Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 9, 2017 at 12:36pm

I thought James Naylor was a man. Is it okay to let the guy teach us a little? But if we accept this bit, shouldn't we reject it, then?

Oh! We don't need logic, either! Still, I used to be rather fond of logic (though it is far from being an infallible guide. (Why that is would require a longer digression.))

Can you be content to let people follow God in whatever ways God has (so far) led them to, until God Him/Her/It-self should lead them elsewhere?

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 9, 2017 at 4:17pm

#Writing

I am come into and am witnessing that which I own with James Naylor and all those who own and inherit direct experience of sufficiency in the Light. In owning this immediate and ever conscious witnessing, I am not teaching but testifying to witnessing of a different way being that is not the way of images, imitations, and notions. In witnessing the sufficiency of the inshining Light itself in itself guiding and informing in the conscious and conscience, it may happen others may come into the witnessing by inshining Grace illuminating their conscious and conscience. That measure of Grace is not for me, or anyone else, to teach. I am in the Light and own the same with those in the immediate and sufficient witnessing which is not taught but is living.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 9, 2017 at 9:12pm

Um, the context was presumably 17th Century Protestant notions of salvation vs damnation.

As to that context, I'd say that the love of God as Jesus described it should do the job just fine -- that one way or another God would certainly supply whatever we actually needed,  whether through a "Voice From Heaven" (in some cases) or just a word delivered through a friend or a stranger, teaching or just making conversation...

From that standpoint, it does seem to me you belabor the point a bit much, as if the word of God could only come in one sort of package. Perhaps it's your love of archaic language tends to point me toward misinterpretations of what you mean?

Comment by Howard Brod on 3rd mo. 9, 2017 at 9:58pm

Keith, I was so moved by your comment above, that the Spirit upon me in contemplation saw a consistency between John the Apostle's experience, James Naylor's experience, and your own experience expressed in your comment, that I combined the three into a type of trilogy.  I did a bit of 'trimming' for readability (please forgive me).  I present it here:

Sufficiency of the Inshining Light

  

The true light, which gives light to every human being, came into the world.

This, in essence, is the message we heard from Christ and are passing on to you: God is light, pure light; there’s not a trace of darkness in him.

Whoever hates is still in the dark, stumbles around in the dark, doesn’t know true reality, blinded by the darkness.

John the Apostle, 100 A.D.

  

This light we believe and follow;

and by this we are led out of all the ways, works and worships of this dark world,

                                                and the effect of this light we witness by faith;         

and by this faith we deny all who say, “This light is not sufficient without the teaching of man”. 

James Naylor, 1656

  

I am come into and am witnessing that which I own with James Naylor

and all those who own and inherit direct experience of sufficiency in the Light.

I am witnessing of a different way of being that is not the way of images, imitations, and notions.

In witnessing the sufficiency of the inshining Light itself in itself,

it may happen others may come into the illuminating of their conscious and conscience.

That measure of Grace is not for me, or anyone else, to teach.

I am in the Light which is not taught but is living.

 Keith Saylor, 2017

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 10, 2017 at 12:16am

Oh well. I very much liked Rami Shapiro's interpretation of Jesus' mystical teachings, based on statements attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of John -- but I've always been deeply allergic to the style and language of 'John' -- which depicts a much different personality than Jesus as I find him in the Synoptics. Some of what he's made to say by 'John' really does inspire me; but...

Comment by Keith Saylor on 3rd mo. 10, 2017 at 4:07pm

Hello Howard. Thank you for putting this together. I am in a different Spirit because of your sharing. It is more and more evident to me of a way of speaking that, for lack of a better word, incarnates Presence in the very speaking itself. It is speaking Presence ... presently. I have experienced this spiritual dialect in my reading and study of very early Quaker writings over the years and, of late, it is discovered to and owned in my conscience in sometimes startling ways. In speaking this spiritual dialect, there happens a. symbiosis between the speaking and the hearing Presence itself incarnates in the Naming. I am stumbling a bit with this different way of speaking ... it is somewhat like learning to speak all over again. That is, speaking this spiritual dialect involves breaking down of the old way of reflective speaking and completely turning into a different way of participation altogether.

Blessings, Keith

Comment