Essay on the Eucharist

[Base12]

Look at Genesis...

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Most people have no idea in the world what the above verse is teaching.

'Dust' is symbolic of Nitrogen Bases. Fertilizer. Seven. Shmita. Nitrogen Cycle. We return to Dust. We become Worm Food. We become Fertilizer. Get it?

Dust is symbolic of Seed...

Genesis 13:16
"And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered."

Thus, God created a GENOME out of the Dust. The Genome is in a Deep Sleep.

God then places the Spirit of Adam into the Genome. Now it is a Living Soul. Get it? It is a Genome that has been quickened.

THERE IS NO BODY YET!!! <- That is what no one can see yet.

The couple were naked, as in NO BODY.

The whole point of the two trees were to choose a Body.

*) Tree of Life = Clothed with a Heavenly Tabernacle Body.
*) Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil = Clothed with an Earthly Tabernacle Body.

2 Corinthians 5:4
"For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

The Tabernacle is the Zygote you were conceived into. Remember? Body = Temple?

2 Corinthians 5:2
"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven"

God 'clothed' the couple with an Earthly Tabernacle of skin and flesh...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

Again, the Tabernacle is symbolic of a Zygote.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Look at Genesis...

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Most people have no idea in the world what the above verse is teaching.

'Dust' is symbolic of Nitrogen Bases. Fertilizer. Seven. Shmita. Nitrogen Cycle. We return to Dust. We become Worm Food. We become Fertilizer. Get it?

Dust is symbolic of Seed...

Genesis 13:16
"And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered."

Thus, God created a GENOME out of the Dust. The Genome is in a Deep Sleep.

God then places the Spirit of Adam into the Genome. Now it is a Living Soul. Get it? It is a Genome that has been quickened.

THERE IS NO BODY YET!!! <- That is what no one can see yet.

The couple were naked, as in NO BODY.

The whole point of the two trees were to choose a Body.

*) Tree of Life = Clothed with a Heavenly Tabernacle Body.
*) Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil = Clothed with an Earthly Tabernacle Body.

2 Corinthians 5:4
"For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

The Tabernacle is the Zygote you were conceived into. Remember? Body = Temple?

2 Corinthians 5:2
"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven"

God 'clothed' the couple with an Earthly Tabernacle of skin and flesh...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

Again, the Tabernacle is symbolic of a Zygote.

These are interesting ideas, it sounds like every word adds up to a very literal allegory.
How do you know that it means these things?
I love Unity's Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, but I'm not quite sure how they know their reported symbolic and allegorical meanings of a lot of things in the bible.

 

[Base12]

How do you know that it means these things?

When I first started studying the Bible, I was taught to interpret as if there were no mistakes or contradictions. I have kept that methodology.

Many who study the Bible, when running into difficulty understanding passages, will conclude that it is the Bible that is in error, rather than their own bias, assumptions, dogma, opinions, etc. I keep looking for answers where most give up.

The Genesis Creation Account is a perfect example. Many, if not most Scholars conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory...

The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are usually regarded as contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment.

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When Christians are confronted with this, they will deny and short circuit. They will resort to name calling and ad-hominem. It is a form of Cognitive Dissonance. No one I know, with the exception of myself, has ever made the two chapters agree.

There are many reasons why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not agree, but again it is not the Bible's fault. It is the fault of the Church and Christians basically changing words in real time in a vain attempt to make the narrative fit their false dogma.

So, by not changing the words, the stories make perfect sense. That is how I know it means what it means. It teaches reincarnation for the Unredeemed. Without that understanding, the story will never make sense.

I love Unity's Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, but I'm not quite sure how they know their reported symbolic and allegorical meanings of a lot of things in the bible.

Is this the book?

TruthUnity home page | Truth Unity

TruthUnity home page.

www.truthunity.net

I looked up Trinity...

Metaphysical meaning of Trinity (mbd) | Truth Unity

Metaphysical meaning of Trinity (mbd) Trinity. God, threefold in Being. Meta. The divine Trinity is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

www.truthunity.net

Metaphysical meaning of Trinity (mbd)

God, threefold in Being.

Meta. The divine Trinity is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Metaphysically we understand these to refer to mind, idea, and expression, or thinker, thought, and action.

Man is also threefold--spirit, soul, and body; spirit relating to I AM, soul to consciousness (I am conscious), and body to manifestation (I appear).

 

[Thomas]

Kenosis is actually a synonym for reincarnation going from Heaven to Earth.

Not quite. 'Kenosis' is from the Greek verb κενόω (kenóō), meaning "to empty out".

God does not exist in carnal form in heaven nor was He 're-incarnated', rather, He is the Incarnation, in that He was born of a woman and took on a human nature.

Some would say all creation is Incarnation.

The kenosis element opposed those who believed Jesus was human but not divine, and those who believed He was divine but not human, rather an apparition perceived as a physical being – Docetism.

The idea of 'One Person in two natures' was defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 435AD.

Through the Incarnation, Jesus lived a human experience, and that He voluntarily humbled himself to share in our humanity – as the adage has it, God became man that man might come to God.

In Eastern Orthodox theology, the emphasis is on our kenosis, a through-and-through humility to seek union with God. It relates to the Holy Spirit in that the continual evocation of the Holy Spirit and the practice of the denial of one's own human will and desires.

In Him we live and move and have our being, (Acts 17:28) but our kenosis is not a denial of our human nature to experience our divine nature (pantheism), rather it is a union with the Divine via grace, according to our nature ... Meister Eckhart spoke of detachment as the Prince of Virtues, and it is by this detachment from the ourselves and from the world that we can naturally ascend to a supernatural state where even the distinction between ourselves and God ceases to be.

Christian gnostic literature speaks of Christ's withdrawal or holding of his own luminosity in himself (Pistis Sophia, I, 6), whereas Moses, coming down from the mountain, had to wear a veil because of the light shining from his face (Exodus 34:29, 30 & 35).

Although I agree with the above, I view the Bosom and Right Hand as being representative of Identity. Look at your right hand. You have fingerprints and palm prints. That is your Identity.

As kataphatic expressions, I can accept that.

My own inclination is to the apophatic, that's all.

No. The Bible is...
John 1:14
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Here John is speaking about the humanity of Jesus, not His divinity.

The Bible does use anthropomorphic language in speaking of the Divine, but it also says God is not an anthropomorphic being.

"... and in my Symbolic Divinity I have considered what are the metaphorical titles drawn from the world of sense and applied to the nature of God; what are the mental or material images we form of God or the functions and instruments of activity we attribute to Him; what are the places where He dwells and the robes He is adorned with; what is meant by God’s anger, grief, and indignation, or the divine inebriation and wrath; what is meant by God’s oath and His malediction, by His slumber and awaking, and all the other inspired imagery of allegoric symbolism.
(Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, The Mystical Theology Chapter 3, emphasis mine)

Symbolic Theology is of interest to me, it's where I start in any investigation, but I am mindful of the fact that:
"We therefore maintain that the universal Cause transcending all things is neither impersonal nor lifeless, nor irrational nor without understanding: in short, that It is not a material body, and therefore does not possess outward shape or intelligible form, or quality, or quantity, or solid weight; nor has It any local existence which can be perceived by sight or touch; nor has It the power of perceiving or being perceived; nor does It suffer any vexation or disorder through the disturbance of earthly passions, or any feebleness through the tyranny of material chances, or any want of light; nor any change, or decay, or division, or deprivation, or ebb and flow, or anything else which the senses can perceive. None of these things can be either identified with it or attributed unto It.
(Ibid, Chapter 4)

Ezekiel's Temple was going to be the final lab that created the Glorified Body. The Israelites simply did not understand their mission.

To be fair, they did not possess the language, nor the science, nor the technology ... and God glorifies the body, it's not a technique practiced in a lab.

The Son is symbolic of the Word of God.

Not a symbol. He is It.

It is all just different ways of describing the same symbolic meanings.

I see a confusion between symbol and actuality. God is not a body.

Even the word 'Rock' in the Bible means Sperm. Stones means Testicles...

We-e-e-e-ll ...

For one, rock means rock. The Biblical idea of 'sperm' is 'seed', not 'rock'.
For two, I don't think the identification of 'stones' with 'testicles' is Biblical?

It's not so much a case of not seeing it, it's a case of can you see beyond it?

 

[Thomas]

These are interesting ideas, it sounds like every word adds up to a very literal allegory.
How do you know that it means these things?

It depends on one's standpoint – the hermeneutic key.

I love Unity's Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, but I'm not quite sure how they know their reported symbolic and allegorical meanings of a lot of things in the bible.

Quite.
@Base12 interprets everything according to, or through the lens of, the genome.
Unity sees everything according to, or through the lens of, the mind.
@otherbrother to/through quantum physics
My thing is Patristics.

 

[Thomas]

The Genesis Creation Account is a perfect example. Many, if not most Scholars conclude that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory...

Not so much today ...

I see a metaphysical model – Genesis One as treating of the 'vertical axis', the Absolute or Principle, and Genesis Two as the 'horizontal axis', the Infinite or Plenitude.

When Christians are confronted with this, they will deny and short circuit. They will resort to name calling and ad-hominem. It is a form of Cognitive Dissonance.

You're probably talking to Christian Fundamentalists ... I'd avoid them, if I were you.

No one I know, with the exception of myself, has ever made the two chapters agree.

I'm sorry, but if you think that I think you need to look a bit wider?

There are many reasons why Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 do not agree ...

No, they do agree. They harmonise. Even though they represent two different traditions, even the original compilers of the text saw the harmony.

It is the fault of the Church and Christians basically changing words in real time in a vain attempt to make the narrative fit their false dogma.

Now who's resorting to name calling and ad hominems?

I looked up Trinity...
Meta. The divine Trinity is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Metaphysically we understand these to refer to mind, idea, and expression, or thinker, thought, and action.

It's a version of what we call 'the Psychological Analogy' – It tries to explain the Trinity as a reflection of the human mind.

Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity is based on the idea that the human mind can reflect the Trinity through three activities:
Memory (the totality of on'e being),
Knowledge or understanding,
Love or will.

Thus Augustine sees man as a reflection of God, rather than Unity which one can mistakenly read God is a reflection of ourselves – the exemplar of human activity.

Other analogies for the Trinity include the transcendentals – the Real, the True and the Beautiful (harmony).
Or fire: The flame, its light and its heat are one entity.

All equivalences, but all fall short.

There are human analogies of archetype:
Peter, James and John, or
Peter, John and Paul.

 

[wil]

My thing is Patristics.

@Thomas

mind, idea, and expression, or thinker, thought, and action.

You may not like the psychological analogy but it works for me.

I suppose maybe since G!d, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus doesn't? I mean I don't know with any level of certainty that any of them existed as described in the 66 books by a plethora of authors.

I can grasp how everything that man creates, starts in the mind or thinker (analogy anything created started with G!d), that mind had an idea/thought (ethereal still untouchable, the holy spirit) and then on earth (or in Genesis) through action our idea is made manifest in reality..biblically that is all creation was made manifest..including eventually the son of man, Jesus expressed by G!d.

One may say

All equivalences, but all fall short.

And that is why we refer to then as analogies!

But this explanation did more for me to understand what you (Catholics, religionists, trinitarians) spent decades trying to inform me and failing. Obvi I still don't grok your Trinity as you do...but it brought me light years closer to understanding your thinking about your belief than any conventional proselytizing preacher, priest or Sunday school teacher ever did!

Of course I ruin all that by saying that G!d in my mind was made up in human mind, that the idea or thought was used to explain things ancient man did not understand (science, weather, magic, miracles) and this was expressed as various religions, the action man took was creating books to spread their new creations...and the only begotten is continuously begotten in new religions, new beliefs, new understandings constantly.

Right now in the time it took you to read this someone had an "aha" moment....(not in regards to what I have written, (you only think I am that arrogant) but in that time frame somewhere in our world, that Trinity is out there creating)

 

[Thomas]

@Thomas
mind, idea, and expression, or thinker, thought, and action.
You may not like the psychological analogy but it works for me.

I don't dislike it at all ... I just read it in context.

I suppose maybe since G!d, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus doesn't? I mean I don't know with any level of certainty that any of them existed as described in the 66 books by a plethora of authors.

OK. That you don't know means just that.

I can grasp how everything that man creates, starts in the mind or thinker ...

LOL, the odd spanner in the works being the Law of Unintended Consequences!

But the principle, yes, I get that. Where I'm cautious is in assuming God works the same way we do ...

And that is why we refer to them as analogies!

Yep. Always good to keep in mind.

Of course I ruin all that by saying that G!d in my mind was made up in human mind ...

I think it more nuanced than that. Philosophy is made up. It's the fruit of the narrative of trying to understand ourselves and the world ...

... that the idea or thought was used to explain things ancient man did not understand (science, weather, magic, miracles) ...

That and not only that, and of course those ideas were refined. In the same way that early Gods were usually arboreal, they were derived from the observation of the rhythms of nature.

Not all philosophy is at the level of assuming thunder means God is angry.

... and the only begotten is continuously begotten in new religions, new beliefs, new understandings constantly.

I have certain reservations about that ... clearly no 'new religion' has brought you closer to a belief in God ... but I would agree the only begotten is a dynamic, not a static, and continually begets as the 'first fruit' or Principle of Everything.

Right now in the time it took you to read this someone had an "aha" moment.... that Trinity is out there creating

Here, there and everywhere ... each and every according to its capacity ...

 

[wil]

Not all philosophy is at the level of assuming thunder means God is angry.

Of course not...She is bowling!

 

[Thomas]

As this thread is about the Eucharist, I thought I'd offer a response to a Unity commentary on the topic:

Communion Metaphysically Interpreted
The Mystical Teachings of Christianity by Jim Lewis, Chapter 7

Sadly this is not metaphysics at all, in the sense that it does not address the transcendent principles of things, the ontological causes, 'beyond the limits of this world' which is what 'meta-cosmic' means, so I shall deal with it rather briskly, although hopefully my words will nt be too brusque.

So, to tackle the worst first, the first 25 paragraphs – yes, the first 25 of 38 paragraphs – are all ill-founded on fallacious arguments; false equivalence (eg Columbus thought the world was flat therefore the tradition is also false) erroneous attribution (eg the anonymous author of Gospel of Matthew was not the disciple of that name and the anonymous author of Mark was not the companion of Paul) and general and deteriorates towards its end with a series of false equivalences and ad hominems.

But no metaphysics.

+++

From paragraph 26:
The object of the ritual was to enable the worshipper to establish oneness with the god, to symbolically die and rise again from the dead and have a new life with the god in a new world.
No. The participant in the Christian Liturgy never assumes their own death, symbolic or otherwise, via the ritual. Simply not true.

This was a well-cultivated theme in many religions of the day. The people believed that by drinking the blood and eating the bread it would be possible to absorb the qualities of the god.
Fallacy of false equivalence again ... But which 'religions of the day'? The Greeks, for starters, would recoil in horror at the thought ...

But what is the mystical meaning that Jesus was seeking to convey to us? Communion is union in consciousness with God.
Only in a very general sense – the practice of prayer, the love of neighbour, the practice of virtue, the works of faith, all of these, indeed every Christian act can be seen as a means of communion with the Divine, but the Sacrament of the Eucharist is more.

This is a moral, not a metaphysical, explanation.

It is more than an intellectual thought or a feeling even though these are included. In a moment of union the soul is quickened and we are exhilarated both mentally and emotionally. This is especially true when an individual first begins the practice of communion or silent meditation.
Still talking about prayer ... (and the Orthodox Churches would frown at the overt subjectivism on display.)

The communion service that Jesus instituted is contained in His words, “When you pray, go within your closet ..."
That is prayer ... it is a communion, but it's not the Sacrament in question.

... but your place of contact or communion with Him is within your consciousness.
Prayer should lead beyond that. Consciousness is mental activity. It's the operation of the nous, as the Greeks would say, not the psyche nor the pneuma. Mystical union is beyond the realm of consciousness. Meditation aims to get beyond the realms of consciousness, the realm of forms.

... and as Jesus often went up on a mount to symbolize His high state of consciousness.
Again, is prayer ...

In a higher consciousness ...
But the sacraments operate from above down, not from below up ...

It is our thought and feeling, our beliefs that give it form. This is why Jesus said, “If you can believe, all things are possible.” Any form is possible.
Wrong. This is actually an inversion! Matthew 19:26: "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." It's God what does the works ...

"And he said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world." (John 8:23).
You're trying to make it all about this world, when Jesus is trying to show you it's not ...

In metaphysics we have tended to imply there are two essences ...
Which are ... ?

He manifested the loaves and the fish. They did not come from a nonexistent state. They were manifestations of substance, a substance that was already in existence, a substance that only needed to be formed by a consciousness that had the “know-how”, and that Jesus had. Our conscious mind is so identified with formed substance that we fail to realize its unlimited character.
The materia prima of the ancient world, the aether, something akin to prakriti in the Hindu tradition ... what?

What Jesus is saying is symbolic: to eat is to appropriate in consciousness true ideas about the nature of substance/life. It is to think on a high level of truth about it. To contemplate, consider, and accept ideas of truth is to eat His body.
No ... you're stuck in the mental process ...

+++

From the First Post above, my commentary in black:
According to the fathers, after the Fall material (the 'substance' spoken of here?) is a condensation, a thickening of the spiritual (which becomes increasingly occluded as a result) and this is why, even after the Fall, "in sensible things, all is intelligible," according to St John Chrysostom, the assumption of the sensible (material) into intelligibility (mental imagery) is normative (but it is a result of this spiritual myopia, and here it stops at the 'cosmic event horizon' and fails to cross the boundary into authentic metaphysics)

 

[TheLightWithin]

Is this the book?

Free PDF Book | Metaphysical Bible Dictionary By Charles Fillmore - LOJSociety | Lion Of Judah Society | RasTafari Groundation

Free PDF Book | Metaphysical Bible Dictionary By Charles FillmoreEdit For Educational Purpose. Overview This one-of-a-kind volume presents the esoteric meanings of names and people, places, key words, and phrases found in the Bible. The ideas presented in this Bible reference book are based on...

www.lojs.org

This is the book

 

[TheLightWithin]

I see a metaphysical model – Genesis One as treating of the 'vertical axis', the Absolute or Principle, and Genesis Two as the 'horizontal axis', the Infinite or Plenitude.

Intriguing but I'm not sure what that means

 

[TheLightWithin]

There are human analogies of archetype:
Peter, James and John, or
Peter, John and Paul.

How are they trio'd up into an archetype?

 

[TheLightWithin]

I suppose maybe since G!d, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus doesn't? I mean I don't know with any level of certainty that any of them existed as described in the 66 books by a plethora of authors.

The Catholics and Orthodox have more than 66 books.
I think the Ethiopic Tawahedo Orthodox Church uses some 88 books.

The case is often debated as to whether the Trinity is in any of those books at all, or if it is if it is anywhere but the New Testament.
However many believers will argue that it is somehow hinted aat all thru the OT.

I wonder if I should start a thread about Bible Scholars on YouTube.
I have several favorites.
Some would be controversial, others quite likable to Christians and skeptics alike.

 

[TheLightWithin]

But this explanation did more for me to understand what you (Catholics, religionists, trinitarians) spent decades trying to inform me and failing. Obvi I still don't grok your Trinity as you do...but it brought me light years closer to understanding your thinking about your belief than any conventional proselytizing preacher, priest or Sunday school teacher ever did!

I've always been so baffled by it I tend to look towards non-trinitarian denominations or Judaism for the preponderance of information.

 

[EricPH]

How are they trio'd up into an archetype?

Jesus prayed that we should be one, in exactly the same way as he is one with the Father. Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is One with the Father?

The Father loves the Son as he loves himself.
The Son loves the Father as he loves himself.

The Spirit seems a little more abstract, but could the Spirit be the power of God’s love; empowered by the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version. Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Can there be any greater definition of ’Oneness’?

 

[RabbiO]

@EricPH -

As I pointed out to you last month in a different thread, the Hebrew of the verse you cited does not say what the translation you are using says.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Jesus prayed that we should be one, in exactly the same way as he is one with the Father. Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is One with the Father?

The Father loves the Son as he loves himself.
The Son loves the Father as he loves himself.

The Spirit seems a little more abstract, but could the Spirit be the power of God’s love; empowered by the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version. Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Can there be any greater definition of ’Oneness’?

Oneness can be read as not plural, and indivisible.
There is a Christian denomination with heterodox teaching called Oneness Pentecostals. They are explicitly non-trinitarian, and for them, the word Oneness means they are non-trinitarian. They believe Jesus is the One God, with no distinction of father, son, or spirit.

 

[TheLightWithin]

@EricPH -

As I pointed out to you last month in a different thread, the Hebrew of the verse you cited does not say what the translation you are using says.

Is this another situation where Christian theology retroactively reads passages of the Hebrew bible as indicative of trinitarian theology? Or is this something else?

 

[wil]

@EricPH -

As I pointed out to you last month in a different thread, the Hebrew of the verse you cited does not say what the translation you are using says.

To you? Can you accept to him it says something different?