![]() |
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
body (father the creator).....son (soul the mediator between spirit and body) Spirit (higher body)...... underneath the surface...indeed...a lamp with a flame upon it to illuminate the way.....and ....well until recently the priest wouldnt even face his congration.....God has always been "hidden" from the massess...sadly... good points though...must go |
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
|
In referance to the twofold, one is receptive (feminine), and one is projective (masculine). In this reality, the father is present but the mother hidden and vice versa in the spiritual reality. If you read the Gospel of Thomas and other non-canonical books, if you take this notion into mind you will understand what he is talking about in referance to male and female. For example, "when a female makes herself male" should not be taken literally because it is symbolic. He is not literally talking about gender. There is a string or a coding of feminine and masculine symbols even in the canon. For example bread (masculine) and wine(feminine). They have symbolical meaning, and in a non-canonical gospel it mentioned that Jesus mingled the bread with the wine, which symbolized wholeness. Christ is the mind, which incarnates as the word. Christ is the vine in between the roots and the branches, Christ is the mediator. Father, Christ, and Holy spirit. Body, mind, and spirit, the trinity within man.
__________________
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." -Einstein Last edited by oracle; 02-09-2005 at 03:54 PM. |
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
|
BTW Isis-Astoroth, Satan is not a literal being, but the collective egoistic state of mind within man sybmolized into one entity. Satan represents selfishness, and in reality doesn't exist but is temporal within each soul, until each soul overcomes self which is a boundery concealing our unified reality.
__________________
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." -Einstein Last edited by oracle; 02-10-2005 at 03:59 PM. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reading the idea that some of you have presented that Adam and Eve are not two historical characters but a story created to teach some lesson, reminds me of Job's comment concerning his three so-called friends: "No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you" (Job 12:2) The Apostles Paul it appears was void of your great wisdom. He though these were real people. (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3; I Timothy 2:13; Romans 5:14; I Corinthians 15:22) I can hardly wait to hear the next great revelation that comes from you. Let us throw away our Bibles.
Prosecutor |
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
|
"Let us throw away our Bibles."
Finally someone understands. ![]()
__________________
I go forth with bare feet, and a simple spirit. Lord have mercy on me. beati pauperes spiritu † ![]() |
|
#86
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
|
prosecutor what do you mean by throw away your bible?.....are implying that by seeing the bible in a NONE literal ight this means we effectively are rendering it useless?...I put it to you...did Aesop really see a crow and a fox fight over cheese?
|
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
hoomer:
My point you seem to miss is that historical characters must be assumed to be real unless the evidence warrents a different conclusion. To say "Adam and Eve" were not real people is without any proof to the contrary. If you wish to argue the point, please answer what I said about Paul. Did he consider both of these real historical people? If he did, the reference in Genesis is literal. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Those are my principles, and if you don´t like them... well, I have others. - Groucho Marx |
|
#90
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Here's the thing...adam and eve goes agaisnt historical evidence...from fossil records...ony this week a skull fragment in ethiopia has been found...195, 000 yrs old....the bible states adam and eve are only 6000 yrs ago....frankly your "evidence" argument is as ful of holes as a scientistific argument for eventual "photographs" of gravitons.....but thats a tangent sightly..... So here's the thing......Aesop never required a real crow and a fox to fight over cheese to teach his lesson...... Ok does this make with all certainty adam and eve not real people....no it does not....... Tourists STILL try to goto the Address where Sherlock holmes lived in LOndon though...does this mean Sherlock Holmes existed? Here's another horrilbe thing to consider.....Christianity itself doesnt even require Christ....ok I know this will get shocked ooks and fingers in the ears from christians...(I can picture them saying no no no no..with fingers in their ears)....You see the teachings of the Christ do not require a physical manifest historica being......yes this means pretty much ALL the iterterature written to prove Jesus' historical existance is a s much worth as a chocoate tea pot.....Why dont we need Jesus? as the teachings and the conciousness that exists through the christ require no "prototypical hippy dude with a beard...." just as Buddhists dont actualy require the Buddha....... Do I personally think Christ waked the earth...I am not sure..I'd say yes...but I dont think its important if he did or didnt...but then I'm a heretic...I beleive the 3 fold pattern of creation, destruction and "redemption"...is the responsibility of ALL human beings...not just 1 man (Jesus)...."he that believeth in me...." but as I notice this debate has been removed from the christian section..I assume as I'm not orthodox ennough...or the entire debate for that matter....lol....I can be as heretical as I like.... Here's the thing...we are discussing archetypes...the orignial NON jungain ones....I guess I shoud teach what a archetype really is..as opposed to the modern corrupt form of the word...... or maybe I coud eave it open for you to discover for yourself....with a dictionary! a GOOD one..... ......maybe you already know...thugh I doubt it from your previous post..... well I must work...darn my cold |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |