Amos

Sorry, I don't want to be difficult but for me to tell you what I believe would give you the wrong impression. Let's just say that I am not religious but hold that the bible is inerrant. I can argue for the "young earth" but not like the so called Christians would.

So therefore, yes, I am a believer in Jesus but not a follower of Jesus (if that helps any).

Answerer

Okay , last question :'Is Jesus the man (to you) or Jesus the Son of God?' Sorry for asking so much, but you are an unique christian to me.

Amos

I hear you loud and clear and I do not wish to mislead you because my answer must be consistent and I cannot just tell you something for the sake of giving an answer.

Jesus was not the man, nor the son of God but the reborn identity of Joseph to which the man identity was reborn and this man identity was set free when the ego of Joseph, here under the name of Jesus, was crucified but not until the man identity was set free under the name of Bar-abbas-- which means son of the father. This son-of man identity later became known as Christ.

The above is clearly spelled out in the bible and is the reason why Jesus was never addressed as Christ until after the resurrection in Mark (NAB).

David Bowden

Wait... clearly? So, when at age 12 Jesus was in the temple and Joseph and Mary couldn't find him, which person was really Joseph? The father or the son? And was Joseph... wait, no, hold on... Exedrin... Water...

Amos, the interpretations you give always shine a nifty (if sometimes blinding) light on the New Testament, and I have to admit, I'd love to know your conceptual source for writing the above-quoted paragraph.

Is there a teacher or writer whose work might point the inquisitive in the direction of understanding what "believing in Jesus" means in the way that you believe in him (but don't follow him)? A school of thought, or something?

I'm having trouble translating your various posts into consistently meaningful concepts, in other words. You put in a fair amount of time at these boards, and I'd like to appreciate your contributions as completely as possible. I'm uneasy engaging your posts in either supportive or argumentative fashion when I don't properly understand what they're saying.

I suppose I'm looking for something a little more systematic, something I can refer to and better understand where you're coming from when you post your rather non-familiar (to me) interpretations of scripture. Can you offer me anything along those lines?

Thanks,
David

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]</p>

Answerer

Hi Amos, despite asking you many times, I'm still a bit confused about your beliefs. I knew that you tend to treat the stories in the bible as some forms of philosophical lessons instead of historical facts. And the part that I'm confused is the above quotation.
I know that you are trying to say that Jesus is the reborn identity of Joseph but what do you mean by 'man identity'? And what does resurrection mean to you? A mere change of identity?

Amos

</strong>

That just means that Jesus was busying himself behind the "green wall" (WE) trying to find out who he really was. Joseph has no entry there and Mary sure as heck knew where he was because "She took everything to heart." Don't forget here that Mary was in charge of this all and would never tell the man she cuckold. </strong>

?????? I would love too give you a simple answer but there is not one. I have a BA with a major in philosophy from about 15 years ago. I started this at the age of 39 and when I learned that I needed reading glasses I soon quit reading. So it really is not my reading or any shool of thought that I adhere to. Yet, I liked literature and was good at explicating poetry. </strong>

You know, I am here for my pleasure and never know what to write. It is not very often that I remember the next day what I wrote about or who I am writing to. However, I do have a perspective and that is what I try to develop and maybe refine while I am on these boards. So I am the one who should be grateful and thank others for allowing me to be here.

I can tell you what I read but that would not be much good to you. The Surpreme Identity was good for me. Allen Watts is good and I found him easy to follow. To be comfortable with authors that can lead us into the unknown is reassuring when we are searching for a deep structure themes in the works of others such as Shakespeare, Hardy and the rest of them.

Amos

Man identity as distinct from our persona. I have called this ego before but persona is probably a better word. This means that if we have a persona we are not our persona. Our persona is a condition of being that belongs to the animal man (the being). So the man identity is the naked animal man whereupon our soul nature is written at birth. Our soul nature is the Alpha and our persona is the letters we add to the Alpha and end in the Omega because the Omega will be the end of our world (which is symbolized by the death of our persona = crucifixion of Jesus).

Before resurrection can become a reality a fair munber of letters must be added to our soul (alpha here, but these letters can be seen as eidetic images tied to reality--which is contained in our soul). These letters will determine the end of our world and therefore include the Omega. The end of the world is when we abandon our persona (our Spire) and return to the Alpha to place this same persona (including the letters we added) subservient to the Alpha and so combine reason with intuition into one singular mind.

So no, it is not really a change in identity because we were the same Alpha with additions as before. The difference is that after resurrection we hand over the reins to intuition while our mind finds rest to enjoy the same ride but now in the fullness of time that is presented to us in the Alpha (our soul).

Sabine Grant

AMOS : bonsoir! I am not sure we can deny the existence of evil. Its existence is a necessity to reinforce the dualism of good versus evil. In a culture which analyzes and promotes murder as a "good cause", it is difficult to reverse that notion. "Mein Kampf" had convinced scientists that experiments conducted on Jews was for the "good cause" of science. It was that existing evil ideology which triggered an elan of concern from the rest of the world. Death camps and their evil purpose alerted the public opinion. It had to go to the extreme it reached for the world to aknowledge that it was evil. Our sense of goodness was exarcerbated by the horrendous crimes commited against Jews.
I am pointing there to the notion that evil is a necessity to stimulate what should be our natural goodness.
I cannot pertain to analyze God's motivation as He presented what was to be good to His Creation and allowed evil to be part of His Plan. I can only observe the fact that throughout human history, we have responded with what should be natural goodness to any evil system in place.
It is as if tragedies have to occur to awake us from our comfortable status of indifference.
The question is " is evil a necessity?".

David Bowden

Amos, thank you for your answer. I can assure you that your posts are appreciated for their poetry, humor, and often surprising insight, even if I personally do not always know how precisely to translate them into my own idiom. (Often it's better just to imbibe jazz without thinking too hard about it.) You add a unique flavor to these boards. I hope that you receive as much out of participating here as is possible.

With this I agree wholeheartedly. Thanks again for your reply.

David

Amos

Gracefully.