Well, occams razor would say yes, it was the real Jesus and His intention was to make it clear that He was over and above all other religious figures.

To me, that's not the real mystery.  Since that's the message He wants to convey, why limit it to just a couple of people? If it's a universal truth, it should be universally disseminated.  Converting a few muslims really isn't going to amount to much no matter how many others they tell.

The other video about being rescued from hell reminds me of Howard Storm. However, seeing yourself on a crucifix to me (as scary as it must have been) may have been a way of saying that Jesus' death was to insure the salvation of all of us. 

The Sid Roth show is interesting, but I keep forgetting to watch it.  Thanks for the post.

 

Or do such beings meet us where we are at, in whatever modality our cultural conditioning grooms us to apprehend.  Is it correct to ask whether it is true of not...?

If I go down to the ocean, I may see it from the vantage point of a beach.   I could then say all the ocean looks like it does at the beach, or the ocean "is" as it is at the beach.  Maybe a young toddler is fascinated by the pebbles remembers the ocean as pebbles, while another toddler notices the shells....remembers the ocean of shells.

Or I could go to an estuary, or to a cliff overlook....and see the same thing differently.  Did we all notice that is was salty too?  Was that the universal truth?

My point is, one may see something that by nature is vast beyond one's experience or/and comprehension, yet experience it in local ways; perhaps differently each time.  Do we understand that the ocean is all of those things and more? 

Or perhaps these are archetypes of proportion far beyond our comprehension that know how to give us a local image that is an introduction, a tutor's first introduction.

Man needs to perceive things in a way that won't overwhelm his capacity or it defeats the purpose of introducing the message, the meaning, the purposes, the being...

One says the beach is sandy ... (in Florida).  Another says no the beach is rocky... (in Maine). 

Are they not both wrong and right?  Can we completely wrong "and" right and not know it?

Hey Don,

I think, visualizing God as the Sun, or as a Great Benevolent Father, or a Spirit that Speaks from the Sky, or whatever, are representations of man's effort to describe something that is by nature ineffable, yet man is somehow aware that he has been in contact with something very very very big. 

We like to associate that experience with something that we are familiar with because we think we know how to relate to that familiar item.  We naturally think metaphorically and in parables that make sense to us.  This also helps us discuss this "thing" in a less then precise format then one may find in formal philosophical or psychological disciplines.  This frees us from having to master simply the formalism of the discussion and simply rely on what our intuitive response confirms.

Through my life I began to realize that "The Great Being" or simply "The Source" was much more abstract then our "human" conscious is able to comprehend.  As a Taoist would say, that which is nameable is not the true Tao.  But that does not mute my experience or impression of "It".  I am sure, for myself, that there are intermediary forces that are there to address this issue.  They are not god, but their interest is bringing us higher in awareness while also pursuing the completion of other purposes.. I think of them as an emissary, or an interface that intends to bring us to a higher contact in time, at least those that want it.

I don't think we understand the scale of this issue. After  Freeman Dyson left the world of physics and moved into biology, he wrote once  speculating that there could be beings made of energy that manipulate their environment (as we do), but in terms of energy on a galactic and supra-galactic scale..

I say this to illustrated that God is likely far beyond what we can remotely imagine, but thats not to say inaccessible.  I think there is likely a wide range in the spectrum of beings and purposes taking place and that we are only in contact with the tip of the iceberg so to speak and that's not to say there are other icebergs floating around at these that have nothing to do with us.


For myself I conclude, after too many decades of thinking about this, that in the end I must go with what I have "experienced" and the understandings I've been given for myself.  These are clearly continuously unfolding and I am always trying to wrap my mind around it as it appears elusive to me no matter what.  This hardly underscore how fickle the mind of man is.  It is a tricky think in itself. Thank goodness for the intermediaries(s).

So I really can't ultimately say what the categories should be.  Not sure if I recall correctly, but I think Rudolph Steiner, and back as far as Plato used archetypes. 

I use the ocean simply to illustrate that something maybe -  lets say - near omnipresent to all of us may be there, yet we all have a different experience of it without exhausting that resource.  In the last dozen or so years, I have a more Taoist inclination to look to nature for illustrations that indicate the nature of things at hand, more so than a more sophisticated constructs or model.

Personally I haven't looked into the NDE questions.  There are so many questions to look at, it's  hard to look at them all.  And I haven't come close to answering your question.

-B

Gman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 2:34am:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-j-bell/a-year-without-god_b_4512842.html

Jezus is the creator of the universe.
There is an army of Them. Entire hierarchy of Creators.
Jezus is the real God and He appears in every one dimension.

He shines a crystal bright pink light or icy blue light or creamy light. Every one colour of light that is needed.
I usually see him clothed in long tunic, sometimes additionally in long coat.

If You don't know whom to pray... ? - pray to Jezus.
Thankful prayer.
He is  God and Friend for every one human regardless of religion because the core of Jesus the Creator is in all of us.

greets

olinerum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:41am:


  I've come to perceive similar as the above, that's Jesus's "Disk" is the Co-Creator of this Universe or at least the original imprints of same.  It's gotten rather influenced and in some areas rather changed since the original manifestation. 

  And yes, while his Disk was the first, there have been others since him to grow into same/similar roles.  Co-Creators of other realities/Universes. 

  But neither Jesus or his larger "Disk" is The Source, a child of and fully one with same yes.  Being fully intune and One with The Source, he is an extension of the will and nature of same. 

  Someday, most of us will likewise be similar.  However, being the first of all the expressed children to fully merge with The Source, and being the Co-Creator of this Universe, he and his Disk do play a very important role in the grand scheme of things--especially in this Universe. 

Sort of the head honcho of Retrievers whose been leading the way here for a very, very long time and also retrieving in other places.  Many other worlds, systems, and dimensions didn't need this Disk's help, being populated by parts of the Whole whom did not go so far astray from their origins. 

   Some of the helpers on this site, having been working for/under him here for a very long time as well. 

"Live in Love and we will be saved."  Yes, but then if so, why the title of this thread?  The implication is that if people from other religions see JC in NDEs or visions, it implies that there is some evidence that JC is the only version of God we should worship, and that christianity is the most "true" religion.  This is my gripe about the whole conversation.  "I am the light and the way, and there is no other way to the father but through me."  I find that phrase beautiful, and leading by example, but some fundamentalist christians take it literally to mean that if you are a good person who is kind to others, yet you don't go to church and worship JC by name, then you are damned.

I've had enough experience and done enough soul searching to know, (not just think I know) that it is how we express our souls that matter.  It is our intent.  Our love of what is good and true (God) and our good intentions to our brothers/sisters (the golden role) that really matters.  JC embodied these values, and as such, he is a beacon and a light for many.  A role model, even as Justin implies for common folk to follow in his footsteps (which may sound haughty, but really isn't). 

If my spiritual search leads me to love, to become more selfless, to treat others with love, and yet I don't identify myself as a christian or go to church, or use the name Jesus when I pursue goals nearly identical to those espoused in the New Testament, does it really matter?  Am I less of a good soul for not following the tradition or ritual of one particular earthly religion?  Of course not.  And herein lies my problem with discussions of this sort. 

If a Jew, a buddhist, or a muslim lives in a loving manner, they are on the right path.  It may be, that in the afterlife there is an unfolding or acknowledgement of the truth of the philosophy of love championed by JC, and all in doing so would therefore see him as a manifestation of God or Source flowing directly into a person.  Any honest person, if in spirit would recognize this if it is so.  And yet, the whole philosophy put forward in the NT is more about love and putting love into your actions, than ritual or recognition of earthly ceremonies or names.  Read through the NT and show me where JC invents any of the rituals practiced now in the church.  Things such as wafers, wine, certain ceremonies were all conceived by followers to honor his way, but not mandated in the gospels. 

I do not believe in salvation through ritual or faith without works.  Intent must be put into action to be real.  Charity must be real, and incorporated into our daily lives to make a difference.  Swedenborg talks of this, and I agree.  Thought not tied to intent and action is not a path toward salvation or evolution of the spirit.      
So the debate over the supremacy of one earthly religion or religious figure over another misses the heart of true spirituality. 

M