The Hard Answers for expiated and studentofthemarkets

maxinger said:
Why the bible managed to record extremely long family history
but nothing much is known about Jesus family/siblings & Mary Magdalene.

Obviously it should be easier to get information dated a few years ago
vs a few millenarian ago.



Luke Chapter 3
The Family History of Joseph
23 When Jesus began to teach, he was about 30 years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph’s son.

Joseph was the son of Eli.
24 Eli was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
Levi was the son of Melchi.
Melchi was the son of Jannai.
Jannai was the son of Joseph.
25 Joseph was the son of Mattathias.
Mattathias was the son of Amos.
Amos was the son of Nahum.
Nahum was the son of Esli.
Esli was the son of Naggai.
26 Naggai was the son of Maath.
Maath was the son of Mattathias.
Mattathias was the son of Semein.
Semein was the son of Josech.
Josech was the son of Joda.
27 Joda was the son of Joanan.
Joanan was the son of Rhesa.
Rhesa was the son of Zerubbabel.
Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel.
Shealtiel was the son of Neri.
28 Neri was the son of Melchi.
Melchi was the son of Addi.
Addi was the son of Cosam.
Cosam was the son of Elmadam.
Elmadam was the son of Er.
29 Er was the son of Joshua.
Joshua was the son of Eliezer.
Eliezer was the son of Jorim.
Jorim was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
30 Levi was the son of Simeon.
Simeon was the son of Judah.
Judah was the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Jonam.
Jonam was the son of Eliakim.
31 Eliakim was the son of Melea.
Melea was the son of Menna.
Menna was the son of Mattatha.
Mattatha was the son of Nathan.
Nathan was the son of David.
32 David was the son of Jesse.
Jesse was the son of Obed.
Obed was the son of Boaz.
Boaz was the son of Salmon.
Salmon was the son of Nahshon.
33 Nahshon was the son of Amminadab.
Amminadab was the son of Admin.
Admin was the son of Arni.
Arni was the son of Hezron.
Hezron was the son of Perez.
Perez was the son of Judah.
34 Judah was the son of Jacob.
Jacob was the son of Isaac.
Isaac was the son of Abraham.
Abraham was the son of Terah.
Terah was the son of Nahor.
35 Nahor was the son of Serug.
Serug was the son of Reu.
Reu was the son of Peleg.
Peleg was the son of Eber.
Eber was the son of Shelah.
36 Shelah was the son of Cainan.
Cainan was the son of Arphaxad.
Arphaxad was the son of Shem.
Shem was the son of Noah.
Noah was the son of Lamech.
37 Lamech was the son of Methuselah.
Methuselah was the son of Enoch.
Enoch was the son of Jared.
Jared was the son of Mahalaleel.
Mahalaleel was the son of Cainan.
38 Cainan was the son of Enos.
Enos was the son of Seth.
Seth was the son of Adam.
Adam was the son of God.
More...

I do have some information from the last couple decades very close to the source. From that info yes, Jesus had at least one blood brother, James, whom many assumed would be first in line to carry on Jesus' message. But Jesus was closer to Thomas who was a little more open minded. "Didymus" means "twin". Thomas "Didymus" (see opening line Gospel of Thomas ) had a physical resemblance to Jesus though they were not blood brothers. About 30% of Gospel of Thomas ended up added by other penman not Thomas , one of which was a reference to James that shows early rivalry between factions of followers. Eventually two of Jesus followers who then followed James departed from James having judged him unable or unwilling to honestly represent his blood brother's message. Those two wrote a "sayings gospel" like Thomas full of what they heard Jesus say first hand called "Words of the Master" or something like that. It was completely destroyed from history so the title is gone. But there are scholars who believe there must have been such a book, and reference it as the 'Q' source, thinking it influenced other, extent manuscripts.

Regarding the long geneologies, those are fantasies of two of the later kinds of gospels that, like James, forced a Jewish viewpoint on Jesus' message. They are counter productive , contradicting Jesus own thoughts on the perfidity of bloodlines, excoriating anyone who traced their bloodlines back to any generation or even to "Adam" , calling them sons of the devil. The bloodlines are an attempt to make Jesus the Jewish version of "Messiah" which required he be a descendant of King David somehow . But Jesus was no such "Messiah" offering a very different kind of salvation, coming from, and returning to a very different world.

Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute and was much closer to Jesus than is revealed in the mainstream gospels. Her portrayal in those gospels is evidence of early factional rivalries among the earliest followers, some of whom were misogynistic according to the patriarchal traditionalists among the Jews. She was among a small handful of excellent representatives of Jesus' message including Stephen who was stoned to death with Paul as the most famous witness on the side of the stone throwers . The two who wrote "Words of the Master" ended up closely associated with Stephen.
 
maxinger said:
Why God did not design our face to have natural mask to prevent spread of virus?
More...

When talking about the intelligent designer it's better to call it "ego" rather than confuse it with a Being that is actually Good. A Good Being does not design faces, facial characteristics, or any other body parts. But an ego would, and because an ego takes its power from what is Good, it appears to be very intelligent . Further, intelligence and design are not wholly guaranteed to be benevolent. The "design", for example, could be "ulterior", according to a motive, mandate, or agenda.

For example, it should be clear to see that an ego has designed to destroy everything it makes. Arguably, its purpose is not for things to be born, but rather to be born to die. After all, you can't destroy what is not first given some value. Consequently we are given an approximate balance of construction versus destruction. This fulfills the egos actual task of providing both of everything .

If, for example, Good is the standard, then the egos task is to give both good AND evil. This is the egos mandate with which it signs (it's signature) all of its designs. All of its designs are polarized combinations of extremes. A graphic parable describing such an enigma could be a tree whose fruit is both good AND evil. The fruit could look good, for example, but it could be poison . The tree is one thing that forces opposing (otherwise mutually exclusive concepts) to abide together as one fruit, so to speak. Anytime, anywhere you see this kind of "fruit", you know the "tree" is the ego, not Good.

So man lives AND dies. This is of the ego.
So man is healthy AND sick. This is ego.
So man is both robust but also vulnerable. Ego.
Strong AND weak. Signed, ego.
Smart AND stupid. By ego.
Big and small. ~ ego.

Within this mandate, none of the positive poles are actually what they appear to be. The strong are not really strong. The smart are not really smart. That which "lives" does not actually live. Hence, the entire design is fake, fabricated, and ultimately a "mockery" of that Being which is actually Good.

An ego is achieved through some kind of physiological gymnastics that boils down to self deception. Self deception boils down to self sabotage. A virus is a manifestation of self sabotage, which is a manifestation of self deception. An ego feeds off its host a lot like a virus feeds off bodies. If the virus kills all bodies the virus dies. For its self preservation it is best a virus kill it's hosts at a balanced rate that perpetuates its own survival.

The solution , ultimately, is the elimination of the ego. Till then it will mask itself, mask it's designs, mask it's intentions, and mask it's agenda. I'm just letting you know what it's "signature" (sign) looks like so you can recognize the "tree" from which the "fruit" (it's manifestations) comes.

Ego is first of all a principle, a non-living concept. The concept, essentially, is to add more to Good by combining good with polar opposites. This dead (dead on arrival) concept takes on a "life of its own" so-to-speak. At this point it becomes a *persona*, which gives birth to to more personas according to the same kind of process which gives rise to the original ego. The ego thus breeds after its own kind, multiplying it's numbers. Left unchecked it would kill its host. In this case the host is Good. I sometimes call the host "Christ", which "dies" so that personas (the many little egos) may "live", so-to-speak.

All of the egos manifestations function like a mask over the face of Christ. If you can see the manifestations you cannot see Christ, and visa versa. If you can see people, you can't see Christ. If you can see Christ you can't see people. And yet people presume to be Christ, represent Christ, and substitute for Christ. This is essentially the function of a "mask". It's hides its host and represents (misrepresents) its host. A mask changes the appearance of its host from real to unreal, from true to fake.

While people substitute for Christ this way, they participate in a grande self deception which involves self sabotage. This is a very dangerous predicament to behold. This is ultimately why people die: they represent a CHANGE to what actually lives: Christ. Death itself is nothing more than rapid radical change . People, note well, are we n a constant flux of change. When the change is slow we call it "life". When the change is rapid and radical (uncomfortable) we call it "death". But both of man's so called life and his so called death are CHANGE. Mankind is birthed of an ego which radically changes the nature of Good, or what I call Christ.

If the solution is the elimination of the ego, it also includes the elimination of mankind. As said, the ego is a dead principle that becomes a powerful persona as it is given ATTENTION. The solution, then, is to take back the attention you are giving to the ego and it's offspring. This is done through meditation.

Meditation allows the mind to function normally when it is emptied of ego and it's machinations. In principle, it's best not to think about the egos machinations, such problems as corona-viruses. This can be difficult if you find yourself immersed in it's manifestations . After all , you could not be immersed in manifestations unless you were a willing participant. To participate , you have to BELIEVE in the egos mandate. Believing in it's mandate, also believe in it's manifestations. It's mandate is at the very core of your so called existence as a person (human being). So it's difficult to stop paying attention to the mandate because it directly compromises your supposed existence (and may seem like a threat). But anyone willing to lay down ones apparent existence through meditation could probably achieve short term solutions such as the cure of corona viruses.

The "devil" is that which is difficult. But it is only difficult to overcome one's ego if you identify with the ego. Power to overcome the ego come from identifying one's Self as the Good, or as what i call the Christ. From that vantage point, one can easily discriminate between good and evil, between true and untrue, between real and unreal, between Christ and an ego that seeks to take control of Christ's psychological functions at the expense of it's host. Self deception is indeed difficult to overcome. Un-deceived, there really is no "devil" but rather, a dead concept that was given way too much attention.
 
Last edited:
maxinger said:
Why God did not design our face to have natural mask to prevent spread of virus?
More...

Maybe this has some relevance.
http://godisimaginary.com/i39.htm
Proof #39 - Realize that Jesus was a jerk

Most Christians have a warm, loving image of Jesus. Jesus is the "Prince of Peace" and the "Lamb of God" in their eyes. Jesus is a perfect, sinless being. But is this image accurate? If you had never heard of Jesus before, and you decided you wanted to learn about him by reading the Bible, what sort of person would you discover?

The dictionary defines a jerk as a "foolish, rude, or contemptible person" [ref]. Another dictionary throws in the word "fatuous" as well, and then defines fatuous as, "vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish". [ref]

Given these definitions, can we make the case that Jesus was a jerk? Let's see what we find when we look at God's word.

A person who is a hypocrite is certainly a jerk. No one likes a hypocrite, because hypocrites are smugly foolish. And Jesus seems to have a problem with hypocrisy. For example, one of Jesus' most famous lines is, "Love your enemies," as he says here in Matthew 5:43:


  • "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
He reiterates the message in Luke 6:26:

  • "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
That seems simple enough. And wouldn't you expect Jesus to love his enemies? Yes you would, unless he is a hypocrite. Therefore, what we find in Mark 16:15-16 is surprising. It shows us how Jesus treats his enemies:

  • He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned [to hell].
This is "good" news? Jesus doesn't love his enemies at all. In fact, you don't even need to be an enemy -- even those who would rather not "believe in" Jesus are condemned to eternal torture in a lake of fire. This level of hypocrisy is the kind of thing you expect from a jerk. For further examples of hypocrisy and contradiction, try comparing Matthew 5:16 with Matthew 6:1, or John 14:27 with Matthew 10:34, or 2 Kings 2:11 with John 3:13, or Exodus 33:11 with John 1:18, or Mark 9:40 with Luke 11:23.
In the same way, a person who breaks his promises is a jerk. We can see that Jesus breaks promises by looking at Mark 11:24:


  • Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14 we find the same thing:

  • I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
When a person says, "ask anything in my name, and I will do it," what does he mean? Presumably, Jesus means that if you ask for anything, he will do it. What else could he possibly mean, unless he is being dishonest? And Jesus does not say it once. He says the same thing over and over again. In Matthew 7:7: "Ask, and it will be given to you." In Matthew 17:20: "Nothing will be impossible for you." In Matthew 21:21: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." You may have noticed, however, that Jesus is lying. You can pray for all sorts of things and nothing will happen. We all know that. A person who breaks his promises like this is clearly a jerk.
What if Jesus tells stories that are completely untrue? For example, take Matthew 4:8 as an example:


  • Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
The problem with this story is that the earth must be flat for it to work. From a tall mountain it is impossible to see "all the kingdoms." Even standing on Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain on earth, the farthest you could see is 250 miles to the horizon [ref]. Yet we know that at the time of Jesus, there were thriving kingdoms in China, India, South America, Europe, etc. So clearly this story could not have happened. People who are dishonest like this are jerks.


Another easy way to see that Jesus is a jerk is to recognize his bigotry. In Matthew 15:22-26 we find this telling conversation:


  • A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
Jesus calls this woman a dog because she is not the right nationality. That is both ridiculous, and a clear indication that he is a jerk.
If you are a person who steals other people's stuff, you are a jerk. In Mark 11:1-3 we find this transaction:


  • As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "
How many times have you had some jerk say, "let me borrow this and I'll return it in a minute," never to see that person again? It is a common scam. And that's exactly what Jesus does. The disciples take the colt, but if you search the scriptures you find that they never bother to return it. Wow - what a jerk.
By the way, that is not the only place in the Bible where Jesus steals something. In Matthew 8:28-34 Jesus steals an entire herd of pigs and kills them all.

Have you noticed that in many cases Jesus is childish and emotional, rather than thoughtful? People who act like this are jerks. Here's an example from Matthew 18:7-9:


  • "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
This statement is totally ridiculous on several different levels. First, something like a hand cannot "cause you to sin" -- your brain causes "sin." Every intelligent person knows that. Therefore, gouging your eye out or cutting your hand off is useless. If you have a problem with "sin" and you are going to amputate something to solve it, you would need to amputate your brain, since that is where all "sin" originates.
But if you think about it further, you realize that Jesus has completely missed the actual remedy. If you are having a problem with unproductive behaviors, what you need to do is either educate or rehabilitate yourself. You would do that by talking with a counselor or seeing a therapist. Amputation is an absurd prescription, as every intelligent person knows. Jesus is not only a jerk -- he is an idiot. He dispenses advice that is completely useless, and recklessly dangerous as well.

Here is another emotional outburst from Mark 11:15-16:


  • On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
Is this a smart thing to do? Is this the kind of behavior you expect from a thoughtful, rational adult? No, it is the behavior of a child. Surely the all-powerful son of God could come up with a better plan than knocking over tables in a one-time outburst.
In Mark 11:12-14 we find another emotional reaction:


  • The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
Later we learn that the tree is dead.
Let's see. The son of God is hungry. He approaches a fig tree. The tree is out of season and has no fruit. Jesus wants fruit. So he kills the tree. What a total jerk! Why didn't he wave his all-powerful hand and cause figs to appear? Or how about borrowing a raisin from someone and turning it into a 5,000 baskets of figs? Only a true jerk would kill something out of spite.

Here is one final example. Let's say that you want to really jerk people around. One way to do that would be to constantly contradict yourself. Therefore, we find Jesus saying this in Luke 14:26:


  • Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
OK, so if we hate everything, we can be Jesus' disciple. That's a great message from someone who elsewhere says, "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." And don't forget that one of the commandments is to honor your father and mother. So which is it Jesus? If we want to be your disciple, should we love our enemies, our neighbors and our parents, or should we hate them? Only a jerk would create a totally contradictory set of requirements like that.
What if you want eternal life? What do you need to do? Presumably you need to hate everyone and life itself. Then in Luke 10:25-28 we find another requirement:


  • On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

    He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

    "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
Is that true? If you do this, will you have eternal life? Actually it is not true. In Luke 18:18-22 Jesus says:

  • A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good�except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

    "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

    When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
The answers in Luke 10 and Luke 18 are totally different. This clearly means that Jesus is making this stuff up as he goes along. Which is something that a jerk would do.
Then in John 6:53-58 we find an additional requirement:


  • Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
That sounds grotesque, doesn't it? And it totally contradicts what Jesus just told the two guys in Luke 10 and Luke 18. And what about Matthew 18:2-3:

  • He called a little child and had him stand among them. And [Jesus] said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
How, exactly, does one "become like little children?" For example, little children frequently believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and often will fight fiercely with their siblings. Are we, as adults, supposed to take on these qualities? Jesus does not really say, making this requirement totally nebulous.
But is it true? If you "become like little children", do you get to go to heaven? No, actually not. In reality you have to be "born again" in order to see the kingdom of God. In John 3:3-8 Jesus says:


  • "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
    "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

    Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
That is about as clear as mud, isn't it? But that is what Jesus says, and it totally contradicts all the other stuff he said.
But let's ignore the contradiction for a moment. Is this true? If we become like little children... in fact, if we regress all the way to infants by being "born again" of water and the Spirit, do we get to go to heaven? No... Jesus is wrong again. Because in Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus says this:


  • "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is getting absurd, isn't it? Pharisees and scribes are adults, not children. And if you read the Bible, you know that the Pharisees were anal nut-jobs. But that is what Jesus says. Forget the "born again" stuff and the children -- turn yourself into an anal nut-job instead. Our righteousness, and our adherence to the laws of the old testament, must exceed that of the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Which means we need to start killing a whole lot of people.
And then there is the famous verse, John 3:16:


  • "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
So which is it??? What do you have to do to have eternal life and go to heaven??? There are probably 15 other stipulations scattered throughout the Bible. There is no way to know which is right, and they all contradict each other. Now that you have looked at all this stuff, one thing should be crystal clear: Jesus had absolutely no idea what he was talking about.
The most amazing part of all this is that "eternal life" is a total fantasy. No one gets eternal life, because what Jesus is peddling is a scam. Every biologist will tell you with certainty that all of life is a chemical reaction. Therefore, the whole idea of a "soul" is a figment of human imagination. See proof #25 and proof #27 for details.

When you add all of these examples up, the truth is completely obvious. Jesus wasn't "the son of God." He was neither perfect nor sinless. Jesus was a total jerk. He was a fatuous person if there ever was one. And he was a snake oil salesman besides. The fact that "Christians" cannot see this shows the depth of their delusion.

It also shows that God is completely imaginary. For further details see proof #10, proof #14, proof #15, proof #18, proof #21, and proof #33.
More...
 
maxinger said:
What is your profession?
Seems like you are well-read on all these theological things.
More...

Carpentry, contracting in carpentry, and now custom carpentry and handyman type things working directly with homeowner clients via word of mouth. No employees. About 25 hours a week, 30 max. A very simple and low pressure approach to terrestrial survival and maintenance.

I've never been a pro, or even semi-pro teacher or speaker on theological or spiritual subjects. But my interest extends over 37 years having ended a nascent musical career to focus primarily on theological/spiritual subjects. Occasionally income did suffer when i prioritized further study.

For a few years now i no longer study or hardly even read on the subject. If i did study something it would be on the finer details of meditation as advised by masters in the direction i am moving. I don't own a bible anymore for decades, but did study it hard for the first 12 years of my interest(s) starting age 20. Revelation, regarding my current world-view, came ten years ago, not through the bible, but through some other book(s). I have clarified my understanding by writing/sharing on the subject as a hobby, trying to clarify it for others. As a result, my own perspective/theology/world-view is completely settled and fixed. There is no need for further study.

The only thing left to do is to meditate, and thereby gain whatever else i need to know through actual experience. I'm waiting for weariness to set in deeper to begin. By weariness i mean complete capitulation and disinterest in the affairs of this world including people, politics and competition. On my side, i have no interest in traveling, or curiosity about seeing other places. Nor do i have an interest in re-incarnating, fixing instead to end the ego in this current incarnation, but realize my weariness-to-distraction ratio may lead to another incarnation. I'm not worried about salvation so-to-speak (the total end of ego) but a little concerned about my distraction-to-weariness ratio which extends my experience of egoic survival conditions. All in all i am well positioned to succeed before the next rapid radical change (traditional death scenario). By succeed i mean the death of the ego, which ends the traditional death scenarios.

Publicizing and broadcasting by writing on the subject is not primarily aimed at making converts, as do too many other drinkers of theological whiskey. I don't need drinking partners. I no longer even keep friends who share, or at least come close to sharing the attitudes i espouse. There are no groups i hang with. Writing is mainly to settle my own mind when it feels a little too distracted by egoic survival conditions, to feel better, and inch toward the moment my final meditation begins. I endeavor to be the clearest and most concise i can be, increasing it's likelihood of being of use to other egoic explorers, to be kept in history until history ends for them too. Salvation is really something you do alone. There is no simultaneous jump off point where dozens or hundreds of egos do it together, even if they meditate together. There is no moment when millions or billions see the light of Christ dawning in the east, so-to-speak. Christ dawns upon one's mind when that mind is ready and weary enough to sacrifice it's egoic conditions, conditions which conversely sacrifice Christ, or at least the awareness of Christ as one's Self. They are mutually exclusive.

Currently i enjoy pseudo-awareness of Christ as Self, while yet retaining egoic conditions with consequent distractions. I am not fully occupied with Christ as Self with total mental and psychological resources. This comes through meditation and yields experience, direct experience of the Self (as the Good, as the Christ). My writings are for the benefit of everyone who must eventually pass over this temporary path toward the return of full awareness as permanent experience (rather than brief glimpses). Experience functions as it's own sales-letter, further motivating a desire for total experience. Experience also yields it's own lessons to write about. Total experience of Self as Christ comes with the total end of egoic distractions: the total replacement of faith with actual knowledge, primarily knowledge of Self. Reading about other ego's experience of temporary release (of egoic conditions) can also be quite motivating. The most popular report of egoic release, to date, is the release of Jesus' ego, allowing him to know his Self as Christ. But there are others since then, less popular, to be found and learned from. A few have written some things. Many have not. There is enough written for all to succeed, if they seek. I make a small contribution.

Pseudo-awareness of Self as Christ is a powerful and pleasant position to operate from, regardless interference from ego. Anything written from this state of mind should be considered "scripture" by the wise, and anathema by fools. There are better, more detailed scriptures than mine, to each as the student is ready. But mine are better than the bible and serve as a decent correction of the errors perpetuated in the cannoned collection and it's exponents.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top