The Church of Man

[Iacchus]

Yes, I posted this at the PhysicsForums.Com site regarding a discussion between the discrepancies between the Old Testament and the New Testament. I suggested that maybe there weren't so many discrepancies if you looked at it in terms of different stages of human development, i.e., between an infant, a child, a teenager, an adult, etc. The other person replied by suggesting maybe today that "child" has grown up, and as an adult no longer requires the guidance and is pretty much left to making his own decisions.

I responded with the following reply, but thus far haven't received any relpies? I think it was a little bit off topic. Besides I was already considering posting it here, and thought maybe I would go ahead now and see what happens? Also note that I've made mention of my book, and if anyone would care to comment on that, please feel free to do so.

Actually I have a bit of a different take on it: where the Christian Church is 4th in succession to the three previous churches--the Church of Adam (1), the Church of Noah (2) and the Israelite Church (3)--the four of which can be viewed as the Church of Man. And, since the Bible compares the relationship between God and the Church with that of Husband and Wife, then it only seems fitting to compare these four churches to the development of the "in-laws" (or parents) of the bridegroom and the bride which, have yet to be introduced. Does that make any sense so far?

Whereas the Church of Adam corresponds to the man's masculine side or his father (1), thus giving rise to his "dominant aspect" and, to God Himself; the Church of Noah corresponds the man's feminine side or his mother (2), as it was Mother Earth who delivered Noah from the great flood; the Israelite Church corresponds to the woman's masculine side or her father (3), essentially a refined or "substantiated" version of the man's father, thus giving rise to "God's people" so to speak (hence the third leg which completes the triangle); and the Christian Church corresponds to the woman's feminine side or her mother (4), thus giving rise to her "dominant aspect" and hence the "virgin conception" (where woman gives birth to God).

Beyond that the Bible speaks of Christ as the bridegroom and refers to his "second coming" at the end of times which, is what the Book of Revelation foretells. And yet, the end of times does not signify the end of the world but, the end of an era or age, and hence "church." Whereas contrary to what most people believe, regarding the Book of Revelation in particular, this has already occurred, and the 5th church has already been established. As a matter of fact it coincides more than anything with the "Age of Enlightenment" and the advance of science. And indeed, the person associated with founding it--i.e., Emanuel Swedenborg--was a scientist! So if you happen to be a real science buff maybe you can appreciate this?

So here we have the advent of the 5th church, and hence the bridegroom, and yet very few people are aware of it, least of all those who call themselves "Christians." Nor does it belie what has happened since then, for indeed the 5th church has already come to a close, and a 6th church has been established--which, is the current "Church of Today." This is only a recent development (over the past 20 years), and coincides with the development of the bride, and more in accord with the United States, the freest nation to ever exist, and hence the emancipation of the "woman's will" (thus entailing the bride's "free choice" in marriage). And here it isn't altogether different from what you were suggesting, in that it involves growing up and making our own decisions.

I hope this answers your question about the current "state of today?" Sorry for being so verbose, I just didn't know how else to put it? If you would like to read more about it, you can do so by reading the first three chapters of my book ... Thanks!

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3

 

[Dave the Web]

I am not too sure what you mean by the following

Whereas the Church of Adam corresponds to the man's masculine side or his father (1), thus giving rise to his "dominant aspect" and, to God Himself; the Church of Noah corresponds the man's feminine side or his mother (2), as it was Mother Earth who delivered Noah from the great flood; the Israelite Church corresponds to the woman's masculine side or her father

Could you please elaborate? I don't understand where the perception of gender comes into it. IT would be interesting to see where you see this coming from, and where you see this leading to.

 

[Iacchus]

Well as the first human was a man, and a man's dominant aspect is his masculine side, thus comparing with "his father," it only seems fitting that the Church of Adam (1) corresponds to God the Father Himself.

And yet a man can't exist without a mother, therefore the Church of Noah (2) is represented by Mother Earth. Indeed it was Mother Earth who saved Noah from the flood, while it's also interesting how water is called the "woman's element."

Thus you have the two components which correspond to the man (his parents), and hence the bridegroom or 5th aspect which, coincidentally, is also portrayed by the number 12. In a similar way, the woman herself represents the bride, and hence the 6th aspect which, due to "her mother" (4) being her dominant strength, is portrayed by the number 43 (instead of 34).

Now isn't that something, because these two numbers--12 and 43--portray the Advent of the New Church in Revelation chapter 12--i.e., "a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars." Are you familiar at all with this? While here the number 12 is signified by chapter 12 specifically, and the number 43 corresponds to the "43rd month" following the 42 months of prophecy by the Two Witnesses in chapter 11. Isn't that strange?

What's equally strange is that I just got through posting my 1243rd post on PhysicsForums.Com (the actual post), nor had I begun to respond to your reply here. I hadn't even opened it up yet. I for one don't believe in coincidences, do you? If you require further clarification please feel free to ask. I know this stuff isn't all that easy to relate to. You can also follow up by reading the first three chapters of my book if you like ...

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3

 

[Elizabeth May]

I can believe in some coincidences, I'm just not sure how Noah is saved by Mother Earth when wasn't it the Sky God, either Yahweh or the Babylonian one in the other myth? I'm a little hazy one where you see the feminine in the Noah story (hey, that's just me!)

 

[Iacchus]

And yet here's almost a parallel theme from the Book of Revelation ...

"Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Revelation 12:12-17).

This is supposed to signify the Last Judgment which was performed on the former heaven and earth (church), by which a new heaven and earth are formed. And, while it was God who told Noah to build the Ark, the whole theme has to do with Mother Earth and the element of water (the "woman's element"), and a washing away of the old and bringing in the new. Also note that Noah's obedience towards God would have correspondended to his affection or "his will," which is also his feminine side.

I don't know if you noticed it or not, but I've broken it down into reciprocating masculine and feminine equivalents, to help illustrate the relationship between God and the Church (husband and wife), which are related as follows ...

01) The man's father or his masculine side (his spiritual father).
02) The man's mother or his feminine side (his spiritual mother).

03) The woman's father or her masculine side (her spiritual father).
04) The woman's mother or her feminine side (her spiritual mother).

05) The man himself or the bridegroom (the spiritual husband).
06) The woman herself or the bride (the spiritual wife).

07) The marriage or lifting of the veil (wedding ceremony).

While I've also extended this to fourteen, to refelct the base fourteen system that I developed in chapter 4 of my book, which are as follows ...

08) Circumcision or removal of the veil (wedding night or honeymoon).

09) True intercourse in the relationship (ongoing).
10) Spiritual release or Ecstasy (mutual orgasm).

11) Joining of the masculine and feminine minds, hence fertility.
12) Birth of a child, signifying true testimony or doctrine.

13) Ultimate completion of the woman in the man (the man himself).
14) Ultimate completion of the man in the woman (the woman herself).

If you would like to read more about this, I would recommend the first four chapters of my book ...

Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 4

 

[Arch]

I ahven't read all of it but it seems that you are relying a lot of symbolism. How much do you think the symbolism translates into this world as action and active? I mean, what are your symbols leading to.

 

[Iacchus]

First of all you have to ask yourself whether you believe everything happens truly at random or, whether there's a synchronicity to those things which may appear coincidental? If you only believe in coincidence, chances are you'll fail to establish a pattern, in which case it probably won't occur to you that there's any symbolism involved.

If you were to read my book you would understand that there's a whole myriad of synchronistic connections to be made, based upon a few key experiences initially. Whereas once you've established a pattern, you'd be amazed at how many new synchronicities crop up as a result. And it goes on, and on ...

I don't know, does that help any? I guess what I'm saying is that the synchronicities and symbolism are integral to the book, and it's up to you to decide whether it's credible or not.

 

[Iacchus]

Number 23 Theory / Page 1

Just some more info on how I derived the dates for the Spiritual Timeline.

From the PhysicsForums thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man ...

Thus we have the six "elements of marriage" which are broken down in terms of the number 23 theory developed in chapter 2 of my book. Also note, that the marriage itself (between Husband and Wife) constitues the 7th aspect or church:


(1) The Man's Father or Church of Adam = 2,300 years ... from 7,443 BC to ...

(2) The Man's Mother or Church of Noah = 2,300 years ... from 5,143 BC to ...

.... Where the "Man Himself" (1->2) = 4,600 years ...

(3) The Woman's Father or Israelite Church = 2,300 years ... from 2,843 BC to ...

(4) The Woman's Mother or Christian Church = 2,300 years ... from 543 BC to ...

.... Where the "Woman Herself" (4->3) = 4,600 years ...

(5) The Man Himself or The Husband = 230 years ... from 1757 AD to ...

(6) The Woman Herself or The Wife = 23 years ... from 1987 AD to ...

.... Where the "Marriage Itself" (5->6) = the year 2010 AD ...


Now the whole thing about the number 23 which, is something I hadn't determined until after I had came up with the dates, was this was how many chromosomes that each parent contributes to their offspring, by which we all end up with "46." Therefore, if you can appreciate what I've done so far, perhaps you can see how much of a corroboration this really is! It's too uncanny! Please refer to chapter 3 for more details here.

You also may have noticed that the dates don't necessarily line up with the "historical establishment" of each church, for example the Christian Church was established in 1 AD (instead of 543 BC), and the Israelite Church was established around 1,250 BC (instead of 2,843 BC). And yet the key here is that the Israelite Church which, was named after Israel (Jacob), wasn't established until Moses' time, some 700-800 years later. Yet it's still not close to the year 2,843 BC but, when you consider that Abraham, the grandfather of Jacob/Israel, was originally from Babylonia, then it brings to mind the Tower of Babel which, happened to coincide with this time-frame, which was founded between 3,000 and 2,800 BC.

Now this may not suggest a lot either, except for the fact that, according to Biblical scholars, the original tongue in the region before the fall of the Tower of Babel was Hebrew. And so here it is after the "dispersment," the only people who retained the original language were the descendants of Abraham and Israel (or Hebrews). Hence it would seem to suggest that the "Israelite Era," began at the fall of the Tower of Babel. Now this is important, because it seems to establish at least one point which is critical to the timeline.

While something similar can be said about the "Christian Era," for the Israelite Era came to a close when the northern Kingdom of Israel was taken away and the subsequent capture of the Kindom of Judea and the destruction of its temple in Jerusalem occurred. What else could it possibly suggest, except the end of era? (usually signified by a disaster such as this). Therefore when "the Jews" (not Israelites) were finally allowed to return to their homeland and begin rebuilding their temple in 538 BC (note how close it is to 543 BC), it would seem to suggest the begining of a "new era," or chuch. While this is officially when the "Jewish Church" began and Jews were called Jews.

While it was also the period the cult of Dionysus was given official cult status in Greece, which is the contention I make in chapter 2 of my book, saying that in many ways he and Christ were a parallel of each other. So much so that it only helps corroborates the notion that the "Christian Era" began at this time. Hence there's the notion of the Buddha himself, with a whole myriad of parallels between him and Christ as well, who was supposed to have existed during the same period. And guess what? It just so happens that the "revised" date of his death, happens to be 543 BC. Whooa!

Well I don't have a whole lot of time, so I'm going to have to leave it at this for now ...


Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 5

 

[Iacchus]

Number 23 Theory / Page 2

For additional reference I've decided to post the last half of chapter 2. Also note, that if it wasn't for what happened in chapter 5, which occurred in 1987, as well as the discovery that the "Last Judgment" occurred in 1757 (end of the Christian Church), in accord with Emanuel Swedenborg, I would have never made the connection with the number 23.


Recorded History


21
Whereas like the Church of Adam, we don't have much of a record of the Church of Noah either. So what of recorded history? Why doesn't it go beyond 4,000 BC? Is it possible there was some great deluge prior to this, say around 5,143 BC that wiped everything out? Thus putting it on the same time line as Noah? That's an interesting thought? While it's curious how the earliest known cities in Mesopotamia, called the cradle of civilization, were carbon-test dated between 4,000 and 5,000 BC. So where's the rest of our history?


22
And what of the Israelite Church which came later? Now there's quite a discrepancy between 2,843 BC and 1,200 BC. Yet Abraham, the father of Isaac and Jacob (Israel) left Babylonia (Sumeria) around 2,100 BC, which is getting closer. Could it be because he was from Babylonia that it might involve events occurring before his arrival in Canaan? After all, the Jews were taken captive by the Babylonians between 605 and 560 BC, and released just five years after 543 BC, at the dawn of the Christian Age, suggesting the Israelite Church begins and ends with, Babylonia. Had they gone back to live with their parents?


23
And what of the city of Babylon, with its infamous Tower of Babel, which was founded between 3,000 and 2,800 BC? Where according to the Bible, the peoples of the earth all spoke the same language, before they were confounded and scattered abroad? (Genesis 11:1-9). Suggesting this was a common point of departure from that which many assert was native to Adam and Noah, the Hebrew Tongue. Thus in effect a Last Judgment had been performed at this time. Similar to the Jewish Diaspora after the Babylonian exile? And indeed the lineage of Abraham, together with the lineage of Hebrew, begins in the very next verse following the dispersion at Babel. (Genesis 11:10-32).


24
While another thing occurring during this period was the beginning of the dynastic periods of Mesopotamia (Sumeria) and Egypt, with both sharing a similar pictograph style of writing with the early Hebrews. Suggesting a common ancestor? Is this what the Tower of Babel represented? And so it is the Israelites' sojourn to Egypt began only 276 years after Abraham arrived in Canaan, and ended with their Exodus 430 years later, suggesting all three should have a common origin. And, where the Tower of Babel symbolizes the end of the second church, with its construction halted before its completion, the great pyramids in Egypt began construction towards the beginning of the third church—which, is the triangle completing itself at its apex. Perhaps there's some other scheme involved here?


Chapter 1 | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3 | Chapter 5

 

[iBrian]

Iacchus, it would be much preferred it you could separate the issues addressed to each forum in each forum. Trying to reference people to difference threads in different forums isn't necessarily going to be great netiquette. Plus the actual pasting of material and/or summaries from your book here here is likely to make little sense in such large info bursts.

I'm sure it would work much better if you could separate different ideas and deal with them as specific issues in their own threads - to be addressed as perhaps required.

And, btw - I think we get an idea of where to find both your own books and the website of Swedenborg.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, it would be much preferred it you could separate the issues addressed to each forum in each forum. Trying to reference people to difference threads in different forums isn't necessarily going to be great netiquette. Plus the actual pasting of material and/or summaries from your book here here is likely to make little sense in such large info bursts.

Why bother to reference any links then, if not for the sake of bringing up an issue and discussing it? Whereas I think the problem with me is that I often have difficulty in repeating myself (in part because I don't retain things that well), and rather than "conjure" the whole thing up all over again, it's much easier to refer to something which I've already done. Sorry.

I'm sure it would work much better if you could separate different ideas and deal with them as specific issues in their own threads - to be addressed as perhaps required.

Matter-of-fact I probably wouldn't have done anything if my previous posts hadn't gotten "butchered" during the change-over in forums.

And, btw - I think we get an idea of where to find both your own books and the website of Swedenborg.

This will probably be the very last thing I have to say about my book on this forum. Thanks!

 

[iBrian]

I'm sure many of us here have discussed certain matters many times. In exploring them again in dialogue, we do not simply wish to inform others of our ideas, but also revisit and explore them ourselves.

It seems that every second post you make is spent telling people to go elsewhere for dialogue. That is hardly conducive to good manners, yes?

To actually discuss ideas from your work it would surely be better to simply discuss individual elements, yes? That way perhaps you can yourself learn something of interest.

For example, I notice the comment on the origins of the Jewish language with reference to Mesopotamia. This is a topic that would make a good thread in itself.

However, there is no worth in simply copy/pasting a chapter from your book when few people read long paste job on messageboards. Instead, simply making a short open comment on the matter would like lead to far more constructive response. I'm sure something like that would work so much more in your favour.

I'll close this thread as I think there is enough self-promotion already on it. If you wish to engage specifics of belief, through dialogue, then you're welcome to address specific points on specific threads.