New Age Thought and Spirituality. Featuring a New Age Message Board Forum.

THE CHURCH ORDER DISCOURSE
AN ESSAY
FROM THE WOMB OF TIME
by K.L.M. Kathel
Copyright Protected © 1988




IN MY NAME
THE CHURCH ORDER DISCOURSE

Having been called, the "church order" discourse, Matthew, chapter 18, represents, the heart of Catholicism. It has to do with, forgiveness of sin, as it relates to hierarchy, or what has been termed, apostolic succession and forms the very basis of Christianity. Chapter 18, therefore, is the embodiment of the Church.

In the hay days of European witch-hunts, it was employed, under the inquisitional arm of papal law; while in modern times, it merely represents, authority given to "disciples," or the priesthood, in the expedition and forgiveness of sins.

Better known, as the, confessional, it is used to, "gather wanderers from the fold." Having found them, like, the ninety and nine sheep that never went astray, priest are to rejoice; but, if the candidate for absolution, be obstinate enough to fail to recognize his wrongdoing, that is to say, if he is not sorry for his "sins," then the church father shall treat him like a "wicked servant," and ostracize him from organizational affiliations. Thus, the torments of God's wrath, is felt, by what has been called, excommunication. He is to be treated, in a manner akin to verse 17, as a "heathen," meaning here, a foreigner; or worse still, like a "publican," or like Judas Iscariot, the "tax collector," and traitor.

ON CHRISTIAN UNITY
I have gone through great laborious pains and made diligent comparisons of numerous New Testament bible versions, in the hope of finding some, small but meager clue as the "real" meaning aback of verse 20. Except for brief footnotes that lead us back to Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, consultation of Christian bibles seems to have gotten me nowhere. Why? because of all the 35 verses contained within Matthew, chapter 18; verse 20 is the only one that has not undergone any major grammatical changes.

This I found rather strange, especially in leu of, new scholarly advancement, along with archaeological finds. Mt. 18 verse 20, seems to have weathered the storm. When we begin to ask why, we are immediately presented with the awe inspiring fact, that this, one verse alone, is the fountainhead for Christian unity.

In a footnote to the Douay-Rheims, placed there by Richard Challoner 1749-1772 (not Gregory Martin) there is an intriguing two-fold interpretation given by St. Cyprian, on how this verse should be interpreted. It says: "This is to be understood of such assemblies only as are gathered in the name and authority of Christ; and in the unity of the church of Christ."

The Douay-Rheims Bible, written by St. Jerome, is a Latin translation of the original Greek divers language and was used as an official Bible of the Roman Catholic kingdom in the year 405 AD. The New Testament section of this Bible was later translated into English by Gregory Martin in 1582 AD, in Rheims, France.

Now, there are several interesting features that we ought to be paying attention to. The first is that, St. Jerome wrote, some 150 years after St. Cyprian's works, on the "Unity of the Church." Even though he did not place these notes there, they never-the-less were inserted some 1,350 years later. That means, from the time of St. Cyprian's De Unitate Ecclesiae, till the time of the 1772 Douay-Rheims Challoner edition---during all of this time---in 1,500 years (approx.), Church dogma had not changed.

This to me, is rather amazing, especially, since, we are constantly being informed, that Christianity was first founded in the 4th century. When we investigate however, we find that Christianity, or at least a bred of Jews who were called, "Christianoi," by the Romans, did not gain state recognition until the time of the Emperor, Constantine I, and the Nicaea Council of 325 AD. This was when Christianity became the "official" Roman religion. According to one source, Christians were derogatorily called, Ishmaelites. At least, this was how the Jews referred to them.

It is also interesting, because, St. Cyprian, wrote on Christian unity (246 AD - 258 AD), at a time, when there was none; and St. Jerome wrote at a time, when unity with the Church, was both imperative and life-saving.

Romans killed Christians, not because they were Christians, but because, they were Jews. Christians killed Jews, because they were not, Christians (yet); and Jews killed Christians because they had forgotten, who they really were. As tables turned, however, and by the time of, "Christian unity" (325 AD), Christians killed Jews, because they were not "true Romans" (they did not believe Jesus God, for example, as they were not united with Rome). Sarcastically humorous as this may sound, it was true, none-the-less.

THE PRESENCE OF JESUS
Consider this also: According to, an entirely New Douay-Rheims revision, (NAB 1986) one which is based upon the original Greek however; verse 20, is to be understood in the following manner: The actual presence of Jesus "guaranties" the effectiveness of prayer.

What is the difference between the 1772 Latin version, and the recent 1986 Greek-English version? The first states that, two or three constitute a "gathering" while the latter distinguishes between a "congregational" gathering and private prayer. This, in effect, tells us, "in the name ..." and "in the unity of the church," are different than, authority "granted" to two or three individuals, who merely gather in Jesus' name (as in a private home setting). It means, that although the presence of Jesus is guaranteed, in a non-church type atmosphere, that guarantee, like any good store plan, is given a "warranty" by the unity, and/or "power" of any Catholic Church only. Hence, if you are, not acting under church sanction, that church, cannot be held responsible for your prayers, (or if your prayers are no wholesome, for example). The implication is made: if not entirely of a Christian nature, the "efficiency" of prayer, will not be heeded by Jesus either. (That is, at least, how this author, is interpreting the two traditions).

A GATHERING
A gathering was another way of saying, a synagogue. To beginning Christians, many of whom had just left their Judaic heritage behind, a church was very much like a synagogue. Both were called gatherings (an assembly). We may conclude, that the word church (kyriakon) was the Greek word for synagogue (synod) or a "coming together." Both meant, a "house" where people met to pray. In a Judaic-Christian setting, a mere, "gathering" was considered, according to St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, a coming together of two or three people in the name of Jesus (period).

A MODERN CONGREGATION
In a modern 20th century setting however, the Challoner footnote, which was based upon acceptance of St. Cyprian's unity, is broken down further, into two, isolated phrases by the NAB version. One belongs to the "individual" (as in two or three) and the second part, refers to a Christian body as a whole, the church, or a full congregation. Using philosophic logic, the "many" have become the 'One'.

Let us make this clearer, several people: four, five, or 500 parishioners, form a "congregation" (not two or three as in earlier bygone days). What has remained the same, however, is the---quote, "unity" of the Church---unquote.

THE BODY OF CHRIST
A "unit" as a specific technological term, having been declared, one, implies, by the very cannon of Christian doxology, based upon Paul's monumental speech, a sharing, or a coming together, to experience, in a very real sense, the body of Christ. Jesus the triune; is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, combined. All those who profess this doctrine, are united in spirit, with Spirit (or Holy Spirit).

If, the Holy Spirit, is identical to, and with God, then sharing in the "body" of Christ, means that the entire church congregation has its share in God.

THE MOTHER CHURCH
The holy Mother the Church (i.e., the Vatican), is the uppermost-unit. All being one, as in a unit, or, as in a "unity," implies that the many, have now become one with it. Logically, therefore, the many: (which is now being redefined as the entire world-wide catholic community) ---three or more, have become "the One." The 'One' is God, defined; "For hear O Israel, our Lord our God is One God." With a little Christian paraphrase, we can change that to read: Hear O New Jerusalem, our Lord and God is One.

FROM JESUS, TO THE CHRIST
Notice the shift in thought that has taken place. For one thing, we have ceased, calling Jesus, Jesus, and have given him a new name. He is now the Christ. He has one body: one Church, one home, one congregation, one God. And when we revert back to the Matthew verses, he has one "witness."

AS GOD IS MY WITNESS
We may assume from all of this, that, that witness, is God, (or the Holy Spirit). Let us examine this, (if only to show you where the Church has gotten its philosophy from. And it is not from a Christian tradition, but from a Judaic one).

"...Where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," implies, in a purely Christian tradition, one of three meanings; it is either God, the Church, or Jesus as the Christ, that is being referred to. However, when we consider the fact that Jesus-the-man said it, then, we must try to see this phrase in a Judaic light. In other words, what did Jesus mean by it? And by "it" we are referring to the "I" and the "me" who are found in our very midst. Our question is: who or what, "presence" can be found in the middle of any given controversy?

The Church would have us believe that "it" refers to Jesus as God and Christ, and by the same token, to the Church most directly. The conclusion can be drawn, the presence of any church, guaranties the presence of God, in any given religio-christian controversy. Now, God in a Christian sense also means the Holy Spirit. (This has already been stated). But what, we may have to ask, is this Holy Spirit, and how has this tradition come down to us?

WHAT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT?
Bare with me a while, while we reconsider the possibility, that when Jesus said this, he was not referring to a Christian Holy Spirit, but to a Judaic one, the "Shechinah." Perhaps here, we shall find our answer.

LAWS AFTER MOSES

By the time of 135 AD, when the "Mishnah," (oral commentaries on the law), is reported to have been made public, in the written formate, the Shechinah, was God's presence, (the Torah, or more precisely, the words of Moses). The Shechinah, was also another way of saying that the Spirit aback of the words of any two or three witnesses, would stand as evidence. God became your witness. Between who we may ask? Well, according to Moses (1400 BC), between the priest and the judges who shall be in those days. (DRV De. 19:17).


THE LAW ACCORDING TO THE MISHNAH
According to this Pharisaic document, whenever a person was accused of a crime, it became his duty to report it to the priesthood. If a controversy ensued, for example: If a horse was stolen, and one man say, it is mine. And the other say the same thing, then a controversy has just been waged.

To settle such disputes, the Mishnah, a Hillelite document, predating BC 10 says, that each man must swear, that at least one-half of the animal is his. All of this was done behind a curtain or a veil, very much like a confessional box. Then the priest hearing the charges would decide, who, between them, was telling the truth, and who the lie. You swore, by the presence, or word of God. By the time of Palestinian Judaism, God was the Temple, the Sanhedrine; as the Vatican is now called the Church.

THE LAW ACCORDING TO MOSES
Still, this does not answer the question, what did Jesus mean by this Mosaic paraphrase. Let us back track slightly, and see how Moses meant this, and just why he instituted this ruling. In Exodus, and in Numbers, Moses instituted what he called, the Tent of Meeting, also called the Tent of Testimony. Its importance was two-fold: Upon Jethro's advice, the tent along with its 72 appointed elders was set up to help Moses in the delegation of authority and in the administration over civil matters; and secondly, this ruling was implemented as a deterrent to crime.

Rudimentary to our Judaic-Christian heritage were the Ten Commandments. The ninth one states: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (DRV Ex. 20:16). Moses set up the first Judaic system of law by assigning 72 judges, and according to Moses, a judge (not a priest) was to hear a case. Originally, Moses said:

"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die". (KJV Nu. 35:30).

We should note that Moses was referring to the crimes that were deserving of capital punishment; and secondly he was referring to, two or three people, as witnesses, "against" the accused.

FALSE TESTIMONY
Following however is Moses's farewell address. In Deuteronomy, taken from the Greek word (Deuteronomion) meaning "second law" Moses proceeds to modify this law; and in so doing, he in effect expanded it by including all matters relevant to the establishment. Its substitute can be found in Deuteronomy 19. It is the foundation of Pharisaic law and was the basis upon which Matthew, chapter 18 and the words of Jesus are based. As a means to insure truthful evidence and just-justice, this blanket-law states:

"One witness shall not rise up against any man, whatsoever the sin or wickedness be: but in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand." (DRV De. 19:15).

THE LAW CORRUPTED
If you were accused of a crime (any crime), by one witness only, you in essence had one accuser. Corrupted conditions following however, the laws of Deuteronomy 19 were seized upon and utilized by the judges, for the sake of the judges.

Let us examine this. De 19:17 now tells us that both judges and priest; shall stand between accused, accuser; and God. For example: A man was accused, by another---at this point, you only had one witness---as the law states, guilty or innocent, this fellow could not be convicted. Well, apparently, though, the judges along with priest had their own interpretation of this law. The simple solution was this: God, by the presence of the Shechinah, became one witness, and the other two were conveniently supplied by the judges and priest themselves---Thus making the three or four, needed to convict a man, guilty---or more than likely, innocent.

As we read Deuteronomy 19, we will notice that two things have changed: the first is that "any" crime was included in this law and not just matters deserving of a death penalty; and secondly, the Levite priest sat in the judgement seat along with the judges themselves. In addition to the priesthood we must consider the "Tabernacle," the religious edifice containing the Ark of the Covenant. In short, by the time of Deuteronomy, the Tent of Testimony had changed to become the Tabernacle, the temple of God.

In a naive attempt to avert what Moses had called "false witnesses" or false testimony, Moses was stating that the Shechinah, the presence of God's holy wisdom, would act, not as some authorities tell us, as evidence only; but as "truth." Thus the injunction: "every word shall stand."

THE LAW OF THE THE SADDUCCES
What do you suppose the outcome of all of this was? Well, it very neatly put all of the power and control in the hands of Temple judges, who by a queer turn of events had also become, ever since the Maccobean revolt, the priesthood, or the Sanhedrine (Sadducee). Having power over life and death situations, they had become God.

THE LAW ACCORDING TO JESUS
None of this is 'Truth' of course, yet all of it is true. Why? because when we use spiritual logical instead of our thinking brains, we would soon realize, that man, has never been able to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God has spoken to him directly, let alone through a veil. Conversely, if we, as good abiding Christians, accept this in light of Judaic history, should we not all the more do the same, when we consider the confessional. I mean---what is the difference between a box or a veil?

The most curious thing, about all of this, though, is that Jesus, was fighting to have this ruling modified or changed, in the same way, that Protestants (protestors) of our modern age have sought to eliminate the confessional from their dogma.

We could say then, that Jesus was attempting to interpret Moses, as Moses meant his words to mean. Namely, that a man accused of any crime was innocent when God, his one and only "faithful witness" stood between him and his judges. Put simply, man could call upon God as his only witness. On the basis of Solomon's interpretation, Jesus rested his case.

WHO WAS THE HOLY SHECKHINAH?
Who was the Holy Shechinah? In Christian eyes, God or the Church; or we could say, Jesus or God. In Judaic terms, it meant Moses or the 'Law', the words of God; or the Shechinah and the Temple. What we could really say: is men of a Judaic era, versus men of a more Christian era. And when we say men, we mean a "group" or an institution. Moreover, when we say 'Truth' we mean what is Holy and Eternal. Therefore, following in Kierkegaard's footsteps, all of the above, is an un-truth because none of it bespeaks of the 'Truth'.

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
The Shechinah, like the "garments" of the Torah is, in truth and fact, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, or more aptly, She, is, according to Solomon, "Faithful Wisdom." By the same token, to the Greeks, She represented, Sophia or Divine Knowledge, Gnosis. She, the Holy Ghost, is identical to, and with, the Holy Spirit; because She is His soul-mate. (In other words), God the Father is God the Mother. And when we say, "His" soul-mate, we do mean God in the highest sense of the word, and not christologies God-the-son.

We could also say, that Jesus, was attempting to reinterpret Mosaic Law in terms, and in the words of the prophets. They were Jewish, but not, how shall we say this, ... authoritative. Having post-dated Moses and the Torah, the first five books of the bible, by hundreds of years, they were not "legal." The 'Writtings' which are considered works of the lesser prophets, for example, were not "Law."



IN HER NAME
Part I
(In Her Presence)

WHAT IS WOMANHOOD?
What is womanhood and what, if anything, is the implication to Mt. 18 verse 20 and the Presence of God? In order for us to understand its full meaning, we must consider the historical imagery given to women. Dating back from the time of Abraham onward, believers in womanhood were deemed nothing more than pagan idolaters---Goddess worshipers. Moses must have followed in this ancient path as did St. Paul when he declared in I Corinthians: Woman was made from man, and not the other way around (1 Co 11:8). This is all based upon historical record. Now, we are not saying that this is the Truth, for certainly, it is not. Even still, the Genesis record must stand, if not as the word of God, than as the word of men---God is man, Adam; while woman is his footstool.

Yet, in all of our history as a world and as a human species, birth has been going on in the same manner---woman gives life to man. And not the other way about! To believe Genesis here is to deny our very existence. Yet man has proven it, and believe it or not, both men and women of the 20th century still believe in what I can only call: idle fantasy, folklore, a mere myth.

But, let us not be so naive to think that only individuals of the 20th century can disagree with Moses on this account. Let us not assume, that men of Solomon's day, nor all the men of Jesus' day believed what must have been plainly visible before their eyes. I mean, let's face it folks, women gave birth in a house for all to see, (not in some secluded hospital room on the twenty-third floor). Matter of fact, if 20th century man still has proclivities in insisting upon a Genesis interpretation, he shows his stupidity even more so than did his earlier counterparts.

SOLOMON ON THE "EXCELLENCE OF WISDOM"
The Book of Wisdom, ascribed to Solomon, is a clear example of the knowledge prestigious men acquired through life's experience. I can do no better than to let the man speak for himself:


"I myself also am a mortal man, like all others, and of a race of him, that was first made of the earth, and in the womb of my mother I was fashioned to be flesh. In the time of ten months I was compacted in blood, of the seed of man, and the pleasure of sleep concurring. And being born I drew in the common air, and fell upon the earth that is made alike, and the voice which I uttered was crying, as all others do. I was nursed in swaddling clothes, and with great cares. For none of the kings has any beginning of birth. For [A]ll men have one entrance into life, and the like going out." (DRV, Wisdom 7: 1-6).

THE IMPORTANCE OF WOMANHOOD
The plain simple truth is: women are important, and always have been. Jesus knew it; and Solomon knew it. Kabballahist knew it and so did Platonic Gnostics. Matter of fact, if I am correct, and if I may be so bold---unless men of the Nicaean round table were blind, they knew it too. Why else would early church fathers have spent so much time, energy and effort in declaring that Jesus was 'begotten not made'. Why else would Anastasius have declared: Let no man call Mary, "the Mother of God" and Epiphanius agreeing said--- let no man worship Her.*

THE IMPORTANCE OF MOTHERHOOD
Why indeed? Because if you do, then a precedence is set up, a 'fortiori' argument, which says: Mary came before God. Now, we cannot believe this, (God forbid) for this is a truth---I mean, Mary was born before Jesus. And we shall not have the truth about Jesus' origins come out.

What shall we do, they must have thought. We must include her also; after all, scripture does say: Blessed is her womb (Lu. 11:27). And so they did. Yes, that's right, Christian fathers sought and found a way to include Mary in their doxology. It has become the biggest cover-up since Abraham's impotence. For Mary, you see, became the house of God, the Church; and the confessional became her vestibule; and in the long run, Jesus became a woman. ...Ridiculous you say. Not so! Consider the facts:

Major Premise: God is One

I. Judaic Heritage

  1. The son is the 'son of man' Adam, (Mosaic Genesis)
  2. Birth of Immanuel (Parental Nazarite Vow)
  3. Immanuel became Joshuah (Mary & Joseph)
  4. Sanhedrine fathers fear Joshuah to be the true 'son of David' and heir to Herod's throne.
  5. Arrest and trial of Joshuah (Sanhedrine priest)
  6. Joshuah became earthly king (Pilate)
  7. Joshuah crucified, died and was buried (Pilate).
  8. Within 3 days he is resurrected into heaven, and is seen by them who love him (direct testimony, taken from gospel accounts).

II. Post Jesus Histology

  1. Joshuah became Jesus (Paul)
  2. Jesus descendant of Adam (John)
  3. Jesus became the Christ, our heavenly King (via Paul + John)
  4. Christ became King/king (combined Judaic + Gnostic traditions)


III. Early Christian Tradition

  1. Jesus became the Triune:
    a). God the Father,
    b). God the Son;
    c). God the Holy Spirit.* (Nicene Creed - Epiphanius).

    a). The son became the Father (Judaic to Christian)
    b). The 'son of man' (Judaic) became the 'Son of God'
    (Christian doctrine based upon a Pauline theology and John's genealogy).
    c). The Holy Spirit [un-identified, except to state that it is the " Lord and 'Life-giver', that proceedeth from the Father, ..." (Documents of the Christian Church pp. 26). ].

1st Christian Premise: Jesus is God (Nicene Creed)

  1. Jesus is the Holy Spirit
  2. God is One, Jesus is One.
  3. The Church as a unity is One.
  4. Therefore, the Church is God, because all is One

2nd Christian Premise: With God, all things are possible (Mt 17: 20-21; Mk. 11: 23)

  1. Jesus Christ can do anything (Jesus: Mt. 28:18)
  2. So can the Church---in His (God's) name, i.e., in the name of Jesus: (Jn. 14: 14)

HYPOTHESIS:
If the Church is God or Jesus the Christ, and if Jesus can be made one with his Father, then by logical deduction, he can also be made one with his Mother. (Please remember that God the Father is the same as God the Mother (Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost).

THE DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT
If God, 'his' heavenly Father has descended down to earth, and taken on the form of a man, (in Jesus, not Joseph), then how much more simpler to state that Mary was just a vehicle for this Holy Spirit to manifest itself. In modern lingo, fertilization or the decent of sperm down the Fallopian tubes = (equals) the decent of the Holy Spirit, or God. (It should be noted however, that Luke renders this concept as the Holy Ghost an interesting variant (Lu. 1:35)). Also, the child en uteral, being attached to its mother is identical with it. This means that the life-line from God through mother to child, is identical to the sum of their products. Thus the injunction: Blessed is the fruit of Her womb (Lu. 1:42; 11:27).

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NICENE CREED
Having stated our findings, we can now clarify christian dogma. The Nicene Creed means: Jesus, is, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Mother. He is the Only Begotten Son of the Holy Spirit "and" of the Holy Ghost. In Gnostic terms, he is Christ-Sophia. In Kabballahistic terms he is the Elohiym, (a pluralistic word). In Hellenized Mosaic terms he is Adam-Eve (Adamah). And in theologic terms, he is identified simply as: the Presence of God.

He is She. Now, early church fathers were not ignorant of the mystical interpretation. Both Gnosis and the Kabballah had a long line of tradition. May we suggest that by exemplifying the softer side of life, that of love and of wisdom, that Jesus understood this too. He understood, for example, the words of Solomon:

"For God will not accept any man's person, neither will [God] stand in awe of any man's greatness: for [God] made the little and the great, and [God] hath equally care of all." (DRV Wisdom 6:8).

MAGNIFYING THE MOTHER
The Church also understood, that the 'Mother' must be magnified, and in a round about way, it did just that through Mary's son. As her son became the Church, and Church evolved to became God, it becomes but a mere logical deduction that the Church too, is both, Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost, combined. (Theologically speaking, it is both Mother and Father, for example). When we say "is" we do not mean this to be taken for Truth.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD
It might be more apropo for us to state, that the Church represents, symbolically, the Father, the Son, and the Mother, combined in a trinity effect. But then again, were we to speak the truth---well---it is a very un-christian thing to do. It is not christian, because then we might have to divulge an earthly-truth. Namely, that Jesus became 'Mother'. He gave birth to a new nation, a new bred, a New Jerusalem---that many have called, kingdom, and others simply, the Church.




IN HER NAME
Part II
(Genesis Revealed


A MAN OF THE WOMB
When St. Paul said, woman was made from man and not the other way around, he was not speaking as one individual, but represented instead a masculine tradition beginning with the words of Moses; for Genesis does state that Eve came out of Adam's rib. Thus, woman was born from man.

Following this line of thought, this means that creation began as two distinct species: We have man; plus a man, who came "from" a womb man. Genesis interpretation, then, must be this: a woman was made from the womb of man (period).

[But then again, as biological history has taught us, this, in and of itself, is not a total lie, as we shall soon point out the irony of the situation].

A MAN WITH A WOMB
Let us consider, the facts as we know then to be. Let us consider the truth of the matter. God created man-kind, male and female both. Okay, so far---but let us not be so quick as to identify this God as a masculine figure. Let us instead, at least for the moment, keep 'Essence' an androgyny. Instead we shall say: God, an androgyny-essence, created man-kind as two-species-in-one, Adam-Eve; or another androgyny, in its own image. At this stage, they are not yet three dimensional, (they are not yet physical); and although they are 'Being', they are one (not two).

Stage two, the point at which Adam-Eve separate, becoming Adam here, and Eve there, represents, in a real sense, the beginning of what we call man-kind, (later to be called) homo sapiens. By some mystical means, creation has endowed man and 'his kind' with creaturehood.

The Genesis record insist that Eve came out of Adam's side, his rib-cage to be precise. Now, unless Adam is a real woman at this developmental stage), he is merely a man with a rib cage---nothing more.

Woman, on the other hand, is a man, (still one of his kind), except, she possesses, in addition to a rib-cage, a womb. Therefore, a "woman," is not a man, of the womb, but a man "with" a womb. She is a species of man-kind, but she is clearly different---she can give birth. She can create---how shall we say this---another 'man of the womb'. She can create another man, another male and as Genesis instructs, another "womb man."

She can also create another identical to herself; she can create---ironic as this may sound---"another" man, "with" a womb, (a woman).

Apparent all of this may seem, the masculine species did not understand this. If they did, they would never have assigned a female the title, a woman, (meaning, a man, "of" the womb). Unless---unless of course, dare we say it---they did understand; at least enough to want to share in Her glory, in Her creativity.

Before leaving this essay, may we just add a comment or two concerning the term man-kind. This is generally meant to convey the overall meaning of a world species, better known as humanity. Therefore, man and his-kind, really means, woman, or a man who can produce another of its kind. They are kind of like men, but not.

Christian Doxology, Decoded

To state that Jesus were also the Mother, in the same manner that he had become the Father would have seemed brutishly insane to Nicaean fathers. In the final analysis, though, the cover-up that we spoke of earlier was two-fold: The first would have us believe Genesis---namely that God was two masculine polarities in one, (the Father and the Son); and that humanity began as two distinct masculine entities in one. The second cover-up is the erroneous fact that the Church had become the Mother, the earthly vehicle through which all are given new life, by being born into Christ (Christi-anity); when in reality, the Church had become Mother, not through Jesus but through Mary's divine nature.

She, the Church; has become the Supreme triune: the Mother, the Father, the Son. And if by substitution we use the word Children, instead of Son, she the Church; has become more than the triune, she now has the addition power of the creative fortress of the Daughter behind her. With the Daughter's power, she has attained the ability to manifest matter, (in a materialistic sense)---she has become the edifice, the building, the cornerstone---she has become, the House of God .

WOMANHOOD IS MOTHERHOOD
Esoterically, the Church has become the quadrennary: the Supreme Mother and Father; plus the secondary Mother and Father, the Son, and the Daughter (the man of the womb, and the man with a womb). But let us stick to the most popular Christian trinity; the Church is the Father, Mother, Child combo. In the long run, both Jesus and the Church, through earthly nicene-eyes, has become Eve, the 'Mother of All the Living'.




IN THEIR NAME

Part I
(From Confusion to Reason)

What is 'Faithful Wisdom' and how does this fit in with all that has gone before? This last section will attempt to make order out of chaos. We will show that Wisdom, true wisdom is 'Truth', the ultimate witness to life's testimony. People down through the ages have constantly confused the terms Spirit with Soul. For this very same reason, the words, or should we say the concepts about the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost have also become confused. With Mt. 18, verse 20, it is the "I" and the "my" that are in disarray. Perhaps, it is not a confusion but the reason behind the real issues. Namely--- Who is God?

ASSIGNED POLARITIES
By assigning polarities to the Mother-Father Essence we can see how this identification, came about. Using our only means of comparative analogy and having to separate gender, forces us into the position of saying: Mother here, Father there; when in truth and fact, they are Eternally one. They are inseparable.

THE NATURE OF OUR BEING
We---and when I say we---I mean the human species, has, from the very moment of its conception, identified with one-half of itself at any given time; thinking always in terms of, I the male here, and I the female there. Such is the nature of our being.

FIRST UNITY
In a higher sense, God the Ultimate Absolute contains all. In the highest sphere Mother-Father God are One. Now, this 'One', or this 'Oneness' implies a perfect symmetrical unity, 'First Unity'. Time and space, does not exist in this 'First Unity'; neither does void, or empty space, because God is not empty. God is fullness, completeness, in and of itself, always remaining itself.

A SPEECH IN TIME
Having no other means of communication, we are compelled to render a speech in time. We must communicate in terms of minuscule moments. We break time up into segments. Such is the process of speech. Even more difficult is the process of the written word. For here, even more time must be allowed before mental concepts motivate sensory nerves and muscles to coordinate pen in hand. We fumble for words, asking for divine guidance in the moving of hand.

IN TERMS OF TIME: THE FIRST DILEMMA
This can be proven. I dare anyone to image an idea, or, better still, to explain a one second dream. First there is the direct experience, the dream itself. Secondly we have the spoken word, that of conveying the dream through sound combinations. And thirdly we have the written form, where light rays must pass from sender to receiver; all in the form of black and white images. Time them!---Which one would take the longest to convey, (in terms of time)? This is the first dilemma.

TIME ITSELF: THE SECOND DILEMMA
The second dilemma involves the notion of time itself. For example: By the time it takes me to type in the words Motherfather, several seconds have elapsed. It took several seconds to get from the word, "By" to "elapsed" and a fraction of a second to type out the word, Motherfather. That fraction, itself can be broken down further. So that, in our world of timed-sequences, Mother can be separated from Father.

THE ERROR OF OUR WAYS
Now, there being a reason to my madness, you will now be thinking, you have tricked me; for you have said Mother first, giving father a lower case delineation, thus proving his lesser status. Not so! I have done this to show you how this process has developed down through the ages. Furthermore, if you can recognize the error of this thought, should you not, even more so, when it is written down in the reverse. Let us not have double standards.

Seeing my point, let us now reverse the words: "By the time it takes me to type in the words Fathermother, several seconds have elapsed."---Get my drift?

Yet, if you are a clever scholar-philosopher, I have just mentioned a premise, that you might now seize hold of. You, clever one, will now proudly declare: That Father (in caps) having been created before mother (lower case) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He comes first and she is secondary to Him. Foolish man---both came first, for they were together.

Consider this also, my one second dream in which all of this information is now being conveyed to you has already taken me several days, if not weeks to complete. Can you see the magnanimity of the problem?




IN HER NAME
Part II
(I and My)


WHAT DOES, "I" and "My" MEAN?
Having addressed the issue of a gathering, let us now consider the two remaining phrases. "There am I in the midst of them"---means: there is the Holy Spirit in the midst of them. Then again, it can also mean: there is the Holy Ghost in the midst of them.

"In my name" also refers to this same God. The questions needs to be asked, what does in "my" name refer to, to God the Father, to God the Mother, or to both?

Using the Christian argument, that is---were you to say: why---to Jesus, of course, (by way of the historical fact, that he has been declared the Father); then you in essence are in agreement with the Nicene Creed---Namely, that Jesus is God. Furthermore, having proven to you that God is an androgyny-essence, I repeat my question: What does in "my" name mean: God the Father, or God the Mother?

If, (as a Christian) you say: God the Father; then you deny the very existence of the Church, you deny God, its Mother. By the same token, you deny God, Jesus' Heavenly Mother.

There can be only one logical soul-u-tion. In "my" name, must mean, in this instance also, both the Mother and the Father, or Father and Mother, (however you'd care to express it)---Not Father and Son!




IN HER NAME

Part III
(Metaphysics Versus Theology)


THE ANDROGYNY OF METAPHYSICS
Metaphysically, and by way of combinations, there are several ways in which to view Matthew 18, verse 20. All of which are correct, and at the same time, all of which are androgynous. At the risk of sounding redundant, we can say:

1. Where two or three gather in God's name,
there is God in the midst of them.

1a. Where two or three gather in God's name,
there am I in the midst of them.

2. Where two or three gather in His name,
there you shall l find Her in the midst of them.

2a. Where two or three gather in the name of the Holy Spirit;
there am I, the Holy Ghost in the midst of them.

3. Where two or three gather in Her name, there is He in the midst of them.

3a. Where two or three gather in the name of the Holy Ghost;
there am I, the Holy Spirit in the midst of them.

[Theologic Error]

Theologically, therefore, it is not wrong for us to say, that God is both He and She. It is not wrong for us to identify the Mother with the Father (on equal par). It is not wrong for us to identify the feminine church of God, with its more masculine counterpart, the Spirit of God itself. It is not wrong for us to say that S-he is He.

A THING UNTO ITSELF
Metaphysically, however, what is wrong is the Christian notion that the Church itself has become Her. No longer a mere representation, it claims self-identity (it professes to "be" that symbol). By giving itself the title of the Mother Church, it has endeavored to hide and conceal the real mystical meaning in back of the Divine Mother figure. This is a truth. The untruth is the fact that the Church is a mere organization, a group of like minds, composed of a system, or a hierarchy, a gathering if you will --- how shall we say this---in their name (lower case, please). In earthly terms, it (the Church) is no longer the symbol, but the thing itself --- This is wrong. This is an untruth!

CHURCH INTERPRETATION
It is wrong, because in the final analysis, the Church's interpretation, of Mt. 18:20 must read: Where two or three gather in the Church's name, there is God in the midst of the congregation. On the surface it is correct---it is good Christian doxology. Beneath the surface, however, it implies too much. It implies, that Church, is Heavenly Mother. It implies, that earthly Church, has become the Daughter, the earth itself. It implies, that Church is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost combined. It implies, that Church "is" God.

A MOTHER IN DISGUISE
It eradicates the universality of the concept, so basic to our human needs. It replaces the "real" with the symbol. It makes theology correct, and metaphysics a lie, when in truth and fact the opposite may be true. It is wrong, because in talking about a Universal Mother, we now have a Mother in disguise---we now have a lie.

HALF FEMININE
In the 20th century, when truth needs to come out, the Universal Mother is glossed over, because we are told, there are no English equivalents to an androgynous gender large enough to support Her ; yet scholars have made, man God, and still cannot make God androgynous---half feminine. We shall not be so blind---the Hebrews knew how to do it, and so did the Greeks and original Latins (and except for the mystery religions, many did not). From the time of Moses and Abraham, they did not. It is not the English language that is at fault. No! it goes much deeper than that.

ORDER AMIDST CHAOS
It reaches the very height of man's need to have Order amidst Chaos about life. The problem stem's first from man's general need; secondly from men's need to form hierarchies; and thirdly, 'Order', in the same light. Like spermatozoa fighting to reach the queen, the winner takes the prize, while the others rejoicing, form a circle and dancing to a majestic theme hale both king and queen; at the same time, insuring the future success of the child. In a furious frenzy, they make it happen, by flight and by fight, they make chaos into order. Such is the nature of the male gender.

THE DENIAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOUL
Theologically, this is quiet acceptable; metaphysically, however, it is wrong because it denies the spiritual existence of common man---it takes away our right to be "individual" ---our right to be, "ordinary" . It takes away our right for example, to be a non-church-go-er. It takes away our right to be Jew, Buddhist, or Moslem. It takes away our right to identify with a Higher-vehicle, the Mother Herself. It is wrong, because, basic to metaphysics it is quiet illogical---It means that God has been identified for us---a thing that is a virtual impossibility. And that my dear friends is the whole-of-it, for it denies, us, of our inward search.




IN HER NAME

Part IV
(Verse Twenty Revealed)


THE REALITY OF A SYMBOL
True, I have, identified my God, as a feminine figure, but then again, I am a proud member of a feminine species and as such, I am entitled to do so. However, my Mother is not one who is devoid of a husband; She does not exist alone, She has Family to attend to---She has Children, and friends, and relatives. My God does not deny the very existence of yours. I do not define for you. I do not declare unto you: This is how ye shall think. This is no dogma that I tell you of. No! my dear friends, this essay, is but the mere words of one individual---no more. For I tell you, in truth and fact, God is undefinable, for God, "is" the entire universe. God is a Unity---a symmetrical Family. So that, whenever I use the analogy of a Mother-Father-God, it is just that, a symbol only, a mental construct---it is not real.

JESUS DETHRONED
It is very difficult, for I do not wish to destroy Christian belief systems. Yet this feeling inside of me says, that in order to speak to what I have termed elsewhere, the 'Ordinary Individual', I must set the record straight. Historically, we cannot understand what Jesus might have meant by Matthew 18 verse 20, if we constantly think in Christian terms. Therefore, it is essential that we begin to render a Jewish interpretation---one that was closer to Jesus' own time.

UNMASKING THE CHRISTIAN PREMISE
It was necessary for us to unmask the Christian premise, which brings out the truer meaning of a Feminine Creative Principle. No doubtingly, this hurts the masculine basis for doxology. (This does not mean however, that it renders it useless). Still, it is necessary. By being "necessary" we do mean---it is necessary to dethrone Jesus of his Godhead, and to see him as a man, once more. This is not a fundamental viewpoint---it is however, a spiritual view, one independent of any restricted dogma. It is a view, not from a mere historical prospective, but from an individual, who has learned, that there is, indeed, a difference between the words: Jesus, and, the Christ; the man and his God.

THE LOVE-SIDE OF LIFE
At the same time, we do not wish to dethrone the Catholic Church; yet this too, appears necessary. It is only in this manner, that one is able to retain sight of the fact, that one is, indeed, a true Christian, or a believer in the Christ. It is after all a borrowed Greek term belonging to no one except ye believe in it. The Christ, then, to me---so that we do not keep the reader in the dark---(for you are entitled to know who you are dealing with), is, in New Age lingo, the equivalent to the Higher-Self. My Christ, to me, is in a higher sphere (and yet it is not, for it is very near indeed). My Christ, is also my Sophia, my Inner-Voice, my voice of wisdom. It is Solomon's 'Faithful Witness' and Jesus' one and only witness. It is the Voice, who, like John's voice, whispers is the wilderness to be heard. My voice, like Blavatsky's, is the voice of 'Silence'. It is the soft voice of 'Truth', the feminine love-side of life.

THE NATURE OF GOD
Having also identified God as a feminine power, let us move on to yet another point of clarification. Speaking, as we have done thus far, it is also not wrong for us to identify and equate, the Holy Spirit, a Christian male symbol, with the female power of the Hebrew Shechinah. Like the confusion of terms, between Spirit and Soul, Christian and Judaic identity have also reversed terms.

According to the Zohar, written by Moses De Leon, the Shechinah, or the Holy Spirit, is "the light" which illuminates the Torah. Something we now-a-days call en-lightenment. In it's purest form, it is nothing more than Plato's 'Truth-ness', or 'Truth' itself. Whether we call Her: Wisdom, Truth or Love, it has the same meaning. They are aspects of God. They are also indicative of His more feminine attributes; his passive side, as opposed to His activating aggressive side. Therefore, when we speak of the softer, gentle side of God, we assign to it a feminine attribute.

GOD IS GOD
Were we to say, "in my name" means God, and then again repeat the redundancy by adding, "there am I in the midst of them," we are only saying--- God is God . It is after all a very simple message. Yet here we are, an entire race of peoples, still trying to uncover this great mystery. And the great paradox, why---it is no mystery at all. To render it more poetical, however, Jesus merely paraphrased the words of Moses and spoke in the first person (or at least, this is how it was recorded). He was utilizing poetic license. We however have sought to restructure his intended meaning by disavowing his right to grammatical flare.

It is not our intention here to give a complete expose' of Matthew 18, but were we to do so, the reader would realize that Jesus spoke a double language. One was a mystical message, the other a legal one employed by the Pharisees of his day. He used metaphysical mystery: analogy and parable because in his day to fight the Sanhedrine fathers was very much like fighting inquisitional Rome.

THE GLORY OF WISDOM

Solomon, one of the great world masters once said:

"...what [W]isdom is, and what was [H]er origin I will declare: and I will not hide from you the mysteries of God, but will seek [H]er out from the beginning of [H]er birth, and will bring to you the knowledge of [H]er to light, and will not pass over the truth:" (DRV Wisdom 6: 24)

"Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away, and is easily seen by them that love [H]er, and is found by them that seek [H]er." (ibid. 6: 13).

FAITHFUL WITNESS: ACCORDING TO JESUS
We can come to no other conclusion therefore, that Mt. 18 verse 20, to Jesus meant: Where two or three gather in the name of: Truth, Love and Wisdom, there you will find God in the midst of them as their one and only Faithful Witness.


FAITHFUL WISDOM IS TRUTH


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a truth in order to be rendered a truth, must stand the perpetual test of time. It must be true today, as it was yesterday, and true as it will be tomorrow. Heaven and earth will pass away, but Truth never dies.

In earnest retrospect, a Christian may be a Christian today and a Jew tomorrow---such being the lure of religion. According to world history, Joshuah was born a Jew, and in his very same lifetime he died (ironic as this may sound) a Christian, some 325 odd years later. Comparing this to reincarnation---I am a Jew in one lifetime, a Christian in another, and a Buddhist in still another. All of these---they all pass away; but Truth never dies.

THE SPIRIT-SOUL OF THE UNIVERSE
Truth, real Truthness itself, is God itself, and God never dies. Buildings may crumble, temples are torn down, and churches burnt, but Truth never dies. They, who are our Eternal Witnesses, our Immortal-Parent, never die. They are One eternally, and "They" never die. They are not the symbol, they are not even the thing itself---No! They are the Spirit-Soul of the Universe. And They never die. This is Truth. This is the meaning of Matthew 18, verse 20.



~~~@~~~



Bible Studies, Paralleled Gospels, Compared.


BOOKS:

See Bible Versions

See also, Books About the 'Life of Jesus'




© 2010 Copyright - Cosmeta ® - All Rights Reserved

Cosmeta: A Spiritual and New Age Haven for Body-Mind-Soul. Featuring The Song of Mark, A Feminine Approach to the Restoration of Mark's Gospel.