Iasion

Greetings Peter,

I was thinking of 1 John :


1 John 5:7f

"there are three which bear witness on earth, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one in Jesus Christ; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one ".

But perhaps I should have said :

The Trinity was a late addition to Christianity and is only vaguely found in the NT.

Quentin

Merle

It is often difficult to tell sarcasm from seriousness online, but I take it that this is sarcasm.

At any rate, it does not resolve the difficulty that Christians teach 3 gods in violation of many verses in their own book. Saying that these gods will be united as one in the future does not answer the problem.

Amos

Not sarcasm and I think that this has happened many times in the past and is probably the only way to get to heaven.

What this means is that heaven is a state of mind wherein the left and right brian become one and this is called the hypostatic union. Just my perspective, of course.

Gregg

My RSV here has (1 John 5:6-8):

"This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree."

No reference to the Father, and no intimation that Jesus and the Spirit are separate, equal, yet a unity. The Spirit, like the water and the blood, witnesses to Jesus. Which translation are you referring to?

Gregg

Amos

The water is the father and the blood is the son. In Jesus Christ Jesus is the son and Christ is the father. The exclamation "my Lord and my God" transformed Christ into Jesus Christ. So the movement was from Jesus to Christ by crucifixion, by resurrection to Christ Jesus and after communion to Jesus Christ.

Ulrich

On what do you base these statements? Where in the bible does it say that water = father, or blood = son. Also, it is my understanding that christ means "annointed one", which of course would refer to Jesus the son. Lastly, your final sentence about crucifixion and resurrection seems to make very little sense whatsoever. How do you differentiate between the terms Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ? Even given your erroneous assupmtion that christ = father, both names would seem to have the same meaning.

Amos

That probably is not in the Bible (how would I know?), but follows from my basic premis that Christ was reborn into the mind of Joseph, or conversly, that the firstborn man identity wherein Joseph the man was created in image of God was reborn into the mind of the human Joseph. The child image of Christ speaks for the early beginning of awakening with regard to who we really are, i.e. our infancy of understanding. Who we really are is known in our soul nature which is our father image that was incarnate upon us and to this we must add the contrubitions made during this life referred to as the son.

Simply put, our subconscious mind is the father and our conscious mind is the son.

Reason is the rational mind and the difference between Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ is the recall of our eidetic images into the upper room so reason can prevail. This is made explictly clear when the shepherds (faculty of reason) were called to be apostels after metanoia. They were again forsaken prior to crucifixion and must therefore be recalled in the upper room of the subconscious mind before reason can prevail while we go by intuition (walk on water without sinking).

Ulrich

OK, I have read this several times and it makes even less sense than your original post. Regardless, I think I get your general argument. You seem to be saying that the entire NT is just a metaphor for the way our concious mind is influenced by our subconcious mind (correct me if I am wrong).

If that is the case, I think that you are reading far too much into the motives of the NT authors. Personally, I think they were some well intentioned people trying to set down the oral traditions of their religion into writing. Though the oral traditions were likely stories with some small grain of truth that got blown out of proportion by people whose motives are by now entirely unfathomable to us today, but were probably significantly less well intentioned than the people who wrote them down.

Amos

Not the entire NT but at least the Gosples are metaphors or allegories that describe a series of events that can take place in the mind of 'anyman.' The epistels use this 'archetypal reality' to create pastoral letters and because we can have sight of this reality with the eye of our soul the Gosples are ideal to help form a new religion.

Please don't let this come across as a lecture to you but since this event is archetypal (native to the animal man), it is non-rational and because it is an actual non-rational event that our faculty of reason is its enemy (or it would not be non-rational). To become engaged in this non-rational event our faculty of reason must be exhausted before it can be 'subdued' and it must be subdued before it can be subjugated to be 'raised' again on the 'other side' where our faculty of reason will be placed subservient to our intuitition so that reason can prevail when we go by intuition.

In Catholicism this would be called purgatory which now means that the gospels take place in purgatory and they show us how to go from rebirth to heaven. None of this is part of religion but it is what religion prepares us for and might even make us more susceptible towards ("we are the clay, you are the potter"). The beginning of renewal is therefore also the end of religion or there would be temples in the New Jerusalem.