%%% Thank you+ war is not hell . Even though some one in DOD named a weapon a ''hellfire missile'' I sometimes wear sunglasses + now i see.
Was knowledge of God the issue? Or, was it our lack of respecting the boundry God gave. It may have been knowledge of evil that was set apart. it was the idea that Satan tempted man with the idea she could be like God. Eat from the tree and you will not die. You will be God. Well we see how that worked out. We are not God. 2. Is it our faith which saves? Or is it our trust in God that he is faithful to his word which saves. Its acting in faith which saves. We are not talking about faith as a noun but more like a verb. faithing. Knowing God is true to his word we act in accordance. That is the faith that saves.
Instead of the generic term "God", i prefer the term "Christ", to associate the divine with Jesus' own brand of self-knowledge. This is the only understanding of "God" that i am interested in. There are dozens of opinions about "God"...each one an idol, imo. Jewish literature describes a Jewish opinion of "God" , and human genesis. I don't agree with their notions and i don't think Jesus agreed with them either, with plenty of evidence to suggest that. So i give no weight to their story of human genesis, as well as it's attempt to offer analysis of current human conditions, compared to original conditions. I can only comment on the misunderstandings about knowledge versus faith, good and evil. I don't think i can redeem the traditional Jewish story by reinterpretation. I consider the Jewish story of genesis to be the product of priest-craft, which is about controlling the largest amount of people with the smallest police force. It's possible the story was a valid description of man's genesis, originating in some other culture. But by the time it is appropriated for use by priests, it may now be butchered beyond recognition. The first thing to notice is it validates man's genesis. It put's a divine stamp of approval on the making of man, calling it "good". I have news. Good is a quality of Christ. By appropriating this quality to itself, mankind does indeed presume to be Christ. Likewise, when man claims to "live", or to "exist", or to be "true" or to be "real", again, man presumes to be Christ. Again, Christ is Jesus' own version of what divinity (God/Good) is like, based upon his own brand of self-knowledge. God is good. So, whatever is actually good, that is God. I call that "Christ", as that is how i believe Jesus understood divinity. Therefore, the "knowledge of good and evil" really means to know Christ, and also to know of something other than Christ. Is there another god besides God? Is there another good besides Good? Is there another reality other than Christ? (Christ is reality). These kinds of questions precede the genesis of man. If you do a history of my posts, my very last post talks about the nature of these questions, and what they lead to. I start with the premise that Christ has self-knowledge...that Christ is "all in all" (everything)...therefore self-knowledge is the knowledge of everything. Given the knowledge of everything, there are no questions! This is before the manifestation of man. A question arises, leading to the manifestation of man. The question was "who am I?" The answer is already known. Entertaining the question invites speculation. Speculation invites curiosity. Curiosity invites attention. Attention becomes more and more demanding. Before long, all the mental power of Christ is exploring alternatives to the self that is known. Perhaps there is a greater self to be known? Perhaps there is more to know than Christ? But for the mind of Christ to explore these considerations, it has to go beyond the known, into the unknown. Exploration into the unknown is led by a mental trick i call "faith". It's this faith that makes manifest man's world(s), and man upon it. As such, man, and man's world, represents an unknown Christ, and unknown good, an unknown "God" so-to-speak. As an unknown, man is a faith-based phenomenon. Man is something that is believed, not known. Who believes in man? Man's maker. And while man is made in the image of man's maker, man also believes in man. The difference between good and evil, between Christ and not-Christ (anti-Christ), is the difference between knowing and believing. Good is a quality that can be known, and "evil" is a quality that can only be believed. It is evil because it is believed. Anything that can be believed is evil. As such, evil depends on faith for it's very existence. So, it's a lie to suggest that both good and evil can be known. This is what the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" suggests. The serpent suggests that it's possible to know both good and evil. Technically speaking, it is faith which suggests that it is possible to know both good and evil. Faith, after all, is a mental trick which substitutes for knowledge. Faith presumes to know what it does not know. Faith is not at all concerned with the truth. Faith is only concerned about fulfilling wishes, and about declaring those wishes, once "manifested", to be "true", "reality", and/or "good". As such, faith is the genesis of force. Faith makes demands. The genesis of mankind is a demand (an order) upon the truth, the reality, and the good of Christ. It's this faith which exchanges a spiritual world for a material world. It's the exchange of a spiritual world for a material world which brings about death. Death is simply this: rapid, radical change. Death comes to Christ when knowledge is exchanged for faith. Once faith takes over, it makes it's own version of "Christ" (reality) according to it's own wishes. Faith is the father of all the material world(s). The material worlds are what i call a "dead Christ". The material worlds are characterized by constant change, having been initiated by a change (from the original Christ). As the material worlds are constantly changing, they are constantly dying. As such, they are death itself, or at least a manifestation of the original change from knowledge to faith. To the extent that man changes, man dies. Notice also animals die for the same reason. Even the stars (man's "light") will die, as they change. So faith and death are nearly synonymous as faith is always changing it's scenarios. Birthed as change, faith continues to change, and "live" by change. Alas, faith will itself die by change, and that will be the end of it's world. Faith is destined to die. The only alternative to faith is knowledge. Faith will be replaced with knowledge. That will be "the end of the world", so to speak, but only the end of a world built by faith. Again, faith is fake knowledge (worse than fake news). Faith believes. Whatever faith believes in is "evil". A problem arises when the "evil" presumes to be the "good". Faith, masquerading as knowledge, is man's biggest problem. Man presumes to stand on the same footing as Christ. Man presumes to exist. Man presumes to know. Man presumes to be real. Man presumes to have life. These are all usurpations which sit man squarely upon Christ's "throne", so-to-speak. These qualities belong to Christ, and only to Christ. These qualities are stolen from Christ, by faith, and given to man. In the process of faith, Christ is changed. As Christ is changed, Christ is killed (change = death). In this way, by the forces of faith, Christ is killed for the benefit of mankind. With Christ dead, man steps up to Christ's throne, sits upon it, and puts upon his shoulders the mantel of Christ representing all the qualities of Christ. Every time a man says, "I am...", he usurps the prime quality of Christ: existence. But when man adds to the statement "I am...", he changes the essence of Christ's existence. When a man says "I am a carpenter", he takes what belongs to Christ, existence, and changes it into something else. In this way, man perpetuates the wishes of man's father: faith. By perpetuating change, man perpetuates death. So no, it's not your faith which saves. Faith is part of the problem, not the solution. Christ does not have faith, given total/all knowledge to begin with. Christ can only "stay true" to knowledge, should faith come and tempt Christ to exchange knowledge for faith. Christ has not made man any promises except to say that man, and man's world, will come to an end. So, salvation is not for man, or for man's world. Salvation is for Christ, from a faith-filled mind. Acting in faith saves man. So if you are interested in saving yourself, continue to act in faith. Christ is not saved by acting in faith. Knowledge threatens man, but saves Christ. Faith saves man from the threat of knowledge, specifically the knowledge of Christ. Any faith will save man. Any faith at all. So long as man's maker, faith, continues to believe in what it wishes, man will be saved. If ever faith was withdrawn from man's maker, man would vanish back to the void from which man was conjured up in the first place. So it all depends on what you are trying to save. If you are trying to save yourself, continue to believe in man's maker. If you are trying to save Christ, believe in Christ until your faith is replaced with knowledge. The day your faith is replaced with knowledge, that is the day of salvation...depending on who you believe you are. Not one man will be saved. Faith, masquerading as knowledge, is man's biggest problem (sin). It's important to never confuse what we think we know about good (God), with what we believe about good (Christ). If what we believe does not truly reflect Christ, it reflects and idol. Believing in idols, we will die (continue to change).
You have free will, you are so free you can choose bondage. For someone who professes the gospel of Christ, you put forth a lot of arguments. Maybe some of Einstein’s words could sooth,... https://wearelightbeings.wordpress....hter-about-the-universal-force-which-is-love/
I don't think i make a lot of arguments. I present just a few premises, and i develop them using repetition, saying the same thing over and over again in different ways, so that the listener can learn. The objective is to present one consistent argument, as a philosopher would. There's Jesus' own brand of self-knowledge, and there are official narratives that believers tell us about what he knew. But these are believers, who are interested in the salvation of themselves. I have explained clearly how faith is antithetical to knowledge. I have explained that knowledge saves Christ, while faith saves man. Conversely, I have explained how knowledge threatens man, and faith threatens Christ. I have explained how faith masquerades as knowledge. I have explained how man, a product of faith, usurps the throne of Christ...takes Christ's place...substitutes for Christ...changes Christ (kills Christ). I have explained how knowledge creates Christ, and faith makes man. I have explained how it is impossible to "know" evil. I have explained that evil is anything that is believed. I have explained that Christ is what can be known, and man is what can be believed. I have explained the origins of man, deriving from faith that fills the mind of Christ. I have explained that faith changes Christ from what is known, to what is believed. This is as far a "free will" goes. Christ has a choice: believe or know. There is your free will. Choosing faith, the mind of Christ goes about making man and man's world...at it's own expense. In the making of man and man's world, the mind of Christ is destroyed by the faith it hosts. So i think it is rather arrogant (faith masquerading as knowledge) of you to speak of love, as if you know what's going on. Faith is like a wish fulfillment factory. Is that love? We shall see. Faith has fulfilled the wishes of man's maker. Man is a wish, fulfilled. It seems that man makes wishes. But man's actions are also wishes fulfilled, yes, even the murders. If man's wishes are the wishes of man's maker, then does man have free will? As a product of faith, man's fate is sealed. Man has but one choice. It is this one choice that gives him any chance at free will at all. The choice is between faith and knowledge. Man can continue acting in faith, or man can know Christ. At best, man can have faith that he can know Christ. While man believes erroneous notions about Christ, man's faith will continue to drive him away from the love of Christ. At best, man can rectify his notions about Christ, which includes the notion of love, so that it tends to point toward the knowledge of Christ, and the knowledge of Christ's love. A day will come when Christ will exchange the faith with knowledge. That will be man's last day. When all faith has been exchanged for knowledge, that is the end of man's world. If you think the destruction of Christ for your own benefit is love, then by all means, continue to act on your faith. But nothing you do will come from knowledge. Hence, you will not know what you are doing. Not knowing what you are doing, you are not free.
‘I’ this, ‘you’ that, sounds like duality. This ‘is’ that, lot’s a free associations. No ‘feeling’, everything so far stated ‘is’ a mental construct of one’s own making. In other words, a self-constructed prison with invisible bars composed of one’s own unchallenged belief’s. It’s a difficult process to examine one’s own belief’s, challenging one’s own self-identity ‘feels’ like death and the ‘I’ will do everything in it’s power to avoid it. What is to people that is like air is to birds and water is to fish?
I'm sure you are as aware of the answer the riddle as i am: the Self. What i'm emphasizing in this thread is when faith reduces the Self to something like a fish or bird, existence becomes dangerous, even hellish. It seems for every thing, there is a predator waiting to strike. I think the wise would use this to motivate a deeper dive into the Self. Yes words are weak, language itself lending itself to the services of duality. Words like "we", "they", "you", "me" don't exist in the non-dual reality of a spiritual world. This is why the concept of "oneness" is so much emphasized to describe the original condition. This is due to perfect equality, unobtainable in a material world. I may even argue that the identifier "I am", and even "I", is ultimately unknown in the known (spiritual) world. Yes my associations are bible-free. It's why i never quote chapter and verse. However, i have been known to appropriate a few cherries from the bible, just to show bible believers that there are entirely other ways to interpret the same text. Unfortunately, i am unable to redeem the bible through a better interpretation. It is sufficiently dissonant (cognitive dissonance) that i find it irredeemable if the purpose is to understand what exactly Jesus said and meant. People have tried to redeem it, almost whole cloth; Mary Baker Eddy for example. It's redemption depends upon just how much of it represents a parable, and how much of it represent direct doctrinal maxims. I suggest it is 100% parable, but if even only 5% was parable, it disqualifies the book from being classified as something that is "true". Parables are neither for believing, nor for disbelieving. Parables are for understanding, without which the parable is worthless, or worth less than nothing (detrimental). As such, it is not possible to "believe" the bible whole-cloth. One can only believe one's interpretation. The parables offered by the bible are sufficiently void of substance that they inevitably are used by the legions of hell to support the god of this world (the god of material worlds). Duality ultimately boils down to parables as everything in a material world boils down to a symbol...if parables = symbols. A material world, like the bible, offers itself for interpretation in the eyes of it's beholders. One interpreter will say, 'Look at the world and see god'. I say, 'Look at the material world and see what is anti-Christ (antithetical to the existence of Christ)'. In a dual world, even the "good" is fake news. In a dual world, the "good" makes a mockery of the good that exists in its original state as Christ. Juxtaposed with each "good" in a dual world, is an "evil" that functions as some kind of opposite. In between, there are 50 shades of grey. In this way, duality is expressed as a continuum. Just when you thought there were two genders, the world discovers a 'third sex'...transgenders. Yes, this is how i would describe the domain of faith. Yes. People will interpret parables according to their motives (their core biases). It's the core motives, un-examined, that drive man, and keep his mind captive. Yes, they are very deep-seeded, going all the way back to the origins (genesis) of the material worlds. I discuss the deepest seeded beliefs of all, and go so far as to question the very validity of faith to begin with. The universal symbol/parable for believing (faith) is eating and digestion. For this reason, the proverbial "fruit" of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is actually a parable that stands for a concept that you can either believe, or disbelieve...depending on your core motivation. Through faith, the concept is believed, and the material worlds are the "fruit" of the faith in the false idea that you can know both good and evil. According to my interpretation, the parable of the duality tree is a warning against believing in it in the first place. I do trace how the belief in the duality tree leads to the concept of death. I would even argue that people continue to die because of a deep seeded belief in the fruit of the proverbial "tree"...as an ongoing phenomena. Yes, it's very much akin to death (rapid radical change), which is why not one "man" is yet able to rightly interpret the following suggestion: "The kingdom of heaven is within you". Not one "man" (not one Christian) will interpret this they way Jesus interpreted it for himself. I think it's only when a mind starts to feel like a fish out of water, or a bird in water, that it seeks to re-identify in light of better possibilities.
1. Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day. I am not sure that God says fallen man is good. Fallen man who disobeys God so that he will be as God is not good. 2. We can't communicate and explore deeply if you make up new meanings for Christ. There is no reason to reinterpret what the word Christ means. Christ does not simply mean good. Christ means the anointed one from God or Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah who saves. Calling him Christ is not saying he is simply good. Calling Christ means he is the one God sent as our savior from this world. here is a reasonable definition... https://www.gotquestions.org/what-does-Christ-mean.html Answer: To the surprise of some, “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name (surname). “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos, meaning “anointed one” or “chosen one.” This is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Mashiach, or “Messiah.” “Jesus” is the Lord’s human name given to Mary by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:31). “Christ” is His title, signifying Jesus was sent from God to be a King and Deliverer (see Daniel 9:25; Isaiah 32:1). “Jesus Christ” means “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed One.” In ancient Israel, when someone was given a position of authority, oil was poured on his head to signify his being set apart for God’s service (e.g., 1 Samuel 10:1). Kings, priests, and prophets were anointed in such fashion. Anointing was a symbolic act to indicate God’s choosing (e.g., 1 Samuel 24:6). Although the literal meaning of anointed refers to the application of oil, it can also refer to one’s consecration by God, even if literal oil is not used (Hebrews 1:9). There are hundreds of prophetic passages in the Old Testament that refer to a coming Messiah who would deliver His people (e.g., Isaiah 61:1; Daniel 9:26). Ancient Israel thought their Messiah would come with military might to deliver them from decades of captivity to earthly kings and pagan nations. But the New Testament reveals a much better deliverance provided by Jesus the Messiah—a deliverance from the power and penalty of sin (Luke 4:18; Romans 6:23). The Bible says Jesus was anointed with oil on two separate occasions by two different women (Matthew 26:6–7; Luke 7:37–38), but the most significant anointing came by way of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). Jesus’ title of “Christ” means He is God’s Anointed One, the One who fulfills the Old Testament prophecies, the Chosen Savior who came to rescue sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), and the King of kings who is coming back again to set up His Kingdom on earth (Zechariah 14:9). 3. So you are welcome to attempt to explain what you think... but lets not redefine words. Redefining words is what those who wish to lead cults or sell worthless trading course do. 4. I prefer highbandwidth communication with well defined words. In short I would love to read what you believe... but I prefer to not have to spend 90 percent of time not trying to figure out what you are really saying because you are jumbling up meanings so that you can pretend Jesus taught something he never taught. You might be teaching it which is fine. But lets put new meanings in Jesus mouth. Lets see what he actually said... and then you can tell us this is what you think he meant.
What word would you use for a Jesus who is NOT the Jewish notion of Messiah, but whose actual words are salvific for anyone who understands them, and applies his principles? I would attribute only about 5% of the red letters in the "new testament" to something Jesus actually said. Then, what he said is surrounded by context which changes it's meaning. Among the 5% is a denial he is the Jewish notion of Messiah. It should be obvious to what lengths the stories go, to fit a round peg into the square hole of Messiah. Probably he was never taken to Egypt as a child. But so the story goes, in order to "fulfill" a prophecy, "Out of Egypt I have called my son, Israel".
I don't think I'm changing meanings much when I say that god and good mean the same thing. The shorter version is missing an "o", producing a meaningless variable into which all kinds of charlatans pump their own values. I'm for clarity, not the many meaningless words people use like "sin", having zero connection to normal modes of human communication. If god and good mean the same thing, then if god calls man "good", at any time, he is calling man god, saying, 'this is who I am'. So why should man be punished for accepting that? Personally, I don't think man is good, before or after any so-called fall, and, putting such words in the mouth of god, I do believe the bible is blasphemous. Even Jesus, perhaps the best "man", denied he is good as such. As a rule of thumb, words are not good either, and do not serve the purposes of Jesus unless they are reinterpreted (given new meaning). For example, Jesus changed the meaning of the term "dead" to mean *sleep* or sleeping.