Jesus, a guru?

[Doreen]

One more thing about Jesus that I think fit the guru model.....

The Apostles - here we have a group of spiritual students in direct contact with a spiritual leader. They leave their previous lives and join him. This reminds me of sanyasi, specifically the ones who are initiated by a guru. The Apostles lived spartan, materially simple lives, even in contrast to what they did before and were instructed to travel very light and keep very little.

There may be some precedence for a spiritual leader in Judaism taking on students who renounce their previous lives, but I don't know of any. If anyone does let me know.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

Teacher = guru?

Basically, yes.

One point is that it could place his comments about reaching God via him in a context that does not therefore predict the ending up in hell of most of the human race.

You mean "believe in me, or go to hell", type of thing?

But on a more general level, I realized that the descriptions of Jesus in the gospels seemed much closer to the guru tradition, which I spent time in India.

I definately agree with you.
Have you read 'The Aquarian Gospel According to Jesus THE Christ' by Nicholas Notevich? (may have got the surname wrong).

I mention, in the OP, some of the things that reminded me. I also think it is interesting that we have a Jewish figure who, as far as I remember, is different from earlier Jewish figures - in the OT - for reasons mentioned in the OP.

I think that can be attributed to different time, and circumstance.

A much more internal focus. Another example of this is his idea of adultery being not an act, but something that can come from merely looking with desire.

I'm sure that understanding can be deduced from the OT.
I suppose by the time Jesus was on the scene it was common place, which
could be why he brought it up.

jan.

 

[Doreen]

Basically, yes.

I guess to me the term is a wee bit more specific. At least one of my gym teachers and a particularly clueless and nasty math teacher I had....I just can't see them as gurus.

You mean "believe in me, or go to hell", type of thing?

In broad strokes yes.

I definately agree with you.
Have you read 'The Aquarian Gospel According to Jesus THE Christ' by Nicholas Notevich? (may have got the surname wrong).

I didn't expect agreement, how pleasant. Sounds familiar, but no. I'll look it up.

I think that can be attributed to different time, and circumstance.

Could be.

I'm sure that understanding can be deduced from the OT.
I suppose by the time Jesus was on the scene it was common place, which
could be why he brought it up.

That's a hypothesis.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

I guess to me the term is a wee bit more specific. At least one of my gym teachers and a particularly clueless and nasty math teacher I had....I just can't see them as gurus.

Because they probably weren't gurus.

In broad strokes yes.

You don't go to jail because one doesn't believe in the system of law
and order. But lack of such belief could well be the catalyst.

I didn't expect agreement, how pleasant. Sounds familiar, but no. I'll look it up.

Why didn't you expect agreement?

I think it is a good book, I think you may find it interesting.

Could be.

From Adam to Jesus is mighty long time.

What are the chances of no societal, moral, and religious changes occuring?

That's a hypothesis.

More of guess, but agood one IMHO.

jan.

 

[Doreen]

Because they probably weren't gurus.

Oh, thank goodness. To have been so dull to so much, even at such an early age, would have been a shame.

You don't go to jail because one doesn't believe in the system of law
and order. But lack of such belief could well be the catalyst.

Little cryptic, if I may say so. In context it seems to mean that not believing Jesus is the son God and the only way to God doesn't neccesarily lead to hell. But this lack of belief might set off actions or consequences that would lead to hell. But the inclusion of the modal verb 'could' and the lack of specifics and my sense - for some reason - that you are not a Christian make the above rather odd to me. Perhaps you made it sound general meaning one needs some sort of bridge, though not necessarily Jesus.

?

Why didn't you expect agreement?

Your first post here.

I think it is a good book, I think you may find it interesting.

Thank you. I will see if I can find it where I live.

From Adam to Jesus is mighty long time.

Sure but there is post Adam stuff in the OT I think it reaches about 200 BC. And sure there could have been changes after that but before Jesus, but does anyone know of these changes? Were any Jewish priests or leaders contemporary with Jesus taking on disciples and working with concepts that I have associated with religions centered more Eastward? It also seemed at times like Jesus himself was conscious that he was changing the focus. Like when he compares the old behavior way of looking at adultery with his more stringent version.

Are there examples in Judaism AFTER Jesus that fit with the kinds of focus he had. Are there other people who produce food out of nothing, work with ideas that relate to some of the Eastern ones I mentioned, had disciples who led spartan, non-materialistic lives separate from their pre initiation lives?

What are the chances of no societal, ethical, and religious changes occuring?

From Adams' time when there was no society, quite a lot.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

Oh, thank goodness. To have been so dull to so much, even at such an early age, would have been a shame.

I think what makes a successful guru or teacher is the ability to make you
see the knowledge through/from your perspective.

Little cryptic, if I may say so. In context it seems to mean that not believing Jesus is the son God and the only way to God doesn't neccesarily lead to hell.

What is the link between "not believing", and "hell" (or jail)?

But this lack of belief might set off actions or consequences that would lead to hell.

No. It would depend on you why you went to hell.
Why would you think we go to hell for not believing?

Perhaps you made it sound general meaning one needs some sort of bridge, though not necessarily Jesus.

I don't think Jesus was God Himself. I think he was a representative of God, one who had to come to understanding of his relationship to God.
This is more apparent in the book.

It would appear almost blasphemous to suggest something like that, but only
the institute of christianity's perspective.

Thank you. I will see if I can find it where I live.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/aquarian_gospel_introduction.htm

Sure but there is post Adam stuff in the OT I think it reaches about 200 BC. And sure there could have been changes after that but before Jesus, but does anyone know of these changes?

Think How we have changed in the last 50 years, let alone 200.

Were any Jewish priests or leaders contemporary with Jesus taking on disciples and working with concepts that I have associated with religions centered more Eastward?

Yes. I think that is the way.
From father to son, then the father at some point engages the son in some sort of study, which would teach the boy how to become a man, so to speak.

It also seemed at times like Jesus himself was conscious that he was changing the focus. Like when he compares the old behavior way of looking at adultery with his more stringent version.

He was teaching people how to think, how to purify themselves so they were able to eventually percieve God. I don't think he came to change any of Ceasars laws.

Are there examples in Judaism AFTER Jesus that fit with the kinds of focus he had.

I don't know.

Are there other people who produce food out of nothing, work with ideas that relate to some of the Eastern ones I mentioned, had disciples who led spartan, non-materialistic lives separate from their pre initiation lives?

Aside from the first point, I don't see why not, as that is the way.

From Adams' time when there was no society, quite a lot.

There must have been a society.

jan.

 

[Doreen]

I think what makes a successful guru or teacher is the ability to make you
see the knowledge through/from your perspective.

Teachers, yes. Gurus seem to have the added ability to give you a direct experience of another perspective.

What is the link between "not believing", and "hell" (or jail)?

Well some Christians might say that not believing might be OK, but once you do not believe in Jesus, you have no defense against sin. You cannot do this on your own. Hence ---------------> hell. I also thought of the answer that it depends on what you do not believe in and how good you are at believing. If you have another belief strong enough, well, hell just can't latch on.

No. It would depend on you why you went to hell.
Why would you think we go to hell for not believing?

I don't. Some do.

I don't think Jesus was God Himself. I think he was a representative of God, one who had to come to understanding of his relationship to God.
This is more apparent in the book.

Which sounds more like a guru than the standard Christian version. Or a Boddhisatva.

It would appear almost blasphemous to suggest something like that, but only
the institute of christianity's perspective.

An institute with branches in many minds.

Think How we have changed in the last 50 years, let alone 200.

Change is faster now. And still, I see no evidence even after Jesus that the Jewish leaders had that Eastern feel.

Yes. I think that is the way.
From father to son, then the father at some point engages the son in some sort of study, which would teach the boy how to become a man, so to speak.

Yes, but that is a family bond. Jesus said he, basically, did not care about the family bonds, and he took his disciples from their previous lives. He was teaching strangers, separating them from worldly matters in many ways, plus what I have mentioned in the OP and later posts.

He was teaching people how to think, how to purify themselves so they were able to eventually percieve God. I don't think he came to change any of Ceasars laws.

He made it quite clear he was not changing those laws. He formalized splitting life into two with his 'render' guideline. That has done a lot of damage. I would bet a decent amount of money you disagree. But that is another thread. If you want to take that issue up I'll respond to a new thread on it.

Aside from the first point, I don't see why not, as that is the way.

For very few.

There must have been a society.

If you want to call two people in a garden a society. I think that is stretching the term beyond any useful function, however.

 

[Photizo]

...once you do not believe in Jesus, you have no defense against sin. You cannot do this on your own. Hence ---------------> hell.

This is correct. Christ is the prototype of the new humanity, the second Adam, the God-Man. All of God's dealings with humanity for the future are based in Him. According to numerous references, believers are literally incorporated into Him. Not only that, but by virtue of the incarnation, all of humanity enjoys a type of connection to Him in the same way we all share with each other but this is not of the same type as is referred to (in some circles) as the Mystical Union. It is in this union that the individual finds acceptance with God based on the actual life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The events and acomplishments of Jesus are imputed/credited to the believers 'account' soley as a free gift, by God's gracious decision. Therefore, outside of Christ (the Mystical Union), one is left with the sum total/ (actually 'lack') that is one's own life with respect to God's requirements AND the state of disconnect from Life Himself (God). Both conditions are eternal states of being. Leaving the default state and entering into the Mystical Union is what is commonly refrred to as being "born again".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

Teachers, yes. Gurus seem to have the added ability to give you a direct experience of another perspective.

But the best perspective would be your own, as it would become your experience, instead of just indirect information.

Well some Christians might say that not believing might be OK, but once you do not believe in Jesus, you have no defense against sin.

I can understand that, because it still allows the freedom of choice.
Unfortunately most Christians do not except karma or reincarnation as
an explanation for the destiny of the individual soul. And as such have no
choice but to believe in the extremes of heaven and hell.

You cannot do this on your own. Hence ---------------> hell.

In my analogy this type of thinking would create problems, as you can't send
someone to jail on the strength of not believing in a system of law (not in a civilised society anyways)
I think the same applies to the soul.

I also thought of the answer that it depends on what you do not believe in and how good you are at believing. If you have another belief strong enough, well, hell just can't latch on.

I don't think belief is an issue.
I think how we act represents our belief.
Saying you believe in God, doesn't mean you actually believe in God.

Which sounds more like a guru than the standard Christian version. Or a Boddhisatva.

But if you read the scripture, this is what it implies.
So questions remain. Who wants to change, and why?

An institute with branches in many minds.

That is a distinct characteristic.
And when you search for peoples with that characteristic, or nature, in or out of the religious arena, a picture forms.

Change is faster now.

I'm not talking about that kind of change.

And still, I see no evidence even after Jesus that the Jewish leaders had that Eastern feel.

You mean no famous ones.
That kind of life is not just about religion, it is about everything.
Even now, the diciples of gurus just don't sit around chanting and meditating.
They have to role up their sleeves and get stuck in, they have to learn the art of playing musical instruments, they have to prepare foodstuffs. They have to learn how to control their senses, including their tongues. They learn about math, science, philosophy.
Religion is only a part.

He made it quite clear he was not changing those laws. He formalized splitting life into two with his 'render' guideline. That has done a lot of damage. I would bet a decent amount of money you disagree. But that is another thread. If you want to take that issue up I'll respond to a new thread on it.

Alas, I cannot disagree because I'm not sure what his "render guideline is.

For very few.

Well, times are a changing.
If the vedic prediction of kali yuga is correct (which i suspect it is), it may
become almost non-existent, as humans become more materialistic.
This is why I can't understand fundie atheists.
Can you imagine a world where materialism is absolutely dominant?
It will truly be survival of the fittest.

If you want to call two people in a garden a society. I think that is stretching the term beyond any useful function, however.

Come on!
You're not gonna tell me you believe these people are the original human ancestors of the entire human race are you?

jan.

 

[Doreen]

But the best perspective would be your own, as it would become your experience, instead of just indirect information.

I was thinking of direct lived experience, not somethign in words or ideas.

I can understand that, because it still allows the freedom of choice.
Unfortunately most Christians do not except karma or reincarnation as
an explanation for the destiny of the individual soul. And as such have no
choice but to believe in the extremes of heaven and hell.

in their finalness, with tendency to focus on form.

In my analogy this type of thinking would create problems, as you can't send
someone to jail on the strength of not believing in a system of law (not in a civilised society anyways)
I think the same applies to the soul.

I can't say I disagree.

I don't think belief is an issue.
I think how we act represents our belief.
Saying you believe in God, doesn't mean you actually believe in God.

I agree. Or let's say that words in the head can be significant or only as ephemeral as they are not saying much about a person. I agree that acts are beliefs, though I have had a hard time convincing empiricists of this.

I'm not talking about that kind of change.

It just seems at this point speculative that Jesus was in his tradition, given that there are no examples - so far at least in this thread - of anyone like him before or after. Sure, in the 200 years after the OT and before him, significant changes could have taken place in the way Jewish rabbis approached religious teaching and the teacher role. And then this faded quickly after Jesus - perhaps that scared them off it. But this sounds rather speculative to me.

You mean no famous ones.

I see no evidence of any. If there was evidence they would be famous, of course. But I mean we are speculating. Which is fine. I am speculating in a different direction.

That kind of life is not just about religion, it is about everything.
Even now, the diciples of gurus just don't sit around chanting and meditating.

Sure, they generallly work their asses off. I've been in ashrams. But that is part of what reminded. The total commitment. The leaving behind the other life. Devotees can move in and out.

They have to role up their sleeves and get stuck in, they have to learn the art of playing musical instruments, they have to prepare foodstuffs. They have to learn how to control their senses, including their tongues. They learn about math, science, philosophy.
Religion is only a part.

If you want to make a dichotomy which I am not sure they would. Further I am not sure how this affects my sense of it having an Eastern feel.

Alas, I cannot disagree because I'm not sure what his "render guideline is.

How legally cautious of you. If only his devotees were so cautious.

Well, times are a changing.
If the vedic prediction of kali yuga is correct (which i suspect it is), it may
become almost non-existent, as humans become more materialistic.
This is why I can't understand fundie atheists.
Can you imagine a world where materialism is absolutely dominant?
It will truly be survival of the fittest.

Well, people believe not simply because of the consequences of their beliefs.

Come on!
You're not gonna tell me you believe these people are the original human ancestors of the entire human race are you?

Nope. But if we are referring to Adam, we don't have any society to look at and compare.