RSS

The Olivet Prophecy

20 Jun

Many folks point to the Olivet Prophecy to show the chronology of Christ’s return at the end of this age. Is this accurate, that is, is the understanding that what Jesus told the disciples on the Mt. Olives just before his death a true and clear explanation of the chronology of the Second Coming of Christ? Well, Jesus does give what seems to be a chronology of his coming, but I don’t believe it points to his Second Coming as we understand this term today.

Why do I say this? How could I say that the coming to which Jesus points is not his Second Coming at the end of this age? Well, to begin with the Apostles asked a question and he gave the appropriate answer to their query. It is difficult at times to get our minds around the truth of a matter when we have always understood and believed something false about the matter under question. For example, Jesus tried to tell the Apostles that he would go up to Jerusalem, be rejected and betrayed by the Jewish authorities and finally handed over to the Romans for crucifixion, but they understood none of these things (Matthew 16:21-22; Mark 9:31-32). The disciples were always taught that the Messiah would come and deliver the nation out of bondage to Rome (cp. John 12:34). No one understood a Messiah who must die in order to save. It was just too difficult to get their minds wrapped around that idea when they were always taught something false.

According to Matthew 24:3 the disciples asked Jesus what would be the sign of his coming? Notice:

And as he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the world?”  (Matt 24:3, AKJV ~ emphasis mine)

Before we are able to understand Jesus’ reply, we need to understand what prompted the Apostles’ question. In Matthew 23 Jesus confronted the Jewish leadership for their hypocrisy and evil practices and exposed their sins to everyone listening. As he was ending his lecture, he prophesied that he would send prophets, wise men and scribes to Jerusalem but the authorities would beat them in the synagogues, kill some and persecute others from city to city. Nevertheless, judgment would come upon this evil generation of people, and although there was a time when Jesus would have protected and healed them, because they would continually kill all who should be sent to them, their House, i.e. the Temple in which they boasted, would be left to them desolate (Matthew 23:34-39). The Apostles were astonished with his words and pointed out the immensity of the stones, but Jesus merely reiterated his judgment—there would not be one stone left standing upon another that wouldn’t have been thrown down from its place (Matthew 24:1-2).

This was completely unexpected. The disciples could hardly believe Jesus’ words. They were always taught that Messiah would come and save the nation, but Jesus’ words revealed he will judge the nation. “When will all these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming (they assumed it was Jesus coming to Jerusalem, meek and riding upon an ass—cp. Zechariah 9:9 & Matthew 21:5) and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3). The question the Apostles asked was in this context. They did not understand the concept of Jesus leaving them. When Jesus told them on the night he would be betrayed that they would see him no more, they were surprised and sad (John 16:5-6, 17-18), and simply didn’t understand. Therefore, if they couldn’t understand the idea that Jesus was about to leave them, how should we understand their question concerning the sign of Jesus’ coming?

Logic demands that, if they didn’t know he was leaving, they couldn’t be asking about his return as we understand the term today! When we use the Olivet Prophecy to point to a chronology of Jesus’ Second Coming, we are redefining the question of the Apostles in a manner in which they did not intend. They simply didn’t understand the concept of their Messiah leaving the nation, so how could they have been asking about his return to the nation? Jesus had to have answered the Apostles’ question according to their understanding, otherwise he would be leading them to believe something he didn’t intend, and that without further explanation. Is this what Jesus would have done? On the other hand, if Jesus didn’t reply to the context of the Apostles’ query, wouldn’t this concept, once the Apostles saw Jesus did leave, tend to cause them to believe Jesus would return in their lifetime and pave the way for their becoming false prophets?

Obviously, something is amiss in our understanding of the Olivet prophecy, and this misunderstanding has paved the way for many false teachings and prognostications similar to the most recent prediction that the world would end on May 21, 2011.

 
9 Comments

Posted by on June 20, 2011 in Last Days

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

9 responses to “The Olivet Prophecy

  1. walter wilks

    February 25, 2013 at 22:20

    I wonder if anyone realizes that the olivet prophecy could not happen today,Remember the prophecy states that nation will rise against nation and kingdom will rise against kingdom,The problem is that today there are no empires.Gone is the russian empire the british empire the ottoman empire the astro hungarian empire the french empire The empire of the croats and slavs yugoslavia and the portugal empire spanish empire and german empire.There are no more empires anymore to rise against each other.Thus the Olivet prophecy has to refer to WW1 or WW2 or both.After this terrible horrific time the Nation of Israel was born which is enormously significant in prophecy.

     
    • Eddie

      February 26, 2013 at 09:34

      Greetings and thanks for reading my blog and for your interesting comment.

      I am one who awaits the return of the Lord, visibly to this earth. However, I don’t look for him in my lifetime. I don’t see his coming in the same manner as many folks do. I believe the Olive Prophecy was given predominantly for the Jews of the 1st century CE. It tells of Jesus’ judgment upon Jerusalem and the Temple. Once that occurred, what is left for us is to carry out the Lord’s work, being faithful to him and loving one another. Beyond that, we merely await Jesus to finish with this present ministry and begin the next phase.

      Lord bless you as you study and consider his word.

       
  2. Craig

    June 26, 2011 at 01:50

    Ed, thank you for your kind and realistic responses to the unchosen. His eyes cannot be opened until he is willing to repent. I will be praying for him.

     
  3. There is no God, has never been – all definitions are inventions.

    June 24, 2011 at 04:26

    Eddie,

    With each posting I clearly gave the source – Osho.

    I haven’t actually said one word to you, there is nothing to say!

    Dialogue is possible between two blind men; they can discuss ad infinitum about light without coming to any conclusion.

    Dialogue is impossible between two persons who can see light: the dialogue is unnecessary; light is the experience of both.

    The third possibility is that one man may be able to see light, and the other may be blind?

    The question is what do you really know of the truth, what do you know of yourself? that is not based on fictions, hear say and imagination?

    What is your authentic religious experience , Eddie?

    If you are not religious, how can you help others to be religious?

    Those who have become totally conscious have been our highest flowering.

    In them is the argument for our evolution.

    When consciousness becomes awakened, you are enlightened.

    And all the people who have become fully conscious have all agreed on the point that consciousness is the stuff the universe is made of – different forms, different stages, but it is all consciousness.

    It is not just a philosophy or an imaginary idea, because thousands of people have become totally conscious.

    But the West has not known the experience of enlightenment.

    So what has Christianity done to humanity, in the past twenty centuries, how many million people have Christians killed, burned alive? – in the name of God, and the holy ghost, and the son.

    They could burn people alive because they were absolutely certain that what they were doing was right. Jesus has given them the right to bring everybody to the fold.

    Why did you accept all kinds of nonsense, Jesus proclaiming himself the only begotten son of God?

    Now, if you come across somebody in the street proclaiming that he is the only begotten son of God, what are you going to think about the man?

    You will think he is mad.

    Then why are you thinking differently about Jesus?

    In Jesus’ life not a single rabbi, not a single scholar, not a single man of intelligence, of the intelligentsia, ever became his disciple.

    The twelve people that became his apostles were fishermen, woodcutters, farmers, shoemakers – or the lowest class, uneducated.

    Just visualize a man sitting on a donkey. Followed by twelve uneducated people, proclaiming himself the only begotten son of God.

    You cannot be a begotten son of a hypothesis. That is sheer stupidity.

    Hypotheses don’t give birth to children!

    And your so-called religious leaders – cardinals, bishops, archbishops – they are representing the only begotten son of a hypothesis.

    These are the most unintelligent people in the world. They are living in an hallucination.

    If you have an open mind, you can understand. Jesus Christ’s own contemporaries did not accept him as a religious man. He was a Jew. He was born a Jew, he lived a Jew, he died as a Jew. He had never heard the word `Christian’, because in the Hebrew language there are no such words as Christ or Christian.

    Christians go on believing in Jesus Christ because he walked on water, he fed thousands of people out of two loaves of bread, he healed thousands of people just by touch, he raised a dead man back to life.

    Just think, if anybody does all these things, will his contemporaries not be impressed by him? Will his contemporaries completely ignore him? Not a Jewish scripture even mentions his name!

    There is no contemporary literature relating about Jesus and his miracles – and these miracles are not ordinary miracles. And somebody who has done all these things, do you think he deserves to be crucified? He would have been raised up as the greatest god!

    And those were the days in Judea when scholarship was at the highest peak. It had great rabbis. None of them even bothers to meet him, even bothers to listen to him. And he is doing all these miracles which none of their prophets have ever done before.

    Only one thing is possible, that all these miracles are invented, they have not happened. These are just Christian inventions about which Jews were not aware at all; otherwise, contemporary sources would have related them somewhere or other, in some way or other.

    Even if they were enemies to Jesus, then too there would have been some report. Buddha is reported in Hindu scriptures. Buddha is reported in Jaina scriptures, Mahavira is reported in Hindu scriptures, in Jaina scriptures. Lao Tzu is reported in Confucian scriptures. Confucius is reported in Lao-Tzuan scriptures. They were contemporaries.

    And the man who did such unnatural things would have dominated the whole scene.

    So you create a lie; you make churches around that lie; you create bishops, archbishops, popes, to be mediators between you and the lie, and you waste your life praying to something which does not exist at all.

    Simple psychological methods have been used: you should continuously pray.

    You start praying to Christ, or you go to church, listen to the priest, read the bible, which all preach, “Have faith.” And it is repeated thousands of times your whole life.

    That makes you gullible.

    You become hypnotized with the name, with the figure.

    But faith does not change you, you remain the same.

    And that is the only criterion to be used – whether your knowledge is true or your knowledge is borrowed, whether it changes you or it simply becomes accumulated in your memory.

    Osho – Light on the path

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 24, 2011 at 08:40

      I haven’t actually said one word to you, there is nothing to say!

      Well, then come back when you have something to say. I’ll be happy to discuss anything with you, as long as I know it is you and not a cut and past from a website.

       
  4. There is no god, has never been

    June 23, 2011 at 14:31

    First you have to have the truth Ed, only then you can defend it.

    Christianity is a fiction.

    It is a disease, a sickness, a pathology, a poison.

    It has not been helpful to humanity in finding the truth in any sense.

    It has been trying to propagate lies so continuously that they have almost become truth.

    Jesus had never even heard the name Christianity. It has been imposed on him, he was not the founder of Christianity.

    His life was written eighty years after his death, by people who had not directly known him.

    Now even Christian scholars have come to the conclusion that the Christian gospels were not written by the apostles but were written by somebody else, because the mountains described are not in the same
    place where they are described in the gospels. The rivers described are not in the same place where they are described in the gospels.

    Everything was written by people who had not known Jesus Christ, and neither had they lived with Jesus Christ.

    Who exactly was the founder of Christianity?

    One thing is certain, Jesus was not. He never thought about founding a religion, he was simply telling the Jews, “I am your last prophet.” He died on the cross as a Jew.

    You can find Buddhism in the teachings of Gautam Buddha; he was the founder. You can find in the teachings of Mahavira that he was the founder of Jainism. You can find in the teachings of Lao Tzu that he
    was the founder of Taoism. But it is a very strange thing about Christianity: Jesus had no idea at all, was not interested in creating a new religion.

    Then who founded Christianity?

    The man who founded it – you will not believe it – was the Emperor Constantine. The church knows it, but does not allow the public to know it.

    Emperor Constantine of Rome, who headed the Council of Nicea, died as a Christian, but he was baptized only on his deathbed. His whole life he was the high priest of the Sun God religion, which was why he
    changed the sabbath from Saturday, which was Jesus’ sabbath day, to Sunday. Jews still have their sabbath on Saturday, and Jesus also had lived his whole life believing in the sabbath on Saturday. How did it
    become Sunday?

    It was Constantine, who was a worshipper of the Sun God. Sunday represents the sun; the followers of the sun have always believed that Sunday is a holy day.

    It was Constantine who was actually the founder of Christianity. He was the decisive factor in the Council of Nicea. It was under his pressure – because he was the emperor of Rome – that the priests voted
    for the divine personality of Jesus. He made Jesus a divine person. It was his creation, his invention.

    Constantine saw Jesus as a failed messiah, with himself as the real messiah – and his view was ratified by the famous Christian bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, who said, “It is as if the religion of Abraham
    is at last fulfilled, not in Jesus, but in Constantine.”

    He also changed Jesus’ birthday from January sixth to December twenty-fifth, the day of the solar rebirth. The twenty-fifth of December, which is celebrated all over the world, is not Jesus’ birthday. The whole idea of their Christmas is bogus – and the church knows it perfectly well but won’t allow people to know about it.

    Jesus was born on January sixth, but under Constantine’s influence and power, it was changed to December twenty-fifth, the day of the solar rebirth. It is thought by the sun worshippers that the sun was born on
    the twenty-fifth of December.

    The whole of Christianity is living in utter darkness.

    Constantine, killed ten thousand people in a single day. He just called an assembly of all those who were not Catholics in a great auditorium in Rome, and ordered the army to kill everybody: “We don’t want anybody other than Christians in Rome.” He forced the whole of Italy to become Christian… just at the point of a sword.

    The whole history of Christianity is of wars and nothing else – killing and violence.

    To belong to a religion is not an experience, it is just a belief system in which you have been brought up.

    It is all borrowed.

    Your whole life is being guided by others.

    Because you don’t know what authentic religiousness is.

    All that your mind knows has come either from the parents, or from the priest, or from the teachers, or from the society.

    Just watch, and you will not be able to find a single thought that is original to you.

    All is borrowed; mind lives on borrowed knowledge.

    You are living with borrowed ideas.

    And remember that truth cannot be borrowed.

    Either it is yours, or it is not there.

    So when there is no God, there is no holy scripture and there is no son of God like Jesus Christ to save you, who is the son of God who does not exist!

    Can you be a son of someone who does not exist?

    You have heard other people saying that there is a God, but have you met anyone who has seen God?

    The end result of believing, of having faith in a truth that you have not realized yourself.

    It is hearsay.

    So what truth are you defending?

    Osho – Christianity the deadliest poison…

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 23, 2011 at 19:16

      Greetings “no god”, and welcome. Thanks for reading and for your interest in discussion.

      First you have to have the truth Ed, only then you can defend it.

      Not according to the philosophy you presented in our last round. Do you wish to back-peddle and adjust it a bit? If so, go right ahead, but according to “the truth” you presented, you cannot know it, because the mind isn’t real. Thoughts are past and future but not in the present. If this is true, then one cannot know truth. No decision can be made for or against it—never mind defending it. :-)

      Christianity is a fiction.
      It is a disease, a sickness, a pathology, a poison.

      Do tell! And, you know this how?

      It has not been helpful to humanity in finding the truth in any sense.

      What sort of truth do you mean? If you’re referring to knowledge about God, then this is true. All the truth we have is revealed in the Scriptures. No one has been successful in finding new knowledge about God. The Scriptures, upon which we base our teachings, are revealed truth—we didn’t find it. It was given to us. We announce what we know to humanity, and mankind has a choice to believe or reject it. It has always been this way. One either accepts the Gospel or they don’t.

      It has been trying to propagate lies so continuously that they have almost become truth.

      Well, that’s a matter of opinion, don’t you think? First of all, you haven’t shown me anything that would tend to compel me to question my faith. All you offer is you opinion, which amounts to hearsay.

      Jesus had never even heard the name Christianity. It has been imposed on him, he was not the founder of Christianity.

      You are correct, but what does this have to do with anything? The name was given to us probably by the Romans, and it was most likely meant to be a derogatory term. We didn’t use it until the 2nd century CE. In the beginning we called ourselves the followers of the Way (Way being Christ).

      His life was written eighty years after his death, by people who had not directly known him.

      Do tell, and you know this how?

      Now even Christian scholars have come to the conclusion that the Christian gospels were not written by the apostles but were written by somebody else, because the mountains described are not in the same place where they are described in the gospels. The rivers described are not in the same place where they are described in the gospels.

      You say “Christian” scholars as though you mean the whole of them, but this wouldn’t be true. You can quote one scholar, and I can quote another, both with opposing points of view, but what does that get us. All it says is sometimes the experts are wrong. Which expert is wrong is a matter of opinion.

      Concerning the mountains and rivers, you need to quote something for me to understand what you mean. As far as I know, the mountains are there and so are the rivers. So, the jury is still out on this one. All I know is good information. :-)

      Everything was written by people who had not known Jesus Christ, and neither had they lived with Jesus Christ.

      Really? And, you know this how? I won’t presume your argument for you. You need to put something besides hearsay on the table.

      Who exactly was the founder of Christianity?

      That would depend upon what you mean by “Christianity”. If you are referring to what is written in the New Testament and what transpired up to the time of the Jewish revolt, then Jesus is the founder and builder of the Church.

      If you are referring to the present day authoritarian organizational structure, then Constantine was its founder.

      One thing is certain, Jesus was not. He never thought about founding a religion, he was simply telling the Jews, “I am your last prophet.” He died on the cross as a Jew.

      Almost everything we know about Jesus is written in the Gospels. He never claimed to be the Jew’s last prophet. He claimed to be the Messiah, who is both Prophet and King. It is also recorded in the Gospels that Jesus would build his **church** upon the foundational statement that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. You can find that phrase in all four Gospel accounts.

      You can find Buddhism in the teachings of Gautam Buddha; he was the founder. You can find in the teachings of Mahavira that he was the founder of Jainism. You can find in the teachings of Lao Tzu that he was the founder of Taoism. But it is a very strange thing about Christianity: Jesus had no idea at all, was not interested in creating a new religion.

      Your statement is only partially true. Jesus told the disciples that they would be beaten and cast out of the synagogues. He also told them they would make disciples of all nations—something that Judaism could not accept. One had to reject his nation and become a Jew in order to join their faith. Therefore, if the disciples of Christ would be cast out of the synagogues, and they would accept gentiles without their having to become Jews, what should this tell you about Jesus’ statements? Seems to me, he knew exactly what would occur, and the faith he had begun would eventually be rejected, and his disciples would be cast out of Judaism and be on their own.

      Then who founded Christianity?

      You already asked this question and I gave my reply above.

      The man who founded it – you will not believe it – was the Emperor Constantine. The church knows it, but does not allow the public to know it.

      Well, we have a tentative agreement concerning the authoritative structure, anyway. So, I suppose we are making progress. The only question I have is, if it is such a well kept secret, how did I come to know it?

      Emperor Constantine of Rome, who headed the Council of Nicea, died as a Christian, but he was baptized only on his deathbed. His whole life he was the high priest of the Sun God religion, which was why he changed the sabbath from Saturday, which was Jesus’ sabbath day, to Sunday. Jews still have their sabbath on Saturday, and Jesus also had lived his whole life believing in the sabbath on Saturday. How did it become Sunday?

      First, Constantine was not a Christian. He presumed he was the head of the Church and bullied the bishops into doing what he wanted. He wanted a unified empire and used the Church to accomplish it. The Council of Nicea was initiated to bring to a head the issue of Christology. Was Jesus God or not? Some bishops held he was not.

      Concerning the Sabbath, up until Constantine, the Church kept both Saturday and Sunday. The one was the Sabbath and the other had to do with celebrating Jesus’ resurrection. Constantine was anti-Semitic, and there was growing anti-Semitism within the Church as well. Excluding Saturday was a rather simple matter under the circumstances. But, by the way, my Sabbath is Jesus. I rest in him from all my labors to gain life. My Sabbath is not a day, but I do enjoy resting from my normal physical labors at least once a week.

      It was Constantine, who was a worshipper of the Sun God. Sunday represents the sun; the followers of the sun have always believed that Sunday is a holy day. It was Constantine who was actually the founder of Christianity. He was the decisive factor in the Council of Nicea. It was under his pressure – because he was the emperor of Rome – that the priests voted for the divine personality of Jesus. He made Jesus a divine person. It was his creation, his invention.

      This is a bit redundant, so I’ll address only those things that are new that you placed on the table. Actually, Constantine originally sided with Jesus not being God, but most of the bishops believed he was God—the Son of God. Since Constantine didn’t have any vested interest in the outcome except unity of the empire, he went with the majority.

      Constantine saw Jesus as a failed messiah, with himself as the real messiah – and his view was ratified by the famous Christian bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea, who said, “It is as if the religion of Abraham is at last fulfilled, not in Jesus, but in Constantine.”

      If Eusebius said this, he was gravely mistaken, but I doubt he made such a claim. I haven’t been able to find this quote in anything but Osho’s library. He has an axe to grind, and I haven’t found what work he is quoting from. But, whatever the outcome, the statement is false. Constantine wasn’t even Christian, how could he be, if he thought Jesus was a failed Messiah.

      He also changed Jesus’ birthday from January sixth to December twenty-fifth, the day of the solar rebirth. The twenty-fifth of December, which is celebrated all over the world, is not Jesus’ birthday. The whole idea of their Christmas is bogus – and the church knows it perfectly well but won’t allow people to know about it.

      Jesus was born on January sixth, but under Constantine’s influence and power, it was changed to December twenty-fifth, the day of the solar rebirth. It is thought by the sun worshippers that the sun was born on the twenty-fifth of December.

      If memory serves, originally the birth of Christ was celebrated on the same day wherever it was done. It is due to an error in the Julian calendar that January 6th became a day upon which Jesus’ birth was celebrated. The calendar was corrected by Pope Gregory and two weeks were eliminated in the calendar. This put a 14 day difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Those who kept the Julian calendar kept the January 6th date. Nevertheless, neither date is correct. The Bible shows when Jesus was born, and it wasn’t anywhere near either of these dates.

      Christmas began to be celebrated not because of Constantine but because of the Christian bishops. All a sudden Christianity was the state religion. Many people wanted to become Christian to show their patriotism toward Constantine. Many couldn’t read or write, so the Church devised a system whereby they could preach the Gospel using the pagan holidays. They simply replaced their gods with Christian figures, and told a Christian based story behind it all. It was effective.

      The whole of Christianity is living in utter darkness.

      Do tell, but so far I have seen nothing new concerning history, and all hearsay concerning the conclusions you’ve drawn. In short, you have presented nothing that would compel me to question my faith.

      Constantine, killed ten thousand people in a single day. He just called an assembly of all those who were not Catholics in a great auditorium in Rome, and ordered the army to kill everybody: “We don’t want anybody other than Christians in Rome.” He forced the whole of Italy to become Christian… just at the point of a sword.

      And, by his own admission, Constantine was not a Christian. What are you trying to tell me?

      The whole history of Christianity is of wars and nothing else – killing and violence.

      Killing and violence and nothing else? You wouldn’t be biased would you?

      To belong to a religion is not an experience, it is just a belief system in which you have been brought up.
      It is all borrowed.
      Your whole life is being guided by others.
      Because you don’t know what authentic religiousness is.

      What would you know about my life and what I believe, or how I came by my faith? You haven’t met me, and before this day we haven’t even said “hello!” How can you discern all this about me by reading a half dozen of my posts on prophecy? Thus far, all I’ve seen you do is mimic the teachings I saw on line out of the Osho library. Who or what is your guide? Do you have an independent opinion?

      All that your mind knows has come either from the parents, or from the priest, or from the teachers, or from the society.
      Just watch, and you will not be able to find a single thought that is original to you.
      All is borrowed; mind lives on borrowed knowledge.
      You are living with borrowed ideas.
      And remember that truth cannot be borrowed.
      Either it is yours, or it is not there.

      This is a “cut and paste” most of what you are doing is a cut and paste. It is almost verbatim from Osho Quotes Osho Sayings Osho Quotations Your latest offering is taken from #7 on the website.

      So when there is no God, there is no holy scripture and there is no son of God like Jesus Christ to save you, who is the son of God who does not exist!
      Can you be a son of someone who does not exist?
      You have heard other people saying that there is a God, but have you met anyone who has seen God?

      If there is no God, there can be no holy Scriptures, and logic demands that Jesus could not be the Son of a non-existent God. However, all you have done here is state a claim. You haven’t even attempted to prove anything you have said. All you have offered me is hearsay—opinion. What makes you think your opinion should be considered more valuable or more authoritative than that which I base my faith upon?

      The end result of believing, of having faith in a truth that you have not realized yourself.
      It is hearsay.
      So what truth are you defending?
      Osho – Christianity the deadliest poison…

      I agree. However, I have gone to the source documents, concerning my faith, and considered their message. I know what I believe and what it is based upon. Do you know what you have based your faith on? You cut and paste quotes from Osho’s website, offering nothing else as your foundation for what you “preach”. Aren’t you passing off hearsay as truth? What “truth” are you defending? Haven’t you ‘borrowed’ it from Osho? Who is he? What makes him an authority over you or anyone else? What has he done? All I can see is that he presents a mish mash of a philosophy that cannot be defended—if you, his disciple, have accurately presented his tale here.

      By the way, I am not in the habit, my friend, of debating lifeless websites. If you have an opinion, you are welcome to state it here, but I will no longer reply to what I have found to be a cut and paste “comment”.

      Eddie

       
  5. There is no god

    June 23, 2011 at 02:59

    Christians have been clinging to the idea: “The messiah will come, and these are only a few days of suffering, and nothing to be compared with when the messiah comes and redeems us. We will be the chosen few of God and all others, who are enjoying now, and are not suffering now, will be thrown into hell.”

    A good consolation!

    If a Christ moves amongst you now, how will you recognize him?

    Christians are so full of lies, fictions and all the nonsense that the church’ has created.

    The moment he starts speaking to you, you will want to crucify him again?

    If a Christ comes today, Christians will not be at ease with him.

    He will destroy everything you have.

    The Vatican, the Church, is not possible with a Christ .

    It is only possible without him.

    A Christ is always rebellious, he is never conformist.

    Anywhere he feels a barrier, he will feel rebellious.

    Rebelliousness is the essential quality of a religious man.

    He can create a revolution, he cannot create an establishment.

    Christ is a tittle it means the crowned one, the awakened one.

    Whosoever become crowned by the glory of awakening, is Christ.

    So why do you miss a living Christ?

    This has to be understood, because it must be something very deep-rooted in the mind, in the very nature of the mind.

    It is not an individual error, it is not a mistake committed by this man or that man.

    For millennia it has been committed by the human mind.

    The mind has to be penetrated and understood.

    One thing: the mind has no present, it has only past and future.

    Time is psychological.

    If you are just here in this moment, without the mind, there is no time.

    Reality is herenow.

    Only the present is existential.

    And existence remains always in the present.

    And to find that which remains is the ultimate truth.

    So those who want to live, for them there is no other way than to live this moment.

    Christ is a state of consciousness.

    Osho The Transmission of the lamp

     
    • Ed Bromfield

      June 23, 2011 at 11:07

      Greeting “no god”, and thank you for stopping by and commenting. But I have to wonder if what I have found is a comment from you or merely something out of Osho’s book.

      Christians have been clinging to the idea: “The messiah will come, and these are only a few days of suffering, and nothing to be compared with when the messiah comes and redeems us. We will be the chosen few of God and all others, who are enjoying now, and are not suffering now, will be thrown into hell.”
      A good consolation!

      Two things: firstly, it doesn’t appear as though you read my blog-post. I am not advocating an imminent return of Jesus. Neither have I complained about any suffering. It seems you have come here not for discussion, but to preach. I allow this to a point on my blog, in order to engage those who have an opposing point of view. Secondly, I made no mention of “hell” or of condemning you or anyone else. So, I fail to see the point you are seeking to make with me. Perhaps others have made these claims, but I have not. :-)

      If a Christ moves amongst you now, how will you recognize him?

      Your question betrays a basic misunderstanding of who Jesus, the Christ, is. When he comes, those who are his will be caught up to the heavens to meet him. We shall be changed into something we are not at this time. We shall see him, because we shall be like him.

      Christians are so full of lies, fictions and all the nonsense that the church’ has created.

      We all have our opinions, and now I know yours! :-)

      The moment he starts speaking to you, you will want to crucify him again?
      If a Christ comes today, Christians will not be at ease with him.

      Your statements above betray a basic misunderstanding of what the Scriptures say a Christian or believer is.

      He will destroy everything you have.

      If all I really have is him, how will he destroy that?

      The Vatican, the Church, is not possible with a Christ .
      It is only possible without him.

      You betray a basic misunderstanding of what the Church is. Jesus said he would build the Church, so why is its existence impossible with Christ? What happens to the building structures we have built up for places of meeting etc. is of no real concern of mine.

      A Christ is always rebellious, he is never conformist.
      Anywhere he feels a barrier, he will feel rebellious.
      Rebelliousness is the essential quality of a religious man.
      He can create a revolution, he cannot create an establishment.

      Again you betray a basic misunderstanding of who Christ is. We are rebellious. He is not. How can the King rebel against his people? It is rather the people who rebel! :-)

      Christ is a tittle it means the crowned one, the awakened one.
      Whosoever become crowned by the glory of awakening, is Christ.

      Indeed, “Christ” is a title, but you have redefined it. The word means “Anointed One.”

      So why do you miss a living Christ?
      This has to be understood, because it must be something very deep-rooted in the mind, in the very nature of the mind.
      It is not an individual error, it is not a mistake committed by this man or that man.
      For millennia it has been committed by the human mind.
      The mind has to be penetrated and understood.

      It is only your opinion that I have missed the living Christ. If your opinion is in error, then logic demands that **you** have missed the living Christ.

      Concerning the error being deep rooted in the universal mind, what are you trying to say, that only you have the truth? Earlier you accused Christians of thinking we are: “the chosen few of God and all others…” are wrong. It seems you merely wish to change who the ‘elect one(s)” is (or are). You cling to the idea you condemn above! :-)

      One thing: the mind has no present, it has only past and future.
      Time is psychological.
      If you are just here in this moment, without the mind, there is no time.
      Reality is herenow.

      This is philosophical bull.

      If I am here in this moment—without the mind—thinking doesn’t exist. If thinking doesn’t exist, how can you arrive at this witless philosophy? If reality is in the here and now, but the mind doesn’t exist in the here and now, then the mind isn’t real. If the mind isn’t real, how could you ever draw any conclusions about any supposed **reality**?

      Only the present is existential.
      And existence remains always in the present.
      And to find that which remains is the ultimate truth.

      More philosophical bull!

      If only the present is existential, then why would we conclude the past needs to be corrected—it isn’t real! Why would we punish criminals for their crimes? The crimes they committed don’t exist. The people who lived in the past and have died are not existential. Therefore, we are not responsible to them, their ideals or what they worked to accomplish.

      So those who want to live, for them there is no other way than to live this moment.
      Christ is a state of consciousness.
      Osho The Transmission of the lamp

      So, all this was about selling a book and gaining future profits to pay for a future “present”? How existential of you!

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: