Originally Posted by Chili

Yes water is knowedge retained in the TOL (tree of life) to give us dry land to walk on already in Gen. 1:6, after first life was created in 3, and also 'life as opposed to death' in verse 4. Then in verse 6 the mind of man is the sea to give him dry land to gain more knowledge to be retained in the TOL. It is all imagery, yes, and true in this paradigm for each one of us.

Today we would call that our soul wherein is held that part of us that we do not know, and so is why some people deny their own soul because it is just not an organ that they can touch. We call these Materialist while this is an Idealist recipe to read, similar to if if you are going to desing a house you must have the idea in your mind first or it would all be done by accident, like watches are made in the desert, or so the argument goes, without thinking about it first. So then it goes without saying that creation is always ex-nihilo in the mind of man that we call God from a distance.

So then in Gen.1 the of essence of Man was created with the 'God said' and in Gen.2 this essence takes 'Form' now with corporeal substance as Man in the image of God and then in Gen.3 'like god' was created by conjecture only in the TOK (tree of knowledge), and was never formed to have substance because the TOL was occupied by the woman who was taken from man . . . to say only that the TOL was needed to gain 'sense perception and intelligence' so he could think for himself and gain more knowldge and riches so as to add beauty to knowledge with distinction in effort to gain dominion, etc. and more.

The point to understand here is that man and woman never were Adam and Eve nor will they ever be Adam and Eve, but it was the 'like god' image that gained status as Adam and he took the talking serpent to be his wife and called her Eve, and so both of these are an illusion that we call the ego while the Imago belongs to the Man underneath who feels the pain and not the gain because the 'decorated' chest pertains to the ego and not the man as man only, and that is made known in the difference between 'no shame' of Gen. 2:25 and the shame comples after his eyes we opened in Gen:3:7.

As an aside here under hypnosis there is no shame and also no pain.

So now to be human means to be 'earthly' as from outside of Eden where Adam and Eve exist along the light of common day and there go by the TOK or 'reason' to guide their way (note that hu-= humi=earthly and so without hu- is not).

So then for Jesus to be human he must be a product of reason and that can never be true and instead is 'from his mother's womb untimely ripped via Eve instead of the woman. The phrase "from his mothers womb untilely ripped' is from Macbeth who also "wanted to be king hereafter' and you can see how reason was part of that delight.

Here then, Jesus was man and was God but not human, and so was May also not human and therefore sinless as well.

To note here is that 'Jesus is real' and has an 'efficent, material and final cause and hence the manifestation is real for both a human and a not human Jesus, and the word 'ripped' only makes reference to the rational component of the efficent cause that called it to be an event.

Next would be the definition of 'real' which here relates to beauty only and this would be the beauty of truth and the rest is illusion and so it is all metaphysis that pertains to the argument only but makes the illusion mobile for sure.

Originally Posted by Iskander

Despair thy charm;
And let the angel whom thou still hast serv’d
Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother’s womb
Untimely ripp’d.

Catholic doctrine teaches now a non classical version of the creation of man and one very different from the narrative of Genesis.

They teach that God did not make Adam from dust but that God took an ape or monkey or whatever and infused into it the immortal soul, --they call this process ensoulment.


According to this, Adam and Eve were only upgraded monkeys taken away from their parents, placed in a garden, infused with an immortal soul (ensoulment) and told not to eat the fruit of a particular tree.

Regrettably the immortal monkeys did what mortal monkeys do and ate of the fruit that tree. The upgraded monkeys were expelled from the garden and returned to the jungle from where they had come.

Since the parents of Adam and Eve were mortal monkeys, were the ancestors of every human that has ever lived also mortal monkeys?

Originally Posted by Chili

[Neet, let's do him:

. . . she wanted him to be king hereafter (I.iii.50)

"We have scorched the snake, not killed it./
She'll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice /
Remains in danger of her former tooth" III.11.13-15.

Centre of play is pivotal point and down he goes.

Ever wondered why Lady Mabeth hath no name but Lady Macbeth? Very telling of the nature of the play.

Never heard that one, thank you.

Originally Posted by Chili

Macbeth was a satire, and a slam against the CoE to be compared with Coriolanus where the 3 women worked from behind the scene, while Lady Macbeth was right beside him, but on the forefront where she did not belong and sought to fight his battles as his mouthpiece driven by desire.

Lady Macbeth so was equal to Volumnia from Rome who's name echo's the volume of infinity as the mother to Coriolanus, who is the final victor in faith-without-reason, while Lady Macbeth was the duffy dozer loser that Lady Macduff represents as her wisdom all the way from Scotland via this 'gentlewoman' on her side, and dreamed about her all the time whith this 'little light at night' always burning beside her bed, and so Scotland here was much like Egypt was to Nazareth in the mind of Matthew's Jesus, who so was from his mother's womb untimely ripped . . . and back to purging he went and there finally said "Oh, no more [by inference]" and by the iron sword of Macduff he died instead in the line "And damned be him who first cries 'Hold enough'" (V.viii.34) to cf with 'the unconsious surrender' of Aufidius in "O, no more, no more!" (V.iii.87) in Coriolanus, who so died by the sword of love that Volumia had bestowed on him.

Then notice that Coriolanus was the victor here and Volumia was his mother from Rome (faith) engaged in the life of Aufidius, who was the leader of the Volcians and a riot of his own, married to virgin Virgilia who stood behind him as in always with great valor and Valeria as friend.

So these plays present the qualities of life that guide us home in destiny and so in 'life unfolding' which was Rome for Aufidius in comedy, and was suicide gained from Scotland in tragedy. This has nothing to say about the English, the Scots or the Romans per se, but about truth reinforced by mores to find destiny in the mind of the beholder, and there find rest in eternity in a life that says 'well done.'

Notice please: Volumina, Virgilia and Valeria are beautiful names indeed, and now shows why Lady Macbeth was no more than that.

Originally Posted by Toto

This can be moved to E if you want.

I don't know why people are replying. Could someone explain?