1 Corinthians 11

[Qu'otar]

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (v3)

Sp Paul is offering a hierarchy here. Working down from the top, as it were, 'the head of Christ is God' conforms to his vision of the Mystical Body, spoken of here, and in his other letters — Christ is the head, we are the members.

This sounds related to the body of Christ is the Church.

As all are equal in Christ, one could look at an esoteric interpretation of the text: Christ is the Logos of God, and from the Logos come the logoi, the essences (Gk: ousia), the 'Primary Causes' or 'Ideas' as Platonism would have it.

In relation to Christ, the essences are feminine because they receive their being from Him, He is their cause and therefore He is masculine to them, and they nurture what they receive, and are thus feminine to Him.

In relation to the cosmos however, there is an octave change, as it were, and everything switches. The feminine essences become the Primary Causes of creation, and are thus masculine, giving rise to their created effects, which are feminine...

I could go on.

Whether Paul meant any of this, or whether he was just fed up with the problems arising in the first community he'd founded, who can say?

Please go on. I see some sychronicity with my ideas of God creating himself, to create himself... Masculine must act, so they create. Feminine is the space within which creation occurs and is, in fact, the creation.

The Yin and Yang of it is that the Feminine gets a little masculine and can act of her own accord, and the Masculine gets a little feminine and can be created.

 

[Qu'otar]

The above relates to an idea I have that the one creates a duality, which creates a trinity.

So, God creates the Father and the Mother, who together create the Son, all within God. They are not separate but are two halves of a whole, or three thirds of a whole. But each part is the whole. However, the whole is not a half or a third.

 

[Qu'otar]

The above relates to an idea I have that the one creates a duality, which creates a trinity.

So, God creates the Father and the Mother, who together create the Son, all within God. They are not separate but are two halves of a whole, or three thirds of a whole. But each part is the whole. However, the whole is not a half or a third.

Well, the connection to 1 Corinthians 11 is that of another meta-layer. If we look at the Mother and the Father as the woman and the man within 1 Corinthians 11, then the Mother must be created covered and the Father uncovered.

To me this is connected to vidya-maya in Hinduism. The Mother must be veiled and the Father must be unveiled. When you take it down to a lower level of the man and woman within the Soul (Son), then you have another layer of veiling, which is avidya-maya.

 

[Thomas]

This sounds related to the body of Christ is the Church.

Yes. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

I see some sychronicity with my ideas of God creating himself, to create himself...

I would say we have different definitions of what it is to be 'God'.
In general terms, God is Absolute, God is Infinite, and God is Perfect ... God does not create Himself ('from what?' I am obliged to ask). Nothing can be added to God, nothing taken away, nothing can change ...

God bless

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

I would say we have different definitions of what it is to be 'God'.
In general terms, God is Absolute, God is Infinite, and God is Perfect ... God does not create Himself ('from what?' I am obliged to ask). Nothing can be added to God, nothing taken away, nothing can change ...

I agree I am using the wrong term: "created". The Qu'ran tells us that Allaah was not begotten. I agree God was not created, in the sense that things of the world are created.

I agree God is Absolute, Infinite, Perfect, outside of Time and Space, Immutable, ... God is no thing and unseen.

Another way to say God was not "created" is that he was unmanifested. Manifestation comes from a higher meta-layer into a lower layer.

Still, from where God? The way I actually think about it is that God came from God, as a meta-circular origin. But he was not manifested...he did not manifest himself. The better term would be that he realized himself. "I AM".

How would this happen? You would need a Mind to think "I AM" and a Voice to give Word to the Thought. The only source of a Mind to think the Thought and give Voice to the Word is an enlightened human, Christ, the Son, and other Prophets too.

Christ conceptualizes his spiritual Father and Mother. And God is within the Father. And we are all sons of God, through the Father and the Mother, and each potentially divine.

So we have 2 triangles. One inverted from the other. My previous comments, about the Father and the Mother creating each other in order to "realize" God, is related to the top, inverted triangle. Each of us is potentially in relation to the bottom, uninverted triangle, through Christ.

So, the Garden (the World) must be created
-> to evolve humanity
-> to reach Christ's enlightenment
-> to have a Mind
-> to think the Thought of the Mother and the Father
-> and the further Thought of God
-> to give Voice to the Word of Creation
-> to Realize God.

No problem when one thinks that God is outside of time and can realize himself by starting it all off to reach the point of Creation, in the future.

Alpha and Omega.

Are there some correspondence between our thoughts, here?

 

[Thomas]

The above relates to an idea I have that the one creates a duality, which creates a trinity.

As above, God is not created.

So, God creates the Father and the Mother, who together create the Son, all within God.

Well this is the cosmological idea, but it's nothing to do with Christianity.

They are not separate but are two halves of a whole, or three thirds of a whole. But each part is the whole. However, the whole is not a half or a third.

Again, we say God is One, and Simple, and not a composite. I think it's fair to see that if one considers any model too deeply, one drifts inescapably into error, as far as we're concerned.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

To me this is connected to vidya-maya in Hinduism.

Why?

The Mother must be veiled and the Father must be unveiled.

Well we would refute that because you seem to be proposing a male-female deity?

When you take it down to a lower level of the man and woman within the Soul (Son), then you have another layer of veiling, which is avidya-maya.

But Christianity is all about removing veils. That's what they symbolism of the rended veil in the Gospels is all about.

We don't see it as maya, we see it as theophany.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

I think it's fair to see that if one considers any model too deeply, one drifts inescapably into error, as far as we're concerned.

We? Who exactly are you speaking for? I say with all the conflicting ideas about the Trinity within Christianity, you certainly do a disservice to some.

 

[Qu'otar]

Why?


Well we would refute that because you seem to be proposing a male-female deity?


But Christianity is all about removing veils. That's what they symbolism of the rended veil in the Gospels is all about.

We don't see it as maya, we see it as theophany.

God bless,

Thomas

Yes, a male-female deity.

You have to add a veil to remove a veil.

 

[Thomas]

We? Who exactly are you speaking for?

Common sense and theology.

In the Christian Tradition, the word 'Mystery' denotes that which is revealed (not that which is hidden), but the 'nature' of God is itself a mystery which must transcend human comprehension, or God is no more intelligent than man ... so any statement of the Godhead will always acknowledge a horizon.

ctrine like the Trinity, pone would have to contemplate with the consciousness of a deity ...

I say with all the conflicting ideas about the Trinity within Christianity, you certainly do a disservice to some.

Who's conflicted?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Yes, a male-female deity.

Not in Judaism ... not in Christianity ... not in Islam.

Gender is 'this side' of the cosmological horizon, and indeed human nature itself is meta-gender ... God is not determined by gender distinctions.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The Qu'ran tells us that Allaah was not begotten. I agree God was not created, in the sense that things of the world are created.

That's the only 'created' there is ...

I agree God is Absolute, Infinite, Perfect, outside of Time and Space, Immutable, ... God is no thing and unseen.

OK

Another way to say God was not "created" is that he was unmanifested. Manifestation comes from a higher meta-layer into a lower layer.

I disagree. Created and manifested are two entirely different things.

Still, from where God? The way I actually think about it is that God came from God, as a meta-circular origin.

But if God 'came' from God, then you've introduced time and space (the coming, the before-coming, the after-coming, etc) into the discussion, and then I'd say that's not the God I'm talking about.

But he was not manifested...he did not manifest himself. The better term would be that he realized himself. "I AM".

Again, not my God. My God does not need to 'realise Himself' — He knows who He is.

How would this happen?

The only source of a Mind to think the Thought and give Voice to the Word is an enlightened human[/quote]
You don't suppose God created natures with 'mind'? I would say that when God said 'Let there be light' He meant 'let there be mind'.

Christ conceptualizes his spiritual Father and Mother.

I'm sorry, but this is all your own speculation now. You say God is Absoluter and Infinite, but all your descriptions speak of a God that is relative ... and it seems to me you're determining God as the projection of an assumed human potentiality, rather than following the revealed data, of whatever Tradition you choose.

Are there some correspondence between our thoughts, here?

I don't think so. Too anthropomorphic for me.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Yes, a male-female deity.
You have to add a veil to remove a veil.

I think you're imagining your own veils ...

The deity of Christianity is way beyond gender determination, way beyond personhood — that's just the means by which the Deity chooses to make Itself known to us.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

Common sense and theology.

In the Christian Tradition, the word 'Mystery' denotes that which is revealed (not that which is hidden), but the 'nature' of God is itself a mystery which must transcend human comprehension, or God is no more intelligent than man ... so any statement of the Godhead will always acknowledge a horizon.

ctrine like the Trinity, pone would have to contemplate with the consciousness of a deity ...

That's the only 'created' there is ...


OK


I disagree. Created and manifested are two entirely different things.


But if God 'came' from God, then you've introduced time and space (the coming, the before-coming, the after-coming, etc) into the discussion, and then I'd say that's not the God I'm talking about.


Again, not my God. My God does not need to 'realise Himself' — He knows who He is.

You don't suppose God created natures with 'mind'? I would say that when God said 'Let there be light' He meant 'let there be mind'.


I'm sorry, but this is all your own speculation now. You say God is Absoluter and Infinite, but all your descriptions speak of a God that is relative ... and it seems to me you're determining God as the projection of an assumed human potentiality, rather than following the revealed data, of whatever Tradition you choose.


I don't think so. Too anthropomorphic for me.

SO you shrug your shoulders that it is a mystery that cannot be understood and thus bring no knowledge to the table by trying to understand it from our perspective? Lame, dude.

 

[Thomas]

SO you shrug your shoulders that it is a mystery that cannot be understood and thus bring no knowledge to the table by trying to understand it from our perspective? Lame, dude.

You miss my point entirely.

The Mystery is beyond knowledge. It's beyond experience. It's beyond stuff you can bring to the table.

So the knowledge, and the stuff brought to the table, I look at and ask, 'does this clarify, or confuse?' If it clarifies, I'll talk about it until the sun burns out. If it's just more stuff we make up, then I must admit a tendency to impatience.

I want the real deal ...

God bless,

Thomas