Hi Adrian,
My responses to you weren't really meant as a defense of anything. I took the time to look up the original Greek meaning of the word translated into English as the word "church" and shared the results with you.
I strongly agree with the points you have made here. The so-called "church" has had the meaning twisted into something that has been used historically as a means of political and social power. Because of such influences, society was thrown into the Dark Age, when people were put to death for believing such things as the Earth being round and revolving around the Sun instead of the other way around.
Here is something I think is important to keep in mind... if we take the simple meaning of the word:
ek - "out"
klesia - (derived from 'kaleo') - "to call"
although that does carry by connotation to a "gathering" its primary and basic meaning is to "call out" and the resulting assembly refers to "the ones called out".
It stands to reason then that some heed the call, and others do not, and therefore the "assembly" refers to the ones who have been called out and have responded affirmatively. And if there are those who are called out and have responded affirmatively, then it follows that others do not respond and are therefore not gathered, or assembled.
If I throw a fantastic party or event, and I invite a hundred guests, then obviously those in attendance will include only those who responded favorably to my invitation. The others are left out, not because I omitted them or disassociated them, but because either they didn't want to come or did not make attending my event a priority.
In either case, each individual was free to choose whether or not to respond to my invitation.
If then, at the party I decide to give all my guests a gift of great value, then those who attended will of course receive the gift, while the ones who chose not to attend will receive nothing.
That doesn't seem very difficult to understand.
I am like you in respect to the fact I once confused Christianity with Jesus and the Bible. I read and studied the Bible, along with a number of other texts and belief systems. The Bible was for me, just as you said, a book of stories and history and theology. At the time, I did not place any more value or emphasis on it, because I had no basis for distinguishing it from the other texts I was studying.
That is, until Christ revealed himself to me on more than one occasion. After that, I found that when I read the bible, I somehow was illumined and could understand and perceive the meaning of it. And by meaning, I do NOT mean a collection of theological suppositions. I mean, I could understand what God was saying and how it applied to me. It matters not so much to me what you think or say of the bible. I am so much more interested in what it is that God is saying to me. And by "saying" I mean, it isn't always in some kind of direct words, like words spoken into my ears or even my mind... but I mean an unfolding of spiritual growth and understanding.
(I actually find it offensive that you automatically assume that I am not interested in spiritual growth or enlightenment and that I could somehow find myself fed and nourished by compounding some collection of theological beliefs. Come one - give me more credit than that.)You might think I'm evangelizing here, but that isn't my intent. The fact is, I can't speak to you about my spiritual path without talking about Jesus, the Son of God, and that is because he IS the path. Apart from him, I have no path. I don't get Light from him. He is the Light. I don't follow a bunch of truths that people have somehow managed to pound into my head. I seek to know the truth and that is what I have found is that the truth is a person.
The Perfect Expression of Source became a human being and walked about in our midst.
If we look at any external thing, the form of it, then try to go backwards to the invisible, internal thing, then we are going about things the wrong way.
But, what if... the One, the I AM, the One Ground of All Being... actually took on human form and came into this world? What would it mean to look at the perfect externalized and individualized expression of Source?
I am not so clear on what it is that gets peoples' knickers all up in a twist about that. I share something that has brought me immense joy and happiness and spiritual enlightenment, and I get hammered and belittled because of it. Where is the sense in that? If I share what has happened to me, why is that considered "Evangelizing?" Do you even know where the word comes from or derives its meaning?
In Greek, the word comes from "eu" meaning "well, or good". (As in "eulogy" which is to "speak well or good" about a person) and "angelos" which means "message" or "messenger" (depending on the derivative in which it is used in a particular context.)
If I speak a "good message" or share some "good news" am I doing something I should not? If that isn't acceptable, then by all means, this is your forum and it isn't my intent to encroach upon your right to run the forum the way you want. I'll "leave", and without hard feelings. I have no personal agenda. It really is not going to affect me, as if my ego were invested in it.
If you, or others, want to attack my views or belittle me for it, then I might or might not choose to respond to those attacks. If I choose to respond then it is to make sure you understand what I am saying.
That doesn't mean I insist that you agree... but I do insist that it is not possible for you to disagree until you have at least listened to what I've said without
assuming that I am speaking entirely within the frame of reference to which you are accustomed. That is to say that you are not listening and therefore cannot truly agree or disagree with me by simply placing the label of "Evangelical Christian" upon me in order to put me in a box. For the box you would place me into would be the box which you've created in your own mind, and not any box that actually encapsulates my being.
I will also not allow myself to be spoken down to, as if I'm some lesser enlightened person because I believe and adhere to the teaching of Jesus and of the apostles. I don't do this or say this for purposes of defending my ego. I do it because it needs to be understood that it is not necessary to deviate from the scriptures in order to attain enlightenment. There is no lack, no falling short. He is the Perfect Expression, the Word, the Way (Path), the Truth, the Eternal Life. The Infinite Source and the I AM of all Being and Consciousness presents no limitation that I can see.
But - while I said "it is not necessary to deviate from scriptures in order to attain enlightenment" I want to be perfectly clear that
I do not imply that I can attain anything by reading a book. That was the point of an earlier post I made, and the beginning of this one when I quoted Jesus saying
"you search the scriptures thinking that because of them you have eternal life, and yet you refuse to come to me that you might have life." The importance of the book is that it points me to him who is the Perfect Externalization and Personalization of I AM.
It is HE, not the book to which I refer as the Source and Being of my life. Rightly you say it isn't about theology.
Even the name "I AM" should help, if you would but open you mind to understand. Let's break it down...
"I AM" is the name given when Moses asked "Whom shall I say has sent me?" Without going into the deeper understanding of "I AM" as the ground of all being and consciousness... let's just dissect the word itself...
(
If you need or want to corroborate what I'm saying here, you don't need to take my word for it, just look it up in any good Hebrew language reference. In fact, I encourage you NOT to take my word for it. It is commendable and expresses intent when a person takes it upon themselves to look for themselves.)The Hebrew word translated "I AM" is known as the "Tetragrammaton". That word is from a Greek compound word where "tetra" means "four" and "grammaton" means "letters". The literal meaning is to say it is the "four lettered name of God."
The four letters to which that referred is YHWH, if we were to "transliterate" (not, "translate") from the Hebrew writing directly into the English alphabet. (For those who might not be familiar with the term, to "transliterate" is to basically "map" or translate, not the meaning of a word, but the letters of a foreign language into the letters used in English, the alphabet. For example the word "ekklessia" is a tranliteration, not a translation, since it has no meaning in the English language and is simply a translation from the Greek letters into the closest corresponding English ones. The same concept can of course be used in reference to Hebrew or any other language that is not based on the same alphabet.)
The word YHWH, then, is an approximated version of the four Hebrew letters that make up the name of God translated as "I AM" in English.
In Hebrew, the letters are consonant sounds, with vowel sounds being indicated by "diacritical marks." So there are some little marks in between the Y, H, W, and H.
As an aside and by way of illustration... if you will recall Jesus saying that "every jot and tittle of the law will be fulfilled..."
Well... those "jots" and "tittles" are the little diacritical markings to which I refer. So in essence he was saying the law will be fulfilled (by him) down to even those little markings that indicate the vowels and breath emphases of the written words.
Consonant sound are formed by various parts of the mouth coming together. Try it "b" is the two lips meeting, and so on. Vowels are the breathing aspects - vowel sounds simply pass through the vocal cords. So, in Hebrew, the words are formed by consonants and the diacritical markings give the breathing sound. So in fact, being an ancient written language, various vowels may be substituted and still the underlying meaning remains intact.
In fact, since the letters are transliterated and it is often impossible to make an exact mapping, various consonants from the English alphabet can be employed to represent the Hebrew letter in question.
The word "YHWH" with vowels supplied becomes "Yahweh". Another form of the same word is "Jehovah." (In which case, the "Y" has been replaced with "J", and the "W" with "V")
Broken down, it looks like this...
Y..... J
A..... E
H..... H + O
W.... V
E.... A
H.... H
Another derivative of the same word is "Yeshua" (Hopefully, the reader can see how that transliteration is made in this case, without my actually breaking it down.)
The word "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form, whereas the Greek form of the word is "Iesus" (pronounced "Ee-Ay-Sus" with the "u" being long.)
You can argue all you want about what that all means. Or you can study it and ponder it and let it feed and nourish you and bring spiritual growth. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other (sorry, just being honest. I don't care what you do with it.)
Personally, by taking these words to heart in and of themselves, I have experienced tremendous spiritual growth. Not because of the words on the page... but by letting those words become alive inside me, by experiencing their meaning and ingesting the spirit of the words.
I shared it here for all to benefit and if someone does benefit from gaining understanding - then good - I'm happy for you.
If on the other hand you want to argue about it, then don't expect a reply from me about it as I have no interest in debating or arguing. I say that because if you don't want to profit by it that is up to you and it is going to neither make nor break my day.
Ok that is enough... later.
aspect
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM