Mary Magdalene
Lawrence Wong From:
Mary is one of seven people with this name in the New Testament, and most
of them are distinguished by additional descriptions:
(1) Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:30-31);
(2) Mary of Bethany (John 11:1);
(3) Mary, the mother of James who was not the Lord's brother (Matt.
27:56);
(4) Mary, the wife of Clopas (John 19:25);
(5) Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12);
(6) one otherwise unidentified Mary (Rom. 16:6); and
(7) Mary Magdalene, distinguished by a reference to her home, Magdala
(Luke 8:2). These descriptions help us to sort out the individuals on the
list. There is no hesitation to mention one's family status as a way of
doing this. Often a connection to a male is the distinguishing feature, as
with Jesus' mother, the mother of James, John Mark's mother and especially
the wife of Clopas. Such a connection reflected the patriarchal
first-century culture; that is, it was culturally centered on the male.
This frequent naming of females with a male connection will be a
significant point when we consider whether Jesus was married.
The name Mary is actually a modern form of the Jewish name Miriam. It was
an extremely popular ancient name for women, which may add to the
confusion among individuals. Mary Magdalene was not connected to any male,
though she could have been if there had been such a connection to
highlight. Rather, Magdala, where she lived, identified her. So Mary
Magdalene was Mary from Magdala. Magdala is probably modern-day Migdal,
located near the Sea of Galilee in Israel. Jesus' main ministry took place
in the Sea of Galilee area.
--
from the book, "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" by Darrell L. Bock, Ph.D.
(Research Professor of New Testament studies, Dallas Theological
Seminary). Thorndike Press, 2004. Pages 33-34
RAZA 2005
Athanasius
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Mary in the New Testament
>
>Mary is one of seven people with this name in the New Testament, and most
>of them are distinguished by additional descriptions:
>(1) Mary, the mother of Jesus (Luke 1:30-31);
>(2) Mary of Bethany (John 11:1);
>(3) Mary, the mother of James who was not the Lord's brother (Matt.
>27:56);
>(4) Mary, the wife of Clopas (John 19:25);
You may find no.s 3 and 4 are the same woman. Also with respect to the
negative statement about James the Lord's brother you will note that
this Mary was -ALSO- the SISTER of St Mary, the Ever-Virgin Mother of
God, thus making any of her children 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus,
according to Aramaic language which does not differentiate between
paternal, maternal cousins and brothers.
>(5) Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12);
>(6) one otherwise unidentified Mary (Rom. 16:6); and
>(7) Mary Magdalene, distinguished by a reference to her home, Magdala
>(Luke 8:2). These descriptions help us to sort out the individuals on the
>list. There is no hesitation to mention one's family status as a way of
>doing this. Often a connection to a male is the distinguishing feature, as
>with Jesus' mother, the mother of James, John Mark's mother and especially
>the wife of Clopas. Such a connection reflected the patriarchal
>first-century culture; that is, it was culturally centered on the male.
>This frequent naming of females with a male connection will be a
>significant point when we consider whether Jesus was married.
>The name Mary is actually a modern form of the Jewish name Miriam. It was
>an extremely popular ancient name for women, which may add to the
>confusion among individuals. Mary Magdalene was not connected to any male,
>though she could have been if there had been such a connection to
>highlight. Rather, Magdala, where she lived, identified her. So Mary
>Magdalene was Mary from Magdala. Magdala is probably modern-day Migdal,
>located near the Sea of Galilee in Israel. Jesus' main ministry took place
>in the Sea of Galilee area.
Six Mary's in Scripture seems to be the more accurate and historical
belief. The author of the work yiou cite has arbitarily seperated no.s
3 and 4, for what reason perhaps becomes obvious when one considers
later Protestant denials of St Mary (of which most reformers did not
deny).
Peace and grace
Athanasius, dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world.St Athanasius
Athanasius
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Mary in the New Testament
Peace and grace.
For your information:
Protestant Reformers Taught that St Mary was the Ever-Virgin.
In regard to the belief in St Mary's Ever-Virginity the Reformers, are
unanimous in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity
.
{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville
B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}
The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in
Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and
continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther,
Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic
Articles [1537]).
{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.:
Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint
Catholic-Protestant effort) }
Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the
16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the
singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and
if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the
offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the
Virgin . . .
[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity
of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence,
the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to
venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's
commands.
{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's
Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982,
pp.35-6}
Martin Luther (Founder of Lutheranism)
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal
womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained
a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T.
Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30);
Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on
John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no
children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who
declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and
the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached
and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either
before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity .
. .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until
she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her
subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . .
. This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither
noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common
idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew
(1523) } Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might
have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his
lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
John Calvin (Founder of Calvinism)
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 /
From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that
Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that
afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and
well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what
took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but
it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a
virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform
us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an
extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other
relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual
virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained
'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to
doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to
repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God
esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels -
it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must
follow.
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a
special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976,
pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of
God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly,
anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our
salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy
or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of
holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that
she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin,
for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . 'In
Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has
sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most
unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of
her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and
preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is
called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined
ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as
well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted
virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic," quoted in A. C. Coulter, John
Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}
Chris Bell
I find all this attention to Mary rather amazing. I think it says quite
a lot about the concerns of those who wrote such things and their
attitude to sex, but not much about the original events.
As far as I know, 1st century Jews had no particular focus on virginity.
In fact, in the bible it does not seem to be particularly praised,
rather the opposite as fecundity seems to be preferred as a blessing
from God. The Greeks had different ideas, (witness the Vestal Virgins),
but then they also valued homosexuality above heterosexuality. In the
NT, fornication is often condemned, but not sex per se, and the former
could be said to relate to sex with the temple prostitutes, just as meat
eating involved eating the sacrifices from the temple. It really looks
to me as if the focus on Mary and her divinity (never mind assumption)
arose from some concerns in the Middle Ages, perhaps the arrival of
venereal diseases like syphilis, brought back to Europe by the returning
crusaders. Any ideas? (Remember that in the feudal system, the local
Lord had rights over all the women including that to deflower them as
they came of age - virgins couldn´t have VD!)
> Peace and grace
>
>
> Athanasius, dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au
> http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
> If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world.St Athanasius
Chris
Athanasius
wrote:
Peace and grace to you Chris.
>I find all this attention to Mary rather amazing.
And rather Biblical...."fronm henceforth -all- generations shall call
me blessed!". I am sure that those who fulfill that injunction refer
to St Mary as blessed. :)
Also Traditional Christianity is not anemic when it comes to the
deeper things of God and His saints.
> I think it says quite
>a lot about the concerns of those who wrote such things and their
>attitude to sex, but not much about the original events.
Not really, virginity was always known and respected amongst the Jews
and then into Christianity, both religions have a long and cherished
history of the importance of it. (see below).
>
>As far as I know, 1st century Jews had no particular focus on virginity.
Then you may not know very far. :)
Jesus our Lord, St John the Baptist, St John the beloved Apostle, St
Paul the apostle to name but a few in the NT. As for jews there was
Elijah, Daniel the prophet, the three young men-Shadrach, Meschak
and Abed-Nego. Then there was the multiple injunctions in the law of
Moses regarding virginity and what they could and could not do.
Priests daughters and wives had their own specific regulations in
these areas as well.
Then there was first century AD Masada and perhaps even Qumran, the
sect of Essenes which some number up to 4,000 single men who espoused
a virgin life for the whole of ones life and had men living that
lifestyle, equating to todays Orthodox monasteries. All the above I
believe is above dispute by any historians of the Church and Jewish
peoples.
Virginity, its elevated position and requirements are nothing new but
have been a standard since ancient days. Even the wife of Isaac was
mentiooned as "a virgin who had not known a man", The double reference
there to virginity was not a mistake and speaks volumes towards the
Holy Spirit who inspired the recording of them.
I shall leave the final subject you interweaved into your response
which nearly caused me to not respond to your post.
Virginity has always been an important issue and the non importance
that our society places on the matter is no way to attempt to
understand the topic in its Biblical perspective. We need rather to
commence with what God has said and taught, then his prophets and
teachers, evangelists and apostles.
May peace and grace be yours.
Athanasius
wrote:
Just a couple of historical points.
>perhaps the arrival of
>venereal diseases like syphilis, brought back to Europe by the returning
>crusaders. Any ideas?
It has long been held that Syphillis was brought back to Europe by
-Christopher Columbus- after visiting the Americas and his men
contracting it from the native Indians where Anthropologists have
noted its existence among native Indians.
However, a recent dig in England shows the existence of advanced
syphillis amongst the bones in a graveyard of an old English Abbey
which dated just prior to 1492, thus proving the existence in England
prior to that time. However, thiis matter is under invrestigation as
we speak and is not accepted by all in the relevant field as yet. In
any case there appears to be no widespread syphillis in England prior
to that time in any of the 50,000 graves that have been excavated so
far (apart from the ones mentioned at the Abbey). Since that abbey was
a port city (forget which one) there is a possibility the monks were
nursing sick foreigners who had advanced syphillis.
>(Remember that in the feudal system, the local
>Lord had rights over all the women including that to deflower them as
>they came of age - virgins couldn´t have VD!)
No. "deflowering virgins" would have been about the main reason to
rebel amongst the men who intended to mary them or their
fathers/brothers. What you are referring to is rather the brides night
rule referred to in the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart, even if this
practice was allowed by King Edward the Long shanks for a short time
(and I have no knowledge that it was) with a view to conquoring a
people, it was in no way the -norm- for all lords and their serfs
through the Christian world. In most cases the act would have brought
about the instant death of the lord. I guess you fail to comprehend
the importance of why females were divided into two camps in those
days. maidens and ladies. maidens were viorgins, dressed
appropriately, were chaperoned, were in many cases house bound with
their parents and this is where the term 'maidenhead' comes from.
Ladies on the other hand were not maidens, either through marriage or
other means. We see even at the later time of Elizabeth the first (who
was not a maiden) attempting to dress herself and appear to her realm
as a sort of elevated virgin Queen, many say to replace the Virgin
Mary so to give the english protestants a replacement. I am sure you
have seen woodcuts and paintings of QE1 with her painted white face,
flaming hair like a crown and virginal dress and composure. The act
was surely no accident.
Also the teachings on the purity of virginity go way back before this
time period anyway. These matters were being debated openly and in
writing during the days of the pagan roman empire.
Methinks you have a modern and mistaken view of the importance of this
topic to societies throughout the last few thousand years. We often
see this modern attitude placed back ionto time in many modern movies,
such behaviours that were punishable by death in the days that they
are purported to have been occurring.
Peace and grace.
Mark T
>>I find all this attention to Mary rather amazing.
>
> And rather Biblical...."fronm henceforth -all- generations shall call
> me blessed!". I am sure that those who fulfill that injunction refer
> to St Mary as blessed. :)
The veneration of Mary was a way of incorporating the feminie side of God
(found in pagan fertility religions) into Christianity. If people had
looked more closely they would have found that Wisdom is feminine in the Old
Testament.
Read
- "The Gospel According To Woman: Christianity's creation of the sex war in
the west" - Karen Armstrong
- "Born of a Woman" - John Shelby Spong
- "Jesus and the Goddess" - Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
Athanasius
wrote:
>"Athanasius" wrote:
>
>>>I find all this attention to Mary rather amazing.
>>
>> And rather Biblical...."fronm henceforth -all- generations shall call
>> me blessed!". I am sure that those who fulfill that injunction refer
>> to St Mary as blessed. :)
>
>The veneration of Mary was a way of incorporating the feminie side of God
God has no feminine side. He has deemed to declare Himself in male
terms ( I am sure I have no need to quote the copious times He did
that?). :)
Jesus Christ of course was a male. The Holy Spirit is neuter, asexual
if you will allow.
Wisdom is an attribute and like the Church or sailing ships may be
referred to in the feminine without issue. Of course wisdom is not now
or has ever been God. :) Nor has the church been either.
>(found in pagan fertility religions) into Christianity. If people had
>looked more closely they would have found that Wisdom is feminine in the Old
>Testament.
No one needed to look more closely as they always knew wisdom may be
spoken of in the feminine, however, wisdom is not spoken of as God. :)
>
>Read
>
>- "The Gospel According To Woman: Christianity's creation of the sex war in
>the west" - Karen Armstrong
No thanks.
>
>- "Born of a Woman" - John Shelby Spong
No thanks.
>
>- "Jesus and the Goddess" - Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
No thanks.
Read:
St Athanasius the apostolic.
St Clement of Alexandria.
St Ignatius of Antioch
St Justin Martyr.
St John Chrysostom
St Ephraim the Syrian
St Gregory of Nyssa and
St Gregory of Nazianzen.
Chris Bell
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:06:06 GMT, Chris Bell <c.b...@dataslow.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> Peace and grace to you Chris.
>
>
>>I find all this attention to Mary rather amazing.
>
>
> And rather Biblical...."fronm henceforth -all- generations shall call
> me blessed!". I am sure that those who fulfill that injunction refer
> to St Mary as blessed. :)
>
> Also Traditional Christianity is not anemic when it comes to the
> deeper things of God and His saints.
>
>
>>I think it says quite
>>a lot about the concerns of those who wrote such things and their
>>attitude to sex, but not much about the original events.
>
>
> Not really, virginity was always known and respected amongst the Jews
> and then into Christianity, both religions have a long and cherished
> history of the importance of it. (see below).
>
>>As far as I know, 1st century Jews had no particular focus on virginity.
>
>
> Then you may not know very far. :)
>
that someone who had might reply. I am glad you have.
> Jesus our Lord, St John the Baptist, St John the beloved Apostle, St
> Paul the apostle to name but a few in the NT. As for jews there was
> Elijah, Daniel the prophet, the three young men-Shadrach, Meschak
> and Abed-Nego. Then there was the multiple injunctions in the law of
> Moses regarding virginity and what they could and could not do.
> Priests daughters and wives had their own specific regulations in
> these areas as well.
>
can you give me some references here please, particularly to the law.
> Then there was first century AD Masada and perhaps even Qumran, the
> sect of Essenes which some number up to 4,000 single men who espoused
> a virgin life for the whole of ones life and had men living that
> lifestyle, equating to todays Orthodox monasteries. All the above I
> believe is above dispute by any historians of the Church and Jewish
> peoples.
>
No dispute here. However, I understood that these groups were rather
misogynist, considering the female gender to be unclean, and not even
allowing female animals never mind people in some of their areas (much
like Mt. Athos). That is not quite the same as valuing virginity.
> Virginity, its elevated position and requirements are nothing new but
> have been a standard since ancient days. Even the wife of Isaac was
> mentiooned as "a virgin who had not known a man", The double reference
> there to virginity was not a mistake and speaks volumes towards the
> Holy Spirit who inspired the recording of them.
>
Reference? (yes, I am being lazy, and if you don´t have it to hand, I
will find my concordance and search it out).
> I shall leave the final subject you interweaved into your response
> which nearly caused me to not respond to your post.
>
Sorry you had that reaction. I am glad you decided to reply anyway.
> Virginity has always been an important issue and the non importance
> that our society places on the matter is no way to attempt to
> understand the topic in its Biblical perspective. We need rather to
> commence with what God has said and taught, then his prophets and
> teachers, evangelists and apostles.
>
Agreed. However, what comes to my mind instantly on this subject is
God´s command to ¨Go forth and multiply¨, and he did not mean
arithmetic! Do you know of any modification to this injunction that
makes virginity a higher calling for a woman as a direct part of the
law? After all, even Paul claimed that a woman is saved by childbirth,
thus making it rather difficult for a virgin! (I consider male virginity
a different issue and likely to generate much heat and less light).
> May peace and grace be yours.
>
>
> Athanasius, dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au
> http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
> If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world.St Athanasius
Chris
Mark T
>>The veneration of Mary was a way of incorporating the feminie side of God
>
> God has no feminine side. He has deemed to declare Himself in male
> terms
God has no gender. Male bible writers (and editors) deemed God to be male.
> Read:
> St Athanasius the apostolic.
> St Clement of Alexandria.
> St Ignatius of Antioch
> St Justin Martyr.
> St John Chrysostom
> St Ephraim the Syrian
> St Gregory of Nyssa and
> St Gregory of Nazianzen.
They're all dead!
Karen Armstrong and John Shelby Spong are alive.
Chris Bell
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:06:06 GMT, Chris Bell <c.b...@dataslow.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> Just a couple of historical points.
>
>
>>perhaps the arrival of
>>venereal diseases like syphilis, brought back to Europe by the returning
>>crusaders. Any ideas?
>
>
> It has long been held that Syphillis was brought back to Europe by
> -Christopher Columbus- after visiting the Americas and his men
> contracting it from the native Indians where Anthropologists have
> noted its existence among native Indians.
>
source says that the debate continues and that the 16th century
epidemics in Europe could have been caused by a combination of factors,
triggered by widespread warfare. I may have been thinking of gonorrhea
which was well known in the Middle East but I can´t find any reference
to its prevalence in Europe. It may just be that, as usual, it became
much more prevalent with the movement of soldiers over long distances
during the crusades. However, this was probably too late a period for it
to be a satisfactory explanation.
> However, a recent dig in England shows the existence of advanced
> syphillis amongst the bones in a graveyard of an old English Abbey
> which dated just prior to 1492, thus proving the existence in England
> prior to that time. However, thiis matter is under invrestigation as
> we speak and is not accepted by all in the relevant field as yet. In
> any case there appears to be no widespread syphillis in England prior
> to that time in any of the 50,000 graves that have been excavated so
> far (apart from the ones mentioned at the Abbey). Since that abbey was
> a port city (forget which one) there is a possibility the monks were
> nursing sick foreigners who had advanced syphillis.
>
>
>>(Remember that in the feudal system, the local
>>Lord had rights over all the women including that to deflower them as
>>they came of age - virgins couldn´t have VD!)
>
>
> No. "deflowering virgins" would have been about the main reason to
> rebel amongst the men who intended to mary them or their
> fathers/brothers. What you are referring to is rather the brides night
> rule referred to in the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart, even if this
> practice was allowed by King Edward the Long shanks for a short time
> (and I have no knowledge that it was) with a view to conquoring a
> people, it was in no way the -norm- for all lords and their serfs
> through the Christian world. In most cases the act would have brought
> about the instant death of the lord.
Are you sure? I had heard (and not from Braveheart) that this practise
continued until the 18th Century in parts of England. In any case, who
would have been able to take the Lord to task? He wielded absolute power
over his domain, at least as long as he did not attract the attention of
the King. Remember, he was also the local magistrate as well as enforcer
of the law, so there was no-one else you could turn to for justice. The
only alternative was to abscond, and that was really no choice at all
for a woman.
I guess you fail to comprehend
> the importance of why females were divided into two camps in those
> days. maidens and ladies. maidens were viorgins, dressed
> appropriately, were chaperoned, were in many cases house bound with
> their parents and this is where the term 'maidenhead' comes from.
> Ladies on the other hand were not maidens, either through marriage or
> other means. We see even at the later time of Elizabeth the first (who
> was not a maiden) attempting to dress herself and appear to her realm
> as a sort of elevated virgin Queen, many say to replace the Virgin
> Mary so to give the english protestants a replacement. I am sure you
> have seen woodcuts and paintings of QE1 with her painted white face,
> flaming hair like a crown and virginal dress and composure. The act
> was surely no accident.
>
Yes I have, and it certainly was no accident. I had not heard the theory
that this was to replace the Virgin for the protestants. Makes sense though.
> Also the teachings on the purity of virginity go way back before this
> time period anyway. These matters were being debated openly and in
> writing during the days of the pagan roman empire.
>
Any references? I have read very little about this period and would like
to read more.
> Methinks you have a modern and mistaken view of the importance of this
> topic to societies throughout the last few thousand years. We often
> see this modern attitude placed back ionto time in many modern movies,
> such behaviours that were punishable by death in the days that they
> are purported to have been occurring.
>
Probably. This is a common occurrence and one that makes me very
suspicious of many modern ¨historical¨ movies. It is difficult to always
be able to identify when it is occurring unless you have good knowledge
of the period portrayed.
However, I still think there is an interesting point here. In the
western church, there has been a gradual increase in respect shown to
the Virgin and in the doctrine about her. Why?
There is currently some interest in the Anglican church in this issue as
it is one of the few sticking points in getting closer to the Roman
church. The assumption doctrine is quite a problem . Am I right in
assuming that the Orthodox tradition does not have this doctrine?
On a more personal note, I know a clergyman who is quite a Mary devotee,
and uses the phrase ¨Mother of God¨ frequently. At first I found this
uncomfortable as this was not in my usual experience. I still find it
jars a little, but I am getting used to it. What phrase do orthodox
christians usually use to decribe Mary?
> Peace and grace.
>
>
>
> Athanasius, dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au
> http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/
> If the world is against Athanasius then Athanasius is against the world.St Athanasius
Chris
Athanasius
wrote:
>"Athanasius" wrote:
>
>>>The veneration of Mary was a way of incorporating the feminie side of God
>>
>> God has no feminine side. He has deemed to declare Himself in male
>> terms
>
>God has no gender.
Never said he did :) (Christ was male though most certainly).
> Male bible writers (and editors) deemed God to be male.
Or God referred to Himself in male terms (as I stated). :)
>
>
>> Read:
>> St Athanasius the apostolic.
>> St Clement of Alexandria.
>> St Ignatius of Antioch
>> St Justin Martyr.
>> St John Chrysostom
>> St Ephraim the Syrian
>> St Gregory of Nyssa and
>> St Gregory of Nazianzen.
>
>They're all dead!
"God is not the God of the dead!". They are all spiritually alive and
in most areas were theologically orthodox. :)
>
>Karen Armstrong and John Shelby Spong are alive.
But are they spiritually alive? Thats the question. Since I have had
personal interaction with Spong I wonder, but am happy to wait until
they die so their work can be suitable responded to by the Church once
all the heresies are forthcoming. :)
"Do not allow the oil of the sinner to anoint your head." (One of the
removed verses from the Old testament which some fathers quoted as
being once in there).
Lawrence Wong From:
>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:11 +1000, "Mark T" <wh@tfunwithfundies0101>
>wrote:
>> Male bible writers (and editors) deemed God to be male.
>Or God referred to Himself in male terms (as I stated). :)
Yes, God also refer to Himself in female terms. There is a verse where God
speaks of letting Israel suckle at His breast , obviously a man cannot do
that :) God is spirit, neither male nor female. Jesus said He wish to
gather Jerusalem as a Hen gather her chicks. Hens are females.
RAZA 2005
Qolon
male terms (as I stated)" [Athanasius]} where you correct another by
pointing out the error of their religious beliefs. Should they continue to
peddle such error then you'll know that you are dealing with a dogmatic and
perhaps irrational person who is incapable of correction and growth beyond
their vain traditions.
Such a person should be seen for what they are--liars or as the Dead Sea
Scrolls suggest "Flattery Seekers and "White Washers and Men of Mockery".
"And the high priest Ananias {the cloud of the Lord} commanded them that
stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul {small; little} unto
him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me
after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they
that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?" [Acts 23:2-4]
- dolf
"Lawrence Wong From:" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:d8viqn$1i99$1...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Athanasius
<s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Athanasius <dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:02:11 +1000, "Mark T" <wh@tfunwithfundies0101>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Male bible writers (and editors) deemed God to be male.
>
>>Or God referred to Himself in male terms (as I stated). :)
>
>Yes, God also refer to Himself
Yes God referred to Himself in male terms and the Son taught us to
refer to Him as "Our Father", as I said before to Mark, no one is
attempting to say the father has a physical being which is male (nor
is He female physically). My single and unassailable point has been
God declares Himself in male terms, the use of metaphores at various
times, notwithstanding.
>Jesus said He wish to
>gather Jerusalem as a Hen gather her chicks. Hens are females.
Yes Jesus the -male- used a metaphore to express His love for
Jerusalem, He never ceased being male when he used those words. :)
"Our father, which art in heaven......."
Peace and grace.
Qolon
terms, the use of metaphores at various times, notwithstanding."
Well there is the point of differentiation in that God as 'Elohiym declares
himself in homoiotic singleness and androgynous {having both male and female
characteristics) terms.
In that the hermetic view from which your notion of the Trinity {ie. unity
and multiplicity) is obtained is in effect derived from the Onomantic
arithmetic proposed by Pythagorean (c 580-500 BCE) as heteros-other
based--Systems of philosophical/theological belief derived from the
Pythagorean are by Nature metaphorical.
Which saw the elements #1 and #2 as distinct from the meaning of number and
assigned to odd number a male attribute (eg: the monad as Zeus) and even
number a female attribute (eg: the duad as Hera) and gave them co-jointly a
spermatic quality. Similar to the 'ying' as correspondence, fill, filled,
fill up (yin is cause, negative principle) and 'yang' as positive principle
(yan is satisfacton, satiation, speech).
Thus the dialectical progression within hermetic mysticism is: Mentalism,
Correspondence, Vibration, Polarity, Rhythm, Cause & Effect, Gender
The abstruse and existentialist argument from nothingness and the
archtectural basis for an alternate oral tradition which is advanced by the
Kabbalistic literature 'Sefer Yezirah', has by Jewish scholars such as Rabbi
Aryen Kaplin, been associated with Rabbi Yehoshua, a renowned expert in all
the occult arts and one of five main disciples of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai
(47 BCE to 73 CE). This literature sustains the notion that the
quintessential source of theological mystery contentions of the time
involved:
a) A gender based dialectic {ie. Ten sefirot of nothingness in the number of
ten fingers five opposite five with a singular covenant [Yetzirah 1:3]};
b) A triangulation of number performed on the Tetragrammation of YHWH as 72
{ie. the mystery of the three Mothers Alef, Mem, Shin (A-U-M) [Yetzirah
1:13]} and,
c) Geometric homoiotic construction associated with the Chaldean
interpretation given the taxonomy sequence of 22 elements [Yetzirah 1:2]
The view depends on whether one's religious belief is framed by the Torah's
(c 1550 BCE) paradigm or the alternate hymeneal paradigm provided by
hermetic mysticism. When the Carmelite friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini in
January 1615 CE argued that the heliocentric model of the solar system was
not incompatible with the Bible. As the author of a 'Treatise on Natural
Cosmological Divination', he did not introduce any new principles of
biblical interpretation in his analysis; rather, he sets out and applies the
Roman Catholic Church's traditional rules of Biblical interpretation, which
he identifies as symbolic:
'When Holy Scripture attributes something to God or to any other creature
which would otherwise be improper and incommensurate, then it should be
interpreted and explained in one or more of the following ways.
First, it is said to pertain metaphorically and proportionately, or by
similitude.
Second, it is said...according to our mode of consideration, apprehension,
understanding, knowing, etc.
Thirdly, it is said according to vulgar opinion and the common way of
speaking.' [Alister E. McGrath, © 1999, Science & Religion - An
Introduction, p 12-13]
An alternative view to the hermetic 'heteros-other' symbolic number paradigm
as the differentiation of 'male' and 'female' being the foundation to
hymeneal mysticism and the ritual 'uncleanliness' laws is proposed by the
Jewish laws associated with 'defects' and 'forbidden mixtures', recognition
of father's authority and to the law of consanguinity {ie. dealing with
relationship by blood, kinship, common affinity} in that they were equitable
in applying to both males and females alike. This extended to prohibitions
of inequality: "And also he should not give her to anyone who is not fit for
her, because that is 'two kinds' [ie. forbidden mixtures]" [Damascus
Document, 4Q271 Frag 1 Col 1:9-10]
Unlike the hermetic view which saw the 'male' and 'female' as two distinct
entities {ie. two kinds} and opposites of an otherwise incommensurate
nature, the Jewish laws viewed them as constituting the same nature as two
halves of a soul in union as a single androgynous life: "So God-'ELOYIHM
{ie. homoiotic in Nature} created mankind {'ADAM} in his own image-TSELEM,
in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
[Genesis 1:27]
Thus the laws on homogeneity may be viewed as similarly associated with
attributions of 'defects' and 'forbidden mixtures' in that they don't
prohibit same-gender sexual relationships, but prohibit bisexual or any
other relationship which interfers with the single life. Similarly the laws
on beastiality do not prohibit entities of the same nature copulating, but
those of disparate entities.
- dolf
"Athanasius" <dcn_ath...@REMOVEyahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:rno6b11m70h0b9i0f...@4ax.com...
Qolon
- dolf
Lawrence Wong From:
>Remember all these, even small occasions {eg: "God referred to Himself in
>male terms (as I stated)" [Athanasius]} where you correct another by
>pointing out the error of their religious beliefs. Should they continue to
>peddle such error then you'll know that you are dealing with a dogmatic and
>perhaps irrational person who is incapable of correction and growth beyond
>their vain traditions.
Possibly, however, I also recall that I was more domgatic myself, when I
was younger. :)
Now there was a question I wanted to ask you, but I can't for the life of
me think what it was...?
It either had something to do with Ivan Panin, or the 1260 days...??
<RAZA scratches his head>
Me and my bad memory....doh!
RAZA 2005
Qolon
your discourses subsequent have been characterised by smiley insincerity:
"However deeper reflection makes me think you'd have to have a lot of
patience to put up with all my rubbish posts :) " [Lawrence Wong, 1031 hrs
20 June, 2005]
I'm not an expert on Ivan Panin (b. 12 December 1855), so I'm not sure why
you'd be asking me a question on him. Whilst I have an interest in milesian
ordinals as the numerical values assigned to words which is called gametria.
My interest only extends to its inception:
[#72, #63, #75, #4 - Using Guidance/ Sourceless, #81 - Making the Essence
Clear/ Propounding the Essential, (#5, #10)] {Act of Nature (DOUBLE - Act of
Nature (Transforming Nature)) and association as common linquistic and
kabbalistic paradigm to the underlyinging homoiotic noumenon as encyclical
architecture.
This homoiotic noumenon appears to provide a sticky zone. Thus a gematric
based event {ie. vMeme/Moment Object} occurring in one area, will be
expected to have a reflection where ever the matrix entry in which it is
attached, has a correspondence within the noumenon.
"The Greek alphabet is thought to be the ancestor of all major European
alphabets today. Although the script was adapted from the Semites around the
tenth or ninth century BCE, it included significant improvements which were
directly responsible for its influence. Among the improvements were the
transformation of certain Semitic letters into vowels, and the invention of
new letters for sounds absent from Semitic languages. Originally, just like
the Semitic scripts, Greek was written from right to left but following the
sixth century BCE, it was already written from left to right and top to
bottom.
The early script had many variations depending on the geographical region;
the two major subdivisions were the eastern and western ones. But in spite
of the local diversities, it gradually moved towards uniformity. A major
event in this process was when the Ionic alphabet of Miletus {ie. from which
the Milesian ordinals is derived} was officially adopted in Athens in 403
BCE. Shortly after this, the rest of the mainland followed Athens's example
and by the middle of the fourth century BCE almost all local alphabets were
unified, establishing the classical twenty-four letter Greek script. In the
middle of the third century BCE, Aristophanes of Byzantium introduced the
three accents, acute, grave, and circumflex, in order to mark the tone or
pitch of Greek words." [cf: © 2000 Logoi.com. All Rights Reserved
http://www.logoi.com/notes/greek_alphabet.html ]
As for the 1260 days being equated with 42 months each of 30 days or 3.5 x
360 days this is complicated by the reality that the Hebrew solar/lunar
calendar associated with the Temple's Priestly Service is comprised of 4
quarters of 91 {ie. 30+30+31 months} days = 364 days.
Thus the period equals: 3 x 364 days {ie. an 'oth cycle of 1092 days) + 168
days.
"Are there not twelve-DODEKA {ie dozen} hours-HORA in the day-HEMERA? If
anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of
this world. But if one walks in the night,, he stumbles, becuase the light
is not in him. These things [Jesus] said to them, 'Our friend Lazarus
{assistance of God}sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.'" [Jesus of
Nazareth in John 11:9]
The consideration is whether Jesus' comment on 12 hrs in the day' "Are there
not twelve-DODEKA {ie dozen} hours-HORA in the day-HEMERA?" [John 11:9] is
related to the twin son(s) of Nuit, Hoor Paar Kraat (Set) represents the
midnight sun and the unmanifested universe (which is why he is "where
consciousness is not"). Heru (Horus) represents the manifested universe, the
noonday Sun, activated by the divine light.
This teaching is identified as related to the astrological mythology of
Egyptian/Chaldean Kabbalistic cosmology as the begotten (Aeons) or seminal
representations as the distinguishing characteristic between the Torah and
Egyptian hymeneal mysticism which saw the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
as equated with the wisdom as abnormal knowledge or the curious / magical
arts related to Hathor as the Mother Goddess of Love (ie. 'the many
fornications of the prostitute, full of elegance and mistress of
enchantment' [cf 4Q169] and the Tree of Life/Eternity known as Nut or Nuit,
which lay centrally within the Garden of Eden, as being related to an
alternate chronological principle concerning the equinox cycles and to which
the theological retort as the unique chronology of the Yahad Dead Sea Scroll
community applied.
Since the calendar commenced on a Wednesday and in association to the
Equinox {ie. of which the Egyptian Sphinx is emblematic and the HRUMACHIS}
thus to use the example of the Equinox on Wednesday 20 March 1996
Equinox of Wednesday 20 March 1996 + 1260 days = 1 September 1999 + 22 days
= 23 September as Equinox. The usage of the
Using this principle as a correspondence between the 22 taxonomy elements
(ie. the HRUMACHIS: He (#5), Resh (#200), Vav (#6), Mem (#40), Aleph (#1),
Chet (#8), Yod (#10), Samek (#60) = #330 {ie. Holy Spirit of Truth and
Justice, Equity of Political Rights}) and the base-7 chronology {
ie. 22/7 as 3W1D ... 6000 as 122J3W1D as a teleological argument not only
for the existence of God, but a relationship between the LOGOS and INFINITY.
The Genesis view, that not only does all occurrence which can be measured in
time comes from the apeiron, but the relativity of the time sequence itself
underlies the religious statement that God is 'arch kai teles' {cf: 'I am as
Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning-arche and the End-telos' [Revelation 1:8;
21:6-8; 22:13], ie. Telos ('achariyth) = Arch (re'shiyth) + c² :
Genesis/Arch as (22/7) 3W1D ... Jubilee & Torah @ Sinai as 50J + 12 x 6J as
'oth 294 year cycle + 3W1D = 6,000 (122J3W1D) years as Saturday 1 January
2000 + solar eclipse on 25 December 2000 + 6 days = Telos}, which as the
logos, penetrates and rules all being.
} and that our Gregorian calendar is in effect a cycle of 7 days within 400
years and an equitable dispersal of 22 elements), I determined then that 1
September, 2001 might be considered to represent an apogee of this cycle:
Mem (13th letter = 15 x 400 years x 365.24.25 MOD 22) as #41 = 13th
September 2001.
And by which I may continue to observe the manifest of Divince Providence as
Phenomenology of Spirit viz the Grapple Calendar:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html .
Thus the awakening of the sleeping (ie. the resurrection of the dead is a
central Judaeo-Christian theological tenet) or Lazarus (assistance of God)
might have a further correspondence to the view that the Sphinx is often
associated with the sleeping.
- dolf
"Lawrence Wong From:" <s37...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:d9536p$2ae5$3...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au...
Qolon
Using this principle as a correspondence between the 22 taxonomy elements
(ie. the HRUMACHIS: He (#5), Resh (#200), Vav (#6), Mem (#40), Aleph (#1),
Chet (#8), Yod (#10), Samek (#60) = #330 {ie. Holy Spirit of Truth and
Justice, Equity of Political Rights}) and the base-7 chronology {
ie. 22/7 as 3W1D ... 6000 as 122J3W1D as a teleological argument not only
for the existence of God, but a relationship between the LOGOS and INFINITY.
The Genesis view, that not only does all occurrence which can be measured in
time comes from the apeiron, but the relativity of the time sequence itself
underlies the religious statement that God is 'arch kai teles' {cf: 'I am as
Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning-arche and the End-telos' [Revelation 1:8;
21:6-8; 22:13], ie. Telos ('achariyth) = Arch (re'shiyth) + c² :
Genesis/Arch as (22/7) 3W1D ... Jubilee & Torah @ Sinai as 50J + 12 x 6J as
'oth 294 year cycle + 3W1D = 6,000 (122J3W1D) years as Saturday 1 January
2000 + solar eclipse on 25 December 2000 + 6 days = Telos}, which as the
logos, penetrates and rules all being.
} and that of our Gregorian calendar is in effect a cycle of 7 days within
400
years and an equitable dispersal of 22 elements), I determined then that 1
September, 2001 might be considered to represent an apogee of this cycle:
Mem (13th letter = 15 x 400 years x 365.24.25 MOD 22) as #41 = 13th to 17th
September 2001.
And by which I may continue to observe the manifest of Divince Providence as
Phenomenology of Spirit viz the Grapple Calendar:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html .
Thus the awakening of the sleeping (ie. the resurrection of the dead is a
central Judaeo-Christian theological tenet) or Lazarus (assistance of God)
might have a further correspondence to the view that the Sphinx is often
associated with the sleeping.
Oh I am a twin and my first name at birth was RUdolph, but that is neither
here not there.
Qolon
zone. Thus a gematric
based event {ie. vMeme/Moment Object} occurring in one area, will be
expected to have a reflection where ever the matrix entry in which it is
attached, has a correspondence within the noumenon."
The 72 daemons associated to the homoiotic noumenon to which I have assigned
a 7 fold mathematical matrix have been associated by the Egyptians to
astrological entities for thousands of years. In circa 1550 BCE they were
given a linguistic dialectic association by the Hebrews as an annagramation
obtained from the biblical text Exodus 14:19-21. They may to considered to
not only have existed by number of eternity, but for 6000 years as inherent
to the Semitic language and reasoning, but to the year cycle and the daily
cycle--Thus they may be considered to have an impress on the ordering of
society.
I'll demostrate several examples of this from our previous discussion. The
first is the view that the Greek letter 'Sigma' meaning the sum of all
values which is associated in the chronological plane to the value '#4 -
Using Guidance/Sourceless'. The Torah Angel/Daemon is Nitael {#50, #10,
#400 = #460} which is also the sum equivalent of the term "Gematria as
Isopsephy". The date on which Ivan Panin was born is 12 December is the
same #4 daemon as follows:
#4 - 8th Dec
#29 - 9th Dec
#2 - 10th Dec
#72 - 11th Dec
#4 - 12th Dec
The dialog as question, "Are there not twelve-DODEKA {ie dozen} hours-HORA
in the day-HEMERA?" [John 11:9] related to Lazarus concerns his sickness and
is qualified by the statement: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the
glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it."
The entry for 12 midnight and 21 March is [#13, #12, #29, #69 - Profound
Use/ The Function of the Mysterious, #11 - The Value of Non-Existence/ The
Function of the Non-Existent, (#9, #22)] and Adam - Taken from 4 corners/
Earthy; red.
At Jesus' resurrection from the tomb, the stone is rolled away and "the
handkerchief {ie. Of Latin origin; a sudarium (sweat cloth) binding the face
of a corpse} that had been around His head, [was] not lying with the linen
cloths, but folded together in a place by itself." [John 20:6-7]
The entry for 12 midday and [#25, #33, #33, #63 - Origins in Reversal/
Consider Beginnings, #18 - The Origin of Ethical Concepts/ The Palliation of
Vulgarity, (#26, #59)] and Asa - physician; cure
Thus to read the entry for '#4 - Using Guidance/Sourceless' from Lao Tzu's
(6th Century BCE) Tao (the way) Te (of virtue) Ching (and causality)
interpreted by Wang Bi (226-249 CE)
"The vessel of the Dao is empty, so use it but do not try to refill it. It
is such an abyss, oh, that it appears to be the progenitor of the myriad of
things. It blunts the sharp, cuts away the tangled, merges with the
brilliant, and becomes one with the very dust. Its depth is so deep, oh,
that it seems somehow to exist. I do not know whos child it could be, for it
appears to have been born before the Lord.
Adhering strictly to the measures of one noble household cannot keep that
household whole, and adhering strictly to the measures of one state cannot
keep that state intact. Even it one were to use up all his strength in
lifting heavy burdens, it could not be of any use. Therefore, although one
might know about government as to applies to the myriad of folk {
NOTE: According to Psalm 154 of David found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls,
the Dao/Tao might be considered the equivalent to wisdom -- "Join together
{ie. Yahad} to make his salvation known and do not hesitate to proclaim his
power and his glory to all ordinary people. For wisdom has been granted in
order to make YHWH's glory known, and in order to recount his many deeds she
has been taught to man: to make his power known to ordinary people, to
instruct his greatness to those lacking judgment, those who are far from her
gates, those who are withdrawn from here entrances."
}, if he governs without regard to the Dao with its two modes [the yin and
the yang which generate the four basic images of the dialectic: thesis,
anti-thesis, synthesis and progression and these in turn the eight
triagrams], he cannot serve to support them.
Although Earth consists of physical forms with their earthbound souls, if it
did not take its model from Heaven, it could not keep its quietude intact.
Although Heven consists of embryonic essences with their images, if it did
not take its models from the Dao, it could not preseve its purity. Used as
an empty vessel, its [the Dao's] use is inexhaustible, but if one tries to
fill it in order to make it into something full [shi], if any filling is
brought to it, it just overflows. Thus 'the vessel of the Dao is empty, so
use it but fo not again try to refill it,' for what makes it inexhaustible
already fills it completely!
No matter how vast a physical form [xing]. nothing could hamper its [the
Dao's] power to embody [ti]. No matter how great an undertaking [shi],
nothing ould utilis its capacity [liang]. If the myriad of things were to
abandon it and seek a different master, where would such a master be found?
Indeed, is it not ture that 'it is such an abyss, oh, that it appears to be
the progenitor of the myriad of things'? It blunts the sharp but suffers no
damage; it cuts away the tangled but it is not worn out; it merges with the
brilliant but it does not soil its power to embody [ti]; it becomes one with
the very dust but does not compromise [yu] its authenticity [shen]. Indeed,
is it not true that 'its depth is so deep, oh, that it seems somehow to
exist'?
As Earth must keep its physical forms [xing], its virtue [de] cannot exceeds
what it upholds, and, as Heaven must remain content with its images [xiang],
its virtue cannot exceed what it covers. Thus neither Heaven nor Earth can
equal it [the Dao]. Indeed, is it not true that 'it appears to have been
born before the Lord?' 'The Lord' [Di] means the Lord of Heaven [Tiandi].
[Courtesy and Copyright 1999 Columbia University Press, Translation by
Richard Lynn, p 57-58]
Names and Their Significance
by Rabbi Paysach Krohn
In Judaism, a name is not merely a conglomeration of letters put together as
a convenient way to refer to someone. Ideally, it is a definition of the
individual - a description of his personality and an interpretation of his
traits. It may even be a portent of the person's future, or perhaps a prayer
that the person bearing this particular name shall live up to the potential
expressed in the name.
The Torah (Genesis 5:29) relates that Noah was given his name with the
prayer, "This one will bring us rest (noah) from our work and the toil of
our hands." The intent was that Noah would lighten the burden of his
family's toil by introducing agricultural tools (Radak).
Arizal writes that the nature and behavior of a person, whether good or bad,
can be found by analyzing his name. Even the numerical value of the name's
letters is an indication of the individual's character and personality.
The Talmud (Yoma 83b) describes the incident of R' Meir and his colleagues
R' Yose and R' Yehudah who sought lodging at an inn for the Sabbath. R' Meir
was known to pay close attention to a person's name. Upon learning that the
innkeeper's name was Kidor, he refused to entrust his valuables to him, for
the name Kidor brought to mind the phrase: "for they are a generation
(ki-dor) full of changes, children in whom there is no trust." (Deuteronomy
32:20)
Nevertheless, R' Yehudah and R' Yose, who did not pay heed to names,
entrusted their money to the innkeeper. Subsequently, the innkeeper denied
taking their money from them for safekeeping, and it was lost. R' Meir's
money, however, was spared.
THE NAME DEFINES
To label something properly is to define its nature. What one may see as a
rusty old spoon, another will see as antique silverware. What one may
consider random scribbling, another will consider abstract art, And what one
observes as a heap of scrap in a city square, another will call modern
sculpture befitting a large metropolis.
Rabbeinu Bachya (on Genesis 2:19) comments that Adam revealed his great
wisdom when he named all species of creation. With his superior intellect,
every name that he chose, together with the combination of its letters,
defined the nature and characteristic of that creature.
For example, he named the lion "Aryeh." The letters Yud-heh - which are part
of the name of God, the King of kings and Ruler of the universe - represent
the lion's role as king of the jungle.
Another example: Adam named the ordinary weak-minded donkey "Chamor," a word
that is cognate with "chomer" - simple elementary matter. "Chomer" is also a
measure of volume (see Hoshea 3:2), signifying the load which the donkey
forever carries on its back.
At the outset of mankind, to name meant to define.
It was just this kind of definition that Moses sought when he asked God at
the burning bush, (Exodus 3:13) "When I come to the children of Israel and
say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they will
then say to me, 'What is His Name?' what shall I answer?" Nachmanides
comments that it could not have been merely a literal name that Moses
sought, for if Israel were to question the existence of God, it would be
inconsequential for Moses to reveal a name to them. Rather, Moses requested
a Divine Name that would signify the existence of His supervision and
benevolent nature, for that would assure the Jews of their redemption. "What
is His Name?" meant, "What is His main characteristic?" [Courstesy: Project
Genesis http://www.torah.org or
http://www.torah.org/features/par-kids/names.html Excerpted with
permissionfrom "BRIS MILAH," a compendium of laws and rituals about
circumcision and the covenant of Abraham. Published by ArtScroll/Mesorah
Publications Ltd., Brooklyn, NY. Reprinted with permission from Innernet
Magazine http://www.innernet.org.il/ ]
- dolf
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message news:...
Since your earlier days of dogmatism which evidently couldn't be sustained,
your discourses subsequent have been characterised by smiley insincerity:
"However deeper reflection makes me think you'd have to have a lot of
patience to put up with all my rubbish posts :) " [Lawrence Wong, 1031 hrs
20 June, 2005]
I'm not an expert on Ivan Panin (b. 12 December 1855), so I'm not sure why
you'd be asking me a question on him. Whilst I have an interest in milesian
ordinals as the numerical values assigned to words which is called gametria.
My interest only extends to its inception:
[#72, #63, #75, #4 - Using Guidance/ Sourceless, #81 - Making the Essence
Clear/ Propounding the Essential, (#5, #10)] {Act of Nature (DOUBLE - Act of
Nature (Transforming Nature)) and association as common linguistic and
kabbalistic paradigm to the underlying homoiotic noumenon as encyclical
Qolon
beginnings to the time of the renowned Chinese mystical sage, Fu Hsi in
circa 2850 BCE.
The triagrams are based on the principles of Yin and Yang as the opposing
yet complimentary energies that form the basis of all things. There appears
to be some disparity between whether Yin is passive and feminine while Yang
is active and masculine. As Richard Lynn's 1999 interpretation of Lao Zu's
(6th Century BCE) 'Tao Te Ching' gives an opposite interpretation of the
terms 'ying' as correspondence, fill, filled, fill up (yin is cause,
negative principle) and 'yang' as positive principle (yan is satisfacton,
satiation, speech).
Irrespective of how these are interpreted as symbols, it is clear that
together, they are considered by the binary attributions of light and dark,
man and woman, night and day, postive and negative. Further more in the
Mother Image schema assigned to the visible planets, Yin represents the moon
that exerts power over the earth, while Yang represents the heavens which
controls the sun.
It should be noted that Israel was prohibited by its own Sabbath based
legislation [Deuteronomy 4:15-20] as Decalogue, to make symbolic
associations to the astrological bodies including the sun, moon, 5 planets
and the constellations as Daemons / Angels which also comprised the Egyptian
decans as a heritage to all the other peoples, yet by subscribing to an
underlying paradigm of Number as Decade/Kabbalah, it ensures that the
document shared a metempirical commonality with the Chinese Philosophy TAO
(the way) TE (of virtue) CHING (and causality) of Lao Tzu (c 604 BCE). Which
was later regarded by some (Wang Bi 226-249 CE) as primarily a treatise on
political philosophy for heads of state, and itself bears evidence of a
common paradigm that retains a relevance and compatibility with the Torah
(c. 1550 BCE).
I had previously suggested that the Tao/Dao deploys these two male/female
modes [the yin and the yang] to generate the four Kabbalistic basic images
{ie. the lion, calf, human and eagle forms of Ezekiel's vision in circa 604
BCE and Revelation 4:6-8; See example of the Four Living Creatures (Ancient
wood engraving from Coptic Monastery of St Anthony, Red Sea, Egypt)
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/a/Aus_Orthodox/4-evangelists-1.jpg } of what
has come to be understood in Western Philosophy as the Hegelian dialectic:
thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis and progression and these in turn manifest
the eight trigrams. These eight trigrams may then be arrayed in an 8 x 8 =
64 matrix to produce the hexagrams each comprising six elements.
Thus the #8 triagrams form together with #64 hexagrams as combined form
produce the #72 images which are then thought by many to be equivalent to
#72 Angel Names conveyed by the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures.
However the difficulty is that the 8 x 8 = 64 (#260) hexagrams is only a
sub-domain. The Angel paradigm of the Judaeo-Christian Scriptures
established on an alternative taxonomical/chronological principle assigned
to the Ennead {ie. 22/7 = 3W1D is the inner dimension} and a twelve-fold
hierarchy. It may therefore be considered a dimension higher at 9 x 9 = 81
(#369).
The four basic images of Yin {short line)/Yang {long line} as the
male/female principle which produce the dialectic is both homogeneous and
heterogeneous:
Thesis: Yang + Yang {male + male principle}
Anti-Thesis: Yin + Yang {female + male principle}
Synthesis: Yin + Yin {female + female principle}
Progression: Yang + Yin {male + female principle}
However these are then grouped in two lots (upper/lower) of triads. Thus
the dialectic progression as hierarchy becomes:
#1 - Creative Principle/Heaven {Ch'ien} All Male
#2 - Passive Principle/Earth {K'un} All Female
#3 - Initial Difficulty {Chun}
#4 - Youthful inexperience {Meng}
#5 - Delay {Hsu}
#6 - Conflict {Sung}
#7 - Army (Myriads of Folk) {Shih}
#8 - Seeking Unity {Pi}
#9 - Minor Restraint {Hsiao Ch'u}
#10 - Treading Carefully {Lu}
#11 - Peace {T'ai}
#12 - Stagnation {P'i}
#13 - Companionship {T'ung Jen}
#14 - Great Possessions {Ta Yu}
#15 - Modesty {Ch'ien}
#16 - Enthusiam {Yu}
#17 - Allegiance {Sui}
#18 - Arresting Decay {Ku}
#19 - Approaching {Lin}
#20 - Contemplation {Kuan}
#21 - Biting through {Shih Ho}
#22 - Grace {Pi)
etc to 64 hexagrams
Which is then the equivalent of the following 22 Hebrew letters and their
associated Chaldean taxonomy assignments:
#1 - Nature contains Nature: {Aleph (Mother - Scales of merit) / Seraphim
(Heb. Saraph Gk. Ophis - burning, that is, (figuratively) poisonous
(serpent); specifically a fiery (serpent) or symbolical creature (from their
copper color))}
#2 - Nature rejoices in its Nature: {Beth (Double - Nature contains Nature
{#4 - Nature amended in its Nature}) / Cherubim (Gk. Cheroubim - a cherub or
imaginary figures which covered the mercy seat to the Ark of the Covenant
[Exodus 25:17-22] and from where God communed with Israel)}
#3 - Nature surmounts Nature: {Gimel (Double - Nature rejoices in its Nature
{#5 - Act of Nature}) / Thrones (Gk. Thronos - a stately seat; by
implication power or (concretely) a potentate:-seat, throne)}
#4 - Nature amended in its Nature / Nature contains Nature: {Daleth
(Double - Nature surmounts Nature {#6 - Form of Nature}) / Dominions (Gk.
Kuriotes - mastery, that is, (concretely and collectively) rulers:-dominion,
government)}
#5 - Act of Nature / Nature rejoices in its Nature: {He / Virtues (Gk.
Arete - excellence (intrinsic or attributed):-praise, virtue)}
#6 - Form of Nature / Nature surmounts Nature: {Vav / Powers (Gk. Arche - a
commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time,
place or rank):-beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate,
power, principality, principle, rule)}
#7 - Engendering Nature / Nature amended in its Nature: {Zayin /
Principalities (Gk. Exousia - (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is,
(subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively)
mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control),
delegated influence:-authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right,
strength)}
#8 - Transforming Nature / Act of Nature: {Heth / Archangels (Gk.
Archaggelos - a chief angel)}
#9 - Autonomous Nature / Form of Nature: {Teth / Angels (Gk. Aggelos - a
messenger; especially an 'angel'; by implication a church pastor or
ecclesiastic)}
#10 - Totality of Nature / Engendering Nature {Yod / Sovereignty}
#11 - Transforming Nature {Kaf (Double - Nature amended in its Nature {#7 -
Engendering Nature}) / Government & Non-Government Organisations}
#12 - Autonomous Nature {Lamed / General Populace}
#13 - Nature contains Nature {Mem (Mother - The tongue of decree deciding
between them)}
#14 - Nature rejoices in its Nature {Nun}
#15 - Nature surmounts Nature {Samek}
#16 - Nature amended in its Nature {Ayin}
#17 - Act of Nature {Pe (Double - Act of Nature {#8 - Transforming Nature})}
#18 - Form of Nature {Tsade}
#19 - Engendering Nature {Qoph}
#20 - Transforming Nature {Resh (Double - Form of Nature {#9 - Autonomous
Nature})}
#21 - Autonomous Nature {Shin (Mother - Scales of liability)}
#22 - Totality of Nature {Tau (Double - Engendering Nature {#10 - Totality
of Nature})}
cf: vMeme/Moment Homoiotic Noumenon
http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/images/nous.gif
You might be tempted to ask, what all this has to do with Judaeo-Christian
religious belief: "And in the midst of the throne, and around the throne,
were four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. The first
living creature was like a lion, the second living creature like a calf, the
third living creature had a face like a man, and the fourth living creature
was like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each having six
wings {ie: such as the trigrams}, were full of eyes around and within. And
they do not rest day and night, saying: 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God
Almighty, who was and is and is to come!' [Revelation 4:6-8]
Note this relates to the Genesis view, that not only does all occurrence
which can be measured in time comes from the apeiron, but the relativity of
the time sequence itself underlies the religious statement that God is 'arch
kai teles' {cf: 'I am as Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning-arche and the
End-telos' [Revelation 1:8; 21:6-8; 22:13], ie. Telos ('achariyth) = Arch
(re'shiyth) + c² :
Genesis/Arch as (22/7) 3W1D ... Jubilee & Torah @ Sinai as 50J + 12 x 6J as
'oth 294 year cycle + 3W1D = 6,000 (122J3W1D) years as Saturday 1 January
2000 + solar eclipse on 25 December 2000 + 6 days = Telos}, which as the
logos, penetrates and rules all being.
22/7 as 3W1D ... 6000 as 122J3W1D is a teleological argument not only
for the existence of God, but a relationship between the LOGOS and INFINITY.
} Consider then the remarkable fusion of Hebrew/Christian Kabbalistic ideas,
Greek philosophical conceptions, and the figures of Hellenistic magic and
astrology as well as Egyptian thought expressed by the Nag Hammadi tractate
called 'On the Origin of the World':
"...Then when Sabaoth {ie. the Prime Manifestation on the Physical Place as
the Lord of Hosts, Shekinah, Holy Spirit, Word, Memra, Forces & Authority
over Chaos} was illumined, he received great authority against all the
forces of chaos. Since that day he has been called 'Lord of the Forces'. He
hated his father, the darkness, and his mother, the abyss, and loathed his
sister, the thought of the prime parent, which moved to and fro upon the
waters. And because of his light all the authorities of chaos were jealous
of him. And when they had become disturbed, they made a great war, she {ie.
Pistis Sophia} dispatched seven archangels to Sabaoth from her light. They
snatched him up the the seventh heaven. They stood before him as
attendants. Futhermore she sent him three more archangels and established
the kingdom for him over everyone so that he might dwell above the twelve
gods of chaos.
Now when Sabaoth had taken up the place of repose in return for his
repentance, Pistis {ie. Faith} also gave him her daughter Zoe {life; cf:
Word-Logos of Life-Zoe is a designation for Christ cf: Philippians 2:16; 1
John 1:1} together with great authority so that she might instruct him about
all things that exist in the eight heaven. And as he had authority, he made
himself first of all a mansion. It is huge, magnificient, seven times as
great as all those that existed in the seven heavens.
And before his mansion he created a throne, which was huge and was upon upon
a four-faced chariot called 'CHERUBIN/CHERUBIM'. Now the Cherubin/Cherubim
has eight shapes per each of the four corners, lion forms and calf forms and
human forms and eagle forms {cf: The Throne Room of Heaven [Revelation
4:1-11]}, so that all the forms amount to sixty-four (#64) forms--and (he
created) seven archangels that stand before it; he is the eighth, and has
authority. All the forms amount to seventy-two {ie. a 1st Century CE
Kabbalistic Conception known as the 'Bahir Illuminated' also distributes in
Divisions of
8 {Artificial Quarternary}, the Seventy-two Angels bearing the Mystical name
of God Shemhamphorae {The Divine Name of Extension} are given a distinct 3
{5° x 72 = 360°} character name drawn from the Hebrew character set}.
Furthermore, from this chariot the seventy-two gods took shape; they took
shape so that they might rule over the seventy-two languages of the peoples.
And by that throne he created other, serpent-like angels, called
'Saraphin/Seraphin' which praise him at all times. Thereafter he created a
congregation (ekklesia) of angels, thousand and myriads, numberless, which
resembled the congregation in the eight heaven; and a firstborn called
ISRAEL--which is, 'THE MAN THAT SEES GOD'; and another being called Jesus
Christ, who resembles the saviour above in the eighth heaven and who sits at
his right upon a revered throne, and at his left, there sits the virgin of
the holy spirit, upon a throne and glorifying him, and they bless him. Now
where he sits is upon a throne of light within a great cloud that covers
him." [The Nag Hammadi Library, On the Origin of the World (II,5 &
XIII,2)104:5-105:30]
- dolf
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/kabbalah/noumenon.html>
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message
news:42b39...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Qolon
principle and Yang = male as active principle is perhaps due to the
ambiguity as to whether the elements #1 and #2 follow the Pythagorean Number
Symbolism in that they are distinct from the meaning of number which
assigned to odd number a male attribute (eg: the monad as Zeus) and even
number a female attribute (eg: the duad as Hera) and gave them co-jointly a
spermatic quality.
In any event the void produces the Yin(g)/Yang, which in turn produces the
four phenomenon {ie. the dialectic} which then generates the 8 trigrams
(bagua) and they in turn produce the 64 Hexagrams.
The 8 trigams (bagua) can also be represented as a magic square:
4 | 9 | 2 4 | 9 | 2
-------- --------
3 | 5 | 7 or 7 | 5 | 3 = SUM #15 as microcosm of #369 (9 x 9)
-------- --------
8 | 1 | 6 6 | 1 | 8
With #5 representig the centre of the ying/yang sphere and the remaining
eight numbers as the 8 triagrams (bagua) surrounding it.
Apart from hexagram (#1 - Creative Principle/Heaven {Ch'ien}) as All Male
and (#2 - Passive Principle/Earth {K'un}) as All Female, each of the
entities share a combined male/female attribution between these two
polarities.
Suffice to say, I have amply demonstrated that the following statement is a
questionable claim to Judaeo-Christianity and is more likely the product of
hymeneal mysticism masquerading as Christianity: "My single and unassailable
point has been God declares Himself in male terms, the use of metaphores at
various times, notwithstanding." [Athanasius, Egyptian 'Coptic' Church]
- dolf
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message
news:42b77...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Qolon
do with being Christian?
Should you attempt to describe the origins of the Old/New Testament
theological concept of Angels, you'd fall over the ediface into the abyss,
because the entire architecture of your religious belief would be exposed as
a contrived artifice of words. Why don't you say something meaningful
beyond simply trying to please the ears of your listeners? "And you, being
dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened
together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and
took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled
principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over
them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of
things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your
reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into
those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having
nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of
God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments-STOICHEION of
the world-KOSMOS, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to
ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with
the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have
indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the
body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." [Colossians
2:13-23]
Following on from our previous discussion in another discussion thread:
Any disparity between commentators over whether Yin(g) = female as passive
principle and Yang = male as active principle {ie. viz I-Ching of 2800 BCE
or Lao Tzu's (6th century BCE) Tao (the way) Te (of virtue) Ching (and
causality) is perhaps due to the ambiguity as to whether the elements #1 and
#2 follow the Pythagorean (Number Symbolism in that they are distinct from
the meaning of number which assigned to odd number a male attribute (eg: the
monad as Zeus) and even number a female attribute (eg: the duad as Hera) and
gave them co-jointly a spermatic quality.
In any event the void produces the Yin(g)/Yang, which in turn produces the
four phenomenon {ie. the dialectic} which then generates the 8 trigrams
(bagua) and they in turn produce the 64 Hexagrams.
The 8 trigrams (bagua) can also be represented as a magic square:
4 | 9 | 2 2 | 9 | 4
-------- --------
3 | 5 | 7 or 7 | 5 | 3 = SUM #15 as microcosm of #369 (9 x 9)
-------- --------
8 | 1 | 6 6 | 1 | 8
The Primal Arrangement attributed to Fu Hsi is reflected as 4 sets of
opposites, whereas the later Inner World Arrangement attributed to King Wen
follows the Magic Square arrange (shown left). With #5 representig the
centre of the ying/yang sphere and the remaining eight numbers as the 8
triagrams (bagua) surrounding it: "Men, why are you doing these things? {ie.
they called Barnabas (the son of a prophet) Zeus/Jupiter and Paul (small;
little) Mercury/Hermes and had sought to sacrifice to them} We also are men
with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from
these useless things to the living-ZAO God-THEOS, who made the
heaven-OURANOS, the earth-GE, the sea-THALASSA, and all-PAS things that are
in them-EN-AUTOS, who-HOS in bygone-GENEA generations-PAROICHOMAI {ie. times
past} allowed-EAO all nations-ETHNOS to walk-POREUOMAI in their own-HAUTOU
ways-HODOS." [Acts 14:15-16]
An immediate observation which can be made from this is the Roman Catholic
symbolism of CHI-RHO which also uses this magic square to which Hebrew
letters are associated as a claim to pre-eminance and Mary as co-Redemptrix,
is actually peddling other people's intellectual property:
SYMBOLIC ASSOCIATIONS
4 - Daleth | 9 - Teth | 2 - Beth
---------------------------------
3 - Gimel | 5 - He | 7 - Zayin = SUM #15
---------------------------------
8 - Cheth | 1 - Aleph | 6 - Vav
TAXONOMY INTERPRETATION
4 - Aleph | 9 - Beth | 2 - Gimel
---------------------------------
3 - Teth | 5 - Yod | 7 - Kaf
---------------------------------
8 - Ayin | 1 - Pe | 6 - Tsade
Thus the question arises as to whether the expression, concerning the:
"living-ZAO God-THEOS, who made the heaven-OURANOS, the earth-GE, the
sea-THALASSA, and all-PAS things that are in them-EN-AUTOS" [Acts 14:15]
"You shall not make for yourself a carved image-any likeness of anything
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I,
the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My
commandments." [Exodus 20:4-6]
"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up
his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who
created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the
things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that
there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh
angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished,
as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. And the voice which I
heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book
which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon
the earth." [Revelation 10:5-8; 5:13-14]
Is indeed indicative of the relationship between Jewish Temple Service (ie.
the 24 elders), by ipso facto the 7th day Sabbath based chronology and
taxonomy {ie. SUM #15 as microcosm of #369 (9 x 9)} and the system of
hexagrams conveyed by the I-Ching since 2800 BCE. Which is specifically
conveyed by the first three dual trigrams as hexagrams:
(#1 - Creative Principle/Heaven {Ch'ien}) as All Male and
(#2 - Passive Principle/Earth {K'un}) as All Female
With each of the subsequent entities sharing a combined male/female
attribution between these two polarities, whereby the 3rd being the Sea as
(Initial Difficulty {Chun}) derived from the Upper Trigram: K'an; the Abyss,
Water, Danger and the Lower Trigram: Chen; Thunderclap, Movement.
"Rowland Croucher" <rccro...@removethispleaseoptusnet.com.au> wrote in
message news:42b89d4a$0$16492$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Correction from classical orthodox theology: Christianity *is*
>> monotheistic.
>> Satan is an *angel* not a god - the chief/worst of 'em...
>
> So what's an angel?
(Again, the classical orthodox Christian view): A created servant of God
who/which exists without most time/space limitations - and some would say
'ignorance limitations' (can Satan read your mind?)
>
> Anyway, here is a god:
>
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=god
>
> ` [n] any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of
> ` the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a
> ` force
>
> Satan makes the cut.
Certainly, but not in classical Christian theology...
> I believe that there are civilisations that had
> scores of gods. It is my bet that they weren't all supposed to be
> good and that they weren't all supposed to be supreme. I am confident
> that in that ancient pagan cultures, an entity such as Satan would
> have been considered a god - perhaps a dubious god, but a god
> nevertheless. Similarly, atheists who don't have Christian biases,
> will more easily see that Satan is just another cultural god.
I won't quibble with any of that...
> Best Regards,
>
> Sean McHugh
--
*
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
* *
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ *
(15200+ articles, 3200 clean jokes/stories)
*
Qolon
would readily agree that the Angelic imagery of 'he who lives for ever and
ever {ie. the INFINITY}, who created heaven and the earth and the seas (and
the things therein)' [v6] associates the mystery of God as seven thunders.
It very definitively deploys the same imagery to system of hexagrams
conveyed by the I-Ching since 2800 BCE. Which is specifically conveyed by
the first three dual trigrams as hexagrams:
(#1 - Creative Principle/Heaven {Ch'ien}) as All Male and
(#2 - Passive Principle/Earth {K'un}) as All Female
With each of the subsequent entities sharing a combined male/female
attribution between these two polarities, whereby the 3rd being the Sea as
(Initial Difficulty {Chun}) derived from the Upper Trigram: K'an; the Abyss,
Water, Danger and the Lower Trigram: Chen; Thunderclap, Movement.
One might therefore conclude that the death of Christ on the Cross as the
'spoiling of principalities and powers, over which he made a show of them
openly, triumphing' [Colossians 2:13-23] is the contrived system of symbolic
taxonomical associations (ie. rudiments-STOICHEION of the world-KOSMOS) as
theft of the Torah's intellectual property and idolatry which lays at the
heart of the Roman Catholic (et al) Theology and Religious belief/practice
as ecclesiastic misconduct described as hymeneal mysticial which is
perpetuated by the 'rulers-kosmokrater of the obscurity-skotos of this
age-aion' who engage in 'spiritual-pneumatikos wickedness-porneia'
[Ephesians 6:12].
We may then conclude that the lack of repentance conveyed by [Revelation
9:20-21] is indicative of this ecclesiastical misconduct {ie.
'spiritual-pneumatikos wickedness-porneia'}: "And the rest of the men which
were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their
hands, that they should not worship devils-daimonion {a daemonic being; by
extension a deity:-devil, god}, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass,
and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither
repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their
fornication, nor of their thefts." [Revelation 9:20-21]
- dolf
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message
news:42b8b...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Classical theology Rowland--since when has hymeneal asceticism, anything to
do with being Christian?
Should you attempt to describe the origins of the Old/New Testament
theological concept of Angels, you'd fall over the edifice into the abyss,
Qolon
Philosophy" translated and compiled by Wing-Tsit Chan Đ 1963 Princeton
University Press ISBN 0-691-01964-9, which provides a wonderful access to
the development in thinking of Chinese Tao and Confucian philosophical and
metaphysical thinking.
Therein, is provided a comment on the metaphysical rendering given to the
Tao by Shao Yung of 1011-1077 CE. He says, "Shao's fundamental concepts are
three. First, there are the supreme principles governing the universe.
Second, these principles can be discerned in terms of numbers. and thir,
the best knowledge of them is the objective, that is, viewing things rom the
viewpoint of things." [p 481]
He suggests as I convey here {ie. the later Inner World Arrangement
attributed to King Wen follows the Magic Square arrangement
4 | 9 | 2
--------
3 | 5 | 7 = SUM #15
--------
8 | 1 | 6
might be considered a microcosm of #369 = 9(9ē+1)/2 as homoiotic kabbalistic
noumenon and the philosophical paradigm intrinsic to the conception of
Number:
2 | 9 | 4
--------
7 | 5 | 3
--------
6 | 1 | 8
#9 = 457 BCE
#7 = 67 BCE
#5 = 0 BCE
#3 = 15 CE
#6 = 505 CE {Kether/Crown}
#1 = 671 CE {Chokmah/Wisdom}
#8 = 860 CE {Binah/Understanding or Intelligence}
} that "whilst he follows the same pattern of cosmic evolution (in time)
from the Great Ultimate (ie Tao as the One or the Nous/Mind) through yin and
yang or negative and postive cosmic force, to the myriad of things, he added
the element of number {Note: the #369 homoiotic kabbalistic noumenon might
be considered the philosophical paradigm intrinsic to the conception of
Number}. To him universal operation, or Change, is due to the spirit {ie.
phenomenology of spirit}, which gives rise to number, number to form, and
form to concrete things. The whole process works according to principle and
is natural. Man is the most intelligent of the products of natural
evolution, but like all other things he is governed by numbers.
The concept of number is not new. It is present in the Lao Tzu's Tao Te
Ching, the Confucian Book of Changes, the Five Agents School, the apocryphal
literature of the Western Han period (206 BCE- 8 CE), and Yand Hsiung (53
BCE-18 CE), but he was the first one to base his whole philosophy on it and
build a system of numerical progression. Evidently under the Book of
Changes in which the Great Ultimate engenders the four forms of major and
minr cosmic forces yin and ynag, he used the number 4 as the basis of
classification of all phenomena." [p 481]
"The whole schema is neat and systematic but also mechanical and arbitrary.
However, in its progression from 4 to 64, which is the number of hexagrams
in the Book of Changes, it clearly indicates the evolutionary development
from the one to the many {ie. the unity to multiplicity}. Furthermore, since
the process is essentiall the work of the spirit, which expresses itself in
interpenetrating activiy and in the tranquility of yin and yang, the
universal operation is conceived of as opening (expansion) and closing
(contraction) and thus the dynamic character of change is dominant.
What is new in the numerical approach is that things are definite and that
by mathematical calculation they can be predicted. He applied this to
history and equated it with the four seasons with calculable beginning {ie.
Arch} amd predictable end {ie. Telos}.} [p 482]
- dolf
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message
news:42b8d...@news.iprimus.com.au...
- dolf
follows the Magic Square arrangement (shown left). With #5 representig the
Qolon
(206 BCE - 220 CE) and Wei-Chin period (220-420 CE) there was both trade and
philosophical dialog occuring between China and the Western world--Silk was
as a commodity and exquisite prize amongst the elite within the Roman
Imperial court.
One of the most outstanding neo-Taoists of this time was Wang-Bi (226-249
CE) who was a minister in the Wei government, wrote commentaries on both the
Book of Changes (I-Ching) and Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching. He inaugurated a new
movement, which raised the level of Chinese thought to that of metaphysics.
Han thought was primarily concerned with cosmology and cosmogony {ie. theory
of origins}, but Wang Bi went beyond the realms of names and forms to
ultimate reality, namely, original non-being (pen-wu): "One is the beginning
of numbers and the ultimate number of things. Each thing, as such, is
produced by the one [Unity] and this is why it is the master of them all
[Multiplicity as homoiotic noumenon conveyed by the hexagrams]. And all
things achieve their completion by obtaining this one." [Wang Bi on Tao Te
Ching, #39 - Achieving Oneness/ The Root of Order]
According to his theory which underlies his interpretation of the 64
Hexagrams, original non-being transcends all distinctions and descriptions.
It is the pure being, original substance (pen-t'i), and the one in which
substance and function are identified: "Non-being (wu), was no longer simply
a contrast to being but as the ultimate of all, or pure being, the one and
the undifferentiated. Thus the whole movement was charged with tremendous
possibilities for the future."
The emphasis on principle is very conspicuous in Wang Bi's commentaries.
Where Lao Tzu had desting (Ming as fate), Wang Bi would substitute
principle, thus anticipating the Neo-Confucianists, who preferred to speak
of the Principles of Nature (T'ien-li) instead of desting decreed by Heaven
(Ti'ien-mind). [p 315-316]
Juan Chi (210-263 CE) advocated becoming one with the universe and
transcending all distinctions between right and wrong, wealth and pverty,
high and humble stations. The more important facet, was the metaphysical.
Han thought (206 BCE - 220 CE) was strongly characterised by the doctrine of
the correspondence of Nature and man and their mutual influence. It was
therefore greatly concerned with the empirical as natural phenomenon.
Whereas the metaphysical schools of Wei-Chin (220-420 CE), on the contrary,
went beyond phenomena to find reality beyond space and time. They found
this in the non-being of Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching and Chuan Tzu but gave it a
new meaning.
Within Orthodox Christianity, the theological conception that humans are a
microcosm of the universe and that which is shared, the essence of all
things as the unity (one), is God, emerged much later with their
articulation given by John Scotus Erigena (c.810-c.877 CE). St. Thomas
Aquinas (1224-1275 CE), deploys this common angelic mystical schema as
cosmic hierarchy proposed by the 6th century neo-Platonic theologian
Dionysius the Areopagite (Pseudo-Dionysius), upon which John Scotus Erigena
(c. 810-877 CE) as an Irish theologian and philosopher also bases his whole
conception of Deity. [The Greek writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite had been sent to the Gallican Church by Pope Paul in 757 CE, and
remained for nearly a century unread in the abbey of Saint Denis.]
However, when Erigena undertook to translate them into Latin, he did vastly
more than merely act as a translator. He incorporated the principles of the
Areopagite into his celebrated treatise 'De Divisione Nature', in which his
own speculative system is contained, and which may be said to be as
representative of his mind as the 'De Principiis' is for Origen (185-254 CE)
or the 'Summa Theologica' for Saint Thomas:
"It will be remembered that, after maintaining as his fundamental position
[concerning] Deity, cannot be defined because it cannot be comprehended, and
that nothing whatever can be affirmed concerning it beyond the fact of its
being, Erigena went on to justify the theologians of the Church in affirming
the Unity and the Trinity. But the grounds on which Erigena justified the
authorities of the Church are significant. He did not justify the doctrine
on the ground that it was a truth revealed, or because it was an inference
demanded of the fact and claim of Christ.
It is remarkable how obscure a place Christ occupies in Erigena's conception
of Deity. The ground on which Erigena would justify the doctrine is that
Unity and Multiplicity may fairly be ascribed to the First Cause of all
things, because Deity can be regarded in its simplicity as one and then
regarded as extended, [in accord with philosophical and hermetic tenets of
Pythagorean number symbolism as an indefinite number, which denotes the new
member of a series distinct from those which preceded and either carrying
the series forward] into multiplicity. But it is impossible to avoid the
criticism that this ascription of Unity and Multiplicity to Deity is not the
same thing as the doctrine of the Trinity. Nor is it obvious why the Trinity
should be substituted for Multiplicity. Moreover, this Multiplicity exists
subjectively in the human mind rather than in being of Deity: since it is
expressly forbidden by the author's fundamental principle to say anything
whatever concerning Deity beyond the fact that it exists." [© Kessinger
Publishing Company, C.E. Rolt, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine
Names & the Mystical Theology, p 203]
Dionysius originated the distinction between cataphatic {ie. the production,
by way of negation, of straightforward, positive assertions about the nature
of God} and apophatic {ie. a metempirical assertion, as an attempt to gain
and express knowledge of God, by describing what God is not, rather than by
describing what God is} theology and in his treatise, 'The Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy', sought to establish angelic orders of intelligences, which were
reflected in the structure of the earthly church and presupposed to form a
continuum between God and the believer. These are typically equivalent to
the Kabbalistic conception of the 72 sacred names divided in three groups of
24 names conveyed by Jewish mystical literature contemporaneous to the
Christian era, such as the Sepher Raziel, Yetzirah, Bahir and Zohar. Being
classed into three Hierarchies, appointing them their respective offices in
the performance of the word and will of God: First Order (Those closest to
God); Second Order (Composed of the priest-princes of the court of heaven)
and the Third Order (Constituted by the ministering angels). Pope Innocent
III in his 1198 CE mystical treatise on Empire and Papacy, seemingly draws
upon these mythological allegories when he accordingly defines the Papal
authority, as:
"The creator of the universe set up two great luminaries in the firmament of
heaven; the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the
night. In the same way for the firmament of the universal Church, which is
spoken of as heaven, he appointed two great dignities; the greater to bear
rule over souls (these being, as it were, days), the lesser to bear rule
over bodies (those being, as it were, nights). These dignities are the
pontifical authority and the royal power. Furthermore, the moon derives her
light from the sun, and is in truth inferior to the sun in both size and
quality, in position as well as effect. In the same way the royal power
derives its dignity from the pontifical authority: and the more closely it
cleaves to the sphere of that authority the less is the light with which it
is adorned; the further it is removed, the more it increases in splendor."
[Pope Innocent III on Empire and Papacy 'The Moon and the Sun' Sicut
universitatis conditor. Ep. i, 401, October 1198 P.L. ccxiv. 337. Mirbt, no.
326]
Pope Innocent III (1198 CE) suggestion, that the papal authority is derived
from the Sun and the Moon, is at divergence to Philo of Alexandria's (20
BCE-50 CE) comment that even they are sub-ordinate to some other power: 'the
sun and the moon, and the entire heaven and the whole world labor, inasmuch
as they are not endowed with independent power' [Philo of Alexandria
20BCE-50CE, On Cherubim, #7, #88] being further related to a heuristic
attributed to a chronological based hermeneutic as a priori to the natural,
regulative and metempirical principles underlying the language taxonomy as
teleological argument: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers,
you need someone to teach you again the first-ARCHE principles-STOICHEION
{ie. the elements such as the letters of the alphabet, as the rudiments,
primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline may be
considered as a paradigm, the pattern or example, a set of concepts etc.,
that are shared by a community of scholars or scientists: Telos = Arch + c²}
of the oracles-LOGION {ie. the 10 Commandments [Romans 3:1-2]} of God-THEOS"
[Hebrews 5:12-14]
The Genesis view is that not only does all occurrence which can be measured
in time comes from the apeiron, but the relativity of the time sequence
itself underlies the religious statement that God is 'arch kai teles' {cf:
'I am as Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning-arche and the End-telos'
[Revelation 1:8; 21:6-8; 22:13], ie. Telos ('achariyth) = Arch (re'shiyth) +
c² :
Genesis/Arch as (22/7) 3W1D ... Jubilee & Torah @ Sinai as 50J + 12 x 6J as
'oth 294 year cycle + 3W1D = 6,000 (122J3W1D) years as Saturday 1 January
2000 + solar eclipse on 25 December 2000 + 6 days = Telos}, which as the
logos, penetrates and rules all being.
22/7 as 3W1D ... 6000 as 122J3W1D is a teleological argument not only for
the existence of God, but a relationship between the LOGOS and INFINITY.
The reality is that the doctrine of Unity and Multiplicity as the first
cause of all things is identical to the one-is-all and all-is-one philosophy
which is a common heritage of all Chinese philosophical systems--Confucian,
Taoist and Buddist. [p 320] and was clearly articulated by Wang Bi (226-249
CE) interpretations, the question is how then is the Orthodox Christian
doctrine of the Trinity which was proposed by the Council of Nicea in 323
CE, adequately differentiated and identified as Christian.
- dolf
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message
news:42b90...@news.iprimus.com.au...
In my travels today, I came across a great source book on "Chinese
Philosophy" translated and compiled by Wing-Tsit Chan © 1963 Princeton
University Press ISBN 0-691-01964-9, which provides a wonderful access to
the development in thinking of Chinese Tao and Confucian philosophical and
metaphysical thinking.
Therein, is provided a comment on the metaphysical rendering given to the
Tao by Shao Yung of 1011-1077 CE. He says, "Shao's fundamental concepts are
three. First, there are the supreme principles governing the universe.
Second, these principles can be discerned in terms of numbers. and thir,
the best knowledge of them is the objective, that is, viewing things rom the
viewpoint of things." [p 481]
He suggests as I convey here {ie. the later Inner World Arrangement
attributed to King Wen follows the Magic Square arrangement
4 | 9 | 2
--------
3 | 5 | 7 = SUM #15
--------
8 | 1 | 6
might be considered a microcosm of #369 = 9(9²+1)/2 as homoiotic kabbalistic
Qolon
- dolf
"Qolon" <te...@iprimus.net> wrote in message
news:42ba1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Where Lao Tzu had destiny (Ming as fate), Wang Bi would substitute
principle, thus anticipating the Neo-Confucianists, who preferred to speak
of the Principles of Nature (T'ien-li) instead of destiny decreed by Heaven
(Ti'ien-mind). [p 315-316]
doctrine of the Trinity which was proposed by the Council of Nicea in 325
Qolon
non-being: "One is the beginning of numbers and the ultimate number of
things. Each thing, as such, is produced by the one [Unity] and this is why
Root of Order] actually finds its conception with the Jewish Kabbalistic
literature known as the Sefer Yetzirah:
"Ten Sefirot of Nothingness {ie. the number of ten fingers, five opposite
five with a singular covenant [1:3]} Their end is imbedded in their
beginning and their beginning in their end like a flame in a burning coal.
For the Master is singular he has no second and before One, what do you
count?" [Sefer Yetzirah 1:7]
The Sefirot as the Kabbalistic conception of Number concern a spiritual
realm in which space does not exist. In preceding the physical world, they
exist within a domain that is above time. where past, present and future are
one. Thus this metaphysical reality beyond the realm of physical phenomena
might be considered the equivalent to the non-being (wu) as original
substance (pen-t'i) which characterised the development in thinking during
the Wei-Chin (220-420 CE) period.
The explanation for this, according to the Hasidic Jewish Rabbi Aryeh
Kaplan, is described in an circular analogy equivalent to the hexagonal
{#4 - Chesed (mercy), #5 - Geburah {strength), #6 - Tiphareth (beauty), #7 -
Netzach (victory), #8 - Hod (splendor), #9 Yesod (foundation)}or 'cause and
effect' sphere of the Yin and Yang. The 'beginning' is the Keter (crown) as
cause, while the 'end' is Malkhut (dwelling of God within creation) as
effect. He similarly suggests, that "there is no term that can be used to
describe God. God himself cannot even be called the Cause. A cause is to
some degree dependent on its effect, and God cannot be dependent on
anything. The Kabbalists therefore teach that before creating anything
else, God created the concept of 'Cause'. This is the Sefirah of Keter
(crown). Keter is also often identified with Will. This, however, is an
anthropomorphism, since in man, will is the cause of all action.
The Sefer Yetzirah therefore states, the 'the Master is singular, He has no
second.' The 10 Sefirot may be interdepent, but this does not include the
Infinite Being. Since God is absolutely unitary. He cannot even be called
the Cause, since this would imply an effect as a 'second'.
In describing God here, the Sefer Yetzirah does not say that He is one
(echad), but that His is singular (Yachid). It is saying that God is so
absolutely singular that there is no quality whatever that can be attributed
to Him. as the philosophers state, we cannot describe God with any quality
or adjective whatever, only with negative attributes or attributes of action
{eg: Yang = male as active principle, positive attribute; light; cause;
Yin(g) = female as passive principle, negative attribute; dark; to fill;
correspondence}. Although we cannot say what God is, by using negative
attributes, we can say what He is not. Similarly, with attributes of
action, we can speak of what God does.
This also implies that God is absolutely simple. In the domain that existed
before creation, there was nothing other than God. As mentioned earlier,
even such simple [hermetic] concepts Cause and effect had to be created.
The same is true of Number.
If the concept of 'oneness' existed in God, this would imply that the
concept of number exists in His essence {Note: some commentators such as
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE-50 CE) suggest that the #369 paradigm as
matrix is common to all and each Number and is intrinsic to his essence
because he spoke.
The number ten-deka, is the most comprehensive of all numbers, and owes its
name to the fact that it contains {dechesthai dechas} within itself every
kind of number and progression of numbers-arithmetical {eg: the four
boundaries by which a chronology as unit, decade, century, thousand and the
myriad of things aspires [Decalogue #27]}, geometrical {ie. the visible
peculiar properties of triangles, squares and other polygonal figures [Philo
Decalogue #22]}, harmonic proportion and musical properties as
symphony-representing the whole universe, inasmuch as it is the sum of 1
(the point) + 2 (the line) + 3 (the plane) + 4 (the solid). Moreover, there
are ten so-called categories:-substance {Nature contains Nature}, quality
{Nature rejoices in its Nature}, quantity {Nature surmounts Nature},
relation {Nature amended in its Nature}, action {Act of Nature}, passion
{Form of Nature}, possession {Engendering Nature}, situation {Transforming
Nature}, time {Autonomous Nature}, and place {Totality of Nature}.
}. This in itself as others contest, would introduce then, not simply an
element of plurality but an incommensurate nature as the indelible union
established between conceptual notions of the numbers '1' and '2'. One could
then speak of God and His 'oneness', that is, His association with the
number one, 'God; and 'His oneness' would then be two concepts. The Hebrew
word ECHAD denotes an association with the number one. YACHID, on the other
hand, is a negative attribute, indicating the absence of any plurality
whatever. [cf: Sefer Yetzirah, Rabbi Kaplan, p 58, 65]
- dolf
(Ti'ien-mind). [p 315-316]: "But you are those who forsake YHWH, who forget
my holy mountain, who prepare a table for Gad {ie. a pagan deity of troop or
fortune}, and who furnish a drink offering for Meni {ie. a pagan deity of
number or destiny}. Therefore I will number you for the sword, and you shall
all bow down to the slaughter; because when I called you did not answer;
when I spoke, you did not hear, but did evil before my eyes, and chose that
in which I do not delight." [Isaiah 65:11-12]
Juan Chi (210-263 CE) advocated becoming one with the universe and
transcending all distinctions between right and wrong, wealth and poverty,
- dolf
Second, these principles can be discerned in terms of numbers. And third,