Chili

Here is my last post to not derail your tread, but 'truth is real' and has substance beyond our human nature wherein we are temporal and have continuity with God only inside the nucleus of our being where the 'Ideal' is retained to become manifest on earth as God/life in motion and so is begotten as Ideal, ex-nihilo created, and is maintained via the son, obviously, and here now is made manifest as the fruit of the perpetual Virgin 'that' contained Him throughout the ages. So now you also know who Mary is and why it is that Elizabeth was the Virgin of Virgins who brings to bear Mary as 'kinswoman' to give birth to 'it' in the current generation.

And I call the Perpetual Virgin a 'that' only because she is a 'that' until her Appearance is made known to us 'in function,' which then is why dogma is not dogmatic until it is made manifest on earth. It is in the same way that Mary was 'it' as the manifestation of Elizabeth who so became Alma Mater and Mary her manifestation who is 'iconic' to us and therefore 'probable' until the presentation when her 'appearance' is made in us as the most enigmatic image of 'Human Perfection' that we look for in 'mirror, mirror on the wall' and so is 'she' who James Joyce saw 'standing with a seaweed wrapped on her leg as 'a sign' fixed on it' etc., in his "Portrait" near the end of Chapter VI).*

Moses never 'saw the face of God' or he would have died and be raised like Christ, and so was a 'holy roller on the run' and misled the 'Children of Hamlin,' I suppose, who did much the same. The words 'parting the waters' denotes forceful entry into the promised land that we must reach by walking on top of the water, which in the end only means by 'intuition' which then is what 'ousia' making is all about, so that 'knowledge' alone will get us there instead of desire [aroused by the Eristic spectacle of an evangelist in action, such as presented in Rev.13:11- where such 'great progedies' are performed while pointing at the first beast whose wounds had been healed, and so are our modern day 'Jesus worshipers' looking for better days ahead. . . . or Mohammed, for all I care, wherein Gabriel was never 'iconic' as material cause 'to be' simply because there is no plural for the word 'einai,' remember? In other words, there is only one nucleus that contains the 'Son of Man.' So he was just an idiot, I would say. . . or else the Greeks are wrong, which in essense is what he tried say when he told us about his conversation with the Angel Gabriel. IOW there is no 'thatness' about Gabriel who is 'messenger as angel.'

The 'ousia of God' is the parousia or final ousia that I called a 'first order enthymeme' wherein the primary is missing and we ask ourself 'what is this life all about,' and effectively put our entire Curriculum Vitae aside (not give it to the Church), and so 'journey to Beth-le-hem on our own, by faith, as if led by the nose' (= beyond theology), with the woman seated on the donkey and so [intuition] is in charge of our destiny during that journey ** . . . because only she knows where the manger is at to nourish us during the infancy of our 'self realization,' of which then she is 'the placenta or nucleus' to nourish us, but needs isolation to do this and that is what send the Magi on their way with the promise of 'full illumination.'

The duration of this time is 2 weeks (from Dec.25 to Jan.7), during which time illumination occurs inside the netherworld or soul, I suppose, which then is the duration of the Magi's journey. This illumination concept is when the shepherds 'looked in' and understood [while the sun had stopped to keep the faculty of reason inactive, and so the shepherds just looked in to understand but did not enter***]. Now note that everyone whom they told also understood and that is just how illumination works. . . which kept the Magi 'enroute' because they followed the trail that created the first 12 ousia's for which they had supplied the 'primary' that created these insight that came full circle each of those ousia, that so became shepherds in their own right as noted in our own C.V. Aristotle confirms this concept in his last paragraph of his "posterior anylics" Book II,

"it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premisses-a result which also follows from the fact that demonstration cannot be the originative source of demonstration, nor, consequently, scientific knowledge of scientific knowledge"

And you can read more about it here:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aris...poa/book2.html

(not pretending that I know Aristotle that well but as the dean of Greek philosophy is useful here).

And not to go sideways but material John makes this concept known that the disciples of Jesus were baptizing more than Jesus was already in chapter 4:1-2, to say that the Infancy was not a physical infancy but a metaphysical one instead, and therefore real 'beyond human fallacy' and Herod could do his thing in Matthew where the shepherds were not part of the action that so proved that this Joesph was an Egyptian as outsider to the event and hence there was no manger. This so is where the 'son-of Man' was "from his mothers womb untimely ripped" and Henry VIII thought is was a great idea and 'hi-ho, hi-ho, and off to work he went.'

So note then, that the shepherds were Joesph's '12 prior' second and third order enthymemes that came full circle in the ouisa now 'on park' to get to the bottom of this self inquiry and so they were 'on the run' during this inquiry (i.e. there is something wrong when they are taking turns herding sheep on a midlife, midwinter midnight to make that concept known). And here then 'entymemes' are 'outside talk' that are iconic and therefore beg 'probing' and this is what led to the inquiry and therefore the Lamb of God is born from Nazareth and not the son of God out of Egypt). Notice also the distinction made beteen "from Nazareth" and "out of Egypt" wherein from Nazareth is local and out of Egypt is as foreigner, while yet the shepherds where 'genuine' that send the Magi on the way to follow the same trail that illuminated the mind of Joseph while in Egypt. So the 'Star' of Beth-le-hem was real for the Magi to follow, and their Journey pre-existed in the life of Joseph that led him to this 'empty stable' now with his mind in disarray, as if 'caught in a thicket' (lovely line from Lorca).

The problem, however, is that they arrived late in Matthew, as they must be local and be his guide by faith wherefore then Mary found consolence with Elizabeth in Luke, . . . while Matthew went back to Egypt again where reason prevails and so had no 'shepherds on the run.' IOW, he did not know 'what' was going-on but only knew 'that' something was going on and so Herod was where the Magi went, and that is 'what killed' the parthenocarpic germ . . . much in the same way is the precauction of Pilate to seal the tomb is what opened it simply as with one 'eye asquint.'

* In other words, Joyce had a Beatific Vision.

** The Church has a icon to show this image to be compared with the triumphant enty into Jerusalem, with the difference being that 'check-mate' Joseph was as much as dragging his ass behind the donkey while in the other 'dapper Joseph' was leading the donkey in.

** *Pasternak wrote a poem on this called "A Christmas Star" in Zhivago where he makes a point of this.

Chili

Nucleus is feminine so it can conceive the positive and is where Catholics bump into Mary all the time to have intercourse with her.

Chili

You are very welcome and take to heart is there is power in words.

Chili

Shakespeare has this bastard too and this number 713 tells the tale wherein he was divided on the 7th day between himself as created 1 and the world of number 3 and so a saved sinner he was. And then of course menstrual impurity means that he was from his mother's womb untimely ripped and it was Eve who here delivered.

Chili

Quite topical with eidolon making that ousai's may be known but a very clumsy way to write the Loretta Litany.

Chili

Things are looking up here to, and I rather enjoyed Jerry Springer today. Hmmm, spring must be on its way, I am sure.

Sheshbazzar

Maybe it was a compliment. You know it wouldn't be the first I've given you old friend.

Chili

Meant very well, I know, thank you, but I do not agree with Stephen in principle and there is nothing he can do about that.

Sheshbazzar

Well since when did anyone around here ever agree with damn near anyone ? :huh:

Most of us can't even agree with own selves from one day to the next. :Cheeky:

Sorry Stephan, just couldn't resist a little comic relief.

Horatio Parker

Key ray hell son?