the virgin? mary, noah and adam...
- Thread starter chakraman
- Start date
I would agree with this...
Hi Zagreus –
It seems possible ... that the first appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion may have been in a subtle form ... Even if there was a body of flesh and blood present at this point, it is likely that the words "touch me not" were spoken because Jesus needed to remain in a completely pure state ... of body, mind and spirit. Only afterward does he encourage the Apostles to touch him to verify that he is real, and that wounds were sustained...
This raises many issues, not the least that we are making the Resurrected Jesus still subject to contingency and temporality (the risk of impurity, or some time-lag between His resurrection and its ... completion ... why)?
One point is that throughout his earthly ministry Jesus constantly had contact with the 'impure' – the dead, the leper, the possessed, the sick, the crippled, the tax-collector, the prostitute, the poor, the homeless, the dispossessed ... it never bothered Him then, why should it bother Him now?
It would seem from the only accounts we have that He was not subject to any form of temporal condition and if indeed He had triumphed over death, it seems questionable that life should present an element of risk? What risk? That he might catch something, go off the rails and hit the bottle?
I am not making fun, but we have to examine what we assume.
Supposing the words 'touch me not' were nothing to do with Him, but everything to do with us – in the same way that the instruction to 'touch me' to Thomas was, again, nothing to do with Him, but everything to do with human incredulity?
In short – suppose the lesson is for us ... not Him?
Thomas
It seems possible ... that the first appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion may have been in a subtle form ... Even if there was a body of flesh and blood present at this point, it is likely that the words "touch me not" were spoken because Jesus needed to remain in a completely pure state ... of body, mind and spirit. Only afterward does he encourage the Apostles to touch him to verify that he is real, and that wounds were sustained...
This raises many issues, not the least that we are making the Resurrected Jesus still subject to contingency and temporality (the risk of impurity, or some time-lag between His resurrection and its ... completion ... why)?
One point is that throughout his earthly ministry Jesus constantly had contact with the 'impure' – the dead, the leper, the possessed, the sick, the crippled, the tax-collector, the prostitute, the poor, the homeless, the dispossessed ... it never bothered Him then, why should it bother Him now?
It would seem from the only accounts we have that He was not subject to any form of temporal condition and if indeed He had triumphed over death, it seems questionable that life should present an element of risk? What risk? That he might catch something, go off the rails and hit the bottle?
I am not making fun, but we have to examine what we assume.
Supposing the words 'touch me not' were nothing to do with Him, but everything to do with us – in the same way that the instruction to 'touch me' to Thomas was, again, nothing to do with Him, but everything to do with human incredulity?
In short – suppose the lesson is for us ... not Him?
Thomas
chakraman
God save us from religion
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
hi thomas,
reading an account of krishnamurtis spiritual awakening, when for three days the kundalini apparently powerfully opened up his system, he could not bare to be touched and was hypersensitive to sounds and even the thoughts of others. although generally he was o.k around people there short periods throughout his life when this was not the case. i can imagine how the resuurection could be a process of opening up and therefore increased sensitivity. just a thought, regards jase....
reading an account of krishnamurtis spiritual awakening, when for three days the kundalini apparently powerfully opened up his system, he could not bare to be touched and was hypersensitive to sounds and even the thoughts of others. although generally he was o.k around people there short periods throughout his life when this was not the case. i can imagine how the resuurection could be a process of opening up and therefore increased sensitivity. just a thought, regards jase....
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Please see my above quotation from Mark ch. 5, Thomoas. I think you missed this entirely. Clearly it *did* bother him, else you wish to dispute Mark's account of how "the virtue had gone of him?"
I don't think there is anything to be gained by removing Christ to a sphere (in our own understanding) where *nothing* of this world can touch or affect him in the slightest. But then, to do so only demonstrates our ignorance of the facts - at least as they are recorded in the Gospels ... which I'll agree is disputable.
Do the Gospels not present account after account of Christ's interaction with the Apostles and with the people around Him, wherein things that were said and done most *definitely* had an impact upon Him? Does Christ simply live in a bubble throughout His entire time on earth, even just that of the Ministry, or is He not thoroughly approachable, intimately knowable, and in fact clearly affected by the presence of those around Him ... *including* the physical?
This last sentence does not beg the question, btw. Is just shows that I've read my Bible ... or at least the Gospels.
Ah, but this is *YOU* talking, and I prefer the Gospel account. It addresses what happened following the crucifixion quite clearly. The precise reasons for Christ's words may not be presented, but obviously he was subject to "temporal conditions," else he simply had a flare for drama. But I can't see him saying, Jim Carrey-style, "Noooo, touch me - not. You see, I - have not ... ascended. And by the way, there's someone on the wing ... some *thing*!!!"Thomas said:
We do not have to speculate here, or assume anything. The Gospels give us the answers we seek; or at least, they clear up this business as to whether Christ had some kind of immune system that was impervious to all things earthly.Thomas said:
Perhaps this is the right track, but you still do not address the question. If you don't want to speculate, for fear of "assuming" something incorrectly, then let me make a fool of myself instead.Thomas said:
Christ's aura, or spiritual energy - that magnetic quality which is present and emanates even from what we call *inanimate* substance - would have been tremendous! Quite possibly the power that attended Him post-crucifixion, and pre-manifestation to the Apostles, may have been too great even for one of His closest to withstand alone. After all, in most of the accounts we have (that have been officially *sanctioned* by various ecclesiastical authorities), Christ was accompanied by the 12, or the 70. If all the attendant powers of the Heavens, from the Highest all the way down to the earthly, were still focused through Christ, the words of John 20:17 might make sense.
But notice that it is just two verses later, or "the same day at evening, being the first day of the week," that Jesus appears to the Apostles and allows the doubting Thomas to physically touch the wounds. Did the magnificent and incredible powers of the Heavens - even of God Almighty - somehow just vaporize in this short time between Christ's words to Mary, and those to the Apostles? I find this questionable in the least.
So what, then, is the lesson for us, Thomas, to be found in *not* touching Christ prior to the Ascension - and what changes must come about, either historically or symbolically, in time for Pentecost?
~~~~~~~~
I am inclined to look along the lines of your example, chakraman, at things which are documented equally well as or even better than the Gospel account, yet which are also occurring now, in our midst, to hundreds, even thousands of people. And the literature abounds regarding things like this (Kundalini awakenings, out of body experiences, encounters with spiritual beings of historical renown, etc.). We cannot dismiss this with a wave of the hand.
Finding a mechanism, or at least *part of* a spiritual basis, for the workings of the Holy Spirit and even of Highest Deity - along with the Son - just lends strength to religious claims ... strength, validity, viability. We may not be able to explain or understand every single "miracle" for some time yet, but we do already have added insight, thanks to science, medicine, technology, etc., added in the 20 or so centuries since Jesus' times. And at the rate we're moving, I wouldn't be surprised if things were a lot clearer even by year's end!
The palimpsest of certain historical texts, for example, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other, later documents which the authorities smile favorably upon ... investigation was not possible, not *nearly* in so much depth and detail (if at all), prior to modern techniques involving X-rays, or something along those lines (details escape me at the moment). Who knows what we may be using in the relatively near future to assist us in our investigations!
What captivates me is not so much the fact that Christ said to Mary, "Do not touch me," but what He said *after* that. If He was already there, subtle or not subtle, but clearly animate, alive and well, then what was this business about "Ascending?" Why was that necessary, and what's it all about? Maybe if we can address this part of the question, the significance of the Ascension, maybe then the caution to "Touch me not" will fit into place.
~Zag
Thomas said:
I think you have something here, Thomas. And I am also thinking that there may have a been good reason why Mary Magdalene could not have handled (sorry) touching him, while Thomas absolutely needed to do so. And that both Mary and Thomas are representatives of us--different kinds of us (I am lacking a better way to say it at the moment).
Thomas said:
I think that it is not so much that most Christians aren't interested. I just think that there is A LOT TO COMPREHEND.
Throw in all the different viewpoints and a load of terminology and hermeneutics and, well...I rather think that many more are interested than seems immediately apparent. It's just a matter of being able to articulate questions and thoughts as we'd (I am including myself) like to. In the meantime, many study quietly, but often get weary. When that happens, of course, it is the Love that still draws us. InPeace,
InLove
Please see my above quotation from Mark ch. 5, Thomas. I think you missed this entirely. Clearly it *did* bother him, else you wish to dispute Mark's account of how "the virtue had gone of him?"
I will dispute it in the context of a wider reading: Why does Mark single out this story to tell?
The event is contained within the story of the death of Jairus' daughter. Jairus is a ruler of the synagogue. He asks Jesus to heal his daughter, but delayed along the road, he is informed by his household that his daughter has died. Jesus says 'Be not afraid, only believe' (5:36) and continues to his house where 'they laughed him to scorn' (5:40). Nevertheless, he brings the child back from the dead 'And they were astonished with a great astonishment.' (5:42)
Now compare that to the faith of the woman 'which had an issue of blood twelve years' (5:25), She, unlike Jairus, has complete faith in Jesus, 'for she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole' (5:28) – so much so she knows the very proximity of Him will cure her, which is precisely what happens.
The words commonly translated as 'virtue' in 5:40 is dunamis, variously 'strength', 'power', 'ability', power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature,...
Jesus testifies constantly that faith in God will not go unanswered, and in this instance He demonstrates that by the fact that He heals the woman then asks 'who touched my clothes?' ... He knew precisely what was happening ...
The point Mark is making is about faith – that's the point I think you miss – and Mark is contrasting the lack of faith of the synagogue with the faith of the people.
+++
There's two ways of reading Scripture ... one, which is predominant in this forum (understandably), is to rationalise and speculate on the supernatural nature of Jesus, what it might mean, how can it be, etc., all very edifying, but of no use, really, and for ever holding the text at a distance ... the other is to read Scripture as if you were there, in the now, and ask 'what is He telling me?' ... it's a very simple and practical form of lectio divina, an age-old practice of the Christian Tradition.
Introd. to Lectio Divina
PS - it's a curio that the woman had an issue for twelve years, and Jairus' daughter was twelve years old ... but then we get into symbolism again ...
Thomas
I will dispute it in the context of a wider reading: Why does Mark single out this story to tell?
The event is contained within the story of the death of Jairus' daughter. Jairus is a ruler of the synagogue. He asks Jesus to heal his daughter, but delayed along the road, he is informed by his household that his daughter has died. Jesus says 'Be not afraid, only believe' (5:36) and continues to his house where 'they laughed him to scorn' (5:40). Nevertheless, he brings the child back from the dead 'And they were astonished with a great astonishment.' (5:42)
Now compare that to the faith of the woman 'which had an issue of blood twelve years' (5:25), She, unlike Jairus, has complete faith in Jesus, 'for she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole' (5:28) – so much so she knows the very proximity of Him will cure her, which is precisely what happens.
The words commonly translated as 'virtue' in 5:40 is dunamis, variously 'strength', 'power', 'ability', power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature,...
Jesus testifies constantly that faith in God will not go unanswered, and in this instance He demonstrates that by the fact that He heals the woman then asks 'who touched my clothes?' ... He knew precisely what was happening ...
The point Mark is making is about faith – that's the point I think you miss – and Mark is contrasting the lack of faith of the synagogue with the faith of the people.
+++
There's two ways of reading Scripture ... one, which is predominant in this forum (understandably), is to rationalise and speculate on the supernatural nature of Jesus, what it might mean, how can it be, etc., all very edifying, but of no use, really, and for ever holding the text at a distance ... the other is to read Scripture as if you were there, in the now, and ask 'what is He telling me?' ... it's a very simple and practical form of lectio divina, an age-old practice of the Christian Tradition.
Introd. to Lectio Divina
PS - it's a curio that the woman had an issue for twelve years, and Jairus' daughter was twelve years old ... but then we get into symbolism again ...
Thomas
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I would say this: While faith as a grain of mustard seed may move mountains, no one is healed whose time has not come. Christ healed according to God's Will, not out of pity, much less to simply awe the masses and win converts. I think many today may miss this point.
The idea that Christ could not turn ANY occurrence into an important lesson for us all (or rather, reveal the lesson that was already there, had we but the means to see it), is what I would contest. Had he perfect awareness, in all spheres, at all times, of all events? Many will hastily answer, "Of course! He's God!" I must politely choose to disagree, or in the very least, to nod only in *conditional* assent.
As for how Scripture may speak to us, this is much more important than quibbling over the metaphysics of the crucifixion and post-mortem appearances of Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, yes.
~~~~~
We should not be so surprised, however, if one day *before too long* we just might live to see the record set straight - perhaps on the entire Gospel story, start to finish. Be it technology, a large enough scale spiritual progression on humanity's part, or a combination of these and other means, I for one would enjoy seeing a number of issues clarified once and for all!
What this would mean, imho, is not the end of questioning & seeking, let alone sincere practice of one's spiritual path. On the contrary, I can envision the teachings being applied *that much more devotedly* ... because many areas of doubt and superstition could be dispensed with once and for all.
Do I have an idea of how to go about this, or work toward such a scenario? You bet I do. It has everything to do with my own, chosen path ... and also with my Calling, with as much overlap between these two as possible. Tradition plays an important part here, yet it is not the whole story. As the saying goes, sometimes it's better to be wrong, for the Right Reasons ... than vice versa. Other times, sure, let's just stick to what works, what's "tried 'n true," as people say.
I think I still wrestle with the set of impossible conditions which people try to apply to Christ Jesus. On the one hand, all the "omnis" of Godhead are supposed to be focused in this one individual, flesh 'n blood like the rest of us. Yet there is also emphasis on the flesh 'n blood, as if this is somehow evidence of the *humanity* of Jesus ... and some theologians come darn close to saying, "He was a person, just like you and me."
Now, you see, you can't have it both ways. You just can't. You can either have a circle, or you can have a square, maybe a triangle, but you CANNOT have a square circle, or a round triangle. Uh-uh, it don't work that way. Mathematics just doesn't *bend* in that direction. Nor does God, in the ways we try to bend God. Speaking of symbols ...
Beautifully, simply, in a way that even a child can understand, a large circle CAN contain a triangle within its boundaries. And inside that smaller triangle, without breaking any of the rules of logic and matematics, we can draw a square ... this four-sided shape being a rather *elemental* and basic figure of great significance in every spiritual tradition (as the triangle, as the circle). Christianity embraces one of these four-sided forms as its own emblem, its own icon, as its foremost symbol.
God, Three in One, with one "side" of that Trinity *perfectly* aligned as one of the four sides of the square. If Christ manifests to us as one Aspect of this Trinity, then maybe we don't need to figure out just exactly how He was able to *appear* as the square (How does the Xmas hymn put it, "Word of the Father, Now in flesh appearing").
I wanted to understand. I asked, I found answers that work for me. And no less is promised us, from Christ's own lips. Now it's just a matter of allowing my tiny understanding to give way, and yield to an even greater one, then a greater one, and a greater one still.
We think we "have it" - the answer to the Mysteries ... but Socrates left us with a comment on this kind of realization: Hen oida hoti ouden oida (from Plato's Apology). I would humbly start here. It seems God has provided the whole world, to guide us!
~Zag
I agree with the first bit, but the rest is an assumption on your part. We do not know this.Thomas said:
The idea that Christ could not turn ANY occurrence into an important lesson for us all (or rather, reveal the lesson that was already there, had we but the means to see it), is what I would contest. Had he perfect awareness, in all spheres, at all times, of all events? Many will hastily answer, "Of course! He's God!" I must politely choose to disagree, or in the very least, to nod only in *conditional* assent.
As for how Scripture may speak to us, this is much more important than quibbling over the metaphysics of the crucifixion and post-mortem appearances of Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, yes.
~~~~~
We should not be so surprised, however, if one day *before too long* we just might live to see the record set straight - perhaps on the entire Gospel story, start to finish. Be it technology, a large enough scale spiritual progression on humanity's part, or a combination of these and other means, I for one would enjoy seeing a number of issues clarified once and for all!
What this would mean, imho, is not the end of questioning & seeking, let alone sincere practice of one's spiritual path. On the contrary, I can envision the teachings being applied *that much more devotedly* ... because many areas of doubt and superstition could be dispensed with once and for all.
Do I have an idea of how to go about this, or work toward such a scenario? You bet I do. It has everything to do with my own, chosen path ... and also with my Calling, with as much overlap between these two as possible. Tradition plays an important part here, yet it is not the whole story. As the saying goes, sometimes it's better to be wrong, for the Right Reasons ... than vice versa. Other times, sure, let's just stick to what works, what's "tried 'n true," as people say.
I think I still wrestle with the set of impossible conditions which people try to apply to Christ Jesus. On the one hand, all the "omnis" of Godhead are supposed to be focused in this one individual, flesh 'n blood like the rest of us. Yet there is also emphasis on the flesh 'n blood, as if this is somehow evidence of the *humanity* of Jesus ... and some theologians come darn close to saying, "He was a person, just like you and me."
Now, you see, you can't have it both ways. You just can't. You can either have a circle, or you can have a square, maybe a triangle, but you CANNOT have a square circle, or a round triangle. Uh-uh, it don't work that way. Mathematics just doesn't *bend* in that direction. Nor does God, in the ways we try to bend God. Speaking of symbols ...
Beautifully, simply, in a way that even a child can understand, a large circle CAN contain a triangle within its boundaries. And inside that smaller triangle, without breaking any of the rules of logic and matematics, we can draw a square ... this four-sided shape being a rather *elemental* and basic figure of great significance in every spiritual tradition (as the triangle, as the circle). Christianity embraces one of these four-sided forms as its own emblem, its own icon, as its foremost symbol.
God, Three in One, with one "side" of that Trinity *perfectly* aligned as one of the four sides of the square. If Christ manifests to us as one Aspect of this Trinity, then maybe we don't need to figure out just exactly how He was able to *appear* as the square (How does the Xmas hymn put it, "Word of the Father, Now in flesh appearing").
I wanted to understand. I asked, I found answers that work for me. And no less is promised us, from Christ's own lips. Now it's just a matter of allowing my tiny understanding to give way, and yield to an even greater one, then a greater one, and a greater one still.
We think we "have it" - the answer to the Mysteries ... but Socrates left us with a comment on this kind of realization: Hen oida hoti ouden oida (from Plato's Apology). I would humbly start here. It seems God has provided the whole world, to guide us!
~Zag
Hi InLove
Quote:
And I am also thinking that there may have a been good reason why Mary Magdalene could not have handled (sorry) touching him, while Thomas absolutely needed to do so. And that both Mary and Thomas are representatives of us--different kinds of us (I am lacking a better way to say it at the moment).
I have heard Thomas as symbolising the 'rational intellect' (John would be the 'transcendant intellect'; Peter is 'faith') – he makes three significant appearances:
1 - On the road to Jerusalem (to visit the deceased Lazarus) Thomas says 'Let us also go, that we may die with him.' (John 11:16). All the disciples believed that to go to Jerusalem would be to step into the lion's den. Thomas vocalised this fear, but does not withdraw from it.
2 - At the Last Supper, "[Jesus said] And whither I go you know: and the way you know. Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him." (14:4-7)
(ie - you can't do it, onbly God can. Or, put another way, man cannot transcend his own fallen nature unaided, if he could, technically it would not be transcendance, but a fulfillment.)
3 - Famously, in the upper room, when Thomas refuses to accept the Resurrection. Jesus says: "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed [ie the rational intellect informed by the undeniable presence of the Risen Christ]: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed [ie faith]."
This is not to say that Thomas is not blessed, if that were so he would not have seen Christ at all, but the reward of faith (as with the woman, etc.,) is 'greater' for those who believe because the distance between their faith and their certainty is greater.
Note: Where was Thomas when Christ first appeared? The disciples were in hiding, but Thomas was not among them – he was not hiding. Again, he had rationalised his faith, if he was going to die, then he was going to die, there's no point in hiding.
So grace transcends the intellect, but faith transcends even that ... because the intellect illuminates, but does not power, whereas faith powers, but needs the intellect to give it direction – this is symbolised in Peter and John racing toi the empty tomb.)
+++
Mary Magdalene symbolises the fallen soul purified by love.
This verse is a difficult verse, but my current view is based on the Greek lexicon, which translates 'touch' as also 'clutch' or 'cling' and also 'hold on to' – so I read it as 'do not hold on to me' because Jesus is passing beyond, or transcending, that which she previously knew, He is advising her to not try and possess Him or know Him as she did, but she must let Him go so that she might fully perceive Him as He has become. He is telling her that everything is changed now, everything is different.
Likewise, we must not seek to possess Christ, to know Him, but always to follow Him, deeper into the Mystery of his Being. As soon as we touch Him, or take possession of Him, we stop growing.
So I treat this not as an admonition, but as a very profound lesson, one very carefully crafted into the whole Johannine account of the Resurrection.
It should be noted that Jesus ascended that very day – everything after the death on the Cross is of a supernatural order, the miraculous order, and is not governed by temporal or mundane matters - so I discount notions of purity or disorientation, etc.
So I read the 'lesson' for the Magdalene and the lesson for Thomas as very much the same – who He is totally surpasses human understanding.
Thomas
Quote:
And I am also thinking that there may have a been good reason why Mary Magdalene could not have handled (sorry) touching him, while Thomas absolutely needed to do so. And that both Mary and Thomas are representatives of us--different kinds of us (I am lacking a better way to say it at the moment).
I have heard Thomas as symbolising the 'rational intellect' (John would be the 'transcendant intellect'; Peter is 'faith') – he makes three significant appearances:
1 - On the road to Jerusalem (to visit the deceased Lazarus) Thomas says 'Let us also go, that we may die with him.' (John 11:16). All the disciples believed that to go to Jerusalem would be to step into the lion's den. Thomas vocalised this fear, but does not withdraw from it.
2 - At the Last Supper, "[Jesus said] And whither I go you know: and the way you know. Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him. And you have seen him." (14:4-7)
(ie - you can't do it, onbly God can. Or, put another way, man cannot transcend his own fallen nature unaided, if he could, technically it would not be transcendance, but a fulfillment.)
3 - Famously, in the upper room, when Thomas refuses to accept the Resurrection. Jesus says: "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed [ie the rational intellect informed by the undeniable presence of the Risen Christ]: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed [ie faith]."
This is not to say that Thomas is not blessed, if that were so he would not have seen Christ at all, but the reward of faith (as with the woman, etc.,) is 'greater' for those who believe because the distance between their faith and their certainty is greater.
Note: Where was Thomas when Christ first appeared? The disciples were in hiding, but Thomas was not among them – he was not hiding. Again, he had rationalised his faith, if he was going to die, then he was going to die, there's no point in hiding.
So grace transcends the intellect, but faith transcends even that ... because the intellect illuminates, but does not power, whereas faith powers, but needs the intellect to give it direction – this is symbolised in Peter and John racing toi the empty tomb.)
+++
Mary Magdalene symbolises the fallen soul purified by love.
This verse is a difficult verse, but my current view is based on the Greek lexicon, which translates 'touch' as also 'clutch' or 'cling' and also 'hold on to' – so I read it as 'do not hold on to me' because Jesus is passing beyond, or transcending, that which she previously knew, He is advising her to not try and possess Him or know Him as she did, but she must let Him go so that she might fully perceive Him as He has become. He is telling her that everything is changed now, everything is different.
Likewise, we must not seek to possess Christ, to know Him, but always to follow Him, deeper into the Mystery of his Being. As soon as we touch Him, or take possession of Him, we stop growing.
So I treat this not as an admonition, but as a very profound lesson, one very carefully crafted into the whole Johannine account of the Resurrection.
It should be noted that Jesus ascended that very day – everything after the death on the Cross is of a supernatural order, the miraculous order, and is not governed by temporal or mundane matters - so I discount notions of purity or disorientation, etc.
So I read the 'lesson' for the Magdalene and the lesson for Thomas as very much the same – who He is totally surpasses human understanding.
Thomas
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
Brian Hope: Explain the Trinity.
Charlie McManus: Hmmm... well, it's a bit of a b***er.
Charlie McManus: You've got the Father, the Son and the holy ghost. But the three are one - like a shamrock, my old priest used to say. "Three leaves, but one leaf." Now, the father sent down the son, who was love, and then when he went away, he sent down the holy spirit, who came down in the form of a...
Brian Hope: You told me already - a ghost.
Charlie McManus: No, a dove.
Brian Hope: The dove was a ghost?
Charlie McManus: No, the ghost was a dove.
Brian Hope: Let me try and summarize this: God is his son. And his son is God. But his son moonlights as a holy ghost, a holy spirit, and a dove. And they all send each other, even though they're all one and the same thing.
Charlie McManus: Thats pretty much it, you could be a nun!
Hi Zagreus -
I agree with the first bit, but the rest is an assumption on your part. We do not know this.
It was based on Scripture: "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM." (John 8:58).
+++
My (orthodox) view is that Jesus 'emptied himself' of His divinity when he became man - there are obvious signs to show that he was neither omniscient nor omnipotent - and that he could suffer ... yet at other times He demonstrated his omniscience and His omnipotence.
My speculative view is that as a man He was, in effect, 'powerless' (think of the temptation in the desert), but as the Logos He is the Power of God, and having surrendered this Power, it worked by, in, with and through Him, by the power of the Holy Spirit (as we say in the Liturgy).
He is the Trinitarian Mystery made flesh.
Thomas
I agree with the first bit, but the rest is an assumption on your part. We do not know this.
It was based on Scripture: "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM." (John 8:58).
+++
My (orthodox) view is that Jesus 'emptied himself' of His divinity when he became man - there are obvious signs to show that he was neither omniscient nor omnipotent - and that he could suffer ... yet at other times He demonstrated his omniscience and His omnipotence.
My speculative view is that as a man He was, in effect, 'powerless' (think of the temptation in the desert), but as the Logos He is the Power of God, and having surrendered this Power, it worked by, in, with and through Him, by the power of the Holy Spirit (as we say in the Liturgy).
He is the Trinitarian Mystery made flesh.
Thomas
Thomas said:
It makes sense to me that Jesus would have wanted Mary Magdalene to be able to "move on"--to not hold on to Him in the exact same way she had known Him before, but to now follow Him in a larger sense. As with Peter, when Peter wanted to fight off the arrest--Jesus was telling Him that things would progress the way God intended, but Peter didn't quite understand at the time what that was. But it was for him and everyone. For Mary to hold on to the past would mean she would miss a much greater blessing.
When you say "who He is totally surpasses human understanding", I think you are right. To me, it doesn't mean that we cannot know what we are given and willing to know, but no matter how close we come, the revelation is not yet complete. While I can follow Him, I cannot be Him. I can be "in Him" and He in me, and I can see this when I look at others--all others--but I am not Him. He Is.
InPeace,
InLove
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 0
So, post resurrection Jesus has a body which can be touched. Then later he ascends. The angel asks why the disciples are gazing into heaven. Question: What was the mode of ascension? Did Jesus just kinda float off, getting smaller and smaller until he disappeared? Would that imply that heaven is a locale within our dimension.
Chris
Chris
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 0
It may have something to do with metaphysics. I'm pretty sure it might. There is probably some math and science to it as well.
InPeace,
InLove
Well...isn't that kinda the same as saying that it's sorta metaphorical? And if that's a methaphor for some metaphysical transformative process, then couldn't we extend that to include,well, a lot of stuff about Jesus? And how do we tell where the metaphors stop and the history begins, or vice versa? And does it really matter since we have Paul? That's the kinda stuff that would keep me up at night if I stayed up at night.
Chris
Whatever way it appeared, we are told "he will come in like manner...".
I always thought of it as "floating off". I assume the manner is for our benefit as he could do it however he wished.
Hi Chris –
It's interesting that there are only two Scriptural references to the ascension, and neither tell us much ... what we have has been passed down from Tradition.
With regard to metaphor ... try Googling 'metaphor' and 'Paul Ricoeur' ...
Thomas
It's interesting that there are only two Scriptural references to the ascension, and neither tell us much ... what we have has been passed down from Tradition.
With regard to metaphor ... try Googling 'metaphor' and 'Paul Ricoeur' ...
Thomas
juantoo3
Well-Known Member
Kindest Regards, China Cat!
Just stickin' my quick two cents in, haven't really followed the thread, but yeah, these are the kinds of questions that keep me on my toes and wondering...
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 0
Well, that was a pretty unsatisfactory and hollow feeling question.
Thanks for the heads up on Ricoeur. I've got several resources bookmarked for further reading. This seems to go directly to the problem of language and the post modern dilemma. I really, really appreciate this resource Thomas! I'm going to have to check this out and mull it over. How do you get turned on to all this great stuff?
Chris