While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler's house some who said, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any further?"
But ignoring what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe."
And he allowed no one to follow him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James. When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. And when he had entered, he said to them, "Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead, but sleeping,
And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was.
Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Tlitha cumi", which means "Little girl, arise."
And immediately the girl got up and walked (She was 12 years of age) and they were immediately overcome with amazement. And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.
4 comments:
I've been reading a bit of Joel Goldsmith lately... Perhaps the best of the newage people, drops an occasional factual howler but is one who seems to know God well.
What he would say about all this (roughly) is that yes, there is power flying about but it is not "Jesus's" power. Jesus is maintaining his awareness that God within him, the I-that-am, is the only power that ultimately needs to considered.
The various conditions and constraints that afflict people's lives, in the face of that, are like lines drawn in chalk in a children's game. When an adult says "Come over here," a child walks out of the square he was trapped in because he never was really caught in it. Disease ceases to be "a power;" even death. The authorities can't touch him until, at last in Jerusalem, he joins briefly in their game... but even then won't stay in his box.
Perhaps the best of the newage people, drops an occasional factual howler but is one who seems to know God well
Just how do we know that someone knows God well. Is there a set of accepted evidentiary indicators? Or is this an intuitive thing? And if intuitive -- does this intuition differ from -- "we share similar christologies" or "he uses language similarly to me"?
I'm not trying jsut single you out. This si an ongoing isue with me. A friend refers to another as a "spiritual person" -- how am I to interpret such statements?
There is no foolproof method, as far as I know.
------
There was an untrained Hindu mathematician; he showed a few notes to a visiting Brit who urged him to write to the math dept at (I think) Oxford. The English mathematician who read the letter said to himself: "Hmmm, we know about this; dunno about that one but it's interesting as hell; that one is wrong but the flaw is pretty subtle; I wonder how he got this one and this other..." They immediately sent him a ticket to England.
------
Using the same theological language helps a lot in recognizing common features between what we know and what another person is describing. It can still be done across a terminology gap but it's trickier.
A person can always take another person's words and try to build a tower to Heaven with them. Lotsaluck. It might be a perfectly good tower, but...
All I know about Goldsmith is that he was telling the truth about the nature of God, taking it a good long step beyond anyone's conventional theology.
I can argue with his ghost for pages & pages, but the understanding he writes from stretches me in a good direction.
I understand Jesus; to a great extent I really do--but I have yet to heal anyone. So what is it I've been missing? To put my faith solidly on the rock--not on any thing I know or do or believe--but to trust what truly is, beyond my "beliefs".
Everything I've learned about the condition of the world demonstrates that "The Prince of This World" must be the devil... Death, disease, violence, fear, greed, lies--and yet God reaches through all that and maintains us, within his order, in the midst of it.
So Goldsmith just tells us, that despite the appearances, God is really in charge. He says that people used to heal through his influence, not by anything he did but because, when he made himself silent before God, the reality of God rendered any afflictions people had brought to him unreal.
So, are those afflictions a legitimate part of the order of the world, or not? They have their own logic; they fit within the world as we know it, and serve God's purposes (or they wouldn't be here)... but are they "real"?
I'm really not looking for a foolproof methodology -- even though as a fool I might find this helpful -- I'm looking for the basis for the judgement.
Your response is helpful in a way. You recognize the dangers of taking another's words and as bluprints rather than wisdom to live with and adapt. But in the end you make a statement -- he was telling the truth about the nature of God -- without saying why his was right.
That is precisely what I doubt about Joel Goldsmith. His language is so rooted in his times I find it hard to get behind it to the stuff he's trying to point me to. I have a similar issue with Agnes Sanford and with Hannah Whitall Smith -- though with HWS I make the effort.
I'm also aware that according to the gospels Jesus circumvented questions about the nature of God. Its easier for em to stick with questions about what God requires of me than to speculate of the metaphysical status of the ineffable.
Post a Comment