"The Bright Morning Star", What is That?

reply to post by pthena

That seems to me that each person has a counterpart in heaven.

That is a very mind boggling way to read that verse in Mathew 18. But it does seem to go along with what I am getting at, I think anyway (being a bit complex and beyond what we are used to thinking of).
I have to think of Jesus being this meek and mild sort of person, while there is another person of a different substance, in a different place who is a sort of opposite in a different dimension, who is not so meek and mild.
When the writer of Hebrews describes this son of God in terms that fit better the OT idea of God, then it may be the Angel of Jesus and never the actual person Jesus who was a man.
While he was walking around Judea going from one place to another, his representative was acting as the sort of co-equal partner of God. Do the two ever meet? I think Jesus says he goes before him, which may indicate that he is just out of sight up ahead of him.
To carry this thought on, we could very well have a holy God who lives in a city on Earth with us in the world made new after the Lake of Fire who would seem to us to be an ordinary sort of person, only ancient of days, while we are like always people in their youth.

reply to post by jmdewey60
I really don't like the book of revelation.

Back in 1975 I took a class called "History and Theology of the Old Testament", the professor was a bona fide archeologist, mainly around Nablus and Shechem, hanging out with Samaritans. He brought a big scale model of Solomon's temple in that he had on loan from somebody. So we're all looking at this thing and noticing all the images of winged bulls and other oddities. Some one, may have been me, maybe some other student, says, "And how exactly is this not idolatry?"

As it turns out, David had already seen a temple like this in Phoenicia, so his plans were based on that Phoenician temple. And winged bull cherubim were already a motif in Assyria. So this temple was merely copies of other things seen in other kingdoms and empires. How lame is that!

And in the same way, the kingship idea that the Israelites wanted. Just copied from other kingdoms. So how in the hell was there anything special about that? The Israelites weren't even the first to call their king "son of God", that was copied. Eventually the idea of the king on Zion ruling the Earth as Emperor and receiving tribute from all the nations of the earth, was all copied from what was seen in Assyria and Neo-Babylonian empires.

So everything supposedly great and innovative in the Old Testament isn't anything at all innovative, just copying other peoples civilizations. That's it! Even the covenants were copied from the Hittites. So were the Israelites told to stay away from the other peoples of the world so that they wouldn't notice how non-special they really were? Seems reasonable.

So if Jesus is someone special, wouldn't that be based on something greater than "son of David"-copy of an earthly copy, or King of Kings on Zion - copy of an earthly copy.

What the hell! Along comes the final Revelation and what is it? Just a continuation of "heavenly" copies of earthly copies of earthly copies. Lame! Lame! Lame! That's why I don't like Revelation! That's why I don't like titles like "son of David", or images of iron scepter wielding emperors.

If Earth is a shadow of a higher reality (as in Plato) then the book of Revelation "heaven" is really a shadow of a shadow of a shadow. Downward rather than upward progress. So now you've seen why I absolutely despise the book of Revelation.

reply to post by pthena


I guess the fact that it was written by an old man in a cave, and theres no way to authenticate the who the writer was or the indentity of the "being" who inspired it has nothing to do with why you don't like revelation?

Funny those things tend to erk me....

reply to post by Akragon

no way to authenticate the who the writer was or the indentity of the "being" who inspired it has nothing to do with why you don't like revelation?

It's obvious to any critical student of the Bible that it wasn't written by the same person who wrote Gospel of John, or I and II John. And the Jesus in that book doesn't talk like the same person from the Gospels either.

A fraud and a hoax me thinks.

reply to post by pthena


Wow...

Its good to see some people are still logical on this forum...

Well said my friend

Lol - you are right back to Esther and how an anointing works. Esthers name means morning star. Originally her name was Hadassah, which means myrtle (a flower). It was changed to Esther, which is partly formed by the persian name Satarah.

Here it is in laymen terms. Everyone receives of the same spirit, but not everyone receives the same MEASURE of spirit. How a person repents, determines what measure they will receive as their reward. The rewards Jesus has to give out are meant for NOW. Esther was used for a purpose and anyone who Jesus gives the morning star to is used in a like manner - to lead people to the path of righteousness. Morning stars sing and the angels shout for joy.

Morning stars are spokesman for God because they utter worthy words, not worthless words.

reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
I'm glad to see you back. I was feeling horrible about shutting you off on the Satan thing. You are right about the importance of the sacraments, I was mean. Sorry.

reply to post by pthena


I didn't think you were being mean.Lol I'm going back to the other thread (I've been watching) and see if you did your thing on Isaiah. I'm probably the only christian who doesn't believe that all the servant songs of Isaiah are about Jesus but are in fact about John the Baptist.

reply to post by pthena

If Earth is a shadow of a higher reality (as in Plato) then the book of Revelation "heaven" is really a shadow of a shadow of a shadow.

Oddly perhaps, I never read books that were so critical of Revelation and I probably should do a hunt to see if there is such a thing worth reading, which usually means going through the listings on Amazon and reading reviews. I know a lot of people would like to see the whole thing removed from the canon of the Bible. I think my position is that as long as there are people creating theology from the book, I should be looking at it for ways to counteract some of the more hideous interpretations that come from it.

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
reply to post by pthena

 

I didn't think you were being mean.Lol I'm going back to the other thread (I've been watching) and see if you did your thing on Isaiah. I'm probably the only christian who doesn't believe that all the servant songs of Isaiah are about Jesus but are in fact about John the Baptist.

And so the plot thickens.

A potential mandaean-christian, if I understand your position correctly. A new and very unusual addition the motley crowd of bible-relaters.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I think my position is that as long as there are people creating theology from the book, I should be looking at it for ways to counteract some of the more hideous interpretations that come from it.

Then maybe get your own theology from a better source first, such as 1 John, before digging into that book that I really can't stand to touch without getting sick.

Edit to add:
That big curse at the end, about adding and taking things out. I bet the author was well aware of the practice, being a major practitioner himself.

I recommend 1 John

reply to post by bogomil


Lol...No,no,no.no....no.

The only way to the Father is through Jesus.. The way to Jesus is through John. The way to John is through Elijah.

These are spiritual things intended to awaken people to truth. To be awakened is to understand the power of the resurrection. Elijah and John go forth in a spiritual power to awaken. Do you understand?

The easiest way to make someone understand is to make them look at how the 6 or 7 people in the bible who were resurrected and brought back to life - how this was accomplished.

Elijah laid down on a person to resurrect them. Jesus never did that. He took them by the hand or spoke to them.

Both go forth in the power of God's spirit to turn the hearts of children to their fathers anf fathers to their children.

Elijah is connected to sleep paralysis and John as the suffering servant, takes them by the hand.

The goal is to awaken your spiritual senses. All the miracles have to do with the senses. Including the guy who was paralyzed

I told you in another thread, the path is marked with timestamps. Maybe it wasn't you. Oh well. If not, now you do!

reply to post by pthena

And the Jesus in that book doesn't talk like the same person from the Gospels either.

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!”

If one was to understand that what John was told to wrote to the churches, was coming from the one Jesus is here calling "my angel" then the only place where Jesus ever says anything in Revelation is what I just quoted. The substantial things being said was his self identification as being from a lineage of David, but not being a Messiah, but a something else which I am not sure I have made a conclusive determination of yet.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Gospel of Thomas
83 Jesus said, "Images are visible to people, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. 2 He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."

84 Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. 2But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"

I read the first few chapters of Revelation. It's quite obvious to me that the author is setting himself up to be a sort of Pope in Asia Minor.

Remember Daniel, how torn up he was from receiving messages from angels, "how much you will have to bear!". He bore it. Contrast that with "John" who just blithely rambles through these messages to the angels of the churches. Also, when the angel came to Daniel he said,"As soon as you started praying, the message was sent, but I was being blocked, so I had to wrestle with the prince(angel) of Persia"

So here's John, sees the angel of Jesus, walking among the angels(candlesticks) of the churches, then he is supposed to write messages to the angels? If the angel of Jesus had a problem with the churches he would have wrestled with the angels himself, then the individual angels would have brought the messages to whoever could receive them in the individual churches. All this back and forth through the one man John is the sheerest of Popery (hierarchical indispensable man at the top nonsense). It's popery plain and simple.

Note: My MO is to read a few things, then lie down, sometimes nap, let it come together to my understanding. Slow, but better than snapping things out. Not exactly free of stresses to myself either.

reply to post by pthena

My MO is to read a few things, then lie down, sometimes nap, let it come together to my understanding. Slow, but better than snapping things out.

I agree with you there. Where it comes out in practice is I go with whatever I think that particular day, knowing I will think differently tomorrow. If I confront something I haven't thought about before, I would want to hold off on commenting untill later, as in like you say, at least take a nap.
I am not too happy with my Amazon search and everyone is preaching and don't want to ruin their own gold mine.

reply to post by jmdewey60
There should be freely available critical material on the internet. Wikipedia maybe? If I remember correctly, the only reason Revelation made it into the canon was because it was popular in Rome. I don't think any of the other churches in the whole world cared for it a bit. If memory serves me correctly.

reply to post by pthena

So here's John, sees the angel of Jesus, walking among the angels(candlesticks) of the churches, then he is supposed to write messages to the angels? If the angel of Jesus had a problem with the churches he would have wrestled with the angels himself, then the individual angels would have brought the messages to whoever could receive them in the individual churches. All this back and forth through the one man John is the sheerest of Popery (hierarchical indispensable man at the top nonsense). It's popery plain and simple.

I get that and I believe someone is establishing the framework for a pope position. It could be a convenient device to use John as the messenger.
Really, if you look at it, it is just the church up to the date the book was written.
The going forth of the crowned one is like it says, the word of God to fight the foe of ignorance and evil.

ETA: I meant by "it", the entire Book of Revelation is a history of the Church up to that time. That is if you understand it symbolically which one should since it is a book of visions that symbolize things.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60

Was Jesus, all along in the Gospels, comparing himself to another? Not to God himself but maybe this other person who is in heaven. Was Jesus thinking of himself as the type, meaning the earthy counterpart, to the anti-type who was his heavenly counterpart?

That sounds a bit like the Platonic theory of ideas, as an ideal archetypes for each thing.

There is a verse that I occasionally think of:

MT 18:10 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

That seems to me that each person has a counterpart in heaven. So rather than a "guardian angel" following you around and pushing you out of the way of accidents, your angel is in heaven. I guess my main problem is I've got no idea what heaven is.

en.wikipedia.org...
The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.

Is heaven abstract? Therefore real? Are we shadows of things in heaven?

edit on 22-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

Your guardian angel is next to you. But, they are called to heaven daily to get word about you and new information. They call it the meeting. If you look at it like that, that verse becomes very clear.

reply to post by jhill76

Your guardian angel is next to you. But, they are called to heaven daily to get word about you and new information. They call it the meeting. If you look at it like that, that verse becomes very clear.

The only heaven I know is present in the here and now.

Gospel of Thomas

22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples,
"These infants being suckled are like those who enter the
Kingdom."
They said to Him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the
Kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you
make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the
female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the
female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and
a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the
Kingdom]."

My familiar sees the Father and me at the same time. But she won't tell me anything about the Father. He must be beyond any words.

And any dealings I've ever had with archetypal forms has been rather abstract.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jhill76

Your guardian angel is next to you. But, they are called to heaven daily to get word about you and new information. They call it the meeting. If you look at it like that, that verse becomes very clear.

The only heaven I know is present in the here and now.

Gospel of Thomas

22) Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to His disciples,
"These infants being suckled are like those who enter the
Kingdom."
They said to Him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the
Kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you
make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the
female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the
female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and
a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the
Kingdom]."

My familiar sees the Father and me at the same time. But she won't tell me anything about the Father. He must be beyond any words.

And any dealings I've ever had with archetypal forms has been rather abstract.

edit on 22-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)

They are not allowed to speak on this subject. You speak as though you have spoken with your guide. I could be wrong.