The Fallacy of Literal Interpretation

[Ben Masada]

That's my point. The NT says it. The OT doesn't. Genesis 1:26 is not a proof of the Trinity.


You don't have to be Hellenistic. A Christian might well assume the plural in Genesis 1:26 to infer the Trinity, as one might see the three beings at Mambre in the same light ... but neither text is a proof of the Trinity. Evidence, perhaps ... but not proof.


Abraham was not a prophet.


Was it? Everything? The whole content of the OT?


Why? If God reveals Himself as three, I doubt that was a random decision.


More than that, I would have thought.


Still doesn't explain the three.

But there you go. It's not a proof of the Trinity, any more than Gen 1:26 is.


I'd hardly expect them to.

And you thought well. They have hit me with that one too. But as I have done above, that's how I dodged the hit.

OK. I'll bite. Why does God appear as three in the vision at Mambre?

God bless,

Thomas[/QUOTE]

In this post of yours, you deny everything I said and by the same token, you agree with everything. What's going on, too hard to make up your mind?

Ben

 

[Nephilim48]

To believe in the Bible literally one would have to suspend all rational thought. The Bible, both Old and new Testament, have more holes in their stories than a colander. Archeology and Geology disprove most of the stories and historical research shows the rest to be on shaky ground.
The Immaculate conception that the Catholic Church sets so much store by has been shown to be a nonsense. Jesus was most likely the result of a rape by a roman soldier when Mary's village was attacked in retribution for attacks on the Romans by her kinsmen.
If not that then more likely by artificial insemination by alien visitors from another planet. It is just as likely. Take a look at thesourcefoundation for evidence

 

[Thomas]

In this post of yours, you deny everything I said and by the same token, you agree with everything.

Really? I think you've got that wrong.

What's going on, too hard to make up your mind?

No, it's quite simple.

Genesis, indeed the Old Testament, neither proves nor reveals the Trinity. That is done in the New Testament.

One might interpret the Old in light of the New, but that is something different.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Nephilim48. Perhaps. But is Religion, religion, or spirituality really about reason at all? No (at least not imho). Not "rational thought" but "exisential experiamental experience" with a dash of intuition and emotion go along with the reason. After all, we are not Vulcans. One must (jmho) go beyond mere scientific reasoning and embrace the mystical-mythical thought as well.

 

[taijasi]

As with any supposedly inspired text, taking the Bible literally is fine, as long we know how to interpret the myth, allegory or parable in question. Some parts, very clearly, are meant to be taken as given; others, not so much.

The parts where we are told in plain and unequivocable terms, for example, to LOVE ONE ANOTHER and to FORGIVE those who "trespass against us" ... *these* instructions, which men quibble over and make the least significant of the Christ's Teaching (in terms of how gladly and readily we translate them into PRACTICE) ... get the short end of the stick.

On the other hand, we like to pretend that virgin birth is supposed to be swallowed whole hog (with no proper framework for realizing what is the symbolism involved), that St. Peter was in error because his faith lacked what it takes for a man to literally walk on water (seen that lately? oh GIVE me a BREAK!) ... or that dear Lazarus was just a bloke like you and me, dead as a doornail, till ol' Jesus brought him back, all gay & chipper & spritely like puppy-dogs'-tails (it had to rhyme).

We have so little conception of the spiritual mechanics involved in animating the physical body that we cannot even fathom what Jesus was doing in this latter case, nor do we appreciate the meaning of walking on the water, so again, the point is:

Without the proper context, you may as well attempt to take the whole thing literally, which results in absurdity ... except for the parts where Christ speaks directly to you and asks you to CHANGE, to believe in God and in yourself, to be "PERFECT, even as your Heavenly Father is PERFECT" ~ and oh, that business about the "greater things than this, YE shall do" is obviously one of the tossaways, for what idiot believes he can apply THIS literally without incurring the wrath and error of spiritual pride?

You see? It just doesn't suit us. We are not (for the most part) the authors of these texts. KNOWING THEM (the authors), their intent and their meaning, is not beyond us, however ... and the first man who tells you that we cannot do this, or that his institution has the ONLY correct, tried & true TRADITION for properly making sense of it all. Ah well, his word and his part is about as useless and as applicable (to ANY proper Biblical study) as an old, well-worn pillow full of beer ... umm, residue, of sorts.

 

[taijasi]

"Re-examine all you have been told. Dismiss what insults your Soul." ~Walt Whitman

 

[Thomas]

... as long we know how to interpret the myth, allegory or parable in question...

Ah, there's the rub.

The way to interpret the text is through certain hermenetic keys, and the way to understand the hermeneutic is the tradition. Without the commentary, you lack the means to unlock the text. The text itself says that (cf Acts 8:30-31).

What other way is there, other than assumption and guesswork?

On the other hand, we like to pretend that virgin birth is supposed to be swallowed whole hog (with no proper framework for realizing what is the symbolism involved)...

You need to learn the difference between a symbol and a metaphor.

Symbols manifest things, they present them, the essence is present in the form. A metaphor is a literary device that allows the transference of meaning.

If you're saying the Virgin Birth didn't actually happen, then it's not a symbol. To be a symbol of virgin birth requires a virgin birth. What you should have said is it's a metaphor.

We have so little conception of the spiritual mechanics involved ...

You don't, you mean. That requires an understanding of the tradition, the hermeneutic and the metaphysical system implied. Please don't assume your ignorance is universal. There is enough out there, so your comment only underlines what little you know or understand of the tradition.

Without the proper context, you may as well attempt to take the whole thing literally, which results in absurdity ...

Yes it is, and it is equally absurd to assume the 'proper context' is other than the tradition, the text and the hermeneutic.

I mean, the 'proper context' of a Christian text won't be found in Buddhism, will it? It's common sense, really.

and oh, that business about the "greater things than this, YE shall do" is obviously one of the tossaways, for what idiot believes he can apply THIS literally without incurring the wrath and error of spiritual pride?

A tossaway? Really? Now you are being absurd. If you think that, then you have really no idea of how to approach the sacra doctrina of any tradition, let alone offer insight into its meaning.

Here's a clue to the interpretation of symbols:
One of the hermeneutic keys to the interpretation of the New Testament is the idea of 'the Word made flesh'. The message of Christianity is holistic, not dualistic, and if one assumes to unlock the text using a set of dualistic keys, then inevitably one will get it wrong.

And so it is with Christian symbols. The persons and events recorded in the text do not draw their power from the fact they are metaphorical devices. They are fully realised organic symbols, in each and every one there is the meeting of spirit and matter.

Thus the Virgin did bear a child, Peter did walk on the water, not because the act is a symbol, but because they are themselves symbols, as indeed we can be ...

A metaphor cannot symbolise the union of spirit and matter, a metaphor can only transfer meaning from one to the other. Metaphors are fundamentally dualistic, which is why, in the Christian context, they are not enough to realise the reality of what is being revealed.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

The way to interpret the text is through certain hermenetic keys, and the way to understand the hermeneutic is the tradition. Without the commentary, you lack the means to unlock the text. The text itself says that (cf Acts 8:30-31).

What other way is there, other than assumption and guesswork?

So we have been taught. Have we not also been taught to use our own noodle, apply the Higher Reason, hold the texts, their possible meanings and implications CLEARLY in the light? If we cannot raise them beyond whichever contexts in which they still remain DEAD, is it our fault, or Christ's that He remains a world away - a man up there in the SKY?

You need to learn the difference between a symbol and a metaphor.

Symbols manifest things, they present them, the essence is present in the form. A metaphor is a literary device that allows the transference of meaning.

If you're saying the Virgin Birth didn't actually happen, then it's not a symbol. To be a symbol of virgin birth requires a virgin birth. What you should have said is it's a metaphor.

Perhaps so. If it confused you, my apologies. I don't know if anyone else missed my message for the grammatical flubs. Thanks to clarify them.

You don't, you mean. That requires an understanding of the tradition, the hermeneutic and the metaphysical system implied. Please don't assume your ignorance is universal. There is enough out there, so your comment only underlines what little you know or understand of the tradition.

No, Thomas, now you're speaking for yourself. You are blind. Yet rather than put words in someone else's mouth, and rather than state the obvious, I was preferring to keep it simple.

You arrogate to your person & your intellect a presumed illuminative quality which simply *is not there*. I can see well enough where, and that, other people have plenty of understanding of an astral projection, for example. You, as it turns out, wouldn't understand a graveyard ghost if it rubbed up against you and said BOO!

Now I don't know what kind of pointy little hats you're wearing, serving punch & cookies at all the bingo functions and passing out pamphlets on your lordship's expertise in these metaphysical matters, but if ever the Good Doctor did see what's occurred in the name of a Spiritual Theology I quite think he'd keel over (again) quick. Do let's avoid that.

You fight a losing battle when Mayavirupas are not real because "you have not seen one," and when Mahatmas cannot have possibly existed because no one cleared it with His Majesty before changing `TRADITION.' Besides which, I quite think the one who looks after your niche and your avenue of enquiry (and especial field of service) doesn't get far when snubbed, painted with yet another coat of laquer and affixed, quite literally to Good Ol' Mother Church's Rolls ~ as her shiniest HOOD ORNAMENT of choice. Oh wait, a metaphor ... no no, let's see, a symbol? Ah yes, an EMBLEM. Thank you, knew it was there somewhere.

And tell me about reincarnation, and INcarnations, and expressions of Deity and the lot? Oh Thomas, I'd sooner listen to a pet bird *squawking* in my ear at top note. At least he would know something of Freedom, of Music, of Song and of Beauty ... simply BEING what he IS.

You, on the other hand, I think ~ shall fight it until the very end, when indeed, you catch a glimmer. And birds, by the way, have some very pretty song. Especially when we *pay attention* to what's RIGHT with the world, and not so much with what went ... _.

Yes it is, and it is equally absurd to assume the 'proper context' is other than the tradition, the text and the hermeneutic.

I mean, the 'proper context' of a Christian text won't be found in Buddhism, will it? It's common sense, really.

No, Thomas. A toolkit, or a toolbelt, is only as useful as the Workman who wears it.

Put a hammer and saw in there, yes, and already you amount to something. But when you arrive at the worksite and the boss tells you it's painting day, what do you intend to do, explain the history of sawcraft and bashing things to him?

In like fashion, this is exactly how you proceed where the SYNTHESIS of the disciplines even first becomes possible. An artist learns to see holistically, and even if he loves to paint landscapes, or appreciates the expressions in the human face, he also must learn to appreciate the CONTEXT within which all this occurring, plus the many tones and notes of the ATMOSPHERE which are influencing the scene (regardless of subject).

It amounts to a box, and your inability (via literal inability or choice, it matters not which) to see beyond it. I don't mind, but I won't be bothered by it. I can't help you, you see. You've made that clear. And this flat-earther type mentality, I can't say it's mine to decide it isn't good for your state of mind. I mean, if it helps and all. See?

A tossaway? Really? Now you are being absurd. If you think that, then you have really no idea of how to approach the sacra doctrina of any tradition, let alone offer insight into its meaning.

Here's a clue to the interpretation of symbols:
One of the hermeneutic keys to the interpretation of the New Testament is the idea of 'the Word made flesh'. The message of Christianity is ...

Do you see, now, Thomas, how what we do now is simply dance away from the matter? You kind of smooth it all over with a little sleight of hand and figure, here's enough BS on a shiny silver platter than maybe perhaps meanwhile everyone will forget what we did to old Jesus. He very well became to you folks what poor John became for Salome. And thus when you presume to lecture me I have to slow down for a minute, and earnestly ask myself, do I honestly feel some kind of purpose could be served by playing along with him - just for once, or you know, to a degree, or on this issue, as it were ~ for folks to see?

And I have before, and sometimes I'll do it; I'm quite sure there's a Message here, and you'll never get through it ...

But don't dwell in the past. I see Christ ahead, and it's different there, there's something SO vast ... that I don't think you will glimpse it, if you feel you really must ~--> bury your head in so much drudgery, the man who died, the man of DUST.

Namaskar, Thomas, Namaskara

 

[radarmark]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas
The way to interpret the text is through certain hermenetic keys, and the way to understand the hermeneutic is the tradition. Without the commentary, you lack the means to unlock the text. The text itself says that (cf Acts 8:30-31).

What other way is there, other than assumption and guesswork?

So we have been taught. Have we not also been taught to use our own noodle, apply the Higher Reason, hold the texts, their possible meanings and implications CLEARLY in the light? If we cannot raise them beyond whichever contexts in which they still remain DEAD, is it our fault, or Christ's that He remains a world away - a man up there in the SKY?

The question is what is the basis of the interpretation. Thomas says it is the tradition which gave rise to the text. Taijasi says it is a matter of reason. Pure reason cannot even explain the physical universe, let alone “that beyond”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas
You need to learn the difference between a symbol and a metaphor.

Symbols manifest things, they present them, the essence is present in the form. A metaphor is a literary device that allows the transference of meaning.

If you're saying the Virgin Birth didn't actually happen, then it's not a symbol. To be a symbol of virgin birth requires a virgin birth. What you should have said is it's a metaphor.

Perhaps so. If it confused you, my apologies. I don't know if anyone else missed my message for the grammatical flubs. Thanks to clarify them.

I did and I do not believe in the Virgin Birth a matter of “scientific fact”. On the other hand, as a metaphor (like Marduk, Horus, Laozt, Huitzilopochtli, and Dionysius) it makes sense. Bottom line the symbol/metaphor distinction is important.

Quote:
You don't, you mean. That requires an understanding of the tradition, the hermeneutic and the metaphysical system implied. Please don't assume your ignorance is universal. There is enough out there, so your comment only underlines what little you know or understand of the tradition.

No, Thomas, now you're speaking for yourself. You are blind. Yet rather than put words in someone else's mouth, and rather than state the obvious, I was preferring to keep it simple.

Goes back to the first issue (of hermeneutics). Does one presume to put one’s reason above the truth within the tradition or not? It is just that simple. If one says “yes” (Taijasi’s position), that pushes one’s own belief structure into the equation (and, jmho, one ends up with a “my beliefs are correct, yours are wrong”, a Mexican standoff in the end). Better one strive to find a point-of-view which treats both as equally possible and rely on “intellect” to make the call).

The entire following five paragraphs just (to me) re-enforce this.

You arrogate to your person & your intellect a presumed illuminative quality which simply *is not there*. I can see well enough where, and that, other people have plenty of understanding of an astral projection, for example. You, as it turns out, wouldn't understand a graveyard ghost if it rubbed up against you and said BOO!

Now I don't know what kind of pointy little hats you're wearing, serving punch & cookies at all the bingo functions and passing out pamphlets on your lordship's expertise in these metaphysical matters, but if ever the Good Doctor did see what's occurred in the name of a Spiritual Theology I quite think he'd keel over (again) quick. Do let's avoid that.

You fight a losing battle when Mayavirupas are not real because "you have not seen one," and when Mahatmas cannot have possibly existed because no one cleared it with His Majesty before changing `TRADITION.' Besides which, I quite think the one who looks after your niche and your avenue of enquiry (and especial field of service) doesn't get far when snubbed, painted with yet another coat of laquer and affixed, quite literally to Good Ol' Mother Church's Rolls ~ as her shiniest HOOD ORNAMENT of choice. Oh wait, a metaphor ... no no, let's see, a symbol? Ah yes, an EMBLEM. Thank you, knew it was there somewhere.

And tell me about reincarnation, and INcarnations, and expressions of Deity and the lot? Oh Thomas, I'd sooner listen to a pet bird *squawking* in my ear at top note. At least he would know something of Freedom, of Music, of Song and of Beauty ... simply BEING what he IS.

You, on the other hand, I think ~ shall fight it until the very end, when indeed, you catch a glimmer. And birds, by the way, have some very pretty song. Especially when we *pay attention* to what's RIGHT with the world, and not so much with what went ... _.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas
Yes it is, and it is equally absurd to assume the 'proper context' is other than the tradition, the text and the hermeneutic.

I mean, the 'proper context' of a Christian text won't be found in Buddhism, will it? It's common sense, really.

No, Thomas. A toolkit, or a toolbelt, is only as useful as the Workman who wears it.

Again, just my viewpoint here (and I am not on either side) per se, the greater inclusive point-of-view is preferable to get at the core. A masturbation and pornography addicted point-of-view will not be as objective as a cinematographers when discussing the composition of “Napoleon”. Nor will a point-of-view with “braces on their brains” have as objective a point of view as most when discussing “Auntie Mame”.

The proper context for a discussion of the Pali Suttas will not be found in the Vatican archives. Nor will the proper hermeneutics to be applied to Meister Eckhart be found in hidden caves in the Himalayas. One has to rise up one level, look at meta-meanings, not literal ones.

Again, this would elimainate the need for the following three paragraphs.

Put a hammer and saw in there, yes, and already you amount to something. But when you arrive at the worksite and the boss tells you it's painting day, what do you intend to do, explain the history of sawcraft and bashing things to him?

In like fashion, this is exactly how you proceed where the SYNTHESIS of the disciplines even first becomes possible. An artist learns to see holistically, and even if he loves to paint landscapes, or appreciates the expressions in the human face, he also must learn to appreciate the CONTEXT within which all this occurring, plus the many tones and notes of the ATMOSPHERE which are influencing the scene (regardless of subject).

It amounts to a box, and your inability (via literal inability or choice, it matters not which) to see beyond it. I don't mind, but I won't be bothered by it. I can't help you, you see. You've made that clear. And this flat-earther type mentality, I can't say it's mine to decide it isn't good for your state of mind. I mean, if it helps and all. See?

Now here, ladies and gentlemen, is where it gets really tricky!

Originally Posted by taijasi
and oh, that business about the "greater things than this, YE shall do" is obviously one of the tossaways, for what idiot believes he can apply THIS literally without incurring the wrath and error of spiritual pride?

Originally Posted by Thomas in reply
A tossaway? Really? Now you are being absurd. If you think that, then you have really no idea of how to approach the sacra doctrina of any tradition, let alone offer insight into its meaning.

Here's a clue to the interpretation of symbols:
One of the hermeneutic keys to the interpretation of the New Testament is the idea of 'the Word made flesh'. The message of Christianity is holistic, not dualistic, and if one assumes to unlock the text using a set of dualistic keys, then inevitably one will get it wrong.

And so it is with Christian symbols. The persons and events recorded in the text do not draw their power from the fact they are metaphorical devices. They are fully realised organic symbols, in each and every one there is the meeting of spirit and matter.

Thus the Virgin did bear a child, Peter did walk on the water, not because the act is a symbol, but because they are themselves symbols, as indeed we can be ...

A metaphor cannot symbolise the union of spirit and matter, a metaphor can only transfer meaning from one to the other. Metaphors are fundamentally dualistic, which is why, in the Christian context, they are not enough to realise the reality of what is being revealed.

Originally Posted by taijasi in reply
Do you see, now, Thomas, how what we do now is simply dance away from the matter? You kind of smooth it all over with a little sleight of hand and figure, here's enough BS on a shiny silver platter than maybe perhaps meanwhile everyone will forget what we did to old Jesus. He very well became to you folks what poor John became for Salome. And thus when you presume to lecture me I have to slow down for a minute, and earnestly ask myself, do I honestly feel some kind of purpose could be served by playing along with him - just for once, or you know, to a degree, or on this issue, as it were ~ for folks to see?

And I have before, and sometimes I'll do it; I'm quite sure there's a Message here, and you'll never get through it ...

But don't dwell in the past. I see Christ ahead, and it's different there, there's something SO vast ... that I don't think you will glimpse it, if you feel you really must ~--> bury your head in so much drudgery, the man who died, the man of DUST.

Now what don’t I get? The issue really all boils back down to (jmho) a confusion between metaphor and symbol. A metaphor is a rhetorical figure of speech, a way to communicate an association or comparison. A symbol is an actual re-representation, a way to communicate actual meaning.

Taijasi really communicates his associations and comparisons well, but what is the meaning? Thomas communicates his meaning, but what can the rest of us compare or associate this with if we do’t get it? I am left perplexed.

 

[wil]

Taijasi really communicates his associations and comparisons well, but what is the meaning? Thomas communicates his meaning, but what can the rest of us compare or associate this with if we do’t get it? I am left perplexed.

You can't let it all get to you. It is like listening to a presidential debate.each is speaking from their paradigm...you have your own.


Our words are tremendously lacking when it comes to speaking of these things...read, listen, absorb and then listen to your heart...go in the silence. it ain't the writings of the prophets or the prophetic or the saints or the saintly....not the experts that matter....

they don't walk in your shoes don't have your experiences don't connect your life to the one...and oneness....YOU DO. It isn't some pomp and circumstance or magic words or anyone else...it is upto you to save yourself.

and if you allow others to put you in or through hell...don't worry my brother we are standing in the light with a hand....reaching in.

 

[radarmark]

Tanks (big ones with big guns that shoot only paintballs)!

 

[seattlegal]

Tanks (big ones with big guns that shoot only paintballs)!

Did somebody say paintballs?

 

[Thomas]

Hi RM —

The question is what is the basis of the interpretation. Thomas says it is the tradition which gave rise to the text. Taijasi says it is a matter of reason. Pure reason cannot even explain the physical universe, let alone “that beyond”.

Quite. Within the context of the Tradition (the Christian one, from hereon), what is made known within Revelation is that which is inaccessible to the unaided intellect. It can by hypothesised, but it cannot be 'known', and as such it is neither 'real' nor 'true'.

Take the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Triunes are evident everywhere in the history of religious endeavour, but we see a crucial distinction. As I would put it, everything is Trinity-shaped because that is its ontological source, but the triunes are mediated through reason. Many of them represent the cosmic and/or agrarian cycles (life, death, rebirth), or present models based on our own anthropological reflection (The Brahminic Being-Consciousness-Bliss for example, or Augustine's Memory, Intellect and Will).

In the pure doctrine however, the Holy Trinity is revealed in Itself and can be known in Itself, whereas in triunes it is present by mediation.

Of all the triunes I know, one of my most favoured is the Brahmin Cit-Sat-Ananda. On the one hand I could argue that being, consciousness and bliss have been arrived at by simple reason: I possess all three in a contingent fashion, God by definition must possess all three by virtue of Himself. Another, from my Perennialist readings, is Absolute, Infinite and Perfect, but again these can be deduced from our own relativeness, our own finitude, our own weakness.

The core data of the Doctrine, that which is revealed in Scripture and passed on through Apostolic Tradition, is the self-disclosure of the Triune God in Itself, in its Act (Salvation History), and not through the veil of that which is acted upon.

On the other hand however, I am not saying that these triunes are imagined and ineffectual. I believe they are the fruit of Divine inspiration and the Deity is known in them. The crucial distinction here is between God's essence and His energies. In the case of Philosophy, God is veiled in the forms it employs, immanently and yet still anonymously. in the case of Revelation, God can be known in His essence, intimately.

I did and I do not believe in the Virgin Birth a matter of “scientific fact”.

I believe in the Virgin Birth as a matter of fact beyond science. May I say, for the sake of argument, that a miracle is that which science cannot explain? In the investigation of its cause, science, it seems to me, can say only that either it is 'an act of God' which means God should be accepted as a serious hypothesis, or an act which we do not yet possess the necessary data to explain, which in itself is insufficient to refute an act of God. May I then say that a scientist should keep an open mind?

On the other hand, as a metaphor it makes sense.

But may I suggest that you have 'reasoned' the "that beyond" you mentioned above?

Bottom line the symbol/metaphor distinction is important.

Absolutely, and I think we treat them differently.
I understand a symbol in the Patristic (NeoPlatonic) sense. The difference between a sign and a symbol is the sign is a representation of its object, like a photograph of a table represents the table, a sign brings its object to mind. A symbol is a presentation of its object, the essence signified infuses the symbol and renders it substantially, that is really and actually, present, even though the outward substance of the symbol itself remains in its 'elements' (to use the Scholastic term for that which appears to the senses). Thus Christ is truly God, whilst simultaneously truly and wholly man, in his elements, right down to His human soul). The same with the Eucharist. The elements — look, taste, etc., — remain unaltered. But God is there.

The dispute about the 'Real Presence' in the Eucharist that occurred around the turn of the first millennium turns on the definition of the symbol. In the East it remained as it always was, in the West it ceased to be understood in the same way and 'symbol' was treated by many as synonymous with 'sign'. Thus whilst the doctrine remains the same East and West, the Eucharist is Christ, in the West the word symbol no longer had the authority of its essential distinction to argue for the case. The word symbol in the Fathers now held two possible, but contradictory, meanings from the Scholastic viewpoint.

In effect, the symbol became a material metaphor, in which the meaning of one thing is transferred to another. In this case. This came to a head with Luther, who saw the Eucharist as an efficacious sign of His presence, but not as His presence as such. In the last century this was debated in the Church and gave rise to such alternate terms such as 'transignification'; the celebrant passes through the sign into Christ, but Christ is not in the sign. The definition was refuted as denying the dogma of the Real Presence.

If the Virgin Birth is a metaphor, then it did not actually happen, rather it is a valid fiction, if I may, an upaya, I think the Buddhists call it (a useful strategem). Later many would hold Meister Eckhart (erroneously) to this view when he spoke of Christ 'conceived' within the soul through faith. For each and every one of us it can be likened to a 'virgin birth' because it is brought about by no human agency, other than the pure and receptive soul.

This idea has been refuted from the very beginning. The Dogma could only have come from Our Lady herself. It is asserted in Scripture, and so was a given for the Tradition of the Church founded at Pentecost.

Yet Eckhart does not contradict the Tradition. The Virgin Birth is an organic symbol, not a sign, not a metaphor. Our Lady did not conceive a child through the act of procreation, in who's soul God was 'born' (metaphorically) or came to rest (at the baptism in the Jordan). A fundamental Mystery of the Christian Revelation is that "the Word became flesh" actually, not metaphorically. So God must have been born man actually, not God in man metaphorically, but God as man. As Athanasius argued emphatically and which became a maxim of the Tradition, 'God became man, God did not come into a man'.

A key of understanding the Christian hermeneutic is that what happens spiritually happens physically. We do not just believe in miracles because of what they signify, we believe in them because what is signified is actualised in the miracle. In the Gospel of John, for example, he does not call them 'miracles' but 'signs'.

The proper context for a discussion of the Pali Suttas will not be found in the Vatican archives. Nor will the proper hermeneutics to be applied to Meister Eckhart be found in hidden caves in the Himalayas. One has to rise up one level, look at meta-meanings, not literal ones.

Suppose the Christian Tradition does that, then from the higher perspective, the literal testimony of the Evangelist becomes a mythology. Yet from the Apostles on, we have the literal preached as the Word of Faith. We have a huge treasury of texts that present Scripture as a testimony of what (actually) happened, and its meta-meanings (the Four Senses of Scripture). We also have a huge treasury of texts refuting the error of those happenings being interpreted purely as metaphor.

What that would mean then is two separate hermeneutics. The higher will incorporate and thus validate the lower, but only in the metaphorical sense. The literal reading is sentimental and naive, although useful. But the lower hermeneutic, which asserts a fundamental belief in the literal events, a belief in miracles, would then be rendered either the fruit of a naive ideology, or the 'necessary deception' instigated by the higher, although for quite what reason 'necessary' (if the metaphor suffices in itself) is not easily explained. (The insistence that miracles like the Virgin Birth actually happened is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the way of the promulgation of the faith. Life would have been a lot easier for all if it was presented as a metaphor, a myth.)

Now what don’t I get? The issue really all boils back down to (jmho) a confusion between metaphor and symbol.

Yes it does. I hope I have sufficiently clarified that distinction?

A metaphor is a rhetorical figure of speech, a way to communicate an association or comparison.

Yes it is, but that does it scant justice.

"In The Rule of Metaphor, (Paul) Ricoeur argues that is because there is a linguistic productive imagination that generates and regenerates meaning through the power of metaphoricity to state things in new ways. For him, fresh metaphors, metaphors that have not been reduced to the commonplace, reveal a new way of seeing their referents. They creatively transform language. Thus they are not merely rhetorical ornaments. They have genuine cognitive import in their own right and are untranslatable without remainder into literal language." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

(It's a hell of a book, by the way.)

A symbol is an actual re-representation, a way to communicate actual meaning.

I hope you will see I argue for a different understanding.

I hope you will also see why I reject the reduction of the testimony of Scripture pure metaphor.

C.S. Lewis (this from memory) sees his change of heart with regard to Christianity as turning on this very point. 'It's a myth', he argued. 'But supposing it's not', said a friend. His conclusion was that Christ is either 'bad, mad, or God'. A reasoned faith (as he was so richly to demonstrate) led him to the latter conclusion.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
I did and I do not believe in the Virgin Birth a matter of “scientific fact”.

I believe in the Virgin Birth as a matter of fact beyond science. May I say, for the sake of argument, that a miracle is that which science cannot explain? In the investigation of its cause, science, it seems to me, can say only that either it is 'an act of God' which means God should be accepted as a serious hypothesis, or an act which we do not yet possess the necessary data to explain, which in itself is insufficient to refute an act of God. May I then say that a scientist should keep an open mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
On the other hand, as a metaphor it makes sense.

But may I suggest that you have 'reasoned' the "that beyond" you mentioned above?

Oh Zounds! Mayhaps you are correct, shall ponder this over the weekend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
Bottom line the symbol/metaphor distinction is important.

Absolutely, and I think we treat them differently.
I understand a symbol in the Patristic (NeoPlatonic) sense. The difference between a sign and a symbol is the sign is a representation of its object, like a photograph of a table represents the table, a sign brings its object to mind. A symbol is a presentation of its object, the essence signified infuses the symbol and renders it substantially, that is really and actually, present, even though the outward substance of the symbol itself remains in its 'elements' (to use the Scholastic term for that which appears to the senses). Thus Christ is truly God, whilst simultaneously truly and wholly man, in his elements, right down to His human soul). The same with the Eucharist. The elements — look, taste, etc., — remain unaltered. But God is there.
Yet Eckhart does not contradict the Tradition. The Virgin Birth is an organic symbol, not a sign, not a metaphor. Our Lady did not conceive a child through the act of procreation, in who's soul God was 'born' (metaphorically) or came to rest (at the baptism in the Jordan). A fundamental Mystery of the Christian Revelation is that "the Word became flesh" actually, not metaphorically. So God must have been born man actually, not God in man metaphorically, but God as man. As Athanasius argued emphatically and which became a maxim of the Tradition, 'God became man, God did not come into a man'.

A key of understanding the Christian hermeneutic is that what happens spiritually happens physically. We do not just believe in miracles because of what they signify, we believe in them because what is signified is actualised in the miracle. In the Gospel of John, for example, he does not call them 'miracles' but 'signs'.

Yeegads! Again, will have to ponder this over weekend (you are quite correct, which makes my “feelings” or “impressions” quite correct in the same way…. The problem is, I have always fought them at a meat-level).

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
Now what don’t I get? The issue really all boils back down to (jmho) a confusion between metaphor and symbol.

Yes it does. I hope I have sufficiently clarified that distinction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
A metaphor is a rhetorical figure of speech, a way to communicate an association or comparison.

Yes it is, but that does it scant justice.

Quote:
"In The Rule of Metaphor, (Paul) Ricoeur argues that is because there is a linguistic productive imagination that generates and regenerates meaning through the power of metaphoricity to state things in new ways. For him, fresh metaphors, metaphors that have not been reduced to the commonplace, reveal a new way of seeing their referents. They creatively transform language. Thus they are not merely rhetorical ornaments. They have genuine cognitive import in their own right and are untranslatable without remainder into literal language." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

(It's a hell of a book, by the way.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
A symbol is an actual re-representation, a way to communicate actual meaning.

I hope you will see I argue for a different understanding.

I hope you will also see why I reject the reduction of the testimony of Scripture pure metaphor.

C.S. Lewis (this from memory) sees his change of heart with regard to Christianity as turning on this very point. 'It's a myth', he argued. 'But supposing it's not', said a friend. His conclusion was that Christ is either 'bad, mad, or God'. A reasoned faith (as he was so richly to demonstrate) led him to the latter conclusion.

Yes, to all of this… what then is the distinction between “symbol” as I and you use it and “metaphor”? That is, do you agree that symbol is re-definition; whereas metaphor is communication (with some essence removed to facilitate it?)

 

[Ben Masada]

To believe in the Bible literally one would have to suspend all rational thought. The Bible, both Old and new Testament, have more holes in their stories than a colander. Archeology and Geology disprove most of the stories and historical research shows the rest to be on shaky ground.
The Immaculate conception that the Catholic Church sets so much store by has been shown to be a nonsense. Jesus was most likely the result of a rape by a roman soldier when Mary's village was attacked in retribution for attacks on the Romans by her kinsmen.
If not that then more likely by artificial insemination by alien visitors from another planet. It is just as likely. Take a look at thesourcefoundation for evidence

I agree with you, Nephilim. People from the literal interpretation club serve only to make holes in the Bible. And I mean both NT and Tanach. With regards to the immaculate conception doctrine, it is a great disservice Christians pay to Joseph, Mary and Jesus himself. Hence, the probability that the Roman rape of Mary did occur has become highly feasiable.

Ben

 

[Thomas]

Yes, to all of this… what then is the distinction between “symbol” as I and you use it and “metaphor”?

I think, for the same of simplicity, I would leave metaphor as — a linguistic device, the transference of meaning from one thing to another. It can be commonplace, or it can be a koan (I think Lewis had a koan-like moment in the dialogue I mentioned above).

So the parables are extended metaphors, Luke arranges his materials utilising the journey motif, a not uncommon literary device in his day, as one huge metaphor — half his Gospel is set on the road to Jerusalem. Matthew arranges his according to the chiasmus (chiasmus from the Greek: χιάζω, chiázō, "to shape like the letter Χ") in which the text is arranged in an over-arching pattern A,B,C ... C,B,A, in a series of concentric narratives. Chiasmus had a rich Hebraic heritage, in the Old Testament as well as the New. John's is two books, the Book of Signs, leading up to the Passion, and the Book of Glory, the Passion and subsequent events.

But in all these cases two things should be considered: The first is that the actual metaphor being thus created is itself significant, but largely esoteric to an audience unaware of chiasmus in Matthew, say, or what 'journey' Luke is actually writing about. Most concentrate purely on the immediate, obvious and exoteric meaning of the individual metaphors themselves.

The second is that although the whole can be read as a metaphor, that does not mean the elements of the narrative are themselves metaphors.

Again and again, regarding both metaphor and symbol, what is missed about Christianity is, because Christianity is the Revelation of the Word made flesh, the spiritual is rendered concrete in physical actuality, and not merely cognitive concepts. The spiritual is made concrete, and indeed so much so in the Tradition that it presents Itself as Itself in real, material form (its sensible elements).

The Word is not presented metaphorically (this is what the Kingdom is like) but symbolically (the Kingdom is amongst you. I am it).

If we Christians realised that crucial distinction, we would all be saints!

Take Christ's discourse with the Samaritan women (John 4). This is a prophecy: "Whosoever drinketh of this water (of the well), shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever" (v13). It's a metaphor, Christ likens Himself to Jacob's well, but the meaning of the 'water' is transposed from mere physical to spiritual refreshment. But in the text itself we read a metaphor, not a miracle. The idea of 'one bread, one body' in Paul, or the 'marriage of Christ and His Church' are metaphors, although their final referent, the Mystical Body, or Divine Union, is very much a reality.

But take the miracle of the Man Born Blind in John 9. Christ offers a metaphorical discourse on the nature of sin and salvation. From here He could have gone on to prophecy that He will bring sight to the blind, as he did water to the thirsty in the case of the Samaritan Woman. But He didn't. He did an extraordinary thing. He healed the Man Born Blind.

No, they say, this is part of the total metaphor. But why? How can you make that determination when metaphors are presented and we are told they are metaphors, and yet here we are being told something concrete happened, the data is being presented as a testimony of an event, and not as a metaphor at all. We have the reaction of the man himself, his family, his neighbours (perplexed, mostly), the authorities (pissed off, generally) ... this is not the way of metaphor at all, and the scribe, who clearly knows the difference and is expert in his task, is making no bones about the fact, this is not a metaphorical event, this actually happened.

Now, to symbol.

The Samaritan Woman is thirsty for physical sustenance now, but the day will come when she will never thirst for spiritual sustenance again. But the Man Born Blind regains his sight now, and not his faith, his spiritual sight, but his actual ability to see his hand in front of his face.

If the teaching is true (the Beatitudes) and these are metaphorical events, then they simply repeat them (in, it must be said, a more obscure way than in the teaching given on the Mount, which would seem to defeat the object and be somewhat pointless).

But if they are true, if they are miracles, are they just gratuitous displays of power to reinforce His authority in delivering the teaching? Something to stun the masses into belief? A shadow re-enactment here and now of what is to come? I don't think so. Miracles are signs, but the sign points to the worker of the miracle.

This is something, again, absolutely crucial.

In all the noisy argument about whether or not Christ ever actually claimed to be God, what is overlooked was that His audience at the time were in no doubt about the matter. He was speaking blasphemy, and they tried to stone Him for it, on more than one occasion.

He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, forgave sin, revised the Covenant with Israel. Issued a new one. He did the things that only God can do. Yet He did this in His own Name I mean, good grief, He says it straight out: "Believe in me" He says, over and over again. The Hebrew Scriptures, one could say, are one long account of God bemoaning the fact that the people do not believe in Him. Then along comes this guy who revises the deal, and says believe in me! 'Hey, bigshot,' comes a Voice from Above, 'there's a queue here!'

Let's step across the the Woman Taken in Adultery.
The Pharisees know Christ is a 'people person', so they haul up this adultress who, according to the Law, should be stoned. This bit (v6-11) is really, really clever:
"And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground."
What? I'll get back to that.

"... he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground."
What's with all the doodling?

"But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest."
I get it. 'Judge not lest ye be judged'. The eldest obviously having the most time to rack up the most sin. Or does He mean Adam?

"And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."
Whoa, fellah! It matters not a tinker's cuss what your opinion is on the matter, the Law is the Law. She's been a very naughty girl, and if you don't condemn her according to the Law, you're a very naughty Jew.

(Hey, have you heard that really naughty joke? 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone', He says, and from out of the crowd steps his mother, who lands a rock the size of your fist right between here eyes!)

Ahem ...

Note that Jesus avoids a confrontation with the Law, then acts, it would appear, outside it.

Let's look at the symbolism.

Jesus stoops and writes in the dust. with the Man Born Blind, He makes paste with dirt and spittle. The Biblical allusion is obvious. Man is made of the slime of the earth (Genesis 2). Christ is remaking the person. He does not condemn the woman, because He has already forgiven her. That's what the writing was. It's a metaphor, but it's actually happening, right here, right now, I'm taking away the sin of the world (Is not adultery said to be the oldest sin of all?). He's reconstituting the Law, not only in spiritual terms, but He's writing His Law in the very stuff of the world. Look, He's doing it again. The Cosmos is a theophany gone cock-eyed. He's putting that right. It's a Sacramental Act. A Liturgy of the World. And a sacrament is the archetype of the symbol. Symbols are unique in the fact that they are sacraments — they enact in and through themselves what they symbolise.

Here's the crunch. Back to the Word made flesh. Think of that. The rending of the veil of the temple. It all speaks about the union of the spiritual and the material. Not Plato and his cave shadows, but one holistic thing. Creation.

If the miracles are just metaphors, then nothing has changed. As Paul said, if you don't believe in the Resurrection, what's the point of being a Christian? Christ is dead, and one day you will be, too.

But the Word was made flesh, and John uses 'sarx' (the actually gooey stuff, blood and bones and all) and not 'soma' (the more abstract sense of body, such as a body of ideas).

In Christianity it's all the other way round. The events recorded are not 'narrative devices' that enable the mind to contemplate higher things, they are higher things become flesh which are then explained by metaphor.

The Word become flesh is the meeting of the sublime and the mundane in the mundane. It all happened.

Symbol again:
Augustine famously said 'Sacraments are the visible signs of an invisible Grace' — but in a symbol, unlike the sign, its referrant is not found outside of itself, but within itself, and although Augustine used sign and not symbol, his homilies on the Eucharist point to the fact that Grace is in the Sacrament Itself.

A Sacrament is not a cognitive sign of the transmission of grace, the act is not a representation (if understood as something standing for something else) of the transmission of grace, it is the re-presentation (the Grace is present in the Sacrament), under the elements of its material form. The two are inseparable. Grace does not infuse the matter of the Sacrament, it takes it to Itself, is is ontologically its very dna.

In a metaphor, Grace is alluded to you, if you can read it;
In a sign, Grace is pointed out to you, if you can follow it;
In a symbol, Grace is revealed to you, if you can fathom it;
In a Sacrament, Grace is transmitted to you, whether you know it or not.

Damn! I wish I'd thought of that at the start.

God bless,

Thomas
(A very naughty boy)

 

[Thomas]

... Hence, the probability that the Roman rape of Mary did occur has become highly feasiable.

In your dreams, you mean. A questionable fantasia, too. I certainly wouldn't brag about it.

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

Let me show you precisely why getting lost in the semantics is what Thomas has succeeded in pulling off here ... and why this, his intention all along (even if he will not admit it, for I suggest he knows it not), is not only deceptive but also quite dangerous.

Thomas pretends that because he has put his face in the books and taken a vow or two, he suddenly has the RIGHT OF TRADITION on his side. He forgets that:

Belief in a thing DOES NOT necessarily make it so.
​

Now there are criteria for understanding. A child of six cannot usually understand advanced algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Nor can a person who has devoted her life to understanding geology suddenly know all that an expert has been trained on regarding say, advanced rocket propulsion. It is not that the child cannot take the necessary math courses and increase his knowledge, nor that the geologist is incapable - simply because of her choice of vocation - to understand rocket propulsion.

In each situation what is required is diligent effort to master the fundamentals, and in time the child may even become an instructor of higher mathematics, just as the geologist may find out that her true calling and interests lie more in the direction of physics and in the application of some of the new paradigms governing propulsion technologies.

Now you see, Thomas here has put enough effort into understanding Xianity and the history of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, along with its teachings, that he has a very vested interested, an agenda, and most certainly - as has been pointed out - a decided BIAS when it comes to approaching something like say, the `Virgin Birth.'

It becomes pointless to suggest, either to him or within earshot/eyesight, that another point of view exists which supersedes his ~ shedding LIGHT on what for him, is darkness. His own feeling, naturally enough, as that of most Catholics and many Xians, is that ample light already exists and that the Gospels (and other texts) tell us precisely what we need to grasp about this mystery or miracle, as he puts it.

He has failed, utterly, to recognize that Jesus is not meant to be understood as literally being born of a woman without the latter having had sex, any more than I would rationally or reasonably expect all of you to believe that I am Abraham Lincoln, sitting her 147 years after my own faked assassination, spinning off yarns about Mahatmas and magical planes of existence and reincarnation.

Dear Friends, I am not Abraham Lincoln ... but if you wish to call me Honest Andy, that part will stick well enough. You see, I have never intentionally uttered one false statement about the topics I just mentioned. And, besides that, I can shed a little light on the subject of virgin births ... which shows that Thomas is none-the-wiser when it comes to this hocus-pocus that his Church has made into one of the biggets ££-$$-€€-making schemes that history has seen since these DOGS conspired with Philip le Bel to pull the carpet out from under the Templars.

And in retrospect, the Templars at least were using some of their vast holdings to finance efforts to recover Holy Artifacts, knowing the deeply esoteric significance which some of these maintain. For example, the work of the Nazarene Initiate himself, in his next immediate incarnation as Apollonius, is well documented as involving the location and interaction with (magnetically and spiritually) many sacred talismans all across the globe ... looking many hundreds and even thousands of years into the future [evolution and progress of the Human race, the Devas, and all Kingdoms including that of the Planet as a Whole].

Meanwhile, Thomas' Vatican ancestors were too busy bashing each other over the head with political power-plays, usually in dispute with the leading tyrants of the day (oh what tangles they made, too) ... yet in this case the Order had perhaps grown too big for its britches, there was corruption ~ and the most UNclement pretend Pope then ruling became bedfellows with the foul philip to give Friday the 13th a bad name and burn yet another devout Soul (as ever de Molay remained) at the stake.

The relevance here is that I know, and easily can show the history of the very figures which dance about on the stage that Thomas has constructed for us, his dog and pony show being about the oldest one using the oldest tricks in the book. He knows not that Plato's Cave is EVER before us, on the stage, yet he seems to have forgotten that it takes a Heavenly PROTOtype upon which to base his precious Catholic doctrine, so confounding matters and putting cart before horse, he will gladly tell you all about St. Andrews, how lovely a golf course.

Meanwhile, he is about as out of touch with the Light behind the objects casting all those shadows as a man can be. His Holy Virgin is no longer Mother SPACE ... MATER ... matter ... or even anything like it. He cannot see where the Hiranyagarbha enters into this. He cannot identify or recognize, for what they are, the physical world, the astral world, the mental world, the Intuitive plane, the Nirvanic/Atmic realm, or those Higher Worlds beyond our Human evolution (Monadic and Divine, wherein the Eternal Spark and the Flame of God might be said to co-exist, all of us AS tiny electrical sparks within the very Bosom of Deity).

Now poetics are never cast aside, because it helps us to understand. I did say AS tiny electrical sparks, and this is both literal as well as a quasi-anthropomorphic metaphor. Most importantly, it is *scientific fact* as can and has been demonstrated six ways from Sunday. Just ask your local HEALTH EXPERT before they give you an EEG or EKG; just consult a good quantum physicist, enquiring specifically about Dark Matter, string theory and GUFT/Higgs-Bosons; or speak to someone who has seen and perhaps been involved with Kirlian photography.

Thomas is a man of dry, booklike learning, but if you challenge his faith, he can only repeat line after line of droll, boring church history and TRADITION. Thomas, I am not a man after your dead and buried Christ. I have long ago accepted Christ as LIVING and BREATHING *now* ... and if you knew where to find Him, you'd be as capable of doing so in the physical body, while still alive, as any of us. That most folks do not end up having such encounters either while in the body or during the present incarnation, at least prior to death ... is something needing accounting for.

Your answers not only do not suffice, they are DEAD WRONG.

Christ was born of a Virgin, THE Virgin (ISIS, Ishtar, Venus-Astarte) every bit as much as the Buddha was ... and also all other great SAVIOURS that have come to bring Enlightenment, Love and Liberation to Humankind.

That you are blind to so many aspects of this question, content to dazzle us with your expert knowledge of linguistics and grammar, proper sentence construction and usage of literary devices ... is, flattering. I should well think ol' Bill ShakingSpear would gladly put your abilities to service and good use ~ if he could get through that THICK SKULL of yours and inspire you JUST ONCE with an inkling when it comes to these matters.

You self-style YOURSELF an expert, and you prop it up upon your vast, academic credentials (I jest, yes, but I know what all that means to you) ... and far worse, upon this thing you keep calling TRADITION.

Thomas, there are TRADITIONS with Him Who you call Lord, going back many, many thousands of years ... dating to Atlantean days, when your Christianity, your Hebrew Wisdom, was not yet a twinkle. There are RITES and Ritual, many of which have already worked themselves out (with care and great effort, often sacrifice) ... yet you are oblivious to these. You may acknowledge them, and that is where your Awareness stops.

I don't care. You are on your own trek, your own road; and the Path you travel, as well as I know it, is the right one for you. But STOP. Stop there. And don't presume to tell ME that thus and such is how it is, say with Holy Virgin Mother.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's like trying to get the rest of us, who so desperately need to understand our Geocentric Universe, to abandon & recant of this foolish, swollen-headed notion that ours is a planet like many, orbiting a S*N like many, while these by the billions orbit Greater Stars, themselves LIKE MANY revolving around yet other Cosmic Centers.

Now your knowledge is limited, and certainly mine. And I sure don't care if you want to point out just how spaced out I must have been back in 7th grade when my very wonderful English teacher was going over the finer mechanics that you have cited me on. I accept the corrections, the ruler to the knuckles, and will get right on my paternosters ... right after I square away this matter.

 

[taijasi]

The Virgin Birth refers as much to the Soul to whom or which it pertains as to the Earthly Mother who brings that Soul into physical expression, where this occurs. Padmasambhava, of course, is said to have just sprung into being ... and many of us know a little (my, how Socratic of us) about the Kriyashakti or projection into the physical world which a Great Soul, a Mahatma, Buddha or Christ, uses to manifest the outermost vehicle, or layer of the onion, the Nirmanakaya vestiture [not excluding the astral and mental vehicles, likewise].

We know that in the case of Jesus of Nazareth, because the man born was a 3rd degree initiate (something quite unknown and unreachable to you, I assure you, BECAUSE YOU have made it and desperately insist upon making it so, as NONE are so blind as those who refuse to see). He was not able to create for himself his outer vehicles. He came into physical incarnation the same way you and I did. And his biological parents BOTH had as much to do with that as yours did, in your case, mine in my case, etc.

Your sacrilege is your denial, and your refusal to observe the obvious. Most are ready to flush your whole damn claptrap, rattrap religion (and I do mean Xianity, the PARENT TREE of which your Roman Catholicism is but one shoot) ... all because you are so foolish as to insist upon points like this one. The smart ones are there because they see the GOOD that is sometimes done, DESPITE men like you and the foolishness they preach.

And I mean every word of that.

So you see, it is an unintentional offense, or an evil of ignorance, of nescience ... yet it is what it is, nonetheless. To believe the Earth is the center of cosmos is no crime, except against reason and - after a point - common sense. However, what you blokes did to Galileo ... now THAT was blasphemous and pernicious. And so the war against truth continues.

RELEASE, I say, what lies hidden in those Church vaults (more preciously guarded even than the U.S. Gov't's Roswell files and all information and holding on matters even remotely related) ... and we'll see how many MIRACLES of Mother Church still need explaining. There is more embarassment there for you than all the pranks of your collective Roman Catholic childhoods put together!

I am appalled, frankly, that one so bright as you cannot grasp the true signifance, the SYMBOLISM (metaphor? allegory, I don't f^%ing know, Thomas, CORRECT ME HERE) involved in the Virgin Birth.

The symbol is the COMING INTO EXISTENCE, into MANIFEST, LITERALLY EMBODIED BEING of the UNMANIFEST Deity ... a paradox, to be certain, and pure absurdity in this contradictory light, many will tell you.

But the Deity is NEVER fully revealed in the cycle of Mahamanvantara. It is during Pralaya, when "the Dewdrop slips into the Shining sea," that you - and I - and EVERY MOTHER'S SON shall know and become one WITH God. Now you also fail to grasp this most sublime of Mysteries, and I can't fault you there. How many can see past this indication, except to remind us - correct as they are - that such has BEEN the Sacra Doctrina for 18 MILLION years, or at least for several million in terms of the active functioning of what may be called an Educational Branch of our Spiritual Hierarchy.

Here, where EVERY life occupies a rung of Jacob's Ladder, however amost-right-beside another similar lifeform it may appear to be ... HERE, where SCIENCE long ago showed that everything I say (on the Truth of Life's endless series of progressions & cascading, revelatory unfoldment) Thomas still remains the Doubting Thomas he always was, the skeptic and the MAN OF TRADITION, which dubious honor he bears PROUDLY and for that matter, with a worse in-your-face attitude than most smug and overconfident CHILDREN I know. Yes, we know that often it's possible to deal with the latter with a smile and a gentle reminder, of one type or another.

With Thomas, I'm afraid the only thing we can hope is that the good vicar didn't do a typical Catholic priest number on him before he reached his early manhood ... however, if that did occur, it sure would explain all of this Stockholm Syndrome and irrational, fanatical defense of the most absurd of notions that any group of pointy-headed little pontiffs has ever come up with since that whole FISH STORY about Jonah, and the worse gollywhopper with Noah.

BAR JONAH, by the way, is what the name would have been. Andreas bar JONAH. And no, they very likely didn't call him that because he got eaten by ol' Moby Dick. Fisherman? Perhaps, and gee, when it comes to fishing up men I'll have to credit THAT BLOKE (and his 'Bro) with quite a bit more catches than I've even had bites ... but that's my own business, and I don't expect most folks to understand Rebirth any better than you do, Thomas. It's just that once the blinders are on and all you care about is getting them more firmly secured, what I know I have to keep doing is to just move on. Ignore list for Thomas, and reclaim the wasted energy-suck that would see his Lord, deny his Lord and pretty damn well insist on BLOODY, GOUGED-IN PROOF of his Lord ~ before he EVER believes the tiniest FRAGMENT of what to me, is just old hat (if also the most Resplendent Jewel that I could ever imagine adorning that Holy Crown).

Thomas knows not his holy crown from his - well, it's at the other end and might also be called holy. You figure it out.

The WHOLE of SPACE is an ENTITY. You'll find it stated thus by one too bright for you to see, approach or understand. She was also simply reminding us that Nut, of the Egyptians, is a little more literal than just some dumb cavemen banging bones on rocks and imagining a vast PRESENCE out there.

The constellation ORION ends up mirrored in the Nile, with sacred cities and Pyramids indicating the obvious points of interest. An IDIOT, of course, might miss it by a mile if he's still pouring over a Diet of fish bait.

That wasn't the first time. Other civilizations, far earlier and since, have shown us that IN HIM we live and move, and have our Being. Strange, that they left you Roman Catholic blokes out of the Great Realization, Revelation. But then, you've got Apocryphal texts of your own, don't you ... and that makes you special ... I suppose.

You have fun with that, and maybe get together with those ladies that cooked up the Urantia Book some summer. Oh I'm sure you could give us ALL SORTS of insight into mystery and myth, miracle and metaphor. I can't wait, and Dear Thomas, I promise to bring all my kooky, deluded new age nutbag friends to fill your lecture-hall, and ask good questions about YOUR VAST intellectual holdings (there you go for a little ego-phallic stroking).

You're holding something, alright. And you know, like any rather foul case of bad indigestion, one of these days you're gonna hafta LET IT GO.

Remind me NOT to be around if that occurs before you shuffle off ... but do send word, if you need any HELP. I would take you off ignore, and all over again you'd find an olive branch, as you say ... were you seeking to change your ways.

In the meantime, you're just a shadow of the Thomas I'm sure I must once have known. I may hold that same flickering candlelight relative to my namesake ... yet I can assure you, those two men would not have DARED, in the Master's Presence, to pull pearls and have at it.

Do you know WHY, my old Friend?

I think you do. And that's almost regardless as to who I might have been, or equally, who I might've been calling "you."

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"The Virgin Birth refers as much to the Soul to whom or which it pertains as to the Earthly Mother who brings that Soul into physical expression..."

--> I would add that the idea of the virgin birth refers to the idea of the birth of the universe from a 'virgin' material called Mulprakriti. (This is the idea that Mulaprakriti is immutable -- virgin -- and is not effected or changed during this process.)