The second coming = WWJD

[Ahanu]

And where's the mystery?

Baha'u'llah, when speaking of the highest stations of consciousness, speaks of them as mysteries that are "exalted above the highest essence of utterance and sanctified beyond the subtlest mode of explanation":

"'No more than this will I impart to thee:
The riverbed can never hold the sea.'

For its mystery lieth hid in the storehouses of His inviolable protection and is laid up in the treasuries of His power. It is exalted above the highest essence of utterance and sanctified beyond the subtlest mode of explanation.

Astonishment here is highly prized, and utter poverty greatly cherished. Wherefore hath He said, 'Poverty is My pride.' And again: 'God hath a people beneath the canopy of grandeur, whom He hath concealed in the garment of poverty to exalt in rank.' These are they who see with His eyes and hear with His ears, as hath been recorded in the well-known tradition.

Concerning this realm there is many a tradition and many a verse, whether of general or specific import . . ."

 

[Longfellow]

So what does the much larger context say about “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" in Christ's teachings?

My reading is more along the lines of "inside of this gathering," and it means Jesus and His disciples, and the kind of community life that the disciples are learning to practice together, with Him as their Master teacher.

 

[Ahanu]

I think its a mistake to assume that because Paul's, and indeed the Ancient's, view of cosmology lacked our current understanding of a material, cosmology, that his and their spiritual and metaphysical discourses are therefore undone and have nothing meaningful to say.

That's interesting. I agree we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But I am not making the argument his spiritual ideas are meaningless. I do believe Paul's description of reality is tied to an outdated, first-century cosmology. However, my key point is that to understand the transformative experience he's describing, we must distinguish it from its time-bound articulation. We must translate his experience into a modern framework.

 

[Thomas]

Hence I said pneuma was understood as existing in gradations of tension and functionality. The hierarchy of pneuma was directly linked to their multi-layered cosmology.

Yes, they assumed the physical was a reflection of the spiritual. Theirs was an holistic vision, even if discussed, in the detail, in terms of duality.

You can't separate pneuma from their cosmology!

I'm not trying to.

If you're saying that his ancient cosmological view is irrelevant, then I would say you're changing something crucial in Paul's worldview.

But I'm not ... quite the opposite!

So? Are you trying to flatten the ancient cosmos?

Nope. I see modern cosmology as flat, as physicalist.

For Paul, Christ followers become gods, but not the God.

Well ... that opens the matter for discussion.

The cosmology we're talking about, the Kosmos (κόσμος), apart from its common understanding as the universe, also can mean 'order' or 'arrangement' or even 'loveliness of design' – at a stretch, a 'theophany'. (John uses the term in quite a different context.)

To repeat from elsewhere, the Kosmos was the whole of creation, a 'creature' of rational integrity organised by metaphysical principles, in a hierarchic order or gradation, mineral, flora, fauna, human, daemonic, angelic and 'divine' (God and His immediate cohorts or choirs stand outside and above) – all in all the the planetary and astral spheres, understood as a changeless realm at once physical and spiritual.

I'm not sure Paul saw the followers of Christ being numbered among the ranks and types of the greater and lesser archons that rule the world, rather by πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας (pneuma huiothesia), "the Spirit of adoption" (Romans 8:15, 23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5 and Ephesians 1:5), so 'children of God' rather than simply 'gods'.

Interestingly, Epesians reads "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus the Anointed, who in the Anointed has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places," (1:3, Hart translation) – and one can only speculate, within that tiered cosmology, what 'heavenly places' Paul has in mind.

Likewise, in Romans 8:23 "not only this, but even we ourselves, having the firstfruits of the spirit, groan within ourselves as well, anxiously
awaiting adoption, emancipation of our body." If, as we know, the sarx cannot inherit the kingdom, then what is the body σῶμα (soma)?

+++

I disagree.

OK

Thiessen, along with scholars like Troels Engberg-Pedersen, disagree too with the idea ancient spiritual discussions were independent of their cosmological understanding. Paul conceived of pneuma as an actual substance - the very substance of "the astral beings of heaven, the gods." His spiritual concept of the resurrected body ties his idea to a subtle material and cosmological reality prevalent in his time.

I don't have an issue with that.

I'd say yes, on condition that we don't assume they mean 'substance' as we do. The word pneuma means 'breath'. "Pneuma passes through all (other) bodies; in its outward motion it gives them the qualities that they have, and in its inward motion makes them unified objects (Nemesius, 47J; cf. Helle 2021). Pneuma comes in gradations and endows the bodies which it pervades with different qualities as a result. The pneuma which sustains an inanimate object is a “tenor” (hexis, lit. “a holding”). Pneuma in plants is, in addition, “physique” (phusis, lit. “nature”), and in animals, it is “soul” (psuchê). (Stanford on Stoic cosmology).

The Greeks explored the idea how two substances, pneuma and matter, could occupy the same space, and thought that it was pneuma that gave matter the properties it possesses. Pneuma acts on the materia prima, which is the substrate of all material things, itself undifferentiated and without form.

The heavens in Paul's worldview were much closer and filled with these tangible substances and beings. Paul's spiritual concepts were framed within that cosmological and physical understanding.

Yes, again I have no problem with it. He's deploying contemporary philosophy to make his case. Tjhat's how he sees the world.

We see 'substance' differently. We see the world substantially differently. essentially, it's the same world, we just have access to better technologies and better physics.

Burnett notes that Thiessen and others "point out that . . . Paul, when he talks about a pneumatic body . . . he does not mean a non-corporeal body or incorporeal body . . . He's thinking spirit is actually substance." It's not just conjecture.

I know. A spiritual substance.

I believe Christ is risen. I believe his body can, at will, manifest apparently corporeal integrity – a substantial presence – it can be seen it can be touched. It can pass through solid walls. He clearly wasn't a ghost to those who saw Him. And it can stand unrecognised, even by one who knows Him, and be recognised in a moment, in the moment of His own choosing.

I'm sure Christ's self-revelation to Paul stood Paul's cosmology on its head, it certainly rocked his Kosmos.

(I tend to follow Galatians, that he withdrew to Arabia, possibly Mount Sinai, to try and figure out what had happened, as perhaps as much as 14 years passed before he went to Damascus.)

The idea is based on historical and contextual evidence. For example, recall Thiessen says that "Paul came from the city of Tarsus, a known hotbed of Stoic philosophy," and that the concept of pneuma as a subtle, material substance was "the conceptual air that most people in the Greco-Roman world breathed." These are the people Paul communicated with. That's why I like scholars like Thiessen: They aim to put Paul in his historical and cultural context.

And I do not disagree with that ...

Your personal opinion doesn't negate the original, integrated nature of ancient thought around pneuma and cosmology.

No, it revels in it.

The point is you're reinterpreting Paul. You want to discard the material aspects of ancient cosmology while retaining the spiritual ones. It's inconsistent cherry picking.

Not really. It's called insight and understanding ...

 

[Thomas]

But I am not making the argument his spiritual ideas are meaningless. I do believe Paul's description of reality is tied to an outdated, first-century cosmology. However, my key point is that to understand the transformative experience he's describing, we must distinguish it from its time-bound articulation. We must translate his experience into a modern framework.

Which is what I thought I was doing?

I think we both agree that's not easily done ... How do you translate his spiritual ideas distinguished from his cosmology?

 

[Thomas]

When I speak of "Christ consciousness," I am talking about the mode of perception and active being that Jesus embodied. His life, teachings, and ultimately his impact on human civilization gives us a real demonstration of what this consciousness looks like in its purest form.

I think his ultimate impact was his Resurrection. had that not happened, I think it would be a different story ... if a story even survived ...

Christ consciousness is a process of learning to "see with his eyes, to feel with his heart" - a shift in one's entire being.

I totally agree with that – and endorse your 'shift in one's entire being' – the biblical metanoia is often translated as repentance, when really it means change of mind or, as you suggest, a change of heart, understanding the heart in the classical sense as seat of the intellect and the passions.

Christ consciousness has different degrees or stages.

Yes, yes, yes, yes ...

For example, Thomas narrows down Christ consciousness to common sense.

I did say that Christ consciousness means far more for Paul than is assumed by common interpretations.

My 'common sense' was rather that what the world speaks of as 'Christ consciousness' is synonymous with cosmic consciousness which is simply plain common sense – nothing particularly 'Spiritual' about it, as a humanist would not find it offensive.

The ascent starts with plain common sense, which is much in line with the Golden Rule, but goes on through the veils, as it were.

The path is one of the Seven Heavenly Virtues, comprising three theological – faith, hope, and agape, and four cardinal – prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, and the Seven Capital Virtues – chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility.

+++

Passing into deeper aspects, you're into prayer and, for me, a Trinitarian operation, 'Christ consciousness' is when "God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father." (Galatians 4:6).

 

[TheLightWithin]

In terms of interpreting Paul, especially regarding terms like pneuma, I follow Hart in his claim that neither he, nor you, nor I, have any sure idea of precisely what Paul is saying. We can only conjecture, and that, of course, is shaped by our pre- and wider conceptions of the question. Why I like Hart (and others of like mind) is that he adverts the question, but leaves it open, rather than stating 'dogmatically' what the answer must be.

For me, the idea expressed here, is fully consistent with my understanding of religion and spirituality on the whole.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I find modern cosmology wondrous and awe-inspiring when considering the beauty and immensity of nature, but I find it tragically materialist and impoverished when it comes to the contemplation of the spiritual realm. It might see to the far distant realms of the material galaxy, but other than that, it's in the dark.

The comparatively recent discovery of details about the physical reality of the cosmos - the immensity of the outer reaches, the chemistry of gas giants, the cold etc and so much more - the astronomers can't help it that it is materialist, that's what they're trying to figure out - or more precisely learn more about - and the theologians and the spiritually inclined - need more time to catch up and figure out whether and how to use this comparatively new information for spiritual metaphor -- it doesn't help that hard core bible literalists try to fight every single thing

I draw some little consolation, in that regard, to the rekindled interest in panpsychism as a serious area of study.

Love this

I think its a mistake to assume that because Paul's, and indeed the Ancient's, view of cosmology lacked our current understanding of a material, cosmology, that his and their spiritual and metaphysical discourses are therefore undone and have nothing meaningful to say.

Good point

They thought the physical replicated the spiritual ... not in this case.

In my head I am entirely at home in modern cosmological speculation, although not wedded to it.

In my heart I am with the ancients, and my experience suggests they have more to offer than a spiritless modernity.

Too bad that view is not more widely and vigorously held /argued /defended / explained.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Hence I said pneuma was understood as existing in gradations of tension and functionality. The hierarchy of pneuma was directly linked to their multi-layered cosmology. You can't separate pneuma from their cosmology! For Paul and others in the Greco-Roman world, the idea of a "pneumatic body" or a "glory body" was not merely figurative; it tied in with the idea of a literal physical transformation into a finer, incorruptible substance capable of ascending through these very real, subtle, celestial spheres. If you're saying that his ancient cosmological view is irrelevant, then I would say you're changing something crucial in Paul's worldview.

I think these ideas relate to why my grandfather's church (Armstrong) adhered to the idea of the only afterlife whatsoever was the physical bodily resurrection at the second coming. If I remember correctly after all these years that's what they interpreted ideas like that to mean - interpreting these ideas alongside ideas of bodily resurrection.