Gurdjieff & Jakob Boehme

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Recently I've been doing a lot of reading on the "Fourth Way" teachings of Gurdjieff. I really saw a LOT of parallels to the ideas of one my favorite Christian mystics there - Jakob Boehme. This is especially the case with Gurdjieff's idea of the laws of three and seven (as well as the Ray of Creation) and Boehmes teaching regarding the Trinity and the 7 Spirits of God. As obvious as the parallels were to me I can't seem to find anyone who connects the dots there and illuminates the two teachings by comparing them. If anyone has a book, article, web page, or whatnot that goes into this topic I would really appreciate it if they could post a link here.

Thanks :)

If the Christian community is ever revitalized and once again takes up it's rightful place at the leading edge of human evolution I really think people like Jakob Boehme and Gurdjieff will be recognized as having played an important part leading up to it.
 

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
FYI, I quote the following from the book 'A More Excellent Way' by Pastor Henry Wright.
JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY

Hebrews 4:12 teaches us that the soul and the spirit are still distinctly separate.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

That is what it says, "is able to separate the spirit from the soul." One of the great tragedies of psychology in the teaching of Jungian psychology is that it eliminates the spirit of man totally and inserts in its place the dualistic compartments of the soul.

In Jungian psychology and in modern-day psychology, there is no such thing as the spirit of man. There is the idealistic compartment of the soul called the "conscious" and the "collective unconscious." In the teachings of Jungian psychology, within the collective unconscious you will find the archetypes and dark shadows. Jungian psychology identifies these dark shadows as the archetypes of our historic ancestry bringing with them the darkness and evil that we need to come in contact with and identify with so that we can cohabit with the evil

I don't find these concepts anywhere in Scripture. What I do find in Scripture is that the archetypes and dark shadows are in fact evil spirits, principalities, powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world.
Ephesians 6:12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

I have a book about Carl Jung written by a secular psychotherapist in Connecticut who did research on Carl Jung. Early on in Carl Jung's investigation into spiritualism (spiritism) and into eastern mysticism, he became a channeler for invisible entities. It's in his writings. The principal entity that he channeled was a spirit entity called Philemon. He also channeled to lesser spirit entities called Anima and Animus, who became the foundation of the male and female principles in Jungian psychology. In fact, these principles male/female of Anima and Animus can even be found in Christian ministry/counseling circles as a therapeutic model. These were invisible spirit entities that Carl Jung channeled by using automatic hand writing (otherwise known as journaling) and they wrote much of our modern-day Jungian psychology through him. This means that much of modern Jungian psychology was written by invisible spirit beings. If you don't believe me you can go to any public library and do your own research on the history of Carl Jung. Over the years I've done much research into his writings that substantiates what I've just said.

Carl Jung, early on in his investigation of spiritualism (spiritism) and mysticism, ran into invisible evil spirits and in his early writings he called them evil spirits.
As he developed his precepts, he said: "because of the failure of Christianity in dealing with the problems of the psyche or the soul of man, and the body, or the diseases of man, I will create an alternative to Christianity. He considered Christianity to be a dead religion. In fact Carl Jung was the son of a German Protestant minister and observed his minister-father preach a gospel that seemed to offer no solution for the diseases of the soul and body. He believed that man kind had to be helped while they lived on the planet Earth. Modern-day psychology includes many Jungian principles and is the fruit of the failure of the Christian church. Psychology has become a religion and psychologists have become the "pastors" of the Christian church in matters of the soul. Many times even Christian psychological counselors relegate everything it to the dualistic concept of the soul to the exclusion of the spirit of man.

Jung believed that modern man would not accept basic concepts of the Bible in view of their scientific way of thinking. He deliberately took the words changed the concept "evil spirit", and called them "archetypes" and "dark shadows" to accommodate himself to a more scientific approach and he duped man kind, including the Christian church and lastly, even himself.
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's a major exaggeration to claim that Jung denied the spirit. Obviously being a PSYCHologist his main area of investigation is going to be the psyche/ soul rather than spirit but that doesn't mean he denies the very existence of spirit.

In his works he tried to stick to a more scientific and phenomenological way of describing things rather than venturing outside his area of speciality into metaphysics.
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Where did you get that quote that has Jung saying he was going to create an alternative to Christianity? He seemed pretty clear that any spiritual renewal in the West would be Christian in nature. He said the West needed It's own Christian Yoga.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Where did you get that quote that has Jung saying he was going to create an alternative to Christianity? He seemed pretty clear that any spiritual renewal in the West would be Christian in nature. He said the West needed It's own Christian Yoga.
I mentioned the book at the first of my post. It was called 'A More Excellent Way' by Pastor Henry Wright. What I quoted was all he wrote in that book. I have heard him on some teaching CD's where he went into more detail saying part of his view was from Jung's earlier works. They were writings that Wright read when he was studying to be a medical doctor, before being called to be a pastor. It was in those studies that he found the older writings. That's about all I remember though. I don't know where the 'channeling' info came from.

PS I just Googled 'Carl Jung channeling spirits'. It came up with quite a list of URL's.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟19,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I mentioned the book at the first of my post. It was called 'A More Excellent Way' by Pastor Henry Wright. What I quoted was all he wrote in that book. I have heard him on some teaching CD's where he went into more detail saying part of his view was from Jung's earlier works. They were writings that Wright read when he was studying to be a medical doctor, before being called to be a pastor. It was in those studies that he found the older writings. That's about all I remember though. I don't know where the 'channeling' info came from.

PS I just Googled 'Carl Jung channeling spirits'. It came up with quite a list of URL's.
Jung had an insight into truth that has benefited all of mankind. Henry Wright's(?)(et al) misunderstanding of Jung's theory of individuation is unfortunate. Jung was a product of his age, which included mediums and channeling----practices that would incluide such notables as Houdini and Elenor Roosevelt. Don't throw out the baby with the bath. Jung's agenda was to help his neighbors. Anyone against that agenda would be anti-christ by definition----no matter what they write about "being Christian". Remember, you will know a tree by it's fruit.

Here is a series of Lectures on Jung and the lost Gospels, given by Bishop Stephen Hoeller that will give you much better insights. Gnostic History and Scripture
 
Upvote 0

Ripheus27

Holeless fox
Dec 23, 2012
1,707
69
✟15,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
... within the collective unconscious you will find the archetypes and dark shadows. Jungian psychology identifies these dark shadows as the archetypes of our historic ancestry bringing with them the darkness and evil that we need to come in contact with and identify with so that we can cohabit with the evil

I don't find these concepts anywhere in Scripture. What I do find in Scripture is that the archetypes and dark shadows are in fact evil spirits, principalities, powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world.

Actually, the conception of the archetypes is grounded in something much, much different:
Jung's Kant:The Making of a Philopsycher

The unique contribution which Carl Jung made to man's
understanding of himself is still in the process of being digested by the
modern world. All too often Jung's work is regarded as solely that of a
psychologist, so that the philosophical underpinning of his entire life's
work tends to be ignored or misunderstood. This, like most mistakes in
interpreting the intentions of past masters, is largely Jung's own fault. For,
although he was acutely aware of the importance of his philosophical
training (see below), he often responded to criticisms (such as "you are
nothing but a mystic in psychological clothing!") by protesting that he was
nothing but an empirical scientist. This protest cannot be taken entirely
seriously, however, if we recognize the wide variety of interests and
methods which came under the view of Jung's critical eye. In this paper I
will take a first step towards demonstrating the extent of Jung's debt to
philosophy (and vice versa) by demonstrating the structural identity between
Kant's favorite twelvefold divisions (e.g. in his table of twelve categories)
and Jung's theory of psychological types.

When not defending himself against the charge of mysticism Jung
readily admitted that he saw himself not so much as merely a psychologist
in the ordinary sense of the word, but more as a "lover of the soul".2 Thus,
it is quite misleading to group Jung together with the likes of a Skinner or
any other experimental psychologists, who would hardly grace (or
disgrace!) their science with such an epithet. Indeed, it was precisely his
love of the soul which put Jung in a different category from the
psychological sciences, such as behaviorism, which claim to take a more
strictly "objective" stance. This difference, which motivated Jung to study
the soul from such a diversity of perspectives, makes him more like a
philosopher than many psychologists would want to allow into their own
territory. Yet neither can Jung accurately be called a philosopher in any
ordinary sense of that word, since his emphasis was indeed always focused
on an empirical understanding of the human soul. This ambiguity gives rise
to the need to name a new category, for which Jung's own self-description
gives us the best of clues. Jung's peculiar brand of "philosophical
psychology" can best be described as "soul-loving", which we can render
with the Greek word "philopsychy". Throughout this article I will therefore
adopt this new term, and refer to Jung as a "philopsycher". Hereafter, the
term "philopsycher" will refer to any person whose work is devoted to
"soul-loving", as an art which can be learned through an approach which
synthesizes methods in philosophy and psychology.

Jung's philopsychy is based directly on the philosophical system of
Immanuel Kant, and can therefore be regarded as its (empirical)
psychological complement.3 Although Jung never develops in great detail
the precise ways in which his ideas depend on or assume Kant's, he does
say on numerous occasions that in Kant he found a philosophical
foundation for his own intellectual development.4 Indeed, it was his
immersion in philosophy prior to and during his medical training which
Jung believed was ultimately responsible for the differences between his
own view of the soul and that of his materialist colleague, Sigmund Freud.5

Kant's "transcendental perspective"--i.e., his search for the
necessary conditions for the possibility of experience6--is adopted by Jung
and transformed into a method for describing the contents of the hidden
depths of the human soul. For Kant, the "a priori" is never something
which can be found, as such, in experience. That is, it cannot be observed
as an empirical object in nature, but is always real only in virtue of man's
making it real by reading it into the fabric of nature. The a priori is the
unseen basis of the unity of the diverse aspects of our ordinary experience.
What is rarely appreciated by readers of Jung is that the same concept of
apriority operates in most of his theories of the structure of the human soul.
In other words, when Jung claims to have discovered an "objective
psyche", or a "collective unconscious", he is not asserting the empirical
reality of such constructs, but rather is postulating the necessity of an
underlying (a priori) objectivity. Consequently, the statement that (for
instance) "every human being has a shadow-figure living in the
unconscious" should not be regarded as an empirically-verifiable or
falsifiable fact. No, its objectivity stems from its logical necessity.
Although Jung's claims that his theories are established as matters of
empirical fact may give the impression that he would object to this way of
characterizing the epistemological status of his philopsychical theories, he
does on occasion clearly demonstrate his recognition of their apriority.7 In
fact, their apriority, as we shall see in section III, explains why they are
invariably found in the psychic experiences of human persons.

Philopsychy is an empirical discipline, as Jung so regularly stressed,
yet it is not therefore an empirical science in the supposedly purely
"objective" sense in which the term "science" is often employed. Rather, it
is a discipline: empiricism which is fully conscious of the transcendental
(subjective) basis of its objectivity; and as such it is the perfect counterpart
of Kant's transcendental philosophy, with its fully conscious insistence
upon the equally important status of "empirical reality".8 Indeed, just as
one of the primary goals of Kant's transcendental philosophy is to
demonstrate the reality of the empirical world, so also one of the primary
goals of Jung's empirical philopsychy is to demonstrate the reality of an
unconscious (cf. transcendental) underpinning for the world of our ordinary
consciousness.

As I have argued elsewhere, the concept of the "architectonic" unity
of reason, as an a priori method of planning out the structure of a whole
system of philosophy, was of central importance to Kant. In the following
section I will therefore take a step back from Jung and investigate in some
detail just how Kant understood such patterns. Then, in the third section I
will demonstrate the surprising extent to which the same patterns can be
found permeating many aspects of Jung's philopsychy. Finally, in the
fourth section I will explain in more detail why the "philo" is necessary to
Jung's philopsychical system and how this necessity is related to Kant's
own (somewhat mystical) tendencies. [Steve Palmquist, "The Architectonic Logic of Jung's Philopsychical Types," sec. 1]​
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I mentioned the book at the first of my post. It was called 'A More Excellent Way' by Pastor Henry Wright

Did Pastor Wright provide a footnote to one of Jungs actual writings because that really doesn't seem like something he would write. I'm wondering maybe if it's supposed to be something someone supposedly heard him say once or something second hand like that. I'm not going to believe it until I see actual evidence beyond a Pastor , who was apparently opposed to his work and was trying to convince Christians of how evil he was, quoting him as having said that.

Jung repeatedly stressed that Christ was the Western manifestation of the archetype of the Self and that any spiritual path would need to be Christian in orientation if it was going to have widespread success here. He called for the creation of a new "Christian Yoga". To say that he was going to replace Christianity or Christ would be pretty close to a megalomaniacal claim coming from his worldview. As if he could somehow single handedly change the archetype of the Self for us or something.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Speaking of Jung... I was listening to a good Podcast (Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio) today and they were interviewing a post Jungian depth psychologist, Robin Robertson, on his book " At the End of Time, Prophecy and Revelation". It sounds like it might be a good read. It's primarily a spiritual exegesis of the book of Revelation but it brings in supporting evidence from other traditions including that of the Hopi Indians.


Many cycles predicting the "end of times" fi ll our modern dialog from the coming of the Millennium to 2012. Robin Robertson helps to clarify these prophesies and offers insight into the central issues of our challenges and their life-changing implications. You can get a used copy for .85 cents too.

For eighteen hundred years, the prophecies in the Book of Revelation have captured the collective Western imagination. Saint John's rich imagery and the dramatic urgency of the looming disasters he predicts have both fascinated and frightened us with the apparent message that the end of time is near. Robin Robertson deciphers the mystical theology and visions of the prophets, seers, and shamans. His analysis incorporates the insights of modern mathematics and Chaos Theory, as well as his personal insights gained through his work as a Jungian therapist and teacher. Robertson holds a mirror to humanity's need to know Self and God. He explains that Saint John's vision foretells the massive change in consciousness that is happening in our time.

At the End of Time contains the 22 chapters from and reinterprets the message of The Book of Revelation in terms of the changes in human consciousness and its ability to adapt the symbolic language of our personal and collective unconscious. The author helps us to comprehend the meaning of such psychic intuitive understandings.

Roberston helps the reader face the deeper parts of his or her self--those parts that fear transformation, change, and death. Yet these are the very keys to experiencing a new dimension of ourselves and may be encouraged and utilized in a positive manner.
 
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Jung had an insight into truth that has benefited all of mankind.
I am sure many would agree with you.

Henry Wright's(?)(et al) misunderstanding of Jung's theory of individuation is unfortunate.
Which is where I always figured we'd have our biggest differences.

Jung was a product of his age, which included mediums and channeling----practices that would incluide such notables as Houdini and Elenor Roosevelt.
I believe the deception of mediums/channeling is 'ageless'. This very belief is another reason we will not see eye to eye.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath.
It is my opinion that I haven't. I think I bring a division as subtle as that between "spirit and soul" "thoughts and intentions". I'm sure you disagree, and I understand.

Jung's agenda was to help his neighbors. Anyone against that agenda would be anti-christ by definition----no matter what they write about "being Christian".
Remember, you will know a tree by it's fruit.
I differentiate between the fruit of 'a spirit' versus that of 'the Spirit'. which can be very difficult to do without discernment. Again a point of difference I know. The greatest deception from God...is that which is GOOD. Remember the tree in the Garden was the tree of GOOD and evil, but even the GOOD was the fruit of death. Christos means 'anointing' and as a epitaph of Jesus. And the definition of ANTI doesn't just mean AGAINST...it means 'to take the place of' or to imitate. That's the more important definition to me.

Here is a series of Lectures on Jung and the lost Gospels, given by Bishop Stephen Hoeller that will give you much better insights. Gnostic History and Scripture
I am probably as inclined to read this, as you would Henry's books and all the URL's found under 'spirit channeling' and Carl. A practice I pretty much would have to say I'm opposed to being of God.

I'll probably just leave this thread to those who are more positive about pshychology than I am.
 
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟19,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am sure many would agree with you.

Which is where I always figured we'd have our biggest differences.

I believe the deception of mediums/channeling is 'ageless'. This very belief is another reason we will not see eye to eye.

It is my opinion that I haven't. I think I bring a division as subtle as that between "spirit and soul" "thoughts and intentions". I'm sure you disagree, and I understand.

I differentiate between the fruit of 'a spirit' versus that of 'the Spirit'. which can be very difficult to do without discernment. Again a point of difference I know. The greatest deception from God...is that which is GOOD. Remember the tree in the Garden was the tree of GOOD and evil, but even the GOOD was the fruit of death. Christos means 'anointing' and as a epitaph of Jesus. And the definition of ANTI doesn't just mean AGAINST...it means 'to take the place of' or to imitate. That's the more important definition to me.

I am probably as inclined to read this, as you would Henry's books and all the URL's found under 'spirit channeling' and Carl. A practice I pretty much would have to say I'm opposed to being of God.

I'll probably just leave this thread to those who are more positive about pshychology than I am.
Christianity is the source of the first psychological teachings. When it was removed it became "instead of Christ". I feel like that old chestnut of Jesus pointing at the moon and people staring at His finger. Pychology is NOT "a seperate religion". A preacher would only claim that if he were in need of those self same services. It's part of a persons health and well being. Jesus was a healer. Clay on the eyes for some, instructing others to "know themselves".

Individuation is merely being genuinly who you are. As I try to be, and as I'm sure you want to be. It's not identifying with what you belive or what you do. "Who are you?", Jesus might ask. "I am a preacher", or, "I am a doctor" might come the reply. Jesus would reply, "I didn't ask what you do, I asked who you are". A person who cannot answer is in need of help.

I agree with you about the difference between "a spirit" and "the Spirit". A person who might criticize anothers attempts to help people is moved by "a spirit" but it certainly is not "the spirit". Christ did not criticize the Samaritan. Make sure it is genuine discernment and not quasi-christian deception.

Mediums and hoo-doo are just not part of my life. I would not consider them part of "any age", probably because of my unfamiliarity with them. I do know that they were all the craze at the turn of the last century, which is how I related Jung to it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gord44

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2004
4,351
657
✟27,104.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One also has to look at that Jung didn't look at mediums and spirits in a literal sense. Or at least that's what I get from his writings. He spoke about them more as things in the human unconscious that needed to be discovered and dealt with on the path to individuation.

A lot of his critics seem to look at his work and just take everything in such a literal sense, which is silly when you think about what Jung was all about. Symbols, archetypes, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Christianity is the source of the first psychological teachings. When it was removed it became "instead of Christ".
And that is my concern today also. From what I've read of Pastor Wright's work he seems to fill the psychological/soul gap in a way I've not heard from any other Christian ministry. His warning, IMO, is that Jungian psychology is an "instead of Christ" discipline. I'm not familiar enough to say he's right/wrong. But I am familiar enough with him that I trust his opinion the most, at this point.

I feel like that old chestnut of Jesus pointing at the moon and people staring at His finger. Pychology is NOT "a seperate religion". A preacher would only claim that if he were in need of those self same services.
Not sure what you mean. And those missing "Jesus pointing at the moon" can be misled just as easily as those who are seeing the moon, and throwing hatchets at it thinking; "It looks close enough to hit." All the while they too have missed 'the truth'.

It's part of a persons health and well being. Jesus was a healer. Clay on the eyes for some, instructing others to "know themselves".
Which is Henry's position. He just feels that the church has abdicated ministering to the aspect of the 'human soul' adequately.
The church we used to attend finally reached the point that they quit referring to local "Christian counselors" saying they may be "Christian" and they may be "counselors" but we cannot say they they are 'Christian counselors'. The supernatural gifts of the Spirit minister to others negating the need for 'professional counselors'. Today 'the Gifts' are not being sought, beyond some initial prayer language experience.

Christ did not criticize the Samaritan. Make sure it is genuine discernment and not quasi-christian deception.
I agree, but she was a patient and not a preacher/psychologist either. Discernment is paramount, I agree.

Mediums and hoo-doo are just not part of my life. I would not consider them part of "any age", probably because of my unfamiliarity with them. I do know that they were all the craze at the turn of the last century, which is how I related Jung to it.
I said 'ageless' before because of a scripture like the following;

LEV 19:31 "Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

I believe in mediums, deceitful spirits and or demons today. I have to because of my own personal encounters and experiences with such. I have seen, heard, felt the supernatural. And these experiences simply were 'not of His Spirit' IMO.
 
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟19,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And that is my concern today also. From what I've read of Pastor Wright's work he seems to fill the psychological/soul gap in a way I've not heard from any other Christian ministry. His warning, IMO, is that Jungian psychology is an "instead of Christ" discipline. I'm not familiar enough to say he's right/wrong. But I am familiar enough with him that I trust his opinion the most, at this point.

Not sure what you mean. And those missing "Jesus pointing at the moon" can be misled just as easily as those who are seeing the moon, and throwing hatchets at it thinking; "It looks close enough to hit." All the while they too have missed 'the truth'.

Which is Henry's position. He just feels that the church has abdicated ministering to the aspect of the 'human soul' adequately.
The church we used to attend finally reached the point that they quit referring to local "Christian counselors" saying they may be "Christian" and they may be "counselors" but we cannot say they they are 'Christian counselors'. The supernatural gifts of the Spirit minister to others negating the need for 'professional counselors'. Today 'the Gifts' are not being sought, beyond some initial prayer language experience.

I agree, but she was a patient and not a preacher/psychologist either. Discernment is paramount, I agree.

I said 'ageless' before because of a scripture like the following;

LEV 19:31 "Do not turn to mediums or wizards; do not seek them out, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.

I believe in mediums, deceitful spirits and or demons today. I have to because of my own personal encounters and experiences with such. I have seen, heard, felt the supernatural. And these experiences simply were 'not of His Spirit' IMO.
My take on it is that Christ is not just a person who lived two thousand years ago and "died for our sins". He is alive and well and living in the hearts of every single person who is attempting to look out for and Love his neighbor, regardless of faith. I don't look on Christ as an ego-maniac that insists that His sheep know His name; rather they hear and obey His Voice. And what is that voice? It's the call to empathize and embrace those that need help-- it's the voice that overturns "sacred cows" in the name of Love, the self same voice that overturns the tables of the merchants of death, bigotry, greed and hatred. Was Jung perfect? No. But he brought the truth of the human mind, and all truth is from Christ, for Christ is the Truth. Anything that stands against truth is "instead of Christ". I.E. I don't care how pious a creationist is, or a "bible only" guru, they are "anti-Christ" because they reject truth. It is not possible to reject ANY truth without rejecting Christ, again, because Christ is Truth. Does it matter in the end? God will say, not me and not you. I don't "believe" so, for it is supposed to be the heart that matters. Jung confessed "Do I believe there is a God? No. I know there is a God". He did his best to serve God in a way that exposed humanity to a truth that is still sometimes rejected by people who really should know better, and in rejecting that truth, reject the One who sent it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
My take on it is that Christ is not just a person who lived two thousand years ago and "died for our sins".

Nor is 'Christos' "just a person" to me either; that spirit was available long before the man Jesus was born.

1PE 1:10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; 11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.

He is alive and well and living in the hearts of every single person who is attempting to look out for and Love his neighbor, regardless of faith.
I personally have nothing to base such a statement on. Personal experience would make me think I was 22 when His spirit was reborn in me.

I don't look on Christ as an ego-maniac that insists that His sheep know His name; rather they hear and obey His Voice.
IMO sheep do so 'because' they do know his name (nature/authority) though they may not know his moniker, but certainly not because of an maniacal bent. You describe the name/nature of the 'butcher' and not 'the shepherd' IMO.

Was Jung perfect? No. But he brought the truth of the human mind, and all truth is from Christ, for Christ is the Truth. Anything that stands against truth is "instead of Christ". I.E. I don't care how pious a creationist is, or a "bible only" guru, they are "anti-Christ" because they reject truth. It is not possible to reject ANY truth without rejecting Christ, again, because Christ is Truth. Does it matter in the end? God will say, not me and not you. I don't "believe" so, for it is supposed to be the heart that matters. Jung confessed "Do I believe there is a God? No. I know there is a God". He did his best to serve God in a way that exposed humanity to a truth that is still sometimes rejected by people who really should know better, and in rejecting that truth, reject the One who sent it.
This is probably a good description of my reluctance to lean to far into gnosticism. As I've said, the biggest imitator of God...is GOOD...or as I was taught 'the God of the world'. I think the source of 'apparent Good/God' is important, especially when declaring allegiance.

Even the woman with the spirit of divination proclaimed the gospel...truth, for several days before Paul apparently finally discerned it...and cast it out. True truth...wrong spirit. That's where I'm coming from. Hopefully you understand.
 
Upvote 0

Soulgazer

Christian Gnostic
Feb 24, 2011
3,748
90
Visit site
✟19,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nor is 'Christos' "just a person" to me either; that spirit was available long before the man Jesus was born.

1PE 1:10 The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; 11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.

I personally have nothing to base such a statement on. Personal experience would make me think I was 22 when His spirit was reborn in me.

IMO sheep do so 'because' they do know his name (nature/authority) though they may not know his moniker, but certainly not because of an maniacal bent. You describe the name/nature of the 'butcher' and not 'the shepherd' IMO.

This is probably a good description of my reluctance to lean to far into gnosticism. As I've said, the biggest imitator of God...is GOOD...or as I was taught 'the God of the world'. I think the source of 'apparent Good/God' is important, especially when declaring allegiance.

Even the woman with the spirit of divination proclaimed the gospel...truth, for several days before Paul apparently finally discerned it...and cast it out. True truth...wrong spirit. That's where I'm coming from. Hopefully you understand.
This is where IMO your discernment has failed you, or rather you have failed your discernment. No offense! And please do not get defensive, not that you would!


What is the "Gospel"? That Jesus "died for our sins"? Nonsense. That is history or myth, and we have no control over it. It's a deed done, and though we should thank Jesus for it, and is PART of the Gospel, it was not HIS religion. Jesus railed about the things we DO have control over. The Gospel is the truth that He brought-- That every man has value, that "Good" is "Good" for it's own sake, not for the sake of religion. James wrote "religion pure and undefiled before our God is this, that we look after the widows and orphans in their afliction". He did not add, "only if they call on the name of Jesus". Jung looked around and saw people aflicted, and sought to look after them. That makes his religion "pure and undefiled". Just as the Samaritan's religion was pure and undefiled. Not in the eyes of the Jew, but in the eyes of God where it matters.

If the imitator of God brings good, God will bless him, for thats what God wants. Jesus' God was the True God, that seeks goodness for the sake of goodness and has no jealousy over who brings it. Why? Because Love knows no jealousy. Only gladness in righteousness. Not in the righteousness of "sacred cows" but in the true righteousness of relieving suffering and standing up and helping those that cannot help themselves.


There is no "true truth, wrong spirit" unless you are telling the Nazi's where Anne Frank is hiding. There is only God(goodness and helping) and not God (not goodness and un-helpful). This was the Teaching of Christ.

My religion is not a religion about Jesus, but the religion OF Jesus. Knocking down superstition and worldly authority whenever it impedes the progression of bringing light into the world. Otherwise He was just a dead jew on a stick.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
This is where IMO your discernment has failed you, or rather you have failed your discernment. No offense! And please do not get defensive, not that you would!
We all certainly have our opinions on the discernment of others, and no offense was taken or intended.

What is the "Gospel"? That Jesus "died for our sins"?
I think that was the 'gospel' of the OT. That God would send a messiah who would become the final sacrifice, for all man and not just 'the chosen Jews'. Why do you think all of the OT....lineage, religion and symbolic rites etc. was all there, and in effect, for several thousand years? Was it a joke? Or did it have a purpose you haven't figured out? Me neither BTW.

Nonsense. That is history or myth, and we have no control over it. It's a deed done, and though we should thank Jesus for it, and is PART of the Gospel, it was not HIS religion. Jesus railed about the things we DO have control over. The Gospel is the truth that He brought-- That every man has value, that "Good" is "Good" for it's own sake, not for the sake of religion.

James wrote "religion pure and undefiled before our God is this, that we look after the widows and orphans in their afliction". He did not add, "only if they call on the name of Jesus".
I agree, James defined religion...all religions. But that did not negate the uniqueness of 'the religion' that was based upon "RELATIONSHIP' and not good DEEDS alone IMO. I believe I can be part of God's plan by helping OR NOT HELPING in a given situation. It depends upon what God is trying to accomplish in that individuals life at that time. You don't know what is best...God does. So whether you are to put mud in their eye to heal, or call them a brood of vipers is really His call and not ours IMO. Jesus himself said he didn't do/say anything he didn't see/hear the Father relay to him. And a lot of it still doesn't make sense to us today.

Jung looked around and saw people aflicted, and sought to look after them. That makes his religion "pure and undefiled". Just as the Samaritan's religion was pure and undefiled. Not in the eyes of the Jew, but in the eyes of God where it matters.
Your source for believing that is?


If the imitator of God brings good, God will bless him, for thats what God wants. Jesus' God was the True God, that seeks goodness for the sake of goodness and has no jealousy over who brings it. Why? Because Love knows no jealousy. Only gladness in righteousness. Not in the righteousness of "sacred cows" but in the true righteousness of relieving suffering and standing up and helping those that cannot help themselves.
Yes, that all sounds GOOD SG. Maybe it is, I don't know.

There is no "true truth, wrong spirit" unless you are telling the Nazi's where Anne Frank is hiding. There is only God(goodness and helping) and not God (not goodness and un-helpful). This was the Teaching of Christ.
Given the choice between your opinion above and the scripture below I am compelled to follow scripture on this point of disagreement. ;)

ACT 16:16 As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by soothsaying. WRONG SPIRIT
17 She followed Paul and us, crying, "
These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation." TRUTH speaking

My religion is not a religion about Jesus, but the religion OF Jesus.
And mine is a relationship WITH Jesus. Wherein, there is a fine line of division between spirit and soul, I think. IOW being led by the spirit instead of being lead with your head. Man can always justify his head thinking as being right...or good.
 
Upvote 0