PAGE 14

Quickly jump to page...

Preface.. | Genesis.. Eve | Sophia.. | Holy Spirit..Proverbs.. | Holy Spirit..Mother Mary.. | Mary Magdalene.. | Beloved Disciple.. | A woman of Sama'ria.. | Jesus' Feminine Complement.. | Language.. | Symbols.. | Priesthood.. | Gnosticism.. | Dualistic dogma.. | Destiny.. | Arthurian stories.. | Templars, Troubadors and the Holy Grail.. | Archives of the Vatian.. | Sacred sexuality.. | Betrothed.. | Bride of Christ.. | To live with Christ..

Manichaeism, was an outgrowth of Mithraism and Zoroastrianism. Manicheanism was a religion founded by Mani, (216-276) who was born near the site of Baghdad, of Persian parents. Mani had a vision in his early youth, and for many years wandered as a meditative ascetic. After this he came forward claiming to be the inspired prophet of a new religion, something not uncommonly done in his day. He was expelled by the Zoroastrians as a heretic. The doctrine that was to become Manichaeism was a great synthesis of elements from Gnosticism, particularly from the teachings of Marcion, Zoroastrianism, and other Persian religions, and as much of the beliefs of Christianity that suited his purpose. Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity. Basic to the doctrine of Manichaeism was the conflicting dualism between the realm of God, represented by light and spiritual enlightenment, and the realm of Satan, symbolized by darkness and material things. Manicheanism laid so much stress on the ascetic life that it looked on the sex instinct as evil and emphasized the unmarried state. The ‘elect’ rejected darkness by leading a life of strict celibacy and austerity and women were considered part of the forces of Satan, seducing man.

St. Augustine, who was destined to exert, through his theological and philosophical works, a decisive influence on the cultural development of the Western world, was in his youth a Manichee. The Manichean dualism with its principle of eternal strife between the powers of light and darkness had the greatest appeal for Augustine. Even after the seeds of Christian life were planted in Augustine, he continued as a member of the sect of the Manicheans; he went to their meetings and used his Manichean friends when they could help him in his career. Indeed, because some resemblances between Christianity and Mithraism were so close, Augustine declared the priests of Mithra worshipped the same deity that he did. After his journey to Rome from Africa, Augustine became obsessed with the problem of the origin of evil and the unspoken mystery of the unconscious mind.

At this time in his life Augustine was ripe for a larger philosophical basis upon which to base his intellectual life. Augustine owed his final disengagement from the material world to the writings of the neo-platonists. It is from this source that the world-view of the identification of spirit and incorporeality originated. Greek philosophy also taught that an ethical antagonism or dualism between virtue and the sensuous impulse required a parallel distinction between knowledge and sensuous ideas. These two elements of dualism, Levant and Greek, dovetailed neatly together in Agustine’s world-picture. The neoplatonic version of the ‘logos’, taught him to except truth as not embodied in matter. That divine knowledge was outside the physical realm; and that ‘disembodied ecstasy’ was the highest state one could enjoy in this life.. It was through neo-platonism that Augustine conceived of spirit as being immaterial and evil as being a phantasmal substance. It was Augustine who promoted the Idea of ‘Original Sin’ as inherited and carried forward as a result of human sexuality; and it was through Augustine that a manichean type neo-platonism became firmly joined to Christianity.

In his conversion to Christianity, he perceived the will of the Divine as an extreme opposition to his life of worldly and natural cravings, and manifest this in the opposite pole of celibacy and monastic discipline Thereafter, he lived as a philosopher who had turned his back on the world “to enjoy the bliss of pure thought”. In the early centuries of the Christian era, spiritual trends were largely determined by the thoughts and deeds of the saints; and Augustine’s theological essays with all their pagan colorings, assumed an immediate dogmatic importance for all Christianity. It has been said that Augustine’s influence on Christianity is second only to St. Paul; and theologians, Roman Catholic and Protestants alike, look upon him as the founder of theology. However, while many see his historical acts as defending the Christian faith, Augustine is largely responsible for uniting Christianity with Babylon’s mystery religions.

To be fair, it must be said that toward the end of Augustine’s life his philosophy became, more and more, life centered. In his theological ‘maturity’ Augustine attempted to contemplate the whole of reality as a universal, richly endowed history, guided and blessed by God throughout. In fact, it may even be said that he came to see the beauty of this world as a reflection of the supreme goodness of God. In the Confessions St. Augustine, with the most sincere humility and contrition, lay open the errors of his conduct; in his seventy-second year he began to do the like for his judgment. In this work, his Retractions, he reviewed his writings, which were very numerous, and attempted to correct with candor and severity the mistakes he had made, without seeking the least gloss or excuse to qualify them. Still, although the thinkers of the middle ages, by and large, considered themselves to be disciples of Augustine, they showed little commitment to, or understanding of, the life centered motif of Augustine’s latter, mature thought.

To give an example of just how mistaken The middle ages became in confusing the inspirational sources of their doctrine, and how it still effects the Christian Church today, take the fact that ‘Lucifer’ is not the name of the Devil.

The title Lucifer, which is Latin for ‘morning star’ comes form only one passage in the Bible, found in the book of Isaiah, chapter 14; verse 12. This title was given to the kings of Babylon, as tribute in the royal court by the public in attendance.

The Lucifer entry in Isa 14:12 is completely wrong... not to mention it doesn't make any sense. The Hebrew words there are in fact “helel ben shachar”. Helel means shining, in some interpretations, “star”. Most scholars agree that Shachar is from the Babylonian “Shahar”. In Babylonian mythology Shahar was known as the God of the Dawn and he had a son, his name was HELEL, which is sometimes associated with the planet Venus (one of the brightest stars[sic] in the night sky). It should properly read, “Helel son of Shahar!”

The name "Lucifer" is latin for "light-bringer" and has been used as a mistranslation for both the Hebrew heliel, or day-star (by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate bible) and the Greek Eosphoros (Dawn-star). The name Lucifer is often linked in the bible to the King of Babylon, in the book of Isaiah. Here, the King is referred to as the "Bright Morning star, who has fallen from the the heavens, and that the Lord will destroy Babylon" (Isaiah 14: 12-15) It is from this reference that the name "Lucifer" became associated with the Devil. This cannot be further from the truth, since Lucifer is a latin word, not a Hebrew word.

The Italian/Strega Lucifer is better known as Dianus---Diana's consort. She was goddess of the moon, and he was god of the sun----he went on to also be known as Janus. He was not the Devil.

 

The matching of Lucifer with the morning star rises not from the Hebrew bible but from classical mythology, a fount of bitter water not intended by God as our "fountain of living waters" (Jeremiah 17:13). Reference works concede that the switch is based on ".. .classical mythology for the planet Venus." Just because Satan has convinced the heathen world to connect him with Venus, the morning star, is no basis for the repetition of that "myth" by Christian scholars.

This title was not ascribed to Satan until over two thousand years later. Further, Lucifer, in ancient mythologies, was never a beautiful and perfect angel in Heaven who rebelled against God. This distortion of the Bible came from juxtaposing the book of Ezekiel's reference to the king of Trye ( 28:12) with Isaiah's reference to the king of Babylon. Perhaps even more surprising is that in the book of Revelations the ‘Morning Star’ is a name of Jesus Christ. (Rev 22:16),see also (2 Peter 1:19) It is also interesting to note that in Isaiah 45:7 it is written, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things”.
 

In modern and late Medieval Christian thought, Lucifer is a fallen angel commonly associated with Satan, the embodiment of evil and enemy of God. Lucifer is generally considered, based on the influence of Christian literature and legend, to have been a prominent archangel in heaven (although some contexts say he was a cherub or a seraph), prior to having been motivated by pride to rebel against God. When the rebellion failed, Lucifer was cast out of heaven, along with a third of the heavenly host, and came to reside on the world.

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus. The word Lucifer was the direct translation of the Greek eosphorus ("dawn-bearer"; cf. Greek phosphorus, "light-bearer") used by Jerome in the Vulgate. In that passage, Isaiah 14:12, it referred to one of the popular honorific titles of a Babylonian king; however, later interpretations of the text, and the influence of embellishments in works such as Dante's The Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, led to the common idea in Christian mythology and folklore that Lucifer was a poetic appellation of Satan.

Roman poetic appellation

A 2nd-century sculpture of the moon goddess Selene accompanied by Hesperus and Phosphorus: the Morning star was later Latinized as "Lucifer".Lucifer is a poetic name for the "morning star", a close translation of the Greek eosphoros, the "dawn-bringer", which appears in the Odyssey and in Hesiod's Theogony.

A classic Roman use of "Lucifer" appears in Virgil's Georgics (III, 324-5):

Luciferi primo cum sidere frigida rura
carpamus, dum mane novum, dum gramina canent"
"Let us hasten, when first the Morning Star appears,
To the cool pastures, while the day is new, while the grass is dewy"
And similarly, in Ovid's Metamorphoses:

"Aurora, watchful in the reddening dawn, threw wide her crimson doors and rose-filled halls; the Stars took flight, in marshalled order set by Lucifer, who left his station last."
A more effusive poet, like Statius, can expand this trope into a brief but profuse allegory, though still this is a poetical personification of the Light-Bearer, not a mythology:

"And now Aurora, rising from her Mygdonian resting-place, had scattered the cold shadows from the high heaven, and, shaking the dew-drops from her hair, blushed deep in the sun's pursuing beams; toward her through the clouds, rosy Lucifer turns his late fires, and with slow steed leaves an alien world, until the fiery father's orb be full replenished and he forbid his sister to usurp his rays."
Statius, Thebaid 2.134

 

 

A 2nd-century sculpture of the moon goddess Selene accompanied by Hesperus and Phosphorus: the Morning star was later Latinized as "Lucifer".

Origins in Isaiah

Statue of one of twelve lucifers at the Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc.In the Vulgate, an early-5th-century translation of the Bible into Latin by Jerome, Lucifer occurs in Isaiah 14:12-14 as a translation of the Greek word heosphorus ("dawn-bearer"), an epithet of Venus. The original Hebrew text of this verse was הילל בן שחר (heilel ben-schahar), meaning "Helel son of Shahar." Helel was a Babylonian / Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian / Canaanite god named Shahar.

Helel was the god of the morning star and his father was Shahar, god of the dawn. Some translations of Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!" American Standard Version translating Hebrew Helel as "day-star" and the Hebrew word Ben as son and the Hebrew word Shahar as "of the morning." Others translate it as "Lucifer, son of the morning" 21st Century King James.

In Isaiah, this title is specifically used, in a prophetic vision, to reference the king of Babylon's pride and to illustrate his eventual fate by referencing mythological accounts of the planet Venus:

14:4 You will recite this parable about the king of Babylonia: How has the oppressor come to an end, the arrogance been ended?
14:10 They will all proclaim and say to you, "You also have been stricken as we were; you are compared to us.
14:11 Brought down to the nether-world were your pride and the tumult of your stringed instruments; maggots are spread out under you, and worms are your covers.
14:12 How have you fallen from the heavens, O glowing morning star; been cut down to the ground O conqueror of nations?
(Isaiah, Artscroll Tanakh)
The Jewish Encyclopedia reports that "it is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star".[1]

In modern Jewish theology, Helel in Isaiah 14 is not equated with the Jewish concept of HaSatan (the adversary). Instead, the prophet is speaking of the fall of Babylon and along with it the fall of her false gods Helel and Shahar. There is satan which is a Hebrew word meaning "adversary" and in the Tanakh one will find many instances of the word used to describe human and angelic adversaries to man.

Later Jewish tradition, influenced by Babylonian mythology acquired during the Babylonian captivity, elaborated on the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samhazai ("the heaven-seizer") and Azael (Enoch, book vi.6f). Another legend, in the midrash, represents the repentant Samhazai suspended star-like between heaven and earth instead of being hurled down to Sheol.

The Helel-Lucifer (i.e. Venus) myth was later transferred to Satan, as evidenced by the 1st-century pseudepigraphical text Vita Adae et Evae (12), where the Adversary gives Adam an account of his early career,[2] and the Slavonic Book of Enoch (xxix. 4, xxxi. 4), where Satan-Sataniel (Sataniel/Satanel "The Keeper of Hell") (Samael?) is also described as a former archangel. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high", Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, to fly in the air continually above the abyss.


Christian tradition

The fall of Lucifer, Gustave Doré's illustration for the Paradise Lost by John Milton.Christian tradition of a literal fall from heaven drew upon the Homeric tradition, familiar to every educated Gentile Christian. Homer's description of the parallel supernatural fall

"the whole day long I was carried headlong, and at sunset I fell in Lemnos, and but little life was in me"
relates the fall of Hephaestus from Olympus in the Iliad I:591ff; the fall of the Titans was similarly described by Hesiod. Through popular epitomes these traditions were drawn upon by Christian authors embellishing the fall of Lucifer.

Jerome, with the Septuagint close at hand and a general familiarity with the pagan poetic traditions, translated Heylel as Lucifer. This may also have been done as a pointed jab at a bishop named Lucifer, a contemporary of Jerome who argued to forgive those condemned of the Arian heresy. Much of Christian tradition also draws on interpretations of Revelation 12:9 ("He was thrown down, that ancient serpent"; see also 12:4 and 12:7) in equating the ancient serpent with the serpent in the Garden of Eden and the fallen star, Lucifer, with Satan. Accordingly, Tertullian (Contra Marrionem, v. 11, 17), Origen (Ezekiel Opera, iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan.

In the fully-developed Christian interpretation, Jerome's Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 has made Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory as the morning star. This image at last defines the character of Satan; where the Church Fathers had maintained that lucifer was not the proper name of the Devil, and that it referred rather to the state from which he had fallen; St. Jerome gave it Biblical authority when he transformed it into Satan's proper name.

It is noteworthy that the Old Testament itself does not at any point actually mention the rebellion and fall of Satan. This non-Scriptural belief assembled from interpretations of different passages, would fall under the heading Christian mythology, that is, Christian traditions that are derived from outside of church teachings and scripture.


Other instances of the Morning Star in the New Testament
In the Vulgate, the word lucifer is used elsewhere: it describes the Morning Star (the planet Venus), the "light of the morning" (Job 11:17); the constellations (Job 38:32) and "the aurora" (Psalms 109:3). In the New Testament, Jesus Christ (in II Peter 1:19) is associated with the "morning star" (phosphoros).

Not all references in the New Testament to the morning star refer to phosphoros, however; in Revelation:

Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star (aster proinos).

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star (aster orthrinos).

In the Eastern Empire, where Greek was the language, "morning star" (heosphorus) retained these earlier connotations. When Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, attended the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus II in 968, he reported to his master Otto I the greeting sung to the emperor arriving in Hagia Sophia:

"Behold the morning star approaches, Eos rises; he reflects in his glances the rays of the sun— he the pale death of the Saracens, Nicephorus the ruler."

 

Lucifer is a key protagonist in John Milton's (1667) Protestant epic, Paradise Lost. Milton presents Lucifer almost sympathetically, an ambitious and prideful angel who defies God and wages war on heaven, only to be defeated and cast down. Lucifer must then employ his rhetorical ability to organize hell; he is aided by Mammon and Beelzebub. Later, Lucifer enters the Garden of Eden, where he successfully tempts Eve, wife of Adam, to eat fruit from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The Bible clearly states that the Devil is a serpent and a dragon; and "a murderer from the beginning". (John 8:42) and this always has been. (Rev 12:3-..),(The Bible does speak of fallen angels (which are not to be confused with the sons of God 'or gods' in Genesis 6:2) and says that the ministers of Satan pretend to righteous, which is not surprising because the Devil does the same( masquerades as an angel of light 2 Cor 11:14).

The devil is a dragon.. not anything else.. a serpent, not a Cerubim.. Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, The first verse of the Bible describes existence as a formless void. The word used to describe that void indicates a swirling, seething mass of chaos and is "tehom" this word is connected with Tehomat which we usually see translated as Tiamet the primordial dragon. ..the whole story about lucifer being the devil is pure fiction.. there is NO scriptural connectons between the bits and pieces that make up that myth and what the Bible has to say about Satan. These pieces directly refer to certian kings or refer to complete mysteries about the sins of angels..nothing more.. making more out of it throws the whole Bible out of context! I know we have all been taught that story in church, however, it was an invention of the middle ages made from previous Babylonian demonology! This can be proven with study.. further, the lucifer story does not explain the orgin of evil; which it was designed to do.. If God is all knowing and all loving how could he allow his right hand man to concieve evil out of nowhere and be damned to hell.?. Just saying God is God is not an answer.. the Bible specifically states that God created BOTH good and evil..

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things



Further, the 'Sons of God' (Nephilim..Those Who Have Come Down, from the Heavens to Earth) were not demons or angels who fell.. their children were men of great renown.. the whole idea that they were evil comes from thinking that sex with the daughters of men is evil.. Neither were there children hybrids because hybrids are sterile and cannot breed further. .. (GNB) In those days, and even later, there were giants on the earth who were descendants of human women and the heavenly beings. They were the great heroes and famous men of long ago. (GW) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, as well as later, when the sons of God slept with the daughters of other humans and had children by them. These children were famous long ago. (HCSB) The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterwards, when the sons of God came to the daughters of man, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men.

That is the whole story.. nothing more can be said from the Bible about the Nephilim.. adding other things is simply guess work! We can trace the word "Nephilim" to the root "Niphal" meaning "distinguished ones." This corresponds perfectly with the "men of renown" at the end of Genesis 6:4 However, the Bible and the story of Atlantis does say that mankind of which the children of the Nephilim were part had fallen into corruption and was therefore judged by (the) God(s).

"The Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraphical work (a work that claims to be by a biblical character). states that the Nephilim are evil, however, this book is obviously symbolic to the point of being a fiction. "The Greek word pseudepigrapha is a Greek word meaning 'falsely superscribed,' or what we moderns might call writing under a pen name. The classification, 'OT Pseudepigrapha,' is a label that scholars have given to these writings."

 

however, one thing the book of Enoch does show is that God's Wisdom was considered female by the early Hebrews. Here is a writing from Enoch (Ch 42:1-4) about Wisdom--the Feminine Aspect of God:

"Wisdom found no place where She might dwell;
Then a dwelling place was assigned her in the heavens.
Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men
And found no dwelling place.
Wisdom returned to he place
and took her seat among the angels.
And unrighteousness went forth from her chanbers:
Whom she sought not she found,
And dwelt with them,
As rain in a desert
And dew on a thirsty land."


The Book of Enoch was not included in either the Hebrew or most Christian biblical canons, Further, A world view so encyclopaediac was no part of Jewish tradition. However, many of the early church fathers supported the Enochian writings. Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for women (from the Ibid.)-directly referencing the Enochian writings.

"The explanation of this myth, which has been a stumbling block to theologians, may be the arrival in Palestine of tall, Hebrew herdsmen early in the second millenium B.C., and their exposure, by marriage, to Asianic civilization. 'Sons of El' in this sense would mean the 'cattle-owning worshipper of the Semite Bull-god El'; 'Daughters of Adam' would mean 'women of the soil' (adama), namely, the Goddess- worshipping Canaanite agriculturists, notorious for their orgies and premarital prostitution. If so, this historical event has been tangled with the Ugaritic myth how El seduced two mortal women and fathered divine sons on them, namely Shahar ('Dawn') and Shalem ('Perfect'). Shahar appears as a winged deity in Psalm CXXXIX:9, and his son, according to Isaiah XIV:12, was the fallen angel Helel. Unions between gods and mortals, that is to say between kings or queens and commoners, occur frequently in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern myth. Since later Judaism rejected all deities but its own transcendental God, and since He never married or consorted with any female whatsoever, Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai in Genesis Rabba felt obliged to curse all who read 'Sons of God' in the Ugartic sense. Clearly, such an interperetation was still current in the second century A.D., and lapsed only when Bene Elohim meant 'God' and Judge,' the theory being that when a duly appointed magistrate tried a case, the Spirit of El posessed him: 'I have said, ye are gods.' (Psalm LXXXII:6)"

he division of life into spirit and nature usually goes hand in hand with a symbolism in which spirit is male and nature is female. The resemblance may be suggested by the rains falling from heaven to fertilize the earth which then brings forth the harvest. However it is conceived, ancient man and woman reasoned in terms of such correspondences. All cultures, including our own, are still influence by these projections of metaphor. It is a disposition that, when related to theological models, often creates a problematic attitude to sex. Or perhaps it is at first a problematic attitude, that then chooses to employ such symbolism. In any case, one easily supports the other. The fact remains that in some way the female sex has become associated with the earthly aspect of human nature and with sexuality as such. And as a result with being overly concerned with symbols, a form of Idolatry; in some remote past, Eve was given the blame for man’s fallen nature. However this came about, one of them had to eat the apple first, and the foolishness of the male chauvinists, has resulted in a cultural tendency of Western Christianity to view the human body and sexual enjoyment as suspect, if not downright sinful; and its ‘her’ fault. This sexual interpretation within the Paradise myth has had an incalculable negative effect on both woman and man. Indeed, one may wonder if the serpent wasn’t even more subtle than ‘he’ was given credit for. This perversion continues to be a subtext in the sermons of fundamentalist preachers. Adam and Eve were not actual historical figures, but representatives of two intrapsychic principles within every human being. Adam was the dramatic embodiment of psyche, or soul, while Eve stood for the pneuma, or spirit. Soul, to the early Christians meant the embodiment of the emotional and thinking functions of the personality, while spirit represented the human capacity for spiritual consciousness. The former was the lesser self (the ego of depth psychology), the latter the transcendental function, or the "higher self," as it is sometimes known. Obviously, Eve, then, is by nature of her intuition, closer to God and not inferior to Adam, as implied by orthodoxy.

Nowhere is Eve's numinous power more evident than in her role as Adam's awakener. Adam is in a deep sleep, from which Eve's liberating call arouses him. While the orthodox version has Eve physically emerge from Adam's body, the Gnostic rendering has the spiritual principle known as Eve emerging from the unconscious depths of the somnolent Adam. Before she thus emerges into liberating consciousness, Eve calls forth to the sleeping Adam in the following manner, as stated by the Gnostic Apocryphon of John:

I entered into the midst of the dungeon which is the prison of the body. And I spoke thus: "He who hears, let him arise from the deep sleep." And then he (Adam) wept and shed tears. After he wiped away his bitter tears he spoke, asking: "Who is it that calls my name, and whence has this hope come unto me, while I am in the chains of this prison?" And I spoke thus: "I am the Pronoia of the pure light; I am the thought of the undefiled spirit. . . . Arise and remember . . . and follow your root, which is I . . . and beware of the deep sleep."



St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians wrote "It is good for a man not to touch a woman.."; This could have just as well been translated, " It is acceptable for a man not to touch a woman", However, the early church fathers not only made every effort to follow the Jewish austere views of sexuality, but , as is always the case in new movements, they surpassed them in rigidity. For the Jews were quite sensible about sex. They were, to be sure, against sex worship and everything that went with it, but allowed sufficient play for Eros to insure healthy sex living. However, the Church fathers lost all sense of proportion in their zeal to exterminate the erotic from their organized fellowships, and hence, their followers.

As a result of all these historical developments the medieval church separated the truths, as well as the joys, of human experience from the articles of enforced faith. Professed morality and actual conduct were entirely at odds. For instance, in the fourteenth century, at the same time that religious miracle plays and parables deplored the body and sexuality, it is estimated that about 40 percent of the children born in Europe were illegitimate. Obviously, Augustine’s asceticism could not capture the minds of the people. The raging heresies of that time and the fury of their suppression likewise testify to an to an lack of harmony of Creed and Passion. Sadly however, these heresies for the most part, whether at first of Manichean, or latter, of Waldensian Christian type, were as committed as the Roman Church itself to that dualistic dogma, imported from the Levant, according to which life in its spontaneity is not innocent but corrupt. Moreover, even following the inevitable explosion of the Reformation and the break away thereafter of Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and all; the entire Protestant movement carried this same dualism onward.

 

This same dualism is the foundation of a false view of Biblical teachings, which goes like this. God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Therefore, Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity. This erroneous teaching is the result of the doctrine of Original Sin.

What is commonly referred to as Original Sin has been promoted as a hereditary wickedness. What has not been promoted is that there is a difference between genetics and our heritage. Who's heritage do we claim for ourselves; Christ's or Adam's? Are we born again into the old man or the new man? We can claim a spiritual birth into a royal household through Jesus. Jesus Christ died for all; "especially those who believe", ( 1 Tm 4:10 ) and has given humanity a new faith a new hope and a new charity. We are redeemed from sin, not our bodies death. The Bible does not say God punished the human race for one man's sin; rather, the disposition of sin came through Adam. The "condemnation is that light has come into the world and men loved darkness rather then light". ( Jn 3: 19 ) What is felt in ourselves as Original Sin is the result of being fragmented from the unity that is in God. We intuitively know there is completeness in God. This unity is foundational to being and may be experienced to various degrees, sometimes even profoundly. Therefore; Original Sin is duality instead of balance, it is being fragmented instead of whole. It is the fear of running out of time and fear that we will be judged and found lacking. Original sin is far more properly defined as collective sin which we have been born into. Also, Originally, sin was defined as 'missing the mark' or 'falling short of' and did not necessarily imply guilt, let alone a state of permanent guilt.

The Life-desolating effects of this separation of the kingdoms of Nature and the Spirit in such a way that neither touches the other, but destructively, remains to this day an essential psychological problem of the Christianized Western world. And since it is at root a consequence of misunderstanding a supposed biblical doctrine of a ontological distinction, or basic separation, between God and the universe, Creator and creature, Spirit and matter, this view is contrary to the teaching of Christ; who declares, “At that day you shall know that I am in my father, and ye in me, and I in you” (John 14:20). “...apart from him has nothing come into being that has come into being.” (John 1:3) And also in the writings of St. Paul, “In him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things...” (Rom 11:36) Also, “But to us there is but one God...and we in him...” (1 Cor 8:6).

It can hardly be overstated as to the spiritual and psychological damage done by these corrupt Levant influences within Western Christian theology. By not realizing the true significance of the elements within the ‘Paradise Myth’ due to the historical development of the church, as well as modern science’s mute atheistic imply, we have been thoroughly dissociated from our fundamental ground of being, namely the Divine. Now it is apparent that God in the Christian religion is a God of weddings as well as sacrifice, a God of compassion as well as joy; a God of purity as well as labor, A God of mercy as well as justice. A God of holiness and wholesomeness. Indeed, these things are not separate but joined in union within God through the divine incarnation that is Jesus Christ. Therefore, the scriptural keys to understanding just what the Christian viewpoint is regarding transcending the limitations of this world, is explained through not grasping any extreme position in philosophy; rather, through thanksgiving, to honor God as God, of both this world and the next... “Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

As seen throughout history, some wrongly espoused such errors as Jewish legalism (do it the way we've always done it), Gnosticism (only we know how to do it), asceticism (don't do what we think you shouldn't do), antinomianism (do anything you want to do), and Docetism (don't believe the truth about Christ). It appears that such false teaching was abundant in the days of the early church, but let it clearly be recognized that it was always strongly condemned. May we be committed today to "search the Scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11) to make sure we hold only to the truth.

 

In the Pistis Sophia the promise Sophia personifies in this, the promise of redemption, the promise of the soul's
reintegration into the Pleroma of Light -- hope for all humankind,all sentient beings.

In this Gnostic Gospel we find the parallel between the Cosmic Christ and Sophia, and Yeshua and Miriam of Magdal. Just as Sophia leads the Entirety in repentance/reintegration, so Lady Miriam leads in the assembly of disciples as they draw out the teachings of the Risen Christ recorded in this Gnostic Gospel. In the Sophian Tradition, the oral teachings say that Lady Miriam spoke a vow to continue to incarnate in a woman's form until the fruition of the Second Coming, which is viewed as the reception of the Holy Bride among Sophians. While perhaps we could speak of the soul-stream of Lady Miriam incarnate in a specific woman within each generation, contemplating her as the emanation of the Bride Sophia it seems that sparks of her are embodied throughout womanhood, and are activated by women who entertain their spirituality;

She is present in every spiritual woman.

It seems that we are in an ongoing labor to give birth to the fullness of our humanity, the fullness of Christ Consciousness in
humanity; the Christ being understood as the union of Logos and Sophia, the Perfect Human Being.


We need to reconstruct Christian thinking upon the original mythic and mystic symbols (Archetypes ) of the first century Christian church; most especially to include the feminine aspects of God and Creation through the Sprit and the Bride. We need to fill the void of missing icons dedicated to the female deity; and her connection to nature. We would then find other ways to model reality in communion and continuum; and discover a ‘complementary principle’ of mind and matter, creator and creation, possible. The tale of the Graal is the story of the necessity of finding a harmonious balance
between male and female, without and within. None are unworthy but some succumb to fear and
are unable to achieve liberation even though they may strive to do so.

 

On this basis, psychological and theological, as fundamental as it is invincible, the Marian apostolate can be developed in accord with a most fruitful dynamic of grace. The results are very often surprising and exceptional, just as the fruits of grace normally are surprising and exceptional at Marian sanctuaries everywhere on earth. For through Mary who attracts to Herself so many of Her children and to whom She gives Her Savior Son these are the truly privileged places of the Church's vitality on earth.


Today’s Western Christian is taught a world-view of matter and spirit based on an antiquated perception of natural philosophy. In this view, Space, Time, and Motion, are seen as being distinct phenomena. These classifications are useful for purposes of reasoning, however, these things are in reality not separate, rather, a trinity. This union of Space, Time, and Motion, is verified conclusively by Einstein’s Relativity. Relativity has also shown through the famous E=mc2 theorem that matter and energy are not distinct realities, rather two aspects of one. Also, Quantum physics has revealed that at the subatomic level, matter / energy have both particle and wave characteristics. This phenomena is described as ‘complementary’ because two distinct physical characteristic coexist. Further, through what is known as the 'uncertainty principle' it has been discovered that reality itself behaves in a ghostlike fashion and allows for the possibility of dynamic sudden change; allowing for the possibility of miracles!

We live in a world that prides itself on its ability to describe and understand the unknown and plan for the future through the use of reason. We readily accept explanations that seem reasonable and discard reports of events that don't appear reasonable. As a result of this predisposition, many have doubts about even entertaining the possibility of mystical appearances of the Mother of Jesus in the late Twentieth Century. Apparitions, and the phenomena surrounding some of them, fly in the face of everything we've been taught and observe in our day-to-day lives.

This unwillingness to accept the "unreasonable" is based, in part, on a description of reality that started to emerge in the sixteenth and seventeenth century with the works of Newton, Kepler, Liebnitz and others. The experimental methodology and mathematics employed to more precisely describe events radically changed humanity's p perception from the Ptolemaic model of the universe and our place in it that had come to dominate Western thought. These developments were reinforced by the success such a paradigm had in describing easily perceived events. Even today, it's a common conception that the "real world" operates on a Newtonian paradigm... a world of near-clockwork regularity and predictability when all of the variables affecting it have been uncovered.

Believers in this world view think modern science need only acquire more information to discover how everything operates and behaves. When this is finally accomplished, humanity will truly become the "master" of the entire universe. This approach underlies a number of modern belief systems including freemasonry, naturalism and secular humanism. In each of these, unusual events such as apparitions are thought to be either delusions, wishful thinking, fanaticism or simply a part of reality that we haven't yet learned to master.

In order to put mystical phenomena in context, it is essential to understand more about the current level of insight into the nature of physical reality. Fortunately, much has been uncovered about the nature of physical reality using modern scientific methods, a methodology that has been developed during the last three hundred years to order and explain the physical world in which we find ourselves. In addition, mathematics - the language that researchers use to describe and theorize about their findings - has also made significant advances during this time period.

In the 1930's, in one of the seminal intellectual events of this century, a brilliant Austrian mathematician, Kurt Godel, unequivocally demonstrated that mathematics cannot discern the truth, it can only deal with the underlying nature of proof. Put briefly, Godel found that for every consistent formalization of arithmetic, there exist arithmetic truths that are not provable within that formal system. Any system of mathematical reasoning must be based upon assumptions which are ultimately unprovable. Thus, the leap from proof to truth needs to be based ultimately on belief, it can never be satisfactorily demonstrated.

While Godel was publishing his findings on the nature of proof, another mathematician, John von Neumann, was putting the finishing touches on a concise mathematical formulation of the physicists description of physical reality which had been developed earlier in the century. This theory, called quantum mechanics, held that events at the atomic level can best be described as a complementary state of waves and matter. Depending on which phenomena the observer of an event wished to measure, the event under examination could be described either as a wave (such as a radio wave) or as a sub-atomic particle (such as an electron). It only depended on an independent observer to collapse all the possible outcomes (described mathematically as the wave function) to create the measurement of the event that was finally observed.

After formalizing this physical theory, von Neumann took the theory one step further and demonstrated that, since the universe itself consists of an enormous number of collapsed wave functions, it must itself be a quantum mechanical system requiring an independent observer to collapse its wave function.

Despite its strange and "unreasonable" characteristics, quantum mechanics has been successfully tested in a variety of ways during the last sixty years. Moreover, in experiments completed in the late '70's and '80's, researchers determined that the act of observing one element of a quantum system instantaneously determines the outcome of other elements of the system regardless of how far apart the other element of the system is located. Thus, aside from the complementarity inherent in the atomic nature of reality, another of the fundamental attributes of physical reality confirmed by these experiments appears to be its non-local nature. While there are several possible descriptions of the universe that attempt to capture all the implications of these experimental outcomes, only three of them seem to stand up to rigorous evaluation and therefore warrant acceptance or "belief"; either their actually exists a conscious, independent outside observer separate from the universe itself or there must be an infinite number of universes, created by the consciousness of each observer, or both.

Indeed, based on the underlying mathematical character of scientific truth, the fundamental nature of reality can never be ultimately demonstrated. The systematic application of reason requires each of us to choose which type of reality in which we wish to believe.

It is the notion of separate categories at the casual level of reality that also lends itself to the separation of ‘mind and matter’ within classical philosophy. However, the separation of mind and matter are only a model of reality and not reality in truth. The source of this confusion in our model making is even older than Newton's or even Galileo's day; for this confusion springs from the duality of our own language and historical roots of philosophy and theology. It is the construction of an epistemology that combines Mesopotamian theological symbols with Greek philosophical models, that creates dualism within Western Christian thought. There is no polar separation between mind and matter/energy at the causal level of reality and both are subject to the conservation of energy/matter. The Universe is alive, Nature is the proof of Herself, and it is we who are sometimes conscious. An accurate ontology requires the removal of dualsim in phenomenology. The fear of death is an identity crisis.

In contrast the Bible says in Hebrews 11...
""Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made by things which do appear."" Hebrews 11:1-3

***

Click Here.. To Go to Page 15

 

Quickly jump to page...

Preface.. | Genesis.. Eve | Sophia.. | Holy Spirit..Proverbs.. | Holy Spirit..Mother Mary.. | Mary Magdalene.. | Beloved Disciple.. | A woman of Sama'ria.. | Jesus' Feminine Complement.. | Language.. | Symbols.. | Priesthood.. | Gnosticism.. | Dualistic dogma.. | Destiny.. | Arthurian stories.. | Templars, Troubadors and the Holy Grail.. | Archives of the Vatian.. | Sacred sexuality.. | Betrothed.. | Bride of Christ.. | To live with Christ..