crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (11/13/90)
In article <Nov.10.08.24.55.1990.25255@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > [long article on creation deleted] > >These explanations are based upon my own understanding of the Grail Message, >"In the Light of Truth", by Abd-ru-shin, and it is the Grail Message itself >(and not me nor anyone else) which is the authoritative source of answers for >all questions of a spiritual nature. > >It has been kindly suggested to me that I should not make such statements, >but I have to say what I know to be true. What is good and true in the Bible >is only confirmed and explained by the Grail Message, whereas all that is >false in the hitherto existing human interpretations must be stripped away. Mark, Since you often end your articles with paragraphs like this, I find it necessary to ask you the following crucial question: who exactly is Abd-ru-shin, and why should you consider his teaching more important than that of Jesus himself, and that of his immediate followers such as Paul, Peter, and John? I realize you've said that his teaching only explains the Bible, yet if your postings are any measure, it seems to be much more akin to Eastern religions (admittedly I'm no expert on these) than to the teachings of the Bible. Phrases such as "Divine Source", "Creation of the Spiritual Sphere", "karmic laws", etc., just aren't in the Bible, yet they are all over the place in various Eastern religions. It sounds as though the "Grail" writer is really trying to find a diplomatic way of saying, "Yes, the Bible is true, but only where it agrees with me and my own religion." (Which, if you think about it, isn't much of a compliment to the Bible at all.) On a related note, I find it telling that you have cited the Grail Message itself as authoritative, and not the Bible, or even "the Bible as understood by the Grail Message writer". I know, there are problems with human interpretations, but most human interpretations I know of can at least be traced back to the Bible in an understandable way. This Grail Message, on the other hand, seems completely foreign to the words of the Bible itself and not just to "human interpretations" of it. >The human spirit can find true liberation and redemption in the truth itself, >and by no other means. What is more important than just this? I agree completely. So does Jesus: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." But then, Jesus also said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." And Paul clarified, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." (Colossians 2:8-10) >With kind regards, >Mark Sandrock Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (11/14/90)
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: >Mark, >Since you often end your articles with paragraphs like this, I find it >necessary to ask you the following crucial question: who exactly is >Abd-ru-shin, and why should you consider his teaching more important than >that of Jesus himself, and that of his immediate followers such as Paul, >Peter, and John? Please do not put words into my mouth nor "interpret" my words for me or for others. I have stated that the Grail Message explains and continues the Message of Jesus. This is not to say that it is "more important"! Neither is it to say that it is "less important". I do not expect people to take my word for this, that is why I try to emphasize that each one is free to examine the Grail Message objectively to form one's own opinion. As for the identity of Abd-ru-shin, this can be recognized by anyone who takes the time and effort to examine the Grail Message objectively. Those who cannot be objective would do best to just leave it alone. >I realize you've said that his teaching only explains the Bible, yet if >your postings are any measure, it seems to be much more akin to Eastern >religions (admittedly I'm no expert on these) than to the teachings of >the Bible. Phrases such as "Divine Source", "Creation of the Spiritual >Sphere", "karmic laws", etc., just aren't in the Bible, yet they are all >over the place in various Eastern religions. It sounds as though >the "Grail" writer is really trying to find a diplomatic way of saying, >"Yes, the Bible is true, but only where it agrees with me and my own >religion." (Which, if you think about it, isn't much of a compliment >to the Bible at all.) Again, you have not represented my words accurately. My words were that the Grail Message "only confirms what is good and right in the Bible". That is to say it does not reject what is good and true and right therein, but quite naturally can only confirm all that is good and true in the Bible. The Grail Message necessarily rejects that which is incorrect, both in the original recording, as well as in the subsequent interpretations. If there are those who do not wish to hear of any mistakes in the transmissions and the interpretations, then the Grail Message must not be meant for them! As far as phrases and concepts which are not found in the Bible, there are several answers to this. The main answer is this: That not everything could be spoken of by Jesus at that time! What is my basis for this assertion? Very simply the words of Jesus that: "There is much I would still say to you, but you would not understand. But when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will lead you into all the truth." Also, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For we know in part. But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away with." I don't have the references at hand, but I believe the passages should not be hard to locate. I will provide the references if someone wishes me to. The second part of the answer is that we never even understood correctly all that was in the Scriptures! And now, today, it is possible for us to do so through the new knowledge given to mankind in the Grail Message. Going back to the example of Genesis, we assumed it referred to this earth, and now we find out that it doesn't. It refers to the original, spiritual Creation, and people only assumed otherwise. How do I know? How do we know anything is true? Because it *fits*. The various pieces all fit together to form a complete, understandable picture. Should we expect anything less from the Perfect Creator? No way! **************************************************************************** And this idea is at the core of the Grail Message: the absolute Perfection of the Creator and of His Creation. Everything else is built logically upon this unshakeable foundation. There are no gaps or uncertainties anywhere. **************************************************************************** It is hard for me to understand why a concept such as "Spiritual Sphere" would seem "foreign" to anyone who accepts the concept of *spirit*. Where else would *spirit* originate but in the *Spiritual Realm or Sphere*? Where was Jesus referring to when He spoke of "My Kingdom is not of this world."? There are not a lot of choices, my friends. Things are either material, or spiritual. Or in the case of God, they are Divine. Jesus had to speak in simpler terms, but He spoke exactly of the Spiritual Realm, Paradise, the Kingdom of Heaven. Today we are capable of understanding more than before. Or take the objection to "karmic law". We have the words of Jesus that say: "As a man sows, thus shall he reap." If someone else refers to this as the Law of Sowing and Reaping, or as karma, or as fate, isn't it still the same thing? Jesus could not say everything to people then, and He stated this fact for the record. Jesus spoke in such a way that the people of that time could understand His Message. It should not be surprising that a new teaching for mankind would have to use language and expressions which are more suited to the understanding of present-day mankind. The meaning is still the same, but we need more in-depth explanations than we previously could understand. Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded that Jesus ever spoke of it? Because the fact is that reincarnation was a part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. The fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?") And once again, as always, we might do well to recall the words of Jesus that "There is much I would yet say to you, but you would not understand. ..." when deciding to reject ideas simply because Jesus never spoke of them. What were all these things that we "couldn't understand" then? And isn't it high time that we learned to understand them? The Grail Message can help us to do this. So how does one arrive at the truth? By objectively weighing and examining, and not otherwise! By thinking freely and independently, as we are meant to. And the Grail Message is there to help those who wish to do so. To me it is the most wonderful and most Christian teaching possible, and it is naturally something one wants whole-heartedly to share with others! >On a related note, I find it telling that you have cited the Grail Message >itself as authoritative, and not the Bible, or even "the Bible as understood >by the Grail Message writer". I know, there are problems with human >interpretations, but most human interpretations I know of can at least be >traced back to the Bible in an understandable way. This Grail Message, on >the other hand, seems completely foreign to the words of the Bible itself >and not just to "human interpretations" of it. No. Just because the Grail Message gives *deeper and fuller* explanations of every aspect of the World (Creation), including the Bible, this does not make it "completely foreign". Time and again the Grail Message calls to mind the words or actions of Jesus, and explains them fully to us. The only question to my mind is this: Are the explanations given in the Grail Message correct or not? And this question is best answered by each individual for himself, once he or she takes the time and effort to examine the Grail Message. I have answered that question for myself, and wish to give others the opportunity too. >I agree completely. So does Jesus: "You shall know the truth, and the truth >shall make you free." But then, Jesus also said, "I am the way, the truth, >and the life." And Paul clarified, "See to it that no one takes you captive >through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and >the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ >all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given >fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." >(Colossians 2:8-10) Once more I can only say, those who seriously seek a better understanding of the Mission and Message of Jesus, as well as all aspects of Creation, would do well to objectively examine "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin, as to the great value of the knowledge it mediates. The Grail Message comprises 168 lectures and more than 1000 pages of text, and is intended to be read step-by-step, from the beginning. Only in this way can one really grasp the vast knowledge which it does provide. The Grail Message can be found in many libraries across the U.S., as well as in other countries. The original language is German, but translations exist in English, French, Spanish, and other languages as well. Best regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) (11/20/90)
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >As for the identity of Abd-ru-shin, this can be recognized by anyone who >takes the time and effort to examine the Grail Message objectively. Those >who cannot be objective would do best to just leave it alone. Mark, why do you think even for a moment that any human being can be objective? Scientists claim to be objective, also -- yet the best we can say is that scientists are _more_objective_ than most other people. They aren't truly objective, though; as human beings, we all have limited knowledge and individual experience that influence our perspective. I'm not saying objectivity is a bad idea, but in order to be truly unbiased we would have to be God Himself. >crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) writes: >>It sounds as though >>the "Grail" writer is really trying to find a diplomatic way of saying, >>"Yes, the Bible is true, but only where it agrees with me and my own >>religion." >the Grail Message "only confirms what is good and right in the Bible". The logical extension of your own statement is that it _does_ reject what is _not_ good and true in the Bible. In essense, this is what Charles is saying; he personalized the statements that you yourself made. To reject the validity of the original recording of the manuscripts is to cast a shadow on Christianity as a whole. Attempting to find the right translation is a good thing, but saying the original text is in error is to open the door to the rewriting of God's Word. >And this idea is at the core of the Grail Message: the absolute Perfection >of the Creator and of His Creation. Can you explain why a Perfect Creator would allow his very Word to be recorded with significant error? I cannot seen reconcile these two ideas. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16, which says: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. >The >fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, >which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples >indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, >that he was born blind?") Your arguments on Spiritual sphere and karma have some merit; I certainly won't use these phrases, though, because as Charles said they have the "ring" of Eastern mysticism. However, the passage you cite in support of reincarnation (John 9:2) doesn't support your argument at all! The literal meaning of the word "parents" becomes quite evident later in the same chapter, when the man's parents are called before the Pharisees. >So how does one arrive at the truth? By objectively weighing and examining, >and not otherwise! By thinking freely and independently, as we are meant to. I beg to differ; one arrives at the truth by freely choosing Jesus as Lord and Savior and by studying God's own Word with the help of His Spirit. All truth originates in and from God, without whose help we have no hope of finding.
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (11/23/90)
scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) writes: >Mark, why do you think even for a moment that any human being can be >objective? Scientists claim to be objective, also -- yet the best we >can say is that scientists are _more_objective_ than most other people. >They aren't truly objective, though; as human beings, we all have >limited knowledge and individual experience that influence our >perspective. I'm not saying objectivity is a bad idea, but in order to >be truly unbiased we would have to be God Himself. I know from experience that a person can only learn to separate truth from falsehood through *trying* to be objective. I would be the first to agree with you that it is an ideal to become *perfectly* objective, but I also think it would be wrong not to be always striving in that direction. We can learn to recognize and overcome our biases and pre- judices, step-by-step. I also agree the scientific method is based on the necessity for *intellectual* objectivity, but this is hardly the same thing as objectivity concerning spiritual matters. In my many years of having worked closely with "men of science" I have in fact found many of them to be quite hostile concerning spiritual notions, and typically reject out-of-hand the possibility of anything that goes beyond the boundary of this physical world. It is difficult to imagine anyone being more *closed* to spiritual matters than just such people! Therefore, I would not describe such people as objective *in the spiritual meaning* of the word! On the other hand, it may be just as difficult for someone who has chosen to adhere to a particular "Christian" teaching to examine the new knowledge of the Grail Message objectively. I find that many are quite strongly attached to their interpretation of the Mission and Message of Jesus, and in that case, I would not recommend that they bother to examine the Grail Message, since there is no possibility for them to be objective about it. >To reject the validity of the original recording of the manuscripts is >to cast a shadow on Christianity as a whole. Attempting to find the >right translation is a good thing, but saying the original text is >in error is to open the door to the rewriting of God's Word. And I say that GOD's WORD was that spoken by Jesus, Himself! If people choose to believe that the WORD of Jesus was recorded by men exactly and in its entirety, then that is an assertation with which I myself cannot agree whatsoever. Therefore, I think that to reject new knowledge out-of-hand is presumptuous on our part. Especially when we do have the words of Jesus, that there is much He would still say to us, but that we would not understand. I know that people will say that later on the "Holy Spirit" came upon them, and made everything alright, but I myself cannot accept this view as correct. Certainly it would not be possible to "cast a shadow" upon the WORD of GOD as taught by Jesus, but this is something different than the human interpretations of it. In any case, I would not term it as "casting a showdow" upon it, but rather "casting a LIGHT" upon it! >>And this idea is at the core of the Grail Message: the absolute Perfection >>of the Creator and of His Creation. >Can you explain why a Perfect Creator would allow his very Word to be >recorded with significant error? I cannot seen reconcile these two >ideas. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16, which says: > All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, > rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Yes. For the same reason that He would allow us to ever stray from His Will in the first place; for the same reason He would allow His Son to put sent to His death on the cross: FREE WILL! We must each voluntarily learn to recognize and live in accordance with the Will of God -- He does not force us. This does require that we make the necessary effort to understand His Will in all things, for which purpose we have been given the ability to think and to reason and to find the truth about God and His perfect Creation! There is no need for the Creator to arbitrarily intervene in all the great and small woes of mankind, for His *perfect* Laws have been woven into His Creation from the very beginning. These perfect Laws *guarantee* justice in the working out of all happenings in Creation. To believe otherwise is to doubt the Perfection of the Almighty. This means that the responsibility for the existence of evil and error in the world has to be placed squarely at the feet of mankind. When we chose the wrong course, which lead *away* from the Will of God, He still offered us help in the WORD of Jesus, which showed us how we should live. What mankind did with this help, was then our own responsibility. The help was sent, and for the most misunderstood and rejected. It was truly said that "the Light shone in the darkness, and the darkness knew it not!" Should we blame God for this, or should we put our own house in order? The words "Seek and ye shall find!" place the responsibility upon us, for the implication is if we don't seek then we shan't find! >Your arguments on Spiritual sphere and karma have some merit; I >certainly won't use these phrases, though, because as Charles said they >have the "ring" of Eastern mysticism. However, the passage you cite in >support of reincarnation (John 9:2) doesn't support your argument at >all! The literal meaning of the word "parents" becomes quite evident >later in the same chapter, when the man's parents are called before the >Pharisees. I am talking about "Sowing and Reaping", and not only does this idea satisfy our natural need to find justice in Creation, but we also do have the clear simple words of Jesus regarding this Law of Creation. I fail to see what the problem might be, except that one might *wish* that it weren't true! But then doesn't this go back to the need for objectivity in seeking the truth? Insofar as one can use words like "karma" or "fate" in the sense of this simple Law of Sowing and Reaping, then those expressions are fine by me. Even if one rejects any basis in Scripture for the validity of the concept of reincarnation, the fact still remains that Jesus could not say everything to the people at that time, and we do have His words to that effect. And if one deeply seeks for justice in the world, one time and again comes back to the necessity for reincarnation to provide the missing piece to the puzzle. Sometimes we "sow" in one life, and "reap" in a subsequent life. >>So how does one arrive at the truth? By objectively weighing and examining, >>and not otherwise! By thinking freely and independently, as we are meant to. >I beg to differ; one arrives at the truth by freely choosing Jesus as >Lord and Savior and by studying God's own Word with the help of His >Spirit. All truth originates in and from God, without whose help we >have no hope of finding. Are you saying that God does not want us to think "freely and independently"? That He does not want us to "objectively weigh and examine" everything? I think the fact that we are able to do these things is the clearest sign that we are indeed intended to do so by God! We have this responsibility. Yes, and we also must strive to be such that we are capable of recognizing and receiving God's help when it does come our way! One might want to recall that "When the need is greatest, God's help shall be nearest to you!" Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
joseph@cs.albany.edu (Jody Richardson) (11/23/90)
There is much I do not know regarding this discussion. I only just started reading this group and only the last couple of messages on this thread remain in our spool. Nevertheless, one part of Mark's last message jumped out at me and I would like to ask a question. Sandrock writes: >Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. >Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, >instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded >that Jesus ever spoke of it? Because the fact is that reincarnation was a >part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. The >fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, >which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples >indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, >that he was born blind?") Mark, I'm not convinced that this paragraph makes any sense. 1) If what you say is true (that Jesus and the Disciples acknowledged reincarnation), then it would seem to follow that anyone of that day who was interested in the disposition of their soul would acknowledge reincarnation, including Nicodemus since he was a Pharisee and taught people like the Disciples. In that case, why would he be so surprised when Jesus told him he must be born again? It seems unlikely that it's a translation problem. It is clear he knew Jesus was talking about rebirth by his response citing physical birth. 2) Doesn't the quote you cited ("Who had sinned,...") make much more sense in the light of OT teachings regarding the sins of people being visited on their children and their children's children to the Nth generation, than in the darkness [sorry :-)] of absent OT reincarnation references? Finally, I would like to know the references citing reincarnation as part of Church doctrine in the hundreds of years following the life of Christ. -- Jody Richardson | "If you don't get a goodnight kiss, you joseph@cs.albany.edu | get Kafka dreams." -- Hobbes
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/23/90)
In article <Nov.14.03.36.33.1990.25339@athos.rutgers.edu>, sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > As for the identity of Abd-ru-shin, this can be recognized by anyone who > takes the time and effort to examine the Grail Message objectively. Those > who cannot be objective would do best to just leave it alone. I interpreted the original question to be a straightforward "who is Abd-ru-shin". I would like to know the answer to that question too. I have only heard of Abd-ru-shin and the Grail Message in Mark Sandrock's postings. I have not found it in a public library here. I prefer reading (translations of) primary sources when I can; I have the Mormon books (BoM, PoGP, D&C), "Science & Health", and recently spent more in a Jewish bookshop than I meant to (anyone who thinks reincarnation is compatible with what Judaism _teaches_ should read Pirkei Avos; you can believe in reincarnation and be a good Jew because Judaism is about "deed, not creed"). So please accept this as a respectful question from someone who is not a seeker after truth (you don't seek any more for what you have found) but is confident enough of the truth he has been given to let it be questioned: Who (in the ordinary sense of the word) was Abd-ru-shin? Where did he live? When did he live? What was his life like (was he married, was he rich or poor, what kind of education did he have, did he have many followers in his life time, did he die like Joseph Smith or of old age)? > Again, you have not represented my words accurately. My words were that > the Grail Message "only confirms what is good and right in the Bible". > That is to say it does not reject what is good and true and right therein, > but quite naturally can only confirm all that is good and true in the Bible. That is to say that either the Grail Message confirms _everything_ in the Bible, or that the Bible teaches things that are evil or wrong. I could say "The Bible only confirms what is good and right in the teaching of Aleister Crowley". That leaves completely open the question of whether there _is_ anything good and right in "The Great Wild Beast"'s teaching. _Are_ you saying that there is material in the Bible which is evil? If so, what, and what grounds do you have other than Abd-ru-shin's say-so? _Are_ you saying that there is material in the Bible which is wrong? If so, what, and what grounds do you have other than Abd-ru-shin's say-so? > Also, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For we know in part. But when > that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away with." This seems to be a paraphrase of 1 Cor 13:9--10. But remember, a text without a context is a pretext. _Could_ the "perfect" here be the Grail Message? The context is Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues they will be stilled; where there is knowledge it will pass away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. Since you accepted the Grail Message, have you indeed come to know G-d fully, like He knows you? Do you see Him face to face? Is it the case that your spiritual knowledge is no longer incomplete at all? Have the gates of death been shown to you? I honestly can't interpret this as referring to a new scripture. I _think_ it is talking about life in the World to Come, and saying that the spiritual "gifts" we're given in this life are temporary and partial, and that we shan't have need of them when we are perfected and stand in the presence of G-d, but that love _will_ remain. > I don't have the references at hand, but I believe the passages should not > be hard to locate. I will provide the references if someone wishes me to. Please do! > The second part of the answer is that we never even understood correctly all > that was in the Scriptures! And now, today, it is possible for us to do so > through the new knowledge given to mankind in the Grail Message. There's a delicate point here concerning the relationship between Christians, Jews, and the Tanakh. My current belief (and I assure you it is tentative and readily corrigible) is that the Jews of Jesus' time understood the Tanakh _correctly_ (those who wanted to), but didn't understand it _completely_. Let's face it, if nobody ever understood the Scriptures correctly until whenever it was that Abd-ru-shin wrote, then G-d appears rather incompetent. I think that applies to Jesus' time as well: because G-d _was_ competent at inspiring the authors of the Tanakh, the people of Jesus' time _were_ able to understand enough of it correctly, otherwise how could they have been _responsible_ if they didn't accept Him? The further revelation in the NT _couldn't_ be given until Jesus had died, because that's what it was about. But what held up the revelation in the Grail Message? Which events was it waiting for? Why were so many people left so long with scriptures that G-d had forgotten to give them the key to? There's another delicate point there about the Reformation. But the point of the Reformation was to say "we _were_ given enough information to understand the scriptures correctly as soon as it was practical to write them down; man's work since then has been leading us _away_". Whether they were right or wrong in their conclusions, the passion of their argument came from the belief that their interpretation of the Scriptures was no more than what had always been plainly _there_, and that no new helps were needed. So I can be wary of new writings without being false to the Reformers, I can accept that there was a need for reform without accusing G-d of incompetence, for the claim is that he _had_ provided all that was needed. So the question stands: why did the Grail Message come so late? Why were St John Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine, and so many others who ardently wished to understand left with incomplete and incorrect Scriptures which it was not "possible" for them to "understand correctly" because they did not have "the new knowledge given to mankind in the Grail Message"? This really isn't a hostile question. As I pointed out above, there's a similar question with respect to the relation between Tanakh and NT. But when you start digging, it's amazing just how little in the NT is new. Jesus, His death and resurrection, and the consequences flowing therefrom, those are new, but the rejection of reincarnation and the idea that there is a place of retribution for the wicked can apparently be found in Pirkei Avos, for example, as well as in many surviving apocalypses. > Going back to the example of Genesis, we assumed it referred to this earth, > and now we find out that it doesn't. It refers to the original, spiritual > Creation, and people only assumed otherwise. Well, they assumed otherwise because that's what it _says_. You're asking me to believe that the Jews have misunderstood "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth" for 3,200 years (_we_ received it from them). I mean, we're talking about a _continuous_ tradition here, a tradition which was limited, human, and fallible, but unequalled in fidelity by any other tradition (I'm not knocking the Catholics here, no way, but they haven't been at it as long). I am not for an instant claiming that the Jews understood everything in the Tanakh fully, but is it really credible that on such a major point as "G-d made the physical universe" they would have so radically misunderstood it so soon after it was written? Not only that, you're asking me to believe that G-d was so incompetent at inspiration that he let this slip through, when he _could_ have given the author a bit of a nudge and had him write "In the beginning G-d created the spiritual world." And you're asking me to believe that the "spiritual Creation" has water teeming with fish, birds flying all over the place, seed-bearing trees, ... and that the sun and the moon are _there_, not _here_ (or were, but came over later). Are you saying that G-d _didn't_ create the universe? If not, who did? > How do I know? How do we know anything is true? Because it *fits*. _What_ does it fit? That interpretation certainly doesn't fit the plain sense of the text. I follow those commentators who see the first couple of chapters of Genesis as a polemic against the other religions of the Near East; we have practical certainty that those religions existed and know a lot about what they taught. Some kind of polemic against them, saying "no, the universe was made by G-d, humans aren't a nuisance that get culled by the gods but human existence has been declared good by G-d himself" fits the cultural context. (Which is not to say that it isn't literally true as well. I'm not taking a position either way.) So the interpretation of Genesis 1 as referring to the material universe _does_ fit the cultural context. Your interpretation doesn't, would have been irrelevant to that context. > **************************************************************************** > And this idea is at the core of the Grail Message: the absolute Perfection > of the Creator and of His Creation. Everything else is built logically upon > this unshakeable foundation. There are no gaps or uncertainties anywhere. > **************************************************************************** G-d himself cannot do the logically inconsistent. I've forgotten who said it, but someone said of the old "if G-d is omnipotent, can He make a stone too heavy for Him to lift" that just putting "G-d can" in front of nonsense doesn't make it sense, that something like that simply fails to name an action. Similarly, "G-d can bring about a finite document written in an existing human language with no gaps or uncertainties" is false because I have failed to describe a possible document. Gaps and uncertainties are not imperfections; they are a consequence of finiteness. > Jesus had to speak in > simpler terms, but He spoke exactly of the Spiritual Realm, Paradise, the > Kingdom of Heaven. Today we are capable of understanding more than before. How come? The Spiritual Realm, Pardesh, and the Reign of Heaven are three old ideas. Three _different_ ideas. > Or take the objection to "karmic law". We have the words of Jesus that say: > "As a man sows, thus shall he reap." If someone else refers to this as the > Law of Sowing and Reaping, or as karma, or as fate, isn't it still the same > thing? No. Let me quote from Pirkei Avos 3[1] (ArtScroll Mesorah translation): Akavaia ben Mahalel said: Consider three things and you will not come into the grip of sin: Know whence you came, whither you go, and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning. 'Whence you came?'--from a putrid drop; 'Whither you go?'--to a place of dust, worms and maggots; 'and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning?'--before the King Who reigns over kings, the Holy One, Blessed is He. What is this saying? Human life begins with the beginning of this physical life, it ends with the end of this physical life, and after that is judgement (and, looking elsewhere in that book, the World to Come). Jesus, speaking from the same tradition, said the same kind of thing: afte you die you will be judged based on what you have done in this one life (to a Christian, this includes: have you entrusted your life to Jesus, have you accepted the forgiveness that he is able to offer). The sowing and reaping bit does not refer to suffering in this life. In fact Jews and Christians haven't got a nice simple account of that. For the Jews, Pirkei Avos 4[19] Rabbi Yannai said: It is not in our power to explain either the tranquility of the wicked or the suffering of the righteous. For Christians, Jesus when asked "for whose sins is this man suffering, his own or his parents" said "NEITHER". The Mormon doctrine that some human souls sinned before they were born (this is their explanation of why some people are born black, I am not kidding or exaggerating) has a rather tenuous resemblance to karma, but sowing & reaping is opposed to it. As for fate (English note: the "weird sisters" in Macbeth are suspiciously like the Norns, "wyrd" is an old word for Fate), Fate has no reference to merit or sin. > Jesus spoke in such a way that the people of that time > could understand His Message. Doesn't that contradict your claim that a new message is needed because it wasn't possible for people to understand the old one correctly? > The meaning is still the same, > but we need more in-depth explanations than we previously could understand. Do we? If the Fathers were able to understand enough to be saved, why do I need more? Do you begin to have any idea how _much_ there is in the way of "in-depth explanations" based on the scriptures we already have? Have you studied the Cappadocian Fathers? Have you read everything of Augustine's? Anything of Chryostom's, or Jerome's? > Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. > Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, > instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded > that Jesus ever spoke of it? Why accuse people you've never met and never discussed it with of _not_ considering it on its merits? I have considered it and am appalled by the injustice of it. > Because the fact is that reincarnation was a > part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. I'm afraid you are going to have to give some better argument for this than bare assertion. What is your evidence for this claim? Ad fontes! Let's not rely on fifth-hand assertions: if it's true, you can demonstrate it from the sources. > The fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of > reincarnation, which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny > it when the Disciples indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, > this man or his parents, that he was born blind?") If you will take the trouble to look at the rather large number of documents surviving from that time (I recommend "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha", but there are other sources) you will find that the idea "you live once, after that there is judgement, the good enjoy eternal life in the World to Come and the wicked are punished [typically by fire]" was widespread, and Jesus not only failed to deny _that_, he explicitly affirmed it. For example, Like 16:19-31 is quite clear in its teaching that one you're dead it's too late. As for the man born blind, his parents were still alive. What about the possibility that it might be his own sin? Well, there is an idea which is very different from reincarnation, which keeps popping up. I think Origen believed it, and it's certainly Mormon doctrine. That is PRE-EXISTENCE. In that scheme, we have creation of spirit -> conscious pre-mortal existence -> birth -> conscious mortal existence -> death -> judgement -> (eternal life | punishment) (there are _no_ cycles here). In that scheme it is possible for someone to sin after they have been created but before they are born. It sounds as though you have not grasped the distinction between pre-existence and reincarnation. You should re-examine the references you _think_ establish that the Church ever believed in reincarnation and see whether they may not be compatible with pre-existence instead. > The Grail Message comprises 168 lectures and more than 1000 pages of text, > and is intended to be read step-by-step, from the beginning. Only in this > way can one really grasp the vast knowledge which it does provide. With all possible respect, the biggest problem I have with Judaism is that there is so much to study. To quote Pirkei Avos again: [Hillel] used to say: A boor cannot be fearful of sin; --> an unlearned person cannot be scrupulously pious; <-- ... and the commentary in the ArtScroll translation says "An unlearned person remains blind to the requirements of the law, and so cannot be pious". The New Testament is not much bigger than a Mills & Boon (for US readers: Harlequin). With modern translations, even today's schoolchildren can read and understand it. (Exhaust it, _no_. Understand enough for their immediate needs, _yes_.) The knowledge that is essential for salvation must surely be knowledge that most people could grasp if they wanted to; the actions that are essential for salvation must surely be actions that most people could perform if they wanted to, or where is G-d's justice? (For Lutherans reading this: I have not affirmed that everyone _can_ want to grasp or act, only that once they have been given grace to will faith _then_ they can learn and do what they need to learn and do.) If G-d left us in ignorance so long, where is His justice? > The Grail Message can be found in many libraries across the U.S., I'm not _in_ the USA, and I haven't succeeded in finding it here. -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/26/90)
In article <Nov.14.03.36.33.1990.25339@athos.rutgers.edu>, sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. ... > Because the fact is that reincarnation was a > part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. One "proof text" which has sometimes been advanced in favour of reincarnation is that the disciples said that people were saying that Jesus was one of the prophets, maybe Elijah. Mark Sandrock hasn't said this, but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone was wondering. The passage is Matthew 16:13--20, I'll just quote 13--14 from the NIV. Mt 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 16:14 They replied, "Some say JOHN THE BAPTIST, others say Elijah, and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets". Now this does not affirm reincarnation. The point of the passage is that he _isn't_ any of these people, but as Peter says in v16, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". What's more, it provides no evidence that the disciples believed in reincarnation. Does it prove that "the people" believed in reincarnation? Bear in mind that John the Baptist was about a year older than Jesus. Both men would have been in their 30s at the time of John's execution. This is a very strange form of "reincarnation". Whatever the people who thought that Jesus "was" John the Baptist meant, they didn't mean that John had died and then been reborn as Jesus. Bear in mind also that Elijah is not recorded as having died. You can be as liberal as you please and still accept the relevant point: the popular belief was that Elijah had been taken up living into heaven. So "people" who thought that Jesus "was" Elijah didn't think that Elijah had died and been reborn as Jesus either, because they didn't think that he had died, not in the usual sense anyway. Is there something significant about Elijah here? Remember that Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah's spirit (2Kings 2:9). When it was said in 2Kings 2:15 "The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha", does that refer to reincarnation? It appears to mean that the spirit which had inspired Elija now inspired Elisha. We have here two men who had been alive at the same time, one of whom carried on the other's mission. The least strained interpretation of the verses in Matthew, then, seems to be that the people believed that the spirit of or from G-d that had inspired Elijah was now with Jesus, or that He was carrying on John's mission with the same spirit of or from G-d, _not_ that the "soul" or personality of John or Elijah now inhabited Jesus' body. So, whatever the popular belief was, -- it can't have been reincarnation in the usual sense -- we don't have any evidence that the disciples shared it -- Matthew doesn't teach that it was true. > The > fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of reincarnation, > which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny it when the Disciples > indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, this man or his parents, > that he was born blind?") That comes from John 9. The disciples' belief WASN'T reincarnation, and Jesus *did* deny that the belief they had was true in this case. The relevant passage is Exodus 20:5 (there are others): Ex 20:5 You shall not bow down to [idols] of worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, PUNISHING THE CHILDREN FOR THE SINS OF THE FATHERS TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION OF THOSE WHO HATE ME, Ex 20:6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. Surely the reference to the man's parents (still alive!) gave the game away: the disciples were not asking whether the man had been born blind because of sins *HE* had committed in a previous earthly life, but whether he had been punished for sins he had committed (in a pre-mortal existence maybe? in the womb maybe? or predictably in G-d's perfect foreknowledge?) or whether he had been punished for the sins HIS PARENTS had committed. That is not karma! It is the very opposite of karma! If the man's grandparents or greatgrandparents had been idolaters, the disciples might have expected him to suffer in consequence of their sins too. But Jesus' reply was "NEITHER". The man wasn't being punished for ANYONE's sins. I haven't the Greek here today, but the NIV has it that "Neither this man nor his parents sinned", and however literally we are to understand that, it stands out very clearly as a claim that some suffering does NOT result from the operation of karma. To summarize: -- the disciples did not express a belief in reincarnation, but in punishment for the sins of ones ancestors -- Jesus denied that all suffering resulted from sin -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.
tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) (11/26/90)
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >deleted stuff about objectivity >On the other hand, it may be just as difficult for someone who has >chosen to adhere to a particular "Christian" teaching to examine the >new knowledge of the Grail Message objectively. I find that many are >quite strongly attached to their interpretation of the Mission and >Message of Jesus, and in that case, I would not recommend that they >bother to examine the Grail Message, since there is no possibility >for them to be objective about it. That argument just doesn't wash. If we should not examine evidence because we cannot approach it objectively and, as you have just argued, we cannot be perfectly objective then the logical conclusion is that we do not examine any evidence for fear of reaching mistaken conclusions. >And I say that GOD's WORD was that spoken by Jesus, Himself! Do you think a perfect God would be negligent enough to give out His Word and then not provide some mechanism for reliably passing it on to subsequent generations? The account at the beginning of Acts and the equiping of the apostles to begin this process just makes sense, arguments of "inspiration" aside. >If people choose to believe that the WORD of Jesus was recorded by men >exactly and in its entirety, then that is an assertation with which I >myself cannot agree whatsoever. How do you know that Jesus was in fact God if it wasn't for these men and women who faithfully taught in the church's embryonic state. I agree that they did not record all of His exact words (the Gospels are not long enough for a start). What is a more important question is: Did they record what God wanted them to record? 2 Tim 3:16 and other like verses claim this. We can only examine the documents and allow God to lead us to a correct conclusion. But claims like that one tend to make it an all or nothing proposition. >stuff deleted about Holy Spirit's subsequent work, God's perfection, >reincarnation and other things >Regards, >Mark Sandrock >-- >BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign >Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services >Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 You choose to allow the Bible to be authoritative where it supports your viewpoint but question its validity where it brings your views under scrutiny. Is this reasonable? If so why? Do you approach the Bible wanting to be changed to more reflect God in your own thoughts and actions or hoping and expecting to find support for your views and ideas? What does the Bible say about that? Humour me for a while and try and find if the Bible says anything about free- will. I am inclined to think that this is a human construction which is useful for explaining some aspects of God's plan but it is not an argument explicitly found in the Bible (I make this a little inflamatory in order to provoke you all to prove me wrong!). Tim. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Arnold Law/Science (Computer Science Hons) Undergrad tja@munnari.cs.mu.oz.AU The University of Melbourne
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/27/90)
In article <Nov.14.03.36.33.1990.25339@athos.rutgers.edu>, sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > Again, you have not represented my words accurately. My words were that > the Grail Message "only confirms what is good and right in the Bible". > That is to say it does not reject what is good and true and right therein, > but quite naturally can only confirm all that is good and true in the Bible. > Because the fact is that reincarnation was a > part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. If (a) the Grail Message teaches reincarnation, and (b) "the Grail Message confirms what is good and right in the Bible" then the following passage from Hebrews is not "good and right": [Jesus doesn't have to sacrifice over and over like a High Priest] Hebrews 9:26 Then Christ would have had to usffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. :27 JUST AS MAN IS DESTINED TO DIE ONCE, AND AFTER THAT TO FACE JUDGEMENT, :28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. The context shows that Heb 9:27 isn't a throwaway line, but is at the core of the argument. It is specifically affirmed that Christ has not suffered "many times". Hebrews is in the canon fixed for the West by the Council of Carthage in 395. It was listed among the disputed books in Origen's list of about 250, and isn't in the Muratorian Canon aout 200. It might be possible to argue that Hebrews became accepted after reincarnation was dropped, but we'd want some positive evidence. I didn't see anything in the letters of Ignatius that reminded me of reincarnation. > > Or take the objection to "karmic law". We have the words of Jesus that say: > > "As a man sows, thus shall he reap." If someone else refers to this as the > > Law of Sowing and Reaping, or as karma, or as fate, isn't it still the same > > thing? Can someone supply the reference for this? Even with the aid of the biggest newest concordance I can find (The NIV Exhaustive Concordance) I am unable to locate this phrase in the Gospels. I can find it in Galatians: Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived: G-d cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. We find sowing-and-reaping elsewhere in Paul, e.g. 2 Corinthians, where the context is the collection for the relief of the poor. 2Cor 9:6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. The context there makes it quite clear that the reward is to be experienced in the same lifetime as the gift. Why is it important to be clear about whether reincarnation is true or not? Consider carefully the following quotation from R.Elaza HaKappar in Pirkei Avos (yes, a Jewish source, but Judaism is the background of Jesus and of Paul, and I'm _not_ citing this as an authority). 4[29] Let not your evil inclination promise you that the grave wil be an escape for you--for against your will you were created; against your will you were born; against your will you live; against your will you die; and against your will you are destined to give an account before the King Who rules over kings, the Holy One, Blessed is He. To say it otherwise, consider a three-way version of Pascal's wager, the three possibilities being 1. Materialism is right. Death comes as the end. 2. Reincarnation is right. The law of karma binds us to the wheel and we keep coming around until we follow something like the Eightfold Way and get _off_. 3. The Rabbis quoted in Pirkei Avos are right. We live once, die once, and after that the Holy One will judge us before we can enter the World to Come. If 1 is correct, it doesn't matter _what_ we believe. When we're dead, it won't matter to us what choice we made, because _we_ won't be there to care. What we do in this life may have consequences for others, but wait a bit and they'll be dead and non-existent too. If 2 is correct, making a mistake in this life isn't fatal. (Sorry (:-).) If our actions in this life are "good", we'll come around again in much the same sort of condition, and we'll have another chance. The mistake will delay our release, but no mistake is irrevocable. If 3 is correct, if indeed "This world is like a lobby before the World to Come" [Pirkei Avos 4[21]], then it matters that we make the right choice. There's only one safe bet among these three, and that's 3. That doesn't establish that Christianity is right; I've quoted Pirkei Avos precisely to show that there is yet a further choice to be made, and if I'd had the forethought to bring my copy of the Quran into the office I could have quoted it to the same end. -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.
scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) (11/29/90)
I wrote that it's impossible for a human being to be truly objective, and also: >>I'm not saying objectivity is a bad idea, but in order to >>be truly unbiased we would have to be God Himself. sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >...I also think it would be wrong not to be always striving in that >direction. We can learn to recognize and overcome our biases and pre- >judices, step-by-step. Since it's impossible to be objective, does it not make sense then that we should have the right biases? Shouldn't we be biased _for_ God's Word, since that is our only tangible link to Him? >On the other hand, it may be just as difficult for someone who has >chosen to adhere to a particular "Christian" teaching to examine the >new knowledge of the Grail Message objectively. Difficult, indeed, especially in the light of Galatians 1:6-9, in which Paul says: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! All "new" teachings should be tested against Scripture, not the other way around. >>To reject the validity of the original recording of the manuscripts is >>to cast a shadow on Christianity as a whole. Attempting to find the >>right translation is a good thing, but saying the original text is >>in error is to open the door to the rewriting of God's Word. >And I say that GOD's WORD was that spoken by Jesus, Himself! Isn't God's Word also at least the words of the prophets? Jesus Himself directly confirmed Daniel in Matthew 24:15; many places in the Gospels confirm the David and prophets (e.g. Matthew 10:35-36, Mark 9:48, Mark 13:24-25, Luke 20:42, Luke 23:30, John 12:15, John 19:37). To say the Bible has no mistakes whatsoever would be a ludicrous position, but for anything of significance to be recorded improperly doesn't give God much credit for getting His Word written down. >>Can you explain why a Perfect Creator would allow his very Word to be >>recorded with significant error? I cannot seen reconcile these two >>ideas. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16, [...] >Yes. [...] FREE WILL! Yet, what hope do we have if we don't have the Word of God in its entirety already? Why is there a need for "new knowledge" when nearly 2000 years of mankind has already gone without it? Would it have taken this long for Him to correct such a mistake? The perfect God has already gotten it right the first time and has no need to correct Himself. >Even if one rejects any basis in Scripture for the validity of the concept >of reincarnation, the fact still remains that Jesus could not say everything >to the people at that time, and we do have His words to that effect. On the contrary; Scripture does tell us something. Ecclesiastes 9:5 says "the dead know nothing; they have no further reward" and Hebrews 9:27 says "a man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement." I have no need for the concept of reincarnation to find justice; the Lord shall pronounce judgement in any way He deems good and right, which means I don't have to worry about it. He will be my Avenger if He feels I need one. >Are you saying that God does not want us to think "freely and independently"? I was saying, and I will say again, that we have the ability to _choose_ freely and independently -- we either choose God or we don't. If we choose Him we have an obligation to find out what His divine Will is, and I can see no better way than to accept His Word as Truth, to study it and to take its message to our hearts. Yours in Christ, -- Scott Reynolds = scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US Enterprise Information System = ..rutgers!mailrus!sharkey!clmqt!scott "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand." -- YHWH (Job 38:4)
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (12/01/90)
scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) writes: >Since it's impossible to be objective, does it not make sense then that >we should have the right biases? Shouldn't we be biased _for_ God's >Word, since that is our only tangible link to Him? (1) If we cannot do something perfectly then we shouldn't even try? A child shouldn't try to walk since he will probably never run a sub-4-minute mile, nor a 2-hour marathon? Then how else will the child get around in life? (2) It is wonderful to be biased _for_ God's Word. What could be better? It might not be so good to biased for a particular interpretation of it. This means that one's seeking and one's spiritual growth cannot ever come to a standstill at a particular point. This growth takes place as one continues to *objectively* examine the Messages of God. (3) All of Creation is a tangible link to God! We should therefore be striving to understand His Will, as manifested in all happenings. The need for *objectivity* seems abundantly apparent here too. >Difficult, indeed, especially in the light of Galatians 1:6-9, in which >Paul says: > I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who > called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different > gospel -- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some > people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert > the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven > should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, > let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now > I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than > what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! >All "new" teachings should be tested against Scripture, not the other >way around. I agree. But once again, the testing must be *objectively* done to reach the correct conclusion. As you have stated, God Himself is perfectly objective, and if we are "made in the likeness of His image", then why should we not be objective in striving to better understand His Will? All this really means is to stop believing what *we* would like to be true, and learning to know that which is really true. Basis in Scripture, you ask? Okay. "For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge ..." (2 Peter 1:5) Please note the word *knowledge* it's very important! (And objective!) "For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes the imperfect will pass away." (1 Cor 13:9) >To say the Bible has no mistakes whatsoever would be a ludicrous >position, but for anything of significance to be recorded improperly >doesn't give God much credit for getting His Word written down. The great sacrifice on God's part was to undertake to send His Son, Jesus, to bring His Word to a fallen and darkened mankind. How mankind chose then to respond to the Word was our own responsibility. God deserves "credit" for having sent His Son. Mankind must take the responsibility for what happened subsequently, including any wrong interpretations and recordings of the original Word given by Jesus. >Yet, what hope do we have if we don't have the Word of God in its >entirety already? Why is there a need for "new knowledge" when nearly >2000 years of mankind has already gone without it? Would it have taken >this long for Him to correct such a mistake? The perfect God has already >gotten it right the first time and has no need to correct Himself. Hope indeed! "When the need is greatest, God's help shall be nearest to you!" And how well has mankind been doing these 2000 years? To say there is room for improvement would be the greatest understatement of all time! Why did Jesus say there was much He still wanted to say to mankind, but that they would not understand? Was that the fault of God or of man? 2000 years is not a very long time from some points of view. Should God act according to our own opinions, or should we be striving to understand His *perfect* Will? It is not God's Word that needs correcting, but mankind's lack of recognition about it. Once again, I can simply refer to John 16:12-13, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ...". It was mankind who didn't "get it right the first time"! It's right there in "black and white" in John 16:12-13. >On the contrary; Scripture does tell us something. Ecclesiastes 9:5 >says "the dead know nothing; they have no further reward" and Hebrews 9:27 >says "a man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement." This Hebrews 9:27 passage is often cited as a negation of reincarnation, but I think if one examines the background and context of this writing, it might become apparent that the intended emphasis was upon *spiritual* death, and not *physical* death. The same for Ecc 9:5 I would think. Obviously those persons who were raised from the dead by Jesus eventually died more than once. Also the many cases of people who are successfully revived after being declared "clinically dead", and who report rather interesting experiences during this period. One can simply say that these people were either exceptions or else were never really "dead", but the fact still remains that there is a *spiritual* death, and one may want to consider the above passages in this light. >I was saying, and I will say again, that we have the ability to _choose_ >freely and independently -- we either choose God or we don't. If we >choose Him we have an obligation to find out what His divine Will is, >and I can see no better way than to accept His Word as Truth, to study >it and to take its message to our hearts. >Yours in Christ, >-- >Scott Reynolds = scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US >Enterprise Information System = ..rutgers!mailrus!sharkey!clmqt!scott > "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, > if you understand." -- YHWH (Job 38:4) We surely do agree on this final point. And I take my obligation seriously. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (12/11/90)
After starting this thread a few weeks back, I've been too busy to submit any followups. My thanks to all who kept the discussion going. In article <Dec.1.00.52.28.1990.23807@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: >scott@clmqt.marquette.mi.us (Scott Reynolds) writes: >> [quotes Galatians 1 about "another Gospel," then comments:] >> >>All "new" teachings should be tested against Scripture, not the other >>way around. > >I agree. ... >All this really means is to stop believing what *we* would like to be >true, and learning to know that which is really true. > > ... >It is not God's Word that needs correcting, but mankind's lack of recognition >about it. Once again, I can simply refer to John 16:12-13, "I have yet many >things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ...". Here we have the crux of the disagreement, which I don't believe has been addressed yet. Mark is apparently suggesting that we "mainstream Christians" are ignoring the true meaning of God's word, and instead holding on to our own favorite (mis)understanding of it. (*) Let me be blunt: Mark, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE THINK *YOU* ARE DOING. (**) It is one thing to show that there exists an understanding of the Bible by which <insert your favorite doctrine> is taught, suggested, or at least not explicitly forbidden (as you have been doing with reincarnation, for example). It is quite another to say that such-and-such an understanding is the one that God intended, and that anything else is merely a human misunderstanding. (*) - I realize that you do not like having "words put in your mouth." However, in this case, what I have said seems to be a summary of thoughts you have expressed in quotes such as the ones above. If I am misunderstanding your intentions then please clarify. (**) - By "we" I mean "myself and the others who have responded to Mark's postings." Judging from what I've read of their comments, I hope I can presume to speak for the rest of you. You have frequently quoted John 16:12-13 about the "many things" Jesus wanted to say, but couldn't yet. Given that, which of the different "many things" people will present to us, as being from God, should we accept? Was Jesus referring to the writings of Mohammed, Nostradamus, Joseph Smith, Mr. Russell (the person who started the JW's, sorry I can't remember his first name), Baha-ullah, Mary Baker Eddy, or Sun-Myung Moon? Was he thinking perhaps of future letters of Paul, Peter, John, and James? Was he thinking of new ideas that people _within_ the "Christian tradition" would develop, people such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther? Or was it all a red herring, except for that which agrees with the Grail Message? (+) This is the question you haven't really answered yet, as far as I can see. Why should we consider the Grail Message to be what Jesus was referring to in John 16:12-13, and not something else? (If you say, "because it's true and the others aren't," you haven't answered the question but merely restated it.) Perhaps if you think about the question, phrased in this manner, you will understand what I, and the others who have been responding to your posts, am trying to get across to you. There is a very significant something else that you are turning your back on, something which you seem to think is just our interpretation but which we believe, for good reason, to be the truth that God wants all of us to discover. Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh (+) - Answers, to the best of my knowledge: no, yes, maybe, and no.
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (12/13/90)
In soc.religion.christian you write: >You have frequently quoted John 16:12-13 about the "many things" Jesus >wanted to say, but couldn't yet. Given that, which of the different >"many things" people will present to us, as being from God, should >we accept? Was Jesus referring to the writings of Mohammed, Nostradamus, >Joseph Smith, Mr. Russell (the person who started the JW's, sorry I can't >remember his first name), Baha-ullah, Mary Baker Eddy, or Sun-Myung Moon? >Was he thinking perhaps of future letters of Paul, Peter, John, and James? >Was he thinking of new ideas that people _within_ the "Christian tradition" >would develop, people such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther? Or was it >all a red herring, except for that which agrees with the Grail Message? >(+) It is possible for a human being to learn to know what is true and what is not true in the most objective sense of the word. This ability does not fall into one's lap, however, but must be diligently sought for and developed. The upshot is that we *each* individually must decide which of these things contain truth and which perhaps do not, and to what degree. The implication of "seek and ye shall find" is that without seeking there is no finding. If a person stops seeking, he or she stops finding. There is a lawfulness here. >This is the question you haven't really answered yet, as far as I can see. >Why should we consider the Grail Message to be what Jesus was referring to >in John 16:12-13, and not something else? (If you say, "because it's >true and the others aren't," you haven't answered the question but merely >restated it.) Perhaps if you think about the question, phrased in this >manner, you will understand what I, and the others who have been responding >to your posts, am trying to get across to you. There is a very significant >something else that you are turning your back on, something which you >seem to think is just our interpretation but which we believe, for good >reason, to be the truth that God wants all of us to discover. Thank you for your "bluntness". I felt the urge to bring the Grail Message to peoples' attention so that they might have the opportunity to examine it for themselves. This having been done, I have no wish to continue to engage in circular debates with anyone for any reason. There is one more response I have prepared on the topic of reincarnation, and after that I shall hopefully leave those whom I may have unintentionally offended to their "peace", with my humble and sincere apologies for having disturbed them! My position is and always has been: that I am personally convinced of the high value of what the Grail Message offers mankind, and that those *who seriously seek for objective answers to all spiritual questions* might do well to examine the Grail Message for themselves! And please do NOT take my word for it: check it out yourself if you really want to know! >Grace and peace, >Charles Ferenbaugh Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801