Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 02-08-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And oh yes, Psalm 34 reads “taste and see the Lord is chrestos”. This is so ancient it goes back to a Marcionite conception of Jesus

But Jesus was not the Christ and we never say 'the body of Jesus' and not even say 'the Body of Jesus Christ'. Fact is, we left him hanging there as a symbol to be known and is never venerated . . . and we never consume the Lord either but just the body of Christ and he is not the @#$$%%$ Lord.

. . . and in fact, as Catholic we say "Amen" only while under sanctifying grace until we are Lord God and then are consumed by him to make us fully God.

Chili · 02-08-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The point is - whose body is it? In the Syriac rite as noted previously the equivalent of the word 'yesh(n)u' still appears. The name wasn't removed it was rendered literally. In the beginning, the Eucharist was the embodiment of yeshu - the yeshu (ousia) of the Father. Then the orthodox came along and finally - with the reforms of Nicaea - planted scattered the obvious logic of the original cult. In other words, Jesus was the substance of the Father who is consumed by the catechumen in order to have a perfect nature. What remains from Nicaea is completely reactionary against that original understanding and is utterly senseless. How can the Father's essence be totally in heaven but still with 'the Son' here in the world governed by the Son? Senseless, senseless, senseless

Simply because the geat divide is where the left and right brain are separate from each other and are divided with a curtain (hymen, if you like that better), and so is why we cannot make our own mind to subject of our inquiry.

And although, it seems clever to lean on Catholicism to present your argument, the fact remains that this divide is real and will not be violated unless it is at your very own expense and so the gate to heaven is self securing and is monster feeding to those who try.

Chili · 02-08-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

How can the Father's essence be totally in heaven but still with 'the Son' here in the world governed by the Son? Senseless, senseless, senseless

That is very easy to explain with 'the woman taken from man' to also preside over the TOL who from there saw the TOK was good for gaining wisdom, beauty and food, (why not?), and with woman never banned from Eden, She still presides over the soul of man today (Gen.3:6). It is from there that She (sic) looks at things subjectively and takes to heart, while we objectively as scavenger look for goodies from which She takes what She wants and lets us do the dirty work and that includes sex, just in case you wonder, and gave us a mind where we are divided between our crotch and her honor (that we call ours and so creates the idea of Integrity), and so She pulls the reigns on us and that is what angels are all about via the temple tramp to keep her distance from us as the idiot down below.* This chain of cammand is in Gen. 3:15 where She is the greater Serpent who strikes at the head of the lesser serpent that we call Eve, who in her turns strikes at our heel to get a move on, or a hardon for something that we dislike (kundalini here).

So the upshot here is that heaven is a state of mind (there called Is-ra-el or just 'to be' as in "I am' with no more said regardless of what you think except for Truth itself.

* his is where we are Determinate creatures who only think we have free will.

I think I saw some icons once of the dying and the rising slave and where finally the greater serpent consumes the lesser serpent to make herself know 'as the gate to heaven' and we will see her standing there as Snow White, spotless pure and clean, if and only if we kept our sceptor high . . . as sinner, to be sure.

Edit to add for clarity that when the Greater serpent consumes the lesser serpent the body of Christ or the wherewithal of Christ consumes us as 'a drop of water in the wine' and that is how we are raised . . . and will crown her queen of heaven and of earth and wear her proud in evidence of destiny.

Chili · 02-08-2012, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The orthodox (= the Empire) wanted to excise the idea that Jesus/yeshu (= 'His substance') made people perfect. The idea that this is why Jesus came to humanity is gone.

Jesus never was human or he goes to hell as sinner, as only to him hell is real and known . . . and don't you remember him in Matthew: "My gosh, my gosh, first you beat me up and look at what you did to me now."

Chili · 02-08-2012, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It is implied of course knowing that Cyril and Eusebius propose the etymology and then the sheer repetition in Clement of statements like 'Jesus heals the bodily passions' is explained.

That is a very nice statement and true. Jesus actually move the kundalini from the heart to the head (in Luke anyway).

Chili · 02-09-2012, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Philo ("De Mutt. Nom.", 21) is therefore, right when he explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion; Eusebius (Dem., Ev., IV, ad fin.; P.G., XXII, 333) gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Catechetical Lectures X.13). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (The Pedagogue III.12); St. Chrysostom emphasizes again the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter (Homily 2 on Matthew, No. 2), thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21).

Given Clement's devotion to Philo, why does he ignore Philo's explanation?

Wrong angel, of course. The angel of the Lord is filled with desire and is not Gabriel as first cause mesenger but is a mistranslation by the temple tramp in between that spells desire itself. This makes Matthew's Joseph a dreamer at best.

Chili · 02-09-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

A few observations. There can be no doubt that the Alexandrian tradition understood Jesus to be the healer who heals through the gift of the Eucharist. I would take that to be the point of connection between the Hebrew concept of ישו (= the substance of the Father) and Ἰάσω. Consuming the divine yesh leads to the 'healing of the passions' of the body. The bottom line is that the god of the Christians had a name which resembled the sound of ישו/Ἰάσω and whose substance healed.

Also, notice the repeated appeal to (a) the parable of the mustard seed and (b) something resembling "thy faith hath saved thee." I wonder if Christian faith was originally more specific than previously thought (or rather completely distinct from the notion of a set of ideas expressed in a Creed).

Insipient from Faith without, or even against desire, the Lamb of God must be born as that it is out of the ordinary. The term 'running away from God' comes to mind here 'out West' where the end of the world must be found, and there the metanoia is made and back to Eden we go.

Kinf of like 'being on a paid fare in the bottom of a ship and while sleeping below deck feeling guilty for the storm that rages outside' and the musterd seed parable is just opposite to this for feeling goodness radiating in all directions.

Chili · 02-09-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

A few observations. There can be no doubt that the Alexandrian tradition understood Jesus to be the healer who heals through the gift of the Eucharist. ).

The work of human hands is part of the eucharist signified especially with no yeast added and thus without bible passages in effect, in the same way as pure water is added to wine to be consecrated without human error in the purity of holiness and eu- still means 'bright' here, does it not?

Chili · 02-09-2012, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Now let's break it down to claims made about Jesus healing the body and the soul:

Quote:

the Logos heals the soul itself by precepts and gifts—by precepts indeed, in course of time, but being liberal in His gifts, He says to us sinners, “Thy sins be forgiven thee.” (Paed. 1 51. 1)
Jesus, who heals both our body and soul--which are the proper man. (Paed 3.12)
does not the Savior who heals the soul also heal the body of its passions? (Strom 3.17)

Notice Clement isn't limiting himself to the idea that Jesus 'healed' a bunch of people in the gospel narrative. Clement understands 'Jesus' to be actively healing people by means of his substance in the contemporary world. Compare the early notion in the Acts of Thomas of the sacraments having this exact function - i.e. healing the body and soul http://books.google.com/books?id=i41...harist&f=false and the same idea is present in Ephrem http://books.google.com/books?id=i41...harist&f=false

That is just permeation via illumination and so from RNA into DNA. I think actually then the flow is healing mind, soul and then body in victory as last.

Chili · 02-09-2012, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The idea of Jesus as the healer is especially pronounced among the Marcionites whom Ephrem notes:

Quote:

For the Marcionites preach two things concerning our Lord which are at variance with each other, for "He abrogated the former laws and healed injured organs." (Against Marcion 3)

They are pointing at liberty here where the slippery slope is not known as only in truth we can stand and so religion must be left behind.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.