The Messiah — Theosophy’s view

Lunitik, my ego amazes me (see the J23 slapdown in "young earth") but yours really astounds me! Nowhere did EM relate that what you were referring to was something he read. And it does kinda matter which Bible (there are just so many) you are quoting from (both Abrahamic and non).
 
radarmark said:
Lunitik, my ego amazes me (see the J23 slapdown in "young earth") but yours really astounds me! Nowhere did EM relate that what you were referring to was something he read. And it does kinda matter which Bible (there are just so many) you are quoting from (both Abrahamic and non).
Click to expand...

It was a polite way of saying that his statement is utterly absurd.

First of all, it is not that the divine slows down... it is that we come into tune with its vibration. Secondly, his statement maintains duality, and thus is inaccurate even if it wasn't a nonsense.

You say this is ego, that's fine... I say it is your ego which finds issue with my words.
 
Logos can also mean "cause, or on account of."

Matthew 5:32
5:32 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)​
 
The most fundamental aspect of divinity is that it is unchanging.
 
seattlegal said:
Logos can also mean "cause, or on account of."

Matthew 5:32
5:32 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχᾶσθαι καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 5 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)​
Click to expand...

Noun
λόγος (genitive λόγου) m, second declension; (logos)
That which is said: word, sentence, speech, story, debate, utterance.
That which is thought: reason, consideration, computation, reckoning.
An account, explanation, or narrative.
Subject matter.
(Christianity) The word or wisdom of God, identified with Jesus in the New Testament.
 
In your quote, it probably means "saving the reason of fornication".
 
The wisdom of God is the nature of things, the underlying oneness of everything. If you want to use this definition it is fine, but the Bible was written in Greek so we should use the definition the Greeks had for it - not what it has warped into through Christian dogma.

If there is a text which shows the Aramaic and is closer to Sophia, it would give further credit to this theory. It says the word is God though, a more correct translation is probably "and the word is authority/master/lord" since Caesar is also called God in the Bible.
 
Lunitik said:
The wisdom of God is the nature of things, the underlying oneness of everything. If you want to use this definition it is fine, but the Bible was written in Greek so we should use the definition the Greeks had for it.

If there is a text which shows the Aramaic and is closer to Sophia, it would give further credit to this theory. It says the word is God though, a more correct translation is probably "and the word is authority/master/lord" since Caesar is also called God in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Now who's quoting what he reads?

Your inane babblings are nothing more than distractions here.
First off I was quoting from the book I am writing on music and esotericism.
So they were my own words.
 
Lunitik said:
The wisdom of God is the nature of things, the underlying oneness of everything. If you want to use this definition it is fine, but the Bible was written in Greek so we should use the definition the Greeks had for it - not what it has warped into through Christian dogma.

If there is a text which shows the Aramaic and is closer to Sophia, it would give further credit to this theory. It says the word is God though, a more correct translation is probably "and the word is authority/master/lord" since Caesar is also called God in the Bible.
Click to expand...
Sophia is Greek. Aramaic would be chokmah for wisdom, although a case might also be made for t@`em.
Aramaic for "word" could be millah, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H4406me'mar, or pithgam.http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6600
 
Ahh, found an excerpt from an Aramaic translation of John 1 here.

It doesn't give the Aramaic text here, only their translation. :/

In the beginning of creation, there was the Manifestation,
that Manifestation was with God,
and God was the embodiment of that Manifestation.
This was in the beginning with God.
Everything was within his power;
otherwise, nothing would ever exist.
Through him, there was Life,
and Life became the spark of humanity,
and that ensuing fire lights the darkness,
and darkness does not overshadow it.​
 
Not bad, SG. I needed one as I am trying to explore the nature of the Jesus Movement prior to Scripture (say 30-200 ce) John in Aramaic was missing. Though he still comes off as someone pretty handy with Greek thought! Thanks!
 
seattlegal said:
Ahh, found an excerpt from an Aramaic translation of John 1 here.

It doesn't give the Aramaic text here, only their translation. :/
In the beginning of creation, there was the Manifestation,
that Manifestation was with God,
and God was the embodiment of that Manifestation.
This was in the beginning with God.
Everything was within his power;
otherwise, nothing would ever exist.
Through him, there was Life,
and Life became the spark of humanity,
and that ensuing fire lights the darkness,
and darkness does not overshadow it.​
Click to expand...
Nice . . . and the 'manifestation' could be termed The Word, and our spiritual pipeline from our mundane Self to the Divine would be the LOGOS.
Some say the soul acts as LOGOS, some say that music itself is a LOGOS to our Higher Self/Daimon
 
Now this is getting to be quite interesting. Now I'm off exploring, comparing, and contrasting the yin and yang of logos/light/manifestation/understanding with secret/dark/latent/potential and their interplay/transformation in different expressions of different scriptures. {That should keep me occupied for a while!} :D
 
I believe that "word" and "manifestation" are translations of the more mundane sense of "logos". Perhaps the first two instances (one each). The third is higher... accepting EM's definition, the third line would be something like "And the Divine Self is the principle of that manifestation". "logos" would be neatly translated in three higher forms "word", "manifestation", and "principle" (this would be, as I understand it, the kind of thing St Jerome saw).
 
radarmark said:
I believe that "word" and "manifestation" are translations of the more mundane sense of "logos". Perhaps the first two instances (one each). The third is higher... accepting EM's definition, the third line would be something like "And the Divine Self is the principle of that manifestation". "logos" would be neatly translated in three higher forms "word", "manifestation", and "principle" (this would be, as I understand it, the kind of thing St Jerome saw).
Click to expand...
I can live with that explanation :)
 
Nick the Pilot said:
I thought it would be good to give Theosophy's view of who the Messiah might be. But first I must acknowledge that there are both Christians and non-Christians who are Theosophists, and there are Christian Theosophists (and even non-Christian Theosophists) who disagree with my ideas on this topic.
　
Theosophy acknowledges that Gautama Buddha was a great teacher, and that Gautama has a special status among the leaders of the world. Some Theosophists (but not all Theosophists) think Jesus may have been a reincarnation of Maitreya, who will be our next Buddha thousands of years in the future. According to the theory, Maitreya/Jesus came to establish Christianity merely as a foundation for establishing an even greater religion in the future, when he returns. In this way, even non-Theosophists are willing to consider the idea that Jesus/Maitreya might be the Messiah, even if he is not a deity. (Some Theosophists feel there is no reason to assume the Messiah is or will be a deity.) Of course there are some Theosophists who disagree with this theory.
　
There is another theory. Gautama Buddha was the fourth Buddha, and Vairocana was the first Buddha. It is said that Vairocana may also reincarnate again on earth one day, so the idea of a Messiah may refer to Vairocana not Maitreya.
Click to expand...


Not according to the only Scriptures that Jesus considered the Word of God. The Tanach, that is. Jesus was simply a Jewish man, and the reincarnation of none, since there is no such a thing in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus. Besides, Jesus did not come to establish Christianity but to confirm Judaism down to the letter, even to the dot of the letter, according to Mat. 5:17-19. Christianity was rather established by Paul in the city of Antioch, according to Acts 11:26. That's where Christians were called Christians for the first time, after a whole year that Paul spent there preaching about Jesus as Christ. Therefore, Jesus never had anything to do with Christianity.
Ben
 
Ben, there are a lot of differences of opinion about this. Some believe Jesus purposefully blended Judaism with Greek Cynicism. And do not forget, Galilee was barely Jewish at all (the Hasmoneans never did take it back from the Seleucids) and was the most Hellenized of Judea (the area that was Israel). This is not a mere "passing thought" but the subject of a good deal of research out there. Phrases like "all" or "always" or "never" usually come nack to bite one (see Korzybski).
 
seattlegal said:
Ahh, found an excerpt from an Aramaic translation of John 1 here.

It doesn't give the Aramaic text here, only their translation. :/

In the beginning of creation, there was the Manifestation,
that Manifestation was with God,
and God was the embodiment of that Manifestation.
This was in the beginning with God.
Everything was within his power;
otherwise, nothing would ever exist.
Through him, there was Life,
and Life became the spark of humanity,
and that ensuing fire lights the darkness,
and darkness does not overshadow it.​
Click to expand...

I like this translation much better...

God of course being the unmanifest... this is a duality I have listed several times here. What is particularly good about this is it shows in a way that the manifest and unmanifest are actually one - the manifestation is the embodiment of the unmanifest, can be understood as being the form of the formless...

This is far more beautiful than the common translation, and far more accurate.
 
seattlegal said:
Ahh, found an excerpt from an Aramaic translation of John 1 here.

It doesn't give the Aramaic text here, only their translation. :/
In the beginning of creation, there was the Manifestation,
that Manifestation was with God,
and God was the embodiment of that Manifestation.
This was in the beginning with God.
Everything was within his power;
otherwise, nothing would ever exist.
Through him, there was Life,
and Life became the spark of humanity,
and that ensuing fire lights the darkness,
and darkness does not overshadow it.
​
Click to expand...

Lunitik said:
I like this translation much better...

God of course being the unmanifest... this is a duality I have listed several times here. What is particularly good about this is it shows in a way that the manifest and unmanifest are actually one - the manifestation is the embodiment of the unmanifest, can be understood as being the form of the formless...

This is far more beautiful than the common translation, and far more accurate.
Click to expand...

It really fits well with Tao Te Ching 1

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
​

Comparing to Taoism's The Infinite (Wuji) and Supreme Ultimate (Taiji)
(Might compare to Zhou Dunyi's Explaination of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate, (Taijitu Shuo) as well.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top