2000-7-31 11:42:00
Joe quoting JJ:
"If karma dictates that a person suffer through disease or other means there will be nothing the disciple can do to heal the person. This is why the first job of the spiritual healer is to discern whether or not a healing is permissible. If it is not permissible under current conditions, a path to healing can be revealed which will give the steps necessary for the afflicted one to obtain wholeness."
Joe response:
Then the high accomplishment of the medical sciences are thus against the karmic plan? Thus, is the relieving of bodily ailments of all who show up at a hospital an act of ignorance?
JJ:
Are you trying to create fodder for an argument my friend? I was talking about spiritual healing and, even if a spiritual healing is not possible, there is nothing wrong with doing all within your power to obtain the healing. I never suggested otherwise. Karma does not take away free will.
Note that I still stated that there are always "steps" that can be taken to obtain "wholeness." There are times that the person is not prepared for a spiritual healing, but there is always a way. One must find it and tread the path.
Joe:
And who is the rare person who can somehow 'discern' who is to be healed and who is not, when certainly no physician nor presbyter can do so?
JJ:
Most people can be taught this. Most at the gathering sensed this ability within themselves when we did healings there.
Joe:
I never once read where Edgar Cayce said "no" to assisting in physical cures of the thousands of people who applied to him over several decades.
JJ:
Nor have I ever said no, yet there have been times that the Spirit said no. But even there solutions have been sought and sometimes found when the will of God was followed. Edgar Cayce used many different methods. When spiritual healing is not permitted, then medicine, herbs and other physical methods are in order as Cayce recommended.
I once knew a woman near death's door with pernicious anemia who asked for a blessing from me when I went to church decades ago. I really wanted to bless her with a miraculous healing, but the Spirit restrained me so I could not promise her a healing.
She received comfort, but her illness remained and then she asked again for another blessing a few weeks later. Again I hoped for a miracle and again the answer was no.
Finally she asked me a third time. This time I just didn't want to go through the motions, but sought for an answer and as I looked within the Spirit said:
"This person is very depressed and her depression focuses her mind on unbelief rather than faith. Lift up her downward focused eyes to the Spirit and she shall be healed."
Before the blessing I told her of the impressions I had from the Spirit and she admitted that she had been very depressed and would attempt to lift her spirits for the blessing.
This time when we laid our hands on her head the answer was yes and I told her she would be healed.
The next time I saw her in church I was delighted to see her happy and perfectly well after a long lingering illness.
Joe quoting JJ:
"Suffering only comes to us when the Purpose of God is resisted. When the patient learns where the resistance is, and corrects it, then a healing becomes possible."
Joe:
And how exactly does a three year-old child with leukemia come to that realization? And exactly how did that child "resist"?
JJ:
A three year old child has usually experienced thousands of years in mortal life in past lives and, as unfortunate as it seems, many of us will suffer effects of karma as children in future lives.
So why do you think children suffer? Do you picture some fiendish God punishing the innocent?
Joe:
It appears to me that the focus should be whether the words of Christ as printed are the truth. And if they are truth, then how can we dismiss them in a secondary belief system?
JJ:
Why do you think that should be the focus?
Jesus said that his followers shall do greater works than he did. (See John 14:12). Pursuing the path to greater works and greater revelation is our focus here and I'm sure Christ would approve. This is not a Bible study class and that is not a bad thing my friend.
When Jesus appeared he did not concentrate on the standard teachings of Moses, but presented new concepts. The true teachers in this age are the same. They will not just rehash the old, but present the new, for after all, God says, "I make all things new." Rev 21:5
Then too Isaiah says: "Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them." Isa 42:9
Joe:
How do we consider how the Sacramental relationship to Christ was sufficient for us to find their paths for almost 2,000 years before any mention of a "Molecular Relationship"? While a Molecular Relationship might be icing on the cake, most prefer the staple meat and potatoes, the 'real food.'
JJ:
The relationship of humanity to Christ has not been sufficient the past 2000 years and have indeed lacked a fullness as was prophesied by Saul:
II Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
II Tim 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Fables have indeed been built around many of the teachings of Christ, including the sacraments.
Concerning my advice to read the archive on a subject already covered JH says: "Am I am not worth your time of such an effort in the here-and-now, my brother?"
JJ:
It's not a matter of what you are worth, but of how much time I have. I cannot physically produce the time to give all the attention they need and want.
Is it not worth it to you as a soul in quest of truth to click over to the archives and read the answers already given?
This is one of the reasons I am seeking to cover various truths point by point so eventually I can answer many questions of new people by referring to the archives. This will allow us to continue on the course with fewer interruptions.
Joe quoting JJ:
"Baptism is a symbol that communicates the principle of rebirth to the inner self. Without this inner rebirth and the release of guilt the kingdom of God will not be realized."
Joe:
How is this accomplished in Baptized infants, who have no ideation of guilt? If the babes-in-arms in the Exodus were equally set as free as their parents had been set free, even though the Jewish babies had no consciousness of their new-found freedom, could not the Sacrament of Baptism equally set them free? Iow, consider that the Sacraments are not symbols merely, as many opine, but actual powers in and of themselves.
JJ:
The Exodus freed men women and children physically which is much different than freedom from guilt.
The baptism of children is not mentioned in the scriptures. Because they have no guilt baptism performed on them is useless. John and Peter commanded people to "repent" and be baptized. Since a child cannot repent, baptism of them is a mockery before God and man.
Joe quoting JJ:
"Tell me of a leader who has power to bind in heaven and I'll answer your question."
Joe:
At least the men, the Apostles, that Christ was addressing when He spoke those words, giving them His power to bind and loose.
JJ:
I was speaking in the present tense and you answered in the past tense.
Joe quotes the following scripture from
John 53: Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have NO LIFE in you.
John 54: He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 55: For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.
John 56 The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
John 57 Just as the father, who has life, sent me, and I have life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life because of me."
In reference to this he said:
I hope we would all agree that Christ was smart enough to say He meant "symbol" instead of "is." In fact, two-thirds of His followers were outraged at this statement, and left Him in a huff. Jesus could have called them back, saying, 'Hey, I meant only symbolically, not literally My Flesh and Blood...,' but Hid did not. And He did not because He was, indeed, being truthful and literal, meaning precisely what He had said.
JJ:
So are you saying that the disciple should literally eat the body of Jesus rather than taking the symbolic bread and wine? Pretty weird doctrine my friend.
Joe:
How can we "expand" on such a clear statement, right out of the Christ's own mouth? If we do not partake in the Eucharist, we have "no life" in us, regardless as to how we may want to call it symbolic and thus unnecessary if we go by another, more elite spiritual path that can bypass all such 'symbols.' Christ said the opposite, that the Eucharist is paramount to having LIFE. It is "clearly presented in the Bible" to millions of people, even non-believers.
JJ:
Surely you do not believe that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ, especially since you cannot name one who can bind on earth as it is in heaven.
Saul speaks sensibly about the Eucharist:
I Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
I Cor 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
The purpose was to stimulate communion and was not to be taken as a literal transformation of the bread and wine into the blood and flesh of the entity who was Jesus.
Joe quoting JJ:
"Baptism and confession are designed to remove guilt, not karma. Of course when guilt is removed the person is free to take more productive moves to pay off karma."
Joe:
How do we prove that is true? We shouldn't accept such opinions as facts without rationale.
JJ:
How do we find out if your version is true? It makes no sense to me. One must check any teaching through their own minds and souls and do their best to come up with the truth.
Joe:
What I am intending is not polemics or any form of debate, but I believe that I am herein witnessing yet another system that 'explains' the Christ-Man and His teachings, as has Protestantism, New Ageism, etc.
JJ:
We attempt to explain a lot of things here. Tagging any teaching with a name makes it neither true not false. The true seeker looks at the teaching and seeks confirmation from within.
Joe:
Before anyone gets the idea that I am an intractable Traditionalist, let me advise that I believe in reincarnation and most all I have read of Cayce, the Akashic Records, etc.
JJ:
You had me fooled. You sounded pretty traditional. I am surprised you are attracted to this forum, but you are welcome nevertheless.
Joe:
The caveat to me is when any new 'system' explains the rather simple truths of the Christ's words with entrenched and seemingly endless complexity, it is usually false.
JJ:
So the atomic bomb did not really go off because it was complex. Your computer does not really work because it too is very complex. Isaiah could not be a true prophet because his writings are probably the mist complex on the planet. Also your body is extremely complex so it could not operate on true principles.
Truth is sometimes simple and sometimes complex. What I attempt to do is make the complex simple and I must be having some success because I have received numerous comments in this direction.
Joe:
I therefore, once again, further beg all readers' to forgive me for stating that the John in J.J.'s book bears very little resemblance to the John in the New Testament.
JJ:
How would you know? Outside of John's doctrinal writings there are only a couple sentences making reference to John - not enough to paint a picture or give character development.
Joe:
And I hope you can all find the generosity to bear with me when I offer my observation that J.J.'s John is of the author's imagination, based on the K.I.S.S. principle alone.
JJ:
You may or may not be correct for I make no claims outside of the fact that you should trust communications given to your own soul. But you cannot disprove anything on the KISS principle, for the John in my book spoke with simplicity.
I hope I've covered your questions to your satisfaction for we now need to get back to the class subject which is:
The principles of the Discovery of Truth.
My top priority will be to progress on this subject and you are welcome to participate.
The latest assignment is:
All of creation takes place because of an interplay of positive and negative (male-female) forces. Most teachers believe that these two forces are exactly equal and balance each other out. Therefore there is no such thing as good and evil in the scheme of things.
Why is this an illusionary belief? Are the positive and negative (good and evil) exactly equal? If not then what does this have to do with the creation of the dominating good? What would happen if the dualities were exactly equal?
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved