Chili

Interesting! So here we have 'flat-earthers' opposite to 'hollow-eathers' and I would be the 'heaven on earther' advocate denied by both.

To note, if transformation takes place in the mind so see, it must be true that after transformation the "seer must see the seer see" and obvioulsy must look at Sophia, wisdom here as Mrs. Christ who deserves a name as the wherewithal of man to be his dowry in bethrothal, United here at the Cana event 'to stand' that this topic is about.

Let me say again that in the absense of her Name, She, would be like Lady Macbeth who hath no name but Lady Macbeth to make known that duffy Macduff was from his mother's womb untimely ripped that so violated Macbeth's virginity simply because he "wanted to be King herafter," and so it was human desire that caused him to be born again (Jn. 1:13), and rip 'she' goes and halleluia's he will sing like a chicken with it''s head chopped off to spread the blood of Christ instead of cleansing his own soul, to which Buddha said: If you want to walk on leather, it is much easier to put on leather shoes than pave the world with leather."

So the dis-ease is universal, and it matters little if one looks up or down to see heaven if one must look within, was Buddha's message here, as that is where Nairatmya must be found (we call here Mary), who was also from the beginning of the myth as introduced in John by Jesus from the cross. Note here that if his lineage goes right back to God, she must have also been there with him to be the substance of the man he was already then.

And that She is not Egytian in origin is made known by Matthew where 'out of Egypt' he was called that was verified by the camelhair coat of John in Mark and therefore back to Galilee they go to fry some more untill they die nonetheless.

The upshot here is that heaven is for Catholics only for whom Rome is home for which the 'dark ages' paved the way to make the 'thousand year reign' native in them wherein accordingly Rome is that big little city of God in the mind of the believer that was called Nazareth in the mind of Joseph from where ''out of tradition' his savior was born, and hence the Lamb off God was born and not the Son of Man, who in it's infancy will be overthrown by Reason and hence to Egypt Joseph fled and would not be home when wisdom came to unite with him.

In this argument here we are swearing up and down that Mary is borrowed from Isis, to which I introduced Nairatmaya to be Hindu/Buddha equivalent of Isis who we call Mary to make her archetypal now, and is only archetypal by way of tradition that in knowing Her spells heaven for us in the same way it is Nivana for them.

Then if you present this story as metamorphosis it is easy to see that the event is the same for all, and obviously one cannot expect to spin a cocoon as Catholic and see a Buddha sage come out, or a Hindu Rishi for whom rishis* will most certainly not be Catholic dogma, and here we hollow-flat earthers now insist that Mary is derrived from Isis?

Get real folks and is that not why I called a PhD in religions studies a degree in snottery? As if here, we [tabula-rasa] flat-earthers down below think we know what is going on above where only the essence of existence is real as the substance we call Mary, to venerate in adoration (instead of worship a stray dog running scared that they call Jesus, and by name even to boost the power of insanity for haven't you heard: he is alive and dwells within my soul).

The side issue in this tread is evolution vs creation, which is the purpose of Gen.1-3 that describes the mechanics of the Intelligent Design wherein the 1000 Year Reign is mainstay with Determination but can be influenced to change by the Idealist as seer inside this reign that they call God in motion as Christ among us, now with Mary as the Seat of Wisdom to be renewed thoughout the age.

* Rishis is dogmatic Hindu but Universal as truth inside the metaphyics that drives the Universe we know.

Chili

. . . pardon me, but Mary has no mythology but is the substance of our mythology personfied.

Chili

And significant here is "he is alive in me" as opposite to Paul's "I am alive in him: he must increase and I must decrease" . . . that so is where the greater serpent consumes the lesser serpent and not the other way around, with the old human nature still in force to spread the good news to the world 'out there' instead of the world wherein 'I am' is alive.