XnForums

Where did the story of the good Samaritan come from? Jesus must have known why the ten tribes separated themselves from Judah and Benjamin, so he used the area and people of Israel to show example of who was who in sons of Jacob-Israel. They all were accounted as sons. Samaritans were the sister of Jerusalem (OT). All tribal names were accounted for and even though there was yet a division in Jesus day, all were still considered as sons of Jacob. There are still Samaritans today who say they are Jews. But back to the story and why Jesus gave the parable of the good Samaritan. He recognized Samaritans as enemies of Judah[Jews] but still recognized how they were brethren, and in the parable he exampled how enemies also had compasion on their fellow man. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is expressed in Jesus parable. "Neighbor" held its meaning in tribal names. And Samaritans were neighbors.

Not sure I can explain why Jesus helped the woman from Canaan, but think it has to do with how the Jews decided to protect themselves from the Gentile nations. It was better to assist than cause undue recklessness that might have reprecussions on the community of Jews. If you read the Talmud it explains this better. Talks about whether or not to help a Gentile or let him die should he be drowning or some such. So, the way I see it, Jesus was helping the woman in order to avoid possible outrage from Gentiles should he not have. And, even though the woman acknowledged Jesus as superior to herself (a dog), Jesus didn't say she was acceptable into his kingdom. She wasn't a proselyte (converting to Judaism), she was still a Canaanite woman, and there is no tribe of Israel called Canaanite. (See book of Revelation for who is listed in the New Jerusalem) The woman was willing to accept the crumbs from the master's table, meaning, she recognized the power of Jews in those days. I would also guess that Jewish welded power came through their alliance with Rome, making them a more tyranical people, for Rome had an interest in protecting the Jews[Jerusalem] in those days just as American politicians say they do today.

You're right, there is nothing that prevents Gentiles today from receiving the teachings of Jesus. They can use his teaching that he himself gained from non Jewish sources at the beginning of the Hebrew people. They learned their tradition from existing laws and social order of other people in the middle eastern area. Being lawless, they were chosen to become lawful and with an organized civil order. Probably from Canaanites. Moses simply confined them to laws for governing themselves as a nation[a people] and with a different god. And, other people did not view themselves as evil, it was only the Jews themselves who thought they had constructed a better way and truth for themselves.

The old testament god did not teach the Israelites to love people outside their own community. Love meant recognizing the ways of others as having equal authority, and the God of Israel simply did not allow that kind of love. In fact, He taught his people to hate others who did not worship him. They were to be considered as evil, wicked, abominations, likened to beasts, dogs, swine. They were the most abominable as they were the uncircumcised. Clearly, God did not love those people called Gentiles. God did not show an unconditional love for Gentiles, He hated them and commanded Israel to kill and slaughter them. God, through the mouth of the prophet, wanted Gentile land. The land of Canaan to be exact. He'd already tried to takeover Egypt and failed. Assyria as well. All that was left to the Hebrew god was a patch of dried up earth called Canaan land. So he ordered his people, the Israelites, to spy out the most defenseless villages and then slaughter its inhabitants, without cause or excuse. This was a desperate god who did not care that his own people would suffer and die, He was out to make a name for himself.

Were there Gentiles present at the sermon on the Mount? If the multitudes are any indication, then the probability is yes. And this is why Jesus told his disciples that he spoke to the multitudes in parables, to deceive them, for it was not meant that they be given understanding of the kingdom of heaven/god. That secretive mystery had already been predistined to be given to those for whom it had been established at the beginning, sons of Jacob. So any eavesdroppers could hear but not understand. They could see but not perceive how and why they were being excluded.

Now, all the disciples were supposedly Jewish, but I'm not convinced about Peter, because Jesus told him that Satan had desired to sift him as wheat, "but when you are converted strengthen the brethren". So Peter could have been a Gentile proselyte in process of becoming a Jew. Jesus also seems to pay more attention to teaching Peter than the other disciples. Jesus also warned Peter by telling him "when you were young you walked wherever you wanted, but when you are old(er) another will lead you to where you would not have gone". This might have indicated Peter's straying from Jewish laws and customs, especially since Peter is the disciple who sanctioned the uncircumcised as acceptable to God, making God a liar as the Jews were required to be circumcised. This ploy made God an unequal father figure and doesn't muster with old testament commanments.

Yes, it seems that Jesus took the laws to a whole new level, especially when he claimed to be equal to god. That was a death sentence to any Jew as required by God.

OT instructs the people of Israel on how to treat Gentiles[strangers] among them. Specific guidelines were established, but Gentiles were not equal to Jews or acceptable as "a people" of God. Loyalty through conversion was required and conversion was to Judaism, not to an independent non Jewish tradition. Jesus said "salvation is of the Jews". Outside Judaism, there was no salvation, meaning, no life in Israel as a son of Jacob. Gentiles simply could not claim inheritance rights as sons of God without converting to Judaism.

Doc, I realize that this discussion would be worthless to most all in Christianity, and less than worthless to the Right Wing Fundamentalists. But that doesn't mean we should stop educating them about the purpose of Jesus ministry to his own people that excluded all other peoples in those days, and still excludes non Jews today. People have grown accustomed to believing the lie of Peter and Paul and the first Catholic fathers, and will continue to believe the lie no matter how much we try to educate them. They cannot accept living independently without a hero Jesus and a worthless god. But when they attempt to make their religion law of the land and destroy equal rights of everyone, then they should be forced to hear why they are in fact an illegitimate religious body with no covenant, no laws, no Jesus as Lord, for He did not accept them as Gentiles then and would not now. His way, truth and life was in his Judaism and he did not depart from his tradition.

Mercy and compassion is not a sole element of Jesus, for other non Jewish people also loved their own people and showed mercy and compassion among themselves. The Israelites were the ones who had a problem with treating their own fellow Israelites with love, compassion, kindness and forgiveness.

I'm not trying to beat the Right Wing over the head with anything. What I will do is cause them to consider how useless their bible doctrine is to themselves unless they convert to Judaism. Do you think they take Jesus and his god seriously?

I think your style of instruction to Christians is ok, but I would recommend that you not offer promises that the bible god doesn't intend to keep. God has damned homosexuals, atheists, and all others who refuse to join Judaism. Gentiles are not his people, never were, never will be. You might want to try and convert the Right Wing to Judaism and save them in Jesus name.

Hi Roselyn,
I really enjoyed that last post of yours. It is well thought out and has a kind of logic to it that is difficult to deny, (save for the last paragraph.) The only thing I personally would do differently, is to remove some of the more negative connotations such as the words 'lies' and 'worthless' when discussing God and the First Fathers, as that carries an opinionated bias which can throw a wrench into the whole works, thus disrupting what you are trying to accomplish.

I suppose the point here is to try and talk from a position of dignity and respectibility, meaning one should endeavor to kindly respect the beliefs of others, as this helps to create an atmosphere whereby the individual is more apt to listen, thereby further opening the door to acceptance.

As to your last paragraph, I 'm not out to convert anyone to my way of thinking as it pertains to what god or gods one wishes to worship, nor am I able to save anyone.
(Only Jesus saves )

I will say, however, that along with homosexuals, atheists, and all others who refuse to join Judaism, there are many other reasons why God does not find any of us acceptable in His Sight, and we all have 'flaws' that often keep us from rising up to be at one with the universe, flaws which can also be a great source of contention between various human beings, thus weighting us down even further.

Yet through prayer/meditation, worship, and praise, we are often able to rise above that which would weight us down, whereupon we can gain freedom from our various faults and fears that we might better experience the joys of living.

I would also invite you to read at this site, that you might gain some insights which you can share with those who might need to redefine their faith after accepting what you offer them.

doc

"Lies" and "worthless" is the bible god to all non Jewish people. Non Jewish people have no god nor can they except through conversion to Judaism. Conversion establishes loyalty to Judaism, and Judaism expresses itself as the only people of God, and God declares Jews as his namesake and only people Israel. There is no getting around this identity in people and their God. The negative connotations are appropriate in separating Judaism from other religions in the world. You see an opinionated bias from me whereas you're failing to see where the bias really is, in that Jewish tradition and its selective god.

The bible god made himself worthless to other non Jewish people by the envisioned purpose of the prophets who constructed their god to be loyal to them in their Judaism and not serve other people. Had the Hebrew god been a universal god there would have been no individual identity as Israel. This construct was probably developed within all the ancient people who claimed their own gods, and declaring them to be the most high - most authorative for each group. The Canaanites were a diverse group of people with small sects who worshipped different gods. The scriptures tell of many gods and many lords. The Hebrews imagined their own god and constructed him in the way they wanted him to be and serve them, in their image. No different than what the rest of those ancient people had done in creating their gods and electing their kings and lords.

Glad you enjoyed my last post Doc, but it was kinda long.

Surely you are not meaning that I'm speaking without dignity or respectability. I'm only revealing what the scriptures say and suggesting that anyone can read and investigate what is written. Why should I respect something that is proven to be a lie and worthless to the none Jewish world due to it's secular and confined tradition established for Israel[the Jews]? There is no dignity in believing a lie, and there is not respectability in following a worthless cause. People can believe they are part of the Jesus plan but that doesn't mean it is so. Believers then are believing in vain, with no benefit in their worship of a god who has excluded them simply because they are not circumcised into the Jewish tradition. Of course people can convert to Judaism, that is their choice. " Salvation is of the Jews".

Sometimes Doc, the lazy mind must be forced to think. Challenge of/to ideologies is a way to open the mind to explore, discover, and learn; to obtain knowledge needed for progress to occur. This is the atmosphere of truth seeking, and freedom to agree or disagree. Stagnant minds are a waste of time, so to speak.

Why do you think you're not able to save anyone? If you correct their error are you not saving them? How did Jesus save except through correction of his brethren in their lawlessness? In this concept of saving, we all do our best to correct error and provide learning in acceptable form of behavior. Some just call it common sense. And some don't have any sense at all.

You said, "only Jesus saves". Not true. Jesus said the righteous had no need of saving, for they were not sick. The righteous needed no physician. As Jesus was the physician to those in error, his services were not needed for all Jews, just the lost sheep. And his healing of error was seen in those whom he raised up while still alive. (Matthew 11:5) and those whom would become his followers later through apostleship teaching. Jesus was building his New Jerusalem with what he knew to be truth compared to what the Pharisees taught.

Thanks for the link. Emerson believed in the bible god. He says, "Human beings are the means by which the divine law is expressed in matter." He probably meant expressed in the flesh of men.

I'd rather say: Human beings are the vehicle by which conciousness is expressed in reason. No divination[magic] by which the term divine originated. Magic doesn't constitute consciousness, but a deceiving of the conscioius mind creating a lie, or myth if one prefers to call it that.

Emerson, like others who could not explain the existence of man attributed life of humans to a god.

Roselyn,
Thank you for spending the time it takes to write out your thoughts. I know such activity can often interfere with other plans, but I appreciate your passion in voicing/writing-out your beliefs.

When I implied that one should abstain from referring to God and the Fathers as lies and being worthless, I merely meant you might need to hold your tongue on these issues when talking with those who have a firm belief in the exact opposite. Otherwise you might create an immediate boundary which will effectively undermine your intention to help the individual recognize the truth as you have come to understand it.

In short, such references will immediately put the person in a defensive mode whereby they will become more skeptical and less prone to accept what you are saying, this being a facet of human nature which stems from the fight/flight response. So you will have to take into consideration how to best use human nature in a manner that will optimize the transfer and acceptance of information, especially when challenging them to stretch and strengthen their lazy minds.

As far as me "not being able to save anyone", I suppose I understated my abilities, as I have indeed been occasionally instrumental in helping others to rise above their fear, shame, and guilt, etc. which allowed them to live a more more abundant life. However, I view this as being an instrument of love and understanding, as opposed to being the source of that love and understanding, as I believe (the universal) God is the actual source of all love and understanding, while we are the 'conduits' by which that love and understanding become manifest as a reality in the world.

In a manner of speaking, this latter belief is very similar to your statement which was: "Human beings are the vehicle by which conciousness is expressed in reason", while aligning with Emerson's statement of "Human beings are the means by which the divine law is expressed in matter.")

In the philosophical aspect of my profession (that of a Chiropractor), this concept is understood by saying: "Matter is the result of energies being organized into localized regions of space via the power and will of applied consciousness, while the expression of that will through matter is what gives rise to life."

In this case, we refer to a Supreme Intelligence which gives form and function to all matter via the power its conscious will, whereas we give credit to Innate Intelligence, (the localized region of Supreme Intelligence which forms matter from energy), for maintaining the existence of matter, as well as being the link by which the Supreme Intelligence can express itself through that matter, while our professional services hinge on the idea that there can be interference in the transmission of that expression.

Sorry to have gone off on this tangent, but it reveals that some can accept the idea of there being a universal intelligence/consciousness from which we were created, and to which we still remain linked, again this being the philosophical approach of the Vitalists as compared to the approach of the Mechanists, where neither is wholly right or wrong in their approach, each having a measure of validity as well as a measure of 'wishful' or 'desirous' thinking. So each philosophy has a measure of both right and wrong ideas/thoughts.

Where we - as caring and compassionate people - need to focus our attentions, though, when we are called or moved to make a difference in the world, is not on eradicating the wrong ideas, but on seeking ways to make the good ideas shine even more brightly. Otherwise we'll get caught up in all the negative aspects, and all too soon we'll find ourselves standing in complete darkness, where our light will be unable to light up the darkness. We will then become like a dim star in the blackness of empty space, where our gravitational pull becomes less and less able to sway even a mere atom from its intended path as it passes by us.

What we can do, however, is to use our expressive powers to help guide certain ideas along, ideas that are already moving in a certain direction, but may be in need of some small measure of guidance to bring them to their intended 'good' target'. The only drawback here, is in discerning what that target is, as it may not be the same target we ourselves are moving towards. So we need to interact in way that allows us to understand where someone else has been called to go, and then endeavor to help set them on the better path towards their own target.

Sorry 'bout all this...must be the after effects of eating too much turkey and becoming what we eat

doc

That's true Doc. People who have a firm belief opposite to mine tend to get a little antsy when challenged. Often they admit to not having considered some of the things I point out. So, then they begin to investigate and we talk some more and they investigate more. I really don't expect them to turn off their religion, as in it's illegitimate form it's just as valid as Judaism. But making them think, investigate and do a little research might help them see how equal rights for all people is a must due to their not having anything of religious law to stand on. So when using the bible they are defeating themselves as they have no authority to make laws from their religion that is intentioned to harm others.(atheists, homosexuals, Muslims, Mexicans, Hindu's, whoever)

I probably would not be so determined to hit the Right Wing between their eyes if it were not for their death cult mentality in warmongering enthusiaism, their deep hatred for people not in their Right Wing Campaign and their eagerness to sit themselves politically as Supreme Court injustices. However, they have been given a blow to their ego in losing to Obama and some of the politicians are beginning to recognize how the Right Wing Neo-Cons have cost them dearly. Maybe they haven't been listening closely to what the Right preaches and thinks about how Washington and the U.S. should be run. I think the Republicans will have a difficult time reconstructing their party so that it will serve all the people with dignity fostering respect.


I like your definition of applied consciousness but would give credit to you and your reasoning in awareness instead of an imagined God entity. You are the Supreme Intelligence, for your imagined God cannot live or function without you. That's why there was no bible god thousands of years before man created Him in their image and likeness of how they wanted their god to be.

A side note on what I've been accumulating in studies:

"Revelation" - is what man concludes from past experience of human behavior. Man learns from the past, not from the present or the future; as the present cannot evidence anything but the past, and the future cannot be expressed by anything other than hope.

Would that make "revelation" an applied consciousness?
.

I kinda lean towards defining revelation as a moment of insightful understanding which is not based upon past experiences, but upon future hope.

Although this also gives us the definition of 'epiphany', such insightful understandings often reveal and disclose certain information that was previously unknown to us, thus lending to the more specific definition of revelation.

In this sense, a 'Revelation' is an understanding gained, not from actively applying our consciousness in a deductive manner that will lead us to a conclusion, but is more about being consciously receptive to understanding something of which we have little to no knowledge, and where the knowledge gained is made manifest in us as a result of calming our thoughts to the point of nonexistence. At that point, one often has an "AHA!" moment, whereby the information is made known to them.

IOW, the information gained is such that it could not have come into being through using the deductive or inductive powers of logic and reasoning, being solely dependant upon the intuitive nature of meditation and prayer as we look beyond what has been and what is to what can be.

I don't know if I can give you an example of this, but I am sure we all have this capability to one extent or another, and I suppose it's a matter of to what or to whom we give the credit when we experience a revelation.

As for me, I'm not bright enough to come up with half the things I come up with, so I kinda lean towards giving someone or something else the credit...looking at myself as kinda being like a radio where the signals I am receiving originate from elsewhere, with my nervous system acting as a kind of antennae which is sensitive to bio-electric energies and their corresponding wavelengths.

Of course when I can't calm myself enough to 'tune in', then all I get is static noise or nothing at all.

doc

Hi Doc

I'm afraid I only see a revelation or revelations coming from deductive reasoning brought about from past experience(s). Meditation in this form would be the calculated reasoning of coming to a specific conclusion about the matter. Does that make sense? You're the philospoher.

What are a few examples we might give of a revelation? I can think of several off the top of my head concerning my kids and family. Nothing supernatural.

Concerning the biblical revelations of John, the insight to Jewish tradition is apt to reveal details otherwise not known.

Do you think people confuse the meaning of Revelations with that of Spiritual Consciousness?

Hi Roselyn,
I understand how meditation can lead us to a conclusion, especially when we focus our thoughts in way that allows us to perceive the natural progression of a series of circumstances or events that might result in a given outcome. In this case, the conclusion drawn as to what that outcome might be could be considered as a revelation, especially if the person doing the meditation has never before encountered that particular outcome. In a manner of speaking, though, this type of meditation is nothing more than the extrapolation of cause/effect scenarios.

I'm not sure how to answer your question about Spiritual Consciousness versus Revelation. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean, or what is meant, by "Spiritual Consciousness"?

To me, this appears to be a redundant term, as I lean towards the idea that consciousness (i.e. awareness) is made manifest as a result of the spirit being expressed through matter, meaning there is no other form or type of consciousness to be had other than that of spiritual consciousness.

With the latter idea as my basis then, any revelation gained will always be spiritual in nature, especially if the information gained has not yet been experienced or previously realized.

As an example, consider the revelations in the O.T. pertaining to Jesus Christ Whom had not yet been made manifest in the world, where the prophets described in detail the events surrounding His future coming.

Although these revelations were prophetic in nature, they were nonetheless derived as a result of discerning what the outcome would be as it pertained to observing the Laws, (which gives us a whole new meaning for the statement "Jesus fulfilled the Law"), whereas the revelations of John speak of events pertaining to His Second Coming when our spirits are able to fully express themselves through matter.

So to answer your question, I would say that John's Book of Revelations reveals the end outcome of developing total spiritual consciousness, (aka complete awareness), while any current understanding of Revelations will be confusing until such totality/completeness is realized or understood.

doc

We might have to look more closely at the Gnostic teachings in regard to Spiritual Consciousness. But it seems to me that the Spiritual aspect is what people in the first churches called inspired. However, it could also indicate how the Greeks redefined or refined the divine nature within man. When were these terms first applied?

Now there's a good question, Roselyn...

I don't know when the terms were first applied, but the concept of the divine nature within man has shown up on many a cave wall, revealing that the idea has been with humankind for a very long time.

Cave drawings usually depict lifestyle and not imaginary charcters. Although a few ancient portraits of saints show halo's above the heads of characters. Which might depict "divine" attributes from bible visionaries. But I would think these not to be very ancient in comparison to the real cave drawings. Also, Egyptian drawings before the biblical god was invented show nothing of "divine nature" and maybe their god of worship in "Ra" the Sun was the only life force of their worship. And what about the landscapes in Peru or wherever it is that men drew out the spider, scorpion, pheonix, etc that can only be seen from a sky view? These are spectacular feats of measured calculations. But maybe not so fantastic if we consider that crop circles today owe their origin to calculating pranksters who have measured their artwork via a wheat or corn field. Some people, even after having footage of pranksters creating such artwork still insist on some form of "divine" interference which caused it all. But we know it was "magic", just as when the first church fathers took it upon themselves to "divinely" create a new religion and set its foundation in a dying and rising god-man.

But the "divine" aspect goes back much further than the beginnings of the church and finds itself oozing with Gnostic folklore. "Something" they could not explain got special definition in imagery, found itself locked into the magician's wand of prophetic utterances. Astrology comes into play offering further evidence of ancient magic given divine prominence. "Bringing up the dead" was a common enough claim of Shammans. Again, the magic of it all illustrates the deceit but also the answers to the seeker's curiosity.

Who created the Hebrew god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? I think he sort of evolved through the generations of those middle eastern tribesmen and their illustrious imaginations. What visionary stories they must have told while discusing their reason for being on earth. And who was to argue about such a god in those ancient days? He was just the way many different Hebrews thought him to be. He may have had a wife. He may have evolved from a fish out of the sea. Moses brought him out of a burning bush and declared him as "I am that I am". Well, that's good enough answer for me, for what that means is take a wild guess and whatever you conclude is it. And the first church fathers contained him forever in the god-man Jesus, the Christ anointed vessel from which all Christians could drink their fill.

Ancient magic. Orally delivered in words. Words are definite in some ways. Word play is fun. Words produce sound. I read an article which said that water responds to words. (In the bible story, Jesus talked a lot about water and words, defined the words as "spirit" and "life". ) Anyway, the article told about soothing words create fascinating crystalite formations when frozen whereas mean ugly words causes water not to respond so you get zip, nothing, from speaking mean words to water. Supposedly this was a scientific experiment. I will have to find that article, you'd enjoy it I think. Do you think the Catholics may have already discovered and known these things and why Holy Water is a healing element? Strange stuff.

The water crystal stuff can be found at this site. Mr. Emoto pioneeed this work.

You can also go here to get the basics on how early man depicted the divine.

The question which now must be asked is "How is it that early man came to believe in and worship a higher authority/power than himself".

I myself imagine it had to do with man's recognition of his own mortality, along with observing the continuous cycles of life and death, with all this being underscored by the hope that there is more to life than suffering, surviving, and death.

How is it that early man came to believe in and worship what he thought was a higher power than himself?

In the evolutionary process, man's brain also evolved along with his physical features. Man and his brain were unthinking, pre-primitive, animalistic; for millions of years man's development from grub-type survivor whose only instinct was to eat and multiply. He was yet in the developing stages of his senses. But this is a wild guess. I'm now of the opinion that we humans are really aliens who were transported[dumped] here as workers, slaves of the capatilists "others". Mining for precious metals was our purpose to enrich the lives of the "others". But something went wrong. Maybe on the "others" universe there was a big bang that destroyed them all. And so we are now stuck on earth with no place to go.

But should they still exist and if they came for you, would you go?

Based upon to what you have posted above, it seems you might be a proponent of what is written at this site.

Either that, or you've been watching way too many Stargate episiodes on T.V.

Lots of Ancient History episodes.

Thanks for the link Doc, looks interesting.