So, this guy is your avatar, guru, teacher, trusted confidant or what?
... and why?
... and then there is something to be said for getting a "do over". Life doesn't often afford those ... that is of course, unless you believe in ... well, you know.
So, this guy is your avatar, guru, teacher, trusted confidant or what?
... and why?
So, this guy is your avatar, guru, teacher, trusted confidant or what?
... and why?
Oh please stop with the pretense; your mind is about as open as a sprung bear
You've bought Blavatsky's theological flapdoodle hook,line and sinker long ago with a lot less witness and veracity than Christianity can muster.
Her source of wisdom being her so called "Ascended Masters" who, upon closer inspection, turn out to be Pike, Mazzini and other such provocateurs.
These champions of Gnosticism claim an antiquity of thought whose documentation is so sparse as to make the most novice of the intellectually honest blush in embarrassment.
No baby-lon started this thread so I am just posting vid's that contribute to the theme, I have no guru or Savior in the since you would prescribe to seeing no man can ascend who hasn't descended from heaven first, Galatians 4:24, Luke 15:45, 17:20-21, 2Cor 3:6,
I think Blavatsky drew from a well of universal wisdom common to all religious traditions and Nature herself, whose fundamental laws hold to reason, science and spiritual intelligence, at least enough to be true to an underlying esoteric truth, whose principles are both natural and cosmic.
Such is the path of spiritual progress and evolution. Also, I just for fun, identify here as an 'eclectic theosophist', because I'm eclectic and am a 'theosophist' in a most liberal sense, a lover of divine wisdom, which is essentially what 'theosophy' is (divine wisdom, wisdom of 'God' or the 'gods') -
I've only as a prospect taken to learn the original theosophy of Blavatsky and a few of her faithful devotees (mind you I don't care much for some aspects of the teaching, just some fundamentals), to see how forms of 'neo-theosophy' branched off the original schools, adding some controversy,...so its merely a curiosity of mine, and we can learn something in the research.
Well, that would be a matter of debate, education and further research, biases included - remember the perennial wisdom is UNIVERSAL, so any teacher of philosophy drawing from universal Source, would naturally agree in principle and analogy on some main fundamentals, hence their 'similiarity' - many schools or branches that sprang from Blavatsky's original dispensation, also contact or 'channel' various ascended masters,....so you can pick your flavor among them, just as well as one can choose any various Christian denomination, although the latter volume of sects is more vast.
Speaking of documentation,....we've already addressed the forgeries of Josephus and the doctoring of various texts by Christian apologists,.....hence there isn't very much attestation or proof of a 'historical' Jesus in the first few centuries, beyond in the 2nd and 3rd centuries there already being formed various Christian groups and theologies as such, which took on their own evolution and developments, only proving a 'Christianity' in various traditions or forms of 'orthodoxy' came into being. Since this is a thread about a 'historical' Jesus, we are looking at the most liberal extreme viewpoints or conclusions, and must LOOK at the 'evidence' or 'lack thereof' in the case of Jesus. Documentation outside the Bible itself for some of its various characters looks a bit embarrassing, except for those who take it by 'faith'....since such is lacking on many accounts. There is even speculation on if Paul is an actual 'historical' figure, and any number of characters he could be a compilation of, so there could be some religious fiction and co-creating of characters at work here.
As far as I can tell you are a copy and paste artist that let's others do your thinking for you.
You are a parrot as well unless you can prove all you're thoughts are original. The truth is revealed within Galatians 1:12 and isn't learned, religion cleans the outside of the cup and patronizes this world instead of seeking the kingdom within Luke 17:20-21.
You can “think” what you want. Blavatsky herself has admitted her sources in her memoirs. I know this is terribly inconvenient for those inclined to consume her earlier offerings as holy writ but, as the noted philosopher Bill Parcells once offered, “It is what it is.” You here admit that your intellect is the final arbiter of what is true. One would hope the limitations of that presumption to be self evident. When you begin to apply the effort to studying the life of Blavatsky and her philosophy that you have to discrediting the Christian faith you'll find all this soon enough. I, for one, will not hold my breath in anticipation of this glorious event.
You can redefine the term “theosophy” as many times as is necessary to suit your purpose but, at the end of the day, that's Blavatsky's baby.
you remind me of most of my Christian brethren … picking and choosing what they like of the Bible as if it were some sort of spiritual buffet whilst distancing themselves from that which they see as embarrassing, inexplicable or distasteful.
Although I would agree that wisdom is universal I fear we disagree as to it's source.
Again, you hold the Bible to a standard you are unwilling to apply to your chosen founts of knowledge. At a certain point you are going to have to address this if you continue to insist on claiming any sort of intellectual honesty. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Well good. Your own words for a change. That's a start.
As it concerns Gal 1:12; taken in context it refers to Paul referring to the source of his understanding. Now, unless your intent is to claim you talked to Jesus too you might want to cool your jets a little. Actually, you probably should either way.
As it concerns Luke 17 I would not misconstrue what Jesus said to mean the source of the kingdom to be you ... it is where it manifests but is not it's point of origin.
Well good. Your own words for a change. That's a start.
As it concerns Gal 1:12; taken in context it refers to Paul referring to the source of his understanding. Now, unless your intent is to claim you talked to Jesus too you might want to cool your jets a little. Actually, you probably should either way.
As it concerns Luke 17 I would not misconstrue what Jesus said to mean the source of the kingdom to be you ... it is where it manifests but is not it's point of origin.
You are a parrot as well unless you can prove all you're thoughts are original.
The truth is revealed within Galatians 1:12 and isn't learned, religion cleans the outside of the cup and patronizes this world instead of seeking the kingdom within Luke 17:20-21.
And lets look to see in Jesus teachings what is 'original', and not universal themes, ideas and concepts already existing from the great pool of universal wisdom mirrored in various religious traditions from time immemorial. Using the 'original' card holds no water, since only 'God' the is Original MIND from which all thoughts, ideas, 'logos', 'laws', 'principles' emerge and inhere. 'God' is the Only MIND that IS, the One universal LIGHT, the infinite Source and origin of all, the First Source and CENTER. - the fact is that all individual minds are but 'mirrors' for Infinite MIND,....so none of these minds reflecting 'God' is original! - they are but mirrors, rays of the One Light. Word!
Yep, so says Paul the gnostic, whose 'gospel' is essentially a 'mystery religion', which has 'Christ' as the spiritualized center-piece (the divine spirit that incarnates, is buried, resurrects and ascends back to heaven), and we as living vessels who contain the 'Christ' in us are but extensions of the same soul essence being BORN into the word of matter. - it just so happens that the gospels historicizes this making Jesus more 'human', a real human being? (but later compound this character with both 100% divinity and humanity :think: ) - anyways, since the kingdom of God is within it is also without and all-encompassing as long as Spirit has preeminence as omnipresent. Still the Spirit gives life, words are but symbols, carriers, pointers, conceptual helps along the way, that assist our understanding and communication of the essential ideas and meanings being portrayed. This is all that is happening....no matter if you slap a 'historical' or 'mythical' sticker on a posterboard of Jesus. All you still have is what the story of Jesus COMMUNICATES, its meaning and value....and how this has anything to do with your own transformation.
Yea they can't except that the teachings existed before the carnal Christ theory materialized, and claimed copy rights to those ancient allegorical stories that morphed with the cultural changes through the ages.