"The Word made flesh" — Theosophy’s view

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Or on a slice of toast?

Oh my, they line up and out the door and pay the fee to see Jesus or Mary on a slice of toast, or a wall, yet right in front of them for free, anytime, they are missing the face of G!d in a balloon on a stick!

Originally Posted by Thomas

What I meant by the comment is by saying 'all/nothing' what you're actually doing is stripping the term, in this case 'miracle', of any real and objective meaning — definitions become so vague as to be useless — words lose all substance and essence.

Interesting to me and mine it increases it. We live in heaven or hell, our choice, sometimes swinging from one to the other moment by moment by our perception. In him I live and breathe and have my being. It isn't miraculous, it is absolutely natural as we all have the divinity within us and all around us....some say the divine is unnatural....that would be atheists I would think. As Eric Butterworth says, Christ/G!d is not in us like a raisin in a bun, but like a wave is in the ocean....it rises out of the ocean to say hello, and then disapears back within again...and another and another everywhere omnipresent, the only begotten continually begotten, and it is all a miracle. Not either or, but and, not lack/stripping but expanding/abundance. And bliss washes over...

Originally Posted by Thomas

So when faced with the idea of 'God' and the idea of 'a balloon on a stick', you would be incapable of explaining the difference between the two ... although it does startle me somewhat to see that someone who so happily ridicules the idea of God as a paternal image, the old man, the grey beard, etc., etc.,

Oh I get the paternal image....even stronger the matriarchal image, me as a babe resting comfortably in the lap and bosum of a grandmother, rocking in a chair. I can't get that notion out of my mind....it is the 'walking' thru the garden 'calling' for Adam and Eve and not 'knowing' where they are or what they have done that I chuckle at....

Originally Posted by Thomas

yet in the next breathe you declare a state of bliss at the idea of God being a balloon on a stick.

In the eyes of a child, in a rainbow, in a thunderstorm, in a sprout coming out of the ground, in a compost pile, creating fertile earth out of scraps, in a rock (before and after Michaelangelo) and yes in a balloon on a stick and in the stick. Yes, bliss it is, I so thank you for enticing my fingers to type that out.

Originally Posted by Thomas

God bless,

Thomas

Namaste my brother, the Christ in me, sees, salutes and honors the presence of Christ in you.


And I breathe out and bliss....

The word made flesh, G!d what a buzz!

[DT Strain]

We must be cautious of our egos friends. Many certain statements about the grand questions of existence here. Perhaps our human limitations should be appreciated more

On the subject of physics, it was noted of my statement that modern physics is about what can be measured and "denial of everything else". Yet, I believe that latter part may be an addition of the critics of scientism and perhaps a straw man. The lack of affirmation is humility and not equivalent to denial. Denial would be an affirmation as well, and should require proof by modern scientific standards as well, if I understand correctly. However, many individuals do deny things outside their assumptions, and that seems to include some of those inclined toward science too.

Best wishes
-Daniel

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Oh my, they line up and out the door and pay the fee to see Jesus or Mary on a slice of toast, or a wall, yet right in front of them for free, anytime, they are missing the face of G!d in a balloon on a stick!

My point was your inability to discriminate ... not the failings of others.

In fact your problem is 'worse' than theirs.

Originally Posted by wil

Interesting to me and mine it increases it.

You might think so, but logically you're wrong. If you remove all definition from a shape or a term, it loses its shape, and its meaning ... which is precisely what you're doing.

Originally Posted by wil

We live in heaven or hell...

But, as you say, it's all hell, it's all heaven.

Originally Posted by wil

... our choice ...

But we have choice, and we have no choices ...

You see ... sounds cool, but means nothing ...

God bless,

Thomas

[wil]

Ya just don't appreciate that me and mine can be in bliss do you Thomas. No dog and pony show, no incense or foriegn languages, no incantations or chants...

Now it ain't all true, we do occasionally celebrate others celebrations and rather enjoy them as well. Currently celebrating ten decades of raising children to be blissfully unaware that what we believe is not kosher...or canonized.

I'll continue to work at not discriminating, while others sell their tickets to see the spot on the wall.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Ya just don't appreciate that me and mine can be in bliss do you Thomas.

Actually I'm in no doubt that you and yours are blissed out all the time ... the point is your definition of 'bliss' is not the Christian definition, which speaks of the Beatific Vision. 'Bliss' is rarely used in Christianity, as it tends towards the sentimental.

What gets me is that you talk about 'non-theistic Christianity' which is a nonsense as Christianity is absolutely about theism.

One of your favourite scriptural texts is 'ye are gods' although you fail to comprehend Jesus is being facetious towards His audience, then in the next breathe you ridicule the idea of a personal god.

Another favourite is 'in him we live and move and have our being' but you deny the idea of 'Him' as anything more than someone like yourself — rather you mean 'in me he lives and moves and has his being'.

Another is: "he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do" with the obvious implication being that it's you who might well do the greater work.

So on the one hand, any scripture reference that tickles your fancy you adopt to your own personal ideology, and any you don't like you simply and conveniently dismiss as exaggerations, fabrications or lies.

Then by 'everything and nothing' statements you can hop from camp to camp as it suits.

In short, I'd find it difficult not to be blissfully content with everything arrayed around me in reference to me ...

I'm in no doubt you're blissed out all the time, but please don't ask me to accept that your world represents Christianity, in any meaningful way.

God bless,

Thomas

[wil]

Luv ya brother!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Actually I'm in no doubt that you and yours are blissed out all the time ... the point is your definition of 'bliss' is not the Christian definition, which speaks of the Beatific Vision. 'Bliss' is rarely used in Christianity, as it tends towards the sentimental.

And ain't it a shame? I'll take bliss over self flagellation. I ain't born in sin, I don't buy it, sorry, the Jews wrote it, they don't buy it. Bliss to me is the feeling of unconditional love, giving and getting and knowing unconditional love. Yo, I ain't perfect, far from it, but the striving is what it is all about.

Originally Posted by Thomas

What gets me is that you talk about 'non-theistic Christianity' which is a nonsense as Christianity is absolutely about theism.

yeah, we know. And the theism I don't buy is the Sunday School and Sistene Chapel ceiling old white guy in the sky. I believe that most religion is based on the unknown, always has been, and that G!d is principle, G!d is natural and one day just as one belief after another of religious truths has been dropped by science in the past 2000 years one day that science will find the theory of everything and that will be what we've been calling g!ds for years...the unexplainable explained.

Originally Posted by Thomas

One of your favourite scriptural texts is 'ye are gods' although you fail to comprehend Jesus is being facetious towards His audience, then in the next breathe you ridicule the idea of a personal god.

Facetious, it was his response to him being G!d, he also said who is my family...these are my brothers and sisters...was he facetious then as well? I believe Jesus was teaching us oneness with everything I and the Father are one. When he said I am the light he was referring to the great I AM, AUM, Oneness, connection to everything that is.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Another favourite is 'in him we live and move and have our being' but you deny the idea of 'Him' as anything more than someone like yourself — rather you mean 'in me he lives and moves and has his being'.

yes I deny Him, I deny the old white guy, the gender specific thought....I surely am not G!d, but G!d is in me, and around me, I am part and parcel of G!d as are you....and once again Eric Butterworth said it well, 'Not like a raisin in a bun, but like a wave in an ocean'

Originally Posted by Thomas

Another is: "he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do" with the obvious implication being that it's you who might well do the greater work.

Ah the possibilities are endless Thomas. I raised hell my first 33 years, so I am waaaaaayyyy behind the curve. But if you think that I am implying that it will be me.... you give me too much credit.....but if you think it couldn't be you, you don't give yourself enough.

Originally Posted by Thomas

So on the one hand, any scripture reference that tickles your fancy you adopt to your own personal ideology, and any you don't like you simply and conveniently dismiss as exaggerations, fabrications or lies.

Just like the rest of us huh? Hence the reason for the catechism and the Church not using the bible for the past 19 centuries....don't let them read the whole book!! Only what we want them to read and only with our interpretations....yikes.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then by 'everything and nothing' statements you can hop from camp to camp as it suits.

We are one Thomas.... our camps are connected. We've just strayed down differing paths.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In short, I'd find it difficult not to be blissfully content with everything arrayed around me in reference to me ...

I'm in no doubt you're blissed out all the time, but please don't ask me to accept that your world represents Christianity, in any meaningful way.

God bless,

Thomas

You know you just may be correct. I represent, I am a follower of Jesus. Maybe Ghandi said it best....

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

I'll take bliss over self flagellation.

Here you go again ... you live in a world of your own imaginings, my friend, and they're none too charitable to others, despite all your remarks.

Originally Posted by wil

Bliss to me is the feeling of unconditional love, giving and getting and knowing unconditional love.

Good for you ... but that just makes my point.

Originally Posted by wil

Yo, I ain't perfect, far from it, but the striving is what it is all about.

But you don't strive after anything, you just re-imagine it, so it lies effortlessly within your grasp.

Originally Posted by wil

And the theism I don't buy is the Sunday School and Sistene Chapel ceiling old white guy in the sky.

Wil, it's only you stuck in some childhood image. What you're doing is labelling people so you can ridicule them — that's false witness brother, think about it ...

I think your image of the Deity, which seems concocted from half a dozen scripture references taken totally out of context, is more idolatrous than the image of an old man sitting on the clouds ... I think the Deity you conjure up suits you right down to the ground.

God bless,

Thomas

[Etu Malku]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I think your image of the Deity, which seems concocted from half a dozen scripture references . . .

Where are these references in scripture?

[Ben Masada]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

There is a thread elsewhere about the meaning of "the Word made flesh." I thought I'd give Theosophy's explanation of the meaning of this sentence.
　
The story of "creation" is the story of the appearance of our physical universe. According to Theosophy, the word "flesh" actually refers to all parts of our universe. (The authors of the story used the metaphor of a single person living in a physical body to symbolize the universe.) So when the story says the Word was made flesh, according to Theosophy, it actually refers to the divine plan manifesting itself as a physical universe.
　
In prehistoric times, when these teachings were first released, it was felt that the population was too primitive to understand concepts like universes appearing and disappearing. Therefore the decision was made at that time to use symbology such as "the Word made flesh" instead of saying something like, "the Word manifested itself as a universe, one of only a seemingly endless line of universes." Fortunately, today, such symbology is no longer necessary.
　
This is in line with the complimentary Theosophical idea that the idea of Mary and Baby Jesus actually symbolize cosmic concepts such as universes being born (Jesus) and the pre-cosmic substance that this and other universes are composed of (Mary). Mary had a child (perhaps more than one), which is symbology for the concept that there have been many universes.

Not according to Judaism. When the Almighty said in the beginning "Let there be light" as we have from Genesis 1:3, that light became flesh many years later in the People of Israel born as the seed of Abraham, Isaiah and Jacob. Here are some more of the details:

Let There Be Light and There Was Light

It has been an a "tohu vavohu" among many questioners, especially Christians, even many Jews, to come up with an explanation for that kind of light in Genesis 1:3 wen the sun, which gives light by day was created only on the 4th day of creation. The embarrassment is that at both, Atheists laugh. And not because they know any better in terms of an adequate answer, but for two other reasons: First, because they look for an answer only in Science; and of course it is not there but in Theology. And in Theology, they laugh at us for they think that we are all speaking about an anthropomorphic god, which, as I don't blame them: It indeed never existed.

But what light is indeed the Torah writer referring to when he reports of God as declaring, "Let there be light?"

Since before the creation of the universe it was already in the designs of God to provide for salvation of Mankind, a People whom salvation would come from, in the words of Jesus himself in John 4:22. Hence the first prophecy pronounced by God Himself about the rise of Israel from the Patriarcks Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the future.

When for good, the Assyrians removed Israel from existence by replacing the Northern Kingdom of the Galilee with Gentiles, and after the Jews or Southern Kingdom was taken for an temporary exile of 70 years in Babylon, and the time had arrived for their return to the Land of Israel, Prophet Isaiah said that the people who walked in darkness, as he meant the Gentiles in Galilee, had seen a great light as the Jewish People were returning to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 9:2)

Then, later, he confirms that light of Genesis 1:3 when he explained that Israel had been assigned as light to the nations. (Isa. 42:6) But the light was to remain divided from the darkness, so that both should exist in the same world; although, in the language of the Essenes, there would always be a conflict between the children of Light and the children of darkness. Between Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus was aware of this Light as he delivered his famous Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, when he said to them: "You are the Light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) The reason why he said "you are" and not "you have" is that what one has, it can be taken away, but what one is he is no matter what. Individually, we have the light the world needs to know God. But as a People, we are the light of Genesis 1:3, which the world needs for salvation.

Ben

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Along these lines —

There is a view, founded in Greek (the Cappadocians, Maximus) and Latin (Augustine) Fathers that the human being is the imago dei in that human nature contains within it all possible natures, or rather that the Uncreated Divine brought forth the created human nature as the mirror of all divine possibility.

Thus all creation, formal and formless, is realised in the mind, and mind is higher than matter, so that in a paradoxical sense the infinite variety of possibility is more real than any single instance of actuality — whereas for those realised in a given actuality (such as we are), the infinite play of possibility is 'unreal'.

Thus the human is the archetype of the infinite subjective, and in this way subjectivity is higher than objectivity — there is neither subject nor object in God, but the human, as a realised subject, immediately and simultaneously realises objectivity. Thus this subjectivity is in fact the substantia, the immaterial medium and chosen vehicle of the Divine creative process.

Thus the created world as spoken of in Genesis 1 and 2 is immaterial, it is the world of archetypes, Adam and Eve symbolising given possibility and potentiality, and here the world is immaterial and eternal, its finitude grounded in the infinite.

The Fall then is a metaphor of the mind's tendency to self-reflective subjectivity (or ego-centricity as we might call it today, although the term 'ego' is clumsy in relation to the order of dialogue going on here), and the created world, that is this created world, might be understood according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (I need Radarmark to check me here), in that by a 'fault' the play of infinite possibility was corrupted by the imposition of an impossible potentiality — subject in relation to itself — an inversion, a turning inside-out, as it were, which fixed the world around it and rendered it real in concrete terms by exclusion of every other possibility.

Radarmark — this is scribbled so is probably as full of holes as an old lace curtain, but I think there's grounds for exploration here ...

Although not 'orthodox', this view lies within the scope of Christian orthodoxy, it's in Gregory of Nyssa, maximus, Augustine, Eriugena, de Cusa and, of course, Eckhart ...

God bless,

Thomas

Quoting this post since it goes well with this thread:

The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

[radarmark]

Thomas does pull one out every once and awhile (kinda like you, SG), doesn't he?