Christian Mysticism

[Jeff]

You are welcome. The kabbalistic stuff can be very complicated with their symbolism. If you want a good and more scientific overview, I would suggest the Lankavatara Sutra (Buddhist). It explains everything in more mind and perspective issues. All of the magic stuff just makes things more complicated.

[Edward M]

Thanks Jeff, for the recommendation

 

Take care,

Edward

[chegg]

.

Edited April 2, 2015 by chegg

[multiarms]

I'd like to get the bums' thoughts on the topic of sin.

 

Apech mentioned earlier in the thread that he feels revulsion for contemporary Christianity, and I have the same feeling sometimes. In particular, the harshly moralistic judging-others attitude, and the extreme focus on the "this world" existential aspects of sin and redemption are a major turn-off.

 

So, from a more esoteric or gnostic point of view, what does it mean to be a sinner? Is it the sorrowful or suffering state of separation from God? Is the fall of man the pride and arrogance of constructing a mind-projected world of "objects" to be conquered or destroyed?

 

And what about redemption? Beyond forgiveness for moral/ethical lapses, what does it mean to be redeemed, saved, or whatever by the power of Christ's resurrection?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts...

[Apech]

I'd like to get the bums' thoughts on the topic of sin.

 

Apech mentioned earlier in the thread that he feels revulsion for contemporary Christianity, and I have the same feeling sometimes. In particular, the harshly moralistic judging-others attitude, and the extreme focus on the "this world" existential aspects of sin and redemption are a major turn-off.

 

So, from a more esoteric or gnostic point of view, what does it mean to be a sinner? Is it the sorrowful or suffering state of separation from God? Is the fall of man the pride and arrogance of constructing a mind-projected world of "objects" to be conquered or destroyed?

 

And what about redemption? Beyond forgiveness for moral/ethical lapses, what does it mean to be redeemed, saved, or whatever by the power of Christ's resurrection?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts...

 

 

I was taught by a Christian mystic teacher that to sin means to aim. Which means that you depart from your original wholeness by pursuing the aim of either gratification or power ... and this is all it means. When you sin you 'fall' which means you descend down to the grosser levels of being ... the lowest being complete identification with matter. You end up (as in the parable of the prodigal son ) eating husks with the pigs ... before you turn round and seek unity again.

[Nungali]

I'd like to get the bums' thoughts on the topic of sin.

 

Apech mentioned earlier in the thread that he feels revulsion for contemporary Christianity, and I have the same feeling sometimes. In particular, the harshly moralistic judging-others attitude, and the extreme focus on the "this world" existential aspects of sin and redemption are a major turn-off.

 

So, from a more esoteric or gnostic point of view, what does it mean to be a sinner? Is it the sorrowful or suffering state of separation from God? Is the fall of man the pride and arrogance of constructing a mind-projected world of "objects" to be conquered or destroyed?

 

My view is that it is to turn against an inward knowing about yourself and your path, to accept a pay off (even if that is a promise of heaven or fear of hell), to 'sell-out' your self. It is a separation from one's 'God-aspect'. The fall of Man is when he sees his support network (culture or environment) in terms of 'dominion over'.

 

And what about redemption? Beyond forgiveness for moral/ethical lapses, what does it mean to be redeemed, saved, or whatever by the power of Christ's resurrection?

 

Interested to hear your thoughts...

 

Redemption and resurrection I see as natural or alchemical processes that we can learn about and incorporate. I dont believe Christ or Christianity has a monopoly on their demonstration, nor do I agree with their interpretation (because I reject the fall of Man and sin, particularly 'original inherited sin' and existential guilt).

 

Some Gnostics have a dark view IMO as well. I am more of the lighter school. I am happy to be here ... aint nothing wrong with sex either .

[Andrei]

 

I was taught by a Christian mystic teacher that to sin means to aim. Which means that you depart from your original wholeness by pursuing the aim of either gratification or power ... and this is all it means. When you sin you 'fall' which means you descend down to the grosser levels of being ... the lowest being complete identification with matter. You end up (as in the parable of the prodigal son ) eating husks with the pigs ... before you turn round and seek unity again.

 

Totally the opposite. To sin means to miss the target. Which means you aim for a goal, but you make mistakes in the process, and you miss the intended result. When you sin you do several trial-errors until you get it right. This is why they say : "Errare umanum est, perseverare diabolicum".

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Very nice Andrei.

 

Hit the nail on the head.

...

[Apech]

Totally the opposite. To sin means to miss the target. Which means you aim for a goal, but you make mistakes in the process, and you miss the intended result. When you sin you do several trial-errors until you get it right. This is why they say : "Errare umanum est, perseverare diabolicum".

 

 

I know this is the received version ... but I was taught otherwise for good reason.

 

 

if you are interested you can read his ideas here:

 

http://eugenehallidayarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/THE-IDEA-OF-SIN-Feb-1969-EUGENE-HALLIDAY-1969.pdf

Edited April 3, 2014 by Apech

[Aetherous]

This is an interesting book so far, which is basically some thoughts from a Greek Orthodox monk/abbot relayed through an interviewer.

[Nungali]

Just to kick off .... what's it all about?

 

I never read the beginning of this thread before (and have only read about 1/2 of it - so excuse if it is elsewhere ... BUT ;

 

I didnt see the semi-literalist approach here; the above post came with this quote:

 

 

" 26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

30 When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. "

 

Okay, the comments about bread were interesting, but blood relating to spirit , yeah, thats all fine on the inner 'new' meaning (which I might get to later) but , as Jews in relation to 'pouring our blood' (running off memory here) an animal would be offered to YHVH in the temple, first the blood would be offered to the deity and the people were not to that - very taboo. Then the animal would be offered and after a priest or person offering and their family could eat the meat ... but not the blood ... that was a favourite of YHVH (as well as the fat around the kidneys).

 

Now, Jesus talks about pouring out the blood for the forgiveness of sins, which seems a reflection of the earlier Leviticus in ... ( hmmm, I will have to look something up ) ... 17:11

 

" For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

 

So I assume the apostles would have been okay with that. But declaring the wine the blood of atonement and then giving it to the apostles to drink themselves ... would not that be pretty rad for them?

 

Thats my first point.

 

The other relates to, (this being a Christian Hermetic thread), the latter development of a eucharistic rite and latter alchemical incorporations into that rite. I am not sure if that was addressed in the thread ... it was mentioned at the beginning ?

 

I have been a priest in two other 'traditions' that practiced a 'eucharistic rite' so I have an interest in that type of ritual and process, anyway, I will hold off for now, its an old tread and they may be no interest.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Nungali

[Jeff]

Hi Nungali,

 

I think you are mixing different concepts regarding the blood and such sacrificing on the altar with the Levitiicus reference. I think the preceding verses put it in context...

 

 

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them; This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the Lord. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord. And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the Lord; even that man shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. (‭Leviticus‬ ‭17‬:‭1-10‬ KJV)

 

To me, what Jesus is describing fits much better with this passage...

 

John 7:37-38

37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.

 

That "living water" is the energy/light/power of the Holy Spirit.

 

Best wishes.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Jeff

[Nungali]

yeah I get that .... I realise they are two different things ... I was suggesting the 'cultural impact' of what Jesus said when he referred to the drink as blood (not as the 'living water of truth' or ' living water' flowing out of the heart). during the last supper.

[Aetherous]

Interesting thought, Nungali!

[jyakulis]

Any of you ever read the Magdalene Manuscript:

http://www.amazon.com/Magdalen-Manuscript-Alchemies-Horus-Magic/dp/193103205X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419955148&sr=8-1&keywords=magdalene+manuscript

 

It's the story of Jesus and Mary's relationship and also deals with plenty of sexual cultivation. It relates all the different schools toward Christianity. I'm of the opinion at the root a lot of the parables deal with sexual cultivation. More specifically, think of what is said in being "born again" in John 3. That's about sexual cultivation.

 

It's an interesting take. I couldn't help but think of what somebody posted about Proverbs 8 or on Sophia. That hints that the Lord does have some sort of divine consort.

[stefos]

Hello everyone,

 

Biblical Christianity has been almost completely overlooked in favor of modern denominations.

Modern denominations have dominated the "scene" for millenia.

 

For example, the New Testament viewpoint of widows:

They are to be serving others and in prayer & devoting themselves to the Lord, the apostle Paul says.

Note, getting married again or the notion of marriage filling a crucial role in one's life for that matter and having sex was never a great goal insofar as biblical Christianity is concerned.

 

In this and many other areas, we see commonality with buddhist thought about sex and with yogic/Advaitic thought regarding

sex as well as marriage.

 

Consider this statement of Jesus:

 

"Father, you in me.....I in you......them in us, that the world may know that you sent me."

 

The immediate context is Jesus desiring unity of purpose namely that of being one with the Father.

 

To continue along the lines of unity:

Biblical Christianity sees people as tripartite: Body (Soma in Greek), Soul (Pseehee in Greek) and Spirit (Pnevma in Greek).

Furthermore, the transformation of a "person" happens by the transformation of the mind (Noos in Greek) and not by the transformation of the body or of the persons spirit since that is taken as already changed.

 

Comments?

 

Stefos

Edited January 2, 2015 by stefos

[Jeff]

Hi Stephos,

 

I would agree that the teachings of Jesus have been mostly misunderstood and "hijacked" by the Roman Empire with an institutional framework. I would also agree that there are many similarities in the teachings of Jesus to Buddhism, particularly when you look into the more advanced tantric or "dzogchen like" practices (this point has been discussed in the past).

 

 

But, regarding you point...

 

"Biblical Christianity sees people as tripartite: Body (Soma in Greek), Soul (Pseehee in Greek) and Spirit (Pnevma in Greek).

Furthermore, the transformation of a "person" happens by the transformation of the mind (Noos in Greek) and not by the transformation of the body or of the persons spirit since that is taken as already changed."

 

Where do you find support for the tripartite concept in the teachings of Jesus? This seems to be a more Greek/gnostic position. Additionally, the concept of the "Trinity" is found now where in the gospels (or words of Jesus) and was added by the Catholic Church around 300A.D.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Edited January 2, 2015 by Jeff

[GrandmasterP]

You're right Jeff the word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible.

However the mainstream Christian denominations claim that the idea of a Trinity is there.

For example these 'proof' texts from the Roman Catholics....

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Trinity.htm

Edited January 2, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[stefos]

Hi Stephos,

 

I would agree that the teachings of Jesus have been mostly misunderstood and "hijacked" by the Roman Empire with an institutional framework. I would also agree that there are many similarities in the teachings of Jesus to Buddhism, particularly when you look into the more advanced tantric or "dzogchen like" practices (this point has been discussed in the past).

 

 

But, regarding you point...

 

"Biblical Christianity sees people as tripartite: Body (Soma in Greek), Soul (Pseehee in Greek) and Spirit (Pnevma in Greek).

Furthermore, the transformation of a "person" happens by the transformation of the mind (Noos in Greek) and not by the transformation of the body or of the persons spirit since that is taken as already changed."

 

Where do you find support for the tripartite concept in the teachings of Jesus? This seems to be a more Greek/gnostic position. Additionally, the concept of the "Trinity" is found now where in the gospels (or words of Jesus) and was added by the Catholic Church around 300A.D.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

 

First, the easy stuff,

 

I never mentioned the word "Trinity" you did!

 

What does it matter if God is called Trinity or Unity?

 

I believe that God is One.....period. Not 3 gods like Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu.

Even then in actual "Hindu" belief, the 3 gods I've mentioned are considered aspects of the

impersonal Brahman.

 

In the Tanakh, God is not portrayed as personal at all although his presence can be

manifested (i.e. Pillar of Cloud, Pillar of Fire, As a man, etc.)

 

End of discussion there.

 

Second,

I got the 3 fold nature of man from Paul's letters: Body, Soul, Spirit, Mind.....O.K. 4 part nature of man.

4 different Greek words my man: Soma, Pseehee, Pnevma, and Nous respectively.

I know this because I can read the N.T. in Greek, Greek being my first language.

 

Jewish thought makes man to have more "parts" or "aspects" then what I've just stated.

 

Have you researched what contemporary Orthodox Jewish thought is on that?

I believe that they break a "person" down into 7 aspects and not the 4 I mentioned.

 

There is no written ancient evidence on how the ancient Jews in the time of Jesus understood a man to be, insofar as a comprehensive explanation is concerned.

 

Do the research and come back.

Stefos

Edited January 2, 2015 by stefos

[Jeff]

Hi Stephos,

 

Sorry if I had misunderstood your "tripartite" comment. If you are focused on the orthox Jewish perspective (rather than what Jesus taught and Christian mysticism), then we are obviously talking about different things.

 

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Edited January 2, 2015 by Jeff

[stefos]

Hi Stephos,

 

Sorry if I had misunderstood your "tripartite" comment. If you are focused on the orthox Jewish perspective (rather than what Jesus taught and Christian mysticism), then we are obviously talking about different things.

 

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

 

No offense taken.

 

I am actually speaking of 4 different things!

 

1. What Jesus said

2. What Paul said in his letters along with the other apostles

3. Christian Mysticism such as Jacob Boehme

4. Orthodox Jewish thought in ancient time vs. Orthodox Jewish thought today

 

It's quite deep stuff really.

 

Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably Greek as certain Greeks were seeking him out.

The Synoptic Gospels use the phrase "which is translated" meaning from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, the lingua franca of the day. Jesus did mention certain things:

Ex. He did restate "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, etc.

This phrase itself is using multiple Greek words, not the same word over and over.

What did Jesus exactly mean?

I have heard no one give a teaching on the totality of that statement and how it looks like in real time.!

 

Paul said he got a revelation of Jesus Christ and expressed/explained it to the other apostles, he says in his letters.

 

Christian Mysticism is it's own deep study....I managed to get a copy of William Law's 4 volume set of Jacob Boehme's complete works from a company that reproduced the originial manuscript into a black & white format. Deep stuff as it blends alchemy, biblical Christianity, astronomy/astrology (I believe but DON'T quote me on that) and other things.

Boehme's expression is a result of his time when chemistry/alchemy & astronomy/astrology were combined.

You have to be careful to understand what he wrote and what he meant.

 

Another author is Brother Lawrence and Madame Guyon........Again VERY deep stuff.

Easy to read but to fathom the implications and to live it.......it's not popular, put it that way.

 

Finally, Orthodox Jewish thought about the "composition" of man.

I spoke with a Lubavitcher regarding this and it was the beginning of me understanding how the Habad or Lubavicher's view the nature/composition of a human being.

From what I know about Josephus, who gives the oldest commentary to the Tanakh available to us, he wrote letters in defense of Judaism of his day and understanding. Perhaps it's time to actually buy a complete copy of his works and find out myself.

 

In any case, outside of Josephus there is no ancient Jewish source about what Jewish thought was about the body, mind, spirit as such. I have not found any ancient sourcework outside of Josephus.

The medieval rabbinic schools of thought are just that.....medieval.

 

Stefos

Edited January 7, 2015 by stefos

[Jeff]

Hi Stephos,

 

Thanks for your description. It does seem like you are mixing a lot of different things with the four components that you have chosen. In particular, Paul was not a direct disciple of Jesus (later visions, also Roman changes) and Jacob Boehme had some very interesting views. On that point, I would present the following verse for you consideration...

 

12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." (Gospel of Thomas)

 

Also, I think it is very challenging to attempt to integrate the orthodox Jewish views into the words of Jesus. As he said, he was bringing a new covenant (understanding) into the world. Similar to the concept of a new terma/turning (Buddhism).

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

[stefos]

Hi Stephos,

 

Thanks for your description. It does seem like you are mixing a lot of different things with the four components that you have chosen. In particular, Paul was not a direct disciple of Jesus (later visions, also Roman changes) and Jacob Boehme had some very interesting views. On that point, I would present the following verse for you consideration...

 

12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." (Gospel of Thomas)

 

Also, I think it is very challenging to attempt to integrate the orthodox Jewish views into the words of Jesus. As he said, he was bringing a new covenant (understanding) into the world. Similar to the concept of a new terma/turning (Buddhism).

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

 

Well, I don't believe the Gospel of Thomas, in the final analysis.

 

I do believe what I've just stated to you however in my last post.

 

I think if one studies Josephus at least, then one can at least approach Jesus's views in comparison to Orthodox Jewish belief in his day.

 

Without Josephus, it's a moot point.

 

Gnosticism's leaders & followers didn't know Jesus either!

 

Food for thought.......

 

Stefos

[Jeff]

Well, I don't believe the Gospel of Thomas, in the final analysis.

 

I do believe what I've just stated to you however in my last post.

 

I think if one studies Josephus at least, then one can at least approach Jesus's views in comparison to Orthodox Jewish belief in his day.

 

Without Josephus, it's a moot point.

 

Gnosticism's leaders & followers didn't know Jesus either!

 

Food for thought.......

 

Stefos

 

Ok, it sounds like we disagree regarding the Gospel of Thomas.

 

But, I still don't really get your point regarding Josephus and the relation to the "Christian mysticism" teachings of Jesus. Does Josephus mention anything about Jesus and his teachings anywhere in his Jewish historical texts?

 

Thanks,

Jeff

[stefos]

Hi Jeff,

 

No, Josephus didn't.

 

However extra-biblical evidence exists and a number of Jewish works do.

 

For example, the Toldoth/Toldot Yeshu/Yeshua states: "they hung Yeshu/Yeshua on the eve of Passover"

This is referring to "Geezus" and anglicized version of the Greek, which is my native language, Eesous which is a transliteration of Yeshua or a variant thereof.

 

The reason I mentioned Josephus was to give light to Orthodox Jewish thought about the composition of man, which innately contains a spiritual component!

 

Please re-read what I've posted......It'll make more sense.

 

Thank you,

Stefos