From wiki again (sorry !) in connection to Mother Theresa at the end of her life:

'The Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian D'Souza, said he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa with her permission when she was first hospitalized with cardiac problems because he thought she may be under attack by the devil.[51]'

Recoverer-

I don't know about clutching at straws  but I used the Mother Theresa example because you said :

'If Helen was truly touched by the spirit of Christ, she wouldn't become prey to an agressive spirit. Her inner changes would supersede her physical condition.'

Many people would regard Mother Theresa as someone touched by the spirit of Christ.

Dave

The only way that I am comparing Mother Theresa with Helen Schucman is by stating that they were both alleged to be under spiritual attack at the end of their lives when physically ill. I remember it being quite widely reported at the time.

Dave

How do we know what Jesus wanted for Mother Teresa. I find it incredible that anyone would even begin to approach such a subject. You talk about Jesus' 'expectation' of her to do certain things like walk through the 'dark night of the soul' in some equally heroic fashion as her initial entry into the world of trying to save 'everyone' from suffering.

How on earth does anyone on this planet think they know what 'Jesus' or 'God' or any other being or deity might want for another human being? I just find it mind-boggling that anyone really wants to speak for other people in that way.

I'm sure, from your perspective, that it seems natural. I would never fault someone for trying to understand another, but to speak for what God or Jesus 'wants' from someone else.

Hmmmn.

Of course, we must teach our children something. But what are we teaching them when we believe we can speak about other people's souls in such a way?


Berserk2 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2009 at 2:47pm:

[Beau:] "I think there is a comma missing from what Jesus said. And how would we know different since there was no punctuation back then. "I Am, the truth the way and the light." That's what I think.
__________________________________

Beau, you obviously don't know Greek.  Your punctuation would be universally rejected for two reasons:

(1) First, note that you messed up the order: The Greek reads: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life (14:6).  Secondly, Your punctuation leaves the three predicates with no grammatical function; they are predicate nominatives and this fact excludes your punctuation. 

(2) In every one of Jesus' many "I am" sayings, the that ensues always defines what Jesus is claiming to be.  This pattern in itself rules out your punctuation.
Here are just a few of the examples that prove my point:

"I am the bread of life (John 6:48)."
"I am the Light of the world (John 8:12)."
"I am the good Shepherd (John John 10:11, 14)."
"I am the Vine; you are the branches (John 15:5).

[Beau:] "Please don't feel the need to see it this way or to lambast me to hell."
___________________________
No, you won't go to hell for ignorance of grammar and Greek.  But you will go back to the New Age Ghetto, whose denizens don't recognize that the grammatical issue you raise must be determined by linguistic experts outside the Ghetto.

[Beasu:] "I don't think Jesus was conceited enough to claim he was god, if we were to understand that we weren't god."
___________

Jesus emptied Himself of all His divine prerogatives to take on all our human limitations (Philippians 2:6-7) and be tested in every way that we are (Hebrews 4:15). During His earthly ministry, Jesus claimed "I and the Father are one (John 10:30), but added, "The Father is greater than I (14:28)."  He distinguishes between Himself and God in the sense that Jesus is not the heavenly Father: "Why do you call me good?  No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18)?" But after His resurrection, He is restored to His divine prerogatives as God and gladly accepts doubting Thomas's acclamation, "My Lord and my God (John 20:28)!"

Don

I guess the problem for me and you too, is that we weren't there and didn't hear what Jesus spoke nor did the writer. And it has always bothered me that none of the biblical accounts are from contemporaries of Jesus, so logically I must discount the bible as any more reliable than any other book of wisdom. And since I believe all energy evolves toward a higher consciousness I must believe that even Jesus has done so and is not the same diety has was 2000 years ago.

In a side note, I have prayed and meditated on this idea and asked for something I could use to find my way. I have been given many books, but the bible has never been included among them though I read it much as a child in church. I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

It is not yours to name a ghetto for you have never been there. And I speak of mine.

[Beau:] "And it has always bothered me that none of the biblical accounts are from contemporaries of Jesus, so logically I must discount the bible as any more reliable than any other book of wisdom."
_________________________________

Again, you pontificate from the biased ignorance of the New Age Ghetto.  You are not even open to hearing the case outside the Ghetto that connects most of the New Testament with Jesus' contempories and connects the Gospels with eyewitness testimony.  Or are you? 

Don

Don,

I know you are not ignorant. But we are very different personas. I am aware of the 'evidence' you speak of. I find it highly suspect. I am not in the business of disproving Jesus, but I don't like to see people bully their beliefs around citing the very suspect evidence that is in question. To fall for such an argument would be ignorant.