When I refer to myself as "i Am" I am not trying to claim divinity. I am trying to underscore that there is "some aspect of divinity" in me. That "made in the image of God" thing is what I am talking about. I am also trying to underscore my "being". By doing that, I am attempting to say that in my true essence, I am not bound by form or time, just like the Great Almighty is not. What does He do? Nothing. He just IS. Does that make sense?
Also, the special use of capitals should communicate my inference that "i Am" is reminescent of the divine, but at best, still only a subset of the "I AM".
Finally, I had dinner with a seeker last night. He works at PKD. He is very interested in lots of these concepts. He talks at a level that makes me think he is seriously Seeking. I did tell him about our discussion of the Kingdom of God. I spoke of my opinions about it. I did not tell him any of your opinions about it, but I did identify you as a Seeker, not a Sheeple. He would be interested in being a voyeur in this. I am fine with absolutely anyone on this whole planet looking at this. Are you OK with him peeking in as a watcher? As for me, you can wholesale add all of Christendom without even telling me, I do not care.
I you do care, biggie. I did not tell him I would ask you or anything. I just told him that we had a communication. What brought it all up is that he was wanting to find more folks in the office with which to have spiritual discussions. I told him there are lotsa folks in the office who are interesed in this stuff. He said who? That is how your name came up.
Hope I did not do bad. If I did, please let me know, and I will not talk to anyone about it again. Regardless of how you feel on letting him look in, I felt the need to let you know I talked to someone about our Kingdom discussion.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Version of time
Let's see how this one comes out on paper. So I have never really been jazzed about singing "holy Holy Holy is the Lord" eternity. At some point I would like to go for a bike ride. So the thought from hanging out with the sheeple worshiping God came to me. If God has no concept of past or future and is always present (CS Lewis). Then when we die could we also become fully present.
How does this relate to the Kingdom.. there is no time in the kingdom. Just all present.
Revelation 21:22-24
For the folks at bible study the concept that God introduced a time line only for man as a helper.
How does this relate to the Kingdom.. there is no time in the kingdom. Just all present.
Revelation 21:22-24
22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.
For the folks at bible study the concept that God introduced a time line only for man as a helper.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
A Hypothesis
Stuff whose essence and function is defined by other stuff whose essence and function is antithetical to the kingdom cannot itself access the kingdom. It inherits its "unfitness" from that which defines its essence and purpose.
Ergo, lawyers cannot access the Kingdom.
Ergo, lawyers cannot access the Kingdom.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
What is the gene that when I look at a map of Colorado in the middle of a wilderness area say. "Yes that is where I want to be" Is it the maybe no one has put a foot there before, or the wanting be away from the busyness? Or be away from the responsibilities? Or is that what we are destine for and it is me wanting the next step? Maybe God is there... not here
Sunday, February 8, 2009
URGENT CLARIFICATION ON PREVIOUS POST!
When I asked if the Second Coming could be an allegory of spiritual Seeker-ness, I most definitely was not intending impy that that might be all that the Second Coming is. In Matthew, Jesus clearly preaches the Apocalytic message and clearly speaks of a physical return. So I do not question that.
It would have been more proper to ask "Could the reality of the Second Coming also be an allegory of the transformation in power that happens as a Seeker has the epiphany of exactly who he is in Christ? i.e. when he begins to share ownership in the Kingdom.".
Needed to qualify, so as to not go completely heretical. I am not advocating a Jesus is not physically coming back position.
It would have been more proper to ask "Could the reality of the Second Coming also be an allegory of the transformation in power that happens as a Seeker has the epiphany of exactly who he is in Christ? i.e. when he begins to share ownership in the Kingdom.".
Needed to qualify, so as to not go completely heretical. I am not advocating a Jesus is not physically coming back position.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Whose Kingdom is it? (I mean for Seekers - we already know for Sheeple)
This post is very transparent. I hope I am safe here, asking these questions.
I qualify ALL of this by saying that I do not answer "affirmative" to every question I ask below. I am a Seeker. I claim few answers.
But, I have a lot of questions and I assume that my God can stand the scrutiny of a difficult question. So, I ask. This is the meat of the "Kindgom on Earth" issue. And it challenges me greatly to think about it.
When you look at Jesus' words by themselves, there is tremendous room for interpretation - furthermore, when we look at Jesus' words alone, much of the dogma of Program Christianity melts away. I am not saying that the dogma is not true. But I am saying that Jesus never said it.
Here goes.
Jesus does not lie, yet He said:
Luke 9:27 (New International Version)
27I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
So, someone in His audience actually saw the Kingdom.
Mark 9:1 (New International Version)
Mark 9
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Furthermore, it is a powerful experience for the experiencer. Awesomely powerful, I am sure.
And finally (my favorite):
Matthew 16:28 (New International Version)
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Whose Kingdom? The Son of Man's. Who is the Son of Man? Jesus of course. But, a special aspect of Jesus...
When Jesus speaks of himself as Son of Man, it is my understanding that he is referring to his humanity - his (perfect and sinless) human aspect. There is precedent for this assertion in treatment of the term in the Old Testament Hebrew literature, as well as other non-biblical Hebrew literature. The terms Son of Man, and sons of men, were well known to contemporaties of Jesus, and were always associated with the concept of "humanity" in a broad sense of the word.
So, if the Kingdom belongs to the Son of Man, and the Son of Man implies "humanity", then is it partly "humanity's" Kingdom too? If we are Redeemed, then our sin is no more. i.e. we should be on equal footing with Jesus from a sin perspective. So, original sin cannot be a reason that we don't own some Kingdom too.
Quite a lot hinges on the definition of Son of Man.
If Jesus did not want to share His authority and ownership of the Kingdom with humanity, then why did He not call himself Son of God? He could have.
Curiously, Jesus identifies with his (perfect, sinless) human aspect MUCH more often than his divine aspect. He constantly calls Himself Son of Man. Yet he never directly calls himself Son of God. Satan does, demons do, the Sanhedrin accuses Him of doing it. But, Jesus only acknowledges the fact after direct questioning by the Sanhedrin. And indirectly with the Samaritan woman. Jesus seems to downplay Son of God. He focuses on Son of Man. Of course, the post resurrection writings never talk about Son of Man, and always Son of God. But Jesus did the opposite. Why?
A lot depends on the definition of Son of Man.
So, let us assume that Son of Man is a deliberate attempt to identify with humanity. Does that mean that Jesus is not the son of God? No. It just means that when Jesus speaks of himself, He chooses to emphasize His humanity. He must have a reason for doing that.
I think it might be because he in encouraging us to see a little more "Logos" in ourselves. He wants us to see more of Him in ourselves. He wants God's Creative Will to flow through us. He is indirectly saying that God's Creative Will CAN flow through humans. Did He not say:
20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
My point is not to challenge Jesus' position as the legitimate Son of God, just to point out that Jesus' primary concern was teaching us about how to live as Humans within the Kingdom - here and now. And to the extent that we cannot do that perfectly in the present, we always have Heaven to look forward to in the future. Is that not the Sermon on the Mount in a nutshell?
Sure, you can get some guidance on this when you look into the epistles, but Jesus himself leaves it pretty dog-gone loose. Why did He do that?
Is it now apparent why I value the Red Letters above the writings of Paul? Jesus preached personal experience. Paul made the abstractions of Jesus' parables tangible for Sheeple. Jesus challenged us to explore and partake of direct revelation. Paul gave a guidebook to those who cannot do what Jesus preached.
Furthermore (and maybe most challenging) doesn't the verse "...see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" have definite Second Coming overtones? Is it possible that when Jesus spoke of His return, he was allegorically speaking of our entry into the Kingdom?
I believe that Redemption occurs when a choice for Grace is made. Participation in the Kingdom, with Spirit power, happens at a later date - and only after Seeking. This is basically the "Sanctification" or "Second Blessing" doctrine of the Nazarene denomination that I currently ascribe to.
I am having a hard time dealing with the implications of what this suggests. It seems to suggest that maybe we partake in the Kingdom in the same way that Jesus' human aspect partook of it??? Does it suggest co-ownership? Where does His Kingdom stop and our kingdom start? Is His Kingdom our kingdom?
Maybe these things are just Mysteries. These questions are the very reason I wanted Red Letters only. I know the answer when I look at the entire New Testament. But the Red Letters seem different to me. Much more "mystical", "experiential", and with more "direct revelation".
To me, the Epistles are logical and rational. The Gospels, especially the Red Letters, cannot be comprehended with rational thought. Only by intuition and revelation.
Sheeple do left brain. Seekers do right brain.
We did say that nothing was off limits in this discussion, didn't we?
Blessings :)
I qualify ALL of this by saying that I do not answer "affirmative" to every question I ask below. I am a Seeker. I claim few answers.
But, I have a lot of questions and I assume that my God can stand the scrutiny of a difficult question. So, I ask. This is the meat of the "Kindgom on Earth" issue. And it challenges me greatly to think about it.
When you look at Jesus' words by themselves, there is tremendous room for interpretation - furthermore, when we look at Jesus' words alone, much of the dogma of Program Christianity melts away. I am not saying that the dogma is not true. But I am saying that Jesus never said it.
Here goes.
Jesus does not lie, yet He said:
Luke 9:27 (New International Version)
27I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
So, someone in His audience actually saw the Kingdom.
Mark 9:1 (New International Version)
Mark 9
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Furthermore, it is a powerful experience for the experiencer. Awesomely powerful, I am sure.
And finally (my favorite):
Matthew 16:28 (New International Version)
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Whose Kingdom? The Son of Man's. Who is the Son of Man? Jesus of course. But, a special aspect of Jesus...
When Jesus speaks of himself as Son of Man, it is my understanding that he is referring to his humanity - his (perfect and sinless) human aspect. There is precedent for this assertion in treatment of the term in the Old Testament Hebrew literature, as well as other non-biblical Hebrew literature. The terms Son of Man, and sons of men, were well known to contemporaties of Jesus, and were always associated with the concept of "humanity" in a broad sense of the word.
So, if the Kingdom belongs to the Son of Man, and the Son of Man implies "humanity", then is it partly "humanity's" Kingdom too? If we are Redeemed, then our sin is no more. i.e. we should be on equal footing with Jesus from a sin perspective. So, original sin cannot be a reason that we don't own some Kingdom too.
Quite a lot hinges on the definition of Son of Man.
If Jesus did not want to share His authority and ownership of the Kingdom with humanity, then why did He not call himself Son of God? He could have.
Curiously, Jesus identifies with his (perfect, sinless) human aspect MUCH more often than his divine aspect. He constantly calls Himself Son of Man. Yet he never directly calls himself Son of God. Satan does, demons do, the Sanhedrin accuses Him of doing it. But, Jesus only acknowledges the fact after direct questioning by the Sanhedrin. And indirectly with the Samaritan woman. Jesus seems to downplay Son of God. He focuses on Son of Man. Of course, the post resurrection writings never talk about Son of Man, and always Son of God. But Jesus did the opposite. Why?
A lot depends on the definition of Son of Man.
So, let us assume that Son of Man is a deliberate attempt to identify with humanity. Does that mean that Jesus is not the son of God? No. It just means that when Jesus speaks of himself, He chooses to emphasize His humanity. He must have a reason for doing that.
I think it might be because he in encouraging us to see a little more "Logos" in ourselves. He wants us to see more of Him in ourselves. He wants God's Creative Will to flow through us. He is indirectly saying that God's Creative Will CAN flow through humans. Did He not say:
20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
My point is not to challenge Jesus' position as the legitimate Son of God, just to point out that Jesus' primary concern was teaching us about how to live as Humans within the Kingdom - here and now. And to the extent that we cannot do that perfectly in the present, we always have Heaven to look forward to in the future. Is that not the Sermon on the Mount in a nutshell?
Sure, you can get some guidance on this when you look into the epistles, but Jesus himself leaves it pretty dog-gone loose. Why did He do that?
Is it now apparent why I value the Red Letters above the writings of Paul? Jesus preached personal experience. Paul made the abstractions of Jesus' parables tangible for Sheeple. Jesus challenged us to explore and partake of direct revelation. Paul gave a guidebook to those who cannot do what Jesus preached.
Furthermore (and maybe most challenging) doesn't the verse "...see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" have definite Second Coming overtones? Is it possible that when Jesus spoke of His return, he was allegorically speaking of our entry into the Kingdom?
I believe that Redemption occurs when a choice for Grace is made. Participation in the Kingdom, with Spirit power, happens at a later date - and only after Seeking. This is basically the "Sanctification" or "Second Blessing" doctrine of the Nazarene denomination that I currently ascribe to.
I am having a hard time dealing with the implications of what this suggests. It seems to suggest that maybe we partake in the Kingdom in the same way that Jesus' human aspect partook of it??? Does it suggest co-ownership? Where does His Kingdom stop and our kingdom start? Is His Kingdom our kingdom?
Maybe these things are just Mysteries. These questions are the very reason I wanted Red Letters only. I know the answer when I look at the entire New Testament. But the Red Letters seem different to me. Much more "mystical", "experiential", and with more "direct revelation".
To me, the Epistles are logical and rational. The Gospels, especially the Red Letters, cannot be comprehended with rational thought. Only by intuition and revelation.
Sheeple do left brain. Seekers do right brain.
We did say that nothing was off limits in this discussion, didn't we?
Blessings :)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Kingdom on Earth - Passive Surrender
Jesus spoke numerous parables describing what the Kingdom is like. It seems pretty logical to me, then, that when He gave instructions they would relate to the entry or access of that Kingdom.
Matthew 6
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
There are other similar references as well. Does Jesus literally mean to allow folks to attack us? No. Or else the Hebrews did a lot of sin when they fought with all the "-ites". No, He is illustrating that resistance and struggle do not allow us to experience our life as He wants us to experience it. And we can safely assume that He wants us in the Kingdom.
He is challenging us to allow an evil circumstance to transform us. Should we seek it? No But, should we avoid it? No. We use the whole of the experience of our life to manifest His will - the pleasant and the unpleasant, all rolled together.
Why? To allow us to refuse to engage. To allow us to stop, drop, and pasively receive the presence of the Kingdom - even when we are attacked. We receive Redemption in an act of Surrender. Why not receive freedom in this life through the same act? Seems fine to me. Seems scriptural, too - see below.
The physical realm is not relevant in the Grand Scheme of things. If you are hooked into the Spiritual realm (the Kingdom) the physical realm just happens. And regardless of what happens, it is all OK. It all has purpose. Even Hitler's extermination of the Jews. And He is telling us that struggling in this realm is counterproductive. (yet we do it constantly - I think Paul knew about this...)
If it is not the finale of the Grand Scheme, then why does what we do in this realm really matter at all? Because we can enter the Kingdom (to a greater or lesser degree) right now. Why is that important? Because it relieves suffering today. Being in the Kingdom and enduring (spiritual, not necessarily physical) suffering are mutually exclusive (plenty of scripture on that one).
We have Redemption. We will have the Kingdom of Heaven. But, we get to choose if we participate in the Kingdom on earth. And the only way to do it, is to:
Mark 8:34 (New International Version)
34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Matthew 10:38 (New International Version)
38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Luke 14:27
And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple
Clearly, Jesus wants us to carry a cross. Strange irony. He wants us to crucify ourselves. What? Yes, he means killing of the ego. What is that other than complete abandonment of all attachments? This abandonment makes the physical realm irrelevant, if we do it completely. How does one become utterly ambivalent to the point of not caring if folks beat you up? How does one kill his ego? How does one kill attachments to material forms?
Through passive, complete, Surrender.
So then, are we to sit around like jelly fish being passive? No, but when we ultimately Surrender, we become actively creative in accord with the Will of God, and that is by definition no longer a struggle. What we do is by being passive, we take ourselves out of the equation. Then He becomes active through us. We are stewards and vessels of His continuing creative Will.
Matthew 6
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
There are other similar references as well. Does Jesus literally mean to allow folks to attack us? No. Or else the Hebrews did a lot of sin when they fought with all the "-ites". No, He is illustrating that resistance and struggle do not allow us to experience our life as He wants us to experience it. And we can safely assume that He wants us in the Kingdom.
He is challenging us to allow an evil circumstance to transform us. Should we seek it? No But, should we avoid it? No. We use the whole of the experience of our life to manifest His will - the pleasant and the unpleasant, all rolled together.
Why? To allow us to refuse to engage. To allow us to stop, drop, and pasively receive the presence of the Kingdom - even when we are attacked. We receive Redemption in an act of Surrender. Why not receive freedom in this life through the same act? Seems fine to me. Seems scriptural, too - see below.
The physical realm is not relevant in the Grand Scheme of things. If you are hooked into the Spiritual realm (the Kingdom) the physical realm just happens. And regardless of what happens, it is all OK. It all has purpose. Even Hitler's extermination of the Jews. And He is telling us that struggling in this realm is counterproductive. (yet we do it constantly - I think Paul knew about this...)
If it is not the finale of the Grand Scheme, then why does what we do in this realm really matter at all? Because we can enter the Kingdom (to a greater or lesser degree) right now. Why is that important? Because it relieves suffering today. Being in the Kingdom and enduring (spiritual, not necessarily physical) suffering are mutually exclusive (plenty of scripture on that one).
We have Redemption. We will have the Kingdom of Heaven. But, we get to choose if we participate in the Kingdom on earth. And the only way to do it, is to:
Mark 8:34 (New International Version)
34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Matthew 10:38 (New International Version)
38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Luke 14:27
And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple
Clearly, Jesus wants us to carry a cross. Strange irony. He wants us to crucify ourselves. What? Yes, he means killing of the ego. What is that other than complete abandonment of all attachments? This abandonment makes the physical realm irrelevant, if we do it completely. How does one become utterly ambivalent to the point of not caring if folks beat you up? How does one kill his ego? How does one kill attachments to material forms?
Through passive, complete, Surrender.
So then, are we to sit around like jelly fish being passive? No, but when we ultimately Surrender, we become actively creative in accord with the Will of God, and that is by definition no longer a struggle. What we do is by being passive, we take ourselves out of the equation. Then He becomes active through us. We are stewards and vessels of His continuing creative Will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)