WHO and WHAT am “I”?

“PHILO” said – “We are not primary body. We are essentially soul.”

In 1919 [89 years ago] Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) rhetorically asked, “What exactly is the human BODY?” He concluded that there is, in fact, only ONE BODY. That is the COSMIC BODY of Christ’s incarnation. For the basic stuff or substance of all creation was made by God the Father first and foremost for the incarnation of God the Son – through him, in him and for him (Colossians 1:16). And we – having been “chosen” IN Christ before the world was made (Ephesians 1:4) – are each given an ever-changing PART of the cosmic body of the TOTAL Christ for the duration of our own earthly lives. After that – when the last atoms of our bodies have been stripped away – we shall find our selves naked [so to speak] , stripped to nothing but a POINT of infinitesimal size – the CENTRE-POINT of one’s own existence. That is “circumcision” in the Christian sense (Colossians 2:11). The essential “I” or “my self” will then be “clothed” in the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God – the Total Christ.

Moving on – What exactly is the HUMAN SOUL?

“Soul” is a word with which to name or label that mystery that I otherwise call “I” or “me” or “my self.”[1]

So I have a BODY and I am told that I have a SOUL. But the questions remain – WHO and WHAT am “I”?

In his NAZI death-cell, waiting to be hanged on 9 April 1945, Dietrich Bonhoeffer [39] prayed, “Who am I?’ The answer came to his mind – “Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God – I am Thine!”

Viewed from without, the human “I” is a POINT or “pixel” in time and space of infinitesimal size. But we are each larger on the INSIDE than on the OUTSIDE – infinitely and eternally so – made to be filled with the utter fullness of God (Ephesians 3:19).[1]
__________________________________________________________________

[1] Bruno Bettelheim 1983 “Freud and Man’s Soul"

I have to admit, that's a pretty neat variation on the theme "ignore the issue by changing the subject", Boaz.

>>Good grief Perilous.. talk about mixing up things.. Contradicts 'the gospels'? err.. Luke IS a Gospel.. and how does it (specially the passage I quoted) contradict the others?<<

(patiently) You introduced Flavius Josephus as your "compelling external evidence". I merely reminded you that Josephus' account of John the Baptist is at odds with the Gospel provided by Matthew.

But you knew that, didn't you? You were simply playing your old game of obfuscation, claiming this time that I have "mixed up things".

>>In BOTH cases, you have a reliable external report of the historic reality of Jesus of Nazareth.<<

In which "both cases", Boaz? One half- paragraph embellished by later apologists to present a more convincing narrative? Plus one paragraph referring obliquely to a baptizer called John.

Incidentally, you might like to take the opportunity to explain why Luke, uniquely, found it necessary to invent a family relationship between Jesus and John? And why Matthew relates that while in prison, John finds it necessary to ask who Jesus is?

"Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Matthew 11 2-3

Now, call me incurably cynical, but why should someone who had earlier baptised the same person, say that?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John 1 32-33

>>What possible motive would Luke have for fabricating his gospel?<<

Money, perhaps? Fear? - he was after all an informer.. It is not really our job to speculate, simply assess the available facts.

Which are, you must confess, in very short supply.

The real god has no name!

Foxy

If the 'total christ' is a philosophy for courage, compassion and respect for others, then you embody such ideals.

I feel happy and honoured to have exchanged a few words with you. It is good to know that there are people like you in this world.

I will keep a positive thought for you in my heart.

Much love

Well Pericles... the quality of your questions is on the upward path .. I'm enjoying this.

2 issues to respond to.

1/ FIRST John the Baptist.

JOSEPHUS. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm Ch 5

Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people ...thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties,...Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, ...to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.

MATTHEW
3Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 4for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her." 5Herod wanted to kill John, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.

COMMENT
I don't find even a hint of contradiction here.. I find "Two complementary sources/perspectives of the same event"
IF... the sources were close to identical.. then you would have serious reason to suspect 'fabrication' by later redactors.

2/ SECOND POINT
"Why would John send his disciples to ask if Jesus were he who was to come"

You are not incurably cynical in saying this. (you might be in other ways) A more accurate description of your condition is 'ignorant'.. I'm not insulting you there..I mean you are not aware (it would appear) of the popular image of the coming Messiah in the days of Jesus. John was also a child of his time, and quite likely when he saw Jesus going about doing good etc.... he experienced some internal wonderings about whether Jesus was the "Glorious Son of Man of Daniel's prophecy". Or Isiaah's (9:7)

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom.

"Messianic Expectations" is the key.

Nice try.

>>Well Pericles... the quality of your questions is on the upward path<<

Please don't patronize, especially as your answers remain as evasive as ever.

You quote from Josephus and Matthew, but completely avoid the contradiction that you must know is there.

Which is:

Josephus: "Herod... feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [a]ccordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus... and was there put to death."

Matthew: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison." Matt 14: 6-10

Hardly "Two complementary sources/perspectives of the same event", eh?

On the one hand we have a deliberate Herod, determined to stave off a rebellion with a straightforward execution. On the other, an unwilling Herod, giving in to the wiles of his wife and daughter.

Which is accurate? They cannot both be, so someone is telling stories. If it is Matthew, how much of the rest of his narrative can be accepted at face value? If Josephus is gilding the lily, where does that place his position as the "compelling external evidence" that you claimed in an earlier post?

Your explanation of John's request from prison is equally unconvincing, I'm afraid. How can someone, who has proclaimed and baptized the person he perceives as the Messiah, suddenly turn around and ask "who is that masked man?", when clearly the individual concerned was performing exactly to messianic specifications?

The only credible explanation is that the whole saga was woven together long after the event, by a bunch of guys who wanted a leader-figure for their religious cult.