There Exists A Spiritual World With No Separation Or Division Creating A Physical World Of Continuity, Consistency, And Connectedness: The One Thing We Just Do Not Get
The whole point of there being no separation or division in the elements of spiritual Reality is that there is, actually, no separation or division here, either, in their manifestation. There is no division in the Godhead, which incorporates everything. We are individual bits, but we are all connected. God expands from within. Faith is "no separation." "The just shall live by the belief there is no separation or division in the ineffable (..?), that God is one." Are you listening, Israel?
The other day I responded to a question set forth by Anonymous 11:36, and I am not satisfied with my answer. I might not be much of a theologian, but I am enough of one to recognize that in discussing Jesus we are quibbling about fantasies. Fantasies about Jesus, the Life-giver/ Yah-saving-us, provide illustrations of God's actions. I am not saying that Jesus Christ was not or is not real, or that He was not a corporal human. Was Christ "in the flesh" as an individual man, or was He "in the flesh" of a community? Or better yet, was not the ;Logos of John's prologue also the Beginning Son of God (Genesis 1:1) who became everything? Christ is "in the flesh" of all matter: It is the Allaha (Aramaic for God) who reveals Him (John 1:18).
Spiritual reality has structure, though It is one. There is the divine, ontic Reality, and there is discussion on our level about it. We have to translate what the Bible says about God into the realities of Its ("His") structure. "God" is the action of the ineffable (...?)'s Consciousness; i.e., Its imagination. The Ineffable's imagination, though one, is broken up into gazillions of bits, each doing Its thing. We have this body we utilize, this life we fantasize, experiential states, billions of years old conscii who guide us, tubes to connect us, destinies to express, wisdom to manifest--I do not know, really, how to describe all the expressed structure of the invisible Reality, except to say It is the No-thing we are growing up in. The No-thing is the only real thing.
What I want to get across to everyone is that the ineffable (...?)--Its consciousness, Its imagination, and Its manifestation--are all one. (That is T'lah Qnu-meh in the ancient Aramaic: the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit.) The idea that there is separation or division within It or without It is heresy--the greatest enemy of God, and basic Christianity. (What did Satan really imply to Eve?) The (...?) has the power to become what It imagines: It becomes power; Its power becomes matter; Its matter becomes all "things"; and those things are all "IT." US, TOO! That is the Holy Spirit's testimony. The "blaspheme of the Holy Spirit" is not believing it! Take another look at what we really are, and DO NOT CALL GOD A LIAR!!
posted by Daniel C. Branham-Steele at
11:39 AM
1 Comments:
I superseded the post this comment by Anonymous was attached to:
Hello Daniel. Thank you very much for responding to my questions. Perhaps, I could sharpen my question on the testing of spirits: when introducing Christians to Neville Goddard, what is the best way to answer them when they sincerely ask, "So Jesus is our imagination? Are you denying that Jesus had come in the flesh 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem?" If your input remains the same as the few posts you have posted in response to my previous comment, then I shall be satisfied with what you have already posted. I understand how at the highest level: ALL are ONE. However, surely we must understand where our ex-churchmates are coming from (ha ha)! They believe in a Christ as a separate person (yet God himself--ahem, trinity). They believe that God incarnate, the only begotten Son (among all the other "non-begotten" ones) was Christ who was virgin-born in the flesh 2,000 years ago; and so on. So what is the best way to explain "Neville's Christ" (And here on, I will presume that his Christ is "our Christ") to Christians? Is it possible to pass their 1 John 4 test in "THEIR own language"? Is it possible to do so without having to bring in concepts from other places? (As doing so would only complicate the matter even further.) Just to share with you. My "falling away" from churchianity began with realising that there was a very good case for the belief that there is no hell--or no eternal damnation, to be more precise. Then I found out Neville, but I took many months to let my guard down and accept Neville's teachings. I have since left churchianity 100%; however, I still have "theological friction" in my mind over certain issues: - Eschatology and current events; - 1 John 4 (how can "Jesus is imagination" ever pass the 1 John 4 flesh test?); - Supremacy of the Bible (every jot and tittle); - Great men of the faith (that means all the great theologians and preachers have been wrong all this while? Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, etc. And what about martyrs? They burnt at the stake for a false Christ they believed in?); - Morality (all over Acts and onwards, there are plenty of commands of the moral nature. Are these parts of the Bible as good as trash?) - (Other bits and pieces.) I note your use of the word fantasies in describing how we discuss Jesus. My worldview has changed tremendously. I now believe there is no hell for sure, and I am very much Neville's Christ. I know I AM Christ, and I AM God, as He is becoming me. I know also that I owe no ex-churchmate (or anyone) an explanation. No one goes to hell after all, for there is no hell! I know that debating Christ with anyone is, really, pointless, fantasy. However, when a Christian were to ask me sincerely "a reason for my new faith", I wish I could answer confidently on many of the issues I pointed out above, including the 1 John 4 test. Should I just believe that it cannot be done unless I explain many other things as well? Should I just say, "I don't deny Christ is come in the flesh since I AM Christ! Me! And you see me in the flesh now, don't you? (Just as you are Christ in the flesh too.)" Perhaps, I should just move the conversation to 2 Corinthians 13:5? Or, perhaps, I should ask myself why I am so concerned with passing their interpretation of the 1 John 4 test? Am I afraid of being seen as a heretic? (Anathema!) Thank you, and I promise no more asking you regarding 1 John 4. I look forward to discussing other topics with you in the future. The above bullet points should give you a foretaste of what are to come from me. Thank you again. Truly, your work is appreciated.
By
Daniel C. Branham-Steele, at 11:44 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home