music by Caribou, Sun
"The safest general characterization of the philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." —Alfred North Whitehead
"The safest general characterization of the philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." —Alfred North Whitehead
music by Caribou, Sun
ENJOYABLE. Glad I could participate by watching your video
Matt, you are incredible. This is all about the sacrifice of the Son of God. A Brutal sacrifice but it was necessary to cover the sins of mankind. What else could God do?Any suggestions out there ??? He is in Paradise forever! Don’t we all want to live in PARADISE eternally? Any better offers? If you read backwards in the Bible it all makes sense. Read Revelations first, then go back to Genesis. It was written over 5,000 years ago. How could all of that have been predicted if not a true story ???
I don’t believe it was a sacrifice for the atonement of mankind. Jesus’ death was cosmic, universal and so were its repercussions, too. I think it is erroneous for someone to think that the exemplary life of such a spiritual being as Jesus was to be strictly confined to our planetary realm. Jesus lived and died just as any other human being would have the chance to live and die, portraying at the same time to a whole creation the ideal of human existence, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men.
Love,
Alexander
Respect your opinion 100% but I believe Jesus is the Messiah; the only perfect, sinless human being to have ever exhisted. It takes years of Bible study, learning the Prophesies , and prayer to come to an opinion such as mine.
John 3:16 “For God So Loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have etenal life.”
I feel like I have to express this, Leslie. I hope you will not take offense.
My reading of the Bible is that God is everything.
I interpret the “the heavenly father” as that which “art in heaven.” In other words everything above the Earth is “God in heaven”. The “Son of God” is the that which God begets, the underlying creative movement in which we are united as we move through the heavens. This movement, “across the dark waters” actually creates the phenomena we know as light and our perception of the places where our souls are connected, the Sun and stars.
In my view, the Earth is continuously (re)created in six movements and persists or “rests” in a seventh movement from which the process restarts. It is this seventh movement that we experience as the Earth plane. These movements bely our worldly perception but entangle our beings meta-physically. The first description I’ve found of this is in the i Ching it’s also in Plato’s Timaeus, the Vedas, and in Genesis.
The word day in Genesis was translated from the Hebrew word Tsela which also means a quarter of the heavens. Tsela is also used to describe the ark of the covenant but in that book was translated to the english work arc instead. The king james translation to a solar day was an error in my view.
And knowing this, the crucifixion is symbolic of something that defies simple physical explanation: The fact that we continuously cross through the Sun within these imperceptible movements. The early cross was within a circle, symbolizing the Sun. This challenging knowledge was understood by Fu Xi, Plato, Moses and Ezekiel and very few others. In Christianity this view was all but vanquished with the adoption of the Copernican model.
This is what the big fight was about between Galileo and the Catholics.
In truth, our spirits are united by the fact that the energy that creates the Sun touches, connects, and animates all of us as “the spirit of God” carries us across “the dark waters”.
The cross represents a subtle truth about the underlying nature within our beings. This is an esoteric truth which has been for centuries secreted by a few mystery schools which branched off from Christianity.
Sadly, when scientific observations contradicted the more subtle truth, lesser minds prevailed.
The last 500 years will eventually be seen as “The Darker Ages”.
Because of recent discoveries, this will not need to remain a secret much longer. In fact, it cannot be denied much longer. God’s will and all…
Jesus is another matter entirely. I find the Jesus torture stories offensive and problematic. I see them as apologies for inflicting and accepting suffering instead of combating it.
I suspect if Moses was alive today he’d tell his followers to execute most of the modern sects just as he did those who worshiped the golden cow. I’m certain Moses would consider the wooden blocks with the man nailed to it just as much of an idol, and perhaps even more offensive considering what he was actually trying to relate in Genesis.
Now I’m not Moses. But I definitely do not accept the “suffering of Jesus” in my heart.
And I’d just as soon avenge the death of a good man killed by evil men. And in the spirt of justice and God’s truth, I would hope to be avenged if such an injustice was done to me.
I feel like I had to express this. I believe Matt deserves this knowledge and see him as one of the precious few who may understand it as a vessel for the truth, of Christ.
Blessings,
-John
Hi Matthew,
The symbolism shown is great and “apt”. I absolutely loved the mantras being recited. Can I please request you to share the mantras? Or at least send me pointers to where I can find them? I thought I saw them in Sanskrit on top of the page followed by a transliteration and translation.
Best,
Meera.
Leslie, I think you missed the point of my post. I am sure your Bible studies have helped you formulate a good opinion of Jesus’ life and role. I was just pointing towards the consideration of a more broadened meaning of his death (and his subsequent resurrection). A death that its importance and impact is of a universal scale.
Love,
Alexander
Matt, this is a fantastic vid. Thank-you so much.
Aloha
Would you ever think of burning the Bible or Koran? The pages of the Isopanishad that you read and then burned are from one of the sacred texts of India. I am sure your were unconscious of what you were doing, but it is sacreligious and offensive to those who follow the teachings of the Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad-gita, etc. Just thought you might like to know this for future reference. Otherwise your thoughts are quite wise and inspiriting.
Will,
I agree it’s disrespectful to burn pages from holy texts. E.g., this fool in Florida who had the plan to burn the Qur’an was a horrible thing (good thing he canceled his plan). But I’m not sure what Matt did qualifies as sacrilege. In order to be offensive one has to desecrate or take away the sacred character of a holy object; one has to be irreverent in the process and treat something disrespectfully. Thus his intention was key. I took Matt’s burning of the pages (and not an object like a book, incidentally) to be symbolic of us feeling the Universe’s presence and love revealed in our being and showing we do not rely specifically on written text. People can use written text as a weapon, but when we internalize the message of love, feel it in our soul, then we have no interest in using the written text to further our own egoic aims. Thus the burning was not done in a way designed to desecrate or be irreverent, but to show that the reality may reside in our hearts rather than on paper, and the reality in our hearts isn’t lost even if the paper no longer exists.
Aloha, Aliman
I know this is addressed to Matthew, but I would like to express my opinion by stating that it is one’s motive that is important for judging one’s action and not the action itself. Even though nobody can ever be absolutely certain of one’s motives, I personally believe in the sincerity of Matthew’s intentions and his respect for the content of the words he recited. Furthermore, the wisdom and the profound meanings of these books are not to be found in their pages. Sure there they can be read, but their truth echoes throughout the cosmos and in our heart.
Love,
Alexander
Yes, I was hoping my comment, that was meant for Matthew, would be addressed by him. It was more the unintentional aspect of his intention that was being addressed, and its significance. Burning the Man to Birth the Son does not mean annulling Man. but removing the mundane misconception of Man so that the divine may show through. To merely destroy Man is impersonalism and voidism, but to die to live is part of the personal process of elevation to God. The Word of God is already of God. Our misconceptions have to be removed but not the Word. The Word is already one with God and is God, and the realization or birth of that understanding is what is wanted.
The verse he read explained that clearly. The prayer is that the ‘effulgence’ or cover that is hiding the face of God is to be removed, but that does not mean that there is no genuine being that remains who is truly dedicated to God, as therein mentioned – His pure devotee.
So The Word of God is not to be destroyed but honored, and realized – yes. But this actualization preserves what is holy and leading us toward our destination of life in and with God. At least this is the message I generally get from Matthew, and which I also hold.