Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	Just to clarify, is this note discussing or based around Luke 
	17:20,21 ?

	The RSV version renders it as "Being asked by the Pharisees when
	the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, "the kingdom of
	God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say,
	'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is
	in the midst of you."


	In the KJV verse 21 is rendered "Neither shall they say, Lo here!,
	or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

	Seeing that he was speaking directly to the Pharisees I don't think
	Jesus was saying that the kingdom of God was literally within the
	Pharisees themselves, rather as the RSV puts it "in the midst of
	you". I will expand further if this note is about these verses.


	As I understand it, the belief within Christendom, is that the
	"kingdom of God is within" the heart. If this is so on what 
	basis is this belief made?  I would like to thank the read-only
	member for posting the question, it is a question that I have 
	wanted to ask myself. 
	
	Phil.

    
    So this is where we run into the issue of translations.  Who 'really'
    knows what Jesus said?
    
    Carole  

To me, this has always meant that I need look no further than my own heart for
God or Heaven.  The God-self is within me and within all of us and we have the
choice at any given moment to live in that God-presence (or Heaven) or to 
separate ourselves from it and live in our own self-created hell.  To me, the
worst kind of hell would be separation from God.

Nanci

    I've always read the that as meaning that the Kingdom of God is to be
    discerned spiritually, and not with our senses.  That we won't find God
    by looking to the physical world, but instead by looking "inward", to
    finding how we reflect God's perfection in our own lives.
    
    Alison

The read-only who suggested the basenote question expressed unfamiliarity
with the Bible, which may be a contributing factor in why the read-only
remains "read-only".  As much as I don't like the idea of having anyone feel
intimidated because of their lack of expertise, I can understand how it
might happen.

I speculate that the question posed in .0 is based on the passage from Luke,
chapter 17, that Phil alluded to.

Jesus told the Pharisees that they would not be able to perceive the Kingdom
with their human eyes, that it was absurd to even try.  Jesus indicated,
nonetheless, that the Kingdom was right there and right then, just as the
presence of the Kingdom is right here and right now.

It matters little to me whether Jesus meant "within" as a presence within
the human heart or whether he meant within the Pharisees' midst.  Jesus spoke
of the Kingdom of God in terms of existing both in the present and in the
future.  Either way, the Kingdom is available.

A Quaker friend of mine used to like to think of this passage as saying that
the Kingdom of God was within...within what?...within reach. ;-}

Peace,
Richard

re.5 

;The read-only who suggested the basenote question expressed unfamiliarity
;with the Bible, which may be a contributing factor in why the read-only
;remains "read-only".  As much as I don't like the idea of having anyone feel
;intimidated because of their lack of expertise, I can understand how it
;might happen.

;I speculate that the question posed in .0 is based on the passage from Luke,
;chapter 17, that Phil alluded to.

I was brought up in the Church of England faith, for many years I could
not bring myself to ask important questions (such as why does God allow
wickedness?) because of my unfamiliarity with the Bible. It wasn't until 
Jehovah's Witnesses began to study the Bible with me that I began to become 
familiar with it's contents and gain benefit from it (by the way these studies 
are free and you are under no obligation). I do not see myself as an expert 
as regards the Bible, but now have the tools to help me dig deeper, ofcourse 
it is important to ask for God's holy spirit for guidance in this regard. I 
would encourage any read-only not to feel imtimidated because of their lack 
of expertise. I am sure they can learn much as well as help those they are
talking to.

	 It is important for followers of Christ to have the correct 
answers for themselves to such things as "The kingdom of God is within"
as brought out by Jesus just before he was killed in John 17:3 RSV "And
this is eternal life, that they *know* thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent,". A personal question might be, do we really 
know God?, for if we did we would know all about Him and what the "kingdom 
of God" is, also we would know why He permits suffering and wether He will 
allow it to continue. We would know wether this "kingdom of God" would be 
a solution to the problems we all face today.

I hope my question for clarification in .1 was not miscontrued, it's just 
that I don't like to act presumptously, eventhough I do at times unintentially.

Phil.

 

re .5

Richard,

;Jesus told the Pharisees that they would not be able to perceive the Kingdom
;with their human eyes, that it was absurd to even try.  Jesus indicated,
;nonetheless, that the Kingdom was right there and right then, just as the
;presence of the Kingdom is right here and right now.

It might be worth looking into what the Jewish people thought was going to be
that Kingdom. They would have seen it as God's kingdom that would bring an end
to all other kingdoms, perhaps wishful thinking was the opressive Roman empire,
compare Daniel 2:44. The disciples would have seen it as a government with 
Jesus being installed as king (compare Isaiah 9:6,7 and Psalms 2). Jesus was 
there with them, even though he had not begun ruling . If he remained faithful 
unto death the reserved crown would have been given him in the future. So the 
future head of this government was in their midst, they too could become part 
of this kingdom as was the case with Saul (apostle Paul), or benefit from it, 
if they would turn to God and recognise his son.

;It matters little to me whether Jesus meant "within" as a presence within
;the human heart or whether he meant within the Pharisees' midst.  Jesus spoke
;of the Kingdom of God in terms of existing both in the present and in the
;future.  Either way, the Kingdom is available.

Jesus knew that other perspective rulers of this kingdom, the disciples were
in the midst of the Pharisees and there would  be future anointed ones from
the gentile nations, compare Revelation 5:9,10. Many benefitted from the
great witnessing work conducted by these future heirs of God's kingdom back
in the first century and the spiritual truths that they taught. 

Why should we think that the "kingdom" is anything other than a literal kingdom?.

Phil.

    To me this passage suggests that God's dwelling place is first and foremost
    within my own heart and my own being.
    
    God's kingdom manifests 'literally', objectively, out there, as I am able
    to dwell and commune with God within my own heart.  This is not to say
    that God's kingdom does not already exist around me in what is called the 
    "objective world."  It's just to say that I am "blind" to it as such 
    until I begin to see with my heart...listen with my eyes...to allow
    my *whole being* to become enfolded within the Kingdom/Queendom of God. 
    
    Karen                       

    Richard -1,
    
    That describes my experience of God, (which is panentheistic),
    perfectly:  that God is transcendent, immanent and pervasive.
    
    Karen 

The following verses would seem to support the simultaneously pervasive,
transcendent and immanent nature of God in Christ:


"This was the real light - the light that comes into the world and shines
on *all* [hu]mankind."  John 1.9 TEV (inclusified)(*emphasis mine*)


"It is the task of fully proclaiming [God's] message, which is the secret
[God] hid through all past ages from all [hu]mankind but now has revealed to
to [God's] own people.  God's plan is to make known this secret to [God's]
people, this rich and glorious secret which [God] has for *all* peoples.
And the secret is that Christ is in you, which means that you will share
in the glory of God."  Colossians 1.25b-27 TEV


Peace,
Richard

    
    There's also the verse, "If thine eye be single, thy body be full of
    light."
    
    Within each person, the potential to perceive the Kingdom of God
    exists.  At the base of everyone's spine, there is energy called
    kundalini.  As one becomes purified in thought, act and other ways, the
    energy rises up through the center of the body and in a truly
    en-light-ened person, the kundalini (the feminine energy) reaches the
    7th energy center (or chakra) at the top of the head (the masculine
    energy), and within each person is the potential for the 'mystical 
    marriage'.  
    
    In Christianity, this is why Christ refers to Himself as the
    bridegroom, and we are the bride.  We are ascending to what he already
    *is*...at least where He was at 2000 years ago - no doubt He's
    progressed upon His own spiritual growth path since then.
    
    The 'eye be single', is the third eye at the center of all of our
    foreheads.  That is where we realize the consciousness, or *awareness*
    that Christ did.  This is the 6th chakra.  At the 7th chakra is the 
    mystical marriage.
    
    Thus, the chapter of Revelation is pure yoga.  7 churches, etc. - it's
    all symbolic.
    
    If anyone is interested in additional information on this, there is a
    book out entitled "The Body Of Light" (sorry, I don't have the author's
    name handy).  It talks about the esoteric references in all religions
    to this energy body, and is all quite fascinating.  At the end of the
    book are exercises that you can do to experience your own energy body.
    
    Cindy

 	If the kingdom of God dwells within each person, then why did 
	Jesus instruct his followers to pray for God's kingdom to come?
	Matthew 6:9,10.


	Phil.

RE:11
    Cindy,
          I have some problems with what you have said here.
        
>    Within each person, the potential to perceive the Kingdom of God
>    exists.  

    The kingdom of God comes to us through Jesus Christ, not ourselves. 
    Without Him, we don't have the capability of finding the Kingdom
    of God.

    >At the base of everyone's spine, there is energy called
>    kundalini.  As one becomes purified in thought, act and other ways, the
>    energy rises up through the center of the body and in a truly
>    en-light-ened person, the kundalini (the feminine energy) reaches the
>    7th energy center (or chakra) at the top of the head (the masculine
>    energy), and within each person is the potential for the 'mystical 
>    marriage'.  

    Sounds similar to Chi, but any energy we have within comes from the
    life God breaths into us.


    
>    In Christianity, this is why Christ refers to Himself as the
>    bridegroom, and we are the bride.  We are ascending to what he already
>    *is*...at least where He was at 2000 years ago - no doubt He's
>    progressed upon His own spiritual growth path since then.

    Christ is God incarnate. We can never become what he was on earth or in
    heaven. To attempt to do so is making the same mistake Eve made when
    the serpent told her she could become like God.    

>    The 'eye be single', is the third eye at the center of all of our
>    foreheads.  That is where we realize the consciousness, or *awareness*
>    that Christ did.  This is the 6th chakra.  At the 7th chakra is the 
>    mystical marriage.

Where in Scripture do you read this ? This is new age teaching that has
    no scriptural foundation. 
        
    >Thus, the chapter of Revelation is pure yoga.  7 churches, etc. - it's
>    all symbolic.

     It is ? 

    The book of  revelation was given in a dream to Saint John, while
    he was in exile. To make a connection with the seven Churches, with
    yoga is pure speculation. Doing that we could associate it with many
    different things in the past present and future of the world. However,
    we would be in error to do so. The book of revelation was given to the
    Church during it's highest point of persecution, to help strengthen it
    by giving the faithful hope.    

    >If anyone is interested in additional information on this, there is a
>    book out entitled "The Body Of Light" (sorry, I don't have the author's
>    name handy).  It talks about the esoteric references in all religions
>    to this energy body, and is all quite fascinating.  At the end of the
>    book are exercises that you can do to experience your own energy body.
    
    New Age teaching for sure. I would suggest watching Fr. Pactwa sp? on
    ETWN's program "Who Do You Say I'am ?" on Monday evenings. If you don't 
    get EWTN on your cable system, I'll try to remember to write down some of 
    the names of books that he often mentions, who address New Age teaching.



    Peace
    Jim
    P.S. please don't take this as an attack Cindy, I'm only sharing a
    different point of view that I've come across in answer to New Age
    teachings.

    Umm, one correction Jim...Cindy isn't talking about "New Age"
    teachings.  She's refering to some very ancient wisdom.  While she
    is speaking from a generally yoga/Eastern viewpoint, she is also 
    addressing it from a Christian-perspective.  In my own research, I've
    come across this theme from many sources, some particularly Christian
    in nature.
    
    I also don't believe she has said we are equal to God, rather than God
    is within each of us...which is in essence what you are saying when
    you say the energy is that which God breathed into us.
    
    Ro

    One way of looking at the Kingdom of God is in terms of "realized
    eschatology"--the future breaking into the present.  

    My own view, as a Quaker, is that there is "that of God" in everyone. 
    That doesn't mean that everyone *is* God--rather, it means that
    everyone has a kernel of the Light within themselves.  Each person has
    their own "measure" (to use another Quaker term) of the Light, a
    measure that we are called to live up to and nurture.  As we nurture
    the Light within us, the measure can grow.  In the sense that the Light
    is within us all, the Kingdom of God is also within us all.  But it is
    also our responsibility to nurture this Light and to bring about, or
    "realize", the fullness of the Kingdom of God among us.

    -- Mike

    RE:14
    Hi Ro,
     	  well perhaps I'm misunderstanding what Cindy wrote, but after
    rereading her note, I still see it the same way. We'll have to wait
    for Cindy to respond.
    
    Peace
    Jim

    
    Re.12
    
    Phil,
    
    Because in most of us, the kingdom of God within us is only *potential*
    - not actually realized.  When each person on Earth realized this
    directly, then the Kingdom will be here.
    
    Until then, it is known unto only a small few.
    
    Cindy

Re.292.13

Hi Jim,        

>I have some problems with what you have said here.

Now why does that not surprise me?  (;^)

>The kingdom of God comes to us through Jesus Christ, not ourselves. 
>Without Him, we don't have the capability of finding the Kingdom
>of God.

I believe that we cannot find the Kingdom through our own selves.  Christ
is certainly as valid a path as any, however it is possible to recognize
and find the Kingdom through all paths/religions that have Love at the
center.  I suspect that this is where we will no doubt always differ...

There is a famous saint in India called Ramakrishna.  He chose to follow
all major paths - including Christianity - to see if they all ended up
at the same place.  He discovered that they did.  Through my own travels
and studies, and direct experiences, I have determined the same.


>    >At the base of everyone's spine, there is energy called
>>    kundalini.  As one becomes purified in thought, act and other ways, the
>>    energy rises up through the center of the body and in a truly
>>    en-light-ened person, the kundalini (the feminine energy) reaches the
>>    7th energy center (or chakra) at the top of the head (the masculine
>>    energy), and within each person is the potential for the 'mystical 
>>    marriage'.  

>    Sounds similar to Chi, but any energy we have within comes from the
>    life God breaths into us.

Correct.  God *is* energy.  Chi, prana, elan-vital, and so on, are only 
other words for the Holy Spirit - the feminine principle which permeates
Creation.  

    
>>    In Christianity, this is why Christ refers to Himself as the
>>    bridegroom, and we are the bride.  We are ascending to what he already
>>    *is*...at least where He was at 2000 years ago - no doubt He's
>>    progressed upon His own spiritual growth path since then.
>Christ is God incarnate. We can never become what he was on earth or in
>heaven. To attempt to do so is making the same mistake Eve made when
>the serpent told her she could become like God.    

How would you classify the verses "These things and greater ye shall 
do.", and "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."?  Is this
not a call to become as Christ was, by purifying our own thoughts and 
deeds and resisting temptation?


>>    The 'eye be single', is the third eye at the center of all of our
>>    foreheads.  That is where we realize the consciousness, or *awareness*
>>    that Christ did.  This is the 6th chakra.  At the 7th chakra is the 
>>    mystical marriage.
>
>in Scripture do you read this ? This is new age teaching that has
>no scriptural foundation. 

It may indeed be a new age teaching, however it does have scriptural 
foundation.  As Ro mentioned in .14, it is ancient wisdom, and is 
written in books far, far older than the new age.

        
>>Thus, the chapter of Revelation is pure yoga.  7 churches, etc. - it's
>>all symbolic.

>It is ? 

Imo, and in the opinions of others, yes.


>    The book of  revelation was given in a dream to Saint John, while
>    he was in exile. To make a connection with the seven Churches, with
>    yoga is pure speculation. Doing that we could associate it with many
>    different things in the past present and future of the world. However,
>    we would be in error to do so. The book of revelation was given to the
>    Church during it's highest point of persecution, to help strengthen it
>    by giving the faithful hope.    

OK...if that's what you believe.  Also, if you are certain that your
understanding of the messages in Revelation are precisely what is the 
Truth, then I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.


>>If anyone is interested in additional information on this, there is a
>>book out entitled "The Body Of Light" (sorry, I don't have the author's
>>name handy).  It talks about the esoteric references in all religions
>>to this energy body, and is all quite fascinating.  At the end of the
>>book are exercises that you can do to experience your own energy body.
    
>    New Age teaching for sure. I would suggest watching Fr. Pactwa sp? on
>    ETWN's program "Who Do You Say I'am ?" on Monday evenings. If you don't 
>    get EWTN on your cable system, I'll try to remember to write down some of 
>    the names of books that he often mentions, who address New Age teaching.

Well, since I was the one to suggest the book first, then how about you 
consider actually reading the book before making such a blanket 
statement, alright?  I'll even lend you my copy.

All of the 'specials' on any television cannot change the fact that I 
have experienced my own energy body.  Hey, try it yourself, and you will 
understand too.  Don't you already do T'ai C'hi?  It's the same thing, 
if you can feel the vibrations that way.

[I'm quite familiar with the New Age, btw...thanks anyway.]

>Peace

and God's Love,

Cindy

Reading all the replies I see that many of you view that the "light" or the 
potential of nurturing this "light" is in everyone's figurative heart. 
As Mike said in .15

;My own view, as a Quaker, is that there is "that of God" in everyone. 
;That doesn't mean that everyone *is* God--rather, it means that
;everyone has a kernel of the Light within themselves.

If this is correct then I would expect the apostles to echo that. That the 
"light" is indeed coming from the kernel. Looking at what the apostle Paul
wrote to the Corinthian congregation in 2 Corinthians 4:6 NWT , one can
see that this "light" is shone on the heart rather than it's source being the 
kernel itself. It reads "For God is he who said: "Let the light shine out of 
darkness," and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate [them] with glorious 
knowledge of God by the face of Christ." So rather than our hearts being self 
illuminating like the Sun, our hearts will absorb and reflect the "light" like 
the Moon. 2 Corinthians 3:18a NWT reads "And all of us, while we with unveiled 
faces *reflect like mirrors* the glory of Jehovah,"

To explain further:-

What is this "light" and why do many not reflect it?. This is brought out
in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 NWT which reads "If no, the good news we declare
is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among the
god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that
the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image
of God, might not shine through." So the "light" is the "good news", Matthew
24:14 NWT reads "And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all
the inhabitied earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will
come." It is the good news of God's kingdom. The "god of this system of things"
Satan the Devil has veiled this "light" for he knows that those who have the 
veil "are perishing" they will loose their lives. Also these ones will not 
"reflect like mirrors the glory of Jevovah,".

But were does Satan put this veil? This is brought out in 2 Corinthians 3:15 NWT
"In fact, down till today whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their
*hearts*."

If this veil is placed on the hearts of all indivduals by Satan the Devil who 
can remove it?, so that the "light" can shine through. Well this is brought out 
in 2 Corinthians 3:16 NWT "But when there is a turning to Jehovah, the veil is 
taken away." It is only the individuals themselves, not God nor anybody else 
who can lift this veil. Only those who turn to God will have this veil lifted.   


If one turns to God, one will be able to absorb into ones heart the good news
of God's incoming kingdom as well as being able to reflect this good news
to others. James 4:8 NWT reads "Draw close to God, and he will draw close to
YOU. Cleanse YOUR hands, YOU sinners, and purify YOUR hearts, YOU indecisive
ones." and verse 10 "Humble yourselves in the eyes of Jehovah, and he will
exalt YOU." Daniel 2:44 talks of a kingdom that God is setting up that will
crush all other kingdoms, should one not humble them self before this kingdom
actually comes into full power.

Phil.

re.17

Cindy,

Thanks for replying, sorry but further questions come from your reply -).


When does a person come to a realisation of the kingdom of God?

How would that person know?

What would move one to come to a realisation of the kingdom of God?

How will those who have died without realising the kingdom of God
come to a realisation?

Phil.

    Phil, although I am not really sure, I suspect that most Quakers would
    say that the Light does indeed come from God.  To me, the phrase "that
    of God in everyone" implies this.  What particularly characterizes the
    Quaker perspective, however, is that there is that of God in
    *everyone*.  
    
    -- Mike

re Note 292.19 by YERKLE::YERKESS:

> ;My own view, as a Quaker, is that there is "that of God" in everyone. 
> ;That doesn't mean that everyone *is* God--rather, it means that
> ;everyone has a kernel of the Light within themselves.
> 
> If this is correct then I would expect the apostles to echo that. That the 
> "light" is indeed coming from the kernel. Looking at what the apostle Paul
> wrote to the Corinthian congregation in 2 Corinthians 4:6 NWT , one can
> see that this "light" is shone on the heart rather than it's source being the 
> kernel itself. 

        To say that there is a light within is not to say that the
        origin of that light is within.  In fact, the quote above
        (from Mike) directly attributes that light to God.  I do not
        see a contradiction between what 2 Corinthians 4:6 says and
        what Mike wrote.


> What is this "light" and why do many not reflect it?. This is brought out
> in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 NWT which reads "If no, the good news we declare
> is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among the
> god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that

        Of course, elsewhere Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12: 
        "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to
        face...."  Apparently, we are all subject to some degree of
        veiling, the saved and unsaved alike.

> "But when there is a turning to Jehovah, the veil is 
> taken away." It is only the individuals themselves, not God nor anybody else 
> who can lift this veil. Only those who turn to God will have this veil lifted.   

        Once again, there is no apparent contradiction between this
        and what Mike represented as his (Quaker) position.  If the
        light within is of God (as Mike asserts), then a turning
        toward that light is indeed a turning toward Jehovah -- it is
        not merely a turning towards oneself.

        Bob

re Note 292.21 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     What particularly characterizes the
>     Quaker perspective, however, is that there is that of God in
>     *everyone*.  
  
        And this is not different from the old testament perspective
        of human life being characterized by a breath of God -- Adam
        became alive through God's breathing (which, by the way, is
        how the new testament describes God's "inspiration" of
        Scripture).  I believe it is safe to assume that we who are
        alive are alive because of that breath of God within every
        one of us.

        Bob

    
Re.20 
    
Hi Phil,

>Thanks for replying, sorry but further questions come from your reply -).

Oh good.  I'd be disappointed if there weren't.  (;^)


>When does a person come to a realisation of the kingdom of God?

It is a very individual process.  For me, it was when I felt Godlike love
emanating from a dear friend, and suddenly knew that such a love was
possible hear on Earth.  That was just over 4 years ago now.  Until that
time, the 'kingdom of God' was merely an intellectual concept.

Looking back on the experience with what I now know of the Eastern 
experiences of kundalini energy, I know it was a transfer of energy from
him to me that triggered a kundalini awakening. Since that time, I've
experienced minor kundalini awakenings.  What I learned is that kundalini
ascends within the body until it reaches a point of stress, be it physical
or emotional.  Then I'm quite literally 'forced' to deal with whatever it
is until it is resolved.  Lots of fun.  (;^)  Fortunately with yoga, 
breathing exercises and a few other things, I'm able to integrate the
experiences far more easily than when they first started to happen 4 years
ago.

This corresponds to getting rid of the darkness or muddiness that obstructs 
the soul light from shining through each person (or a full kundalini 
awakening where the light reaches the 7th chakra/top of head) so that they
become en-light-ened in their own right.  [I'm not there yet. (;^)]

I have enough blocks cleared away though, that my hands vibrate almost
    constantly these days.  This is all discussed in the "Body Of Light"
    book by Mann and Short, if you're interested.  It's actually our
    natural state, but we're so cut off from Nature that most of us cannot
    feel these vibrations.
    
    
>How would that person know?

This is also an individual process, and an ongoing one.  There is the first
initial *spark*, then the ongoing growth and deepening in knowing and 
understanding.  For some, it is the experience of being Born Again.  For
others, it is more of a gradual process.


>What would move one to come to a realisation of the kingdom of God?

Experiencing Godlike Love through another human being on Earth is
probably the quickest way, however reading books like the Bible and other 
books that were God-inspired can also serve to help the process along.


>How will those who have died without realising the kingdom of God
>come to a realisation?

Since I believe in reincarnation, I don't believe the physical death
is the end of this process.  It is an ongoing journey without end.  
I see each incarnation as an opportunity to learn to express as much 
God-like Love as possible, in whatever form is most effective.  This
again will vary from person to person, depending upon their individual
gifts.

Cindy

Re.292.18

Hi Cindy,        


>>The kingdom of God comes to us through Jesus Christ, not ourselves. 
>>Without Him, we don't have the capability of finding the Kingdom
>>of God.

>I believe that we cannot find the Kingdom through our own selves.  Christ
>is certainly as valid a path as any, however it is possible to recognize
>and find the Kingdom through all paths/religions that have Love at the
>center.  I suspect that this is where we will no doubt always differ...

Yes we do differ on this. Jesus said, I"AM the way the truth and the life,
no one comes to the Father, but through Me."John 14:6

>>There is a famous saint in India called Ramakrishna.  He chose to follow
>>all major paths - including Christianity - to see if they all ended up
>>at the same place.  He discovered that they did.  Through my own travels
>>and studies, and direct experiences, I have determined the same.

If they end up with the one true God, I have no problem with that, but
many claim that there's has the same end result, but there are some
beliefs that can be disastrous.

>>    >At the base of everyone's spine, there is energy called
>>>    kundalini.  As one becomes purified in thought, act and other ways, the
>>>    energy rises up through the center of the body and in a truly
>>>    en-light-ened person, the kundalini (the feminine energy) reaches the
>>>    7th energy center (or chakra) at the top of the head (the masculine
>>>    energy), and within each person is the potential for the 'mystical 
>>>    marriage'.  

>>    Sounds similar to Chi, but any energy we have within comes from the
>>    life God breaths into us.

>Correct.  God *is* energy.  Chi, prana, elan-vital, and so on, are only 
>other words for the Holy Spirit - the feminine principle which permeates
>Creation.  

God is Spirit.
Chi is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the person of Jesus Christ.
Chi is electrical energy which is generated biochemically. Although I have 
not accomplished it, some people can circulate the Chi  to different parts 
of their bodies. You  can't circulate the Holy Spirit to points with in your 
body. We don't have control over the Holy Spirit. We can't direct him to
do anything, it is He that gives direction to us.
    
>>>    In Christianity, this is why Christ refers to Himself as the
>>>    bridegroom, and we are the bride.  We are ascending to what he already
>>>    *is*...at least where He was at 2000 years ago - no doubt He's
>>>    progressed upon His own spiritual growth path since then.
>>Christ is God incarnate. We can never become what he was on earth or in
>>heaven. To attempt to do so is making the same mistake Eve made when
>>the serpent told her she could become like God.    

>How would you classify the verses "These things and greater ye shall 
>do.", and "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."?  Is this
>not a call to become as Christ was, by purifying our own thoughts and 
>deeds and resisting temptation?


Be perfect means be holy. Holiness is derived from the word whole, which
means to be  whole. God created humans to be body and soul. Holiness is being 
that which God created for Himself full human beings. We can be holy in our
    nature as God is holy in His. But we can not be God. We are not divine 
    beings as God is. Satan tempted Eve with the idea that she could become 
    like God. 

>>>    The 'eye be single', is the third eye at the center of all of our
>>>    foreheads.  That is where we realize the consciousness, or *awareness*
>>>    that Christ did.  This is the 6th chakra.  At the 7th chakra is the 
>>>    mystical marriage.
>
>>in Scripture do you read this ? This is new age teaching that has
>>no scriptural foundation. 

>It may indeed be a new age teaching, however it does have scriptural 
>foundation.  As Ro mentioned in .14, it is ancient wisdom, and is 
>written in books far, far older than the new age.

But it is not in the Bible, which is the only accepted record of who Jesus was. 
There is nothing in Scripture that tells us that Jesus realized the third eye 
in the center of his forehead was a portal for conscious awareness.
        
>>>Thus, the chapter of Revelation is pure yoga.  7 churches, etc. - it's
>>>all symbolic.

>>It is ? 

>Imo, and in the opinions of others, yes.

Agree to disagree, I guess  ?

>>    The book of  revelation was given in a dream to Saint John, while
>>    he was in exile. To make a connection with the seven Churches, with
>>    yoga is pure speculation. Doing that we could associate it with many
>>    different things in the past present and future of the world. However,
>>    we would be in error to do so. The book of revelation was given to the
>>    Church during it's highest point of persecution, to help strengthen it
>>    by giving the faithful hope.    

>OK...if that's what you believe.  Also, if you are certain that your
>understanding of the messages in Revelation are precisely what is the 
>Truth, then I'm happy to listen to what you have to say.

Well, it's not only what I believe, but it's what is known about that
book and taught by most theologians. When the book of revelation was 
written, the Church was going through heavy persecution. The people were 
expecting that Jesus would return in their day, and started to become 
discouraged because He hadn't. John's dream had to do with them, not us. 
    It is written in symbolic format as much of Daniel was.

>>>If anyone is interested in additional information on this, there is a
>>>book out entitled "The Body Of Light" (sorry, I don't have the author's
>>>name handy).  It talks about the esoteric references in all religions
>>>to this energy body, and is all quite fascinating.  At the end of the
>>>book are exercises that you can do to experience your own energy body.
    
>>    New Age teaching for sure. I would suggest watching Fr. Pactwa sp? on
>>    ETWN's program "Who Do You Say I'am ?" on Monday evenings. If you don't 
>>    get EWTN on your cable system, I'll try to remember to write down some of 
>>    the names of books that he often mentions, who address New Age teaching.

>Well, since I was the one to suggest the book first, then how about you 
>consider actually reading the book before making such a blanket 
>statement, alright?  I'll even lend you my copy.
 
No disrespect intended, but I'm swamped with everything from books I'm
reading, work, Karate etc. I'll wait to see the movie.-:)

>All of the 'specials' on any television cannot change the fact that I 
>have experienced my own energy body.  Hey, try it yourself, and you will 
>understand too.  Don't you already do T'ai Chi?  It's the same thing, 
>if you can feel the vibrations that way.

I don't doubt that you have experienced something, but I think your mistaking
energy with the Holy Spirit or I'm just not getting what your saying.
Being that I'm a little hard headed at times we'll just leave it to the later
-:)

>[I'm quite familiar with the New Age, btw...thanks anyway.] 

>>Peace

>and God's Love,

Amen
Jim

                                              
    Re.18
    
    Hi Jim,
    
    >The Holy Spirit is the person of Jesus Christ.
    
    Please explain.
    
    As for the remainder of your note - I believe that the Holy Spirit is
    the subjective, vibratory energy that sustains Creation.  The 'Father' is
    transcendent/objective, and the Son is representative of Christ
    Consciousness.  We cannot reach the Father unless we too have attained
    the level of consciousness/awareness that Christ did.  He came to show
    us the way.  So we agree - there is only one way - *the* way that
    Christ walked/traveled.  This is also the way that the other avatars
    have traveled as well.
    
    Cindy

    Also see Note 300, which springboards from this topic.
    
    Richard

    
    Re.26
    
    Hi Cindy,
    
    >>The Holy Spirit is the person of Jesus Christ.
    
>    Please explain.

    Opps, I'm wrong here, Sorry ! The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons
    in the  one God. OK, OK, I know there are some ready to debate the
    doctrine of the Trinity, but I don't have time. Open another note
    if you wish, and I'll see what I can provide.
        
>    As for the remainder of your note - I believe that the Holy Spirit is
>    the subjective, vibratory energy that sustains Creation.  The 'Father' is
>    transcendent/objective, and the Son is representative of Christ
>    Consciousness.  We cannot reach the Father unless we too have attained
>    the level of consciousness/awareness that Christ did.  He came to show
>    us the way.  So we agree - there is only one way - *the* way that
>    Christ walked/traveled.  This is also the way that the other avatars
>    have traveled as well.
    
    Hmmmmmm ! Maybe I've understood the same thing in different words ?
    I'll have to contemplate on this a bit. I have a book on  the doctrine
    of the Trinity that may be saying the same thing, and it may be just
    a matter saying it differently. I'll check it out tonight.

    Peace
    Jim

    Did you ever notice that you cannot see light?  Light is invisible
    to the eye.  You can see its source and you can see what it falls
    upon, but you cannot see light.
    
    Love is like light in that you can see where love is coming from and
    also its object, but you cannot see love.
    
    With the metaphor of light, you can easily understand how one might
    be eclipsed or turned away from the light.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re .21

Hi Mike,

Just to clarify, the point I was trying to make in .19  is that the "light"
needs to be shone on the heart. For this reason I used the illustration of
the Sun and Moon, were the heart is similar to the moon. For God's lifegiving
"light" to shine on it the veil has to be taken away. Once taken away the
"light" can be absorbed and reflected to others.

Please understand I was not calling to doubt the source of the lifegiving
"light" , it can only come from Jehovah God. Rather how this lifegiving
"light" gets to the figurative heart. Can a person who never comes to
know Jehovah God and Jesus Christ ever reflect this lifegiving light? ,
compare John 17:3 . Also the reason I call this lifegiving "light" is
that the Devil knows that those with veiled hearts are perishing.

Generally, I would also agree "that there is that of God in *everyone*."
for Jehovah is the source of life, one substance is the lifegiving blood
that circulates our veins. But this blood does not give us the potential
of everlasting life only Jesus' shed blood.

A question just to clarify, do you see our conscience as being part of
"that there is that of God in *everyone*" ? The reason I ask is that we
have all inherited much from our first two parents Adam and Eve, non
of what we have inherited leads to eternal life.

I think alot depends on how one interprets what Jesus meant by the "kingdom
of God", looking at what Jesus and his disciples preached should help one to
clearly see what this "kingdom of God" is, compare Matt 24:14. This will 
show wether it is something that is in all people.

Phil.

    re .26
    Cindy,
    	well, after looking for another explanation of what and who the
    Holy Spirit is, I come back to my original statements that the Holy
    Spirit is a distinct person, not energy or chi. The Holy Spirit is a person,
    a being which proceed from the Father and Son which are one God.

    I think the problem I'm having is that your replies seem to imply
    that the energy such as chi, is the Holy Spirit, and there is a christ 
    separate from Jesus that we are to become. This christ is part of the 
    some natural part of us, and through whatever means, we can become
    a christ.

    If I'm wrong let me know.

    Peace
    Jim

re .22

Hi Bob,

> What is this "light" and why do many not reflect it?. This is brought out
> in 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 NWT which reads "If no, the good news we declare
> is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among the
> god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that

;        Of course, elsewhere Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12: 
;        "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to
;        face...."  Apparently, we are all subject to some degree of
;        veiling, the saved and unsaved alike.

I quite agree, but I don't hold to the doctrine once saved always saved. This
passage shows the gravity of the situation. If one turns to God the veil is 
lifted and the light shines through. But the veil begins to come down if that 
one then for example decides to slave for money and not for God then this 
lifegiving "light" begins to fade until the person turns round. If not the veil 
comes all the way down again. The heart is then like the dark side of the moon, 
no lifegiving "light" exists.


> "But when there is a turning to Jehovah, the veil is 
> taken away." It is only the individuals themselves, not God nor anybody else 
> who can lift this veil. Only those who turn to God will have this veil lifted.   

;        Once again, there is no apparent contradiction between this
;        and what Mike represented as his (Quaker) position.  If the
;        light within is of God (as Mike asserts), then a turning
;        toward that light is indeed a turning toward Jehovah -- it is
;        not merely a turning towards oneself.

This is not what I am trying to say, I am not saying that Mike says that 
the source of this light is not from Jehovah. What I am disagreeing with 
is that this light (or pilot light) is within all peoples.

Phil.

    Phil,

    I don't think that Quakers generally view the Light as being the same
    as the conscience.  However, I also don't think that it is usually
    identified in terms of salvation or eternal life.  What it represents
    is God's presence among us now, in this life; the question of salvation
    doesn't, from this point of view, really enter into it.  Now it is no
    doubt true that some people have a greater measure of the Light than
    others.  But I don't think that this has to do whether they are
    Christians or not, and I think that all people have a measure of the
    Light, to one degree or another.
    
    This ties in to the fact that I believe in the validity of many
    different spiritual paths.  What I do believe is that religion can
    offer a means for people to increase the measure of the Light within
    themselves.  To me, that is the value in religion, in that it provides
    a process for "salvation", where I define salvation not as a binary
    condition (either you are "saved" or you aren't), but as a process of
    drawing closer to God, a process that does not complete, but continues
    (or at least should continue) throughout our lives.

    -- Mike

    RE-33

    Mike, it is interesting that what you say about religion is what 
    The Blessed Virgin Mary is saying to the visionaries in
    Medjegoria SP?. Something to the effect that there is goodness in
    all religions. The divisions in religion are man made, not God's.

    Peace
    Jim

    
    Re.31
    
    Jim,
    
    What does the Holy Spirit look like then?
    
    As for what you have a problem with - yes, what you write is what I
    believe, so I suspect we will not resolve it.
         
    Cindy

    Jim,  (.31)
    
    Describing the Holy Spirit as a person feels limiting to me...I think
    the whole concept of who/what the Holy Spirit is beyond our
    comprehension as human beings.   Hmmm, I think Matthew Fox talks about
    that in his books/talks...
    
    Ro
    

    Hello all,
    
    What does the Bible say about the Holy Spirit? He is the Comforter,
    sent to believers in Jesus Christ, by Jesus Christ after he accended
    into Heaven. I understand this to mean that He is not just our own
    inner concience, force, energy, light, etc. I believe the Holy Spirit
    is a person. The Bible mentions the Holy Spirit being vexed, grieved,
    and having other emotions. When one accepts Christ as their personal
    savior, then the Holy Spirit will dwell within. Prior to that, one
    is alone with their concience. I'm not suprised to see that the Eastern
    religions have simularities with the New Age philosophy. I think that
    they are much the same with different terminologies. Well, I guess I've
    probably gave myself away as "one of them fundamentalist". I should
    probably go back to "read only" in this notesfile. Before I go, I'd
    like to invite your anonymouse reader to join me at the GOLF::CHRISTIAN
    conference if he'd to see another perspective.
    
    
    				Mel

    To me, the Holy Spirit is a living entity, but I think I would refer
    to the Holy Spirit as a person only in the poetic sense.  I think
    the Holy Spirit might be best summed up as "Holy" and "Spirit." ;-}
    To me, it's sort of like looking for another word for thesaurus.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Re.37
    
    Mel,
    
    Perhaps you can tell me then.  Since you believe the Holy Spirit is a
    person, what (to use your pronoun) does He look like?
    
    Cindy

    re:  .40  Cindy
    
    Please, allow me to extend your question:
    
    If God Almighty has a name, which is Jehovah.....
    
    and His son has a name, which is Jesus.....
    
    what is the holy spirit's name?
    
    
    Steve
    

    The Holy Spirit is referred to as the comfortor, and described
    as a mighty rushing wind. I don't believe that there is a specific
    name applied to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .42
    
    Bonnie,
    
    	I'll augment your note by adding a simile found in the New
    Testament: "descended like a dove."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    I should have gotten that one too!
    
    "The Holy Sprit splits the air,
    with flame of incadescant fire..."
    
    Bonnie

    Perhaps of noteworthy interest:
    
    Regarding the conversation earlier in this string where Cindy touched 
    upon the experience which in yoga terms is called Kundalini...
    
    Researchers have done several studies over the last 10 years or so with
    various people reporting a similar experience of energy rising in their
    body or "filling" it up.  They have found that a number of people
    reporting this 'phenomenon' profess to be Christians, and of that
    number there were also those who refered to themselves as "conservative" 
    Christians.
    
    Most often the Christians, including the conservatives, reported this 
    experience happening when they were totally relaxed and involved in a 
    period of deep prayer, either healing or contemplative prayer.
    
    When they compared the various aspects of what the Christians described
    experiencing to the aspects of a kundalini experience, the researchers
    concluded them to be, in essence, the same. 
    
    When asked how they viewed what they experienced, the Christians
    responded by saying they believed it was an experience of being "filled 
    with the Holy Spirit."  Many Christian mystics (past and present) also 
    have referred to this experience as the "baptism by fire" spoken about
    in the Bible.  
    
    Personally, I believe the yoga experience of kundalini and the
    Christian experience of being "filled with the Holy Spirit" or 
    "baptism by fire" is one in the same.  There is a certain feeling of
    peace and a 'unity with divinity' within and without that often occurs 
    with them - a knowing that you are completely whole in those moments 
    and that you and God have truly united.
    
    Kb               

"The Kingdom of God" and "the Kingdom of heaven" are entirely interchangeable
terms.  Many devout Jews will not speak or write the name of God, nor even
utter the designation God, thus Matthew uses "the Kingdom of heaven" where
Luke, a Greek, uses "the Kingdom of God."

It's an interesting transposition to use "the Kingdom of heaven" in
understanding Luke 17:20-21.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard .46,
    
    > It's an interesting transposition to use "the Kingdom of heaven" in
    > understanding Luke 17:20-21.
    
    Yes, indeed!  
    
    :-)
    
    Kb

Re:  21.69

Jeff,

  >Would you mind demonstrating this with an example?  Would you offer an 
  >interpretation of "the Kingdom of God/Heaven is within?"  I'm just 
  >interested in how this interpretation process works.  There have been 
  >some other replies in that topic, but I thought I would ask you since 
  >you seem clear on how you derive meaning from the Bible.

I'll give it a shot.

On this verse in particular, we need to look at the Greek since
the best translation is debatable.  The Greek word "entos" has several
meanings (not unusual in a language) and can mean either "within"
or "among".  In this context, the meaning of the phrase is drastically
different depending on how to best understand this word.  (In contrast,
if entos was used in a phrase such as "He was entos a group", it would
mean essentially the same thing, i.e. He was within a group is similar in
meaning to He was among the group.)

In order to best determine the meaning in this instance, we should
examine the sentence it was in, the paragraph it was in, the 
section of Luke it was in, other teachings and sayings of Jesus (to
see if he said the same thing in a different way and to say if
one interpretation is either particularly counter to his teachings
or particularly in accord with his teachings).  We should also
look at other people's opinions (commentaries) on what they think
is meant by this.

As you can see, this is no short process and people spend large amounts
of time trying to correctly understand the Bible.  Personally, although
I prefer it to mean "the kingdom of God is among you" (which I think
is consistent with many other New Testament references to Jesus
both being the Kingdom and God and bringing it with Him as He is the
king of the Kingdom), I accept the more common interpretation of
"the kingdom of God is within you" as being more likely what Jesus
meant in this particular context.

Given this (somewhat questionable) decision, it is now fair to ask,
"What did Jesus *mean* when He says that the kingdom of God is
*within* me?"  This, I believe, is where many go astray assigning
meanings that are inconsistent with the rest of Scripture/Jesus' teachings.

I take this to not be a literal teaching since the Bible clearly
teaches that not all people are in the kingdom of God and since the
audience of Jesus included Pharisees who were hostile to Jesus and
some of whom do not accept Him.  Therefore, the meaning of this
phrase is more metaphorical (for want of a better word).  Jesus was
contrasting "The kingdom of God does not come with your observation"
with "The kingdom of God is within you".  Given this contrast, I
think that an understanding that Jesus is trying to turn people away
from the physical (observation) to the spiritual (the spirit that
works from within) is not totally out of line (although not fully
consistent, either).

How all this fits with Jesus' following comments (which start, "The
days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son
of Man, and you will not see it.) is hard for me to figure - but I
definately do think that the meaning of this hard to understand phrase
is related to what Jesus immediately says following it.

Since this is a very difficult to understand message, I give it very
low credence in basing any religious philosophy/theology on it.
Since it is a very difficult to understand message, I find that it is
commonly quoted by others to base non-Biblical theologies on (i.e.
theologies which are clearly contradicted elsewhere in Jesus' teachings
or the Bible in general).

I wish I knew more what it means.

Collis

Re: .48 (Collis)

Thanks for your response.  Your first couple of paragraphs describe what 
seems to me to be a reasonable approach.

> Personally, although
> I prefer it to mean "the kingdom of God is among you"...
> ...I accept the more common interpretation of
> "the kingdom of God is within you" as being more likely what Jesus
> meant in this particular context.

This is an interesting statement.  Why would you prefer that it mean 
something other than what Jesus most likely meant?  I don't think I 
understand the reasoning behind this.

> I take this to not be a literal teaching since the Bible clearly
> teaches that not all people are in the kingdom of God and since the
> audience of Jesus included Pharisees who were hostile to Jesus and
> some of whom do not accept Him.  

The idea that a message should not be taken literally due the audience 
being hostile is new to me.  Is this a common understanding that Jesus 
didn't speak literally to those who opposed him?  Also, I don't find any 
inconsistency between the ideas of the Kingdom of God being within, and 
not all people being in the Kingdom.  How do you see it as being 
inconsistent. 

> Therefore, the meaning of this
> phrase is more metaphorical (for want of a better word).  

I understand your conclusion, but in line with what I stated above, I 
don't understand how you made the jump to this conclusion.

> Jesus was
> contrasting "The kingdom of God does not come with your observation"
> with "The kingdom of God is within you".  Given this contrast, I
> think that an understanding that Jesus is trying to turn people away
> from the physical (observation) to the spiritual (the spirit that
> works from within) is not totally out of line (although not fully
> consistent, either).

I would find this conclusion to be very much *in* line.

> Since this is a very difficult to understand message, I give it very
> low credence in basing any religious philosophy/theology on it.

I'm not sure that our difficulty in understanding is sufficient basis 
for giving it "low credence."

> Since it is a very difficult to understand message, I find that it is
> commonly quoted by others to base non-Biblical theologies on (i.e.
> theologies which are clearly contradicted elsewhere in Jesus' teachings
> or the Bible in general).

That's curious.  Why would someone base a non-Biblical theology on a 
quote from the Bible?  I'm not aware of anyone who does this; or do you 
mean theologies which are in fact based on that group's understanding of 
the Bible, but which is different from your theology or understanding?

> I wish I knew more what it means.

Yes, I wish I knew more of the meaning of most things. :-)

Jeff

Re:  292.49

  >This is an interesting statement.  Why would you prefer that it mean 
  >something other than what Jesus most likely meant?  I don't think I 
  >understand the reasoning behind this.

I prefer (in one sense) the "among you" translation simply because it is 
not nearly as subject to interpretational abuse as the "within you"
translation.  There are no aberrations from basic Christian doctrine
that I'm aware of that justify their claim based on the kingdom of
God being among us.

Despite that desire, most conservative theologians believe that "within 
you" is a better translation and I defer to their collective opinion
(since it's hard for me to come to a firm conclusion of my own).

     >>I take this to not be a literal teaching since the Bible clearly
     >>teaches that not all people are in the kingdom of God and since the
     >>audience of Jesus included Pharisees who were hostile to Jesus and
     >>some of whom do not accept Him.  

  >The idea that a message should not be taken literally due the audience 
  >being hostile is new to me.  

You have taken the specific words I said and (hopefully intentionally)
broadened them tremendously to reach your conclusion.  In this
particular case, Jesus (in my opinion) could not have meant that the
kingdom of God is within each of them because the Bible clearly shows
that the kingdom of God is going to be denied to some and some of
those were in the audience.  Is this clearer?  (To really gain
clarity, we need to pin down exactly what "the Kingdom of God" is.
I believe that the Kingdom of God means several things.  One I
do believe is that the Kingdom of God means, to some extent, the
presence of Jesus, i.e. where Jesus is the Kingdom of God is also.
Another meaning would be "eternal life with God".  This is the
pearl of great worth that is found, the coin in the field, etc.
Unfortunately, "Kingdom of God" is not well defined in my
theology (or in most people's), so it tends to mean whatever the
reader wants it to mean.  I do believe, however, that it is very
consistent with the Bible to believe that the Kingdom of God is
*not* for those who reject God and never "comes" to them.)

     >>Since this is a very difficult to understand message, I give it very
     >>low credence in basing any religious philosophy/theology on it.

  >I'm not sure that our difficulty in understanding is sufficient basis 
  >for giving it "low credence."

Giving difficult to understand sayings "high credence" and basing
religious philosophy/theology on it is what leads to great errors
both in theory and in practice.  It is exactly this type of behavior
that often causes churches to split - not because they differ on
foundational doctrines, but rather because other less-important
and difficult to determine doctrines differ.  And this is not true
simply in religion, but in all of life.

  >That's curious.  Why would someone base a non-Biblical theology on a 
  >quote from the Bible?  I'm not aware of anyone who does this; or do you 
  >mean theologies which are in fact based on that group's understanding of 
  >the Bible, but which is different from your theology or understanding?

Just stay around this conference for a few weeks and be discerning.
You'll find many non-Biblical theologies based on portions of the
Bible.  Why?  Yes, people sincerely believe them to be true.  But
it is also true that the Bible (as a respected source) lends credibility
to their beliefs, even when other portions of the Bible explicitly
contradict what they believe.

This is not just an atttempt to knock those in this conference, either.
You'll find the same in Golf::Christian.  It's just more obvious
here.  :-) (i.e. the beliefs are, in my opinion, more obviously
non-Biblical and attempt to be based on the Bible).

Collis

    
    
    RE: .49
    
    Collis, your point of view about 'among you' and 'within you' is
    very interesting.  To me, 'within you' is *very* clear and would
    *not* be subject to interpretational abuse.  What do others think?
    
    Carole

I agree with you Carole.  "The Kingdom of God is within you" seems pretty
clear to me.  

To me, "among you" could mean that Jesus, as the representative of
the Kingdom was among those he was speaking to or that the spirit of God
is always around and about (gives me the visual image of it lurking in
corners :-).  It also might mean that since the Kingdom of God is among you
if you look too far you may miss it (as in not being able to see the forest
for the trees).  

Nanci

re: Note 292.51 by Carole "early morning rain...."

> To me, 'within you' is *very* clear and would *not* be subject to 
> interpretational abuse.  What do others think?
    
Seems clear to me, too.  I think it's interesting that there are some passages
that many people claim are "crystal clear", (fer instance the sins of Sodom)
apparently as an appeal to say "isn't it obvious to the most casual observer
that I'm right?" 

So perhaps some passages are indeed crystal clear, but alas which ones are and 
which ones aren't doesn't seem to be so clear. .-)

Personally, I'm comfortable to say that what *I* take to be clear isn't 
necessarily clear to all.  That doesn't necessarily make another perspective 
wrong or dishonest.  

Peace,

Jim

Here are the responses (other than mine) that I found:

  >292.1
  >Seeing that he was speaking directly to the Pharisees I don't think
  >Jesus was saying that the kingdom of God was literally within the
  >Pharisees themselves, rather as the RSV puts it "in the midst of you". 

  >292.3
  >To me, this has always meant that I need look no further than my own 
  >heart for God or Heaven.  The God-self is within me and within all of us 
  >and we have the choice at any given moment to live in that God-presence 
  >(or Heaven) or to separate ourselves from it and live in our own 
  >self-created hell.  

  >292.4
  >I've always read the that as meaning that the Kingdom of God is to be
  >discerned spiritually, and not with our senses.  That we won't find God
  >by looking to the physical world, but instead by looking "inward", to
  >finding how we reflect God's perfection in our own lives.

  >292.8
  >To me this passage suggests that God's dwelling place is first and foremost
  >within my own heart and my own being.

.1 prefers the "among you" translation.

.2 believes that God is within herself and part of herself which
clearly denies classical (and basic) Christian belief.

.4 says that this talks about a way of discerning God.  This, in
fact, is very close to why I wrote when asked.  However, .4 goes on
to say something very different - that we are to find God by looking
inward to ourselves.  This is contrary to classical (and basic)
Christian belief that God is external to us and that we are in
fact corrupted - and need to look away from ourselves *to* God.

.8 tends to deny the classical (and basic) Christian belief that
God is separate from His creation and that He only indwells (via
his Holy Spirit) believers.

Except for my response, these were the only detailed answers I read
in this note.  They all have some significant differences as I understand
them.  Most of them contradict other parts of Biblical revelation.
This is why I don't accept your contention that the meaning of
this verse is "*very* clear" and believe that it is not wise to
base your theology on a difficult to understand verse (particularly
when the interpretation is not supported elsewhere in the Bible).

Collis

Another point.  In terms of methodology of interpreting this verse,
I don't think that except for Phil (and possibly Jim if I remember
correctly) that anyone tried to explicitly interpret this verse
based on the Scripture context (both immediate and general).

This error in methodology (if indeed context was not taken into
account - since it was not mentioned I am assuming that it was not)
helps to create the doctrinal divisions which divide us.

Collis

Re: .50 (Collis)

> I prefer (in one sense) the "among you" translation simply because it is 
> not nearly as subject to interpretational abuse as the "within you"
> translation.  There are no aberrations from basic Christian doctrine
> that I'm aware of that justify their claim based on the kingdom of
> God being among us.

And this, to you, warrants prefering something other than what you think 
Jesus meant?  I still don't understand.  To me, personal preference is 
no basis for an inclination away from any great teacher's original 
meaning... especially if I considered them *my* teacher.

> In this
> particular case, Jesus (in my opinion) could not have meant that the
> kingdom of God is within each of them because the Bible clearly shows
> that the kingdom of God is going to be denied to some and some of
> those were in the audience.

Perhaps what is "inside" one is inside all, though indeed all may not 
find it at the same time.  What do you think the implications would be 
if Jesus did in fact mean it is "within?"  Do you think the "Kingdom of 
God" can be known prior to death of the physical body?

> It is exactly this type of behavior
> that often causes churches to split - not because they differ on
> foundational doctrines, but rather because other less-important
> and difficult to determine doctrines differ.  

Whose determination is it that one aspect of doctrine is "less 
important" than another?  How do you determine that one thing Jesus 
stated is more or less important than another?

Jeff

Re:  292.56

  >And this, to you, warrants prefering something other than what you think 
  >Jesus meant?  I still don't understand.  To me, personal preference is 
  >no basis for an inclination away from any great teacher's original 
  >meaning... especially if I considered them *my* teacher.

Well, that is certainly one consideration (and a very strong one).
However, look at what I've said.  I've said that the "among you"
translation is possible, that if it is indeed the "correct" translation
that it is (in my opinion) accurate and rather well-defined, and
that the "within you" translation is subject to much misinterpretation.
Because of my desire that we believe error rather than truth, I
have a desire that the translation mean "among you" (since I believe
that this is true regardless of whether it is being said here or not)
rather than "within you" (which is true in some interpretations in
quite false in many other).  Yet, despite this desire, I still
tend to translate this "within you" as that is more intellectually
honest.  

I hope I've explained myself clearly.  You are welcome to believe
that my choices are poor.

  >What do you think the implications would be if Jesus did in fact 
  >mean it is "within?"  Do you think the "Kingdom of God" can be known 
  >prior to death of the physical body?

I've already given my interpretation of what I think this might mean.

  >Whose determination is it that one aspect of doctrine is "less 
  >important" than another?  How do you determine that one thing Jesus 
  >stated is more or less important than another?

Study of the Bible, the leading of the Holy Spirit and common sense are 
three ways.  There are others.

Collis

  RE: .57 Collis
    

>Because of my desire that we believe error rather than truth....
    
    Oooohhhh....should I say it?....should I say it?....
    
    nanh...I'll resist the temptation!  ;^)
    
    Carole

Re: .57 (Collis)

  >>What do you think the implications would be if Jesus did in fact 
  >>mean it is "within?"  Do you think the "Kingdom of God" can be known 
  >>prior to death of the physical body?

> I've already given my interpretation of what I think this might mean.

No, I don't mean an *interpretation* that he was refering some and not to 
all.  I mean what do you think the implications would be if he meant it 
literally just as it was stated, without qualifiers:  The Kingdom of God 
is within (period), with no assumptions as to portions of his audience, etc.
What if this statement was made to everyone?  What would the implications be?
Also, what about the second question above?  I don't think you answered that 
one anywhere.  If you have, there is no need in repeating it; you can simply 
point me to the note.

  >>Whose determination is it that one aspect of doctrine is "less 
  >>important" than another?  How do you determine that one thing Jesus 
  >>stated is more or less important than another?

> Study of the Bible, the leading of the Holy Spirit and common sense are 
> three ways.  There are others.

I must confess real surprise here.  I would have thought, given the nature 
of your replies in general, that you would not have held one thing Jesus
said as less important than anything else he said.  I fail to see how study 
of bible will show how more value lies in some things Jesus said than in
others.  It really sounds to me like its getting back to the "preference" 
issue.  And I really wonder if Jesus had asked you the same question I 
asked, whether your response might have been different.

Jeff

Re:  .58

I've been found out...

Re:  292.59

     >>I've already given my interpretation of what I think this might mean.

  >No, I don't mean an *interpretation* that he was refering some and not to 
  >all.  I mean what do you think the implications would be if he meant it 
  >literally just as it was stated, without qualifiers:  The Kingdom of God 
  >is within (period), with no assumptions as to portions of his audience, etc.
  >What if this statement was made to everyone?  What would the implications be?

It sounds like you want to rip the statement out of context and say,
"what in the abstract sense might this statement mean?".

That may be an interesting exercise, but it certainly does not get us
any closer at to what Jesus meant when he said this to the people around
Him.  I prefer to keep my interpretations based on all the facts at
hand so that they align with what is true as closely as possible.

  >Also, what about the second question above?

What's the second question above?

  >I must confess real surprise here.  I would have thought, given the nature 
  >of your replies in general, that you would not have held one thing Jesus
  >said as less important than anything else he said.  

Jeff,

Do you give equal weight to everything you say?  Do you believe that
the statements "I'm hungry" and "There is one and only one God" should
be given the same importance?

Now, in this case, Jesus said many things that are clear.  He also said
many things that are not as clear.  In terms of defining "truth" or
"doctrine", we should give more weight to those things that are
clear if we are to avoid serious error.  Is this not obvious?  That
is all that I am saying.  To take the unclear and proclaim it as "truth"
when it contradicts the clear doesn't make sense to me.  This,
unfortunately, is often what happens with verses such as this.

Collis

Collis,

> What's the second question above?

Extraction from previous note...

**************************************************************************
*  >>What do you think the implications would be if Jesus did in fact    *
*  >>mean it is "within?"  Do you think the "Kingdom of God" can be known* 
*  >>prior to death of the physical body?                                *
*                                                                        *
*> I've already given my interpretation of what I think this might mean. *
*                                                                        *
*What about the second question?                                         *
**************************************************************************

The second question is, do you think the "Kingdom of God" can be known 
prior to death of the physical body?

> Do you give equal weight to everything you say?  

I think I would if I were God.

> Do you believe that
> the statements "I'm hungry" and "There is one and only one God" should
> be given the same importance?

I would if they came from my teacher, or God, or both.

> Now, in this case, Jesus said many things that are clear.  He also said
> many things that are not as clear.  In terms of defining "truth" or
> "doctrine", we should give more weight to those things that are
> clear if we are to avoid serious error.  Is this not obvious?  

No it isn't.  I think the serious error is picking and choosing what we 
want to take seriously.

> To take the unclear and proclaim it as "truth"
> when it contradicts the clear doesn't make sense to me.  This,
> unfortunately, is often what happens with verses such as this.

Rather than assuming that Christ contradicted Himself, I would seek to 
find the consistency.  My personal belief is that Christ, knowing there 
was a limit to the available time, did not waste words, but said only 
what he thought important.

Jeff

Re:  292.62

  >The second question is, do you think the "Kingdom of God" can be known 
  >prior to death of the physical body?

Depends on how you define "the Kingdom of God".  :-)

I believe that there are several definitions of this consistent with
the Bible.  I've meantioned already that being in the presence of the
king is one of these.  In the sense that Jesus lives within believers,
we experience "the kingdom of God".  I would add that we do not
experience the Kingdom of God in its fullest sense until "eternity".

     >> Do you give equal weight to everything you say?  

  >I think I would if I were God.

Good response.  As an interpreter of what God says, do you honestly
believe that you should weigh with equal weight the clear and the
obscure?  If you do, then I believe that you are ripe for believing
falsehood instead of truth.

     >> Now, in this case, Jesus said many things that are clear.  He also said
     >> many things that are not as clear.  In terms of defining "truth" or
     >> "doctrine", we should give more weight to those things that are
     >> clear if we are to avoid serious error.  Is this not obvious?  

  >No it isn't.  I think the serious error is picking and choosing what we 
  >want to take seriously.

The issue is not "what to take seriously".  All of it is serious.  The
issue is are we going to believe something is true based on possible
misinterpretation of a difficult saying, or are we going to believe
something is true based on a clear statement.  All that I am claiming
is that one is a better bases for belief than the other and that we
are wise to reflect this basis in our actual beliefs.  You evidently
disagree with this.  So be it.

  >Rather than assuming that Christ contradicted Himself, I would seek to 
  >find the consistency.  

I am *so* glad to hear this.  Believe me, you are the exception.
Most are not willing to put forth the effort.

Collis

Re: .63 (Collis)

> Good response.  As an interpreter of what God says, do you honestly
> believe that you should weigh with equal weight the clear and the
> obscure?  

Yes.

> If you do, then I believe that you are ripe for believing
> falsehood instead of truth.

Perhaps not.  I'll explain below.

> The issue is not "what to take seriously".  All of it is serious.  The
> issue is are we going to believe something is true based on possible
> misinterpretation of a difficult saying, or are we going to believe
> something is true based on a clear statement.  All that I am claiming
> is that one is a better bases for belief than the other and that we
> are wise to reflect this basis in our actual beliefs.  You evidently
> disagree with this.  So be it.

I think we have two different focusses in this regard.  Based on your 
statements in this and previous notes it appears that you are focussing 
on "which words in the Bible are clear enough that I can pronounce them 
as truth and justify my position.  Other words, the meaning of which are 
unclear, are not obvious enough to believe and thereby claim as truth."
To me this represents a primary focus on the "word" rather than the 
"spirit."  My primary focus is on the "spirit" rather than the "word."  
To me the *meaning* is the only thing of importance.  The weight I give 
messages from the Bible is not based on my confidence or ability to 
claim them as truth.  Understanding meaning, the substance underlying 
the words, for me is more important in developing belief and 
understanding than is being able to confidently repeat the words because 
other words support it.

I think if we understand the spirit behind the word, the life within the 
form, then the word or form can be understood, but the word or form then 
becomes unimportant.  The word is only a temporal form to which we can 
cling until such time as there is understanding of the life behind the 
form.  This is why in my intro note I indicated the importance in my 
life of the principles rather than chapter and verse.  If we can come to 
understand what the Christ *meant*, then we have a basis for intelligent 
action which isn't reliant of words and their many definitions.

Jeff

    I found something in the March Science of Mind magazine that I feel
    speaks to this subject.
    
    From the daily meditations...March 11:
    
    
    But seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness and all these
    things shall be added unto you.  - Matthew 6:33
    
    "Behold, the kingdom of heaven is at hand," but this kingdom must be
    recognized.                      - The Science of Mind pg 227
    
    
    The kingdom of God is within, and manifests through man as the
    spiritual life.  God's righteousness is the right use of all that is
    contained in the elements of the spiritual life.  The spiritual life
    being the complete life, the full expression of life in body, mind and
    soul, it is evident that the right use of the spiritual life will
    produce and bring everything man may need or desire.  The source of
    everything has the power to produce everything, providing the power
    within that source is used according to exact spiritual law.
    
    To seek the kingdom first is to give one's strongest thought to the
    spiritual life, and to make spiritual thought the predominating thought
    in everything that one may do in life.  In other words, go to God first
    in everything, place your greatest dependence on His power to carry you
    through averything, and live so close to His kingdom within that you
    are fully conscious of that kingdom every moment.
    
    To seek the kingdom first, the heart must be in the spirit; that is, to
    live the psiritual life must be the predominating desire; but the
    mental conception of the spiritual life must not be narrow; in brief,
    that conception must contain the perfection of everything that can
    possibly appear in life.
    
    
    
    Nanci