Chili

Yes you are correct, and because Jesus as Christ occupies the Christian soul he is anti-christ there to never find reconciliation within = hell on earth.

That is why I wrote that he may be correct by pointing at the Christian tradition who are "saved-sinners" by adding Christ to their soul nature, there now as the rock in which they stand and will die for that idol that is deeply entrenched into their soul.

This would be Laodicea, neither hot nor cold as those who keep saying "I am so rich and secure," and you may want to reads the rest in Rev. 3:17 and then go to Rev.14:12 in particular to identify those again from Gal.5:4.

Yes, and 'fear of the unknown' is a good way to put it while hoping for better day ahead, and to fortify that illusion will bomb the wrong country again and again (as I sometimes summarize their actions).

Always anti-christ = always evil with good works for self edification is evil as well.

Ascension just means that heaven becomes a state of mind wherein the divide between the left and right is removed and the right is occupied as Christ Jesus first (walking through walls that the disciples still saw). After that the woman [there called Mary] is Assumed [with no personal identity to be raised] and subsequently is Crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth the make the Mind of Christ, wherein Christ obviously has no mind of his own or She could not be his mind in the TOL. So no history here but history was made.

Remember here that woman was taken from man in Gen.2 to be his dowry in betrothal for this final event. From this follows that She is His mind and if She is He does not have one of his own, while Jesus did as 'second Adam' to be raised so that reason will prevail in the end.

Juma

What is this babbling? I hope this is some advanced joke?

Toto

Yes, it's an advanced joke. Or at least the regulars here know not to take it seriously.

Chili

So do you think that Christ 'up there' someplace has a mind of his own? Or do you think maybe Jesus was it but he died too. So now what?

Juma

Gibbely gibbely gook.

Chili

Well sir, it all English and that is a good beginning for sure, wherein I just present my reaction to what Jung had to say in the citation by Horatio Parker on this Opening topic. That's all.



When I object to say that God is infinite and not eternal it is because infinity is expansive beyond eternal, which does not mean many heavens away in distance [as Mohammed put it], but with room to prosper and grow on our own in our civilization right here.

This so is where God is greater as Universal but cannot be greater than the Son through whom, in him, and with him God is exposed by the genus as the Son now as Man under God in Christen domain.

In this sense is it wrong to call God eternal as infinite in the universe wherein Man is eternal and hu-man is temporal as a condition of Being that pertains only to the species called Man under God.

The Lamb of God is not crucified, to say that Lamb of God is distinct from Son of Man as born of God instead of carnal desire as per John 1:13 where that distinction is made. And of course, the reason for this is the need to show the difference between Son of Man and Lamb of God, wherein Lamb of God is the fruit of religion as 'born out of tradition' inside the flock.

And of course Lamb of God is Son of Man but is more than just Son of Man and will have the 'cradle of religion' to lie its head (cf. Mt.9:20), that will "never leave you orphaned" as such (Jn.14:18). This would confirm Jesus as Nazorean-by-nature out of which the infancy is emergent instead 'out of Egypt called' with no Jewish [iconic] tradition behind him, there as just Son of Man. I think Luke puts the manger in the stable with the swaddling cloth that confines to say the same thing, for which [transpersonal] 'inner direction' would be a modern psychology term that would contradict Jung also.

And it is true that Son of Man will feel abandoned now as Egyptian himself, and of course back to Egypt he goes and was not even home to receive when the Magi arrived who actually "inquired where the newborn king was," to already say that the Star of Bethlehem was not shining on him until they told the Magi where the child was. That sounds like pure Lexishemy to me by seeing the star after the Magi were told where the child was, with the point made here that reason itself was engaged to see clear that so is not first hand by intuition to them, and that equals 'forsaken' already wherein the Herodian massacre takes place.

So it is wrong to blame Herod for the massacre, but look to reason itself above and beyond religion that Herod represents as the enemy during this infancy stage wherein no baby is born, but only the virgin fruit of the womb is reborn to unite once again with the neutron he [once] left behind in the same womb he was from, and hence it is a male-only thing (with the upshot being here that females can never be Christian proper as such).

Chili

Syllogism, paralogism, neologism.

Chili

. . . and by no means is this to slam-dunk against females for hers is the nucleus that retained the proton, there called Elizabeth with Mary the neutron alive each generation anew, who did her work 'in good faith' as her Canticle reads that is confirmed by Zechariah in this home-ing event that liberates the hereditary soul nature of man.