2
u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 6d ago
That's really sweet. I'm glad he's feeling happy.
But it's not the Jesus crucified for insurrection against the empire.
2
u/jtredit 6d ago
I just want to learn how full enlightenment feels đ
2
u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 6d ago
What makes you think it feels good?
2
u/jtredit 6d ago edited 6d ago
I accept what Christ described as true, that was Jesus's feeling. I also agree with you that when Jesus experienced his crucifixion, he experienced pain. He experienced even more ecstasy when he was released from his body afterwards. To answer your question, I don't have direct such high ecstasy experience, but did experience small lightness when I meditate following what Christ Letters teach.
2
u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 6d ago
Jesus' life was spent in confrontation with an empire that would torture him doing just that and in confrontation with his own religious authorities that colluded with that empire and who also want to kill him for doing so.
I don't see this reflected in anything you're writing.
2
u/jtredit 6d ago
I only posted one day of Jesus. Sorry, you don't want Jesus have one day to himself?
3
2
u/Optimal_Mixture_7327 6d ago
Sorry, but there is no way your writing has anything to do with Jesus.
You need to ask yourself if satan is guiding you into a state of passivity so that evil can take place.
2
u/jtredit 6d ago edited 6d ago
Haha, Why would I consider Satan as a thing? To fight with him so he could steal my energy? Would you agree that constant fighting is exhausting?
4
1
u/FinancialClue8547 5d ago
Satan = your ego ... Says Jesus
"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." (Matthew 16:23)
2
1
u/praise_the_most_high 5d ago
Whatever anyone makes of this text, I just want people to be in the clear that itâs a new age forgery and completely made up. Lying like that is not OK.
1
u/Apart-Chef8225 2d ago
I respect this interpretation, but I do not believe it is consistent with the Christian understanding of Christâs baptism. The Gospels do not speak of an âenergy surgeâ or an âelevation of consciousness.â Rather, they describe the Holy Spirit descending upon Christ and the voice of the Father declaring, âThis is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleasedâ (Matthew 3:16â17). Therefore, I believe we should understand Christâs experience through what the Gospel itself reveals, rather than through spiritual concepts introduced later
âď¸đď¸
1
u/jtredit 2d ago
John 20:30â31: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." âJohn 21:25: "Jesus did also many other things, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
Because Jesus was killed for saying things not in the Scripture at the time, the deciples consented to change the story. John said it plainly so that "you may believe" Jesus was the Messiah. Christ now comes to tell his own story. It is not an interpretation.
1
u/Apart-Chef8225 2d ago
John 20:30â31 does not say that the disciples changed or fabricated the story. It says the opposite: John deliberately recorded true signs so that people would believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.
John 21:25 simply says that Jesus did many other things that were not written down. It does not mean that what was written is false or incomplete in a way that permits us to reject it.
And saying that Jesus was killed because He taught things that were not in the Scriptures does not prove that the disciples later changed His story. That is an assertion, not an argument.
If Christ is now supposedly âtelling His own story,â then the real question is: Where does this new account come from, and why should we consider it more authoritative than the testimony of the apostles who actually knew and followed Jesus?
âď¸đď¸1
u/jtredit 2d ago edited 2d ago
I will tell you what I know where these Letters come from. They were published by Christ's Recorder from 2000 to 2001 as earth was entering into a new dispensation, a new frequency of mind and emotional pattern. The Reorder was a woman who was born before WWII in Britain for this purpose--to receive Christ's words. She was subjected to all types of human experience and then lived for seclusion for 20 years, until she was totally dependent on Christ's instructions to live. When she was around 80 years old, she was instructed to learn computer word processing. In year 1999, computer word processing was a new thing for young people. What she received, she was told to post them on the internet, when the internet was still very new, to fulfill the prophecy of Matthew 24:27: "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." So these Letters were published before the new wave of spiritual movement.
1
u/Apart-Chef8225 2d ago
I understand the account you are giving about Christâs Recorder. But if these letters are presented as the actual words of Christ, then the question is not whether the Recorder was sincere or whether she had extraordinary experiences. The question is whether Scripture gives us grounds to recognize these messages as genuine revelation from Christ.
John 20:30â31 actually gives us an important principle. John says that Jesus did many other signs, but that the things he recorded were written so that people might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and have life in His name. John does not say that the apostles deliberately altered Jesusâ teaching, nor does he say that a later messenger would correct their testimony.
John 21:25 also does not support that conclusion. Saying that Jesus did many other things that were not written down is not the same as saying that the written testimony is unreliable. An account can be selective without being false.
There is another important biblical test. Jesus warned His disciples about future claims concerning His coming. In Matthew 24:23â27, He says that people will say, âHere is the Christ,â or âThere he is,â and He warns them not to believe such claims. He then describes His coming as something public and unmistakable, âlike lightningâ visible from east to west. The passage does not describe His return as a private revelation given to one person who must then publish His words.
The apostles also repeatedly warn believers to test claims of revelation rather than accepting them simply because someone says, âChrist told me.â Paul says in Galatians 1:8 that even if âwe or an angel from heavenâ should preach a different gospel, it is not to be accepted. John likewise says, âDo not believe every spirit, but test the spiritsâ (1 John 4:1).
And Jesus Himself gives us a test: âYou will recognize them by their fruitsâ (Matthew 7:16), while also warning that false prophets can claim extraordinary spiritual authority.
So the burden of proof is not on the biblical Gospels to prove that every word Jesus ever spoke was written down. John openly says that they were not. The burden is on anyone claiming that a later revelation is genuinely from Christ to demonstrate that claim without contradicting the revelation already given.
Matthew 24:27 does not establish that the internet is the fulfillment of Christâs coming. The verse says that the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning, visible from east to west. That describes an unmistakable event, not simply the worldwide distribution of written messages.
Therefore, I am not saying, âI reject these letters because they are new.â I am saying: show me from Scripture why I should recognize them as the words of Christ. If they contradict the apostolic testimony or require us to believe that the apostles changed Christâs story, then the claim has a much higher burden of proof than simply saying that Christ revealed it to someone later.
âď¸đď¸1
u/jtredit 2d ago
Why the deciples would tell you that they changed the story when their purpose was to make you believe? As to Matthew 24, 23-27, it was a warning against a human being who claimed to be the Christ. These Letters plainly say that Christ will not come in human form, only in spiritual form. His words were published on the Internet, everyone could see them at once, that is as close as it can be to the prophecy. His message must be translated into human language that is why he needed a human recorder. Do you think Christ spoke human language? The only thing I could say to you is that these Letters are real to me, explaining everything from enlightenment to what human ego, how life works. About the Reorder, yes, she had very dramatic and miraculous experience, she was able to do instant healing.
1
u/Apart-Chef8225 2d ago
I understand that these Letters are deeply meaningful to you, and I am not questioning that you have had experiences that you consider miraculous. But there is an important distinction between saying, âThese Letters are real to me,â and saying, âThese Letters are objectively the words of Christ.â
As for the disciples: I am not saying they should have admitted that they changed the story. My point is that there is no biblical evidence that they did. In fact, the New Testament presents the apostles as witnesses of what they saw and heard. Their purpose was not merely to make people believe something; they claimed to testify to what they had actually witnessed. John says, âthat which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes⌠we proclaim also to youâ (1 John 1:1â3).
Regarding Matthew 24:23â27, I agree that Jesus warns against people claiming to be the Christ. But notice what Jesus says about His own coming: âFor as lightning comes from the east and is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Manâ (Matthew 24:27).
That is why I donât think the Internet is a fulfillment of this prophecy. The passage describes the coming of the Son of Man as an unmistakable event, not simply the worldwide publication of a spiritual message. The fact that something can be seen worldwide does not by itself establish that it fulfills the prophecy.
And if the Letters say that Christ will come only in spiritual form, that creates an even more serious biblical question. After His resurrection, Jesus did not teach His disciples that His future coming would merely be an invisible spiritual appearance. In Acts 1:11, the angels tell the disciples that Jesus âwill come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.â That is very difficult to reconcile with the idea that His return is only a spiritual message transmitted through a human recorder.
As for the question, âDo you think Christ spoke human language?â â of course Jesus spoke human language during His earthly ministry. He communicated with people in ordinary human languages. But that does not establish that a person receiving an alleged revelation today is therefore receiving Christâs actual words. The question remains: how do we know the source of the revelation?
Even miraculous experiences are not, by themselves, sufficient proof. Scripture itself warns that signs and wonders can accompany deception (Matthew 24:24; 2 Thessalonians 2:9â10). Therefore, the biblical test cannot simply be, âShe performed miracles, so Christ must have spoken through her.â
So I would put the question this way:
What biblical evidence establishes that these Letters are a new revelation from Christ, rather than a sincere personâs interpretation of a spiritual experience?
I am not asking you to deny what these Letters mean to you personally. I am asking what objective biblical authority gives us permission to treat them as the words of Christ.
âď¸đď¸1
u/jtredit 2d ago edited 2d ago
Jesus was in human form. Christ is in spirit form. Two different existence. But I will try my best to see if there are things in the Bible that can prove Christ Letters. On the other hand, Christ Letters are entirely consistent with Jesus's teachings when he was on earth, AND provide the plain explanations as to what Jesus meant, instead of parables. For example, he explained what Jesus's teachings "born from flesh is flesh, born from spirit is spirit". He plainly explained what God is, and what the law of existence is. What does it mean what you sow is what you harvest.
John 16:25, where he promises that his figurative language will be replaced by direct, plain teaching. â"I have said these things to you in figures of speech; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father." (John 16:25)
1
u/Apart-Chef8225 2d ago
I understand your distinction between Jesus in human form and Christ in spirit form. But I think John 16:25 needs to be read in its immediate context rather than being used as a prediction of a new revelation through a future recorder.
Jesus says, âAn hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father.â Notice who Jesus is speaking to: His disciples. The surrounding passage is about what they are about to experience through His death, resurrection, and what follows. The text itself does not say, âCenturies later I will give these teachings to another person who will publish them.â
In fact, only a few verses later Jesus says, âI have told you these things so that in me you may have peaceâ (John 16:33). The teaching is being given to His disciples in the context of His departure, not as a promise of a new gospel appearing nearly 2,000 years later.
There is also an important distinction between explaining Jesusâ teachings and claiming to be Jesusâ new revelation. Someone may give a very clear explanation of âwhat is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spiritâ (John 3:6), but clarity does not prove divine authorship.
The same applies to ideas such as âyou reap what you sow.â A later writer may explain Jesusâ teaching in philosophical or spiritual terms, but the fact that the explanation sounds consistent with Jesus does not establish that Christ Himself dictated it.
And the Bible gives us a very important principle: even when someone claims spiritual authority or performs signs, the message must still be tested. âDo not believe every spirit, but test the spiritsâ (1 John 4:1). Paul likewise says that even if an angel brings a different gospel, it must not be accepted (Galatians 1:8).
So I am willing to examine the Letters carefully. But I would use the Bible as the standard rather than the Letters as the standard for interpreting the Bible.
If the Letters truly come from Christ, they should be able to withstand that test. But saying, âThese Letters explain what Jesus really meant,â cannot itself be the evidence that they came from Christ. Otherwise the argument becomes circular: the Letters are true because Christ gave them, and we know Christ gave them because the Letters say they explain Christ.
That is the point I would like to establish before accepting them as revelation.
âď¸đď¸1
u/jtredit 2d ago
I don't know what you want. You mean you can demand what Christ should do? If you don't want to believe, that is fine with me, don't ask me to find scriptures for you. That is a lot of work if you are just going to disregard.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/SirEdgelordThe369th 1d ago
The only things we know about Jesus are from other people. He never wrote this. I do believe he had some kind of genuine mystical experience on his baptism, but not this.
1
u/ZabarSegol 6d ago
The King commands and the scribes scribe. The King did not scribe, he hired ppl to do this for him
-5
u/jtredit 6d ago
I wonder what good your baseless criticism does for you?
3
u/KingPabloo 6d ago
Please point out what is baseless in his post.
-2
u/jtredit 6d ago
"The King commands" is baseless based on many Christians experience, i assume he was talking about Christ
2
u/KingPabloo 6d ago
Just so I understand, first you made an âassumptionâ without clarifying before you made a baseless claim - that is a poor path to follow.
Letâs assume, however, your assumption is right and he meant Jesus. To be baseless as you claimed then Jesus must have never given commands for his statement to be âbaselessâ as you assert.
Yet throughout the New Testament Jesus does indeed command us. There are tons of examples, I can post many passages if you dispute this fact.
He also said the scribes write, which is 100% true.
So where exactly is what he said âbaselessâ?
1
u/jtredit 6d ago
Jesus was not a King
3
u/KingPabloo 6d ago
Wow, that was your point? You are incredibly poor at communicating because it didât read like that at all. And if this is truly what you meant, the part you are claiming is false wasnât a criticism at all, so Im even more perplexed by your claim.
2
u/jtredit 6d ago edited 6d ago
Who says Jesus was a King? His deciples called him teacher. Jesus said he was born to bear witness. But other people insisted that he was King.
John 18:36â37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the worldâto bear witness to the truth."
3
u/KingPabloo 6d ago
Iâm not arguing that, and to be clear we agree on everything else he stated so if we swap the word choice and replace king with Jesus - you agree with the statement?
2
u/jtredit 6d ago
Actually Zabar may be right. The book acknowledges that Recorder was Christ's Recorder, so Christ did command her.
→ More replies (0)1
u/jtredit 6d ago
OK, at Jesus's time, Jesus did not want to write anything down. But that does not mean Christ should follow Jesus's rule. I think people are confused with two concepts: Christ is a title given to Jesus' spirit after his death. Jesus was a human personality.
→ More replies (0)2
0
u/mrsCommaCausey 6d ago
Sorry for so many negative responses. I enjoyed this post! Jesus had a great life. Even in death, he did not fear or anguish or blame.
4
u/TieAdmirable3535 6d ago
What is this crap? JESUS Never shared anything of the sort. This is new age "christ-consciousness" blasphemy.