I read some of Ian's entries in the other forum regarding "Perfection". Here is my question:

If God is the Creator--He is-- and He is perfect, then why does evil exist in His "perfect" Creation?

Or...

How can a Perfect Creator allow imperfections to exist in His Creation?

....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 18, 2004

Answers

Well, my ver short answer (cause I have church to attend) for now is...

That imperfection does not indicate God, but man. Or, even more directly Satan. But, I think that all of this imperfection is the flip side to Free Will. God cannot be good unless He does good things. Those good things open the door to evil if we choose not to obey or learn from God's will. So, it is really man's own weakness that evil is in the world. David may chant "Sin Nature" and man's inability to choose God. I think that man has every open door and may choose which door he thinks is for him at the risk of rejecting God. Free Will can be the purist form of obedience because it is a conscious choice to accept Christ.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 18, 2004.

"I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.

For those wondering, Ian's verse is Exodus 20:5

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" KJV

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 18, 2004.

my point being?

well, I don't know. i am confused.

David -- what's your view on God (A) being jealous and (B) reaping disproportionately (??) to the crime?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 18, 2004.

I have wondered about this too. God's depicted personality (for lack of better words) seems to have changed from the Old Testament to the New. This preceived difference was partially responsible for the many gnostc schisms occuring in the very early Church. The 2nd century heretic Marcion taught that the God of Genesis was an entirely different less important entity (almost sinister). Other gnostics saw the OT God as a demiurge (creator), a lesser divine power subject to or a part of the true God. How did they get this idea?

I can't imagine God "changing." Is there something different about the way God was perceived, or did He reveal himself differently to the New Testament authors? Was this related to Christ's ultimate sacrifice for the world,... a new covenant?

Word's like "angry" and "jealous" seem to be more descriptive of human weakness. At some level I can understand how these early heresies may have been generated...perhaps from confusion about how God was understood and described in the Old Testament. Before these theological errors were corrected, they nearly tore the Church apart.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 20, 2004.

David, you've critizied me for bringing in Gnostic information in relation to understanding Christianity. Well, here it is again, but from Jim. We have to look at the overall picture in order to understand the details, I suppose.

The word "hate" has been used to depicted God as being, uh, hateful. I have never subscribed to such a notion. "Hate" will always mean to "reject" something, in my frame of thinking. I think that when we start putting a "human" nature on God, we start making big leaps backwards in faith. Hey, the Gnostics did the same things, but in a more distorted way. They took interpretation to new levels, be they low levels.

(I'm back online at school, amazing!)

....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.

uh....."criticized"...."critisized"....."kreety-sized"....uh, "thought me wrong".

................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.

I'm not sure what David's objection about the discussion of gnostisism was because I never read the post where it was discussed. I don't mean to step on toes, but I would be interested in understanding his reasons for being "critical." If its simply not an appropriate subject for an "Ask Jesus" forum, I can understand, accept and will drop it.

That being said, the many gnostic movements in the early Church are an historical fact. Gnostic gospels were used, and treasured in some early christian communities but were eventually discovered, determined to be in error, and thrown out. The theological "battles" for authentication of many circulating scriptures and gospels and the questions and controvercies that arose brought about a tremendous volume of written works (Irenaeus for one). That these early responses to gnostic heresies may have had the affect of clarifying early Church teachings I think is undeniable. It has likely affected our understanding of Christianity today. It certainly at least had the effect of focusing the Church's attention on establishing which of the many scriptures that were circulating around were to become the "canon" and thereby on what was to be part of the New Testament we use today. My only reason for mentioning gnosticism in the first place was to try to understand why God seems different in the Old Testament. I suppose the gnostic part didn't have to be part of the question, but feel it clarified the idea that God was perceived differently by the New Testament authors.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), January 21, 2004.

I just don't see why rod has to bring gnosticism into EVERY thread he posts in.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

Jim has made it very clear as to why Gnosticism is mentioned right along Christianity; I couldn't have said it any better. I still see Gnosticism alive and well, although not called by name, in many interpretations today. I think that some will resort to gnostic thinking in order to explain away some truths they are unwilling to accept--enters anti-Transubstantiation. That's why, David.

.....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 21, 2004.

Gnostic ideas (secret knowledge) still with us, David.

They never left.

Perfection is a Gnostic trait, since they want to partake of the secret knowledge which will make them better to others.

It survives in the Catholic Church: examples:Priest should not be married. Gnostics felt sex defiled them.

Women cannot attain the status of men (since wonmen are not perfect beings). That is why women are not priests.

The virgin birth attests that only a perfect being can be taken out of a perfected body. That is why Mary supposedly came out of a virgin herself(Anna) and remained a virgin all of her life , even after having Jesus.

It remains also among all Christian fundamentalists who believe in the 1000 reign of Christ. It was a Gnostic belief. It was believed by Cerinthus and his gollowers as mentioned by Eusebius.

It appears in the belief that Michael the Archangel came from Heaven, originally as Mary. The Jehovah's Witnesses say it is Jesus.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

Jim Furst, I don't think our our New Testament writings are free of Gnosticim.

The Gospel of John in the dalogues and Revelation sound Gnostic to me.

Examples: The Logos from John 1. When the Gostics took a simple word loke Dabar, meaning word in Hebrew and coverted it into the logos, they introduced the idea of the demiurge, another God who was with God in the beginning.

Yet, in Hebrew, Dabar just means God speaks to you, he gives you a message.

Revelation about the 144000 being virgins and reigning with the lamb 1000 years.

Mark's version which says that Jesus only speaks listeners in parables so they won't understand.Yet, to the disciples he explains the meaning.

This means, Jesus only taught a secret knowledge to his disciples.

To me, John and Revelation are more Gnostic than the so called Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Thomas has sayings as parables. They are the backbone of Mark, which inturn is the backbone of Matthew, which in turn influenced Luke.

The original John is about mitracles. Onluy the setting is different. To these miracles, long speecheds supposedly said by Jesus were added.

There is no proof from Paul, Peter, James, other than the Godspel attributed to John which staes Jesus talked that way.

It surprises me John has no parables. Parables were common in Jewish literature since the says of King David, 1000 years before Christ came into this world.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

Rod, transubstantiation is not a truth from the Bible, but a belief.

No one has yet proven to me the bread truly becomes the flesh of Christ and the wine his real blood.

You must understand that 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul speaks of abuses in the Lord's supper(Jesus), he is referring to Exodus 13 where the blood of the lambs or goats protecxtys the people from death.

He equates Jesus memorial as a kind of Exodus type event where Jesus flesh and blood will protect us from evil.

Paul uses a lot of allegories in his expositions.

Remember Paul was a Jew, Rod. He wasn't a Roman Catholic.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

Hi Elpidio.

We've had this discussion before. I'm trying to remove Gnosticism from the Book of John, but at times, it is very difficult. It doesn't sit well with me having those gnostic tones in the Bible.

It is a gnostic believe that Jesus would make the woman like a man. The world would end when all became men. I'm not sure exactly what they were thinking, but there is that Hermaphrodite phenomena to note.

I'm not a Gnostic, but it is interesting to seperate fact from fiction.

........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

No.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

I've read about Mysticism in the Christianity. It was the practice of intense prayer and living in God's Word. It was the shutting off of the senses and closing off the world in order to experience the presence of God. It was the "switching" on of a "light" that shines on beauty, harmony, and perfection. Sounds great. Sounds Gnostic.

Sounds Ascetic. Sounds like the prayer ritual. Sounds like a reason non-Catholics pray the way they do. I was raised to pray specific prayers in a specific posture in a specific tone of voice. Suddenly, that format was shattered by my first hearing of Protestant praying. It left behind that sacred sense I was accustom to.

.........................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

I believe Rod, Christianity adopted what it felt could help her defeat the other religioins of the day.

In Egypt they used to celebrate the birth of their God on January 6. Thus why in the East it is still celebrated as Christ's birthday.

In the west it ws in December 25, the Saturnalia.

In the same manner, when writers like Tertullian left th church for Montanism, the church adopted certain practices to avoid an exodus.

The rosary comes from the Muslims throught the Hindus and Budhists.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 22, 2004.

"The rosary comes from the Muslims throught the Hindus and Budhists."

serious allegation.

pls substantiate.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2004.

Ian,

Francis of Assissi tried to covert the Muslims by the 1200s. He failed.

He realized they used beads for praying.

Thus the rosary was born. By the 1450s it almost looks like the one in use today.

Besides the rosary, Francis also created the pastorellas, a kind of theater to show how Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 during the reign of Augustus. We call them posadas in Spanish, because people go from place to place asking for a lodging place, getting rejected at each stop, until the end.

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.

I've also wondered about the "novena" as being handed down from Egyptian prayer vigils. I'm just wondering. It isn't the pagan issue, but the meaning of particular practices that have now become standard Christian articles and actions of faith.

............................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2004.

Elpidio

".... throught the Hindus and Budhists"?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 28, 2004.

Ian,

Have you heard the Hindu manthras? They tend to be repetitous just like the rosary: 10 Hail Marys...

Hare Rama, Hare Krishna, Hare,hare....

Q. Is there any Manthra or Japa that will give us this Santhi state that you spoke about just now? If there is any, which is the important one? A. Manthra and Japa are essential for all types of men. What is a manthra? 'Ma' means 'manana' and 'thra' means 'saving'; so 'manthra' means that which can save you if you meditate on it. Manthra will save you from being caught up in the coils of this worldly life which is infested with death, grief and pain. Of all manthras, the Pranava is the highest and the best. It is the very head and crown of all of them.

Q. Suppose each one does the Japam of the name of the Ishtadevatha according to his own light; I believe it is not wrong. Or is it? A. You mean that however savage or foolish a man may be, he cannot but call on the Lord! Well, if the name is recited along with the Pranava, it is bound to be beneficial. Just as the waters of the ocean are raised into the sky by the rays of the sun and then, falling as rain, they form rills and rivers and rush towards the ocean to become once again the waters of the ocean, all sounds and manthras that were once only Pranava, reach the Pranava through the Japa and other disciplines and rites. They all get merged in the Pranava, their source.

Q. Swami! Some elders have said that the more bija-aksharas a manthra has, the more effective it is. Are such manthras to be preferred to others which have only a few bija-aksharas? A. I don't agree with the view that when the number of bija-aksharas diminishes, there is less chance for concentration in Dhyana. Sadhakas would be benefited more if they repeat the Panchakshari or Ashtakshari with the Pranava added in the beginning. When they have proceeded some distance thus, they can give up even the words and concentrate on the Form depicted through the sound and transform the Manthra into the Devatha Himself. That is why the Sruthi says, 'Nissabdo Brahma Uchyathe' - "Brahma is Silence, absence of Sound."

This I took Iam from http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/askbaba/prasnottaravahini/prasnottara13.ht ml

Gayathri - in Sanskrit, means those who sing or chant will be saved.

Manthra means any letter or syllable or word or sentence or their multiples, when repeated several times (in thousands) in the same manner, will develope an uniform sound wave. At that stage that letter or syllable or word or sentence and their multiples will become Manthra.

GAYATHRI MAHA MANTHRA OOM l BHUR BHUVAS SUVAHA : l TATH SAVITHUR VARENIYAM I BHARGO DEVASYA DHEEMAHI l DHIYO YO NA : PRACHODAYATH ll Meaning : We meditate on that adorable light of the divine Supreme who should rouse our intellects. When you finish chanting Gayathri Manthra, please conclude by chanting the following. SARVAM SRI KRISHNARPANA MUSTHU ll OOM SHANTHI : SHANTHI : SHANTHI : ll

Manthras were pronounced by ancient saints. There are about seven crore manthras. Gayathri Manthra is the prime most manthra. Without chanting Gayathri Manthra if some one chants other manthras, he will not get the full benefit. In Bhagavath Gita, Krishna has said that among Manthras, HE is The Gayathri Manthra (Chapter - 10, Sloka - 35). Gayathri Manthra is a gist all Vedas. (Veda means knowledge). Hence, chanting Gayathri Manthra is equal to chanting Vedas. Gayathri Manthra when chanted properly, improves physical health, mental health, memory power, knowledge, courage, will power, brightness etc. Simply - it can bring anything and everything. Gayathri Manthra has 24 letters - represents 24 divine powers which include the powers of 9 planets in the solar system. Gayathri Manthra is the only manthra that destroys our sins (sins of this birth and previous births). Once the sins are destroyed, good things will start happening in one's life. Gayathri Manthra is also called Universal Prayer as it means "We meditate .....". "We" represents all human beings on this Universe. Hence, this manthra should be chanted by every one. This I took from egonval@yahoo.com), January 28, 2004.

Somehow Ian my e-mail instead of This Manthra/a>

came out.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), January 28, 2004.

I want to know why christians say Jesus sacrificed his life. I dont see any sacrifice in his death. All I see is, he was cruelly killed by Jews. Jesus was not able to defend himself. So his end is very pathetic and I regret for the sufferings he underwent. What happened to him was human right violation. But saying he sacrificed his lfe is an exaggeration. How can a man who cannot defend himself be a savior. Please undersand, my intention is not to hurt the sentiments of Christians. All I feel is the Church is telling all lies to fool people and dominate the wolrd. Please forgive me If I had hurt any one and I apologise

-- Amarnath (ethir_amarnath@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Jesus was Jewish. He was executed by Romans with some comlicity with the elite temple Jews called the Sanhedren. One of many Jewish but (rather small) sects.

Christians believe his sacrifice opened the possibility of salvation to all humans. He sas the sacrificial "lamb of God."

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), October 19, 2004.

I want to know why christians say Jesus sacrificed his life.

{Because he did.}-Zarove

I dont see any sacrifice in his death.

{ Then you aren't relaly seeing things as they where...}-Zarove

All I see is, he was cruelly killed by Jews.

{Correction, he was crruelly klled by Romans by pretence of temple Jews and a small number of Pharasee's...}-Zarove

Jesus was not able to defend himself.

{Obviously, you have a poor grasp of the Gospels. even if Jesus was purely Human, he new what was goign to happen, hence his night in Gethsemone. He knew he was ot be arrested and killed, and he COULD have left... in the middle of he night, to safety. He chose to stay.

He wasnt hunted down and dragged out of hiding, he waited for his captors, in Gethsemone, where he knew he wol be taken. He voluntarily remained in Gethsemone till his arrest. This is why it is he who laid down his life for us. He allowed it to happen.

That and, being caable of callign down legion of Angles and not, mean it was a sacrifice.}-Zarove

So his end is very pathetic and I regret for the sufferings he underwent.

{You call being elevated to the position of the gratest Hero to ever live and toppling the old stucture of power taken by brite force pathetic??? }-Zarove

What happened to him was human right violation.

{No suhc thing...this was firts century Palistine...}-Zarove

But saying he sacrificed his lfe is an exaggeration.

{No its not. He volunteraly allowed himself to be arrested to make his point, and subsequently allowed the arrest, tiral, and crucifiction. Again, he coild have skipped town instead of remaiign in Gethsemone...Do you even knw the cercumstances of Jesus's Death?}- Zarove

How can a man who cannot defend himself be a savior.

{Again, you overlook the obviosu facts. One of which is he coidl have left. Another is Simon Peter drew his sword and attempted to KILL a Roman Soldier, lopping off his ear. Jesus had a following, and coidl have commanded his followers to instigate a rebellion. He chose not to. He coidl have left town. He choe not to. And, for that matter. he coudl have summoned the Angles fo Heaven to kill all who opposed him. He chose not to. I dare say he COULD defend himself...He simpley chose not to...again how much of the Gosple do you relaly know?}- Zarove

Please undersand, my intention is not to hurt the sentiments of Christians.

{oh no worries thir, your igorance of the events of the Gospels leads me to not be able to be offended... amused mabe, btu not offended.}- Zarove

All I feel is the Church is telling all lies to fool people and dominate the wolrd.

{Uhm... and you base this on what???}-Zarove

Please forgive me If I had hurt any one and I apologise

{No need, but you don even seem to have all the facts, either from secular hisotry or form the gospels themselves...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 19, 2004.

One very important fact...

Jesus had the time and opportunity to run away from His captors and crucifixion. He did not.

Next, we are gonna hear that Jesus' mission was a failure. Everything fell apart. If that is true, then explain why His name has had such an impact on the world?

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 19, 2004.

Welcome Armanath. Your comments are welcome

Assistant Moderator

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 20, 2004.

Jesus was and is God. He commanded the sea and it obeyed Him. He commanded dead people to return to life and they did. He commanded lepers to be cured and they were. He commanded a tree to die and it did. If Jesus was not voluntarily giving up His life, He could simply have commanded that those who were arresting Him drop dead, or simply cease to exist, and they would have. As God, He had infinite power at His disposal, but He "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:6-7) It was in this knowledge - the knowledge that they could touch Him only to the extent that He allowed them to - that Jesus could rightly claim, "I lay down My life so that I may take it up again. No-one takes it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." (John 10:17-18)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 20, 2004.

Armanath

if you read the Old Testament, you will begin to notice a striking symmetry between it and the life of Our Lord.

in particular, have a look at the "Passover" - the night on which every first born in Egypt was killed, save for those that had performed a special task.

that task was to kill and roast a lamb, to eat it with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. the blood of the lamb was to be daubed on the door of the house. those houses would be spared this terrible plight.

this is recorded in the Book of Exodus.

in the Gospels we find the Last Supper, to celebrate the Passover. at that Supper, He asked Judas, whom he knew was to betray Him, to do so but quickly. the Apostles could have rounded on Judas. but, no, Judas was allowed to betray Our Lord.

moreover, during the Supper, Our Lord initiated the Eucharist. He commanded us to eat and drink of His Precious Body and Blood. there we see the Sacrifice of the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world".

why was it done this way?!?! why didn't He just kill all the sinners and end the world there and then?

who knows. that's a mystery.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 21, 2004.