Thoughts about the mission of Jesus

[davidsun]

More image-in-native information pertaining to the Life of Jesus:

http://www.thenewyoga.org/from_the_l...s_in_india.htm

[weareunity]

Today is UN International Friendship day.

Today is some 4 yrs and a little since posting the OP on this thread.

Tumultuous years. If we are ever going to learn the collective benefits which will result from the practicing of globally cooperative behaviour, then now seems the fateful and necessary moment to do so.

Such a long lesson in the making.--but the practicing can be much shorter if we have a mind to do so.

Cheers. X.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Today is some 4 yrs and a little since posting the OP on this thread.
Tumultuous years. If we are ever going to learn the collective benefits which will result from the practicing of globally cooperative behavior, then now seems the fateful and necessary moment to do so.
Such a long lesson in the making.--but the practicing can be much shorter if we have a mind to do so..

Hello weareunity -

Because of my understanding of Jesus's understanding of Life, I feel impelled to tell you and other here that I think that your idea of 'benefits relating to what Jesus taught is way off 'the mark'. To that end I remind you that Jesus said: "My kingdom is not of this 'world'." (John Ch.18)

Should you or anyone else be interested in entertaining and exploring ideas other than the ones you presently subscribe to, a pdf of my treatise titled "What Did Jesus REALLY Mean" is freely downloadable here : https://davidsundom.weebly.com/uploa...s_meant_ds.pdf

Sincerely -

[weareunity]

Hello davidsun and all.

Looking up john 18 v 36 in my copy of the revised standard edition-- which I find out is an authorised revision of the 1901 American standard version--the word "kingship" replaces the word "kingdom" which is used in the British and Foreign bible society version.

This brings to mind the thought that with religious words/works having such influence in shaping the behavioural characteristics of many, there is therefore a great burden of responsibility upon the shoulders of those who seek to interpret such works in either official or unofficial capacity.

All too easy to mistake metaphor for literal, all too easy to miss the meanings and significance which some words had within particular cultures and circumstances when such is no longer the case in our time. All too easy perhaps to be personally enthused with a pre determined agenda and thus loose objectivity. -- a possibility which may apply to any of us- myself included of course.

At the end of the day however we may find that it is actually a feeling about the walk which drops us to our knees more than the talk.
X

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello davidsun and all.

Looking up john 18 v 36 in my copy of the revised standard edition-- which I find out is an authorised revision of the 1901 American standard version--the word "kingship" replaces the word "kingdom" which is used in the British and Foreign bible society version.

This brings to mind the thought that with religious words/works having such influence in shaping the behavioural characteristics of many, there is therefore a great burden of responsibility upon the shoulders of those who seek to interpret such works in either official or unofficial capacity.

OK with me if you want to think that Jesus said/meant "My kinship is not of this world."

Besides not making sense to me, that misses the 'point' in my view.

[weareunity]

Hello David.

The word used in the revised standard edition replacing "kingdom" is "kingship"--not "kinship".

Not sure if you misread that or personally feel "kinship" more acceptable to your view?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Hello David.
The word used in the revised standard edition replacing "kingdom" is "kingship"--not "kinship".
Not sure if you misread that or personally feel "kinship" more acceptable to your view?

I misread that - I guess, because the idea of Jesus's 'kingship' is so foreign to my way of thinking. I regard his his using the word 'kingdom' to reference the 'realm' he consciously lived 'in'.

Here are the opening paragraphs of my treatise to give you my take on the Jesus's 'kingdom' idea:


From his saying “This is my body” when breaking bread and “This is my blood” when pouring wine at what has since been referenced as The Last Supper with his disciples (see Matthew 26), it is clear that Jesus rationally grasped as well as mystically (that is, transpersonally) identified with the Oneness of Creation. If what he meant to communicate by way of such sayings had been truly apprehended, such utterances may indeed have been**foundational in establishing an ecologically sane, holistically Life-augmentative civilization.
That was not to be the case, however. Because the beliefs of most if not all*of those around him at the time were hypnotically rooted in projections that God (to wit, the progenitive Source and Sustainer of Life) was a singular, supremely dictatorial ruler who had especially favored mankind by ‘giving’ them ‘dominion’ over all other earthly creatures (see Genesis 1:26-28), analogous to the way kings of old ‘granted’ lords of old the right to govern less powerful folk living in their territories (as long as said lords remained loyally subservient in relation to said kings, of course), the people around him simply did not register and so could not even begin to comprehend the implications of the fact that such sayings by Jesus actually referenced the matrixial interconnectedness and interdependency of all being.

Making matters worse, as they then also construed his references to being “the Son of God” literally, instead of ‘remembering’ the factuality of above-referenced Oneness of Being as they were directed to (in Luke 22), when would-be followers subsequently gathered together for a ceremonial meal of bread and wine (which observance later became ritualized as The Sacrament of Holy Communion), they just imagined and believed the bread and wine to be miraculously transformed (literally transubstantiated!) into the flesh and blood of Jesus himself, who they idolized and proceeded to worship and pledge allegiance to as the “King of kings, and Lord of lords” (I Timothy 6:15‑16) heir of said ‘supreme’ God.
...

What anyone thinks Jesus really meant when he used such and related phrases and why he or she imagines he chose to speak of God as ‘the Father’ and himself as ‘the Son’ (of said Father) will, of course, depend on his or her personal apprehension and understanding of metaphysical realities and ‘sense’ of what the mind-and-heart sets of the people around Jesus were like at the time. My own conclusions in this regard, which I proffer for consideration and contemplation, are that he used ‘the Father’ to reference the progenitive Source (hence, ‘the Creator’) of all existential being, and ‘the Son’ to reference the totality of said Creator’s Creation (d/b/a Creativity), in other words The Entity of Life as It exists and continues to express Itself in Being.

[weareunity]

Sidestepping religious or spiritual considerations and analysis.

What can be seen in the crossing of the paths of Pilate and Jesus is the meeting of two minds who find "themselves" apparently separated.

One the product of, and dependant upon, the Roman world order-- and charged with maintaining that order--as well as protecting his place within it.

The other-Jesus-a compassionate thinker and activist of such integrity that he devotes and is evidently prepared to use his life "itself" as an instrument with which to make every effort to demonstrate and teach to whoever is prepared to listen, learn and practice that there is a way of being together which does not require division or imposition or violence.

Theirs is a fateful meeting--both are aware of this and also of their respective positions.
X

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by weareunity

...What can be seen in the crossing of the paths of Pilate and Jesus is the meeting of two minds who find "themselves" apparently separated...
Theirs is a fateful meeting--both are aware of this and also of their respective positions.

I agree, well said.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by weareunity

Sidestepping religious or spiritual considerations and analysis.
What can be seen in the crossing of the paths of Pilate and Jesus is the meeting of two minds who find "themselves" apparently separated.
One the product of, and dependent upon, the Roman world order-- and charged with maintaining that order--as well as protecting his place within it.
...

Aye to your 'character'ization of the two, weareunity. Although I don't see what you say as 'sidestepping' 'analysis'. Also, I don't share your 'sense' of the degree of Pilate's 'awareness' of the 'fate-full-ness' of the meeting.

Hi-Five, Bro!