Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Did the Midwayers narrate Church history as "War in Heaven"?

269 posts · 8 participants · started Oct 22, 2014, 5:46 PM

Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 8, 2014, 6:14 PM

Bonita wrote:

Okay, then why did you say the following in post #11076: These emissaries of God, according to the Hebrews, were literal to our plain of existence; they are material beings existing within the elements of the material world. What do you mean by material beings? Can a material being be made of wind or breath?

They either can take on physical (corporeal) or any of the elements of nature. I neglected to address it directly in the post you’re referring to but I did mention in other instances during the exchange.

The flame was figurative, a nonliteral representation of an unseen, nonmaterial, nonphysical non-corporeal entity. So why did you say that non-corporeality was foreign to the Jews in post #11047? A flame is non-corporeal, nor is the wind or breath corporeal.

As I explained above, I did not mention the other forms they take on within the natural environment. Hebrews believed angels took on corporeal form and manifest through the natural environment (eg., fire and air).

The wind, or breath (ruach and neshema) are invisible, nonliteral and nonmaterial,

Air is invisible and I have stated that in an earlier form that that is how these divine beings represent themselves invisibly. However, air is a part of the material world.

We know that the Jews understood that the “breath of God,” the neshema, was capable of providing an understanding of God’s ways as proved in Job, where Elihu says, :“But it is the spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty, that gives them understanding.” This is clear evidence that the ruach and neshema, along with the nefesh, were conceived as part of the soul of man, that part of man capable of understanding God’s ways. Neshama means breath, ruach means wind and nefesh means rest. The Hebrews believed that God exhaled his breath (neshama), which left his lips and traveled as a wind (ruach) finally coming to rest (nefesh) within the human vessel as the soul. The neshama is the part of the soul closest to God, the nefesh is the aspect of God’s spirit residing in the body and the ruach binds man to his spiritual source. The neshama is affected by thought, the ruach by word and nefesh by deed. Hence prayer and good deeds enables one’s soul to return to God’s breath (neshama) in the heavens.

Another way I can explain it is Hebrews observed that air (oxygen) sustained life through the act of breathing. When life ceased, breathing ceased also. This observation led them to the belief that God’s spirit was air (refer to Adam’s creation story).

But again, wind and breath is non-corporeal and you clearly stated in post #11047 that non-corporeality was foreign to the Jews.

Bonita, at the time I was disputing angels manifesting anthropomorphically; I was specifically addressing that mode of manifestation. But even in the post to which you refer I mention the elements:

“You misunderstood what I wrote, Bonita, or I did not explain myself fully. Angel is a Christian term and concept foreign to Hebrews; Hebrews however believed in “Ha Malakim,”correctly translated as ‘The Messengers.’ The term angel carries Christian baggage, for instance, non-corporeality, which is foreign to Hebrews. These emissaries of God, according to the Hebrews, were literal to our plain of existence; they are material beings existing within the elements of the material world.

So just to clear things up, according to Hebrews, angels manifest corporeally and through the agency of nature, particularly but not limited to fire and air. Hebrews did not have a concept of soul or spirit as is understood in Christianity and 5th epochal revelation.

If Judeo priests viewed anything outside the temple doctrine as paganism, then why did they tolerate the Pharisees?

Pharisees historically aren’t know as pagans or did they ever insert foreign practices into the Jewish religion.

Yes . . . they call that evolution of thought, something I’ve been saying and trying to explain all along. Jewish beliefs and concepts were not static.

Their scripture is static, Bonita. Mosaic law has never been added onto.

BB
BonitaParticipant
Nov 8, 2014, 6:33 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote:

Mosaic law has never been added onto

Mosaic law was completely rewritten during the Babylonian exile, so I don’t think you should use the word never. The history of the Hebrew code falls into three chief epochs: (1) the Pentateuch, (2) the Talmud, and (3) post-Talmudic literature. Mosaic law has been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again. Each new interpretation is theoretically an addition.
AnonymousInactive
Nov 9, 2014, 12:43 AM

Bonita wrote:

Brooklyn_born wrote: Mosaic law has never been added onto

Mosaic law was completely rewritten during the Babylonian exile, so I don’t think you should use the word never. The history of the Hebrew code falls into three chief epochs: (1) the Pentateuch, (2) the Talmud, and (3) post-Talmudic literature. Mosaic law has been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again. Each new interpretation is theoretically an addition.

I’m wondering how either of you, Bonita and BB, would classify where the Zohar/Kabbalah, might come into play, with the overall presentation of the Urantia Book. Even though the UB quotes many Old Testament verses, I have found an overall similarity to its context and structure with the various Zohar presentations. One must admit that the Kabbalah is a viable subject within Judaism, very much separating Judaic thought and sects.
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 9, 2014, 4:16 AM

MidiChlorian wrote:

I’m wondering how either of you, Bonita and BB, would classify where the Zohar/Kabbalah, might come into play, with the overall presentation of the Urantia Book. Even though the UB quotes many Old Testament verses, I have found an overall similarity to its context and structure with the various Zohar presentations. One must admit that the Kabbalah is a viable subject within Judaism, very much separating Judaic thought and sects.

I have suspected this for quite some time now, MidiChlorian. On an earlier TUB online community BBS I mentioned similarities between TUB’s cosmology and Qabbala’s Sefirot, which are the 10 emanations of creation. In Qabbala there are four universes (Atsilut, Beriah, Yesirah, Asaiah); in TUB there are four as well (central universe, super universe, universe and systems.). Also the Sefirot tree is divided into two sets of three and seven sefirot; in TUB’s numerology the archetype models are three and seven. In Qabbala, the world cut off from the whole of creation is Asaiah (material plane) but more exact, the Sefira “Malkuth.” Interestingly, our system, Satania, was cut off from the main circuits and quarantined. Qabbala speaks of the dark sphere called Daat where sin or what is termed “qliphoth” came into creation. TUB speaks of the prison world of spiritual darkness and the introduction of sin among the celestials.

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 9, 2014, 4:28 AM

Bonita wrote:

Mosaic law was completely rewritten during the Babylonian exile, so I don’t think you should use the word never. The history of the Hebrew code falls into three chief epochs: (1) the Pentateuch, (2) the Talmud, and (3) post-Talmudic literature. Mosaic law has been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again. Each new interpretation is theoretically an addition.

Commentary is not scripture. There is no addition to scripture as they are fixed. Works like Midrash and Mishnah are oral traditions that expound on Mosaic law.

BB
BonitaParticipant
Nov 12, 2014, 2:37 PM
Every time scripture is translated it is reinterpreted, therefore not fixed. The Mosaic law may appear fixed as of today, but it is not the original law of Moses. Therefore, the original law of Moses is not fixed either. Remember what Jesus said to Nathaniel concerning the law of Moses:

159:4.2 The words of the law of Moses and the teachings of the Scriptures were not in existence before Abraham. Only in recent times have the Scriptures been gathered together as we now have them.

Some scholars question the entire notion of a Mosaic origin for Deuteronomy and contend that it was written by a 7th century BC king as a pious fraud to legitimize his reforms. That would indicate that the laws are not fixed at all and are not even legitimately Mosaic. It was woven into the Septuagent, but the UB tells us it

74:8.11-12 When the Jewish priests returned to Jerusalem, they had already completed the writing of their narrative of the beginning of things. Soon they made claims that this recital was a recently discovered story of creation written by Moses. But the contemporary Hebrews of around 500 B.C. did not consider these writings to be divine revelations; they looked upon them much as later peoples regard mythological narratives. This spurious document, reputed to be the teachings of Moses, was brought to the attention of Ptolemy, the Greek king of Egypt, who had it translated into Greek by a commission of seventy scholars for his new library at Alexandria. And so this account found its place among those writings which subsequently became a part of the later collections of the “sacred scriptures” of the Hebrew and Christian religions. And through identification with these theological systems, such concepts for a long time profoundly influenced the philosophy of many Occidental peoples.

In fact, the Hebrews didn’t even have the written language until after the 9th century B.C., almost 1000 years after Moses according to the UB:

74:8.9 The Hebrews had no written language in general usage for a long time after they reached Palestine. They learned the use of an alphabet from the neighboring Philistines, who were political refugees from the higher civilization of Crete. The Hebrews did little writing until about 900 B.C., . . .

96:5.2 There is so little on record of the great work of Moses because the Hebrews had no written language at the time of the exodus. The record of the times and doings of Moses was derived from the traditions extant more than one thousand years after the death of the great leader.

And, to say that scripture and Mosaic Law is fixed is to make it a fetish, and even Moses was against fetishes. (88:2.6)
BonitaParticipant
Nov 12, 2014, 2:42 PM
BB wrote: In Qabbala there are four universes (Atsilut, Beriah, Yesirah, Asaiah); in TUB there are four as well (central universe, super universe, universe and systems.).

What does this mean? If there are four universes, what are the “universe universe” and the “systems universe”?

Aren’t there seven superuniverses? Doesn’t each superuniverse contain 10 major sectors? Doesn’t each sector contain 100 minor sectors? Doesn’t each minor sector contain 100 local universes? Isn’t that hundreds of thousands of universes right there?

Listen, the Kabbalah is all about mysticism. Mysticism is not endorsed by the UB.

91:7.1 Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to social isolation and culminate in religious fanaticism, they are all but reprehensible.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 12, 2014, 3:09 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote: In Qabbala there are four universes (Atsilut, Beriah, Yesirah, Asaiah); in TUB there are four as well (central universe, super universe, universe and systems.)

What does this mean? If there are four universes, what are the “universe universe” and the “systems universe”?

Aren’t there seven superuniverses? Doesn’t each superuniverse contain 10 major sectors? Doesn’t each sector contain 100 minor sectors? Doesn’t each minor sector contain 100 local universes? Isn’t that hundreds of thousands of universes right there?

Listen, the Kabbalah is all about mysticism. Mysticism is not endorsed by the UB.

91:7.1 Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to social isolation and culminate in religious fanaticism, they are all but reprehensible.
AnonymousInactive
Nov 13, 2014, 1:55 AM

Bonita wrote:

Listen, the Kabbalah is all about mysticism. Mysticism is not endorsed by the UB.

91:7.1 Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God, is altogether praiseworthy, but when such practices lead to social isolation and culminate in religious fanaticism, they are all but reprehensible.

One must remember that the UB indicated that the Hebrews had no science, and those who study the Kabbalah, are a select group who isolate themselves socially. This is more along the lines of the interpretation which the UB quote is stating where if it where “reprehensible” why state that “Mysticism, as the technique of the cultivation of the consciousness of the presence of God”. And that it “is altogether praiseworthy” ????
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 13, 2014, 5:52 AM

Bonita wrote:

What does this mean? If there are four universes, what are the “universe universe” and the “systems universe”?

I am referring to the four worlds to which we belong leading up to Paradise; (1) System , (2) universe, (3) super and (4) central universe. They line up neatly with the Qabbala’s worlds.

Aren’t there seven superuniverses?

Sure. But we belong to one, Orvonton.

Doesn’t each superuniverse contain 10 major sectors?

yes just as the Qabbala has ten sefirot, which are universes themselves.

Doesn’t each sector contain 100 minor sectors?

yes just as the Qabbala has ten sefirot which are universes themselves and, within those ten are ten, and so one and so forth, propagating in increments of ten reaching to a state of 100 sefirot.

Doesn’t each minor sector contain 100 local universes? Isn’t that hundreds of thousands of universes right there?

Apply the above response here as well.

Listen, the Kabbalah is all about mysticism. Mysticism is not endorsed by the UB.

I do not think it is that simple, Bonita. TUB does not outright condemn mysticism. Midi raised a [rhetorical] question that I feel illuminates TUB’s position on mysticism. Further, besides Thought Adjusters, Father fragments are referred to as “Mystery” monitors. Mystery? Mystery of what? Seems like fertile ground to sow the seeds of mysticism to me.

I think you reading 91:7.1 out of context.

BB
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 13, 2014, 6:05 AM
Bonita, I said scripture is fixed, not commentary or interpretation. Scripture is not the same as interpretation.

As for fixed scripture being a fetish, I agree. I would like also to give you my opinion…. I could be wrong but with all due respect, to me, you seem to be a staunch proponent of rigid, literal readings of TUB, in the strictest sense, avoiding “spiritual imagination” at all cost. I would think that that would qualify as a fetish. Here is the passage you referenced:

—-

88:2.6 Words eventually became fetishes, more especially those which were regarded as
God’s words; in this way the sacred books of many religions have become fetishistic
prisons incarcerating the spiritual imagination of man. Moses’ very effort against fetishes
became a supreme fetish; his commandment was later used to stultify art and to retard the
enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful.

Bonita wrote:

Every time scripture is translated it is reinterpreted, therefore not fixed. The Mosaic law may appear fixed as of today, but it is not the original law of Moses. Therefore, the original law of Moses is not fixed either. Remember what Jesus said to Nathaniel concerning the law of Moses:

159:4.2 The words of the law of Moses and the teachings of the Scriptures were not in existence before Abraham. Only in recent times have the Scriptures been gathered together as we now have them.

Some scholars question the entire notion of a Mosaic origin for Deuteronomy and contend that it was written by a 7th century BC king as a pious fraud to legitimize his reforms. That would indicate that the laws are not fixed at all and are not even legitimately Mosaic. It was woven into the Septuagent, but the UB tells us it

74:8.11-12 When the Jewish priests returned to Jerusalem, they had already completed the writing of their narrative of the beginning of things. Soon they made claims that this recital was a recently discovered story of creation written by Moses. But the contemporary Hebrews of around 500 B.C. did not consider these writings to be divine revelations; they looked upon them much as later peoples regard mythological narratives. This spurious document, reputed to be the teachings of Moses, was brought to the attention of Ptolemy, the Greek king of Egypt, who had it translated into Greek by a commission of seventy scholars for his new library at Alexandria. And so this account found its place among those writings which subsequently became a part of the later collections of the “sacred scriptures” of the Hebrew and Christian religions. And through identification with these theological systems, such concepts for a long time profoundly influenced the philosophy of many Occidental peoples.

In fact, the Hebrews didn’t even have the written language until after the 9th century B.C., almost 1000 years after Moses according to the UB:

74:8.9 The Hebrews had no written language in general usage for a long time after they reached Palestine. They learned the use of an alphabet from the neighboring Philistines, who were political refugees from the higher civilization of Crete. The Hebrews did little writing until about 900 B.C., . . . 96:5.2 There is so little on record of the great work of Moses because the Hebrews had no written language at the time of the exodus. The record of the times and doings of Moses was derived from the traditions extant more than one thousand years after the death of the great leader.

And, to say that scripture and Mosaic Law is fixed is to make it a fetish, and even Moses was against fetishes. (88:2.6)

BB
BradlyParticipant
Nov 13, 2014, 2:01 PM
Hello All. I’m quite sure I don’t understand your definition of “scripture” BB. Man’s words…about God and mostly about the Hebrew nations stories…fabricated or embellished centuries after the events….not the words OF God as claimed by some….but not so claimed by Jewish scholars I don’t think. As a student of ancient Hebrew text, you probably know there are several Genesis “tales” written by and held by the Jews and the one included was selected from several choices.

The UB does not claim to be the word OF God. Bonita’s persistence (and others among us) that the UB be read literally is because it is a text book of knowledge about facts and mechanisms and circuits that operate by laws of relationship – Bonita merely presents, rather precisely and fluently, the text itself, as presented…it is not an interpretation she presents but the text itself, allowing it to speak for itself, which it does so plainly, redundantly, and exhaustively – it says what it says and it don’ say what it don’t.

You are the one here, in this case, who seems intent on finding allegorical or metaphorical interpretative meanings “hidden” in the text, an assertion that at its root, depends upon the UB not saying what it intends but saying one thing while meaning another thing altogether but also inferring that the UB is not what it claims to be. Don’t be too surprised if, here especially, you meet some resistance to such a proposition. We are here to study the UB and discuss its contents. An impossibility if its words are to be twisted and tormented by human prejudice and distortion of interpretations. Just another opinion from another literalist.

This book is a revelation of facts to eliminate error and reduce confusion as a bridge of knowledge for the world of individual pilgrim seekers. I think it a little early to dismiss it as antiquated and the book is not the words of men to become a fetish to them. The book is not sacred nor holy nor scripture. It’s a primer, a text book, a guide to the cosmos and the mind. Written as plainly as possible in clear language and repeated from many angles of perspective. Or so it is for those with the ears to hear. Or so I think.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
BradlyParticipant
Nov 13, 2014, 6:00 PM
Clarification: by “Genesis tales”, I refer to the creation story itself and not the entire Book. The story of creation and the Garden IN the Book of Genesis is one of several in the records or so I understand. Sorry for any confusion as to my point.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 13, 2014, 10:58 PM

Bradly wrote:

Hello All. I’m quite sure I don’t understand your definition of “scripture” BB.

Revelation or scripture, I believe they’re the same. TUB is a 5th epochal revelation, NT scripture or words of Christ is 4th epochal revelation.

Man’s words…about God and mostly about the Hebrew nations stories…fabricated or embellished centuries after the events….not the words OF God as claimed by some….

Many of those scriptures are cited by the celestials. I am sure you are aware of this.

but not so claimed by Jewish scholars I don’t think. As a student of ancient Hebrew text, you probably know there are several Genesis “tales”

The revelators are comfortable sourcing from earlier revelations/scripture, while expanding on them within the context of 5th epoch revelation. Here is one example of Moses’ revelation from the Genesis tale cited and expanded on by a revelator (bold face emphasis mine):

“Elohim. From the times of Adam the teaching of the Paradise Trinity has persisted. Do you not recall how the Scriptures begin by asserting that “In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth”? This indicates that when that record was made the Trinity concept of three Gods in one had found lodgment in the religion of our forebears.”

The UB does not claim to be the word OF God.

The word of God can appear anywhere, in a news paper, on TV, magazine, and even TUB. Consider this quote (bold font emphasis mine):

” You must cease to seek for the word of God only on the pages of the olden records of theologic authority. Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human.

Bonita’s persistence (and others among us) that the UB be read literally is because it is a text book of knowledge about facts and mechanisms and circuits that operate by laws of relationship –

I have provided reference showing revelation can be read literally, figuratively, personally and spiritually. Literal reading is one of several approaches.

Bonita merely presents, rather precisely and fluently, the text itself, as presented…it is not an interpretation she presents but the text itself, allowing it to speak for itself, which it does so plainly, redundantly, and exhaustively – it says what it says and it don’ say what it don’t.

Bonita provided her “INTERPRETATION” just as you and I provide ours. If it was not an interpretation than why the debate? Obviously her “reading” of TUB is different from mine. The reality is our interpretations or “readings” do not agree. But I would never take an absolute position as Bonita has that my interpretation is correct and another’s wrong. I think it is unwise to do so. None of us are an authority on TUB.

You are the one here, in this case, who seems intent on finding allegorical or metaphorical interpretative meanings “hidden” in the text, an assertion that at its root, depends upon the UB not saying what it intends but saying one thing while meaning another thing altogether but also inferring that the UB is not what it claims to be.

I am not trying to find anything hidden. I think as I grow in spirit my understanding of TUB grows as well, which will reflect in my reading. In my opinion I think people lose out who hold very rigid and circumscribed views on religious or spiritual texts, including TUB. Human perception is dynamic.

Don’t be too surprised if, here especially, you meet some resistance to such a proposition.

Not surprised at all. I understand I am dealing with readers who have held a certain views for many years. Those kinds of readers on average are very close minded.

An impossibility if its words are to be twisted and tormented by human prejudice and distortion of interpretations.

And this applies to you as well. None of us is above this reproach (twisting words, distortion of interpretations). It boils down to opinion, Bradly.

Just another opinion from another literalist.

Bingo!

This book is a revelation of facts to eliminate error and reduce confusion as a bridge of knowledge for the world of individual pilgrim seekers.

I think it a little early to dismiss it as antiquated and the book is not the words of men to become a fetish to them.

Not sure if you are implying that I accuse TUB of being a fetish. If that is the case, you are misreading my words.

The book is not sacred nor holy nor scripture.

This book is scripture or “revelation” if you prefer to use that term.

Written as plainly as possible in clear language and repeated from many angles of perspective.

I do not agree. It is not plainly written in clear language otherwise you’d have a uniform reading of TUB and we would not have been told the following (bold face emphasis mine):

“We have been instructed to introduce new terms only when the concept to be portrayed finds no terminology in English which can be employed to convey such a new concept partially or even with more or less distortion of meaning.”

BB
emanny3003Blocked
Nov 13, 2014, 11:41 PM
Hi BB,
Bingo! I’ll ditto that whole post.

Brooklyn_born wrote:

The word of God can appear anywhere, in a news paper, on TV, magazine, and even TUB. Consider this quote (bold font emphasis mine):

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Brooklyn_born wrote:

I have provided reference showing revelation can be read literally, figuratively, personally and spiritually. Literal reading is one of several approaches.

And do not forget that revelation such as TUB is to be augmented by personal revelation.

Brooklyn_born wrote:

The book is not sacred nor holy nor scripture.

This book is scripture or “revelation” if you prefer to use that term.

It is obvious that words on paper in a book, scripture or revelation are symbols of symbols and, therefore, twice removed from reality. Reality is personal experience with God and in God. That is literal and sacred and real.

I wish those who post would do a little less quoting and a little more thinking, including myself. But, that is just my opinion.

Manny
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 14, 2014, 12:28 AM

emanny3003 wrote:

It is obvious that words on paper in a book, scripture or revelation are symbols of symbols and, therefore, twice removed from reality. Reality is personal experience with God and in God. That is literal and sacred and real. I wish those who post would do a little less quoting and a little more thinking, including myself. But, that is just my opinion. Manny

You summed up my entire position in that one paragraph!

BB
BradlyParticipant
Nov 14, 2014, 2:13 PM
BB – I just remembered that we’ve been studying together for almost three years now. I have learned much with you and by your questions and responses. I learn still. From your responses here I conclude that literalists are also interpretists and interpretists may also be literalists. I agree upon reflection. It has been obviously true that each re-reading of the text does open new meanings and further changes my choices and priorities in new ways subject to my maturing experiential results. There is a point in that process called wisdom. May I find it yet. Thanks to all.

"Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."
Brooklyn_bornParticipant
Nov 14, 2014, 2:45 PM

Bradly wrote:

BB – I just remembered that we’ve been studying together for almost three years now. I have learned much with you and by your questions and responses. I learn still. From your responses here I conclude that literalists are also interpretists and interpretists may also be literalists. I agree upon reflection. It has been obviously true that each re-reading of the text does open new meanings and further changes my choices and priorities in new ways subject to my maturing experiential results. There is a point in that process called wisdom. May I find it yet. Thanks to all.

Likewise

BB
BonitaParticipant
Nov 16, 2014, 5:27 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Pharisees historically aren’t know as pagans or did they ever insert foreign practices into the Jewish religion.

I don’t know a single scholar who agrees with your claim that the Pharisees never inserted foreign practices into the Jewish religion. And more importantly, the UB does not agree with you either.

137.7.6-7.9 The scribes and rabbis, taken together, were called Pharisees. They referred to themselves as the “associates.” In many ways they were the progressive group among the Jews, having adopted many teachings not clearly found in the Hebrew scriptures, such as belief in the resurrection of the dead, a doctrine only mentioned by a later prophet, Daniel.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Their scripture is static, Bonita. Mosaic law has never been added onto.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  Commentary is not scripture. There is no addition to scripture as they are fixed. Works like Midrash and Mishnah are oral traditions that expound on Mosaic law.

Well, that flies in the face of reality. As I explained before, Hebrew scriptures were entirely rewritten during the Babylonian captivity, which was well after Moses’ time. That means that the Mosaic law is not static. It has been changed. In fact, the Septuagent was compiled 100 years before Christ, which was another rewriting of Hebrew scripture. If something is rewritten from the original, that means that the original is not fixed. The so-called scriptures rewritten during Ptolemy II’s reign 300 years before Christ were originally compiled during the Babylonian exile 600 years before Christ. Both revisions were long, long after Moses walked the earth. During that time everything was rewritten to make the Jews look like the Chosen People. When you rewrite things you are unfixing them. Jewish scripture is a magical mix of history and folklore, and none of it is fixed except in the minds of literalists.

Brooklyn_born wrote:  I could be wrong but with all due respect, to me, you seem to be a staunch proponent of rigid, literal readings of TUB, in the strictest sense, avoiding “spiritual imagination” at all cost. I would think that that would qualify as a fetish.

Well, with all due respect, I think that there are several people on this forum with imaginations that are not controlled, disciplined, mature or in alignment with reality. That would be imagination without guidance from above, an imagination swirling in the soup of the banal level of material mind. In order for the creative imagination to be useful to anyone it must be divinely guided. This is accomplished through prayer, an unbroken communion with its Creator.

132:3.10 Universe progress is characterized by increasing personality freedom because it is associated with the progressive attainment of higher and higher levels of self-understanding and consequent voluntary self-restraint. The attainment of perfection of spiritual self-restraint equals completeness of universe freedom and personal liberty. Faith fosters and maintains man’s soul in the midst of the confusion of his early orientation in such a vast universe, whereas prayer becomes the great unifier of the various inspirations of the creative imagination and the faith urges of a soul trying to identify itself with the spirit ideals of the indwelling and associated divine presence.

If I have been avoiding spiritual imagination at all cost, I would never have advocated the use of the alter ego. The creative spiritual imagination is responsible for the creation of the alter ego within the psyche of a God-seeking, prayerful person. Prayer provides fertile soil for the spiritual imagination and communion with the presence of God within provides direction for the imagination.

Without such direction, the imagination can run amok, something I see on this forum every day in the form of preoccupation with: demons; rebellion; raping angels; Physical Controllers as saviors; cosmic nights; big crunches; pre-existing souls; God picking up and leaving Paradise for the purpose of causing pandemonium; God imprisoned by the Eternal Son; and, God as a rebel. This kind of imagination, besides being ridiculous, is not healthy. It is not wholesome and positive. It is not truly creative. It is not useful for God’s purpose which is to eliminate fear and encourage trust in a friendly universe.
BonitaParticipant
Nov 16, 2014, 5:31 PM

Brooklyn_born wrote: Hebrews did not have a concept of soul or spirit as is understood in Christianity and 5th epochal revelation.

And that’s not true either unless you deny the existence of the Pharisees. Because they were concerned for the sanctification and purification of the Covenant people, the Pharisees taught immortality of the soul, resurrection of the dead, a last judgment and a new world to come, ideas which had evolved during the Babylonian exile. The belief in the resurrection made its first appearance around 200 BC when apocalyptic Jewish literature, particularly the Book of Daniel, began to gain in popularity.

Reply on the current forum