Chili

One must be careful to accept lines about Catholicism by Historians who really do not know:
Perpetual also means that she always was, together with the son from the beginning as the einai of the son. This is made known in the lineage of Luke where sonship goes via all the ancients right back to God.

I mean for him to say ". . . woman (i.e. the female principle), creating all things, becomes at last the Mother of God," is totally wrong as woman principle, wherein she is made manifest but is not principle. She is the nurture of nature, I fully accept, but is not part of the creating force. Period. IOW, there is no stand about her either positive or negative, but is the einai of what came to be.

Let's be reminded here that She is 100% woman and so not human and therefore without sin, or what the word sin implies for them, and so has no stand to make with nothing to say.

In "Tay John" the Native Indians presented her as not being able to speak as her mouth was always filled with dust, mud or snow following behind them rip-snorting away. But notice that they never denied her either.

We just say that she is not privy to our voice-box with no box herself, and so just does not even exist for us . . . until she makes herself known in due course by what is known as glossolalia, still in absense of her input as non-sensical syllables that in due course becomes, or should become neologic verbiage that they call "interpretation" wherein "logos" is actualized as in I AM.

Very primitive, I know, and we put a fancy garment in her to express what She is all about, which moreover is what we are all about as she is the leading edge of us made manifest and so the higher that we carry Her is the higher that we will be, down the road perhaps, as the rainbow that we see today in our dream to live, and let me now take you to Buddhism to say the same:

Taken from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairatmya

So why go second hand as borrowed when the gown she wears is Catholic all the way?

Chili

I certainly am not familar with Ancient Egyptian language but see and image here that I can present. And agree with Jeffrey here, for sure I do, as these are those Iconoclasts still banging away at eternal images of reality as Flat Earther themselves, I would call them, who insist that the world is round even though they stand on their singular Blank Slate and will defend that without end and finally must look at the stars to see the heavens, while the plural of the heavens is also in the mind of man . . . but not on the human side, I say.

We call this 'other side' our soul, or einai, that some of us even deny as not an organ that we can touch and see, and therefore, obviously, does not exist.

The flip side of this is that to the same extent that we know our soul do we know ourself and so than, if ever we do know ourself we will no longer have a soul but are the singular self, and their 'she' is the Rock upon we stand.

Here is a poem on that:

If he had know
unstructured
space is a deluge
and stocked his life house-boat
with all the animals
. . . even the wolves,
he might have floated

But obstinate he stated,
the land is solid and
stamped,
watching his foot sink
down through stone
up to the knee.


King of Kings here means to have vacated our singular mind (Tabula Rasa) and moved into the Upper Room where those walls that heretofore imprisoned us are gone, and there be King only to crown her Queen of all.

Here is a noetic line on that by Zamjatin in "WE."

So here is those walls again that Plato called Cave and it is only in such darkness that stars are seen.

Chili

Sure all hair splitting semantics maybe, but crucial to understand is that She is the womb inside the leading edge of creation for which the Intelligent Design is built inside species who's Virgin Womb She is to receive the new because there are no duplicates in nature.

This model enables Evolution because the Thousand Year Reign is hers as president in the TOL from where she nurtures human's down below via Eve, remember? who is our pleasure by day and by night, as a vivid Eve is fun to entertain (as valliant Casca now) while outsider to the TOL (banned from Eden).

This chain of command is shown in Gen 3:15, and if to this chain of command we add that the Thousand Year Reign may seem long, but that is precisely what give stability to mankind as a race on who's behalf a Dogmatic Constitution is in force so they not only will survive but can prosper and bloom on the way up.

Beyond that is She the womb of the Universe God (Bramha) and needs the son to be self identified as man to be the top of our pyramid, of knowledge, to be sure, since that is what she is all about, which in turn makes her the basis for Omniscince wherein the Universal Womb is seen and hence Trees can Walk Like Men.

Chili

The foundation for Mary is not historic as the womb of the Universe in Nature, from where she is and always will be the primary for everything we do, and yes, that includes murder too as the opposite to what She stands for.

outhouse

Please don't get into this deep, you'll run off topic quickly.


Your right that the dogma surrounding Mary isn't historical. It never was part of the original legend. But that doesn't stop the uneducated from trying to make claims that effect the historicity of the real foundation of the legend that doesn't have anything to do with later added dogma.



That's another problem, people who are dishonest in their attempt focus on the mythology and later added dogma. Not the original legend itself.

As a example, the birth of Dec 25'th was later added dogma by Christian sects. Then dishonest bloggers try and make a historical connection, falsely attributing this later dogma as being tied to a historical core to the legends.

Chili

Nice lines, and here She is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairatmya

Perpetual because she is the womb of every living thing with a soul like no other can be found (for which there is no plural In Greek for the word einai), to deliver here tomorrow on Easter Sunday the very substance of the Seventh day that shatters all preconceived ideas as seen by humans down below.

Of course we could have called her Josephine but She'd still be home in Rome because woman proper has no name as the essence of Her man made known [genus identified] by the Son that is always spelled 'on' from 'to on' made worthy in I AM [by the timeless Seventh day in motion now as both Lord God and God].

She so is the reason why love itself can 'be' wherein there is no opposite in hate and can only radiate. It is called agape in Greek, wherein virginity is now a must (like the Papal chair from where only declarations are made to reverberate without being recipient), and once again: She is the essence of omniscience that makes the Papal chair a must if [the mind of] Christ is proclaimed to dwell among us . . . or even the word "Christian-ity' would be a farce (or is it maybe after dark?).

So true love is now defined as truth (logos) that radiates as presented by this subtle Buddha line:

And I further think that on the slippery slope a 10 day virgin can be reduced to 10 minute virgin, that necessarily makes perpetuity a must inside a pair of opposites so even the 'shatter' can be conceived . . . or this argument would not even be here at this DB.

Chili

Except Bernard that 'Incarnation' of the 'first begotten' is here exposed and that forbids seed to sow or the word first, or only, would not belong..

Chili

True, but do not go to Jung for that who will leave you stranded soon.

Chili

And no, Eve was the mother of the living and the virgin intacta of Gen 3, opposite to who woman is the virgin perpetual here inside Eden where She is the nurture of nature and is the living water that bewildered Magdalene as Eve in that parable, who was also Martha in another parable.

So mother and woman is not the same and is where woman is the essence of mothering as a special gift from her and not the other way around.

Nothing mystical about it, just language is all it is.

Chili

By historic I mean 'in time' because woman (that which we call Mary) is infinite (sic) identified as water in Gen.1:1 that already 'was' to make God known so he could see and therefore speak to bring change about in what he saw as a 'formless wasteland' where darkness covered the abyss, that was real to form the void in what God saw.

Or do you think maybe Gen.1:1 is there by accident? and 'God said' is without cause? . . . and the Intelligent Design that followed in Gen.1, 2 and 3, is merely history?

And never mind the 25th because you will deny it anyway.