the virgin? mary, noah and adam...

[chakraman]

i read a while back, some of rudolph steiners "insights" into christianity. i am not a follower of his esoteric christianity, if its possible to be a follower of an interpretation that is, but i did find some of his ideas logical and interesting.
the first pertaining to the immaculate conception. i'm assuming, that generally speaking, christians believe that mary did not have physical procreative union. steiner says that this is not true and he distinguishes between body and mind/spirit and points out that it is the spirit of an advanced soul that is celibate regardless of the body which is of the earth and therefore governed by physical laws. there is also a story in the Puranas about the God incarnate Krishna,(i'm not a follower here either so no propaganda) who lived with his consort Rhada. one day a well known sage Durvasa was camped with his followers on the other side of the river. Krishna and Rhada, as good householders, prepared food for the mendicants (dharma- order). Rhada was about to deliver the food when she realised tha river was in full spate and couldnt cross it. Krishna said "go to the river and say 'if Krishna is eternally celibate, O River subside!'" Rhada new well the power of uttering the true word, but she above all knew of his amorous delights. she went to the river and asked the question, and to her surprise, the river subsided. she proceeded to take the food to Durvasa, who was pleased and ate heartily along with his disciples. when it was time to return Rhada seeing the river was again in full spate asked Durvasa for help. he said "go to the river and say 'if Durvasa is eternally fasting, O River, subside!'" she did this although she had just seen the sage eat, and the river subsided and she returned home.
it was then she realised the truth of what Krishna taught Arjuna, all action is done by Prakriti [nature] and the self is not the doer.......he who is above the gunas [constituents of Prakriti] does not abhor illumination nor impulsion to action nor delusion when they occur, nor longs for them when they cease (Bhagavad Gita 13:29, 14:22).
two birds on one tree, one eats the sweet fruit and the other looks on without eating (i.164.20).
the next question i have is do xtians believe that there was only one noah and his family and that all of humanity descended from them. my aunt ,who is a jehovahs' witness believes this and argues that because they were physically and spiritually perfect that this was possible. this has never sat right with me and again whilst reading steiner, he pointed out that the story is allegorical and that there were many noahs, which sounds right and feels logical.
thirdly the question of adam and eve. is it supposed that these were the fist "humans" and like noah and family, all descended from them. steiner postulates that in fact adam was the name given to the first race of men - the race of adam, which again sounds and feels right. also i have seen similar ideas elsewhere - a boy and girl watch, in astonishment, a procession of faeries passing them by, the boy asks "what are ye, little mannie? and where are ye going?" "not of the the race of adam," said the creature: "the people of peace shall never more been seen in scotland." katherine briggs - dictionary of faeries.
if my assumption of your interpretations are incorrect my apologies are incorrect i appologise. whilst being educated in a c. of e. school these were the intrpretations i was exposed to and like many i feel that such literal interpretation of the bible actually pushes people away, what do you think...?

 

[Thomas]

i read a while back, some of rudolph steiners "insights" into christianity. i am not a follower of his esoteric christianity, if its possible to be a follower of an interpretation that is, but i did find some of his ideas logical and interesting.

Indeed, but one must view his ideas in their time and place, their sources and their motives. Steiner was part of the esoteric stream that led to the esoterism of Annie Besant and Leadbeater. He broke with them when his German idealism could not reconcile itself with their anglophone ideas, and specifically the idea that everything esoteric comes from the East – it was all part of the West's infatuation with Indian thought that had become prevalent with the opening of communications between those two continents. (Something that was to repeat itself in the 60s.)

Steiner eventually split with Besant and co, to look for a European and Germanic solution, but kept many of the ideas introduced by Gurdjieff, etc.

the first pertaining to the immaculate conception. i'm assuming, that generally speaking, christians believe that mary did not have physical procreative union. steiner says that this is not true and he distinguishes between body and mind/spirit and points out that it is the spirit of an advanced soul that is celibate regardless of the body which is of the earth and therefore governed by physical laws.

This is evidence of the inherent dualism that is so axiomatic of late nineteenth century esoteric thought, and so alien to Hebraic/Christian/Moslem philosophy. Steiner was not a great philosopher, or in this context was an esoterist but not a rigorous metaphysician, and this is telling in his work, but that was not his calling (look to Rene Guenon for that).

Of all the esterists of his era Steiner was among the more moral – certainly his career was not dogged by the scandal that followed so many others. He was genuine, but he was no philosopher of any great merit and his work rests mainly on presenting various theories picked up from his studies – but it should not be dismissed that he popularised many good ideas – his schools and farming techniques, of which I have first-hand experience – were ahead of their times (and still are in many respects)

Steiner could neither shrug off nor resolve the axiomatic premise of dualism that undermines western esoterism and occultism.

there is also a story in the Puranas about the God incarnate Krishna, (i'm not a follower here either so no propaganda) ...

Well, this is 'their' myth, if you like – but really whilst the metaphysics has many commonalities, through and through there are radical differences. Taken at a certain level, the Asiatic systems completely discard the body, as they do the notion of 'self'. The Western traditions do not, the material world is 'good' and its source is as Divine as the source of the spiritual, so the two are complementary. The Asiatic traditions, like the pre-Christian Greek, could never find a way to resolve this dichotomy. Christianity does, that is the fundamental difference. Whether one accepts it, is another matter.

Really one is talking a different language – and the trouble is in transferring from one language to another, much is lost. What is the same is universal and in that regard, human. What is unique is the quintessential essence – a point too often and too easily missed.

Take all the miracle nonsense out of the Bible, for example, all the mumbojumbo, and you're left with a viable ethical code that any humanist could acknowledge.

It's much the same with the assumption that some generic understanding of truth can be arrived at by taking the bits from different traditions that appear to correspond, and building them into a synthetic blancmange – what one is left with is something sweet, but insubstantial...

+++

the next question i have is do xtians believe that there was only one noah and his family and that all of humanity descended from them. my aunt ,who is a jehovahs' witness believes this and argues that because they were physically and spiritually perfect that this was possible. this has never sat right with me and again whilst reading steiner, he pointed out that the story is allegorical and that there were many noahs, which sounds right and feels logical.

As in so many ways, the JWs interpret Scripture according to their own conception. Careful reading will show that God acknowledged the inherent disposition to sin in humanity, so although Noah and his family were 'righteous' they were neither physically nor spiritually perfect.

The story of Noah belongs to the myth narratives of Scripture (the 'reality' in material sense begins after Noah, with Abraham).

The myth of the flood is common to many traditions of the region, but comparison of the Hebrew myth with that of their neighbours reveals, to my eyes, a phenomenal degree of metaphysical insight unmatched by its contemporaries, and as such offers a profound vision of 'the human condition,' psychologically, spiritually and eschatalogically – the Babylonian myth of the flood, for example, has little to offer but to insist that man is mortal and doomed, and the Babylonian gods are mean and somewhat capricious – so the psychological, spiritual and eschatalogical outlook of Babylon was no help to man, who could do no more than offer sacrifice in the hope of 'buying off' their gods.

After the flood Noah raised an altar and offered sacrifice to his God, who accepted the offering and instituted a Covenant with man.

After the flood the Babylonian hero (his name escapes me) raised an altar and offered sacrifice to his gods, who were hungry, and fell on the sacrifice and devoured it ... the gods were hungry because the flood, caused by them to punish man for disturbing their peace, wiped out their food supply - they were dependent upon temple sacrifice ...

There is merit and value in all myth, but not all myth is equal, and the Hebraic myth 'outlasted' its neighbours precisely because of its depth of insight. The gods of babylon became untenable as man grew in wisdom and understanding, because they were revealed as constructs of his own fallible nature.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is – if one cannot see it other than a construct – at least paradigmatic.

thirdly the question of adam and eve. is it supposed that these were the fist "humans" and like noah and family, all descended from them. steiner postulates that in fact adam was the name given to the first race of men - the race of adam, which again sounds and feels right.

Adam means 'of the earth' and points to an axiomatic resolution of the dualism spoken of initially.

The Hebrew concept of 'man' is a psychodynamic being, the union of spirit and flesh, and this is absolutely central to Scripture. To read it otherwise is to miss the point at every level.

Again, as a creation myth is psychology, spirituality and eschatology is unmatched.

also i have seen similar ideas elsewhere - a boy and girl watch, in astonishment, a procession of faeries passing them by, the boy asks "what are ye, little mannie? and where are ye going?" "not of the the race of adam," said the creature: "the people of peace shall never more been seen in scotland." katherine briggs - dictionary of faeries.

The idea of faeries as we have today is entirely invented by Romance writers of the eighteenth century, again as part of their reaction against materialism and industrialisation. In any and every fairy tale prior to the eighteenth century, faeries are not at all nice, forever intent on stealing human babies – across the world from Persia to Ireland faeries are dangerous, spiteful and sometimes deadly. It's worth checking out some of the older tales – there's a significant psychological element there, too.

The fairy myth of kidnapped child – replaced with an ancient and mean-spirited fairy enchanted to look like the baby – has more to do with post-natal depression and was an explanation of infanticide. It was actually legal in Medieval Europe for parents to 'test' babies they thought to be fairy, a test that usually involved the death of the child.

if my assumption of your interpretations are incorrect my apologies are incorrect i appologise. whilst being educated in a c. of e. school these were the intrpretations i was exposed to and like many i feel that such literal interpretation of the bible actually pushes people away, what do you think...?

When the 'literal' is put forward without explanation, then the thinking person is bound to face problems, which are often unresolved. But that does not alter the 'fact' and explaining them away, whilst at the same time missing the essential point, is in a sense an equal failure.

+++

If you want to know more of 'esoteric Christianity' (a term I deploy with great reservation, preferring 'Christian esoterism', which is significantly different) one cannot do better than read 'Meditations on the Tarot – a Journey into Christian Hermeticism'. The author was a close friend of Steiner, and widely expected to succeed as the head of Steiner's school. Instead he had an epiphanic experience and converted to Catholicism, much to the dismay of his circle, even though Steiner himself saw that the Church of Rome was the last bastion against a materialism that was (and continues) to seduce the West.

Welcome to CR.

+++

Thomas

 

[chakraman]

hi thomas, thanks for taking the time to reply. i'm a little confused as to the points you make, as i cant grasp the theme, partly, and also i do not understand some of the words you use. i have had this problem with a few posts/threads on this forum so i'm assuming its me.
as to steiner i also am intersted in and use his farming techniques, but also i'm not interested in his philosophy, which lends itself almost entirely to acceptance of what he says and his "interpretation" of his clairvoyant seeing of all phenomenom. indeed anyone could have said that it is the mind not the body that is celibate and it would have resonated with me. so are there many standings on the immaculate conception? also what is yours? if you've answered that ignore the question. i believe he also split due to besants pronouncement that krishnamurti was the next messiah.
as to the story from the puranas again it was the idea that struck me rather than the particular culture/person it came from. i've always felt that although some asiatic schools practised harsh austerities with the bodies, they were actually more understanding of the body than western, as they practised diet more so and exercise (yoga), also brahmins avoided meat and alcohol. also the buddha recommended "the middle path" and many balanced asiatic teachers saw vthe absolute necessity of looking after the body. i'm not aware that christianity recommends anything along the lines of exercise or diet- not that it should. as to the separation of self from body i think this happens following the true union them, maybe..
i think the babylonian story of the flood was the epic of gilgamesh. i think you agree by saying myth, that it is allegorical does this mean you are a liberal xtian or is this common to all xtians? as to which is helpful or most insightful, i don't think knowledge of past events has or will set man free.
i'm not able to consider your reply on adam though i'm sure others can.
as to the faerie story, the book it comes from also points out every point you made as to the romantic slant (except perhaps tolkien) the blaming of post natal etc on faeries, also that many children were killed and did also give many stories of a more sinister nature as well as good from pre 18th century romantiscism. inconsequentially in most of the stories where there isn't a theme of blame, the humans are safe so long as they dont covet the material temptations the "little people" tempt them with, and so give good allegorical teachings. but the point was the idea and not where it came from.
i was very young when i was confused by the literal explanation and don t think i should have been expected to grasp the fuller picture. now i do (perhaps) doesnt matter as i was enquiring as to whether others did in case they were still stuck in the literal.
forgive any misunderstings and misinterpretations as i genuinely have a condition which makes clarity difficult,
best wishes for the new year, jason......

 

[Thomas]

Hi Jason - greetings to you, too.

so are there many standings on the immaculate conception? also what is yours?

OK – First thing – the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is different from the Doctrine of the Virgin Conception, and these two often get confused, so let me be clear in case anyone gets confused.

The Immaculate Conception:
This is the doctrine that Mary was born without the stain of original sin.

The Virgin Conception:
This is the doctrine that Mary conceived 'by the power of the Holy Spirit' and not through any human agency.

As far as we know, only two created beings were witnesses of the Annunciation, the angel and the Blessed Virgin.
Later on the angel informed St. Joseph concerning the mystery.
We do not know whether Elizabeth, though "filled with the Holy Ghost", learned the full truth supernaturally,
but we may suppose that Mary confided the secret both to her friend and her spouse, thus completing the partial revelation received by both.

Between this and the story of the Evangelists there is a gap which cannot be filled from any express clue furnished by either Scripture or tradition. St. Matthew may have drawn his information from the knowledge of St. Joseph independently of any information furnished by Mary. The first Gospel merely states (1:18): "When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost." St. Joseph could supply these facts either from personal knowledge or from the words of the angel: "That which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost."

The narrative of St. Luke, on the other hand, must ultimately be traced back to the testimony of Our Blessed Lady, unless we are prepared to admit unnecessarily another independent revelation. The evangelist himself points to Mary as the source of his account of the infancy of Jesus, when he says that Mary kept all these words in her heart (2:19, 51). How did St. Luke derive his account from the Blessed Virgin?

If St. Luke had received the history of the infancy from the Blessed Virgin by way of oral communication, its presentation in the third Gospel naturally would show the form and style of its Greek author. In point of fact the history of the infancy as found in the third Gospel (1:5 to 2:52) betrays in its contents, its language, and style a Jewish-Christian source. The whole passage reads like a chapter from the First Book of Macabees; Jewish customs, and laws, and peculiarities are introduced without any further explanation; the "Magnificat", the "Benedictus", and the "Nunc dimittis" are filled with national Jewish ideas. As to the style and language of the history of the infancy, both are so thoroughly Semitic that the passage must be retranslated into Hebrew or Aramaic in order to be properly appreciated.

The conclusion then, is that St. Luke's immediate source for the history of the infancy was not an oral, but a written one. Most probably Luke used a memoir written by a Jewish Christian, possibly a convert Jewish priest (cf. Acts 6:7), perhaps even a member of Zachary's family. But, whatever may be the immediate source of St. Luke's account, the Evangelist knows that he has "diligently attained to all things from the beginning", according to the testimony of those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2).

... the asiatic schools were actually more understanding of the body than western, as they practised diet more so and exercise (yoga) ... many balanced asiatic teachers saw the absolute necessity of looking after the body ... i'm not aware that christianity recommends anything along the lines ...
I have always wondered about that. I think the difference is cultural as much as anything.

i think you agree by saying myth, that it is allegorical does this mean you are a liberal xtian or is this common to all xtians?
I am orthodox Catholic, and that is orthodox Catholic theology, but I doubt that it is common. Most Christians aren't interested in theology.

By myth I am not saying it is not true, what I believe is myth conveys transcendant or supernatural truths in a more immediate and accessible manner. Most people today discount myth, which is a big mistake.

Thomas

 

[pattimax]

they were actually more understanding of the body than western, as they practised diet more so and exercise (yoga), also brahmins avoided meat and alcohol. also the buddha recommended "the middle path" ...

They had to have a good understanding of the body (diet and exercise), they didn't have Jesus Christ.

p.s. calling followers of Jesus Christ "x-tians" isn't very nice.

 

[pattimax]

I have always wondered about that. I think the difference is cultural as much as anything.

While I deeply appreciate your knowledge, your "wisdom" is questionable.

 

[chakraman]

sos about xtians, new here just copying others - wont do it again.
as to the other point i dont think avatars are exclusive. i assume you feel the eastern way as demonic. i am not of the eastern way or the western way. looking after yourself physically is common sense and part of a religious life regardless, and saying you dont have to if you have christ doesnt make sense to me. kind regards jase......

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Thomas, and welcome Chakraman!

Good stuff as usual Thomas! It's a funny coincidence that I'm reading the chapter in Meditations on the Tarot on the arcanum of Force. Here's an excerpt that seems to coincide with this topic.


“Force is virginity.

What is virginity?

The state of virginity is that of the consonance of three principles- the spirit, the soul and the body. A being in whom spirit, soul and body are in consonance is in a state of virginity. In other words, it is the principle of the unity of three worlds: heaven, purgatory and earth. From the point of view of the earth, it is complete obedience of the body to the soul. From the point of view of purgatory, it is the complete obedience of the soul to the breath of eternity.- or chastity. From the point of view of heaven, it is absolute receptivity to the Divine- or poverty.

Virginity is therefore the unity of that which is above and that which is below, and it is this which is Force, i.e. the action of the three worlds in harmony. Because Force- “the strongest of all powers, the force of all forces” (Tabula Smaragdina, 9)- is the unity of three worlds in action, that is to say in action where the divine spirit, the heart and the body are united.

It is the Virgin speaking through Solomon when he writes:

Before his works of old
I was set up from everlasting,
From the beginning
Or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
before he had made the earth with its fields,
Or the first dust of the world.
When he established the heavens, I was there,
When he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
when he made firm the skies above,
When he established the fountains of the deep,
when he assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters might not transgress his command,
when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
Then I was at work with him.

(Proverbs viii, 22-30)

“When he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was at work beside him”- is a clear statement of the role of the Virgin, who cooperates with the Divine not only in the miracles of redemption but also in those of creation.

Co-creatrix, Co-redemptrix, Co-sanctificatrix, Virgo, Mater, Regina…this formula summarizes the thoughts relating to the principle of virginity. Here is the place to point out that principles do not exist separately from the beings who incarnate and manifest them. Principles as such are always immanent. This is why the reality of the principle of the Divine is God; the reality of the principle of the divine Word is Jesus Christ, and the reality of the principle of fertile and productive virginity is Mary-Sophia. Mary-Sophia represents, i.e. incarnates and manifests, the principle of virginity, that of non-fallen Nature, that of natural religion, and that of Force…She is the central individuality- the “queen”- of the whole domain in question. She is the conscious individual soul who is the concrete ideal- the “queen” of virginity, motherhood, and creative-productive or queenly wisdom.”

Meditations on the Tarot- A Journey into Christian Hermeticism (pp279, 280)


Cheers,

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chris -

Yes, thanks for that!

Part of my acceptance of the Rule of Faith is that I regard the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos as a sign of that Unity and that Immanent Presence of the Divine in the material realm.

In this aspect the whole 'issue' regarding the Personhood of Jesus is this: Can the Higher manifest Itself as Itself in the Lower? If no, then the idea of the Incarnation, Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and so on, becomes symbolic and in that sense real but not actual.

If, on the other hand, yes, then those very aspects are real and are actual – material and miraculous simultaneously. This is the utterly unique statement of Christianity. No other tradition makes such a claim.

The post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus is central to this question: What did He look like?

1 - Someone who's just been tortured and crucified:
You'd have run a mile, surely? Roadkill? A zombie? 'Dead man walking?' Hard to miss, anyway. But not resurrected ... just a survivor ...

2 - As He was before the event?
Then why did people consistently fail to recognise Him? Only John knew Him from afar*

3 - With a different physical appearance?
Then reincarnation - the migration of souls - would have become a central dogma. Same being, different body.

3 - As He chose to be seen ...
Ah! Now we touch the Mystery of the Resurrection. Same Being, same Body, but now the Body is reformed according to its Principle, and now the soul orders the flesh accordingly. Now Jesus can be 'seen' or not 'seen', as He wills ...

+++

OK - SPECULATIVE BIT -
As Borella says, we are bodies in a world of bodies, and we have no control over how we are perceived - we cannot control what others see - and we are subject to their perception. Jesus, however, has complete control over how He is physically perceived - if He chooses, He is 'seen'; if He chooses, He is not 'seen' even when people are talking to Him ...

... there is more to the Resurrection than meets the eye, and St Paul understood this, that underlies his teaching on the Law (Romans, so often the object of criticism and derision, is pure treanscendental Platonism) ... we shall be the same, but we shall be changed ...

+++

* Why did John recognise Him when others didn't?
There is a beautiful speculation by Borella – at the Last Supper John 'the one whom, Christ loved' sat closest to Jesus. As such John would have sat at Christ's left side, his head close, if not on, His breast – Borella speculates that John would have heard the beating of the Sacred Heart ...

Thomas

 

[pattimax]

sos about xtians, new here just copying others - wont do it again.
as to the other point i dont think avatars are exclusive. i assume you feel the eastern way as demonic. i am not of the eastern way or the western way. looking after yourself physically is common sense and part of a religious life regardless, and saying you dont have to if you have christ doesnt make sense to me. kind regards jase......

Thank you, very much. And yes, welcome.

Monotheism is definitely exclusive. (one God)
Avatars are incarnations/prophets. Christianity is monotheistic and to a number of Christians way of thinking, Jesus Christ is much more than a prophet. Prophets are God's messengers. Jesus Christ is Lord.

I do not view the eastern perspective as demonic, I view it as not having the whole story. (Whether it views itself that way or not is another issue entirely.)

What I meant "by not having Christ" has to do with Christian heritage. Also, Christians have the bible. God's written word which can transform lives, and followers can adopt the character of Christ. The eastern traditions have a lot of myth. Christians have God's infallible Word.

I have studied the Eastern traditions a little and it is very interesting and a lot of fun. But there comes a point in your life when it is time to stop playing and understand what God is telling you.
Sincerely, Karen

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Why did John recognise Him when others didn't?
There is a beautiful speculation by Borella – at the Last Supper John 'the one whom, Christ loved' sat closest to Jesus. As such John would have sat at Christ's left side, his head close, if not on, His breast – Borella speculates that John would have heard the beating of the Sacred Heart ...

Well, John, or someone writing in his name, wrote the account. John aggrandizes his position and denigrates Thomas. Gotta be some politics there. This is an interesting point though: about Jesus' ability to shapeshift, as it were. There are a couple of stories about him melting through the crowd and escaping sticky situations. What do you make of him not wanting to be touched immediately after his resurrection?

Chris

 

[seattlegal]

Well, John, or someone writing in his name, wrote the account. John aggrandizes his position and denigrates Thomas. Gotta be some politics there. This is an interesting point though: about Jesus' ability to shapeshift, as it were. There are a couple of stories about him melting through the crowd and escaping sticky situations. What do you make of him not wanting to be touched immediately after his resurrection?

Chris

So he wouldn't be tempted to remain in the Material, instead of becoming Spirit. (Relating it to Virginity--if someone is fighting off lust, the worst thing you could do is to touch that person.)

 

[chakraman]

hi thomas, chris, karen and seattle,
as to the ressurection is jesus supposed to have been in the physical form for this? one idea i have read was that his appearance was unrecognisable because his true spiritual form was not the same as the physical vehicle he had taken for his ministry on earth. also that john could see him because he possesed the second sight, "clairvoyance" whilst thomas did not at first. my appologies if talk of clairvoyance etc upsets christians, its merely to illustrate a point, one i dont necessarily adhere to.
meditations on the tarot sounds interesting in particular to the ideas pertaining to virginty, which i believe sees it as a state of being when there is union. thankyou for your thoughts all, jase.....

 

[chakraman]

i have some thoughts on the adam and eve story. i have felt that the eating of the fruit to be symbolic of the first peoples descent into the the physical realm where the consuming of material sustinence would be necessary. therefore original "sin" was necessary for the physical world to be. indeed sin would be inherent in the separation of matter from spirit and would give the necessary sorrow for mankind to endure and so grow until he/she had learned how to unite the the two, hmmm... could be twaddle of course, j....

 

[taijasi]

It seems possible, along the lines of what you're saying, chakraman, that the first appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion may have been in a subtle form, such that perception would have been limited. Even if there was a body of flesh and blood present at this point, it is likely that the words "touch me not" were spoken because Jesus needed to remain in a completely pure state ... of body, mind and spirit. Only afterward does he encourage the Apostles to touch him to verify that he is real, and that wounds were sustained.


The necessity for the kind of purity I'm speaking of is evidenced elsewhere, in Mark 5:25-30:

And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.​

And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?​

And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.​

He does not scold the woman; but it is clear that her actions affected him deeply, even so greatly that "virtue had gone out of him." This is noteworthy.

Just musings ...

~Zag

 

[pattimax]

hi thomas, chris, karen and seattle,
as to the ressurection is jesus supposed to have been in the physical form for this? one idea i have read was that his appearance was unrecognisable because his true spiritual form was not the same as the physical vehicle he had taken for his ministry on earth. also that john could see him because he possesed the second sight, "clairvoyance" whilst thomas did not at first. my appologies if talk of clairvoyance etc upsets christians, its merely to illustrate a point, one i dont necessarily adhere to.
.....

Hey Jase,

The physical resurrection of Jesus was God's way of showing that death can be resolved. I think Jesus was recognized by who He wanted and when He wanted. (Remember, He's God.)

Christians are not sensitive to words that are not derogatory.
sincerely, Karen

 

[chakraman]

interesting z , i can appreciate the notion of jesus being sensitive to the lower "vibes" of others particularly during the spiritual experience of ressurection. yes although it may have been subtly at first he certainly would have been capable of producing a temporary physical form. i
hi karen, am i right in thinking you see jesus as god and not the son of? regards j..

 

[pattimax]

hi karen, am i right in thinking you see jesus as god and not the son of? regards j..

Hi,
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One. It's called the Trinity. sincerely, Karen

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It seems possible, along the lines of what you're saying, chakraman, that the first appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion may have been in a subtle form, such that perception would have been limited. Even if there was a body of flesh and blood present at this point, it is likely that the words "touch me not" were spoken because Jesus needed to remain in a completely pure state ... of body, mind and spirit. Only afterward does he encourage the Apostles to touch him to verify that he is real, and that wounds were sustained.


The necessity for the kind of purity I'm speaking of is evidenced elsewhere, in Mark 5:25-30:

And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment. For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.​

And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?​

And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.​

He does not scold the woman; but it is clear that her actions affected him deeply, even so greatly that "virtue had gone out of him." This is noteworthy.

Just musings ...

~Zag

Yes, that's very interesting, and it does put the spotlight on notions of ritual purity. After all, a woman with a continuous menstrual issue would be permanently unclean. And the intention of faith, or the intention to be healed was entirely hers. Plus, she didn't have to tough Jesus' body, just the "hem of his garment" to siphon off the healing energy. Yes, very interesting!

Chris

 

[taijasi]

Yes, that's very interesting, and it does put the spotlight on notions of ritual purity. After all, a woman with a continuous menstrual issue would be permanently unclean. And the intention of faith, or the intention to be healed was entirely hers. Plus, she didn't have to tough Jesus' body, just the "hem of his garment" to siphon off the healing energy. Yes, very interesting!

Chris

Then there is the account in Acts chapter 5, wherein we find the shadow of Peter also healing the multitudes as he passed by. If before, Peter could not "walk on water" as could the Christ (symbolic of emotional purity), then here it would seem he had reached this level of mastery. The Apostles go through a great deal of transformation, even in just a few short years of Jesus' earthly ministry, as well as during his longer, post-crucifixion one.

~Zag