TheInvisibleDan

So quite simply, "Incorruptable Seed" is - a metaphor? That makes good sense.

It might be asked and wondered what Paul meant by "Gospel". Some scholars have wondered if Paul in Galatians 1:6 and other places had actually referred to a written Gospel that he personally promoted and circulated along with his epistles, comprising of the sayings of Christ. Prior to the settling of the Christian canon(s) not all "gospels" followed the narrative format of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, containing an outline of the life of Christ wherein His sayings were scattered throughout. Some gospels were quite simply a listing of the sayings of Christ, without any narrative reference to the events of His life."The Gospel of Thomas" is one well-known example, as is the "Q" or "Source" gospel thought by many scholars to have served as the source material behind the sayings of Jesus in our canonical forms. Not every ancient church or Christian community shared the same "Gospel" or even the same "Apostle"- let alone the same ideas and interpretations. But one notion that was shared - by others outside the earliest known Paulinist movement, the Marcionites - was that the sayings of Christ comprised and were designated "The New Law" - "the Law of Christ" - "the decrees" or "commandments" (notice many such refs in John) -which both did away with and replaced the Old Testament. If anything in the New Testament ought to be carved onto stone tablets and hung on walls if only to graphically convey the weight of one of the earliest, widespread Christian conceptions (even if ultimately in terms of the fleshly tablets of the heart) -it is the "Commandments" of Christ. And yet this most fundamental idea escaped Bullinger's notice. And it tragically escaped Wierwille's after him. With the result of many things going horribly wrong. Who says one can't have "Grace" and the "Commandments of Christ" in the same room? Why obey this bizarre inclination to segregate Christ's Law and Grace? "Grace" without the centrality of the Sayings or commandments of Christ feels pretty empty - even pointless. Beides -did we really understand "Grace" from the Way International? One thing that has really changed and affected my idea and attitude on "grace" is that I stopped thinking of "grace" as some "condition" generated by God - and have replaced it with the synonyms "goodness" and/or "kindness" - shifting the emphasis entirely to understanding "grace" as an attribute of God, or -God's very character - "by His Kindness have you been rescued" - not - "Here's the keys to the Unmerited Favor Administration - which btw you don't deserve but I'm giving it to ya anyway- don't smash up it too much." Danny

No. Let's not go there. :D--> Besides, it's kind of nice to let a "doctrinal" discussion slip into the mainstream once in awhile.

_i read Auto Yo about thirty years ago, and another time. i thinks its about 400 plus pages complete with photo documentation and other stuff~~~ The Dr. (unaccredited) Weirwille had a broken ground ceremony with Bishop K.C.P. I am really surprised vp never mentioned Para Yo or even met such a one known in India!_ _i took, uhm, not classes, but rather a purchase of one book {Auto Yo}{which is another story) and ordered the Kryia Yoga material via snail. Maybe 40 bucks for the whole year and like 5 bucks a peice a litho of, babaji ,Lahiri Mahasaya, something yketswar, Para Yo, & jc which i mounted on the wall in front of my cushioned chair from which i prayed. _ _and then i met twi where the wow witnessed to me and i told this wow my recent piece of experience of kryia....{well, that's another story}_ _just a song_ I thought "Autobiography" was far better than anything on orientalisms produced by Pillai or VP. It's a very moving book. The first edition (1946) is preferable to the later editions done after the Yogi's death - the organization SRF re-edited and inserted itself into the autobiography to boast of their own importance, altering the Yogi's meaning. Here's a link to the original 1946 edition - http://www.reluctant-messenger.com/yogananda/preface.htm I would love to check out some further material on Kryia yoga, outside of the SFR thing. Danny

His physical body dropped dead upon finishing the last word in a speech he was giving. At least that's what I've read. Did you take classes with SRF?

Turn off them lights!

aaaaaawwwwwwwwmmmmmmmmm........

O Hymn that Dwelleth in One Place - Indeed I did read "Autobiography" online only over these past few months - that I enjoyed it immensely would an understatement. If you're speaking of the SRF organization that evolved after the Yogi's death, - for which there is an ex-cult board which might just as well be a parallel universe to "Greasespot" - I haven't the slightest interest in the SRF. Would love to take some yoga classes sometime, though. And further study Hinduism and Buddhism. But I'm not going to join a [yet another] cult to do all those things. :)--> Danny

Hi George - Good post. Thank you. You're mostly correct here, with the exception that the "Just" Old Testament God was not actually "equated" with Satan, who still played a role in the Marcionite cosmology, as a prosecuting angel in service of the OT God. That's certainly what we've been taught -but I've always found it curious - and perhaps something we should really be asking ourselves -why were a good many Easterners of that era apparently unaware of such an "idiom", when considering what early Christians came up toward trying to explain the reasons behind good and evil? Do we have any ancient documentation concerning this idiom? That would be very interesting to see and review. When considering such titles as "the Everlasting God" or even "the Ancient of Days", it seems that the OT writers had no issue in associating Jehovah with the idea of "age" (or "world") or "time". Also considering material in the preceding context - 2 Cor.3 - concerning a veil remaining upon the hearts of those from a reading of the Old Testament - are we to ultimately surmise that Satan is the God of the Old Testament? Or that Satan inherited the Old Testament? Danny

i find that statement odd That is a very odd statement. I would hope that if the situation ever arose, I would lay my own life down for my children, much less anything that I knew.

It still takes quite awhile traveling by sea. Even for overgrown lizards. Hey look, it's Babaji!

Thank Goodness. Now they can put something else on "Court TV".

Wordwolf, that's a very good question, which in turn provokes others in my mind - is a "prince" (even "of this world") necessarily a "god"? In the case of John's "Prince of this World", he is most likely referring to Satan - but nonethless, he didn't call him "God". Is our assumption correct, that the "prince of this world" and "the God of this world" are the same being? The Satan of the Old Testament - at least of what I can gather of the attitude toward Satan in Rabbinic Judaism - though serving an antagonistic function, is still subservient to the God higher than himself. Satan may be the "prince" of this world but he's not the God of the this world. There are, as Paul said, many so-called "gods" and lords" in heaven and earth - but I would imagine, especially to a pious Jewish mindset - that the last thing Paul would have allowed himself to do is to attribute to a mere angel (let alone a corrupt one) the ultimate title of "the God of this world" if, as we were taught, 2 Cor.4:4 referred to Satan. Another passage that comes to mind - "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" - but wouldn't this run counter to the idea that Satan is the "God of this World"? Danny

ah! - ho! - MECHASOCKZITRA!!! aaaaaiiiiiieeeeeeee!

Or, "... shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

This was just as much of a surprise to me when stumbling upon this, as it might be to you, but - No he ISN'T. Satan is NOT the "God of this World" - at least here in 2 Cor.4. This passage does NOT refer to Satan or "the Devil". At least the second-century early Christians I've read -namely, Tertullian of Carthage in his work against Marcion (Book V) - did not interpret "the God of this world" (or "Aeon") as "Satan". Tertullian, rather than rebuking Marcion for identifying the "God of this world" as "the Old Testament God (in contrast to the New Testament God) - merely shifted a comma and actually agreed with Marcion, that the "God of this World" was - at least to Tertullian's view - the one and same God of both the Old and New Testaments. So we've one proto-orthodox dude and one heretic here who are agreed on one thing - Satan is not the "God of this world" in 2 Cor.4:4. Danny

Onward, to Monster Island! Swim with us Song...swim with us...

Dan-zilla leaves after demolishing Tokyo, "Dragging his tail into the sea...." :)-->

I think that was David Copperfield. Actually, the most astounding miracle he ever performed was catching Claudia Schiffer.

Well, despite the fact that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, I edited my original offensive post. Though I may not agree with John (or Jeff), I obviously crossed the boundaries of good taste, and have no wish for anyone here (or elsewhere) to become traumatized for the rest of their lives by anything I've said. My sincere apologies to Jeff and John for my tasteless manner of delivery. While I still think John would make a good impression by posting his views personally at this forum, I could and should have at least maintained the same standard in expressing my opinion. with best regards, Danny

Hi Billy, I myself don't feel personally "hurt" or have any desire to see John "apologize" for anything. As I had mentioned before, I am quite personally thankful for the stand against twi he took years ago. To the contrary, despite this forum's apparent rowdiness, I think he might actually encounter much benefit and even some fun through interaction on this forum, should he choose to post. I'm certainly not expecting him to visit and to "invest" time and space in responding via detailed dissertations. There are simply not enough hours in a day for any of us here(lol). Again, I'm somewhat puzzled how John could (or did in the past) recommend, on the one hand, the "Momentus" class, which, by many accounts, subjected a many folks through an emotional roller coaster ride, bringing to the surface much unrestrained screaming and shouting and weeping, while on the other hand, be put off by the frank, at times unrestrained expressions of a few of us on a public forum (!) In any event, thanks for your reply Billy. And John is quite welcome to email me, if for some reason, he feels I have hurt him. Danny

Hi Chuck! I think it might have been another "Chuck", someone whose email address included the letters "CWFCO". Does this ring a bell with anyone here?

Rachel - now that's a very interesting and refreshing interpretation. Good post. Thanks! Danny

Hi Chuck, I just tried emailing you a reply to your inquiry on "Marcion" but it keeps getting bounced back. Hopefully you'll see this before assuming that I'm ignoring you. :)--> email me (with a workable return address) at dmahar@snet.net Perhaps your server is temporarily down. Danny

He gets my vote if he can make himself "disappear". ;)--> Danny