Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: "Grail Message" (was Re: Creation) Message-ID: Date: 23 Nov 90 09:53:49 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 312 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) writes: > As for the identity of Abd-ru-shin, this can be recognized by anyone who > takes the time and effort to examine the Grail Message objectively. Those > who cannot be objective would do best to just leave it alone. I interpreted the original question to be a straightforward "who is Abd-ru-shin". I would like to know the answer to that question too. I have only heard of Abd-ru-shin and the Grail Message in Mark Sandrock's postings. I have not found it in a public library here. I prefer reading (translations of) primary sources when I can; I have the Mormon books (BoM, PoGP, D&C), "Science & Health", and recently spent more in a Jewish bookshop than I meant to (anyone who thinks reincarnation is compatible with what Judaism _teaches_ should read Pirkei Avos; you can believe in reincarnation and be a good Jew because Judaism is about "deed, not creed"). So please accept this as a respectful question from someone who is not a seeker after truth (you don't seek any more for what you have found) but is confident enough of the truth he has been given to let it be questioned: Who (in the ordinary sense of the word) was Abd-ru-shin? Where did he live? When did he live? What was his life like (was he married, was he rich or poor, what kind of education did he have, did he have many followers in his life time, did he die like Joseph Smith or of old age)? > Again, you have not represented my words accurately. My words were that > the Grail Message "only confirms what is good and right in the Bible". > That is to say it does not reject what is good and true and right therein, > but quite naturally can only confirm all that is good and true in the Bible. That is to say that either the Grail Message confirms _everything_ in the Bible, or that the Bible teaches things that are evil or wrong. I could say "The Bible only confirms what is good and right in the teaching of Aleister Crowley". That leaves completely open the question of whether there _is_ anything good and right in "The Great Wild Beast"'s teaching. _Are_ you saying that there is material in the Bible which is evil? If so, what, and what grounds do you have other than Abd-ru-shin's say-so? _Are_ you saying that there is material in the Bible which is wrong? If so, what, and what grounds do you have other than Abd-ru-shin's say-so? > Also, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For we know in part. But when > that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away with." This seems to be a paraphrase of 1 Cor 13:9--10. But remember, a text without a context is a pretext. _Could_ the "perfect" here be the Grail Message? The context is Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues they will be stilled; where there is knowledge it will pass away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. Since you accepted the Grail Message, have you indeed come to know G-d fully, like He knows you? Do you see Him face to face? Is it the case that your spiritual knowledge is no longer incomplete at all? Have the gates of death been shown to you? I honestly can't interpret this as referring to a new scripture. I _think_ it is talking about life in the World to Come, and saying that the spiritual "gifts" we're given in this life are temporary and partial, and that we shan't have need of them when we are perfected and stand in the presence of G-d, but that love _will_ remain. > I don't have the references at hand, but I believe the passages should not > be hard to locate. I will provide the references if someone wishes me to. Please do! > The second part of the answer is that we never even understood correctly all > that was in the Scriptures! And now, today, it is possible for us to do so > through the new knowledge given to mankind in the Grail Message. There's a delicate point here concerning the relationship between Christians, Jews, and the Tanakh. My current belief (and I assure you it is tentative and readily corrigible) is that the Jews of Jesus' time understood the Tanakh _correctly_ (those who wanted to), but didn't understand it _completely_. Let's face it, if nobody ever understood the Scriptures correctly until whenever it was that Abd-ru-shin wrote, then G-d appears rather incompetent. I think that applies to Jesus' time as well: because G-d _was_ competent at inspiring the authors of the Tanakh, the people of Jesus' time _were_ able to understand enough of it correctly, otherwise how could they have been _responsible_ if they didn't accept Him? The further revelation in the NT _couldn't_ be given until Jesus had died, because that's what it was about. But what held up the revelation in the Grail Message? Which events was it waiting for? Why were so many people left so long with scriptures that G-d had forgotten to give them the key to? There's another delicate point there about the Reformation. But the point of the Reformation was to say "we _were_ given enough information to understand the scriptures correctly as soon as it was practical to write them down; man's work since then has been leading us _away_". Whether they were right or wrong in their conclusions, the passion of their argument came from the belief that their interpretation of the Scriptures was no more than what had always been plainly _there_, and that no new helps were needed. So I can be wary of new writings without being false to the Reformers, I can accept that there was a need for reform without accusing G-d of incompetence, for the claim is that he _had_ provided all that was needed. So the question stands: why did the Grail Message come so late? Why were St John Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers, Augustine, and so many others who ardently wished to understand left with incomplete and incorrect Scriptures which it was not "possible" for them to "understand correctly" because they did not have "the new knowledge given to mankind in the Grail Message"? This really isn't a hostile question. As I pointed out above, there's a similar question with respect to the relation between Tanakh and NT. But when you start digging, it's amazing just how little in the NT is new. Jesus, His death and resurrection, and the consequences flowing therefrom, those are new, but the rejection of reincarnation and the idea that there is a place of retribution for the wicked can apparently be found in Pirkei Avos, for example, as well as in many surviving apocalypses. > Going back to the example of Genesis, we assumed it referred to this earth, > and now we find out that it doesn't. It refers to the original, spiritual > Creation, and people only assumed otherwise. Well, they assumed otherwise because that's what it _says_. You're asking me to believe that the Jews have misunderstood "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth" for 3,200 years (_we_ received it from them). I mean, we're talking about a _continuous_ tradition here, a tradition which was limited, human, and fallible, but unequalled in fidelity by any other tradition (I'm not knocking the Catholics here, no way, but they haven't been at it as long). I am not for an instant claiming that the Jews understood everything in the Tanakh fully, but is it really credible that on such a major point as "G-d made the physical universe" they would have so radically misunderstood it so soon after it was written? Not only that, you're asking me to believe that G-d was so incompetent at inspiration that he let this slip through, when he _could_ have given the author a bit of a nudge and had him write "In the beginning G-d created the spiritual world." And you're asking me to believe that the "spiritual Creation" has water teeming with fish, birds flying all over the place, seed-bearing trees, ... and that the sun and the moon are _there_, not _here_ (or were, but came over later). Are you saying that G-d _didn't_ create the universe? If not, who did? > How do I know? How do we know anything is true? Because it *fits*. _What_ does it fit? That interpretation certainly doesn't fit the plain sense of the text. I follow those commentators who see the first couple of chapters of Genesis as a polemic against the other religions of the Near East; we have practical certainty that those religions existed and know a lot about what they taught. Some kind of polemic against them, saying "no, the universe was made by G-d, humans aren't a nuisance that get culled by the gods but human existence has been declared good by G-d himself" fits the cultural context. (Which is not to say that it isn't literally true as well. I'm not taking a position either way.) So the interpretation of Genesis 1 as referring to the material universe _does_ fit the cultural context. Your interpretation doesn't, would have been irrelevant to that context. > **************************************************************************** > And this idea is at the core of the Grail Message: the absolute Perfection > of the Creator and of His Creation. Everything else is built logically upon > this unshakeable foundation. There are no gaps or uncertainties anywhere. > **************************************************************************** G-d himself cannot do the logically inconsistent. I've forgotten who said it, but someone said of the old "if G-d is omnipotent, can He make a stone too heavy for Him to lift" that just putting "G-d can" in front of nonsense doesn't make it sense, that something like that simply fails to name an action. Similarly, "G-d can bring about a finite document written in an existing human language with no gaps or uncertainties" is false because I have failed to describe a possible document. Gaps and uncertainties are not imperfections; they are a consequence of finiteness. > Jesus had to speak in > simpler terms, but He spoke exactly of the Spiritual Realm, Paradise, the > Kingdom of Heaven. Today we are capable of understanding more than before. How come? The Spiritual Realm, Pardesh, and the Reign of Heaven are three old ideas. Three _different_ ideas. > Or take the objection to "karmic law". We have the words of Jesus that say: > "As a man sows, thus shall he reap." If someone else refers to this as the > Law of Sowing and Reaping, or as karma, or as fate, isn't it still the same > thing? No. Let me quote from Pirkei Avos 3[1] (ArtScroll Mesorah translation): Akavaia ben Mahalel said: Consider three things and you will not come into the grip of sin: Know whence you came, whither you go, and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning. 'Whence you came?'--from a putrid drop; 'Whither you go?'--to a place of dust, worms and maggots; 'and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning?'--before the King Who reigns over kings, the Holy One, Blessed is He. What is this saying? Human life begins with the beginning of this physical life, it ends with the end of this physical life, and after that is judgement (and, looking elsewhere in that book, the World to Come). Jesus, speaking from the same tradition, said the same kind of thing: afte you die you will be judged based on what you have done in this one life (to a Christian, this includes: have you entrusted your life to Jesus, have you accepted the forgiveness that he is able to offer). The sowing and reaping bit does not refer to suffering in this life. In fact Jews and Christians haven't got a nice simple account of that. For the Jews, Pirkei Avos 4[19] Rabbi Yannai said: It is not in our power to explain either the tranquility of the wicked or the suffering of the righteous. For Christians, Jesus when asked "for whose sins is this man suffering, his own or his parents" said "NEITHER". The Mormon doctrine that some human souls sinned before they were born (this is their explanation of why some people are born black, I am not kidding or exaggerating) has a rather tenuous resemblance to karma, but sowing & reaping is opposed to it. As for fate (English note: the "weird sisters" in Macbeth are suspiciously like the Norns, "wyrd" is an old word for Fate), Fate has no reference to merit or sin. > Jesus spoke in such a way that the people of that time > could understand His Message. Doesn't that contradict your claim that a new message is needed because it wasn't possible for people to understand the old one correctly? > The meaning is still the same, > but we need more in-depth explanations than we previously could understand. Do we? If the Fathers were able to understand enough to be saved, why do I need more? Do you begin to have any idea how _much_ there is in the way of "in-depth explanations" based on the scriptures we already have? Have you studied the Cappadocian Fathers? Have you read everything of Augustine's? Anything of Chryostom's, or Jerome's? > Or take the concept of reincarnation, which has been much discussed before. > Why not try to think about it and evaluate the concept on its own merits, > instead of simply rejecting it as "unchristian" because it was not recorded > that Jesus ever spoke of it? Why accuse people you've never met and never discussed it with of _not_ considering it on its merits? I have considered it and am appalled by the injustice of it. > Because the fact is that reincarnation was a > part of Church doctrine for hundreds of years after the life of Christ. I'm afraid you are going to have to give some better argument for this than bare assertion. What is your evidence for this claim? Ad fontes! Let's not rely on fifth-hand assertions: if it's true, you can demonstrate it from the sources. > The fact is that Jesus never denied the validity of the concept of > reincarnation, which was widely believed at that time, nor did He deny > it when the Disciples indicated their own belief in it ("Who had sinned, > this man or his parents, that he was born blind?") If you will take the trouble to look at the rather large number of documents surviving from that time (I recommend "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha", but there are other sources) you will find that the idea "you live once, after that there is judgement, the good enjoy eternal life in the World to Come and the wicked are punished [typically by fire]" was widespread, and Jesus not only failed to deny _that_, he explicitly affirmed it. For example, Like 16:19-31 is quite clear in its teaching that one you're dead it's too late. As for the man born blind, his parents were still alive. What about the possibility that it might be his own sin? Well, there is an idea which is very different from reincarnation, which keeps popping up. I think Origen believed it, and it's certainly Mormon doctrine. That is PRE-EXISTENCE. In that scheme, we have creation of spirit -> conscious pre-mortal existence -> birth -> conscious mortal existence -> death -> judgement -> (eternal life | punishment) (there are _no_ cycles here). In that scheme it is possible for someone to sin after they have been created but before they are born. It sounds as though you have not grasped the distinction between pre-existence and reincarnation. You should re-examine the references you _think_ establish that the Church ever believed in reincarnation and see whether they may not be compatible with pre-existence instead. > The Grail Message comprises 168 lectures and more than 1000 pages of text, > and is intended to be read step-by-step, from the beginning. Only in this > way can one really grasp the vast knowledge which it does provide. With all possible respect, the biggest problem I have with Judaism is that there is so much to study. To quote Pirkei Avos again: [Hillel] used to say: A boor cannot be fearful of sin; --> an unlearned person cannot be scrupulously pious; <-- ... and the commentary in the ArtScroll translation says "An unlearned person remains blind to the requirements of the law, and so cannot be pious". The New Testament is not much bigger than a Mills & Boon (for US readers: Harlequin). With modern translations, even today's schoolchildren can read and understand it. (Exhaust it, _no_. Understand enough for their immediate needs, _yes_.) The knowledge that is essential for salvation must surely be knowledge that most people could grasp if they wanted to; the actions that are essential for salvation must surely be actions that most people could perform if they wanted to, or where is G-d's justice? (For Lutherans reading this: I have not affirmed that everyone _can_ want to grasp or act, only that once they have been given grace to will faith _then_ they can learn and do what they need to learn and do.) If G-d left us in ignorance so long, where is His justice? > The Grail Message can be found in many libraries across the U.S., I'm not _in_ the USA, and I haven't succeeded in finding it here. -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne.