.3, in smith's "david's question" - nina

http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com
"let us see how this insight can clarify a certain passage of scripture (2 k 20,1-11; see also is 38) that has remained obscure to theologians to this day. in addition to "shadow," one should be aware of two other terms, "third day" and "figs." briefly speaking, "third day" means the time when something spiritually important will happen (see the discussion of jn 2,1 in the burning bush, p. 140). "figs" often refers to initiation into the ancient mysteries. we often read the phrase "under the tree." for now, the reader can best think of it in connection with christ's cursing of the fig tree (mt 21,18-22; mk 11,12-14,20-24). without understanding what was meant, this story has also been a puzzle to theologians until this very day. what is meant by it is that christ was bringing in a new method of initiation. the old method of the "three days' journey" (see the burning bush) was passing away, never again to produce fruit (jn 1,45-51 and lk 13,6-9). the story of buddha gaining enlightenment "under the bodhi tree" is illustrative of this point in the bible. when one reaches the level of spiritual insight represented by having attained enlightenment "under the tree," one can go back in his or her "house" (soul) and see the karma there from prior incarnations. for instance, the "illness" in one's life normally stems from this.

the passage from second kings reads (rsv; emphasis mine):

1 in those days hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. and isaiah the prophet the son of amoz came to him, and said to him, "thus says the lord, 'set your house in order; for you shall die, you shall not recover.'" 2 then hezekiah turned his face to the wall, and prayed to the lord, saying, 3 "remember now, o lord, i beseech thee, how i have walked before thee in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in thy sight." and hezekiah wept bitterly. 4 and before isaiah had gone out of the middle court, the word of the lord came to him: 5 "turn back, and say to hezekiah the prince of my people, thus says the lord, the god of david your father: i have heard your prayer, i have seen your tears; behold i will heal you; on the third day you shall go up to the house of the lord. 6 and i will add fifteen years to your life. i will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of assyria, and i will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant david's sake." 7 and isaiah said, "bring a cake of figs. and let them take and lay it on the boil, that he may recover."

8 and hezekiah said to isaiah, "what shall be the sign that the lord will heal me, and that i shall go up to the house of the lord on the third day?" 9 and isaiah said, "this is the sign to you from the lord, that the lord will do the thing that he has promised: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps?" 10 and hezekiah answered, "it is an easy thing for the shadow to lengthen ten steps; rather let the shadow go back ten steps." 11 and isaiah the prophet cried to the lord; and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which the sun had declined on the dial of ahaz.

in this light, one is warranted in seeing that hezekiah was enabled by the spiritual guidance of isaiah to look back into his own karmic past and there to foresee what faced him still.18 in the verses that immediately follow, it is said that all that was in the "house" of hezekiah was revealed, meaning all of his karmic picture or "destiny."

[GohJHM9k]

hello everyone,
i started "christ jesus" thread to relay significant information which i feel is important to be aware of, concerning the two jesus children. i'd heard about it years ago but put it aside because cayce readings did not speak of it.(how could it be true?) i remained loyal to cayce readings. as i detailed, time presented opportunity for further study and i see much more that steiner revealed which was not given in the cayce readings.
this forum may not be designed to study cayce readings but a relationship w/ra as potential source of those readings is considered. i am sufficiently impressed that steiner was speaking the truth about the two children, which account for the discrepencies in gospels of luke and matthew. cayce readings claim that the different lineages given in those gospels are due to luke's jesus's line being from mary, and in matthew's, from joseph. bible claims both are jospeh's line which is what steiner claims and explains.
i cannot speculate why cayce readings said what they did. for me, it is a big deal. so, do i believe what ra says about jesus? i am more comfortable with steiner. he did provide interesting accounts of more about certain historical figures ra speaks of in his
"principles of spiritual economy" which will only share small excert here, from matherne's review :
http://www.doyletics.com/arj/tposervw.htm
"[page 19] the etheric and astral bodies of jesus of nazareth were multiplied and the copies preserved until they could be used in the course of human evolution. however, they were not bound up with this or that nationality or tribe. but when in the course of time a human being appeared who, irrespective of nationality, was mature and suitable enough to have his own etheric or astral body interwoven with a copy of the etheric or astral body of jesus of nazareth, then those bodies could be woven into that particular person's being. thus we see how it became possible in the course of time for all kinds of people to have copies of the astral or etheric body of jesus of nazareth woven into their souls. the intimate history of christian development is connected with this fact.

on pages 20 to 31 steiner details the progress of christianity through the physical, etheric, astral, and ego realms. in the early centuries after jesus christ walked the earth, the dissemination of christianity was bound up with physical impressions of jesus: personal memories, personal contacts, places he sat, etc. the need to link people back, one by one, till one arrived at peter, a companion of jesus, was deeply felt. by the time of st. augustine, the need for physical memories faded and a feeling welled up as a direct knowledge of the existence of christ. helping this process of direct knowing was the etheric bodies of christ that were extant in large numbers of people. proceeding from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries many copies of jesus's astral body had interwoven with important figures of christianity, such as francis of assisi. even though humans of assisi's time had egos capable of forming lots of false ideas about things, the pervasive presence of the astral bodies of jesus of nazareth interwoven into the fabric of society left no doubt whatsoever about the existence of jesus and his holy truths. "

as matherne also shares therein, this info which was also not presented in the cayce readings(they did not identify lazarus as the author of revelation and gospel of john):
"previously an initiate who wished to be led to the christ spirit had to undergo a three and a half day test which involved being placed in a state of apparent death. this was the experience of lazarus, the great initiate and beloved disciple of jesus of nazareth, who later wrote the gospel of john and book of revelations in the bible. christ jesus was the teacher, the hierophant, that brought lazarus out of his death-like trance after three and one half days. the gospels are quite clear on the point that christ jesus was not concerned about lazarus's welfare when told that lazarus had died. "he is asleep," was his response. but for the mystery of golgotha, each of us would have to endure such a rigorous process in order to perceive the spiritual essence of christ. in our redemption, christ has made this test unnecessary for us by undergoing the process himself at a deeper level in the mystery of golgotha.

[page 65] the christ has liberated us from this three and a half day test, and it is through him that the exercises mentioned above have become possible without intercession by the hierophant. we see the first example of this in saul when he became paul. what happened to him on his way to damascus must be interpreted as something similar to an initiation.

st. paul first perceived the christ being directly shortly after the mystery of golgotha and proclaimed the good news that jesus of nazareth who had been crucified was the christ being whose progress towards earth had been perceived and proclaimed as far back as the original zarathustra in the ancient persian epoch. he was followed later by st. augustine in whom the etheric body of christ began to work and allowed him to become our "best interpreter of paul's letters." (page 67) next we find the astral body of christ woven into thomas aquinas due to a fortuitous circumstance.

[page 68] when thomas was a child, lightning struck nearby and killed his little sister. this seemingly purely physical event made him suitable to receive into his own astral body that of christ.

thomas aquinas came to earth during a time when the human reasoning power began to flourish due to influx from the powerful influence of arabism, "a truly intellectual science." with aquinas, "human thought rises to new heights." but there is one more great mind to be discussed and steiner naturally leaves that person out, and that one is rudolf steiner himself. he was to contain in one person the clairvoyance of paul, the direct feeling sense of augustine, the reasoning power of aquinas, and the ego of steiner to create a spiritual science suited for the modern world of the 20th century when the etheric body of christ is blooming on the earth exactly two thousands years after the mystery of golgotha. here is his own words he tells us what he was doing:

[page 69] today i have tried to show you how the liberation of the intellect was the first stage of christianity. this is only one leaf, but others will grow on the mighty plant of christianity, one after the other. the blossom will be the total beauty of the earth, renewed through christianity, and the fruit will be the new world for which today's earth is the preparation.

as christ taught, is still teaching, and will be teaching to the end, he can be found by those who seek him.

what can each of us do in our lives to further the blossoming of this flower we call earth." for me, all of the above has "practical value" - nina

[perpelverw]

i, too, have had to try to figure out how jesus fits into all the criteria i've learned from so many diverse sources over the past 30 years. thing is, the jesus we learned about in sunday school, the jesus of the bible, doesn't really fit into our modern times. but christ consciousness fits all ages. and we all have that within us as sort of a seed that needs to be nurtured so it can grow. we should respect that little light in ourselves and trust it. religions have put into us a great fear of failure to please a wrathful god. it's very difficult to overcome this fear and all the warnings in the bible of "sheep in wolve's clothing" etc., but once you recognize and face it, it diminishes so you can go forward and grow in discernment and grace. even the name jesus is skewed in that the baby in the manger was name immanuel, not jesus. jax

[8jIDXQ80]

dear djdeeze and friends,

seems like it's time for a sunday school re-minder and i'm not being condescending, but for those who have forgotten what scripture says i hate to burst your or others bubble, but jesus was very clear in what one needed to do to be "saved."

http://bibleandquran.org/isjesusgod/ch3.htm

chapter 3 - jesus said "i am"

the absolute emphatic declaration, "i am" is the exact quality of the god of abraham which is described in exodus 3:14, where the words stand for the eternal person of yahweh. jesus declared that he existed even before abraham was. jesus is god, the yahweh of the old testament.

1. "i am" the way, the truth and the life

jesus said to him, "i am the way, the truth, and the life. no one comes to the father except through me." (john 14:6)

such my statement that i'm not going to "believe" in what "one" man says...

re-member though that i think that jesus is a way cool dude ;-)

be well.

david

[kilibry]

the tough thing about those passages is that they are usually understood as meaning that jesus the man, the little i am, was the only way. if jesus really was intermittently channeling the creator itself, we can't consistently interpret his words as being those spoken by a sub-sub-sub-logos, as ra would possibly put it.

the tough thing about all religious records, the bible included, is that they are invariably a mixture of positive messages and negative infiltration. thus a great deal of free will is preserved by allowing the reader chances to reconcile the inevitable contradictions in his or her own chosen way.

[Anakattawl]

thank you to all who took the time to help bring clarity on this topic. not sure exactly what i think yet, but its helped me not put emphasis on what writings say about individuals. bottom line is i do feel the christ consciousness, and that is what is important, that i know i can be a part of it. i hope others that have read this thread enjoyed the wise comments through this thread as much as i have.

peace to all,
lynette

[jincomplet]

dear djdeeze and friends,

seems like it's time for a sunday school re-minder and i'm not being condescending, but for those who have forgotten what scripture says i hate to burst your or others bubble, but jesus was very clear in what one needed to do to be "saved."

http://bibleandquran.org/isjesusgod/ch3.htm

chapter 3 - jesus said "i am"

the absolute emphatic declaration, "i am" is the exact quality of the god of abraham which is described in exodus 3:14, where the words stand for the eternal person of yahweh. jesus declared that he existed even before abraham was. jesus is god, the yahweh of the old testament.

1. "i am" the way, the truth and the life

jesus said to him, "i am the way, the truth, and the life. no one comes to the father except through me." (john 14:6)

such my statement that i'm not going to "believe" in what "one" man says...

re-member though that i think that jesus is a way cool dude ;-)

be well.

david

i have to start by saying, david, i think that the whole "burst your bubble" part was a little uncalled for. i think that was really being said there and the way it was said was for a specific reason.

"i am the way, to truth, and the life"

the way to "ascend" is by following his example, not to be him, but to live "righteously" and to treat others as yourself.

"no one comes to the father except through me."

to me one is very misleading. but if taken in simplest terms, as he was trying to do for the common man of his time, he was saying simply: you must reach enlightenment to reach the "godlike" state of understanding. i don't personally think he meant himself as much as he meant that you must reach his level of understanding.

now again those are my take on that specific quote. but as i have read throughout the 13th-16th century there were scribes who translated the original bible into english and we persecuted and killed for doing so. it wasn't until after king james had his scribes translate it that the english version came into existence. this seems pretty obvious to me that there was something other a direct translation done there. and therefore the quotes must be taken with a grain of salt and then interpreted by the individual. again this is kind of hard to do if you take into account the hypocritical and heavily negative parts of this book. just remember that fear is just as strong a feeling as love, and that fear is known as the preferred type of control. if you fear some higher being or if you fear that someone else makes judgment on you, you will be much easier to control and manipulate.

to be honest, i'm not sure that is jesus actually existed as the bible states, being that it is written by man and altered by a king, being that there are no historians of his time that spoke of. the closest mention is of "christ" or "christus" which only means "anointed one", never a mention of this "jesus christ". now i do believe that the idea of a christ being a living person is great, if taken lightly and only as a sign that all of us are able to reach this "christness".

well to close i must say thanks to all who put there perspective in on this thread, it is a subject in which i've wanted to speak on but never had a place to do so because of the controversialists of it. most places i try to speak my opinions of religion and jesus have been very negative and though i never want put down anyones beliefs i think that all should take a step back and try to take a look at the situation through an unbias or objective mind. not to say that i am completely unbias, but i can take almost any subject and see from any side of taking a logical stance depending of the person(s) i'm dealing with at the time.

but i will put it this way... take others input with a grain of salt, but be sure that you recognize this grain of salt as another part of your own understanding and own perception. though each grain is small it is very important to recognize it part of the whole "salt shaker".

thanks for everyones time and energy, it is appreciated more than you'll probably ever know.

[Rufio]

dear djdeeze and friends,

seems like it's time for a sunday school re-minder and i'm not being condescending, but for those who have forgotten what scripture says i hate to burst your or others bubble, but jesus was very clear in what one needed to do to be "saved."

http://bibleandquran.org/isjesusgod/ch3.htm

chapter 3 - jesus said "i am"

the absolute emphatic declaration, "i am" is the exact quality of the god of abraham which is described in exodus 3:14, where the words stand for the eternal person of yahweh. jesus declared that he existed even before abraham was. jesus is god, the yahweh of the old testament.

1. "i am" the way, the truth and the life

jesus said to him, "i am the way, the truth, and the life. no one comes to the father except through me." (john 14:6)

such my statement that i'm not going to "believe" in what "one" man says...

re-member though that i think that jesus is a way cool dude ;-)

be well.

david

even lots of christians will agree that john is chock-full of distortion.

historically speaking john was written by a far removed source who inserted not only his own interpretations, but also completely changed the words that were used by jesus.

john is the only book that says jesus is the *only* son of god for instance.

if we stop thumping john so hard and instead look to mark, most of these contradictions instantly go away. all historians agree that mark was written based on primary sources with the intention of accurately transcribing the life of jesus, while john was written by someone with heavy doctrinal education and an agenda to push.

[GohJHM9k]

dear yossarian,
i rave about smith's anthroposophical biblical interpretations for very valid reasons - they are incredible! nina
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com
he wrote an entire book called "the disciple whom jesus loved", from which this was taken:
"church tradition has always accepted the fact that it was written in ephesus by a very old man named john who lived there until his death. but for two thousand years the church has thrown up its hands, either accepting by default that zebedee john was its author or that its authorship is not really important. if the latter is true, then this book, which unveils that authorship, is a waste of time. i suggest to you that the time has come when it is important to know, and that the reason it is now important is that neither the gospel nor the bible in its entirety can be adequately understood for our time without it."
please see "background" chapter:
"...morton smith’s discovery of what is known as the secret gospel of mark2. theologians are well aware of this, but not of its significance. they generally recognize morton smith’s discovery as being an authentic letter from clement of alexandria3 that makes reference to the raising of a youth from the tomb—and though he is not named, they also recognize it describes lazarus. the great significance that they fail to appreciate, however, is that together with the revelations of steiner it shows us that lazarus is the so-called “rich, young ruler” of all three synoptic gospels. steiner unequivocally identified lazarus as the author, directly or indirectly, of the entire johannine corpus (including the apocalypse). and some prominent theologians, including no less than the late raymond e. brown, have included him among the possible authors of the gospel and first letter. but it was not till the last half of our century that this discovery by morton smith at the greek orthodox monastery of mar saba in the judean desert vindicated steiner’s assertions. at the same time it showed that lazarus was not only the evangelist but that he was recognized by the other three evangelists as pre-eminent among the disciples, as reflected by their including the account of him as the “rich, young ruler.” the anthroposophist andrew welburn, of oxford university, in his the beginnings of christianity,4 is, to the best of my knowledge, the first to have identified lazarus as the “rich, young ruler,” and he did so based upon the secret gospel of mark.

i must also suggest another major significance of the secret gospel of mark that theology has missed because it does not understand the nature of the raising of lazarus. it is that the secret gospel resolves the great mystery of who the young man was who followed jesus to gethsemane wearing nothing but a linen cloth and who was seized and fled away naked. only mark’s gospel tells of it (mk 14,51-52), as a consequence of which the traditional view has been that it could only describe mark himself. but now the secret gospel suggests that he too was lazarus/john, and not that he actually abandoned jesus, but that he was able to follow him in spiritual consciousness all the way to the cross. we shall see how this must be so as we examine the actual content of this new discovery."

please use the search function, as i did, and see from his burning bush,ch peter, james, and john, p.9:
"what now startles us in its clarity is that, in the light of what the “secret gospel of mark” shows us, mark’s gospel brings lazarus/john into the picture between these last two inadequacies of zebedee john, i.e., between the countervailing instruction about the man casting out demons in jesus’ name (mk 9,38-40), and the request for position of privilege (mk 10,35-45). enter he who, from all the synoptics, is now known as the “rich young ruler,” he who is clearly lazarus/john (mk 10,17-27). the portion of the “secret gospel” which tells about lazarus is recognized as belonging between verses 34 and 35 of the canonical mark 10. this is immediately before the zebedee request for privilege. the general order of all these events in the matthew account is similar to mark’s. typically, luke digresses therefrom, but he also includes the “rich young ruler” incident. it was something that was vital to all the gospels, but for a reason quite different from what has been assumed by conventional theology. the synoptics too were telling of the one who was to become the beloved disciple, only they were hiding it because humanity was not yet ready for the fullness of that knowledge. while steiner indicates that the evangelists got at least the substance of their accounts clairvoyantly, none of the gospels was written by one of the twelve (except insofar as the beloved disciple served as one of them as explained below). clearly mark and luke were not among the twelve. we show herein that zebedee john did not write john’s gospel. and even few scholars think that the apostle matthew/levi wrote the gospel. steiner has shown us that the gospel of matthew took its name because “everything presented in the early chapters of st. matthew’s gospel derives from the secrets taught by jeshua ben pandira among the essenes and subsequently propagated by his pupil mathai” (see “the nativity”; also gsmt, lect. 6, pp. 109-111). providence gave the evangelists the insight to write what was appropriate for the human condition both then and as it would evolve over time. the knowledge of lazarus/john as the beloved disciple was not something to be made known to all at that time. clement of alexandria clearly said so in his letter to theodore, which has surfaced only in the last half of this century to reveal the “secret gospel’s” existence. and who can quarrel with the observation that the highly initiated lazarus/john could have made his identity more explicit had it been appropriate to do so? it was he whose gospel gave us christ’s statement, “i have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. when the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (jn 16,12-13).

it is much to the credit of koenig that, following steiner’s teachings on the meaning of “loved,” he detected the subtle increase in zebedee john’s inadequacies and their relationship to the “rich young ruler” before the discovery of the “secret gospel” was revealed.

but long before peter went to sleep spiritually in the garden of gethsemane, and immediately after jesus said, referring to lazarus/john, that “all things are possible with god” (mk 10,27), we find peter also making something of a request for recognition, “lo, we have left everything and followed you” (mk 10,28). christ was beginning to perceive that even peter, as at the transfiguration (lk 9,32-33), would fail to remain spiritually awake through the events of golgotha. he began at this point to prepare lazarus/john, and he eventually told peter outright that he would deny him three times (mk 14,30). only lazarus/john followed him spiritually awake all the way, and jesus passed the mantle of highest spiritual insight to him from the cross (jn 19,25-27). "

[8jIDXQ80]

dear kerelious and friends,

jesus did indeed exist. here's some descriptions of the physical appearence of jesus from others than those who wrote the bible including pontius pilate.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likene...ur_saviour.htm

be well, be love.

david

[Oberjej]

i think the thing that people seem to miss about the christian doctrine is that it does say that. the message of salvation is very clear.. if you believe in your heart and speak from your mouth 'jesus is lord' then you are saved. i was absolutely assured of that when i was a christian, there was no doubt in my mind that i was saved, that i was washed in the blood of christ and that my salvation was assured. i mean, unless you've lived it, its hard to tell people exactly what it's like to be there.

the bible is also very anti-other view.... they do not encourage seeking outside of the faith at all. everything else is a deception from the devil and will lead you astray. you will suffer the wrath of god, become an immoral sinner and despot. i mean.. to read it it almost follows the idea of a cult, that is to convince people that you are right and every one else is wrong. in essence, the rest of the unsaved world is incapable of understanding the christian, because they are unsaved and without the holy spirit and thus will never understand the will of god.

now unfortunately we may never know exactly what jesus said or didn't say when it comes to the bible. i think it is neither here nor there, again its looking outside yourself for information on how to 'be' when the truth in it all is simply to 'be' and nothing more. enjoy your life, love yourself and through that loving learn to accept and love others. we are perfect as god's seperate parts, perfect and whole with the illusion of seperatness and lacking. when i decided to leave the idea that christianity was the only truth and the only life i went around looking. i was very cautious, i prayed for protection and to help me find the truth. while i feel i am closer to the truth now, i have come to terms with the ambiguity of it all. nothing is concrete and i'm left with more questions than answers.. but i'm ok with that now, it's a place of creativity where i can come to my own conclusions and explore the options without feeling hindered or hampered in any way.

when people talk about jesus as being a good teacher, i think they are talking about some of the more honorable things he mentions in his life. "there is no love greater than a man who gives his life for his brother." and "if you are struck, then turn and offer him the other cheek." and "there is no law greater than this. love the lord thy god with all your heart and soul, and love thy neighbor as yourself." these embrace the concepts of love.. an unconditional love that is willing to sacrifice all for the sake of nothing more than the opportunity to love. thats a hard thing to do.

i sometimes think that in order to become a perfect christian, i had to stop being a christian... irony is sweet some times.

[BJEugene]

i'd say that jesus is, well, a wonderful example of one who sacrificed himself to show what the meaning of love was.

with that, i suggest that you do a search engine lookup for both these:

gospel of thomas
gospel of mary magdalene

if you read the law of one, and then read the above, you will find that jesus is talking about 4th density - and everything he talks about - particularly in the gospel of thomas, refers to wanderers, spiritual awakening and earth changes.

the early church fathers excluded these books from the new testament in ignorance. in reading these two gospels, they may not make sense initially because they are not like the ones the church fathers did include. i think they tampered with these gospels that they did include.

but back to the point, the gospels of thomas and mary magdalene are better understood, or best understood, after a reading of the ra material first.

when you do so, as i did, i instantly grasped the significance of these two gospels - they refer to the cosmos and 4th density on earth. it's the only way that these excluded gospels make sense.

it's quite clear to me why jesus was here, and why the importance of what he said here.

by the way, ra didn't say that jesus was unimportant. that is probably your interpretation of things.

i hope that this post has been of service to you.

[GohJHM9k]

dear ewhaz,
i think it is the interpretation of the bible that is problematic. wanted to pass on this from matherne review on smith's "david's question":
http://www.doyletics.com
"the final term to be dealt with before the title question "what is man?" is blood. what is this red liquid that flows in our arteries and veins, this "life's blood" which we know that we can not live without? smith's chapter blood spans almost one hundred pages, which is what he means when he suggests we "pause and reflect deeply" in the quoted passage below. one can only read the entire corpus of steiner's written work to get more information than that which smith has extracted for us on the subject of "blood" in his penultimate chapter. certainly reading the brief summary of his material on blood in this review will not suffice.

[page 317] because warm blood, like the fire it nurtures, is, in a very real sense, where heaven and earth meet -- the agent of the soul, the patron of the heart, the altar upon which the soul and the christ are wed -- we dare not deal with it too lightly and miss its immense significance. we would be presumptuous to believe we here lay bare all of its wonderful mysteries. but rudolf steiner has made available such a wealth of insight on the subject that we must not be remiss in our undertaking out of the desire for an unjustifiable brevity. so let us here pause and reflect deeply." ....

also,
"how have things changed for humanity since the mystery of golgotha during which the blood of the living christ flowed into the earth to remain there in etherized form for all time? it has become possible for "the activity of the etheric blood of christ to flow together with the streaming from below upward, from heart to head." but this union of flowing does not happen automatically, it requires conscious cooperation by the individual. [the passage below is from reappearance of christ in the etheric by rudolf steiner.]....

smith ends the blood chapter by explaining how the second coming of christ -- when "he will come again in glory," a clear reference to a re-appearance in a glorified or etheric body -- has occurred already in the 20th century, to those who have "unfolded true understanding".

[page 389] we have now reached the moment in time when the etheric christ enters into the life of the earth and will become visible, at first to a small number of people, through a natural clairvoyance. then in the course of the next 3,000 years, he will become visible to greater and greater numbers of people."

i did find the "blood" chapter especially worthwhile.
http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com

what you wrote about jesus having been a good teacher, reminds me of words c.s. lewis wrote:
"but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. he has not left that open to us. he did not intend to."
fr "mere christianity".
can echo what matherne shared:
"if i may paraphrase slightly what smith said in his preamble to blood on page 317 (see above), "we would be presumptuous to believe that we here lay bare all of the mysteries of the world." in this review, we have looked briefly at only some of the points that smith raised, clarified, and annotated in his research into david's question of "what is man?" if someone wishes to pause and reflect deeply into the matters i have raised here, certainly a complete study of smith's book is a minimum investment of time and money that one should make. if someone would take a personal meditative journey into the bible to investigate "what is man?", smith's book would certainly be a useful roadmap to take along on that journey."
gained a much better understanding of what it might mean to be "washed in the blood of the lamb". nina

[Oberjej]

i'm not talking about the esoteric version of christianity here.. i'm talking about the mass media accepted version, ie to be saved, you must believe and accept christ as your savior.

all of this puts something between you and god.. they use the term 'christ+
consciousness' but in truth it is simply the consciousness he showed us how to achieve. it could also be called a buddah consciousness, or any one else who's achieved a state of enlightenment.

to say that you need some one else's consciousness implies that your's is not enough.

to say that you need some one else's salvation implies you are less than perfect.

to say you need something outside yourself implies that your lacking something inside and will never ever be able to achieve it on your own. that is the trap!

don't put anything between you and what you want to achieve. having said that, my time as a christian was so important in my development. if some one should choose to do that, i fully support it! it is their choice and should they find that faith to be beneficial to them, by all means do so. feel free to reject anything i say, lest i sway some one without meaning too. i'm only speaking of my own experiences. in the end we realize there is no right or wrong thing to do.. with the exception of doing nothing. we walk the path and we learn from it. and when we come out on the other side we are better for it.

so i guess back to the original question, is jesus important? it depends entirely up to the individual to choose for themselves. for me, jesus is important to remind me of where i came from. for others, he may have yet many things to teach them. the important thing is to feel absolutely sure of what your doing. no doubting the path, just follow it, rough or smooth, good or bad, your path is your path, you wouldn't be following it if you didn't need something on that path.