The Christ Within

[Inaut]

I’ve often viewed Christ as the proto human consciousness that is within each of us. The life source. All that is good. The issue is that we don’t know how to tune ourselves to it because of genetic trauma (food included) and manipulation. I’ve shifted from a literal view of Script-Ure to more of the esoteric. It unlocks something that is found in all books of faith and ancient understandings. This resonates closest with my thoughts/feelings currently:


View: https://youtu.be/ntyd-eEGX5M

The Optic Thalamus and Pineal Gland are Amazing.

Most of you have heard about the optic thalamus and pineal gland, but what do they actually do? Allow yourself to go beyond conditioned..

www.sigha.org

 

[EustaceBagge]

New Age stuff... I will simply never get it.

 

[CoconutEffect]

This is what Jung described as the Self. Christ is a symbol for the Self. What you could be if unconscious realities reach conscious awareness. Your best potential. It’s a process of dying and rebirth, or death and resurrection. Abuse of all kinds can make the Self hard to contact, also known as “soul loss”. Shamanic rituals can call the soul back into the body. I recommend Robert L Moore’s book “The Archetype of Initiation”.

 

[tankasnowgod]

New Age stuff... I will simply never get it.

Some of the principles that you dismiss as "New Age" are several thousand years old, older than the so called "Old Testament." The OP even refers to "Ancient Understandings."

Of course, if you refuse to explore or research, your last six words will indeed become a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[EustaceBagge]

Some of the principles that you dismiss as "New Age" are several thousand years old, older than the so called "Old Testament."

Of course, if you refuse to explore or research, your last six words will indeed become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Meh, they are not called the mysteries for nothing. Only the initiated properly understood the stuff. I'd rather not dabble with it. The way some people talk about it in regards to Christ sounds like Gnosticism a lot.

These people would be branded witches in the past... so meh.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Meh, they are not called the mysteries for nothing. Only the initiated properly understood the stuff.

I mean, suit yourself.

I'd rather not dabble with it. The way some people talk about it in regards to Christ sounds like Gnosticism a lot.

These people would be branded witches in the past... so meh.

I have no doubt I would have been branded a heretic in the past. Actually, I'm a bit proud of that fact.

And truthfully, I think my views on the whole fake "Covid Pandemic" are enough to get me branded as a witch today (as we know, the maniacs doing the branding today don't even think gender exists, so probably wouldn't even use the term "Warlock" out of fear of supporting the patriarchy).

 

[tankasnowgod]

I’ve often viewed Christ as the proto human consciousness that is within each of us. The life source. All that is good. The issue is that we don’t know how to tune ourselves to it because of genetic trauma (food included) and manipulation. I’ve shifted from a literal view of Script-Ure to more of the esoteric. It unlocks something that is found in all books of faith and ancient understandings. This resonates closest with my thoughts/feelings currently:


View: https://youtu.be/ntyd-eEGX5M

The Optic Thalamus and Pineal Gland are Amazing.

Most of you have heard about the optic thalamus and pineal gland, but what do they actually do? Allow yourself to go beyond conditioned..

www.sigha.org

Have you looked at what is now called the "Jefferson Bible?"

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (The Jefferson Bible) - Free ebook

Download the free PDF, epub, or Kindle ebook. No registration needed. This is Thomas Jefferson's attempt at editing the Gospels into a single, coherent narrative.

www.globalgreyebooks.com

This is Thomas Jefferson's attempt at editing the Gospels into a single, coherent narrative. The text here focuses on the attributed words of Jesus: chiefly the Sermon on the Mount and the parables. Jefferson highlights the ideas of the Gospels, rather than miracles and wonder stories. For instance, Jefferson ends the story with Jesus' burial: there is no resurrection in this tale, and no post-death interaction with the disciples. This edition contains a very short section with some other writings of Jefferson on religion.

In that version, there is an essay from Jefferson himself in the beginning, talking about his own beliefs, and how he thought Jesus laid down the best moral code and principles he had ever seen.

 

[EustaceBagge]

I have no doubt I would have been branded a heretic in the past. Actually, I'm a bit proud of that fact.

And truthfully, I think my views on the whole fake "Covid Pandemic" are enough to get me branded as a witch today (as we know, the maniacs doing the branding today don't even think gender exists, so probably wouldn't even use the term "Warlock" out of fear of supporting the patriarchy).

With regards to Christiniaty your a bit off the mark. Being branded a heretic in the times of Christian supremacy is different than being branded a heretic today. Well, we at least get you have a rebellious spirit so cherish it for what it's worth.

 

[tankasnowgod]

With regards to Christiniaty your a bit off the mark. Being branded a heretic in the times of Christian supremacy is different than being branded a heretic today.

Are you sure about that?

So, I guess that Matthew 7:1 didn't apply at the times of Christian supremacy? Nor the principle Jesus espoused in John 8:1-11? It would be other mortals doing that branding, correct? Either then or now?

 

[EustaceBagge]

Are you sure about that?

So, I guess that Matthew 7:1 didn't apply at the times of Christian supremacy? Nor the principle Jesus espoused in John 8:1-11? It would be other mortals doing that branding, correct? Either then or now?

My point is this and I don't want to personally critisize you: Do you think this New Age stuff is compatible with Christianity? I don't. But I see you guys always using the name of Christ for something that is wholly esoteric. Am I that off mark when I say this is more similar to gnosticism? Honest?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Do you think this New Age stuff is compatible with Christianity?

What "New Age stuff?" As I stated above, some of the principles that OP is exploring are older than the Old Testament.

I don't. But I see you guys always using the name of Christ for something that is wholly esoteric.

Who is "you guys?" Who are you lumping me in with? If you have a problem with something I say or have said, why don't you specifically ask about it?

The definition of the word "esoteric" is-

1. Intended for or understood by only a small group, especially one with specialized knowledge or interests: synonym: mysterious.
2. Relating to or being a small group with specialized knowledge or interests.
3. Not known by or suitable for the public; private.

So, anyone who doesn't agree with public or mainstream beliefs in anything would really be lumped into the category of "esoteric," for better or worse. I see what passes for public knowledge today (in many fields), and most of it is trash. That pretty much only leaves the private or the esoteric.

And besides all of that, wouldn't more esoteric teachings or beliefs be in line with Christ's own words in Matthew 7:6?

Am I that off mark when I say this is more similar to gnosticism? Honest?

Wait, what are you even being critical of? "New Age stuff," or gnosticism? For the gnostics have been around for several thousand years as well.

Within any group, there can be many differences. But the core tenet of Gnostism is that knowledge is the way (or key) to salvation. I, personally, tend to agree with that principle. I would think pretty much anyone interested in the work of Ray Peat would as well. After all, Peat is the one who said pretty much the only valid protocol there is is "Perceive. Think. Act." That, itself, prizes knowledge at a very high level. Haidut also has the words "To Extract Knowledge from Matter" at the top of his blog. Aren't these statements very similar to the core gnostic principle?

 

[EustaceBagge]

What "New Age stuff?" As I stated above, some of the principles that OP is exploring are older than the Old Testament.

Who is "you guys?" Who are you lumping me in with? If you have a problem with something I say or have said, why don't you specifically ask about it?

The definition of the word "esoteric" is-

So, anyone who doesn't agree with public or mainstream beliefs in anything would really be lumped into the category of "esoteric," for better or worse. I see what passes for public knowledge today (in many fields), and most of it is trash. That pretty much only leaves the private or the esoteric.

And besides all of that, wouldn't more esoteric teachings or beliefs be in line with Christ's own words in Matthew 7:6?

Wait, what are you even being critical of? "New Age stuff," or gnosticism? For the gnostics have been around for several thousand years as well.

Within any group, there can be many differences. But the core tenet of Gnostism is that knowledge is the way (or key) to salvation. I, personally, tend to agree with that principle. I would think pretty much anyone interested in the work of Ray Peat would as well. After all, Peat is the one who said pretty much the only valid protocol there is is "Perceive. Think. Act." That, itself, prizes knowledge at a very high level. Haidut also has the words "To Extract Knowledge from Matter" at the top of his blog. Aren't these statements very similar to the core gnostic principle?

What a word salad. You literally write like a politician.

I'm being critical of you people involving Christ as a metaphor for your new age cults trying to rationalize the bible. This trend is postmodern in nature and rightfully called New Age. Even though the knowledge may have been of old.

I just don't get how you take my question of how gnosticism is similar to what your trying to do by linking esoteric knowledge with Christianity and turn it into how you agree with gnosticism. I never even said I disagreed with it. On its own it is very good, but it should be seen as something different than christianity as is. And so my question is, again, how come you take this old knowledge which was always in mysteries and symbols and try to link it with Christianity. The fact that the knowledge is older than the Old Testament or not doesn't give it validity you know?

OP could have started this thread with literally any name instead of "The Christ within". It could've been "The Adam within", or "The Moses within". Why Christ? Because Christ is God. And who believes everyone has God within them, aka is their own God? This one I won't answer.

Just don't equate this stuff for whatever reason with Christianity. It is not catholicism, not protestantism, it just doesnt agree, it doesnt.

 

[Peater]

@EustaceBagge I agree. "The Christ Within", come on, the whole point is the Christ 'With OUT' as an externality, a focus.

Not sure how you can involve 'Christ' yet forego the fallen nature of man inherent in Christian belief.

Get your own figurehead!

 

[Momma]

I’ve often viewed Christ as the proto human consciousness that is within each of us. The life source. All that is good. The issue is that we don’t know how to tune ourselves to it because of genetic trauma (food included) and manipulation. I’ve shifted from a literal view of Script-Ure to more of the esoteric. It unlocks something that is found in all books of faith and ancient understandings. This resonates closest with my thoughts/feelings currently:


View: https://youtu.be/ntyd-eEGX5M

The Optic Thalamus and Pineal Gland are Amazing.

Most of you have heard about the optic thalamus and pineal gland, but what do they actually do? Allow yourself to go beyond conditioned..

www.sigha.org

Does this esoteric view address:
1- how were the thalamus and pineal glands even created?
2- what’s the meaning of life?
3- what happens when we die?

 

[HighT]

Do you think this New Age stuff is compatible with Christianity? I don't. But I see you guys always using the name of Christ for something that is wholly esoteric. Am I that off mark when I say this is more similar to gnosticism? Honest?

This is how new agers trying to get Chirstians into their satanic doctrines.

Does this esoteric view address:
1- how were the thalamus and pineal glands even created?
2- what’s the meaning of life?
3- what happens when we die?

Im sure they adress it with lies and mumbo jumbo. But here are the real answers:

1. We are made by God image.
2. To reject the devil and come to God/Christ/Jesus
3. You are geting into Heaven and have everlasting life or you go hell and have everlasting boil.

 

[Momma]

This is how new agers trying to get Chirstians into their satanic doctrines.



Im sure they adress it with lies and mumbo jumbo. But here are the real answers:

1. We are made by God image.
2. To reject the devil and come to God/Christ/Jesus
3. You are geting into Heaven and have everlasting life or you go hell and have everlasting boil.

Oh yes. Thank you.
I was trying to expose the deception.
I executed that poorly.

 

[tankasnowgod]

What a word salad. You literally write like a politician.

Ridiculous. Politicians never try to define the words they say, so they can be all things to all people.

I'm being critical of you people involving Christ as a metaphor for your new age cults trying to rationalize the bible.

Again, what "cult?" And what "people" are you involving me with?

This trend is postmodern in nature and rightfully called New Age.

I am, myself, not interested in anything "New Age."

OP could have started this thread with literally any name instead of "The Christ within". It could've been "The Adam within", or "The Moses within". Why Christ? Because Christ is God. And who believes everyone has God within them, aka is their own God? This one I won't answer.

Now who hasn't read the Bible? Jesus isn't "God." He's the Son of God. In fact, in the first three Gospels, he's always referred to as "The Son of Man.

Of course, if you don't believe that everyone has at least the spark of god within them, then you clearly don't believe that god is infinite or unlimited. Because then, the limited would be limiting the unlimited. And that's impossible. I guess you also don't believe in Psalms 82:6 in the Old Testament, nor John 10:34 in the new. And doesn't Genesis 3:22 even imply that we are now equal to God (or the Elohim) when they said "Behold, the man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil?" The plural implies there was more than one, so the entities talking in that book probably are not the true Creator of the Boundless Universe. And the Hebrew word in the original text was "Elohim," which itself is a plural, but translated into English (a language that didn't even exist when the Old or New Testament was written) as the singular word "god" or "God."

Just don't equate this stuff for whatever reason with Christianity. It is not catholicism, not protestantism, it just doesnt agree, it doesnt.

I am certainly not trying to agree with either catholicism or protestantism. Having read the New Testament, I certainly didn't see anything in that book to justify a position like Pope. Neither does Catholicism and Protestantism agree with each other.

But maybe there is something in the New Testament that can justify the position of the Pope? If so, maybe you could mention the verses that do justify that position?

 

[Perry Staltic]

Now who hasn't read the Bible? Jesus isn't "God." He's the Son of God. In fact, in the first three Gospels, he's always referred to as "The Son of Man.

He's not the father, but he is God. People often use "father" and "God" interchangeably, which causes confusion. The son is as much God as the father is; he's the image (form) of the invisible God. Thomas called the risen lord "his God" and Jesus didn't rebuke him for idolatry. He refereed to himself as the son of man, but he never referred to himself as the son of God. He called the invisible God his father and let his works speak for themselves.

 

[Perry Staltic]

But maybe there is something in the New Testament that can justify the position of the Pope? If so, maybe you could mention the verses that do justify that position?

Quite the contrary. Peter wasn't the head of the Jerusalem church; James Jesus' brother was. Peter was entrusted with the gospel to the circumcision, as were the other disciples, but Peter was considered a leader or head apostle.

 

[CoconutEffect]

@EustaceBagge Read more.