So where is the kingdom?

[Marblehead]

Funny.  I had already stopped reading the thread.

[Bindi]

 

Hi Bindi,

 

To me this is about oneness.

 

51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— This is not all will end in cessation.

 

52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

 

53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.-

 

What is that, that never dies that is one with all things? Those who belong to samsara (perishable) must clothe themselves with the imperishable (Oneness), and we will be changed.

 

54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 

1Corinthians 15:51-54 -

 

When you have achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara you will come to understand the meaning “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 

I would also point out that Jesus never called himself a Christ. The term Christ was coined hundred of years later by the church.

 

 

P.S. My browser upgrade messes with things so I can't do a proper quote.. weird.

 

What Paul the apostle in his epistle to the Corinthians was referring to when he wrote “Death has been swallowed up in victory”, was a passage from the Old Testament, Isaiah 25:8.

 

“He will swallow up death in victory [or forever]; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.”

 

What Paul meant is that:

 

the Messiah shall by his death, and resurrection from the dead, obtain such an entire victory over death, not only for himself, but for all his people, that in the resurrection morn, when they will be all raised from the dead, death will be so swallowed up, that it will be no more.

http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-54.htm

 

You say:

 

When you have achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara you will come to understand the meaning “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 

Now I can understand the meaning of the words “Death has been swallowed up in victory” in the context of Paul, without having achieved oneness and having moved beyond samsara. This passage is specifically referring to Christians being raised from the dead and never having to face death again, in what is popularly referred to as ‘the second coming of Christ’, an event that Paul believed was immanent, but that has not yet been authenticated.

 

You say:

 

Those who belong to samsara (perishable) must clothe themselves with the imperishable (Oneness), and we will be changed.

 

Samsara is the repeating cycle of birth, life and death (reincarnation) as well as one's actions and consequences in the past, present, and future (wiki quote). Christians don’t believe in reincarnation, thus implicitly they don’t believe in samsara. I don’t think you can use concepts from one tradition to examine another conflicting tradition.

 

“For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable” means in simple English “For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die” (New Living Translation bible). It doesn't mean "Those who belong to samsara must clothe themselves with Oneness, and we will be changed."

 

Or have you achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara, and therefore have direct knowledge or experience of the meaning of the lines “Death has been swallowed up in victory” and “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable” that is different to the accepted meaning as stated above, and more in line with your view?

Edited July 22, 2015 by Bindi

[Bindi]

 

Hi Bindi,

 

I would also point out that Jesus never called himself a Christ. The term Christ was coined hundred of years later by the church.

 

 

The term Christ was not coined hundreds of years later by the church. The term Christ was used to translate the term "The Anointed One" as used in the Old Testament, from Aramaic to Greek (Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed").

 

 

The people of Israel watched for centuries for the coming of "The Anointed One." The prophecies were that this Anointed One would deliver them from the oppression of all their enemies, they would conquer all and live unmolested in their promised land forever. The Anointed One would be sent from God to deliver Israel and rule over them personally, and in anticipation they called him their Savior. Both of those titles can be found in the Old Testament.

 

The Hebrew (Aramaic) word for the Anointed One, or simply "Anointed", was "Meshach", or "Messiah". The Greek word is "Christos", or "Christ".

 

http://ray.datech-net.com/when_j_called_c_disp.html

 

 

Edited July 22, 2015 by Bindi

[Bindi]

Thank you for those quotes.

 

Now if you would go through them and look at when each of those was written.

 

For instance. The Gospel of John was written by three different authors over a period of 200 years.

 

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John;

the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD

The Gospel of Matthew: Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE. A pre-70 date remains a minority view. The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time. Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on three main sources, the Gospel of Mark, the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source.

 

The Gospel of Luke:The majority view is that Luke the Evangelist, the companion of Paul, was not the author of Luke-Acts. The anonymous author took for his sources the gospel of Mark, the sayings collection called the Q source, and a collection of material called the L (for Luke) source; the most probable date is around 80-100 CE, and there is evidence that it was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.

 

Not trying to start anything Bindi. Just my view that when you see anything that say's Christ in the bible it was put there by the church.

 

We can each believe how we wish.

 

Take care.

I didn't know that you found the bible to be such a non credible source, considering how you like to quote from it when it suits you. By my last count, a possible range of 70-110CE for the gospels in question puts the refernces to Christ as being written anywhere from 36-40 years after Jesus' death, (counting his death at 30-34 years old), to 76-80 years at the latest. Hardly the dismissive "hundreds of years later" that you initially claimed.

 

Also, your first quote "The Gospel of John was written by three different authors over a period of 200 years", doesn't tally with your 2nd Gospel of John quote which states "the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. I went with the latter date range, as I was unable to find references to your quotes. It's poor form to not acknowledge a quote, it's called plagiarism.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Bindi

[Bindi]

If I could bring in a similar meaning from Laozi, I would say this section touches on the idea of inner realized (attained one) with outer:

 

Ch. 39:

Those that attained oneness since ancient times:

The sky attained oneness and thus clarity

The earth attained oneness and thus tranquility

The gods attained oneness and thus divinity

The valley attained oneness and thus abundance

The myriad things attained oneness and thus life

The rulers attained oneness and became the standard for the world

These all emerged from oneness

 

The sky, lacking clarity, would break apart

The earth, lacking tranquility, would erupt

The gods, lacking divinity, would vanish

The valley, lacking abundance, would wither

Myriad things, lacking life, would be extinct

The rulers, lacking standard, would be toppled

 

Would you agree that this is how your quote relates to 'the kingdom' –  attainment of knowledge of the outer kingdom (oneness) leads to attainment of knowledge of the inner kingdom (Self-realisation) – or would you reformulate it?

 

 

[Bindi]

Try this.  What does 'within' or 'without' actually mean when you are talking about either the Godhead or the true Self?

 

From that perspective there can be no within or without, I agree. But how does that concept relate to me right now, am I my True self now, already part of the Godhead, already entered the kingdom of heaven within and without?

 

I personally know that I am not at one with my True Self or the Godhead, no matter what I might or might not like to think. I haven't yet entered the kingdom of heaven within or without.

 

Thinking about it right now, I guess that the moment I enter the kingdom of God within will be the same moment that I enter the kingdom without.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Bindi

[Nikolai1]

Hi Bindi,

 

I personally know that I am not at one with my True Self or the Godhead, no matter what I might or might not like to think. I haven't yet entered the kingdom of heaven within or without.

This literally made me sad to read it! Your whole day is interpersed with moments where the inner and the outer have become one.  It is only thought that separates the inner and outer.  Without thought we are simply being, without any separation.  So don't say this about yourself!

 

What may need to happen is that the beautiful joy of the Kingdom needs to be morely deeply felt so that you actually notice when you are there.  Or, more precisely the joy needs to deepen, because whether you realise it or not you are aways subtly sensing the KIngdom. When life without thought of separation is fully recognised as more pleasurable and meaningful then life with thought then you are on the fast track.

 

What is the pleasure of the thoughtless life? Well, it is felt primarily.  It is relaxing and refreshing like a glass of wine or a warm bubble bath.  And because we know they are always at hand we are filled with confidence and trust in the world and we are free to feel positively towards it all.  We really start to adore it.

 

So in Christian parlance this is what Paul taught.  We, as walking, talking, living beings have already, in a sense, died, been judged and have been entirely wiped clean of all our sins. We are free to continue with our lives safe in the knowledge that we have been saved.  When we have no more doubts or fears weighing us down we can really live our life and our love for life is the natural consequence, and of course gratitude to Jesus for teaching us the good news about our potential.

 

But anyway, please don't say that you haven't yet entered the Kingdom.  The very thought bars the way!

Edited July 22, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

From that perspective there can be no within or without, I agree. But how does that concept relate to me right now, am I my True self now, already part of the Godhead, already entered the kingdom of heaven within and without?

I personally know that I am not at one with my True Self or the Godhead, no matter what I might or might not like to think. I haven't yet entered the kingdom of heaven within or without.

Thinking about it right now, I guess that the moment I enter the kingdom of God within will be the same moment that I enter the kingdom without.

 

How can you be anything other than your true self bindi ?

 

There is only self and you are that. No need to look for something to become. :-)

[Apech]

 

From that perspective there can be no within or without, I agree. But how does that concept relate to me right now, am I my True self now, already part of the Godhead, already entered the kingdom of heaven within and without?

 

I personally know that I am not at one with my True Self or the Godhead, no matter what I might or might not like to think. I haven't yet entered the kingdom of heaven within or without.

 

Thinking about it right now, I guess that the moment I enter the kingdom of God within will be the same moment that I enter the kingdom without.

 

 

Since we seem to be on the thread od Bible quotes ... here's one:

 

 

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

The thing is, I think, there are two questions.  One is where is the kingdom and the other is where or how do you go about 'seeking' it.  The answer to the first might be 'everywhere and nowhere (specific)' and the other 'within yourself'.

 

There's a lot more I could say about the tradition of mystical kingship ... both East and West ... but my lunch is ready

[Marblehead]

I think the Kingdom has gone to Hell.

[Jonesboy]

What Paul the apostle in his epistle to the Corinthians was referring to when he wrote “Death has been swallowed up in victory”, was a passage from the Old Testament, Isaiah 25:8.

 

“He will swallow up death in victory [or forever]; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.”

 

What Paul meant is that:

 

Quote

 

the Messiah shall by his death, and resurrection from the dead, obtain such an entire victory over death, not only for himself, but for all his people, that in the resurrection morn, when they will be all raised from the dead, death will be so swallowed up, that it will be no more.

http://biblehub.com/...hians/15-54.htm

 

 

You say:

 

 

Jonesboy, on 21 Jul 2015 - 07:55, said:

 

 

When you have achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara you will come to understand the meaning “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 

Now I can understand the meaning of the words “Death has been swallowed up in victory” in the context of Paul, without having achieved oneness and having moved beyond samsara. This passage is specifically referring to Christians being raised from the dead and never having to face death again, in what is popularly referred to as ‘the second coming of Christ’, an event that Paul believed was immanent, but that has not yet been authenticated.

 

Hi, Bindi..

 

Sorry I can't seem to get quotes working with this darn browser.

 

The very first thing you posted on this thread was this. "

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21

 

And

 

Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. Verse 3 Gospel of Thomas

 

So yes, I choose to believe the words of Jesus that says look within for the kingdom of God. Not some anonymous guy's interpretation of duality.

 

You say:

 

 

Jonesboy, on 21 Jul 2015 - 07:55, said:

 

 

Those who belong to samsara (perishable) must clothe themselves with the imperishable (Oneness), and we will be changed.

 

 

Samsara is the repeating cycle of birth, life and death (reincarnation) as well as one's actions and consequences in the past, present, and future (wiki quote). Christians don’t believe in reincarnation, thus implicitly they don’t believe in samsara. I don’t think you can use concepts from one tradition to examine another conflicting tradition.

 

Who say's I can't? Why is it wrong to find commonality within traditions. I find it much better to move beyond your team and my team or my group is better than your group. It is best to find what is common amongst all paths.

 

“For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable” means in simple English “For our dying bodies must be transformed into bodies that will never die” (New Living Translation bible). It doesn't mean "Those who belong to samsara must clothe themselves with Oneness, and we will be changed."

 

Yet you will be changed. To go further are you talking about a Rainbow body or an Illusory body as taught in other traditions? Are you talking about those type of bodies? I just went with oneness to keep it simple.

 

Or have you achieved oneness and moved beyond samsara, and therefore have direct knowledge or experience of the meaning of the lines “Death has been swallowed up in victory” and “For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable” that is different to the accepted meaning as stated above, and more in line with your view?

 

I do have glimpses of oneness and emptiness. Of what Jesus refers to as Motion and Rest.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

 

50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.'

 

If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.'

 

If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'"

 

The term Christ was not coined hundreds of years later by the church. The term Christ was used to translate the term "The Anointed One" as used in the Old Testament, from Aramaic to Greek (Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed").

 

Your playing games now. The term Christ is used to refer to Jesus as being the ONLY son of God. That does go against Jesus mentioning many times that we are all children of God. Jesus used the term to define himself as a Son of God.. and Enlightened being.

 

I didn't know that you found the bible to be such a non credible source, considering how you like to quote from it when it suits you. By my last count, a possible range of 70-110CE for the gospels in question puts the refernces to Christ as being written anywhere from 36-40 years after Jesus' death, (counting his death at 30-34 years old), to 76-80 years at the latest. Hardly the dismissive "hundreds of years later" that you initially claimed.

 

I like to quote the Gospel of Thomas. I don't quote the bible to often. That would be Jeff.

 

Also, your first quote "The Gospel of John was written by three different authors over a period of 200 years", doesn't tally with your 2nd Gospel of John quote which states "the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. I went with the latter date range, as I was unable to find references to your quotes. It's poor form to not acknowledge a quote, it's called plagiarism.

 

Thank you, I have added links. Sorry for being in such a hurry. It still proves my point that the gospels where not written by the Apostles and were edited by the church.

 

Edit:

 

I will say that you are probably right on what Paul is saying. I am not a big fan of Paul. He was not a Disciple of Jesus. More his writings are added to help build the church more so that to promote what Jesus taught.

 

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

 

91. They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you."

 

He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."

Edited July 22, 2015 by Jonesboy

[Jonesboy]

Bindi,

 

May I ask you a question. Someone who believes in the church teachings of Jesus.

 

Why are you on a non duality site?

 

Why are you on a site that the church believes promotes practices that can lead to possession?

 

Why do you do such practices that are clearly against the churches teaching?

 

Are you aware that in olden times you would have been burned for your practices that you do and the abilities you have?

 

Lastly.. Why if you believe the way you do. Why would you come to this website or any other non duality website and put down the beliefs of those the website was intended for?

[Marblehead]

Because he can?

[Apech]

Because he can?

 

 

Cos she's a Bum

[Jonesboy]

He would be a she.

 

We can always be rude.

 

It is a choice.

[Apech]

He would be a she.

 

We can always be rude.

 

It is a choice.

 

 

Rude?

[Marblehead]

Cos she's a Bum

Well, pardon me for the sex error.  See?  I told you I don't read members' profile.

[Apech]

Well, pardon me for the sex error.  See?  I told you I don't read members' profile.

 

 

Story of your life, eh?

[Marblehead]

Story of your life, eh?

Pretty much.  But if I saw them walking down the sidewalk I would get it right 99.9 percent of the time.

 

Reminded me:

 

There was an e-mail floating around a while back with a picture of 12 different people.  The challenge was to guess which were female.  I failed the test miserably.

[Bindi]

How can you be anything other than your true self bindi ? There is only self and you are that. No need to look for something to become. :-)

 

My true self may be hijacked at any point in time by fear or shame or guilt or desire or anger. When my consciousness is identified with any one of these hijackers, my true self is obstructed. My only solution is to try to vanquish these hijackers one by one.

 

My true self is buried beneath a persona that I created as a child from a childish perception of lack. Only when this childish persona is broken down and a mature persona has been created that instead reflects my True self will I be free of artifice.

 

My true self is betrayed by ego, seeking its own best interests and avoiding the pain of the realisation that we are each one truly alone. Only after willingly walking through this pain will I be free of the motivations of ego.

 

There may be more obstructions that I am not aware of, and intricacies that I have not yet understood, but this is the gist of why I am not yet my true self, according to me.

[Bindi]

 

The thing is, I think, there are two questions.  One is where is the kingdom and the other is where or how do you go about 'seeking' it.  The answer to the first might be 'everywhere and nowhere (specific)' and the other 'within yourself'.

 

Yes I agree.

 

 

There's a lot more I could say about the tradition of mystical kingship ... both East and West ... but my lunch is ready

 

Mystical kingship, sounds interesting.

[Karl]

My true self may be hijacked at any point in time by fear or shame or guilt or desire or anger. When my consciousness is identified with any one of these hijackers, my true self is obstructed. My only solution is to try to vanquish these hijackers one by one.

 

My true self is buried beneath a persona that I created as a child from a childish perception of lack. Only when this childish persona is broken down and a mature persona has been created that instead reflects my True self will I be free of artifice.

 

My true self is betrayed by ego, seeking its own best interests and avoiding the pain of the realisation that we are each one truly alone. Only after willingly walking through this pain will I be free of the motivations of ego.

 

There may be more obstructions that I am not aware of, and intricacies that I have not yet understood, but this is the gist of why I am not yet my true self, according to me.

 

Yet you know your true self is your only self ? There is no other. Anger, shame, desire and guilt are realities to you they are not hijackers - it is the thought that these are hijackers and that you should be something different where the collision occurs.

 

However, I understand where you are at. Indeed a wrote an semi philosophical autobiography called 'A square peg in a round hole' . In light of the present it looks kinda kooky and it's now not representative, but it stands as a testament to what I was thinking a few years ago. Might be a help to you from the perspective of seeing someone in a similar mindset.

[Marblehead]

I had to edit my entire post as I misread something and responded to my misreading.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Marblehead

[steve]

I find myself thinking about the fundamental difference between these two world views quite a lot, and I wonder what others might think.

 

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21

 

And

 

Jesus said: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. Verse 3 Gospel of Thomas

 

The kingdom is non-local, it is all positions and has no position. 

It is inside, outside, both, and neither.

It is heaven and hell, nirvana and samsara, and none of those.

 

It is the you, the I, who makes the error of imputing a point of reference by limiting itself based on the arising of thought and through our limited sensory apparatus that creates the question which really makes no sense from the perspective of the kingdom.

[Apech]

Yes I agree.

 

 

Mystical kingship, sounds interesting.

 

 

yes its interesting to investigate why Jesus was characterised as a king, since he wasn't actually a king in the ordinary sense.  there's a parallel in medieval India in the Hindu and Buddhist Tantras  where the yidam or deity is placed on throne in his/her chakra = circle = kingdom and surrounded by his/her mandala = royal court of attendant beings.  Why is the deity a king or queen?  and what exactly is it's king-dom i.e. the dome or domain of the king?