[WenPyclenoWex]

i'm sorry, but i had to repost this question as a new post. the previous post i made was at 2am in the morning and i didn't realize until now that the question i was asking made no sense. lol i was asking why jesus didn't save himself....i was really trying to say why didn't he use his powers to do what ever he wanted....but i guess the other post answered why he died...something to do with lileth...but that wasn't my actualy question lol please bear with me, i wasn't quite myself earlier, it was so early in the morning lol

here is my actual question:

what did jesus mean when he said that the son of man can do nothing of himself except for what he sees his father do?

[johnbeller]

here's a weird way of looking at it. the son of man ( the ego ) can do nothing of himself, having no true freedom of creation since it's manifestations comes from suggestions put forth by the father figure ( the ones pulling the strings )

man would be the selfhood ( godself ) that we, as ego, tend to separate from and try to give meaning to, outside of ourselves. hence, religions and the new age movement.

if we would surrender control, responsibility and fill those godself-hood shoes, we would not need to follow any suggestions, we would be free to simply be our true-selves

i beleive that the awakened self is what we have been anticipating and humanity is about to awaken on a global scale, what a time to be :d..........................sylvain............... ..............

[WenPyclenoWex]

makes sense and now that i think of it jesus did say that he and his father are one (he's in the father and the father in him). he also told thomas if you have seen him, you've seen the father. another interesting thing behind this is this teaching that man can't do anything of himself by what he sees his father god do is that it parallels many other teachings i've heard (elsewhere) that we become what we behold and that you can know who someone's friends and ultimately god through people. the reason most people don't believe in god because they don't see many people one with god.

concerning the concept of looking inward for god though, i think it's easy to forget to empty ourselves of all prejudices of what one thinks god is and let god be who he is in us. god's spirit of life is all in us and had given us all the ability to feel and reason to make wise decisions willfully (it's by faith).

we all have this underestimated potential to live the the life of god, but we don't always use the abilities god has given us. i think this is because we've gotten ourselves all tangled up in this ego-world of guilt and fear and sometimes we suppress it by not forgiving ourselves and each other. in a sense this ego is a false "god" me made of ourselves and some (even "christians") have held on to this false god who they claimed saved them.

it's understandable for those who are like god (a life of god) to call one's self god because they are one with god and when people see you they see god, but i doing that confuses people because there are many people, even christians that may "call themselves god" but are nothing like god at all, thus they become a stumbling block to others who seek god and then it makes atheists out of people (yet i think even atheists deep with in their heart believe there has to be a "god", but they just don't believe in the one that most theists have). this is why i'm no pantheist and i wouldn't call myself god, but i'm a panentheist, which mean i believe god is in all and all is in god. i distinguish god from my identity because honestly, i still have to be perfected into the image god (i think i know him, but i really don't know him well). i'm struggling to stay one with god, but i believe i get closer everyday.

[Evelinessa]

dear rocky,
i'm sorry i don't have alot of time this am! shared some below from search for exact phrase for son of man- www.bibleandanthroposophy.com you may want to read "what is anthroposophy" to see if you feel drawn to further study.
steiner's material is so rich, as i've tried to relay in the christ jesus thread. for example, he revealed that there were actually two jesus children.(smith has a book about it "the incredible births". this quote does not answer your question but rather gives a glimpse of the kind of depth to be found in steiner, from ib, chapter on luke's nathan jesus child - nina

"st luke reveals the presence of the purified astral body of buddha as the astral body of the nathan jesus child in the account of simeon. in one of his lectures, steiner reveals the nature of this account as follows:
at the birth of the nazareth jesus-boy there descended into his astral body what we might call the later embodiment of buddha. buddha, in his etheric body, was now in this re-embodiment united at birth with the nazareth jesus-boy, so that in the aura of this boy we see buddha in the astral body. this is very profoundly hinted at in st. luke’s gospel. the indian legend related that at the time when prince gautama was born, who was to become the buddha, there lived a wonderful wise man, whose name was asita. through his clairvoyant faculties he knew that the bodhisattva had been born. he saw the child in the king’s palace, and was filled with enthusiasm. he began to weep. “why weepest thou,” asked the king, “i see no misfortune.” “oh, king, on the contrary, the child now born is the bodhisattva, and will become the buddha. i weep because i am an old man and cannot hope to live to see this buddha.” then asita died, and the bodhisattva became the buddha. now the buddha descends from on high and unites himself with the aura of the nazareth-jesus-boy, in order to contribute his mite to the great event of palestine. through a karmic connection the old asita was reborn at about the same time, and became simeon, who now saw the buddha who from a bodhisattva had become what he now was. the bodhisattva as buddha, whom 600 years before he had not been able to see, he saw now; for, as he held the nazareth jesus-child in his arms, he saw the buddha soaring above in the child’s aura, and he then uttered the beautiful words: “lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for i have seen my master.”

this is one search for "son of man",(burning bush, lord of karma, p10):
lord of karma, page 10

mt 13,37-43,47-50:

(37) he answered, “he who sows the good seed is the son of man; (38) the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. (40) just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. (41) the son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, (42) and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (43) then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father. he who has ears, let him hear. . . .

(47) “again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; (48) when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad. (49) so it will be at the close of the age. the angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, (50) and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.”

here “the close of the age” (vss 39, 40 and 49) appears to be the same as that described in rev 20,11-15. this is at the time of the “second death,” when not only the physical body of all human beings will have come to an end but also the etheric, again corresponding closely in point of time with the end of the reincarnation process. jesus tells us in these passages that it will be he who will send out his angels to separate the good from the evil and throw the latter into the fire—the point at which our earth will be extinguished by fire (2 pet 3,10), in keeping with anthroposophical prophecy."

also this from "peter,james , and john" bb chap:
why does the christ become distressed? he does not tremble before the cross. that goes without saying. he is distressed above all in face of this question, “will those whom i have with me here stand the test of this moment when it will be decided whether they want to accompany me in their souls, whether they want to experience everything with me until the cross?” it had to be decided if their consciousness could remain sufficiently awake so that they could experience everything with him until the cross. this was the “cup” that was coming near to him. so he leaves them alone to see if they can stay “awake,” that is in a state of consciousness in which they can experience with him what he is to experience. then he goes aside and prays, “father, let this cup pass from me, but let it be done according to your will, not mine.” in other words, “let it not be my experience to stand quite alone as the son of man, but may the others be permitted to go with me.”

he comes back, and they are asleep; they could not maintain their state of wakeful consciousness. again he makes the attempt, and again they could not maintain it. so it becomes clear to him that he is to stand alone, and that they will not participate in the path to the cross. the cup had not passed away from him. he was destined to accomplish the deed in loneliness, a loneliness that was also of the soul. certainly the world had the mystery of golgotha, but at the time it happened it had as yet no understanding of this event; and the most select and chosen disciples could not stay awake to that point.

something of a sequel to this is given in the fifth gospel (fg), lect. 2, where steiner tells of how at pentecost (acts 2,1-12) there was a sort of awakening from the state of spiritual “sleep” which had engulfed the disciples from the time of the passion until then."


also, rocky, from bb, mysteries , p2:
john’s version of what the synoptics expressed (mt 20,17-19; mk 10,32-34; lk 18,31-33) is given in jn 12,32-33:

(32) “and i, when i am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” (33) he said this to show by what death he was to die.

exoterically, vs 33 meant jesus’ death on the cross; but esoterically, as it applies to the consequential “lifting up” of each of us followers (vs 32), it means the eventual “crucifixion” of our mineral-physical body so that we do not have to “die any more” (lk 20,36), i.e., reincarnate. the “first death” (in the context of rev 20,6,14, i.e., the “second death” when the etheric body will also be permanently laid aside) will have occurred and we will be “lifted up” into the etheric existence (cf. 1 th 5,16-17; 1 cor 15, 51-56).

this passage carries us to the more cryptic passage where jesus earlier expressed the knowledge of how it was necessary that he die in the manner that was to come about:

jn 3,14: “and as moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the son of man be lifted up.”

there is an analogy between the “serpent” and the dual nature of the “zodiac(al)” sign of the scorpion. we shall see in “peter, james and john” that the lower “i am,” the scorpion (literally, probably iscariot), becomes the eagle—for lazarus/john for a time replaces judas among the “twelve,” and his gospel has carried the symbol of the eagle from time immemorial. and we shall see later how “serpent” carries this double meaning. in its lower aspect it is represented by the fallen snake and the tempter, but in its higher aspect it relates to the serpent of the oriental “kundalini fire,” when the “lotus flowers” (job 40,21-22) are so stimulated as to engender perception in the spiritual world.3 this perception leads to the first stage of spiritual development in the human being, that called “manna” (or manas, see i-9) when the ego has gained ascendancy over the astral body. it was moses who first brought manna to the people (num 11) and he who first “lifted up the serpent” in the “wilderness” (loneliness of the soul) for their healing and life. paul recognized this as spiritual food, 1 cor 10,3, as did lazarus/john, rev 2,17. we will also see later that “son of man” indicates the spiritual offspring of the human ego, i.e., “man,” when it has converted its “three bodies” into the fullness of, and thus given birth to, the higher “i am” of christ (mt 13,33).

or from bb, lord of karma, p11:
the new heaven and new earth of rev 21 is the jupiter condition of consciousness coming into being, when the human being shall have perfected its astral body into the manas, or spirit self, state. beyond that lies the development of the two higher states. while for all practical purposes steiner’s lectures on revelation end with attainment of the jupiter condition, we may reasonably infer that rev 22 is a brief vision beyond to the jupiter condition itself, whose purpose is the conversion of the etheric body of the human being into the buddhi, or life spirit, state—for rev 22 speaks of “the river of the water of life” and of “the tree of life.” only in the venus condition of consciousness will the human being work to convert the physical body (by then there is no tangible mineral-physical body, but only the nonvisible “form” or “phantom” or “pattern” to be converted) into spirit man, that state when humanity will have attained to the fullness of the ninefold son of man pictured in rev 1,12-16 with its face “like the sun shining in full strength,” according to the “i am” pattern of the christ.

[Adimos]

rockyojas88, good, deep question. i personnally had not thought or seek for this answer. this is what i found from are (re-posting from other thread)

262-33
5. (q) please explain how we may distinguish between the terms, especially pronouns, referring to the personality jesus and god as used in this information, and how we may clarify this in terms we use in our lessons.

(a) as their activities and personalities are one, in the activities of men often the pronoun used becomes confusing. follow rather closely in that which has been given. it is used the same as he gave. him refers to the father, he to the son. in the preparation of the lessons these may in the general be referred to in that manner; for, as it is generally understood by the critics - or those that would prefer good english, him is rather inclusive while he is definite or the one son.

1747-3
5. (q) please explain how we may distinguish between the terms, especially pronouns, referring to the personality jesus and god as used in this information, and how we may clarify this in terms we use in our lessons.
(a) as their activities and personalities are one, in the activities of men often the pronoun used becomes confusing. follow rather closely in that which has been given. it is used the same as he gave. him refers to the father, he to the son. in the preparation of the lessons these may in the general be referred to in that manner; for, as it is generally understood by the critics - or those that would prefer good english, him is rather inclusive while he is definite or the one son.


the only question i have now, is were is mother god. i have felt that mother earth is the heart of us all. when our hearts bleed or hurt, mother earth also bleeds and is hurt. when we love one another, she is blissed and happy

what did jesus mean when he said that the son of man can do nothing of himself except for what he sees his father do?

[freevideoandoicsI]

greetings

what did jesus mean when he said that the son of man can do nothing of himself except for what he sees his father do? [/quote]
this simple statement contains a 'truth' that has far reaching implications.
to fully appreciate this statement it is necessary to understand the nature of the one creator (god, father) and our relationship to 'him'.
if you see yourself as separate from the one creator, (him out there. you down here), this statement has no meaning.
when we fully understand that we are one with the creator and realize this fully within ourselves then we can understand that we can only create with what we accept from the creator.
an example i can give here is the experience of healers. these wonderful people know that it is not they themselves that are doing the healing. the act of healing comes from the creator, through them.
they can do nothing of themselves except for what they see their creator do.

peace and love to you

yusuf

[fapourfasiark]

hi all,

the son of man can do nothing of himself?

the best and most incredible answer to this question that i have found was given by/ thru joel goldsmith. to repeat it here is a waste of time, as the true answer comes from within, so as you read and meditate on the goldsmith material you will evolve. as you evolve the answer to this question evolves.
peace s

[9V4i8xw1]

do not take it too seriously i would say ...
i believe we can not be clowns of this reality by taking it as it is: just a way
i also believe that my higher self must laugh each time i cry after a bad day!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spxt9xaihaq

from friends
to serve
with love