Jubei's assesments of the Gospel

Throughout many conversations I’ve had with people, the one subject that is the most sensitive in regards to the church is the subject of Redemption.

This subject tends to define Christians along one of two classes, Trinitarians or Modalists. As these are generalities, the subtle deviations of many people who adhere to one class or the other has a tendency to reclassify people even amongst the two spheres and redefine even the minimal classifications of either one.

For instance, some people who are staunch trinitarian hold to the belief that Jesus was God, not in the sense that Jesus was god incarnate but that the spirit entity that existed as JESUS was made flesh by the creator of flesh “GOD” and dwelled amongst man, while professing a likeness to modalism, JESUS was GOD in shared desire, and that the holy ghost is a separate entity.

Trinitarianism states that either economic trinity or Essential trinity exists. That is Either God exists in three forms sharing the same ESSENCE (mind), or Economic in which one distinct being operating in three forms. It is important to note that there is a difference between “Trinitarian” and “Tritheism” in that the relationship of the three in one in trinitarianism is a collective agreement while in tritheism they are not always in agreement. 

Perichorisis being “mutual interpenetration” is the sustaining factor in the Trinitarian belief stating that three separate beings interact in such a way that their “will” penetrates each one simultaneously and directly and as consistently equal one to the other at all times.

Ex. Creator as the work of the father in agreement with the son and the holy ghost.

       Redemption as the work of the son in agreement with the father and the holy ghost.

      Paraclete as the holy ghost in agreement with the Father and the son.

Appropiation being all three persons of the trinity are involved in every action of God and it is appropriate to say that each person acts independently from the other yet in the end is in agreement.

            Ex. Creation as the work of the father

                   Redemption as the work of the Son.

                   Paraclete as the work of the Holy ghost

To me these two are pretty contradictory. Seeing that in Perichorisis the assumption that 3 entities will consistently agree because they “will” agree doesn’t work well and in Appropriation that three agree because overall it works out to be for the best. God himself in the manner of creation details for the children of Israel his direct station as God alone. That from the beginning to the end there are no other gods but god alone. So the concept that there are three in God is controversial from that. 

When God established the manner of worshipping God through the law it was in a singular manner giving homage to only one person. Yet in the New Testament, some people believe that the things of God were split up or parceled out in some means. I don’t believe that god is that inconsistent, but I digress back into the study.

                   Receive ye the Holy ghost

What is the Shekinah

The Talmud reports that the Shekhinah is what caused prophets to prophesy and King David to compose his Psalms The Shechinah manifests itself as a form of joy, connected with prophecy and creativity: Talmud Pesachim 117a) The Talmud also reports that "The Shechinah does not rest amidst laziness, nor amidst laughter, nor amidst lightheadedness, nor amidst idle conversation. Rather, it is amidst the joy associated with a mitzvah (imparting the law in commandment) that the Shechinah comes to rest upon people, as it is said: 'And now, bring me for a musician, and it happened that when the music played, God's hand rested upon him' [Elisha] [2 Kings 3:15]" (Pesachim 117a). Thus the Shekhinah is associated with the transformational (change=word of god)"Spirit of God" regarded as the source of prophecy:It is the dwelling presence of God that was manifested as the Burning bush to Moses, the Cloud by day to the children of Israel, the Fire by night to them as well. it was also the fire on the heads of those who received the holy ghost by evidenced of speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost in the upper room. Acts 2:2-4 (their changing was witnessed). Now some people will state that the day of Pentecost event was a specific and unique event, and that afterward no other moment did God provide the vision of cloven fires as on the day of pentecost. And provided understood speech of those who were from other lands to hear the glories of god professed so.

The Apostolic father “the confessions” by St. Augustine laid down a position that was extremly truthful in these days as it was in the days of the elders by stating thus”… Now, then, suppose we advise all our brethren not to teach their children any of these things because on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the apostles immediately began to speak the language of every race; and warn every one who has not had a like experience that he need not consider himself a Christian, or may at least doubt whether he has yet received the Holy Spirit?

I wanted to interject here to note that at no time is the writer stating that the event of Pentecost were not validating of the holy spirit. The fact that he mentions this practice at all shows that he was addressing certain concerns that had grown from the Montanus movement. As St. Augustines influence was 354-430 which is 76 years of life.

The rise of montanism was around 156-157 with the greatest point of contention being the manner of “prophesying” It was denounced as contrary to custom and to tradition. A Catholic writer, Miltiades, wrote a book to which the anonymous author refers, "How a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy".  So from 157 and earlier through 354, it is historically noted that people received the holy ghost through the performing of speaking in tongues and this was considered by some as the only way validation of “change” had occurred within the holy roman church.

I have known people who have taken the stance that “God” alone teaches them the things they need of this world, and therefore attending a church while it may be found good, is not a requirement of a relationship with Christ. As the Holy spirit being within us teaches us. Yet here we see  Irenaeus stating that those who receive the holy ghost should not presume that because they have received it they have a higher existence or readiness than those who have not. That we are all considered equal and as such approach the church as equals in those who have and have not received this change.

 And do not let us tempt Him in whom we have believed, lest, being ensnared by such wiles of the enemy and by our own perversity, we may even refuse to go to the churches to hear the gospel itself, or to read a book, or to listen to another reading or preaching, in the hope that we shall be carried up to the third heaven, "whether in the body or out of the body," as the apostle says,(1) and there hear unspeakable words, such as it is not lawful for man to utter, or see the Lord Jesus Christ and hear the gospel from His own lips rather than from those of men.

One other thing, People were being told not to hear from individuals who had not recieved the holy ghost as the apostles mannerism. This is the main crux used against those who used th indwelling of the holy ghost as a means of measuring the validity of a prophets worth.

Such as not listening to gnostic leaders even though they presented a particular point of view which was considered good. Where they looking for the prophet to disclose certain words of wisdom, pearls of knowledge oracles of comfort or where they looking at the tongues as a means to discern the future just as those who were in the church of corinth.

One of the largest problems the church had with this teaching is that it threatened the traditions of the established church and it was too difficult to determine just what was authentic and what was not. It placed those individual churches that followed the practice in staunch contrast to the growing gnostical doctrines that were encroaching upon the church. And thus threatened to eradicate those smaller churches all together. By defining the leaders of these churches as ill equipped to lead because of the lack of this experience.

The Catholic church has adopted the term “ecstacy” in it’s definition of the “receiving the paraclete” or the holy spirit resting. Just what does this mean? For many of those throughout the existence of the church it meant maligning, debasing, and being considered demon possessed even.

There was a general misunderstanding and as such the practice of ecstatic worship was placed in utmost seclusion. There are certain fallacies to the approaches taken toward ecstatic worship, such as:

First - (1) Certain infidel philosophers maintain that during an ecstasy there is a lessening of intellectual power, that at a certain stage there is an utter loss of the ego, an annihilation of the faculties. The arguments for this view are based upon an exaggerated interpretation of certain phrases used by the mystics.

(The mystics state clearly that they experience, not only the fullness, but the superabundance of intelligence, an increase of activity of the highest faculties).

 Yet based on the numerous testimonies of those affluent teachers throughout history who received ecstatic worships, it is highly unlikely that all imagined theyre experience.

Second - The emotional explanation. The ecstatic, it is admitted, is not buried in a heavy sleep; rather, he experiences violent emotions, in consequence of which he loses the use of the senses; and as there is nothing new to occupy his attention, it follows that his mind is taken up by some trifling thought, so trifling, indeed, that these writers deem it unworthy of their notice.

Third - It has been said that ecstasy is perhaps a phenomenon wholly natural, such as might well be occasioned by a strong concentration of the mind on a religious subject.

Fourth - The rigid condition of the ecstatic’s body has given rise to a fourth error. Ecstasy, we are told, is but another form of lethargy or catalepsy.

Fifth - some have sought to identify ecstasy with an hypnotic state.

Sixth - An attempt has been made to rank ecstasy with somnambulism, with which have also been classed, but with greater reason, the trances of spirit mediums.

As you can see, it is much easier for a growing super catholic church rather than to address the issue of defining ecstatic worship, to place it in a less importance role.

Who would state that in order to be considered one of those saints or as “St. Augustine” stated we should “warn” everyone that did not receive the holy ghost in the manner of the apostles, that they have not received the redemption of Christ, would be a very popular thing right now?

Many unavoidable questions would arise, just as they have in regards to trinity doctrine, yet the church found the resolve to ratify that false doctrine, and place this truth in malignment. Rather they decided to greater manage the threat, it is easier to control what is not looked for, rather than what is looked for, for in one an account is given and in the other it is not.

There is no account given, no witness bearing in the manner of the Churches save for the unshakeable faith and conviction, and therefore Christ has not born witness to their machinations of his doctrine. Yet in the doctrine of those who seek proving of the spirit of Christ, there is witness for there is a single sign that differentiates. 

A question of observation is required I think to validate the thought I expressed. think on this, to gain perspective to what I write. In Islam, Buddhism, confuscism, Scientology, Christianity, Judaism, Zoarostrianism and any other beleif structure in the world today, there are followers, disciples, beleivers. All who with the utmost conviction state that theyre manner of worship is in some way more efficient towards acheiving the appreciation of God (however it is defined) than the other.

I will say this, THEY ARE ALL VALID by their own means.

But if I were to ask you what differentiates or makes one greater than the other? what would you say makes one more acceptable to god than the other? How is the fealty and conviction of the islamist any different or less valid than the manner established by the judean? Or what makes the scientologist any less valid than the christian? They both beleive that the manner they present to God is acceptable. Gnosticism has it's glory just as christianity has it's glories. So what makes the difference between the many and the one?

The one is accepted and his acceptance is validated by the one who does the accepting. THAT is it.

If a person beleives in a thing and that thing does not provide substance of validation, then that thing is dead.

Christians state consistantly that they beleive in christ, and that christ came and died and rose and performed the will of the father. Yet there are so many that kill the work of christ when he presents the validation of faith in him through the reception of the holy ghost with confirmation, not with feelings, for feelings of inspiration are not distinct to any one religion of the world. The only thing that is is the utterances. For tongues are a sign!! we dont get a cloud that will rest upon our own makeshift altars, the only thing we will get is what was consistant with the old and the new, the presence of god, in the Shekinah.

Covering the process of redemption

From Leviticus 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

This is one of the main manifestations of Gods direct presence, or his prepared accepting forms. The cloud.