Tuesday, September 19, 2006:
Higher Criticism faces the same situation as the quantum physicist. Yahveh, Elohim, the priests with their laws and rituals and the so-called Deuteronomists who put down a copy of the law emphasizing oneness are all particles of the same sea. These are all present in the mind of Moses. Moses lived a long time. He was not a stagnant personality. He grew.
Story telling was oral history and a way of handing down teachings and morals, etc. The Higher Criticism of the New Testament is prophetic telling. The Gospels don't match. In fact, in areas, they say the exact opposite. This of course doesn't prove that Jesus wasn't speaking in different contexts. The fact that the Old Testament writers argued over revelation and interpretation and God's nature and the host's nature is great. The same is true concerning the differences in the New Testament Gospels. They are reliable emotionally to grow on, to learn to sort and to know when to be silent.
Even though they differ, they flesh each other out and give one a sense of where to flow. It helps one to feel the writers and the process of getting to the strait gate while still being human, fallible, ignorant, yet redeemable for being earnest of heart and other things.
According to the critics (textual scholars) of the Higher Criticism school of thought, Mark wrote first. Luke and Matthew build upon Mark. The three are called the synoptic gospels, meaning they are generally alike. Luke wrote his Gospel version and The Acts of the Apostles. John is virtually independent. The higher critics don't think any of the writers were original disciples of Jesus. They think these writers probably never laid eyes on Jesus. The critics don't preclude that the writers were disciples of the original disciples getting their story handed to them via verbal recollections in a direct line of succession.
When the critics speak with absolute certainty, they belie their own error. They don't know there things. They only believe they are most probable. Are they more right than the self-styled conservatives? Yes. How do I know that. I know it because they are less selfish at heart.
The problem with the higher critics is many stop short. They open their eyes to see Orwellianism at work, which it is, but then they close them before they see the implications of the duality as one in Jesus. They preclude all the so-called hard things to believe such as the miracles. They turn everything into metaphor rather than comprehending the different state potentials of everything, including Jesus, just for the asking in pure unselfish righteousness.
So, on the false spectrum, the right defines literalism in a way to preclude Orwellian spirits (devils and dupes) at work right in the scripture, beyond those devils exoterically labeled as such. The left goes so far the other way that there are no spirits. Meanwhile, God remains invisible.
The theology at that level is as the Newtonian is to the Einsteinian and the quantum and then some, an infinite some.
If you've experienced miracles of faith, you know this. If you haven't, then all of The Bible is so much easier to subject to mundane, scientific testing, a sin. As soon as you seek to test the miracles, the supernatural superabundance will cut off. You're too dangerous to other souls to have it. With your mindset, you'll do reckless, selfish things beyond the pale. You'll blaspheme the Holy Spirit. You're then stuck outside the garden where you and your descendents have to toil and suffer. That's the meaning of the story of the Garden of Eden.
Just to clarify, you are in the supernatural and are supernatural in the sense that once upon a time, God had people living on the earth that would provide for them all and pristinely. It was provided supernaturally, as everything still is. There was no want or toil until the fall. The natural versus supernatural is a matter of consciousness and conscience.
We have to say consciousness and conscience today even though it is redundant. There was a time when it was understood that consciousness was conscience. The stream of thoughtlessness that pejorates all the good though has dimmed the meaning subconsciously to be fooled into avoiding the implications of being awake to the necessity for unselfish being.
This is why few there be who find the way. People drop away from the right way to accept the Gospel.
The Bible isn't just literal in the sense the self-styled conservative Republican evangelical fundamentalist Christians think. There's no such thing as the kind of literalness that self-centered, militant so-called Fundamentalists think there is. They don't understand that there concreteness isn't solid.
The Bible as canonized by the Romans and other inspired writings aren't just figurative moments. They are figurative in that they represent something bigger. But when you think of Jesus walking on the water, you really have to understand that he wasn't defying gravity. God was simply being obeyed.
The Holy Spirit is here and now, inspiring. Prophecy is not shut up. The truth is pouring out as it hasn't in two thousand years. The spirits are pouring, both light and dark. It's coming to a head.
That expression is credited to or attributed to the Greeks, to their Delphic wise. Did it originate with the Greeks? The emphasis of the importance of the point of the expression certainly survived with the Greeks. If other cultures shared the sentiment as a universal they did so with less focus or lasting impact.
What does it mean to know thyself? For you to know you is to know God. How is that? We know everything we know by reason of relationship, by reason of the relativity of everything to everything. It does not preclude absolutes. It is itself an absolute. To think in this way, you must have your semantics hat firmly on your head with all the power of simultaneousness coming in you can attract.
When you ask the question who am I, you are both directly and indirectly asking the question who and what is God. When you've answered the question, you've arrived at your position vis-Ã -vis God.
How well will you have done or have you done relative to the truth is not a matter of opinion. There is ultimate truth even as it is infinite. Again, in the paradox lies God. In reconciling with the infinite, your relation to God, you will arrive at who you are and your potential. To use the Quantum Mechanics analogy, you will know yourself as particle and wave and waves, and sea and all waters, and on and on.
Keep in mind here that Jesus said he is the real bread over and above the manna that materialized from the sky. This is important so that one does not fall into the error of idolatry. God wasn't the manna, but if God hadn't loved his children he had released from bondage for their previous errors, the manna would not have been shed from the heart for the sake of their flesh. The spirit would not have caused it to be brought forth for the purpose of feeding their bodies while their souls and the soul of the nation were also being worked for good by God and in temptation by Satan within them.
Now, if one may know oneself, one will then know that love, peace, and truth are all one as God and that their opposite at anytime and place are states that do not resolve back to God but rather Satan. Furthermore, you will know that God's domain is absent suffering that comes of corruption and leads to eternal death in that state. At the same time, and this is critical to understand, God's domain is full of suffering by reason of compassion, sympathy, empathy all coming out by reason of the knowledge the potential of each discreet and particularized soul to alter its state to resolve back into truth, incorruptness.
"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." That's the character Polonius speaking in the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It is a correct statement. The question though is what is "true." For the real, liberal Christian who knows truth's direction, it is just that for the human being. What is "true" is what leads in the right direction towards God who is peace and love of the kind and degree shown by Jesus to his fellows: Consistency top to bottom to top.
This is not artificial. It is not the polite wolf waiting to feed. This is genuinely from the heart. Jesus wasn't being rude, crude, vulgar, or impolite when he cleans the temple. He was actually refining the situation. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as inappropriate behavior. It means that he Holy Spirit is the arbiter of manners.
What fits the situation? It is and isn't situational ethics. The ethic is always peace and love as truth being God. The ethic is always leading there. In that frame, one can do no wrong. It is deviation from that that is sin. That is what lies at the heart of knowing oneself and being true to that knowledge and knowing God therefore and not leading anyone else astray therefore.
Will you be led astray by The Bible ? That depends upon which stream of consciousness you follow. Will you follow the law of an eye for an eye, or will you follow the law to turn the other cheek? Which law leads to God on what level? Was the message of Jesus further enlightenment? Yes.
Is there truth in Orwell's characterization of the ability of evil confusion to alter what is recorded in order to alter the future? Yes.
Orwell said, "Those who control the past, control the future; Those who control the future, control the present; Those who control the present, control the past." This is circular, of course, and points out causality in leading others and in shaping reality. Which spirit controls?
Has that rewriting occurred to what is considered Holy Scripture? Yes. We covered some glaring examples earlier in the work.
Don't allow this to put you off though. Putting you off is the whole point behind sinisterness. As Jesus said, stay focused on the spirit of the two great commandments, the golden rule, and Jesus's new commandment. That will see you through all the attempts to put you off.
Is the inspired word the same thing as the word of God? Yes and no is the answer. This is not putting night for day or bitter for sweet. It does not take peace and Jesus's brand of love and call them darkness. It does though explain that relative right direction is the means for the end that is perfection in God while at the same time being clear that potential isn't there until it has been fully potentiated by God. We are God's work in progress provided we will stay turned toward God.
Can one glean the truth that is to say divide the truth out from the corrupt? Yes. Can one understand that the law of an eye for an eye was at the time an improvement and therefore not condemn those who came from greater darkness? Yes. Jesus did that when he explained that the law of Moses was fitting to reach the hardhearted at the time. Jesus was generous of spirit.
Therefore, trust the truth of Orwellian history making. Glean. Remember, the weeds are side-by-side with the wheat, the goats are mixed in with the sheep, until separation, until the fall of the Empire-Beast. Glean the truth. Discern. Cherry pick. Accept the good fruit. Discard the rotten from your being. Do no harm.
Do no harm means be true to yourself and know yourself without being selfish but rather doing the golden rule. Reject greed. Reject violence. Reject depravity. Resist evil but only while rejecting violence. That's two states at once, undivided, reconciled, and headed toward God on the one and only narrow way without paradox. There is resistance and then there is resistance.
Find God and be found by God. Know God. That's the most important thing there is. Jesus knew whom he worshipped. He worshipped truth. He hated falsehood. He hated war. He hated greed. Jesus was right. Jesus knew God. Jesus knew himself therefore.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." That's the character Juliet speaking in the play Romeo and Juliet also by William Shakespeare. Is this a paradox concerning the name of God? No. What's in a sound other than the concepts (the mental states) built up over time that are remembered and expressed by the sound? What's in the power of the mental state of God?
Yahveh Elohim is analogous to the wave-particle duality. Yahveh is one. Elohim is many as one. Here's the point. Yahveh is the only Elohim. The only many that will save is the one.
The "me-first" corrupts. This message comes out of the inspired word. It comes of that word, because that word contains the story of the struggle being selfishness and unselfishness.
Trust is your choice. You must trust the Holy Spirit to work within you to divide the truth from the falsehood, the peace from the war. By doing so, you make history. You own the future.
Therefore, don't despair that the Beast chose the Canon. The Beast cannot kill Jesus or God no matter how much Orwellian pressure they bring to bear. Don't despair that a selective reading of the scripture can be used to justify sin. Read the whole thing to see the big picture. Believe in Jesus's name: Yah saves. The one saves. Then define that one from top to bottom to top again as peace and unselfish love in action. You can't go wrong with this. Your reading of scripture, your interpretation, will improve and improve.
So, one makes the quantum leap from a lower to a higher plane releasing his or her light in the process for others to see and follow. The lower realm is divided into reconcilable parts, made reconcilable by selfishness. The higher plane is the spectrum running from righteousness to righteousness. It is unified in that state.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)