St Augustine on the Eucharist

[Lunitik]

My point is this:

You can partake in the oneness of God, through your place in the trinity as Christ's body. You are a manifestation of the plurality for which God is the source. You are as a cell in the body of the Son, but by standing firm to your separateness, to Christ and indeed God being other, you are as an eye saying it doesn't need the ear. Begotten means created as offspring, it does not mean uncreated, existence is the creation, you are a part of creation, existence is the Son, but you can realize the father, share in the ultimate consciousness of God as Jesus did. You can enter the Kingdom of God before death calls, this second you can partake in oneness of consciousness with God, you can attain Christ-hood as Jesus did.

 

[Thomas]

Your basis for them being more enlightened would be... what exactly?

Wisdom, in the first instance.

 

[Thomas]

You are disputing semantics, you are actually in agreement.

No, you've missed the point.
In your reply you said "if not aligned with the eucharist, and instead this thought is applied to everything we are presented through life" (my emphasis). I'm saying that it is by virtue of the Eucharist that the thought is applicable at all.

Pure love is not targeted or attached to anything, it is love for loves sake.

Metaphysically then it exists in a meaningless vacuum. Love is triune — the lover, the beloved, and the love between them. Love is not a 'thing', it's a dynamic activity.

In the first instance it is the Gift of God.

These verses describes enlightenment if you would but know.

Why d'you think I quoted them?

 

[Thomas]

How exactly does this effect my point?

If you can't see that, you can't see anything.

If you meet a man dying of thirst, the representation of a glass of water is no use at all.

And yet, your understanding is not complete because you rely on a single perspective of the truth.

What you fail to realise is that the Christian tradition needs no augmentation or addition from outside of itself for its realisation — as indeed each and every tradition exists whole and entire in itself.

So find a Tradition, and stick with it, don't chop and change, because really it's the ego that's pulling the strings.

 

[Thomas]

I have experienced it, and read the words describing heaven in the Bible, they are quite similar.

That is what I said. You read the words as describing an experience with which you are familiar. I am saying that this may well be so, but the words actually point to something beyond your experience, which you fail to see, because you've set your experience as the benchmark of meaning and possibility.

It is quite unlikely Jesus spoke Greek, for it and Latin were languages of business in the ancient world.

Actually, scholarship notes that it's quite likely that He did. Aramaic was his native tongue, and Hebrew the language of the Liturgy ...

It is almost certain Jesus was of the Essene order, everything questioned about Jesus today actually aligns with this group.

No, that's promulgated by New Age idealism and certain assumptions in the absence of evidence, and does not align with the later emergent materials and scholarship.

It's generally regarded that the evidence suggests that Jesus had a Pharisaic upbringing.

And the evidence of archaeology and scholarship suggests that the Essenes were something of a right-wing sect, more fundamentalist than the Pharisees. Jesus broke every rule in their book.

 

[Thomas]

Again with the semantics... I could go in depth into the occultism of this, it is quite well known if you care to discover it.

I have no doubt you could, and I am well aware of the range of so-called occult data that is founded on little else than the imagination of its author.

 

[Thomas]

You can partake in the oneness of God, through your place in the trinity as Christ's body. You are a manifestation of the plurality for which God is the source. You are as a cell in the body of the Son, but by standing firm to your separateness, to Christ and indeed God being other, you are as an eye saying it doesn't need the ear.

No ... this is the order of assumption you make because, it seems to me, you say all the right things, with no real metaphysical understanding of what you're talking about.

We can participate in the Divine Life of God by virtue of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is God: Nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away; It cannot be augmented or diminished; It cannot be changed or altered ... so whilst created essences can participate in the Life of the Trinity, they are still other than the Trinity. This is the Mystery of Union.

Begotten means created as offspring, it does not mean uncreated...

When used of creation, and the process of generation, correct. When used of Christ, as in 'the only-begotten Son' it does not mean creation, but procession — the Greek term is Perichoresis, the latin term Circuminsession.

you are a part of creation, existence is the Son

No, the Son confers existence, the Son is not existence as such.

but you can realize the father, share in the ultimate consciousness of God as Jesus did.

Of course you can't ... to do so would mean you would have to be equal to or greater than God, which implies two gods, which is a nonsense.

Do not make the Adamic error of assuming that what is given to us by grace is ours by right or nature ... or that by the gift we are made the equal of the giver ...

The Holy Spirit purifies the soul by His indwelling, and in the mirror of the soul, cleansed of all obscurity, one sees the Son, and it is in seeing the Son that one sees the Father, because the Father has endowed the Son with all that He is.

You can enter the Kingdom of God before death calls, this second you can partake in oneness of consciousness with God, you can attain Christ-hood as Jesus did.

Yes and no ... you can experience the Beatific Vision of the Kingdom at any moment, and this one-ness is not a sameness, but a belonging.

But 'attaining Christhood' is inaccurate and leads to all manner of egoic error. You don't attain it — it is a gift. There is no 'technique' nor 'practice' nor 'method' nor any means to 'attain Christhood', there is only the disposition of the soul, in humility, according to the virtues of faith, hope and love.

Christ is a gratuitous and unmerited Gift.

 

[bob x]

And the evidence of archaeology and scholarship suggests that the Essenes were something of a right-wing sect, more fundamentalist than the Pharisees. Jesus broke every rule in their book.

Two examples in particular: in discussing the obligation to abstain from "work" on the Sabbath, the Damascus Document (multiple copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also one from the Cairo Geniza, indicate that this text was a popular one) gives as an extreme example, "Even if your lamb should fall into a well on the Sabbath, do not pull it out until the sun has gone down." When Jesus says the opposite, he was therefore not making up his own example, but specifically repudiating the Essene position.

Again, the Essenes were noted for refusing even to touch coins which had a human image on them (as most did). Herod Antipas, to accommodate such religious conservatives, issued coinage which only showed nature scenes, river reeds swaying in the wind (Jesus's remark about John the Baptist "What did you come out to the desert to see? A reed shaking in the wind? A man dressed in fine robes?" may reflect some popular joke that the reed shaken in the wind was a good picture of Herod Antipas). The discussion about Roman coins "Whose image is on it?" -- "Caesar's" -- "Then render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" indicates that Jesus thought the Essene position was an obsession with what was really trivial.

 

[Lunitik]

Wisdom, in the first instance.

So, because I do not comply with your beliefs, your assumption is that I am not wise? Great start.

 

[Lunitik]

No, you've missed the point.
In your reply you said "if not aligned with the eucharist, and instead this thought is applied to everything we are presented through life" (my emphasis). I'm saying that it is by virtue of the Eucharist that the thought is applicable at all.

The eucharist is a representative ritual, it is not meaningful in and of itself. You will disagree, but then explain those which reach enlightenment or the kingdom of God without ever taking part in it.

Metaphysically then it exists in a meaningless vacuum. Love is triune — the lover, the beloved, and the love between them. Love is not a 'thing', it's a dynamic activity.

When of dual mind, certainly, this is a delusion however. When you remove the subject and object, you are no longer thinking dualistically, there is suddenly only the love. Certainly, love is not a thing, it is an energy though, the activity is quite impure.

In the first instance it is the Gift of God.

1 John 4:8 says that it IS God.

Why d'you think I quoted them?

So you think enlightenment is only possible through the methods Jesus teaches?

 

[Lunitik]

If you can't see that, you can't see anything.

If you meet a man dying of thirst, the representation of a glass of water is no use at all.

I guess I am blind.

What you fail to realise is that the Christian tradition needs no augmentation or addition from outside of itself for its realisation — as indeed each and every tradition exists whole and entire in itself.

So find a Tradition, and stick with it, don't chop and change, because really it's the ego that's pulling the strings.

It is only the ego pulling the strings if you base truth on what you desire. If you approach each completely free from bias, you begin to see how each correlates completely and thus instead of merely one view of the purpose, you now have many different explanations which make the picture much clearer.

 

[Lunitik]

That is what I said. You read the words as describing an experience with which you are familiar. I am saying that this may well be so, but the words actually point to something beyond your experience, which you fail to see, because you've set your experience as the benchmark of meaning and possibility.

You make a lot of assumptions. How do you know it is beyond my experience? It is certainly a more complete expression of my experience, but I know for a fact you have not experienced it because of the nature of your disputes regarding it. You are speaking from ignorance and intellectually founded ideas, I am not basing my statements on a concept.

Actually, scholarship notes that it's quite likely that He did. Aramaic was his native tongue, and Hebrew the language of the Liturgy

I am not interested particularly in scholarly views, for they conclude the exact opposite of truth - they do quite what you have done, intellectualize the unintelligible.

No, that's promulgated by New Age idealism and certain assumptions in the absence of evidence, and does not align with the later emergent materials and scholarship.

It's generally regarded that the evidence suggests that Jesus had a Pharisaic upbringing.

Then why was he so against the Pharisee's? This is unreasonable, the Pharisees were not ascetic, the Essenes believed in not marrying, living simply, the correlations are undeniable.

And the evidence of archaeology and scholarship suggests that the Essenes were something of a right-wing sect, more fundamentalist than the Pharisees. Jesus broke every rule in their book.

You don't think that Jesus was a fundamentalist? This certainly explains his behavior in the synagogue, no?

 

[Lunitik]

I have no doubt you could, and I am well aware of the range of so-called occult data that is founded on little else than the imagination of its author.

Because the contents of the Bible cannot be accused of similar?

 

[Lunitik]

No ... this is the order of assumption you make because, it seems to me, you say all the right things, with no real metaphysical understanding of what you're talking about.

Your wrong assumption.

We can participate in the Divine Life of God by virtue of the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is God: Nothing can be added to it, nothing taken away; It cannot be augmented or diminished; It cannot be changed or altered ... so whilst created essences can participate in the Life of the Trinity, they are still other than the Trinity. This is the Mystery of Union.

I have experienced what you speak of, however, do you realize you are saying Jesus did not participate in the trinity while on earth? Again, you are presenting your lack of true comprehension and experience.

When used of creation, and the process of generation, correct. When used of Christ, as in 'the only-begotten Son' it does not mean creation, but procession — the Greek term is Perichoresis, the latin term Circuminsession.

No, the Son confers existence, the Son is not existence as such.

Jesus was created, born of the virgin Mary. Christ is the creation of plurality, this requires you be familiar with the occult however.

Of course you can't ... to do so would mean you would have to be equal to or greater than God, which implies two gods, which is a nonsense.

You assume two in this scenario, this is false.

Do not make the Adamic error of assuming that what is given to us by grace is ours by right or nature ... or that by the gift we are made the equal of the giver

Again, plurality thinking.

The Holy Spirit purifies the soul by His indwelling, and in the mirror of the soul, cleansed of all obscurity, one sees the Son, and it is in seeing the Son that one sees the Father, because the Father has endowed the Son with all that He is.

I actually agree, however do you see how I am trying to remove your obscurity? All differentiation is a statement of obscurity.

Yes and no ... you can experience the Beatific Vision of the Kingdom at any moment, and this one-ness is not a sameness, but a belonging.

Agreed.

But 'attaining Christhood' is inaccurate and leads to all manner of egoic error. You don't attain it — it is a gift. There is no 'technique' nor 'practice' nor 'method' nor any means to 'attain Christhood', there is only the disposition of the soul, in humility, according to the virtues of faith, hope and love.

Christ is a gratuitous and unmerited Gift.

Strange, because I am in complete control of when it happens, I have realized how it is triggered and thus know for a fact there is a technique.

 

[Lunitik]

Two examples in particular: in discussing the obligation to abstain from "work" on the Sabbath, the Damascus Document (multiple copies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and also one from the Cairo Geniza, indicate that this text was a popular one) gives as an extreme example, "Even if your lamb should fall into a well on the Sabbath, do not pull it out until the sun has gone down." When Jesus says the opposite, he was therefore not making up his own example, but specifically repudiating the Essene position.

Again, the Essenes were noted for refusing even to touch coins which had a human image on them (as most did). Herod Antipas, to accommodate such religious conservatives, issued coinage which only showed nature scenes, river reeds swaying in the wind (Jesus's remark about John the Baptist "What did you come out to the desert to see? A reed shaking in the wind? A man dressed in fine robes?" may reflect some popular joke that the reed shaken in the wind was a good picture of Herod Antipas). The discussion about Roman coins "Whose image is on it?" -- "Caesar's" -- "Then render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" indicates that Jesus thought the Essene position was an obsession with what was really trivial.

Jesus did not work at all, thus the sabbath is irrelevant to him, it is also common for ascetic groups to not force their beliefs on others so why would he care whether others work on this day?

Also, Jesus never handled money, and states "give to caesar that which is his", thus he does not appear to be interested in money at all. He has brought along rich providers but there is no suggestion that Christ ever purchased anything himself with this money.

 

[Ahanu]

Then why was he so against the Pharisee's?

Vehement hatred of Pharisees is another striking similarity between Jesus and the Essenes. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the Pharisees are said to have "fraudulent teaching."

"The misleaders from Ephraim, who with their fraudulent teaching and lying tongue and perfidious lips misdirect many: kings, princes, priests and people together with the proselyte attached to them. Cities and clans will perish through their advice, nobels and leaders will fall due to the ferocity of their tongue."

Jesus says not to abide by their actions in the Book of Matthew.

The Essenes saw the Pharisees leading the people into idolatry. They interpreted Isaiah 30:10 ("speak to us smooth interpretations, prophesy illusions") and Ps. 12:2 ("They utter lies to each other; with flattering lips and a double heart to speak") as a reference to the Pharisees.

 

[Lunitik]

My entire point in this thread is that oneness can be realized, to dispute this, you maintain plurality. My words do not infer two Gods, just as father and son does not infer two Gods, I merely state - as the Old Testament justification Christ gives when questioned in this matter - that we are all a part of the son, we are all the children of God. What I describe is the realization of this status, the issue is that the Church fathers did not experience this realization, so they maintain duality. You say this makes them wise, I say this makes them utterly ignorant. It is a shame that Christ's teaching have been warped into their current interpretations.

The techniques for this realization are expanded on in many Buddhist practices, and adopted by all the mystic schools throughout the world - whether Tao, Yogi, Tantra, Kabalist, Gnostic, Sufi, whatever - and are successful in attaining what the Bible describes as heaven.

 

[Thomas]

So, because I do not comply with your beliefs, your assumption is that I am not wise? Great start.

Not quite ... rather that you assume your experience is the benchmark by which all else is judged.

You were the one who said you would explain my doctrine to me, and asked me to kick this off. I have. So far your explanations reveal a lack of insight and understanding of both Christian Scripture and Christian doctrine ... perhaps prudence might have been a better term ... the pojt being you are in no position to make sweeping statements about the nature of traditions you don't really understand.

I am always ready to listen and learn from others ... the post from Bob X above, for example, is most informative.

I have nothing against the other Traditions, it's just that this is the one for me, but I do not suppose to explain to others what their tradition means.

For example, the 'recovery' of my belief in catholicism was triggered by the work of a Tibetan Buddhist, Marco Pallis. For the best commentaries on comparative religion, I suggest the school known as the Perennial Tradition, or the Sophia Perennis ... their work is world-recognised and unsurpassed.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The eucharist is a representative ritual, it is not meaningful in and of itself.

Nonsense.

You will disagree, but then explain those which reach enlightenment or the kingdom of God without ever taking part in it.

Depends what order of 'enlightenment' or 'heaven' you're talking about.
That's your assumption about

When you remove the subject and object, you are no longer thinking dualistically, there is suddenly only the love.

And love is thus rendered void, for there is nothing to love, and nothing to be loved. It becomes an empty concept, a meaningless value.

What you fail to perceive is Trinity transcends duality.

So you think enlightenment is only possible through the methods Jesus teaches?

No ... I'm not talking about enlightenment, you are, I constantly say that what I am talking about transcends enlightenment ... you seem not to notice.

Enlightenment is not the end of the journey.

Eckhart, the Cloud of Unknowing, Dionysius, Nicholas of Cusa, Eriugena, Gregory of Nyssa, Bonaventure, Aquinas ... and many, many others point out that engagement in the Christian Mysteries surpasses enlightenment.

It's because you're holding enlightenment as the principle issue that you fail to perceive the reality of the message and the teaching.

 

[Thomas]

I began this thread to discuss Augustine, or rather so Lunitik could explain it to me ... it's evident where this is going ... so I shall pursue this no further.

God bless,

Thomas