Adding to the Bible?

[_Samantabhadra]

Can you give me an example, or examples of where you believe a person can go where they can be certain they are being spiritually guided by a qualified master who can point out which experiences are genuine and which experiences are fabricated?

The "certainty" you refer to is something that is arrived at through a long process of investigation. (It is true that sometimes it happens in a flash, but more commonly the process takes years and years of discernment). The teacher-student relationship is something unique to every pair. So it's not as though one day you wander into a place or meet a person identified (by others) as a "qualified master" and BOOM there is your "certainty."

That said I can think of a few places, such as Mt. Athos. There are also a number of qualified masters roaming in exile from Tibet, as well as the ones who stayed behind.

Also, do you think Jesus Christ was a qualified master; or were any of His Apostles?

I believe Jesus was the archetype of this kind of qualified master, and that when He ascended into Heaven He left His Apostles with the keys to the Kingdom, as is stated in the Gospels.

If yes, do you think there are any groups who are still teaching what Jesus and/or His Apostles were teaching?

There is only One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The Apostolic Church is the direct inheritor of the lineage of blessings and divine authority that Christ left with His Apostles. The Apostolic Church includes, but is not limited to, the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Syriac/Oriental Orthodox, the Coptics, the Indian Orthodox, scattered Anglicans, and so on.

[_jo1952]

The "certainty" you refer to is something that is arrived at through a long process of investigation. (It is true that sometimes it happens in a flash, but more commonly the process takes years and years of discernment). The teacher-student relationship is something unique to every pair. So it's not as though one day you wander into a place or meet a person identified (by others) as a "qualified master" and BOOM there is your "certainty."

Okay, I can live with that answer. I believe that what others may call purification and sanctification are just two ways that man is describing the path we are on to obtain all Truth. I would call being able to obtain all Truth as Salvation. Salvation only becomes a noun after we have achieved it. However, until it is achieved, Salvation is a verb in which we must be actively engaged. Sometimes in my experiencing the Holy Ghost, I have a major moment of having Truth revealed; perhaps this would be similar to what you identify as a flash? Mostly, though, my experiencing is done in small steps. Yet each experience opens my spiritual eyes and ears more than they were prior to each experience. Thus, after many years of progressing, it seems my ability to learn Truth, or recognize Truth, or to have layers of understanding opened up to me, I have begun to experience these moments in an exponential way. Yet, I realize that I have even more to learn than I thought I did each time this happens. It is a wonderful journey!!

That said I can think of a few places, such as Mt. Athos. There are also a number of qualified masters roaming in exile from Tibet, as well as the ones who stayed behind.

It seems you are speaking of Gnostics. I would like to quickly clarify that I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. I believe there were many Gnostic groups; and most likely some of them may have been on the right path. I think it would be interesting to meet one or more of the qualified masters you are speaking of in order to be able to question them and try to see what their beliefs look like.

I believe Jesus was the archetype of this kind of qualified master, and that when He ascended into Heaven He left His Apostles with the keys to the Kingdom, as is stated in the Gospels.

I would need some clarification on your belief here - as I do not know what else you believe about Jesus; i.e., is He truly the Son of the most High God, etc. At first blush I would agree that Jesus was an archetype. Only I would add much more. Meanwhile, I agree He left His Apostles with the keys to the Kingdom, as is stated in the Gospels. I also believe that even though Jesus did not teach them everything He knew (but only what the Father wanted Him to teach them), that there were some things which He taught them which they were not allowed to share until any particular student (or member of the church) was at the point the Apostles felt they could teach more to that student. Therefore, Apostles had had "meat" (mysteries) revealed to them by Jesus. As they progressed in their own learning, the Holy Ghost would have continued to reveal additional "meat" (mysteries) to them.

There is only One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The Apostolic Church is the direct inheritor of the lineage of blessings and divine authority that Christ left with His Apostles. The Apostolic Church includes, but is not limited to, the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Syriac/Oriental Orthodox, the Coptics, the Indian Orthodox, scattered Anglicans, and so on.

Here is where I would part ways with what you believe. That is because I believe that the churches which make up the "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church", have strayed into Apostasy. As such, any church or denomination which uses any of these churches as their own foundation have unknowingly adopted many of the same apostate doctrines into their own beliefs. I believe they began to stray very early in the church; and by the time the Apostles were gone (though I do not think that John the Beloved experienced physical death), that the keys of the kingdom were soon removed from within the church. In fact, the Apostles taught that there were false teachers and false prophets among the members.

I thank you for responding to my questions.

Shalom,

jo

[_Samantabhadra]

I thank you for responding to my questions.

And I thank you in turn for your respectful and well-thought-out response!

But I do have a few things to say.

It seems you are speaking of Gnostics. I would like to quickly clarify that I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing. I believe there were many Gnostic groups; and most likely some of them may have been on the right path. I think it would be interesting to meet one or more of the qualified masters you are speaking of in order to be able to question them and try to see what their beliefs look like.

First of all, belief structure isn't the most important thing. Tibetans talk a lot about the "right view," but "view" in this sense is not a set of propositions and it is certainly not a conceptual framework or outlook. "View" is experiential and can only be realized through contemplative practice under the guidance of a qualified master.

Second, Mt. Athos is the exact opposite of a "Gnostic" hangout. I think you are right about the existence of multiple Gnostic groups, and said as much on another thread, but Gnosticism was distinguished very eary on from the authentic == Apostolic Christian tradition. Mt. Athos is the beating heart of Orthodox (really, all Apostolic) contemplative life and has been so for more than a thousand years.

Finally:

I also believe that even though Jesus did not teach them everything He knew (but only what the Father wanted Him to teach them), that there were some things which He taught them which they were not allowed to share until any particular student (or member of the church) was at the point the Apostles felt they could teach more to that student. Therefore, Apostles had had "meat" (mysteries) revealed to them by Jesus. As they progressed in their own learning, the Holy Ghost would have continued to reveal additional "meat" (mysteries) to them.

This is the exact opposite of a lower-case-o orthodox Christian view. In fact, it is precisely the Gnostic view. With this statement you are confirming that Mormonism is not true Christianity, but rather a Gnostic heresy. I strongly advise you to consult Irenaeus, and/or the history of the first Church Councils.

I believe that the churches which make up the "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church", have strayed into Apostasy

Do you have any evidence to support this belief?


Kindly,

S

[_MCB]

Gnosticism was distinguished very eary on from the authentic == Apostolic Christian tradition. Mt. Athos is the beating heart of Orthodox (really, all Apostolic) contemplative life and has been so for more than a thousand years.

Again, I think we need to distinguish and define Gnosticism by its contrast with Christian mysticism. When spiritual "knowledge" begins to deny or redefine the Trinity, those people begin to develop beliefs which do not encourage ethical behavior, then it become Gnosticism, which, according to our operational definition, is non-Christian.

Tibetian Bhuddism is Gnostic and non-Christian, yet ascetic. In contact with Western society, it is moving towards a Christian world-view. They truly seek knowledge. Mormonism, being profoundly anti-Catholic and therefore rejecting the Christian masters, historically has moved away from that.

[_Themis]

Themis:

Contemporary cognitive science gives strong experimental evidence for a representationalist theory of perception. Meaning, "what we perceive" is strictly not identical with "what (if anything) is 'out there.'"

I would agree. Our perception are not going to be accurate in an absolute way of what is out there(if it is out there). Our perceptions are also not the only way to perceive. Other animals may perceive in very different ways. We tend to view what we think is reality from these perceptions based mainly on what works.

I'm not disputing what you're saying, but I think it's important to keep in mind that the difference between an "external" cause for a perception and an "internal" cause for a perception can be blurry or nonexistent.

Sure. The brain can produce stimuli that we will not be able to distinguish from stimuli coming from outside ourselves.

In what I am going to go ahead and call "real" spiritual traditions--as opposed to e.g. Salt Lake Mormonism--this is why it is absolutely crucial to have spiritual guidance from a qualified master who has progressed along the path to such a point that s/he is capable of pointing out to a disciple which experiences are genuine and which experiences are fabricated. A burning in the bosom, like a vision in a dream (or even in waking life), is not prima facie epistemically reliable.

What is epistemically reliable? How does the master know the difference? My problem is usually centered around when claims are made that are not supported by other perceptions that I would say are more reliable in every day life, and which we all depend on in a major way. At this point I think it wise not to put to much belief into those claims. I do appreciate your responses. You can describe them better then I.

[_bcuzbcuz]

I do not trust my eyes because I have been fooled. What I thought I saw was not, in fact, the case.

I do not trust my ears. I have both heard things that were never spoken and not heard things that were.

I do not trust my tastebuds. I seldom get a taste-test right.

My nose runs and my feet smell. I'm built upside down.

Most of what I touch does not turn to gold. Nor do I discern that which a blind can see.

I've been mislead more than once with warm feelings or hair raised on my neck to thinking I've had a spiritual experience.

My initial senses cannot be relied upon. I'm left with reason. But thankfully, that sense can be trained and improved. Until I become smart, I have to rely upon my BS detector. Thankfully, that sense still works.

[_subgenius]

Sub,
Everything we experience goes through the brain. Even what you want to call the spiritual.

maybe, but maybe not...i will concede that what we "sense" goes through the brain...but
i contend, in opposition to your premise, that car and driver are not the same thing and can operate exclusive of each other.

We go with what works best all the time. If your sight is bad you probably don't trust it as much as maybe touch and sound.

We can argue there is nothing outside the brain, but this discussion is meaningless and doesn't get anywhere, and you don't really believe it anyways.

i don't believe it, correct.....but you are unable to argue it either way.

Reliability is what works more consistently. If something works more consistently then something else then it is considered more reliable.

yes, i have a dictionary...but you have yet to define to "what end"...in other words "more consistently" for what?
as i requested above...you have yet to define by what measure.

[_Themis]

maybe, but maybe not...i will concede that what we "sense" goes through the brain...but
i contend, in opposition to your premise, that car and driver are not the same thing and can operate exclusive of each other.

Maybe you could expalin that a little more. Are you saying the brain/mind is made both the car and driver?

yes, i have a dictionary...but you have yet to define to "what end"...in other words "more consistently" for what?
as i requested above...you have yet to define by what measure.

If I compare say sight to spiritual claims of knowledge we see almost universal agreement on one and not the other. Sight is very consistent.

[_jo1952]

And I thank you in turn for your respectful and well-thought-out response!

But I do have a few things to say.

I believe that the churches which make up the "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church", have strayed into Apostasy

Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

Kindly,

S

Hello S:

I will address the rest of your post in a separate response - since these posts are now reaching Biblical proportions, so to speak. So this post is dedicated to some of the areas where the RCC has strayed.

*Peter was NEVER a Bishop of Rome.

*The Pope was never supposed to have supremacy over all of the churches; hence the Great Schism between the West and the East, as the Eastern Orthodox churches refused to recognize Papal Supremacy. They even excommunicated the Pope; and the Pope excommunicated the Leader of the Eastern Orthodox churches. Contrary to what the RCC would have you believe, the two sides have never reconciled.

*“The Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam's fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race.” HOWEVER, regarding unbaptized children, the RCC claims they will be “ranked with the wicked, although not judged, will be enabled to realize the justice of their eternal loss.” In other words, the RCC just contradicted itself, inasmuch as an infant or young children cannot understand enough in order to use their free will for such an important matter as the Salvation of their soul; to say nothing of what Peter declared about those who curse children. by the way, the Greek translation of the word “curse” as it is used by Peter, means to make anathema or to ban.

*Peter taught that the Elders (of which he claimed to be one) were NOT to use coercive measures over the people. HOWEVER, the RCC claims: “ in respect of its insinuation that the Church does not possess authority to exact subjection to her decrees otherwise than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this signifies that the Church ‘has not received from God power, not merely to direct by counsel and persuasion but further to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties’ [from the brief "Ad assiduas" (1755) of Benedict XIV], leads to a system already condemned as heretical." In other words, the RCC is telling us that if they DIDN’T have the God given power to coerce and compel, then that leads to a system already condemned as heretical. Thus, if the RCC did not have this God given power, they then would be heretical. Yet this is in direct opposition to what Peter taught.

*Worshipping or reverencing anyone other than God is wrong. Here is what Peter taught:

Acts 10:25-26 (KJV)
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Now, Peter NEVER claimed to be the “Vicar of Christ”. One would think that a matter of such great importance to the RCC today, would be one which the RCC would be very careful of in following the example of whom they claim was the first Pope. If Peter didn’t want anyone to fall down at his feet and worship him, why would his predecessors want people to fall down at their feet and worship them???

*The RCC teaches: “The angels and the demons will not be judged directly, since their eternal destiny has already been fixed.” HOWEVER, Paul taught:

1 Corinthians 6:3 (KJV)
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

So, it would appear that the RCC is incorrect in two things here. First, that man WILL judge angels; second, an angel’s eternal destiny has NOT been fixed.

*The RCC claims that you only have the chance in this life to accept Christ. HOWEVER, the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe otherwise. They believe that John the Baptist is waiting to meet those spirits (when their physical body dies) who have not yet had the chance to hear the Gospel message, in order to teach it to them!!!

*Under paragraph # 816 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read, "The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.'" (C.C.C. # 816)

As stated, not only is salvation found in the Catholic Church, but also the "fullness of the means" of salvation. Yet I thought it was through Christ we could obtain Salvation…….

* Praying to the dead.

*Idol worship.

*Murdering those who do not agree with them.

*Changing the rule of Bishops needing to be married (as was Peter). Just look at all of the sin and abominations caused by this rule!

Shalom,

jo

[_gdemetz]

Good post Jo! I liked the part about murdering those who did not agree with them. I think it is a safe assumption they they definitely did not have the Holy Spirit then. Pope John did finally apologize for that though. However, now there seems to be another type problem plaguing that old church. It's all the pedophiles. You see what the false doctrine of celibacy can lead to?