Mythos and Logos

[Thomas]

Mythos and logos holds there are two contrasting views of the world: the mythos view and the logos view (left/right brain; man/woman; etc.). The intuitive and the rational is putting it somewhat simplistically, but effectively.

Mythos favours the narrative mode, and encompasses its truth in modes of being. Logos favours the dialectic and the world of ideas. In a very broad sense the polytheism of the Hellenic world encompasses its mythos; philosophy its logos; each, of course, will have its aspect in the other.

The 'problem' with Christianity is that it combines the two in a most direct and concrete manner, unlike any other. In Christ came the Incarnation of both logos and mythos in one being, wholly divine, and wholly human, being.

+++

The appearance of heterodox doctrine seeks to make reason of the Incarnation according to exterior data - it seeks to explain according to an alien mythos and logos, rather than embrace the Mystery in its fullness and its actuality.

The definition of 'heresy' (from the Greek 'to choose') is the error of over-emphasising one aspect of revelation at the expense of another (thus among the earliest heresies was the insistence on the humanity of Jesus and the denial of his divinity, and its counterpart, the insistence of his divinity and denial of his humanity), thus distorting the whole 'mythos'.

This insistence on separating God and man continues even to today, and is part of many New Age doctrines, the most obvious cases in reference to the man Jesus as something other than the 'Christ consciousness' (which has no scriptural or traditional foundation) which he either wears, or which subsumes his being.

+++

The key to understanding the Incarnation is the Trinity - on the one hand monism denies His humanity; on the other duality denies His divinity. Only in the Trinity can the dilemma be resolved in an manner that denies neither mythos nor logos.

+++

The Trinity is how God relates to Himself - how God relates to Himself is the pattern for how God relates to the world - and the pattern for how man relates to God.

+++

The measure of right doctrine is in its truth, its goodness and its beauty (simplicity)

Thomas

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Mythos and logos holds there are two contrasting views of the world: the mythos view and the logos view (left/right brain; man/woman; etc.). The intuitive and the rational is putting it somewhat simplistically, but effectively.

Mythos favours the narrative mode, and encompasses its truth in modes of being. Logos favours the dialectic and the world of ideas. In a very broad sense the polytheism of the Hellenic world encompasses its mythos; philosophy its logos; each, of course, will have its aspect in the other.

The 'problem' with Christianity is that it combines the two in a most direct and concrete manner, unlike any other. In Christ came the Incarnation of both logos and mythos in one being, wholly divine, and wholly human, being.

+++

The appearance of heterodox doctrine seeks to make reason of the Incarnation according to exterior data - it seeks to explain according to an alien mythos and logos, rather than embrace the Mystery in its fullness and its actuality.

The definition of 'heresy' (from the Greek 'to choose') is the error of over-emphasising one aspect of revelation at the expense of another (thus among the earliest heresies was the insistence on the humanity of Jesus and the denial of his divinity, and its counterpart, the insistence of his divinity and denial of his humanity), thus distorting the whole 'mythos'.

This insistence on separating God and man continues even to today, and is part of many New Age doctrines, the most obvious cases in reference to the man Jesus as something other than the 'Christ consciousness' (which has no scriptural or traditional foundation) which he either wears, or which subsumes his being.

+++

The key to understanding the Incarnation is the Trinity - on the one hand monism denies His humanity; on the other duality denies His divinity. Only in the Trinity can the dilemma be resolved in an manner that denies neither mythos nor logos.

+++

The Trinity is how God relates to Himself - how God relates to Himself is the pattern for how God relates to the world - and the pattern for how man relates to God.

+++

The measure of right doctrine is in its truth, its goodness and its beauty (simplicity)

Thomas

Without mind, body and spirit combined, there is no being...does that about sum it up? (c'mon Thomas, yer talkin' to a military man...) I gotta live within the KISS philosophy, or else I'm lost

v/r

Q

[lunamoth]

Well, let me embrace that Christianity encompasses both the mystical and the practical, as illustrated by the previous two posts!

peace and Merry Christmas guys,
lunamoth

[Thomas]

Without mind, body and spirit combined, there is no being

Precisely! The Gnostics, the Platonists, the Stoics etc., all exclude the body from the divine dimension, and in excluding the body, all physical manifestation is likewise excluded. Thus for them (and others like them) the being of the world is either the product of evil, or a tragic necessity, which must be 'escaped'.

(c'mon Thomas, yer talkin' to a military man...)

"The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." Matthew 8:5

These words are said at every Mass in the approach to that most Profound Mystery of the Eucharist - not bad for a military man, eh?

"When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." 8:10

It takes courage to believe. (All this theology is just me talking myself into believing.)

I gotta live within the KISS philosophy, or else I'm lost

And I always smile at that old joke, and know it's on me:
And Jesus said to them, "who do men say that I am?" And they answered him, "You are the totaliter aliter, the vestigious trinitatum who speaks to us in the modality of Christo-monism; you are he who heals our ambiguities and overcomes the split of angst and existential estrangement; you are he who speaks of the theonomous viewpoint of the analogia entis, the analogy of our being and the ground of all possibilities; you are the impossible possibility who brings to us the overwhelming oughtness in the midst of our fraught condition of estrangement and brokenness in the contiguity and existential anxieties of our ontological relationships."

And Jesus said, "what?"


Thomas

[taijasi]

Just wondering about the Catholic view, and/or your own personal take, since you bring it up, Thomas ... regarding the following passage: John 10:34 (and the reference Christ makes to Psalm 82:6). Granted, I know there are many possible interpretations for any given spiritual teaching, but as the Psalm reads, I can only end up with a message of inclusivity (and with a Universal application, to all people).

Further, I see perfect corroboration of this teaching in the following passages:

• Matthew 5:48
• Colossians 1:27
• John 14:10-17

In fact, in the verses from John, above (this being the most mystical of the Gospels), it seems the doctrine of the Trinity is most clearly spelled out ... while at the same time Christ speaks plainly of our "human potential," as Humanists might phrase it. Spiritually speaking, I have no problem whatsoever accepting that it is exactly as Christ Himself says, that is - We are able to do these works, ever greater than those which Christ did, because of the Presence of the Father within us, just as this is exactly how Christ accounts for His own accomplishment of the "miracles" (or Good Works). And like the country preacher says, "If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

I think this message speaks to our potential, to Christ - the Hope of Glory - within us, and to the very Purpose for our being in the flesh to begin with - the Mystery being inseparably wed to the very Purpose for the Logos (to be) Incarnate to begin with!

My favorite exoteric religious treatment (or take) on our relationship to Christ, and the Mystery of our own truest, or highest nature ... comes from the pastor where I attended (Lutheran) church for the first few years of my life. I do not recall him well, as he was reassigned before I was 2, but my parents once told me that, when asked what our relation is to Christ Jesus, Paster Ridenhour paused for a moment and said, "We are like - little Christs." Never has a more beautiful, simple and truthful statement been uttered by anyone connected with exoteric religion, in my 33+ years of experience.

Anyway, to me it serves as a reminder, as well as a cause for all humility ... and it is to me a source of sadness, that folks might not understand what is being said. Perhaps during this Christmas season, and the times of Renewal to come ... people will find the true meaning of these words.

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Without mind, body and spirit combined, there is no being

Precisely! The Gnostics, the Platonists, the Stoics etc., all exclude the body from the divine dimension, and in excluding the body, all physical manifestation is likewise excluded. Thus for them (and others like them) the being of the world is either the product of evil, or a tragic necessity, which must be 'escaped'.

(c'mon Thomas, yer talkin' to a military man...)

"The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." Matthew 8:5

These words are said at every Mass in the approach to that most Profound Mystery of the Eucharist - not bad for a military man, eh?

"When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." 8:10

It takes courage to believe. (All this theology is just me talking myself into believing.)

I gotta live within the KISS philosophy, or else I'm lost

And I always smile at that old joke, and know it's on me:
And Jesus said to them, "who do men say that I am?" And they answered him, "You are the totaliter aliter, the vestigious trinitatum who speaks to us in the modality of Christo-monism; you are he who heals our ambiguities and overcomes the split of angst and existential estrangement; you are he who speaks of the theonomous viewpoint of the analogia entis, the analogy of our being and the ground of all possibilities; you are the impossible possibility who brings to us the overwhelming oughtness in the midst of our fraught condition of estrangement and brokenness in the contiguity and existential anxieties of our ontological relationships."

And Jesus said, "what?"

Thomas

Thanks, but I'm not that witty. It was no joke. I must stick to the simple in life. It is how I survive. I was definitely talking about me...


Jesus said, "I Am Who Am" pretty simple but profound statement.

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Alright, in the spirit of simplicity, and with hats off to Kevin Smith (Dogma) ... how about Alanis' song, What If God Was One of Us, lyrics here. This is what I was driving at in my post just now ... (and I find it poignant & moving, though I'm not really a big Alanis Morissette fan) ...

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Thomas

(c'mon Thomas, yer talkin' to a military man...)

"The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed." Matthew 8:5

These words are said at every Mass in the approach to that most Profound Mystery of the Eucharist - not bad for a military man, eh?

"When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." 8:10

It takes courage to believe.

"...but only say the word, and I shall be healed..."

Variation on a theme, but I see your point. Never considered that part of mass, that crucial part, beginning with a common soldier's prayer...maybe we ain't so simple after all.

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Alright, in the spirit of simplicity, and with hats off to Kevin Smith (Dogma) ... how about Alanis' song, What If God Was One of Us, lyrics here. This is what I was driving at in my post just now ... (and I find it poignant & moving, though I'm not really a big Alanis Morissette fan) ...

andrew

The song is a modern day variation of Solomon's lament. But even Solomon pulls it together at the end of his diatribe.

That's where Solomon and Alanis part company...he was wise enough to know his argument was folly.

v/r

Q

[taijasi]

Shazam. I never would have known that ... thanks for the reference, will hafta look it up.

I much prefer Alanis' silent, playful, outwardly simple portrayal of The Almighty (no thunderclap, no wrath, no fear) ... at the end of Dogma ... to her music. Or Bruce's version of The Almighty (Morgan Freeman), as I've posted elsewhere.

Alanis makes as good a guard, to me, as the Sphinx ... but a whole lot friendlier, as her riddle is but to keep silent - and remain in awe, with a smile. (The question's only there ... if you ask it. )

Cheers,

andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Shazam. I never would have known that ... thanks for the reference, will hafta look it up.

I much prefer Alanis' silent, playful, outwardly simple portrayal of The Almighty (no thunderclap, no wrath, no fear) ... at the end of Dogma ... to her music. Or Bruce's version of The Almighty (Morgan Freeman), as I've posted elsewhere.

Alanis makes as good a guard, to me, as the Sphinx ... but a whole lot friendlier, as her riddle is but to keep silent - and remain in awe, with a smile. (The question's only there ... if you ask it. )

Cheers,

andrew

Let me help...it's called "Ecclesiastes" Here is a link:

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ecclesiastes+1

v/r

Q

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew - did not want to ignore your question, hope the interval has not taken us too far away from this discussion.

The foundation of Christian theomorphism is scriptural:

"And God created man in his image"
Genesis 1:27)

The Christian position is that man is a created being and that God is not - and that this 'difference' between creature and creator is more extreme and 'more absolute' than between man and any other finite entity.

(And here is why man stands at the pinnacle of all creation: man by his very finitude is 'closer' to all of nature than he is to God, yet in his being is closer to God than all of nature...)

The memaning of the imago dei is that God shares some of his attributes with beings external to himself. (Man's error is in assuming that because God shares Himself, that with which man is graced is his by right and his to do with as he wills - but that's outside this discussion.)

St Gregory of Nyssa said:
"... for in order for something to partake in God, it is indespensible to possess in its being something corresponding to the partaken."

Plotinus, in The Enneads, asks:

And how do we possess the Divinity?

In that the Divinity is contained in the Intellectual-Principle and Authentic-Existence; and We come third in order after these two, for the We is constituted by a union of the supreme, the undivided Soul — we read — and that Soul which is divided among [living] bodies. For, note, we inevitably think of the Soul, though one undivided in the All, as being present to bodies in division: in so far as any bodies are Animates, the Soul has given itself to each of the separate material masses; or rather it appears to be present in the bodies by the fact that it shines into them: it makes them living beings not by merging into body but by giving forth, without any change in itself, images or likenesses of itself like one face caught by many mirrors.
(First Ennead, First Tractate - emphasis mine)

Whilst Plotinus might not be considered a Christian, his philosophical reasoning is sound, and all it took was a review of Platonism in the light of Revelation to let the truth shine forth in fullness. Let me add that Dionysius the Areopagite (a Christian esotericist par excellence) achieved this synthesis to a remarkable degree. St Maximus the Confessor gave Platonism its final and wholly Christian form, which can be traced through (amongst others) John Scotus Eriugena, St Bonaventure, Meister Eckhart, Nicholas of Cusa, and by no means least St Thomas Aquinas, the master and model of Catholic Theology.

The key that Plotinus offers is that the Divine appears to be present, that is not to say it is not present, but rather the Immanent Presence is the foundation of our being; it is the operation of Plotinus' Intellectual-Principle (synonymous with the Christian Logos as Divine Intellect) that ordains its particular nature as this person or that, as a germ or a galaxy, and it is the Will of God that sustains it in being, giving it an 'Authentic-Existence'.

So the fact that we exist at all signifies an operation of the Divine Intellect and an act of the Divine Will - both 'guarantee' our being, without being part of that being as such.

But in the end 'we' are subsistent being, and as much as we might partake of Being, we are not the Cause of Being as such - God can say 'I am that I am' and I can say 'I am because God is', but my being is entitrely dependent upon God, in Principle and in Act.

"Who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions,
or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Colossians 1:15-17

Thomas

[taijasi]

Wow! Thomas, cool. This is eloquent, clear, and wonderfully helpful! I'm with you on every bit of it. And here I mistakenly thought we saw things quite fundamentally different.

Many years ago, the symbolism of Deity (the undivided soul of Plotinus) as an eternally-burning Flame stuck with me. It fits quite well, the ideas of Light & Fire being oft-used in describing Divinity. And the optics of the mind (or psyche), as it receives, mirrors, distorts, and only somewhat outwardly reflects the Divine Light ... has also been with me much of late. As Blavatsky said, in The Voice of the Silence, "The mind is the great slayer of the Real."

Yet, we do know of those whose holy patina, or spiritual Shechinah, radiated quite clearly, and whose lives were filled with evidence that the One Soul was manifest in them fully. The very notion that we could accomplish a single noble act, much less live a life of service and charity, without Deity ... is foreign to Theosophists, esoteric Buddhists, and spiritual Humanists. What I think isn't always apparent to Christians in dialoguing with such folks, is that the latter believe explicitly (and almost universally) in Christ as both a Universal spiritual Presence, as well as the historical figure of 20-some centuries ago. All other matters aside, there is agreement on the metaphysics and theomorphism that you characterize in your post.

The point of departure would be with individuals who insist that only Jesus of Nazareth was `Christed,' or annointed, this consummation of the candidate `chrestos' (as a `christos') being something universal (and quite well-known to the ancients), certainly not unique!!! St. Paul's, "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory," is either a trite & meaningless absurdity (at best a carrot on a stick), or else it is exactly what he indicates it to be. I find little room for something in-between, unless we engage in theological wrangling ... and outright perversion of meaning.

[I might insert here, parenthetically or as an aside, that Hinduism has its Brahman, or Unmanifest Deity, then the manifest Trimurti of Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma - corresponding quite well to the Christian Trinity. There is further discussion of Saguna Brahman vs. Nirguna Brahman, or Deity with attributes vs. Deity without attributes, respectively. But for the Holy One who is even capable of sensibly pondering states of being beyond Siva - corresponding as Siva does to the Father Aspect of the Christian Trinity ... these distinctions are surely academic. What (common?) Christian Theology may be lacking (and surely the deficit is obvious and apparent to the astute observer), is the emphasis on the concept of Deity as the Absolute, beyond the equally-meaningful & valid expression of Deity as the Trinity. As Wikipedia puts it, "Plotinus taught the existence of an ineffable and transcendent One, from which emanated the rest of the universe as a sequence of lesser beings." And then again, same source: "The Source, Absolute or One, is what all things spring from and as a superconsciousness is where all things return." I would submit that these last few words are of tremendous importance. It is if, and when, the well-meaning Christian seeker attempts to divide that which is essentially indivisible and non-dual - whether into a Trinity, a duality, a tetrad, or other variation - that s/he quickly gets into trouble. The Mystery of the Trinity is surely difficult enough in & of itself; let us not take upon ourselves the additional burden of seeking to describe that which no man, no god, and no conditioned being has ever experienced. ]

Again, difficulty can come if we try to gauge, or judge, the holiness of various spiritual teachers, messengers, and avatars. Those who insist on some particular historical figure or another (any figure, to the exclusion of others) ... are missing the very point! Christ is Universal! This made for interesting discussion on another thread, with Z posting. We need to remember that the language of present-day Earth Humanity, or any language recently spoken in this tiny, remote corner of the Galaxy ... should never get in the way of the Eternal Verities, and our pursuit of them (`Him'). It's why I think the colorful, audible language of music, poetry and art - is far closer to the Word of God ... than the cacophonous clatter of human noise, organized under any other rubric or construct. Better worded, "Consider the lilies ... "

Cheers,

andrew

[Thomas]

The point of departure would be with individuals who insist that only Jesus of Nazareth was 'Christed,' or annointed, this consummation of the candidate 'chrestos' (as a 'christos') being something universal (and quite well-known to the ancients), certainly not unique!!!

The pagan world understood little or nothing about the import of the anointed (Hebrew Messias; Greek Christus); to them it did not convey any sacred conception. Hence they substituted Chrestus, or "excellent", for Christus or "anointed", and Chrestians instead of "Christians." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius and St. Jerome, are acquainted with the pagan substitution of Chrestes for Christus, and are careful to explain the new term. Blavatsky simply reverts to the old error to suit her own derivative theological syncretism.

(I might point you towards René Guénon, a metaphysician par excellence, and especially his "Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion" a profound critique of Blavatsky and her clique. In any event I would urge you towards primary sources and avoid the derivative syncretism of Theosophy.)

+++

I might insert here, parenthetically or as an aside, that Hinduism has its Brahman, or Unmanifest Deity, then the manifest Trimurti of Siva, Vishnu, and Brahma - corresponding quite well to the Christian Trinity.

Not quite - the Hindu pantheon 'devolves' cosmologically from the Unmanifest - that is the 'nature' of the manifest deities is in accordance with the cosmological operation of Brahman - whereas the 'nature' of the three Persons of the Trinity is according to the interior life of the Unmanifest.

What (common?) Christian Theology may be lacking (and surely the deficit is obvious and apparent to the astute observer), is the emphasis on the concept of Deity as the Absolute, beyond the equally-meaningful & valid expression of Deity as the Trinity.

I can't believe you say this - or I can only believe you are largely misinformed with regard to 'common' Christian Theology. This is simply and demonstrably not the case. If you want me to list theologians I can, but off the top of my head I would have to say 'all of them'.

As Wikipedia puts it, "Plotinus taught the existence of an ineffable and transcendent One, from which emanated the rest of the universe as a sequence of lesser beings."

And here Christian doctrine would argue that the One cannot 'emanate' because how can the One emanate other than Itself (and emanate where, and into what...?). This is monism. I would argue that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is the only doctrine that preserves the absolute ineffability and transcendance of the One whilst also insisting upon the reality and goodness of creation.

It is if, and when, the well-meaning Christian seeker attempts to divide that which is essentially indivisible and non-dual - whether into a Trinity, a duality, a tetrad, or other variation - that s/he quickly gets into trouble. The Mystery of the Trinity is surely difficult enough in & of itself; let us not take upon ourselves the additional burden of seeking to describe that which no man, no god, and no conditioned being has ever experienced.

I am sorry, but this is a disingenous statement. What you are saying is that you know better than Christianity.

All along you are seeking to describe the Mystery of the Trinity acording to every other source but that from which it sprang. What you're saying is that according to this, or that, or whatever, it cannot be what it says it is because that does not fir this or that schemma (mythos/logos).

The simple fact is (like it or not) that nothing outside of Christian Revelation can say anything about the Trinity because it is a Mystery not revealed in any other hermeneutic. As long as you use any other source than Christian, you will go wrong.

... are missing the very point! Christ is Universal!

Yes - and at One place, at One time, the Universal manifested Itself wholly and completely, as man and as God, "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."

A careful examination of every other spiritual doctrine will demonstrate that these four adverbs cannot be so applied. This is Christianity's unique difference.

Thomas

[taijasi]

My friend, you cut me to the quick!

For starters, ex nihilo, nihil fit. To state the opposite, is absurdity. YOU create me something out of nothing. Go ahead. I'd like to note your process. Show me that you created a) the raw materials, b) the workspace, and c) the idea upon which you base your creation to start with. At best, we can say that Deity produces the latter two from the former. Deity does not create something from nothing! I certainly admire the (blind) faith of someone who insists that "God can do annnnnnything he wants!" ... but yes, I smile. Not even God can do that.

Blavatsky is far more a primary source, dear one, than any of your Christian theologians could ever have been (!), save for the Platonists or Neo-Platonists, perhaps ... many of these being the selfsame Mahatmas who in Blavatsky's lifetime inspired her, having met her, taught her, and trained her in the techniques necessary for going straight to the source, as it were. And it don't get no more primary ... than that.

You will need to explain a little better why you insist on splitting hairs regarding the Hindu notion of Brahman. There is but one Reality. That is Brahman (the Absolute, names mean nought). Christian thinkers, being informed by all the Pagan religions, including Egyptian wisdom, Greek and Vedic thought ... might have added slightly as they synthesized the theology of which you seem so fond. But indeed, one cannot re-invent what already exists. Perhaps the phraseology of some of the sources you mention is more appealing to you than the writers & thinkers who first put to paper (parchment, stone carving, etc.) such ideas. It's ok. As I make clear, I prefer the efforts of Blavatsky to shine the torch amidst human darkness. She is by no means my favorite author in the wisdom tradition, and the criticisms abound, but she more than succeeded in the mission to which she was appointed.

Do I know better than Christianity? Better than the perversion of ancient wisdom that has been foisted upon us by the Jesuits, yes. I recommend that you take a significant step back ... and consider what you have embraced. I may lack in years of experience in this lifetime the devotion which you give to Catholicism and Christian theology, but my choice is quite a conscious one - to remain as deeply apostate as possible from the twisted perversion of Christ's own truth.

I am not at liberty (because I do not know his teaching either in its entirety or in the precise, Aramaic verbiage in which he expressed it) to disclose such teaching, but I do know where it can be found. I remain quite content that I have grasped many of the fundamentals, several of the particulars, and I even feel I have had the rare privilege of grasping some of the subtler points. I know, because it is not so hard to discern, that I am somewhat off the beaten path. And sometimes I consider my own situation and wonder - do I even have the right, or the place, to point out the inconsistencies with christian doctrine, the errors, the perversions. Certainly I am familiar with Christ's injunction not to pronounce judgment, but he also sent us out, at one time, to shine the light. Even now, and in some ways just as much or more so than ever, I think I do have the prerogative and the ability, to reveal the muddle that has been made of Christ's words & example ... by his well-meaning, but misguided followers.

Do I know better than the tangled mass of impossibilities, contradictions, and perversions that has been attributed to the lips of the Great One? Yes, for we all do - deep at heart. But there are those that would, and will, fight to the death to preserve the old power structure(s), both religious and political. And not the greatest portion of these (structures) even finds expression in the outer world. Where once I laughed at conspiracy theorists, and was always able to maintain relative positivity or idealism, I must admit, I have ebbed somewhat, as I have begun to see the purpose, the motive, and the determination of those who would maintain the old order. Their days are numbered, but they attack constantly, and give no quarter. The church has often been their pawn, with some theologians serving as direct dark disciples, just as the Syrian Master (and others) have also used the Church for good, and continue to, with many thinkers and contributors (including those you mention) being disciples for good, and seeking to shine light amidst darkness, ignorance and error. This is not my fantasy, friend, it's just how it is. Religion, in this respect, in no different than other fields of human endeavor, save that the glamour (astral illusion) surrounding this line of approach (Rays 2 & 6, with much activity in the astral world) ... is particularly great. And the masses are still held enthralled by the wicked.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The simple fact is (like it or not) that nothing outside of Christian Revelation can say anything about the Trinity because it is a Mystery not revealed in any other hermeneutic. As long as you use any other source than Christian, you will go wrong.

Wipe the foam from your mouth. It is unbecoming. I am immune to the bite. But it does hurt. Doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Yes - and at One place, at One time, the Universal manifested Itself wholly and completely, as man and as God, "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."

Well, several places. There was Shakyamuni Buddha, who certainly served, as Christ's Brother, to pave the way before him. In the Mystery Tradition, he anchored the Light, or 3rd Aspect. Christ then brought us the 2nd, or Love-Wisdom Aspect. And during this, his return, his mission is to ancor the Will, or highest (1st) Aspect. You might question this presentation, or resort to nay-saying the Buddha (and anyone else that your theology is unable to accept) ... but the Christian knows as well as any other (and often better, through a resonance, as it were, to the 6th-Ray nature of the Piscean teaching and influence) ... that Christ embodied Love. Yes, absolutely, he did so clearly, perfectly, and inclusively, and would have done so openly to the end of his days, had he not been stopped by Rome, enacting the racial/world karma which would not permit it. But as I have suggested on other threads, there is ample evidence that Christ, via Jesus of Nazareth, continued his mission with the disciples - thereby also reaching the world - in secret. And the records are safe, already partially revealed, to be so fully in time. And one day folks like Cayce and Blavatsky might even get an apology, or a nod, from the High and Mighty Catholic Church. Poor Joan. Poor Galileo. Christ knew their fate, even from the Cross.

Let's keep up the debate. And there I was all set on agreement, and strove for accord. Oh well. Naturally I will agree to disagree with just about everything you said in your post, but I am also happy to take up a point or two, if you feel they are worth arguing. My wits are not what they were 15 years ago as a philosophy major, I'm afraid. What can I say? Having caught a glimpse of the truth, I am as gleeful as the next guy (that's you, in this case) with the handful of its presentations as I've found. But I would happily put the book down, because God doesn't live in a box (alone). And not books, not institutions, and no, not even the purified and consecrated human heart (that of Christ, Jesus, Buddha, or anyone) can or could possibly contain him. We speak absurdities if we insist that God could be fully contained - through some mystery or magic - in any, outer vessel. I will grant you, at best, than the highest Aspect of Deity knowable on this planet was more manifest through Christed Jesus than through any other being to date. But let's stop playing "mine is bigger and better," because with religions, just as with politics, guns & war, it doesn't make for a very pretty picture. People die (daily) ... because of this nonsense. And I really don't think that helps prepare for the Coming One at all.

protokletos