What Jesus Really Meant

[davidsun]

Hello Everyone -

I would like to share the (just completed, pdf format, 23 pages) first chapter of my treatise, titled "What Jesus Really Meant" with readers who may be interested in it. Commentary, whether supportive or critical, is welcome as it would help guide my formulation of future chapters - three in all are planned.

Clicking on the link below will bring up a page at sendspace.com with a download button on it. You do not have to create and account and sign in to download the document - open with adobe reader or save to download folder options come up when the download button is clicked.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/nmb9hn

The document has embedded links. Clicking on my name on the title page will take you the home page of my website if you want more information about me.

Caveat: my take on Jesus and his world view is NON-traditional. If your views in said regards are in any way 'traditional', I suggest you read the following (excepted) opening paragraphs of the chapter before deciding whether or not to download it, to get a sense of what you may be getting into.

From his saying “This is my body� when breaking bread and “This is my blood� when pouring wine at what has since been referenced as The Last Supper with his disciples (see Matthew 26), it is clear that Jesus rationally grasped as well as mystically (that is, transpersonally) identified with the  Oneness of Creation. If what he meant to communicate by way of such  sayings had been truly apprehended, such utterances may indeed have been  foundational in establishing an ecologically sane, holistically Life-augmentative civilization.

That was not to be the case, however. Because the beliefs of most if not all of those around him at the time were hypnotically rooted in projections that God (to wit, the progenitive Source and Sustainer of Life) was a singular, supremely dictatorial ruler who had especially favored mankind by ‘giving’ them ‘dominion’ over all other earthly creatures (see Genesis 1:26-28), analogous to the way kings of old ‘granted’ lords of old the right to govern less powerful folk living in their territories (as long as said lords remained loyally subservient in relation to said kings, of course), the people around him simply did not register and so could not even begin to comprehend the implications of the fact that such sayings by Jesus actually referenced the matrixial interconnectedness and interdependency of all being.

Making matters worse, as they then also construed his references to being “the Son of God� literally, instead of ‘remembering’ the factuality of above-referenced Oneness of Being as they were directed to (in Luke 22), when would-be followers subsequently gathered together for a ceremonial meal of bread and wine (which observance later became ritualized as The Sacrament of Holy Communion), they just imagined and believed the bread and wine to be miraculously transformed (literally transubstantiated!) into the flesh and blood of Jesus himself* who they idolized and proceeded to worship and pledge allegiance to as the “King of kings and Lord of lords� (I Timothy 6:15‑16) heir of said ‘supreme’ God.

[davidsun]

I'll grant that by looking through the Gospel rumors it does indeed appear that Jesus was a mystic-minded Jew who was actually trying to bring the ideals of Buddhism into his home culture of Judaism. But that's as far as I'll go.

That's may strike some as being a generous 'grant'.

I'm not about to claim that this must then be "The God's Honest Truth of what Jesus Really Meant". I'll leave that for you to proclaim.

That may also strike some as being a generous 'grant'.

I hope the following [edited] quote from early on in the chapter I shared will give you (and others) a 'taste' of the 'flavor' of my above responses relating to you.

"[because the] beliefs of most if not all of those around him at the time were hypnotically rooted in projections that God was a ... supreme[] ... 'ruler' (talk about the Buddhism being regarded as some kind of 'ultimate' 'yardstick'! lol) who ... [gave] mankind ‘dominion’ ... analogous to the way kings of old ‘granted’ lords of old the right to govern less powerful folk living in their territories ... [so] the people around him simply did not register and so could not even begin to comprehend the implications of the fact that such sayings by Jesus actually referenced the matrixial interconnectedness and interdependency of all being."

[Divine Insight]

Attempting to ignore all the personal misunderstandings in this thread I would just like to know the answer to the following question:

If Jesus wasn't the divine Son of God, then why should anyone care what philosophy he might have supported, or what he "really meant"? At that point he would have just been another mortal human with an opinion. Period.

You may as well be talking about what Deepak Chopra "really means". Why should anyone care?

I mean, other than merely being interested in the speculations of a follow human.

My point is simple. Your guesses about Jesus reduce Jesus to being just another human who has opinions about the possible nature of reality. Nothing more. That may indeed be the truth of who Jesus was. But if that is the truth, then Jesus was no different from anyone else. Just a human taking a stab at philosophy.

[davidsun]

... I would just like to know the answer to the following question:

If Jesus wasn't the divine Son of God, then why should anyone care what philosophy he might have supported, or what he "really meant"? At that point he would have just been another mortal human with an opinion. Period.

You may as well be talking about what Deepak Chopra "really means". Why should anyone care?

I mean, other than merely being interested in the speculations of a follow human.

My point is simple. Your guesses about Jesus reduce Jesus to being just another human who has opinions about the possible nature of reality. Nothing more. That may indeed be the truth of who Jesus was. But if that is the truth, then Jesus was no different from anyone else. Just a human taking a stab at philosophy.

No, my theories about Jesus don't reduce him to being just 'human'. I see/re-present him as being a very intelligently visionary human ('humans' are not all 'equal' in this regard). Also, beyond this aspect of my theory (as articulated in the chapter you fail to relate to), my theory (which I believe, on the basis of evidence) is factually correct, represents actual/real truth about Life) is that 'we' (humans) are all "spiritual beings having a physical/human experience, not just humans having a spiritual/soulful experience."

What 'evidence'?, I'm sure you'll ask. You've probably heard, but probably wither don't t believe or reduce to insignificance (maybe because of 'small' (Hinayana?) peep-hole in the Buddhism lens you are looking through) that Buddha himself was widely known/believed to acknowledge the theory of reincarnational and post-incarnational existential ongoingness of 'the soul' beyond its 'human' forms, as did Jesus). But there have also been 'advances' in awareness and presentation of such 'knowledge', in terms of details as well as depth and breadth of context, since Buddha (2600 years ago) and Jesus (2000 years ago) walked the earth in 'human' form. I refer you the data presented Michael Newton, Ph.D's books, Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls should your persistence in 'challengingly' questioning my theory (it isn't just mine, you know) be indicative of real open-mindedness and curiosity in the latter regard.

As to why anyone 'should' care about such matters - I say, for the same reason as it 'make sense' that a person and everyone else around him or her would be or become 'better off' in terms of enjoying a better quality of Life if he or she 'cared' about 'seeing' what was and wasn't really true.

[Divine Insight]

As to why anyone 'should' care about such matters - I say, for the same reason as it 'make sense' that a person and everyone else around him or her would be or become 'better off' in terms of enjoying a better quality of Life if he or she 'cared' about 'seeing' what was and wasn't really true.

If you had evidence for your theories about reality you could demonstrate it. Obviously you aren't able to do this or it would be all over the news and no one could deny your claims.

So reality speaks for itself concerning the fallacy of your claims. And for this reason it's easy for anyone to see what is really true when it comes to the speculative nature of your hypothesis.

Basically you are preaching the same types of things that are being preached by Deepak Chopra and others. I personally prefer the Dalai Lama's view on this because at least he's honest enough to confess that he cannot know the the truth of reality.

Honesty is a very good quality to have, especially when a person can be honest with themselves.

As Richard Feynman once said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

Once you have fooled yourself into believing that you know the truth of reality you're pretty well done for, because once you have fooled yourself it's next to impossible for anyone to convince you otherwise. So the first principle that you must not fool yourself is a very wise principle to be sure.

[davidsun]

If you had evidence for your theories about reality you could demonstrate it. Obviously you aren't able to do this or it would be all over the news and no one could deny your claims.

There's plenty of evidence, both direct and indirect. Michael Newtons books, which I referred you to, contain the 'direct' type. Check out noetic.org which was started by Edgar Mitchell, the astronaut for more. The problem with 'the (mainstream) news' you speak of is that most people are neither ready not willing to face and handle this kind of 'truth'.

So reality speaks for itself concerning the fallacy of your claims. And for this reason it's easy for anyone to see what is really true when it comes to the speculative nature of your hypothesis.

Yes, reality speaks for itself, in this case about the self-serving 'selectiveness' of your awareness.

Honesty is a very good quality to have, especially when a person can be honest with themselves.

As Richard Feynman once said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman

Once you have fooled yourself into believing that you know the truth of reality you're pretty well done for, because once you have fooled yourself it's next to impossible for anyone to convince you otherwise. So the first principle that you must not fool yourself is a very wise principle to be sure.

Indeed. Exactly what I would say to you, that is if you were open-minded enough to hear and consider it as (possibly, theoretically at least) pertaining to you.

[Divine Insight]

Indeed. Exactly what I would say to you, that is if you were open-minded enough to hear and consider it as (possibly, theoretically at least) pertaining to you.

Let's clear something up that you are obviously not understanding:

I am totally open-mined to consider the "possibility" that reality may be pantheistic. In fact, I totally embrace Buddhism as one of the world's most rational mystical philosophies. And Buddhism is what you are basically talking about whether you realize it or not.

So, I'm not only open-minded to this possibility, but I even recognize and acknowledge a pantheistic paradigm is the most sound from a purely logical perspective. However, I also recognize that being potentially logically sound does not make something true.

You are making totally false accusations toward me when you claim that I am not open-minded enough to consider these philosophies, hypotheses, and paradigms. I have considered these types of things extensively throughout my entire adult life. And during this time I have recognized that while these philosophies cannot be ruled out, neither can they be proven to be true.

You are the one who is attempting to claim that a specific mystical philosophy, not only can be proven true, but already has been proven to be true.

To that I say you are necessarily deluding yourself.

To claim that mainstream scientists and even philosophers aren't ready for the truth is absolute baloney. Scientists especially, are more then open to anything that can be demonstrated to be true.

So apparently you have fallen for the claims of these authors you are pointing to, when clearly those authors themselves are pulling the wool over your eyes. Because if they had the proof they claim they could easily demonstrate their proof to the scientific community. The fact that they haven't guarantees that their claim to have proof is bogus.

Now, my question to you is this: Are you open-minded enough to accept that these authors who have convinced you that they have proof but cannot convince the scientific community might actually not have the compelling evidence they claim to have?

[davidsun]

So apparently you have fallen for the claims of these authors you are pointing to, when clearly those authors themselves are pulling the wool over your eyes. Because if they had the proof they claim they could easily demonstrate their proof to the scientific community. The fact that they haven't guarantees that their claim to have proof is bogus.

Now, my question to you is this: Are you open-minded enough to accept that these authors who have convinced you that they have proof but cannot convince the scientific community might actually not have the compelling evidence they claim to have?

I 'hear' what you say and respect that this is your opinion, but couldn't disagree more and, for reasons already quite completely expressed, think that you are the one who is deluded with regard to the matters (on which we disagree) between us.

[Divine Insight]

So apparently you have fallen for the claims of these authors you are pointing to, when clearly those authors themselves are pulling the wool over your eyes. Because if they had the proof they claim they could easily demonstrate their proof to the scientific community. The fact that they haven't guarantees that their claim to have proof is bogus.

Now, my question to you is this: Are you open-minded enough to accept that these authors who have convinced you that they have proof but cannot convince the scientific community might actually not have the compelling evidence they claim to have?

I 'hear' what you say and respect that this is your opinion, but couldn't disagree more and, for reasons already quite completely expressed, think that you are the one who is deluded with regard to the matters (on which we disagree) between us.

Keep in mind that I'm not the one who is professing to know the truth of reality.

So you are the one claiming to have far more than just an "opinion". Not me.

And on that point alone you appear to be the one who is extremely deluded. I am open to all possibilities. Apparently you are not since you have convinced yourself that you hold the absolute truth to the true nature of reality and everyone else (including scientists) simply aren't "ready" for it.

And apparently that's the crux of your argument as well.

[davidsun]

Now, my question to you is this: Are you open-minded enough to accept that these authors who have convinced you that they have proof ...

I clearly stated that they present evidence, not 'proof'. That is your straw man (in my opinion ) which I you apparently relish demolishing.

... but cannot convince the scientific community might actually not have the compelling evidence they claim to have?[/b][/color]

I am a part of "the scientific community" (I have Bachelor's Degree in Physics, at least). And I am "convinced" of the validity and significance of said evidence. If you wish to talk about such evidence in specifically meaningful terms instead of simply dismissing it all out of hand because a majority of those you consider to be 'scientific' do so, let me know. "Majority vote" may be good for some things but it is not a valid way of determining what is and isn't true, IMO.

So you are the one claiming to have far more than just an "opinion". Not me.

This is another one of your 'straw' men, in my opinion. I have clearly stated that what I have stated is a theory which I personally believe to accurately, or more accurately that anything else I have come across, represent the truth.

And on that point alone you appear to be the one who is extremely deluded. I am open to all possibilities. Apparently you are not since you have convinced yourself that you hold the absolute truth to the true nature of reality and everyone else (including scientists) simply aren't "ready" for it.

As I said, I 'hear' your opinion in this and other regards. It strikes me that this (what you state here) may - though it also may not be - what is called a 'projection' of your own 'shadow'. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29 )

And apparently that's the crux of your argument as well.

'Apparently' to you. Which is why I regard you as being delusional. The crux of my 'argument', in my opinion , is the reasonableness of my interpretation of the evidence I have shared - other people, like you, have a right to and have their own interpretations of the 'evidence', which I respect even when I disagree with them. I accept the fact that the world-view which you subscribe to is one in which I appear to be delusional.

Capiche?

[Divine Insight]

This is another one of your 'straw' men, in my opinion.

Well, this thread wasn't supposed to be a "debate" to begin with. All I did was offer you critique which you requested and said it would be welcome.

Apparently you don't know how to handle critique without getting all manner of defensive and accusatory toward the critic.

So there is no "strawman" argument here. All that exists here is a person who can't handle critique.

I'm sorry I tried to help. Better luck with your next critic.