It's a good question, same can be said about the Christian church. The famous question: Can a truly converted Christian ever lose his salvation? regardless how much sin he/she commits afterwards.
Touche! I should have said everyone needs to do good like everyone needs to breathe. Some people deny the need, and end up lacking; some recognize the need and engage it. Doing good includes ensuring full coverage for how one's past sins have harmed oneself and others, so the end result answers the question in each case.
IMO, doing good instead of evil negates archons influence on you and me and helps us with our struggle for spiritual liberation.
Okay ....
Because when you forget what you are, pure divine awareness, unbound by form, you fall asleep inside their dream.
How does the awoken live in this physical world then? Isn't it how Jesus lived, master of every situation, always down to earth remaining above it all?
Anyway, my point was eschatological so less important. If there is present motivation as you describe then there is always fruit and no doubt about whether any question will persist infinitely.
Why would life-and-death matters be based on manuscripts hidden from humanity for 1,500 years, how would that be fair to those who came before?
They aren't, they are based on matters accessible generally to all people and specially via echoes in all cultures. The recent phenomenon of a "complete Bible" is merely systematization of that eternal accessibility. Proof, the Bible never existed as one set of manuscripts in the same place at the same time, copies (even very poor ones) always work like the originals.
Among them were the Gnostics, communities that believed something revolutionary. You don't need priests, churches, or salvation from anyone else because the divine spark already lives within you. This wasn't just a theological disagreement. It was an existential threat to religious authority itself.
I don't understand. The divine spark makes anyone in very real senses a priest, church, and saviour. Therefore there should be no problem with letting anyone else be priest, church, or saviour too. Gnostics, or Orthodox, who would live and let live wouldn't have a problem with this. When a Gnostic, or an Orthodox, forgets the divine spark in another and declares separation that's when the war starts. So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat IMHO.
A little bit. This is a community that likes sources for sweeping claims like this. Gnostics executed, trying to recall any, nothing comes to mind. Libraries burned, doesn't sound like when the gnostics were alive. Yeah, a couple people were exiled as far as I know for "scattered communities". What physical facts did you have in mind?
For over 1500 years, we only knew Gnosticism through the writings of its enemies. Until 1945, when an Egyptian farmer discovered 13 buried co[d]ices near Nag Hammadi. Suddenly, we could hear the Gnostics speak for themselves. And what they revealed changes everything we thought we knew about early Christianity.
Thanks, James, but this doesn't sound like your own voice. When I discovered Nag Hammadi it didn't change anything I thought I knew.
I'm still not sure I understand your concern/question about Satan or Samael. Perhaps you could be more specific which tradition you are referring to.
I'm not referring to tradition but to actual beings. Is there not a single extant, conscious, sentient, communicative, spiritual being that currently answers to "Samael" and the title "satan"? Or do you not mean an entity at all but merely a cluster of abstract concepts like "Evil"?
he is often understood to represent the sinful impulse (in Hebrew, yetzer hara) or, more generally, the forces that prevents human beings from submitting to divine will.
Yeah, not what I'm talking about at all. Yetzer hara and forces are human or cosmic functions that can be instantiated, they're not abstract like evil. Similarly, spirit entities are personal beings like we are, and if they weren't then we should stop personifying them and just speak about them abstractly like evil.
the world is also full of people radiating hate, darkness, violence, and fear.
Or, these things are lack of radiation ....
And you can choose to call god: Yahweh, Jehovah, LORD, Elohim, Adonai, or Sabaoth. You can also choose to call evil: satan, samael, abaddon, or lucifer.
This sounds like you want to take the personality of both Monad and adversary out of the question. I'm focusing on persons.
I'm a person. I answer to the highest person that exists. If the Monad is a person, I answer to it; if not, I ask who is the highest person. Evil is not a person. There exists a most evil person (unless all humans and devils will be personally purified without exception). If there are no evil people, there is no point attributing personal titles to satan; if there is a most evil person, there is no point attributing him titles beyond what his evil deserves. HTH and thank you for the great counterpoint.
Doing good includes ensuring full coverage for how one's past sins have harmed oneself and others
IMO, it all comes down to foregiveness. This is what Jesus is telling us: I know the world is evil. I know that the rich and the powerful oppress us and we hate them. But, use your heart, have empathy and look into their minds and you will see how tormented they are. See how every day they live with demons that haunt them. How they can't ever rest. How they hate themselves and they hate the world around them. And when you see that for yourself, what you'll realize is they're more pitiful than you are. You may be poor, you may be a slave, but at least you're not haunted by demons. At least your soul is still alive. At least you still have the capacity for love and joy and connection. So if you really want to do good in the world, you have to forgive your enemy.
If there is present motivation as you describe then there is always fruit
I don't think it's the kind of fruit you have in mind. When you awaken to the source within, no illusion can touch you. Not the false lights of this world, not the noise of fear, not even the weight of your past. This is the secret Jesus revealed. That you could see through the illusion and realize you were never a prisoner, that the walls of the cage were made of thought. And the key has always been attention. Every time you choose awareness over reaction, truth over confusion, stillness over fear, you reclaim your divine inheritance. Maybe another way to look at your awakening capability is to compare it to a muscle. The more you work it, the stronger it gets. Pleroma, the fullness, is the realm beyond illusion. And that is the goal.
copies (even very poor ones) always work like the originals
But, they all require translation, copies and originals. Every single word you've read in the Bible is a translation. And every translation is an interpretation. And many are mistranslations. The question I ask is why were these mistransations allowed to stand? Why, when scholars knew better, did the institutional church
continue to promote translations that led to guilt, fear, and dependency rather than liberation, trust, and empowerment.
Therefore there should be no problem with letting anyone else be priest, church, or saviour too
I totally agree with you on this. But, unfortunatelly it was a problem.
So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat IMHO
Tell that to the Cathars. It was during the 13th century that organized persecution of the Cathars and their faith reached a climax. Cathar teaching regarding Jesus Christ was very different from that espoused by the medieval Catholic Church. For instance they didn't believe Christ was resurrected (something you don't find in Gnosticism either). They also rejected the cross as a holy symbol, for the Cathars, it was no more than a torture device, and therefore a symbol of evil. I can't say I disagree with that. Cathars caught by inquisitors who refused to recant were executed, often by being burned at the stake. The Church also burned their religious texts so they can't recruit new members. And in 1321 the last known Cathar Perfect in the Languedoc was burned at the stake.
Entire libraries burned, communities scattered, teachers executed. What physical facts did you have in mind?
When I discovered Nag Hammadi it didn't change anything I thought I knew
It was an important discovery for me. The first thing I did is read the Gospel of Thomas. Immediately I realized that it fundamentally differs from key
teachings of mainstream Christianity. The first saying in the gospel goes like this "and he said whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death". And then I said that's me, I will discover... and I finished all 114 sayings, and then I started to explore the rest of the manuscripts.
I'm a person. I answer to the highest person that exists. If the Monad is a person, I answer to it;
Well, Monad is not a person. It is the true source. The consciousness behind all consciousness. Monad doesn't want anything from you, it doesn't need you to answer to anyone. It does not communicate to you through words. It does not require priests to interpret its will. The Monad communicates through frequency, through vibration, through direct energetic transmission that bypasses the physical senses entirely. And the symptom of receiving this transmission, the sign that the signal is reaching you is a sound that seems to come from inside your own head.
if there is a most evil person
That reminds me of Aleister Crowley the self-proclaimed Magus of the Aeon, "The most wicked man in the World.". Crowley was also a heroin addict, and he was the self-proclaimed ‘Great Beast’. To say that Aleister Crowley was an evil man would be an understatement.
'There is academic controversy about whether Catharism was an organized religion or whether the medieval Church imagined or exaggerated it. The lack of any central organisation among Cathars and regional differences in beliefs and practices has prompted some scholars to question whether the Church exaggerated its threat while others wonder whether it even existed.'
'Several times in history the term "Cathar" was used to different groups that were deemed as heretics rather than a specific one .... It is certain that these "Cathars" were not the same as the self-designated The Perfecti of the Albigenses, however reflects the historical usage of the term in orthodox circles as a term to designate "heretics".'
So, yeah, neither the Cathars nor the Catholics needed to accommodate the extremists among them who perceived an existential threat, it always comes from extremism (declaration of separation) as I said.
It sounds like you're lumping together the entire history of churches against heretics with a small subset of it composed of churches against gnostics, that's why I got confused.
I appreciate the Deschner link, which I read with interest as it's always important to know the sordid history of people you work with.
Well, Monad is not a person
You say it's a consciousness. Who is the first person then? Serious question. It would be more accurate to say the Monad is beyond personality, resolving everything we can positively postulate about personality and nonpersonality.
And the symptom of receiving this transmission, the sign that the signal is reaching you is a sound that seems to come from inside your own head.
Can you distinguish this signal from other signals that have similar characteristics? Serious question.
There is academic controversy about whether Catharism ... So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat
I don't really want to discuss Catharism. I just used that as the first example that I could think of at the time, and perhaps that wasn't the best example to use.
Maybe a better example of what the Church would consider an existential threat is be the Gospel of John in the NT. Why look any further? IMO, the Gospel of John is a Gnostic text. Every Christian knows "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". But the Greek word they translated as word is logos. Logos means the organizing principle, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality. In Gnostic cosmology, the logos is the first emanation from the Monad, the infinite source. So, the logos already existed. Before time, before creation, before the material world, the logos is eternal, uncreated, which means the logos is not separate from the source. The logos and the Monad are one consciousness expressing as a parent too. Then in verse 14, John drops the bomb that the church has spent two millennia trying to contain and the logos became flesh and dwelt among us. The logos, the emanation of the Monad, the organizing principle of reality, the consciousness that is God took human form, not as a unique miracle that only happened once, as a demonstration of what's possible for the awaken ones.
The church turned this into the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus is God in flesh. Equally amazing to the doctrine of the Trinity, but on that later. Worship him. Obey him. You're not him. You're separate, forever inferior. John wrote that the logos became flesh. And if chosen ones carry the logos, which John says they do in chapter 1 12-13, then they too are the Monad in flesh. Incarnated divine consciousness, not servants of God. God experiencing itself as human. The church's entire control structure depends on separation. Obey the church, listen to the priests, become & stay dependent, and most importantly stay separated. Now, the Gospel of of John constitutes an existential threat. They had to do something because it was too popular to destroy, but its interpretation was locked down. Jesus is God. You are not, end of discussion. But, they couldn't change what John actually wrote.
You say it's a consciousness. Who is the first person then? Serious question
Everything is consciousness. And can be scientifically explained. Maybe it's best if I give you a link. Clif High talks about “The Pulse” and “The Wave”, in summary he claims all energy comes from the fact we’re pulsing reality at a rate of 22 trillion times a second. So fast it’s impossible for us to realize what’s happening. Reality here could be defined as the simulation I was talking about earlier, but think of it as the material/physical world we live in. According to Clif our reality gets created, destroyed then re-created at this amazing speed which gives rise to the Wave. So, in his opinion everything is consciousness which simulates matter that stays together due to magnetism.
Watch this 40 minute video, Clif may be a paranoid person (genetics), but he’s no dummy. There is a subsequent video he created, also a long time ago, which goes deeper into different levels of frequency and consciousness. Here is the link to "The Wooble": https://www.bitchute.com/video/kR81P5xQrruw/
Can you distinguish this signal from other signals that have similar characteristics? Serious question
Actually this is another good question you're asking. I have also been thinking about this for a long time. It's hard to identify & isolate such signal. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus dropped a code that the church never fully cracked. He said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear.". For a long time, people thought this was poetic metaphor. IMO, it wasn't, it was simply literal. He was talking about the frequency encryption. Think of truth as a radio broadcast. The signal is omnipresent. It is everywhere all the time. But the signal is encrypted at a specific bandwidth, a frequency of pure coherence. This is what I call the source or the Monad. The physical world, the reality you live in, vibrates at a much lower, denser frequency. It is fragmented, chaotic, just noise.
Maybe would be easier if I list three reasons I believe you know you are vibrating at the same "frequency" with the Monad?
#1: the glass wall. You have felt a distinct separation from the rest of the world your entire life. Have you ever asked yourself "Why am I feeling this way? why am I the only one feeling this pressure? Why is everyone else so comfortable in this system?". You look around and see everyone around you eating, drinking, and laughing. Maybe they aren't ignoring the signal. Maybe they physically cannot perceive it. Maybe you weren't crazy. Maybe you were just hearing what they couldn't. Plato described this perfectly in his allegory of the cave. Most of humanity is chained, watching shadows on the wall, believing the shadows are reality. You are the prisoner who managed to turn your head. You saw the fire. You saw the puppets casting the shadows. And once you see the mechanism of the illusion, you can never truly go back to watching the show like everyone else.
#2: system lag. The lag time between your internal thought and external reality is collapsing. You think of a specific concept and a stranger says that exact
word seconds later. You have a question in your mind and the radio answers it literally. This isn't coincidence. It is rendering speed. Your frequency is rising so high the Matrix is struggling to buffer your reality.
#3: sematic gnosis. It is happening right now in your body. The Greeks called it gnosis, knowledge through direct experience. Your body is a lie detector machine. When you hear high-level truth, your biology reacts before your brain does. You get truth chills. That sudden rush of electricity down your spine or a sudden heat in your chest. An unexplainable urge to weep. Not from sadness, but from the sheer relief of recognition.
The Church should not consider things as existential threats.
The Gospel of John is about true gnosis.
Logos means the organizing principle of reality, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality.
Logos is the unique first emanation (firstborn) from the Monad.
So Logos already existed "before" time, eternal, uncreated, unseparated from source.
Logos and Monad are one consciousness.
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, having taken full human form as never before, demonstrating all the potential of human form.
You object to the formula "God in flesh", but how is that different from saying Jesus is the one Consciousness in flesh?
I have written on the fact that, of the many words for worship, those applied to Jesus either were used routinely for the image of God in other humans or were ambiguous and applied to worshipping the Father in the Son (no latreia in himself). You might be interested in or repulsed by that, but it's wide open for discussion.
You object to "Obey Jesus", but how could there be any disobedience to him? How could there be any issue in being a different human than he is?
Now when we get to "inferior" that's not a Biblical word and it's not really a formal church teaching. We are One Body with him in the same way a bride is one body with a groom, never inferior, but subject to Jesus in the same way Jesus is to the source. The teaching and meaning of the bride is pretty important, is that problematic to you? I wouldn't call this "inferiority".
And if chosen ones carry the logos, which John says they do in chapter 1 12-13, then they too are the Monad in flesh. Incarnated divine consciousness, not servants of God. God experiencing itself as human.
Now this is where we need to be very technical in language to ensure what you mean is clearly communicated. Most of that is not the language of anyone in the first century. John 1:12-13 actually says we are sons of God (clearer 1 John 3:1-2), not by blood but by God (i.e. by his adoption). But Jesus came by blood (1 John 5:6), not by water only as adopted children come in baptism. The difference between the firstborn and all other children was well-established. The text is not "God in flesh" (nor "Monad" or "Unity"), but "Jesus in flesh" (1 John 4:2-3); you objected to the church saying "God in flesh", but you also permit it if you can call us "God in flesh". But we are told Jesus possesses the Pleroma (John 1:16) but we have only received "of" it (not received it "all", cf. Eph. 3:19, Col. 1:19, 2:9). If we could receive it all, I don't think that's been revealed (1 John 3:2). We are not called "incarnated" or "divine consciousness" of "God experiencing", though we are sons and partakers of divine nature. It seems straightforward that in a body there should be one head among the members, which is distinguished by being the foremost.
Jesus is God. You are not, end of discussion. But, they couldn't change what John actually wrote.
They made big mistakes; but since John's actual writing didn't contradict this simplified view they took, that doesn't strike me as one of the mistakes. We could go into what others said, but (as his children) we have the power to discern good and bad sayings (1 John 4:6).
Everything is consciousness.
Well, I generally count consciousness as personifying, maybe it's not so important. I don't do a lot of videos but I don't see a problem from your summary of Clif High. If we have Monad and we have first emanation of Logos and we have Logos possessing Pleroma that we partake of, that sounds like personal interaction. As a man, Jesus always did what man is capable of doing (but, often, what man had not yet done). As one monadic consciousness, there is always something unique to Jesus, expressed in the body and bride metaphors. If there were any barrier between any of us in the one body (e.g. a barrier between myself and Jesus), that would hinder any going forward in consciousness; so there is no ground for disobedience to Jesus, or surpassing Jesus in nature (as opposed to works), or for claiming to be one with everything when that hasn't been revealed. I hope that view isn't problematic.
I appreciate your giving practical answers to discernment! John also speaks heavily about discerning spiritual phenomena. Those perceptions including awakening separation, synchrony, and somatic reflex are indeed useful. Now when I perceive synchrony or somatic response I take that as a signal to heighten my awareness and pay close critical attention to immediate experience: sometimes I'm shown something central or true, but sometimes I'm shown something I discern to be shown me because of its illusory nature. But that discernment comes from my core, which is where the perception of separation takes place. If you've consciously dedicated your core to the Truth, the One, the Logos, it holds you such that nothing else can penetrate because it is greatest. That means that, relying on your having dedicated it, that which you receive from the core can be trusted, and the false voices are in contrast because they always take an external route. (Obviously the one who has dedicated himself to a falsehood will receive falsehoods in the core, which can be deceiving, and the solution can only be truth breaking through and being rededicated inside. I guess the SCIF is real.) So that's just a brief statement of my experience with those things.
It sounds like I'm concluding there are indeed extremists in the various modern churches, and they prove it by feeling threatened and by exercising involuntary control tactics. But we can get past that element and look for the people of every age who are dedicated to the Logos, and that never excludes Jesus as the head and as the groom.
Touche! I should have said everyone needs to do good like everyone needs to breathe. Some people deny the need, and end up lacking; some recognize the need and engage it. Doing good includes ensuring full coverage for how one's past sins have harmed oneself and others, so the end result answers the question in each case.
Okay ....
How does the awoken live in this physical world then? Isn't it how Jesus lived, master of every situation, always down to earth remaining above it all?
Anyway, my point was eschatological so less important. If there is present motivation as you describe then there is always fruit and no doubt about whether any question will persist infinitely.
They aren't, they are based on matters accessible generally to all people and specially via echoes in all cultures. The recent phenomenon of a "complete Bible" is merely systematization of that eternal accessibility. Proof, the Bible never existed as one set of manuscripts in the same place at the same time, copies (even very poor ones) always work like the originals.
I don't understand. The divine spark makes anyone in very real senses a priest, church, and saviour. Therefore there should be no problem with letting anyone else be priest, church, or saviour too. Gnostics, or Orthodox, who would live and let live wouldn't have a problem with this. When a Gnostic, or an Orthodox, forgets the divine spark in another and declares separation that's when the war starts. So the aspect of gnosis you describe doesn't logically constitute an existential threat IMHO.
A little bit. This is a community that likes sources for sweeping claims like this. Gnostics executed, trying to recall any, nothing comes to mind. Libraries burned, doesn't sound like when the gnostics were alive. Yeah, a couple people were exiled as far as I know for "scattered communities". What physical facts did you have in mind?
Thanks, James, but this doesn't sound like your own voice. When I discovered Nag Hammadi it didn't change anything I thought I knew.
I'm not referring to tradition but to actual beings. Is there not a single extant, conscious, sentient, communicative, spiritual being that currently answers to "Samael" and the title "satan"? Or do you not mean an entity at all but merely a cluster of abstract concepts like "Evil"?
Yeah, not what I'm talking about at all. Yetzer hara and forces are human or cosmic functions that can be instantiated, they're not abstract like evil. Similarly, spirit entities are personal beings like we are, and if they weren't then we should stop personifying them and just speak about them abstractly like evil.
Or, these things are lack of radiation ....
This sounds like you want to take the personality of both Monad and adversary out of the question. I'm focusing on persons.
I'm a person. I answer to the highest person that exists. If the Monad is a person, I answer to it; if not, I ask who is the highest person. Evil is not a person. There exists a most evil person (unless all humans and devils will be personally purified without exception). If there are no evil people, there is no point attributing personal titles to satan; if there is a most evil person, there is no point attributing him titles beyond what his evil deserves. HTH and thank you for the great counterpoint.
IMO, it all comes down to foregiveness. This is what Jesus is telling us: I know the world is evil. I know that the rich and the powerful oppress us and we hate them. But, use your heart, have empathy and look into their minds and you will see how tormented they are. See how every day they live with demons that haunt them. How they can't ever rest. How they hate themselves and they hate the world around them. And when you see that for yourself, what you'll realize is they're more pitiful than you are. You may be poor, you may be a slave, but at least you're not haunted by demons. At least your soul is still alive. At least you still have the capacity for love and joy and connection. So if you really want to do good in the world, you have to forgive your enemy.
I don't think it's the kind of fruit you have in mind. When you awaken to the source within, no illusion can touch you. Not the false lights of this world, not the noise of fear, not even the weight of your past. This is the secret Jesus revealed. That you could see through the illusion and realize you were never a prisoner, that the walls of the cage were made of thought. And the key has always been attention. Every time you choose awareness over reaction, truth over confusion, stillness over fear, you reclaim your divine inheritance. Maybe another way to look at your awakening capability is to compare it to a muscle. The more you work it, the stronger it gets. Pleroma, the fullness, is the realm beyond illusion. And that is the goal.
But, they all require translation, copies and originals. Every single word you've read in the Bible is a translation. And every translation is an interpretation. And many are mistranslations. The question I ask is why were these mistransations allowed to stand? Why, when scholars knew better, did the institutional church continue to promote translations that led to guilt, fear, and dependency rather than liberation, trust, and empowerment.
I totally agree with you on this. But, unfortunatelly it was a problem.
Tell that to the Cathars. It was during the 13th century that organized persecution of the Cathars and their faith reached a climax. Cathar teaching regarding Jesus Christ was very different from that espoused by the medieval Catholic Church. For instance they didn't believe Christ was resurrected (something you don't find in Gnosticism either). They also rejected the cross as a holy symbol, for the Cathars, it was no more than a torture device, and therefore a symbol of evil. I can't say I disagree with that. Cathars caught by inquisitors who refused to recant were executed, often by being burned at the stake. The Church also burned their religious texts so they can't recruit new members. And in 1321 the last known Cathar Perfect in the Languedoc was burned at the stake.
Do you expect me to list all the atrocities committed by the Church? I could write a book, but I won't. Karlheinz Deschner and many others already did. Here is a Wikipedia link to "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (In English Criminal History of Christianity)": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriminalgeschichte_des_Christentums?ysclid=mkl1vkukso874162662
It was an important discovery for me. The first thing I did is read the Gospel of Thomas. Immediately I realized that it fundamentally differs from key teachings of mainstream Christianity. The first saying in the gospel goes like this "and he said whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death". And then I said that's me, I will discover... and I finished all 114 sayings, and then I started to explore the rest of the manuscripts.
Well, Monad is not a person. It is the true source. The consciousness behind all consciousness. Monad doesn't want anything from you, it doesn't need you to answer to anyone. It does not communicate to you through words. It does not require priests to interpret its will. The Monad communicates through frequency, through vibration, through direct energetic transmission that bypasses the physical senses entirely. And the symptom of receiving this transmission, the sign that the signal is reaching you is a sound that seems to come from inside your own head.
That reminds me of Aleister Crowley the self-proclaimed Magus of the Aeon, "The most wicked man in the World.". Crowley was also a heroin addict, and he was the self-proclaimed ‘Great Beast’. To say that Aleister Crowley was an evil man would be an understatement.
So, yeah, neither the Cathars nor the Catholics needed to accommodate the extremists among them who perceived an existential threat, it always comes from extremism (declaration of separation) as I said.
It sounds like you're lumping together the entire history of churches against heretics with a small subset of it composed of churches against gnostics, that's why I got confused.
I appreciate the Deschner link, which I read with interest as it's always important to know the sordid history of people you work with.
You say it's a consciousness. Who is the first person then? Serious question. It would be more accurate to say the Monad is beyond personality, resolving everything we can positively postulate about personality and nonpersonality.
Can you distinguish this signal from other signals that have similar characteristics? Serious question.
I don't really want to discuss Catharism. I just used that as the first example that I could think of at the time, and perhaps that wasn't the best example to use.
Maybe a better example of what the Church would consider an existential threat is be the Gospel of John in the NT. Why look any further? IMO, the Gospel of John is a Gnostic text. Every Christian knows "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". But the Greek word they translated as word is logos. Logos means the organizing principle, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality. In Gnostic cosmology, the logos is the first emanation from the Monad, the infinite source. So, the logos already existed. Before time, before creation, before the material world, the logos is eternal, uncreated, which means the logos is not separate from the source. The logos and the Monad are one consciousness expressing as a parent too. Then in verse 14, John drops the bomb that the church has spent two millennia trying to contain and the logos became flesh and dwelt among us. The logos, the emanation of the Monad, the organizing principle of reality, the consciousness that is God took human form, not as a unique miracle that only happened once, as a demonstration of what's possible for the awaken ones.
The church turned this into the doctrine of the incarnation. Jesus is God in flesh. Equally amazing to the doctrine of the Trinity, but on that later. Worship him. Obey him. You're not him. You're separate, forever inferior. John wrote that the logos became flesh. And if chosen ones carry the logos, which John says they do in chapter 1 12-13, then they too are the Monad in flesh. Incarnated divine consciousness, not servants of God. God experiencing itself as human. The church's entire control structure depends on separation. Obey the church, listen to the priests, become & stay dependent, and most importantly stay separated. Now, the Gospel of of John constitutes an existential threat. They had to do something because it was too popular to destroy, but its interpretation was locked down. Jesus is God. You are not, end of discussion. But, they couldn't change what John actually wrote.
Everything is consciousness. And can be scientifically explained. Maybe it's best if I give you a link. Clif High talks about “The Pulse” and “The Wave”, in summary he claims all energy comes from the fact we’re pulsing reality at a rate of 22 trillion times a second. So fast it’s impossible for us to realize what’s happening. Reality here could be defined as the simulation I was talking about earlier, but think of it as the material/physical world we live in. According to Clif our reality gets created, destroyed then re-created at this amazing speed which gives rise to the Wave. So, in his opinion everything is consciousness which simulates matter that stays together due to magnetism.
Watch this 40 minute video, Clif may be a paranoid person (genetics), but he’s no dummy. There is a subsequent video he created, also a long time ago, which goes deeper into different levels of frequency and consciousness. Here is the link to "The Wooble": https://www.bitchute.com/video/kR81P5xQrruw/
Actually this is another good question you're asking. I have also been thinking about this for a long time. It's hard to identify & isolate such signal. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus dropped a code that the church never fully cracked. He said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear.". For a long time, people thought this was poetic metaphor. IMO, it wasn't, it was simply literal. He was talking about the frequency encryption. Think of truth as a radio broadcast. The signal is omnipresent. It is everywhere all the time. But the signal is encrypted at a specific bandwidth, a frequency of pure coherence. This is what I call the source or the Monad. The physical world, the reality you live in, vibrates at a much lower, denser frequency. It is fragmented, chaotic, just noise.
Maybe would be easier if I list three reasons I believe you know you are vibrating at the same "frequency" with the Monad?
Okay, I'll agree:
The Church should not consider things as existential threats.
The Gospel of John is about true gnosis.
Logos means the organizing principle of reality, the divine intelligence, the creative consciousness that structures reality.
Logos is the unique first emanation (firstborn) from the Monad.
So Logos already existed "before" time, eternal, uncreated, unseparated from source.
Logos and Monad are one consciousness.
Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, having taken full human form as never before, demonstrating all the potential of human form.
You object to the formula "God in flesh", but how is that different from saying Jesus is the one Consciousness in flesh?
I have written on the fact that, of the many words for worship, those applied to Jesus either were used routinely for the image of God in other humans or were ambiguous and applied to worshipping the Father in the Son (no latreia in himself). You might be interested in or repulsed by that, but it's wide open for discussion.
You object to "Obey Jesus", but how could there be any disobedience to him? How could there be any issue in being a different human than he is?
Now when we get to "inferior" that's not a Biblical word and it's not really a formal church teaching. We are One Body with him in the same way a bride is one body with a groom, never inferior, but subject to Jesus in the same way Jesus is to the source. The teaching and meaning of the bride is pretty important, is that problematic to you? I wouldn't call this "inferiority".
Now this is where we need to be very technical in language to ensure what you mean is clearly communicated. Most of that is not the language of anyone in the first century. John 1:12-13 actually says we are sons of God (clearer 1 John 3:1-2), not by blood but by God (i.e. by his adoption). But Jesus came by blood (1 John 5:6), not by water only as adopted children come in baptism. The difference between the firstborn and all other children was well-established. The text is not "God in flesh" (nor "Monad" or "Unity"), but "Jesus in flesh" (1 John 4:2-3); you objected to the church saying "God in flesh", but you also permit it if you can call us "God in flesh". But we are told Jesus possesses the Pleroma (John 1:16) but we have only received "of" it (not received it "all", cf. Eph. 3:19, Col. 1:19, 2:9). If we could receive it all, I don't think that's been revealed (1 John 3:2). We are not called "incarnated" or "divine consciousness" of "God experiencing", though we are sons and partakers of divine nature. It seems straightforward that in a body there should be one head among the members, which is distinguished by being the foremost.
They made big mistakes; but since John's actual writing didn't contradict this simplified view they took, that doesn't strike me as one of the mistakes. We could go into what others said, but (as his children) we have the power to discern good and bad sayings (1 John 4:6).
Well, I generally count consciousness as personifying, maybe it's not so important. I don't do a lot of videos but I don't see a problem from your summary of Clif High. If we have Monad and we have first emanation of Logos and we have Logos possessing Pleroma that we partake of, that sounds like personal interaction. As a man, Jesus always did what man is capable of doing (but, often, what man had not yet done). As one monadic consciousness, there is always something unique to Jesus, expressed in the body and bride metaphors. If there were any barrier between any of us in the one body (e.g. a barrier between myself and Jesus), that would hinder any going forward in consciousness; so there is no ground for disobedience to Jesus, or surpassing Jesus in nature (as opposed to works), or for claiming to be one with everything when that hasn't been revealed. I hope that view isn't problematic.
I appreciate your giving practical answers to discernment! John also speaks heavily about discerning spiritual phenomena. Those perceptions including awakening separation, synchrony, and somatic reflex are indeed useful. Now when I perceive synchrony or somatic response I take that as a signal to heighten my awareness and pay close critical attention to immediate experience: sometimes I'm shown something central or true, but sometimes I'm shown something I discern to be shown me because of its illusory nature. But that discernment comes from my core, which is where the perception of separation takes place. If you've consciously dedicated your core to the Truth, the One, the Logos, it holds you such that nothing else can penetrate because it is greatest. That means that, relying on your having dedicated it, that which you receive from the core can be trusted, and the false voices are in contrast because they always take an external route. (Obviously the one who has dedicated himself to a falsehood will receive falsehoods in the core, which can be deceiving, and the solution can only be truth breaking through and being rededicated inside. I guess the SCIF is real.) So that's just a brief statement of my experience with those things.
It sounds like I'm concluding there are indeed extremists in the various modern churches, and they prove it by feeling threatened and by exercising involuntary control tactics. But we can get past that element and look for the people of every age who are dedicated to the Logos, and that never excludes Jesus as the head and as the groom.