Does anybody know why Jesus was only here for 30+ years, whereas, we are generally deployed for a massive stretch of roughly 70-100 years? I feel as though that time difference is rather expansive with regards to human terms/understanding. Is this to say that it will generally take us quite a bit longer to come to the understanding that he did with relation to our spiritual undertakings/growth? How would our planet be different if Jesus had stayed around 'till he was quite a bit older... say 80 or 90? Once he realized that he was God's son, did this in turn warrant an early departure from the E.L.S.? I'm just wondering because there's a large sum of new life lessons to go through post age 30. However, maybe once he realized he was God's son there was no need for further E.L.S. exposure with regards to age variances.

Thoughts?

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

I was wondering if it was because of the lesson that the rest of us needed to understand rather than Jesus himself. just an idea
with love to all

Hi Cosmic Ithink its because Jesus was given a time limit ,the same as the rest of us.His life was pre ordained like ours is.He knew that he was going to be crucified before he was born, and he knew the reason why as well.Someone once said that we are born, with an invisible date of our death on our foreheads,I think that could be true.According to the bible everyone is supposed to live three score years and ten ,after that its just borrowed time.Its all a mystery what we will never solve until we pass to spirit.Love and god bless you juditha

Thanks to both of you for your sincere replies!

That's interesting Juditha... "Everyone is suppose to live three score years and ten, after that it's just borrowed time." That does make some sense. It seems true as well when considering that when one's spouse dies and the other person needed them severely they usually pass within months of eachother.

Great thoughts/ideas to ponder.

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

I was always tought that our calander was a year off becuase they didn't include the year of the crucifiction.

The average life expectancy back then was not much longer than the thirty to fourtyish range. You are making the mistake of projecting the present onto the past. You're also taking his life out of context and viewing him through the perspective of the present. These are common errors and ones I catch myself doing all the time.

Love,
Rob

We must realise as well that the teachings of Jesus the Christ is modern, although His Spirit has incarnated time and time again.  He symbolises all that has been and all that is to come up to this point or stage of our evolution.

Also; in death there is un-used Etheric forces (also called the Vital force) This un-used 'energy' is a gift put back into the Earth.  Therefore the age of Jesus' death released His Etheric Force that could have taken him up to the age of 100 years or more.  This happens with every body and in particular the Etheric Force that Jesus has 'left behind' is extremely strong in the Earth.

I have to agree with Rob here.  Years ago I came across a book entitled, "The 5 Gospels".   It was compiled by Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar (a group of about 250 biblical scholars called "Fellows").  Among the Fellows are Elaine Pagels ("The Gnostic Gospels"), John Dominic Crossans ("Who Killed Jesus..."), Karen Armstrong ("The History of God"), etc.  These are not "light weight" scholars.  The purpose of the book is to try to decipher fact from fiction about the historical Jesus.  You don't have to agree with all of their conclusions to benefit from their research on what is information vs. what is dis-information.  Please check it out, as well as some of their other books.  They'll make you think twice about what we know.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/5Gospels/5gospels.html

Love,
Rick

Oh yeah, the Gospel of 'Q', which is short for the German word "Quelle" which means 'source.' This is believed to be the main source for at least a couple of the gospels. Interesting and eyeopening stuff. In the early nineties the Jesus Seminar caused quite a ruckus. The work of these sholars continues and others have joined.

Love,
Rob

Mediastreamer; good time to discuss this.  i haven’t looked at the sites yet but will do so.  This character that is called Jesus the Christ is the most common name in the world but the least known.  We need a firm understanding of him, firm knowledge on the man called Jesus and the Christ event or impulse that happened here on Earth where we live.

I came across this literature a few years back and it has increased my understanding of the Christ.  It is none other than David Ovason in his book the Two Children and I am sure there is further literature around on this subject. Like your links Mediastreamer that i will be looking at.

For now I’d like to share what I have read;

“With the gospels having been written after Jesus’ death, there appears to be no primary documentation that records the details of the life of Jesus or Christ convincingly.  This fact has led to many misunderstandings and excesses.  Among the most profound of these was the way certain late 19th century writers and others, confused a real historical personage, Jesu ben Pandira, with the Jesus who became Christ.  Jesu ben Pandira was stoned to death in about 71 BC, in Lydda, and was afterwards crucified on a tree.

The story of ben Pandira was known to later Jewish writers, who always denied ‘the identity of the Talmudic Jehosua (Jesus) with the Jesus of the Gospels.  This did not stop certain early Christian writers confusing the two.  The most tragic confusion was that made by the 19th century Egyptologist Gerald Massey.  This remarkable scholar accumulated a vast amount of esoteric information about the Egyptian Mysteries, particular insofar as they were intended as a preparation for the later Mysteries of Christ.  Unfortuantely, his understanding of the implications of his findings was coloured by his confusing Jesu ben Pandira with Jesus of Nazareth.

Massey seems to have been one of the many who were misled by Madame Blavatsky and her followers.  Blavatsky also confused Jesu ben Pandira with Jesus of Nazareth.

Now let us look at the Cross;

There is nothing in the Greek texts of the New Testament to show that the ‘Cross’ upon which Christ died was anything other than a single upright of wood.  If we were to look closely, and without prejudice, at the apocryphal literature that suggests Christ did not die on the Cross.  In the Acts of John, which has come down to us in a 2nd century Greek version but which is certainly earlier, there is a vision of a Cross of Light:

“And the Lord himself I beheld above the cross, not having any shape, but only a voice: and a voice not such as was familiar to us, but one sweet and kind truly of God … This cross of light is sometimes called the word by me for your sakes, sometimes mind, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes door, sometimes a way, sometimes bread, sometimes wood, sometimes resurrection, sometimes Son, sometimes Father, sometimes Spirit, sometimes life, sometimes truth, sometimes faith, sometimes grace.  And by these names it is called as toward men: but that which it is in truth, as conceived of in itself and as spoken unto us, it is the marking-off of all things, and the firm uplifting of things fixed out of things unstable, and the harmony of wisdom, and indeed wisdom in harmony.  But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, but only hearest his voice”.

In the 2nd century, St Justin – who was, by virtue of his of background as a Platonic philosopher, given to interpreting the scriptures in esoteric terms – likened this ‘cross of light’ to the ‘cross upon the universe’.  He was referring to the cross mentioned by Plato in his Timaeus, in a passage wherein the philosopher shows how the cross was involved in the making of the human soul from musical ratios.

This Platonic cross is truly one of light for it is formed by the intersection of the celestial equator with the ecliptic, or pathway of the sun.  Since the celestial equator and the ecliptic are geometric constructs, and thus not susceptible to ordinary human perception, this was cosmic symbolism of the highest order, and one that could be easily misunderstood:  the cross of light was enclosed in the brain, itself contained within the human skull!”


So i further add; the Great Cross is not one of wood that had Jesus nailed to, the Cross is in the sky and marked by the four fixed signs – Aquarius, Leo, Taurus and Scorpio.  In my understanding Jesus was killed by being stabbed in his side by a solider for his blood to be split upon the Earth – he was not put upon a wood cross but I do believe that he was ‘translated’ into the sky – his body remained.


May our understanding of Jesus the Christ be enriched and fill of love.

augoeideian,
Thanks for the info.  This is new stuff that I never heard before.  I will check into it.  If you have any links send them to me.


Quote:

“With the gospels having been written after Jesus’ death, there appears to be no primary documentation that records the details of the life of Jesus or Christ convincingly.  This fact has led to many misunderstandings and excesses.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

To Cosmic:


Quote:

How would our planet be different if Jesus had stayed around 'till he was quite a bit older... say 80 or 90?

I wish Jesus had lived  to 80 or 90 because we would have more real information on who he was and exactly what he wanted to teach us.  In the world today there appears to be two Jesus'.   The Jesus of our imagination, which is the dominant one in the world.  And the real Jesus, whom we know very little about,  and whom the Jesus Seminar is trying desperately to resurrect (LOL).

If anyone feels offended by my comments please accept my appology.  I love this board and learn a lot from everyone.  We're all seeking to "know" vs "believe" and that's the spirit in which these posts are written.  I feel that I was a Catholic priest in a past life and I've spent  a lot of time in this life trying to sort this belief system out (which may have been the reason why I decided to take the plunge back into the ELS this time).  Trust me, Ive paid some tremendous "dues" to say this:

Finally, I feel that I've graduated from the need to be defined by a major religious belief system.

And I have people like Dannion Brinkley, Robert Monroe, Rosie McKnight, Bruce Moen and some of you to thank for helping me.

Love,
Rick

Hi Mediastreamer

i don't normally do links cos im such a book person - that i forget there's such a thing as links!
So im chuffed you asked for a link cos i googled David Ovason and found the link to the passage i quoted although its not in the link its in that book. Also im pleased to paste in here as it shows some of the artwork from this book that i quoted from in my Two Children's post (off topics)

Here it is-

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/twochild.htm

That is very symbolic what you said - it is almost as if there are two Jesus's one in our minds and one on the outside - very profound to be true.

Yes, i agree with transcending the organised belief system - it is within us and basically i think people are fed up with organised religion (about time)  i do believe in Astrology though so i suppose you could say that is a belief system although i wouldnt say its organised lol.

It's good to trust your inner instincts - it has taken us alot to get where we are today phew hard work really  :)

Greetings,
So you two, Augo., and mediastreamer, are basically talking about 2  aspects of this, right? One, The blend of 2 beings when Jesus was a child,   :-/  and separately Two, the Jesus myth compared to the teacher Jesus?  (Not counting that John the Baptist was a cousin and confidante during their youth, before and after the 'blending' of the 2 ?)
Just checking. It gets complicated.
bets

In my understanding it is simply a matter of the Mission, Purpose, and Message, in terms of the context regarding why Jesus was the age he was and why there's no real concern over his youth or worry about anything in a potential "old age".  

The accepted canonical gospels were concerned with the primary element of God's redemption of humantity through Christ, and the fulfilment of the Old Testament revelations and prophecies through Christ.  In my understanding, this is precisely why there aren't alot of more trivial details regarding Christ's life on earth, simply because the Gospel's purpose is to stay to the core of the message and not divert from the central, basic purpose.  

The Christ as portrayed in the Gospels is validated in the visions of the saints, appearances of Mary (See Betania, Fatima, Lourdes, etc.) and many, many other mystical experiences that have an extraordinary theological consistency that is often validated with outward signs such as physical miracles.  

As far as Jesus' age, I merely believe that he was intended to be in the absolute prime of his life, in perfect health and fullness of his life, to underscore the nature of his sacrifice.  Again, you must take this in regard the very direct, and very stated purpose of his life in seeking to fulfill the Will of the Father.  Both Old and New Testament are loaded with references that back this up.

The Cross is both literal and symbolic.  Historically in Roman era crucifixions could take place with the person carryin the crossbeam part out to where they and it would be affixed to an upright post.  The existence of the cross is furthermore clarified in other ways, such as when Peter was martyred and did not feel worthy to be crucified in the manner of Christ...hence he was crucified upside down.    The cross was a very punishing way to die and you actually are compelled to prolong your own suffering...you would struggle to hold yourself up to get air into your lungs (often trying to push up with your feet on the vertical part of the cross), eventually weakening after hours and then, sagging and unable to pull yourself up, you would essentially suffocate.  This is precisely why they "break the legs" of the two thieves that are crucified with Jesus.  As without the ability to prop yourself up, you sag and suffocate quickly.

Regarding the historical Jesus...The Gospels were written after Christ died, but do not forget that it is highly probable that St. Luke personally knew Mary (and likely drew the first iconic image of her)..  Additionally St. John the Evangelist (Revelations, Gospel of John, Epistles) is held by many to be the author of those works, though some scholars have disputes about this.  I don't, as in reading them the mystical sense and theology in them is filled with a consistency and there is an connecting undercurrent to them that I find hard to place in words.  St. Paul also knew the apostles directly.  As such, I can read the accounts in a literal sense as well as a more mystical sense.

Which brings me to the more mystical sense of the Cross.  This is what Christ refers to when he says "Take up your Cross and follow me"...very similar to his call to "drink of my cup" as he invites James and John to do in Matthew (Though they did not know at that time that he was referring to their future Martyrdom in the faith, sharing, in a sense, the death for faith that Jesus himself went through).  I could write for days on this aspect of the Cross and what it means to me, but suffice it to say that it means that it will be a hard, hard road in this world for one who wants to become Christ-like.  Suffering becomes automatic for a person with deep love of others and of God, as in the former you can't help but feel empathy and sorrow over the sufferings of others if you love them as yourself, and you feel suffering in being in a physical exile from the spiritual union with God, the PUL as some reference it here.  As such, a truly loving person always has an undercurrent of suffering, hence they take up their "cross".  

I do enjoy reading Gnostic texts, aprocryphal texts, etc, but I always try to keep in mind that often these writers were working to put out additional elements, whether based in Greek Philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and other sources....creating a hodge-podge of influences in their belief system.  Many scholars seem very quick to simply accept what is written in things like the Gospel of Judas as some sort of "truth" without placing it in the full context of its influences, purposes, context, and the revelations as transpired within the Church over the past 2,000 years (see Saints, Fatima, etc).  

Also regarding the historical Jesus, the reality of his death and resurrection can be seen in the very existence of the Church today.  Had he been just another cult leader, of which there were many, many such individuals with large followings all throughout that time period, then his following would have simply fizzled and dispersed when he died...in fact, it had started to go that way, as the apostles went into a nervous hiding after he was crucified.  The mere fact that they went from hiding (and remember Peter was too afraid to even admit he knew Jesus during the period of the trial) and cowering to becoming fearless evangelists that went without fear into horrific martyrdoms (and not just the apostles, many, many disciples as well) is a telling and sobering testament to a very transforming and validating experience by each of them...and that could only be one thing, a full and confirming Resurrection.  Nothing else would logically suffice to have made them go from such fear and doubt into such unshakeable faith (which included the telltale signs of miracles to go with it).  Everything Christ did hinged on the event of the Resurrection...everyhing in Old and New Testament refrences converged on that one, singular event.

Many scholars try continuously to reinvent and embellish on Christ, and they'll keep trying, but anything they purport would be rather extraneous anyway.... I always have to smile a little when people wonder what Jesus was trying to teach us.  (And Jesus himself was exasperated with "scholars", always picking at minutae, missing the big picture while getting hung up on intellectual exercises---see his exchanges with the Pharisees and their efforts to try to "trick" him in argument).  

What did he teach?  The answer was stated very simply and succinctly in the Gospel and in the living Gospel of Christ's Life (His example)....the real truth is in the simplicity...love of God and one another...in a nutshell, Love.  You master that, you've mastered His teaching and you can get rid of an entire theological library as you wouldn't need it then.

Hi Steve there is so much knowledge that you have written about jesus and the crucifixion, there was so much suffering that day for our saviour jesus and the two theives as well.I learned much from reading your post. God is love,God is everything good in this world,praise the lord...Love and god bless you juditha

Hi betson, newwayknight and juditha, and everyone  :)

First Bets i'd like to reply to your excellent ponderings from my understanding that i have pondered for long now.  The way i see it;

Everything around us and what happens to us in the physical dimension is a metaphor of Us.  We may take circumstances at face value or we may look for the symbolism of the meaning in a circumstance.  It depends on our perception which may be likened to a musical scale - low note or high note.

In relation to Christ we may perceive Jesus to have been a man, and most admit not just an ordinary man, who came to earth with a message.  This is well and good in a metaphor resonating on a lower note; although lower is not the correct term it is more on a common note. In this case he is on the outside of us as a seperate entity and it is in this commoness of his seperation from us that relies on the metaphor of the gospels to understand him. Upon saying that the gospels may be perceived on different levels.

Or through - attainment of thought - we perceive the Christ to be in us.  Not as a seperate entity apart from us but perceiving that Christ lives in our very blood.

The metaphor for this will be different from the surface gospel metaphor.  The metaphor for the Christ within is The Cross of Light.  The metaphor for the Christ without is the Wooden Cross.

The writings of the Two Children symbolises the act of taking the Christ without and bringing him within: the event that took place in the Temple (our body)- the merging of the Two Jesus Children is a metaphor for this translation of the very atoms within our blood.

Collective consciousness may perceive Christ to have died on a wooden cross, which really is ourselves on the wooden cross .. or collective consciousness may perceive Christ to be the cross of light within ourselves.

This is true evolution that has many dimensions in perception .. from perceiving in one dimension, right up to our present eight dimension perception that may be attained.  

Does this make sense to you bets? Please do not think that i am saying to people that the Christ they perceive is 'incorrect' this i would not say at all and is not true.  All perception of Christ is sacred and the Joy is Christ is being perceived no matter what dimension.

i welcome all thoughts on this.

My love
Caryn

Newwayknight your Love for Christ fills me with joy and strength - thank you.

Caryn and Betson,
Thanks so much for your fresh insights (and link).  You leave me with a lot to ponder.

Steve,
I agree with you about the scholar thing.  About the best they can do is point out what we don't know.   And that can be useful but depressing.  In this day and age we have elctronic printing presses, Radio, TV, Internet, etc.  If there are any enlightened or elevated souls in the world we can know almost everything about them and learn directly from them without having to meet them.  This didn't exist 2000 years ago and therefore, so much knowledge and information was lost via the "oral tradition".  

Also, I know you're attracted to this board for a reason and I'm hoping that is because of a quest for afterlife knowledge through experience.  I look forward to hearing about your OBE's and the info you bring back from the other side.  I'm sure it will be awesome!  God's speed bro.  Same to you Juditha.

Rick

A giant hug to you all !!  (11 a m, Wed.)
Reading your words on this thread thru really got to me and I thank you all so much!  I've heard some of these as concepts but they never struck home as  they have now.  I'd like to write thank you in lights or birdlike letters that soar--these black lined letters don't seem adequate. Thank You!
Love, bets

Cosmic, my apologies. I didn't really see the potential in your question this time, but you really do inspire the best, and for the rest of us you help drag us up over the cliffside!
PUL to you all!

Thanks for your kind words bets.

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

Hi Augoeideian and Rob and Juditha,


Augoeidian,

thank you very much for the kind response.  I think you are in tune about the physical and the mystical, with the wooden cross and the Cross of Light within us.  


Rob,

yes, it is true that in the age of Reality TV we tend to want to get every last detail on everything.  I enjoy theology and scholarship, and definitely respect the work of scholars and read them, but every once in a while I have to take a step back and remind myself that it boils down to a very simple, basic 2 things that anyone, scholar or not, can easily remember.  Sometimes I fear we try to make things too complicated, even though it is certainly a worthy passion to have intellectual and philosophical pursuits.

I am definitely hoping to be graced with some experiential moments, and may have already taken a small step...I posted a recent lucid dream on Linn's board that Bob suggested I should post there, under the Dreams section.  It may be a small step, but an encouraging one.

Juditha,

thanks as always for the encouragement.

Hi everyone - hope you all well  

Thanks for the messages, i just love life with all its complications, simplicities, ups and down, joys and tears and best part of life is people  :)

Lots of love to this site and everyone here.
Caryn