In total there are 21 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 20 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
of course not, because the lamb of god who walks on water and can even turn it into wine has nothing to do with history and everything to do with transformation of consciousness.DWill wrote:there was initially little concern with the biographical details of an actual man.
but even in the stuff that doesn't appear allegorical there is esoteric meaning often, if you know the symbolism.DWill wrote:Well, a lot of his stuff (attributed to him) wasn't allegorical but intended as wise sayings or startling remarks against the mores of the day.
Small correction. Transubstantiation is the belief that wine and bread are physically changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. In the Catholic mind set this is not a symbolic transformation but an actual miracle that happens at each mass and has its roots in the last supper not the first miracle.grizzlyman wrote:Water into Wine (John 2: 1-11)youkrst wrote:can we pick one? i mean can you give one as a specific example?grizzlyman wrote:When I refer to miracles, I mean specifically the unnatural events claimed by Christianity to have happened in defiance of verifiable natural laws.
Water being changed/poured into wine can represent transformation from one ideological state to another. Ceremonially it might represent change in our perception of a person or a society – nonbelievers turned into believers – marriage into, or attachment to Royal lineage, and so on. It may also symbolise apotheosis or deification – the elevation by decree of someone to sainthood or divine status.
During a Catholic mass the Eucharist ceremony symbolically represents the changing (transubstantiation) of the host and wine into the Flesh and blood of Christ. The change is not physical, it is a perceptual change that is imagined only in the human mind and is entirely dependant on ones belief. The ceremony reinforces a congregation's acceptance of Christian belief.
Turning plain water into wine absent the required ingredients and due processing is not possible. The water and wine are symbols and the story an allegory.
Thanks for the correction Ptimb, I should have enclosed the Catholic mass Eucharist paragraph in brackets.Ptimb wrote: Small correction. Transubstantiation is the belief that wine and bread are physically changed into the flesh and blood of Christ. In the Catholic mind set this is not a symbolic transformation but an actual miracle that happens at each mass and has its roots in the last supper not the first miracle.
i disagree, i think the ultimate meaning encoded is that of a change of consiousness. a change within you a change within me.grizzlyman wrote:The water into wine stories, allegorize a change in public perception of an individual or social situation.
rather than a diff between theist and nontheist i think it rather shows a diff between literalist dumb dumb denotation and proper reading of the metaphors connotationThe Catholic belief that a supernatural transformation takes place during the Eucharist ceremony marks a dividing line between theist and non-theist
I think changing water to wine means that we should regard ordinary life as special.youkrst wrote:i disagree, i think the ultimate meaning encoded is that of a change of consiousness. a change within you a change within me.grizzlyman wrote:The water into wine stories, allegorize a change in public perception of an individual or social situation.
youkrst is right. Transubstantiation, the miraculous conversion of the blessed sacrament into the very body and true blood of our Lord and Saviour in holy communion at the tinkle of the bell and the saying of the magic words, is centred on the Latin phrase 'hoc est corpus'. Literally, this magical Catholic incantation means 'here is the body', but in the Protestant mockery, 'hoc est corpus' was rendered as 'hocus pocus', a phrase made famous by magicians.youkrst wrote:rather than a diff between theist and nontheist i think it rather shows a diff between literalist dumb dumb denotation and proper reading of the metaphors connotationThe Catholic belief that a supernatural transformation takes place during the Eucharist ceremony marks a dividing line between theist and non-theist
it simply shows a literal understanding rather than an inward application, a psyche metaphor if you will.
I just think that "esoteric meaning" and "knowing the symbolism" is more complicated than it might appear, which would go along with views like Mack's. By more complicated I mean that there isn't any one reading of these words that pins down what they were "really" intended to mean. If you go all-out esoteric, you're probably speaking in the context your own Jesus school, but there were others that might not have assigned these meanings. I suppose so, anyway.youkrst wrote:but even in the stuff that doesn't appear allegorical there is esoteric meaning often, if you know the symbolism.DWill wrote:Well, a lot of his stuff (attributed to him) wasn't allegorical but intended as wise sayings or startling remarks against the mores of the day.
the bible is so chock full of esoteric meaning that it easily stuns me still after decades of study.
yes, this is how the mystery schools worked.Ptimb wrote:I think there might be some merit in the belief of literal miracles especially when they are appropriated into ritual. In this way practitioners can become immersed in the allegory. It sounds contradictory but I think it works.
